HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988.03.21 CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH � ")1. _1988
The regular meeting was called to order by Mayor Atkinson at 7:00 PM.
PRESENT: Peltier, Potts, Olson, AtF:inson
City Administrator, Ken Huber
City Attorney, Charles Johnson
City Engineer, Howard Kuusisto
City Clerk:, Mary Ann Creager
ABSENT: Deane Vail
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Potts made motion, Peltier seconded, to approve the minutes of March 7,
1988, as submitted.
All aye. Motion Carried.
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
Olson made motion, Peltier seconded, to approve the General Claims for
March 21, 1988, in the amount of $65,384.82.
All aye. Motion Carried.
CHARITABLE GAMBLING LICENSE (AMERICAN LEGION POST #620
Potts made motion, Peltier seconded, that the City of Hugo has no
objection to the issuance of a Gambling License for the American Legion
Post #620, and waiving of the 'C► day waiting period.
All aye. Motion Carried.
120TH STREET P.I. PROJECT (IMPROVEMENT HEARING)
As per Council resolution 1987-66 (see enclosure), we have proceeded word-.
with White Bear Township and Ramsey County for the improvement of 120th
Street east of Highway 61. The project in question involves the
construction of a 9 ton roadway (rural section) from Highway 61 to a point
approximately 1.06 to the east. The total estimated cost of the project
is $530,300.00. The proposed plan involves Ramsey County paying for 75%
of the project cost while 25% would be borne by White Bear Township and
the City of Hugo. The total estimated cost of the city's share of this
project is $75,000.00. Although direction has already been given to
proceed with participation in this project, the method of financing is
still in question. White Bear Township has agreed to assist with the
financing, but we feel that it may be clot simpler to finance the project
in conjunction with other city projects (Homestead Drive and equipment
purchases). To proceed with the financing of this project through a local
bond issue, the city is required to hold a public improvement hearing and
identify the cost of the city's share of the project and allow for the
assessment of all or a portion of these costs some time in the future. In
that the City Council has indicated a concern that we keep the door open
to possibly assess a portion of these costs to benefiting property owners,
it makes a lot of sense for us to hold this improvement hearing, order
30
City Council meeting of .-/1/88
the project, and proceed with local financing. The issue before the
Council is really one of financing and we feel the adoption of this
resolution gives us the fle;cibility to get the best possible interest
rates available. The amended feasibility report itemizing the scope of
the project and the total estimated cost was referenced. The decision on
assessing property owners would be decided at the time of an assessment
hearing, and said assessments would be based on the actual costs of the
improvement once the project is complete. Notices of the improvement
hearing have been sent to the property owners of record abutting on this
improvement.
Dennis Schreifels commented that the money would be better spent by
improvements to Goodvieaa Avenue and 130th Street which are more heavily
traveled than 120th Street. Cheryl Istvanovich asked who would pay for
the improvement and was informed that if the project is ordered,
assessments would be determined in the future. Mrs. Istvanovich also
stated that she is part owner in 30 acres of swamp abutting 120th Street,
and questioned how the improvement would benefit her property. City
Administrator, Ken Huber, stated that these situations would be taken into
account if it is decided to assess abutting property owners. Scott
Erhardt did not feel the improvement would benefit his property, and
stated that the city should consider closing the road and let White Bear
Township pay the entire cost. The public hearing was closed at 7:15 PM.
Atkinson made motion, Potts seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION 1988-1•3,
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR 120TH STREET
(COUNTY ROAD J) PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #P.I.88-1.
VOTING AYE: Potts, Olson, Atkinson
VOTING NAY: Peltier
Motion Failed.
The Council discussed the options for financing this project as a result
of the failure to adopt resolution 88-1'.
Peltier made motion, Olson seconded, to reconsider the previous motion.
All aye. Motion Carried.
Atkinson made motion, Potts seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION 1988-1'1
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR 120TH STREET
(COUNTY ROAD J) PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #P.I. 88-1.
VOTING AYE: Peltier, Potts, Olson, Atkinson
VOTING NAY: None
Motion Carried.
REZONING REQUEST (ARCAND/KEYSTONE BUILDERS).
Ms. Irene Arcand and Keystone Builders, Inc., have made application to the
City of Hugo for the rezoninq of 160 acres from agriculture to RRI. The
property in question is described as the Easterly 1/' of the SE 1114 of
Section T31N, R21W, and the Western 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 34
2/
City Council meeting of 7/21/88
T__:�iN, R21W, and approximately 2.1.' acres owned by Irene Arcand lying
north, northwest of County Road 10 in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section
5, T.:30N, R 1W. The property abuts on 125th Street on the north and County
Road 10 on the south. Agriculture zones require a minimum 10 acre lot
size while the developers are requesting RRI zoning which allows for three
acre minimum lot size. The applicant is proposing this rezoning with the
intent to subdivide said site into approximately 40 buildable lots and
construct homes in a price range of $,200,000 to $40O,0Oc_>. The applicant
has entered into a purchase aqreement to buy the lair acres in question if
the property is rezoned. The developers have indicated that they intend
to develop the land taking into account the wooded areas and lowlands as
valuable aesthetic features of the site. The property in question abuts
Grant Township to the south, agricultural zoned areas on the west and
northwest, SFE and RRII zones to the northeast, and an agricultural zone
to the east. The Hugo Planning Commission held a public hearinq on this
request February 24, 1988. The Planning Commission heard considerable
opposition to this proposal by property owners surrounding the site in
question. The major objections to this rezoning were as follows:
1. Could the soils in this area handle on-site septic systems?
2. Can the roads handle the increased traffic generated by this
development?
3. Would the taxes of adjacent property owners go up as a result of
increased property values?
4. The area in question should remain rural in nature.
5. Can schools handle the increased enrollment created by the
development?
b. This type of development was not consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
7. Concern that a precedent would be set allowing for further rezonings
to RRI in this area.
The developers argued that they came to Hugo because of its rural nature
and that they felt three acre zoning was rural, and the type of
development being proposed was very similar to the types of development.
around Sunset Lake and Round LaL.-e east of the site in question. They
stated that the type of development proposed would be a very high-quality
development which would be a significant increase to the city's tax base.
The road system and on-site drainage would be constructed as per city
subdivision regulations, and the design of the subdivision would take into
consideration the aesthetic features of the site.
Commissioners opposing the rezoning indicated the following as their
reasons for their position:
1. Lack: of a detailed plan of
2. Neighborhood opposition.
tip. Concern that the drop from
requirement was too great.
development
a 10 acre lot requirement to ? acre
The commissioners supporting the rezoninq stated the following,reasons for
their position:
1. A three acre development would not be significantly different from the
type of development occurring around Sunset. Lake and Round LaE::e in the
close proximity to the site.
3,2,
City
,2 -
City Council meeting of _/11'88
That this is the type of development the City of Hugo should be
promoting.
The soil conditions on site could handle on-site septic systems
without any major problems.
4. There were adequate roads in the area to handle the type of traffic
volume increase generated by this size of development.
The Planning Commission seemed in agreement that profitability for the
developers should not be a consideration, either for or against the
rezoning in question. The commission also appeared in agreement that
there is a need for more RRI and RRII types of development in the city of
Hugo. The question is, "Where is the appropriate location for the smaller
rural lot?"
If the developers adequately address the concerns and questions raised by
neighborhood opposition to the project, I would suspect that the big
issues for the City Council, in addition to constituent pressure, will be
as follows:
1. Is there a need for high-quality residential development in the City
of Hugo?
2. Is there a need for more RRI and RRII zoning districts?
3. Is a rural residential district in fact rural in nature?
4. How does an RRI district compare to an RRII district in terms of
permitted uses under our city zoning classifications?
S. Is the rezoning to 3. acre lots consistent with the development trends
of the community south of County Road 8A in recent years?
b. Is the minimum lot size for rural areas 10 acres or five gross acres
as identified in the comprehensive plan?
On March, 1988, the developers formally requested that the City Council
table this request to the March 21, 1988 City Council meeting allowing
them additional time to gather information necessary to respond to the
concerns and questions raised at the Planning Commission hearing.
This request was tabled by the City Council to the March 21, 1988 regular
meeiinq.
Joanne Swanson, spokesperson for citizens against the rezoning, read from
a prepared text outlining reasons why the city should deny the application
for rezoning. Some of their concerns as are follows: considerable number
of swamps and ponds, spot zoning, adjoining community (Grant Township)
requires 10 acre lot size, altering of terrain, no Environmental Impact
Statement, already over crowded schools in district (Mahtomedi.), developer
does not care about community, only profit.
Steve Sondrall, attorney for F=:eystone Builders, approached the Council
with his presentation and reasons why they should approve the rezoning
request. Mr. Sondrall submitted numerous copies of documents to
substantiate his position, and the following is a list of his findings:
1. The comprehensive land map indicates the land is not prime
agricultural land, as it is presently zoned, but better suited for
rural residential development.
33
City Council meeting of 7_,;'21/88
Three acres would be a buffer from the smaller lots in the surrounding
area.
3. The Washinqton County Transportation Flan indicates that County Road
10 is capable of handling the increased volume of traffic from the
proposed development.
4. The soils in the area will be able to accommodate on-site septic
systems.
b. Stated that the proposed development is in compliance with the
comprehensive plans for the City of Hugo and Washington County.
Because a 4/5's vote is required to rezone property, and Councilman Deane
Fail was absent, Mr. Sondrall requested that the application for rezoning
be tabled until the next regular City Council meeting (4/4/88).
Peltier made motion, Potts seconded, to table the application of Irene
Arcand/Keystone Builders for rezoning until the Council meeting of 4/4/88.
All aye. Motion Carried.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mayor Atkinson requested that the city attorney determine what costs are
owed, and by whom, relative to the Potts vs Hugo matter.
City Administrator, f -,::en Huber, distributed a copy of the proposed
personnel policy for city employees. He suggested that the Council review
and be prepared to make comments on the policy.
Mayor Atkinson mentioned that the city administrator had mailed a
questionnaire to the City Council regarding possible changes in the city's
zoning ordinance. Mayor Atkinson stated that the Council's opinions were
important in determining what changes, if any, should be made to the
existing ordinance and encouraged them to return a completed survey to
City Hall.
Peltier made motion, Olson seconded, to adjourn at 9:5 PM.
All aye. Motion Carried.
MaryA Creager, City rk
City Hugo