Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes — March 9, 2006 <br />Page 2 <br />The Planner reminded the Commission they had reviewed a concept plan on the site in September of <br />2005 that consisted of 67 homes and in December reviewed a concept plan for 62 lots. Concerns at <br />that time were flag lots, narrow lots, importance of future road and trail connections, and lack of <br />anything special or unique that would justify a PUD. The Planner explained the plan had been revised <br />to eliminate the PUD. The applicant was requesting a variance for Outlot A to allow 60 feet road <br />frontage where Hugo City Code required 80 feet lot width. She showed where the trail would extend <br />between lots 5 and 6 of Wilderness view across Outlot A to Goodview Avenue. There were likely to <br />be wetland and flood impacts. Outlot A would be retained by the current land owner for future single <br />family home. Prior to a home being built, the driveway access would need to be examined. The cell <br />tower would remain on the outlot, but the existing shed would be removed. A portion of the shed was <br />being used by the cell tower and a smaller shed, closer to the tower, would likely be built. No business <br />or exterior storage would be permitted on the outlot. The tower would have a 165' setback which staff <br />found was reasonable. The pipeline easement would be deed restricted and the applicant would <br />install signs identifying the easement. Roads would be stubbed to adjacent properties to the north for <br />future development. The City engineer had reviewed the access point to Goodview Avenue and found <br />it acceptable; there would not be a line of site problem. The existing field road would be removed. <br />Schumann asked if the applicant had done a preliminary review of the wetlands on Outlot A. <br />The Planner responded that it would be difficult to construct more than one home site. Additional <br />home sites would require wetland fill and may have difficulty complying with the Wetland <br />Conservation Act. <br />McRoberts questioned what the ordinance required for setbacks when the tower was constructed. <br />The CDD explained the ordinance did not address towers at the time it was constructed. The tower <br />would be 154 feet tall. Current ordinance required towers over 150 feet be located at least 500 feet <br />from residential structures. He explained the ordinance was designed to protect existing homes. <br />Homeowners in the proposed plat would be aware of the tower and the proposed setback was <br />reasonable to adequately protect the home. <br />Bailly questioned the restrictions on the pipeline. <br />The Planner said the covenants would be filed saying no fences or other structures could be builtwithin <br />the easement. <br />Schumann opened the public hearing. <br />Bob Stachowiak, 2532 Portland Avenue South, said he was representing his parents who owned an <br />adjacent ten acre parcel to the north. He questioned the trail location and the road stubbed to the <br />property; whether crossing the pipeline easement would pose a problem should his parents decide to <br />develop their property in the future. He asked about the line of site problem. <br />The Planner said she did not believe extending the road would be an issue, and the field road had a line <br />of site problem because of the hill and dip on Goodview. This access was to be eliminated. <br />Jim Engstrom said he was the property owner at the northeast corner of Goodview Avenue and 125' <br />Street. He thought it was a nice development. He told the Commission that a portion of the Koch <br />pipeline had broke on his property approximately ten years ago. There was a quite bit of damage and <br />