Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-08 CPC MINCity of Stillwater Planning Commission June 8, 2009 Present: Dave Middleton, Chair, Suzanne Block, Mike Dahlquist, Dan Kalmon, Mike Kocon, John Malsam, Scott Spisak and Charles Wolden Staff present: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Robert Gag Approval of minutes: Mr. Spisak moved approval of the May 11, 2009, minutes correcting the reference to having the new Post Office building from lead certified to LEED certified. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 09-14 A special use permit for a wireless antenna facility at 1900 Myrtle St. W. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. AT&T Mobility and T-Mobile, Ken Nielsen and Steve Carlson, applicants. The applicants were present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He noted that subsequent to the last Planning Commission meeting, staff and the applicants met with representatives of KLLB and determined that for a number of reasons, including aesthetic reasons, co-location with the KLLB tower is not the best alternative. Mr. Pogge noted that one of the requirements for the issuance of a special use permit for communications towers is that antennas must be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive, which is why staff is recommending that these antennas be internally mounted, rather than externally mounted. Mr. Kalmon asked if coverage is an issue with the internally mounted antennas; Mr. Pogge stated he did not think that was an issue. Mr. Malsam noted that the applicants' proposed an 8' fence around the tower, while the city is requiring a 6' fence, and asked if safety is an issue; Mr. Pogge stated he did not think safety is an issue with a 6' fence. Steve Carlson, T-Mobile, stated they have no problem with a 6' fence. Both Mr. Carlson and Mr. Nielsen said the issue with internally-mounted antennas has more to do with future flexibility than with coverage area. Mr. Kalmon asked about disguising the pole in some way; Mr. Nielsen pointed out there are a lot of light standards in the area so the pole blends in well. Mr. Kocon suggested that externally-mounted antennas might blend in even better with the surrounding light standards. Mr. Malsam and Mr. Kalmon pointed out the external antennas would be seen from Lake McKusick. There was a question about color; Mr. Pogge stated the tower will be a grayish blue to blend in with the skyline. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kalmon moved approval of the special permit as conditioned, A-H, in the staff report. Mr. Malsam seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 09-18 A Zoning Text Amendment to the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District, for special use permits for automobile sales. James and Joyce Melton, applicant. Joyce Melton was present. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request. He pointed out the Meltons' special use permit has expired and automobile sales is no longer a permitted use in the BP-C District. Mr. Turnblad noted that no other uses with outdoor storage are permitted in the BP-C District and stated staff does not support the request. Mr. Kalmon asked about the zoning in the updated Comprehensive Plan; Mr. Turnblad said the parcel remains BP-C in the updated plan. Mr. Wolden questioned why the use was eliminated and asked whether auto sales are not a permitted use in Stillwater; Mr. Turnblad said that use is permitted only in the General Commercial zoning district. Ms. Melton said she believes her property should have been grandfathered for the automobile sales use. She stated they bought the property 40 years ago when it was a motorcycle shop and stated the property has always been a used car lot. She explained how they lost some of their property over the years and said there is no longer an interest in having a drive-thru business there. Ms. Melton suggested that if they aren't allowed to have a used car lot, they can't use their property to its best advantage. She suggested that the taxes on the property are too expensive for retail use and said they need a car lot to maximize the use of their lot and building. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Melana Morgan,1921 Broadway St. N., spoke in support of the request, pointing out there is a mall parking lot nearby; she questioned the difference between this request and allowing Linder's outdoor sales in the adjacent parking lot. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kalmon pointed out that a government has the right to choose how to build out, and he said the City has laid out a plan that doesn't include auto sales in that zoning. Mr. Kalmon said this request does not fit the orderly planning for the City as a whole and amounts to spot zoning. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out this request would impact the entire strip along Highway 36, and Ms. Block said if there was a concern about the use not being permitted, it should have been brought up in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kocon agreed that allowing this request would be spot zoning; he pointed out that the grandfathering chain has been broken and stated that not allowing the use to revert to the original doesn't mean the City or Commission is "anti-car lot" - zoning doesn't permit the use now. Mr. Dahlquist moved to recommend that the City Council deny the request to add automotive sales to the BP-C District. Mr. Kalmon seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-1, with Mr. Wolden voting no. Case No. 09-19 Mr. Turnblad said the applicant has requested that this case be tabled. Mr. Wolden, seconded by Mr. Kocon, moved to table case No. 09-19; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 09-20 A variance request for placement of a shed in the required front yard setback at 1921 Broadway St. N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Melana Morgan, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He said the slope of the property does represent a hardship and approval would not result in a substantial detriment to adjacent property owners. The question for the Commission, he said, is whether continued use represents a substantial property right. Mr. Kocon asked whether building permits are required for structures under 120 square feet; Mr. Pogge responded in the negative. Mr. Dahlquist asked if there is an issue with accessory structures; Mr. Pogge responded that is not an issue as the second structure is less than 120 square feet. Mr. Dahlquist asked whether an existing fence is off the property line; Mr. Pogge said the fence has been there for a long time and it is not known when it was constructed. Ms. Morgan pointed out her lot is very narrow, with 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 8, 2009 steep slopes and trees along the south side; she said grading to move the shed/porch would ruin the existing drainage. She asked that she be allowed to keep the structure when it is currently located and make it look nice, with siding to match the house. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist suggested the location isn't a bad one; he noted that the house is already inside the required setback, and the shed/porch is no closer to the property line that the house. Mr. Malsam pointed out the lot does represent a hardship and there should be no negative impact on neighbors; he said he thought a case could be made that this is a substantial property right. Mr. Kocon, seconded by Mr. Malsam, moved approval of the variance. Mr. Spisak said he hoped this would not be setting a precedent for other "ask for forgiveness" requests. Mr. Middleton suggested that requiring the structure to be moved would not solve a lot of problems. Mr. Wolden said he would like to require moving the fence as a trade off; Mr. Dahlquist pointed out that when the fence needs to be replaced, it will have to be moved onto the property. Mr. Kalmon reminded folks to check on City rules, such as required setbacks, before building. Motion to approve the variance passed unanimously. Case No. 09-21 An amendment to the residential planned unit development for house plans and site plan revisions for the Millbrook Subdivision. Joe Jablonski, U.S. Home Corporation, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge briefly reviewed the proposal, which he said would expand the Cottage Residential (CR) and reduce the Traditional Residential (TR) lots. He said the proposal includes four additional home plans. All lots would allow for three-car garages, he said, and, he said, the garage is seen as more dominant from the front plane of the homes. Mr. Jablonski noted that some of the changes were presented during an earlier informal discussion with the Commission. He said revised plans further recess the garages, and all have a minimum of 6' from the front of the home to the front of the garage. He said the site plan revisions result in the overall loss of two lots, a gain of two in the Traditional Residential and loss of four in the Cottage Residential. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out when the Millbrook plans were first presented, there was a clear difference in the house plans proposed for the CR district and the TR district. Mr. Pogge agreed that in the PUD, there are certain plans designated for the CR district and other plans designated for the TR district; under the request, house plans could be used in either district. Mr. Jablonski talked of the difficulty of the market and trying to adjust to the market conditions by offering the flexibility of house plans. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Kelly Brenden, 3204 Millbrook Circle, said a selling point when she purchased her home was that house plans would not be intermixed as it would bring the value of the larger, traditional homes down. She said she can understand the desire and need for a three-car garage on the smaller homes, but said she did have a problem will allowing the smaller homes on the TR side of the development. Another Millbrook resident pointed out the TR lots are selling nicely, and he questioned why the developer wants to alter plans if the intent is not to omit the TR plans completely. Mr. Jablonski responded that the plan 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 8, 2009 is to continue selling the same home types on the more premium lots. No other comments were