My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
PC Packet 02.27.20
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Agendas/Packets
>
2020 PC Packets
>
PC Packet 02.27.20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2020 3:53:42 PM
Creation date
8/6/2020 3:52:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
2/27/2020
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.
/
19
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
The Meadows at Hugo Sketch Plan <br />With the approval of the Oneka Place development to the west the City acquired a large park area. <br />Per evaluation and recommendations from the Parks Commission and Planning Commission the <br />park area was divided into two outlots (Outlots K and L, of the preliminary plat of Oneka Place). <br />The developer is proposing to provide access to the site via connection to Farnham Avenue, <br />through the City owned property (Outlot L). Outlot L was not dedicated to satisfy park dedication <br />requirements. This was to allow the opportunity for the possible extension of Farnham Avenue for <br />access to the park and/or access to the parcel to the east proposed to be developed with this <br />application. Further it was recommended that the street be constructed at the developer's expense, <br />if access was needed for the development of the property to the east. <br />The developer is also proposing to construct the public street at their expense, but any utilities <br />installed through the City property would be at the City's expense. These utilities would be <br />intended for any future improvements to the City owned property and/or adjacent park property. <br />Staff recommends that the Commission offer to make the land available for construction of the <br />street and the street be constructed at the developer's expense. Staff has also recommended that <br />the developer create a place or driveway for a maintenance road off of the public street in order to <br />be able to access to the water tower. <br />The applicant is showing a long, straight road connecting the south and north portions of the <br />development. It's in staff opinion that traffic calming measures should be taken into <br />consideration on the proposed long roadway. The goal of traffic calming is to reduce speeds, <br />reduce cut through traffic, and improve safety including non -motorized traffic. Although, the <br />applicant has designed the road with slight variations, the roadway will need to be further <br />analyzed in regards to creating turns within the roadway. <br />The intersection at 159t' Street and Farnham Avevue would remain with no stop controls at 159' <br />Street and a stop condition on Farnham Avenue from the north and south. Further evaluation of <br />any minor intersection modifications would be evaluated during the preliminary plat phase. <br />Parks Commission Update: <br />The developer's proposal was evaluated by the Parks Commission at its March 20, 2019, meeting. <br />The Parks Commission has not yet planned the future park. They discussed that during the <br />approval of the Oneka Place development there was concern over the lack of parking for the future <br />park and the possibility of a parking lot off of Farnham Avenue North. The future park was <br />discussed as being passive with trails, at least in the short-term. There was not a strong interest in <br />active park features such as a playground or ball fields in the near future. Additional planning and <br />discussion is needed for the park, but they did not expect that to happen this year. <br />Since there is no plan for the park, the Park Commission recommended making the land available <br />for construction of the street at the developer's expense, but not allow the development of the lots <br />as shown on the previously submitted plan. They discussed wanting to keep their options open for <br />a parking lot to be constructed for the park or if any active amenities were desired. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.