Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-08 CPC MIN. E ? PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 1996 I• Present: Jerry Fontaine, chairman Glenna Bealka, Dave Charpentier, Rob Hamlin, Kirk Roetman, Darwin Wald, Thomas Weidner, and Terry Zoller Others: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Absent: Don Valsvik Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Fontaine asked that the minutes of March 11, 1996, be corrected to indicate a 6-3 vote on Case No. SUP/96-7, with himself voting against denial. Mr. Wald, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved approval of the minutes as corrected; all in favor. Case No. DP/SUP/V-96-15 A design permit, special use permit and variance to the height limits (4 stories and 50 feet required, 6 stories and 70 feet requested) for construction of 60 condominium units and nine townhomes at 301 S. Second St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Gerrard Realty, applicant. Representing the applicant were Bill and Pete Gerrard; Lou Moran, architect with SEH; Mark Balay. Mr. Moran explained that the developers used the city's site guidelines as a base in developing plans. Purchase agreements are pending to bring the site out to Olive Street. Mr. Moran provided elevation sections from Olive and Third streets. The buildings will be 100 feet from the edge of Third Street, and views of all the Third Street buildings will be maintained. The maximum height of the condominium units is about 800 feet, with a small elevator shaft exceeding that height. According to the ordinance the maximum allowable height would be 780 feet (50 feet above the mid-line point of the parcel, which is about 730 feet). Mr. Moran pointed out the condominium units could be constructed without needing a variance. However, in order to protect the views from Third Street and accommodate the topography of the site, the elevation of the buildings was staggered, with the units exceeding the allowable height moved to the west and south of the development. • Mr. Fontaine noted the provision of the 150 public parking spaces required of the developer remains a concern. Mr. Moran said the latest proposal is for the developers to construct a 3-story parking structure at the city- owned parking lot at Olive and South Second Street and then lease back to the city 150-165 public parking spaces. In addition, temporary parking could be accommodated at the UBC site until actual construction begins. Mr. Hamlin expressed his concern about the potential for changes in the final building product, changes, for example, in colors, building materials, roof lines, etc. Mr. Moran said an "inherent risk" is that developers are never in a position to provide full working documents when asking for approvals as it isn't known un til three or four months into construction documents that exact costs are known. Mr. Hamlin asked whether there were any maximum/minimum limits the developer could provide. Mr. Moran responded that the buildings will be brick; the buildings will not be any higher than shown and probably no lower. Mr. Moran also said he believes the proposed number of units (74) is the minimum number to make the project viable. Mr. Weidner asked how many units exceed the allowable height; 14 units 4D require a height variance. Later in the discussion, Mr. Moran said 12 of those units could be built within the height limitations of the ordinance; however, doing that would go against the HPC site guidelines, he said. Mr. Wald asked about sewer and water to the site. Mr. Moran noted an existing sewer line would have to be relocated; water service would come from Third Street. Mr. Moran said the developers are asking the city to pay for the utility costs. Mr. Fontaine asked about the ramifications of run off and storm sewer; Mr. Moran said those were design problems that the developers would have to accommodate on site. Thomas Loome, downtown business owner, expressed his concern about parking; he said here needs to be an assurance that more parking will be provided. He also noted the UBC storage site is the only open site remaining in the South Main Street area. Mr. Moran explained the most recent parking proposals, and later indicated a possible timeframe for completion of a public parking structure. 