Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-12 CPC MIN• • City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Present: Robert Gag, Chairman, Suzanne Block, Mike Dahlquist, David Junker, Brad Meinke, Dave Middleton, David Peroceschi and Paul Teske Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Gregg Carlsen Mr. Gag called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Middleton, seconded by Ms. Block, moved approval of the minutes of May 8, 2006. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. PUD/SUB/ZAM/06-16. This case was continued to the July meeting. Mr. Turnblad noted there are unresolved issues relating to DNR restrictions and the PUD worksheet that have yet to be completed. Case No. V/06-20 A variance to the slope setback (30 feet required) for construction of a residence to the south of 621 W. Willard (Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Holcombe's Addition) in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Scot Shely, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings that concluded with the recommendation of denial of the requested variance. Mr. Shely and his attorney, Mark Vierling, were present. Mr. Vierling responded to a number of the staff comments. Mr. Vierling first noted that Mr. Shely sold lots 10-12, Block 2, in 2005, not 2003 as indicated in the staff report. Regarding minimum lot frontage, Mr. Vierling said Mr. Shely had discussions with City staff in January of 2005 regarding possible other developments; staff indicated that the slope easement was the major issue, with no mention of road frontage. If there had been any indication that there was a potential problem with frontage, Mr. Shely would not have sold the other property, he said. Mr. Vierling suggested that the 35' frontage requirement pertains to subdivisions and is not pertinent to this request. Regarding front yard setback, Mr. Vierling said that requirement can be met by reducing the size of the garage. Regarding the potential detriment to adjacent properties, Mr. Vierling stated the applicant would comply with stormwater runoff rates - that post development runoff rates not exceed predevelopment rates. Regarding the tree loss issue, Mr. Vierling argued that is a building permit issue not a variance issue. Mr. Vierling also stated that while the location of the City storm sewer does not create a hardship, it does determine the location of the potential building pad on the property. Mr. Vierling concluded that the property in question is capable of development and meets all codes except for the slope issue. The best and highest use of the property, he said, is for a single-family dwelling, not a "private park" as suggested in the staff report. He stated Mr. Shely has worked extensively with City staff in the past and it would be a hardship not to be able to put the property to a reasonable use as a single-family dwelling. Mr. Junker asked about the number of yards of fill that would be required to make the property buildable. Mr. Vierling said that information could be supplied if need be. . City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Quinn Sullivan, 621 W. Willard, provided a petition with signatures of residents opposed to the proposal. He expressed concern about stormwater and impact on vegetation, saying studies indicate the basin level of the ravine would be enough to flood homes should development of the property be allowed. He said the slumping of lot lines and the driveway would damage other lots, and he said fill would not be enough to solve the problem. The highest and best use for the property is in open space, he said, and said he was unaware the property had been for sale, suggesting he would be interested in purchasing the property if he had known that. The resident of 716 S. Harriet St., who purchased the other property owned by Mr. Shely, expressed a concern about her property if the property in question doesn't have the required front footage. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Peroceschi pointed out the entire property is steep and said he doesn't see any place where a house could be built. Mr. Junker agreed that the property in question is an unbuildable lot and the proposed use of fill would change the entire area. Mr. Junker moved to deny the variance. Mr. Peroceschi seconded the motion. Mr. Dahlquist stated the proposal doesn't meet the slope ordinance or work with the slopes and attempts to change the property. Motion to deny passed unanimously. Case No. V/06-21 This case was continued. Mr. Turnblad explained that the applicant is waiting is action by the County to vacate excess right-of-way. Case No. V/06-22 A variance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 5 feet requested) for construction of a deck at 227 Echo Lane in the RA, Single Family District. Daniel Feiner, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings that concluded with the recommendation of approval with conditions. Mr. Feiner said the variance will allow him to construct a safe deck and utilize windows that he is not able to with the current deck, one that is not up to code. Mr. Teske noted this is a unique situation and granting the variance would not impact neighbors in moving for approval as conditioned. Mr. Peroceschi seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. SUP/06-23 A special use for a fuel center at 1801 Market Drive in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Linda Fisher, Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, representing SuperValu. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request. He said the action requested of the Commission is to make a determination whether the fuel station is of "the same general character" as other permitted uses in the zoning district and, if so, make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the issuance of the requested Special Use Permit. Representing the applicant were Linda Fisher, several representatives of SuperValu and is consultants from Westwood Professional Services. Ms. Fisher noted the Heritage Preservation Commission had reviewed and approved the design. She reviewed the design images and site • City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2006 plan. She noted that the number of fueling stations had been reduced from six to five and a landscaped island added to separate the parking lot from the fuel center. The fuel center columns are all masonry and of the same color and materials as the Cub Foods store, she noted. She noted customized filters would be installed for any spill containment. Ms. Fisher also viewed lighting and signage plans. There would be no additional monument or pylon sign. Lighting under the fuel center canopy would be recessed flat lenses; the Cub Fuel Express signage on the canopy would be externally lit. Ms. Fisher also spoke to the use issue and the "same general character" issue. Mr. Middleton expressed a concern about the flow of traffic. Allan Klugman, traffic consultant from Westwood Professional Services addressed the traffic questions. He said a transition island has been introduced to separate the fuel center from the parking lot. He noted that most users would shop first and then use the fuel center, and he stated that the fuel center would not dramatically impact traffic counts. Mr. Junker asked if the pharmacy drive-thru had been included in the traffic flow studies. Mr. Klugman stated there would be no interaction between pharmacy drive-thru and fuel center traffic. Ms. Block expressed a concern about fuel tankers exiting on Curve Crest. The consultant stated traffic counts were conducted on both Curve Crest and Market Drive and counts are so low that tankers should be able to exit with about a half- minute delay; he also noted that only about one tanker a day would be needed to service the fuel center. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Andy Kass, owner of Sutler's, the adjacent business to the east, said the issue is whether this is an appropriate use. He pointed out the Holiday Station on County Road 5, mentioned as relevant to the "same general character" issue, was a gas station in the 1970s, well before the Market Place PUD was established. Michelle Allen, 3155 Ilo Way, expressed a concern about the Cub parking lot as a whole and said she was very concerned about the potential impact coming off Market Drive. Mr. Klugman said the proposed use is seen as a benefit to the City's traffic flow in general by integrating shopping and fuel trips, and he said the use should have no impact on Market Drive traffic. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Fisher addressed Mr. Kass' comments regarding the appropriateness of the use and noted that is a subjective determination. She said the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, the West Business Park guidelines and the Market Place PUD and said she believed the proposed use qualifies for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Junker stated he appreciated Cub/SuperValu's willingness to revise their plans. However, he said aesthetically, the design is still a gas station with a canopy and changes the appearance of the area tremendously. He also expressed concern about traffic patterns and traffic issues that are not planned for. He suggested the key question is whether, in fact, 80 percent of the fuel center users would be Cub Foods users; if not, the use is not allowed in the BP-C District. Mr. Peroceschi said the location of the fuel center is a portion of the parking lot that is not used 40 a great deal and said he did not think it would have a significant impact. City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Mr. Dahlquist said he thought the use is of the same general character as others in the PUD area. The bigger question, he said, is whether to recommend that the City Council grant the SUP. He said the revised plans look better, but it's still a gas station. He also expressed concern about the traffic flow within the parking lot. Mr. Gag agreed that the use is of similar character as well as with the concern about the already existing traffic issues in the parking lot. Ms. Brock expressed a concern about design aesthetics, suggesting that the fuel center canopy adds two more stories to the appearance of the Cub Foods store as viewed from Market Drive. She said she agreed the use is of the same general character but would not support granting the SUP. Mr. Middleton agreed that the proposal is of the same general character but said traffic within the parking lot is the issue. Mr. Middleton stated that if approved, the City should take a serious look at other uses, such as the garden center and fireworks sales that currently take place in the parking lot. Mr. Meinke noted the gas station use is not a temporary one. Mr. Teske said he could see the advantage of coordinating uses, which would necessitate fewer overall traffic trips by residents. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved to find the use of similar character to other allowed uses in the zoning district. Motion passed 6-2, with Mr. Junker and Mr. Meinke voting no. Mr. Dahlquist moved to recommend that the City Council not approve the Special Use Permit • due to issues related to aesthetics and internal traffic flow in a parking lot not designed to accommodate this type of use. Mr. Junker seconded the motion. Motion passed 6- 2, with Mr. Middleton and Mr. Peroceschi voting no. Case No. V/06-24 A variance to the rear yard ordinary high water setback (85 feet required, 65 feet requested) for construction of a swimming pool at 3120 Ilo Way in the LR, Lakeshore Residential District. Mark Lindeberg, applicant. Mr. Pogge introduced the request and the staff findings and recommendations. Representing the applicant were Mark and Susie Lindeberg. Ms. Lindeberg said there is some confusion as to whether they need a variance. She said one of the key issues is whether a pool meets the definition of a structure according to the City's ordinance. In addition, she said the topography map provided by the Brown's Creek Watershed District would indicate a variance is not needed for the proposed location of the pool, and she said Watershed District staff indicated the Watershed has no problem with the proposed location. The Lindebergs also noted that moving the pool five feet closer to the garage as suggested in the staff report would caused structural issues for the home. A pool in their proposed location would not be visible from Long Lake or the walking trail along the lake, they said, and their neighbors are supportive of their request. Mr. Turnblad noted that state statute supercedes city ordinances and according to state statute, pools are clearly defined as accessory structures. Mr. Pogge also noted that the topography map provided by the Watershed District was done by aerial photos, less accurate than the City plat map done by on-ground survey. City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. A neighboring property owner stated he agreed with what the Lindebergs are trying to do. He noted their yard is elevated and there is no way a pool in the proposed location would be visible by people using the walking path. And he said a pool would be no detriment to neighbors. Dave Gackstetter, 3135 Ilo Way, noted that traffic flow is a concern of those living in the cul-de- sac and suggested a pool would help keep children out of the street; he said he is not opposed to the proposal in any way. Paul Dinzeo, 3145 Ilo Way, also spoke in support of the proposal and noted there is a pool in the yard of the first lot on the trailhead; he also referred to the legal "ambiguities" involved in this case. Trevor Cronk, 3290 E. Stahloch Place, reiterated that this pool would not be visible from the lake or trail. Michelle Allen, 3155 Ilo Way, asked the Commission to look at the language of the City ordinance as well as the fact that the Watershed District is not opposed to the proposed location in making a decision. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Meinke asked how the pool would be drained; Mr. Lindeberg responded that pools no longer have to be drained. Mr. Junker noted that the Lindeberg house is barely visible from the lake. He also referred to the questions surrounding the mapping in making a motion for approval of the variance. Mr. Peroceschi seconded the motion. Mr. Teske noted City staff had provided the Commission with their interpretation of the questions regarding definition of accessory structures and mapping accuracy. He stated that normally the Commission is very reluctant to grant variances in new subdivisions when no hardship is involved. However, after hearing from residents, he said he did not see the pool as a detriment and said he thought it would work in practice. Mr. Dahlquist said he favored maintaining a hard line in new developments, especially when there are alternatives to granting a variance. Mr. Teske called the question. Motion to grant the variance passed 7-1, with Mr. Dahlquist voting no. Case No. SUB/06-25 A resubdivision of two lots at 1802 Fourth St. N. and 206 W. Poplar to create a 10,000 square foot lot in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Scott Junker, applicant. Mr. Turnblad explained the applicant has requested a continuance of this case. Case No. SUP/V/06-26 a special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit and variance to be in front of the midpoint of the primary residence at 420 Linden St. W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Kurt and Nancie Sesemann-Klitke, applicants. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and the staff findings and recommendations. The applicants were present and stated they are willing to comply with any conditions necessary to get the • structure built. City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Ms. Block expressed a concern about the height and width of the accessory structure as compared to the primary residence. Mr. Junker asked if the structure would be connected to City sewer and water to which the applicants responded in the affirmative. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Mike McCarthy, 410 W. Linden St., said the plans would substantially affect the appearance of the lot, both in scale and drainage. He said his primary concern is with drainage. He noted that the height of the new structure would appear as three stories when viewed from his window. The applicants stated the new building will not substantially change the flow of runoff and said they would be willing to stipulate they will ameliorate any drainage issue. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Middleton moved to approve as conditioned, with the additional condition that water runoff be retained on site. Mr. Junker seconded the motion. Mr. Turnblad suggested that rather than conditioning that water runoff be retained on site, the language state that pre- and post- development runoff be unchanged. Ms. Block said she thought it was wrong for an accessory structure to be taller than the primary residence. Mr. Dahlquist also expressed a concern about what the structure will look like when completed. Mr. Teske said he thought the applicants had done a pretty good job of balancing _ their needs and demonstrating respect for the neighborhood. Motion to approve as conditioned passed 6-2, with Ms. Block and Mr. Dahlquist voting no. Other items: CR District regulations related to driveway widths - Prior to this discussion, Mr. Pogge briefly introduced himself and gave a brief resume of his professional background. Mr. Pogge asked for Commission direction on the CR driveway width regulations. Currently, driveways are limited to a width of 12 feet at the front property line in the CR District. Included in the staff report were photos that indicated property owners in that district are either driving over the lawn at the end of the drives, damaging the landscaping in the process, or have installed paver/bricks for added radius at the end of the driveway. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to allow the installation of materials to provided an added radius at the end of the driveways. Continued discussion of Manning Station development - Marc Putnam, Putnam Planning and Design, was present. He said the major change from the last presentation was a reduction in the proposed number of units and increase in lot size. The revised plan provides for a total of 57 lots, with the potential for 11 of the lots (corner lots) to have two-family structures, for a total of 68 potential residential units. The proposal represents a density of 3.4 units per acre, a drop of over 2 units per acre from the previous plan, it was noted. Ms. Block asked how many of the units would be single-family. Mr. Putnam said he couldn't say for sure as it depends on the market, noting that two-family structures weren't successful in the Liberty development. Mr. Dahlquist said the proposal needs discussion with respect to the designation in the Comprehensive Plan and the Annexation Agreement, which provides for annexation of Phase 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2006 properties in 2015. Regarding the Annexation Agreement, it was noted the City can approve a request for early annexation if a property is contiguous to the City and has City services, sewer and water, available to serve the development. Mr. Turnblad noted that sewer and water likely would be extended to this area, regardless of this development proposal, to serve the Millbrook development. Mr. Dahlquist said while he liked the proposed architectural styles, he thought development at this time would preclude options for a variety of housing stock if everything is built now. Ms. Block said she did not think the timing was right for this development considering all the other development, Millbrook, the Carlson property, the downtown housing projects, going on at this time. Mr. Junker said he liked the concept, the issue is when the property is annexed. Mr. Teske said he thought the concept plan was a thoughtful one and would favor moving ahead. Mr. Middleton also spoke in favor of the plan, as did Mr. Gag who said he would be comfortable in seeing the plan move to the next level. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Teske, moved approval of the concept plan. Motion passed 7-1, with Mr. Dahlquist voting no. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Teske, moved to approve early annexation of the property. Motion passed 5-2-1, with Mr. Gag, Mr. Meinke, Mr. Middleton, Mr. Peroceschi and Mr. Teske voting in favor; Ms. Block and Mr. Dahlquist voting no and Mr. Junker abstaining. Continued discussion of St. Croix Preparatory Academy - Marc Putnam, Putnam Planning & Design, briefly spoke of Providence as an example of the success of urban schools. He suggested taking kids out of the mix of a community and putting them off to the side is a detriment to them. He briefly addressed the number of buses and possible routes for accessing the school. He also said the number of individuals transporting kids to and from school is about 50. He said the Academy is looking for a recommendation before proceeding with a potential purchase. Mr. Teske noted that some of the concerns raised during the last discussion had been addressed but said there are still some unanswered questions. He said he would be in favor of "the right plan," but could give no guarantee of support until actual traffic studies are provided and more design detail is submitted. Mr. Junker said his first reaction to the proposal was a negative one, but the more it is discussed, the more he thinks it might work. Mr. Middleton said the appearance of the school structure from Main Street will be a concern further down the line. Academy Principal Jon Gutierrez said as plans proceed, they will be looking at the project as a joint development to meet the community needs as well as the school's needs. Mr. Teske, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved to support St. Croix Preparatory Academy moving forward with plans to build a permanent school facility in the downtown district. Mr. Dahlquist said while he saw the prospect as exciting, he cautioned that when details start coming in, he would reserve the right to withdraw support. Motion to support the Academy moving forward with plans passed unanimously. City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary C?