1989.04.26 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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