1991.08.05 CC Mintues - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council meetinq of AUqust 5, 1991 Pacie 4 1. Stabilization of 12? soils. . Concept construction plan for utilities to be reviewed by the City Engineer. Response to RCWD requirements and recommendations. 4. Lot widths and setbacks be addressed. 5. Drainage plan and status of outlet ditches. 6. Engineering recommendation of right-of-way width for local streets. 1 . Park; land dedication fee in lieu of park:. land. All aye. Motion Carried. PRELIMINARY FLAT - COUNTRY PONDS (ARLINGTON PROPERTIES) On behalf of Arlington Properties, Mr. Dick:: Sagstetter and Richard Schreier have made application to the City of Hugo for a preliminary plat approval of the proposed Country Ponds Subdivision. The property in question was zoned SFU earlier this year for single family residential development. It is the applicants' intent to Subdi.vide this 451.62 acre tract of land into 98 single family residential lots to be served with municipal Utilities, as well as street, curb, and gutter. The applicants have indicated they have proceeded with permits from MNDOT, the Rice Creek: Watershed District, and the DNR. The site.in question is located east of Highway 61, north of 130th St. The property is described as that part of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 lying easterly of Highway 61, except the north 2 rods thereof, and that part of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 lying easterly of Highway 61, all in Section 29, T.'1N, R21W, Washington County, Minnesota. The major concerns highlighted by the City staff regarding this development are as follows: 1. Stormwater drainage and retention ponds. 2. Acceptable highway access. 3. Soil conditions. 4. Proper phasing of the development plan. 5. The ability to serve the site with municipal Utilities. 6. Watermain looping. 7. Access to the property east of the site. The applicants have acknowledged that if this plat is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, they will have to pro,,/ide a Developer's Agreement, the necessary financial security to ensure compliance with said Agreement, and installation of the required infrastructure improvements. A special notation should be made of the: fact that a small portion of the subdivision is not within the Metro Urban Service Area. The ability to serve that portion of the plat with sanitary sewer may be jeopardized if permits cannot be secured from the Metro Waste Control Commission. If an amendment to the MUGA is proposed by t! -ie developer some time in the fUtUre, all administrative costs related thereto shall be the responsibility of said developer. This regUest comet_ to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. as members of the Planning Commission felt they were not provided adequate information, by the developers, to mai-.-.e a decision on this matter, and thF developers refused to accept the tabling of this matter by the Planning Commission to secure said information. John Daubney, attorney for the developers, addressed the Council e.plaining the drainage for the project,