Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-25 PC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 25, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Hoffman, Knippenberg, Meyhoff (via Zoom), Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: Commissioners Hansen and Steinwall Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Gladhill, Zoning Administrator Tait APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of July 28, 2021 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2021 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Resolution CPC 2021-03, Resolution Adopting Written Statement of Reasons for Denial Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 15.99, Subd. 2, for a Conditional Use Permit and Associated Variances for the Property at 107 3rd street North and 110 Myrtle Street East, Case No. CPC 2021-38. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2021-45: Consideration of Variances to the Front, Side and Rear Yard setbacks for the vertical expansion of an existing, non-conforming structure Property located at 304 Hazel St E in the RA district. Property owner, Jason Ous.-Tabled from the July meeting. Zoning Administrator Tait explained that the property at 304 Hazel Street East had fallen into disrepair and was in violation of City Code for number of reasons. Jason Ous purchased this property in October of 2019 and began fixing up the property including removing the front porch and popping the top of the eastern side of the building. However, Mr. Ous did not obtain any building permits nor permission from the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), nor permission from the Planning Commission (PC) for several needed variances. The property owner was informed of the violations and what corrective actions to take. In response, Mr. Ous submitted the needed permit applications to begin the review process after the fact. On April 21, 2021, the request for demolition was recommended by the HPC for denial. Subsequently, the City Council denied the demolition permit and the applicant was directed to return with substantially changed plans that better reflect the goals of the HPC. These plans were Planning Commission August 25, 2021 Page 2 of 6 submitted, and are now under review. The applicant is requesting two variances: 1) to allow a 6’ deep front porch to be set back zero feet from the front yard lot line (required setback is 30 feet) and 2) to allow the house to be set back zero feet from the side yard lot line (required setback is 10’). Staff finds the proposed porch meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance, and popping the top on a single-story addition is reasonable. City staff recommends approval of the variances with six conditions. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Councilmember Odebrecht remarked that the owner, a licensed contractor, should have known about the need for permits before so drastically altering this 1870s home. He supports the staff recommendation in order to make the home livable, but emphasized that codes are important to protect current and future homeowners. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve Case No. 2021-45, Variances to the Front, Side and Rear Yard setbacks for the vertical expansion of an existing, non-conforming structure located at 304 Hazel St E, with the six staff-recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2021-47: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to allow for proposed Emergency medical services facility to be located in the BPI zoning district. Eric Siskow, representing HealthPartners-Stillwater Clinics, property owner. City Planner Wittman stated that Stillwater Health System is seeking a Zoning Text Amendment to allow Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Facilities in the Business Park Industrial (BP-I) zoning district. If approved, they will start the process to request an EMS Facility, to be used by Lakeview Hospital, located adjacent to their Curve Crest clinic at 1500 Curve Crest Boulevard. This would require re-platting the property which would come back before the Planning Commission at a later date. City staff recognizes that the continued conversion of industrially zoned property to non-industrial uses is poor practice and inconsistent with the land use given by the Comprehensive Plan. However, if the amount of industrially zoned land was insufficient, there would be pressure to increase the amount of land available for manufacturing and product processing. That has not been the case for decades. By providing expansion opportunities for Lakeview EMS, the City’s economic and sustainability goals and objectives are being furthered. Commissioner Knippenberg stated she is employed by Lakeview Health. She asked if she should recuse herself from the discussion and the vote. Ms. Wittman answered that the City Attorney would advise recusal if there was a monetary benefit, but a Zoning Text Amendment would not imply monetary benefit. Nathan Pulscher, Interim President of Lakeview Hospital, introduced Jon Muller, EMS Facility Director, and Eric Siskow, Facilities Director. Mr. Pulscher said in five years the service area has almost doubled. EMS has outgrown its present space at the hospital. Lakeview owns this property and it makes sense from a strategic perspective to put EMS in this location. Councilmember Odebrecht stated Lakeview Hospital is an incredible asset to the community. He asked if there would be room to expand into the current location’s parking area especially considering the development of Central Commons across Highway 36. Mr. Pulscher replied that expanding in the present space would be a challenge from a bricks- and-mortar perspective. In the 20-30 year plan, it is not an ideal location. Planning Commission August 25, 2021 Page 3 of 6 Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to recommend approval of Case No. 2021-47, Zoning Text Amendment to allow for Emergency Medical Services facilities to be located in the BPI zoning district. All in favor. Case No. 2021-48: Consideration of a Variance to construct a front porch on the property located at 213 Greeley St N in the RB district. Jon Mulak, property owner. Mr. Tait reviewed the case. The applicant is requesting an 8’ variance to construct an 8’ wide wrap-around porch onto the front and north side of the house to help prevent rainwater from getting into the basement. The required setback is 20’. The variance would allow the porch to be set back 12’ from the front yard lot line. Staff finds that if the size is reduced to 6’, the porch meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and recommends approval with five conditions. Councilmember Odebrecht referred to previous discussions of prevailing yard setbacks and pointed out that the aerial overlay shows several properties in this same situation. Ms. Wittman explained that the RA and RB are the City’s oldest residential districts. The RA district continues to allow a “prevailing front yard setback” but at some point the “prevailing front yard setback” was dropped from the RB district. There are setback challenges with older 1800s homes. She agreed this is worthy of a conversation in the future. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. He agreed that the Commission should review the standards, considering how many old houses were built right up to the lot line. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2021-48, Variance to construct a front porch on the property located at 213 Greeley St N, with the five conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2021-49: Consideration of a Variance to construct a deck. Property located at 3686 Summit Lane in the RB district. Glenn Parker, applicant and John Hoffarth, property owner. Mr. Tait explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a 240 square foot deck with a 40 square foot staircase. The proposed deck and stairs will put the property 71 square feet over the maximum allowed structural coverage. The applicant is requesting a .7% variance to have a structural coverage of 25.7%, whereas the maximum structural coverage is 25%. While the structural coverage after the deck construction will be .7% above the allowed coverage, the property is significantly below the total impervious surface coverage (25% allowed, currently at 7.5%). Staff puts forth that a variance to allow a rear deck will not have any negative affects to the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. However, staff feels that the size of the rear deck requested is a bit larger than other properties in the neighborhood and a modest reduction in size is a reasonable alternative. If the deck is reduced, staff recommends approval with seven conditions. Glenn Parker, applicant, JRG Custom Homes, said the proposed deck is a bit larger than other decks in the neighborhood because the house is bigger than the others. While it is proposed to be over the structural coverage, the total impervious surface coverage is much below what is allowed. They wish to build the deck at full size as requested if possible. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if the homeowners’ association approved the plan. Planning Commission August 25, 2021 Page 4 of 6 Mr. Parker said yes. Councilmember Odebrecht commented that some Lennar Homes have a solar room bump-out that makes for more deck space. He asked if this home has the bump-out. Mr. Parker answered no. Therefore part of the reason for building a bigger deck was to better access the backyard. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to approve Case No. 2021-49, Variance to construct a deck located at 3686 Summit Lane, with the seven staff- recommended conditions, changing Condition #7 to state 240 square feet. All in favor. Case No. 2021-50: Consideration of a Variance for a free standing multi-tenant sign. Property located at 226 Myrtle St E in the CBD district. Heathyre Sayers, applicant and Daniel Forest, property owner. Ms. Wittman explained that the property owner applied for a Heritage Preservation Commission Design Permit for the installation of a wall sign on the front of the building. The HPC noted a sign on the front of the building would detract from the character of the building. The HPC tabled consideration of the Design Permit and requested the applicant seek a variance to allow for a free-standing sign to be placed within the sign setback area. On August 18, after this variance application was made, the HPC reviewed the amended plan which requests the free-standing sign be placed 1’ in front of the building. The HPC conditionally approved the Design Permit request for a free-standing sign with two conditions: 1) the sign shall be shifted further away from the building or towards the west; 2) the height of the sign shall be limited to 6’. The applicant is requesting two variances: 1) to allow a sign to be 12’ from the vehicular drive, 8’ from the public roadway, and 3’ from the property line whereas a 15’ setback from each is required; and 2) to allow a 7’ tall sign from ground grade whereas 6’, as measured from the grade of the nearest roadway, is allowed. Staff recommends the Commission deny a 1’ variance to the 7’ maximum height, and approve the setback variance with two conditions. Heathyre Sayers, applicant, explained that the sign will be 6’ not 3’ from the sidewalk. Also it could be set back as close