Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-02-07 CC MIN• • • Stillwater, Minnesota COUNCIL CHAMBER February 7, 1978 7:30 P. M. REGULAR MEETING The meeting was called to order by President Junker. The Invocation was given by the Acting City Clerk, Schnell Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Absent: None Also Present: Acting City Clerk, Schnell; City Attorney, Kimmel; Superin- tendent of Public Works, Shelton; Public Safety Director, Abrahamson; Director of Parks and Recreation, Blekum; Con- sulting Engineer, Elliott; Chairman of the Planning Commission, Zoller. Press: Stillwater Evening Gazette - Bob Liberty Citizens: Tom Schwintek, Tom Reich, Dan Dana, Sr., Dan Dana, Jr., Mr. & Mrs. James Bradshaw, James Nelson, Claire Erickson, Mr. & Mrs. Monty Brine, Brooks Thompson, Sr., Brooks Thompson, Jr., Jerry Perkl, Michael McGuire. Total of about 100 people in attendance INDIVIDUALS - DELEGATIONS - PETITIONS 1. JAMES NELSON, 1315 Carnelian Street, complained about the water running in the basement of his home to keep it from freezing and would like to have something done about it - he has complained many times in the past and nothing has been done about it. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded ty Councilman Peterson, the Mayor was directed to inspect the matter in view of the fact that the Director of Public Works is on vacation and see what can be done to resolve the problem (all in favor) 2. DAVID MAY appeared before the City Council for a Septic Tank Permit and Mayor Junker instructed that he get a percolation permit from the county and then come back to the Council for approval. - - -- CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING ON CASE NO. 304 - DAN DANA SPECIAL USE PERMIT. JEFF ZOLLER stated that the Planning Commission recommended the approval of the Special Use Permit but he has to meet with the Building Inspector to work out any Building Code requirements that were established. They also said that he has to have the garages available to the residents or tenants if they want to use them. DAN DANA, SR. stated there are three things that they would have a very hard time complying with. Do we ask for a variance on those or what do we do? COUNCILMAN PERERSON - what are the three things that you would have a very hard time complying with? DAN DANA - there is a problem with the ceiling height in the basement because of the heat ducts because they are 6' 8" rather than the required seven feet - the windows in the bedroom are higher than the 40 inches from the floor in the basement apartment, but that bedroom has two doors that exit to two separate outside exits, so we feel maybe because of this that would be adequate, but we do nt know - exit o that goes through n the i bathroom, then o on to the front door b of k the o an house. The third is the fireboard in the furnace room - the sidewalls are very easy to comply with bur the ceiling because of the fact that there is so much plumbing and because of previous stuff that was there, it is very, very hard to put the fireboard in the ceiling. We could probably put it in small pieces and maybe tape the sheetrock to cover, but to put in solid pieces would be impossible. COUNCILMAN PETERSON - Don't seem like big major items. COUNCILMAN POWELL - I think it would be wise to put it in even in small pieces and butt it together. • 375 • • 1 1 b p (376 i February 7, 1978 DAN DANA - we will do the best we can, but it is impossible to do it properly is what we are trying to say because of the age of the house and the plumbing and the things that are there. Everything comes to that area in the center of th house. We feel it will have to be in small sections. MAYOR JUNKER - you feel you can work with the Building Inspector? MR. DANA - whatever we have to, yes. Everything else we can comply with. COUNCILMAN MAHONEY, -Ron do you feel that those three items are any major problems? RON NISKA - one major problem they mentioned is the escape from the bedroom - we feel that a direct egress should be provided by the bedroom which would be pretty hard to get - you would have to have a window well or provide a direct means of egress out of that bedroom. DAN DANA, JR - I was wondering if some type of ladder or platform DAN DANA, SR. - the windows are large enough but the height from the floor is the problem. MR. NISKA - maybe we could discuss that if you come into the office. DAN DANA - Could you do thatand build something right in there we would work that out. The Mayor closed the hearing. COUNCILMAN POWELL - I would move that the Special Use Permit be granted subject to the working out of the details with the Building Inspector and meeting with their approval. COUNCILMAN MAHONEY seconded the motion. (Councilwoman Bodlovick opposed - motion carried) 2. This was the day and time for the public hearing on Case No. 310 - variance for James Bradshaw, 1310 Hillcrest Drive for a six foot sideyard variance to the south of the existing dwelling. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on January 26, 1978 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing Mr. & Mrs. Bradshaw were in attendance, but made no comments - no one appeared opposed or in favor of this request. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the Council followed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and granted the six foot sideyard variance to the south of the existing dwelling at 1310 Hillcrest Drive to James Bradshaw. (all in favor) 3. This was the day and time for the public hearing on Case No. 285 for a Special Use Permit for Scottland, Inc. for a local retail business at the intersection of Croixwood Blvd. and County Road No. 5 and also a continuation of Case No. 308. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette, the official newspaper of the City, on January 26, 1978 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. RON ERICKSON: I am with Korsunsky, Krank Architects, Inc. and on behalf of our clients Brooks Superette and Scottland, Inc. we have made these requests for a Special Use Permit. As you recall from our last meeting when we started with this we started out with neighborhood meeting, etc. and based on that we proceeded with the proposal to get a Special Use Permit for a facility that was a little larger than your intent under the Zoning. We were surprised at the last Council meeting, that we didn't have the support of the residents - so in order for us not to lose any more time than was necessary and to delay the subject we submitted for the public hearing, we submitted a proposal for a single store that would be in total compliance with the zoning ordinance and restrictions. I think there may have been some confusion in that our true desire and feelings are to proceed with the larger building - we think this is a better approach - better for the City and for that reason, if it would be all right with you, that may be we talk about the one first and if that were approved, we would discontinue on the smaller proposal. I do have the smaller one with me and if you take a look at it - we would definitely approach that . . • • • • • • , • t1 February 7, 1978 377 • • MEER COUNCILMAN POWELL- Maybe as a sugpestion it would be wise oefore you branch off on one or the other that we look at both c.f them so that we can judge as we go along. RON ERICKSON: That is a good idea. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: A question of the Planning Commission - Jeff, did the Planning Commission make a recommendation on one or both of the proposals? JEFF ZOLLER: We made a recommendation on one proposal . . . COUNCILMAN PETERSON: You did not make a recommendation on another proposal . . . JEFF ZOLLER: We tabled the other proposal. MAYOR JUNKER: Would you like to proceed again with the larger facility? RON ERICKSON: This is the proposal that the Planning Commission recommended last night. In this scheme what we are - out intentions are to construct a building of approximately 9,600 square feet and we would with the larger building this would allow us to construct a berm at the rear of the property. The berm would be ten feet high - we would also provide a fence along the property in this manner to make it not possible for foot traffic to the adjoining homes behind the property, We spent considerable time on developing the concept design for the building which would include a major of the sloped roof at the rear of the building and this would serve to hide any mechanical equipment. In order to insure that there would be no further development on the site- - we are proposiigto dedicate the rest of the site to the City as either a community park or as a drainage easement. We would take care of the maintenance on this property. I have drawn a section through the property indicating the visual impact on our bilding onto the residents directly adjacent to the property. As you can see the berm would be almost as high as the store -- I've shown the residences with a story and a half with the first level a half of a story off the ground which I think most of the homes are - at least half of these homes are on this street. I think you are all farily familiar with our plans or would you - I can go on further . . . . MAYOR JUNKER: No. . . . RON ERICKSON: Our other proposal would be the construction of a Superette which would be in the area of 3,000 to 5,000 square feet. It meets all zoning ordinances - we are requesting no variances. There was,as pointed out last night, that there were several points that the County Planner pointed out. Number one - that our setback would have to be measured from the service - we would have no problem with that - we can shift the building over to accommodate that. Another opinion that was mentioned was that the distance from our property line to the center line of County Road No. 5 is off by about ten feet, but as our setback is over 130 feet again there would be no problems with that. Another point that was brought up was we were short approximately five cars. Obviously, we have plenty of land planning for five more cars we have no problem with that. e.. There was a question as to the traffic and landscaping on this plan and really did not intend this plan to have landscaping because we would go through the normal procedure of having approval on the landscaping. We would see that the building would be a nice first -class building We, obviously, wouldn't have, since we would be clearing the rest of the land, we wouldn't have the resource to do what we are doing with the other scheme which is basically the reason for having one or the other scheme. It would be better for us, we feel, better, it would be the best ultimate use of this land There was another concern on the traffic. Again, we haven't had the opportunity to meet with the City Engineer, but we can assure you that we will be able to work a solution out with the traffic people that is acceptable to them and is acceptable to us. MAYOR JUNKER: Did you have anything more? RON ERICKSON: I think that is all - I can answer questions. MAYOR JUNKER: Is there someone here that would like to be heard. THOMAS REICH, 2357 HIDDEN VALLEY LANE- (Representing the abutting property owners - he made comments relating to a memo prepared by these people on February 7, 1978 for the larger store - see the file) We have been against this from the beginning for the larger store - we will accept the smaller store. At the last Council meeting, I believe the developers were questioned for some more detailed studies. We really did not see too many specifics at the Council meeting. At a lot of times we hear that we will work with you on this - we will work with you on that - still to this point we haven't seen any of that. It just hasn't been done. That will take care of our first point pretty much. (continued on the next page) • • • r' 3'73 • • February 7, 1978 On our second item, on his drawings when taken in proper context makes an awfully nice building on the one picture and the other picture is just a square plot. You could have made that small building look as attractive in your drawings as you did the large building. Also he keeps saying if he just puts up the small building eventually he will come in and rezone. Rezone and maybe get other buildings to put on there. However, as the Zoning Ordinance now stands would not permit that. Further- more, we feel if you feel that strongly that would happen and would go with the small store, we would request that the Council require a berm and some land- scaping and set a precident for any other stores coming in there. We also feel if you could rezone it at one time to do one thing for your larger store and if you could come back at a later time and say you would rent this store out why couldn't you come back then some pressures - we would like to see a small store. MAYOR JUNKER: You then represent the group here from the Croixwood area. MR. REICH: Yes. MAYOR JUNKER: Mr. Erickson would you like to comment to that. RON ERICKSON: Yes, I would like to comment to that. As far as our lack of detail, I guess I would suggest that I think we have done much more work than would normally be expected of us. It is a normal procedure not to make any design on buildings or do any landscaping as a lanhcape consultant has to do that, this type of thing on something that is speculative in nature. We've gone the extra mile and the things that you have proposed would be very costly in construction, but we think it would be an excellent development. MR. REICH: As to however the Council votes on this I wonder if I could possibly obtain the latest statement after you vote. Also, again however you vote we would want to have representation from our neighborhood at the City Council and Planning Commission and whatever meetings they have for design, concept, whatever - something can defined so things can't be said that we can, "Oh yah we can do this and in fairness to the architect he can draw nice building but he doesn't hold the purse strings. " RON ERICKSON: I would like to say that we . . first of all, we appreciated the time that you did spend meeting with us and were disappointed at the last meeting that somewhat discontinued, but we would - I am telling you this, that we do not, if this is a private meeting, would welcome the opportunity to have you involved and to continue because the success of the project would be helpful to have your support, we would like that very much. MR. REICH: Either way your store is going to depend upon our neighbors. MAYOR JUNKER: Did anyone else have anything to say? COUNCILMAN PETERSON: Jeff, the Planning Commission considered the larger project, then? JEFF ZOLLER: No, we heard the presentation for the larger proposal last night at our meeting also. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: Okay, youtook no action on the smaller proposal? JEFF ZOLLER: Well, being that we recommended the larger proposal, we tabled the smaller proposal. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: What was the vote on the larger proposal? JEFF ZOLLER: Three to two. MR. REICH: Didn't the absentee person submit a letter saying that he would support the smaller store? MR. ZOLLER: He did, but I guess we can't really consider that. MAYOR JUNKER: Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard from? MR. REICH: That should be taken into account - the fact that even though he wasdt there what his intent was . we have been talking an awful lot about our intentions to do this and our intentions to do that - it should carry all the way. MAYOR JUNKER: The Planning Commission did recommend that . . • • • r • • • February 7, 1978 eas '.. JEFF ZOLLER: I guess the Planning Commission felt - I am going to have to para- phrase and Dorothy can give me some help - we don't have the minutes because our secretary was sick - we felt that we allow the small store there would probably be requests in the future when none of you are on the Council - I don't know some of you may be - some may be on the Planning Commission - to do something with that vacant land to the north - so it was our feeling what may happen you may get one Brooks Superette there that is 3,000 square feet and you may have a fence or a berm behind it and you may have a set of apartments in front of it. The next guy might come along and want to put in a store there about 3,000 square feet and instead of ending up with one good development of 9,000 square feet you may end up with three stores totalling 9,000 square feet all separate buildings not relating to each other in any way, so it was the Planning Commission's feeling that in the long run where the overall development for it, we felt was proably best because they would have something that is going to be there for the next fifty years - that was our main recommendation. I want to say though that I wonder if you received copies of the letters which the engineers wrote or anything of that sort. Chuck Swanson recommended that there be no ingress or egress on County Road