Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-13 CPC MIN I• 10 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Present: Robert Gag, Chairperson, David Junker, David Middleton, David Peroceschi, Karl Ranum, Paul Teske, Mike Dahlquist, Jerry Turnquist and Darwin Wald Others: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Absent: None Robert Gag called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Gag announced that Case No. V/03-87 (Item number 7 on the agenda) was withdrawn. This was a variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 25 feet requested) and to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 19 feet requested) for the construction of a residence located between 1419 and 1323 West Ramsey Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Laura Borndale, applicant Mr.Dahlquist, seconded by Mr.Middleton, moved approval of the minutes of September 8, 2003; motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/03-81. A variance to the north side yard setback (20 feet required, 10 feet requested), a variance to street setback (east) (30 feet required, 18 feet requested), a variance to the parking stall size (9'x 18' required, 8.5'x 18' requested) and a variance to the parking regulations (75 parking spaces required, 56 parking spaces requested) for the expansion and renovation of the Carnegie City Library located at 223 North Fourth Street in the PA, Public Administration District. John Mecum of Miller Dunwiddie Architecture, applicant. (continued from September 8, 2003 meeting) Bill Hickey, President of the Library Board introduced the project and explained that this was a continuation from a previous meeting and that there was additional work done and invited any and all questions from the Commissioners. John Mecum of Miller Dunwiddie Architecture presented the completion of the schematic design phase and stated that the architects are continuing with the design process with the library board. This review is necessary because of the variances required to complete the project. The entire plan for the addition and renovation of the library is driven by three factors; respect for the historical aspect of the library, the need for an efficient modern facility that will meet the anticipated 20 year growth of the community and the desire to be a good neighbor to both the immediate neighborhood and the entire city. Joel Stromgren presented an overview of the project featuring views from each direction with elevations and materials descriptions. Page 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Mr. Junker questioned why a variance to the parking stall size was requested. Mr.Stromgren explained that the variance would gain 4 to 5 parking stalls dependent on the column layout, bringing them closer to the parking space requirements. Mr. Middleton asked which side of the building is the 10 foot variance being requested for. Mr. Stromgren told him that it is the north side but only a portion of it because when Mulberry Street was vacated, the City deeded over the eastern 100 feet of the north half of Mulberry to an adjacent property owner. The northern half of the western 200 feet of Mulberry still belongs to the City. The existing building does not sit square to the lot lines Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. John Uppgren, of 10145 Arcola Lane, representing the Vestry of the Ascension Episcopal Church. In 1904 the Vestry deeded a portion of the lot that is impacted by this plan, to the library. There is a "reverter" clause in the deed that requires that the Library not build on a portion of that lot else the property reverts back to Ascension church. Mr. Uppgren stated that the church is currently in negotiations with the Library and they have retained legal council to continue these negotiations/conversations at a formal level. The church is also involved in conversations with City staff to review the deed. Mr. Uppgren is confident that these concerns will be addressed satisfactorily and if so, the church has no opposition to the variance requests being made. Kevin Sanderson, 304 Third St N, expressed his concerns regarding the chiller units near his dwelling. He feels that if the units were placed on the south side of the building there would be much less impact on everyone, probably only on church mornings. He is concerned for his tenants and his ability to rent out his three-plex. Mr. Stromgren assured him that sound abatement is a priority and specialty of Miller Dunwiddie and that they have created a structure that will obscure the units and mask the noise. Jerry & Cathy Helmberger of 303 North 4th St.-Aurora Staples Inn, a bed & breakfast. They are vehemently opposed to this expansion. Their view will be of a three story high block wall, their property value will plunge and their ability to earn a living from the bed and breakfast will be adversely affected. Mr. Helmberger asked if this was a "done" deal, what the next step was. Barb Krinke, 110 E Mulberry St. strongly objects to the expansion and the fortress-like look of the building. 