Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-08 CPC MINCity of Stillwater Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Present: Robert Gag, chairperson, Suzanne Block, Gregg Carlsen, Mike Dahlquist, David Junker, Brad Meinke, Dave Middleton, David Peroceschi, and Paul Teske Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Bob Lockyear Mr. Gag called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved approval of the minutes of April 10, 2006. Ms. Block noted a correction in the minutes related to Case No. V/02-10 - the minutes should have indicated that neighbors were not noticed of the meeting. Motion to accept the minutes as corrected passed unanimously. Case No. PUD/06-10 A concept planned unit development for a 10-lot development on 5+ acres (Brown's Creek Reserve) in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District. Tim Freeman, Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. Mr. Turnblad briefly reviewed the site. The proposed development abuts the Millbrook development, with trail and road connections between the two. Lots for the Brown's Creek Reserve range from 10,000-12,000 square feet. Until the road connections between Millbrook and this development are completed, there would be temporary access off Neal Avenue, he said. He also noted the Parks Board had recommended that the City accept cash in lieu of park • dedication; the cash would be in addition to trails and sidewalks. He said staff recommends concept approval with four conditions of approval. Mr. Freeman noted that the driving force for doing the development at this time is the need to get utilities through this site to serve the Millbrook development. He noted that in an effort to preserve trees, houses have been moved forward to the street. He also spoke of the effort to keep the development consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that with the ponding/infiltration as proposed, there will be an improvement in the water quality going into Brown's Creek. Mr. Middleton asked about the changes from the last time the proposal came before the Planning Commission. Mr. Freeman said there were a lot of minor changes. The major changes include the reduction in the number of lots and the location of the permanent access off Neal Avenue. Ms. Block asked about the timing of this development in relation to the Millbrook development, whether construction would coincide with Millbrook's phase 1 or phase 3. Mr. Freeman responded the hope is to proceed in conjunction with Millbrook's phase 1. Mr. Gag opened the hearing to public comment. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Junker said he applauded the effort and changes that had gone into the proposal. He said he agreed with the Park Board's recommendation for the acceptance of cash in lieu of parkland • dedication in this instance and said he also would like to see the sidewalk along Neal Avenue extended to the property line. • City of Stillwater Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Ms. Block expressed a concern about the timing of construction, citing concerns about noise, truck traffic, dust and dirt from construction, and the safety of children in the adjacent neighborhoods. She asked if sewer could be extended to serve the Millbrook development without proceeding with construction of Brown's Creek Reserve until Millbrook's phase 3. Mr. Turnblad said that had been a major discussion item and noted that the Joint Board feels the timing of this development as proposed is acceptable. Mr. Dahlquist questioned the rationale for the proposed 2.4 units per acre as compared to the Comprehensive Plan which indicates a density of 2.0 or fewer units per acre. Mr. Teske said he thought the proposal seemed to be a good match with the three surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Carlsen expressed a concern about setting a precedent with the phasing of the Annexation Agreement. Mr. Teske pointed out that if the Millbrook developers had been able to purchase this site, development would have proceeded at this time. Mr. Gag said he like the size of the lots and was comfortable with the proposal. Mr. Teske, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved approval with the four conditions recommended by staff and the additional conditions that the sidewalk along Neal Avenue be extended north to the property line and south to McKusick Road and that the City accept cash in lieu of parkland dedication. Motion passed 8-1, with Ms. Block voting no. Case No. W06-11 This case was withdrawn, as a variance was not required. Case No. PUD/SUP/CUP/V/SUB/06-12 A planned unit development, special use permit, conditional use permit, variance and lot combination for a 45,000-square foot mixed use retail, office and residential use at 227 N. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mainstream Development Partnership, LLC, applicant. Representing Mainstream Development were Tim Stefan and Vern Stefan. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the site and the plans for construction of a four-level, 56,000-square foot building, the final phase in the development of the former Maple Island site. Mr. Turnblad noted the proposal requires two variances - a variance to the infill height standards and a variance to the number of parking spaces provided. Mr. Turnblad explained that according to the infill height regulations, the maximum allowable height would be 31 feet as compared to the proposed 48'. Regarding parking, the proposed uses would require the provision of 128 spaces, while 31 spaces would be provided, he said. Vern Stefan reviewed the timeline of the Maple Island development beginning in 1988. He spoke to the TIF agreement and parking and easement agreements between Mainstream Development and the City. He said plans for this final phase of the development were presented in mid-2005, when they were given "tacit" approval to proceed with the design of phase 3. Tim Stefan reviewed the design plans and building materials. The access off Water Street to the underground parking area will raise the building above the flood plain, he noted. As proposed, • the first floor of the building would provide community retail space; the second floor would house a single office tenant; with condominium units on the third floor, with loft space above. Mr. Stefan said without the loft, the building would be back to a flat roof with the potential for the City of Stillwater Planning Comm ission May 8, 2006 same problems as being experienced with another downtown development. He said plans are to have an active roof space. The hearing was opened for public comment. Mark Bender, whose law firm is a tenant in the phase 1 Maple Island building, said his firm is interested in leasing the second floor space in the proposed phase 3 building. He spoke of the "serious need" for additional commercial space in the downtown. He also stated that eliminating the current construction traffic, there seems to be adequate parking in the area. After additional discussion regarding the agreements with the City regarding parking lot improvements and easement, discussion was returned to the Commission. Mr. Junker said he liked the design and proposed use of the building, but suggested the requested 97 space parking variance was "pretty strong." He also said he would like to stay within the 31' height limit required by the infill height regulations. Mr. Middleton said he liked the concept, but was concerned about parking. Mr. Dahlquist noted while the Commission has given some variances related to retail space, those variances didn't include office and residential uses and said he thought parking would be a real problem. Mr. Dahlquist also said he thought the proposed mass/height of the building was a little out of character. Mr. Gag said parking is always an issue in the downtown area and said he was most concerned about the proposed height. While he said he thought a mixed use development was ideal for the location, Mr. Teske said there is a reason for infill regulations and suggested that the proposed mass and scale of the structure dwarfs the building to the south. Mr. Carlsen and Mr. Meinke agreed with the concerns regarding the mass/scale of the building. In response to a procedural question, Mr. Turnblad noted the denial of the required variances would result in the denial of the SUP, CUP and subdivision. Mr. Turnblad suggested that if denied, the Commission deny the SUP without prejudice, which would allow the proposal to come back within a year. Mr. Junker, seconded by Mr. Meinke, moved to deny approval No. 3, the infill height requirement. Motion passed 8-1, with Mr. Peroceschi opposed. Mr. Junker, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved to deny approval No. 4, variance from the parking requirements. Motion passed 8-1, with Mr. Peroceschi opposed. Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Junker, moved to deny approvals No. 1 and 2, special use permit for a private parking facility and special use permit for residential units in the CBD, without prejudice. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Junker, seconded by Mr. Carlsen, moved to deny approvals No. 5 and 6, variances to allow building improvements, without prejudice. Motion passed unanimously. It was noted that items No. 8 and 9, demolition permit and design review permit, were Heritage Preservation Commission issues. • City of Stillwater Planning Comm ission May 8, 2006 Case No. SUP/06-13 A special use permit for All Breed Doggy Day Care and Boarding at 1900 Tower Drive W. in the BP-O, Business Park Office District. Cindy Horton, applicant. Owners Cindy Horton and Jean Beaulieu were present. They explained they currently operate a facility in Woodbury and would like to expand to the Stillwater area and add boarding services. There was a question about outside activity. Ms. Horton explained that any outside activity is while the animal is leashed and takes place on the east side of the building only; otherwise, activity is inside only. There was a question about cleanup; waste is cleaned up immediately and disposed of, Ms. Horton responded. There is one staff person per 10 dogs. Regarding a question about full capacity, Ms. Horton said there would be a maximum of 15 dogs for boarding and 40 for day care. No comments were received from the public. Mr. Junker, seconded by Ms. Block, moved approval with the recommended five conditions of approval and the additional conditions that the facility be for dogs only and that the maximum number to be accommodated be 15 dogs for boarding and 40 for day care services. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/06-15 A variance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 0 feet requested) for replacement of a second story deck in the RB, Two Family Residential District, at 805 First St. S. April Bauer and Brad Roberts, applicants. The applicants were present. They explained that the existing deck is 30 years old and is falling apart. The sidewalk is on the property line and drops straight down. The footprint of the new deck will be the same as the existing deck except that the new deck will eliminate an existing jog. Mr. Roberts asked about the number of footings, saying he would like to do five. Members indicated that code would determine the required number of footings. There was a question about completion of the project; Mr. Roberts responded that he would finish the project as soon as possible. No comments were received from the public. Mr. Middleton moved approval, based on the hardship presented by the topography of the lot. Mr. Junker seconded the motion noting that the new deck would improve safety. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/06-18 A variance to the fence regulations for construction of a fence at 1324 Highland Road in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Robert Collins and JoAnn Brede, applicants. Mr. Collins was present. He explained that they are requesting a variance in the fence height in order to keep their dog confined to the yard; a 42" fence is not sufficient to do that, he said. Mr. Junker asked if the applicants would consider moving the requested fence inside an existing tree line on the property. Mr. Collins said they would like to keep as much of their yard usable as possible and said neighbors have not expressed any concerns about the proposed fence. • No comments from the public were offered. Mr. Teske noted the Commission had spent a lot of time and consideration in drafting the revised fence ordinance and said he would like to stay City of Stillwater Planning Comm i fission May 8, 2006 within the ordinance. Mr. Dahlquist said he saw no hardship in order to grant a variance from the ordinance. Mr. Teske, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved to deny the variance. Motion passed 7-2, with Mr. Middleton and Mr. Junker opposed. Case No. PUD/SUB/ZAM/06-16 A planned unit development for a 51-lot development on 25.28 acres at 12525 75th St. N. and 12620 72nd St. N. in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District (Legacy on Long Lake), a subdivision of a 51-lot development of residential use, and a zoning map amendment to rezone from AP, Agricultural Preservation, to RA, Single Family Residential. Elite Development, applicant. Representing the applicant were Ed Dulack, Elite Development, and Robert Wiegert, Paramount Engineering and Design. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the site and identified several issues. There are two road issues, he said, realignment of 72nd as a through street and the platting and improvement of the cul-de-sac that serves one of the two outlots. He noted that the Water Board has identified a potential well site on the property. He also pointed out that the proposed park dedication is not sufficient; the Park Board has not yet reviewed the proposal, he said. Overall, he said the concept is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the six recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Wiegert stated that the developer has addressed all of the engineering concerns with the exception of the platting and improvement of the cul-de-sac, which he suggested is premature at this time. A larger issue, he said, is the issue of park dedication, which he said the developer feels is sufficient for the site considering its proximity to Northland Park and the playgrounds at Rutherford Elementary School. Mr. Wiegert also noted that it would be difficult to dedicate parkland in close proximity to Long Lake, as suggested by City staff, as Elite does not own those two lots; the current owners have retained those lots. Mr. Dulack also suggested the possibility that the City use cash donation in lieu of land dedication to purchase nearby DNR property for park/trail use. The hearing was opened to public comment. Don McKenzie, 12620 72nd St., one of the four property owners involved in the development, said he was pleased that the development would result in lessening the existing dangers on 72nd Street. He expressed concern about the location of a proposed parking area, which he pointed out belongs to him not to Elite. He also questioned requiring a private property owner to give up land for parks. Kim Gaultieri, 3171 Summer Fields Green, asked if there would be any public access to the lake. She also noted that the fields/equipment at Rutherford School are often in use and are not accessible during school hours. She also expressed a concern about pollution of Long Lake. Steve Quam, 3189 Summer Fields Green, noted the developer is using the Meisterling and McKenzie properties in figuring lot sizes and suggested the City get something in return. He noted that utilizing a PUD provides the City with discretion. He also asked if a tree inventory had 41 been completed. City of Stillwater Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Richard Peterson, 7160 Mid Oaks, pointed out the City already owns the 72nd Street right-of- way and would be vacating that. He suggested that the City make use of that right-of-way as a public trail along the lake. He also noted that eminent domain process can be used for parks. Paula Kroening, 213 Pine Hollow Green, asked where the bike/walking trail would go when it reaches Rutherford Road. Heidi Burns, 7190 Mid Oaks, expressed a concern about traffic and safety should 72nd Street be paved from Mid Oaks to its eastern terminus as suggested. She, too, asked for a definition regarding the bike trail and where it would continue to the east. Leah Peterson, 7160 Mid Oaks, spoke of the potential impact on wildlife and the environment. Leonard Huebscher, Grace Baptist Church, noted the church is not interested in building homes; it is interested in preserving an area for future recreational use. He noted the church had agreed to a land switch for the same number of acres. Bob Kroening, 213 Pine Hollow Green, pointed out there is a no-cut zone from Long Lake in the Liberty development and asked if there would be such a restriction for the Elite Development. He also questioned whether a well site would result in a water tower, which would impact surrounding properties. He also said the proposed development could not rely on the Liberty development for its park dedication. Mr. Wiegert responded to questions/concerns. Regarding the concern about pollution to Long Lake, he noted the developers would be going through the Brown's Creek Watershed District approval process and two water storage ponds would be provided. Regarding the question about a tree survey, he said that has been completed and copies would be make available if so desired. Mr. Wiegert also noted that the PUD does meet the required average lot size. He further noted that instead of washboard gravel, the 72nd Street right-of-way will be a bituminous trail. He also listed several possibilities for the trail continuation to the east. He stated there will be a conservancy easement, similar to a no-cut zone, around the lake, and said there would be no water tower on the site. The meeting was closed to public comment. Mr. Junker said he was unaware of the issue of the ownership of the Meisterling/McKenzie lots. He said he favored the plan but said there are still issues that need to be addressed including the alignment/vacation of 72"d Street, the trail system and park dedication. He also said he would favor staying with the RA designation and the 10,00-square-foot lot minimum. Mr. Teske agreed there were too many unresolved questions to move in any direction. Ms. Block said she would favor larger lots. Mr. Dahlquist agreed there were too many small- sized lots; he also said the issues of park dedication, public access to the lake and trail along the lake were important issues. Mr. Middleton also spoke of the need to address lake access, as . well as issues related to outlot B. Mr. Gag said he thought the proposal represented a good start but said he would be uncomfortable approving the PUD at this point. City of Stillwater Planning Commission May 8, 2006 There was discussion about the lot size requirements for RA versus TR. Mr. Turnblad said in a TR zoning, the average lot size must be 10,000 square feet, while in the RA, lots must be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. Mr. Junker said he would like the zoning for this development to stay RA at a minimum. Other issues Commission members said they would like addressed included: input from the Park Board regarding land/cash in lieu of land for park dedication; the possible trail extension both to the east and west; public access to Long Lake; the vacation of 72nd Street; and clarification regarding outlot B. Mr. Junker, seconded by Mr. Meinke, moved to table the requests pending additional information/clarification of issues. Motion to table passed unanimously. Other items: Cub Foods request for extension of garden center use: Mike Mast, Cub Foods, said the request for the extension was to enable Cub to be competitive with a neighboring retailer. However, he said due to supply issues, the use may, in fact, conclude in mid-June. Mr. Peroceschi, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved to approve the requested extension of the garden center to July 5, if needed. Motion passed unanimously. Request by Robin Partch for an amendment to the special use permit for Northern Vineyards: The applicant was present. He said the Fire Marshal had inspected the building in October and had no issues with exits and other fire-related requirements. Mr. Junker brought up the issue of the elevator, which at this time is not available to Northern Vineyards, and questioned whether any functions should be allowed on the second floor without the use of the elevator. Mr. Junker also said the special use permit functions seem to have been expanded a great deal. Mr. Patch responded that he knew there was an issue with the elevator, an issue that he is trying to resolve, but said in the interim weddings and other special events could be held on the main floor. Mr. Middleton moved to approve the special use permit amendment with the four conditions of approval as recommended by staff, allowing functions such as weddings and other social events to be held on the main floor of the building, with the potential for utilizing the second floor if and when the elevator situation is resolved. Mr. Junker said the key to allowing the use is meeting all building codes. Mr. Middleton added an additional condition of approval - that all building codes are met and occupancy limited to the Fire Marshal's occupancy rating. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Extension of Special Use Permit for temporary module for St. Croix Preparatory Academy: Jon Gutierrez, Academy executive director, was present. Mr. Junker asked about the occupancy limit of the module. Mr. Gutierrez said the maximum number of students allowed is 25 and they are within that number. It was noted there have been no complaints regarding the use. Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Teske, moved approval of the requested one-year extension of the SUP. Motion passed unanimously. St. Croix Preparatory Academy also sought input from the Commission regarding a potential building site in downtown, the former Associated Eye Care property on North Main Street. Mr. Turnblad noted that while schools are a permitted use in the CBD, the question is what is the highest and best use of this property in the downtown area. City of Stillwater Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Roger Tomten, architect, reviewed preliminary design plans for the school, K-12 with up to 600 students. The plans included office space and potential retail space along Second Street, a parking element with 162 parking spaces, and auditorium/theater facing Main Street. He also showed several images of urban schools. During discussion, Commission members raised a number of concerns, but the consensus was that the possibility was "intriguing" and the Commission was willing to look at the proposal in further detail. Concerns included having "little kids" in the downtown area; the additional traffic generated both by buses and student drivers as the school reaches K-12; the loss of a prime downtown retail location; the uncertainty of the impact of the new housing developments and new bridge on the downtown traffic. Members asked for more information regarding traffic projections and busing plans; design elements, specifically massing of the building; and examples of other K-12 schools located in downtowns along with the safety records of such schools. Discussion of Manning Station development: Present for the discussion were Marc Putnam, Putnam Planning and Design, and Chris Aamodt, one of the property owners of the 20-acre site located at the southeast quadrant of McKusick Road and Manning Avenue. Mr. Putnam reviewed plans for the development. Plans included berm ing/landscaping along Manning Avenue; a 3.9-acre active park area in the center of the development; and the main terminus existing at a recreation of a station structure. As proposed, the development would include 50 single-family units; nine corner lots with three units, and eight lots with four units. The multiple units would appear as single-family structures, Mr. Putnam said. He showed a number of multiple-unit housing products. Mr. Junker said he liked the plans for the Manning corridor and the central park in the middle of the development but said he thought the proposed density was too great. Mr. Putnam responded that the density would not be visible due to the design of the housing products. Mr. Teske said the City does need more housing diversity and more affordable housing but such housing should not all be in one location. Ms. Block spoke of the number of accidents at the Manning/McKusick intersection and noted there are no plans to improve that section of Manning in the near future. Ms. Block also questioned whether the central park would be available to the public. Ms. Block's main concern was with the proposed density. Mr. Dahlquist also spoke against the proposed density of the project. No action was taken. The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 0