Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/29/1980 Council Minutesthe motion out of order and asked the Council how they wished the incompleted por- tion of the agenda handled. This included items 10 through 16. Mr. McLean asked that the Attorney's report be handled at the special meeting on September 29,1980. After- some discussion, the Mayor called a special meeting of the Council to follow the public hearing on September 29, 1980 to begin immediatel'y.following the Public Hearing . Mr. McLean moved to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Aye. These minutes were considered, corrected, and approved at a regular meeting held on October 14. 1980. Edna L. Sarner Clerk- Treasurer September 29, 1980 The special meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council was called to order at 7:40 P.M. on September 29, 1980 by Mayor Gourley with all Councilmembers present. Mr. Locher, Mr. Schumacher and Mr. Meister were also present. Mayor Gourley opened the Public Hearing on Lakes Add. #7 and outlined the format by which this public hearing would be conducted. 1) Staff presentation; 2) Developer's presentation; 3)Proponents and opponents; 4) Council discussion. Mayor Gourley set the deadline of 9:00 P.M. for the closing of this hearing. At that point the Council should be prepared to either approve or deny. Mayor Gourley asked for representa- tives of groups to please speak for the group and to limit their discussion to 5 min- utes. Mayor Gourley asked Mr. Schumacher to present the preliminary plat. Mr. Schumacher noted that copies of this plat are posted in the rear of the Council chambers as well as the map board. This plat consists of 54 units in Block 1, and 44 units in Block 2, proposed for quadreminium construction. At the Planning and Zoning Board meeting on August 20, 1980, this preliminary plat had been denied on a 4 to 3 motion. This plat Tis presented by El. Rehbein & Son and they are platting under a Special Use Permits issued for multiple dwellings. The denial was denied for the following reasons; drainage, density, and downgrading of existing homes and some confusion on the existing special use permit. Mr. Schumacher pointed out that the drainage will be reviewed by RCWB once the Council has taken some action on this plat. The Enviornmental Work Sheet has been prepared and has been reviewed by the City Planner; the Developer has received these comments and is now in the process of making the necessary revisions. This will be submitted to the Enviormental Quality Control Board for their review. Mr. Schumacher pointed out that the preliminary plat has satisfied the following Ordinance requirements; 1) Park Dedication; 2) Storm Water run -off; 3) lot size and setbacks 4) Building coverage; 5) lot depth and width; 6) architectural review. The issues not complying with the Ordinances, 1) no street names; 2) one lot does not meet the frontage requirements - Lots 32 & 34. Mr. Schumacher felt this will have to be considered by the Council. Mr. Blackbird noted this is a re- submission of the same plat - 5th revision. The re- 181 September 29, 1980 visions had been complied with in that a single row of Single Family Homes will be constructed on the North, there are now 24 Quads in a 22.05 acre parcel. The Quads are each separate units, 22x44 - 2 bedroom unit with a tuck under garage. The deeded portion of the lots will be the foundation size of the units, the remaining area will be green area controlled by the Association. The density is 4.4 per acre - the City Ordinance requires 8 units per acre. The Lake access will be controlled by the As- sociation - onlywwalking traffic - no boat launching. There will be tot lots in the development. This area will contain sewer, water, streets, curbs, and gutters. The lots in question have 119 ft. on the side and 186 ft. on the other side. Mr. Black- bird asked which is side and wfnich is frontage. There is approximately 60% of the area left open for green space. Mr. Blackbird pointed out the ponding area and ex- plained the reasons for these areas. Mr. Alan Theimich, representing the Reshanau Home Owner's Association, spoke first. Mr. Theimich wanted to point out that he has a petition signed by 127 residents of Lino Lakes opposed to this development. He said some of the basic information asked for by the residents has not been provided. Such as - water runoff and water table. This information will be provided after the preliminary approval. Mr. Theimich said he did not know of any other community that handles a plat in this fashion - other commun- ities require this information first. Some of the other concerns are 1) density - there is extreme disagreement over proposed density. The home owners have pointed their concerns and provided statistics pointing out that this project would put 300 people in an area smaller than the existing 50 family homes. He said no one had pro- vided what the density should be. 2) water table and lake level - that also has not been answered. He said they had been told this evening that an Evironmental Impact Statement is being put together - it should be completed - it should have been com- pleted before this proposal comes in for preliminary approval - and it has not been; 3) downgrading of property value - talking about