HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989.03.22 PC MinutesChairman Senkler called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PRESENT: Mezzano, Thoreson, Oswald, Barnes, Senkler
City Administrator, Ken Huber
Acting Secretary, Mary Ann Creager
ABSENT: Chuck Henry
Mezzano made motion, Oswald seconded, to approve the minutes for the
Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 1989 as amended.
All aye. Motion Carried.
The Harstad Companies have made application to the City of Hugo for the
subdivision of a 56.2 acre tract of land on Out1ots A, B, and C of Hugo
Meadows subdivision. The property is zoned SFU, and it is the intent of
the developer to subdivide the property into 89 single family dwelling
lots. The Hugo Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request
February 22, 1989, at which time the public had an opportunity to comment
on this proposal. At the conclusion of the hearing, Ken Briggs,
representing the Harstad Companies, requested that this matter be tabled
to the March 22nd Planning Commission meeting affording them an
opportunity to address the major concerns of the Commission. The major
concerns raised by the Planning Commission were as follows:
1. The closeness of the proposed building sites to the holding ponds.
2. Elimination of proposed detention ponds 3 and 4 in Block 5.
3. The culvert size and drainage concerns affecting the property to the
south of this proposed plat.
4. The quality of the fill material to be used to raise building sites to
proper elevation.
5. The proposed building sites meet FHA/HUD requirements, and that a
distance of 4 feet is maintained between the planned lowest floor
level and the estimated high groundwater elevation.
The developers have now submitted a revised plan consolidating all
drainage into a single holding pond designed at a location that provides
for a greater distance from the building site pads. The developers have
also indicated that they have been in touch with FHA/HUD to assure
compliance with floor elevations as they relate to the water table. The
developers have also conducted soil tests to better evaluate the
groundwater elevation as it relates to this development. In that the
staff had not completed it's review of the redesigned plat, there were no
specific recommendations regarding special conditions for preliminary plat
approval.
John Johnson, engineer for Harstad Companies, was present to review the
revised plat as it related to drainage, lot locations, roadway, and
elevations. Mr. Johnson stated the present rate of runoff from the
property is 80 csf, and that number would eventually be reduced to 65
csf. The pond elevation has been set at 927', and the lowest basement
elevation would be at 931'. Mr. Johnson stated that Harstad Companies
P.C. Minutes - 3-22=89 1
would be willing to participate in a ditch cleaning project which would
include only cleaning of debris in ditch; no redigging of a ditch would be
allowed by the DNR.
Chairman Senkler opened the meeting for public comment. Marvin LaValle
stated his concern with the downstream impact as his property has been
inundated with water for the last 10 years, and asked whether the Planning
Commission had given consideration to the problem. Harley Johnson and
Dean Atkinson also expressed their concerns regarding the impact of this
development on drainage. George Atkinson inquired as to the possibility
of moving Freeland and Geneva Avenues, at their southernmost point, to
the east so that they align with roads to the north. He also questioned
whether 135th Street could be extended to the western boundary of the plat
to accommodate development of the property west of Hugo Meadows South.
Mr. Johnson stated that Freeland and Geneva were placed there because they
fit the topography of the land. Extension of 135th Street would cost the
developer one lot. Jack Perron expressed his concerns regarding the need
for a playground and the increased traffic that would be generated as a
result of this subdivision. Debra Johnson wanted to know what effect all
the new homes/children would have on Hugo Elementary School, which is
already filled to capacity. Chairman Senkler closed the public hearing.
The Planning Commission referenced city engineer Kuusisto's report where
he cited that the plat shows the watermain as 6" D.I.P., and it should be
8" D.I.P. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Kuusisto, and stated that Harstad
would install an 8' watermain. Commissioner Barnes was concerned with the
projections for ground water elevations as they relate to the lowest
permitted floor levels of houses. Ken Briggs, Harstad Companies, offered
to bring in another consultant, of the city's choosing, to address
elevations for the development.
Senkler made motion, Barnes seconded, to recommend approval of the
preliminary plat for HUGO MEADOWS SOUTH, with the following conditions:
1. The preliminary plat must be submitted to the city council within 90
days of preliminary survey acceptance or planning commission approval
shall be null and void.
2. Subdivision shall be contingent upon compliance with the plat
approvals, as well as, the grading, stormwater drainage, and utility
plans.
3. All conditions of plat approval must be met prior to the stamping of
any deeds for recording by the city clerk unless otherwise permitted
by council action.
4. 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.
5. Proposed driveways or drainage areas within the development must
include installation of a minimum 15" diameter corrugated metal
culvert in a manner acceptable to the city.
6. No building permits shall be issued until the plat has been approved
and recorded with Washington County.
7. Securing the required permits from the watershed district, Department
of Natural Resources, and Army Corps of Engineers is required prior to
final plat approval.
8. All fees relating to this subdivision shall be paid by the applicant
including the cost of recording documents with Washington County.,
P.C. Minutes - 3-22-89 2
9. Any driveway permits requiring access to highways or county roads may
not be issued until the necessary permits are secured from Washington
County or the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation.
10. Percolation tests for each buildable site must be submitted to the
city prior to final survey or plat approval.
11. Dedication of required parkland or payment of fee in lieu of parkland
dedication shall be paid to the city prior to final plat approval.
12. This approval shall be granted with the understanding that said
subdivision does not create any landlocked parcels by the petitioner
and land owner.
13. Installation of required roadways including street, curb and gutter,
stormwater control, and utilities shall be installed at the developers
expense.
14. Subdivision shall be contingent upon full compliance with the
developers agreement between the city and developer.
15. No improvements, landscaping, or grading shall be permitted in the
defined drainage areas without the express written authorization of
the city and the approved watershed districts.
16. All property owners shall be responsible for maintenance of drainage
areas within easements on their property.
17. Developer shall comply with all requirements and restrictions
applicable to identified wetlands.
18. The developer shall deposit with the city an initial amount of $15.000
to cover legal, engineering, administrative, and other costs related
to this development.
19. Developer agrees that lots to be abutting on cul-de-sac or termination
turn-arounds 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.
20. The developer shall provide a financial guarantee equal to 1.25 times
the amount of the required public improvements to be installed to
serve lots within this development.
21. The developer shall be responsible for street signs, identifying
mailbox locations, providing as-built drawings, installation of trees,
and culverts within the development as required.
22. No significant deviations from the approved preliminary plat shall be
permitted unless reviewed by the planning commission prior to council
approval.
23. Any exterior lighting or advertising activities on site must be
approved by the city.
24. The use for which this permit is sought is not in violation of any
restrictive covenants applying to the property referenced herein.
25. The developer shall permit access to the referenced site for periodic
inspections to assure conformance with this special use permit.
26. All drainage and erosion control methods proposed for this development
shall be complete prior to the city accepting the roadway or public
improvements serving said development.
27. Applicant submit a traffic analysis for County Road 8A at Foxhill and
Geneva Avenue, and 8A and Highway 61.
28. Lowest floor elevation be changed to a minimum of 932'.
29. 135th Street as proposed be extended to the western boundary of the
development.
All aye. Motion Carried.
P.C. Minutes - 3MG-89
SUP FOR AUTO REDUCTION YARD (DRISCOLL/HATHAWAY
Mr. Marrel Hathaway and Fletcher Driscoll have made application to the
City of Hugo for a SUP to operate an auto reduction yard in an
agricultural zoning district. The property in question abutts on Highway
61 and 170th Street and consists of approximately 23.3 acres (93008-3200).
The applicant has submitted a preliminary site plan and narrative of his
proposal. In his narrative, the applicant indicates that it is their
intent to recycle late -model, foreign automobiles for reuse of automobile
parts and the retail sales of repairable automobiles. The applicants have
indicated that an application has been submitted to the Rice Creek
Watershed District for proper permits. A public hearing has been
scheduled to secure input from the applicants, the general public, and
staff regarding this proposal. The city staff has completed it's review
of the site plan and overall proposal, and has the following comments:
1. The proposal in question appears to be inconsistent with Part II, B,
#5 and 6 of the city's Comprehensive Plan.
2. The retail sale of automobiles in an agricultural zone is not
permitted as per the city's zoning ordinance.
3. There appears to be two established residential dwellings abutting on
the north and south boundaries of the site at Highway 61, and at the
northeast corner of the site.
4. The actual boundaries of the site are not clear on the site plan.
5. Building setbacks from the property lines are not dimensioned and
cannot be determined.
6. The developers were unable to secure completed percolation tests on
the site because of frozen ground.
7. The soil tests indicate that the water table in this area is located
36" from the ground surface.
8. This request is inconsistent with the City Council's direction to
eliminate auto reduction yards by SUP from the city's zoning
ordinance.
9. We would question whether this proposal is consistent with the city's
Comprehensive Plan, Part II -A2, calling for "quality, light industrial
development".
10. Our experience with similar auto reduction activities in Hugo
indicates it is extremely difficult to monitor and control activities
on site once a SUP is approved.
We found the site plan extremely difficult to read; however, it appears
that the auto reduction yard will be confined to area J as identified on
the plan. City staff seriously questions whether as many as 500
automobiles could be safely stored in such a small area, and that a SUP
would be issued for the entire tract of land which would allow other auto
dismantling yards on the rest of the site. The city fully recognize that
there are other dismantling yards in the vicinity of this proposal, and
should note that they have been regarded as non -conforming uses. Much
work has gone into cleaning up the existing auto reduction yards in an
effort to improve the image of the City of Hugo. It should also be noted
that if this SUP is approved, the applicants would still be required to
secure the required annual auto dismantling license as required in the
municipal code.
If the Planning Commission feels that this request is consistent with the
city's Comprehensive Plan, and the direction the city is headed with
regard to development along Highway 61, we would recommend that SUP
approval be subject to the following special conditions:
_ _
1. The site plan be incorporated as a part of the permit and all
activities on site be limited to the areas indicated on the site plan.
2. An environmental assessment worksheet be considered regarding the
impact this type of activity on traffic, groundwater quality, and land
use adjacent to residential and commercial areas.
3. Driveway access permits be secured from the MNDOT.
4. No access to the site be permitted from 170th Street.
5. A 6' security fence be installed around the entire site with approved
screening provided in the areas adjacent to residential dwellings.
6. A detailed plan be prepared to address the disposal of hazardous waste
materials on site.
7. The applicants state specifically in writing how automobile tires will
be disposed of.
8. The property in question not be resubdivided while the SUP is in
effect.
9. A detailed landscaping plan be prepared to reflect how the residential
areas adjacent to the site will be screened from the activities taking
place on site.
10. Financial security be provided to assure maintenance of the fence and
landscaping. Said security to be in amount no less than $5,000.
11. The developer enter into a performance agreement with the city
assuring operation and maintenance of the site with commitments being
met by future owners of the site.
12. No vehicle storage or auto reduction activities to take place within
100' of any drainage ditches on site.
13. No auto reduction acitivities or vehicle parking be permitted within
150' of Highway 61.
14. The city limit the number of vehicles stored on site.
15. The storm water drainage plan and holding ponds required for the site
be approved by the RCWD.
16. A detailed signing and lighting plan be prepared and approved by the
city's zoning administrator prior to issuance of any permits.
17. All buildings proposed on site be classified as commercial, and
subject to city's building code with regard to same.
18. The area between the residential dwellings abutting on 170th Street be
retained as open space and no auto reduction activities are to take
place in that area.
19. No auto crushing will be permitted on site.
20. A detailed plan be laid out showing how and where vehicles would be
stored indicating driving and fire lanes for proper access throughout
the site.
21. Approval of this SUP does not indicate or imply that an auto
dismantling license will be issued if the activities on this site do
not comply with the SUP and conditions of the auto dismantling
license.
Kelly Driscoll reviewed his proposal stating that it is their intention to
operate a business dealing in late -model, foreign care (Mercedes, Toyota,
BMW, etc.), and would have to present a very good image in order to
attract the clientele anticipated with these types of vehicles. He stated
that his business would not have the appearance of other auto dismantling
yards, as the building would be landscaped, and the vehicles completely
fenced with colored steel or wood.
P.C. Minutes - 3 -MR -89 5
v_-
Mr. Driscol1's partner, who would deal with the hazardous waste generated
by the business, related how these materials would be removed from the
site.
Chairman Senkler then opened the meeting for public input. Gertrude
Granger did not feel that the city needed another junkyard, and was
concerned with the additional traffic that would be generated on Highway
61. She also wanted to know what would be done with the land to the east
of their proposed site, and was informed that area would remain as is.
Bob LaCasse inquired about the "beautification" of the premises. Wayne
Maslowski asked which driveway (170th or Highway 61) would be used for
access to the property. Customer traffic would access from Highway 61 and
hazardous waste pickup would access from 170th Street. The public hearing
was closed for public comment.
Commissioner Mezzano asked about removal of batteries and tires.
Batteries would be stored in plastic containers outside or on a cemented
area inside until removal. Tires cost $1.25 to remove and many dump sites
were available. It was the consensus of the Commission that this type of
operation does not comply with the city's Comprehensive Plan, and that the
city is considering elimination of auto dismantling yards from it's zoning
ordinance.
Senkler made motion, Oswald seconded, to recommend denial of the
application of Marrel Hathaway and Fletcher Driscoll for a SUP to operate
an auto reduction yard in an agricultural zoning district on parcel
93008-3200, based on the following findings:
1. The proposal in question appears to be inconsistent with Part II, B,
45 and 6 of the city's Comprehensive Plan.
2. The retail sale of automobiles in an agricultural zone is not
permitted as per the city's zoning ordinance.
3. There appears to be two established residential dwellings abutting on
the north and south boundaries of the site at Highway 61, and at the
northeast corner of the site.
4. The actual boundaries of the site are not clear on the site plan.
5. This request is inconsistent with the City Council's direction to
eliminate auto reduction yards by SUP from the city's zoning
ordinance.
6. We would question whether this proposal is consistent with the city's
Comprehensive Plan, Part II -A2, calling for "quality, light industrial
development".
7. The site identified in the petition is significantly larger than the
area to be used for auto reduction noted on the site plan.
All aye. Motion Carried.
On behalf of Area Land Developers of Hugo, Mr. Dennis Murray has made
application to the City of Hugo for the subdivision of a 20 acre parcel of
land into 42 single family lots and one outlot. The property in question
is zoned SFU, and is located at the northeast corner of 140th Street and
Fenway Avenue. In 1988, the Hugo Planning Commission recommended approval
of a preliminary plat for this same parcel of land involving a subdivision
of one acre lots as requested by then owner, Mr. John Kostuch. Later in
the year Mr. Kostuch chose to drop this project and not proceed with final
P.C. Minutes - 3-22-89 6
plat approval. The current owners of the site wish to subdivide this
property into smaller lots and serve it with utilities, street curb and
gutter, storm water drainage, and other amenities required for this type
of development. The property in question is generally described as part
of SE 1/4 of Section 19, and the SW 1/4 of Section 30,
T31N, R21W, in the City of Hugo. A drainage ditch runs along the
northeast property line of the site, and the MWCC has an easement which
runs throught the development on the western one half of the site. In
addition to plat approval, the applicants are requesting a variance in lot
size for Lots 2 and 5, Block 4. Mr. Murray has indicated that an
application has been made for permits from the RCWD regarding this
development, although the city has not received copies of the permit
application. The city engineer has reviewed this preliminary plat, and
his comments were made available for Planning Commission review.
In reviewing this preliminary plat, the staff has made the following
observations and recommendations:
1. The legal description submitted with this application as Attachment 1,
includes property outside of the proposed development.
2. The legal description submitted and published for hearing notice
excludes the right-of-way west of the Jim Olson property which is
proposed to be a part of Finale Avenue.
3. The preliminary plat shows the building sites right up to the MWCC
sewer easement.
4. The proposed Outlot A is inconsistent with the city's subdivision
ordinance.
5. The proposed Finale Avenue, as it extends from 140th Street to the
142nd Street designation, narrows from 60' in width to 50' in width.
6. Fenway Avenue North, as currently dedicated, is narrower than minimum
lot width as required in the current subdivision ordinance.
7. The street designation should be reviewed with the Washington County
Surveyor's Office and the Hugo Post Office prior to preliminary plat
approval by the City Council.
8. It should be noted that this development abutts on industrial zones to
the north, east, and south which could involve intensive industrial
activity in the future.
Dennis Murray, representing Area Land Developers of Hugo, reviewed the
proposed SUNNY CREEK ACRES plat, and other plans showing utilities
extension and drainage for the development. During Mr. Murray's
presentation it was discussed that the plat documents he was reviewing
were not the same as those submitted for staff and commission review.
Chairman 8enkler opened the meeting for public comment. Greg Burmeister
listed the following concerns he had with the development: inadequate
railroad crossing for the increased traffic, no park dedicated, access to
his property during watermain extension, upgrading of Fenway Avenue, and
possible drainage problems. Harley Johnson and Marvin LaValle were
present citing their concerns with negative impact on drainage
"downstream" from development. Debby Johnson did not feel Hugo Elementary
School could adequately handle the increased enrollment, and that new
schools meant higher taxes. She was also concerned about possible
devaluation of her property if lower priced houses were constructed.
P.C. Minutes - 3-33-89 7
Terry Burmeister stated she was told the property to the east of her house
was zoned SFE (1 acre), and that they moved from their previous home
because of concentrated development. Jack Perron felt that the developers
should run the sewermain along Fenway Avenue so that others could hookup
to the line.
Willy Lessard responded to some of the concerns of the citizens as
follows:
1. The stormwater ponding submitted with the Kostuch development was
considerably less than what they are proposing this time.
2. The pond is larger than what required by RCWD.
3. The valuation of the homes would be from $80,000-$150,000.
4. Many of the lots would be larger than the required 10,400 sq. ft.
5. The property would be improved by sewer and water thereby providing
added fire protection to surrounding property.
6. During watermain extension, one lane of traffic would be open, and
their plan would include the upgrading of the railroad crossing.
7. A traffic analysis would be done at applicants expense.
Because Dennis Murray was unaware of the staff recommendations and
observations, and the staff did not have an opportunity to review all of
Mr. Murray's plans (provided concept plan only), Chairman Senkler thought
it best for all concerned that the matter be tabled until all parties are
informed.
Senkler made motion, Mezzano seconded, to table the subdivision
��� application for SUNNY CREEK ACRES until the Planning Commission meeting of
| ��r
| April 26, 1989. The developers agreed to the motion for tabling.
All aye. Motion Carried.
Motion made by Senkler, seconded by Barnes to adjourn at 10:45PM.
All aye, motion passed.
Mary Ann Creager
Acting Secretary
P.C. Minutes - 3-22-89 8