Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-12 CPC MINCity of Stillwater Planning Commission is December 12, 2005 Present: Robert Gag, chair Suzanne Block, Gregg Carlsen, Mike Dahlquist, Dave Middleton, David Peroceschi, Paul Teske and Jerry Turnquist Others: Community Development Director Steve Russell Absent: David Junker Mr. Gag called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Turnquist, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved approval of the minutes of Nov. 14, 2005. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. CCN/05-50 A Certificate of Compliance and variance to the rear yard setback (75 feet required, 35 feet and 67 feet proposed) for a 19-lot office condominium development at 1749 S. Greeley in the BP-I, Business Park Industrial District. Royal Oaks Realty and Ogren Properties, applicants. Present representing the applicants were Mike Black of Royal Oaks Realty and Eric Ogren, property owners, along with a civil engineering consultant. Mr. Black stated they had done a tree inventory as required at the last appearance before the Planning Commission. Also in response to concerns raised at the previous meeting, three office units have been eliminated from the plan. The plan now includes 18 new units and the is existing building on Greeley Street. The elimination of the units has enabled them to pull the buildings back from the rear property line and reduce the requested setback variance. The new plan also meets the impervious surface requirements, he said. A grading plan, landscaping plan, and lighting plan, which reflects the recommendations of the Heritage Preservation Commission, have been submitted. The city engineer expressed some concern regarding drainage off the back of the property. In response to that concern, he said gutters will be installed for rooftop runoff and four rain gardens constructed to retain/infiltrate water before it leaves the property. It was noted that there is 180' of deeded open space from the rear of the Ogren property to the residential properties to the east. Upon a question by Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Ogren reviewed the changes in the rear setbacks achieved by the elimination of the units. The most significant change went from a previous setback of 35' to the current proposed setback of 67'. Ms. Block asked about the height of the retaining wall. The retaining wall ranges from 4' to about 2', Mr. Black said. Ms. Block also asked about the elevation of the buildings and whether the units would be visible from adjacent residential properties. Mr. Ogren said the units probably would be visible in the winter. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Carol Huber, 813 Everett Dr., said the new development backs up to her neighborhood. She expressed a concern about the height of the proposed buildings, the number of units, the number of trees that will be removed and said she was opposed to the granting of the requested variance. Hilmer Huber, 813 0 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Everett Dr., questioned how many trees would be removed and also how rain gardens function. The resident of 820 Rainbow Court expressed a concern about runoff and lighting. Carroll Rock, 811 Everett Dr., asked whether it would be possible to plant trees on the east side of the retaining wall. The public comment period was closed. Mr. Black addressed the concern about the number of trees to be removed. He noted that a tree inventory has been completed but agreed that a substantial number of trees will have to be removed. However, he noted that the 180' Washington County easement at the rear of the property will remain in open space. The civil engineering consultant explained the functioning of rain gardens. He said he is working with City Engineer Klayton Eckles to address concerns about runoff. There was a question about building height. It was noted 40' is allowed. The proposed units are 20' from the ground to the mid-point of the roof. Mr. Black explained it was the intent to give the units a residential look. Ms. Block asked if the developers could meet rear setbacks. Mr. Ogren said with the cost of extending services to the property and given the topography of the site, the revised proposal is the best they can do. Mr. Peroceschi asked about the possibility of planting additional trees. Mr. Black and Mr. Ogren said they would look at that possibility. Ms. Block asked if runoff would affect is Brick Pond; the applicants said runoff would go to Greeley Street and would not affect Brick Pond. Ms. Block said she liked the building design and said she would like to see additional plantings if possible. Mr. Carlsen said he liked the look of the proposed development when one considers the alternatives of what might be developed on that property. Both he and Mr. Peroceschi talked of the large buffer that will remain between this development and residential properties to the east. Mr. Teske said while he understood concerns, he felt the proposal is an appropriate use considering alternatives; he said he would like the developers to work with the City regarding the suggestion about additional tree plantings. Mr. Teske said he also appreciated the compromise made by the developers. Mr. Gag urged the developers to consider additional plantings to soften the view during the winter for neighbors. There was a question about lighting and whether there would be any outside lighting on the rear of the units. Mr. Black said there might be some pedestrian lighting. Mr. Middleton moved approval of Case No. CCN/05-50 with the five conditions of approval suggested by staff and the additional condition that there be no lighting on the rear of the units other than shielded, downlit fixtures or sidewalk lights. Condition of approval No. 2 also was amended to indicate city staff must approve the landscape plan. Ms. Block seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. SUB/05-45 Preliminary plat approval of a 20-lot subdivision with variance to the rear yard setback (35 feet proposed, 75 feet required) at 1749 S. Greeley in the BP-I, Business Park Industrial District. Royal Oaks Realty and Ogren Properties, applicants. City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Mr. Russell indicated Washington County has submitted comments regarding the subdivision. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Peroceschi, moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Dahlquist expressed a concern about access off Greeley Street and said he was concerned that the alignment of the access provides for a safe intersection. Motion to approve Case No. SUB/05-45 passed unanimously. Case No. SUB/05-70 A minor subdivision of Lots 35-38, Block 7, Carli and Schulenberg's Addition at 1221 N. Broadway in the RB, Two Family Residential District. George Middleton, applicant. Tim Freeman of Folz Freeman Erickson Inc. was present representing the applicant. He explained the proposal to combine properties into three new buildable parcels in addition to the existing home. Mr. Peroceschi, seconded by Ms. Block, moved to recommend that the Council approve the proposed subdivision. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. SV/05-71 A street vacation of a portion of unimproved Holcombe Street abutting Lot 5, Block 9, Thomas, Parker and Mower's Second Addition. James and Diane Kleinke and Ande and Muriel Hassis, applicants. The applicants were present. It was noted a section of the street was vacated in 1990 and they did not envision the City ever using the portion of the street asked to be vacated. They said they did not want to extend the vacation any farther in order to maintain access to another Lot. Mr. Peroceschi asked how the vacation would be split. The applicants said they would work that issue out. Mr. Turnquist, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved approval of the requested street vacation. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. SUB/05-72 A minor subdivision of Lot 3, Block 1, Joseph Wolf Brewery Addition into one lot of 1,200 square feet at 402 S. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Steve Bremer, 402 Main Street LLC, applicant. Mr. Bremer was present. He explained he was requesting the subdivision in order to sell a space, the current gift shop space, on the main level of the building. He said the space was never subdivided previously. Ms. Block moved approval of SUB/05-72. Mr. Middleton seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. CPA/05-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing land use designation of 8.0 acres of land, "Liberty West," from Rural Residential to Cottage Residential at 7135-7143 Manning Avenue. Croix Capital Group, applicant. Case No. ZAM/05-01 Zoning Amendment changing the zoning designation from Agricultural Presentation, AP, to Cottage Residential, CR, of 8.0 acres of land at 7135- 7143 Manning Ave. Croix Capital Group, applicant Case No. PUD/05-73 Planned Unit Development for a 20-lot development on 8.0 acres of land at 7135-7143 Manning Ave. Croix Capital Group, applicant. Case No. SUB/05-75 Preliminary plan approval for a 20-lot subdivision on 8.0 acres of land at 7135-7143 Manning Ave. Croix Capital Group, applicant. is City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Case No. ANN/05-01 Annexation of 8.0 acres of land into the City of Stillwater at 7135- 7143 Manning Ave., Croix Capital Group, applicant. Representing the developer were Marc Putman, landscape architect; Roger Tomten, architect; and Chris Aamodt, developer. Neighboring residents in attendance were: Jon Fletcher, 3648 Tending Green Kathleen Elletson, 3653 Tending Green Kristin Kroll, 444 Harvest Green Sarah Sorenson, 3660 Tending Green Rob Hendrickson, 3661 Planting Green Todd Remely, 3654 Tending Green Jeno Johnson, 3667 Planting Green Bob Pohl, 3655 Eben Green Robert Lawrence, 3664 Planting Green Kent Einan, 300 Country Road Robert Kroening, 213 Pine Hollow Green Paul Kroening, 213 Pine Hollow Green Ann Jordan, 7143 Manning Ave. Steve Carlson, 346 Country Road Nate Gerard, 307 Country Road Mr. Russell opened the presentation by explaining that when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the then-owners of the property were not interested in being annexed to the City so the land was designated RR, subject to future annexation. The new owners are now petitioning for annexation. Conceptually, he said, the Council is in favor f the land use change to small-lot single family, Cottage Residential, which is the same as the property in the Liberty development to the east and south of the site. Washington County and the City Engineer have reviewed the PUD, he said. The Park Board will review issues related to park dedication. Marc Putman, who did the master plan for the Liberty development, reviewed the site plan. Also present was Roger Tomten, who was on the architectural review team for the Liberty development. Mr. Putnam highlighted the efforts to preserve the trees on the property; the water feature, which will serve both as an amenity and provide highway noise reduction, pathway connections and trail system. Kathleen Elletson questioned how the City could consider this development without knowing the County's plans for County Road 15. Todd Remely also suggested the County plans for Manning Avenue could impact the viability of this project. Mr. Russell responded that the County has indicated it can accommodate this proposed development. Ms. Elletson also questioned landscaping plans to the south; the compatibility of house design with the Liberty development; the height of the proposed retaining wall; and tree count. 0 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Bob Pohl asked whether Liberty West would have its own architectural review board and suggested that this development should be a part of the primary Liberty development board of directors. Mr. Putnam responded that Liberty West would use the same architectural guidelines as Liberty but would be a separate association. Jeno Johnson asked that consideration be given to preserving an existing tree on his property. Kristin Kroll asked about a proposed alley, which would be adjacent to her backyard, and plans for landscaping on the south side of the fence. Ms. Kroll also questioned the economic viability of the project given the number of similar size houses for sale in the Liberty development. Jon Fletcher noted there are many kids in the adjacent neighborhood and asked that construction traffic be kept out of the neighborhood, along with efforts to slow the construction traffic and minimize road damage. There also was a question about potential builders and whether there might be a "Liberty West" monument sign. Mr. Putnam responded to concerns about landscaping on the south side by saying there is enough depth for plantings and understory sufficient to provide a buffer from neighboring properties. He also explained the retaining wall, which is proposed in order to protect existing trees. He also stated it is unlikely there will be an entry monument. Ms. Block questioned the provision for guest parking and said she didn't think the proposal was adequate in that regard. Mr. Dahlquist asked why the proposed private alley serves only two houses. Mr. Putnam responded that rear garages provide for streetscape variety. Mr. Putnam went through the recommended 26 conditions of approval. Regarding condition No. 14 that all sidewalks be a minimum of 4' from the curb, Mr. Putnam suggested that requirement could result in the loss of trees. It was agreed to amend that requirement to a minimum of four feet unless needed to protect trees and coordinated with the City Engineer. Condition No. 18 stating the right-of-way minimum width is 60 feet, Mr. Putnam noted is incorrect and should be 50'; it was agreed to correct that condition. Mr. Putnam asked that Condition No. 19 regarding the placement of retaining walls along the curb also be changed to accommodate tree preservation efforts. It was agreed to change Condition No. 19 to state that retaining walls along the curb should be pulled back, with the final alignment coordinated with the City Engineer with a goal of preserving trees. Mr. Putnam asked, and it was agreed, to change Condition No. 23 to state that all impact fee shall be paid before final plat/PUD approval. It also was agreed to change the wording of Condition No. 26 to state that a mutually acceptable fence and landscaping be installed to screen the south combined driveway from residents to the south. Mr. Putnam said developers' biggest concern was with Condition No. 22 that the Open Space Area C be expanded to include the lot to the east to meet park dedication requirements. Mr. Putnam noted that the proposal includes 36 percent of the land in open space; he noted this is a "very difficult" project and asked that this condition be removed. Mr. Gag noted that every developer has been held to the 10 percent park dedication requirement and spoke against eliminating that condition. 0 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Mr. Turnquist, seconded by Mr. Peroceschi, moved approval of Case No. CPA/05-01. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Turnquist, moved approval of Case No. ZAM/05-01. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Teske, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved approval of Case No. PUD/05-73 with the 26 Conditions of Approval, with the above listed changes to conditions 14, 18, 19, 23 and 26. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out that plans could be fine-tuned as the development proceeds through the various approval processes. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Turnquist, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved approval of Case No. SUB/05-75 with the same 26 Conditions of Approval as amended. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Peroceschi, moved approval of Case No. ANN/05-01. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. SUP/05-74 A special use permit for auto sales business at 1778 Greeley St. in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Gary Starns, applicant. Mr. Russell informed the Commission that the applicant had withdrawn his request. Other items: Included in the agenda packet was a memorandum regarding downtown height regulations. Mr. Russell stated he did not think the current regulations were protective enough. It was agreed to proceed toward a revision of the height regulations in the downtown area. Mr. Teske, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved to direct staff to proceed with amending the height regulations and scheduling a public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Russell noted that the public meeting regarding the proposed infill design guidelines was scheduled for Dec. 14. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 0