Loading...
08-23-1982 CC MIN -.., REGULAR SEMI-MONTHLY MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELP AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY :AUGUST 23, 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 Item 14-F, Equipment Certificates, was added to the August 23, 1982 City Council Agenda. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED TO IAPPROVE THE AUGUST 23, 1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS AMENDED. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 3. Minutes Mayor Hinkle asked for minute updates on the regularly scheduled City Council workshop sessions. COUNCILMAN TOTH MOVED TO.APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 9, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILMANSCHULDr SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 4. Open Mike No one appeared for this item. 5. Referendum for Acquisition of the Water Department Mayor Hinkle indicated that at a committee meeting on July 26, 1982, the question of the acquisition of the water department from the Municipal Utilities was dis- cussed and that it was the consensus of the City Council that the first opportunity at which a full City Council could be present, the matter should be placed on the City Council's agenda for a final determination by the Council. Mayor Hinkle indi- cated that it is the City Council's responsibility to approve of bonding for the City of Elk River, and also the future planning of the City. Mayor Hinkle indicated that at the present time, the City has staff people that can provide the inspection requirements necessary for the water d~partment and further indicated that many other cities have their water department and sewer department as a joint operation. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he felt the Utilities Commission has done a good job with the operation of the Elk Riv~r Utilities, but further indicated that he felt the Utilities Commission has not provided the future planning nec~ssary for the water department. Mayor Hinkle indicated that the City Council has prompted the current water study to be completed. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that he felt the opera- tion of the water department in conjunction with the sewer department could provide a smoother op~ration and at a lesser cost. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he felt the City Council should authorize the question regarding the jurisdiction of the water department to be placed on the general election ballot and therefore, let the voters make the decision. City Council Minutes August 23, 1982 Page Two ~ Councilman Schuldt indicated that he agreed with Mayor Hinkle's comments regarding the Elk River water department. Councilman Schuldt indicated that the Elk River Utilities Commission would have to get authorization from the City Council for any bonding or construction of additional water facilities and therefore, felt as it was the City Council's ultimate authority over the water department, the jursidiction of the water department should be transferred to the City Council. Councilman Schuldt indicated that the City is presently looking at major improvements for the water system in the City of Elk River and the City Council would be responsible for the decisions regarding those major improvements. Councilman Schuldt further indicated that the City maintenance department has equipment at this time that can be used for the maintenance of the water lines and facilities, and further indicated that it would just make good common sense for the water department to be under the City Coun- cil's jurisdiction. Councilman Duitsman indicated that he felt that the Elk River Utilities Commission's jurisdiction over the water department has worked well in the past and further in- dicated that he felt it was good to have a commission to review the operation of the water department. General discussion was carried on regarding the utility billing and how that billing process would be handled. The City Administrator indicated that the Elk River Utilities office currently does the billing for the water department, the sewer department and the electric department. The City Administrator further indicated that he felt there would be no need to add additional staff if the water department was transferred to the City Council's jurisdiction. The City Administra- tor indicated that the sewer rates are based upon water usage and that. it was recom- mended that the sewer department and water department be operated in conjunction with each other. Further discussion was carried on regarding the possibility of the users reading their own meters. Councilman Duitsman indicated that the Utilities Commission has reviewed that possibility of the users reading their own meters on an annual basis and further indicated that the Commission did not feel it was feasible due to cash flow problems. The City Administrator indicated that the City would have less cash flow problems than the Elk River Utilities would have. Councilman Engstrom indicated that he was in agreement with Mayor Hinkle and Council- man Schuldt regarding the operation of the water department under the jurisdiction of the City Council. Councilman Engstrom further indicated that it would be the City Council's responsibility should there be a water pressure problem in the City due to fire or some other cause. Councilman Engstrom further indicated that the City of Elk River has a good water treatment facility and that he felt the sewer department and water department should work as one unit, which would be better for the City of Elk River. Councilman Duitsman indicated that the three commissioners nOw review the operation of the water department: Councilman Toth questioned t'he possibility of personnel transfer. The City Administrator indicated that one person and possibly one office staff person may be transferred to the City of Elk River. City Council Minutes August 23, 1982 Page Three ~ Councilman Duitsman indicated that currently two people in the water department have water licenses. Councilman Engstrom indicated that he felt the jurisdiction of the water department under the City Council could eliminate duplication of in~ spections for both the water facilities and the sewer facilities. Councilman Toth indicated that he was not opposed to the referendum and further indicated that he did not feel the sewer department personnel should be approving inspections that they are not qualified to inspect. Councilman Schuldt indicated that he felt the citizens of the City of Elk River should have the opportunity to decide whether the jurisdiction of the water de- partment should be transferred from the Elk River Utilities Commission to the Elk River City Council. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he was in agreement with Councilman Schuldt. Mr. John Pearce commended the City Administrator on his memo dated March 30, 1982 to the Mayor and City Council regarding the issue of jurisdiction of the water depart- ment. Mr. Pearce indicated that the City Council is responsible for the bonding of any water projects the City Council might approve, but that the City Council does not determine the rates for the water department. Mr. John Pearce indicated that this could be a problem if not handled properly. Mr.. John Pearce indicated that he felt the City Council should exercise greater authority over the responsibility that they have. Mr. John Pearce discussed the jurisdiction of the electric utility under the Elk River Utilities Commission. Mr. Pearce indicated that the electric utility has the largest expenditures for the whole City of Elk River. Mr. Pearce indicated that he felt a system of commissioners is a good system but that the Elk River Utilities Commission runs autonomously as they do not report directly to the City Council. Mr. Pearce recommended that the City Council consider the referendum to include the jurisdiction of the electric utility, as well as the water utility to be transferred from the Elk River Utility Commission to the Elk River City Council, and that a commission directly responsible to the City Council be established for the setting of utility rates. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he felt the electric utility could still remain under tlie jurisdiction of the Utility Commission and further indicated that he felt it was good sense to have the water and sewer departments under the same operation. Councilman Duitsman indicated that it was his understanding that the newly scheduled four meetings a month were to meet with the various commissions and work towards solving the communication gap between the City Council and the various commissions. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THAT A QUESTION BE PLACED ON THE GENERAL ELEC- TIONBALLOT ON NOVEMBER 2, 1982, ASKING THE VOTERS IF JURISDICTION OVER THE WATER DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE. TRANSFERRED FROM.. THE UTILITIES COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-1. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN OPPOSED. 6. Swanson Conditional Use Permit Request ~ Public Hearing Mayor Hinkle indicated that Patti Swanson, 12651 Highway #10, has requested a con~ ditional use permit for the purpose of locating a home occupation to operate an City Council Minutes August 23, 1982 Page Four Electrolux sales office from her home. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that the Planning Commission unanimously approved the conditional use permit for a period of six months, inasmuch as Ms. Swanson requested the permit for a six month period, to see if the business would be successful. Mayor Hinkle opened the public hearing. Mr. Rick Breezee,Building.andZoning Administrator, indicated that he had received a letter from Ms. Patti Swanson's neighbor indicating that they were in favor of the approval of the conditional use request. General discussion was carried on regarding the number of nonresident employees that would be involved in the home occupation. Mr. Swanson indicated that there was a possibility of a maximum of ten people that might be attending a training session held on an average of once a week. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MS. PATTI SWANSON AT 12651 HIGHWAY #10 FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN ELECTROLUX SALES OFFICE OPERATION FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 7. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Section 900.18 of City Code Dealing with Accessory Building Setbacks The City Administrator indicated that when the City Code was recently adopted, language was included in the Code which dealt with accessory use setbacks, and further indicated that the intent of the language included in the Code was to have a larger than normal setback for agricultural uses and metal buildings in re- lation to residential areas. The City Administrator indicated that in reviewing the adopted language in the City Code, it was found that the intended affect was not what the language said in the Code. The City Administrator indicated that to correct the problem, an Ordinance amendment was prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission for their review, and further indicated that the Planning Com- mission at their August 2, 1982 meeting, unanimously approved the language changes. The City Administrator indicated that the City staff has discovered that there is an additional problem with the accessory use setback language which affects at least one platted area, specifically, Greenhead Acres 3rd Addition, and more than likely will affect several other additional areas. The City Administrator, indicated that the revised accessory use setback language makes it virtually impossible for agri~ cultural accessory structures to be constructed within any platted area of the City. The City Administrator indicated that in an attempt to deal with the treat- ment of platted areas in the agricultural and residential zones, the staff devel,... oped a second version of the amendment to the accessory use setback language which now makes a provision for the issuance of a conditional use permit in the platted areas of the agricultural and residential aones which will superced'e the 600 foot minimum distance for agricultural accessory use and metal exterior buildings in those particular zones. The City Administrator further indicated that under Ord- inance 82-7, the Planning Commission and City Council would review on a case by case basis, each request for the construction of accessory use structures for agr~cultural purposes within a platted area, and that in their review it would be necessary to determine an appropriate setback that fits the specific situation pre- sented. The City Administrator further indicated that the second step in City Council Minutes August 23~ 1982 Page Five implementing the language found in Ordinance 82-7 involves the adoption of a second ordinance to amend the conditional uses permitted in the agricultural and residen- tial zones. The City Administrator indicated that this amendment, Ordinance 82-8, would amend Section 900.16 of the City's Zoning Ordinance dealing with conditional uses. Mr. Cliff Lundberg indicated that he felt the Zoning Ordinance should contain a definition of accessory uses. Mr. Lundberg further indicated that the language "a minimum of 600 feet from any residence" should be clearer. Mr. Lundberg indicated that it was possible that a residence in an agricultural area could be considered an accessory use. General discussion was carried on regarding the addition of the word "neighboring" in the language preceeding"residence or platted areas." Further discussion was carried on regarding the minimum of 600 feet from a neighboring residence or platted area. Mr. Dennis Krueger questioned the possibility of the placement of an accessory use structure prior to a residential structure and how the Ordinance would apply. The City Administrator indicated that the accessory use would require a conditional use permit and the owners of the adjoining property would be notified of the public hearing. Mr. Rick Breezee, Building and Zoning Administrator, indicated that a plot plan would be submitted with the building plans for the Building Administrator to re- view and that the conditional use would have to be approved by the City Council. The City Administrator indicated that it was recommended that the City Council ap- prove Ordinance 82-7~ dealing with accessory use setbacks and direct the City Plan- ning Commission to consider Ordinance 82-8, dealing with permitted conditional uses. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 82-7.AS AMENDED, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE WORD "NEIGHBORING" PRIOR TO THE LANGUAGE, RESIDENCE OR' PLATTED AREA, AND TO DIRECT ORDINANCE' 82.;,,8 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR REVIEW. COUNCILMAN TOTH SECONDED' THE MOTION ~ . TH E MOTION PASSED 4-0. 8. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Section 900.34 Dealing with Nonconforming Uses - Public Hearing The City Administrator indicated that over the past year, the City Council has been presented with a variety of questions regarding nonconforming uses in the City of Elk River and that the City's current Zoning Ordinance does not allow for flexibility in the nonconforming use section. The City Administrator indicated that the City Attorney has developed language, as presented in Ordinance 82-6, which would allow the City Council to make certain findings that could possibly extend or intensify the use of a nonconforming use. The City Administrator indicated that the noncon- forming use ordinance amendment would provide the City Council with a vehcile to grant variances for certain nonconforming use activities, and further indicated that the ordinance requires that the Planning Commission and City Council make the five findings contained in the City's variance section of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the four additional findings contained in Ordinance 82-6, prior to allowing a non- conforming use to be varied. The City Administrator indicated that the four con- ditions in Ordinance 82-6 must tie in with the five standards required for a variance. Mayor Hinkle indicated that the ordinance amendment came about due to the Dickenson City Council Minutes August 23, 1982 Page Six request for an addition to his buildings which are a nonconforming use in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mayoi Hinkle further indicated that it was the City Council's intent to help businesses and allow some flexibility. Mayor Hinkle indicated that due to the long amortization schedule for nonconforming uses, the ordinance amend- ment would allow for businesses to stay in business if they can meet the four con- ditions and five standards. Mayor Hinkle then opened the public hearing. Mr. Rick Breezee, Building and Zoning Administrator, questioned the first condition of Ordinance 82-6, regarding the cost of the alteration to not exceed 25 percent of the assessed value of the improvements on the property. Mr. Rick Breezee asked if the valuation referred to is the valuation obtained from the City Assessor and further. questioned who would decide what the value of the addition to the improve- ments would be. Mr. Breezee further indicated that at the present time, he uses a formula provided by the State in the State Building Code to determine value for building permits. Mr. Cliff Lundberg indicated that the conditional use would be approved by the City Council and therefore the City Council would determine the 25 percent of the assessed value. Ms. Audrey Belfanz indicated that they had found an addition to their building that would cost them $200 which would be under the 25 percent of the assessed value of the improvements. General discussion was carried on regarding the State Code formula for figuring valuations. Councilman Engstrom questioned the method of figuring valuation for used structures. Mr. Cliff Lundberg indicated that he felt if the total value of the improvements is based on assessed value, the addition proposed under a nonconforming use should also be based on assessed value. General discussion was carried on regarding construction costs