Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.09.21 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION September 21, 2006 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, Hoffbeck, Kleissler, McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann, Weidt ABSENT: NONE ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes of September 14, 2006 McRoberts made motion, Bailly seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 14, 2006 as submitted. All Ayes. Motion carried. Rural Preservation Program Ordinance Amendment (Continued) The Commission continued discussion on revisions to the Rural Preservation Program (RPP) Ordinance. At its September 14, 2006 meeting, the Commission held a public hearing to consider revisions to the ordinance. A motion was made and seconded to recommend to the Council to rescind the cluster (Rural Preservation Program) ordinance and recommend all properties in the Rural Residential and Agricultural Zoning Districts be rezoned to Long Term Agricultural. A motion was then passed to table the ordinance amendment until the next meeting. McRoberts made motion, Weidt seconded, to bring the motion from the last meeting off the table for discussion. All Ayes. Motion carried. Schumann made motion, McRoberts seconded, to amend his previous motion to keep the zoning at one home per ten acres and rescind the Rural Preservation Program Ordinance. Hoffbeck questioned how the ordinance would be considered by the Council if the Council did not approve the motion and act on the amendments without the Commissions input. Hoffbeck said the ordinance should be kept alive and pointed out the number of people who have worked diligently on it. The Commission discussed the definition and implications of the Long -Term Agriculture District. Schumann explained that his motion was to leave the zoning as is, not to rezone it to Long Term Agriculture. Planning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 2 After this clarification, McRoberts withdrew his second to the motion and Schumann withdrew his motion to amend. McRoberts questioned what the people wanted and said he had not heard of anyone speak in favor of cluster housing. Bailly disagreed saying people don't complain about something if they are not upset by it. It was noted there had been many public hearings. Schumann pointed out other communities such as Maplewood and Edina that probably wished they had considered open space preservation. People seemed okay with the ordinance as long as development did not occur near them. The ordinance would be a good long-range planning tool. McRoberts commented that if the purpose of the ordinance is to maintain the rural character, one house per ten acres is more rural than 30 homes on 40 acres. Hoffbeck and Rosenquist agreed. Hoffbeck said she had comments from people pointing out that she had voted to approve the ordinance but stated she was not happy about it at the time but was looking for a compromise. She doesn't want to pass something the Council would not approve and questioned why the Council did not consider the Commission's recommendations on the Enchanted Waters plat. Hoffbeck didn't think the Council would approve one home per 40 acres or one home per ten acres so the Commission needed to respond to an ordinance amendment. Rosenquist asked what would happen if the council did not accept a motion to rescind the ordinance, would it come back to the Commission for amendment. The CDD said the Council could send it back for more discussion or act on their own. Bailly said she was in favor the ordinance but it did need tweaking. She had studied urban planning and could foresee three lots per ten acres. The Commission should focus on the idea of an "Open" space program, not a "Rural" Preservation Program. Schumann agreed and said he had suggested creating a Rural PUD and an Urban PUD. McRoberts questioned what the message was that had been received from the public hearings. Schumann said the best case scenario is that it's okay but the number of lots was too great. The problem was that economics show the ordinance may not be used with less density. Rosenquist said the housing market does have an effect. Schumann said if it is an ordinance that no one will use, we may as well rescind it. Hoffbeck said she looked at the profit of development under the RPP and there was a big difference in the value of property. Land is worth more if it is developed under the RPP. The ordinance did not preserve the land into perpetuity and did not consider the neighborhood. It had been tried out east and it was found it did not work; it was not beneficial and the homes were not that desirable and the land was eventually developed. Large homes on small lots did not fit our landscape or community. Planning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 3 Bailly said the views of open space make the developments desirable. Hoffbeck commented that the views change with the construction of huge homes. It was not rural with houses tight together and she would prefer one home per ten acres or even one home per five acres, but she was concerned the Council would not support that. McRoberts agreed they had destroyed the rural character on the west side of Hugo. Schumann recalled the same reasoning made it difficult for the Woods of Bald Eagle and Oakshore Park to develop. It was doubted they could get quality homes on the small lots, but it was done. Bailly stated that the open space will disappear if there is no ordinance to preserve it. Weidt said one home per 40 acres was what people wanted but it was not a long term solution. They should adjust it and make it a good ordinance. McRoberts said by adjusting it, they could almost make it result in one home per five acres or one home per ten. Schumann commented that a good ordinance is one that is used. Kleissler was not if favor of the ordinance as it is now because it was way too lenient. She would be in favor of going back to a 10 acre or larger recommendation and questioned if it was possible to go back to the idea of a moratorium. This would allow time for existing approvals to be developed and to see what they looked like. The CDD added that the Council decided there would be no need for the moratorium with the ordinance amendments being proposed. McRoberts said that 12 homes per 40 acres was too many and they should be able to come up with something that would give more than four but less than 12 per 40 acres. He was willing to consider preserving much of the open space with something between four and 12 homes. He said he would withdraw his second to the motion if the Commission agreed to work on that. Hoffbeck agreed they are looking for no public access to private land, wetland buffers, community well and septic and requirement of a conservation easement with only giving bonuses for additional buildable land. McRoberts asked the Commission what the maximum density they would be willing to accept. Kleissler asked why they start with a bonus; they should start at the base of one home per ten acres. Bailly said they probably would not be able to afford to put in a community well and septic. Rosenquist said that once you have roads in and set aside buildable ground, it would be hard to get 12 homes per 40 acres. It would require a larger piece of land. McRoberts agreed with Kleissler on starting at a base of one home per 10 acres. Planning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 4 Bailly comment it would not be used if not higher density. She recalled at one meeting where developers were brought in and stated so. Schumann said he had developed property in the past and the cost of development is astronomical. Eight home on 40 acres would not work. Rosenquist questioned if they were putting together a developer's tool or if they were preserving land. He added that residents surrounding cluster developments needed to be taken into account. Bailly pointed out the Rural Reservation plats that they had approved showed existing homes on roads. When the ordinance was envisioned, there were berms and trees buffering the homes. Hoffbeck said developers in Afton were happy with the ordinance. They found it could be done and they could make money with less than 12 homes per 40 acres. Schumann talked about the spirit and intent of the ordinance, and if you looked at the big picture there would be a lot of land left open. He said they could consider eight homes per 40 with 50 % open space, ten per 40 with 65% open space or 12 per 40 with 75% open space, and the removal of a non -conforming use could substitute for open space at the Council's discretion. He suggested removing the density bonuses and make the existing bonuses mandatory or eliminate them. Bonuses should only be given on open space or if substantial off-site improvements are made. McRoberts withdrew his second to the original motion because he had heard enough consensus they could do something with the ordinance. The original motion died for the lack of a second. The Commission agreed to meet again on the ordinance amendment and review the CDD presentation at the beginning of the meeting and review the ordinance page by page. Rosenquist made motion, McRoberts seconded, to adjourn until the following week. Dale Good, 12581 Homestead Avenue North, asked for the Chair to open the public hearing again. Schumann opened the public hearing. Good said he lived on Sunset Lake. He had been trying to see both sides of the ordinance and he wanted to make it clear he was not complaining about the two existing preliminary plats. He said he could not understand why the City could not put conservation easements on individual lots. He said he was bothered by the Commission being concerned about the developer and the Commission basing their decision on what the Council would approve. Kathy Scobie, 7676 120th Street North, pointed out there were people who had approved of the ordinance at previous meetings and there was a petition given to the Council of residents in favor of the ordinance. If the City and residence were in favor of preserving open space, perhaps taxes should be increased and open space purchased. Schumann closed the public hearing. The Commission unanimously voted Aye on the motion to adjourn at 8:20 Planning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 5 All ayes. Motion carried Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission