Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 06-09-1986 . MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Village of Arden Hills Monday, June 9, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. Village Hall Call to Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: . Absent: Also Present: Mayor Robert Woodburn, Councilmembers Thomas Sather, Gary Peck, Nancy Hansen, Dale Hicks None Attorney James Lynden, Engineers Donald Christoffersen and Barry Peters, Planner Orlyn Miller, Public Works Supervisor Robert Raddatz, Clerk Administrator Charlotte McNiesh, Deputy Clerk Dorothy Zehm Approval of Minutes Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that the minutes of May 19th Council meeting be approved as submitted, and the minutes of the May 27th Council meeting be approved as amended. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Business from the Floor Ron Christiansen requested the installation of a larger, yellow "Dead End" sign at Pascal and County Road E, to replace the existing small black and white "Dead End" sign, and requested the installation of 3 or 4 steel posts at the turn-around at the north end of Pascal. Council referred the requests to Public Works Supervisor Raddatz and the Public Safety/Works Committee. Public Hearin~ - Combined Impr. Nos. SS-83-6 and W-86-2. Sewer Interceptor and Truhler Addition Water Improvements Mayor Woodburn opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Engineer Christoffersen briefly explained the combined improvements and reviewed his June 6, 1986 updated feasibility of Improvement Nos. SS-83-6 and W-86-2 (Sanitary Sewer and Watermain South of Round Lake). Christoffersen explained that the interceptor eliminates the need for the pumping station on Highway 10; Christoffersen indicated the final revised alignment of the sanitary sewer which generally follows property lines-and an existing 66 foot wide utility easement; noted that the change in alignment is the result of several meetings with the various property owners, and was generally agreed upon. Christoffersen explained that the watermain follows the same route as the interceptor main, connecting to the main on 13th Street and was petitioned for by Naegele for the proposed Truhler Addition. Estimated total cost of the combined improvements is $599,047 (sanitary sewer - $511,132; Meter Station - $48,600; watermain - $39,315). Clerk Administrator McNiesh verified that the Notice of Hearing was published twice in the New Bri~hton Bulletin on May 28 and June 4, and was mailed to affected property owners on May 28, 1986. .. Council was referred to Naegele's letter of 5/29/86, withdrawing their petition for the watermain and notifying the City they will not pursue the Truhler Addition platting and will meet with the City Engineer to resolve the alignment of the sanitary sewer which, as proposed, will restrict building options on the site. Comments and Questions from the Floor _ George Winiecki said he represents fourteen property owners of the Winiecki property; asked why the sewer line is needed. Christoffersen explained that the existing sewer mains south of 1-694 are not adequate for the sewage flow from the area north of 1-694; explained that the potential development of the Winiecki property, and other developments in the north area, are adding to the problem and must be alleviated; explained that the mains south of 1-694 were not designed to carry the flow from the properties north of 1-694; noted there is sufficient capacity in the New Brighton system, and it was determined it is . . Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, June 9 Page 2 more economical to go to New Brighton than to rebuild the sewer system south of I-694. George Winiecki asked why the sewer is needed in this location, and why an 18" sewer; asked if this is serving the whole City, or what percentage of the City it will serve. Christoffersen said it will serve the north portion of the City, north of I-694; said he does not know what percentage this would be. Jim Winiecki said the Winiecki property will be developed, but they do not know . how; expressed concern about the cost; said he is not in favor of the project. Geor~e Winiecki said they (Bussard, Vaughn and Winieckis) met with Engineer Christoffersen about two years ago; reported they were not in favor of it then and are not in favor of it now; said we don't know about the need for our property, so we are not in favor of it. After determining that there were no additional questions or comments, either written or from the floor, the public hearing was closed at 8:52 p.m. Attorney Lynden explained that the Council has received bids on the Combined Improvements; advised that Council can determine to proceed or to postpone its decision. Christoffersen reported that it will be a week or two before Metropolitan Waste Commission will advertise and receive bids; suggested that Council take no action until Metro Waste Commission proceeds. Christoffersen said he recommends a watermain loop in this area, whether or not the Truhler Addition is built; noted that re-alignment of the watermain is not a real problem. Christoffersen explained that the proposed sewer alignment cuts across a corner of the Naegele property, called Outlot A on the Preliminary Plat of Truhler Addition; explained that a 20' setback is required for a building; the current alignment is for a 30' wide easement about 96' from the lot line. Christoffersen said we don't know what will be proposed for this area; believes whatever it is, a looped watermain is needed. Christoffersen said he does not believe that the re-alignment will adversely affect the bids received; noted that the City can recoup its costs through assessments. Christoffersen explained that they were attempting to stay south of the cul-de-sac with the sewer main because we have watermain on the north side of the street. After discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by Peck, that Council table action on Combined Impr. Nos. 88-83-6 and W-86-2. Sewer Interceptor and Truhler Addition Water Improvements pending further information. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Report on Bids Received - Impr. Nos. 8S-83-6 and W-86-2 Council was referred to tabulation of bids received, ranging from a low of $443.738.90 to a high of $1,049,100.00 (Engineer's estimate - $482,000). Christoffersen recommended that the bid be awarded to the low bidder when the City receives word from MWCC that they are proceeding with their project. Christoffersen reported that he has discussed the delay with the low bidder; .. noted City can delay awarding bid for 60 days; advised that we want the interceptor operational before mid-December. Council deferred action pending Engineer's meeting with Naegele re the Truhler property. Resolution No. 86-28. Restrictin~ Parkin~ on Both Sides of Hamline Avenue from Floral Drive to STH 96 Council was referred to draft of Resolution No. 86-28. Hicks moved, seconded by Peck, that Council adopt Resolution No. 86-28, Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, June 9 Page 3 RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON HAMLINE AVENUE FROM FLORAL DRIVE TO STH 96. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Christoffersen reported that he anticipates that Hamline Avenue will be under construction in two to three weeks. REPORT OF VILLAGE PLANNER ORLYN MILLER . Case No. 86-12, Special Use Permit for Two Family Dwellin~ - New Bri~hton Road. Jon and Joan Finn Miller introduced the proposal, explaining that the applicants are proposing to construct a house with an apartment in the lower level on a 22,200 s.f. lot; explained that in the R-2 District, a 16,000 s.f. lot is required for a two-family dwelling. Miller explained that the lot is wooded and is surrounded by Hazelnut Park Oft the south, and developed lots on the north and west and across New Brighton Road. Miller explained that a pathway separates this lot from the residential to the west. Miller explained that the "panhandle lot" was created a couple years ago to provide access to this lot which previously was proposed to have access to an east/west street between New Brighton Road and Cleveland which was anticipated but never constructed. Miller explained that certain conditions must be met to grant a Special Use Permit for a two-family dwelling in the R-2 District. Miller reported that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Special Use Permits based on the following findings: 1. Lot is isolated. 2. Lot area exceeds the requirement for a two-family dwelling. 3. Proposed two-family dwelling will not adversely impact the neighborhood. Council was referred to the plans for the proposed house, minutes of the Planning Commission meeting (June 4, 1986), Planning Report (4/30/86) and to two petitions: In favor of the proposal - presented by the applicants. Jon and Joan Finn, and In opposition to the proposal - presented by Roy Anderson. In discussion, it was noted that several signers of the opposing petition do not live within 350 feet of the subject lot; the majority within the impact area are in favor. Lynden explained that a "Special Use Permit" is not "re-zoning"; explained that each Special Use Permit is considered on its own merits, and may be granted if there is no significant adverse impact; noted that, based on the evidence presented, conditions can be attached to a Special Use Permit if desired; advised that conditions should be "reasonable". Roy Anderson said that this Special Use Permit would have the same effect as "re-zoning"; stated that they are opposing it for several reasons: - It will have an impact on future development in the area; noted several lots which may be of sufficient size to accommodate a two-family dwelling. . - It will open the area up for future requests of a similar nature. - Existing property owners have pride of ownership which rental property does not have. - Said he feels the Planning Commission was directed more toward "legal" than "people" issues, and - The apartment was described as a "mother-in-law" apartment, when in reality, it is proposed to be rented to college students. Ron Wilmar referred Council to maps showing properties of residents who favor the proposal and those who oppose; noted that lot owners may have different thoughts than lot developers; expressed concern that the landlord may move out; expressed parking and noise concerns if rented to students; said Arden Hills is Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, June 9 Page 4 a "special area", has lived here 20 years, opposes apartments and subsidized housing and looks for support from the City for his neighborhood. Wilmar noted the request is for a 2.300 s.f. house, with a 200 foot driveway; expressed concern for fire protection and for the value of the homes in the area. Jon Finn (applicant) said he grew up in this area and used to play on this lot; said the lot is heavily wooded, and it is in their best interest to plant additional trees to protect their house from the Hazelnut Park lights. Finn said they had an architect design the house to include what he called a "mother-in-law" apartment in the lower level, with conunon utilities; explained that they can qualify for a mortgage for this house; want to rent the lower level to a student or someone at Presbyterian Homes (a local person) so his . wife can raise their family. Finn said the house will meet all fire codes; feels fire protection and snow removal are not valid neighborhood concerns. Finn said the two-family house will dot generate additional traffic, and the large trees will prevent a view of the house from the neighborhood; it will not cause a visual problem in the neighborhood. Harris Levine said that at the Planning Conunission, Finn said he'd rent to college students; college students have friends; consequently, there will be noise, cars, etc. Levine said we are afraid of these problems; are also afraid of an "absentee" landlord and a neighborhood of transients; said the neighborhood has always been one of single-family homes and we want to keep it that way. Lynden noted that the neighborhood concerns are apparently of boisterous and/or obnoxious behavior; noted that conditions can be placed on a Special Use Permit to control these concerns, e.g. no boisterous behavior past a certain hour in the evening; explained that a complaint would be cause for rescinding the S.U.P. Levine stated that conditions are great, but if someone has to judge, is it reasonable? Said renting to one person would be all right with him, and possibly limiting to one car. Lynden noted that the applicant is apparently agreeable to this also. Mr. Finn said the reason for this request is to generate income so we can build this house without my wife having to work. In discussion, the following questions were answered by Finn. 1. You do intend to live in this house? Yes. 2. How much will the apartment area cost to complete? About $10,500 to build this apartment. 3. It was noted that an alternate would be to not finish this portion at this time. Finn said they have looked at this, and also looked at a smaller house; explained either one will not do anything to reduce labor costs; sewer and water costs will be the same; end result is not much difference in monthly payments. 4. How long do you anticipate before reverting to a single-family dwelling? Possibly ten years. 5. It was noted that it will take quite a few years of rental to recoup this additional $10,500. Finn said his mortgage will be for 30 years. Hicks moved, seconded by Hansen, that Council approve issuance of a Special Use . Permit for the two-family dwelling for a five year period, subject to the following: 1. It is the primary residence of the applicants (Finns) and if sold, it will revert to a single-family residence at time of sale. 2. No more than two cars will be parked outside of this garage on a permanent basis (4 vehicles on site). 3. No undue noise on the property after 10:00 p.m. or the Special Use Permit will be revoked. In discussion, Finn noted that, at times, the park is noisy after that hour; suggested that the 5 year limit be changed to as long as owner-occupied, or sold, whichever Occurs first. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, June 9 Page 5 Miller said he disagrees with attaching conditions of this type; explained this is a "land use" issue; explained that two-family residences are permitted on this land in this district; noted there is enough land for two single-family homes - City Ordinance does not limit the number of people, or cars, in single-family homes; explained this is a legitimate land use in the district; noted only two homes have a legitimate concern re this proposal; noted the proposed house can only be seen from 2 lots; noted it is a unique and isolated lot, meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the application should be addressed as a land use issue. . Hansen moved to amend the motion as follows: "to approve issuance of a Special Use Permit for a two-family dwelling for a five-year period. subject to: 1. House is owner-occupied by the applicants' (Finns). 2. No more than two cars are parked outside of the garage, on a permanent basis. (2 in garage - 2 outside). 3. No more than 4 valid noise complaints in a six-month period (separate incidents). Amendment was seconded by Peck. (Applicant Finn agreed to these points). Roy Anderson said he appreciates the efforts at compromise; noted that previously the applicants were in no mood to compromise; feels there is always room for compromise; said they would be happy to consult with the applicants and the Council. The motion on the amendment carried unanimously. (5-0) In discussion, Council discussed justification for a "valid complaint", and who would be the judge. It was the general consensus that the Council can determine if a complaint is valid. Peck moved to amend the was seconded by Sather. Woodburn, Hansen voting motion to change the time limit to 10 years. Motion Motion on the amendment carried (Peck, Sather, in favor; Hicks voting in opposition). (4-1) Original motion, as amended, carried (Hansen, Sather, Peck, Woodburn voting in favor of the motion; Hicks voting in opposition). (4-1) Case No. 86-21. Setback and SiRn Area Variances for Site SiRnaRe - Northwoods Office Park. Opus Corporation. Council was referred to the signage plan for Northridge Office Park which includes two area identification signs and directional/informational signs for Building #1. Miller explained that one area identification sign is oriented toward I-694, the other toward Red Fox Road and Northwoods Drive - both conform to the size requirements. The sign on Red Fox Road and Northwoods Drive is proposed to be located 20' from Northwoods Drive right-of-way and IS' feet from Red Fox Road right-of-way (25' setbacks required). Miller explained that the two temporary "For Lease" signs require area variances; a 48 s.f. temporary sign is proposed, oriented toward I-694, and a 96 s.f. temporary sign is oriented toward Red Fox Road (32 s.f. is permitted). . Miller reported that the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals recommend approval of the setback variances for the area identification sign at Red Fox Road and Northwoods Drive, and the area variance for the temporary sign at I-694. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals also recommends approval of the area variance for the Red Fox Road temporary sign; the Planning Commission recommends denial of this area variance. Hicks moved, seconded by Sather, that Council approve the setback variances for the permanent area identification sign. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Tim Murnane, Opus Corporation, explained that high speed and distance from the traffic lanes are the reasons for the size variances requested for the temporary "For Lease" signs. Murnane noted that the ordinance permits a 32 s.f. construction sign and a 32 s.f. real estate sign at each frontage road; feels that one larger sign would reduce the sign "clutter" and provide better sign visibility; explained that they only want what has been previously allowed at other development sites; noted these signs are temporary and will be removed when building is rented; purpose of the sign is to advertise the space available. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, June 9 Page 6 Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that the Council permit a 48 s.f. temporary sign at 1-694. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Hansen moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council approve a 48 s.f. temporary sign at Red Fox Road, at the proposed location, to be removed at 95% occupancy of the building. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Case No. 86-22, Setback Variances for Project Monument SiRns - Northpark _ Business Center, Jim Durda . Miller reported that the signage plan has been approved for Northpark Business Center, assuming no variances; reported that 9' setback variances are now being requested for the two entrance monuments 16' from the right-of-way lines (25' . required). Miller reported that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the setback variance for both signs because the berming required to shield parked cars, a grade differential, and the intensive landscaping, may partially block the signs. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals recommends denial of the setback variance for the sign on Grey Fox Road, because the same conditions do not exist at this location. Miller noted that the proposed 9' variance positions the sign at about 16' from the curb, a comparable setback as the sign at County Road E. Hansen moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council approve the 9' setback variance for the sign at STH 51. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Hicks moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve the 9' setback variance for the sign at Grey Fox Road. Hansen noted that when cars are parked on the street, a sign would be hard to see; feels a variance is in order at this location. Motion carried (Hicks, Peck, Sather, Hansen voting in favor of the motion; Woodburn voting in opposition). (4-1) Case No. 86-8, Setback Variance from SnellinR Avenue. 3332 Lametti Circle, Charles and Carole Kelly Council was referred to Planning memo (5/29/86), minutes of Planning Commission (6/4/86) and Board of Appeals report (5/29/86). Miller explained that the lot has frontage on 3 streets, requiring a 40' setback from all three right-of-way lines; noted that this reduces the building envelope to 55' x 54', which is unusual in this area, and somewhat restrictive; noted that the developer of the plat was made aware of this when plat was proposed. Miller noted that the Snelling Avenue right-of-way is very wide (about 200' in this area) and the lot line is about 75' from the street edge; reported that two 8' setback variances were previously granted at Snelling and Bussard Court based on topography, which is not an issue in this situation. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals and Planning Commission recommend approval. Charles Kelly said they have worked with the architect; reported that the lot topography is not suitable for a tuck-under garage; have tried to utilize the lot with the restrictions of the three 40' setbacks; house would be too high with a tuck-under garage; noted that their proposed house is 70' x 35'. . Miller reported that a visual alignment along the Snelling Avenue frontag~ will probably never be made because of the heavy tree growth; suspects the sight lines will not be noticeable. Hicks moved, seconded by Hansen, that Council approve the 15' setback variance from Snelling Avenue right-of-way because of the building envelope restrictions, wide Snelling right-of-way, a 3 frontage lot, and variance will not adversely impact on the neighborhood. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Case No. 86-17, Setback Variance from Chatham Avenue - 3707 Chatham Court, Terry and Stephanie Mitchell Miller explained that the setback requirement from Chatham Avenue was 20 feet when the existing house was constructed; noted that a 30' setback is now - . . .. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, June 9 Page 7 required from both streetsona corner lot in the Chatham area. A transparency of the existing house was shown, indicating the proposed family room addition at the 25' setback of the existing house. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission recommend approval, as proposed, based on the ordinance change after house was constructed and no neighborhood impact. Miller reported that the applicant has submitted statements from his neighbors, all of whom favor the proposed addition. Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council grant the 5 foot setback variance for the family room addition based on the change of ordinance requirements and no adverse impact on the neighborhood. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Case No. 86-19. Setback Variance from Old HiRhway 10 - 4477 Old HiRhway 10, Conrad Beaulieu Council was referred to a transparency of the Beaulieu lot and existing house, noting the proposed addition. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals and Planning Commission recommend approval of the 2' front setback variance for the addition because the addition does not encroach into the required front setback as far as a portion of the existing house, which is at a 37' setback (40' required) . Hicks moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve the 2' front yard setback for the proposed addition, as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Replacement of ExistinR Ham Radio Tower - 3538 Siems Court. RORer Moerke Woodburn explained that Council should determine whether the changes proposed represent a "new" or "old" use; noted that if the changes are considered to be "significant", a public hearing and Special Use Permit will be required. Miller explained that the applicant is requesting modification of his existing ham radio antenna; noted that the existing antenna was erected prior to the Special Use Permit requirement for electronic towers. Council was referred to letter from Thomas Mulcahy (6/4/86)requesting that the tower be re-located to the northwest corner of the applicant's house, reducing the visual impact from his yard. Moerke reported that he has talked with all of his neighbors and has shown them the tower modifications he proposes; reported that none of his neighbors, other than Mulcahy, have expressed a visual problem with the tower or proposed modification. Moerke said that relocation of the tower as suggested would require considerable tree removal. Hicks moved, seconded by Sather, that Council deem the changes proposed a modification of an existing use and grant the changes to the tower as proposed by the applicant. In discussion, Moerke explained that the tower height will not be changed; new antenna will allow him to use three separate frequencies and will not be affected by sun spots; explained that he now receives a lot of noise and no signals; new antenna will have a 5 foot greater diameter; it is not a crank up-and-down model. Motion carried (Hicks, Hansen, Woodburn, Sather voting in favor of the motion; Peck voting in opposition). (4-1) REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR ROBERT RADDATZ Karth Lake PumpinR Council was referred to Raddatz's memo (6/9/86) listing the project costs. Raddatz reported that no problems were experienced during the 11 day pumping project (May 22 - June 2). Raddatz noted that some of the items listed can be used again, e.g. pipe, wood, re-bars, etc. Raddatz reported receipt of a few minor complaints re noise and pipe placement; reported that he talked with Engineer Christoffersen relative to possible use of #10 pumping station pumps in a permanent Karth Lake pumping station; noted ~ ' Minutes of Regular Council Meeting. June 9 Page 8 that #10 station will be removed when the interceptor is in place. Raddatz reported that there is not a lot of re-sale value for these pumps, but they apparently can possibly be used for lake pumping, or possibly in some of the City lift stations, not all stations. Hicks noted that even though the City can use some of the lake pumping materials over again, the cost of the materials for lake pumping exceeds $4,000; wants the matter resolved on a permanent basis as Soon as possible. Sanitary Sewer Service - 1977 Thom Drive Council was referred to Raddatz's memo (6/9/86). Raddatz explained that a sewer stub cannot be located on Thom Drive for the lot recently created by a ~ split and consolidation of two lots; reported that a sewer stub is shown on the ,.., "As Built" sewer map to serve this lot, but apparently was not installed. Raddatz noted that this stub was not assessed; noted that there are stubs at the other end of these lots which were assessed; noted this sewer was installed 16 years ago, and it's possible this stub was removed from the project, but not from the map. Raddatz reported that the lot was purchased, and a house moved onto the lot, after the purchaser checked the City's map and found that the lot had a sewer stub. Raddatz reported that the lot owner feels the City should reimburse him for the estimated $2,400 in additional costs for a sewer connection. After discussion, Council referred the matter to Engineer Christoffersen for an explanation of responsibility for the map discrepancy. Report on June 5 Human Ri~hts Commission Meetin~ Council was referred to minutes of Human Rights Commission meeting of June 5 re Voting Accessibility Advisory Committee Report, recommending that the location of Precinct #1 polling place be changed from the Odd Fellows Lodge to Presbyterian Church of the Way, to provide accessibility for the handicapped. In discussion, it was noted that if Church of the Way is found to be available for this use, voters in the precinct will have to be notified of the change of polling place and a directional sign will be needed designating the Church as an Arden Hills polling place. Hicks moved, seconded by Sather, that, if available, Council establish of the Way as an Arden Hills' polling place for Precinct 1 voters, and Precinct 1 voters be notified of the change of polling place location. carried unanimously. (5-0) Church that Motion Other Business RCLLG Meeting - Hansen cannot attend. Finance Meeting of June 26 and Council Meeting of June 30 - Peck to be absent. Woodburn volunteered to attend the Finance Meeting. REPORT OF CLERK ADMINISTRATOR CHARLOTTE MCNIESH Resolution No. 86-29, Street Li~htin~ Policy Council was referred to draft of Resolution No. 86-29. Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council adopt Resolution No. 86-29, RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STREET LIGHTING POLICY. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) . Ordinance No. 240, Amendin~ Chapter 12 of the City Code Addin~ Provisions ConcerninR Closin~ of Lake Surface and Exemptions - Introduce by Title Council was referred to draft of Ordinance No. 240. After review, and a minor amendment thereto, Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Ordinance No. 240 be introduced by title. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Approval of Retail Sales License, Lake Johanna Antiques Hansen moved, seconded by Sather, that Council approve a Retail Sales License for Lake Johanna Antiques for the balance of 1986. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, June 9 Page 9 Claims and Payroll Hicks moved, seconded by Sather, that Council approve the Claims and Payroll as presented. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Fireworks Permit - North Lake Josephine Improvement Association Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve the Fireworks Permit for North Lake Josephine Improvement Association for use of fireworks at 1220 Ingerson Court on July 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) . Case No. 86-20, Special Use Permit for Athletic Field Liahtina - Request for Waiver of Fees Hicks moved, seconded by Peck, that Council authorize waiver of the $100.00 Special Use Permit Application Fee. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) It is Council's understanding that the Attorney and Planner fees charged to the City for this application will be reimbursed by the applicant. Retirements Council was referred to McNiesh's memo to Council (6/6/86) re Retirements, notifying Council of her retirement as Clerk Administrator and the retirement of Dorothy Zehm as Deputy Clerk/Zoning Administrator later this year. After discussion, Hansen moved, seconded by Hicks, that ads be placed in the Minneapolis and St. Paul papers, the Town Crier, New Briahton Bulletin, Leaaue of MN Cities Maaazine, and on Channel 10, advertising both jobs. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Adjournment Hansen moved, seconded by Sather, that Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) the meeting adjourn at 12:10 a.m. r21AJdA77P ~~ Charlotte McNiesh Clerk Administrator I!~.J~ Robert L. Woodburn Mayor Notice of Meetina The next Regular Council Meeting will be on Monday, June 30, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Hall. ,