HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-08 CPC MINCity of Stillwater
Planning Commission
August 8, 2005
Present: Robert Gag, chairman, Gregg Carlsen, Mike Dahlquist, David Junker, Dave Middleton,
David Peroceschi, Paul Teske, Jerry Tumquist 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, seconded by Mr. Teske, moved approval of the minutes of July
8, 2005. Motion passed unanimously.
Case No. SUB/V/05-41 A request for a subdivision of one lot of 14,982 square feet into two lots
of 7,491 square feet in the RB, Duplex Residential District at 203 St. Croix Ave. John Harvey,
applicant.
Mr. Russell said the property in question has been sold and the applicant is requesting a
continuation of this case. Mr. Dahlquist asked if there was a time restriction for considering the
case. Mr. Russell said this is now a new case, and the City could request an additional 60 days
for action. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved to continue this case, with another
60 days for consideration. Motion passed unanimously. Don Empson, an interested resident,
asked if affected property owners would be renotified when the Planning Commission hears the
. case. While not required, it was the Commission's consensus that property owners receive
another notification.
Case No. ZAT/05-01 A zoning text amendment requiring two or more adjacent lots that do not
meet lot width or size requirement be combined to meet district zoning requirements. City of
Stillwater, applicant.
Mr. Russell explained that the amendment would require two or more substandard lots under one
ownership be combined for development purposes. He said the amendment will give the City
more control and should tend to reduce the number of variance requests for substandard lots. He
noted such a requirement currently is in effect in the Shoreland District.
Mr. Teske asked how the City would enforce the requirement and whether affected property
owners would be notified of the change. Mr. Middleton suggested the requirement might require
a title change and the properties would need to be re-recorded. Mr. Russell said the requirement
only would be enforced if a property owner applied for a variance for a subdivision. There was a
question about how many properties are affected. Mr. Russell said he was unsure of the number
but suggested the matter could be continued and an inventory completed. Mr. Junker, seconded
by Mr. Turnquist, moved to continue this case. Members asked for a legal clarification of some
of the verbiage as well as City responsibility for notification and enforcement. Motion to
continue passed unanimously.
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
August 8, 2005
Case No. V/05-42 A variance to the parking regulations (96 required, 69 proposed) for a 1,330
square foot expansion of a restaurant at 1491 Stillwater Blvd. in the BP-C, Business Park
Commercial District. Gary Sukopp, applicant.
Mr. Sukopp was present. He said he and his wife have the opportunity to expand their business
into the adjacent space. The additional space will be used for storage, kitchen and locker space
and for 3 or 4 additional Hibachi tables that will feature Teppanyaki cooking. He said he had
done an inventory of parking spaces, included in his application, which shows there are quite a
few spaces available during the evening hours; the Teppanyaki dining would only be offered
during the evening, he said. He also pointed out the space in question had previously been
proposed, and approved, for a new restaurant. Mr. Middleton asked how many additional guests
could be accommodated. Mr. Sukopp said currently the restaurant can seat 36 guests when
completely full; the addition has the potential to accommodate 26 more people.
Mr. Turnquist moved approval of the variance request noting that parking is no problem
currently and the Commission had previously discussed a condition that no additional restaurants
be allowed in the center. Mr. Teske seconded the motion. Mr. Dahlquist said he voted against a
restaurant use in the past, but said he did not think the expansion of the existing restaurant would
greatly impact the parking situation. Mr. Dahlquist questioned whether the owner of the property
had complied with a condition regarding landscaping. Mr. Russell said that condition had not yet
• been met. Mr. Turnquist pointed out the landscaping is the responsibility of the owner, not this
tenant. Motion for approval passed unanimously.
Case No. SUP/05-43 A special use permit for live entertainment at Northern Vineyard Winery at
223 N. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Robin Partch, applicant.
The applicant was not present. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Peroceschi, moved approval of
the special use permit. Mr. Junker said he thought the applicant should be present and said just
because the use has been going on for a year and a half was no excuse to give a rubber stamp
approval. Mr. Teske said he thought the use was good for the community and had been working
without a lot of complaints. Mr. Dahlquist suggested tabling the request until the next meeting.
Mr. Middleton withdrew his motion. Mr. Turnquist, seconded by Mr. Teske, moved to table this
case until the September meeting. Motion passed 8-1, with Mr. Peroceschi voting no.
Case No. V/05-44 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 19 feet requested) and
side yard setback (10 feet required, 5 feet requested) for construction of a covered porch at 305
Stillwater Ave. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. David Yadgir, applicant.
Mr. Yadgir was present. He explained that he and his wife are restoring the home and want to
construct as original as possible a porch across the front of the home, a 19th century Italianate. He
provided a letter signed by neighbors who supported the plans. Mr. Carlsen said he thought the
proposed porch would help the design and pull the parts of the house together and moved
•
2
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
August 8, 2005
approval of the variance as conditioned. Mr. Wald seconded the motion; motion passed
unanimously.
Case No. V/05-46 A variance to the tree preservation ordinance for the subdivision of two lots
into 23 lots with an existing building at 1749 S. Greeley St. in the BP-I, Business Park Industrial
District. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, applicant.
Case No. SUB/05-45 A subdivision of two lots into 23 lots with one existing building and 21
new office lots at 1749 S. Greeley St. in the BP-I, Business Park Industrial District. Mike Black,
Royal Oaks Realty, applicant.
Present were Mike Black and Eric Ogren, representing the owners of the property in question.
Mr. Ogren noted his family has owned the property for 25 years. He said the property must be
graded to accomplish the proposed development and trees removed. Most of the trees are older
white pine, he said. According to the City's tree preservation ordinance, a tree inventory would
need to be completed at a cost of as much as $5,000. Rather than pay someone to "count trees,"
he said they would rather pay that money to the City of Stillwater for its parks department or
other use the City determined. He said they plan an aggressive landscaping plan and plan to plant
103 trees around the perimeter and 92 in the center of the property. Mr. Russell said a tree
inventory is needed to determine a starting point, and noted that the tree preservation ordinance
is over and above any landscape plan requirements. Mr. Ogren also noted that this property is
basically landlocked and not visible to the public.
Ruth Peterson, 812 Rainbow Court, said removal of the trees will have a significant impact,
referring to property values and wildlife.
Gail Sommerfelt, Everett Drive, asked about the types and sizes of trees that the developer would
be planting. Mr. Black said they are working with a landscape architect and a variety of trees,
including Northwood maple and white pine, are planned. Ms. Sommerfelt also asked about the
grading expressing a concern about the impact on Brick Pond. Mr. Ogren responded that a
retaining wall will be constructed and a holding pond created so all runoff will go toward
Greeley Street. He said they are working with the City engineer regarding grading plans/runoff.
Glorianne Hatchel, 808 Rainbow Court, said the trees are the main attraction to her property and
removal will decrease the property value.
The residents of 814 Rainbow Court also expressed a concern about the loss of trees and its
impact on their landscape and on animal life in the area, as well as the height of the proposed
retaining wall.
Mr. Teske, Mr. Turnquist and Mr. Dahlquist all spoke in favor of abiding by the tree preservation
ordinance. Mr. Dahlquist noted that trees proposed as part of the landscaping plan don't count
for replacement trees. Mr. Dunker pointed out that Rainbow Court was all trees before
•
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
development occurred, and noted there will still be a significant buffer for those houses. Mr.
Russell noted there are some significant oaks close to the property line, which would not be that
difficult to preserve. Mr. Middleton moved to deny the variance to the tree preservation
ordinance. Mr. Tumquist seconded the motion. Motion to deny passed 7-2, with Mr. Junker and
Mr. Peroceschi voting no.
August 8, 2005
Mr. Black reviewed the plans for the business office development, which will look much like a
townhouse development, he said. The buildings will be residential-looking walkouts. Front and
rear design elevations of the new buildings were shown. The two new buildings on Greeley
Street will be two stories and match the brick of the existing building. He said they are working
with the engineers on the drainage plan. He said the Heritage Preservation Commission
suggested some parking spaces be eliminated in order to add more green space and plantings.
The lighting plan meets the ordinance regarding candle-foot power, and the lighting will be low
sodium bulbs, as per the HPC condition of approval. Signage will include small 2x2 signs
outside each unit with the address and business name, along with a monument sign on Greeley
Street. There will be two trash enclosures, screened and of brick exterior.
Mr. Ogren said according to the staff report there are five issues. One issue is that the plan
exceeds the allowable impervious surface; by reducing parking spaces and adding green space as
recommended by the HPC they will be able to meet that requirement. Regarding park dedication
• requirements, he said they would be willing to work with the Parks Department and meet that
requirement. He said there also was an issue with slope setbacks. He said there are no slopes
greater than 50' and therefore the setback does not apply. A final issue, he said, is the zoning of
the Washington County HRA-owned parcel. He said they thought the property was zoned BP-I
with a required setback of 75'. However, the HRA property is zoned residential with a 50-
setback requirement, which they cannot meet.
Mr. Russell suggested that the Commission can't act on the subdivision request until the tree
survey and preservation plan are completed.
I•
Carol Huber, 813 Everett Drive, said she liked the design but would prefer if the units were
scaled back to one story.
Ms. Sommerfelt, Everett Drive, asked how tall the parking lot fixtures would be and whether
lights would be on all night. Mr. Ogren and Mr. Black responded that the fixtures are shoebox,
downlit fixtures so the light source is not visible, and there is no foot-candle illumination beyond
the property. However, they said it might be possible to photo cell the lighting to turn off at a
certain time in the evening.
The resident of 814 Rainbow Court also said height of the units is an issue and expressed a
concern about the appearance of the walkouts, which appear as three stories from the rear
elevation. She also questioned the vacancy rate of office space in Stillwater and asked if the
4
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
developer considered scaling the project back. Mr. Ogren noted the height comes down to a
matter of economics and said this type of development is what professional people are looking
for and stated he has had many calls of interest. He also said he would be willing to meet with
residents individually to address concerns. It was pointed out that the economic viability of a
project is not something the Commission considers in its approval process.
August 8, 2005
Mr. Junker spoke in favor of the project, saying the Ogrens were lifelong residents of Stillwater
who want to bring a quality project to the City. Mr. Teske agreed that the plans are nice looking,
but additional details were needed. Mr. Middleton suggested the biggest issue is the setback
requirement. Mr. Ogren said meeting the residential setback requirement would jeopardize the
project. Mr. Dahlquist suggested looking are removing some parking, and possibly one unit, to
meet the setback, while Mr. Peroceschi noted a project redesign was not something that is likely
to happen. Mr. Teske said without the tree survey the Commission does not have all the
information necessary to take action.
Mr. Turnquist, seconded by Mr. Teske, moved to continue this case pending the tree survey. Mr.
Dahlquist said there were other points he would like to see addressed, including the current
alignment of the access from Greeley Street. Motion to continue passed 8-0, with Mr. Peroceschi
not casting a vote.
Case No. SUP/05-47 A special use permit fora 15,000 square foot addition and renovation for
Lakeview Hospital at 927 Churchill St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Lakeview
Hospital, applicant.
Curt Geissler, CEO of Lakeview Hospital, was present. He said the addition will be used for
ICU/CCU space and will result in some additional business, about one patient per day; most of
the clients will be treated on an outpatient basis. He said the small additional traffic will be far
offset by the move of the adjacent Greeley Street Clinic. The new addition is expected to open
around July 1 of 2006, about the same time that the Greeley Clinic is expected to relocate. He
noted the addition is within the hospital's existing footprint. He said a neighborhood meeting was
held to explain the plans, with only one person in attendance. Mr. Turnquist moved approval as
conditioned. Mr. Teske seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Case No. V/05-48 A variance to the fence regulations setback (30 feet required, 6 feet requested)
for construction of a fence at 2345 Van Tassel Court in the RA, Single Family Residential
District. Michelle St. Claire, applicant.
•
Ms. St. Claire was present. She showed photos of the property. She said the fence would be
constructed inside of the existing tree line and 33' from the road. She noted the house is located
in the middle of the street and not on a corner lot. The house abuts two streets. The fence will be
constructed in the backyard, which is considered a front yard for fence regulations due to the
5
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
August 8, 2005
house abutting two streets. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval of the
variance. Motion passed unanimously.
Other items:
Mr. Russell asked for volunteers to serve on the infill design committee. Mr. Teske and Mr.
Peroceschi volunteered to serve.
Mr. Junker, seconded by Mr. Tumquist, moved to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. Motion passed
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
I•
I•
6