Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973.04.13 PC Minutes _, _ ,.r __ VERO( Of HUGO HUGO, WASH INGTON COUNTY MINNESOTA 55038 HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 1973 F VILLAGE OF TUGO p. Hugo, Minn. 55038 Re: Fred Riermann Dear Village Council Officials: : At a speecial commission meeting on April the commission recommended for approval a commercial pole building proposed by. Mr. Fred Ri a rmann. Approval of the building was made subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide a metal interior facing on external walls in the shop t t : ' area +� a height of 10f.t. 2. Maxium number of employees restricted to 10. 3. Roof shall have an overhang of at least 18" on the long dimension and at least 6" on the ends. 4 • 4. Subject to adequate drainage requirements to the satisfaction of the village engineer. Use restricted to metal fabrication operation. , Respectfully submitted, / -4, 17- ._....././Fit•-(,, - . ,e-4-7...../4.....--- Jams E. Houle, Secretary HUGO PUNNING CESSION ^ r • , VILLAGE Of HUGO HUGO, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55038 HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 1973 QILLAGE OF HUGO Hugo, Ninn. 55038 Re: Comprehensive Flan Dear Village Council Officials: In compliance with Minnesota State Statute 462.355, enclosed is a completed copy Of the Village Comprehensive Plan. At a special commission meeting on April 5 we set a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan for April 25th 1973, 8:00 PM at the Hugo School. ENC. Respectfully submitted, James M. Houle, Secretary HUGO PLANNING C ONIlKI SSI ON , eg:jor. )/Le, r� GOALS , POLICY AND STANDARDS In the past , community planning has dealt with factors related primarily to "physical " features , such as the location of housing , shopping centers , industrial sites and the like . Only during the past ten years have other elements gainedproper recognition , with these being economic and social considerations , ecology , governmental efficiency and the entire area of "policy planning" . What is likely to happen in Hugo during the next few decades and what do the residents want to happen? Within the bounds of legal , social , and economic reasonableness , Hugo can be shaped much as the citizens desire. This can be done via the "policy planning " method as follows : . 1 . Setting of Goals - If certain things are desired these should be stated as specific goals to be achieved . An adequate open space system , a satisfactory transportation network , and other desires can be stated as general and translated into more specific objectives . 2 . Policy - Once goals have been set, "policy" is the official course of action adopted and utilized to attain the desired goals . For example , a goal to provide adequate open space in the Village should be accompanied by a policy statement of how this goal is to be achieved . 3 . Standards - Urban and rural development and maintenance standards are measures of quality. These are usually considered as the "minimum" quality desired and some standards may be enacted into law via zoning , subdivision housing , building and other -codes and ordinances . Such standards also tend to serve as "goals" although not necessarily the "ul timate" goals since they are considered the minimum necessary for the public welfare . To the extent feasible , the goals and policies should reflect the general desires and aspirations of the citizens of the Community. These should be reviewed on a periodic basis and adequately reflected in the standards set for controlling and guiding growth and development in the Village . In order to maximize the opportunity of the citizens to participate in the planning process , two methods were utilized : ( 1 ) a public informational meeting was held to provide an open forum for discussion of planning and the future of the Village ; and (2 ) a planning questionn- aire was made available to all residents and property owners in atten- dance at the public meeting asking their opinions and desires relating to future growth and development. The following text on goals , policy , and standards is based upon the results of such efforts . A. GOALS Approximately one hundred twenty-five ( 125 ) persons attended a public meeting on November 8 , 1972 , to express their opinions , interests and desires concerning the future development of the Village. A clear • direction , although not an unanimous concensus , was in evidence as a result of the meeting and this was later substantiated after tabulating the returned planning questionnaires . The desired goals are as follows : 1 . Maintain the open , green areas and the amenities associated with low density development . (Retain the " rural atmosphere" in the eastern portion of the Village , much as it is today. ) 2 . Encourage the retention of low - medium density , single family development in the western portion of the Village . 3 . Permit multiple family development in a few selected locations in the soon to be sewered areas of the Village . 4 . Advocate the creative use of open space and the outright acquisition of lake frontage for park and recreational purposes . 5 . Provide for better shopping facilities located in close proximity to the existing and developing residential areas . 6 . Develop a thoroughfare plan which will be adequate for the future needs of the Village and adjacent communities . 7 . Control the land use along all major thoroughfares (existing and proposed) . 8. Provide for a better Village tax base , through a more diversified land use plan . 9 . Promote and encourage quality business and industrial development in the Village. 10 . Adopt a comprehensive Village development plan which provides for a good mixture of land uses and update the Village zgning ordinance . B . POLICY In order to attain the desired goals , it is necessary to consider what official governmental actions are required . Such actions are the official policy with respect to development and maintenance of the Village . The following are recommendations based upon apparent citizen desires , professional planning study of the community , and discussions with Village officials : 1 . The present "open atmosphere" of the Village is due to several factors : . a . Abundance of lakes , streams and d ra i nageways . b . Presence of a high water table . c . Extensive areas of unstable , unbuildable soils . d . Areas of heavy woodlands . e . Prominence of a farming economy. f. Existence of gun clubs , gravel pits , game farm , etc . Efforts to retain the present rural environment will be maximized through the development and enforcement of appropriate codes and ordinances . 2 . The maintenance of a relatively sparse population and a low urban development density shall be Village policy to attain the desired goals as follows : a . Maintain , to the extent possible , the present environment and atmosphere of the Community. b . Avoid excessive public service costs and difficult adminis- trative problems that would result from high density urban development. c . Reduce the economic pressures upon the four school districts and the need for local , Village services . d . Adhere to standards of the Metropolitan Development Guide pertaining to the extension of sanitary sewers ; spacing of highway interchanges and intersections ; generation of traffic volumes ; and the like . 3 . f The policy of the Village shall be to limit single-family housing i unit densities to one ( 1 ) unit per gross acre of buildable land west ` of the Metro Sewer Board ' s Sanitary Sewer District #1 boundary line , pending the availability of municipal sewer service and to limit single-family housing unit densities to one ( 1 ) unit per gross five ( 5) acres of buildable land east of the Sanitary Sewer Districts ' boundary line . Higher net densities may be permitted on specific land parcels under conditions of a Planned Unit Development ( PUD ) permit provided the Village Council determines the following : a . Proposed development would be consistent with the general goals and policies of the Village Comprehensive Plan ; b . It can be demonstrated that such a development meets all requirements for on-site and/or off-site sewage disposal , as the case may be ; c . That such proposed development would assist in attaining the goals for preservation of the natural environment and would , in fact , contribute to the ecology of the Village in a manner superior to that of single-family detached homes . d . Such development would not create undue detrimental affects upon the environment such as traffic hazards and congestion , lowering of adjacent property values , and the like . • 4 . The policy will be to locate apartment structures adjacent to or very near major or secondary thoroughfares so as not to introduce an excessive amount of vehicular traffic onto minor residential streets and where possible locate them so that they might serve as a "buffer" between single family homes and non-residential uses such as commercial and industrial areas . 5 . All future subdivisions will be required to dedicate public green space (parks and playgrounds ) where needed for the convenience and enjoyment of nearby residents in accordance with uniform park and playground standards . 6 . The Village will do everything in its power to discourage strip and spot commercial development along major thoroughfares and highways and will do everything in its power to encourage integrated commercial centers , particularly the retention and upgrading of the present "downtown" business district. 7 . The Village will encourage the development of small "neighborhood " convenience stores (superettes and so forth ) in locations that will best serve residential areas without impairing residential development. 8 . The Village will implement the appropriate highway and thorough- fare standards in order to : a . Avoid an excessive number of access points . • b . Curtail the future development of linear or "strip" commercial and excessive spots of commercial uses . c . Secure adequate right-of-way for future needs . 9 . The Village will cooperate with commercial and industrial developers to insure that their developments are community assets and meet the standards established by the community with respect to the control of pollution , safety , convenience to residents , design of the site to provide adequate parking , screening , noise control , and other esthetic features . 10 . The Village will utilize the Comprehensive Village Plan as a guide for growth and development and will enforce a zoning ordinance which will limit prezonings . C. STANDARDS Standards are measures of quality and the minimum considered necessary for application to urban and rural development to preserve the public health , safety , morals , convenience , and general welfare . Standards for urban and rural development and maintenance have been developed by the Washington County Planning Advisory Commission and are on file with the County Planning Coordinator . It is recommended that these standards be adopted by reference for utilization by Hugo for the following purposes : a) Utilization as guides to making day-to-day development decisions and evaluation of private development proposals ; b ) Incorporation , by reference , into the Hugo Comprehensive Municipal Plan ; and c ) Specifically adopted in ordinance form within the zoning , g subdivision , and other development regulations as may be necessary and desirable . For purposes of definition for proper application of standards , Hugo is considered a low-density, semi -rural area . Despite extensive farming in some areas of the Village it cannot be considered a true "agricultural " area . The following standards apply and affect the Village Comprehensive Plan : 1 . Soils Utilization for Urban Development Purposes - As per Washington County Zoning Ordinance for Townships (adopted July , 1972 ) . 2 . Public and Private Roads - As per Metropolitan Development Guide and Washington County Comprehensive Plan (Standards section) . 3 . Subdivision - As per Washington County Model Code . 4 . Water Supply and On-site Sewage Disposal - As per Washington County Planning Advisory Commission standards and model regulations . 5 . Lake and Stream Frontage Development - As per Washington County Township Zoning Regulations . 6 . Public Recreational Facilities - As per Washington County Planning Advisory Commission Standards - 5 . 6400 . 7 . Fire Stations - As per Washington County Planning Advisory Commission standards - 5 . 6141 . The above and additional standards affect Hugo and are available from the Washington County Planning Advisory Commission and the Metropolitan Council . / t+ +r. I LAND USE PLAN 1 . The land use plan for Hugo is basedrimari 1Y upon an inter- pretation nter- p pretati on of the adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Council ' s Development Guide and the Metropolitan Disposal System Phase I Study for Washington County. While the Metropolitan Council ' s plans are somewhatgeneral in nature , the Hugo plan is more specific . The basic land use pattern for Hugo calls for: • a . A district separation between "urban" and "rural " areas . (The urban-rural line of demarcation will be the Metro Sewer Board ' s District, #1 boundary line . ) Rural is defined as areas which should remain low in density development and not require immediate sanitary sewer systems . Development in the rural areas of Hugo should be of a large lot variety; (5 acre minimum lot size ) . Urban development should be staged so that it does not leap-frog rural development , but is contiguous to present urban residential areas . Urban development is interpreted to mean those areas which are specifically designated and planned to have sanitary sewer service . b . Urban density land uses are planned to straddle the U . S . Highway 61 corridor. 2 . With few exceptions , urban type nes i denti al densities should be developed Northeast , Southwest and Southeast of the pre- sently urbanized areas of the"old" Village of Hugo . Sanitary sewer service will be provided to these areas by the year 1985 , and the areas will be able to accomodate the 1990 projected population . ( See the Hugo Sanitary Sewer Plan , which is a part of this planning report. ) 3 . Comprehensive detailed engineering studies should be undertaken which would compliment the proposed land use plan in terms of water , sewer , and drainage planning . 4 . Concentrated multiple family residential and non-residential (commercial and planned unit developments ) uses should be encouraged initially to develop within the soon to be sewered areas of the "old " Village . 5 . Commercial land use developments should be adjacent to existing commercial concentrations along the east side of Highway 61 and both sides of Frenchmen Road for a distance of no more than one mile in any of the three directions from thep of nt where U . S . Highway 61 and Frenchmen Road intersect. t ar P 6 . Industrial land use development should be directdd to the present industrial areas west of Highway 61 to take advantage of rai l , highway and open land and also to the industrial area on Highway 61 north of the mobile home park . 7 . Whenever possible , land along Hardwood Creek whould be preserved for recreational purposes . Other drainageways and designated open spaces should remain free from land use encroachment . COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN Community facilities ' are utilized ont.a public and semi -public basis , and serve groups as opposed to private individuals . The group might be an organization , a small neighborhood , the entire community , or an area larger than a community such as a county or state institution . The comprehensive planning program is primarily concerned with those facilities provided by the Village for comm- unity use . Semi -public uses which are not directly controlled by the Village are not discussed in detail although the organizations controlling the locations should formulate decisions in relation to the land use plan . Schools , recreation areas , and public buildings are the responsi - bility of the community at large , and the best service can only be given by planning facilities on the basis of anticipated land use . The plan provides a basis for determining : ( 1 ) what types of facilities should be provided by the Village ; (2 ) the commitment needed , as to extent of system , coverage , quality , etc . ; and (3 ) the timing of acquisition of land and development of these facilities . The sites acquired must not only be appropriately located in relation to the anticipated population , but also in relation to surrounding residential and non- residential land uses and the character of the terrain . These latter two features often place severe restrictions upon the development of an ideal system of community facilities . Within the community facilities plan , two aspects must be stressed : 1 . The importance of designating sites for various public -uses and acquiring these ahead of the market pressures on the land for other uses . 2 . The problem of timing the development of sites and buildings so that the needs of each neighborhood are met in cinjunciton with the speed and direction of new growth and obsolescence of previous investments . The qualityof a Village ' s public facilities , to a large extent , its is i mage and desirability for further growth . While costing money and affecting the tax base , nonetheless they are the pre- requisites for attracting new business and industry which must be concerned with the living environment foremployees and customers . ' Community facilities are needed to make a "whole" community. Houses and streets are not nearly as exciting or rewarding unless mixed with churches , parks , playgrounds , and other .uses to break the monotony. The development of a livable community is an art as well as a science ; the art involves creation or preservation of aesthetic values such as scenic views , avoidance of the dull and common- place , and avoidance of eyesores . Properly located and developed communityfacilities. p ties can add to the charm and enjoyment of living in Hugo and enhance the value and living qualities of individual homes and business sites . The objectives of the Community Facilities Plan , therefore , are to create a desirable living environment , maximize the advantages that Hugo has to offer in the quality of its public schools , parks and public buildings , and to indicate how these are tied in with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan . The following is a listing of specific community facilities : 1 . Civic Center - This facility would be an enlargement of the present Village Hall and would house the Village offices and council chambers , community meeting room , a small library , and a police facility . The need for this center would not be realized until close to 1990 . 2 . Fire Station - The central facility is now adequate and should remain so in the near future , but during the late 1980 ' s it should be enlarged to take over the existing Village Hall facilities . There is a strong likelihood that if projected population figures for the year 2000 are achieved there will be a need for a second facility in the Village . 3 . Postal Facilities - Theresentpost office i n Hugo �' s considered ample enough to serve the needs of the Village to the year 1990 . - 4 . Schools - Assuming the limited population increase no new schools will be needed before 1990 . The two exi sting elementary Y schools have considerable acreage for expansionu oses . Althoughr p p the White Bear District does own property in west Hugo , with decreasing enrollments in their other elementary Y schools , bussing will be g pursued to accommodate the short range needs of Hugo . 5 . Park and Recreation Facilities - Recreational t oval actsvities are generally divided into two types - active and passive . Active recreationincludes such activities as hiking , fishing , base- ball , tennis and the like . Passive recreation includes activities such as picnicking , resting in shaded areas , bird watching , and so on . Facilities for active and passive recreation should be available to the public on three levels : a. Neighborhood : Serving an area of about one square mile bounded by major streets . The present park adjacent to the Village Hall should be sufficient to serve the residents west of Highway 61 and the playground at the Hugo Elem- entary School should fulfill the active needs of the residents east of Highway 61 . Other future neighborhood park needs can be fulfilled in the developing residential areas through the dedication of land for park purposes requirements of the subdivision ordinance . b . Community : Major facilities designed for the residents of the whole Village . Two such parks are proposed for Hugo . One will be on the east shore of Egg Lake and the other on the north shore of Sunset Lake . Hopefully these can be acquired soon and initially developed for passive purposes . ( Picnicking , etc . ) c . Regional : Major facilities intended for use by residents of several communities . Such facilities could include major city parks , county parks , stateparks , game preserves , public forests , and other large facilities . The Oneka Lake area has been pinpointed by the Metropolitan Council as a prime area for a regional type park of approximately 1 ,000 acres . (A public access area at the south end of the lake presently exists . ) Hardwood Creek is another potential regional park and open space area which has been advocated as a linear park by Washington County and the Metropolitan Council . ! t TRANSPORTATION PLAN The major thoroughfare plan has been designed as a "skeletal framework" of the Land Use Plan . Only when considered in this context can it be effectively implemented and , therefore , fulfill its intended purpose . Standards An adequate system of thoroughfares must be capable of meeting the needs of general categories of vehicular traffic : Local Traffic : That which terminates or originates in Hugo and • whose needs are best met by a cohesive system of local thorough- fares related to the local land use pattern and through-traffic facilities . Through Traffic : That which has neither an ' origin or destination within the Village . To meet these specific needs , the thoroughfare plan designates each street in the Village according to its intended function for planningdesign , and development purposes . The general street classification according to function is as follows : Major Thoroughfares : A two or four-lane route , usually not divided , designed to serve major traffic move- ments within the Village and to provide access to. freeways and expressways (80-150 ' right-of-way) . Collectors : A minor thoroughfare designed to provide for traffic movement between major thor- oughfares , collect traffic from minor streets and provide direct access to abutting property 144. (70 ' minimum right-of-way) . Minor Streets : A local street providing for direct access to abutting property and for local traffic movement to collector streets . The thoroughfare plan designates the various . classes of traffic movement as outlined above . Much of this system already exists • and has been previously studied in the Survey and Analysis . The objective here is to extend and capitalize on the existing major street improvements in the Village with each , recommendation closely related to its place in the system as a whole and its effect on the land use patterns . The major features of the Plan are as follows : [ . '1 J 1 . The Village should recognize and continue the Washington County concept of a parkway system . A parkway is proposed to follow Oneka Lake Boulevard and Hardwood Creek into Forest Lake Township . 2 . The Village should coordinate its designated major thorough- fare system with the County Engineer in establishing future right-of-ways . 3 . Transportation planning should recognize and include snow- mobiles horse trails , hikingcirculation , trails ,s , pedes tri an ci rcul ate on , and other similar forms of movement . 4 . Future transportation should be planned on the assumption that there will be a coordinated "system" including new forms of mass transit as well as more conventional modes of travel . 5 . Minor street openings (usually residential ) onto thoroughfares should be minimized to improve traffic flow and reduce traffic hazards . 6 . All streets should intersect at right angles to avoid traffic hazards and to prevent the formation of unusable and odd- shaped parcels of land . 7 . Wherever possible , streets should follow line of main drainage . 8 . Left turn lanes should be provided for moderate to heavy traffic . 9 . Curb parking should not be permitted on thoroughfares g and collector streets with moderate to heavy traffic . (The courts have ruled that parking on a public street is not a right ; it is a privilege which may be granted or taken away at will . ) The purpose of a street is to move traffic; as such , the decision to permit or to ban curb parking should be a technical decision based upon traffic needs rather than a political decision . However , off-street parking should be provided in cases where traffic necessitates the banning of on-street parking . 10 . Where future traffic is expected to be e' Y xce tionall heavyon p major thoroughfares , right-of-way in addition to the minimum of 80 feet should be acquired ; an alternative is to require an additional set-back along the route i n anticipation of future acquisition . 11 . The right-of-way, number of moving lanes , and the determination of whether parking should be permitted must be related to the anticipated future peak traffic volumes which can be expected . 12 . Street systems should be designed to serve morning and evening "rush hours " not 24 hour traffic volumes . These peak or design volumes , when computed from assigned and projected traffic demand in terms of vehicles per hour to a future design year, allow the calculation of capacity needs . i .r • h.,„__41 Major Thoroughfare Proposals The roads designated as major thoroughfares are spaced so as to provide for the efficient movement of traffic through and within the Village . This system will include : 1 . U . S . Highway 61 2 . C . S . A. H . 4 (170th Street North ) - Alignment changes and construction scheduled for 1974 . 3 . C . S . A. H. 8 ( Frenchmen Road ) - Recently improved . 4 . County Road 8A 5 . C . S .A. H . 10 Minor Thoroughfare Proposals The remainder of the roads indicated on the plan map are either collectors or minor thoroughfares .