Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-02 CCMINfa. 259� • STILLWATERCITYCOUNCIL COUNCIL CUMBERS JP1IUMY 2, 1985 REGULAR MEETING The meeting was called to order by Mayor Peterson. The Invocation was given cy City Clerk Johnson. Present: Absent: Also Present: Council[ret:ers Bodlovick, Farrell, MacDonald, and Mayor Peterson Cbmcihiarber Kimble City Coordinator, Kriesel City Attorney, Magnuson City Clerk, Johnson City Engineer, Meister Finance Director, Caruso Public Works Director, Shelton Public Safety Director, Mawhorter Main Street Project Coordinator, Reardon Zoning Administrator, Zepper CounciLreter-elect, Junker s: Stillwater Gazette - Sharon Baker Valley Press - ra..dkamer 7:30 P. M. Citizens: Maurice Stenserson, Nancy Inderieden, Carole Paukert, Roberta Opheim, Steve Milston, Clayton Patterson The City Clerk gave the Invocation. UNPINLSH D BUSINESS NCNE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Concilnamber BMlovick, seconded by Cbnnciln of the follaving neetings: (all in favor) Decerber 18, 1984 December 18, 1984 Decerber 27, 1984 MacDonald to approve the minutes Regular Meeting Recessed Meeting Special Meeting 4:15 P. M. 7:30 P. M. 4:00 P. M. ADJOURN4ENT Motion by Councihnerber Bodlovick, seconded by Coubcilnanber MacDonald to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 P. M. (all in favor) MAYOR PETERS%) thanked Ooimcilnetber Farrell for his service on the mrncil and for the City of Stillwater and the meeting adjourned for coffee and cake in honor of Cbuncilnarber Farrell and Councilneber-Elect Jinker. Attest: Z1 L/ Clerk Mayor • • 260 • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS ADJOURNED MELTING STSLUAATER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2, 1985 7:50 P. M. The City Clerk at this time administered the Oath of Office to Councihranber-Elect, David Junker, and (buncilmerbei-Elect, Brad MacDonald. The neeting was reconvened by Mayor Petersen. Present: Coincilne±ers Bodlovick, Junker, MacDonald and Mayor Peterson Absent: Cbuncilnenber Kimble Also Present: City Coordinator, Kriesel City Attorney, Magnuson City Clerk Johnson City Engineer, Meister Finance Director, Canso Public Works Director, Shelton Public Safety Director, Mawhorter Main Street Project Coordinztor, Reardon Zoning Administrator, Zepper Press: Stillwater Gazette - Sharon Baker Valley Press - Iardkanner Citizens: Tom Farrell, Maurice Steerson, Nancy Inderieden, Carole Paukert, Robert Opheim, Steve Milston, Clayton Patterson INDIVIDUALS - DELEGATIONS - PEFITICNS None !.IWI4LS ED BUSINESS 1. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 629 - SIGN ORDINANCE MR. TQ4 FARRELL explained the changes that have been made to the proposed ordinance since the Public Hearing on December 18, 1984. A number of business people from the Downtown area were concerned about some areas of the ordinance, so an informational meeting was held to discuss these issues. Mr. Carrell then reviewed the changes. Subdivision I, on the first page, number 6 regarding terporary signs, allows signs to be up sixty days out of any twelve month period and for an extended period of time at the discretion of the City Council. Page 2, Subdivision III, signs allowed without permits; temporary signs, real estate signs and political signs was added to this. Subdivision IV, prohibited signs was changed to include size, location or illumination which constitutes a traffic hazard or any sin that is unsafe or loose. S7ubdivison V, signs that require a Special Use Peanut, includes signs that were originally under the prohibited category - mobile signs, roof signs, marquee signs, signs attached to natural natter, internally illuminated signs, except back -lit signs, flashing signs, graphic designs and proprietary signs. Page 3 and 4 had no changes. Page 5, Subdivisions IV, Applications for a sign permit, reads that a mininman of information shall be filed with the Building Official, such as dimensions and a description of the sign. Subdivision X, Applications for a Special Use Permit, requires more definite information such as a drawing describing the sign, photographs of the building face and proposed location of sign, In, it will be attached, and historical significance of sign. MR. FARRELL summarized