02/13/1995 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

131 COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1995 and a permit for connection to Otter Lake Road would be required from the County. Mr. Powell asked that Mr. Olson address the phasing proposal for the subdivision. Mr. Olson explained that the proposal is for construction of the subdivision in two (2) phases, the first phase would be the northerly area and he outlined the area on the overhead projected map. The first phase contains 85 lots. Phase two (2) would be the remainder of the area and contain 68 lots. The developer has agreed to place the lots on the south plat line in phase #2 on hold to provide the connection or looping until some future date when the streets could be extended. Mr. Olson addressed some of the changes that were made to accommodate concerns expressed in November. The entrance to Otter Lake Road was moved as outlined by Mr. Brixius. In the southeast corner of the proposed subdivision, the configuration of a lot was changed slightly to provide access to more upland area for the park. The last change was the removal of one (1) lot from Street C. This lot fell into some existing wetlands and therefore was removed. The removal of this lot will reduce the amount of wetland fill required in this area. Mr. Powell explained that action on the preliminary plat by the City Council was delayed until preliminary findings from the joint Clearwater Creek Drainage Study were available to determine the drainage impact. The preliminary findings were discussed in detail at the joint Council meeting. The City of Hugo's engineer did not see that this proposed development would generate any unusual water run-off. The developer will be required to meet all existing Rice Creek Watershed District and City requirements. Council Member Bergeson asked what are the exact number of lots proposed for this subdivision. He noted that several different numbers appear in different reports. Mr. Powell explained 153. Council Member Bergeson explained that he had heard 400 earlier and wondered where that number came from. Mr. Powell explained 400 is an overall number that could be developed in future phases. He noted that the traffic study prepared by SEH took into consideration all phases of possible development and referenced to 400 lots. Council Member Bergeson noted that in earlier drawings, there were several lots that were substandard relative to size. The map in the Council packet included a lot that did not meet the requirements of a corner lot. Mr. Powell explained that this has been changed and all lots meet all standards for R-1 development. Council Member Bergeson asked where are the accesses for the two (2) park parcels. Mr. Olson used the map on the poster board and explained the access to the PAGE 10