Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-19 CC MIN . CITY COUNCIL MEETING NO. 00-20 Council Chambers, 216 North Fourth Street September 19, 2000 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kimble Present: Absent: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble None Also present: City Administrator Kriesel City Attorney Magnuson City Engineer Eckles Police Chief Dauffenbach City Clerk Ward Planning Commission Chair Fontaine APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember CulIllllings approving the September 5, 2000 City Council minutes and September 13, 2000 Canvassing Board Minutes. All in favor. PETmONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS Vern Stefan - ReQjlest for Sidewalks Mr. Vern Stefan reviewed his request for the placement of siPewalks along the south side of the building known as Maple Island owned by the Mainstream Development Partnership. Motion by Councilmember Cummings, seconded by Councilmember Thole directing this issue to the Downtown Parking Commission for their review and comment and ~o have staff to study the request, cost, and funding of providing sidewalks along the building and repprt back to Council at the October 3, 2000 meeting. All in favor. STAFF REPORTS Community Development Director Community Development Director Russell informed the Council of a Volunteer Work Day on Saturday, September 23 from 9-Noon, for the Brown's Creek Trail Area. The Parks Board and the Open Space Committee is sponsoring the event. Councilmember Cummings stated that the summer intern anp Mr. Russell's daughter who works for an engineering firm laid out the trail and then had a machine cut the trail. It will be a very nice ski trail and this area has the potential to be a super par". Councilmember Cummings requested that we formally desillMte this as a memorial trail to William Klapp. He would like to see this done before this gbes any further. Community Development Director Russell stated that it woUld be put on the Park Board agenda at their next meeting. City Council Meeting 00-20 September 19,2000 Mr. Russell stated that there was not a payment to Mainstream Development the Payment of Bills. A payment received from Met Council for the reinvestment money that they received from the grant, it is not City funds but Council has to approve it. The amount is approximately $9,500 and asked that this be added to the payment of bills. Motion by Councilmember Zoller, seconded by Councilmember Thole to add the payment of approximately $9,500 to Mainstream Development to the Payment of Bills. All in favor. City En~neer/Public Works Director City Engineer Eckles informed Council that US Homes would like to start some grading for Phase I immediately because they need to do some preloading of the soils and need about six months of pre loading in order for the site to be ready for development. Even though they do not have final plat approval they request to go through the normal process of a grading permit and provide a 125% Letter of Credit to insure that the work is completed. Council authorized the grading permit to be executed. City Engineer Eckles requested that staff be allowed to receive proposals for the snowplowing for the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center. He felt that new bids should be received every couple of years. Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Cummings authorizing staff to receive proposals for the snowplowing of the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center. All in favor. City Engineer Eckles requested the purchase of new radios for the new vehicles in Public Works and upgrade existing radios that are approximately 20 years old. He stated that there is $15,000. Councilmember Thole asked City Engineer Eckles when the Ramsey Alley project would be completed. City Engineer Eckles stated that the latest it would be completed would be approximately the middle of October. Councilmember Cummings asked if there was any problem with the sidewalk at the Sports Complex. Community Development Director Russell stated that the landscaping has yet to be done. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Zoller to approve the consent agenda. All in favor. Resolution 2000-253: Directing Payment of Bills Resolution 2000-254: Authorizing Execution of Grant Agreement with Minnesota Department of Public Safety for Operation Nightcap (2001) Approval of Replacement of Metal & Cement Posts on Curve Crest and Washington Avenue 2 City Council Meeting 00-20 September 19,2000 Banner Request - Stillwater School District - American Education Week, November 10-20, 2000 Approval Carli & Schulenburg's Addition Architectural Survey and Evaluation Purchase of Snowmobile and Groomer Resolution 2000-255: Deleting Assessessments for 290 Deerpath Councilmelnber Bealka asked if a structure would be available to house the snowmobile and groomer. Community Development Director Russell stated that the snowmobile and groomer will be housed in a temporary metal building and is secured. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case V/OO-54. Consideration an ~al of the Planninl: Commission's decision for a variance to the side yard sethack (J 0 feet reQ.Jlired. 2 inches proposed) for construction of access window wells at 838 West Willard Street in the RB D4J)lex Residential District. Community Development Director Russell reviewed the request with Council and the reasons for the Planning Commissions denial of the variance to the side yard setback Planning Commission Chair Fontaine stated that the commission did not know where the actual property line was and that a survey should be in order. The second problem was that the Planning Commission felt that the variance was not the only solution, that they could have been placed on the east and the third problem was with procedure, that the window wells have already been placed. Council member Thole asked if a survey was done would the variance still be needed. Mr. Fontaine stated that 10 feet is required and according to the information the window wells are two inches from the property line. He felt that a survey would not alleviate the need for the vanance. Mayor Kimble opened the public hearing. Mr. Duane Arndt, owner of the property, provided Council with photographs and a survey of the property. He stated that the main structure predates the platting of this property and in Lull's Addition, which was filed in the 1880's. The structure was placed in its present location in 1876. It was originally built as a stable and converted to a duplex in 1918 and remained a duplex until March 2000 when he began renovations. The survey will indicate that this structure was built in the back of Lot 4, Lull's Addition and indicates the distances from the property line that the building was built at, the building is grandfathered into the City Zoning and existed before the City Zoning was in existence. The renovation process has involved raising the building to allow for a foundation in its present location and constructing a complete basement under it. Mr. Arndt stated that the survey shows a distance of three feet. The markings on the survey are in the approximate location on the photographs. He stated that the structure has moved about four inches during the existence of the building and as part of the renovation the Johnson House Movers and carpenters pulled the building and realigned it so the wall was reasonably straight. That may account for the 3-4 inches of difference between what the survey shows and the actual distance visible in the photographs. He stated that since this structure is grandfathered in the, 3 City Council Meeting 00-20 September 19,2000 placement of egress wells was dictated by the confmes of the topography of the lot. The east side of the building had grading that was substantially higher than the west side of the building and when the project is finished the original grade will return, which is necessary to get a proper slope and removal of water towards Willard Street. Mr. Arndt stated that if the basement is to be used in any reasonable manner it must have egress wells to allow an appropriate exit according to the building code. The layout of the lot does not reasonably allow the placement of window wells on the south or east side and continue to maintain the grade that was preexisting that should be returned to this lot when the project is complete. Obviously it is not physically impossible to put the window wells on the south or east side, but to use the lot in an appropriate way window wells on the east side if you return to grade are difficult to place. Mr. Arndt stated that neither the masonry contractor, nor the individual who prepared the plans, believe that a window well was a structure that required a variance for side yard purposes. He stated that when the personnel of the Inspection Department had contact with the masonry contractor he indicated that if the window wells were within the property line that they could be placed there, so the window wells were in fact put in place. He stated that the Inspection Department personnel advised the contractor about this issue and Mr. Buckley indicated that it could not be done. He stated that he was initially told that the City could not grant permission at all and that the City didn't even have authority to act on this issue. He stated that after some sifting out of the issues, he determined that a variance was an appropriate procedure to follow and a request for a variance was filed. Mr. Arndt stated that based on past zoning practices of the City that the City needs to grant this variance, that it is an appropriate request and that it does not affect any adjoining properties use of their property. With respect to the reasonable expectation of use, he stated that this structure is grandfathered into the City. He felt he was entitled to make reasonable use of the property and that any other property owner in this district could place an egress well within their property and make use of their property, so he believes it is appropriate. He further stated that because of the past zoning practice of the zoning ordinance that this request should be granted. Ms. Jane LaRonge, 846 W. Willard, asked for the date of the survey and was it an on-site survey. She stated that to her knowledge there has not been an on-site survey done on this property since they have owned their property. Councilmember Thole asked what her opinion would be regardless of the survey. Ms. LaRonge stated that the survey should be done. She is opposed to the variance because at the Planning Commission it was stated that the egress windows were needed because there would be bedrooms in the basement. This property is zoned duplex. She stated that her concern was that the property would be rezoned as a triplex either now or in the future. She also stated that Mr. Arndt's previous tenants used her lawn to park their cars and allowed their animals to defecate on her lawn and there is a parking concern. Another concern she had is the third egress window that is not in compliance and there is a doorway placed, so that means there will be steps, which means that won't be in compliance either. She felt that Mr. Arndt is proceeding without going through the proper procedures. 4 City Council Meeting 00-20 September 19,2000 Councilmember Thole asked Ms. Laronge if her concern is the impact to her neighborhood because there may be more tenants. Ms. LaRonge stated yes and the fact that she is not sure that the windows are not on her property. He used fence posts as a determination of property lines and her legal counsel stated that fence posts do not act as survey monuments for a property. Mr. Mike Robinson, 801 W. Pine, stated that the history that Mr. Arndt gave has little relation to the variance request. He understood that a variance request should be based on hardship and that no hardship has been presented to the Planning Commission or the City Council. The site has no irregular topography, especially considering the amount of excavation that went into digging the cellar that could have been easily graded for any drainage problems that Mr. Arndt addressed. Mr. Robinson stated that he brought up at the Planning Commission that there are three egress windows in a row and that if the neighbors put up a fence, it should be a valid concern on how emergency personnel will get to the middle egress window. These egress windows could have easily been placed on the east side, but it would interfere with the use of the lot. There is new construction on this site. The permit says "Other than new construction." There is new construction that is not in compliance, the photo shows part of it and he has another photo he would give Council. He stated that there was an old addition and it was completely ripped down and new construction replaced it. Also, a new porch is being constructed in the front that he believed is larger than what was there and he thought it encroached on the City's right-of-way and without a survey it is not known. He also stated that there was no plat plan submitted with the building permit. He believes there is a problem with safety issues, no hardship has been demonstrated, and egress windows could be easily placed on the east side. He felt that no hardship was presented at the Planning Commission level and none presented this evening he asked the City Council deny the request for a variance and that if a hardship is found that it be recorded in the minutes so that others could use that information to receive a variance. Councilmember Thole asked Mr. Fontaine if the matter ofa neighbor putting up a fence was discussed at the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Chair Fontaine stated the Commission considered this and it was brought up at the Planning Commission hearing. He stated that getting to the middle egress would be a problem during the winter season by emergency personnel. Rita Grable, 801 W Pine Street, explained that when she put a fence up eight years ago, her husband discussed the fence with Mr. Arndt. Mr. Arndt informed them that we were offby 2 inches and that they would have to go to litigation about it. She stated that they didn't believe in litigation over 2 inches so they took Mr. Arndt's word for it. She stated that she finds it interesting that at that time Mr. Arndt knew within inches where his lot line was and that now he is not sure. Richard LaRonge, 846 W. Willard, stated he is upset by the fact that everything is done first and then the variances applied for. He stated the front porch setback from the middle of the street is another non-compliance issue that was done first. The door out the back will require one big step. If Mr. Arndt puts a platform there, Mr. Arndt is not in compliance again. Mr. Arndt stated that the answer to the question that was raised, as to what the use of the 5 City Council Meeting 00-20 September 19, 2000 property will be, is it will be used as a single family dwelling and the planning and inspection departments have been advised of that. Councilmember Thole asked Mr. Arndt ifhe would be willing to give up his right to having a duplex in the future. Mr. Arndt stated that there are certain requirements for a duplex, such as egress and that once this project is completed this home would probably not qualify as a duplex. He stated that he would not be willing to make this declaration on the deed and that he felt it was inappropriate for the City to ask him to do that. Councilmember Thole stated that in order to achieve a compromise there may have to be some give and take on both sides. Mr. Arndt stated that he already expressed that when the house is done it will be a single-family dwelling. The inspection department asked if this building would be multifamily and Mr. Arndt stated that it would not be. He stated that it was his understanding that because of the plumbing and egress it would not qualify as a duplex. Councilmember Thole stated that Ms. LaRonge had some merit to what she was saying. She wanted her concerns alleviated so that three years from now it would not become a duplex. Mr. Arndt stated that if a subsequent buyer would try to convert this into a duplex, that person would have to apply for a permit and the City at that time would have authority under the housing standard to review it at that time. Councilmember Thole asked which Mr. Arndt would prefer, moving the wells or declaring this as a single family home, now and in the future. He stated that he is trying to find some middle ground. Mr. Arndt stated he would not agree to that. Mr. Arndt stated that the City inspection department has addressed the placement of the porch and has an opportunity to review it and is within the confmes of the lot lines and is smaller than the one removed. He stated that the survey was done when the lot was split in 1970 and James Simonet, a licensed surveyor did the survey in 1970, and that it was provided to him at the time he purchased the property. Councilmember Thole asked if the lines on the photographs are computer generated or is that a line that someone put in. Mr. Arndt stated that the string is attached to posts that are embedded in the ground, the posts predate his ownership. He stated that he has contacted Mr. David Dupe and he will resurvey or provide confirmation of the survey. Councilmember Thole asked Mr. Arndt ifhe wouldn't oppose the Council's decision pending the results of that survey. Mr. Arndt stated he would not oppose that. 6 City Council Meeting 00-20 September 19,2000 Mr. Arndt responded to the previous applications question by drawing attention to Planning Cases V/2000-2l, Case V/99-48, V/99-I3, V/00-23, V/00-27, and V98-20. Based on this zoning administration practice and past practices he felt he is entitled to this variance and asked Council to approve this variance. Councilmember Thole asked Mr. Arndt ifhe would like to respond to Mr. Robinson's concern as to access of egress wells in the event the neighbors erect a fence. Me. Arndt stated that there are two things that need to be said. Mr. Robinson and Ms. Graybell were applicants for enlarging the B & B - The Elephant and at that time he and other neighbors in the general neighborhood opposed that request and felt that their thinking was a certain element of spite. He responded to the fence situation. He stated that the same argument and statement can be made about any variance and the need for access on the part of public safety. It is true of any circumstance at any time, not just related to access wells, it is related to anyone. He stated that if that were the case, it would be inappropriate for Council to grant any type of variance with public safety concerns. Ms. LaRonge, asked to see the pictures. She stated that the string is connected to fence posts and has been put up two different times and each time at a different location, that is why a survey needs to be done. Mr. LaRonge stated he is renovating his home next door and he is there all the time. He stated that he talked to the contractor digging the foundation and moving the home, and that the contractor indicated that it would be easy to move the house 5-10 feet from the lot line once it is up on jacks. Mr. LaRonge wondered why he didn't do that because he had plenty of clearance to do that. He felt it was one fiasco after another. He stated that how would we know if these cases Mr. Arndt cited have any relevance to this issue. Councilmember Thole stated that Council has received a memo with his legal opinion on this issue. The cases Mr. Arndt cited and the past practices were cases where the neighbors did not object or did not have a reasonable objection. He also stated that Council tries to reach a compromise, but in this instance it does not sound like that can be accomplished. Mr. LaRounge stated that with the addition and the full basement the first thing that entered his mind was triplex. He also stated that it is not difficult to change things around to do make it a triplex and that if there are 2-3 per occupancy you are talking a lot of cars, and public safety issues are a concern as well because there are a lot of children in the area. Mayor Kimble closed the public hearing. Councilmember Zoller stated that what is the purpose of having egress if a fence can be placed on the lot line. He felt it would be irresponsible for the City to approve this variance, that it could be potentially dangerous. Councilmember Thole stated if Mr. Arndt would have agreed that it would stay single family and addressed the other concerns he would have gone along with it. City Attorney Magnuson advised Council to do a straw vote for their decision and direct staff to 7 . ' City Council Meeting 00-20 September 19,2000 prepare Findings of Fact for adoption at the October 3, 2000 meeting. Motion by Councilmember Zoller, seconded by Councilmember Bealka to deny the variance and take a straw vote for their decision and direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact for adoption at the October 3, 2000 meeting. Ayes: Councilmembers Bealka, Cunlmings, Thole, Zoller, and Mayor Kimble Nays: None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Approval of Purchase Alp'eement for Eaw:1e Rid~e Trail PTQpe~ (formerly Water Tower PrQpe~) Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Cummings to table this issue. All in favor. Possible second readini of an ordinance on exception ofland from the North Hill Moratorium Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Zoller adopting Ordinance No. 902 an Ordinance amending the North Hill Moratorium Ordinance. Ayes: Councilmember Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble Nays: None Discussion on additional street liihts in Industrial Park Area City Engineer Eckles provided information on the street lighting in the industrial park area. Motion by Councilmember Bealka, seconded by Councilmember Thole directing staff to provide more information on the lighting issues and return to Council at a future meeting. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS Callini for Hearini on Mulben:y and Water Street Improvements Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Bealka adopting Resolution No. 2000- 257 calling for assessment hearing for Mulberry and Water Street Improvements (Project 2000-05) Ayes: Councilmember Bealka, Cummings, Thole Zoller and Mayor Kimble Nays: None Orderini pn:paration for assessment roll for Ramsey Alley Improvements Motion by Councilmember Cummings, seconded by Councilmember Bealka adopting Resolution No. 2000-256 ordering preparation of assessment roll for Ramsey Alley Improvements (Project 2000-05A) Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Councilmember Bealka, Cummings, Zoller and Mayor Kimble None Councilmember Thole 8 . ' City Council Meeting 00-20 September 19,2000 Case SlJBN/00-55. ReQllest from Jean M Hamm for a subdivision to increase lot size from 5.500 s~ feet to 9 250 square foot and a variance to lot size reQ)lirements (J 0 000 sQllare feet reQllired. 9.250 sQllare feet reQllested) for the construction ofa duplex at 213 West Cheny Street in the RB. Two Family Residential Street. Community Development Director Russell reviewed the request by the applicant with Council. He also stated that the subdivision was approved but denied the variance by the Planning Commission unanimously. Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Cummings adopting Resolution 2000- 258 approving resubdivision and denying the variance. Ayes: Councilmember Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble Nays: None STAFF REPORTS (continued) City Administrator Kriesel stated that the City should acknowledge the receipt of a $2,000 donation from Clifford Timm. Councilmember Cummings stated that his request said donated to Stillwater Parks and we have it designated into the Storm Water Utility Fund. City Administrator Kriesel stated that he would clarify this with Mr. Timm and he thought it would be more appropriate to place in a fund that deals with water quality issues. City Administrator Kriesel reviewed current Council Room reservation policy and asked for Council direction. Councilmember Cummings stated that non-partisan debates or forums would be acceptable, but anything else would cause equal time issues and problems with scheduling. It would be a great liability to the City. The policy should stay as it is. Councilmember Zoller agreed with Councilmember Cummings. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Bealka to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. All in favor. ~ Ja . ,a ~' ~ '. .i .. _ 4 Diane Ward, City Clerk 9 . . City Council Meeting 00-20 September 19, 2000 Resolution No. 2000-253: Directing Payment of Bills Resolution No. 2000-254: Authorizing Execution of Grant Agreement with Minnesota Department of Resolution No. 2000-255: Deleting Assessessments for 290 Deerpath Resolution No. 2000-256: Ordering preparation of assessment roll for Ramsey Alley Improvements (Project2000-05Ac) Resolution No. 2000-257: Calling for assessment hearing for Mulberry and Water Street Improvements (Project 2000-05) Resolution 2000-258: Approving resubdivision and denying the variance. Ordinance No. 902: An Ordinance amending the North Hill Moratorium Ordinance. 10