Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991.06.26 PC MinutesThe regular meetinq was called to order by Chairman Peltier at 7:00PM PRESENT: Henry, Davis, Thoreson, Oswald, Peltier, Adm. Huber, Carole LaBelle ABSENT: Mezzano, Barnes Motion made by Thoreson, seconded by Davis to approve the Minutes of the May 22, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. All aye, motion passed. Administrator Huber reviewed this request with the Planning Commission. He stated that on behalf of Mr. Roy Molitor, Dunbar Development and the Washington County HRA have made application to the City of Hugo for the rezoning of a 21.26 acre tract of land from Industrial to Single Family Urban. The purpose of the rezoning is to accommodate an application for Planned Unit Development which would involve future construction of 60 units of multiple family residential housing and 41 single family residential lots. This matter was tabled from the May 22, 1991 regular meeting of the Hugo Planning Commission. The two major concerns regarding this request appears to be further loss of Industrial zoned land and potential traffic volumes at 140th St. and Highway 61. Chairman Peltier opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the general public. Commissioners Thoreson, Henry, and Peltier felt recommending approval of this request would be eroding the idea of a "whole community" by eliminating Industrial areas, turning Hugo into a "bedroom community". They felt that if we had more industrial or commercial growth in the City, we would attract more residential development. Commissioner Davis cited the "chicken and the egg theory, stating that once we have the population, we may attract more commercial and industrial growth. Commissioner Oswald stated that there has been no interest in the property for use as Industrial in the past 20 years and said property would be well suited for residential. Administrator Huber reminded the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan is simply a guide and if the need for additional Industrial areas would arise, other areas in the City could be rezoned for that need. He also stated there is currently over 140 acres of undeveloped, Industrial zoned property in the City. Mr. Huber stated that there has been little or no industrial or commercial growth in the City since the early 70's, but there has been a strong interest in residential development. Motion made by Oswald, seconded by Davis to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Dunbar Development/HRA to rezone 21.26 acres identified as tax parcel 93029-2600 from Industrial to SFU. AYE: Davis, Oswald NAY: Henry, Thoreson, Peltier Motion failed. Planning Commission Minutes - June 26, 1991 Page 2 Motion made by Thoreson, seconded by Peltier to recommend to the City Council to deny the rezoning request of Dunbar Development/HRA as described above. AYE: Henry, Thoreson, Peltier NAY: Davis, Oswald Motion passed' SUBDIVISION REQUES' - ROBERT ANDERSON Administrator Huber reviewed this request with the Planning Commission. Mr. Huber stated that Mr. Robert Anderson of 14127 Fondant Ave. No. has made application to the City of Hugo for a minor subdivision and waiver of the formal platting requirements to subdivide a 1/2 acre tract of land into two lots. The property is generally described as; part of Lot 38, auditors plat #7, tax parcel 35135-0040 (aka 14127 Fondant Ave.). The property is located south of 140th St., east of Fondant Ave., and west of Egg Lake. Mr. Anderson's existing residence and accessory buildings are located on Parcel A of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Anderson is requesting a 400 sq. ft. lot variance for Lot A to accommodate the dedication of right-of-way for Fondant Ave. No. The applicant has indicated that both Parcels A and B have direct access to 141st St. No. If the Planning Commission feels that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and similar development in the area we would suggest that any recommendation for subdivision approval be subject to special conditions. Administrator Huber stated that the property is currently two lots and the applicant is merely moving the direction of the property line to the east and the substandard lot has the existing buildings on it. Motion made by Henry, seconded by Davis to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Robert Anderson, 14127 Fondant Ave. No. to subdivide .5 acre (35135-0040, 35135-8850, 35135-8750) into two lots, subject to the following conditions. 1. The survey must be submitted to the city council within 90 days of preliminary survey acceptance or planning commission approval shall be null and void. 2' All conditions of survey approval must be met prior to the stamping of any deeds for recording by the city clerk unless otherwise permitted by council action. 3. The property lines on site must be identified by the applicants to assure proper setbacks when buildings are to be constructed if required by the building inspector. All lots must be properly staked. 4. Proposed driveways or drainage areas within the development must include installation of a minimum 15" diameter corrugated metal culvert where applicable. 5. No building permits shall be issued until the survey has been approved and recorded with Washington County. Planning Commission Minutes - June 26, 1991 Page 3 6. All fees relating to this subdivision shall be paid by the applicant including the cost of recording documents with Washington County. 7. Payment of fee in lieu of parkland dedication shall be made to the City at the time of final survey approval. 8. The lowest floor elevation of any structure in this subdivision shall be 2 feet above the 100 year flood elevation or 4 ft. above the high ground water mark, whichever is greater. 9. All property owners shall be responsible for maintenance of drainage areas on their property. 10. Developer shall comply with all requirements and restrictions applicable to identified wetlands. 11. Developer agrees that lots to be abutting on cul-de-sac or termination turnarounds of streets shall be provided with adequate off-street parking such that the city could prohibit on street parking if deemed necessary for safety or maintenance purposes. 12. No significant deviations from the approved preliminary survey shall be permitted unless reviewed by the planning commission prior to council approval. 13' The developer shall permit access to the referenced site for periodic inspections to assure conformance with the special conditions. 14. Legal descriptions of all parcels to be subdivided shall be provided. All aye, motion passed. SPECIAL USE -PERMIT - WEGLEITNER/�%'.ENCO CONSTRUCTION Administrator Huber reviewed this request with the Planning Commission. Mr. Huber stated that on behalf of Martin and Sandra Wegleitner, Kenco Construction Co., has made application to the City of Hugo for a Special Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development and variance to develop a 60.27 acre tract of land into single family and two family residential lots. The property in question is currently zoned SFE and is located east of Geneva Ave. and north and south of 145th St. The total number of lots proposed in this development is 115. It would appear that the developers are approaching their proposal from a density standpoint taking into account the Council's previous concerns regarding the number of dwelling units that would be allowed if the property were rezoned to SFU. In the fall of 1990 the applicant applied for the rezoning of the property in question from SFE to SFU. The Planning Commission reviewed this request and made a recommendation for approval. The rezoning request was subsequently denied by the City Council, citing density as one of their major concerns. It would appear that a density approach being used is predicated on the position that duplexes are allowed in SFE zoning district by Special Use Permit and that if density is a real concern to the City, two dwelling units per acre should be an acceptable proposal. The city engineer has reviewed this proposal. If this proposal receives a favorable response from the Planning Commission and City Council, and moves forward, the developers are required to prepare the necessary documents for the formal platting of this site. If the Planning Commission feels that this development is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other land use adjacent to this site, we would suggest that any recommendation for approval be subject to special conditions. Planning Commission Minutes - June 26, 1991 page 4 Chairman Peltier opened the public hearing. Mr. Martin Wegleitner was present to answer questions of the Commission. Mr. Wegleitner stated that the site in question is located in the MUSA, away from Highway 61, and seems to be a prime area for residential growth. Ms. Floreen Meyer felt the request was not compatible with the area and the change would be detrimental to the environment. Mr. Kent Reisler stated that development in the wetland area was a major concern in the original layout. The housing area is now more concentrated in the center of the property. Mr. Reisler stated they want conceptual approval only at this point. Mr. Jim Merila, Engineer for the proposal informed the Commission that 33% of the property would be open space, of which 15% is usable. Approximately 4 acres of park land is proposed, of which 50% would be buildable. Mr. Merila stated that all Rice Creek Watershed District requirements would be met. He informed the Planning Commission that the holding ponds would virtually put the stormwater runoff in "storage" on site. Mr. Merila explained that the water flow would be controlled by a pipe leading to the various drainage areas. Jim Merila stated that the roadway surface on the collector and interior streets would be 24', which is normal. Only the right-of-way would be reduced to 50' on the interior roads. Chairman Peltier feels the ditches in the City are not adequate to accommodate the additional runoff and does not feel that holding ponds are a solution to the water problem. Administrator Huber stated that the proposed development changes include increased distances from the proposed development to the shooting preserves. Mr. Merila read a soils report from STS, dated June 26, 1991. Mr. Merila stated that the homes would be financed by FHA and they have stringent regulations for development and construction. He also stated that they would not have a problem constructing a cul-de-sac at the end of the road on the south, however he felt it would be temporary allowing for further development and road expansion to the south. Contrary to the staffs recommendation, Mr. Merila requested a variance allowing 5' sie yard setbacks for garages on lots containing single family dwellings. Motion made by Davis, seconded by Henry to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Martin Wegleitner/Kenco Construction for a Special Use Permit for a 120 unit Planned Unit Development and variance on 60.27 acres, described as; The southeast quarter of the northeast quarter, Section 20, T31N, R21W, Washington County, Minnesota, and The east 1321 feet of the north half of Government Lot 2, Section 20, T31N, R21W, Washington County, Minnesota. Subject to easements, reservations and restrictions of record, if any. Subject to an easement for existing public street right-of-way for Goodview Ave. No., 145th St. No, and Geneva Ave. Said Property to be developed contains 60.27 acres, more or less, including easement for public street right-of-way. Subject to the following special conditions: Planning Commission Minutes - June 26, 1991 Page 5 1' Any and all conditions of the Special Use Permit must be met within 180 days of Council approval unless otherwise stipulated in this permit or the developers agreement. If these conditions are not met the permit will be null and void. 2. Development of this site must commence within 180 days of special use permit approval in a manner consistent with the approved site plan or said approval shall be null and void. 3. Any commercial or industrial use of this property not specifically permitted in the zoning district by the City Zoning Ordinance shall be strictly prohibited. 4. All driveways built over ditches or drainage areas must include the installation of 15" diameter, corrugated, metal culverts installed in a manner acceptable to the City building inspector. 5. No advertising signs shall be permitted in this zoning district unless specifically identified in the development proposal approved by the City Council. 6. This proposal shall not move to the platting stage until the appropriate permits are secured from the Rice Creek Watershed District and the DNR where applicable. 7. No significant deviations from the approved site plan shall be permitted. 8. The site must be policed and maintained on a regular basis with regard to litter and on site nuisances during project construction. 9. Development on site shall be limited to 115 residential lots and 120 dwelling units. 10. All fees relating to the review and issuance of this permit shall be paid by the applicant including parkland dedication fee, sealcoating fee, street signs and other costs as identified with the administrative deposit. 11. All street lighting in the development shall be as per City policy. 12. All recreation areas, holding ponds, drainage areas, and outlots shall be dedicated to and maintained by the homeowners association, to be established for this development. 13. Restrictive covenants shall be developed for this site identifying minimum floor elevations, protection and maintenance of wetlands, number and location of accessory buildings, exterior storage of equipment and unlicensed motor vehicles, connection to municipal utilities, and compliance with city ordinances. 14. No fences, structures, or vegetation other than grass may be placed in on site easements. 15. Activities on site may not cause the altering of any watercourse, ditch, or drainage system. 16. Property owners shall permit access to the referenced site for periodic inspections to assure conformance with this special use permit. 17. The developers shall be required to enter into a formal development agreement with the City, which shall identify all phasing and development issues, as well as providing the necessary financial security as per city council policy. 18. All infrastructure improvements on site shall be constructed consistent with the City's subdivision ordinance, the City engineers recommendations, and special conditions identified in this permit. Planning Commission Minutes - June 26, 1991 Page 6 19' That the developer make a payment in lieu of parkland dedication, as per city policy or Chapter 320-5, Subd. K 4A of the City's ordinance. 20. All common areas within the development shall be placed under the ownership of the home owners association. 21. All utilities including electricity and tele -cable shall be install underground where possible. 22. All building setbacks on site shall be no less than those required in a single family urban district with the exception of those lots identified for duplexes where a zero lot line may be appropriate and a 5' side yard setback on the garage side of the single family lots' 23. If the City Council approves the concept of this special use permit for a planned unit development, the applicant shall notify the City Council and Planning Commission within 45 days of it's intention to proceed with the total development plan. AYE: Henry, Davis, Thoreson, Oswald NAY: Peltier Motion passed. SUBDIVISION REQUEST - ARLINGTON PROPERTIES Administrator Huber reviewed this request with the Planning Commission. Mr. Huber stated that 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 applicant's intent to subdivide this 45.02 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 preliminary engineering report on this request is enclosed for your review. The site in question is located east of Highway 61 approximately 1400 ft. north of 130th 8t. The property is described as; that part of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 lying easterly of Highway 61, except the north 2 rods thereof and that part of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 lying easterly of Highway 61, all in Section 29, T31N, 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. The applicants have acknowledged that if this plat is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, they will have to provide a developers agreement and the necessary financial security to ensure compliance with said agreement and installation of the required Planning Commission Minutes - June 26, 1991 Page 7 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 MUSA is proposed by the developer some time in the future, all administrative costs related thereto shall be the responsibility of said developer. If the Planning Commission feels that the preliminary plat in question is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan for development in this area, we suggest that any recommendation for approval be subject to special conditions: Mr. John Daubney, attorney for the developers informed the Planning Commission that all of the previous concerns had been resolved and only one amendment to the recommended conditions (#5) is requested. No variances or special use permits are requested, four holding ponds are proposed, an 8" pipe will restrict runoff, and MNDOT is reviewing the plans to determine whether turn lanes are required. The Rice Creek Watershed District is also reviewing the plans on June 26, 1991. Commissioner Dan Davis left the meeting. Chairman Peltier opened the public hearing. Greg & Sue Carlson, 13735 Forest Blvd., were present to express their concern regarding setbacks. They felt there should be a buffer area between their home, which is 5' from their property line and the proposed houses. Mr. Howard Arcand, as personal representative and owner of neighboring property, was concerned with the flow of surface water to his property. Mr. Arcand also requested that the developer open the ditch for containment of the surface water to the north. Mr. Marvin LaValle inquired as to what provisions had been made to handle the water coming from the west through the culvert presumed to be located under Highway 61. Mr. Olson, engineer for the project stated that they did not locate any culverts under Highway 61. He stated that the ponds were designed to accommodate the 100 year flood, that there would be no drainage from the property to the ditch adjacent to Highway 61, and that the ponds would not discharge to the east until the 100 year flood elevation had been reached. Mr. Bruce Hanson from the Minnesota Pipeline was present as representative only, and did not support or oppose the development. Mr. Schreier, one of the developers stated that he spoke to the Carlsons and tried to reach an equitable agreement regarding the setbacks and offered to sell them (the proposed outlot) 5' on the north which they did not agree to, however he does not feel he has any responsibility to resolve their problem. The Chairman then closed the public hearing. Administrator Huber again requested that the developers work with the Carlson's and the property owner to the east to resolve their problems. Mr. Huber also recommended that condition #5 not be changed. He said that after the City has assurances of utility and road installation, building permits can be issued. Mr. Huber also stated that the developer secure, in writing, the pressure of the line and assurance that all homes are a safe distance from the pipeline. Planning Commission Minutes - June 26, 1991 Page 8 Commissioners Peltier and Oswald were extremely concerned that there was not adequate ponding and drainage for the proposed development. While Commissioners Thoreson and Henry felt this was an appropriate area for development and were satisfied that the property could be developed with satisfactory water storage on site. Motion made by Oswald, seconded by Peltier to recommend denial of the request of Richard Sagstetter and Richard Schreier/Arlington Properties to subdivide 45.02 acres into 98 residential lots as described above, based on the developers refusal to accept tabling this issue until the City can get answers to the questions raised tonight and in the City Engineers report. AYE: Peltier, Oswald NAY: Henry, Thoreson Motion failed. Motion made by Henry, seconded by Thoreson to recommend approval of the- request herequest of Sagstetter/Schreier/Arlington Properties to subdivide 45.02 acres into 98 residential lots subject to the following 21 conditions: 1. The final plat must be recorded with Washington County within 60 days of plat approval or said action shall be null and void. 2. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon compliance with grading, storm water drainage, and utility plan approval by the city engineer' 3. All applicable conditions of plat approval must be met prior to the recording of the final plat at the Washington County Recorder's Office. 4. The property lines identified on the plat must be identified by the applicants to assure proper setbacks when buildings are to be constructed if required by the building inspector. 5. No building or other permits shall be issued until the final plat has been recorded with Washington County, and utility/road improvements are substantially completed (see developer's agreement). 6. The required permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District and DNR must be approved and submitted to the City prior to approval of the final plat. 7. All fees relating to this subdivision shall be paid by the applicant including the cost of recording documents with Washington County. B. Payment of the required fee in lieu of parkland dedication shall be made prior to signing of the final plat. 9. Installation of required roadways, including streets, curb and gutter, stormwater control, and utilities shall be at the developers expense as per the developers agreement and approved plans. 10. Plat approval shall be contingent upon full compliance with the developer's agreement. 11. No improvements, landscaping, or grading shall be permitted in defined drainage areas without the express written authorization of the City and the approved watershed district. 12. All property owners shall be held responsible for maintenance of drainage areas within the easements on their property and deed restrictions shall limit activities permitted in these drainage areas. Planning Commission Minutes - June 26, 1991 Page 9 13. Developer shall deposit with the City $10,000 to cover legal, engineering, administrative, and other costs related to this development. 14. Developer agrees that lots abutting on cul-de-sacs or termination turnarounds of streets shall be provided with adequate off street parking, such that the City could prohibit on street parking if deemed necessary for safety or maintenance purposes. 15. Developer shall provide a financial guarantee, equal to 1.25 times the amount of the required public improvements to be installed, to serve the development. 16. Developer shall be responsible for street signing, identifying mailbox locations, providing as -built drawings, and installation of trees and culverts within the development, as required. 17' Any exterior lighting or advertising activities on site must be approved by the City. 18. Drainage and erosion control methods proposed for this development shall be complete prior to the City accepting the roadway or public improvements serving this development. 19. An acceptable phasing plan shall be submitted prior to preliminary plat approval. 20. The lowest floor elevation of any structure in the plat shall be 2 feet above the 100 year flood elevation or 4 feet above the high groundwater elevation whichever is greater. 21. All questions from the City Engineer must be addressed to his satisfaction prior to City Council approval. AYE: Henry, Thoreson NAY: Oswald, Peltier Motion failed. This request will be forwarded to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Motion made by Peltier, seconded by Thoreson to adjourn at 10:06. All aye, motion passed. Carole LaBelle, Secretary Hugo Planning Commission