Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.02.09 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2006 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, Hoffbeck, Kleissler, McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann, Weidt ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Community Development Assistant Kendra Lindahl, City Planner Minutes of January 12, 2006 Weidt made motion, McRoberts seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 12, 2005 as submitted. All Ayes. Motion carried. POAC/Fairview Clinic PUD Amendment for Sign in Victor Gardens South The Commission considered the request of POAC Investments for a PUD Amendment for "Victor Gardens South Village" to allow a monument sign for property located at 14663 Mercantile Drive North. Fairview Health Clinic and the Institute for Athletic Medicine are located in the building on the site. The CDD explained that a PUD general plan for the construction of 14 townhomes and approximately 56,000 square feet of commercial space was approved in 2004. The PUD flexibility allowed the developer to construct two 17 -foot tall multi -tenant identification monument signs near CSAH 8 with 80 square feet of sign area where the ordinance typically allows 40 square feet of sign area. Located on the building are three wall signs identifying the tenants. POAC Investments was requesting a PUD amendment to allow an additional monument sign to be located near the entrance of the Clinic to direct traffic into the parking lot. The proposed 5 -foot tall, 15 square foot internally illuminated sign would be located near the south east corner of the building adjacent to the shared parking lot. The clinic suggested the need for a sign because their patients were driving past the clinic. McRoberts asked if there was anything prohibiting them to park in another lot. The CDD said there was not. Jim Brumel from the Real Estate Department of Fairview Clinic said many of the patients who visit the Clinic have compromised physical conditions and the patients are parking too far away. They want to direct people to the parking lot closest to the Clinic. The Institute for Athletic Medicine is a separate entity and is asking for its own identification on the sign. Those patients are frequently seeking services for injuries. Planning Commission Minutes — February 9, 2006 Page 2 Rosenquist asked why not remove the Fairview logo from the sign because it seemed to be an advertising sign. Brumell said was a directional sign and not intended to be an advertisement sign. Rosenquist disagreed. Schumann recalled a fair amount of discussion went into the issue of signs as part of the Victor Gardens South PUD and it was agreed that all signs would be on the buildings except for the entrance monument. He said a smaller sign would be preferable saying "medical parking" or something similar to that. Hoffbeck said she has visited several clinics including the Mayo Clinic which was similar to a small city. She appreciated their directional signs and said signature signs are easier to recognize. Weidt disagreed with Hoffbeck and said that if you miss the entrance to the Fairview Clinic, the road takes you around back to the parking lot. He suggested a sign on the corner of the building to direct patients to the parking lot. Bailly said she liked to see the Fairview logo on the sign. Weidt asked why the sign was two-sided. Brumell replied that if you did drive past the entrance and turned around, the sign would be visible. He said it was safer and better customer service. McRoberts said he didn't like the precedence they would be setting. If the Clinic moves out, a less unique tenant would be able to use the sign. He indicated that he would consider a smaller sign. Kleissler asked how many months the clinic had been open, if they provide emergency care, and what percent of patients were returning patients. Brumell said the ribbon cutting was on October 31, 2005 and their first patient was seen on November 1, 2005. They did not provide emergency care but did have evening hours. He did not have the information on patient returns. Kleissler said returning patients were likely to go to the closer parking lot after their first visit. Schumann said one would normally drive around to look for a closer spot. A smaller sign at eye -level would make more sense. He didn't agree with the large sign and felt it would be setting precedence. Matt Alexander, POA Scherer, said it appeared the architectural detail on the building was causing confusion. The dormer added to the west side conveys there is an entrance there. He said he has seen their parking lot nearly empty while the parking on the other side was full. Rosenquist said he felt the sign should be smaller. Planning Commission Minutes — February 9, 2006 Page 3 McRoberts said they have already doubled the size of what is permitted by ordinance by allowing 80 square feet in the PUD. Ordinance permits a maximum of 40. Schumann said a smaller, simpler, lower sign would be less intrusive. McRoberts asked if the sign could be contingent on a specific tenant. The CDD said it would be hard to enforce. They could require the developer remove the sign if tenants change. Schumann said that would be putting a burden on someone else and they should stick to the requirements in the approved PUD. Bailly suggested putting the sign on the other side of the parking lot entrance so people could see it prior to passing the lot. Rosenquist made motion to table the application. Motion died for lack of a second. Weidt made motion, McRoberts seconded, to deny the application for an additional sign in Victor Gardens South Village. Hoffbeck pointed out that this was a unique circumstance, the sign would match other Fairview signs making it easier to locate the clinic, and they would always be getting new patients. It was not crucial but smart. She said she felt Pratt would do a nice job taking care of it and making it an appropriate sign. Schumann said a sign half that size would be acceptable. Aye: Bailly, Kleissler, McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann, Weidt Nay: Hoffbeck Motion passed. Bailly suggested a smaller sign saying "Fairview Parking". McRoberts told the applicant they would probably receive a positive response for a smaller four -foot sign. Oneka Lake Townhomes - Preliminary Plat and Site Plan The Commission held a public hearing to consider the preliminary plat and site plan for Cross Country Properties, 1081 South Birch Lake Boulevard, White Bear Lake, to allow development of a 6.7 acre parcel into 30 townhome units. The development would be located north of 150t' Street and east of Highway 61. The Planner explained that the application had been tabled at the December 22, 2005 meeting. On December 14, 2005, the Parks Commission reviewed the application and recommended Park Dedication fees in lieu of land for the project. The