Laserfiche WebLink
June 28, 1976 Page 11 <br />Councilman Baumgartner stated that you are at the point where your <br />building is not large enough. He would not deny children the <br />opportunity to go to their school, but we hear the citizen's comments <br />and we have to consider them. <br />Mayor Johnson spoke against the motion. He feels that there are some <br />problems with the use of the facilities and some problems with the <br />neighbors. However, using the 75 limit is arbitrary and rather than <br />stifle the growth he would like to have serious consideration given to <br />an increase to at least allow them to continue for the next period of <br />time, to give them an opportunity to continue with their work. I would <br />like to find out what the minimum increase would be that they would <br />find acceptable. <br />Councilman Baumgartner stated that today they ask for 125 -- in 6 <br />months they may ask for 200, etc. <br />Mayor Johnson stated that Mr. Matthews indicated that 150 would be the <br />maximum in terms of the facility there. <br />Councilman Shelquist stated that his motion is specifically addressed <br />to a letter to the Mayor and the Council in which they ask for the <br />removal of the 75 limit. Mr. Daire said that the limit they are seeking <br />might reach 200. My original motion a year and a half ago was for 60 <br />and it was expanded to give room for growth. I do not feel the facility <br />is large enough. It is located on streets that are heavily travelled <br />and there is no adequate playground space. At the time the Special <br />Use Permit was granted, we were aware of the use of Hillview Park and <br />at the Planning Commission we heard conflicting testimony as to whether <br />the children were going helter skelter to the park or were under <br />control. If they continue the use of the park we should be giving <br />consideration for reimbursement of the city for wear and tear on its <br />park. If we were to remove 75 from Article IV we would immediately have <br />to put a control on, and I am not comfortable with anything but 75. <br />Mr. Glazer stated that he would think that before you would consider <br />any increase it would be proper to clear up these problems first. Mr. <br />Glazer and Mr. Tritkowski asked if this were not a religious institution <br />would the Mayor feel the same way and Mayor Johnson replied only <br />slightly. He thinks you have to be a little tolerant -- there has to <br />be a way to allow that facility to continue to operate. <br />A roll call vote was asked for on the motion. <br />Councilman Baumgartner - aye <br />Countilman Pickar - aye <br />Councilman Shelquist - aye <br />Councilman Hodges - nay <br />Mayor Johnson - aye <br />What we did, Mayor Johnson stated, was to deny the request which would <br />make it a capacity of 328 which is too much. Mr. Fischel, what is <br />the minimum number of increase in pupils that you would be willing to <br />find acceptable? <br />