Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-17 CC MIN• 1358 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Stillwater, Minnesota March 17, 1981 4:00 P. M. REGULAR MEETING The meeting was called to order by Mayor Junker. Present: Councilwwomme Mayor Councilwomen Avise Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald, Absent: Also Present: Press: Citizens: INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS None None Finance Director- Coordinator - Kriesel City Clerk, Schnell City Attorney, Magnuson Public Safety Director, Abrahamson Fire Chief, Chial Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton Director of Parks and Recreation, Blekum Building Official, Zepper Consulting Engineers, Elliott and Moore None Bruce Folz i;OMMITTEE REPORTS PUBLIC SAFETY 1. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, the Council terminated the temporary meter maid position at this time as of April 1, 1981 and if there is money available and there is a need to re- instate the program at a future date. (Councilman MacDonald was opposed - the Mayor did not indicated a vote) (Motion carried) 2. get on as a Police Reserve the backing the obtain some extra credits and experience - there will be no cost to the City and he cannot wear a weapon - he can be used for parades, etc. - he requested that the Council study it and make a decision at the next regular meeting. 3. Boodlo ME and the submitted a and copy Rules toohimo Councilwoman that can finish his work sheet on same. After they are finalized he rill get copies to all of the council members. PUBLIC WORKS 1. MR. SHELTON reported to the Council that he will advertise the sale of the old garage doors in the League magazine. 2. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, the City Clerk was directed to advertise for bids for the Removal of Diseased Elm Trees for 1981 with said bids returnable at 3:00 P. M. on Tuesday, April 7, 1981. (all in favor) 3. MR. SHELTON distributed to the Council a request from the City's Mechanic, Monroe Wood, listing items that he would like to have done by some outside help - he requested that the Council study this matter and make a decision at the April 7th meeting. This work would be contracted out to someone outside of the City crews. He would not be a permanent employee of the City - questions were raised about insurance liability and it was concluded that he would be considered an employee - it all would depend upon where he works and how he is paid - that is something that will have to be resolved if and when this matter is considered on April 7th. 4. MR. SHELTON inquired for Gary Fullerton if the City would be willing to hire him as a mechanic in the garage if he goes to Voc -Tec and get a certificate for same. He does not wish to continue to workin the sewer department. The Council did not feel that they should be committed to promise him a job and that the mood of the Council should be ralyed to him - no motion made at this time - could give him consideration if he is certified. • • • • 1 March 17, 1981 5. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, Mr. Shelton was directed to prepare the specs for the repair work to be done on the roof for the Library and advertise for bids for this work, with said bids returnable at 3:00 P. M., April 21, 1981. (This would also include the re- lining of the chimney and other related repair work to the leakage problem) (all in favor) (Mr. Shelton indicated that Mr. Racchini is willing to help him with the specs at no cost to the City). BUILDING OFFICIAL 1. MR. ZEPPER asked Mr. John Hanson, 315 South Third Street, to appear before the Council at this time regarding the possibility of purchasing or leasing seven (7) feet of the City's property for the installation of the air - conditioners on his /building at this address. Mr. Shelton indicated that we do have some sewers in this property. MR. MAGNUSON indicated that we would have to know how much of an area he is talking about and if whether or not it was acquired from the State and the City's ability to sell and then we would have to negotiate a price for same. MR. HANSON was requested to submit a survey to the City Attorney and that they review this matter and come up with a value for the property that he wishes to acquire. 2. MR. ZEPPER brought up the matter of registering businesses in the City of Stillwater so that in case of emergency calls and other reasons the personnel at City Hall are aware of where individual businesses are located - there are so many new mall -type buildings in the downtown area and it is becoming more difficult to locate some of these operations. It was suggested that we contact the property owners to give us the names rf their tenants and that they be responsible to let is know when there is a change. It was felt het this is being done for the safety of the people in the downtown area. The Chamber of Commerce is willing to help on such a survey. PARKS & RECREATION 1. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council approved the payment of the cost of registration of $30.00 each for Robert Bart - key and Rod Hamble co attend a course in Horticulture at Vo -Tech. (all in favor) 2. MR. BLEKUM brought to the attention of the Council the matter of making Steve Finnegan a full -time Assistant Manager for the Ice Arena - presently he is working only in the months that the arena is in operation - there were i.wo figures submitted for salaries at budget -time (one including him and one without him) - the figure that was passed was the one that included him and inquired if the Council intended to put him on - he would be making $5.72 per hour - he is currently making $5.25 per hour. He would be doing all of the maintenance at the arena and the beach work. Mr. Kriesel stated that the Council will have to take a look at this - there will have to be a job description and then look at the union conrract along with the City Attorney. 3. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, Mr. Blekum was authorized to advertise for proposals for the use of Kolliner Park with bids returnable on July 31, 1981 at 3:00 P. M. (all in favor) FIRE CHIEF No report CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 1. MR. MAGNUSON inquired of the Council about an amendment to the Taxi Ordinance requiring cab : owners to display the correct name on the cabs that they operate. He was directed to ask the owners to comply before an ordinance is drafted, and it may not be necessary to change the ordinance. 2. MR. MAGNUSON stated that Mr. Zepper has requested an ordinance which would require a Special Use Permit for garages in excess of 750 square feet in a residential area and also not allowing the construction of pole barns or buildings. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the City Attorney made the first reading by title of an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER REQUIRING SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR GARAGES OVER 750 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND PROHIBITING THE CONSTRUCTION OF POLE BARNS IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT." (all in favor) 359` • • • .(so March 17, 1981 3. MR. MAGNUSON and the Council discussed the Anderson Group Home at this time - he reviewed the action that the Council has taken in the past on the two facilities - 306 West Olive Street and 310 West Myrtle Street. Questions were raised about his acquiring the home next to 306 West Olive Street and what would happen if he used that for an extension of that home and Mr. Magnuson stated that would require another permit. If the Council plans to revoke the permit, the Council has to let him know in advance and that would not be done this evening - he is not changing the status of the home - he did not know if the City has any reason to revoke the Olive Street permit because the objections of the neighbors unless they are tied in with something really do not count. He felt that when they heard the Myrtle Street permit they could have denied that and left the Olive Street permit. The Council felt that they eliminated Oise Street by giving him the one on Myrtle Street and this was not clearly stated when they took their action in September, 1980. The Council could have said "no" to the Myrtle Street request based on the 1,300 feet. MR. MAGNUSON suggested that the C-uncil make a motion to set up a hearing to revoke one or the other of these permits in two weeks and the reason being that you can't have them within 1,320 feet - let him know that they are going to revoke one of them - there have never been relevant objections to either one of them and he felt that due to all of the money that Mr. Anderson has spent on the Olive Street home that the Council is not going to get by with revoking that permit since there is no good objection - the State law states that this is a permitted us in a multi - family district; however, municipalities may require a Conditional Use Permit as long as the conditions that they put on the permit are for the pro- tection of the residents of the facility - what they are saying is that neighbors do not count. The Council assumed that they were transferring the permit from Olive Street to Myrtle Street - there are two homes within 1,320 feet which is a violation of the State law, but the City has the right to grant an exception here, but is the City subject to a lawsuit in this matter. Questions were raised about his purchasing the property adjacent to the Olive Street home and that the permit be contingent on his not purchasing this property which might blend into the use at 306 West Olive Street and Mr. Magnuson stated that he could purchase it as long as he did not use it for these purposes - as long as it is a separate structure he would have to have a separate permit for it. Questions were asked under what conditions could they revoke these permits and MR. MAGNUSON stated that it would have to be for the safety of the residents and they could impose a condition that they have a policeman on duty at all times and they would have to pay for that. The complaints that have been registered by the neighbors is that it will increase traffic and reduce property values and COUNCILMAN PETERSON took exception to this that we are dealing with humans here and they need a place to ga. MAYOR JUNKER did not feel that we shovel distribute this many children within such a small area within 900 feet - he felt that Mr. Anderson's permit was transferred from Olive Street to Myrtle Street and led to believe that there would be nothing at the Olive Street address. He felt that they were deceived at the time that they granted him the permit for Myrtle Street. MR. KRIESEL stated that because of the action of two weeks ago he made reply to the State of Minnesota that the Council re- instated this Special Use Permit for the licensing care of 8 to 10 females that we are in a worse situation, but Mr. Magnuson replied that you cannot revoke without notice and we are now back to where we started CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT 1. MR. MOORE reported that the utilities for Charter Oakes will commence on March 30th and he asked for permission for them to do the staking and inspections and assess the cost to the developer. 2. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, a resolution was introduced "SETTING THE HEARING DATE FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 189 FOR DFERPATN IMPROVEMENTS FOR APRIL 7, 1981 at 7:30 P. M." AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) (There were questions as to whether or not the hearing might be waived and the City Attorney felt that the hearing should be scheduled) • 4 • • • • • IMP March 17, 1981 INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS BRUCE FOLZ appeared before the Council regarding a permit to do some grading work on the Augustine Plat in conformance with the plan presented previously - they are not interested in developing the northern portion of the property - they are only developing the south portion - the sewer and water would come from Oak Park Heights which is in place and available - he was requesting a grading permit as to whom he should be requesting such permits - Joint Powers, City of Stillwater or both or whom. MR. MAGNUSON stated that our ordinances do not apply here and that this will have to come from Joint Powers along with the review of what they are proposing here - work to be done by Short - Elliott and Hendrickson. MR. MAGNUSON reported that the hearing for this annexation has been reset for 9:00 A. M. on Wednesday, April 8th and the the hearing for Immuno Nuclear will be held at 9:30 A. M. at the Washington County Courthouse. The meeting recessed at 5:55 P. M. until 7:30 P. M. Attest: .o 34.2 .,u —946"e Clerk Mayor 36Th • • • • 362 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Stillwater, Minnesota March 17, 1981 7:30 P. M. RECESSED MEETING The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P. M. The Invocation was given by the City Clerk. Present: Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald Peterson and Mayor Junker Absent: None Also Present: Finance Director /Coordinator, Krisel; City Clerk. Schnell; City Attorney, Magnuson; Building Official, Zepper Press: Free Press - Julie Edstrom St. Paul Dispatch - Broede Stillwater Gazette - Liberty Citizens: Mr. & Mrs. Chris Madsen, Violet Rock, Ed Casa, Rill Murray, Jean DeCurtins, David Swanson, Mr. & Mrs. John Oertel, Jerry Mahoney, Mr. & Mrs. Leo Lohmer, Gina Easton, Florian Greyer, Kevin Bell, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Anderson, Hogan Doe, Mrs. Paul Halvorson. Minnie Juhl, Robert Lifton, Larry Lee, Pat Richert, Leona Hall INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS None PETITIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 This was the day and time for the public hearing on a Proposal for a Commercial Facilities Development Project for an Indoor Roller Skating Rink Financing. Notice of the hearing was published on February 27. 1981. The Mayor opened the hearing. MR. LARRY LEE, owner of Yorktown, Ltd., stated they are proposing to build a 16,200 square foot roller rink facility in the Matt Hoolzy Addition and they were requesting tax exempt mortgage on the property for $525,000. No one appeared in favor or opposed to this request. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise a resolution was introduced "RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR A COMMERCIAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION or AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SAID PROJECT OT THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN CONNECTION VITH SAID PROJECT." AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) INFORMATION HEARING - -- -This was the day and time for the Informational Hearing reg the change sn status for the Richard Anderson Group Home at 306 West Olive Street. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. ED CASS, representing the neighbors and the people in the Chestnut fill area distributed to the Council data on the chronology of the events that have occured with respect to the Anderson Group Homes in the Chestnut Hill area. He also presented two petitions signed by a number of neighbors at this time to the Mayor. r • • • • • March 17, 1981 Mr. Anderson was originally licensed for a residential care facility at 306 West Olive Street in Stillwater in 1978 - at that time Mr. Kimmel who was SONI City Attorney, consulting with the Building Department Official, determined that no Conditional Use Permit was necessary for the use as it existed at that time. Sometime in 1979 the use or the facility changed with the maximum of residents being increased from 16 to 20 - the Stillwater Residence has been there for some- time - it is an adult facility for persons with some kind of chemical dependency problems - it is directly across the street from 306 West Olive Street. In September of 1980 Mr. Anderson applied for a Conditional Use Permit for some premises at 310 West Myrtle Street - there was an appearance by him and his lawyer before the Council and he reads the minutes to mean that it was Mr. Anderson's intention to transfer the Conditional Use Permit that he had on West Olive Street to the premisies to West Myrtle. In any event the Council voted to permit him to operate the residential facility at 310 West Myrtle. Later it came to the Council's attention that Mr. Anderson intended to also operate a facility at the West Olive facility - to continue to operate that as well as the West Myrtle location and that what precipitates the problem here now. The Council about a month ago rescinded its Conditional Use Permit for the West Olive Street facility and then about two weeks ago at the Council meeting they re- instated that Conditional Use Permit - so it is his understanding that Mr. Anderson has two Conditional Use Permits - one for 306 West Olive and one for 310 West Myrtle. The peculiar part about this is that Mr. Anderson has obtained these Conditional Use Permits without ever having a public hearing and without the Council ever having furnished the neighbors and the citizens of Stillwater with public notice as required by the City Code for a hearing on a Conditional Use Permit. It is the State law that the Commissioner of Public Welfare does not have the authority to license residential facilities such as the one under discussion if they are within 1,320 feetof an existing facility - in the event that occurs the City has a statutory right to block the issuance of such a licensing permit by the Dept. of Public Welfare. This is directly applicalbe 1 t in this case since these facilities (now there are three of them) which are clearly within one quarter mile of each other. He felt that the Council has ample authority as to whether or not it wishes to permit additional uses of this type in this particular locality. (At this time he hread part of the opinion of the Minnesota Attorney General on such facilities). The people of the Chestnut Hill area are requesting that the City Council rescind its authorization to Mr. Anderson to operate the facility at 306 West Olive. If the City wishes or he wishes, he can apply for a special Conditional Use Permit for the use of a property that is not appropriate for the zoning in the area. At that point the City Council can decide on whether or not to hold a public hearing, serve notice as required by the Code and then consider the matter based upon its merits - the people are asking for a hearing - it has never had a hearing on the issuance of any of these permits. LEONA HALL, owner of the Stillwater Residence stated they are not licensed as chemical dependency - they are licensed as Board and Care Operarions 9s02. As far as having any more chemical dependent people in their facility, she felt that Maple Manor, Linden and the rest of them also have them. She was not asked to sign this petition - she wondered if most of the neighbors or just some of them were asked to sign it. MRS. SYBRANDT who lives right next door to Dick Anderson and she stated that nobody came to her for a signature - she felt that it is a very good operation that he has there - it does not bother her. AN UNIDPNTIFIED 1EICHBOR stated she lives across the street and it does not bother them - the only thing that they see of these kids is when it is snowing and they will push somone out of the ditch or come over and shovel the walk - she has seen no trouble. MR. CASS stated that it was his intention to raise a legal issue with respect to the validity or the Conditional Use Permit under which Mr. Anderson is operating his facilities at this time - he does believe that the City is required to furnish adequate notice as required by its Code and to have a public hearing and not an information hearing after the fact but a public hearing before this decision is made. This has not been done in any instance in any of his rewuests for this Con- ditional Use Permits - the merits of the question can be investigated at that pint. JEAN VIGOREN, 318 West Olive Street, she was wondering what other types of complaints the neighbors have about the place - in the years that he has been operating she did have one complaint about the volume of the music and he called to the home and it was immediately turned down and that is the only problem that she has had - asked if the other problems could be clearly stated about this facility. PAT RICHERT, 315 West Myrtle Street stated that they are not really concerned with the merits of the case - they have not had any problems with the residents - what they are concerned with is the legality - there are now three homes within 500 feet of their neighborhood and the State law says 1,320 feet - like to have a public hearing so that they can have a say as to how many homes there are in their neigh- borhood. 363 • • • 364 March 17, 1981 JOHN OERTEL, 118 South Fifth Street, last year there were some issues brought up surrounding the Anderson residence - they were concerned about numbers - there were some incidents - the real concern is that they live in a residential neigh- borhood - they have a couple of residences that had not previously existed - he did not know what the "Chestnut Hill" area is suppose to be - he felt that the hearing should be held as it is a part of the procedure - LEO LOHMER, 303 West Olive Street, there are three facilities within 500 feet and wondered what would stop the next house from going in there. MRS. HALL stated that her property being a commercial business is paying a lot more taxes than the rest of the people there. DICK ANDERSON, 306 West Olive Street, felt that many of the neighbors do not really understand - last week Mr. Lammers listed to the tapes of the last meeting -it legally becomes a fact that his license at 306 West Olive Street was never given up and that the neighbors do not understand that - he never did give it up and that was gone through last week and they did apply for one at 310 West Myrtle Street - today what they came down to do, if the neighbors see fit, he came with some people to represent his program and they would like to get on to that and would be happy to answer some questions - as far as the legality of their license goes he felt that Mr. Magnuson could address that issue whether it is or is not legal. LEO LOHMER requested that the license at 306 West Olive Street be abolished. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the zoning is multi - family and the state statute controls whether or not a facility like this should go in - when Mr. Anderson came for his permit on Myrtle Street, the City Council in their exuberance to help out the residents of Chestnut Hill assumed that he was going to close down Olive Street. Now that assumption was probably ill advised and the questions that they had the opportunity to ask they did not ask - he felt that the fault is "ours" but the reason for it is because of the concern for the residents on Chestnut Hill - the Council and he certainly saw the opportunity 20 away with the problem up there by the transfer of the license - there was no surrender of the license on Olive Street and the City did issue the one on Myrtle - questions of notice has been raised by Mr. Cass where it pointed out in the minutes of the prior hearing where the Myrtle Street permit was granted that the reason for the notice position is so that the neighbors can register their concerns about a proposed use on a Conditional Use Permit. Actually the role of the neighbors in that sort of a process is in any event rather strictly limited - the objections of the neighbors as to aesthetics or the feelings that they have about a particular conditional use really are not relevant - in the Supreme Court it has been said many, many times under normal circumstances that the objections of the neighbors standng alone as to whether a special use permit should be granted are not sufficient reasons to turn it down - even if there was a petition with a thousand signatures as being against it as that is not sufficient reason because that would be governed by men and not of laws, so the City Council cannot look at the popularity of a Conditional Use. That is under normal conditions and in this case the role of the neighbors is even more restricted because the statute says there can be a Conditional Use Permit granted but it can only impose those conditions that are for the safety of the inhabitants of the residential facilities - it even further restricts the role of the neighbors. He did not feel that the lack of notice would invalidate that action. FLORIAN CREVER inquired about the 1,300 feet between two facilities - why is that being disregarded. MR. MAGNUSON said that the State Statute says that under no circumstances shall the Commissioner duly license any residential facility if it is within 1,320 feet unless the City gives it a Special Use Permit and in this case the City gave one. GINA EASTON, 321 W. Olive Street, asked why the City can't rescind that . . you are the one that made the mistake. MR. MAGNUSON stated that is within the discretion of the City Council - if there is rescission lawfully made it couldn't be the Olive Street facility because the conditions of that Conditional Use Permit were never violated in any way that he could see - and he felt that was everyone's concern - it is within the discretion of the City Council to rescind it - they always have the opportunity to do things - they might not be able to sustain the conviction or the City could be liable for damages in the courts and his advice on the Olive Street property that it would not be legally permissable . . . MRS. EASTON could not see now it is legal since there was not a hearing on either property. MR. KRIESEL read the section of the code that applias to such permits as to when a hearing is not required. • • • r • • Mardi 17, 1981 MR. CASS felt that there was ample authority for the City to refuse Mr. Anderson's rome request for a second facility within a quarter of a mile of the other one. MAYOR JUNKER read from the minutes of September 30th, 1980 meeting regarding the permit at 310 West Myrtle Street and that the present home would not be used and if they consider the home at 306 West Olive as a change in use with the children that have left and gone to the home on Myrtle Street and eight or ten gilrs coming to the Olive Street residence, would that be a change in use (he asked this question to Mr. Magnuson). MR. MAGNUSON stated that he did not think that it would - it is DPW Rule Residential Facility and it remains that - the change in use would be from Commercial to residential orresidential to industrial - he felt that is what the change in use would mean - it would be a change in status of it, but not a change in use. MINNIE JUHL, 136 South Holcombe Street, they are bringing in girls in a residential area where there are a lot of young people and she did not feel that a parent has a right to have all of that around there - she could not see that wasn't a change in use. H. MR. CASS has a hard time understanding the Council's position on this issue - at the time of the Nelson School question the Council took the position continously that the neighbors input and the desire of the neighbors was really important and that the Council was going to do what the neighbors wanted - all these people are asking for is a right to a hearing with notice on whether or not the City is going to license the second residential facility within a quarter of a mile of a previously licensed facility. It could come out the same way and he has told them that - they have a right to hear them before the decision is made and not afterwards - they have been forced and faced with the fact that it has been decided ahead of time and then later they have an informational hearing. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Cass Street and he continues his that he represents. MR. CASS did not feel that or transfer of the license Council was misled at that either place at this time two within 500 feet. if the Council were to revoke the license on Myrtle license on Olive Street, would that satisfy the people is the question - he felt that the problem is the change from West Olive to West Myrtle and he felt that the time - he did not feel that he had a valid license at They want a right to a hearing to know why there are MR. MAGNUSON advised the Council that one of the reasons why the license was re- instated at the last meeting as it was not proper to revoke the license without notice and if the Council saw fit to revoke one of the licenses the Council should notify Mr. Anderson at the next meeting - that in two weeks time they will take action to revoke his license, that he would have an opportunity to be present and be heard and state the reasons why they intend to revoke the license so that the can prepare his defense to that. It couldn't be revoked tonite because there was no notice of the proposed action. RICHARD ANDERSON stated that he has been up there for five years - he had 1,600 kids come thru and he has yet to see one scrap of paper where they have ever violated at anytime or any cause or anybody's rights - he is sympathetic with the neighbors - he is also a home owner in that neighborhood - he could not see how they could revoke his license for what - have to do something wrong - can a license be revoked because you do not like it - did anybody on the Council hear anybody come up with a reason - possibly the Council did make a mistake - he did not ask for any special favors - came in and asked for the permit and got it - he did know that the place on Olive Street has been no problem to these people and the place on Myrtle Street isn't either - no matter where you go with these kinds of homes - he did not think that anybody wants them - he would like the Council to consider his rights along with the rights of the neighbors - he does have the licenses and he legally came to the Council and did everything that he felt that the law asked him to do. MR. CARVER stated that if they go to sell their house, one of the things is going to be looking around the neighborhood that some of these things best in view of the type of homes that are going on here. LEONA HALL asked if the people had considered what is going to happen to they are doing a good job. MRS. KATHY OERTEL, 11S South Fifth Street, stated that we need these homes for the kids - none of the names on the petition oppose these homes in any way - we are serving seven counties with these homes - why does one area in Stillwater in a 500 foot area take the brunt for many counties - it is not fair. SUSAN DOE, South Second Street, felt that it is not the home that people object to- it is the fact of the distance between the homes - the fact that disturbed her was the fact that there were no hearings and this has happened several times - she has never had anything like this in her neighborhood, but wondered when her turn was coming. the buyer are not the these kids- 365`, • • • p • 7366 1 March 17, 1981 MAYOR JUNKER did indicated that there was a hearing after the license was issued and the Council placed certain restrictions on this facility. The problem is that the Council issued Dick Anderson permits for two homes within 1,320 feet and he personally believes that the Council made a mistake in doing it - he tried to convince the Council to have a hearing, but the motion was made to give him the permit back and then have an information hearing. He personally did not feel that was correct - he felt that the Council had the right tonite to either tell Mr. Anderson that they are going to revoke his license or they are going to leave it as it is and leave him have two homes. THE MAYOR CLOSED THE HEARING. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON moved that three weeks from tonite the date of the next official council meeting, April 7, 1981 - that this Council hold a public hearing to consider revocation of both permits that were granted - the one on 306 West Olive Street and one at 310 West Myrtle Street and that all of the property owners within 300 feet be notified and that there be public notice in the newspapers. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK seconded the motion. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON was concerned about the legality of the action of the Council - possibly they were a little bit naive and led down the primose path over the last couple of years - he could not help be concerned with the fact that very, very limited expressions has been about the people that are being served by these homes and he brought out the fact that he was a foster parent for many years and they were not all from Stillwater and Washington County - in these two locations we are providing homes for about 25 kids - many of them not from Washington County and you will find the kids from Washington County are being taken to other places to remove them from their problem surroundings and into a fresh atmosphere - he was concerned that we are talking about property values and lack of proper legal notification and very little interest as to where these 25 or 30 kids are going to go - be it a year from now if somebody doesn't step in and say "we'll give you some shelter" and he wanted to be shown when property has been devalued because there is a home for kids down the street - he intends to follow up on this public hearing - he intends to speak forcefully three weeks from tonite - don't forget 28 to 30 kids COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that the Council assumed that when he was vacating 306 West Olive for the Myrtle Street that was her express reasons for giving her approval for the home on Myrtle Street and she could not take any other action than what they are doing this evening. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE felt that it was important that the opinions of all of the Council be heard - as a new member on the Council she is not familiar with all of the history that has gone on - she is familiar with the confusion and facts flying around - what is true and what is not true - she supports the motion because she felt that it is time to get it out in the open and get it clarified once and for all. COUNCILMAN MAC DONALD agreed with what Barb said and he also stated that by the next meeting he will have all of the facts and he will have listened to every tape to find out what was said - but he did support Mr. Peterson's motion. VOTE ON THE MOTION - all in favor (Mayor Junker did not indicate a vote) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise. the City Attorney made the second reading of Ordinance No. 591 "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING STILLWATER CI1'Y CODE CHAPTER 33, SECTION 33.01, SUBD. 4, SUBB. 5, and SUBD. 6 ". The City Attorney explained the contents of the ordinance and what it attempts to do and to bring the fees in line with other communities. The chair then put the question, "Shall this ordinance pass ?" and on roll call the ordinance was unanimously adopted. THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS AT 8:35 TO 8:45 P. M. NEW BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council set the date of April 7, 1981 at 7:30 P. M. for the following Planning Commission Cases: (all in favor) Case No. 405 - John Kennedy, 2387 Hidden Valley Lane - sideyard variance for a swimming Pool Case No. 406 - James Huntsman, 416 South Fourth Street - Special Use Permit for wedding receptions at his home Case No. 407 - Frank Rauch and Jim Blichfeldt - Special Use Permit for a duplex in a One- Family District at 1331 West Myrtle Street. • • • • Imo e March 17, 1981 2. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, a resolution was introduced "DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS ". Ayes -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker Nays- -None (see resolutions) INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS None at this time APPLICATIONS - - - -On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilvoman Avise, the Council approved the following Contractor's Licenses: (all in favor) H & I Wood Specialities Box 95, (South Greeley Street), Stillwater Hardy Roofing and Insulation 2132 Spruce Place, White Bear Lake 55110 Roofing & Insulation Renewal Leo Lengyel - Leo's Excavating 2275 Neal Avenue North, Stillwater McPherson Spraying and Taping R. #1, Box 193, Stillwater Whole Builders Cc'perative, Inc. 4100 - 44th Ave. So., Minneapolis 55406 COMMUNICATIONS None General Excavators Renewal Plastering, etc. Renewal and Painting General New CITY CLERK'S REPORT 1. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, the Council set the rent for R. L. Polk Co. at $100.00 for the rental of an office in the Municipal Building. (all in favor) Renewal - - - -On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the Council approved a gambling license for tipboards and raffles for the Stillwater Aeria 94 - Eagles, 227 South Main Street, Stillwater. (all in favor) CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT 1. The Council set the date of March 25, 1981 at 6:00 P. M. to discuss the Police Union Contract proposal - they will meet with Mr. Bastian and representatives of the Police Department. 2. The Council set the date of April 14, 1981 at 6:00 P. M. for the interviews with the applicants for the Police Officer Position. Mr. Kriesel will inform the five persons who are to be interviewed as to these dates and times. 3. Mr. Kriesel distributed the Escrow Agreement for the David Johnson Project to the Council and explained portions of same, especially regarding the deposit funds for the project. This material will be sent to bavid Johnson and will be considered for the meeting on the 24th. 4. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, the Council approved the Interfund Transfers for 1980 as recommended by the Finance Director: Debit Credit $86,631.76 6,211.02 9,530.00 16,218.60 19,257.13 4,912.16 3,771.81 General Civil Defense Library Park Lily Lake 300M G. 0. Corporate Bonds of 1980 $138,823.99 Sanitary Sewer Parking System 425M Improvement Bonds of 1980 710.45 (continued page 368) 367) • • • , * • 5. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, the Council increased the mileage allowance from 19c to 25c per mile effective January 1, 1981. (all in favor) 6. Mr. Kriesel inquired of the Council what their feelings would be if Mr. Granquist would develop some property adjacent to the Oak Glen Development - he was talking about some type of housing for low income people - it is zoned "single family" - The Council felt that it should be left as single family zoning - if he is willing to come in with some kind of plan, the Council would look at same. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS None QUESTIONS FROM PRESS REPRESENTATIVES None Permanent Improvement Fund Municipal State Aid Construction 1979 Improvement Fund Construction 885M. G. 0. Improvement Bonds of 1980 Construction APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the minutes of the following meetings were approved as corrected: * (all in favor) February 17, 1981 Regular Meeting 4:00 P. M. February 17, 1981 Recessed Meeting 7:30 P. M. March 3. 1981 Regular Meeting 7:30 P. M. *(Corrections - March 3, 1981 - page 3 add "not" to Ann's statment and the Mayor indicated that he abstained from voting on the Anderson Conditional Use Permit.) ORDINANCES Second reading - Ordinance No. 591 - Building Permit Fees First Reading - Special Use Permits for Garages over 750 Square Feet RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanimously adopted: 1. Directing the Payment of the Bills 2. Industrial Revenue Bonds - Roller Skating Rink 3. Public Hearing for Local Improvement No. 189 Deerpath ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, the meeting adjourned at 9 :05 P. M. Attest: .n..._.. . sE City' Clerk March 17, 1981 Debit $18170".38 214,937.89 80,413.29 Mayor Credit $ 478,782.56 7,098.04 • • •