The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1977.04.26 CC Minutes 3 ,�P RIL 26, 1977 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPECIAL METING "SYSTEMS STATEMENT" The meeting was called to order by acting Mayor, Dan Spitzer, at 7:15 P.M. PRESENT: City Council - Irsfeld, Spitzer, and Vail Planning Commission - Ehret, Rosenquist, Greger, Peloquin, Peltier, Gillen, and McAllister City Attorney - Charles Johnson City Engineer - Howard Kuusisto Planner - Carl Dale ABSENTS Mayor LaValle and Schletty Carl Dale's general comments were that the City of Hugo has a comprehensive develop- ment plan which has been accepted by the Metropolitan Council and is, in fact, being used as a model by Metro for comprehensive planning in communities of need. The overall systems statement has been compiled on erroneous information. The City of Hugo should forward updated ordinances/resolutions on controls andregulations regarding building and plarming to Metro Council. The systems statement was based on comparable cities that do not enforce or impose controls. Specific objectives, such as regabilita- tion or substandard housing, should be clearly defined by Metro so Hugo can comply. At this time, he felt the city neither agrees nor denies the pending systems statement. Other questionable issues to be interpreted for Hugo by Metro Council are as follows: POPULATION - There is general concern regarding the impact of the projected growth population. These projections were made in 1973, but are to be re-evaluated this year. HIGHWAYS - TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN - What plans are projected for Forest Lake transportation? City of Hugo could utilize their system. Question statement that no additional access is currently planned for I-35 is there a possibility that a feeder road could traffic east. GENERAL PLANNING ON TRANSIT Regarding the 25,500 person trips beginning or ending in Hugo not a realistic figure. - - - Stated Metro will need to receive population household and employ- ment data from Hugo by traffic assignment zone - clarify. Regarding population, who bears the cost or a census survey? AIRPORTS - - - Questioned whether Oneka Lake would qualify as a seaplane operations. INTERCEPTORS AND TREATMENT PLANTS - - - Ingo has an interceptor plan which was already accepted by Metro, but question the MWCC statement they shall not issue permits for connection to sewer facilities by any development in the Rural Service Area un- less action is consistent with local comprehensive sewer plan as approved. Hugo feels the MWCC is inconsistent. - - - Why isn't Hugo in the area of Planned Urbanization? - - - Hugo questions the result in downstream interceptor - - Could we be out off from sewer? - - What about Hugo's guarantee capacity? - r - Hugo has paid for sewer usage, now Metro says we can't use. - - - What modifications do they want in our stage development plan? CENTERVILLE INTERCEPTOR - - - No excess force main for South Frenchman Road. - - - Hugo derives no benefit from the interceptor. - - - Question site location of Centerville interceptor. - - - What is the capacity of the Centerville sewer line? - - - Sewered residential population 2500 by 1990 - - Should Hugo re-negotiate rate structure? - - - Howard Kuusisto to submit plans. ON-+SITE DISPOSAL - - - On-site sewage disposal system is governed by Hugo Ordinance 1976-132. STORM WATER - - - Hugo has a storm sewer, and_in_outlying areas, control water by ditching RE-SOLUTION whereas, Ramsey County presented a plan for acquiring and developing a park in the City of Hixgo and Washington County in the Fall and Y;inter of 1976 to be called Otter Lake Park; Vihereas, The people in the area of the proposed park reasonably and vigoruosly opposed the acquistion and development of a park in this area. To assure that their sentiments were known and that they understood the plan, these people attended and testified before the Hugo City Planning Commission and the Hugo City Council; Aere"s The Hugo City Planning Commission listened to the Ramsey County plan for acquiring and developing a park, considered the viers of the residents of the area and the people of Hugo, and unanimously voted to recommend that the Hugo City Council delay the acquistion and development of the portion of Otter Lake Park in Hugo and Washington Couaty; tirha-eas, Th9 Hugo City Council carefully reheard the Ramsey county plan for acgdxing and developing a park, considered the views of the residents of the area and the people of Hugo, and the unanimous recommendation of the Hugo City Planning Cammissica, and voted unanimously to der the acquistion and deve:.opment of the portion of Otter Lake Park in Rn, and U,ashitlgton County; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Hugo City Planning Commission requests that the Metropolitan Council and the Metropoi.,itan Parks and open Space Commission stop .further attempts to acquire and develop an Otter Lake Park in Hugo and Washington County and delete the Otter Lake Park in Hugo and rfashington County from the Metropolitan System statement, L •!'''s .�M s.' 1 MINUTES OF THE PROCEE:;INGS t OF • SPECIAL MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL • 4 AND PLANNING COMMISSION • • • CITY OF HUGO • • JULY 1,, 1976 TIME: 7:15 P.M. July 11, 1976 • PRESENT: Lease, LaValle, Leroux, Smith and Schletty • PLANNING COMMISSION: Spitzer, Peltier, Peloquin, Greger k • Ehret METROPOLITAN PARK BOARD: Bernard Edmunds Larry Holmberg Neil Franey RA1SEY COUNTY PARK BOARD: Beverly McCumber i Bob Nethercott ` Elliot Perovich if Purpose of the meeting was to discuss the plans and future development of the Open Space Program on the East Side of Bald I. Eagle Lake. Thirteen homes are involved in the acquisition. 1325 acres is total acreage to be acquired, 392 Lino Lakes, Anoka County, 60 acres Hugo, Washington County and 873 White Bear Township, Ramsey County. Bald Eagle Take area mainly to serve as a recreational area whereas Otter Lake would be more for wildlife. i. City questioned the tax loss if the homes in the area were acquired. County said they would pay the taxes for the next ifive years at 20% phase out. Future assessments would also be paid by the County if the assessment were beneficial to the Open Space Program. Abpraisal would be done by two independent t appraisers and a third appraiser would establish the saleable property. Residents may choose to remain there the rest of their k lives but upon resale, County could condemn. E': City questioned maintenance of the park, road and the polici::o problem itwould impose. Wanted a firm committment from the i County regardingthe eventual sewering in the area. Wanted more data on the traffic flow and at what year the park area would reach a saturating point. Wanted proof of cost appraisals in other areas were the open space program has developed,whether surrounding property values increase or decrease. Questioned t two areas of road -that are quite narrow and suggestion further • • 2 of 2 1); L ) ccomociatc. 3.: b.'. t . • re i J.! -.Jr: •f!!•',. . • Lq.rnt.:.:i • i 7 1. :•• • • , . • ; t• V0,70.1 " e wher•,. .,• F Ni t 3 wo LC1..1 c'Jstlu, .:;ed tr:or€: ar.. ..‘ o• 0.; 1-4,11:c, ad an.. 7 " sons :r• . • -1. . •".•, • :• j n .is ::-1(..,cr;r4... .1 it will 1.;•• Co:Ird'. SS i of for tl.eir reviev: . •: a(111:111,.; 1!..f: • r resi:.ent of tile , I3 I 1 p orii11tC : t 7•!etro CJancil . Oct,- a Carol L. City of /cw I .• APRIL 26, 1977 35 OPEN SPACE — — — Attach copy of minutes of informational meeting of July 13, 1976. On October 13, 1976, City Council passed motion denying the request of the Ramsey County Open Space. Attach resolution. Acquisition of the northeast section of Bald Eagle Lake — — Hugo feels they are already protectin- the land in a open space manner. The area is already being utilitzed, and benefiting the public in hiking, biking, etc. Zoning requirements main— tain buildable sites on one acre; to twenty acres, keeping it an agrarian area. Hugo feels they have zoned the city to an agreeable manner, and should be acceptable by the Council. tt,t.,-e ( _L1 Carol A. Williams, Clerk City of Hugo