Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.05.11 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 2006 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, Rosenquist, Schumann, Weidt ABSENT: Hoffbeck, Kleissler, McRoberts ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Community Development Assistant Rachel Simone, Community Development Intern Kendra Lindahl, Planner Minutes of April 27, 2006 Weidt made motion, Rosenquist seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 27, 2006, as submitted. All Ayes. Motion carried. Wilderness View 3rd Addition Preliminary Plat On April 27th meeting, the Commission had opened the public hearing to consider the application of Hub Management, 3050 Echo Lake Avenue, Mahtomedi, for a preliminary plat to be known as Wilderness View 3rd Addition. The Commission had tabled the item at the applicant's request and Schumann recessed the public hearing until May 11th At this meeting on May 11, 2006, staff had informed the Commission the applicant was requesting it be tabled again. Schumann opened the public hearing and there were no comments. Schumann recessed the public hearing Rosenquist made motion, Weidt seconded, to table the application for Wilderness View 3rd Addition. All Ayes. Motion carried. TDS Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site Plan The Commission held a public hearing to consider the application of TDS Development, 3065 Spruce Street, Little Canada, for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for a campus development and a site plan to construct a 19,240 square foot building on a 4.16 acre parcel located in the Bald Eagle Industrial Park. The CD Intern explained the property was located on the south side of Fenway Boulevard Circle, east of Fenway Boulevard, in the Bald Eagle Industrial Park. This parcel was once part of the parcel to the west and subdivided in February 2003 to create two separate parcels. Prior to that, a Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2006 Page 2 was granted for the entire site for a campus development which allowed for the construction of multiple buildings on one parcel. An amendment to the current CUP was needed because the CUP was specific to the old site plan. The applicant had submitted a new site plan to construct a 19,240 square foot office warehouse building on the east side of a 4.16 acre parcel and a future site for a building approximately 8,000 square feet in size. The plan complied with building and lot coverage, building heights, setbacks, fencing and parking requirements. A full lighting plan and a revised landscape plan needed to be submitted to the City. Infiltration was satisfactory as reviewed by the City Engineer. The plan showed mechanical units being screened by placing prefinished metal panels over the units. Staff recommended to the applicant to raise the parapet wall to cover the mechanical unit instead of covering it with panels. The applicant was also working with the pipeline for encroachment into their easement for a monument sign. Schumann opened the public hearing. Tim Stockness, TDS Development, was present to answer questions. Schumann asked if there would be screening on the fence and Stockness said there would be. Rosenquist asked about the use of the building and when they wanted to get started. Stockness explained it would be for storage of trucks and trailers for his construction company and they hoped to begin construction of the building within the next 30 days. The Commission had concerns about the screening of the rooftop unit and preferred the parapet wall. Stockness indicated he would rather install a low -profile unit and cover it with panels. Rosenquist made motion, Weidt seconded, to recommend approval of the site plan with the condition the applicant continue to work with staff on lowering and screening the mechanical units. All Ayes. Motion carried. Amendment to Hugo City Code, Chapter 320 for Notice Requirements The Commission held a public hearing to consider amendments to the notification requirements beyond what is required by State Statute. During the March 6, 2006 City Council meeting, Council Members were presented with the issue that the 350 feet area notification requirement for public hearings may not be adequate in the rural areas of the City. Staff was directed to provide a draft ordinance and have a public hearing at a Planning Commission meeting to discuss possible amendments to the ordinance where the notification requirements were specified. The CDD explained the reason for the discussion on notice requirements was that in rural areas of the City, properties tend to be larger and the notification was only sent to a small number of owners in the area. In the rural areas the impact of a proposed planning application could extend to property owners beyond the 350 foot notification range. State statue required notices to be mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The City mailed notices to property owners within 350 feet from the site. In addition, public hearings for certain applications were published in the White Bear Press as the City's legal publication and sometimes in the Neighborhood News at no cost. Staff checked with other Cities and found some extended the 300 feet required by law but none differentiated between rural and Planning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2006 Page 3 urban areas of the City. Staff used the proposed Del Webb site, which bordered rural and urban areas, to illustrate possible scenarios. The CDD explained that it could be done based on the MUSA but noted the MUSA line could be eliminated at some point. There were also some large lots and Agriculture and Future Urban Service zoned property within the MUSA district. Notification areas could also be based on zoning or based on the zoning of adjacent parcels. Bailly suggested that notification areas could be based on the size of a project. Weidt suggested advertising to let the public know they can be put on an email distribution list to receive the Planning Commission agendas. He also suggested notification areas be done according to what the majority of the surrounding land use was. Schumann opened the public hearing. There were no comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. Schumann said that most of the complaints were that people did not receive their notices, not that they were outside the range. He was comfortable with the 350 feet range but felt the developer should be responsible for mailing notices by certified mail. Staff could provide mailing addresses. The more complicated the notice requirements are, the more likely mistakes will be made. Rosenquist asked if state law required the cities to mail out notices, and the CDD said he was not aware of any statues on it. Rosenquist also wondered if unique applications could trigger a larger notification area. There was the question of who would make that determination. Schumann suggested publishing notices twice in the paper and having the City send out certified letters and charge the applicant, or sending out two letters with the second one being sent ten days prior to the meeting by certified mail. Rosenquist liked the idea of sending letters by certified mail and asked staff to look into it. Weidt commented that no matter where the boundaries were set, there would always be someone who felt they should have been notified. Rosenquist made motion, Bailly seconded, to table the item. All Ayes. Motion carried Amendment to Hugo City Code, Chapter 320 Reducing Side Yard Setbacks in Industrial Districts The Commission held a public hearing to consider decreasing the side yard setback from 40 feet to 10 feet from other zoned industrial properties in the industrial zoning districts. The CD Intern explained the side yard setback from interior lot lines in the Industrial Zoning Districts was increased from 10 feet to 40 feet in 1999 as part of a comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance. Occupants in the industrial districts have found the 40 foot setback limits the size of buildings permitted on lots within the district and provides excessive space between buildings on properties with compatible uses. Additionally, at the time the Bald Eagle Industrial Park was developed, Planning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2006 Page 4 the setback from was 10 feet and that is what is reflected in the covenants for the Park. Covenants should not be less restrictive than the Zoning Ordinance. The CDD pointed out a property in the Peloquin Industrial Park where the parcel was 120 feet wide and a variance had been granted. Without the variance, there would not be adequate space for a reasonable size building and parking with a 40 foot side yard setback. Schumann opened the public hearing. Richard Hubs, 13419 Fenway Boulevard North, felt the ordinance should remain like it is and if someone wanted a variance, they could ask for one. He pointed out that if the Pearson Mechanical building was over 20 feet tall and located ten feet from the property line, their building located adjacent to it would be shaded by it. There were no other comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. Rosenquist agreed with Richard that if someone wanted a variance, they needed to ask for it. Schumann suggested staff approving a ten foot setback if it was a single -story building, and taller buildings would need to request the variance. The CDD said a common way of wording it would be to allow a building be setback at least an equal distance to the height. Bailly made motion, Weidt seconded, to table the item. All Ayes. Motion carried. Rosenquist asked staff to provide some examples. Oneka Office Park Site Plan The Commission considered the request of Terry Thompson, 4461 Lake Avenue South, White Bear Lake, for sketch plan review for a PUD for Oneka Office Park and Oneka Square consisting of 9,000 square feet of office space and 20,807 square feet of retail and restaurant space located east of Highway 61 and north of 120th Street. The Planner explained that the property was a 27.8 acre site zoned Residential Service and consisted almost entirely of wetlands except for a buildable upland area located on the southwest portion of the site, which contained an existing homestead, and a buildable upland area located on the southeast portion of the site, which was mostly wooded. The office park would be located on the southeast portion of the site and consist of 3 office buildings containing a total of 9,000 square feet of office space. The retail center would be located on the southwest portion of the site and consist of a 19,087 -square foot multi - tenant building and a 1,730 -square foot drive-thru restaurant building. In order to construct a restaurant on the site the applicant would need to rezone from R -S to PUD. Shopping centers were permitted in the RS district with a Conditional Use Permit. Buildings would be required to maintain a minimum 30 -foot front, side and rear yard setback in the R -S district. The proposed plan met all the City's building setback requirements; however, staff suggested that the applicant bring the retail building and restaurant closer to the Highway 61 to create a more pedestrian friendly streetscape. Planning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2006 Page 5 The owners would need to work with the TEP and City on the final delineation of the wetlands and a tree preservation plan would be expected. Sewer and water were available and they could connect to the MCES interceptor; gravity would work with the western portion and a lift station may be required for the eastern portion of the site. Water could be provided by White Bear Township. The Planner indicated they would need to study access points and upgrades to 1201h street. There were concerns with the circulation of the drive-thru and the southern entrance would need to be reconfigured. There were issues with trails and sidewalk connections, site layout, and building architecture. Gateway elements needed to be considered and preservation of wetlands and woodlands. Schumann agreed the gateway was very important and he was not thrilled about a fast food restaurant being located there. Applicants Terry Thompson and Jason Brown were present at the meeting. They questioned the definition of a shopping center. The Planner explained that according to City ordinance, a shopping center had to have a common entrance. Rosenquist suggested a glassed in corridor with separate interior entrances on the building to dress up the front and comply with the definition of a shopping center. Schumann preferred to not have parking dominate the front of the building and Bailly agreed that she did not like parking on the Highway 61 side. The Commission and applicant discussed the orientation of the buildings and restaurants being an appropriate use and questioned whether the definition of shopping centers in the ordinance was outdated. It was suggested the applicant could apply for a zoning text amendment and Schumann said he felt it was in the City's best interest if they developed it as a PUD. Bailly said she liked the office park and said she would like to see something special done with the entrance since it was the southern gateway into Hugo. Schumann cautioned the developer on possible future changes to the highway right -of -way. Adjournment Bailly made motion, Weidt seconded, to adjourn at 8:48 p.rn. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission