HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-25 CC MIN•
•
•
b
COUNCIL CHAMBER
Stillwater, Minnesota
REGULAR MEETING
Absent:
Also Present:
None
Citizens: None
March 25, 1980 4:00 P. M.
The meeting was called to order by President Junker.
Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson,
Powell and Mayor Junker
Finance Director - Coordinator, Kriesel; City Clerk, Schnell;
Cit: Attorney, Magnuson; Superintendent of Public Works.
Shelton; Public Safety Director, Abrahamson; Director of
Parks & Recreation, Blekum; Consulting Engineers, Elliott,
and Van Worm:r; Byilding Official, Zepper; Fire Chief, Chial
Press: St. Paul Dispatch - Broede
COMMITTEE REPORTS
PUBLIC WORKS
1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Council
1 authorized the installation of a "residential parking only" sign by Roy Rydeen's
S home at 917 West Myrtle Street. (all in favor)
2. Mr. Shelton reported on the study done by Washington County in relation to the
proposed stop signs at Greeley and West Churchill Streets - they recommended the
removal of parking on the east side of Greeley Street from a point 130 feet south
of Churchill Street to a point 90 feet north of Churchill Street.
On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick,
Jack Shelton was directed to send the letter from the Washington County Highway
regarding the study on Greeley and Churchill Streets to the Washington County
Board. (all in favor)
3. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the
Council authorized the installation of the outside lighting at the Public Library,
said work to be done by Suburban Lighting at the quoted price of $1,600 and that
the Library Board be advised that this amount will come out of their maintenance
fund for 1980. (all in favor)
4. Mr. Shelton reported that Charter Oak Development who will be building on the Feely
property regarding the street lighting and he was irstructed to inform them that
they are to follow the Sub - Division Ordinance on this matter.
PUBLIC SAFETY
1. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the
Council authorized the signing of the Cooperative Police Agreement with the
surrounding communities. (all in favor)
2. Mr. Abrahamson submitted three applications for Police Reserves for the City and
one of the officers is certified and he recommended that he be brought in as a
part -time officer - all of the backgrounds have been checked out. Mayor Junker
asked that these be checked out at the Administrative Committee meeting.
PARKS AND RECREATION
1. Mr. Blekum cited the figures for the other capital outlay items that were budgeted
for - the total budgeted figure of $12,093 and he purchased the trailer and tractor
for $4,515 and paid for the survey of Washington Park which was $1,900.70 and this
leaves a balance of $5,905.00; the other items are playground equipment for the
uper level of the Croixwood 7th Addition Park - Wood Playstructure - $1,200.00, slide
$350.00 and belt swing - $400.00, 1 set of bleachers - $584.00; players benches- -
$216.00; Four foot chain link fence on the Northland side for $700.00.
The other item is a sprayer for spraying the turf - Toro - $1,100.00. This
will leave about $900 and he will need curb stops which will cost about $400.00.
On motion of Councilnan Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Harry
Peterson, Mr. Blekum was authorized to purchase the equipment as
detailed above for the Parks Department. (all in favor)
2. Mr. Blekum asked about the ice -time rates for the Ice Arena for the coming season
for the negotiating of the contracts and that the Council has taken no action on
this matter as recommended by the Recreation Commission for a rate change to $47.50
per hour.
71
•
•
•
•
e 7 1 72
March 25, 1980
(Mayor Junker stated that this would be taken up at the Administrative
Committee meeting later and then be brought up at the 7:30 meeting)
BUILDING OFFICIAL
MR. ZEPPER suggested that the City get quotes for the stairway to the basement of
City Hall.
CITY ATTORNEY
1. Mr. Magnuson explained the problems with the easement over the John Ogren property
for the proposed new streets, which would be the sheet into the Feely property.
Originally the road was proposed to go to the north in a straight boundary line
of the station and Mr. Ogren requested that the road go to the south. There are
many problems with this piece of property - with the one location it would make the
one parcel completely unbuildable and he would like to have a plan for some town-
houses in this area and he will need relaxing of the setback requirements. The
appraisals are $1.50 per square foot for the one parcel and $2.50 per square foot
for the other parcel.
MAYOR JUNKER felt that the street should be moved down to Orleans and let Mr. Ogren
sit there with his property.
MR. ELLIOTT stated that there is Municipal State Aid on this route through the
Industrial Park - Orleans as a permanent roadway to come down to Greeley is far
less than desirable because of the grade to the west. Mr. Elliott stated that we
already have sanitary sewer and watermains in the location of the street to the
south of Ogrens and storm sewer must go there because of the low area there - it
is a very desirable location to feed the traffic into the Industrial Park - it is
a very important route to serve the Industrial Park properly.
Mr. Elliott felt that the property can be condemned and a fair price be
given for it -
MAYOR JUNKER felt that Orleans is just two blocks away and it could run straight
south abutting Ogren s property and Axdahls and serve the same purpose and MR.
ELLIOTT stated that this would not be practical - and he disagreed with Mr. Elliott
and Mr. Van Wormer and if Mr. Ogren has cars piled up at the station no body will get
through that road.
MR. VAN WORMER stated that the intersection with Orleans Street and Greeley is very
gad at the crest of the hill - if there are some variances granted then the City
would not have to take so much property and that if the Council could relax some
of these lines Mr. Ogren has some very buildable property.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK asked how does the City recover the damages and she was
informed that it would be assessed as part of the completed project.
MR. MAGNUSON stated what the City is looking at is the storm water ponding and that
would be about $10,000, temporary ponding easement about $764 and on the 70 foot
right -of -way the damages there would be about $70,000 without taking the curb into
account and without any damages to the remaining pieces of property. The ordinances
would prohibit construction on them the way they are - - -
MR. VAN WORMER explained some of the possible alternatives and they would create
gre.iter grade problems. They have not been able to come up with something which
is really functional for both the City and Mr. Ogren.
MR. ELLIOTT stated that these monies could come out of the Municipal State Aid
for the right -of -way, but not the damages may not qualify.
MAYOR JUNKER stated that we should eliminate the street if that is possible and
move it to Orleans and MR. SHELTON stated that we would have to acquire some land
there also - about 30 feet or 40 feet.
MR. ELLIOTT stated that these coats could be assessed to the project and there
would be some benefit all the way over to County Road No. 5.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked about the curve based on an alternate route and he
was informed that this would allow for the stacking up of cars at the station.
COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON stated that we have to give Mr. Ogren the choice that either
he takes it with the curve or go straight.
MAYOR JUNKER felt that we should tell him that they let him - the City will let him
put the road any way he wants within reason, but that the City is not paying damages
for the property that is affected and that he would have to take his chances on the
types of buildings that he can get there from the Joint Powers and the City, or run
it straight.
INI
tad
0 I
IF1
r
•
0
•
•
•
March 25, 1980
PIM MR. MAGNUSON stated that we do have the signed sewer easement, but we do not
have the easement for the street.
3. MR. MAGNUSON distributed to the Council information on Cable T. V. which he felt
that they should read so that they know what is going on in this field.
4. MR. MAGNUSON informed the Council that the Municipal Board has granted a
continuance of the Johnson Annexation case in order to get an agreement with
David Johnson and the Township and that the agreement that the Council approved
last Tuesday nite and on Thursday nite the Township was unable to agree on what
the different provisions should be and there was one question about only single
family residences now and forever on this property and Mr. Johnson has already
r r, given some permission for Townhouses or cluster type of homes on a portion of
this property and with the financial conditions this could be what will be
happening in the future.
MR. KRIESEL indicated that he had been in contact with Kathy Buck and this matter
will be brought up to their people and she will report back to the City as soon
as they have that meeting.
5. MR. MAGNUSON brought up the matter of the bonding and platting of some additional
property for Kern - Pauley and the dedication of property for parks or ponding and
the requirements under the ordinances - the developer and their attorney feel
that the dedication of the ponding area and the easement should be accepted in
lieu of dedication of land.
I -8
M
s
Mr. Magnuson suggested that there be a meeting of the Mayor and
the Council, Duane, Nile and himself with Mr. Ogren and the date
of this meeting was set for 4:30 P. M., April 2, 1980.
On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson
the Council authorized the payment of $13,125.00 to Bob Eardley for the taking
of property for ponding. (all in favor)
2. Mr. Magnuson informed the Council that the City had received notice from the
State on the arbitration for the Fire Department Co..cract including a list of
arbitrators and he felt that there should be only one arbitrator and the City
will have to bear most of the cost of the arbitrator or arbitrators.
The Council directed that Mr. Kriesel, Mr. Magnuson and Councilman Harry
Peterson select the arbitrator for this contract.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that the alternative to this, if the ponding is not
dedicated and its retention is owned by Kern, the City can still have the easement
- he retains the ponding and that is the way the County's recommendation was given
to the Joint Powers.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that it was Kern's idea that it be dedicated as
an Outlot.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that the Planner requested that the City or Joint
Powers leave the Outlot on Kern's property.
There questions about some of the other stipulations which were put into
the guidelines set forth by the Joint Powers Committee regarding this
platting.
MR. MAGNUSON explained that the $4,015 which Mr. Kern is paying against the Feelys
are paying $150 per acre into the Park Fund Dedication monies and felt that both
parties should be treated the same way. These figures are computed on County
tax records.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that anything under the Joint Powers area goes into
an Escrow Fund to purchase future parks for the City of Sthlwater from park
dedication and they have been using the same formula all along.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON did not feel that the Council should have to make a
decision on this matter and felt that the City should sit on it for a couple of
weeks - he did not feel that this was fair to the Council.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK did not feel that the Council should have to make a
decision this evening on this matter.
73\
0
•
•
0
•
67 74
March 25, 1980
CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT
1. Mr. Elliott gave the Council an iterim report on the //I Study in the Downtown
area which is about 95% done - there are 70 structures that they have checked
that springs or foundation drains and there are 42 with little or measurable
flow - there are 21 that have flows that were measured and there are seven that
have to go back and either dye or recheck them to see if they do go into the
sanitary sewer or the storm sewer - once they get this data together that a
meeting be held to advise the owners of the possible plans for charges and he
did not wish to name the owners that have major flows at this time. They are
assuming that these flows continue at the same rate throughout the entire year
and this would give the City about 33 million gallons of flow annually which
costs the City about $13,000. This does not involve the roof drains and they are
a less significant portion of the cost - he estimated about two to three thousand
dollars. Of the seven that have to be checked yet, there are one or two fairly
significant ones in the way of flows - there is one structure that is costing the
City in sewer charges about $5,600 annually - there are about 14 million gallons
per year that has to be checked out.
2. Mr. Elliott reported on the Pine Tree Trail drainage and stated that Dick Moore
has talked to Mr. Swager and they want to put in the pipe and Mr. Elliott sees
no problem with that - they will stake it and then inspect it.
MAYOR JUNKER asked about the depth of the pond and have it filled in if it is not
over two feet deep and then put in a swail and MR. ELLIOTT stated that the pond
does perform a major use in receiving water and he would like to see the pond
maintained as part of the drainage system.
MAYOR JUNKER felt that if it is five feet deept is a death trap for little kids,
but he was informed that there are other ponds that are similar to this one.
MR. MAGNUSON stated there would be an advantage to the City to have some type of
oulet.
MR. ELLIOTT stated that there is a catch basin some fifty feet away and he would
like to see them run this pipe into the catch basin.
The Engineer and the Council were agreeable to having Mr. Swager put in
this pipe and run it into the catch basin.
3. MR. ELLIOTT and Mr. Van Wormer reviewed the final plans for the parking lot on
South Main and that there will be an add - alternate bid for the lighting which was
not in the original plans.
There were questions rfaised about what happens if the City is unable to sell the
bonds for this project and the legislature has not up to this time passed the bill
raising the interest limits.
MR. ELLIOTT suggested that there be a sixty day hold on the bids.
MR. BLEKUM stated that the cost of the trees for the landscaping of this area would
be about $2,500.
4. MR. VAN WORMER reviewed the plans for the Main Street project and the signals that
will be a part of this project which will be bid by the State of Minnesota.
On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson,
the Mayor and the City Clerk were authorized to sign the plans for the
Main Street Improvements. (all in favor)
(The Mayor signed this set of plans)
COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS
1. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the City
Attorney was instructed to investigae with Stillwater Towns "ip the possibility
of disbanding that portion of the agreement that provides for a Joint Powers
Commission. The reason for that is it becomes cumbersome to enact any planning
on behalf of Stillwater - the land in consideration is the farthest removed from
Stillwater Township - if it were abutting them he could see a reason where it would
be important to them - he felt that our Planning Commission can handle that and it
would facilitiate the development of that property in a more business -like manner)
and that this be done without any prejudice
MR. MAGNUSON stated that the Council does have the power to do this, but he did not
know if they had a right actually to do it - right now the City is still attempting
to negotiate an Orderly Annexation Agreement with David Johnson and this will give
him a chance to do that: and there is some feeling in the Township that the City of
Stillwater does not live up to their contracts; if the matter was brought to court
it might tie -up the development and growth out in that area - might just paralize
any type of development and the property owner would not know who to go to - this
(continued on page 75)
s
0
•
a
•
•
•
•
•
March 25, 1980
7
commission was authorized by special law and it is within the City's authority
to make such a contract and whether it should be voided when it has been work-
ing well would be the question. Possibly the suggestion would be that the City
meet with the Township and talk to them about this - maybe they are tired of it,
too. Personally he felt that when the Comprehensive Plan is done, then the real
work is done there and all that is left is the administration of it.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that she did not feel at the time that was adopted
that it would be this much work and cumbersome,but yet she is dedicated and she
will continue to do this and she has no objection of talking to the Township about
this.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON was not so sure that it isn't good to have it somewhat
cumbersome - to require those developers to come in and talk to Joint Powers and
get a mix of opinion there and come down to the City Council and run into further
scrutiny of their plans rather than make it too easy because he felt that exper-
ience has shown that things have slipped through the cracks because there hasn't
been this cross - check. Is the time right for the City to break this? He would be
opposed to just arbitrarily taking a vote saying that we want to pull out at this
time because it is too cumbersome.
COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that the only thing that has happened in that area is the
Melton property was built and that was while it was in the Township, and he felt
that is the only bad piece that the City has out there.
There was discussion about the development of this property and the City's
taking a portion of it for the road and Mayor Junker did not feel that piece of
property is that big of a problem.
VOTE ON THE MOTION - AYES -- Councilmen Harry Peterson, R. Peterson and Powell
NAYS -- Councilwoman Bodlovick and Mayor Junker (motion carried)
CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT - continued
5. GLEN VAN WORMER reported the hours for the lift bridge and they will keep records
as to how many times they have to open the bridge
Mr. Muller and Mr. Wolf stated that they would print up some schedules
and put them on all of the boats and the Council felt that should be taken
care of.
He reported that there will be a delay in obtaining a motor for the lift and
the State will be asking for a 15 or 30 day period in which they cannot use
the bridge and the Coastguard would never let them sut it during the summer
months.
There was discussion about tae parking of the Jubilee and Mr. Van Wormer felt
that the City should go along with the same arrangements as last year.
CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT
1. There was discussion on the proposals which were received for the Nelson School.
Mr. Kriesel explained the various plans and proposals - Seven Hills Corporation,
Shamrock /Gaughan and the Zoller - Hagstrom- Larson.
14
hq SEVEN HILLS CORPORATION requested financial assistance in the form of
Industrial Revenue Bones or Tax Increment financing and Mr. Langness stated
that this is out of the question.
SHAMROCK /GAUGHAN - Several members of the Council felt that eleven units
were too many.
ZOLLER- HAGSTROM- LARSON - There were questions about the loans for the people
who will be purchasing the units and that the bank cannot really commit themselves
to unknown parties.
COUNCILMAN R. PETERSON felt that the Council is obligated to make a decision
this evening on this matter. He could not go along with Seven Hills Corporation
due to the fact that they are requesting financial assistance - Shamrock /Gaughan
his only question is the eleven units and with Zoller /Hagstrom /Larson the only
question that he has is whether or not they will complete the interior. He felt
it was between the latter two.
MAYOR JUNRER felt the same way.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK really did not have a personal choice except for the fact
that she is taking the lesser of two evils - she favors the Zoller /Hagstrom /Larson
proposal since it has the least density and in this respect she disagreed with
the judge in not listening to the neighbors.
75 .
w
•
•
•
March 25, 1980
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON wanted to keep the density down and he would favor the
Zoller /Hagstrom /Larson proposal and he felt that we not only want the exterior
of the building finished, but that the landscaping be finished and not leave
the construction equipment on the property. He would also like to see interior
parking as he felt that there is a potential.
COUNCILMAN POWELL would like to see the grounds landscaped and he favored the
lower density and secondly, he favored the Zoller /Hagstrom /Larson because of all
the good things that Jeff has done for the City of Stillwater - he has a good
architect, and if tney can't do it he would have to go with the other one. He
felt that possibly Gaughan would go down to eight.
MR. KRIESEL called the attention to the Seven Hills Corporation proposal and that
they do not have the financing and from talking to them, he felt that they were
solvent.
MR. MAGNUSON felt that the City has to abide with the order and not destroy the
building. He reviewed the bids and favored the Shamrock /Gaughan proposal.
MAYOR JUNKER agreed with Mr. Magnuson
There were comments made about the purchase price and that there will be
possible criticism on this.
2. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council
confirmed the appointment of Bill Fredell to the Cable TV Advisory Committee
for the City of Stillwater. (all in favor)
On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick,
the meeting was recessed at 6:05 P. M. until 7:30 P. M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER
Stillwater, Minnesota
Absent: None
Also Present:
Press:
Citizens:
March 25, 1980 7:30 P. M.
RECESSED 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
Finance Director /Coordinator, Kriesel; City Clerk, Schnell; City
Attorney, Magnuson
WAVN - Lynn Vlasvik
Stillwater Gazette - Bob Liberty
Mr. & Mrs.James Graham, Ann Danielson, Sue Collins, Owen Thomas,
Wally Milbrandt, Judd Orff, Bill Hahn, Chuck Pozzini, John
Larson, Jeff Zoller, Bob Hagstrom, Al Hamel, Joe Gould, Wilbert
Monson, Neal Skinner, Jim Torseth, Dr. Ronald Kranz, Mr. & Mrs.
Tony Leitte, Michael Kinyon, T. H. Swain, Jerome Mills, Chuck
Hoffman, Mr. & Mrs. John Stiles, Daniel St. Martin, Jack Mulenpohl,
Mr. & Mrs. Norman Davis, Jeanne Stenerson, Jack Lux, Jane Anderson,
Tom Farrell, Del Peterson, Wayne Herr, Richard Kleinbaum, Jim Hunt,
Dave Swanson
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. This was the day and time for the public hearing on the proposed utilities, streets
and other appurtenances for properties abutting Curve Crest Blvd. and Tower Drive,
both westerly of Washington Avenue within the Stillwater Industrial Park.
Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the
official newspaper of the City on March 13 and March 20, 1980 and copies were mailed
to all property owners proposed to be benefited.
The Mayor opened the hearing.
No one spoke in reference to this improvement, although several of the parties were
pre: It at the hearing.
0
0
•
•
• March 25, 1980 7 •
N
MR. ELLIOTT very brifely described the project and cited the various assessment
figures. The total cost of the improvement is estimated to be $218,250.
MR. MAGNUSON stated that it might be prudent and not order the improvement until
the bond situation has been resolved - the Council has six months after the date
of this hearing to order the improvement and hLpefully that the bond market will
clear up by that time.
MR. ELLIOTT stated that it will take them about six weeks to two months to
prpeare the plans and the Council should be aware of that time element.
The Mayor closed the hearing.
On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell,
the Council tabled any action on the ordering of this improvement until such
a time as the bond market improves. (all in favor)
2. This was the day and time for the hearing on the Penthouse Acres Plat. Notices
were mailed to all property owners within said plat.
The Mayor opened the hearing.
BRUCE FOLZ distributed copies of the proposed plat to the members of the Council
and proceeded to explain the plat to the Council and the property owners. What
he has done is to take the existing ownership of the properties that the people have
today and put them into platted lots with some exceptions.
ve Th. area down in the southeast corner is included in Lot 12 that is owned by
Mr. Mills - there is a forty foot strip that was cross- hatched in red adjacent to
the Hoffman property that is presently owned by Mr. Leitte - there is also a portion
southeasterly of the highway drainage easement on the Hoffman lot that is owned
by Mr. Leitte - there are portions of the area to the west of the Stiles lot that
is owned by Mr. Leitte and the portion of the area which is shown on Lot 10 which
is Leitte's property is also owned by Mr. Leitte.
He has talked to Mr. Leitte about this and he believes that Mr. Leitte has
made some agreements to make some conveyances and sale to Hoffman to get rid of
these and the object of this to eliminate Tony's ownership of these isolated
parcels that do not have access to roads as it creates a problem with him owning
a tract of land and he does not have public access to it and that would be the
differences in the deeds that the property owners have and what he was showing
on the drawing. This still has to be resolved individually between Mr. Leitte
and the property owners to acquire that land
In the proposed sub - division there is one other thing that is involved -
there is a highway easement to the highway department for drainage purposes - the
underlying fee ownership in that is Mr. Leitte - the State Highway Department has
an easement for the purposes of drainage - the use that Mr. Leitte would have for
that property is almost "nil" - it is totally controlled by the State for that
drainage easement - he has discussed this with Mr. Leitte an-.1 he felt that every-
body is better off to have the fee ownership of that ditch go co the adjoining
owners - each one of the adjoining owners should get title to the underlying fee -
it is still subject to the Highway easement and they virtually have no use or no
control over it - but if they should ever vacate that storm drainage easement or if
they should put it into an enclosed pipe, then you would be the adjoining property
owner and get that land. He did not feel that he wanted to leave a strip of land
behind the houses sixty feet in width to go to somebody else later on.
Mr. leitte has indicated that he wants to consider a walkway easement along
the existing drainage ditches - part of this is not his property - that is his
desire and that is something that the people should resond to and the Council shot. :d
respond to - he was not aware of the mechanics as to how that could be done.
The other item is Outlot "A" which is the center portion of Orwell Court -
that was an unplatted portion of property totally owned by Mr. Leitte - it is his
desire to sub - divide that into three parcels and that is the way it shows up on this
drawing. The Council has seen it and he did not believe that they have reacted to
that at all. The reason that it is on the plat is that it was Mr. Leitte's choice
to do that - it does not mean that it has been approved or final. All of the stakes
have been placed on the property lines with the exception of the drainage ditch
where it goes down the center. Within three inches all of the stakes that they
found were okay - some of them were reset - some of them were missing have been
replaced and there is one stake on the Swain property that was four or five feet off.
TOM SWAIN stated that it was his understanding that if they all had a common
agreement on where the stakes were, that that would be accepted as such and he
questioned the diff erence in the placement of his takes.
MR. FOLZ stated that Mr. Swain's lot was the only one that they had a problem on-
they attempted to follow the deeds that the people had - the northeast corner of Mr.
Swain's property was about five feet further over and if they would have followed
that line it would have encroached on a highway easement. He felt that the way
that the stake is placed now conforms to his deed. Some of the problems involved is
that you have a road that is fifty fee wide and all of the irons have to be within
the fifty foot width and some of them had to be moved.
•
a
•
•
1
•
s (78
March 25, 1980 i--
TONY LEITTE stated that Mr. Muhlenpohl would be willing to sign the petition
if that is necessary and the only one that did not sign it is Mr. Graham.
JACK MUHLENPOHL asked which issues are being discussed and he was informed
that the plat is what is being discussed at this time.
MAYOR JUNKER asked if there are any other problems besides the property in the
court if this is accepted and MR. FOLZ stated that the one thing that the
Council has to discuss is Mr. Leitte proposes to have a walkway easement along
the drainage swail.
MR. LEITTE would like to see the roadway around Swain's property down into
Mulenpohl's that the City take the road around the court - he would prefer
they take it right up to Mulenpohl's property. MR. FOLZ stated that he had
put it on the map as an easement and it would be an individual thing between
two homes, but Mr. Leitte would prefer to have the driveway easement become
a City street and then the City would maintain it and snowplow that roadway;
it would only have to serve one home, but it could serve two.
MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Folz if the Council does not accept the three lots in
the middle that Mr. Leitte, wants, then the plat is not approved.
MR. FOLZ stated that it is not a matter of approval or not approval - he felt,
it is the City's charge to instruct him how they want this plat drawn as it is
drawn at the City's request - there is unsubdivided land in the center and he
felt that the City should address that as a subdivision. It differs from the
rest of the plat as the others are recorded desc*tions of record and they
are trying to clean up those title owners - the center portion is not that
case - it is one tract.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked if this plat fell within the "Subdivision Ordin-
ance" and MR. MAGNUSON responded with a review of the situation. In about 1971
Mr. Leitte agreed to plat the property and he wanted to sell a parcel prior to the
final plat being approved and the City Council allowed him to do that and then the
Council allowed the next person to build and Mr. Leitte deposited a sum of money
with the City to insure that it would be done. After being extremely patient with
Mr. Leitte over the years, the City decided to use the money and accomplish the
platting ourselves and that is when the City hired Mr. Folz. The problems is com-
pounded because there are at least 11 different owners and each owner is required
to sign a plat along with their mortgage companies which means that if the plat is
going to be approv ed there will have to be an agreement between all the owners -
say that 10 of the owners would sign the plat, then he felt that we could proceed
in the courts probably to compel the party that won't sign to sign it. He felt that
the City is under an obligation to cooperate in the platting because it seemed to
him when the City Council gave the building permits to each one of them the con-
cession was given that they would get a building permit if they would cooperate in
the platting - he felt that the City Council should try to achieve the concensus
among the owners and eliminate all but the most unreasonable and then proceed.
This does fall within the Subdivision Ordinance as far as practical - one pro-
vision of the code is that all of the public improvements should be installed prior
to the City's acceptance of the plat - the street does not meet design standards
and if the City wants to leave the street where it is, they would have to get a
variance from that provision - as far as the park land dedication, the ordinance
would apply and he felt that the Council should try to apply them as long as it
is ptractical and reasonable to do so, but under the circumstances the important
thing is to get the plat filed.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that there are not any dedicated park lands
within this plat and he felt that the City could require, for instance, that the
circle be dedicated as parkland in acceptance of the plat.
COUNCILMAN POWELL atated that he had heard that the center property was indicated
by Mr. Leitte that there would be nothing built on it at the time that some of
the buyers purchased their property and MR. LEITTE denied this, and stated that
each individual property owner has a park within itself and he would not go for
making this most valuable piece of property for a park - he would not go for that.
MR. MAGNUSON stated that the plat encompasses all of the property owned by all of
the people so each person that is a part of the entire parcel has to sign the plat -
if he is conveying out a quit claim deed on the meets and bounds description, then
the City would give them back ^ deed for a lot and block and it is hopeful that
their property lines won't change a bit - instead of having a long legal description
that is hard to understand, they will have a lot and block number description.
MR. MULENPOHL did not feel that he should be signing what should be done with the
three extra lots - he felt that was between Mr. Leitte and the Council and what the
decision is on the Subdivision and should have nothing to do with his property. He
was not opposed to the three lots in the center and that would be acceptable to
him. He also asked that the drainage ditch be used as a recreational area and would
sign only on that if there is protection and that doesn't become a motorcycle and
snowmobile access area.
•
w
a
•
e
•
•
• ^ March 25, 1980
MR. LEITTE stated that when he looks at the size of those building lots that he
sold from the low of $3,000 up to absolute top of $9,500 - all of the lots are
from three - quarter to two acres - this is not Croixwood - this is a park area and
he asked that he not be asked to sacrifice those three lots in the center - when
he bought that property, built those roads . . .
CHUCK HOFFMAN generally was very much in favor of using this walkway but in this
case his house is about five feet away from that area and it would be an incon-
venience and perhaps even sometime embarrassing to have people that close to his
property. He received a variance from the State to build there so for him it
would be kind of a hardship and this would be almost all of his front lawn.
MR. MULENPOHL stated that we all tend to be selfish - we have our own families and
think of the aethestic beauty of the area - this is an open area and he felt that
they would have to be fair and do something that is very applicable to Mr. Leitte
also.
BRUCE FOLZ stated that in talking about the drainage easement that the City of
Oft Stillwater has to make a pretty strong committment that they will police that
area and clean it up - if it is put into a walking trail, his recommendation would
be that it would have to be non - motorized - Mr. Hoffman's and other houses are very
close and it is their backyards and it could be a problem - if they did consider it,
that it be considered only as a walking area; secondly, if the Council does that
and open it up to a lot of people, you are going to have to give them some kind of
guarantee that you will keep it clean and police it because it goes down into an
area that is pretty rough country - tough to get access to it and you have to
pie come back through the homes and it brings in a lot of things that the people would
be unhappy with. Mr. Leitte has requested that it be a walking trail and the
I e Council should consider his request.
Mr. Folz explained the drainage easements and the problems - if Orwell Court
is ever improved the street would go into an urban section and the water would
stay in the street and go into the storm sewer and then it would have to be piped
down to the State Highway - the adequate easements have been added in order to take
care of that so that they would not have to come back to the City later on and try
to get an easement and put that pipe through - the main area is a line between
Lot 6 and 7 (between Mills and Hoffman) - the City's Engineer believes that is the
most logical place to have a storm pipe go if this street were surfaced and the
other easements are put on there are the ordinance requires that there be sidewalk
and front yard easements fro the public utilities (telephone, power and gas) and
especially where the road right -of -way is only 50 feet rather than the normal 60
feet - the utilities are in there today and they should be covered by that easement.
_ MR. MAGNUSON stated that Dick Moore, assistant City Engineer, has recommended that
two catch basins be constructed on either side of the road near the Lot 6 and 7
where Mr. Hnffman has experienced dranage problems and that this becomes a part of
the plat c
CHUCK HOFFMAN stated that there is a problem even if there were no buildings there
that something should be done - he has used his own truck the past few years to
haul in rock to fill in what should be a public road - the top soil keeps washing
off and covers up all of the rock and something should be done by the City to
alleviate that situation.
11
MO MR. MAGNUSON stated that one of the problems is that the procedure normally is that
the developer is required at his own expense to install of the drainage facilities
including storm water, catch basins, and that sort of thing and in addition to
putting in all of the roads and paying for them prior to the acceptance of the plat.
WAYNE HERR, Builder and Developer, stated that he has an interest in this property
since he wants to get a building permit. He really did not care what is done in
the middle of the court - it has always been customary for the developer to give
and take a little - there is a park fund and he has always given a little - if
there is a real controversy here with three houses, maybe a compromise should be
worked out, just like it was worked out on the West Hills Addition from 11 lots
to three lots - he was requesting a building permit on Lot 2, Block 1.
MAYOR JUNKER could see no problem in giving him a permit and COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON
stated that is how we got into the problem in the first place as the Council couldn't
see a problem giving building permits one at a time and now we have several homes
up there. The fact that Mr. Leitte charges $3,000 or $30,000 or whatever he charges
he did not feel that has any bearing on the acceptance or rejection of this plat,
but he did feel that in other plats that the City has required park area from other
developers and he did not know if Mr. Leitte would have come in here nine years ago
like he was suppose to some of these things would have been resolved - he may have
had one house there or two, but if he would have done what he was suppose to have
done nine years ago we would not have this problem - he felt that the City should
hold to the ordinance and require some green area and the logical place for the
green area is in that circle.
79'
e
0
•
•
•
• r
MR. LEITTE stated that he had sent a letter to the Mayor about what he has done and
the amount of money that he has spent since he bought that property about 1957 -
he has wasted a lot of money - he had banked on Art Holm to do this plat for him and
he died.
MR. MULENPOHL felt that the property owners who are signing the plat should be asked
if they feel there is a need for additional green area - he felt with the size of
the lots that this requirement is already being satisfied - he felt to put a park
area up there might be a little redundant - it will give the City of Stillwater an
additional problem of policing that area particularly if the residents don't want
it. If the Council wants to force a park area on the people, then that is another
question.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON did not know if he understood the park land dedication in
the ordinance and he assumed that is a dedication not necessarily for park land within
the area being developed but to provide funds or land for parks for the whole of
Stillwater and he is kind of in agreement having been up in that area recently he
found it rather ridiculous for the City to be talking about walking paths in this
particular part of Stillwater - it is rural in its very nature even though it is a
part of Stillwater and certainly those who might want to exercise o. bicycle certainly
can have enough area - it seemed to him what we are talking about is an amount of
money dedicated or designated in lieu of green acreage so that money can be put to
another area which may need to be provided for park lands. He felt that it would be
rather ridiculous to take a price of property and say that we need a park here when
a good share of these properties are half acre or more in .ize.
MR. MAGNUSON confirmed these facts.
March 25, 1980
MRS. ST. MARTIN stated that most of the property owners that have spoken live on the
bluff side and have unrestricted view of the valley - The Grahams and herself and
whoever owns Lot No. 2 don't have that view - they have to look across the circle in
order to get the view and she did not feel that they bild up there in order to look
across the street at three houses instead of the valley. She felt that it is mainly
the three owners in this area that are fighting for the view.
MR. JAMES GRAHAM stated that he originally bought up there with the understanding
there would be "no" houses in the center. That was stated to them. As far as the
covenants are concerned, he felt that the Council should be aware that the warranty
deeds, all of the mortgage deeds and everything relate to an unrestricted view for
those people who are building up there who own that property - who have built up there -
it says there will be no buildings built which obstruct the view of anyone who has a
home up there - if there are three homes up there he could not see how that could be
done without interferring with the view of the St. Martins or himself - it is a part
of the covenants and he stated he doesn't happen to be a liar.
MR. LEITTE stated he feels sorry for Mrs. St. Martin - she has three quarters of an
acre - paid $3,000 for it and hasn't got a view of the whole valley. He made refer-
ence to Mr. Graham's understanding that there would be no buildings ou there, he
would like to know where he got that understanding.
MR. GRAHAM stated that it was not an understanding, it was a statement by Mr. Leitte
there would be no buildings out there - that the lot owners, the original concept
was that the lot owners would have an opportunity to buy that - that the price would
not be exhorbitant; however, they would have an opportunity to have it - it could
be a "fund" was the original concept. He did not feel that he was alone in hearing
those comments.
MR. LEITTE stated that if the Council decides to make that into a park would there
be any restrictions by the City of Stillwater for him to put a sign on his entrance
road naming it Kolliner Park No. 2 and invite people to drag race there . .
MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Magnson if the City would be better off to have a meeting
and invite Mr. Leitte and some of the neighbors and see if it can't be negotiated
as it looks like a one man fight against eleven.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that there should be a show of hands of those who
would like to see that circle area as being undeveloped and there were five hands
counted.
CHUCK HOFFMAN felt this would not bother him, but he felt that the drainage system
should be taken care of and he was concerned about the assessments that they would
have with the upgrading of roads and felt it was very difficult when you ask for a
show of hands and some of them do not know what the impact is going to be.
■i1
COUNCILMAN POWELL directed a question to the City Attorney - the way he looked at
the signing by the land owners, they are not only signing and approving the dimensions
of their property or lots, they are also approving the plat as it is proposed now,
so that when they sign, they are approving the three lots in the center, they are
approving the dimensions of their property and asked if that was not correct.
r
•
•
s •
•
1
ER
•
•
March 25, 1980
•
PI MR. FOLZ stated that these three lots are not platted - this is all one outlot
and the lines shown on the map are lines that Mr. Leitte instructed him to put
in - Mr. Leitte desired to have four lots and he convinced him that he would
only put in three on the drawing - he felt that there are three adequate building
sites that would meet the drainfield septic departments and the other things- -
this is only a proposal for the Council.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked about the area that is included in the circle -
does that drain toward Lots 6 and 7 and MR. FOLZ stated that the whole internal
portion drains to the southeast and Mr. Elliott looked at the street grades and
with very minor revisions the low point of the street could be put on the lot
line between Lot 6 and 7 and all of the drainage taken off to the south - there
will be more run -off that will get to this area faster.
COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that the Council should bear in mind that if this had
been platted the way it should have been in the very offset the streets would
have been put in and they would have been paved and the storm water would have
been taken care of and the people who bought the property should have not have
to be concerned with an assessment Lo improve the street and if Mr. Leitte would
have done that, he would have charged them accordingly for his lots. The fact
that he did not do that doesn't necessarily excuse him from his obligation of
doing that. He felt that it was unfortunate that the Council was confronted with
this type of thing tonite.
MR. LEITTE stated that he purposely held off the forty foot strip between Lots 5
and 6 and that it is just as simple as ABC to put a culvert in there - when the road
PO was built he talked to Mr. Moelter about this and he did not feel that it was
necessary and now it is a big issue.
1F
1a/
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON suggested that the hearing be closed and he would then
like to make a motion. This is the first time that he has been exposed to this
matter.
The Mayor closed the hearing
Councilman Harry Peterson moved that this matter be laid on the table
for a period of at least ninety days which would be appropriate for
discussion.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK seconded the motion.
VOTE ON THE MOTION - AYES -- councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson,
Powell and Mayor Junker
NAYS -- Councilman Roger Peterson
On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson,
that we do not have a walkway put into this plat. (all in favor)
On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the
Council granted a building permit to Wayne Herr to build on Lot 2, Block 1
in the Penthouse Acres proposed plat.
VOTE ON THE MOTION - AYES -- Councilmen Roger Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker
NAYS -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, and Councilman Harry Peterson
(Motion carried)
THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 8:35 to 8:45 P. M.
3. This was the day and time for the public hearing on Case No. 376 for Kinder
Care for a Day Care Center on County Road No. 5
Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the
official newspaper of the City, on March 14, 1980 and copies were mailed to all
property owners within 300 feet.
The Mayor opened the hearing.
MR. PEDERSON from Kinder Care Corporation, Montgomery, Alabama, asked if it was
permissable on that piece of property, Mr. Attorney to issue a permit to build
on that piece of property. There seems to be some question and if that is the
case, then they will withdraw their petition right now. They are not interested
in getting into a hassel whether the zoning is right or not.
MR. MAGNUSON stated that Ordinance No. 479 indicates this as "CA- BUSINESS DISTRICT" -
one retail business of a corner store variety normally needed to serve the residents
of the neighborhood - there is one business on the property now - it is really up
to the City Council to determine whether one business is all that is allowed there.
81> °
°
9
•
V
• 1-82
s
March 25, 1980
MR. PEDERSON stated that they have never been (and they have 522 Day Care Centers
in the United States),they have never been turned down and the reason for that
is that if they are not wanted in a community, they will not go.
They are a private enterprise business - they are not a subsidized Day Care
Center - there are two types - there is the subsidized type who have grants and
use non - profit funds and federal funds and they are a complete private enter-
prise. They have done a market research of this area and they feel there is a
need for a professional private motivated Day Care Center here. Because of the
uniqueness of their program and they are presently taking care of in excess of
58,000 children in over 30 states - they do not have a Day Care Center that is
not operating on a profit. They are planning to spend several hundred thousand
dollars here to put in a Day Care Center - if there is a resentment to that
location or if it cannot be zoned, they will withdraw it right now and not get
into a hassel. He felt that there should be a decision made as to whether the
ruling that their business can or cannot go on that piece of property.
Mr. Pederson showed the plans of their proposed building to the members of
the Council along with a few comments. It would be built on approximately one -half
acre.
MR. MAGNUSON at this time cited the contents of Ordinance No. 479 for the Council's
decision. He felt that it was the Council who should interpret this Ordinance.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that at the time the area was proposed for develop-
ment, the proposal at that time was for four or five small stores like a "mall"
type operation and at that time it was the Council's decision that the one retail
neighborhood type store operation that it calls for in the ordinance was similar
in type of the Zolldan grocery and that was their decision at that time.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that it was her understanding for the past five
years that the Council was always informed and notified that there was one piece
of commercial property - it was larger than for a neighborhood store - the owner
of the property did accept that and the previous Council passed this ordinance
and she felt this Council should live by it.
On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson,
the Council directed that we retain the zoning for the piece of property and
follow the ordinance and the Planning Commission's decision for a Kinder Day
Care Center. (all in favor)
MR. PEDERSON stated that there is no Day Care Center that is not built until it is
approved and built in accordance with the specifications of the State, and the
necessary codes of the City - as far as their not having the license they have
several of them in the greater Metropolitan area. They do their own market research
completely - is it a need in Stillwater - they would not be here for a permit unless
had they know there was a question on the property. The optioned the property and
they were told it was available for them to build and they proceeded to get one
and they are not interested in getting into a hassel on the land. Whet he finds
hard to understand is a private business walks into the City to ask the Council
to spend several hundred dollars on some property, does the Council take into con-
sideration that there are two or three of the businesses already in the town -
competition may or may not want to see them come in - they are interested in coming
into the community, but as they have cleared up the land situation, he would like
to, if it is possible to ask, if they find a suitable location in the community
that is satisfactory to the zoning, etc. what the reaction is of the Board here -
does the Council feel in their own mind that there are enough Day Care Centers in pi
the community so that they don't them - if they are not wanted, they will not go
any further on it. There was an indication from the Planning Commission that
there is not a need for any more. Theirs is a whole different program concept.
MAYOR JUNKER felt that if they feel there is a market for it and they find a
location that they approach the City Council again - he felt that it was up to
Kinder Care.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that on this particular piece of property, the
Council has had months and months of discussion in the past and if the owner of
this piece of property did not tell Mr. Pederson this and did not inform him of
allof the discussion and the controversey, he felt that he was neligent in his
approach to them. He did not care what the business is as the Council did turn
down a Mini -Mall on this piece of property that would have spent several hundred
thousand dollars - following the intent of the ordinance the Council turned down
and ended up with the Brooks Superette there.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that his motion and the vote on same was with
respect to the location and not to the Kinder Care Center at a different location -
he felt that it was an attractive setup and he is a believer in the free enterprise
system and he would be willing to entertain another location for this operation.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that her objection was on that particular piece of
property - if it was on another piece of property she would look at it.
MR. PEDERSON stated that they would possibly be back.
J
•
0
0
•
•
•
a
1
s
•
•
March 25, 1980
OM INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS
1. MARY OSWALD stated that she had a legislative update on the need for child
care is going to be for infants thru three year olds and she felt that the
Council should be aware of those kind of things, whereas Kinder Care was for
three to five year olds.
MR. PEDERSON stated that their age bracket is from 6 months to 12 years old
and that is the approval that they will be asking for in their license.
LYNN SCHAFER, Maryknoll Drive, stated there are two day care centers in
Stillwater - today neither of them is full - there is going to be a new
infant center Eping into Stillwater utilizing old buildings, not adding
another new building to the communuty and there has also been a survey done
by the local child care advisory committee which is available for the Council
and there is no indication that another separate center of this age group is
needed.
a 2. JANE ANDERSON, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, made her nr_,;entation
at this time regarding the proposed construction of a 345 kilovolt transmission
line to Eau Claire, Wisconsin from either the Allen S. King sub - station or the
Prairie Island sub - station near Red Wing.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Mr. Judd Orff of the St. Croix Valley Area Chamber of Commerce, appeared before
the Council regarding the proposal for the beer permits in Lowell Park during
Lumberjack Days, 1980 - July 31 and August 1 and 2. He read the complete
proposal as follows:
1. Beer garden area will be completely fenced.
2. Two accesses will be provided and controlled.
3. Access will be supervised July 31st and August 1st from 7 P. M. Until
11:30 P. M.
4. All beer will be dispensed in plastic cups.
5. No one will be allowed to leave fenced area with plastic cups.
6. Hours of operation: 2 P. M. to 11:30 P. M.
Thursday - July 31, 1980
Friday - August 1, 1980 2 P. M. to 11:30 P. M.
Saturday - August 2, 1980 Noon to 6 P. M.
7. Scout Troops to be hired to police. area for trash each day.
8. Beer garden to be adequately signs•'1 stating penalty for drinking outside
beer garden area.
9. Signs will be donated to each liquor store and bar in the area, stating {
the law on open drinking in public areas.
10. Liquor stores will be requested to refrain from selling bottle beer
; A during Lumberjack Days.
p,• Questions were asked about the size of the area and MR. ORFF stated that it would
be about 75 feet by 100 feet.
COUNCILMAN POWELL asked the City Attorney how many hours he spent on lawsuits that
were diredtly brought on by last year's fracas and MR. MAGNUSON stated that there
were 12 arrests made - there were an average of two court appearances per individual
which would make about 24 hours and that is outside of his office time to deal
with all of the papers involved.
MR. ORFF asked if it was 507 of the people that were niberated at the beer gardens
or from the area buying beer from the Jacyees or the VFW.
MR. MAGNUSON stated that they were all from the riot that took place on Main
Street and MAYOR JUNKER asked that he not call this a "riot" at the Council
meeting.
COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that at the first meeting the Council was admonished
what their responsibilities would be if such a thing should happen again and
he asked that Mr. Magnuson would repeat them.
MR. MAGNUSON stated that he did not want the Mayor and the Council to think that
he was a "wet blanekt" for even mentionining it - the last time this was discussed
each that he was in court on one of these matters he had to reveal all of the
police reports, talk go the witnesses involved, all of the police officers and
all of the defendants and their lawyers. Each time I was reminded of the gravity
of the situation and the extreme danger that was on the street down there. It
seems to him that the Council had knowledge of hat and then they have duty to
protect the public and the property owners in the area from themselves and injury
•
0
• !i 2 •
•
• 44
•
•
March 25, 1980
from other people. If it happens again - if the damage is extensive, or if there
is personal injury involved, he felt that the Council has some moral obligation and
responsibility for such a thing should it happen again.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that he had to agree with the City Attorney and
he did not see how based on the fact that he is the City Attorney and he is here
to give the Council legal advice, how they can't not listen to him - it was a very
serious situation last year and he did not know, frankly, of what benefit selling
beer in the park is to the 13,000 residents of the City of Stillwater - there are
two groups that sell beer in the park and they profit by it and that is fine - he
did not know what good it is to the average person within the City to sell beer
in the park. Those who want to take their family down in the evening couldn't
take them dowuthere last year because it was completely out of control. He did
not feel that the families within the City should be penalized to allow two groups
to sell beer and as the Jaycees stated at the last meeting they made about a
thxusand dollars on the sale of the beer - if the VFW made the same, that is in
the neighborhood of $2,000 that was made in the selling of beer in the park - the
Police Chief told the cost of the overtime hours for Lumberjack Days which everyone
within the City had to pay which totalled $2,304.95 - three hundredcbllars more
than these two organizations made on the sale of the beer. He did not see any-
where where is a benefit to the average citizen in the City of Stillwater to sell
beer in the park - he did not see how it benefits Lumberjack Days - he just did
not see the need to sell beer in the park.
MR. KRIESEL stated that Mr. Abrahamson was unable to be here this evening ''ut
he had talked to Wally about these hours and he felt that the situation could be
controlled if these hours were adhered to - he felt that he could be comfortable
with these regulations.
GLENN WENDORFF asked how many of the incidents were really directed from this -
the biggest nite was Friday nite with Polka in the park - they are not selling
beer for the benefit of the residents of Stillwater - they are not, they are just
providing a service. The glass breakage and bottle throwing, etc. that took place
did not happen from the group of people who participated in the beer garden - the
bars contributed to that incident - most of that took place after the bars unloaded,
so basically the people who were arrested, the people who were incarcerated and the
people who were taken to court, how many of them were related to the beer garden
and the legality that comes from such instances are the responsibility of the
people that serve the liquor retro- actively no matter how much consumption has taken
place in any one place whether it is three bars or three bars and a beer garden,
each incident is judged according to how much is consumed at each locality, so we
are looking at the Jaycees, who have always carried Liquor Liability Insurance which
the bars of Stillwater through an ordinance provided through the City Council also
carry. He understands that probably that some of these incidents could have been
avoided if the man -power on duty was a little bit heavier than it was last year.
He did not feel that it should be thrown out of the City or the celebration because
their track record should speak for itself with no cases that happened in the past.
He did not feel that they should be judged by all of the people that were arrested
in that one beer garden.
MARTY KVAAS asked how the Council could contribute the trouble that took place down-
town after one o'clock in the morning to their selling beer in the park when they
were closed up at midnite - he counted their money and cleaned up around the stand
and left to go through Main Street - that is when everybody was up there when they
came out of the bars uptown - they had just closed up - he did not feel that they
could blame this on the park - they did not have any problems in the park.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that was not true - if Mr. Kvaas had been down
at the park on Saturday nite he would have seen what happened which started about
nine or nine - thirty right outside of the area where they were dancing - it was not
only the big fisaco outside the Boom Company.
MR. ORFF stated that.one _king that he did not put on the time table was that the
beer stops at 6:00 P. M.and there is no band in the park.
COUNCILMAN POWELL ststed that if you get drunk at eleven o'clock and you have an
accident at one, do you blame it on the bar? Who do you blame it on?
MR. KVAAS stated that the Council is blaming everything on the park - he asked
how many of these are attributable to the park and how many were attributable
to uptown - this is what they are trying to determine.
WALLY MILBRANDT asked Councilman Roger Peterson if he would attribute this $2,300
figure that Wally gave them - does mean that the City can expect no $2,300 because
of Lumberjack Days and MR. PETERSON said "no ".
MR. MILBRANDT felt that it was unfair to imply that all of these extra manhours
were attributed only because of the beer garden.
a
111
w
•
•
•
•
•
1
a
a
•
•
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that these were the figures tabulated by
PO Wally Abrahamson - everyone admits, as well as the Council, that there were
not enough people on duty - if you are going to put more people on duty, you
are going to have more costs - he was not attributing all of this on the beer
garden - he was relating the gains that were made by the two organizations
to the cost to the City and yet no one has told him where the benefit is -
why do they need beer in the park.
MR. MILBRANDT asked if they had tabulated the profits that any of the business
owners who also benefited to the $2,300 extra expenditures - they are not the
only businesses open that nite. There are some points to be made as to what
happened last year and this is a burden that everyone has to bear and not just
the Jacyees and the Cooties and the Council - they are trying to help that
this year - Wally has stated no vacations and has taken away leaves so that the
City can have that extra man -power if needed. The City has given money to the
Auxiliary so there is extra funding if needed. They had talked about signs and
they have checked with the bars and they are all going to have extra bouncers
and they are going to control it - they have gone to every establishment and
they are coming to the City Council with a fair proposal - their money goes
right back into the community - they have confined themselves - they have two
entrances.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated there is no comparison between the Jaycees
and the Cooties selling beer in the park and Brines or the Boom Company paying
$1,750 per year for a liquor license and all of the other expenditures that go
with it - there is no comparison whatsoever.
MR. MILBRANDT stated that you are not asking those businesses to cut off their
funding for those four days.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that they have asked the Boom Company not to
have a rock band that nite - to have a Country Western - Brine is not selling
those pint glasses any longer and they have cooperated in that respect and then we
have the Clty Attorney sitting here telling the Council that because of what
has happened in the past the Council should be awful careful what we do this year -
how can we ignore what he is saying.
MR. MILBRANDT said that we also have the Public Safety Director saying that in
light of the proposal that he has seen he feels that with all of the other
precautions that it is safe to proceed - he said that he could handle it, just
as Mr. Magnuson saying that basically that we cannot handle it.
GERTRUDE SHERRARD stated that there is a big sign in the park stating that in
accordance with an ordinance there is to be "no drinking in the park - why not
keep it that way instead of having a variance at that time.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that he was at the last meeting when there was
discussion as to coming in with some new control as far as hours and fencing, etc.
and he felt that this was a better proposal than what they saw initially. He
asked Mr. Orff what the Thursday and Friday afternoon activities were in the park
that are scheduled at this time.
11 MR. ORFF stated that the headliners in the park will be log rolling, cross -cut
sawing contests with professional log rolling by a group from Bayport and there
is a carnival in the offing with kiddie rides.
UNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that the attraction is primarily geared to
younger people and family groups and asked why they have to sell beer at two
o'clock in the afternoon in the park - are they going to sell root beer - are
they going to sell pop - are they going to sell frozen cones- he personally
did not see the need to open a beer stand at two o'clock on Thursday afternoon
when they are attracting people to see waterfront activities whether it is a
log rolling show, sky diving, etc. He was somewhat convinced that from 8 to 11
o'clock when there is a band going down there they might serve beer because you
are attracting adults, but he did not feel that you have to have beer there from
two o'clock in the afternoon when we are seeking to attract the young people.
He did not feel that the absence of beer is going to detract from the attractions
that are being brought in there.
WILBERT MONSON from the Eagles stated that they do not well beer down there - they
have a stand for corn cobs, etc. and that some of the people after having popcorn
would like to have a glass of beer - he did believe that if the Council denies the
beer permit for the deal, you are going to find that there is going to beer down
there anyway - it has been common practice that on a hot s day the employees
and people come in with their beer - some of those people who �o not particularly
care to have in town is being brought in here . zertain "saloon keeper" which
the City has contributed to by giving them a _i�.nse in the first place - through
their advertisements, they bring these people into town - they will be here
drinking beer - if these people are there and they are supervised, then the Council
MO or the City will have control over them.
March 25, 1980
85
J
•
a
•
•
•
X 86
March 25, 1980
MAYOR JUNKER stated that he has attended all of these Lumberjack Days and
where you have people you will have trouble and he guaranteed them that last year
was not a "riot" - he said that he has seen a Saturday nite down at the Still -
house that there were 30 motorcycle cops lined up in the street and if you wanted
a riot, all that you would have to do is to say is your motorcycle is red instead
of black. This past year the whole incident falls on not enough policemen
patrolling the downtown area from eight o'clock on and you are taking this one
little year of 1979 and you are going to punish the Jaycees, the Lumberjacks and
the City of Stillwater - he knew of people who come to the park that drink a beer
one a year and that is Lumberjack Days - they do not go into the joints downtown,
but they will go to Lumberjack Days - 3.2 beer they are selling - going to fence
it in - hire ten cops that will be trained before Lumberjack Days - if that was
a riot he does not want to live in Stillwater any more - many nights he brought
his wife through Main Street at 12:30 and the Stillhouse was a riot - the whole
town would have burnt down and this is controlled - there is no problem - they
have it all controlled by the Jaycees and the Cooties and the VFW and the Eagles.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that the Mayor may know someone who enjoys going
down there and having one beer a year - he can also name people who went down there
with their families at nine o'clock on a Saturday nite and they turned around and
took their kids home because they would not allow their kids to be down there
with all of the "drunks" that were down there in the park and this is suppose to be
a family oriented event and you want to know if there are people that have events
without beer in the park and there are a lot of them - we don't need it - they
are of no benefit - they sell beer at the Freighthouse on the deck all of the time,
but rhey are not roaming around in the park.
BOB CORRUS, President of the Jaycees, responded to Roger Peterson's questions as
to what the benefit of the money they make from the Beer Garden - they put many
projects on within the City - they sponsor through the funds that they raise -
Hockey for the kids - Hockey Traveling Team ($350.00), Easter Egg Hunt in con-
junction with the Downtown Retail Council and they have also done it on their own
($100 - $125), sponsor Close -Up Program - send a young adult out of high school to
Washington, D. C. to sit in on the legislature, sponsor an essay contest which
they give away $100 Savings Bond; kids wrestling from first grade through sixth
grade (The Stillwater and the Lake Elmo Jaycees and they split the cost); the
Anmual Ice Cream Social (the total project) and it costs them about $700 to $800
per year; their awards banquet and honoring outstanding young men in the community;
they cannot gain this kind of money out of raffles or anything like it - it takes
a lot of money to administer an organization that develops your leaders and council-
men - they run these programs for the benefit of the community.
ANN DANIELSON, 1222 West dive Street, stated that she could see no benefit to the
City of Stillwater to have a beer garden or to have permission to drink beer any
place in downtown - she works downtown and she knows the type of people that stay
away because of Lumberjack Days but not on that that she says "yes" or "no ", but
she could see no benefit to anyone by having a beer garden.
COUNCILMAN POWELL asked Mr. Monson how much they made on their booth last year and
MR. MONSON was unable to give that information at this time, but they did not sell
beer.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK, stated that she appreciated the projects that have been
undertaken by the Jaycees and she appreciates that and with the hours reduced and
if they control it, she felt that possibly this type of condition could work with
the enforcement that we are suppose to have - as far as elling beer in the park,
it makes no difference to her one way or another - she felt that they did come
back with an acceptable proposal.
MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Orff if he felt that it could be controlled this year and
he felt that it could be.
S1
1 1
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that he could see no benefit whatsoever to
the City as a whole by serving beer in the park and that Lumberjack Days could
stand without the beer in the park and he moved that we do not allow any licenses
to sell beer in the park.
COUNCILMAN POWELL seconded the motion. The reason that he is opposed to the sale
of beer in the park is simply because of the input that he has received from the
majority of the people in Stillwater are opposed to it and he is not here to
represent the VFW or the Jaycees or any particular group if the majority of the
people are inclined to believe that there should not be the type of experience
that we had last year - he felt that we can try it for one year.
MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Powell not to just look at last year - look at the good
years that we did have.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that we could try it for one year and asked for the
question.
VOTE ON THE MOTION - Ayes- Councilmen N. Peterson, R. Peterson and Powell r
Nays -- Councilwoman Bodlovick and Mayor Junker (motion carried)
40
e
•
•
•
•
•
• March 25, 1980
5
0
rode
INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS - continued
The following proposals were received for the Nelson School Building. There
were four proposals - the fourth one was from Immuno Nuclear Corporation which
was for a firm to manufacture sirums and other items which the Council did not
consider was the type of use for this building, as for the zoning and other
reasons.
The representative for the Seven Hills Corporation had left the meeting
prior to this item being discussed. (See the discussion on this proposal at
the 4:00 P. M. meeting).
SEVEN HILLS CORP.
Purchase Price $10,000
Covenants & As per development
Conditions agreement & purchase
agreement
Units Proposed Eight (8)
condominiums
Economic Maximum utilizating
Justification space and to avoid
excessive congestion
Recreational
Facilities
Restrictive
covenants on
units to
insure bldg.
& neighborhood
integrity
Financial
guarantees
Other
Information -
Parking
Financing
Party room, exer-
cise room & possible
a Sauna
To be consistent
with established
practices for
similar type of
buildings
Performance Bond
as outlined in sub-
paragraph (c) of
development agree-
ment
Proposes under-
ground 8 spaces on
S. W. part of site
Request financial
assistance, i.e.
Industrial Revenue
Bonds, Tax Incre-
ment Financing
SHAMROCK /GAUGHAN
$10,000
As per development
agreement & purchase
agreement
Eleven (11) income
housing units. Nine
at 1,037 Sq. ft;
two (2) at 1,203
sq. ft.
Economically
utilized and use of
available area would
be maximized in
terms of producing
revenues
None. Street front-
age extensively
landscaped
See Attachment "A"
Promissary note
equal to 125% of
the estimated
cost of the rehab
work
7 on -site s.w. part
of site - 11 off
site - across
street (east)
Interim - $200,000
Forest Lake State
Bank
Long Term - Knutson
Mortgage and Fin-
ancial Corp.
ZOLLER- HAGSTROM - LARSON
$2,000
Exterior complete within
12 mos.- interior com-
pleted as units are sold
Four (4) 1600 sq. ft.
Condominiums (owner
occupied) units
Two - 809 sq. ft. con-
dominiums owner- occupied
units
Low density limits
traffic noise, and
general acitivity.
1,200 Sq. Ft. game room -
common lawn area
Exterior maintained as
a restored historic
bldg. Owner occupied
condominiums. Other
areas controlled by
homeowner's association
Performance Bond in the
amount of $100,000 to
$125,000 after accept-
ance of proposal
8 on -site spaces
Exterior financed by
partners within 12 mos.
Units to be financed
as buyer becomes avail-
able. First National
Bank may finance (mort-
gage individual units.
MR. AL HAMEL explained the joint proposal by Joe Gould (Shamrock Construction,
Inc. and P. J. Gaughan, Inc.)known as Nelson School, a partnership. They have
not done a feasibility study, but they have done 1,500 units in multiple housing -
they see this as a profitable venture - one that they feel that they can finance-
they have the financial ability - they will continue through with the project
and not have the continual delays that the City has experienced - they are
willing to provide a promissary note to the City of Stillwater for 125% of the
estimated cost of rehabilitation.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON was concerned with the fact that their proposal calls
for eleven units which seems to be a high density of population in that block,
but that in their covenants that the family size would be limited to three
persons.
MR. HAMEL stated that the purpose is they would intend to have them occupied
by a family no larger than two; however, they did not want to get themselves
into a box if a couple had a child.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked what would be the maximum period that they would
need for total completion of all eleven units and the exterior and the landscaping.
0
•
•
'K68
March 25, 1980
MR. HAMEL stated that the purchase agreement that they are going to live with
provides a period of twelve months from the closing on the property to
completion - this is not subsidized housing.
MAYOR JUNKER asked if it would be of any inconvenience to limit it to eight
or nine units and MR. HANEL stated that they tried to create a case for the
full utilization of the building - from a standpoint of the occupants and the
people that are going to be making the common association fees for maintain-
ing the heat that will be one heating plant for the entire building, the
maintenance of the building, etc. - in their minds this warrants the full
utilization of the building rather than having some of it remain vacant. It
is the economics of the project - in order also for them to buy the property
which they have a purchase agreement on across the street and to incorporate
that in and create sophicated parking for the property, they have to get enough
utilization of the building.
BOB HAGSTROM was the Epokesman for the Zoller- Hagstrom- Larson proposal, their
proposal was firming up their proposal of April of last year. He reviewed his
proposal as shown on the side - byside detailing. They maintain the exterior
integrity of the building as it is - would take the bulling over upon the deed
being given to them and they are prepared to take care of the ext of the
building, bring it under lock and key and secure it and proceed to sell con-
dominiums and complete them as they are financed. The timing becomes more
difficult because of the financial situation.
COUNCILMAN POWELL asked who would maintain the outside of the building after
it was made into condominiums and MR. HAGSTROM stated that it would be done
by the association and they would hire a person to do that.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked Mr. Hagstrom what would their performance bond
guarantee - what would this consitute as far as he was concerned.
MR. HAGSTROM replied that performance would be to maintaun the character of the
building, see to it that it is done in good order, neatly and that it accomplishes
it fulfillment.
COUNCILMAN_ HARRY PETERSON stated that he was talking about the completion of the
six units as being the full performance and MR. HAGSTROM stated that completion
is the fear that the Council has and whether they complete five he did not feel
that is a problem - what they have to do is eliminate a problem that would reflect
back on or become a burden to the City - that is the purpose of the bond - there
is no cther reason for a bond.
The only mention of timing is that the extedor would be completed within 12
months - in other words it would be a simple matter for their group to purchase
the property with all good intentions to maintain it and police the exterior in
the historical sense, do the sandblasting, do the landscaping and possibly even
put one living unit in the building and that would be the extent of their obligation
to the City as he sees it here - if they are then going to be faced with financing
in order to complete each unit before they sell it, the City might be ten years
down the road and they have one unit completed and there is a building that has
maintained its exterior, but it is not being used for the purpose for which it
was sold - which is to be converted into housing.
MR. HAGSTROM stated with todays' conditions that very well be - he felt that was
carrying it too far - he felt that the timing has to remain a little flexible in
order for them to take control and to run a sale of the program and make sure
that financing is available to qualified people - they also intend to design
individually for qualified people, not just say here it is, that is what we are
going to well you - they are going to do it cautiously but they are going to be
in charge of the building and assure the Council that it is not going to be a
problem to the City.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK asked Mr. Hagstrom if they are definite on the two
efficiencies rather than the two offices and MR. HAGSTROM stated that they prefer
to do it this way as it is more in keeping with the four condominiums and they
have for gone this for the two smaller units.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked about the size of the larger units and he was
informed that they are on two floors on each corner of the building with an
individual stairway bringing those two floors together which makes it quite a
small moderate two story house for comparison.
MR. ED CASS, representing Rivertown Restoration, stated that they have confidence
in the integrity of Zoller - Hagstrom- Larson and their desire to maintain the building.
So long as the exterior is maintained and the building doesn't present a problem
to the City, the City no longer has to insure it, no longer has to police it in
any extra - ordinary way - does it really make a lot of difference how long it takes
Bob, Jeff and John to sell the units in the interior - they will carry out the order
of the court and RTR and also the wishes of the City Council and the fact that it has
(continued on page 89)
iH
/
PI
h
•
e
•
•
•
•
(
Ole March 25, 1980
been placed on the National Registry of Historical Places. After the Council
has made their decision, he wanted to get his organization a little more
involved in the development plan - for instance sandblasting - the building
cannot be sandblasted because it is on the National Registery - the members of
RTR have worked in this area and some of them had a great deal of experience and
knowledge about restoration and they know the proper way about maintaining the
exterior of the building so that it will be done in a proper manner - they as
well as the City wants to make sure that the job is done promptly and that it
is done practically and in accordance with the court's order.
GERTRUDE SHERRARD stated that the last proposal is the one that she would approve
of and she felt that they would do the most to preserve it and felt they would do
an artistic job as well as being sincere in their work (The Zoller - Hagstrom- Larson
proposal)
MR. HAMEL asked for clarification of his proposal - they have no plans to change
the exterior of the building in any manner - it will be exactly as it is today -
they plan to keep the stairs intact exactly where they are - the units will
actually be developed in the individual classrooms - they are taking ten classrooms
and one bathroom and converting them into living units.
COUNCILMAN POWELL moved that we award the sale of the Nelson School Building to
the Zoller- Hagstrom- Larson Group for the reason that they are doing what I think
the neighbors prefer the most and that is limiting the number of apartments.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON seconded the motion for that reason as well as the fact
they are providing some common area within the building, specifically a 1,200
square foot game room to be used by all of the individual condominium owners and
also because of the fact it is a much lower density than any of the other proposals.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON amended the motion - to the extent that if there is a
deadline of not to exceed 24 months from the closing of the sale to completion of at
least half of the units that are designated for this - so that there would be at
least three units habitable and salable within 24 months.
COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that he would have to oppose that because of the
fact that when a contractor or whoever takes out a building permit within the
City to build a home, we don't require the individual to complete the home and he
was sure that over the period of time there are many people for instance have built
the basement and lived in the basement and over a period of years have added to the
house eventually it gets done and he felt that it becomes an addition and benefit
to the City - he did not know how you can put a time limit on it when we do not do
it with others. He also felt that especially now as long as the new owners whoever
are responsible for the building, responsible for maintaining the building - it no
longer becomes the City's responsibility to maintain it, police it, he did not feel
that we can just pick 24 months or 12 months or 36 months out of a year.
COUNCILMAN POWELL felt that both suggestions are good, but he wondered if it would
be possible to amend that or change the motion to say two dwellings so that there
is a certainty that somebody is going to be there as the neighbors are concerned
about vandalism and they are concerned with housing - could they do it with two
within 24 months.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that his concern is that we are going to get only
mos one occupant in that building and that will be Jeff Zoller in a bachelor apartment
and he will occupy the building and the City will turn over title to the building
to this group which in turn could turn it over to anybody else after it has been
told to us that it is going to be residential property and bring tax to the City
of Stillwater and he could see this very well being turned over to a group to be-
come another historical society and that is the proposal that should have been
laid before the Council and not a condominium.
COUNCILMAN POWELL felt that they are going to spend enough money so that they
would want to complete it - it is not like they are going to drag their heels
because they are going to have a lot of money in what they are going to do - so
that is why he is saying that three units is a little excessive, but possibly two
might be better - he could not see anybody spending whatever it is going to take
to do the outside and put in the community property inside that they certainly
wouldn't go ahead and improve it.
MR. HAGSTROM stated that their goal is to move directly - the thing that makes
them all hesitant is the conditions of the financial status of the institution
in our country today - it is the low point in 25 years and what came forth easily
today is coming in slow to qualified people - there has been one such cycle every
five years for the last 18 or 20 where there has been tight money and it is extreme
and it was hard for him to say - they do not want to make committments that they
cannot fulfill.
8� .
e
J
9
•
•
•
March 25, 1980
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON could not help point to the fact that the extent of
financing at this time as he sees it in the Zoller - Hagstrom- Larson proposal is
the personal funds of the parhership of $25,000 and as the expenditures that he
sees in the purchase of the property and the exterior renovation, the financing
that is going to be given mentioned by the letter from the local bank is merely
that they will consider credit risks for the sale of the property - he called
the ;roup's attention to the fact that the Sharmrock Construction is proposing
to otally financing its building immediately as it has its own funding and there
are financial statements that indicate they are very capable within one year to
having the building on the tax rolls as income property for the City with the
exterior still remaining as it is.
COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that is true but you are talking about five more units
and he did feel that the neighborhood would be opposed to that considering all of
the "flack" that the City has gotten so far.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that five more units with the limit of three
persons per unit - he did not like 11 units - 8 would be better - but 11 units
with three people in a unit is 33 people - you could have the six units of the
Zoller- Hagstrom- Larson proposal and with the type of space that is available you
can have four bedroom units and families of 6 and 8 persons in each - you can
have a lot greater density with fewer apartments with the apartment size that is
possible. He recognized the fact that this is not the proposal that is before
them.
(He amended h to months) two units completed within twelve
months instead e 24
COUNCILMAN POWELL seconded the amendment to the amendment.
MAYOR JUNKER felt that we should be doing something with the Nelson School to get
it done. He would like to put the Nelson School on the north hill or the west
hill and see how long some of the people there would put up with it. We have
discussed the Nelson School for two years and the only reason that the City of
Stillwater ever took the Nelson School from the School District was that he went
to Mr. Neumeier and Mr. Klapp at the bank and got $25,000 from the Margaret Rivers
Fund to tear it down and built tennis courts - that is the only reason that the City
Council ever accepted the Nelson School, and now he knows that we are no,. going to
destroy it, but he knew one thing it is about time that we give the school to some-
body that is going to do the job, finish it so that the neighbors don't come back a
year from now and say "Mayor and Council are they going to complete the Nelson School
or are they going to leave it sit" - we have a proposal at this time that will complete
it within twelve months.
MR. HAGSTROM stated that their plans are to move forward, but the degree to which they
move forward is a difficult question and at this point they have not sold anything
because it has not been in their hands - back in their pre - planning when they came
to the Planning Commission and the Council if the guidelines would have been included
for eight units it would have been much more economically feasible it would have
probably been built a long time ago.
MAYOR JUNKER felt that he was putting the blame back on the Council and MR. HAGSTROM
denied this - what he was saying with more units it would have been more economically
feasible - it becomes a difficult thing between less units, lesser on the neighbor-
hood which is difficult - more units which are more economically feasible.
(There was discussion on the amendment since Councilman Powell thought it
was two units within two years and the motion was within one year)
COUNCILMAN POWELL withdrew his second - he firmly believes as long as the outside
is done and it looks good, if it takes two years or three years to do the inside
and it is landscaped that we have solved the problems that we have set out to solve.
COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that we have met the judge's request - she is voting
under protest because he ordered her to vote.
COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON amended his amendment that there be two units completed
within two years and COUNCILMAN POWELL seconded the amendment.
There was discussion about the guarantee of the work being done and the
performance bond and the City Attorney felt that they answered the questions
in the proposal as well as anyone else and that all of the questions were
answered.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT - Two units built in two years.
AYES -- Councilwoman Bcdlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, and Powell
NAYS - -None
ABSTAINED - Mayor Junker (Amendment carried)
VOTE ON THE MOTION TO AWARD THE SALE TO THE ZOLLER- HAGSTROM- LARSON PROPOSAL
AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, and Powell
NAYS - -None
ABSTAINED - Mayor Junker (motion carried)
r
CA
0
•
0
•
•
•
•
March 25, 1980
0
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the
City Attorney made the first reading by title of an ordinance entitled "AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING STILLWATER CITY CODE NO. 31. RELATING TO POLE BUILDINGS ".
(all in favor)
NEW BUSINESS
1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the
Wharfage Permit fee for the Jubilee for the 1980 boating season was set at
$600.00 and that Mr. Van Wormer work with the Downtown Council on where he
parks. (all in favor)
Mr. Hahn stated that the Jubilee Parking is related to the overall
parking in Downtown Stillwater and there will be a crunch with the
elimination of the parking on Main Street and also the construction of
the so- called Erickson property. He requested that the City Council
have Mr. Van Wormer spend sometime with them so that they can designate
some areas - they have an area for their employees and get turnover in
the lots and work the Jubilee Wharfage into their overall plan for the
summer.
2. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a
resolution was introduced "DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS"
AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson,
Powell and Mayor Junker
NAYS - -None (see resolutions)
APPLICATIONS
On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the following
Contractor's Licenses were approv ed: (all in favor)
Wayne J. Herr Construction Co.
P. 0. Box 284, Stillwater General Renewal
Glen Johnson
R. d1, Box 23 -B, Stillwater
Langness Woodworking
10752 Stonebridge Trail, Stillwater
Lawrence '.eTourneau
14770 - 130th St. N., Stillwater
Penguin Insulation Co.
13961 Noith 60th St., Stillwater
I Robert Ross
1215 West Oak Street, Stillwater
Specialty Insulators
P. 0. Box 337, Lindstrom, Mn. 55045
Wayne L. Stephenson
1008 Fifth Avenue South, Stillwater
Gary Teed Construction Co.
10155 Perkins Ave. No., Stillwater
General Renewal
General New
Masonry & Brick Work Renewal
Insulation Renewal
Painting New
Insulation Renewal
Painting Renewal
Masonry & Brick Work Renewal
COMMUNICATIONS
From the League of Minnesota Cities - Action Alert - Municipal Bond Interest
Rate Bill. (No action taken at this time)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, minutes
of the following meetings were approved: (all in favor)
February 25, 1980 Regular Meeting 4:00 P. M.
February 25, 1980 Recessed Meeting 7:30 P. M.
March 4, 1980 Special Meeting 4:30 P. M.
NO March 11, 1980 Regular Meeting 7:30 P. M.
91
•
•
•
•
• 4 2
COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS
1. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the
date of the first meeting of the City Council in April will be changed to
April 8th rather than April lst. (This change was requested by the Mayor)
(all in favor)
2. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick,
the claim from Stan Buckley for reimbursement in a court case in the amount
of $303.00 was aithorized for payment. (all in favor)
QUESTIONS FROM PRESS REPRESENTATIVES
None
March 25, 1980
ORDINANCES - First Reading - Amendment to the City Code - Relating to Pole Buildings
RESOLUTIONS
The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanimously adopted:
1. Directing the Payment of the Bills.
2. Accepting the Plans for the Main Street Improvements.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the
meeting adjourned at 10:30 P. M.
Attest: .P. ..Y.e.u-nnat .
City Clerk
Mayor
•
rig
•
•
•