The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Packet 04.25.19AGENDA HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2019 HUGO CITY HALL 7:00 p.m. A. ROLL CALL (Arcand, Derr, Fry, Kleissler, Lessard, Luchsinger, Mulvihill, Tjernlund) B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. March 28, 2019 D. PUBLIC HEARING OP5 Adelaide, LLC Request for PUD Amendment for the Adelaide Landing Development. E. NEW BUSINESS F. OLD BUSINESS G. ADJOURNMENT If you need accommodations for the Planning Commission meeting please contact Rachel Juba at (651) 762-6304 or riuba(a,ci.hugo.mn.us, thank you. Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Thursday, March 28, 2019 Chair Kleissler called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PRESENT: Arcand, Derr, Fry, Kleissler, Luchsinger, Mulvihill, Tjernlund. ABSENT: Lessard. STAFF: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant Approval of Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of February 28, 2018 Commissioner Arcand made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tjernlund, to approve minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2018. All Ayes. Motion carried. Public Hearing — MWF Properties Request for a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Rosemary Apartments Juba provided a background on the project proposed by MWF Properties known as Rosemary Apartments. This is an application for a site plan and conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting approval of a three-story, 45 unit, and approximately 80,000 square foot apartment building located north of County Road 8 and west of Everton Avenue. The parcel is 18.15 acres with 4.6 buildable acres and is zoned medium high density. The applicant provided a Concept Plan for the Planning Commission and City Council in summer 2018. The City Council agreed with the approval of the preliminary plat that the proposed lot and building layout, street alignments, and proposed uses functioned properly and fit in with the surrounding areas. Apartments are allowed in the R5 zoning district with a conditional use permit. There are several criteria of approval with a CUP and staff finds that the proposed use is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the character of the surrounding area, the project keeps the spirit and intent of the ordinance, and the applicant provides adequate screening and buffering from non -compatible uses and public rights-of-way. Staff went on to provide information on the site plan specifications, park dedication, grading and drainage, landscaping, and design guidelines. In conclusion, staff finds that the proposal meets all the requirements necessary for the City to approve a site plan and CUP as outlined in the City Code, provided that the conditions are met in the attached resolution. Juba invited the applicant to come forward and address the Planning Commission Chris Stokka from MWF Properties was present to address the Planning Commission. Commissioner Fry began by asking Stokka about different roofline options on the building and Stokka said that they are looking at other possibilities but are limited due to height restrictions. Tjernlund asked about air conditioning units and their placements. Stokka clarified that they are Magic -Pak systems, which provide energy efficient cooling and heating while remaining flush with the building. Commissioner Derr asked about the lighting plan in the parking lot. Stokka responded that the parking lot will have LED lighting and the light will be contained to the site. Luchsinger then asked if the developer anticipates being able to continue the stone casting along the north side. Stokka responded that although the north side is not highly visible, they will look into adding the extra materials and the cost associated with that. Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 2 Fry asked if MWF Properties did a demographic study and their predictions on unit availability. Stokka mentioned that they have a similar family oriented project in Forest Lake that has been successful. Fry followed by asking if renters are going to be subsidized. Stokka clarified that there is a federal tax credit that MWF Properties applied for through Washington County, which is required to go towards the construction costs of the project. In turn, the renters will have a maximum income requirement. Juba stated that the subsidy is not coming from the City. Commissioner Derr asked about the occupancy of the apartments in Forest Lake and Stokka replied that their property is always full. Mulvihill shared her concerns that the project does not provide enough parking and Stokka responded that the developer feels as though the parking requirements required by the City are sufficient for the project. Juba stated that there are no signs limiting parking on Rosemary Way. Chair Kleissler asked for the number of parking spots above ground versus underground. Juba stated that there are 56 underground and 43 above ground parking spots. Arcand followed with an inquiry on the design of the parking lot. He asked qhy is the parking in the front instead of behind the building with less visibility. Stokka stated that the particular parcel limits site layout options and a parking lot behind the building is not feasible. Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:35pm. Madam Chair requested that the audience follow standard protocol. 15220 Everton Avenue North, Arnold Treimert stated that he is opposed to the apartment building because they were told it was a commercial area and the water will flow to the south. 15040 Everton Avenue North, Steve Rossini is concerned about the underground garage and flooding. Rossini is also concerned with the building being subsidized and attracting crime and congestion into the area. Low income housing will decrease property value in the surrounding area and Rossini states that it would be a mistake to bring low income housing into the City. 15190 Everton Avenue North, John Udstuen states that he is concerned with the water on the site. When Pratt homes developed the townhomes, his property suffered water damage. Adding more bituminous surface will cause more drainage issues and requests an outside party look at the engineer plans. Udstuen states the concern that surrounding property will be devalued and crime will increase. Udstuen requests that the City maintains the community. 149th Street North 1, Kathleen Skaj states that there are water damages in the townhomes to the east and the complex sued Pulte for damages. Skaj also states that they would rather see subsidized living for the elderly. 4990 Fairoaks Circle, Tracy Gist is worried about the school sizes and where additional children will go. Gist would like to see more restaurants and event/community centers in the community. 15292 Everton Avenue North, Mike Happ shares his concern on drainage. Happ requests staff to expand on drainage on the property and where the water will drain to the north. Juba addresses the grading and drainage questions. The City of Hugo has stormwater rules, among which the drainage on the property and surrounding parcels cannot have an increased drainage post development. The City evaluates the rate and volume of water that goes into the site. Water on the project site will drain north then to the south into the proposed filtration pond, which will collect water and be dispersed into the surrounding wetlands. There were soil borings done on site, some of which encountered water and some did not. Juba states that the project meets low floor elevation requirements. Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 3 Mike Happ restates his concern with drainage and the reoccurring issue of water within the City. 4505 Rosemary Way North #8, Nina Brooks states that the height of the building is too high. The surrounding residents moved to Hugo to view the natural wetland areas. Brooks is also concerned with the lack of parks in the area and the amount of kids playing in the street. The road is very busy and there are safety concerns. Brooks asks the Planning Commission to take into consideration the property values in the surrounding area. 4840 149th Street North, Paula Cardinal is a previous owner of section 8 housing and is concerned with low income tenants moving in and effectively decreasing surrounding property values. 15190 Everton Avenue North, John Udstuen states his concern with the height of the building increasing due to the fill on the site and asks for clarification on how the building will be above the water table. 15220 Everton Avenue North, Arnold Treimert states that there is a river running through the property site and recommends the Planning Commission to look at the site. 4505 Rosemary Way North, Erin Kimball is on the Board of Directors for the Victor Gardens HOA and is concerned with the lack of public parks in the area and where the kids are going to play. Also, the HOA is currently maintaining the roundabout and Kimball is concerned that the additional traffic will impact the roads. Chair Kleissler invited staff to address the comments. Juba started by stating that the property was rezoned from commercial to medium density residential when the Frenchman Place project was developed and surrounding properties would have been noticed of that change at that time. Additionally, Juba addressed that grading will be required on the property to bring the low floor elevation into compliance with City Code, similar to other residential developments in the area. There has been a wetland delineation and survey done on site. The proposed project is designed to blend in with the character of the area. Juba continued to address that Rosemary Way was designed as a collector road and can sustain a higher amount of traffic than what the apartment project will bring. Staff noted that the City evaluates applications based on the merit of the project and does not have criteria on whether the project is affordable or not. The City does not dictate how the school district plans for growth, however the district is in the process of expansion. Juba also stated that the applicant has a proposed park on their site. 15220 Everton Avenue North, Arnold Treimert came forward to mention that Everton Avenue is in need of repair with cracks all over the road due to water. 4490 Farrow Circle North, Christopher Gist addresses the Planning Commission to voice his concern on maintaining the City's precedent of community pride and family oriented values. Low income housing does not uphold the vision of Hugo as he sees it. Juba defers the comments about subsidy and low income housing to the applicant. 149th Street North 1, Kathleen Skaj wants clarification on how high the grading will be on the site and how that affects the height of the building. Juba states that the grading goes up about eight feet as you go up towards the building. Staff also clarifies that height is measured from average grade to the midpoint of the highest peak. The applicant will have to meet height standards. Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 4 15190 Everton Avenue North, John Udstuen has an additional concern with road traffic and safety on Rosemary Way. Udstuen would like to know if there will be median installed with a right turn only on Rosemary Way. 4505 Rosemary Way North, Erin Kimball asks staff to point out where the proposed park is located on the site plan. Juba shows the proposed park on the screen. Kimball would like the Commission to take into consideration that Victor Gardens maintains the roundabout and any additional maintenance due to traffic is the association's responsibility. Additionally, Kimball states that there is no overnight parking in Hugo from November to March and that the City does not adequately enforce the issue. 15292 Everton Avenue North, Mike Happ asks staff to clarify how firetrucks will service the back of the building. Juba states that the fire department has asked applicant to install an additional fire hydrant on site. The resident responds by stating that City Code requires that there be access to the backside of building. Juba states that there are exceptions to the fire code and will be serviced by sprinklers. Staff continues to state that Rosemary Way does not have substantial traffic and studies on Everton Avenue show that the road can handle the traffic that the proposed apartment project will bring. When the property to the west develops, the road will be maintained and updated. 15040 Everton Avenue North, Steve Rossini has concerns on the lack of access into the underground parking garage should there be a car fire. Chris Stokka from MWF Properties steps forward to address the Planning Commission and the concerns of the residents. Stokka states that MWF Properties is the developer but will also be the management company. The developer wants to maintain the character, safety, and integrity of the building and its tenants. The close proximity to Festival Foods and other services makes the site highly attractive. MWF Properties has not seen a decrease in surrounding property values with their other projects. They have also been working with multiple entities to address grading and drainage concerns on the site. Chair Kleissler asks Stokka to further address the grading and elevation on the site. Stokka states that ground floor elevation is 919 feet so additional grading and fill will be needed on site. There will be a gradual slope up to the building. Kleissler asks if the developer will be asking for a height variance. Stokka responds that the primary objective of the developer is to keep the height within the City limits. Chair Kleissler asked if there were any additional questions for the applicant or from the public. Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 8:36pm. Chair Kleissler opens up the discussion among the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tjernlund began by addressing the character of the surrounding area and asking if an apartment building fits in with this character. He states that the project does not blend in with the character of the surrounding area. Commissioner Luchsinger states that the City of Hugo provides a variety of housing options available in the community. The community is a great place for families and providing another option to families is beneficial to the community. The applicant has taken care to match the architecture to the surrounding homes and will provide quality amenities to families. This type of development should be encouraged and welcomed in Hugo. Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 5 Commissioner Derr states that the proposed project fits the comprehensive plan and zoning district. He noted that there are parking limitations that do not allow for the growth of the residents in the units like families. Commissioner Arcand states that the building fits the design guidelines. There will be a building on the site. The water and drainage will need to be addressed by the engineers, but overall it blends in with the character of the surrounding area. Commissioner Tjernlund adds that there should be trust within the engineers. Luchsinger then adds that the owners have an incentive to build and maintain a nice, structural building. Commissioner Fry states that the parcel will get developed and it will be a building of similar density. The proposed project is aesthetically appealing. Commissioner Mulvihill is still concerned with the parking and drainage issues that were brought to attention however, it is important to allow different housing options within the community. Fry adds that it is beneficial to have control over the situation. Chair Kleissler notes that the applicant did a good job at making the proposed building look like it fits within the community. She still has some concerns over some of the water issues that have been brought up. Commissioner Mulvihill asked what made the difference between the construction of the townhomes and the church and why the water is draining so well with the church. Juba clarified that there were different engineers and stormwater management changes. Commissioner Luchsinger made a motion to approve the MWF Properties request for a site plan and conditional use permit for Rosemary Apartments. Arcand Seconded. Tjernlund Nay. Motion carried. Chair Kleissler calls for a recess. Chair Kleissler brings the Planning Commission back to order at 8:57pm. Golden Valley Land Company Sketch Plan Review for The Meadows at HuIZo Juba provided background on The Meadows at Hugo sketch plan proposed by Golden Valley Land Company. The proposed site is located north of 1591h Street and east of the north water tower. The parcel is zoned Future Urban Service and is guided medium density residential. The applicant would like to receive feedback on the project in regards to general layout, housing types, wetland replacement, and road connections. Juba continues to explain that the parcel of land is 33.1 acres with 6.1 acres of wetlands. The developer is proposing 84 lots on the site, which would include 70 villa products on 50 foot wide lots and 14 single family home products on 80 foot wide lots for a residential gross density of 2.5 units per acre. The plan also shows stormwater ponding areas and a trail connection. Juba notes that the proposed site is within the shoreland overlay district and the development will have to meet all of the DNR shoreline standards. Juba also provides details on the PUD, housing types and design, park dedication, streets and access, utilities, wetlands, stormwater management, and landscaping. Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 6 Commissioner Arcand asks staff to talk about the difference with the future sewer line running along 165th Street versus along the property lines. Juba clarifies that the City is open to alternate ways to providing sewer to the site however, it is necessary that the sewer line connects to the interceptor along Highway 61. Arcand also asks staff to clarify if the City is in the position to sell park land. Juba responds by stating that the City -owned property where the road is proposed is mostly upland, which provides a variety of opportunities for the parcel. Arcand then states that it could be considered generous to allow a road to be built on the parcel and should be at the expense of the developer. Commissioner Mulvihill asks if the properties north of 165th Street will have access to the sewer line. Juba states that should the sewer line be installed along 165th Street, future development will be provided access to the line. The alternative utility line option does allow development to continue expanding with additional improvements to the infrastructure. Commissioner Arcand then asks for clarification on additional road options. Chair Kleissler asks staff for a recommendation on whether or not the applicant should provide to access point along the north of the site. Juba recommends that they evaluate two access points north of the parcel. Chair Kleissler asks the applicant to come forward. Peter Knaeble with Golden Valley Land Company came forward to address the comments from the Planning Commission. The applicant brought forward examples of what the villa products will look like. They are generally slab on grade, rambler style products. The applicant agrees to further investigate the utilities on the site and wetland mitigation as they work with the site layout. The biggest concern for the applicant is the connection through City -owned property on the west and the cost of providing a road access to the site without the additional lots to offset the price. Commissioner Tjernlund asks the applicant is there are limits with the current layout and having the stormwater ponds on the very east side of the property. Knaeble assures that the plan appears to be feasible but will provide further details as the project moves forward. In general, the applicant intends to provide stormwater reuse to the full extent of the project. Tjemlund comments on the flexibility the applicant will be requesting with lot sizes and setbacks and encourages the applicant to look at ways to make up for the variances. Commissioner Fry asked for clarification on the width and depth of the homes. Knaeble responds that the homes will be 40 foot wide and 60 to 65 foot deep. Commissioner Arcand asked the applicant on what they would lose with a larger setback requirements. Knaeble responded that if the setbacks were 7.5 feet instead of 5 feet, the development would lose approximately a dozen lots. Arcand mentions that the villa products seem really tight. The applicant comments that with a flat site such as this one, they don't foresee any issue with drainage in between the homes. Knaeble also mentions that there could be an opportunity to provide an additional north access point without losing lots however, making sure the access point does not go east through the industrial park. Arcand goes on to suggest the applicant provides benefits to the PUD that go beyond the basic requirements. Additionally, that the developer provides access to the site at their expense. Commissioner Fry agrees. Chair Kleissler comments that the general layout is good but expects changes to be made. Overall, the tradeoffs for requesting a PUD were weak and the applicant could be more creative. The housing types are nice and very suitable for Hugo and the development would benefit from an additional access point from the north. Commissioner Arcand commented about the length of the road and fire department accessibility. Staff commented that the fire department generally is okay with the length of the road for a temporary amount of time. Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 7 Commissioner Fry stated that there is a good start to the project and that it is aesthetically pleasing. Generally not inclined to allow lots on the City -owned parcel. Commissioner Derr mentions that there could be an option to allow some of the lots on the City -owned section. Commissioner Arcand added that the utilities should be provided to the site in the most optimal way. Kleissler closed the informal comments and invites the applicant to the April 15 2019 City Council meeting. Adiournment There is no Planning Commission meeting April 11, 2019 and the next meeting will be on April 25, 2019. Commissioner Arcand made a motion, Commissioner Fry seconded, to adjourn at 9:58 pm. All Ayes. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant Agenda Number: D.1 CITY OF HUGO PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT TO: Hugo Planning Commission FROM: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director SUBJECT: OP5 Adelaide (Excelsior Group) — Adelaide Landing PUD Amendment DATE: April 19, 2019 for the Planning Commission meeting of April 25, 2019 ZONING: Planned Unit Development (PUD) LAND USE: Low Density Residential (LD) DEADLINE DATE: 120 -days — June 14, 2019 1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a PUD Amendment to change the 70 -foot wide single family lots to 65 -foot wide single family lots. There was a previous administratively approved PUD modification that allowed a revision to the plan that changed six 85 -foot side lots to eight 65 -foot wide lots, adding 2 additional lots to the overall development. With the proposed PUD amendment and the previous PUD medication, there total proposed lots would be 324, where 319 was approved with the original PUD request. 2. BACKGROUND: The applicant has approval of a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a residential development. The property totals 216.6 acres. The property includes wetlands and floodplain for a total buildable acreage of 146.2 acres. The development was approved to include 319 single family residential lots. The applicant is requested PUD flexibility on the following: Page 2 • Flexibility to allow various lot sized with a minimum lot size of 5,850 square feet, where 10,400 square feet is required. • Flexibility to allow various lot width with a minimum lot width of 45 feet, were 80 feet is required by ordinance. • Flexibility to allow a minimum front setback of 20 feet, where 30 feet is required. • Flexibility to allow a minimum rear setback of 25 feet, where 30 feet is required. • Flexibility to allow a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet, where 10 feet is required. • Flexibility to allow a maximum impervious coverage of a lot to be 55%, where 50% is required. • Flexibility to allow a minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet, where 60 feet is required. In exchange for this flexibility, the developer has: • Designed a more sensitive proposal, with less density, than would have been the case with the use of the standard R-3 zoning district. • Provided a public park within the development, with improvements that exceed City standards. • Provided a public trail to connect to existing trails in the adjacent developments. Preserving and enhancing natural features with the trail system that meanders through the development. • Provided a landscaping plan that exceeds City standards. • Preserved existing significant trees on the property. • Created a stormwater reuse irrigation project within the development. • Incorporated architectural design guidelines for the homes in the development 3. CONTEXT: A. Surrounding land Use and Zoning The property to the north is zoned Low Density Multiple Family Residential (R-4) and occupied by the Pineview Meadows townhome development. The properties to the east, south, and west are zoned Single Family Detached Residential (R-3) and occupied by the Country Ponds, Beaver Ponds, and Birch Tree Ponds residential developments. The properties to the west, across Highway 61, are zoning General Industrial (I-3) and are occupied by industrial uses. There are also a few vacant parcels to the east that are also zoned Single Family Detached Residential (R- 3). B. Natural Characteristics of Site The properties are currently vacant and do contain some challenges regarding an existing drainage ditch, floodplain, and high ground water. The properties are relatively flat with approximately 57 acres of wetlands. Page 3 4. ANALYSIS: A. Level of Discretion in Decision Making The City has relatively high level of discretion in approving a PUD. A PUD must be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. The City may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required if the City deems it necessary to promote the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Planned Unit Development The 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows the land use being Low Density Residential (LD). The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of land use and density. The Adelaide Landing PUD general plan has offered a creative and efficient method to planning the site, all which meets the intent of the PUD ordinance. It is in staff's opinion that the PUD amendment meets the intent of the PUD ordinance, and is consistent with the PUD general plan. Lot Sizes and Setbacks The proposed 65 -foot wide lots will still meet the setback regulations outlined for the PUD as follows: Density The maximum development density for a PUD in the R-3 zoning district is 4 units per 1 acre. The applicant is proposing a residential net density of 2.2 units per 1 acre, which fits the requirements of a PUD. Although the applicant is requesting flexibility on lot sizes and setbacks, the density meets the ordinance standards. R-3 45' and 55' Wide 50', 65' and 85' Zoning Villa Lots 70'Wide Wide District Lots Lots Front Setback 30 Ft 20 Ft — Side Load Garage 25 Ft 25 Ft (min) 25 Ft — Front Load Garage Side Setback 10 Ft 7.5 Ft 7.5 Ft 10 Ft (min) Rear Setback 30 Ft 25 Ft 30 Ft 30 Ft (min) Lot Impervious 50% 55% 50% 50% (max) Density The maximum development density for a PUD in the R-3 zoning district is 4 units per 1 acre. The applicant is proposing a residential net density of 2.2 units per 1 acre, which fits the requirements of a PUD. Although the applicant is requesting flexibility on lot sizes and setbacks, the density meets the ordinance standards. Page 4 Parks/Trails A majority of the trails have been graded in the development and boardwalks are being installed. The trails will be paved this spring. The remaining land for the park is to be dedicated with Adelaide Landing 4th Addition that is likely to be completed this year. The Parks Commission has been discussing partnering on the installation of the park improvement with the developer. The goal of the Parks Commission and developer is that the park improvements, including a parking lot, will be completed this year. Grading In response to neighbors' concerns over preserving an existing tree line in the northeast corner of the development, changes have been made to the plans. Most of the trees were planned to be removed in this area to accommodate a stormwater pond and storm sewer pipe. The developer has reviewed the plans and agree that the a revision to the plan to preserve as many trees as they can would be reasonable. The developer has made revisions to preserve at least 15 feet, and in some areas much more, of trees in this areas. The developer relocated the storm sewer pipe on the plans to avoid the need to disturb the area and trees. 5. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the layout of the proposed Adelaide Landing PUD general plan exceeds the City's standards for residential developments. The developer has offered a more creative and efficient approach to the existing constraints of the property through the site design layout. The PUD amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the approved Adelaide Landing PUD. It is in staff's opinion that the applicant meets all the requirements necessary to approve the PUD amendment. 6. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment OP5 Adelaide (Excelsior Group) for the development to be known as "Adelaide Landing", subject to the conditions listed in the resolutions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Resolution 3. Applicants Narrative Dated March 21, 2019 4. Approved PUD General Plan March 3, 2017 5. Proposed PUD General Plan February 21, 2019 6. Illustration of Tree Preservation ,,�CITTY OF^ iiV� EST. 19VV08 O IZ b k 10 Roads q § r Hugo Border � i#� �, Parcel Boundary Adelaide Landing PUD Amendment Hugo, MN N 0 667 Feet 1 in = 667 feet RESOLUTION 2019 - APPROVING PUD AMENDMENT FOR OP5 ADELAIDE (EXCELSIOR GROUP) FOR "ADELAIDE LANDING" ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 61 AND NORTH OF 130TH STREET WHEREAS, OP5 Adelaide, has requested approval of a PUD amendment to allow a revision to the general plan to replace the 70 -foot wide lots with 65 -foot wide lots on the property legally described as follows: Outlot B, Adelaide Landing WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the PUD amendment at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by OP5 Adelaide, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Amendment is approved to replace the 70 -foot wide lots with 65 -foot wide lots, in accordance with the plans received on March 22, 2019, except as amended by this resolution. 2. PUD flexibility is granted allow the changes shown on the March 22, 2019, plans, except as amended by this resolution. 3. The development shall be subject to the conditions of the May 1, 2017 PUD and preliminary plat approvals (Resolution 2017-10 and 2017-11) except as amended by this resolution. 4. The PUD general plan is approved based on the finding that the proposed project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Adelaide Landing PUD. 5. The building setbacks and impervious surface coverage requirements for the PUD are as follows: 45' and 55' Wide Villa Lots 50', 65' and 70'Wide Lots 85' Wide Lots Front Setback (min) 20 Ft — Side Load Garage 25 Ft — Front Load Garage 25 Ft 25 Ft Side Setback (min) 7.5 Ft 7.5 Ft 10 Ft Rear Setback (min) 25 Ft 30 Ft 30 Ft Lot Impervious (max) 55% 50% 50% Resolution 2019 - Page 2 6. The developer must comply with the following, prior to Final Plat and Final PUD Plan application: Landscaping a. The landscape plan, utility plan, and grading plan shall be revised to include the details of tree preservation on the northeast portion of the development. b. The final landscape plans must be submitted for review and approval by staff. ADOPTED by the City Council this 6th of May, 2019. Tom Weidt, Mayor ATTEST: Michele Lindau, City Clerk ADELAIDE LANDING Hugo, Minnesota PUD AMENDMENT NARRATIVE - REVISED March 21, 2019 The City of Hugo City Council approved the preliminary plat and PUD for Adelaide Landing on May 1, 2017. The PUD general plan was approved to allow the creation of 319 single family residential lots and 10 outlots. OP5 Adelaide, LLC has been developing Adelaide Landing per the approved Preliminary Plat and PUD since 2017. Currently, I" and 2nd Additions are substantially completed with 150 finished lots in the process of being purchased for home construction by our builder partners, MI Homes, Creative Homes and Derrick Custom Homes. 3`d Addition was granted Final Plat approval by the City Council February 2019 and is expected to be substantially complete Summer 2019. There are several future planned additions to be completed over the next few years. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST OP5 Adelaide is requesting a PUD Amendment to address changes to the future development on the north half of the Adelaide Landing site (north of the powerlines). In order to meet market demands, OP5 Adelaide is requesting a PUD Amendment to include the following: • Change the approved 70 -foot single family lots to 65 -foot lots (following the same standards as the currently approved 65 -foot single family lots within the project). This will add 5 total lots to entire 216 -acre development, bringing the total lots under this PUD to 324 lots. This addition of lots changes the gross density to 1.6 units per acre, compared to the previously approved 1.5 units/acre and maintains as net developable density of 2.2 units/acre as previously approved. All other PUD requirements as originally approved will remain in place. There is no change to the lot count on the south half of the project. On the north half (north of the powerlines) 5 additional lots are proposed. Below is a comparison of the current approved PUD lot count by lot type vs the proposed lot count north of the powerlines: Lot Type Approved PUD Lot Count Proposed PUD Amendment Lot Count 70' Single Family 61 0 65' Single Family 0 66 50' Villa 51 51 TOTAL LOT COUNT 112 117 Adelaide Landing PUD Amendment - Narrative Below is a comparison of the current approved PUD