Loading...
05-03-1982 CC MIN REGULAR SEMI~MONTHLY MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY MAY 3. 1982 Members Present: Mayor Hinkle. Councilmembers Schuldt, Engstrom,. Toth and Duitsman Members Absent: None 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Hinkle. 2 . Agenda COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 3. 1982. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 3. Minutes COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 19, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILMAN TOTH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 4. Open Mike A. Mr. Doug Reisewitz asked the City Council to discuss the timing of the traffic signals at Jackson Street when a train is passing through with the State High- way Department. Mr. Reisewitz explained that Highway tllO gets the blinking red light, while Jackson has a steady red light and when a train has passed through, Highway #10 gets to proceed with a green light and the cars lined up on Jackson Street still have to wait. It was Mr. Reisewitz' suggesting that Jackson get the green light first. It was the general consensus of the City Council that the City Administrator would discuss the timing of the signals with the State Highway Department. B. Mr. Gene Calhoun requested that the City Council authorize striping of the one- way street in front of the post office for a left turn lane. It was the general consensus of the City Council to authorize the Street Depart- ment to stripe the one-way street for a left turn lane. 5. Assessment of Existing Industrial and Commercial User Sewer Hookup Charges The City Administrator indicated that the Elk River Associated Investors and specific businesses within the Industrial Park have contacted the City regarding their con- cerns about the hookup charges required for the sanitary sewer system. The City Ad- ministrator further indicated that the businesses' concern regarding the hookup charges is the necessity of paying the hookup charge out of current operating capital and cash flow. The City Administrator indicated that the various businesses have in- dicated a preference of 20 percent down at the time of hookup and 20 percent paid on the hookup charges each year for the next four years. In other words, they are re- questing that their hookup fee be spread over a five year period; the same as the City's policy for existing residential units. The City Administrator further indica- ted that the negative impact for a policy such as proposed by the Investors and busi- nesses would be that the cash flow for the hookup charges would be delayed; but further indicated that a positive impact would be that the City may realize more hookups sooner City Council Minutes May 3, 1982 Page Two and therefore, a higher efficiency of operation of the sewer system. Mayor Hinkle indicated that the City Council has received various letters regarding the concerns of the Elk River Associated Investors and specific businesses within the Industrial Park, and further indicated that new homes and busLnesses can allow for the-hookup charges in their building costs but existing homes and businesses have not allowed for the hookup charges, and therefore, it has to come out of their current operating capital and cash flow. Councilman Duitsman asked Mr. Dick Gongel, representative of the Elk River Associated Investors, if the group would possibly consider 25 percent down and the balance in a four year period. Mr. Gongel indi.cated that the Associated Investors and specific businesses involved wanted to pay 20 percent down at the time of hookup and 20 per-. cent within the first year and 20 percent thereafter for the next four years. General discussion was carried on regarding the timing that the hookups were made and the certifying of the balance to be paid in annual installments to the County. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED TO AUTHO~IZE THE ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SEWER HOOKUP FEES FOR THE SANITARY SEWER INTERGEPTO~.TO.BE.PAID 20 PERCENT AT THE TIME OF HOOKUP AND 20 PERCENT EACH YEAR THEREAFTER, NOT TO EXCEED A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS. COUNCILMAN TOTH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 6. Adoption of the 1982 Code of Ordinances, Ordinance 82-2, Public Hearing Mayor Hinkle indicated that the procedure the City Council would follow regarding the public hearing for the adoption of the City Code would be as follows: The City Attorney, Dave Sellergren, would explain the purpose of a City Code, then the City Administrator would express a few points regarding the City Code and then the meeting would be open to the public to discuss the firearms section of the Code first, follow- ing with a discussion of each section as the public felt necessary. Mr. Dave Sellergren, City Attorney, indicated that the purpose of a City Code is to basically have all ordinances kept in one place. Mr. Sellergren further explained that as the City grows and new ordinances are adopted, they will be added to the Code book for reference. Mr. Sellergren further indicated that a City Code keeps all ordinances in order and eliminates confusion. The City Administrator indicated that the City Council has spent almost two years in the process of drafting and redrafting the City Code for the City of Elk River. The City Administrator further indicated that prior to the adoption of the Code, the City was using ordinances from the Township and from theCit~ and the new City . Code is a revision and organization of those passed ordinances. The City Administrator further indicated that the City Council has reviewed every section of the ordinance, has spent a lot of time working on the new City Code, and further indicated that he felt the City Council should be proud of their accomplishment. Mayor Hinkle opened the Public Hearing to the public. Mr. Dave Sellergren, the City Attorney, reviewed the Section 404 - Firearms - for the public. City Council Minutes May 3, 1982 Page Three Mayor Hinkle indicated that the St. Louis Park Gun Club does hold shooting tournaments for young people under the age of 14 and the Code as written, would not allow these tournaments without the accompaniment of a parent or guardian. The City Attorney indicated that the Code could be rewritten to allow for young Jpeolpe under the age of fourteen to participate in shooting tournaments under the Club's permit. Mr. Sid Sanford, President of the United Sportsmen of Minnesota, and director of the National Rifle Association, was present to express his concerns of the firearms section of the City Code regarding the participation of young people under the age of fourteen in matches and tournaments at the Gun Club. Mr. Sanford indicated that these children are in organizations allover the State of Minnesota and they partici- pate in tournaments through their organization without the accompaniment of their parents or a guardian. Mr. Sanford indicated that there were State regulations re- garding shooting ranges and further indicated that shooting ranges must meet specific standards and have qualified instructors. Mr. Sanford indicated that the St. Louis Park Gun Club is very active in the youth programs as well as in law enforcement, and further suggested that the City Council take more time to review the firearms section of the City Code and revise the language for that section. Councilman Schuldt questioned the kinds of permission that the organized groups obtain from parents for the young people to participate in these tournaments at the St. Louis Park Gun Club. Mr. Sid Sanford indicated that the permission is granted to children to participate on the local level and that the clubs are then responsible for the children at the tournaments or matches. Mr. Sanford further indicated that the clubs carry public liability insurance. Mr. Jerry'Palmer indicated his concern of the revision of the language in the City Code to allow for the young people to receive training at the Gun Club. Mr. TomZerwas, Police Chief, indicated that this specific language in the ordinance was to eliminate young children from hunting with- out the accompaniment of:;:a('parent or.guardian. Mr. Gene Calhoun indicated that the State law covered much the same as the City Code. The City Administrator indicated that the State law does not address the zones which would be allowable or not allowable within the City of Elk River. Mr. Dave Sellergren indicated that there is some overlap between the City Code and the State law. Coun- cilman Engstrom indicated that State law does not address the problem of people hunt- ing on specific property which the City Code would do through the section as to where it is allowable in what zones of the City. Mr. Joe Roote, President of the St. Louis Park Gun Club, requested that the City re- view the firearms section regarding the language of young people under 14 requiring the accompaniment of parents or guardians. Mr. Roote further indicated that the Club provides services for the youth, for the military, the Department of Natural Resources, for the F.B.I., the Sheriff's Department and the Police Department, and further in- dicated that it has operated under safety regulations required by law. The City Ad- ministrator indicated that the requirement of a permit for the gun club would be simp-. ly to allow the Club to operate as they currently are. Various citizens expressed their opposition to the ordinance regarding the allowing of hunting in certain areas of the City of Elk River. General discussion was carried City Council Minutes May 3, 1982 Page Four on regarding areas allowable for hunting, types of firearms that can be used, and the section of the Code regarding concealment. Questions were also raised regarding the prohibiting of hunting in R-lzones where there was a lot of open space still available. Discussion was carried on regarding the size of firearms allowed to be used within the City of Elk River. Mr. Ron Langbehn expressed his opposition to the City Code regarding the regula- tion of hunting in R-l zones. The City Administrator indicated that the area Mr. Langbehn was concerned with is under consideration for a zone change from R-l to A-I zoning which would allow for hunting in that area. Mr. Dave Gouldin questioned the number of problems the City Police Department has received regarding the shooting of firearms within the City of Elk River. The Police Chief, Tom Zerwas, iridicatedthat thirty~seven incidents on 221st had been reported as well as many calls on Lake Orono, regarding the shooting of firearms. Mr. Dale Specht questioned the possibility of hunting on land zoned R-l where there was still unplatted areas. Councilman Duitsman indicated that it was possible that hunting would be allowed in unplatted R-l areas. Mr. Gene Thompson indicated that he felt the ordinance was unfair to the sportsmen and further indicated that he felt the definition of deadly weapons was unfair, as even a car could be a deadly weapon. Mr. Thompson further indicated that State Statute addresses the firearms regulations and further indicated that he could not understand why the City must also have a firearms code. Mr. Thompson indicated that he was against laws that are unnecessary and further indicated that he felt the laws that are current should be enforced. Mr. Don Driessen questioned the penalty for breaking the law of the Ordinance. Mr. Sellergren indicated that a violation is considered a misdemeanor. Mr. Ben Kratzke indicated that he felt the City Council should take Mr. Sid Sanford's advice and review the language of the proposed firearms section of the City Code. COUNCILMAN TOTH MOVED TO DELETE SECTION 404 OF THE CITY CODE FOR FURTUER CONSIDERATION AND TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT A LATER DATE. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. Mayor Hinkle suggested that a committee of citizens and the City Council sit down to review the firearms section of the Code and redraft new language for that section. Mayor Hinkle appointed a representative of the St. Louis Park Gun Club, Mr. Don Karst - a representative of the A-I zone, Mr. Ron Langbehn - representative of an R-I zone, Mr. Steve Zimmerman - a representative of the R-lazotie.::Mr.'DaveSellergl;'en - City Attorney ,Mr. Sid Sanford." representative of the:'lirili:.tedSportsmen of Minneso- ta, and the.CityColitlcil,to form a committee to discuss and draft language for the firearms section of the City Code. The Dog section of the Code was discussed, specifically, the kennel license section. Mr. Chuck Thompson questioned the requirement of obtaining a building permit for construction of $1,000 or less. Mr. Sellergren indcated that the City has adopted the State Building Code which further adopted the Uniform Building Code, which does City Council Minutes May 3, 1982 Page Five not specify dollar limits, and the City does not have authority to put a dollar limit on the Building Code ordinance. The City Administrator indicated that the City is considering the waiving of the fee for construction of $1,000 or less. The City Administrator further indicated that the purpose of the permit is for the protection of health, life and safety factors. Mr. Dave Sellergren indicated that in 1974, legislation was adopted requiring the adoption of the Uniform Building Code by cities. Section 706.08 - Public Dance, was discussed as well as Section 500.06 regarding abandoned motor vehicles and a discussion of public nuisances was also carried on. Fire Chief, Russ Anderson, proposed some changes in the language of the fire code section of the City Code. Mr. Anderson indicated that the fire chief be allowed to have more than one assistant chief, that the fire department have the authority to select the fire marshal and that fire fighters could be removed by the City Council with recommendation from the fire department. Mr. Dave Sellergren indicated that the City Council should and must appoint the fire marshal as it is a statutory function of the fire department, and further indicated that the appointment of the fire marshal could be based ona recommendation from the fire department. Mr. Russ Anderson requested that Section 600.02 be changed to not allow the issuance of burning permits in the Old City. Section 600.01 should be changed to include language prohibiting the issuance of burning permits in platted areas of the rural district where the lots average 1 acre or less in size. It was the general consensus of the City Council to change the fire department section of the City Code as discussed. COUNCILMAN DUTISMAN MOVED TO DELETE SECTION 406 OF THE CITY CODE UNTIL THE FIRE CODE WAS ADOPTED. COUNCILMAN TOTH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. Mr. Dale Specht asked why the City Council was discriminating against pigs in Section 900.12. It was the general consensus of the City Council to scratch "excluding pigs" from Section 900.12 of the City Code. Mayor Hinkle closed the public hearing. The City Administrator-:re:viewed the corrections to the City Code as follows: Section 404 - Firearms - Deleted The appointment of officers by the; City Council"~'Secti.on 206, was deleted Burning Permits to be Prohibited in the old section of the City of Elk River and in platted areas of 1 acre in size or less in Rural R-1 zones Section 406 - Deleted Section 900.02 .,.. Delete '''exclusion of pigs" COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED TO INCLUDE SECTION 900.08 IN THE CITY CODE. COUNCILMAN TOTH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. City Council Minutes May 3, 1982 Page Six COUNCILMAN TOTH MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 82-2, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1982 CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER AS AMENDED. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. 7. Minnesota Department of Transportation Letter Regarding Priority Projects in the City of Elk River The City Administrator indicated that he had met with the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding a variety of state highway road projects to be accomplished within the City of Elk River; specifically, the question of signals at the intersection of Highway #10 and Main Street, and Highway #169 and Main Street. The City Administra- tor further indicated that the Minnesota Department of Transportation had requested the City Council to provide a priority list of the projects and in addition, the City Council should indicate whether or not the City would be willing to become involved in the cost sharing for the particular project. The City Administrator indicated that if the intersection of Highway #169 and Main Street would be a prior- ity, the cost share would be approximately 50-50, and further indicated that if fed- eral funds were involved, the contribution would be approximately 75 to 90 percent from the federal government, and the remaining amount would be split between the State and City. The City Administrator indicated that if the City would express their willingness to become involved in the cost-sharing, the project would have a better chance of being accomplished. Councilman Duitsman questioned the cost of signaling a specific intersection; for example, the Highway #169 and Main Street intersection. The City Administrator indicated that signaling of an intersection costs approximately $100,000, and further indicated that the City's share could come from state aid monies as Main Street is on the state aid system. Councilman Duitsman questioned the importance of the City indicating that they would share in the costs as he felt signaling that intersection should be a high priority for the state as well. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED TO DESIGNATE THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND HIGHWAY #169 ASA FIRST PRIORITY, THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND HIGHWAY #10 AS THE SECOND PRIORITY AND THAT THE CITY WOULD BE WILLING TO BECOME INVOLVED IN A COST- SHARING FOR THE PROJECT. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 8. Peterson Addition Assessment Cost- Method of Assessment and Area of Assessment The City Administrator indicated that the City Council should consider the costs that are legally assessable in the Peterson Addition and the amount the City will pay for the railroad improvement. The City Administrator further indicated that the City Council should also consider the method of assessing those costs and set a date for a public hearing for the reassessment of those costs. The City Administrator indicated that this procedure was consistent with the time table the City Council adopted at a previous City Council meeting. The City Administrator indicated that the legally assessable costs for the Peterson Addition totalled $136,765.17, and the non-assessable costs total $64,066.39, which were costs associated with the construc- tion of the rail crossing signals and safety arms. The City Administrator further in- dicated that the majority of the assessable costs is attributable to the constr~ction of roads in the Peterson Addition and was originally assessed to the Peterson Addition City Council Minutes May 3, 1982 Page Seven residents and that the balance of $7,143.25 for costs associated with crossing the railroad tracks must be reviewed by the City Council and reassessed. The City Administrator reviewed three suggested options for reassessment as proposed to the City Council in his memo, dated April 29, 1982. Councilman Duitsman indicated that he felt Option 1, assessing the cost entirely to the Peterson Addition residents, was the option he was in favor of because the residents in the Peterson Addition were the ones that specifically wanted the railroad crossing. Councilman Schuldt questioned Options 2 and 3, regarding which areas were zoned resident:b:il and what areas were designated as green acres. Councilman Toth indicated that he agreed with Councilman Duitsman in the choosing of Option I, as the residents of the Peterson Addition were the people that requested the railroad crossing. Councilman Engstrom indicated that he felt the people in the Peterson Addition should pay the cost, as a majority of those residents wanted the railroad crossing. Councilman Schuldt indicated that he felt the other unplatted areas should also be considered in the sharing of the cost of the railroad crossing and therefore, was in favor of Option 3. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE ASSESSING OF THE $7,143.25 COST ASSOCIATED WITH CROSSING THE RAILROAD TRACKS TO THE PETERSON ADDITION RESIDENTS AS THE AREA OF BENEFIT. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-1. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT OPPOSED. The City Administrator questioned the method of assessment on either a unit cost or an acreage cost. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED TO USE A UNIT COST METHOD OF ASSESSMENT OF THE COSTS AS- SOCIATED WITH CROSSING THE RAILROAD TRACMS. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4~O. COUNCILMAN. TOTH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 82--7, A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE. AMOUNTS TO BE ASSESSED.AGAINST BENEFITING PROPERTIES IN THE PETERSON ADDITION .AND THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 9. Administrator's Update A. Barthel PUD and Tour of Related Facilities The City Administrator indicated that the Barthel developers presented their first documents of a site plan, preliminary plat, and building plans showing a 110,000 square foot shopping center to the Planning Commission at their last meet- ing. The City Administrator further indicated that the Barthel group indicated that the additional space from the previously proposed 80,000 square foot build- ing is additional space for smaller shops. The City Administrator further ~ City Council Minutes May 3, 1982 Page Eight indicated that questions were raised as to the necessity of the proposed 110,000 square foot shopping center and further indicated that the Barthel development group has been requested to show the need for that size shopping center. The City Administrator indicated that questions were raised regarding the possibility of vacant excess space in the new proposed shopping center or will the downtown area be left vacant. The City Administrator further indicated that these questions must be answered before the Planning Commission can approve the project. Mayor Hinkle indicated that those questions were not out of order, as the Barthel development group is looking for some kind of financial support by means of tax increment financing or industrial revenue bonds. Mr. Gary Santwire indicated that the original concept of an 80,000 square foot building was approved but the size has rapidly grown and further indicated that he felt that this was a very crit.ical issue in the progress of the approval of the planned unit development. Mr. Santwire further indicated that the size of the shopping center will have a definite impact on the downtown area and further indicated that he opposed the possibility of tax increment financing. Councilman Duitsman asked Mr. Santwire if he was opposed to tax increment financ- ing for public improvements, and further indicated that it was his feeling that the City should help developers in the City of Elk River. Mr. Santwire indicated that if the planned unit development would proceed with their original plan of a 50,000 to 80,000 square foot shopping center which would allow for the downtown to grow as well. The public improvement of the street would be necessary, linking the two areas, but if the planned unit development is allowed to have a 110,000 square foot building, there would not be a need for the downtown and a street to link the two areas. The City Administrator indicated that he had met with the City's attorney, Mr. Dave Sellergren and the City Planner, Mr. Zack Johnson, regarding the proposal by the Barthel development group and further indicated that it was their feeling that the Barthel people must provide the information to. the City Council before a decision can be made. The City Administrator further indicated that the City Council must keep the issues of finance and land use separate as they are two definite different issues. The City Administrator further indicated that the Barthel development group have been asked to do a market study as to the needs of the community. Mr. Gary Santwire indicated that he would be asking for site plan approval of a 50,000 square foot building in his planned unit development at the next Planning Commission meeting and he would then make a request to the City Council for industrial revenue bonds. Councilman Duitsman indicated that he felt that it was necessary to keep the downtown area but that there is also a need to expand in the City of Elk River. The City Administrator indicated that the Barthel planned unit development project would not be ready for a specially scheduled Planning Commission meeting, but there may be other items to be conSidered at a special meeting. The City Admin- istrator further indicated that the Barthel group have proposed a tour of other City Council Minutes May 3, 1982 Page Nine approximate size buildings to the Planning Commission and the City Council. B. Storm Sewer Drainage Study The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Terry Mauer of Consulting Engineers Diversified was present to discuss a plan of the concept of the storm sewer drainage area proposed along with the School Street project. General discussion was carried on regarding the location .of the ponds, elevations, culverts, ditches, and piping. The City Administrator further indicated that Consulting Engineers Diversified is asking for the Council's approval and authorization to pr,oceed with plans and specifications . Councilmc;m Duitsman il1dicated that the concept plan was the basic thought of what wllsneeded for that area. The City Admin- istrator indicated that Consulting Engineers Diversified would present plans and specifications to the City Council at their next meeting for the School Street project. Councilman Toth asked that plans forsidewalkg on Irving also be included. Mr. Terry Mauer of Consulting Engineers Diversifed indicated that a preliminary survey of the Irving Street sidewalk area showed that there were many obstacles including trees, fences and so forth on the right-of-way. The City Administrator indicated that it has been proposed that current sidewalks in the City be repaired prior to. the construction of a sidewalk on Irving Avenue. Councilman Toth indicated that he wanted Consulting Engineers to proceed with the sidewalk project as children need a safe place to walk along Irving Avenue to the school. 10. Check Register COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 3, 1982 CHECK REGISTER. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 11. Tentative Agenda Plans and Specifications for School Street Project is tentatively scheduled for the May 17th City Council meeting. There being no further business, COUNCILMAN TOTH MOVED THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. Respectfully submitted, ~l!!::e~h:!:J~ Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer PB:dkk