40 Page 2 0 City of Stillwater Planning Commi ssion October 13, 2003 John Johnson, 311 Third Street N, questioned why the expansion was necessary. Is it for more storage, meetings, parking? What evidence is there that there is more traffic on Fourth Street than on Third Street? Have parking density studies been done or has anyone looked into parking in the Trinity lot? Jim Kent, 308 Third Street N, is generally against the expansion, not against the library itself. It is not a necessity especially as a site for parties and public meetings. He is interested in the management of the project. Where will construction trailers be parked, how will storm runoff be handled? Will the parking structure actually be for public parking? Who will manage, police this space when the library is closed? Eugene Dickinson, 231 Third Street North, feels that Third street does not need, nor can it handle more traffic. He also questioned who will police/manage the parking garage. Dave Middleton asked the Miller Dunwiddie group to address the concerns of the bed & breakfast owners regarding the side wall and their loss of a river view. The north wall will be of the same brick and stone appearing veneer that is already on the library. The • height of the addition will tie in with the height of the 1973 addition. Studies have not yet been done from the various elevations of the B&B property to see what the sight-lines would be. Robert Gag closed the public hearing. Mr. Gag asked if a traffic study was done to verify that there is more traffic on Fourth Street than Third Street. Mr. Hickey pointed out that the traffic concerns are related to the emergency vehicle traffic that Fourth Street is a distributor of. As for the parking ramp, he stated that some years ago, the City did a district parking study that was the genesis for the Council requesting the Library to provide this parking. He pointed out that although there are parking lots to the south, they are not City lots, but owned by Trinity Lutheran Church. They already experience many conflicts as a result of the current lack of public parking. Mr. Ranum asked about the hours of operation of the parking ramp and the security and access to it. Mr. Hickey stated that two levels of security and control are planned on being provided. The possibility of swiping your library card through a mechanism that will raise an arm allowing you access to the parking facility. The other is some type of rolldown gate or fencing to entirely secure the facility when not in use. An active security Page 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 system, consisting of cameras and alarms, etc. is in the design. Mr. Teske pointed out to Mr. Ranum that the issue of the height of this structure, although a concern of the neighbors to the north, was not a variance issue. Mr. Junker, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved for approval with stated conditions and that the hours and type of usage of the parking ramp be worked out with City staff. Vote all in favor. Case No. V/03-89 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 19 and 15 feet requested) for the construction of an 8' x 20' front porch located at 417 South Holcombe Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Paul Valerius, applicant. Mr. Valerius clarified his request for the Commission. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Mr. Gag closed the public hearing. Mr. Teske, seconded by Mr. Turnquist, moved approval of Case No. V/03-89. Vote all in favor. Mr. Gag called a short recess. Reconvene at 8:30 p.m. Case No. SUP/V/03-83 A special use permit for a 112 unit condominium development with main level retail and underground parking and a variance to the height regulations (4 stories and 50 feet allowed, 6 stories and 67 feet requested) located between North Main Street and North 2" d Street, north of Mulberry Street and south of Staples Mill, in the FP, Flood Plain and CBD, Central Business District. The Architectural Network, Inc., Michael Hoefler, applicant. Mr. Russell explained the project and indicated that four elements were involved in this request: 1. In the Central Business District, residential use needs a special use permit; 2. The variance request because of the 6 story height of the building; 3. Building in the flood plain, would require flood proofing or a variance; 4. Design Review. Mr. Gag asked for clarification on how the Commission members should vote on this issue i.e., should they break it down into separate items? Mr. Russell directed the Commission to vote on each item separately. The first item would be the special use I Page 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 permit to put residential units in the CBD zone, the next would be the variance request to the height restrictions and the third would cover the part of the development that is in the Flood Plain. The Design Review portion was taken care of by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Mr. Hoefler presented an overall design review of the site. The design process was very long and much consideration was given to adjacent neighbors of the project. He stated that they could, while staying well within the ordinances, put up a row of 30 foot high townhomes facing Second Street. They did not do this because they were aware that this would block many views of residents along Second Street and they would not be able to put in as nice of landscape buffers. They determined that it would be more site- conducive to go with the plan they were submitting. He also stated that they felt that they had followed the HPC recommendations by setting the uppermost floor back from the edges of the structure and using a mansard style roof. Mr. Gag asked if this amended proposal was still at the 6-story, 67' height. Mr. Hoefler stated that the structure was really only 5 stories, 58' if you were considering an average height of the project. This takes into consideration that the penthouse does not • cover the entire top floor and the mansard-style roof line pulls the top story away from view from the street. Mr. Junker asked about the retail portion of the project and how many retail spaces were the developers planning on. The structural layout is based on 20' stalls that can be combined into any number of spaces. Sue Fitzgerald, representing the Heritage Preservation Commission, asked to clarify a couple of items before the public hearing was opened. She stated that HPC approved the concept of the project but that this was not a final approval. HPC wanted to see the entire fifth floor pulled back by 10 feet from each edge of the building. She also stated that the HPC had very serious issues with this being a 5 story structure. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Mr. Pete Sampair, owner of Sammie's Dress Shop building expressed his concerns. His business is located at the southeast corner of the project. He feels that his business and others will be dwarfed by the height of this project in relation to existing buildings. He fails to see where the hardship portion of this variance request is. He has been through construction before and fears that his business will not survive the construction period because of interrupted traffic and lack of parking. Mr. Hoefler responded that the Page 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 hardship would be incurred by the neighbors on the Second Street side of this development if it were the 30 ft townhome row in place of the 5th and 6th stories currently being requested. Melanie Ebertz, 368 North Main, Art Andes displayed a picture tour of the building that would be torn down to make way for this project. She gave a description of each of the businesses located in the current building. She stated the type of business, it's location in the building and the number of employees in each. She expressed the uniqueness of the businesses and their viability. She stated that most of the owners had no interest in returning their business to the new space and that some owners were considering leaving town altogether. She requested that the commissioners take a closer look at what would be lost with the destruction of the building. She asked if their vision for Stillwater was really in line with the vision of the community. Ms. Ebertz presented a petition of 400 signatures, collected in only ten days, all against this development. Del Blocher of 308 2nd St North presented photos of the current view from his neighborhood and what would happen to the view if the structure, as submitted was approved. He showed how the elevation requested would affect 10 residences on his block. He also stated his concerns regarding increased traffic. Mr. Hoefler clarified that the height of the proposal is 58 feet. There is a 12' high penthouse on the building (30 feet in length from the north to the south facing Main Street) that would sit on top of the 58' roof. Mr. Middleton asked Mr. Hoefler to explain to the Commission and the audience how the average height of a building is determined. Mr. Hoefler explained that the average height of the peak is measured to the center, between the base of the peak (the apex) and the ridge. Mr. Perocescki clarified that this would figure out to 52' plus the height of the penthouse (12'). Martin Hansen of 402 N 2nd Street stated that as a formal civil engineer and Planning Commission member he had concerns regarding liability for any problems resulting from the altering of underground water flow. He feels that the owners and contractors should be liable. Jeff Fenske, an attorney representing the current property owners, stated that he wanted to focus the attention of the commission members back on the legal requirements of the Commission and submit to the Commission that this application does indeed meet the legal requirements and as a result, the Commission must approve this application. He defined "hardship" as it applies to a request like this. This is a non-use variance. The only issue for the variance is the height of the project. He doesn't feel that the character would be changed by this project because 50 feet is the Page 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 given and a 2 foot variance is all that is being requested. This project would not adversely affect the City's Comprehensive plan. He summed up by stating that the hardship standard has been met, the owners and developers are not requesting a special privilege with the variance and the project does not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Heritage Preservation has already given their approval during the design review process and the developers already have, or are willing to, follow all of the conditions set forth by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Mr. Fenske stated that the plan is consistent with the zoning regulations, meets the flood plain requirements, meets the Downtown Design guidelines, meets the Downtown Plan and all of the conditions for variances in the ordinance and would indeed, in the opinion of the owner, provide a substantial benefit to downtown Stillwater in the long run. As a result, the current owner of the property respectively requests that the Commission follow the recommendations of the HPC and City staff and approve this application. Sue Fitzgerald commented that every member of the HPC was against more than four stories in the plan. The only reason that they made any compromise was the developers said they would pull back the entire fifth story ten feet from all sides. Nancy Prince 416 2nd St North asked what the current zoning is on the affected block. She feels that because it is zoned CBD, the Commission should deny the special use permit and the variance height request. Rick Miller, 304 2"d St North, feels that the 5th floor is of value only to the developers and the property values of the residential neighbors will be adversely affected. Rich Cummings, 1060 Amundson Drive, brought up the fiscal issues involved in this practice. He stated that the project would not only improve a blighted area but it would benefit the infrastructure of the city as well. The developers could be required to fix Second Street. The tax base for the area in question would increase 80 times, from approximately one half a million to $40 million. This project would require very minimal city services such street maintenance and snow plowing and it would be sprinkled for fire protection. Jill Greenhall, no address given, stated that Historic Preservation and the need for economic development need not be a odds. Stillwater is a city that owes its economic base to its historic character. She stated that its okay for the Commission to "flex" somewhat on issues but that there is a great deal of difference between a few feet and a few stories. She would like to see more value put on the opinions of the citizens. 0. Page 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Bob Florence, 312 N 2nd Street, is concerned about the loss of his view but more so about the historic character of Stillwater. The top of the roof, no matter the average height, is what will block views. He is against anything over 3 stories in height for the city. Revenue is from the tourist industry, drawn here by the historic nature of the city. In his opinion, this project will do little to draw more visitors to Stillwater. Thomas Loome, intended to just listen but felt he had to make some comments. He felt that the developers were being disingenuous regarding the height of the structure. Four stories? The fifth story doesn't count because it is being pulled back from the street side, and the sixth story is only a penthouse so doesn't count either? He stated that since you can't see through a penthouse. If the current owners truly had sympathy for the businesses being forced out then he thinks that they should have assisted the businesses in relocating or, at the very least, given them ample notice of the possibility. If the landlords had stated their intentions in a timely manner then some of the tenants would not have just moved in there and invested a lot of money. Charlotte Schuld, 1200 Creekside Crossing, feels that the issue is not the size nor the appearance of this building but does downtown really need more residential space. What would be the increase of costs to the current tenants if they were to return to the planned retail space? Ben Dickhausen, owner of Central Hub, also helped the landlords with some renovation of the current building - new windows, support columns, and numerous repairs. He is torn because of the condition of the current building but does not want to see the successful businesses there lose their location. This would be a major lifestyle change for himself and the other business owners but realizes that Carl, owner of Gallery Prints, is fortunate because he can locate his business anywhere. He feels that the city benefits from having low rental space available where unique, small businesses can flourish. It enhances the culture of the community and brings in a lot of revenue from the people who patronize the businesses. There is a way to make this situation a win/win situation. He asked if there was an environmental feasibility study that he could look at. Mr. Gag closed the public hearing. Mr. Turnquist sees no need for more residential buildings considering that the Lofts and Terra Springs are not full and he will vote against the special use permit portion of this Page 8 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 proposal. Mr. Ranum also sees no need for more housing in the business district. Mr. Teske has concerns regarding the increased traffic and wonders just how much residential property is necessary for a vital downtown. Mr. Junker is in favor of residential properties downtown but wonders how much is too much; what is the limit. Mr. Ranum stated that residential property is not beneficial to the tourism industry, business and culture. Mr. Glen Van Wormer, consultant for S.E.H. stated that the residential development would increase traffic by 800 trips or more per day. The retail space would generate some additional trips (300 trips/day), but the parking spaces will generate the most retail trips. • Mr. Middleton indicated that with Terra Springs, the Lofts and this project, this would bring the increase in traffic counts to over 1200 trips per day. Mr. Middleton is in favor of more business downtown but has a problem with the timing of this project. He favors a wait and see attitude with the current developments. Mr. Wald feels that there is too much development going on at once. He is in favor of this but not in favor of the timing. Mr. Peroceschi is in favor of the project. He has safety concerns for the current building. Mr. Dahlquist is all in favor of mixed use properties but has a problem with the scale of this project. Mr. Teske, seconded by Mr. Ranum, moved denial of the special use permit portion of SUP/V/03-83. Mr. Gag stated that he does not think this would be a smart move at this time. Vote 7-2 in favor of denial. Mr. Junker and Mr. Peroceschi voted against the denial of 40 Page 9 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 the special use permit. Mr. Russell pointed out that it was now unnecessary to continue. Mr. Turnquist, second Mr. Teske, moved to deny the variance portion of SUP/V/03-83. Vote 9-0 in favor of denial of the height variance. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Ranum, moved to deny the conditional use permit portion of SUP/V/03-83. Vote 5-4 in favor of the denial. Middleton, Junker, Ranum and Peroceschi voted against the denial. Mr. Russell explained the appeal process Mr. Gag called for a short recess at 10:25 p.m. Mr. Gag reconvened the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Case No. SUP/03-84 A special use permit for an outdoor patio for Freshfields Bakery • located at 1250 Frontage Road in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Kriss Novak, South Metro Centers V, LLC, applicant. Bob Norton and Brian Gregg represented the applicant and clarified the plans, as submitted by the applicant. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Mr. Gag closed the public hearing. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval of Case No. SUP/03-84. Vote all in favor. Case No. V103-85 A variance to the side yard setback (5 feet required, 1.6 feet requested) and to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 20 feet requested) for the construction of a two-stall garage located at 1618 West Oak Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Niel and Jennifer Atkinson, applicants. Mr. Middleton asked the owners if they were aware of the fire resistant sheetrocking requirements and the restrictions on any openings (doors and/or windows) on the side of the structure that is within three feet of the property line. 0 Page 10 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Mr. Gag closed the public hearing. Mr. Teske, seconded by Mr. Peroceschi, moved approval with conditions met. Vote all in favor Case No. SUP/03-86 A special use permit for an internet coffee shop with outside seating located at 150 South Third Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike Rice, applicant. Mr. Middleton asked about parking requirements and how much outdoor seating that Mr. Rice was planning on providing. Mr. Dahlquist asked if the parking shown would be customer parking only. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Mr. Gag closed the public hearing. Mr. Ranum, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved approval with conditions of Case No. la SUP/03-86. Vote all in favor. Case No. V03-87 --WITHDRAWN-- A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 25 feet requested) and to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 19 feet requested) for the construction of a residence located between 1419 and 1323 West Ramsey Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Laura Borndale, applicant. Case No. SUP/03-88 A special use permit for the construction of a two-level parking structure accommodating 237 parking spaces located between Everett Street and Greeley Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Lakeview Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., represented by Walker Parking Consultants, applicant. Jeff Robertson, Administrator of Lakeview Hospital, gave a brief overview of the project. The hospital is seeking a 237 place, 2 level parking lot on the SE corner of the hospital property. There are currently two homes located in the area that will be removed to make room for the requested construction. Entrances and exits will be on both Everett and Greeley Streets. The reason for this request is three-fold: 0 Page 11 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 -Numerous complaints from residents on Churchill and Anderson Streets (east of the hospital, regarding the shuttling of 200 some employees from the Stillwater Junior High School parking lot - No long term commitment from Stillwater Junior High School. They have indicated that they have potential uses for their lot, other than a parking lot for hospital employees. - The ongoing expense of leasing the lot and transporting employees back and forth ($200,000/year) Mr. Robertson indicated that they held a neighborhood meeting to receive input from the neighbors. A traffic study was completed to look at the potential impact of this project. This study indicated that there would be a 5% increase in traffic on Everett Street. The hospital will use trees and other landscaping to heavily screen the parking structure from the neighbors. The plan addresses the neighbors concerns regarding lighting and drainage. The hospital's strategic plan intends to keep the in-patient services for the foreseeable future and move the ambulatory services out to the Curve Crest-20 acre site. Terry Hakala, Vice President of Walker Parking Consultants stated they were retained by Lakeview Hospital to develop the parking facility. He presented slides and maps illustrating the parking structure. The parking structure will be an expansion of the current parking lot 60 feet long by 110 feet wide. The primary entrance for employees will be from Greeley Street to the lower level of the ramp If that is full, vehicles will have to go out onto Everett to enter the upper level of the ramp. There will also be an entrance and exit on Everett St. A "left turn only" sign at the Everett exit will be installed and the right turn will be pretty severe in an attempt to deter motorists from traveling south on Everett St. Glen Van Wormer of S.E.H did a traffic study on the impact of this parking structure. Three points were taken into consideration: -What is the impact of moving the traffic from the school parking lot to the hospital. How will drivers change their routes to get to the hospital grounds? -What will the parking access changes do to traffic on Everett, Greeley and Churchill Sts.? -How will the intersections function with additional traffic? By using the home zip codes of the 200 employees involved, logical routes to the 0 Page 12 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 hospital were figured out. The net change on the area streets was then determined. Considering that the shuttle bus trips (approximately 225 trips per day) would be eliminated, the net changes are not great. A few streets will see slightly more traffic but most neighborhood streets will see less traffic. Another consideration is that there are so many different shifts involved at the hospital that there won't be great numbers of vehicles arriving/departing at the same time. Mr. Middleton asked what the increase in total trips on Greeley Street would be. He was told it would amount to approximately 140 total trips more per day. Mr. Ranum asked Mr. Robertson what would happen to the neighborhood if this structure remains and the hospital moves. Mr. Robertson indicated that Lakeview's intent is to stay for the foreseeable future. The cost of moving the entire facility would be prohibitive ($100 million) Mr. Gag opened the pubic hearing. Mary & Rich Soderholm, 1128 Everett St S., will be directly south of the parking structure. Mrs. Soderholm asked what happened to the walking trail that was on the plans at the hospital/neighborhood meeting. She stated that this project was portrayed as a parking lot, not a parking ramp. They have concerns regarding noise pollution from the increased traffic, slamming car doors, etc. They also indicated that they understood this to be for employee parking and now it is indicated that there will also be patient and visitor parking. Their privacy will be lost and light pollution concerns them. The aesthetics of the parkland-like setting will be lost. The feel that the structure will greatly reduce the value of their property. The Soderholms are concerned with snow removal from the open top floor of the parking structure and the lot and with the run-off going into the pond and their adjacent property. Mr. Soderholm stated that this project is objectionable to the neighborhood and they do not want it. Mr. Gag asked if there is or was a trail in the plans. It was indicated that there is no trail but an easement, conditioned on approval. Tom Sherber of 1121 S Everett is in favor of the hospital and feels that Stillwater is lucky to have such a fine facility. He expressed his concerns regarding safety in the area. There are no sidewalks on the nearby streets and the increased traffic will only make the situation worse. He stated that the current volume of traffic is barely tolerable. He feels that even if vehicles (patients and employees) are not supposed to make a right turn out of the ramp onto Everett Street, they will because it is the most expedient way to get to the south and east sides of town. He questioned where the growth of the 0 Page 13 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 hospital will end. He feels that this expansion will be a detriment to the community. Karen Hofstrand, MD, 1204 S Everett St. feels that there are more creative solutions to the employee parking issues. It is important to protect the nature area in the neighborhood. After viewing the stakes marking the boundaries of the project, she stated that parking lot and ramp will really change the look and feel of the neighborhood. Mr. Teske asked if the hospital administrator would address the issue of the hospital moving Mr. Robertson said that due to the rapidly changing medical profession, it is tough to predict beyond their 15 year plan. He stated that there are no real plans to move and he feels that they would do best in the current structure and location. Pat Poshek, 1302 Everett St S, questioned why only those residents within 350' of this project were notified when this is regional change. He feels that this will have an impact on a much larger area. He feels that property zoned Residential 1 should be protected. He wonders what will happen to the neighborhood if/when the hospital moves because there would be all of this commercial property in a residential zone. He feels that the hospital is a good neighbor and he does not want to come off at being against the hospital but he is concerned with what the building would become if/when the hospital left. Mr. Poshek stated that there should not be so many planning decisions made in one evening- it gets too late and everyone involved gets too tired. Good planning is looking into the future so that years later, it looks like it was planned. Stuart & Jill Glaser, 1103 S Everett St. moved into a residential neighborhood, not a parking lot. Will the razing of homes continue for the hospital to continue its expansion? He feels that the parking is really just a Monday thru Friday issue so this parking ramp is not really necessary. He pointed out that the upper and lower levels are not connected so, essentially, Everett will become a piece of the parking lot because vehicles will have to go onto Everett to access the other level of the lot. This was confirmed by Walker Parking Consultants. He felt that their suggestions to the hospital, at the September 11 t" neighborhood meeting, were not seriously considered. They also wonder where the expansion of the hospital will end. Marty Rossini, 1224 S Everett, stated that no matter the design, a parking ramp is not nice to look at. He loves the pond and loves Stillwater but does not want to continue living here. Patrons, employees of the hospital and the majority of other drivers ignore the stop signs and speed limits already and he fears that this will escalate with the addition of 200 employees. He talked to several realtors who agreed that property 0 Page 14 0 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 values will plummet if the parking ramp goes up. Mr. Rossini said he heard the property south of the hospital was given to the hospital with the understanding that it would not be touched. It was there for recuperating patients to view and enjoy. He wonders how the deed to the property reads. Dugan Kern, 1216 Everett St., feels the consequences of this project would negatively impact the neighborhood. Questioned if anyone has considered letting employees walk to work since it is only a couple of blocks. He strongly encouraged the Commission to vote no on this special use permit. Brad Glynn, 823 W Anderson Street, lives where Everett Street drastically narrows (from 34' to 20') and there is a cement retaining wall abutting the street. He already has a view of the parking lot which is not a problem because it is usually empty in the evenings when he is home. Is there really a need for such a big project? He can't imagine increasing the traffic through this area where there are no sidewalks and minimal setbacks. Mark Trumper, 1303 S Everett St. is concerned that there are no sidewalks now and there is too much traffic already. More traffic increases the chance for more accidents. Dan Rydeen, 1111 S. Everett wants to stay in the neighborhood but feels it will be too dangerous for his young children. Mr. Gag closed the public hearing. Mr. Junker asked if any easements were needed for the Greeley Street entrance/exit. The hospital owns the property. Mr. Ranum, seconded by Mr. Teske, moved denial of SUP/03-88 Mr. Junker feels that a compromise should be made but cannot support this request as presented at this time. Mr. Ranum compared the situation to the international airport. Even though new building is planned in the future, current needs must be met. Success means continued growth but there is a limit. Maximum capacity will be reached making a move inevitable. He does not want the neighborhood "stuck" with a massive structure that does not fit in with the residential property, when it is a short-term solution. Page 15 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Mr. Gag indicated that the situation is dangerous and will likely vote no. Mr. Middleton inquired about the possibility of no entrance/exit on Everett. Based on the presentation and the neighborhood's opposition, he would have to vote against the special use permit. Mr. Dahlquist recognizes the needs of the hospital. He feels that the solution is there just not acceptable on Everett. Mr. Teske is struggling with the issue of balance. Needs of hospital not in harmony/balance with the residents. Vote 8 in favor of denial of SUP/03-88, 1 abstention, Mr. Peroceschi Other Items -Discussion of Downtown Plan Update (tabled) -Discussion of TH 36 Partnership Study (tabled) (Monday, November 17th was tentatively set for the next expansion area traffic study. Mr. Teske, seconded by Mr. Wald moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:25 p.m.; motion passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted Kathy Rogness Acting Recording Secretary 0 Page 16