Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.03.22 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION March 22, 2007 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, Kleissler, Schumann, Weidt ABSENT: McRoberts, Moore, Rosenquist ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Rachel Simone, Associate Planner Michele Lindau, Secretary Carolyn Krall, Landform Planning & Urban Design Consultant Mikaela Huot, Springsted Assistant Vice President/Consultant Minutes of March 8, 2007 Kleissler made motion, Bailly seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 8, 2006 as submitted. Ayes: Bailly, Kleissler, Schumann. Abstain: Weidt Motion carried. Downtown Design Guidelines and Downtown Master Plan The Commission held a public hearing to solicit comments on the Downtown Design Guidelines and Downtown Master Plan. Over the past three years, the City had worked to create a set of Downtown Design Guidelines with direction from the Planning Commission, the Economic Development Authority, the City Council and the community at large. The guidelines included a concept plan and text that would be used to guide new development in the downtown area. The guidelines had been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and remained largely intact from previous versions. Carolyn Krall, gave a Power Point presentation showing where the guidelines applied, and explained the plan was revised from the previous plan to show commercial in the southwest corner of CSAH 8 and TH61. She reviewed the goals, framework, general land uses, and design standards outlined in the plan. Schumann pointed out the downtown plan was a concept plan and asked Krall to elaborate on auto -dominated streetscapes. Krall explained in an auto -dominated streetscape, preference is given to the automobile. There would be frequent driveways and few or no sidewalks. Pedestrian safety is not taken into Planning Commission Minutes — March 22, 2007 Page 2 account. The downtown plan proposed a pedestrian friendly business center. Schumann opened the public hearing. Marvin LaValle, 3282 Velvet Street, Hinckley, said he had read the Maxwell report, which he felt indicated the downtown plan was not viable. The theory was there was more traffic to the west and he questioned whether Hugo could sustain commercial in the downtown area. He asked how the City intended to pay for the amenities shown on the plan, and how four lanes of traffic would fit through downtown Hugo. He said it was similar to the 1998 plan which had not been followed. Mike Mcallister, 13829 Isleton Ave. N., told the Commission there was a disconnect between the Commission and the Council. He said he attended the open house and, while staff outwardly continued to seek input, a City Council member had stated they were only going to tweak the 1998 plan. He said the Council also directed the Commission to not discuss density as part of the Rural Preservation ordinance. Mcallister stated he was involved in the 1986 and the 1998 plan, and the reason it never went anywhere was because of the likelihood of the road (TH61) widening and the shoreline setbacks. He does not foresee there being a downtown Hugo there, and the City needed to figure out where the downtown was going to be. He said they should go slow on the Downtown Plan; they couldn't get it to work 30 years ago. He also said the Council should lift the gag order on the Commission. Clyde Wagner, 8650 136th Street North, agreed that the City should go slow; developers will develop the land, and the City didn't need to step into the middle of it. He said people were concerned about the apathy of the community, and the City should do a better job of educating the citizens as to what is going on. He commented that the business district needed to be defined; business are located on CSAH 14(8) so are we not sure that's not the business district? He said the financial impact needed to be considered with the taxes being raised to pay for the things the City will have to have with growth such as new schools and roads. Wally Stoltzman, 8139 157th St. N., said the 1998 plan needed to be left as is for a while. The plan needed review to see if the designs are feasible. He had concerns about the street design and about making it cost effective; amenities in the downtown would need to be maintained. He said it was necessary to find out what people were thinking, and the door should be left open for criticism. There were no other comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. The CDD talked about TH61. The City was working with MNDOT, Washington County, and the Rail Authority and all entities seemed to agree on some type of shared right-of-way. The road may be shifted to the west and the area could accommodate four lanes, two side-by-side rails, and a pedestrian trail. The Council had applied for federal funding which had not been approved, but the City did rank high and will continue to submit applications. He agreed that the amenities LaValle spoke about were not in the Capital Improvement Plan, but the community was asked to "think big" while preparing the downtown plan. Many things would have to fall into place, and they may in the future. The CDD said the creation of the downtown plan had been a long process with many residents, business and property owners involved, and the general consensus of the market study was that the plan was reasonable. The commercial development on the western edge of Hugo had been taken into consideration. Planning Commission Minutes — March 22, 2007 Page 3 Schumann said it was no surprise the proposed plan resembled the 1998 plan. The same types of comments had been received by the public with the only difference being downtown parks and community center. Mcallister said the 1986 Comprehensive Plan called for Hugo to remain rural, nothing was anticipated to the west. The 1986 plan was not like the 1998 plan because it was hi jacked due to public apathy. LaValle asked the CDD about the ownership of the rail. The CDD stated that the portion of the rail south of 145th Street was owned by Burlington Northern and was not within the regional authority. Bailly asked about the role of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) The CDD explained that TIF did not have to be in place for downtown development to occur. Weidt said he thought 20 years was pretty slow. He indicated he appreciated criticism when it was constructive, and felt they had gone slow and listened to the public. He thought the guidelines were good, and the City needed to have them. Kleissler thanked those who commented and hoped they would continue to do so. She was in favor of more time to review the plan. Bailly pointed out that it was not being proposed to be built now with tax money. She had concerns about development along CSAH8 and how the downtown areas would connect. The CDD restated that the City had no plans to be the developers of downtown. Weidt made motion, Schumann seconded, to approve the Downtown Design Guidelines and the Downtown Master Plan. Ayes: Bailly, Weidt, Schumann Nay: Kleissler Motion carried. The Commission took a short break. Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF) The Commission considered approval of the TIF Plan. The CDD explained that City staff, in conjunction with the City's Economic Development Authority (EDA), had been working to create an implementation plan for the downtown guidelines and concept plan. The implementation plan included the use of Tax Increment Financing as the primary implementation method. The City held a widely attended public workshop in January of 2006 to discuss implementation methods, including Tax Increment Financing. Since that time, the EDA has worked to create a TIF District that qualifies under state statutes. He explained the Planning Commission's responsibility was only to determine whether the TIF plan was consistent with the Planning Commission Minutes — March 22, 2007 Page 4 City's general plan for development or redevelopment. The City Council would be holding a public hearing on TIF at their meeting on April 2, 2007. Mikaela Huot, Springsted Assistant Vice President/Consultant, was at the meeting and explained she had worked with the City extensively on the TIF plan. She explained how the tax increment financing would work and that the property owners would still pay property taxes at the value of the property prior to improvements. Any incremental value would be captured as tax increment. This money could be used to pay for some improvements to the property. Schumann pointed out that any property in the district could take advantage of TIF but didn't have to, and he questioned when the decertification would be. Huot said it was basically 25 years and explained some of the decertification rules. The CDD explained that it would be project specific. The developer of the property would go before the EDA with an application for TIF for review. The EDA would forward a recommendation to the City Council. Tax generated on the project could be used for roads and infrastructure. Bailly asked about development on Lower 147`h Street, and the CDD explained that property acquisition there could be difficult because of the multitude of property owners. Kleissler asked about the City's intentions for the property the City owned along TH61. The CDD explained there were no plans, but it could be sold to a developer similar to what was done in the Bald Eagle Industrial Park. Huot said it was a challenge to develop with many different parcel owners, and the fact that the City owned several parcels in one area could act as a catalyst for development. Weidt made motion, Bailly seconded, to recommend approval of the resolution finding the TIF plan to be consistent with the City's plan for downtown. Ayes: Bailly, Schumann, Weidt Nay: Kleissler Motion carried. Adiournment Weidt made motion, Bailly seconded, to adjourn at 9:16 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission