Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 03.28.19Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Thursday, March 28, 2019 Chair Kleissler called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PRESENT: Arcand, Derr, Fry, Kleissler, Luchsinger, Mulvihill, Tjernlund. ABSENT: Lessard. STAFF: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant Approval of Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of February 28, 2018 Commissioner Arcand made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tjernlund, to approve minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2018. All Ayes. Motion carried. Public Hearing — MWF Properties Request for a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Rosemary Apartments Juba provided a background on the project proposed by MWF Properties known as Rosemary Apartments. This is an application for a site plan and conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting approval of a three-story, 45 unit, and approximately 80,000 square foot apartment building located north of County Road 8 and west of Everton Avenue. The parcel is 18.15 acres with 4.6 buildable acres and is zoned medium high density. The applicant provided a Concept Plan for the Planning Commission and City Council in summer 2018. The City Council agreed with the approval of the preliminary plat that the proposed lot and building layout, street alignments, and proposed uses functioned properly and fit in with the surrounding areas. Apartments are allowed in the R5 zoning district with a conditional use permit. There are several criteria of approval with a CUP and staff finds that the proposed use is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the character of the surrounding area, the project keeps the spirit and intent of the ordinance, and the applicant provides adequate screening and buffering from non -compatible uses and public rights-of-way. Staff went on to provide information on the site plan specifications, park dedication, grading and drainage, landscaping, and design guidelines. In conclusion, staff finds that the proposal meets all the requirements necessary for the City to approve a site plan and CUP as outlined in the City Code, provided that the conditions are met in the attached resolution. Juba invited the applicant to come forward and address the Planning Commission Chris Stokka from MWF Properties was present to address the Planning Commission. Commissioner Fry began by asking Stokka about different roofline options on the building and Stokka said that they are looking at other possibilities but are limited due to height restrictions. Tjernlund asked about air conditioning units and their placements. Stokka clarified that they are Magic -Pak systems, which provide energy efficient cooling and heating while remaining flush with the building. Commissioner Derr asked about the lighting plan in the parking lot. Stokka responded that the parking lot will have LED lighting and the light will be contained to the site. Luchsinger then asked if the developer anticipates being able to continue the stone casting along the north side. Stokka responded that although the north side is not highly visible, they will look into adding the extra materials and the cost associated with that. Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 2 Fry asked if MWF Properties did a demographic study and their predictions on unit availability. Stokka mentioned that they have a similar family oriented project in Forest Lake that has been successful. Fry followed by asking if renters are going to be subsidized. Stokka clarified that there is a federal tax credit that MWF Properties applied for through Washington County, which is required to go towards the construction costs of the project. In turn, the renters will have a maximum income requirement. Juba stated that the subsidy is not coming from the City. Commissioner Derr asked about the occupancy of the apartments in Forest Lake and Stokka replied that their property is always full. Mulvihill shared her concerns that the project does not provide enough parking and Stokka responded that the developer feels as though the parking requirements required by the City are sufficient for the project. Juba stated that there are no signs limiting parking on Rosemary Way. Chair Kleissler asked for the number of parking spots above ground versus underground. Juba stated that there are 56 underground and 43 above ground parking spots. Arcand followed with an inquiry on the design of the parking lot. He asked qhy is the parking in the front instead of behind the building with less visibility. Stokka stated that the particular parcel limits site layout options and a parking lot behind the building is not feasible. Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:35pm. Madam Chair requested that the audience follow standard protocol. 15220 Everton Avenue North, Arnold Treimert stated that he is opposed to the apartment building because they were told it was a commercial area and the water will flow to the south. 15040 Everton Avenue North, Steve Rossini is concerned about the underground garage and flooding. Rossini is also concerned with the building being subsidized and attracting crime and congestion into the area. Low income housing will decrease property value in the surrounding area and Rossini states that it would be a mistake to bring low income housing into the City. 15190 Everton Avenue North, John Udstuen states that he is concerned with the water on the site. When Pratt homes developed the townhomes, his property suffered water damage. Adding more bituminous surface will cause more drainage issues and requests an outside party look at the engineer plans. Udstuen states the concern that surrounding property will be devalued and crime will increase. Udstuen requests that the City maintains the community. 149th Street North 1, Kathleen Skaj states that there are water damages in the townhomes to the east and the complex sued Pulte for damages. Skaj also states that they would rather see subsidized living for the elderly. 4990 Fairoaks Circle, Tracy Gist is worried about the school sizes and where additional children will go. Gist would like to see more restaurants and event/community centers in the community. 15292 Everton Avenue North, Mike Happ shares his concern on drainage. Happ requests staff to expand on drainage on the property and where the water will drain to the north. Juba addresses the grading and drainage questions. The City of Hugo has stormwater rules, among which the drainage on the property and surrounding parcels cannot have an increased drainage post development. The City evaluates the rate and volume of water that goes into the site. Water on the project site will drain north then to the south into the proposed filtration pond, which will collect water and be dispersed into the surrounding wetlands. There were soil borings done on site, some of which encountered water and some did not. Juba states that the project meets low floor elevation requirements. Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 3 Mike Happ restates his concern with drainage and the reoccurring issue of water within the City. 4505 Rosemary Way North #8, Nina Brooks states that the height of the building is too high. The surrounding residents moved to Hugo to view the natural wetland areas. Brooks is also concerned with the lack of parks in the area and the amount of kids playing in the street. The road is very busy and there are safety concerns. Brooks asks the Planning Commission to take into consideration the property values in the surrounding area. 4840 149th Street North, Paula Cardinal is a previous owner of section 8 housing and is concerned with low income tenants moving in and effectively decreasing surrounding property values. 15190 Everton Avenue North, John Udstuen states his concern with the height of the building increasing due to the fill on the site and asks for clarification on how the building will be above the water table. 15220 Everton Avenue North, Arnold Treimert states that there is a river running through the property site and recommends the Planning Commission to look at the site. 4505 Rosemary Way North, Erin Kimball is on the Board of Directors for the Victor Gardens HOA and is concerned with the lack of public parks in the area and where the kids are going to play. Also, the HOA is currently maintaining the roundabout and Kimball is concerned that the additional traffic will impact the roads. Chair Kleissler invited staff to address the comments. Juba started by stating that the property was rezoned from commercial to medium density residential when the Frenchman Place project was developed and surrounding properties would have been noticed of that change at that time. Additionally, Juba addressed that grading will be required on the property to bring the low floor elevation into compliance with City Code, similar to other residential developments in the area. There has been a wetland delineation and survey done on site. The proposed project is designed to blend in with the character of the area. Juba continued to address that Rosemary Way was designed as a collector road and can sustain a higher amount of traffic than what the apartment project will bring. Staff noted that the City evaluates applications based on the merit of the project and does not have criteria on whether the project is affordable or not. The City does not dictate how the school district plans for growth, however the district is in the process of expansion. Juba also stated that the applicant has a proposed park on their site. 15220 Everton Avenue North, Arnold Treimert came forward to mention that Everton Avenue is in need of repair with cracks all over the road due to water. 4490 Farrow Circle North, Christopher Gist addresses the Planning Commission to voice his concern on maintaining the City's precedent of community pride and family oriented values. Low income housing does not uphold the vision of Hugo as he sees it. Juba defers the comments about subsidy and low income housing to the applicant. 149th Street North 1, Kathleen Skaj wants clarification on how high the grading will be on the site and how that affects the height of the building. Juba states that the grading goes up about eight feet as you go up towards the building. Staff also clarifies that height is measured from average grade to the midpoint of the highest peak. The applicant will have to meet height standards. Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 4 15190 Everton Avenue North, John Udstuen has an additional concern with road traffic and safety on Rosemary Way. Udstuen would like to know if there will be median installed with a right turn only on Rosemary Way. 4505 Rosemary Way North, Erin Kimball asks staff to point out where the proposed park is located on the site plan. Juba shows the proposed park on the screen. Kimball would like the Commission to take into consideration that Victor Gardens maintains the roundabout and any additional maintenance due to traffic is the association's responsibility. Additionally, Kimball states that there is no overnight parking in Hugo from November to March and that the City does not adequately enforce the issue. 15292 Everton Avenue North, Mike Happ asks staff to clarify how firetrucks will service the back of the building. Juba states that the fire department has asked applicant to install an additional fire hydrant on site. The resident responds by stating that City Code requires that there be access to the backside of building. Juba states that there are exceptions to the fire code and will be serviced by sprinklers. Staff continues to state that Rosemary Way does not have substantial traffic and studies on Everton Avenue show that the road can handle the traffic that the proposed apartment project will bring. When the property to the west develops, the road will be maintained and updated. 15040 Everton Avenue North, Steve Rossini has concerns on the lack of access into the underground parking garage should there be a car fire. Chris Stokka from MWF Properties steps forward to address the Planning Commission and the concerns of the residents. Stokka states that MWF Properties is the developer but will also be the management company. The developer wants to maintain the character, safety, and integrity of the building and its tenants. The close proximity to Festival Foods and other services makes the site highly attractive. MWF Properties has not seen a decrease in surrounding property values with their other projects. They have also been working with multiple entities to address grading and drainage concerns on the site. Chair Kleissler asks Stokka to further address the grading and elevation on the site. Stokka states that ground floor elevation is 919 feet so additional grading and fill will be needed on site. There will be a gradual slope up to the building. Kleissler asks if the developer will be asking for a height variance. Stokka responds that the primary objective of the developer is to keep the height within the City limits. Chair Kleissler asked if there were any additional questions for the applicant or from the public. Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 8:36pm. Chair Kleissler opens up the discussion among the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tjernlund began by addressing the character of the surrounding area and asking if an apartment building fits in with this character. He states that the project does not blend in with the character of the surrounding area. Commissioner Luchsinger states that the City of Hugo provides a variety of housing options available in the community. The community is a great place for families and providing another option to families is beneficial to the community. The applicant has taken care to match the architecture to the surrounding homes and will provide quality amenities to families. This type of development should be encouraged and welcomed in Hugo. Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 5 Commissioner Derr states that the proposed project fits the comprehensive plan and zoning district. He noted that there are parking limitations that do not allow for the growth of the residents in the units like families. Commissioner Arcand states that the building fits the design guidelines. There will be a building on the site. The water and drainage will need to be addressed by the engineers, but overall it blends in with the character of the surrounding area. Commissioner Tjernlund adds that there should be trust within the engineers. Luchsinger then adds that the owners have an incentive to build and maintain a nice, structural building. Commissioner Fry states that the parcel will get developed and it will be a building of similar density. The proposed project is aesthetically appealing. Commissioner Mulvihill is still concerned with the parking and drainage issues that were brought to attention however, it is important to allow different housing options within the community. Fry adds that it is beneficial to have control over the situation. Chair Kleissler notes that the applicant did a good job at making the proposed building look like it fits within the community. She still has some concerns over some of the water issues that have been brought up. Commissioner Mulvihill asked what made the difference between the construction of the townhomes and the church and why the water is draining so well with the church. Juba clarified that there were different engineers and stormwater management changes. Commissioner Luchsinger made a motion to approve the MWF Properties request for a site plan and conditional use permit for Rosemary Apartments. Arcand Seconded. Tjernlund Nay. Motion carried. Chair Kleissler calls for a recess. Chair Kleissler brings the Planning Commission back to order at 8:57pm. Golden Valley Land Company Sketch Plan Review for The Meadows at HuIZo Juba provided background on The Meadows at Hugo sketch plan proposed by Golden Valley Land Company. The proposed site is located north of 1591h Street and east of the north water tower. The parcel is zoned Future Urban Service and is guided medium density residential. The applicant would like to receive feedback on the project in regards to general layout, housing types, wetland replacement, and road connections. Juba continues to explain that the parcel of land is 33.1 acres with 6.1 acres of wetlands. The developer is proposing 84 lots on the site, which would include 70 villa products on 50 foot wide lots and 14 single family home products on 80 foot wide lots for a residential gross density of 2.5 units per acre. The plan also shows stormwater ponding areas and a trail connection. Juba notes that the proposed site is within the shoreland overlay district and the development will have to meet all of the DNR shoreline standards. Juba also provides details on the PUD, housing types and design, park dedication, streets and access, utilities, wetlands, stormwater management, and landscaping. Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 6 Commissioner Arcand asks staff to talk about the difference with the future sewer line running along 165th Street versus along the property lines. Juba clarifies that the City is open to alternate ways to providing sewer to the site however, it is necessary that the sewer line connects to the interceptor along Highway 61. Arcand also asks staff to clarify if the City is in the position to sell park land. Juba responds by stating that the City -owned property where the road is proposed is mostly upland, which provides a variety of opportunities for the parcel. Arcand then states that it could be considered generous to allow a road to be built on the parcel and should be at the expense of the developer. Commissioner Mulvihill asks if the properties north of 165th Street will have access to the sewer line. Juba states that should the sewer line be installed along 165th Street, future development will be provided access to the line. The alternative utility line option does allow development to continue expanding with additional improvements to the infrastructure. Commissioner Arcand then asks for clarification on additional road options. Chair Kleissler asks staff for a recommendation on whether or not the applicant should provide to access point along the north of the site. Juba recommends that they evaluate two access points north of the parcel. Chair Kleissler asks the applicant to come forward. Peter Knaeble with Golden Valley Land Company came forward to address the comments from the Planning Commission. The applicant brought forward examples of what the villa products will look like. They are generally slab on grade, rambler style products. The applicant agrees to further investigate the utilities on the site and wetland mitigation as they work with the site layout. The biggest concern for the applicant is the connection through City -owned property on the west and the cost of providing a road access to the site without the additional lots to offset the price. Commissioner Tjernlund asks the applicant is there are limits with the current layout and having the stormwater ponds on the very east side of the property. Knaeble assures that the plan appears to be feasible but will provide further details as the project moves forward. In general, the applicant intends to provide stormwater reuse to the full extent of the project. Tjemlund comments on the flexibility the applicant will be requesting with lot sizes and setbacks and encourages the applicant to look at ways to make up for the variances. Commissioner Fry asked for clarification on the width and depth of the homes. Knaeble responds that the homes will be 40 foot wide and 60 to 65 foot deep. Commissioner Arcand asked the applicant on what they would lose with a larger setback requirements. Knaeble responded that if the setbacks were 7.5 feet instead of 5 feet, the development would lose approximately a dozen lots. Arcand mentions that the villa products seem really tight. The applicant comments that with a flat site such as this one, they don't foresee any issue with drainage in between the homes. Knaeble also mentions that there could be an opportunity to provide an additional north access point without losing lots however, making sure the access point does not go east through the industrial park. Arcand goes on to suggest the applicant provides benefits to the PUD that go beyond the basic requirements. Additionally, that the developer provides access to the site at their expense. Commissioner Fry agrees. Chair Kleissler comments that the general layout is good but expects changes to be made. Overall, the tradeoffs for requesting a PUD were weak and the applicant could be more creative. The housing types are nice and very suitable for Hugo and the development would benefit from an additional access point from the north. Commissioner Arcand commented about the length of the road and fire department accessibility. Staff commented that the fire department generally is okay with the length of the road for a temporary amount of time. Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 7 Commissioner Fry stated that there is a good start to the project and that it is aesthetically pleasing. Generally not inclined to allow lots on the City -owned parcel. Commissioner Derr mentions that there could be an option to allow some of the lots on the City -owned section. Commissioner Arcand added that the utilities should be provided to the site in the most optimal way. Kleissler closed the informal comments and invites the applicant to the April 15 2019 City Council meeting. Adiournment There is no Planning Commission meeting April 11, 2019 and the next meeting will be on April 25, 2019. Commissioner Arcand made a motion, Commissioner Fry seconded, to adjourn at 9:58 pm. All Ayes. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant