HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-18 CC Packet
REVISED
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North
September 18, 2012
SPECIAL MEETING 4:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
4:00 P.M.
RIBBON CUTTING FOR NEW PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AT LOWELL PARK
4:30 P.M. AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Workshop on Fire Station
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2. Possible approval of September 4, 2012 regular and recessed meeting minutes.
PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS
3. United Way Angie Lein
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum is a portion of the Council meeting to address Council on subjects which are not a part of the
meeting agenda. The Council may take action or reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff
Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your
regarding investigation of the concerns expressed.
comments to 5 minutes or less.
NEW BUSINESS
4. Funding for Bridge Coalition
STAFF REPORTS
5. Police Chief 6. Fire Chief 7. City Clerk 8. Community Dev. Director
Update on Readex Survey
9. Public Wks Dir/City Engr. 10. Finance Dir. 11. City Attorney 12. City Administrator
CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL)
Resolution 2012-149
13. , directing payment of bills
Resolution 2012-150,
14. approving Washington County Cooperative Agreement
15. Possible approval of placement of signs for Fire Prevention Week
16. Board of Water Commissioners Financial Statement
17. Resolution 2012-151, approving the Non Federal Sponsors Self-Certification of Financial Capability
for Agreements (Replaced Item 20)
18. Resolution 2012-126, Approval of Agreement with Daniel Hoisington DBA: Hoisington Preservation
Consultants [This was pulled from August 21, 2012 Consent Agenda, but was neither discussed nor
approved.]
PUBLIC HEARINGS - OUT OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR
COMMENTS TO 10 MINUTES OR LESS.
Case No. 2012-25.
19. This is the date and time for a public hearing to consider a request from Tisha Palmer
for a zoning text amendment regarding Chapter 27, Section 27 for the keeping of chickens in the City of
st
Stillwater. Notice was published in the Stillwater Gazette on September 7, 2012. (1 reading Roll Call)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
20. Possible approval of second reading of Ordinance 1049, Amending Sec. 27-3 of the City Code, entitled
2nd reading Roll Call)
21. Update on Army Corps of Engineers Project Cooperation Agreement for Levee Project (possible
Resolution Roll Call) (Moved to consent.)
NEW BUSINESS
22. Possible approval of On-sale & Sunday liquor license for Reve 324 located at 324 Main Street S
(Resolution Roll Call)
23. Possible approval of Wine with Strong Beer liquor license for L & L Companies, DBA: Quickfire Pizza
located at 116 Main Street S (Resolution Roll Call)
24. No parking on Laurel and Owens (Resolution Roll Call)
PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)
COMMUNICATIONS/REQUESTS
COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS
25. Yellow Ribbon update
STAFF REPORTS (CONTINUED)
ADJOURNMENT
**
All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There
will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed
from the consent agenda and considered separately.
MAGNUSON LAW FIRM
LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN
THE GRAND GARAGE OFFICE BUILDING
324 MAIN STREET SOUTH • SUITE#260 • STILLWATER,MN 55082
TELEPHONE: (651)439-9464 • FAx: (651)439-5641
W W W.MAGNUSONLAW FIRM.COM
DAVID T.MAGNUSON JOHN D.MAGNUSON
DTMAGNUSON@MAGNUSONLAWFIRM.COM JDMAGNUSON@MAGNUSONLAWFIRM.COM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor, City Council and Staff
FROM: David T. Magnuson
DATE: September 18, 2012
RE: Parking Lease with Arcola Development
In the year 2002 the City agreed to a Parking Lease with Arcola Development to encourage the
redevelopment of the former Lind Shoe Factory at Main and Mulberry. The parking area is at
the southeast corner of Second and Mulberry Streets. The lease had a ten (10) year term which
will expire on October 2, 2012; and thereafter requires a one year notice to terminate. This long
term was originally justified because of improvements and resurfacing that was done by Arcola
as part of the lease agreement. Staff and Arcola have discussed the terms of an extension, but
have been unable to finalize terms that would be satisfactory to the City. Staff requests that the
City Council authorize a notice of termination to be sent that would start the one-year period,
during which the present lease would remain in effect unchanged. Then, during the next year,
staff will work with Arcola to develop a renewal that would reflect current conditions.
David T. Magnuson
Memo
Community Development Department
To: City Council
From: Michel Pogge, City Planner
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Re: Agreement between Daniel Hoisington dba Hoisington
Preservation Consultants and the City of Stillwater for the
Heritage Preservation (Local Designation) District and
Development of Design Guidelines for the East Half of the
Churchill, Nelson, Slaughter Addition
Message:
On the August 21, 2012 Council consent agenda was a request to a
between Daniel Hoisington dba Hoisington Preservation Consultant
Stillwater for the following projects:
1.Heritage Preservation (Local Designation) District and Developme
Guidelines for the East Half of the Churchill, Nelson, Slaughter
2.Downtown Podcast Project
This Local Designation District project was removed from the consent agenda and no
discussion or action was taken on it by the Council. The downto
not removed and was approved with the rest of the consent agenda. This omission was
discovered during the federal grant procurement review process.
with the Local Designation District project, the Council will need to formally approve a
contract.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council enter into a contract with Daniel Hoisingt
Preservation Consultants for the Local Historic District and Des
From the desk of...
Michel Pogge, AICP · · · ·
City PlannerCity of Stillwater216 N. 4 StreetStillwater, MN 55082
th
· ·
651.430-8822Fax: 651.430-8810email: mpogge@ci.stillwater.mn.us
CITY COUNCIL
DATE August 17, 2012
:
REQUEST: Recommendation to City Council on selection of consultant for
CLG Grant
CC DATE: August 21, 2012
REVIEWERS:Community Dev. Director
PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner
:
DISCUSSION
The City received grants (CLG and Legacy) to:
1.Develop a residential local designation district
2.Develop video podcast on downtown commercial buildings.
The City sent RFPs to 18 firms for the two projects, including ae
worked for the City in the past. Only one firm submitted propos
The firm is Hoisington Preservation Consultants with principal D
Daniel Hoisington comes highly recommended from a number of comm
has met with Mr. Hoisington and is confident that he can complet
the budget and timeline that we have included in the RFPs.
The HPC should review the proposals and make a final recommendat
Council. Mr. Hoisington will be at the 6:30 meeting to meet w
time we will discuss his background and go over his approach to
HPC RECOMMENDATION
The HPC met and discussed the two projected with Mr. Hoisington
th
meeting. The HPC unanimously recommend that the City Council ap
Mr. Hoisington to complete the two projects.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council enter into a contract with Daniel Hoisingt
Preservation Consultants for the Local Historic District and Des
the downtown video podcast project.
APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH
DANIEL HOISINGTON DBA HOISINGTON PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
BE IT RESOLVED,
by the City Council of Stillwater, MN that agreement between
Daniel Hoisington dba Hoisington Preservation Consultants and the City of Stillwater for
the Heritage Preservation (Local Designation) District and Development of Design
Guidelines for the East Half of the Churchill, Nelson, Slaughter Addition project in the
amount not to exceed $23,000ishereby approved and authorizes the Mayor and City
Clerk to sign the agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 18 day of September,
2012.
Ken Harycki, Mayor
ATTEST:
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk
CONTRACT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT
, is made this _______ day of _______________, 2012by and between
the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota (hereinafter called the "City") and Hoisington
Preservation Consultants (hereinafter called "Contractor").
1. The Work.
The Contractor agrees to performand complete work for the Heritage Preservation
(Local Designation) District and Development of Design Guidelines for the East Half of the
Churchill, Nelson, Slaughter Addition project. All work will be done in a workman-like manner
and materials will be fit for the purpose. Work must be completed according to the RFP attached
as Exhibit A and the work plan submitted by the Contractor attached as Exhibit B.
2. Rate of Compensation.
Compensation to the Contractor shall not exceed $23,000.
Compensation shall follow the terms of the RFP and consultant work plan attached as Exhibits A
and B.
3. Waiver of Liability.
It is further agreed that this work is undertaken at the sole risk of the
Contractor. The Contractor does expressly forever release the City of Stillwater from any
claims, demands, injuries, damage actions or caused of action whatsoever, arising out of or
connected with the work according to the General Requirements, General Conditions, and
Specifications for the project.
4. Indemnification.
Any and all claims that arise or may arise against the Contractor, its agents,
servants or employees, as a consequence of any action or omission on the part of the Contractor
while engaged in the performance of this work shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility
of the City. The Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the city, its officers and
employees, against any and all liability, loss cost damages, expenses, claims or actions, including
attorneys fee which the City, its officers or employees may hereinafter sustain, incur or be
required to pay, arising out of or by any reason of any act or omission of the Contractor, its
agents, servants or employees in the execution, performance or failure to adequately perform
their obligations under this contract.
5. Completion Date.
Completion of work related this project must be completed by July 15,2013.
6. Ownership of Documents and Plans.
All materials produced by the contractor during the
course of the project shall be owned by the City of Stillwater.
CITY OF STILLWATER
By:____________________________________
Ken Harycki, Mayor
By:____________________________________
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ of _______________, 2012by
Ken Harycki, Mayor and Diane F. Ward, City Clerk for the City of Stillwater.
__________________________________________
Notary Public
Commission Expires: ___/___/_____
Commissioned At: ________________________
CONTRACTOR
By: ___________________________________________
DanielHoisington
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF _____________)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ of _______________, 2012by
Daniel Hoisington dba Hoisington Preservation Consultants.
__________________________________________
Notary Public
Commission Expires: ___/___/_____
Commissioned At: ________________________
CITY OF STILLWATER
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS/QUALIFICATIONS FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Heritage Preservation (Local Designation) District
and Development of Design Guidelines for the
East Half of the Churchill, Nelson, Slaughter Addition
Proposals Due: 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
1.Project Purpose and Background
1.1.Project Synopsis
The City of Stillwater and the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission are
seeking a qualified consultant to develop material that supports the City in
considering the possibility of locally designating the East Half of the Churchill,
Nelson, Slaughter Addition (Addition) in the City of Stillwater. The Addition
contains approximately 106 parcels and covers 29.7 acres .
The Stillwater City Council authorized the Stillwater HPC to begin a study of
adopting a heritage Preservation district for the addition on March 20, 2012.
The project will include the following elements:
Develop a local designation form that can be used by the City of Stillwater
Complete local designation forms in the Addition
Provide a delineated historic district boundary for the Addition.
Provide a background report that supports locally designating the Addition
Develop design guidelines for the Addition
Develop a webpage about the Addition that supports the potential local
designation district
1
1.2.Community Background Information
The City of Stillwater is a dynamic and vibrant community, nestled along the bluffs
of the St. Croix River, one of Am
Stillwater is a stand alone City within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA),
located just 20 miles east of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The City is a historic
community with a growing population of 18,225 residents according to 2010 Census
and 7,414 housing units with a median home value of $242,000.
Stillwater is one of the most visited cities in Minnesota, featuring a historic
downtown, well known for its quality restaurants and shops featuring antiques, art,
rare books and various specialty items. The City is also well known for its restored
riverboats, Victorian bed and breakfasts, and seasonal recreation activities on the St.
Croix River.
In December 2005 the City of Stillwater was designated a Preserve America
Community. The Preserve America initiative is a White House effort to encourage
priceless cultural and natural heritage.
1.3.Previous CLG and Preservation Work by the Stillwater HPC
As its first CLG project in 1992, the City of Stillwater hired a consultant to prepare a
historic context document entitled Stillwater Historic Contexts: A Comprehensive
Planning Approach.The document was funded with local funds and a CLG Grant.
One of the recommendations in the context study was to divide the city into 17
manageable neighborhoods, called Historic Preservation Planning areas, for survey
and evaluation purposes.
Ten of the seventeen neighborhoods have been surveyed to date. In each of the
surveys, local significance was identified and a preliminary determination for local
designation was done for each property within the surveyed area.
The ten neighborhoods that have already been surveyed are:
North Hill Original Town
South Hill Original Town
Sabin/Greeley Addition
Dutchtown Neighborhood
Holcombe District
Hersey Staples & Co.
-West Half
-East Half
Staples Mays Addition
These surveys have been funded with local funds, in-kind match and CLG Grants.
With its 2005 CLG Grant, the City hired a consultant to prepare a plan for identifying
potentially significant historic structures and sites in the community and to develop a
plan to implement a local historic designation program. The work resulted in
identifying 776
be included in a local designation program.
2
Heirloom Housesare a cross-section of homes that are representative of nineteenth
century Stillwater. The homes contain a fair amount of their original design
elements. These homes are generally not eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places; however, due to the local value they should be recognized.
Landmark Houses and Sitesare the finest old homes and most remarkable sites in
Stillwater. They have architectural integrity and they have a strong connection to the
history of Stillwater. They sites may be eligible or are already listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
http://www.ci.stillwater.mn.us/and looking under Community Information
Neighborhood Histories.
Starting in 2007, the City of Stillwater, in conjunction with a paid consultant,
completed the first of three phases of the Heirloom Home and Landmark Sites
program. This first phase involved the development of anon-line interactive and
searchable database for properties the Heirloom Home and Landmark Site program.
The City undertook the second phase of the program in 2008 and the final phase in
2010. Currently 150 residential properties are listing on the site. 113 are listed as
Heirloom Houses and 37 are listed as Landmark Houses. The site can be found at
http://www.stillwater-mn.org/hpc/Sample_interface/Categories/home.asp
1.4.Previous work tied to the East Half of the Churchill, Nelson, Slaughter Addition
Donald Empson was commissioned by the City of Stillwater to complete anational
register identification and evaluation study in 2002/2003. This was completed an
accepted by the City in the spring of 2003.
Designating Historic Homes and Historic
Districtshe identified 6 properties that were potentially Landmark Houses and 68
properties that were potentially Heirloom Homes. Since that time 2 property owners
of Landmark Houses and 24 property owners of Heirloom Homes have voluntarily
signed up to participate in the Landmark and Heirloom Houses program. Detailed
histories of these properties are available on the City Landmark and Heirloom
Houses program website.
1.5.Current Stillwater Heritage Preservation (Local Designation) Districts
The City of Stillwater has previously approved the Stillwater Commercial Historic
Local District, which e.
Currently no residential areas have been locally designated by the City of Stillwater.
2.Project Description
2.1.Goal
The long-term goal is to achieve local designation status (in Stillwater it is called
ng architecturally and
historically significant buildings within the Addition either as components of a
district or individually. The goal of this project is to complete designation forms,
identify eligible buildings, and provide other supporting documents that lay the
ground work for the City to successfully complete designation of properties within
the Addition.
3
2.2.Work Summary and Final Products
2.2.1.The Consultant will assemble and review all available existing architectural and
historical information available on the determined eligible historic resources
within the Addition.
2.2.2.Based on site, photographic, and written evidence, the Consultant shall determine
whether designation of a historic district is feasible, or alternatively whether or
not thematic or individual designations of identified eligible historic resources is
preferable.
district rather than individual designations; however, individual designations may
also be sought for pivotal resources. The Consultant will assemble and review all
available existing architectural and historical information available on the
determined eligible historic resources within the study area.
The Consultant will conduct all historical research required for the
documentation of historical significance and the description of the resources for
the nominations
2.2.3.The Consultant will prepare the Local Designation Nomination Forms on all
properties in the addition.
2.2.4.The Consultant will prepare a report describing the addition and a potential
district. The report needs to support the reasons the district should be designated
by the City. The report should include a map that indicates which properties
should be locally designated. In the case of a district, the map should also show a
boundary of the district and which properties are contributing and non-
contributing to the district.
2.2.5.The Consultant will prepare design guidelines for a proposed district.
2.2.6.The Consultant will meet with local residents in an open house format on two
occasions. First open house will overview what local designation means, the
process, and benefits of local designation. The second open house is to review
and discuss possible design guidelines for the district.
2.2.7.The Consultant will meet with the HPC as outlined in section 2.4.
2.2.8.Under this project, it is not expected actual designation will be completed. The
process of completing the local designation district will either be completed by
City Staff or a consultant will be hired by the City under a separate contract to
assist the City is completing the designation process.
2.3.Final Products
The Consultant will provide three master hard copies of all printable materials and
two digital masters of all of the material produced needs to be submitted.
4
2.4.Project Work Plan
The consultant will prepare and submit to the City a Project Work Plan that describes
timeframe for completion. As part of the CLG grant the City is required to provide
updates to the Minnesota Historical Society. Potential modifications to the following
timeline needs to be addressed in the proposal.
2.4.1.Monthly written updates will be provided by the consultant to the
. Said updates will be provided by the 1st of
each month. Said updates need to only be a few sentences in length.
2.4.2.By December 2012, the local designation form shall be submitted to
the Stillwater HPC for approval.
2.4.3.By January 2013, preliminary outline and design, including a rough
layout, of the design guidelines shall be submitted to the Stillwater
HPC for review.
2.4.4.By March 2013, a sample chapter of the design guidelines shall be
submitted to the Stillwater HPC for review.
2.4.5.By April 2013, a draft of the designation forms and report on
possible local designations shall be submitted to the Stillwater HPC
for review.
2.4.6.By April 2013, draft design guidelines shall be submitted to the
Stillwater HPC for review.
2.4.7.By June 1, 2013, final designation forms, report on possible local
designations, and design guidelines shall be submitted to the
Stillwater HPC for review.
2.4.8.By July 15, 2013, final products
submitted to the Minnesota Historical Society Grants Office by the
City of Stillwater.
2.5.Meetings
The consultant will attend a minimum of four HPC meetings in Stillwater. The
preferred meetings dates are September 3, 2012 for an introduction and overview of
the project, November 5, 2012 & February 4, 2013 to review the outcomes of the first
neighborhood meeting and May 6, 2013 to review the final work product and
acceptance of work by HPC.
The HPC reserves the right to require additional meetings to review material and
project progress reports as necessary.
5
2.6.Deadlines and Meetings
Per terms of the grant, the project is required to be completed by June 30, 2013. The
following is outline of required meetings and deadlines. The schedule can be
modified if necessary as long as the June 30, 2013 deadline is met. Potential
modifications should be included in the proposal.
July 2012 City advertises request for proposals
August 2012 City selects consultant
August 2012 Consultant contracted
September 3, 2012 Consultant initial meeting with HPC
October 2012 Consultant meeting with SHPO, if needed
Late October 2012 Neighborhood Open House Kick off meeting
November 5, 2012 Consultant update meeting with HPC
Late January 2013 Neighborhood Open House Design Guidelines
February 4, 2013 Consultant update meeting with HPC
April 15, 2013 Consultant submits draft registration forms and design
guidelines to SHPO and HPC
May 6, 2013 Consultant update meeting with HPC
June 1, 2013 Consultant submit final registration forms, design
guidelines, district website, and recommendation to
SHPO and HPC
July 2013 Submission of final documents to SHPO
July 2013 Project close-out
2.7.Professional Qualifications
Qualifications Standards (as published in the Federal Register of September 29,
1983.)
2.8.Updates to the HPC
The consultant shall provide monthly written progress reports. The reports should be
short in nature (one or two paragraphs). The reports must be submitted to City Staff
by the 1st day of each month, September2012 through June 2013. The City will
th
submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) by the 15day of each
month for the duration of the project. The HPC may request other written progress
reports as necessary.
6
2.9.Budget and Support Services
a $16,000 Certified Local Government
Grant from the Minnesota Historical Society. This is 49.0% of the total project cost.
AState of Minnesota Cultural Heritage Grant (Legacy Grant) will be providing a
cash match of $4,000 toward the project. The City will be providing a cash match in
the amount of $3,000 and in-kind match in the amount of $8,900. The City of
Stillwater will administer the grant project. Total available funding to pay for
consultant services is $23,000. All materials produced by the consultant during the
course of the project will be owned by the City of Stillwater.
3.Submission Requirements
3.1.Project Work Plan
The consultant shall provide a proposal that establishes a general concept for the
Description
3.2.Project Cost
The consultant shall provide a separate cost for each product. The cost will be a not-
to-exceed fee for the requested services.
3.3.Statement of Qualifications
A Statement of Qualification from the consultant covering the following information:
3.3.1.d
organization.
3.3.2.Identify the name of the person designated as the contact person for
this proposal with mailing address, telephone number, fax number
and e-mail address.
3.3.3.Resumes of individuals who will carry out the proposed project
development and their respective roles in the project.
3.3.4.Develop a work program and schedule for the proposal.
3.3.5.Provide information on similar project completed by the consultant,
including contacts who can be used for reference.
3.4.Number of Proposals
Submit six (6) copies of the proposal.
3.5.Submission Deadline
Proposals are to be received in the office of the Community Development
Department no later than 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 24, 2012. No late proposals
will be considered. Proposals may be mailed or hand delivered to:
Michel Pogge
City Planner
Stillwater City Hall
216 Fourth Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082
7
4.Other Specific Requirements
4.1.
The City of Stillwater reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals.
4.2.
The fees quoted in this packet will be the maximum paid in total unless an
amendment to the contract is approved by both parties.
4.3.
Proposals received in response to this invitation shall become the property of the City
of Stillwater and shall be retained on file, and by reference will become a part of any
subsequent formal agreement.
4.4.Acknowledgement of Consultant
4.4.1.In the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any
work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material
supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color,
discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the
United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to
perform the work to which the employment relates.
4.4.2.No contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner,
discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any
person or persons identified in previous section, or on being hired,
prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the
performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or
color.
4.4.3.The consultant agrees any publications, studies, reports,
presentations, files, audio visual materials, exhibits, or other material
prepared with grant assistance will contain an acknowledgement of
Historic Preservation Fund grant funds and nondiscrimination policy
as follows:
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. However, the
contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies
of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation by the Department of Interior.
This program receives federal financial assistance for identification
and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S.
Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of
race, color, national origin, disability, or age in its federally assisted
programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any
program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire
further information, please write to: Office for Equal Opportunity,
National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240.
4.4.4.The consultant agrees any publications, studies, reports,
presentations, files, audio visual materials, exhibits, or other material
8
prepared with grant assistance will contain an acknowledgement of
Arts and Cultural Heritage grant as follows:
Heritage Fund through the vote of Minnesotans on November 4,
2008. Administered by the Minnesota Historical Society
4.4.5.The consultant is not debarred or suspended or is otherwise excluded
form or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs
under Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension.
4.4.6.Other financial contributions may be acknowledged in the document
as directed by the City.
5.Evaluation Criteria
Proposals will be evaluated by the City of Stillwater on the following:
5.1.Qualifications
5.1.1.Recent consulting experiences with similar types of projects.
5.1.2.Work experience and educational background of assigned staff
members and their direct knowledge/experience specific to
Stillwater.
5.1.3.Demonstrated understanding of the scope of the work to be
completed.
5.1.4.
Qualification Standards for history and architectural historic as
published in the Federal Register of September 29, 1983.
5.2.Proposed Project Work Plan
Overall content and concept
5.3.Cost
Overall cost, including reimbursable expenses and the ability to produce the final
products within the budget limitations identified in the RFQ.
5.4.Time Schedule
Ability to comply with the proposed time schedule for the project.
5.5.Oral Presentation
Following a review of the written responses to this Request for Qualifications, the
City of Stillwater may invite a limited number of consultants to present their proposal
to a committee made up of HPC members and City staff. The quality of the
For questions or additional information, please contact:
Michel Pogge, City Planner, City of Stillwater (HPC Staff Liaison)
216 Fourth Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082
(651) 430-8822
mpogge@ci.stillwater.mn.us
9
E. HUDSON STREET
EAST
EAST
ROBERT J. CLAYBAUGH AIA has been a principal in architectural practice since 1972 and
has gained a regional reputation for his expertise in historic restoration,
renovation and downtown revitalization projects.
Mr. Claybaugh has developed successful restoration programs for many
National Register and National Landmark structures in the Midwest. He
has also worked on the restoration of numerous state historic sites in
Minnesota, Missouri and Kansas.
EDUCATION Kansas State University, B Arch, 1964
Kansas State University, BS Arch Eng, 1964
REGISTRATION Registered Architect, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Wisconsin, NCARB Certified
EXPERIENCE Claybaugh Preservation Architecture Inc, Principal
Claybaugh Gale Anderson Preservation Consultants Inc.,
Principal
Solomon Claybaugh Young Architects Inc., Principal
ACTIVITIES AND HONORS
Board member, Preservation Alliance of Minnesota,
1997 -2003
Past Chair and Member, Taylors Falls, Minnesota
Economic Development Commission
Chair, Minnesota Historical Society
State Review Board
Member, Minnesota Design Team (ten teams)
Co- leader (two teams)
American Institute of Architects
President, AIAKC, 1987
Certified Specifier, Construction
Specifications Institute (CSI)
Member, Kansas City, Missouri, Landmarks
Commission, 1988 -90
Vice Chair, Kansas City, Missouri, City Plan
Commission, 1990 -94
Chair, Kansas State U. Department of Architecture
Professional Advisory Board, 1990 -91
Project Papers, APT National Convention
1981, 1983, 1985
Preservation Paper, National Trust for Historic
Preservation Convention, 1993
Preservation Paper, National AIA Convention, 1999
Preservation Paper, MN AIA Convention, 2001
Minnesota Barn Preservation Workshop, 2002
Preservation Paper, Minnesota SHPO
Preservation Conference, 2003
Preservation Presentation, AIA/MN Stone Masonry
Workshop, 2004
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North
September 18, 2012
SPECIAL MEETING 4:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
4:00 P.M.
RIBBON CUTTING FOR NEW PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AT LOWELL PARK
4:30 P.M. AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Workshop on Fire Station
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2. Possible approval of September 4, 2012 regular and recessed meeting minutes.
PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS
3. United Way Angie Lein
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum is a portion of the Council meeting to address Council on subjects which are not a part of the
meeting agenda. The Council may take action or reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff
Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your
regarding investigation of the concerns expressed.
comments to 5 minutes or less.
STAFF REPORTS
4. Police Chief 5. Fire Chief 6. City Clerk 7. Community Dev. Director
Update on Readex Survey
8. Public Wks Dir/City Engr. 9. Finance Dir. 10. City Attorney 11. City Administrator
CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL)
Resolution 2012-149
12. , directing payment of bills
Resolution 2012-150,
13. approving Washington County Cooperative Agreement
14. Possible approval of placement of signs for Fire Prevention Week
15. Board of Water Commissioners Financial Statement
PUBLIC HEARINGS - OUT OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR
COMMENTS TO 10 MINUTES OR LESS.
Case No. 2012-25.
16. This is the date and time for a public hearing to consider a request from Tisha Palmer
for a zoning text amendment regarding Chapter 27, Section 27 for the keeping of chickens in the City of
st
Stillwater. Notice was published in the Stillwater Gazette on September 7, 2012. (1 reading – Roll Call)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
17.Possible approval of second reading of Ordinance 1049, Amending Sec. 27-3 of the City Code, entitled
“Keeping of bees,” (Ordinance – 2nd reading – Roll Call)
18.Update on Army Corps of Engineers Project Cooperation Agreement for Levee Project (possible
Resolution – Roll Call)
NEW BUSINESS
19.Possible approval of On-sale & Sunday liquor license for Reve 324 located at 324 Main Street S
(Resolution – Roll Call)
20.Possible approval of Wine with Strong Beer liquor license for L & L Companies, DBA: Quickfire Pizza
located at 116 Main Street S (Resolution – Roll Call)
21.No parking on Laurel and Owens (Resolution – Roll Call)
PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)
COMMUNICATIONS/REQUESTS
COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS
22.Yellow Ribbon update
STAFF REPORTS (CONTINUED)
ADJOURNMENT
**
All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There
will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed
from the consent agenda and considered separately.
DATE
:
September 14, 2012
Mayor & Council Members
TO:
Fire Station Project Ï Cost Reductions
REGARDING:
Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
AUTHOR:
BACKGROUND
At the last Council meeting the consultant team for the fire station design work presented
an update on their work.
The work for the contracted 35% design is nearing completion.
Floor plans and exterior elevations of the Fire Station and the Readiness Center were
presented.
Total estimated cost of Fire Station project was $8.3 million.
million for construction.
The City Council directed staff to look at ways to reduce the cost of the project and present
the findings at a work session on September 18.
th
DISCUSSION
Over the last two weeks consultants and Fire Department staff have been balancing space
needs, level and quality of service and fire protection delivery against project costs. And
though on-site training opportunities and building flexibility would be impacted, the
buildingÔs costs can be reduced by:
1.Removing top of tower
2.Reducing size of mechanical mezzanine
3.Eliminating one restroom
4.Eliminating one unisex restroom
5.Reducing the size of the public restroom
6.Reducing the size of the reception area
7.Reducing size of the entry area
8.Reducing size of the kitchen
9.Eliminating the Emergency Operations Center
10.Eliminating one laundry room
11.Reducing the size of the fitness area
12.Reducing the size of the resident shower and restroom
13.Reduce finish costs
14.Eliminate the storage building
Fire Station Project Costs
Page 2
At the work session, our design and construction management consultants will detail the
proposed changes and their associated cost savings.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has several alternative courses of action available. Among them are:
1.Accept the revisions as the proper order of magnitude in terms of budget.
2.Direct staff to bring back additional information.
3.Put the Fire Station project on the shelf for some period of tim
bt
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 4, 2012
REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M.
Mayor Harycki called the meeting to order at 4:36 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Roush, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Absent: None
Staff: City Attorney Magnuson
City Administrator Hansen
Finance Director Harrison
Deputy Fire Chief Ballis
Police Chief Gannaway
Community Development Director Turnblad
Public Works Director Sanders
City Clerk Ward
MIS Specialist Holman
OTHER BUSINESS
Myrtle and Owens Street Intersection - Joe Gustafson, Washington County
Joe Gustafson, Washington County, explained the mini-roundabout proposed for the
intersection of Myrtle and Owens Streets. No Council action is requested; the presentation was
informational only. He presented initial concept sketches and photos of mini-roundabouts
throughout the Country, adding that mini-roundabouts are much smaller in diameter, have no
signs, and are designed for low speed roadways. The federal government has offered to
reimburse 90% of design and construction costs up to $100,000 in order to study this type of
solution. Total cost is yet unknown but a very rough estimate is close to $100,000. The mini-
roundabout must be in place for three years to be eligible for the funding.
Mr. Gustafson continued that the next steps would be to formally request the County Board to
accept the federal funds, select a design firm, and determine the limits of the pavement and any
aesthetic elements. There would be an open house and opportunity for public input. If the design
phase goes well, the County Board and City Council would be asked to approve construction,
which could begin in the spring of 2014.
Mayor Harycki expressed concerns about aesthetics, cost and suitability for the location. He
would like to wait and see what happens with traffic when the bridge is constructed.
Councilmember Cook indicated that she is open to hearing more about the proposal and
inquired about potential loss of parking. Mr. Gustafson replied that four spaces may be lost, but
City Council Meeting September 4, 2012
there could be a way to replace one near the rear of the grocery store. He explained pedestrian
movement with the roundabout, saying there would be striped crosswalks.
Councilmember Roush inquired what entity would make the decision whether to go forward,
and Mr. Gustafson responded that City consent would be required if City cost participation were
expected. If bids come in at $100,000, the federal government would cover 90% or $90,000 and
the City and County would split the remainder. If the cap of $100,000 is exceeded through
expanding the scope of the project, the City and County would cost-share the difference.
Councilmember Roush stated he is not against the proposal, but the effects of the future river
crossing have yet to be seen and it would be prudent to wait at least a few months while the lift
bridge is closed.
Mayor Harycki suggested the County use temporary markings indicating a “traffic control
experiment” to get feedback from the public before deciding whether to proceed. He
emphasized the importance of feedback from residents.
Mr. Gustafson explained that City authorization would be needed to do a study, at a cost of
$10,000 to $20,000 with the County and City splitting the cost 75% to 25%.
Washington County Commissioner Gary Kriesel reiterated that no action will be taken yet -
there would be a lot of discussion with the City if the County moves in this direction. The
roundabouts in Lakeland are well received by the community.
Ann Gillen-Triplett, whose parents live at Myrtle and Owens Streets, remarked she was angry
upon reading about the proposal, and prefers that the County postpone action. She expressed
concerns about traffic and the difficulties that fire trucks, snow plows and school buses may
have getting through a roundabout.
Mr. Gustafson responded that the center island and other approaches would be fully mountable
by fire trucks and other large vehicles, adding that the County has not had difficulty plowing
existing roundabouts.
Public Works Director Sanders stated that the City’s section of Myrtle Street is a State Aid road,
so State Aid money could probably be used for that portion of the project. Currently the
intersection is a level D or F and will get worse in five years. With the new bridge, he predicts
there will not be much reduction in traffic at the intersection. He believes the proposal may
work well and would like to take advantage of the federal money.
Mr. Gustafson pointed out that normally design costs about 10% of expected construction costs,
so $10,000 to $20,000 is a conservative estimate for studying the proposal. In coming weeks the
County will request Council permission for a study - the City cost share would be 25%. If
construction results, the federal government would reimburse 90% of that cost to the City and
the County. He added that the County will look at a way to do a temporary simulation.
Ted Gillen, 1011 West Myrtle Street, requested that the County correct the drawings presented,
as there are errors preventing the Council from getting the full picture.
Presentation of National Guard Readiness Center and Fire Station by BWBR
Community Development Director Turnblad stated the first portion of the design for the Fire
Station is nearly done. No action is required at this time. Public hearings will probably occur in
November. Design work on a gymnasium addition has not been done yet but space has been
reserved. Current estimates are about $400,000 over the previous cost estimate of $7.9 million.
Page 2 of 13
City Council Meeting September 4, 2012
John Huenink with Kraus-Anderson Construction Company has been retained as project
manager to help bring costs down. Also the proposed secondary emergency access is still being
discussed with the County. It will be tied to a traffic management plan for Hwy. 12.
Doug Wild, BWBR Architects, provided an overview of project history and a site plan.
Randy Engel, Buetow 2 Architects Inc., presented design plans including the tower, seven-bay
drive through, office and living areas, mezzanine area, cold storage garage, lower level smoke
training area, and service area.
Mr. Wild reviewed how some of the aesthetic decisions were made in the design and presented
additional design views.
Councilmember Roush asked about the roof of the readiness center, and Mr. Wild explained the
LEED criteria requires enabling the roof to support photo tag cells, which are not in the budget
yet but must be planned for.
Councilmember Roush questioned if the exterior facade of the Fire Station was partially driven
by the National Guard’s selection for their facade, as it looks more modern than what he
anticipated, and Mr. Wild responded no, the facilities need to look like good neighbors but don’t
need to be exactly the same.
Councilmember Polehna commented he is shocked to see the facility has gone from 16,000
square feet to 34,000, and questioned what is essential. He feels the project needs to be pared
down.
Mr. Engel indicated that discussion last December related to a 2005 study of a smaller facility
that did not consider the training aspect and did not include all the equipment that the
Department has to have under cover.
Mayor Harycki commented that $8.3 million is out of the City’s reach.
Councilmember Cook pointed out there are costs already incurred that are not even included in
that figure.
Mayor Harycki added that considering remodeling costs for the Police Department and
construction overrun costs, the project could be pushing $10 million which is way beyond the
comfort range.
Mr. Engel responded there is no way to put a price on safety and proper performance.
Mr. Huenink explained construction costs and site costs. The total is $7.3 million for bricks and
mortar - adding in soft costs, $8.388 million. The average square foot cost for bricks and mortar
is around $225 per square foot. This project is now at about $205 per square foot, but that
doesn’t mean there are no options.
Councilmember Cook requested that money already paid so far be added to the cost estimate
itemization.
Councilmember Polehna indicated that he would like to see what could be saved by eliminating
cold storage and some of the sleeping rooms.
Councilmember Roush reminded the Council that the building is protecting equipment that’s
worth more than the building.
Councilmember Menikheim remarked that until the Council decides what its fire service
expectations are, how can it budget for something that has not been articulated?
Page 3 of 13
City Council Meeting September 4, 2012
Councilmember Cook stated she wants to explore having five bays in the new station and
keeping two bays at the present location as a substation.
Councilmember Polehna pointed out that City surveys have shown the two services most
important to residents are police and fire protection.
Mayor Harycki reminded the Council the Police Department is also involved, not just the Fire
Station.
Community Development Director Turnblad suggested scheduling a work session for 4:30 pm
September 18.
Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Cook, to schedule a workshop
before the September 18 meeting. All in favor.
Demonstration of iPads
MIS Specialist Rose Holman demonstrated for the Council how the iPads will work. The agenda
packets will be put in Dropbox. Paper packets will be discontinued whenever the Council
member is comfortable with the iPad.
The meeting was recessed at 6:31 p.m.
RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Harycki called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Roush, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Absent: None
Staff: City Attorney Magnuson
City Administrator Hansen
Finance Director Harrison
Deputy Fire Chief Ballis
Police Chief Gannaway
Community Development Director Turnblad
Public Works Director Sanders
City Clerk Ward
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Harycki led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Councilmember Roush, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to approve the August 21,
2012 regular meeting minutes and the August 28, 2012 special meeting minutes. All in favor.
Page 4 of 13
City Council Meeting September 4, 2012
PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS
Stillwater City Council Service Award - Officer Andrea Olson, Night to Unite
Mayor Harycki presented Officer Andrea Olson with a Service Award recognizing her
contributions in organizing Night to Unite held on August 7, 2012 at Washington Square Park.
Proclamation - Constitution Week September 17 through September 23, 2012
Mayor Harycki presented Anita Carter of the St. Croix Chapter of the D.A.R. a proclamation
designating the week of September 17-23 as Constitution Week.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
Resolution 2012-136,
Directing the Payment of Bills
Resolution 2012-137,
Approval of EPRG, LLC Consulting Agreement
Resolution 2012-138,
Approving Minnesota Internet Crimes against Children Task Force
multi-agency law enforcement joint powers agreement Contract No. 51641 2012-
13 Grant Cycle
Resolution 2012-139,
Authorizing the certified local government grant application through
the Minnesota Historical Society
Possible approval to purchase iPads – MIS
Resolution 2012-138,
Approving Minnesota internet crimes against children task force
multi-agency law enforcement joint powers agreement Contract No. 51641 (2012-13
grant cycle)
Resolution 2012-139,
Authorizing the Certified Local Government Grant Application
through the Minnesota Historical Society
Possible approval of Millbrook Park improvement expenditures
Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Cook, to approve the Consent
Agenda.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Roush, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Possible approval of second reading of Ordinance 1049, Amending Sec. 27-3 of the City Code,
entitled “Keeping of Bees”
Community Development Director Turnblad reviewed that the Council added a section
requiring consent of 75% of neighbors living within 150 feet of an applicant’s property in order
to grant the permit, and added language allowing education from other beekeeping courses to
satisfy the educational requirement.
Page 5 of 13
City Council Meeting September 4, 2012
Councilmember Roush suggested consent should be from one of the legal landowners rather
than from one legally-aged resident, and it should state “21” rather than “legally-aged.”
Community Development Director Turnblad replied that the language as stated accounts for
rental properties, as the person living there is potentially more affected than the property owner.
Councilmember Menikheim noted there are concerns from beekeepers about consent versus
notification.
Elizabeth Welty, 724 Oak Street West, expressed concerns about the timeline for purchasing
equipment, taking the appropriate classes, obtaining a queen and starting a hive if a neighbor is
unable to be reached to obtain consent, for instance, if they away for the winter. There is a big
upfront cost and a beekeeper could be prevented from starting for another year.
Councilmember Menikheim stated he believes that requiring consent is overly restrictive and
sets up the potential for a “neighborhood war.” He added that beekeeping is a national trend
with environmental benefits and wondered what is gained by requiring consent rather than
notification.
Councilmember Roush pointed out that if consent is not required and a neighbor wants to appeal
the decision to grant a permit, an undue burden is on the neighbor to pay for an appeal.
Councilmember Polehna stated he talked with beekeepers at the State Fair who thought consent
is a good idea because it reduces the possibility of beekeepers investing money in a hive and
then having a lot of upset neighbors.
Councilmember Cook commented that consent might be difficult because a lot of people are
misinformed about bees; notification seems adequate.
Mayor Harycki reminded the Council that St. Paul and Minneapolis both require consent; this
ordinance was modeled after those ordinances. But he expressed concern about forcing
beekeepers to contact potentially upset neighbors. He would prefer notification rather than
requiring neighbor approval.
Community Development Director Turnblad suggested that, in the notification language, it
could state that if there are neighbors who object, then those cases be brought before the
planning commission or the Council.
City Attorney Magnuson clarified that the City could require, as a zoning matter, that the permit
can’t be issued until after 10 days written notice to affected property owners within 300 feet -
which is the normal distance. Perhaps the City Council could issue the permit rather than Staff.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the objection of neighbors alone is not sufficient reason to
deny a permit - it’s not the number of people against a proposal, it’s the quality of their
objections.
Ms. Welty stated there are already beehives in the City. Though they are not legal, there hasn’t
been a problem.
On a question by Mayor Harycki about how long the permit would be good for, Community
Development Director Turnblad replied two years.
Betsy Glennon, 812 Harriet Street, thanked Community Development Director Turnblad, Staff
and Council members for consideration of the issue. If she knew a neighbor was an
anaphylactic, she would never set up a hive. She also asked if the City has heard anything from
concerned citizens about this issue? Councilmember Cook stated she has not.
Page 6 of 13
City Council Meeting September 4, 2012
Councilmember Roush offered that he has asked people and obtained split opinions.
Ms. Glennon told the Council of her problems with unreasonable neighbors, and objected to her
hobby being dependent on their consent. She stated she has a hard time with the standard being
applied so rigidly when other land use ordinances don’t require consent. She added that once
somebody applies for a permit, there should be a waiting period that gives neighbors the
opportunity to speak - and a solution could be mediated if needed.
Motion by Councilmember Menikheim to give Staff direction to change “consent” to “notification,”
seconded by Councilmember Cook.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Mayor Harycki
Nays: Councilmembers Roush and Polehna
City Attorney Magnuson stated that before the second reading is held, the Council could change
the language to say the application must also include 10 days written notice to residential
properties within 300 feet of the applicant’s property lines. If no objection is received in 10
days, the permit could be automatically granted without having to come before the Council. The
Council could waive the standard appeal fees for objections. He suggested directing Community
Development Director Turnblad to make the language changes and come back with a final draft
for next meeting.
Possible approval of second reading of Ordinance 1050, an ordinance amending the Stillwater City
Code, Section 52.15, by adding Section 52.15, Subdivision 4
Community Development Director Turnblad explained this is the exception that allows pedal
pubs to have open containers. There were no changes to the first reading.
Ordinance
Motion by Councilmember Roush, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to adopt
1050,
an ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code, Section 52.15, by adding Section 52.15,
Subdivision 4.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Roush, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
Discussion on letter from Army Corps of Engineers regarding Levee Project
Mayor Harycki reiterated that the Corps has stated that funding is available and it has
authorization to proceed with the Levee Project. The Corps is requesting an agreement
regarding shared costs (Project Cooperation Agreement).
Councilmember Menikheim expressed concern about hidden costs if the project is postponed.
He clarified with Public Works Director Sanders that if the Corps does the project, it will cost
the City less money, but what seems more certain today is whether the Corps will proceed.
On a question by Councilmember Cook about a possible start date, Public Works Director
Sanders replied it could be determined by high water.
Mayor Harycki stated that for him it comes down to the $525,000 which would otherwise pay
for two more miles of roads.
Page 7 of 13
City Council Meeting September 4, 2012
Public Works Director Sanders commented that if the City is just dealing with the MPCA it
would be easier than having to deal with the Corps, which would probably be more strict on soil
it wants removed, so that could drive costs higher than if the City did the project on its own.
Councilmember Polehna expressed distrust of the Corps, and reminded the Council of the
hurricanes that have gone through the south which he believes could cause the Corps to pull
funding from this project.
Councilmember Roush stated he is skeptical also, but because of the amount of money involved,
he leans toward giving the Corps the opportunity to proceed.
Public Works Director Sanders indicated once the City signs the P.C.A. it is committed to the
Corps doing the project.
City Attorney Magnuson offered to see if an escape provision can be written into the agreement
and brought back to the next meeting.
Motion by Councilmember Roush, seconded by Councilmember Cook, to approve the P.C.A. based
on successful implementation of a contingency for an escape clause allowing the City to cancel the
agreement and do the project on its own if construction is not started by August 1, 2013.
Ayes: Councilmembers Cook, Roush, Mayor Harycki
Nays: Councilmembers Menikheim and Polehna.
NEW BUSINESS
Possible approval of Harvest Fest Special Event and associated contract and possible approval of
temporary liquor license
Cory Buettner, Leo’s Grill and Malt Shop, and Chuck Dougherty, Water Street Inn, on behalf of
Summer Tuesdays, Inc., explained Harvest Fest. Mr. Buettner thanked the Council and City
Staff for support of Summer Tuesdays. Harvest Fest is planned for Saturday and Sunday
October 13 & 14. The event is a benefit for Valley Outreach and will feature family fun
activities, including a street dance and two giant pumpkin drops.
Councilmember Cook reminded the Council of the moratorium on events, adding that it feels
like the event is expanding.
Mr. Buettner clarified that set up will be Friday and the event will be on Saturday and Sunday.
The street dance will probably last until 11 p.m., not midnight. He added that it makes sense to
have it be a two day event because of the CVB’s involvement, so people can enjoy the City for
the whole weekend.
Resolution
Motion by Councilmember Menikheim, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adopt
2012-140
, Approval of Agreement for the 2012 Harvest Fest & Giant Pumpkin Weigh-Off, noting
the Saturday events will end at 11 p.m.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Roush, Cook, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
Possible approval of tax levy, budget and setting truth in taxation hearing dates
Mayor Harycki commended Staff for their work on the budget.
Page 8 of 13
City Council Meeting September 4, 2012
Finance Director Harrison reviewed that the tax levy and budget reflects the $3,890 that the
Council wanted her to shift from the library to the general fund, funding $50,000 in lobbying
services, and $3,500 for the Chamber symposium.
Resolution
Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Roush, to adopt
2012-141
, Adopting the proposed tax levy for the payable year 2013.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Roush, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
Resolution
Motion by Councilmember Roush, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to adopt
2012-142,
Adopting the proposed budget for the year 2013.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Roush, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
Resolution 2012-
Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Cook, to adopt
143
, Setting payable 2013 Truth-in-Taxation public hearing.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Roush, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
Possible approval of resolution declaring costs and preparing assessment roll and resolution calling
for assessment hearing for 2012 Street Improvements (Project 2012-02)
Public Works Director Sanders indicated that since the last meeting, the pay contractor’s costs
are $140,000 over the contract amount, because stone curb was encountered that hadn’t been
figured in. The City will need to re-declare costs, and there will be an increase in cost of about
10% resulting in $4,800 or $4,900 assessment cost for reconstructed streets, $400 over
previously anticipated assessments. Water service and mill and overlay costs will stay the same.
Resolution 2012-144
Motion by Mayor Harycki, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adopt ,
Declaring cost to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed assessment for 2012 street
improvement project (Project 2012-02).
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Roush, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
Resolution 2012-
Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Cook, to adopt
145
, Calling for hearing on proposed assessment for 2012 street improvement project (Project 2012-
02), L.I. #393.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Roush, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
Page 9 of 13
City Council Meeting September 4, 2012
Possible approval of bids for South Third Street Improvements (Project 2012-04)
Public Works Director Sanders explained this is basically sidewalk and new curb. Of the total
bid amount of $714,000, the City is responsible for $48,000 construction costs and will assess
roughly half that amount.
Resolution 2012-
Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adopt
146
, Accepting bid and awarding contract for Third Street South Street Improvement Project
(Project 2012-04) to Hardrives, Inc.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Roush, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
Possible approval of resolution declaring costs and preparing assessment roll and resolution calling
for assessment hearing for South Third Street Improvements (Project 2012-04)
Public Works Director Sanders reported that construction will probably start in approximately
two weeks and completed mid-November.
Resolution 2012-
Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Roush, to adopt
147
, Declaring cost to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed assessment for South Third
Street improvement (Project 2012-04).
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Roush, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
Resolution 2012-
Motion by Councilmember Roush, seconded by Councilmember Cook, to adopt
148
, Calling for hearing on proposed assessment for South Third Street improvement (Project 2012-
04).
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Cook, Roush, Polehna, Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
Chamber request for parking spaces for Townie Tuesdays
Cory Buettner appeared on behalf of the Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce to explain a
promotion for the time period that the bridge is closed for repairs. Merchants are being asked to
stay open until 8:00 p.m. on Tuesdays to get local residents to come downtown. They are
requesting the City to allow free parking in all surface lots on Tuesdays. They also would like to
somehow promote the parking ramp being used by locals. This would begin September 11 and
run through December.
Police Chief John Gannaway reiterated that the Downtown Parking Commission is considering
that whenever the levee project is done and lots are resurfaced, possibly making the lots along
the river pay lots to pay for the surfacing. To make that more palatable, the Commission has
been discussing a resident parking pass. This is just in concept stages. He added that the Parking
Commission majority was opposed to the free parking on Tuesdays because it complicates
enforcement and was proposed on short notice.
Councilmember Roush pointed out that the majority of people won’t decide whether to go
downtown based on free parking - locals know where to park. He reiterated the comments
Page 10 of 13
City Council Meeting September 4, 2012
provided from the Downtown Parking Commission expressing the need to bring residents
downtown and not complicate the existing system.
Councilmember Menikheim commented the City could make a symbolic commitment by
providing free parking on Tuesday nights to support downtown promotions. He believes
downtown businesses need to come together and work as a whole, and the City should support
this.
Councilmember Roush reiterated that it’s a great promotion, but it is more than symbolic if it
costs the City money.
Councilmember Polehna indicated that downtown business owners have told him their
employees are taking up all the free spots from customers. He pointed out that most parking
downtown is free.
Police Chief Gannaway confirmed that around 80% of all parking downtown is free.
Councilmember Cook stated she has never had to park in a pay lot; she always finds a parking
spot. She thinks that when the bridge is closed, people will go downtown regardless of free
parking.
Mr. Buettner suggested there is a misconception that there is no parking in Stillwater. Many
residents avoid downtown because of congestion caused by the bridge. He would like to make
100% of the lots free to promote residents coming downtown on Tuesdays. He emphasized the
investment being made by the merchants agreeing to stay open later on Tuesdays.
Councilmember Roush pointed out that the City is trying to be consistent, as it gets a lot of
requests for free parking for events.
Councilmember Menikheim stated this isn’t an event. He believes the Council has to overrule
the Parking Commission this time to support the downtown coming together.
Councilmember Polehna reminded the Council it supports downtown through contributing
money toward the symposium, construction of the new $1 million pedestrian plaza and
restrooms, $15,000 for downtown beautification, and looking at restoring Lowell Park and
fixing all parking lots downtown. He disagreed with Councilmember Menikheim’s viewpoint
that the Council isn’t supporting downtown.
Mr. Buettner expressed appreciation for the discussion and acknowledged that the Council does
support the downtown.
Councilmember Roush suggested offering free parking for the first Tuesday of the promotion.
Motion by Councilmember Roush, seconded by Councilmember Cook, to approve the first Tuesday
in the series, September 11, for free parking. All in favor.
STAFF REPORTS
Community Development Director Turnblad informed the Council that the first draft of the
event survey was received from Readex. It has been sent to Staff members for comments and
will be brought to the Council’s next meeting for review. He also stated all proposals for the
expansion study of the Police Department have been received. Three of the proposals will be
brought to the Council on September 18 for possible award of the contract.
Page 11 of 13
City Council Meeting September 4, 2012
Councilmember Cook inquired if anyone would support her idea for a downtown substation for
the Fire Department by maintaining some of the existing space, perhaps keeping one of the
current bays.
Councilmember Roush replied it appears to be cost prohibitive and could present problems with
gear, but he is open to the discussion.
Police Chief Gannaway indicated that his Department would be opposed to it if it is going to be
where the existing Fire Department is now. From a security standpoint, there is too much
common access, so additional money would have to be spent to give the Fire Department a
completely separate access.
City Administrator Hansen pointed out that Fire Chief Glaser should be present for this sort of
discussion, so it should wait until the next meeting.
Community Development Director Turnblad also reported there have been four restaurants
downtown that have outdoor music without special use permits. The City is notifying owners
asking them to make application for SUP within 30 days.
Public Works Director Sanders reminded everyone the lift bridge will be closed September 10
until mid-December. MnDOT contractors have begun work on relocation of the Shoddy Mill
Building and will be doing soil clean up at the Terra Terminal site; the building will be relocated
mid-October. He also received a request from a subcontractor who wants a variance to begin
work at 6:00 a.m. rather than 7:00 a.m. a few days this week and next week at the Terra
Terminal site.
Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Mayor Harycki, to approve the requested
variance. All in favor.
Public Works Director Sanders also reported the DNR is starting to remove tracks later this
month and should be completed by the end of November. Construction of the trail going to
Brown’s Creek Park or Neal Avenue should start in the spring and be done by mid-summer.
There are funds available to complete the work.
City Administrator Hansen reminded the Council of the annual boards and commissions picnic
Wednesday, September 5 from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m.
City Clerk Ward reminded the Council of the meeting change to Tuesday, October 30, 2012,
instead of Tuesday, November 6, 2012, due to the election.
COMMUNICATIONS/REQUESTS
Councilmember Roush informed the Council that on September 13, 2012 there will be a full
Fire Department exercise, “Stillwater Operation Rolling on the River,” requiring 60 volunteers
for a disaster simulation. Interested persons should contact Fire Chief Glaser or the Washington
County Emergency Manager.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Councilmember Menikheim, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adjourn at 8:53
p.m. All in favor.
Page 12 of 13
City Council Meeting September 4, 2012
____________________________
Ken Harycki, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk
Resolution 2012-136,
Directing the Payment of Bills
Resolution 2012-137,
Approval of EPRG, LLC Consulting Agreement
Resolution 2012-138,
Approving Minnesota Internet Crimes against Children Task Force
multi-agency law enforcement joint powers agreement Contract No. 51641 2012-
13 Grant Cycle
Resolution 2012-139,
Authorizing the certified local government grant application through
the Minnesota Historical Society
Resolution 2012-140,
Approval of Agreement for the 2012 Harvest Fest & Giant Pumpkin
Weigh-Off
Resolution 2012-141,
Adopting the proposed tax levy for the payable year 2013
Resolution 2012-142,
Adopting the proposed budget for the year 2013
Resolution 2012-143,
Setting payable 2013 Truth-in-Taxation public hearing
Resolution 2012-144,
Declaring cost to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed
assessment for 2012 street improvement project (Project 2012-02)
Resolution 2012-145,
Calling for hearing on proposed assessment for 2012 street
improvement project (Project 2012-02), L.I. #393
Resolution 2012-146,
Accepting bid and awarding contract for Third Street South street
improvement project (Project 2012-04)
Resolution 2012-147,
Declaring cost to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed
assessment for South Third Street improvement (Project 2012-04)
Resolution 2012-148,
Calling for hearing on proposed assessment for South Third Street
improvement (Project 2012-04)
Ordinance 1050,
an ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code, Section 52.15, by adding
Section 52.15, Subdivision 4.
Page 13 of 13
Memorandum
September 11, 2012
To: City Council Members
From: Tom Ballis, Deputy Fire Chief
Re: Fire Prevention Week Signs/Banners
The week of October 7-13, 2012 has been set aside as National Fire Prevention Week. The
Stillwater Fire Department will be promoting this yearHave 2 Ways Out
be hosting a number of fire safety activities the month of October. Some of these will be visiting
area schools with fire educational lessons and sending fire safety messages home with the
student for the parents to review with their child, delivering fire safety messages to area business,
planned for Saturday October 13th, and delivering fire safety
information to city employees, to name a few.
As in past years we are again planning to display a number of signs and banners with fire safety
messages at various locations around the city. These will be placed on city property and remain
through the month of October. The fire department is requesting the City Council for permission
to display these life safety messages.
Following is a list of the locations where the signs/banners will be placed.
Banner to hang on the outside of the fire station, 216 N. 4th St.
Sign at Lily Lake recreational area, South Greeley St.
Sign at water department well house property, 1320 South 4th St.
Sign at water department well house property, 1304 West Olive St.
Sign at water department well house property, 1013 North Owens St.
Sign at water department well house property, 1800 West Orleans St.
Sign at water department well house property, Rutherford & England Pl.
Sign at City Lift Station, West Myrtle St. near Jaycee Complex.
Sign at Heritage Park, Heritage Ct. & Parkway
Sign at Legends Park, Barons Way & Delano Way
Sign at City Park, Millbrook Cir. & Maureen Ln.
Sign at City Park, Myrtle St. & Greeley St.
Sign at City Park, Neal & McKusick Rd.
Sign at the City Public Works Building, Boutwell Rd. N.
Thank you for your time in reviewing this request. If you need further information or questions
please contact Captain Zeuli or I at 651-351-4950.
cc: Stu Glaser, Fire Chief
DATE
:
September 11, 2012
Mayor & Council Members
TO:
Chicken Ordinance
REGARDING:
Planning Commission: July 9 & August 9, 2012
HEARING DATES:
City Council: September 18, 2012
Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
AUTHOR:
BACKGROUND
Tisha Palmer, 1115 North 1 Street, submitted a request on behalf of a number of residents
st
and other interested parties to allow the keeping of chickens in
Commission held a hearing on the request over the course of two
th
they recommended approval of the version of the ordinance that is attached to this report.
DISCUSSION
The planning report with details on the various issues is attached.
The key points of the proposed ordinance are:
1.Five chicken hens would be allowed at a maximum.
2.No rooster.
3.A permit will be needed every two years.
4.To receive the permit the chicken keepers will need to acknowled
read the chicken care material made available by the City.
5.A chicken coop is required as is an attached fully enclosed pen.
6.A fenced exercise yard or a mobile pen is needed. {No free range chickens}
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has several alternative courses of action available.
1.Approve the first reading of the draft ordinance with or without revisions.
2.Deny the request for an ordinance amendment.
3.Table the first reading for additional information.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Planning Report
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 31-514
RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS IN THE CITY
The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain:
1)Section 31-514, Subdivision 1 of the City Code entitled “Farm Animals” is
amended to hereafter read as follows:
Subd. 1. Farm animals. In all districts any lot upon which farm animals are
kept must be at least three acres in size. Farm animals are defined as: horses,
cows, sheep, pigs, ducks, rabbits and other commonly known domestic farm
animals.
(a) See Section 27-3 for regulations related to beekeeping.
(b) See Section 31-514, Subd. 6 for regulations related to keeping of
chickens.
2) Section 31-514 is amended by adding the following Subdivision:
Subd. 6. Keeping of Chickens.
(1) Any person who keeps chickens in the City of Stillwater must
obtain a permit prior to acquiring the chickens. The first permit is
valid for up to two years beginning on the date the chickens arrive
on the site and ending on December 31 of the following year.
Subsequent permits are valid from January 1 of one year to
December 31 of the second year. Applications for permits must be
made to the Community Development Department.
i. Fees charged for the issuance of a permit to keep
chickens will be set by the City Council.
ii. The City may refuse to grant or may revoke a permit if
the chickens become a nuisance, as evidenced by a
second substantiated violation (within 12 months of a
first substantiated violation) of this Section of City
Code, or Chapter 38 (Nuisances) of City Code.
iii. The City may refuse to grant a permit to, or may revoke
a permit from, a person convicted of cruelty to animals.
iv. Permits are non-transferable and do not run with the
land.
v. A permit constitutes a limited license granted to the
chicken keeper by the City and in no way creates a
vested zoning right.
vi. Prior to issuance of a permit, the prospective permit
holder must acknowledge they have read the Chicken
Run Rescue publication entitled “Recommendations for
Municipal Regulations of Urban Chickens (2010)” or
similar publications approved by the City’s Community
Development Department.
vii. Prior to issuance of a permit, the prospective permit
holder must provide a plan for maintaining an adequate
temperature in the coop for the safety of the chicken
hens. The plan must address both extreme winter and
summer temperature conditions.
(2) Each person holding a permit to keep chickens within the City of
Stillwater shall comply with the following:
i. The principal use of the specific property must be either
single-family residential or two-family residential. A
permit will not be issued for any property which is used
principally for something other than single-family or
two-family. If the property’s principal use is two-
family residential, then the property owner must sign
the permit in addition to the chicken keeper;
ii. No person may keep more than five chickens;
iii. No person may keep a rooster;
iv. No person may allow chickens to range freely without fencing
or without a mobile pen;
iv. No person may keep any chickens inside the house;
v. No person may slaughter any chickens within the City of
Stillwater;
vi. Chickens must be provided a secure and well ventilated roofed
structure (“chicken coop”);
vii. The roofed structure and required fencing for the chickens
may only be located in a rear yard and must meet setback and
building separations as established in City zoning and building
codes, except that the roofed structure and fencing must
maintain a twenty foot separation from dwellings on adjacent
properties;
viii. The roofed structure shall be fully enclosed, wind proof, and
have sufficient windows for natural light;
ix. The floors and walls of the roofed structure shall be kept in a
clean, sanitary and healthy condition with all droppings
collected on a daily basis and placed in a fireproof covered
container until applied as fertilizer, composted or transported
off the premises;
x. Chickens must be kept in the roofed structure, an attached pen,
or a detached mobile pen whenever they are unattended by the
keeper; but when attended by the keeper, the chickens are
allowed in a completely fenced exercise yard;
xi. The coop’s attached pen must be securely constructed with at
least a mesh type material and shall have protective overhead
netting to keep the chickens separated from other animals;
xii. The coop’s attached pen must be well drained so there is no
accumulation of moisture; and
xiii. The floor area of the roofed structure or a combination of the
floor area and attached pen area must equal at least ten square
feet of area per chicken.
Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this ____ day of _________, 2012.
CITY OF STILLWATER
Ken Harycki, Mayor
Attest:
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk
DATE
:
August 9, 2012
Planning Commission
TO:
Chicken Ordinance
REGARDING:
Tisha Palmer
APPLICANT:
July 9 & August 9, 2012
HEARING DATE:
Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
AUTHOR:
BACKGROUND
The CityÔs Zoning Ordinance currently requires a minimum lot siz
keep chickens. This standard prevents residents from keeping chickens in the
1
City, since lots are not that large in Stillwater.
Tisha Palmer, 1115 1 Street North, has submitted an application requesting an
st
ordinance amendment that would eliminate the three acre minimum lot size and
allow 5 chickens on any property in the City. According to the
amendment, up to 8 chickens would be allowed if a property is la
all neighbors whose homes are less than 50 feet from the chicken
the extra chickens.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recomme
the attached ordinance amendment.
DISCUSSION
Chickens have begun reappearing in urban settings. They are eve
some of the densest cities in the country. For example, New York City and Chicago
have both passed ordinances allowing chickens.
1
City Code Ch 31-514, Subd. 1
24
Page of
The main hurdles to passing such ordinances are concerns over di
noise and smell. Research shows fairly clearly that if chickens are tended well in an
urban setting, these concerns do not materialize.
If chicken waste is properly managed, fly problems and excessive
dramatically reduced. Rodents can be controlled if chicken feed
properly, especially in moist areas. And, the noise issue is us
prohibiting roosters from the urban coop.
Requested Amendment
Tisha Palmer is requesting approval of an ordinance that would d
Eliminate the current three acre minimum lot size.
Allow up to 5 chicken hens on any lot in the City.
Allow up to 8 chicken hens if: a) the chicken enclosure is no cl
to any dwelling on an adjacent lot, or b) written permission is
the owner of each dwelling on an adjacent lot within 50 feet of
enclosure.
Prohibit chicken roosters.
Require a $10 permit from the City that is good for two years.
Staff Comments on Request
Number of chickens
Based upon an analysis of the space requirements for chickens, a
2
o
maximum of 5 chickens seems appropriate in the CityÔs RB Zoning
District.
The RB District was chosen for this analysis, since the main interest for
o
amending the ordinance has come from owners of RB lots.
According to the source cited below, a minimum of 188 square fee
o
property is needed for each chicken. So, 5 chickens would require a
3
total minimum of 940 square feet. To help visualize 940 square
enclosures in RB Zoning District back yards, staff studied a typical RB
block and produced the attached graphic. The space for 5 chicke
be accommodated on many of the lots, but not all. However,
increasing the fenced enclosure from 940 to 1,504 square feet to
accommodate 8 chickens would be excessive for all of these back
yards.
2
“Recommendations For Municipal Regulations Of Urban Chickens”, by Chicken Run Rescue, 2010.
Endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States and many poultry and animal care agencies.
3
Coop = 4 s.f./bird; fenced coop pen = 10 s.f./bird; fenced exercise yard = 174 s.f./bird. Total is 188 s.f./bird
34
Page of
For the sake of simplicity of enforcement, staff recommends a si
o
maximum flock size. But, if the City desires, it could allow mo
chickens in larger lot zoning districts.
Staff recommends allowing chicken enclosures (coops, coop pens,
exercise yards) only in rear yards. None should be allowed in s
(interior or exterior), or in front yards.
The coop will have to meet the zoning and building code setback
separation standards for accessory structures (3Ô side and rear
in the RB Zoning District; 6Ô separation from any other structur
Staff recommends that all chicken enclosures should maintain a m
separation of 20 feet from neighboring houses. More than this w
the effect of reducing the maximum flock size, since the fenced space would
have to be reduced.
Since most urban land owners do not have experience keeping chic
recommends adopting design guidelines for the coop, pen and exer
The standards included in Chicken Run Rescue publication cited above seem
reasonable.
The City should consider whether it should prohibit slaughtering
on-site. Most cities that allow chicken keeping have decided to
slaughtering on-site. It is something they want to see done outside in the
not
middle of an urban neighborhood. And, most homes today are not
to handle slaughtering inside.
The City should consider whether permits should be required, or
chickens would simply be allowed as long as the ordinance is fol
the one hand a permit system generates work for the applicant and staff that
may outweigh public benefit. But, it offers an opportunity for the would-be
chicken keeper to learn a bit about responsible care of chickens
solution is to produce educational materials that are available
creating a permitting system.
If a permit is required, should it be annual or some other renewal interval?
Should the City allow chickens on any property, or should it be
residentially zoned property? If only on residential property,
allowed on single-family and two-family property only?
Planning Commission Comments
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance
By consensus the Commission directed City staff to create a draft ordinance that
incorporates the applicantÔs language, but also:
Requires a minimum amount of chicken raising education. This co
the form of literature that the City would make available.
Sets a maximum number of chickens per property at 5 hens.
44
Page of
The requested language has been incorporated into the attached o
In addition, the Commission requested that staff draft a matrix
standards that other cities have incorporated into their ordinances. And, that more
research be done on whether chicken coops should be heated in th
Research on the question of heating the coop did not uncover a d
There is a rigorous debate over whether heating in northern wint
advisable, especially for all chicken varieties. Therefore, sta
language:
Prior to issuance of a permit, the prospective permit holder mus
maintaining an adequate temperature in the coop for the safety of the chicken hens.
The plan must address both extreme winter and summer temperature
At least with the suggested language, the applicant will be forc
options for moderating extreme temperatures inside the coop.
REQUIRED ACTION
It is the Planning CommissionÔs charge to formulate a recommendation to pass on to
the City Council.
Options include:
A.Recommend approval of the ordinance amendment as requested.
B.Recommend approval of the draft ordinance as revised.
C.Recommend denial of the ordinance amendment.
D.Table the request to gather more information and consider potent
revisions.
Attachments: RB District application of draft ord
Revised ordinance draft
Comparison matrix
Chicken Run Rescue publication
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 31-514
RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS IN THE CITY
The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain:
1)Section 31-514, Subdivision 1 of the City Code entitled “Farm Animals” is
amended to hereafter read as follows:
Subd. 1. Farm animals. In all districts any lot upon which farm animals are
kept must be at least three acres in size. Farm animals are defined as: horses,
cows, sheep, bees,pigs,chickens,ducks, rabbits and other commonly known
domestic farm animals.
(a) See Section 27-3 for regulations related to beekeeping.
(b) See Section 31-514, Subd. 6 for regulations related to keeping of
chickens.
2) Section 31-514 is amended by adding the following Subdivision:
Subd. 6. Keeping of Chickens.
(1) Any person who keeps chickens in the City of Stillwater must
obtain a permit prior to acquiring the chickens. The first permit is
valid for up to two years beginning on the date the chickens arrive
on the site and ending on December 31 of the following year.
Subsequent permits are valid from January 1 of one year to
December 31 of the second year. Applications for permits must be
made to the Community Development Department.
i. Fees charged for the issuance of a permit to keep
chickens will be set by the City Council.
ii. The City may refuse to grant or may revoke a permit if
the chickens become a nuisance, as evidenced by a
second substantiated violation (within 12 months of a
first substantiated violation) of this Section of City
Code, or Chapter 38 (Nuisances) of City Code.
iii. The City may refuse to grant a permit to, or may revoke
a permit from, a person convicted of cruelty to animals.
iv. Permits are non-transferable and do not run with the
land.
v. A permit constitutes a limited license granted to the
chicken keeper by the City and in no way creates a
vested zoning right.
vi. Prior to issuance of a permit, the prospective permit
holder must acknowledge they have read the Chicken
Run Rescue publication entitled “Recommendations for
Municipal Regulations of Urban Chickens (2010)” or
similar publications approved by the City’s Community
Development Department.
vii. Prior to issuance of a permit, the prospective permit
holder must provide a plan for maintaining an adequate
temperature in the coop for the safety of the chicken
hens. The plan must address both extreme winter and
summer temperature conditions.
(2) Each person holding a permit to keep chickens within the City of
Stillwater shall comply with the following:
i. The principal use of the specific property must be
either single-family residential or two-family
residential. A permit will not be issued for any
property which is used principally for something
other than single-family or two-family. If the
property’s principal use is two-family residential,
then the property owner must sign the permit in
addition to the chicken keeper;
ii. No person may keep more than five chickens;
iii. No person may keep a rooster;
iv. No person may allow chickens to range freely without fencing;
iv. No person may keep any chickens inside the house;
v. No person may slaughter any chickens within the City of
Stillwater;
vi. Chickens must be provided a secure and well ventilated roofed
structure(“chicken coop”);
vii. The roofed structure and required fencing for the chickens
may only be located in a rear yard and must meet setback and
building separations as established in City zoning and building
codes, except that the roofed structure and fencing must
maintain a twenty foot separation from dwellings on adjacent
properties;
viii. The roofed structure shall be fully enclosed, wind proof, and
have sufficient windows for natural light;
ix. The floors and walls of the roofed structure shall be kept in a
clean, sanitary and healthy condition with all droppings
collected on a daily basis and placed in a fireproof covered
container until applied as fertilizer, composted or transported
off the premises;
x. Chickens must be kept in the roofed structure or an attached
pen whenever they are unattended by the keeper, but when
attended by the keeper, the chickens are allowed in a
completely fenced exercise yard;
xi. The coop’s attached pen must be securely constructed with at
least a mesh type material and shall have protective overhead
netting to keep the chickens separated from other animals;
xii. The coop’s attached pen must be well drained so there is no
accumulation of moisture; and
xiii. The floor area of the roofed structure or a combination of the
floor area and attached pen area must equal at least ten square
feet of area per chicken.
Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this ____ day of _________, 2012.
CITY OF STILLWATER
Ken Harycki, Mayor
Attest:
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk
ChickenOrdinancefeaturesfoundinasampleofotherordinances
ChickenRunDuluthVancouverCedarAnnArborSt.PaulStillwater
RescueRapidsdraft2
PermitYesYesYesYesYes
Permitterm1yr2yrs5yrs1yr2yrs
ZoningSingleSingleSingleorSingleor
FamilyFamilyTwoTwo
FamilyFamily
1
Maximumchickens35464TBD5
RoosterNoNoNoNoNoNo
Freerange(i.e.,nofencearoundNoNoNoNoNo
exerciseyard)
ChickensinhouseNoNoNo
SlaughteronsiteNoNoNoNo
CooprequiredYesYesYesYesYesYes
Separationfromneighboring x x
x x
houses
2
HeatedcoopYesYesTBD
3
Minimumareaperchicken14sf10sf10sf
WindowsYesYesYes
NeighborconsentYesYesYes
InstructionrequiredYesYesYes
Blanksindicatethattheordinanceinquestiondidnotaddressthefeature.
1
TobedecidedbyAnimalControlOfficerandapplicant.Thedecisionisbaseduponsitevisitandanumberofothercriteria.
Thisisstafftimeintensive.
2
Tobedeterminedbyapplicant,buttemperaturecontrolmethodsaretobespecifiedinpermitapplication.
3
Thisincludesbothcoopandattachedpen.
Chicken Run Rescue
Eastern Shore Sanctuary and Education Center
Farm Sanctuary
The Humane Society of the United States
Sunnyskies Bird and Animal Sanctuary
United Poultry Concerns
Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary
Page 1 2/15/10
Page 2 2/15/10
Page 3 2/15/10
Page 4 2/15/10
Page 5 2/15/10
Page 6 2/15/10
Page 7 2/15/10
Sources:
Poultry Your Way: A Guide to Management Alternatives for the Upp
Agriculture, 2005
Standards of Care for Chickens, Adapted from Standards of Care f
Sanctuaries (TAOS). Edited by Chicken Run Rescue. 6/2008, revise
Poultry Housing Considerations for Low Input Small Scale Produce
Chronicle Special Reports, Revision E, fall 2003
Building Chicken Coops: Storey Country Wisdom Bulletin A-224, Ga
Chicken Health Handbook, Gail Damerow, 1994
Page 8 2/15/10
Page 92/15/10
ORDINANCE NO. 1049
AMENDING SEC. 27-3 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED
“KEEPING OF BEES,”
The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain:
1.AMENDING. Sec. 27-3 of the City Code, entitled “Keeping of bees,” is amended to
hereafter read as follows:
Sec. 27-3. Keeping of Bees.
“
Subd. 1.Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the
meanings ascribed in this section unless the context of their usage indicates
another usage.
(1)“Apiary” means the assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single
location.
(2)“Beekeeper” means a person who owns or has charge of one or more
colonies of bees.
(3)“Beekeeping equipment” means anything used in the operation of an
apiary, such as hive bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards and
extractors.
(4)“Colony” means an aggregate of bees consisting principally of workers,
but having, when perfect, one queen and at times drones, brood, combs,
and honey.
(5)“Hive” means the receptacle inhabited by a colony that is manufactured
for that purpose.
(6)“Honey bee” means all life stages of the common domestic honey bee,
apis mellifera (African subspecies and Africanized hybrids are not
allowed).
(7)“Lot” means a contiguous parcel of land under common ownership.
Subd. 2.Purpose of ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish
certain requirements for beekeeping within the City, to avoid issues that might
otherwise be associated with beekeeping in populated areas.
(1)Compliance with this ordinance shall not be a defense to a proceeding
alleging that a given colony constitutes a nuisance, but such compliance
may be offered as evidence of the beekeeper’s efforts to abate any
proven nuisance.
(2)Compliance with this ordinance shall not be a defense to a proceeding
alleging that a given colony violates applicable ordinances regarding
public health, but such compliance may be offered as evidence of the
beekeeper’s compliance with acceptable standards of practice among
hobby beekeepers in the State of Minnesota.
Subd. 3.Standards of Practice.
(1)Honey bee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames, which
must be kept in sound and usable conditions.
(2)Each beekeeper must ensure that a convenient source of water is
available within 10 feet of each colony at all times that the colonies
remain active outside the hive.
(3)Each beekeeper must ensure that no wax comb or other material that
might encourage robbing by other bees are left upon the grounds of the
apiary lot. Such materials once removed from the site shall be handled
and stored in sealed containers, or placed within a building or other
vermin-proof container.
(4)Each beekeeper shall maintain his beekeeping equipment in good
condition, including keeping the hives painted if they have been painted
but are peeling or flaking, and securing unused equipment from weather,
potential theft or vandalism and occupancy by swarms.
(5)Honey bee colonies may only be kept on single-family residential
property zoned A-P (Agriculture Preserve), RA (Single Family
Residential), RB (Two-Family Residential), TR (Traditional
Residential), LR (Lakeshore Residential), CR (Cottage Residential), or
CCR (Cove Cottage Residential). One exception to the single-family
residential standard is that honeybee colonies may be kept on a two-
family property if it is zoned RB and a resident owner of the property is
the beekeeper.
(6)Each beekeeper is allowed to make in person sales of honey from the
beekeeper’s residence as long as the following standards are met:
i.The beekeeper must live on the apiary lot; and
ii.All honey sold in person on the residential premise must be
produced by the beekeeper’s hives that are located on the
subject residential premise; and
iii.No products may be sold in person at the residence except
honey produced from hives on the premise; and
iv.No outside storage or display of products or merchandise; and
v.No traffic that is greater than the residential level of the
neighborhood; and
vi.No separate business entrance; and
vii.Only one sign, located on the apiary lot, with a dimension not
exceeding two square feet; and
viii.Not more than 15 percent of the total gross floor area of the
residence or 300 square feet, whichever is less is devoted to
making, storing and selling honey; and
ix.No activity or equipment may be used that creates noise,
vibration, glare, fumes, odor, or electric or television
interference is permitted if it is detectable by adjacent
neighbors; and
x.No nonresident employees are permitted.
Subd. 4.Colony density.
(1)No person is permitted to keep more than the following numbers of
colonies on any lot within the City, based upon the size of the apiary lot:
i.One half acre lot or smaller: 2 colonies;
ii.Lot larger than half acre but smaller than ¾ acre: 4
colonies;
iii.Lot larger than ¾ acre lot but smaller than 1 acre: 6
colonies;
iv.One acre lot but smaller than five acres: 8 colonies;
v.Larger than five acres: no restriction.
(2)In each instance where a colony is kept less than 25 feet from a property
line of the lot upon which the apiary is located, the beekeeper shall
establish and maintain a flyway barrier at least six feet in height.
Subd. 5.Permit required.
(1)No beekeeping may occur on any property in the City unless the City
issues a permit to the beekeeper on that specific property. The permit
will be valid for two growing seasons.
(2)A beekeeping permit will only be issued if:a)the permit application
documents the satisfaction of all applicable items found in Section 27-3
of City Code and, b)notices have been mailed to all homes the permit
application must also include written consent from one legally aged
resident of each of 75% of the residential properties within 150 feet of
the applicant’s property lines.
i.If there are objections received within ten days of mailing the
notices, then the permit application must be considered by the
City Council.
i.ii.If there are no objections received within ten days of mailing
the notices, then the permit application will be processed by
City staff. It will not be referred to the City Council for
consideration.
(2)(3)Permits are non-transferable and do not run with the land.
(3)(4)A permit constitutes a limited license granted to the beekeeper by
the City and in no way creates a vested zoning right.
(4)(5)By signing the permit, the beekeeper acknowledges that he or she
shall defend and indemnify the City against any and all claims arising
out of keeping the bees on the premises.
(5)(6)The fee for the initial permit shall be as established by the City
Council. For each subsequent permit there shall be no fee for the permit,
unless there are substantial changes to the apiary or there is a new
beekeeper.
(6)(7)All standards of practice and colony density standards must be met
in order to issue a permit.
(7)(8)If the standards of practice are not maintained subsequent to
issuance of a beekeeping permit, the permit may be revoked by the City.
(8)(9)Beekeeping training is required for the beekeeper prior to issuance
of an initial beekeeping permit by the City.
i.Either provide a certificate of completion from a
honeybee keeping course from the University of
Minnesota or from Century College; or
ii.Request consideration for having completed a
comparable course from another institution or
instructor; or
iii.Request consideration for substituting equivalent
experience for the honeybee keeping course; or
iv.Provide a letter from a current beekeeping instructor
at the University of Minnesota, Century College, or
other educational institution offering similar
beekeeping courses that states that the permit
applicant has gained through other means a
substantially similar knowledge base to one that
could be gained through appropriate beekeeping
courses at the University of Minnesota or Century
College.
(9)(10)Any beekeeper wishing to make in person sales of honey from
their home according to the standards of practice section must so
indicate on the annual permit.
Subd. 6.Penalty for violation of section. Any person who shall violate the
provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
2.SAVING. In all other ways, the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and
effect.
3.EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication
according to law.
Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 4th day of September, 2012.
CITY OF STILLWATER
Ken Harycki, Mayor
Attest:
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk
Memorandum
To:
Mayor & City Council
From:
Diane Ward, City Clerk
Date:
9/11/2012
Re:
Issuance of On-sale and Sunday liquor license
A liquor license application from Reve 324 has been received for the issuance of an On-sale liquor and
Sunday license at 324 Main Street S. The establishment currently has a Wine and Strong Beer and
would like to upgrade to the On-sale and Sunday licenses.
Approval for the licenses should be contingent upon approval by Police, Finance, Fire, Building
Departments, and Minnesota Liquor Control.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council desires to issue a new On-Sale liquor license they should pass a motion to adopt Resolution
APPROVING ISSUANCE OF AN ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES TO
No. 2012-____
REVE 324 INC. LOCATED AT 324 MAIN STREET S.
APPROVING ISSUANCE OF AN ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES TO
REVE 324 INC. LOCATED AT 324 MAIN STREET S
WHEREAS,
an application has been received the issuance of an On-sale and Sunday liquor
license for Reve 324 located at 324 Main Street S, and
WHEREAS,
all required forms have been submitted and fees paid.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IF RESOLVED
that the City Council of Stillwater, Minnesota,
hereby approves the issuance of a new On-Sale and Sunday liquor license conditioned upon
approval by Police, Fire, Building Inspection and Finance Departments, and Minnesota Liquor
Control.
th
Adopted by Stillwater City Council this 18 day of September, 2012.
____________________________
Ken Harycki, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk
Memorandum
To:
Mayor & City Council
From:
Diane Ward, City Clerk
Date:
9/11/2012
Re:
New Wine and Strong Beer Liquor license
A Wine & Strong Beer liquor license application from L & L Companies LLC; DBA: Quickfire Pizza
has been received for the issuance of a Wine & Strong Beer liquor license at 116 Main Street S.
Approval for the licenses should be contingent upon approval by Police, Finance, Fire, Building
Washington County Health Departments, and Minnesota Liquor Control.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council desires to issue the new On-Sale liquor license they should pass a motion to adopt Resolution
APPROVING ISSUANCE OF NEW WINE WITH STRONG BEER LIQUOR
No. 2012-____
LICENSES TO L & L COMPANIES, DBA: QUICKFIRE PIZZA, LOCATED AT 116 MAIN STREET S.
APPROVING ISSUANCE OF NEW WINE WITH STRONG BEER LIQUOR LICENSES
TO L & L COMPANIES, DBA: QUICKFIRE PIZZA, LOCATED AT
116 MAIN STREET S
WHEREAS,
an application has been received the issuance of a Wine with Strong Beer liquor
license from L & L Companies, DBA: Quickfire Pizza to be located at 116 Main Street S; and
WHEREAS,
all required forms have been submitted and fees paid.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IF RESOLVED
that the City Council of Stillwater, Minnesota,
hereby approves the issuance of a new Wine with Strong Beer liquor license conditioned upon
approval by Police, Fire, Building Inspection, Finance and Washington County Health
Departments, and Minnesota Liquor Control.
th
Adopted by Stillwater City Council this 18 day of September, 2012.
____________________________
Ken Harycki, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk
Regional Railroad Authority
The Regional Railroad Authority met in Executive Session to discuss possible options to
purchase a portion of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad between 145th Street and 140th
Street in Hugo.
Sheriff's Office
Approval of the following actions:
- Accept a donation for $1,000 from the Rotary Club of Forest Lake;
- Resolution No. 2012 -103, authorizing execution of the State of Minnesota Federal boating
safety supplement equipment grant agreement;
- Resolution No. 2012 -104, approval of court data services subscriber agreement.
A complete text of the Official Proceedings of the Washington County Board of Commissioners
is available for public inspection at the Office of Administration, Washington County
Government Center, 14949 62nd Street N., Stillwater, Minnesota.