quads selling for $50,000.00 adjacent to homes in the 80,000 bracket and higher. Mr. Theimich said they had identified these concerns and asked for some answers and have not received them at the present time. These are only a few of the concerns, they have identified a dozen or more. He added that he had just received additional petition forms with 42 more names. He will provide copies for the Council. Mr. Ben Benson, of E. Shadow Lake Drive, made a point that the addresses on the peti- tions were from the entire area and not just from the immediate area - he said this is not wanted by the residents of the City not just the local residents. He also won- dered if this is a Council of the People or just who they are for. He asked that this plat be put aside and that it should be forgotten and construct single family homes. He said the developer said he had over paid for the land and the only way he could make a profit is to construct quads. Mr. Benson said the people should not have to pay for the developers mistake. Mr.Burdell Smith, E. Shadow Lake Drive, asked the Council to listen to what is being said and by whore, he said he moved here to have the best of both worlds and felt that this City should not compete with the other suburbs to become an over populated area. He pointed out that the Council should represent the people of the entire City of Lino Lakes. They are not against Mr. Rehbein building on this land - just so it goes a- long with what is already there. Mr. Jaworski said the Oath of Office says that the laws of the State of Minnesota must also be upheld - not just the Ordinance Of the City of Lino Lakes. Mr. Julian Hook, Attorney for the Home Owners, asked to speak on the legality of the special use permit as relates to the laws of the State of Minnesota. He questioned the validity of the special use permit and noted that he had seen two legal opinions - one states that the special use permit is void and was concurred by all persons con- 182 suited. He asked if the legal opinion given on August 22, 1979 has changed? He felt it is a question of whether the laws of the State of Minnesota are being violated. He also said he has never appeared before any Council on a issue such as this with- out any facts. He said the home owners have been asking for answers for two years and have not received any facts to rebutt. He asked for a continuance of this Council meeting for 22 weeks in order to gather these facts. Mr. Hook said there has not been an application filed with the DNR or RCWB. He asked that this plat be submitted to these Boards and then considered by this Council. Mr. Hook said he would recommend this be sent back to the Planning add Zoning Board and wait for the information for all the Boards and then let that Board make a determination on its merits then forward to the Council and let this Council make a determination on i3e merits. He said he didn't think that was too much to ask. Mr. Paul DeNuccio, of E. Shadow Lake Drive, asked to speak and said he had been here at least 20 times and had gone through the process of getting this project shut down only to have it resurrected. There are a number of issues that never have been re- solved on this thing - there are some very cloudy legal background as to whether or not this use of this land is permissible at all. We seemed to have had a dictorial statement that says 'forget about what the Ordinances in the City are, lets just forge ahead on this.' Secondly, weave got a density problem that no one has ever tried to wrestle with - we've just seen a type of density that's totally inconsistent with what is out there, and it just knocks off one and comes back a year later and ex- pects to get it passed. You're gonna put four times as much concrete and houses out there on a space basis per use of land as what's out there right now. You're gonna change what is primarily a single family neighborhood into something that is dominate - ly a multi - family neighborhood because what's going in there now is gonna far over- shadow the living situation that's there right now. There a lot of concerns in terms of drainage and there's a water problem out there. It's nice to talk about things being checked later but when the water's 6 inches from your basement and the lake level, as it's been in the past for me, you think a little more seriously than saying 'let's pass dt on and check it out later.' The plan, what happened to the plan, Mr. Gourley that you worked 'on for two years when you were on the Planning and Zoning Board, was approved by this Council, and this development is inconsistent with the long range plan of this community. And it's not just putting in a couple of buildings, you're talking about one of the major developments of this kind in the Northern part of the Twin Cities Metro Area. All these reasons - never been answered - just shoved aside and it's kinda like, 'that's OK, we'll take care of it.' So, I just want to reiterate my indignation that the input of the people in Lino Lakes seems to take the backseat to the input of the 'powers that be behind the scenes, in this in- stance.' Mr. Blackbird said if there were any questions as to their compliance with RCWB, Mr. Mollanaro is working with that Board on comprehensive study of Lakes Add. #6 & #7. Mr. Larry Johnson, the density problem has been thrown around quite a bit. Most quad - reminium plats there are not considered unless they have acreage and the bedroom units proposed. The density is figured on the bedroom area. Mr. Blackbird has said the den- sity is the same whether the units have two bedrooms or four bedrooms. Shoreview did a study and two bedroom units have approximately 3.3 people; 3 bedroom unit has 4 people on the average in the Twin City area. That's what they use for density. As- suming that one half of these units are two bedroom and half are three bedrooms, on the 22 acres,and taking away the two acres for ponding, this plat is down to 20 acres, he computed over 350 people on 20 acres of land and he felt this is one reason this was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Theimich read the petition for the record; We, the undersigned residents of Lino Lakes oppose the quadreminiums project of Mr. El Rehbein's desire to construct 1 September 29, 1980 adjacent to Lake Reshanau and North of Birch Street in Lino Lakes, hereby petition the City Council of Lino Lakes to deny Mr. Rehbein's preliminary plat for the fol- lowing reasons; 1) Whereas, proposed project is not in conformance with the new Comprehensive Plan as approved by the Lino Lakes City Council relative to single family homes in this area. Secondly, Whereas, 24 quads or 96 units, on approxi- mately 20 acres, averaging two to three bedrooms fifty- fifty, would create a den - sity of 14.6 per quad or a total of over 350 people. This density coupled with the use of only 225 ft. of lake shoreline, would not only have an adverse affect on the lake but would have a detrimental affect on the entire natural enviorrument:i of the area. Whereas, water table at proposed site is less than,one foot and con- struction could only compond existing drainage problems being experienced by area residents at present. Whereas, water table at site would require builder to con- struct without any basement whereby quadreminiums would tower over nearby homes invading the privacy of these residents and also, destroying the natural sight lines for all home owners. No amount of screening could prevent this situation. Whereas, low income housing, no matter how desirable in Lino Lakes, should not be in the cen- ter of homes averaging approximately $80,000.00. This, in effect, would lower the property values of the area residents. Whereas, a project of this type could be a financial burden to the existing residents of Lino Lakes due to !the need for in- creased amenities. Mayor t3ourley asked if there were copies of this petition that could be left here, and Mr. Theimich said, Yes. Mr. Theimich said on a couple of occassions they had requested information and had not received what had been asked for and had come to meetings to lay on the table their concerns and had just wasted hours of everyone's time. Mr. Hook asked why this project has never been presented to RCWB and the DNR in the two years this plat has been in the process? Mayor Gourley said the procedure of the RCWB is that a project will not be considered until there has been a preliminary plat approval by the City Council. Mr. McLean asked the net acreage of the three lots that are in question? Mr. Black- bird said there is a 4,000 sq. foot requirement for each quad and all the lots ex- ceed that requirement. Mayor Gourley asked Mr. Meister to compute this area. Mr. Jaworski asked Mr. Blackbird if the EIW has been submitted? Mr. Blackbird said the form had been done and submitted to the City Planner and he had asked for ad- ditional information, this has been prepared and re- submitted to Mr. Short for his comments. This must be submitted by the City. Mr. Blackbird said there is no point in submitting this plat to either RCWB or the DNR until their preliminary plat has City approval. Mr. Jaworski questioned the denisty - Mr. Schumacher said the ordinance only sets forth the amount of land that is required per unit and does not address the density per se. Mr. Jaworski said the point he was trying to bring out was that the ordinance does not refer to bedrooms but rather requires the sq. footage, so therefore, when it comes to density, the matter of bedrooms cannot be used for measurement. Mr. Jaworski asked if these are to be low -cost housing - Mr. Blackbird said the cost had risen since the last estimated selling price and at the present time he felt the units would sell for approximately $55,000.00 and that is not low -cost housing. Mr. Kulaszewicz felt that some of the concerns of Mr. Benson's in that they had re- quested a meeting with the developer to discuss this plat - had this been done? September 29, 1980 Mr. Blackbird said he had met with this gooup several days after the last Council meeting. He said that 18 questions had been raised one of them being the water pollution - the drainage. Mr. Blackbird said he had a study being done on this and would provide a drainage chart to them. RCWB had forwarded a request for a com- posit drainage for all the lands owned by El Rehbein in the area - this included Lakes Add. #6, Lakes Add. #7, and Outlot J. This meant detailed ananlysis of the area. This had been done and hand delivered to the interested parties. 1 The drainage problem of Mr. Benson was discussed and Mr. Blackbird said this area would drain into the ponding area, thus benefiting Mr. Benson. Mr. Blackbird said he had talked to an appraiser from HUD who had said there is not enough history on quads to make a judgement on the effect on property values but in most areas, the existing property values had escalated. Mr. Theimich asked Mr. Blackbird if there was any Federal funding being sought for this project, either now or in the future. Mr. Blackbird said, presently, No, they will use FHA, GI approval. Mr. Theimich asked if this meant this housing would not be sub - mitted for 235 or low income housing? Mr. Blackbird said he did not feel this housing would qualify for this program. Mr. Meister had computed the land area on the lots in question and said they are all over the required 4,000 sq. ft. The only question is the frontage. Mr. McLean said he was confused on the various density figures that have been presented. Mr. Schumacher said it all depends on how you compute the acreage. One method says 3.7 and the other method says 4.4. The first uses the total acreage, the second de- ducts the streets, ponding, etc. Mrs. Elsenpeter asked whether Mr. Locher wanted to make a statement on the special use permit? Mr. Locher explained his reasoning for the making the decision on the existence of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Locher pointed out that this Special Use Permit had been issued under the old Ord. #6. He pointed out that Ord. #56 did not specifically abolish the existing Special Use Permits or Zoning, nor did it abolish the Special Use Permit procedure. Sec. 5.04 requires a hearing, and the Council held that hearing and the Council determined this Special Use Permit was valid. Mr. Hook questioned 6.21 which sets forth the time schedule for construction. Mr. Locher felt the falacy in that section was that it referred only to rezoning, not to special use permits. Mr. Hook felt that Mr. Locher's legal opinion was that this permit was not valid. Mr. Hook said a Council cannot make an illegal action legal and this is what this Council has done. Mrs. Elsenpeter pointed out to Mr. Theimich that his petition information is incor- rect, in that the Comprehensive Plan had not been approved by this Council - it has only received preliminary approval, and is still subject to change. Mr. Johnson felt that since this plan had been submitted to the surronding communi- ties for comment, this would indicate this Council had approved the Plan. Mrs. Elsenpeter pointed out that this Plan must be reviewed by Metro Council and their suggestions must be considered and therefore, this Plan is still subject to change. Mr. Reinert just wanted to indicate that the Planning and ami,,gg in deliberating, 0 r Lvt. September 29, 1980 particulary in this case and the LI land, we are using the Plan as a guide because they did adopt it in concept and he agreed that plas are open ended - they have to be, Buthe felt that many hours had spent in making this document something that could be lived with. If this Council or future Councils are not going to take a document such as this with some validity, then they are not acting responsibly for the benefit of the Citizens of this community - you are only doing it as a mockery and trying to fulfill an obligation to the Metro Council. Mr. Reinert felt that the P &Z had researched this plat quite extensively. He said he had been accused of having a conflict of interest - he begged to differ with that because he had voted against other issues that have come before the P &Z in this oommunity because he felt it was in the best interest of the Community. He asked the Council to research this and he felt the recommendation sent to the Council from the P &Z was done in a very legimate manner - there was a lot of research behind it. Mr. Jaworski asked, if the P &Z had done so much research, why do they continue to recommend approval of LI uses in a Residential area in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Reinert asked him to be more specific and Mr. Jaworski said the welding shop in the Lakeview area - this had received approval from P &Z, sent to Council and had been denied. Mr. Jaworski said he appreciated the work of the P &Z, but he felt in some instances, their actions make the Council look bad. A recess was called at this time in the meeting. Mrs. Elsenpeter moved to approve the preliminary plat of Lakes Add. #7 on the basis that the Special Use Permit had been declared valid and therefore the developer has complied with City Ordinances. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Mr. Kusaszewicz said after listening to the pros and cons and felt that he has a problem with the water table in that area. He also has.a problem wihh the traffic that will be generated from this area - he asked how this would be handled. Mr. Kulaszewicz also questioned the matter of the density. He also questioned the legal part of this problem. Mr. Jaworski said this is a preliminary plat, not a final, the preliminary will be submitted to RCWB for their opinion. Mr. Jaworski asked if there had been a traffic study on that street? Mr. Blackbird said he had contacted the school system, County Highway Dept., the Police Department and all had said it would create no problem - Birch Street can handle this. Mr. Jaworski said he felt that the Motion should be amended to include the variance on the lots 32 through 34, in that the lots do contain the square footage required although, depending the determination of the front of the lot, to include the answers from the RCWB and the DNR be made available to the Home Owners Association prior to the submission of the final plat. The amendment was seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. Mrs. Elsenpeter wondered if a variance approval at this time is necessary because there is 178 feet on the street. She felt the entry to the building would be con- sidered the front. Mr. Schumacher felt the need for a variance would depend on Council determination as to the front of the building. Mayor Gourley felt the pro- blem had been presented to the Council - there are several ways it could be handled and a variance is one way. Mayor Gourley called for the question on the Amendment. There were two Ayes, two Nos. The chair cast an Aye vote, the Amendment carried. Mr. Cody asked if there were any member of the Council has a conflict of interest and Mayor Gourley said, No. Mr. Cody asked Mrs. Elsenpeter if she was married, she said, Yes. He asked what her husband did and she said, "He drove a truck ". 1.86 September 29, 1980 Mr. Cody asked who he drove for and Mrs. Elsenpeter said Glenn Rehbein and asked what that had to do with this. This is an entirely different company - there are several different companies operating wihtin the City of Lino Lakes with the name of Rehbein. Mrs. Elsenpeter pointed out that she drove a U.S. Mail truck - this would mean more work for the post office - does that constitute a conflict of interest? She felt that what her husband does in entirely irrelevant. Mr. McLean discussed the water table the 881 sea level in 1980 - 885 in 1975 and 883 for these units - will this be the level of these homes? Mr. Blackbird said 893.5 just South of the ponding area is the lowest. There are two units on the cul -de -sac - one at 890 and one at 892. Mr. McLean asked where the traffic study is coming from and Mr. Blackbird said this is a part of the Enviornmental Worksheet. Mr. McLean asked where they see that and Mr. Blackbird said a copy is on file in the City Offices. Mr. McLean said he had not seen this copy. Mr. Schumaeher said this is an old document. Mr. McLean felt the density was high - the legal aspect of the special use permit. Mr. Benson asked that each Council member gives his reason for voting the way he did on the motion. Mayor Gourley reminded the Council on the issue of the Special Use Permit the Council took a lot of time to declare the Special use permit valid to include the Public Hearings held on all special use permits and rezoning that exists in the City. Mayor Gourley said the practice of the Council in the past has been to give pre- liminary approval to alplat before it is sent to RCWB for their comment. He also presented some Court cases pointing out that neighborhood sentiment may be consid- ered but may not be the sole reason for denying a special use permit. These cases also pointed out the differences between a variance and a special use permit. Mr. Johnson read a decision from Shoreview denying a quad development in that area and pointed out the reasons for the denial. Mayor Gourley pointed out that under Policy 7 that development will be encouraged where City services are already in. Mr. Reinert asked what the City Attorney per hour and Mayor Gourley said he didn't know and did not feel that it is relevant and Mr. Reinert said this is public know- ledge and Mayor Gourley agreed but said he failed to see where this had anything to do with the Motion. Mayor Gourley called for the question on the motion for preliminary approval. Mr. Kulaszewicz, No, because of density, water table, traffic and the legality of the special use permit. Mr. Jaworski, Aye, he took into consideration the opinion of the people, that's why he amended the Motion. He feels the only way to get the answers to the questions raised is to get the Plat submitted to the RCWB, DNR - get all the answers from those people. Until these plans are submitted - no answers are available. Mr. McLean, No, because the preliminary as presented is not acceptable due to high density, there is not adequate buffering, water level is up to RCWB, Mrs. Elsenpeter, Aye, it would be diffucult for any developer to present a density standard since there is no standards set by City Ordinance, she felt this plat has been reviewed as all other plats have been, she also felt that the special use per- mit was treated in a fair manner as was all others. 1 1 r b September 29, 1980 Mayor Gourley said he was convinced the Council has a defendable and just position on the special use permit and took precautions in holding the special hearings, he also felt that since this development is under a special use permit that no one has proven this project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the opponents and because the developer has met all the terms of the City's Ordinance felt that by the final review all drainage problems will be answered, the RCWB review will be com- pleted and the EAW will be completed, therefore, he cast an Aye Vote. The motion carried on a 3 to 2 vote. Mr. Jaworski moved to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was called at this point in time to allow the room to clear. The meeting was reconvened and the first order of business was consideration of a special use permit for Mr. Aldridge. Mr. Schumacher presented the action of the Planning and Zoning Board in that they had recommended Mr. Aldridge seek property in a LI Zone. Mr. Aldridge had done this but there is none available. The members present at the meeting where this recommendation had been generated had been contacted with the suggestion that this business be allowed in the GB area. They had all concurred. Letters with this information had been sent to all Planning and Zoning Board members. Mayor Gourley felt that some change in the ordinance should be made to allow a retail type plumbing business as opposed to the general plumbing installer. Mr. Locher was asked to write an amendment to the ordinance detailing this type of change. Mrs. Elsenpeter asked if the percentage of retail and service should be included in this ordinance and Mr. Schumacher said he had discussed this with the P &Z and they had felt that would be too restrictive. Mrs. Elsenpeter asked if the percentage of retail and service should be included in this ordinance and Mr. Schumacher said he had discussed this with the P &Z and they had felt that would be too restrictive. Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to hold a public hearing on the proposed change in Ord. #56. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. This hearing is scheduled for October 14, 1980 at 9:30 P.M. The next item was consideration of plans and specifications for Lantern Lane. Mr. Meister presented the plans as prepared by Milner Carley. Mr. Meister explained the planned construction. There was discussion as to the specifications and the require- ments for the construction. Mr. Jaworski moved to accept the report and authorize the advertisement for bids. Se- conded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. The next items was consideration of plans and specifications for the construction of Andall Street. Mr. Schumacher said this has a petition signed by all property owners. Mr. Meister presented the plans and specifications for this proposed street con- struction. Mr. Jaworski moved to accept the report and authorize the advertisment for bids. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. Under Mr. Locher's Report, he reported on a letter received from Acton, requesting a September 29, 1980 deed be written for the street. It was the general consensus of the Council this street had been accepted. The Clerk reported she could find no deed for thet street. Mr. Locher said he had prepared such a deed and will check his files. The next item on the agenda was considering of the Liquor Ordinance. All Council membrs have a copy. Mayor Gourley said the purpose tonight is just to go through this Ordinance and discuss any possible additions or deletions the Council members may have. This will be gone over with Mr. Pearlt, Liquor Control Commissioner. Mayor Gourley said this Ord. complies all ordinances on the books at this time and repeals them. There has been a problem brought to the attention of the Mayor on the definition of the word 'premise'. Mr. Locher had been asked to take a look at this for possible clairification. Mr. Locher said he would draft something that makes the definition of 'premises' clear. "For the purposes of this sub - division, premises shall mean any portion of the address or legal description to which the license is issued, including, but not limited to, the entire land area of the parcel, interior or ex- terior of the buildings or portions of buildings thereon, any entrance ways into such buildings, any sidewalks, parking lots, whether paved or not, in any ajoining unimproved land areas in such parcel." (Sec. 9, sund. 4, paragraph B.) Sec. 5, Subd. 5, this is to be checked by Mr. Locher. - (paragraph-:2) can an off -sale and an on -sale be in the same building without seperate entrances? This will be discussed with Mr. Pearlt. Mayor Gourley went through the Ordinance checking the changes that had been made and insuring that Mr. Locher has these corrections noted on his copy. There was some discussion on the fees, with no decision made at this meeting. There was some discussion on the Ordinance dealing with the Planning and Zoning Commission. This is for the purpose of defining the duties and authority of this Commission. The existing Ordinance just establishes the Commission. Mr. Locher suggested this Ordinance apply to all Boards. There was general agreement of the Council. The remaining portion of the unfinished business will be put on the Oct. 14, 1980 agenda. Mr. McLean moved to close the meeting at 11:00 P.M. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Aye. These minutes were considered, corrected, and approved at a regular meeting held on October 14, 1980. Edna L. Sarner Clerk- Treasurer October 6, 1980 A special Council meeting was called to order at 8:15 P.M., MondayOctober 6, 1980 by Mayor Gourley. Menbers present : Gourley, Jaworski, Elsenpeter, McLean. Mem- bers absent : Kulaszewicz. The purpose of this special meeting was to consider the 1980 tax levy, collectible in 1981.