Loading...
12-07-1987 CCMr7 C,�.Lc) c f Vl'-) / i-) U f- ,S . 7--V MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1987 Members Present: Mayor Gunkel, Councilmembers Schuldt, Tralle, Holmgren and Dobel Members Absent: None Staff Present: Pat Klaers, City Administrator; Terry Maurer, City Engineer; Darrell Mack, Sewer Superintendent; and Dave Sellergren, City Attorney 1. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gunkel. 2. 12/7/87 Council Agenda Items 8.3 to 8.8 - City Administrator were added to the 12/7/87 City Council Agenda. WINCILM ER DOBEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE 12/7/87 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS AMENDED. COUNCILMMOER TRALLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5- 0. 3.1. 11/16/87 City Council Minutes Page 6, item 6.1. 2nd paragraph - the year 1985 should be replaced with "1981". COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE 11/16/87 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3.2. 11/23/87 City Council Minutes Page 4, Item 9 - Motion Carried 4-0 should be changed to 115-011. COUNCILMEEMBER DOBEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE 11/23/87 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3.3. 11/30/87 City Council Minutes Page 3, first paragraph building permit should be replaced with "sign" permit. COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE 11/30/87 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 4. Open Mike No one appeared for this item. Page 2 City Council Minutes December 7, 1987 5. A& n Street Improvement Prdject/Public Hearing Mayor Gunkel explained that tonight's meeting was a continuation of the public hearing opened on November 2, 1987. Mayor Gunkel noted that the project will be explained by the City Engineer and further that the purpose of the continued public hearing was for the purpose of receiving comments from the people affected by the sanitary sewer service district portion of the project and also for the beautification of the downtown area. Terry Maurer, City Engineer, distributed a 11/2/87 Main Street report to the public and explained the project in detail at this time. 5.1. Sanitary Sewer The City Engineer explained the sanitary sewer portion of the project. He indicated that the trunk line along the river bank is in very poor condition and if a break in the line were to occur, it would be impossible to access parts of the line to repair it. He indicated that this line is currently being used as a trunk line. The City is proposing to construct a new trunk line, thereby using the old line as a lateral line. Most of the residents using the river bank trunk line at the present time will abandon that line to use the newly constructed trunk line. Mr. Maurer explained that some people will continue to use the old line but that eliminating the majority of the users will hopefully lengthen the life of the line. Mr. Maurer explained that the City is proposing to assess the residents using the new Main Street trunk line on an area basis. Mayor Gunkel opened the public hearing. Chuck Brady - 1522 Main Street Indicated his opposition to being assessed on an area basis. Don Schumacher - 212 Norfolk Indicated he would be using the old trunk line and questioned how the City proposed to assess these people if this line were to break which would force them to hook up to the new line. Rodney Anderson - 1011 Manor Place Same concern as Don Schumacher. Harry Kreuser - 1910 6th Lane Indicated he has just been assessed for sewer and water and does not feel it is fair that he is being assessed again for the use of the new trunk line. Ms. Wells - 1908 8th Street Indicated she was not hooked up to City sewer and questioned why she would be assessed for the use of the new line. Page 3 City Council Minutes December 7, 1987 Barb Ernest - Paradise Park Questioned how the improvement would serve Paradise Park. Stated her opposition to the assessment and felt the City should look at the property owners and how the assessments are affecting land values. Rd N t7.PIP Questioned what the City's position is for people who are stubbed in but not hooked up to sewer. Also questioned whether the sewer bill contained maintenance and expansion fees in the user charge. Dan Anderson - 209 Norfolk Questioned the actual condition of the old sewer line. Also questioned the boundary for the commercial district in regards to the downtown beautification. John McGibbon - 1437 Main Street Submitted a written statement to the Council stating opposition to the Main Street intersection. He also questioned whether there were some areas that were being assessed for the new line that would not be using the line. Ruby Benson - 571 Tipton Questioned if she would be included in the sewer assessment. Russ Olson - 1222 6th Street Questioned the size of the lot in relation to the assessment amount. Also questioned the sewer rates. Barbara Ernest - Paradise Park Indicated she felt assessment should be determined by front footage instead of acreage. Encouraged the City to examine property values before applying assessments to the property and expressed her opposition to the assessment. The City Engineer indicated that in order to not miss any residents that may benefit from this project, all residents within a geographical area were notified of this sanitary sewer trunk line public hearing. Because of this notification method, it is reasonable to believe that some people received a public hearing notice that will not be assessed for the project because of any number of reasons, some of which were heard tonight. All of the property owners that actually benefit from this project will be determined prior to the assessment hearing. 5.2. Central Business District After discussion ended on the sanitary sewer portion of the assessment, Terry Maurer explained the details to be discussed regarding the downtown beautification. STREET LIGHTING Terry Maurer indicated that if the downtown merchants choose to put in conventional lighting, the Elk River Utilities will pay for the full cost of the lighting and if they choose to go with decorative lighting, the • i Page 4 City Council Minutes December 7, 1987 -------------------- Elk River Utilities will pay up to $25,000 of the cost but will not install them. He further indicated that it is anticipated that the HRA will fund $10,000 of the beautification project, which could be used for lighting costs. Mr. Maurer explained that decorative lighting will cost approximately $60,000 leaving an assessable amount of $25.000 if decorative lighting is put in and -$0- if conventional lighting is installed. TREES Mr. Maurer explained that purchasing and installing 61 - 1 1/2 inch trees by the City Street crew will cost $18,300 and funding would come from the City Dutch Elm replacement fund. TREE GRATER Mr. Maurer explained that the tree grates would be of a plastic type and would be installed by City crews; but would be totally assessable and the cost is anticipated to be around $29,000. TRASH RECEPTACLES Mr. Maurer explained that no decision has been made regarding trash receptacles but they will be funded by assessments. TEXTURED SIDEWALKS Mr. Maurer explained that textured sidewalks would be an assessed amenity and that he has an estimated cost of $11,800. LIGHTING Discussion pursued regarding lighting of the downtown. Cliff Lundberg, Arden Krinke, and Dick Dorsey discussed lighting with the Council. Cliff Lundberg indicated his strong feeling towards decorative lighting in order to create a desirable atmosphere downtown and further stated he would like to see the lights wired for sound. Arden Krinke questioned conventional lighting as to the amount of light and the spacing of the lights. Dick Dorsey indicated his opposition to decorative lighting because of the added cost and because of the possibility of vandalism. Bob McCartney of Elk River Utilities explained that the difference between decorative lighting and conventional lighting is the amount of light. He stated that conventional lighting gives off 50% more light than decorative lighting. Discussion then purused regarding who would be responsible for the lights once they were installed in regards to replacing bulbs, globes and vandalism. Page 5 City Council Minutes December 7, 1987 --------------- Discussion was then held on the matter of trash receptacles. Arden Krinke questioned who would be maintaining the trash receptacles and who would replace them if they should be damaged or vandalized. After further discussion it was the consensus of the Council to allow for 12 trash receptacles at $500 each making an assessable amount of $6,000 for trash receptacles and using the remaining $5,500 for the installation and wiring of the lighting and radio system. COMMERCIAL BOUNDARY The Council discussed the commercial boundary for the downtown amenities. Mayor Gunkel indicated that the question was whether or not to include the commercial properties in the proposed assessment area west of Lowell for the Main Street Beautification portion of the project. Ron Black indicated that he was opposed to being assessed for Main Street Amenities because his business would not benefit from the amenities. Mr. Don Schumacher indicated his opposition to being assessed for the downtown amenities. He stated be represented Cretex and felt the commercial business he was representing was no different than a commercial business across Highway 10, and stated because the commercial businesses across from Cretex on Highway 10 are not being assessed, he did not feel Cretex should bear an assessment for the downtown amenities. Mr. Schumacher further indicated he would rather see conventional lighting than decorative lighting and is opposed to planting trees because of the maintenance to keep them alive. He indicated the maintenance will be done by the City crews which in turn is paid for by the taxpayers. Ron Black indicated that when the property west of Lowell was zone changed to commercial it was noted by the City Council that the area was not intended to be part of the downtowr commercial but was to act as a buffer zone between the commercial and residential property. No consensus was reached by the Council on whether or not to include the property west of Lowell in the Central Business District (CBD) assessments. PARKING LOT Terry Maurer discussed the parking lot in Jackson Square with the Council. He indicated that the proposal submitted from the Downtown Committee, which was originally done by the 1984 Beautification Committee would be approximately $24,965 for construction costs. This cost wcuid include benches, sidewalks, and flagpole. The second proposal submitted by Terry Maurer was for $37,000. This would include turning the entire area into parking, thereby increasing the parking in the downtown area. Page 6 City Council Minutes December 7, 1987 ----------------------- Arden Krinke questioned the Council as to their feelings on the Jackson Square area. Mayor Gunkel indicated she has expressed her opinion on this matter several times; her opinion being that the CBD area would be served better by using the area as a parking lot and to utilize the river bank as a park. Councilmember Tralle indicated be would like to leave the parking lot as it is now and not include it in the Main Street Project. He indicated he would rather see this area as a parking lot as opposed to a park. Councilmember Dobel stated he agreed with Councilmember Tralle in that he would rather see this area for parking only. Councilmember Schuldt stated he would like to see the Jackson Square area excluded from the Main Street Project and discuss the matter at a later date. Don Schumacher stated that the money spent on the area should be used to increase the parking area in the downtown area. Cliff Lundberg stated that the downtown people are trying to create a unique downtown atmosphere and the green space would add to this effect. He stated it should be considered a "town square" rather than a parking lot. Ron Black stated that this area is an eyesore at the present time. He felt the Council should consider what the true use of the particular piece of land should be. He encouraged the Council to look at downtown areas in other communities. He noted that some communities have very attractive park areas in the middle of the downtown area and along highways. After further discussion it was a Council consensus to allow the Jackson Square area to exist in the manner it currently is until a decision is made at a later date and to not incorporate this in the Main Street project. Keith Holme stated it would be a good idea to send out a poll to the business owners asking their opinion on the downtown area. He indicated that the park could possibly be included in the project at a later date as a change order. There being no other comments frond the public, Mayor Gunkel closed the public hearing. In conclusion, the City Engineer stated that the public hearings have been completed for the project except for the assessment hearings. The plans and specifications will be submitted to the State for review. Final plans will be submitted to the Council for approval within the next couple months at which time the City will advertise for bids for the project. COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 87-74, A RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION REQUESTING A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FOR PARKING ON MAIN STREET FROM MN/DOT. COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.