to the building as possible since she originally wanted the sign to be on the building. Commissioner Knippenberg asked if there was consideration of going lower and wider as opposed to taller. Ms. Sayers replied the original design mimicked the dimensions of the windows but the HPC wanted it to be below the window height. She has a lot of tenants in the building and is trying to give them as much space as possible. They would all prefer to have their own sandwich board and yard sign and she wants to eliminate that. Ms. Wittman added that the HPC contemplated a lower sign with two columns, but blocking the driveway access point would be a problem. There are many challenges with the site and visibility of the driveway. Ms. Sayers also said the building is very narrow, so the allowable square footage for the signage is low. If the sign is limited to 6’ high, she would lose another 18-24” from the bottom. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Planning Commission August 25, 2021 Page 5 of 6 Ms. Wittman said there are competing demands between zoning code setback requirements, and the HPC’s desire to not block visibility of the building. Staff supports the proposed location. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve a setback variance for a 6’ maximum height free standing multi-tenant sign sign (measured from ground grade) to be located 1’ to 2’ from the building located at 226 Myrtle St E, Case No. 2021- 50. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2020-60: Discuss Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan for 200 Chestnut Apartments for Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Director Gladhill stated that on May 4, 2021, the City Council approved a series of applications related to the proposed 200 Chestnut Apartment Development, a 4-story, 61-unit apartment with 72 underground parking stalls. The City is now reviewing a request for Tax Increment Financing (TIF). The Planning Commission is asked to consider the consistency of the proposed use (high-density residential) with the Comprehensive Plan, in view of the application for TIF. Specifically, this is an analysis of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, not specific review of compliance with the Zoning Code. He noted that detailed financial analysis and recommendations are not within the scope of the Planning Commission; the full financial analysis will be presented at the City Council public hearing on September 21, 2021. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission confirm that, from a land use perspective, the utilization of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for 200 Chestnut is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Odebrecht clarified for TV viewers that tax increment financing is not a “give back” to the developer, but tax dollars that are being collected and directed to the City’s parking fund. Mr. Gladhill explained that the taxes paid today on the base assessed value will still be collected and distributed to the City, County and School District as normal. The newly generated taxes that would not exist without this project will be captured for a short period of time, to pay eligible costs. In this case, those dollars will pay into the City’s fund to advance the second parking ramp, as well as go toward eligible site costs. Part of the package will include $780,000 toward future parking ramp #2. The consensus of the Commission was that the development as proposed is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2021-30: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment for the creation of a Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. City of Stillwater, applicant. – Tabled from the May meeting City Planner Wittman led discussion of a new Zoning District being proposed: the NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. The Planning Commission was first introduced to the accompanying Zoning Text Amendment in May, 2021. At that meeting, the Commission directed staff to work with a sub-committee to determine if some of the proposed permitted uses should be converted to conditionally-permitted uses. Since that time, the committee has concluded the staff-recommended Zoning Text Amendment’s proposed use table amendments are appropriate. The Planning Commission is asked to review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the draft of the NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the new ordinance, as it appears to be compatible with the Planning Commission August 25, 2021 Page 6 of 6 Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the nature of the legacy commercial properties it intends to regulate. Roger Tomten, Sustainable Stillwater, thanked staff for working on the new district. It will enhance walkability and bikability by helping preserve commercial nodes. He noted that traditionally, commercial setbacks have been 0’, and asked about required 10’ setbacks in the new district. Ms. Wittman replied that the traditional 0’ setback makes sense but there was concern about expansion to zero lot lines where it does not exist now. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to recommend approval of a Zoning Text Amendment for the creation of a Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. All in favor. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the City Council denied the Landucci apartment complex appeal. Staff is in discussions with the developer about modifications that can be made to bring the project more in conformance with zoning code. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. All in favor. John Dybvig, Chair ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner