2020.01.06 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2020 Page 9 of 11 subdivision. The property is located in the Future Urban Service Area and consists of four parcels totaling 51.1 acres. There are wetlands and floodplain on the property, leaving a total buildable acreage of 29.5 acres. The preliminary plat would include 93 single family residential lots and three outlots to be known as “Rice Lake Reserve”. Community Development Director Rachel Juba reviewed the plan showing access to Goodview Avenue with the street meandering through the site to Egg Lake Road (CSAH8). The phases of development would start on the west side and move to the east. A sidewalk was shown on all the streets in the development and a trail that would connect to a future trail on Goodview and County Road 8 as shown in the 2040 plan. Also shown on the plans were ponds for storm water management that would be used for storm water reuse in the development. Juba talked about the proposed master homeowners association in the development that will own and maintain the water reuse system and common areas. An architectural review committee will also be established. Juba showed where some of the adjacent lots were ghost platted to show street connections, but it had not been reviewed by staff. Juba explained, through the PUD process, the applicant was requesting flexibility in lot sizes, reduced lot widths, setbacks, impervious surface and shoreland regulations. She noted the proposed density still met the ordinance standards. In exchange for the flexibility, they would preserve wetlands and natural areas on the site and install trails that overlook natural areas. The developer also planned for a stormwater reuse irrigation project and would incorporate architectural design guidelines for the homes. Juba provided background on the December 19, 2019, Planning Commission meeting where a public hearing was held to consider the request. No one spoke at the hearing except the applicant. The Planning Commission, with a vote of 5-1, made a recommendation to approve the PUD and preliminary plat, subject to the conditions listed in the resolution, and a revision that a neighborhood gathering space be located in the area south of the lift station (central to the development), with at least one lot being removed for its placement. The applicant had agreed to revise the plans to meet the conditions. Juba talked about the styles of homes proposed for the development explaining it would be a villa style product with one level living and a loft option. There were also plans for some two- story homes. She stated staff felt the applicant had done good job with the landscape plan, which included a monument sign and lift station, and she explained the additional landscaping requirements included in the approving resolution. She talked about previous discussions with the applicant on a gathering space that would provide some open space in exchange for the reduced lot widths and setbacks. The Parks commission considered the plan at their meeting in November and recommended not accepting land as park dedication and accept the fee instead. The plan had been revised to show three lots in place of the gathering space. The Planning Commission, at their December meeting, recommended the gathering space be in a more central location on the plan with one lot being removed, and this was included as part of approval. Juba concluded by stating staff found the PUD and Preliminary Plat met all the conditions necessary for approval. Council asked questions relating to housing types, lot sizes, and pricing. They talked about similar developments with the same lot sizes and villa products, and the need to be able to provide all types of housing to people in all different financial circumstances.