0 Mr. Nolde, 311 S. Third St. (business), spoke of the complexity of the deal. Richard Koop, 1921 Oak Glen Place, spoke suggested that granting the height variance for other projects in the downtown area. in favor of the project, but might be setting a precedent Janie Eiklenborg, 315 S. Third St., spoke against the requested height variance. Ronn Hechter, Grand Garage, raised a concern about parking, as well as a potential problem with water on the site. Don Anderson, Andiamo Enterprises, asked how the public parking plans would impact the Andersons plans to convert the former UBC retail building. He pointed out their plans could be delayed if parking isn't provided by the spring of 1997. Mr. Russell noted that a condition of approval is the provision of public parking spaces. It is up to the City Council to determine the financial implications of the parking proposals, he said. Gary Kriesel, 1451 Lydia Circle, asked about the cost of water and sewer and the relocation of the sewer line; he suggested there was a need for affordable senior housing in the downtown area; he questioned whether a . parking ramp would accommodate future needs; and he asked about monitoring of the environment cleanup at the site and whether the city might incur future liability. James Laskin, 308 E. Chestnut St., expressed a concern about the roof lines and appearance of the upper condominium levels; he also asked about the appearance of the parking structure and whether it would be architecturally pleasing. Jay Michels, HPC member, said that commission also had concerns about the "dormitory effect" of the condominium units. He said the HPC worked hard on developing specific site guidelines and said the developers have been very open and have done a good job in working with the HPC to address design concerns. Mr. Fontaine asked whether the height of the structure was addressed by the HPC; Mr. Michels said the HPC's concern has been meeting the site guidelines developed for the entire property and how the project fits into the site. Mr. Roetman asked whether the developers would be responsible for park dedication fees under the city's new guidelines. Mr. Russell responded in the affirmative. Mr. Roetman suggested adding park dedication fees as required by the city's revised Comprehensive Plan as a condition of approval. Mr. Weidner spoke of the limited space potential impact of this project on the city's needs might change in the future. own the property and the project does Therefore, he said he could not vote in conditions of approval. in downtown Stillwater and the city for the next 50 years; the He noted the developers do not not meet the city's guidelines. favor of the project despite the Mr. Hamlin agreed that granting approval might create a problem for future alternatives for the city. He also suggested the project bumps the boundaries of visibility. Mr. Zoller agreed the project has its good and bad points, but said it helps the city meet the Livable Communities Act and adds a permanency to downtown. He also noted the project could be built without a height variance. Mr. Fontaine agreed that the survival of the downtown depends on getting people to live there. Mrs. Bealka moved approval of the variance and special use permit removing condition of approval No. 8 and adding a condition regarding park dedication fees. Mr. Hamlin asked that elevation drawings showing the height variance units located to the south and west of the site be marked as an exhibit and retained for future reference; he also suggested adding a condition of approval that the parking ramp on Second Street be approved by the HPC. Mr. Russell suggested adding a condition of approval prohibiting any roof top pedestrian activity other than needed for maintenance purposes. Mrs. Bealka accepted the added conditions of approval. Mr. Zoller seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-3, with Mr. Hamlin, Mr. Roetman and Mr. Weidner voting no. Case No. V/96-10 A variance to the front yard setback (20 feet required, 2 feet requested) for construction of a deck/porch on a residence at 324 N. Fourth St. in the RB-Two Family Residential District. George Ghanem, applicant. Mr. Ghanem explained he wished to building the deck/porch to provide a fire exit for the bedrooms on the third floor. Currently, he said the only exit is on a steep part of Linden Street which can be very icy in the winter. He also said old maps indicate there was a porch on the house at one time. Thomas Loome, 320 N. Fourth St., expressed his concern about granting variances without a compelling necessity in residential areas, especially those in historic districts. However, he also agreed that the requested porch and setback would keep the same alignment as a house and porch across the street on Linden. Mr. Weidner asked whether providing another access was a hardship and whether there was some other option for providing access. Mr. Roetman, seconded by Mr. Hamlin, moved approval. Motion passed 6-2, with Mr. Weidner and Mr. Zoller voting no. Case No. V/96-11 A variance to the sideyard setback (5 feet required, 3 feet requested) for construction of a two-car garage at 1522 Meadowlark Drive in the RA-One Family Residential District. Jane Baggott, applicant. Mrs. Baggott explained the variance is needed because of the requirement that the garage be constructed six feet from an existing three-season porch at the home; the porch is constructed on support posts. Members expressed some confusion as to that building requirement. Mr. Zoller, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval as conditioned. Motion • passed 7-1, with Mr. Weidner voting no. Case No. V/96-12 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 11.5 feet requested) for construction of a garage with upstairs bedroom at 305 Stillwater Ave. W. in the RB-Two Family Residential District. William and Dawn Tunison, applicant. Mr. Tunison explained that to construct the garage even with the house would require changing the windows on one entire side of the house. He also noted that are several houses on the block at about the same setback. Mr. Zoller asked why the Tunisons didn't consider moving the garage farther back on the lot. Mr. Tunison explained that trees would have to be removed, and it would mean having a driveway running the length of the property. Also it would preclude having additional living quarters above the garage. Mr. Weidner, seconded by Mr. Hamlin, moved to deny the request. Motion passed 6-2, with Mrs. Bealka and Mr. Roetman voting against denial. 19 Case No. DP/SUP/96-13 A design permit and special use permit for a 30' x 60' temporary tent adjacent to the northern end of the Lumber Baron's Hotel at 127 S. Water St. in the CBD, Central Business District. John F. Berglund, applicant. Mr. Berglund and Mr. Chuck Dougherty were present for the discussion. Mr. Berglund said they were aware of the HPC's conditions of approval. However, he requested that the staff recommendation that there be no outside amplified music after 10 p.m. be changed to 11 p.m. James Laskin, 308 E. Chestnut St., suggested that granting the request would set a precedent for the downtown district. He also suggested that the hotel should be completed before being allowed to expand the operations. Mr. Michels, 118 1/2 N. Main St., noted according to the original plans, there wasn't supposed to be a patio there, it was supposed to be part of the hotel building. He also noted that a previous similar request by the Freight House had been denied; granting this request could reopen that issue. Mr. Roetman asked whether allowing the use of the tent would require additional parking. Mr. Russell said the request probably was not an added use; the conference use, restaurant and bar were all addressed as part of the original parking requirements. Mr. Roetman also referred to the earlier denial of the Freight House request. Mr. Zoller spoke in favor of allowing the use for six special events, such as weddings, with review after one year. Mr. Roetman, seconded by Mr. Hamlin, moved denial of the request. Vote was 4-4, with Mr. Roetman, Mr. Hamlin, Mr. Wald and Mr. Fontaine voting for the denial and Mrs. Bealka, Mr. Charpentier, Mr. Weidner and Mr. Zoller voting against denial. Mr. Fontaine told the applicants the vote represented no action and was the same as a denial of the request. Case No. SUP/V/96-14 A special use permit for a 3,280-square-foot addition to Stillwater Fitness Club and 9-car parking lot, with a variance to the front and side lot setback requirements (20 feet required, 6.5 feet and 2 feet provided) at 110 S. Greeley St. in the RB, Two-Family Residential District. Heidi Rosebud, applicant. 10 Mr. Weidner abstained from the discussion due to a business association with the applicant. • Ms. Rosebud provided the Commission with a list of comments from the neighboring property owners. She provided proposed plans for the addition. It is staff's recommendation that the addition be stepped back from the existing building to break up the linear look to the complex. Ms. Rosebud said she would abide by that recommendation but would prefer to stay at the existing line for drainage purposes. Mike McCarthy, 212 S. Greeley St., expressed his concern about providing screening features to mitigate the visual impact of the expansion to the south. He suggested requiring some taller evergreens sufficient to provide screening; he also asked that there be no lighting to the south. Mr. McCarthy also spoke in favor of the front setback of the building as recommended by staff. Phil Erickson, who lives on Ramsey Street across from the proposed addition, said he initially had some concerns about the expansion. However, after talking with Ms. Rosebud, he said he would endorse the project with the addition of landscaping and subdued lighting. A resident at 109 S. Owens St. spoke in favor of the project. He said it fits well with the neighborhood, and he said the area is always clean and well- maintained. Mr. Wald moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Roetman suggested adding the conditions that there be no lighting to the south, other than soffit lighting, and that landscaping be used to screen the project from the south, with the landscaping to be reviewed by staff. He also suggested that the language regarding the building step back be put at a minimum of four feet. Mr. Wald accepted the additional conditions. Mr. Roetman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. The recording secretary left after this case. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording secretary