The Meeting of the Common Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, January 10, 2006. It was noted
that the meeting had been announced and a notice posted at City Hall.
Roll call was taken, with the following members present: Mayor Jim
Bialecki, Ald. Mike Giese, Ald. Diane Oldani Wulf, Ald. Gary Gonczy, Ald. Jim
Olson, Ald. Kim Smith and Ald. Bill Leathen. Also present were City Clerk Cari
Burmaster, Financial Services Director
Fred Buehler, Public Works Director Ron Lund, and Land Use & Development
Director Jason Gilman.
Item 2 - Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was declared.
Item 3 – Amend and Approval of minutes from previous meeting.
It was noted that Line 1058 of the minutes of the December 13, 2005
meeting of the Common Council should read: “The fundraising campaign continues
to move forward with over $415,000 in cash”.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Wulf, to approve the minutes from
the previous meeting as amended, printed and on file in the City Clerk’s
Office. On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 4 - PUBLIC INPUT: (limited to 3 minutes/individual)
Mayor Bialecki turned the agenda item over to anyone wishing to provide
input.
Annabelle Freyhoff, 920 Orchid Place, addressed the Common Council. Ms. Freyhoff said, “I would like to have the
Council uphold the veto against having the Conditional Use Permit at 619 10th
Avenue North. They voted unanimously against it at the Plan Commission meeting
and I would like to have them continue to vote against it. Thank you”.
Mayor Bialecki called twice more for anyone wishing to address the Common
Council. None came forward.
Mayor Bialecki acknowledged Boy Scout Troop 168 and thanked them for
their attendance.
Item 5 - REPORT FROM THE MAYOR.
A.
Introduction of
Human Resource Specialist.
Mayor Bialecki introduced to the Common Council Elsa Ness as the new City
of Onalaska Human Resource Specialist. Mayor Bialecki reported that Elsa had, a
few years ago, done an internship with the City. Elsa has a bachelor’s degree in public administration from the
University of Wisconsin – La Crosse.
Mayor Bialecki welcomed Elsa.
Elsa said, “Thank you. I just want to say I’m honored to be chosen as the
new Human Resources Specialist and I’m really excited to start working”.
Members of the Common Council extended welcome to Elsa.
B.
Proclamation –
Adult School Crossing Guard Recognition Week – January 9 – 13, 2006.
PROCLAMATION
Adult
School Crossing Guard Recognition Week
January
9-13, 2006
WHEREAS,
Wisconsin's adult school crossing guards provide an invaluable service in
helping to ensure the safe passage of our youngest, most vulnerable
pedestrians, children walking between home and school; and
WHEREAS, adult school
crossing guards typically serve with a dedication that discounts the rigors of
harsh weather, split shifts, and heavy traffic; and
WHEREAS, for more than
five decades, adult school crossing guards have served communities across
Wisconsin; and
WHEREAS, that service has
helped to drive down the rates of young pedestrian deaths and injuries, despite
increases in traffic volume; and
WHEREAS, adult school crossing guards add to the
effectiveness of the student safety patrol members with whom they often serve
and whose activity they help direct; and
WHEREAS, adult school crossing guards help reinforce in
the minds of the young people they assist the importance of traffic-hazard
identification and safe street-crossing behavior; and
WHEREAS, school assemblies, school board resolutions,
police departments honors, parent-teacher organization observances, local news
coverage, and especially smiles and kind words from children will help to
convey the gratitude of our communities for the life-saving, injury-reducing
role Wisconsin's adult school crossing guards play.
NOW THEREFORE, I, James S. Bialecki, Mayor of the City of Onalaska, Wisconsin, call
upon all citizens of the City of Onalaska and upon all patriotic, civic and
educational organizations to observe the week of January 9-13, 2006 as ADULT SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD RECOGNITION
WEEK with appropriate ceremonies and observances in which all of our people
may join in commemorating crossing guards for their work and dedication to the
community.
In
witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of
Onalaska to be affixed.
CITY OF ONALASKA
BY:
______________________________
James S. Bialecki, Mayor
City of Onalaska
______________________________
Caroline Burmaster, City Clerk
Seal:
Attest:
Mayor Bialecki recognized Police Chief Randy Williams. Chief Williams
said, “I appreciate the proclamation and I know that our crossing guards are
very honored to have the recognition.