if the work is done by the owner. Mr. Rick Breezee indicated that that is why the State Building Code formula is used, to provide fairness to all, whether the work is being done by the individual or contracted. The City Administrator indicated that the means of determining the 25 percent will be determined by the City Council and further indicated that he viewed the conditions specified in Ordinance 82-6 as very strict standards. Councilman Duitsman indicated that it was the intent of the City Council to provide a means to help businesses re- main in business and so therefore, the language was to include the assessed value of all the improvements .on the property. Further discussion was carried on regarding the language of assessed value of the improvements and theme~ of determining the value of an addition to the improvements. Councilman Engstrom indicated that the value of the property would increase with an addition or improvement and that it should not matter who does the work or what the actual cost of the addition or improvement would be. City Council Minutes August 23, 1982 Page Seven Councilman Schuldt indicated that the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is to per- mit in certain circumstances, alterations which will extend or intensify a con- forming use and that is not necessarily all things to all people. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 82-6, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 900.34 OF THE ELK RIVER CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. TRE MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mr. Charles Axelson asked if he could reapproach the City Council for a variance re- quest. The City Administrator indicated that the City Council would have to address the question regarding whether they could come back for a variance request or whether they would have to reapply. Councilman Schuldt indicated that the City Council must decide if they will reconsider previous variance requests for nonconforming uses or if they would have to reapply and also how far back would the City Council consider these requests. The City Administrator indicated that a time limit should be es- tablished by the City Council, should they allow persons to resubmit their requests for a variance. Ms. Estelle Gunkel, representative of the Planning Commission, indicated that at the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission, it was assumed that all persons that had applied for a variance in a nonconforming use would be able to reapproach the City Council with their variance request. Mayor Hinkle suggested that the City Council consider the wa1v1ng of the variance fee for those previous requests for a variance of nonconforming uses at a future City Council meeting. Mr. Charles Axelson asked how long they would have to wait and further asked if they would be able to obtain a variance for setback requirements on two roads. It was the general consensus of the City Council that they would consider the length of time the City Council would go back to allow for the waiving of the fees for a vari- ance request, at their next scheduled City Council meeting. 9. Gates AVenue Feasibility Report Councilman Toth indicated that he had many questions regarding the feasibility re- port and suggested that the City Council discuss the feasibility report in depth at their next scheduled work session. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE POSSIBLE CON- STRUCTION OF A ROADWAY FROM MAIN STREET NORTRALONG GATES AVENUE, AND TO REVIEW THE FEASIBILITY REPORT AT.THEIR.NEXT SCHEDULED WORK SESSION~. . COUNCILMAN TOTH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 10. Resolution.82__16.Regarding.Consultants ACtivities The City Administrator indicated that Resolution 82-16 is a resolution that deals with certain limitations and policy considerations for the conduct of consultants working for the City of Elk River. City Council Minutes August 23, 1982 Page Eight Councilman Toth indicated that he had some questions regarding Provision 2 of Resolution 82-16. Councilman Duitsman indicated that he felt he would prefer devel- opers to use other consultants rather than the City's consultants and then have the project reviewed by the City's consultants. Mr. Gary Santwire indicated that Councilman Duitsman's suggestion would be a dupli- cation of consultant costs. I I i The City Administrator indicated that at ithe present time, the City is reimbursed by the developer for review costs done by the City's consultants. Mayor Hinkle indicated that should a developer use the City's c~nsultants, the costs would be passed back to the developer. i I c Mr. Gary Santwire indicated that the bond counsel would be one area of definite dupli- I cation, should a developer not be able t9 use the City's consultant. Councilman Duitsman suggested the resolu~ion as presented be referred back to committee for discussion. It was the ge~eral consensus of the City Council to re- fer Resolution 82-16 back to committee f9r review and recommendation. ! 11. Parking Lot Restrictions in Municipal Lo~ I The City Administrator indicated that th~ City Council has considered the possibility of establishing contract parking spaces ~nd .three hour parking limits on the munici- I pal lot north of the Burlington Northern IRailroad track, across from Adam's Furniture, and further indicated that Resolution 82115 was prepared to implement the Council's wishes regarding the municipal parking 19t. i Councilman Toth indicated that he had dislcussed the parking situation with all bus- inesses across from the parking lot and f~rther indicated that only one business, the furniture store, was having problems ~ith their customer parking. Councilman Toth indicated that three-fourths of the ~arking lot is used by commuters and further indicated that the barbershop uses parki~g as well, which leaves very little space for customer parking. Couniclman Toth fu~ther indicated that two spots were elimi- ated when the corner was changed. I I Councilman Schuldt asked if the furniturel store felt they were losing business due to I the parking problem. I I General discussion was carried on regardirg the parking lot used by commuters and the possibility of parking on Irving Avenue fpr the furrtiturestore. Councilman Schuldt asked if the addition to the post office ~ould eliminate the mail boxes on Irving Avenue. The City Administrator indicatedl that the proposed addition to the post office was forthcoming and that the mail poxes would be moved when the addition was constructed. Councilman Toth suggested that parking ti~e limits could be placed on approximately six spaces at the east end of the parking! lot. General discussion was carried on regarding the possibility of restriping tpe parking lot to allow for two row~ of angled parking, rather than the straight ~n parking and the parallel parking along the street. It was the general consensus I of the City Council that the City staff look at the possibility of angle parking and come back to the City Council with a recommendation. City Council Minutes August 23, 1982 Page Nine 12. Resolution 82-17 Regarding Support of City Employee Actions Mayor Hinkle suggested that the City Administrator redraft Resolution 82-17, a resolution expressing City Council support for administrative and enforcement actions taken by City officials. 13. Pay Estimate Number 2 To C.S. McCrossan for the Industrial Park and Ridgewood East 2nd Addition Sanitary Sewer for $16,132.18. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE PAY ESTIMATE #2 TO C.S. McCROSSAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,132.18. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 14. Administrator's Update A. Budget Preparation and Budget Schedule The City Administrator indicated that the City staff would be reviewing the proposed 1983 budget for the City of Elk River and then would be able to submit the proposed budget to the City Council at their first meeting in September. The City Administrator indicated that review of the budget would require approxi- mately two meetings in September. Councilman Duitsman suggested that the City Council begin review of the proposed budget at their September 13th regularly scheduled meeting date and then set the schedule for the balance of the required meetings to review the budget. B. School Street Improvement Project Mr. Terry Maurer of Consulting Engineers Diversified indicated that the storm sewer west of Jackson was done and that the construction was started on the east side of Jackson. Mr. Maurer indicated that the construction crew would be tearing up the blacktop and placing class 5 between Proctor and Jackson the later part of the week, and further indicated that the balance of the storm sewer pipe would be in before school started. Councilman Toth indicated that two trees on a citi- zen's property were not affected by the storm sewer. Mr. Terry Maurer indicated that they would be discussing the effect of the trees with the homeowners and further indicated that either the storm sewer grade would be changed or the storm sewer would be routed around the trees. Councilman Engstrom suggested that the engineers do whatever they can to save the trees. C. Dance1and Amusement Device License The City Administrator indicated that upon a physical inspection of the Dance1and premises, it was discovered that there were five more video game machines than were licensed. The City Administrator further indicated that Section 700.10 of the City Code specifies the procedure to be utilized by the City Council in taking either corrective action or disciplinary action against 1icenseho1ders. City Council Minutes August 23, 1982 Page Ten , Mayor Hinkle indicated that Danceland was entitled to a hearing before the City Council and that the City Council should allow them the time limit to get their machines licensed. It was the consensus of the City Council to send a letter to Danceland requesting that they comply with the City's ordinance within ten days or to appear before the City Council at their September 7th, 1982 City Council meeting. D. Fritz vs. the City of Elk River Interest Rate Opinion The City Administrator indicated that a letter in response to the request for an opinion from the City Attorney had been received regarding the rate of interest on the special assessment refunds for the Peterson Addition. The City Administra- tor indicated that it is the opinion of the City's attorney that the special as~ . sessment refund accrued interest at the legal rate of six percent until the date that the judgement was entered and from that date forward, interest was accrued at a rate of eleven percent established by State Statute 549.09. E. September Cit~ Council Meeting Dates The City Administrator indicated that the first Monday in September is Labor Day and that according to City Code, the scheduled City Council meeting should be held on Tuesday, September 7th. F. Certificates of Equipment Councilman Duitsman questioned the interest rate estimated for the sale of the certificates and the interest rate on the City's investments. The City Admin- istrator indicated that by the sale of certificates for the police cars, it would remove that cost from the levy limit implemented by the State and further in- dicated that the proposed or estimated interest rate for the certificates was approximately ten to eleven percent and that the City's investments are at approximately eleven percent at the current time. 15. Check Register COUNCILMAN SCHULDT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 23, 1982 CHECK REGISTER. COUNCILMAN TOTHSECONDEDTHEMOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 16. Tentative Agenda Ordinance language regarding mobile homes in agricultural areas, Danceland Amusement Device License, the Municipal Parking Lot, and an ordinance regarding mobile homes in bheCity of Elk River, are all items tentatively scheduled for the September 7th City Council meeting. There being no further business, COUNCILMAN TOTHMOVED THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. Respectfully submitted, ~jj'-J fJd0~~.t{) Phyliis Boedigheime~ Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer PB:dk