Loading...
02-24-2004 CCM MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M. Mayor Marlin Torgerson called the meeting to order. Members present were Jim Haugen and Casey Stotts. Members absent were Kay Peterson and Bill Arndt. Others present were Gary Plotz, City Administrator; Marc Sebora, City Attorney; and John Rodeberg, Director of Engineering and Public Works. 2. INVOCATION - Reverend Greg Nelson, Bethlehem United Methodist 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. MINUTES (a) REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10,2004 Minutes were approved as presented 5. CONSENT AGENDA (a) REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 1. PIONEERLAND LIBRARY SYSTEM BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2003 2. HUTCHINSON HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES FROM JANUARY 20,2004 3. HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR JANUARY 20,2004 4. W ATER/W ASTEW ATER FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR JANUARY 2004 5. INVESTMENT REPORT FOR JANUARY 2004 6. GENERAL FUND REPORT FOR JANUARY 2004 (b) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 1. ORDINANCE NO. 04-365 - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10.07 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING TEMPORARY FENCES (FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING FOR MARCH 9, 2004) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 12342 - RESOLUTION FOR PURCHASE 3. RESOLUTION NO. 12344 - CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF 2004 FEE SCHEDULES 4. RESOLUTION NO. 12346 - CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY THE HUTCHINSON POLICE DEP ARTMENT TO CONSTRUCT A STORAGE FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 127 FIRST AVENUE SOUTHWEST (c) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF HUTCH BOWL SET-UP CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2004 LIQUOR LICENSE (d) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF HAHC MICROBIOLOGY SYSTEM ANALYZER (e) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF HAHC BOARD MEMBER TERMS Item 5(b) 1 was pulled by Mayor Torgerson for further action. The Mayor stated this amendment to the fence ordinance does not seem to solve the problem that the one Hutchinson Citizen has in the City. The Mayor discussed the possibility of discussing with the Councilor having the Planning Commission take another look at why the City need an ordinance in the City of Hutchinson for temporary fences when it doesn't really address the problem that we have or the situation that has brought this to the City Council and Planning Commission's attention. This ordinance is going to create some questions about when a temporary fence permit is needed. The Mayor questioned the need for this ordinance. Ms. Wi schnack commented that this is a issue that can't be quite addressed for everyone's situation. The Planning Commission discussed a long time about whether to do something or not. The current zoning ordinance just doesn't just doesn't mention temporary its context, nor does it mention it anywhere in its definition. The situation that arose with the property owner was with a snow fence, there were no regulations to deal with this and no need for a permit. There are snow fences all around town. Staff proposed an ordinance and looked at a number of communities that dealt with this issue, most of the ordinances just don't have an ordinance against temporary fences. The exception to that was Willmar, they just don't allow temporary fences at all. Staff presented to the Planning Commission with a number of options. The recommendation to the Council was to add minor language to the code that deals with permanent fencing and include the word temporary in its definition and application. Then a temporary fence permit would be issued. Mr. Rodeberg brought up the issue of how to enforce temporary fence permits. Where do you start and stop when you require permits for what type of fence? Will someone be in charge of going around town enforcing temporary fence code? This could be a full time position to regulate something that isn't normally a problem with the number of fences that are around town. With the staff shortages and the inability to have a clear goal it is virtually unenforceable. Council Member Haugen added that there are many construction fences out there that should somehow be address in the ordinance. With the snow fences, the applicant could take a out a permit for a permanent fence and keep it up year round, which isn't what the Planning Commission is wanting either. The current ordinance does not clarify that issue. If the City were to charge a fee for the temporary fence every year, then the applicant to more likely to say it is a permanent fence so they just have to pay the one time permanent fence fee. The Planning Commission wanted to come up with something that actually solved the problem but no matter what wording they used, nothing solved the problem. 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2004 The Mayor commented that there are stipulations in the ordinance now that could include the plastic orange fences that are not permanent fences or other stipulations. The Mayor added that he doesn't see how the City Council can regulate every problem that comes up just because someone has an issue with it, how would the City enforce all of these. Ms. Wi schnack stated that the she heard the same comment at the Planning Commission meeting. The City Council does have the option to not change the ordinance and just tell people such. Every attempt with timing for a definition just didn't seem to get to the heart of the matter. The fence ordinance was recently changed to make a little less cumbersome for people to apply for fences. The Mayor commented that perhaps having a sign that says "No Snowmobiles Permitted" rather than putting up an orange plastic fence is much more effective if that is the intent of the fence for some people. Mr. Rodeberg commented that the City can regulate the fences for safety issues (for example, fences that snowmobiles can't see, fences in right of ways, etc). He doesn't see that it is resolving the issue, it is just adding more work. Council Member Haugen suggested putting stronger language in the ordinance that would not allow a snow fence to be permitted as a permanent fence. Ms. Wi schnack added that there is not currently any ascetic code in the ordinance other than the finished side needs to face the neighbor. The Mayor recommended looking closer at the ordinance and what the City is trying to accomplish. The Council can nullify it and have the Planning Commission work on it more or pass it and discuss it more at the next Council Meeting. Ms. Wi schnack asked for more direction from the Council if they requested that the Planning Commission to work on the ordinance. Council Member Haugen commented that the problem may not be with temporary fence, maybe the Council needs to look at it more as a neighborhood friendly issue and the fence needs to fit into the neighborhood. Maybe there needs to be more restrictions on what the fence looks like. Ms. Wi schnack added that perhaps a more direct route is needed and just put "no snow fences are allowed" similar to what Willmar did. Council Member Stotts asked Ms. Wi schnack it Staff has talked to homeowners that are currently having this problem. Ms. Wi schnack has talked to both the homeowner that has the fence and the neighbor considerably. Mr. Stotts also asked how many complaints the City has received about this type of problem. Mr. Rodeberg answered about six in the ten years he has been here. Mr. Stotts commented that he is reluctant to make the ordinance more restrictive over a problem that does not occur very often. It seems that this could be dealt with on a common sense level instead. The Mayor agreed and added that if this was a snowmobile issue, it can be rectified but 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2004 if it is an irritant issue, it should be between the two property owners. The City is not liable to satisfy a complaint between two home owners. Motion by Council Member Stotts, second by Council Member Haugen to reject Ordinace No. 04-365 - Amendment to Section 10.07 of the zoning ordinance regarding temporary fences. Motion carried unanimously. Item 5(b)4 was pulled by City Administrator, Gary Plotz, for further action. Dave Erlandson, Interim Police Chief, and Sergeant Gifferson discussed a memo included in the Council packet regarding the combination project of a building and generator. HAHC donated the police department a generator that is about twice the size of the current generator. The new generator could give power to both the main facility and the investigation center. The investigation center is not currently connected to the old generator but it is wired for a generator. Hooking up the generator takes time though and in an emergency this is time that they just don't have. The generator would also power the new storage facility. The old generator would be installed at the rec center in the congregate care area for emergency use. Mr. Rodeberg clarified that the generator would only be used for emergency since the event center the designated center for people to go to in case of emergencIes. It will be about $90,000 to install new generator. If the police department cannot get the entire funding, they would install the new generator and hold off on installing the old generator until funding is available. In order to keep costs down, the police department is contracting part of the cost of the storage facility and then using volunteer work for the rest. This will give the police department the funds needed to install the new generator. If the generators are put in storage then gas gets into the parts and there is an additional cost of fixing the generator. The Mayor asked if the generators could be run periodically to alleviate this problem. Sergeant Gifferson answered that the new generator is in pieces (is was moved in separate pieces) so it could not be run and the old generator is tested monthly and would continue to be tested monthly up until it is moved. Dave Erlandson requested direction from Council regarding pursing generator switch over this year. If there is not enough budget for both, perhaps the City could include the generator hook-up in the 2005 Capital Budget and then the old generator could be installed. Motion by Council Member Stotts, Second by Council Member Haugen to approve hook-up of new generator with existing budget and hook-up old generator to the event center if budget allows. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Council Member Haugen, Second by Council Member Stotts to approve resolution no. 12346 - conditional use permit requested by the Hutchinson Police Department to construct a storage facility on property located at 127 first avenue 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2004 southwest. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Council Member Haugen, second by Council Member Stotts, to approve consent agenda as presented except for items 5(b) 1 and 5(b )4. Motion carried unanimously. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:00 P.M. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 04-370 - CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO FIREWORKS ORDINANCE SECTION 10.51 PERMITTED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS (FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING FOR MARCH 9, 2004) Jim Popp, Fire Department Administrator, explained that the ordinance needed to change to be in compliance with the new state statutes regarding what cities could do and how they could enforce fireworks ordinance. There was some minor clean-up of the ordinance. The fee schedule also changed because state statutes set a limit on what the city could charge. The big change is the tent sales. State statute allows for them and the City cannot be more restrictIve than the statute allows for, so the ordinance needed to be changed for that. Tom Wiprud of 257 Gauger Street Northeast requested a copy of the state statutes. Mr. Wiprud commented that the old ordinance stated that no tents were allowed but now the ordinance has been changed to reflect tent sales. This is basically an ordinance allowing fireworks sales within the city limits. Mr. Wiprud was unclear how some of the items on the ordinance were included. Section 2A - Fire Chief shall give final approval or denial of an application for the manufacturing or storage for commercial purposes of fire works. Mr. Wiprud had not heard of anyone local manufacturing fire works and was not sure why that was included since it is not relevant to selling fireworks. Mr. Wiprud requested explanation of Section 3C. How much gross weight is actually allowed? Mr. Popp explained that the gross weight Section came out ofNFPA 1124 Chapter 7. Mr. Wiprud read a Section out of his 1998 edition ofNFP A 1124 that stated "this code shall not apply to the retail sale of consumer fireworks and use of consumer fireworks by the general public". Mr. Popp explained that in 2003 the NFP A added chapter 7 which gave cities direction on how they can handle retail sales offireworks. The gross weight is 25% of gross packaging. There can be 250 pounds of pyrotechnics in a sprinkled building. Ifunsure, the City can take 25% of the gross weight of packaging because most of weight IS in paper. Mr. Wiprud requested that it may be more clear to put that in rather than how it is currently worded. Mr. Wiprud asked why section 3G is included since "no one manufactures fireworks". Mr. Popp explained there are people that manufacture fireworks and that this section comes directly out of the statutes. Mr. Wiprud asked if 3H is covered under 2D. Mr. Wiprud also asked if anyone had seen someone selling fireworks on sidewalks, right-aways, etc. Mr. Popp explained that this is out of the Minnesota statutes and was included to ensure there was no confusion about selling the fireworks. Mr. Sebora added that 2D is referring more to ensuring building codes are followed for safety. Mr. Wiprud stated that he didn't see the need for this section. Mr. Wiprud also asked about the lowered fee. Mr. Popp explained that the fee had to be lowered per state statute. Motion by Council Member Haugen, Second by Council Member Stotts to close public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Council Member Stotts, second by Council Member Haugen, to approve changes 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2004 to fireworks ordinance section 10.51 and set second reading for March 9,2004. Motion carried unanimously. 7. COMMUNICATIONS, REQUESTS AND PETITIONS 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS (a) RESOLUTION NO. -12345 - CONSIDERATION FOR APPRV AL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF TWIN HOMES WITHOUT GARAGES LOCATED AT 560 AND 570 HILLTOP DRIVE This resolution was pulled from the agenda for more research until March 24 but the Mayor asked Ms. Ward, HRA Director, to address the Council. Ms. Ward discussed the Hutchinson Home Purchase Opportunity Program ("HHPOP") could be used in helping a homebuyer afford a garage. That was a big concern that lower income people would pose an additional payment. There are several reasons to look at HHPOP for this reason. One reason would be that HHPOP was created to create livable quality neighborhoods. It is their belief that having a garage in Minnesota is important not only to store things but to be able to start your car in -40 weather. HHPOP has assisted over 60 homebuyers in buying a starter homes. When this came up the HRA Board and the City Council talked about how they could help Habitat. This could help by giving them a 0% deferred loan. There would be no payments so it would not effect their affordability in buying the home. The loan would be due on sale or payoff of the home just as the other affordability gap guidelines. They looked at the price of a 400 square foot garage and found it would be about $4,000. They would have to apply to the HRA. It would be a very simple application process. When Ms. Ward discussed with Habitat, they said it would need to be approved by their board at the regional office. The Mayor commented that this was a win-win situation and met the building code regulation so if Habitat agrees it would solve the problem. (b) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF AERIAL MAPPING AGREEMENT WITH MARTINEZ CORPORATION Tom Kloss, IT Director, discussed the information regarding the aerial mapping proj ect. The last time this type of proj ect was done was in 1985. Currently the data used is out of date. The goals of the project are high resolution aerial, planimetric (shows outlines of buildings and street outlines), and contour files (1ines on the map shows the lay of the land). Mr. Kloss showed an example of an aerial file from 1985 and then compared it to a current file. The current technology allows for more detail and is more accurate. This information could be used by engineenng designing and drainage; planning for designing, drainage, and lot setback; Parks & Rec for grant proposals and planning and designing for parks; fire department for pre-plan; polIce for enhancement for GSI system and search warrants (can review area before going out to see what barriers are their). Mr. Rodeberg added that it is about a quarter of the price. It is a much better product for much less money. The detail is so good that you can see stoplights. Council Member Haugen asked if property lines could be scaled. Mr. Rodeberg answered that it could. Each one could be overlaid and line up. Council Member Haugen asked when it would need to be done (when there are no leaves on the tree). Mr. Kloss answered that it does need to be done after the snow melts but before the leaves are on the trees so there is only about a two week time period that this can be done. That is why it is critical to get it approved tonight or the City will have to wait until next year. 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2004 Mr. Rodeberg discussed the memo from Ken Merrill, Finance Director. There were excess planning revenues that have to be used for planning. This is only a fraction of those revenues and staff had previously discussed that this is where those funds would come from. Mr. Merrill's memo relates more to the imaging software. Gary Plotz, City Administrator, explained that this will not be coming out of the general fund. The City has informally approached the telephone company, utilities, and sewer and water to share in the cost. The recommendation wIll be brought to the Council later but the agreement has to be approved today. Council Member Haugen asked when the work would be done. Mr. Kloss answered that everything would be done the end of August with a ten day review period for the City. The payment will be made after the work is done. Council Member Haugen asked if this could be done after each subdivision. Mr. Kloss recommended updating the aerial every five years and the aerial and planimetrics every ten years. It would be more expensive to do it in bits in pieces. Mr. Plotz added that the accuracy is a 30th of an inch at 100 squale. It is very valuable in overlaying the property line. For example, sheds, that don't normally have a survey, can be more easily pinpomted to make sure not in a right away or easements. Ms. Wi schank commented that it will be helpful to people who need to know their property line and will make the process faster. It will also save the departments time in researching information but it will not replace surveying all together. Council Member Haugen asked about charging for information. Mr. Kloss explained that he is currently working on that information and will come back to the council at a later time with a proposal. He did include in the agreement that Martinez will retain no copy right and the City can use or sell the information at their discretion. Motion by Council Member Haugen, second by Council Member Stotts, to approve aerial mapping agreement with Martinez Corporation. Motion carried unanimously. (c) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLANNING/ZONINGIBUILDING SURVEY MODIFICATIONS Council Member Stotts discussed the proposed process of the survey. The survey would come to City Center at Council Member Stotts attention. Council Member Stotts and Ms. Wischnak would open the surveys together and then they would be compiled by city staff. Motion by Council Member Stotts, second by Council Member Haugen, to approve Planning/ZoninglBuilding survey modifications. Motion carried unanimously. (d) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTING WATER TREATMENT PLANT WORKSHOP ON APRIL 13,2004 AT 4:15 P.M. Mr. Rodeberg requested the meeting be set at 4:00 p.m. instead of 4: 15 because there would be so much to cover. Council Member Haugen added that the meeting will be open to the public and then asked if anyone else was being invited. Mr. Rodeberg answered that there will not be. They are working meetings with other industries and will hopefully will have more information on it then. Motion by Council Member Haugen, second by Council Member Stotts, to approve setting Water Treatment Plant Workshop for April 13, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. Motion carried 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2004 unanimously. (e) CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULING OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR GARY PLOTZ Marc Sebora, City Attorney, explained that the City Council sets a date and time for the review with the entire Council present. Because Mr. Plotz is an employee of the City, he has the option to have the meeting closed. Mr. Plotz requested that it be a closed meeting. Motion by Council Member Haugen, second by Council Member Stotts, to schedule annual performance review of City Admmistrator, Gary Plotz, for March 9, 2004 at 4:30 p.m. This will be a closed meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 10. MISCELLANEOUS (a) COMMUNICATIONS 1. FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION ON VISIONARY WORKSHOP Mr. Plotz related information regarding better communication with the public. Mr. Plotz and the Mayor had a meeting with the paper where a couple of ideas were discussed. One was to have a guest letter to the editor. There was an interest in having topics discussed versus departments. Topic ideas included 1) liquor store, water plant (would like to see graphs and maps - be more creative in presenting information, and 3) Creekside. There was also the idea of having a column such as Staff's Corner, Mayor's Corner, etc. The paper would charge for this column though. Making the dates and times of meetings more available to the public was also discussed. Mr. Kloss commented that the Leader has a public calendar for non-profit organizations. The paper is checking to see if the City qualifies. Another discussion at the Visionary Workshop was conducting surveys. The City have not done a community wide survey and was discussed seriously at the workshop. Mr. Plotz would like to discuss with the entire council present when this could be done, to home, if a subcommittee should be created, etc. no action necessary 2. COMMUNICATION FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR GARY PLOTZ After reviewing the past minutes, there was no motion for having the Creekside Workshop for next Council Meeting so the Creekside presentation will be conducted during the Council Meeting. There was information from Insurance Supported Organization ("ISO"). They provide advisory insurance underwriting and rating information to insurers. They rate the building code effectiveness. They rate according to classifications according to permits worked on by 1) one and two families and 2) commercial and industrial. In 1999 the City rated 6 (1 is perfect) for both. This year they rated the City at 3 for both areas. ThIS is one way to measure building permits and processing those. 3. COMMUNICATION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER CASEY STOTTS Council Member Stotts updated the council on the smoking issue. He found the manager of Applebee's and owner of the Lamplighter discussing the issue, which is what he was hoping. They were formulating ideas on how to handle non-smoking in 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2004 restaurants. The manager of Applebee's is going to discuss the possibility of partitioning off part of the restaurant to make a more separate non-smoking area with the corporate office. The owner of the Lamplighter indicated that he will do a trial period of non-smoking in the back area. If it goes well, perhaps he will keep it non- smoking and update his filtering system. The Mayor offered to give Mr. Stotts his smoke free information. 11. CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS AND CONTRACT PAYMENTS Motion by Council Member Haugen, second by Council Member Stotts to approve claims, appropriations, and contract payments. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. 9