the changes by saying that any sign that conforms to the ordinance in terns of size and location can be allowed by a sign permit which is obtained from the Building Official. Signs that do not conform will require a Special Use Permit and go through the appropriate channels and pay the appropriate fees. ODUNCIIMEMBER nctxpTICK asked if the sign permit had a dollar amount attached to it and MR. FARRELL REPLIED "No". MR. ZEPPER is concerned with no fees involved in a sin permit, the City Staff will be spending a lot of tine measuring the building and doing a lot of calculations. He suggested they came in with a sketch of the building, etc. MAYOR PEIER.92i stated this is one of the normal questions that should be asked when the person cares in for a sign permit. CDUNCIUNEMBER BODEA✓iac agreed that the person should have tjis information ready when they care in for a sign permit. • • • January 2, 1985 261• cOUNCIIha w JUtgKER asked if the signs in Stillwater at present conform to MR. FARRELL replied 'yes" NANCY INDRIEDR addressed Subdvision IX, Sign Permit, and stated that this Ordinance is not strong enough because it does not request that the running or its location on the front of the building, etc. the ordinance. portion of the feet be shown, CITY ATICRNEY MACNUSON said Subsection 3, under Subdivision X could be moved to Subdivision IX. MS. /MIR/EDNN also cemented on Section IV & V. She stated that at the informational meeting people were concerned that they would not be allowed to do certain things with their signs and some of then were concerned about the plastic signs. Some mnpranises were made at the meeting, but since than, other signs were included under the Special Use Permit category, such as mobile, roof, marquee, flashing, and proprietory. The original camittee would not like to see these kinds of signs and would like to discourage then. Therefore, they should not be allowed under the Special Use Permit. MAYOR PEIRSCN stated the informational meeting last week was to get the thinking of the business moronity. M5. INDRIEDR stated that mobile signs were rot mentioned at that Ire ting. There were three people set against any kind of regulation. She surveyed the signs Downtown and eighty percent are not plastic. MAYOR PETERSON atated it was his feeling that the word, "prohibited" is the cause of the problem. He stated that he has confidence that the City Council will look closely at any of these proposed signs. M5. RIDERIEDEN asked what the Planning Commission or Council will use for back-up in denying any of these types of signs because the ordinance does speak in this area. CITY AT1tRNEY MA(NUScn stated that if anything is permitted with a Special Use Permit, in the normal zoning omtext, there is a presumption of validity and the burden is on the City Council to show it would be harmful to the health, safety and welfare. When a person asks for a variance, the burden is on the applicant. If you would like to discourage those types of signs, they should not be permitted with a special Use Permit. ST'EVE YaLSTON wanted to share two points with the Council and audience. He aget, s that the word "prohibited" should apply to those types of signs as noted in Subdivisan V. He has novel to Stillwater because of the historic character and feeling of the town. The word, "prohibited" is a stronger guideline than a Special Use Permit. People are willing to drive an extra two hours to cane to Stillwater because of the character of the community. The sign maker that spoke against denying plastic signs at the last meeting hakes his profit fran the sign and then leaves town. He doesn t have to live with it. PR. CAYTON PATTER.SON, who owns a business in town, has sold signs for twenty-five years. If you soften the ordinance, you will wind up with the same thing that is on the freeway. ROBFRTA OPBEIM agreed that sane people at the informational meeting did not like the word "prohibited". Her understanding is that those signs would be prohibited unless just cause could be shown. Until City Attorney Magnuson spoke, she had no idea of the legal implications of the special Use Permit. Under those circumstances, she would like to see the prohibited signs remain prohibited. TOM FARRELL stated he agreed with Roberta gtei.m. He suggested moving numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 of Subdivision V into Subdivision IV, and redefine Sddivision V. He also said we are not jeopardizing the Downtown area with this ordinance, bemuse we have had a paractigally worthless ordinance for years. WUNCIIfrNeR JUNKER asked whst is considered a mobile sign. MR. STEquRSOti replied this is a sign of molded plastic with interchangeable letters, not a sandwich board. CITY ATTORNEY MAWUSC4 stated that would be a temporary sign. COUNCII14r BER JUNKI2 asked for the definition of a "graphic sign". MR. STFNFRSON replied they wanted to leave this as a Special Use Permit designation because sere historical signs are in this category such as the Staples Mill sign or Spearmint sign on the side of the Grand Garage. COUNCII14EMBER JUNKER asked if the higher fee being considered for a Special Use Permit could deter someone from getting a mobile sign or roof sign, etc. MR. MACNUSON said you could deny a Special Use Permit, but you would have trouble making it stick. RYINCIIMEMBER JUNKER said you would still have to have a meeting and people would have go throuoh all the channels. MR. MAQNSON said you would not have any grounds to show that it is dangerous, etc. MR. 'TIMER said the word, "prohibited" is hard to use on anything, because if the Council grants a Special Use Permit, it is allowed. • • • 262 January 2, 1985 • • MR. UPPER asked if prohibited places the burden of proof on the applicant, not the Council. MR. SIT ERSCA1 added that the camdttee had in mind an ordinance that would be complimentary and compatible with turn -of -the -century building. By prohibiting certain signs, we are eliminating signs rot in character with the historical nature of Stillwater. He feels illuminated signs should be eliminated also. This is a protection for the shopawners. Discussion ensued between the Council and audience on the proper changes in the ordinance. Some discussion also centered on attractitely lit signs, such as flood lights to light signs or back -lit signs. ROBERTA OWEIM thinks internally illuminated signs should be left with a Special Use Permit connotation because it seemed to be important to some people at the informational neeting and this was a compromise made at that time. MR. FARRELL agreed with Roberta Opheim that this was the key of the compromise node at the information meting; that internally illuminated signs are allowed with a pernat if they are back -lit and are categorized under Special Use hermit if they are not hark -lit. Leave this wider Subdivision 5. There was considerable discussion on internally illuminated signs and nor restrictive the ordinance should be. A LADY asked what kind of guidelines will be used when a request is made for a Special Use Permit for an internally illuminated sign. CITY ATTORNEY NealUSCN said all of the standards and regulations apply to all sips: that is the size and limitation on placement. MAYOR PETFRSOH said he had a problem with the illuminated signs and the Special Use Permit. He would like some guideline on denial of a Special Use hermit. MR. Ptaalus R stated that you have to show that the sign seriously depreciates the surrounding property. MR. PET'FRSON stated this would be difficult. MR. MAGNUSON added the sign is bound by the size limitations stated in 4e ordinance. MR. STENFRSON added that existing signs have been protected. The ordinance refers only to any new signs. MR. ZEPPER asked what would happen if Union 76 sells and another station buys it -- is this treated as a new sign? The answer is 'yes". WUNCLEMEMBER MAC DO WD stated we have not had a problem in the four years he has been on the Council, so is this issue a big problem? The signs that have been done are in good taste, however, he believes the City should have an ordinance cowling this area. He does agree with moving the section on internally illuinated signs to Subdivision IV. O OIC1I1IENB R 3t2 KER stated if this is put under the prohibited category, the Council would have to turn these types of signs dawn and sate of those signs nay look godo for Mier situation. A LADY said she was at the information meeting and she did not feel the businessnnt were against the spirit of the ordinance, but she thought the distinction that Mr. Magnuson made as to what position the Council would be in terns of placing the burden of proof and the people at the meeting were relying on the fact that the Council could take the action to prohibit these signs. If that is not the case, she velieves people would change their minds and these signs should be prohibited. MS. LNDERIDEN stated that there were three or four people at the meeting who were very vocal in wanting internally illuminated signs. She does not believe this was a consensus of that meeting. She also does not believe they were looking at this type of sign as to whether it is a good sign to put Downtown. ROBFRTA OPHEIM stated that Mr. Adams was concerned with the word, "prohibited". He is afraid business will be stifled. We were bit aware if the "burden of proof" issue stated by Mr. Magnuson. In regard to the internal sign, the majority of people do not want a billboard, gas station type of sign that is very large and unattractive. They are concerned that they will be prohibited from going a tastefully done sign, such as the Merrill -Lynch sign. MR. RrEARDON had one comment before the Council made a decision. He said there were a couple of errors in the ordinance as it is now written - there is no Subdivision II, and two Subdivisions TX's. The Nunoil then voted on each subdivision of the Sign Ordinance No. 629: Subdivision I - Definitions - Ayes--Councilmnrbers Bodlovick, MacDonald and Mayor Peterson Nays —None Abstain--Couhcilmerber Ju nker • • • • 0.4 January 2, 1985 263\ Subdivision II - Signs Allowed without Permit - the change is the addition of real estate signs and political signs. Ayes--Coumcilnenbers Bodlovick, MacDonald and Mayor Peterson Nays —None Abstain - Councilmerber Jimker Subdivision III - Prohibited Signs - The word "prohibited" was dropped and "Not Allowed" inserted. This Subdivision is clanged to include, Sections 3. Mobile signs; 4.Roof Signs; 5.Marnuee signs; 6.Any sign pinned on or attached to any tree, rock or other natural natter; 7.Internally Illuninated Signs, except for back -lit signs which shall require a sign permit; 8. Flashing Signs; 9. Proprietory Signs. Ayes—Couhcilmetbers Bodlovick, MacDonald and Mayor Peterson Nays —None Abstain—Cbuncilnerber Dunker Subdivision IV- Signs which require a Special Use Permit - This was changed to include only Graphic designs. Ayes --t nmcilmanters Bodlovick, MacDonald, and Mayor Peterson Nays —None Abstain—Councilnenber Junker Subdivision V - The title was changed to read "A11 Other Signs Shall Require A Sign Permit and the Following Procedure and Standards Shall be Applied to the Sign or Special Use Permit Process". - Ayes--Obuncilmemb .rs Bodlovick, MacDonald, and Mayor Peterson Nays —None Abstain — Councilnehber Junker Subdivision VI - Sign Size - Ayes-.-CouhciLnehbers Bodlovick, MacDonald, and Mayor Peterson Nays —None Abstain--Nnncilnedher Junker subdivision VII - Sign Regulations Ayes—Couicilnenbers Bodlovick, MacDonald, and Mayor Peterson Nays --None Abstain—Cotmciinenber Junker Subdivision VIII - Applicationfor Sign Permit - shall be changed by adding 2. A drawing of the building face and site plan showing the location of the proposed sign. (03 fran SubdivisionDC) . Ayes —Co ncilrotbers Bodlovick, MacDonald, and Mayor Peterson Nays —Nave Abstain—Coumcilnerber Junker Subdivision IX- Applications for a Special Use Permit . - City Attorney Magnuson hoted that 03. would retain under this Subdivision also. (A drawing of the building face and site plan showing the location of the proposed sign.) Ayes—CounciLtanbers Bodlovick, MacDonald, and Mayor Peterson Nays --Nate Abstain—Cbuncilmatber Dunker Subdivision X - Non -Conforming Uses - The date for adoption by the City Council was changed fran "18th day of Decerber, 1984" to "January 2, 1985". Ayes —Counciinel ers Bodlovick, MacDonald and Mayor Peterson Nays —None Abstain —Coo ncilnetber Junker Ordinance No. 629, Sign Ordinance, was voted upon in its entirety by the City Council: Ayes—Cbuncilmahers Bodlovick, MacDonald and Mayor Peterson Nays —None Abstain—Councilmenber Junker MAYOR PFrn s N DECLARED A TEN ?MUTE BREAK AT 9:00 P.M UNFINISHED BURNED 2. RESOLUTION WAIVING BEARING ON IMPROVEMENT, ORDERING FINAL PLANS & SPECIFICATICNS MR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT' NO. 226, WIIANO(D PINES THIRD AWTTICN. Motion by Coumcilnatber Bodlovick, seconded by Councibnetber Dunker for a resolution to act the "Waiver of the Public Bearing on Improverent, and Ordering Plans and Specifications for local ImprovementNo. 226, Wildvood Pines Third Addition. (Resolution No. 7432). Ayes—Councilmeibers Bodlovick, Junker, MacDonald and Mayor Peterson Nays —None 3. CHANGE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR RICK ANDERSON, REQUEST FOR SEVEN Fete VARIANCE - BUILDING SEPARATION, CARP NO. 567, FRQ4 JANUARY 15, 1985 TO FEBRUARY 5, 1985. Motion by Councilmenber MacDonald, seconded ty Cou ncilnarber Junker to change the date of the Public Hearing for Rick Anderson request for a seven foot variance for building separation, Case No. 567, from January 15, 1985 to February 5, 1985. (all in favor) 4. APPOIMA4NPS IOC IITTEES AND ODMtIISSIONS MAYOR PEPERSON announced that these appointments will be node at the January 15th meeting. 5. spray READING ORDINANCE NO. 630, SPECIAL USE AND VARIANCE I•'EES. • • 7264 January 2, 1985 • • • CITY AflU NEf MACNUSON announced that the only change to the previous ordinance concerning these fees is that the filing fee increases frail $25.00 to $50.00. (Special Use); the fees for a variance will be raised from $25.00 to $25.00. the last fee change was approximately ten years ago. Stillwater's fees are about in the middle, with the increase, ooncared to other cities. Motion by Councilmeter Bodlovick, seconded by Councilnaiber Junker to have a secod reading of Ordinance No. 630, Special Use Permit and Variance Fees. (all in favor) The reading followed by City Attorney Magnuson, of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section 1. (5) wherein the fee changes were made, for approval by the Council Ayes — Wrncilmembers Bodlovick, Dunker, MacDonald and Mayor Peterson Nays — None Section 2. Effective Date, his ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. Aye$_-mcocilmarberc Bodlovick, Junker, MacDonald and Mayor Peterson Nays —Noe MAYOR PEPERAN asked if the whole ordinance shall be approved as read. Ayes — Councilnanbers Bodlovick, Junker, MacDonald and Mayor Peterson Nays — None 6. SECOND READING, ORDINANCE NO. 631, CO71RACR3g'S LICENSE EEFD. lhe last change was done in 1970. The proposed increase is from $.00 to $40.00.004000lhe reheiCity it has approxinately 180 contractors. Discussion ensued Ong insurancen proncoverage agelicatioed of the contractors and the hours of time required by City Motion by Councihnetber Bodlovick, seconded by Wuncilmenter MacDonald to have a second reading of Ordinance No. 731, Contractor's License LicilseiFees. r JunkerT (Twee - Ayes — City Attorney Magnuson read Section 1, Amending Liceise Fees. Ayes—CounciNadbers Bodlovick, MacDonald, and Mayor Peterson Nays —Wong law ter Junker CITY ATTORNEY MAGNUS:0 RED SECTION 2: Effective Dote Ayes—Wrncinmat"ere Bodlovick. MacDonald, and Mayor Peterson Nays —Oomcilmen er Junker MAYOR PEyERSON asked if the whole ordinance shall ve approved as read. Ayes --Co ncilnelbers Bodlovick, MacDonald, and Mayor Peterson Nays--WUnci]nO ere Junker NEW BUSINESS 1. Claim for Sewar Bark-Uo, Cynthia M. Tibbetts, 907 Sunrise Avenue to submit the Motion by Cb ncilmetd er MacDonald, seconded by Wuncihnater tt the mit th claim submitted by Cynthia M. Tibbetts., 907 Sunrise Avenue, for sewer tack -up Insurance Carrier. (all in favor) 2. RESOLUTION "DIIREC'DNG THE PANT4ENT OF BINS". Motion by Wuncihnarber Bodlovick, seconded by Councilnenber Junker to adopted the Resolution "Directing the Payment of Bills",with the addition of $140.00, Craig Peterson, Parking Meter repair; SAC charges—$326.70; Hater Availability charges—$3.415.52; and City Attorney Magnuson - Services—$1, 661.60. (Resolution No. 7431) Ayes _-W1ncilmenters Bodlovick, Junker. MacDonald and Mayor Petersen Nays —None INDIVIDUALS & DELEOATICAS (continued) None at this tine COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS _OOINCILMEMBER MAC D(NAID inquired who would be attending the sewer school and it was stated that this school will be held in February - a decision has not been made as yet. - -CYJNCIIMEMBER RmL1NIIX asked if we received any applications for thelicensedsewer worker and the reply is that the applications received did not hold the properlicense. — MAYOR PE1'iRSON received a letter from Ray Irwin calling the Council's attention to the dangerous entrance frcan Anderson Street onto Greeley Street. The Council discussed various alternatnd ivesand the Mayor asked the public Safety Director to contact Mr. Irwin and attempt solution to this. — lhe Council they briefly discussed the Tani Service in the City. It was noted that the City rot be cannot is llimit the taxi egally advisable. Tee City Attorney will business - tnresesr hdthisfsubjectle nuand determine the extent ess in the City, and ltto which the City can regulate this business • • January 2, 1985 • STAFF REPORTS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR • None PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR 1. Chief Mawhorter announced he has nade sane appointments that became effective on January 7; jobs will be bid by seniority. They have interviewed people for the investigative position and this person will start on January 14; he has issued a nrem requesting interest in taking the promotional test for Police Sergeant - the test will be given the latter part of this month; New Year's Eve is expected to be quiet; the rules and regulations for the department are almost completed. 2. Chief Mawhorter has received a letter from the School District recognizing Bruce laosawsky, Juvenile Officer. 3. Chief Mswhorter requested to purchase a third police car - a Pontiac 6000 - for $8,100 with warranty of $349.00, a total price of $8,449.00. Motion by Councilmeiber Bodlovick, seconded by Cancihiadner MacDonald to authorize the Police Iep.+nat to purchase a Pontiac 6000 for $8,100.00, with warranty for $349.00, a totak price of $8,449.00. (all in favor) PAPKS & RECREATION None BUIIDIM OFFICCAL None CITY ENGINEER 1. Mr. Meister requested to purchase two capital outlay item - a sewer-vactor hose for $2,089.69; and a neat detector for $575.00. Motion MacDonald, seconded CmcinelterJ1lkrout prize the City Engineer to pre wade for .1efavor) Maim by ouuncilmmber MacDonald, secondedser for b7Wo iIne ri in fecer avor) authorize the City Engineer purchase 2. Mr. Meister requested to attend the City Engineer's Association Conference on January 23- 25 at a cost of $95.00. Motion by Cbu ncilnarber MacDonald, seconded by Councilnather Junker to authorize the City Engineer to attend the City Engineer's Association Conference on January 23-25, 1985 at a oust of $95.00. (all in favor) FINANCE DIRECICR None CITY AT CRNFY None CTIY CLERK None C11Y CCCRDINATOR 1. Mr. Kriesel reported on the agreement between the city of Stillwater and the AFS18 croup• He discuss& the various changes nade in the contract. 2. Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmenber Junker to adopt a Resolution "CQ4.IENETNG I0,aL RADKE FOR 1WFNPY-FOUR YEARS OF SERVICE IL (Resolution CCITY OF No. 4L33 ) Ayes—Councilnadners Bodlovick, Junker. MacDonald and Mayor Peterson Nays —None APPLICATIONS eral CMotion byontractors Li orr Applewood truction, IncMcDonald, seconeed by ., 17 00 --40th St. ovic, Noro approve n SStillwatter. (all in favor) ctt4vPIICATICNS None • January 2, 1985 p1FSTIONS/02141llrs FRQ4 NEWS MEDIA Note NUNCIL RI WUEST TEEMS - oontinued CCUNCII EMBER MAC DONALD asked what the next step is in hiring a licensed sewer worker. It was stated that no one that was properly licensed applied for this position. The City Engineer stated he would like to re -advertise and also put this in the League Magazine, thus reaching more qualified people. It was suggested there there will be more qualified people after the sewer school is held. ORDINANCES Second Reading - Ordinance No. 629 - Sign Ordinance - Ordinance No. 630 - Special Use and Variance Fees - Ordinance No. 631 - Contractor's License Fees RD3OL TIONS 1. Waiving Bearing on Inpnweient, Ordering Final Plans and Specifications for Local Improvement No. 226, Wild Pines Third Addition - No. 7432 2. Directing the Payment of Bills - No. 7431 3. Naseding Dwell Radke - Na. 7433 AD73RtNIENT Motion by Cohncilnetber Junker, seconded by Councilnetber MacDonald to adjourn :ne meeting at 9:40 P. M. (all in favor) SD Attest: