Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971.01.04 PC Minutes OFFICE: 645.039$ Ras.408.1528 HOWARD A. KUUSISTO CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1007 UNIVERSITY AVE. ST.PAUL.MINN. 85104 January 4, 1971 The Honorable Village Council Hugo, Minnesota 55038 Re: Chatham Sub-Division Gentlemen: We have completed our review of the preliminary plat dated October 26, 1970 for the proposed Chatham Sub-division to the Village of Hugo. The plat is located east of T.H. 61 (east of the school property and north of 5th Ave.). The plat contains lig lots (4 blocks) . The plat has been submitted and based on the Washington County sub-division regulation code. The developers of the property have requested the planning commission to re- commend for Council approval variances to the code. The variances were sub- mitted in a letter dated December 15, 1970. Information submitted to our office was based on a preliminary plat which material contained only a pre l iminary map and the variance request. Accord- ingly, ccord-ingly, the plat map submitted for review would qualify as a "sketch plan" according to Section 4, Page 7, Paragraph B. On that basis the "sketch plan" would be complete and no comment will be made regarding the plat except the variances requested which are as follows: 1. The request has been made to omit the sidewalks. According to regulation code, the lots are of sufficient size to provide the necessary density except for one street in Block 4 where 4 ad- jacent lots did not average out 100' or more sidewalk. Variance could be granted as requested. • • 2. Pavement, curb and gutter should not be omitted from the plat. If the development proceeds in an orderly fashion, the Village should have a sewer system within 5 years or perhaps even with- in 3 years. On that basis, it is recommended that a variance for omitting pavement, curb and gutter should not be deleted from the development. From this time to the future, there will undoubtedly be other developments submitted for approval. It is believed that the plat would be classified single family units (SFU) which accordingly requires that the minimum square footage per lot would be 10,000. The lots exceed the square footage requirements. Material submitted did not have a complete planning included. According to the model regulation for a preliminary plan as out l ined, the pre l imina ry plat did not have the property description completed according to area bounds. This can be sub- mitted for the final plat. 1. The boundary survey did not give the angles or ties to boundary lines. 2. The existing zoning or class within or the abutting properties have not been designated. 3. Total acreage involved has not been computed or shown on the plat. 4. There are no existing utility units within the plat except for power lines south of the plat area adjacent to the 5th Avenue. 5. The boundary lines and adjoining properties were not identified as to Owner. 6. The elevation for the contour lines were not based on U.S.G.S. 7. Private restrictions if any, were not included. 8. Percolation tests were included together with a private classi- fication of the soil according to percolation tests. -2- 9. A design feature did not include names of streets. 10. Utility easements were not shown. 11. The set back lines for building on front and side streets were not shown. 12. It is agreed that the Village will conduct a preliminary investi- gation for a sanitary sewer and water, surface drainage and streets as part of the acceptance of the preliminary plat. 13. No park or playground area were shown or reference made to the alter- nate method whereby a settlement would be made in money per lot or percentage of land value. 14. The type of residential construction has not been indicated. 15. Proper development of adjacent property if owned by present owners or known as for other owners has not been indicated. 16. A large lot in the southwest corner is in question as to whether it is an exception or doesn't belong in the plat. 17. There appears to be no potential resubdivision on any of the lots as they are shown in the plat. 18. Corner lots are 15' larger than a minimum lot. However, corner lots are not greater than 15' of the average interior lots. The corner lots do exceed 15' over and above a minimum required lot. The above items have been enumerated for information. It is possible that the same items are duplications of the planning commission's review. How- ever, some of the items included are of importance and should be cleared up before the preliminary plat is accepted as submitted. We suggest that if the plat as submitted is to be considered for a preliminary plat submission then a new submission is in order. Respectfully submitted, HOWARD A. KUUSISTO CONSULTING ENGINEERS 41'1,4144.4Z7 -66.c.5611,10 Howard A. Kuusisto, P.E.