My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
PC Packet 10.26.17
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Agendas/Packets
>
2017 PC Packets
>
PC Packet 10.26.17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2018 11:51:01 AM
Creation date
12/10/2018 10:49:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
10/26/2017
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />October 12, 2017 <br />Page 2 <br />Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. <br />No one in the audience spoke. <br />Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. <br />Commissioner McRoberts made a motion, Commissioner Arcand seconded, to recommend approval of the <br />conditional use permit, subject to the conditions listed in the attached resolution. <br />All Ayes. Motion carried. <br />The Lincoln Group — Creekside Heights Concept Plan <br />Juba presented on a concept plan application for The Lincoln Group for a project to be known as "Creekside <br />Heights," located on 132 acres east of TH 61 and west of Oneka Lake. The proposed development is planned to <br />consist of 251 housing units with a gross density of 1.9 units per acre and a net density of 3 units per acre. Juba <br />described that the property is currently vacant and does contain some challenges regarding wetlands, an existing <br />drainage ditch and high ground water. Juba stated that the applicant would like to get feedback on the project in <br />regards to the general layout, road circulation, park dedication, and access. <br />Juba concluded by stating that staff believes that the layout of the proposed development is generally good and <br />the applicant has done a good job providing a mix of housing products, openspace, and trail connections. She <br />stated that there are several items that the applicant would need to work on in order to meet the intent or the <br />City's Comprehensive Plan and the PUD ordinance. Staff offered a variety of recommendations listed below: <br />1. Clustering of the Villa Home product and/or providing adequate transitions between product types. <br />2. Provide a more significant buffer for the townhomes to be separate from the industrial uses to the west. <br />3. The phasing should be revised to include the connection and development outlet to Highway 61. <br />Evaluation of the phasing of the full built out should be provided. <br />4. Stormwater Re -Use for irrigation. <br />5. The applicant should continue to work with staff on the road alignments, more specifically on the <br />northwest portion of the site. <br />6. Planning of the commercial properties along Highway 61, adjacent to the main entrance to the <br />development. <br />7. The trail corridor that meanders through two residential lots should be widened to provide a view of the <br />lake to create an entrance to the lakefront trail. <br />8. Provide a tree inventory and plan for what trees will be preserved and removed. Specifically on the <br />south boundary. <br />9. Full description of the park land dedication request. <br />Commissioner Arcand asked for an explanation of the shoreland district. <br />Juba stated that the DNR requires the City to adopt a shoreland ordinance. Per state statute, any property within <br />1000 ft. of the ordinary high water mark of the lake is within the shoreland district. There are also different <br />classifications for lakes. Those classifications have different standards for lot sizes and setbacks for <br />development. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.