HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992.01.22 PC MinutesHUGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JanUary 22. 1.992
The regular meeting of the Hugo Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairperson Peltier at 7:06PM.
PRESENT: Mezzano, Davis, Rubenzer, Oswald, Olson, Peltier, Administrator
Huber, Carole LaBelle
ABSENT: Henry
Motion made by Rubenzer, seconded by Olson to approve the minutes of
December 18, 1992.
All aye, motion passed.
APPOINT ACTING CHAIRPERSON
Administrator Huber reviewed the appointment of the Chairperson. The Hugo
City Council has appointed Mrs. Theodora Peltier as the Chairperson and
Ms. Carole LaBelle as secretary to the Planning Commission for the 1992
calendar year.
Motion made by Oswald, seconded by Peltier to appoint Commissioner Bill
Mezzano as Acting Chairperson in the absence of Chairperson Peltier.
All aye, motion passed.
REZONING REQUEST - G. PAPENHEIM
Administrator Huber briefly reviewed this application with the Planning
Commission. He stated that Mr. Gerald Papenheim, 2472 Taylor Ave., White
Bear Lake, Minnesota had made application to the City of Hugo for the
rezoning of a 20 acre tract of land from Conservancy to Agricultural in
September 1991. Mr. Papenheim has decided to withdraw his application at
this time and reserves his option to reapply in the future when he can
comply with all requirements.
REZONING REQUEST - D. DAUBENSPECK
Administrator Huber reviewed this application with the Planning
Commission. He stated that Ron and Pauline Daubenspeck of 5687 140th St.,
Hugo, Minnesota have made application to the City of Hugo to rezone a 5.6
acre tract of land from retail business to single family urban. The
purpose of this rezoning is to subdivide the property in question for
single family residential development at a later date. A portion of the
lot in question is located in the flood plain and is adjacent to DNR
Protected Wetland No. 17-4. The property in question is located south of
County Rd. 8A at its intersection with Fondant Ave. No. There is
currently a residence on the
P.C. Minutes - 1-22 -92
Page 2
site in question. There is a 6" water main and a sewer main in County Rd.
8A, adjacent to the site. The site is adjacent to a single family urban
district to the north. The property to the east is zoned RR1 and to the
south it is zoned SFE. The location of this property at County Rd. 8A is
on a curve with limited visibility. There may be a need to look at
potential safety problems if future lots are to have direct access to Co.
Rd. 8A via driveways. Because of the proximity to wetlands and the flood
plain of the area in question, we would strongly recommend that soil tests
be done on site and topographic mapping be provided showing the 100 year
high water mark and site elevations. Soil testing should also be provided
identifying the high groundwater mark in this area. The city staff is
reluctant to make any recommendation at this time as the approval of a
subdivision may be interpreted by the applicant as a concept approval of
the subdivision in question. If the Planning Commission feels this
request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, we would recommend that
the rezoning request approval be made with the understanding that a future
subdivision will not be considered unless the above recommended
information is provided and site meets all City, county and state
regulations. The subdivision of this property would be a separate and
distinct issue and it is the charge of the Planning Commission to look at
this rezoning request as it relates to the comprehensive plan, as well as
current and future development.
Pauline Daubenspeck informed the Planning Commission that their reasons
for rezoning included tax reduction and possible subdivision. She stated
that the plan submitted for subdivision did not necessarily represent
their intention. She indicated that they would most likely subdivide into
three lots rather than five. She indicated that Washington County would
like lots 4 and 5 to be served by a common driveway if developed. She
indicated that they themselves did not have any plans for developing the
lots and the lots would probably be sold to a developer.
Commissioner Davis felt the rezoning more accurately reflected the current
use of the property and was consistent with the comprehensive plan and
surrounding area.
Motion made by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Rubenzer to recommend
approval of the request of Pauline and Ron Daubenspeck to rezone a 5.6
acre tract of land from Retail Business to Single Family Urban. Described
as follows: That part of the North half of the Northwest 1/4 of Section
29, T31N, R21W, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the north quarter corner of Section 29; thence south, along
the east line of said N1/2-NW1/4, a distance of 825 ft; thence west, a
distance of 362.5 feet to the center of a drainage ditch; thence north 26
degrees 14 minutes West, along said drainage ditch, a distance of 150 feet
to the point of beginning; thence north 40 degrees 59 minutes west, and
continuing along said drainage ditch, a distance of 908 feet, more or
less, to a point on the north line of Section 29, distant 1020.3 feet west
of the north quarter corner of Section 29; thence east, along said north
line, a distance of 471.7 feet to a point on said north line, distant
548.6 feet west of the north quarter corner of Section 29,
P.C. Minutes - 1-22-92
page 3
which point is the point of beginning of a roadway easement as described
in easement deed dated October 20, 1941, recorded October 21, 1941 in Book
136 of deeds, page 607, in the office of the register of Deeds, Washington
County, Minnesota; thence southeasterly, along said road center line, a
distance of 266 feet, more or less, to the point of intersection with a
line that bears North 11 degrees 31 minutes East from the point of
beginning; thence South 11 degrees 31 minutes West, along said line, a
distance of 595 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, containing
5.6 acres, more or less, and subject to County Rd. No. 8A along the
northerly line, also subject to the existing drainage ditch along the
southwesterly line thereof.
All aye, motion passed.
The applicants were informed that this rezoning in no way ensures approval
of subdivision.
Pauline Daubenspeck inquired as to the $5,000 administrative fee for
subdivision. Administrator Huber stated that the fee is usually assessed
for larger subdivisions with numerous improvements and that a three lot
subdivision would probably be exempt.
Chairperson Peltier requested that the following letter be read into the
record.
"Dec. 18, 1991 - Recommendation for P.C. chairman and P.C. Secretary for
1992. I read chapter 240-8-240-9 which confirms these 2 appointments as
City Council appointments. This is the first time City Council has asked
for a recommendation. With 1 member abstaining, one member just sworn in,
one member attending his 2nd meeting, two members absent, to the public,
we are recommending a P.C. Chairman and a P.C. Secretary by 2 members of
the Planning Commission. Either we include only motions in our minutes or
we include enough of the discussion so the public is clear as to what is
going on and we are fair to our new P.C. members as well as the public."
KLEMP LETTER
Administrator Huber reviewed the letter submitted by Mr. Scott Klemp, the
attorney representing the Barr Harley Development in Grant Township. Mr.
Huber stated that a driveway permit was issued by Hugo to Bryan Schroeder
to serve his home and 50 acres located in Grant Township and not the Barr
Har Development. Mr. Huber has informed the developers that they must
submit a subdivision application to the City of Hugo. The intention of
the developers is to outlet the traffic from the subdivision onto existing
Hugo roads. The City of Hugo will be requiring a joint public hearing
with Grant Township which the developers may not agree to. The Planning
Commission will be kept informed of future developments on this issue.
HENRY RESIGNATION
A member of the City Council will contact Mr. Chuck Henry to confirm his
resignation from the Planning Commission.
P.C. Minutes - 1-22-92
page 4
POLE BARNS
Administrator Huber noted that over the past year or so there has been
much controversy in the City of Hugo with regard to pole barns in rural
and residential areas, as well as activities within these buildings.
Nowhere in the City's zoning ordinance dealing with residential or
agricultural uses does the ordinance identify pole barns as principal
buildings or principal uses. The City Attorney concurs with the staff
interpretation of the ordinance which requires a special use permit be
issued prior to allowing a pole barn on a site without the existence of a
principal structure. It becomes very difficult for the staff to interpret
the ordinance and deal with this issue equitably for each applicant when
there are so many disagreements on ordinance interpretation.
Despite past practice and the legal opinion of the City Attorney, there
are still representatives of the City who disagree with the manner in
which the City has been handling these requests. The City Council
recently discussed the need to enforce the current ordinance or change the
ordinance and how pole barns are regulated.
The Mayor has indicated his concern that pole barns will end up being used
for commercial purposes rather than residential or agricultural. The City
Administrator also pointed out that people identify accessory building
uses as residential or agricultural on their permit applications, then
start a commercial business and call it a hobby to get around the law.
Dealing with these issues now would be far less costly to the City than
trying to correct these situations later.
In amending the ordinance, a public hearing is required by the Planning
Commission prior to consideration by the City Council. It was recommended
that the Planning Commission begin to review certain questions prior to
the public hearing process.
Mayor Walter Stoltzman welcomed Planning Commissioners to another year of
serving the citizens of Hugo and invited all members to attend City
Council meetings to keep abreast of the issues brought before the City.
Mayor Stoltzman also invited any commissioner to visit the Rice Lake Park
Building which is being considered as a new city hall. He stated that the
existing city hall can seat a maximum of 45 audience members. The Rice
Lake Park Building can accommodate up to 100 seats, while at the same time
alleviating the congestion problem for the city staff and the fire
department.
Motion made by Mezzano, seconded by Olson to adjourn at 8:29PM.
All aye, motion passed.
Carole LaBelle, Secretary
Hugo Planning Commission