Loading...
City Council Minutes 09-13-1983J MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL September 13, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. 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. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the meeting held August 22, 1983. 3. Citizens Comments. Mr. Joe LaFromboise of Construction 5, Inc., informed the Council that their apartment complex being developed in Lauring Hillside Terrace is almost completed, and they are interested in starting their second apartment complex yet this fall. As part of the second develop- ment, they requested that the Council consider holding a public hearing in the near future to consider vacating that portion of Hennepin Street lying between Lauring Lane and the railroad tracks, which abuts their property.- At the present time, their development plan is being reviewed by the City's consulting planner and consulting engineer; and their comments should be available for the first regularly scheduled meeting in October. It was the consensus of the Council to set a public hearing for considering vacating Hennepin Street at the October 11 Council Meeting. 4. Consideration of an Appeal From Planning Commission Applicant - Assembly of God, Conditional Use. During June of 1983, the Monticello Assembly of God Church filed a Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a day care center to be operated at their former church property on East Fourth Street. After the item had been tabled for a number of months, the church requested that the Planning Commission consider the Conditional Use Request at their September meeting, but no members of the church were present to present their request to the Planning Commission; and as a result, the Planning Commission recommended that the Conditional Use Permit be denied. The Assembly of God Church appealed the decision to the Council meeting. - 1 - Council Minutes - 9/13/83 Mr. Gene Decker, representative for the church, indicated that they would like to pursue the possibility of the church being allowed to use the old facilities for a day care center. He noted that they presently have no prospects yet to purchase the building and are looking at options, including either running a day care center themselves or finding a private operator. It was the Council's consensus that before a Conditional Use Permit for a day care center could be granted, more facts on the type of operation, number of children involved, etc., should be available before a decision could be made. Pastor Nordby and Mr. Decker both indicated that the primary reason they came to the Council first was to see if the City would be receptive to the idea of a day care center being operated at the old church facilities before they expended too much time and money to convert the building for this use. Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to table the request at this time but set a public hearing date for October 11, 1983, at the Council to consider the Conditional Use Request, which should allow the church sufficient time to present their proposal. 5. Consideration of an Appeal From Planning Commission Applicant - Blocher Advertising. Blocher Advertising Company requested an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to have an outdoor advertising sign relocated from Lot 9, Thomas Industrial Park, to Lot 11, Thomas Industrial Park. Mr. Ron Hoglund, representing the present land owners of Thomas Industrial Park, noted that Blocher Advertising Company is interested in purchasing Lot 11 if they are allowed to put an additional billboard sign on this lot. There is currently one existing sign on Lot 11, and if approved, there would be two signs located on this one lot. Mr. Hoglund noted that Blocher Advertising has indicated they would not be interested in completing the purchase unless they would be allowed to have both signs on their own property. Mr. Hoglund noted that the owners of Thomas Industrial Park have been trying to sell and develop the lots within the industrial park for a number of years and feel that if they are not able to sell this lot to Blocher Advertising Company, they may lose their investment in the property and have to let it go back to the previous owner. Mayor Grimsmo acknowledged the hardship the landowners are currently faced with but noted that the present City Zoning Ordinances clearly state that no new signs are allowed to be erected within the city limits, and by - 2 - e Council Minutes - 9/13/83 allowing this Variance Request, the City would be in violation of its own Ordinances. It was also noted by City staff members that Blocher Advertising Company had a few years ago asked for a similar Variance Request to be able to take down an existing sign on Lot 9 and move it to the north side of the freeway, which was denied. City Administrator Tom Eidem explained that the Ordinance is very specific in that all signs are currently nonconforming; and if a sign should be discontinued for six months, it cannot be replaced. In addition, the Ordinance specifies that a Variance should not be granted for strictly economic reasons; but a Variance should be granted only because of a hardship due to the land configuration, etc., and not as a way to circumvent the present Ordinance. After considerable discussion on the merits of advertising signs, motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen, to approve the Variance Request allowing a new billboard sign to be erected on Lot 11, which would replace the previous sign on Lot 9 contingent upon the distance being at least 750 feet between structures and based on the fact that this is not an increase in the number of signs within the city limits over what used to be erected. Voting in favor of the Request was Maus, Blonigen, and Grimsmo. Opposed: Fran Fair. Abstaining: Maxwell, due to a possible conflict of interest. 6. John Sandberg Proposed Subdivision. Mr. John Sandberg proposed a simple subdivision of a city lot to allow for construction of two single family dwellings. The lot Mr. Sandberg requested to subdivide was the westerly 21 2/3 feet of Lot 4 and all of Lot 5, Block 7, Lower Monticello located on the river side of River Street. The proposed subdivision would have a 12,000 sq. ft. lot adjacent to River Street with the back lot next to the river being 19,500 sq. ft., which would have access off of New Street. Although New Street is not currently developed as a city street, it has never been vacated and could be used as access to the back lot. The proposed subdivision meets all City Ordinances in relation to lot size re- quirements, etc. Although the proposed subdivision meets all of the City Ordinance requirements, some concerns were expressed by the Council over how this subdivision might affect the rest of the neighborhood properties. It was noted that the majority of the houses along a two to three block area along River Street are set back much further than the 30 ft. setback requirement in the City Ordinances. Approval of the subdivision would allow a new house to be placed within 30 feet - 3 - Council Minutes - 9/13/83 of the front property line when a majority of the homes in the area are set back much further. Area resident, Don Pitt, noted that this specific neighborhood has many well -kept older homes along the river and felt that by allowing a newer home to be placed closer to the front property line, it would detract from the area. Mr. Roger Host, an area resident, indicated that twice in the past he has asked for Variances to be able to build additions to his house that would make his building closer to the street than what the neighbors were and was denied the Variances because they didn't want his house to be closer to the road than the other neighbors within the block. He felt that if this was the reasoning of the Planning Commission and City Council a number of years ago, it should also be applicable today. Mayor Grimsmo also made part of the record letters received from residents of the area, Larry and Cecile Muehlbauer and Don Nicolai, who both indicated opposition to the subdivision as they felt the additional home located close to River Street would not fit into the neighborhood and would deter from the historic older homes in the area. Mr. Sandberg noted that even if the subdivision wasn't approved, City Ordinances only require that a building be set back 30 feet from the property line and that one house could still be built closer than some of the other homes in the area might be from the property line. In addition, he again noted that he meets all City requirements regarding simple subdivisions and does not think that allowing the subdivision would hurt the neighborhood. Due to the opposing views expressed by neighboring residents, Mr. Sandberg suggested that the item be tabled to allow the City Council members an opportunity to review the site personally to get an idea how large the property is and to see first hand what effect the subdivision might have. As a result, it was the consensus of the Council to review the site at 7:00 A.M. Wednesday morning and to table any action on the simple subdivision until the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. 7. Consideration_ of aVa_ri_ance Request Referred From Planning Commission - A2licant, Bob Saxon Mr. and Mrs. Bob Saxon, owners of the property immediately adjacent to the east of East Bridge Park, requested a Variance of the setback requirements for the purposes of building a new garage on their property. - 4 - Council Minutes - 9/13/83 Just prior to the Variance Request from Mr. Saxon, the City of Monticello became aware of a possible re -alignment of the new bridge along Highway 25 that might result in the State of Minnesota taking part of East Bridge Park for construction. Because of this, the City staff considered the idea of acquiring the property owned by Mr. Saxon to replace some of the property that the State of Minnesota might be taking for the new bridge construction. The initial concept was to use this land for parking only to eliminate all vehicle traffic from the interior of East Bridge Park as it now exists. A public hearing on Mr. Saxon's Variance Request to build a garage was scheduled for the Planning Commission Meeting. But prior to the meeting, City staff members suggested to Mr. Saxon that the City might be interested in acquiring his property. Mr. Saxon was receptive to the idea depending on his ability to find a suitable place to relocate to along the river. In addition, he noted that he has spent substantial amounts of money on interior remodeling and repair; but if the City would be interested in his property, he would be willing to negotiate on the possible sale. At the present time, the City is not exactly certain how much land the State of Minnesota will be acquiring from the East Bridge Park because of the new bridge alignment, but a meeting has been scheduled with MN/DOT at the next Council Meeting, which should hopefully provide the City with a better understanding of the project. In the meantime, some concerns were expressed by the Council in making a committment to Mr. Saxon regarding the acquisition of his property until the City actually knows what the State of Minnesota will be taking from the park. Mr. Saxon also had reservations about completing a new garage if the City in the near future would be interested in acquiring his property. It was agreed by both parties that the Variance Request for the new garage would be delayed until the October 11, 1983, Council Meeting after which MN/DOT would have presented its proposal to the City Council. 8. Consider of Planning Commission Recommendation in Relation to Reconstruction of T.H. 25. The Planning Commission, at their last meeting, requested that the City Council request in writing from the State of Minnesota that a traffic count be conducted along Highway 25, especially at the intersection of Highway 25 and Seventh Street. The Planning Commission felt that with the development that is now occurring along East Lauring Lane, Lauring Lane will become a major collector - 5 - point from the southeast into which will result in increased of 25 and Seventh Street. Council Minutes - 9/13/83 the community to the northwest, traffic flow at the intersection It was noted that before the State of Minnesota will consider installing a traffic light at an intersection, a traffic count has to be completed. It was the consensus of the Council to authorize the City staff to send a letter to MN/DOT requesting that they perform a traffic study along Highway 25 for possible intersections that might need traffic lights, especially the Seventh Street and Highway 25 location. 9. Consideration of a Request for a Public Hearing for Tax Increment Financing. The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority is currently considering a Tax Increment Financing Assistance Program for a new split foyer office building being proposed on the corner of Broadway and Locust Street. The proposal has been brought forth by Metcalf and Larson, who have indicated they could not construct the size of building they desired and be able to meet the parking requirements of the City unless additional land can be acquired for parking. The HRA is proposing to purchase the property and house owned by Mr. David Capps, which lies directly north of the proposed office building site. The intention at this time is to place tax exempt securities with the Wright County State Bank in order to make the acquisition with the loan being repayed from the tax increments resulting from the new office building being built. Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to set a public hearing for September 26, 1983, for the Tax Increment Financing proposal. 10. Consideration of Amending the Ordinance Regulating Sewer Hook-up Charges. Two major changes were recommended by the City staff to the current City Ordinances regarding sewer hook-up charges to commercial, industrial, and public facilities. The first recommended change involves collecting additional hook-up charges when additions are added to present commercial, institutional, or public buildings. The second change in the Ordinance is a clarification of a unit - 6 - Council Minutes - 9/13/83 and parameter to be used for billing purposes. Currently, the Ordinances list a type of facility and parameter that may be charged for this type of building. It is impossible to list every type of facility and parameter that may be encountered; and it appears through researching past practices, there seems to be a common denominator based on maximum flow. It was recommended that the Ordinance be amended to indicate that if a facility is not specifically listed in the Ordinance, one unit charge for the hook-up fee will be based on every 250 gallons of maximum flow per day. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the Ordinance Amendment, which would provide for additional charges to public and commercial buildings that have additions constructed and also clarifies the parameter for determining sewer connection fee based on maximum flow per day. See Ordinance Amendment 1983, #126. Rick Wolfstelle Assistant Administrator - 7 -