Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Minutes Page 5 <br />January 26, 2004 <br />----------------------------- <br />COUNCIL WITH CHANGES TO BE MADE AS NOTED. MOTION CARRIED <br />5-0. <br /> <br />6. Other Business <br /> <br /> <br />6.1Discussion of Conditional Use Permit for County building. <br /> <br />Mayor Klinzing explained that she had a discussion with the County Attorney and Sheriff <br />regarding the conditional use permit (CUP) and the amendment to the ordinance regarding <br />county buildings and that they are not happy with having to come forward for a CUP. Their <br />main concern was the interpretation by staff earlier as to what would be necessary. The <br />Planning Director had interpreted the ordinance that there was no need for a CUP. Council <br />looked at this issue, discussing the interpretation given, and decided that this was outside the <br />normal jail function and needed a CUP. The County came back questioning the decision <br />and the need to amend the ordinance. They indicated that they wouldn’t accept the CUP <br />process and will challenge the City. <br /> <br />Mayor Klinzing stated that the extension to the jail is not part of a normal function and the <br />feeling out there at the county that the Council is doing this out of spite is indeed in error. <br />The Council is acting on behalf of the citizens of Elk River. She would like at this time to <br />have the council reconsider the interpretation of the Planning Director; and for any future <br />building that would be done, to require a CUP if the request does not fall within normal <br />functions. <br /> <br />The ordinance amendment was not published, so according to the City Attorney, the <br />Council still has a window of opportunity and could agree with the Planning Director’s <br />interpretation. Mayor Klinzing suggested having a public hearing but stated we could not <br />force the County to participate. She feels the citizens need to have a say about the County <br />building expansion, which is a large addition and not for a normal county jail function. <br /> <br />Councilmember Motin asked why are they afraid of a CUP? He stated that in November, <br />Council passed an amendment to the code and nothing has happened on the County’s part <br />since. He questioned what would be the burden on them if they have to come forward with <br />a CUP? <br /> <br />Mayor Klinzing stated that she had heard that it would put their bond in jeopardy. <br /> <br />Councilmember Motin questioned whether the bond would be in jeopardy and stated that <br />the Council hasn’t said, “We would oppose the CUP, just that we would like for them to <br />come forward.” <br /> <br />Councilmember Tveite stated that he could see rescinding this because of staff giving them <br />this interpretation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dietz stated that he is surprised at the Mayor’s position now. He felt that <br />she was the leader in getting this process going and that the issue is that the County needs to <br />spend some money to screen the jail from the residents. <br /> <br />Mayor Klinzing stated that she had talked to staff at the County and they stated that they <br />would abide in the future by what is required. She admits that if the Council changes its <br />position, then there is not any legal authority to have a public hearing. She is hearing that <br />the cost for them for a CUP would be about $250,000.00. <br /> <br />