Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-17 CPC MIN - Special MeetingCity of Stillwater Planning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop May 17, 2004 Present Robert Gag, chair, Mike Dahlquist, David Junker, Dave Middleton, David Peroceschi, Karl Ranum, Paul Teske, Jerry Turnquist and Darwin Wald Others Community Development Director Steve Russell Mr Gag called the meeting to order at 6 35 p in Review of possible Comprehensive Plan/zoning amendment for the southeast quadrant of the city of Stillwater The discussion was precipitated by Human Services Inc 's request to construct a six -unit housing with services facility and future expansion of its current clinic/office building on property it owns at 375 Orleans St Mr Russell informed Commission members that since the May 10 meeting, City Attorney David Magnuson has determined that according to Minnesota statute, state licensed residential facilities or housing with services of six units or fewer, such as the proposed HSI facility, are a permitted use in the Rl, residential, district, and the city is preempted from any discretionary review of the project Mr Russell noted that the Comp Plan/zoning study area is larger than the specific Human Services site The area includes land in both Stillwater and Oak Park Heights Mr Russell said staff conducted a survey of the existing land use in the study area He reviewed the survey findings Most of the area is zoned residential in both Stillwater and Oak Park Heights The survey indicated that most existing uses are consistent with the zoning and Comprehensive Plan The one exception is the County Government Center property, Mr Russell said The Government Center is designated Office/Administration in the Comp Plan, but is zoned RA, single family residential Mr Russell suggested that zoning of that property should be changed to PA, Public Administration, either at this time or at some point in the future He noted that the County has purchased six parcels in Oak Park Heights for expansion of the parking lot and suggested that if rezoned, there should be some flexibility to allow for future growth of the County office use He suggested North 62"d Street is a logical boundary for zoning purposes Mr Russell said he also reviewed the Comprehensive Plan policies — character of the neighborhood, affordable housing, transportation, etc — for consistency with land use However, he said, that is not so pertinent now that review of HSI's residential facility is no longer on the table Mr Peroceschi asked about the possibility of the cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights switching some land to eliminate some oddities in city boundaries Mr Russell pointed out that is a political issue and not an issue for the Planning Commission There was some discussion of the Oak Park Elementary School site, which is designated elementary school use in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RA, a zoning which is City of Stillwater Planning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop May 17, 2004 compatible with the existing use Mr Gag said the Planning Commission should look at the scope of the neighborhood 20 or 30 years from now, suggesting that the school use might be discontinued at some point in the future Mr Gag said he would favor providing residential opportunities should the use change in the future Mr Ranum said expansion of commercial uses in the area is not his preference, he said he would prefer to retain the residential zoning and limit commercial uses to the existing legal, non -conforming uses Mr Dahlquist pointed out that if the use changes in the future, it should involve discussions with Oak Park Heights Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Turnquist, moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the zoning of the area between Highway 36 and south of North 62"d Street, between Osgood and Pans Avenue, be changed from RA, Single Family Residential, to PA, Public Administration Motion passed unanimously Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Teske, moved to recommend to the City Council that the remainder of the study area in question remain RA, Single Family Residential David Schneider, attorney for HSI, and another property owner asked to address the Commission Mr Gag pointed out the May 17 meeting was intended as a closed workshop session A public hearing will be held when the rezoning is considered, he said Motion to recommend that the existing RA zoning be retained for the study area north of North 62nd Street passed unanimously South Boutwell Area Plan Mr Russell noted that the South Boutwell Plan was recommended by the Planning Commission in July of 2002 The City Council, however, tabled action on the plan and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission pending consideration of the Deerpath/Bnck streets traffic issue The Council recently took action on the traffic study, so the land use plan is back on the table, he said He noted there are several developers interested in pursing annexation, including Bruggemann's and another developer that owns the former Schmoeckel property at County Road 12/15 Mr Peroceschi expressed his concern about the Council's actions on the traffic study Mr Turnquist agreed that the Council action did not deal with the traffic issue, and said it would be inappropriate to allow any additional development at this time, as development would add to the existing problem He pointed out it will be 2007 before Washington County upgrades County Road 15, and he said he would have a hard time knowingly adding to the existing problem by allowing early annexation Mr Wald noted that is why there are timelines in the plan — phase 4 property north of County Road 12 was not to be annexed/developed before 2010 The timeline for property in the Phase 4 area is 2015 Mr Turnquist also noted it is unclear how the new residential developments on North Main Street might impact traffic in the area Mr Junker spoke of Washington County's position regarding limited entrances off County Road 15 Mr Gag asked whether developers could be required to contribute to funding for traffic lights and other traffic improvements Mr Russell 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop May 17, 2004 pointed out that a developer can be required to contribute to fund measures to meet County requirements, such as additional turn lanes, but not to solve existing city problems Mr Middleton noted that early annexation is allowed if 100 percent of the property owners petition for annexation Mr Ranum said that is still the case -- owners can petition, but the petition might not be approved based on current circumstances Mr Teske agreed with the concern that the city appears to be getting ahead of itself in terms of development versus infrastructure He said he felt annexation/development before 2015 would be inappropriate Mr Russell brought the discussion to a close by stating he would like to summarize the Commission's position before referring the land use plan to the City Council He said he would incorporate the traffic study actions in his summary, which will be available for discussion at the June meeting Mr Russell said his sense of the consensus of the Commission is that the group favors the land use plan but has concerns about annexation before the availability o f services, including roads Mr Middleton asked that it be noted that property owners can petition for early annexation Mr Junker, seconded by Mr Peroceschi, moved to adjourn at 7 55 p m Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3