Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990.02.20 CC MinutesJUGO._�IITY 790 The meeting was called to order by Mayor George Atkinson at 7:00 PM. PRESENT: McAllister, Jesinski, Olson, Vail, Atkinson City Administrator, Ken Huber City Clerk, Mary Ann Creager Vail made motion, Olson seconded, to approve the minutes for the regular City Council meeting of February 5, 1990 as amended. All aye. Motion Carried. Jesinski made motion, Olson seconded, to approve the claims for February 20, 1990 in the amount of $100,865.01' All aye. Motion Carried' CHARITABLE GAMBLING Atkinson made motion, Vail seconded, that the City of Hugo has no objection to the issuance of a gambling license to the Minnesota Waterfowl Association to hold a raffle on April 7, 1990 at Willie's 61 Club, 17285 Forest Blvd, Hugo, MN., and waives the 60 day waiting period. VOTING AYE: Jesinski, Olson, Vail, Atkinson ABSTAINED: McAllister Motion Carried. MINOR SUBDIVISION,(ZALUC-KYJ/SCHTOWCHAN) Mr- Alex ZaIuckyj and Mr. George Schtowchan have made application to the City of Hugo for approval of a minor subdivision which consolidates three existing parcels into two lots by certificate of survey' The property contains approximately 74 acres and is zoned conservancy. Part of the property in question abuts on Oneka Lake with Oneka Lake Boulevard physically dividing the site in question. Copies of this request were submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the DNR, and the RCWD. Despite the fact that there have been flooding problems along Oneka Lake, there is a judicial ditch on site as well as a connection between two major flood zones (A) on this site, the three previously mentioned governmental agencies have indicated they have no concern with regard to the subdivision at this time. The City staff was surprised by the lack of interest on the part of these agencies in light of the very strict requirements they have placed on other individuals dividing property in the City of Hugo. On April 6, 1989, the Hugo Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request, and acted to approve said subdivision subject to the special conditions reflected in the PC minutes. At the time of the hearing before the Planning Commission, the City staff noted several major areas of concern that still have not been addressed by the applicants: 1. The format of the survey is not as requested for signing and filing. 2. The key regarding property iron locations on the survey is incorrect. 3. It is difficult to tell where the exi*sting property lines are, and where the proposed property lines are to be. 4. It appears that the south property line of proposed Tract A goes right through a house located on site. City Council meeting of February 20, 1990 Page 5. It was recommended that the southeast property line of proposed Tract. B be moved farther- to the west sr_+ that no portion of Hardwood Creed:: is located in Tract-. B. S. It was requested that the survey show property elevations,, and that the designated flood zone A on this property be identified on the survey. The request for minor subdivision and waiver of platting had been tabled from the Council meeting of 2s5190. It should also be noted that the City staff recommended requiring the dedication of easements along the ditch within flood zone A; however, the Planning Commission did not feel it appropriate to require the easement at the time of subdivision. They felt it would be more appropriate at the time of future land development. Most of the above referenced staff concerns were discussed with the surveyor, and said changes were going to be made on the survey; However, said changes were not made and the City staff was notified by a letter dated May 2, 1989 to no longer contact or deal with the surveyor. The recommendations of City engineer, Howard Kuusisto, are a part of this file. The City staff also indicated some concern regarding the manner in which the lots were being split in that Onek:a Lake Boulevard could be considered a physical division of the property which would be creating a substandard lot on that portion of Tract A located west of Onek:a Lake Boulevard. This type of division would probably be acceptable if it is clearly documented that although Onek:a Lake Boulevard is a physical separation between two parcels, each tract is considered a single lot and not two lots. If the City Council acts to approve this minor subdivision, the City staff recommends preliminary survey approval subject to special conditions. John Bannigan, attorney for the applicants, addressed the City Council and presented a letter outlining the position of His. clients. Mr. Bannigan requested the letter be reviewed by the City Attorney, and a response be forwarded to the City Council regarding any jurisdiction the City Council may Have regarding the subdivision-, of lots in excess of 20 acres as per Ninnesota Statutes.. McAllister made motion, Jail seconded, that the George Schtowchan and Alex aluckyj application for a. minor subdivision be tabled, and the staff be directed to forward John Banni.gan's letter to Hugo's City Attorney to address whether the City of Hugo, in this application, can legally require a public drainage easement through this, subdivision in the area shown on the National. Flood Insurance Chart, and the extent of the City's jurisdiction in this matter. All aye. Motion Carried. 1=' RFORMs=tNCE EVALUATION C:. E . f.! . i F F.SOI... U- I i:JP# 1 The City Administrator completed the performance evaluation of the City's... Cade [=nforcement-. Officer, Mr. John Benson, and reviewed earlier by the City Council. Consistent with previous Cita; practice,, the City staff is, recommending that the base salaryof the .it;'_Ccr_(nrcr_erEr_ Ui'i_ er, City Council meeting of February 20, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Benson, be increased by $100.00 per month effective 2/25/90. This increase reflects a 4.3% increase over Mr. Benson's 1989 base salary' McAllister made motion, Olson seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION 1990-6, RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF SALARY FOR CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER' VOTING AYE: McAllister, Jesinski, Olson, Vail, Atkinson VOTING NAY: None Motion Carried. SERVICE LINE REPAIR REQUEST (G. HAMMOND) Ms. Gayle Hammond (RJ's Restaurant and Motel) requested an opportunity to appear before the City Council to request financial assistance in the City repair of a service line serving the motel on her property. In November of 1989, a water -line break was discovered on the property in question in the approximate vicinity of the pay -telephone booth in front of the motel just off Highway 61. Following an inspection by the City's Water Superintendent, Ms. Hammond contacted Parenteau Excavating to repair the break in question. The City's ordinance states that service lines from the curb line of the road to the buildings being served by the service line are the responsibility of the property owner. In this particular case, there appeared to have been two water shutoffs that were repaired or replaced as a result of damage incurred when the area around the pay -telephone booth was plowed for snow removal. Ms. Hammond has indicated that it is her opinion that the State Highway Department or Washington County plowed out the area adjacent to the public telephone and caused the damage in question. Although she indicated she could not prove this, she was sure that damage was not done by those who plow her parking lot area. She indicated in an earlier conversation that because the pay telephone serves the general public, and plowing of the area in question was to better accommodate the public, she didn't feel that she should have to bear the entire cost of this repair even though the ordinance indicates it is her responsibility' The total bill received from Parenteau Excavating was $720.00 for the work in question. Had the work been done by the City through our contractor, the estimated cost of this same work would have been approximately $492.00. Because of the unusual circumstances in this case, Ms. Hammond has requested that the Council consider payment of all or a portion of the cost in question. Atkinson made motion, Olson seconded, that the City of Hugo authorize the payment of $492.00 to Ms. Gayle Hammond, to reimburse her for payment made to Parenteau Excavating for repair of a service line serving the motel on her property located at 13963 Forest Blvd, North. The bill to Parenteau Excavating must be satisfied before reimbursement is made to Ms. Hammond. The City shall have no further responsibility for this service line as reconstructed. All aye. Motion Carried. City Council meeting of February 20, 1990 Page 4 1. The City Council received a letter from suspended firefighter, Tom Bernier, asking that his suspension be given further consideration. This matter was referred to the staff for review and a recommendation. 2. Mayor Atkinson read an OPEN LETTER TO THE RESIDENTS OF HU8O addressing the "cartoons" being distributed in one of the local newspapers. All City Council members signed the letter in support of the City staff. Mayor Atkinson opened the floor for general comments from the audience. A member of the audience addressed the Council and inquired as to the credentials of the City Administrator as well as his previous places of employment. Joyce Seever addressed the Council and said that the entire City of Hugo was in the flood plain. Mr. Wally Stoltzman addressed the Council and stated that he had been treated rudely by the City Administrator when he came into his office to discuss something with him. After the City Administrator denied ever having met Mr. Stoltzman or ever having talked to him, Mr. Stoltzman admitted he heard from his neighbor that Mr' Huber had said something bad about him. Mr. David Schumann addressed the Council and wanted to know why no one on the City Council would sit down and discuss the charges against him regarding the business he is operating on his property. Mayor Atkinson stated that both he and other members of the Council have discussed this matter at length with Mr' Schumann on a private basis, but stated that this matter is in court, and that the numerous criminal charges against Mr. Schumann prevented the Council from discussing this in any kind of open forum. Mrs. Joyce Seever asked the City Council where the City Administrator had worked after he left the City of St' Peter. Mrs. Carol Schumann addressed the Council and stated that no one on the Council would talk to her regarding the problems on her property. Various members of the Council denied those accusations and stated that lengthy conversations were held with Mrs. Schumann which she later acknowledged. Mr. David Schumann inquired as to whether or not the City was going to pass an ordinance legalizing various businesses that have been established out in the agricultural/residential areas of the community. Mayor Atkinson stated that he was not aware of any ordinance proposed that would affect such a change. Councilman McAllister reiterated support of the City staff, and stated that the City has always treated citizens fairly and politely at City Hall, although there are some exceptions when people are extremely angry and uncontrollable which causes some difficulty for the staff. He stated that very few changes have been made in the ordinances over the years, and ordinances that are currently under fire by members in the audience, were ordinances drafted in 1974 by some of the very people who don't like these ordinances today. The ordinances in question are enforced on a complaint -basis and at the direction of the City Council. Mr. McAllister stated that any one who wants to sit down and discuss matters of importance with him, he would by most happy to do so at reasonable times at either his home or City Hall, but would prefer the news media be present to assure compliance with the open meeting law. Mr. McAllister guaranteed the people in the audience of their right to City Council meeting of February 20, 1990 Page 5 be heard, however, cautioned them that there are two sides to every story, and lies and innuendo would not be acceptable as credible information by himself' Mayor Atkinson referred to the section of the agenda where petitions, requests, and correspondence is reviewed by the City Council, and residents have an opportunity to speak on matters of concern to them as it relates to the City of Hugo. He suggested that if individuals would like to get answers to questions that they try and get them through the staff first, and if they are not satisfied, to request an opportunity to appear before the Council directly. The rest of the Council concurred and no further input was taken from the audience. 3. The Council received a response from MNDOT regarding speed limit signs in the City of Hugo. This matter will be addressed at a later date after further review' Olson made motion, Jesinski seconded, to adjourn at 8:58 PM. All aye. Motion Carried.