Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-01-11 CPC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2017 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hansen and Lauer Absent: Commissioners Hade, Kelly and Siess; Councilmember Menikheim Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Turnblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of December 14, 2016 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the December 14, 2016 meeting minutes. Motion passed 2-0. Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Fletcher, and Hansen abstained. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2016-40: Special Use Permit and Variances to develop a hotel with a restaurant and outside eating area, parking ramp and three-story office building on the property located at 232 Main Street North and including City-owned property at 251 Second Street North. Gartner Prop LLC, property owner and Anne Loff, Midnight Real Estate, LLC, applicant represented by HAF Group. City Planner Wittman reviewed the proceedings of the Commission’s December 14, 2016 meeting at which the project was originally presented. At that time, the Commission requested more information from the developer regarding parking deck plans, traffic circulation and Mulberry Street access points, and the proposed drainage system. The Commission also asked for an escrow to cover some of the third party costs the City would incur in reviewing the development plans. She stated that since that meeting, the design has changed. The parking ramp as now proposed would have one-way internal circulation with two Mulberry accesses in and out on the second level and two Second Street accesses on the third level. The Downtown Parking Commission agreed on a mitigation plan for the 154 parking spaces required for the development. Except for the office building, the required parking could be accommodated on site. 35 spaces would be available to the public in the upper deck of the ramp. Parking mitigation for the office building would be accommodated in the nearby City ramp. Ms. Wittman also explained that the City’s Traffic Safety Committee raised concern about adequate lane width for ingress and egress from the parking ramp, and about pedestrian sight lines. Staff recommends a comprehensive sign plan to address pedestrian safety concerns. The City is monitoring the Planning Commission January 11, 2017 Page 2 of 8 Mulberry/Second intersection to see how safety can be improved such as reducing vegetation. Regarding storm water, the developer indicated they will be able to meet Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization requirements on site, but do not have a drainage plan yet due to costs. Once the use is approved, they will develop the drainage plan. Written concerns were submitted by Cameron Murray about cross-traffic with Stillwater Mills traffic coming out onto Mulberry, and by Don Ganje about Mulberry Street traffic as well as the design of the office building retaining wall along the east façade. The development team has responded that the façade will match the rest of the building and there will not be exposed concrete. With changes in the plans submitted by the developer since the December 14, 2016 meeting, staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit and variances with 21 conditions. Commissioner Hansen asked how many on-street parking spaces would be eliminated to accommodate parking ramp entrances and exits. Ms. Wittman said four total. Commissioner Hansen asked about loading/unloading. Ms. Wittman explained the loading/unloading area is designed for both passenger loading/unloading and delivery vehicles. Staff has suggested the developer increase the size of loading/unloading area to discourage double parking. Commissioner Fletcher asked about the stormwater management plan. Ms. Wittman replied that the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management staff has been part of the planning process from the beginning. The developer has withdrawn the request for an impervious surface coverage variance and now thinks they will be able to manage stormwater on site. Mike Hoefler and Matt Coopet, H.A.F. Architects, stated they had reviewed the staff-recommended conditions and comments from the Heritage Preservation Commission and have adjusted the plans accordingly. They can agree to the 21 conditions. Commissioner Collins asked if the existing municipal lot has free public parking. Mr. Hoefler replied there are currently 20 open stalls, 11 leased stalls, and four spaces on Mulberry. Chairman Kocon commented that having three ingress/egress from three floors of the parking ramp seems excessive but he understands the rationale behind it. Commissioner Hansen said his main concern is that sight lines at the Mulberry/Second intersection are terrible. He wished the building could be pulled back to eliminate the need for the variance. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Alson Toavs, 350 Main Street North, Stillwater Mills #244, voiced concern about traffic on Mulberry Street. Delia Flynn, 350 Main Street North, Stillwater Mills #356, asked about left vs. right turns out of the proposed ramp. She stated that when exiting Stillwater Mills to go west on Mulberry, the hill can be difficult to navigate in winter. She is concerned about drivers exiting the proposed ramp trying to head up that hill. Ms. Wittman responded there has been discussion of one way in and out to reduce potential traffic conflicts. Dave Luth, 350 Main Street North, Stillwater Mills #246, said the Mulberry/Second intersection is terrible, like Russian Roulette every day. Planning Commission January 11, 2017 Page 3 of 8 John Uppgren, 270 North Main, Mulberry Point Antiques, explained his comments also represent his tenants, which four companies account for 54,000 square feet. They have never asked for City assistance or tax increment financing, they play by the rules and have had a good experience with City staff. They oppose the proposal due to three major concerns: 1) It is inconceivable that the City would gift property to a developer without a clear definition of what public good is being served. In 2001 when they remodeled, they approached the City about improving the surface parking lot. They spent $45,000 to improve the lot and have put another $30,000 in the pockets of the City as fees since 2003. He is surprised that suddenly that lot would be given to a developer, taking his own building out of compliance with parking requirements. 2) He is concerned about the project causing major disturbances in the ground water flow and storm water. All the structures are uphill from Johnny’s TV and his building, which already have water in the basement. 3) A massive intrusion of cars and trucks will put an incredible burden on his buildings. He asked the Commission to reject the compromises, particularly the number of parking stalls. He feels it’s unfair to give a lot away to the developer to build a private parking lot and an office building while taking parking away from him. Keith Rediske, 350 Main Street North, Stillwater Mills #210, asked about the entry/exit from the parking ramp and where hotel guests will park when registering. He is concerned about U-turns on Mulberry conflicting with the four garage doors for Stillwater Mills that are directly across Mulberry. He does not have a problem with the building itself. He would support the addition of another hotel but has real concerns about traffic congestion, especially because Second/Mulberry sight lines are already very poor. Dan Oberprillar, CPM Companies, representing the owner, said they are not expecting anything for free. Watershed District approval is very important to the developers. Occupancy for the 64-room boutique hotel is expected to be 68%, which he doesn’t see as a large traffic impact. Placing the building at the property line is good urban planning but they realize they need to place the building back from intersections to improve sight lines. They are a boutique brand, owner operated, want to be a good neighbor and won’t allow semi trucks to become a problem. They want to be a supportive partner in the business district and bring shoppers and patrons to Stillwater. Don Ganje, 350 Main Street North, Stillwater Mills #206, said he is very excited about the development in general but is concerned about the office building. He said the elevation as proposed looks like four stories on the eastern side due to slope, with a significantly high blank wall underneath three stories. He would like the developer to look at what they can do to bring down the mass of the building at least on the eastern side. At a minimum, the exits from the ramp should be right turn only. He feels the City should consider bump-outs on Mulberry, and request the developer to resubmit an entire landscape plan. He believes traffic on Mulberry, with all the entrances and exits, will be a mess. He suggested putting ramp exits off Commercial Street which obviously would involve buying the low buildings, but would lessen traffic conflicts. Jeff Bednar, SRF Consulting Group, representing the traffic impact study done by the developer, stated that the parking ramp exit on Mulberry is offset from the Stillwater Mills driveway so they are not directly across from each other. It would be physically possible for vehicles exiting the lower level of the ramp wanting to get onto the second level to make a U-turn. But the turn coming out of the second level to go to the lower level cannot be made so those vehicles will have to make a right turn out, drive to Main Street and around the block to get to the lower level. This will all be considered when developing a sign plan to direct motorists. During peak hour, 4:15-5:15 p.m., an estimated 172 vehicles will enter this conflict area. The study shows there will be adequate gaps in the flow to provide safe and reasonable access to and from the parking ramp. Planning Commission January 11, 2017 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Oberprillar clarified that they are not condoning a U-turn into the second level, it was just part of the traffic study to see what was possible. There will be a directional signage plan. Dennis Moline, 350 Main Street North, Stillwater Mills #348, said he hopes there will be a sight distance study done at Second and Mulberry and possibly a two way stop or three way stop there. Also, if headlights coming out of the ramp can’t be screened on the hotel property, there may be an opportunity to screen them on the Stillwater Mills property. Steven Vogl, 350 Main Street North, Stillwater Mills #420, stated that the study didn’t take into account how many cars are backed up on Mulberry trying to get onto Main Street. There is no place for cars to turn out if there are cars backed up. He is fully supportive of hotel proposal but has concerns over the height of the office building, setbacks, and traffic going in and out of the ramp. Mr. Hoefler responded it’s anticipated that hotel guests will check in by 3 p.m. and stay parked in the ramp because it’s a walkable downtown. The inspiration for the height of the office building was his Lolo building which is 30 feet high. He is proposing a 3 story, 35 foot building. The basement is not classified by code as a story because more than 50% of that lower level is buried. The height is 35 feet on the west side; the east side would be another 8-10 feet high. Ms. Wittman added that in the CBD Height Overlay district, Second Street properties are measured from the Second Street grade. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lauer said he finds it refreshing that almost unanimously, everybody seems happy with the idea of a hotel, so the discussion comes down to parking, traffic flow and water. Commissioner Fletcher recognized it’s not up to the Commission to debate how storm water will be managed, as long as sufficient management of storm water is a condition of approval. Commissioner Hansen and Chairman Kocon agreed. Commissioner Hansen asked the developer if consideration was given to putting the office building in a different location so more access could come from Second Street. Mr. Hoefler said they considered that but it was not feasible because of screening, fire access issues and windows on the south side of the office building. Chairman Kocon asked about the possibility of moving the office building 5’ back to eliminate the need for the variance. He also said the issue of headlights needs to be addressed, as hotel guests will check in at all times of day. Commissioner Hansen commented he has three main issues. 1) He doesn’t support the setback variance for the office building because he doesn’t believe practical difficulty exists. 2) He is fundamentally opposed to removing free parking downtown. He does not agree with the Downtown Parking Commission recommendation. It doesn’t make sense to do this project and then have to purchase permits for the ramp. 3) He doesn’t think it will function very well for motorists trying to come in from the top of the hill and turn into the ramp. He likes the idea of a hotel, but feels there are too many issues with this plan to support it. Commissioner Collins said he likes the idea of a hotel but he opposes eliminating free public parking to construct a ramp where drivers will have to purchase tickets. Planning Commission January 11, 2017 Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Lauer commented he doesn’t have a problem with it being pay parking. City Planner Wittman suggested the Commission may want to convey to the City Council that they like the concept of the hotel but have difficulty with the loss of public parking and are therefore passing the SUP decision-making responsibility on to the Council as a recommendation, rather than acting on the SUP at the Planning Commission level. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve the front yard setback variance for the hotel, and to approve the combined side yard variance for hotel, and to deny the five foot variance to front and exterior side yard setback for the office building, with Conditions #1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 as recommended by staff. All in favor, 5-0. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2016-40, Special Use Permit (SUP) to develop a hotel with a restaurant and outside eating area, parking ramp and three-story office building on the property located at 232 Main Street North and including City-owned property at 251 Second Street North, with the 21 conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 3-2, with Commissioners Collins and Hansen voting against. Case No. 2016-43: Zoning Map Amendment to include certain adjoining parcels in the Height Overlay District to zone them as “Bluffside” for the property located at 107 Third Street North. Trinity Lutheran Church, Eric Olson, property owner and Brown’s Creek, LLC, Jon Whitcomb, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that Browns Creek West LLC, represented by Jon Whitcomb, has submitted a two-part application for the City’s consideration of: 1) The addition of three parcels to the Height Overlay District area. These three parcels are near the intersection of 3rd Street North and Myrtle Street West. The corner parcel is already in the Overlay District area and is zoned CBDBT, Central Business District (3 story-35 feet) Blufftop. 2) The consideration of all four parcels to be zoned as CBDB, Central Business District (4 story-45 feet) Bluffside. Ms. Wittman explained that the purpose of the overlay district is to preserve and enhance the essential character of the downtown by limiting structural height so that structures close to the river not rise above the height of structures farther from the river. Staff finds the public necessity and the general community welfare are not furthered with the amendment from the CBDBT, Central Business District Blufftop to the CBDB, Central Business District Bluffside. Additionally, as the proposed Zoning Map Amendment would allow for the development of a building that is another story greater than any adjacent property to the north, west, and south, the proposed amendment is not in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that adding the three parcels to the district is consistent with the comprehensive plan, however, staff recommends that the Commission recommend denial of the request as a whole due to the requested zoning map amendment. She further stated that, though in favor of the pending land sale, current property owner Trinity Lutheran Church submitted comment that they were not in favor of the proposed map change. Jon Whitcomb, 12950 75th Street, Stillwater, explained that the church no longer owns the property, he is the owner. Compressing the building into a smaller area makes additional height necessary in order to develop the parcel properly. There are no site plans yet but this request would allow for development of the site. He feels that placing the greater height restriction on these three lots would negatively impact surrounding properties. Planning Commission January 11, 2017 Page 6 of 8 Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. James Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, challenged whether the Planning Commission’s vision for the City is high rise buildings. He feels there is no rationale for allowing four stories on this site. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Turnblad said there is no property zoned CBD that was not originally covered with the height overlay district. The three lots, when redeveloped for the parking ramp, were rezoned for CBD but staff forgot to include the height overlay so 25 feet is allowed without the height overlay. Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to recommend that the City Council deny Case No. 2016-43, Zoning Map Amendment to include certain adjoining parcels in the Height Overlay District zone for the property located at 107 Third Street North. All in favor, 5-0. Case No. 2016-46: Zoning Text Amendment to require site plan review of certain development projects in the Central Business District. City of Stillwater, applicant. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that current City Code does not require formal review when buildings downtown are converting from one use to another. However, these conversions can have a significant impact upon public infrastructure, especially for larger buildings. Therefore, the City Council directed Planning Department staff to develop a draft site plan review ordinance for larger building conversion projects in the downtown area. There are 22 properties downtown that are 20,000 square foot or larger, which would be the subject of the ordinance. He reviewed the draft ordinance and proposed permit process. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2016-46, Zoning Text Amendment to require site plan review of certain development projects in the Central Business District, with the added condition that the Council consider granting approval authority to the Commission. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2016-49: Variance to the required length of a cul-de-sac for the property located at 1902 William Street North. Sterling Black, property owner and applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that in order to construct more than a single duplex on these (nearly) seven acres, the property owner is requesting a variance of 510’ to allow for a 235’ long cul-de-sac to be constructed off of the Hazel Street right-of-way. The new road would continue to intersect with Hazel Court approximately 875’ from the intersection of Hazel Street and North Fifth Street. While a previous development plat, commonly referred to as Hazel Place Villas, was approved for the site in 2007, amendments to the original development plat failed to gain City approval in 2015. This was largely due to the Planning Commission’s interpretation of the starting measurement point for the length of a cul-de-sac. The Planning Commission determined the measurement should start at the intersection of Hazel and North Fifth Street, as opposed to starting at the Hazel Street intersection, and therefore the development of 20 new single family parcels should not be permitted on this site. The Planning Commission January 11, 2017 Page 7 of 8 City Council upheld the decision made by the Planning Commission. The property owner proposes a new concept plan which would include the development of only seven single family lots and an 875’ cul-de-sac, 235’ of which is on the property owned by the applicant. Staff finds the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that the property owner has established practical difficulty. Staff recommends conditional approval. Sterling Black, 188 View Road, Mahtomedi, applicant, stated that in 2007 a project was approved for 10 twin homes and that approval still exists. In 2015, he came back with a proposal for 19 units which generated concerns over density. That proposal was denied based on cul-de-sac length. In order to reduce density and fit with neighborhood desires, he cut 2/3 of the cul-de-sac and eliminated some infrastructure costs to make it work with fewer units. If tonight’s proposal is denied, he could either 1) go forward with the 20 unit twin home project or 2) build a single family home or two. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Brian Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, thanked the developer for coming back with an improved plan which goes a long way toward making it fit the neighborhood. He would support the proposal if it were developed as seven single family lots but he could not support duplexes, doubling the density. He feels the approval could be conditioned in a way to assure that it would be a single family development and attach that condition to the title so it will stay with the property. Ken Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, thanked Mr. Black for listening to the neighbors’ suggestions about the previous proposal. He would like to bind the property to be developed as seven single family homes with some sort of covenant on the title or some other mechanism. James Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, reflected that the purpose behind a limitation on cul-de-sacs is public safety. With a 235’ addition to the existing cul-de-sac, if there were 14 units, there would be a choke- point problem with emergency vehicles getting in. The property should be developed as single family homes. Tim Sinclair, 14411 Dellwood Road, said he enjoys the wild, but realizes there are development pressures. He is skeptical of the classic bait and switch where a developer comes in and gains approval and then switches the plan. He would support the seven single family proposal 100%. Pat Lockyear, 2001 Hazel Court, thanked Mr. Black for thinking that smaller is better and accommodating the neighbors. He would like the approval to go with the land. Sonja Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, said she supports her neighbors and is grateful to Mr. Black for making the proposal better. She supports having single family homes on the property and would like the approval to go with the title to to the property to ensure it will remain single family. Mary Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, reminded the Commission that originally, the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the first project, the 22 twin homes. She would love to see the property rezoned to RB1. Debbie Sinclair, 14411 Dellwood Road, reported she was very happy to see Mr. Black’s plans. Her only concern is that the proposal could change with the next person who owns the property. She feels it should be rezoned to single family to avoid any future issues. Planning Commission January 11, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Turnblad pointed out that staff is recommending approval with a condition that specifically says the plans that come in for development must be substantially similar to those on file for seven single family homes. It runs with the property. Commissioner Hansen stated that the property owner already has approval to put 10 duplexes on this property but he doesn’t want to do that. He feels the current proposal is a much better plan. Chairman Kocon acknowledged that seven single family homes would have less impact than 14. Mr. Turnblad suggested the Commission could amend the recommended condition of approval to include the statement that the project shall contain no greater than seven single family lots. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve Case No. 2016-49, variance to the required length of a cul-de-sac for the property located at 1902 William Street North, amending the recommended condition of approval to state that “Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2016-49, and shall contain no greater than seven single family lots.” Motion passed 5-0. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. All in favor, 5-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary