Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-12-12 CC MIN• r r COUNCIL CHAMBER Stillwater, Minnesota REGULAR MEETING The meeting was called to order by President Junker. The Invocation was given by he City Clerk. Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Absent: Also Present: Press: Citizens: None December 12, 1978 7:30 P. M. City Finance Director /Coordinator- Kriesel, City Clerk, Schnell; City Attorney, Magnuson; Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton; Public Safety Director, Abrahamson; Director of Parks and Recreation, Blekum; Consulting Engineers, Elliott, Moore and Van Wormer; Building Inspector, Niska; Chairman of the Planning Commission, Zoller Stillwater Evening Gazette - Liberty and Baker WAVN- -Gary Larson Jim Hunt, Del Peterson, Jeanne Stenerson, Tom Strandberg, Richard Anderson, Dweight Austin, Dick Jeans, Al Ranum, Dr. Harold Seim, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Ritzer, Dick Ulrich, Mr. & Mrs. Dick Emanuelson, Lyle Anderson, Chuck Pozzini, Joseph O'Brien, Mark Carroll, Theresa Schaffer, Bill Hahn, Ed Frye, Bill Hooley, Michael McGuire, Monty Brine, Charles Hooley, Helen Olson, Cecil Callahan, Mark Wikelius, Tom Cropp, Mrs. Arletta Drentlaw, Mrs. Louise Smith INDIVICtJALS and Delegations and Petitions 1. MAYOR JUNKER introduced Lily L ke School Weblow Pack No. 142 and their leaders and welcomed them to the meeting. 2. HELEN OLSON, Pendleton Co. Sales Representative, appeared before the Council for the confirmation of a property split for Hermoine Tolisch on South Fourth Street. The original parcel contained the south 25 feet of Lot 8 and all of Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Block 1 of Churchill's Second Addition. I The split will result in two parcels - one will be the south 20 feet of .� Lot 10, and all of 11 and 12 and Miss Tobisch will retain the 25 feet of Lot 8, _ I all of Lot 9 and the balance of Lot 10. She is selling 108.9 feet. The Council agreed that there would be no problems with this split. PUBLIC HEARING This was the day and time for the public hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of South Fourth Street - 100 feet south of Myrtle Street. The notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on November 8, 15, 22, and 29, 1978 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. CECIL CALLAHAN, one of the petitioners, was the only citizen present at this hearing and he is in agreement with this and is also in agreement to have a sewer easement over this property and this will be written into the resolution. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, a resolution was introduced granting the vacation of the 100 feet of South Fourth Street south of Myrtle Street provided that easements are established and agreed upon as set - forth by the City Attorney end the City Engineer. AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) INDIVIDUALS - DELEGATIONS - continued 3. DEL PETERSON explained that the bids for the proposals for the Nelson School Building were opened at 7:10 P. M. this evening - there were three proposals as follows: • • • 10 • December 12, 1978 Bid No. 1 Richard Kilty $10,000 (Certified Check for $500.00) Demolish and remove the existing building; divide property into three parcels; sell 12 feet back to the neighbors where it originally came; build two single family houses on the other two parcels. Bid No. 2 Richard Anderson $12,500.00 (Cashier's$CGhec00) Convert to an emergency shelter Bid No. 3 Austin & Hilleren $23,500.00 (Bank money order $1,175.00) Six condominiums which would be owner- occupied; private financing; and variances would be minimal. RTR recommended that the Austin & Hille:en proposal be accepted for our or five reasons: 1. The price is the highest 2. It seems to have the least impact on the neighborhood 3. It is in conformance with RTR's interests and desires for saving the school 4. It seems to have the highest and best use from the standpoint of generated tax revenue for the City and it is very similar to the Welch proposal which previously had Council approval. He urged that the Council act immediately on these proposals so that the development can proceed. DAVE MAGNUSON explained that in the Development Agreement into which they must enter - they have ten days to sign the purchase agreement and 45 days after the execution of the purchase agreement and the close of the sale, then they have 90 days to begin construction and it shall be substantially complete within nine months. MARY EMANUELSON, 1017 South Second Street, asked Mr. Austin as to the number of units and how about the garages and driveways and the responded that there will be six units with six covered garages on the west of the property. MAYOR JUNKER asked how she felt about this proposal and she said, "Very poorly ". MARK CARROLL, 1104 South Fiast Street, stated he would like to see Kilty's proposal there and he felt that something should be done about getting this building out of there. TOM STRANDBERG, who lives next door to the Nelson School, stated that the Kilty osed proposal was originally two homes in keeping with the neighborhood - he was opposed itewaslthereobeforeaanywof the livedlthereu- if the n school nd theschool building stays he knows what it will be - if the Kilty proposal is to be considered he had hoped that they would make him put up the 125% performance bond on the building of ofhtheepropertyhsos that be otherehalfgand make another home center or two home there anytime. There is some question about the performance bond for the Kilty proposal. restorat the performance andbond is one of the of oneis not required conditions theperson will t have thedfinancese to of the building and if the that the who ears it not be required to ost and acceted he wants with STAND BERG he thererwoulddbeenoacontrol andethat sure he hashthe builds advantage as heodoessnot and havefelt to that put up the performance bond. He questioned what would happen if he changed his mind after the building is torn down and MAYOR JUNKER stated that he would have to come to want to buildaaCsuix- unitf t proposal s condominium andtheydecide theywantkt the build eight. they would have to get permission to do that. He was in favor of the six -unit proposal. RICHARD ANDERSON, 306 West Olive Street, questioned what the Council would do if the successul bidder does not perform -what would be the procedure and felt that this thing is not done yet - he was sure that this thing was coming back to haunt them - if they do not perform arethose who submitted proposals next in line or what. MAYOR JUNKER stated that the concern of the Council is to get something done with the school so that the neighbors are satisfied and keep it from getting burnt down or someone getting killed in it. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked that the City Attorney explained the need for the perfor- man.e bond. • • • • r • caN n see December 12, 1978 DAVE MAGNUSON explained that what they asked for as apart of the development agreement that prior to the issuance of a building permit he shall submit to the Council an estimated cost of the entire project and he will furnish a bond or escrow deposit or some other suitable financial guarantee in the amount of 125% of the cost of this improvement. If anyone of these conditions fail and he does not live up to his bargain and move along on the deal, then the agreement provides that we can rescind the deal and keep the money. If this happens, then we can start all over again. DICK ANDERSON felt that the City would still have that building six months from now and he felt that his proposal had a slim chance of coming through since financing is very bad right now -it is tough out there and everybody is oing to run into the same problem. He was afraid that the City was going to have to gothrough this all over again and felt they should do it now. MRS. EMANUELSON stated that she heard that Mr. Anderson's funding may not last for more than three to five years and MR. ANDERSON said that he is not funded and he stated that in ten years he does not know if they will have this program and his intere.;t in the building has dropped considerably and they are very negative in going in there - he is interested in the Nelson School as the Nelson School and he did not want to see the City go through this again. He felt that nobody was going to be interested in it. MRS. BEN SCHAFER, 1017 South First Street, posed questions to Mr. Anderson about his operations and some of the problems he is having with these kids DEL PETERSON stated that if the people are concerned about financing, the developer is here and they could ask him - however, that question has not been addressed to either of the other parties and that the Austin - Hilleren proposal is the most advantageous one for the City. MAYOR JUNKER asked about when the development would start and MR. MAGNUSON stated that in the agreement it requies that it be started ninety days after the execution of the agreement. The closing will be 55 days from now which would make it sometime in April for development to begin. MRS. SCHAFER asked for the details of the proposal that is being considered or recommended and she was informed that it is a six -unit condominium with six garages to the west of the building and offered a price of $23,500.00 and she stated that she wanted someone to buy the building and tear it down. MARK CARROLL stated that he fought cars all his life here and that it will be the same way if they put in this type of development. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK, stated Theresa we want you happy - whatever the neighbors want and that was her concern all the way along - the City was offered $23,500.00, but if it doesn't please the neighbors. . . . On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council accepted the Kilty proposal for $10,000 to tear down the building and replace with two single family homes. AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilman Mahoney and Mayor Junker NAYS -- Councilmen Peterson and Powell (motion carried) 4. MARK WIKELUIS, Minnesota Departm:nt of Transportation, explained the proposed project as he did at the November 28th meeting for the benefit of those who did not attend that meeting. The main concern is to relieve the congestion problems and try to resolve them. One of the main problems are the left turns from Chestnut to go south on 95/212. This is a two -lane urban section of highway and it rates the highest for accidents - it is about four times that of the district average. There is also the pedestrian traffic problems. The signal at Main and Myrtle is an old signal and is maintained by the City, and has no provisions for pedestrians and operates on the same schedule whether or not there is traffic there. They will provide left -turn phases - north bound at Myrtle, south bound left -turn at Myrtle and south bound at Chestnut. The two systems would inter- connect and the State would take care of the maintenance of the new signals at Main and Myrtle. They would ban the left -turn at Chestnut, but would provide for it at Myrtle. Toe provide for the left -turn lanes results in losing the parking on the west side of the street. They are programming foil the letting of the bids in November, 1979. MR. VAN WORMER explained the funding for this project which was the same as presented at the previous meeting. 101, • 1 • 102 December 12, 1978 He asked if they use Main Street as a main traffic aetery, or do you use Main Street for parking and to allow the congestion to continue. COUNCILMAN PETERSON asked if we got into this proposal - the lights were installed, the meters were removed and the lines were painted and it turned out that it didn't work out as we had planned, would the t,�cy be able to get out of it at the end of the year and go back the way it was with the excep- tion of the signals. MR. VAN WORMER stated that one thing would have to be defined before you got into it - what congitutes a success - is it reduction in accidents or is it the supposed lack of parking or an actual decrease in business - if you could prove that there are some problems and either the accidents were not decreased and business was hurt or that parking was more important than the traffic, then I think the State could be talked into backing dam on the proposal. He felt sure that the State would want a couple of years to make sure that you have a significant picture of the accident reduction and the business reduction or increase. MR. WIKELIUS stated that they would have a little time as they do not look as any one year's accidents - so that they is a problem area or it isn't a problem area - the accident survey that he presented earlier was based on a four year survey. MONTY BRINE, Downtown Retail Council, asked if only the signals be put in to see what effect that would have on the traffic flow - MR. WIKELIUS stated that this would not solve the left -turn problem that exists to cause accidents and congestion. A CITIZEN felt that there are two problems and that nearly everyone agrees that they would like to solve either or both of these problems. The proposal pre- sented here is just for the one problem, but parking is not one of their problems. If he had to prioritize those two problems, he would have to put parking ahead of traffic flow - both are serious problems, but without parking they do not have traffic flow. He added that every City has traffic coxwstion and parking problems and felt that the valuable parking spaces should only be abandoned during the problem times and allow them to be used other times of the day. In this way you are maximizing the spaces and it does not take that much expenditure to facilitate and it would be an asset to have the traffic lights synchronized. MAYOR JUNKER asked if there was any way that this could be signed and MR. WIKELIUS replied that they looked at this possibility but most of the other cities where they have parking bans they have multiple lanes - somebody parks in such areas and they forget about the time limit and this blocks the whole lane during the restricted hours. It has to be enforced to make it effective. MR. ABRAHAMSON AND MR. KRIESEL made a parking survey and submitted a written report to the Council on their findings regarding empty parking spaces in the downtown area during certain times of the day - on the street and in the parking lots. BILL HAHN, chairman of the Traffic and Parking Committee, read a memorandum regarding the recommendations of this committee. (see memo in the file) The Traffic and Parking Commitee of the Downtown Council has met to consider the offer of funds from the State and Federal Governments to correct the number one ranking Stillwater has for downtown area traffic accidents. We dislike having to recognize this position but feel we should acknowledge it before we develop a reputation as being a dangerous community in which to shop and to do business. The concept explained to the Downtown Council on Wednesday evening, December 6th, we feel has the following implications and must be weighed against the obvious drawbeck of losing some parking on Main Street. We feel the development of areas north toward Marine and east to Somerset and Osceola will continue to add pressure on traffic passage through Stillwater. We are certain there is nothing in the future but more problems as population continues to grow in the area. The Minnesota Highway Department now estimates the construction of a bridge over the St. Croix on Hwy. #280 will not begin until at least 1987. The compleition of the Senior Citizens Hi -Rise promises to bring greater proportion of pedestrian traffic to Stillwater in the near future. The pedestrian has been given a foot soldier status in our town, having to dodge at all corners, motorist tuning right and left. The real possibility of regular visits by the Delta Queen should add enough river flavor to Stillwater to satisfy everyone in 1979. The committee feels the adoption of the electronic traffic control concept, the addition of a foot patrol to handle traffic and parking problems, and the return of Lowell Park and lot to community use will add safety and mobility to down town, increase parking, and remove the cloud which now shadows Stillwater. ISOM • • • ■ 1 • December 12, 1978 • • MRS. ARLETTA DRENTALW, 1204 South Everett Street, of the Steering Committee for the Senior Citizen Center, Presented to the City Council a petition signed by a number of senior citizens - they have a space in front of their center for dropping of people and a pi2k-up service, but usually it is full of parkers that are not properly tagged and they need this space. She was concerned that this plan would not provide for such a space. LYLE ANDERSON, St. Croix Crug, said that he realized that there was no easy solution to this, but he felt that there must be more alternatives that could be tried first. He felt that the cost of the project will cost more than the $123,000 with the loss of valuable parking spaces for the businessses on the west side of the street - they have no alternative for parking - he did not feel that all of the traffic has to come into Stillwater - they could have downtown detour signs - they could make a left -hand turn on Myrtle Street and then go down Water Street to get into Wisconsin. ED FRYE, Ben Franklin Store, asked if they had any surveys as to the percentage of time that there are problems - he felt that it was a very short time and he was in favor of the "no parking from 4 to 6 P. M. ". He questioned why they could not ban left -turns on Chestnut Street going west without the light - there are a lot of things that could be done without taking 19 of the most valuable parking spaces for this project. BILL HOOLEY, HOOLEY TV, said that people coming into Stillwater feel that the downtown is a real traffic hazard - he has many favorable comments about what is happening in downtown Stillwater, but he has never heard anyone say that it is dangerous to come to Stillwater - the only complaint is that there is no place to park and that the situation is critical and taking away 19 more, he may as well lock it up. CHARLES HOOLEY, stated that he does not have a business on Main Street in Stillwater but if he did have a business there he would be very upset if the City would take action this evening to restrict those 19 spaces. He felt that it should be studied a little bit more and come up with another proposal and that the businesses on the west side of Main Street should not have to bear the brunt of the traffic problem - he has got nothing to lose - he was not in favor of the Downtown Retail Council's recommendation. LOUISE SMITH, from Estelle's, stated that there are complaints every day from people who can't even get near the meters to put in their money and there are many hazards from the pedestrians MR. BRINE mentioned that the Downtown Council felt there should be considered a stop light at the corner of the GTA at Nelson Street because of the high volume of pedestrian traffic here, that there is a need for crosswalk areas going to the Brick Alley, Vittorios, etc. It is very diffitult to get onto to Main Street at this intersection when coming from the East - traffic has increased in this area and with the addition of the parking lot here, that will compound the problem. That is if the studies are continued, that should be considered along with this proposal. GAYLORD GARRETT, Stillwater Bakery, stated that when he comes to Stillwater if he makes a right -hand turn at the Northwestern Ban, and goes one block west, then he can make his left -hand turn without any problems. JEFF ZOLLER stated that the Planning Commission did a survey - they received 86 returns and one of the questions was, "What do you consider one of the major problems in the City of Stillwater ?' and 59 of the people said "traffic in downtown ". Many of the residents on the hill feel that the traffic congestion downtown is a real problem. THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 8:40 to 8:50 P. M. DICK JEANS felt bad that this proposal was all set up for traffic flow without regard to the citizens and people of the City of Stillwater. People are coming downtown and parking in these very important parking spots that are available whichever turnover many, many times in a day - he did not feel that because of traffic tie -up only at certain times of the day that it does not warrant the loss of these valuable parking spaces on Main Street. He was agreeable to new traffic signals, but he would like to see further study into some type of funding to take care of this and at some future date they will need a traffic light down by the Brick Alley. MR. HAHN stated that he was apeaking for the Parking Committee when he made his recommendation and n of the Downtown Council - there was not a quorum at the December 6th meeting and they did not take a vote. _ • 103 • ■ 9 • • • December 12, 1978 MR. VAN WORMER stated through the survey done by the Planning Commission, the citizens do feel that there is a traffic problem in downtown Stillwater and that we have to also realize that there is a parking problem - the problem in the downtown area is somewhat unique in all other areas, they have some area to work with - Stillwater does not have that area - they are bound by bluffs and by the river and the narrowness of the two at both ends - there are only one or two streets to work with that are capable of carrying traffic. There have been a number of solutions presented that used Water Street as a traffic carrying artery or use Nelson Street. He stated that those two streets cannot carry traffic - they are not capable of it - the alternatives in Down- town Stillwater are very, very limited with basically Main Street and Chestnut Street. Parking is a very severe problem in that area and he agreed that 19 spaces, especially in this particular block between Myrtle and Chestnut is a problem. There are some vacant spots as Wally's survey point out - he felt that there should be some other space in the downtown area to make up for these lost spaces. The problem is that you have "a street" that you have to carry traffic on. You have a downtown that has to support parking somewhere and to continue to search for alternate solutions but they have been doing this since at least 1955. Eventually the Council will have to come to a decision as to whether Main Street is going to carry traffic or is Main Street going to be continued to be used for parking. He was quite sure that alternatives could be found for parking and did not foresee a great number of alternatives for traffic solutions. He was not trying to sell the Council on this particular solution but he was trying to point out to them that they have a limited number of solutions for traffic and a greater number of solutions for parking. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that there are many instances where people park in Union Alley, on Chestnut Street, bankers, attorneys, etc. park there as long as they are at work they park there and if that was relieved, then the parking lost on Main Street wouldn't seem as serious because somebody would park on Chestnut Street to go to the St. Croix Drug, or they could park in front of the Washington Federal or Union Alley and that has not been considered. There are businessses that have their vans parked there - Stillwater Bakery is an offender - Johnson Realty is an offender - if you would remove those people by finding other places to park, you would then relieve some of the parking that we are talking about now and he felt with a patrolman downtown and increasing the amount that goes into the meters they could afford to have downtown patrol- men and have the parking fine raised from $1.00 to $3.00 parking wouldn't be a long - you would have a greater turnover and he felt that the Council has to address themselves to that problem and the problem is only going to get worse. He was not sure that any merchant downtown knows whether their customer was able to park in front of their store or whether they walked a half block or two blocks - he didn't feel that any merchant could actually say that because they do not know. When he goes downtown and tries to find a place to park, he drives around until he finds one whether it is two blocks or more - with a patrolman downtown they should relieve that congestion. BILL HOOLEY asked what about bringing in a 19 inch TV set and COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that would be a little bit difficult - if they knew they would go around to the back. CHARLES HOOLEY felt that they should make a temporary change rather than a permanent change and restrict the people who are in business from parking there all day. He has nothing to win or lose since they have their own parking lot - he felt sorry for the business people on the west side of Main Street - they will bear the brunt of this. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Van Wormer when they would have to have an answer to this and he replied they have to let the State know by March 1st whether to go or not to go. At the meeting in November, it was suggested that the public meeting be held now and then if there would be some good alternative suggestions that would take a short amount of study, they could be looked into. Eventually they are going to want an answer from the City - either you ' Ive a problem or you do not have a problem, and they will go some place else. If the Council elects to hold this for further study, that they should tell them what specifically or have someone tell them or tell the State what speci- fically they should look at and then set a date and say that you are going to make a decision. MAYOR JUNKER asked if they could make a study on the 4:00 to 6:00 P. M. for "No Parking" and MR. VAN WORMER said that they could do that but this particular proposal would not work because there are lanes assigned with permanent paint put on - this would not be adaptable - the only system that might be adaptable would be to leave the single way thru -way and remove all of the parking on the curb line and this would be from one end of town to the other from 4:00 to 6:00 or wh.ttever hours, then you would have two thru lanes but you still have the problem when someone wanted to make a left tura - you would back up the one lane or wherever they wanted to make a right turn or drop off a 19 inch TV, you would have a problem in the right lane. It is a possibility and they could look at it and give the Council more definite information. • • • • • • December 12, 1978 COUNCILMAN PETERSON asked why the Retail Council as a whole did not come up with a suggestion - the Council has heard this problem for years and years - traffic flow is a problem - parking is a problem - they have addressed them- selves to both and have taken steps to hopefully relieve some of the parking pooblem - have atempted in the past to do something with the traffic flow problem - either we have a problem or we do:'t have a problem and if we do have a problem what are we doing to do about it. MR. BRINE stated that they are not traffic engineers and as the Downtown Council recommending something as a whole they have a hard time doing that - he did think there is a problem and did not see any other alternatives, but if someone would suggest it, he would like to look at it. MAYOR JUNKER stated that in a month's time they could have some meetings and possibly a solution could be worked out without taking out these meters and MR. BRINE stated that the Downtown Council could hafe another meeting but he did not know what would come out of it. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked if it was possible to include a semiphore at Nelson and Main Streets and MR. WIKELIUS stated that they have already have looked at that intersection - their preliminary study was to create parking bays by the Brick Alley and giving a greater site distance fromIthis intersection on the east side. He can come back with a proposal as to what they can do with this intersection. They will have to do the study incorporating the whole intersection at this point. MAYOR JUNKER asked them to arrange a meeting with the Finance Director which they could all attend with the Downtown Retail CouncA sometime the week of January 15th and then have a special Council meeting on the 30th of January for the last chance to speak out on this matter. 5. AMBULANCE SUBSIDY This was the day and time set for the informal public hearing on the request by Tom Cropp for subsidy for the Stillwater Ambulance Service. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City, on December 6, 1978. The Mayor opened the hearing. COUNCILMAN PETERSON stated that they had checked into the question of subsidy which was new to the Council and found it is done in other areas within the Metro area, and that some areas are paying as high as $2.00. COUNCILMAN TO'NELL indicated that it was discussed at the budget meeting last week and it was agreed to subsidize them in the amount of $13,200 out of Revenue Sharing on a one year basis and that Mr. Cropp furnish the Council with the facts and figures of their operation at least t.p to that point. MR. CROPP was agreeable to this. There were no citizens that appeared in favor or opposad to this request. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the Council granted a subsidy to the Stillwater Ambulance Service in the amount of $13,200 to be payable $1,100 per month for a one year period from Revenue Sharing Funds and that the ambulance service provide quarterly financial and statisical reports to the City Council. (all in favor) PETITIONS None INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS - continued CHARLES HOOLEY appeared before the Council regarding the possibility of having a stop sign installed at the end of South Greeley Street at the intersection with the service lane. He felt that there will be a real problem with the increased traffic in this area with the opening of the new Cub Store and the other businesses in that area - there is a problem there now and it is going to get worse - this would be a temporary sign until the new road is constructed by the County and the State. 105 • • • • - December 12, 1978 On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, that the Public Safety Director study this problem and make a request to the State of Minnesota and resolve this problem on a temporary basis. (all in favor) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, that the City of Stillwater refund fifty percent of the amount of the Building Permit fees to the Board of Water Commissioners as requested in their letter of September 1, 1978 less any amount for fees paid to the State and the amounts for contractor's license fees, on the recommendation of the City Attorney that same could be done. AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Powell and Mayor Junker NAY -- Councilman Peterson (motion carried) 2. The Commission appointments will be taken care of at the next regular meeting. 3. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, a resolution was introduced "SETTING THE COMPENSATION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Peterson, Powell, and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) NEW BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, the Clerk was directed to advertise for bids for the official advertising for the City of Stillwater for the year 1979. (all in favor) 2. On motion of Councilman Mahoney. seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council accepted the resignation of Patrick Junker from the Police Reserves and the City Clerk was directed to send a letter to Mr. Junker thanking him for his services. (all in favor) 3. Mrs- Virginia Ritzer of the Stillwater Taxi Service appeared before the City Council regarding her request for a subsidy for a taxi service and detailing the reasons for same which included their family working extra hours to make up for the portion of the increase that they did not get when they requested it - gas has gone up 187„ insurance rates are up 22 %, repair service for the inter -com has gone up from $22.50 to $75.00 just for the call, plus mileage cf $40.00. They have to operate 22 hours per day according to the ordinance - if they are going to keep the current ordinance controlling the rates and the hours of operation, the City has to do something for them. If they can't be subsidized, then possibly they can amend the ordinance. She realized that the Ambulance Service is an emergency service and he had to ask for a subsidy because he has to hire full -time employees - they hire full -time employees and they pay them 22 hours per day. She asked if his rates were controlled by the City of Stillwater as the taxi services are and she was informed that they are controlled by the State. They are closed from 2:30 to 5:00 A. M. and they man the phones 25 hours per day. Arrangements are made in advance for trips to the airport in the early morning hours. They do take emergency calls between 2:30 and 5:00 A. M. COUNCILMAN POWELL did not know of any other taxi service that is sub- sidized and that in order for them to make ends meet that they come in with a request for an increase after the first of the year. MR. RITZER requested that the ordinance be taken off the books and they would regulate their own rates - they want a fair price for what they are paying for gas and salaries. COUNCILMAN MAHONEY stated that the primary reason for the ordinance is to keep everybody and his brother from running a taxi service, and restrictions on the number of licenses. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the City Attorney was directed and the City Finance Director to look into the amending of the ordinance and that the Finance Director check with other communities that have taxi service to see what type of regulations these cities have and that the Stillwater Taxi Company be made aware of these findings prior to the next meeting. (all in favor) IMMO • • • • • • • December 12, 1978 On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Clerk made the first reading by title of an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCES 303, 325, and 360 FOR LICENSING AND THE OPERATION OF TAXI CABS ". (all in favor) They also requested that they could reduce the number of hours that they are at the cabstand downtown as on certain nights there are no calls for seven hours and the Council was agreeable to this as long as they take the emergency calls and man the !tones from their home. 4. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson,a resolution was introduced "DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) (Included in this resolution was payment to St. Paul's Lutheran Church and First Methodist Church for the use of their facilities for the elections - $40.00 to each of these churches). APPLICATIONS On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the following Cigarette Licenses were granted: (1979)(all in favor) Cub Food Market V -re 1570 Frontage Road West, Stillwater (1 month of 1978) New Cub Food Market 1570 Frontage Road West, Stillwater Renewal C. H. Felix 413 South Greeley Street, Stillwater Renewal Hooley's Downtown Super Market 405 E. Myrtle St., Stillwater Renewal Kinsel Liquor Store - Wayne Wohlers Second and Chestnut Streets, Stillwater Renewal E. James Meister 901 South Fourth Street, Stillwater Renewal Lyle Anderson - St. Croix Drug Co. 132 5. Main St., Stillwater Renewal Silver Lake Restaurant 241 South Main Street, Stillwater Renewal - - -On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, the following 3.2 Retail Off Sale Beer Licenses were granted for 1979: (all in favor) Cub Food Market 1570 Frontage Road West, Stillwater New Jack Felix 413 South Greeley Street, Stillwater Renewal Hooley's Super Market, Inc. 405 E. Myrtle Street, Stillwater Renewal E. James Meister - Jim's Bar & Grill 901 South Fourth Street „Stillwater Renewal - - -On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman. Mahoney, the following REGULAR ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSES AND LIQUOR LIABILITY INSURANCE were approved for 1979: (all in favor - all renewals) E. James Meister - Jim's Bar & Grill 901 South Fourth Street, Stillwater Arthur Palmer,- Lowell Inn, Inc. 102 North Second Street, Stillwater St. Croix Boom Co. 317 South Main Street, Stillwater • 107 • • • • 6 108 • CITY CLERK'S REPORT None December 12, 1978 ---On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, the following Sunday On Sale Liquor Licenses and Liquor Liability Insurance were approved for 1979: (all in favor - all renewals) Arthur Palmer - Lowell Inn, Inc. 102 North Second Street, Stillwater St. Croix Boom Co. 317 South Main Street, Stillwater - - -On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the following Contractor's Licenses were granted: (all in favor) Ames Construction, Inc. 14420 County Road No. 5, Burnsville, Mn. 55337 Excavators New COMMUNICATIONS From Northern States Power Company regarding refunds on interim rates (no action) CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT 1. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, Mr. Kriesel made the second reading of an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FIXING AND ESTABLISHING OF SEWER SERVICE CHARGES STILLWATER REGULATING ANDPROVIDING COLLECTION THEREOF" (Ordinance No. 569) The ordinance was read section by section followed by roll call after each section and all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. The chair then put the question, "Shall this ordinance pass ?" and on roll call the ordinance was unanimously adopted. 2. Mr. Kriesel reported on the meeting with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and presented to the City Council some tentative proposals - see list in the committee file. There was discussion on some of these items 3. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the Council offered a wage increase of $60.00 or 85% of the cost of living, whichever is greater for 1980 for Local No. 91. (all in favor) 4. Mr. Kriesel informed the City Council that when they set the salaries they neglected to set the salaries for Bob Conley, Stan Larson and Martin Lemon - the decision was to attempt to finish up the budget at 4:30 P. M. on Monday, December 18, 1978 and these salaries will be resolved at that meeting. Mr. Kriesel was directed to prepare a list of salaries paid to each employee with over -time separated out - said list to be by name for each department. 5. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the Council accepted the interpretation given by Mr. Kriesel to be their understanding for the Firefighters Contract for 1978 -79. (all in favor) (This was that the $20.42 cost of living figure not become a part of the base salary when computing salaries for 1979) CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT 1. Mr. Elliott gave the Council a status report on the various projects that they are working on: Reliance Development Storm Sewer and other services connected with the County 66 Project Lookout Street to include blacktc North Harriet Street Sanitary Ser...r - Decemger 26th meeting 2. He questioned what they should be doing with the Penthouse Acres Plat and Mr. Magnuson brought Mr. Elliott and the Council up to date on this matter. (Mr. Magnuson and Mr. Elliott will get together on this matter.) 3. The inspector from the engineer's office inspected the location of Mr. Feely's septic tank - he felt that they could use Johnson Bros. to install the sewer service and .ssess same to the property - there are 91 feet of services. OMNI • • • • n • • December 12, 1978 On motion of Councioman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Powell, Mr. Elliott was directed to prepare and proceed on this project for Mr. Feely with a Change Order to Johnson Bros. (all in favor) COMMITTEE REPORTS PUBLIC SAFETY 1. Mr. Abrahamson requested permission to remove the island at the parking lot to the south of City Hall to permit more parking in this area. (Permission was granted) 2. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council authorized free parking in Downtown Stillwater for the next two weeks. (Councilman Powell opposed) PUBLIC WORKS 1. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council authorized the attendance of George Diethert and Jeff Junker to attend a Collection Systems seminar in January - $35.00 for each one. (all in favor) 2. Mr. Shelton stated that he had a request for blocking off a portion of North Second Street for the construction of the Hi -Rise and he will keep a check on this and if it is not necessary he will take care of it and then notify the radio station and the newspaper. 3. The question of parking on the Glaser Service Station property which is currently leased to the Lowell Inn and the fact that the City promised Mr. Bliss six parking space when his property was gone - this would be for the tenants in his building. This would be six spots south of the existing gas station building with some type of signs. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council instructed the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney to check out the lease with the Lowell Inn and authorize the designation of these parking locations for Mr. Bliss. (all in favor) PARKS AND RECREATION Mr. Blekum reported that the fencing at the Croixwood Seventh Addition Park has been completed and as soon as the electiiciyy is hooked up the skating rink will be opened up. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 1. Mr. Magnuson reported that all of the easements for the Stillwater Industrial Park are in order - he and Mr. Swenson checked them out and they will be ready for signatures after their meeting on Wednesday. 2. Mr. Magnuson reported that the money came to the City for the sale of the property to Dominium -it was $1,500 short and he called the escrow company and all that they need is an explanation and the money will be forthcoming. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK questioned the bill paid to Weldor Pump and asked what this was for and MR. SHELTON stated it was for the Brick Street Lift Station. QUESTIONS FROM PRESS REPRESENTATIVES None ORDINANCES Second reading - Ordinance No. 569 - Sewer Service Rates. • • fio • •K RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanimously adopted: 1. Directing the Payment of the Bills. 2. *Compensation for the City Attorney 3. *Vacation of a Portion of South Fourth Street -South of Myrtle Street *Not published in the required time - repassed at future meetings. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 P. M. Attest: oQ .e• deftnet —7 Ci[y Clerk December 12, 1978 Mayor • • • • r r • • • MOW COUNCIL CHAMBER Stillwater, Minnesota December 12, 1978 7:30 P. M. REGULAR MEETING The meeting was called to order by President Junker. The Invocation was given by the City Clerk. Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Absent: Also Present: Press: Citizens: None City Finance Director /Coordinator- Kriesel, City Clerk, Schnell; City Attorney, Magnuson; Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton; Public Safety Director, Abrahamson; Director of Parka and Recreation, Blekum; Consulting Engineers, Elliott, Moore and Van Wormer, Building Inspector, Niska; Chairman of the Planning Commission, Zoller Stillwater Evening Gazette - Liberty and Baker WAVN- -Gary Larson Jim Hunt, Del Peterson, Jeanne Stenerson, Tom Strandberg, Richard Anderson, Dweight Austin, Dick Jeans, Al Ranum, Dr. Harold Seim, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Ritzer, Dick Ulrich, Mr. & Mrs. Dick Emanuelson, Lyle Anderson, Chuck Pozzini, Joseph O'Brien, Mark Carroll, Theresa Schaffer, Bill Hahn, Ed Frye, Bill Hooley, Michael McGuire, Monty Brine, Charles Hooley, Helen Olson, Cecil Callahan, Mark Wikelius, Tom Cropp, Mrs. Arletta Drentlaw, Mrs. Louise Smith INDIVIDUALS and Delegations and Petitions 1. MAYOR JUNKER introduced Lily Lake School Weblow Pack No. 142 and their leaders and welcomed them to the meeting. 2. HELEN OLSON, Pendleton Co. Sales Representative, appeared before the Council for the confirmation of a property split for Hermoine Tobisch on South Fourth Street. The original parcel contained the south 25 feet of Lot 8 and all of Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Block 1 of Churchill's Second Addition. The split will result in two parcels - one will be the south 20 feet of Lot 10, and all of 11 and 12 and Miss Tobisch will retain the 25 feet of Lot 8, all of Lot 9 and the balance of Lot 10. She is selling 108.9 feet. The Council agreed that there would be no problems with this split. PUBLIC HEARING This was the day and time for the public hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of South Fourth Street - 100 feet south of Myrtle Street. The notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on November 8, 15, 22, and 29, 1978 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. CECIL CALLAHAN, one of the petitioners, was the only citizen present at this hearing and he is in agreement with this and is also in agreement to have a sewer easement over this property and this will be written into the resolution. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, a resolution was introduced granting the vacation of the 100 feet of South Fourth Street south of Myrtle Street provided that easements are established and agreed upon as set - forth by the City Attorney and the City Engineer. AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Peterson, Powell and NAYS- -None Mayor Junker see resolutions) INDIVIDUALS- DELEGATIONS - continued 3. DEL PETERSON explained that the bids for the proposals for the Nelson School Building were opened at 7:10 P. M. this evening - there were three proposals as follows: • • t • •100 • • December 12, 1978 $10,000 (Certified Check for $500.00) Bid No. 1 Richard Kilty Demolish and remove the existing building; divide property into three parcels; sell 12 feet back to the neighbors where it originally came; build two single family houses on the other two parcels. Bid No. 2 Richard Anderson $12,500.00 (Cashier's Check- Convert to an emergency shelter Bid No. 3 Austin & Hilleren $23,500.00 (Bank money order $1,175.00) Six condominiums which would be owner- occupied; private financing, and variances would be minimal. RTR recommended that the Austin & Hilleren proposal be accepted for our or five reasons: 1. The price is the highest 2. It seems to have the least impact on the neighborhood 3. It is in conformance with RTR's interests and desires for saving the 4. It seems to have the highest and best us- from the standpoint of generated tax revenue for the City and is is very similar to the Welch proposal which previously had Council approval. He urged that the Council act immediately on these proposals so that the development can proceed. DAVE MAGNUSON explained that in the Development Agreement into which they must enter - they have ten days to sign the purchase agreement and 4 5hda they execution of the purchase agreement and the close of the sale, Y ery 90 days to begin construction and it shall be substantially complete within nine months. MARY EMANUELSON, 1017 South Second Street, asked Mr. Austin as to the number of units and how about the garages and drieways and the responded that there will be six units with six covered garages on the west of the property. MAYOR JUNKER asked how she felt about this proposal and she said, "Very poorly ". MARK CARROLL, 1104 South First Street, stated he would like to see Kilty's proposal there and he felt that something should be done about getting this building out of there. TOM STRANDBERG, who lives next door to the Nelson School, stated that the Kilty proposal was originally two homes in keeping with the neighborhood - he was opposed to the Kilty proposal and was hopeful that something could be dons with the school as it was there before any of the neighbors lived there - if the school building stays he knows what it will be - if the Kilty proposal is to be considered he had hoped that they would make him put up the 125% performance bond on the building of a house or two houses - if there is to be only one dwelling that it be in the center of the property so that he cannot sell off the other half and make another home there anytime. There is some question about the performance bond for the Kilty proposal. DAVE MAGNUSON explained that the performance bond is one of the conditions of the restoration and renovation of the building and one is not required of the person who tears it down - one of the reasons is to guarantee the City that the developer will have the finances to complete the building and if the Kilty proposal is accepted he would not be required to post a performance bond and MR. STANDBERG felt that this was discrimination and he could do whatever he wants with the property and he wanted to make sure that he builds what he proposes and felt that there would be no control and that he has the advantage as he does not have to put up the performance bond. He questioned what would happen if he changed his mind after the building is torn down and MAYOR JUNKER stated that he would have to come to the Council for a change in the pr oposal - just like the people who want to build a six -unit condominium and they decide they want to build eight, they would have to get permission to do that. He was in favor of the six -unit proposal. RICHARD ANDERSON, 306 West Olive Street, questioned what the Council would do if the successul bidder does not perform -what would be the procedure and felt that this thing is not done yet - he was sure that this thing was coming back to haunt them - if they do not perform arethose who submitted proposals next in line or what. MAYOR JUNKER stated that the concern of the Council is to get something done with the school so that the neighbors are satisfied and keep it from getting burnt down or someone getting killed in it. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked that the City Attorney explained the need for the perfor- mance bond. MIN • • • • • • • • • eas December 12, 1978 DAVE MAGNUSON explained that what they asked for as apart of the development agreement that prior to the issuance of a building permit he shall submit to the Council an estimated cost of the entire project and he will furnish a bond or escrow deposit or some other suitable financial guarantee in the amount of 1257, of the cost of this improvement. If anyone of these conditions fail and he does not live up to his bargain and move along on the deal, then the agreement provides that we can rescind the deal and keep the money. If this happens, then we can start all over again. DICK ANDERSON felt that the City would still have that building six months from now and he felt that his proposal had a slim chance of coming through since financing is very bad right now -it is tough out there and everybody is oing to run into the same problem. He was afraid that the City was going to have to go through this all over again and felt they should do it now. MRS. EMANUELSON stated that she heard that Mr. Anderson's funding may not last for more than three to five years and MR. ANDERSON said that he is not funded and he stated that in ten years he does not know if they will have this program and his interest in the building has dropped considerably and they are very negative in going in there - he is interested in the Nelson School as the Nelson School and he did not want to see the City go through this again. He felt that nobody was going to be interested in it. MRS. BEN SCHAFER, 1017 South First Street, posed questions to Mr. Anderson about his operations and some of the problems he is having with these kids. DEL PETERSON stated that if the people are concerned about financing, the developer is here and they could ask him - however, that question has not been addressed to either of the other parties and that the Austin- Hilleren proposal is the most advantageous one for the City. MAYOR JUNKER asked about when the development would start and MR. MAGNUSON stated that in the agreement it requies that it be started ninety days after the execution of the agreement. The closing will be 55 days from now which would make it sometime in April for development to begin. MRS. SCHAFER asked for the details of the proposal that is being considered or recommended and she was informed that it is a six -unit condominium with six garages to the west of the building and offered a price of $23,500.00 and she stated that she wanted someone to buy the building and tear it down. MARK CARROLL stated that he fought cars all his life here and that it will be the same way if they put in this type of development. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK, stated Theresa we want you happy - whatever the neighbors want and that was her concern all the way along - the City was offered $23,500.00, but if it doesn't please the neighbors. . . . On motion of Councilman Mahoney, sedonded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council accepted the Kilty proposal for $10,000 to tear down the building and replace with two single family homes. AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilman Mahoney and Mayor Junker NAYS -- Councilmen Peterson and Powell (motion carried) 4. MARK WIKELUIS, Minnesota Department of Transportation, explained the proposed project as he did at the November 28th meeting for the benefit of those who did not attend that meeting. The main concern is to relieve the congestion problems and try to resolve them. One of the main problems are the left turns from Chestnut to go south on 95/212. This is a two -lane urban section of highway and it rates the highest for accidents - it is about four times that of the district average. There is also the pedestrian traffic problems. The signal at Main and Myrtle is an old signal and is maintained by the City, and has no provisions for pedestrians and operates on the same schedule whether or not there is traffic there. They will provide left -turn phases - north bound at Myrtle, south bound left -turn at Myrtle and south bound at Chestnut. The two systems would inter- connect and the State would take care of the maintenance of the new signals at Main and Myrtle. They would ban the left -turn at Chestnut, but would provide for it at Myrtle. Toe provide for the left -turn lanes results in losing the parking on the west side of the street. They are programming for the letting of the bids in November, 1979. MR. VAN WORMER explained the funding for this project which was the same as presented at the previous meeting. • 1 • • • • 4 1 ry I 1 • .102 December 12, 1978 He asked if they use Main Street as a main traffic aetery, or do you use Main Street for parking and to allow the congestion to continue. COUNCILMAN PETERSON asked if we got into this proposal - the lights were installed, the meters were removed and the lines were painted and it turned out that it didn't work out as we had planned, would the City be able to get out of it at the end of the year and go back the way it was with the excep- tion of the signals. MR. VAN WORMER stated that one thing would have to be defined before you got into it - what conad.tutes a success - is it reduction in accidents or is it the supposed lack of parking or an actual decrease in business - if you could prove that there are some problems and either the accidents were not decreased and business was hurt or that parking was more important than the traffic, then I think the State could be talked into backing down on the - roposal. He felt sure that the State would want a couple of years to make sure that you have a significant picture of the accident reduction and the business reduction or increase. MR. WIKELIUS stated that they would have a little time as they do not look as any one year's accidents - so that they is a problem area or it isn't a problem area - the accident survey that he presented earlier was based on a four year survey. MONTY BRINE, Downtown Retail Council, asked if only the signals be put in to see what effect that would have on the traffic flow - MR. WIKELIUS stated that this would not solve the left -turn problem that exists to cause accidents and congestion. A CITIZEN felt that there are two problems and that nearly everyone agrees that they would like to solve either or both of these problems. The proposal pre- sented here is just for the one problem, but parking is not one of their problems. If he had to *orifice those two problems, he would have to put parking ahead of traffic flow - both are serious problems. but without parking they do not have traffic flow. He added that every City has traffic coxwstion and parking problems and felt that the valuable parking spaces should only be abandoned during the problem times and allow them to be used other times of the day. In this way you are maximizing the spaces and it does not take that much expenditure to facilitate and it would be an asset to have the traffic lights synchronized. MAYOR JUNKER asked if there was any way that this could he signed and MR. WIKELIUS replied that they looked at this possibility but most of the other cities where they have parking bans they have multiple lanes - somebody parks in such areas and they forget about the time limit and this blocks the whole lane during the restricted hours. It has to be enforced to make it effective. MR. ABRABAMSON AND MR. KRIESEL made a parking survey and submitted a written report to the Council on their findings regarding empty parking spaces in the downtown area during certain times of the day - on the street and in the parking lots. BILL HAHN, chairman of the Traffic and Parking Committee, read a memorandum regarding the recommendations of this committee. (see memo in the file) The Traffic and Parking Commitee of the Downtown Council has met to consider the offer of funds from the State and Federal Governments to correct the number one ranking Stillwater has for downtown area traffic accidents. We dislike having to recognize this position but feel we should acknowledge it before we develop a reputation as being a dangerous community in which to shop and to do business. The concept explained to the Downtown Council on Wednesday evening, December 6th, we feel has the following implications and must be weighed against the obvious drawbeck of losing some parking on Main Street. We feel the development of areas north toward Marine and east to Somerset and Osceola will continue to add pressure on traffic passage through Stillwater. We are certain there is nothing in the future but more problems as population continues to grow in the area. The Minnesota Highway Department now estimates the construction of a bridge over the St. Croix on Hwy. #280 will not begin until at least 1987. The compleition of the Senior Citizens Hi -Rise promises tc bring greater proportion of pedestrian traffic to Stillwater in the near future. The pedestrian has been given a foot soldier status in our town, having to dodge at all corners, motorist tuning right and left. The real possibility of regular visits by the Delta Queen should add enough river flavor to Stillwater to satisfy everyone in 1979. The committee feels the adoption of the electronic traffic control concept, the addition of a foot patrol to handle traffic and parking problems, and the return of Lowell Park and lot to community use will add safety and mobility to down town, increase parking, and remove the cloud which now shadows Stillwater. X • SIM • • 1s • 1 • • • • • • • 3 December 12, 1978 MRS. ARLETTA DRENTALW, 1204 South Everett Street, of the Steering Committee for the Senior Citizen Center, presented to the City Council a petition signed by a number of senior citizens - they have a space in front of their center for dropping of people and a pick -up service, but usually it is full of parkers that are not properly tagged and they need this space. She was concerned that thisplan would not provide for such a space. LYLE ANDERSON, St. Croix Crug, said that he realized that there was no easy solution to this, but he felt that there must be more alternatives that could be tried first. He felt that the cost of the project will cost more than the $123,000 with the loss of valuable parking spaces for the businessses on the west side of the street - they have no alternative for parking - he did not feel that all of the traffic has to come into Stillwater - they could have downtown detour signs - they could make a left -hand turn on Myrtle Street and then go down Water Street to get into Wisconsin. ED FRYE, Ben Franklin Store, asked if they had any surveys as to the percentage of time that there are problems - he felt that it was a very short time and he was in favor of the "no parking from 4 to 6 P. M. ". He questioned why they could not ban left -turns on Chestnut Street going west without the light - there are a lot of things that could be done without taking 19 of the most valuable parking spaces for this project. BILL HOOLEY, HOOLEY TV, said that people coming into Stillwater feel that the downtown is a real traffic hazard - he has many favorable comments about what is happening in downtown Stillwater, but he has never heard anyone say that it is dangerous to come to Stillwater - the only complaint is that there is no place to park and that the situation is critical and taking away 19 more, he may as well lock it up. CHARLES HOOLEY, stated that he does not have a business on Main Street in Stillwater but if he did have a business there he would be very upset if the City would take action this evening to restrict those 19 spaces. He felt that it should be studied a little bit more and come up with another proposal and that the businesses on the west side of Main Street should not have to bear the brunt of the traffic problem - he has got nothing to lose - he was not in favor of the Downtown Retail Council's recommendation. LODISE SMITH, from Estelle's, stated that there are complaints every day from people who can't even get near the meters to put in their money and there are many hazards from the pedestrians. MR. BRINE mentioned that the Downtown Council felt there should be considered a stop light at the corner of the GTA at Nelson Street because of the high volume of pedestrian traffic here, that there is a need for crosswalk areas going to the Brick Alley, Vittorios, etc. It is very diffitult to get onto to Main Street at this intersection when coming from the East - traffic has increased in this area and with the addition of the parking lot here, that will compound the problem. That is if the studies are continued, that should be considered along with this proposal. GAYLORD GARRETT, Stillwater Bakery, stated that when he comes to Stillwater if he makes a right -hand turn at the Northwestern Ban, and goes one block west, then he can make his left -hand turn without any problems. JEFF ZOLLER stated that the Planning Commission did a survey - they received 86 returns and one of the questions was, "What do you consider one of the major problems in the City of Stillwater ?' and 59 of the people said "traffic in downtown". Many of the residents on the hill feel that the traffic congestion downtown is a real problem. THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 8:40 to 8:50 P. M. DICK JEANS felt bad that this proposal was all set up for traffic flow without regard to the citizens and people of the City of Stillwater. People are coming downtown and parking in these very important parking spots that are available whichever turnover many, many times in a day - he did not feel that because of traffic tie -up only at certain times of the day that it does not warrant the loss of these valuable parking spaces on Main Street. He was agreeable to new traffic signals, but he would like to see further study into some type of funding to take care of this and at some future date they will need a traffic light down by the Brick Alley. MR. HAHN stated that he was apeaking for the Parking Committee when he made his recommendation and n of the Downtown Council - there was not a quorum at the December 6th meeting and they did not take a vote. • 103;• 1 • • ■ 1 4 • • • C. December 12, 1978 MR. VAN WORMER stated through the survey done by the Planning Commission, the citizens do feel that there is a traffic problem in downtown Stillwater and that we have to also realize that there is a parking problem - the problem in the downtown area is somewhat unique in all other areas, they have some area to work with - Stillwater does not have that area - they are bound by bluffs and by the river and the narrowness of the two at both ends - there are only one or two streets to work with that are capable of carrying traffic. There have been a number of solutions presented that used Water Street as a traffic carrying artery or use Nelson Street. He stated that those two streets cannot carry traffic - they are not capable of it - the alternatives in Down- town Stillwater are very, very limited with basically Main Street and Chestnut Street. Parking is a very severe problem in that area and he agreed that 19 spaces, especially in this particular block between Myrtle and Chestnut is a problem. There are some vacant spots as Wally's survey point out - he felt that there should be some other space in the downtown area to make up for these lost spaces. The problem is that you have "a street" that you have to carry traffic on. You have a downtown that has to support parking somewhere and to continue to search for alternate solutions but they have been doing this since at least 1955. Evertually the Council will have to come to a decision as to whether Main Street is going to carry traffic or is Main Street going to be continued to be used fr parking. He was quite sure that alternatives could be found for parking and aid not foresee a great number of alternatives for traffic solutions. He was not trying to sell the Council on this particular solution but he was trying to point out to them that they have a limited number of solutions for traffic and a greater number of solutions for parking. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that there are many instances where people park in Union Alley, on Chestnut Street, bankers, attorneys, etc. park there as long as they are at work they park there and if that was relieved, then the parking lost on Main Street wouldn't seem as serious because somebody would park on Chestnut Street to go to the St. Croix Drug, or they could park in front of the Washington Federal or Union Alley and that has not been considered. There are businessses that have their vans parked there - Stillwater Bakery is an offender - Johnson Realty is an offender - if you would remove those people by finding other places to park, you would then relieve some of the parking that we are talking about now and he felt with a patrolman downtown and increasing the amount that goes into the meters they could afford to have downtown patrol- men and have the parking fine raised from $1.00 to $3.00 parking wouldn't be a long - you would have a greater turnover and he felt that the Council has to address themselves to that problem and the problem is only going to get worse. He was not sure that any merchant downtown knows whether their customer was able to park in front of their store or whether they walked a half block or two blocks - he didn't feel that any merchant could actually say that because they do not know. When he goes downtown and tries to find a place to park, he drives around until he finds one whether it is two blocks or more - with a patrolman downtown they should relieve that congestion. BILL HOOLEY asked what about bringing in a 19 inch TV set and COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that would be a little bit difficult - if they knew they would go around to the back. CHARLES HOOLEY felt that they should make a temporary change rather than a permanent change and restrict the people who are in business from parking there all day. He has nothing to win or lose since they have their own parking lot - he felt sorry for the business people on the west side of Main Street - they will bear the brunt of this MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Van Wormer when they would have to have an answer to this and he replied they have to let the State know by March 1st whether to go or not to go. At the meeting in November, it was suggested that the public meeting be held now and then if there would be some good alternative suggestions that would take a short amount of study, they could be looked into. Eventually they are going to want an answer from the City - either you have a problem or you do not have a problem, and they will go some place else. If the Council elects to hold this for further study, that they should tell them what specifically or have someone tell them or tell the State what speci- fically they should look at and then set a date and say that you are going to mak( a decision. MAYOR JUNKER asked if they could make a study on the 4:00 to 6:00 P. M. for "No Parking" and MR. VAN WORMER said that they could do that but this particular proposal would not work because there are lanes assigned with permanent paint put on - this would not be adaptable - the only system that might be adaptable would be to leave the single way thru -way and remove all of the parking on the curb lane and this would be from one end of town to the other from 4:00 to 6:00 or whatever hours, then you would have two thru lanes but you still have the problem when someone wanted to make a left turn - you would back up the one lane or wherever they wanted to make a right turn or drop off a 19 inch TV, you would have a problem in the right lane. It is a possibility and they could look at it and give the Council more definite information. r • • • • • - 1 h • 3 PETITIONS None December 12, 1978 COUNCILMAN PETERSON asked why the Retail Council as a whole did not come up with a suggestion - the Council has heard this problem for years and years - selvesctolbothsandphaveetakenasteps to hopefully relievehsomeaofrtheeparking porblem - have atempted in the past to do something with the traffic flow proavbl e p- either we hav problemo we don't tt have a problem and if we do MR. BRINE stated that they are not traffic engineers and as the Downtown Council recommending something as a whole they have a hard time doing that - ne did think there is a problem and did not see any other alternatives, but if someone would suggest it, he would like to look at it. possibly NaEsolution month's out time ithout have some these meetings and n meters and MR. BRINE stated that the Downtown Council could hafe another meeting but he did not know what would come out of it. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked if it was possible to include a semiphore at Nelson atdthatnintersection M- their preliminary they e to create parking looked bays on the eastkside. and He can a backtwithraeproposaleas fromkchis what theycan intersection do with this intersection. They will have to do the study incorporating the whole intersection at this point. they dEallsattendawith theaDowntown with the Finance Director last chance to speak out uary ehec this lCouncil il m on the 30th of January for 5. AMBULANCE SUBSIDY, This was the day and time set for the informal public hearing on the request by Tom Cropp for subsidy for the Stillwater Ambulance Service. Notice of the hearing was the official newspaper oftheCi published on December 6, 197 gt Evening Gazette, The Mayor opened the hearing whichlwwasNnewTtoStthesCouncil that and foundaitciscdone into in other question withinsubsidy the Metro area, and that some areas are paying as high as $2.00. COUNCILMAN POWELL indicated that it was discussed at the budget meeti eti week and it was agreed to subsidize them in the amount of $13, withnthe8factsgand figureseof basis heir operation M at least up to that the thatpoint. MR. CROPP was agreeable to this. There were no citizens that appeared in favor or opposed to this request. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, ice the Council granted abdbtpayable Stillwater per per for e a v ene Revenue the amount of t e3, 200 to be year period from Revenue Sharing Funds and that the ambulance service provide quarterly financial and statisical reports to the City Council. (all in favor) INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS - continued a stops sign LinstalledeatbtherendhofCSouthiGreeleyrSt s treet at the intersection having intersection with the service lane. He felt that there will be a real problem with the otherabusinessescinthatsareaa Wthere a there e now n and t Store is going to get worse - this would be a temporary sign until the new road is constructed by the County and the State. 1o51 • • 1 • 6706 • December 12, 1978 On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, that the Public Safety Director study this problem and make a request to the State of Minnesota and resolve this problem on a temporary basis. (all in favor) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, that the City of Stillwater refund fifty percent of the amount of the Building Permit fees to the Board of Water Commissioners as requested in their letter of September 1, 1978 less any amount for fees paid to the State and the amounts for contractor's license fees, on the recommendation of the City Attorney that same could be done. AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Powell and Mayor Junker NAY -- Councilman Peterson (motion carried) 2. The Commission appointments will be taken care of at the next regular meeting. 3. On a resolution was n introduced e " "SETTING c THE e COMPENSATION FOR THE CITY a TY ATTORNEY". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Peterson, Powell, and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) NEW BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, the Clerk was directed to advertise for bids for the official advertising for the City of Stillwater for the year 1979. (a in favor) 2. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council accepted the resignation of Patrick Junket from the Police Reserves and the City Clerk was directed to send a letter to Mr. Junket thanking him for his services. (all in favor) 3. Mrs. Virginia Ritzer of the Stillwater Taxi Service appeared before the City Council regarding her request for a subsidy for a taxi service and detailing the reasons for same which included their family working extra hours to make up for the portion of the increase that they did not get when they requested it - gas has gone up 18 %, insurance rates are up 227., repair service for the inter -com has gone up from $22.50 to $75.00 just for the call, plus mileage of $40.00. They have to operate 22 hours per day according to the ordinance - if they are going to keep the current ordinance controlling the rates and the hours of operation, the City has to do something for them. If they can't be subsidized, then possibly they can amend the ordinance. She realized that the Ambulance Service is an emergency service and he had to ask for a subsidy because he has to hire full -time employees - they hire full -time employees and they pay them 22 hours per day. She asked if his rates were controlled by the City of Stillwater as the taxi services are and she was informed that they are controlled by the State. They are closed from 2:30 to 5:00 A. M. and they man the phones 25 hours per day. Arrangements are made in advance for trips to the airport in the early morning hours. They do take emergency calls between 2:30 and 5:00 A. M. COUNCILMAN POWELL did not know of any other taxi service that is sub- sidized and that in order for them to make ends meet that they come in with a request for an increase after the first of the year. MR. RITZER requested that the ordinance be taken off the books and they would regulate their own rates - they want a fair price for what they are paying for gas and salaries. COUNCILMAN MAHONEY stated that the primary reaso.. for the ordinance is to keep everybody and his brother from running a taxi service, and restrictions on the number of licenses. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the City Attorney was directed and the City Finance Director to look into the amending of the ordinance and that the Finance Director check with other communities that have taxi service to see what type of regulations these cities have and that the Stillwater Taxi Company be made aware of these findings prior to the next meeting. (all in favor) • • • -r • • • ( • • • r� • • z December 12, 1978 On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Clerk made the first reading by title of an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCES 303, 325, and 360 FOR LICENSING AND THE OPERATION OF TAXI CABS ". (all in favor) They also requested that they could reduce the number of hours that they are at the cabstand downtown as on certain nights there are no calls for seven hours and the Council was agreeable to this as lo.sg as they take the emergency calls and man the (hones from their home 4. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson,a resolution was introduced "DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Mahoney, Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) (Included in this resolution was payment to St. Paul's Lutheran Church and First Methodist Church for the use of their facilities for the elections - $40.00 to each of these churches). APPLICATIONS On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the following Cigarette Licenses were granted: (1979)(all in favor) Cub Food Market 1570 Frontage Road West, Stillwater (1 month of 1978) Cub Food Market 1570 Frontage Road West, Stillwater C. H. Felix 413 South Greeley Street, Stillwater Hooley's Downtown Super Market 405 E. Myrtle St., Stillwater Kinsel Liquor Store - Wayne Wohlers Second and Chestnut Streets, Stillwater E. Jemes Meister 901 South Fourth Street, Stillwater Lyle Anderson - St. Croix Drug Co. 132 S. Main St., Stillwater Silver Lake Restaurant 241 South Main Street, Stillwater Cub Food Market 1570 Frontage Road West, Stillwater Jack Felix 413 South Greeley Street, Stillwater Hooley's Super Market, Inc. 405 E. Myrtle Street, Stillwater E. James Meister - Jim's Bar & Grill 901 South Fourth Street„ Stillwater - - -On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, the following REGULAR ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSES AND LIQUOR LIABILITY INSURANCE were approved for 1979: (all in favor - all renewals) E. James Meister - Jim's Bar & Grill 901 South Fourth Street, Stillwater Arthur Palmer,- Lowell Inn, Inc. 102 North Second Street, Stillwater _ St. Croix Boom Co. 317 South Main Street, Stillwater New Renewal Renewal Renewal Renewal Renewal Renewal Renewal - - -On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Mahoney, the following 3.2 Retail Off Sale Beer Licenses were granted for 1979: (all in favor) New Renewal Renewal Renewal • 107 - ' • • • • r :y 1 • • December 12, 1978 -On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded Sy Councilman Mahoney, the were approved for 1979: Sale Liquor all and Liquor Liability Insurance 1 renewals) Arthur Palmer - Lowell Inn, Inc. 102 North Second Street, Stillwater St. Croix Boom Co. 317 South Main Street, Stillwater - - -On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the following Contractor's Licenses were granted: ) Ames Construction, Inc. 14420 County Road No. 5. Burnsville, Mn. 55337 Excavators COi.IMUNICATIONS From Northern States Power Company regarding refunds on interim rates (no action) CITY CLERK'S REPORT None CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT 1 On made the second reading ofcandordinancenentitlede"AN OORRDINNAANCE AMENDING FIXING AND ESTABLISHING OF 4 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AND THE PROVIDING COLLECTION THEREOF" (Ordinance No. 569) The ordinance was read section by section followed by roll call after each section and all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. The ipteu question, Shallethis ordinance pass ?" and on roll call the ordinance was unanimously 2. Mr. Kriesel reported on the meeting with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and presented to the City Council some tentative proposals - see list in the committee file. There was discussion on some of these items. 3. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the Council offered a wage increase of $60.00 or 857, of the cost of living, whichever is greater for 1980 for Local No. 91. (all in favor) 4. Mr. Kriesel informed the City Council that when they set the salaries they neglected to set the salaries for Bob Conley, Stan Larson and Martin Lemon - the decision was to attempt to finish up the budget at 4:30 P. M. on Monday, December 18, 1978 and these salaries will be resolved at that meeting Mr. Kriesel was directed to prepare a list of salaries paid to each employee with over -time separated out - said list to be by name for each department. 5. On motion of Councilman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the Council accepted the interpretation given by Mr. Kriesel to be their understanding for the Firefighters Contract for 1976 -79. (all in favor) (This ws become a part for 1979) CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT 1. Mr. Elliott gave the Council a status report on the various projects that they are working on. Reliance Development Storm Sewer and other services connected with the County 66 Project Lookout Street to include blacktop North Harriet Street Sanitary Sewer - Decemger 26th meeting 2. He questioned what they should be doing with the Penthouse Acres Plat and Mr. (Nt. Mr. together on t matter. this matter.) 3. The inspector from the engineer's office inspected the location of Mr. thelsewereservicenand assess same could use Johnson - there install are 93 feet of services. ISIS • • . • • --•• • • December 12, 1978 On motion of Councioman Mahoney, seconded by Councilman Powell, Mr. Elliott was directed to prepare and proceed on this project for Mr. Feely with a Change Order to Johnson Bros. (all in favor) PUBLIC SAFETY 1. Mr. Abrahamson requested permission to remove the island at the parking lot to the south of City Hall to permit more parking in this area. (Permission was granted) 2. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council authorized free parking in Downtown Stillwater for the next two weeks. (Councilman Powell opposed) PUBLIC WORKS 1. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council authorized the attendance of George Diethert and Jeff Junker to attend a Collection Systems seminar in January - $35.00 for each one. (all in favor) 2. Mr. Shelton stated that he had a request for blocking off a portion of North Second Street for the construction of the Hi -Rise and he will keep a check on this and if it is not necessary he will take care of it and then notify the radio station and the newspaper. 3. The question of parking on the Glaser Service Station property which is currently leased to the Lowell Inn and the fact that the City promised Mr. Bliss six parking space when his property was gone - this would be for the tenants in his building. This would be six spots south of the existing gas station building with some type of signs. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council instructed the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney to check out the lease with the Lowell Inn and authorize the designation of these parking locations for Mr. Bliss. (all in favor) PARKS AND RECREATION Mr. Blekum reported that the fencing at the Croixwood Seventh Addition Park has been completed and as soon as the electriciyy is hooked up the skating rink will be opened up. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 1. Mr. Magnuson reported that all of the easements for the Stillwater Industrial Park are in order - he and Mr. Swenson checked them out and they will be ready for signatures after their meeting on Wednesday. 2. Mr. Magnuson reported that the money came to the City for the sale of the property to Dominium -it was $1,500 short and he called the escrow company and all that they need is an explanation and the money will be forthcoming. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK questioned the bill paid to Weldor Pump and asked what this was for and MR. SHELTON stated it was for the Brick Street Lift Station. QUESTIONS FROM PRESS REPRESENTATIVES None • •-• COMMITTEE REPORTS ORDINANCES Second reading - Ordinance No. 569 - Sewer Service Rates. • • • 1 1 r w 1 • 110 • ADJOURNMENT NW Attest: ad P L,4iG+aU y Clerk December 12, 1978 RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanimously adopted: 1. Directing the Payment of the Bills. 2. *Compensation for the City Attorney 3. *Vacation of a Portion of South Fourth Street -South of Myrtle Street *Pot published in the required time - repassed at future meetings. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 P. M. Mayor 4 • • • w