HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989.02.22 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 22, 1989
Chairman Senkler called the regular meeting to order at 7:00PM.
PRESENT: Mezzano, Henry, Thoreson, Oswald, Barnes, Senkler, Administrator
Huber, Engineer Kuusisto, Carole LaBelle
Motion made by Henry, seconded by Oswald to approve the minutes of January
25, 1989 as amended.
All aye, motion passed.
Chairman Senkler requested Administrator Ken Huber review this application
with the planning commission. Mr. Huber stated that Steve and Gary
Frogner have made application to the City of Hugo for the subdivision of a
22 acre tract of land into 2, 11 acre parcels. The property is currently
zoned agricultural and the applicants have indicated the property is to be
subdivided for residential use. This property is located east of Elmcrest
Ave. in the SW 1/4 of Section 18, T31N, R21W, Washington County,
Minnesota. A public hearing has been scheduled for this evening and the
applicants have requested waiver of the formal subdivision requirements.
In reviewing the survey it appears that both tracts meet lot size and
dimension requirements as per the zoning ordinance. There are several
areas of concern we feel should be addressed prior to approval of this
survey by the city council.
1. We do not believe that the 16' permanent driveway easement reflected
on the survey is in fact dedicated or conveyed for access purposes.
2. The percolation report prepared by Dale Eklin indicates that they were
unable to complete the percolation tests on the site because of frost
conditions at the time of testing.
3. The survey does not show the approximate building location as it
relates to the percolation test so we are not sure if the percolation
tests were started on both lots or just one of the lots.
4. In Mr. Eklin's percolation report he references the need to install a
mound septic system which indicates that a typical septic system and
drainfield cannot be used in this area.
This subdivision request seems to be consistent with the city's zoning
ordinance and comprehensive plan, however, we feel that the above
referenced concerns should be addressed before there is any final survey
approval or building permits are issued. If the planning commission
recommends approval of this subdivision and waiver of the formal platting
requirements we would suggest that said recommendation be subject to
special conditions.
Chairman Senkler requested comments from the public. There was no one
present to comment on this subdivision request.
Steve Frogner stated that the two perc tests submitted were done on the
south lot, directly north of the existing farm house to the south. No
perc tests were done on the north lot but some soil borings were done to
test for ground water.
Planning Commission Minutes - February 22, 1989
Page 2
Motion made by Barnes, seconded by Henry to recommend approval of the
request of Steve and Gary Frogner to subdivide 22 acres into 2, eleven
acre lots for residential use subject to the following special conditions
on the property described as the south half of the northwest 1/4 of thge
southwest 1/4 of Section 18, T31N, R21W, Washington County:
1. The preliminary survey be submitted to the city council within 90 days
of the commission's recommendation and the revised survey incorporate
the recommendations of the staff, Rice Creek Watershed District, and
other governmental agencies.
2. The preliminary survey will not be submitted to the council until all
legal, engineering, and staff recommendations have been incorporated
into the survey.
3. All fees relating to the subdivision shall be paid by the applicant
including the cost of recording documents with Washington County'
4. Developer pay fee in lieu of parkland dedication at the time of final
survey approval.
5. A drainage plan and permit must be approved by the watershed district
and maintianed by the property owner with the method of maintenance to
be reviewed by the city engineer.
6. Mailbox locations shall be approved by the United States Postal
service.
7. Developer shall install one tree per lot of a minimal size within the
subdivison development as per city regulations.
8. Approved driveways or drainage ways must include the installation of a
minimum 15" diameter, corrugated metal culvert acceptable to the city
if required by the city building inspector.
9. The developer shall secure Rice Creek Watershed District and DNR
approval of their on site drainage plan and acceptable building floor
elevations be established prior to approval of the final survey by the
city council.
10. Perc test information be provided in the proposed location of future
residences on both lots A and B.
11. Lot lines within the subdivision must be staked and identifiable to
determine proper building setbacks if required by the building
inspector.
12. The 16 ft. permanent driveway easement issue be resolved prior to city
council approval.
All aye, motion passed.
Development (Bald Eagle Estate,,#2
Chairman Senkler requested Administrator Huber review this request with
the planning commission. Mr. Huber stated that Birchwood Builders, Inc.,
represented by Mr. Richard Granger has made application to the City of
Hugo for a special use permit to proceed with a Planned Unit Development
on Outlot A of Bald Eagle Estates. The property in question is zoned SFE
and is approximately 6.5 acres in size. It is the intent of the developer
to use a density and zero lot line approach to construct six townhouses
(twin homes) on this site. SFE zones require a minimum one acre lot size
and duplexes are permitted by special use permit. It is the intent of the
developer to preserve the wetlands and natural setting of the site as well
as stay within the prescribed density for SFE zones. The site in question
is currently served by sanitary sewer to the end of Falcon Ct. The site
access road will be surfaced and
Planning Commission Minutes - February 22, 1989
Page 3
include curb and gutter. The interior roadway and utilities on site will
be private and maintained by the homeowners association. Homeowners
association documents and restrictive covenants are currently being
reviewed by the city attorney's office. Through use of the planned unit
development concept, the planning commission would be recommending a zero
lot line approach to setback and a density approach allowing lots smaller
than one acre in size. Although this approach is unique to the City of
Hugo it does seem to make sense for areas such as these that can be served
with utilities and surfaced streets. If the planning commission feels that
this request makes sense and would be acceptable to the area we would
recommend that the following issues be addressed by the applicant prior to
city council review.
1. How will the sewer line on site be maintained.
2. Surfacing and maintenance of the interior roadway system.
3. Require individual garbage service for each dwelling unit.
4. Will storage buildings or other buildings be allowed in the commons
area. If so where?
5. How will the drainage issues be addressed with regard to waters
flowing from the northeast to the west between the proposed buildings.
6. A minimum floor elevation for the dwellings must be established
consistent with flood plain regulations.
7. Approximate well locations should be identified on the site plan.
8. On site security lighting should be identified on the site plan.
9. The tentative landscaping plan for the areas around the buildings
should be developed.
10. Compliance with the city engineer's recommendations.
11. A turn around at the end of the private road should be provided.
City engineer Howard Kuusisto was present and stated he feels a turn
around should be installed at the north end of the driveway/parking area
to facilitate large vehicles in that area. He also stated that a specific
seeding and shrub plan should be completed with construction. Mr.
Kuusisto felt that street lighting and a sign indicating private property
should be installed at the entrance to the development. Mr. Kuusisto
stated the sanitary sewer is fairly shallow and should be located in the
grassy area, further from the homes, with some insulation for protection.
Chairman Senkler requested comments from the public. No one was present
to address the issue.
Mr. Granger stated there would be an easement over Lot 13 for the
maintenance of the sewer system and he had no preference to the sewer
being public or private. He also informed the commission that the
surfacing and maintenance of the interior roadway would be through private
contractors, as well as, snowplowing, and trash hauling for each
individual unit.
Chairman Senkler felt the issue of accessory storage (what size would be
allowed and where it would be located) should be addressed prior to
council approval. Commissioners concurred this was an appropriate use for
the land and a nice blend of housing types in this area.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2-22-89
page 4
Motion made by Mezzano, seconded by Thoreson to recommend approval of the
special use permit request of Birchwood Builders Inc./Richard Granger to
create a Planned Unit Develoment on Outlot A of Bald Eagle Estates as per
site plan dated January 26, 1989.
All aye, motion passed.
The planning commission is recommending that a specific location be
designated on the site plan for possible accessory storage if requested in
the future.
PEglIgInary Plat (Bald Eagle Estates )
Administrator Huber reviewed the application with the planning commission
at the request of Chairman Senkler. Mr. Huber stated on behalf of
Birchwood Builders, Mr. Richard Granger has made application to the City
of Hugo for a re -subdivision of Outlot A in Bald Eagle Estates
Subdivision. This property is to be formally platted with variances
allowing for use of zero lot lines and minimum 1 acre lot sizes. The
tract in question contains approximately 6.5 acres and is currently zoned
Single Family Estate. This request is being made in conjunction with the
previously reviewed special use permit. The plat would contain twelve,
33' X 100' lots and a 13th lot that would be the commons area available
for use by members of the homeowners association. The plat in question
would be served by Falcon Ct. North. which will be fully improved as a
part of the Bald Eagle Estates Subdivision. If the planning commission
acts to recommend approval of this subdivision said recommendation should
be subject to special conditions.
No one from the public was present to comment on this re -subdivision.
Commissioners felt the issues of the sanitary sewer line (public or
private), accessory storage, and the turn around at the north end of the
property should be resolved prior to approval. Mr. Granger stated he may
relocate the two units on the north end (closest to the industrial park)
further to the southwest.
Senkler made motion, seconded by Barnes to recommend approval of the
request by Richard Granger/Birchwood Builders, Inc. to resubdivide Outlot
A, Bald Eagle Estates into 13 lots, 12 lots for dwelling units and one for
a commons area with variances to lot size and setbacks identified as Bald
Eagle Estates #2 subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the special use permit for the planned unit development.
2. Plat conformance with the site plan and special conditions of the
special use permit.
3. Acceptance of the homeowners association documents as a part of the
plat.
4. Approval of the grading and drainage plan by the city engineer.
5. The private road on site be so identified.
6. All recommendations of the city engineer be complied with.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2-22-89
page 5
7. The preliminary survey be submitted to the city council within 90 days
of the commission's recommendation and the revised survey incorporate
the recommendations of the staff, Rice Creek Watershed District, and
other governmental agencies.
8. The preliminary survey will not be submitted to the council until all
legal, engineering, and staff recommendations have been incorporated
into the survey.
9. All fees relating to the subdivision shall be paid by the applicant
including the cost of recording documents with Washington County.
10. Developer pay fee in lieu of parkland dedication at the time of final
survey approval.
11. A drainage plan and permit must be approved by the watershed district
and maintianed by the property owner with the method of maintenance to
be reviewed by the city engineer.
12. Mailbox locations shall be approved by the United States Postal
service.
13. Developer shall install one tree per lot of a minimal size within the
subdivison development as per city regulations.
14. Approved driveways or drainage ways must include the installation of a
minimum 15" diameter, corrugated metal culvert acceptable to the city
if required by the city building inspector.
15. The developer shall secure Rice Creek Watershed District and DNR
approval of their on site drainage plan and acceptable building floor
elevations be established prior to approval of the final survey by the
city council.
16. Lot lines within the subdivision must be staked and identifiable to
determine proper building setbacks if required by the building
inspector.
All aye, motion passed.
On behalf of the Harstad Companies, Mr. John C. Johnson, has made
application to the City of Hugo for the subdivision of a 56.2 acre tract
of land on Outlots A, B, C, of Hugo Meadows Subdivision. The property is
currently zoned Single Family Urban and it is the intent of the developer
to subdivide the property into 89 single family dwelling lots. Hugo
Meadows South is Phase 2 of an overall development reviewed by the
planning commission and city council in 1986. Primary access to the site
is from Geneva Ave. The rezoning of the property in question to SFU was
approved by the city council on February 6, 1989. The proposed plat calls
for dedication of a park on the eastern edge of the site and two major
stormwater ponding areas adjacent to the protected wetlands. The
developers will need to secure permits for the crossing of the wetlands
within the plat and overall approval of the grading and stormwater
drainage plan from the RCWD. It is the intent of the developers to serve
the entire tract with street, curb and gutter, water, sewer, as well as,
stormwater control. Many of the natural features of the site are to be
preserved, as well as, use of the protected wetlands as directed by the
Dept. of Natural Resources. The developers have provided for road access
to the areas south and west of the site in question.
go-, 4u�aa-91
Hugo Planning Commission - 2-22-89
page 6
The public park will have direct access to Goodview Ave. on the east. The
proposed lots in the development exceed the minimum size requirements for
an SFU zone. Many of the lots will be extended into the wetlands and
stormwater holding areas. Of particular concern to the staff, are the
elevations reflected on the drainage and grading plan. We have also
indicated concern regarding the depth of the ponding areas and their
proximity to the building sites in blocks 1, 2, and 3. The developers
have agreed to create additional parkland and pay parkland fees to better
serve this area. The city engineer and staff discussed the concerns
regarding grading and drainage with the developers on February 8, 1989.
The development proposal in question appears to be consistent with the
city's comprehensive growth plan for the area, however, there are some
technical grading and drainage issues that the staff feels should be
addressed by the developers before this plat moves on for council review.
City Engineer Howard Kuusisto stated he would like to see two of the
detention ponds eliminated. The two remaining ponding areas could be
enlarged.
Administrator Huber informed the commission that Steve Woods from Rice
Creek Watershed District questioned whether the 3' x 7' box culvert at the
south wetlands crossing would be adequate during the 100 year flood. He
did feel the runoff would be at a slower rate after the development than
before.
Mr. John Johnson, Merila & Assoc. stated they have attempted to reduce the
slopes in the rear yards of lots 30-32 and are willing to move the holding
pond closer to the wetlands area if allowed to do so by the DNR. Mr.
Johnson agreed that the culvert size should be determined by the city
engineer and the RCWD. Mr. Johnson informed the commission that they have
Planning Commission Minutes - Feb. 22, 1989
Page 7
reduced ponding areas 3 and 4 to swa1es to accomodate the runoff. The
developers again agreed to join the effort to clean the downstream ditch
if requested. Mr. Johnson stated they would change the rear lot lines of
the lots adjoining the wetlands but it would create an undesirable looking
lot.
Chairman Senkler requested comments from the general public. Mr. Dean
Atkinson and Teddy Peltier were concerned that additional runoff in the
existing ditch would create a problem if the ditch isn't cleaned. Mr.
Atkinson was also concerned with possible water backup from the
development. He also felt that no further development should occur in
that area without access to Highway 61.
Administrator Huber informed the residents that he was advised by the DNR
that the wetlands ditch is on private property and any cleaning project
would require the cooperation of all residents and the DNR. Anyone
interested in participating in cleaning of the ditch may contact city hall
for the proper procedure.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2-22-89
Page 7
The developers stated that all construction sites must be approved by the
FHA and meet specific compaction standards. The area will be dewatered to
dry the fill material. Mr. Ken Briggs of the Harstad Companies stated
they traditionally compact a 50' x 50' area for home construction.
Commissioner Mezzano felt there was no way to develop the area without
creating holding ponds and from a safety standpoint 4' or 10' depth
doesn't make much difference. Debra Barnes expressed her concern with the
largest ponding area which would be approximately 40' from the back of
some homes (during the 100 year flood) creating a potential hazard to
small children and felt the ponds were being created primarily for
financial reasons and not asthetics. Ms. Barnes questioned the water
table elevations used for developing the grading plan. Mr. Briggs
informed the commission they have hired another engineer to recheck the
water table to determine the amount of fill needed.
It was recommended by the commission and agreed upon by the applicants
that this issue be tabled until the March 22, 1989 planning commission
meeting at which time the questions of water table, floor elevations,
culvert size, pond redesign (to a 75' to 100' setback), ponds or swales 3
and 4 can be addressed.
Motion made by Henry, seconded by Mezzano to adjourn at 10:20PM.
All aye, motion passed.
Carole LaBelle
Secretary