My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1971.01.28 PC Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
1971 PC Minutes
>
1971.01.28 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/4/2015 9:23:14 AM
Creation date
3/4/2015 9:23:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
1/28/1971
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
Orrict: 645-0393 <br /> RES. 489-1528 <br /> , HOWARD A. KUUSISTO <br /> CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br /> 1937 UNIVERSITY AVE. ST.PAUL.MINN. 55104 <br /> January 28, 1971 <br /> Village of Hugo <br /> Planning Commission <br /> Hugo, Minnesota 55038 <br /> Re: Chatham Sub-Division <br /> Ge tlemen: <br /> Pursuant to our last meeting :I have done some reviewing and further exploration as to <br /> a method for solving questions raised regarding the variance Item No. 2. Item No. 2 <br /> was questioned as to whether curb and gutter and surfacing should be omitted from <br /> Chatham Sub-Division Plat. It is our opinion that curb and gutter and pavement <br /> should not be omitted. <br /> We believe that developers should base the development according to code and reg- <br /> ulations and that they will provide the utilities, storm sewer, curb and gutter, and <br /> street pavement project complete to the prospective property owners. The Village <br /> would then deal directly with the developer and not with the property owners. The <br /> developer generally is forcing the surfacing and surface drainage as an immediate <br /> problem which if omitted would then call upon the rest of the community to partic- <br /> ipate in. <br /> We believe that developments should be completed in an orderly fashion and that <br /> residences could be sold with the curb and gutter and surfacing included in the <br /> sale which would be completed at the time when sufficient residences have been sold. <br /> At time of occupancy there could be a surfaced street using a first course followed <br /> by curb and gutter and final wearing surface. <br /> • <br /> We suggest that developers check further to determine the size of project (number of <br /> lots) they could develop completely. <br /> In conclusion, our suggestion is that the developer, as part of the development, <br /> should determine the area which can be developed complete according to financing <br /> available. This should be for all areas whether the development is alongan <br /> P <br /> existing street or new street. <br /> Should the development be a small section of a larger tract, then an acceptable <br /> Preliminary Plat for the entire area should be submitted from which the smaller <br /> areas would be developed. Upon completion then all pieces would fit the whole <br /> plat. <br /> We have offered a suggestion toward development. The question becomes one of policy <br /> whether the Council in its final decision allows curb and gutter to be omitted and/or <br /> street surfacing. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> HOWARD A. KUUS IS TO <br /> • CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br /> ,' Howard A. Kuus isto, P. <br /> • <br /> LLA.K/cl <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.