Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-08 CPC MINPlanning Commission May 8, 2000 Present: Jerry Fontaine, chairperson Glenna Bealka, Robert Gag, Russ Hultman, Dave Middleton, John Rheinberger, Karl Ranum, Darwin Wald and Terry Zoller Others: Community Development Director Steve Russell Absent: None Mr. Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Wald, seconded by Mr. Rheinberger, moved to approve the minutes of April 10, 2000; all in favor. Case No. V/00-16 A variance to the Duplex Residential requirements for an 800 square foot addition to an existing duplex on an 8,437 square foot lot, 10,000 square feet required, at 216 W. Wilkins St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Marcia Kilbourne, applicant. Ms. Kilbourne explained that her mother had moved in with her and she needs a bedroom on the main level. She also said she would like to construct a three-stall garage in the rear of the building and would stipulate in the lease that tenants must park in the back, in order to address • concerns about on-street parking. She also said the request was approved two years ago, but she couldn't proceed because of a pipe under the property. Mr. Rheinberger asked if the building was being used as a triplex. Ms. Kilbourne said the building is wired and plumbed as a duplex, and said she will only have two entrances. Mr. Middleton asked if there were three kitchens in the structure and if the presence of a kitchen constituted the definition of a living unit. Mr. Russell responded that generally the number of kitchens constitutes the number of living units. However, Mr. Russell noted the primary issue with the request is that this currently is a non-conforming duplex as defined by lot size. The additional 800 square feet would result in 10 bedrooms in the structure; Ms. Kilbourne responded that she was only adding one bedroom. Jon Shimoto, 1015 N. Fifth, St., Brian Kogler, 1016 N. Fifth St., and Todd Sharpe, 1003 N. Fifth St., reiterated concerns they expressed at the April meeting, specifically the amount of traffic and on-street parking and the number of people living at the residence. Mr. Fontaine noted that the applicant has a substandard lot for the existing use and is now asking for more living space and garage space on the lot. Mr. Rheinberger said he thought the request represented an excessive use of the property, and Mr. Hultman agreed that 10 bedrooms was an overuse of the space. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Ranum, moved to deny the request. Vote was 8-1, with Mrs. . Bealka voting no. 1 Planning Commission May 8, 2000 Case ZAM/00-02 A zoning map amendment to rezone the property located south of the Main Street parking lot from RB, Two Family Residential, to CBD, Central Business District. Mark Balay, representing Andiamo Enterprises, applicant. Case No. V/DR/00-19 A variance for a boat ticket office/storage building and variance to parking south of the Main Street parking lot in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay, representing Andiamo Enterprises, applicant. Present for the discussion were Mark Balay and Richard Anderson of Andiamo Enterprises. Regarding the rezoning, Mr. Balay noted the zoning switches from CBD of RB about half-way through the proposed new building. And he said the property is not connected with any residential property except those properties located above the bluff. Dave Newman, 507 S. Broadway, talked of an ongoing problem with noise when the boats come in. He said residents have called Stillwater police and Andiamo people to complain, and nothing seems to be done. He said a rezoning will allow an intensification of use, and he suggested the requested variance is not appropriate as no hardship is involved. Mr. Newman further suggested that if a variance is granted, conditions be placed on the variance to get the noise problem under control. Mr. Fontaine noted the DNR is requiring Mr. Anderson to move the ticket booth off the docks, • and he said moving the ticket office isn't related to noise on the boats. He further noted the city does have a noise ordinance. Mr. Russell added that there are standards for decibel levels, and he said that moving the ticket booth will not intensify the use of the boats. Mary Nelson, 509 S. Broadway, submitted a letter of opposition from Peter and Susan Boosalis, 515 S. Broadway, who were unable to attend the meeting. Mrs. Nelson also read into the record a letter signed by herself and her husband, Ronald Nelson, citing their reasons of opposition. There was general agreement that most of the noise problem is generated by the public docks, not the Andiamo boats, the last of which comes into the docks at 11 p.m. There was a discussion of policing and enforcement. Mr. Fontaine suggested that enforcement of the noise ordinance is not a Planning Commission issue, it's a police function, and if the city's current noise ordinance is not adequate, the Council should change the ordinance. Mr. Ranum questioned the nature of any hardship should the Commission deny Mr. Anderson's request, and he said he was against any new construction on the riverfront. Mr. Rheinberger suggested that the requested rezoning makes sense as the property really is part of the Central Business District. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved to recommend approval of the rezoning. Mr. Zoller noted that he lives by the concerned property owners on the bluff and said that noise is an issue that should be given some consideration. Mr. Hultman also noted that the city does have a noise ordinance and when people call with 11 2 Planning Commission • May 8, 2000 complaints, the police should take care of the situation. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning passed 7-2, with Mr. Zoller and Mr. Ranum voting no. Regarding the new building, Mr. Balay explained the site location. Two signs are requested. The signage, one over the door and one visible from the highway, will be primarily informational/directional and not lighted, he said. The building will appear as one level from Highway 95 and a walkout from the river side. Mr. Middleton asked if the DNR had approved the new construction. Mr. Russell noted the property is located outside the area regulated by the DNR and that approval is not necessary. Mr. Rheinberger moved to approve Case V/DR/00-19 as conditioned. Mr. Russell suggested adding a condition that there be no music from the ticket office, and that the use of the railroad property be approved by the Union Pacific. Mr. Rheinberger agreed to include those additional conditions. Mr. Wald seconded the motion; motion passed 7-2, with Mr. Zoller and Mr. Ranum voting no. Mr. Fontaine suggested recommending that the City Council address the noise issue and direct police to enforce the noise ordinance or change the ordinance if it is inadequate. He said he thought noise was a serious issue and the Commission should ask that the Council address the issue as soon as possible. Mr. Wald made that recommendation in the form of a motion. Mr. • Hultman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. SUP/00-20 A special use permit for a 100-foot monopole telecommunications tower on Brick Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Jaron Johnson, representing Sprint, applicant. Mr. Johnson explained there would be no lights on the tower and no interference with the existing tower. Sprint has a 25-year lease for the use of the tower. John Ylinen, 201 Deer Path, asked whether there would be any emissions from the tower or any interference with electronic equipment in nearby homes. Mr. Johnson responded no to both questions. Mr. Ylinen said in that case, he was not opposed to the tower. John Pack, 113 Brick Street, said he has lots of problems from the existing tower, especially interference with phones. He was he was very concerned about the tower going up, and he called the structure a general "eyesore." Mr. Johnson said there should be no problems with interference given the range of frequency used by the Sprint equipment. Alden Nelson, 111 S. Brick St., expressed his objection to placing the tower in a residential area. Mr. Fontaine suggested that it would be a good idea for Mr. Johnson to address neighbors' concerns regarding frequency in the form of a letter to them. Mr. Fontaine also asked whether • 3 Planning Commission May 8, 2000 existing trees on the site would be retained. Mr. Johnson responded that if trees need to be removed, they would be replaced with new plantings. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved approval as conditioned with the additional condition regarding the replacement of any trees that need to be removed. Motion passed 8-1, with Mr. Ranum voting no. Case No. V/00-21 A variance to the side yard setback (5 feet required, 4 feet requested) and rear yard setback (5 feet required, 4 feet requested) for construction of a garage at 1337 S. Second St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District, Russell and Jacqueline Savstrom, applicant. Mr. Savstrom was present. He said he had remeasured and will be able to meet the rear yard setback requirement. However, he said he still needs the side yard variance or the driveway would not line up with the garage. Mr. Fontaine asked about drainage; Mr. Savstrom said the garage will have an 18" overhang. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Gag, moved approval of the requested side yard variance as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/00-22 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 24 feet requested) for construction of a gazebo at 202 N. Martha St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Kyle Weed, applicant. Mr. Weed was present. He explained that he had measured his lot line from the curb and the requested gazebo will be 13' off the sidewalk, rather than 16' as initially requested; the gazebo will not go beyond the front of the existing porch. Mr. Weed presented a petition signed by neighbors in favor of the project. Mr. Fontaine noted that no neighboring houses are more than 15' from the street. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/00-23 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 3 feet requested) and variance to impervious surface coverage (30 percent maximum, 44 percent requested) for construction of a two-story addition at 402 N. Second St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Martin and Judith Hansen, applicants. Mr. and Mrs. Hansen were present for the discussion. They explained the addition would be built over existing concrete slabs and would only be about 48 square feet more than what is already in place. The addition would be constructed between the house and garage, over existing concrete patio slab and concrete slab for a dog kennel. 4 Planning Commission May 8, 2000 Mr. Rheinberger questioned the requirement of the $1,000 fee for the stormwater utility fund, considering the request is for only a few more square feet of impervious surface area. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved approval as condition, eliminating condition No. 2 (the $1,000 fee). Motion passed 8-1, with Mr. Ranum voting no. Case No. SUB/V/00-24 A resubdivision of a lot located at 1221 N. Broadway. Tom Brownson, representing George Middleton, applicant. This case was continued pending a determination of whether the property is included in the moratorium of construction on the North Hill. Mr. Brownson said it appears the property in question is outside the moratorium area. Mr. Russell said the intent of the Council's previous action was to place a moratorium on all unsewered properties on the North Hill; a feasibility for water and sewer services is in process, he noted. Mr. Russell suggested that if there is confusion as to whether this property is affected by the moratorium, the matter be continued until an opinion is received by City Attorney Magnuson. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Ranum, moved to continue the case; motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/00-25 was withdrawn. • Case No. V/00-26 Case No. V/00-26 A variance to the front (30 feet required, 8 feet requested) and side yard (30 feet required, 20 feet requested) setbacks for construction of a wrap-around porch at 126 N. Martha St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Brian and Serese Honebrink, applicants. Mr. Honebrink was present. He explained the porch will face east and north. He said the requested addition will add to the character of the house. Mr. Fontaine asked about drainage; Mr. Honebrink said he was building a retaining wall to contain drainage. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval as conditioned; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Ranum left the meeting at 9 p.m. Case No. V/00-27 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 0 feet requested) and side yard setback (4 feet required, 0 feet requested) for rebuilding/expansion at 517 N. Owens St. in the CA, General Commercial District. Edward and Kathleen Schmidt, applicant. Edward and Kathleen Schmidt were present. Mr. Schmidt explained his plans and noted it is more cost-effective to tear the existing structure down and rebuilt than to remodel/renovate. Plans call for redoing the rest rooms, kitchen, and making the building handicapped accessible. The upper floor would be used for office space/storage, not living quarters, at this time. He also provided a petition of people in support of the request. 5 Planning Commission • May 8, 2000 Speaking in opposition were Dave Haak, 504 N. Owens, who cited concerns regarding the lack of parking, noise and trash; Mike Van Laanen, 509 N. Owens St., who noted the business is a grandfathered business that would not be allowed today, and the grandfathered use is lost if the building is torn down; Berta Zimdars, 601 W. Laurel, who cited concerns regarding the lack of parking and noise level, and the impact on the peace and tranquility of the ravine area; Dave Belz, the adjacent resident/business owner, who expressed concern about the loss of a window on the second level.; Vickie Van Laanen, 509 N. Owens St., who also expressed concern about noise; Nancy Brown, 1104 Meadowlark, who expressed a concern about patrons' behavior and stated that any expansion of use would be a disservice to the neighborhood. Mr. Hultman noted that if the second floor is used for office space, parking is an issue; he also referred to the fact that the grandfathered use is lost if the building is torn down. Mr. Gag referred to the fact that improving the building/business would add to parking/traffic concerns. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved denial; motion passed unanimously (8-0). Case No. SUP/00-28 A special use permit for construction of a 4-unit, three-story housing structure with eight enclosed parking spaces on an existing lot on the south side of Olive Street between Second and Third streets in the CBD, Central Business District. Donald and Marianne Nolde, applicant. • Present were Donald and Marianne Nolde and architect Jerry building meets all setback and height requirements, the only variance eeded ssfo fnoted tht the or traction of residential units in the downtown business district. Speaking in opposition was Susan Baker, representing members of the Val Croix Homeowners Association, 301 S. Third St., who expressed concerns about the potential loss of market value, lack of a retaining wall for erosion control; loss of views; and concern about safety of the garage openings onto the sidewalk. Mr. Runk noted that it is essential for the use of the property that the garages be built into the hill; the wall of the garages will serve as a retaining wall. Mr. Nolde pointed out that previously the Council had approved an 80-unit apartment building for a portion of the property in question. Mr. Fontaine asked about parking for visitors; Mr. Nolde noted there is a city parking lot across the street. Mr. Rheinberger spoke in favor of the project as it cleans up the property. Mr. Zoller also noted the city's Comprehensive Plan calls for more residential housing in the downtown area. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved approval as conditioned; motion passed unanimously (8-0). 6 Planning Commission • May 8, 2000 Case No. V/00-29 A variance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 5 feet requested) to extend the width of the driving lane at 1820 Market Dr. in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. David Reimer, applicant. Mr. Reimer stated the request is to allow access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved approval; motion passed unanimously. Case No. SUB/00-30 A subdivision of a 22.75 acre lot into four lots of 6.16 acres, 3.37 acres, 3.24 acres and 3.15 acres with two outlots of 2.49 acres and 4.34 acres at the northwest corner of Highway 36 and Highway 5 intersection in the CRD, Campus Research and Development District, Coen and Stumpf and Associates Inc., representing Jim Bradshaw, applicant. Present were Jim Bradshaw, Jon Stumpf, landscape architect, and Todd Erickson, of the engineering firm, who reviewed storm water control plans. Mr. Bradshaw said the goal is to build a peace garden, similar to one in Rochester, and create something special on the gateway parcel. Six acres would be used for the funeral facility, which would not be a crematory and would not be a cemetery. Mr. Bradshaw said he would return with facility plans at a later date. Mr. Fontaine questioned whether the other lots are large enough for adequate parking. Mr. Stumpf responded that the intent is to attract small, local businesses, not large businesses, thus the smaller lots. Mr. Rheinberger expressed a concern about the service road not going through which puts pressure on 62"d Street, and he said he though the road should be built to standards. Mr. Stumpf responded that a significant bridge would be required is the road were expanded in the future. Mr. Zoller said he thought the road should be 36-feet wide as indicated in the original plans, but suggested that is an engineering issue. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval of the subdivision as conditioned; motion passed unanimously. Case No. SV/00-01 A street vacation of the west 20 feet of Sunset Dr. to the southeast corner of abutting Lot 5, Block 3, rearrangement of Radley Sunnyslope Addition in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Ryan Smith, applicant. Mr. Wald announced he was abstaining from this discussion. Present were Brandon Smith and Ryan Smith, 127 Birchwood Dr. The Smiths stated the request is to square off the property line. They said they have been maintaining the right-of-way as a part of their property. They said there is no Sunnyslope Drive because it is under water. Five properties are affected by the request - three are owned by the city as parkland and two by Swager Bros. 0 7 Planning Commission is May 8, 2000 City Engineer Klatyon Eckles recommended continuing the request to the June 12 meeting when a public hearing will be held to vacate the entire road. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved to continue the request to June 12. Motion passed 7-0-1, with Mr. Wald abstaining. Other business Review of Phase II expansion area plans for mixed use residential development (380 units proposed) south of McKusick Road and north of Boutwell Road. US Homes, applicant. Present for the discussion were members of the Stillwater Town Board and Planning Commission. Reviewing the development concept plans for the Coves of Stillwater were Beth Pritchard, representing Orrin Thompson Homes, and Rich Harrison who explained the design concept of coving. Also present were Greg Frank, project engineer, and Kevin Norby of Norby and Associates, landscape architects, who explained the landscaping plans, open space areas, recreation area and trail system. Also explained were plans for landscaped berming along Manning Avenue. Mr. Fontaine asked about the width of the streets and the potential impact of traffic on Boutwell • Road. He also questioned the move of the townhome units to a location adjacent to Manning Avenue rather than the interior of the development. Comments from Township representatives included: questions regarding the design of the development locating the high density housing along Manning Avenue, rather than the location indicated in the city's Comprehensive Plan; whether the density of the development is at the maximum allowable; parking for the proposed parks; parking for the townhome units; providing traffic outlets to Manning Avenue rather than having all outlets on Boutwell; the design of the berming on Manning Avenue. Mr. Wald, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved to adjourn at 11:40 p.m.; all in favor. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary l.? 8