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 6 <br />Commissioner Arcand asks staff to talk about the difference with the future sewer line running along 165th Street <br />versus along the property lines. Juba clarifies that the City is open to alternate ways to providing sewer to the site <br />however, it is necessary that the sewer line connects to the interceptor along Highway 61. Arcand also asks staff <br />to clarify if the City is in the position to sell park land. Juba responds by stating that the City -owned property <br />where the road is proposed is mostly upland, which provides a variety of opportunities for the parcel. Arcand then <br />states that it could be considered generous to allow a road to be built on the parcel and should be at the expense <br />of the developer. <br />Commissioner Mulvihill asks if the properties north of 165th Street will have access to the sewer line. Juba states <br />that should the sewer line be installed along 165th Street, future development will be provided access to the line. <br />The alternative utility line option does allow development to continue expanding with additional improvements <br />to the infrastructure. Commissioner Arcand then asks for clarification on additional road options. <br />Chair Kleissler asks staff for a recommendation on whether or not the applicant should provide to access point <br />along the north of the site. Juba recommends that they evaluate two access points north of the parcel. Chair <br />Kleissler asks the applicant to come forward. <br />Peter Knaeble with Golden Valley Land Company came forward to address the comments from the Planning <br />Commission. The applicant brought forward examples of what the villa products will look like. They are generally <br />slab on grade, rambler style products. The applicant agrees to further investigate the utilities on the site and <br />wetland mitigation as they work with the site layout. The biggest concern for the applicant is the connection <br />through City -owned property on the west and the cost of providing a road access to the site without the additional <br />lots to offset the price. <br />Commissioner Tjernlund asks the applicant is there are limits with the current layout and having the stormwater <br />ponds on the very east side of the property. Knaeble assures that the plan appears to be feasible but will provide <br />further details as the project moves forward. In general, the applicant intends to provide stormwater reuse to the <br />full extent of the project. Tjemlund comments on the flexibility the applicant will be requesting with lot sizes and <br />setbacks and encourages the applicant to look at ways to make up for the variances. <br />Commissioner Fry asked for clarification on the width and depth of the homes. Knaeble responds that the homes <br />will be 40 foot wide and 60 to 65 foot deep. <br />Commissioner Arcand asked the applicant on what they would lose with a larger setback requirements. Knaeble <br />responded that if the setbacks were 7.5 feet instead of 5 feet, the development would lose approximately a dozen <br />lots. Arcand mentions that the villa products seem really tight. The applicant comments that with a flat site such <br />as this one, they don't foresee any issue with drainage in between the homes. Knaeble also mentions that there <br />could be an opportunity to provide an additional north access point without losing lots however, making sure the <br />access point does not go east through the industrial park. Arcand goes on to suggest the applicant provides benefits <br />to the PUD that go beyond the basic requirements. Additionally, that the developer provides access to the site at <br />their expense. Commissioner Fry agrees. <br />Chair Kleissler comments that the general layout is good but expects changes to be made. Overall, the tradeoffs <br />for requesting a PUD were weak and the applicant could be more creative. The housing types are nice and very <br />suitable for Hugo and the development would benefit from an additional access point from the north. <br />Commissioner Arcand commented about the length of the road and fire department accessibility. Staff commented <br />that the fire department generally is okay with the length of the road for a temporary amount of time. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.