Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-13 CPC MIN. Planning Commission December 13, 1999 Present: Jerry Fontaine, chairperson Russ Hultman, Karl Ranum, John Rheinberger, Kirk Roetman and Terry Zoller Others: Community Development Director Steve Russell Absent: Glenna Bealka and Darwin Wald (Tom Wiedner resigned effective December) Mr. Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved approval of the minutes of Nov. 8, 1999; all in favor. Case No. PUD/99-54 and Case No. SUB/99-55 Final Planned United Development and Final Plat Approval for 99 unit, 58 lot and 2 outlot development west of County Road 5 and north of 62"d Street North. Tim Nolde, applicant. Mr. Nolde was present. He stated he had worked closely with city staff in doing the roads and had made some changes in landscaping based on staff recommendations. He said he was comfortable with all the conditions of approval. i Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of Case No. ZAM/99-2; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of Case No. ZAM/99-3; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of Case No. PUD/99-18; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of SUB/99-19; all in favor. Case No. ZAT/99-1 A Zoning Ordinance text amendment establishing tree protection regulations. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Russell briefly reviewed the process to date and highlighted some of the changes made to the draft ordinance based on comments received at the several public meetings. The ordinance applies to projects requiring a development permit - conditional use permit, special use permit, variance, plat approval, etc. The ordinance allows up to 30 percent of the trees to be removed, with a replacement rate of 10 trees per acre; if the 30 percent limit is exceeded, the replacement is one-for-one. Clear cutting is not allowed. The regulations apply to slopes of greater than 24 percent, bluffland and ravines. Forester Kathy Widin noted the most recent revision is substantially different than the first draft. She said this revised proposal builds upon the original ordinance and reflects changes based on concerns/comments from people on both sides of the issue. The penalty of $25 per diameter inch has been removed, for example. Ms. Widin stated that nothing other than the 30 percent removal threshold is stronger than the existing ordinance; everything else in the new ordinance is basically recommendations/education. Planning Commission December 13, 1999 Don McKenzie, 72'd Street, spoke in opposition and provided written comments with suggested language changes. In addition to the 30 percent removal threshold, Mr. McKenzie's primary objections centered on the language in (4)b of the proposed ordinance: "Development must (be) conducted so that the maximum number of trees are preserved by the clustering and siting of structures or improvements in clearings." Mr. McKenzie objected to the use of the word "must", preferring "may"; he also noted the existing ordinance provides for some flexibility and creativity of development by allowing the "utilization of other site design techniques." It was the consensus of Commission members that the language providing for flexibility and creativity of site design be retained. Marc Putnam, representing the "underlying property owners" of Liberty on the Lake, spoke in opposition to the proposal and agreed with Mr. McKenzie's concern regarding the language in (4)b, specifically the word "must." He suggested the "must" be changed to "should." He also spoke against the replacement fee, and asked about an appeals process. Mr. Russell noted an appeals process is part of the city's Zoning Ordinance. Laurie Maher, Marine Circle, and Nancy Brown, member of the city's tree task force, both spoke against changing the wording from "must" to "should." • Mike Brochman, McKusick Road, asked whether the regulations would apply to paving projects as would seem to be indicated in section (4)c. Mr. Russell explained the regulations would apply only if paving projects required a development permit. It was the consensus of Commission members to add language clarifying that. Bud Buchman, Boutwell Road, suggesting eliminating the language "similar to species removed" in section (6)f2. He suggesting clarifying the language "must preserve the understory" in section (4)d to more clearly state the desired outcome. He also suggested using the term 30 percent of the tree canopy versus the number of trees. Ms. Widin agreed with Mr. Buchman's reasoning for changing the language in (6)f2. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved to change the wording "must" to should" in section (4)b. Motion passed 4-2, with Mr. Ranum and Mr. Roetman voting no. Mr. Rheinberger moved to change the tree removal threshold from 30 percent to 40 percent. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Roetman, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved to recommend approval as amended - changing must to should, retaining language allowing for some design flexibility, clarifying language regarding the section on paving, and including Mr. Buchman's recommendation removing "similar to species removed." Motion passed 5-1, with Mr. Rheinberger voting no. 2 Planning Commission • December 13, 1999 Case No. SUB/99-50 A minor subdivision into two lots, Lot A of 12,132 square feet and Lot B of 12,243 square feet, at 617 W. Myrtle St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Dan and Tom St. Claire, applicants. Mr. Rheinberger abstained from the discussion and vote on this case. Both applicants were present. They questioned the requirement for a turn-around. Mr. Russell explained that was determined by the city engineer. Mr. Zoller asked about the existing garage. The applicants stated the garage meets setback requirements. An easement for sewer and water is provided, they said. Kathleen Charlsen, 728 W. Olive St., stated she thought there was a moratorium on building in ravines. Mr. Russell stated there is no moratorium. Kitty Johnson and Carlos Johnson, neighboring property owners, asked about the sewer and water easement, whether a lift station would have to be installed, and how that would affect their property. Mr. Zoller noted the requested subdivision meets all requirements. Mr. Zoller, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved approval of the request as conditioned; all in favor, with Mr. Rheinberger abstaining. • Case No. ZAM/99-4. Case No. SUB/99-51, Case No. SUB/99-52 Zoning map amendment and minor subdivision of 8260 Neal Avenue North and 8220 Neal Avenue North in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District. Don Thron and Mitchell McKenzie, applicants. Mr. Thron was present representing both applicants. He pointed out that the condition of approval regarding park dedication for both subdivision requests should be for two lots, not three as indicated in the staff memo, as there already is an existing lot. Mr. Thron also asked that condition of approval No. 3 be changed so that rather than requiring the Creekside Crossing developer be compensated for road and utility improvements before any building permits are pulled, the applicants show there is an agreement in place with the developer for such compensation. Mr. Russell agreed that would be satisfactory. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved approval of Case No. ZAM/99-4; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of SUB/99-51 as amended; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of SUB/99-52 as amended; all in favor. Case No. SUB/99-53 This case was continued to the January meeting. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved continuation; all in favor. Case No. V/99-56 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 18'3" requested) for construction of a solarium at 116 School St. E. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Ronald and Kristen Lahner, applicant. 3 Planning Commission 46 December 13, 1999 The applicants were present. Mr. Lahner explained they have limited choices for location of the addition due to the nature of the soils on the property. Mr. Russell noted a letter had been received from neighbors supporting the project. Mr. Zoller, seconded by Mr. Rheinberger, moved approval as conditioned; all in favor. Case No. V/99-57 A variance for an adoption agency to operate out of a residence at 721 Greeley St. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Eugene and Karen Lampi, applicants. Mr. and Mrs. Lamp each addressed the Commission. Mrs. Lampi talked of the changing character of the neighborhood and asked the Commission to recognize the multiple-use character of the neighborhood. The immediate neighbors have no objections to the use, she said. Gary Williams and Carroll Rock, members of the HOPE Adoption board of directors, spoke for the request. Mr. Rock stated the board felt it would be advantageous for an adoption agency to operate from a home. It was also noted that HOPE has been looking for other property, but rental is expensive for the non-profit agency. Robert Richards, 905 W. Abbott, spoke against the request, citing concerns about increasing traffic and pointing out that according to the City's ordinance, a home occupation must be • incident to the residence and this request would not qualify under the ordinance. Also speaking in opposition were Dennis Munson, 916 W. Abbott; Ernest Peaslee, 1017 W. Abbott; Richard McDonough, representing his mother, Mary McDonough, 1005 W. Willard St.; and Colette Preimesberger, 819 W. Abbott St. Concerns expressed centered on traffic, possible devaluation of properties, turning the existing backyard into a parking lot, possible lighting of the parking area. Mr. Williams and Mr. Rock stated the use would not generate a lot of traffic at one time, and there is adequate parking for staff. Mr. Williams also noted that should the Lampis sell their home for a reduced price, that, too, would result in devaluation of neighboring properties. In the Commission discussion, Mr. Ranum stated he concurred with the comments regarding the changing character of the neighborhood, but he noted this request falls outside of the home occupation permit. Mr. Zoller noted the intent of the home occupation ordinance was to accommodate cottage industry, and Mr. Fontaine pointed out that according to the ordinance, the residence must be occupied by the owner and have no more than one outside employee. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Ranum, moved to deny the request. Motion passed 5-0. (Mr. Roetman left at 9 p.m.) • 4 Planning Commission December 13, 1999 Case No. V/99-58 A variance to the rear yard setback (5 feet required, 1 foot requested) for construction of a detached garage at 1330 S. Second St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Tina Strandberg, applicant. Most of the discussion centered on questions regarding the property line and the appearance that a side yard setback might also be required. Mr. Ranum pointed out that staff had not presented any need for a side yard variance. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed 4-1, with Mr. Zoller opposed. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Ranum, moved to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 5