Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-11 CPC MINCity of Stillwater Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Present: Robert Gag, chairman, Suzanne Block, Mike Dahlquist, David Junl Brad Meinke, Dave Middleton, and David Peroceschi Staff present: Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Pogge Absent: Gregg Carlsen Mr. Gag called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Junker, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved approval Nov. 13, 2006. Motion passed unanimously. Prior to the start of the public hearing potion of the meeting, Mr. Turnblad anno Rosebud had withdrawn her application(s). He stated the Commission/Council further address any of the issues related to the Neighborhood Business Distri Council had heard comments during the Open Forum potion of its meeting. H intent is to address the issues during the Comprehensive Plan Update. Mr. Tu Comp Plan update is expected to be about an 18-month long process, wii meetings beginning this spring or summer. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. ANN/06-61 Annexation petition for property located at 7979 Neal A) Agricultural Preservation District. Kemal Schankereli, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the site, two and one-half ac 4 annexation area. He noted that early annexation is allowed if a parcel direct and 100 percent of the property owners agree to the annexation; both requirer this instance, he noted. Mr. Turnblad said the Council's basic policy regar requests is to wait until the Comprehensive Plan update is completed, unless t for small parcels. In addition, water and sewer is available to serve the site. He annexation is approved, the applicant will subdivide the property; until a survey clear how many lots could be created. He stated that staff is recommending request. Dan Kalmon, the minutes of nced that Heidi ias no plans to :. He noted the stated that the iblad noted the neighborhood N. in the AP, s in the Phase abuts the :City :nts are 'met in ng annexation annexation is oted that if the done, it is not pproval of this Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Dave Hanson, 7960 Newberry Court, asked about any implications for his property. Mr. Turnblad said this request would not affect his property; even if a property abuts the City, it is still the property owner's option to request annexation or remain in the Township. Jim McGrath, 7939 Neal Ave. N., spoke in favor of the request, saying interested in requesting early annexation. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Junker note approved, will likely trigger other requests and asked about road connectioi properties. Mr. Turnblad said staff had discussed road right-of-way at the rep agreeing that at some point, there will have to be an extension of the road. Mr. if annexation would trigger the requirement to connect to City services; Mr. Tu might also be 1 this request, if is to serve the it property line, )ahlquist asked -nblad said that City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 11, 2006 occurs with subdivision. Ms. Block asked if the road issue would be addressed ' n a subdivision; Mr. Turnblad responded in the affirmative. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved to recommend approval o the requested annexation. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Turnblad noted this request will now go to the Joint Board and City Council. Case No. V/06-63 A variance to the slope setback requirements for an addition at 1723 Second St. N. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Boris Popov, applicant. The applicant was represented by Tim Freeman, Folz, Freeman, Erickson . Mr. Turnblad reviewed the site and staff findings. Staff recommended approval, with the co ndition that the applicant submit a soil erosion plan for review and approval by the City Engineer Mr. Gag opened the public hearing, Steve Keister, 1721 N. Second St., spoke in favor of the request, noting that his is the only property affected by the proposal and he sup ports the plans. No other comments were received. Mr. Kalmon expressed a concern about the proximity to the slope and stated that even minor changes can create washout problems in the area. He asked if the bathroom a ddition could be located elsewhere in the home. Mr. Turnblad stated that due to the floor plan , the bathroom cannot be located elsewhere. Mr. Turnblad also stated that the engineering depa rtment wants to work closely with the applicant during excavation. Ms. Block asked if there would be any recourse available to the City should damage occur during construction. Mr. Turnblad noted there is recourse in the requirement for an erosion escrow. Mr. Junker sugg ested adding a condition that runoff be maintained on site with gutters. Mr. Dahlquist moved approval as conditioned, that the applicant work with engin eering staff and follow best management practices for erosion control, with an additional cond ition that water runoff from the roof be controlled in accordance with the engineerin g department's recommendations. Mr. Kalmon seconded the motion; motion passed unanimousl y. Case No. SUB/06-64 A resubdivision of an existing lot of 38,406 square feet int o two lots - Lot A 11,616 square feet and Lot B 26,790 square feet - and a waiver of platting fe es and required street width (50 feet required, 22 feet existing) at 1904 Fifth St. N. in the , Single Family Residential District. Karen Kramer, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the site and staff findings. Mr. Pogge also spoke to the requested waiver of platting fees and said staff recommends app roval with three conditions. Mr. Middleton asked if there were any issues with slopes. Mr. P gge noted the property could be regraded for an additional house site. Ms. Block asked if there was any potential for access to the property off Willow Street; she also asked if the exis ting drive/street could accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr. Pogge stated the street i adequate for emergency vehicle access. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. The resident of 1912 N. Fifth St. asked fora explanation of the site and stated she hated the idea of making the street wider. Mr. Pogge sa id widening the street is not part of this plan/proposal. No other comments were received, and he hearing was closed. i City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Kalmon, moved approval as conditioned. unanimously. passed Case No. SUP/V/06-65 A special use permit and variance to the bed and break ast regulations for the required 900-foot separation to operate a two-room bed and breakfast in the carriage house of the Mulvey Inn at 807 S. Harriet St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Truett and Jill Lawson, applicant. The applicants were present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request, noting tha Commission had reviewed and approved the request to transfer the special us( main home of the James Mulvey Inn in November. Mr. Pogge noted the i currently is used as a B&B and the use would not change with this request. M that the applicants meet all 12 conditions for a bed and breakfast with the excep foot separation requirement, and he said staff is recommending approva suggested the James Mulvey Inn is a unique situation with the main house and and said approval does not threaten the City's B&B ordinance or the cl- neighborhood. Mr. Middleton asked if the carriage house would be utilized breakfast on a full-time basis; Mr. Lawson responded that it would be used at tl the new owner of the James Mulvey Inn; likely during the high use season requests. Mr. Junker asked if the carriage house and main house would bE operations; Mr. Lawson stated the two would be operated as one B&B - the Lav the space and the owner of the James Mulvey Inn providing the service. Mr. C about food service; Mr. Lawson said that would be done through the main house. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. A representative of the Stillwater Bed Association spoke in support of the request.-No other comments were received, was closed. Mr. Dahlquist expressed a concern that a variance, unlike a special use permi perpetuity. He suggested adding a condition that food service, booking and adve through the main house, James Mulvey I.nm Mr. Pogge noted that condition N marketing and suggested perhaps adding an 18th condition addressing foc Middleton suggested adding verbiage regarding meals being prepared at the condition No. 7. the Planning permit for the arriage house . Pogge noted on of the 900- Mr. Lawson :arriage house iracter of the is a bed and e discretion of nd for special two separate sons providing ahlquist asked and Breakfast nd the hearing. is granted in sing be done 5 addresses service. Mr. ain house to Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved approval as conditioned, ame ding Condition No. 5 to specify that the property at 807 Harriet St. S. shall be marketed, advertised and booked in conjunction with the property at 622 Churchill St. W. and amending Condition No. 7 to specify that meal service be provided by the main house, 622 Churchill St. W. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/06-66 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 8 feet requested) for construction of a residence at 406 S. Fifth St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Willis, applicant. The applicants, Greg Stokes and Mark Willis, were present. Mr. Pogge revie? noting that the need for a variance is due to a conflict in the RB and Neighboncc District regulations. If the garage was detached, rather than attached as desk located as proposed, he noted. Ms. Block asked if the Heritage Preservation reviewed this case; Mr. Pogge responded in the affirmative. No comments we d the request, i Conservation ed, it could be )mmission had received from 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 11, 2006 the public. Mr. Junker, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved approval as passed unanimously. litioned; motion OTHER BUSINESS Case No. ZAT/06-05 Further consideration of a zoning ordinance text amend ent revising the building height limits for downtown. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the status of the height proposal. He stated the Council ad directed the issue back to the Planning Commission due to questions about the allowabl height of infill buildings, as well as a question whether the proposed three-story or 35' height limit for the Central Business District Historic overlay district would actually allow a three-st ry building to be constructed utilizing 12' ceilings for retail space common in historic buildings. r. Turnblad also noted there is an issue with new state statutes regulating reconstruction of buildings following fire or other tragedies that needed to be looked at in the ordinance language. Ms. Block spoke of the importance of maintaining the historic nature of downto n buildings and spoke in favor of increasing the maximum height to 37' to allow for 12' ceilings i first-floor retail spaces. There was discussion about the possibility of mandating 12' first-floor ceilings. Mr. Dahlquist suggested ahe possibility of setting the maximum height at 39' to provide for 19' ceilings on the second and third floors, a more modern/reasonable ceiling height, alon with the 12'.on the first floor. Mr. Dahlquist spoke in favor of consistency and having the Neigh limits based on some logic or formula. Mr. Junker said increasing' the height limit would be chap ing all the input received during the previous public. hearings on the issue, and he suggested it would be a mistake to dictate floor heights. Mr. Meinke spoke in favor of staying with the 36 feet maximum, noting a building could still have 12' first-floor ceilings. Mr. Middleton moved to amend the height regulations for new freestanding buildings in the Central Business District Historic height overlay district to 3 stories, 37 fee maximum. Mr. Kalmon seconded the motion. Ms. Block questioned not tying the 37' to historic style first-floor retail spaces of 12'. Mr. Dahlquist questioned the rationale of the 37' maximum, suggesting that a reasonable height for a three-story building should allow for 9' ceilings on the second and third floors. Mr. Junker noted that the whole impetus for the proposed regulations was the overall height of structures in the downtown and the desire to protect the viewshed. Mr. Middleton's motion passed 6-2, with Ms. Block and Mr. Meinke voting no. Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Peroceschi, moved to amend the height regulation for the Central Business District Parkside overlay district from 2.5 stories or 30 feet to .5 stories or 31 feet. Mr. Junker pointed out that there was no direction from the City Counc I to change the heights in the other overlay districts; the Council's only question was with the Central Business District Historic district, he noted. Mr. Dahlquist withdrew his motion. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Kalmon, moved to amend the height regulati ns for new infill buildings to 10 percent (higher or lower) of the average height of both adjoining buildings. Motion passed 6-1, with Mr. Dahlquist voting no, Mr. Junker and Mr. Carlsen absent. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Meinke, moved to adopt the miscellaneous change recommended by staff that all buildings (in the height overlay districts) whe her on existing vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of demolition of an existi g structure are subject to the new standards. Motion passed 7-0. City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 11, 2006 There was additional discussion about Mr. Dahlquist's motion to amend the he for other districts in the overlay district. Mr. Dahlquist said he had a pry inconsistency in heights throughout the various districts. To be consistent, he suc Parkside district should be set at 31', the bluff district at 48' and blufftop at noted that the only reason to amend the height limits was to accommodate commercial spaces. In public testimony he said he heard that people want to I low as possible to protect both the river view and to promote more walkable stre agreed that people don't want to ruin the riverfront. Mr. Gag suggested i communicate Mr. Dahlquist's concern about consistency to the City Council. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Mr. Turnblad informed the Commission that the City had received RFPs from in the Comprehensive Plan update process. He said the Council will likely proceed at its next meeting. Once a firm is selected, he said a steering co members of the Planning Commission, Parks, Heritage Preservation Com. community representatives, will be formed. Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved to -a'djourn at 9:30 p.m. unanimously. Mr. Middleton noted that.Mr. Gag will be leaving the Commission well, in his new position as City Council representative. _Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary ght regulations ,blem with the gested that the 8'. Mr. Kalmon iistoric 1st floor eep heights as its. Mr. Meinke iat staff could firms to assist cide on how to iittee, including ;sion and other Motion passed and wished him 5