Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016.08.25 PC MinutesMinutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Thursday, August 25, 2016 Chair, Kleissler called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. PRESENT: Arcand, Kleissler, Lessard, Patzner, Rosenquist ABSENT: Knauss, McRoberts. STAFF: Rachel Juba, Planner Rachel Leitz, Community Development Assistant Approval of Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of August 11, 2016 Commissioner Arcand made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rosenquist, to approve minutes for the meeting of August 11, 2016. All Ayes. Motion carried. Dennis Kelly – 10100 170th Street North – Variance and Minor Subdivision Juba presented on a minor subdivision and variance request located at 10100 170th Street North. She stated that the applicant currently owns a 20 acre parcel and would like to split the parcel into a 15 acre parcel and 5 acre parcel, where the minimum lot size is 10 acres in the Agricultural zoning district. Juba spoke about the criteria of approval for such a request and noted the most important sections related to this application. These included reasonable use, unique circumstances, character of the area, spirit and intent, and septic and well compliance. Juba stated that the applicant is requesting the variance because the eastern half of the 20 acres is unbuildable and access to Keystone Avenue is not feasible. The Agricultural zoning district requires a density of 1 unit per 10 acres, therefore, in order to subdivide the parcel for an additional dwelling, a variance is needed. Juba concluded by stating that it is in staff’s opinion that the request meets all the necessary criteria for a minor subdivision and variance and that staff recommends approval of the requests, subject to the conditions listed in the resolution. Chair Kleissler invited the applicant to the podium to speak. Dennis Kelly, the applicant, approached the podium. He thanked the Planning Commission for reviewing his application request. Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. No one in the audience spoke. Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Arcand stated that he had a question regarding splitting the property horizontally to make two 10 acre parcels. He described that he was made aware that this situation would create a shared driveway, which is not ideal for property owners. He also stated that this split is still keeping with density requirements of 2 units on the 20 acres, therefore, he does not see any issues in recommending approval. Commissioner Rosenquist stated that he believes this property split makes sense since the property has constraints with wetlands on site. Commissioner Arcand made a motion, Commissioner Rosenquist seconded, to recommend approval of the variance and minor subdivision with the conditions listed in the resolution. Planning Commission August 25, 2016 Page 2 All Ayes, motion carried. Sprouts Pediatric Dentistry – PUD Amendment and Site Plan Juba presented on a PUD amendment and site plan application for Sprouts Pediatric Dentistry on a site located north of Frenchman Road and west of Everton Avenue. Juba stated that in 2004 this lot was created with an overall PUD for Victor Gardens South Village. The lot was shown as a bank building, which is why a PUD amendment is requested for the approximately 4,500 square foot dental office. Juba presented on the site plan, access and parking, landscaping, grading and utilities, and architecture. She stated that the proposed building meets all setback requirements, has utilities to the site, and shows adequate parking with proof of parking. The plan exceeds landscaping requirements with appropriate landscaped screening for mechanical equipment and it was noted that staff is working with the applicant to meet volume control measures, which have been modified since the original PUD was approved. Juba described that the Victor Gardens PUD has requirements for architecture that touch on compatible architecture throughout the development, four-sided architecture, and a “French Village” theme. She also stated that Victor Gardens has an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) who evaluate architecture to meet standards for the development. Juba stated that the applicant has provided the proper documentation stating that they are not subject to the ARC approval process, but still are required to meet the PUD design concepts for Victor Gardens. Juba stated that it is in staff’s opinion that the proposed building is very well designed and appealing. It’s proposed to consist of high quality and durable materials, all four sides of the building receive equal treatment, and the building relates to other commercial buildings in Victor Gardens that exhibit “French Village” elements. Juba concluded by saying that staff finds the proposed development complies with the intent of the original PUD approvals for Victor Gardens and ordinance standards. Staff recommended approval of the PUD amendment and site plan for Sprouts Pediatric Dentistry, subject to the conditions listed in the resolution. Commissioner Patzner asked if staff could recall the size of the bank that was previously proposed, Juba stated that the bank was proposed to be slightly larger than this proposed building. She described that the bank was requesting a drive thru lane, which caused the building to be pushed further into the site to accommodate this. Commissioner Arcand asked staff to elaborate on the timing of the trail. Juba stated that the proposed trail is within the County right-of-way and there are no approvals attached to the Victor Gardens development. She described that the trail, if constructed, would likely be either a City project or a County project. Chair Kleissler invited the applicant to speak. Bob Schaefer, Foundations Architects, approached the podium. He stated that they have worked hard on this project to meet the requirements of the PUD and to have it blend yet be a unique building within the Victor Gardens development. He stated that this triangular property was a difficult site to plan and they have made several accommodations to ensure this building will not impede on the neighboring residential properties. Meredith Kursch, Pediatric Dentist, approached the podium. She thanked the Planning Commission for considering the application. She stated that she has been in Hugo for three years operating the pediatric dental Planning Commission August 25, 2016 Page 3 clinic in a shared space. She said that her business has grown and she needs more space to accommodate her patients and would like to stay in Hugo because she has become a part of the community. Commissioner Patzner asked if there was a sidewalk connecting the back parking lot to the front parking lot. Juba stated that the back parking lot is the parking for the employees. She stated that the applicant would like the clients to park in the front, so by not adding a sidewalk, they are discouraging their clients to park in the back. Mr. Schaefer stated that the building has actually been made slightly larger than currently needed to plan for a possible future dentist and other staff. At that time, the proof of parking would be constructed and those employees would have more spaces to park in the back of the building. Commissioner Patzner asked how trash pick-up would work on site. Mr. Shaefer stated that the trash bins would be rolled out to the curb, where they would be picked up by waste management. Juba added that Fairview has a trash enclosure in their parking lot and if the use of this building ever changed, there could be a possibility of a shared waste arrangement. Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Dan Burkhalter, 4517 Victor Path #2, approached the podium. He stated that he was told when he moved into Victor Gardens that every building had to comply with the ARC and have similar styles. He didn’t believe that the proposed building met the standards that are in Victor Gardens development and that the Planning Commission consider the ARC’s comments in this building. Karen Ray, 4541 Victor Path #8, approached the podium. She stated that she was representing the Master Association for Victor Gardens. She expressed excitement for the business growth and the location of the building on this lot. She stated that the Master Board appreciates the work the applicant had done in screening the townhomes from the business and making the business unobtrusive to the residents nearby. Ms. Ray stated that the Master Board does have concerns on the architecture of the building, specifically styles of the front elevation pieces and the dormers, and believed the building architecture was not consistent with other architectural styles seen in Victor Gardens. Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Rosenquist requested staff to elaborate on the ARC’s review of this project. Juba stated that the applicant has provided the proper documentation that states that this site is not subject to approval of the ARC. Victor Gardens ARC has also acknowledged that they do not have the right to approve or deny the architecture of the building. Juba stated that at the beginning of this process, staff directed the applicant to begin to go through the process of ARC approval. The applicant completed phase one of the process and was told the ARC Liaison would be recommending approval of the building architecture. The applicant moved forward and in step two received comments from the ARC requesting changes to the architecture. The applicant had their attorney review legal documents and found that they are not subject to review and approval of the ARC. Juba did remind the Planning Commission that the applicant is still required Planning Commission August 25, 2016 Page 4 to meet the PUD design standards. Juba stated that from her review, she believes that the building meets the Victor Gardens design guidelines and the Hugo commercial and industrial design guidelines. Commissioner Arcand and Rosenquist stated that they liked the design of the building. Mr. Schaefer approached the podium. He stated that they did a lot of research to not only meet the theme of Victor Gardens, but also meet the commercial and industrial design guidelines. He stated that the front entry does have a whimsical feature that reflects that the building is a pediatric dental clinic, while the rest of the building is muted and conservative. Commissioner Rosenquist stated that the believed it was a well-designed building. Commissioner Lessard stated that he liked the placement of the building and the extra landscaping to separate the building from the townhomes. Commissioner Rosenquist made a motion, Commissioner Patzner seconded, to recommend approval of the Sprouts Pediatric Dentistry PUD amendment and site plan, with the conditions listed in the resolution. All Ayes, motion carried. Adjournment Commissioner Arcand made a motion, Commissioner Lessard seconded, to adjourn at 7:46 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Rachel Leitz, Community Development Assistant