Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/22/1979 Council MinutesAugust 13, 1979 There was discussion on this matter, with Mayor Karth stating that all dogs must have license and they must have proof of rabies in order to obtain those license. This rule would apply to farm dogs as well as all other dogs. However, Mayor Karth felt that something could be consider- ed in the area of leasing. Mr. Locher will study the Ordinance and pre- sent some recommendations at the next Council meeting. In the meantime. the people were advised to get the rabies shots and obtain their licenses. Some residents from the Vicky Lane area presented a request to the Council that North NorthEast Realty be required to install the trees on their common lot line. There was also some discussion on the drainage of the parking lot and the conditions at the Tom Thumb Store. The Clerk was instructed to pull the file on the construction of North NorthEast building and the requirements imposed by the Planning and Zoning at that time. Mr. McLean moved the Clerk be instructed to pull the minutes on North NorthEast relating to screening on West boundary - a letter be sent to Mr. Kenneth Rehbein asking to fulfill before the end of October. Seconded by Mr. Schneider. Motion declared passed. Mr. McLean moved to approve checks #9866 through and including #9923, with #9873 being void. Seconded by Mr. Schneider. Motion declared passed. Mr. Locher had checked on the insurance proposal as presented by the Lions' Club for liquor liability and felt this is not necessary. He felt the only insurance needed is a copy of the Lions' International Insurance that is carried with Globe. Mr. McLean moved to adjourn at 12 :45 A.M. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Aye. These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council meeting held on August 27, 1979. Edna L. .darner, Clerk - Treas. August 2/7, 1979 The special Council meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m., August 22, 1979 by Mayor Karth for the purpose of resolving the interpretation of Ordinance No. 56, Sections 6.21 and 5.04, in regard to special use permits, No. 27 in particular. Members present; Robert Schneider, John McLean, and Richard Kulaszewicz, arriving late. Members absent; Richard Zelinka. Also present were Mr. Locher, City Attorney; Mrs. Sarner, City Clerk; Herman Talle and Mr. Balckbird representatives for the developer; and Mr. Benson, chairman of the homeowners group. Alos present in the audience were residents from the area in question. Mr. Locher had prepared a letter to the Council in reference to the research he had pursued on the special use permits and the interpretation of Ord. No. 56. The letter was read by Mr. Locher, and copies were made availabl to Mr. Benson and Mr. Talle. Mayor Karth asked if there were any ques- tions from the Council. In answer to a question by Mr. McLean, Mr. Locher indicated that in order to amend the Ordinance, there must be publication and a public hearing set. A man from the audience had a 1 1 August 22, 1979 question as to whether all special use permits issued prior to the adopt- tion of the ordinance must conform to that ordinance; Mayor Karth said that special use permits as well as rezoning must comply with section 6.21. He further inquired as to whether the assumption could then follow that if there was a change in the building code, that existing homes must change to comply with changes in the building code; if the reasoning could apply in one sense, why not another? Mr. McLean indicated this had just dealt with zoning, and Mr. Locher pointed out that the City of Minneapolis had been going through houses and forcing people to bring them up to code, and also required a city inspection prior to the sale of a house; however, this had not yet been tested in the courts. Mr. Benson and Mr. Talle were asked for their comments, and then the meeting was opened to discussion from the audience. A man in the audience asked if he was correct in assum- ing that if the Council saw fit to revoke special use permit #27, then they must go back through the files and reconsider every special use permit to see if it conformed to thatparticular ordinance. The Council indicated that if they took the action advised, this would be the case. Mr. Locher explained that if, for example, the riding stables were still in existance and had been under a special use permit, they would be allowed to continue. Another section of the ordinance might also be considered; it said taht any non - conforming use of the open land may be continued for a period of 3 years after the effective date of the ordinance whereupon the non -con- forming use shall cease. Anything in violation could be tagged. Mr. McLean asked what the City's position on this would be since this had not been done. Mr. Locher indicated that this situation would be analagous to a man who speeded for years in a 30 mph zone and had never been caught be- cause of an inadequate police force; if he was arrested, this would never stand up on court. Mr. Jaworski brought up a point that had once come up before the Council; that of small businesses in homes where there were no special use permits or rezonings involved for that particular use, yet there had been action taken by the Council to grandfather all those businesses in so they could continue operation. Mr. McLean felt in that case, they had not been intentional only but had been in actual physical existance. Mr. Locher indicated section 6.21 covered home operations as well, and read the pertaining section. Mayor Karth felt if this was enforced for sepcial use permit #27, it would have to be enforced everywhere; Mrs. Sarner asked if public hearings must be set on all of those that would be invalid; Mr. Locher indicated this would be correct. There was some discussion as to whether action was necessary based on the section reading, "shall be void and revert tothe original zoning" and the section stating special use permits must be treated asministratively as if they were a rezoni; however, this was felt to be essentially for special use permits that were already in existance. Mr. Locher felt that if the words "special use permit" were included in Section 6.21, it would be very clear, butthat a court case to determine the meaning would be expensive. The opinions expressed in Mr. Locher's letter were further discussed as to the probable outcome of a court case. Mr. DeNuccio felt that Mr. Pesker's opinion, out of the four opinions was more inclined to see the chance of teh special use permit being upheld in court, but that the majority of the people contacted by Mr. Locher felt that "special use permit" had been in- tended in section 6.21: therefore, no action was necessary. However, he felt the Council needed to make a decision that, in effect, special use III permits were intended in that section. Mr. Benson pointed out that sy the last meeting Mr. Locher had particularly wanted to contact Mr. Van Housen, who had stated that the intention was to control particular land usage and to force developers to proceed with development of the land rather than to merely sepculate. Mr. Locher felt that the zoning map should be taken care of, and also felt that the matter could be litigated for years, and that everyone he had contacted had suggested a compromise. Mr. Van Housen 298 August 22, 1979 in 1973 had suggested duplexes. Mr. McLean asked whether the existance of the special use permits should be dealt with by a motion; Mr. Locher agreed. He further asked if the motion should also deal with all other special use permits since the effective date of Ordinance No. 56; Mr. Locher indicated it would also have to cover any issued since that date. Mr. McLean felt that the interpretation of section 6.21 ahould be on record. Mr. Locher indicated that a public hearing would be necessary to amend the ordinance for the inclusion of the words "special use permit" in section 6.21, but for a decision on this particular permit, a public hearing hearing was not required, as it was a matter of interpretation. Mrs. Sarner inquired if the rezones and special use permits that were not in use, those that would be null and void, would require public hearings on each one of them. Mr. Locher suggested that one hearing be held on zoning map and notice be sent to all people affected rather than hold- ing hearings one at a time. Mayor Karth clarified that this applied only to properties where the zoning was never used. A man in the audience asked how the particluar ordinance that dealt with zoning is gotten off the books; Mr. Locher indicated the only way to do so was by amending or repealing it, and giving notice of that action. Mrs. Sarner noted that each time there is a rezoning there is an ordinance written pertaining to that rezoning. Mayor Karth felt that all that was at issue was special use permits, which were null and void under section 6.21 after 3 years; as far as the interpretation of this, a public hearing could be set. However, it was brought up by Mr. Schneider that no special hear- ing would be required for this interpretation. Mr. McLean moved "that the Council resolve to accept an interpretation of section 6.21 that will include both rezone and special use permits as originally intended by those parties involved in drafting this ordinance. Also, this definition is effective with the original date of Ordinance No. 56 and all parties affected by this interpretation must be notified at once by the City so that we can determine the impact on various parties. In order to make this motion effective for purposes of clarification Mr. McLean also moved that an amendment to 6.21 be initiated and a public hearing set." Mr. Schneider seconded the motion. All were in favor, Motion declared passed. Mr. Locher, in reference to the special use permits, said they were now void, but not revoked, that special use permit #27 and all like it, including rezones, were void. Mayor Karth felt the next step would be to get a list of all special use permits that fall in the category. Mrs. Sarner will research this and have the list ready by the last Council meeting in September. Mr. Locher will draft the amendment to the ord= inance. The Public hearing was set for the first meeting in October. Mr. Locher asked if the Council would consider changing section 5.02E to comply with State law; it now required that within 350 feet of any parcel 5 acres or more in area, notification shall be by registered mail; The State statute did not require registered mail, which was expensive. Mr. Schneider moved to have Mr. Locher come up with recommended changes to both sections referred to. Mr. Karth seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Locher will these ready by the first meeting in September. Mr. Gourley asked about the situation in reference to special use permits where the use was in existance, but the parties had never complied fully with the conditions set forth on the permit. Mr. McLean said that be- cause of limited manpower, these had not been pursue on a regular basis unless there was a complaint. Mr. Gourley asked if he understood cor- rectly that the Council would initiate a program of reviewing all special use permits on an annual basis. Mayor Karth inidcated this would become !PP-7 August 22, 1979 299 1 1 1 feasible once there was a City Administrator, and Mr. McLean said the Council would be initiating a procedure to review all special use permits. Mrs. Sarner noted that when special use permits are issued through the year, they should all have acommon expiration date, rather than running for a year from the date they are issued. Mrs. Sarner will be compiling a complete list of all special use permits issued, as well as those affected by the interpretation of the ordinance. The question of the proposed use of outlots H and K and the opposition to the proposed use was considered. Mr. Locher felt there should be a com- promise between the developer and the 'residents, and Mr. Schneider felt there should be some alternative plans offered by the developer. Mr. Talle, representing the developer, said they had not come prepared to petition for a rezoning or to 'institute new plans for development for that area, and had understood the purpose of this meeting was for an interpretation of the ordinance. Mayor Karth noted there was an action which had been presented to the Planning adn Zoning Commission by the developer for a resoning to R -5; the : &Z motion was a tie vote, and it was now up to the Council to either send it back or go on with the public hearing. The meeting to work out a compromise and the subsequest interpretation of the ordinance had only been inbetween measures. Mr. McLean felt that if the developer and the homeowners were genuinely interested in looking at alternatives, the Council should examine that, and if not, go on with the public hearing. Mr. Schneider felt it was a question of rezoning, and whether it fell in with the overall pattern of rezoning for the City. Mayor Karth indicated that the Council had asked the developer to plat for his rezoning, and the rezoning and the replatting hearing could be held at the same time. Mr. Schneider raised the question as to whether this was the proper procedure. Mr. DeNuccio raised the question of Mr. McLean's motion, made several meetings ago, the intent of which was to hold off on any major rezoning or any major changes until the Comprehensive Plan was put together. He proposed that this matter would be a substantial undertaking and should not be handled until the Comprehensive Plan was done. Mayor Karth said that once an application was made, action one way or the other must be taken, and action had been started on this before Mr. McLean's motion was made.Mr. DeNuccio felt taht the second action on this development was separate from the first, and had been initiated after Mr. McLean's Resolution. It was noted that the Council had 60 days to take action after referral by the Planning Commission, which could consist of approval, denial, or reference back to the Planning adn Zoning Commission. Mr. Schneider felt there was no need to reconsider, and suggested the two parties get together ?on this, which had not yet been done. Mayor Karth said that if a public hearing were held on this and the application denied, the developer would have to wait a year to make another application. A man in the audience noted that there had already been a public hearing on this, but it had been held up by a technicality and the vote had not been valid; Mr. DeNuccioo felt the public hearing had been valid despite the problems with the vote. There was further discussion on this point, and Mr. DeNuccio felt the matter should be resolved at this meeting; Mayor Karth indicated it could not be resolved without a public hearing. A man in the audience extended to the developer and /or his, agents an invitation to meet with the residents in the area involved so that there could be a clear understanding of what was intended, the purposes, and the rationale behind it. Mayor Karth indicated the Council would be more than willing to allow the meeting to be held in the Municipal Building, as a common meeting ground. Mr. Kulaszewicz moved that the public hearing be held on September 12, at 8:00 p.m. Mr. McLean seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. This will be published. The homeowners 300 August 22, 1979 and the developer were again asked if they wanted to meet. In reference to the City Administrator, Mr. Schneider indicated that Mr. Hodge was mailing the resumes by the following Firday, and a date for interviews should be set. The interviews would be half -an -hour long with a 15- minute break. Mr. Schneider moved to set September 6, 1979 as the date for the interviewing. Mr. McLean seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Locher checked with the Council on a problem with the redrafting of the Ordinance in regard to dogs. Mr. Schneider moved to adjourn at 9:10 P.M. Mr. Kulaszewicz seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. These minutes were considered and approved at a regular Council meeting held on September 10, 1979. Edna L. Sarner, Clerk- Treasurer