Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutres_7317 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA - HELD FEBRUARY 22, 1982 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall in said City on the 22nd day of February, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. The following Council members were present: Kehr, Curley, Johnson, Franke, and Mayor Demos. and the following member was absent: None. Member Franke introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 7317 WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council at its October 12, 1981 meeting approved Veronica Miller's request for preliminary plat at 2778 Lakeview. WHEREAS, after notice was published in the official newspaper, a public hearing was conducted at Veronica Miller's request for final plat approval; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statutes call for a resolution approving subdivision plats, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Veronica Miller's request for final plat at 2778 Lakeview is approved. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member Johnson, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: All present. and the following voted against: None. WHEREUPON, the said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. February 22, 1982 Veronica Miller STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Manager of the City of Roseville, Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of said City Council held February 22, 1982, with the original on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to approval of final plat. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City this 22nd day of February, 1982. ~ /, . . ,/ . --zJ . c"-->f;' >1 /" , / ." . ;;e<-<<<-f> /" mes F. c;;-;te, Ci ty Manager l/ SEAL Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Roseville Ramsey County, Minnesota February 8, 1982 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, was held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, February 8, 1982, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Demos and Councilmen Curley, Kehr, Franke and Johnson; and the following were absent: None. Also present were James F. Andre, City Manager; Roger Jensen of Peterson, Bell & Converse, City Attorneys; Charles V. Honchell, City Public Works Director; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultants. MAYOR DEMOS: The next hearing is for Improvement No. SS-8l-l8, sanitary sewer service for 3056 Raymond Avenue. MR. ANDRE: We have the Certificate of Mailing and Affi- davit of Publication on file. MR. HONCHELL: This particular property is located on the extreme north end of Raymond Avenue, the last home. 35W would be located at the top of the screen. Once again, a structure that has a sewer near it but not quite to it. It's a fairly old sanitary sewer. In talking to the owner at various times, there appears to have been some confusion - to use a polite word - I really don't know what happened back 20 some years ago when this was built - but as to providing a sewer at a depth everyone thought it was at. There is an existing sanitary sewer that comes to this point and, as you can see, in yellow, it stops in front of the neighbor. I don't know why it stopped in front of the neighbor, but it did. The proposal would be to bring, again, just a service, not a mainline, from that man- hole, through the edge of the cul-de-sac, to a point near a tree and the driveway of the parcel involved. Our survey records indicate that that is low enough to serve the struc- ture and it would be practically two and a half feet below the lowest floor elevation so that the structure could then - so the Owner of the structure could hire a plumber to come out and hook into it. Once again we have a problem in that the owner of the property is a fairly elderly gentleman. He indicated to me in some conversations throughout this process that originally he was interested in having a sanitary sewer connected and was told that he couldn't because of elevations or access or some- thing. Now he doesn't really feel he wants it, at least according to the conversations we had. I don't know what more I can say to you. I'm sure if he's here he will be able to present his own views. I merely brought that up in case he isn't here tonight. I don't happen to see him out there. As in the case of some of the others, this parcel was not assessed for sanitary sewer (inaudible) because it wasn't built. In the event the project is approved, there would be a $487.00 fee because there have never been any assessments for a sewer and he has never paid for any of that sewer that he would be connecting to. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: How about 3060? Has that parcel been assessed? MR. HONCHELL: Yes. They're all connected except this one. MR. POPOVICH: The total published cost of this project is $3,6l7.00 and. it's recommended that it be lOO% assessed, together with the trunk sewer assessment which Charlie indicated is $487.00, so it would be a little over $4,000. Obviously, based on today's market, we would recommend that it not be assessed over a period longer than IS years. MAYOR DEMOS: Are there any written statements? MR. ANDRE: There are none. MAYOR DEMOS: I will now open this hearing to the public and ask that you come to the microphone and state your name and address. MR. FRANCIS GRUBBS, 3056 Raymond Avenue: I never did understand why I wasn't hooked up 18 years ago when I would have liked to come in. Now I'm sick and I don't (inaudible). I just got done putting in a new drain field and septic tank. I told my neighbor I was told that I couldn't hook up at the time they went through. I assumed that it was down the road. Now they'p have to go another 120 feet when they could just as well have gone that distance before. That's about all I have to say. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: How long ago did you put in the drain field? MR. GRUBBS: I put in a new one about four years ago. 2 MR. ANDRE: Is that when they went through with the County sanitary sewer? MR. GRUBBS: Yes. MR. ANDRE: Did they replace that for you? MR. GRUBBS: Partly. They paid for part of the septic tank. (Inaudible) I can't see any real need for it. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: Did you live there then, when they . . . MR. GRUBBS: Yes, I did. COUNCILMAN KEHR: Would you accept deferred payment on this, if it was put in? MR. GRUBBS: I suppose I'd have to. MR. ANDRE: What he's referring to is that the City has a policy that if you're 65 years or older or this would constitute a hardship, you could defer that assessment on your property and that would continue as long as you lived there. You would not be making any payments on the assessment as long as you lived there. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: There would be no cost to you as long as you live there. It would be against the property COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: How about the connection? Is he obligated to connect to it? MAYOR DEMOS: He would have to pay the hook up cost . . . MR. GRUBBS: I was under the impression that I couldn't hook up (inaudible). My neighbor, Mr. Modjeski, they told him that he couldn't hook up at that time. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: Would there be such a thing that by hooking him up 18 years ago it maybe would have made the entire cost so high that the other people objected and that's why it wasn't done? MR. HONCHELL: it didn't happen. It would be pure speculation to say why I just don't know. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: He could have done it a lot cheaper then. MR. ALLAN MODJESKI, 3060 Raymond Avenue: I guess I'd like to just interject something for Mr. Grubbs. We built the place just as they put in the sewer. At that time, they were not going to come down to pick up my home. They were going to stop up at 3046. They picked up 3050, next to me. They're missing a house in there somewhere. At that time they said they were not coming down to pick up my home. I came 3 before the Council then, or the Commission that was handling it, and said I was putting up a home, spending some good money for it, and I would like to benefit from the sewer. At that time they said they would, but they would not come all the way down in front of my home like everybody else and that I would have to run my line from my house, which is on the northern side - I'd have to come from in here, not over here - and run it all the way across my property line. I said if they brought it down to my property line, I would go that far and spend the extra money to hook up to it. At that time we did ask about Mr. Grubbs' property and they said no way would they spend the money to pick up the other property. He would have to continue doing what he is doing today. With that option, he didn't pursue it any further. The people - I forget who the lawyer was at that time, I think it was probably Mr. Bell - thought that the Village was obligated, since I was putting up a home, under construction, and I had my permits already in and had started construction - they figured the Village was obligated and that they would run the sewer that far for me. Thereafter they did, but they said they definitely would not go any further than that. Right now, since at that time they said it wasn't feasible to do it, I don't know what has changed in l7 years to make it feasible now. When Mr. Honchell said that it's at a level two and a half feet below ground, that he could pick it up, I venture to say - with the winter we had here, with below zero weather for l5 days or so - that two and a half feet is not enough to keep anything from freezing. I am sure that each of you live in homes that have sewer - if it was two and a half feet below ground - you wouldn't be very happy with it in this climate. It would probably work down in. Florida, but I don't think you'd live with it here. That ground, I'm sure, freezes to a depth of more than two and a half feet. I think it's totally unrealistic to expect somebody who l8 years ago wanted to hook up and was told he could not, now to expect him to hook up to :a sewer and live with a condition, not knowing from winter to winter whether he's going to have frozen lines or not, when in fact today he is living with a sewer that he spent some good money on just a few years back to accommodate his needs. COUNCILMAN KEHR: Mr. Honchell's statement was not two and a half feet below the surface of the ground - it was two and a half feet below the lower floor level. That puts you at about six and a half to seven feet below ground. MR. MODJESKI: There's no basement in his house. MR. HONCHELL: The land does slope away from the street toward th~ home, as I recall, which would make it more than two and half feet. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: How deep is the line at your property? MR. MODJESKI: I honestly can't tell you. I'm hooked in in my basement. I'm down eleven blocks - I have one block extra 4 in my basement. I haven't shot the property (inaudible) but I would agree that Mr. Honchell certainly knows what he's talking about - the heights involved. I don't think, when I put it in, that I had any problems hooking in except that I ran my sewer line probably three times longer than I would have if they had put a sewer in to start with. COUNCILMAN KEHR: Do you have a lift pump? MR. MODJESKI: No. COUNCILMAN KEHR: Then you're okay. MR. MODJESKI: I'm okay. He does have a problem. It's a problem he would not have had if the sewer had been hooked up to start with. COUNCILMAN KEHR: The frost today is probably at four or five feet. MR. MODJESKI: I would expect so. I think probably every winter is at three feet anyway. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a house that had a three foot sewer. MR. HONCHELL: The alternatives to utilize the sewer like that are (a) to have an ejector pump to go to the manhole, which is amply deep, or (b) to insulate your service as it comes from the house until it got deeper. As I recall, the land is sloping away from the cul-de-sac toward the home. As you go a certain distance, it would be getting deeper and deeper. That problem would eventually not be there any more. I'm not minimizing it - I'm just trying to respond. MAYOR DEMOS: I guess I feel that anyone who :refused to hook up, should be required to. I guess I feel there are extenuating circumstances here. Let me ask you - if the Council did choose not to go this route for this one - is there anyway you can "red flag" that house so that when it changes hands the new owner would be required to? MR. HONCHELL: We can ask the County to so-call "red flag" when the ownership changes. One of the problems in doing that, I guess, is that if the Council deems it is not needed now, it may be difficult, legally, to determine why it's needed three years from now for someone else that lives there. MAYOR DEMOS: In other words, we're not making it up on the basi? of hardship on the property - we're making it on the basis of hardship to the individual. MR. HONCHELL: Something like that could be done and we could always defer the assessment. We could put in the improvement, we could do the work and defer the collection. The Council has a right to collect whatever they want. 5 MAYOR DEMOS: But would he be required to hook up or would the hook up come at a later time? MR. HONCHELL: The code requires a hook up within two years of when the sewer is deemed by the City to be available. Ob- viously, if we build it, we would have to say it's available. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: And it would still cost him more to hook up? MR. HONCHELL: As I view it, being able to get to a man- hole with a service - I know it sounds like a long way to this owner and there are other circumstances - but it's less than 200 feet from the structure (inaudible) by all methods we've used to make those determinations. MAYOR DEMOS: If this was built this summer, after comple- tion he would have two years. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: What additional cost would he have two years from now? MR. HONCHELL: The additional cost would be that he would have to hire a plumber of his choosing to go from the property line, which is near the fire hydrant, to his home. I don't know exactly how far that is - probably 40 feet or something like that - and going to the wall and making a connection to the sanitary sewer facility. COUNCILMAN KEHR': You said that there was two and a hal f feet from floor level to the manhole. Is that correct? MR. HONCHELL: Yes - to the bottom of the manhole. COUNCILMAN KEHR: By the time he gets the sewer to the house - he canft drop that two and a half feet. What's the required fall per foot? MR. HONCHELL: He can get a half foot fall in that short distance (inaudible). COUNCILMAN KEHR: We're looking at two feet below the ground - a minimum of two feet. MR. HONCHELL: Yes. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: If he hooks up or if we run the sewer in. to that point and defer the assessment - how big is the house? (Inaudible) that somebody might want to build something bigger on it someday if he was to sell it? What I'm wondering - if at that point somebody builds a house and they have a basement and what have you (inaudible) how much does that involve? 6 MR. HONCHELL: It would merely mean that they would put an ejector pump in this new structure when they build it - to have it under pressure (inaudible) all the way into the manhole where there's ample, normal depth. Ejector pumps, while never recommended as being great, are very common. MR. MODJESKI: It seems to me it's related to the property and not the home itself. If they ever demolish the home and put another one in, then I could see the value of that sanitary sewer working because the owner of the property - and this is conjecture on my part, but this is what I did when I built my home - it's all low level and in the back it slopes, as Mr. Honchell said, it has a nice slope for a walk-out basement. That's what I put in - a walk-out to the back end. I have filled the front of my property to probably six or eight feet to give me the depth. I have the walk-out just as if - if somebody put a newer home in there, they would certainly do the same as I have. The home that's in there now is - my home is 17 years old, that one is probably about 35 years old and the square feet is probably 700. It's nothing that you could readily sell (inaudible) to put in an ejector pump, etc., to run sanitary sewer. I guess I'm speaking for myself as a home owner, as to what I would do if I was building. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: You have no problem with the drain field as it is now? MR. MODJESKI: He has no problem with the drain field now and I have no problem. The land to the north of there is all open and there's nothing in there now. The land to the east of there, which is down on your visual, is all open, which has a county easement drainage ditch running across the side of the visual. There's really nothing back there that he is interfering with today. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: I feel that we somehow have some responsibility for this. COUNCILMAN CURLEY: Why can't we - if we don't vote for it and we don't vote against it - we just don't do anything about it right now. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: How about ordering it in up to the property line - is there a way to give notice to the would-be buyer of that property that when the property is sold they give notice to the City (inaudible) so they'd know they're walking into a sewer connection problem? MR. ROGER JENSEN: Under our current ordinance, you'd have to amend the ordinance to do away with the requirement that he hook up within two years. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: Can we waive that on a conditional basis? 7 MR. JENSEN: We have an ordinance that specifically says we have to do it. You would have to amend that ordinance do deal with any exception. I guess I wouldn't recommend that. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: How do we get notice of the fact that that changes hands so that we know down the road somewhere we should revisit this item? MR. JENSEN: Charlie seems to think there's a way we could use the county to do that. The problem is, if it happens while Charlie is the engineer we'd probably be able to do it, but if it happens l5 years from now when we're all gone, the county would send notice that the property has changed hands and we wouldn't know what to do with it. That's not a fail- safe system. MAYOR DEMOS: Does the house have City water? MR. MODJESKI: Yes, water runs across the property, con- nects up to the hydrant, as you see laid out, and then runs east, which is down the visual, comes out past Comet Drive, continues on down to Cleveland Avenue. MAYOR DEMOS: So we would have notice of a change of ownership (inaudible). COUNCILMAN FRANKE: But somebody that comes in and builds might want to connect to the sewer, just like you did. MAYOR DEMOS: But supposing someone doesn't. COUNCIL!1AN FRANKE: Then ultimately it will have to go in. I somehow feel that when they went in there before and they told them they couldn't do it and it wasn't feasible, I don't know why this is going to do it (inaudible). MAYOR DEMOS: I thoroughly agree, but I also feel very strongly that no way should anyone else ever move in there without a sewer. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: (Inaudible) put them on notice. I feel if someone comes in there and buys the property, we're going to see the water change . . . MAYOR DEMOS: And they'll say no one told them about it. MR. HONCHELL: There's no way we can - although we can so-call red flag it - the red flag would really say the property has changed hands. We can't put a cloud on the ownership or the title or something - if you want to use that word. The county would merely tell us that somebody else is the owner. MAYOR DEMOS: We should put the improvement in and defer the assessment. 8 COUNCILMAN FRANKE: Except that he then has to hook up. What does a hook up normally cost? MR. HONCHELL: I don't know whether we're talking about a lift pump or a gravity feed (inaudible). You might be looking at $l,OOO. I'm just giving you an off-the-top number. It depends on what complications there are in the home. COUNCILMAN KEHR: How many feet does he have to hook up? MR. HONCHELL: I didn't bring my scale, but I would guess something in the neighborhood of 40 feet or so. We're not talking about a long run. I guess my concern is what's going to happen inside the structure. I don't know what is inside the structure. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: He would have to pay the $l,OOO. MR. HONCHELL: As I understand it, the question was - what would be the cost to him of connecting, assuming that the City built that. Not talking about those costs, but his own property. COUNCILMAN CURLEY: If he hooked up to it? After we put the line in? MR. HONCHELL: Yes. COUNCILMAN CURLEY: (Inaudible) amend the ordinance. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: How do we amend the ordinance? MAYOR DEMOS: There might be ways. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: Can we do that? Amend the ordinance? That affects everybody then, doesn't it? MR. JENSEN: You could amend it in such a way that it would apply only to one proporty. I don't know if that's a very good way to write the City code. You could also just ignore the ordinance. That's been done in the past. COUNCILMAN KEHR: If we put the sewer in, he has two years available from the time the sewer goes in to hook up. MR. JENSEN: It would be available once that line was extended. He would have two years from when it became avail- able. COUNCILMAN CURLEY: The cost of the sewer will be deferred until the property is sold and then the property will probably be worth more money at that time because of the fact that there is sewer running to the property. 9 MAYOR DEMOS: And the assessment will be on the county rolls, so when it changes hands we know and they know. COUNCILMAN CURLEY: How does that sound to you? MR. GRUBBS: (Inaudible) . COUNCILMAN FRANKE: Actually it makes his property more valuable when he comes to sell it. MR. MODJESKI: If it's in - I guess it's the hooking up. Mr. Honchell says 40 feet - I think it's probably 60 feet because by the map it appears to be running probably l5 feet west of the hydrant and he's coming out of the back of this house with the sewer. His house is about in line with mine. In fact, it looks like 3056 is drawn the wrong direction. I would say it's about 60 feet and for him, he would have to go down six to eight feet and put in a lift pump to pump that across. I venture to say it's going to cost more than $l,OOO. The drain field is to the east - to the lower of the visual. I don't see anyway of putting $l,OOO in as making it more saleable. The house, in its existing condition, definitely would not make it more saleable unless someone was going to tear down the structure and build a new home in there which probably, at this stage of the game, is unlikely because that stretch of property in there, from the north of Raymond south, there are probably l2 to l4 homes in there probably worth more industrially than it is for homeowners as it stands. It almost sounds as if, until somebody took out a building permit to build a different'structure in there, that then something could be done and maybe at that time something east of Comet Drive and towards Cleveland Avenue would be building - that sewer would be running from the east, westerly, that could be picked up on that property. COUNCILMAN CURLEY: Let's just hold over for future con- sideration. MAYOR DEMOS: Are there any written statements? MR. ANDRE: No. MAYOR DEMOS: I'll close the hearing. COUNCILMAN CURLEY then moved that the hearing for Improve- ment No. SS-8l-l8 be closed and that consideration be continued until the next regular Council meeting on February 22, 1982. Councilman Kehr seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. lO STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Manager of the City of Roseville, Ramsey County, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date therein indicated with the original of said minutes on file in my 'office and that said extract is a full, true and correct transcript of said minutes, insofar as they relate to the proposed construction of Improve- ment No. SS-8l-l8 under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City this ~tt day of March, 1982. ;;~i~ Y Manager . (SEAL) Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Ccuncil City of Roseville Ramsey County, Minnesota February 8, 1982 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, was held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, February 8, 1982, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Demos and Councilmen Curley, Kehr, Franke and Johnsoni and the following were absent: None. Also present were James F. Andre, City Manager; Roger Jensen of Peterson, Bell & Converse, City Attorneys; Charles v. Honchell, City Public Works Director; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultants. MAYOR DEMOS: We now have Improvement No. SS-8l-l7, sani- tary sewer service for l750 West County Road C. MR. ANDRE: I have the Certificate of Mailing and Affi- davit of Publication of one. MR. HONCHELL: Once again, this is a hearing on the con- nection of a structure that is currently unconnected to the City sanitary sewer system. This particular structure is l750 County Road C. For purposes of reference, Fairview Ave- nue would be approximately where my pointer is. The sanitary sewer is on the far side of County Road C and in between that and the small warehouse type structure is all of County Road C and the railroad tracks, operated by the Burlington-Northern Railroad. Contacts with both the County and the railroad indicates that it would be necessary to tunnel or bore or jack or in some manner get from the north side of County Road C to the south side of the railroad tracks without any open- cut procedures. In doing this, there's a considerable expense involved in proportion to what it would be if we could merely have a backhoe do an open-cut construction and then repave the street or fix the railroad crossing. Neither of those are possible, however, and although we've looked at other alternatives of coming in from other directions, they would be even more expensive and there are no right-of-ways and we would have to go through people's front lawns back here to the south. The structure, as best we can determine from our conversations, is basically a warehousing operation. However, according to our information, they do have individuals that are in the structure several hours on many days and as such require sanitary sewer facilities. With that in mind, we made the feasibility study to provide those sanitary facilities to the City sewer. Again in this case there are some sanitary sewer assessments involved that were not fully paid in the past. MR. POPOVICH: The total published cost of this project was $l7,354.00 and it's recommended that the entire amount be assessed against the property owner, together with whatever trunk sewer assessments that have not been levied in the past. Obviously, the assessment hearing would be at a later date and we would not recommend that they be spread longer than l5 years in today's market. MAYOR DEMOS: Are there any written communications? MR. ANDRE: There are none. MAYOR DEMOS: I will open this hearing to the public. Is there anyone that wishes to be heard? THOMAS HOLMES, Property Tax Representative with Farmer's Union Grain Terminal Association: Farmer's Union Grain Terminal Association owns the building located at l750 County Road C and leases the site from the Burlington Northern Railroad. This matter was dropped on my desk rather suddenly and I really didn't have a great deal of time to prepare for this. I have made some notes and some points I would like to refer to in covering this matter. Just a little historical background on the property - the subject property is, as I mentioned, a leased site, owned by the Burlington Northern Railrpad, and Grain Terminal Association owns the building located on that site. The building is essen- tially a warehouse with a small carpenter shop inside. The building does have a couple of plumbing fixtures to accommodate the needs of the carpenter on duty. Presently, the property has its own independent well and septic system. It's GTA's position - they're not questioning the methods, necessarily, of the assess-. ment - the method used to determine the cost. Our question relates to the fact that - we're pretty much questioning the supposed result and need of that benefit that this assessment will provide. It's our opinlon that the assessment itself is unnecessary. The nature and use of the property is such that the impro~ement would serve no useful purpose to us. I guess we're pretty much interested in knowing what our options are, as far as the building itself is concerned. As I mentioned, the building basically is a warehouse facility - a cold storage facility - with a small carpenter's shop located in it. I also mentioned to you that the few plumbing fixtures that we do have are used to accommodate the carpenter. We can certainly move 2 the carpenter out of that location to another location and use the warehouse exclusively for warehousing purposes, cap off the water and sewer lines and so on and so forth and, by doing so, hopefully preventing this proposed assessment. I'd like to conclude by saying that according to special assessment termi- nology, the way I understand it, the benefit is to presumably at least equal the cost. I don't necessarily agree, under the present conditions, that this improvement will enhance the value of our property and it obviously would not create any special benefit directly to us. Pretty much in conclusion, we would appreciate your reconsideration in this matter and vote to repeal or turn down the planned assessment. MAYOR DEMOS: Did you say (inaudible) Grain Terminal Asso- ciation. MR. HOLMES: The building is owned by Grain Terminal Asso- ciation, the land is owned by the railroad. We have a lease agreement with the railroad. MAYOR DEMOS: Is it used for Grain Terminal operations, .other than the carpenter shop, or rented out or what? MR. HOLMES: Grain Terminal Association occupies the entire building. However, with the exception of the carpenter shop, the remainder of the building is used for warehouse purposes - storage of boxes and so on. COUNCILMAN CURLEY: How long is your lease? MR. HOLMES: I cannot be specific as to the length of the lease. I was told, however, that the lease agreement is such that the lessee is responsible for paying any and all assess- ments. That's why Burlington Northern is not here. MAYOR DEMOS: I guess one concern we have had with some of our unconnected sewers is that the water table in our City, any pollution thereof - this our concern. Some of the benefits accrue to the people around you as well. I cannot speak to that (inaudible). I would say across the street we have had water problems. These are some of our concerns in getting these taken care of. COUNCILMAN CURLEY: How big a piece of property is that? MR. HOLMES: I don't have a description. I'm sorry, I do have a description - it's a meets and bounds description. The north 400 feet of the easterly 2055 feet, but then it goes on - such and such. The legal description is not specific as far as the size of the property. COUNCIk~N CURLEY: the fact that someday, if Burlington Northern sells something. It's going to I guess what I'm trying to get at is you people get out of your lease and that property, it will be used for have to have a sewer system sometime. 3 COUNCILMAN KEHR: How old is the building? MR. HOLMES: It's quite old. I don't know the age exactly. I do have a picture of it, for those of you who may not be familiar with the property. COUNCILMAN KEHR: What is the building constructed of? Masonry? MR. HOLMES: Primarily (inaudible) block. COUNCILMAN KEHR: What's the size of the building? MR. HOLMES: The building is 4,000 square feet, most of which is two story. COUNCILMAN KEHR: 4,000 each story? MR. HOLMES: Yes. COUNCILMAN CURLEY: That's a lot of room. COUNCILMAN KEHR: Can that building be converted into other uses? MR. HOLMES: I suppose most anything could be converted, but I'd say it's pretty much a special purpose type facility. It wouldn't be easily converted into another type of use. COUNCILMAN CURLEY: But wouldn't you say that the sewer would make the land more valuable for you or Burlington Northern - whatever your arrangements are - if you wanted to sell it? MR. HOLMES: Strictly from a standpoint of the landowner- ship, I would certainly have to say that obviously the improve- ments, through the sanitary sewer, would enhance the value of the land. I'm saying from th'e lessee's standpoint - we're going to have to pay that special assessment. The railroad will not. It serves no benefit to us. To be accommodating, and I suppose as a last resort, we would agree to capping off the plumbing that is there - the septic tank and the well that we presently have on that site - and move our carpenter out. MR. POPOVICH: May I ask a question? MAYOR DEMOS: Surely. MR. ,POPOVICH: This matter was petitioned for. I don't know who made the petition, but there is a letter from Farmer's Union in the file petitioning for this. Is he retracting his petition or what? Just so the record is clear. MR. HOLMES: I was not aware of any petition that was filed. 4 MR. HONCHELL: Perhaps to try to shed a little light on that - the Council, as I indicated at the start of this series of hearings, has been working for some time trying to get all of these unconnected structures connected. As part of those con- versations - I can't say with you, because I don't really know specifically who they were with - but people from your organiza- tion and the railroad - various options were discussed. It was the feeling that if you were going to have sanitary sewer, this appeared to be the best option for you - to go through a proce- dure like this, have the City construct it, to be spread over several years. I'm not saying it's painless, but I guess it's the lesser of evils, as it was reviewed several months ago by someone in your organization, and so they wished to get more accurate costs and more information on it. That's why this study was called for. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: There is substantial property owned by the railroad, both east and west of this building. (In- audible) parcel of land that you have nO interest in at all. There's a long strip of property - presumably the railroad could use that in some way - build warehouses or whatever in there - and make more intensive use of that property somehow. 'Would this sewer that you're proposing here accommodate anything more than this one situation or would you need others? I guess as a follow-up question - if you would have to have a sewer coming in from another direction to accommodate that whole strip of land, if it was to be developed - where would you go with it? MR. HONCHELL: This particular proposal calls for a four inch service. Unfortunately, a four inch service, as I said, has to be jacked or bored - it would be expensive construction. It wouldn't be proportionately that much different to put an eight inch in, which is what our standard sanitary sewers are. Although the land is very long, as you say, it would take either another sewer running the entire length of the railroad track or several other crossings to serve additional parcels, or some sort of planned development, where a single service would be brought across or a single sewer line, and then several parcels used off it. We investigated every direction around this parcel, trying to find a better, cheaper way to get a sewer to them. Unfortunately, all the other options are even more expensive, according to our studies. COUNCILMAN CURLEY: How long does your lease run? MR. HOLMES: I don't know the length of the lease. I don't have the lease agreement with me. MAYOR DEMOS: I guess one thing I would be disturbed about, even if this is used as a warehouse, you will have people coming and going at some point. I'm wondering, as you said - if you capped off the water and sewer - if that would meet the Health Department's standards. I would have some questions in my mind about that action. I understand what you're saying, but 11m also not sure - if you decided to dispose of the building and 5 that action was taken, someone could come in with a different use and we would have no knowledge of it - perhaps establish an office or something - and we would have no knowledge of it, then we'd have to go through this allover again. MR. HOLMES: What is the present zoning on this? MR. HONCHELL: I believe the zoning is R-l and it has some special use reviews. It's a fairly old structure. To my know- ledge it's R-l - single family home. MAYOR DEMOS: So it would be a nonconforming use then? Who built the warehouse? MR. HOLMES: I believe GTA built the warehouse. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: They wanted it on the railroad tracks, is that it? MR. HOLMES: Evidently, at that time, it was convenient, for the purposes the building was being used for, to be on the railroad line. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: If you knew how long your lease was (inaudible) . MAYOR DEMOS: By the same token, if you looked at a house (inaudible) in excess of $5,000, I guess for a business purpose, $l7,000 isn't all that much. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: I'm sympathetic to the problem that the lessee was somehow unexpectedly - because this would be rather unexpectedly - hit with a $l7,000 four inch sewer line (inaudible) and it went back to the owner, the owner might have a problem sometime in the future in developing that whole strip. If I knew your lease was end~ng next year or something, we could put you on notice now that once we do it, whoever owns it after that time period is going to be stuck with something like this. I guess I don't think there's any urgency to do this. It's been sitting there for a long time now. I would like to know when the lease ends so that we could deal with that situation and perhaps put the assessment where it belongs - on the owner. MR. HOLMES: I could get that information to the Council members. COUNCILMAN KEHR: Aren't most of the railroad property leases for 99 years? MR. HOLMES: That could very well be. We have several throughout the midwest here that range anywhere from one year on up. They are variable. I'm sorry. As I mentioned, this came on me very suddenly and I wasn't able to get all the in- formation I would have liked to. 6 MAYOR DEMOS: I think it would be proper to continue this hearing and let you come back with some of that information. MR. HOLMES. Very good. I appreciate that. MAYOR DEMOS: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this property? I will close this hearing. Councilman Johnson moved to continue the hearing on pro- posed Improvement No. SS-8l-l7 to February 22, 1982. Council- man Franke seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Manager of the City of Roseville, Ramsey County, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date therein indicated with the original of said minutes on file in my office and that said extract is a full, true and correct transcript of said minutes, insofar as they relate to the proposed construction of Improve- ment No. SS-8l-l7 under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City this~ll,- day of March, 1982. ~ --1. ~ ~y Mana~er-- ( SEA.L)