Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-10 CPC Packet CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING Monday, December 10 , 2012 7 p.m. The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, December 10 , 2012 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. City of Stillwater Planning Commission regular meetings are held at 7 p.m on the second Monday of each month. All City Planning Commission meetings are open to the publi c. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF November 14 , 2012 MINUTES 3. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Commission may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the a pplicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 4.01 Case No. 2012 -34. A request for a special use permit and a variance to the parking regulations for an event center located at 214 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Judd Sather, applicant. Continued from the November 14, 2012 meeting. 4.0 2 Case No. 2012 -36. Final Plat approval for Millbrook 7 th Addition located at Outlot B, Millbrook 5 th Addition , for 47 lots and 4 O utlots. Joe Jablonski, Lennar Corporation, applicant. 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2012 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Vice -C hairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Vice -Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Hade, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer, Sies s, Council Representative Menikheim Absent: Commissioner Buchanan Staff: City Planner Pogge, Community Development Director Turnblad, Deputy Fire Chief Tom Ballis, City Attorney Magnuson APPROVAL OF MINUTES Council Representative Menikheim noted that h e was present at the October 8, 2012 meeting. Motion by Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve the October 8, 2012 meeting minutes noting that Council Representative Menikheim was present. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public commen ts. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2012 -34. A request for a special use permit and a variance to the parking regulations for an event center located at 214 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Judd Sather, applicant. Chairman Kocon noted that the applicant has requested this item be tabled until next month, after parking concerns are addressed. Larry Cramer, who runs Rafters Restaurant, spoke against the proposal. He noted the Stillwater Hospitality Association has been working with Coun cilmembers and the Police Chief to develop tighter controls on events that could lead to personal or property damage. All servers, bartenders and security staff are required to be trained. A facility that allows customers to bring in their own liquor provi des no Planning Commission November 14, 2012 Page 2 of 7 trained staff to prevent disorderly conduct. He urged the Commission to think hard about how the proposal would impact other businesses. Motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to table the request for a special use permit and variance to parking regulations. All in favor. Case No. 2012 -35. A variance request for the installation of a 3rd stall on an existing garage located at 2978 Marine Circle located in the RA, Single Family Residential District. James and Jean Tansey, appl icant. City Planner Pogge explained that the applicant is requesting a 6.8 foot variance to the required 30 foot side yard setback to allow the addition of a third stall to an existing two stall garage. Currently at its closet point, the edge of the garag e is 35.2 feet from the property line with another 10.8 feet to the back of the curb with Marine Circle, for a total of 46 feet. The proposal calls for a single stall addition 12 feet wide by 22.3 feet deep. If approved, the garage will encroach 6.8 feet i nto the required setback and leave only 23.2 feet between the garage and the property line and a total of 34 feet between edge of the garage and back of the curb with Marine Circle. Staff recommends approval with one condition. Chairman Kocon asked if the applicant has considered a ten foot garage, which would encroach almost one -third less into the setback and would still accommodate a vehicle. Applicant Jim Tansey said he prefers a 12 -foot garage for ease of opening car doors without hitting walls. The original plan was to build a 16 -foot addition until the applicant learned of setback requirements and reduced it to a 12 -foot addition. Commissioner Hansen commented that he believes 12 feet is an accepted industry standard for a garage. He does not want to make the garage more difficult to use. Commissioner Siess commented that limiting the size of garage allowed ultimately limits the type of cars people drive and she doesn’t want to go there. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Hans en, to approve the variance. All in favor. Case No. 2012 -04. A request for: 1) annexation of an 18.92 acre property; 2) rezoning of the property from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential; 3) zoning ordinance amendment to allow armo ries and fire stations in the RB Zoning District by Special Use Permit; 4) Special Use Permit for the National Guard armory; and 5) Special Use Permit for the City of Stillwater Fire Station; and any related variances, for the construction of a new Nationa l Guard Armory and City Fire Station facilities located immediately northwest of the intersection of Myrtle Street and Maryknoll Drive in the 13000 Block on County Road 12 (aka 75th Street). Dennis Arntson, State of Minnesota, DMA, applicant. Planning Commission November 14, 2012 Page 3 of 7 Community De velopment Director Turnblad reviewed the request. The 18.92 acre site is proposed to be improved with a co -located 79,465 square foot Armory and a seven bay Fire Station. The facility will allow both the Fire Station and the Armory to operate independently , yet conveniently share space because the buildings are attached. The site and building footprint are laid out to accommodate a gymnasium expansion, should the City decide to construct that in the future. The facility will be served by a new public road t hat will connect Boutwell Road just east of Newberry Court North to CSAH 12 at Maryknoll Drive. The intersection with the County Road will require signal lights and associated turn lanes. Community Development Director Turnblad explained that a new public road is needed to connect CSAH 12 with Boutwell Road because: neighbors do not want all the Armory traffic on Boutwell Road; Fire and Rescue response times need to remain within the acceptable range; and Washington County requires that the arterial road s ystem functions satisfactorily. There are two proposed entrances to the facility: the south entrance, which accesses the public reception area of the Fire Station and Armory classrooms that can be used by the public; and the north entrance, which is the pr imary public entrance to the Armory. In order to build the project as proposed, the following actions would be required: 1. Annexation of the site’s three parcels comprising 18.92 acres; and 2. Rezoning of the property to RB, Two -Family Residential; and 3. Zonin g Code amendment to allow an Armory and a Municipal Fire Station by SUP in the RB, Two -Family Residential Zoning District; and 4. SUP for an Armory in the RB Zoning District; and 5. SUP for a Municipal Fire Station in the RB Zoning District. Community Develop ment Director Turnblad added that all of the requirements for a SUP are met. He summarized the main points of a traffic study done by SRF Consulting which found that except Boutwell/Manning, all intersections in the area currently function satisfactorily a nd will continue to function satisfactorily after the project is built. He added that Washington County plans to signalize the Boutwell/Manning intersection. Mr. Turnblad also reviewed plans for landscaping, lighting, and exterior building materials. There are 19 conditions proposed. Commissioner Siess asked about the speed limit on Myrtle. Community Development Director Turnblad responded that the County has already said it would support submitting a request to the State for a new traffic study. Commis sioner Hansen asked if there’s concern about traffic accelerating up the hill having to stop for a fire truck in front of them. Planning Commission November 14, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Community Development Director Turnblad replied that warning lights might possibly be installed at the emergency exit, but the County is still considering what would be best for that site. Scott Foss, 162 Boutwell Court, expressed concern about traffic and speeds on Boutwell Road, saying the hill will be a major problem as vehicles try to stop on the hill. He feels the proposal will increase the amount of traffic on Boutwell Road. Mark Wendt, 142 Boutwell Court, said before purchasing his property in 1999, he was assured the site would be residential. He never would have bought his property had he had the slightest clue that a military installation, fire station, signals and turn lanes would be installed. He commented that the site is not an appropriate location nor is the plan carefully thought through, and the cost is excessive. Paul Boucher, 7699 Minar Trail, stated he was aware of planned annexation for residential purposes when he purchased his property two years ago. He asked what is the forum to raise deeper questions about the quality of the studies and concerns about issues that have not yet been addressed? Chairman K ocon explained the Commission will make a recommendation; the final decision rests with the City Council. Community Development Director Turnblad added that all studies and information available to the Council and Commission are also available to residen ts as public record. The City Council will consider this issue December 4 at the very earliest. Mr. Boucher stated his main concerns are noise and general impact; he wants to know what can be done to mitigate the sound. Nothing he has seen yet explains ho w the proposal will impact his property. Mary Piontek, 197 Maryknoll Drive, said she is concerned that all the traffic that now comes down Boutwell and then takes Deerpath will route through the Armory road and then down Maryknoll. She is not against the Armory but concerned about impact about traffic flow. Roger Tomten, 718 South Fifth Street, raised questions about infrastructure efficiencies in light of the area being zoned residential when the comprehensive plan was completed. He commented that the p roposal represents inefficient land use and creates no tax base for the community. Jeff Johnson, 309 South Fifth Street, said the hearing was not well advertised, especially for a project of nearly $10 million, that will decrease the fire protection of t hose in the downtown area. He feels rezoning the property shows poor planning by taking 180 future homes out of the tax base and spending $10 million. He also expressed concerns about traffic safety, saying difficult physical terrain will be exasperated by increased traffic and by the proposed signal. Planning Commission November 14, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Ann Terwedo, Senior Transportation Planner with Washington County, stated that the County has been working closely with the City on this development including improvements at the intersection at Maryknoll. Th e County will look at site distances, pedestrian crossings, the intersection at Boutwell, and how to achieve safe roadways. Community Development Director Turnblad added that at present, the County and City are looking at turning Boutwell into a right -in, right -out only. A signalized intersection with turn lanes is planned for Eagle Ridge. Jeff Bednar, SRF Consulting Group, discussed potential traffic patterns through Croixwood. He recalled previous concerns related to Deerpath and Brick cut -through traff ic which brought about improvements including a left turn restriction on Deerpath. The addition of a local road between Myrtle and Boutwell may increase the potential for through traffic on Maryknoll and other Croixwood streets, but cut - through traffic is estimated 50 -75 vehicles per day on a weekday, or one extra vehicle every eight to 12 minutes. Today approximately 500 vehicles per day use Maryknoll south of Myrtle. Adding 50 -75 is still considered reasonable for a local residential street. In response to Chairman Kocon’s request for additional clarification, Mr. Bednar stated that the total volume on Boutwell north of Myrtle is roughly 1,500. The total volume on Maryknoll south of Myrtle is roughly 500. He estimates that due to the connection between B outwell and Myrtle through the National Guard site, an additional 50 -75 vehicles (northbound and southbound) will choose to use Maryknoll and other streets as through streets. Northbound traffic will probably represent most of the 50 -75 additional vehicles . The readiness center will generate between 350 - 400 trips daily, according to estimates. That is equivalent to about 35 homes. In comparison, 150 homes would have much more traffic impact for the site. Community Development Director Turnblad added that for the total area, 175 homes were predicted, with about 50 homes on this site. He said the City has invested a lot into infrastructure. Impact fees will be charged per acre as part of this project and the National Guard understands that. He agreed that th e homes would have generated more trips than development of the site as proposed. Chairman Kocon asked about the tax base impacts of losing 50 homes versus the services those 50 homes might need as the City turns tax -generating property into tax -using pro perty. Community Development Director Turnblad responded that commercial and industrial properties usually generate excess revenue compared with residential properties. Planning Commission November 14, 2012 Page 6 of 7 Commissioner Siess pointed out there is a huge problem with speeds on Myrtle and pa ssing on the right. She asked if the City can require that the speed limit be changed. Community Development Director Turnblad answered that the State dictates the speed, but the County has already offered to request a new speed study. He pointed out that sometimes speed limits go up as a result of a traffic study - there are no guarantees. He also noted that the County and the City will work through the winter on a Memorandum of Understanding outlining road improvements. Regarding the proposed lighting, Community Development Director Turnblad explained that a light meter would have to read zero at the property line but that doesn’t mean no light will be seen. All fixtures have to have a complete cut -off so the lamp/bulb cannot be seen from any property l ine. The National Guard will use only security lights in the parking lot and on the building after hours. Other lights will be on a timer, shutting off at 6:30 p.m. unless there’s an event, at which time the lights would be shut off after the event. Asked about noise, Community Development Director Turnblad indicated no outdoor training will be done at the Armory - training is done offsite. The noise will be primarily sirens from the Fire Station. Deputy Fire Chief Ballis noted the Fire Department doesn’t use lights and sirens when responding unless the situation is life threatening - they try to be good neighbors. He said the new station will allow the Department to provide service to 98% of residents with a six minute response time. He doesn’t think a s ignificant response time difference will occur downtown. The new facility also will allow consolidation of equipment and provide more room including safe areas to put on gear, training facilities, and office space. Motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded b y Commissioner Lauer, to recommend approval with the 19 conditions listed by staff, plus three additional conditions: 1) - requesting the County to make application for a speed study 2) requesting advance notice for emergency exits from the property; and 3 ) asking the City and County to work together to explore options for signaling to discourage traffic onto Maryknoll into Croixwood. All in favor. A public hearing on the proposed enlargement of and proposed adoption of a Modification to the Development Pr ogram for Development District No. 1 , all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.124 to 469.134, inclusive, as amended, the proposed Modification of the Financing Plan of Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 (a "Redevelopment District"), all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. City of Stillwater, applicant. City Attorney Dave Magnuson stated that the City is seeking a modification to Development District No. 1, to expand it to cove r the entire City. This will permit the Planning Commission November 14, 2012 Page 7 of 7 City council to use the increment captured from Tax Increment District No. 4, Target and Marketplace, to subsidize the capital improvements of streets anywhere in the City. The Commission is asked to make a finding t hat this expansion of District No. 1 is consistent with the general plan for development and redevelopment of the City. There is around $3 million TIF remaining that can be used for qualifying purposes. Motion by Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Hade to a pprove Resolution 2012 -01 , a resolution finding that the tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4, located within Development District No. 1, conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City of Stillwater. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to adjourn the meeting at 10:28 p.m. Respectfully Submitted , Julie Kink Recording Secretary Planning Commission DATE : November 8, 2012 December 6, 2012 CASE NO.: 2012 -34 APPLICANT: Judd Sather, Judd Sather Photography PROPERTY OWNER: Barbara Lynskey REQUEST : 1) S pecial Use P ermit for an Events Center 2) Parking Variance L OCATION: 214 Main St S ZONING : CBD, Central Business District PUBLIC HEARING : November 14, 2012 December 10, 2012 REVIEWERS: Community Development Director , Assistant Fire Chief, and Building Official PREPARED BY : Michel Pogge, City Planner Note: Changes from the November 8, 2012 memo are shown in blue legislative format. BACKGROUND Judd Sather has recently started using the second floor of the space he rents at 214 Main St S as an event center. This has been done without receiving approvals from the City (fire, building, liquor control, or planning) or Washington County Public Health. The event center occupies 4,500 s.f. and uses the entire second floor. The plan is to hold private parties, small weddings, birthday parties, and concert events with a capacity of around 175 to 250 people. Previous ly the second floor in this area was u nderutilized and used for storage. Event Center Page 2 of 7 SPECIFIC REQUEST 1. The property is zoned CBD, Central Business District . Within this zoning district events ce nters are not specifically listed. Both restaurants and commercial recreational uses are allowed by Special Use Permit. Staff feels that an event center is similar to restaurants with a commercial recreational us e thus if the commission also finds that i t is a similar use they could issue a Special Use Permit for an event center. 2. The proposed use requires 83 on -site parking spaces. As storage (the previous use) they were required to have five on -site spaces ; therefore, as an existing nonconforming use th ey receive a credit of five spaces thus reducing the required on -site parking to 78 spaces . Consequently, a variance has been requested for the 78 deficient spaces. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Special Use Permit Sec. 31 -207(d) of the City Code states that a S pecial Use Permit can be approved if the Planning Commission finds that: (1) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, t he Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans . Zoning Ordinance Parking : One of the Zoning Ordinance’s performance standards that is related to the proposal is a minimum amount of on -site parking. As mentioned above, 83 parking spaces are required for the proposed use . Currently there are no on -site parking spaces available on this sit e. Previously the second floor was used as storage thus they receive a credit of 5 spaces since that use was grandfathered thus reducing the required parking to 78 parking spaces. Since the required spaces cannot be provided on site, a variance has be en requested and is discussed below. Comprehensive Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Downtown Mix Use. An event center would be consistent with this classification. Event Center Page 3 of 7 (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public inter est have been imposed . Architectural design Remodeling will be restricted largely to the interior of the building for now. Consequently, exterior architectural review is not applicable at this time. In the future if exterior changes are proposed, includi ng any signage or exterior building painting, plans will need to be submitted to the City and review by the HPC may be required. Miscellaneous  Fire Department and Building Review - Applicant shall secure all required approvals from the City’s Building Off icial and Fire Marshall prior to operating the event center. This includes, but is not limited to, installing required exiting and meeting ADA requirements.  Health Department Review - The applicant shall receive all appropriate Washington County Health Department approvals prior to allowing liquor and food to be served on the site .  Liquor License – The operator has indicated that they will allow guests to bring their own liq uor to the site for consumption along with licensed caters to serve liquor. Thi s will likely require both a “consume and display” license along with a “bottle club” license. The operator will need to work with the City Clerk’s office to secure the required liquor license s and carry all required insurance prior to allowing alcohol on the site. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community .  Noise – There is concern that this use could impact an adjacent residential use located over the Mad Capper since the two share a common hall way. The operator will need to insure that the event center guests and entertainment does not impact the adjacent residential use. Additionally the applicant has verbally indicated to staff in the past that the common stairway would be used as the required secondary emergency exit and not as the primary exit. Therefore, staff recommends that alarmed panic hardware be installed on the door leading to the common stairway.  Other than concerns over possible noise, s taff finds this criterion to be satisfied. An event center is a desirable use in the downtown district. Additionally, finding a way to use an underutilized area not only benefits the downtown but helps insure that our historic building remain viable over the long term . Event Center Page 4 of 7 Variance A s mentioned above, the proposed use would need 83 parking spaces to meet the Zoning Code s tandards . However, there are no on -site parking spaces available on this site. Previously the second floor was used as storage thus they receive a credit of 5 space s since that use was grandfathered thus reducing the required parking to 78 parking spaces. Consequently a variance from the parking requirement has been requested. It has become common in the downtown zoning district to view the re -use of existing spac e as grounds for satisfying the “hardship” criteria for variance requests. Obviously, the existing set of circumstances prevents the new business from creating the required number of on -site parking spaces. It is for situations such as these that Section 31 -510, Subd. 1 (d)(1)i of the Zoning Ordinance was written. It allows for “alternative provisions” when the property being considered is in a parking district. The City has established a downtown parking district, which would allow for such “alternativ e provisions”. Only in new construction has the City aggressively required the construction of new parking spaces. About the only consistent “alternative provision” that the City has applied under these circumstances is that the business owner is requir ed to either lease excess and available spaces from an adjacent property owner or purchase monthly parking permits from the City . In this case, the Mr. Sather has reached an agreement to lease the adjacent US Bank parking lot and its 38 parking spaces. Since the event center will generally be open only during hours that US Bank would be closed this arrangement will work well. This leaves a deficiency of 40 parking spaces that can be satisfied by purchasing monthly parking permits from the City or secur ing a lease from another private property owner . In keeping with past practices, staff finds the variance review criteria to be met and would recommend approval of the variance with the condition that property owner or operator either lease private spaces parking space or purchase monthly parking space equal to 78 parking spaces. If the City keep s with past practices, Mr. Sather would need to lease an additional 40 off -street parking spaces or purchase 40 monthly parking permits from the City. On Novem ber 15, 2012, Mr. Sather met with the Downtown Stillwater Parking Commission to discuss the request. The Parking Commission felt that this was a unique situation since there will likely be only 2 to 3 events per month. If the variance is approved by the Planning Commission , the Parking Commission approved only charging $120 per month and that the rates would be revisited by the Parking Commission annually to consider change to number of events that could change the impact on the parking system at which ti me the rate may be modified . Event Center Page 5 of 7 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve. If the Special use Permit and variance requests are found to be acceptable, the y could be approved with the following conditions: a. All changes to th e approved plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will also need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. b. All signage and exterior changes sh all be reviewed by the HPC. c. Applicant shall secure all required approvals from the City’s Building Official and Fire Marshall prior to operating the event center. This includes, but is not limited to, installing required exiting and meeting ADA requiremen ts. d. The applicant shall submit a SAC determination letter prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. The applicant shall receive all appropriate Washington County Health Department approvals prior to allowing liquor and food to be served on the site . f. T he operator shall lease 38 parking spaces from US Bank. A copy of the lease shall be placed on file with the Community Development Department prior to this permit becoming effective. e.g. T he applicant shall pay the City of Stillwater $120 per month to offse t impacts to the public downtown parking system that stem from this use . This rate shall reviewed by the Parking Commission annually to consider changes to the impacts on the parking system at which time the rate may be modified. This permit shall not be in effect during any month that the parking fee are not paid and shall terminate if the fee is not paid for 12 consecutive months. f. The operator shall secure 78 off -street parking spaces. These spaces can be either be in a public or private parking lot or a combination of the two. If the spaces are in a private parking lot then the operator shall provide a copy of the lease to the City. If they are in a public lot the n the operator shall purchase monthly parking permits equal to the number that they are deficient to compensate for deficiency in on -site parking. g.h. The operator shall secure the required liquor license (s) for the City and carry all required insurance prior to allowing alcohol on the site. i. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an exte rior deck, the applicant will need to received approval on an amended Special Use Permit and a design review permit from the HPC. Event Center Page 6 of 7 j. Since full building plans on the elevator addition were not submitted, the elevator shall be internal to the existing buildi ng. A design review permit from the HPC and any other city or state requirements shall be met prior to the issuance of a building permit for an addition that house s an elevator. h.k. To reduce possible noise impacts on the adjoin ing residential use, the comm on stairway between this site and 224 Main St S Main Street shall only be used as an emergency exit. A larmed panic hardware shall be installed on the door leading to the common stairway. i.l. The applicant shall follow the City noise regulations for commerci al uses as outlines in Section 38 -3 of the Stillwater City Code. j.m. This special use permit shall be reviewed before the Planning Commission and City Council for possible revocation or amending of the conditions if substantiated complaints, safety issues, o r violations of the conditions of this permit are received by the Community Development Director. 2. Deny. If the proposal is to be unacceptable, the Planning Commission could den y the requests . A denial motion requires substantiating findings of fact. 3. Table . the request s for more information . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval with the conditions found under Alternative 1. cc: Barbara Lynskey Judd Sather attachments: Zoning Map Neighborhood Map Applicant’s materials Location Map Event Center Page 7 of 7 Proposed Event Center S T A T E H I G H W A Y S 9 5 & 3 6 U N I O N A L L E Y 2 1 4 2 2 1 2 3 6 2 3 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 9 2 2 4 2 1 3 2 2 9 2 1 5 2 1 9 2 2 3 2 2 6 2 2 4 2 2 7 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 4 3 C i t y o f S t i l l w a t e r , M N C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t 2 1 6 N o r t h F o u r t h S t r e e t S t i l l w a t e r , M N 5 5 0 8 2 6 5 1 -4 3 0 -8 8 2 0 – 6 5 1 -4 3 0 -8 8 1 0 f a x ±0 4 0 8 0 2 0 F e e t 1 i n c h = 4 0 f e e t 2 0 1 2 -3 4 - 2 1 4 M a i n S t S S p e c i a l U s e P e r m i t f o r a n e v e n t C e n t e r Planning Commission D ATE : December 6, 2012 CASE NO.: 12 -36 REQUEST: Millbrook 7th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan APPLICANT: Joe Jablonski , U.S. Home Corporation LOCATION: State Highway 96 west of South Twin Lake MEETING DATE : December 10, 2012 REVIEWED BY: Community Development Director PREPARED BY : Michel Pogge, City Planner BACKGROUND The P reliminary Plat and Concept Planned Unit Development for Millbrook was approved by the City in the Summer of 2006 and subsequently amended in July of 2010 . The 170 acre preliminary plat includes 172 single family homes and 98 townhomes. Development of the property is planned to occu r in three overall phases. This plat represents the last plan of the development. This plat is known as Millbrook 7th Addition and includes a total of 47 single family homes that are zoned Traditional Residential. White Pine Way will be extended east and will connect to Neal Ave. Ricky Lane will be built on the east side of the deve lopment which will allow the property to the north and south to have access to White Pine Way if they are developed and subdivided in the future. Since the utilities that serve Millbrook were extended from the east, most of the utilities that will serve t his development are in place. Any remaining p ublic utilities that have yet to be installed will be done by the developer as part of the site improvements. Millbrook 7th Addition – Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan December 6, 2012 Page 2 REQUEST AND ANALYSIS The specific request before the City is to approve the Final Plat for MILLB ROOK 7th ADDITION and the Final PUD Site Plan. The City Council adopted a resolution approving the preliminary plat and concept PUD permit for M ILLBROOK on August 15, 2006. On July 28, 2009, the Council adopted a resolution approving an amendment to the preliminary plat and concept PUD permit as they apply to the single -family homes in M ILLBROOK . Since the plans are substantially similar to the preliminary plat and concept PUD permit approved, t he final plat and final PUD permit for Millbrook 5th Addit ion are subject to the pertinent conditions of both resolutions of approval. They are detailed below. I. August 15, 2006 Resolution Conditions. 1. The Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development application shall be substantially similar to the following pl ans prepared by Sathre -Bergquist, Inc., and on file in the Community Development Department, except as modified herein: Site Plan dated 7/21/06 Phasing Plan dated 7/24/06 Buffer Averaging Plan (including trails) - 8 sheets dated 6/26/06 Prelimin ary Site Map* (Sheets SM2 – SM6) dated 1/17/06 Preliminary Plat (Sheets PP1 -7) dated 3/30/06 Final Grading Plan (Sheets GP2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6) dated 4/12/06 Final Utility Plan (Sheets 2 -5) dated 4/12/06 Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheets 1 -4) dated 2/1/06 *Except trails to be as shown in Site Plan dated 7/21/06 T he final pla n submittals for M ILLBROOK 7 TH A DDITION are substantially similar to the approved preliminary plans. 2. The developer shall complete a Lakeshore PUD worksheet and submit it to t he Minnesota Department of Natural Resource’s (DNR) Area Hydrologist prior to submitting an application for a final plat for Phase One. If the DNR review results in substantial changes to the Preliminary Plat or Concept PUD plans, then the developer shall resubmit the Concept PUD and Preliminary Plat for review by the City and Joint Planning Board. This condition has been satisfied. 3. The trail and sidewalk system shall be constructed substantially the same as represented in the following plan sets on file w ith the Community Development Department: a. Carnelian Marine Trail s – Revised (Sheets CM -1, 2, 3) dated 6 -21 -06 b. Brown’s Creek Trail – Revision 3 (Sheet BC 2b -1) dated 6 -26 -06 c. Brown’s Creek Trail – Revision 2 (Sheet BC 2 -2 + 2 -3) dated 6 -22 -06 d. Revised Sidewa lk Plan (Sheets SP -1, 2,3) dated 6 -21 -06 Park and trail plans for M ILLBROOK 7 TH A DDITION are consistent with the approved preliminary plans. 4. All trails shall be paved. This condition has been satisfied. Millbrook 7th Addition – Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan December 6, 2012 Page 3 5. Prior to release of the final plat for Phase One , a blanket easement shall be provided over the open space outlot on the south side of South Twin Lake for trail purposes. Should the Carnelian -Marine Watershed District rules ever change and allow a trail closer to the lake, the easement will give the Ci ty the right to construct that trail. This condition has been satisfied. 6. Prior to release of the final plat for Phase One, the developer shall provide a 20 foot wide general easement allowing for future use for trails and utilities on the property along the south side of State Highway 96 right of way. The easement shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and City Attorney and found satisfactory to them in both form and content. This condition has been satisfied. 7. The trail connection to State Highway 96 a long Outlot F shall be allowed as shown only if the wetland in the ditch is determined by a State licensed delineator to be an incidental wetland. If it is not an incidental wetland, then the trail shall be realigned westward along the rear of Lots 17 thr ough 19. Documentation from the delineator shall be submitted together with final plat application materials for the Phase One final plat. This trail connection was originally important when the regional trail connecting Stillwater to St. Paul was identif ied to run along the south side of State Highway 96. Now with the prospect that the Browns Creek State trail, no regional trail will be constructed along State High 96 . Thus this trail connection is likely no longer needed. Additionally, staff would rec ommend against installing this trail connection now since there is currently no safe pedestrian path along State Highway 96. A trail easement was secured to allow a future connection if it would be needed in the future. 8. Lots 129 and 149 adjacent to the t rail access off of the roundabout will be restricted by covenant to have open rail fencing and non -continuous shrubbery not exceeding four feet in height along their side and rear lot lines abutting the trail corridor. This is to provide for a more invitin g entrance to the trail system. This condition has been satisfied. 9. The Developer shall provide water service stubs at each park with three stubs to be included at the large active park. A sanitary sewer stub will be provided at the large active park at a p lace yet to be determined by the City of Stillwater. This condition has been satisfied. Millbrook 7th Addition – Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan December 6, 2012 Page 4 10. The two active parks will be graded by the developer as part of the first phase of development and the developer shall establish turf to the satisfaction of the city p rior to the City’s assuming maintenance of same. This shall at a minimum include mowing, fertilizing, rock picking, leveling, trimming, weed management and over seeding as necessary. Target date for the first transfer of park land will be fall of 2007. The park sites were transferred to the City in the Fall of 2010 and the requirements for the final turf establishment is covered in the Millbrook Plat 4 development agreement. 11. The Brown’s Creek trail link on the Millbrook property that connects to the Carls on property to the south shall be installed by the developer at the same time that the Carlson property trail is constructed, if prior to construction of the final phase in Millbrook. This trail connection is in this final plat. The plans from the develop er show it as a “future trail”. Staff believes that this should be installed now before home are built and new owners own the property otherwise it could be difficult to install the trail later even if the City has an easement for it. 12. An as built easeme nt map showing 30 foot easements where possible (minimum of 15 foot) for trails shall be completed and recorded as each section of trail is completed. These easement are received with each plat of the development . 13. Final civil engineering plans shall be fou nd satisfactory to the Stillwater Public Works Director or they shall either be: a) revised to his satisfaction; or b) reviewed by the City Council and approved. The civil engineering plans for Millbrook 7 th Addition are still being reviewed by the Public Works Director . The plans will need to be approved by him prior City Council approval of the plans. 14. Prior to commencement of any grading on the subject property, the developer shall enter into a Development Agreement that is approved by the City Council. A n addendum to the master development agreement for MILLBROOK was signed already for the first phase. A development agreement for this plat will be presented to the City Council with the final plat. Millbrook 7th Addition – Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan December 6, 2012 Page 5 II. April 17, 2007 Resolution Conditions 1. The Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development Permit applications for the townhomes shall be substantially similar to the following plans on file in the Community Development Department, except as modified herein: Preliminary Plat Amendment (Sheet PP) dated 1/8/07 Pre liminary Grading Plan (Sheet GP1) dated 1/12/07 Preliminary Utility Plan (Sheet UP1) dated 1/12/07 Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheet LP1) dated 1/12/07 Colonial Foundation Planting Plan (Sheet L1) dated 6/8/06 1 Architectural elevations submitted wi th materials for 4/17/07 Council Meeting This condition is satisfied. 2. Any conditions applicable to the townhome development that are found in Resolution No. 2006 -179 (Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat and Concept PUD Permit) shall continue to be applic able. This condition is satisfied. 3. Evergreen trees shall be added to screen the driveways from the public streets and shall be added along the north side of White Pine Way between the street and the townhome pond. The landscape plan has been revised to inc lude these plantings. 4. Three to four architectural elevations shall be developed for the ends of the units that face the public street and the pond. This condition is satisfied. 5. In order to reduce the mass of the units a variety of materials and colors shal l be introduced into each building with variations amongst the buildings. This condition is satisfied. 6. Depending on the orientation of the building, sidewalks shall be extended from the ends of the units to either the sidewalk along the public street or to the sidewalk surrounding the pond. This has been included in the revised plans. 7. Material samples shall be submitted with the Final Plat and Final PUD Permit applications to be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. This condition is satisfied. 8. All minor modifications to the Design Review Permit shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between “major” and “minor” shall re st with the City Administrator. 1 Augmented by foundation planting plan submitted together with materials for 4/17/07 City Council meeting Millbrook 7th Addition – Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan December 6, 2012 Page 6 III. July 28, 2009 Resolution Conditions 1. The Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development application shall be substantially similar to the plans prepared by Sathre -Bergquist, Inc., and on file in the Community Development De partment as listed in Stillwater City Council Resolution Number 2006 -179 except as amended by the revised concept sketch dated May 8, 2009. This condition is satisfied. 2. The developer shall complete a Lakeshore PUD worksheet and submit it to the Minnesota D epartment of Natural Resource’s (DNR) Area Hydrologist prior to submitting an application for a final plat approval for the lots being revised with this amendment. If the DNR review results in substantial changes to the PUD Amendment, then the developer s hall resubmit the PUD amendment or review by the City and Joint Planning Board. This condition is satisfied. 3. The proposed traffic calming median in White Pine Way shall align with the proposed trail between Lots 7 and 8 on the north side of White Pine Way as shown on Area B. Additionally, the trail north of lots 7 and 8 on the north side of White Pine Way as shown on Area B shall be adjusted to remove the multiple 90 -degree turns. This condition is satisfied 4. Conditions 3 through 14 in Stillwater City Co uncil Resolution Number 2006 -179 shall remain in effect with this PUD Amendment. This condition is satisfied as noted above. 5. Changes to the lots sizes are approved for Area A and C. The lot sizes for Area B shall remain unchanged. This condition is satisf ied. 6. The new house plans shall only be used on the CR lots. This condition is satisfied. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council approved Millbrook 7th addition Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. An as -bu ilt easement map showing 30 -foot easements where possible (minimum of 15 foot) for trails shall be completed and recorded as each section of trail is completed. 2. The “future trail” shown south of Block 6 Lots 1, 2, and 3 shall be installed with the other pu blic improvements. 3. Final civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the Stillwater Public Works Director or they shall either be: a) revised to his satisfaction; or b) reviewed by the City Council and approved. cc: Joe Jablonski µ Z o n i n g C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s A -P , A g r i c u l t u r a l P r e s e r v a t i o n R A - S i n g l e F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l R B - T w o F a m i l y T R , T r a d i t i o n a l R e s i d e n t i a l L R , L a k e s h o r e R e s i d e n t i a l C R , C o t t a g e R e s i d e n t i a l C T R , C o v e T r a d i t i o n a l R e s i d e n t i a l C C R , C o v e C o t t a g e R e s i d e n t i a l C T H R , C o v e T o w n h o u s e R e s i d e n t i a l T H , T o w n h o u s e R C M - M e d i u m D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l R C H - H i g h D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l V C , V i l l a g e C o m m e r c i a l C A - G e n e r a l C o m m e r c i a l C B D - C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t B P -C , B u s i n e s s P a r k - C o m m e r c i a l B P -O , B u s i n e s s P a r k - O f f i c e B P -I , B u s i n e s s P a r k - I n d u s t r i a l I B - H e a v y I n d u s t r i a l C R D - C a m p u s R e s e a r c h D e v e l o p m e n t P A - P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n P R O S - P a r k , R e c o r O p e n S p a c e P u b l i c W o r k s F a c i l i t y R O A D R a i l r o a d W A T E R M i l l b r o o k 7 t h A d d i t i o n C O U N T Y R O A D 6 4 M C K U S I C K R O A D N O R T H N E A L A V E N U E N O R T H H E I F O R T C O U R T N E A L A V E N U E N O R T H R I C K Y L A N E R I C K Y L A N E W H I T E P I N E W A Y W H I T E P I N E W A Y C I R C L E W H I T E P I N E W A Y µM i l l b r o o k 7 t h A d d i t i o n