Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-09 CPC MINCity of Stillwater Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Present: Dave Middleton, Chairperson, Suzanne Block, Mike Dahlquist, Robert Gag, Dan Kalmon, John Malsam, Scott Spisak and Charles Wolden Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Mike Kocon Chair Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Ms. Block, moved approval of the minutes of February 9, 2009. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 09-05 A variance to setbacks for construction of a 13'6" x 12' deck at 150 Third St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Patrick LaCasse, presenting Mike Rice and Diane Hark, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings, noting that staff could not find in favor of two of the three requirements for granting a variance, but did find that construction of the requested deck would not be a detriment to adjacent properties. Mr. Pogge stated the Heritage Preservation Commission had reviewed this case and approved the design of the deck subject to a condition that the proposed use of limestone for the pillars be changed to brick to match the existing building; the applicant has agreed to that condition, he stated. Mr. Pogge also noted that a request had been received from an adjoining property owner that a stairway to the applicant's rear deck be removed; he said staff views that as a private property issue. On a question by Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Rice stated the new deck would not represent any expansion of the existing footprint of the building. Ms. Block asked about parking; the applicant responded that there is interior parking, as well as two exterior parking spaces that will remain intact. Mr. Spisak asked about a fire sprinkler connection under the deck and whether the fire marshal had reviewed plans; Mr. Pogge stated that is something that will have to be reviewed by the fire department. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Middleton said while there is no hardship involved, the atmosphere seems to be right to approve the request, referring to the decks on the adjacent condominium building and the fact that the deck will not encroach any farther to the south. Mr. Malsam agreed that the deck would not represent a substantial change. Mr. Gag suggested a deck would make the building look more residential, noting the area is now primarily residential in nature, and moved approval as conditioned, with the additional condition that the fire marshal inspect plans regarding the fire sprinkler system. Mr. Malsam seconded the motion. Mr. Dahlquist spoke against approval as there is no hardship involved. Motion passed 5-3, with Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Kalmon and Mr. Wolden voting no. City of Stillwater Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Case No. 09-06 A variance to the lot size, front yard setbacks, impervious surface and second accessory structure on a non-conforming lot for construction of a single-car garage at 616 W. Maple St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Bruce Iverson, representing Greg and Stacy Cain, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the requested four variances and staff findings, stating that staff does support the requested variance to the lot size and second accessory structure but does not support the front yard setback or impervious surface coverage variances as requested. There was discussion about an existing shed which necessitates the variance for a second accessory structure. Mr. Pogge stated the existing structure is over 50 years old and this is defined as of potential historical significance according to City ordinance. Mr. Middleton suggested adding a condition that if for any reason the existing shed is demolished that it cannot be replaced with another accessory structure. Mr. Iverson reviewed his clients' plans, including expansion of the kitchen and providing more light and views for the kitchen area, as well as better access of the kitchen to the backyard, along with more on-site parking and storage space. He spoke of constraints of the property including slope and drainage constraints. He agreed there are alternatives to the requested front yard setback, but those alternatives would negate the objectives of the improvements as a whole, he said. He suggested their proposal has less impact on the site and the surrounding neighbors. He also spoke of the precedent in the neighborhood for the front yard variance, showing photos of various properties on Maple Street. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Greg Cain spoke to the Commission expressing their desire to make improvements to their home that will enable them to reside there for many years to come. He stated theirs is a small property and they are trying to do the best they can with the limitations of the site. No other comments were received and the hearing was closed. Mr. Wolden said he could support the variances for property size and second accessory structure but not the impervious surface coverage. Mr. Dahlquist expressed support for the lot size and accessory structure variances but expressed concern about granting a variance for imperious coverage or the front yard setback. Ms. Block suggested the requested front yard setback and impervious surface coverage would have extra impact because of the size and shape of the lot. Mr. Kalmon said approving the impervious surface coverage would set a bad precedent; he said he supported the variance to lot size and accessory structure, with the condition that the existing accessory structure not be rebuilt if removed in the future. Mr. Malsam expressed support for the front yard setback, suggesting the precedent has already been established in the neighborhood; he said he was not in favor of the impervious surface variance. Mr. Spisak stated his support for the lot size and second accessory structure, but said he had issues with both the impervious surface and setback variance requests. It was decided to take separate votes on the four requested variances. Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Wolden, moved to approve the variance to the lot size; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kalmon, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved to deny the front yard setback variance; motion passed 6-2, with Mr. Malsam and Mr. Wolden voting no. Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Wolden, moved to deny the impervious surface coverage variance; motion passed unanimously. 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Mr. Kalmon, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved to approve the variance for the second accessory structure, with the condition that if the existing accessory structure is removed a replacement cannot be built on that footprint; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Wolden, moved to incorporate the staffs' recommended conditions of approval into the preceding actions on this case; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Iverson asked for input on the Commission's position regarding a side yard variance should they revise plans. After brief discussion, it was noted the applicant would have to come back with revised plans for the Commission to consider. Case No. 09-07 A zoning text amendment related to the regulations of radio and television towers, Section 31-101 and Section 31-512 of the Stillwater City Code. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the proposed language changes - adding the definition of stealth towers to the various tower types, prohibiting guyed and lattice towers in residential districts, making stealth towers the preferred type for residential districts, and requiring Heritage Preservation Commission review of towers in residential districts. Mr. Wolden questioned why the HPC would be given responsibility for review of the towers; Mr. Pogge stated the HPC also serves as the City's architectural review committee. Mr. Spisak suggested the definition of stealth towers is fairly broad; Mr. Pogge responded that the key part of the definition is "camouflage" design. Mr. Gag, seconded by Ms. Block, moved approval of the changes as submitted; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Annual review of seasonal plant sales special use permits - Mr. Pogge stated requests had been received from Cub Foods and Linder's at the Valley Ridge Plaza for their annual plant sales. He stated both are long-time uses, and no complaints have been received regarding either operation. He said last season, staff watched for signage or parking violations and observed no violations. Mr. Pogge noted that Cub Foods has started construction of its fuel center and a condition of approval for that permit is review for any parking problems Most of the discussion centered on the Cub Foods request with concerns expressed about traffic patterns and circulation of tanker trucks for fuel delivery. Mr. Spisak asked if there was adequate parking spaces with both the fuel center and garden center; Mr. Pogge stated there are adequate spaces for both operations. Mr. Wolden moved approval of the Linder's special use permit as conditioned. Mr. Malsam seconded the motion. Mr. Dahlquist reviewed some of the issues regarding the seasonal sales that the Commission has debated in the past, issues such as aesthetics and impact on long- standing local businesses. Ms. Block read the conditions of approval for the viewing audience. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Ms. Block, moved to table the Cub Foods request pending more information from the applicant; motion passed unanimously. 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Wolden, moved to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 4