Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-14 CPC MINCity of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Present: Chair Robert Gag, Suzanne Block, Gregg Carlsen, Mike Dahlquist, David Junker, Brad Meinke, Dave Middleton, David Peroceschi, Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Chairman Gag called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of Minutes. Mr. Peroceschi, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved approval of the minutes of July 10, 2006, as presented. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. PUD/SUB/ZAM/06-16. This case was continued to the September meeting Case No. V/06-28. A variance to allow 31.6 percent of the lot area to be covered in buildings in excess of the allowable 25 percent and a variance to allow the total ground coverage of the accessory building to exceed the ground area coverage of the principal building at 515 N. Everett St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. John and Kim Brach, applicants. John Brach was present. Community Development Director Turnblad reviewed the request, noting that initially his recommendation was for approval of all the variances with the exception of the variance for total lot coverage. However, he noted that the request for the variance for total lot coverage amounts to just 3 percent more than staff originally supported and that minimal amount of variance makes a huge difference in the livability of the property. Since the variance is so small, he said he thought it would be reasonable to grant that variance as well. Mr. Turnblad noted that the revised proposal represents a considerable reduction from what was initially requested. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Junker moved to approve the five variances with the six conditions, noting Mr. Brach's work with the Commission in revising the plans. Mr. Peroceschi seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/06-40. A variance for construction of a 7,202 square-foot maintenance and facility pole shed at 400 W. Poplar in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Daniel Brookman, representing Stillwater Country Club, applicant. Mr. Brookman was present. Planner Pogge reviewed the request, noting that pole structures are not allowed in the City and that staff could not find a particular hardship related to the property. Staff also found that granting the variance would constitute a special privilege that others in the community do not enjoy. There was discussion of what constitutes a "pole barn." Mr. Pogge explained a pole barn does not have a continuous foundation. Jeff Peterson, G.W. Olsen Construction and member of the Stillwater Country Club building committee, explained the reason for the request and said the requirement to have continuous footings could add as much as $100,000 to the cost of the project, which still must be approved by the membership. Mr. Peterson also referred to the existence of another pole barn structure within the City, noting that was a new structure, while this request is to replace an existing structure that is in poor City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 2 of 9 condition. Mr. Peterson said neighboring property owners had been contacted. Mr. Peterson said he thought the proposed new structure would improve the appearance of the property. There was a question about the height; a portion of the structure would be 14 feet, Mr. Peterson said, about 2' higher than the existing facility. Regarding a question about the exterior materials, Mr. Peterson said the exterior would be colored metal, possibly with a band of masonry. Mr. Peterson stated the exterior would not look any different if a continuous foundation were to be required; he also noted soil borings indicate there are some poor soil conditions in the area. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Middleton said he would have a hard time not approving the request, as appearance wise it will not have a major impact on the neighborhood, and he said was comfortable with the larger footprint. Mr. Junker noted that the golf course is an asset to the City and said he thought the proposal would be a good addition, although he would suggest some conditions, such as having the engineering department work with the applicant regarding bituminous surface and screening of the structure. Mr. Peterson noted that in addition to the trees, which provide screening, there are plans for additional screening on the golf course property. Mr. Carlsen said while he didn't have a problem with the proposed construction, he expressed a concern about the size and suggested it would be a lot more visible than what is there now. Mr. Middleton moved approval as conditioned, with the additional conditions that the applicant work with the engineering department regarding drainage and runoff and that appropriate screening, if needed, be provided along the north side of the structure. Ms. Block seconded the motion. Motion passed 7- 1, with Mr. Carlsen voting no. Case No. SUP/06-42. A special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit at 519 3rd St. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Walter Wdowychyn, applicant. Julie Pawluk was present representing the applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff recommendations. Mr. Pogge noted that accessory dwelling units in the RB district must meet 8 requirements and the applicant has met all 8 requirements. Additionally, he said the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the request and recommended approval with several conditions. Mr. Junker asked for a clarification of the definition of an accessory dwelling unit; Mr. Turnblad explained that according the ordinance, an accessory building in the RB District can only have a second story if the second story is habitable - connected to sewer and water. Ms. Block asked about setback requirements. Ms. Pawluk explained their plans. She said they thought the new freestanding garage would look better if it were a carriage house style structure and said they don't have any intended use for the second story at this time and have no intention of using the space for rental. She said the plans are more for aesthetics than anything else. Mr. Junker asked about drainage and whether there might be runoff to properties below the proposed site of the new structure. Ms. Pawluk explained there is another "step down" and retaining wall behind the garage site and there would be no direct flow from the site. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Ms. Block asked about Condition of Approval No. 4 that the lots "shall not be split in the future" and questioned why that condition shouldn't be "shall not be split." Mr. Pogge explained that a variance could always be requested in the future, and the intent of the condition wouldn't change if the language suggested by Ms. Block were used. Mr. Pogge explained that the Commission cannot bind the actions of future Commissions. Mr. Dahlquist agreed that a language change might be advisable. Ms. Block moved to approve Case No. SUP/06-42 as conditioned, changing the wording of Condition No. 4 to "Lots 7 and 8, Block 40, Original Town, City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 3 of 9 now City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota shall not be split in the future." Mr. Junker seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/06-43. A variance to the street front yard setback (20 feet required, 104" requested) for construction of an addition at 125 N. Martha St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. James Barton, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He noted the lot is currently a nonconforming lot, which constitutes a hardship. He also noted that adjacent houses are situated identically to what the applicant is proposing, thus granting a variance would not constitute a privilege not enjoyed by others and would not be a detriment to neighboring properties. The applicant briefly outlined his plans. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Junker said he thought the applicant had done a great job restoring the house and based on that had no doubt the addition would be a nice improvement. Mr. Junker moved to approve Case No. V/06-43 as conditioned. Ms. Block seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case . No. ANN/ZAM/CPA/PUD/SUB/06-45` An annexation, zoning map amendment, Comprehensive Plan amendment, preliminary PUD and preliminary plat request for a 15-lot development on 9.5 acres (Brown's Creek Reserve) in the. AP, Agricultural Preservation District. Tim Freeman, Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the site, which immediately abuts the Mitlbrook development. He noted the proposal is for 15 lots on 8.9 acres;.the 9..5 acres referred to in the materials includes the right-of-way along McKusick Road, he noted. Lots would range in size from about 10,200 square feet to about 20,000 square feet; with a density of 1.7 homes to a gross acre, he said.. The Comprehensive Plan for single family, large tot designation would allow up to 2.units per acre, so the proposal is consistent with that Comprehensive Plan designation. He noted that the Planning Commission had previously approved the concept PUD 8-1 on a preliminary vote. He noted that due to the site's location in the South Twin Lake area, the DNR must review and approve any PUDs, and he said that Molly Shodeen, area hydrologist with the DNR, had indicated via e-mail that she is OK with the plan in concept. Also, he said the City had received the wetland delineation report, eliminating the need for Condition of Approval No. 21. Ms. Block asked about park dedication. Mr. Turnblad explained that the property being dedication to the City is for open space purposes. He noted that the Park Board accepted the property for open space use but also stipulated cash dedication in lieu of actual park land. Tim Freeman reviewed one change made at the request of the Brown's Creek Watershed District. Due to the Watershed's review, he said the trail as shown on the maps had to be moved a bit closer to homes to meet the required buffer setback from created wetlands. Ms. Block asked about the impact on backyards. Mr. Freeman explained that it would have no impact on the usage portion of the lots. Mr. Freeman said after all the revisions, all the agencies are satisfied and he said he thought the plan does the right thing in protecting Brown's Creek. Mr. Freeman said developer, Rick Carlson, would prefer that the proposed sidewalk between lots 5 and 6 remain a sidewalk instead of a trail as suggested by Public Works. Mr. Junker said he felt that would be acceptable. City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 4 of 9 Ms. Block asked about the alignment of utilities, as she recalled that the annexation of the property was associated with the extension of utilities to the Millbrook development. No comments were received from the public. Mr. Junker moved to approve Case No. ANN/ZAM/CPA/PUD/SUB/06-45, with the 22 conditions of approval recommended in the staff report. Motion passed 8-0. Case No. SUP/V/06-46. A special use permit for a drive-thru for Valley Ridge Shopping Center and variance to the sign regulations at 1250 Frontage Road in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Kriss Novak, applicant. Mr. Pogge told the Commission the applicant has requested that action on the sign variance be tabled at this time. What is proposed, he explained, is a 6,900 square-foot addition on the west side of the existing facility. The request is for a drive-thru between the addition and existing structure. A roof span would cover the drive-thru, which will allow for the continuation of banding and other aesthetic elements. If the drive-thru use is discontinued at some point in the future, the area would be enclosed and used for regular retail space, he noted. Staff has reviewed all the elements required for a special use permit, with positive findings, he said. Mr. Peroceschi inquired about the reason for the proposed drive-thru; the applicant responded that it is to accommodate a prospective tenant. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Joyce Melton, 6431 Keats Ave. N., Stillwater, asked about the drive-thru, where it would entrance and exit. It was explained the entrance would be on the north side of the building, with exiting on the south side. No other comments were received, and the hearing was. closed. Mr. Carlsen asked if the drive-thru would involve a speaker and possible noise issue. The applicant said he thought it was more of a convenience issue for the tenant and would not involve a lot' of noise. Mr. Novak responded to another noise-related question by Ms. Block by saying that when an agreement is reached with the potential tenant, he would be happy to have the tenant return and make a presentation. Mr. Meinke asked about the impact of the drive-thru on traffic in the parking lot. Ms. Block asked whether there would be enough parking to also accommodate the temporary garden center. Mr. Novak said that would be an operational decision whether to continue that use. Mr. Dahlquist asked if the fire department had looked at the plans; Mr. Pogge said he had not heard any concerns regarding access. Mr. Carlsen asked if there would be a safety issue with pedestrian traffic; Ms. Block agreed with the concern regarding pedestrian safety. Mr. Turnblad pointed out there are several ways to address pedestrian safety, suggesting striping and the installation of a stop sign. Mr. Middleton moved to approve the Special Use Permit for the drive-thru with the 11 conditions of approval as recommended by staff, with an additional condition of approval that the applicant address pedestrian safety passing through the drive-thru area. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion. Mr. Gag said he didn't think the drive-thru was consistent with the character of the building and said he was not comfortable with the proposal. Motion passed 7-1, with Mr. Gag voting no. Mr. Dahlquist moved to table the signage variance. Mr. Meinke seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 5 of 9 Case No. V/06-47. A variance to the sign regulations for Stone's Restaurant at 324 S. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike Stone, applicant. Mr. Pogge introduced the request, proposed signage, and staff recommendations. There was a concern that other tenants may request additional signage. Ms. Block asked about other lighted signage in the downtown area. Mr. Pogge explained that the HPC is very conscious of that issue and is striving to have ""clamshell" type lighting versus internally lighted signage. Mr. Stone was present and briefly reviewed the revisions they had made in response to the original request for neon signage. Mr. Stone noted that regarding the condition that the canopy facing Nelson Street not be lighted by internal or external means, there may in the future be the need for lighting due to personal safety issues. Mr. Stone also pointed out that the existing Grand Garage sign is a back-lighted sign. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Middleton spoke of previous restaurants that occupied the space in question and the difficulty - hardship -- created by the location off Main Street.. Mr. Dahlquist agreed with the hardship and need. for signage but expressed a concern. about the size of the sign on Main Street. Mr. Middleton noted the proposed sign on Main Street is the same size as. the existing sign that has been at that location for a number of years. Mr. Junker noted that all of the tenants in the Grand Garage building will benefit from a successful restaurant, which enhances the vibrancy and strength of the downtown. There was a question as to whether the Commission wanted to address Mr. Stone's comments regarding the canopy lighting. Mr. Dahlquist suggested that canopy lighting would not address safety concerns regarding that block. Mr. Carlsen agreed with the concern regarding the size of the sign. Mr. Meinke reiterated a concern about other tenants' future requests There was a question about whether other tenants were aware that the Stone signage would replace the building signage; it was noted that signage is part of lease agreements. Mr. Junker moved to approve the three variances with the 12 conditions of approval; Mr. Middleton seconded the motion. Mr. Dahlquist questioned including all the variances in one motion, saying he would be in favor of variances 1 and 3 but opposed to variance No. 2. Motion passed 5-2, with Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Carlsen voting no and Ms. Block abstaining. Case No. ZAT/06-04. A zoning text amendment to the CR, Cottage Residential District for driveway widths. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Pogge noted the issue was presented to the Planning Commission in June, at which time the Commission asked that staff prepare an ordinance amendment. Mr. Pogge said the proposal had been reviewed by the City Attorney who expressed a concern about language defining turning radiuses. As a result, he said, the proposal is to change "turning radiuses" to "a maximum radius" of ... He said staff is still working with the engineering department to come up with the maximum radius dimension. There was discussion about whether the use of rock is allowable to expand the width of a drive. There was discussion about the clarity of the proposed language. Ms. Block suggested adding language that would require the use of the existing curbs. Mr. Turnblad noted that curbs are City property and homeowners would not be able to change the curb cuts. Mr. Turnblad suggested simply setting a maximum width at back of curb as a way of clarifying the intent of the language. City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 6 of 9 Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. No comments were received. Ms. Block moved to table the proposed amendment until the language is revised. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. ZAT/06-05. A zoning test amendment to the CBD Height Regulations. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Turnblad explained the recent proposal submitted for 227 N. Main St., the Stefan project, raised a question about the interpretation of the new downtown height overlay district. He noted the current language limits structures to a certain number of stories or a certain height in feet. The question that came up in the Stefan proposal was whether that language was to be interpreted as the number of stories or height in feet, whichever is less or whichever is greater. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the arguments for the "whichever is less" and "whichever is greater, language. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Vern Stefan; number, in height, to eliminate misinterpretation. Mr three floors and 35 feet and meet state codes it floors, if that is the City's intent. 717 Sixth Ave. S., suggested putting a .Stefan noted that it is not possible to have shouldn't be three floors, it should be two No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr: Junker, said in all the previous discussions and hearings, the focus was height. He said when he voted. on the height overlay district, he was under the assumption` that the limit was the lesser of the allowable number of stories or height. Mr. Junker said the current language suggests that the greater number is allowable. Mr. Middleton suggested taking out the language specifying stories and just stating maximum height. Ms. Block suggested allowing. 37' which would enable a three- story structure to built and meet state code; she asked whether 35' took into account that a three-story building cannot be constructed and meet code. Mr. Gag said he would be comfortable with eliminating language stipulating stories and staying with height. Mr. Middleton pointed out that a three-story building could be constructed at 35', it just wouldn't have the historical feel of the high ceilings for retail space. Ms. Block spoke in favor of language that allows a building of three stories or 37' in height. Mr. Dahlquist said what was being suggested is some more research to verify that the height numbers are correct. Mr. Junker moved to add verbiage limiting stories and height to "whichever is less" in all five categories of the height overlay zones, leaving everything else as is. Mr. Meinke seconded the motion. Mr. Turnblad asked that the motion include the housekeeping changes related to Section references. Mr. Junker agreed to include those changes in his motion; Mr. Meinke agreed to second with those changes. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Block moved to review the numbers in the height overlay district to ensure that the stories indicated match an appropriate minimum number of feet required by Minnesota building codes to build each of the referenced number of stories. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion. Mr. Dahlquist also suggested that height of the existing buildings be documented. Mr. Dahlquist also said he would not favor having a flat line appearance to Main Street. Motion failed on a 4-4 vote. OTHER BUSINESS Case No. 06-44. Bruggeman Properties sketch proposal for development of 18.3 acres into 45 single-family lots. Teresa Hegland, Steve Fisher, applicants. 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 7 of 9 Mr. Turnblad reviewed the site. The proposal he said would create a density of 2.5 lots per acre. The proposed zoning, he said, would be Cottage Cove Residential. The property is located in the Phase 4 annexation area. He noted the City can consider early annexation if certain criteria are met, which this proposal does. However, he noted there is still a debate about whether the timing is correct for annexing all of the properties still in the Township. He spoke to the previously expressed concerns about other development proposals related to the transportation infrastructure and to the fact that the City is beginning its Comprehensive Plan update. The question, he said, is whether this proposal is different than the other annexation/development plans heard recently. He noted that in this case, County Road 12 does have a light at the Manning intersection, and the current proposal could offer part of the solution to the north/south connector street. There was discussion about the past history of the area and proposals. Richard Schultz, whose property abuts the proposed site, spoke and said he would prefer an overall plan, rather than piecemeal development. Mr. Junker referred to the upcoming Comp Plan update; he also noted some improvements have been made to the infrastructure in the area, although the Neal :Avenue connection to County Road 12 is still lacking. Mr. Junker said the. proposed -development must be laid out to provide, connections to potential sites of the Neal Avenue extension. Mr. Gag referred to the Boutwell Area Study and said he thought it would be important to revisit that study. Mr. Junker spoke of the need for a vision for the layout of the Bruggeman property and for the adjacent property to the west, so that can be included in the Comp Plan update. Steve Fisher and Teresa Hegland were present representing Bruggeman Properties. Mr. Fisher pointed out they have been working on this project for about six years and