Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.03.08 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION March 8, 2007 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, Kleissler, McRoberts, Moore, Rosenquist, Schumann, ABSENT: Weidt ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Kendra Lindahl, City Planner Rachel Simone, Associate Planner Minutes of February 8, 2007 Bailly stated that there was a spelling error on page three. Schumann made motion, Rosenquist seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 8, 2006 with the spelling correction. All Ayes. Motion Carried. Comprehensive Plan Update City Planner, Kendra Lindahl, was present at the meeting and gave an overview on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan process. She explained that it was a long range plan and guide for the future of the City. There are five major phases to the comprehensive plan process including background/ analysis, goal setting, land use, implementation and adoption, and then submittal to the Metropolitan Council for approval. Goal setting is a big part of the process; it helps build the current plan. Goal setting was the main agenda tonight. The City Planner conducted an exercise evaluating the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the City with the Commission. Below are the results of the Commissions evaluation. Strengths 1. Small town feel -Downtown core 2. Rural atmosphere -Agriculture -Farming 3. Forests, lakes, streams -Natural Resources 4. Horses at Subway -on trail on Hwy 61 5. Wildlife -wild turkeys, pheasants 6. Good neighbors Planning Commission Minutes — March 8, 2007 Page 2 7. Close to St. Paul and White Bear Lake 8. Recognizing Challenges/Opportunity to plan 9. Access is easy to freeway 10. Open spaces Weaknesses 1. Need stoplight at 147th & Highway 61 2. Not enough trails and sidewalks (Limited connectivity to parks) 3. Entrance to the City on CSAH 8 doesn't reflect the true character of Hugo 4. Community has no character 5. Lack of unity- separate school districts, post offices, demographics, etc. 6. Speed and Density of growth were too much -Morphed not evolved -Impacts city reputation 7. No Library 8. No Community Swimming Pool 9. Taxes (County and School) make it difficult for land owners to stay on their land. Opportunities 1. Northern Gateway Planning, learn from western gateway 2. Southern Gateway Planning, learn from western gateway 3. Downtown Plan/Development -Where is "Downtown?" -What is "Downtown?" 4. Create pedestrian connections 5. Create a transportation plan -look at intersections + access -Highway 61 plan 6. Define and preserve a lifestyle (Lifestyle is what you do/Character is what you see) 7. Take advantage of remaining large open space for park use. Threats 1. Cost of public improvements 2. Increased City taxes 3. Over development -Too much density -Failure to preserve significant open space -expansion of the MUSA 4. Economic pressures that drive development 5. Aging population (Especially on north and east) -Selling land and moving (which leads to development) 6. Divided community (School districts, etc.) -Makes creation and character (or unique identity) difficult Planning Commission Minutes — March 8, 2007 Page 3 Vision 1. Stay Rural (open space, not necessarily farming) 2. Preservation of Natural Resources (trees, lakes, streams) 3. A good place to raise your kids 4. Opportunity to stay in Hugo after Retirement 5. Allow kids to experience parent's experiences (lifestyle or transfer of values) 6. Lifecycle community 7. Retain Heritage of long term residents/families 8. Keep the Commercial Core in Downtown 9. Pedestrian friendly downtown -park once stop twice 10. A community center in downtown for people to gather 11. Strong pedestrian connections between all parks and schools 12. Equestrian Friendly 13. Strong Commercial/Industrial tax base 14. Maintain City services at minimal costs to residents 15. Maintain balance between SF + MF homes 16. Provide affordable housing opportunities. Rural Preservation Ordinance The CDD, Bryan Bear, gave an overview of the Rural Preservation Ordinance. He stated that there were six main topics of the ordinance what were in question. 1. Maximum allowable density 2. Density Bonuses 3. Community well and septic systems 4. Buildable acreage 5. Conservation easements 6. Title of ordinance On February 1, 2007 there was a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council to talk about the Rural Preservation ordinance. At that meeting the six topics were presented. The City Council stated that the Planning Commission could look at the entire ordinance and make changes that they felt were needed. At the February 22, 2007 City Council meeting, the Council made the decision that the Planning Commission should just concentrate on the main topics. The Council felt that the maximum allowable density should stay the same at 12 units per 40 acres. The Council felt the ordinance should stay generally the same but the 5 topics needed to be looked at. The Council gave the Planning Commission until May 1, 2007 to make a recommendation of the changes. The CDD stated that the Metropolitan Council committee that is working on a recommendation to Cities on rural preservation ordinances will have a recommendation at a later date. They will not have a recommendation this March as they stated before. The Mayor, Fran Miron, was present at the meeting to answer any questions that the Commission may have about the changes the Council made on the way the Commission should look at the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes — March 8, 2007 Page 4 Rosenquist asked why the maximum allowable density was taken off the list of topics. Miron stated that the Council felt that it should stay the same and they were comfortable with it the way it is. Rosenquist stated that the projects that have been through on this ordinance have had a lot of negative opinion. He also stated that there should be a moratorium on the ordinance since it is running with the compressive plan and then we can figure out what the public wants. Miron stated that the Council has not talked extensively about a moratorium. He stated that there is importance on completing this ordinance in a timely manner. He thanked the Commission and stated that the Council appreciates their effort. Schumann stated the Commission should start working on this as soon as possible. The CDD stated that tonight the Commission should put a process together to work through the ordinance. Rosenquist stated that the Commission should take one meeting to work through the ordinance and that it should be the only item on the agenda. Schumann asked about a date. The CDD stated that the next Commission meeting is full, but there could be a special meeting set up. He also stated the first meeting in April is open. Schumann made motion, Rosenquist seconded, to continue working on the Rural Preservation ordinance at the April 12, 2007 Planning Commission meeting with that being the only item on the agenda. All Ayes. Motion Carried. Kleissler asked if the discussion on the ordinance would include discussion on a moratorium. CDD stated that is something that the Council will have to deal with, but the Commission could make a motion to recommend a moratorium to the Council. Recreational Equipment Public Workshop The Associate Planner gave an update on the recreational equipment storage ordinance public workshop with the Council and the Planning Commission. The workshop is on Monday, March 26th, 2007 at 7 pm. Adjournment Schumann made motion, Rosenquist seconded, to adjourn at 9:00 p.in. All Ayes. Motion carried. Rachel Simone Associate Planner