Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEDA PACKET 01.21.20AGENDA CITY OF HUGO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2020 5:30 PM 5:30 pm 1. Call to Order 5:31 pm 2. Roll Call (Denaway, Gallivan, Houle, Klein, Petty, Puleo, Weidt) 5:32 pm 3. Approval of Minutes • EDA Meeting of December 17, 2019 5:33 pm 4. Review and Discuss Oneka Commons Sketch Plan 6:15 pm 5. Review and Approve 2020 EDA Goals 6:20 pm 6. Update on Downtown Redevelopment 6:30 pm 7. Adjournment BACKGROUND MEMO FOR THE EDA MEETING OF TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2020 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff recommends approval of the minutes from the December 17, 2019 EDA meeting as presented. 4. REVIEW AND DISCUSS ONEKA COMMONS SKETCH PLAN Peter Stalland (Oneka Commons, LLQ has proposed sketch plan to develop 8 parcels totaling approximately 92 acres. The properties are generally located south of Frenchman Road/CSAH 8 and west of TH 61 and are currently owned by Marvin LaValle. The applicant is requesting review and comments on a sketch plan for the properties that are for residential and commercial uses on the property. 5. REVIEW AND APPROVE 2020 EDA GOALS At its last meeting, the EDA discussed their goals for 2020. The EDA will review the 2020 goals as presented. 6. UPDATE ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT Staff will provide an update on downtown redevelopment at the meeting. MINUTES FOR THE EDA MEETING OF DECEMBER 47, 2049 Commissioner Klein called the meeting to order at 5:25 pm. PRESENT: Denaway, Gallivan, Klein, and Petty. ABSENT: Houle, Puleo, and Weidt. STAFF: Bryan Bear, City Administrator Rachel Juba, Community Development Director Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE EDA MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 2019 Petty made a motion, Gallivan seconded, to approve minutes for the EDA meeting of October 15, 2019. All Ayes. Motion carried. REVIEW 2019 GOALS AND SET 2020 GOALS Staff provided a brief review of EDA accomplishments throughout the past year. The annual report will be presented in full at the beginning of January 2020. Staff started by reviewing the commercial and industrial permits that were approved in 2019 and continued to review projects that are still in the works from 2019, but will remain active in 2020. Juba went through the goals that were set in 2019 and discussed what was done in the past year to achieve the 2019 goals. Generally the goals are a continuing process and staff asked the EDA to discuss what they would like to see in 2020. The EDA had an open discussion on what type of development they would like to see in the City. Among the discussion, it was mentioned that the EDA should reach out to old and new businesses in Hugo and understand their business intentions and offer any resources that may be available. The EDA would like to continue working with the Hugo Business Association and encourage expanding economic development throughout the City. The EDA also discussed the retail and commercial corridor along County Road 8 and the possibility of adding mixed uses along the corridor. The EDA encouraged staff to continue to work on the 165th Street Development Study. The EDA asked staff to come back with an updated set of goals for 2020 to be reviewed and approved at the next meeting. UPDATE ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT Staff provided an update on downtown redevelopment. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Denaway made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gallivan, to adjourn at 6:34 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 Economic Development Authority (EDA) FROM: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Peter Stalland - Oneka Commons Sketch Plan DATE: January 16, 2020, for the EDA 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 could be located in areas with residential land use. o The EDA 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 Economic Development Authority (EDA) -Continue strategic plan to market the City owned property in downtown • Reach out to commercial real estate brokers to promote redevelpoment of the Egg Lake Property -Assist and encourage redevelopment of other properties in downtown • Continue low development costs -Continue business visits and the BR&E Program • Review resource lists for business • Encourage the extension of high speed internet through -out the City • Promote Washington County CDA grant programs -Continue memberships of economic devleopment associations -Encourage moving forward with installing City entrance monument signs • Encourage businesses to identify themselves as being located in Hugo -Attend Technology Corridor U35E) meetings • Review, update, and implement the work plan • Complete the 165th Street Study and evaluate options -Continue partnering with local businesses -Continue to partner with Washington County on its Economic Development Strategic Plan •Invite Economic Development experts to EDA meetings for education and training on certain topics -Meet with property owners with property for sale to see if there is any way the City can help Approved by the EDA at its Tuesday, January 21, 2020, meeting rCITY O� EST 1906 2019 EDAANNUAL REPORT A Year in Review... his Annual Report is designed to showcase the economic development activity during 2019 and to showcase the commercial and industrial businesses that have seen success throughout the year. The goal of the Hugo Economic Development Authority (EDA) is to create a thriving community with diverse jobs and tax base by emphasizing business retention, business expansion, and business attraction in the community. Hugo's business community continues to expand due to strong residential growth and an attractive business environment. This year the City issued 96 new single-family residential permits, 4 multifamily permits, and 5 commercial and industrial construction permits. The overall valuation of the commercial and industrial construction completed in the City in 2019 was $896,000 and totaled 11,550 square feet. In this Annual Report, the EDA highlights development project updates, EDA business activities, and the marketing of City owned property in downtown Hugo. The City of Hugo and the EDA welcomes all of the new and growing businesses to Hugo and are excited about the new jobs and services they provide to the community. 2019 EDA Goals In December of each year, the EDA has a goal setting session to set priorities for the year ahead. These become the outline for what the EDA works on and completes throughout the year. Below are the goals which include action items that the EDA worked on during 2019. EDA Commissioners: Tom Weidt, President Phil Klein, Vice President Tom Denaway Mike Gallivan Joe Houle Cindy Petty Frank Puleo " - - At a Glance: Lametti & Sons 900 SF $65,000 2019 J. Morten's 1,353 SF $65,000 Commercial Luxury Nails 1,292 SF $28,000 and Industrial O'Reilly Auto Parts 7,069 SF $728,000 Construction Victory Nutrition Hugo 936 SF $10,000 Permits TOTAL 11,550 SF O'Reilly Auto Parts O'Reilly Auto Parts site plan was approved in 2015 and was designed to be consistent with the City's downtown design guidelines. Construction of the building began in the summer of 2019 and opened in the fall. The 7,069 square foot store is located on the northeast corner of 147th Street and Highway 61 at 14777 Forest Boulevard North. he City of Hugo has an ongoing plan to market the City owned property along Egg Lake for $1.00. In order to be eligible, the development must meet a list of highly desirable development criteria. The EDA decided to market the property in a specific way to attract the type of development they would like to see on the property. In 2019, Tony and Michele Harmening presented a concept for the property that includes a full service restaurant, with future phasing to include an event center, situated so that the customers and public will benefit from views over the lake. Secondary retail and service uses are also proposed as future phases. The EDA recommended approval of a purchase agreement to the City Council and the agreement has been approved. The EDA and staff continue to work with the Harmening's and their development team on the plans for the site. MINIM 40..1i..II.Mif MN Technology Corridor Throughout 2019, the City of Hugo has been working with Washington and Anoka County Economic Development staff, including communities along I-35E, to discuss the development of a technology corridor in the northeast metro. The goal of the partnership is to attract large data centers or data users to the area. The northeast metro has a variety of desirable resources and attracting large data users could boost the area's overall economy and keep workforce talent in the area. The Minnesota Technology Corridor website launched in July 2019, and is a landing page used to list premier sites in Hugo, and neighboring communities, that would be ideal for a data center. Chris Eng with the Washington County CDA and Bruce Sayler with Connexus Energy have been leading the group in discussions on the corridor and ways to improve marketability of the website. The Minnesota Technology Corridor is a ongoing effort and staff continues to update the EDA on the progress of the project. -.4 165th Street Development Plan The Economic Development Work Plan states that the City would like to explore and understand the feasibility of developing 165th Street as outlined in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This includes road improvement and installation of sewer and water. In 2019, the City began working with WSB and Associates and Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors to perform a preliminary feasibility analysis and implementation plan for planned development of the property. The initial analysis finds that significant public improvements will be necessary to develop the site however, the City will continue to work on the development plan and feasibility analysis to determine what future action steps and development strategies can be taken toward achieving the desired development outcomes.