Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001.10.24 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2001 7:00 p.m. Call to Order Chairperson Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Kleissler, McRoberts, Rooney, Rosenquist, Schumann ALSO PRESENT: John Rask, Community Development Director Michele Lindau, Planning Commission Secretary ABSENT: Malaski, Peltier Minutes for September 26, 2001 McRoberts made motion, Kleissler seconded, to approve the minutes for September 26, 2001 as amended. All Ayes. Motion carried. Thommes & Thomas Land Clearing Conditional Use Use Permit Renewal The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the application of Thommes and Thomas Land Clearing Partnership, 15457 Jeffrey Avenue North for renewal of their Conditional Use Permit for the processing and storage of firewood, recycling of tree waste, chipping, and operation of a mobile air curtain furnace. The conditional use permit was issued for a two-year period. The Community Development Director said staff had inspected the property and found it to be in compliance with conditions of their Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommended approval subject to all but two of the same conditions as the permit they were now operating under. Staff recommended elimination of the condition that the permit only be valid for 24 months, which requires Thommes & Thomas to renew the permit every two years, and the condition that the permitted activities on the site be limited to the Thommes & Thomas firm only. In review of the matter concerning the termination of the permit, it was in the City Attorney's opinion that the City cannot set time limits on conditional use permits. Section 462.3595, Subd. 3 of the State Statutes states that, "A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the municipality from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses." Staff also noted that conditional use permits run with the property, not a particular owner or operator, which would allow anyone to operate the use under the same terms and conditions of the conditional use permit. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 2000- page 2 Schumann opened the public hearing but there were no comments. Schumann closed the public hearing. Members of the Planning Commission questioned what the purpose of renewal of a conditional use permit was if conditions of the permit could not be amended. The Community Development Director said he would defer their questions to the City Attorney. Rooney made motion, Rosenquist seconded, to table action on the renewal of the conditional use permit for Thommes and Thomas until the November meeting of the Planning Commission to allow staff time to explore the legal issues regarding time limitations on conditional use permits. All Ayes. Motion carried. The Planning Commission wanted it noted that the decision to table the renewal of the permit does not disallow Thommes and Thomas to continue its operation under the existing conditional use permit until the issue is resolved. Victor Gardens 2"d Addition Preliminary Plat, Phase 2 The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the application of Pratt Homes, 4225 White Bear Parkway, St. Paul; Arnt Construction, 2190 South Phelps Rd. Hugo; Oakwood Land Development, 1611 Highway 10 N.E.; and Contractors Property Developer's Co., 7100 Northland Circle, Mpls., MN for preliminary plant approval for Victor Gardens 2nd Addition consisting of 70 townhome units to be located south of County Road 8, east of existing Elmcrest Avenue. On November 20, 2000, the City Council approved a PUD Concept Plan for Victor Gardens. At the June 27th, 2001 the Planning Commission recommended approval of Victor Gardens, Phase 1, which consists of 82 single-family homes on 27 acres. The City Council approved the final plat on at their meeting on October 1, 2001. The homes are scheduled to be constructed in the spring. The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report with the Planning Commission and Schumann opened the public hearing. In review of the draft resolution, members of the Commission had concerns with the statement "The intersection with CSAH 8 will not generate enough traffic to warrant a traffic signal with the second phase." The Community Development Director said a traffic study had been done and it did not meet warrant analysis. Rooney said he recalled that when the developers were seeking Planned Unit Development approval, they said the front entrances would be the focal point with the garages in back. Rooney said Phase 2 of Victor Gardens did not meet expectations of the theme that was presented when they were seeking Planned Unit Development approval. Planning Conunission Meeting October 24, 2000- page 3 Kleissler, Planning Commission Liaison for the Parks Commission, stated that the development team was working closely with the Parks Commission in the placement of parks within the Victor Gardens development. The development team consisting of Len Pratt, Pratt Homes; Jason McCarty, Westwood Professional Services; and Don Patton and Tom Bakritges from DR Horton was present to answer questions from the Planning Commission. There were no comments from the general public and Schumann closed the public hearing. Schumann made motion, Rooney seconded, to recommend preliminary plat approval for Victor Gardens 2nd Addition with changes to the language regarding the traffic signal to read "The need for a traffic signal will be reviewed with each subsequent phase, or earlier if there is an increase in traffic problems or safety concerns at the intersection." All Ayes. Motion carried. Fenway Park Concept Plan Review The Planning Commission considered a concept plan for a Planned Unit Development to be known as Fenway Park. The developers Len Pratt and Warren Olson presented their plan and answered questions from Planning Commission. Fenway Park would consist of 42 townhome units on approximately 16.5 acres, to be located north of 1401h Street, west of Fenway Avenue North. The site consists of approximately 132,500 square feet of wetland to the west. This wetland would be available for mitigation and ponding. In anticipation of 1401h Street (CSAR 8) extending to the west, Pratt stated that the existing home on the property would need to be removed. Should Fenway Park be constructed, the developers would remove the home and allow room for the road as well as an area needed for runoff. The developers said they felt this development would be a good transitional use of land next to the industrial park. The Planning Commission expressed concern over the length of the cul-de-sacs when it appeared the road could be connected by removing a building. McRoberts approved of the developers' attempt to mitigate abrupt transition on 1401h Street North and felt the winding roads within the development would minimize the impact of the garages in front of the townhomes. Rooney asked who would be responsible for the area to the west. The developers stated it would be maintained by a homeowners association as a ponding and wetland mitigation area. The Community Development Director said that ponding and the extension of 140th Street could consume most of that land. Rooney said he felt the development could be improved if the road looped through the development and the driveways were constructed in a way that vehicles would not be backing out Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 2000- page 4 onto the street. Schumann asked what the timeline was on this development and was told that they plan on presenting a preliminary plat in February. Rosenquist said there should be enough right-of-way there for a four -lane road, and they should consider constructing a berm along it. Molitor/Tschida Rezoning On September 26, 2001, the Planning Commission tabled a City -initiated rezoning of property located west of Fenway, south of 1401" Street, and north of the Townhomes of Bald Eagle (Tschida and Molitor properties). The Commission generally agreed that the Tschida property should remain residential, and that it may be appropriate to consider a rezoning of the Molitor property. However, given the proximity of adjacent residential properties, the Planning Commission found that the City's current General Industrial District might not be appropriate for the site. Accordingly, the Commission directed staff to research and recommend other zoning options. The Community Development Director presented three different zoning options to the Planning Commission. One option was a Light Industrial District. This would provide for low impact and warehousing and light industrial development. Uses would be regulated in height, lot coverage, setbacks, landscaping, loading, and use type to ensure they would be compatible with residential development. Another option was the creation of an Office/Residential Zoning District. This district would allow less intense office/retail uses as well as residential. The Community Development Director noted that with this zoning, it would be difficult to prevent the property from being developed entirely with residential uses. The last option discussed was a Business Campus District that would provide for multi -use buildings and/or establishment of business offices, wholesale showrooms, and related uses. Most business campus zoning districts are served by a major arterial roadway and transit. Tom Junnila and Len Pratt shared their thoughts on market conditions of this area and presented the plan of an office park that had been constructed in the City of Vadnais Heights, which they felt could be appropriate for Hugo. Rosenquist noted that there were many of these types of office buildings in Roseville as well, and he felt they fit very well in their surroundings. Schumann made motion, Rooney seconded, to take the motion off the table from the last meeting. All Ayes. Motion carried. Schumann made motion, Rosenquist seconded to recommend denial to rezoning of the Cheeta Property, and table consideration of the Molitior property to allow a committee including Rosenquist, Rooney, Junnila, Pratt, and the Committee Development Director John Rask, to Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 2000- page 5 further examine the possibility of changing the zoning to light industrial, and hold a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting in November to consider the creation of a light industrial zoning district. All Ayes. Motion carried. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Rosenquist made motion, Rooney seconded, to reschedule the discussion of the zoning ordinance amendment for Tuesday, October 30, 2001 at 7:00 pm. All Ayes. Motion carried. Street Width Standards Rooney said he felt there had been too much negotiating with the developers regarding the width of streets when discussing and approving new plats, and felt strict standards should be abided by. Rooney asked that material be provided to the Commission on street widths so City street standards could be thoroughly evaluated. It was in the agreement of the Planning Commission that this would be discussed at the Planning Commission in meeting in November. Adiournment Rosenquist made motion, Schumann seconded, to adjourn at 9:45 pm. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission