HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988.04.06 PC MinutesSPECIAL MEETING OF THE HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION
April 6, 1988
Chairman Senkler called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.
PRESENT: Sullivan, Henry, Sonnenfeld, Barnes, Senkler, Mayor Atkinson,
Councilman Bob Olson, Adm. Huber, Carole LaBelle
ABSENT: Jesinski
5,.pecial Use Permit (John Tf-i
Chairman Senkler requested that City Administrator Huber brief the
commission members on the John Thommes request. Mr. Huber stated that
John Thommes of 8844 No. 122nd St., Hugo, Minnesota has made application
to the City for a special use permit to operate a tree service at 1.5457
Jeffrey Ave. in an agricultural zone on the west half of Section 13
identified as Parcel #4 of a previously approved survey. Mr. Thommes has
been operating a tree service in the City of Hugo on the site in question
and was not aware that he is required to secure the proper permits to
proceed with his business. Mr. Thommes trims and removes trees then hauls
the brush and wood to his land on Jeffrey Ave. where the wood is separated
from the brush and is sold and the brush is burned. All burning on site
is regulated by the city's permitting process. Mr. Thommes has agreed
that all burning now and in the future will be done in accordance with the
fire department's guidelines. Mr. Thommes also states that the property
in question will be used only for the separating and burning of brush and
all equipment will be kept and maintained at a location other than the
Jeffrey Ave. site. The City probably could accommodate this type of use
in an agricultural zone but not for an indefinite period of time. If the
planning commission recommends approval of this special use permit we
would suggest it be subject to special conditions.
Mr. Thommes stated that he removes and trims trees and hauls the material
to his home site at 15457 Jeffrey. He is currently living at that site
and has been operating the business for approximately 4 years. Mr.
Thommes stated he obtains a burning permit for each fire. Area residents
were concerned with the size of the piles of debris, flying ash, smoke
that lingers in the air, the smoke smell which lasts for days, and the
possible problem of rodents living in the debris. Mr. Bill Wolf (15575
Jeffrey) stated he does not like the nuisance of the burning but feels Mr.
Thommes should be given the opportunity to operate the business without
offending area residents by burning in the winter and limiting the size of
the wood piles. Mr. Thommes stated that he has water at the site and will
be able to better control the smoldering wood. Mr. Thommes stated he
would be willing to comply with any requirements necessary for him to
operate at this site.
Members concurred that this is the type of operation which may be
acceptable at this time but not necessarily on a continuous basis. The
area is developing as residential and changes in the area should be
considered before allowing for a continuous permit. Mr. Senkler stated
that Mr. Thommes should be allowed some time to look for an alternate site
and begin phasing out his operation.
Planning Commission Minutes - April 6, 1988
Page 2
Motion made by Barnes to recommend approval of the special use permit for
John Thommes to operate a tree service at 15457 Jeffrey Ave. subject to 16
special conditions amending #1 to allow for an 18 month permit.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion made by Henry, seconded by Sonnenfeld to recommend approval of the
special use permit for John Thommes to operate a tree service at 15457
Jeffrey Ave. subject to the following special conditions.
1. The special use permit be issued for a maximum period of 12 months
beginning the date of approval by the city council.
2. No signs or advertising be permitted on site.
3. No heavy equipment be stored on site.
4' All activities on site be limited to the areas identified on the
submitted site plan.
5. All burning on site shall be regulated by city ordinances and enforced
by the fire department. Approval of this special use permit shall not
consititute approval of any burning permits.
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 as per Mr.
Thommes' application.
12. No trespassing signs shall be posted at the entrance gates to the
site.
13. All activities on site shall be limited to those of Mr. Thommes' Tree
Service and depositing of wood and burning of same shall not be
allowed for others.
14. The site in question shall not be used as a depository for demolition
materials and shall be limited to the materials identified in the
application.
15. This permit may be revoked at any time by the City Council for failure
to adhere to the special conditions listed herein or other ordinance
violations.
16. The owner/applicant shall permit access to the site by the city code
enforcement officer at reasonable times to assure compliance with this
special use permit. `
17. Applicant shall carry liability insurance to cover the burning on site
and provide proof of same to the City.
All aye, motion passed.
I
Planning Commission Minutes - April 6, 1988
Page 3
)
Administrator Huber identified the Sempel property on the map and reviewed
the proposed subdivision. Mr. Huber stated that Mr. Don Sempel, on behalf
of Safeway Movers, Inc. of Hugo, has made application to the city for a
minor subdivision and waiver of formal subdivision requirements for an
18.5 acre parcel of land located in the southeast quarter of Section 8,
T31N, R21W. The property is located on the south side of 165th St. and is
several hundred feet west of Highway 61. The City of Hugo approved minor
subdivisions for the site in question in 1983 and again in 1986. If the
subdivision in question is approved the city will have reviewed and
authorized the creation of five lots on the industrial site in question'
In light of the fact that the city has allowed minor subdivisions in the
past it would appear that future subdivisions no longer comply with the
intent of the minor subdivision ordinance and any future land splits of
parcels 1 and 2 on the proposed survey should be done by formal platting'
Mr. Huber noted that the use of minor subdivisions is intended to deal
with a one-time subdivision of land that creates less than four
developable lots. It is not the intent of the ordinance to allow minor
subdivisions for the purpose of circumventing the formal platting
process. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor
subdivision and waiver of the formal platting requirements, the staff
recommends that said approval be subject to special conditions.
Mr. Sempel stated that he has no intention of any further subdivision of
Parcel 1 or 2 and understands that if he chose to do so it would require
the formal platting process.
Motion made by Senkler, seconded by Sullivan to recommend approval of the
subdivision request by Safeway House Movers, Inc. to subdivide an 18.5
acre tract of land into a 1.1 and 17.4 acre parcel located in the
southeast 1/4 of Section 8, T31N, R21W, subject to the following special
conditions.
1. A final survey must be submitted to the council for approval within 9O
days of preliminary survey acceptance or this approval shall be null
and void.
2' All conditions of this approval must be met prior to stamping any
deeds for recording by the city clerk unless otherwise permitted by
city council action.
3. All property lines must be identified on site by the applicant to
assure proper building setbacks if required by the building inspector.
4. Driveways or drainage areas must include installation of a minimum 15"
diameter corrugated metal culvert in a manner acceptable to the city.
5. All fees relating to the subdivision approval shall be paid by the
applicant including the cost of recording documents with Washington
County.
6' On site activities permitted as a result of this subdivision shall not
cause the altering of any watercourse, ditch, or drainage system in
the area.
7. Payment of all parkland dedication fees shall be made prior to final
survey approval.
S. Approval of this subdivision shall not create any landlocked parcels
adjacent to the site.
9. Any future subdivision of parcels 1 and 2 of this survey shall be done
by formal plat.
All aye, motion passed.
Planning Commission Minutes - April 6, 1988
Page 4
Mig-r,gUbdivision Request (C. Schuneman)
Chairman Genkler requested that Mr. Huber review the application with the
commission. Mr. Huber stated that Carl and Janet Schuneman have made
|application for a minor subdivision and waiver of the formal subdivision
/
requirements for a 33.06 acre tract of land zoned agricultural and located
on part of the northwest quarter of section 33, T31N, R21W, Hugo,
Minnesota. The property in question is located on the north side of 125th
St. approximately 1/2 mile east of Goodview Ave. Mr. Schuneman proposes
to subdivide the tract of land in question into 3 parcels, ranging in size
from 10 to 12.5 acres. A number of years ago Mr. Schuneman sold parcels 1
and 2 of the proposed subdivision to the individuals noted on the survey
by unrecorded contract for deed. The sale was done without properly
subdividing the property and the property owners now cannot record their
deeds as the land has not been legally subdivided. In 1979 the City
authorized the creation of 3, ten acre lots immediately east of the parcel
in question by land division. The parcels proposed meet the minimum
acreage and we can see no objection to this subdivision to resolve the
problem of getting the deeds properly recorded with the county. We should
note again however, that the use of minor subdivisions to circumvent the
formal platting process is not recommended. Mr. Schuneman owns a
considerable amount of acreage in this area and we would recommend that
any further subdivision of his property be carefully planned and approved
by formal platting. If the planning commission recommends approval of
this subdivision and waiver of the formal platting procedures, we would
recommend that said approval be subject to special conditions.
Mr. Huber stated he spoke to the Dept. of Natural Resources and they
informed him they have no objections to the Schuneman subdivision. The
application and survey have been sent to Rice Creek Watershed District for
their comments and recommendations.
Commission members felt this request was consistent with the comprehensive
plan and would be a suitable area four building sites. However, they did
feel that any further subdivison should require formal platting.
Motion made by Henry, seconded by Barnes to recommend approval of the
subdivision request of Carl and Janet Schuneman to subdivide 33.06 acres
into three lots of 10 to 12.5 acres on part of the northwest 1/4 of
Section 33, T31N, R21W, subject to the following special conditions.
1. A final survey must be submitted to the council for approval within 90
days of preliminary survey acceptance or this approval shall be null
and void.
2. All conditions 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 must be identified on site by the applicant to
assure proper setbacks when buildings are to be constructed if
required by the building inspector.
4. Driveways or drainage areas must include installation of a minimum 15"
diameter corrugated metal culvert in a manner acceptable to the city.
Planning Commission Minutes - April 5, 1988
Page 5
5. All fees relating to this subdivision approval shall be paid by the
applicant including the cost of recording documents with Washington
C(:)t_tn ty .
b. On site activities permitted as a result of this Subdivision shall not
cause the altering of any watercourse, ditch, or drainage system .in
this area.
Residences built on this site must be located in the proximity of the
soil test area or additional soil tests will be required prior to
i. :seance of a building permit.
8. All parkland dedication fees shall be paid prior to approval of the
final survey.
9. No filling of any of the wetlands identified on parcels 2 and ' shall
be permitted without first securing approval from the Dept. of Natural
Resources, Division of Waters.
10. The access identified on parcel 3 of the survey should be approved by
the DNR prior to final survey approval.
11. Any further subdivision of this property or adjacent properties owned
by Mr. Schuneman or subsequent owners shall be done by formal
platting.
12. Any easements required by the DNR or Rice Creek Watershed D:i.str.ict for
the wetlands area on site shall be granted by applicant to the
appropriate agency as requested.
1:':. The applicant shall dedicate to the city for roadway purposes
.identified right-of-way for 125th St. noted on sheet one, bottom of
page.
14. Applicant shall comply with all requests and recommendations of the
Rice Creek. Watershed District.
All aye, motion passed.
Re onig.l~!_...RF.gk..te�st:•_...__(Fred Mac:a1us Jr. }
Administrator informed the commission members that Mr. Fred Macalus has
made application to the City of Hugo for the rezoning of a 42 acre tract
of land from conservancy to agricultural. The property in question is
generally described as the east 638 f t . of the northeast quarter of the
northwest quarter of section 5, T31N, R21W, Washington County, Minnesota,
except the north 11373 ft. thereof and other easements. The property
abutts an agricultural zone to the north and to the south. The zones to
the east and west are both conservancy. It is our understanding that the
applicant ultimately intends to subdivide the property in question into
three tracts for development purposes. The question before the commission
at this hearing is whether or not an agricultural zone is appropriate in
this area. if a rezoning is approved by the city the subdivision of land
and other pertinent issues regarding development of this property would be
reviewed during the subdivision process.
Mr. Macalus was not present to comment on his behalf or answer questions
regarding this rezoning. Several area residents opposed the rezoning
stating that Foxhill Ave. would not support additional traffic and the
property in question could not adequately support additional septic
systems. Leo McEvoy stated that the surrounding area already has five
acre lots in a conservancy zone and the septic systems are too
concentrated. Chairman Senkler stated that the rezoning
Planning Commission Minutes - April b, 1988
Page 6
itself may not constitute a problem However, the planning commission does
not want to indicate in any way that they will approve a future
subdivision of the property .
Motion made by Sen[ -.:ler, seconded by Henry to recommend denial of the
request of Mr. Fred Macalus, Jr. to rezone 42 acres from conservancy to
agrictaltural for the following reasons.
1. The topography of the land was not suitable for ten acre sites.
2. Because of the proximity to Hardwood Creek: it is not suitable for
density greater than one dwelling unit per ?ti acres.
_. Potential drainage problem.
4. Foxhili Ave. ends at the north end of the property and does not serve
the entire tract in question.
All aye, motion passed.
Mayor Atkinson was present to address the goals of the planning commission
and those of the city council. Mr. Atkinson stated it is the obligation
oi: the planning commission to control and direct the growth of Hugo but
not restrict the growth. Planning commission decisions should be planning
oriented rather than reactions to public objections or support.
Commissioner Barnes left at 9:37PM.
Subdivision Ordi.nan
Chairman Senk:ler stated that the final draft of the subdivision ordinance
has been completed and each member should have reviewed their copy.
Virtually all of the recommendations of the planning commission have been
incorporated into the ordinance with minor exceptions. The city has been
working on the subdivision ordinance for over two years and the city
council is anxiously awaiting the planning commission recommendations. Mr.
Senk:ler noted that this was a public hearing and requested public input.
Motion made by Senk:ler, seconded by Sullivan to recommend approval of the
proposed subdivision ordinance (final draft received2271-88).
All aye, motion passed.
Motion made by Sullivan, seconded by Senk:ler to adjot..trn at 9:45PM.
&�� Xc�'Cc-""
Carole LaBelle, Secretary
Hugo Planning Commission