Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-30 CC MIN Special Meeting1 P► PM If Ira . ea COUNCIL CHAMBERS Stillwater, Minnesota September 30, 1980 7:30 P. M. SPECIAL MEETING The meeting was called to order by Mayor Junker. The Invocation was given by the City Clerk. Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, and Mayor Junker Absent: Councilman Powell Also Present: Finance Director /Coordinator, Kriesel; City Clerk, Schnell; City Attorney, Magnuson; Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton; Consulting Engineers, Elliott and Moore Press: Citizens: None James Lammers, Richard Anderson, Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Feely, Mr. & Mrs. Loyd Anez, Joel Anez, Barbara Avise, Jim Torseth; Neal Skinner, John Ogren INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS 1. JAMES LAMMERS appeared before the Council regarding a Conditional Use Permit for Judy and Richard Anderson to move his emergency shelter from 306 West Olive Street to a four plex at 310 West Myrtle Street. Three of the units will to used as living quarters for up to 16 juveniles - they plan to have two full time people there 24 hours per day to supervise - they will use the fourth unit for the earing and office area. This is a facility that is licensed by the state - under the State law essentially in an area that is zoned for apartment dwellings this type of use up to 16 juveniles is considered to be a permitted use under the zoning ordinances by State Statute. The State Statute does state that the Council does have the right to issue a Conditional Use Permit - if the Council feels that it is necessary for the benefit and the protection of the people living within the facility - it is unlike the normal Conditional Use Permit where the primary concern is the surrounding area - by State Statute this is a permittee use and the Conditional Use Permit should address itself to the protection of the people living within the unit. It is their opinion and the opinion by Harold Kimmel at the time of the original permit that a Conditional Use Permit is not required under the ordinances or the statutes; however, the Anderson's have applied for a Conditional Use Permit because of the fact that the Council deemed it necessary and wise to issue such a permit for the prior home. The Andersons are willing to have the sane conditions imposed on this permit as were imposed on the previous permit - that is they must comply with all of the requirements of the state licensing agency - the facility must be reviewed by the City Building Inspector, and City Fire Chief (inspected by the State) and any and all conditions that they impose they have no objections to becoming a part of this Conditional Use Permit. It was their hope that they would not have to go through the normal hearing process on this request. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK asked if Mr. Anderson had contacted any of the neighbors on this. MR. e building across there streeteand few he hasneighbors objection this and there Paul is only one s other owner and he was not contacted - but he was not opposed to the other site. the and are some multi-family and there iswa single boarding house across next-door. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked Mr. Magnuson if he could see any problems in issuing a Conditional Use Permit with the same conditions that were set forth on the other unit. MR. MAGNUSON stated that he did not - at the time that it was originally opened there it was Harold's opinion that a Conditional Use Permit was not needed and then a couple of years later when the Council took a look at it again, he was of the opinion that it did need a permit and that was because the Zoning Ordinance requires a permit for any boarding house, rooming house and rest -home - it was close enough in his estimation that it have a permit. At the same time when Jim says about the requirements is correct - it is permitted as a lawful permitted use in a residential district by State Statute and the :only restrictions that we can put on there - they can't be any more restrictive than any other restrictions that the City puts on a Conditional Use Permit within that zoning district - they can be imposed for the safety of the inhabitants of the building. Rather than trying to protect neighbors - you are concerned what the neighbors think and that is why notices were sent - in this case you are concerned about the neighbors you are concerned about the residents in the building and that it is not too important to have a public hearing. 2 • • • • • September 30, 1980 MAYOR JUNKER stated that he would hate to have ten outlaws in that house and he would be the neighbor there - there has to be some concern by somebody and questioned if they were burglarized and it goes to court that the City of Stillwater stand behind the kid that burglarized five apartments - that the City's only concern is the 15 kids that are sleeping in that four plex. MR. LAMMERS stated that the way that they have run the other home is evidence that they do run a tight ship and they do run a good home - over and above that they are carefully supervised by the County and the State - this house will have 24 hour supervision and every reasonable precaution is taken by the State to make sure that it is a properly run facility and will not constitute a danger or any other kind of nuisance to the surrounding area. If they do, then their license is put in jeopardy - he felt that the safeguards are there and they are constantly supervised by the people who are familiar with this type of thing. One advantage of this proposal is moving it more out of a what is really a residential area to much more of a Commercial area. MAYOR JUNKER had concerns that the Andersons would no longer live at the house and MR. LAIMIERS stated that under the State law and the ordinances this is a permitted use, which is permitted in this district. The present home will no longer be used as a shelter for juveniles, and a change in use at 306 West Olive would have to come to the Council. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council granted a Conditional Use Permit for 310 West Myrtle Street as an emergency shelter for juveniles with the same conditions as set forth on the Conditional Use Permit at 306 West Olive Street. (all in favor) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. This was the day and time for the public hearing on the proposed assessments for Local Improvement No. 173. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City, on September 16, 1980 and copies were mailed to all property owners proposed to be assessed and benefited by this improvement. The Mayor opened the hearing. MR. ELLIOTT briefly reviewed the project which involved the construction of Washington Avenue from Curve Crest Blvd. to Orleans Street and a watermain following the same route. The City policy for assessing in a commercial area is to assessed a street improvement on an acreage basis to the abutting property and the watermain on an acre basis to the area served by the abutting watermain. The estimated costs of the street assessment was $7,350 per acre - the assessed amount will be $6,351 per acre which is less than the estimated amount. Sanitary sewer and watermain were also included as part of the Washington Avenue improvement - sanitary sewer was estimated at $2,216 per acre - the assessment is $1,978.43 per acre; the watermain was estimated at $3,250 per acre - the assessment is $3,607. per acre. JIM TORSETH, representing Oscar Kern, Bill Pauley, Neal Skinner and himself, inquired about the oversizing of the watermain running down to Croixwood; (2) where was a questions previously concerning the right -of -way that had to be acquired for this project - since basically for the previous improvements these were dedicated and there was a question as to how this would be handled on this project; (3) could not figure out where the cost of grading and the improvement of the thirty foot gravel road was assessed; (4) they have noticed a very rough transition on the north bound lane of Washington Avenue where the existing blacktop and the new blacktop come together at Washington and Curve Crest - (he requested that the engineers take a look at this matter); (5) he noticed that basically the boule- vards were hydro - seeded in the area of the cut made through for New Orleans and the other parts of the project were not and there is quite a bit of erosion down onto the street, which was in sod before, (6) he was looking at a watermain cost of $125,600 and according to the assessment roll it looks like $222,466. The per acre assessment was about $400 to $500 more and he did not feel that there were that many acres involved to come out of that amount of difference, which would be 777 higher. MR. ELLIOTT responded to these questions - the oversized main - 16 inches - was assessed to the benefited property; inasmuch as the benefited property is commercial and industrial land that enjoyed the benefit of the oversized main more than an oversized main in a residential area - it is true that in a previous improvement specifically Orrin Thompson Croixwood improvement the City Water Department did share the difference between the 12 and 16 inch main that being a residential area. The negotiations relative to right -of -way costs really came right down to the wire until this evening; therefore, two assessment rolls were prepared -the one that was on file did have all of the easement costs in it and that is the one that Mr. Torseth used. It appears now that there is an agreement that there will be no easement costs and all of the easements which were estimated at some thirty five thousand dollars will be donated and the cost will be zero against this project. (continued on page 223) c J • 0 0 • • • • There is one consideration for future projects - because of the align- ment of Orleans Street in the vicinity of the Tom Thumb Store, that alignment ^• was required by the County to achieve a near 90 degree intersection or Orleans Street and the County Road for traffic purposes and this will come from the Croixgate Property to the south. In the future when that road is surfaced there will be a consideration to relieve some of the right -of -way costs that will be borne by one owner at the time the surfacing is done - that could be a long way off since there is no sanitary sewer there. With respect to the grading of Orleans Street and the miminal gravel surface that was put on that was included in the watermain costs borne by all those involved in the water - main improvement - it was necessary to grade in a preliminary way that site in order to bury the watermain at the proper depth - that is not intended to be a roadway - it will provide access by the City to the watermain for mainten- nance purposes - there is discussion perhaps that this may not even be a plowed route in the winter -time They did do some special erosion protection in that area because of the steep slopes and did not do that in boulevard areas since these will be disturbed when the abutting properties are improved and this would be wasteful. The hearing was recessed to give the property owners time to discuss their assessments with the engineers. There was a written objection filed by Paul D. Emerson and Ann E. Emerson on this proposed assessment. 2 This was the day and time for the public hearing on the proposed assessments for Local Improvement No. 171. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on September 15, 1980 and copies were mailed to all property owners proposed to be assessed and benefited by this improvement. The Mayor opened the hearing. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the improvement included two contracts - one City and one County contract. The work precipitated by the County's plan for improving County Road #66 from Trunk Highway 36 to approximately Orleans Street and in accordance with past agreements with the County, the City through assessments to abutting property owners would be asked to share in sidewalks, curb and gutters, easements, right -of -way and drainage. In addition the City had a petition for the improvement of 63rd Street and related utilities - the only utilities that remain at this time to be put in was watermain. The improve- ments that are necessary were storm sewer that would serve an area generally bounded by Industrial Blvd. on the west, Orleans Street on the North, County 66 (Greeley Street) and a line about two to three hundred feet east of Greeley Street and Trunk Highway 36 on the south. The total cost of the improvement $444,425.84; the estimated cost of the County related improvements on County Road No. 66 - $23.05 per running foot - the assessed amount if $22.13; services that were put in under the County or City contract were assessed individually to benefited properties; 63rd Street and the watermain on 63rd Street (which is now called Curve Crest Blvd.) was assessed to the abutting property - the street was assessed at $6,000 per acre which is the fiture that the Council had established based upon the proposed assessment of Cruve Crest Blvd. through the Feely property. The storm sewer which serves the area that he outlined - the estimated cost was $0.59 per square foot - the assessed amount is $0.409 per square foot. JAMES LAMMERS filed with the City Clerk "Notice of objection to Proposed Assess- ment" primarily because of the fact that these property owners have not had sufficient time to review the proposed assessment rolls - they were not filed until Friday and this is just to preserve any rights that they may have insofar as any future appeals that they may have. The objections were for the following properties: 11159 -2950; 11159 -3000, 11159 -3050 - Charles M. Hooley 9033 -2366 - George W. Olsen All parcels in the Feely Plat - Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Feely JOEL ANEZ, appeared in behalf of his parents, Mr. & Mrs. Lloyd Anez, and they also requested more time to review these assessments. He inquired as to who was responsible for the storm sewer in April 1975 and MR. ELLIOTT stated that the outlet pipe near Somerset Systems was installed by Stillwater Township and the engineer was Carli. He asked if they would be assessed for drinage to the east of this property and the possibility of overlapping assessment for drainage. MR. ELLIOTT stated that he did not feel that would ever be done - any parcel of land within the City should only be assessed once for storm sewer - short of fifty years from now when the facility is deteriorated and it has to be replaced, but we have never assessed a parcel of land - there has never been an overlap of boundaries because it would not stand up as a fair assessment as the water (continued on page 224) I-4 SRO September 30, 1980 223 • • • • • 424 September 30, 1980 can only go the one way to one system. He felt that the property to the east one day will have to have some drainage assessment and they will be assessed for it and this is a matter of record here at the City - the data that he has will be on file with the City on a graphical map which is available for the people to see. LLOYD ANEZ felt that he should have a little more time to think about it - should also know much everybody is being assessed along the line. MAYOR JUNRER DECLARED A RECESS FROM 8:15 to 8:25 P. M. - -- CONTINUATION OF THE HEARING ON LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 173 -- JIM TORSETH made reference to the over -run on the watermain assessments and that they did find in discussing this with Mr. Elliott that it was not a 77% over -run because of the easements now are not being included; however, there still remains a 299, over - estimate over the figures that they were going by when they were here back in August of 1979 - at this time he objected to adoption of this assessment roll until such time as the engineering firm has had a chance to answer their question as to why there is such an over - estimate on this particular aspect of the job. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the figure that any property owner should be concerned with is the assessment per unit - in this case they are per acre - their report estimated the cost to be $3,250 per acre - the final assessment is $3,607 per acre - not 497, more but close to 10% more - the total number varies, but the unit cost is the one that affects his property. Back in 1979 they had a report that said that the cost of the watermain would be $125,000 and it ended up costing $188,000. The cost per acre only went up 107, because they apparently under- estimated the acreage that was benefited by the improvement and the unit cost did come fairly close to what they had estimated sometime ago. If they were using their numbers for pricing their property, etc., it is true that they may have been off about 10% but no 49 %. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 173 SETTING THE TIME OF PAYMENT AT TWENTY YEARS AND THE INTEREST RATE TO BE 7A % ". AYES: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, and Mayor Junker NAYS: None (see resolutions) - -- CONTINUATION OF THE HEARING ON LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 171- - JOHN OGREN filed an objection to the amount of his assessments - tomorrow he will meet with the engineers and discuss how and why his properties were assessed - he felt that they were about twice what they were indicated earlier. He wanted to be on record as being in objection this was for his parcels in the City and in the Township - he also owns the Schomeckel property. MR. MAGNUSON explained the payment procedures for the paument of these assess- ments, and the right of appeal. DONALD RALEIGH filed with the City Clerk a written objection to the assessments to Parcel 95033 -2200 for Rivertown Company under agreement with Finnemann Enterprises, Inc. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconeed by Councilman Harry Peterson, a resolution was introduced "ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 171 AND SETTING PAYMENT PERIOD FOR TWENTY YEARS AND THE INTEREST RATE AT 73/4% ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council authorized the admini,trative corrections in the assessment roll for Local Improvement No. 175 for two parcels. (all in favor) • 1 r • • • • • • September 30, 1980 NEW BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the City Attorney was directed to prepare £ Lily s ni ty tan HHoldd Harmless and Ray Agreement with respect to the Pumping y Lake Burton properties. (all in favor) RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanimously adopted: 1. Adopting the Assessment Roll for Local Improvement No. 173. 2. Adopting the Assessment Roll for Local Improvement No. 171. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 P. M. Attest: • City Clerk Mayor 22 • • •