No. 5 and Jack Shelton agreed with that. That was one recommendation that the Planning Commission made that if you grant the Special Use Permit, even if you decide to go to the smaller unit and Jack talked about the berm and the lighting and Bill Schwab also is concerned about the number of parking spaces. MAYOR JUNKER: Did any of the Council members have any comments? COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK: I opposed the larger one last night. COUNCILMAN POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I feel that the larger proposal looks nice - it is a nice looking arrangement, but I feel that because it was zoned for a neigh- borhood gocery store, and that Orrin Thompson in getting that land zoned Commercial indicated that is what it would be - I feel that we owe it to the residents of Croixwood to follow that. And I think frankly that if it should ever come to any other Council that another variance would be granted. I think that the permit - the Special Use Permit -- it doesn't require a Special Use Permit - should be stated in there that any addition would be conditioned on the approval of the residents out there because they - it is their neighborhood, they are the ones that knew that there could be one store there - there gas nothing said that there would be five there when they bought their lots, so I think it is only fair to them to do for the one. Pea MAYOR JUNKER: Any other Councilmen have anything to say? COUNCILMAN PETERSON: This proposal is basically the same proposal that we had a month ago - nothing is changed . . . RON ERICKSON: Nothing is changed. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: I don't think that anything else has changed in the last month - any of the conditions in the area have changed in the last month - I would feel like Councilman Powell does that in all the discussion that went on when Orrin Thopson was zoning that property and the fact that he zoned two and one -half acres was at his discretion, but all of the discussion that was taking place at that time was for the neighborhood type store. I don't know that it was ever brought up as to what a neighborhood store is, but my opinion of a neighborhood store is omething like a neighborhood store like Zolldan's up here. COUNCILMAN BODLOVICK: That was always used as a guideline. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: That to me is a neighborhood store and Orrin Thompson agreed at the time we put that in the zoning that it would be a neighborhood store a neighborhood type store. MAYOR JUNKER: Do you wish to say something? RON ERICKSON: I am speaking in terms of a neighborhood store to be more than half the size of this store and I am asking you to look at it for the piece of land - for the future - for what we are proposing to do because I think if you look at the things that we have committed in there, they are very costly items. They are the things I don't think you have seen in a lot of de of this nature. We have answered every possible objection there is that we are aware of and some reasons why it shouldn't be there - I guess we would like to look ahead in that manner. COUNCILMAN POWELL- Nobody can false you for not making a good presentation, it was an excellent presentation, but I think we feel that five businesses will generate more traffic than one store will because the amount of traffic is going to primarily depend upon how much it is used by the neighborhood and if there are five businesses then you can see where there could be an increase in traffic and that is what they are trying to aboid and they want to keep it small and it is zoned that way and I think t' at is our duty to look at it. 379 i • (380 February 7, 1978 TOM REICH: We have no complaints with the original zoning - we knew that when we bought our lots. MAYOR JUNKER: You knew that there would some day be a store back there . . . MR. REICH: We knew that some day that there would be a store back there and quite frankly some of us looked forward to a small grocery store back there but we haven't looked forward to retail. RON ERICKSON: I still have to ask you to look at what we are doing in the scale of our larger proposal for a smaller proposal - there is a great deal of differ- ence in the plans and the need potential there - talking about the difference of maybe instead of 9,200 or maybe 4,000 square feet difference which isn't - we are willing to do such things. COUNCILMAN POWELL:They are allowed to put in the floor space that they feel is necessary to handle what they want if it is 5,000, 6,000, 7,000, but I am sure Brooks wouldn't put in one that was too big either because the area - because this is all that we can stand. It would be something in keeping within what they can do. RON ERICKSON: That is right - we plan to the berm as I say as an assurance against else will come in there and that business we have to put up a berm - that store had precedent what is going to happen to that be a use for more retail outlets. go the better landscaping - possibly the fact that maybe some day somebody can say look and say we have to - okay to put up a berm - just to set a land if some day there should come to MAYOR JUNKER: Would you like to say something? MRS. KENNING: I really feel if you want to put your shopping center in, why don't you put it on the other side of the street. There was a Tom Thumb suppose to be going in like last June and I feel - there has been nothing done about it. There is plenty of open land - acres - -- why don't you put it over there - why do you have to put it in back of our property? COUNCILMAN POWELL: There is sewer and water back there - that is one advantage and it is zoned "commercial ". JEFF ZOLLER: The Planning Commission felt that the smaller proposal as presented he said if the Planning Commission accepted the smaller proposal they would only recommend approval of the concept and that the developer be required to come back to the City with a lot more detailed proposal on traffic circulation, landscaping, etc. COUNCILMAN MAHONEY: That is un ckrstood anyway with either proposal. MAYOR JUNKER: If there isn't anyone else to be heard from, I will cbse the hearing. MR. REICH: I just prefer to ask just one question after the motion - just one question. MAYOR JUNKER: Ask us now. MR. REICH: If you disapprove the larger one, can they come back another time? MAYOR JUNKER: They can come back anytime they want. MR. REICH: So that we could possibly be going through this all over once again. RON ERICKSON: Our intentions would be to build - - TOM REICH: I would assume that your option on the property is running out . RON ERICKSON: We would build the smaller one. TOM REICH: What I was getting at is that we can't just end Scottland - - COUNCILMAN MAHONEY; We can't end anybody's - anybody else could come in. . I personally feel that the first proposal would be the better overall proposal for the property but we have to look at what the neighborhood concerns are and what the zoning is as stated. MAYOR JUNKER: I will dose the hearing and entertain a motion. MR. KIMMEL: I might say just one thing - I think there is a little confusion - I am not sure at least in the Planner's report he says that the smaller thing doesn't need a Special Use Permit but essentially since we require a Special Use Permit for all new commercial,it still requires a motion of a Special Use Permit, if you intend to go to the smaller use. r' • • • • 4 • riN February 7, 1978 COUNCILMAN MAHONEY: I move that we grant approval to the small unit subject to adequate study on the parking and traffic and landscaping approval. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK. I will second that motion. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: I just wonder - the Planning Commission has taken no action on the smaller unit. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK: We just tabled it. Basically because we approved the bigger one. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: I don't know that necessarily that we should put the cart before the horse by approving the smaller unit before the Planning Commission has had a look at it and make a recommendation on it. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK: We did look at it last nite, Roger - we did look at it. JEFF ZOLLER- I guess in a sense by approving the larger one we . . . COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK: In fact he wanted two approvals. JEFF ZOLLER: If you give us direction to go to the smaller one, then in a sense all we have got to do is to work with him on the details. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: You included landscaping. COUNCILMAN MAHONEY: Right - landscaping and traffic. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: Does that landscaping include berming it . . . and . . . COUNCILMAN MAHONEY: No, the Planning Commission is to come back with a recommenda- tion on that. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: By the same token we can indicate to them that we were interested in berming and fencing. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK: We can also do that after our recommendation, Rog. COUNCILMAN MAHONEY: All we are doing is giving concept approval. RON ERICKSON: The ordinance requires a fencing and screening - we would provide that. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: And berming ? RON ERICKSON: No, fencing and screening - we would not provide berming. COUNCILMAN MAHONEY: That is too small an area to berm. RON ERICKSON: I really feel that in fairness to the question - we presented something that is a deviation from the variance which we think is better than what the zoning ordinance says and as an alternative, I think in fairness to us, if that is rejected that we should subdue it per the zoning regulations have the screening, the parking, landscaping,. all those that are included which we plan on doing. MAYOR JUNKER: You heard the motion and second - all those in favor signify by saying "AYE" -- AYES: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney and Powell NAYS: Councilman Peterson (motion carried) MAYOR JUNKER: Motion carried. -- -This is the day and time set for the public hearing on Case No. 312 for a Special Use Permit for Erickson Diversified Corporation for a service station at 510 South Main Street. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City, on January 26, 1978 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. 381 • • • 4 A • r • • ;3$2 February 7, 1978 CLAIRE ERICKSON: Well, I think everybody knows our situation and it is pretty much the same proposal that I mentioned at the last Council meeting. We would like to put a station in the back where we originally had a building permit issued back in 1972 and I think probably everybody is familiar with the request. MAYOR JUNKER: Are there some representatives from the Downtown Retail Council or the Chamber that would like to be heard on this - stand up and state your name and address, please. BROOKS TROMPSON: I live at 917 Nortl• Owen and I am with the Downtown Council. We took the telephone book of the members of the Downtown Council and contacted 41 out of the 43 members - could not get hold of the other two, just because they were not available and it was unanimously decided that we were opposed to this on the basis, primarily because of traffic flow and the need for adequate parking in downtown. We also considered, although it is kind of dormant right now, the aspects of the bypass through Mr. Erickson's property and go around, as we felt this needed consideration. We would also like to refer you back to the Dale report which was made in 1972, which stated that any available space in downtown is not to be used for gas stations, automobile dealerships, etc. I really would like to have someone else speak if they would like to from the Downtown Council. MAYOR JUNKER: Is there someone else who would like to be heard from? JAN PARTRIDGE: I am a resident of the area - I live over Vittorio's. As a resident I am opposed to the gas station being put up there because of the extra traffic - because of the oil tankers that are necessary to service the station. Also I work at the Boom Company and my principal=_ are opposed to the gas station going in there. We feel that Stillwater is heading in a good direction because of their awareness of the aethestics of what Stillwater has to offer, and it cannot be conducive with the way the business council feels anyway - the business community feels to put a service station right at the . to Stillwater. The Grand Garage is going to make Stillwater famous -- the Brick Alley is doing a fine job - we are attempting to obtain some of the flavor of old Stillwater - renovate. In our biding we did nothing to modernize it. It was altogether the character of times past - not a service station -image of our downtown. I think this is very wrong - I don't think we need a service station there. I don't think we need it because of the traffic problem or aetuestically. MAYOR JUNKER: Yes, sir - state your name and address. DAN STRIEFFER, 236 South Main Street - I am a resident of downtown and work there. I would just like to back up what Jan and Books said - i am also active with the Downtown Council and know how the Council members feel and as a resident and at this time I think the way Stillwater is headed whether a permanent decision be made or not I think it would be wise to hold off. The feeling and the atmosphere that is being created in downtown Stillwater, I think we would suffer if a gas station is located at the south entrance to town. I don't think there is any need to rush into it. It doesn't have to be currently decided now. At least wait and see how things go for awhile. Thank you kindly. MAYOR JUNKER: Stand up and state your name and address. JERRY PERKL, 324 South Main and 330 South Main - I would like to appeal to the ° Council that you deny the request of Mr. Erickson based on the fact of any reference to the Carl Dale Study of '72 in that I just replaced an automobile dealership with shops that were recommended by the study - removed a great portion of the congestion from the downtown area by taking an active automobile dealer- ship and relieving the City of that and have taken a factory which was in our downtown district and changing it into a potential restaurant - I think that the development of the Grand Garage is based upon the need for additional retail space in downtown Stillwater and I think the residents of Stillwater need the shops and I think it should be - to have a gas station at the south end of town would be additional congestion that really isn't necessary. So, I appeal to the Council to please deny this request. MAYOR JUNKER: Thank you. Mr. Lammers FRED LAMMERS: I reside at 437 South Broadway and my back yard overlooks the site suggested for the service station and I would ask the Council to turn down the permit - the traffic sutation is the main objection. MAYOR JUNKER: Yes, sir. MR. STRIEFFER: Mayor Junker, and Council - one aspect that I tried to get across and didn't make clear is, that I think that all the land that we have on the river - the river is what we got and that is really something - just anything that we can do to keep that river open, we should. • • • r • • • February 7, 1978 MAYOR JUNKER: Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard from? COUNCILMAN PETERSON: I just have a question of Jeff of the Planning Commission - did the Planning Commission consider this last nite? What recommendations did they make? JEFF ZOLLER: They recommended that you deny this permit. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: Unanimously? JEFF ZOLLER: Yes. CLAIRE ERICKSON: There was a letter from the State of Minnesota Highway Department saying they have no objection on the site. JEFF ZOLLER: I will read that letter - COUNCILMAN MAHONEY: We have a copy of it. MAYOR JUNKER: Bill, do you want to say something. BILL HAHN, 209 South Main: I think that we have got to consider the overall concept of the proposal that they are making. We have got to realize the possi- bilities that could be created by their building the station on this particular site. These people are the premium retailers of gasoline and station store pioneers of the Minnesota - Wisconsin area - they just sort of wrote the book on station stores and they are very successful and you have got to realize they can create traffic where there is none that exists - they have a double attraction for the cusomer - they have got gasoline and they have got retail merchandise and they can conceivably operate this store at a loss if they have to until they get started. They can sell gasoline at 490 a gallon and potato chips for 90 if they want to and don't you think the people are going to come from miles around to get those bargains, and I think because there is no traffic problem perse at that particular point now there is sure as heck going to be. Last nite at the Planning Commission, Mr. Erickson declined to give a figure on how many people would be coming in and out. However, I would guess from looking at some of the stations that they now have that 100 an hour would not be out of reason at all- - certainly they have stations that do that and I think that their pumps are numbered like ten on this particular space of land. I think the generation potential is there basically and they can built it up to whatever they want depending on how they want to price their merchandise. I think that probably the State Highway Department in their letter didn't want to get caught in a position of declining someone an opportunity to do business and that is why Mr. Van Wormer did what he did - he didn't want to expose himself to a lawsuit, but I think that you have to consider another thing, you are going to have one lane of traffic that is going to be turning onto the station and then you will have another lane that is cutting across another lane so you are going to have possibly a hundred interruptions from the normal flow of traffic thru town and some of those are going to be doubled, or there is going to be a double congestion because they are going to be cutting cross two lanes. If there is anything that we suffer from in downtown Stillwater is certainly traffic congestion and traffic problems and we have got one - very critical - down at Reeds, for both pedestians and automobiles - now we are going to have another potential one at the other end of town which is our gateway. We are going to possibly strangle the existing businesses downtown, I feel. I think the fellows in the Erickson organization are tremendous merchandisers - I think per square foot they can make Target and K -Mart look like "pikers ". - I really do those fellow can really swing and they know their business and you have got to realize they are going to run this thing for a profit eventually and in order to run it at a profit they are going to have traffic and they will get it - there is no doubt about it. They never failed yet. MAYOR JUNKER: Are you against it or for it, then? MR. HAHN: Beg your pardon MAYOR JUNKER: You are against it? MR. HAHN: I am outlining the possibilities . . . MAYOR JUNKER: On the one hand you are for it and on the other you are against it. ing MR. HAHN: I am outlin- /the potential traffic hazards that could exist because of their potential and ability to generate traffic. • 383'• • • • • - 384 February 7, 1978 MAYOR JUNKER: Okay. I would like to say something. Personally, I think that we are enfringing on a persons rights on free enterprise. I am not against saving Downtown Stillwater but I think if you tell Mr. Erickson like we have all done tonite that he cannot build a service station there why can you tell the neighbor that he can build a restaurant and put 300 cars there during the day. That's my only thing that I would like to come across - is it good for you, but not good for him? Have you the right or all the people sitting here to tell him that he can't build a filling station when he dan follow every code there is, the next door neighbor has a filling station or business that has 300 cars there at the noon -hour he creates a much greater problem, if not more, than that filling station would and this I have gotten from the Building Inspection Department - am I right, Ron? That they feel that the restaurant creates a big a problem as this gas station will. Now, I an not against saving Downtown Stillwater but you have to come up with a better reason for denying a filling station on that corner than saving Downtown Stillwater, because if you go north are you next going to ask Midland Co -op or the State Highway to move out of there because they have a station and a garage there. That is the gateway from the north to Stillwater. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: Mr. Mayor. MAYOR JUNKER: Councilman Peterson. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: I couldn't disagree with you more. I think that is all part of it. I think you can deny a permit for anything based on the effect on what is happening or what has happened in the City already, and the traffic is there - there will be more traffic granted, but the main affect of a station in that area would be to take away from what is happening now and what happened in the past and will probably happen in the future, and that will be the res- toration and the restoring of old buildings and in making and generating a tourist industry in the City. I have yet to see a gas station that did anything to generate a tourist interest. MAYOR JUNKER: Without a gas station it is pretty hard to attract tourists. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: W< have gas stations - and we have planners that have indicated that - in their studies - that the Downtown area is not a place to locate another gasoline station. There is no doubt and no one will question that you can't go up to Midland and tell him to move and no one is suggesting that, but I am just saying that the location of a gas station in that area not only affects the one single piece of property but it affects anything that has been done in Stillwater for tt.e past ten years. CLAIRE ERICKSON: Mr. Mayor, may I interupt for a minute. I appreciate your kind remarks - we haven't had that many in the last couple of days, but we feel that, just as you do, that this is still America and free enterprise is still the name of the game. We bought that land back in '72 for a purpose and everybody that has come since knew what we were doing - it is zoned properly -- we feel that it does comply -- I don't think there is one chance in ten that we are going to get an approval here tonite. I think I have been around long enough to know what side my bread is buttered on, so we certainly do not feel bad about a negative turn-down tonite be- cause it is going to be in the courts and I think we should let the judge and the jury decide if we are to be there or not be there. We have $69,000 in the property as of 1972, not figuring interest and we feel we are right - its now turned out to be somewhat of a personal thing and as far as I am concerned the courts are going to be the one to decide if we are going to be there or mot. I could talk all night . . . COUNCILMAN PETERSON: I am not going to beat a "dead horse" but I frankly hope you do not feel that it is a personal thing. I certainly don't . . . MR. ERICKSON: Well, Mr. Peterson, I can't but feel that things are entirely different now with the NSP restoration which was done entirely after we came in- everybody knew that we were there and if it hadn't been for the bypass problem which never materialized we would have been there and we think it is kind of a "gang -up deal" - I don't think there is anything immoral or dirty about a filling station - I think everybody buys gas - we have on -site parking for 18 cars - the Highway Department does not feel it is a hazard - if the people in Stillwater feel it is going to be a hazard, they are going to have to prove it to the judge and this is ridiculous. MAYOR JUNKER: We could get into a lengthy argument. Is there anybody that wishes to be heard that has something constructive and not - maybe has some other ideas why that filling station shouldn't be there outside of saving the City of Stillwater. • • • • ■ February 7, 1978 38&`: • MS. PARTIRIDGE: Mr. Mayor, I think he is forgetting one basic premise here - he said that when he came here for the last Special Use Permit, he did not have any objection. There is a different awareness in Stillwater today, than there were years ago. We are more interested in the preservation of it and he said this being personal - we have nothing against the man personally except Mr. Erickson are you going to be at your station every day this is where we work and live - we will be exposed to your service station that you are going to put up - there is certainly nothing personal . . . MR. ERICKSON: There will be people, madam, working there, that are making a living there that are certainly going to be residents of Stillwater as much as you are going to be - they are going to be employed and are going to live here and be a part of the community. They are certainly not outsiders. Because I live at Hudson does not mean that there are not going to be Stillwater people running this operation. MS. PARTIRIDGE: I live across the street from where you are going to put up your stati -n. MAYOR JUNKER: Do, you can't there is a big bluff there. STEVE JOHNSON: I just have to agree with Mr. Erickson - this is America, but that is great, but I have to disagree with your stand that we can't deny him this right, because isn't that, indeed, what you and the Council is elected for that we can come in here at an open meeting and run our City the way the .�. people want it. MAUOR JUNKER: Your opinion is - my view is same as your view, but my view differs with yours that make me all bad. MR. JOHNSON: No, I guess that I did not say that but I feel very strongly that he couldn't do that he couldn't do that. MAYOR JUNKER: I just said are we doing it? Are we denying him the right to build a filling station. I didn't say that I am going to vote for this permit but are we denying him that right. Do you realize that we have already given him two permits? MR. JOHNSON: I have to agree with Jan - things change and it is not bad - the law is not bad . . . NAYOR JUNKER: We have given him two permits within the last five years and I don't have to be for a filling station but I think we are denying the right to build the filling station - that is what my personal viewpoint is. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: How could you be . . . I don't understand that . . . (At this point there were three or more parties speaking at the same time and none of the statements could be picked up) JEFF ZOLLER: In 1971 the ordinance was amended and it says under Commercial Districts - Permitted Uses are Special Use Permits from the City Council. In a Business District the following buildings and uses and accessory buildings and uses may be permitted by Special Use Permits from the City Council. Included under that is gasoline filling stations. Although this is zoned "Commercial" the way that I read the Ordinance and Harold may be can define it - it doesn't necessarily mean that he has the right because it is a conditionary use. MR. KIMMEL: That is essentially correct - this is not a permitted use - it �./ is a Special Use. COUNCILMAN POWELL: I.wasn't sure that the Planning Commission would talk to the traffic engineer at the State so I called him today and asked and he said he did send a letter and I said that I hadn't seen it and I asked him a few questions himself and he said there is no question that the station would create a traffic problem. But he said that in itself does not deny him the right to use it but he said also a left turn north on Main Street onto to Nelson would create a traffic problem and he also indicated that wouldn't be as often as going into the filling station, because he is aware of how much traffic goes into the filling station rather then give the impression that he was opposed. He just felt that there would be a traffic problem - that's just what filling stations automatically develop. MAYOR JUNKER: Everybody seems to think we have a traffic problem Downtown, how about the Cosmo Bank on Friday nites - who creates a bigger problem - I would like to have that problem - brigg.ng money to me every Friday nite like they bring in there - no objections there. We are going to close the hearing now. • • • 4 • • !3 • February 7, 1978 MR. KIMMEL: I just want to make certain that it is a part of the record that I think that we should make certain that the Planning Commission's comments are part of the record - I don't think they have been read in, and I don't think it is necessary but I would like to have them as a part of the record. They also have eight points which they point out and Mr. Abrahamson has written a letter to the Council relative to the traffic problem - the Chief of Police and I would like his comments be called to the attention of the Council relative to the traffic problem that he believes might exist as a result of the station, but other than that I guess I have no convents. MAYOR JUNKER: Did you have any more to say, Mr. Erickson? I close the hearing - and did you roily want to say something more? STEVE JOHNSON: Yes, the only thing I wanted to say was to mertion two letters - one was already mentioned - one from the Safety Director, Mr. Abrahamson and also the letter by Jack Shelton. MAYOR JUNKER: Does anyone else have any comments? Are there any people who live on the hill that have any comments? No comments at all -- COUNCILMAN POWELL: I had a call from Dr. Torgerson who lives up there - expressed his concern. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: I also had a call from one of the residents on the hill that was opposed. Mr. Lammers lives up on the hill and he was opposed. MAYOR JUNKER: I think Mr. Erickson knew when he came that - I think I voiced this to you that I thought there would be some opposition, but I guess that doesn't hurt - I'll close the hearing and entertain a motion. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: Mr. Mayor, I would move that the application for Mr. Erickson's be denied because of the change in the situation in Downtown Stillwater since the original permit was issued in 1972 - I think the area has developed in such a way as to restore the area to a condition that existed many years ago. MAYOR JUNKER: We closed the hearing. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: That is part of my motion . . . MAYOR JUNKER: Go head . COUNCILMAN PETERSON: Thank you. I think that the area is developing in such a way that a gas station would be a detriment to the area. I think the traffic congestion that would be caused by the Station would be an additional detriment to those existing buildings downtown and I also feel that the St. Croix River being a scenic and wild river would not be enhanced in any way by having a gasoline station on the river. I think the area from that point to the south is an intregal part of the future development of downtown and that a gas station would not be an addition to it. MAYOR JUNKER: Is that your motion? Did you get that all, Dorothy? Oh, you have got it on tape tonite. Thank your Is there someone who wishes to second it? COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK seconded the motion. MAYOR JUNKER: You heard the motion and the second - all those in favor signify by saying "Aye ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Peterson and Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS -- Councilman Mahoney (motion carried) THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 8:35 to 8:45 P. M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Mr. Blekum read the one proposal received for the Ice Skate Sharpening Concession at the Ice Arena. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, the contract for the skate sharpening services at the Ice Arena was awarded to John P. Simon, dba The Skate Shop, 797 Dodd Road, West St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 - rental will be $80.00 per month effective February 1, 1978 thru April 30, 1979. (all in favor) 2. Mr. Jeff Zoller of the Planning Commission requested that the City Council schedule the public hearings on major cases at least two weeks after said cases are heard by the Planning Commission in order for the Commission to get the information to the City Council prior to the hearing. r • • • 1 4 1 • • • • e'1 February 7, 1978 SIM MR. J. C. GRAHAM, PRESIDENT, NORTHWESTERN BANK: I think that you know that we are building a new bank under a building permit which was granted after our Conditional Use Permit given by the Planning Commission. I appeared before the Planning Commission on two different occasions and in both of those appearances I requested that the access to the service road not be limited as was mentioned by Mr. Schwab not be Limited to an exit on the service road, but also an entrance and exit from the service road. However, the Conditional Use Permit was issued strictly with an exit mentioned in the Conditional Use Permit. I have a few plans here - just the site plans - as you can tell our drive -in facility is going to be directly along on this side directly on thru and exit onto the service road. All of this drive -in traffic would exit here - our parking area is in the front of the building and the access to that could be obtained from here, but it is obviously better obtained from the front or the service road. We have 400 foot frontage on the service road - it is 326 feet deep;the lot itself comprises three acres. We have looked at everything that we can that would give us an indication as to how we could interfere with traffic. It isn't our intention to complicate the traffic along the service road or from it - we are actually looking for in that location good access for our customers and free - flowing traffic along the building is an objective that we have and we can't agree that we would interfere with the limited amount of traffic that we would have turning off the e .. service road where we would interfere with any traffic on the service road. This location for an entrance is quite a way from the corner - it is probably 200 to 350 feet before you hit this entrance then we have more than adequate parking places - we have got 70 parking places. I am appealing to the Council to grant permission to construct an accessway that would take care of both entrance and exit. NEW BUSINESS - -- REQUEST FROM NORTHWESTERN BANK FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO THE SERVICE ROAD TO HIGHWAY 212. DUANE ELLIOTT, CONSULTING ENGINEER: I spotted this item on the agenda and I talked to Glen WanWormer, Traffic Engineer in the Minnesota Department of Trans - potation and he said that the State has jurisdiction of this road on a State Trunk Highway that I don't think that by stating it in that way that they are negative on this proposal but that routinely this type of entrance on a State Highway Frontage Road is referred to the District of the Highway Department where the frontage road exists and that would be Dan Kuether, but I think it is up to the Council to take a position on it. MR. KIMMEL: I think what you are suggesting to the Council if they want to approve it, their motion should be that we recommend to the Highway Department that they grant the access that the bank is requesting. The Highway is the State of Minnesota right -of -way and not a City Street and they would I guess grant permission for whatever curb cuts andsoforth are involved. COUNCILMAN MAHONEY: As a matter of fact this piece of property is under the Joint Powers . . COUNCILMAN PETERSON: That is the question that I was going to ask Harold - is this proper procedure, Harold? - that we recommend to the Highway Department or does it go to the Joint Powers or who does it go to? MR. KIMMEL: I guess the Joint Powers has essentially according to what Duane is saying and he is right, I am sure, that neither the City of Stillwater or Joint Powers has the control over the access to that right -of -way and it finally rests with the Highway Department. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: We could make a recommendation to the Highway Department as well as the Joint Powers and . . . MR. KIMMEL: As I understand it Mr . Graham has been to the Joint Powers Planning Commission. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK: It was agreed upon at that time what you accepted, right? MR. GRAHAM: I had no choice. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK: That's right - wan't it Chuck Swanson or was it Mr. Schwab that said not to have another cu -cut on the service road? MR. GRAHAM: It was Mr. Schwab. COUNCILMAN MAHONEY: This would not require another curb -cut - it would require making that a two -way street instead of a one -way and if necessary that ingress/ egress would be widened somewhat. He is not asking for an additional curb -cut. 387 • • 4 p • • Y 1388 February 7, 1978 MR. GRAHAM: Originally, if you remember, they had intended to have a roadway over to hear (to the west) and we are going to have access there - that became a disputed item and now it has been eliminated entirely, so this edge of the property is not going to have an outlet. COUNCILMAN PETERSON: I think it finally ends up with she Highway Department and if they don't object I don't see any objection on our part. COUNCILMAN POWELL: I would move, Mr. Mayor, that we recommend both to the Highway Department and the Joint Powers that they look favorably on this request. COUNCILMAN PETERSON seconded the motion. (all in favor) 2. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the Council granted the three variances detailed by the Building Inspector in his memorandum of November 28, 1977 regarding openings and access to other stories of the old NSP building on South Main Street as requested by Michael McGuire. (all in favor) 3. The claim from Cindy Schleusner was paid by the party at fault, so this needed no action by the City Council. 1. INDIVIDUALS- DELEGATIONS None at this point in the meeting. APPLICATIONS _ On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, the following Contractor's Licenses were approved: ( all in favor) Robert Zahler 11700 St. Croix Trail No., Stillwater General Renewal COMMUNICATIONS From Mrs. F. A. Nutting suggesting equitable allotments for sewer service charges and garbage and refuse rates. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman, Bodlovick, the letter from Mrs. Nutting was referred to the Director of Public Works for his study and recommendation at the next regular Council meeting. (all in favor) CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT 1. The Committee that was granted $2,500 for the reprinting of the Official Tour Booklets requested a meeting with the City Council on Thursday, February 9, 1978, but the Council asked that they meet with the Council at their regular meeting on February 21, 1978. 2. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Powell, a resolution was introduced "EMPLOYING HOWARD LINDAHL AS A POLICE RESERVE OFFICER" effective February 7, 1978. AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) 3. Mr. Schubbie of the Minnesota Energy Commission had requested a meeting on February 28th, but due to the political caucuses this is not possible. Another date will be set up. CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT 1. Mr. Elliott reported he is continuing to work with the bonding company and insurance company on the payment of the assessments and the release of the bonds for the Croixwood Additions. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORTS On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, the Mayor was directed to send letters of commendation to Monroe Wood and Tom Hubbard who have resigned from the Volunteer Fire Department and thanking them for their years of service to the City. (all in favor) • • 1 "4 • • j^1 February 7, 1978 FINN 2. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, a resolution was introduced "EMPLOYING JOHN CLAREY AS A VOLUNTEER FIREMAN EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 1978 ". (all in favor) 3. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the Council authorized the Project Concern Walkathon to use Pioneer Park on May 13, 1978 for a rest spot and lunch break for this project. (all in favor) 4. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "APPOINTING ALFRED ROEPKE ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEr AND ESTABLISHING HIS SALARY FOR 1978 AT $1,600.00 per month ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilman Mahoney, Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) 5. Mr. Abrahamson informed the Council that for the next eight weeks there will be hand gun training for his department on Saturdays and Sundays as required by the State. PARKS AND RECREATION 1. Mr. Blekum requested that Mr. Kimmel draft a contract for the Ice Skate Sharpening Concession. PUBLIC WORKS No report ADMINISTRATIVE No report CITY ATTORNEY 1. Mr. Kimmel reported that he talked to Jim Lammers today about the liquor license that came up and he has given the letter that we had gotten several years ago saying that we thought that we had a license but the Liquor Con- tra Commissioner's Office has confirmed the fact that they would be willing to issue a license but they did tell Jim that they would much prefer it if we would issue the license, but that we would put the issue of unlimited liquor licenses on our ballot this fall. We have discussed this before and have never done it. I would certainly recommend it. I think that one thing that it does is take the whole thing out of the political arena for the issuance of licenses andsoforth. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, the Acting City Clerk or the City Attorney or whomever was instructed to p. pare a referendum for the fall election allowing unlimited liquor licenses. (all in favor) "Shall the City Council be allowed to issue 'on -sale' licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor at retail in excess of the number now permitted by law ?" .,� The Council also felt that there should be some publicity on this matter through the news media and bulletins coming out from the City. 2. Mr. Kimmel felt that our Planning Commission should take a look at the zoning plan that the Stillwater Township Planning Commission is working on which involves some of the property which is in the Joint Powers area - they are developing a new plan. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS None uUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS REPRESENTATIVES BOB LIBERTY OF THE STILLWATER GAZETTE inquired of Mr. Kimmel as to what he thought the City's chances were on the Erickson Filling Station case going into the courts of getting their permit. 3891. • ■ ONEm p • 2. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, a resolution was introduced "EMPLOYING JOHN CLAREY AS A VOLUNTEER FIREMAN EFFECTIVE FEBRFARY 1, 1978 ". (all in favor) 3. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the Council authorized the Project Concern Walkathon to use Pioneer Park on May 13, 1978 for a rest spot and lunch break for this project. (all in favor) 4. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "APPOINTING ALFRED ROEPKE ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF AND ESTABLISHING HIS SALARY FOR 1978 AT $1,600.00 per month ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilman Mahoney, Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) 5. Mr. Abrahamson informed the Council that for the next eight weeks there will be hand gun training for his department on Saturdays and Sundays as required by the State. PARKS AND RECREATION 1. Mr. Blekum requested that Mr. Kimmel draft a contract for the Ice Skate Sharpening Concession. PUBLIC WORKS No report ADMINISTRATIVE No report COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS February 7, 1978 CITY ATTORNEY 1. Mr. Kimmel reported that he talked to Jim Lammers today about the liquor license that came up and he has given the letter that we had gotten several years ago saying that we thought that we had a licensu but the Liquor Con- trol Commissioner's Office has confirmed the fact that they would be willing to issue a license but thay did tell Jim that they would much prefer it if we would issue the license, but that we would put the issue of unlimited liquor licenses on our ballot this fall. We have discussed this before and have never done it. I would certainly recommend it. I think that one thing that it does is take the whole thing out of the political arena for the issuance of licenses andsoforth. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, the Acting City Clerk or the City Attorney or whomever was instructed --° to prepare a referendum for the fall election allowing unlimited liquor licenses. (all in favor) "Shall the City Council be allowed to issue 'on -sale' licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor at retail in excess of the number now permitted by law ?" The Council also felt that there should be some publicity on this matter through the news media and bulletins coming out from the City. 2. Mr. Kimmel felt that our Planning Commission should take a look at the zoning plan that the Stillwater Township Planning Commission is working on which involves some of the property which is in the Joint Powers area - they are developing a new plan. None QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS REPRESENTATIVES BOB LIBERTY OF THE STILLWATER GAZETTE inquired rf Mr. Kimmel as to what he thought the City's chances were on the Ericksc: Filling Station case going into the courts of getting their permit. 380 • • • i • • • 2. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, a resolution was introduced "EMPLOYING JOHN CLAREY AS A VOLUNTEER FIREMAN EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 1978 ". (all in favor) 3. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the Council authorised the Project Concern Walkathon to use Pioneer Park on May 13, 1978 for a rest spot and lunch break for this project. (all in favor) 4. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "APPOINTING ALFRED ROEPKE ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF AND ESTABLISHING HIS SALARY FOR 1978 AT $1,600.00 per month ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilman Mahoney, Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) 5. Mr. Abrahamson informed the Council that for the next eight weeks there will be hand gun training for his department on Saturdays and Sundays as required by the State. PARKS AND RECREATION 1. Mr. Blekum requested that Mr. Kimmel draft a contra2t for the Ice Skate Sharpening Concession. PUBLIC WORKS No report ADMINISTRATIVE No report February 7, 1978 CITY ATTORNEY 1. Mr. Kimmel reported that he talked to Jim Lammers today about the liquor license that came up and he has given the letter that we had gotten several years ago saying that we thought that we had a license but the Liquor Con- trol Commissioner's Office has confirmed the fact that they would be willing to issue a license but they did tell Jim that they would much prefer it if we would issue the license, but that we would put the issue of unlimited liquor licenses on our ballot this fall. We have discussed this before and have never done it. I would certainly recommend it. I think that one thing that it does is take the whole thing out of the political arena for the issuance of licenses andsoforth. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, the Acting City Clerk or the City Attorney or whomever was instructed to prepare a referendum for the fall election allowing unlimited liquor licenses. (all in favor) "Shall the City Council be allowed to issue 'on -sale' licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor at retail in excess of the number now permitted by law ?" The Council also felt that there should be some publicity on this matter through the news media and bulletins coming out from the City. 2. Mr. Kimmel felt that our Planning Commission should take a look at the zoning plan that the Stillwater Township Planning Commission is working on which involves some of the property which is in the Joint Powers area - they are developing a new plan. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS None QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS REPRESENTATIVES BOB LIBERTY OF THE STILLWATER GAZETTE inquired of Mr. Kimmel as to what he thought the City's chances were on the Erickson Filling Station case going into the courts of getting their permit. • 4 3891 ' 4 • 390 • • ORDINANCES None Attest: ,1:04.-..4255e- se aticA,Dl2 -- City Clerk February 7, 1978 MR. KIM[EL stated that we have two points - first of all, they had a Special Use Permit at one time and our ordinance doesn't provide that these Special Use Permits expire. On the other hand that Special Use Permit was five years old and I guess we recommended to the Council that if they felt that conditions had changed down there, they should take a position that conditions had changed and tell them that they would not honor that Special Use Permit. They probably have a lawsuit on whether or not the original Special Use Permit was still valid. I think Special Use Permits are suppose to take into consideration the existing area and the effect the use would have on the area and I think that old of a Special Use Permit, the Council has the right to withdraw it. The other lawsuit is whether or not they were suppose to issue a Special Use Permit tonite - essentially I don't think, frankly, that Erickson's did a very good job of proving anything - they didn't even lay a plan out in front of the Council - they just walked in and said we are going to lose and so they didn't really prove anything on the record and they have an obligation to go forward ; in other words it is their obligation to prove that they should get it. It is not our obligation to prove that they shouldn t. What it boils down to is that you never really know on these things when you walk in there what is going to happen to them. I think the record at this point is one that be sustained by the Courts. NEW BUSINESS (continued) 4. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, a'resolution was introduced "DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker. NAYS - -None (see resolutions) RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were read and on roll call were adopted: 1. Directing the Payment of the Bills 2. Employing John Clarey As a Volunteer Fireman 3. Employing Howard Lindahl as a Police Reserve Officers 4. ,,Appointing Alfred Roepke as Assistant Police Chief and Setting His Salary ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 P. M. • • 1 •