Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-26 Joint Board MINStillwater City and Town Join Board Aug. 26, 2009 Present: Dave Johnson and Linda Countryman, Stillwater Township; Ken Harycki and Jim Roush, City of Stillwater Staff present: Stillwater Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Township Planner Berry Farrington Chair Johnson called the meeting to order. The agenda was approved as submitted on a motion by Mayor Harycki. Mr. Roush seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Approval of minutes: Mr. Roush moved to approve the minutes of July 22, 2009. Mr. Johnson pointed out a wording inconsistency in the fourth line under new business; it was agreed to strike the words “but only.” Ms. Countryman referred to language confusion in the last paragraph on page 3; Mr. Johnson suggested a change in language. Ms. Countryman seconded the motion to approve with the noted changes; motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Bergmann Certificate of Compliance – Ms. Farrington reviewed the request for a Certificate of Compliance for a plant nursery, including retail sales of nursery-related product and incidental agri-tourism activities, such as season hayrides, seminars and agricultural-themed events. She noted the property is currently located in the Township, but is in the transition zone; the City’s long-range plan for the area in which the site is located is research and development park, which wouldn‘t necessarily be in conflict with the current request, she said. She stated the Township’s ordinance allows for a plant nursery in the transition zone with a Certificate of Compliance; she noted the majority of product sold must be grown on the property. Ms. Farrington said the proposed accessory activities generally align with the Town’s ordinance, which allows for seasonal agricultural businesses. She pointed out the subject property meets the ordinance’s performance standards in terms of the nursery use and the season agricultural business use. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. Perry Furgala, 12525 62nd St., spoke of a noise he believes is from a generator the Bergmanns use during the spring which sends vibrations through the ground and can be heard and felt at his house. He asked about traffic, whether people would use the Bergmanns’ new driveway off 62nd Street to access the business or whether customers would have to use County Road 15 to get to the garden center. He also asked about a pile of dirt on the property, whether it would be used to fill in water holes, pointing out he gets drainage from Highway 36, the Bradshaw property and places in Lake Elmo which ends up in his front yard. He expressed concerns about noise, traffic on 62nd Street, which is residential, as well as drainage. Paul Bergmann, applicant, stated he had no idea what machinery is causing the noise described by Mr. Furgala, but pointed out it could be from machinery used by Buberl’s recycling operation. Mr. Bergmann said the dirt is to be used in his nursery operation. Doug Sand, 3220 Stahloch Place, asked about parking and traffic flow, and the location of t he seasonal activities. Mr. Bergmann reviewed the proposed locations of parking and seasonal activities on a map of the area. Bob Lohmer, 12960 75th St. N., spoke on behalf of the Bergmanns’ long-time business operation and stated he thought this new proposal would be a real asset to the community, in particular the agri-tourism/educational activities. Mr. Harycki stated as the property comes into the City through orderly annexation, the City would want to see that the Bergmanns have the ability to continue to operate just as it is today. Mr. Harycki said the City believes strongly that it would like to see the operation stay there as well. A former resident of 12525 62nd Street stated Mr. Furgala purchased that property because of the peace and tranquility offered by the area and said that is Mr. Furgala’s primary concern – the potential loss of that quiet. Jeff Pratt, 7960 Minor Ave. N., noted the Bergmanns have been on the property in question for 50 years. He stated the Bergmanns’ have not changed; it is the area around the Bergmanns that has changed. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Roush stated he agreed with Mr. Lohmer’s comments and said he thought this is the type of business that Stillwater wants to keep. Mr. Roush noted for those concerned about traffic that this is a temporary solution until Curve Crest Avenue to the south of the property is developed. Mr. Roush stated he had attempted to make contact with the Legend’s home owners’ association regarding the proposal, but the association did not reply to him with any concerns/comments. Mr. Johnson asked about the definitions and performance standards listed in the staff report, noting the performance standards state “no retail sales are permitted.” Ms. Farrington stated this is an instance of two conflicting messages in the Township’s ordinance; she stated she had discussed the issue with the Township Attorney and they concluded that the definition is very clear that retail sales are a function of a plant nursery and the definition is indicative of the true intent of the ordinance. Mr. Johnson pointed out that according to the ordinance, the majority of product sold must be grown or raised on the property and asked Mr. Bergmann if that is something he would be comfortable with; Mr. Bergmann replied in the negative. Mr. Johnson asked what percentage of product sold is typically grown on the property; Mr. Bergmann said it could be up to 80 percent, but depending on the weather, he could not guarantee that. Mr. Johnson said he did not think that requirement was applicable and was something the Township Board will have to discuss with its attorney. Mr. Johnson also questioned the definition of seasonal business as not exceeding six months in any calendar year, noting that the Bergmanns typically operate almost year-around; Ms. Farrington stated that the nursery use in terms of the zoning ordinance allows for activity to be year-around and stated referencing the seasonal use was a way to limit the agri-tourism special events/activities to agricultural-related uses. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Bergmann if he had more clearly defined what types of agri - business activities he would like to see included; Mr. Bergmann stated that needs additional discussion. Mr. Johnson suggested that the intent would be to set some parameters for the special events/activities, yet still allow flexibility. Mr. Harycki asked if the City would have to amend its ordinances when the property comes into the City to allow the proposed uses; Mr. Turnblad explained the Certificate of Compliance, like special or conditional use permit, runs with the property as long as the use continues without interruption. Mr. Johnson asked about the requirement for screening of exterior storage of equipment/storage areas; Ms. Farrington said that could be done with trees. Mr. Johnson also asked about the requirement that temporary structures be removed at the end of the season; Ms. Farrington said she had a sense that the Board is moving away from a seasonal definition of agri-tourism business and a more general definition will be developed. Mr. Johnson asked about hours of operation; Ms. Farrington said generally the applicant states the hours and those hours are echoed in the permit. Regarding access, traffic and parking, Mr. Johnson suggested it should be made obvious in the permit that all parking is to be contained within the property; related to a future connection to Curve Crest Boulevard, Mr. Johnson suggested the City should have more of a say in that, rather than having that as an option for the applicant. There was discussion about the potential cost of connecting to Curve Crest and whether that should be mandatory; Mr. Johnson reiterated he thought the City should have more of a say in that, rather than just allowing the applicant the option of connecting, but said he did not mean that should be cost prohibitive. Mr. Johnson questioned the list of items prohibited for sale under the staff recommendations; Ms. Farrington said that comes out of the definition of plant nursery in the Town’s ordinance, which she said comes from the County’s ordinance developed some 15 years ago. There was discussion of how to craft the Certificate of Compliance without having to rewrite the Town’s entire ordinance. Ms. Countryman asked if the term agri-tourism is official somewhere; Mr. Bergmann said the term is recognized nationwide, not just in Minnesota. Ms. Countryman said she assumed the Watershed District would deal with runoff issues, stating she was concerned with the impact referred to by the neighbor on 62nd Street. Ms. Countryman also suggested keeping the activities, such as tractor rides, more central on the property, rather than closer to the residential area. Jay Kimble, former mayor of Stillwater, noted this property was a foc us of discussions in the original conversations regarding the orderly annexation agreement; he said the intent was to preserve and not to infringe upon the Bergmann property use. Mr. Kimble also suggested that the Certificate of Compliance could be used in the future as a way of changing the land use envisioned by the community; he suggested that rather than a Certificate of Compliance, the Joint Board recommend that the City and Town write a findings of fact and memorandum of agreement which supports the fact that the grandfathered rights, as intended in the Comprehensive Plans of both communities and the orderly annexation agreement, encompasses all uses/activities requested in the Bergmann’s proposal, with issues such as the Curve Crest connection to be addressed by the individual communities and property owner as those issues arise. Mr. Johnson noted that the public hearing was intended to allow input from all interested persons. He said the next step would be more discussions at the Township level at meetings that are also open to the public. Liberty Village Planned Unit Development amendment – Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request, which he said encompasses both a housekeeping issue, formal adoption of the design guidelines for the Liberty Village commercial area, and actual changes to the PUD to allow new signage in the development. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the recommendations of staff, the City’s Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Planning Commission. There was discussion of the number of pylon (master signs), with the Planning Commission recommending that the pylon signs be limited to two and HPC agreeing with the four as requested by the applicant. Mr. Harycki noted that the Liberty homeowner’s association was OK with the four requested, as indicated on page 18 M4 in the sign plan. Mr. Harycki referred to the merchants’ concern about the current lack of visibility. Marc Putman, planner for the applicant, spoke of the challenges of the site and the need for additional visibility; he raised an issue with condition No. 7 that directory signs be placed adjacent to the entry door, noting that many of the buildings have multiple entries. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. No comments were offered, and the hearing was closed. On a question by Mr. Roush regarding the condition related to signage on City property, Mr. Turnblad reviewed the location of the requested sign (F2); Mr. Putman spoke of the need for the sign, located on the round-about. Mr. Roush suggested the sign might set a precedent for placing signage on public property; Mr. Harycki suggested the sign is more directional in nature. Mr. Roush clarified there is no proposed signage on the clock tower; he said he could live with the recommendations of the Planning Commission other than perhaps altering the F2 sign. Mr. Harycki suggested reworking condition No. 7 regarding the condition that the directory signs be placed adjacent to the entry door; he noted the request will be going before the City Council. Michael Oreck, Liberty Village Commercial building owner, spoke of the need for the rooftop signage. Mr. Roush said he would not like to see a “for rent” or “for lease” on a rooftop as tenants turn over; Mr. Oreck said the City could limit the rooftop signage if it allowed the use. Mr. Putman pointed out the concept of rooftop signage was included in the sketches for the preliminary PUD for the development. There was discussion of ways to deal with tenant turnover; Mr. Harycki pointed out that the HPC was OK with the rooftop signage and s uggested the Council likely will also have different opinions. Mr. Harycki asked if this might be setting a precedent for other requests for rooftop signage; Mr. Turnblad responded that this request is specifically tied to a Planned Unit Development permit, but that might not prevent other requests from being made. Mr. Harycki asked about lighting for the rooftop signage; Mr. Oreck stated lighting would be similar to the gooseneck, compact fluorescents in use for the other building lighting. Ms. Countryman noted this is a shopping development that is only viewed from the road, not one that a person walks by, and said for that reason she believes the rooftop signage makes sense; she said she thought there was a way to compromise to address the issue of turnover of tenants. Mr. Johnson stated from his retail background, the belief is that there is never too much signage, but the intent here is to find a balance; he said in the current scenario, these businesses have a huge impediment from an identity standpoint, but said he thought consideration should be given to how many rooftop signs go across a building, so not every tenant might be able to have a sign. Ms. Countryman suggested that folks do get “numb” from too much signage. Mr. Johnson suggested having a “neutral” background for the rooftop signage to address the issue of turnover; he also spoke in favor of some variety of shapes, some “uniqueness.” Mr. Johnson also spoke in favor of the directional sign (F2) on the round- about. Mr. Harycki suggested the other remaining issue is the number of pylon signs, 2 versus 4; Mr. Putman reviewed possible design for the pylon signs and also pointed out that four pylon signs were part of the preliminary PUD. Mr. Harycki summed up the discussion by saying it appears the Township would be OK with four pylon signs, rooftop signage and the directional sign at the round-about. Mr. Johnson said he would challenge the applicant regarding the need for so much project identity, suggesting that if more space is devoted to the specific retailers there might only be a need for two of the pylon signs. Mr. Putman responded. Mr. Johnson stated the Township is comfortable enough with the project itself to be comfortable with the concept of signage. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that the Joint Board must make an official motion on this request. Mr. Roush suggested that the motion be to approve the action by the Planning Commission, with the recommendation that the Council look specifically at conditions No. 2, No. 4, No. 7 and No. 8. Mr. Harycki moved to approve the recommendations of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: that item No. 2 be considered by the City; that item No. 4, roof signs, be permitted rather than prohibited; that item No. 7 be changed to indicate that blade signs or flush- mounted signs be considered as appropriate; and changing condition No. 8 to consider allowing four pylon signs (two on Myrtle and two on Manning) as outlined in the sign plan and the original PUD dated 2002. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the language limiting placement to adjacent to the entry door in condition No. 7 should be struck; Mr. Harycki agreed to include that in his motion. Ms. Countryman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Ms. Countryman, seconded by Mr. Roush, moved to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.