Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.03.09 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2006 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, Hoffbeck, Kleissler, McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann ABSENT: Weidt ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Community Development Assistant Kendra Lindahl, Planner Minutes of February 23, 2006 Rosenquist made motion, Hoffbeck seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 23, 2006 as submitted. Ayes: Bailly, Hoffbeck, Kleissler, Rosenquist, Schumann Abstain: McRoberts Motion carried. Enchanted Waters Preliminary Plat and CUP for Rural Preservation A public hearing had been scheduled to consider the request of Stoney River Development, 4455 White Bear Parkway, White Bear Lake, for approval of a preliminary plat and conditional use permit (CUP) for rural preservation to subdivision a 40 -acre site into 12 single family homes to be known as "Enchanted Waters". The property is located north and south of 132nd Street. The planner explained that the City posted the legal notification for the public hearing regarding this application; however, the applicant was still working with staff on the details of the shared septic system and requested the application be tabled. Schumann opened the public hearing. There were no comments. McRoberts made motion, Hoffbeck seconded, to table the application until April 13, 2006. All Ayes. Motion carried. Wilderness View 2°d Addition Preliminary Plat and Variance The Commission held a public hearing to consider the application of TJ Land Trust V, 3101 Old Highway 8, Roseville, for a Preliminary Plat and Variance for Wilderness View 2nd Addition consisting of 59 single family homes and 1 outlot on 98.57 acres located west of Goodview Avenue and south of 130th Street. Planning Commission Minutes — March 9, 2006 Page 2 The Planner reminded the Commission they had reviewed a concept plan on the site in September of 2005 that consisted of 67 homes and in December reviewed a concept plan for 62 lots. Concerns at that time were flag lots, narrow lots, importance of future road and trail connections, and lack of anything special or unique that would justify a PUD. The Planner explained the plan had been revised to eliminate the PUD. The applicant was requesting a variance for Outlot A to allow 60 feet road frontage where Hugo City Code required 80 feet lot width. She showed where the trail would extend between lots 5 and 6 of Wilderness view across Outlot A to Goodview Avenue. There were likely to be wetland and flood impacts. Outlot A would be retained by the current land owner for future single family home. Prior to a home being built, the driveway access would need to be examined. The cell tower would remain on the outlot, but the existing shed would be removed. A portion of the shed was being used by the cell tower and a smaller shed, closer to the tower, would likely be built. No business or exterior storage would be permitted on the outlot. The tower would have a 165' setback which staff found was reasonable. The pipeline easement would be deed restricted and the applicant would install signs identifying the easement. Roads would be stubbed to adjacent properties to the north for future development. The City engineer had reviewed the access point to Goodview Avenue and found it acceptable; there would not be a line of site problem. The existing field road would be removed. Schumann asked if the applicant had done a preliminary review of the wetlands on Outlot A. The Planner responded that it would be difficult to construct more than one home site. Additional home sites would require wetland fill and may have difficulty complying with the Wetland Conservation Act. McRoberts questioned what the ordinance required for setbacks when the tower was constructed. The CDD explained the ordinance did not address towers at the time it was constructed. The tower would be 154 feet tall. Current ordinance required towers over 150 feet be located at least 500 feet from residential structures. He explained the ordinance was designed to protect existing homes. Homeowners in the proposed plat would be aware of the tower and the proposed setback was reasonable to adequately protect the home. Bailly questioned the restrictions on the pipeline. The Planner said the covenants would be filed saying no fences or other structures could be builtwithin the easement. Schumann opened the public hearing. Bob Stachowiak, 2532 Portland Avenue South, said he was representing his parents who owned an adjacent ten acre parcel to the north. He questioned the trail location and the road stubbed to the property; whether crossing the pipeline easement would pose a problem should his parents decide to develop their property in the future. He asked about the line of site problem. The Planner said she did not believe extending the road would be an issue, and the field road had a line of site problem because of the hill and dip on Goodview. This access was to be eliminated. Jim Engstrom said he was the property owner at the northeast corner of Goodview Avenue and 125' Street. He thought it was a nice development. He told the Commission that a portion of the Koch pipeline had broke on his property approximately ten years ago. There was a quite bit of damage and Planning Commission Minutes — March 9, 2006 Page 3 Koch did reimburse him. Sam Ashkar, TJ Land Trust, said he had been working with the City and he thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present the plat. There were no other comments, and Schumann closed the public hearing. Schumann said he approved of the removal of the flag lots and felt the entrance was appropriate. McRoberts questioned the drainage and asked if chemicals would be used in the treatment ponds. The Planner said the ponds would be used for stormwater treatment and rate control, and there would be no chemicals used. Kleissler asked what would be on the signage. Ashkar said he was waiting for Koch's input. The pipeline would be addressed in the sale of lots and in a deed restriction. The signs installed in the backyards of the lots would identify the easement. Bailly suggested making it clear on the signs that no planting was permitted there. Hoffbeck said she was happy to see the shed was being removed and with the addition of some trees, she approved of the plat. Rosenquist said he was okay with the plans for Outlot A. Bailly said she liked the plan and the pathway. Her only concern was the pipeline easement. McRoberts said he had no problems with the proposed development. Kleissler asked if there were any guidelines for the rebuilding of the shed. The CDD said staff would work with the applicant and it would likely be a standard structure used to house the tower equipment. Rosenquist made motion, Bailly seconded, to recommend approval of the plat for Wilderness View 2" d Addition. All Ayes. Motion carried. Victor Gardens 6th Addition PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plat The Commission held a public hearing to consider the application of POA -Scherer, LLC, 3030 Centre Point Drive, Roseville, for a PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plat for Victor Gardens 6th Addition consisting of 60 single-family lots and 6 outlots. The property is 44.34 acres in size, located south of Victor Gardens 4th and east of Valjean Boulevard and Grantaire Lane. On November 20, 2000, the City Council approved the PUD concept plan for Victor Gardens. The Planning Commission Minutes — March 9, 2006 Page 4 Planner explained there were minor plan modifications to the PUD to include 31 traditional homes and 29 detached villa units. This phase of the Victor Gardens PUD was conceptually planned for traditional and cottage -style residential lots. The villa unit would be similar in size and concept to the cottage style unit. They were both smaller, single-family homes with association maintained exteriors. The applicant was requesting setback flexibility for the lots located on Valjean Boulevard and Everton Avenue. Staff had requested the applicant widen the right-of-way so the sidewalks would be located entirely within the right-of-way. The front setback would be two feet less than what was approved with the original PUD. This would increase the road right -of- way four feet. There would be six different building layouts with a variety of colors and materials. All buildings would be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee and the outlots would be owned by the Home Owners Association. Len Pratt, developer, showed a Power Point presentation of other properties he had developed with the villa product. He explained that the homes would be detached and cared for by the townhome association. The layout provided privacy and views with main -floor living. Schumann opened the public hearing. There were no comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. Kleissler made motion, Bailly seconded, to recommend approval of the plat to be known as Victor Gardens 6th Addition. All Ayes. Motion carried. The Commission took a short break. Sunset Shores Concept Plan Maschin Property) The Commission considered the application of Benchmark Properties, 4200 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, for concept plan review of a rural preservation development consisting of 41 single family homes on 142.8 acres to be known as "Sunset Shores". The property is located north of 120th Street, south of 125th Street and west of Sunset Lake. The Planner explained the homes would be located on 1 -acre to 3 -acre lots situated near the center of the site. Staff had recommended a reduction in lot sizes to reduce the cost of infrastructure should City services ever be made available to the site. A community septic and drinking water system would serve the development and access would be provided from 120th Street and 125th Street. Eighty acres would remain as permanently preserved open spaces that would be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The lots would comply with all setbacks and there would be access to the open spaces. A one -acre City owned parcel to the north along Sunset Lake would connect to a portion of the proposed open space which would provide an opportunity for a public boat launch. The next step in developing the property would be preliminary plat approval and a conditional use permit for Rural Preservation. Staff had requested to see more detail on the community septic system and confirmation on the shoreland edge. Schumann speculated there were a number of failing septics on the smaller lots around Sunset Lake, Planning Commission Minutes — March 9, 2006 Page 5 and the development would create a base for the cost of providing future infrastructure. The smaller lots would provide more open space and the property for a future boat launch would help justify the density bonuses. Hoffbeck said it would be nice to have reduced lot sizes but was concerned large, expensive homes would be constructed on small lots and may look out of place next to the existing lots and homes. Bailly asked about the open space and trail connection. The applicant proposed mowed trails within the development where the City typically requires trails to be constructed of a bituminous surface. McRoberts liked the plan and said making the lots smaller would improve future infrastructure but not necessarily the aesthetics of the development. Schumann said he didn't think the lot sizes were a huge problem but it would be nice to obtain additional open space. Kleissler liked the layout but had concerns with the lot sizes and would like to see larger lots. She also was concerned about a public boat launch on a small lake and safety issues with parking and traffic. Tim White, Benchmark Companies, said they would be happy to look at smaller lot sizes but felt the larger home sites would better fit the surroundings. The proposed homes would have side -loaded garages which would require wider lots. He explained the Home Owners' Association would maintain the open space, trial system, and community septic. They would be putting together a landscape plan which would include monuments on the site. Concept Plan for South Arcand Property The Commission considered the application of Pulte Homes, 815 Northwest Parkway, Eagan, for concept plan review 247 single family homes on 192.8 -acres east of Highway 61 and north of 130th Street. Seventy-four acres of wetland are located on the property with the northeast corner classified as a DNR wetland. A private ditch runs south through the property. The Planner explained the applicant would be requesting a PUD for setback and lot width flexibility but the applicant had not provided any detailed information about lot area or setbacks. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) would not be required because there would be fewer than 250 units but the City could require an EAW be done. The applicant would need to work with the City and the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) on wetland issues. The Commission had concerns regarding safety of the pipeline easement located in the southeastern portion of the property, number of units on one entrance, and traffic on the intersection of 130th Street North and Highway 61. The Parks Commission had requested a neighborhood park be located on the north end of the parcel where there was more contiguous usable land and the Planning Commission agreed and felt the ditch would need to be carefully considered. There were also concerns about the portion to the south where the homes were proposed because the land was very flat and wet. Tina Goodroad from Pulte Homes said they had extensive conversations with the TEP regarding wetland issues and were trying to avoid the wetland to the greatest degree. Goodroad agreed to Planning Commission Minutes — March 9, 2006 Page 6 consider a park on the property to the north and to keep the wetland complex as natural as possible. Schumann suggested the applicant work with the properties to the north on drainage and felt an EAW should be done. McRoberts did not approve of 60 foot wide lots and reduced side yard setbacks. He requested something unique to justify the granting of a Planned Unit Development. The Commission discussed the value of the tot lot in the southern portion of the site and the possibility of constructing a park in both the northern and southern portion of the development. Adiournment Rosenquist made motion, Hoffbeck seconded, to adjourn at 9:15 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission