1991.08.28 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

P.C. Minutes - August 28, 1991 Page 2 3. The property lines on site must be identified by the applicant to assure proper setbacks when buildings are to be constructed, if required by the Building Inspector. 4. The 10' lot in question must be properly staked. 5. No building permits shall be issued, relating to this minor subdivision request, until the survey has been recorded with Washington County, and Tract A is attached to the tract of land east of the site in question. 6. All fees related to this subdivision shall be paid by the applicant, including the cost of recording documents with Washington County. The payment of fee in lieu of park land dedication shall be waived, as the 10' tract in question is not a buildable site. All aye, motion passed. Commissioner Barnes reviewed this request with the Planning Commission. She stated that on behalf of Martin and Sandra Wegleitner, Kenco Construction, Inc., has made application to the City of Hugo for the subdivision of a 60.27 acre tract of land into 123 lots consisting of 110 single family detached lots, 10 single family attached lots, and 3 outlots, as per the previously approved PUD by the Planning Commission. At the June 26, 1991 meeting of the Hugo Planning Commission, action was taken to approve a SUP for a PUD allowing for a development density of two dwelling units per gross acre of land. The property in question is described as the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 20, T31N, R21W, Washington County, MN., and the East 1,321' of the N 1/2 of Government Lot 2, T31N, R21W, Washington County, MN, subject to easements, reservations, and restrictions. At the August 5, 1991 regular meeting of the Hugo City Council, said Council tabled the SUP request for PUD. Although the City Council indicated no objection to the density concept proposed for this PUD, said request was tabled until the following matters could be addressed by the City Engineer: 1. Stabilization of the 123 soils. 2. Concept construction plan as prepared for utilities be reviewed by the City Engineer. 3. Response to the RCWD requirements and recommendations. 4. Lot widths and setbacks to alleviate any front and side yard variances. 5. A drainage plan be prepared, as well as the status of outlet ditches. 6. Engineering recommendation with regard to right-of-way width for local streets. 7. Developers pay park land fee in lieu of park land dedication. The enclosed preliminary plat deviates from the original grading and site plans submitted to the Planning Commission in an effort to satisfy the requirements of the RCWD and the City Council. Because of the delays in getting the PUD approved, the applicants have requested Planning Commission consideration of the preliminary plat, with the understanding that any recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission would be contingent upon approval of the PUD by the City Council.