Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.08.09 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION August 9, 2012 Call to Order Chairman Gwynn called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. PRESENT: Arcand, Gwynn, Kleissler, Rosenquist ABSENT: Knauss, McRoberts ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, City Administrator Liz Hanson, Community Development Intern Approval of Minutes Arcand made motion, Kleissler seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 12, 2012, with revisions. All Ayes, motion carried. Gusset Design — CUP Amendment Community Development Intern, Liz Hanson, presented to the Planning Commission the Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Gusset Design Inc. located at 15587 Forest Blvd N. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit amendment for the expansion of a legal non- conforming use that was approved for the property in 2007. The applicant is requesting the amendments to allow a sandblasting booth to be located outdoors. The applicant would like to remove condition #1 that stated there shall be no exterior storage located on the property. The applicant would like to revise condition #2 to allow operations similar to sandblasting outside of the building within a booth. Hanson presented to the Planning Commission the history of the Conditional Use Permit application in 2007 and the complaints against the property due to noise and dust since 2010. The applicant is requesting a CUP amendment to help abate these violations. The applicant would like to remove condition #1 and revise condition #2. Staff is not comfortable removing condition #I entirely. They recommended the condition refer to a site plan that identifies what items will be stored and where they are allowed outdoors. The applicant is required by ordinance to screen the exterior storage. A landscape plan was submitted and approved with the Site Plan and CUP in 2007. Only some of the landscaping was installed, but the landscaping in the rear of the property was not. Staff will be working with the applicant to establish a landscape plan for this area. The applicant is also proposing to take up 9 parking spaces with the exterior storage. Staff is comfortable with this and has included a condition that Planning Commission Minutes — August 9, 2012 Page 2 states that if a parking issue occurs on the site, at any time deemed necessary by the City, the parking spaces shall be accessible and striped. The applicant would like to revise condition #2 to allow operations similar to sandblasting outdoors within a sandblasting booth. Staff is comfortable with this as long as the operations are conducted within the booth. The applicant stated that the booth will abate the noise and dust violations. Hanson stated that staff is comfortable with allowing the sandblasting to be conducted within a booth outdoors and believes that the blasting booth, as an alternative to locating the sandblasting indoors, will still meet the intent of the ordinance that requires the reduction of the impact of the non -conforming use on the surrounding properties. It is in staff's opinion that all the CUP approval criteria that were found to be met with the 2007 approval, continue to be met with the CUP amendment request. Hanson stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP amendment with the conditions listed in the CUP and Resolution. Chairman Gwynn asked if there were any questions from the staff. Arcand asked what the time frame was for when the outdoor storage was there and when the building expansion was done. Bryan responded by saying the Planning Commission approved the expansion in 2007 and the construction was completed in 2009. Gwynn asked the applicant to come up and add anything if he wished. Rick Burr, owner of Gusset Design, came up to the podium. He stated that he had two conditions on his CUP, and now there are four with the revisions that staff made in accordance with the CUP amendment. His intentions were not to add more conditions. The added conditions were unnecessary, and he wished to remove all the conditions except #2. Burr stated that the parking was not an issue with his business needs and the screening in the rear would be meaningless since there is a wooded area behind him. Rosenquist asked how the doors of the sandblasting booth are going to stay closed during the hot hours of the summer. Burr responded by saying that the employees have equipment that keep them cool during the hot days. Rosenquist asked why the landscaping hasn't been installed since it was approved in 2007. Burr responded by saying that the funds were not there to install the landscaping. He also added that there is no one in back of his property that needed to see that screening. Rosenquist stated that installing the landscaping was a part of his Site Plan approved in 2007. Burr recanted that the landscaping just never got done. Gwynn opened the public hearing. Craig Baland, who lives 15475 Goodview Trail N, came up to speak. He is one of the neighbors of Gusset Design. He stated that there have been several delays that have stalled the business from making improvements in abating the violations of the CUP. Mr. Burr has been delaying these improvements further by requesting to remove all the conditions from the CUP. Craig Planning Commission Minutes — August 9, 2012 Page 3 wanted to know the noise level, in scientific terms, that would be coming out of the sandblasting booth. The noise from the sandblasting operations is not an appealing sound to listen to during the day. He stated that the City has given Mr. Burr's company a lot of time and flexibility trying to deal with the legal non -conforming use and its violations. He also stated that the sandblasting operations have created an eye sore for the gas company that abuts Gusset Design and the residential properties to the east. There are properties in the area that may have a problem selling because of this view. Craig concluded by saying that he also has a letter from his neighbors, the Lewandowskis (5975 Goodview Trail N), stating their feelings of the proposed sandblasting booth. They wished that the noise coming from the sandblasting operations would stop, and that Rick Burr should not have any more extensions or outdoor sandblasting operations. Craig also stated that he was representing his neighbor, Carl Mielke (15473 Goodview Trail N). Another resident, Chuck Plowe (5965 Goodview Trail N), came to the podium. He stated that his biggest concern was the noise and the view of the property from his house. He hoped these issues can be abated. Gwynn asked if the applicant would like to respond to the previous comments made by the residents. Burr commented on Plowe's statement by saying that his business gets blamed for most of the sight and noise, even though there are other industrial businesses in that area. He said that his business is trying to comply, but there is always going to be noise because it is an industrial business. Chairman Gwynn asked why the sandblasting operations never moved inside the building when the addition was put on. Burr responded by saying it was due to economic hardship and because of the fire in 2008. He also stated that the people along the west side of his property signed a petition stating that his business was not an issue to them. He also mentioned that the residents who came up and spoke do not have a clear view of his property to make a valid argument. The noise decibel is also complying with city standards. He does not understand how they can hear his operations. Arcand asked why he does not put the sandblasting operations within the building. Burr stated that he has too much going on inside to accommodate the sandblasting. The proposed booth would be like putting a building inside another building. He stated that the dust will be abated because his business will be switching to steel shot instead of silica sand. Chairman Gwynn asked if the steel walls of the booth will be enough to abate the noise. Burr confirmed that the booth will be able to abate the noise, and verified this by saying no one hears what is going on within his existing metal building. He is trying to contain the noise so that the residents will not hear it. Chairman Gwynn closed the public hearing and opened the discussion for the Planning Commissioners. Rosenquist stated that he has a problem with Mr. Burr not complying with his site plan that was approved in 2007, and the fact that he wants to remove most of the conditions. It was very difficult for Rosenquist to understand that Mr. Burr will comply in the future. Planning Commission Minutes — August 9, 2012 Page 4 Gwynn added that he is not comfortable with Burr's request to remove most of the conditions. He stated that the conditions that were added were done to protect the City Code as well as make Mr. Burr comply with the Site Plan that was approved in 2007. A couple of the conditions were just modified to accommodate the items that Mr. Burr was proposing. Arcand stated that he would not be comfortable removing any of the conditions. Kleissler agreed with Arcand. She asked if the spaces striped on the site plan were usable spaces in the future. Bryan responded by saying that the spaces would not be accessible with the placement of the storage abutting them. He stated that the condition pertaining to the parking spaces is there to protect the City Code, and a reasonable solution to address the parking requirement when necessary. He also stated that the business does not need the spaces there now, nor in the near future. Arcand asked if there was a timeline in place to get these items completed. Bryan stated there is no timeline in place yet, although it can be addressed at the time that the permits are issued for the remainder of the site. Kleissler asked if it was reasonable to ask for compensation for the size of the landscaping that was originally approved for the rear screening to ensure the storage is screened adequately. Bryan stated that that is a possibility. He stated that this can be reviewed in more detail. Rosenquist asked if a timeline can be established to install the landscaping. Bryan answered Yes. Rosenquist stated that the process has been dragged out for awhile and he wants the issues of noise and sight to be addressed. Kleissler asked if there was any flexibility with putting the booth inside and compensating with additional exterior storage. Bryan responded by saying that the City has talked with the applicant about this as a solution but the applicant stated it was not the best solution. Bryan stated that the Planning Commissioners have a couple options in addressing this request. They can deny the request, approve the request the applicant has made or approve the request with the conditions listed in the CUP. Arcand asked if there was an expiration date for the CUP. Bryan stated that there is no expiration dates with CUPS because they run with the land. Rosenquist asked Mr. Burr if he considered moving the sandblasting booth indoors in the future. Burr responded saying things may change to consider that. He also stated that he has considered moving his business out of Hugo. He stated that denying his request would cost his business jobs. October 17th will be the day that he will stop sandblasting outdoors. Arcand asked if Mr. Burr had a problem complying with the conditions listed in the CUP. Burr responded No. He does not believe everything will be completed right away, but it will be done. Arcand asked what was reasonable for the landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes — August 9, 2012 Page 5 Burr responded in saying that the side landscaping would be difficult to install since the adjacent businesses work up to the property line. He wants to work with the City to establish an appropriate landscape plan for the rear of the property. Arcand stated that Mr. Burr has to consider the future development that will take place on the properties that face the rear of Gusset Design when establishing a landscape plan. Burr stated that some landscaping has been installed, but some of the landscaping has not been installed because of its industrial use. Kleissler asked what Mr. Burr has planned for the 60 days he has before October 17th. Burr stated that he is waiting to get through the Planning Commission meeting and City Council meeting before he starts anything. He wants to have everyone's approval before spending money to complete his request. Gwynn recanted that Mr. Burr must end his sandblasting outdoors before October 17"' even if his construction does not get completed after next year. Arcand made motion, Gwynn seconded, to approve the CUP with the conditions listed. Frenchman Place 2nd Addition — Site Plan Kendra presented to the Planning Commission the request of a site plan approval for a 12,381 square foot medical office building. She presented the topics of architecture, trash enclosure, roof top screening, signage, parking and road access, landscaping plan, sidewalks and trails, wetland delineation and stormwater plan contingency. She stated that there are conditions in the Resolution that address the compliance of the architectural design guidelines, roof top screening, signage, landscaping requirements, and contingency of wetland delineation and stormwater plan approvals. Kendra concluded saying that staff recommends approval of the site plan. Arcand stated that it seems as though the project is premature and he does not know what they are approving. He was looking for some guidance in clarifying the issues. Bryan stated that the Planning Commission can approve the proposed site plan with the conditions listed in the Resolution, or have the applicant make the necessary changes and come back to the Planning Commission at a later time. Gwynn asked if someone from the design team would wish to comment. David Hempel, the developer, came up to the podium. He stated that the majority of the site is made up of wetlands and thus had many constrictions. He invited up Mark Finneman to address the design of the building. Mark Finneman assured the Planning Commission that they will be addressing the issues presented. He stated that he views the property as an individual property and not a part of a shopping center. He believed that there are a lot of restrictions to the color and material that is enforced by the shopping center criteria. He does not believe that there should be an established design criteria for them to produce for signage and building appearance because it is too restrictive and prevents fresh ideas. Planning Commission Minutes — August 9, 2012 Page 6 Hempel and Finneman then addressed the issue of screening the rooftop equipment. They plan to screen the equipment and show that in a revised plan, which can be available to the Planning Commission if they choose to see. Finneman assured the Planning Commission that the parking requirements can be achieved in terms of maneuvering and adding an additional stall. Finneman stated that the signage will be in compliance with the City's ordinance and will be schematic. They are influencing the sign companies to come forward with their sign designs to establish their identity and what they wish to look like. These designs can be passed around to the developers and City staff to approve. Sign criteria will be established as this process goes along. Finneman then brought up the topic of landscaping. He assured that they will achieve the City's landscape criteria with the restrictions present on the site. Hempel added an idea to spread out the required landscaping across other lots as they develop. Finneman stated that the sidewalks and trails are not fully established about placement because there is an unknown factor. They wish to wait to establish the sidewalk plan until there is definite intentions of what to do and connect. Finneman stated that there will be no issues with gutters and downspouts because they are internally situated within the building shell. Hempel concluded that they have been consistently delayed, and they are on a tight schedule. They hope to move this project along with the help of the Planning Commission. Bryan asked Hempel if there were any specific conditions that he would like to change or address. Rosenquist stated that there are many items to address but believes City staff is capable of working with the developer. He is not concerned with the project overall. He recanted Bryan's question of what conditions the developer had issues with. Arcand asked what the definition of a shopping center is and how it applies to this project. Kendra responded in saying that by definition almost everything is defined as a shopping center. The shopping center definition is only important with the signage issue, and does not affect the whole design palette of the proposed building. She also stated that if the developers do not address the issue of the sidewalks now, it will not be installed in the future. They need to show the plan now as a proof for later. She also noted that there are ways to achieve variability and flexibility even with an established design criteria. Hempel came up and stated his issues with the design criteria being too restrictive. Arcand asked if there was a substantially different proposal for the materials and colors to be used on the building. Finneman responded by saying that they do not have a different idea because the design criteria prevented that. He does not see a need to have a predetermined palette that they should use. Gwynn stated that when they put together the Commercial and Industrial guidelines they put in a great deal of flexibility. There were suggestions but no specific enforcement. Bryan stated that everything is based on compatibility. This is the main factor in decision Planning Commission Minutes — August 9, 2012 Page 7 making. If the Planning Commission and developer are comfortable they can treat the buildings individually when reviewing its design with the risk that the individual proposals may not be compatible with what is existing. Hempel stated he had a couple modifications with the Resolution, and with the help of Bryan, modifications were made. One being letter e under Architecture, and modifying it to say "follow design guidelines" rather than "submit design guidelines." The other modification would be to eliminate letter f under Signage because the City ordinance can control the signage requirements for the buildings. And the last modification will be letter h under Signage to say, "The project is not defined as a shopping center; therefore, the development monument is not permitted. The plans must be revised accordingly." Gwynn asked the Commissioners thoughts on the modifications. They all agreed with the requested modifications. Hempel asked for consideration on spreading out the landscaping on other lots. Kendra responded by saying they have the option of increasing the size of some of the plants to reduce the number required. She stated that staff can work with the applicant to do this. Gwynn made motion, Rosenquist seconded, to approve the site plan with the revised conditions of the Resolution. Adjournment Arcand motioned, Kleissler seconded, to adjourn at 9:06 pm. All Ayes, motion carried. Meeting adjourned. Liz Hanson Community Development Intern