Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-20 CC MIN• • X 386 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Stillwater, Minnesota April 20, 1981 7:30 P. M. SPECIAL MEETING The Invocation was given by the City Clerk. Present: Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junket Absent: None Also Present: Finance Director /Coordinator, Kriesel City Clerk, Schnell City Attorney, Magnuson Press: Bob Liberty, Stillwater Gazette James Broede, St. Paul Dispatch Citizens: James Lammer, Ed Cass, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Anderson, Mr. & Mrs. r+, George Schmitt, Mr. & Mrs. Frank Stewart, III, Mrs. Hinnie Juhl, Mr. & Mrs. John Oertel, Barb Roettger, Mr. & Mrs. Gary Hanson, DeaiHansen, Gina Easton, Mr. & Mrs. James McGovern, Clare Lifton, Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Gill, Violet Rock, Robert Anderson, James McKinney, William Murray, Florian Crever, Bud Jagusch, Mike O'Brien, eoassis, Lohmer, Mr. & Mrs. Roger Peterson, Paul Liberty, J Pat Richert, Harli Nelson, Russell Reetz, Jeff Jansen, Dale Brown (Total of about 75 to 100 people in attendance) This was the day and time for the public hearing to determine whether or not the Coditional OliveeStreetiandn310 West Myrtle Street shouldpnottberesidential facilities revoked. The the CityCeonaMarch127, 1981 and copies were mailed tozalleproperty fownersnwithine of 300 feet of each of the above addresses. Also on March 31, 1981 a notice was mailed to all of the property owners within 300 fet and ae in the e Stillwater s Evening g Gazette l on 2 April 17. 1981. P. M THE MAYOR OPENED THE HEARING. MR. JAMES LAM ERS, representing Mr. & Mrs. Richard Anderson,reviewed the status of the two homes that the Andersons operate - both homes are currently licensed by the State of Minnesota as Group Homes and both homes have a Conditional Use Permit issued for them by the City. The home on Olive Street was purchased in 1977 which was exten- sively remodeled and they met with County and State officials to get a home for juveniles and the Andersons first appeared before the Council for these permits and uses back in January of 1978, which was for an Emergency Shelter for juveniles in the area for short term stays depending upon their problems with the court. In 1979 the Anderson's incor- porated and at that time they felt it would be a good idea to involve the neighbors by being on the Board of Directors of this corporation and they would become more aware of the activities in the shelter but this somewhat backfired and the neighbors petitioned the Council to have this matter reviewed and requested that a Conditional Use Permit be — issued, which was issued in September 1979. (At this time he quoted and read the con- ditions of this permit. September, 1980 the Andersons purchased an apartment on Myrtle Street and appeared before the Council for a new license and Conditional Use Permit for this facility. A Conditional Use Permit was granted for 310 West Myrtle Street as an Emergency Shelter with the same conditions as setforth on the conditional use permit for 306 West Olive Street, and the new license was issued by the State and the Emergency Shelter'was transferred to the facility on Myrtle Street. The reason for the Conditional Use Permit for Myrtle Street was necessary because of this sire being less than 1,320 feet from the Olive Street location. The County was in need of a long term facility for young women from 16 to 18 years of age who were in need of a home and the Andersons made application for a change in status for their license at 306 West Olive Street and the State notified the City of this fact This was revoked and then they made formal application and explained the program to the Council and it was re- instated and required that an informational hear- ing be held on March 17, 1981 outlining the new program for the facility at 306 West Olive Street. He indicated that there have been many support letters for this facility and read the contents of the letter sent by Harli Nelson, Court Services Director. He felt that there has been no mistakes made in the various procedures and the Andersons have attempted to meet and talk with the neighbors - °elt that the Council was to be commended for allowing these programs to come into being and the Andersons are committed to the City to abide by the licenses and the Conditional Use Permits. • • • • 4 • • • Psi hie l.� April 20, 1981 ED CASS, representing the residents on the Chestnut Hill area, made reference to his letter to the Council of March 20, 1981 regarding the procedural history of this issue. He indicated that his clients are not against these juveniles, but they are concerned about the excessive concentration of residential f;cilities of the nature that the Council is discussing tonite. The Stillwater Residence is located directly across the street from Mr. Anderson's facility on West Olive Street and in his judgment except for some minute specifications that constitutes a residential facility just as the Olive Street location and the West Myrtle Street location - there are three of these resdential facilities within an area of about 500 feet. The ?csue '.eing .faced by the Council tonite'should the Conditional Use Permits, one or Loch of them be revoked'. In his judgment the real issue for the Council was 'should these permits have been issued in the first place' - the first permit was issued without ever having a hearing - they hcd them after the permits have been issued and never before - if it is true that they transferred the permit from West Olive to West Myrtle, then a new one would have beer needed for West Olive Streer or Myrtle Street - one or the other - the real issue is whether or not these permits are valid. The Council has the authority to deny a Conditional Use Permit when the facilities within a quarter of a mile of a pre - existing one which is clear in the statutes. Senator Sikorski has addressed this issue in a letter to the Council which he read at this time - he had two primary concerns - one the manner in which the use permit was granted - and secondly, there is a real concern about the over- densi- fication of residential facilities in any neighborhood. His clients had concerns that the excessive residents could be put up at Olive Street residence and he cited instances where the home at West Olive Street had gone over its limit in the past. Also that members of children of the Andersons are to be included in the total number of residents for the facility. They are concerned about the traffic and the property values with this concentration of these homes. There are concerns about interchange of groups between the two facilities and the use of the van between the two facilities. He felt that the Conditional Use Permit for 306 West Olive Street should be revoked. A REPRESENTATIVE of the League of Women Voters read the letter that they sent to the Mayor and City Council which was in support of the concept for these facilities. JOHN OERTEL, 118 South Fifth Street, stated that his number one concern was the concentration - he felt that there is some creditability gap and the number seems to be over repeatedly - this is a burden and it does affect the residents in some way - he felt that people were saying things that they cannot give testimony on- he did not feel that we have all of the facts and did not feel that everything was perfect with this home and it is too easy to praise this emergency shelter and it is not an institution for rehabilitation of these juveniles and they are not staffed for it - it is costing the taxpayers money and consideration should be given as to whether or not we are getting what we are paying for. No surveys have been taken about adding another facility - asked that they be spread out. JAMES MC GOVERN, 1011 Nightingale, indicated that his wife is a director of this facility and he felt that Mr. Oertel was complaining about things for which he did not have all the facts - he would like to have someone bring forth the problems - felt that he should have been a little bit more specific about it - he felt that these people should go to some of these other shelters and see how they are run and he felt that they would find out that this is probably one of the best shelters in the State and many of these are going out of business and their budgets are much higher and he felt that these area citizens are more concerned about the money that Mr. Anderson is making from the facilities than the .rids - PAT GILL, 302 Darrell Court, was concerned with the type of people that Mt. Anderson is trying to help. She stated that an abused girl is utterly defenseless and it is frightening to see one and felt that the Andersons should not be criticized for opening their home to these girls and felt that the home is an asset to Stillwater - society is judged by the way they care for its sick, its ill and its infirmed. CLARE LIPTON, 121 South Sixth Street, stated that the location of these homes has caused people to cut through yards and the numbers has increased and she was con- cerned about the juveniles going from one home to the other. GEORGE SCHMITT, 208 West Chestnut Street, stated that he also purchased a home on Chestnut Hill and spent a considerable sum to renovate that home - he felt that they have a residential neighborhood but when one interjects business or institu- utional businesses into a neighborhood of this nature and that it is overdone you have a degrading of the neighborhood and he fest that the real issue that we are looking at here is to protect the people of the neighborhood who are very concerned about the moving in of businesses and institutions which will gradually decay any neighborhood. KATHY OERTEL, 118 South Fifth Street, made reference to a letter from Susan Smith of the Washington Community Social Services which stated that the emergency shelters are the most important as opposed to the homes for battered women, etc. The past few months there has been more and more traffic between the two homes ana they are trespassing on her property and she is very uncomfortable with this situation. 3251 2 • • • • • • 1 388 April 20, 1981 PAT RICHERT, 315 West Myrtle Street, stated that the kids do come across her property - she did not know where they are going to school - rather than go around they cut through the ravine. It is very distrubing when they yell at her when she is in her own yard. for ens but2didu Sixth Street, not feel that they shouldthavertwoehomesn favor of these homes neighborhood- felt they could be placed in other areas too. ROBERT ANDERSON, 207 West Myrtle Street, complemented the kids at the home on Myrtle Street for shoveling the snow and stated that it was not the kids from the shelter that were cutting through the ravine and when they leave the shelter there is a counselor with them. childrenplay� with Mr. Anderson's - she with and her . DICK ANDERSON, 306 West Olive Street, stated that the kids are not allowed on the street unattended unless they are in Level II, he was hopeful that the counselors are enforcing the rules - the kids made a mistake when they crossed the street to the music too loud on Myrtle Street and taken was taken of on he asked occasions tha they be given a try - originally they had a six month probation and he was very comfortable with that - the County puts the kids in there and if they don't do their job right. they are out of business within ten days - the State says it is thirty days - they have two people that can pull their permits and besides the City Council has the right to revoke their permit if they violate any conditions of their permit. BILL MURRAY, 322 West Olive Street, felt that it was a concentration of the three institutions within two or three blocks. He was not downgrading Mr. Anderson -he felt that he has done a good job and felt those who were praising him from other areas should have one of these homes by their house. HARLI NELSON, Director of Court Services, stated that he has seen some very badly rrunsham aed he has very good half -way butethatydoes well run say therenaresnosproblems - Dick if there Anderson are problems he would like to know about them. In all the surveys that they have done in other areas. they could not find a devaluation in the property values and in many cases the value of the property has increased. As far as going over capacity some of these are not Dick Anderson's fault, because on some occasions the police have to bring juveniles to that facility and they have to put them up on that night and the next morning other places are found for them. The State law mandates these shelters and one of the concerns are not in thia area - it was his wish that the neighbors learn more about these facilities. BARBARA ROETTGER, 201 West Olive Street, complained about the three facilities within this one area and questioned the surveys that have been done. CLARE LIFTON stated that these are problem children and why should they have to have their children exposed to them and was concerned about them breaking the rules - she did agree that these children need a home but why so many of them in this one area. JEFF Street are N nott law breakers and most oftthetgirls, stated that not the home on Myrtle Street - they have no reason to go back and forth and not allowed to do that and in no way would an overlow from Myrtle Street come to the Olive Street residence. FLORIAN CREVER, 201 South Sixth Street, stated that the boys are brought over to Olive Street to work and somebody has to know about it. DALE BROWN, Program Director at the Myrtle Street Shelter, did admit that he has taken some of the kids up to the Olive Street home and they have done some work there and they are paid for this work - this is not a regular practice basis. JAMES LAMMERS felt that with the change of the status at the Olive Street home that it will reduce the impact on the neighborhood - the use was authorized previously for the structure itself and it has been suggested that these things are fine but not in these neighborhoods- the problem with the law is unfortunately that these type of structures can only be located in property which is zoned for multi - dwellings and that severely restricts the areas in the City or County that can be used - it cannot be in a Commercial area - it can't be in a rural area where there is no sewer and water. Oth received Chestnut from theaState Mthatrheshadhapplied for thetnewlce September e and his response was that he could not recall the exact date - possibly in November. She added that she had checked with the County and they were not aware of the Myrtle Street home - it was just between Mr. Anderson and the State. • • • • • • April 20, 1981 ROGER PETERSON, former Councilman, stated that at the time that the original permit was issued Mr. Kimmel had stated that there was no need for a hearing - there were several complaints that we received and there were meetings held and all the neighbors were present - in September of 1980 there was a request made for an additional permit and he made the motion to grant the addititional permit for the Myrtle Street residence - at the time the motion was made, someone asked Mr. Lammers if this was a transfer of license and he indicated that it was not a transfer, which led him to believe at the time that this was a request for an additional Conditional Use Permit and Mr. Powell has indicated to him that he felt the same way. MR. CASS asked what his relationship is to the Washington County Emergency Shelter and it is his understanding at the time that motion was made that Mr. Peterson was a member of the Board of Directors and felt that it was a conflict of interest. ROGER PETERSON responded that Mr. Cass is a member of many Board of Directors as he is and he was asked to be a member of the Board of Directors and could see no reason why he could not serve on this Board - this is only as a formality and that Mr. Mass is a member of as many boards as he is for which they receive no renumeration whatsoever. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK reviewed the minutes of the September 30, 1980 meeting with Roger Peterson and if she had knowithat they were issuing a permit for a second residence, she would have never approved it - it was her understanding that they were moving the children from 306 Olive to 310 Myrtle Street and felt that was a perfectly legitimate reason and voted to make the transfer. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked if we classify the present use of the Olive Street property as a shelter of any sort and MR. LAMMERS indicated "no" and DICK ANDERSON the program at the Olive Street residence is called Independent Living Program for Young Women ". MR. LAMMERS stated that the proper name is the Richard Anderson Group Home Resi- dential Facility - under the State law both of these are classified as residential facilities. The one on Myrtle Street is presently an emergency shetlter (short term) and the one on Olive Street is also a residential facility on a long -term program. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON wondered if we are dealing with a shelter home for young women at the Olive Street residence or would it be under a different terminology. He has a real problem with the movement of people between these two facilities and that these two homes should be two separate operations. He did not have a concern with the program but the operators of the program and made comments about Richard Anderson's profanity and his abrasive personality - and did not fel that the has given the neighbors all of the attention that he should have and to work with them. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE asked about the possibility of the Olive Street residence being converted back into an emergency shelter. MR. LAMMERS statdd that they made a committment to the Council to not use the Olive Street home as an emergency shelter and they plan to abide with that - if there is a change of status in either of the facilities has to come before the State and must come before the Council and under the Conditional Use Permit a so public hearing will be held before the change of status becomes effective. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE was concerned about the overflows and she would feel more comortable if there was some kind of guarantee written into any kind of permit so that would not happen on a regular basis. MR. CASS stated that Mr. Anderson's home is only visited once a year by the Department of Public Welfare - it is literally impossible to obtain information on those homes as it requires far too much manpower - no one really knows how many kids are in there at one time, and the City Council is not going to be able to police it any better than anyone else. It is only relying on Mr. Anderson's good faith and did not feel that his good faith has been demonstrated in the past. MR. LAMMERS stated that under the State law and the licensing provisions, the Anderson children are not to be included and there are only a limited number of occasions where it has gone over. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked about the number of women at the Olive Street residence and he was informed that it was four and he can have up to ten which does not include his children. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON dif@rred with that after talking with the head of the licensing for the State and he was told that as long as the family residence is maintained in the same location as the place where these young ladies are held that the four children of the Andersons must be counted in the number for which �. they are licensed. (Public Welfare Rule No.8). 389, • • • • 1 7.390 April 20, 1981 MAYOR JUNKER asked Harli Nelson what his job was in connection with the two homes and MR. NELSON stated they have staff that are in those homes on a daily basis and felt that they were well supervised and well monitored by the County staff and if there are problems they will be dealt with and he would be con- cerned if they exceeded their numbers very dramatically. The County and State checks their made this evening they will be looking very carefully MAYOR JUNKER asked whose responsibility it was to keep a check on this and asked why he is getting complaints every week and RUSS REETZ, Probation Officer, stated that they check it on a daily basis and they publish on a weekly basis the children that are in that shelter - he gets a monthly print out from the Social Services on the number of children that go into that shelter on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. When there is a placement made in the middle of the night by the Police Depart- ment, he is aware that the number has been exceeded and at nine o'clock the next morning that child is placed in another facility. MAYOR JUNKER felt that we need more supervision from the County and the State and did not feel that it should be his job to follow -up on this and he has a concern both for the Andersons and for the neighbors. MR. ANDERSON stated that the County turns in the records on the number of the kids - the directors are in charge of sending in these reports every month - at any time that their shelter exceeds its license, the Director of Records that day is forced to send a letter to the State of Minnesota stating the child's name, the reason for goingg,,,,Qyjyyer and when was he moved and if not the license will be revoked - and it wou1d7E0 to his financial benefit to have extra kids in the home - he is willing to talk to the neighbors. The Mayor closed the hearing at 9:10 P. M. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the first permit for the Olive Street residence was never surrendered or revoked and it is still valid and the same is true with the Myrtle Street permit - the question is whether the Council granted the Myrtle Street permit by mistake or if there was a mistake in the impression that that would be the end of the Olive Street permit - the question for the Council is - do they have sufficient reason, cause or justification to revoke one or both the permits and that is the determination that has to be made tonite. The State law provides that under no cir- cumstances shall a new licensed facility be granted within the 1,320 feet without a permit - at the time it should have been addressed, but it was not and the question is whose fault was it and he said that he accepts part of the blame for this. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON made reference to Item No. 6 of the Conditional Use Permit. 1 of September 11, 1979 which stated that this Conditional Use Permit may be reviewed and emended at any time after notice and public hearing to impose such further restric- tions that may be necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the that the he they can to the of would be appropriate at this time to suggest that without the necessity of a public hearing that the holder of this permit consent to a further condition that the residents of the two facilities will not co- mingle knowingly or under approval. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK moved that at this time that we revoke the Conditional Use Permit for Myrtle Street because of the fact that it is within 1,320 feet of the one on Olive Street and we were never notified of that information either. (Due to the lack of a second the motion died) COUNCILWOMAN AVISE would like to see some kind of policy control written into the Conditional Use Permit for both homes that the uses not be changed and if they are changed in the future without notification to the Council that the permit is con- sidered to be revoked - her concern was the lack of notification in the past in the change of status - she feels that both of the homes are required and necessary and they are an important asset to the community - her concern was the ignoring of any agreements made to the Clty - would like to see something within those Conditional Use Permits that would protect the City from that in the future. MR. MAGNUSON stated that any number of further conditions could be imposed upon the permit and felt that proper notice was given for the revocation and he felt that they could also be amended and all of the conditions apply to both facilities. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE moed that we amend the Conditional Use Permit for Olive Street to include a clause that the home wkil not be used in the future as an Emergency Shelter Home and that the understood limit /girls and boys to be housed be ten including the four Anderson children and that children from the Myrtle Street residence would not co- mingle in any way with the residents on Olive Street. (Three new conditions) • • • • 1 1 • r r April 20, 1981 (There was discussion about the number of residents and as to whether or not they should include the Anderson children in this count of ten and Mr. Magnuson was asked to check this out) COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON seconded the motion. VOTE ON THE MOTION- - AYES-- Councilwoman Avise, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson NAYS -- Councilwoman Bodlovick (Mayor Junker did not indicate a vote) (Motion carried) On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilman MacDonald the meeting adjourned at 9:35 P. M. Attest: Cit Clerk • 391 •