Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989.04.26 PC MinutesHUGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- April 26, 1989 The regular meeting of the Hugo Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Senkler at 7:10PM, PRESENT: Mezzano, Henry, Thoreson, Oswald, Barnes, Senkler, Carole LaBelle, Councilman Jesinski Motion made by Thoreson, seconded by Barnes to approve the minutes of March 22, 1989 as amended. All aye, motion passed. WAVA.MKial Use ) Chairman Senkler reviewed the application and Administrator Huber's comments with the planning commission. Mr. Huber's memorandum stated that on behalf of the Bald Eagle Sportsmen's Association, Mr. Dennis Schriefels has made application to the City of Hugo for an Amended Special Use Permit to allow for the conducting of archery shoots and tournaments on certain weekends throughout the year. The club has designed and laid out a field archery range on site and they have assured the City that the archery events in question are not in conflict with the original special use permit. All parking and activities would take place in the confines of the club property. The property in question contains approximately 80 acres and is zoned agricultural. In reviewing this proposal the staff can see no problems with or objections to said amended special use permit. Commissioner Oswald felt that the club was required to close on Sundays serveral years ago because of the additional noise, traffic, and dust, and adding archery shoots at this point defeats that purpose. Chairman Senkler felt that noise was the main concern of area residents and since archery is virtually noiseless there were no objections. Other commissioners concurred. Motion made by Senkler, seconded by Mezzano to recommend approval of the amended special use permit for the Bald Eagle Sportsmen's Assoc. to conduct archery shoots on their property (described as the east 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 Section 33, T31, R21) on specified dates. Members voting aye: Mezzano, Henry, Thoreson, Barnes, Senkler Members voting nay: Oswald Chairman Senkler reviewed the application with the planning commission. He stated that Ray and Ramona Wlaschin have made application to the City of Hugo for a minor subdivision of approximately 16 acres into two parcels, one containing approximately 9 acres and the other approximately 7.6 acres. The property in question is zoned RR2 requiring a 5 acre lot size. A certificate of survey has been prepared in compliance with city subdivision regulations and the site in question is not subject to Rice Creek Watershed District review. Although Tract B has only 220' of frontage on County Rd. 8 the lot meets the lot width requirements based on the 300' width at the building setback line. Note the house is proposed at the south end of the lot. Both tracts A and B have frontage on County P.C. Minutes 4-26-89 1 Rd. 8 and appear to meet all city requirements as proposed. If the planning commission recommends approval of this subdivision to the city council we would recommend that said approval be subject special conditions. Chairman Senkler opened the issue for public comments. There was no one present to comment. Motion made by Senkler, seconded by Henry to recommend approval of the minor subdivision for Ray and Ramona Wlaschin to subdivide 16.6 acres into two lots, one lot 9 acres, and one lot 7.6 acres subject to the following special conditions. 1. The final 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. 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. 3. 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. 4. All fees relating to this subdivision shall be paid by the applicant including the cost of recording documents with Washington County. 5. 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. 6. Percolation tests for Tract B site must be submitted to the city prior to final survey or plat approval. 7. Dedication of required parkland or payment of fee in lieu of parkland dedication shall be paid to the city prior to final plat approval. G. No significant deviations from the approved preliminary survey shall be permitted unless reviewed by the planning commission prior to council approval. 9. The developer shall permit access to the referenced site for periodic inspections to assure conformance with this special use permit. All aye, motion passed. Chairman Senkler reviewed Administrator Huber's background memorandum with the planning commission. He stated Mr. John Olsen, 14728 Irish Ave. No. has made application to the City of Hugo for a special use permit to use 11% of his 7.75 acre tract of land to process and store firewood. Mr. Olsen indicated on his application that the property is being used for farming and is the location of his personal residence. Although Mr. Olsen indicates that only 11% of his property is to be used for the purpose indicated, his narrative and site plan indicate most of the site will be used. Note that this request is very similar in nature to that of Mr. John Thommes who appeared before the planning commission last spring for a similar request which was subsequently denied. Mr. John Olsen operates a tree removal service and has used the site in question and adjacent property as a dump site for trees removed from other communities. P.C. Minutes 4-26-89 2 He was notified of potential violations of the city code regarding illegal dumping when he was caught dumping trees in the gravel pit area to the west of his proposed site. Although Mr. Olsen's proposal may be to split and process firewood on his site our concern would be that it would end up just another dump site for his tree removal service. The staff noted it's concern that Mr. Olsen intends to pull in large logs and piles of brush to be stored on site until they can be burned or disposed of in another manner. The problem with this proposal is that you can end up with a couple of dry summers with no burning permits issued and can ultimately end up with a rather substantial mess that is too costly to clean up and may set a precedent for similar types of sites elsewhere in the community. The staff suggested that all members of the planning commission visit the site in question and note the type of activities taking place. It was pointed out that once a permit is issued it is going to be extremely difficult for anyone to interpret what is and isn't firewood, as well as, whether the site in question ends up a dumping area or a legitimate wood splitting operation. If the planning commission feels that the activities in question are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and activities in this area, we would recommend that said permit be subject to special conditions. Mr. John Olsen stated that he was unaware of illegal dumping. He stated that he only burns in the winter. Mr. Olsen agreed to eliminate the pile of limb wood in the rear of his property. Mr. Olsen stated the property would be for his personal use only and that no other tree service or dumping would be permitted on his land. Mr. Olsen informed the commission that the material brought to his site is disposed of annually. Mr' Olsen has other locations where he disposes most of the material from his business. The wood brought to his residence is strictly for firewood. Chairman Senkler requested comments from the public. Mr. Andy Goiffon stated that he was responsible for the dumping in the gravel pit in 1988 and John Olsen should not be blamed for his mistake. Area residents Norm Danner, Larry Hanson, and Andy Goiffon stated John Olsen has been a model neighbor and they have no objections to his operation as it exists. They feel Mr. Olsen keeps the area clean and has helped in the cleanup of the neighborhood. Chairman Senkler stated that when this type of operation has been allowed in the past it very often becomes an eyesore for the community. He stated it is virtually impossible to regulate the activity on site. Commissioner Barnes felt the planning commission would have to be explicit as far as what is allowed and not allowed if this application was approved, as the same type of request was denied to another applicant. Commission members agreed that the previous applicant created the objections to his operation through his negligence and disregard for area residents which resulted in the denial of his application, which is unlike Mr. Olsen whose neighbors support him. Motion made by Henry, seconded by Oswald to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit for John Olsen to process and store firewood on his property (7.75 acres) described as part of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 23, T31N, R21W, P.I. Number subject to the followinq special conditions. P.C. Minutes 4-26-89 I . 2. 3. 4. 5. The SUP be issued for a maximum period of 24 months beginning the date of approval by the City Council. No sions or advertising be permitted on site. ~ ~ ' No heavy equipment be stored on site. All activities on site be limited to the submitted site plan. All buring on site shall be regulated by by the fire department. Approval of this approval of any burning permits. areas identified on the city ordinances and enforced SUP shall not constitute 6. The owner/applicant shall be responsible for reimbursement of costs incurred by the city to respond to fire calls resulting from activities taking place on site. 7. All wood, brush, and other materials deposited on site shall be removed in their entirety at the time of expiration of this permit. S. The applicant shall install a lockable gate at the access to this site, and said gate shall remain locked at all times when there is no one present on the burning/storage area of the site. 9. All weight restrictions on city and county roads shall be observed during the operation of this tree service. 10. Any materials other than trees and brush deposited on site must be removed by the property owners at their expense. All tree service related activities on site shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. 11. The activities on the site in question shall be limited to the separation and sale of wood as well as the burning of brush by fire department permit as per Mr. Olsen's application. 12. No trespassing signs shall be posted at the entrance gates to the site. MEMBERS VOTING AYE: Henry Thoreson, Barnes, Oswald MEMBERS VOTING NAY: Senkler MEMBERS ABSTAINING: Mezzano Motion passed' ) Chairman Senkler stated that Mr. Gary Markovich, Frank Puleo, and John Finnegan have made application to the City of Hugo for an amended special use permit to allow for the expansion of a manufacturing and warehousing facility in a single family estate district. Total acreage of the property is 9.71 acres. In reviewing the history of this use with former members of the city council it would appear that Mr. Puleo installed a mobile home on site and constructed an accessory building for manufacturing purposes. The individuals in question proceeded without the proper permits and later came to the city, after -the -fact, to secure city approval for a manufacturing use in a residential zone. The city council on a split vote approved a special use permit for a "home occupation not meeting criteria" to allow the business to continue as long as it stayed as a small unnoticeable manufacturing operation. Residents adjacent to the site in question indicated they have no objections to the current operation but would oppose a rezoning of the property in question to include industrial. After careful staff review of the existing ordinance it does not appear that the city provides for allowing manufacturing in single family residential areas. We can see no mechanism available to the city within the ordinance to allow this type of business short of rezoning P.C. Minutes 4-26-89 4 the property to industrial. The initial concern of the city council was to deal with the existing situation and be sure that it was kept in check and didn't become a large manufacturing operation. The staff feels the only way to deal with this site would be to rezone it to industrial to allow for further expansion of this facility. It is a difficult situation to deal with as it is a use currently in existence and was authorized by the city council although they appeared to be extremely reluctant to approve this permit in 1985. Mr. Gary Markovich, owner of the manufacturing business stated that the expansion would be used primarily for storage space and he would not add any manufacturing equipment or employees. Chairman Senkler opened the public hearing. Area resident Ron Cressman informed the planning commission that they have had no problems with the manufacturing business operating adjacent to his property. Councilman Tom Jesinski stated he had received a call from other residents who supported the operation of the business. Chairman Senkler stated that there is no legal way to allow the expansion of this business and we can no longer continue to consider this a home occupation. Mr. Senkler indicated that to rezone the property to Industrial would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Motion made by Senkler, seconded by Henry to recommend denial of the amended special use permit application request by Gary Markovich to allow for the expansion of his manufacturing business based on the fact that it could not be considered a home occupation. All voting aye, motion passed. ) Chairman Senkler reviewed this application with commission members. Mr. Senkler stated that Mr. Alex Zaluckyj and George Schtowchan have applied to the City of Hugo for a minor subdivision to split a 73.6 acre tract of land into two parcels of approximately equal size. The property in question is zoned conservancy and located on the southeast corner of Oneka Lake. These lots are split by Oneka Lake Blvd. and are to be subdivided with frontage on Oneka Lake and additional property southeast of Oneka Lake Blvd. The survey is extremely difficult to read with regard to the existing lots and the lots being proposed. It would appear, however, that a main lot division line splitting tract A and B extends through an existing dwelling on site. There is also a portion of Hardwood Creek located at the southwest end of tract A which may necessitate providing easements to the Rice Creek Watershed District. There is also a portion of tract B extending from the low wet area identified on the site plan to Oneka Lake which is identified on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Map as a flood zone district. The staff recommended to the applicants and their surveyor that applications be made with the watershed district and the Army Corps of Engineers for permits relating to this survey. The staff requested that the surveyor identify the flood zone A on the survey and indicate that flood control maintenance easements be provided to control future flooding concerns. The surveyor for the applicants has indicated that he has discussed our concerns with the property owners in question and the survev P.C. Minutes 4-26-89 5 is being corrected and the information is being incorporated on the survey as per the staff recommendations. We can see no problems with the survey in question subject to the needed information being provided on the revised surveys and approval be subject to special conditions. Chairman Senkler informed the commission that Administrator Huber felt the property iron which is located in Hardwood Creek should be moved out of the water. Mr. Zaluckyj did not feel obligated to incur anymore expense based on the personal opinion of city staff. Mr. Alex Zaluckyj stated that this is a consolidation of three parcels. He stated that the home on the proposed lot line would be removed within the designated period of time allowed by the city. Mr. Schtowchan is the owner of proposed Parcel A and informed the commission that his legal counsel advised him that no easements are appropriate for this subdivision. Chairman Senkler indicated he was not concerned with easements for the purpose of the subdivision. Motion made by Senkler, seconded by Barnes to recommend approval of the request by Alex Zaluckyj and George Schtowchan to subdivide 73.6 acres into two parcels of equal size subject to the following special conditions. 1. The final 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. 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. 3. 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. 4. Securing the required permits from the watershed district, Department of Natural Resources, and Army Corps of Engineers is required prior to final plat approval. 5. All fees relating to this subdivision shall be paid by the applicant including the cost of recording documents with Washington County. 6. 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. 7. This approval shall be granted with the understanding that said subdivision does not create any landlocked parcels by the petitioner- and etitionerand land owner. S. No improvements, landscaping, or or alteration of flood plain or protected wetlands shall be permitted in the defined drainage areas without the express written authorization of the city and the approved watershed districts, DNR, and Army Corps of Engineers. 9. Developer shall comply with all requirements and restrictions applicable to identified wetlands. 10. No significant deviations from the approved preliminary plat shall be permitted unless reviewed by the planning commission prior to council approval. 11. The developer shall permit access to the referenced site for periodic inspections to assure conformance with this subdivision. 12. Building to be removed from the site must be identified on the survey and must be removed within _q<}_ days of survey approval and the required financial security be provided as per city council policy. All aye, motion passed. P.C. Minutes 4-26-89 6 Chairman Senkler reviewed this application with planning commission members. He stated that Ms. Jeanette Pfurtscheller and William Simonet have made application to the City of Hugo for a subdivision and variance to split a 36.9 acre tract of land into 7 residential sites. The property is zoned RR2 requiring minimum 5 acre lot size. Three lots are located on Round Lake and four of the lots are located south of the proposed 121st St. The applicants involved in this request submitted a similar proposal to the planning commission in 1988 and following commission approval said subdivision was not processed through the city council for final approval. The applicants have revised their lot layout and roadway location. The initial survey was prepared by Georgi/Schmidt and Assoc. and the grading and floor elevations plan has been prepared by Itasca Engineering. Both engineers have signed the preliminary plat in question. Earlier this week the city received a letter from the law firm of Rheinberger and Rheinberger stating that when Mr. Simonet purchased the 20 acres south of proposed121st St. the purchaser agreed to construct a roadway to city standards on the south border of the site in question. The staff is concerned that the applicants are pursuing a request that could end up being litigated and the city being involved in approving a roadway location that was not agreed upon by the seller. The planning commission may want to consider the resolving of this issue prior to preliminary plat approval by the city council. The staff has noted additional concerns regarding this plat. 1. The house locations identified on lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 2 and lots 1 and 3 of Block 1 are not in conformance with the developers proposed restrictive covenants. 2. The intersection proposed east of lot 1 block 1 does not appear to be an acceptable arrangement. 3. The extension of the main access road to the site was not to go beyond the intersection to the cul-de-sac. The road proposed was not to intersect with the existing driveway easement providing access to County Rd. 10. 4. There appears to be a 20' drainage easement crossing a road right-of-way and culvert locations under the roadway to drain portions of the site. We would be concerned that the drainage plan allows drainage from the subdivision in question to properties to the north. 5. The soil test holes and percolations areas in the perc tests were not identified on the survey and we cannot tell whether they are consistent with the proposed site locations. 6. We would seriously question acceptability of the roadway arrangement serving the 3 lots in block 1. 7. The radius of the proposed cul-de-sac does not appear to be in conformance with the city subdivision regulations. 8. We cannot tell if the contour lines shown on the site plan are the proposed contours or the existing contours. If the planning commission feels the enclosed preliminary plat provides adequate information to recommend approval of the subdivision to the city, council we would recommend that said approval be subject to special conditions. P.C. Minutes 4-26-89 7 Chairman Senkler reviewed a letter received from Grant Township in which they expressed concern regarding property in their township being landlocked by this subdivision. Chairman Senkler stated that he felt this issue should be addressed prior to any recommendation being made. Mr. Larry Samstead, Itasca Engineering informed the commission he would be providing more information on his next drawing. He also stated that he could change the radius of the roads and the proposed roadway could access the lots created only if that was what the city wanted. He stated that he would provide whatever information was required by the city engineer. Chairman Senkler opened the public hearing for comments. Area residents Mike Ball, Craig Breeder, and others were also concerned with the current location of the roadway, the purchase agreement which indicated the roadway would be located on the south line of the proposed subdivision, and the proposed roadway allowing access to the north to 122nd St. The planning commission concurred that it would be pointless to review this application until all questions have been addressed, particularly with regard to the landlocked parcel in Grant Township. Chairman Senkler asked Mr. Samstead if he would permit the commission to table this issue until the questions could be addressed. Mr. Samstead stated whether the planning commission recommended approval or not was irrelevant to any final decision made by the city council and requested the commission make their recommendation at this time. After a lengthy discussion commissioners concurred that it would be impossible to make a recommendation based on the information provided at this time. Mr. Samstead was again consulted, he now felt he had a clearer picture of what was being requested of him regarding additional information and agreed to table the issue until the May 24th meeting. Motion made by Senkler, seconded by Barnes to table this request until May 24th. All aye, motion passed. Subdivision Request (Sunny Creek Acres 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 dwelling lots. The property in question is zoned SFU and is located at the northeast corner of 140th St. and Fenway Ave. In 1988 the Hugo Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat for this same parcel of land involving a subdivision of land into 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 plat approval. The current owners of the site wish to subdivide this property into smaller lots and serve it with utilities, street, curb/gutter, stormwater drainage, and other amenities required for this type of development. The property in question is generally described as part of the southeast 1/4 of Section 19 and the southwest 1/4 of Section 30, T31N, R21W, in the City of Hugo. This application was reviewed by the Hugo Planning Commission at their March 22, 1989 regular meeting. Said matter was tabled at the request of the developer allowing P.C. Minutes 4-26-89 8 him time to address the concerns of the staff, planning commission, and area residents. The proposed preliminary plat, utilities plan, and grading/drainage plan for the development have been provided. This subdivision request also includes a variance from lot dimensions on two of the lots within the development. The utilities plan prepared by the developers indicates that this project might be done in phases, although, the developers make no mention of it in their application or on the preliminary plat. If the planning commission feels this development is consistent with the comprehensive plan and now addresses the concerns raised at the previous commission meeting and acts to recommend approval we would suggest that said recommendation be subject to special conditions. Mr. John Stewart, engineer for the applicants was present to review the subdivision and answer questions for the planning commission. He stated that the current plan would have drainage running to the east to the stormwater area and there would be no additional water flowing to the west. Mr. Stewart agreed that the slopes at the railroad crossing at-- 140th t140th St. could be raised for better visibility but did not feel this was the responsibility of the developers. Chairman Senkler inquired whether this development would be done in phases or one step. The applicants stated this would depend on the number of lots sold in the early stages of development and the financial requirements imposed by the city. They would prefer it be completed in one stage. Area residents were concerned with additional traffic on 140th St.and Fenway Ave., who would pay the cost for improvements to the roads, where children could play, and the heavy trucks using Fenway and 140th St. and whether they would be responsible for upgrading 140th St. if required. Mr. Harlee Johnson was concerned with continuation of his sod business if new residents complained. Chairman Senkler stated that the development agreement should address many of the concerns of the residents. Motion made by Barnes, seconded by Henry to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Sunny Creek Acres subject to the following special 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. No building permits shall be issued until the plat has been approved and recorded with Washington County. 6. Securing the required permits from the watershed district is required prior to final plat approval. P.C. Minutes 4-26-89 9 7. All fees relating to this subdivision shall be paid by the applicant including the cost of recording documents with Washington County. 8. Dedication of required parkland or payment of fee in lieu of parkland dedication shall be paid to the city prior to final plat approval. 9. Installation of required roadways including street, curb and gutter, stormwater control, and utilities shall be installed at the developers expense. 10. Subdivision shall be contingent upon full compliance with the developers agreement between the city and developer. 11. 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. 12. All property owners shall be responsible for maintenance of drainage areas within easements on their property. 13. The developer shall deposit with the city an initial amount of $10,000 to cover legal, engineering, administrative, and other costs related to this development. The 140th St. access to the development shall also be improved to bituminous surface from Hwy #61 to Fenway Ave. at the developer's expense. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. No significant deviations from the approved preliminary plat shall be permitted unless reviewed by the planning commission prior to council approval. 17. Any exterior lighting or advertising activities on site must be approved by the city. 18. The use for which this permit is sought is not in violation of any restrictive covenants applying to the property referenced herein. 19. The developer shall permit access to the referenced site for periodic inspections to assure conformance with this special use permit. 20. 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. 21. Watermains shall be extended to and through the site at the developers expense. 22. Final plat should address the reconfiguration of the railroad crossing at 140th St. for improved visibility. 23. Grading of the site shall be such to assure drainage of the site to the proposed holding pond. All aye, motion passed. Motion made by Senkler, seconded by Henry to adjourn at 12:03AM. All aye, motion passed. Carole LaBelle, Secretary Hugo Planning Commission P.C. Minutes 4-26-89 10