“I recall as a young
boy, quite a while ago, and maybe you do too, because the school crossing
program has been around 50 years in the State of Wisconsin. So, many of you,
when you were younger – I’m sure it’s all of you – had the opportunity maybe to
walk to school, to be crossed by a crossing guard. I had the privilege of doing
so when I grew up in Madison. And, I still remember – I was pretty respectful.
I thought this was a pretty important person. And now today what an honor to
recognize our crossing guards”.
Chief Williams recognized the following crossing guards: Clayton Forrer,
Glen Sloan, Kelly Wigdal, Rod Johnson, Tamala Breding, Thomas Schmidt, and
Crystal Weaver.
Chief Williams reported that a coffee reception would be held for the
crossing guards on January 11, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. at the Police Department. Chief Williams invited parents, citizens and
Common Council to attend the reception.
Mayor Bialecki extended thanks to the crossing guards.
D.
Office Hours and
Property Tax Collection.
Mayor Bialecki said, “I did have a number of people express
disappointment that the Friday before the New Year’s weekend that City Hall was
closed and asked if we wouldn’t mind staffing that, even with a couple of
people for that occasion. And, rather than to do that, what we probably need to
do is do a better job of informing the public that on that last day, even
though we’re closed in the afternoon, you have the front door drop box and the
mail drop box and that still counts as 12/31”.
C.
Appointment to
the Technology Advisory Committee – Jay Twite, 1314 4th Avenue
North.
Mayor Bialecki reported that he had anticipated a resignation from the
Technology Advisory Committee, but that did not occur. Mayor Bialecki referred the item.
E. Revised Final Assessment costs
for Mason Street.
It was noted that the revised final assessment costs for Mason Street
appear as Agenda Attachment 5E.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Leathen, to approve the revised
final assessment costs for Mason Street.
On voice vote, motion carried.
F.
Onalaska/Holmen/West Salem Shared Ride
Program.
Mayor Bialecki reported that the Village of West Salem has approved
participation in the Shared Ride program effective on July 1, 2006. Mayor Bialecki reported that the Mass
Transit Committee would be expanded to include a representative of West Salem
to be appointed by West Salem Village President Dennis Manthei.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL
AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION FROM THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS/BOARDS:
Item 6 – FINANCE COMMITTEE:
A.
Vouchers.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, to approve Vouchers No. 2898
through No. 3024 for 2005 and Vouchers No. 1 through No. 128 for 2006, expended
since the last Common Council meeting of December 13, 2005 in the amount of
$8,202,403.28. On voice vote, motion
carried.
B. Authorization to pursue a no-match grant for a 6 X 6 utility vehicle for the Onalaska Fire Department.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Gonczy, to authorize the pursuit of
a no-match grant for a 6X6 utility vehicle for the Onalaska Fire Department.
Under discussion, Ald. Giese said, “At Finance & Personnel, I spoke
against accepting the grant from the Smokeless Tobacco Company. Not because the
vehicle would not be of benefit and good use to the citizens, but I felt the
price was just to high. The practice of indulging in smokeless tobacco carries
a very direct and quantifiable health cost. And, by the City involving
themselves in this exercise, they will facilitate that advertising and
therefore the use of smokeless tobacco. So, for that reason, I myself will vote
against this and urge my fellow council people to consider that”.
Ald. Wulf said, “I have to echo Ald. Giese’s comments. As much as I would
like to support Fire Chief Menches bringing this item forward, and as much as I
think this would be a benefit to the Onalaska Fire Department, my major concern
is, in the packet it talked about the possibility of a press release, photo,
those types of issues. And, I see all the positives that the Onalaska Fire
Department does, and I hear my own child come home, and I hear elementary
students talk about the smoke house that the Fire Department does and what a
wonderful day that is and they talk about that for years to come. And I see how
they have the coloring day, and the kids go to the firehouse and tours that
they do. The Fire Department does wonderful, great things. But, as an ex-smoker
– and very proud to be an ex-smoker – I just have this visual in my head, this
picture, or this headline, whether it’s going to be in a flier or a magazine or
however it would be distributed, ‘the Onalaska Fire Department Teams with US
Smokeless Tobacco Company’. And I see that vision in my head and it just undoes
everything, to this council person, it just undoes all the good that the Fire
Department does – as far as those positives – working with the youth of this community.
