Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.10.12 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION October 12, 2006 Call to (lydor Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:27 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 Rachel Simone, Community Development Intern Minutes of September 28, 2006 Rosenquist made motion, Kleissler seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 28, 2006 as submitted. Ayes: Bailly, Kleissler, McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann Abstain: Hoffbeck, Weidt Motion Carried. Hopkins Farm Concept Plan The Commission considered the application of J&B Development, LLC, 2994 Rice Street, Roseville, for a rural preservation development sketch plan review for a development to be known as Hopkins Farms. The development would consist of 29 single family homes located on a 97.12 acre parcel owned by William and Ellen St. Sauver and located on the east and west side of Jeffrey, north of 152nd Street North. The CD Intern provided background to the Commission on the previous application considered by them and the Council on July 27th and August 21, 2006. She reminded them of the concerns they had regarding the previous plan and explained how the applicant had addressed them. The homes would be located on approximately one half (1/2) acre lots. Community well and septic systems would serve the development and the applicant would retain 72.89 acres as permanently preserved open space that would be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. She explained how the density bonuses were being met and showed where the proposed open space would be located. The plan showed the lots clustered on the east and west sides of the property with open space in the center of the property. The plan still showed a gravel trail that ran east to west through the development and had dead ends on each side. The CD intern said a visit was made to the site to determine if there would be issues with sight distance where the road was proposed to connect to Jeffery Avenue. It was concluded there would be a problem with the hill on Jeffery Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes —October 12, 2006 Page 2 The CD Intern explained the Rural Preservation Program ordinance was currently under consideration by the Planning Commission and may result in revisions to the ordinance. Staff's review of this project was based on the adopted ordinance and changes to the ordinance would impact the project. If revisions to the ordinance were adopted by the City Council, the applicant would need to revise the preliminary plat if necessary. Rosenquist asked if they provided for a second septic system. Kevin Gardner, Engineer on the project, explained there would be between four and five acres for the proposed wastewater system and they would incorporate a primary and secondary system on the site. John Matthews, J&B Development, explained how they had tried to satisfy the previous concerns of the Commission and Council. Schumann asked if they would have a problem meeting additional wetland setbacks. Matthews said they would see what they could do. Rosenquist asked how they would address the concerns with the road. Matthews responded they would likely conduct a traffic study and move their road if necessary. Hoffbeck asked about the lighting and the trail. Matthews said they did not want street lights and would work with staff to determine what would be needed for lighting along the street. He said they would have no problem constructing the trail as bituminous. Hoffbeck explained they were currently reviewing the ordinance and their proposal was a good example of how they were receiving the density bonuses by just meeting the requirement for more land. They were still looking at small lots. She also said there was not enough information and she would like to see more at the concept plan stage. Matthews said he did not want to put more money into the project until they received approval of the concept. Rosenquist said lighting was a concern and suggested short light poles. He thought the plan was an improvement. Weidt had concerns about the road and asked about the cul-de-sac on the east end of the project. Matthew said it was to allow for future connections. Bailly said she liked the buffering on the east side and would like it to be pines. She approved of no lots along Jeffrey Avenue and had concerns about the wetlands on the site. Kleissler said she thought it was an improvement but a change in the connecting road could bring about a big change in the development. She was concerned about how strong the open space plan would be to ensure the space would be kept open. She also asked the developer to take into consideration the possible revision to the ordinance which would require wetland buffers. Schumann said there appeared to be two built-in levels with the open space; the easement and the HOA. If there was a land trust, there would be three layers. Matthews agreed. Planning Commission Minutes —October 12, 2006 Page 3 Rosenquist questioned what the price range would be. Matthews replied it would be approximately $800,000 for the package. Hoffbeck reminded them to be watchful of changes to the ordinance, specifically density changes. Schumann summarized the comments from the Commission saying they generally approved of the design but they needed to look at road access, consider possible wetland setback requirements, and shift the lots to conform to staff's criteria. He reminded them the comments were informal, not binding. Rural Preservation Program Ordinance Amendment (Continued) The Commission continued consideration of revisions to the Rural Preservation Program (RPP) Ordinance. At its September 14, September 21, and September 28, 2006 meetings, the Commission held public hearings to consider revisions to the ordinance and tabled the item. The CDD provided direction to the Commission on how to proceed with revisions to the ordinance and outlined the items that specifically needed to be addressed. Hoffbeck said she talked to someone form the Metropolitan Council regarding the System Statement for Hugo and was told the rural land had to be one home per ten acres. Anything besides that would go against the System Statement. The CDD replied that the Met Council did have a policy, and they also recognized that it is not a good way to develop. The Met Council had not objected to these types of ordinances. Hoffbeck stated the Met Council System Statement and the Comprehensive Plan do not agree with the ordinance. Schumann recalled that a representative from the Met Council had attended one of the Committee meetings when the ordinance was first drafted. He pointed out that representatives of the Met Council often had different beliefs, and he was not aware of any Met Council Representatives attending any other meetings regarding the ordinance or had any knowledge of the Met Council objecting to any rural preservation ordinance. Hoffbeck said the Comprehensive Plan was designed around the System Statement and the ordinance was contrary to that. Rosenquist suggested obtaining a written opinion from someone at the Met Council. McRoberts agreed. Weidt's opinion was that it was a guiding document and the City was not bound to it. Weidt made motion, Bailly seconded, to table until clarification was obtained from the Met Council. Ayes: Bailly, Kleissler, McRoberts, Schumann, Weidt Nay: Hoffbeck, Rosenquist Planning Commission Minutes —October 12, 2006 Page 4 Motion carried. Adjournment Weidt made motion, Bailly seconded, to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission