City Council Minutes 04-10-1989MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 10, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen,
Shirley Anderson
Members Absent: None.
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held March 27,
1989.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
None forthcoming.
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of vacating streets and utility
easements associated with the Meadows subdivision.
A public hearing on this matter was opened and continued to the next
regular meeting of the City Council.
5. Consideration of approving plans and specifications and authorizing
advertisement for bids for extension of Marvin Elwood Road - The
Meadows.
After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley
Anderson, to adopt a resolution approving plans and specifications as
presented by Meyer-Rohlin and authorized advertisement for bids for the
extension of Marvin Elwood Road in the replatted Meadows subdivision.
Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-11.
6. Consideration of resolution setting a re -assessment hearing for prior
public improvements - Edgar Klucas property.
Administrator Wolfsteller informed Council that staff is uncomfortable
with the large potential assessment against Mr. Klucas's property that
has never been officially recorded. Such an unrecorded assessment
places a burden on the City, as staff must always remember that this
property has never paid an assessment and must pay one in the future.
By adopting an assessment, even if it's deferred, it places everyone on
notice, including a future buyer of the property, that sewer and water
and street improvements have not been paid. Wolfsteller further
recommended that Council set a re -assessment hearing to correct this
omission for May 8, 1989. After discussion, motion was made by Warren
Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to adopt a resolution setting a hearing
on the re -assessment of Improvement Project 81-1 on May 8, 1989.
Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-12.
1
Council Minutes - 4/10/89
7. Consideration of ordinance amendment deleting Industrial Development
Commission and consideration of amendment establishing the Economic
Development Authority. AND
8. Consideration of appointing members to the EDA. AND
9. Consideration of adoption of Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines. AND
10. Consideration of adoption of Joint Powers Agreement outlining economic
development powers of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, and the Economic Development Authority.
Staff reviewed the general consensus of the Council that was formed at
the previous meeting as follows:
Long term economic health of the community depends on the expansion of
the City tax base.
Implementation of this fund will contribute toward diversification of
the tax base and result in a healthier local economy.
Following are specific economic conditions that the Greater Monticello
Enterprise Fund is designed to address.
1. GMEF contributes toward diversification and expansion of
existing tax base which reduces reliance on a single major
taxpayer.
2. Sixty-five percent (65%) of city workers commute to vocations
located outside the city limits. This program will contribute
towards creation of local jobs for those Monticello citizens
that now commute to work.
3. Development of the revolving loan program is partially in
response to competition presented by other communities. The
program allows the City to compete on equal footing with
communities that are using similar funding programs
effectively.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill also noted two changes to the original
document which were made in response to the previous meeting's
discussion. He noted that the maximum amount of project funding that
could be contributed from this fund was reduced from 40% to 30%. In
addition, an amendment was made to require the user of this program to
finance at least 10% of the initial project cost. Shirley Anderson
supported economic development efforts but noted she would be happier
if the fund was a private fund and that she did not necessarily agree
with the idea of using City funds for economic development purposes.
Dan Blonigen stated that screening is the all important issue. He went
on to say he has some apprehension about the program but still agrees
with the criteria for granting loans as outlined in the program
guidelines. Blonigen agreed with the concept of investing in
industrial development utilizing this method, as City action to
2
Council Minutes - 4/10/89
encourage the expansion of the industrial tax base will ultimately
benefit the citizens of Monticello. He again stressed that this
program should be used thoughtfully and conservatively. Ken Maus noted
that one of the benefits of this program is that the results are
measurable. Money spent on this particular economic development effort
results in concrete activity; and its productivity is easy to measure.
It was emphasized by Mayor Maus that each project must meet certain
criteria or public purpose prior to being funded via this program.
Maus suggested that job creation be identified as the major public
purpose criteria and that all projects funded must create jobs.
Council agreed with the recommendation of the Mayor, and O'Neill noted
he would adjust the policy guidelines accordingly.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith to adopt an ordinance
amendment deleting the Industrial Development Commission and
establishing the Economic Development Authority, and to adopt the
Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund Guidelines as modified, and to adopt
the Joint Powers Agreement outlining economic development authorities
of City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and Economic
Development Authority. Motion was seconded by Fran Fair. Motion
passed unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 172.
Another motion was made by Warren Smith to appoint Bob Mosford, Barb
Schwientek, Harvey Kendall, Ron Hoglund, and Al Larson to the Economic
Development Authority. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen. Motion passed
unanimously.
Council then requested that consideration of Council membership on the
EDA be placed on the next City Council meeting agenda.
11. Consideration of approving preliminary plat - Evergreens subdivision.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill indicated to Council that a public
hearing was held on this matter by the Planning Commission and that the
Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat for the entire
Evergreens subdivision. He went on to note that the rezoning issues
and approval to expand the trailer park were considered by the Planning
Commission but will not be on the Council agenda until final plat
approval is considered.
John Simola recognized that the State Pollution Control Agency and
Health Departments govern the Kjellberg East Mobile Home Park and
concurred that they need to be actively involved in this situation.
However, he was somewhat uncomfortable with relinquishing City
authority to these organizations in dealing with any pollution problems
that exist associated with the Kjellberg East Mobile Home Park.
Brad Larson indicated that language is built into the developer
agreement which would require that the Kjellberg East Mobile Home Park
be connected to City utilities if the Pollution Control Agency or State
Health Department took action against the mobile home park or the City
3
Council Minutes - 4/10/89
in an effort to resolve the pollution problem. The development
agreement provides the City with the authority to hook up the mobile
home park to the City system at a later point in time, with the cost of
the hookup being assessed back to the mobile home park operator.
Ken Maus stressed the point that the City is not financing any of this
project. The developer is expending his funds to service the area
without any expenditure of City funds for extension of a deep trunk
line. Furthermore, the $200 hookup fee and surcharge applied to the
Evergreens development will contribute towards establishing a fund
which will ultimately pay for that area's portion of a trunk line when
it is needed sometime in the future.
Fran Fair was concerned about any potential pollution problems in the
area and wondered what the Pollution Control Agency and State Health
Department were intending to do about the problem. With regards to the
pollution problem, Ken Maus repeated that PCA officials stated that the
mobile home park will be required by the PCA to hook on to the City
system as part of phase I of the development.
At this point, a discussion regarding the park area on the preliminary
plat ensued. Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the park area
provided is larger than what is required by ordinance by one-half of an
acre. However, almost 50 percent of the park area is under the power
line easement. Roger Mack of the Parks Department suggested that the
park design could be improved by removing some of the residential lots
that border the park on the north side. He went on to outline some of
the problems between the neighbors and park users when the two uses are
in close proximity. It was Ken Maus's view that the park could be
designed to mitigate conflict between the two uses with placement of
berming, landscaping, and fencing. ,john Simola noted that although the
park design is not perfect, it results from intense negotiations where
both sides compromised.
There being no further discussion on this issue, motion was made by
Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to approve the preliminary
plat for the entire Evergreens subdivision. Voting in favor: Warren
Smith, Shirley Anderson, Fran Fair, Ken Maus. Opposed: Dan Blonigen.
As the preliminary plat of the entire area was approved with this
motion, each phase of the plat development in the future will require
final plat approval only.
12. Consideration of amendments to Section 3-9[E]4 and 3-9[E]4(c) of the
Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of pylon sign height,
sign area, and the number allowed per business along Highway 25
Interstate 94 corridors in the city of Monticello. Applicant, City of
Monticello.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that the Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed sign amendments
and recommended passage of the sign ordinance amendments as noted in
the agenda supplement for the special meeting held April 3, 1989. It
4
Council Minutes - 4/10/89
was noted by Ken Maus that this item had been discussed at length at
the previous Council meeting and at that time it was agreed that the
amendment represents a workable compromise between the desire by some
businesses for larger signs and the need to control the size of signs
that might be placed in close proximity to each other. The amendment
does not propose to reduce the size of signs now allowed to any of the
property owners on Highway 25; while at the same, the total sign area
with any business, no matter how much frontage they own, is limited to
100 sq ft.
After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley
Anderson, to adopt an ordinance amendment and approve the formula for
the establishment of a maximum sign square footage in the Highway 25/
I-94 corridor as follows:
a) The 10 sq ft of sign area per 3.03 lineal feet of front footage
with the following exception:
1. All properties allowed a minimum of 50 sq ft of sign area
regardless of the lineal front feet on Highway 25.
2. The maximum size allowed would be 100 sq ft regardless of the
lineal front feet on Highway 25.
In case of the subject property directly abutting State Highway 25,
pylon sign area may range from 50 feet to 100 feet, depending on
the total lineal feet fronting Highway 25. Ten (10) square feet of
pylon sign area is allowed per every 3.03 feet of lineal front
footage with the following exception:
1. All properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of
50 sq ft regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and
the maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 sq ft
regardless of total lineal footage of property abutting
Highway 25.
b) Approve the maximum sign height in the I-94/Highway 25 corridor to
a maximum of 22 feet in height.
c) Reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from
the I-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage
remain at 200 sq ft; the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet
above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major
exposure; and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one
sign per property.
d) Motions all based on the conclusion by the City Council that such
action is consistent with Section 22 of the Zoning Ordinance which
requires that:
1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Municipal
Comprehensive Plan.
5
Council Minutes - 4/10/89
2. The proposed amendments will not negatively affect the
character of the surrounding area or geographic area involved.
3. The amendments as proposed will not tend to actually depreciate
the area in which the amendments will take effect.
4. The demonstrated need has been sufficiently demonstrated.
Motion carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 173.
13. Consideration of variance request appeal for an additional pylon sign
on a B-3 (highway business) unplatted lot. Applicant, Tom Thumb Store.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reminded Council that Council had
tabled this item pending the outcome of the study of the sign ordinance
and possible amendments which were just passed. He went on to inform
Council that the applicant for the variance was not able to attend the
meeting and asked Council to continue the matter.
It was the consensus of the Council that the matter had been reviewed
sufficiently and that it is time for a decision. Motion was made by
Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to deny the proposed variance
request. Motion carried unanimously.
14. Consideration of variance request appeal for additional sign height and
sign area. Applicant, Security Financial.
Linda Mielke of Security Financial was in attendance to represent
Security Financial. It was her view that the sign should be allowed to
remain at its present elevation, as the sign was in existence prior to
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. It was her view that the sign should
not be made to conform to the ordinance at such time that the face of
the sign is changed.
Dan Blonigen agreed that simply changing the face of the sign was
insufficient cause to require the sign to be in compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance. A discussion then ensued regarding the regulating of
non -conforming signs. Assistant Administrator O'Neill recited Section
3-9[D]2 of the ordinance referring to non -conforming signs, which
states that a non -conforming sign may not be a) changed to another
non -conforming sign; b) structurally altered except to bring it into
compliance with the provision of this ordinance; c) expanded; d)
re-established after removal for 30 days; or e) re-established after
damage of more than 50% of sign replacement. Discussion then focused
on a), which states that a non -conforming sign may not be changed to
another non -conforming sign.
After lengthy discussion, it was the consensus of Council that in this
situation, a non -conforming sign is proposed to be changed to another
non -conforming sign; and therefore, this section of the ordinance
applies to Security Financial's situation. Warren Smith stated that he
could sympathize with the predicament faced by Security Financial; but
at the same time, he noted that the sign was improperly allowed to
relocate some years ago. And in that time, the business has had the
Council Minutes - 4/10/89
use of this sign. He went on to say that it's time to now bring that
sign back into compliance and that the City cannot use financial
hardship as a reason to grant the variance. Shirley Anderson concurred
with this viewpoint. Ken Maus stated that it may not ease the pain to
lower the sign; however, it was his view that the impact of the sign
would be improved if it was lowered.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to deny the
variance request. Voting in favor: Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson,
Warren Smith, Ken Maus. Opposed: Dan Blonigen.
