Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-13 CPC MIN• ILJ City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Present: Robert Gag, Chairman, Suzanne Block, Gregg Carlsen, Mike Dahlqu Dan Kalmon, Brad Meinke, Dave Middleton, and David Peroceschi Others: Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Pogge Approval of minutes: The minutes of October 9, 2006, were approved as sub David Junker, PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. SUP/06-56 An amendment to a special use permit for the transfer of ownership of a bed and breakfast (James Mulvey Inn) at 622 W. Churchill St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Cynthia Hannig, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the reques and staff findings/recommendations. Ms. Hannig is requesting to convert one of the two existing family rooms to anoth r guest room, bringing the total number of guest rooms to five. She stated that a minimum of fie guest rooms is necessary in order to make the operation successful. In addition, Ms. Hannig asked that she have the ability to rent out rooms in the carriage house on the property from time to time. The former owners of the James Mulvey Inn, Truett and Jill Lawson, will retain ownership of the carriage house. Ms. Hannig said the occasional use of the carriage house rooms would be done in cooperation with the Lawsons. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Truett Lawson, previous owner, spoke in favor of the requested transfer and reviewed some of the history of their operation of the Ja es Mulvey Inn. Mr. Lawson stated while they have no interest in operating a competing B&B, they would be open to the James Mulvey Inn utilizing a room(s) from time to time. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. There was s me discussion about the number of parking spaces provided. There was discussion abou two separate properties/owners operating the same B&B - renting out rooms to the other owner. Mr. Dahlquist wondered if that type of arrangement would run counter to the ordinance requirement regarding the 900' distance between B&Bs; Mr. Kalmon said he thought the proposed arrangement supported the opportunity for both properties to remain stable, w II-kept historic structures. Mr. Dahlquist moved approval of the requested transfer of ownership (spe ial use permit amendment) with the 16 conditions of approval as recommended by staff, wit an additional condition that should the carriage house at 807 Harriet St. S. be purchased b the applicant, the applicant can use two of the rooms in the carriage house as guest rooms f :)r the Bed and Breakfast. Motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Case No. SUP/06-58 A special use permit for Crabtree Lawyers and Clinic Doctor Inc. at 610 N. Main Street, #300, in the CBD, Central Business District. Larry D. Grell, applicant Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings/recommendations. There wa? discussion of the availability of parking in the development. The applicant was present. City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 13, 2006 CJ 40 0 Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Ned Gordon, president of the 61 Homeowners Association, said the Association had no objection to the proposal. He di speak to the availability of parking, noting that generally there is sufficient parking; it was also noted that public parking is available across the street. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Ms. Block, moved approval as conditioned. otion passed unanimously. Case No. CPA/ZAM/ZAT/06-53 A Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning M p Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment to create a new zoning district for lots 1,3,5,6,7, ,9,10,11,12, 13 and 14, Block 10, Greeley and Slaughters Addition to Stillwater, (110 S. Greeley St.) in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Timothy Freeman, representing Heidi Rosebud, applicant. Mr. Peroceschi asked what the applicant's original request was that prompted the proposal for rezoning. Mr. Freeman explained that the original request had to do with an expansion of the spa portion of Ms. Rosebud's business. With that expansion, there was discussion of parking needs. In the initial discussions with staff, Mr. Freeman said they were made ware that they would not be able to do anything without creating a conforming use out of what is now a legal, non-conforming use. He noted there are many other similar situations in the City and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Mr. Freeman said staff told them that due to time constraints, the only way changes would be made was if someone came forward with a proposal. Ms. Block said it would be nice for the Commission to know Ms. Rosebud's vision for the properties/business. Mr. Pogge reviewed the requests the Commission made at its initial hearing on this matter - a definition of "Neighborhood Business Use; list of existing commercial uses in residential areas; and how to address issues related to expansion/growth of a business in a Neighborhood Business District - and staff response to those requests as listed in the agenda packet. Mr. Pogge reviewed the draft ordinance, which would create a Neighborhood Business District; he noted that the ordinance does not address B&B operations. Mr. Pogge no ed if the new Neighborhood Business District zoning is adopted, existing property owners would have to apply for the new zoning and would be considered on a case-by-case basis. It was decided to handle the three actions - Zoning Text Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment - separately. Mr. Gag opened the hearing to comment regarding the Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Freeman suggested item 2a in the draft, which lists the specific properties, is not necessary and inconsistent with 2b. Mr. Freeman also noted that the draft in item 2d limits any other properties from being designate Neighborhood Commercial in the future. Mr. Freeman also suggested item 4b seemed overly punitive - requiring a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow reconstruction due to catastrophic occurrences. Mr. Gag opened the meeting to public comment regarding the Zoning Text Amendment. Don Empson, 1206 N. Second St., pointed out the City recently adopted a? Neighborhood Conservation District. He expressed a concern that the proposed ordinance was of in the spirit City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 13, 2006 • • • of the Conservation District and would be the first step in allowing expansion development, with the potential for the demolition of homes to allow for such Empson also suggested that the term "neighborhood business" is a misnomer, does not truly serve the neighborhood residents. of commercial expansion. Mr. is the business Susanna Patterson, 1018 W. Olive St., raised the issue of spot zoning. Ms. Patterson also questioned why notices of this meeting had not been sent to potentially affected residents. Mr. Pogge pointed out that this matter had been continued from the October meeting Ted Gillen, 1011 W. Myrtle St., expressed a concern that this would open the door for expanding beyond the original properties. Expanding without control, he said, oes not serve the people of this community. Susan Sidoti Gorodisher, May Township, fitness director for the Stillwater itness Center, attested that, contrary to the point made by Mr. Empson, many people from tie surrounding neighborhood walk to the Fitness Center and the Center certainly is a "neighbor ood business." She spoke in favor of Ms. Rosebud's request and shared her experience as member and employee of the Stillwater Fitness Center, as well as her perspective as a reside t of the greater Stillwater community. She spoke of Ms. Rosebud's contributions to the community. Mike McCarthy, 410 Linden St. W., stated he purchased his residence based on the understanding that his home was located in a residential neighborhood, and he suggested that his purchase represented an agreement with the City and obligation on the pa of the City to protect his residential neighborhood. Mr. McCarthy also noted that a business owner has a choice of location and if the choice is in an existing residential neighborhood that limits the opportunity for expansion. He also described recent changes to the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the Fitness Center/Spa. He suggested that the proposed ordinance's purpose is to grow commercial enterprises and expand them in residential neighborhood, something that undermines other property owners' property values and property rights. Ryan Bakke, 114 S. Owens St., said he believed the fitness center and spa serve the community and questioned how the three homes involved in the current request ould serve the community. Kurt Weidler, 206 S. Greeley St., expressed a concern that the proposed use o the properties would change the character of the neighborhood. There was a question whether the proposed ordinance would affect all other suc businesses in town and whether notices should have been sent to residents living near other existing businesses. Mr. Pogge noted the ordinance would affect all other businesses, but the zoning would not change, requests for zoning changes would be done by request/application, at which time notices would be sent to neighboring property owners. Ann Terwedo, 1408 W. Linden St., spoke in support of Ms. Rosebud's request. a member of the Fitness Center and does walk to the Center, making it a truly business. Ms. Terwedo noted that the existing "neighborhood" businesses identil located in four distinct neighborhoods and said she would like the Commission 1 areas separately -- look at the architecture and patterns of development in the and future expansion issues and how those relate to the neighborhoods. She said she is neighborhood ied by staff are o treat the four neighborhoods City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 13, 2006 • Dick Reed, 118 S. Owens St., spoke in favor or orderly growth and due pry favor of protecting what we have, growing what we have, and developing done in the context of a master plan. • • He spoke in we have, all No other comments were received, and the discussion was returned to the Co mission table. Mr. Pogge reviewed the questions before the Commission regarding growth expansion and addressed some of the comments related to the Conservation District and the potential for demolition of homes. Mr. Pogge also briefly reviewed the language of the proposed draft ordinance. It was noted that should the ordinance be adopted there would be eparate public hearings for each of the existing neighborhood businesses that request a rezoning under the ordinance. Mr. Junker spoke of the changes to the neighborhood businesses tha have occurred over time and suggested that developing a neighborhood district plan will be a time-consuming task. Mr. Junker suggested addressing issues related to Ms. Rosebud's request and this specific site might be better done through a new conditional use permit. There as discussion as to what prompted the 2002 change in the zoning code that eliminated the ability to issue special use permits for commercial uses in Two-Family Residential District. Mr. Dahlquist said he would like to hear from the other existing "neighborhood" business owners and what they have to say about the proposed ordinance. There was a question as to how o return to the previous process that was utilized before the zoning change of 2002; Mr. Tu nblad said the Commission could recommend that action to the Council. Mr. Kalmon said the proposed text amendment represented a more comprehensive plan approach than action on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Pogge said he thought the proposed text amendment was more protective of neighborhoods than returning to allowing special use permits in the RB District. Mr. Gag noted that the City's Comprehensive Plan will be updated in 2007 and perhaps this is an issue that can be worked on in that process. In the interim, Mr. Gag said the Commission could recommend the Council return to the previous process of considering special use permits in the RB District. Mr. Dahlquist spoke against opening up the potential for more commercial requests in the RB District. Mr. Carlsen agreed with the need for more information regarding what prompted the change in 2002. Mr. Kalmon asked about the process/consequence of tabling or denying the request altogether. Mr. Pogge s oke of the 60- day rule and noted that the Commission would have to take some action a its December meeting unless the applicant agreed to another extension of the 60-day rule. Ms Block said she thought the proposed ordinance, allowing limited expansion within the confine of the existing property, would keep homeowners secure in the knowledge that their neighborhood block would not be eaten up by one business, yet it allows a business to make changes t their property, which they currently cannot do. Ms. Block moved to adopt the zoning text amendment with the limited expansion. Mr. Kalmon seconded the motion, adding that any expan ion beyond as indicated in the ordinance would have to go through a neighborhood approval/ review process. Mr. Pogge noted that such a process is required in the draft ordinance. Mr. Kalm n withdrew the amendment to his second. Mr. Dahlquist asked whether uses such as Bed & Breakfast should be excluded. Mr. Dahlquist suggested that "normal wear and tear" be stricken f om item 4b; he also questioned the regulations regarding signs as listed in item 3b and whether that is restrictive enough. Mr. Turnblad explained that item 3b is based on the most restrictive signage regulations, those of the Central Business District. Mr. Freeman noted that under the limited growth policy, the applicant will not be able to do anything she is seeking to do with her property. Mr. Dahlquist noted that the ordinance, as proposed, includes a list of specific properties, a list that does not include the piece of property where Ms. Rosebud's parking lot would eventually be located. Mr. Pogge noted that the list of properties could b amended after requested rezoning changes. 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Mr. Carlsen said he did not feel comfortable with adopting the ordinance at thi: agreed that this is a complicated issue that deserves more time before making Junker also spoke in favor of spending more time on this issue. Motion to apps text amendment failed by unanimous vote. Mr. Middleton moved to continue th December meeting and call for a special meeting prior to the regular Decem address this issue. Mr. Carlsen seconded the motion. Staff was reques information regarding the 2002 zoning change, who made the decision, whethl Commission was involved, whether public hearings were held. Ms. Block wonder other 18 business owners should be informed of the meeting; during disc suggested that the other owners will not be affected by the ordinance - they zoning change. Motion to table passed unanimously. Mr. Turnblad suggested & taken up at the next regular Planning Commission if possible. Motion was ma unanimously to table this matter to the regular Planning Commission of Dec. 11. OTHER BUSINESS Concept discussion for the Hazel Street golf course neighborhood Design, Lynskey & Clark Companies, applicants. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the site and the developer's preference for the two-fami would result in 13 structures, with a total of 26 households. Mr. Turnbl; Comprehensive Plan and Single Family Large Lot (SFLL) classificati( inconsistencies in the properties that have been held to the SFLL standard • size of 20,000 square feet. The staff report also provided options for inconsistencies. Marc Putnam reviewed plans. He spoke of the topography and slopes on the s 18 home sites have been identified, but noted that the single-family market perhaps in part due to the aging population. He said it is the development "two-family homes in one-family clothing" is the right approach for the drawings of such homes and possible road layout. There were questions abo whether the building sites would meet the City's slope ordinance. Mr. Kalmon asked about the tree inventory and the number of trees that woL There was discussion about the property to the east and whether that would evE Mr. Carlsen said he liked the idea of having a duplex situation that is a little moi he was concerned about the dominance of the garage appearance; he suggestE loading. Mr. Kalmon said in neighborhood meetings related to the sewer proj( strong consensus in favor of narrow roads, the prominence/visibility of vegetatio rural feeling of the neighborhood. Mr. Kalmon said he didn't think the d streetscape and proposed road layout fit the existing neighborhood; Mr. Putnam the road is as narrow as City staff will allow. Mr. Kalmon also spoke to drainag there are serious erosion problems in the area. Mr. Putnam noted the rules they are much higher, regarding rate and volume, than for existing neighborhoods. time; Mr. Gag a decision. Mr. ove the zoning s matter to the per meeting to ed to provide ,r the Planning ed whether the ussion, it was can request a at the issue be 1e and passed Planning and concept, which spoke of the and existing a minimum lot aling with the He stated that at a standstill, am's belief that He provided the slopes and d be removed. be developed. rural, but said i perhaps side- ct, there was a and trees, and sign model or pointed out that issues, noting must adhere to Mr. Peroceschi said he would favor keeping the area RA. Mr. Kalmon expre sed a concern about density. Mr. Dahlquist noted that if the density was reduced, the developer might be able • to address the concern about the appearance of the garages, perhaps some could be side loaded rather than side by side front loading, and fit the lay of the land better. Mr. Dahlquist said he was intrigued with the dual-family concept, as it is a housing stock type that i needed in the City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 13, 2006 0 L? City. Mr. Middleton said he thought the RB zoning would be fine; he spoke of the demand for the proposed housing type and noted the development would not be highly isible from the road. Mr. Middleton said he was unsure about the proposed number of units. Ms Block spoke of conflicting information, such as affordability and the estimated cost of the units; she also questioned the elevation from the golf course, which she said appears to e a three-story structure, not a twin-home. Ms. Block said she was open to either concept - single-family or dual-family -- at this point. Mick Lynskey addressed the density issue by suggesting that the 13 twin-I represent less density than the 18 potential single-family structures. Bob Clai looked at ways to have less impact on the neighborhood and less struct Commission members to walk the property. Mr. Peroceschi said if you walk tl hard to believe it would be possible to build 18 houses on the site. Mr. Meinke the twin-homes look less dense. Mr. Kalmon asked if the developer had looked such as clustering. Mr. Kalmon said he didn't think going to RB would be a pi the development is designed that is the issue. Mr. Gag asked for a straw vote; the straw vote indicated that the majority of would be open to the dual-home concept. Case No. ZAT/06-05 This case was continued to the December meeting. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ome structures said they had res; he invited e property, it is said he thought it other options, >blem, it is how Commission