Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hugo planning commission recommends approval of Frenchman Place apartment project and park

Hugo Planning Commission · August 8, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Hugo Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Frenchman Place 5th addition — a rezoning, comprehensive-plan amendment, site plan, conditional use permit, preliminary plat and height variance for an 89-unit apartment and a public park — following staff presentation, applicant remarks and public comment about traffic and wetlands.

Rachel, a city planning staffer, told the commission the applicant, "H. W. 1 LLC, care of Summit Management," is seeking a comprehensive-plan amendment (commercial to high‑density residential), rezoning from C2 to R5, a site plan and conditional use permit for an 89‑unit apartment building, a preliminary plat and a variance to allow a 39‑foot building where 35 feet is allowed. Rachel said the 13‑acre parcel has about 8.9 buildable acres, sanitary sewer and Xcel easements that bisect the site, and onsite wetlands; she said small wetland impacts were reviewed and approved by the technical evaluation panel (TEP).

The project would place a three‑story, 89‑unit building on the western portion of the site with attached indoor heated garage stalls, detached garages and a public park of roughly 1.8 contiguous buildable acres dedicated to the city. Rachel noted the plans sometimes show 93 units, but "according to the buildable acres, the approval tonight will only be for 89 units." She also outlined park‑dedication requirements at $3,400 per unit, which for 89 units amounts to $302,600; the applicant proposes to dedicate land in lieu of paying that fee and to construct trails and landscaping.

Mark Lambert, the applicant and a representative of Summit Management, described design constraints — including gas and utility easements and high groundwater that preclude underground parking — and said the team prioritized on‑site amenities and building materials that would blend with nearby development. "I think we've checked a lot of boxes," Lambert said, asking for the commission's support. He added that his management company typically includes heat and internet as part of their packages.

Resident Anne Broste, speaking during public comment, urged caution about local traffic and sightlines near Festival Foods and the nearby drive‑through, saying the area can be a bottleneck and that more traffic from new units could eventually require signalization. Rachel responded that Rosemary Way is a collector street planned to handle additional traffic, that some intersections could meet signal warrants as development proceeds, and that the city will monitor warrants and make changes through the appropriate jurisdictional process. Rachel also confirmed the TEP reviewed small wetland impacts and that state and local permits will be required before construction.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about parking counts, sidewalks and lighting; staff said the project meets current parking requirements with the reduced unit count and that final lighting placement and cut sheets would be conditions of approval before a building permit is issued. Several commissioners praised the revisions made since the 2022 sketch plan review and the work of staff and the applicant.

Commissioner (speaker S6) moved to approve the comprehensive‑plan amendment, rezoning, site plan, CUP, preliminary plat and variance for the Frenchman Place 5th addition; Commissioner (speaker S7) seconded. The chair announced the motion carried and said the recommendation will go to the city council on August 19. The commission recorded affirmative responses on the record during the vote; the transcript explicitly documents two commissioners saying "Aye." The chair noted remaining technical conditions must be satisfied in the resolution before final permits are issued.

The next procedural step is review and final action by the Hugo City Council; staff also noted the project will require the usual state and local permits for wetland impacts and other construction approvals.