Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.19.02 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR August 19,2002 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, Soderberg, Verch Strachan Andrea Poehler, City Attorney; Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Jim Bell, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Manager; Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Tim LaPosa, Beverly Preece, Jason Mahowald, Steve Bohlsen, Earl Teporten, Judy Teporten, Russ Christenson, Pam Hadler, Jason Schulz, Ann Jensen, David and Linda McAdams, Michael Bischel, Renee Auge, Lee Kruden, Tim Dougherty, Bruce Jensen, Jane Storelee 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Proclaim Pollution Prevention Week September 9-13, 2002 - Parks and Recreation Mayor Ristow proclaimed September 9-13,2002 as Pollution Prevention Week. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) Mr. David Pritzlaff Staff forwarded information to Mr. Pritzlaff regarding crosswalks on Akin Road. b) Dr. Pam Hadler - Kid's Day America Dr. Pam Hadler informed staff her office is sponsoring Kid's Day America on September 21,2002. She invited Council to attend and requested Council proclaim September 21 as Kid's Day America. Council Minutes (Regular) August 19,2002 Page 2 7. CONSENT AGENDA Attorney Poehler pulled the Council Minutes of 8/5/02 as the Farmington Independent requested their objection to the closed Executive Session be noted in the minutes. The minutes were tabled to the September 3, 2002 Council meeting. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Adopted RESOLUTION R70-02 Appointing an Additional Election Judge- Administration c) Approved Repairing Surfacing of Outdoor Rink - Middle School - Parks and Recreation d) Received Information School and Conference - Finance e) Approved Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - St. Michael's Church- Administration t) Received Information Appointment Recommendation - Police - Administration g) Authorized Award Annual Sidewalk Replacement Project - Engineering h) Received Information Draft Report - City Administrator Evaluation - Attorney i) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - 3rd Street Overlay and Sanitary Sewer Project Assessment Hearing - Engineering The 3rd Street Overlay and Sliplining Project has been completed. The improvements consist of a bituminous overlay and slip lining of the sanitary sewer along 3rd Street from Spruce Street to Ash Street. The total project cost is $260,043. According to the assessment policy, 65% of the project costs are proposed to be paid for by the City and 35% would be assessed to the benefited properties. The amount ofthe assessment for the overlay is $850.68/residence. The assessment amount for the sanitary sewer slip lining is $641.16/residence. Three objections were received from Russ and Pam Christenson, 516 3rd Street; James Meyers, 1005 3rd Street; and Michael Bischel, 1010 3rd Street. The corner lots that were assessed for Walnut Street were exempt from this assessment. The corner lots along Maple, Beech and Hickory Streets, were exempt from the overlay portion, but are assessed for the slip lining portion as their sewer service connects from 3rd Street. These corner lots would be assessed for the overlay when Maple, Beech, and Hickory are reconstructed. Mr. Russ Christenson, 516 3rd Street, attended the neighborhood meeting regarding this project. He stated Assistant City Engineer Gross was under the impression Mr. Christenson would not be assessed. Mr. Christenson stated he did not live in the home at the time Walnut Street was assessed. Mr. Mike Bischel, 1010 3rd Street, felt the apartment building at 1020 3rd Street was being assessed for 2 lots. There is not enough off street parking and those residents are using the street all the time for parking. Mr. Bischel felt the Council Minutes (Regular) August 19,2002 Page 3 apartment should not be assessed the same as other residents. He spoke with the contractors performing the work and Mr. Bischel stated the contractors were not aware of the cement road underneath. City Engineer Mann stated there was a crown in the road and that was fixed by the contractor. The assessment amount for the apartment building is based on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot. Mr. David McAdams, 1006 3rd Street, stated the residents have a week and a half to come up with $1500. Mayor Ristow stated residents have 30 days from today to pay the amount before it is certified to their taxes. Mr. McAdams stated it is still a hardship with the interest. He then asked when Hickory and Beech Streets are done, he has a driveway that attaches to the alley that attaches to Hickory Street, will he be double assessed? City Engineer Mann stated the City will utilize the assessment policy that is in effect at that time. Councilmember Soderberg stated 516 3rd Street appears to be the only property double assessed. In 1989, the assessment for the Walnut Street project was reduced for this property. Mr. Bischel, 1010 3rd Street, removed his objection to the assessment. Mr. Meyers, 1005 3rd Street will be asking for a senior citizen deferral. Mr. Tim Dougherty, 517 Spruce Street, asked if the residents on the street pay for the whole street. Mayor Ristow stated the cost of the project is divided among each individual property because they benefit from the project. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R71-02 accepting the assessment roll for the 3rd Street Overlay and Sliplining Project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment - St. Michael's Place - Community Development Farmington Development is seeking to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Public/Semi-Public to Medium Density for the property south of Spruce Street between 4th and 5th Streets at 408 and 412 Spruce Street. The property was zoned from R-2 to R- T on May 6, 2002. The Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended to comply with the Zoning Map. MOTION by Cordes, second by Ristow adopting RESOLUTION R72-02 approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Public/Semi-Public to Medium Density Residential for the property south of Spruce Street between 4th and 5th Streets at 408 and 412 Spruce Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) August 19,2002 Page 4 b) Adopt Resolution - St. Michael's Place Preliminary and Final Plat - Community Development Farmington Development proposes to plat 12 lots on 1.4 acres located south of Spruce Street, west of 5th Street, north ofthe Alternative Learning Center, and east of 4th Street. On August 13,2002 the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit, variance to the off-street parking requirements, and variance to the maximum lot coverage. They recommended amending the Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval of the St. Michael's Place Preliminary and Final Plat. The townhomes are proposed to be constructed similar to the Oak Place townhomes. Three parking spaces are required within the common area. The Planning Commission approved a variance, allowing on- street parking. The density for a development within the R-l zoning district is 8.5 dwelling units/acre. The maximum allowable lot coverage is 35%. The proposed lot coverage is 38.43%. The Planning Commission approved a variance to the maximum lot coverage at the August 13, 2002 meeting. The landscape plan shows 16 boulevard trees. Staff has requested the developer place 2 additional trees in the boulevard. The developer proposed that 7 existing boulevard trees be relocated within the interior of the site. The City has stated this would not be allowed, as any boulevard trees removed would be relocated to other boulevards in the City. The construction of the proposed townhomes would require the demolition of the former St. Michael's Church. The demolition permit will be provided to the developer when certain information requested by the City has been received and approved. The proposed townhomes cannot be constructed unless or until the demolition permit has been released and the church has been demolished. Council then spoke with Mr. Colin Garvey, the developer. He stated he will install a side walk along 4th Street. The trees at the back ofthe lot need to be removed as they need to install a catch basin. The trees will be saved if possible, and new trees will be planted. Mr. Garvey proposed some amenity changes to the townhomes, such as shaker siding on the gable ends, adding dormers between the garages on the back of the roof, and gable pediments. These changes do not have to be shown on the plans submitted to the City. The developer will work with the Parks Department in the removal of the boulevard trees. Councilmember Soderberg then asked about the demolition permit. Community Development Director Carroll stated staff met with the developer regarding 8 issues still pending regarding the demolition permit. Three issues were completely resolved, three issues are under investigation, Mr. Garvey did not agree with the requirements of two issues. Staffis not requiring anything above what the ordinance states. One of the requirements concerns the type of safety fence to be installed around the demolition area. Staff required an 8 foot chain link fence. Mr. Garvey felt a 4 foot plastic fence would be enough protection for the public. Mayor Ristow stated an 8 foot chain link fence was obnoxious. Staff Council Minutes (Regular) August 19,2002 Page 5 required this due to the size of the building (church) to be demolished, and the piles of brick that would be attractive to children. Councilmember Cordes also felt an 8 foot chain link fence was excessive. Mr. Garvey stated the 4 foot fence meets OSHA requirements. The total demolition should be completed within two weeks. Trucks will remove the brick from the alley onto 5th Street. Rud Construction will be performing the demolition. The developer, as the owner of the property, would be liable for any injuries on the site. The developer stated the contractor would have the site under 24-hour surveillance. City Engineer Mann stated the 4 foot fence has been used in construction projects. He has seen a chain link fence used in other demolition projects in case any walls are left standing. If Mr. Garvey is committed to have people on-site after hours if necessary, that would help the situation. Any asbestos would be removed before demolition begins. Ms. Rene Auge, 409 Spruce Street, is concerned with the children in the area and the height of the fence. The children will be walking to school and it would be tempting for them to climb on the piles of brick. She feels is it not too much to ask for a chain link fence. She is also concerned about the removal of asbestos, and the weight of the trucks on the street. Ms. Auge does not agree with the variance to the 35% lot coverage, and feels the buildings do not blend into the surrounding area. There is no reason the homes cannot reflect the seniors living in them. Mr. Tim Dougherty, 517 Spruce Street, is concerned with the fence. It is at least a 4-story building. A 4foot plastic fence does not seem reasonable. He then asked about the development of Park Place. He understood the City had adopted some requirements with the developer of Park Place and what would be viewed as a likeness of downtown Farmington with porches and off-set garages. Mayor Ristow stated it was the developer's choice to do that type of design. Councilmember Cordes stated it was the developer's concept and supported by the City, but it was not a requirement ofthe City. Mr. Dougherty then asked Council to explain the City goals adopted by the Council, which discuss preserving the heritage and history of Farmington. Mayor Ristow stated his intent was the downtown area. There was not a clear direction of how far this would branch out. Mr. Dougherty asked if the HPC is out of their jurisdiction by making recommendations in the area ofthe development. The HPC was created by the Council to give recommendations to Council as to whether something will maintain the historic value and the value of the neighborhood. Mayor Ristow stated the intent of the HPC is to give Council recommendations as any other commission. Council can take the recommendation or not. Mr. Dougherty stated he would like to see City goals followed. When Council recommends that there be an HPC committee, follow their direction. Mayor Ristow stated the Planning Commission received the recommendation from the HPC. Mr. Dougherty stated the direction was the HPC did not approve the design of the townhomes. Many residents have given their input. He did not realize calling individual members of the Planning Commission and Council was the process residents should follow to Council Minutes (Regular) August 19,2002 Page 6 express how they feel about a project. The forum for that process should be at the Planning Commission and Council meetings. Mayor Ristow stated the Planning Commission held the Public Hearing, and Council could review those comments. Mr. Dougherty stated he knows one of the developers of Park Place and they were clear as to the requirement of the City to mirror the downtown look. Mayor Ristow stated the developer brought the plan in to help sell the project. It was not a requirement to mirror the downtown. Mr. Dougherty stated he still believes Park Place was mirrored after the downtown. Why not apply standards used in Park Place in old downtown. Council is approving a plan that surrounding residents do not approve. Mayor Ristow stated he has received many phone calls supporting the project. Mr. Dougherty stated the Council meetings are the forum for residents to speak, not calling Council members at home. Ms. Ann Jensen, 708 3rd Street, stated the Council is elected, the Planning Commission is not. Ultimately the decision lies with the people who are answerable to the voters. The voters are entitled to a public hearing. At the Planning Commission meeting, residents were told it was up to Council as to whether the church should be saved, and would not be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. She also felt it would be rude to call Council members at home and thought the Council meeting would be the appropriate place for residents to express their views. Mayor Ristow stated residents have the right to contact Council members at home. Attorney Poehler stated Planning Commission decisions can be appealed to the Council. It is not unusual for the Planning Commission to hold the public hearing. Council has the opportunity to attend the meetings and review the transcripts. Councilmember Soderberg asked regarding the fa~ade changes, if the developer changes his mind, is there anything to hold him to that. Attorney Poehler replied no, and it would not be appropriate to make it a contingency. Councilmember Soderberg stated Mr. Garvey is willing to make some changes to the fa~ade and Mr. Garvey is a property owner and has a right to do with his property what he wants, as long as it complies with the law. Although absent from the meeting, Councilmember Strachan had submitted a statement on this project, stating he would recommend Council direct staff to research how to amend the approval process in historic areas to involve the HPC earlier in the process. Councilmember Verch stated he would recommend a 6 foot chain link fence to protect the children walking to school. Mayor Ristow stated he would agree, as long as it would be consistent with other projects. Mr. Garvey stated there will be supervisors and workers present to watch for children. Councilmember Verch was concerned about older children at night. Mr. Garvey stated the contractor is experienced, and ifhe starts demolition in the morning, it would be down by evening. City Engineer Mann stated if Mr. Garvey is committed to having the building down in 1-2 hours with no walls left standing, and 24-hour supervision, a Council Minutes (Regular) August 19,2002 Page 7 plastic fence would be appropriate. He would feel more comfortable with a chain link fence. Councilmember Cordes suggested staff work with developers as to what is appropriate for each project. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R73-02 approving the St. Michael's Place Preliminary and Final Plat contingent on: 1. Submission of a Landscape Plan indicating 2 additional trees within the boulevard. 2. The Final Plat approval is contingent on the preparation and execution of the Development Contract and approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) July 2002 Financial Report - Finance The financial report as of July 31, 2002 was presented to Council. Regarding revenues, building permits and license fees exceeded budget. Through the end of July, the City is at approximately 53.67% of expenditures, which is under the estimate. d) Adopt Resolution - Hillside Addition Development Contract - Engineering The Final Plat for Giles Hillside Addition was approved by the Council on July 1, 2002. The conditions for approval of the development contract are: I. The developer enter into the agreement. 2. The developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of the agreement. 3. The developer record the plat with the County Recorder within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch, adopting RESOLUTION R74-02 approving the execution of the Giles Hillside Addition Development Contract and authorize it signing contingent upon the above conditions and approval by the Engineering Division. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Adopt Resolution - Meadow Creek 2nd Addition Development Contract - Engineering The final plat for Meadow Creek 2nd Addition was approved by the Council on May 20,2002. The conditions for approval of the development contract are: I. The developer enter into this Agreement. 2. The developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of the agreement. 3. The developer record the plat with the County Recorder within 6 months after Council approval of the final plat. Council Minutes (Regular) August 19,2002 Page 8 Mr. Jason Schultz, 18th Street, stated they will be moving to Meadow Creek, and asked if the developer is free to continue work on the roads. Mayor Ristow replied the developer needs to meet the contingencies. City Engineer Mann stated the developer also has to finalize the engineering plans and receive approval. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R75-02 approving the execution of Meadow Creek 2nd Addition Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and approval by the Engineering Division. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. t) Schedule Joint Planning Commission Council Workshop - Project NEMO- Engineering The Minnesota Erosion Control Association has requested the opportunity to present Project NEMO to the City Council and Planning Commission. The purpose ofthe program is to raise the awareness of City officials to the issues related to storm water runoff pollution. Council agreed to meet on September 18, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE City Administrator Shukle: An Open House will be held on September 14 for the new Police and Maintenance Facilities. He invited the Mayor and Council to speak at the event. Tours will be available and staff is working on a video tape of the facilities. The public is also invited. Finance Director Roland: Council will be receiving the preliminary 2003 budget document to review prior to the September 3 Council meeting. The levy must be adopted by September 15. The levy can be adjusted down, but cannot be increased. A budget workshop will be held in early to mid-October. Mayor Ristow: Regarding public hearings, he asked for suggestions from staff as to getting the process clear. Community Development Director Carroll suggested staff can clarify the situation at the Planning Commission meeting, informing residents at that time, that Council is not obligated to take testimony at the Council meeting. It may be a duplication to also have a public hearing at the Council meeting. Residents feel they have the right to give their comments to the Council as Council makes the final decision. Mayor Ristow feels the Planning Commission does a good job with public hearings. Councilmember Soderberg stated there were some good comments tonight from residents regarding the forum for bringing comments to Council. The protocol has been for the Planning Commission to handle the public hearings, but what forum does the public have to address Council? Mayor Ristow stated Council does offer residents the opportunity to Council Minutes (Regular) August 19,2002 Page 9 state any new comments. Councilmember Soderberg stated Councilmember Strachan's suggestion about the HPC involvement earlier in the process is good and bears some review by staff. Mayor Ristow stated we all need to be on the same page. He thought it was to preserve the buildings in the downtown area. It is not clear the HPC would branch out into other areas. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the HPC is supposed to be an advisory commission to Councilor the Planning Commission? Mayor Ristow replied probably Council, but they advised the Planning Commission and set up an additional meeting with them. Councilmember Soderberg stated in this process the HPC was advising the Planning Commission. He suggested staff devise some recommendations on defining the process so the HPC and Council is clear with their role. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 9:40. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, <:~1/LC'z- ;~"/,.~&./' y Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant