Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-08 CPC MINCity of Stillwater Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Present: Robert Gag, chair person, Mike Dahlquist, David Junker, Dave Middleton, David Peroceschi, Karl Ranum, Paul Teske, Jerry Turnquist and Darwin Wald Others: Community Development Director Steve Russell Mr. Gag called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Wald moved approval of the minutes of October 11, 2004. Mr. Turnquist seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. SUP/04-89 A special use permit for a restaurant with outside seating at 135 New England Place in the VC, Village Commercial/Planned Unit Development District. Nat Shea, Tanek Inc., representing Hearthside Homes, applicant. Mr. Shea briefly reviewed the inside floor plans for the restaurant/bar and outside seating, along with elevations. The restaurant will feature a quick-service bakery/coffee shop, he said, enhancing the "neighborhood image" of the establishment. Mr. Shea noted the HPC has approved plans. He said the applicant is requesting a monument sign to address traffic on Highway 12. He said the applicant also would like the Planning Commission to consider approval of a connection to the bike path on Highway 12 to make the restaurant both neighborhood- and pedestrian-friendly. There was a question about parking. Mr. Shea said the applicant would come back with the final parking layout. Mr. Russell said based on square footage, it appears there is adequate parking, noting that this plan has less square footage than indicated in the original PUD. Mr. Russell pointed out that the area uses shared parking, and he said the issue will be reviewed based on the use of the final building in the district. Robert Kroening, a resident of Liberty who participated in the original planning process, said he was troubled by the streetscape and lack of green space. He said the lack of green space gives the appearance of a strip mall. He also suggested that the square footage of the restaurant/bar might be smaller but the footprint is larger. Mr. Kroening said he felt the requested pylon sign is not in keeping with the look of a New England Village. Mr. Ranum stated he would like condition of approval No. 16 changed to refer any changes to the HPC and Planning Commission. He also stated he was not in favor of the additional signage but did like the concept of the connection to the bike path. Mr. Russell pointed out the bike trail connection will need Washington County approval but said he didn't think that would be a major problem. 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Mr. Junker noted there was a letter from developer Homer Tompkins indicating the plans had received final ARC (Liberty development architectural review committee) approval. He said he likes the layout and overall concept. Mr. Teske said he would like to see more detail about landscaping. Dave Hempel of CPDC developers apologized for the lack of landscaping plans. He said they would be open to planting along the trail to the property line and parking area, and said the developer would come back with an overall landscaping plan for the County Road 12 elevation. He also noted that the PUD signage did show locations for monument signs and requested consideration of monument signage for those businesses in lots 5, 6 and 7. Mr. Peroceschi suggested there is plenty of signage for the business. Mr. Ranum noted that signage is generally restricted to front footage. Mr. Teske agreed that the Planning Commission should stick to the ordinance. While Mr. Teske said he was concerned with the lack of landscaping plan and the ARC process, he said he would not delay this project due to those concerns and moved approval as conditioned, with the additional condition that plans for any bike path connection be reviewed by the Community Development Director. Mr. Ranum seconded the motion if Mr. Teske would consider changing condition of approval No. 16 to review by the Planning Commission and HPC. Mr. Russell noted that according to ordinance, minor modifications are referred to him; any major modifications return to the Planning Commission and HPC. Mr. Junker noted that CPCD has exceeded expectation in the past and he has no reservations about that fact that they will work with Washington County regarding the bike trail and landscaping. Mr. Ranum withdrew his request to change condition No. 16. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/04-83 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 10 feet requested) and slope development requirements for construction of a single-family residence at 2015 Lake St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District, Flood Plain and Bluffland/Shoreland District. Tony Kerschbaum, applicant. Mr. Kerschbaum stated now that the area is sewered, he would like to build a one-story residence on the property. Dan Challeen, 2103 Schulenberg, spoke in support of the proposal. Mr. Junker asked about the slope of the property, suggesting it would be difficult to construct a house due to the slope. Mr. Kerschbaum agreed that he will need some fill and will need to construct a retaining wall. Mr. Ranum noted that neighboring structures are closer to the street than Mr. Kerschbaum is requesting. Mr. Tumquist said he would support a variance for a one-story, walkout residence. I2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Mr. Junker stated he had a major concern with the grade of the property and suggested the property is unbuildable. Mr. Dahlquist agreed with that concern and predicted the applicant will need a retaining wall considerable higher than he is initially proposing. He questioned the impact of the plans on the viewshed. Mr. Teske said while he was concerned about the slope, he said he did not feel the proposal would have any detrimental affect on neighboring properties. • I• Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Peroceschi, moved approval of the three requested variances (lot size, bluff setback and front setback) with the condition that the variances are approved for construction of a house not to exceed a one-level walkout residence. Motion passed 7-2, with Mr. Junker and Mr. Dahlquist voting no. Other items: Mr. Russell provided a memo pertaining to a new state statute regarding non-conformity. He noted the city can be more permissive than state law. Members were in agreement that the section regarding nonconforming uses destroyed by fire or other disasters ought to be given a year, rather than six months as in the new state language, to apply for a building permit to replace the structure. Mr. Russell said a public hearing will be held in December. Mr. Russell provided a memo regarding building height definitions. Mr. Teske suggested it would be helpful if there was some way to establish a reference for starting elevations, rather than finished grade elevations. Mr. Russell said some communities use sidewalk or street elevation as the starting point. However, he noted that flood plain regulations affect building height in the downtown area, and he said the City could look at more geographic specifics for the downtown area. Also in the packet was a copy of the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines for the Commission's review in relation to in-fill housing issues. Mr. Teske questioned how those guidelines could be used - education or strict guidelines. It was agreed that Mr. Teske, Mr. Gag and Mr. Ranum should meet again wit the Heritage Preservation Commission to decide how to proceed with the issue. Mr. Wald moved to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Mr. Turnquist seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3