HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987.06.15 CC Minutes73
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HUGO CITY COUNCIL
June 15, 1987
The regular meeting was called to order by Mayor George Atkinson at 7:00 PM.
PRESENT: Peltier, Potts, Olson, Atkinson
City Administrator, Ken Huber
City Attorney, Charles Johnson
City Engineer, Howard Kuusisto
ABSENT: Deane Vail
Motion made by Peltier, Olson seconded, to approve the minutes of June 1, 1987
as amended.
All aye. Motion Carried.
Motion made by Potts, Peltier seconded, to approve the General Claims for June 15,
1987 in the amount of $10,191.63.
All aye. Motion Carried.
Motion made by Peltier, Olson seconded, to approve the Utility Claims for June 15,
1987 in the amount of $40.19.
All aye. Motion Carried.
7.A Final Subdivision Survey (Jim/Diane Weber)
Jim and Diane Weber have made application to the City of Hugo to subdivide a 15.7 acre
tract of land in an RR2 Zoning district. The parcel of land in question is currently
described as parcels A and B of the certificate of survey approved by the Hugo City
Council on June 16, 1986. The original survey involved two parcels of land, one con-
taining 10.5 acres and the other containing 5.4 acres. It is the applicants' intent
to subdivide parcels A and B of the previous certificate of survey into three tracts
of land, all meeting the minimum five acre lot size and 300' frontage requirement.
This request for subdivision of land was unanimously approved by the Hugo Planning
Commission in February, 1987, and the preliminary survey was subsequently approved
by the City Council. The final survey has now been completed, and is substantially
the same as the preliminary survey previously approved. The property in question
is generally described as part of Government Lot #1, Section 9, T31N, R21W in the
City of Hugo.
Motion made by Olson, Peltier seconded, to approve certificate of survey #6-15-87A
for the James and Diane Weber subdivision and waiver of the formal platting procedure
for the following described parcel of land (part of Government Lot #1, Section 9,
T31N, R21W, Washington County, Minnesota). Approval is subject to the following
special conditions:
1. Payment of required parkland dedication.
2. Payment of recording fees for recording of the survey with Washington County.
All aye. Motion Carried.
7.B Final Subdivision Survey (Lynn Carlson)
Lynn and Karen Carlson have made application to the City of Hugo for the subdivision
of property described as Lots 1 through 6, Blcok 10, Shadyside #4 in the City of
Hugo. The request made by Mr. Carlson is three -fold, and is being made pursuant to
Chapter 290 of the municipal code:
74
June 15, 1987
1. Waiver of the formal subdivision requirements and allowing the subdivision
of land by certificate of survey.
2. Variance from the one acre lot size.
3. The resubdivision of the six existing platted lots in Shadyside #4 subdivision
into two buildable lots.
Total square footage of the property in question is approximately 31,620 square feet,
and is zoned SFE requiring minimum one acre building lots. Both the Planning Commission
and City Council recommended approval of the preliminary survey sketch subject to
compliance with 320-5G of the city code and all setback requirements. The City
Council also approved a variance from the minimum one acre lot size. During the
previous survey review, Mr. Carlson assuring the Planning Commission and Council
that he could meet all lot dimensional requirements for construction of a dwelling
with the exception of the one acre minimum lot size. In reviewing the final survey
submitted by Mr. Carlson, it should be noted that there are some substantial dif-
ferences in lot depth and shoreline location from the preliminary survey sketch.
The original preliminary survey sketch showed a lot depth of approximately 170'
with an additional 70 plus feet to the lake shoreline. The final certificate of
survey shows a maximum lot depth of approximately 146' from Everton Avenue to the
Bald Eagle Lake shoreline. Our initial review would indicate that, if Mr. Carlson
is to meet the minimum required 100' building setback from Bald Eagle Lake, and
construct a standard building of approximately 24' in depth, the front of the
building would be located only 4' from the road right-of-way on the south property
line. It would appear to be virtually impossible for Mr. Carlson to construct a
dwelling unit on this site without variances from the front yard setback and the
lake setback requirements, when considering the lot depth changes from the preli-
minary survey to the final survey. It should also be noted that the applicant
must maintain a minimum of 100' setback from shoreline in constructing an approved
septic system to serve any dwelling units on site.
Mayor Atkinson did not feel Parcel B was a buildable lot in that no house could
fit on the lot without substantial variances: front yard setback (50' from road
right-of-way) and lakeshore setback (100' from the ordinary high water mark).
Mayor Atkinson discussed the possibility of returning the application to the Planning
Commission because of the significant change in dimensions from the preliminary plat.
Councilman Potts stated that he had not seen the site in question and would rather
table the application until the next meeting.
Motion made by Olson, Atkinson seconded, that the final survey submitted by Lynn and
Karen Carlson be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review.
VOTING AYE: Olson, Atkinson
VOTING NAY: Peltier, Potts
Motion Failed for Lack of Majority.
Motion made by Potts, Peltier seconded, to
until the Council meeting of July 6, 1987
site in question.
All aye. Motion Carried.
table the final survey for Lynn Carlson
to allow the Council to view the
'8.A Site Plan Approval (J.R. Johnson Supply Co.)
Mr. Rick S. Johnson has made application to the City of Hugo for site plan approval
in conjunction with a SUP issued in November, 1984, for the construction of a green-
house on a 800' x 800' tract of land identified as a part of the NW4 of Section 19,
T31N, R21W, Washington County, Minnesota. The property in question is located at
the northeast corner of C.S.A.H. #8 and Everton Avenue North. It is the proposal
75
June 15, 1987
of the applicant to construct a 34,000 square foot greenhouse and a 5,000 square foot
service building on the site in question. A site plan has been submitted reflecting
the precise location of the greenhouse establishment and supporting buildings. The
property in question is zoned CB (commercial). We can see no objections to the site
plan submitted subject to special conditions. The SUP, as issued in November, 1984,
required a detailed site plan as a condition of the permit, now being submitted.
City Engineer, Howard Kuusisto, stated that Mr. Johnson could need to obtain a permit
from the MPCA because of the size of the well that will be needed to be installed to
serve the facility. Should they decide to extend city utilities, plans would need
to be reviewed by the city. Councilmember Peltier asked if the SUP should be consi-
dered null and void if certain conditions were not met as required by Item #1.
Attorney Johnson stated that if any condition have not been met, that Item #1 would
be read literally and the permit would be void. Mr. Johnson was informed that he
would need to reapply for another SUP, bypassing the Planning Commission.
Atkinson made motion, Peltier seconded, that the City Council table the site plan
request of J.R. Johnson Supply, and that the applicant be directed to complete
another application for a SUP. The city staff shall be directed to bypass the
Planning Commission for this application, and Mr. JohnsorRo come directly to the
City Council.
All aye. Motion Carried.
Atkinson made motion, Peltier seconded, that the City Council reconsider the site
plan application of J.R. Johnson Supply Company.
All aye. Motion Carried.
The City Administrator noted that the original permit should be considered valid
because the conditions listed all relate to requirements that would need to be met
after construction of their buildings. In that no buildings have been built, it would
appear that Mr. Johnson has not violated the conditions of the SUP.
Atkinson made motion, Peltier seconded, that the City Council rescind the previous
action requiring Mr. Johnson to reapply for a Special Use Permit.
All aye. Motion Carried.
Peltier made motion, Olson seconded, to approve the Site Plan for J.R. Johnson Supply
Company (Mr. Rick S. Johnson) for the construction of a greenhouse on a 800' x 800'
tract of land identified as a part of the NWS of Section 19, T31N, R21W, Washington
County, Minnesota. The applicant is allowed to construct a 34,000 square foot green-
house and a 5,000 square foot service building on the site, subject to the following
conditions being met:
1. All conditions of the previously approved SUP (November, 1984) be met.
2. The easements for the judicial ditches reflected on the site plan be provided
to the RCWD as requested.
3. The SUP applies only to the 800' x 800' area reflected on the shaded area of the
site plan.
4. The appropriate driveway permits be secured from the county and culverts be in-
stalled as per the city engineer's recommendations.
5. Any signs installed be located a minimum of 50' from the road right-of-way or as
required by the municipal code, whichever is greater.
6. The lighting of any signs be subject to the approval of the city code enforcement
officer.
76
June 15, 1987
7. Copies of the site percolation test and legal description of the parcel of land
in question be submitted to the city prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. Activities on site be in compliance with the municipal code at all times.
9. Failure to comply with the approved site plan and the above referenced condi-
tions be grounds for revocation of the SUP dated November 5, 1984.
10. Applicant to obtain approval of the Minnesota PCA for installation of the
on-site well and septic system, if required.
All aye. Motion Carried.
7.0 Ordinance Requiring Building Identification
As per Council direction, the city staff revised the ordinance requiring building
identification as prepared by Fire Chief, Ron Istvanovich. The ordinance revision
reflects the same basic language as originally proposed; however, it allows property
owners three different options regarding property address identification as re-
quested by the City Council. The revised ordinance has been reviewed by the Fire
Chief, and copies were sent to the city attorney for his review and comment.
After a discussion regarding the proposed ordinance, it was determined that the
key words of the ordinance were "clearly visible from a public roadway." which
covers any possible obstruction or situation. The only changEE in the proposed
ordinance were the removal of the "etc." and compliance with the ordinance by
January 1, 1988 rather than within 180 days of its passage and publication.
Potts made motion, Olson seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE 1987-244, AN ORDINANCE RE-
QUIRING IDENTIFICATION NUMBERING ON BUILDINGS AND RESIDENCES, PROVIDING FOR
COMPLIANCE AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES.
VOTING AYE: Potts, Olson, Atkinson,
VOTING NAY: Peltier
Motion Carried.
8.B Preliminary Subdivision Plat (Harstad Companies)
On behalf of the Harstad Companies, Mr. Keith Harstad has made application to the
City of Hugo to subdivide a 24.75 acre tract of land into 48 single family dwelling
lots. This request was initiated by the Harstad Companies the summer of 1986 with
sketch plans and preliminary plats subsequently being recommended for approval by
the Hugo Planning Commission after the required public hearing. At the direction
of the City Council, an engineering feasibility report was prepared at the May 4,
1987 Council meeting. At that same meeting, action was taken recommending that
the Harstad Companies complete a preliminary plat and submit it to the Planning
Commission for review and a recommendation. In their review of the preliminary
plat, the Planning Commission questioned the advisibility of taking the parkland
dedication in lieu of the $6,000.00 parkland dedication fee. The Planning
Commission did, however, make a recommendation consistent with previous Council
action to accept parkland dedication with the understanding that the site be
located where it can be expanded in the future to serve the entire community as
opposed to just a high -maintenance, neighborhood park. The Planning Commission
also recommended that any provisions for utility extensions be addressed in the
developer's agreement, and that the storm water ponding area and identified wetland
be accepted only if approved by the RCWD and the DNR. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to compliance with 18 special
conditions. We would recommend that if the City Council approves the preliminary
plat, as submitted or amended, that it be followed by direction to the Harstad
Companies, to proceed with design of a utilities plan to meet city standards, and
the approval of the city engineer.
77
June 15, 1987
Atkinson made motion, Olson seconded, that this matter be postponed until later in the
agenda.
All aye. Motion Carried.
John Johnson and Dick Wedell, representing Harstad Companies, ere present to discuss
the preliminary plat as submitted. Mr. Johnson stated that the RCWD has approved
the drainage plan for Hugo Meadows at their meeting of April 22, 1987. The holding
ponds located within development is designed to reduce the impact of runoff downstream
by 50%,. The Council then discussed parkland dedication, and it was the opinion of
Mayor Atkinson that the city require payment of a parkland dedication fee rather
than acceptance of parkland. It was his opinion that the area proposed as parkland
was not condusive to city plans for a park system that will serve- the entire com-
munity rather than just one particular development. Coucilmembers Peltier, Potts,
and Olson felt that an area should be reserved for the children because of the high
concentration of housing in the development. The City Administrator cautioned the
Council with regard to accepting marginal land for park development resulting in
limited access and costly maintenance. He suggested that a park located where it
could better serve all of the community might be more prudent from a cost -benefit
standpoint.
Atkinson made motion, Olson seconded, to approve the preliminary plat of Hugo
Meadows, as submitted by Harstad Companies, to subdivide 24.75 acres, zoned SFU
described as part of the NE4 of Section 29, T31N, R21W, subject to the following
conditions:
1. A final survey be submitted to the Council for approval within 120 days of
preliminary plat acceptance or the preliminary plat must again be reviewed
by the Planning Commission at the property owner's expense.
2. All conditions must be met prior to the stamping of any deeds for recording
by the City Clerk unless otherwise permitted by the City Council.
3. The property lines must be identified on site by the applicants to assure
proper setbacks when buildings are to be constructed.
4. Restrictive covenants be provided prohibiting the resubdivision of platted
lots and the prohibiting of commercial activity in this subdivision.
5. Driveways or drainageways must include minimum 15" daimeter corrugated metal
culverts in a manner acceptable to the city.
6. A final plat will not be approved until the required permits are secured from
the appropriate watershed district and the DNR, where applicable.
7. All fees relating to this subdivision approval shall be paid by the applicant
including the cost of recording documents with Washington County.
8. Any driveway permits requiring access to highways or county roadways may not
be issued until permits are secured from Washington County or MNDOT.
9. Payment of the required parkland dedication and/or fees must be made at the
time of final plat approval. No significant deviations from the approved
preliminary plat shall be made unless reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Street signs and street lighting shall comply with city standards, and the
cost shall be borne by the developer.
10. No fences, structures, or trees shall be placed in on-site easements.
11. The cost of utilities extended to the site and all on-site improvements to
be borne by the developer.
Me -
June 15, 1987
12. Utilities and other improvements become a part of the city system and must
be designed to city standards.
13. Storm water holding ponds and ditches must be approved by a watershed district
and maintained by the propert ,4nanrd method of maintenance to be reviewed by
the city engineer.
14. Developer agrees to participate in the cost of ditch cleaning to be outlined
in the development agreement.
15. The DNR must review and approve any disruption of designated protected wetlands
areas.
16. Public parkland be dedicated and conveyed by deed to the City of Hugo at a
location approved by the City Council. Location to be such that it will allow
for the expansion of the park to a minimum of six acres in size in the future.
17. The final plat must comply with all requirements of the city subdivision
ordinance.
18. Any connections to utility lines, to be installed other than by the developer,
are to be addressed in the development agreement prepared by the city attorney
and city staff.
VOTING AYE: Potts, Olson, Atkinson
VOTING NAY: Peltier
Motion Carried.
Potts made motion, Peltier seconded, that the City of Hugo accept parkland in lieu
of payment of a parkland dedication fee, the exact location and access to be
determined. The developer (Harstad Companies) shall provide the following:
1. Suitable access across protected wetlands for vehicle traffic to
the park.
The city engineer is directed, as part of the development agreement, during Phase 2
development, to review access to and from the park area.
Potts rescinded his motion.
Fotts made motion, Peltier seconded, that the City of Hugo accept parkland instead
of a parkland dedication fee, and that the site shall be determined by city staff.
The means of access to the park shall be reviewed by the staff and brought to the
City Council for their review.
All aye. Motion Carried.
Atkinson made motion, Olson seconded, that the City Council directs the developer
to proceed with plans and specifications for utility installation, subject to the
approval of the city.engineer.
All aye. Motion Carried.
Atkinson made motion, Olson seconded, authorizing the developer to proceed with
grading plans subject to the developer providing the city with a letter of credit
in an amount 125% of -the estimated cost of the proposed grading project to assure
grading is done in a manner acceptable to the city.
All aye. Motion Carried.
11.A Appointment of Planning Commissioner
Mr. Chuck Henry has been contacted by city staff to see if he is interested in
serving the balance of Dennis Schreifel's term on the Planning Commission.
79
June 15, 1987
Mr. Henry was asked to contact Mayor Atkinson to indicate his interest or lack thereof
regarding this position and did so indicate his interest.
Atkinson made motion, Potts seconded, that the City of Hugo appoint Chuck Henry to
fill the unexpired term of Dennis Schreifel on the Hugo Planning Commission until
December 31, 1988.
All aye. Motion Carried.
11.B SUP Annual Reviews
On June 5, 1986, the Hugo City Council approved two SUP's,one permitting auto body
repair at 15657 Forest Boulevard, and a second permit authorizing the operation of
a commercial nursery in a Conservancy zone at 12280 Goodview Avenue North. Both
permit approvals were subject to annual review by the City Council. City staff has
received no complaints regarding the above referenced SUP's. We might suggest that
rather than burdening future City Councils with the annual review of SUP's that are
not creating problems, the Council consider adoption of a formal policy indicating
that SUP annual reviews be based upon requests by members of the City Council or
complaints from the community. This type of action would avoid rather lengthy agendas
for future Councils having to deal with SUP's previously approved, with limited
background available to them. A properly drafted policy would allow for periodic
Council review of various land uses permitted by SUP, but would not mandate annual
review unless initiated by request or complaint.
Olson made motion, Peltier seconded, acknowledging review of 1986 -32 -SUP and there
appears to be no reason for modification or revocation (E.J. Auto Body).
All aye.
Atkinson made motion, Peltier seconded, acknowledge review of 1986 -16 -SUP, and there
appears to be no reason for modificaiton or revocation (William E. Rust).
VOTING AYE: Peltier, Olson, Atkinson
ABSTAINED: Potts
Motion Carried.
Atkinson made motion, Peltier seconded, establishing a city policy that the City
Council will not review SUP's annually unless requested by a member of the City
Council or the city has received complaints from the community.
All aye. Motion Carried.
MISCELLANEOUS
Atkinson made motion, Potts seconded, to grant a temporary mobile home permit
to Gardner Bros. Homes for the placement of a mobile home on Lot 6, Block 1,
Valley View Terrace for three (3) months, and subject to appropriate 90 day renewal
and compliance with the application.
All aye. Motion Carried.
The city will continue its present policy that the fire department willP?ill swimming
pools for residents of the city.
It was the consensus of the City Council that Richard Schuh be allowed to use Harrow
Avenue as a haul route on a 3 to 4 day temporary basis.
Attorney Johnson will be preparing a resolution for the establishment of a Brown's
Creek taxing district.
80
June 15, 1987
It was noted that Mr. Kostuch has not submitted any financial guarantee in conjunc-
tion with the proposed extension of sanitary sewer to his property on 140th Street
west of Highway 61.
The Council authorized a letter to be sent to Joe Stanek, Mrs. Lefebrve, and the
Prestons asking their interest in selling right-of-way to develop a possible future
roadway to Joe Stanek's property.
Potts made motion, Peltier seconded, to adjourn at 10:06 PM.
All aye. Motion Carri6d.
Mary A Creager, City Cle
City f ugo