HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990.05.07 CC MinutesMINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7. 1990
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Atkinson at 7:00 PM.
PRESENT: McAllister, Jesinski, Olson, Vail, Atkinson
City Administrator, Ken Heber
City Attorney, Charles Johnson
City Engineer, Howard f-:UUSiSt0
City Clerk, Mary Ann Creager
McAllister made motion, Olson seconded, to approve the minutes for the
Hugo Board of Review on April 16, 1990 as submitted.
All aye. Motion Carried.
Vail made motion, JesinsE::i seconded, to approve the minutes for the
regular City Council meeting of April 16, 1990 as submitted.
All aye. Motion Carried.
Jesinski made motion, Olson seconded, to approve the claims for May 7,
1990 in the amount of $25,292.2:'1.
All aye. Motion Carried.
CHARITABLE GAMBLING - HUGO LIONS CLUB (ONE DAY?
Atkinson made motion, McAllister seconded, that the City of Hugo has no
objection to the issuance of a one -day gambling license to the Hugo Lions
Club for June 9, 1990 at the Hugo City Park in conjunction with Good
Neighbor Days, and waiver of the 60 -day waiting period.
All aye. Motion Carried.
ASSESSMENT HEARING CIF' PROJECT #5-2-88B
Pursuant to Chapter 429 of the Public Improvement Code, a public hearing
was scheduled for May 7, 1990 to consider the assessments for the CIF
project, Phase 1 #5-2-88B. The project in question involves the
bituminous surfacing and related improvements for Onek-a Lat::e Boulevard
from 200' east of Geneva Avenue easterly to Harrow Avenue, Harrow Avenue
from 157th Street north to 165th Street, Goodview Avenue from County Road
GA to the south corporate limits, Falcon Avenue from 124th Street south to
120th Street, 177th Street from State Aid Highway 61 east to Greystone
Avenue, 130th Street from State Aid Highway 61 east to Goodview Avenue,
Hyde Avenue from 147th Street south approximately .4 miles, and the 146th
Street and 147th Street railroad crossings. The original estimated
assessment for abutting property owners was 21% of the project cost or
$.3.85 per front footage, whichever was greater. Notice of hearing on the
proposed assessment was sent to all affected property owners of record, as
required. Assessments are levied against property and not individuals.
The City has relied on County tax records, as well as County survey maps,
to compute the assessments and provide notice to individuals who have a
property affected by the assessments. The {proposed assessments are to be
payable in equal annual principal installments e::tending over a period of
15 years, the first of the installments will. be payable on or before the
City Council meeting of May 7, 1990
Page
first Monday in January. 1991, and shall bear interest at the rate of 9;1:
per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. Tr-
the
cthe first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment
from the date of the resolution until December, 1.990. To each subsequent
installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid
installments. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior
to certification of the assessments to the County Auditor, pay the whole
of the assessments on such property, with interest accrued to the date of
payment, to the City treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged
if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from tjze adoption of this
resolution. The total cost of the improvement is determined to be
$754,760.00, and the cost to be assessed to benefited property owners is
declared to $25,65.00. The public hearing allows the opportunity for
written or oral objections regarding these assessments. No appeal may be
ta4cen as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection
is filed with the Clerk., prior to the hearing, or presented to the
presiding officer at the hearing.
Mayor Atkinson called the public hearing to order at 7:07 PM at which time
the City Engineer, Howard Kuusisto, reported on the status of the project.
The following property owners addressed the Council: Richard Claybaugh of
16011 Harrow Avenue, Fred Hummel of 7225 Oneka Lake Blvd., Theodora
Peltier of 17-094 Goodview Avenue, Howard Arcand of 1850 Cedar avenue (WBL_)
and F--::athy Schtowchan of 7041 Onek:a Lake Boulevard. All construction
questions were referred to the City Engineer for a response. Several
property owners questioned the assessment computations, and all or part o
the assessments were deleted for further review and are to be considered
by the Council at their meeting of June 4, 1990. The public hearing was
closed at 7:32 PM.
Atkinson made motion, McAllister seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION! 1990-13,
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PHASE 1
#5-2-88(B). The following parcels were deleted temporarily: 9.Y016-37-05,
93029-225o, 9730 9 -?550, and 97,07712-22510.
VOTING AYE: McAllister, Jesinsk:i, Olson, Vail, Atkinson
VOTING NAY: NONE_
Motion Carried.
LOCAL_ STREET SPEED LIMIT AUTHORIZATION
In the fall of 1989, the City Council sent a resolution to MNDOT
requesting that speed limits be established and signinq recommended for
specified streets. Earlier this month, the City received a notice from
MNDOT designating the appropriate speed limits on the roadways in
question. Upon adoption of the resolution, the City will request that the
appropriate signs be made and installed by the Washington County Public
Works Department, as required. MNDOT did not agree with the City
Engineer's 45 mph recommendation for 1 -0th Street and Goodview Avenue.
McAllister made motion, Jesinsk:i seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION 1990-14
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING LOCAL STREET SPEED LIMITS.
VOTING AYE: McAllister, Jesinsk:i, Vail, Atkinson
VOTING NAY: Olson
Motion Carried.
City Council meeting of May 7, 1990
Page _
McAllister made motion, Olson seconded, directing City staff to send a
letter- to the Commissioner- of Transportation stating the City's concerns
with the 50 mph on Goodview Avenue, and ask: that they reconsider their
decision.
All aye. Motion Carried.
OVERSIZED GARAGE VARIANCE
Mr. Joe Thill of 9294 170th Street, Hugo, MN., has made application to the
City of Hugo for a variance to construct a bi-level residential garage on
his property at the above referenced address. The property in question is
zoned agricultural and consists of approximately 40 acres. It is Mr.
Thill's intent to construct a new home, and would like to construct a
bi-level garage, with one area to be used for storage of his personal
equipment and vehicles, and the other area to be used as personal workshop
and storage area. Mr. Thill has assured the City that the garage will be
used for residential purposes only. The total square footage of the
garage in question is 1,=:44 square feet. The design and layout of this
garage has been reviewed by the building inspector, and he has indicated
that there are no problems with this type of proposal. Total square
footage of the dwelling unit in his residence is greater than the square
footage of the proposed attached accessory garage. This request appears
to be consistent with the City Council's policy regarding over -sized
garages: in agricultural zoning districts.
Vail made motion, Olson seconded, to approve the variance request of Mr.
Joe Thill at 9294 170th Street for construction of a 1,344 square foot
bi-level garage according to the site plan submitted at the above
referenced address. The proposed garage is to be used for residential
purposes only.
All ave. Motion Carried.
SITE PLAN APPROVAL (GRANGER'S AUTO SERVICE AIJI j I T I ON 1.
On behalf of Granger's Inc.. Mr. Ken Granger has made application to the
City of Hugo for site plan approval and a variance to increase the size of
Granger's Service Center. Mr. Granger would like to upgrade his facility
to 1.1 service bays as shown on the site plan. The site in question is
identified as Parcel. 1 on the certificate of survey dated May 5, 1986.
Mr. Granger is also requesting a variance from the required six off-street
parking stalls per service bay to allow 4.5 off-street parking stalls per -
service bay. The rationale for the variance being that although there
would be only 4.5 parking stalls on the proposed site, available parking
on the adjacent sites owned by Mr. Granger would bring his total shared
parking to six stalls per service bay. The applicant has submitted two
plans, one showing the expansion to eleven service bays, the other to nine
service bays. It is the intent of the applicant to improve the facility
to nine service bays, with the option of expanding it to 11 if the cost
estimates for this expansion makes this option economically feasible. Th
drainage plan reflects the on-site surface drainage to existing catch
basins. Mr. Granger has: agreed to provide ori -cite screening from the SFU
zone, south and exist of the site. The property .in question is zoned CN,
City Council. meeting of May i, 1990Page 4 _
and consists of .6 acres of property. These plans have been reviewed by
the City Fire Marshal and Building Inspector with both seeing no problem.=..
with this building expansion as proposed. It should be noted that City'E
zoning ordinance 720-5, Subd. M requires that no vehicle shall be parked
on the premises of a service station other than those utilized by
employees or awaiting service. No vehicles shall be parked awaiting
service longer than 15 days. All structures and ground shall be
maintained in an orderly and safe manner, and business activities_- not
listed in the definition of service station in this ordinance are not
permitted on the premises of the service station unless a SUP is obtained
specifically for such business.
McAllister made motion, Vail seconded, to approve the site plan approval
request of Mr. Ken Granger, on behalf of Granger's Inc., to increase the
size of Granger's Service Center to 11 service bays as shown on Parcel 1
of the submitted site plan, Tax Parcel #.35020-4060. Approval is also
given for the variance request from the required six off-street parking
stalls per service bay to allow 4.5 off-street parking stalls per service
bay because of additional parking available on the adjacent sites owned by
Mr. Granger subject to installation of the screening of the areas adjacent
to the residnetial district to the southeast.
All aye. Motion Carried.
MINOR SUBDIVISION (ST. JOHN'S CHURCH)
On behalf of the Church of St. John the Baptist, the Washington County HR
has made application to the City of Hugo for a minor subdivision, and
waiver of the formal platting requirements, to subdivide approximately Irk
acres into .3 lots. The property is zoned retail business and concentrated
business. Said property is located east of Highway 61 and north of 142nd
St. (P. I .D. No. 35135-6950 and part of 35135-7010). This site is being
subdivided for the purposes of constructing a multiple -family dwelling on
parcel B which is zoned retail business and is approximately 2.5 acres in
size. It is the intent: of the applicants to serve the sites withi
municipal sewer, water, and direct access to Highway 61. Permit: from the
Rice Creek: Watershed District are pending and it is their intent to apply
for a special use permit for this project if the subdivision is approved.
This request appears to be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan
and zoning ordinance, with regard to use and lot size. At the April 25,
1990 regular meeting of the Hugo Planning Commission, a public hearing was
held, and the PC unanimously recommended approval of this certificate of
survey, and waiver of the formal platting requirements.
Councilman McAllister noted that the City's sanitary sewer easement along
the east side of the property should be identified on the certificate of
survey, and Mr. Strad Wirt, representing Washington County HRA, stated that
a corrected survey would be provided.
Vaal made motion, Jesinsk:i seconded, to approve the final Certificate of
Survey #5-7-9G(A) for the Washington County HRA, on behalf of the Church
of St. John the Baptist, and waiver of the formal platting requirements.
Approval is subject to the following special. conditions:
City Council meeting of May 7, 1990
Page 5
1. Subdivision shall be contingent upon compliance with the survey
approvals as well as the grading, stormwater drainage, and utility
plans.
2. All conditions of survey approval must be met prior to the stamping of
any deeds for recording by the city clerk unless otherwise permitted
by council action.
3. The property lines on site must be identified by the applicants to
assure proper setbacks when buildings are to be constructed if
required by the building inspector.
4. Proposed driveways or drainage areas within the development must
include installation of a minimum 15" diameter corrugated metal
culvert in a manner acceptable to the city.
5. No building permits shall be issued until the plat has been approved
and recorded with Washington County.
b. Securing the required permits from, the watershed district, Department
of Natural Resources, and Army Corps of Engineers, when applicable, is
required for final plat approval.
7. All fees relating to this subdivision shall be paid by the applicant
including the cost of recording documents with Washington County.
S. Any driveway permits requiring access to highways or county roads may
not be issued until the necessary permits are secured from Washington
County or the Minnesota Dept, of Transportation.
9. Payment of fee in lieu of parkland dedication shall be made to the
city prior to final survey approval.
10. Installation of required roadways including street, curb and gutter,
stormwater control, and utilities shall be installed at the developers
expense.
11. No improvements, landscaping, or grading shall be permitted in the
defined drainage areas without the express written authorization of
the city and the approved watershed districts.
12. All property owners shall be responsible for maintenance of drainage
areas within easements on their property.
13. Developer shall comply with all requirements and restrictions
applicable to identified shoreline.
