Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016.01.14 PC PacketAGENDA HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 2016 HUGO CITY HALL 7:00 p.m. A. ROLL CALL (Arcand, Kleissler, Knauss, Lessard, McRoberts, Patzner, Rosenduist) B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. December 17, 2015 D. PUBLIC HEARING E. NEW BUSINESS 1. LaValle Fields Apartments - Concept Plan F. OLD BUSINESS 1. Appointment to Board of Zoning 2. Appointment to Ordinance Review Committee G. ADJOURNMENT * Reminder: The planning Commission will be having the goal -setting workshop/potluck on Thursday, January 28" at 6:40 p.m.! If you need accommodations for the Planning Commission meeting please contact Rachel Juba at (651) 762-6304 or riuba a,ci.hu2o.mn.us, thank you. Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of December 17, 2015 Chair, Kleissler called the meeting to order at 6:58 p.m. PRESENT: Arcand, Kleissler, Knauss, Lessard, Patzner, Rosenquist ABSENT: McRoberts. STAFF: Rachel Juba, Planner Rachel Leitz, Community Development Assistant Oath of Office Juba introduced the newly elected Planning Commission member, Lynn Patzner. Commissioner Patzner stated that she has lived in the City of Hugo for a couple of years and had worked with the Planning Commission and City Council for a project she was part of with Xcel. Commissioner Patzner said in her free time she serves on a couple of other groups including the MN Construction Association, the local HOA for her neighborhood, and volunteer coaches at the YMCA. Juba had Commissioner Patzner read the oath of office and sign. Approval of Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of October 8, 2015 Commissioner Arcand made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rosenquist, to approve minutes for the meeting of October 8, 2015. All Ayes. Motion carried. Solar Energy Systems Ordinance Leitz began describing the newly created solar energy systems ordinance. She stated that after many requests for information from residents and solar companies, the City Council approved the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) to begin creating a solar energy ordinance to regulate future solar projects within the City. Leitz went through the solar energy system ordinance and concluded that the ORC agreed that a solar ordinance was necessary within the City of Hugo and recommended approval to the Planning Commission. She also stated that staff recommends opening of the public hearing for public comments and recommends approval of the solar energy system ordinance. Commissioner Arcand stated that the ordinance refers to "the owner" when talking about removing an abandoned project and wondered if that meant the owner of the system or owner of the property. Lcitz stated that it depends. She stated that if the owner of the property is also the one who holds the interim use permit for a solar farm, then they would be required to remove the system. If the property owner has a lease agreement with a company to operate the solar farm, then there would be some sort of stipulation within that agreement that they would be required to remove the system. Commissioner Arcand stated that the section regarding removing the system mentions something about the City holding some sort of deposit for the removal of the system.. He asked if the owner had access to that money to remove the system. Juba stated that this deposit would be a letter of credit or something similar where if after the 90 days the system isn't removed then the City would be able to use that to remove the system, but this money wouldn't be turned over to the property owner to remove the system. Commissioner Arcand stated that he wasn't clear on number 8a. He stated that this line states that approval should not be any longer than 3 years. Juba stated that this must be a typo and the 3 years is supposed to be 25 years, as that is generally the length of a solar farm contract. Commissioner Arcand asked if 3(f) is a date that is to be determined or if that is something under review. Juba stated that the solar farm use could be approved from 1-25 years. She said it was similar to the home occupation permit where it can be approved for up to 5 years. At the time the applicant applies, they can apply for a certain term and the Planning Commission or staff will set a recommended date. Leitz stated that solar farm contracts generally ran for 25 years. She said these projects are expensive and if there is no possibility that someone can have a term up to 25 years, the chances that someone would want to risk installing a solar farm is small. Commissioner Arcand stated that he was surprised to see that the City would allow solar farms within floodplains. Leitz stated that the ORC decided that they would be willing to see a project in this location because they did not want to use prime developable land for solar farms. Juba stated that many people believe that all floodplains are wetlands, which is not true. She stated that it's unlikely that solar farms can be constructed within wetlands, but may be able to be put in floodplains. Commissioner Arcand asked if there is flexibility on screening. He gave an example of driving down Frenchman Road and the elevation dropping down where people can see over a mile of landscape. He stated that there is no way a project could be screened from that view. Leitz stated that the screening requirement was mostly geared towards the screening of a project from neighboring properties. Commissioner Arcand suggested that staff look at that section and see if there needs to be a clarification on who the system is being screened from. Commissioner Arcand asked if this ordinance will be tweaked as time moves on. Leitz stated that staff can look at the changes suggested by the Planning Commission and the public before it moves onto the City Council. She stated that otherwise, the ORC had a project before that consisted of looking at other ordinances and cleaning them up. Leitz described that solar technology is changing and that the ordinance could be altered at that time, depending if the change effects the ordinance. Commissioner Arcand wanted to clarify that approving this ordinance would not mean that it's the end of looking at it and possibly making changes. Commissioner Patzner stated that the ordinance reads that if the property transfers, they could transfer the permit if the solar farm remains intact and operable. She wondered if it would be beneficial to clarify that the next user has to put in that same financial security for the removal by the City after that 90 day period. Juba stated that staff can take a look at that. She stated that within the interim use permit section, it says in case of transfer, the new owner would have to post a financial security before the permit is actually transferred. She stated that staff can look at that section and see if it would be beneficial to add something along the lines of, "the new owner must meet all requirements within the interim use section upon transfer." Commissioner Rosenquist made a comment that staff did have the City Attorney review the ordinance. Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. No one from the audience stepped forward. Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Commissioner Rosenquist made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arcand, to recommend approval of the solar energy systems ordinance, with the stipulation that all comments made from the Planning Commission be reviewed prior to the City Council meeting. All Ayes, Motion carried. Discussion on Met Council System Statement Juba stated that the Metropolitan Council has completed the system statements for every community in the seven -county metropolitan area within the Metropolitan Council's jurisdiction. The system statement is a customized document informing each community how it is affected by the Metropolitan Council's policy plans for regional systems: transportation, aviation, water resources, and regional parks and open space. This document is required by state law and intended to help communities review and, if necessary, amend their local comprehensive plans. This plan will guide growth in the City through the year 2040. Juba explained the City has 60 days to review the system statement and there is an appeal process, if deemed necessary. She talked about the land use categories designated for the City of Hugo and explained the new category, Emerging Suburban Edge, for the western half of the City, which is currently in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and will be expected to develop at three to five units per acre. The eastern half of Hugo is in a Diversified Rural category with a density of at four units per 40 acres. Juba explained the system statement estimates Hugo's population to be at 29,000 by 2040. This estimate is down from past estimate of 40,000 by the year 2030, and the Met Council had already guaranteed service capacity for this. Also a big discussion at the Met Council is the creation of a hosing policy outlining goals for affordable housing. The goal set for Hugo is to provide for 834 total units of affordable housing between 2020 and 2030. These goals are tied into livable community funding and transportation funding. Juba also talked about the transportation map and significant changes in the long term sewer service area map, which now shows the eastern portion of Hugo not in the sewer service area. Juba explained that staff does not see significant revisions being made to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Forecasts are lower than they were 10 years ago, affordable housing will be a challenge, and eastern Hugo will be a significant discussion since it is no longer inside the long-term sewer service area. She stated that staff will prepare a work plan early next year for the Comprehensive Plan update process. Commissioner Rosenquist commented that he's glad that the City had the population estimates from 2030 approved from the last Comprehensive Plan and has the sewer capacity for that growth because in his experience, growth is very difficult to forecast. Commissioner Arcand asked who regulated the movement of the City's MUSA line. Juba stated that the City can plan the movement of the MUSA line. She stated that she's not sure the MUSA line will change for the 2040 plan because it was pretty aggressive in the 2030 plan, but if the City believes it should move, it can plan for it. Commissioner Arcand asked about the affordable housing requirements. He stated that the City doesn't dictate the economy or housing market and asked how the Met Council can associate those scores with the ability to get funding. Juba stated that further conversations need to be held with the Met Council on how to even track affordable units within the City. Leitz stated that the Met Council is looking for the City to plan for these projects, which would be planning higher density areas if these projects are to come to the City of Hugo. Commissioner Arcand asked if the Met Council is talking about new construction affordable units to calculate this score. Leitz stated that a majority of the points for these scores is based on new construction, but there is also points for rehabilitation. Commissioner Arcand asked if there were any points for constructed homes that are being sold at an affordable price. Leitz stated that she had mentioned that townhomes in the Waters Edge development sold for very affordable prices during the recession and it wasn't made clear to her why the City wouldn't receive points for these units. She stated that further conversations need to happen with the Met Council to establish how they review there surveys. Commissioner Rosenquist commented that it is very difficult to come up with new construction affordable units without subsidizing the projects or providing some other incentives. Update on Web Streaming of Planning Commission Meetings Juba stated that starting next year, staff will be recording the Planning Commission meetings and web streaming them live for the public. Schedule 2016 Goal Setting and Potluck Workshop Juba reminded the Planning Commission that goal setting occurs yearly to guide the direction of the Commission in the next year. Staff is wanting the Planning Commission to set a date for this year's informal goal setting workshop and potluck. The Commission agreed that the goal setting workshop will be held on January 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. *This was rescheduled to January 28th at 6:00 p.m. Appointment to Board of Zoning Juba stated that Rick Gwynn was on the Board of Zoning prior to stepping down. The Board of Zoning reviews all variances that are not in combination with another application and any appeals of approvals. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission appoint a member to the Board of Zoning. The Planning Commission asked for staff to provide them with the section of the code related to the Board of Zoning. The Planning Commission asked for staff to put this item on the next Planning Commission agenda. Appointment to Ordinance Review Committee Juba stated that Rick Gwynn was also on the Ordinance Review Committee. The Ordinance Review Committee reviews sections of the code that staff believe needs updating. The Planning Commission asked for staff to put this item on the next Planning Commission agenda. Adjournment Commissioner Knauss made a motion, Commissioner Arcand seconded, to adjourn at 8:06 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Rachel Leitz, Community Development Assistant Agenda Number fi__L CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT` DEPARTMENT Memorandum TO: Hugo Planning Commission FROM: Rachel Juba, Planner SUBJECT: LaValle Fields, LLC. Apartment Concept Plan for property located west of Lions Park. DATE: January 7, 2016 for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 14, 2016 ZONING: Planned Unit Development (PUD) 1. BACKGROUND: The property is generally located to the north of 145`i, Street and west of Finale Avenue near Lions Park. The property owner, Marvin LaValle, has signed a contract with the applicant, Bill Lentsch (LaValle Fields, LLC), to develop the parcel of land. The property is currently vacant and contains flat, buildable land with a portion of wetlands. In 2014, the City approved a PUD General Plan for the 39.56 acre property (16.18 buildable) and at that time the property was rezoned to PUD. The property was previously zoned Central Residential (CR -3) with an allowed density of 4 units per acre. The plan included four buildings, one being the Keystone senior housing facility. The senior housing is allowed up to 130 units, but was approved for 100 units with the ability to expand. The PUD General Plan proposed three apartment buildings for a total of 165 units. The two buildings shown on the west side of the property were proposed to be 3 stories and the building closest to Finale Avenue was proposed to be 2 stories. The total number of units approved for the PUD is 295 units for an overall density of 18 units per acre. The approved PUD General Plan includes two phases. Phase 1 was the senior housing facility and the reconstruction of Finale Avenue from 145th Street to 146th Street, which is complete. Phase 2 included three apartment buildings as well as the realignment and construction of Finale Avenue north of 146th Street to 147th Street. Phase 2 also includes the construction of 147th Street to Oneka Parkway. Although the construction of Finale Avenue and 147th Street are required with Phase 2, the right-of-way was dedicated with Phase 1. The land dedication for a portion of the park dedication requirement was also dedicated with Phase 1. LaValle Fields . Apartment Concept Plan Page 2 The approved PUD General Plan includes two accesses into the site from Finale Avenue across 146th Street and Upper 146th Street on the cast side of the site. Generally good circulation was shown within the site and parking areas, with a connection from the apartments to the senior housing project. The plan also showed a trail connection from CSAH 8 to Lions Park. The applicant was granted flexibility on Iand use, density, and building height. In exchange for the flexibility the applicant committed to preserving a wetland, providing a public trail connection to Lions Park, creating a stormwater reuse project, and reducing impervious surface by using underground parking. The PUD approval and granted flexibly is also based on the PUD General Plan and the conditions listed in the approving resolution. During the approval process, there were discussions from the PIanning Commission and City Council on the project in regards to the land use and density, they generally agreed that the Iand use and density were compatible with the area. There were concerns about the apartments in regards to architecture and building material, building orientation and placement, apartment management, and parking. These concerns were addressed with conditions listed in the resolution for approval of the PUD General Plan. Below are the conditions listed in the resolution related to the apartment buildings: The architecture and design of the apartment buildings shall also be subject to: i. a revised building orientation and footprint to reduce the appearance of the massing of the large buildings. ii. recessions and projections in building walls to break up the Iong flat expansions of the buildings. iii. breaks and variation within the building material to reduce the monotony of the design. iv. a higher percentage of stone and/or brick than other building materials proposed. V. No vinyl siding shall be used, cementitious siding is preferred, unless a comparable siding material is reviewed and approved by staff. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the Planning Commission and City Council to review. The applicant would like to get feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council on the project in regards to general layout, building orientation and placement, and building architecture. Staff recommends the Planning Commission and City Council consider the previously approved plan and approving resolution conditions when reviewing the concept plan. 2. CONCEPT PLAN: General Layout The concept plan includes two market rate apartment buildings on the 17.62 acre property of which approximately 7 acres are buildable. Building A, towards the west, is a 3 story building and has a 53,600 square foot building footprint for a total of 159,850 square feet. Building B, LaValle Fields - Apartment Concept Plan Page 3 closest to Finale Avenue, is a 2 story building and has a 60,500 square foot building foot print for a total of 121,000 square feet. The applicant has stated that the outlot would be subdivided to accommodate the development. The applicant has stated that the first phase of the apartments concept plan would be building A and that the second phase would be building B. The applicant did not provide a lot layout for staff's review. It is unclear to staff where property lines would be proposed and what portions of the concept plan would be completed with each phase. The two buildings shown on the PUD General Plan on the west side of the property, overlooking the wetland, have become one building (building A) on the concept plan. The building is approximately 800 feet long and is linear with a small bend in the middle. The building is shown having 97 units with a combination of underground and surface parking. Building B, closest to Finale Avenue, has a larger foot print than previously proposed in the PUD General Plan. The building is shown having 73 units with a combination of .underground and surface parking. Building B has a more compact design and with some revisions would seem to reduce the mass of the building. The total number of units shown on the concept plan is 170 units, which is more than the 165 units allowed by the PUD General Plan. It is unclear to staff whether the applicant would be asking for a higher number of units during the approval process. A portion of the concept plan shows a building and the gazebo on property that is not controlled by the applicant. Staff is not opposed to this area being added to the project, but it should be resolved with the first phase to ensure proper planning. The concept plan shows building A is planned around the uncontrolled property, but building B and the gazebo are included on the uncontrolled property. During the PUD General Plan approval process the City Council added conditions to the resolution regarding the apartment buildings. The first item required a "revised building orientation and footprint to reduce the appearance of the massing of the large buildings". The concept plan shows two larger buildings, and one in a generally linear design. It is in staff's opinion that the placement of the building to the west and the very long linear design does not meet this condition. It has been discussed with the applicant that the total square footage of the building is not the issue, it's the linear design. The same number of units, or even more units, could be included in the building if the massing of the building was reduced. This could be accomplished with a compact building design that wraps around itself or a non-linear foot print to break up the long expansions of the walls. There are many good examples of apartment buildings, the same size or larger, which have used a compact design or non-linear footprint to reduce the massing of a large building. There is one access into the site from Finale Avenue between Upper 1461i Street and 1471' Street. In general this access will work, but the parking area does not have good circulation and includes a long dead end aisle. Staff recommends the plan be revised to allow circulation and eliminate the long dead parking aisle. The access into the underground parking area is located too close to the access into the site. This access will be busy during the morning and afternoon. It is a concern to staff that there will be a congestion issue at this location due to its proximity to the access into the site. Staff recommends that the access into the underground parking be relocated with the consideration of stacking of cars during busy times of the day. LaValle Fields - Apartment Concept Plan Page 4 The PUD conditions require a trail connection to the existing trail on the senior housing property to Upper 1460' Street to access Lions Park. This has not been shown on the concept plan. There are sidewalks shown within the plan connecting the buildings to the openspace in the center of the site. There seems to be a lot of space within the concept plan that is not used efficiently. It is good that there is a common open space between the buildings, but the buildings could better be oriented to relate to each other and create a large common area with several amenities. Building Architecture The applicant has provided building elevations and renderings of the proposed apartment building A, but has not shown a concept for building B. The applicant has stated that the building materials for building A will be a combination of various types of stone with cement board siding or other comparable siding material. The plans show a pitched roof with dormers along the sides. There are gables periodically along the walls over entrances and in-between. The colors are generally good, but the number of different colors should be reduced and be comprised of compatible earth tones. The building could provide deeper overhangs and include a combination of horizontal and vertical siding design. There was not a calculation submitted for the amount of stone versus other building materials, but it appears more stone needs to be added meet the required ratio of 50% per the performance standards for multi -family residential developments. The plans show the fagade being broken up with horizontal projections and a combination of building materials. There are windows along the sides of the building projections. There is a significant main entrance to the building, including secondary entrances that are visible and clearly defined. The horizontal projections at the secondary accesses into the building could be extended vertically to the third floor, instead of only being on the first floor. Multiple breaks in the roofline, as encouraged in the Multi -Family Design Guidelines, may help further break up the facade. To accomplish four-sided architecture, the back of the building will need some work. It is lacking vertical projections that are created on the front of the building. The back of the building will be very visible from the west along 147th Street. Although there are some good elements in the architecture of the building, it does not eliminate the look of a very long building. The walls of the building, even with the decks and projections at the entrances, are still generally flat and long. Building B, if designed well, could help break up the massing of Building A, but that is unknown at this time and it remains unclear whether the building would be built. Apartment Management and Amenities The applicant has stated that building A would be owned and managed by ARMC Properties. They have stated that there would be on-site management and underground parking. The amenities for the apartments that the applicant has listed in the narrative are, a spa/exercise room, community room, attached deck, and dog park. The applicant is showing a gazebo in the center common space, as well as a play area/basketball court on the north end of the site. The center common space would need more than a gazebo to be a valued amenity to the project. If the applicant wants to provide additional common space for LaValle Fields - Apartment Concept Plan Page 5 a play arealbasketball court, another location should be considered. Although the applicant has not provided staff with a plan for the lots lines and what would be built for each phase, it has been stated by the applicant that the center common open space would be built with phase 2. 3. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not have concerns with apartments as a land use or the proposed density of the project, as this was expected and approved with the PUD General Plan. Staff's primary concern is with the massing of the buildings. The buildings will appear extremely long and large on the site. This could be addressed by providing more numerous smaller buildings, or alternatively by providing a more dramatic undulations in the shapes of the buildings. The architecture of building A has good elements, but it is in staff's opinion that a more compact design of the building or a non- linear footprint would further minimize the expansion of the long walls. The architectural elements alone do not break up the large massing of the building, it still seems very long. The applicant received flexibility for a higher density based on the approved PUD General Plan and conditions listed in the resolution. There were a few items that needed to be worked on and conditions were listed the resolution to address these concerns. Phase 2, the apartment project included buildings that related to each other, shared parking and amenities, and connections to Lions Park. It is in stars opinion that the concept plan as lost important elements from the PUD General Plan in which the City was comfortable with granting zoning flexibility. The applicant has stated that the property will be split and it remains unclear where property lines would be proposed and what portions of the concept plan would be completed with each phase. The apartment phase will be further divided, and could be sold to different developers, creating standalone projects, not a planned development. This changes the plan and loses important elements such as, relationship between the buildings, cohesiveness in the project, shared common openspace and amenities, and trail connections. Staff has concerns with the viability smaller, independent apartment projects. The concept plan concentrates on building A, leaving building B an afterthought with no commitment that it will be built. It's unclear if the amenities listed and shown on the concept plan will be shared between the apartments. In general, apartments with lower than 200 units can succeed as long as they are part of an overall development and with shared amenities. As the applicant has stated the amenities are very important in apartment projects and are a draw for the target market. Staff believes that the planning for building B, along with the parking and common areas, is just as important to the development as building A and the property should be designed as a planned development. The concept plan does not meet the intent of the PUD approval in regards to reducing the appearance of the mass of the large buildings or an overall apartment campus layout. The layout of the site does not seem to function well for an apartment development in regards to access, circulation, and common openspace. In addition, the location of the entrance into the underground parking and the circulation within the interior parking lot needs to be thought through and redesigned. LaValle Fields - Apartment Concept Plan Page 6 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council provide feedback on the concept plan to the applicant. Below are areas the Planning Commission and City Council should provide feedback on: • general layout of the concept plan • development phasing • building orientation and placement • massing of the buildings compared to the approved PUD architecture and building material • trail connections, common outdoor spaces, and amenities ATTACHEMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Engineers Memo dated Friday, January 8, 2016 3. Applicants Narrative dated January 6, 2015 4. Approved PUD General Plan for LaValle Fields 5. Proposed Apartment Elevations from PUD General Plan 6. Approved PUD General Plan Resolution 7. Concept Plan dated December 28, 2015 8. Concept Plan Building Elevations and Renderings dated January 7, 2016 LaValle Fields Apartment Concept Plan Vicinity Map 47 bar Site Map 1 inch = 250 feet W E s tv tide S �7 At - 7W'14' Y M1 � I L F ,r,Ila �n �L Site . . , WS k Building a legacy —your legacy. January 8, 2016 Ms. Rachel Juba City Planner City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 Re: Concept Plan Review LaValle Fields Phase 2 — Hugo Apartments WSB Project No. 1904-91 Dear Ms. Juba: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 We have completed our review for LaValle Fields Concept Plan Review. The following information was received for review: ■ LaValle Fields — Hugo Apartments Site Plan, dated December 28, 2015 Based on the review of the site plan, we offer the following comments related to the application: Transportation and Roadways 1. A detailed evaluation of the roadway needs to serve the development of LaValle Fields was completed during the LaValle Fields Preliminary Plat process. As part of the approvals related to LaValle Fields, Phase 2 of the project triggers the need to complete the following roadway improvements: • Finale Avenue from 146th Street to 147t` Street within the right-of-way dedicated as part of LaValle Fields. 147th Street from Fitzgerald Avenue to Oneka Parkway, which is a collector roadway in the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan. A portion of this segment is existing and provides access to Lion's Park, and the remainder would be a new roadway segment. The roadway would be designed to a width of 32 feet, and include a bituminous trail on one side of the road. The final design elements and financing for this segment of roadway will be determined as the project moves forward. Stormwater Management Stormwater runoff on the site will be collected in a new storm sewer system. The system will discharge to a pond located along Branch #3 of JD #3 (Clearwater Creek) east of Oneka Parkway. The pond was preliminarily sized as part of LaValle Fields, and would accommodate runoff from the City Park, the proposed construction of 1470' Street and Finale Avenue, as well as Orchard Hills and the proposed Phase 2 development. The final design of the facility will be completed if the project moves forward. Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com KAPemnalVVdie Lam Field$Ph 2 Cone _,pt Plan ReMm Cl D616.doa Ms. Rachel Juba January 8, 2016 Page 2 2. The project will include a stormwater reuse system, with the intent to provide irrigation to the development property as well as Lion's Park. The design of the system, implementation schedule, permitting, and maintenance responsibilities will need to be completed if the project moves forward. 3. The proposed stormwater pond is within an existing FEMA floodplain area. As a result, there will need to be modifications made to the existing regulatory floodplain. We expect that this issue can be resolved during final design, once the specific impacts can be quantified. 4. The stormwater pond, once constructed, will allow for the removal of the temporary pond constructed as part of the Orchard Hills Senior Facility since it will be designed to accommodate the entire development property. Utilities 1. City utilities were extended to the south end of the Phase 2 site as part of the Orchard Hills project. City utility extensions will be required within the realigned Finale Avenue, as well as 147th Street, in order to provide service to adjacent properties, as well as to complete. a water connection between the City Well and 14611 Street so that the required flow and pressure is available to serve the development. Wetlands 1. A wetland delineation has been completed for the entire portion of the property located east of Oneka Parkway. The wetland delineation report has been approved by the City of Hugo (as LGL). We do not anticipate wetland impacts related to the building construction; however, there may be impacts related to the extension of 147th Street or as part of the pond construction which will need to be addressed if necessary. 2. The proposed stormwater management pond near Oneka Parkway is preliminarily designed in a manner that will affect the existing Branch 3 Judicial Ditch #3. The concept is similar to the existing pond located within the northwest quadrant of the CSAH 8/Oneka Parkway intersection. There will need to be coordination with the Rice Creek Watershed District, as well as the DNR, moving forward to develop a final layout, plan and wetland/ditch permit. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 763-287-7192. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. a edy, PE i Engineer cc: Scott Anderson, Public Works Director Steve Duff, Senior Engineering Technician Katy Thompson, Water Resource Engineer (email only) Lydia Larson, Assistant City Engineer (email only) KAPerennAL; Ale Larson\Gty of Hup\Lavak Fields Ph 2 Concept Plan R&Aew03 0816.dou ECEI E JAN 6 2016 Bl(• l5-6�� To Whom It May Concern, Partnership Investment Group On behalf of my client ARMC, I am providing some basic project information via this document which will serve as the project narrative. Consistent with our PUD approval, phase one of 165 unit approval will consist of 97 market rate apartment units. The market rate apartment units will consist of 2 -bedroom and 3 -bedrooms units and the building common space is to include amenities found in upscale developments. The configuration of the building will provide the necessary maximum use of land available for this phase while creating an aesthetically pleasing living environment. The existing out -lot shall be split to accommodate the structure while leaving the balance for a future phase. The majority of renters today tends to be younger in age and is single or dual -income families without kids. However, we are also starting to see a trend of empty nesters starting to look at rental property as an option. Recent surveys also show that today's renter tends to be a more active user of amenities and public spaces than they were in the past and are looking for rentals that will accommodate to their pets as well. To meet these needs, the development will have a dog park located to the west of the building. Amenities provided to residents will consist of a mini -spa, a community/party room just off the community balcony and an attached deck. We have promoted the newly designed Lions Park as a great amenity as well, which we will be offering outdoor exercise classes. The facility will have on site management and last but not least, under -ground parking — the most demanded amenity by renters in this part of the country. The target rent for this facility will beat and above the median income of the area. I'd like to add that I am very excited about this project as it will bring a much-needed upscale apartment building into downtown Hugo. This building will be a boom to the city both aesthetically and economically. Communities with stronger population growth generate the largest increases in the residential property tax base which in turn increases the municipal budget leading to local government spending on infrastructure thereby raising property values, thus increasing further the residential property tax base. Sincerely, William M. Lentsch 6607 145' Circle N. Hugo, MN 55038 (651) 2164253 1.1 Wt r -- i CNALOW8 PRQmpm UNIT TYPE APARTMENTS 363 (2 PER UNIT + 1 PER 5) B 5 SENIOR HOUSINQ 64 YE11OR CAREE 10 1 �PERR6 1 +s1 109wem ai PER UNM OWL 13-14M OFOONNAWM 001M t14. 7018 , p If �a `r r Ilk'.Y F.. 6/ T r - r — T ` ! �pl � I i Aptxci-rd PkA 0 Georrer P0VN J g O) PAOM ARK AREA' I Ar � 4 SITE PLAN L.AVALLE FIELDS P.U.D. rLci 0. g E. SFW: PARDMOKP VASUPAERrappmr. LLO le umPLAMM A ENCi7VWiiNo PLOWE amm~'m 9�� LM AKE16ItNOM4 PFl7m1tlP1)„1-,7 PAX#M)5W-ff 1 NORTH 1� - LEM 10 chi F xi DRY APAK I MI=N D. MN � Plao 3 STORY APARTMENT HUGO, MN 5b Y L- RECEIVED Nov i 2013 Per 13-0-1 lei -D `l RESOLUTION 2014-3 APPROVING PUD GENERAL PLAN FOR LAVALLE FIELDS LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF FINALE AVENUE NOR'T'H OF FRENCHMAN ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 8) WHEREAS, LaValle Fields LLC has requested approval of a PUD general plea to allow 295 senior housing and multi -family residential units on the 29.17 sere property legally described as follows: (See Attached) WHEREAS, the Planmag Commission has reviewed $re PUD general pian at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CTTY COUNCIL OF THE CTTY OF HUGO, h4 NNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by LaYalle Fields LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD general plan is approved to allow the erection of 295 senior; housing and mufti -family residential units. The development shall be am rutted in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on October 21, 2013, and revisions received on December 2, 2013, except as amended by this resolution. 2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the requested retuning of the 29.17 acre property and preliminary plc#, 3. The PUD general plan is approved based on the finding that the proposed project is consistent with the City's C.omprehasive Plan. 4. PUD flean'bility is granted to allow: a Flexibility to allow senior housing and apartments as a land use b. Flan'bility to allow a density of over 10 units per acre, where 6 units per acre aro required. a Flay Wlity to allow the building height to a maximum of 50 feet to accommodate 3 story buildings, where 35 &ret is required by otdinaaoe in the u xWying zoning district. 5. No dewelopment is wwved for Oudot C. Future developer of Outlot C will be subject to the City requirements at the time of developmrent. 6. All uses allowed in CR -3 zoning disW am permitted uses m the Lavalle Fields subdivision. Additional permitted uses hdude senior housing and. apedmet. Resolution 2014-3 Page 2 7. The preliminmy phaft plan is Sa mlly approved. a. Phase 1 shall include: i. A maximum of 130 senior housing units. ii. Finale Avenue between 14P Street and 140 Sheet shall be raaansiructod as an ud m section roadway to a width of 26 fed with the &* layer ofbitundnous prior to the issuance of C tificate of Occupancy for the lot buuNW& iii. A 50 Enol wide roadway easement shall be dedicated for the realignment of Finale Avenue fiom just south of Upper 140 Street to 147° Sheet, as shown on the plan. iv. A 60 foot wide roadway easement shall be dedicated for the extension of 1476 Street fiom its curroat terminus to Ondm Parkway, as shown on the plan. v. The 1.76 acres (Outlot A) shall be dedicated to the City to satisfy 77% of the parkland dedication requirement. b. Phase 2 shall include- GA nclude GA maximum of 165 apartment units. ii. The entire length of 147x' Street to Owh Pa&way shall be cora "led with the first layer of bituminous prior to issuasux of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 1st building,. The de;vdoper shall be 'ble for 65% of the total project costs, subject to City Council review and approval at the time of site plan approval. iii. The entire length of the Mage pxmm reslwmart Rough the project shall be constructed with the first layer of biftniuous prior to the issuance of a CCdfiMft of Oocanpaacy for the 1st building. Iv. The remaining 23% to satisfy panic dedication req is shall be paid. 8. The developer shall submit final site plans, building elevations, oft rcat impsuVement plans, qty plans6 8?fS ark drainage Ph+ hndmqft Plana, lighting and srgaage plans along with the required had use applications for each phase of the devellopmenl. ResobWon 2014-3 Page 3 9. The developer shall evaluate the feasibility of a water rein pmja t for the devolopahheuI and to accommodate Lions Park. If a water ranee project is f+eWb* as evaluated by City stair it shall be cmMucted. 10. The building secs for the PUD areas follows.- a. ollows: a. For portions of the building that are over 35 feet in height: i. 50 foci from all exterior property lines, except due areas that abut a public $that right- of -way. b. 30 feet from arterior property lines. a 30 feet from all public right of way. d 10 fed faohn all interior property lines. 11. The applicant must comply with the following, prior to Final Plat and Final PUD Plan application: Arr dbd urat nerd Design shhndards a. All buildings shall meat the requirem Is in the Multi -Family Design Guidelines b. All budding elevations shall receive nearly equal treatanent and visual qualities. c. All buildings within the development shall be cohesive in architecture, design, colors, and building materials. d The Wddtedaro and design of the apartment buildings shall also be subject to: i. a revised building orientation and footprint to reduce the appears me of the massing of the barge bufldb*L ii. rwessions and projections. in building walla to break up the long flat expansions of the buildings. iii. breaks and variation within tho building material to reduce the monotony of the design. iva higher perces tags of stone and/or brick than other building materials proposed. v. No vinyl siding shalt be used, ocamtitiona siding is prof+crred, unless a comparable siding material is reviewed and approved by $tai£ e. The trash enclosure shall be screened with materials consistent with due building material and shall be reviewed and app vved by sta4£ E The developer shall submit a design palate for the entire pn4ed for City review and approval. The palette shall mdude colors for awnings, siding, shakes • Resolution 20143 Pulte 4 shutters, shingles, brick and stone. Building colons and materials shall be cohesive for all buildings within the PUD. g. All giOUDdaevel mechanical units shall be low profile and located to the side or rear of the budding and shall be screened fiem view of adjacent properties. h. The internal roof drainage system that shall be iced into the building design and shall be reviewed and approved by staff. �8 and Lighdog i. TUe landscape plan shall be revised to include the number, site, and type of trees and shrubs required by Section 90-181 of the w inance. The final plana must be sul m ued for review and approval by staff. j. The landscape plan shall be revised to be planned together and not separate for each phase. L T1ne openspaoe between the buildings within the dowdopment aRhull be included in the overall landscape plan. The design of the landscaping shall be active to enhance the acsthatic of the am L There shall be a landscape buffer between the senior housing facility and the nadential banes. The landscaping snap be of a sufficient height and size to adequately provide a burr. This shall be reviewed and approved by staff. in. Exterior light" shall be oonsideat thraugbout the development. All lighting shall be shielded to preveft glare and light trespass, as required by Section 90.239 of the ordinance. Lighting details should be submitted for City review and approval to ensure a 90 -deg w an off is provided and bulbs are net visible. Exterior lighting shall be directed down and shielded ficin Aacwt properties and roadways. n. The maximum height of parking lot lighting adju at to reddeodal arose shall be 20 feat. o. The applicant shall provide an overall sign plan for the development. S&eeb, Paeldng said UdOn p. The parking cakestions for the senior housing facility shall consider the office arca. The calculaboons shall be reviewed and apprmred by WE . • Resolution 2014.3 page 5 q. The parking calculations for the apartments shall consider overflow perking for gwwW. The calculations shall be reviewed and approved by staid r. The parking lots within the development shall meet Section 90-253 of the ordimsnom s. Construction details of the fire lane for the senior housing facility shall be reviewed and approved by staff Sideways and Trails t. The sidewalks within the development shall beim and concoct to the public trait through the development: u. A 10 foot wide 60 easement shall be dedicated for the public trail. Tho end trail location shall be reviewed and approved by staff, v. Tho trail locations shall be setback 10 feet from the neighboring property to the weal. w. A #rail shall k installed on 147 Stred with the construction of the, road. 12. The applicant shall comply with all conditions is the City Em's letter dated December 12, 2013. 13. Each unit in the apartment Wildings shall include a minimum of two bedrooms. 14. The apartment complex shall include on site management. 13. The applicant mud comply with the Mowing, prior to release of the find plat for reoowbg' a. The 1.76 acres (Oudot A) shall be dedicated to the City to satisfy 77% of the parkland dedication requirement 16. The applicant must comply with the following, pier to PUD Find Plan or site plan approval: L There shall be notification and a naghbcrrhood meeting for the surrounding properties at the time prelimin y construction lana are deified for r+000nshuct on of Finale Avenue between, 145x" Street and 1W Street. This matting will provide s • itesoW m 2014-3 P&PV the avrounding property owners with information on the design of the road and timing of construction. 17. The applicant must comply with the following, prior to issuance of building permits: a.Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first buil ft in Phase 1, a segment of F sale Avew n right of way shall be: dedicated to the City begWaing approximately 385 feet south of 145* Stred right of way and acterdmg to CSAH 8, with legal description subject to review and approval by do& b. Tho remaining 23% to satisfy the park dedication requirement shall be paid with the first building in Phan 2. c. A PUD final pian must be approved for each phase. d. The: applicant most record the final plat, easements, deweiopment agreem eso, etc. at Washington County. Proof of recording must be provided to the City. ADOPTED by the City Comcil this 3rd day of February, 201 r Tom We idt, Mayor ATTEST: --- Michele Lindau, City auk Has WAMhMM NN PnMiE�iNNfM nlEnmma That pgrt of the East Half of the Northeast iivarter of Section 19; that part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, which includes Lot I of County Auditor's Plat No. 7 of the Village of Hu moll in Township 31 North. Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described jointly as follow Cornmencli ng at the point of intersection of the west fine of Section M which line is also the west line of Lot 1 of County Auditors Plat No. 7. with the north line of the Hugo — Centerville Rood, said point of Intersection Is 33 feat north of the west quarter corner of Section 2Q thence north, along the west fine of Section 20, a distance of 154 feet to the point of beginning; thence cost, parafiet with the South line of Lot 1 of Audltcr's Plat No. 7. a distance of 331 feet. more or less, to a point distant 280 feet west of the southwest comer of Lot 6, Modc 7 of the Village of Huga; thence north, a distance of 150 feet; thence east. Parallel with the south line sof Lot 1 of County Auditor's Plat No. 7, a distance of 250 feet to the point of Intersection with a line drown poralM with and distant 30 west of the west line of Blocks 2. 3. 6. and 7 of the Village of Hugo; thence north, ahmg said parallel line, a distance of 986 feet, more or less, to the point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 30 fest south of the north fine of the SW 3t — NW 9 of Stiction 20; thence west along said parallel line, a distance of 123.9 feet to a point distant 843.9 feet west of the east line of the SW 31 — NW X. thence northwesterly. along the southwesterly Ilene of a trod described in Book 90 of Dewier page 206, a distance of 900 feet to the most westerly comer of sold troct; thence North 50 degrees East, along the westerly line of said troct described in Book g0 Deeds, page 206, a distance of 400 feet to the northeast comer of the Si/2—NEi/4—NEi/4 of Section 19; thence west, along the north fine of the S1/2—NEi/4—NEI/4, a distance of 1321.3 feet to the northwest comer of the S1/2—NEi/4—NEI/4 of Section 19; thence south, along the west line of the NEi/4—NEI/4 of Section 19. a distance of 641.5 feet to a point distant 18 het north of the southwest cornet of the NEI/4-NF1/4; thence North 88 degrees 07 minutes East a distance of 592 feet to the mast northerly comer of a tract described In Book 78 of Deeds, page 524 which point is on the mirk elins of Branch No. 3 of ,Aldi W Ditch No. 3. Washington and Md*a Counties. Minnesota; thence South 73 degrees 47 minutes East. along the northerly line of said tract described in Book 78 of Deeds. page 520, a distance of 600 fest to the northeoit corner of sold tract; thence South 8 degrees 55 minutes , along the easterly line of saki tract described Soak 76 of Deeds. page M. a distance of 700 feet to the northwest corner of a trail described in Book I86 of Dsede, page 14; thence South 73 degrees 47 minutes East, along the northerly line of sold tract described in Book 166 of Deede. page 10, and along the northerly line of a tract described in Book 167 of Deeds, page 395, a distance of 125 feet to the northeast comer of said tract described in Bock 167 of Deeds, page 395x; thence South 8 degrees 55 minutes West, along the easterly 1Me of said tract described in Book 167 of Deeds. Page 395. a distance of 280 feet, mon or ices► to the northerly line of the Huge — CantwWle Road; thence southeasterly. along said northerly rood fine, a distance of 170 test. mare or less, to the west line of a tract described in Book 138 of Deedsf pails 506; thence north, along the west line of sold tract described in Boolt 138 of Deeds, page 5%. a distance of M fest, mons or less, to the nor wovt comer thereof. thence east, along the north line of said trod described in Boot 138 of Deeds, page 506 and along the north line of tracts described M Book 133 of Dads„ page 218 and Book 120 of Deeds, page 241, a distance of 64 feet to the postof beginning, containing 39 acres. more or lea, and subject to the existing Branch No. 3 of Ditch No. 3, Washington and Anoka Counties, Minnesota, and also subject to other somwwts and re notions of record. Including any right of title existing M the adjoosnt Hugo — Centerville Road, to the centerdhw thereof. Which Ilss easterly of the easterly right of way line of 0neko Parkway North as described in Document No, 3663109. RECEIVED DEC 0 2 2013 Per 3-6%% -o WETLAND ----------- - -- — 47TH ST N— — _-7----- e • , BUILDING A: 3 -STORY APARTMENT BUILDING 97 UNITS (71) 2 BDRM UNITS (26) 3 8DRM UNITS 210 PARKING REQ'D 8 �U �a E� :7 u Op�a Im la msLo 53,600 FOOTPRINT u 159,850 SF APARTMENTS 53,600 SF UNDERGOUND PARKING BUILDN' B: 2 -STORY A�ARTMF,NT BUILDING 73 UNITS (49) 2 BDRU UNITS (24) 3 BDRM UNITS :64 PARKING REO'D 60,500 SF FOOTPRINT 121,000 SF APARTMENTS 50,500 SF UNDERGOUND PARKING PARKING REQ'MTS = 2 PER UNIT PLUS 1 PER EVERY 5 UNITS: 374 REQb 374 PROVIDED OUTDOOR COMMONS AREA = _ 27,000 SF (9.700 REQUIRED) / Q C'IS arm [ G t� Lim C -A 1 W L o WETLANDLR r' pp C� i f T I AL 7Fr3r I 1 I E ROF�OSED f I I 15 1 I 13ULDING B - I I I ------------------ -- EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING -1� .qi r �\ r ------------.----- 146TH ST iJ S1 ` LOT z0 a — BUILDING A: 3 -STORY APARTMENT BUILDING 97 UNITS (71) 2 BDRM UNITS (26) 3 8DRM UNITS 210 PARKING REQ'D 8 �U �a E� :7 u Op�a Im la msLo 53,600 FOOTPRINT u 159,850 SF APARTMENTS 53,600 SF UNDERGOUND PARKING BUILDN' B: 2 -STORY A�ARTMF,NT BUILDING 73 UNITS (49) 2 BDRU UNITS (24) 3 BDRM UNITS :64 PARKING REO'D 60,500 SF FOOTPRINT 121,000 SF APARTMENTS 50,500 SF UNDERGOUND PARKING PARKING REQ'MTS = 2 PER UNIT PLUS 1 PER EVERY 5 UNITS: 374 REQb 374 PROVIDED OUTDOOR COMMONS AREA = _ 27,000 SF (9.700 REQUIRED) 0 30' 60° f70' SCALE. I"= 60'-0" S FI1.T. O` C'IS arm [ G t� Lim C -A 1 W L o 0 30' 60° f70' SCALE. I"= 60'-0" S FI1.T. O` i ,�1 1 7. yy�YYG,�F� I _7i 1W .C�EV V ►t ' . %qlevk� `� ..f'_'�` - 1TJ `LTI - . � r i - °n5`rirl•-Ti�'yl "G i - �^�� 'F Ly �.Ti (26) THREE 8EOI (8) TMRFFHEORMJMS _g \ — — — ne. lie - BASPNE.'TFLOG 93, 53,600 SF i3E P:iRIBI STALLS HASF'%FNT.' 412- 10 3.7 53.600 SF T) L� LU c �� � Qwo dQD o�T- a cz 0 0 O 12-23- 15 16' 32' SCALE 1132" 1'-0" 84'.0.. f6-0' 2i-6' 16'-0' f2'-0' 12'6' 16'-0" 1T-6' Id' -0' S4'6' 16'-0' 73'3' I;-9' i6'-0" 12'.G 23'-b" I6'-0' 24'4" 16'-0' 16 40. off o —111F S 19•-m •°- f I zr'-z ri�j45 9 O� 20•' 2"' z0' -c• WyV( o 20'-1" 200" 2-0' -0 20'-0" 20W 20-• n=0" 20'0' 20'-20'-D' -0 I H 127 PAR NG 7' �+•1 W 22'-93/4 Sib b Va 1ph O Q Lo Lo _ 3a 9 _ 79 a7.J- b 7 3 Mia o gs e6'•''i� un7.nr r ���•�S3 1J'-0" f3'^6' 16.1' 2i-6' 76-0" P9'-0' 13'-6' 16=0 24=6' 16'-0" I2'0" 24'-0' 23.i6.0 383'-0" / 7 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN Lu U 1 In V , Z Q Is s O QD 2q' -o' 16'-0' 23'-6' 12'6 !6'-0' 13'-9' 13'-9" IS' -0" S4'-6' 27'-6' I6'-0' 1='-6' 12'-e" 2r.6,12':" r n S//qb 34 7 I 0. " I I m - 20'-0" f9'-0' e 70'0" 20-0 20'0' 20'4' 20=0" 20.0 -7-0 21-2 7/ 23-0' 10'4' 20P' b w 8 22..0. w 18,-0 314 e O / .A�' dJ -/1 4 • `_. _ _ _1 Vit f' r :, 8 30 I IL ' 25 o ' m ED ti L ' ai 3!:' 76.0 24 6'- '-E' I0" 24'-0' 72.0 16Y 13'-9' 30'-0' 13'-9• 76•,0" 14•4" 16'4" 13=6 744.0• 16''0• 24'S" 16'-0' 13'fi" 14'3" 383'-f BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 12-25- 15 0 6' Is 32• T1� . SCALE' 1/16' 1'-0" 5a'_6 89'-0" r2'd• Ir' -0. 13'-9" 13=9• 16'-B' !2'.0•=Ja.OD6RM 1088ORa9704BORN 2 ROAMM7 FM � ¢ •• ,, � 171I1724's:I , \ C LE L GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1 s a -1'-0 0 5.3' 10.6' 21.3' SCALE:3132" \ . PAnO N� C r -i Q� CooJU� U W OO�WU � Q Q C) m 00 (i.QNM Qx�nC o � B � a • o 48�C. nFg� ^fie u ` I� W y , yy 4c G d� LuO o'= 0 g D t It O � LOBBY }amsr k` I Cl �•L�'S 1} cAr:NrY 1 ll r" 2 BORN 2 BURM 1 I J q 103 105 I 2 8ORM 2 BORN p 1 I I I _ 1 I I I I � � � I � � I U7 ON Lq 1 m I �--- � 13'-C I6'-0• I2'-3' 12'3" 16'-0" 14'-0" i3'd' lei" 12'-3• t2'-3" I \♦ 83.,3. "t3" 25'_6• I B4.-0" 383'-0" GROUND FLOOR PLAN - --- - --/ I v 379'-0" I r� 16'-0" i2'-3' IC' -0" 23=6" r- - - - - - - - - I 112 1 1!'8 1 110 2 BORN 2 8011M 2 9ORIA I I14 3 6ORM 1 ❑ a�I J i a I I I r< LJ �\ J - 1 nCl -� L- %� LJb(t GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1 s a -1'-0 0 5.3' 10.6' 21.3' SCALE:3132" \ . PAnO N� C r -i Q� CooJU� U W OO�WU � Q Q C) m 00 (i.QNM Qx�nC o � B � a • o 48�C. nFg� ^fie u ` I� W y , yy 4c G d� LuO o'= 0 g D t It O � LOBBY }amsr k` I Cl �•L�'S 1} cAr:NrY 1 ll r" 379'-0" _1 l 93'-9" � 73.g• i5.Q. 11..7• 12'-3' i6'-0' 2'-6. 12'-fi. 13._9. t _ U � ' 1 u] r� wy 126 C] 121 121 z mRM V z aDR;.; z e3RM 1 � OO 'z A O^ O oq f oq r r 1:4 U-) 10 1 r � I HF I / I9 1 Po � L r ItaLa iinlc� 6 r22 6 3 63RM ,k. ! i6 o 1 2 83RM 3 AORM 3 8DR:4 8 I I 1 \ V__ 1 _ f 23'.7^ r6'-0° ]Y-3• 12'.3. I6.0" 24'.0• 12�-p�� 16,-6. 13'-9" 8• \�14-0� '-0 104' - GROUND FLOOR PLAN /379'-0" _.. 32,-9.. 2'-Q 1/i6" LLJ .3" 16'-0" 13=9'13,9, 16'.J• r2'6" R' -O' 16'-0' 13'-9" 13'-9" 12'-6" C) cZc L Q Il -i O I its QD 28DRM 127 131 1 18DRM127 2 ROW 2 BD.4M O O 3731 a I 731 F- 0 O 7 a LF' I C— e 0 �30�I Q 1 I � y 1 ® I LL- L � 8 z m126 I a I :M _ 2124 BORN Ipp I Ize 1 2 2 &ORM BDRM I R I ? of I � 14.3.. Ii.p• I 12'-3• 12'-3' 15'.p' 13'-6• 14'-0' I6•-0' 12•,3" 12'_3• 1C.9' / zs:Q• t3� ' m 83'-9" 5.3' 7Q.6' 21.3' A2.2 B i / I SCALE: 3/32° GROUND FLOOR PLAN 3.."' 70.6' 21.3' SCALE.' 3/32"=!'-0" 168-6' 84'-0 12' I6'-0' 13'-9' 13'-9' 16-0" 1Z=o" 11'-6' 16=0' 13'-9' 13'-9' 16'-0' 12' 12'-3' -6 O 1 7 DORM z 1 � �W 12a z ORM pq 1 V I1 I po ch C] _ o o L_ LJ F— o �7 I I I ¢�uNir 01 I E. 209 1 la g 22ggpM 2 apRM c a f 205 m a cEyl 2 BORM 2 6ORM 1 4 r 1 M < I 16'-0' 1 13''9 i ITS i J00"12' 12'-3' -i U 84'-0' SECONC FLOOR PLANhh`\\\" °f`x 2 spa' = rA• 1 � �,�.g 1 ` ]fia'-C ,-. 93'9• �t / 12'-3' 11'-3" IoA 3f_"l 'I ~— .A31g 1 212 a G 208I 2 81oRM 2 BORMBDRM 216 1 3 DORM 71)7 Comm rryjL4L cc f �n I -PLOY 78' uaRopxr I — O -3} 1 k 2 ale a Y 2WAN 211 209 1 b ° 2 BOW2 6' �"'�` a SPA / ❑SE 273 215 3 80AM 3 L7RM LO 68'3 lid t L 1 1J L dd. _ ROOF 16' 23'-9" 13- ' 147 64" 12'-0' 24-0' 11'-3' 12:;• 6-0' .5.0' ll�Ji .n / 0'-0 i1.,i104•-3° \ �\ �.�-'�: � /// 383•-]• -. - �\ 01T ROOF •. � � 1 N Z SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 23r=1'A• � �t 12-28-t5 PLAN Le 0 5.3' WS 21.3' SCALE 3132'=7'-0" T) cz 0 C -j LL - 1) Z 0 LU n 3791-0, 16'-T T2'3" 12-F 161-01 i6,-p•W-0, /k' ' W3�, P P A 71 - 13`� W1 1 ' 221 223 2 Z05RU 2 Hr'Rw 2 BVRM fI 217 2 AOp.W 219 3 BDRM -J cl Ir L '�' F L2La o ' a, ', t' b mw cc 10 � o 1 Z22 Ll 3 Box" 224 2 HORM RDRM 220 3Himm 'ti"W13 "7:0*- - II 12'3' 12-3, 16'0' T3'9" 135.0' rc4,3,, L, QLE�?ND FLOOR PIAN 215 2 EDAM 227 2SPAM r7F 7m ,229 NOW '31 2 FtaRM 11 il! ! a r, RED rnq L i m L) 7m a) M M aL 71, PLAN Le 0 5.3' WS 21.3' SCALE 3132'=7'-0" T) cz 0 C -j LL - 1) Z 0 LU n 13`� W1 LTJ •�'ilti PLAN Le 0 5.3' WS 21.3' SCALE 3132'=7'-0" T) cz 0 C -j LL - 1) Z 0 LU n N 5.3' 10.6 21.3' SG4t£: 3/37-1 •-0" E, 3' 1 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 3$2 = 1'A' R O U i� UU�� W W17j0^ a Z 94 00�: W m H 'a M 0 P4R r Rol c e ljA Z LL - 5.31 L A2.4A 168'-6 1• 12'-6' i6'-0' 84'-0' 13'-�' f3'-9' f6'-0• 12'0' 12'-� 16:0' 13'-9' 13'-9" 16'-0" 12' 4 o 306 398 ' 2 eORM 2 BDRM f3O2 304 2 BORN P77 ' 7M II�JJJ o o ME 7M 0 LJ -J L_IV 01 ID 307 2 wim 1 m 1 amim J a 303 2 BORN 30s 2 B➢RM 1 t 4 14'-0' 1 r J 12'-3 16:0' i4'-9• 73=6' 16'-0" 7Y.3• 17'-j' 16=D' 1 13''7 25 '-0• rr 83'-9- 383'-9' FLOOR PLAN (D ,.HIR a'sr - ro 379'A' ._... _ _.....w..._..... -- E, 3' 1 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 3$2 = 1'A' R O U i� UU�� W W17j0^ a Z 94 00�: W m H 'a M 0 P4R r Rol c e ljA Z LL - 5.31 L A2.4A 317 3 FORM 319 3 FORM m 1- MI E Me- NOR IIi I 3�a 3 r_,?m : aD 3 FDRM 15=0" 12'-3• 12'-3" r6=D" 71.W1 379'-0' 13•-6• 12•.6• 16-G' 13'-9' 13'-9" i6'-9• 12'-3' I '-3" !6'-0" II 1 321 2 FORM 313 2 FORM 1 I ..+23 2 FDRir.' F ,^ ,II u 5.3' 70.6, 21.3' A2.4B 01 SCALE. 3132"=V -O" II I NOAY r N 1 3122 FOAM zN 324 28DRM b 0 a 1 0 38s'D" THIRD FLddR PLAN J 2 2;32'=1'A 5.3' 70.6, 21.3' A2.4B 01 SCALE. 3132"=V -O" .rz � u u J Udg 18'-0' P Gt7 HER L�ci A! OC If] Al� L I •y1 � r II L -i 1 J L ILS rel \J' r � r '' r r -ice = ti �, �� ,^4A < •,+ ry � Id_ , � �. r yl _ ��•' y-- "� � ���d irl tLY1 a - - Esu I � e si - u - cur• / �+ooF 1 1 ! 28•-0• ROOF (DROOF PLAN LU j 3J'0" w 4 Q w O LJ - L., Int I__I g O ` ROOF PLAN 12-28- i 5 A2.5 23-2' 16:0• m i LIVING BEDROOM BEDROOM I3'4A4'V IML7,11T 245 SF 13'-J" 121' 8107B 4--s" ol BEDROOM 11=17xi 7'-5 a T-9' I 4'v' E� 6 SF Lit IN0 WORC•OM IS' -8x79'-0 II'�Jxl1'-7 3 BEDROOM 1-92 5F 16'-0' 1a•-1• 4'-0 X3'-6' 25--g- 3 BEDROOM E 1645 SF KITCHEN B 10'-6 1/2' KITCHEN C 3 BEDROOM B 1536 SF 12-28- 15 ° 2• 4' e' A3.2 SCALE: 714. 1 W 0 O I �----� 5,.4. �•-9"� J 1! a'Ar '^ i6=0' �n I .3• j I ! � / I i I I ! ! 5'J' 4'-0' 3=4" I - Ir I Fz � i ,y BEDROOM BEDROOM LMNG BEDROOM f2• -0x73=4 7i' -0x12'-7 iS-8x15 {1 fl' -i 1x i7'-5 EFFICIENT LI 230 5F 12'-6" 71'-3' IA N 6',0x5'-6' = XS' -6" 2'-0XS'-6' s'-8" '0 2'-0" 6'6" SW 2'-0' 15'-9' 7210• 74�-3. 1 BEDROOM 11=17xi 7'-5 a T-9' I 4'v' E� 6 SF Lit IN0 WORC•OM IS' -8x79'-0 II'�Jxl1'-7 3 BEDROOM 1-92 5F 16'-0' 1a•-1• 4'-0 X3'-6' 25--g- 3 BEDROOM E 1645 SF KITCHEN B 10'-6 1/2' KITCHEN C 3 BEDROOM B 1536 SF 12-28- 15 ° 2• 4' e' A3.2 SCALE: 714. 1 W u z'B• Is• -g^ r -B' -a \ py BEDROOM w zz•-I• -6" s• -s" qa RShfO; o e0bM0 i��^I 13rI's-r3'--•0exxl12y.' BEDROOM 33'3B •- @ ��@ 3'-B•— Niryr, � ry �1 1 —_,JIII II oN o . 113703-B'3-'-E1•dD0xxR7O193=Of'a-M0 zrarm-9 8rs '-2a' 33'-33B3' 8 '-0• "hI ' yf __eo ryryi, cel • I I �II II SN ry k.r \a\v70',6z• 4 II I Z —5=aj OOQlIm�OLBl i l � A 3 ..JJJQyy �ann co O Lo 75o, o arG ; DOI LIVING LIVING It c 3B 4 5'.5" v i5II BEDROOM BEDROOM +,D.q \ Wx127 P O C) BEDROOM O 72'�a134107 — — —` U 3C IL - I 4 Lu ZO 8-4- 3-4 - 74.. KITCHEN Ap 3 BEDROOM C 3 BEDROOM D 1662 SF 1662 Sr KITCHEN 8 ZO OmDw m 0 KITCHEN C 2. SCALE: 1/4" 1 -a' �y I H III In '1119 111 all. I Nil sill Ft I E3 di=i 'Jll 1111 it ARW IIIIII! ME IN Imam SO am 0. EME Et no MCZ NMI 101, ISM: is law on so flumm W.M.N.M. Ina owns LI MILE jF11ilk ONOn Nlo in6041 some so NoZERO 11111'so 1 11 in316 Irk go No"EM iTSIRlail so ON am I G!'1110111k, tillMEV -Imm IIIMENOMONEEAlffifillaw MINE MENO IIIon MOIR,"01 SEE IS ME ' ---_ `— ' ' N IN 14 DIEN OWNER. NN idiom 1111 join No 0 ■0 ■No iiii,ioll IlFli loss.- NN 4m, non 111ru, 'MEN f "A e� ��� in o in n 7_ ��. W F,: :1 0. 0. a MManE � Set I MEAM MEC::::�ME Mo, I ��.«N �.... _ ^..ii� -ke ma [gin— ON alof a I�•. ............ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111 =— [MEN m 1:11 .... ... Ul11 LIP I ll! — L �Tlli 111- F11 ul MEOW NOR�� . t,164,ii, M. MOW_ 0 MORE: 0 3 t;�jv q2z 19M "All - . . . . . . . . .00 OtME MO ME MOW- l Mot lullqmw� H0 H. NO !!1i aml as MRan some &Is, on q■ on IN m Nov., MINE MINE soon ME ME 19M "All - . . . . . . . . .00 OtME MO ME MOW- lilll I I SII I 12;-A I III AIIII I In jlNil I 111 I 11 I INS IIII!�III! ■i ON MEM _ ■s1■ jwlw = f•■J ■■ NICE■■ .r ■■ �. i001 i ■i ■■ IN ■■ r Com' 4ME rte' 1 ank MR MiN 001. 11111111111111 IIIIIII ,—� _ =I�!Nw Il!Ilf � !_Ifllllllllll!II IIIIIIIIRim ; �� .�a- -- -- I- iIl■■ ■■e - �� � �_ - — -�■zit ■5��. ��� I—_ �n ■Ji �~ I�i_I_l ' 1.2�i.�1■ _ i■ i �� 'I it -_F l�■rNMI!Ii■: Ifni ■■ �'_ eL■_■A #1�■; I - _. _ -77 110 -11: - 1z-1,.11111111111flllllll' �----- _: =� 1�N�11�1111�11 : - _ MI �i■i lar i. � ���_®� j� il, ._`iiaij.-'ll �!llllll�lllllllll!!lllll' TI� � Y--�- I Fm .:.. �� •• s gl�ll' I I�II� !— �� I ��11��11�1 I ILMI IIII"I , =�- � I x IIkI flip IINNIIIIIIIIIiIIimvc In Ila MR 4w; w MAN 2E rill du 9Ill I FIR Fool ION in � i I F5 Hil lei W. MENOMONEE MIN =; II�IIFIIIINL SNI 010 �mm m mm] AMM" Mo - am MINI 64 IN I iJ II vas S MINI No A Elm No Im Im volum. Fff i i I is MEMO SM 00 11 Ima 7 :RNST tax= ��� ! a on MEN SIR = W 0 _11EE: 3N, 11�0 win ink M 6L Fm_m —mm 71 ]BE __m_ 71 me Mo! ru 1.1.1 Vil- im! N.M. No ON on loom ME lil-I ME AM! J HIT No 73 rill Mit H 11 Z MIN: d- 0. 0. Be: MO ME IIIII==NMI 11I11 I 111RI111]IIIIJI]II 111111111, 1 F11111M I 11111 = 0 IS OWN MOMM illl�nol mam momm", ; ! 10;g ion no No ■ON MOORE 1111110:�: it11N Fool ION in � i I F5 Hil lei W. MENOMONEE MIN =; II�IIFIIIINL SNI 010 �mm m mm] AMM" Mo - am MINI 64 IN I iJ II vas S MINI No A Elm No Im Im volum. Fff i i I is MEMO SM 00 11 Ima 7 :RNST tax= ��� ! a on MEN SIR = W 0 _11EE: 3N, 11�0 win ink M 6L Fm_m —mm 71 ]BE __m_ 71 me Mo! ru 1.1.1 Vil- 2 EAVEDETAIL BUILDING SECTION 114' = IT' T) w LD CCZ LL -G Q w O Q rO Q T- V � L 0 L\ O W 5 H 12 rvrz — 30 4 U I' R o�Qzx8 O CD 1!5 d c 10 SAVE DETAIL EAVE DETAIL S sa•-+� s Iz t f��F�e 12 \15 14 N N El rz to 5 3.32 — I n � L1 H ^ m cLLJ? Ur'rt 313 Z ~ UNfi317 `5 !;3'-0rl" `- � a 27'-7027,ro f12"LL iz Q W O 5ra J SXEWELL WAIL S EYCND 12 O c a COMM. BALCONY COMM. BALCONY m 1 _.•^ �\ �5 N 1 - N � 4 m ^ o m OFFICES ATRlUN AiRLUM _ 4 M L4=70' 14'-70° - - Z O 11..1 (n 25'-5114' Inv r/8• S 0" 15 0• Z 40'-0' 62=7111' ED BUILDING SECTION Alt LAW4 d I I. 1 M _RhilTOM � s � Y r 1• G 9: ' 't Y h y � � r�..:� y��...• ,a Y � �, �;+ ys, tom, Jr tomigli :k�•./ J.�-- Rlw 1.. ..'I°I. �7, �. .. Ilk"rA•�: '.� 7� * " • _ 4 S �•� AM Rpm Li r C jj _ � SIL J - •� a—. °1 • Y _T Arl- fd Air - ti PAC 7,4 { r ,w r� _ _ 1alm I y� yc. 1� e h •Ago5'"il �l ':SSL. 4}.. ,.}• - 'i,rY- +4ploL k.f i JW ITIIIIL ry If s I _ , „�.. '�`" &'- 1� a. • —_ II ; u I .. �� *V i, ■ J v I �d II ri 16i � 4 .q Y . ' � r r I a i j. T a Pr { t M* '. . . . . . . . . . . .17 Li LL OD � Akio Df I Hugo, MN Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 1 Sec. 90-32. - Board of appeals and adjustments. The board of appeals and adjustments hears and makes recommendations to the city council on appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer with respect to this chapter, and to hear and make recommendations on request for variances to the literal provisions of the regulations where the strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. (1) The board of appeals and adjustments shall consist of one planning commission member, one city councilmember, and one other resident of the city appointed annually by the city council. The council shall appoint a presiding official and a secretary. The secretary need not be a member of the board. (2) Member removal and replacement shall be as for planning commission members. (3) A quorum of the board shall be two voting members, and it shall require two voting members to approve any motion, resolution, or other official action. (4) The board may adopt such other rules of procedure as are required to efficiently conduct their duties. (5) Board of appeals and adjustments responsibilities: a. Conduct hearings on requested variances to this chapter, and make a recommendation to the city council whether such variance should be granted or not. b. Hear appeals regarding alleged errors in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in interpreting this chapter. Provide the city council a report as to their conclusions, and a recommendation on what corrective action, if any, is required to correct any error that may occur. c. Hear appeals to the city engineer's interpretation or establishment of floodplain, floodway, and flood fringe boundaries. Provide the city council with a recommendation as to the elevation that should be used to determine such boundaries. (Prior Code, § 1015-040.1) about:blank 1/8/2016