And for this reasons, I have to agree with Ald. Giese and I will be reluctantly
voting no on this item. Thank you”.
Ald. Gonczy asked if there would be advertising logos on the
vehicle. Ald. Smith stated that there
would be. Ald. Smith shared with Ald. Gonczy a photograph of the vehicle.
Chief Menches said, “The only logo on that vehicle will be the Onalaska
Fire Department”. In response to a
question from Ald. Gonczy, Chief Menches confirmed that the vehicle would not
have any smokeless tobacco logos displayed.
Ald. Wulf read from the grant application, “By completing and submitting
this application, the undersigned certify that if awarded a utility vehicle
will participate in a press release presentation event with USSTC
representatives and appropriate vehicles and appropriate officials and other
informational activities that may include media interviews, video or still
photography for use by newspaper, magazine, radio and TV outlets”.
Ald. Giese said, “My impression from the material that’s crossed my desk
is that it’s a fairly comprehensive statement of agreement with the use of the
graphic images and the event that would be able to be used to support not only
the public relations press releases but also potentially any advertising that
they should choose to do. So the logo may be controlled in that their logo
doesn’t go next to the City logo or the Fire Department vehicle, but we still
place ourselves into a situation where we could be displayed to the public in
supporting smokeless tobacco; and that’s what I consider the price too high,
and I’m just not willing to pay that much”.
Ald. Leathen said, “I hear all that, but I also was at the meeting and
Chief Menches did his usual outstanding job of making the case that this 6X6
utility vehicles adds significantly to the responsiveness of the Fire
Department over and about the utility vehicle that they now have. I think that
we should support our Fire Department in this because we could have a fire that
this piece of equipment in – and even minutes can count. So, if it takes a
difference to getting a guy up to an area that we couldn’t normally get to with
the other vehicle, why every minute counts. So, I’m going to be supporting this
for the Fire Department”.
Ald. Smith asked if, in light of the opposition voiced by the Council
members, does the Chief still support the project.
Chief Menches said, “It was an issue when we first looked at that grant.
We looked at the sponsor. And yes it was a concern. But, I support this
grant. I look at it this way, we
approve licenses and taxes for tobacco products, and liquor licenses and stuff
like that. I’m very sensitive to some of those things, but this is an expensive
piece of equipment that we desperately need. And this sponsor has provided this
to First Responders throughout this country, and even in this state, where
First Responder agencies have taken advantage of it. I do respect the
alderspersons’ concerns. I see your point and whatever decision we make on
this, I’ll come back with another innovative way to try to get this piece of
equipment. If I have to put in the budget in 2007, I’ll make it work. Your
point is well taken with me. I’m sensitive to some of the things that you’ve
said. We’re kind of caught in a catch 22 here. We desperately need this piece
of equipment. We have a good chance of getting it. And, we have to make that
call now, whether or not we want to continue to pursue this”.
Ald. Wulf asked what would be the cost of the vehicle if the City were to
purchase it outright and, “if this had not been US Smokeless Tobacco, but
Marlboro, would you have still pursued it?”
Chief Menches reported that the vehicle costs approximately $10,000 to
$15,000.
Chief Menches said, “It’s a piece of equipment we need based on what’s
happening here. Would have I pursued it if it had as you mentioned? The answer
is no”.
Ald. Gonczy said, “I would oppose it if they had logos all over it. But,
if it’s a donation, then you would have to say, what do we do with
organizations that sell cigarettes, if they want to make contributions. Do we
not accept those? Do we not accept donations from organizations that sell
alcohol? I just need to be assured that no logo is ever going to go on that
vehicle”.
Chief Menches, “If the logo goes on that and indicates what that sponsor
supports, I will not take that grant.
What I read in that grant application, it’s a typical press release that
we received a piece of equipment from this company”.
Mayor Bialecki suggested that the motion could be amended to include a
stipulation against any sponsor logo appearing on the vehicle.
Ald. Gonczy suggested that the City Attorney should draft language for
the agreement stipulating such. Ald.
Gonczy said, “That’s the only way I would support it, if there’s absolutely no
advertising on this vehicle”.
Ald. Giese said, “I am still concerned that the control of the event and
the images reside with the smokeless tobacco company. And, I would be willing
to support this motion if not only we drafted something clearly preserving our
right to determine what logos go on to the unit itself, but we also prohibit
any paid for or coop advertising to be generated using any image or statement
or picture involving the City”.
Ald. Smith noted that at this point Chief Menches only is requesting
permission to pursue/apply for the grant.
Ald. Smith suggested that such stipulations would best be addressed at
the time of grant acceptance.
Ald. Gonczy suggested that the stipulations should be stated at the time
of grant application.
In response to a question from Mayor Bialecki, City Attorney Sean
O’Flaherty said, “If you’re going to amend the motion you should amend it to
state that you’re going to amend the application; send an amendment or addendum
to the application with the language that the City desires”.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Leathen, to amend the original
motion to stipulate that the vehicle itself shall not have any advertising,
including the company’s name and the products it represents.
Under discussion, Ald. Giese suggested including with the application a
separate transmittal that would outline the expectation of limitations on the
part of the City.
Ald. Giese recommended a friendly amendment to the motion to also
prohibit use of images for advertising.
Ald. Gonczy stated that he would make a second motion to amend to
include that prohibition.
In response to a question from Ald. Gonczy, Sean recommended stipulating
the restrictions as an addendum to the application. Sean recommended, “The transmittal letter will say, ‘enclosed
herewith is our application and an addendum setting forth the conditions upon
which we would accept the grant”.
Ald. Gonczy accepted Sean’s recommendation as a friendly amendment to his
motion to amend.
On voice vote, motion carried to amend.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Wulf, to stipulate that US
Smokeless Tobacco may not use in its marketing efforts any images of the City
of Onalaska nor the City of Onalaska logo nor any press releases relating to
the City of Onalaska.
Under discussion, Mayor Bialecki noted that the City recently had taken
action to restrict the use of its logo.
Ald. Gonczy said, “The intention of my motion is not to say there won’t
be a press release. The intention is they can’t use that press release in any
of their marketing efforts.
On voice vote, motion carried to amend.
Mayor Bialecki called for the vote on the motion as amended.
Under discussion, Ald. Giese stated that he would vote for the motion as
amended. Ald. Wulf stated that she too would vote for the motion as amended.
Ald. Gonczy said, “Chief, I do hope we get the vehicle. And I think –
just to speak to this company – if their intentions are to help our fire
departments, these restrictions should not restrict them giving us this
vehicle”.
Ald. Wulf said, “If for any reason what we’ve done here this evening puts
us out and they kick us to the curb, I will certainly… if push comes to shove
and you have to put it in your budget for next year, this is one Council person
who will do what I can to try to make it happen for next year. I think you
understand were I and Councilman Giese are coming from. It’s just a real hard
call for us”.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 7 – PERSONNEL COMMITTEE:
A. Job Descriptions:
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, to
approve the job descriptions for Fire Chief, Chief of Police, Tourism Director,
Tourism Administrative Assistant, and Sales Coordinator. On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Assistant Planner/Zoning Inspector:
1. Job Description.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Gonczy, to approve the job
description for Assistant Planner/Zoning Inspector. On voice vote, motion carried.
2. Salary Range.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Giese, to set the salary range for
Assistant Planner/Zoning Inspector at $28,000 to $31,000. On voice vote, motion
carried with Ald. Wulf voting no.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Leathen, to post and advertise for
the position of Assistant Planner/Zoning Inspector. On voice vote, motion carried.
C. Non-union Compensation Plan.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Giese, to recommend a 2.5% cost of
living increase for eligible non-union employees.
Under discussion, Ald. Gonczy recommended that if the State of Wisconsin
cost-of-living adjustment is less than 2.5%, then the increase should be
adjusted accordingly.
Mayor Bialecki noted that there has been some public discussion regarding
the cost of living as presented by the government and the true cost of living.
Fred reported that the City of Onalaska must abide by State of Wisconsin
Department of Revenue guidelines regarding budget increases. Fred noted that the budget materials state
that the cost of living increase is 3.3%.
On voice vote, motion carried.
D. Performance-based Pay Subcommittee direction from the Finance & Personnel Committee.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Giese, to direct the new Human
Resource Specialist to complete a survey of municipalities in Wisconsin as soon
as possible in consultation with the Mayor.
On voice vote, motion carried.
E.
Step Increase.
1.
Fire Chief.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, to improve the step increase
for the Fire Chief. On voice vote, motion
carried.
Item 8 - ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE:
A. Approval of Operator’s
Licenses
Name Location Type of Application
Lucas E. Brye Seven
Bridges Provisional/New
Melissa R. Bullerman TGI Friday’s Provisional/New
Benjamin C. Horn Seven Bridges Provisional/New
Jonathan R. Kessler Stoney Creek Inn Provisional/New
Schaarie A. Lawless Lakeview Restaurant Provisional/New
Elizabeth N. Marson Carlos O’Kelly’s New
Sara M. Semlar Carlos O’Kelly’s Provisional/New
Mark D. Sloan Hillside
Inn Provisional/New
Stacie M. Stefan Lakeview Restaurant New
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Wulf, to approve the Operators
Licenses per the memo dated January 3, 2006.
On voice vote, motion carried.
F.
Run/Walk Permit
for American Cancer Society for 25th Annual Run/Walk on Sunday,
April 23, 2006 from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Leathen, to approve the Run/Walk
permit for the American Cancer Society for 25th Annual Run/Walk on
Sunday, April 23, 2006 from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. On voice vote, motion
carried.
G.
Change of Agent
– Kwik Trip #822, 950 2nd Avenue North, Onalaska – Sara A. Friese.
Ald. Gonczy noted that this item did not go before the Administrative
& Judiciary Committee. Ald. Gonczy
reported that he has discussed this item with City Clerk Cari Burmaster and
learned that all necessary paperwork is in order.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Wulf, to approve the Change of
Agent for Kwik Trip #922 located at 950 2nd Avenue North, Onalaska,
to Sara A. Friese.
Under discussion, Ald. Gonczy noted that he would abstain from the vote
as he is employed by Kwik Trip.
On voice vote, motion carried with one abstention (Ald. Gonczy).
Item 9 - BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS:
A. 2006 Capital Improvement Projects.
1. Recommendation and possible action in regards to the 2006 Capital Improvement Projects.
Motion by Ald. Leathen, second by Ald. Gonczy, to approve the 2006
Capital Improvement Projects list. On voice vote, motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 3-2006
A RESOLUTION
RELATING TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FOR
2006
To The Honorable Mayor and Council,
City of Onalaska, Wisconsin
WHEREAS, The Board of Public Works in the City of Onalaska has held a Public Hearing
on January 3, 2006 at 6:30 P.M. on the proposed 2006 Capital Improvement
Projects, and
WHEREAS, The Board of Public Works in the City of Onalaska has reviewed the total
Capital Improvement Project costs of $13,639,859 less amounts previously bonded
for $683,400 and other sources of revenue of $6,328,981 leaving a balance of
$6,627,478, with issuance costs of $112,225 and Debt Service Reserve of
$360,000.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Public Works has recommended the
adoption of the 2006 Capital Improvement Projects as outlined in the budget
attached to this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the
Common Council of the City of Onalaska has considered the 2006, Capital
Improvement Projects as presented by the Board of Public Works, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Onalaska
does hereby adopt the 2006 Capital Improvement Budgets of $13,639,859 with a
financing of $7,105,000.
Dated this 10th day of January, 2006
CITY OF ONALASKA
BY:
______________________________
James S. Bialecki, Mayor
______________________________
Passed:
Published:
Motion by Ald. Leathen, second by Ald. Gonczy, to approve Resolution 3-2006. On roll call vote: Ald.
Giese – aye; Ald. Wulf – aye; Ald. Gonczy – aye; Ald. Olson – aye; Ald. Smith –
aye; Ald. Leathen – aye. Motion carried.
B.
No
Parking/Alternate Side Parking on 12th Avenue South for a snow
removal project.
Motion by Ald. Leathen, second by Ald. Gonczy, to make 12th
Avenue South alternate side parking during the winter months.
Under discussion, Ald. Gonczy noted that this item had been referred to
the Administrative & Judiciary Committee for an ordinance change.
In response to a question from Ald. Smith, Ald. Gonczy clarified that
every other day during the alternate side parking period there would be no
parking at all on the street.
Fred noted that alternate side parking already is in place so no
ordinance change would be required.
Ron noted that the ordinance currently states that if there is No Parking
on one side of the street, cars can park on the other side of the street. Fred pointed out that in this case there is
a bike lane so there is no parking allowed on that side. Ron stated that it is his understanding that
because of the bike lane, parking is allowed on the east side of the street at
any time.
Cari read from the existing ordinance, “No parking on one side… parking
on the east side”. Cari noted that the
alternate side parking would now be enforced on that street and the residents
would be informed of such.
Sean said, “I think that the use of the alternate side parking, where
there isn’t parking on the other side of the street, only becomes problematic
in that the citizens could potentially claim that the law is ambiguous or you
can’t follow it. Because, if you read only the Alternate Side Parking law, then
you would try to park on the other side where it’s No Parking. Therefore, one
way to address this problem would be just to put in the ordinance that there’s
only parking on the east side of the street on the days it’s allowed by
Alternate Side Parking and be silent about the other side of the street”.
Cari noted that this is not the only area in the City where such a
situation exists. Cari noted that the other streets are not addressed in the
manner recommended by Sean.
Sean asked if there were enforcement issues in the other parts of the
City. Cari responded, “As far as I know, they enforce it as alternate side
parking and they’re only allowed to park on that street every other day. And,
this is the only area where they’ve allowed them to park there on those
alternate days. And, that was just because it was a release from a Police
Department and how they were going to enforce the ordinance, not actually
because that’s what the ordinance is reading”.
Sean responded, “Then it is solely an issue of enforcing the ordinance”.
Ron stated that he has viewed the ordinance that states that where there
is No Parking on one side of the street, Alternate Side Parking will not be
enforced on the other side of the street.
Ald. Gonczy recommended referring that issue to the Administrative &
Judiciary Committee and allowing the City Attorney time to review the issue.
On voice vote, motion carried.
C. Request from Xcel Energy to relocate an overhead power line on the east side of US Highway 16.
Ald. Leathen noted this issue is part of the 12th Avenue South
extension, Medary Lane, Highway 16 underpass project.
Motion by Ald. Leathen, second by Ald. Gonczy, to approve the request
from Xcel Energy to relocate an overhead power line on the east side of US
Highway 16.
Mayor Bialecki recognized a citizen. The citizen stated that he had made
a request of the Police Department to paint a yellow section across the street
from the school and install a sign stating No Parking from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30
p.m. (or 4:00 p.m.). Mayor Bialecki noted that that item does not appear on
this agenda and recommended that the citizen contact City Hall to voice his concern
so that the item may be placed on a future agenda.
On voice vote, motion carried.
D.
Possible control
of mercury through the City wastewater collection system.
Ald. Leathen reported that the City of La Crosse is considering an
ordinance that would require all dentists to install equipment to capture
amalgam from sinks. Mercury in the
river has been traced back to dental offices.
E.
Authorization to
bid out traffic marking and painting project on Main Street.
Motion by Ald. Leathen, second by Ald. Olson, to authorize the
Engineering Department to bid out traffic marking and painting project on Main
Street as part of a grant. On voice
vote, motion carried.
F.
Proposal on
locating City traffic signals and electrical lines.
Motion by Ald. Leathen, second by Ald. Smith, to authorize the Public
Works Department to proceed with mapping existing City facilities with the help
of a locating service for an amount not to exceed $2,000. On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 10 - PLAN COMMISSION:
A.
Regarding a proposal to amend Section 14-1-74(I) of the
Code of Ordinances related to Storm Sewer Policy.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Smith, to approve the
proposal to amend Section 14-1-71(I) of the Code of Ordinances related to Storm
Sewer Policy. On voice vote, motion
carried.
B. Regarding a Conditional Use Permit requested by David and Sheri Plantz 619 10th Avenue North, Onalaska, for the purpose of a home occupation located at 619 10th Avenue North for a carpet and upholstery cleaning business (Parcel #18-3329-0).
1.
CUP Fee of $150.00.
2.
Owner shall
disclose hours of operation, number of employees, means of storing equipment,
chemicals, etc., number of vehicles, etc. Plan Commission my condition approval
on these issues.
3.
Exterior storage is
prohibited.
4.
Owner shall
disclose information as to how business refuse is disposed of, including
leftover chemicals.
5.
Owner/developer
must pay all fees and have all plans reviewed and approved by the City prior to
obtaining a building permit.
Owner/developer must have all conditions satisfied and improvements
installed per approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permit.
6.
Owner/developer
must notify the City prior to any utility connection to public utilities.
7.
All conditions run
with the land and are binding upon the original developer and all heirs,
successors, and assigns. The sale or
transfer of all or any portion of the property does not relieve the original
developer from payment of any fees imposed or from meeting any other
conditions.
8.
Any omissions of
any conditions not listed in the Plan Commission Minutes shall not release the
developer/property owner from abiding by the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and
Zoning Code requirements.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Wulf, to deny the Conditional Use
Permit requested by David and Sheri Plantz, for the purpose of a home
occupation located at 619 10th Avenue North for a carpet and
upholstery cleaning business.
Under discussion, Ald. Wulf noted that this Conditional Use Permit is for
a property in her neighborhood. Ald.
Wulf asked if she would be allowed to vote on the item. Sean stated that Ald.
Wulf would be allowed to vote on the item.
Ald. Wulf noted that the Plan Commission had voted unanimously to deny
the Conditional Use Permit. Ald. Wulf
asked what would be the next step in the process if the Common Council were to
uphold that denial.
Land Use & Development Director Jason Gilman said, “I’d informed the
Plantzes that they have various options for their home occupation. One would be
for them to downsize it in conformance with what we call the Accessory Use Home
Occupation, which does not permit employees to come to the home. And, we also
clarified that they can’t have more than one vehicle. The code expressly says
that they can only have occasional deliveries under the Accessory Use Home
Occupation. So, I would send them a letter clarifying those issues. That would
be a legal home occupation. And, if they chose to keep their bookkeeper and
have multiple delivery vehicles with the signage on the side, they’d have to
reapply for a Conditional Use. But, until they got that conditional use, they
would have to cease and desist. So, they’ll be receiving correspondence to that
effect from me”.
Ald. Wulf noted that a number of individuals from the neighborhood had
been heard on this issue at the Plan Commission.
Ald. Wulf said, “What I want Council members to understand is that this
is not a neighborhood that says, ‘Absolutely no’ to all businesses. A greater portion of this neighborhood had
absolutely no problem with the massage therapist just right around the corner,
which is approximately a block over from where I reside – on 8th
Avenue North – who came before Plan Commission approximately, I’m going to
guess, 12 months ago or so. The lady did come around, door to door, and I
believe she got 100% participation. I think there might have been one person
who might have had a question or was neutral.
“But, the lady who spoke earlier this evening in
support of Common Council supporting Plan Commission’s denial of this –
Annabelle Freyhoff – this evening, she is the one who kind of led the charge
for the petition against this business locating. She even was in support and
did not have any qualms about the massage therapist. So, I just want everyone
to understand that this is not a neighborhood that is saying, ‘Absolutely no
business’. It’s the type of business that we are talking about.
“And the concern that I’ve heard from my
neighbors – my Second District constituents – and there is a large number of
them, per the Onalaska Community Life, and if he was quoted correctly,
and Mr. Tony Nelson is in the audience this evening, Mr. Plantz has gone on
record and said that he has one service vehicle. And that’s why I want to address this with legal counsel this
evening. He says he has one service vehicle. And Mr. Plantz clearly has two
vehicles in his garage as of this last weekend and he has since he moved in
mid-September of 2005. He has two
vehicles: one is a minivan, one is like a conversion-size van. They’re white
with lettering that says, ‘Chem-Dry of La Crosse’. And they are signed front, back, the sides, I think everything
except the hood. And they have a Minnesota number, a La Crosse phone number.
There are two vehicles in his garage. And, he can persist in saying has one
service vehicle. And so when Jason sends out that letter, I know you shared
with me that he can only have one vehicle. Well, if he says he has one vehicle,
but he clearly has two vehicles, and you can see that from public road – 10th
Avenue North – when you drive by his garage, how do we address that?”
Jason responded, “I think the multiple vehicle issue is more related to
use than it is ownership. In other words, the code says that a permitted home
occupation – an accessory use – can only receive occasional deliveries related
to the business. Likewise, if Mr. Plantz was using one of those two vehicles to
leave every morning and then come home every night – similar to a plumbing
contractor and many other people that bring work vehicles home – he’d be okay,
as long as that other vehicle is housed. That’s the way I would interpret the
code. And we’ve interpreted it that way historically. It’s very difficult to
restrict – we have nothing in the code that I’m aware of that restricts the
number of vehicles that people can have, nor the signage that they have on the
vehicles, despite how large the signage is on this. I suppose we could look at
it if the signage became an issue – if he was parking and clearly advertising
his business in a residential district then it becomes a little bit more of an
issue. But, I think it’s the use of that vehicle. If he’s having two employees
using both vehicles or he and his wife are using both vehicles, then it becomes
an issue. It’s a little bit fuzzy in the code because the Home Occupation
ordinance doesn’t spell it out specifically. But, historically, we’ve said,
‘occasional deliveries only for an accessory use’”.
Ald. Gonczy asked if it were correct that if the Conditional Use Permit
were granted, then the applicant would be allowed unlimited vehicles.
Jason responded, “No, the Plan Commission can actually place conditions
on the approval of the Conditional Use restricting number of employees,
vehicles, signage, everything”.
Ald. Gonczy asked if the number of vehicles was the primary concern
raised by the citizens at the Plan Commission meeting.
Mayor Bialecki noted that there were a number of issues raised. Mayor Bialecki said, “I think one of the
biggest things – including myself – that turned me off, is nobody bothered to
spend any time with any of the neighbors. It was kind of perceived as come in
here, run it down their throat and leave”.
Ald. Wulf noted that at the Plan Commission Subcommittee meeting, Ald.
Giese had advised Mr. Plantz to confer with the neighbors regarding his
plans. Ald. Wulf said, “Mrs. Freyhoff
went ahead and did go door-to-door to 28 households and absolutely no problem
in the winter months. And Mr. Plantz stated in the record that he didn’t know
there’d be opposition. Well, he was told to go door-to-door. You need to
educate your neighbors. He was advised to do that and I felt he pretty much
decided not to”.
Ald. Gonczy asked, if the Conditional Use Permit is denied, how long must
the applicant wait before reapplying.
Jason reported that Conditional Use Permit allow for immediate
reapplication. Jason said, “It would be
up to the Plan Commission’s discretion, if part of the reason for the denial
previously was that they didn’t talk to the neighbors and with the new
application nothing changed, they wouldn’t have to entertain that application”.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Olson, to table for 30 days. On roll call vote: Ald. Smith – aye; Ald.
Gonczy – aye; Ald. Wulf – nay; Ald. Olson – aye; Ald. Giese – no; Ald. Leathen
– no. The vote was tied three to three.
The Chair cast the deciding vote: Mayor Bialecki – no. Motion to table failed.
Mayor Bialecki returned to the original motion to deny.
Under discussion, Ald. Wulf said, “I’m going to urge my fellow Common
Council members to support the Plan Commission’s unanimous decision to deny the
Conditional Use Permit. As I stated at Plan Commission, Mrs. Freyhoff went
ahead and I felt she met her burden of proof. She went door-to-door, 28
households. Mr. Plantz chose to go to zero. If you read the Community Life,
he said he didn’t think he had such opposition. He was clearly told a week
before to go ahead and inform his neighbors. He did not. I think, quite
honestly he – I won’t even surmise the reasons why he thought – I just personally
think Common Council should uphold Plan Commission’s decision. And, if the
Plantzes choose to reapply, then Plan Commission can make that decision again,
and come before Council again”.
On voice vote, motion carried.
C. Unified Development Code – Chapter 8: Mobility Standards.
Jason reported that Chapter 8 of the Unified Development Code is meant to
address the various sections of the code that deal with transportation
improvements, including bicycle transit and roadway improvements for
automobiles. Jason noted that this
category currently is covered in the Zoning, Subdivision, and Public Works
sections of the code. The purpose of the Unified Development Code is to combine
all of these sections into one place so users do not have to cross-reference
information.
Jason noted that this chapter currently is under review by the members of
the Plan Commission.
Jason reported that the City’s subdivision code would be addressed next.
D. Town of Onalaska Boundary Agreement process.