My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1989.04.26 PC Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
1989 PC Minutes
>
1989.04.26 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/25/2015 10:20:40 AM
Creation date
2/25/2015 9:51:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
4/26/1989
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.
/
10
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
Chairman Senkler reviewed this application with planning commission <br />members. He stated that Ms. Jeanette Pfurtscheller and William Simonet <br />have made application to the City of Hugo for a subdivision and variance <br />to split a 36.9 acre tract of land into 7 residential sites. The property <br />is zoned RR2 requiring minimum 5 acre lot size. Three lots are located on <br />Round Lake and four of the lots are located south of the proposed 121st <br />St. The applicants involved in this request submitted a similar proposal <br />to the planning commission in 1988 and following commission approval said <br />subdivision was not processed through the city council for final <br />approval. The applicants have revised their lot layout and roadway <br />location. The initial survey was prepared by Georgi/Schmidt and Assoc. <br />and the grading and floor elevations plan has been prepared by Itasca <br />Engineering. Both engineers have signed the preliminary plat in <br />question. Earlier this week the city received a letter from the law firm <br />of Rheinberger and Rheinberger stating that when Mr. Simonet purchased the <br />20 acres south of proposed121st St. the purchaser agreed to construct a <br />roadway to city standards on the south border of the site in question. <br />The staff is concerned that the applicants are pursuing a request that <br />could end up being litigated and the city being involved in approving a <br />roadway location that was not agreed upon by the seller. The planning <br />commission may want to consider the resolving of this issue prior to <br />preliminary plat approval by the city council. The staff has noted <br />additional concerns regarding this plat. <br />1. <br />The house locations identified on lots 1, 2, <br />and 3 of Block 2 and lots <br />1 and 3 of Block 1 are not in conformance with <br />the developers proposed <br />restrictive covenants. <br />2. <br />The intersection proposed east of lot 1 block <br />1 does not appear to be <br />an acceptable arrangement. <br />3. <br />The extension of the main access road to the <br />site was not to go beyond <br />the intersection to the cul-de-sac. The road <br />proposed was not to <br />intersect with the existing driveway easement <br />providing access to <br />County Rd. 10. <br />4. <br />There appears to be a 20' drainage easement crossing <br />a road <br />right-of-way and culvert locations under the <br />roadway to drain portions <br />of the site. We would be concerned that the <br />drainage plan allows <br />drainage from the subdivision in question to <br />properties to the north. <br />5. <br />The soil test holes and percolations areas in <br />the perc tests were not <br />identified on the survey and we cannot tell whether they are <br />consistent with the proposed site locations. <br />6. <br />We would seriously question acceptability of <br />the roadway arrangement <br />serving the 3 lots in block 1. <br />7. <br />The radius of the proposed cul-de-sac does not appear to be in <br />conformance with the city subdivision regulations. <br />8. <br />We cannot tell if the contour lines shown on <br />the site plan are the <br />proposed contours or the existing contours. <br />If the planning commission feels the enclosed preliminary plat provides <br />adequate information to recommend approval of the subdivision to the city, <br />council we would recommend that said approval be subject to special <br />conditions. <br />P.C. Minutes 4-26-89 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.