sidewalk would be located on the west side of the street and connect to the trail on Oneka Lake Boulevard. Most lots would be accessed off private Planning Commission Minutes — February 9, 2006 Page 4 drives except for four units. The plan complied with lot size and set back requirements. Staff was requesting revision to the landscape plan and a plan showing where snow would be stored. Staff was also of the opinion that it met the purpose and intent of the Multi -Family Guidelines. Dean Gannon, Cross Country Properties, explained that the original plan showed 34 units but had been reduced to 30 units because of wetland issues, and the floor plan provided multi -generational living with main floor bedrooms. Schumann asked about providing a brick wrap-around to comply with the multi -family guidelines or whether addition shrubbery could be planted along the sides of the homes. Gannon said they could add additional landscaping; they wanted to make the homes affordable. McRoberts asked what the selling price of the homes would be. Gannon said they would be around $200,000. Joanne, exterior designer, showed vinyl siding, brick, and shingle samples of neutral tones saying she realized it was a more rural setting and the units would blend in better with the environment. There were four different siding colors and no buildings would be the same. Different shake sidings would give each home its own personal look. White trim of wider width than normal would be used. Schumann suggested stone be used to wrap around the sides of the buildings. Schumann reconvened the public hearing. Rogers Seekins, 6130 150th Street North, said he lived in Oneka Lakeview Townhomes and asked that the name of the development be changed. Dick Keeling, 6102 150th Street North, asked if a traffic study had been done. Additional traffic would be added to an already crowed road, and he asked if it could be routed a different way. The CDD provided an update on the traffic. The City had submitted an application to MN DOT for a traffic signal on Oneka Lake Boulevard and Highway 61 but was turned down. The City would continue to pursue funding for a signal. Keeling asked how drainage would be handled and if they would be adding additional water to the pond on the Oneka Lakeview Development. Duane Bengston, 6110 1501h Street North, questioned the setbacks on the building at the SE corner and he questioned whether the landscaping would match that of the Oneka Lakeview townhomes. Gannon said the setback was 25 feet. There were no other comments, and Schumann closed the public hearing. Don, a representative of Cross Country Properties who had worked on the architecture on the project, explained they would be varying the depths on certain features on the entrances of the buildings, and the shakes and gables would provide a craftsman look. Stone would be located around the columns Planning Commission Minutes — February 9, 2006 Page 5 only. Michael Nightengale, a representative of Cross Country Properties, said he would be happy to work with the neighboring property owners on the landscape plan. Gannon explained that the water storage pond was solely on the project site, and there would be no impact on the neighboring properties. The Commission and applicant discussed the different samples displayed before them, and how the development complied with the multi -family guidelines. Gannon explained that the shakes were of a different higher quality material than the siding, and he understood the guidelines required at least 25% of the exterior be of an alternate material. Hoffbeck asked what it would do to their budget to increase the amount of stone or brick. The applicant said a wrap-around stone would increase the cost approximately 5%. Hoffbeck pointed out that the guidelines do not specifically say stone or brick must be used, and a craftsman style does not necessarily have brick. Rosenquist asked if the garages could be placed on the lots to be less intrusive. Gannon said they homes were situated pretty tight on the lots, and they planned to have gables over the garages. They would put windows on the end units. Schumann asked about a harsher texture on the shake. The applicant showed a sample of hand -split vinyl and asked if they could work with staff on the color scheme. Weidt said it would be a nicer contrast. Rosenquist agreed that the harsher vinyl would look nicer from the street. Weidt liked the design of the buildings, preferred the hand -split shakes with contrasting colors, and said pre -finished garage doors would be preferable to painted. Kleissler said the changes agreed upon were positive changes. McRoberts recommended the developer work with the adjacent landowners on the landscaping. He said they had enough architectural articulation on the building elevations, but they also needed it on the contrast in color. Bailly agreed with the others and liked the hand -split shake vinyl. The applicants indicated they would be happy reconsider the exterior materials but noted it would be a busier look and could be more difficult to blend. There was a limit to the colors/types of vinyl. McRoberts made motion, Rosenquist seconded, to recommend approval of the application with the conditions there be two car garages, windows on the upper levels, and the applicant work with staff on exterior colors and work with the neighbors on landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes — February 9, 2006 Page 6 All Ayes. Motion carried. Goals for 2006 At the Commission Meeting on January 12, 2006, the Commission established goals for 2006. The CDD informed the Commission that he shared those goals with the City Council and they incorporated some of the Commission's goals with those of the Council. McRoberts suggested taking time at one of the upcoming meetings to discuss what the Commission has learned; things that could have been done better. Discussions needed to occur regarding traffic issues and phasing of developments. Rosenquist said he felt plans for the northern gateway and transportation needed to go to the top of the list. Schumann suggested a running account be kept on the ratio of multi -family and single-family homes. The CDD informed the Commission of plans to set a date for the City-wide bus tour with the Council where discussions could take place on what went right and what didn't. Weidt said a previous tour with the Parks Commission had been productive and would be helpful for the Planning Commission to look at some of the projects. Schumann said they needed to begin discussion on what is needed to update the Comprehensive Plan. Hoffbeck said she would be interested in hearing the builder's comments on phasing; what is their reasoning. The CDD said he would organize the tour and prepare to move ahead on the Comprehensive Plan Adjournment Rosenquist made motion, Kleissler seconded, to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission