HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974.10.17 CC Minutes OCTOBER 11 , 1974 MINUTES OF THE HUGO SEWER ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARING
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:08 P.M. by Mayor Lease, City
Council members present were: Lease, Smith, Lex ux, LaValle and
Martin. Also present were Charles Johnson, City Attorney; Howard
Kuusisto and Brian Amundson, City Engineers; and Robert Ehlers Sr.
and Robert Ehlers Jr. , Fiscal Agents.
The City Deputy Clerk read the Public Hearing notice published in
the Forest Lake Times.
Mr. Ehlers explained the financial aspects of the project. He
stated that at the first public hearing the perimeter to operate
under consisted of no tax levy, meaning those people receiving
sewer would pay for the sewer. Estimates at the first meeting'
were: $11 .00 per foot - $150.00 REC - $100.00 Service Connection.
He stated that we have a $850,000 bond, supplemented by a $357,000
Federal Grant so the proposed charges are: $9.00 per foot (plus
25 feet on the side, if a corner lot) - $515.00 REC - and $150.00
service connection. User fee for operation and maintennance will'
be $6.00 per month. In addition to this., there will be a $300.00
SAC Charge to cover interceptor and treatment facilities provided
by Metropolitan Sewer Board which must be paid in cash.
The meeting was opened to the public for comments and questions.
Greg Gruber - 14918 Foxhill Avenue - Mr. Gruber wanted to know
if the $300.00 SAC charge was included with the assessment sent
to him. He was told that the SAC charge was in addition to his
assessment. He asked if the SAC charge would increase in two
years if he waited until then to hookup. He was told it would
increase about $25.00 per year. He also wanted to know why the
SAC charge increased from $150.00 to $300.00. Mr. Ehlers explained
that if we would have hooked up in 1973, the cost would have been
cut in half by Metro.
Mrs. Sterling Ashby - 5980 Oneka Lake Blvd. - Mrs. Ashby wanted
a definition on SAC Charge, Stub Charge and REC Charge. She also
wanted an explanation of the form letter sent out. Mr. Lease
explained the SAC Charge againand stated that the Sub charge is
the same as the service connection. He also stated that the REC
charge is to finance the total project. Mr. Ehlers explained that
finance charges covered cost of main in street, lift stations, man-
holes, force mains, etc.
RobertRicci - 14716 Fondant Avenue - He wanted to know about REC
charges for doubledwellings and why he was charged 10 RECs for
his bar and restaurant. Mr. Lease explained that they used 20
seats per REC and took the number of seats off of his liquor license.
Mr. Ricci also wanted to know if he would be charged $6.00 per month
like everyone else? Mr. Ehlers explained that the metering of the
winter quarter water bill would determine the amount of the sewer
bill. He also wanted to know if they took the longest side on a
corner lot. Mr. Lease stated that they used the front plus 25 feet
on the side but he would check with the engineer to see how his
was determined.
Mrs. Ruth Coil - 14885 Forest Blvd. - Mrs. Coil wanted the REC
Charge explained again. Mr. Ehlers explained it again. She
also wanted to know why we didn't leave the footage charge at
$10.00 or $12.00 and leave the REC Charge lower. Mr. Ehlers
explained that people coming in later will have to pay for the
sewer too if the REC Charge is higher. Mrs. Coil also askei if
---,A
ti...�..1 .. .t... nl l .......A v.�. - �-� L�n 'nlr •�r M _ T.P'.IQP RtatE a
OCTOBER 11 , 1974 i93
a
Darrell Granger - Grangers Body Shop and DX Service - Mr. Granger
wanted to know why he was charged two RECS when they were incor-
porated as one business. Mr. Lease explained that the Council felt
there whould be one REC for each the DX Station and Body Shop. Mr.
Granger said that he would like a better explaination to why he
was charged two RECS at a later time.
Mr. Ehlers stated that after adoption of the assessment rolls
you still have an alternative if you think the Council has been
unfair and you cantt resolve the problem, you can have a court
appeal.
Alan Oberg - 14590 Fitzgerald Avenue No. - Mr. Oberg wanted to
know when they could hook up. Mr. Kuusisto stated that they have
a target date of November 15th. Pumping stations have to be put
in place yet and they still have to tunnel under the highway and
railroad tracks. Some people on the west side of the tracks will
be able to hookup prior to this date.
Howard Moe - 5989 Oneka Lake Blvd. - Parcel No. 35020-2300 - Mr.
Moe stated that he is being charged for 50 feet that he does not
own. It is presently owned by Bill Trepanier. Mr. Ehlers (aid
he should have his records straightened out at the County offices.
Mr. Moe also wanted to know if we were getting charged for the
cost of selling the bonds. The answer was yes.
Adam Mikrot - 1969 Utica Avenue Parcel No. 35135-8700 Mr. Mikrot
stated that he was charged for 158 feet. He has two 75 foot lots
and the footage should be 1.50 feet.
Joe Vignallo representing Albert Ethier - 5421 145 Street-
Parcel Nos. 35135-5750 and 35135-5650 - Mr. Vignallo stated that
the property was just surveyed and they have two 50' lots but one
of the lots was charged for 52.1 feet.
Harley Johnson - 5226 Frenchman Rd. - Mr. Johnson wanted to know how
the price on the farm land was arrived at. Mr. Lease explained that
it was determined by the same method as everyone else except some
have green acres. Mr. Johnson objected to being assess for land
that isn't assessable to the sewer. He said the sewer was useless
to him because he only has one hookup.
Mr. Ehlers stated that the Assessment rolls have to be adopted
quickly because they have to be at the County Auditors by Nov.
15 and to get on next years taxes. The total assessment can be paid
prior to November 15 without having to pay any interest. They
want to pay after November 15 they can pay the County Auditor
directly.
Frank Huebl. - 5924 Oneka Lake Blvd. - Parcel No. 35020-2550 -
Mr. Huebl has a 125 foot lot but was charged for 150 feet. The
city wanted to run_ the line on the back of their property
which was no advantage to the property owners. It would increase
the cost of running the line from the stub to the house. He
objected to the extra 25 feet charged.
1921 Mrs. Drexel Pugh - 13793 Forest Blvd. - Parcel No. 35029-2900
and 35029-2810 - Mrs. Pugh stated she only owned one lot but
was charged for two. She said parcel no. 35029-2900 belonged to
Fred Fullbright.
Jim Wisner - 5811 Lower 147th Street - He wanted to know how they
determined the footage on his lot. He was told to check with Mr.
Kuusisto.
Knute Skjerseth - 5687 140th Street - He wanted to know what the
$300.00 SAC charge was. It was to pay for the interceptor and
for sewer availability capacity at the treatment facility.
Bill Beaman - 14749 Foxhill - What will the cost be for the plumbers
to hook up from the stub to the house. Mr. Lease stated that it
depended on hookup and distance and that every house was different.
He said estmates were running about $6.00 per foot.
Rongald Sparrow 5946 Oneka Lake Blvd. - Parcel No. 35020-2650 -
Mr. Sparrow wanted to know what his assessment slip meant. He
was charged for 125 feet and his lot was only 100 feet wide. He
stated that the Engineer wanted the line to run in back of his
property and that it was not an advantage to him. He was not told
that he would be charged as extra 25 feet when he agreed to have the
line put in back of his property instead of in front. It will also
cost him more to get from the stub to the house now that the line is
in the back. Mr. Sparrow also wantedto know if anyone would be
able to do their own work. Mr. Lease stated that certain people
would be able to d, a certain amount of their. own work but they
would have to have a licensed plumber do the hookup at the stub.
Mr. Sparrow wanted to know if the $515.00 REC charge included the
inspection fees. Mr. Lease said that inspection fees would be
$10.00 more.
Mr. Snyder - 14897 Foxhill - Mr. Snyder did not receive an assessment
slip for his property and checking with the county records his property
is listed under a Hendrickson and he has 117 feet of taxable property.
He said when Husnik had the survey done, they took some of his
property on the north and south and he doesn't know how much footage
he will be paying for.
Joe Ohman - Objected to method of assessing the Trailer Park.
Sterling Ashby - 5980 Oneka Blvd. The Ashby's lot is 162 feet
wide and they were charged an extra 25 feet because the line was
installed in the back of their property at the engineers request.
The City Attorney said they couldn't be charged for this extra 25
feet.
Arthur Thornquist - 5649 142nd Street - Parcel No. 35135-8200 -
Mr. Thornquist objected to paying for an extra 25 feet on corner
lots where it is no advantage. He objected to paying for an extra
25 feet when the city is using 15 feet of that for a road.
Gerald Mrkvicka - 5812 147th Street - Mrs. Mrkvicka explained
that they have two houses (one small house rented out) and only
one stub was installed for both houses and they felt they should
only be charged for one REC. Would like to be notified of decision.
OCTOBER 11 , 1974 A
A
James Erickson - 14593 Forest Blvd. - Parcel Nos. 35135-4600 and
35135-4650 - Mr. Erickson wanted to know if he was charged two
RECS - he owned two lots with one home. We checked the assessment
rolls and he was only charged one: .REC.
Vern Peloquin - 15226 Forest Blvd. Mr. Peloquin objected to be
assessed for property directly east of the school. The line was
put in at the request of the city not his and he was paid damages
for this easement. The line does not benefit him because it does
not have a stub and it is on the side of his lot and not in the
front. He also objected to the people being chrged the extra 25
feet because the line was put on the bask of their property. This
was an advantage of the city not the property owners as they didn't
have to contend with power lines, water and gas lines. Mr. Peloquin
also requested that he be taken off of green acres because all it
does is accumulate interest and eventually you have to pay it anyway.
Mr. Peloquin would like to meet with the Council on. . the above matters.
Robert Peck - 14018 Fondant No. - Mr. Peck protested against the
25 feet extra for corner lots. He felt it was discrimination. He
would like an accounting of those who have front connections who are
not being discriminated against.
Marvin LaValle - 5297 145th Street No. - Mr. LaValle objected to
corner lots on open land - land being serviced with sewer that is
unbuildable - and also land along 145th Street being doubly assessed.
The public hearing was closed at 9:17 P.M.
Listed below are written objections submitted:
Mrs. Frank Quimet - 14655 Forest Blvd. No. - Mrs. Quimet objected
to being charged for three frontages. Kuusisto suggested that the
assessment be changed by a minus 1 REC and a minus 94 feet.
Knut Skjerseth - 5687 140th Street No. - Mr. Skjerseth objected to
the assessment hearing notice.
Robert E. Burkard - 14620 Finley Street - Parcel No. 35320-2500
Mr. Burkard was assessed for a stub on his vacant lot that was
not installed. He requests that this $150.00 stub charge be
removed from his assessment.
Vern Peloquin - 15226 Forest Blvd. - Mr. Peloquin feels he does
not benefit from the sewer and he is not being treated fairly. He
would like to meet with the Council.
Virgil M. Sontag - 14199 Fondant Avenue - Parcel No. 35135-8100 -
Mr. Sontag was assessed for 135 feet and his front footage is 124.7
feet.
Deane N. Vail - 5672 142nd Street - Parcel No. 35135-7850 - Mr.
Vail was assessed for 135 feet and he only has 75 feet of frontage.
Joseph P. Thill - 6022 Egg Lake Road - Parcel No. 35029 - 20 -
Mr. Thill was charged for sewer and it doesn't go in front of any
of his property. Supposedly the property is owned by Marlow Lindau.
Marie Jansen, Secretary
Hugo Planning Commission
lan4 Sewer Committee
,- OCTOBER 17, 1974 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF HUGO
The special meeting was called to order at 7:15 PM by Mayor Lease.
Roll was called: Lease, Leroux, Martin present, LaValle Smith absent.
Also present were Planning Commission members Spitzer, Peloquin, Ehret,
Schletty, City Attorney, Charles Johnson, & Ordinance Committee members
Peltier, Vignalo, Devney, & Miron.
Mayor Lease stated the meeting was called to discuss recommended changes
in the proposed zoning ordinance from the Planning Commission, Ordinance
Committee, and Council. The Ordinance Committe had made thirty one (31 )
recommended changes to be discussed to put the ordinance together.
Another public hearing can then be held, and then the ordinance could be
put into effect.
Lee Martin said a major item to clear up was recommendations from the
Planning Commission regarding lot sizes west of the Sewer Service Area.
The Council felt there should be a couple designations of Rural Residential;
five acres and two acres. Mayor Lease then mentioned that a Flood Plain
Area had also been added to the zoning map in accordance with the HUD
people. From the east side of the city, there would be ten, five, three,
and two acre lots until coinciding with the Sewer Area.
Dan Spitzer said the Planning Commission felt that since the northwestern
corner of the city is in the Metro Sewer Service Area, it could be zoned
a little differently than the northeastern part which was out of the Metro
Sewer Area. He also said the zoning is still based on our own sewer plans
and the Metro Sewer plans, basically. Most zoning ordinances past in this
State have been upheld by the Courts.
Attorney Johnson stated he didn't think anyone could ever attack Hugo for
not considering and thinking through their ordinance. There are reasons
for designating different size lots, and they are not economically grossl
out of propostion. He thought there was a supportable position for every
size lot.
Spitzer questioned the Council's changing the northwestern area in the
Metro Sewer Area from RR to A. Johnson said you cant logically justify
zoning classification strictly on sewer.
Spitzer said objections will be heard from those people in the northwest
corner who will want to develop their land in a few years, being in the
Sewer Area. Mayor Lease said the city doesn't want pockets of sewer all
over the city. Irene Leroux said there will be requests for rezoning any
way it is done. Mr. Schletty felt there would be arguments between those
with C and those with A, also. Ehret said by virtue of the proposed develop-
ment of the city, the Planning Commission had chosen RR for the northwest
corner.
Martin said there were also areas to the east considered Lakeshore, and
there should be some zoning for this. Johnson said the Department of
Natural Resources has certain restvicti_oris ori setback, etc. , e.g. 75 feet
from a lake, well 50 feet from the septic tank, and septic tank 50 feet
from the lake. He will check with Rice Creek Watershed on their regulations.
Discussion was then held on the various recommended changes by the
Ordinance Committee, most of which were viewed as satisfactory with
all present, except those discussed in detail and listed below.
OCTOBER 17, 1974 1 r�
"Commercial Pen Feeding"-there would be a provision for this as a per-
mitted special use in the agricultural district.
Number 5 would be eliminated altogether.
Regarding swimming pools as permitted special uses, the Ordinance Com-
mittee felt they should be accessory uses rather than the Council being
deluged with special use permits. Johnson said if they thought there
would be trouble with pools, review it once, and set down certain recom-
mendations then.
Page 18, Subd. D (3) is to be deleted.
The Ordinance Committee wanted a definition of "Non-residential area".
Spitzer felt it should be "non-standard". Mr. Johnson is to check this.
Spitzer explained reasons for the front, side and rear yard setbacks;
they want 300 feet after the road is cut out ( subdivision). Devney questioned
whether they would be unduly restricting development. Spitzer said you
have to allow for the roads. Mr. Johnson stated Howard Kuusisto should be
consulted as to some kind of a number of feet.
Spitzer explained the maximum percentages of area to be covered with
parking surfaces or structures. Johnson suggested changing some of the
percentages in the business area. He said every acre set aside on large
development is a large economic factor.
Regarding "item to retain a natural appearance", Johnson felt it should
be inserted under "Intents and Purposes" rather than Gai page 26.
There were many questions on the meaning of "open use of land". Spitzer
said the Planning Commission felt this would be a way to phase out the
junk yards, as they are an open use of land, This is to be better defined.
Discussion ensued on page 27, number 4 regarding rebuilding a non-con-
forming structure after damage of 50 % or more. Johnson is to clarify this.
There is to be a definition of "principal building".
Page 28, Subd. B, Number 2 is to be retained (access via private easement. )
Johnson is to redefine number 4, Subd. , H, page 31 , and number 5 of that
page is to be deleted.
Regarding "farming operations* on page 32, Johnson explained "site plan
approval" to erect a structure valued at over $1000.00 on a farm. Worfing
to be "site plan approval".
The subject of lamination controls is to be put eleswhere (an ordinance) .
Johnson to check if Land Reclamation and Soil Processing covered in
I other ordinances.
Page 38, Subd. B number 9, insert wording such as "clerk shall notify owner
or operator, but failure to do so shall not nullify the termination of
permit".
198 OCTOBER 17, 1974
Motion made and seconded to extend the meeting past 11 :00 PM. Motion
carried.
Page 38, Subd. C - Retain first sentence.
Johnson to check on "appeals".
Lee Martin felt the uses or requirements of RR1 and RR2 should be defined.
Motion made by Leroux, and seconded to adjourn at 11 :25 PM. Motion carried.
Robert E. :urkard, C er
City of Hugo