Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 05-27-1980 . . . . Minut~8 of Regular Council Meeting Village of Arden Hills Tuesday, May 27, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Village Hall Call to Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor crepeau called the maeting to order at 7:30 p,m. Roll Call Present: Mayor Henry J. Crepeau, Jr" Councilmen Ward Hanson, James Wingert, Charlie Crichton, Robert Woodburn Absent: None Also Present: Village Attorney James Lynden, Planner Orlyn Miller, Treasure r Donald Lamb, Cle rk Adminis tra tor',Charlotte McNicsh, Deputy Clerk Dorothy Zehm Approval of Minutes Wingert moved, seconded by Crichton, that the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 12, 1980 be approved as amended. Motion carried unanimously, Business from the Floor None REPORT OF VILLAGE ATTORNEY JAMES L~NDEN Resolution No. 80-29 - Abating AssessmentB, Water Improvement No, Z7-5 and 78-2, C&liguire Woodburn moved, seconded by Hanson, that Council adopt Resolution No. 80-29, Resolution Deleting Assessments for Water Improvement Nos. 77-5 and 78-2, as to Parcel No. 25-01600-200-53 and authorize execution thereof. Motion carried unanimously, If required by Ramsey County, Council authorized execution of the Application for Relief, also, Special._lIse Permit - Case No, 80.'10, Kinder-Care Council was referred to Lynden's letter of 5/23/80 and attached Special lIse Permit - Case No. SO-lO, Hanson moved, seconded by Woodburn, that Council approve Special Use Permit - Case No. 80-10, Motion carried unanimously, (McNiesh to fill in the blanks on Page 1 after determining whether Kinder-Care, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation.) Report~. Uniform Fire Code Council was refeyred to Lynden's letter of 5/27/80 which he distributed to Council and verbally summarized. Two concerns were expressed: 1. Who collects fees, end 2. Who has power of overseeing, Wingert reported tbat he read a news article which inferred that if a municipality does not adopt the Code, it is up to the State Fire Marshal to enforce; if City does adopt the Code, it must have its own fire marshal.. Lynden said adoption of the Code is not mandatory; it is permissive, Hanson noted that the Fire Chief reported some buildings to be unsafe; queries whether these situations could be referred to the State Fire Marshal and thereby relieve City of liability, Lynden explained that if the Code is adopted, City might be assuming a liability; if State is inspecting, State is responsible. Crichton suggested that any known infraction. be referred to the State Fire Marshal; after information relative to inspections aud fees, etc. is obtained, Council can reconsider adorti.oll of the Code~ / , Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Pag3 'rwe> May 27,1980 After discussion, Woodburn was requested to obtain information relative to insuections, fees charged, etc. from State Fire Marshal and Fire Chief,. and to refer to Public Safety Committee for its recommendations to Council. Public Hearing - 8:00 p.m. . Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. ~ Mayor Crepeau opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p,m, McNiesh verified that the Notice of Hearing ~8a published in the New Brighton Bulletin on May 15, 1980, Plsnner Miller e~plained that the proposed amendm~nt would permit colleges in residential districts R-l through R-4 and in business districts B-1 aud B-2 with a Planned Unit Development Permit; re~ ferred Council to listed uses within these districts (Land Use Chart); expl~ined thst if amendment is approved, both e~isting coll.gms would be conforming in the districts in whieh they are located (Northwestern in R-l and Bethel in B-1); Land Use Chart would be amended by inserting a letter "D" in R-l, R-2, 1l.-3, R-4, a-I and B-2 Zoning Districts (Land Use Chart). McNiesh reported that no written comments have been received rela- tive to the proposed ordinance amendment. ~stion6 frem the F~ Crichton Bsked the difference between a Special Use Permit and a Planned Unit Development Permit. Miller explained that they are similar; ~onaiders PUD a more thorough review which is more demanding upon the applicant, conditions can be created and developer can take advantage of innovative planning techniques; permits more flexible planning that a Special Use Permit (SUP); places the burden of proof on the applicant. Woodburn noted that the reasons for approval or denial would be similar; based on facts presented in either case, Hanson said he is not sure the PUD permit has performed the service described for the City in the paat; it eliminates the setbacks which thC/l Planning Commi8sion has worked ha::d to establish. Hanson referred to a former proposal by Win~ert; aaked if that i8 to be considered also, or forgotten. Miller reported that the Planning Commission recommended disapproval of the Education District concept; felt colleges can b. adequately contrDlled in Residential/Euainess Distr(ct~. Miller a.id the Notice W8S published to permit colleges in Residential and Business Districts (a-I tbrough R-4 and B-1 sud B-2) in order to give Council flexibility, i.iti.l understanding was to p~rmit colleges in residential districts only (Bethel ~ould then be non-conforming). - . Wingert explained that the applicant would 'have to successfully defend the iSSU8S of 8 PUD permit; to set Standards of totally different sites is extremely difficult to do; the planning is the same with different circumstances to consider individually based on individual circumstances. Han8on~a.idthe Council haa not t-eceived a recommendation for the amendmeQt fLom the Planning Commission. Hanson asked Miller how Betbel would proceed if it proposes 1, 2 or 3 building~ this year. Mille" ',"plained that Bethel is Ii conforming use as it stands now; ~ plan was adopted which includes "as builts" plus buildings dashed 1& on their lang range plan which he believes inc~udes possibl, two dormitories; the bUildings shown aD the plan will be permittid by the Building Permit process; if other buildings bciyond this are proposed, an amended SUP would be required; if proposed building does not conform as reelected on the plan, then an amended SUP will be required. ' --2 - ' . . , Hlnutes of Regular Council Meeting Page 'Eh1:"e May 27, 1980 vl1ngert explained tllat the proposed amendment is to try to e.stablish equal treatment for the colleges; personally, is not delighted with Busineaa District fOE colleges; expressed reluctance at time Bethel was rezoned to B-l, Hanson E~ferred to Attorney Regnier's letter; stated that the issue of treating the colleges equally seems unnecessary; Northwestern should ask for rezoning; has not done so, Wingert suggested that the reason for not pursuing a rezoning to B-l is apparent; would not get four votes, In Favor of Amendment Thomes Erickson, representing Northweste~n College. spoke in favor of the p-roposed ordinance amendment; feels it is lesa than we would desire, but is recommended by the Planner, Planning Commission and City Attorney; would give colleges an equal Oppo?~unity for develop- ~ent; c~nsiders it a gampromise Method for reasonable development ~~ l~ City gives up no controls. '. In Opposition to Amendment Frank Stantol:, encourage~ CounC,il to make no change!! in the ordinance; feels the ordinance is the same as the District Court found to be sound; ~ees no reason to treat Northwestern and Bethel Colleges equally; Stanton described Betbel as being suited for the purpose for which it is being used; described Northwestern as a drastic change from the former small seminary, which neighbors felt would continue; Northwestern has advised in their lO-year program that they have no plans for change, suggests waiting 5-l0years before change in the ordinance. gary T!>.2.!2:!. stated that .~he Comprehensive Plan is the framework on which the zoning ordinance Is structured; Comprehensive Plan describes Arden Hilla to be a Village of Homes; ordinance is suppn'i~ive of the premise; ordinance has been passed; City will lose if this s,mendment is granted because a non-conformina use will be changed to conforming and, ~Dereiutc, alJ,ower!. to grcm; nc epecifica hav<! hel!n "eisel down". Thorn said that Northwestern College has whet they want - a Fine Arts Center; let's see whe~ t~e next ~Dyears brings on the Northwestern campus; it's hard to say No .sometimes, but this is the time ~o do so; feels it is beat for the Vil~age; ~ants to assess experience re sirens oarking we need to protect our homes, ' . , etc,; Dwight Petel?son - amendment propolled is incon.gru"us with action of Council a few months ago; quoted from Ordinance #213, Section V, D 1, R-l Single Family Residential District (read in its entirety); cannot understand the proposed amendment at ehis time if this ordinance was passed only a few months ago. Wingert moved adoption of this amendment to Ordinance #213 as drafted, Crichton seconded. Lyndsn noted that, from a proceduLB standpoint, required for au ordinance. two readings are Wingert modified his motion to include waiving tbe rules in order that this should be considered the firnt and final reading. Modification was not ~ccepted by Crichton (seconder). W~odburn noted that there was B public reading of the ordinance at the ~lanning Commission meeting. Lynden said this requirement pertains to Council readings. Crichton Bsid be feels this ordinance 1s too crucial to dispense with the rules. Crichton moved that ~e have the first reading of Ordinance No, 214, Amending Ordinance No. 213. Woodburn saconded. Motion did not pass (Crichton voting in favor; Hanson, Wingert, Crepeau, Woodburn in opposi tion) , Hanson moved to vaive the rules BDd give Ordinance No. 214 its first and final reading, seconded by Wingert, Motion carried (Hanson, -';,- . . , Minutes of Regula~ Council M~~ting p ag~~ Four May27,1980 Wingert, Crepeau, Woodburn voting in favor; Crichton voting in opposition) . Hanson moved to deny the proposed ordinance amending Ordinance No. 213 for three reasons: 1. Northwestern College has indicated no plans for any building, other than the approved Fine Arts Building, in the next five years, so there is no urgency to offer them relief from their non-conforming status. 2. The Supreme Court has not mandated that the City must zone Bethel and Northwestern Colleges identi- cally in their present locations, 3, Makas Northwestern College conforming in a resi- dential ~one without any means of enforcing them to adhere to regulations (proposed by Wingert pre- vio'usly, Feb. 21, 1980 memo to Council~. 110 tion was s,~ conde d by Woodburn. In discussion, Woodburn referred to the comment thdt the amendment proposal reflects "poor timing". Woodburn said he does not think it is at all a poor time, but rather the best of timing; it's much better to deCide how to approach something in general before you have a specific proposal; all our ordinanceB do this; everything we paBs does not address an issue that is here no'~ - we will address an issue in the future, and the general PUD Ordinance does this and it ~'asntt passed to take care of one situation that was facing us. Motion did nc,t carry (Hanson, Crepeau voting in f'lvor; Wingert, Crichton, Woodburn voting in opposition). Crichton moved that Council adopt Ordinance No. 214, Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 213. Motion was seconded by Wingert. In discussion. Crichton noted that Ordinance No. 213 was adopted to handle the numerous problems on which we all concurred; we, in effect, deferred this one question. Wingert commented that he feels we look kind of "silly" sticking where we are, taking a "head ill the sand" approach to this; "auld like to get it cleaned up; the advantage to the City, further than our oun personal embarassrnent, is that he thinks for either of the colleges to proceed, requires that they do a careful, thoughtful and professional job of developing a PUD on which to proceed; feel. this is some- thing than can be overlooked easily in the flurry of "having to get that building up, because---"; feels the time to do this is when you a re no t "unde r the gun"; sugges te d tba t I:he college s come up with a sensible and well established, well supported PUD; the reeson for their doing so is to get ~D?forming~ not to get us to pass something and the pressure is off them ar.d presumably they will perform better that function of getting a PUD. Wingert said for this reason he'd like tn get the process started, Wingert c>!J_ci, he i$ not, ill favor of "'aiti,,~: 5 or 10 yesrs until there is a dire need to build and applicant, consequently, is pushing and shoving to get approval. HanBo~ said the District Court pretty well outlined the present CouDcil's attitude on the potencial nuisance value of colleges in residential 20nes; Btill very concerned about these things; can't allow expansion indefinitely without becoming a nuisance; ho~ to ~0ul~~1 this is a major concern; one way to do this is make them non~ccnform:Lns .. -L.. Minut.es of Regular Council Meeting p'age Five May 27, 1980 Woodburn said there aYe some statements made here that "do not hold water'''. . 1. Encouraging Expansion .. doesn' t think Council is encouraging expansion; personally feels there is almost nothing he would vote for further on that campus, because anything he can think of (w~thout specifics before him) would s~~ear to be deleterious more than advantageous to tbe entire area; therefore, he would not be "encouraging" expansion at this time. Woodburn referred to some problems that ~~ght arise under the present non-conforming situation; asked whatwauld happen if perhaps the powerhouse had to be completely overhauled (over 50% of its value), because of environmental pollution regulations - wouldn't be allowed under the present ordinance, If our sewers backed up, we couldn't put outhouses in there, ate,; feels there might be some changes that could work for the betterment of the community as a ..,a.le - they'd be unable to make them '"U;hout some change in the ordinance. 2. Another statement made earlier was that the Council ie "running scared of a Supreme Court decision": said he can't imagine what could be nless the case"l has never beea scared of ~he Supreme Court and we shouldn't be scared. They ere deciding for ell of us supposedly, but more than that, the issue is not before us now, that is all pest and there is no reason for fear, 3, Another statement was that Council is giving the colleges "equal treatment"; thinks Council would only be giving them "equal initial treat- ment" - not e'pl,~l treatment in the final result necessarily; would be ~iviag them equal consid- eration - an equal stiilrt; final treatment is not equal necessarily and doesn't in any way have to be. 4. Another item which Woodburn states as bother- some is that "we have no specifics for dauial"; feels this may possibly be a defect: of the PUD: feels Council has always been responsive to neighborhood wishes; can't imagine future Coun- ciJawill react differently; feels the Council is our protection and is also charged with "fairness iI.. . Crepeau stated he has all the intentions of carrying out the dictates of the court, but, on advice of ~ou~8el, ~ilJ.' i .. " vote against this mot OD. Crepeau referred to Lynden's letter. Lynden suggested that perhaps it was Attorney Regnier's letter that the Mayor was referring to; explained that it was Lynden who suggested this approach; feels it Ii more flexible way of handling a development such as Ii college, which is an ever-evolving project; explained that the PUD Hall designed to give a more thorough treatl"'"l,t to those uses which are more complex; Special Use Permit essentially single purpose special uses; suggested this approach with the concurrence of the Plsnner and the Planning Commission. Motion did not carry (Wingert, Crichton, Woodburn voting in favor; Crepeau, Hanson voting in OPPOSition). -5- . . , Minutes of ReGular Council Meeting Page Six May 27, 1980 Case No. 79-36, Sign Approval -,MSI Claims Office Planner Miller referred Council to site plan indicating proposed locations and sizes of two signs for the MSI Claims Office; noted that the larger sign (County Road E) meets both existing and proposed sign ordinance regulations; small sign (Pins Tree Drive entrance) is "directional" and, therefore, not regulated by the existing ordinance; is larger than permitted in the proposed si~n ordinance, but of the approximate size of the directional Northwestern Bank signs across the street. Miller noted that sketches of the signs had been requested, but not received to date, After discussion, Wingert moved ~hat Council approve the larger sign {County Road E) as submitted and sited on the plan, and with- hold decision on the smaller sign (Pine Tree Drive), pending detailed sketCh of sign, Motion was seconded by Hanson. After further discussion, Wingert withdrew his motion and matter ~las deferred to next Council meeting, pending deta:l.led drawings of bo th s :I.gas, (Note: Following the meeting, it was discovered that'MSI had sub- mitted detailed drawings.) OTHER BUSINESS Request to Defer Special Assessments - Frank Winiecki George Winiecki was present, representing his father, Frank Winiecki; expla:l.ned thst the property is "for sale", father is ill; requested deferment of Water Assessment until property is sold. After discussion, Crichton moved, ~ieconded by Hanson, that Council approve deferral of the Special Assessments (Water Improvement No, 77-5 and 78-2) for f.ive years, Motion carried unanimously. !arks ~ Recreation Summer P.og;:am Council concurred inrc-af fi rming its acceptance of the Summe r Program; Motion was approved at, the Parka Committe, _eating on 5/13/80, Case No, 80-15, Special Use Permit and Variances Janet E~tate3.~chedule Public HeariQ~ Woodburn moved, seconded by Wingert, that Council schedule a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on Wednesday, June 4, 1980, at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Request for Building P(,rmit in Hunters Park ,. Charles Watson Wingert explslnedthat . Special Use Permit coveTS Hunters Park; one let ramuiIls. vacant, Mr. Wateon is proposing to build a Sussel home on this lot, Wingert reported that the Home Owners Association has approved the plan~; noted that it appears to fie the area archi- tee tu l'ally; plans seem to conf'o nl '.vi th the communi ty in which it will be located; construction plans must be approved by the Build- ing Insp~ctor; house is apparently within the pu~view of the Special Use Permit. After discuDsion, Wingert moved, seconded by Hanson, that Council authorize issuance of E Building Permit on Lot 5, Block 1, Hunters Park 1st Addition, in accordance with site plan prsBented, with the understanding that plans meet Bu:l.lding Code, Motion carl:ied "J.n a.n imous 1]" ~ Re~~_pubj~_SefetY-foromittee Meeting Woodburn reported that the Public Safety Committee approved suggested -ragulat:l')DS for ':ity parks proposed by Woodburn snd recommends that they be referred to Parks Committee. t . . . Minutes of Regular Council Meeting P age Seven May 27, 1980 Council concurred to refer the proposed city park regulations to the Parks Committee for its consideration and recommendations to Council. Woodburn reported that the Public Safety Conooittee is reviewing the Noise Ordinance proposed by Ramsey County Sheriff. " Status Re~ort - Cable I.V, Wingert repotted that about 800 questionnaires have been returned to da~.i not tallied sufficiently, as yet, to report any findings; reported there vill be a combined CST meeting in Roseville on 5/28/80 to discuss an Agreement to govern the CST. Council concurred that Wingert encourage an Agreement, but to be non~committal. ~:PORT OF VILLAGE TREASURER DONALD LAMB Investments 5-27-80--s!28,3Jl.25 @ Northwestern National Bank, St, Paul. for 90 days @ 8.30%, m~turing 8-25-80, Woodburn mc~ed t" ratify the Treasurer's investment. Motion was seconded by Crichton and carried unanimously, REPORT O? CLERK ADMINISTRATOR CHARLOTTE McNIESH Joint Po~~s Agreem~- RenderingPlunt Inspections Council was refe~red to paragraph re indemniiication prepared by New Brighton at Council's request. Council concurred with the indemnification clause as inserted in the Agreement, June Counc~l Meetings Council meetings were scheduled on Monday, June 9th and June 30th. Rgroll Crichton moved, seconded by WOOdburn, that Council a. prove the Payroll (due June 3rd) sa submi~ted. Motion carried unanimo~slY, ~ini/MaY~ Ener~y Au~ts , Council was referred to McNlesh s memo of 5/15/80. After discus~ion, Crichton moved, seconded by Hanson, that Council authori~e McNiesh to ap?ly for mini and maxi grants end authorize en tering in to a con trac'C ui th Horty-E 1 vi<:',g and Associates to prepare the mini eaergy audit, Motion carried unanimously. .!.U.l~J.l.!,!.l Sign Wingert distributed sketches of sigDa for replacement of the Village Hall sign; suggested. modification of 'Z, After reviewing the several ideas submitted for consideration, Council expressed its preference for '1; suggested eliminating some posts and includl'ng stX'eet number. Adjourn'Dlent Wingert Boved. aec'ol1ded by Haullon, ~d unanimo~. . ,-'~ t.4..L... Charlotte McNiesh Clerk Adminiatrator NOTICE OF MEETING The ne~t Regular Council Meeting ~il1 be held on Monday, June 9, 1980 at~7,30 p.m. at the Village Hall. 7