Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.02.08 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2007 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann, Weidt ABSENT: Kleissler ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Planning Commission Secretary Rachel Simone, Associate Planner Minutes of December 14, 2006 Weidt made motion, Bailly seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 14, 2006 as submitted. All Ayes. Motion Carried. Minutes of January 25, 2007 Rosenquist made motion, Bailly seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 25, 2007 as submitted. Ayes: Bailly, McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann Abstain: Weidt Motion Carried. Gussett Design (Rick Burr) Concept Plan with Two Variance for Building Addition The Commission considered the application of Rick Burr, owner of Gussett Design, 15587 Forest Boulevard North, for concept plan review for an addition to an existing 5,740 square foot building. The Commission also considered a variance to allow a one foot side yard setback where 30 feet is required by ordinance and a variance to construct the addition with metal panels which is not allowed by the commercial/industrial construction standards outlined in the ordinance. The Associate Planner explained the business was a legal non -conforming use. The property was zoned General Business (C-2) and the use was industrial. In order to build the addition, the Planning Commission Minutes — February 8, 2007 Page 2 applicant would have to apply for a conditional use permit to expand the legal non -conforming use and must comply with the related performance standards as part of the site plan review. The addition would provide space inside of the building to store materials that were currently outdoors. The plan complied with the parking requirements as well as the impervious surface and building coverage requirements. The building height had not yet been determined, and there was no lighting plan proposed. The detailed landscaping plan would be submitted with the formal plan but the landscaped areas were shown on the concept plan. She showed where the fencing would be realigned on the property line and explained that staff would prefer the trash enclosures be inside the building. If they were located outside, they would have to be enclosed with materials matching the exterior of the building. There was no new signage proposed and the City Engineer had indicated the pond looked to be adequate, but the City would need formal calculations during the site plan review. The Associate Planner had explained that a variance was granted to allow an addition to be built in 1992 three feet from the property line when the setback was ten feet. Because the building was constructed at a slight angle, the proposed addition would range from three to one foot from the property line if constructed in line with the existing building. The Board of Zoning adjustments had reviewed the variances at their meeting earlier that evening, and the Associate Planner explained there was a neighbor who spoke at the Board meeting about his concerns regarding noise and activities on the site in the evenings. The Board had recommended approval of the variances as requested. Schumann clarified that it was a concept plan and two variances the Commission was considering this evening. A formal application for site plan and the Conditional Use Permit would still need to be submitted for the addition. Bailly asked about the side yard variance and wondered why the building was built crooked on the site. She was concerned about the landscaping on the east side of the site and questioned whether there would be room for a buffer from the neighbors. Mark Erickson, 15685 Foxhill Avenue North, said the back of his home faced Highway 61, and he had observed the business being opened late at night, noise of metal being dropped and employees talking in the open garage door. He asked if it was possible to put a restriction on the variance regarding the hours of operation. The CDD explained that it would not be a part of this application but could be considered in the Conditional Use Permit. Rosenquist asked if the applicant was in violation of any ordinance and the CDD explained that there was nothing that regulated the working hours. Erickson thanked the Commission for their time and said he would try to attend the meeting when the Conditional Use Permit was discussed. Rick Burr, owner of Gussett Design, explained that the last shift ended at four o'clock and they Planning Commission Minutes — February 8, 2007 Page 3 do stay later once in awhile but usually not past six o'clock. He said behind his property was the Peloquin Industrial Park and some of the businesses there operated 24 hours and generate noise. He said the addition to the building would allow him to keep more of his staff working indoors. Weidt asked about the addition in 1992 and if there was a variance granted for the construction standards. Burr said the standards were not in effect at the time, and Schumann explained that the standards originated with the creation of the Bald Eagle Industrial Park. McRoberts said he did not agree that there was a hardship present in regard to the construction materials. Burr said a concrete addition would look out of place and it could make it difficult to market. Rosenquist asked if the addition could be moved over five feet to allow for a greater setback Burr said there would be a step in the building and it would look strange if all the roof lines did not line up. Rosenquist commented that it sometimes looked better to break up the roof lines. Weidt asked if the roof line would hang over the property line. Burr said there would be no soffit; there would be a cap with gutters. Bailly asked if they could lose some of the parking stalls in the front and create more green space. The Associate Planner pointed out that all the parking spaces were required. Rosenquist said he did not like the one foot setback. Schumann said it was a problematic area and would look better than it does now. Bailly was concerned about the future neighbors on the east side should the property ever develop and suggested 20 percent of the exterior be brick, perhaps columns of brick on the back and north sides. She also was interested in seeing the landscape plan and felt it would help to add some trees adjacent to the pond. She agreed it would be nice to have the exterior storage cleaned up. She wondered about the construction of the roof line if the addition was moved five feet, and she said she would not like to see the addition be more than four feet higher than the exiting building. McRoberts said the intent to clean up the exterior storage was commendable, but he couldn't see why he could not comply with the building material. He also said he had difficulty in approving the setback. He suggested moving the five feet of landscaping shown on the north side to the Planning Commission Minutes — February 8, 2007 Page 4 south side and moving the building five feet north. He encouraged the applicant to revise the plan and make the building more narrow or shift roof lines. Burr explained that he was trying to keep the building in alignment, and he had a proposal to purchase the Skelgas, Inc. property to the south. He said he was trying to keep his business in Hugo. Rosenquist agreed that Burr needed to look at reconfiguring the building. Weidt said he could likely get by with narrowing the building, and he did not like the one foot variance. He would like to see some attempt to put brick on the sides of the building that could be seen from Highway 61. Burr said he was not opposed to putting brick columns along the side. Schumann suggested the applicant talk to Skelgas about a lot line shift. McRoberts made motion, Bailly seconded, to recommend that at the time of site plan approval, the applicant provide architectural drawings showing 20 percent brick on all sides of the building. Ayes: Bailly, McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann Nay: Weidt Motion carried. McRoberts made motion, Rosenquist seconded, to recommend approval of a five foot variance on the south side of the building and a 25 foot setback on the north side of the building. All Ayes. Motion carried. Schumann called for a five minute recess. Planning Commission Annual Report The Commission reviewed the 2006 Annual Report. The report recapped the Planning Department and Building Department activities during the past year. The CDD explained the reduction to residential building permits was due to the slump in the housing market. The change in the workload in the Building Department resulted in the dismissal of a building inspector. The commercial development in Hugo remained strong. Adjournment Rosenquist made motion, Weidt seconded, to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes — February 8, 2007 Page 5 Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission