My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
PC Packet 04.25.19
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Agendas/Packets
>
2019 PC Packets
>
PC Packet 04.25.19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2019 5:30:18 PM
Creation date
5/6/2019 4:42:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
4/25/2019
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.
/
20
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 />March 28, 2019 <br />Page 2 <br />Fry asked if MWF Properties did a demographic study and their predictions on unit availability. Stokka mentioned <br />that they have a similar family oriented project in Forest Lake that has been successful. Fry followed by asking if <br />renters are going to be subsidized. Stokka clarified that there is a federal tax credit that MWF Properties applied <br />for through Washington County, which is required to go towards the construction costs of the project. In turn, the <br />renters will have a maximum income requirement. Juba stated that the subsidy is not coming from the City. <br />Commissioner Derr asked about the occupancy of the apartments in Forest Lake and Stokka replied that their <br />property is always full. <br />Mulvihill shared her concerns that the project does not provide enough parking and Stokka responded that the <br />developer feels as though the parking requirements required by the City are sufficient for the project. Juba stated <br />that there are no signs limiting parking on Rosemary Way. Chair Kleissler asked for the number of parking spots <br />above ground versus underground. Juba stated that there are 56 underground and 43 above ground parking spots. <br />Arcand followed with an inquiry on the design of the parking lot. He asked qhy is the parking in the front instead <br />of behind the building with less visibility. Stokka stated that the particular parcel limits site layout options and a <br />parking lot behind the building is not feasible. <br />Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:35pm. Madam Chair requested that the audience follow standard <br />protocol. <br />15220 Everton Avenue North, Arnold Treimert stated that he is opposed to the apartment building because they <br />were told it was a commercial area and the water will flow to the south. <br />15040 Everton Avenue North, Steve Rossini is concerned about the underground garage and flooding. Rossini is <br />also concerned with the building being subsidized and attracting crime and congestion into the area. Low income <br />housing will decrease property value in the surrounding area and Rossini states that it would be a mistake to bring <br />low income housing into the City. <br />15190 Everton Avenue North, John Udstuen states that he is concerned with the water on the site. When Pratt <br />homes developed the townhomes, his property suffered water damage. Adding more bituminous surface will <br />cause more drainage issues and requests an outside party look at the engineer plans. Udstuen states the concern <br />that surrounding property will be devalued and crime will increase. Udstuen requests that the City maintains the <br />community. <br />149th Street North 1, Kathleen Skaj states that there are water damages in the townhomes to the east and the <br />complex sued Pulte for damages. Skaj also states that they would rather see subsidized living for the elderly. <br />4990 Fairoaks Circle, Tracy Gist is worried about the school sizes and where additional children will go. Gist <br />would like to see more restaurants and event/community centers in the community. <br />15292 Everton Avenue North, Mike Happ shares his concern on drainage. Happ requests staff to expand on <br />drainage on the property and where the water will drain to the north. <br />Juba addresses the grading and drainage questions. The City of Hugo has stormwater rules, among which the <br />drainage on the property and surrounding parcels cannot have an increased drainage post development. The City <br />evaluates the rate and volume of water that goes into the site. Water on the project site will drain north then to the <br />south into the proposed filtration pond, which will collect water and be dispersed into the surrounding wetlands. <br />There were soil borings done on site, some of which encountered water and some did not. Juba states that the <br />project meets low floor elevation requirements. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.