Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-07 CC MINel • • 348 COUNCIL CHAMBER 7:30 P. M. Stillwater, Minnesota August 7, 1979 REGULAR MEETING the meeting was called to order by President Junker. The Invocation was given by the City Clark, Schnell. Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Absent: None Also Present: Finance Director /Coordinator, Kriesel; City Clerk, Schnell; City Attorney, Magnuson; Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton; Director of Parks & Recreation, Blekum; Consulting Engineer, Elliott Press: Stillwater Evening Gazette - Liberty Free Press - Lux WAVN - Gary Larson Citizens: Dr. F. M. McCarten, Steven McCarten, J. Robert Burull, Don Raleigh, Gregg Gerard, Roy Holsten, Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Finken, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Anderson, R. C. Ernst, Wilbur Monson, Kenneth White, Jim Torseth, Oscar Kern, BillPauley, Mr. & Mrs. Will Antell, Richard Miller, Jim Garnder, Dorothy Pominville, Dick Kraft, Jeff Anderson, Gary Hanson, Kathleen Oertel, Dick Anderson INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS 1. DON RALEIGH, representing Steven McCarten and Dr. F. M. McCarten appeared before the City Council r egarding their Cable TV Franchise and the notice from the City regarding the revocation of same. The purpose of being here is to show that there were reasons beyond control of Mainline Cable that were the cause for the delay in the service and the fact that the reastns for the delays is no longer an im- pediment and it is now possible for them t provide a construction schedule. He requested that the Council suspend the proceedings for the termination of the franchise and secondly, that the Council confirm the validity of the franchise now held by Mainline Cable Co. and also ask the Council to allow sufficient time for service to be provided in accordance with the schedule that Mr. Burull has prepared. MR. J. ROBERT BURULL supplied the City Council with background information on himself eersonally. He stated that building Cable TV from 1968 through 1974 was very hard and expensive trial for mahy Cable TV Companies. The Federal Communica- tions Commission in 1968 decided to restrict some of the activities and they put a freeze on Cable TV. In the late 1970's the satellites came into being and provided for many different kinds of programming which were not able to be received before. The new technique provided for a smaller station - the previous cost was $125,000 to build - today they cost as little as $10,000. He represents Telephone & Data Systems, Inc. and his firm will be helping Mainline Cable and they would like to build a system now here in Stillwater and he presented the schedule for this cnnstruction and operation (see this schedule which is in the file). They have offered the McCartens to become partners with them, to have Steve stay with them, they will become the majority owners of Mainline which hold the franchise, but they want Steve to stay with them as the head of the company and work with and for them and the City of Stillwater. The Minnesota Cable Board stated that the first action is with the City Council - if the City wants to give them another opportunity by tonite saying that they will not revoke that franchise, they can go to them tomorrow and talk about what must be done in order to be certified to provide Cable Television here in Stillwater. He was also asking for the City's acceptance of them as -co- worker with Steve and with the community here in Stillwater. He stated that the City might want a Cable Committee to work with them as well. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked if there was any ownership of stock by Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. at this time and MR. BURULL stated that if the City Council approves Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. they will acquire a majority of the Mainline stock - the consideration for the acquirement of that stock is the per- formance in the City - if Steve performs well he will get back a small minority portion of that stock - there is no cash involved - no under the table involved - it is a quare on the table deal - they know where they stand - he knew where he stood. 0 • e 1 r w s • • 1 J • • • s PM MR. RALEIGH stated that they were seeking suspension of the termination pro- ceedings and then cited Section 7 of the Ordinance - he understands it that it may be terminated in the event of default except for cases where default is for cause beyond a reasonable control of the franchise holder. STEVEN MC CARTEN stated that they did with the approval of the Council at that time entered into an agreement with Metro Cable - the agreement did not come to happen - the amount of $10,000 was to have covered the expenses involved with the acquisition of franchises. The Mainline Cable Co. is not only made up of the franchises in Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and Bayport. The $10,000 did not represent any asset or did not represent a capital gain or gain in any m nner but merely represented a re- payment for the work that he had been done before 1968 and 1972. As far as the shares of Metro stock they were never issued and at this time Dr. McCarten and Steven McCarten own 100% of Mainline Cable. Eighty percent had been transferred at one time and since that time has been transferred back. MR. RALEIGH stated that stock transfer was not a transfer of the franchise and tha= Mainline Cable Co. has held the franchise all of that time and that it not a violation of the provisions of the ordinance. STEVEN MC CARTEN - at the time of the transfer from F. M. McCarten to Mainline Cable Co. in 1972 the reason for doing that was to raise the capital required which at that time was somewhere in the neighborhood of a hall million dollars. As far as the ownership or the control they have remained on the Board of Directors. After joining into the agreement with Metro Cable in the summer of 1973 assuming that they were going to proceed with the project, he moved to Denver, Colorado where he has been until of March of this year and during that period of time he has been involved with various aspects of communications, and telephone systems and other systems that are directly related. In the fall of 1978 they had filed a lawsuit as far as Metro Cable was concerned and he came back with the intention of building the cable system and the change in the federal regulations very directly affected him. The ordinance in 1974 updated the fran- chise and this would be applicable here - it was not a ten year period of appearing one time and then disappearing - MAYOR JUNKER asked if there would be more than one cable TV company in the City of Stillwater and MR. MAGNUSON stated that the State of Minnesota Cable Board told him that they were not sure there was ever a certificate of con- firmation issued in the first place. MR. BURULL stated he had talked today with the Cable Board about this very thing - they said that first the City Council must make up its mind and then they would look at the case again - going to a bank in 1968 thru 1975 and 1976 to get a cable televeion loan was almost impossible - it was jut impossible to get noney to build Cable TV unless you want to pay a premium of 12 or 14% interest. He indicated that Steven McCarten is worried about this franchise and is a hometown fellow and he tried thru Metro to get a system built here in the City - Metro could not build it and if Stillwater would have been a viable City at that time there would have been many competitors here knocking on the door and pointing a finger at Steven McCarten. He was sure that they would have the full copperation of the State on this matter and that there would be Cable TV here in a very short time. Y 6, August 7, 1979 COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked why nothing has happened up to this time and asked why nothing happened in 1974 and 1975 and MR. BURULL stated that if that was true the other company would have been here in 1974 or 1975 - he did not know that Bloomington did go ahead and build and they had a very bad financial experience - Stillwater is not alone in the unique activity do not have Cable TV and it all comes back to the de- regulation of Cable - there has to be a profit - there has to be an income in order for a cable system to succeed. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON made reference to a letter receivfed from Harold Kimmel on August 3rd and it is his understanding taht 80% of Mainline was sold or trap Eferred to Metro Cable TV which in his opinion is a violation of the franchise as it was originally issued because of the restriction against selling it and questioned if this was true. MR. RALEIGH stated that the franchise as he understands it was never sold and he asked Steve McCarten to explain this matter and other matters. The franchise was originally issued to Dr. McCarten who shortly thereafter assigned to Main- line Cable, a Minnesota Corporation and acceptance was filed with the City in accordance with the Ordinance COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked if the McCarten's were aware of the problems with Cable TV way were they willing to have it in the franchise that they would have it in operation within a year. MR. BURULL stated that for them to build and lose money and good -will of the Community would be worse than to not build at all. 349 • • 4 • • s • s 350 August 7, 1979 COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked when Mr. Burull first heard of Cable TV for the City of Stillwater and he said that he knew about it for a long time and that there was a franchise that was not operating. They have had intense discussion about Stillwater within the last thirty days. STEVEN MC CARTEN stated that Mainline Cable came back into the picture before he was aware of it - the existence of Croix Cable TV - he had assumed that there was no other interest at that time which was in April. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK asked if he was relinquishing his rights - was he going to hold a caperate venture in the area - hold anything besides so- called position that he would be on the scene - he is going to have controlling stock in this cable once it is installed, and operating. MR. BURULL stated that Steven will not hold controlling stock - he does not have a million dollars to put into the system - he will be holding the controlling stock (Mr. Burull) - Steve will start with a very small percentage of that stock - he will be employed by them and work with them and as this system succeeds, Steve will succeed as well - he will have an option for more of the stock, but that is the only consideration that Steve has and he is willing to do it that way be- cause he does want the cable system to succeed. MR. RALEIGH asked that the Council consider the continuing validity of this franchise so that Mainline Cable Co. may go to the State Board tomorrow and begin their proceedings to have it certified currently - they have been the franchise holder all this time - the cause for the delay was an economic possi- bility due to the lack of technicalogicalequipment and the federal regulations made at impossible to do something within the last year or two. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the ordinance provided that Mainline Cable Co. agreed to start engineering of the system immediately in 1968 - proceed with all reasonable dispatching thereafter and make it available to the majority of the citizens with- in a year. In 1974 the ordinance was amended but the City did not speak to this requirement to begin construction - the ordinance provides if the company shall fail to comply with any of the provisions, it will be in default or any of its obligation except for cause beyond its reasonable control and shall fail within thirty days after written notice to correct the default for non - compliance, that the City Council shall have the right to revoke the ordinance. Notice was sent to both Steve and Dr. McCarten - one was sent on the 29th of June and the other on the second of July- both have been served with a notice and the notice specifically set - forth the reasons why we were looking at revocation - they did not complete the service lines and that they were available to the majority of the citizens within the one year. At this time if the Council finds that they have not proceeded with reasonable dispatch and if it was not due to facts or circumstances beyond their control, the the Council, I think,could by resolution revoke the Mainline Cable franchise. By revoking their franchise doesn't mean that there will never be a Cable TV Franchise in this territory - since 1974 all of these franchises must be competetively bid and if we revoke Mainline, they would be one of the many Cable TB Franchies that would be vieing for the rights to our particular franchise. The Council has to decide if the excuses that they supplied satisfy you, that the reason that they did not complete the line was not their fault - this is within the descretion of the Council if the franchise is renewed tonite, he thought they get a certificate of renewal and get their confirmation - if you don't then they be- come like any other cable company and ask for the right to bid on a new franchise. If the Council does not revoke this evening, then Mainline is our franchise or is the Cable TV Franchise operator - they will go to the State and get a certificate. If the Council revokes, then it is free for anybody or any other able company to come in and make a pitch to use and be a part of the competitive bidding process. MR. BURULL stated that when you do go to the Minnesota Cable Board they have a very high standard and it applies to everybody - so if they have the opportunity to go to that Board with this franchise intact that brings that franchise up to here as far as performance is concerned and it will be done in a very short time - you can take five different bidders out there but they all go through that same communication board and they are all levelled out of that high performance - then it gets down to the extras that a cable system can provide to a community and he asked that the Council would give them a chance to go to the Board - come back with the updated certification, to listen to them as they lay on the table the program from Stillwater and if the Council feels that they can get more by a bidding process then he would urge them to go for the bidding process - this would delay the cable here by a couple of years - this would save time and money. ROY HOLSTEN, attorney for Croix Cable Television, asked for a free shot for the Croix Cable TV and any other cable company in the State of Minnesota who wants to come in and bid on the Stillwater project. If the Council does not revoke their franchise, they will have it and they will come to the City and tell you what their system is and what their program is and the people in Stillwater really do not know what a cable system is and all they can do is to rely upon the competitive system of the two companies that are here now - that may come in here in the future and _ bid and the bids can be taken and give the best service in the valley - that is what they are asking for - to answer the time tables in 1981 he asked Mr. Gerard to do this 0w e 0 • e • r August 7, 1979 351 GREG GERARD, CRoix Cable Television, stated that there are three issues involved (1) the business of dealing in franchises as an asset and wondered who is all involved in Mainline Cable Co. - it was granted to Dr. McCarten - transferred to Steve McCarten - goes to Metro Cable - Metro Cable is made of American Nationalists and Germans. John McCarten called him the other day and offered it for sale to them - they indicated that was not appropriate and did not feel that was legal. Thursday Metro Cable called him and asked him if they purchased Mainline and he responded "no" and asked, "Why?" - he had just made a stock exchange with the McCarten's and he was out $10,000 and he wondered what more he was out - if he lost some other deal - other costs than what the sale amounted to. Now Telephone & Data Systems is here - who else has been approached? It seemed to him what is a right of the City and what has been granted to the McCartens is being bantered about with little concern as to what the City Council might think of this whole idea. He did not fuel that this was good business for the City of Stillwater. (2) His company came in and raised the issue of cable television and he wonder if he was an innocent promoter of another investment venture on the part of Mainline. He felt that if the Council wants to end this funny business and regain control which is rightfully theirs, he felt that they should look into terminating it. Mainline has faded to perform - they have held the franchise since 1968 and not one foot of cable has been hung - this violates the ordinance on the condition to build - if they had performed they would not have to go through all of the state regulations that they are talking about - as it is the present fran- chise could be interpreted invalid both from the local and the state ordinance. (3) Time lost in granting this new franchise - he felt that May, 1981 is not out of the question if the City would chose to go through a franchising process and he had had the opportunity to go through a time schedule with Mrs. Bodlovick and said it exceeded the 1981 date - came closer, which is very possible. Eleven years has passed since the granting and what is six or nine months more - the franchise has four years to run and potentially this 19 years - he felt that there is plenty to gain for the City of Stillwater if they terminate and write a new ordinance - have more protection for the City - have a new ordinance - you have state of the arc for the cable subscribers - have competitive bidding - have more than one company bidding which has already been indicated - the real issue is whether or not the City wants a cable system that is a credit to the community and can be built and operating in 1980 and could not see that it can't be done whether you go through the full bidding process or not. They have a long experience in the Cable Television business and have served in various capacities - he asked that the City consider the matter very carefully and terminate the ordinance. MR. RALEIGH felt that some of Mr. Gerard's comments indicated that somebody was doing something wrong and he wanted to re- affirm his position. The ordinance makes it clear that the obligation to complete the system within a year depended upon the fact necessary for completion being within control of the franchise holder and the testimony here that they weren't - the attorney has advised you that it is within your discretion on that evidence to find that the matters that delayed the completion of that system were not within the control of the Mainline Cable Co. - if that is the case they are entitled legally under the terms of the ordinance to continue their franchise - it is obviously an important and signi- I ! ficant thing to the McCarten and the Mainline Cable Co. to hold this franchise - he asked that they not terminate the franchise - give them an opportunity fulfill the program that Steve had visioned to start working on eleven years ago. There would be a severe setback to the Mainline Cable Co. if the franchise is terminated and a new one (ordinance) is written and then go through the bidding process. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked Steve McCarten when the Council approved the transfer from Mainline to Metro Cable - wasn't Metro at that time a company of your Uncle John and Mr. McCarten indicated "no" and that the transfer was from F. M. McCarten to Mainline Cable Co. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked when the franchise was granted to Mr. McCarten it had a proposal of the rates that would be charged and the percentage that would go to the City, etc. and asked if they were talking about this at this time and Steven McCarten responded that is more or less controlled by the State. MR. BURULL explained the procedures for the bidding process of a new f anchise which was proposed by the Minnesota Cable Board and the referendum which must take place which will all take about a year and then the City must be strand - mapped which they have proposed to do in two months - he felt that their timetable to start next May is an unbeatable time by anybody unless they were in their shoes - he also asked that they look upon the history of cable companies - their company does not get franchises, build them and sell them - they build, keep them and develop them and they grow with the community - and he asked that the Council look at the principals of the Croix Cable 'o. and he felt that they had the key to the whole program. 0 0 • • • 1 • 1 •( 352 PETITIONS August 7, 1979 COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON moved that this matter be laid over to the next meeting of the Council which will be August 21, 1979 COUNCILMAN POWELL seconded the motion. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked the City Attorney what particular advantage would be gained by bidding - aren't there State regulations that a certain percentage goes to the community, etc. that any bidder would have to comply with - how could it be competitive? MR. MAGNUSON replied that to some extent the State regulations impose certain mini- mum restrictions on the franchise holders and he stated that he was not an expert in this area - he did know that in other areas of the Twin Cities the competition is intense and the principle of our system is that intense competition makes the best deal - he has no particular knowledge of it - but common sense is that possibly it would be a better deal. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked what can be gained or what cannot be gained by competitive bidding - this has not been explored up to this time. MR. GERARD stated that the competitive bidding situation is very advantageous for communities in the areas of public access, programming, state of the arc, the State prescribes minimum requirements and the cable systems do their best to improve upon that - two way communication system - access to schools - and many other things which are very competitive which would be advantageous is a competitive situation. MR. BURULL stated that the City can charge 3% of the gross up to 5% comes to the City and if you go beyond the 5% then 2% of that 5% must come back into the cable system to the community for general services - it does not go into a general fund. If they have the chance to take that franchise up there and they come back to the City with a program, and the Council can approve that here and they would match that against anyone whether the City has a bid or not. two heMRfeltMthatOthe Counci l Nhaddalltthe they are going torhave weeks he would like to take care of the matter now. VOTE ON THE MOTION - AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson and Powell NAYS -- Councilman Roger Peterson (Motion carried) 2. DAVID NEEDHAM, appeared before the Council regarding the fence and gate by his property on the north side of the bridge - he wants only one gate so that he can get into his property - it is City property - people crawl under the fence with their - if their can see them - have to his l park roadway - move the fence up. MR. SHELTON stated that this is State right -of -way - the fence that is on the other side is in the right -of -way, but we had permission to put it up. He felt that the City could get together with whomever is in charge in the Township and probably the State authorities and somethign could be worked out. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, that whatever arrangements that Mr. Needham can make with St. Croix County or St. Joseph Township that the City would have no objections to closing that off as long as it closed off down below. (all in favor) From the residents on Chestnut Hill regarding the present use of 306 West Olive Street (The Bomb Shelter Washington County Emergency Shelter) and requesting a public hea.'ng on this matter. JEFF ANDERSON, 119 West Chestnut Street, stated that it is presently being operated as a foster home - temporary shelter - Washington County Emergency Shelter - and there are up to eight youths housed there temporarily, but it has come to their attention that it is undergoing a change where the owner Dick Anderson intends to move from the premises and convert it to something more than that where up to 16 children will be housed there on a temporary basis. Their concern is that they really don't know what the proposed valets and what effect it will have - it came to their attention that there was a Planning Commission meeting on the matter and before action was taken they wanted the opportunity to get more information - possibly meet with Mr. Anderson and find out what is proposed and what effect it would have on their neighborhood. r.i L • • • • • • • • 0 • 9' t01 w August 7, 1979 353 ' COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that it was a reasonable request - there have been questions as to the proper zoning - the proper terminology - he asked David Magnuson if he would have enough time in two weeks to check with the State and others as to what it exactly is and what the proper zoning, etc. - get that information before the hearing date. weeks COUNCILMAN PETERSON felt that could and weeks. DICK ANDERSON, 306 West Olive Street, stated that in 1977 he approached the City Council on this matter and at that time Mr. Kimmel and James Lammers went through the Zoning Ordinances and the State of Minnesota requires three things - proper zoning is first and Mr. Kimmel determined that the house is legal and requires no Special Use Permit. Mr. Kimmel signed the paper authoriz- ing the State of Minnesota for the license for the operation of a foster care home. He operates under that today and has for three years and his intentions of moving, unless someone gives him a house, he kew nothing of. He is licensed and as far as he knows L day they are legal, but if such is found that they are not legal, that he would have to go through some other process and he was sorry that the residents have gone this far without talking to him - he would enjoy the opportunity to discuss the home - what it does in the community or what it does not do in the community - if the home is a burden to the community, he would like to have it removed. Last night they did have a meeting and he had asked to attend and they said they did not care to have him attend - this is his only chance to speak to his neighbors and he hoped his friends - he never moved into the neighborhood with the intention of hurting anybody - devaluate anyone's property and if he did he was sorry - never in his life resorted to name calling - acquisitions and this thing which he really considered domestic doesn't get into that type of thing. What he wishes to do is to make a deter- mination with Mr. Kimmel when it was issued - if it was done incorrectly, he was sorry and he had nothing to do with it - he stated that he does not know Mr. Kimmel personally - he never entertained him and asked for special favors - he just simply went in and asked for a license, checked his zoning - he is licensed as far as he knows today and that he is legal - if he is not legal he will have to go through another process - he would like to have it renewed. GARY HANSON, 309 South Fifth Street, stated that is a foster home for eight children and their concern is that he stated to somebody that he will be moving from the presmises and they will increase it to 14 children - if he moves out then it is conceivable that there could be 18 children or more. The neighbors are concerned without any parental supervision. MRS. KATHLEEN OERTEL, 118 South Fifth Street, stated that the reason for this came up as one of the women was asked to be on the Board of Directors. Mr. Anderson stated chat he and his wife and family were moving out and the number of children would be broughtup to 18. Another neighbor was asked to be on the staff Mr. Dirctors for house for himself members that MAYOR JUNKER indicated that this time would be on the agenda for a future meeting. MAYOR JUNKER called for a recess from 9:00 to 9:10 P. M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. This was the day and time for the Public Hearing on Case No. 366 for a re- subdivision of Block 6, Holcombe's Addition (Janda property) Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on July 27, 1979 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. ELEANOR FINKEN speaking in behalf of the request explained what is being proposed to be done with this property No one appeared as being opposed to the proposed request - the Planning Commission approved it on August 6, 1979. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked about the cost of the sewer and water which was put in by Mr. Stone and he felt that the Jandas or the Finkens should offer to reimburse Mr. Stone for a portion of these costs since at the time he had this work done, Miss Janda had stated that they had no intention of building on these lots and were not interested at that time in sharing in the costs. The Mayor closed the hearing. 0 0 • • • w • • ( 3 - 54 August 7, 1979 On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the Council approved the resubdivision of the Janda property with the understanding that the watermain is looped on Everett Street as recommended by the Board of Water Commissioners. (all in favor) 2. This was the day and time for the Public Hearing on Case No. 367 for Richard Anderson and Wendy Anderson for a variance of 85 square feet for a single family dwelling on North Third Street. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on July 27, 1979 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. MR. ERNST, father of Mrs. Anderson, informed the City Council he will be bu ±.lding the home at this particular site and they were aware of the fact that the Council had received and turned down another request for this property - the Planning Commission approved it and the City Council denied it. He was seeking a building permit to build a single family house on this lot with the 85 square foot variance. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETEESON stated that the potential run -off to the properties on Second Street was a concern the last time. MR. ERNST indicated that there would be drain pipes on the home and he intends to take the water out to the south of the property. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked Mr. Shelton about the twenty foot setback and W he stated that would present no problem. eI DAVID MAGNUSON indicated that this is a platted lot and tblre are services stubbed in to the property. KENNETH WHITE, 1119 North Third Street, indicated that this is his only sideyard and also that Miss Kottka did not want a house built there. He further indicated that the water problem is his only grievance - she originally owned it, sold it to the person who had his home under the conditions that it be left open - the house was sold to Mr. Aeselen and he stated it looks like his yard and in fact was broke off and sold to Swagers. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON indicated that they could buy 1% feet of property to the south and have a buildable lot and he felt that it this was denied it would create a these further ERNST questioned tated that this The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Council followed 5, Block 13, Carli SchulenburgnAdditionn1toltheaCi approved the tyof Stllwater variance for Lot 5, to Mr. & Mrs. Richard Anderson. AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilman Roger Peterson and Powell NAYS -- Councilman Harry Peterson (motion carried) 3. Use Permit dconvert time a single the family dwellingnato1605 Case West Pine Street Special was ntoa duplex. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on July 27, 1979 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. RICHARD MILLER, 704 Pine Tree Trail, applicant presented to the Council some photos of the house in question. JIM GARNDER OF ANDERSON - FREITAGE REAL ESTATE FIRM - the property presently under contract to purchase on the basis that they secure a Special Use Permit for a duplex. He indicated that from this house that three blocks down on the north side of the street that is where the duplex zoning ends - on the south side of the street you go up five blocks that is where the duplexing ends. They do not wish to rezone the area - they are going the legal route - many of the people in the neighborhood suggested that they just go ahead - that they rent the bottom half of the house and that nothing would be done about it - they chose the legal route to go. They cunted five in the area that are presently being used in this type of housing - they have substantiated three of them already. They will have the home inspected by the Building Inspector before it was used as a duplex. There is a bus route right there - the driveways enter from a street that is not presently a busy street - Mr. Miller will have to provide off - street parking for an adequate number of cars and anything over $250 in improvements would require a building permit. He stated that most people feel that the home is already a duplex and the present owners are already receiving mail from advertisers as though it were a two family home. He asked if this Special Use Permit would only be for the individual owner and does not pass from owner to owner. • Y • • mi • • • August 7, 1979 0 0 b MR. MAGNUSON stated that this was not correct - Special Use Permits and variances are for the real estate and not to the person. There can be a restriction put on it for a time limit. MAYOR JUNKER indicated that the City received a petition with 16 signatures on it that are opposed to this request. Also there was a letter from one of the property owners objecting to this request. The Planning Commission denied this request by a four to three vote on August 6th. RICHARD MILLER indicated that he went around to the neighbors and he did have a petition with seven names on it that were not opposed to the request. He further indicated that there are some signatures on the other petition that were not against the Special Use Permit, but are against rezoning. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that he was glad that they chose to go the legal route as they would be subject to a fine and he hoped that those that are operating illegally are also subject to a fine. He felt that a Special Use Permit is basically rezoning this one piece of property. WILFRED ANTELL, 1605 West Pine Street, and he is the current owner of this property -he did attend the meeting last evening with the Planning Commission - the only conclusion that he came to from that particular session was that if neighbors o -ject that seems to be the criteria that the Planning Commission or the Council sues. He did not know what the criteria was that the people were objecting - traffic, valuation of property, noise, etc. - he knows how that area has changed since he has moved there - the hill was gravel and you could not drive it most of the time when he first came into this house - with the change in the highway, Pine Street has become a speedway. He felt that times change and with the nergy situation and the lack of housing in Stillwater, he did hope that the Council would take into consideration at some other time that there are more issues than whether or not neighbors object. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that frankly the neighbors have a large say - the neighbors are the ones that live there - he does not live in that neighbor- hood and if that were a duplexed that would not affect him - the neighbors are the ones that are directly affected and he did not know what their objections are - he knew that if that was in his neighborhood the objection would be it is not the one duplex - it is the second, third, etc. If it.jjs a single family area, all of the neighbors along with yourself, you boughbba single family area - had it been a two- family area or multi- family you would have bought there. MR. MILLER stated that there were 29 people on the list that received notices and he had no objections except for the party across the street - he felt that kids would put firecrackers into his gas tank - he had talked to all but five or six - some of the people on the petition had no objection when he talked to them and he had no time to prepare for this meeting - the obly objection was a couple of phone calls. DICK KRAFT, 404 South Brick Street, he stated that no one had talked to him about it, but he does object to it, that this would open the door for many more. DOROTHY POMINVILLE, 1517 West Pine Street, felt that they might have 15 or 20 duplexes if this one is allowed and if they are going to have off - street parking it would be directly behind her property. She felt that this would decrease the value of their property - they moved into that area because it was zoned one- family. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that the Council had talked about the reaction of the neighbors influencing their vote and they just got through with this negative vote approving the variance from the requirement of the 7,500 square feet in building a home and there was someone in opposition to it because of the drainage and that the Council is going to make an exception in this case and provide a permit to build on a 7,415 square foot lot and now they are talking about the prohibition of increasing the usage of a particularly good sized home that can be utilized for two families or at least one family and a single person. He felt that they did not want to lose sight of the fact that they have objections from neighbors in both instances - they have approved one and the question is whether or not they are going to respond to the neighbors in the same way on this one. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that for years that they have had requests similar to this and again this was one objection to the 85 foot variance which was granted - there was a petition submitted by one of the neighbors or by the developers with of those not they object t this case 355 . • • 1 1 • • 356 August 7, 1979 there is a petition submitted by one of the neighbors with something like 16 signatures in opposition to the duplex - others have written indicating they were on vacation - one individual was not approached and he objected - again we are talking about the majority - there are more than one objector in thin case. MR. ANTELL made reference to the one objection about off - street parking and this party has three cars and has one parked on the street - if it is parking - if it is traffic patterns, that is one thing - if it is something else to the convenience of the objectors he wanted to know that. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that he would have to ehck the list of people who received the notices - Mr. Antell had stated at the Planning Commission that if he does not sellit, he will be retneint it as he is moving away and he will not be there and he will not be concerned - he will not ge there to answer to the neighbors. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the Council followed the recommendations of the Planning Commission and denied the request for a Special Use Permit for the house at B05 West Pine Street to be converted into a duplex because the property is zoned single family - it is a change in the neighbor- ood which is not a change for the better. AYES -- Counilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Roger Peterson and Powell NAYS -- Councilman Harry Peterson (motion carried) 4. This was the day and time for the public hearing for Local Improvement No. 173 - Utilities and streets in the northern portion of the Stillwater Industrial Park. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on July 27 and August 3, 1979 and copies were mailed to all property owners proposed to be assessed. The Mayor opened the hearing DUANE ELLIOTT explained the proposed improvements as detailed in the feasibility study. Mr. Kern and his associates own property in the vicinity of Washington Avenue and he requested that the sewers and streets be put in along with the Water improvements and the Council directed that he prepare the other studies for these improvements. The area of benefit for the 16 inch main is outlined on the map - Emerson property - Croixgate property - Kern and his Associates' property - an area basis benefit as the projects to the south - a setback line of 300 feet from Orleans Street - 300 feet from any abutting street - reserving areas in the future as streets may come into the Emerson property that area would ultimately be assessed for those watermains, etc. which serve that area. The Emerson property is not involved in any street or sanitary sewer assessment. There is now a private right -of -way on Orleans Street from Washington, a one -half street from Washington westerly to the westerly terminus of the Industrial Park plat - it is recommended that if the watermain is constructed that the entire right -of -way be purchased and that the street be graded before the watermain is installed to be assured of the proper depth - the street only be surfaced with gravel at the present time because ultimately a sanitary sewer will have to be built on that street - but a gravel surfaced street would provide a second access to the Industrial Park area. The total improvement is a 16 inch watermain to be constructed to join with an existing main on County 5 - a street on Washington Avenue from Curvecrest Blvd. to Orleans Street and a sanitary sewer in that street with the necessary services to be abutting property. The estimated costs of each of these items are as follows: Streets $101,430.00 Sanitary Sewers 30,590.00 Watermains 125,600.00 Total $257,620.00 On a per acre basis - street costs $7,350 (This cost is higher than the other streets since they were Municipal State Aid Streets) - sanitary sewers $2,216.00 - watermains $3,250.00 COUNCILMAN POWELL questioned Mr. Elliott about any assessments or benefits to the Benson property and he stated that there is no part of this improvement that he would consider that would currently benefit that property. If this would be included, it would require a joint hearing with the Township. T L e a s • • • • 0 r w August 7, 1979 Questions were raised about annexing this property since it is completely surrounded by the City, but it would have to go through the Orderly Annexation prc cedures. MR. ELLIOTT stated that this improvement does not abut it and, therefore, he left it out. JIM TORSETH questioned the street alignment for Orleans Street and Mr. Elliott explained this matter again at this time. One -half of this would be from the Emerson property and the other half from the Croixgate property - this is the proper alignment for a full sixty -fix foot right -of -way up to County Road No. 5. He recommended the right -of -way be acquired and that street be graded to be used in the future. There will be a pumping station on the Croixgate property to take care of the westerly sewer in the area - they do not want to surface the street at this time because there will be a sewer required there. JIM TORSETH asked what would be the assessment for the easement cost and MR. ELLIOTT stated that normally the construction costs, engineering and the easements are all added in on the project costs and divided in this instance oy the area of benefited property. MR. ELLIOTT stated that he did have an opportunity to visit with Mr. Emerson last week and he sent a letter of objection which is in on file, which is for the oversizing of the line. JIM TORSETH requested that they could talk this over with the engineer and then they would come back with their decision. fO Discussion was held on continuing the hearing for two weeks - MR. ELLIOTT pointed out to the Council that the construction season is getting late - if the Council were to order the project tonite, bids would not be received for about six weeks - he would not see this delay but from a practical purpose he would not want to see the Council order a project in without this being resolved. It was agreed that the Council would meet Monday evening to finalize this. MR. ELLIOTT explained that a sixteen inch watermain is required in the City overall water plan in order to transport water - what the people are saying is that, "Does the 16 inch watermain not have benefit beyond their particular abutting property?" -this he felt fit with the WAC charge that he was recommending to the Council because if in fact only 12 inch were assessed who pays for the difference - the City on general taxation, the Board of Water Commissioners, or does it come out of new development which would be benefited by the oversizing of the watermain - that would be what a WAC charge would propose - the Council can order the improvement and the assessment issue is something that is decided after- wards, but most cases the people that are going to be assessed would rather know what the policy is before the improvement is ordered. MAYOR JUNKER felt that the Benson property should be a part of the water services that are being put in there because they would be using that water as soon as they are developed, but Mr. Elliott explained that this would be a 12 inch main from the other direction - if he was to pay a share of the 16. then the people in Croixwood should pay a share of the 16 inch main - the policy developed by the Council with Orrin Thompson was that he put in 12, 6, and 8 inch mains and in a sense assessed to the people (part of the cost of the houses when purchased), when the 16 inch main went down County Road No. 5, the Water Board did pick up the difference between a 12 and 16 inch (about 500 feet) on the premises that the 16 inch had wide area beneift including benefit to this property and perhaps benefit to the future - that tank will serve all the way to County 15 - and that is the reason for increasing these main sizes right now to look at the future because if they were to put in eight inch mains there would not be the pressure needed - the 16 inch main has a broad area benefit - some type of connection charge that would pay for oversizing is the best solution. MR. KERN asked about the street between Croixgate and the Emerson property being assessed against the whole project - when they purchased their land they paid for the and - gave all the streets away and now they are going to be assessed for somebody else's streets and also pay for a 16 inch watermain - he felt that they are being shafted. MR. ELLIOTT stated that some communities have an ordinance that says if your land is sold as a right -of -way for street and if that property abutting is platted within five or ten years, you must then rebate the City the dollars that you received for the land and that money is then rebated by the City back to those who were assessed which says that the City should not have to buy a right -of -way and then have the abutting property owners plat the land and pay in two ways - platting requires the dedication of public right -of -ways - the City does not currently have an ordinance but he felt that in the light of what is happening this might be a good ordinance. MR. KERN did not feel that it was right that they donated the streets in their plat and now they are going to be assessed for this portion of Orleans Street. 357 0 9 • • • • T f • :358 August 7, 1979 MR. TORSETH stated that they did not petition for these improvements and this all came about because of the extension of the • watermain - they appreciate the initial cooperation of the Council; however, it is a matter of economic timing with them - they have a large parcel of land there for development now which is open to a sizable amount of improvements which assessments very shortly will be paid against - they did make a comment that if a watermain was put in there and assessed against that property it in itself would do them no value without sewers and streets - in the future they have plans to develop that area and felt that they were having too much too soon and that would be their position in this case - in the future these are very definitely things they will be looking for - they would not like to have the future to come so quickly. As far as the condition of Orleans Street, they view this in a different light - they do not feel that in any way that they or any other non - benefiting property should be assessed for the cost of the easement for that street - anything in the Industrial Park was given up without 'ay compensation received for same - he did not see anything different along Orleans Street - as far as the 12 versus 16 main he felt that there could be some argument there but did not know what the cost difference would be as the trench would be the same size - this is not a major issue with them - the main thing is one of timing for them and paying assessments now versus having them deferred to a later date for payment - very much opposed to the assessment costs for the street easements. MAYOR JUNKER asked if the people could come back tomorrow evening and MR. ELLIOTT asked if the Council would entertain a twenty year assessment period as they have in the portions of the Industrial Park and the Council was agreeable to that. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked abr,uc paying for the right -of -way on West Orleans Street and asked where else in the Industrial Park did they have to buy right-of -way and assess it back. MR. ELLIOTT said the trunk sanitary sewer which came Orleans and Greeley Street across the Feely property on an easement on which they felt is a future plat - that easement was purchased from Feely and that easement was a part of the sewer costs and spread against all of the properties - the streets are dedicated public use and they did not get paid for those so all of these streets in the Hooley plat gave up these street right -of -ways. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that there are benefits received although there may not be compensation received - otherwise the property is not available for development. COUNCILNAN POWELL could not understand why the development of Orleans Street would not be done the same way and MR. ELLIOTT stated that Emerson and the Croixgate people are not ready to plat and they cannot be forced to plat as far as he knew and in order to cross the land with a watermain the City must acquire an easement and the legal procedure is to purchase same. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked if the City could not approach them on that in- dicating that we are going to extend that street and indicate to them that sometime in the future they will be platting and if they will donate the land now. MR. ELLIOTT stated that if the Council adopted the Ordinance that would require them to rebate the money - they would possibly say "go ahead ". COUNCILMAN POWELL felt that the City should do this - he felt it was unfair that if you have a plat . . . MR. ELLITOT stated that the assessments would not be spread until next October. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Elliott to meet at 6:30 tomorrow evening and they will continue the whole agenda until tomorrow evening. UNFINISREDIBUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "COMMENDING HOWARD ROGNESS FOR HIS YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT 1. Mr. Kriesel reported to the City Council on the tax forfeit properties that are available in the City of Stillwater. Questions were raised about taking such costs out of the Permanent Improvement Fund. Discussion was held on properties that the City should acquire for park purposes and for a street right -of -way on St. Croix Avenue. W esi a • • • 7 r • • 0 r li A•3ust 7, 1979 On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Finance Director- Coordinator was instructed to acquire the following parcels of forfeit property for park purposes: Parcels 10980 -5160, 10980 -5100, 10980 -5800, 10980 -5750, 10980 -5700, Radles Addition and 10965 -2000 in Radle's Sunnyslope Addition and the following parcels to correct the right -of -way for St. Croix Avenue: Lots 1 and 12 in Block 6 Cooper's Addition. (all in favor) NEW BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, ark the Council 001t denied P. M. 10:00 to 11:00 Rick P. r e 1979: (all in favor) 2. On resolution wasnintroducede "DIRECTING THEcPAYME by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor .Dunker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) RESOLUTIONS The following resolution was read an on roll call was unanimously adopted: 1. Directing the Payment of the Bills. 2. Commending Howard Rogness - Board of Water Commissioners 3. Ordering Final Plans and Specifications - Local Improvement No. 173. was atu10:45aP. Powell, to 6:30 P. M. Wednesday, August 8, Bodlovick, meeting 8, 1979. Attest: ! /.._ Oct /-g, + "" -T(— •l City Clerk Mayor 359 • • • • •