Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-02-06 CC MIN• • • a 165 r 0 0 0 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Stillwater, Minnesota February 6, 1979 7:30 P. M. REGULAR MEETING. The meeting was called to order by President Junker. The Invocation was given by Finance Director, Kriesel. Present: Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Absent: Councilwoman Ann Bodlovick Also Present: City Attorney, David Magnuson; Finance Director /Coordinator, Kriesel; Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton; Public Safety Director, Abrahamson; Director of Parks & Recreation, Blekum; Consulting Engineer, Elliott; Chairman of the Planning Commission, Farrell; Building Inspector, Niska. Press: Stillwater Evening Gazette - Bob Liberty Citizens: Jeanne Stenerson, Mrs. Ralph Junker, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Emanuelson, Gary Swager, Maurice Jensen, Del Peterson, Ed Cass, Teresa Schafer, Opal Petersen, Dan Grogan, Mark Carroll, Bert Christenson, Mr. and Mrs. Tom Strandberg, Jim Gannon INDIVIDUALS- DELEGATIONS 1. DEL PETERSON, representing Rivertown Restoration, stated his main reason for being present was to find out what the status of the Nelson School is and where things go from this point on. He pointed out that he had talked to the Austin group today, and they are still anxious to proceed with their six -unit condominium plan. They have arranged for financing through a bank, so Mr. Peterson feels this is a feasible alternative to demolition. Other than that, Mr. Peterson stated, there may be additional developers who may be willing to come forward, given a different set of circumstances as far as proposals, bidding, etc. He noted that after the early December meeting there were some other developers 'who came to him and other members of RTR indicating that they would have proceeded had there been somewhat different solicitation require- ments and conditions; however, how firm those would be he did not know. Mr. Peterson stated that there is one group specifically that does seem to be willing and prepared to go ahead. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON asked Mr. Peterson if the Austin group is ready to proceed on the basis of the proposal that they originally submitted, along with the time -table that they submitted. DEL PETERSON replied that they are essentially ready to do this, although some of the time limits have already passed, because under the original proposal there was to have been a contract signed within 30 days, and this would have run out the 24th of January. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON stated he was thinking basically of the start construc- tion date. DEL PETERSON stated he couldn't speak for them, but he though this was essentially their plan to begin May 1 or perhaps April 24, which would have been the 90-day period. He may not be able to meet that date, but it would be very close to it. MR. RICHARD EMANUELSON, 1017 South Second Street, asked if the Austin Group is really interested in their proposal, why haven't they ever approached the neighbors. MAYOR JUNKER pointed out that they were ready to meet with the neighbors until the lawsuit was started. DEL PETERSON concurred with this, stating that the Austin Group had -epared site plans and were in a position to meet with the neighborhood, and heir schedules were deferred by the court action. Mr. Peterson said he felt the group is concerned about neighborhood reaction. He had talked to Ike Austin tonight, and Mr. Austin asked if he sho -id come to this meeting, but Mr. Peterson told him he felt Mr. Austin's presence was not necessary at this time, since he did not know what the Council's action would be. Mr. Peterson stated he was sure the Austin Group would be willing to meet with the neighborhood and Council at any time. OPAL PETERSEN, 1109 South First Street, asked what the last action the Council had taken on the property was. 1 • • • • 1 r • s 166 February 6, 1979 MAYOR uncil hasn't any voted to tear since then. building down, and the then OPAL PETERSEN asked if six condominiums go on that corner, what is the ordinance with regard to off - street parking for a multiple dwelling. RON NISRA gated the ordinance dictates two parking spaces per unit, one to be enclosed. OPAL PETERSEN asked where the parking would be on the property. RON NISKA replied that a plan which he saw called for a carport in the back. MRS. PETERSON stated she has lived across from the school for a number of years, and she can't possibly see where there could be any parking and still keep the structure as it is. DAVID MAGNUSON stated that he did not feel the City is under duty to consider just one proposal. Anyone who is interested should be allowed to propose a plan to the City. MYRL PETERSEN, 1109 South First Street, pointed out that when the school admin- istration occupied the building, they didn't have room for 12 cars, and that was one of the reasons they moved out, to his knowledge. Most of the cars parked curbside or in the playground area at that time. If there were a car- port, Mr. Petersen, added, it would have to be one long, thin carport, and everyone would have to move to let someone else out. MIKE RONKIN, formerly living on South Third Street, noted if the intent was to restore the buildingi9utting in a carport or garage would change the whole visual setting of the school. It would not look as it does now. MARK CARROLL, 1104 South First, stated that he knew of a lot of developers who looked at the building and shook their heads and walked away. The glass in the windows is all broken out, and the frames are disintegrating. It was Mr. Carroll's understanding that in order to keep this a historical structure, it must be kept basically the same way as it is. He said it was beyond him how anyone could keep this building the way that it is without changing the structure. Mr. Carroll said he knows of someone who toured the building and said that there was no way he could financially renovate the building without losing money. Mr. Carroll wondered how many people have even gone by the building in the last five years. He doesn't feel it is a nice site to look at every day. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON stated that the people from the Austin Group apparently inspected the building and found that it was feasible to do what they proposed to do, and there were others who inspected the building at that point and time who indicated it is structurally sound and feasible to proceed with restoration without changing the exterior, which is part of the proposal with which they must abide. BERT CHRISTENSON, 1007 South Second Street, stated he has been a taxpayer for thirty years in this town, and he doesn't see where the Rivertown Restoration people can say that they are taxpayers and then because of their lawsuit the judge gives an order that the building should be restored. Forty years ago, Mr. Christenson stated, the Lincoln School or the Central School where the Junior High sits right now, should have been restored. MRS. CHRISTENSON, 1007 South Second Street, wondered how the structure can be kept as it is when it doesn't have adequate windows in it. CAROL STRANDBERG stated she lives next door to the building, and as a neighbor she shares the same concern - she wants something done with the building, but she does not want it demolished. She wants something done which will fit into the neighborhood and be a plus. She wished that the neighbors could give a little more so that the City Council would have something standing representa- tive of that era. In most cases, Mrs. Strandberg pointed out, the building was there before a lot of the houses were. MYRL PETERSEN asked if the building is feasible for restoration, why didn't the School Board restore it. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON replied that the building was too small for the district's purposes. They wanted a new, modern building, which they now have. MAYOR JUNKER asked Ron Niska how may variances would be necessary for the build- ing, if it were to be converted to a six -unit condominium. RON NISKA replied that according to the zoning ordinance, perhaps close to ten variances. Mr. Niska had not received the building plans yet, so he couldn't say for sure, but he felt there would be between five and ten. There would have to be a Public Hearing for the variances, which would then be reviewed by the City Council. • • • • 1 r • •. • 0 0 0 February 6, 1979 OPAL PETERSEN asked if it was the intent to restore the building to the original structure as it was originally built. If so, will every move the developer makes be governed by the Historical Society. Mrs. Petersen felt $600 to $800 a month in rent would have to be charged in order to make it an economically feasible venture. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON stated the proposal was for a owner- occupied condominium. MAYOR JUNKER pointed out four of the six condominiums would be owner occupied. OPAL PETERSEN asked what effect Jude Tomljanovich's order has on the Council's action previously taken. DAVID MAGNUSON stated that the judge found Nelson School to be a historic resource. Her order stated " . The matter is remitted for further proceedings by the City Council to determine whether or not there is a feasible and prudent alternative to the destruction of the school." MRS. PETERSON asked if this is a direct order to rescind the previous action of the Council. MR. MAGNUSON replied that this is not an order to do so. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Magnuson if, in other words, the Judge just put the matter back into the hands of the City. MR. MAGNUSON replied that she did so, for further investigation and further inquiry as to whether any of these proposals might be prudent or feasible. RICHARD EMANUELSON asked if the neighborhood has enough objections to any alternatives that RTR.comes up with, could That fulfill the requirements of the order. DAVID MAGNUSON stated there is no case law diredtly on this because it is a new area, but he felt that how it fits into the neighborhood would certainly be a fact to consider in determining whether a plan is feasible. MR. EMANUELSON asked if this would be carried to a higher court if RTR or the City won't accept the outcome. DAVID MAGNUSON replied that this would be an alternative the City would have. DEL PETERSON stated he hated to pit the neighborhood against RTR and the Austin Group. He felt that if the Council decides to look just at this proposal, it would be wise for the neighborhood and Council to get togehter with the Austin Group so that some of these problems can be resolved. He noted that a lot of the problems are conflicting. For example, the first proposal they came up with was to have a 12 on -site parking spots, with six of them in garages. Some of the neighb ors objected to the garage because it would have interfered with their view. So then the group considered screening the parking with shrubbery so that the neighbors would not see it. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the Austin Group is willing to cooperate with the neighborhood, and rather than extending the litigation that is going on, he would prefer to see energies at this point directed at trying to reach some kind of a resolution. On the other hand, Mr. Peterson said, if the Council feels that it is best or perhaps man- datory that they open the situation for some fort of a bidding or that other offers be presented, he felt that route should be taken. Mr. Peterson stated that he recognizes the neighborhood's concern, since any boarded up building is objectionable, so the faster something can be done, the better it will be for everyone. MAYOR JUNKER wanted to point out to Mrs. Emanuelson that he had met with Del Peterson and Ike Austin, and he felt that they would proceed if she would give them a thane. It would be perhaps June 4 before they would begin, but the Austin Group made the proposal that they would give the City $23,500 for the Nelson School within thirty days, which was a month ago. So now the month would have to go to March 6 or 7. If the Austin Group did not start by June 15, they would forfiet the $23,500 to the City of Stillwater and in turn give the building to Kilty to be demolished. They agreed to shrub any area between Emanuelson's property and their property so that the on-site parking would be screened. Mayor Junker went on to say that if the City would give them a variance they would have no garages - it would be all on -site parking with no covered garages whatsoever. Mayor Junker pointed out that the neighbors would have received a copy of this proposal by now if the Court Order had not stopped their action. Mayor Junker stated ,gat if the Austin Group is ready to go, he feels that is one alternative the neighbors and City Council should consider, and if Austin has not started construction by June 15 in a way that shows - that their Building Permits and everything are in order - then they would fordeit the building. No one else has come before the Council with a proposal that the Mayor felt was acceptable to the City and to the neighbors. Mayor dominium, but believedethisgplans didn't oneithaththedneighborsco six-unit d live with. 167 • • • • • r •168 • February 6, 1979 MRS. EMANUELSON stated that the developer might come in with their proposal now, but they might start building and decide that they cannot finish it. Then they will sell it to someone else. She has talked to several people who say six condominiums are not feasible - no one can make money on six con- dominiums. Mrs. Emanuelson felt that the developer would come back to the Council and ask for a variance for eight. She stated that no one will go into a condominium and pay a lot of money without provision for a garage. The only place for garages or a carport is next to her property. Mrs. Emanuelson pointed out that the original petition that came to the City right after the school moved out stated that the neighbors did not want multiple housing in the neighborhood. She said they have never had that much in the neighborhood and they do not want it now. She acknowledged that they were being very stubborn about this but suggested that the building be moved to some other neighborhood. MAYOR JUNKER stated he agreed and would like to see the building torn down this e was this h, years. He felt that however. RICHARD EMANUELSON stated he believed the court said any feasible and prudent alternative, and this just isn't to their thinking. They don't want this building in their community, and they will fight every variance, if necessary. He stated the City is asking the neighborhood toM give eman prior riorn en w hic h they cannot go along with. By prior agreement, the granting of variances. betweenTfiivve that the there be even looked at the plans as yet. Mr. Petersen asked if that figure might double. He felt residents couldn't build a garage or change the sturcture of their home with that many variances. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON pointed out that the Council had granted many variances on the housing for the elderly. MIKE RONKIN stated that he had lived on South Third Street severl years. He stated that at 1001 -1003 South Third there are five apartments where there is supposedly off - street parking but he has called the police numberous times becuse outathatctheyadon'toparkgon the off- street problems felt City pointed ars would run into the same problem at this site. DAN GROGAN, 805 West Orleans, felt that if the Austin Group is interested in its proposal, they should address the Council with a set of finalized plans. He felt it would be difficult to sell a $50,000 unit without a garage. He felt it might be wise to set a specific time period within which the City G roup would look at all alternatives. If no other plan comes forth, the could then commit themselves to certain plans so that the neighbors can air their objections. that others forward withdtbeiroproposals. prudent to accept all alternatives, so DICK EMANUELSON stated that he believed when action was taken on the Welch the to more delays. it or decision NtoRremoverthe building felt Council had made a closed. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON asked the Mayor what should be done with the court order -- should the Council defy it? MAYOR JUNKER replied that there were developers who said there was no way to restore the building, and he said the Council has the right to defy the court and tear the building down. COUNCILMAN POWELL felt that the Council had not exhausted every possibility. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON pointed out that there is a developer who is willing to restore the building and pay the City $23,500, so the Council cannot say that it has exhausted all the possibilities. MAYOR JUNKER asked Councilman Pererson, if, in effect, he would take the $23.500 over the wishes of the neighbors. COUNCILMAN L ILMA all PETe SONitiitereated that he exhausted. re is a proposal before the ED CASS pointed out that in addition to the court order, there is an injunction from tearing down the building. • a- e e • • • • s February b, 1979 1 66 • • r 0 N 0 • DAVE MAGNUSON stated that there is a new order which does not say anything about continuing the injunction in effect, but it was his feeling that the injunction is still in effect restraining the sale to Mr. Kilty. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that the Council on many occasions has had to determine something which was in opposition to the people in the audience. He felt that the Council has had to proceed with what they felt was necessary. Councilman Powell pointed out that there is more involved than just the neighborhood, because the $13,500 belongs to the whole City and not just the neighborhood. In addition he felt the additional taxeb which will be realized for years should be a consideration, and the City would not lose money on this. The taxes will be double or triple what they would be with two homes. MRS. CHRISTENSON stated the building has already cost the City $2,000 - boarding up windows, removing trees, cutting grass, etc. COUNCILMAN POWELL said nevertheless, that could be made up very easily with the money the City would receive from the proposed condominium. He restated that everyone in the City has a rigen to see that the City does something that is best for the whole City. Ha felt this does not become just a neighborhood problem when it is a historic building - it is a problem of the whole City. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON pointed out that the fact remains that the City has a court order saying that it must investigate all feasible alternatives, so that is what the Council must do. MAYR EMANUELSON asked if it would be possible to question the citizens of Stillwater in a questionnaire with the utility bill as to whether or not each citizen wants this building saved. She felt in that way everyone would be approached. He feltMaNfeasibleRalternative was not a feel survey but aa feasible alternative. proposal. MARY EMANUELSON pointed out that the building has never been condominiums before. Now the whole inside of the building will have to be ripped out. The judge had asked if that would make any difference in the building's historic status, and Mrs. Emanuelson wated to know Mr. Cass' reply. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON stated the judge must have been satisfied with the answer, because she ruled the way she did. COUNCILMAN H. PETERSON stated that he was a newcomer on the Council and probably the least knowledgable about the Nelson School issue, although he has tired to follow it very closely. He chose to not reveal his personal preference on the matter of selling the building or disposing of it. Mr. Peterson felt the City was faced with a prob lem of listening to a judge's order that all prudent and feasible methods be found to save the building, and also a very vocal and recognizable neighborhood group. Mr. Peterson said he recognized the needs of the neighborhood in terms of what his reaction would be if the building were next to his home. He felt the court was asking the City to take another look at the retention possibilities of this building and he didn't think the City could limit those retention possibilities and proposals to just the Austin Group. Mr. Peterson had heard from some individuals butttheyefeltrthes were sort of outtutheirgfinanc renovation, financing. COUNCILMAN H. PETERSON stated that he would like to move that the Council receive proposals, and he had before him a Solicitation for Proposals dated February 9, 1979, which he read before making his motion: That the City Council of Stillwater will receive proposals for feasible and prudent alternatives to the destruction of the property known a.: the old Nelson Scnool, until 7:00 P. M., April 9, 1979. Proposals shall include a statement by the proposer indicating the proposed use of the building, the number of units, the ownership, the source of financing, any zoning variances required, inng variances to the area requirements, recreational facilities re- quirements, parking requirements, and floor area ratio requirements, proposed landscaping plans, exterior alteration plans, interior alteration plans. The proposer shall indicated his willingness to be bound by all Agreement, and the the enclosed oser Purchase indiicateetheand Development proposedpurchase price. Agreement, P (continued on the next nage) • • • •( 170 • February 6, 1979 Proposals will be considered by the City Council at the next regular meeting following receipt, and the proposer will be given an oppor- tunity to be heard by the Council if he desires. The City Council reserves the right to reject all proposals. COUNCILMAN H. PETERSON stated that this Solicitation for Proposals says that the Council will take another look at this building, so that we will not be charged with being in violation of the judge's order to exhaust prudent and feasible means to save the building. At the same time, Mr. Peterson felt the Council should make it very clear that it will not tolerate further delays. He stated that if the proposers come in and ask for additional time to work out financing or ask for additional variances, the Council would be the final of the outright proposals, as indicated in Proposals. On motion of Councilman H. Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Council will make available the Solicitation for Proposals, the Purchase Greeement, which is acRestrictivewCove to any and the Development Agreement, Y tac those who wish to make proposals as to the restoration of Nelson School. AYES -- Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, and Powell. NAYS - -Mayor Junker MAYOR ORe Hanl uncedrth UNKERat thenSolicitation7for9Prroposals would be available announced PETITIONS MAURICE JENSON represented Independent School District #834 and stated he was requesting water service into Blocks 6 and 9 of Sabin's Addition. He point out the School District owns property there which they would like to sell, but it was determined that there was no water service there at present. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON asked MR. Jenson if he had been in cotact with any of the palnning groups which are in the process of updating the long -range Comprehensive Plan. MR. JENSON replied that he had not, although Jeff Zoller had called him that morning and indicated that there was something in the Plan which called for a green area for this property, which is the first Mr. Jenson had heard about it and the School Board is not aware of this. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON felt it would be wise to ask the School District to check with the Planning Commission and the long -range plans to determine what the proposals are for that ravine before authorizing the feasibility study. MAYOR JUNKER asked DUANE ELLIOTT if he had look at this property. MR. ELLIOTT stated he had viewed the property and noted that the prcperty lacks water service, but there is also no sewer on Cherry Street; however, the there is sewer Cherry Streetowillnrequireesanitary sewer also. the lots on the south also MAURICE JENSON pointed out that Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 will not be sold, because the School District has palyground equipment on it. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated Jeff Zoller had indicated a concern to him about Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. the MR. ea, but N the l Sch of Districts feelsltheywareh fit in best for a green buildable. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Jenson if he could wait for about a month, when the Planning Commission will have its meeting. MR. JENSON felt they could wait that long. MAYOR JUNKER also felt that it should be determined if these are buildable lots before proceeding. On motion by Councilman R. Peterson, seconded by Councilman H. Peterson, the Council referred the petition by the School District with regard to Blocks 6 and 9 Sabina Addition to the Building Inspector and the Planning Commission. This will then be considered at the first Council meeting in March. (all in favor) • • • • Er • 0 • February 6, 1979 DAVE MAGNUSON pointed out that by ordinance if a feasibility study is done on the property, the School District will pay for this study. THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 8:30 TO 8:45 P. M. APPLICATIONS On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the following Contractor's Licenses were granted: (all in favor) Capp Homes, Inc. Renewal 3355 Hiawatha, Minneapolis, Mn. 55406 General Lindberg & Sons Renewal 10710 - 88th St. No., Stillwater General Asphalt Specialties (Michael J. Leuer) 1900 Quant Ave. So., Lakeland, Mn. 55043 Asphalt New - - -On motion of Councilman H. Peterson, seconded by Councilman R. Peterson, the following Cigarette License was granted: (all in favor) Jack L. Meyers - J. D. Bait Transfer 806 South Main St., Stillwater UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. MAYOR JUNKER filled the following Commission appointments and vacancies: Mrs. Robert L. Olson - Library Board, as recommended by the Library Board On motion of Councilman R. Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Council approved the appointment of Mrs. Robert L. Olson to the Library Board. (all in favor) -- Commission Appointments of Council Members to Committees as follows: Public Safety - Mayor Junker and Councilman Powell Administration - Mayor Junker and Councilman H. Peterson Recreation - Councilmen Powell and H. Peterson Library - Councilman R. Peterson Planning - Councilwoman Ann Bodlovick Joint Powers - Councilwoman Bodlovick, and Councilman H. Peterson Land Plan Use - Councilwoman Bodlovick Public Works - Mayor Junker and Councilman R. Peterson TOM the names L of twolcandidatesetol fillnthevaacancynon presented with the Planning Commission MAYOR JUNKER Noted that Brad MacDonald had also been interested in serving on the Planning Commission, and he asked Mr. Farrell if the Commission would interview him at their next meeting. MR. FARRELL said they would do so. INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS Mayor Junker asked if there was anyone in the audience who had business before the Council. 1. GARY SWAGER, representing Swager Bros., Inc. stated that he had received approval last evening from the Planning Commission on the plat of Cooper's Addition, and he was asked at that meeting to appear before the Council for its approval. Mr. Swager noted that he had been restricted to a maximum of six duplexes and the rest single family residences. He showed the plat to the Council, noting that this is what they had come up with after meetings with the neighors and Planning Commission about 18 months ago. Mr. Swager had net with Harold Kimmel, City Attorney at the time, and they had decided to call the plat a PUD Concept which included the agreement that there would be no more than six duplexes, and the rest would be single family. SWAGER were meeting s Public Hearing before, but at that time Mr. Swager was told that he had to come back to the Council with the hard shell. Mr. Swager is now asking for the preparation of the restrictions to which he had agreed earlier with Mr. Kimmel. MR. MAGNUSON felt this should be referred to Mr. Kimmel, since he has a serious conflict of interest in this case. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Peterson, Swager Bros. Plat for Cooper's Additions a the byithen subject to Attorney Harold Kimmel's app ri (all in favor) which also cover this property. 171 • • • • wf • ° 172 February 6, 1979 NEW BUSINESS 1. NILE KRIESEL asked for authorization to sign the Metro HRA Section Eight Housing Program Agreement and CETA Title II and VI sub - contracts. He noted that the City could lose the CETA financing at any time. On motion of Councilman R. Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Finance Director was authorized to sign the Metro HRA Section Eight Housing Program Agreement and CETA Title II and VI sub - contracts. (all in favor) 2. On motion of Councilman R. Peterson, seconded by Councilman H. Peterson, a Resolution was introduced "DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS ". AYES - Councilmen H. Peterson, R. PowelPowell and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None COMMUNICATIONS - -From the Natural Gas Supplies Company. (no action) - -From Nancy Hardy, Epilepsy Program, University of Minnesota. NILE KRIESEL stated that Ms. Hardy would like to use office space in the Citu Hall for three days a week. She told him there would not be much traffic, and she would use the office 16 to 24 hours per week. Mr. Kriesel noted that there was a room available for this purpose. Ms. Hardy has no funds with which to pay for the space. On motion of Councilman R. Peterson, seconded by Councilman H. Peterson, the Council granted Ms. Nancy Hardy, Epilepsy Program at the University of Minnesota, office space on a trial basis for a period of three months. (all in favor) CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT 1. NILE KRIESEL stated Charles Swenson, representative for I.U.O.E. Local No. 49 proposed a 55c increase, with no fringsbenefits involved. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman H. Peterson, the Local y49 Contract (Public Works and Parks Department Employees) will be signed at an increase of 55c per hour, with no fringe benefits involved for the year 1979. (all in favor) CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT 1. DICK MOORE reported that the status of the Stillwater Industrial Park utilities are just about complete. He noted there will be some catch basins that won't be installed until spring. 2. DUANE ELLIOTT noted that Stillwater is one of the communities the Metropolitan Waste Control Board will be refunding money to in the near future. 3. MR. ELLIOTT asked if he could attend the Stillwater Township To Board meeting to review County No. 66 improvements. On motion of Councilman R. Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Consulting Engineer was instructed to attend the Stillwater Township Board Meeting. (all in favor) 4. MR. ELLIOTT distributed copies of the Feasibility Study for Interlachen Plats No. 1 and No. 2. He noted that the matter of providing utilities for both additions is not too dicciult, but very costly, at least for one. Mr. Elliott then went through the conclusionfl and recommendations with the Council. It was pointed out that the estimated cost for streets, utilities and - drainage improvements in Interlachen I will be $8,000 per lot, which is higher than normal, and this does not include the cost for the lift station. The estimated cost to serve the four lots in Interlachen II (across County Road No. 12) is $19,310 per lot, due to the long run for both watermain and sanitary sewer that is not assessable to anyone else but that property. Mr. Elliott felt the developer would have to look hard at developing those lots at that cost. The estimated cost of the trunk sanitary sewer is $544 per acre. It is possible that the sanitary sewer could serve up to eight sqaure miles of property. He pointed out the importance of involving the Township in this service, citing the proposed development to the northwest which would be served by this system. Mr. Elliott pointed out that Reliance Development Company representatives have not seen this report. He stated that this would require a Public Hearing for those who might be assessed. Mr. Elliott said he would send a copy of this report to Reliance and suggest to them that they contact the City Council with regard to a Public Hearing on the matter. Interlachen I lots are roughly one - third of an acre, so the assessment would be $200 per lot. L • a • • 7 • • February 6, 1979 173 • • 0 DAVID MAGNUSON suggested that the Council direct Mr. Elliott to talk to the Stillwater Township Board about .his matter. The Council members concurred. ADMINISTRATIVE No report COMMITTEE REPORTS PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE 1. MR. ABRAHAMSON requested a "No Parking" sign on the south side of Oak Street between Third and Fourth Streets. It was noted that there is a problem during the winter, because the off - street parking sites are not used. JACK SHELTON felt that there shouldn't have to be so many "no parking" signs posted, but the people involved should be told to abide by their original stipulations as to parking. MAYOR JUNKER instructed Mr. Abrahamson to send the citizens involved a letter asking them to park in their parking lot, and then this will be reviewed at the next Council meeting to see if the situation has improved. This procedure will be used for all no parking" sign request by the Public Safety Committee this evening. 2. MR. ABRAHAMSON noted that on Chillkoot Hill there have been as many as seven cars in one day broadside, and the police have had to spend two to three hours there trying to gec the cars out. He suggested barracing the hill for the winter. JACK SHELTON said the barrier would have to be permanent, because other - have people closeucallsswi drive hcarsthrough it. Mr. Abrahamson onthehill. Mr. Shelton said is also the trucks can sand it. barracaded, butethere noted be this year. wouldn't year. The Council decided to leave the hill open. PUBLIC WORKS No report PARKS AND RECREATION 1. On motion of Councilman R. Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, Messrs. Blekum, Hamble and Bartkey were authorized to attend a Grounds Maintenance Seminar at the University of Minnesota on February 22, 1979 at a fee of $10.00 each. (all in favor) 2. The level of Lily Lake was discussed, and it was noted that it would have to be pumped again this year. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that this problem will get increasingly worse as the Industrial Park develops and as Interlachen comes in, and he felt that pumping a lake year after year is throwing money down the drain. Mr. Powell suggested overflow sewer system might be let remain constant. an onstant. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Elliott to secure a permit from the DNR to pump Lily Lake this spring, and als, find out if they would approve a solution which would be permanent. CITY ATTORNEY' S REPORT 1. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman R. Peterson, the City Council had the first reading by title of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 444 and Ordinance No. 417 of the City of Stillwater, Regulating Parking in the City of Stillwater. (all in favor) (see ordinances) 2. DAVID MAGNUSON reviewed with the Council the status of the taxi dispute. He stated that the District Court signed a pre - emptory writ of mandamus to re- instate the taxi license before the hearing. He spoke with the judge and argued that the writ had been improperly issued, and the judge agreed with Mr. Magnuson but he continued it in effect because he didn't want to put someone out of business without a hearing. The hearing was continued until Friday. Since Mrs. Bodlovick will be out of town Friday, Mr. Walsh agreed to continue the case and the order will be in effect until the hearing, which Mr. Magnuson felt would not be held for about a month. Mr. Magnuson suggested to the Council that the new taxicab ordinance be adopted tonight. He stated that the first reading had been held by title ue some weeks ago. Mr. Magnuson felt this ordinance would resolve the litigation without a court appearance. The ordinance is largely de- regulatory. There is no rate regulation, although it provides that cabs must have taxicab meters. There is no provision for continuous service. He felt two taxi -cab companies • • • 9 • 1 174 4 Attest :1/., li7f' nC ✓ 7/ //�- -+•��/ Finance Director /Coordinator Taken and transcribed by Carol Slawik February 6, 1979 would ve good for the City and benefit the citizens. He pointed out the ordnance provides not only for licenses for the cabs but also for the drivers. Mr. Magnuson recommended that this ordinance be looked at in terms of resolving this litigation. He also noted that the ordinance can be changed at any time. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON suggested that perhaps the second reading of the Ordinance take place at the next Council meeting, since this was the first time the Council had seen a copy of it. MR. MAGNUSON concurred with this suggestion. COUNCILMAN H. PETERSON asked if the cab companies were aware of this document, and Mr. Magnuson replied that they were not. Mr. Peterson felt that this was the Council's first obligation to see that the cab companies received copies of the proposed ordinance. On motion of Councilman H. Peterson, seconded by Councilman R. Peterson, the Council instructed the City Attorney to send the taxicab companies in Stillwater a copy of the proposed taxicab ordinance, with the added information that this is the first draft and there will be a second reading of the ordinance at the Council's next meeting. (all in favor) ORDINANCES First Reading - Amenin Ordinance No. 444 Ordinance water, RegulatingParkingin 4 City the City of Stillwater. RESOLUTIONS The following resolution was read and on roll call was adopted: 1. Directing the Payment of the Bills. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman R. Peterson, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P. M. Mayor U • a • • •