Loading...
City Council Minutes 07-10-1989MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 10, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None 2. Approval of minutes. Shirley Anderson requested that the final sentence of item #3 be deleted. The sentence deleted read as follows: "It was the consensus of Council that the 'No U-turn' sign would not be moved any farther down Broadway, as doing so would not solve the problem." Anderson did not necessarily agree with this consensus. Therefore, she requested the sentence removed. There being no further discussions, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve the Council minutes of June 26, 1989, as amended. Voting in favor: Warren Smith, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Dan Blonigen abstained, as he was not present at the June 26, 1989, meeting. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. None forthcoming. 4. Consideration of resolutions awarding the sale of $260,000 G.O. taxable tax increment bonds - 1989A, and $245,000 G.O. improvement bonds - 1989B. Jerry Shannon of Springsted, Inc., was present to outline the bid tabulations for the respective bond issues as part of his review. He noted that the City financial position is good, the A rating is in place, and that the bids that were submitted reflect the recent reduction in interest rates and are better than anticipated. Shannon recommended that the City adopt a resolution awarding General Obligation Improvement Bond Series 1989B to First Bank National Association at a net interest of 6.611 percent, and that the City award the $260,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bond Series 1989A to Miller Securities, Inc., at a net interest rate of 8.87 percent. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to adopt a resolution awarding Miller Securities, Inc., the $260,000 City of Monticello General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bond Series 1989A. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-21. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to adopt a resolution awarding the $245,000 City of Monticello General Obligation Improvement Bond Series 1989B to First Bank National Association. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-22. 1 5. Conditional use permit r area associated with a 1 Garden Center. Council Minutes - 7/10/89 est to allow expansion of storage and sales scape center in a B-4 zone. Applicant, Fair's Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the various variance requests associated with the expansion of Fair's Garden Center. O'Neill informed Council that expansion of sales and storage areas as proposed by Fair requires a conditional use permit. Prior to obtaining the conditional use permit, a series of variances must be obtained by the applicant. O'Neill went on to note that the Planning Commission has reviewed the site plan, provided recoimnendations regarding the variances, and listed a series of conditions that the applicant must meet in conjunction with his conditional use permit. According to the variance process, Council at this time may individually or as a group appeal the recommendations made by the Planning Commission. If an appeal is forthcoming regarding an individual variance, then the variance must be addressed at a subsequent meeting of the City Council after proper public notice has been provided. At this point in the meeting, O'Neill reviewed the variance requests and noted the Planning Commission's rationale for the variance requests that were approved. After O'Neill completed the review of the variance requests and recommendations made by the Planning Commission, he asked if there were any variance recommendations made by the Planning Commission that Council felt should be appealed. Councilmember Blonigen appealed the decision of the Planning Commission pertaining to the variance to the parking requirement. Blonigen challenged the decision of the Planning Commission to approve an 8 -stall variance to the parking requirement of 25 stalls. He also questioned the method of calculating the number of stalls necessary. It was Blonigen's view that the greenhouse area did not constitute a storage area but rather a greenhouse should be considered a sales area. If one takes this into account, the applicant would need 33 parking stalls rather than 25. It was Blonigen's view that sufficient parking should be created for at least 25 vehicles. Blonigen also appealed the variance to the curb requirement as recoimnended by the Planning Commission. It was Blonigen's view that a curb outlining the parking expansion area should be continued from the Cedar Street entrance to Fair's Garden Center to the Broadway exit, thereby framing the entire potential parking and drive area. There were no objections from Council regarding curb variance number two which allows the applicant to install a drive area within the sales and storage area without development of a curb. Placement of curb in this area is not appropriate given the operation and function of the sales and storage area. There were no objections from approval of a variance which drive without a curb, as the impacted by the presence of 2 n Council regarding the Planning Commnission's would allow development of a bituminous existing drainage pattern would be adversely a curb in this area. Council Minutes - 7/10/89 There were no objections from Council regarding Planning Commission approval of variance C-1 which would allow development of a drivethrough the nursery and sales area without hard surface. The existing surface consists of a material that is relatively dust free and is exposed to consistent watering which reduces dust created by limited traffic and wind. In addition, proper drainage has not been a problem in this area. Granting a variance to the hard surface requirement through the nursery and sales area is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance according to Council. Dan Blonigen appealed the Planning Commission recommendation that the hard surface requirement be deferred at the Broadway access for three years. It was the view of Blonigen that the bituminous or hard surface material be placed in this area so as to reduce the problems associated with dragging mud, rocks, etc., onto Broadway as vehicles exit the Garden Center. It was Blonigen's view that this requirement not be deferred pending further development of the Garden Center and that it was proper to require this improvement at this time. Dan Blonigen objected to the Planning Commission requirement that the applicant pave the area formerly used as a private drive. It was