received, and the hearing as closed. Mr. Kocon said he would have no problem making the CR lots bigger, but would have a big problem with making the TR lots smaller. Mr. Dahlquist suggested that making changes due to, what is hoped are, temporary market conditions is not good planning. He said he would not be in favor of reducing the TR lot sizes, noting that the City has already made a lot of compromises with this development. Mr. Dahlquist also stated that it needs to be clarified that the CR and TR house styles are not to be intermixed, pointing out that would apply to phases 2 and 3 of the development as well. Ms. Block said she would not want what were originally two products to become one. Mr. Jablonski responded that having sold just 18homes in three years, the developer needs to do something. Mr. Middleton said he was concerned about protecting the TR area and existing homeowners; he said he had no problem with allowing three-car garages in the CR district. Mr. Jablonski asked if the Commission would approve keeping the TR lots the same size, but allowing different home styles, suggesting it would add more variety to the community. Ms. Block pointed out that people who have purchased lots/homes were sold on the concept that the TR and CR house plans would not be intermixed. Mr. Kocon moved to approve the elevations and new floor plans for the CR district only and approve the lot change for areas A and C only with the four conditions recommended by staff, noting it appears there is consensus that the Commission has no interest in allowing CR floor plans on TR lots or in decreasing the size of the TR lots. Mr. Malsam seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dahlquist reiterated that the developer should be aware there is to be no intermixing of the CR and TR floor plans. Case No. 09-22 A special use permit for outside seating and a variance to the parking regulations at 243 Main St. S., Marx Wine Bar and Grill, in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark Hanson, applicant. Present were Mark Hanson and Mark Balay, architect. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request for the special use permit and parking variance. Regarding the special use permit, he said approval is recommended with a number of conditions that address public interest. He noted that the Heritage Preservation Commission had reviewed and approved of the plans. Regarding the parking variance, he noted that in the downtown area, "alternative provisions" are allowed in meeting parking requirements. Mr. Pogge stated the variance requested is for 10 parking spaces, rather than the 12 indicated in the agenda packet, 4 spaces currently on the site that will be lost due to the new outdoor seating area and 6 additional spaces that the new use will require. As a condition of approval for the parking variance, he said it is recommended that Mr. Hanson purchase 10 monthly parking permits. Ms. Block asked about the location of the nearest permit parking lot. Mr. Turnblad noted there are permit lots located throughout the downtown area - by Teddy Bear Park, Shorty's Cleaners, the Oasis gas station. Mr. Wolden asked about the dumpster, whether that would be a temporary measure. Mr. Pogge noted that the City is working on a comprehensive way to address the issues of dumpsters in the downtown area. Mr. Middleton pointed out that no matter where it is located, businesses in the downtown area cannot meet parking requirements. Mr. 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 8, 2009 Wolden asked whether there would be a fire pit. Mr. Balay responded that codes are so restrictive, it is unlikely there will be a fire pit. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kalmon moved approval as conditioned, No. 1-11 in the agenda packet, changing the requirement for the number of monthly parking permit to 4 to compensate for the loss of existing spaces and 6 for the new outdoor seating for a total of 10 parking permits -- 4 to be purchased at the time of the building permit application and 6 prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the outdoor seating area. Mr. Middleton seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 09-04 This case was tabled to the July 13, 2009, meeting. Case No. 09-23 A variance for construction of an addition on a non-conforming lot at 505 W. Maple St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Levi Brueegemann, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He noted that the lot in question is a non-conforming lot, thus requiring the need for a variance into order to construct the planned addition to the house. He stated the Heritage Preservation Commission had approved the demolition permit for the existing addition on the home. He stated plans meet all other regulations and the request meets the three criteria for the issuance of a variance. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. The applicant stated the existing addition is falling down, and he plans to replace it with a mudroom. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Wolden, moved approval with the one condition of approval as recommended by staff. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 5