Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.09.08 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, Kleissler, McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann, Weidt ABSENT: Hoffbeck ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Community Development Assistant Kendra Lindahl, Planner Minutes of August 25, 2005 Weidt made motion, Kleissler seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 25, 2005 as submitted. Ayes. Bailly, Kleissler, Rosenquist, Schumann, Weidt Abstain: McRoberts Motion carried. Wilderness View Second Site Plan The Commission considered the application of Redstone Homes, 3101 Old Highway 8, Roseville, for site plan approval for a development to be known as Wilderness View Second Addition. The development would be located on property south of 130th Street North and west of Goodview Avenue North. The sketch plan consisted of 67 single family homes on approximately 31 acres. The entire site consisted of 98.57 acres and is owned by Kevin Peltier. The development would be on the east portion of the site. The Planner presented the plat to the Commission and explained that the applicant was proposing 54 traditional single family homes and 13 single family bayhomes. The lots encroached into the gas pipeline easement and no structures could be constructed there. She noted that utilities were a primary issue as well as the tower on the property. Planning Commission Minutes — September 8, 2005 Page 2 of 3 McRoberts asked if they were donating parkland and the Planner informed him they would be paying cash in lieu of dedicating land. Sam Ashkar, 16011 Woodland Circle, Minnetonka, introduced the development team. Present were Gary Mulcahy, Greg Chaffin, Rick Harrison, and Mark Kretschmer, Passe Engineering. Schumann questioned whether there would be a homeowners association and Ashkar stated that there would be one for the bay homes. Schumann was concerned about the sidewalks crossing the streets. Kretschmer explained that the remaining 67 acres of the total site would be platted as an outlot for future development. He talked about the proposed 175 foot setback from the tower and the sewer access across the wetland eliminating the need for a lift station. Ashkar noted that the pipeline is a gas pipeline and it was possible to prohibit play ground equipment to be located within the easement. Harrison added that a sign could be posted in each yard indicating where the pipeline was and outlining what could and could not be done within the easement. He explained the coved neighborhood design and said coved neighborhoods are PUDs under State law. The 24 foot wide one way lane around the cul-de-sacs would result in less pavement and snow removal, and would look better. The Commission had concerns about emergency vehicle access, parking on public streets, and indicated the importance of having the trail connection to Wilderness View. McRoberts asked how the City would benefit by granting the PUD and asked the developer to be prepared to convince the Planning Commission that there were some real reasons to grant the PUD. Rosenquist suggested enlarging the park area and constructing a gazebo there. Weidt pointed out that the pipeline easement took up too much space in the backyards. Bailly suggested locating the homes on the other side of the street, away from the pipeline. She liked the meandering streets but felt the sidewalks should be constructed closer to the road instead of through the front yards of the bay homes. She said she would like to see more gazebos and the trail connection to Wilderness View. Kevin Peltier, owner of the property, said he was going to be retaining the remaining 67 acres for future development and there was no trail easement through to the Wilderness View Development stating that the previous developer had no legal right to grant the trail easement. He showed on the plan where the field road was and said he maintained it as such. He indicated that he was opposed to the idea of a trail on his property. Planning Commission Minutes — September 8, 2005 Page 3 of 3 Kleissler said she would like to see something more unique to justify granting a PUD. She liked the meandering walks but was concerned that cars would be parked across them because of the lack of parking space. She said she would have liked to have seen a landscaping plan. Rosenquist added that he would have liked to have seen building elevations as well. The Commission agreed there were issues with the street widths, sidewalk widths and locations, lack of parking, lack of unique architectural features, pipeline easement restrictions, garages dominating the view from streets and lack of park space and trail connections. Adjournment Bailly made motion, Kleissler seconded, to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission