Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-13 CPC MINI t PLANNING COMMISSION Feb. 13, 1995 Present: Jerry Fontaine, chairman Glenna Bealka, Dorothy Foster, Rob Hamlin, Kirk Roetman, Don Valsvik, Darwin Wald and Terry Zoller Absent: Duane Elliott Others Steve Russell, community development director; Ann Terwedo, planning Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Glenna Bealka, seconded by Kirk Roetman, moved approval of the minutes of Jan. 9, 1995. All in favor. Case No. SUP/94-61. Modification of a previously approved special use permit/variance for construction of a 7,053 square foot retail store and variance to the sign ordinance for two signs. The property is located on the south side of Curve Crest Blvd. in the BP-O, Business Park-Office • District. Kellison Co. applicant. Mr. Kellison explained that some design changes had been made which make the building more in keeping with the overall Market Place design. The basement has been eliminated; the plan now has 7,053 feet of space all on one floor. Additional parking has been added to accommodate that change. Mr. Kellison also explained that previously there was some question about the possibility of subdividing the property at a later date. Simonet's has purchased a portion of the property and now there is no thought of subdividing in the future. Also, he said the plan include considerable landscaping along the rear property line. Dorothy Foster, seconded by Darwin Wald, moved approval as conditioned. All in favor. Mr. Roetman noted the sign variance had been approved previously. Case No. SUP/95-12. A special use permit for construction of a 28,034 square foot retail/warehouse use at 2159 Curve Crest Blvd. in the BP-O, Business Park-Office District. Simonet Furniture and Carpet Co., • applicants. Jim O'Brien and Tom O'Brien were present for the requested permit. Mr. Fontaine asked whether they understood the conditions of approval. Tom O'Brien responded in the affirmative. Mr. Zoller asked whether tho access would be widened; Tom O'Brien also answered yes to that question. Mr. Wald, seconded by Mrs. Foster, moved approval as conditioned. All in favor. Case No. SUP/94-65. A special use permit to conduct an automotive repair business on Lot 3, Block 3, Outlot C of the Stillwater Market Place addition. The property is located west of Market Drive between Orleans Avenue and Curve Crest Boulevard in the BP-C, Business Park-Commercial District. Robert A. Frey, applicant. Mr. Frey appeared on his own behalf. He explained that the building materials would be consistent with the Cub/Target buildings. He also said the signage was red lettering in the same style, but not as large, as Cub/Target. Mr. Russell said he had received one call expressing a concern about • outside storage of vehicles. Mr. Frey said the business is a rapid oil change business and there would be no overnight storage of vehicles. Mr. Frey said he understood all the conditions of approval. Mr. Hamlin, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved approval as conditioned. All in favor. Case No. SUP/95-10. A resubdivision of a 31,200 square foot lot with six residential units and a 13,500 square foot lot with an auto-service use and a residential structure into two lots of 25,800 square feet with six residential units and 18,900 square feet with an auto-service use and a residential structure. The properties are located at 1624-1634 S. Greeley St. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. David and Nancy Roettger and Rick Ritzer, applicants. Dave Roettger and Michelle Ritzer appeared regarding the request. Mr. Roettger explained that he bought his property in 1989 and was unaware the property line extended behind Stillwater Towing. Mr. Ritzer was already parking equipment on a portion of his property. Mr. Ritzer asked to buy the parcel. The two parties have had a lease agreement for Stillwater Towing's use of the parcel in question. Mr. Ritzer still wants to purchase the property if the subdivision is approved. applicants. Jim O'Brien and Tom O'Brien were present for the requested permit. Mr. Fontaine asked whether they understood the conditions of approval. Tom O'Brien responded in the affirmative. Mr. Zoller asked whether t?,e access would be widened; Tom O'Brien also answered yes to that question. Mr. Wald, seconded by Mrs. Foster, moved approval as conditioned. All in favor. Case No. SUP/94-65. A special use permit to conduct an automotive repair business on Lot 3, Block 3, Outlot C of the Stillwater Market Place addition. The property is located west of Market Drive between Orleans Avenue and Curve Crest Boulevard in the BPrC, Business Park-Commercial District. Robert A. Frey, applicant. Mr. Frey appeared on his own behalf. He explained that the building materials would be consistent with the Cub/Target buildings. He also said the signage was red lettering in the same style, but not as large, as Cub/Target. Mr. Russell said he had received one call expressing a concern about outside storage of vehicles. Mr. Frey said the business is a rapid oil change business and there would be no overnight storage of vehicles. Mr. Frey said he understood all the conditions of approval. Mr. Hamlin, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved approval as conditioned. All in favor. Case No. SUP/95-10 . A resubdivision of a 31,200 square foot lot with six residential units and a 13,500 square foot lot with an auto-service use and a residential str ucture into two lots of 25,800 square feet with six residential units and 18,900 square feet with an auto-service us e and a residential structure. The properties are located at 1624-1634 S. Greeley St. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. David and Nancy Roettger and Rick Ritzer, appl icants. Dave Roettger and Michelle Ritzer appeared regarding the request. Mr. Roettger explained that he bought his property in 1989 and was unaware the property line extended behind Stillwater Towing. Mr. Ritzer was already parking equipment on a portion of his property. Mr. Ritzer asked to buy the parcel. The two parties have had a lease agreement for Stillwater Towing's use of the parcel in question. Mr. Ritzer still wants to purchase the property if the subdivision is approved. • Mr. Russell said the land use doesn't meet standards for the single-family residential zoning and said he thought the whole area should be looked at for possible rezoning. Because of the existing uses, he said he didn't see much other use for the property. He said the challenge would be to buffer the use from other properties. Mr. Russell suggested planting evergreens outside of the fenced impound area and ash trees along the inside of the fence. Mike Clarkson, 1601 S. Greeley, spoke in support of the request. Mr. Hamlin moved approval of the request as conditioned -- with three ash trees along the west fence line and two on the north side. He also said he would like to see a two-year follow-up on the survivability of the trees. Mr. Wald seconded the motion. Michelle Ritzer expressed concern about the space that would be lost by planting trees inside of the fence. She also noted that the Ritzers themselves own the property directly behind the towing business. Mr. Hamlin noted the city has no control over the future sale of the property. Providing a buffer is not an unreasonable request; the trees could be planted right up to the fence to minimize loss of space, he said. Motion of approval as conditioned passed by unanimous vote. Case No. SUP/95-11. A special use permit to conduct a retail, office, warehouse or light assembly use in an existing commercial/industrial building. The property is located at 321 S. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Patrick J. Anderson, applicant. Mr. Anderson appeared on his own behalf. He said the building would be reoccupied and used for the purpose for which it was constructed. The primary use would be light assembly, he said. There would be little change to the outside appearance of the building. The heating/sprinkler system was being updated to code and all conditions of approval would be met, he said. Terry O'Brien and Scott Zahren of Trump's appeared regarding the request. Trump's currently uses a space, owned by the Andersons, between the warehouse and the restaurant for storage of recycling/garbage containers. They pointed out that the restaurant has no other outside space to handle its garbage and if the garbage has to be taken to the dumpster area behind Brine's it will create a problem for all businesses in the area. Mr. Anderson said the owners understand the problem and have given the regarding coordinating handling of garbage in the downtown area. He said he could bring the garbage issue before the council. He said he also had received a call from Bob Sabis of the Freight House expressing a concern about the problem/issue. TruMr.mp's Russell people noted until there April has 30 to been try a to lot of find some discussion other space. Mr. Fontaine noted the commission could only deal with the requested special use permit, not the garbage problem. Mr. Hamlin advised the Trump's people to be proactive in finding a possible solution that better fits their needs. Mr. Hamlin, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved approval as conditioned. Case No. SUB/PUD/95-2. Preliminary plat approval and variances to the front yard setback requirements for a major subdivision of a 7.2 acre parcel of property into 36 lots with one outlot ranging in size from 5,396 square feet to 66,625 square feet for construction of twinhomes with zero lot line setbacks. The property is located on the southeast corner of • Shelton Drive and Tuenge Drive in the RB, Two-Family Residential District. Schafer Development, applicant. Mr. Schafer and Barry Peters of Short, Elliott, and Hendrickson were present for the discussion. Also present was Jerry Brown of East Ridge Court who said he was interested in the plan. Mr. Peters and Mr. Schafer went through a revised plan submitted in response to the staff report and engineer's comments. Each of the engineer's 13 comments were addressed. Most of the concern expressed by Planning Commission members centered on the safety of the retaining wall and whether there was adequate green space between driveways to provide for snow storage. The engineer recommended elimination of the retaining wall as shown in the original plan. The revised plan called for replacing the 15-foot wall with three sets of 4-foot walls. Commission members suggested using four sets of 3-foot walls. Mr. Roetman, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved concept approval as conditioned. Mr. Hamlin and Mr. Zoller asked that the city engineer look at the revisions and the retaining wall issue before the requests goes before the City Council. Motion for concept approval as conditioned passed by unanimous vote. UQdate on Good Samaritan Center landscape plan meeting Mr. Russell told the commission that a meeting with neighbors, Good Samaritan manager/owner, the architect, city engineer and city coordinator had been held. He said neighbors are "reasonably satisfied" with the landscape plan. Another meeting will be held to address other issues such as neighbors' concerns about noise, drainage, snow storage and other items of concern. Mr. Russell said he does not think it will be possible to resolve all of the issues. In the ensuing discussion, Planning Commission members reiterated their concern about the state's involvement in the matter and the bottom-line question of how the wall got built without city approval. Mr. Russell said part of the problems was a miscommunication between the state and the city. The state issued the building permit, so the city was under the misconception that the state had jurisdiction over the entire project. Mr. Russell noted that the original conditions of approval were that the trees stay and that a drainage plan be submitted and approved. There was some discussion as to the possibility of legal action and requiring that the wall be removed. Mr. Zoller noted the city could lose a legal action because the city could be partially at fault if it did not exercise its right to stop the project due to lack of knowledge. Comprehensive Plan update Mike Anderson of the Ward Network was on hand for the discussion. Mr. Russell went through the upcoming schedule of meeting on the Comprehensive Plan. The commission will hold a workshop session with the City Council on March 28. Mr. Russell went through the framework of Alternatives E, which is basically a rural density, and F/F-2, urban density. Both alternatives show four major fields of development with woodlands, green belts defining the four areas. Mr. Fontaine said he did not recall multi-family housing ever being included in Alternative E, as shown in the new maps. Alternative E always was the townships preferred level of development, with single-family, cluster development, not multi-family development, he said. Mr. Russell noted that it is city policy to provide a range of housing. The 0 plans show a significant amount of multi-family housing at almost a 50- 50 ratio; the city's current standard is 2/3 single-family, 1/3 multi- family. He said he thought th ere could be some trade-off by providing for some additional multi-family housing within the existing city limits. He referred to several areas on the map that have good potential for multi- family housing. Mr. Fontaine said he would like to see the multi-family areas shown in Alternative E flipped ov er into one of the F alternatives. Mr. Russell also highlighted areas 11 and 12 for a preferred use for a R&D development in the future and an area at Highway 96 and County Road 15 as a potential commercial land use. Mr. Fontaine said the city should take a hard look at phasing in and restricting development over a 20-year period. Mr. Russell suggested that the extension of sewer and annexation can determine how rapidly development occurs. Mr. Russell noted that 1,000 units is about 8-10 years of growth, and he suggested that phasing development is not as much of an issue as whether the planning area should accommodate 1,000 units or 2,000 units. Mr. Fontaine also suggested having some type of joint powers agreement for the development area, noting the discussions at the task force level have been good. Mr. Russell said a joint powers agreement might complicate matters; he said it would be preferable for the two bodies (the city of Stillwater and Stillwater Township) to adopt the same Comprehensive Plan with the only difference being the issue of density. He also told commission members that now is the time to decide whether it prefers the rural density; zoning will set the land values, he said. Mr. Russell said the fiscal impact of Alternative F, with traffic information and sewer feasibility study would be available in March. Mr. Wald, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved to adjourn the meeting at 10 p.m. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording secretary U1