HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988.11.22 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION - November 22, 1988
Chairman Senkler called the reqular meetinq to order at 7:00Q
PRESENT: Sullivan, Thoreson, Jesinski, Senkler
ABSENT: Henry, Barnes
Motion made by Sullivan, seconded by Senkler to approve the minutes of
October 26, 1988 as amended.
All aye, motion passed.
Chairman Senkler requested Administrator Huber review the application with
the planning commission. Mr. Huber stated that Don and Janet Valento have
made application to the City of Hugo for the subdivision of a 42 acre
tract of agricultural zoned land into two parcels identified on the survey
as Tract A and B. The property in question is located between Everton
Ave. and Elmcrest Ave. in the south 1/2 of Section 18. We are unable to
provide the commission with the legal description of the property as the
legal description provided on the survey is different than the legal
description provided by the applicant for publication in our legal
newspaper. In reviewing this application we feel that there are a nubber
of things that need to be cleared up before an adequate review of this
request can be made. It should also be pointed out that according to the
city's floodplain map it appears that all of Tract B as proposed is
located in the flood plain zone B. We would recommend that the following
items be addressed before the planning commission takes any action on this
request.
1. The streets adjacent to these various tracts be properly labeled.
2. The acreage identified on the survey conform with the lot sizes and
the acreage identified in the application.
3. The legal description be checked for accuracy.
4. The applicant consider moving the north property line of Tract A to
allow for proper setback requirements for the existing buildings on
site.
5. The city has no record of the two parcels north of the site in
question being properly subdivided by the city.
6. Tract B should be checked with regard to useability as it is currently
in a designated floodplain (percolation and/or hydrologist report).
If the planning commission recommends approval of this application as
submitted we would suggest it be subject to special conditions.
Mr. Valento stated that the building closest to the north property line of
Parel A could easily be removed. He also informed the commission that the
easement on the north line of the property is to assure access to his
property on the north.
Chairman Senkler requested comments from the residents. Karen Anderson
and Leroy Peltier owners of property on the east side of Everton feel that
part of their property may be on the west side of Everton Ave. leaving Mr.
Valento with no access to the road.
1
P.C. Minutes
- November 22,
1988
Joe Tamillo
realtor for Mr.
Valento stated he
spoke to
the Washington
County surveyor's
office and
they informed Mr.
Tamillo
that there is a 13'
cartway which
allows access
to Mr. Valento's
property.
Mr. Senkler
made motion, seconded
by Sullivan
to table
this request until
December 28,
1988 when all
of these questions
regarding
roadway,
floodplain,
easements, and
legal description
can be addressed.
All ave, motion passed
Mr. Senkler requested that Administrator Huber review this request with
the planning commission. Mr. Huber stated that Richard and Harriet
Pottsmith have made application to the City of Hugo for the subdivision of
a 40 acre tract of land into two 20 acre parcels in a conservancy
district. Currently there is a home located on parcel A of the proposed
survey. The applicants have requested waiver of the formal platting
requirements for survey approval. Although Mr. Pottsmith's application
indicated the property in question is zoned agricultural our records
indicate that the property is zoned conservancy. Mr. Pottsmith notes on
his applicaiton that the property in question is not located within the
floodplain, however, our floodplain map indicates that most of parcel B
and part of parcel A are located in flood zone A. The property in
question is generally described as the northeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4
Of section 7, T31N, R21W. Without an accompanying topographic map it is
extremely difficult to determine the elevations of this site with regard
to possible building placement. It also appears that Hardwood Creek runs
in a north/south direction through all of parcel B in this proposed
tract. It appears from viewing the site that the north 1/2 of parcel B
and part of parcel A have been excavated or some type of soil disturbance
has taken place on site. Of particular concern to the staff, would be the
treatment of Hardwood Creek as well as driveway location and building
placement on site. If the planning commission feels they have sufficient
information to recommend approval of this subdivision we would suggest
that said approval be subject to special conditions.
Mr. Huber advised Mr. Pottsmith that no buildings are allowed in flood
zone A. Mr. Pottsmith outlined on his survey what he felt was the
floodplain on his property. Mr. Pottsmith stated he was not concerned
with obtaining a building permit for the lot. His intention is to sell
the parcel and he feels it will be the buyers problem whether they can
build in the flood plain. Mr. Pottsmith stated that his son had removed
some soil from the site for a homesite in another location. There is a
percolation test on file for parcel B which will be reviewed by the city
building inspector.
Chairman Senkler requested comments from the public. No one was present
to comment.
Mr. Senkler felt a formal plat may be necessary to address all questions
regarding the topography of the site in question. Administrator Huber
informed the commission that all concerns regarding floodplain and
elevations can be addressed without a formal plat.
"
P.C. Minutes - Novemer 22, 1988
Motion made by Senkler, seconded by Thoreson to recommend approval of the
subdivision request of Richard and Harriet Pottsmith to subdivide 40 acres
into 2 twenty acre tracts subject to the following special conditions.
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 including holding ponds and ditches 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.
S. 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
residence on parcel B.
11. Lot lines within the subdivision must be staked and identifiable to
determine proper building setbacks if required by the building
inspector.
12. Applicant provide topographic map with contours for the site.
13. Applicant receive approval and establish floor elevations from DNR.
All aye, motion passed.
Mr. Huber reviewed the rezoning application at the request of Chairman
Senkler. Mr. Huber stated that Ray and Ramona Wlaschin have made
application to the City of Hugo for the rezoning of a 16.7 acre tract of
land from agricultural to RR2. The property in question is located south
of County Rd. 8 in the west 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/411-
of
/4of Section 36, T31N, R21W, Washington County, Minnesota. There is
currently a house located on the extreme southwest corner of the site.
The property is approximately 550 ft. in width, 1322 ft. in length. The
property abutts agricultural zones on the west, north, east, and Grant
Township to the south. The Hugo Planning Commission reviewed a similar
request by Mr. Wlaschin on January 28, 1987. This request was denied by
the city council on February 22, 1987.
"
°
P.C. Minutes - November 22, 1988
Mr. Bill Simonet representing Mr. Wlaschin stated that the 1987 request
was denied because the commission felt at that time this would be spot
zoning. With the growth of the community in that area toward 5 acre
zoning the planning commission felt this would be an appropriate zone for
that property and the request conformed with the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Wlaschin stated that his intent is to subdivide the property for the
construction of a residence. Mr. Huber pointed out that approving a
rezoning is not a guarantee that a subdivision of land will be approved.
Motion made by Jesinski,.seconded by Sullivan to recommend approval of the
rezoning request by Raymond and Ramona Wlaschin to rezone 16.7 acres from
agricultural to RR2.
All aye, motion passed.
Chairman Senkler requested Mr. Huber review the request with the planning
commission. Mr. Huber stated that Mr. Leslie Raymond and Scott Erhardt
have made application to the City of Hugo for a special use permit to
allow the construction of a 40' X 60' pole barn in an agricultural area.
The property in question is ten acres in size and located at the northwest
corner of Fiona and 120th St. No. The applicant states that he would like
to have the pole barn constructed in advance of the principal residence so
he would have a place to store his personal belongings and the materials
to be used in the construction of his home. Mr. Erhardt has prepared a
site plan indicating the approximate location of his future home and the
pole barn in question. Although allowing an accessory building to be
constructed in advance of the principal structure is not a good practice,
the city does have a provision in it's ordinance that allows this approach
by special use permit. Similar requests have been approved by the
planning commission and city council subject to the posting of a financial
guarantee and assurance by the applicant that a home will be constructed
within 18 months of permit approval. If the planning commission
recommends approval of this request we would suggest that the approval be
subject to special conditions.
Mr. Erhardt stated that he intends to construct his residence within 12
months but had some reservations regarding the size of the financial
guarantee. Mr. Huber informed Mr. Erhardt that the guarantee was required
because of the possibility that the city could be faced with removal of
the building if the residence was not constructed. Planning Commissioners
concurred with Chairman Senkler that they had no objection to the request
as long as there was a financial guarantee posted.
Senkler made motion, seconded by Sullivan to recommend approval of the
special use permit for Scott Erhardt to construct a 40' X 60' pole
building prior to construction of the principal residence subject to the
following special conditions.
1. A building permit for the pole building must be applied for within 120
days of the SUP approval. Substantial construction of any building
and improvements must be underway within 120 days of permit issuance.
2. Property lines must be identified on site by the petitioner to assure
proper setbacks when constructed if required by the building
inspector.
P.C. Minutes - November 22, 1988
3. The building in question must be for storage of farm equipment and
personal items of a residential nature. No commercial or industrial
use of the building shall be permitted.
4. Driveways built over ditches or drainage areas must include the
installation of approved metal culverts and securing of driveway
permits.
5. No significant deviations from the approved site plan shall be
permitted unless approved by the planning commission and city council
followed by an amended SUP.
6. All fees relating to the review and issuance of this permit shall be
paid by the applicant including the recording costs at Washington
County.
7. The property in question shall not be subdivided while this SUP is in
effect.
S. The property owner shall permit access to the referenced site for
periodic inspections to assure conformance with this permit.
9. Failure to comply with all conditions of the SUP shall be cause for
revocation of said permit.
W. Construction of the principal residence must be substantially underway
by July 1, 1990.
it. A cashiers check or letter of credit in the amount of $2,000.00
payable to the City of Hugo, must be filed with the city. Said
deposit to be forfeited if this permit is not complied with. Refund of
the deposit shall be subject to payment of administrative costs
related thereto.
All aye, motion passed.
Administrator Huber reviewed the proposed zoning ordinance changes with
the planning commission. He informed the commission that there are many
contradictions in the existing ordinance and some changes are needed. Mr.
Huber has requested that the commissioners review the proposed changes and
forward their comments and suggestions to him.
Motion made by Thoreson, seconded by Jesinski to adjourn at 8:40PM.
All aye, motion passed.
Carole LaBelle, Secretary
Hugo Planning Commission
9