requirements vs. proposed PUD Amendment: PHASE 2 GRADING In response to neighbors' concerns over preserving the existing tree line on OP5 Adelaide's property Northeast corner of the project, changes are being made to preserve additional trees in this area. We feel this is a reasonable and beneficial revision to the grading as previously approved in May 2017. This will be a benefit to both existing neighbors on the east side of the pond, and future Adelaide Landing residents. Last summer OP5 Adelaide walked the area with neighbors, city staff, and council member Petryk to document the property line as staked and the existing vegetation. Since then, OP5 Adelaide has worked with our engineers to relocate a portion of proposed storm sewer to avoid the need to disturb some of the vegetation along the rear lots in the NE corner. PROJECT CONTACTS Developer/Owner: Engineer/Wetlands/EAW: The Excelsior Group Steph Griffin, Development Manager stenh. ariffinoexcelsiorllc. com 952.525.3239 1660 Highway 100 South, Suite 400 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Westwood Professional Services John Bender, Project Manager Tohn. Bender( a�westwoodns.com 952.697-5727 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Adelaide Landing PUD Amendment - Narrative Approved Villa Lots Proposed 65' Wide Lots Approved 85' Wide Lots Lot Size (min) 5,850 SF 8,450 SF 11,050 SF Lot Width (min) 45 Ft 65 Ft 85 Ft Lot Depth (min) 130 Ft 125 Ft 130 Ft Front Setback (min) 20 Ft - Side Load Garage 25 Ft —Front Load Garage 25 Ft 25 Ft Side Setback (min) 7.5 Ft 7.5 Ft 10 Ft Rear Setback (min) 25 Ft 30 Ft 30 Ft Bldg Height (max) 35 Ft 35 Ft 35 Ft Lot Impervious (max) 55% 50% 50% PHASE 2 GRADING In response to neighbors' concerns over preserving the existing tree line on OP5 Adelaide's property Northeast corner of the project, changes are being made to preserve additional trees in this area. We feel this is a reasonable and beneficial revision to the grading as previously approved in May 2017. This will be a benefit to both existing neighbors on the east side of the pond, and future Adelaide Landing residents. Last summer OP5 Adelaide walked the area with neighbors, city staff, and council member Petryk to document the property line as staked and the existing vegetation. Since then, OP5 Adelaide has worked with our engineers to relocate a portion of proposed storm sewer to avoid the need to disturb some of the vegetation along the rear lots in the NE corner. PROJECT CONTACTS Developer/Owner: Engineer/Wetlands/EAW: The Excelsior Group Steph Griffin, Development Manager stenh. ariffinoexcelsiorllc. com 952.525.3239 1660 Highway 100 South, Suite 400 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Westwood Professional Services John Bender, Project Manager Tohn. Bender( a�westwoodns.com 952.697-5727 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Adelaide Landing PUD Amendment - Narrative ILLUSTRATIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ♦� � ,R,• -, _ � , ? �'�, � 1a yi�;iY2vr�� fes' ♦ i. "'v , yyytt'► ��5 �, �j't � �_ �• � � _., t _ � � PROJECT DATA It —•— �a -/ " ' \ Gross Site Area: 216.6 ac I ! I 1 ►I •' / ' ��i� •,� i I I II I II II I II I II \ // ' ' I I I -t-,' � I 1 Y I I I I I I I I I I I I / v // � `� i r / , ' - •/ L 1 . a ----------- ----ry--- , r r,y,_ I � �- � � :' . � . '•, s ..�.'- �\� � Collector Road ROW 8.1 ac J --- J L - y _ CSAH 61: 3.4 ac. 130 h ,I.Street: 4.7 ac. I L- - -� - / ( 11 r j� t -ValZ \ / r�- I 1 _ I 1 • �I v' ' I i r r i Existing Wetlands: 57.7 ac tit . 1 I f h Floodzone 100 yr): 4.6 ac r (beyond wetland limits) lit { I i Net Developable Area: 146.2 ac Park/Open Space: 111.0 ac 40�/ F::,; �;' ► ,' ►I' - �- _ -� t ,--` / (includes ponds, arks, wetlands, wet buffers, road buffers, woods, etc.) r' I % �t p p rN Asa J p { - .�-------------------� - Pro osed Residential Homes 319 lots • \ ,�,V 1 '�, ``i' r_ .v ,' ,�;' . , , )�fit : r -� ?,x ,,,- ,.xk�"+y49y4i,Z.•..f r a ..� t a -• >�i�I• t1 Y' �``1t •"L.:< , rI � I III ' •ver. • \ � F ►r � II - / � / Villa H ome.R 83 lots ingle Family L/Sots. 51 lots 65 Single Family Lots: 34 lots 1 / i �.,.` : , 6' � �•. � : , � - - , , � I I , , I�� „ r .. I ., � ,.I ,_ 70 Sin le Family Lots. 61 lots g v r' ' 1 '.:a(' •,. 4 r*:..Q+'..6 •� .. ,' / `� � y`1 •.t �P�i��df•, I} t ♦ t � - ? �i � ---- I / / / I I � �. 1 I V ,. a. ♦ �. i r ---------------- _ / ' - -----� 71 S i I e Family Lot 90 Lots----- T ---- (Includes 7 future lots by others) ' fit,,, w.: ♦ 1 I rr. Overall Gross Density: 1.5 un ac .. , . ♦ F ;,,r 1 ---I 319 units/ 197.5 ac �,,, � ��, / /�\ \�`\ �♦/// ' � ,' ..'y •,, `' s -� � I (- �J 1. - �_ I Overall Net Density: 2.2 un/ac �tv -T .: - _ _ _ - 319 units/ 146.2 ac Westwood Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 westwoodps.com Westwood Professional Services, Inc. x __►, Jl rr -------------------- 11 EXCELSIOR ❖ The Excelsior Group 03-09-2017 0008463 r amity �►v - ��-. i .> si •w ovr Rio ar <i� alp►� � �0� 1` ,Y I r r aa. SII ►� I �! :�,• �++ -�: <,.- � . •�a" ,.�� •, '�" i � -� :� A. ` Vit+,•'• .. "'` � ►�� "� Existing Wetland Pickleba OUTLOT Existing Basketball Court ►�6� \ "` . Wetland Shelter �' gal .v ►� �. Tot Lo Overhead Power , r _ a ��' ' ° _ ►:Q Overhead Powerr Easement 0 mac; �� Easement ., - •--- '=�-_::_e.g., a -- - - -- _ ,' -_ - .__ ,_ cs cr Pond aP Y �' e ,e� �° _ Existing Wetland �, �• ►,, Soccer Feel OUTLOT D •� Buffer _, ' `•,� �� '.� �F , ..,_ .. Pond �o ws►� ►sem ��w Served Trees :� °,$ Ponding/` �•`� iy►• -» .. j. `�:6- -� ��••+ Borro �6a s1►� �i�i r� .ate " � ►� .i►� f flUTLOT eo•�< - �� ►��i�. �ppiii �� .vim g/ ,f: � �� . , , �� •� %' � ` ` _ •� 1�' �ye ra, ..rte � ■ ■ � � �V„� �®�. \�m ��-" �► _I�►o * � I /w� �� _ �c �►® � i,. ,f ►. � �►i `�� a a —a►�1► �!► �`:•. smT� / .e � • ♦► I / � i� n'v,� •�,►�, � '� I, fir. , ►ivy _ ii► r d _ �rmb� ,Ot►�� ►�� ,� * � ►Q �� gip: /� •R,_ 1�` �� \4r9q I ►� � � . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ � �®•E_' - = T -`® 4 - op Ii: ,.t �®+ '. .r �►! '•,tom 1►` �r YAR- `- -' - �► >•.`Q; '.: ��, ti � � / ►a3 .• �.0 *� , `` ��• �'v►�! ��►� 9. \ ►1� ►rte .� \�b _�®'g��► ii j��Y ,► ',_�::.--_-___... -":,{ . ;:. .e �s� �� ea �, a'! f s / �' �� , w. v►�►�m �� ® �a®a ® Awa �r �� a V _+�' �'� I I � '� ►� � / � ti� \��, 11� ), I L / Q'A .O"�+ice a.� -� €� 1 �'�� Wit:•. �®,i 1► i � �?. �si�i 1� <�� \®► �. �� `, '� ►i��a►` �_IA �`?� ►j ?' . �M/ 4► /� ►�,fy ►'dp ►O'ip II 1►' �► Iii =q�'v� 1► �I I;j�� ►�, -._' -� • _. -. i it -- • < . - d:, .► .�% i► ► o / / � ♦� �irr .... I t is Oi ► � � fit► r� 'Oi 1• . It , .►' ivy, 1�1 M X11• =.• �® ..� �► �� I►�, ti,. Gr I Future Lois �► �NF � � � O ; i� i� "� :r �/ ..y ` �s' i� a \.� $�y� �® �a� � OUTLOT B ti►i ` ��I ►u�� ' '► ►e:. f ee � I eel, � G,. �� ► :a ►.� - �a�a►.,. aa., ra ��.�� I . ..�. � ►� /i;rs .r. 1. � •� ,� ws, ►e� Oa �_,�' �,pa, * .P ►r �► ►i,�;v-afir_ �r.`�s„�pj ti I�� aP es as, ..� •�,�, s._ �� s �► �► ar �° '° r s y p7 � � 1 ,'� �a i `�•1 i a ® � q�: a® "!1 '4��b��=�M�� 1�:•�•.`.:,,...:<,+t Q T L � ..t '1 ► ► ► �G•�� ,� Boa QC ►r,• . ►... �i�'�\� �-r iv iii i► � .� /�!► ►,. - c. o";�. ice... �s�iF: ►�►_��—_��._��.�._�r._-._�._ _ _»_�,,. — �i� ��►. I �I c voj►.��s��e+�e,' ►e=-�*. o`;•►.a�i _ o � a � ♦ s e� , i � , a t.� .s—.[s—as—as—+s ♦ .. -q �.. ►� ►, ►.. ►., v. v.: a .� i;{ ►v •. �, +�. a�.�� i,. ► OUT LOT �J �.� �1�►I��i:•r�r1►/�i��r%��11` rV► 14-IR,j�O.. 1►''� Ov ��- IU 9► 'O` �► O 4 � � � � � �,J,I � � � I �/ � ., � � 3`� .,�� ` � . r♦ la� . ti OM t, A. �s Ing _ - ' O � ►. � ! brI I °' yep►� � � y. O> 1�` - , • - .. _ Existing ;► ., .. ,. �• .,� r,,, ►•„a .,�a,; ��...►�,►te.t� ►o.,�aaf rala�s►: -�y.♦o�•,S�►1t3®1�jQP•.<.`�'.o✓�.aO<_lOOe O .'<.►C.vA.lre►.-. i..e«....0...<.0.:O. r0•.D-,,:.`�.+'_.:.t3ss.4 *sO ,f -.p-.... ►.-.,,,.,.<O..O .Tom•,�.:._,f.y.G0 0..Ow0..0.4t,�.... h.�rwii`.v... .�..,<!c►;... :-- .mo4.�i.,,...+.®:`,.�E .•�, �•sIl<a''•!<.•0O0O��:-fT �+6 ' A�.b�7,,�O0.<e 0-0�P,:O, ..'►,c, i�, e;`-,,., , , 0$ - 9 ►.♦M1�♦.. ,rt,t,t. ' ,. . ;4'8,,.►1..b'0..:'M._. _E..s<.t.v�.• d�1� 1► , 1' 11�' II :<:,.€.'^.,, d. ,+-.a • vs- �,►. �,!. 1 _ 4�+1Lb��o.T�y�6. •• as ►C !.?. a 4v. . ��.J - 9 . S,��-...,i'►#aI�.at.•90nv,?�►... ➢��'•C�-- e' Landscape Buffer Wetland �� 0 - ♦ 9 t ♦ � � � AML AL -..-,..�.� Ci... •�` /ate- - +�i� '� ..130th -St `c••��aai�s�s ��•�ww-aw�.•sa. �4r” �lll�:;,�r•- , Pipeline EasementPreserved Pine G a e Entry Monument 1 11 X11 all 11 1 ustrative PUD Amendment A T , ; ; ; , r IF T 11 APPROVED PROJECT DATA PROPOSED PROJECT DATA —1 7 r Ir Gross Site Area: 216.6 ac Gross Site Area: 216.6 ac 3 - h,� ,ooaa�[1 r sem' Collector Road ROW: 8.1 ac Collector Road ROW: 8.1 ac ----------- I - 4 L CSI\H 61 3.4 ac. CSAH 61: 3.4 ac. ii I J j L F' 9 it F q ()= � 4 130th Street: 4.7 ac. 130th Street: 4.7 ac. L j L 17 / L olt- kL 4, 57.7 ac 4111 JExisting Wetlands: Existing Wetlands: 57.7 ac I FL=C Q=_' Floodzone( 100 yr): 4.6 ac -------------- Floodzone( 100 yr): 4.6 ac r_1 ML 1 /(beyond wetland limits) (beyond wetland limits) Net Developable Area: 146.2 ac Net Developable Area: 146.2 ac - J _ O -k/Open ace. k/Open $pace r r buffers, road buffers, woods, etc.) Par 111.0 ac Par 111.0 ac -1:- 7• (includes ponds, parks, wetlands, wet buffers, road buffers, woods, etc.) (includes ponds, parks, wetlands, wet _7w P7 li / / / - r --------------------- - Proposed Residential Homes 319 lots Proposed Residential Homes 324 lots Det ac h ed Vi I I as Lot s: 0 lots Det aced Vi I I as Lot s: 83 1 As ---------- 1, e J.- 50 Single Family Lots: 51 lots 50 Single Family Lots: 51 lots 31 55' E�ngle Family Lots: 0 lots 55'Sngle Family Lots: 81 lots 4W - fj I n I II �]' Ift 65'Sn ]1e Family Lots: 34 lots 65'Sngle Family Lots: 108 lots 14 o 4� -------- 'Sngle Family 70'Sngle Family Lots: 61 lots ------ 70 Lots: 0lots 85' �ngle Family Lots: 90 Lots 85'Sngle Family Lots: 84 Lots \/^, , I ,r *(Includes7 future lots by others) *(Includes7 future lots )yothers) T14, FrAm 49 Overall Gross Density: 1.6 un/ac •Overal I Gross Density: 1.6 un/ac \\' ' —_ I 1 I 0� 1 r 319 units/ 197 5 ac 3911 units/ 197 C; nr I / o Overall Net Dendty: 2.2 un/ac Overall Net Density 2.2 un/ac 0I 319units/ 146.2 ac 324 units/ 146.2 ac V"o *. _ -_ - /-f F Setbacks: F Setbacks: 4 _, \` \ :,:' 50' Single Family Lots: 50' Single Family Lots: 10 SdeSetbacks: 7.5'/7.5'(15'Total 9de Setbacks: 5'/5'(10'Total > Aerial photography from State of Minnesota; Aerial photography from State of Minnesota; ! �� / _ _ _ ;', Topography from State LIDAR Topography from State LIDAR A 1 7, ins Existing —4--L \J Wetland OUTLOTJ�7_ 4 W4 Ilk ------------ ---------------------------- w. r — r +`y., , ,- / � - / i / '(fir _ _ i - .. '� _ _N _ • • ^� `\\ > / > / \>i<\mak ., / \ \ � I \ \\ 'II �i\\<\/ \ �/ ) �\ j \ _— _ �_ _ _ / I __� �--� � � I I • F � I r \\ \ \\ / r r/ � r \ ti.. �\�\ \ \ II r ii\ \ < ,' � I>^ � , — , / _--1 r— 1f lr � r rII I � ' rd A t -7 F '"W t ---------- _2- /.'i t Westwood EXCELSIOR Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive -0- The Excelsior Group Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 westwoodps.com 02-21-2019 0008463 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 0 Rm NAM an.. N-16 ARM 1 10 ��t ,00- Sling :Fa m i l y\ �� ,� �® �,,�` � � 1, � � � �� i =___-_=-- _=- ureLo i� j! --- aT (' i,''�� // �d, l( 'Oy g1 I». ■ . \!•Si, �+4'-��9a,9,_a0a.aY -- �� 1■ ,: I(� �� ( �� ` // ., ��, III � �� ■ �+_ Q� � ��• - ,• �or3u��.;�— --- - ---------- 'fir e ME WE UTLOT E iirn r)T' ,•� � � ■ �� , � Fbnd �:. � _ _. _. Existing In Hi Ile, e Buffer Wetland Riiii 130th Sol 14 N Proposed Pi pel in e Easement Preserved R n e G a e Rgun'dabout 7 Entry Monument