Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-19 CC MIN7 404 COUNCIL CHAMBER Stillwater, Minnesota May 19, 1981 4:00 P. M. Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order by Mayor Junker. Present: Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker Absent: None Also Present: Press: None Citizens: None INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS None BUILDING OFFICIAL No report FIRE CHIEF Finance Director /Coordinator, Kriesel City Clerk, Schnell City Attorney, Magnuson Director of Public Safety, Abrahamson Superintendent of Public Wroks, Shelton Fire Chief, Chial Building Official, Zepper Director of Parks and Recreation, Blekum Consulting Engineer, Elliott COMMITTEE REPORTS PUBLIC SAFETY 1. MR. ABRAHAMSON brought up the matter of Steve Pott's application as a part -time officer in the Police Department and this matter will be taken up at the next Public Safety meeting which will be June 2nd. 2. MR. ABRAHAMSON distributed the resume and application of David Roettger who has worked in the past as a CSO and he will be certified on Friday of this week. The Council will interview this applicant on Thursday, May 21, 1981 at 4:30 P. M. ' PUBLIC WORKS 1. MR. SHELTON informed the Council that Robert Carlson who lives at South Third and Orleans Street regarding the putting in a sidewalk abutting his property and he has requested some financial help with this project - he will do the forming, etc. himself and the Committee recommended that the City give him $200.00 for this project. This has been done in other areas where these sidewalks are used by the children coming and going to school. Mr. Abrahamson approved of this project and Mr. Shelton is to check with Mr. LaCosse to see if he would be willing to do the same abutting his property and it will complete the block - make sure that these sidewalks are shoveled so that the children can walk on them. (Action was delayed on this until Mr. Shelton checks with Mr. LaCosse to see if he is willing to do the same thing). 2. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, the Council authorized the installation of a street light on the dead -end of West Rice Street on the existing pole. (all in favor) 3. MR. SHELTON has had a request for surfacing to be put on Orleans Street by County Road No. 5 and he told Mr. Post to contact the owners of the Tom Thumb Store to see if they were also interested in putting a temporary surfacing on this road - also he could contact the County to put on a matting and get a price and let them split the cost of same. MR. SHELTON was directed to get the price and inform Mr. Post and the Tom Thumb Store of these costs. 1. MR. CHIAL informed the Council that they had the wells checked on the ladder truL.. and they all passed inspection and are in good condition. • • • • • /'N May 19, 1981 2. MR. CHIAL had received a letter from John Evert requesting a burning permit to burn off his property at Pine and Grove - the Council was opposed to this - they felt that the party should have the property cleaned off with a bulldozer. PARKS AND RECREATION 1. MR. BLEKOM made an oral report of the cost of the improvements of the City owned property on the east end of Mchusick Lake (top soil, sod, picnic tables railroad ties on the Laurel Street side) - total cost would be $3,072.00. After some discussion Mr. Blekum was directed to eliminate the picnic tables - just landscape with some grass and trees, and make it "eye- pleasing'. Mr. Blekum stated that he would be unable to do this work until August or September. For the Linden and Center Street property the cost of the sod and landscaping would be $2,250.00. MAYOR JUNKER directed that both of these be given to Margaret Rivers and see what they say about funds for these projects. 2. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise the Council approved a Beer Permit for the Downtown Retail Council for their Brown Bag Festival for Lowell Park on June 27, 1981 from 11:00 A. M. to 6:30 P. M. (all in favor - sale of beer). 3. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the Council approved a Beer Permit for the sale of beer at Lily Lake and Croixwood Ballfields for The Harbor Softball Team, all day June 12, 13 and 14. 1981. (all in favor) (Chief Abrahamson will check with them about police protection) 4. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, the Council approved a permit to consume beer at Lowell Park (south end), on August 11, 1981 from 3:00 to 7:00 P. M. fo. the Snelling -Selby Business Association of St. Paul. (all in favor) 5. MR. BLEKUM made a preliminary report to the Council on the bathroom facilities for Lowell Park which will be located where the sattellites are currently located and the cost would be about $18,000 each and then there would be the hookup costs. CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT None at this time CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 1. MR. MAGNUSON distributed to the Council a reply from John Larson regarding the delay on the Nelson School improvements and requesting a year's extension on the first phase of this work. MAYOR JUNKER was not in favor of giving them another year - after some dis- cussion it was agreed that the Council meet with them and find out more about their plans. 2. MR. MAGNUSON reported to the Council that the judge signed the order on the 15th of May on the Riverside Crane & Diversified Services Inc. for the contract for the Removal of the Diseased Dutch Elm Trees for 1981 and the City can proceed to enter into the contract with Haines Tree Service and the checks can be returned to the other bidders. 3. MR. MAGNUSON stated that two petitions have been filed for annexation(Washington Federal and the second one from Lecuyer and Reichow). He had talked to Pat Pahl of the Metro Council and according to her there is no capacity in the sewage plant left for Lecuyer - she feels that the City should request an amendment to the water management quality plans and the problem with that it will about a year and half before they could review that - one of the few ways that an annexation can be lost if you cannot provide municipal services - the Metropolitan Council could come in and object to it as it would be a burden to the plant. He recommended that the City take both of these under advisement - it would not do the petitioners any good if the City could supply them with water and sewer. MR. ELLIOTT felt that there should be a reduction through the I/I report and if the reduction is what he feels that it will be, the City could take on about 5,000 additional people into the system - he feels that this should happen within two or three years depending upon the funding being available. He felt that annexation could occur contingent upon the capacity being revised and available. MR. MAGNUSON felt that the Council should table any action or take the petition under advisement and with the hope that something can be worked out within the next several months. MR. ELLIOTT felt that the Council should request that the System Statement be reviewed in light of pending plans. 405 • • 4 40e May 19, 1981 MR. MAGNUSON stated that Pat Pahl stated that they would not amend the System Statement because of the sewer capacity question - the expansion project resolved or the I/I work. MAYOR JUNKER felt that it was up to Duane Elliott, Nile Kriesel and David Magnuson to work with the Metro Council and the Metro Sewer Board. 4. MR. MAGNUSON reported on the zoning and the type of permits for the use of the old Courthouse building and it is his opinion that this would be Non - Conforming Use Permit for government offices and a historical museum but nothing else - he recommended that they work with the City and that the County write up a Conditional Use Permit for the City to consider. 5. MR. MAGNUSON explained to the Council the problems and the costs involved with warrants for overtime parking and minor violations and taking them into court and he requested Council permission to ignore them, due to the high cost of processing these. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, the Council authorized the City Attorney to ignore the minor overtime parking and other minor violations, but to continue to process the more serious offenses. (all in favor) 6. MR. MAGNUSON requested that something be done about the sodding of the ditches by the Lux's Addition and Mr. Shelton and Mr. Kriesel will take care of this matter. CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT 1. MR. KRIESEL reminded the Council of the Police Mediation session at the Public Library on May 20, 1981 at 9:00 A. M. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS 1. MAYOR JUNKER informed the Council that Art Palmer is coming in regarding the parking down by the Hi -Rise - Abrahamson Nursery is coming in with a landscaping for the area and the Council has to take a look at the property to see how much will be a park and how much will be parking area which will be done at 5:30 and Pastor Johns will be there also. The meeting recessed at 5:00 P. M. until 7:30 P. M. Attest: City Clerk Mayor • • • • 1 COUNCIL CHAMBER Stillwater, Minnesota May 19, 1981 7.30 P. M. RECESSED MEETING The meeting was reconvened by Mayor Junker. The Invocation was given by the City Clerk. Present: Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junke: WIMP Absent: None Also Present: Finance Di-ectoricoordinator, Kriesel City Clerk, Schnell City Attorney, Magnuson Planning Commission Chairman, Farrell Consulting Engineer, Elliott Press: Free Press - Julic Edstrom Citizens: Flossie Larsen, Art Mueller, Willmer Mueller, W Kimker, Florence Kroening, Mary Ann Engebretson, Marvel 013, Reuben Granquist, Mary Hohlt, Randy Jeans, William Lecuyer, Monty Brine, John Serier, Joe Gould, Tom Cropp, Jim Torseth, David Johnson, Charles Berg. Mike Verhulst, Mr. & Mrs. Gary Hanson, George Schmitt, Mrs. Frank Stewart, Jr., John Dickerson, Dr. Robert Meiscerling, Mr. Baker, Jack Evert, Neal Skinner, Bill Pauley, Dick Colemeier, Larry Dauffenbach INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS 1 Sunda , BRINE unea28, before the them of thelroute Race Sunday, that will be . used which is the same as last year. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, the Council approved the Bicycle Race for Sunday, June 28, 1981. (all in favor) 2. regarding theNIndustrialRRevenueEBonds for the NRiver EERIER Valleya Council Professionals. DR. MEISTsRLING explained that the project will be a 12,000 square foot building of a single story containing mainly medical and dental specialists - this will be located in the Industrial Park on the corner of Northwestern Avenue and Curve Crest Blvd. The amount of the bonds is not to exceed $1,500,000. COUNCILMAN PETERSON made comments about the possible abuse of the issuance of these bonds - he felt that the Council should examine more closely the proper usage of the law that deals with Industrial Revenue Bonds - are we creating jobs - are we they financedewithoutsgiving thedfull are financed - can City. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, a resoltion was BONDS u FOR RIVER1VALLEYCPROFESSIONALSUFOR J UN E 16, 1 98 1R a t R 7:30 P. MIS REVENUE AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) 3. MIKE VERHULST appeared before the Council regarding the use of Kolliner Park for the teaching of windsurfing lessons in the valley - he would be using it for about 12 hours per week - he takes the students in his van with the equipment and he would close the gate behind him each time. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the Council granted permission to Michael Verhulst to use Kolliner Park for wind- surfing lessons and if there are any problems, the Police Chief will have the authority to close it down. (all in favor) PETITIONS From Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association of Stillwater for annexation to the City of Stillwater. (The City Attorney advised that the petition be taken under advisement) • 407 • • • • r' 408 May 19, 1981 On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the Council took the petition for annexation from the Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association under advisement. (all in favor) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. This was the day and time for the public hearing on Case No. 413 for a variance for Burgee Amdahl, 625 North Fifth Street to add to an existing garage to accommodate four classic cars. The notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on May 8, 1981 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. The Planning Commission approved this request on May 4, 1981. The petitioner did not appear so the hearing was not held at this time. 2. This was the day and time for the public hearing for Case No. 414 for a zero front yard setback for a home for Jack Evert at Pine and Grove Streets due to the design of the platted street. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on May 8, 1981 and copies were amiled to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. The Planning Commission approved this request on May 4, 1981. JACK EVERT explained the problems that he is experiencing with locating his home on this property - there is a sanitary sewer along the south portion of the property - limited on the east because of a storm sewer there - to the west the lot drops off quite sharply into a very low area that is almost at lake level and there is a plateau where Grove Street comes into the lot where it was vacated - going to the north because of the drainage and he will be making provisions for surface drainage in the event of a large rainfall. The easement for Grove Street jets down into the corner of his lot about 75 feet from the north edge of the lot - normally the address that your house is where there is required thirty foot setback - if he gives himself the thirty foot setback that would be thirty feet back to the east and the road is not built out to the edge of the right -of -way so there is about another 25 to 30 feet in there that he has to fill in to get to the edge of the right -of -way from the existing fill and another thirty feet from that - he would then have about a sixty foot causway going back to his house - the request is to build right up to the property line where the easement for Grove comes into his property - it will be 20 to 25 feet from the existing roadway - he has talked to Mr. Harvieux about this drainage. MR. MAGNUSON asked Mr. Evert if he is planning to sign the easement that has been prepared over the vacated portion of that street and he indicated that he will sign same. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the Council granted the zero front yard setback for a home for Jack Evert at Pine and Grove Streets. (all in favor) 3. CONTINUATION OF THE HEARING ON CASE NO. 411 FOR REUBEN GRANQUIST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTI- FAMILY (RCL - LOW DENSITY FAMILY). (Approved by the Planning Commission on May 4, 1981) MR. GRANQUIST submitted to the Council photos of the type of units that he proposes to build on this property which would house four families - either three or four units whichever would fit there comfortably. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that this is really one of the last rustic natural areas within the City of Stillwater and he wondered if Mr. Granquist had ever given thought to the sale of that in order that it could be maintained in its "wild" state. MR. GRANQUIST stated you want to make a park out of it, but he felt that it would be opening a real can of worms - if the police were not there 24 hours per day the tables and other equipment would be in the lake - it would be a wonderful spot for "pot" parties and also booze parties - it would be a costly thing. COUNCILMAN PETERSON stated that he was not thinking of a park with tables, benches and other things - he was thinking of a "nature preserve" just in its present state with the wildlife. • • • • 1 • r1 • • kid May 19, 1981 409; MAYOR JUNRER asked Mr. Granquist if he would be willing to qu.te a price on this Mm property and MR. GRANQUIST stated that he would have it appraised - he had no idea what it is worth. MAYOR JUNKER offered him $36,000 for these 33/4 acres. MR. GRANQUIST stated that the City could condemn it and the Mayor stated that we do not want to do that. MR. GRANQUIST suggested that the City get an appraisal on it and the Mayor indicated 1 that the City could have it appraised and he could also offer $50,000 tonite. RANDY JEANS, 1505 Meadowlark Drive, felt that the area should be left as open space for everyone to enjoy and this is the only one last area left there - if it was not and possibly could private funds be a to dhelpeaccqquirefor the this land. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, the Council denied the application to rezone Mr. Granquist 's property from single family to multi - family. (all in favor) and 4. secondareadingaofaadproposedramendmentrt h Chapter 31.01, Subd405 of rezoning theSllwater City Code to rezone Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Brown Creek Heights Addition to permit PP the construction of Townhouses. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on May 8, 1981 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing The Planning Commission approved 18 condo units subject to approval of the drainage for the sewer by the Building Official. MR. BAKER, Architect for Joe Gould, explained the proposal and distributed maps to the Council of the concept plan - this will be townhouse /condominiums - side -by- side type units with double attached garages to each building - there would be 18 units or families. They have indicated on the map three units per building, but this could be changed to two three or four units in a building depending on the beat way to use the land. ART MUULLER, 312 West Willow Street, indicated that there is not a sidewalk for the children to walk on to catch the school busses and there could be an additional 36 cars with all of these units. WILLMER MUELLER, 1912 North Fifth Street, stated that they don't want the condo units up there and it is no good. MR. ELLIOTT felt that there is a little bit of grey area as far as the sewage disposal - put 18 units into a single on -site system - he wondered what would happen if it failed to solve the problem - it will take a lot of unique construction of drainfields - 1,100 feet of drainfield is a lot of drainfield piping - he has aw a feeling that once the site is developed some of the townhouses will be at a level that would preclude forever there being served by a sanitary sewer system. MR. BAKER stated that there is some area on the upper level that would be reserved for drainfield space - they are not talking about building a family type develop- ment - they are talking about building essentially two bedroom homes that are going to be selling in the upper bracket of $100,000 plus - mature citizens with one child at most and probably no children that wart to move to the Stillwater area and have the kind of things that site has. MRS. LOUIS LARSON, 1901 North Fourth Street, inquired about the type of sewage system which could be charged to others and she was informed that this would be a separate sewer system and tehy would not be charged for same. MAYOR JUNXER stated that he could see nine homes there - with 18 and three members in the family that sewer has got to give somebody problems in the real near future and he felt that Mr. Gould was asking for problems himself and also giving the City of Stillwater some - in that area you cannot plan for a sewer system for ten years and with 18 units sitting on those four lots you are going to have problems - if we could have sewer in two years, the City could solve those problems, but we do nor have plans for the near future to sewer that area - he would rather see him go to nine single family homes and the neighbors would not be made at him - DNR would have to come after him - he felt that they were asking for a "bundle" of trouble. He would like to see it stay single family and put nine homes in there. • • • ■ • • May 19, 1981 MR. LOUIS LARSON stated that the roads in the area would not handle that many cars - the City is going to have to widen the road and if sewer and water does go in, it will also hit time. c annot afford it - Poplar Street is unsafe and is a speedway present ANN ENGEBRETSON, 516 South Broadway, stated that they own property near there and they are not in favor of having it changed from Single Family as again and be it would e too dense and that everytime that they hear about this, it is changed she would hope that they would know exactly what they are asking for. MR. MUELLER was concerned about the drainage and the fact that the City should have purchased it and kept it in its wild state. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, the Council denied the request of Case No. 409 (for th the fdevelopment of townhouses in the Brown Breek Heights Addition. THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 8:30 to 8:40 P. M. 5. This was the day and time for the public information bearing to review the engineer's ceport for uniform were mailed to thebownersoo ftproperttyainrthis Industrial/Commercial Park. area. The Mayor opened the hearing. DUANE ELLIOTT presented th the d0tails of this project from his written report of April 4, 1981. circu itsroncthem.lThettotall cost of the projectnwould be 110 - theeexentioft the SSA Funds, if the entire project were built, would be $127,680 which would be an AidaStreetsnonlys- there are 28 n lights intersection lighta the number of State routes - of the twenty - eight, eleven are for lighting of intersections would result in $50,160 and the next assesible would s result n a costdfigure0of9 $1,334 cperoacreofadeveloped against 151.3 acres which land. One other option would be to build the project in two stages that would be to construct of the lights on eithertside ofhtheestreeti- if that were constructed it could be totally funded under Stated Funds of $71,900. This would increase the State Aid participation by roughly $22, 000 Then Phase 2 would be assessible - it would be a much cleaner project to build then all at once ks but event thefbalanc in future wok projects 180210 potentially assessing _ t the wtok, one yearn then acre eliminated. He if we want o wooden poles in this area. for security. He felt that they need lighting Questions were asked whether it would be mercury or soium vapor and Mr. Elliott stated that had not been decided up to this point - most of the private business lighting is of the sodium variety. These will all be roadway lights and no traffic signals as such. There were questions asked about lighting along the frontage road and there would only be lighting at the intersections with the other streets. CHARLES BERG commented on the great amount of lighting on Curve Crest and none down near he areas t they Road - th any e credit for Ot therecissnotrgoing to to their along this Frontage Road - their lights spill out over this area. BILL PAULEY felt that we are a little bit ahead of the game until there is more tax base out there. MR. ar, the T inflation thatawouldtoccurcwould make o if the whole plans is delayed for five years, obviously the same thing is going to happen - this is one option to get some lighting up in the area. MR. BERG asked if the City is going to pick up a part of this and he was informed that no one is being excluded from rhese assessments. MAYOR JUNKER asked how they felt about the first phase. • • • t • • • • May 19, 1981 MR. TORSETH asked if it were put in in two phases would the lighting that came later all come at the same time or could it be piece -meal as the areas are developed. MR. ELLIOTT stated that it could be developed on the basis as the assessments for streets and utilities - they made sure that no area was ever assessed twice and they would have to split up the areas. MAYOR JUNKER asked if it could be done in a five year period - put the first phase in and then go five years from there as they develop the property. MR. ELLIOTT stated that it could be done - it would be difficult, but not impossible. LEONARD FEELY asked about the lighting on both sides of Curve Crest and MR. ELLIOTT explained that the reason for this is the width of this street as compared to the other streets. MR. TORSETH asked about the bonding years and interest rates and MR. KRIESEL stated that the it would be rather difficutl to determine what the interest rate would be - right now it is 10 or 11 percent - as far as the number of years, it is up to the Council. MR. MAGNUSON had a question regarding benefit - it seemd to him that on vacant land you can hardly show a benefit for security reasons - that could present a problem. Questions were asked about proceeding with the first phase and those in attendance were in favor of doing it this way. MR. ELLIOTT asked the City Attorney if the City had a hearing including the whole project with the intent of building only the first phase which is not assessible - is there any time limit in which the City would have to proceed after the hearing on other subsequent blocks or could they just be done and assess them based on the first hearing that was held - is there a legal time after the hearing' MR. MAGNUSON replied that if the whole project was ordered that would do it, but he did not feel that you could do that without making a contract with somebody and six months after the hearing and if there is no order then the statutes state that you have to start over. COUNCILMAN PETERSON felt that we should have a petition from the landowners for this lighting - do the skeleton work and then the balance would be by petition. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE asked about the use of the State Aid Funds if that would detract from other areas of the City and MR. ELLIOTT at this time explained how these funds are accumulated and allocated and spent each year. There would be no other state aid funds available for this lighting once this work is done. MR. MAGNUSON stated that it would take a resolution to order the first phase and authorize the Engineer to advertise for bids. COUNCILMAN PETERSON felt that there should be a month's delay before advertising for bids and be on the cautious side. (no action was taken at this time and action will be taken in June) MR ELLIOTT felt that the Council should order the plans and then when they are ready in about a month, then a date can be set for receiving of the bids. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. RICHARD ANDERSON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS MAYOR JUNKER stated that at the last Council meeting a motion was made to restrict the number of persons at the residence on Olive Street to six and it is the opinion of the City Attorney that if we are to do that we should give Mr. Anderson and the neighbors adequate notice and have a public hearing in regard to that - we need a motion to set a dace for that purpose - the first meeting in June? COUNCILMAN PETERSON asked what is bringing this back before the Council - he asked the City Attorney to explain this matter at this time. MR. MAGNUSON stated at the close of the last hearing there was some confusion over the - in the minds of some people the Council's motion - the motion it seems to him was the number of residents in the home be limited to ten including in that ten the four Anderson children and there was further action to see if that was all right with the State - see if the State agreed that the Anderson kids had to be — (continued on page 412) qe/ 411' • • • • • X412 May 19, 1981 included in the number. It was the position of Mr. Cass that the State law limit- ing the number of kids and requiring that the home family kids be included was mandatory. Subsequent to that meeting the City received a letter from the State Department of Public Welfare stating that in their view the ten did not have to include the number of Anderson kids - further more if the City wanted to limit it to ten they would entertain a motion by Anderson to increase the number of this license to 14 - it was obvious to him that the State was looking at the law from the way that the City was looking at it. He talked to Mr. John Brunzell of the Department of Public Welfare and he conferred with the Attorney General and they are of the opinion that the limitation imposed by that Statute only applies to Rule I- Foster Homes - it does not pertain to Rule 8- Residential Facilities. They are of the mind that Anderson's kids do not have to be included in the license. He pointed out in the opinion the broader question is in his view is whether the City can be more restrictive than the State - whether they could limit the number to six even though the State authorized more - it is his opinion that the City would be entitled to do that and that they could prohibit the home altogether - they certainly could be more restrictive than the State - the reason for the State requriing permits on close homes is to prevent over - development of these homes in a neighborhood which indicates the State's concerns for neighbors so that is why the City could make restirctions since these homes are so close - he talked to Mr. Lammers with regard to this and he indicated that his client feels strongly enough about that point that he would take the matter to the District Court - it seems to him that we are not going to make that determination - it should be based on some sort of necessity or some sort of need and that need should be demonstrated - in the hearings that we have had on that we have never talker` about any crowding or anything of that nature - if we are going to court on it, we should have something in the records - it seems to him that we should give both parties an opportunity to be heard and then if the Council wants to limit it to six, it is within their discretion to do so. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that a Conditional Use Permit was issued with conditions set forth and it was passed by the City Council - is that not legally what he pre- sently has or did he not accpet it or did he want to challenge it - is that what you are saying? MR. MAGNUSON stated that it is not clear what the City intended at the last hear- ing - they said that it should be six if that is what the State requires - but the State doesn't require it. MAYOR JUNKER stated that we did not say that it should be six - we said if the State would allow six, then we would allow six - then we should hold a public hearing and clarify that the City Council would not allow more than six or ten people in his home. GEORGE SCHMITT, 208 West Chestnut Street, stated that his understanding at the last meeting was that Councilwoman Avise made a motion stating six - it was voted on and passed - he did not know what the confusion is - in his opinion the Council has acted and it is so stated in the Special Use Permit and the number is the six. The City Council has the right to do that - did not know what the open issue really is. MR. MAGNUSON - the issue is that it was especially unclear at the last hearing - there is a question about it and if we are going to court, he would like to have record - we did not record the view of any City Council action - only what is shown in the minutes and the minutes don't demonstrate any necessity or any reason to limiting it to six, except the objections of the neighbors and that bare record would not stand and that is his business - he goes there all the time and loses to them left and right and the reason that he loses them is there is not adequate factual basis in the records that the City Council made at the hearings and this is an opportunity for everybody to clean up the recordsa do if there is evidence, then it makes it a better case. MR. SCBMITT stated that the City Council acted - they made a decision and on the threat of a lawsuit suddenly they are backing off of their decision and that did not make sense to him. MAYOR JUNKER stated that they are not backing off of their decision - if Mr. Magnuson advises the Council that they should hold a public hearing and that Mr. Anderson - it be in the minutes that the Council has imposed a restriction of six kids at his home no matter what the State says - that is what he is asking for - he wants the Council to make that decision and before they make it, I guess he wants the Council to hold a public hearing for you people and the Andersons and then if Anderson wants to sue the City, then we have a case to go to court with. MOLLY STEWART - if a public hearing comes up again you or Mr. Magnuson wants proof that it should be limited to six - if you went to court. MR. MAGNUSON stated that he wants record in a sense and if the record does not support or show any reason for the decision, then it is an unreasonable decision. • • • 1 • u May 19, 1981 MOLLY STEWART - what if he does take the City to court, would the City also fight the legality of how he changed those special use permits which has been their contention all along - they feel that he got them illegally. MR. MAGNUSON stated that would't really be the issue at all - it would be whether we are entitled to limit it to six. MR. SCHMITT felt that the City Council has the right to set the number and six seems reasonable - going to court is fine - that is Council decision GARY HANSON, 309 South Fifth Street, asked Councilwoman Avise if she did not make the motion and he wondered where there is confusion. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE indicated that she did make the motion and she thought that it was based on the opinion of the reading of that night. GARY HANSON felt that it was stated quite clearly that the number was six and the Council voted on it and passed it. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICR stated that was her understanding also - she did not know if they could give a reason for limiting it to six. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE stated that the reason was not a part of the motion. MR. MAGNUSON stated that he is giving them an opportunity to clean up the records so that if the City goes to court that they have a reasonable chance of winning - there is no factual basis to support the City Council's determination that six residents should be in that home when the State says that they are licensed for 10 or 14. GARY HANSON felt that the Council voted it in this way because it was a nuisance to the neighborhood and the neighborhood is overcrowded with this type of home which is technically illegal because they are too close - they also have word 1 that Mr. Anderson has got money down on another house in the neighborhood. The Council made a motion and passed it and did not know what is confusing about it. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE asked if the Conditional Use Permit as it was passed that night stands now - there is no reason why it should not? 1 MR. MAGNUSON stated that it has been drafted and submitted to the Council - you all have copies both of them as they were drafted upon that meeting - it indicates that it shall be limited to six - the Supreme Court has said and they have said it time and time again that the objections of the neighbors standing alone are not reason to turn down a Special Use or Conditional Use permit or to make it a condition or impose a condition on real estate - the objections of the neighbors standing alone are not good enough - he did not make the laws - so if the City goes into court with this limited number of six and there is no factual basis in the records, the District Court will award him the ten. GARY HANSON asked why is there ever cause for a public hearing - if their say -so is not enough, why ever have one of those if the residents don't hive anything to say. t R MR. MAGNUSON stated that you do have something to say if evidence is shown on the record that the use seriously depreciates the neighboring property values and appraisals are brought in demonstrating that fact - if there is a traffic problem with evidence stating the number of car movements per day - if there is noise there or odor or some of these things, the facts should demonstrate from the record that that is a fact - the fact that the neighbors find it objectionable is not good enough. The property owners have to prove this or the persons objecting to the special or conditional use permit to prove it. MRS. HANSON inquired what kind of proof that is needed - they felt that it was illegal and they have already express that - what kinds of things they bring for- ward the next time that they have not already - they have expressed all of their objections. MR. MAGNUSON - if you do and it is not good enough, the court will tell you so. MR. SCHMITT felt that the Council acted on their objections and in -put. MR. MAGNUSON did not feel that there was a necessity to limit the number and that this was never discussed. MAYOR SUNEER asked if they could leave the Conditional Use Permit as it is and send it to him and tell him that the six girls living at the house is the capacity that they have all agreed upon - it was voted on by a five to zero vote (this was clarified to be three to one and the Mayor abstained) he wants to take it to court that is what we would have to do. MR. MAGNUSON stated that it is at the discretion of the Council - take whatever action you feel you should. 413• • • • • '414 May 19, 1981 MR. KRIESEL stated that at the last meeting David was not here - he brought his matter up last time for the Council's consideration but at that time he brought up the fact that there was a question as to whether or not the Council should restrict it to six people because of the interpretation of the Statute or if that was the desire of the Council - he recommended that we wait until David got back to report to the Council after talking to Mr. Bruzell and we did not talk about whether or not the Council actually intended to be blase -it kind of died at the last meeting - it was the understanding that Barb's motion was for six, but because of the interpretation of the statutes that they would want to limit it to six. MAYOR JUNKER stated that Barb made the motion at six and the four children and she knew that the four children were there and she wanted to limit it to six - there was no question in her mind - was there. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE - when she made that motion she heard the discussion that night and based on that it seemed as though tha major concerns of the area and the major concerns of the residents were the over - abundance of kids in the area and the co- mingling and use of the Olive Street residence as an emergency shelter, so she felt by adding these conditions to the permit as it stood would answer those issues. MAYOR JUNKER asked Barb if she was concerned with whatever the State statute is - if the statute said 10 that she still wanted six. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE - at that time she did and based on what Dave was saying that was acceptable. MAYOR JUNKER felt that they should leave the Special Use Permit with the intention that all the Council wanted to allow him was six and let it go and if Mr. Lammers and Mr. Anderson wish to take some action against the City I guess they will have to do it. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE - one of her concerns is that the permit is put in effect mainly because she had heard that there have already been two incidents where there has been movement of people from the emergency shelter to the Olive Street residence for yard work and that was one of the things that the Council intended to put an end to and it is important that be enforced. MAYOR JUNKER stated that the Council's opinion and voting that they have to have a reason for wanting the six kids - if the City goes to court, you have to make sure that you want only six children besides his four. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the judge exmaines the records and that is it unless you have a chance to tell the judge your reasons. MAYOR JUNKER stated that they will have to stick with the intention that they wanted only six and it was voted that way and that is the way that it will stay. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the effective date of that is the date of the meeting and that is the way that it has been prepared and that should be signed and mailed out to him MRS. GARY HANSON made reference to the name on the permit which indicates the Richard Anderson Group Home and that is not the legal name - she asked if it could be changed to tha name on the license. COUNCILMAN PETERSON asked if it would be property to ask Mr. Bruzell to send the City a photo copy of each of these permits identifying the dates issued, who signed them, what they state - his recollection was when he talked to Mr. Bruzell that the 306 West Olive permit was issued for ten individuals and he told him that included the four Anderson youngsters and that is where the Council got to the six. GARY HANSON asked for clarification - the Council is verifying that what they proposed and voted upon at the last meeting stands as is - the total number is six and that kind of contract will be drawn up and sent to Mr. Anderson and /or his attorney. He asked when that would be sent. MAYOR JUNKER stated that it would be sent within the next three days. COUNCILMAN MAC DONALD asked if the City is sued by Anderson and end up in court, does the City have a defense the way it stands right now by not holding the public hearing which the City Attorney suggested. MR. MAGNUSON stated that his honest opinion is "no ". MR. STEWART asked what would be the purpose of the public hearing - if they put conditions down and the Council says they are not valid and Mr. Anderson sues the City, what would be gained by that public hearing - she did not understand. • • • • • • May 19, 1981 a MR. that and con - what from neighbors record. MR. MAGNUSON stated that he did not want to argue witj them -- COUNCILMAN PETERSON protested some of the comments being made by some of the neighbors that were in attendance. MAYOR JUNKER requested that the discussion be terminated at this time, and that the Council had taken action and the action is on the papers and further discussion would gain nothing. NEW BUSINESS 1. distributed COMMUNITY HEALTH SE do Council medical services. Mr. Kriesel this matter. TOM CROPP made some comments on this matter and read portions of the Washington County Emergency Medical Services Plan and COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK indicated that these are Federal and State monies and not County monies. MR. CROPP stated that they generate 50% of the total emergency services for Washington County and under the funding formula it comes back they only get one- quarter - they do not get paid in accordance with what they generate. The Council did not take any action at this time 2. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, a resolution was introduced "DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS ". AYES -- Councilor men Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and NAYS- -None (see resolutions) 3. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council set the hearing date for the following Planning Commission cases for June 2, 1981 at 7:30 P. M. with the understanding that in the future that there be more than 24 hours between the Planning Commission meeting and the public hear- ing for any of these cases: Case No. 415 - Kent R. Anderson, 1017 Fourth Avenue South (Four foot sideyard variance for a garage) Case No. 416 - Mark Walker, 925 North MarthaStreet (Sixteen foot sideyard variance for a new home) Case No. 417 - Har veyaSt o lt z, for West (Lot area variance of 1020 (all in favor) INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS (continued) None at this time APPLICATIONS On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the following Contractor's Licenses were approved: Birds Construction 2270 Manning Avenue, Lake Elmo 55042 Brick Box Lakeland, Mn. Zaffke) . 55043 William Keller 11635 Square Lake Tr., Stillwater Michael J. Raleigh Trucking General P. 0. Box 261, Stillwater (Moving and wrecking buildings - excavating) Sonnen Bros. Construction 2211 Valley View Place, St. Paul 55119 General Masonry & Brick Work General General COMMUNICATIONS From Roy Schmoeckel regarding tie parking meters on the north side of Chestnut Street. by Councilman MacDonald, On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, Y this matter was referred to Jack Shelton ell and Abrahamson for their study ... and recommendation. Renewal Renewal Renewal Renewal Ren oral 415 \ , • • • • 116 • CITY CLERK'S REPORT None CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT (continued) 1 mtion of Councilwoman "OPPOSING THEdREALLOCATIONnOFaFIRECSTATElAIDaTO ANY Avise, PURPOSE URPOSE OOTHER was THAN PRESENTLY MANDATED ". AYES -- Councilwomen Avise an J and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor (see resolutions) NAYS - -None 2. FIREMEN'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION BY -LAWS The IAssociation onR asRreguesting a resolut00nT"APPR000NGETHEIR -LAWS CHANGES RAISING a YEAR". et another $400 per year boost. He COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that this would be retry- active for a total service so that all who have 18 years in now g asked if this also covered the full -time firemen and MR. COLEMEIER stated that it did because of State Legislature action as of last year and because the Council did not take any action on July 1st of last yearany yy r n new under der emeeas now coming on the State eoC inguon. the paid department are not covered - they are MR. KRIESEL stated that if we continue to employ or hire new men out of the Relief Association they would continue to be covered and MR. COLEMIER confirmed this. whoTareeemployedt full- timesandnhow theyecouldlhaves Relief Association about been covered. in- putting out any money is very, very low and she could COUNCILWOMAN MAN AVISE that based on the /formation she has heard this evening t not see any problem in approving the change in the by -laws. On motion of Councilwoman Avise, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, a resolution was introduced "APPROVING THE CHANGES IN THE RELIEF ASSOCIATION BY -LAWS AS THEY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND INCREASING THE PENSION FROM $600 PER YEAR TO $1,000 PER YEAR ". AYES--Councilwoman Avise and ouncil e M acD on a ld and Mayor Junket NAYS -- Councilwoman. Bodlovick, (motion defeated) DISC"JSSION-- negotiamen hisersuLeifrom $600ttot the Council attempted the pinion of the negotiate this ion Association can approve what they ask for but the Council not change MR. MAGNUSON stated that the Council's options are to approve or disapprove what they propose unless they were of a mind to negotiate. APPROVAL OF MINUTES seconded by Councilwoman Avise, minutes of On motion if Cmeetinwsmwn eoapproved: (all in favor) the following meetings were app 7:30 P M April 20, 1981 Special Meeting 4:00 P. M. April 21, 1981 Regular Meeting 4 :00 P. M. April 4 r 21, 1981 Recessed Meeting 7 P. M. May 5, 1981 Regular Meeting COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK informed the Council that they are drafting the invitations for bids for the Cable TV and asked what percentage the Ciy would want to receive on this - she feels that the City should receive 'i% and she requested that the Council give her some direction at this time. (The Council K t left eftethis matter up to the discretion of Mrs. Bodlovick and Yr. OUESTIONS FROM PRESS REPRESENTATIVES. None ORDINANCES None May 19, 1981 • • • • • sa. May 19, 1981 RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanimously adopted: 1. Directing the Payment of the Bills. 2. Ordering the Hearing on the Industrial Revenue Bonds for River Valley Professionals 3. Opposing the Reallocation of Fire State Aid to any Purpose other than Presently Mandated. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 P. M. Attest: i t- City Clerk Mayor 417 • • •