Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.12.22 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 22, 2005 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, Hoffbeck, Kleissler, McRoberts, Schumann, Weidt ABSENT: Rosenquist ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Community Development Assistant Kendra Lindahl, City Planner Minutes of December 8, 2005 Weidt made motion, Hoffbeck seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 22, 2005 as amended. All Ayes: Hoffbeck, Kleissler, McRoberts, Schumann, Weidt Abstained: Bailly Motion carried. Oneka Lake Townhomes - Preliminary Plat and Site Plan A public hearing was scheduled to consider the application of Cross Country Properties, 1081 South Birch Lake Boulevard, White Bear Lake, for Preliminary Plat and Site Plan approval for a plat to be known as Oneka Lake Townhomes. The development would consist of 34 townhome units on 6.7 acres located north of 150th Street and east of Highway 6. The Planner explained that after the notice had been published, it was determined that there were outstanding issues. She recommended the item be tabled. Since the notice was published, Schumann opened the public hearing. There were no comments and Schumann recessed the public hearing. McRoberts made motion, Bailly seconded, to table the application until the next meeting of the Planning Commission on January 12, 2006. All Ayes. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes — December 22, 2005 Page 2 Wilderness View 211d Addition - Rezoning to PUD, PUD General Plan, and Preliminary Plat The Commission held a public hearing to consider the application TJ Land Trust V, 3101 Old Highway 8, Roseville, for a Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and PUD General Plan for "Wilderness View 2nd Addition" consisting of 62 single family homes and 4 outlots on 98.57 acres located west of Goodview Avenue and south of 130th Street. The Planner explained that the plan before them showed fewer lots than the concept plan reviewed by the Commission in September, which consisted of 67 units. At that meeting the Commission had commented that they saw nothing that was special or unique that would justify a PUD. Other concerns were lots encroaching into the pipeline easement and the importance of the trail connection within this project to connect Goodview Avenue to Beaver Ponds Park. An outlot showed on the plan would be further platted at the time the property owner, Kevin Peltier, constructed his future home. The Planner pointed out issues the City had with the development. The plan showed varying front setbacks which would not be verified by the City at the time the building permit was pulled. It would need to be the developer's responsibility to ensure the proper setbacks were met. The plan also showed four flag lots shown which the City discouraged because it isolated the lots. The plan showed lots and landscaping within the pipeline easement and there were issues with the trail and related wetland impacts. The wetland delineation report was submitted to the City and would go to the Technical Evaluation Panel in the spring. Staff needed to work more with the developer on sewer and water issues. Other issues were the road stubbed to the north that was on a property/section line and the sight visibility on the connection to Goodview Avenue. Schumann asked the developers to address some of the issues. Sam Ashkar, T.J. Land Trust, spoke about the safety of the cell tower and indicated they were going to a 175' clearance. He explained that the HOA covenants would cover what is and isn't permitted in the easement. Mark Kretschmer, Passe Engineering, showed the profile of Goodview Avenue and the connecting street and said the access to the development would be at the crest of the curve in the road and should not pose a problem. Ashkar pointed out the aesthetics of the development which were the island at the entrance and the coving that would provide views. There would be community lawn care and sprinklers for each house and landscaping that would bring continuity to the development. They were looking for relaxation on the setbacks and flag lots. He explained that they were deliberately stubbing the road to the north centered on the property line to allow cooperation between the two landowners for future development. To shift the road to the east, some of the lots would be narrower. He indicated that they intended to work with Koch Pipeline and Kevin Peltier on the trail and Peltier commented from the audience that he agreed to work with the developers. Planning Commission Minutes — December 22, 2005 Page 3 Gary Mulchay, partner and owner of the property, pointed out that the flag lots would be nice lots to live on and the meandering sidewalks required the houses to be setback. He suggested the possibility of purchasing an easement from the property owner to the north to provide for the road stubbed on the property line. Schumann opened the public hearing. John Thurman, 5854 128th Alcove North, said that no one would use the trail access to the park (which was proposed to go south around the perimeter of the outlot) and to get rid of the flag lots that clustered the homes in the back. He also was concerned about the increase in traffic and asked if the property behind him was buildable. The Planner answered that it was all part of Outlot A and there was no access to it because it was mostly wet. Schumann informed the applicant that it would be difficult to fill in the wetland but it could be done with mitigation. Paul Lundsten, 5860 128th Alcove N., said he was told the easement adjacent to his property was for sewer and he had put a fence where the walking path had been proposed. He said he would rather see the path around the wetland. He asked if the outlot owned by Peltier would have piles of rock and dirt on it. The Planner said there was no recorded of any home occupation on the site. The existing shed would be removed. Ludsten said was concerned that he would still store rock and gravel there as well as bobcats and bulldozers. Mary and Jim Zerwas, 12725 Goodview Avenue North, said the dip in Goodview Avenue would be a problem because you would not be able to see the cars. They also questioned why an emergency access (which shares their driveway) was required when Hidden Hills was developed, and the proposed development was not required to provide the same. Schumann said it could have been due to the length of the cul-de-sac. Jim Zerwas said the road does not get plowed like the agreement with the Hidden Hills HOA requires. He recalled the numerous items hauled back onto the Peltier property that were burned and buried, and suggested an environmental study be done. Julie Larson, 5857 128th Bay North, said there was more than a shed on the property. She had concerns about Peltier's home being directly behind hers, the wetland being decreased, and traffic increased by the proposed development. Jim Engstrom, corner of 125th and Goodview Avenue North, asked if there was going to be a limitation on building height and whether Goodview would be utilized for any utilities. Planning Commission Minutes — December 22, 2005 Page 4 Ashkar said the homes would be two -stories. The planner said sewer and water would not go down Goodview Avenue; a lift station would be used. The developers were still working with the City on those issues. Schumann pointed out that infrastructure would be constructed at the developer's expense. Peltier said there was access to the piece north of Wilderness View I, it was not all wetland and there were woods there until it was flooded by the Beaver Ponds Development. He said the south property had always been agricultural and many areas of the field were higher than Wilderness View. He indicated that the building on the property was partly used by the cell tower and they needed access to it. He said he was not dumping landscape materials in a location that would be hard for him to access and, he did process wood with wood burners but would no longer be doing that type of business. Jim Zerwas said he was the president of Interstate Lumber Company for many years and many products had creosote which is no longer permitted, and the cost of getting rid of it is huge. He questioned how anyone knew that none of it was on Kevin's property. Brian Gabrio, 5858 128th Alcove North, was concerned that there would be more storage on the Peltier property and about the drainage. Schumann told him that all subdivisions needed to have a drainage plan that was reviewed by the City. McRoberts noted that because the entire 98.5 acre parcel was being rezoned, the PUD would include a restriction to additional buildings on the outlot. There were no other comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. Hoffbeck questioned the flag lots, how many feet would be between the homes, and how big the lots were. Ashkar said approximately ten feet between buildings and the lots ranged from 14,000 to 10,400 square feet. Hoffbeck said flag lots could be more preferable to those seeking more privacy. The CDD pointed out that it was not always the home on the flag lot that was less preferable, but the home on adjacent lots; the backs of the home could face the front of another. Hoffbeck asked if it could be addressed in the HOA. The CDD said review of the building plans does not include the orientation of the homes. Ashkar said he would be comfortable with putting it in the bylaws. Bailly pointed out that with homes on the flag lots pushed closer to the streets, the other homes Planning Commission Minutes — December 22, 2005 Page 5 would not have as nice a view. Hoffbeck said she thought the curved roads were nice but there were traffic problems, design problems, and problems with the future of the Peltier property. The also noted the road to the north was a problem. Ashkar said an easement for the road to the north would be a viable solution. McRoberts said he did not have a big problem with the flag lots if a provision was made to face the home in a specified direction. Ashkar said he would be open to putting that in the covenants. Kleissler said she would be in favor of eliminating flag lots because of the neighboring lots and it would be too hard to rely on the HOA to enforce the issue of orientation. Weidt was also in favor of eliminating flag lots; there were too many homes in the development. He said the access to the north should be moved to be stubbed to the east or moved to eliminate a lot. He liked the meandering sidewalks and said developments with those amenities were interesting to live in and drive through. Schumann said he was neutral on the flag lots and was more concerned about the safety issues with the off street parking. He also had concerns about the future of the outlot and felt there were enough unresolved issues to warrant tabling the application. McRoberts was concerned about the five foot setback; ten feet between houses was too close. Bronwen said she would like to see the issue of the trail addressed; as it was shown on the plat, it was not likely to get used. She was also concerned about the architecture; having individual builders could leave too much room for variation. Hoffbeck said she thought there were a lot more discussions to be had. Neighbors had a lot of concerns, the plan was too congested, and there were road and traffic issues. She felt the trail could be fixed and she had no problem with the flag lots if the houses were orientated in the correct position. Schumann commented on the field road to the north suggesting it remain as a second safety access. He had concerns about the stubbed road to the north, flag lots, setbacks, and the plans for the outlot. McRoberts commended the developer for not trying to pack too many buildings on the site but felt there should be more amenities to the homeowners. Ashkar said there would be a sprinkler system for the homes and it would not a typical development. Planning Commission Minutes — December 22, 2005 Page 6 McRoberts suggested doing something creative with the open space that would be created with eliminating some of the lots. Weidt noted that the Parks Commission had always referred to the trail connection that was part of Wilderness View. There was an easement there and the trail needed to go there. He also said he felt the flag lots would be hard to police and enforce. McRoberts made motion, Weidt seconded, to table the application to allow the developer to address several issues. All Ayes. Motion Carried. Wilderness View Yd Addition Concept Plan The Commission considered the Concept plan for Wilderness View 3rd Addition submitted by Hub Management Company, Inc., 3050 Echo Lake Avenue, Mahtomedi. The plan consisted of 52 single family homes on 19.69 acres east of Highway 61 and north and north of 125th Street. This development would be directly south of Beaver Ponds, and a portion of a drainage pond would encroach onto the outlot previously discuss with the Wilderness View 2nd PUD The Planner presented the plan to the Commission and recommended they review and discuss the sketch plan and provide the applicant with informal comments. Schumann said the issue of the drainage on the outlot in the proposed Wilderness View 2nd underscored the need to have issued resolved with Kevin Peliter. He questioned whether there was enough room to construct a roundabout in the 3rd Addition. The Planner said the engineer would need to look at it. Schumann commented that with the increase in the number of the home, the City should be getting close to being able to receive funding for a stop light at 130th Street North. Bryan pointed out that the 3rd Addition would provide another access to Highway 61 from 125th Street. McRoberts noted that they were not requesting a rezoning and questioned whether there was anything that did not comply and what the value of the homes would be. The Planner said the off site pond was an issue as well as the infrastructure. Gary Mulchay, property owner, said many lots would border the golf course and the outlot and the homes would range in price from approximately $400,000 to $500,000. Schumann asked what their time line was on this development. Mulchay said there were big engineering issues involved. Planning Commission Minutes — December 22, 2005 Page 7 McRoberts said he would like to see more creativity in the plan. The concept plan was forwarded to the City Council for consideration at their January 3, 2005 meeting. Adiourn Kleissler made motion, Weidt seconded, to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission