Laserfiche WebLink
Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for November 20, 2017 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />Tim asked for a list of items that were of concern so he could prioritize. Weidt stated that staff <br />could provide him with that. <br />Haas made motion, Klein seconded, to approve RESOLUTION 2017-43 APPROVING AN <br />ORDER REGARDING ACCUMULATION OF RUBBISH, GARBAGE, AND JUNK <br />VEHICLES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13101 HENNA AVENUE NORTH. <br />Ayes: Petryk, Haas, Klein, Miron, Weidt <br />Nays: None <br />Motion carried. # <br />Concept Plan for Leroux Property . <br />City Administrator Bryan Bear explained that CPDC Pratt Oakwood, LLP, had submitted an <br />application for a concept plan to solicit comments from the various commissions and Council <br />prior to moving forward with the formal development approval process. The developer was <br />planning to develop two parcels of land, generally located east of Elmcrest Avenue North and <br />north of 159th Street North, totaling approximately 120 acres.9_ <br />Community Development Assistant Rachel Leitz further explained there would be 177 single <br />family housing units for a gross density of 1.5 units per acre and net density of 2.6 units per acre. <br />The parcels are currently vacant and contained approximately 24 acres of wetlands. The <br />applicant was requesting feedback on the project regarding the general layout, housing types, <br />parks/trails, road circulation and construction, and stormwater management/water re -use. The <br />parcels are within the MUSA. The development would be done in three phases and contain a <br />variety of housing types. The developer would comply with the requirements on the west side of <br />the proposed Oneka Parkway, and was requesting flexibility on the east side. The western <br />portion was guided low density (two units per acre) and the east side was guided as medium <br />density residential (three units per acre), and the development as proposed would not meet the <br />density requirements. The applicant was requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in <br />exchange for a higher quality development, but they have not told the City what they would be <br />doing. The developer was proposing land dedication in lieu of a fee, and was proposing a park, <br />sidewalks and trails, and preservation of the wildlife corridor. Trails and sidewalks would <br />connect to existing developments. One of road connections staff felt was necessary for future <br />development of the parcel to the east was at Farnham Avenue, at the southeast portion of the <br />development near the water tower. The homes along this connection are separated from the rest <br />of the development by open space and parkland. Leitz provided Council with a list of staff's <br />recommendations. <br />Haas talked about the presentation that was done by the Urban Land Institute where they <br />encouraged reduced lot sizes to allow for more affordable housing, and he felt this plan was <br />consistent with that. He also wanted to know more about their plans for stormwater reuse. <br />Petryk agreed with all the recommendations and asked about potential ballfields in the greenway <br />corridor and questioned whether walking trails would be better. Leitz replied that the Parks <br />Commission did evaluate that, and it would basically be a large green space with perhaps an area <br />with a backstop. Petryk asked how many were slab on grade due to the high water and whether <br />