Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-23 CPC MIN Special Meeting PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 23, 2017 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Fletcher, Hade, Kocon, Councilmember Menikheim Absent: Commissioners Hansen, Lauer and Siess Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Turnblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. OPEN FORUM Tanya Gerald, 1270 McDougal Green, expressed concerns about traffic on 62nd Street. She and her neighbors welcome Lakeview Hospital’s purchase and planned development of the property. Their concerns involve traffic on 62nd and the proposed expansion of Curve Crest. On behalf of the neighborhood, she asked that the Commission close 62nd at Timber Way or in some way limit access to their development, and most critically, extend Curve Crest south of the hospital to connect directly with Manning Avenue. They feel it is unacceptable to connect Curve Crest to 62nd so as to adversely affect their neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2017-14: Preliminary plat for an 8 single family home subdivision for the property located at 1902 William Street North. Sterling Black, Fairway Development, LLC, property owner. City Planner Wittman explained the request. Sterling Black of Fairway Development, LLC requests approval of the July 12, 2017 version of the Preliminary Plat known as Hazel Place. The applicant plans to develop 7.19 acres of land located at 1902 William Street North, currently a vacant property located at the end of Hazel Street. A total of 5.90 acres are located outside of the Brown’s Creek buffer area and, therefore, considered developable. The base zoning for the property is RB, Two-Family Residential. A total of eight single family lots are proposed. All lots would access Hazel Street via a single cul-de-sac road to be named Fairway Court. Lots range in size from 16,890 square feet to 50,048 square feet. A small portion of the site is encumbered by the Brown’s Creek Stream Shoreland Management Overlay District (referred to as the “Stream Overlay District”). However, the Stream Overlay District only applies to the northern steep slopes. This area is proposed to be platted as an Outlot (A); an additional Outlot (B) is proposed for storm drainage purposes. The developer proposes to deed both outlots to either the City of Stillwater or Brown’s Creek Watershed District. While the Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 2 of 11 property will be known as the Hazel Place subdivision, the applicant is not proposing any monument signage or street lighting. Ms. Wittman further stated that Case No. 2006-59 was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for discussion pertaining to the potential development of 18 single family lots on what was previously zoned RA – One Family Residential. Discussion focused on the possibility of the development of 13 single family lots, with two units on each lot. Case No. 2007-2 was approved for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a Zoning Map Amendment, and Preliminary Plat for Fairway Villas, a 12 lot twin-home development. In 2009, Mr. Black purchased the property with the aforementioned development approvals. In 2015, the property owner began discussions with City staff pertaining to potential amendments to the 2007 approved plat. Case No. 2015-22, for a 20 lot single family development to be known as Hazel Place Villas was denied by the City. However, in January 2017, the Planning Commission approved Case No. 2016-49 for a variance to City Code Section 32- 1, Subd. 6, Minimum design standards, Subsection (3)l, Cul-de-sac streets. A condition of approval was 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.” City Attorney Magnuson has advised that the applicant’s request for eight lots, as opposed to seven, should be analyzed for whether the proposed plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, whether it would be detrimental to the neighborhood, and whether a limit of eight lots would remain directly related to, and bear a rough proportionality to, the impact related to the variance. Ms. Wittman reviewed the project’s consistency with regard to the Comprehensive Plan, engineering, fire protection, tree removal, replacement and landscaping, park and trail dedication, drainage and utilities, stream buffering, and plans for the outlots. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with 15 conditions. David Hempel, Westwood Professional Services, representing Sterling Black and Fairway Development, LLC, explained that due to the sandy soil, maintenance of the infiltration basin should not necessitate the creation of a homeowners’ association. They can comply with the City Engineer’s recommendations in the staff report but it does mean lowering the site. They will need to take material offsite after shaving part of the hillside down. Regarding the outlots, the developers presumed that the agencies involved would prefer to have the stormwater infiltration area to provide protection of the bluff area to prevent anyone from going into those areas. The developers are concerned that if that area is combined with a lot, one of the homeowners may go in there and do what they want thinking it is their property. Buffer signage would help deter any types of alterations in those “no touch” zones. He showed a landscape plan indicating the 42 trees to be planted. They request to defer planting of most of the trees until after the homes are built so as to not interfere with construction. He asked if the park and recreation fees and trunk sewer fees may be deferred until building permit issuance. Regarding Lot 7 drainage and utility easement, the building pad is right off the 5’ drainage utility easement and that lot is tight. which is why they want shared driveway access for lots 5, 6, and 7. The only condition that needs further discussion is Condition F, rezoning from RB to RA. He thinks his client would like to defer the rezoning until the final plat is approved. Mark Herbert, LS Black Constructors, reiterated that Mr. Black would like to know if the rezoning may be deferred until the project is funded or the time of final plat. City Planner Wittman responded that the rezoning is proposed to be done as part of the 2018 Comprehensive Planning process which will take through the end of 2018. Mr. Herbert asked staff to explain the safety concerns they expressed about having that many potential occupants on the cul de sac. Ms. Wittman stated that the reason for limiting the length of a cul de sac Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 3 of 11 is to limit the number of houses at the end, thus limiting the number of families that might be in jeopardy in an emergency situation. Mr. Hempel offered to address any questions. Commissioner Kocon stated it seemed very clear in the staff report that Outlot B would be sought to be combined with Lot 6 and there would need to be a homeowners’ association, although Mr. Hempel said he would like this discussed further. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there is a homeowners’ association (HOA), why Outlot A couldn’t also be combined into the HOA. City Planner Wittman replied that if property such as Outlot A is in a HOA and the taxes weren’t paid, it could become a tax forfeit parcel. Combining that parcel with Lot 6 would ensure that it would not become a tax forfeit parcel. Neither public entity wanted ownership of the outlot. Mr. Hempel asked what is the reason for access to the bluff area, since the intent is to leave it as is. Ms. Wittman replied that Brown’s Creek Watershed District would want to monitor and maintain the easement area to ensure compliance with the overlay district. Regarding the issue of when to rezone the property, Commissioner Kocon said it’s clear that duplexes won’t fit. The intent has always been to lock this into single family homes. He is surprised that Mr. Black would ask when rezoning will happen, because it shouldn’t matter. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Brian Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, reminded the Commission that the previous plan was for seven units and he doesn’t see why the number is being increased now. Regarding Commissioner Kocon’s question, he heard the representative say that Mr. Black wanted to know when the rezoning would take place in relation to their financing. He hopes that has nothing to do with it, that this project is not being represented as possibly being a duplex rather than a single family project. He feels rezoning is a must. He asked why BCWD approval has not already been obtained and suggested the City should wait till it is approved before granting the preliminary plat. Regarding grades, he would like to make sure if the grade is lowered, the developer is not adding retaining walls or anything else that would negatively impact the site. Regarding Lot 6 and the outlot, he is concerned about the impact that the homeowner could have on that lot if they weren’t aware of the easement on their property. Mr. Larson also noted that on one drawing the lots are incorrectly numbered with two Lot 8’s and asked that be corrected. James Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, agreed that rezoning is critical and there is no reason to wait for the Comprehensive Plan because this is more conservative zoning. Being more conservative in the zoning rather than more expansive is better. His other concern is that last fall, it was agreed that seven lots makes sense. He questioned whether the number of lots will be gradually increased. Ken Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, reminded the Commission that the City has been discussing this property for over a decade. He feels that zero lighting is great, and the reduction from a previous proposal of 22 to eight lots is great, but the rezoning should occur now. He is concerned that the T connection will be on a very steep hill requiring a huge retaining wall and he would like to see a better option. Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 4 of 11 Jake Brand, Stillwater Country Club, 1421 North Fourth Street, said Stillwater Country Club deals with Brown’s Creek Watershed District daily. Potentially, the Club could purchase the outlot to manage it, instead of Brown’s Creek Watershed District, so it would not become an issue in the future. Mary Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, said she would prefer rezoning now rather than later. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. He provided Mr. Hempel an opportunity to respond to concerns brought up by neighbors. Mr. Hempel thanked the residents for their input. Regarding the intersection grade, he stated that the City requires a 2% landing for 50-100 feet at all intersections. He said no retaining walls are proposed but there may be small walls at the time of construction depending on what type of house is built on this property. He added that the previous plan for seven lots was a concept that had not been fully engineered yet. After looking at Brown’s Creek setback requirements and after doing detailed engineering and planning, it was determined that eight lots would fit. Commissioner Kocon asked for confirmation that once the Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat, it is locked in at eight lots. City Planner Wittman responded that after the City Council approves the preliminary plat of eight lots, a change in the number of lots would be considered substantial, requiring the developer to come back for preliminary plat approval again. She stated that she talked to Karen Kill at the Brown’s Creek Watershed District (BCWD) last week and it appeared to her that the applicant wasn’t comfortable moving forward with the BCWD until they were sure the City was favorable to the 8 lot design, allowing full analysis of what will be needed for infiltration. Ms. Wittman pointed out that the BCWD permit is one of the staff-recommended conditions of approval. Regarding the public comments from Stillwater Country Club, she told the Commission they may want to amend Condition 1b to state that Outlot A may be sold to Stillwater Country Club or, if not sold, shall be combined with Lot 6. Commissioner Fletcher asked about the implications of the timing of rezoning. City Planner Wittman responded the property could be required to be rezoned by the time of release of final plat recording. The implication would be that at the time a building permit is submitted, it would ensure that the building permit could only be for a single family residence. With the RB zoning in place before the Comprehensive Plan is completed, there is that risk that someone could propose a two unit structure on the property. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that there is also another implication, which is that requiring rezoning before the Comprehensive Plan update is done would also require a Comprehensive Plan amendment be done before the final plat could be released, which could delay the excavation permits. That is why staff recommended that rezoning go together with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Commissioner Kocon reiterated that one of the conditions requires that the property be rezoned to RA. He feels this condition makes it clear what will happen. Mr. Turnblad added that it could be tightened further by including in the developers agreement that there would be no increase in the number of units. Ms. Wittman stated that the Commission could amend Condition F or create a new Condition P stating that the developer will enter into a development agreement prior to approval of the final plat and that as a condition of that development agreement, no two-unit property shall be permitted. Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 5 of 11 Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to recommend approval of Case No. 2017-14, Preliminary plat for an 8 single family home subdivision for the property located at 1902 William Street North, with 15 conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition B to state the possibility that Outlot A may be sold and if not sold that it will be combined with Lot 6; modifying Condition C to state that a shared driveway access shall be allowed between Lots 6 and 7 and that Lot 5 will have its own driveway; modifying Condition E to state that drainage and utility easements between Lots 7 and 8 shall be 7.5’ on Lot 7; modifying Condition H to state that the amended Preliminary Plat shall receive a permit from the Brown’s Creek Watershed District prior to the submittal of the Final Plat and that District- recommended conditions will be incorporated by reference into this approval; modifying Condition L to state that a total of 42 trees shall be planted on private property, including three per lot, and that the trees may be planted when the buildings are built; modifying Condition M to state $17,500 in fees rather than $18,000; and adding Condition P requiring that the developer shall enter into a development agreement prior to approval of the final plat and that as a condition of the development agreement, no two-unit properties shall be permitted. Motion passed 4-0, all in favor. Case No. 2017-35: Variances associated with proposed rooftop improvements at the Water Street Inn, located at 101 Water Street. Roger Tomten, ARCHNET, representing St. Croix Preservation Co., Inc., property owner. City Planner Wittman stated that in 2014 the City conditionally approved Case No. 2014-7 which allows for a proposed addition to the northern end of the Water Street Inn. The addition was permitted by code to be 10% higher than the 40’ portion of the existing structure that was directly adjacent to it. Therefore, the outright permitted height for the addition was 44’. Case No. 2014-7 also allowed for three variances to the Central Business District (CBD) Height Overlay District for the installation of a clock tower, steel tower frame, and a tower mast on the addition. The approval also included the use of the rooftop for an open-air bar and restaurant dining area. These uses did not require a variance. The uses would necessitate the use of an elevator to the rooftop. While the application included the elevator bulkhead, an approximately 48 square foot storage area, two stairwells, and a 40 square foot area noted as ‘service’ area, these were interpreted to be necessary appurtenances to the building which are outright permitted to exceed the maximum height in any zoning district. The service and storage areas were interpreted to be necessary improvements associated with the elevator bulkhead. The applicant is requesting a variance to City Code Section 31-403, CBD height overlay districts, Subsection (b)(2)(ii) which indicates “for vacant lots immediately adjacent to an existing building: the height of the infill building is to be within 10% (higher or lower) of the height of the adjacent building or buildings. If the infill building is between adjacent buildings, then the height of the infill building is to be within 10% (higher or lower) of the average height of the adjacent buildings on both sides.” If approved, the variance would allow for an enclosed bar and kitchen, service station and storage area, two restrooms in addition to the elevator bulkhead and enclosed/covered lobby, and two sets of stairs. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 10% variance to the 10% provision which would allow the addition to be 20% taller, for a total of 48’, than that portion of the existing structure that is currently 40’ in height. One letter of objection from the owners directly to the west was received, focusing on lack of parking, increased traffic, noise pollution and urban sprawl. On the basis that the request does not conform to the zoning code or the Comprehensive Plan, and that practical difficulty has not been established, staff recommends denial of the variance. Roger Tomten, ARCHNET, representing St. Croix Preservation, Inc., provided background on how the plans have evolved since the last approval in 2014. Soil conditions make replacing the existing basement, as originally planned, infeasible. Losing that amount of square footage required architects to get more creative about storage areas and mechanical spaces. The rooftop will also now require Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 6 of 11 additional functions such as some food preparation and restroom facilities. Some of these areas increased in size to meet the required codes. When the new plan was submitted, staff raised the issue of building height and stated that the enclosed kitchen area, bar and restrooms would need to meet the height requirements or require a variance. Mr. Tomten noted that the lowest portion of the existing building is at the north end of the property at 40’. He explained to staff this is one building, one parcel owned by one person with one use, so it should reflect one structure. The building height should be calculated from the highest point. Staff interpreted it differently, measuring from the touching portion of the adjacent structure, using the 40’ height as a base. The addition needs to be 48’ in order to get the roof over the restrooms and the kitchen area. Architects believe the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The addition of the tower element creates a focal point for downtown. Staff concluded that the addition is not in keeping with height and size of most structures within a one block radius and he respectfully disagrees. Some of the buildings are much taller. The circumstances are unique to the property and not created by the landowner - the poor soils, the flood plain, the fact that it is a historic building 51 feet tall in a zone where the City now wants buildings to be 30’ tall. If the addition were to be added onto the other end of the building, no variance would be needed. Height variations are a character element of downtown. He doesn’t feel the variance will alter the character of the area. Regarding the west elevation, Commissioner Kocon asked, if three stories can be constructed at 40’, why does it have to be taller? He said he doesn’t understand why the new addition has to be built 4’ taller than the 1994 addition. He feels the need for a variance is like a self inflicted wound created by the property owner. Mr. Tomten responded the height is needed because of the enclosed space on the roof. The restroom is needed so people can use the restroom immediately adjacent to a dining area and the kitchen area must be enclosed to meet health requirements. Architects looked at a lot of other concept plans and ideas. The 1994 addition was not structurally designed to handle any additional weight on top. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Chuck Dougherty, St. Croix Preservation Company, clarified that the new proposed addition uses steel and cement versus the 1994 addition which was wood. That accounts for the height difference. He read a passage from the Downtown Plan describing downtown as a vital and relevant district that continues to evolve. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon stated he liked the 2014 proposal and would like to make this work. For instance, he feels architects can design the stairs so they exit onto the 1994 addition. He is frustrated but he can’t support the height variance. Chairman Collins agreed he cannot support it. The Kolliner Building across Water Street is significantly taller but it was built in late 1800s. He feels this addition should be built to current code. Commissioner Hade said he supports the variance. He doesn’t see any difference between this variance and the variance approved for the proposed Zephyr Theater. Commissioner Fletcher stated she feels practical difficulty has not been established and she cannot support the request although she loves the project. She encouraged architects to be more creative. Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 7 of 11 Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to deny Case No. 2017-35, variances associated with proposed rooftop improvements at the Water Street Inn, 101 Water Street. Motion passed 3-1, with Commissioner Hade voting nay. Case No. 2017-17: Short Term Home Rental Type B License to be located at 2023 Schulenburg. Rick and Missie Swanson, property owners. Community Development Director Turnblad explained that the Rick and Missie Swanson have made application for a Type B Short Term Home Rental license. If no concerns are submitted to the City after required notification of neighbors, then staff issues the license. In this case, three neighbors had concerns about parking. Therefore, the Planning Commission is tasked with considering the license request to determine whether it should be approved or denied. All of the performance standards required of Type B Short Term Home Rentals are met with the exception of parking. In residential zoning districts, all guest parking must be accommodated on improved surfaces on the owner’s property. The Swansons plan to offer three bedrooms to guests, so two improved parking spaces must be provided on the premises. The property as it is configured and improved today does not, in staff’s opinion, provide these two parking spaces. There are parking spaces on the north side which are actually on Alder Street. On the back there are two unimproved spaces. The Swansons propose to expand the space off Schulenburg Alley to allow two cars to park there. Parking on Alder Street, with the improvement to that paver spot, would provide two parking spaces but with the S curves and the narrowness of the road, there is competition for very little space. Staff recommends issuing the license after the two parking spaces off of Schulenburg Alley are improved for guest use. Staff also recommends that the City’s traffic safety committee consider the Alder parking situation. Chairman Collins asked how long a Type B license is good. Mr. Turnblad replied three years unless three substantiated complaints are received within a year. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Rick Swanson explained he would like the requirement for the paved spaces on Schulenburg to be postponed until they build a garage. The property has had a tremendous makeover. There is currently room for two smaller cars on Schulenburg Alley. They want to separate these two issues because they’ve been delayed a great deal due to scheduling issues. It will be a challenge to improve those two parking spaces and will likely take variances. They don’t want their license approval to be delayed. Commissioner Kocon pointed out that two standard sized cars would not fit the space on Schulenburg Alley. Mr. Swanson replied it’s clear they have parking available. The property line goes across Schulenburg Alley. Two cars would fit on the east side, or on the north side in front of garage on Alder Street. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that the right of way coincides with the garage door and the property line comes right up to the house. Ken Wolf, representing Wolf Marine, said he has no problem with the vacation rental, but there is an issue with Alder Street. The City has to figure out a way to accommodate neighbors to find a place to park other than on an S curve that is in a blind spot. He doesn’t think the City should hold up the license because of these issues. The City should move forward to find a solution to Alder Street. Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 8 of 11 Dan Challeen, 2103 Schulenburg Alley, spoke in support of the license. He echoed concerns about parking. He created a paved parking area for about 6 vehicles on his property. The S curve doesn’t leave enough room for cars to pass when there are cars parked on the street. He would like to see people mostly parking on their own property and less congestion on Alder Street. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2017-17, Short Term Home Rental Type B License to be located at 2023 Schulenburg, with the condition that the two parking spaces are specifically: one in the garage and one on the pavers in front of the building. Motion passed 4-0, all in favor. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2017-36: Preliminary Concept Master Plan for the future Lakeview Hospital and Health Campus to be located at the northeast quadrant of Manning Avenue and State Highway 36. David Anderson, Frauenshuh, Inc., owner’s representative. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that Lakeview Memorial Hospital Association has a purchase agreement for the 68+ acre site at the northeast quadrant of the Highway 36/Manning Avenue intersection. The property is planned to be the new campus for Lakeview Memorial Hospital and other related health care facilities. Prior to closing on the property purchase, the hospital is pro- actively seeking community comments on their Preliminary Concept Master Plan. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the concept plan and offer comments. Also, neighbors within 700 feet of the site have been invited to the meeting to join the discussion. The goal of the project is to create an integrated healthcare and wellness destination. The cornerstone of the healthcare campus will be the 300,000 square foot hospital. In addition, two building pads are envisioned for approximately 120,000 square feet of medical office space. A third major element of the campus is envisioned to be a wellness/senior housing facility. A fourth element will be the integrated open space system to include common area connections, trails, pedestrian ways, and so on. Trails would create loops internally and would also connect to City and county trail systems for longer segments. The fifth and final element will be approximately 14 acres for ancillary and complementary commercial businesses. These would serve both the community and the adjacent medical campus. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the concept in regard to the Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as medical campus. Staff is considering another zoning district that still fits with the Comprehensive Plan and designates uses seen as appropriate, to be clear that the primary uses of this 68-acre site are non-retail. Mr. Turnblad went on to review some of the comments that have been received. In general, staff finds that there is good support for the concept. There is a desire to keep the hospital in the City of Stillwater. The location is good, on major transportation corridors. The medical campus is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Four types of concerns were brought up at the neighborhood open house: traffic, including avoiding additional traffic on 62nd Street if possible and aligning the campus access points so as to not encourage travel through neighborhoods; buffering the campus from existing neighborhoods; installing lights at 62nd and Manning if needed; and building heights. City engineers believe that infrastructure is available or can be extended to accommodate the entire plan. Over the course of the next year, Washington County and MnDOT will be putting together design options for the Highway 36/Manning Avenue intersection. Environmentally, the property has challenges but also opportunities. On the east side there are steep slopes and wetlands. Buffer areas will have to be maintained. This will impact how roads and other improvements are located. Stormwater runoff on Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 9 of 11 this site will be watched very closely so it does not end up in Long Lake. The hospital and the City are aware there is a pair of nesting eagles. The nest will not be impacted but it is within 660 feet. The United States Fish & Wildlife Service is involved and will discuss this with the developers. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Ted Wegleitner, President of Lakeview Hospital, provided background on key planning issues, master plan elements, and critical issues. He stated that Lakeview is one of four critical access hospitals in the St. Croix Valley. This positions Lakeview to grow. More and more referrals are coming from western Wisconsin. Space on the existing campus is already tight and the existing hospital building is old. Dave Anderson, Frauehshuh, presented additional information about the planning concept. He addressed the economic feasibility of development of the site. He pointed out the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but there are elements of zoning to be explored. The Curve Crest extension will be an expensive piece of roadway that will serve the greater community, so they will want to work with the City on funding. Tim Sessions, BWBR, explained the site plan and how they intend to work with the topography and existing site features as well as respecting the adjacent residential areas. He provided proposed plans for connector routes through the site. Commissioner Kocon asked how ambulances will get to the hospital. Mr. Sessions pointed out on the map the envisioned route for ambulances. Mr. Wegleitner added that notices about the proposal have been sent to the Legends and Liberty Homeowner Associations. Commissioner Hade asked about the plans for the existing hospital. Mr. Wegleitner replied there are no specific plans - that is another conversation to take place over the next several years. Chairman Collins asked if the medical facilities on Curve Crest Boulevard are envisioned to also move to this campus. Mr. Wegleitner said he doesn’t think so. The hospital has facilities and offices sprinkled all over right now. They will consolidate staff onto the two campuses. Primary care will stay on the Curve Crest campus as well as some of the specialties. Mr. Wegleitner discussed neighborhood concerns regarding traffic volumes. He acknowledged that traffic lights will be needed on 62nd and Manning. For the most part, hospital traffic would use Curve Crest Boulevard. Regarding the location of the Curve Crest extension, he realizes that neighbors very much want it on the south side of the property. He discussed what the Highway 36 interchange will look like, the height of the hospital building, buffering of the neighborhood, and development of the western 14 acres. Commissioner Kocon asked how tall is the bed tower? Mr. Sessions stated typically it would be four stories - about 65 feet. The building will sit in a bit of a bowl. In relation to homes on 62nd, he is guessing that the lower level would be completely below 62nd. Commissioner Kocon commented if there is going to be a street light on 62nd, could there also be a real road with curb and gutter? He feels the road is an embarrassment. Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 10 of 11 Chairman Collins asked for estimates of the percentage of patients from Stillwater vs. out of town. Mr. Wegleitner replied he has no specifics but that patients are coming from Maplewood, Oakdale, and western Wisconsin, coming from primarily east and west. To a lesser extent they’re coming from the north as well. Jim Bradshaw, the property neighbor to the east, noted that he and his wife own the pine forest to the east of the property and the Celebration of Life Center. He is very concerned about what will happen with traffic on Curve Crest. He supports the concept of a hospital in the area but feels there needs to be a discussion with neighbors about 62nd St. both to the east and west of the forest. The pathway that flows through the property belongs to him and his wife, who gave the use of it back to the City. They meet periodically with nearby property owners and agree on how it will be maintained, splitting the cost. They hope to work with the hospital on how it is treated. Regarding Curve Crest, there also needs to be a meeting with Curve Crest property owners to discuss the traffic. There are high speeds on Curve Crest which concern him. The buffer zone of pine trees and the traffic on Curve Crest are the two main issues that need to be discussed. Sarah Nelson,1150 Legend Boulevard, stated her main concern is the volume of traffic that will use 62nd Street. There are a lot of children in the neighborhood. She also is concerned that if all the walking paths are connected together, it will increase the flow of non-neighbors into the neighborhood. K Kongrong, who said she lives on the east side of 62nd Street, stated her main concern is that the forest and wetland be retained. She also expressed concern about Curve Crest going partially through the neighborhood and wondered if there has been any consideration of using Curve Crest as a frontage road. She also fears that if the neighborhood walking paths are all connected it would bring a lot of foot traffic. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. He thanked the hospital representatives for meeting with some of the neighbors and encouraged them to reach out to those who may have something to say but didn’t get the invitation to attend. Commissioner Fletcher remarked it is a great location. She feels the aesthetics are very important because this is the gateway to an historic river town. The design of buildings, the setting and the visual views of nature need to be porous on this site. It should be a transition area with beautiful buildings that signal the historic nature of the City and enfolding those historic buildings with some greenery. Being very smart about green design will truly benefit the community. Mr. Wegleitner replied that is absolutely the intent. HealthPartners is an industry leader in sustainability. Commissioner Kocon said he loves the concept. He acknowledged there are issues that need to be addressed. The Legends neighborhood is going to be the most affected. Communication will be very important. STAFF UPDATES Aurora Staples liquor license inquiry In response to Commissioner Siess’s inquiry at the August 9, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, City Planner Wittman reported that the inn does not have a liquor license. Wine is the subject of the license that was discussed, not beer and wine, but there is no license in place. Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 11 of 11 Planning Commission Code inquiries City Planner Wittman stated that staff is meeting with the City Attorney Monday regarding questions that have been raised regarding Planning Commission code changes and conflicts regarding practice versus what is adopted. She is aiming at having text amendments for review in October. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 p.m. All in favor, 4-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary