Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-04-24 CC MINr • •' 2 ^� INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS 1. NORMAN DAVIS appeared before the Council requesting permission to build on a lot in Penthouse Acres - permission had been granted to Steve Vinck and he wanted this permission granted to him so that the lot may be sold. MR. NISKA reminded the Council that this property is within the jurisdiction of the Bluffland Ordinance which was adopted in 1977 and Mr. Davis would have to get approval from the DNR to build on that lot which requires a lot size of one acre and MR. DAVIS stated that he has talked to the DNR and they referred him to the City Council to get their recommendations. MR. MAGNUSON stated that he is working with Bruce Volz on this plat and the problem is that every owner there within the area has to sign the plat and there are boundary disputed between the owners and they won't sign it until they agree with what the boundaries are - Mr. Leitte has been out of town and this had held it up and he will be meeting with him and upon a certain date the stakes will be placed on the boundaries and then the plat can be prepared on that basis. He told the Council if they give Mr. Davis approval that they ask him to cooperate with the City in this platting process. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Council approved the building permit for the property in Penthouse Acres for Mr. Norman Davis subject to the conditions and provisions set forth by the City Attorney (all in favor) PETITIONS From the Spirit of St. Croix requesting Orderly Annexation to the City of Stillwater ( Lawrence Hauge property) On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Council approved the proposed resolution from Spirit of St. Croix requesting orderly annexation to the City and would approve a formal petition for annexation (Lawrence Hauge Property). (all in favor) From 25 residents on West Myrtle Street requesting a pedestrian crossing between Fourth and Fifth Streets. Discussion was held as to the location of such a cross -walk and the use of a flashing amber light. The first suggestion was to put it at the Fifth Street intersection, but it was felt that it would be a dangerous point on the hill. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, this matter was laid over until the next meeting so that Mr. Van Wormer can check same out and report back to the Council. (all in favor) _ _ — COUNCIL CHAMBER Stillwater, Minnesota April 24, 1979 7:30 P. M. REGULAR MEETING The meeting was called to order by President Junker. The Invocation was given by the City Clerk Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Absent: None Also Present: City Finance Director - Coordinator - Kriesel; City Clerk, Schnell City Attorney, Magnuson; Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton; Public Safety Director, Abrahamson; Director of Parks & Recreation, Blekum; Consulting Engineers, Elliott and Moore; Chairman of the Planning Commission, Farrell, Building Insector, Niska Press: None Citizens: Norman Davis, Mr. & Mrs. Jan Harriman, Mr. & Mrs. Harold Howie, Lucille Matasek, Violet Rock, Don Raleigh, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Emanuelson, Owen Thomas, Alemeda Krueger Mark Carroll, Theresa Schaffer, Mr. Eitter, Jeanne Stenerson, Joseph Crimmins James Hunt, Bob Hagstrom, Jeff Zoller, Mr. & Mrs. John Harmeling, Mark Lange, Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth McKenzie, Jr., Mr. Richard Witham, George Parker, Catherine Frahcis, Roger Hoffman, Jim Bliss, Bill Buhl, James Rosenwinkel, Michelle Jackson, Edward Deiss, Jan Johnson, John Larson, Dick Houston, Ann Daniels W • • • • R • • • • April 24, 1979 0 This was the day and time for the public hearing on Case No. 349 - Kenneth McKenzie, Jr., 2419 Hidden Valley LaL.: for a Special Use permit for an eight foot privacy fence on his rear property line. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on April 13, 1979 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. MR. KC KENZIE explained that this would be an eight foot fence of white cedar erected by Midwest Fencing and the need for the eight foot fence is that the last eight feet of his lot drops off considerably. MR. RICHARD WITHAM, 870 Kndlwood Court, objected to the height of the fence and 06 the placement - he felt that the same thing could be achie5"by placing the fence farther up on his elevation and MR. MC KENZIE stated that would be giving up eight feet of his property and the trees that are planted there. AN unidentified neighbor objected to it also - did not feel that it will look nice - she abuts the property on the back. The Council members, the petitioner and the neighbors reviewed the map that was presented with the layout of the property and these two parties were still opposed to the construction of this fence. Questions were raised as to the height limitation on fences in the ordinance and the limit is four feet and if they are highter a variance is required, and comments were made about other fences in the area. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK indicated that there was no objection filed at the Planning Commission meeting and MR. WITHAM stated that on their meeting notice the heighth of the fence was not mentioned, otherwise he would have been down at the meeting - but in the City Council letter this was indicated. MR WITHAM stated that he and his wife are really opposed to this and could not be here this evening. This was the first request under the fence ordinance and the purpose of this ordinance is to make sure that before the fence is installed everyone is aware of the height and that it is comptable with everyone in the neighborhood - COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON felt that the fence should be lowered in order to avoid 1 any hard feelings. INDIVIDUALS - DELEGATIONS (continued) MRS. JAMES BLAISDELL, 302 Echo Lane, appeared before the Council regarding the purchase of some City park land behind them - she wanted the land vacated so they may purchase same. Questions were raised that if it is dedicated park land, that the City would be unable to sell same. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the City could hold the property in trust and that the City could probably convey it if there is no public use for it and he will check this matter out and report back to the City Council on May Bth. PUBLIC HEARINGS MR. MC KENZIE stated that if he goes to less than six feet then he would be changing the type of fence - possibly to a chain link fence. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON felt that the matter should be remanded to the Planning Commission to take a look at this in the terms of redrawing the plans - he did not want to turn it down and he did not want to authorize a fence that would be contrary to the wishes of the neighbors and the fact that no appeared at the Planning Commission meeting could well be because of the misunderstanding of what the proposal was. He felt that the Planning Commission should consider any of the reasonf for a privacy fence such as objectionable storage of items on other neighboring lots. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked if the Council decided that they would approve a six foot fence, the Council could save another hearing and the mailing out of the letters stating that there would be another meeting - save some time. MR. KC KENZIE stated that his current plan was for the eight foot white cedar fence on the back and chain link on the sides - if that is not approved, then he would go with a five foot chain link all around. MR. WITHAM stated that he would object to a five foot fence - he does not like chain link fences; however, if he put up a four foot fence there was nothing that he could do about it. 253 • • 1 • • / 254 April 24, 1979 Questions were raised about the height of fences allowed by the ordinance and MR. MAGNUSON stated that it is four feet in residential areas and six feet in the commercial areas. MR. MC KENZIE stated that a delay in resolving this would increase the price for him since he has delayed the contractor already by two months. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconced by Councilman Roger Peterson, the matter of the fence for Mr. KcKenzie at 2419 Hidden Valley Lane be remanded to the Planning Commission. (all in favor) - - -- This was the day and time for the public hearing on Case No. 350 - Jan & Alice Harriman, 612 South Fifth Street for a Special Use Permit for a beauty shop. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on April 13, 1979 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. No one appeared as being opposed or in favor of the request - Mr. & Mrs. Mrs. Harriman were present. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a Special Use Permit was granted to Mr. & Mrs. Jan Harriman for a beauty shop in their home at 612 South Fifth Street as recommended by the Planning Commission, for a period of one year. (all in favor) 3. This was the day and time for the public hearing on Case No. 351 - George Parker, for a Special Use Permit to convert an abandoned vacant church building at Fourth and Oak Streets into a dwelling unit. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on April 13, 1979 and copies were mailed to all property orners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing MR. PARKER stated that the Planning Commission approved this for two units. MRS. ALMEDA KRUEGER questioned what kind of a place this was going to be - she did not want any "junker" there, and MR. PARKER assured her that he would make every effort and if he receives a favorable decision this evening he will close on the property tomorrow. Ee anticipated being able to move into the dwelling in July or August. JOHN HARMELING, 316 South Fourth Street, felt that it was a firetrap and is hope- ful that it will become something better than what the previous owner did for it. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked if he was building this for his own occupany and MR. PARKER stated that there will be his own and another - he will be living in one and the other will be a rental apartmepp MR. PETERSON asked if he was going to7 ll of the work himself or if he had a contractor that would be doing the work for him and he replied that he would be doing the work himself. MR. PETERSON asked him if had financing to buy the materials and get the work done in a reasonable time - he asked what the deadline in having this building ready and MR. PARKER stated that he does not intend to have it fully completed for two or three years - he will make it habitable for he and his wife to live in while he completes the rest of the work on the building. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked him if the purchase of the property tomorrow and closing is dependent upon getting approval of the Council tonite and MR. PARKER stated "yes ". MRS. KRUEGER asked if he was going to remove the steeple and MR. PARKER stated that the exterior would remain pretty much as it is - no major alterations. MRS. JOHN HARMELING, 316 South Fourth Street, stated that she heard that this was condemned. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON Made reference to the April 2nd Planning Commission meet- ing which indicated that neighbors were present - they came forth and expressed their approval for the planned home and that anyone wanting to occupy the bolding would be encouraged by them. n au • • • • • 4 0 Ple ft Aprul 24, 1979 COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICR asked what was done on the parking and MR. FARRELL stated that two neighbors were at the Planning Commission meeting and they were concerned about the multiplicity of the dwelling and there will be no garage and the small yard, but they did not see any problems with parking with only one or two families there. JOSEPH CRIMMINS, 404 South Fourth Street, whole heartedly supported this man in his direction to truning it into something that they can be proud of - it has been an "eyesore" and it is an eyesore and all that were in attendance at the Planning Commiasion meeting were in favor of Mr. Parker's proposal. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson the Council granted a Special Use Permit to George Parker to conver a church building at Fourth and Oak Streets into two dwelling units as recommended by the lanning Commission. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that he was going to vote against it - he felt that there is a problem - he was not against this man attempting to do something with the building which he has looked at for many years as a fire -trap. He felt that the City again has a case where a young man is going to take on a project that he felt was going to crush him and in his book this is not a feasible plan - this is a wooden building - it is not a Nelson School which is made of stone and brick - he felt that it has to collapse of its own weight - he respected Mr. Parker's youthful exuberance but he voted against the granting of this permit. VOTE ON THE MOTION - AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Roger Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS -- Councilman Harry Peterson (Motion carried) 4. This was the day and time for the public hearing on Case No. 352 - A Special Use Permit for Catherine Francis to convert a single family home at 113 South Pine Street into a photography studio. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on April 13, 1979 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing ROGER HOFFMAN, 123 East Pine Street, was concerned about the parking as it is a congested street. CATHERINE FRANCIS stated that there will be four or five spaces on the side of the garage in the backyard MR. FARRELL stated that the Planning Commission approved only off - street parking for this business, and the applicant agreed to that. COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON noted that in the Planning Commission minutes it indicated that no customers would be coming to the studio and he questioned if there would be any cars - and he asked her how many people would be working for her and she stated four or five to start with. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that sometime ago about ten years Jack Anderson wanted to have a photo studio on Third Street and it was turned down because of the traffic that would be gemerated which was the biggest concern and it was difficult for him to see how anybody is going to find parking places along that side of the street - there is only parking on one side of the street - if somebody wants to go there, they will park in front if there is a space there. MS. FRANCIS stated that she owns the property behind the garage and need be that is a feasible place and that would not bother anyone and she is hopeful that her employees could walk to work. MR. SHELTON stated that Ms. Francis explained to the Planning Commission that she is not taking like school photos or things like that - she is in a different line of photography. MS. FRANCIS explained that she goes out of tow! and takes slides and she puts the slide shows together for companies - part of 3 -M and different companies that have a need for slide shows - people will not be coming to her shop for picture taking since she does not do that - specializes in wildlife and slide shows. JIM BLISS, 119 East Pine Street, asked if she was planning a new driveway and she replied that the Roloff's have agreed to let her use the driveway easement on the west side of the property. He further requested that another "residential parking only" sign be installed by his house and Mr. Shelton agreed that this could be done. 255 • • • • • 1 r • • 256 April 24, 1979 MERLE NESS, 516 South Second Street, was concerned about the parking and that if slmone else came in there, that there could be more parking with another type of business and MAYOR JUNKER replied that this permit would only cover her type of business - change in ownership would involve a new permit for the same business or a new business venture. MR. BLISS was asking about how much work was yet to be done on the house and the debris that is currently in the backyard and she stated that would be removed this week. The Mayor closed the hearing COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK asked Mr. Farrell about the maximum parking space in the backyard and it was agreed that there is epee for four or five cars and then there is room to park two cars in the garage. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked if she was going to change it from a residential dwelling to a commercial establishment and she replied that the outside would not be changed but the interior would be changed to accommodate what she will be doing there. MR. BLISS asked where the parking would be and she stated that it would be behind the garage and behind the house, and the big area in the back will be a park eventually. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, the Council granted a Special Use Permit to Catherine Francis to have a photograph shop at 113 East Pine Street as recommender' by the Planning Commission. Discussion was held about the parking on this street and Ms. Francis asked if she could park in front of the property on the street -she felt that the school should be providing parking for their employees. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON was opposed to truning a residential home into a commercial area - Ms. Francis is turning the interior of the building into a commercial establishment and did not feel that should be done. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked the City Attorney if this should be rezoned or leave it the way it is and MR. MAGNUSON felt that with a Special Use Permit there is more control and since the exterior of the building is not changed the Council could conceivably revoke the permit - she is not bilding an apartment building which could not be torn down and felt that this request was reaonable. The permit could be revoked if the parking is not provided as agreed to. VOTE ON THE MOTION -- Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilman Harry Peterson and Mayor Junker Nays -- Councilmen Roger Petersonand Powell (motion carried) (THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 8:40 TO 8:50 P. M.) INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS - continued 1. MR. JAMES EITTER appeared before the City Council regarding the utilities on Nightingale Blvd. and MR. KRIESEL reported that he had been in contact with Mrs. Bantli from Stillwater Township and she indicated that she would be sending the City a letter stating that the Township has approved the project and collect the assessments - it is subject to receipt of that letter. MR. MAGNUSON stated that by agreement if they consent and then there would not have to be an improvement hearing since it is a small project. MR. ELLIOTT stated that this was an add - alternate on the Johnson Bros. contract and if he got the letters they could proceed with the improvement. (The parties involved are James Eitter, Tom Armstrong, Tim Brown and Donald Anderson) On motion of Councilman Roger Petdrson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Council approved the construction of the utilities in Nightingale Blvd. subject to the City Attorney getting these letters of approval from the neighbors and the receipt of a letter from the Township. (The Township passed a resolution on this matter) (all in favor) n• ellagl W � • • • • • mr • April 24, 1979 PRI Ifi 2. MR. WILFRED BUHL, 406 West Mulberry Street, appeared before the City Council requesting the City Council to hold evening hours for the Board of Review. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, Mr. Kriesel was directed to check with Washington County to have some evening hours for the Board of Equalization since there have been some requests for such hours. (all in favor) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the contract for the two - one ton trucks for the Public Works Department was awarded to Hopkins Dodge Sales the apparent low bidder at the bid price of $17,190.00. (all in favor) (The money over the budget is to come out of the salt shed levy and there is another $790.00) MR. KRIESEL reported that at the last meeting the Council decided to accept the bid from Hopkins Dodge for the Parks Department Pickup and felt the bids on the two - one ton trucks was a little bit high and over the budget. He and Jack were asked to check the matter out to find if they could find something more reasonable and since they were unable to do so they recommended the award- ing of the bid for all three trucks from the Hopkins Dodge. 2. MR. ELLIOTT sent a memo to the City Council regarding the tests that were taken on South Harriet Street for water pressure in connection with Local Improvement No. 163. The static pressure at the basment level at 417 South Harriet Street was 48 pounds per square inch. The residual pressure at the same location with six faucets open - 11 pounds per square inch. The test revealed that no additional structure should be added to the private water service and that in fact there is question whether or not the existing water facility provides adequate service to the dwellings currently connected. A twenty pound per square inch residual pressure is considered by the State Depart- ment of Health as a minimum desirable pressure to provide the necessary protection of the water ysstem such that a vacuum is not created. If a vacuum is created in the system by excessive withdrawal of water, increasing friction losses, the possibility exists of drawing impurities into the water system. The existing system, being less than a minimum standard should not, therefore, be extended or should additional service be provided from it. MRS. HAROLD HOWIE, 417 South Harriet Street, stated that they all object to this water business. They do not want to go in debt - they can't - they are living on social security - what can they do for the rest of their lives - have this tremendous debt on their backs and did not feel that is right. They are adequately served and they will be paying for Mr. Deiss' building - he does not have survey - and she further complained about the traffic congestion on the street especially in the winter time. MICHELLE JACKSON stated that they are very much opposed to this duplex - there I.� is no room for a duplex and you can figure on four cars at least and there is no place for parking. All the people on that street are opposed to this duplex So and they are opposed to the way that he came about doing this. JIM ROSENWINKEL, 414 South Harriet - and the thing that really bothers him more than the watermain is the congested traffic on the dead -end - last winter they had cars stuck in there - the problem is already there and it is going to increase when this is put in there. MARK RICHERT, 516 West Oak Street, stated that the proposed duplex abuts his property on the back - it is within a few feet from his son's swing set - when the bulldozing was done a tree was removed which he thought was his and in the process his fence was broken - damage to his shrubbery and he found out at that time the property had never been surveyed - the project was held up and he looked at a mud hole all summer long - finally last fall the survey was made and it does not agree with the survey that was done before - yesterday morning the fottings were poured and there are still propery line disputes - this project has been going on for about two years and there never has been a stake set to show where his property line is and he felt that Mr. Deiss should have contacted the neighbors before the project was started and tell them exactly what he was pro- posing. He asked that the Council take a drive up to see the dinky lot and the size of the building and the other problems that are there. MAYOR JUNKER asked if this was a 7,500 foot lot and the reply was "yes" and is suitable for a duplex and MR. NISKA stated that all he needs is two off - street parking spaces - that is all that is required by the ordinance. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked if there had been a building permit taken out on this and MR. NISKA replied "yes ". • 257), a • • c • 58 'April 24, 1979 MAYOR JUNKER stated that the questions is not the duplex - there are other duplexes on other lots similar to this - the problem this evening is the watermain and felt that is what they should be addressing themselves to that and he asked Mr. Elliott if it would be his recommendation that the City put in a new watermain in that street. MR. ELLIOTT stated that he would rather put it in another way, recommend that the duplex not be consttucted utilizing the existing one inch or one -and -a half inch line that is there. MAYOR JUNKER asked if we were to attach it to Johnson's proposal like we are going with Nightingale Blvd., could we not assess these people in a fifteen year period and make the hardship not so tough and put a new watermain in and everybody would be satisfied. MR. ELLIOTT stated that it would just require the Council to vote the improvement in and the assessment period would be . . . MAYOR JUNKER asked if it was $1,200 per home there for the watermain . .. MR. ELLIOTT did not have the number and he q stioned whether the Johnson Bros. would want to add it onto their contract [la ,h a Change Order - it is some- thing that was not covered in the original bidding and bidding it separately, it would be quite a bit more than just having the Council authorizing to proceed on it. MAYOR JUNKER stated that we are faced with two problems now - they do not want the watermain and they do not want the duplex and we have already issued a building permit to build a duplex. The question was raised about revoking the permit because the waternmin is inadequate, but Mr. Elliott stated that the builder had indicated that he would like to build without a new watermain in there DICK MC AVOY, 507 West Oak Street, stated that his property ajoins this property - he is to the north of this and this winter a stake appeared on his property and there is a fence between his property and Mr. Richerts' and the stake appeared roughly 2% to 3 feet inside his property line and this disturbs him - as far as he was concerned an inadquate survey has been done - it does not coincide with the survey that Mr. Pauley conducted for him when he bought the lot four years ago. HAROLD HOWIE, 417 South Harriet Street, felt that their water pressure has been just fine for them and they cannot afford to pay that kind of money and they don't need it - he felt that they would be paying for Mr. Deiss's mistake. MRS. JACKSON asked if there is nothing they can do since the building permit has been issued - even though he has done everything "crooked" if you want to put it that way - what about the parking that is what they are concerned about - she felt that a family these days has two cars and if he is going to have two families in there that is four cars - the other two she did not know where they are going to park - why should they be pushed out since they are already living there. MAYOR UUNKER stated that he is entitled to his property as they do - if he has two off - street parking spaces that is in accordance with the ordinance and that is all he needs and he knew that it isn't probably the greatest and may be isn't right, but they have no right to stop him from building a duplex. JAN JOHNSON, 416 South Harriet Street, asked if it was possible to revoke his permit if the water is not adequate and if there is not possible, why are they subjected to pay for the water lines because he has moved in and created the lack of water pressure - they have not experienced any problems with the water pressure even with all of them taking baths or whatever. MR. MAGNUSON on revoking the permit, the Council could do it, but the District Court would immediately re- instate the permit - the Council is duty bound to follow the ordinances and if something complies with the ordinance taking the square footage and the platted lot aside from questioning the survey that is something that they are not involved with - the City must grant him the permit. As far as the services are concerned, he felt that any resident who has a platted lot has the right to expect municipal services there - that would not be sufficient for the denial of the permit and on the other hand the City would be compeled to furnish services to him. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked if, as some'of the neighbors seem to think, the survey or whatever in question, would that be sufficient grounds to withdraw a building permit. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the big problem is that it is a platted lot - is described as showing adequate square footage that is what the City has to depend upon because the Building Inspector and the other officials of the City can't require a survey - that a certified survey be made of every lot - the plat is suppose to take care of that and the City cannot get into boundary disputes with neighbors because two surveyors can't agree on where the same post should be and the City has stayed out of these disputes; they are subjective. • • • • 0 April 24, 1979 tr COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked if there were a dispute over whether or not this property is of adequate size, could they then require a survey - it appears as though at least two of the property owners seem to indicate that there is something wrong with the stakes or lack of stakes - the putting in of stakes - they indicated to him that these are not adequate surveys and the lot is not of adequate size - could the City as a part of the continuing project require a survey just to have this clarified. MR. MAGNUSON - his platted lot on the plat show that it is 7,500 square feet and that is what he would own - perhaps his nieghbors line should be over on his other neighbors - if his deed shows that he owns a 50 x 150 foot lot he would own that whether it be . . no we can't do that. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON If it is determined that the lot is beig enough and also that the individual is going to build and the duplex can be built there, can it be determined that this be the only benefited property whereas the other properties have service - they have adequate service, thereofre, this property would be the only benefited service so therefore they should pay the entire amount of the assessment. MR. MAGNUSON did not think so. COUNCILMAN POWELL - in effect the Citu does not have water running in that street - it is a private line - no one was assessed for that line because it was put in and the people paid for it themsleves and the City was not involved in it. MR. MAGNUSON - it is in the public street and since it has been in there that length of time it becomes a public line at least up to the property line. MAYOR JUNKER asked if they were agreeable to have him hook -on and let it go at that. EDWARD DIESS stated that if he builds a duplex and hooks up to what is there he knows for a fact that when a shower is turned on the second floor that he is not going to get any water, and this party is going to turn around and sue him, because he built the building and he will turn around and sue the City because they will not provide him with adequate water. He has already paid SAC charges and he has been granted a building permit - he bought the lot in good faith in that it was a City lot with City sewer and water. He has to hook up to something that is adequate and he stated that he would just have to get the State Board of Health down and have them look at it and go through this thing again and that would be after the structure is done and he will be paying interest on loans - if the City can't give him water he asked if he could put in a well and MR. MAGNUSON stated that is legal. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked why he dug the hold before he found out that there was sewer and water there and MR. DEISS stated that he blught the lot in a City and it is suppose to have City sewer and water and he took it as granted the services were there. MAYOR JUNKER stated that his alternative is to hookup to what is there but MR. DIESS stated that is he does hookup to that system and it proves inadequate what happens - the guy who buys the duplex will sue him and he will sue the City. He wanted to go on record that he cannot approve hooking on to what is there - he is building this thing since he has a permit - he might have to put in a well - he does not like the whole situation. Every other municipality has had the services and this is the first time that he has to think about putting in a well. Discussion was held regarding spreading the assessments over a 15 or 20 year period which would amount to about $130.00 per year on the owner's property taxes but they were not agreeable to this. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that as far as she was concerned ii the neighbors do not want it and it is adequate to hookup and then if it proves inadequate then there will have to be a different recourse. COUNCILMAN WOBLOVICK moved that Mr. Deiss be granted permission to hook onto the present system and this motion was withdrawn. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, the Council denied the ordering of the watermian improvement on South Harriet Street north of Pine Street. VOTE ON THE MOTION - AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson and Powell NAYS- Councilman Roger Peterson (motion carried) 2 59 a • • I • 260 April 24, 1979 3. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the City Attorney made the second reading of an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 336, 363, 448, 493, 504, 422 and 537 PROVIDING FOR THE LICENS- ING AND REGULATING OF INDIVIDUALS, FIRMS, CORPORATIONS, CONTRACTORS AND SUB- CONTRACTORS DOING OR PERFORMING WORK WITHIN THE CITY OF STILLWATER ". The ordinance was read section by section followed by roll call after each section and all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. The chair then put the question, "Shall this ordinance pass ?" and on roll call the ordinance was unanimously adopted. Prior to the reading of the ordinance there was discussion on the feasibility of doing this change to require Worker's Compensation coverage - a self - employed contractor with no employees is not required to have this coverage. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that the coverage is of benefit to the employee and of no benefit to the general public other than the State of Minnesota pays out of that general fund the benefits that are not collectible. He had talked to two carriers and they were concerned about increasing the liability limits which are $25,000/ 50,000 /100,000. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that it is to the employer to protect himself - if the employer, for example, has five trucks and he choses not to provide coverage and one of his workers suffers a severe injury and he is going to have a quarter of a million lawsuit - he has no coverage - the State will pay the compensation to the disabled worker so that we don't have that and then the State will then turn around and collect by acquiring his property - his assets to cover the compensation costs - he jeopardizes his whole competitive future. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that the individual that is doing this to save a few hundred dollars - it is kind of a nip and tuck operation. He asked what must a person do to show that he is not required by law and HARRY PETERSON stated that he does not have to do anything - he can say he has no employees and is not in- corporated and, therefore, does not have to have coverage. 4. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, the Council directed that Jack Shelton make a recommendation as to the polices that should be established for the amending ordinance for the Diseased Elm Trees, so that the second reading maybe held at the next regular meeting. (all in favor) 5. MR. MAGNUSON explained that this amendment puts the Fence Ordinance in a more under- standable area - the last ordinance was difficult to understand - this allows for fences within three feet of the property line if the people agree to it, then the City does not get involved in it. If they are more than three feet away and the fence is four feet high, he does not need anyone's consent. It does not require that they need a Special Use Permit. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Cc ncilwoman Bodlovick, the City Attorney made the second reading of an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 567 AND 383, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION, PLACEMENT, HEIGHT, NATURE AND EXTENT OF FENCES ". The ordinance was read section by section followed by roll call after each section with the fillowing roll call vote on the individual sections: Section 1 - Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Section 2 - Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Section 3 - Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Section 4 - Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker (changed to a five foot fence unless the abutting neighbor consents to a higher fence) * Section 5 - Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Mayor Junker + Nays -- Councilman Powell (felt that you would lose 3 feet - felt it should be on the property line) Section 6 - Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Section 7 - Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Section 8 - Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker The chair then put the question, "Shall this ordinance pass ?" and on roll call the ordinance was unanimously adopted *There was considerable discussion about the height of the fence that should be put into this ordinance - some felt four was too low and that six was too high - it was agreed that it should be a five foot fence. MN r r+w L. • • • • • r • • 0 r • April 24, 1979 +Mayor Junker felt that due to the fact that there would be this three foot strip and if adjoining neighbors did this, then there would be a six foot strip that there would be a hassel about cutting, and then it would take a variance to put it up closer than three feet. Mr. Magnuson stated that they would need a variance which could be granted by the Council and they would not have to pay the $25.00 as was in the other ordinance. 6. PROPOSAL FOR THE NELSON SCHOOL - In accordance with the court order, the Council is reviewing these two proposals and if there is any action taken it would have to rescind the last motion that was made at the last Council meeting. MYRLE PETERSEN, 1109 South First Street, questioned the final date for the receiving of bids and MAYOR JUNKER replied that all bids were rejected and at the present time the Council stands with a court case which is to be held on April 30th at 9:30 A. M. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that the continued meeting on April 26th, that Mr. Zoller had offered the revised proposal and that is the reason that it is continued to this evening. MARY EMANUELSON, 1017 South Second Street, stated that the closing date for the bids was April 9th, and Jeff did not bring in his bid with these three men, he backed out that nite - that is a matter of public record and also with Mr. Lange - that is a brand new proposal and she did not feel that they should be considered. MR. MAGNUSON stated that they should be - the District Court's order says that they must consider all reasonable and feasible and prudent alternatives to destruction and they meet those criterias. MAYOR JUNKER stated that they gave RTR and these people the courtesy to review these bids - not defying any court orders. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that she was informed that there were numerous people going through the Nelson School and she questioned how they are getting and who has keys for this building. MR. SHELTON stated that he took people through on Friday evening and then George Diethert took them back on Saturday, and mailed it back up - he did state that someone else may have a key and presumed that we did not get all of the keys back. CHIEF ABRAHAMSON stated that they were called up there on Sunday and there was a realtor showing the building and he did not know how they got in. This is City property and they are trespassing. JEFF ZOLLER stated that is is basically the same proposal - the two new partners are Bob Hagstrom and John Larson who are both here and in his cover letter the two major changes in the proposal - the first one, the construction time could be reduced to one year pretty much as the development proposal called for and also because he is an architect and John Larson is an architect, thought that they would like to leave the option open of possibly having their professional office located in the building. The other difference would be on the cost figures where he talked about his own work versus the loan being that John and Bob are involved that there will be more hired out labor than the $70,000, so those numbers would actually change a little bit in the terms of the actual cost estimates. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked if he had a letter of credit from the bank in- your financing for acreditletter bankL-Rtheylhave he three banks, the First National Bank of Stillwater, The Minnesota Federal in Lakeland and the First State Bank of Bayport. Most of the banks would prefer to take it as one group and they don't all bank at the same bank so they are working out the details, but they are very confident in the terms of financing. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that when these proposals were discussed that Mr. and Zoller made statement had a called First National National Bank National Bank to verify this? COONCILMAN HARRY PETERSON felt that it would hardly be his place to go the bank snd ask them to give him the details about their private dealings with some applicant for a piece of credit and he doubted that they would discuss it with him even though he was a member of the Council voting on an issue. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that if there was a question in his mind he felt that as far as the credit or anything, not only the credit, he felt that it would be very appropriate for any member of the Council to contact the bank - the banks are all aware of the transactions that take place - well aware of who is on the Council and he stated that he had called the bank to verify it for his own in- formation and they verified it. 261 • • • • 1 262 April 24, 1979 IDUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that she asked Jeff to do one thing and that was to meet with the neighbors and she asked if he had done this and he replied that the Thursday before he came to the Council he called Mary Emanuelson to tell her that he was going to resubmit the proposal and he did talk to her to find out what her feelings were and after that some of the neighbors did show up and he did discuss the proposal with the neighborhood - unforuntately not to his success - he did not convince them that his proposal would be acceptable. ANN DANIELSON, 1222 West Pine Street, stated that these people who are objecting to Jeff and Bob and Mr. Larson bought their homes after the Nelson School was built so the building was there and they chose to live there and she felt with the integrity and the abilities of these three men this will be a definite asset to the neighborhood. MR. MAGNSUON asked Mr. Hagstrom if he would be able to secure a Performance Bond for the estimated cost of the construction, as a means of security. MR. HAGSTROM felt that there are other forms of security - the Council wants assurance that if this project is committed to these people that the job is going to be done and done right. There are other alternatives to that performance bond including the tract record of the people involved and he felt that the bond is rather high and abnormal for this situation. This would mean $140,000 or higher - he felt that it is a negotiable item. The other assurance is the bank and their commitment to this project as well - they become financially involved. MR. MAGNUSON asked if there had been any attempt to secure a bond and replied some telephone calls and there are some possibilities contingent upon acceptance. MR. MAGNUSON asked what he told them about the rough figure that they talked about and MR. HAGSTROM stated that he can't. He stated that to come up with a proposal and all the work involved and blow it out the window based on that one item he felt was a weak point. MR. MAGNUSON asked also with the other forms of security that you have some assurance. MR HAGSTROM stated that they would use a percentage of value and put an escrow fund in an institution which is agreeable to both parties - something that they knew that would bind them but he felt that 125% and the financial statement that it takes that it does tie up some assets to do that. MR. MAGNUSON asked if this would be a cash escrow and MR. HAGSTROM replied that he would be open to negotiate and that they could come to a solution. MR. MAGNUSON asked if he would be agreeable to a 25% cash escrow of the estimated cost of the renovation to be paid to the City in the event that there is a sub- stantial default in your performance in a given period of time - some arrangement like that. • MR. HAGSTROM - a penalty arrangement. MR. MAGNUSON - No - this would be so that the City would complete the renovation. MR. HAGSTROM - a completion type bond or a time of completion - he would have to have a meeting with his partners. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that this almost sounded like this is a trial and felt that is to be taken care on April 30th - he felt that what the judge asked the Council to determine if there was a feasible and prudent alternative and he did not know that they would necessarily have to go through the trial portions right now. MAYOR JUNKER felt that these were some questions that should be answered - finances was one of them. MR. MAGNUSON stated that he felt that is an extremely important part of the whole business - it is part of any proposal - the financial ability of the person to carry the project through to a conpletion period so that it is not a half finished structure. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON did not feel that the Council two weeks ago had very much concern about that, David, because no one bothered to inquire about anyone's financial position as far as completion was concerned. MAYOR JUNKER felt that this should have been presented to the Council and that is what Mr. Magnuson is trying to say - he did not feel that he should go down to the bank. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON said the proposal stated that financing was arranged and MR. MAGNUSON did not feel that is enough. Peon • • • • • JEFF ZOLLER stated that the proposal form just stated source of financing FR and if the Council needs a letter of credit from the bank why was that not put in the proposal. ME. MAGNUSON stated that the proposal form said a performance bond in the amount of 125% of the total cost or other suitable financial guarantees that are satisfactory to the Council and that is what is asked for. MR. ZOLLER stated that they are to cosmumicate if they are willing to meet and when he submitted his proposal two weeks ago, he stated that he could. MR. HAGSTROM stated that they would propose to come to an agreement that is agreeable with the Council which is the second part of that sentence. MAYOR JUNKER indicated that we do not have this in front of them - if the Council would turn around and give them the school today and two weeks from today you said, "Mayor Junker and Council we have no finances - we have no money" - then we are stuck with it. MR. HAGSTROM asked why it couldn't be voted that at the time of the closing or time of drawing up these earnest money agreements to provide that. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that is what was originally proposed in the orginal bid. MR. HAGSTROM felt that the financing was their problem and Mayor Junker agreed im and that it is also the City's. MR. HAGSTROM felt that they were talking about two different things. r • e r April 24, 1979 DEL PETERSON stated that the bid solicitation set forth a schedule in which these things are to be presented - it does not ask for the Performance Bond at the time of the bid opening - it gives ten days to close on this transaction and enter into a purchase agreement in another 45 days and close cn the trans- action and another 45 days after that to come up with the performance bond - he felt that the Council was now asking for something far more stringent than was required in the bid solicitation. MR. MAGNSUON said this means that it indicates their willingness to do that and that was part of the deal. JIM HUNT stated that the solicitation for proposals is not a bidding procedure - it was for proposals for negotiation with the Council to get the Nelson School project under way and get it preserved - this what the terms of the court order was - we are to determine that there are feasible and suitable alternatives to the demolition - what you are doing now is setting more and more stringent road blocks in the way of people with feasible and prudent alternatives and it is taking on the aspect of a "farce ". MR. MAGNUSON stated that is not true. MR. HAGSTROM stated that they are not against this - they want to see the project through. They are going to be hurt - and the City is going to look bad - they would have to arrive at what they consider a reasonable amount that they are going to put into that building - estimated value and that they could come up and solve it with a performance bond but he thought it was something that they could talk about with the City Attorney and the Council. They could arrive at a figure of $50,000 for the building and set a performance bond at 125% of that, but he did not feel that was realistic - he felt that they would have to sit down and evauluate it together in order to protect them and the City. COUNCILMAN PONELL moved that the City find the proposal of Mr. Zoller to be a reasonable solution to tearing down the building and that a meeting be held with the proposers prior to April 30th to make any necessary financial arrangements. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON seconded the motion as he felt that they have found a feasible and prudent alternative and he has personally checked with the bank to see that financing has at least been contracted for. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON was opposed to the motion for the several reasons cited in opposing the Grogran proposal - did not feel that at this stage that it is a feasible proposition for this building, and he would prefer to let the court make the decision. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that the proposal does not deviate and felt that this was a very satisfactory settlement for everyone - if the members who have voted in opposition to saving this building would check the financing that is available. 263, • a • • 1 • r • • April 24, 1979 COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK did not feel hhat the bank VOTE ON THE MOTION - Ayes -- Councilmen R. Peterson Nays -- Councilwoman Bodlovick and Mayor Junker would tell them. and Powell , Councilman Harry Peterson (motion defeated) MARK LANGE proposed to create a nonirofit organization with a goal for a Community Resource Center with an alternative engineer solution for solar power which would be a learning institution. He and other interested parties would seek federal funding and they are looking for support for emergency fund- ing for such a project. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that this proposal should be at the courthouse on the BOth. (Other members of the Council praised him for his proposal) 7. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council rejected the two bids that were received on the Removal of Diseased Elm Trees. (all in favor) Bis were opened on April 20, 1979 at 4:00 P. M. by Nile Kriesel and Dorothy Schnell as follows: (Also in attendance were the two bidders) Bid No. 1 Bid No. 2 Horak Trucking Bayport, Minnesota Certified Check Total Bid $4,271.00* Alternate No. 1 Haines Tree Service, Inc. Stillwater, Minnesota Bid Bond Total Bid $4,510.02 AlternaterNo. 1 Attest: ,A° � "u ✓ Cgty Clerk $924.00 $789.36 *In checking the bids it was found that this figure totalled up to $4,536.00. CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT (put of order) MR. ELLIOTT informed the Council that there will be a meeting in his office on Friday, April 27th at 10:00 A. M. regarding the development of some type of SAC charges. He asked for a volunteer from the City Council to attend this meeting - Councilwoman Bodlovick volunteered to attend along with Nile Kriesel, Dave' Magnuson and Dennis McKean,. The Mayor recessed the meeting at 11:00 P. M. until S:00 P. M., Thursday, April 26, 1979. Mayor 7 V • • • •