Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-03 CC MIN ." CITY OF STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL MEETING NO. 04-03 February 3, 2004 REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M. Mayor Kimble called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Present: Absent: Councilmembers Kriesel, Milbrandt, Rheinberger, Junker and Mayor Kimble None Others Present: City Administrator Hansen Director of Administration Knauss Police Chief Dauffenbach Public Works Director Eckles Fire Chief Kallestad Community Development Director Russell Planner Fitzgerald City Clerk Ward Possible approval of sprinkler system connection to City water supply - Stillwater EvanQelical Free Church . . Mr. Jim Kirkpatrick, Senior Pastor of the Stillwater Evangelical Free Church requested that the church be allowed to connect to the City's water supply for a fire sprinkler system, either by annexation or contract with the City. He stated that the connection is necessary for their addition and to meet building codes. After considerable discussion Mr. Kirkpatrick was a$ked if the matter could be decided at the next meeting, February 17, 2004. Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated that would be acceptable. Motion by Council member Rheinberger, seconded by Councilmember Milbrandt directing staff to provide Council with the options and costs involved with granting this request. All in favor. Possible approval of policy establishino criteria for publication boxes. location of boxes. and a prOQram for vol~ntarv compliance City Attorney Magnuson reviewed the reasons for the proposed policy that was presented to the City Council by the Chamber of Commerce. Planner Sue Fitzgerald reviewed the proposed policy regarding the publication boxes, locations for the boxes and a program for voluntary compliance. She stated that there were four meetings with the various newspapers and they were cooperative. She also reviewed the HPC comments relating to the corrals that they would be black metal, the boxes should not be stackable and the district should include the entire CBD. She stated that the publishers felt that policy, rather than ordinance, was a preferred first approach with the publishers enforcing the policy and that the Stillwater Gazette would be the administrator of the policy therefore the City would not have to enforce the policy. City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 She stated the corral would match the benches and trash receptacles downtown and cost approximately $400 for each corral. Councilmember Junker's concern is that there are more boxes than corrals. Planner Fitzgerald stated that no one would be turned away as long as they follow the policy. She also stated that businesses could have newspaper stands inside their place of business. She stated that the administrator of the policy would remove empty boxes. She stated that if the policy does not work, it could be changed to an ordinance. Councilmember Milbrandt asked if the City is obligated to build another corral if there are more requests than corrals. City Attorney Magnuson stated that the administrator of the policy will handle this issue, they could however come before Council and request more corrals. Council member Kriesel stated that he would much rather see these boxes in parking lots rather than on Main Street. He complimented Ms. Fitzgerald, Mr. Magnuson and Mr. Hansen for their hard work on this project. Councilmember Rheinberger stated he was in favor of the policy. Motion by Council member Rheinberger, seconded by Council member Milbrandt to adopt Resolution 2004-29, approval of a policy establishing criteria for publication boxes, location of boxes and a program for voluntary compliance, subject to the following changes to the policy: black metal, the boxes should not be stackable and the district should include the entire CBD. Ayes: Councilmembers Kriesel, Milbrandt, Rheinberger, Junker and Mayor Kimble Nays: None Discussion on lobbvist proiects and increase in budaet item. Mr. Cain reviewed the requirements for a lodging tax or food and liquor tax and stated that it could only be used for tourist improvements such as park development and restrooms. Council member Rheinberger felt that the issue of a food and liquor tax would be a tax against the residents of the City and is strongly against any type of tax or the gimmicks of tax disguised as fees. Councilmember Kriesel stated that he didn't agree with Council member Rheinberger in regard to a lodging or food and liquor tax that it would significantly impact the residents. He stated that there are a lot of tourists that come to Stillwater who enjoy the amenities that the City provides but do not participate in the cost of those amenities that the City taxpayer has the burden placed on them. He stated that it is time to get the tourists to help pay for the costs because they are getting a free ride. He agreed that the gas and Page 2 of 19 '~ 'I -1 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 electric franchise fees have an accumulating affect, but that hopefully by getting the tourists to pay for the amenities it will reduce the burden on the taxpayers because tourists would pay part of the cost. He encouraged anyone with ideas on how to reduce taxes without sacrificing the services the City provides to submit those ideas. He also stated that if improvement projects in the downtown are to be completed that tourists should help in the funding. Council member Rheinberger stated that maybe Stillwater should change the concept of Stillwater being a tourist city because the approximately 800,000 people who come here a year are not contributors to the City and the residents do not get extra value by these people coming to Stillwater. Councilmember Kriesel responded by stating that if Stillwater became a bedroom community the closing of the businesses would be one way of doing that. He stated that people are not coming to visit the neighborhoods; they are coming to visit the downtown businesses. Mayor Kimble stated that the purpose of this agenda item is to direct Mr. Cain on issues to work on at the State and Federal levels. City Administrator Hansen stated that the budget was reduced to $35,000 last year and Mr. Cain has asked for an increase of $11 ,000 to cover work done at the State and Federal level. Councilmember Rheinberger felt that $25,000 was enough for Mr. Cain because he felt the City is not getting results for what the City pays. Council member Junker asked what would the current fees pay for. Mr. Cain stated he would be able to work on the levee wall project at the federal level and would not have time at the State level. He stated that the federal government did not provide additional dollars for the levee wall project. Council member Milbrandt asked if there are funds to cover the increase. City Administrator Hansen stated that typically the City comes in the black and there could be money to cover this cost. He recommended that Council approve the increase because we need some assistance at the state level. Councilmember Mjlbrandt stated there have been some past and recent successes due to Mr. Cain's efforts and that the State issues are more paramount then they have been in the past. Council member Kriesel agreed with Council member Milbrandt regarding Mr. Cain's efforts and encouraged Mr. Cain to find funding for other projects as well. He stated that the return of Mr. Cain's efforts have gotten Stillwater considerable dollars. Page 3 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 Councilmember Rheinberger stated that our local legislators should be able to achieve the same as Mr. Cain. Councilmember Junker stated he would like to continue to receive updates from Mr. Cain. Councilmember Milbrandt requested that Mr. Cain provide information that the Councilmembers could use when they attend the conference in Washington in March. Motion by Councilmember Milbrandt, seconded by Council member Kriesel to approve the additional $11,000 for lobbyi~t fees. Ayes: Councilmembers Kriesel, Milbrandt, Junker and Mayor Kimble Nays: Councilmember Rheinberger STAFF REPORTS Police Chief Dauffenbach presented and reviewed with Council the Police Department's Annual Report. He also thanked Council for th~ir support. Councilmember Junker asked if the 2:00 a.m. closing has had an impact on the department. Chief Dauffenbach stated that there has not been much of an impact because the department already dealt with the issue with the Wisconsin's bar closing time. Mayor Kimble commended the Public Works Department on their snowplowing operations during the recent snowstorm. City Administrator Hansen provided an update on the SEH costs for the levee wall project, noting there were still details to be worked out. City Administrator Hansen presented a joint resolution for possible approval supporting the construction of a new 150 bed segregation unit at the Stillwater Correctional Facility located in Bayport. Motion by Councilmember Milbrandt, seconded by Councilmember Rheinberger to adopt Resolution 2004-30, a resolution by the cities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights, Stillwater and Baytown Township to support the construction of a new 150-bed segregation unit at the Stillwater Correctional Facility located in Bayport, Minnesota. Ayes: Councilmembers Kriesel, Milbrandt, Rheinberger, Junker and Mayor Kimble Nays: None Mayor Kimble recessed the meeting at 5:39 p.m. Page 4 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 RECESSED MEETING February 3, 2004 7:00 P.M. Mayor Kimble called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Absent: Councilmembers Kriesel, Milbrandt, Rheinberger, Junker and Mayor Kimble .None Others Present: City Administrator Hansen Director of Administration Knauss Police Chief Dauffenbach Public Works Director Eckles Fire Chief Kallestad Assistant Fire Chief Glaser Community Development Director Russell City Clerk Ward APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Councilmember Rheinberger, seconded by Councilmember Junker to approve the January 20, 2004 special and regular meeting minutes. All in favor. PETITIONS,INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS Presentation of plaque t<? Fire Chief Kim Kallestad Mayor Kimble presented a plaque to Fire Chief Kallestad for his dedication and service to the City. Fire Chief Kallestad thanked the Council and City staff for their support. He also thanked fire department personnel for their participation in his tenure as fire chief and commended the fire department on their dedication to the residents. OPEN FORUM There were no comments under Open Forum. CONSE;NT AGENDA Motion by Council member Rheinberger, seconded by Council member Kriesel to approve the consent agenda. Ayes: Councilmembers Kriesel, Milbrandt, Rheinberger, Junker and Mayor Kimble Nays: None Resolution 2004-27, directing payment of bills Approval to purchase 2004 squad cars Approval of Annual Bocce Ball Tournament on Saturday, February 28 - Brine's Approval to purchase equipment for Public Works Resolution 2004-28, approval of Forestry Consultant contract Page 5 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 Approval to purchase point of sale software maintenance agreement - Recreation Center Approval of acknowledgement of receptivity to an LCA funding award Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Valley Chamber Chorale - April 23-25, 2004 Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Valley Chamber Chorale - December 3- 5,2004 PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. SUP/04-02. This is the date and time for a public hearina to consider an appeal of the Planninq Commission's and Heritaqe Preservation Commission's decision on a reauest from Jeff and Julie Anderson for a modification to a Bed and Breakfast special use permit for the relocation of two quest rooms from the main house to the carriaqe house and for special events (40 quest'maximum) located at 306 West Olive Street in the RB. Duplex Residential District. Community Development Director Russell reviewed tne appeals. He stated that Jeff & Julie Anderson are appealing the Planning Commission's denial of special events at the Rivertown Inn and that Paul & Judy Lacy are appealing the moving of rooms to the carriage house. Mayor Kimble opened the public hearing. Mr. Jeff Anderson, Rivertown Inn, reviewed his original request to the Planning Commission, which were six events per month with up to 40 people. He stated that because of the concerns expressed by the neighbors he reduced the original request from six events per month to two events per month with a maximum of 36 people at each event, which is 18 in addition to the 18 already allowed under the current Special Use Permit. He stated that the proposed use is less than the variance allowed to other similar bed and breakfasts, the events would not last any later than 9:00 p.m. and that the requested use is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and property. He also stated that the inn accommodates 11 cars in the parking lot and that the remaining cars would park on the street adjacent to the Rivertown Inn property only. He stated that the six special events per month requested has been granted to Sundry, Lady Goodwood, Laurel Street Inn, Anne Bean, however he is not requesting that because the neighbors do not want it and they don't need that many events. The events are designed to include some charitable events and dinners. Judith Lacy, 318 Olive Street West, feels that this affects her more than anyone else. She expects to continue to live in a quiet neighborhood and asks the Council to ensure her a reasonable expectation to privacy. She listed her volunteering efforts for the community. Ms. Lacy recited multiple dates and times that her quiet and privacy was disturbed by the water heater vent in the Inn. She informed the Andersons and they said they would get the sound muffled. Their attempts to muffle the sound did not meet with her approval. She stated that she continued to call Mr. Anderson regarding the problem until he told her not to call again. She then registered a complaint with the City. A decibel level test was completed and found that the sound did not qualify as a nuisance. She stated that the new muffler system that was installed is not working and Page 6 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 requested Mr. Anderson to keep to his word and vent the water heater to the parking lot. She stated that they are unable to sleep. She stated that before the Planning Commission they met with Mr. Anderson and Were unable to resolve the issue. She wants no more roorrls in the carriage house. She is upset that she has had to live with all the noise for the last two and one-half years without being able to do anything about it. She is concerned about the noise of the guests coming and going late at night. Lighting is also disturbing and even though some lovely things have been done to the carriage house, she cannot erect a 20-foot wall between the properties. She is looking to the City Council to seriously consider the plans. She asked the Council to deny the moving of the rooms to the carriage house. She thanked the Council for their time and consideration. Ms. Maryann Calver, 321 Olive Street, stated that she is not negatively affected by the Rivertown Inn. She s~ated that prior to the Anderson's purchasing the property it was getting runned down and dilapidated which was a concern to her. She stated that the Anderson's have a vest~d interest in the neighborhood because they live around the corner from the Inn. She also stated that the Andersons have helped keep the neighborhood a safe, lively, and vibrant. She stated that not many people want to live in a huge Victorian home with its upkeep and maintenance so there are only a few options that can be done and the Rivertown Inn has been working well. She has not had any personal problems with the Anderson's but felt if she did they would resolve it in a reasonable manner. She felt that it helps the property values and it is more of a concern that homes in the area are being neglected. She supported the Anderson's request. Jim Martin, 225 W. Chestnut, has had no problems with the Rivertown Inn and felt it would be unfair if they were not given the opportunity to run their business in some way because there is rental property, the Stillwater Manner that can cause more problems than the Rivertown Inn. He also stated that he has never had problems with unruly customers or noise from the Inn and supports the Anderson's request. Mr. Greg Carlson, stated that since they have moved to the neighborhood they have not had any problems with noise, smells or anything like that. He supported the Anderson's request. Mr. Don Martin, general contractor for Andersons and lives in Stillwater, stated that he has never worked for owners of property that are so concerned about disrupting their neighbors lives and if Council would like to discuss noise problems he would be glad to talk about the noise at the corner of Pine and Greeley. Mr. Paul Lacy, 318 W Olive, stated the AnderSons have brazenly ignored almost all of the conditions of their Special Use Permit, and now flaunt that disregard. Not only are they asking this Council to retroactively ratify their repeated violations, but also in fact, they have the audacity to ask that their activities be expanded far beyond anything permissible. When the Andersons initially contemplated running the Inn, they asked us to discuss the matter with them. We sat on their patio, and reviewed what they intended to do. We expressed our concern that the noise and activity levels had increased, and inquired of their intentions as owners. They said they would not have any guests in the carriage house, would shield the Inn visually, and would reduce the noise. The Page 7 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 Andersons unequivocally stClted that they would not increase the use beyond what the Doughertys were permitted to do. With that promise, we were excited to have them as owners, because they had the means to, and interest in, maintaining the Inn. However, our fears have now been realized. Their operations no longer resemble a Bed and Breakfast. They are operating a hotel, in violation of state law, the City Code and their own Special Use Permit. Mr. Lacy stated that the Inn was grandfathered in as a Bed and Breakfast with nine guest rooms in the main house. The Doughertys repeatedly sought to expand the operation to include guests in the carriage house, and were resoundingly and appropriately prevented from doing so, by both the Planning Commission and this Council. Mr. Lacy provided a history of Planning and Council actions since 1~87. He also stated that when the Andersons purchased the Inn, they applied for a Special Use Permit to continue the operation of a Bed and Breakfast. The Planning Commission approved that request, subject to all of the conditions that the Doughertys had had. The Andersons agreed to those conditions, and subsequently signed the Special Use Permit, on September 24, 1999 and the Andersons began various construction and renovation projects. There has been continuous and ongoing construction ever since. Mr. Lacy stated that they live immediately to the west side of the Inn's property, at 318 West Olive Street. We also own the properties immediately adjacent, at 322 West Olive Street, and 211 South Sixth Street, which are each leased to a single family. As such we tolerated the construction as best we could, and tried to resolve issues, as they arose such as on Easter weekend, two years ago, when they heard a loud rumbling noise coming from the Inn. They immediately called the Andersons and the manager, because they thought that something must be terribly wrong with the furnace. He stated that Mr. Anderson called to tell us that it was "merely" the noise of the new A.a. Smith, CYCLONE model water heater. He stated that they attempted to resolve the matter, but the Andersons made no meaningful change, and refused to replace it with a normal water heater so therefore every time that it went off, it would disturb us, even at night. He stated that Mr. Anderson instructed us not to call him anymore and had decided to cut off all of our efforts to resolve the matter. Mr. Lacy filed a complaint on June 21, 2001 with the police on the noise level, which they monitored and decided that it was just barely under the level necessary to declare it a public nuisance and spoke with Dave Magnuson, as well. He stated nothing was done, and nothing changed, until an hour before the Planning Commission hearing on January 12,2004. He stated that Mr. Anderson promised to put a new "muffler" on the water heater, and said that he would move the actual vent pipe, s6 that it vented out the north side of the Inn, under the office, if the "muffler" was not to our satisfaction which he offered to put his promise in writing, but they did not ask him to provide it in writing. Mr. Lacy stated that on Monday, January 26, 2004, we informed Jeff Anderson that the noise was still too noticeable and met with Mr. Anderson on Friday, January 30, 2004, and requested that he move the vent as promised. Mr. Lacy felt that since that time, the Andersons have continuously violated the terms of their Special Use Permit. Mr. Lacy reviewed his list of possible conditional use permit violations by the Andersons. He also stated that even after the Planning Page 8 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 Commission's January 12, 2004 meeting denying the Andersons' request for permission for dinners and special events, they went ahead with another special event on January 22, 2004, resulting in cars parked on both sides of Fifth Street, as well as on Olive Street. This event had even been promoted in the St. Croix Vallev Press. on January 4, 2004. Mr. Lacy stated that Minnesota law provides the authority for the City to enact zoning ordinances. He stated that under that authority, there are certain limitations and constraints upon special use permits, especially when the permitted use is a nonconforming use. At the Planning Commission hearing on this matter, the Commissioners repeatedly questioned why they were dealing with a supposed Bed and Breakfast that had almost twice as many rooms as permitted under the City Code. While the initial answer was that the number of rooms used was that number in use at the time that the Bed and Breakfast provisions were enacted, that was not the end of the analysis. Mr. Lacy stated that the Andersons are asking the City Council to ignore all of their past and continuing violations of the terms of their Special Use Permit and the effect of those violations on their ability to continue operating the Inn; to ignore the limitations that the City Code and Minnesota Statutes place on nonconforming uses; to sanction an expansion of their nonconforming use to indude a different building; and to permit the Andersons to operate a hotel and restaurant in the middle of a residential district. Mr. Lacy felt that the violations should terminate the permit entirely by stating that Minnesota state law limits the duration of a conditional use, such as the Rivertown Inn, by allowing the permit to remain in effect "as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed" Minn. Stat. 9462.3595, Subd. 3. The Andersons' flagrant, repeated, and ongoing violations of the conditions of their Special Use Permit, outlined above in Section II, B., warrant the Council's revoking their permit in its entirety. Mr. Lacy felt that the Andersons were completely ignoring all of the conditions to which they agreed to be bound. The City carefully regulates Bed and Breakfasts, and the ability to operate a Bed and Breakfast is a privilege, not a right and felt that the Andersons have abused that privilege and as a consequence, the Special Use Permit should be revoked. He also stated that at the hearing before the Planning Commission, the Commissioners repeatedly lamented the existence of such a large establishment, and wondered aloud as to how they could be bound to accept such a great number of rooms in a Bed and Breakfast. What they did not consider was that they were not so constrained. Mr. Lacy stated that the City Code defines the parameters of a Bed and Breakfast. The Rivertown Inn was set up as a Bed and Breakfast before any such ordinance was enacted. As a consequence, at the time that the Andersons purchased the Rivertown Inn, they were permitted to continue the operation of the nine guest rooms that the Doughertys had obtained permission to use. As such, the Rivertown Inn is a nonconforming use. "Nonconforming use means an existing building, structure or use of land which does not conform to the regulations ofthe district in which it is located." City Code 9 31-1, Subd. 4. In this instance, the Rivertown Inn is located in a two-family district (RB). He reviewed the City Code section relating to this matter Page 9 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 I Mr. Lacy stated that the Rivertown Inn was permitted to continue the operation to the extent it existed at the time the ordinance was enacted. City Code 9 31-1, Subd. 9. However, the City Code places strict limits on the continuation of a nonconforming use. "A nonconforming use of a building or premises which has been abandoned shall not thereafter be a lawful nonconforming use." City Code 931-1, Subd. 9(6). The Code then specifies that a nonconforming use is considered to be abandoned ''when the inten~ of the owner to discontinue the use is apparent or one year after the use is discontinued." City Code 9 31-1, Subd. 9(6)a. t Mr. Lacy stated that at the time the Andersons acquired the Rivertown Inn, it had nine particular rooms that were utilized as guest rooms. From the outset, the Andersons decided to abandon the nonconforming use of a room on the third floor by making it a part of another guest room and their reason was that guests would not want to stay in such a tiny room and as a consequence, the Andersons were then limited to the eight remaining rooms. He also stated that over a year ago, the Andersons decided to abandon the guest room on the first floor and that their reason was that there were no other bedrooms on the first floor, and that the area utilized as a guest room had historically been a part of the parlor. The room was subsequently rejoined with the rest of the main parlor and as a result, the Andersons are now limited to the seven remaining guest rooms in the Inn. He also stated that the Anderson's requested permission to expand the Inn to the carriage house. The Doughertys repeatedly attempted to gain permission for just such an expansion, and both the Planning Commission and the City Council repeatedly denied them that request. He stated that the Zoning Ordinances have been clearly set forth with respect to a Bed and Breakfast and that the Council has clear authority to deny that request, based solely on that ordinance. He felt that this was not the only legal basis that requires the Council to deny the Anderson's request. As described above, the operation of the Bed and Breakfast is a nonconforming use and felt that the law clearly limits what may be done as stated in City Code 99 31-1, Subd. 9(2) and 31-1, Subd. 9(3). He stated that the carriage house forms the western border of the Andersoris' property, and no more than 20 feet from the northern border but that the required setback is 30 feet on the side, and 25 feet on the rear. He also felt that having a hotel and restaurant on the border of their property would significantly reduce their property value. Mr. Lacy felt that if the City Council were to permit the Andersons to carry on with their requested activities, then each of the other ten Bed and Breakfasts would be entitled to the same permission and would have a far-reaching, and invidious effect on the neighborhoods surrounding all Bed and Breakfasts in Stillwater and lowering property values in each instance. He felt that the City Code is not the only authority that the Council can rely upon in denying both of the Andersons' requests. He stated that the Supreme Court of Minnesota has also held that a City Council's authority is limited, and reviewed various case law addressing zoning issues. He stated that he felt that City Council could rest assured that their denial is made necessary by both case law and statute. It is unnecessary for the City Council to take sides in the matter, as the Council's ruling is foreordained. He stated that the Andersons would argue that they should be permitted to continue with their plans, because they have already spent some money in construction. However, it has long been established that, because they began their expansions without the proper authority, and with a permit that was improperly issued, their Page 10 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 expenditures are their own costs to bear. He recited case law to support his statement. He stated that this result has even been applied to prevent the owners from enjoining a municipality's denial of a request and recovering damages. Mr. Lacy respectfully requests that the Andersons be denied their hotel restaurant proposal, and expansion and relocation of their guest rooms to include the carriage house. The City Council should not adopt the Planning Commission's approval to permit guest rooms that were once in the Inn, to be relocated in the carriage house; thereby expanding the Inn to include the carriage house, to offer meals to anyone other than guests. The City Council should not permit them to hold special events, not permit them to expand their nonconforming operation to the carriage house. He stated that the City Council should deny all of their building requests in their entirety and that the City Council should require that the Andersons bring their operation into full compliance with the existing Conditions of Use, and provide the City Council and the neighbors with proof of that compliance for at least a full year before the City Council and the neighbors are forced to again address any request by the Andersons. Mr. Lacy stated that granting such requests would reward them for totally ignoring the strictures of their own Special Use Permit, would fly in the face of the purpose and effect of the City Code, and if the Andersons were permitted to ignore the City Code in the manners that they suggest, it would establish a precedent that would virtually force the City Council to grant the same to all of the other Bed and Breakfasts in Stillwater. He stated that Qverarching the entire matter are the rulings of the Supreme Court of Minnesota that require the Council to deny the requests. Mr. Lacy stated that granting the Andersons' requests would destroy their privacy; eliminate any peace and quiet they have; and substantially devalue their property; all for the benefit of the owners of a nonconforming Bed and Breakfast. He requested that Council do their duty and deny the request. Mr. Jeff Johnson, 309 South Fifth Street, stated that two attorneys looking at the level of details gets away from the intent of the ordinance which actually is for bed & breakfast. He affirmed that the intent of the ordinance was to preserve and maintain these larger older properties that would other wise become derelict for the lack of a person to maintain as a single family residence. He stated that this property was used as a half- way house by Dickie Anderson and the neighborhood knows what was brought into the area because of the half-way house, and stated that since the property has been a bed & breakfast the quality of the neighborhood has gone up and have seen significant improvements especially with the Anderson property and he wished he could do it to his home and others in the neighborhood and to use this property as an example. He stated that the ordinance is working; it is a special use permit request and the intent of the ordinance that this request is is exactly the type of use the City Council intended when this ordinance was drafted. He also stated that the inn is operated very well, the neighborhood is quiet, and the Andersons keep most of the occupants in the building. He stated that no one has spoken against the request except for one resident and felt the inn was an asset to the neighborhood and wishes others in the city would improve their properties to the same level. Page 11 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 Ms. Wendy Witt Johnson, 212 Sixth Street South, stated that they have a friendly and fun neighborhood. She stated overall the neighbors are considerate, tolerant, respectful and fun. They all appreciate and value the care of Stillwater's old homes and are tolerant of businesses which share the neighborhood such as the Stillwater Residence, rental property businesses, Lifton Studio, and the Rivertown Inn. She felt that the majority of the neighbors try to get along with good communication on both sides with a sense of humor and reason. She stated that the inn is a terrific asset in the neighborhood because it is one business that will boost the neighborhood's collective value and a definite asset to the City of Stillwater. She felt and that the majority of neighbors feel the same way about the Rivertown Inn. Mr. Tom Lynum, 626 North 4th Street, owner of Sauntry Mansion, stated the Anderson's have been supportive to his business and the other bed & breakfasts. He supported the Anderson's request. Mr. John Oretel, 118 5th Street, felt that the process managing the bed and breakfasts needs to be upgraded. He felt the management/oversight of the bed and breakfasts are flawed. The City issued permits when it should have gone to Council, maybe there were assumptions or interpretations handed down when the Andersons purchased the inn from the Doughtertys and it is left to the neighbors to come along and complain. They don't like being in that position and feel the City should improve on the process. Mr. Nick Gorski, 406 W. Olive, agreed with Mr. o rete I on the process of management of bed & breakfasts, however he stated there has been disruption due to construction but that it is intermittent irritations and felt it was a matter of no consequence. City Attorney Magnuson stated that the public hearing is not a hearing on violations, which would require a separate hearing, City investigation, and give the Andersons a chance to respond to any violations. He reviewed the differenc;es between a public hearing and in a court of law, which Council will draw from the comments and the staff reports. He stated the Council has wide discretion in these matters based on the health; safety and welfare of the community and can impose any reasonable conditions on a conditional or special use. Mayor Kimble asked Council to consider the issue of the moving of rooms to the carriage house. Council member Rheinberger stated he felt that this project should be halted from 20 years of ever-creeping expansion because this will not become a hotel or commercial restaurant and felt that the noise, light, or site pollution is going to have to be eliminated. He was not against the requested two events as long as the neighborhood agrees. He felt that five conditions should be added to the permit which are that a 6-8 foot cedar fence or equivalent be built between the inn and the Lacy's, the possibility that other fences/shields to prevent intrusion of noise and lights may have to be added, the noise of the water heater must be fixed within 30 days so that it can not be heard by anyone from anywhere off the property, an event would be defined as a gathering of people other than guests of the inn, and have self policing by providing a quarterly report of events within 15 days of the quarter, date of the event, people in attendance and number of cars during the event and that if the report is not received within 15 days of Page 12 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 the end of the quarter the special use permit would automatically cease and that the reporting period would be for two years and subject to review. Council member Milbrandt asked if the water heater issue could be part of the conditions. Mr. Anderson stated that a new muffler has been installed since the Planning Commission meeting and hoped that it would meet the Lacy's satisfaction. He stated he asked the Lacy's to come over and look at it, but they felt that they coul9 still hear it. He al~o stated that if it is not satisfactory that he could vent it to the north and felt it wouldn't be audible to those neighbors and did not think it was audible to anyone right now. Council member Rheinberger was concerned about the expansion of use and wished to lock the use to nine rooms. Mr. Anderson stated that he has no intension of expanding the use of the inn. He stated that he bought the inn with nine room~ with the intention of moving to the carriage house and has no desire to exceed the nine room total. He stated that there will be an additional bathroom for the new room in the carriage house, there is a total of four bathrooms, one for the innkeeper, two for the existing room, one for the new room and no plans to expand the carriage house beyond the two guest rooms. Council member Milbrandt asked Mr. Lacy if the new equipment that Mr. Anderson placed 10 days ago is working. Mr. Lacy responded that it has not. He stated that his main concern is that Mr. Anderson has offered to move it to the north, but it should be moved to the north end of the room. He stated that it is his understanding that Mr. Anderson has just offered to move it from one end of the bay window to the other end of the bay window. He asks Council to require Mr. Anderson to vent it all the way out on the north end under the office and into the parking lot. He stated that the part of the problem is the short run for the vent and by extending it further should enhance the muffling of th~ noise which should mitigate the problem altogether. Council member Rheinberger asked Mr. Anderson if he would do this. Mr. Anderson responded that he would. Council member Milbrandt stated that a time limit should be set such as 30 or 60 days. Council member Milbrandt stated he is concerned with the lighting. Mr. Anderson stated that he was unaware there were cOncerns on the lighting until the public hearings so he has already taken steps to address the concerns and they have been reduced to the minimum and according to code. Council member Rheinberger asked about the building of a fence. Page 13 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 Mr. Anderson stated that a fence is there and a grapery has been constructed which cuts off any activity from the carriage house from the Lacys. He stated that he would be happy to add to the fence. Mr. Lacy stated that the grapery is perpeHldicular to the house and doesn't shield them from anything. He stated that anything that could be done wOlJld help. Ms. Lacy asked that this item be tabled so they could work this issue out with the Andersons. Council member Rheinberger asked for a friendly amendment to allow the building of a 6-8 foot fence and work out the details with the Lacys. Amendment failed for lack of second. I t Council member Kriesel stated that he is concerned with the treatment of other bed and breakfasts. He stated that he does not want issues like this to come up before Council and have the Council expected to design what will work well in a neighborhood. He felt that Council should very seriously consider the impact on a neighborhood. There is absolutely no question that the Andersons are outstanding neighbors, however he is looking beyond at other bed and breakfasts on footprints they may want to have, how it will affect their neighborhoods and maybe we should look at the zoning and ordinances and comply with that so everyone understands and is playing on a level playing field. Residents should feel protected by them such as parking and onsite issues. Council member Junker stated that it was determined at the Planning Commissipn that there is no increase in rooms just moving from one building to another where other establishments may be looking to increase their rooms. City Attorney Magnuson stated that if the Council does one thing for a bed and breakfast that it does not obligate the Council to do the same for other and the only entity that sets binding precedence is the Supreme Court. He reviewed the process used when the bed and breakfast ordinance was developed. Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Council member Milbrandt to allow the Andersons to move two rooms from the main house to the carriage house with the conditions of the Heritage Preservation Commission and Planning Commission with the additional condition that within 60 days the Andersons vent the A.O. Smith, Cyclone water heater vent all the way out on the north end under the office and into the parking lot and that the flood lights be extinguished at 9:00 p.m. All in favor. Council member Milbrandt stated that a bed and breakfast does not become fine dining as advertised in gourmet magazines. He stated that denial was given on January 12 and an event is advertised on January 22 and the event was held. He is concerned about following the conditions of the special use permit and that events will go from 2 to 4 and eventually it turns into the restaurant business. He stated that he hears great things about the inn, however if events are allowed it belongs downtown and he felt that that is not the purpose of the bed and breakfasts. Councilmember Junker stated that at the public hearings only one neighbor has been Page 14 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3,2004 against the request. He felt that the Andersons have done a magnificent job on the upkeep and to hear neighbors saying it is a good thing he has to believe it. He also stated that the conditions might need to be looked at and better controlled. Council member Kriesel stated that he has received calls on the events. He recited the definition of a bed and breakfast. Community Development Russell stated that there is a provision to allow events through a special use permit process and there are 11 parking spaces, which would accommodate half the guests, the rest would park in the street. Council member Milbrandt raised his concern that there are articles for dinners for guests and friends a guests and it will turn into a restaurant. Council member Rheinberger felt the special events are needed to make the inn economically viable but wants to limit the number of events. He stated that the events would be two times a month probably from 6-9 p.m. Motion by Council member Milbrandt, seconded by Councilmember Kriesel to deny the special events. Ayes: Councilmembers Milbrandt and Kriesel Nays: Council members Rheinberger, Junker and Mayor Kimble Motion by Councilmember Rheinberger, seconded by Council member Junker for the Andersons to have two events per month, no more than 36 in attendance, providing a quarterly report that includes dates, number in attendance, number of cars, etc., with details of the report to be worked out with Community Development Director Russell and City Attorney Magnuson. Ayes: Council members Rheinberger, Junker and Mayor Kimble Nays: Councilmembers Milbrandt and Kriesel Case No. SUB/04-Q1. This is the date and time for a public hearing to consid~r a request from Henry and Corliss Thomas for a resubdivision of Lots 28, 29, 30, Block 1, Wilkins Addition into to two lots. Parcel A - 8,026.2 square feet and Parcel B - 8,675 square feet (7,500 square feet minimum) located at 1410 4th Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Notices were mailed to affected property owners and published in the Stillwater Gazette on January 23, 2004. Community Development Director Russell reviewed the request for the resubdivision of Lots 28, 29, 30, Block 1, Wilkins Addition. Mayor Kimble opened the public hearing. Mr. Henry Thomas stated that it is an empty lot and he is tired of gardening therefore it is time to let it go. Mayor Kimble closed the public hearing. Page 15 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 Motion by Council member Kriesel, seconded by Councilmember Rheinberger to adopt Resolution 2004-31, approving resubdivision of Lots 28,29,30, Block 1, Wil~ins Addition (1410 N. 4th Street). Ayes: Councilmembers Kriesel, Milbrandt, Rheinberger, Junker and Mayor Kimble Nays: None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Update on fire department restroom update Fire Chief Kallestad provided Council with an update of the remodel of the fire department restrooms. He stated that with recent changes to the building code permit the project will be smaller in scope and cause less demolition of the existing restroom. He also stated that it is anticipated that the cost would be less than previously estimated and be within the capital outlay budget amount of $76,000 and it will be ADA compliant. Motion by Councilmember Rheinberger, seconded by Councilmember Junker to adopt Resolution 2003-32, approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for the fire station restroom remodel project. Ayes: Councilmembers Kriesel, Milbrandt, Rheinberger, Junker and Mayor Kimble Nays: None Possible approval of bond sales - Dave MacGillivrav. Springsted Inc. Mr. Dave MacGillivray, Springsted, Inc. reviewed the results of the bids for the interest rates for the General Obligation Improvement Bonds and the Capital Outlay Bonds. City Administrator Hansen stated that the interest rate for the General Obligation Improvement Bonds, which relate to the North Hill Project, will save the residents affected by the project approximately $500 on their assessments. He stated that this is the lowest interest rate he has ever seen for a City bond. Motion by Council member Milbrandt, seconded by Council member Rheinberger to adopt Resolution 2004-33, resolution accepting proposal on the competitive negotiated sale of $4,695,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2004A and providing for their issuance. Ayes: Councilmembers Kriesel, Milbrandt, Rheinberger, Junker and Mayor Kimble Nays: None Motion by Council member Rheinberger, seconded by Councill1lember Junker to adopt Resolution 2004-34, resolution accepting proposal on the competitive negotiated sale of $755,000 General Obligation Capital Outlay Bonds, Series 2004B and providing for their issuance. Ayes: Councilmembers Kriesel, Milbrandt, Rheinberger, Junker and Mayor Kimble Nays: None Page 16 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3,2004 I 'f ~ Approval of Downtown Plan Update Community Development Director Russell reviewed the comments that were received, and noted that the concerns that have been brought up will continue to be addressed as the process moves forward. Mayor Kimble closed the public hearing for written comments. Council member Rheinberger stated that he is against the current plan and it should be tabled because it fails to recognize that Lowell Park and much of the downtown is subject to periodic flooding with great expenditures, it fails to understand the paradigm shift from commercial to a residential village setting, felt it was a poor investment, fails to give residents a real return and that it only would benefit the one million tourists that make no contribution to the City at all. He also felt that any plan should split Main Street traffic, address periodic flooding and understanding the paradigm shift that lies ahead. Council member Kriesel stated that the plan should move forward, but he is concerned with the parking issues and realizes that the f100dwall is necessary. Councilmember Junker stated he is in favor of the plan and there is great momentum and the concerns can be addressed. He stated that with the visitors that come to Stillwater they are spending money and keeping our businesses vibrant. He stated that the downtown area needs improvements and make the downtown a place our residents and guests are excited about it. Councilmember Milbrandt agreed with Councilmember Junker and stated that the details such as flood wall and funding can be worked out. He fully supports the plan. Mayor Kimble stated that this is not the first downtown plan, that this plan is redefining the previous plan and he is in favor of the process moving forward. Motion by Council member Junker, seconded by Councilmember Milbrandt approving the downtown plan and authorizing the process to continue. Ayes: Councilmembers Kriesel, Milbrandt, Junker and Mayor Kimble Nays: Council member Rheinberger NEW BUSINESS MeetinQ March 2. 2004 - Caucus Niaht City Clerk Ward asked Council if they wished to change the first meeting in March to March 9 due to the caucuses being held on March 2. She stated that no public meetings could be held after 6:00 p.m. Council consensus was to leave the meeting oil March 2, therefore the meeting would be conducted from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. Page 17 of 19 City Council Meeting - 04-03 Review and approval of Armv Buildino Condition and reuse study Community Development Director Russell stated that in 2002 the City received a Demonstrative Account Grant from the Met Council to study the possible reuse of the Armory. He stated that the study was delayed because of the North Main Street development activity and the lack of progress with the UBC and Olive Street Development. February 3, 2004 Mr. Russell stated that the Met Council has extended the Grant until December 2004 and recommended that the City proceed with documenting the physical condition of the Armory and examining the possible reuse opportunity for the structure. He also stated that the cost of the study is $20,000, which would be paid for by the Met Council. Motion by Council member Rheinberger, seconded by Councilmember Milbrandt adopting Resolution 2004-35, approval to proceed with Army Building Condition and Reuse Study. Ayes: Councilmembers Kriesel, Milbrandt, Rheinberger, Junker and Mayor Kimble Nays: None COUNCIL RI:QU~ST ITEMS Mayor Kimble reviewed the letter from State Auditor Patricia Anderson commending the City for its sound fisCClI management. He thanked Council, City Administrator Hansen and City staff for their fiscal management of the City. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Council member Rheinberger, seconded by Councilmember Junker to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: ~ ~.uJucL Diane F. Ward, City Clerk Page 18 of 19 ". . City Council Meeting - 04-03 February 3, 2004 Resolution 2004-27, directing payment of bills Resolution 2004-28, approval of Forestry Consultant contract Resolution 2004-29, approval of a policy establishing criteria for publication boxes, location of boxes and a program for voluntary compliance Resolution 2004-30, a resolution by the cities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights, Stillwater and Baytown Township to support the construction of a new 150-bed segregation unit at the Stillwater Correctional Facility located in Bayport, Minnesota Resolution 2004-31, approving resubdivision of Lots 28, 29, 30, Block 1, Wilkins Addition (1410 N. 4th Street). Resolution 2003-32, approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for fire station restroom remodel project Resolution 2004-33, resolution accepting proposal on the competitive negotiated sale of $4,695,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2004A and providing for their issuance Resolution 2004-34, resolution accepting proposEd on the competitive negotiated sale of $755,000 General Obligation Capital Outlay Bonds, Series 2004B and providing for their issuance Resolution 2004-35, approval to proceed with Army Building Condition and Reuse Study Page 19 of 19