Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-12 CPC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 12, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer and Siess Absent: Councilmember Menikheim Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of September 14, 2016 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the September 14, 2016 meeting minutes. Motion passed 8-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2016-37: Special Use Permit (SUP) for a tattoo shop to be located at 124 Main Street North. Josh Strand, applicant and Joyce Melton, property owner. City Planner Wittman explained that Josh Strand is proposing to relocate his tattoo business from Oak Park Heights to 124 Main Street North. The four-chair studio is proposed to be located in the entirety of the 1,596 square foot, storefront unit. There is a four parking space deficit on the property and the proposal will go before the Downtown Parking Commission. She stated that the question was raised as to whether this type of service establishment is considered an Adult Use. It is the opinion of staff and City Attorney Magnuson that the intent of the Adult Uses ordinance was for sexually-oriented business. While minors in the State of Minnesota are not allowed to be tattooed, even with parental consent, the business also provides piercing services to 16-18 year old minors, accompanied by a parent. Therefore, the Main Street Tattoo business has been determined to not be an Adult Use. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Josh Strand informed the Commission that he has been running the tattoo shop in Oak Park Heights for six years. Planning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 2 of 8 Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hade stated he doesn’t feel the shop fits in with the rest of downtown. He respects the City Attorney but disagrees with his interpretation of the statute. He feels this is clearly an adult use because the main business will be tattoos and customers have to be over 18 to get a tattoo in Minnesota. Commissioner Fletcher pointed out there is another tattoo shop that has been in the downtown area for quite some time. She supports the request. Commissioner Hansen pointed out that the Special Use Permit would be subject to review on complaint which provides controls if something negative happens. Chairman Kocon said he supports the request because the zoning district allows tattoo shops under a SUP. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve Case No. 2016-37, Special Use Permit (SUP) for a tattoo shop to be located at 124 Main Street North, with the five conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 7-1, with Commissioner Hade voting nay. Case No. 2016-38: Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations pertaining to PUDs for Senior Housing. Kendra Lindahl, Landform representing Brian Farrell, Northland Real Estate Group, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that on April 5, Brian Farrell with Northland Real Estate gained conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for the Croix Bay Senior Living Care Facility to be located at 12525/12721 75th Street North and 12620 72nd Street North. At that time, the request for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) was denied by the City Council. A new ZAT request has been submitted which is proposing to add a new subsection to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for new Qualifications and Requirements for senior housing PUDs. The new subsection is proposed to read that PUDs for senior housing: i. May be approved if the purpose and intent of the PUD is met; ii. May be approved if the project area is at least 20 acres in size; iii. Must include permanent open space that is either deeded to the City or preserved by a conservation easement in favor of the City; iv. Shall be designed as a senior housing campus with a variety of housing options. Accessory service/retail uses may also be permitted; v. May allow density above that allowed by the underlying land use classification and zoning district; vi. May allow building heights/stories that exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district; vii. May allow other development flexibility as needed to meet the purpose and intent of this section. Ms. Wittman explained that City staff and legal counsel have determined the application is substantially different than the original proposal, proposing greater standards for qualifications and requirements. Six comments were received - five in support and one against the text amendment. Staff finds that with certain modifications including the omission of subsections i-iv, the public necessity and the general community welfare are furthered and that the proposed ZAT is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. Ms. Wittman further explained the senior housing goals that have been set for Stillwater. She stated that staff finds that with modifications, the zoning text amendment could allow for greater flexibility and help the community meet the senior housing goals. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval of the ZAT with certain modifications. Planning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 3 of 8 Commissioner Siess pointed out that Stillwater is unique in that one boundary is a river. The City does not have a lot of space in which to attempt to meet the established goals for senior living. Commissioner Kelly asked about the difference in the standards for PUD review versus variance review. City Planner Wittman explained that while both PUDs and variances require public hearings. PUDs require two sets of public hearings at the Commission and Council level: concept PUD and final PUD heard by both. Variances usually get one public hearing at the Planning Commission. The standards for each are different - PUDs were designed for flexibility to allow for site-specific development where official controls may have been constraining, as long as something has a mixture of uses, housing types and meets comprehensive plan goals. Variances are based on practical difficulty and a three-part test: is it reasonable, is there some uniqueness to the land not created by the applicant, and will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Siess asked for clarification whether the proposed ZAT would really only impact the one parcel of land under consideration. Ms. Wittman replied that at this time, the parcel of land being discussed is the only one that would not need other zoning changes. Commissioner Kelly questioned why the developer would not ask for a variance instead of the ZAT. Ms. Wittman reminded the Commissioners they were asking site-specific questions whereas she had advised them to focus on the ZAT which is related to the City rather than this specific site. Commissioner Kelly stated that if the proposed ZAT is not site specific, then the next question would be what sites does it specifically impact? If it is just this one site, an alternative to amending the text to accommodate one parcel might be to come with a variance request. If the City has routinely been approving PUDs with densities greater than what is in the PUD regulations, then the Commission should look at redoing the entire PUD language. Commissioner Hade asked what notice was given for the hearing. City Planner Wittman replied that all properties within 350 feet of the site, as well as notices in the Gazette, City web site and on Facebook. Kendra Lindahl, Landform Professional Services, representing the applicant, stated the ZAT is a policy issue for the Commission and not specifically about Croix Bay. The concept plan for Croix Bay was approved by the Council March 22 but the text amendment was denied at that meeting. The Council voiced concern that the proposed language was not specific enough, it was too broad and could affect too many properties. So developers looked at how to help the City fix some of the challenges presented by the existing PUD ordinance. She pointed out the 2030 comprehensive plan identifies the need to provide senior housing. In 2013 Washington County did market studies and determined there is not enough existing or planned senior housing to meet the demand, that by 2020, 670 senior units in the Stillwater area would be needed. Developers are asking to formalize the flexibility that has historically been granted. She said that three story buildings are today the marketplace standard because they reduce site impacts, make financial sense and have shorter corridors for seniors. They require a different kind of scale to integrate into the community. Any senior housing project that comes into Stillwater is not going to be a single story nursing home - people want a place where they can be active and age in place. Ms. Lindahl stated that the proposed text amendment allows the City flexibility to respond to development proposals. The amendment would apply to senior housing across the City. Developers are comfortable with staff’s recommendation to omit the first four Planning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 4 of 8 items. The other items provide flexibility to work with developers, to find a project that fits within a particular site and is market-ready. She said to be very clear, developers are not asking for project approval tonight. Since the concept plan was approved by the Council March 22, they have worked on massing and density and have reduced the number of units from 262 to roughly 220 units, reduced height for the majority of the site, and a small portion of the center remains three stories. Developers hope to come back with an actual plat and site plan. They think the policy issue should be addressed City-wide to allow the City to help meet its senior housing demand. Commissioner Siess pointed out there is a big difference between the Select Senior Living plan previously approved in 2014, at 17 units per acre on five acres, and Croix Bay’s proposal on 50 acres. She also asked, if the ZAT were approved, how would it benefit the Croix Bay proposal? Ms. Lindahl replied if the text amendment is not approved, Croix Bay developers would look at a smaller number of units but the footprint would get bigger, resulting in less open space, and they would have to reconsider the site. Commissioner Kelly stated Ms. Lindahl had referred to the ZAT being beneficial across the City, but it is pretty specific to senior living facilities on parcels over 20 acres. Ms. Lindahl replied that the City Council said they felt there was not enough discretion and wanted more specifics in the text amendment. She feels it’s good for the City to allow PUD flexibility. That was just her starting point to have the conversation and frame the discussion. She is not saying that’s the only answer. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Dionne Meisterling, 12550 72nd Street, stated she has attended all the prior meetings and has significant concern that misinformation is not being corrected. Her property is on the west side of the site. It takes up the entire 350 feet notification limit, so she informs other neighbors of the hearings. She is concerned that the planning department may be willing to change anything to get the proposal to go through. Previous proposals were denied. She feels a bias may be being given to this project. She is not against the development but wants City planners to look toward the best interest of the citizens. She was surprised at the last vote because there was no conversation about impacts on her property, despite the fact that the developer wanted to construct buildings that would span the entire north and east side of her property line, towering over her backyard. She feels the 2014 project would not need a height variance because the max was 35 feet and that proposal was at 34 feet. The clarification of three versus two and a half stories was not part of the discussion because height was not part of their project. Tonight they said they are reducing from 262 to 220 units, but Mr. Lazan was quoted in March stating it would be more than 220 and when the Council asked him specifically, he stated 230-250 units. She can’t see a record of any conversation about density in 2014. She also observed the Mayor express concern about the big commercial expanse, as well as height and density, at the City Council meeting. The property was specifically guided for low density residential, yet this facility would be high density. Ms. Meisterling said that Northland Development Group wants wiggle room on the height and the density in Lakeshore Residential. They also would like to build a senior living facility on land that is completely in the shoreland overlay district. She read from the City ordinance noting that senior care facilities are permitted by SUP on lands that are partly, not wholly, in the shoreland overlay district. She asked the Commission to deny the ZAT. Planning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 5 of 8 Don McKenzie, 12620 72nd Street North, noted he provided the City with a letter outlining the background of the project. He has been getting only positive feedback on the project. He is confident he made the right decision for future use of his property which is 10.25 acres constituting about 20% of the proposed senior living campus site. He and his wife can no longer take care of the property but it was never officially for sale. The single family development proposed years ago never occurred. Developers have approached them over the years but this is the first plan that seemed right. The density on the prior approved project was 7.39 units per acre but Northland’s concept density was 5.24 and now has been reduced to 4.4 units per acre by reducing the number of units. He added that the current Northland plan has a number of adjustments that should alleviate height concerns. Gary Jacobsen, 198 Northland Avenue, stated he supports the zoning text amendment. The land owner has cleaned up the property making it a fitting setting for a senior housing development. He feels precedence was set in 2008 and 2014 approving a project that had far higher density than the present project. Stillwater desperately needs senior housing. Del Miske, 14155 10th Street North, West Lakeland, a member of Grace Baptist Church next door to the site, expressed support for the zoning text amendment. He feels the project is worthy. He is not speaking officially for the church but he has not heard any members express opposition. Phillip Manger, 12525 72nd Street North, spoke in opposition to the zoning text amendment. He is not opposed to senior or life cycle housing but feels it is inappropriate to manipulate or break laws to make it happen. He recognized that Stillwater has limited land to satisfy the Met Council’s desire for senior living but pointed out that the text amendment would only apply to this parcel despite it being a City- wide ordinance, which constitutes spot zoning. The project would be a hyper-dense commercial project on Long Lake and an attempt to warehouse seniors. Mr. Manger reminded the Commission that, according to City Code, senior care facilities are permitted by SUP on parcels that are partly, not wholly, in the shoreland overlay district. Mr. McKenzie’s land is wholly in the shoreland district. Diedra Kramer, 7100 Mid Oaks Avenue North, agreed with those who spoke in opposition to the zoning text amendment. Eldon Lamprecht, owner of 12630 72nd Avenue North, pointed out the question was asked, is this the only property that this zoning text amendment would apply to? The answer is the very property that is being discussed was in Stillwater Township about six years ago. So if Stillwater acquires new property from Grant or Stillwater Township, the text amendment would apply, which would open new possibilities in the future. The proposal is a case in point for the need for the zoning text amendment. He has carried out a forest stewardship plan on his property so it would be suitable for development. He never envisioned that so many seniors could enjoy it. He is paying taxes on the land as if it were developed. The trees planted a year ago were seedlings and are now shoulder or hip high. In 15 years it will be a dense urban forest that would hide just about anything that the developer has proposed. He told the Commission there are trees on his and McKenzies’ property that are 5-10 feet higher than any structures that are proposed. He feels the site can handle the density and the use of the property should be maximized. Stephen Huebscher, 703 Wilkins Street West, voiced support for the ZAT to meet senior housing needs. He is a neighbor to Good Samaritan Nursing Home which is an aging facility that will need to be replaced in the future. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 6 of 8 City Planner Wittman shared a City map of approved PUDs as of 2008, stating that some developments exceeded the height or density allowed in their district. She then pointed out the districts which the 2030 comprehensive plan labels low density residential of 1 to 4.4 units per acre. The current zoning districts that fall into that category are RA, one family traditional residential, lakeshore residential, and cove traditional. She added that while it is true that the northwest corner of the development site is partially located in the shoreland district, a significant portion is located on property that is not in the shoreland district. The lot lines will most likely be changed when the developer applies for subdivision. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the first four items are eliminated from the proposed new subsection, is there an easement provision elsewhere in the PUD? She likes item #iii and would like it to remain. City Planner Wittman replied that one standard for PUDs is preservation of open space. It is correct that there is no other provision that indicates the land would have to be deeded. Staff would be leery at this point to bind the hands of the City to accept and manage deeded land, as opposed to the watershed district or some other entity that would be better able to manage open spaces. Chairman Kocon pointed out that in lakeshore residential, density up to 4.4 units per acre is viewed as doable. When looking at a 50 acre site, that could result in a lot of single family homes and take a lot of the open space out of the common good. Commissioner Hansen asked why is there a requirement to have a density over 25 units per acre for a PUD? Ms. Wittman replied that staff has grappled with that issue. The ordinance states that land to be developed as a PUD 1) shall be at least three acres in size, 2) at least one complete city block in size, 3) shall have density in excess of 25 dwelling units per acre or 4) when fully developed contain at least two principal buildings. So the argument could be made that developments need to meet 1, 2, and 4, or 1, 2, or 4. The “or” definitely provides flexibility for different types of developments. Commissioner Siess asked if the 2014 development received a height variance. Ms. Wittman replied there were no height variances or density variances associated with that approval. The allowable height in this district is 35 feet or two stories. She explained how this has traditionally been applied in staff reviews of developments. Commissioner Collins commented that the real issue is whether the ZAT is appropriate for Stillwater. He likes the flexibility provided in items v, vi, and vii by the phrase “may allow”, not “will allow.” Chairman Kocon agreed, adding that he feels strongly about providing life cycle housing, introductory housing for kids and homes for seniors. This is a great location for senior housing. The density on the area proposed contributes to the openness and maximizes the land use. He feels a PUD allows the flexibility to make best use of the property. Commissioner Hade stated he opposes anything that changes the neighborhood where there are longstanding property owners and then someone comes in and wants to do something different. This proposal would put a significant large unit in a residential area. Chairman Kocon responded that he looks at other side of the issue - taking prime open space and cluttering it up with houses. Planning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Fletcher stated she is generally in favor of the zoning text amendment. She would like to believe the changes to the zoning text could apply elsewhere. She feels strongly about ensuring permanent open space, so she would like to retain item #iii. Commissioner Hansen said the Commission should consider that what it is doing now matters for the future so he would like to make sure the language is not too specific. Knowing that the City Council wants the Commission to be more specific is a strange position to be in. If neighbors decided to merge their land there could be more properties in Stillwater to which this zoning language would apply. He is in favor of this site having a senior living center but wants to focus on getting this zoning text amendment right for the future. Today there is no place in Stillwater that could accommodate a senior living center without some language in place for it. He doesn’t want this same issue to come up every other month. He supports the ZAT. Commissioner Kelly said he feels that this represents a major change to PUD regulations and that the proposed language adds a section that conflicts directly with another section. He would like to know what other cities’ zoning ordinances look like before recommending a change to the current zoning language. He does not like the idea of amending it just for senior living. Commissioner Siess agreed. She would support tabling the matter in order to look at other communities. Without doing that, she feels the Commission would be doing the community a disservice because it would feel like spot zoning. Commissioner Hansen said he agreed to an extent. He realizes that staff does not have time to completely rewrite the ordinance. Without item #vi there is no way of putting a reasonably sized senior living center anywhere in Stillwater. Commissioner Kelly asked if the developer could ask for a height variance instead of the zoning text amendment. Ms. Wittman replied the developer could ask for any variance they want with any application. She agreed to look at model ordinances and see what other cities have done. Chairman Kocon remarked this is one way of preserving open space in Stillwater, planning for the future and providing life cycle housing. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to table Case No. 2016-38, Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations pertaining to PUDs for Senior Housing, for the purpose of researching other PUD regulations in other cities with regard to density and height. Motion failed 3 to 5 with Commissioners Collins, Hansen, Fletcher, Lauer, and Chairman Kocon voting against. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to forward to the Council a favorable recommendation on Case No. 2016-38, Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations pertaining to PUDs for Senior Housing, striking item i, keeping item ii, changing item iii to incorporate language requiring the inclusion of open space but eliminating the deeding of the conservation easement, leaving items iv through viii with a weighted recommendation that the Commission would support eliminating them but since the City Council is requesting more specific language, leaving those items in and letting the Council make that decision. Commissioner Siess restated that she feels that this is spot zoning and that the word “may” could allow heights that exceed zoning restrictions. She would like this on record. Planning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 8 of 8 Chairman Kocon countered that he feels the word “may” is what gives the ordinance flexibility; it doesn’t say “shall.” Commissioner Kelly noted if eliminate ii and iv are eliminated, would that be consistent with vi? Even though the section has a heading, the exact requirements should still be explained below the heading. Commissioner Hansen remarked with the heading of qualifications for senior housing, the wording is consistent. Motion passed 5 to 3 with Commissioners Hade, Kelly and Siess voting against. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. STAFF UPDATES VRBO Survey Commissioner Siess asked to see the results of the survey about rental housing. City Planner Wittman stated that the survey results as well as results of a meeting on the topic would be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting. She will try to provide access to the survey results as soon as possible. Commissioner Siess pointed out that, along with the complaint of not having enough senior housing there is also the complaint there is not enough lodging in Stillwater. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to adjourn the meeting at 10:01 p.m. All in favor, 8-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary