My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1989.03.22 PC Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
1989 PC Minutes
>
1989.03.22 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/25/2015 10:20:30 AM
Creation date
2/25/2015 9:45:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
3/22/1989
Document Type
Minutes
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
plat approval. The current owners of the site wish to subdivide this <br />property into smaller lots and serve it with utilities, street curb and <br />gutter, storm water drainage, and other amenities required for this type <br />of development. The property in question is generally described as part <br />of SE 1/4 of Section 19, and the SW 1/4 of Section 30, <br />T31N, R21W, in the City of Hugo. A drainage ditch runs along the <br />northeast property line of the site, and the MWCC has an easement which <br />runs throught the development on the western one half of the site. In <br />addition to plat approval, the applicants are requesting a variance in lot <br />size for Lots 2 and 5, Block 4. Mr. Murray has indicated that an <br />application has been made for permits from the RCWD regarding this <br />development, although the city has not received copies of the permit <br />application. The city engineer has reviewed this preliminary plat, and <br />his comments were made available for Planning Commission review. <br />In reviewing this preliminary plat, the staff has made the following <br />observations and recommendations: <br />1. The legal description submitted with this application as Attachment 1, <br />includes property outside of the proposed development. <br />2. The legal description submitted and published for hearing notice <br />excludes the right-of-way west of the Jim Olson property which is <br />proposed to be a part of Finale Avenue. <br />3. The preliminary plat shows the building sites right up to the MWCC <br />sewer easement. <br />4. The proposed Outlot A is inconsistent with the city's subdivision <br />ordinance. <br />5. The proposed Finale Avenue, as it extends from 140th Street to the <br />142nd Street designation, narrows from 60' in width to 50' in width. <br />6. Fenway Avenue North, as currently dedicated, is narrower than minimum <br />lot width as required in the current subdivision ordinance. <br />7. The street designation should be reviewed with the Washington County <br />Surveyor's Office and the Hugo Post Office prior to preliminary plat <br />approval by the City Council. <br />8. It should be noted that this development abutts on industrial zones to <br />the north, east, and south which could involve intensive industrial <br />activity in the future. <br />Dennis Murray, representing Area Land Developers of Hugo, reviewed the <br />proposed SUNNY CREEK ACRES plat, and other plans showing utilities <br />extension and drainage for the development. During Mr. Murray's <br />presentation it was discussed that the plat documents he was reviewing <br />were not the same as those submitted for staff and commission review. <br />Chairman 8enkler opened the meeting for public comment. Greg Burmeister <br />listed the following concerns he had with the development: inadequate <br />railroad crossing for the increased traffic, no park dedicated, access to <br />his property during watermain extension, upgrading of Fenway Avenue, and <br />possible drainage problems. Harley Johnson and Marvin LaValle were <br />present citing their concerns with negative impact on drainage <br />"downstream" from development. Debby Johnson did not feel Hugo Elementary <br />School could adequately handle the increased enrollment, and that new <br />schools meant higher taxes. She was also concerned about possible <br />devaluation of her property if lower priced houses were constructed. <br />P.C. Minutes - 3-33-89 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.