Blonigen's viewpoint that development of bituminous in this area is not necessary, except in the area extending about 20-30 feet from the existing private drive entrance onto Broadway. There were no objections from Council regarding the variance to the screening requirement in the area along the existing westerly wall of the adjoining residential structure. A variance to the ordinance is appropriate in this case, as the actual wall of the adjoining structure acts to screen the sales and storage area. Dan Blonigen objected to the variance to the screening requirement associated with screening of the existing rock storage bins. It was his view that the bins, if left in this location, should be screened from view from the road. Blonigen went on to note that the bins should not be located in this particular area and that the development is better served by placing the bins perpendicular to Broadway or in the rear of the property rather than along Broadway. At this point in the meeting, O'Neill outlined the conditions associated with the conditional use request and reiterated that since there were appeals to the Planning Commission's decisions regarding the variances, a conditional use permit could not be granted at this time. However, he did review the conditions that the Planning Commission and Kevin Fair had agreed upon. O'Neill also went on to note that Mr. Fair had submitted a check in the amount of $10,000 to the City for placement in an escrow account which could be used in the event that the improvements associated with the conditional use permit were not completed on time. Following are the conditions associated with the conditional use permit: 1. The gross floor area may be increase to approximately 3000 of the principal use. 3 Council Minutes - 7/10/89 2. An escrow account must be established by the City staff and presented to the City Council and be submitted by the applicant prior to the City Council consideration and be in an amount equal to 1.5 times the dollar amount necessary to complete all of the landscaping, screening, curbing, and hard surfacing as outlined on the site plan and agreed to by the applicant. 3. The westerly driveway entrance be closed off with the existing sales area material (patio blocks) to be located in this area to block off this driveway entrance. (This area identified in orange area on site plan.) 4. Applicant has 30 days to stripe the new four stall parking area that fronts Broadway and must install required curb by September 11 1989. (This area identified in green area on site plan.) 5. Applicant shall remove existing blacktop and create a green area between the new four stall parking area and the Broadway right -of- way by September 1, 1989. 6. Applicant shall apply a 3 -inch to 5 -inch surface of red limestone to that area identified on the site plan as solid yellow. This area to be maintained in a neat and driveable condition. This material to be applied within 30 days of July 5, 1989. 7. That area identified with horizontal yellow lines on the site plan shall receive a minimum of a 2 -inch bituminous hard surface application within 3 years from the 10th of July, 1989. 8. Applicant to install a minimum of a 2 -inch bituminous hard surface on the drive area identified on the site plan by the yellow border. This improvement shall occur no later than September 1, 1989. 9. Applicant shall install screening material along the perimeter of the site in the form of a combination of 6' fence and/or planting materials, with the exception of the variance area noted in red on the site plan. This shall be accomplished by September 1, 1989. 10. Applicant shall install a split rail fence along the southern boundary of the sales and storage area between the existing owners house and to the southwest corner of the sales area also identified in pink on the site plan. The fence material is to be of a cedar hand split rail fencing material and shall be installed by September 1, 1989. 11. Applicant shall install screening material along east and west 17 lineal foot ends of the existing rock bins noted in pink on the site plan. Screening material shall consist of the same materials as used on the entire southerly portion of the existing 4 Council Minutes - 7/10/89 rock bins or consist of cedar lattice material or a cedar opaque fence material. Height of the screening material shall match the height of the bins. This improvement to be completed by September 11 1989. Consideration of the conditional use permit was tabled until the variance related issues have been resolved at a subsequent meeting of the City Council. 6. Review of status report by engineer on water reservoir improvement project. Wolfsteller informed Council that since the beginning of the water reservoir project, the Public Works Director and Water Superintendent had been reviewing the plans and specifications. On November 17, 1989, John Simola prepared a list of concerns and questions relating to the plans and specifications, and he submitted them to OSM for comments. Wolfsteller indicated to Council that OSM has never indicated which items Simola prepared have been addressed in the final plans and specifications. Wolfsteller was also concerned that OSM has not been responding to the City's correspondence and that it appears that the project may not be following the construction time table. Wolfsteller noted his frustration over lack of communication and inadequate response to City correspondence regarding this project. Dan Kling of OSM was present to respond to the concerns submitted by Wolfsteller. Regarding the comments made by the Public Works Director pertaining to the plans and specifications, it was noted by Kling that those comments were taken seriously and were added to the project specifications. He did apologize for not communicating to the City that the specifications were modified to reflect the input of the Public Works Director. Dan Kling also apologized for the poor communication with the City regarding this project and noted that changes will be made to correct this situation. Kling noted that the welding crew will be working seven days per week in order to bring the project closer to schedule and that it is likely that the project will be completed on time. Dan Blonigen was concerned that the strenuous seven days per week schedule for welders might cause high fatigue and result in problems with welded joints. Dan Kling noted that the welding is done with automatic welders and that all welds will be inspected and certified only if they pass inspection. Mayor Maus reminded Kling that any problems associated with the inspection of the work done by the contractor should be reported promptly to the City and that the City will not be paying any additional inspection fees unless such fees could be completely justified. 5 Council Minutes - 7/10/89 7. Consideration of hiring an engineer for recommendations on upgrading wells #11 #2, and reservoir booster pumps #1-4 to perform at higher pressures. Public Works Director, John Simola, through his memo to City Council, recommended that the City hire Rieke, Carroll, Muller, & Associates to assist the City in upgrading wells #1 and #2 and reservoir booster pumps #1-4 to perform at higher pressures. It was Simola's view that hiring an additional engineer would provide the City with a needed second opinion on projects and not necessarily hire to replace our present engineer but to utilize their services on some smaller projects. He also noted that hiring an additional engineer may be appropriate since OSM has had some problems in the past with accurate determination of pump discharge pressures and pumping rates in both water and sewer systems. Simola noted that he would like to give RCM an opportunity to work on this smaller project. Simola was not present to review his memo, as he was on vacation. Dan Kling of OSM did not see any problems with the City having two engineers, and he agreed that there have been problems with matching well pumps and motors. He also noted that RCM is an excellent, able competitor, and that the City is certainly justified in looking at another engineer, as OSM has provided insufficient communication and has basically provided a service level that would warrant the City looking at an additional engineering firm. He also noted, however, that by hiring an engineer, the liabilities to the City increase substantially, as there is less accountability for problems when there is more than one engineer involved in development and maintenance of the City system of utilities. Mayor Maus noted that from a raw cost standpoint, the City has made significant investments in development of information pertaining to our system. Hiring an additional engineer would require that much of that information be generated again, which would thus increase the cost to the City. Roger Mack noted that he has not been able to talk to John Simola about this issue. However, it was his view that the calculations regarding the upgrading of wells #1 and #2 and reservoir booster pumps #1-4 are fairly straight forward and that it is not likely that two engineers will come up with two separate recommendations. Ken Maus suggested that the City should continue to look at hiring an additional engineer; but in this particular situation, the work should go to OSM, as OSM already has so much time into the project. Fran Fair expressed her view that she is reluctant to not follow Simola's recommendation and that the City should have a basis for comparing engineering firms. Warren Smith concurred that the City should have another engineer on hand. However, he was inclined to look at another engineer for a different project. Shirley Anderson concurred that OSM should remain as the lead engineer on this project which would provide OSM the opportunity to improve its present image. D Council Minutes - 7/10/89 Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to engage the services of OSM in assisting the City with upgrading wells #1 and #2 and reservoir booster pumps #1-4 to perform at higher pressures. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Consideration of ordinance amendment regulating detached structure (storage shed) construction standards. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the proposed ordinance developed in response to concerns brought forward by the Meadow Oaks neighborhood. O'Neill went on to note that public complaints regarding storage sheds or detached structures is not an every day problem. Although there are problems, it appears that they can be handled on a complaint basis and that staff is not proposing a permit process. He went on to note that if storage shed related complaints do increase in the future, the City has the option of establishing a permit process which could head off complaints. At this time, however, it is probably more efficient for the City to respond to this issue as complaints are presented by the public. At this point in the meeting, O'Neill reviewed the language of the ordinance and received comments from Council. It was recommended by Fran Fair that the proposed ordinance be amended so as to apply to detached structures existing before the adoption of this ordinance. A general discussion ensued regarding the requirement that a rodent barrier be installed with every accessory structure as proposed in the ordinance. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to require that a rodent barrier be installed with every detached structure so as to inhibit rodents from establishing quarters underneath storage sheds. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to approve the ordinance as amended. Motion carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 178. 9. Consideration of ordinance amendment designed to expedite removal of weeds and tall grasses. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the proposed ordinance which was developed in response to complaints submitted by the Meadow Oaks neighborhood. O'Neill informed Council that staff recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment, as the new process will improve the appearance of neighborhoods by reducing the duration of the weed and tall grass violations. In addition, staff time necessary for repeat notices will be eliminated, thus improving the efficiency of the weeds and tall grasses removal process. Ken Maus suggested that the original notice provided to violators should be done by certified letter; or if necessary, the notice should be hand delivered by a Sheriff's Deputy. Maus suggested that the ordinance be amended accordingly. Fran Fair was concerned about liabilities 7 Council Minutes - 7/10/89 associated with removal of weeds and tall grasses. O'Neill responded by saying that the notice to the property owner will be thorough and will inform the violator of an appeals process which the property owner can employ in the event there is a reason not to remove the weeds and grasses. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Ken Maus, to approve the ordinance amendment with the inclusion of language that requires the notice be in the form of a certified letter. Voting in favor: Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 179. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator