Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC PACKET 090921Agenda Hugo Planning Commission Thursday, September 9, 2021 Hugo City Hall 7:00 PM ropor, i CI I Y O� !r EST.1906 A. ROLL CALL: Arcand, Derr, Fry, Kleissler, Lessard, Luchsinger, Mulvihill, Petty B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cam_\ � ] .Z��%1 ��1 � ►�i I I � l�j i�� 1. July 8, 2021 D. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Short Term Rental Facilities — Prohibited Ordinance 2. Revisions to Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance E. NEW BUSINESS F. OLD BUSINESS G. ADJOURNMENT If you need accommodations for the Planning Commission meeting please contact Rachel Juba at (651) 762-6304 or rjuba@ci.hugo.mn.us, thank you. Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Thursday, July 8, 2021 Chair Kleissler called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. PRESENT: Derr, Fry, Kleissler, Luchsinger, Petty. ABSENT: Arcand, Lessard, Mulvihill. STAFF: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of May 13, 2021 Commissioner Fry made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Derr to approve minutes for the meeting of May 13, 2021 with corrections as mentioned. Ayes: Derr, Fry, Kleissler, Luchsinger, Petty. Nay: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: Drengson May Enterprises, LLC — Request for Property Line Adjustment, Variance, Minor Subdivision, and Preliminary Plat for a residential development to be known as "Acres of Bald Eagle" consisting of 9 single family homes on approximately 13 acres (3 existing lots) of property located north of 1215t Street North and West of Falcon Avenue North. Staff provided a background on the property line adjustment, variance, minor subdivision, and preliminary plat requests submitted by Drengson May Enterprises, LLC. The applicant previously went through the sketch plan application process and an April 8t" neighborhood meeting. Staff explained that the neighborhood meeting was to discuss the utility public improvement project. The preliminary plat includes nine single-family, residential lots of one -acre or more. The applicant is requesting a variance from the lot width minimum as two of the lots do not meet the lot width minimum for the R-1 zoning district requirement. The proposed plan for lot 8 and 9 shows 38 and 30 feet respectively, where 150 feet is required. Staff reviewed the criteria necessary to approve a variance request and found that there are practical difficulties in meeting the ordinance requirements. Staff also provided a background on the proposed streets, access, landscaping, and grading. The applicant is required to pave 1215t Street North and bring City sewer and water to the site. Because the developer is required to install utilities with the development, the neighboring properties have the opportunity to connect their properties to City sewer and water. The City completed the feasibility study that is required for the public improvement project. There was general consensus from the July 8, 2021 PC Minutes Page 2 neighboring property owners that they would like to participate in the public improvement project, which is contingent upon the development receiving final approval and City Council approval. Staff found that the applications meet all requirements necessary for approval and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requests. Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and take all public comment. Laura Drengson came forward on behalf of the development team and addressed the Planning Commission. Dan May was also present on behalf of Dengson May Enterprises, LLC. Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:31pm. Barbara Proulx, 5043 124th Street Court North —The resident stated that there are 14 contingencies within the resolutions proposed for approval and she feels that the proposal is not ready for approval. Richard Degnan, 12160 Falcon Avenue North —The resident does not object to the development but feels like the development is not ready for approval. The resident had provided drawings to staff and the developer prior to the public hearing, which had also been provided to the Planning Commission. The resident does not agree with the drainage plan and would like to see the stormwater ponds relocated on the site. Mike Proulx, 5043 124th Street Court North —The resident stated that they had concerns on the level of privacy surrounding the development and the drainage plan. The resident stated that he doubts the City will maintain the stormwater ponds and that maintenance is costly. They also showed a copy of the 1994 drainage report that was created with Lake Air Estates. Tom Sorenson, 5049 124th Street Court North —The resident stated that he is in favor of the large lot zoning requirements. They stated that the existing property is in a natural state and the tree removal plan is devastating to the surrounding area. He has concerns with the perimeter moat being at the same elevation as the infiltration basin and wetlands. They stated that the grading cannot disturb the existing trees on adjacent property. The resident does not think that the plans are ready for approval Teresa Sorenson, 5049 124th Street Court North —The resident is concerned about the trees on her property and stated that they have to stay as part of her buffer to the proposed development. She feels like the plans are incomplete and would like to see concrete plans. Jolene Servatius, 12270 Europa Ave N — The resident stated that there has been drainage problems on their property since they moved in 30 years ago. The drainage system has been inadequate since it was designed. The resident also stated that she has read studies that state that ground water rises when trees are cleared. They would like assurance that the drainage plan with the proposed development will not impact the drainage of the Lake Air Estates in any way. Judy Schoeller, 4995 121St Street North —The resident stated that they are not upset about the development but that the drainage needs to be addressed. July 8, 2021 PC Minutes Page 3 Pat Higgins, 12145 Everton Avenue —The resident would like clarification on if there is going to be drainage from the proposed lots to adjacent lots. Tom Sames, 12116 Falcon Avenue North —The resident stated that there are drainage issues within the surrounding area. They stated that with the construction of the cul-de-sac, 1.2 million gallons of water will be dumped into the stormwater basin each year, which will cause additional drainage issues. They are also worried about the developer disturbing existing trees. Gordon Schoeller, the owner of vacant property on 120t" Street North and Falcon Avenue North —The resident stated that they have concerns about the drainage in the surrounding area. They stated that the City has done a poor job at addressing drainage for decades and would like to see it be addressed. Ben Halverson, on behalf of Hugo Tree — Halverson stated that they are working with the developer and that the intent is to preserve the natural landscape with an emphasis on saving old growth where they can. Denise Sames, 12116 Falcon Avenue North —The resident stated that they have had water in their basement twice in the last 40 years and that there is a high water table. They also stated that there are a lot of trees being taken down for no good reason and that the applicant has to work to figure out the grading plan. They also stated that the developer should not create a wetland on the east side of the site. Sames also stated concerns about the wildlife. Judy Schoeller, 4995 12151 Street North —The resident came forward again to state her concerns about property values within the surrounding area. Richard Degnan, 12160 Falcon Avenue North —The resident came forward again to state that the grading plan shows four feet of fill, which will kill the root system of all the trees in the area. Laura Drengson addressed the Planning Commission and reiterated that the development team is trying to preserve the natural character of the area. Dan May also addressed the Planning Commission and stated that the concerns about drainage and trees are understood. He stated that they have been working hard to make this a good project. Staff addressed the concerns. The proposed development does have a drainage plan with stormwater reports, just like any other development that has received approval. The stormwater pond and drainage plan is designed by the developer's engineer and further analyzed with the City's engineer to ensure that the proper facilities are being constructed and meet all of the Rice Creek Watershed District rules. The City is responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater ponds. Drainage and utility easements will be placed over the ponds to ensure access. Individual property owners are responsible for minor maintenance such as clearing up trash in the ponds. In regard to the comments about the grading plan, the City ordinance allows property owners to grade up to their property line. The applicant has stated that they would like to maintain a buffer zone as a courtesy to adjacent property owners. Staff also stated that the developer is not allowed to drain any July 8, 2021 PC Minutes Page 4 more water offsite than what is currently is happening and their drainage plan reflects those calculation. The developer is accommodating drainage for the paving of 1215t Street North as well as the impervious surface created on site. Staff stated that the conditions listed in the resolutions are minor changes and do not significantly change the proposed plans. Staff also stated that a significant amount of trees will be removed from the property. Chair Kleissler asked about the timeline of the application and the discretion that the Planning Commission has in approving applications. Staff responded that the review deadline ends on July 22, 2021 and stated that if the applications meet the ordinances in the City Code, the applications must be approved. Commissioner Luchsinger asked staff if the applicant's plans meet the level of completeness that is required for submittal. Staff stated that the plans are complete. Commissioner Petty asked about erosion control plan of the stormwater pond. Adam Ginkel, the developer's engineer, stated that the pond will not be clay lined and it includes specific plantings that are intended for erosion control. There will not be sediments washing into the basins. Richard Degnan, 12160 Falcon Avenue North —The resident addressed the Planning Commission again and stated that all of the discharge pipes in the stormwater basins within Hugo are eroded. Teresa Sorenson, 5049 124t" Street Court North —Asked for clarification on one of the conditions listed in the report. The condition stated that a buffer zone be created with the development. Staff stated it is listed as a condition of approval that staff will continue to work with the applicant on creating a buffer zone between the development and adjacent properties. The zone will not significantly change the proposed plans. Adam Ginkel stated that they are trying to save as many trees as possible along the northern property line of the site. Staff also stated that individual property owners have the right to remove trees on their property. Denise Sames, 12116 Falcon Avenue North — Asked for clarity on the grading along the property lines and how that affects the stormwater ponds. Staff stated that the stormwater management facilities will generally stay in the same location. Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 8:42pm. Commissioner Petty guided the discussion in reviewing the concerns stated by the residents and staff's response. Commissioner Luchsinger stated private property owners are allowed to do what they want with the trees on their property, so the developer stating that they are trying to preserve as many trees as they can, it is an added bonus to the development. Luchsinger also stated that the Planning Commission has to rely on the expertise of the engineers who reviewed the plans. Commissioner Derr asked if there is going to be stormwater reuse for the development and staff responded that the proposed stormwater ponds are not adequate for stormwater reuse. July 8, 2021 PC Minutes Page 5 In general, the Planning Commissioners agreed that the developers made efforts to keep the integrity of the area and that all developments in Hugo have to submit a drainage and stormwater management plan, which they rely on the expertise of the engineers for. Commissioner Luchsinger made a motion to approve the Property Line Adjustment, Variance, Minor Subdivision, and Preliminary Plat request for a residential development to be known as "Acres of Bald Eagle," subject to the conditions listed in the resolutions. Seconded by Commissioner Fry. Ayes: Derr, Fry, Kleissler, Luchsinger, Petty Nay: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: Centra North, LLC — Interim use permit to allow one, temporary off -site directional sign for the development Meadows at Hugo. Staff provided a background on the request submitted by Centra North, LLC. The applicant is requesting approval of an interim use permit to allow one, temporary off -site directional sign for the Meadows at Hugo residential development. The sign is proposed to be located at 5850 1591h Street North. The property is owned by Connie and Jeffrey Jungmann and is generally located on the northwest corner of 1591h Street North and Highway 61. Staff found that the application meets all requirements necessary to approve an interim use permit and recommended approval of the request. Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 9:02pm. Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 9:02pm. Commissioner Petty made a motion to approve the interim use permit to allow one, temporary off -site directional sign for the development Meadows at Hugo, seconded by Commissioner Derr. Ayes: Derr, Fry, Kleissler, Luchsinger, Petty Nay: None. Motion carried. Adjournment Commissioner Derr made a motion, Commissioner Fry seconded, to adjourn at 9:05pm. Ayes: All. Nay: None. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant CITY OF EST. 1906 To: Hugo Planning Commission D.1 Memorandum From: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director Date: September 3, 2021, for the Planning Commission Meeting of September 9, 2021 Re: Public Hearing — Short Term Rentals — Prohibited Ordinance 1. BACKGROUND: Staff received complaints on a short term rental facility that is advertised on the website Vacation Rentals by Owner (VRBO). The Washington County Sheriff's Department has also received numerous complaints on the property. The complaints relate to noise, parties, and the transient nature of the short term rentals. After reviewing the City Code, it is in staff's opinion that short term rentals are not allowed in the City. The City Code does not define or address short term rentals. The owner of the short term rental has made a request to the City Council to evaluate allowing short term rental facilities in the City. At its April 5, 2021, meeting the City Council directed staff to forward the request to the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) so they can review and provide a recommendation to the City Council on what to do with short term rental facilities in the City. The ORC meet on April 28, 2021, to discuss what to do with short term rentals. The ORC agreed that the City should address short terms rentals whether to prohibit or to allow by ordinance. They discussed a few instances where they thought short term rentals could be allowed. They discussed regulations for the urban area versus the rural area. Although they did not get into depth on that the regulations would be, they discussed having different regulations to allow short term rentals in the urban and rural areas. The ORC made a recommendation to create an ordinance for short term rentals. At its June 7, 2021, meeting the City Council discussed the recommendation from the ORC. They stated that has been several complaints and disturbances because of short term rentals and directed staff to draft an ordinance for the City Council to review prohibiting short term rentals in the City. At its August 16, 2021, meeting the City Council reviewed the draft ordinance prohibiting short term rentals and authorized staff to hold a public hearing on the ordinance at the Planning Commission meeting. 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and take all comments. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance prohibiting short term rentals in the City. Attachments: 1. Short Term Rentals — Prohibited Ordinance ORDINANCE 2021- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 90, ARTICLE I IN GENERAL, SECTION 90-1 DEFINITIONS AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 90, ARTICLE VI REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, DIVISION I GENERALLY, TO ADD SECTION 90-264 SHORT TERM RENTALS — PROHIBITED THE CITY OF HUGO ORDAINS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Hugo does hereby amend Chapter 90, Article I, to to add the definition to Section 90-1 DEFINITIONS and to amend Chapter 90, Article VI, Division I, to add Section 90-264 to state the following: Section 90-1 DEFINITIONS Short -Term Rental means any temporary occupancy of a dwelling unit, a portion of a dwelling unit, or any other portion of a property or structure, which is offered for rent to a transient as a dwelling for fewer than 30 consecutive calendar days. This term does not mean Bed and Breakfast as otherwise defined in this section. Transient means any person who, at their own expense or at the expense of another, exercises occupancy or possession, or is entitled to occupancy or possession, by reason of any rental agreement, whether in writing or otherwise, concession, permit, right -of -access, option to purchase, license, time-sharing arrangement, or any other type of agreement. 90-264 SHORT TERM RENTALS — PROHIBITED (a) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to offer for rent, or enter into a rental agreement, a dwelling unit, or any other portion of their property, as a Short -Term Rental in any zoning district within the City. State -licensed hotels, motels, and lodging establishments located in areas where expressly permitted by the City's land use regulations are allowed, subject to all applicable law and rules. Section 2. Severability. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any part of this Ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provision of this Ordinance not specifically included with that judgment. Section 3. Effective Date. This amendment shall take effect upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the City Council this 20th day of September, 2021. Ordinance 2021- Short Term Rentals Prohibited Page 2 of 2 Tom Weidt, Mayor ATTEST: Michele Lindau, City Clerk Or /r CITY OF WG0 1 MIT- !=01-r- EST. 1906 To: Hugo Planning Commission D.2 Memorandum From: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director Date: September 3, 2021, for the Planning Commission Meeting of September 9, 2021 Re: Public Hearing —Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Revisions 1. BACKGROUND: At its August 16, 2021, the City Council authorized staff to revise several ordinances because of inconsistencies and clarifications, one of them was the Adequate Public Facilities ordinance. The Adequate Public Facilities ordinance outlines the public improvement requirements for developments such as, road construction, sewer and water, and stormwater management. Staff identified that the ordinance needs minor revisions to clarify what developments and applications it applies to. 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and take all comments. Staff recommends approval of the revisions to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Attachments: 1. Red -lined Revisions 2. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Sec. 90-329. Adequate public facilities. Any pFeli in@F • a final plAsubdivision or property line adjustment deemed to lack adequate public facilities pursuant to criteria, which include those listed in this section, may be denied by the city council together wim aii related permits and approvals. (1) Conditions establishing premature subdivisions and property line adjustments. A subdivision or property line adjustment may be deemed premature if it lacks adequate public facilities as defined below. The following conditions shall not be an exclusive list of conditions: (Supp. No. 28) Lack of adequate drainage. A condition of inadequate drainage shall be deemed to exist if: Surface or subsurface water retention and runoff are such that it constitutes a danger to the structural security or risk of flooding of the proposed structures. The proposed site grading and development -4may cause harmful and irreparable damage from erosion and siltation on downhill or downstream land. Factors to be considered in making these determinations may include: average rainfall for the area; the relation of the land to floodplains; the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support surface water runoff and waste disposal systems; the slope of the land and its effect on effluents; and the presence of streams as related to effluent disposal. Lack of adequate water supply. A proposed subdivision or property line adjustment shall be deemed to lack an adequate water supply if the proposed subdivision does not have adequate sources of water to serve the proposed subdivision if developed to its maximum permissible density without causing an unreasonable depreciation of existing water supplies for surrounding areas or does not offer acceptable integration of existing public water facilities. Lack of adequate roads or highways to serve the subdivision or property line adjustment. A proposed subdivision shall be deemed to lack adequate roads or highways to serve the subdivision when: Roads which are needed to serve the proposed subdivision or property line adjustments are of such a width, grade, stability, vertical and horizontal alignment, configuration, site distance and surface condition that an increase in traffic volume generated by the proposed subdivision would create a hazard to public safety and general welfare, or seriously aggravate an already hazardous condition, or when said roads are inadequate for the intended use and the proposal does not include developer -supplied improvements adequate to defray the costs of upgrading those roads. The traffic volume generated by the proposed subdivision or property line adjustments would create unreasonable road or highway congestion or unsafe conditions on roads or highways existing at the time of the application or proposed for completion within the next two years. Lack of adequate waste disposal systems. A proposed subdivision or property line adjustment shall be deemed to lack adequate waste disposal systems if in subdivisions for which sewer lines are proposed, there is inadequate sewer capacity in the present system to support the subdivision if developed to its maximum permissible density after reasonable sewer capacity is reserved for schools, planned public facilities, and commercial and industrial development projected for the next five years; or if in subdivisions where sewer lines are neither available nor proposed, there is inadequate on -site sewer capacity potential to support the subdivision if Created: 2021-07-21 11:43:5S [EST] Page 1 of 2 developed to the maximum permissible density indicated in any governing planning document or ordinance or amendments thereto. e. Inconsistency with comprehensive plan. Subdivisions and property line adjustments that do not follow planned public improvement corridors or that do not constitute an infilling of development shall be deemed inconsistent with the city's growth strategies as outlined in the comprehensive plan. City service capacity. A proposed subdivision or property line adjustment shall be determined to lack necessary city service capacity when services such as recreational facilities, police and fire protection, and other city services, which must be provided at public expense, cannot reasonably be provided for within the next two years. g. Inconsistency with capital improvement plans. A proposed subdivision or property line adjustment shall be deemed inconsistent with capital improvement plans when improvements and/or services necessary to accommodate the proposed subdivision have not been programmed in applicable capital improvement plans. The city council may waive this criterion when it can be demonstrated that a revision to capital improvement programs can be accommodated. (2) Burden of establishing adequacy. The burden shall be upon the applicant to show that the proposed subdivision er--development, or and property line adjustment -has adequate public facilities and is not premature. (Prior Code, § 1215-085.1) (Supp. No. 28) Created: 2021-07-21 11:43:5S [EST] Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE 2021- AN ORDINANCE REPLACING CHAPTER 90, ARTICLE VII, LAND DIVISION AND PLATTING, SECTION 90-329 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES THE CITY OF HUGO ORDAINS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Hugo does hereby replace Chapter 90, Article VII Land Division and Platting, to replace Section 90-329 Adequate Public Facilities to state the following: Sec. 90-329. Adequate public facilities. Any subdivision or property line adjustment deemed to lack adequate public facilities pursuant to criteria, which include those listed in this section, may be denied by the city council together with all related permits and approvals. (1) Conditions establishing premature subdivisions and property line adjustments. A subdivision or property line adjustment may be deemed premature if it lacks adequate public facilities as defined below. The following conditions shall not be an exclusive list of conditions: a. Lack of adequate drainage. A condition of inadequate drainage shall be deemed to exist if - Surface or subsurface water retention and runoff are such that it constitutes a danger to the structural security or risk of flooding of the proposed structures. 2. The proposed site grading and development may cause harmful and irreparable damage from erosion and siltation on downhill or downstream land. 3. Factors to be considered in making these determinations may include: average rainfall for the area; the relation of the land to floodplains; the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support surface water runoff and waste disposal systems; the slope of the land and its effect on effluents; and the presence of streams as related to effluent disposal. b. Lack of adequate water supply. A proposed subdivision or property line adjustment shall be deemed to lack an adequate water supply if the proposed subdivision does not have adequate sources of water to serve the proposed subdivision if developed to its maximum permissible density without causing an unreasonable depreciation of existing water supplies for surrounding areas or does not offer acceptable integration of existing public water facilities. c. Lack of adequate roads or highways to serve the subdivision or property line adjustment. A proposed subdivision shall be deemed to lack adequate roads or highways to serve the subdivision when: 1. Roads which are needed to serve the proposed subdivision or property line adjustments are of such a width, grade, stability, vertical and horizontal Ordinance 2021- Adequate Public Facilities Page 2 of 3 alignment, configuration, site distance and surface condition that an increase in traffic volume generated by the proposed subdivision would create a hazard to public safety and general welfare, or seriously aggravate an already hazardous condition, or when said roads are inadequate for the intended use and the proposal does not include developer -supplied improvements adequate to defray the costs of upgrading those roads. 2. The traffic volume generated by the proposed subdivision or property line adjustments would create unreasonable road or highway congestion or unsafe conditions on roads or highways existing at the time of the application or proposed for completion within the next two years. d. Lack of adequate waste disposal systems. A proposed subdivision or property line adjustment shall be deemed to lack adequate waste disposal systems if in subdivisions for which sewer lines are proposed, there is inadequate sewer capacity in the present system to support the subdivision if developed to its maximum permissible density after reasonable sewer capacity is reserved for schools, planned public facilities, and commercial and industrial development projected for the next five years; or if in subdivisions where sewer lines are neither available nor proposed, there is inadequate on -site sewer capacity potential to support the subdivision if developed to the maximum permissible density indicated in any governing planning document or ordinance or amendments thereto. e. Inconsistency with comprehensive plan. Subdivisions and property line adjustments that do not follow planned public improvement corridors or that do not constitute an infilling of development shall be deemed inconsistent with the city's growth strategies as outlined in the comprehensive plan. f. City service capacity. A proposed subdivision or property line adjustment shall be determined to lack necessary city service capacity when services such as recreational facilities, police and fire protection, and other city services, which must be provided at public expense, cannot reasonably be provided for within the next two years. g. Inconsistency with capital improvement plans. A proposed subdivision or property line adjustment shall be deemed inconsistent with capital improvement plans when improvements and/or services necessary to accommodate the proposed subdivision have not been programmed in applicable capital improvement plans. The city council may waive this criterion when it can be demonstrated that a revision to capital improvement programs can be accommodated. (2) Burden of establishing adequacy. The burden shall be upon the applicant to show that the proposed subdivision, development, or and property line adjustment has adequate public facilities and is not premature. 2 Ordinance 2021- Adequate Public Facilities Page 3 of 3 Section 2. Severability. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any part of this Ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provision of this Ordinance not specifically included with that judgment. Section 3. Effective Date. This amendment shall take effect upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the City Council this 20th day of September, 2021. Tom Weidt, Mayor ATTEST: Michele Lindau, City Clerk