Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.06.03 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR October 6, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Dan Siebenaler, Interim City Administrator/Police Chief; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant John Kampf, Randy Oswald, Sharon Flynn, George Flynn, Deb Richter, Brad Meeks, Don Hayes, Bev Preece, Orville Swenson, Cy Hennick 4. APPROVE AGENDA Changes to the agenda included item 8a) postponing the designation of the Akin House as a Heritage Landmark, removing item I Oc) Approve Joint Powers Agreement Dakota County MAAG, and adding 14a) Executive Session - Collective Bargaining Negotiations. MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. s. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Introduce New Employee - Public Works Ms. Jennifer Collova was introduced as the new Natural Resources Specialist. b) Introduce Temporary Employee - Administration Ms. Deb Richter was introduced as a temporary employee at the reception desk. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mayor Ristow invited Mr. Brad Meeks, the new School Superintendent, to the Council Meeting. He began on September 2, 2003 and looks forward to working with the school and the city. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: Council Minutes (Regular) October 6, 2003 Page 2 a) Approved Council Minutes (9/15/03 Regular) b) Received Information Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Adopted RESOLUTION R72-03 Accepting Donation - Parks and Recreation d) Adopted RESOLUTION R73-03 Accepting Donation - Parks and Recreation e) Adopted RESOLUTION R74-03 Accepting Donation - Parks and Recreation f) Adopted RESOLUTION R7S-03 Accepting Donation Heritage Preservation Commission - Administration g) Adopted RESOLUTION R76-03 Accepting Donation Heritage Preservation Commission - Administration h) Adopted RESOLUTION R77-03 Gambling Event Permit Farmington Sno- Tigers - Administration i) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation j) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation k) Adopted ORDINANCE 003-500 Text Amendment Parks and Recreation Commission - Parks and Recreation I) Approved Encroachment Agreement with Northern Natural Gas - Parks and Recreation m) Approved Metering Equipment Purchase - Public Works n) Adopted RESOLUTION R78-03 Appointment of Responsible Authority MN Data Practices - Administration 0) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - Designating Farmington Heritage Landmarks - Administration The Exchange Bank Building and the Church ofthe Advent were placed on the National Register of Historic Places in December of 1979. Therefore, these properties meet the eligibility criteria for designation as a Farmington Heritage Landmark. Documentation supporting the designation was prepared by Robert Vogel dated July 2003. The property owners support this designation. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R79-03 designating the Exchange Bank Building, and the Church ofthe Advent as Farmington Heritage Landmarks, and noting the two properties as heritage landmarks on the Official City Zoning Map. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) August 2003 Financial Report - Finance Revenues are at 93% of annual budgeted permit revenue at 66% of the year completed. The Liquor Store enterprise fund is at 74% of annual revenues. Council Minutes (Regular) October 6, 2003 Page 3 Expenditures are at 69% of annual expenditures due to a number of expenditures having one-time charges rather than being spread over a period oftime. b) Adopt Snow Removal Policy Sidewalks, Trails and Outdoor Rinks - Parks and Recreation Staff approached the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding developing a policy for snow removal. A subcommittee was formed, and recommended the following prioritized format for snow removal: First Priority: Second Priority: Third Priority: Fourth Priority: Downtown area including sidewalks and Arena parking lot Trails that lead to schools Outdoor rinks (Monday-Friday) Remaining City park trails Staff asked for direction from Council if this is the priority that should be followed. This is not a change from how snow removal has been done in the past, it just provides a written policy. Mayor Ristow asked about snow removal around the library. Parks Supervisor Hayes replied the Public Works department plows the parking lot and the Parks department clears the sidewalks. Mayor Ristow then asked about the arena and the trail through Rambling River Park to the Middle School. Parks Supervisor Hayes stated the number one priority would be the cleaning of all the sidewalks downtown and at the arena. After that they would go to the trails that lead to the school knowing they have to have them cleaned by 7 a.m. If the plow crews start at 3 a.m., Parks start at 2 a.m. to clean sidewalks, so from 2 a.m. - 5 a.m. they clean sidewalks and then go to the trail system that leads to the school. Councilmember Soderberg asked how long it takes to clear sidewalks and trails. Parks Supervisor Hayes replied it depends on the amount of snow we receive. If they have a crew working nights, and all of staff present they can finish the first and second priorities by 8 a.m. Councilmember Fogarty asked if all the trails are cleaned. Parks Supervisor Hayes stated they have done all the trails, but found some were not utilized so they set priorities. They will try to clean trails going through neighborhoods, except for example the back trail in East Farmington due to snowmobile traffic. Mayor Ristow complimented Parks Supervisor Hayes saying in the past an excellent job has been done on all the trails. Councilmember Cordes noted on weekends the outdoor rinks would not be done, and there will be shovels available for residents to use. If it snows on a weekend she asked if the first and second priorities would be done and then leave the rest for during the week. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied that is the plan as they wanted to get priority routes done first and weekends would be overtime. The purpose of the plan was to create a plan that prioritized trails so eventually they will all be cleared. Council Minutes (Regular) October 6, 2003 Page 4 MOTION by Cordes, second by Fogarty adopting the Snow Removal Policy for downtown sidewalks, trails and outdoor rinks. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Approve Joint Powers Agreement Dakota County MAAG - Police Department This item was tabled to a future meeting. d) Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Zoning Map Amendment for 1000, 1012, 1020 sth Street - Community Development This item was discussed at the September 9, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. All three property owners had submitted a collective application to have the comprehensive guide plan changed for these three lots to business and have the zoning changed to commercial use. All the Planning Commission members had concerns about the application. Questions were raised such as screening for the homes to the west and ongoing and significant drainage problems. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the application. One owner has come back to staff and submitted a revised application that addresses these concerns. Staff recommended the Council remand this application back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. There are also some options for Council such as, they could also approve the applications even though the Planning Commission recommended denial, the Council could also deny the applications, or Council could remand the application back to the Planning Commission. There would be another public hearing at the November 12, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Property owners within 350 feet would also be notified. Staff recommended Council remand this back to the Planning Commission and authorize staff to extend the normal 60 day review period to 120 days. Mayor Ristow noted the applicants did not have a proposed plan at the Planning Commission meeting and asked if that was a common item to include with the application. Community Development Director Carroll replied staff and the Planning Commission had a natural interest in what they were going to do. There were no specifics offered, and that was part ofthe reason it was denied. Staff assumes the plan is to expand the parking area for the auto operation. The applicant would be asked to provide a plan at the meeting. The residential uses on the remaining lots would be continued for now, and as they became vacant, would be used for retail. Councilmember Soderberg asked if a plan would be obtained during the redevelopment phase that would address drainage and screening. Staff replied at some point it would. There have been cases were areas have been rezoned without any plans such as the Spruce Street area. Staff prefers to get a plan in the early stages, but it would be required at some point. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the zoning can be denied because of a specific use. Attorney Jamnik replied yes. Council Minutes (Regular) October 6, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Orville Swenson, 1007 7th Street, stated they back up to the second lot and corner the next lot. He felt at the Planning Commission meeting the application was denied more because of the drainage problem. The drainage from lot 3 cannot run north, it runs through Mr. Hennick's property and out to Hickory Street. He then showed pictures of snow that was removed from the car lot and placed on the empty lot where the house was removed. When the house was removed the basement had been filled and also the ditch by the frontage road. The water used to drain to the east until the terrain was changed. The ditch along the frontage road used to hold some of the water. One day Mr. Swenson noticed trucks coming with fill for the lot. As he had been told by staff that nothing would be done until a hearing was held, he called the Mayor, who contacted staff, and the work was stopped. He asked to have the fill removed as it was filled without a permit. According to ordinance, lots have to be paved. If that happens, the water will come through faster. He cannot see any other way to control the drainage. They could live with it the way it was. Mayor Ristow explained there was a house on that lot, and a permit was received to move the house to a lot on Main Street. The lot was filled up considerably compared to what it was when the house was there. He asked if anything was addressed in the permit regarding fill. Staff replied the owner was told they had to fill in the foundation. Staffhas heard they went beyond that. Mr. Cy Hennick, 1011 ih Street, lives directly behind the property. He stated there used to be a 3 foot drop all along the frontage road. They filled it in and sloped it to where the house was and to the driveway. When the owner bought the property he knew it was zoned residential. He thinks they should consider how people in the neighborhood feel. He is concerned with the drainage and the use of the property. On the owner's present property the fence is falling down, and there was a brush pile behind the garage that has been there for five years with rabbits and rats running out of it. They did clean out the brush pile this weekend. Councilmember Soderberg stated there has been a change in the drainage and it needs to be addressed. Mayor Ristow stated usually there is a transition between commercial and residential. Mr. Hennick stated the business owner also owns the next two lots. At the Planning Commission meeting they led people to believe that the people living there were the owners. They are just renting the homes. Staff stated the applications were recommended for denial by the Planning Commission. They are not asking Council to rule on that. There will be two more opportunities to address this at the Planning Commission and when it comes back to Council. When the final application is received, these issues will be addressed. Mayor Ristow stated the Council and Planning Commission have the same concerns. There were more residents that appeared at the Planning Council Minutes (Regular) October 6, 2003 Page 6 Commission meeting with concerns. Councilmember Fitch asked how they can keep a garage on the property without a house. Staff replied you cannot build an accessory structure on a lot that does not have a house. If the house is there and there is an accessory structure and the house is moved, staff is not sure if that triggers a requirement that the garage be moved. That would be a legal matter. Councilmember Fitch stated if they are storing brush and other things behind the garage and the garage should not be on the property that is another issue of code enforcement. If they brought in fill and filled in a drainage area, that is not allowed in residential areas. If you do that, according to our new as-built system, the city will remove the excess at your cost. If that is happening, that has to be resolved regardless of whether that gets rezoned or not. Engineering staff will look at the surface water flows. Mayor Ristow stated the water does not disperse anywhere and the area has to be pumped. We would not want to take away any areas that hold water and put in blacktop. Councilmember Soderberg stated even without putting in blacktop, they are filling in a holding area that was there. The question is what can we do at this point, as that needs to be corrected. If they get it changed to business or want to put in a parking lot, we have to address the drainage problems caused by that, but let's restore the drainage situation. Attorney Jamnik stated it depends on whether the application is reviewed and approved. We would not want to remove fill as part of an enforcement action, if it will be replaced as part of an approved application plan. If the application is denied, the question will come back to staff as to what steps to take to restore the property to a pre-filled, non-altered state if they did not pull the permits. It would not make sense to take an enforcement action at this point, if at a later date the fill will be put back in and do something else to the property as part of an approved application. It depends on what happens with the next steps of the application. The same thing with the structures. If you remove a house and put a new house back on the lot, there is no problem with the garage remaining. If you are going to take the house down and put in a parking lot and turn it into a commercial use, there would be a violation of the code. It is clear the property owner did some things without permits and without staff review that can be fixed through this application or subsequent enforcement action. Mayor Ristow asked if they brought in 100 yards of fill, if this does not get resolved until November or December, and there is a tremendous amount of snow, what protects these people from getting flooded more. Attorney Jamnik stated it depends on what happens with the application. If the application is denied then as part of the enforcement action, the city will try to restore the previous conditions or take other steps to mitigate any potential flooding next spring. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated one question that will have to be answered by Engineering staff is the condition or the elevation of the lot prior to adding the fill. If the city removes 2.5 feet offill, would water be allowed to flow out to the frontage road on 8th Street, or would it continue along the route through the back yards. We may not gain anything by taking the fill out immediately. Engineering staff will have to answer that. Mr. Swenson stated the ditch held the Council Minutes (Regular) October 6, 2003 Page 7 water there and it soaked away. The natural water flow was to the north. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated a more pertinent question might be where does snow storage occur on the lot. As opposed to adding more runoff in the spring by storing excess snow on the lot, the city may want to prohibit snow storage there to limit the amount of runoff produced. That can also be reviewed by Engineering staff. Mayor Ristow stated it is an R-21ot and has to be treated as an R-2 lot. Not too many people would take snow from a commercial lot and dump it on a residential lot. Especially if it will infringe on neighboring lots. Councilmember Fitch asked if the property gets rezoned, and because of the configuration of the area, the city cannot provide suitable runoff for that area and yet we approve the zoning, how does that work? Staff replied there is a lot without a house. The drainage problems have to be addressed regardless of what is done with the lot. If you keep it residential and someone wants to place a house there, you are adding more impervious area regardless of what is done. These issues have to be resolved regardless of what is proposed for the lot. The drainage has been discussed the most, so that must be the issue of most concern to the residents. They are also concerned about a business use close to their homes. A different application has been received, and the applicant, staff and the Planning Commission have a better understanding of the issues, so more attention can be addressed to them in November. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to remand the rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment request back to the Planning Commission and direct staff to extend the 60-day time limit to 120 days. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Soderberg asked if it was proper for Council to direct staff to direct the owner to make sure the water is somehow contained. Attorney Jamnik stated he would not say so, it is part of the application process. Staffwill be looking at the drainage issue as part of the site plan review. Councilmember Soderberg stated he is also concerned about what happens this spring if there is a lot of snow or a lot of rain. He does not want to see either of these houses flooded. Attorney Jamnik stated Council will get the application back following the next Planning Commission meeting and if not, there will be an enforcement action subsequent to that. e) Quarterly Building Report and Population Estimate - Community Development During the third quarter the city issued 55 single family permits and 84 townhouse unit permits. This is the first quarter where the number of townhouse units exceeded single family units. The total number of residential units so far this year is 440, including 243 single family, and 197 multi-family homes. The average number of permits per quarter is 147, for the year it will be 587, which is 5 more than last year. During the first quarter, the average value of a townhouse was $120,000; $150,000 for the second quarter, and $207,000 for the third Council Minutes (Regular) October 6, 2003 Page 8 quarter. This does not include the value of the land. The valuation ofa townhouse exceeded the valuation of a single-family home for the first time in the third quarter. The estimated population as of September 30, 2003 is 17,911. Councilmember Fitch asked about the status of commercial and industrial projects such as Vinge Tile and Just Kidding Around Daycare. Staff replied construction plans are in and under review for both projects. If everything comes in that is required, staff would be in a position to issue building permits for both projects. Councilmember Fitch then asked about the status of the Knutsen property in the Spruce Street area. Staff replied a meeting was held today to discuss the progress ofthe AUAR. Staff is waiting for information from the MPCA. It is still on track. New Century would like to break ground in the spring and start construction as soon as possible. Construction plans could be reviewed and building permits issued in the second or third quarter of 2004. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Fire Department Tanker Truck Bids - Fire Department Bids were opened on September 15, 2003 and two bids were received. Both bids were over the allowable $165,000 that was approved for the 2003 budget. The Fire Department is looking at reducing the requirements and will re-bid the item. Fire Chief Kuchera felt this would not be able to be completed by the end of the year. Their goal is to come back to Council after the bid document is reviewed and present it to Council on October 20,2003. He requested Council reject the two bids received due to the cost. Councilmember Cordes asked if these were the only two places that make these tanker trucks. Fire Chief Kuchera replied there are not a lot of manufacturers that make the vacuum type tank. The documents were sent to a number of companies and it was advertised. Councilmember Fitch asked if the equipment they will have to downgrade is critical to their operation. The truck it is replacing is over 20 years old. This will be something that will be around for awhile. He asked if the $30,000 difference is something that can be added on later or is it an integral part of the equipment when it is ordered. Fire Chief Kuchera stated the goal was to reduce the rural ISO rating. In order to do that, they have to haul more water. The goal was to bid a truck that would haul 3,000 gallons of water. That requires a twin-axle type chassis because of the weight. They may have to down size the size of the tank. Typically there are 2,000 gallons on a single-axle truck. Councilmember Fitch stated most of the rural area that we are responding to is not in the city of Farmington. He asked ifthere was a way to work with surrounding townships to provide the difference in the amount. Finance Director Roland stated as part of the contract with the surrounding townships, the city takes into consideration the cost of the equipment and depreciation. So it is already factored into the contracts and the city cannot go for any additional dollars. She called to Council's attention it was her understanding there was a particular component that was bid for the project, described as a vacuum pump. That is not the most important part of this. The most important part is how much water you can carry Council Minutes (Regular) October 6, 2003 Page 9 in the tanker. She asked Fire Chief Kuchera if they might be willing to forego the vacuum capacity in order to carry more water. Fire Chief Kuchera replied that is an option they have to consider. Finance Director Roland continued, stating there would be more people who would be able to bid on the project because they would not have to provide the vacuum pump. Fire Chief Kuchera replied that is correct. Mayor Ristow asked if these bids were with the vacuum pump. Fire Chief Kuchera replied they were with the vacuum pump and tank. There are other areas in the bid they can look at. They may be able to delete a number of things to get down to the $165,000 and still maintain the vacuum aspect. They do not want to go out for bids and have the same thing happen. The committee is working with manufacturers to come up with a solution. Mayor Ristow asked if the vacuum system could be left off and then added on later and have the same capacity as from the factory. Fire Chief Kuchera stated that would be difficult to do, as the tank has to be sealed differently. He did not think that would be a wise decision. If they are going to go with a vacuum type arrangement, they would want to do that from the beginning. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated the Fire Department has a committee working on this with a combined experience of more years than anyone can count in putting these types of packages together. He suggested Council return it to the committee and allow them to make the presentation on October 20,2003. Councilmember Soderberg asked if October 20 would allow enough time. Fire Chief Kuchera stated they are meeting tomorrow night and will try to finalize the document. Attorney J amnik and staff will have to review it and then get it back to Council. If not, it will have to be delayed a couple weeks. Councilmember Fogarty stated she was disappointed. When it comes to public safety $30,000 does not seem like a lot of money at the end of the day. MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes to reject the two bids received. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fogarty: She noted there were five separate donations on the agenda and she thanked the contributors. Councilmember Fitch: He noted the Budget Workshop last week missed a lot of attention. The city is in good financial shape. Council has worked hard to approve and spend money staff has brought forward. Thinking outside the box this year, and getting staff and employee buy-in into the budget is very commendable. It makes the Council's job a lot easier. Council Minutes (Regular) October 6, 2003 Page 10 Interim City Administrator Siebenaler: In order to develop a rotating schedule for the Council/Chamber breakfast he will need Council's schedules. The first one is scheduled for October 23, and he suggested the Mayor attend and asked the rest of Council to let him know their availability and schedules. Mayor Ristow: He and Interim City Administrator Siebenaler met with Superintendent Meeks and the Chairman of the School Board. They addressed some issues and hopefully everything will be on track. He reminded everyone it is Homecoming this weekend and encouraged everyone to support the team. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION a) Collective Bargaining Negotiations Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:38 p.m. 15. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 8:53 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, (- .. /' 4# (1)~ 7-:6'UR-/ ~L.e&~ /' ~ ;f... Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant