Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.02.23 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 2006 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, Hoffbeck, Kleissler, Rosenquist, Schumann ABSENT: McRoberts, Weidt ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Community Development Assistant Minutes of February 9, 2006 Rosenquist made motion, Hoffbeck seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 9, 2006 as submitted. All Ayes. Motion carried. Victor Gardens 5'—" Addition PUD Amendment and Plat The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the application of CPDC and POA Scherer, 3030 Center Pointe Drive, Roseville, for an amendment to the Victor Gardens PUD plan to include 8 townhome units on a portion of the lot that was platted as Outlot B, Victor Gardens 2" d Addition. The plat will also include the creation of a lot to accommodate the existing pool and activity center and the replatting of the existing outlot as Outlot A. The CDD showed the PUD General Plan that was approved by the City Council on November 20, 2000. The site where the proposed townhomes would be located was intended to be commercial; therefore, a PUD Amendment was required. A sales trailer located on the site would be removed. He showed where the parking was located for the proposed townhomes as well as parking for the community center. The access point for townhomes would be the same as the pool and the community center. Schumann said he heard there were a lot of objections by residents who were under the impression that, after the sales office trailer was removed, the property would be open space. He said he understood CPDC to say the property was always going to be developed, and the developers were requesting a change in the PUD to allow townhomes instead of commercial. The CDD indicated that he did not want to speak for the residents but confirmed the PUD plan approved by the City showed commercial development on the site. Schumann opened the public hearing. Charles Kirk, 4393 Victor Path, Unit #3, said he served as the president of the Victor Gardens Gable Association, served as a liaison on the Master Association, and was also on the Parks and Centennial Planning Commission Minutes — February 23, 2006 Page 2 Commission with the City of Hugo. Kirk said that in the summer of 2004, the Hugo Planning Commission held a public hearing and residents indicated they were not happy with CPDC and were upset because the pool area had not been constructed. At that Commission meeting, Kirk said Schumann had suggested an open house be held. In October of 2004, CPDC held an open house where residents raised their concerns such as the issue of the pool being downsized. Kirk said residents paid premium lot fees because the builder, David Bernard, told those residents the property would not be developed. Kirk said CPDC disclosed to residents that it would be retail, and it would be many years down the road. After a board meeting in November of 2005, CPDC informed them they were going to change the plan for the third time and develop townhomes sooner than expected. Kirk said it was a heavily used area, and there were traffic safety concerns. An engineering study done by the City indicated that there were no safety concerns, but the study was conducted in February when the property was not highly used. Kirk said he had met with City staff in January and requested modifications to the plan. Kirk explained their objections to the plan included traffic and safety issues. There was not enough parking at the community center during the summer and the sales office property was being used as overflow. There were 664 residential homes in Victor Gardens and were only 12 parking spaces at the community center. There was bump -out parking around the park but there was none at the other parking spaces so it was unclear that they were designated parking areas. The corner was a busy place with school buses stopping there and parents congregating there. The townhomes had small garages and residents ended up parking on the private drives, and guest parking spaces were not used for parking because it was too hard to back up. Kirk said residents had complained to Washington County and CPDC about speeding in the area. Kirk said the original concept plan showed 280 townhomes and the developer was now proposing 469 townhome units (total). He said the proposed townhomes would face the side of their townhome building, and there were no other instances where that occurred in the development. The proposed buildings would also be the only four -unit buildings place side-by-side in the entire neighborhood and would be 3 to 4 bedroom units where you would expect more than one person living there. Kirk said they were originally told it would remain as open space, then retail, and now residential. They were unsure what CPDC would do next. He said the City should reject the plan and ask them to go back to the drawing board and ask what the residents wanted, or put the plan on hold until they had all the information and the full picture. Kirk said that CPDC was unwilling to hear their concerns and the residents wanted the community area they were promised with safe and adequate parking. Schumann stated that they didn't necessarily have a choice to deny the request; there was already an approved plan for commercial. The CDD confirmed that the applicant could ask for approval of a commercial building which would be consistent with the approved PUD. Schumann said he could see their issue with the parking. Dave Hempel, Project Manager of CPDC, thanked Mr. Kirk for all his valuable insight and the residents for all their comments over the years, and said he had tried to address their concerns. They originally planned for 9 townhome units and revised their plans after meeting with City staff and Kirk. He thanked the residents for coming and apologized for Pratt being out of town and unable to make it Planning Commission Minutes — February 23, 2006 Page 3 to the meeting. Schumann asked Hempel if he was aware of any inferences that may have been made by the sales representatives regarding the sales office being removed and the area being open space. Hempel said he was told about it in emails from Kirk and from residents at meetings. He said he had attempted to meet with Kirk but wanted to have a set of plans to show him how the site would be laid out but did not have the plans together in time to meet. Schumann asked if he had followed up with sales staff. Hempel said he went through David Bernard and their sales staff but the individual who worked with Kirk when he bought his home was no longer working there. David Bernard said that the site would turn into townhomes. Hempel acknowledged there had been a number of changes with the development. Hoffbeck asked what they were charged a premium for, and if Hempel thought the sales staff misrepresented them. Hempel said every townhome lot sold by David Bernard had a premium paid on it from $500-$5,000 and the units in Kirk's building were $1,000 each. Premiums were paid for corner units, units with views, or other amenities in the units. Those in Kirk's building were charged premiums for end units or upgrades to the units. Schumann asked Hempel if he misspoke when he said the sales staff told potential buyer that it would be townhome units there. Hempel said David Bernard sales representatives would tell clients and potential buyers that it probably would not be left open and would most likely be townhome units, but had no documentation of that. Schumann asked about the parking issue. Hempel said they added some off-street parking and pointed out where the on -street parking was located on the plan. The neighborhood was pedestrian orientated and the pool had limited capacity. Schumann pointed out that commercial would have similar traffic situations. Hempel said the daycare was going to go in that space as retail but the daycare went to the north and changes were made to the plat due to marketing conditions and site conditions. The apartments were no longer part of the plan and they felt the best land use would be multi -family. Schumann asked if the pool had been downsized from the original proposal. Hempel said it was the same as what was shown on all the plans he had seen. A larger pool would require a full time lifeguard, and similar developments had the same size pool area. Hoffbeck asked if he had heard the complaints about the congestion and if they had held any public forums. Planning Commission Minutes — February 23, 2006 Page 4 Hempel said he had never heard complaints about the congestion. They do hold public meetings and he heard about not enough parking in the 2nd Addition. The residents may not have been aware of the on - street parking. He said they had followed City ordinances on parking stalls and garage sizes. LaVonne Fitzgerald, 4505 Victor Path, Unit #8, was told by the sales person there would be no townhomes and possibly retail or something to do with the community center such as a workout center. She had a layout that showed one small building on it. Bob Weir, 4477 Cossette Lane, showed where other properties were supposed to be commercial but were now townhomes, and they were never notified of the changes. He speculated that Dave Bernard is not building there now because he didn't abide by the rules and regulations and they seemed to want to continuously change the rules and regulations. The pool and building were no where near the size that was necessary. He said they've had to fight for everything. Erin Buie, 4505 Victor Path, Unit #4, said she purchased her home in May 2004, and the sales representative told her the area could not be built up and had to be left open for the community. It was not right for them to be able to present anything they wanted to buyers. Jedd Larson, 4517 Victor Path, Unit #4, said that parking was a big issue. He was told by David Bernard the spots on the streets were turn-arounds and now CPDC is saying they're parking spots. Cars parked on Victor Path are a safety hazard with the blind corner. He suggested it be no parking as a matter of safety. The area was the center of the community and should be available for City use. Cory Berkenes, 4541 Victor Path, Unit #6, said he moved in late October of 2005 and the area was shown as open space then. He said the parking was ridiculous, and cars coming around the corner do not see cars parked along the road. Schumann said with commercial space, there would probably be as much or more traffic as with residential. LaVonne Fitzgerald brought up a flyer showing only one building on the site. Mr. Kirk said sales people who made the representation were no longer there. They paid $5,000 premiums as did their neighbors facing the property. Rachel Kirk, 4393 Victor Path, said she had only met Mr. Hempel twice before and had been given misinformation. She said there would be insignificant parking with retail also. Many of the townhomes have 3 to 4 bedrooms and she assumed two adults per unit would be driving plus children driving. The garden on the property is the only garden in Victor Gardens. They were misled by the sales representative. They were told it would remain open space. Hempel said for the record, there was no garden on the land office site; there was a water feature and rose bushes around the perimeter of the building. He said he understood how the brochure could have been misleading. He said he did work with Mr. Kirk on a plan which was reasonable to them, and they used that plan. He agreed that the time of year the parking study was done was not good. He said they have annual HOA meetings and residents had inquired at that time what would happen to the land office site. They were shown commercial development which they were now changing to townhomes. There was a limitation to what could be built there. Planning Commission Minutes — February 23, 2006 Page 5 Hoffbeck asked what had changed with the pool and building from the original drawing that was approved by the Planning Commission. Hempel said the building did not get any smaller than what was approved. Bailly said the pool on the brochure appeared to be the size of one of the townhome units. Hoffbeck asked Hempel if he knew why there was a problem with communication, if misleading information was being given by the sales staff. Hempel said hearsay and rumors have spread throughout the neighborhood. Terry Schwankl, 4589 Victor Path, asked what the capacity of the community center was. Hempel said the capacity was 28 people upstairs and 140 in the pool. The CDD said the issue of communication between the HOA and development representatives was a separate issue and he cautioned the Commission not to get involved. Council had directed City staff to look into the issue of sellers' disclosures. The Commission needed to focus on the PUD amendment and the plat. The Commission and the Council had approved the plan for the community center. Weir asked how the other properties became townhomes when they were zoned commercial. Schumann explained there had been two amendments to the original PUD The CDD explained the City is required to hold public hearings and notify property owners within 350 feet of the application. Many residents were noticed of this PUD amendment because the application involved a large 14 -acre parcel. Diane Brown, 4565 Victor Path, Unit #9, had an issue with the density and number of kids visiting the pool. She said the driveway would be built up to where the children would be getting in and out of cars, which was not safe. There would be a lot of cars and a lot of traffic. Hempel asked what could be done to make the on street parking safer. Schumann asked Hempel if he would be willing to meet with the residents and if he would consider bump -outs, striping, or speed bumps to help with the traffic issue. Hempel said he would keep the door open. They have talked to residents at the open house and received good feedback but are unsure what more they could do. Hoffbeck asked why they were putting in more townhomes and why it could not be more community area. Hempel said he could not answer that question, but the unit count would still be the same. The original plan showed apartment buildings on the site where retail was. Leaving the outlot open was not an option. Planning Commission Minutes — February 23, 2006 Page 6 Brian Galowitz, 4589 Victor Path, Unit #6, proposed a workshop session with the Planning Commission, residents, and developer. Retail would be better, and a single office would generate less traffic than the family units would. Kirk said he had pleaded with the developer to talk since 2004, and CPDC had made it known they were firm in their decision to develop the property. LuAnne Zodke, 4577 Victor Path, Unit #9, said the parking was a huge issue and she was told there would be no construction located near her unit where they considered it to be a swamp, but the trees had been bulldozed. She had been misled by a sales representative. She was told the community center would be larger and it was not handicap accessible on the upper level. She said the development was beautiful but congested. There were also issues with stop signs by the day care. Gloria Hage, 14118 Jardin Avenue, said it was difficult to park at the pool, and the number of townhomes was becoming overwhelming; a little open space would be nice. It was very crowded and congested. Schumann closed the public hearing. Rosenquist asked if they would consider bump -outs to define the parking along the street and suggested working with staff. Hempel said they would. Bump -outs were an option but may not work with the plans; perhaps striping would work. Bailly said she liked the idea of having bump -outs and parking better defined. Traffic and parking was an issue and wondered if the idea of townhomes should be reconsidered for the location. Rosenquist said that if the developer decides to put in commercial, it could be a large multi -use building. The developer had approved plans for commercial development in that area and it could go that direction. Parking needed to be addressed at the Council level and they could not get between the seller and builder. He said he would like to see the application be tabled to allow the developer to work with staff, and he told the audience that something will be built there. Hoffbeck acknowledged there were problems with communication that needed to be resolved. The developers needed to be more open minded to what can be done and would like to see something built that was satisfactory to everyone. She was disappointed by the lack of parking considering the number of homes in the development and did not like the idea of parking on the street because it could be dangerous and cause more congestion. Schumann made motion, Hoffbeck seconded, to table the application until March 23, 2006. All Ayes. Motion carried. Schumann informed the audience that the Commission would reopen the public hearing at that time. The Commission took a short break. Planning Commission Minutes — February 23, 2006 Page 7 Malcolm Cammack Conditional Use Permit for Shared Driveway The Commission held a public hearing to consider the application of Malcolm and Elizabeth Cammack, 9052 140th Street North for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a shared driveway to permit access to a land -locked parcel. Hugo City Code Chapter 320, Section 1195-220.1 DRIVEWAYS, states that a driveway shared by two or more separate parcels or lots of land may only be permitted by Conditional Use Permit. The parcel at 9420 140th Street North had approximately 1,020 feet of road frontage and was owned by Greg & Elizabeth Closmore. Their single family home was located on the west side of this 20 -acre parcel and there were several wetlands located on the property. A driveway permit was issued on November 7, 2005 to allow the Closmores to access the eastern portion of their property off 140th Street for recreational purposes. The eastern portion of the property was separated from their home by a large pond and the applicant had indicated there was no buildable site on that portion of the properly. The Cammacks owned the 40 acre land -locked parcel to the north of the Closmores. The Cammacks wanted to use the existing driveway located on the eastern portion of the Closmores' parcel to access the 40 acres site. The applicant wished to sell the land -locked parcel for construction of a single family home. Rosenquist noted that it bordered Wild Wings Game Farm and there were building setbacks from the Farm. Schumann opened the public hearing Malcolm Cammack, applicant, said the portion of the Closmore property that the driveway accessed was unbuildable because of the power line easement located there. He said the road had been established since 1973 but was covered with water when the area flooded. There were no other comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. Rosenquist made motion, Bailly seconded, to recommend approval of the Conditional use permit for a shared driveway at 9420 1401h Street North. All Ayes. Motion carried. Huizo Elementary School Site Plan Addition The Commission considered a site plan for an addition to Hugo Elementary School located at 14895 Francesca Avenue North. The CDD explained that the Oneka Elementary School would be opening in the fall of 2006. Hugo Elementary School would close for the school year for renovations and students would be moved to the new Oneka Elementary School during renovations. Two new building additions were proposed for a Media Center and additional administration and classroom space. The temporary classrooms on the site would be removed. A new parking lot was proposed and the CDD explained how the buses would circulate and where students would be dropped off and picked up. The hockey rink and the ball field on the northern end of the site would remain in place and the trees on the sight would remain. He added that attention needed to be paid to the stormwater ponds. Planning Commission Minutes — February 23, 2006 Page 8 The existing building was constructed primarily with brick and EIFS. The new building additions would match the brick; however, the applicant would prefer not to use EIFS due to its poor durability. Instead, the applicant proposed to use fiber cement panels with battens between the panels. Staff was comfortable with the use of fiber cement panels; however, staff raised concerns with the compatibility of the two materials because it would be difficult to successfully match them and the building would look much better if the existing EIFS was also replaced with the fiber cement product. Bailly asked it there would be two-way traffic in the parking lot, and the CDD said there would. Rosenquist commented that it was nice to see the tree barrier to the east would remain. Schumann asked if it was known how the students would be divided among the two schools. The CDD explained that Hugo Elementary would likely be pre -kindergarten through 2nd grade and Oneka Elementary would have 3rd through 5th grade. Hoffbeck asked where the children would be dropped off, and the CDD showed where there would be two very prominent entrances to the building. Hoffbeck asked if the existing stucco fagade would detract from the rest of the building, and the CDD said it would be noticeable. He explained the referendum for the school expansion did not include improvements to the existing building. The applicant was reviewing whether it was within their budget. Schumann asked about updates to 148th Street and Francesca Avenue. The CDD explained that the roads in the neighborhood are included in the five-year Capital Improvement Plan. Rosenquist made motion, Kleissler seconded, to recommend approval of the Site Plan for Hugo Elementary School. All Ayes. Motion carried. Adjournment Rosenquist made motion, Kleissler seconded, to adjourn at 9:38 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission