Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-08 CPC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 8, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer, Middleton, Siess, Council Representative Junker Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Turnblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of June 10, 2015 meeting minutes Commissioner Hansen pointed out the minutes should be corrected to reflect that Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve the June 10, 2015 meeting minutes as corrected. All in favor, 9-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2015-15. Special Use Permit and associated variances for Minnesota Shooting Academy to redesign the existing building into an amusement and recreational establishment, located at 2159 Curve Crest Boulevard. Mark Kamas, MN Shooting Academy, applicant and Paul Simonet, owner. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit for an indoor target practice range to be located in the existing Simonet Furniture building. The use would require: 1) a 4,040 square foot variance to the maximum 3,000 square feet allowed for a Commercial Recreational Establishment; 2) a 26-stall parking variance; and 3) an 18% variance to the 60% maximum impervious lot coverage allowed by City Code. In addition to the specially-permitted use, MN Shooting Academy is proposing retail sales, a lounge and vending area, warehouse space and space for administrative offices, which are all permitted uses. The application included information about sound baffling and test records from similar facilities which indicate decibel levels will be compliant with City noise ordinance provisions. Staff recommends approval of the 4,040 square foot variance, as practical difficulty and uniqueness of circumstance have been established, and approval of the Special Use Permit with conditions. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 2 of 18 Chairman Kocon asked what recourse the City has if dba thresholds are exceeded. City Planner Wittman said the establishment would be under noise ordinance regulations as well as State statute provisions allowing for temporary closures and injunctions against the business if it violates noise standards. Chairman Kocon asked what kind of maintenance is done on a permeable surface. City Planner Wittman said an underground tank system needs to be vacuumed out. Barry Schalkle, representing the applicant, noted there are very strict OSHA requirements for handling lead. When air goes out of the building it is filtered, so it is cleaner than when it is drawn in. Regarding the proposed conditions, 14 lanes are now proposed, rather than 12; the additional 2 lanes will be used for law enforcement. Square footage would remain the same. Roger Tomten, Archnet, project architect, addressed the proposed condition about parking. The majority of parking stalls required relate to the retail component of the space. Recognizing this use will be less popular than other types of retail uses, they would like to use the “proof of need for parking” approach, using the existing spaces and agreeing to provide more parking at a later date if it is warranted. To address sound concerns, the building has 12” thick masonry walls. A concrete box will be constructed within the building with 12” thick concrete walls with a concrete cap. The sound will be encapsulated within the first shell of concrete. Regarding the proposed condition about the trail easement, Mr. Schalkle noted if they are the only business on the block, it doesn’t make sense. City Planner Wittman replied that the easement would be on the Washington Avenue side to install future pedestrian improvements, in conjunction with the City’s Master Trail Plan. Commissioner Fletcher asked about public safety. Mark Kamas, applicant, replied that State safety laws govern handling of firearms outside the building. Good business practices must be used such as not bringing in uncased weapons. There will be a safety officer present at all times to ensure compliance. Commissioner Collins asked about hours of operation. Mr. Schalkle replied the hours would be Monday through Friday 10 a.m. - 9 p.m., closing earlier on Saturday and Sunday. Commissioner Lauer asked how the law enforcement lanes will be allocated. Mr. Kamas replied they are working with other agencies to design the law enforcement lanes. If not used by law enforcement, those lanes would be open to members. Commissioner Siess asked if this is a common type of location for a shooting range. Mr. Kamas replied that usually, you see ranges in industrial parks, but they are trying to be more mainstream to be more like other entertainment/sports establishments. Commissioner Middleton asked what percentage would be used by members versus law enforcement. Mr. Kamas replied that police usually shoot on off-hours, either early in the morning or late at night. There would be special hours for police. There is a lot of interest because the law enforcement agencies have a hard time finding places to shoot. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 3 of 18 Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are restrictions on type of firearms that can be discharged in the facility. Mr. Kamas replied it is more the type of ammunition than the firearms themselves. Mr. Schalkle noted that education is an important part of the proposal. In addition to firearms safety, there will be safety classes focusing on general home safety and protection when in public. Commissioner Fletcher asked about compliance requirements for federal regulations. Mr. Kamas replied the facility must be evaluated by OSHA, EPA and ATF regularly and in random checks. Commissioner Collins asked if only one set of doors can be open at a time. Mr. Kamas replied that is correct. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Diane Dietz, 2221 Oak Ridge Road, Stillwater, expressed concerns about adding to the existing noise from traffic. The establishment will bring a potential nuisance to the area because there is no other shooting range on this side of the metro area. If the business is not viable, what will happen to the building? She also is concerned about its impacts on nearby Stillwater Veterinary Clinic and Stillwater Medical Group. She is concerned about the proposed lounge and whether it will sell liquor, about the loss of green space and devaluation of property. She urged the Commission to deny the proposal. Brian Naughton, 1457 Case Avenue, St. Paul, who is in the medical field with clients throughout the metro area, spoke to some of the economic and societal benefits of a shooting range. Shooting sports retailers provide a variety of firearms designed for all shooters. Compared to skiing, biking and skateboarding, shooting is not limited to the physically trained athlete. Safety training and education make shooting sports quite safe. There is a much greater risk from motor vehicles. The Minnesota Shooting Academy has conveyed its long range plans for a program to ensure all members and guests are trained in safe gun handling. Neighborhood and community relations will also be part of their long range plan. He presented figures confirming the economic benefits of shooting ranges. He is VP of the Minnesota Second Amendment Association. He urged the Commission to approve the proposal. David Kalinoff, Woodbury, said he grew up in Stillwater. He is a full time police officer and an avid participant in shooting sports. An indoor range is a safe and clean place to shoot. He has taught his wife and children firearms safety. The educational benefits for the public are great. The classes also teach legal concepts involved in handling firearms. George Riley, Upper 36th Street North, Oakdale, spoke in support of Mr. Schalkle and Mr. Kamas as ethical longstanding community service leaders and knowledgeable instructors with a wide range of experience. He feels the proposal is well thought-out. Carrie Brockman, 5995 Oren Avenue, Stillwater, noted her CPA office has had a number of clients express concerns to her that the proposal will detrimentally affect their businesses. She expressed concerns about noise from air blowers located on the roof, how emergency personnel would get into the facility, and how much more traffic will be generated. Traffic on that corner is heavy already. Don Slinger, 4620 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, retired training and planning coordinator for the DNR, stated it is hard to find individuals qualified to work in the conservation field who are knowledgeable about firearms. It is difficult to find ranges where re-certification can be obtained. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 4 of 18 Brian Simonet, 79 Maryknoll Drive, Stillwater, one of the many owners of Simonet Furniture, refuted a statement made previously about the relationship between the ownership of Simonet Furniture and the current lessee. Tiffany Britz, 13991 60th Street Court North, Stillwater, a certified NRA firearms instructor, said having an indoor range in Stillwater would be great, but she feels it is not a good location due to the noise and traffic it would generate. There will be a woman-owned firearms range located in the area soon that is in the final stages, in which she has an interest. Paul Simonet, owner of Simonet Furniture and Carpet Company, stated they have been trying to sell the building since 2009 when the store went out of business. After lowering the price in the last year and a half, they have finally seen some interest. The furniture store never had a problem with fire trucks getting into the parking lot. He has been hearing a lot of misinformation. He owns a gun and goes to shooting ranges. They teach a lot about safety. As for traffic, signal lights are needed at that intersection. Traffic has always been a problem there. Greg Clark, 3701 Oakgreen Avenue, Baytown, asked about plans for the rest of the building, if there are sprinklers for the firing range, and if the ventilation system will be on the ground or the rooftop. The unit is about the size of a semi trailer and runs at 80 DBA. If more lanes are added, and another ventilation unit would be added, where would it be installed? Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. City Planner Wittman replied that the exchange system would be required to follow the noise ordinance, 70 dba from 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m., 65 dba at night from 10:00 p.m. - 8:00 a.m. A larger range would require an amendment to the Special Use Permit. If the range were doubled in size, another variance would be required as well. Everyone within 350 feet would be noticed. She believes the building code would require sprinklers. The applicants would work with the Building Department to ensure compliant fire suppression. Commissioner Kelly stated he has a conflict and won’t participate in the discussion or vote. Chairman Kocon said he is not a big gun fan, but the discussion is about meeting ordinances and restrictions. It’s a business decision. He views the proposal as viable with the 11 stated conditions. Commissioner Fletcher said she is not against guns but other cities have had significant discussion before approving indoor shooting ranges. She is concerned there is not an ordinance in place to specifically address indoor shooting ranges. Because there is not a restriction on the type of firearms used, she interprets to mean this facility will allow high powered automatic weapons. She feels there should be more discussion as a City before allowing the use. Commissioner Collins stated he lives just a couple blocks away from the site. He doesn’t believe there will be an adverse effect on traffic. He does not own a gun but went to a gun range the other day to familiarize himself. It wasn’t as loud as he thought it would be, inside or outside. The proprietors have not had an incident since it opened in 2003. He is passionate about education and is in favor of firearms education. This facility could be a good thing for the community. Commissioner Lauer stated that, as Chairman Kocon said, it is a business decision. If guns were taken out of the equation, the public safety aspect probably turns in the other direction when considering the Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 5 of 18 education. Those who shoot at a gun range are responsible gun owners. Noise is the biggest issue for him. It seems as if it can be addressed if requirements are not met. He is comfortable with the proposal. Commissioner Siess stated she has gun safety certification but feels this is not a proper location for this type of business. She feels it will alter the essential character of the neighborhood and she cannot support the proposal. Commissioner Middleton commented he too is concerned about the noise which could be very unnerving. He cannot support the request. Commissioner Hansen noted he is generally in favor of granting the request but he would not feel comfortable letting the applicant do parking mitigation later. It sounds as if parking should be addressed now. Chairman Kocon reminded the Commission that he too would like the parking addressed now. Commissioner Hansen pointed out the future comprehensive plan includes retail use for this area, but there are many other uses. There are other industrially zoned properties that are closer to residential neighborhoods with similar traffic issues. City Planner Wittman confirmed there is quite a mix of uses, for instance a clinic in an industrial zone, retail in office zone. It has a future land use designation of commercial. Motion by Chairman Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2015-15, a Special Use Permit and a 4,040 square foot variance for Minnesota Shooting Academy, located at 2159 Curve Crest Boulevard, with the following conditions: a. No greater than 14 firing lanes shall be permitted. A minimum of five of the firing lanes shall be made available for rental to community service personnel and community education activities. b. The establishment must have at least one adult employee or adult supervisory volunteer in the premises during all hours of operation. c. Soundproofing specifications shall be submitted with the building permit application. d. The establishment shall install appropriate and sufficient soundproofing to be in compliance with City Code Section 38-3, Noise Control and Regulation, for sound levels outside of the establishment. e. A total of 26 parking spaces shall be created onsite. A permeable surface parking area and suitable base found satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be utilized for all new parking and drive areas. f. A grading plan shall be reviewed by the City engineering Department and a Brown’s Creek Watershed District permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of the additional parking spaces. g. Upon the sale to Minnesota Shooting Academy and prior to the release of necessary building permits, a 15’ trail easement shall be dedicated to the City along the eastern property boundary for future trail connection between Curve Crest Boulevard and Highway 36. h. Conditions of a HPC-issued Design Permit shall be incorporated into this Special Use Permit by reference. i. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. j. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. k. Quarterly maintenance of the permeable pavement and documentation of maintenance shall be submitted to the City quarterly. Motion passed 5-3, with Commissioners Fletcher, Middleton and Siess voting nay and Commissioner Kelly abstaining. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 6 of 18 Asked by Commissioner Hade, City Planner Wittman acknowledged that any interested party or Commissioner may appeal the decision to the City Council. Case No. 2015-16. Special Use Permit for construction of a detached garage and accessory dwelling unit, located at 912 5th Street South. Eileen Gibson and Larry Wheeler, owners. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicants have applied for a Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be located above a two-car garage that they plan to build. The property owner adjacent who shares the driveway has expressed concerns about adding a dwelling unit, the potential for access to be blocked during or after construction, and potential drainage issues. Staff recommends approval with conditions which address the neighbor’s concerns. Eileen Gibson and Larry Wheeler, applicants, stated they are custom home builders who specialize in traditional homes. They want to adhere to the requirements, do a good job and enhance the property. The home is currently vacant. Commissioner Lauer asked if the applicants have spoken with the adjacent landowner. Mr. Wheeler said he was not part of the easement agreement 34 years ago. He would prefer to separate the driveways if that is the desire of the Commission and the neighbor. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. David Harrison, 920 5th Street South, who shares the driveway with the applicant, stated he sees the carriage house as a rental property with double the traffic and the people. The driveway has a 10% grade so the water will erode it more. It gets very icy in the winter. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen pointed out it is refreshing to address a Special Use Permit that doesn’t require a variance. He supports the proposal. Commissioner Middleton said he has a minor concern about the neighbor’s conflict, but it appears Mr. Wheeler is amenable to resolving it. He supports the request. Commissioner Collins noted that the site plan looks good. He favors approval. Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to approve Case No. 2015-16, a Special Use Permit for construction of a detached garage and accessory dwelling unit, located at 912 5th Street South, with the following conditions: a. The shared driveway shall not be blocked at any point during construction. b. The shared driveway shall be kept free and clear of debris during construction. c. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineering Department and a grading escrow, in an amount deemed sufficient by the Engineering Department for the new construction shall be submitted. d. To the greatest extent possible, drainage on the south side of the garage shall be retained onsite. e. The maximum size of the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be 800 square feet. f. A Design Permit shall be obtained from the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the submittal of a building permit. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 7 of 18 g. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction. The building permit shall clearly show the maximum height of the accessory structure, in correlation to the height of the existing residence. h. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. 2015-17. Special Use Permit for a drive-through to be installed on the building located at 1750 Greeley Street South. Stanfour, LLC, owner and Jeff Berends, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is proposing a new drive-through to be located on the south side of the existing structure, for a proposed Rita’s Italian Ice. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Jeff Berends, applicant, offered to answer questions. Asked by Commissioner Siess if there have been traffic studies, he stated there have not been traffic studies but the plan has taken into consideration the proper stacking, and the exit to the car wash to eliminate traffic conflicts. City Planner Wittman added that the City Engineer found no potential conflicts with the drive-through exit. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hansen said it’s refreshing to see a Special Use Permit that doesn’t require a variance. He supports the use. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve Case No. 2015-17, a Special Use Permit for a drive-through to be installed on the building located at 1750 Greeley Street South, with the following conditions: a. Lighting fixtures must provide a complete cut-off so the bulb/source of light cannot be seen from off the property and, at the property lines, the illumination has to be engineered to be 0 lumens. b. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the Engineering, Fire and Building Officials before the issuance of a building permit. c. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. 2015-18. Special Use Permit for outdoor sales to be held on the property of Stillwater Medical Group, located at 1500 Curve Crest Boulevard. Coleen Ebner, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to conduct a Farmers’ Market in the Lakeview Clinic parking lot on Tuesdays from 2:00-6:00 p.m. from July to October. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Chairman Kocon asked where farmers’ market customers will park. City Planner Wittman replied there will still be a significant amount of parking on the south side. Commissioner Middleton asked if food trucks would be allowed. City Planner Wittman responded food trucks would not be allowed in this district. Coleen Ebner, applicant, stated everything sold would have to be made there. The intent is to promote healthy foods, fruits, vegetables, honey and jams, and possibly bread. There would be no food trucks. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 8 of 18 Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2015-18, a Special Use Permit for outdoor sales to be held on the property of Stillwater Medical Group, located at 1500 Curve Crest Boulevard, with the following conditions: a. The outside sales shall occur between June 1 and October 31 annually. b. The hours of operation shall be limited to Tuesdays from 2:00-6:00 p.m. c. All vendors shall be situated along the south edge of the parking lot. d. Access shall not be restricted on the drive lane by vendors or parked vehicles. e. Same-day signage shall be reviewed and approved by Community Development Department staff. f. No more than two signs, one at each parking lot access point, shall be permitted to be installed during the event. g. Substantial changes shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. 2015-19. Special Use Permit for multi-tenant, multi-use associated with Case No. 2014-38, located at 123 2nd Street North. Judd Sather, owner. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting an amendment to Special Use Permit 2014-38 for JX Events Venue to be located at 123 2nd Street North, the Connolly Shoe Factory building. A single Special Use Permit is needed to address all uses in the proposed multi-use, multi- tenant building. The three-story structure would house the events venue on the upper story, a design similar to the originally proposed venue; however, the occupancy has increased to 1,200 people. The second level, accessed off 2nd Street North, would include medical and professional offices. The first level would contain a catering kitchen, lounge and brewery. There is a current parking mitigation plan determined sufficient by the Downtown Parking Commission for the third floor event venue of $210/month mitigation fee for the previous capacity of 800 people. A new mitigation plan for parking will be needed due to the increase in capacity of the event venue. A carryover condition from the original Special Use Permit is the future removal of the 8’ by 24’ loading dock. A draft agreement between Mr. Sather and the City which addresses the removal of the loading dock is being negotiated. The primary entrance to the building will be on Second Street, so there will be less of a need for the loading dock, which is built on public property. Judd Sather, applicant, explained that for the “big room” design concept, there will probably be a need for a fourth stairwell which would be right where the loading dock is. He plans to draw weddings of 300-400 people or corporate events of 400-500 people. The business plan is not for 1,200 people which would be standing room only. That is simply the total allowable capacity based on square footage. Parking is an issue but will be worked out with the Downtown Parking Commission. There is a lot of momentum in the community for this project. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Siess asked how many parking spaces will be needed. City Planner Wittman replied the number is not known at this time. It will be addressed by the Downtown Parking Commission. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 9 of 18 Chairman Kocon remarked that Mr. Sather has been very open to suggestions and he supports the concept. Commissioner Hade said he likes the thought of the loading dock being removed. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve Case No. 2015-19, a Special Use Permit for multi-tenant, multi-use associated with Case No. 2014-38, located at 123 2nd Street North, with the following conditions: a. The third floor shall be used as rentable area for events or event functions. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted with Case No. 2015-19, Planning Commission supplemental information for JX Events Venue. b. The main level (off 2nd Street North) shall contain uses permitted by right as identified in City Code Section 31-325, Allowable uses in non-residential districts. c. The main floor, accessible off 2nd Street North, shall not be utilized as rentable area for events or event functions. d. The lower level, accessible off the alley and Commercial Street, shall be utilized as restaurant and catering kitchen space or similar uses. e. The lower level, accessible off the alley and Commercial Street, shall not be utilized as rentable area for events or event functions. f. Prior to the operating of an event center, the property owner shall remove the loading dock on the north side of the structure or enter into a license agreement with the City Council for its continued use. g. Prior to the operating of an event center, the applicant shall secure all required approvals from the Stillwater Building Department, Stillwater Fire Department and Washington County Health Department. h. All existing and future trash receptacles shall be stored inside the building or in an enclosed onsite trash facility at all times, with the exception of the day of trash collection. i. Prior to the commencement of any exterior work, including the installation of lighting, signage, new windows and doors, and/or demolition, a Design Permit shall be obtained and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission, and a building permit shall be obtained. Any conditions attached to the Design Permit issued by the Heritage Preservation Commission for this addition are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. j. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off- street parking requirements. If the plan includes a fee-in-lieu, the fee shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Fees unpaid within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the fees as a condition of approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. Any conditions attached to the parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this permit. k. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. 2015-20. Consideration of a 15-lot residential Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and associated variances, located at 8528/8602 Neal Avenue North. Todd Baumgartner, WB Development, LLC, applicant and Jon Whitcomb, owner. Community Development Director Turnblad explained that the applicant has applied for a Preliminary Plat for a 15-lot single family residential development referred to as Brown’s Creek Cove, located at Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 10 of 18 the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Neal Avenue North and McKusick Road North. The site has a total area of 8.91 acres. Lots range in size from 10,070 square feet to 19,917 square feet. Two of the 15 lots have existing homes. The applicant is seeking a Preliminary Plat for 15 lots, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow cluster residential development in the South Twin Lake Shoreland District, within the Brown’s Creek Stream Shoreland District. A planned outlot will include the continuation of the trail system from Millbrook. A 2008 plat was approved for this property but was never developed. The original request was to make Outlot A a public park to satisfy park dedication requirements. The comprehensive plan indicates no need for a public park here so staff recommends that Outlot A remain a private outlot and the park dedication requirement be satisfied with fees rather than land. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit with conditions. Todd Baumgartner, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. David Stone, who owns property adjacent to the site, expressed concerns about layout of the lots in light of setback restrictions in the Brown’s Creek Shoreland District. Chairman Kocon replied that in the staff report, setbacks, lot lines and slopes are addressed. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Chairman Kocon, to approve Case No. 2015-20, a 15-lot residential Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following plans on file with the Community Development Department, except as may be modified by the conditions herein: • Existing Conditions, Sheet C2 dated 6/19/15 • Site Layout Plan, Sheet C3 dated 6/19/15 • Erosion Control Plan, Sheet C4 dated 6/19/15 • Grading Plan, Sheet C5 dated 6/19/15 • Street Plan & Profile, Sheet C6 dated 6/19/15 • Sanitary Sewer & Water Plan, Sheet C7 dated 6/19/15 • Storm Sewer Plan & Profile, Sheet C8 dated 6/19/15 • Details, Sheets C9, C10, C11 & C12 dated 6/19/15 • Landscape Plan, Sheet L1 dated 6/19/15 b. The Final Plat application materials must document a maximum of 25% impervious cover on Lot 8. c. Review comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources must be included in the Final Plat application materials. d. The landscape plan submitted with Final Plat application materials must specify proposed ground cover in all disturbed areas. To the extent that this lies within the creek and wetland buffer, re-established vegetation will need to be native grasses and vegetation rather than turf. e. The Final Plat application materials must detail the dimensions and setbacks of the building pads on all of the lots. f. The development impact fees and trunk utility fees (a total of $172,389.28) must be paid to the City prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording with Washington County. g. All electrical and communications utility lies shall be buried. This shall be specified in the plans submitted for Final Plat approval. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 11 of 18 h. The Washington County Highway Department requires that the Final Plat include a notation that access will be restricted along McKusick Road. i. Review comments from the Brown’s Creek Watershed District must be addressed in the Final Plat application materials. This includes review and approval of the location of the average wetland buffer limits. j. On the Final Plat application materials, a trail segment must be considered along the north edge of Lot 1 to connect the Millbrook Trail to Neal Avenue. k. A trail easement found satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney shall encumber the trail alignment over Outlot A in favor of the public, and shall be filed at Washington County together with the Final Plat. l. A trail easement found satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney shall encumber the trail alignment over Lot 2 in favor of the public, and shall be filed at Washington County together with the Final Plat. m. On the Final Plat application materials, Outlot A must be shown as private rather than a public park. n. All civil engineering plans must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction prior to release of the Final Plat for filing with Washington County. o. Prior to release of the Final Plat for recording with Washington County, a $26,000 park dedication fee shall be submitted to the City (minus any credit for pre-approved excess trail costs). p. One model home may be constructed on either Lot 11 or Lot 12. The building permit for the one model will only be issued after filing the Final Plat with Washington County and after development fees are paid to the City. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. 2015-21. Variance for the total number of signs permitted for the construction of a free-standing monument sign at the south entrance of Lake Elmo Bank, located at 1937 Greeley Street South. Mike Johnson, Graphic House, Inc., applicant. City Planner Wittman summarized the request. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a second free-standing sign to be located at a new property access point off the newly designed West Frontage Road. While the applicant is deeming it directional signage, no directional arrows are shown on the proposed sign; therefore, staff has determined it is a monument sign which must conform to the provisions for free-standing signs. There is a uniqueness on the property in that originally the site did not front a street, but with the redesign of the frontage road, the property will front the street. Staff finds that practical difficulties do not exist, as there are other reasonable alternatives, including the installation of additional wall signage, and that the essential character of the site would be altered due to placement of the sign in the middle of the parking and drive area. There was one phone call from a neighbor in the residential development to the east of the property expressing a concern about the placement of a sign impacting the neighborhood. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Chairman Kocon noted that the sign may affect sight lines as a driver is exiting or entering the parking area. There are many restrictions to vision that could cause collisions. City Planner Wittman stated the sign cannot be placed within 15 feet of the property line. The only other suitable location could be in a median area but that would not serve the directional purpose the property owner is trying to achieve. Commissioner Hansen commented that a wall sign seems like an obvious alternative to a monument sign. However the awning may block the view. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 12 of 18 Mike Johnson, Graphic House, applicant and Dan Raleigh, Lake Elmo Bank, explained the application. Mr. Johnson informed the Commission they view the sign not as directional but as identifying the driveway. Since road construction has taken place over the past year, the entrance off Greeley is restricted to northbound traffic and it is a difficult driveway to negotiate. Traveling south on Greeley, a median prevents access to the driveway. If the staff recommendation for wall signage were followed, it would not be visible from the intersection because it would be facing east so it would not accomplish the goal. They wish to enhance the traffic flow, not to advertise. The sign is proposed to be 3’ x 5’ rather than 2’ x 4’ so it can be seen from the intersection. Regarding the setback of the sign, it is not proposed to be placed in the middle of the driveway. It is intended to be placed 20’ back from the curb so it poses no vision problems for drivers exiting the driveway. Regarding the concern from the neighboring resident, a 5’ tall sign would not be visible due to the 10’ fence in this location. Mr. Raleigh added that the sign’s purpose is to make the driveway more visible as a customer entrance rather than looking like a deliveries-only entrance. Commissioner Siess asked if the applicant would consider moving the existing sign. Mr. Raleigh stated the existing sign was moved during road construction. Mr. Johnson added that they were originally going to place the sign closer to the corner or south of where it is now, but due to road construction, culverts and drainage, there was no available place for it. They had to place it just about where it was due to road construction. City Planner Wittman stated the curb is not the property line, so to achieve a 15’ setback the placement would be in the median. Commissioner Hansen asked if the applicant considered putting the sign on the east side of the new proposed driveway. Mr. Johnson replied yes, but there is even less space there and it would have ended up being closer to the road. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Marsha Zahler, 1940 West Ridge Circle, voiced concern that the sign not be lit upwards so it does not shine into the bedroom windows. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kelly said he feels the situation warrants the second sign variance requested but another variance might be needed. North-south traffic on Greeley was previously able to enter the site, but due to road construction, access has been re-routed and is harder to find. From a safety perspective, if the sign were located as far back as possible in the grass area, it would be far enough back that it would not be in the sight line of traffic. He acknowledged the neighbors’ concerns but feels it would be addressed through the condition about lighting. Commissioner Siess suggested the application should be tabled so the Commission and the applicant can better define the specific variance that is needed. Motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to table Case No. 2015-21, Variance for the total number of signs permitted for the construction of a free-standing monument sign at the south Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 13 of 18 entrance of Lake Elmo Bank, located at 1937 Greeley Street South, to the August 12 Planning Commission Meeting. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. 2015-22. A 20-lot residential Preliminary Plat and associated Variances, located at 1902 William Street North. Sterling Black, applicant, and Fairway Development, LLC, owner. Community Development Director Turnblad explained the request. The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat application for a 20-lot single family development to be known as Hazel Place Villas, located at the western terminus of Hazel Street next to Stillwater Country Club. The project site has a total area of 7.17 acres, 5.90 of which are located outside the Brown’s Creek buffer area and therefore considered developable. Lots range in size from 7,501 square feet to 20,264 square feet. To develop the property as proposed, the application requires the following approvals: 1) Preliminary Plat for a 20-lot single family subdivision; 2) a 17’ cul-de-sac length Variance; and 3) a building coverage Variance. Other proposed variances have been eliminated from the original 2007 submission because the plat has been redone. The woodlands will not be disturbed, but will be an outlot preserved by the homeowners’ association. The 20 proposed lots meet all minimum lot standards and the building pads meet all setbacks. The building coverage Variance is being sought because the location of the road was pushed to the west for the purpose of protecting a buffer area to Brown’s Creek and to push the homes further away from existing homes in the neighborhood. Therefore eight lots in Block 1 end up smaller and with more than 25% building coverage. This evening, a table was received that shows the building coverage for each lot. Staff feels that the option exists to remove a lot or reconfigure the road alignment to eliminate the lot coverage variance. More than 35% tree canopy will be removed so 45 more trees will need to be added to meet requirements. Regarding the cul-de-sac length variance, it is minimal and staff recommends approval of the length of the cul-de-sac, however staff is uncomfortable with the number of lots being requested in light of the coverage variance being requested. If the Commission recommends approval, there are possible conditions of approval provided. Commissioner Hansen asked if the 45 trees are in addition to the proposed planting plan. Community Development Director Turnblad replied yes, there are 85 total trees to be planted. Commissioner Middleton asked if a cul-de-sac could be placed off the cul-de-sac. Community Development Director Turnblad replied it is customary to have more than one route into a neighborhood. If the golf course were undeveloped property, the City would require the road continue and connect with the road system. Chairman Kocon asked what has changed about the plat since the original submission in 2007. Community Development Director Turnblad replied that the lots that were under 35 feet of frontage have widened so there will be no more frontage variances. Chairman Kocon pointed out the submission went from three lots having coverage issues to eight lots with coverage variances required. He asked if an adjustment in the number of lots could change the depth of the cul-de-sac. Community Development Director Turnblad replied that it could, but the ability to have 35’ of frontage on all the lots would then be lost. Sterling Black, property owner and developer, explained that a 20-unit twin-home concept was previously approved in 2007. He has worked with the watershed and various groups to ensure those permits are still in place. Over the past year, they have tried to improve on the project with input from surrounding property owners. The original plan is the contingency plan if they cannot get the current proposal approved. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 14 of 18 Roger Humphrey, Humphrey Engineering, stated over the past several years they have been involved with permit extensions for this project. The project has been revised to meet concerns of the watershed district. They have made the homes one story ramblers in response to neighbors wanting smaller building massing. The square footage provided in the submission included the decks over the tops of the buildings. He reviewed a chart showing building area as a percentage of total lot area. By pulling the road to the west, they are being sensitive to the neighbors who raised issues with the size of the buildings. All lots on Block 2 meet the requirement. In addition, the previous plan had eight units on that side while the current plan has seven units on that side. The houses have been pulled back from the bluffline. The roofline of the main portion of the buildings is at least five feet lower than originally proposed. The street was widened from the first plat with the goal of having low-impact design. Chairman Kocon asked about the concept of twin homes versus single family homes. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that there is a final plat in effect for the previously planned twin home project that could be constructed today. That project would have had reduced massing. Chairman Kocon asked if the City could restrict the building size to reduce building area coverage per lot. Community Development Director Turnblad replied that if the Commission denies the variance to the 25% building coverage, then the developer would have to build within the allowable lot coverage area. Mr. Humphrey remarked that the developers are struggling to make the project economical. All the buildings can be built within the front and backyard setbacks. Yes, they could construct a smaller building, but they recognize that the golf course is basically open space in the back. Mr. Black added that there are eight or nine different floor plans. They want buyers to have freedom to make some choices. Many customers want three-car garages. Len Pratt, Pratt Homes, added there is growing demand for single family homes with two bedrooms on the first floor. Chairman Kocon said he feels the developers could build what would be within the Code. Mr. Sterling noted that in Block 2 the overall area is under 25% coverage. The lot lines are invisible because of cross-easements for maintenance by the homeowners’ association. The coverage is 18% on Block 1 and 24.7% on Block 2. Commissioner Hansen asked about the configuration of the garages and driveways in relation to impervious surface. Community Development Director Turnblad answered that non-building impervious coverage is minimal. As for garage setbacks, the intent of the City Code was to create neighborhoods that mimic historic neighborhoods with garages set behind the house, by requiring that the garage be ten feet back from the front of the house. However, the actual words in the Code state the garage has to be set back ten feet from the front building setback line (20’) so the proposal meets the words but not what he believes is the intent of the Code. The developer has tried to soften the impression of the garage by turning the garages away from the street as much as possible. Mr. Humphrey commented that the original plan had the same type of layout. The primary difference is that all garages were facing the street. On the current plan, the garage is de-emphasized by having a side-loaded garage on 15 of the lots. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 15 of 18 Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Melanie Ebertz, 1924 1st Street North, Stillwater, at the corner of 1st and Hazel, criticized the rezoning of the neighborhood in 2007. She has concerns about the safety of the road which she monitors closely. The hill has an 18% grade. There are two places to access what will be the busiest bike trail in the state - downtown, or on Hazel Street. She loves having the trail but the nature of Hazel Street is that people use it for a trailhead. She felt the bike trail was not addressed in 2007 when the original development was approved. Hazardous issues surface daily at the top of the hill. To fail to address the safety of Hazel Street in considering the development is absurd. She urged the Commission to require a reduction in the density of the project. Rick Schefchick, 2031 Oak Glen Lane, Stillwater, a member of the Stillwater Country Club Board of Directors, introduced himself. Ed Simonet, a member of the Stillwater Country Club Board of Directors, stated they are concerned about golf balls hitting the homes and about the proposed rain gardens. They would like the developer to provide information so the golf course engineer can determine if they will have any adverse effect on the golf course. Mr. Schefchick added that the course has spent thousands of dollars to alleviate areas where water gathers. They want to hire an engineer to find out whether the rain garden abutting the golf course property will cause any leakage or seepage. Mr. Simonet added that a number of board members are concerned about these issues. Brian Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, Stillwater, credited the developer for changing to single family houses as he feels this is the right direction. However he would like the developer to have a more appropriate density, respect the neighborhood patterns, and acknowledge that it is at a dead end. The development will have considerable impact on the whole North Hill. The spot zoning that occurred in 2007, to select a small RA area and call it RB, was not recommended by Commissions or staff at the time. As suggested, all the homes could be made small enough to fit the lots. Or there could be fewer lots, which would achieve a more appropriate density. The number of units is the heart of the problem and all the variance requests. He agreed with other speakers that the previous approval was a mistake. The development as proposed does not fit the neighborhood. The lengthy cul-de-sac providing only one way in and out of the development is a big concern. Garage setback and coverage variances are not warranted as they set precedence. Variances are to be allowed only when the plight of the property is not created by the landowner, and if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. He suggested tabling the proposal and asking the developer to come back with a better plan with fewer units. Pat Lockyear, 2001 Hazel Court, Stillwater, reiterated Mr. Larson’s concerns. The development will incredibly change the nature of the neighborhood and remove some beautiful trees and topography that is integral to the watershed. Tim Sinclair, 14411 Dellwood Road North, Stillwater, voiced similar concerns to those stated previously. To put 20 lots on the site will require clear-cutting where there are a lot of old oaks and maples. The developer is trying to squeeze as many units in as they can. He is concerned about the lack of extra parking and ability of emergency vehicles to get in. Ken Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, Stillwater, clarified that the previous agreement had a clause that the twin homes would be $600,000-$750,000 each. Market conditions is probably the reason why those twin homes are not being built there now. The neighbors are not trying to kill the project, but just Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 16 of 18 trying to get the right fit for the neighborhood. He voiced concerns about off-street parking as the curve at Hazel is very tight, about traffic on Hazel which is a substandard street, about lighting, and screening at the entrance. The new entrance would remove some of the screening that is there now. He feels the development is going in the right direction but less development would be better. Jim Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, Stillwater, agreed with much of what was said. The development seems like a house of cards built on one variance after another. In 2007, nobody supported the project except the developer. The neighborhood’s Council representative admitted 70% of his constituency was against it, but he voted for it. He is concerned that logic and rules sometimes take a back seat to the Good Old Boy network. The neighbors have known for years that the property would be developed, but they would like to have the development fit the neighborhood. He is concerned about safety of the extremely long cul-de-sac. Dick Paukert, 303 West Hazel Street, Stillwater, said the safety issues on Hazel Street are tremendous. The trail has added a completely new dimension from 2007. The neighborhood does not need another 20 homes on seven acres. He agreed with the other speakers. Colleen Roach, 1901 Second Street North, Stillwater, said whenever there is construction in the neighborhood, she bears the brunt of all the traffic. She is concerned about the scale of the development in relation to the narrowness of Hazel Street. Trail users do not stop at Hazel Street. There is no traffic management on the trail. To add more traffic will bring more problems. She encouraged the Commissioners to drive up Hazel Street. Dave Hatch, 2009 3rd Street North, Stillwater, who purchased his house last week, said he was drawn to the homes on nice sized lots and very little traffic. The street is inadequate for the traffic. He agreed with the other speakers’ concerns. Brian Boucher, 317 West Hazel Street, Stillwater, agreed with everything that was said by the neighbors. He does not feel the proposal is in harmony with the existing neighborhood. Traffic safety is a big concern. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Collins recognized he just visited the area and feels it is one of the best kept secrets in Stillwater. The proposal totally changes the neighborhood and he would have a hard time supporting it as proposed. Commissioner Hansen disagreed with having any development there but feels it is probably a foregone conclusion that it will happen. He does not support granting variances for almost half the properties for impervious surface coverage. He would like to table the application for more information. Chairman Kocon acknowledged there were many good concerns expressed. He would be ok with tabling the request to find a project that works for everyone. Commissioner Siess said she feels like the packet is incomplete. Market forces do not concern the Commission. She disagrees with the argument that with a homeowners’ association, lot lines don’t matter. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Page 17 of 18 Commissioner Middleton echoed the sentiments from the neighbors. He too was surprised the City Council approved the original concept in 2007. The cul-de-sac is clearly 1,200 feet which is too long. He hopes the developer can bring back a more sensible request for the neighborhood. Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to table Case No. 2015-22, a 20-lot residential Preliminary Plat and associated Variances, located at 1902 William Street North, stating the Commission would like the developers to more clearly delineate the variances, and either reduce the number of lots or reduce the number of lots requiring a variance. All in favor, 9-0. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION There were no other items of discussion. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Chairman Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 11:53 p.m. All in favor, 9-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary