Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-04-10 CC MIN• • 218 COUNCIL CHAMBER Stillwater, Minnesota REGULAR MEETING The meeting was called to order by President Junker. The Invocation was given by the City Clerk. Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Absent: Also Present: Press: Citizens: None April 10, 1979 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, Bklekum; C nsulting Engineers, Elliott and Moore; Building Inspector, Niska; Water-Depart- ment - Dennis McKean Stillwater Evening Gazette - Liberty WAVN - Gary Larson Mr. & Mrs. Harold Howie, Jack Dielentheis, Scott Nelson, Mr. & Mrs. Norbert Riepe, Edgerton Bronsun, Captain Griffith, Warren Smith, John Kohout, Mr. & Mrs. Mike Doe, John Serier, Mr. & Mrs. Amdahl, Al Overman, Del Peterson, Guy Dilts, Bob Muller, James Hunt, Mr. & Mrs. Dick Emanuelson, Mrs. Oscar Long, Bill Hart, Bert Christenson, Mr. & Mrs. Charles Beyers, Dick Muller, Mr. & Mrs. Mark Carroll, Mrs. Theresa Schaffer, Mr. & Mrs. Paul Strandberg, Edward Deiss, Mary Wolff, Jeff Zoller, Marie Zoller, Dick Jeans, Jeanne Stenerson, Shirley Tibbetts, Bob Rygg, Bud Kern, Mr. Torseth, Al Ranum, Wilbert Monson, Marge Flattum, Dick Houston, Jack Lux, Gary Swager, Jayne Finnegan Smith, Heidi Smith INDIVIDUALS- DELEGATIONS 1. SCOTT NELSON, 313 Northland Avenue appeared before the City Council regarding the drainage on Edgewood Ditch - he presented numerous pictures to the Council indicat- ing the problems with the drainage and the debris in the area. This year again if there is a lot of heavy rains from the storms that the potential for water to come over the hill will flood his backyard and put a lot of debris back there. He realized that Orrin Thompson had some obligation to correc` this matter and did not know the plans for the cleaning up of the area. The kids are constantly down there - it is a battle. He requested the burial of that ditch, because it is a misquoto hatchery and aethetically not nice looking - it is a worry about the water running over it. He felt that if Thompson does not fix it that the City cou'1 use some of the bond money to fix it up. MR. ELLIOTT stated that he has not seen it this spring, but he did see it last fall and that Orrin Thompson was to be over here with a crew and they were to contact Jack, but he did talk to them today and they have not done anything since he saw that Mr. Riepe was here this evening. It is a problembeyond this inlet - the ditch has a very flat grade in it - there is often debris in there and it is an attraction for the kids - he did not know whether or not the City could re- quire Orrin Thompson to pipe the ditch is a debatable question - at the time the improvement went in, the ditch was an acceptaole method since the water goes into Long Lake and going thru grass and ponds helps to clean the water up before it gets to Long Lake. It is a touch - and -go thing to get thru DNR at the time and he questioned now in the light of all of the problems. If a pipe were to in there - a 30 inch pipe - the cost would be quite substantial and it is question- able whether the City could require Thompson to do it. The City is holding about $30,000 in bonds at this time which have never been released and the bonds are to insure the completion of items such as boulevards, boulevard trees, curbs, streets to the satisfaction of the City. Last fall a substantial punch list was sent to Thompson's organization and that was discussed at a meeting today and a meeting will be held with Don Patton next week, but they did not discuss this ditch at any great length. MR. NELSON felt that now was the time to do it since there are no rains and he was real concerned with the situation. This is a real poor thing to have in this area. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Elliott to get some quotations for the improvement of the ditch and get back to the Council with these figures and give them to Orrin Thompson. MR. ELLIOTT stated that in approving this plat there was reference made to this ditch - there was a specific resolution that there be sodding. • r r L . . • • i • e 0 April 10, 1979 MR. SHELTON read the details of this resolution which Mr. Riepe had with him and it was only seeded and not sodded and all of the bank washed down into the bottom of the ditch. He felt that it was a very poor job that was done here. MAYOR JUNKER asked that the City Attorney send a letter to Mr. Thompson about repairing this ditch and inform him of the stand that we are going to take - that we are going to sod it and take the money out of the bond. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the bond is mucn the same as a performance bond for a contractor - the City doesn't have the money in the bank and there might be a problem in collecting the money from the bonding company - he would like to have David Magnuson involved - give them the opportunity to do the work first and give them a deadline. MRS. NORBERT RIEPE, 302 Edgewood Avenue, presented to the Council several pictures of the east side of the ditch in relation to their property. She was puzzled by the statement that was made that part of this improvement was done for certain property owners at the City's expense and was surprised that the City would come in and alleviate a homeowners problem. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK AND MAYOR JUNKER assured her that the City did not pay for it and that City demanded Orrin Thompson to take care of it. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the work done on the east of this ditch was the part of a contract and there was alternate bids - one to put a pipe in there and the other for a ditch. The grade problems were very severe and he stated that he wished it would have been done the other way. MAYOR JUNKER indicated that the last time that Mr. Riepe was here this work was to be done, but there was no follow thru - it was an oversight on somebody's part and they have not done the job. MR. ELLIOTT stated that it is tied into the bond and approvals were made and he was ordered to do it and it was a requirement of the approval of the plat. He felt at this time it would be better if the letter came from the City Attorney, but that he would be glad to work with him on this including the copy of the re- solution. MAYOR JUNKER informed the Riepe's and the Nelson's that they would be informed as to the progress on this project through the City Clerk or the City's Finance Officer. (Copies of all letters to be sent to these two parties) 2. MR. MERTON BRONSON, Consolidated Lumber Co., appeared before the City Council regarding the proposed $900,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds - the reason were outlined in the resolution and the other papers presented for this project. They are in need of a larger location and the money is tight today. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT: REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL: AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS." AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Mayor and the City Clerk were authorized to sign the MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT for the Consolidated Lumber Company Project (all in favor) On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Mayor and the City Clerk were authorized to sign "THE STATEMENT CONCERNING A PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474 ". (all in favor) 3. CAPTAIN GRIFFITH appeared before the Council regarding his Wharfage Permit - he will be leasing property from Muller Boat Works - they are promoting travel by bus as much as possible (much cheaper and safer and conserve fuel), - made arrangments with the State of Minnesota to park busses near the State Prison during the week and on the State property off the highway on Saturdays and Sundays - that would be an alternative to taking them all the way up to the Lutheran Church. He would like to keep his present areas for loading and unloading due to the expense that there has been in putting in all of the rings and other things at this point, including his alternator. On the east side of the parking, he would like to have the City put in signs on the meters in "highway orange" "NO JUBILEE PARKING ". He will see to it that their people park in the alloted area. On Lumberjack Days they will not interfere in anyway (water activities or any others) on the river. 2 19 • • • • • April 10, 1979 He would like permission to park cars at night on the Lowell Park parking area when the parking area is almost empty anyway. He would like to know if they could still have the Grand March for the Junior /Senior Prom go across the park. He would like to have an alternate upstream landing (if they run upstream) - they would go upstream when the parking or the traffic on the bridge is at the very minimal factor - land and moor at that point and they would not come down stream at any time or go through the bridge when the traffic is excessively heavy until there are some other boats going through at the same time. MAYOR JUNKER asked how many daus of the week that he expected to run upstream and he stated three days per week. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that at the Public Works meeting it was discussed if he was to go upstream Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday would be the proper time to go rather than Friday, Saturday or Sundays or holidays. MR. GRIFFITH stated that the reason for the alternate landing would be if they had people who wanted to go upstream they would not have to hold traffic on the bridge, but they would like the security of their present location - it is not feasible for him to tie up especially at the car wash because of all of the rubble that is under the water there. He stated that they are more susceptible to vandalism when they are down there - it is wide open and the police do not get to that area and no lighting. He is talking about the point just to the south of Mullers and there is a place where they can get there - it is above the storm sewer - it is the curve of the point. MAYOR JUNKER asked if there would be any problems and BOB MULLER stated that the only problem that he could see is with the people who park their trailers there and trying to keep the people out of there. MAYOR JUNKER stated that the Council agrees that if Captain Griffith wanted to park there and could tie up there they would have no objection to that, couldn't guaranteee that they could - if there is a spot and they want to tie up there, it would be perfectly all right. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated it was the raising of the bridge and the time that it takes to do that on a weekend when the traffic is heavy and COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK agreed with that bit occasionally he goes north of the bridge he wants to dock north of the bridge until the traffic is thru and then come back to his regular place to park, he is indicating weekends and she wanted his feelings on that. CAPTAIN GRIFFITH stated that they would not come back downstream unless the traffic was down to an absolute minimum - they don't want to hold the traffic on the bridge. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that he would guess that the reasoning of the Public Safety Committee would be that the Jubilee not go through the bridge on weekends or holidays whether they are coming back down or whether they wanted to go back up - that they would have to be there - if he was going to the north of the bridge on a holiday, that he would already have to be there. CAPTAIN GRIFFITH agreed to that and not during peak traffic. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked if this has been discussed with the Retail Committee - -the additional proposals and he indicated that he had discussed it with a good many of them and they will have a meeting to go over them completely and that the main ones are sitting right here in this room. DICK JEANS questioned his parking on the north side of the bridge as his patron parking could interfere with Hooley's Parking Lot and CAPTAIN GRIFFITH stated that he has already has talked to Jack Hooley about this, and they will control their parking there. MR. JEANS felt that Hooley's are very important to downtown and before the Council moves on a parking spot on the north, during a busy weekend this would not be fair to the Hooley's. BILL HANN felt that the consequences of the Jubilee parking location is very important not only to Stillwater as a whole, but to the downtown - it extremely important that we know the terms - the locations that we are talking about and that we should get this thing down in writing and review it and both the retailers and Mr. Griffith - he felt that it is important that we make sure that Jack Hooley is protected in these moving schemes because we are talking with someone who has other business interests now and it is very important that he be treated properly and his property not be used by other businesses so to speak. He asked the Council if they had an opportunity to review the letter that Mr. Magnuson wrote concerning the piece of property to the south of the carwash. He showed the Council how this piece of property ties in with the overall scheme of the downtown which is owned by one of the railroads - Mr. Magnuson has made some contacts with the people and they are apparently willing to negotiate the City's leasing and buying of that property which ties importantly with the overall scheme of the parking on the south end of Stillwater. He was hopeful • Ow- • • • • • • L IP April 10, 1979 of developinz some communication as far as the so- called "Erickson Lot" and that the lot that is owned by McGuire. He would like to suggest at this time the approval be delayed on the Wharfage Permits to the Jubilee until such a time as we have an opportunity to really find out the terms and the locations of the Jubilee and also request that Mr. Magnuson be given permission to see what kind of terms can be made on the piece of property to the south of the carwash lot for future development - parking and possible wharfage of charter boats. That is the position of the Downtown Council at this time - study the overall impact of the Jubilee and its locations and have Mr. Magnuson investigate the possibility of leasing and buying this property. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked Mr. Muller if the Jubilee were to stay above the bridge on weekends, it is normal to believe that there would be more parking on the north side of the bridge and MR. MULLER stated that he is not worried about the parking as that is taken care of. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked if the north side isn't full of cars that put in boats and bring boats down - if the boat was up and there was a space available it would then be used by some patrons of the Jubilee. MR. MULLER stated there is no parking in this area and felt that this area would work out really well. CAPTAIN GRIFFITH stated that he has already talked to Mr. McGuire about parking at the carwash and they have come to the terms of what the lease is going to cost him for the area that he owns. There is space for 75 cars at this location. MAYOR JUNKER asked about any problems and CHIEF ABRAHAMSON stated that the busses have 'aeen the problem in the past as they park parallel to the parking meters in the River Lot. CAPTAIN GRIFFITH asked that the City place the signs on the parking meters, but the Council did not feel did not feel that it should be up to the City and there was some question as to whether it would be legal as this could be a case of discrimination. Discussion was held on the cost of the lease for the coming season which could be $600.00 for the season. MR. ELLIOTT felt that Mr. Van Wormer of their staff should be involved in this to some degree as he has some background on traffic and parking and related downtown - he felt that Glen could come up with some good input - he felt that the problem is a little bigger problem than anticipated. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, that before a lease agreement is reached that the Council, the Downtown Council meet with Mr. Griffith and Glen Van Wormer and that the meeting be set at an early date so that we can resolve the problem and that the City Attorney be involved so that there will be no misunderstanding at a later date. MR. GRIFFITH stated that the average amount of money that they have put into the City of Stillwater for every year that they have been here is $90,000 per year - salaries - things that they buy from the merchants from Stillwater - the fuel oil- - and all other supplies - $46,000 to food catering plus a lot of liquor and he felt that this was worth $300.00. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that the City's costs have increased - the Public Works Committee discussed this and they also indicated that as a part of the agree- ment that he would have to be responsible for policing and cleaning up that area during the dockage and also at the time that he moves the boat for the winter - apparently there has been some problems in the past and there has been additional cost borne by the City to police this area up and if he wanted to call $300 for the leasing and $300 for expenditures whatever - it doesn't matter. MR. GRIFFITH stated that his cost of his insurance to protect the City has also gone up. MR. GRIFFITH asked that the cost factor be set aside until they have the meeting with the Downtown Council and the others and then they can put every- thing down in black and white. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON amended the motion to read that the decision be made two weeks from tonite so that Mr. Griffith can plan his schedules. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT - all in favor VOTE ON THE MOTION - All in Favor (Mr. Kriesel was instructed to set up this meeting and that Mr. Warren Smith will be in attendance at this meeting) 221 II • • • • • • 7- 222 April 10, 1979 4. JOHN KOHOUT appeared before the City Council regarding permission to park a mobile home at 404 West Hickory Street while he is remodeling his home following a fire. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson the Council permitted the parking of a mobile home at 404 West Hickory Street until the first of June. (all in favor) 5. JACK DIELENTHEIS appeared before the Council requesting a five foot variance on the east side of a house to be built at 1405 West Linden Street. This will affect no one directly by this variance. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked if he had talked to the people across the street, but he stated "no ". MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Niska if he could see any problems and he did not feel there would be with this minor variance in accordance with Section 20 (1) b, and the Council has the right to grant these variances if no property rights are violated. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council granted the five foot variance to Jack Dielentheis for a home at 1405 West Linden Street contingent on the receipt of a letter showing approval of the property owners within 300 feet. (all in favor) 6. MR. & MES. MICHAEL DOE, 1337 South Second Street, appeared before the Council re- questing a three foot variance for a swimming pool which will be within seven feet of the North property line aid they had submitted a letter from Al Ponath, the abutting property owner who could be affected by the request. He also submitted copies of the blueprints of the layout. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council granted the three foot variance for a swimming pool to Mr. & Mrs. Michael Doe, subject to a letter signed by the neighbors within 300 feet. (all in favor) 7. JOHN SERIER, 2307 Fairmeadows Road, appeared before the Council requesting a front yard variance for a garage at his home Mr. Serior presented to the Council a petition signed by the property owners within 300 feet that they are not opposed to this variance. The reason for this is that his short side is on Darrell Court and this poses the problem as his house faces the long side of the lot. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the Council granted the front yeard variance for the construction of a garage for John Serier at 2307 Fairmeadows Road. (all in favor) THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 8:35 to 8:45 P. M. 8. NICHOLAS & GERALD KANE appeared before the City Council reuesting a transfer of the liquor license for the Brick Alley Restaurant from Michael McGuire to Tri -Kane, Inc. They requested the transfer of the liquor license contingent on two points (1) that they will have a binder for the insurance at closing time simply because this involves money that would not be redemmable - they couldn't get it back unless the sale went through; (2) also contingent on the sale going through. CHIEF ABRAHAMSON submitted the information that the state requires on the new proposed licensees. They are all three clear. MR. MAGNUSON stated that he could see no problem and it would not be effective until they have the liquor liability insurance on file here. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked about the bills from the former owners and wondered if that would be part of the agreement as he was contacted this morning by one of the salesmen that had money due him. MR. KANE stated that they are going through this with the sale right now and they are making every single effort right now for the closing to take care of all creditors to the best that they can. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the Council approved the transfer of the Regular and Sunday On sale Liquor licenses for the Brick Alley from Michael McGuire to Tri -Kane, Inc. (all in favor) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. This was the day and time set for the public hearing on Case No. 345 - James E. Menard for a Special Use Permit to convert a duplex into a three plex' 1108 South First Street. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on March 28, 1979 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. INN ' len • • • • • • 223 • April 10, 1979 The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, the Council concurred with the decision of the Planning Commission and denied the request for the Special Use Permit for James Menard to convert a duplex at 1108 South First Street into a three -plex. (all in favor) 2. This was the day and time for the public hearing for Local Improvement No. 163 for the watermain and sanitary sewer in South Harriet Street - north of West Pine Street. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the mm official newspaper of the City on March 30 and April 6, 1979 and copies were mailed to all property owners proposed to be benefited. The Mayor opened the hearing. MR. EDWARD DEISS stated that at this time he requested, he wishes to drop the sanitary sewer an this proposal - they are just looking for a water line. MR. ELLIOTT asked how he proposed to serve this property and MR. DEISS stated that there is an existing sewer and they are pretty sure that it is there MR. ELLIOTT stated that if only water is required that will greatly reduce the cost; however, the sewer is a private line and it has worked without any problems for twenty years. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked that it be inspected - there was a preliminary report and wouldn't it be for the City's protection to have it inspected, but MR. ELLIOTT stated that could only be done with a closed TV - there is no manhole on the line- they can only see that it outlets on the manhole on Pine Street. There are two sewers in that street - one for each side. kIM CHARLES BEYER, 1112 South First Street, stated that he is personally opposed to this request since the area is now congested with the duplex and his own family and all of the cars that are parked in the area. He did not feel that there was room for a three plex as it would be inadequate housing and parking - there is another in the immediate area which is only creating policing problems and was definitely opposed to it. GARY SWAGER represented Mr. Menard on this case and since he was turned down by the Planning Commission and it was not in his best interest to continue with the request. There was no formal withdraws from Mr. Menard so the Council felt that they should take some action o.i it. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICC questioned this and MR. DEISS stated that there was a house there previously and when they dug up for the foundrion, they could not find any indication of a septic system and he is sure they had a connection to the City's system. JAMES ROSENWINKEL, 414 South Harriet Street, across the street from the said property - he presented a petition in behalf of the residents in that particular area for Local Improvement No. 163 - he felt that they were back to where they were six months ago on this particular project. These people feel the same way they did six months ago and now with the possibility of dropping the sewer he had no idea what the cost would be - the petition speaks for itself. MAYR WOLF, 520 West Pine Street - stated that Mr. Deiss seems very vague about the sewer and water - the hole has been sitting there for six months and they are very tired of it - the area is very crowded and congested already - it is a very short street. The hole has been there for six months and the fence has been knocked down several times and is very dangerous for the young children. MICHELLE JACKSON, 419 South Harriet Street, questioned if he just wants the water in, what happens if he gets all of this work done and he cannot locate the sewer then what does he do - then would they be stuck with the whole cost? MR. MAGNUSON stated that he would think that if the sewer were put in there and anyone benefits from it, they would have to pay for it. MAYOR JUNKER asked if there ever was water hooked up to the house that was torn down and if so where is it now. And the reply was "yes ", and that there are two connections on the southwest corner of the lot by Mr. Howie's driveway. DENNIS MC KEAN stated that it was served by a private line and it is just turned off at the stop and water is available on that same line which is a one inch galvanized line from the street which was put in 1915 and the other services were put in at the same time on the west in 1915 and two others were put in 1920 and 1930 respectively. For a point about 120 feet north of Pine Street it cannot be shut off. a • 224 • April 10, 1979 MRS. HAROLD HOWIE, 417 S. Harriet Street, stated that Mr. Deisa went ahead and did all of this work without looking into all of these things - put in a lot of money and she felt that he is not doing right by them as they are on fixed income and the other people have bought their places at high prices and high interest rates and young families - can they afford something like this. She felt that if Mr. Deiss wants this, let him put it in and assume all of the costs. She felt that they would be subsidizing his rental property. M AYOR JUNKER indicated that the City had received a letter from Tom Curtis regarding this project. MR. ROSENWINKEL asked for some clarification of the amount of square footage for duplexes in Stillwater and he was informed that it is 7,500 square feet in the older areas. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the rule is that when an application is received for a building permit or improvement on the site prior to the enactment of the ordinance it would not apply and that it would also apply where someone has a 7,500 foot lot which cannot be added on to by acquiring adjacent land, he would be entitled to a duplex. MR. ROSENWINKEL inquired if there are any restrictions as far as having any activity since the permit was taken out - how long does a permit run before it has to be renewed and MR. NISKA stated three months and that it has been renewed. MR. DEISS stated that he came Jere to get a water line and everything else has been brought up are we dearling with water lines or holes in the ground and whether I have a right to build on this property. MRS. ROSENWINKEL asked when the new ordinance was put into effect and MR. MAGNUSON stated that the ordinance went into effect in February requiring 10,000 feet for duplexes and he did not know when the permit was renewed. MR. NISKA stated that he would have to look up when the permit was renewed. MR. ROSENWINKEL asked about the size of this lot and he was informed that it was 7,500 square feet and MR. MAGNUSON stated that he does not have to have 10,000 square feet because he has non - conforming rights - he has vested rights - rights in a non - conforming lot because he got a permit prior to the ordinance when it was amended - prior to the amendment he only needed 7,500 square feet and now he would need 10,000. MR. JACKSON stated that everyone in the neighborhood doesn't csre for this attitude and saying that he wants a new water line and we pay for it. They do not have the money to pay for the water line and she felt that this was not the only street in Stillwater that probably will need a new water line in years to come and felt that they were being picked upon in this instance. These people just do not have this extra money. HAROLD HOWIE stated that they don't need it and there pressure and sewer line are fine - and why should they pay for his interest in this - this would be over $5,000 each. DUANE ELLIOTT stated that the cost of the watermain only would be about $12,160 or about $1,750 per rot- -there will be bituminous restoration if they can locate the watermains and not disturb the street and it is kind of hard to determine this. DENNIS MC KEAN stated that in 1970 Tom Curtis put in the sewer, the pipes were disturbed and they were not very good at that time in that particular spot but that doesn't mean that it is that way all the way through, but he would assume it is. At that time they put a stop there so that anything that would break to the north could be shut off and anything to the south is critical as it would have to be replaced. As far as the Water Department is concerned the former owner participated in the cost of the private line and in his opinion at least this house could be connected to the present line and the pressure would be hurt more than a singly family home. If the line broke all of the water would have to be shut off. MAYOR JUNKER asked if the neighbors would object to his hooking up to the private line and the only cost would be his own digging and the new pipe laid to the home and MR. HOWIE had no objection to that. Mrs. Howie raised a question about the pressure and the congestion on this street and she felt that there should be a traffic survey on the street. MRS. WOLFF again complained about the congestion on this street and this duplex would only complicate their present problems. She did not know how the school bus was allowed to be parked there all day. There was further discussion about the traffic and snowplowing on this street and the reason for the poor plowing job is due to all of the cars that are parked on this street - there is not a heavy traffic count on this street. MR. ROSENWINKEL stated that they have had no problems as far as water pressure and they are very happy with it. ETh a • • • • r April 10, 1979 MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Deiss if he was willing to hook up to the old line and MR. DEISS stated that the reason that he came before the Council in the first place was because there was a concern about water pressure and fire protection since there is no hydrant down there. There is another way they can do this - the Board of Health requires so many pounds of water pressure for each living unit and he could hook up and build the building and if he turns on a shower and there is no water, then he would have to get a reading on it and do a survey and they might find out that there is not enough pressure then, then there would be another half year or year and the cost would go more. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the test that he was speaking of could be run by his department tomorrow at 414 and with the cooperation of the people in the houses to the south they could all put on three taps or whatever at the same time - they could read the pressure without any on and then while the water is running and see that the pressure is when the water is running in each of the homes and see what we have to spare - the minimum is 20# per square inch and if it gets ,below that it is very low water pressure. Questions were raised about the size of the line and the pressure involved and Mr. McKean stated that the pressure is good on Pine Street and that helps. MAYOR JUNKER asked McKean if he would recommend that Mr. Deiss hookup to the present line and he felt tnat this was not his decision. MR. DEISS stated as far as when he was here before they said this could be spread out over 30 years and that was an option and as far as people on sub- sidized income they can put this off to their heirs when the building or property is sold and questions if that was correct and MR. MAGNUSON stated that the method of payment is at the discretion of the Council and within their discretion they would make certain provisions for people that are in need. MR. DEISS asked if he put this building up and he finds there is not enough water pressure there and he is having trouble selling it - he would be quite upset and he will have to do something - he did not know what to do. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that the Engineer could tell him prior to putting up the bilding if the pressure is going to be adequate or not. MR. DEISS stated that he felt that had rights too and this lot is zoned duplex and that he has the right to put up that building - there is still going to be a problem. MAYOR JUNKER could not see why Mr. Deiss doesn't hookup to this line and MR. DEISS stated that if the test proves to be adequate he would be happy to hookup to that one inch line. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Elliott how long it would take to do the test and Mr. Elliott stated that it would take having the people who are in the other dwellings to have two or three taps on and he thought it could be tomorrow, but he finds out that the person will be out of town and it would take a couple of days - sometime next week. MR. DEISS requested that the Council postpone their decision until this test is completed. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell that this matter be laid over until April 24, 1979, the next regular Council meeting and in the meantime the tests be conducted to determine the extent of the water pressure and hopefully for the builder to be guided accordingly as to whether or not he has pressure for his building. (all in favor) MR. KRIESEL questioned if there was any cost involved and this will become a part of the cost of the feasibility study for the project which is either assessed or charged to the developer. 3. This was the day and time set for the public hearing on Case No. 342 for the proposed re- subdivision of parts of Block 1 and 5, Cooper's Addition for Swager Bros. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette, the official newspaper of the City of Narch 30, 1979 and copies mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing GARY SWAGER stated that the Council made an approval based on a statement made by him that they had a public hearing on the plat - Mr. Kimmel and Dorothy and he have now found that the comments made in terms of the term period - orig!nally they were asked to re- subdivide appatently so they had some public hearings which Mr. Kimmel makes mention of them in a letter that he sent to the City, but 225 • 0 • • • 1 _1 • r226 April 10, 1979 after the meeting with the neighbors and Mr. Kimmel's imput and everything else they came up with the new plat. Apparently at that point and time based on the advice of their Counsel, and from Mr. Kimmel and from the surveyor they said that instead of re- subdividing which poses a problem with the ordinance, they were asked to replat which would give clearer legal descriptions and everything else - so they discussed replatting and what it might have to do with the square foot requirements of the lots or agree to replat and call it a Planned Unit Development Concept. They have now replatted - they have had two Planning Commission meetings and gotten approval and this is the third time here at the Council but as he understood it, simply because of the approvals that they have gotten all along lack only a public hearing for the specific purpose of the plat approval, that before we had a public hearing, to his knowledge and he has checked all of the minutes and can't find it. Consequently the replatting came out of that and they agreed to limit the amount of duplexes that could be built in the development to six and also agreed to not build duplexes on parcels A and B. COUNCILMAN PETERSON asked- didn't they ask Mr. Kimmel for a letter or something indicating that this is what they had asked for - agreed to at the time and that they have a copy of that letter - MR. SWAGER indicated that he has not had Mr. Kimmel sign the covenants, but he sent the letter and this is what was agreed to at the time. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK indicated this was her recollection also. JERRY MECHELKE, 809 West St. Croix Avenue - he is an abutting property owner and he has no qualms about it as long as they have 10,000 square feet for the duplexes - it is their land - several years ago there was a possibility that they might be assessed a portion of the improvement of the road and utilities. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the date of the report was February, 1977 and he could not recall the policy that may have been set forth by the Council at that time on the assessments, but it is true that there are abutting owners to the north and the Council policy has been to assess streets or properties that might be benefited by a sewer and water improvements to abutting properties - there appears to be three lots to the north of the proposed improvement that would benefit by having a sewer and water, but if they say they are going to pay for it all, that would remove that. MR. SWAGER stated that Mr. Mechelke would not be affected by it - he is not abutting it and to his knowledge the only affected one would be David Magnuson. MR. ELLIOTT stated that Mr. Magnuson's property does abut the sewer and water and street that is proposed and it is a matter of Council policy. MR. SWAGER stated they would run West Stillwater Avenue only to the intersection and consequently, it would alleviate an improvement problem for Mr. Magnuson at this point and time MR. ELLIOTT stated that the earlier report had a lift station and that is required and it is where the lift station would go would be a question and sewer would have to run to the lift station - he stated that the earlier report would have to be looked at as far as costs and be brought back to the Council. MR. SWAGER stated that whatever engineering is required on it, they are willing to do - they have the property and they want to develop it and they don't intend to leave it sit. They do not have the updated figures and they have talked in general, but these dollar amounts will have to be separated out - he did not feel that they would have a problem including a lift station and he did not feel that they would have to blacktop at this time and the engineer agreed. Whatever they would have to do to alleviate a situaticn that might put Mr. Magnuson in a position to have to pay some improvements - what they have to put in, they will pay for and what they don't have to put in, no one will have to pay. At this point and time they will not put the street in, that is the black - topping since they will not have houses facing on that at all. MR. SHELTON stated that with a lift station located in the area and in the spring if they have to look at it, they are not going to walk down to look at it or if they have to pump it, they will not be able to drive down there. A RESIDENT in the area asked a question of the City Attorney and he did not feel that he could answer it and they would have to wait until after April 16th to ask Mr. Kimmel this question. JACK LUX, 617 Lake Drive, stated that he is in the process of negotiating the purchase of that property - ne would like to start building on that property this summer and he submitted a letter to the Council requesting an assessment hearing as soon as possible (it is an improvement hearing) and he would not like to be held to building the duplexes on the larger lots because four of the larger lots are on the west side of the street and these are choise lots and the choice view and did not feel that all of the duplexesshould be on that side of the street - he SIN • • • • • • • IP April 10, 1979 felt that the duplexes should be interspersed on those ten lots - some on the west side and some on the east - and he has some excellent duplex plans that will fit on a fifty foot lot but is having some difficulty putting a single family home on a fifty foot lot and getting a double garage on it. MR. SWAGER stated that the question was asked at last month's meeting whether they could build a duplex on a 7,500 foot lot - when the decision was made to replat by everyone's advice because the legal descriptions and monuments and clarification of the title, etc., a concern of his was if they replat, again based on the City Ordinance, no matter which way they want, they ran into a problem with an ordinance - if they re- subdivided, it became a major subdivision and created the problems of L':le and legal descriptions - if they replatted then they had the ordinance re ding that they could be subject to any new plats recorded in the City requirinb 10,000 square feet. His legal advice and Mr. Kimmel got together where it was called a Planned Unit Concept - they had bought property that was zoned "dual damily" there were fifty foot lots and they agreed to work with the neighbors in terms of some 10 or 11 and thought there was a 12,000 foot lot, there are some 10's and there is nothing less than 7,500. They went from 21 lots down to 11 and they agreed to build not more than six dual family residences and they also agreed not to build those duplexes on two of the lots and at this point they would like to continue in that respect - the putting question - they certainly have some lots that are 10,000 square feet, but to be limited to putting only duplexes, if some get built in there and the chances are good that they will and they would have to put them all on one side of the street and he did not feel that makes a very good development. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked submitting this plat is like presenting a new plat and MR. MAGNUSON stated that is the way it is being treated, and that is what they were told by Mr. Kimmel. Mr. Powell stated that then all of the lots would have to be 10,000 square feet. MR. SWAGER stated that this was his concern and this is where the confusion comes if it was approved and if they need a public hearing or they don't and primarily he said that he would replat it, then it was called a Planned Unit Concept and they agreed to some covenants - he agreed to some restrictions, but they wanted to be careful because of the ordinances, no matter which way they went in this thing by trying to avoid 21 buildable lots there, they had problems with the ordinance. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that it was accepted last year that he did "replat" and this is almost the same plan and this is the last thing that we were going to do. MAYOR JUNKER asked that if this has been partly approved by Mr. Kimmel, the former City Attorney and this was what was agreed upon and MR. SWAGER stated that Harold's letter to the City . . . . MR. LUX stated that it depends upon the cost of the improvements - sewer, water and streets - he is almost going to have to build six duplexes to make it economically feasible. MAYOR JUNKER asked if the neighbors had any objection to that and COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that the Council did receive one objection that the duplexes should not be built on anything but a 10,000 square foot lot (this objection was filed by Richard and Valerie Lee). MR. SWAGER stated that he has seen a copy of the letter and he has no qualms with it, but Mr. Kimmel and all of the neighbors and Mr. Mechelke can verify that, they have talked with and net with all of them - he did not pretend to come before this body and say that all of the neighbors were jumping up and down with what they had done, but they were extremely pleased. :t appeared to be after the two meetings and this is the third one here it seems to be a compromise that was agreed upon - it was approved by the Planning Commission twice and it was approved by this body twice and now they woula just like to finish it. He stated that Mr. Kimmel agrees - he approves of all of the things they said they would need his approval for, but he does say that the Council will have to interpret what the new ordinance did to them. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked if it was there intention that a duplex would be on a 7,500 square foot lot and MR. LUX stated either one - they build them on any of the lots except the two that they agreed not to build on - those are the ones on the north side of Stillwater Avenue. JERRY MECHELKE stated that he would rather see them dispersed rather than all on one side. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that this was a compromise and this basically was what they talked about before when they originally started this - there were 22 lots all of which at that point and time were able to have duplexes built on - it is a compromise on the neighbors part as well as the contractors and felt it was a worthwhile plat and whatever they have to do is okay. • 227 • • • April 10, 1979 MR. SWAGER stated that the attorney that worked on this for them with Mr. Kimmel is Mr. Magnuson's partner and Dave also had some input as to what he would like to see put there on this property and due to some personal conflict he asked that it be referred to Mr. Kimmel. If it requires a variance along with approval, they would ask that be taken care of at this time. MR. ELLIOTT stated that they haze a preliminary report that should be updated and when they do update it they will talk a little bit about the grading and the drainage that goes into a land - locked pond and his report will cover that. The Mayor closed the hearing On motion of Councilman Roger PETERSON, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, gave preliminary approval of the plat and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the hardshell when it is submitted. (all in favor) Discussion was held regarding the parties to be assessed for the improvements and MR. MAGNUSON stated that he would not be opposed to pay for the street that would go by his home and it was agreed by the Council that they would not assess him again for utilities since he already has paid for same. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson a resolution was introduced "ORDERING THE HEARING ON LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS NO. 152 FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SWAGER RE -PLAT ON NORTH OWEN STREET (Cooper's Addition), HEARING DATE - MAY 8, 1979 at 7:30 P. M." AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson. R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junket NAYS- -None (see resolutions) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. On April 9, 1979 the City received five bids for the Nelson School as follows: 1. Tom Strandberg, 1006 South First Street, Stillwater 2. Richard W. Kilty, 118 West Oak Street, Stillwater 3. Richard Houston, P. 0. Box 252, Stillwater 4. Daniel E. Grogan, 805 West Orleans, Stillwater 5. Jeffrey Zoller, 703 West Oak Street, Stillwater Questions were raised by the Councilmen as to when these were to be acted upon and MR. MAGNUSON stated that the previous motion was that they would be considered on the tenth and he was under the impression that at they were going to be referred to the Building Inspector, the various departments to study and that he had talked to the lawyer for River Town Restroation and that is what he told him that was what was going to happen and he relied on that and he planned to have a court reporter here and he is not here tonite and he is not here as he depended upon what I told him. MR. CASS stated that he was present but that he did not have a reporter with him. There was no discussion on the first proposal. (2) MAYOR JUNKER stated that we still have his original certifit1 check and his offer still stands. BERT CHRISTENSON, 1007 South Second Street, felt that it was about time that the Council got to an end on. the matter - he felt that Mr. Kilty should get it for $10,000 and then we will get rid of the "rat- trap" up there. CHARLES BEYERS, 1112 South First Street, stated that the Nelson School was never a good looking building - when it was new 40 or 60 years ago - it looked like "hell" then and it still looks like "hell" and it is not going to look like anything else unless they change the outside - it is the poorest piece of architecture in town - it an eyesore. DAN GROGAN, 805 West Orleans, felt that the style of architecture is an in- dividual thing and the issue here is the disposition of the building - for sone totalling disposing of it and in other people's mind renovation rather than disposal. BILL HART, 1013 South Second Street, complained about the pigeons, the matter of kids hanging around there all of the time and it was a surprise to him that it has not burned down. He felt that something wasn't done that we could have a bad accident up there and he was in favor of tearing it down and building a couple of nice houses there and get it on the tax rolls. MARK CARROLL, 1104 South first Street, was in favor of it being torn down and get something new there. • • • • • J • • • April 10, 1979 SP DEL PETERSON, 1303 South Fourth Street, stated that when this matter was brought up at an earlier meeting that the City would solicit offers for the renovation of the building and in his opinion this offer is not conforming with that and should not be considered as an alternate. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the City asked for feasible and prudent alterna- tives to the destruction of the property known as the Old Nelson School - Mr. Kilty's proposal has already been accepted by the Council and he just reiterated at the last meeting that he stands ready to follow through on that - he did not feel that it was a new proposal at all. MYRL PETERSEN, 1109 South First Street, explained that he had looked up feasible and prudent - feasible to make due or suitable - prudent - shrewd management or practical affairs and if they are going to make it into living quarters he felt that they should be looking at the old prison which is to be a historical resource. JAYNE FINNEGAN SMITH, 805 North Third Street, stated that she is in charge of the house tours and they have numerous calls wanting to come to Still- water and they are looking at the old buildings and that the City should protect the last old school that is still standing. (3) No comments (4) No comments at this point in the meeting - see later comments. (5) Mr. Zoller's proposal was for a four plex and he proposed that the cost would be about $143,000 - $72,000 for the materials and $71,000 for the labor which will he do himself and he has been working through the First National Bank for financing. MARY EMANUELSON asked Mr. Zoller how he plans to heat the units and he stated with separate gas furnaces. She asked him how much of a survey he did on this and he responded that he had contacted five apartment complexes that are iocated within the community. MR. ZOLLER'S proposal requested change to allow him to years to finish his project and BERT CHRISTENSON, 1007 South Sedond Street felt that was too long of a period of time. BILL HART asked if the ordinance covers this and MR. MAGNUSON responded that the area is zoned two family and this would take a variance to have a four plex here - a duplex would be permissable. MR. BEYERS felt that this should not be allowed and that something be done to have the building removed. JEFF ZOLLER - To the Members of the Stillwater City Council - I appreciate your attention and consideration in listening to my proposal for the renova- tion of the Nelson School last evening. I feel that my proposal was honest and thorough and I am very confident I can carry out the project as pre- pared. After hearing the comments and criticism of the neighbors, however, I feel it would be very difficult to work freely and openly in that atmos- phere. I am fully aware of the neighborhood's concerns and would do every- thing possible to meet those; however, I feel their constant pressure, watching and untrusting atmosphere both during construction and after is not the kind of neighborhood I could live or work in; therefore, I will have to withdraw my proposal. - - -MR. DAN GROGAN stated that he had no single reason for submitting his bid - he was willing to make a commitment to live in that neighborhood. He stated that it will be a single family residence and he would make the commitment to be that single family, not just a single person eventually there will be a wife and kids. He wanted this building saved and there has been a lot of people who wanted things saved in the past and did not put much of themselves into it - he has the financial willingness and ability to make and abide by all conditions of the contract and he requires no changes or variances - require no construction of a garage - no new additions to the building - he would be cleaning the building to make it presentable - his offer would not alleviate the differences between people who like the style and people who do not like the style- that is a differ- ence that can never be reconciled - he will make every attempt that the building be preserved in a high quality condition so that the neighbors can look upon it. That because of the lgal action taken by other bodies and the legal constraint placed upon the City Council and they are legally commanded that they save this building. Economically he felt this was the highest price outside of tearing it down or making it into an eight plex - his is a viable proposal. He had heard a lot of comments by the neighbors about parking and there is not a whole lot to be said, but his offer is sincere and he was willing to come forth with any escrow payment, security payment, or whatever is needed to justify his proposal. 229 0 • • • • 1 1 • • • X 230 April 10, 1979' MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Grogan about the cost of his improvements and MR. GROC4N stated that his estimate was $45,000 - he intends to spend about $69,000 above and beyond the cost of the building. MAYOR JUNKER asked his if he was prepared to put up 125% of the $70,000 and MR. GROGAN stated that to the extend that the single family and to the extent that the City Council deems that is the only alternative he would enter into negotiations to do so - first of all he would determine the cost - if all of his money is tied up .o insuring that he will do something, then nothing gets done - you had one businessman come here tonite not only does he seek your approval, but asks the City to finance him - he is not asking for any help in financing it, but he would ask that no exhorbitant blockade be put in front of his proposal. Fe would be glad to enter into any alternative means and he felt that he is young enough to get the work done in the required time and that if there is a problem that the Council will meet it. MAYOR JUNKER stated that it is feasible for the Council to see that he has money available and MR. GROGAN felt thatthe Council shouts take all steps necessary to insurance that he has the financing before they accept his proposal. CHIEF ABRAHAMSON asked Mr. Grogan how many people were living at 805 West Orleans Street and he asked how many people were living in that house. MR. GROGAN replied that there is himself and one roommate. CHIEF ABRAHAMSON asked how many rooms he has rented at one time and MR. GROGAN stated that the agreement that he had with the owner was to rent five rooms. CHIEF ABRAHAMSON just wanted the Council to be aware of this fact - they have had a lot of cars at that house. BILL HART complained about the group that is trying to save all of these buildings, but questioned where they were when the old City Fire Department and City Hall was torn down - he felt that the people from the outlying areas were telling them who they are to have as neighbors. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that if Mr. Hart had been down at the old Fire Barns and the old City Hall, he would be well aware of the problems that they had with those buildings at that time and MR. HART agreed that the new facilities are a big improvement. MR. BEYERS stated was not the school condemned, that they could not hold classes - that it was in bad shape and that is why they had to build these new schools - no good - could not use them. JAYNE FINNEGAN SMITH stated that her husband who is an architect had gone through the building and he felt thst it was one of the soundest buildings and that it was worthwhile preserving it. JAMES HUNT, stated that the Nelson School was condemned in 1955 for use as a school building simply because the stair layout did not provide for separate exits from the second story and was not condemned for any structural reasons. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that everything that was heard tonite was repetition that was heard last nite and it gets to be a little cumbersome after while - the Cojncil is here to determine what can be done to save the building - this is what the court order is - if the Council can find a feasible alternative to tearing it down and he felt that they found one - he felt that Mr. Grogan has offered a solution to a problem by simply having a single family dwelling. He felt that it is necessary to check the financing and things like that - that could be worked out - in order to obey the court order he felt that they are bound to give Mr. Grogan an opportunity to do that. MARY EMANUELSON stated that if the proposal is granted to Mr. Grogan that they put in that deed that that would never be changed to anything other than a one - family home. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON questioned the City Attorney if that would be le ?al to be put into the deed and MR. MAGNUSON questioned that would be a reasonable restraint on the utilization of the property - there are any number of things that could be done as to the restricting the use of it with restrictive covenants and didn't feel that could be put into the deed. COUNCILMAN POWELL felt that one thing that they would have to do to make a change would be to come before the Council - whatever Council is seated at the time - because it takes a variance to have a duplex. BERT CHRISTENSON asked if Mr. Kilty has to come back to the City Council with another suit like the RTR did against the City - he offered $30,000 - that is the top price and you should take the top price. 3 lom tR • s • • a • MR. GROGAN felt that it is always going to be a problem and he hoped that they 10 would not go home with a bad feeling. April 10, 1979 COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON . tated that he had not heard Mr. Christenson make that statement the last trne and questions were raised about the $23,500 bid. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that the judge ordered that a certain thing be done and that is what the Council is trying to do now. MARY EMANUELSON stated she was afraid of one other thing with Mr. Grogan's offer - -- the figures do not make sense in this day and age - with the size of that building even if he does want to make it into a one - family dwelling - look at the amount of money that has been listed for renovating that building and how can he come in and do it for $69,000 or $70,000. MR. GROGAN stated that he is in the construction business and there are other people in the construction business here - their opinion seem to be of no value - perhaps there is no opinion of any value when you are estimating these costs - the important thing to realize is there are structural and legal requirements for housing codes in this town and if he does not meet those, he will be kicked out - he is making his offer to try to give the neighbors a choice between that or an apartment - it is Grogan or tear it down - it is not that - he did not feel that tearing it down was a viable alternative. The law says something and we have to abide by it. MARY EMANUELSON stated that the law was very vague - feasible and prudent and there is nothing of that either way. MAYOR JUNKER stated that in Mr. Grogan's proposal there is no financing - it is very vague - and be asked him if he had been in the Nelson School and he stated that he had been legally. THE MAYOR stated that there are 12 full rooms including the basement and he questioned that he was going to make that into a single family dwelling -- and he hoped that the City Council would aot consider the single dwelling if you owned it and you had twenty kids up there -- that are living as roommates with you and MR. GROGAN stated that he would hope that the 20 kids are his children - he is not making any plans to fill it up with roommates. MAYOR JUNKER asked him if he had been to the Building Inspector and the Fire Chief regarding the requirements for live -ins and what would have to be done before he would move in and he replied that he was aware of what has to be done. MAYOR JUNKER asked him how long he would be in there with these improvements that the Building Inspector would expect you to do and he stated one month but that he would adhere to the requirements and the requirements Late that 45 days after the purchase agreement that there is another ninety days. MAYOR JUNKER stated that in order to protect himselfand the neighbors, he would have to almost demand that the City Council and the City Attorney that he put up a bond of 125% of the $70,000 to insure him that he would not have these neighbors calling his house that Mr. Grogan is doing nothing to the Nelson School. He asked Mr. Grogan if he could live with that? COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked that is not the total? MAYOR JUNKER said that he has to make an offer here . . . MR. GROGAN stated that the reason that it is vague is that he had confidence how many bids were being made and it was a bid. MAYOR JUNRER stated that this has gone for two years now and the maximum time is nine months. MR. MAGNUSON stated that one of the conditions was that it be completed in nine months. MAYOR JUNRER stated that he had to live with these people on the south hill, too as he does. MR. GROGAN stated that he will be their neighbors and MAYOR JUNKER asked when? MR. GROGAN stated as soon as your setup your guidelines - if not sooner. COUNCILMAN POWELL felt that there might be some kind of misconception here - he felt that if Mr. Grogan is going to make a single family unit of that that doesn't necessarily mean that he is going to renovate every room - it is con- ceivable that he could make the first floor living quarters and have storage up above as far as a 12 room house and all being done that is his perogative to do that. 231 • • • • • • • 232 April 10, 1979 MRS. SCHAFFER stated that he will have to have new wiring, new plumbing, he will have to have a furnace and he will have to have all of these things put in - he is going to have a garbage pail . . . JEFF ZOLLER stated that he could list a lot of homes in Stillwater that are just as big - the old Tolen home which the Conners live in, is this big - the Peltier House on Chestnut Street - there are all sorts of houses that are just huge old lumber mansions that lawyers from the Cities have come and purchased and made them into single family homes. He wants a big beds om, let him have a big bedroom. Why be concerned about the size as long as he is going to do it. And he felt that Mr. Grogan would have the proper rooms for family living. MR, HART stated as far as the wiring is concerned the kids put a whole pile of the insulation in a pile inside the building - it is all stripped. MR. JAMES HUNT stated that it is up to Mr. Grogan if he wishes to live in the building and it is his business how big his house is going to be, he did not feel that was infeasible or imprudent. He made a valid bid. MAYOR JUNKER could not see the guarantees in this bid . . . MR. GROGAN stated that any bid submitted is not the binding agreement - the bind- ing agreement is the purchase agreement that is entered in between the City . . . MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Grogaiif he read the paragraph in the proposal which stated that the proposal shall include a statement by the proposer indicating . . . MR. GROGAN - a statement is not anything that is legally binding until he comes before the City to sign an agreement - determine what type of performance bond the City wants whatever you want - what is prudent and feasible and work with your attorney on it and if not tear it down. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Grogan if he is papered to give the City the 125% performance bond so that the City doesn't continue this on again and a month later he comes back and says he has no money, and Mr. Grogan replied that he is willing to make whatever financial commitment is necessary to purchase the building - legally he could go to court and question if the City of Stillwater could demand a performance land for every single family residence in the City of Stillwater. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON felt that they had just about done everything can be done in the way of discussion on these bids - they started off the evening with five bids - one for destruction and four for renovation of one form or another and Mr. Zoller has withdrawn his, so that loves the Council with three. He felt that the Houston bid and the Strandberg bid do not meet the criteria that was setforth in the call for these bids and felt that they can be rejected. In listening to the presentation made here by Mr. Grogan and he has all the highest regard for youth and their enthusiasm and their desire to take on the world. He felt that using a very crude term "this is a pie in the sky" proposal - if you look at the t40 terms that are used in our own charge by the court, the City was to come with prudent and feasible methods of save the building and he cited the meatngs of feasible as being capable of being done or effect, capable of being dealt with successfully and the word prudent says the ability to regulate and discipline one self to the exercise of reason and he did not see, as an individual who has been through quite a few years of living any sense to a proposal that says that one will take a three story - 12 room building and convert it to a single family residence and be able to maintain it, convert it, provide it and make it into living quarters, the heating, the plumbing and other things for a sum in the neighborhood of $70,000. He felt that the proposal that Mr. Grogan offered certainly represents inadequate planning, planning that he did not think even six months from now will culminate at anything that the City can live with - there is no solid proof of financial responsibility which he felt was important - talk about being able to come up with financial banking and necessary bonding - he did not feel that was possible - there is serious ques- tions whether this can be financed when the ultimate goal is going to be for a single family residence - we have a problem when we were talking about a four plex or a six plex that it could be economically feasible. Remember Mr. Zoller's presentation last night to provide four renal units - one that you and I could buy and the rent would have to be $420.00 per month. If that is the necessary income to come is from a four plex, imagine the cost of maintaining a single family dwelling - he felt it was ridiculous and it could not be handled. He felt that the cost estimate of $70,000 will not even start to change this into a reasonable piece of housing. He felt that another factor and one which was mentioned here and that there is no control once this property is sold by the City to Mr. Grogan for the purpose of making a single family residence, the one to whom he will sell it later can do almost anything he wants assuming, of course, that he comes before the Council for certain variances and special permits - he did not feel that the Ciry Council, if they go beyond the stage of granting this is a continuation on the South Hill landscape that we are going to likely to tear it down ten years from now - we are liable to be and our successor Council are liable to be inclined to grant variances just because the building is still there. He did not feel that the Council has sufficient evidence and didn't challenge Mr. Grogan's ability, but he wondered what his business experience is • • • • • s • • April 10, 1979 fin 11 and his contracting experience is to the extent of his dealing with this size activity and he felt that the dimension was just too great. He reaction was that the proposal was not going to be sold to him as being feasible and he did not feel that a prudent person is going to be able to discipline himself to a successful z onclusion - it was his belief that this bid should be rejected as well as the bids that are still before them and that they move to sell the property to Mr. Kilty for the purposes that he has in mind for it. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON in reply to Mr. Peterson's remarks and these are his remarks, as the Council has not investigated any of these items that Mr. Peterson brought up. Feasible and prudent alternatives as the judge testified are to him alternatives to tearing the building down. He felt that Mr. Grogan has come up with a feasible and prudent way of doing it and you don't have to look vary far within the City of Stillwater to find buildings that were one time something other than a single family home. You can look on areas of the North Hill wher there are homes that are presently (duplexes now) but they were at one time big gymnasiums - they are now some of the most beautiful homes in the City of Stillwater - he didn't know who did that but at the time he may have been a young person who may not have been considered feasible and prudent. He didn't feel that just because a person young that we could say that he hasn't had the business experience to make tais a viable single family home. He felt that if we are saying we don't think that financing is available, then we should find out whether or not financing is available. He didn't feel that they could sit here and just blatantly say that financing is not available and not do it. He felt that if that is the case - find out. If this is the case and the Council accepts Kilty's offer to tear it down, he felt that the whole thing that they have gone through is nothing but a sham in the first place and that they have been leading to this all along - have been following a procedure that they have to follow in order to tear the bloody thing down is what it amounts to and felt that they found prudent and feasible alternatives and it is obvious by the fact that Mr. Zoller withdrew and he was sorry that he felt the way he does - he couldn't say that he blamed him - but he was sorry that he felt that way - he felt that Mr. Grogan's propxal is feasible and prudent and he didn't feel that they as individuals could say that just because a person is young that he does not have the business experience to make it a viable single family home. HEIDI SMITH, 805 North Third Street, stated that once you tear down a building, it is done - Yea for youth - she felt that sometimes they are the ones that really care -it is the young people who come in and they are sensitive about Stillwater and how can they tear something down which contributes to our history. MR. ED CASS, attorney for RTR - the important thing to consider, in his judgment, was Mr. Kilty's proposal is not a proper one for discussion this evening - your proposal calls for feasible and prudent alternatives.to destruction -it would be difficult to classify his proposal as feasible and prudent alternative to destruction, because his proposal is to destroy the Nelson School - felt that they would have to select three or four proposals that you have before you if one if prudent and then depending on what you decide then and we will probably wind up back in court. MAYOR JUNKER asked if there was anyone else that wanted to be heard and COUNCIL- MAN HARRY PETERSON stated that he made a motion to accept the Kilty proposal. MR. MAGNUSON stated there is an injunction which is still in effect preventing us from proceeding with the Kilty proposal. If the Council is satisfied that they cannot find any prudent or feasible alternative, that the due course would be to reject all the proposals - they would actually have to have a trial on the case in order to dissolve the court's injunction. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON - apparently the presence of the injunction would prohibit the further consideration of the Kilty matter at this time and MR. MAGNUSON stated further action on the deal - we really accepted his proposal but we have been hampered in proceeding with the closing. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked that he restate his motion that he made - he moved that the Council reject all bids that were offered for the retention of the pro- perty on the sounds that none of them met the test of being feasible and prudent alternatives to destruction and that I incorporate in the motion that the previous statements made regarding the basis for finding that the offer of Mr. Grogan particularly, was not feasible and prudent (This part of the motion was recommended by the City Attorney). COUNCILWOMAN EODLOVICK seconded the motion. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON did not know how the Council can determine that there is not a feasible and prudent alternative on the basis of what information that we have gotten tonite - if these proposals are not feasible and prudent then he felt that it was up to them to show that they are not and he did not feel that they had because they have not investigated them. He didn't feel that they can by their 233 a s • • 7 • ( 234 • April 10, 1979 own voli say that financing is not available and thi9 is not available and a $69,000 price is not a realistice price - he did not feel that it is within their judgment to do that - so he did not feel that the Council has determined that there is not a prudent and feasible alternative by any means. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK felt that she has the right to say that. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked Ann how she could say that when she has not checked that - what has she checked? Have you checked the financing? Have you checked the cost - the $69,000? Do you know that it is not a feasible cost? COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK - by looking at it, yes. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked how she could say that. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated what if the $69,000 were only to do the first floor and she agreed that very well could be - might be acceptable - could very well be. She was just taking what they told the Council - the individuals - the one said last evening that he planned on investing $70,000, a loan from the bank plus $70,000 of his own hard work and he could very well see that. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked how he Mr. Grogan is not going, as Bill said, take the $69,000 and completely redo the first floor and she agreed that could very well be. He continued that this would make this very suitable and livable and a very suitable single family home. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked if he did not figure in his own labor and he intends to do it himself and she said that would be fine, but the time schedule says nine months. COUNCILMAN ROGEK .ETERSON stated that they have not in good faith even tried to verify these figures and what they are doing is nothing more than going through the motions to justify whatever stand they took originally in court - pure and simple. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that he had to agree. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON - the question of interpretation of words as we use them is the right of each individual and as we look at the term feasible that we are looking at a term which designates nothing is capable of being dealt with success- fully and when the suggestion is made that maybe Mr. Grogan wants to make an apart- ment or living quarters in one - quarter of the building, I say you cannot leave three - quarters vacant and consider that this is a successful dealing with the building - he did not feel that it makes sense, to say that we will leave the rest of it wide open - just can't be done - you don't heat it - you allow the squirrels and the pigeons and rats to get into there and it is likely to happen. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked Mr. Peterson if had an attic in his house and he responded that he has an attic and it is of sufficient size that he can take care of it very easily and he does not have any squirrels in it and it is well vented. MAYOR JUNKER felt that if Dan Grogan was really interested in this he thought that the proposal would have been in black and white tonite in proper form with the financing, the source of financing - this is a big project and it is not something small that could be let sit. VOTE ON THE MOTION - Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilman Harry Peterson (AYES) and Mayor Junker NAYS -- Councilmen Roger Peterson and Powell (motion carried) INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS 1. MR. JAMES EITTER appeared before the Council regarding the utilities on Night- ingale Blvd. - the water extension and DICK MOORE stated that this was a part of the Johnson Bros. contract as an add - alternate and the Council had the option of either accepting or not accepting that add - alternate and the Council did not accept it. The problem is that the property is in the Township and one has the service already. MAYOR JUNKER stated that Don Anderson will pay the assessment now - in the beginning he was leery about it and didn't know what it would involve. He asked Mr. Eitter to get a petition from the neighbors and take it to Stillwater Township and tell them he wants the water improvement and the Council will meet on it and the Township has to agree to collect the assessments. He asked Mr. Moore to tell Mr. Elliott that the people on Nightingale Blvd. are ready to petition Stillwater Township for the water and that there should be a meeting with Stillwater Township so that they agree to spread the assessments and have same ready by the next regular meeting. If all four partias would sign the petition, it was felt that the Township would not object. • • • • 4 1 • • April 10, 1979 NEW BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council granted permission to the Downtown Retail Council to use Lowell Park for the Art Fair, Friday, May 11 and Saturday 12, 1979 - 10:00 A. M. to 8:00 P. M. (all in favor) (Rivertown Festival) 2. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council approved two beer permits for the Downtown Retail Council and granted permission for the use of Lowell Park for the following two events: August 25, 1979 - 11:00 A. M. to 6:00 P. M. - Brown Bag Music Festival July 4, 1979 - Dance in the Park - 6:00 P. M. to Midnite (all in favor) The meeting was recessed at 11:05 P. M. to Thursday, April 12, 1979 at 6:30 P. M. (Motion of Councilman Roger Peterson and Seconded by Councilman Powell - all in favor) RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanimously adopted: 1. Bonds for the Consolidated Lumber Company 2. Improvement Hearing for L. I. No. 152 Cooper's Addition for Swager Bros. Attest: „4 Cit Clerk Mayor • 235 • • • • a a