have participated in the Boutwell Area -Studies at every level to try to get this project. to move forward. He also spoke to the improvements made in the traffic infrastructure, and noted that sewer, storm and sanitary sewer are at the "front door" of the development site. He said their approach has been extremely patient and they were of the understanding that once the infrastructure improvements were in place, they would be able to move forward. He also noted a staff report of February of this year suggested this particular development should be considered for construction in 2007. Mr. Fisher also stated that the proposal provides a myriad of options for connections with Neal Avenue. He reiterated that the proposal is consistent with the Boutwell Area Plan; transportation improvements are in place; the site has the availability of services and offers a part of the solution for the Neal Avenue extension. Mr. Dahlquist asked how much communication they have had with the property owners to the west. Mr. Fisher responded that they meet regularly with Mr. Schultz and there are a number of connection options. Mr. Junker noted that until the westward connection goes to the extended Neal, there is only one way into and one way to exit the development. Mr. Gag invited comments from the public; none were offered. Mr. Carlsen asked if consideration had been given to larger lots; Mr. Fisher responded that looking at the market, smaller lots are where the demand is. Mr. Dahlquist expressed his concern about the number of small lot developments. Mr. Gag again spoke in favor of revisiting the Boutwell Area Study. Ms. Block noted that rather than having developers tell the City what zoning is requested for a site, the Comprehensive Plan should reflect what the City sees as an appropriate zoning. Mr. Middleton said he didn't think there should be any development in the Boutwell Area until the Comprehensive Plan update is completed and until Manning Avenue is improved past Boutwell. City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 8 of 9 In addition to traffic concerns, Mr. Junker said the City needs a vision for density and housing types. Mr. Fisher urged the Commission and staff to review the AUAR and the previous Boutwell studies, suggesting the City has lots of up to date information on which to consider the development proposal. Mr. Junker noted the Commission had looked at three sketch plans in the last two months and suggested until the Comprehensive Plan update is completed, any consideration is premature. Mr. Junker moved to not take action on the request for consideration of early annexation. Mr. Middleton seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. SUP/06-23. CUB Foods discussion on reconsideration of special use permit for fuel station. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the prior actions and revisions to the fuel station plans. He noted that at the last consideration of the request, there were two actions before the Commission. One action was a decision on whether or not the accessory fuel station is similar to uses allowed in the West Business Park; the Commission found that the use is similar to allowable uses. The other action was to make a recommendation on whether or not to approve the Special Use Permit for the fuel station; on that issue, the Commission recommended denial of the SUP, citing. aesthetic concerns and safety/traffic flow concerns. Mr.'Turnblad reviewed changes that SuperValu .has made to plans to address those concerns. Given the changes, SuperValu is asking the Commission to reconsider its recommendation on the Special Use Permit, he said. Jeff Olson, representing CUB Foods/SuperValu, also spoke to changes made in response to the Commission's comments at the June meeting and volunteered to answer any questions. There was a question about and explanation of the function/staffing: of the attendant station..<A spokesperson reviewed the changes made to improve safety. There was a question about the location of the tanks; the CUB representative said the tanks would be located so filling will be done in an area where there is no traffic circulation. Ms. Block asked the reason for the fuel station. A CUB representative responded that in addition to the concept of one-stop shopping, CUB fueling stations are used as a marketing tool. There was discussion about plans.for.the expansion of the Oak Park Heights Wal-Mart. Mr. Middleton said the changes made to improve the traffic flow were an important consideration. There was discussion about whether the temporary uses such as the garden center and fireworks would still be held on an annual basis given the loss of parking spaces. A CUB spokesperson said seasonal sales would continue to be held; it was noted the seasonal sales would be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Carlsen spoke in favor of some additional screening. CUB representatives showed landscaping plans, which represent a substantial amount of new landscaping, they said. Mr. Junker said the revisions made to address both safety and aesthetic concerns have changed his position on the plan. Mr. Middleton agreed with Mr. Junker's comments and moved to approve Case SUP 06-23 as conditioned. Mr. Carlsen seconded the motion. Mr. Gag said the original CUB/Target plan did not include any gas stations, and while he appreciated the changes made, he was still not comfortable with the proposal. Motion passed 7-1, with Mr. Gag voting no. City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 9of9 Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Carlsen, moved to adjourn; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Turnblad reminded Commission members that Special Use Permits are not subject to annual review, as was suggested in the fuel station discussion. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 9