Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.03.23 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2006 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Kleissler, McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann Bailly and Weidt arrived after roll Call ABSENT: Hoffbeck ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Community Development Assistant Phil Belfiori, Water Resource Specialist — WSB Chuck Rickart, Traffic Engineer Specialist — WSB Andi Moffatt, Environmental Scientist — WSB Minutes of March 9, 2006 McRoberts made motion, Kleissler seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 9, 2006 as submitted. All Ayes. Motion carried. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Del Webb The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for property located between Highway 61 and Oneka Lake, and on the north and south sides of 165th Street North. A concept plan for the 369 acre site was considered by the Planning Commission on January 12, 2006 and the City Council on February 6, 2006 for Pulte Homes of Minnesota, 815 Northwest Parkway, Eagan, for a Dell Webb Active Adult Community Development to consist of 512 unattached residential units and 463 attached units. Because of the size of the project, an EAW was required to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be done, which is a more thorough review of the site. The CDD explained the EAW assessed the possible environmental impacts of the site relating to storm water management, wetland habitat, water supply, wastewater management, and traffic. The EAW was regulated by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) with the city acting as the Responsible Government Unit (R -GU) responsible for the preparation of the EAW and determining if an EIS is necessary. After the comment period ends on March 29, 2006, the Council would consider comments from participating agencies as well as comments from the public. Specific items were identified in the EAW process. The water table in the area was high which presented a challenge to manage the storm water. The City would look closely at grading, storm water issues, and low floor elevations, suspecting most of the homes would be slab on grade. Oneka Lake was an environmentally sensitive lake and floodplain impacts were anticipated and mitigation would Planning Commission Minutes — March 23, 2006 Page 2 be necessary. There would be no impact to the floodway and impacts to the wetlands would be for roads to be constructed as part of the development. The developer would need to work with the City and other agencies to minimize those impacts. Additional turn lanes on Highway 61 into the development at the proposed 157th Street entrance would be necessary, and a traffic signal and turn lanes at Highway 61 and 147' Street would need to be installed as part of the development. Permits from MN DOT for access to Highway 61 would be necessary and proper spacing between intersections and signals would need to be considered with the potential for a signal at 165th Street. MN DOT was agreeable to an interim intersection for the development, but if a median was constructed in the future, it would be a right -in and right -out. Washington County is the Rail Authority so access points on the east side of Highway 61 could impact what happens on the west side. Proposed roundabouts would need further analysis. Adequate water would be available to the project and sewer would be available for the south half of the development through the existing sewer system, and a new extension for the north would extend along 165th street to the Forest Lake Interceptor on the west side of Highway 61. This would require a MUSA expansion and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which would need to be approved by the Met Council. Other items addressed were potential contamination by the recycling company on the western portion of the site; archeological resources, none of which were found; water surface use, which would include a dock on Oneka Lake; noise, the development would not generate noise or exceed state noise levels; and trails, which were proposed for the development. If it was determined an EIS was not necessary, the project would move forward to the platting phase. Schumann asked if any of the WSB Consultants or Commission Members had any comments. They did not and Schumann opened the public hearing. Craig Baland, 15475 Goodview Trail North, asked how the habitat behind him, southern portion of the proposed development, would be affected by the removal of the trees. A trail through the woods connecting to the City owned park would be preferable. Elizabeth Herrmann, 6189 165th Street North, questioned the notification period since the notice she received was postmarked March 8, she received it on March 10, and the 30 day comment period ended March 29. The CDD explained the 30 -day comment period was a requirement by the EQB. City ordinance required a 10 -day notice prior to public hearings and most municipalities do not require public hearings on EAW. Herman commented on the traffic and proposed they consider 1701h Street to be the main intersection. She said holding ponds would be inadequate; the area was already wet during a typical spring. Removing the trees would adversely affect the wetlands, turtles would be displaced and habitat would be disrupted. There was excessive paving, and landscaping would add chemicals to the lake. Those with recently updated wells in the area would not necessarily want MUSA. Bob Harms, 6541 170th Street, asked about water drainage and if a water assessment would be done for property owners to the north of the development. He did not want to see additional water on his property. He said there was an imbalance of the elevation of the proposed homes to the elevation of his home. Phil Belfiori, WSB Consultant, said the area had been improved through a recent City project that lowered the regulatory floodplain by one and one-half feet to remove some of the homes from the Planning Commission Minutes — March 23, 2006 Page 3 FEMA program. Minimization of impacts to wetlands was reviewed by Federal Army Corp of Engineers, State Board of Soil and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources, Rice Creek Watershed District, and the City of Hugo. The City would require four feet of separation between highest observed ground water level and the lowest floor elevation of structures. There would be one foot of separation of low floor to the high water level of the spill-over point at the crossing of highway 61. Ponds would have regulation of three feet separation from high water level of homes on site. Significant analysis would be done on all ponds and wetland on the site. Bill Slowkowski, 15470 Goodview Avenue North, was concerned about preserving the tress along the south of the site. Bruce Discher, 6302 165th Street North, said there are approximately 45 turkeys living and breeding on the property as well as deer and pheasants, and he did not want to see their habitat and the trees wiped out. He said he had seen the 500 year flood plain flooded within the last five years. He questioned the traffic on 165th and wondered how tractors and hay wagons would maneuver around on a round -about. He wondered why they were finally getting notice since the project had been around since November. Paul Courneya, 6122 Goodview Trail Circle North, said he did not want to see the trees removed; they would create a natural sound barrier and it would be a loss of habitat. He wanted to see the plan be restructured to accommodate pathways through there, and felt removal of the trees would reduce his property value. He showed the Commission pictures of the large pines on the site. Nina Huffman, 6136 Goodview Trail Circle, reiterated the others' comments on water and wildlife. She did not want to see the trees lost. Brian Ludvick, 6361 165th Street North, said there were beautiful oak woods to the south of his property and development brings oak wilt, though he did not know why. Andi Moffatt, WSB Consultant, said there was evidence that disturbance and damage to trees or their root system does increase the chance of oak wilt. Berry Larson, 15450 Goodview Avenue North, said the floodplain issue and water should not be underestimated. He had seen it backed up from holding ponds into their back yards. He said if the same criteria were used for ponds and wetlands, it would be insufficient. Gary Williams, owner of industrial property south of the project, asked why the south portion could not be preserved as a City park for a buffer, and why the project needed to be so large. Sharon Dierkhising, 6515 170th Street North, said she had lived on their five acre parcel for about 25 years and has experienced flooding on their property and was concerned about more water flowing on their property. She said there are deer, fox, and wolves on the site and geese land on the field and pond while migrating. She was concerned about the possibility of the road being reconstructed in front of her house and said plans for sewer and water in the area should be shared with those along their road. There were no other comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. Phil Belfiori said the wetland habitat would be protected to the highest extent possible. The wetland and surrounding area have been classified according to habitat and all agencies would be reviewing it and working to avoid any impacts. Planning Commission Minutes — March 23, 2006 Page 4 Baland said the development could cut off wetland from other habitats and Belfiori said that the area surrounding the wetland would be scrutinized by all agencies. Schumann recalled working on the Wildlife Urban Interface project and Hugo has been keeping track of the wetlands in the area. A gentleman in the audience asked what the timeline of the project was. The CDD said the staff would be working on a phasing plan with the developer, which was important to the City because it would require sewer extension, and it was an anticipated a build out of four years if it went as quickly as the developers would like. Terry Frost, 1540 Goodview Avenue North, said the woods along the power line was incredible and would hate to see it disappear. He asked why not incorporate the woods into the trail system. Rosenquist asked if there was anything in the study that indicated the development could not be done to meet all the City, county, and state criteria. The CDD said EAW had been reviewed and staff had changed parts to ensure it fully addressed the proposed development. Andi Moffatt said the upland was not regulated the same as the wetlands and preservation of the woods should be addressed as part of the PUD process. Weidt agreed to comments regarding minimizing damage and loss of trees and it needed to be addressed with the development process. Kleissler said the comment she heard were very good and agreed that habitat needed to be correctly addressed to preserve the wildlife corridor. Williams said the site contained the last piece of full growth with the largest trees in Hugo. He said they would only loose 100 units to save the trees. Bailly said she would also like to see the trees saved on the south end and the wildlife habitat preserved. McRoberts said the City had worked very diligently with the developers and residents to restore and retain the wildlife corridor in the Everton Avenue area when that was being developed. The idea of buffers and transitions seemed to have been lost and he would like to see the buffer to the south remain. Floodplain and flooding were serious concerns with the way land cover would change with the increased impervious surface, and the engineers needed to ensure the holding ponds would take care of it. Schumann said he shared the same concerns and it would be a challenge to meet state and federal requirements. He thanked the audience for their comments. Weidt asked when it would go to Council. The CDD said it could go on April 17th or May 1St. Staff needed to prepare the comments from the various agencies. Planning Commission Minutes — March 23, 2006 Page 5 Courneya asked if notices would be sent directly to homes. The CDD said future notices could be sent to those within 700 feet. McRoberts asked why the City is not putting notice in the Hugo papers. The CDD said the White Bear Press met the State Statute requirements for being the official newspaper for notice publication purposes. Adiournment McRoberts made motion, Rosenquist seconded, to adjourn at 8:17 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission