Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-08 CPC MINCity of Stillwater Planning Commission January 8, 2007 r1 f?J LJ Present: Suzanne Block, Gregg Carlsen, Mike Dahlquist, Dan Kalmon, Brad Middleton, David Peroceschi and Charles Wolden Staff present: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Acting chair Dave Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and introdu Charles Wolden. Approval of minutes: Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Ms. Block, moved approval of December 11, 2006. Motion passed unanimously. Meinke, Dave ogge new member, the minutes of PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 07-03 A minor subdivision of one lot into two lots and a variance o the lot size regulations at 108 and 110 W. Stillwater Ave. Keith and Deborah Kaehler, applica ts. Mr. Pogge told the Commission that it has been determined a variance is not required, so the Commission needs to take no action other than to open and close the publi hearing. The Council will hear the subdivision request, he stated. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and th hearing was closed. The Council will hear the subdivision request at its first meeting in F bruary, it was noted. Case No. 07-04 A special use permit for a residential accessory use for clas room/meeting rooms for Our Savior's Lutheran Church at 1514 W. Olive St. Curt Newcomb, app icant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request, staff findings and recommended conditions o Dahlquist questioned how access would be provided to the church parking loi access might be via a sidewalk/trail in the County's right-of-way or through an ad, owner's rear yard. It was noted that a trail along Olive is shown in the County's m also, it was noted the Church is still negotiating with the adjacent property owner Wolden asked whether a sunset clause could be placed on the use, and Ms. hours of operation could be controlled; Mr. Pogge responded in the affirn questions. Mr. Newcomb pointed out that the Church plans to construct an expan four years, and there is no intent to utilize the residence on a permanent basis - to alleviate a temporary condition and return the house to residential use once constructed. Mr. Newcomb said he would not object to a sunset provision an( welcome such a condition. In response to a question about hours of use, Mr. Nev house would be primarily used on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenin asked about the possibility of using a modular unit on site rather than the house; said that would not be as good an option for the Church. Mr. Carlsen asked abou number of people who might be using the space; Mr. Newcomb said the ma) would be 25-30, but more likely 10-12 people would be present at one time. Mr. about the status of negotiations with the adjacent property owner; Mr. Newcomb i the Church believes an agreement can be worked out, and needs to know the use one before committing to the purchase. approval. Mr. It was noted acent property aster trail plan; *or access. Mr. Block asked if iative to both Sion in three or the proposal is the addition is in fact would Fcomb said the gs. Ms. Block Mr. Newcomb the maximum :imum number Meinke asked 'esponded that is a workable • City of Stillwater Planning Commission January 8, 2007 Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Kurt Weidler, 206 Greeley St. S., about the loss of housing stock, converting a residential property to a no other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. MS. Block said she thought there were other alternatives for accommodating i Mr. Meinke and Mr. Peroceschi both expressed concern about safety/tral Dahlquist also referred to a safety concern created by having to cross Brick street, to get to the Church, and said he favored adding a sunset clause to ar approval. Mr. Kalmon noted he is a member of the Church and spoke in favor c clause and limiting hours of operation. Mr. Carlsen suggested adding a corn review upon complaint. Mr. Carlsen moved approval with the four conditions as recommended by additional condition that the use (special use permit) sunset as of Dec. 31, structure revert to residential use or be reviewed at that time; that the hours limited to 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; and that the special use permit be reviewed upor Dahlquist seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-3, with Ms. Block, Mr. N Peroceschi voting no. Case No. 07-01 Final plat and final planned unit development approval for a 15- on 8.9 acres (Brown's Creek Reserve) in the TR/PUD, Transitional Resident • Freeman, Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. A representative of Folz, Freeman, Erickson was present. Mr. Turnblad review previous approvals given the development. He noted that the final plat/PUD is nE the preliminary plat approved by the Commission and Council. Mr. Turnblad h conditions of approval (No. 2, approval by the DNR regional hydrologist, No. 8, Board approval of the revised trail plan, and No. 9, City Forester appro, replacement plan) which have been verbally OK'd but must receive formal appri Council approval of the plat/PUD. Ms. Block asked how the City would enforce covenants preventing property own vegetation that might impact Brown's Creek; Mr. Turnblad explained th agreement provides for conservation easements, which are enforceable. Ms. there was any way to require that construction be concluded by a certain tim explained that the development agreement provides a timeframe for the comp and other infrastructure, but there is no way to require a property owner to cons a certain time or prevent a lot from being sold. Mr. Carlsen asked about connection to Neal Avenue; Mr. Turnblad stated there is no exact timeframe ; developers are involved, but the development agreement provides that the me remove the temporary road connection be placed in escrow until such time as th Millbrook development is completed. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and t closed. Mr. Dahlquist noted that nothing significant had changed since prelimine • and moved final approval of the plat and PUD with the conditions as recommern Peroceschi seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. >sed a concern lential use. No ie use on site. is issues. Mr. Street, a busy y conditions of ' both a sunset ition regarding staff, with the 2010, and the A operation be complaint. Mr. einke and Mr. development I District. Tim 1 the site and rly identical to hlighted three ial Watershed I of the tree al before final :rs from cutting development Block asked if Mr. Turnblad -tion of streets ruct a home by the final road s two different iey required to at phase of the hearing was plat approval I by staff. Mr. . City of Stillwater Planning Commission January 8, 2007 Case No. 07-02 Subdivision for Fairway Villas of Stillwater, a 24-lot preliminary plat subdivision, a Comprehensive Plan amendment, related variances, and zoning map amendment to rezone the property at 1902 N. William St. from RA, single-family residential, to RB, two-family residential. MBM Development, Bob Clark, applicant. Mr. Turnblad briefly reviewed the site and proposal to construct 12 structures, 24 twin homes. He noted the property currently is zoned RA and is surrounded by RA zoned properties. To allow development of the twin homes as proposed, the property needs to be rezoned to RB; all minimum standards are met for the rezoning of the property, he said. The bigger issue for the Commission to consider, he pointed out, is whether the two-family use is compatible by the surrounding neighborhood. There was a question about how many homes could be constructed on the parcel if the zoning remains as is; 18 single-family homes could be constructed, it was noted. Ms. Block asked if the Commission could reduce the number of allowable single-family homes. Mr. Turnblad spoke briefly to the issue of property owners' rights and buyers' rights based on expectations of current zoning and existing ordinances. Bob Clark, Lynskey & Clark and MBM Development, pointed out to address concerns about density raised in the earlier discussions, the number of proposed units has been reduced from 26 to 24 units, one less building. Mr. Clark stated the developers feel strongly that their proposal will have less of a visual impact on the neighborhood and golf course than if the property is developed with single-family homes. Mr. Clark also noted that the infrastructure is in place to • serve the development, and the development is consistent with other multi-family uses in the area around the golf course. Marc Putnam, planner for the developers, showed a video incorporating the grading plan with graphics of the split roadway, retaining walls, plantings, pavilion, and housing styles. Mr. Wolden questioned the height of the homes; Mr. Putnam reiterated the twin-homes are one floor less than single-family homes and will be less visible to the neighborhood. Ms. Block asked whether a golf course tee box was in fact located on the site; Mr. Clark explained that situation has been resolved with an exchange of property. Mr. Dahlquist questioned setbacks; Mr. Clark stated all setback requirements are met. Mr. Kalmon suggested that the building footprint is clearly different than the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. It was noted for the record that letters opposing the proposal had been received from James and Betty Sievert, 1615 N. Second St.; Richard and Julie Paukert, 202 W. Hazel St.; and Jim and Marilyn Meier, 405 W. Hazel St. Brian Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, spoke of planning principles and noted that a primary focus of the City's infill design guidelines is how a proposal fits in with the surrounding neighborhood - this proposal does not fit with the neighborhood, he said. He noted this proposal would require a change to the Comprehensive Plan, something that should be done only under extraordinary circumstances. He spoke to the sensitivity of the area due to its topography and natural resources. He questioned the traffic counts provided by the developer. He further suggested that the developer had exaggerated "how bad" single-family homes would look and suggested that there are other options. He provided a graphic of the existing pattern of buildings, the pattern of buildings as proposed, and what he called a more realistic footprint, nine homes on 20,000 square foot lots. 0 • City of Stillwater Planning Commission January 8, 2007 James Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, called the proposal inconsistent with the neighborhood, a neighborhood that has a variety of architectural styles, while the video of the proposal showed houses all of the same style with lots of garages. He said the traffic impact of the development would be "enormous" relative to the existing traffic. He stated his concerns were based on aesthetics, the character of the neighborhood and traffic issues. Scott Junker, 1802 N. Fourth St., questioned whether the developers were aware of the fees they would have to pay. He also suggested precedent had been set in the denial of two development proposals he had put forth in the recent past. Dick Paukert, 303 W. Hazel, pointed out that a number of property owners in the area had signed covenants that the area remain RA, single-family. Andrew Jenks, 1209 N. Second St., expressed a concern about the potential traffic impact, noting that Second Street is the main connector street for the area in question. Tamara Curtis, 122 Hazel St. W., said she was opposed to the proposal. She questioned whether she would be able to get out of her driveway should the proposal be allowed. She also stated the neighboring Dutchtown area is "special" and needs to be preserved. Mary Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, urged the Commission to do what is right for this are and . consider the Comprehensive Plan and the nature of the neighborhood. Less is better, she suggested. Claude Klivett, 1912 N. Fifth St., expressed a concern about traffic. James Libby, 203 W. Hazel, spoke of the issue of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. He also spoke to the trend in urban planning which promotes lower density and greater lot sizes as one radiates from a city's center. The resident of 14411 Dellwood Road, spoke of the history of the area and land around Brown's Creek. He stated that in the Orderly Annexation process and development of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the area was purposely designated large-lot, single-family to provide a buffer zone around Brown's Creek and a buffer between the City and the Township. He spoke of concerns about the water and other natural resources in the area. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. The development team was given an opportunity to address questions. Mr. Putnam addressed the question about traffic counts, providing sources for the cited statistics, and stated they would support an independent traffic study if the City/Commission desires. Mr. Putnam also addressed comments regarding density. "less is better," and suggested that it is the structure density that determines the look and feel of a place. Mr. Clark addressed other questions/comments. He stated they agree with the need to protect the beauty of the area and the need to protect Brown's Creek and will do everything they can to • control runoff and protect the area. He stated the covenants, referred to by one of the speakers, do not apply to this property. He stated they are aware of the fees associated with developing the property and reiterated that they would support an independent traffic study. Discussion was returned to the table. Ms. Block asked about the 20,000 square-foot, large lot size referred to in several comments. Mr. Turnblad explained that in the Comprehensive Plan, single-family, large-lot coincides with the RA District, areas such as Croixwood and Oak Glen developments with a density of about 2.8 units per acre. The 20,000 square-foot, large lot designation has to do with lakeshore overlay districts; Brown's Creek is not in that type of overlay district. The Comprehensive Plan currently indicates this area as zoned RA. The Comprehensive Plan issue arises if and when the area is rezoned; to develop the site as RB, the Comprehensive Plan would need to be changed, he explained. Mr. Carlsen noted that both the neighbors and landowners in this instance have certain expectation, and while he said they thought there are benefits in the twin-home concept, he spoke in favor of leaving things as they are, keeping the expectations as they are. Mr. Dahlquist suggested that the City needs a larger lot designation to provide for transition as parcels come into the City and said perhaps a new larger-lot zoning designation may come about in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. While not excited about the possibility of single-family development on the parcel, Mr. Dahlquist said he would prefer to wait and see how the Comp Plan update plays out. Mr. Meinke said if the property does get developed, he would prefer the twin-home concept over 18 single-family structures, but said he didn't like the idea of changing the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kalmon said he did not like the current zoning and noted there is the potential for other lots in the neighborhood to subdivide, but said he would rather address that in the Comprehensive Plan process. He stated unique, sensitive areas such as this need a larger lot designation, and he said the twin-homes are obviously not a fit with the neighborhood. Mr. Peroceschi moved to recommend to the Council that all four requests related to Case No. 07-02 be denied. Mr. Carlsen seconded the motion. Mr. Middleton stated that if he lived in the neighborhood, he would prefer the twin-home concept as having less of an impact and being less visible. Mr. Wolden agreed that the twin-homes might make the best of the situation with some enhancements by the developers. Mr. Kalmon spoke to the sensitivity of the area and traffic impacts and said the developer is not offering anything to mitigate the impact. Ms. Block spoke of concerns about the proximity to the golf course and stated she likes Mr. Larson's plan. Motion to deny the four requests passed 5-3, with Mr. Meinke, Mr. Middleton and Mr. Wolden voting against denial. Mr. Turnblad noted that the variance is denied at the Commission level, the Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and preliminary plat are recommendations to the Council. He stated the Council will consider this case at its February 6, 2007 meeting, the Park Board at its January 22, 2007 meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Cablecasting Commission meetings - Mr. Middleton told members the Council is considering having Planning Commission and other Commission meetings cablecast and asked members about their views on the matter. Mr. Dahlquist stated Oak Park Heights airs its Commission meetings and said there is a great deal of public interest in the meetings. There was a question about cost. Mr. Turnblad said staff if checking into that issue. • Comprehensive Plan consultant selection - Mr. Middleton said the Council has asked that a representative of the Planning Commission and other Commissions/Boards assist in the • selection of the consulting firm for the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Kalmon volunteered to serve as the Commission's representative. Election of chair and vice chair - Mr. Peroceschi nominated Mr. Middleton to serve as chair for 2007 and Mr. Turnquist as vice chair. Mr. Meinke seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Kalmon, moved to adjourn at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 0