14. No significant deviations from the approved preliminary survey shall
be permitted unless reviewed by the planning commission prior to
council approval.
15. Any exterior lighting or advertising activities on site must be
approved by the city.
16. The use for which this permit is sought is not in violation of any
restrictive covenants applying to the property referenced herein.
17. Legal descriptions of all parcels to be subdivided should be included.
All aye. Motion Carried.
MQ NO __St1BD I V I S I ON JCYR I L LAC:ASSE1.
On behalf of Cyril LaCasse, Ms. Bernadette LaCasse has made application to
the City of Hugo for a minor subdivision and waiver- of the formai platting
requirements to subdivide approximately 52 acres into two lots. The
property in question is zoned agricultural and is located east of E1mcrEest
Ave. and north of 140th St. {Legal: The SE 1i4 of the SW 1'4 of Section
19, T11N, R21W, Washington County, and that part of the N 1%2 of the NW
114, Section 50, T71N, R21W, Washington County, lying north of the south
City Council meeting of May 7, 1990
Page b
990 ft, as measured along the east line thereof, and which also lies east
of the centerline of Plmcrest Ave. as traveled) . Mr. LaCasse appeared
before:: the Planning Commission in the fall of 1988 requesting the formal
platting of the property in question, but did not pursue this request
beyond the preliminary plat approval. The City staff has cautioned Mr.
LaCasse that the way he is subdividing the property would make it
virtually impossible to resubdivide Tract 2 in the future because of
limited road access. The LaCasse's have acknowledged this situation and
have indicated that there are no plans to subdivide Tract 2 now or in the
future. The appropriate percolation tests for the sites in question have
been submitted, as has the permit from the Rice Creek: Watershed District.
The proposed housing locations, as identified on the survey, meet lot
dimension and setback requirements. This request is consistent with the
City's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. This request was
considered by the Planning Commission at their April 25, 1990 meeting at
which time the Commission recommended approval of the certificate of
survey and waiver of the formal platting requirements. The City Council
again reminded the LaCasses's that Tract #2 probably cannot be
resubdivided in the future. Ms. LaCasse said her family is aware of this
possibility, and would still like to proceed.
Olson made motion, McAllister seconded, to approve the final Certificate
of Survey #5-7-90(B) for Tax Parcel=_ #95019-2500, 93030-2600, and
93030-2650, as requested by Cyril LaCasse, and waiver of the formal
platting requirement=. Approval is subject to the following special
conditions
1. Prior to the stamping of any deeds, the owners must provide proof tha•c
the required drainage easements have been conveyed to the RCWD.
2. Subdivision approval shall be contingent upon compliance with the
survey approvals as well as the grading, stormwater drainage, and
utility plans.
S. All conditions of survey approval must be met prior- to the stamping of
any deeds for recording by the city clerk: unless otherwise permitted
by council action.
4. The property lines on site must be identified by the applicants to
assure proper setbacks when buildings are to be constructed if
required by the building inspector.
5. Proposed driveways or ,drainage areas within the development must
include installation of a minimum 15" diameter corrugated metal
culvert in a manner- acceptable to the city.
6. No building permits shall be issued until the survey has been approved
and recorded with Washington County.
7. All fees relating to this subdivision shall be paid by the applicant
including the cost of recording documents with Washington County.
8. Payment of fee in lieu of parkland dedication ($250.00) shall be made
to the city prior to final survey approval.
9. This approval shall be granted with the understanding that said
subdivision does not create any landlocked parcels by the petitione=r
and land owner.
10. No improvements, landscaping, or grading shall be permitted in the
defined drainage areas without the express written authorization of
the city and the approved watershed district.
1.1. All property owners shall be responsible for maintenance of drainage
areas within easements on their property.
All Aye. Motion Carried.
City Council meeting of May 7, 1990
Page 7
SPEC. T rpt _ _ U E_ _PERMIT - AMENDED (JAY SCHOBE:R )
On behalf of Gerald and Helen Clemas, Mr. Jay Schober has made appl.icat.i.oi�
to the City of Hugo for an amended special use permit to operate an
automobile reconditioning and wholesale sales business. The property is
generally described as 15657 Forest Blvd. No. The present zoning
classification is industrial and the total acreage of the property is 1.1.0
acres. The applicant, Mr. Jay Schober, has indicated his intent to buy
the property from Mr. Clemas and improve the site as shown on the plan
submitted. It is the applicant's intent to use the existing building
without major modifications and fence in the area south and east of the
site for the storage of approximately 16 automobiles. Mr. Schober
acquires used automobiles, reconditions them, and then sells them
wholesale to retail dealers. In August of 1979, the City approved a
special use permit authorizing a sheet metal fabricating business at the
site in question (Permit 1979 -67 -SUP). In 1996, the City Council approved
a special use permit allowing for minor auto repair and wholesale sales of
vehicles (Permit 1936 -32 -SUP). Mr. Schober has indicated that with the
exception of vendor and employee parking, all vehicles will be kept with.il-I
the fenced area and the only signs advertising the operation will be
located on the west face of the building. Mr. Schober has assured the
City that no retail sales of automobiles or other equipment will be made
on site and that the operation in question is strictly automobile
reconditioning and wholesale sales. Mr. Schober has also assured the City
that no equipment or other materials will be stored or deposited outside
the fenced area as indicated on the site plan. Mr. Schober appeared at
the April 25l 1990 Planning Commission meeting and assured the Commission
that the site in question was not going to be a junkyard, and would be
operated in conformance with the site plan and special conditions
recommended by the staff. The Planning Commission then unanimously
recommended approval of the SUP subject to modification of the parking
layout on site and special conditions.
McAllister made motion, Olson seconded, to approve the application of Mr.
Jay Schober, on behalf of Gerald and Helen Clemas, for an amended SUP tr_;
operate an automobile reconditioning and wholesale sales business
according to the submitted site plan. Approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1. Previous special use permits numbered 1979 -67 -SUP and 1986 -32 -SUP be
superseded by this permit.
2. The use in question shall be for automobile reconditioning and
wholesale sales only.
_. With the exception of employee and vendor parking lot, all other motor
vehicles, equipment, and materials shall be stored in the fenced area
identified on the site plan.
4. The areas identified in the stormw iter drainage plan and drainage
easements be kept free and clear from obstructions with the exception
of natural vegetation.
5. The stacking of motor vehicles on this site shall be prohibited.
6. No auto reduction/dismantling shall be permitted on site.
7. No retail sales shall be permitted on site.
8. No encroachments into the drainage areas or easements or altering of
drainage flow shall be permitted.
City Council meeting of May 7, 199i_f
Page H
9. Advertising on site shall be limited to the 4' X 9' sign to be
installed on the west face of the building.
10. All tractor trailers will be permanently removed from the site.
11. There shall be no on-site disposal of refuse, and the property owner
shall provide proof of regular refuse disposal service for this
business operation.
12. There shall be no exterior storage of vehicles, materials, or
equipment on site until the fence is installed as per the site plan.
13. Any building additions or remodeling of the existing structure shall
be made in compliance with the City building codes.
14. No auto parts sales shall be transacted on the site.
15. The owner or operator shall allow inspections by the City staff at
reasonable times to assure compliance with this permit.
16. The fence to be installed shall be a 7' industrial chain link: fence
with PDS slats to be installed on the entire perimeter of the fenced
area to properly screen abutting areas from activities taking plane on
site. Said fence to be maintained in good repair at all times.
17. This permit shall be declared null and void if not accepted and fully
implemented within 130 days of council approval.
18. f=ailure to comply with all conditions of this permit shall be grounds
for revocation of same.
19. No vehicle may be parked further east_ than 131 feet from the west
property line or in the designated drainage area.
20. A performance deposit, in the amount of $1,e:00, be submitted
guaranteeing the installation of the fence and conditions of this SUP
The deposit will be returned when the site is in compliance with the
site plan and the above special conditions.
All aye. Motion Carried.
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT (STATUS)
At the April 16, 1990 regular meeting of the Hugo City Council, action was
taken authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk: to enter into a Performance
Agreement with Mr. Stanford Krueger regarding his commitment to bring his
property into compliance with his SUP #1997 -27 -SUP within the time
specified by the Agreement. The Agreement was worked out as a compromise
by the City Council in an effort to avoid requiring Mr. Krueger to remove
his accessory building at this time. Although legal counsel for Mr.
Krueger seemed to feel most of the items in the Performance Agreement were
acceptable, he dial indicate that the financial security was too excessive
and Mr. Krueger could not afford to post a $5,000 performance deposit. It
should be noted that typical financing costs for a letter of credit are 1i.
to 2% of the amount of the letter in addition to administrative fees. The
City staff estimates that the cost of an irrevocable letter of credit by
Mr. Krueger would run approximately $100 to $200 per year. The City
Councils at its April 16, 1990 meeting, directed staff to place this
matter on the agenda if Mr. Krueger refused to sign the Performance
Agreement and post the required performance deposit.
City Attorney, Charles Johnson, reported on his discussions with Mr.
Krueger's attorney, Gerald Carroll, and their inability to finalize the
Performance Agreement. Mayor Atkinson stated that the City will not
negotiate the terns of the Performance Agreement. McAllister asked Mr.
Krueger about his unwillingness to sign the Performance Agreement. and
City Council meeting of May 75 19?(..)
Page 9
and provide the performance deposit as required. Mr. Krueger stated that
he was not going to deposit. an "additional" financial guarantee, and that
he never did agree to the conditions previously discussed.
Olson made motion, McAllister seconded, to revoke Special Use permit
#1987 -27 -SUP, issued to Mr. Stanford Krueger, effective immediately based
on the following findings:
1. Mr. Krueger acknowledged that he was familiar with the Farm
Foreclosure Act, and that he would have difficulties in securing
financing to construct a home on the site when he originally appeared
before the planning Commission in April, 1987, and agreed to construct
the house within one year of permit issuance.
?. Mr. Krueger has failed to secure a building permit and begin
construction of a house as required by the initial and amended SUP.
3. Mr. Krueger acknowledged that he denied access to the City staff for
an inspection regarding compliance with the SUP as was required in the
permit.
4. Mr. Krueger acknowledged that he is using the building in question to
run his business involving light -assembly work: and warehousing for
farm toys in violations of the SUP.
5. Mr'. Krueger stated that if he cannot continue operation of his
business out of the structure in question, he would probably have to
sell the land and go elsewhere.
6. Mr. Krueger stated he does not want to build a house on the site until.
he gets clear title to the land.
7 . Mr. Krueger publicly acknowledged his violations of the SUP.
8. Mr. Krueger's refusal to enter into a Performance Agreement and
provide a performance deposit to assure compliance with the SUP.
VOTING AYE: McAllister, Jesinsk:i, Olson, Atkinson
VOTING NAY: Deane Vail
Notion Carried.
Atkinson made motion, McAllister- seconded, directing the City Attorney to
proceed immediately to secure an injunction to stop the business being
operated at 6909 102nd Street PID 93003-2200). The City Attorney is to
proceed with the necessary legal procedure(s) to have the building removed
from the site.
VOTING AYE: McAllister, Jesinsk:i, Olson, Atkinson
VOTING NAY: Deane Vail
Motion Carried.
MISCELLANEOUS
The City received two letters of complaint, one signed and one unsigned.
The signed letter is to be forwarded to the Code Enforcement Officer for
follow up, and the unsigned letter- will be disregarded according to City
policy.
City Council meeting of May 7, 1990
Page 10
City Attorney, Charles Johnson, reported on the status of the Joe Stanek:
litigation.
City Administrator, Ken Huber, reported on the following:
1. County Road J (120th Street) improvement status.
2. Repairs made to park: bleachers, and new playground equipment
purchases.
The City Council asked that the City Code Enforcement Officer look into
possible zoning violations or nuisances at 6470 Egg Lake Road.
McAllister made motion, Vail seconded, to adjourn at e:50 PM.
All aye. Motion Carried.
Mary " , Creager, City ler::
City o Hugo