HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Packet 01.23.20AGENDA
HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 2020
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. December 19, 2019
D. PUBLIC HEARING
E. NEW BUSINESS
Oneka Commons Sketch Plan — Peter Stalland
2. Approve 2020 Planning Commission Goals
F. OLD BUSINESS
G. ADJOURNMENT
If you need accommodations for the Planning Commission meeting please contact
Rachel Juba at (651) 762-6304 or riuba(&ci.hugo.mn.us, thank you.
Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Thursday, December 49, 2049
Chair Kleissler called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
PRESENT: Derr, Fry, Kleissler, Lessard, Mulvihill, Tjernlund.
ABSENT: Arcand, Luchsinger.
STAFF: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director
Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of November 21, 2019
Commissioner Tjernlund made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Derr to approve minutes for the
meeting of November 21, 2019.
Ayes: Derr, Fry, Kleissler, Lessard, Mulvihill, Tjernlund ayes.
Abstained: Kleissler.
Motion carried.
Public Hearing: Edmund Tschida — Zoning Amendment request to rezone from the Long Term
Agricultural Zoning District to the Agricultural Zoning District
Staff provided background and an analysis on the zoning amendment request that was requested by Ed
Tschida to rezone his property from the Long Term Agricultural Zoning District to the Agricultural Zoning
District. Staff recommended approval of the request and recommended the Planning Commission open
the public hearing and take all public comment.
Commissioner Fry asked if the parcel was landlocked and staff stated yes, but that there is access through
the parcel to the south through a shared driveway.
Ed Tschida addressed the Planning Commission. Commissioner Fry asked if the zoning amendment
request is for tax purposes and the applicant stated that the purpose of the zoning amendment is to enter
into the Minnesota Land Trust program so that the property would remain protected even after he sells it.
Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:09. No one came forward. Kleissler closed the public
hearing at 7:09.
Motion to approve the zoning amendment request to rezone from the Long term Agricultural Zoning
District to the Agricultural Zoning District for the property located at 9822 152nd Street North by
Commissioner Derr, seconded by Fry.
All ayes. Motion carried.
December 19, 2019 PC Minutes
Page 2
Public Hearing: Jeffrey Penton and Shirley E. Nelson -Hill Trust— A conditional use permit request
to allow a shared driveway
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for a shared driveway between two
parcels. Staff stated that the northern property is landlocked and they are requesting access to Keller
Avenue North through a neighboring parcel to the south. Neither property has an established driveway,
however, the owners use Keller Avenue to access both properties. Staff provided an analysis of the
conditional use permit request and listed the conditions of the conditional use permit. Staff recommended
approval of the shared driveway conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the draft
conditional use permit and resolution. Staff also recommended the Planning Commission open the public
hearing and take all comments.
The Planning Commission invited Heidi Harvieux, 12935 Jody Avenue North, forward. Juba clarified that
Harvieux is representing the Shirley E. Nelson -Hill Trust that is listed on the application. Harvieux had
no comments.
Madam Chair opened the public hearing at 7:15pm. No one spoke at the hearing, the public hearing was
closed at 7:15pm.
Commissioner Fry asked if the lots are buildable lots. Staff replied that the owners may apply for a
building permit once the conditional use permit is approved.
Commissioner Fry made a motion to approve the shared driveway conditional use permit, subject to the
conditions listed in the draft conditional use permit and resolution, seconded by Lessard.
All ayes. Motion carried.
Public Hearing: Wayne Scanlon — A conditional use permit request to allow a shared driveway and
a variance request from the street frontage requirement for the property located at 17530 Henna
Avenue North
Staff provided background on the requests submitted by Wayne Scanlon to allow a shared driveway
between three parcels and a variance request from the street frontage requirement for the landlocked
parcel. The variance would grant 0 feet for street frontage where 300 feet is required by ordinance. The
applicant is also requesting the termination of a development agreement that considers two of the lots as
one lot and states that they cannot be sold together. In order to terminate this agreement and restrictive
covenant, the applicant has requested the variance and conditional use permit. Juba stated that all three
parcels have single family homes and have been viewed as separate parcels. Juba also provided an analysis
on both requests.
Staff found that the variance will not change the character of the surrounding area as the use of the parcels
will remain the same. It is in staff s opinion that the request meets all the terms necessary to approve the
conditional use permit and an easement and maintenance agreement will need to be approved and recorded
at Washington County. Staff recommended approval of the variance and CUP subject to the conditions
listed in the attached draft resolutions to the Planning Commission. Staff also recommends approval of
December 19, 2019 PC Minutes
Page 3
the release of the covenant against parcel A and C, if the variance and CUP are approved with the
conditions listed in the resolutions.
Wayne Scanlon and his attorney, Mark Theroff, addressed the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission had no questions for the applicant.
Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:24pm, no one came forward, and Kleissler closed the public
hearing at 7:24 pm.
Commissioner Lessard made a motion to approve the requests submitted by Wayne Scanlon subject to the
conditions listed in the draft resolutions. Derr seconded.
All ayes. Motion carried.
Public Hearing: OP5 Adelaide, LLC — A PUD amendment request to change setback requirements
for Adelaide Landing
Staff provided background on the request from OP5 Adelaide, LLC for a PUD amendment to revise the
building setback requirements for 50-foot wide single family lots on the northern portion of the Adelaide
Landing development. The approved setbacks on 50-foot wide lots are: 25 feet for the minimum front
setback, 25 feet for the minimum front setback for side of the home on corner lots, 7.5 feet for the
minimum side setback, and 30 feet for the minimum rear setback. The new proposed setbacks are: 25 feet
for the minimum front setback, 20 feet for the minimum front setback for side of the home on corner lots,
5 feet for the minimum side setback, and 25 feet for the minimum rear setback. The number of proposed
lots will not change. The original preliminary plat and PUD were approved in 2017 and the applicant has
since final platted majority of the development. Staff showed an illustration of the proposed setback
changes and stated that only three lots would need the 5 foot side yard setback and that is only at the
corners of the lot.
The applicant is proposing the same villa product from earlier phases of the development and staff noted
that the garages will be flush with the front of the home, adding to curb appeal. In exchange for additional
flexibility the applicant has provided a revised landscape plan that includes additional landscaping along
the north and west sides, than what was previously approved with the development. Staff recommends
additional landscaping for a buffer with a combination of deciduous and coniferous trees.
Staff believes that the layout of the proposed Adelaide Landing PUD general plan exceeds the City's
standards for residential developments and that the PUD amendment is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of the OP5 Adelaide (Excelsior Group) PUD
amendment for the development known as Adelaide Landing, subject to the conditions listed.
Steph Griffin, representing The Excelsior Group, addressed the Planning Commission. Griffin also
introduced John Rask from MI Homes. Chair Kleissler asked if the applicant was agreeable with staff s
recommendations and Griffin stated that they agree with staff recommendations.
Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:36pm.
December 19, 2019 PC Minutes
Page 4
Sandra Fricke, 5617 138th Street North, from Pineview Meadows addressed the Planning Commission.
Fricke had several comments including concerns about how the new setbacks will affect drainage and
sight impairment when driving, how the new setbacks will affect the location of decks and sheds in the
backyard of the homes, and how will the ratio of the lot size to the size of the home compare to other
developments in Hugo. Fricke also commented on the additional traffic that will be driving through
Pineview Meadows and wondered how that will be mitigated. Fricke also questioned why the developer
didn't ask for these setbacks with the original application. The main concerns were obstruction and
visibility.
John Rask with MI Homes, the builder from the development, addressed the Planning Commission. Rask
stated that MI Homes was not a part of the original project and they are looking to use a slightly different
product than the initial builders, hence the different building setbacks. To address the drainage question,
Rask stated that there are drainage easements over each lot and because the villa homes will be a part of
a homeowners association, they will ensure the lots are maintained. The HOA also has restrictions on the
lots so that owners are not allowed sheds or fences. Rask also stated that the proposed setbacks do not
obstruct the sight visibility triangle and will not impose on public safety.
Commissioner Fry asked the size of the home footprint. Rask stated that the products vary from 1,800 to
2,400 square feet and are generally one level with the option to add a loft. Chair Kleissler asked Rask to
comment on the position of the home in regards to the front and rear setbacks. Rask stated that most of
the lots are 125 feet deep so the lots will have a 25 to 30 foot front yard setback depending on the specific
villa product on each lot.
Juba clarified that the applicant has not applied for final plat approval, however, when they do, the City
Engineer will have to approve their drainage plan for the site and ensure it is adequate. Additionally, any
patio or deck addition on to the home will also have to meet the building setbacks. Staff is not concerned
with sight visibility on the corner lots. Juba stated that there will be additional traffic with this
development, however, the development has several access points and several alternates so the amount of
traffic is dispersed. The roads will be public roads that are owned and maintained by the City of Hugo.
Commissioner Fry clarified that the 50-foot wide lots are approved, but not platted.
Sandra Fricke, 5617 1381h Street North, asked if the products are different than what was originally
proposed. Griffin responded that MI Homes was not the original builder partner and the products are
slightly different than what was previously proposed. Fricke is also had additional concerns on drainage.
Juba stated that the grading and drainage plan will be reviewed to ensure that the stormwater management
on their property is designed to handle the drainage on site.
Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 7:56pm.
The Planning Commission further discussed the application. Commissioner Derr commented that the
minor change to the building setbacks will better meet the market needs and the density will not be
affected. Commissioner Lessard stated that he liked the design and believes the villa products will fit the
character of the area.
December 19, 2019 PC Minutes
Page 5
Motion made by Commissioner Fry to approve the OP5 Adelaide PUD amendment for the development
to be known as Adelaide Landing, subject to the conditions listed in the resolution, seconded by
Commissioner Derr.
All ayes. Motion carried.
Public Hearing: Fenway Land Company — A preliminary plat and PUD for a development to be
known as "Rice Lake Reserve"
Juba provided background on the preliminary plat and PUD applications for a residential development to
be known as Rice Lake Reserve. The property totals 51.5 acres and is comprised of four parcels east of
Goodview Avenue North and north of Egg Lake Road North. The property includes wetlands and
floodplain for a total buildable acreage of 29.5 acres.
The proposed zoning for the development is PUD, which will allow zoning ordinance flexibility to create
a master planned development. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that
the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality proposal than what would have been the
case with standard zoning. Juba provided details on architecture, setback requirements, density, grading
and drainage, streets and access, landscaping, parks and trails, and utilities.
At the November 20, 2019 Parks Commission meeting, the applicant requested to get park dedication
credit for the .5 acre gathering space area and to satisfy the remainder of the park dedication requirement
with fees. The Parks Commission liked the trail through the development, however, they recommended
not accepting land for the park dedication and accepting the full park land dedication fee of $2,400 per
unit.
Staff recommended that a neighborhood gathering space with amenities be included in the central area of
the development and recommends the applicant revise the preliminary plat and PUD general plan to
include a neighborhood gathering space in the general location of Lots 1-3, Block 3. Staff listed additional
recommendations to the proposed plans.
Staff believes that the layout of the proposed Rice Lake Reserve PUD general plan exceeds the City's
standards for residential developments, if the staff recommendations are implemented. It is in staff s
opinion that the applicant meets all the requirements necessary to approve the PUD and preliminary plat,
subject to the conditions in the resolutions and recommended approval of the PUD and preliminary plat
for Fenway Land Company for the development to be known as "Rice Lake Reserve", subject to the
conditions listed in the resolutions.
Chair Kleissler asked the commissioners if they had questions for staff. Commissioner Tjernlund asked
staff to clarify if changes could be made to the plans in response to Washington County's comments. Juba
stated that the County has to approve the access point into the development prior to any construction of
phase I, and if that requires a significant change to the layout, the plans would go back to the Planning
Commission.
Mark Guenther with Fenway Land Company addressed the Planning Commission and addressed staffs
recommendations. Guenther stated that should the trail be located on Street A, the trail will have to be in
December 19, 2019 PC Minutes
Page 6
front of the homes. They are asking for flexibility on the impervious surface requirements to allow
different product types to be available to buyers. The applicant also stated that they are working with
Washington County on approval of access to the site. Lastly, Guenther stated that common gathering
spaces are not well received and does not see a need for one. Guenther asked to provide recommendations
on the gathering space and trail location.
Commissioner Fry asked the applicant about the ratio of the products that will be available. Guenther
stated that the development will likely be 25% villa products and 75% two story products.
Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 8:31pm.
No one came forward to speak.
Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 8:31pm.
Commissioner Fry asked staff what the lot sizes are in Diamond Point. Juba stated that the lot sizes vary
and the development is part of a PUD and asked for lot size flexibility.
Chair Kleissler commented that the gathering space should be centrally located within the development.
The Commissioners continued to discuss the location and placement of the gathering space, the trail
location, as well as the development as a whole. The Planning Commission generally agreed that the
gathering space remain minimal and central, near the lift station, with the removal of a lot 1 near the lift
station on the proposed plans.
Commissioner Derr made a motion to approve the PUD and preliminary plat for Fenway Land Company
for the development to be known as "Rice Lake Reserve," subject to the conditions listed in the
resolutions, with the exception that only Lot 1, Block 3, be eliminated from the proposed plans to
accommodate a neighborhood gathering space. Seconded by Mulvihill.
Ayes: Derr, Kleissler, Lessard, Mulvihill, Tjernlund.
Opposed: Fry.
Motion carried.
New Business
The Planning Commission set their annual goal setting workshop on January 9, 2020 at 5:30pm.
Adjournment
Commissioner Fry made a motion, Lessard seconded, to adjourn at 8:58 pm. All Ayes. Motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted,
Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant
CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning and Zoning Application
Staff Report
TO: Hugo Planning Commission
FROM: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Peter Stalland - Oneka Commons Sketch Plan
DATE: January 16, 2020, for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23,
2020
REVIEW DEADLINE (60-days): February 14, 2020
1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The properties are generally located in the area south of Frenchman Road/CSAH 8 and west of
TH 61. The property owner, Marvin LaValle, as signed a contact with the applicant, Peter
Stalland (Oneka Commons, LLC), to develop the properties. The proposed sketch plan includes
8 parcels totaling approximately 92 acres. The parcels are currently vacant and vary in elevation
with several constraints including wetlands, floodplain/floodway, ditches, and the Met Council
sewer interceptor.
The applicant is requesting review and comments on a sketch plan for development of the
properties with residential and commercial uses.
2. CONCEPT PLAN:
Current Zoning
The properties are located in three zoning districts, Low Density Single Family Residential (R-
3), General Business (C-2), and Central Business (C-1).
Current Land Use
The properties are guided in three land use categories:
Low Density Residential (LD)
The Low Density Residential designation identifies residential land uses developed between 2
and 4 units per net acre.
Oneka Commons Sketch Plan
Commercial (COM)
The Commercial designation provides areas for service retail, highway, and neighborhood -
oriented retail establishments to develop. This designation includes commercial, office, and retail
uses and is generally concentrated along key transportation corridors. This designation does not
include residential development.
Mixed -Use (MIX)
The Mixed -Use designation provides opportunities for multiple compatible uses on a single site.
These uses can include residential, commercial, office, retail, and public/quasi-public uses. The
MIX land use designation allows residential development at a minimum density of 10 units per
net acre and maximum density of 60 units per net acre.
General Layout
The applicant is showing development of 8 parcels of land into separate residential and
commercial lots, to be developed separately. The uses proposed are single family homes, multi-
family townhomes, apartments, senior housing and various commercial business. In discussions
with the applicant the proposed residential lots (DR Horton) and the apartments, would be the
first phase. The sketch plan is proposing different zoning districts and land use than what is
guided and required for the properties. The total number of proposed units and total buildable
acreage of the development is not clear and is not consistent between the proposed sketch plans
provided.
The plan shows access to the sites from the extension of Victor Path, crossing Oneka Parkway,
and connecting to the proposed extension of Fenway Boulevard from the south to the north
connecting to Frenchman Road/CSAH 8. The frontage road is intended to relieve traffic and
reduce the number of access points along Frenchman Road/CSAH 8.
The properties are guided Low Density Residential (LD), Commercial (COM), and Mixed -Use
(MIX). The developer has stated that they would like to increase the amount of residential and
decrease the amount of commercial. The developer stated that this is necessary due to "balance
of use, absorption demand and return on investment". The developer has also stated that the
existing market for residential is greater than the commercial market. Staff understands the
residential market has been on the raise. The City's zoning districts and comprehensive plan
includes several acres of property to accommodate residential development throughout the City.
The applicant has not clarified if they will be applying for a Planned Unit Development (PUD),
but it is likely. PUDs offer flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal
zoning district standards. The use of PUD zoning can allow for a greater variety of uses, internal
transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In
exchange for this flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in
a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the
use of other, more standard zoning districts. PUD approval may be granted if the applicant can
demonstrate compliance with the following criteria:
Oneka Commons Sketch Plan
1. The establishment of PUD zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations, to create
or maintain a development pattern that complies with the City's comprehensive plan.
2. The mixing of land uses within a development when such mixing of land uses could not
otherwise be accomplished.
3. Variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in this chapter in order to
improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporating design elements
(e.g., construction materials, landscaping, lighting, open space, etc.) that exceed the City's
standards to offset the effect of any variations.
4. A more creative and efficient approach to land use within the city, while at the same time
protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and
general welfare of the City.
5. Preservation and enhancement of natural features and open spaces, including but not
limited to the width expansion of greenway corridors, conservation of wooded areas,
development of buffer areas, reduction of impervious surface, and utilization of joint
facilities and utilities.
6. Maintenance or improvement for the efficiency of public streets and utilities.
7. Establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses.
The applicant is showing the mixed -use land use designation to be extended to the west,
generally where the apartment complex is shown in the sketch plan.
Compliance with City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Downtown Design Guidelines
The way that the properties are zoned and guided for land use in the Comprehensive Plan is
intentional. Through the Comprehensive Plan process it was determined that the areas along
CSAH 8 are designated for commercial and mixed -use development. The areas further to the
south (south of the proposed frontage road) are designated for residential uses. The areas that are
guided mixed -use are within the boundaries of the downtown plan and are subject to the
downtown design guidelines. The areas that are guided mixed -use are in highly visible areas of
the City and, consequently, development in these areas will be expected to provide a higher level
of site design and architectural design than other areas of the City. Typically, mixed -use
development includes a combination of retail, office, cultural, or entertainment uses with the
ability to integrate higher density residential uses as part of an overall master planned
development. Any change of the land use designations as proposed by the developer would
require approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Any change in zoning for the property
would require approval of a zoning amendment.
The applicants plan does not comply with the existing land use designated for the properties, in
the following ways:
• The mixed -use area is proposed to be extended to the west, where the apartments are
shown on the plan.
• The residential development (DR Horton) shown in the Low Density Residential (LD)
area south Victor Path (frontage road) is at a density that would require the land use
designation of Medium Density Residential (MD).
• Unclear how the development would meet the Mixed- Use development policy and
Downtown Design Guidelines.
Oneka Commons Sketch Plan
Staff recommends that the existing land use designations be followed when developing these
properties. However, staff may be able to support allowing higher density residential, which
could accommodate an apartment use, in the areas that are guided as Low Density Residential
(LD). Allowing higher density residential in that area would provide an appropriate transition
from single family residential uses to commercial development. Alternatively, staff could see
the potential of a multi -family residential or apartment complex that is integrated in to a mixed -
use development. The proposed sketch plan shows each parcel being developed separately. It is
in staff s opinion that the applicant is not showing a vision for a mixed -use development that
blends the uses together.
Based in the information provided and discussions with the applicant these plans have been put
together to find a location for a six acre lot for the three-story apartment development. The
apartment is shown in an area that is zoned partially in General Business (C-2) and Central
Business (C-1) and partially in the Commercial (COM) and Mixed -Use (MIX) land use
designation. There is some conflicting regulation on multi -family residential development,
apartments included, for what uses and densities would be for zoning districts and land use.
Apartments are allowed, with a conditional use permit (CUP), in the C-1 and C-2 zoning
districts. The base density as outlined in the Multi -Family Residential Development performance
standards (City Code Section 90-251) is 10 units per net acre. The performance standards
anticipates allowing higher densities with a CUP, but no maximum density is outlined in the
ordinance. The COM land use designation does not allow residential development and the MIX
land use designation allows residential development at a minimum density of 10 units per net
acre and maximum density of 60 units per net acre. The apartment development proposed on the
six acres would be at a density of 25 units per net acre. Any development of residential in the
COM land use area, would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, the
applicant is requesting to expand the MIX land use designation to accommodate the apartment
development. However, it is in staffs opinion that the apartment is not part of a mixed -use
development, since the uses are not blended or integrated on one site, but rather as standalone
sites to be developed separately.
The applicant is showing a parcel north of Frenchman Road/CSAH 8 as mixed -use. It is unclear
how this would be developed. There is also a parcel that is not controlled by the property owner
at the corner of Frenchman Road/CSAH 8 and Highway 61. The proposed sketch plan does not
show how access to the properties would be provided. Connections to neighboring properties
will be required. There is a small triangle shaped parcel that is controlled by the property owner
that will be land locked if not incorporated in to the development. Further, staff would
recommend these properties be included with the development.
The east side of the properties are a part of the downtown and therefore the Downtown Design
Guidelines should be met by the development. The intent of the guidelines is to provide a
baseline for quality in order to revitalize and expand the downtown business district. Some of the
guidelines for downtown Hugo include:
• Enhancement of the public realm to maintain a pedestrian -oriented downtown.
• Creating a sense of arrival in downtown by placement of gateway elements.
4
Oneka Commons Sketch Plan
• Blending of commercial and residential development as a master planned mixed -use
development.
• High quality architecture, with specific emphases on French architectural elements,
traditional downtown design and/or relating to existing buildings in the downtown.
The downtown plan shows a mixed -use development blending commercial/office and multi-
family housing uses in a master plan development. It does not show this area being planned as
separate individual lots, but a plan that integrates/blends both uses together with an intentional
site design. Although the uses shown on the proposed sketch plan are generally reasonable, the
applicant is showing this area as developing as individual lots and planned separately. This
property is ideal for planning a mixed use development blending commercial/office and multi-
family housing uses in a master plan development since the there are several acres with one
property owner.
The applicant has not provided information on how the development would meet or exceed the
Downtown Plan and Design Guidelines.
Architecture
The applicant has indicated that the design of the buildings in this area would be consistent with
the building styles in the Victor Gardens development. They have stated the architectural theme
would be required for all commercial and mixed -use areas of the proposed sketch plan. This does
not include the DR Horton proposed residential areas. The applicant did not provide a narrative
on how the buildings would related to the Victor Gardens development, meet the design
guidelines, or what materials would be use on the buildings. Although it seems the buildings
will be designed to be cohesive, the developer shall provide a design palette, including
elevations, colors, and materials for the buildings, to ensure they are compatible and meet the
guidelines.
Commercial Buildings
All commercial buildings are required to meet the Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines
and if the downtown area, the Downtown Design Guidelines. The applicant has shown one
building rendering example for the commercial uses. The design of the building has significant
glass and does provide some vertical projection that is encouraged in the guidelines. All of the
buildings within the project shall have four sided architecture, with equal treatment and visual
qualities, and shall meet the requirements of the guidelines. It is hard to know whether the
proposed building would meet the guidelines as one side was shown in the rendering. However,
if it exudes the quality of the Victor Gardens development, it will likely meet the guidelines.
Multi -Family Residential/Apartments
The applicant has provided one view of the building rendering for the three-story apartment
building. All of the buildings within the project shall have four sided architecture, with equal
treatment and visual qualities, and shall meet the requirements of the Multifamily Design
Guidelines. The building rendering shows the building design with horizontal and vertical
Oneka Commons Sketch Plan
projections. Although the applicant did not provide information on the building material, it looks
like there would be varying materials and colors. The guidelines encourage using a mix of
materials and the ordinance states that the exterior of three-story structures shall have a high
percent of brick, stone, or comparable material. The apartment includes underground parking.
Parks/Trails
Because of the residential density proposed and proximity to future businesses special attention
should be paid to the trails and sidewalks for both recreation and transportation purposes.
Additionally, the development is adjacent to the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail, which
connects many of Hugo's trails and parks. According to the Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan
trails and sidewalks are to be built with new developments that connect the community and
ensure safe access to parks, downtown, and other important areas in the City.
The developer shows the trails that were built in 2017 with Clearwater Cove on Oneka Parkway
North and along the ditch. The developer is proposing a trail connecting these existing trails east
to the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail along the ditch. This would provide a scenic and
desirable recreational amenity.
There is a trail on the west side of Fenway Avenue North in the Oneka Estates neighborhood.
According to the Existing and Proposed Trails Map, this trail is planned to be extended to
Frenchman Avenue with the extension of the roadway. This needs to be included in the
development plans. Additionally, the planned trail on the south side of Frenchman Avenue
needs to be included in the development plans.
Per the city code, sidewalks are required along all county roads, state highways, city collector
streets, and along all city residential streets where abutting lots have a width of less than 80 feet.
The developer has not shown where sidewalks would be constructed. Sidewalks have been
constructed along both sides of Victor Path, which should continue. Additionally, sidewalks
would be required along residential streets.
Park Dedication
The developer is required to dedicate land, pay a fee, or a combination of land and fee. The
developer has indicated that there may be a 4.2 acre park dedicated however it is shown to
primarily be stormwater ponding, which is not acceptable. The remaining dedication would be
paid in fee. The total number of proposed units and total buildable acreage of the development is
not clear and is not consistent between site plans. These are the assumptions used in order to
provide an example of what the park dedication calculations could be:
Units Developable Acres
DR Horton West site: 30 units 10.3 acres
DR Horton East site: 102 units 19.8 acres
Apartments: 150 units 6.1 acres
Senior Housing: 150 units estimated 4.3 acres
Total: 432 total units 40.5 acres
Oneka Commons Sketch Plan
Park land dedication is preferred and 10-17% of the buildable land shall be dedicated based on
the density of the development. With the assumptions above, the density of the proposed
development would be over 10 units per acre and would therefore require 17% of the buildable
land to be dedicated. Currently, the fee is $2,400 per unit. This fee is set annually, and the
current rate at the time of building permits would be paid.
Park
Dedication
Calculations
17 % of the developable acres
6.9 acres 4.2 acres (60%)
$2,400 per unit
$1,036,800 $414,720 (40%)
Only buildable land is accepted for park dedication. The City may accept wetlands, ponds, or
other undevelopable land areas that could be incorporated in the park system but dedication
credit will not be given for these areas. Trail construction is required, but park land dedication
credit is not given for trail corridors. Only contiguous buildable park land is granted credit for
park dedication.
At its January 15, 2020, meeting the Parks Commission reviewed the sketch plan and provided
comments to the applicant. The Parks Commission provided the following feedback:
• The Commission stated that the trails shown were generally in a good location as long as
they were in a buildable area, not within a wetland or stormwater pond. Some off road
trails were desired.
• Continue the paved trail along west side of Fenway Avenue to Frenchman Road/CSAH 8.
• Construction of a paved trail on the south side of Frenchman Road/CSAH 8.
• Construction of sidewalks where required.
• Incorporation of the greenway corridor per the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
• Incorporation of the Downtown Design Guidelines.
• The Commission would consider a park in the area closer to the higher density residential
development. They would also consider a combination of land and fee for park dedication
satisfaction.
o Any land used to satisfy the park dedication requirement shall be buildable.
o Could be located within the greenway corridor.
o Medium sized park with active amenities.
Streets and Access
Generally the proposed access locations and street locations meet the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is showing a right-in/right-out access to Frenchman
Road/CSAH 8 that is not on Washington County's corridor plan and would need to be approved
by the County. Washington County plans show future traffic signals at the prosed access points
along Frenchman Road/CSAH 8 at Fenway Boulevard and Oneka Parkway. Developer
Oneka Commons Sketch Plan
contributions to the cost of the traffic signals will be considered with the development of these
properties.
Although a phasing plans has not been provided, the developer has indicted that the residential
development and apartments would be the first phase of the development. This would result in in
the construction of Victor Path (frontage road) and Fenway Boulevard. This is would require
connecting to Fenway Boulevard to the south to the Bald Eagle Industrial Park and easements
acquisitions will be required. The applicant has not indicted the connection on the proposed
sketch plan. The sketch plan shall be revised to include the street connection.
The applicant has asked if the City would provide financing to assist the construction of the
roads and utilities for the development. It's unclear if the request would be a subsidy or a
financing tool such as assessments. The City's policy is that any improvements needed for
development shall be constructed and paid for by the developer. However, there is a developer -
driven economic development portion of the assessment policy that allows the City to, at their
sole discretion, become involved in design, construction or financing a new developer driven
roadway and associated improvement. There are several criteria to meet for the City to consider
this method and it is only a financing tool where the developer ultimately pays for the
construction of the improvements. Because of the limited information on the request staff would
not recommend committing to subsidizing the cost or providing financing to assist the
construction of the roads and utilities for the development.
Floodplain/Floodway
The property has several acres that include the floodplain and floodway. Rice Creek Watershed
(RCWD) rules and City Ordinance prohibit fill within the floodway and state that no structure
will be allowed in the floodway, and that any floodplain fill will require replacement somewhere
else in the property. Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or comparable will be required to be
submitted to MnDNR/FEMA for approval of any modifications to the floodway/floodplain.
Typically, no habitable structures are allowed to develop in the floodway.
Shoreland
A portion of the property is within the Shoreland Overlay District for Clearwater Creek. Any
property within 300 feet of the creek/ditch is subject to the shoreland ordinance regulations under
City Code Section 90-137 Shoreland District. The MnDNR also has regulations for PUDs in the
shoreland district. The shoreland ordinance regulates items such as setbacks, lot size, impervious
surface, etc., above the standard zoning regulations. To meet the shoreland district regulations
the development along Clearwater Creek will likely be limited and revised.
Stormwater Management/Water Reuse
The sketch plan seems to be showing regional stormwater management for the site, instead of
individual stormwater management for each site as it develops. This will allow for efficient use
of property and is encouraged for the properties. Staff has not evaluated if the stormwater
Oneka Commons Sketch Plan
management shown on the plans is adequate to serve the development, but is supportive of
regional stormwater management.
Conditions for stormwater reuse for the site is ideal and should be incorporated into the
development. Stormwater reuse can aid in meeting the stormwater management requirements for
the development. The applicant has not indicated if stormwater reuse would be incorporated into
the development.
Environmental Review
Any development of these sites would most likely trigger an environmental process, for example
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or an Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR). City staff have been talking to the applicant and the property owner's representative
on conducting an AUAR, which will take care of not only EAW requirements, but also cover
land use planning, traffic analysis, stormwater management, and environmental issues. This
process will help with the development of these pieces of land in the future. The environmental
review process at a minimum can take nine months or more to complete.
Utilities
Municipal sewer and water is available to the site. Once development phasing is proposed, staff
can better determine the best means for servicing the site. The Metropolitan Council sewer
interceptor runs through the property. There is an easement along this sewer line. Development
of the property will need to be outside of the easement area, however, it is likely streets can cross
the sewer line easement.
3. CONCLUSION/ RECOMMENDATIONS:
Because of the constraints of the property including wetlands, floodplain/floodway, and
creeks/ditches, it is likely the buildable area of the property is less that what has been shown on
the plans and the proposed sketch plan will likely change significantly when these items are
evaluated. Staff recommends the applicant evaluate the wetlands, floodplain/floodway, and
shoreland district regulations to determine the buildable area of the property, then prepare
development plans for the property. It is unclear if this was taken into consideration with the
proposed overall sketch plan.
The proposed sketch plan shows each parcel being developed separately. It is in staff s opinion
that the applicant is not showing a vision for a mixed -use development that blends the uses
together.
Staff recommends discussion on the following:
• Develop the property using the existing land use plan/designations for the property, but it
may be reasonable to consider:
Oneka Commons Sketch Plan
o The residential area south of Victor Path (frontage road) may be able to
accommodate higher density residential that would provide appropriate
transitions from single family residential to commercial uses.
o The apartment complex could be integrated into a mixed -use development
blending the various uses with the buildings relating to each other or should be
located in areas with residential land use.
o The Commission should comment specifically on the location of the apartments
in the area designated commercial in the 2040 Land Use Plan..
• Incorporate the Downtown Design Guidelines into the development.
• Incorporate the Parks Commission comments into the development.
• Incorporate stormwater reuse into the development.
• Incorporate regional stormwater management into the development.
The applicant is requesting review and comments on a sketch plan for the properties showing
residential and commercial uses on the property.
The applicant would like comments on the following:
• The proposed land use designations and proposed uses
o If the proposed land uses are not desired, where should they be?
• Proposed park dedication
• Building architecture
• Street locations and access points
• Financing to assist the construction of the roads and utilities for the development.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Existing Zoning Map
3. Existing 2040 Land Use Map
4. FEMA Floodplain Map
5. Downtown Plan
6. Engineer's Memo Dated January 16, 2020
7. Applicants Narrative Dated December 29, 2019, and January 8, 2020
8. Applicants Sketch Plan
9. Applicants Sketch Plan over Existing 2040 Land Use Map
10. Applicants Sketch Plan for the Apartment Complex with Proposed Architecture
11. DR Horton Sketch Plan
10
Oneka Commons Sketch Plan
Met Council Interceptor
Parcel Boundary selection
si Roads
Hugo Border
Parcel Boundary
T �CFFY OF
VVEST.1806
,th `Stre
et�on`
re North
1
I
II
Al
Oneka Commons
Location Map
Hugo, MN
I
N
0 700
Feet
1 in = 700 feet
/.
CITY OF
EST. 1906
Oneka Commons
Existing Zoning
Hugo, MN
QSubject Parcels
Right of Way
Roads
i=Parcel Boundary
Zoning Districts
(LA) Long Term Agricultural
(AG) Agricultural
(RR) Rural Residential
(R-1) Large Lot Single Family
Residential
(R-3) Single Family Detached
Residential
(CR-3) Central Residential
(R-4) Low Density Multiple
Family Residential
_ (R-5) Medium Density
Multiple Family Residential
(NS) Neighborhood Service
(RC-1) Restricted
Commercial
(C-1) Central Business
(C-2) General Business
_ (FCB) Future Central
Business
(BP) Business Park
(RI-1) Restricted Industrial
(1-3) General Industrial
(FUS) Future Urban Service
(PUD) Planned Unit
Development
Water
A
0 500
Feet
1 in = 500 feet
CITY OF
WGO
� EST. 1906
Oneka Commons
Land Use
Hugo, MN
QSubject Parcels
—Right of Way
Roads
Parcel Boundary
LandUse
Agricultural (AG)
Large Lot Residential
(ILL)
C Very Low Density (VLD)
Low Density Residential
- (LD)
Medium Density
Residential (MD)
High Density Residential
(HD)
C Business Park (BP)
Commercial (COM)
Industrial (IND)
Mixed Use (MIX
Public/Quasi-Public
(PQ)
A
0 500
Feet
1 in = 500 feet
m €1
N,
I 142nd Street North
! 142nd Street North
r It z
141st Street North
LL 3
LL
i
IL ¢'
0 I c6
LL
i
sue" A.k d" .:.:, a. .v: __ �..._.. _ - r �.—_ - • - - -
Hugo Downtown Framework Plan
Final Plan & Design Guidelines
The Downtown Plan
Improved park with future
community center
Traditional
residential blocks
New mixed -use
development with -
housing, offices and
complementary
retail/commercial uses
New mixed -use
development blending
office and multi -family
housing uses
,Fj7
Proposed trail connections
u■ q;jI -
,� Hugo Downtown Framework IlVorth
City park with trails, gazebo,
dock, pedestrian bridge
Shared public parking
Carpenters on the Lake
Walkable community spaces
along trail ROW
Additional downtown
senior housing
Page 6 of 23
wsb
January 16, 2020
Ms. Rachel Juba
Community Development Director
City of Hugo
14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North
Hugo, MN 55038
Re: Oneka Commons
Concept Plan Review
WSB Project No. 015407-000
Dear Ms. Juba:
o We have reviewed the concept plan submittal for the Oneka Commons located west of Highway
61, east of Everton Avenue and south of Frenchman Road. In particular, we have reviewed the
Z following plans related to this particular request:
w
m
Concept Sketch Plan for the single family residential portion of development by D.R.
Horton, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. and dated 11/04/2019
CD LO
• Existing Comp. Plan Overlay Sketch "D", Proposed Zoning Plan Overlay Sketch "D"
00 Zoning Site Plan, and Mixed -Use Site Plan by Oneka Commons, LLC, prepared by G-
Co Cubed, Inc. and dated 12/20/19, 10/17/19, 12/20/19, 12/16/19, respectively.
Ln
Based on the review of these documents, we offer the following comments related to this concept
plan:
0
Grading, Phasing, Street, and Utility Plans
LO
z 1. Both MCES and City of Hugo has sanitary sewer adjacent to the site. Project phasing will
help determine the best means to service the site. The City of Hugo can provide the
applicant with the utility base map and appropriate as-builts for all adjacent sanitary sewer
a and watermain.
Z
a 2. There are multiple watermain stubs provided to the property. These are located at Victor
W Path, Oneka Parkway, Fenway Avenue, and along Frenchman Road. 12" watermain will be
CD required to be extended from the end of the existing 12" watermain within Victor Path, east to
N the existing 12" stubs located within Oneka Parkway, and continue east, making connection
LU
to the existing 12" watermain stub located within Fenway Avenue and sub along the south
side of Frenchman Road.
3. The overall roadway configuration is consistent with the comprehensive plan and vision for
w this area.
= 4. Groundwater Separation: 4-feet of separation is required from the bottom of structures to
groundwater elevation. Soil borinqs or piezometer readinqs will be required to determine
w groundwater elevations.
co
JAPC Packets\2020\01.23.20\011620 Oneka Commons Sketch Plan Review.docx
Ms. Rachel Juba
January 16, 2020
Page 2
5. Lowest openings of structures must be 3-feet above the Atlas 14 100-year HWL for all
waterbodies and BMP's and 1-foot above any EOF.
6. Erosion Control will be required to meet requirements for the NPDES stormwater permit ad
SW PPP requirements.
Stormwater Management
7. Volume Control: Stormwater BMPs must be provided to meet a volume of 1.1 inches from
new impervious surfaces. Infiltration BMPs and water reuse will receive full credit. Other
BMPs such as filtration must incorporate a TP removal factor found in Table C1 of Rule C of
the RCWD rules. Water reuse is the preferred BMP for residential developments.
8. Water quality requirement will be considered met if volume control is met. At a minimum, 85%
of the site is required to be treated.
9. Rate Control: Proposed discharge rates must be less than existing rates for the 2, and 10-
year Atlas 14 rainfall event. Proposed100-year Atlas 14 discharge rates must meet 0.
cfs/acre for the site.
10. A regional stormwater management for the site as proposed is appropriate and
recommended. Overall sizing of the stormwater management needs has yet to be reviewed.
Once appropriate submittals are provided as part of the preliminary plat process, staff will
review for compliance with requirements..
11. Conditions for stormwater reuse for the site is ideal and should be incorporated into the
project. Stormwater reuse can be used to aid in meeting stormwater management
requirements for the site.
12. RCWD rules prohibit fill within the floodway. City Ordinance states no structure will be
allowed in the floodway that will increase the base flood elevation or cause an increase in
flood damages in adjacent reaches.
13. Fill within the floodplain requires compensatory storage.
14. CLOMAR/LOMR will be required to be submitted to MnDNR/FEMA for approval of any
modifications to the floodway/floodplain. Typically, no habitable structures are allowed to
develop in the floodway.
15. The proposed modifications to public drainage system (alignment as proposed) would need
to go through a formal petition process with RCWD.
16. A RCWD permit will be required for Rule G for the proposed crossing of Judicial Ditch 3 and
Rule I for drainage systems.
Wetland
17. A wetland Delineation for the site has been submitted.
18. If there are proposed wetland impacts, this site would be ideal for on -site replacement.
19. Wetlands on this site may be ACOE jurisdictional and should be a consideration moving
forward. A preapplication meeting would be beneficial.
Ms. Rachel Juba
January 16, 2020
Page 3
20. RCWD has maintenance rights along the JD3 and its branches and is currently planning for a
significant maintenance project. Coordination and understanding of what can and can't be
done in these areas will need to be evaluated with RCWD.
21. A full understanding of the existing drain tile system will be helpful to as phasing of
construction occurs as not to damage or remove portions of the system that are integral
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. Additional comments may be
necessary following the review of the responses to these. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me at 651-286-8463.
Sincerely,
WSB
Mark Erichson, PE
City Engineer
cc: Scott Anderson, Public Works Director (email only)
Liz Finnegan, Senior Engineering Technician (email only)
Oneka Commons, LLC
19356 Meadowridge Trail N
Marine, MN 55047
Tel#: 651-433-0155
Cell#: 651-245-7222
Email: peterstaHand@hotmail.com
December 29, 2019
Ms Rachel Juba
City Planner
City of Hugo
14669 Fitzgerald Ave. N.
Hugo, MN 55038
Re: Oneka Commons Site Plan Narrative
Dear Rachel,
As you know, I have submitted an application for a Site Plan Review with the city to
discuss the fixture development of the LaValle property with staff and to receive non-
binding comments from the Planning Commission and City Council.
The project consists of approximately 100 acres within the city of Hugo located south of
Frenchman Road between Victor Gardens and Highway 61 and 4 acres north of
Frenchman Road.
We started with the City of Hugo's 2040 Comprehensive plan to develop a framework for
a phased and coordinated development that attempts to be consistent with the current
comprehensive plan and zoning. Our analysis indicates that the property shown as
commercial is larger than what works as a balance of use, absorption demand and return
on investment. Therefore, we have reduced the commercial area and increased the other
areas, still generally following the intent of the plan.
Our vision combines both the city of Hugo's Comprehensive plan and what we have
determined to be land uses that are in demand in the marketplace. The site plan generally
designates areas for single family homes, townhomes, one level villas, one apartment
project of approximately 150 units (3 stories with underground heated parking), a senior
living facility, commercial sites that can include several restaurants and office buildings,
one gas station, one retail shopping center, and one hotel.
The entire development will be a coordinated master planned community. The
architecture will be similar to the design and materials in the retail and residential
developments to the west of the land along Frenchman Road (Victor Gardens), This
European style theme will be carried through all of the buildings in Oneka Commons.
Each buyer/builder of the various parcels will be required to comply with private
covenants that will be recorded and enforced through specific submittals to me as the
architectural control committee prior to construction.
The development includes a planned 150 unit upscale, market rate residential apartment
project called Oneka Apartments. The apartment site is located centrally, near the future
intersection of Frenchman Road. This will assure a direct connection to a major collector
road assuring a safe and efficient traffic design. The apartment building is designed with
large jogs to breakup massing and is set -back from Frenchman Road right of way an
average of over 80 feet. This will allow for a large amount of landscaping, berms and
trees. The apartment building is a three story building with an underground parking
garage.
The single family homes are proposed to have 55'to 65' wide 135' deep lots similar to
the successful Clearwater Cove development to the south. The site plan layout shown in
our submittal is from DR Horton who has expressed strong interest in purchasing part of
this master planned development from us. DR Horton is also proposing 58 two story
townhomes having footprints of 22' wide by 36' deep.
As we have discussed, it appears that we will be required to submit an EAW for this
project. My hope is that we can accomplish this together with the various city
applications in 2020 for a fall start of construction.
As I mentioned on the phone, we will be amending our architectural drawings by no later
than January 10t', possibly earlier if we can get these done. These perspectives will show
the architectural style for all the buildings in the development.
1 look forward to your comments. Thank you.
Yo fteter
K.a and
KPS encl;
N
Oneka Commons, LLC
19356 Meadowridge Trail N
Marine, MN 55047
Tel#: 651-433-0155
Cell#: 651-245-7222
Email: peterstalland@hotmail.com
January 8, 2020
Ms Rachel Juba
City Planner
City of Hugo
14669 Fitzgerald Ave. N.
Hugo, MN 55038
Re: Oneka Commons Site Plan Narrative
Dear Rachel,
Further to my previous letter dated December 17, 2019, please note that the overall site
plan shows approximately 25 acres of storm water detention ponds. Of this, we estimate
that about 10 acres can be used for parks and trails. On the site plan, this area is shown in
the mixed use (brown) area that designates 4.2 acres in blue and the balance in the blue
area noted as "Park". We would like to dedicate these areas to the City in return for a
reduction of our park dedication fee.
The specific landscaping and structures in these park areas and trails throughout the
master plan will need to be negotiated with the City during our formal application
process. The dotted line of trails will be a combination of a ten foot wide asphalt path for
walking/biking and four foot wide nature path in certain other areas for a hiking trail.
These trails would connect the various uses in the master plan in order to allow common
access from the residential to the commercial areas. The specifics of the trail system will
have to be worked out once the civil and environmental engineers plan out the storm
water and utility designs.
The recently submitted renderings of our apartment project and of a neighborhood
commercial retail center show an architectural design that is consistent with the building
styles of the Victor Gardens and commercial buildings east along Frenchman Road. This
style would be required for all buildings in the commercial and mixed use areas shown on
the site plan. These are renderings that are concept in nature so the actual building
exteriors may be different after we have spent more time with our architects and
contractors reviewing plans.
At the planning commission and city council meetings, we would appreciate responses
from the members regarding the following:
A hopeful agreement that the boundaries of the zoned uses designated on our plan
are acceptable; if not, then I'd like the members to give us specific changes in the
boundaries on the plan and why they think it is necessary to make these changes
A hopeful agreement that the uses noted in each parcel within each colored zoned
area are uses that the members think are appropriate for the master plan; this
would include the DR Horton single and multi family development, the apartment
project, and the other uses in the brown/mixed use area; again, if they want
something different then I'd like their ideas and reasons why changes would be
necessary
- The members' thoughts about dedicating the park land areas in lieu of payment of
fees
- The architectural style, colors, and design of the building renderings that we are
submitting
- The access (ingress and egress) of the street locations shown on the site plan
- The architectural style and look of the DR Horton single and multi family
residential units that they will provide for the members at the meetings.
- Although this is more of a staff response, timing of meetings and review for the
formal applications and EAW process so that we could possibly have all
governmental approvals by next fall 2020
I will let you know if I think of any more issues for the members to comment on at the
meetings. I look forward to the staff comments. Thank you.
Yours truly,
K. Peter Stalland
KPS
cc Todd Horne; Dan Tilsen
2
~ Cf)
orq'
orQ 0
CD
Q
H
N
00 �
00 (D
J C/) e
� n
�• N
f+ 00
o 01
CY)n m
1p,K
c n
�cyl
Co
70 m D m
z z
0 m
m
m
0
0
D
m
O m
r
m
C
'
Cn
CD
r
z
(D
rn
O
K
0-
D
CD
I
C/)
0-0
0
G
X
0
Cn
X
O
n
z
=
o
CD
o
c
x
::3
n
O
Z_
IO
U1
z
J
3
n
N
O
N
O
D
J
�
C
c
\ C `� C
> /\
� 1
i ♦ �3 /
a /
low �/ X
- 'Q m
Z / �
CO
cn
m
cn
67
�
�
N
\ I
V
Q0
O
D
C7
C)
O
O
�U
K:
FTI
K
o
71
o
u,
F..
O
O
_
X
�j
D z
x
FTI
F—��
o
N
C
O
r�
Fq
_
z
N
O
z
z
c�
00
0
0
I \
2126146 \\\ \\
— V
\
C
\
ST LINE OF Nffl f §ECTf 20, T32, R21 AND
9" i III \\ WEST LINE OF LOT�OUN"UDITORS PLAT NO 7
12/10/19 0
D
4/3 /19 n z
® � m
I I
0�
I z
I
I � �
--=i--�
I L
I
I
I --L---�
J AST UNE OF SW 1/4 OF NW1/4
~ Cf)
orq'
orQ 0
CD
Q
H
N
00 �
00 (D
J C/) e
� fl
00
C Ul
�a m
— cn
m
ol
(C) C1 0
P,
00 00 m
Zu
m
m
p
p
D
m
Q m
r
m
o
'
Cn
CD
r
z
(D
rn
°
Cf)
o
0-
I
cn
00 o
<
X
O
Cn
X
O
n
L
z
=
o
N
O
X
0
.0
0
N
Z
O
cn
Z
O
3
n
c
C)
\�
CD
O
ro
O
D
J
�
O
x
�
O
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
r ♦
I
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
Y � i •
1
1
•f?Nm
1 �
1
1
1
1
1
1 �$
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
CI I
1
1
m i
o
1
1 a°
�u
FI-1 DI a"
r ! a
1 ,
LIB
I
1 a
/
/ o
/ o=
! c°
!
1639.00 _
ml i
♦�,� O O(�A�
Cf)
\ 4.000
O —
rn�_1
f..
O
O
u �
�
O -3
O
0
�� K:
Ul X
o m
n p
C
U)
�m
/
- - - - - r - — — —
- - - _ 710f Deed
_ ---- Mea
i
I �C-)
O
C�
/
'
FT1
'
I (�
c)C-)
D
(.0m /
F-
I
-
(D
�+ D
_
I
E
m m
I
>
0
I
I
m
m n
�D
I
I
/
/
I
'
/
'
I
I
/
/ o
'
I
I'
�8.
/ ' I
So.
/
0/05/
- 162.88
/11/20/31
o !
NORTH
.11 4/3p/19
—I I
I
I
I
I_ I
I
I �
AST NE OF SW 1/4 OF NW1/4
— — — — — — — — — -
/
C
o)
0m
U
/ n
I+ >
m
e o
2
� /
o
am
' /
I
/ I
m
M
I+ D
flo
' / ° �\
100.78
� 1117.91
\
CA
NEST LINE OF NW1ey; ECT� 20, T32, R21 AND
WEST UNE OF LOT COUNt-4UDITORS PLAT N(
C
Z
m
0 1
0 a � CO �oCa- CD _ o m w co
CD
CD C) -I� � (CAD CD- �C Cp
a 0 — — CD C7
C v [n O
P —� C-] CD U7 Q [n --c
CD
CD
o � CD 0 can Q G7
CD
< c=3 �- N CD CD C ._�
CD CD C r v
Q v C-D fl?
_ 03
CD
i
K)
CDo
� r
CL
CD
w
00
e 0
0�,
�c
ep �
c' S
e der
E
3
zc�
e\NQ1 �
001040
G—Cubed Inc.
Engineering
Surveying 285 Westview Drive
west Saint Paul, MN 55118
Planning ph. 651.288.9474 fax 651.455.4948
P%3f4EDESIGNED
ARCH I T E C T S
DJT
DRAWN
CHECKED
REVISED
BY
DATE
LATEST REVISION: 12-16-2019
CITY OF HUGO
WAS HINGTO N COUNTY, MINNES 0 TA
�0�0 CONSTRUCTION
ONEKA
COMMONS
APARTMENT SITE
PLAN
RENDERINGS
MRW
1-8-20
Prepared For:
Oneka Commons LLC
19356 Meadowridge Trail N.
POPE ARCHITECTS
1295 Bandana Blvd N, Suite 200
St. Paul, MN 55108-2735
Marine On St. Croix, MN 55047
SHEET 1 OF I SHEETS
FILE NO.:20-006 Huao Concept
i
Concepta n_ - ~-- -- -
n
E A
t --_ -
/ _
t \�'• ���. ' !,l fir' � - _ �_�,� __ ___ _--- --�- �-- �
u _
—
24 -
6.
,
Al
-low 5
13
13
Ul
I
r
V
e
a
f I.
• � pro. t' ? _ � "� • �
s
F '
ingw '
Floodplain
Witinatinn
Denotes
3 car I s • /' r,..
_
l �
' i f
'/ I - •\
IF
QI
Ponding
CONCEPT DATA - West = CONCEPT DATA - East 4A�
\Mitigation_
\. Gross Site Area: -14.8 ac Gross Site Area: -28.6 ac
(Asoutlined) (Asoutlined) _ �-r_ \ � -
Existing Floodplain: -4.5 ac - Existing Floodplain: -8.8 ac r ��
(Existing area prior to mitigation; 907.9elevation from FCVVD) (Existing area prior to mitigation; 907.9elevation from FUM) ` x
Net Developable: 10.3 ac Net Developable: 19.8 ac
Ponding/ Flood Mitig/ OS: -7.0 ac Ponding/ Flood Mitig/ OS: -12.4 ac �� }� 1 ----- Proposed 55'Villa Lots: 30 lots Proposed 55'/65`Villa Lots: 44 units
55'widex130 deep typical lot V,Ql, 55/65` widex135 deep typical lot-
'''��.- Proposed Urban Rowhomes: 58 units
22' widex 36' deep typical unit
Gross Density: 2.0 un/ac Gross Density: 3.6 un/ac
30 un/ 14.8 ac. ,��� \\\ ® ', 102 units/ 28.6 ac. 1
Net Density: 3.8 un/ace N D n n �'
301ots/ 7.8 (net area developed) et a Slty. 6.3 U /aC -• C � -�
102 units/ 16.2 (net area developed) <> E3
ME
r
--Westwood U-B-HOMON J :T
Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Dr. ' a Va I I e r o e r
Fax (952)937-5822 Minnetonka, 155343
Toll Free (888) 937-5150 westwoodps.com
Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 11-04-2019 0022447 Hugo, MN
I
=ut
r
'' ,
I
4pt4
IVY
l
-
��
01 100` 200` 300` N
2020 Goals
Planning Commission
Approved by the Planning Commission at its Thursday, January 23, 2020, meeting
• Schedule regular Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
meetings
• Evaluate and revise the shoreland, subdivision, and PUD
sections of the City Code
• Schedule Planning Commission meeting procedures and
land use training
• Overview of existing conditions and future improvements to
Highway 61
• Recap of design guildelines
• Implementation of Comprehensive Plan
• Update ordinances to be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan