Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016.01.14 PC MinutesMinutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 14, 2016 Chair, Kleissler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Kleissler, Knauss, Lessard, McRoberts, Rosenquist ABSENT: Arcand, Patzner. STAFF: Rachel Juba, Planner Bryan Bear, Administrator Rachel Leitz, Community Development Assistant Approval of Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of December 17, 2015 Commissioner Knauss made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lessard, to approve minutes for the meeting of December 17, 2015. All Ayes. Motion carried. LaValle Fields Apartments — Concept Plan Juba described that a concept plan application was submitted for informal comments for apartments located west of Lions Park and north of the Keystone Senior Living site. She stated that the applicant would like to receive feedback on the general layout, building orientation and placement, and building architecture. Juba stated that in 2014, the City approved the PUD General Plan for LaValle Fields. The plan included the senior housing project and the three apartment buildings for a total of 295 units. 130 units were allocated for the senior housing project, while 165 were allocated to the apartment buildings. Within these plans, the apartments showed two three story buildings, along the wetlands to the west, and a two story building along Finale. The PUD General Plan showed a phasing plan of when the surrounding roads would be constructed, land that was dedicated for park dedication for the projects, a trail that would connect off the CR8 trail through the senior living project and apartments to Lions Park, and an access into the site coming off upper 146th Street. The Planning Commission and City Council did have some concerns on the PUD General Plan relating to architecture and building material, building placement and location, apartment management and parking. These concerns were addressed in the conditions of approval for the apartments, which included: on site management, revised building orientation or footprint to reduce the building mass, recessions and projections to break up the long expansions of the buildings, breaks and variations in building material, and a higher percent of stone or brick on buildings. Juba then began describing the concept plan that was submitted for comments. She stated that building A, the building along the west side of the property, is proposed to be a three story building with a total of 97 units. She described that the building is generally long and linear with a small bend in the middle and is approximately 800 ft. long. This building has a combination of above ground and below ground parking. Building B, the building along Finale, is a two story building with a total of 73 units and a combination of both underground and above ground parking. Juba stated that building B has a more compact design and with some revisions could help reduce the mass of the building. These two buildings show a total of 170 units, where 165 units were approved in the PUD. The applicant has stated that the building would be completed in phases where building A would be constructed in phase one and building B in phase two. The applicant has also stated that the lot would be split, but it remains unclear of where those property lines would be and what portions of the plan would be completed with each phase. Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 2 Juba explained that the long, linear building would not seem to meet the PUD condition requiring the reducing of the massing of the two buildings originally proposed on the west side. Juba stated that Staff had talked to the applicant about the long design and stated that a building that wraps around itself could reduce the massing of the building. She made the Planning Commission aware that there is a piece of land within the concept plan that is not owned by the applicant, but instead the senior living site. Juba stated that staff is comfortable showing this on the plan, but the applicant should resolve this within the first phase to ensure there's proper planning between each building. Staff has also recommended that the applicant revise the parking lot and take into consideration traffic flow and dead end aisles. Juba next pointed out that the PUD required a trail to connect to Lions Park through this site, which is not shown on the plan. Within the applicant's narrative, it's stated his client is AHMC properties. They have stated that there will be amenities for this project including: on site management, underground parking, spa/exercise room, community room, attached deck, and a dog park. The applicant has also proposed some common open space including a gazebo and a half -court basketball court, which has been indicated to staff as being completed in phase two. The applicant has proposed building elevations for building A but not for building B. For building A, there is proposed to be a combination of stone and cement board siding. There is a pitched roof with dormers and gables periodically along the walls and entrances in between. Juba stated that the colors are generally good but should be reduced and comprised of compatible earth tones. She described that the applicant is showing different projections with the decks, but that the other overhangs could be more dramatic. The applicant did not submit any calculations for the amount of stone or brick compared to other building materials, but it does appear that stone or brick would need to be added to meet the 50% ratio per the performance standards. Juba then showed the 3D renderings of the building to the Commission. Juba stated that although there are some good elements in the architecture of the building, it does not eliminate the look of a very long building. She described that building B could help break up the massing of building A, but there is an unknown if building B will be constructed, at this time. Juba stated that it is in staff's opinion that the concept plan has lost important elements from the PUD including the relationship between buildings, cohesiveness, massing of the building, development phasing, trail connections, shared common space, and amenities. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission provide feedback on the concept plan to the applicant. Feedback would include comments on the following: general layout of the concept plan, development phasing, building orientation and placement, massing of the buildings compared to the approved PUD, architecture and building material, trail connections, common outdoor spaces, and amenities. Juba stated that the applicant was in the audience if the Planning Commission wanted to address him at any time. Commissioner McRoberts stated that he was concerned about access. He stated that access off of Upper 146th Street means that there would be an increase in traffic. He asked if access could be considered off of 147th, on the north end of the property. Juba stated that the applicant had proposed an access at that point, but after talking to the City Engineer, it was stated that there may be a congestion issue and the access to Finale Avenue would be close to the intersection. Chair Kleissler invited the applicant to speak. Bill Lentsch, the applicant, approached the podium. He stated that the original PUD was used to set the stage for the senior living facility, but the City encouraged the owner to plan the entire site. Lentsch described that an amenity for the apartments would also be the reconstruction of Lions Park along with the basketball court and gazebo. Lentsch also stated that he was asked to show how the entire site could be developed in the future, and therefore placed the buildings where they are shown in the PUD General Plan. He said that in reality now, with Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 3 the shape of the lot, the density required, and 2-3 bedroom units, the building has to be large and in its current alignment. He described that at the time building B is constructed, it will be a two story building with a smaller number of units, which will help break up building A. He also stated that the senior living facility has expressed gratitude for keeping building B two stories so their residents can see over the top of it. Lentsch stated that his team has tried to look at horseshoe and L shaped building designs, but they don't fit on the lot. He stated that there is a section shown on their plan that is a pond and is owned by Keystone. He described that buying this pond from Keystone may not even be possible, which would make the site even smaller. Lentsch stated that his team is unsure they can even fit 165 units on this lot, as is, which is why it doesn't make sense to build both buildings at one time. He reminded the Commission that Keystone phased their building, constructing 100 units first and having a future addition planned, which could increase the building up to 130 units. Lentsch then drew the Planning Commission's attention to the building's architecture. He stated that the basement shows how the building jogs in sections and that the jogs are 10 feet. The other views show the balconies and other items that help break up the massing of the building. Lentsch described that a four story building was discussed, but no matter if it's a three or four story, both buildings will be large because of the size of the units. Lentsch stated that the colors can be toned down. He described that if you're looking at the building from the center of the site, the building isn't as big and if you are at one end of the building, you cannot see the other wing. Commissioner Rosenquist asked the applicant why they don't show the building B layout. Lentsch stated it was because they haven't built it yet. Commissioner Rosenquist told the applicant that it is difficult to review a plan when they don't know the layout of the entire site. Cary Osborne, a representative of AHMC Properties, approached the podium. He stated that AHMC wants to see how phase one goes and how the market responds, especially related to only having two and three bedroom units. He stated that they would like to have flexibility in phase two to meet the market needs if they change. Commissioner Rosenquist stated that this concept plan is a surprise from how the original PUD General Plan was laid out. He stated that not planning building B, currently, means that the Commission could be faced with another surprise after phase one, when they are planning building B. Cary Osborne stated that he does not want building B to be a surprise, but if the demand shifts from two to three bedroom apartments to one bedrooms or studios they want to have flexibility in planning building B. Commissioner Rosenquist asked why the applicant was applying for a concept plan when none of the future planning, including lot lines and the design of building B, has been completed. Lentsch stated that staff directed him to submit a concept plan and he wanted to ensure that his team was even on the right track. Commissioner Knauss asked what the purpose was of separating the lots. She stated that the applicant could still do phasing without having to separate the lots. Lentsch stated that buying the entire property puts a large burden on phase one because they then have to build all the roads. He stated that splitting the properties helps save money. Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 4 Commissioner Knauss asked then if there is a possibility that the applicant does not purchase that lot and another developer can develop on that site. Lentsch stated that there is always that possibility. Commissioner Knauss asked what factors have changes since February of 2014, since the PUD General Plan was approved, that made this site plan change so much. Lentsch stated that the buildings that were proposed in the PUD General Plan were not to scale. He stated that a 97 unit building would be the size of building A. Commissioner Knauss asked the applicant how many units would fit within the two originally proposed buildings within the PUD General Plan. Lentsch stated that 30-40 units could fit within each of the two originally proposed buildings. Commissioner Knauss stated that she has concerns about the long linear building. She stated that if she was standing in front of it, she would be looking at a building the length of a football field and a quarter on each side, which is extremely long to her. She told the applicant that she understands that they have tried to design different breaks in the architecture, but that those pieces wouldn't be noticeable from the front. Lentsch asked Commissioner Knauss what the alternative would be. Commissioner Knauss stated that it was her opinion that there has got to be a better design instead of the long linear building. Lentsch urged the Planning Commission to look at the lot design. He stated that the configuration of the lot is what limited them to have this building design. He also reminded the Commission that this facility is planned to have underground parking and having a building that wraps around itself can create other issues. Commissioner McRoberts stated that 97 units may not be feasible on the site. Lentsch stated that if they cannot get to 165 units, he doesn't believe that they can build the apartments because it wouldn't be economically feasible. Commissioner McRoberts stated that the Commission can understand that a developer would like to get a financial return on a project, but their financial return isn't necessarily the Commission's priority for this project. Lentsch urged the Commission to let him know what they can do to make this concept work. Commissioner Knauss stated that they would need a better design. Lentsch stated that the believed the proposed building was gorgeous and its large scale fits in with other apartment buildings that offer this many units. Commissioner Rosenquist stated that the applicant should take a hard look at the originally approved PUD General Plan and work with staff. Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 5 Juba stated that the Commission had some concerns with the originally approved PUD General Plan. She stated that there were comments that the two separate buildings seemed large and more architectural design was needed to break those buildings up. The Council had similar concerns, which is where the resolutions were drafted and approved. Commissioner McRoberts asked for clarification. He asked if the Planning Commission originally thought the two proposed buildings on the PUD General Plan were too long and now they are reviewing an even longer building. Juba stated that was correct. Lentsch asked the Commission why he was originally approved for that number of units if they cannot fit on the site. He stated that there was a huge financial investment into this site and he now doesn't know what to do. Bear stated that the best the Commission can do at this time is provide feedback to the applicant. He stated that the Commission is in a difficult position because the applicant is saying he presented a plan originally that cannot be built. He showed buildings with units within them that are not reflective of reality and the plans that were originally proposed weren't real. Bear also stated that the applicant has presented the Commission with plans that have a piece of property built on that they do not own. He recommended that the Planning Commission provide feedback from the presented plans the best they can. Commissioner McRoberts stated that none of the Commissioners seem enthusiastic about the long building. He said that even with the architectural components, the building seems very busy and he would like to see cleaner and shorter lines. Commissioner Knauss stated that she was disappointed to learn that the applicant submitted inaccurate information. Lentsch stated that was not true and if the Commission wants, they can build the two separate buildings, but would need to have four stories with a flat roof. He did say that this makes planning the amenities more difficult and expensive as they would most likely need to be in both buildings. Commissioner Knauss stated that it was Lentsch, himself, who said that the buildings in the previous approval weren't to scale. She said that the Commission had reviewed, commented, and made recommendations on such plans and to now learn that the buildings weren't to scale puts doubt in the Commissions mind that the currently proposed plans are accurate. She stated that her overall comments are that she doesn't like the long building and thinks it should look more like the originally approved plans. She stated if that plan wasn't feasible that the applicant should have looked into that plan more before purchasing the property or seeking approval. Lentsch stated that he originally didn't want to put an apartment design or density on the remaining parcel, but that the City required him to do so because they wanted the density and apartments in the future. Commissioner McRoberts asked how many units were available in the City of Hugo and if 170 units was even feasible and could be filled within the City. Bear stated that may be a question for the applicant if they've done a market study. Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 6 Lentsch stated that they have done a market study and Hugo has no apartments and there are plenty of people looking. Commissioner McRoberts asked to clarify if the statement relating to the City wanting the higher density of 165 units within this location was the case or if it was proposed and approved through the PUD. Bear stated that the original downtown plan concept shows a new urbanist village with single family lots at a much lower density. When the property was planned, it was planned in a mixed use district, which does allow for a higher density. He stated that this is an area of the City where a higher density would be acceptable. Commissioner McRoberts asked if it was required, though. Bear stated that it was not required. He stated it was something the City was willing to look at but was not a directive of the City. He described that a lower density on the site would be fine and even a higher amount of units, if the site was planned properly. Chair Kleissler stated that the Commission should give the applicant some more general recommendations if there are no further questions. Commissioner Knauss commented saying that she did not believe it was the Commissions job to design the project, but that it's their job to provide comments. She stated that she believes it's the applicant's job to propose something for the Commission to review. Lentsch asked if they went back to the two originally proposed buildings that were 50 feet tall and had a flat roof, if that would be acceptable to the Commission. Commissioner McRoberts stated that it would depend on how the buildings looked. Chair Kleissler stated that Commission approved a Planned Unit Development as a unit and they would like to see the whole site planned together, especially since there was flexibility granted on a number of things. She said the second biggest piece to this was the concern for the building's scale. Lentsch asked what the Commission would think about the buildings being four stories. Commissioner McRoberts told Lentsch to show them what it would look like. Lentsch provided the Commission with a concept plan. Cary Osbourne stated that the plan that was just handed to them is a concept plan that is being worked on in Eau Claire, WI currently. He stated it was a concept of what a building with a flat roof could look like. This building has 51 units with a mix of one and two bedroom units. Chair Kleissler asked what the height was of the building. Lentsch stated it was only a three story building. Chair Kleissler stated that she still thought there was a lot of building mass. Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 7 Commissioner Rosenquist agreed and stated that it looks like a large massing of wall. Commissioner McRoberts added that the building looks very busy and everything looks very packed into the space. Lentsch asked staff if his application was still going to be on the next City Council agenda. Bear stated that his concept plan is still on the agenda for the next City Council meeting, but if he wanted to change that, it could be discussed at a later time. He stated that the applicant had gotten feedback from the Commission and if he wanted to bring back a revised concept plan to the Planning Commission again before going to the City Council that would be fine. Juba suggested that the Planning Commission give the applicant feedback on phasing, especially related to construction of amenities. Commissioner Knauss stated that she understands that the some amenities are proposed to be installed with building B, but she suggests that the installation/construction of the amenities are split with each phase. She believes that residents shouldn't have to wait for all of the buildings to be built to get amenities and should have access to some immediately. Lentsch stated that he may be able to go back to the original plan and decrease the density if he could negotiate the terms of the PUD, including the construction of roads, with the City. Juba stated that she believes that the site would allow for different building designs and with some work and creativity, the applicant could get to a point where the site meets the PUD. Appointment to Board of Zoning Juba stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission asked for staff to provide them with the section of the code related to the Board of Zoning. She reminded the Commission that there is a vacancy on the Board of Zoning. She stated she had talked with Commissioner Patzner and Commissioner Lessard after the last meeting and they both agreed that they would be willing to volunteer. Commissioner McRoberts made a motion, Commissioner Knauss amended, Commissioner McRoberts agreed to the amendment, Commissioner Rosenquist seconded, to recommend Commissioner Patzner as the new Board of Zoning member if she is interested. If Commission Patzner states she is no longer interested, the Commission recommends Commissioner Lessard. All Ayes. Motion carried. Appointment to Ordinance Review Committee Juba stated that there is also an opening for a Planning Commission member to be added to the Ordinance Review Committee. The Commission directed staff talk to Commissioner Arcand to see if he would be interested in this role. Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 8 Commissioner McRoberts motioned, Rosenquist seconded, to table the recommendation of a Planning Commission member to the Ordinance Review Committee until the next meeting. All Ayes. Motion carried. Adiournment Commissioner McRoberts made a motion, Commissioner Knauss seconded, to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Rachel Leitz, Community Development Assistant