Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-1974 Council Memo TO: Village Council -_ '� FROr1: James Cosby, Vil_lage Admi.nist.rator . ''/i�/./ `� / DATE: January 25 , 1974 SUBJECT: Agenda Items for Council Meetinq of :7anuary 28 , 1974 The first item in your packet is an information item concerning criteria that you may wish to consider in hirinq a Village Engineer and a Village Attorney. Also in your information items is a lettcr concerning a complaint on Wayside Kennels , whose owner is Norman Larson. The Village Attorney and I discussed this matter on several occasions and are currently considering some possible conditions that the Council may wish to add to granting of the license which comes due on March 1 , 1974 . I am in the process of conducting an additi.onal investigatiorl into some of the complaints we have had on Wayside Kennels and while all of the information is not in at the present time , i am beginning to believe that many of the complaints are somewhat questionable. I will have a more detailed report for the Council in the near futur.e. COUNCIL AGFNDA 2 . I mailed to each member to the Council earlier a copy of the two proposals that Brauer & Associates had made concerning thc park system analysis. Please bring these items with you to the Council meeting. Mr. Mastny will again be before you to discuss these proposals . 3. You have in your packet the survey resul-_s conducted by Dr. Pan�i�ka on attitudes concerning the Luce Line Trail that were submitted by property owners whose property abutts on the trail. The Park Comm.ission would like to conduct a public hearing on the Luce Line Trail. As I understand it, they would like to send mailed notices to all abutting property owners on the trail as well as have the leqal advertisement in the paper. Dr. Panuska has asked me whether or not the Council might consider calling the public hearing itself and if so, the Park Commission would like to have it held sometime in February. On the other hand, if the Council wishes the Park Commission to formally call the public hearing, the Councils presence at the public hearinq has been requested by the Park Commission. 4. The liquor license revision request is aqain being asked to be tabled until February 25 , 1974 at which time it is hoped that the request concerning the restaurant will be out of the Planning Commission with its recommendation. The applicant wishes to have both the liquor issue and the restaurant issue discussed at the samc� time . Agenda Items - January 28 , 1974 Page 2 7. You have in your information packet thc memo from me concerning criteria that you may wish to look at when interviewing engineers and attorneys. I called the Sun Newspaper and was assured that if we selected the Orono section of the paper as our legal publication, that everything that was published in that would also be published in the Mound paper. This being the case , I would recommerid to the Council that we appoint the Orono Sun as our offic�al newspaper. 10 & 15 . These items concern a gas rate incr_ease and a NSP increase. As far as the NSP increase is concerned, thc� franchise which we have agreed to join has not come about. In other words , NSP does not have the required number of municipal_ities participatinq to 1_egally at this time create the franchise. Therefore, bei.ny as therc is no other regulartory agency or authority over NSP, the Village has no way to really challenge the rate increase unl.ess it wants to go to court and demand justification for the increase. 12 . In your packet is a request from Di.rk Benson concerninq safety items that need to be purchased now to correct identified safety problems. This report was presented before the Vil_lage Safety Committee which met earlier this month and the vote was unani.mous to forward this to the Council and ask that approval he given to s}�end I�'ederal Revenue Sharing Funds for these items . This proposal has my full support and I recommend that the Council approve the expenditure of the funds . The Village Attorney will inform you in some detail on Monday night regarding the procedures that we will have to follow in calling the public hearing for the Planninq Commission in February to discuss the rezoning changes that are connected with the Comprehensive Plan. The problem that we encountered basically is this , the State law does not require a mail notice for a public hearing on a rezoning to property that is five acres or more. The Village code does require the mailing of notices to property owners that are concerned with rezoning. The Village Attorney felt that due to the fact the State Municipal Planning Act was a uniform act it therefore took precedence over any local ordinance that would concern itself with planning. This was the assumption that the staff was operating under until the Village Attorney discussed the matter with several other attorneys in his office and two of the attorneys that have had extensive land use background in law disagree with that decision. The two attorneys felt that the local ordinance requirements would prevail and that the only way to get around sending out a mail notice would be to change the ordinance itsel.f. The changing of the ordinance would require the Council to call a public hearing and that notice would only have to be published in the newspaper. The public hearing could be conducted at the next Council meeting, the ordinance changed, and then the public hearing could be called for the Planning Commission under the new Village ordinance which would then not require a mailed notice. After discussing this with Marc, I further checked with the attorney for the League of Minnesota Municipalities and he concurred that the proper way to go would be to changc� the Village ordinance to eliminate the need to mail a notice to the property owners and thus get the ordinance in line with the State requirements . After giving this matter a great deal of thought, and takinq unto conside.ration that it r , � Agenda Items - January 28 , 1974 Page 3 would take the staff a very long period of time to gather together the list and send out the mailing to very residence in the Villagef I would recommend that the Council� on January 28 , 1974�call for a public hearing for its first meeting in February to amend the Village ordinance to bring it in line with the State law and its requirements. By doing this , I feel we would be in a much stronger legal position in the event that someone in the future take the Village to court over this rezoning matter„�hould that happen, the Village would be in a very strong position if it could show in court that it complied with its ordinance and State law in the notification process for the public hearing. 18. The Council should know that this week Mary Butler. , Dexter Marston, Mike Scheller, Skip McCombs, and myself all went out to take a look at the pond situation concerning the Dunlaps , the Ferrells, and the Winchells. The engineer will have a detailed report ready for you at the Council meeting and we should discuss the complications involved with Mr. Winchell and Mr. Ferrell. As you are aware, Mr. Winchell is hesitant about coming in and taking out the permit for his pand, due to the fact that he may be facing a legal action with Mr. Ferrell over the existing situation. In discussinq this with Marc, it is his recommendation that the Village state that we would take no action on the application for the pond to approve or disapprove it until Mr. Winchell and Mr. Ferrell have setteled their difference and have come to an agreement on how to handle the situation. If that is not done within a reasonable period of time, say six months to a year, then the Village should probably take action on the application to approve or disapprove and then let the legal chips fall where they might. This is somewhat of a sticky problem and i feel that the attorney would wish to advise the Council further on it.