15. Consideration of landscaping ordinance amendment.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the proposed amendments
are designed to provide flexibility by allowing industrial development
area landscaping to be expanded as the perimeter of a developing
property area expands. The current ordinance requires an entire
property be landscaped even if development only encompasses a small
portion of the property. He went on to note that the ordinance
amendment provides an option for phasing in development of industrial
landscaping over a period of three years rather than requiring it all
to be completed in one year.
Council discussed related landscaping ordinance issues. It was the
view of Ken Maus that the Building Inspector should be provided
flexibility to interpret landscape development plans with regards to
the proper mix of overstory and understory vegetation. Fran Fair's
major concern was that the landscaping installed is not properly
maintained. Mayor Maus suggested that we might want to allow a
development to incorporate the cost of irrigation into the overall
landscaping requirements. Under this proposal, the development would
be allowed to install irrigation equipment in lieu of a portion of the
vegetation required. It was then determined that these landscaping
related issues be addressed in a subsequent ordinance amendment
process.
There being no further discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Dan Blonigen, to adopt an ordinance amendment modifying
Section 3-2[G]3(b) and Section 3-2[G]12 pertaining to the landscaping
section of the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Motion passed
unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 174.
16. Consideration of selecting recycling firm for final contract
negotiations for curb -side recycling program.
John Simola reviewed the proposals submitted by Polka Dot Recycling
from Buffalo, Corrow Sanitation from Dayton, and Aagard Recycling from
Minneapolis. Simola recommended that Polka Dot Recycling be selected,
as Polka Dot submitted the lowest priced proposal and provided
additional benefits to the City not provided by Corrow or Aagard. He
went on to note that the references of Polka Dot Recycling were all
positive and that Polka Dot will be recycling additional materials such
as corrugated cardboard, tin food cans, and vehicle batteries.
7
Council Minutes - 4/10/89
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to authorize
negotiations with Polka Dot Recycling and draft a contract for review
at the next applicable Council meeting. Motion passed unanimously.
17. Consideration of awarding bids for individual recycling containers.
John Simola reported to Council that the City of Monticello received
only one bid for the three multi -colored individual recycling
containers. The bid submitted was from Shamrock Industries, and the
cost matches the City estimate.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley
Anderson, to award the purchase of 4,200 containers for a cost of
$25,536 to Shamrock Industries. Motion carried unanimously.
18. Consideration of purchasing replacement mower deck for John Deere
tractor.
John Simola reported that the mower deck on the John Deere tractor has
succumbed to wear and tear and is now inoperable. He requested that
Council consider the purchase of a new mower deck for the sum of a
minimum of $1,289. Dan Blonigen reported his concern over abuse of the
John Deere tractor and was concerned that the drivers utilizing that
tractor were not treating the equipment properly when conducting their
work. Ken Maus suggested that the City keep a close tab on who was
running the mowers; and if we have misuse, we should be tough on them.
John Simola noted that the individuals suspected of abusing the
equipment were summer help that are no longer with the City and will
not be hired back.
There being no further discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair,
seconded by Warren Smith, to approve the purchase of a replacement
mower deck for a John Deere tractor from Moon Motors at a cost of
$1,289. During discussion, Dan Blonigen voiced his concern that the
City should go with the low bid of $1,239 from Scharber & Sons in
Rogers. It was the consensus of Council that the benefits of
purchasing the mower deck from a local business in terms of time and
future maintenance considerations outweighed the $50 difference in
cost. Motion passed unanimously.
19. Consideration of request for burial site at Hillside Cemetery.
John Simola informed Council that Lee Trunnell has requested a grave
site at Hillside Cemetery for the burial of Ralph Trunnell. This
individual was to be buried in the James Gilchrist family plot #238B
near Sixth Street. This family plot already contains Florence
Gilchrist, James Gilchrist, Lillian Trunnell, Ethel Trunnell, and Floyd
Trunnell, and is full. He went on to state that the most recent
burials in Hillside were Minnie Hines in May 1984 and Floyd Trunnell in
July of 1981. For the most part, practically all the lots are sold and
many are occupied and full. But there are also a handful of lots which
were never sold and are still vacant. One of these lots is #216, which
L
Council Minutes - 4/10/89
is a 10' x 10' lot near Sixth Street and Cedar Street and in the area
of the Gilchrist family plot. It was suggested that we allow Trunnell
to be buried in this plot. It is also suggested that the City allow
burial of immediate family members in the vacant sites on a case by
case basis and that we do this only for unusual circumstances and that
the family provide a flat granite stone or brass marker.
Council concurred with the recommendation of City staff and a motion
was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Fran Fair, to allow the
burial of Ralph Trunnell in Lot #216 with the condition that the family
provide a marker and that future decisions to allow burial at Hillside
Cemetery be considered on a case by case basis. Motion passed
unanimously.
20. Consideration of extension of completion date for street paving in
Meadow Oak 4th Addition.
Motion was made by Warren Smith to extend the completion time for the
street paving to June 15, 1989. Motion was seconded by Fran Fair.
Motion passed unanimously.
21. Consideration of proclaiming April 24-30 as Handicapped Awareness Week.
Betty Held appeared before the Council to request that City Council
adopt a proclamation declaring Handicapped Awareness Week in
Monticello. The theme of this proclamation would be called "Opening
Doors for the Handicapped." Mayor Ken Maus read the proclamation as
follows, and the Council officially adopted April 24-30 as Handicapped
Awareness Week in the City of Monticello.
"WHEREAS: the Governor of Minnesota has called for Handicap
Awareness Week activities to be conducted in every community
throughout the state;
WHEREAS: the City of Monticello is willing to strengthen public
understanding and awareness of the needs and aspirations of people
with physical and mental limitations;
WHEREAS: the Monticello City Council supports the removal of
barriers that create differences or prevent fullest participation
of all its citizens;
WHEREAS: April 24 through April 30, 1989, has been declared State
of Minnesota Handicap Awareness Week:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ken Maus, Mayor of the City of Monticello, do
hereby proclaim April 24 through April 30, 1989, to be Handicap
Awareness Week in Monticello."
0
Council Minutes - 4/10/89
Other Matters.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to
approve the issuance of a one -day temporary 3.2 beer and set-up license
for May and a one -day 3.2 beer license for the July 2nd celebration
organized by the Monticello Lions Club.
Council also discussed potential purchase of a new copy machine. Rick
Wolfsteller informed Council that according to information he received
from a Savin dealer, the present copiers, if repaired properly, should
be functional for a few more years. He, therefore, did not recommend
outright that we purchase a new copier. Wolfsteller informed Council
he will be working on development of a report for Council regarding
improving our document copying process, and the report should be
available at the next Council meeting.
Council reviewed the potential color schemes of the water tower and
selected Senta Brown or Ultra Marine -Indigo Blue as potential colors
for the water tower. It was the general consensus that the water tower
should blend with the environment of the Monte Club Hill and the
landscaping plan rather than become an advertising point for the City
of Monticello.
Rick Wolfsteller reviewed the plans to hire a part-time permanent
employee to assist with the deputy registrar service provided by the
City of Monticello. Wolfsteller indicated that Council may wish to
seriously consider providing pro -rated benefits to permanent part-time
employees under certain conditions. A decision regarding benefits for
permanent part-time employees was not established at this time.
There being no further discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded
by Fran Fair, to adjourn the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
10