Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-13 CPC MINCity of Stillwater Planning Commission July 13, 2009 Dave Middleton, Chair, Suzanne Block, Mike Dahlquist, Robert Gag, Dan Kalmon, Scott Spisak, Charles Wolden Staff present: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Mike Kocon and John Malsam CALL TO ORDER Mr. Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Kalmon, moved approval of the minutes of June 8, 2009. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 09-04 Continuation of an amendment request for the planned unit development for the sign guidelines and sign ordinance for the Village Commercial District, Liberty Village, at the southeast corner of County Roads 12 and 15. Marc Putman, Putman Planning and Design, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge gave an overview of the request and the previous action by the Heritage Preservation Commission, as well as staff's recommendations. On a question by Ms. Block, it was noted the requested signage and guidelines would apply to the Village Commercial District PUD. Mr. Putman addressed the Commission and reviewed the history of the development, the request, and the need for the additional signage. Regarding the roof signage, Mr. Spisak asked about the typical type of businesses that occupy the second floor of a building; Michael Oreck, Liberty Commercial District business owner, responded and spoke to the current difficulty of identifying the second floor businesses. Ms. Block asked whether the intent is for the roof signage to be more generic or use specific business names, stating a preference for the more generic signage. On a question by Mr. Gag, Mr. Pogge stated the HPC had approved the roof signs, with the condition that signage be limited to second floor tenants. Mr. Wolden asked about the location of the pylon signs; Mr. Putman reviewed the location of the four pylon signs, noting that is the number approved in 2003. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Laurel Anderson, Garnet Real Estate Services, stated she and her husband had just signed a lease for a lower level space in one of the buildings in Liberty Village and spoke of the difficulty of people finding their business space; she noted the previous business tenant said she left due to the problem with signage and the lack of visibility. Ms. Anderson spoke of the design of the buildings intended to be appealing to the neighborhood, but which create constraints for sign space. Ray Sharpe, owner of Liberty Village Wine & Spirits, spoke of the problem with visibility and said he has people who come into his store and indicate they did not know the business existed, City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 13, 2009 even though it has been there for four years. He said he did not think the signage being requested is unreasonable. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Putman spoke to the issue of directory signs, stating their request was for a 12-square-foot directory sign, either attached or free-standing; he said the requirement that the sign be attached next to the entry door is a major problem for pedestrian traffic and said it would also impact the ability to include the Village branding along with the tenant listing. Mr. Oreck encouraged Commission members to drive the area and talk with the tenants and find out what the issues are. Ms. Block asked whether the HPC would review specific sign requests and whether that body could deny a request if it felt a business had too much signage; Mr. Pogge responded that the HPC reviews a request for design and aesthetics only, while the Planning Commission determines the criteria/guidelines. Mr. Dahlquist said he thought additional visibility from the highway probably is in order, but said if all the requested signs are added internally, then it gets to the over-signage question; he said it was hard for him to envision how much signage the request could amount to. Mr. Dahlquist said he didn't think the roof signs fit with the design of the development, but perhaps there is an opportunity for some wall signs under the eaves. Mr. Dahlquist said he believes there is room for some improvement in signage, but said this proposal seems like a lot. Mr. Wolden agreed with the need for more exposure, but expressed concern about the magnitude of the request. Mr. Middleton said it is difficult to get to the shopping area and said he thinks there is a lack of signage; he said he liked the recommendations of the HPC, with the two conditions added by staff - no roof signage and just two pylon signs, one on Manning and one on Myrtle. Mr. Middleton said he wants to see the businesses survive, and believes this would be a big improvement. Mr. Kalmon said because of how the community was designed, the use of trees, and the fact the Myrtle and Manning are major highways, he would not be opposed to the requested four pylon signs, if the smaller ones currently in place are removed; he said he didn't think the roof signs would be of value, especially when the trees are mature, but said he thought there were options for the second-floor tenants, including projecting signage. Mr. Kalmon also said he agreed with the need for the free-standing, directional signage. Mr. Spisak said he was opposed to the roof signs, but said he did favor the projecting signs versus the building-mounted directory signs; he said he said he would be comfortable with either two or four pylon signs. Mr. Middleton pointed out that the property directly to the north of this site is slated to be rezoned to commercial, with the potential for two pylon signs on both sides of Myrtle Street, should Liberty Village be allowed the requested two master signs. Mr. Gag said he would not favor the roof signs, and said he would favor the projecting signs, versus the wall-mounted directories. There was discussion of directory signage, whether it should be limited to one per building or whether two should be allowed on the building with both front and rear entrances. 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 13, 2009 Mr. Wolden spoke against allowing the signage on the park property; Ms. Block said she though the entrance in question was confusing and without the signage people might go through the residential area rather than the commercial district. Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Kalmon, moved approval of the Architectural Review and Design Guidelines for Liberty Village. Mr. Pogge noted that the signage proposal discussed is part of the Design Guidelines. Ms. Block rescinded her motion. There was discussion as to whether to allow two or four pylon signs; it was consensus to follow staff's recommendation and allow two pylon signs. Mr. Kalmon moved approval of the PUD amendment to the Architectural Review and Design Guidelines for Liberty Village with the recommended conditions of approval (a-g), with the additional conditions that roof signs not be allowed (thus eliminating condition d); allowing directory signs up to 12-square-feet, either flush mounted or free standing, per building, except for building No. 2 where two directory signs would be allowed (replacing condition g); and allowing two pylon signs, one on Myrtle Street and one on Manning Avenue, with the condition that the small building signs the pylon signs are intended to replace are removed. Mr. Gag seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously There was discussion regarding the directional sign located on park property and what recommendation to make to the Council and Park Board. Ms. Block said she thought the Board and Council should be aware the Liberty Homeowners' Association favors the signage to protect the neighborhood from unintentional traffic; Mr. Dahlquist said he thought the Commission should send the message that the location of this signage be evaluated. Mr. Putman clarified that he could not speak for the Homeowners' Association. Case No. 09-24 A subdivision request to subdivide an existing lot of 15,000 square feet into two lots of 7,500 square feet at 1001 Fourth St. N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District, Scott Junker, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request, noting that due to steep slope restrictions, the request does not meet minimum lot size requirements and it is staff's recommendation that the request be denied. Mr. Middleton asked if the slope restrictions and setback requirements would be an issue if the Junkers had no intention to building on the new lot; Mr. Pogge responded that when a new lot is created, it is the assumption it is a buildable lot. Scott Junker stated he was not present to request a variance or building permit. He said he had 15,000 square feet and simply wants to split the lot to get separate tax identification numbers. Mr. Pogge explained that City Code does not allow a lot split if the area requirements are not met, and by code the steep slope must be removed from the 15,000 square feet. Mr. Junker suggested this amounted to taking 5,100 feet of land from him, land that he pays taxes on. Mr. Pogge read the City Code section cited in the staff report, which states that steep slopes cannot be considered in meeting lot area requirements. Mr. Junker reiterated that he was only looking for getting the two separate PID numbers, not any variances or building permit. 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 13, 2009 Members noted that the Commission cannot create non-conforming lots, which this would be Mr. Pogge pointed out that if the intent truly is to create two PID numbers, the applicant could consider requesting a minor subdivision, creating one lot and one outlot, which would not be a buildable lot and would preclude a building permit from being issued without another action by the City Council. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Pat Lockyear, 1016 N. Third St., referred to a letter she had send the Commission. She stated she had three major points of concern: this is not a buildable lot and does not meet the requirements of the ordinance; there is no hardship involved for the granting of a variance; and the potential for erosion due to the steep slopes on the property. Pat Sullivan, 921 N. Fourth St., questioned how the second lot would be accessed and what future owners might want to do with the property. Mike Sobieski, 1022 Third St. N., said he didn't think this should be split as a lot, noting that this is a non-buildable lot. He expressed concern about access, as well as development in ravines John Donovan, 106 Wilkins St., said any subdividing should occur on a conforming lot. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Junker reiterated that he had no plans to build on the lot, and he noted that Aspen Street has not been vacated. Mr. Wolden moved to deny the request based on the fact that that it is a nonconforming lot. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion, saying the Commission ought to be careful about encouraging the formation of an outlot as there are access issues. Mr. Kalmon agreed that he would not want to encourage formation of an outlot in this location. Motion to deny passed unanimously. Case No. 09-27 A variance request for construction of a garage on a nonconforming lot at 928 Sixth Ave. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mike and Kate Conners, applicant. The applicants were present. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request and staff findings, noting that the lot was platted in the late 19th century. He stated staff believes the request meets the three criteria for the granting of the variance(s) and recommends approval with one condition, that the garage, not just the walls of the garage, meets the three-foot setback requirement. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Gag said he agreed with staff's recommendation and moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 09-28 A special use permit request for Nutrition Revolution and variance to the parking regulations at 200 Chestnut St. E. in the CBD, Central Business District. Jenni Morrison, applicant. 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 13, 2009 Mr. Pogge reviewed the request for outdoor seating and variance to parking requirements. He noted there was a previous special use permit for outdoor seating, but that business closed more than six months ago, so a new special use permit is required. He noted that with the patio space, the building will be short three parking spaces - 82 spaces required, 79 spaces provided. Mr. Pogge stated staff believes the request meets the three requirements for the issuance of a special use permit, with the exception of the parking requirements. Regarding the requested parking variance, he noted that "alternative parking provisions" are allowed in the downtown parking district which typically is fulfilled by purchasing monthly parking permits in a nearby lot. He said both the special use permit and parking variance are recommended for approval with the conditions, including the condition that the applicant purchases three monthly parking permits. Mr. Spisak asked how the condition regarding the purchase of the parking permit is enforced; Mr. Pogge stated in the past it has been on the honor system. A representative of the applicant was present; he stated they likely will have no more than eight tables on the patio, versus the 14 the previous tenant had. A representative of the building owner stated they provide lots of parking and have never had a problem meeting the demands of the tenants, noting they are currently leasing spaces to the City and Lowell Inn; he wondered whether the condition to purchase three monthly permits is necessary. Mr. Pogge pointed out these are the same conditions as for the previous tenant, and the building owner should have been aware of the condition regarding the parking permits. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist moved to approve the special use permit for outdoor seating and the parking variance with the conditions as recommended by staff. Mr. Kalmon seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 09-19 Variance for a property at 3025 Marine Circle. Mr. Middleton noted this case has been withdrawn. Mr. Middleton officially closed the public hearing. Case No. 09-30 An amendment request to an approved special use permit for Lakeview Hospital to add another roof top unit at 927 Churchill St. W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Shannon Bamberry, BWBR Architects, applicant. Shannon Bamberry was present. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request for a supplemental generator, additional air handling equipment and an additional condenser to accommodate a remodeling project that includes an additional operating room. He reviewed the proposed location for the new equipment. He noted the new generator will be located on the ground and be well screened by trees and other vegetation. The condenser and air handling equipment will be located on the roof by the existing mechanicals; because of the existing mechanical penthouse, he said the additional equipment will make very little difference in what is seen and staff does not believe the visual impact will be significant. 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 13, 2009 Mr. Bamberry discussed the need for the additional equipment and the noise levels created by the equipment. He said because of noise controls and sound packages, overall the new condenser compared to the existing unit would translate to a 50% perceived reduction in noise level, with the sound power 11 decibels less. The air handler, he said, is the same capacity as the existing unit, but also will have minimal impact on noise levels. The additional generator, he noted, will be used only in emergency situations or associated with peak use shaving through the Xcel program. He said most of the perceived noise coming from the campus comes from the air chillers. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kalmon noted that in earlier meetings when residents were present, noise was an issue of concern, and the hospital was asked to come back with ways to mitigate noise; he said while the hospital's plans have changed, he believes this request represents an opportunity to mitigate noise. Mr. Bamberry responded that purchase of new chillers would be extremely expensive and they have spent a great deal of time with engineers exploring all alternative placement of equipment and this location is the most feasible placement and the next best thing to having the units enclosed within the building itself. Mr. Gag, seconded by Mr. Spisak, moved approval as presented and conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 09-31 A street vacation request for a portion of Sherburne Street abutting lots 19 and 20, Block 13, Sabins Addition to Stillwater. Tom and Maureen Voves and Tony Mutter and Colleen Eddy, applicants. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He stated the request would not affect the alignment of the proposed McKusick loop trail. He spoke to the issue of the existing encroachment of the Mutters' garage and portion of driveway and outlined three options: vacation, license or do nothing. He said, in general, state law requires that a street vacation have some public benefit and not be vacated to a property owner for the property owner's sole benefit. He noted the City has utilized a license in similar situations; he stated a license legitimizes the encroachment, but does leave some cloud in that the license can be terminated by the City and the encroaching structure(s) would have to be rebuilt off the right-of-way if ever destroyed at some time in the future. On a question by Mr. Middleton, Mr. Pogge stated in 2003, there was a street vacation request made, which included a larger area; the Planning Commission recommended denial of that request and the City Council did as well, but stated if a survey was completed, the City would enter into a license agreement for the area of the garage encroachment. It was noted that a license is granted by the City Council and would not come before the Commission for consideration. Baiers Heeran was present representing the Mutters. He spoke of the proximity of the new trail to the Mutters' property and said the goal is to try to mitigate the feeling of being in close proximity to someone's home both for the Mutters and for people using the trail. He said the proposal would allow the Mutters to deal with both the encroachment issue as well as create a buffer to the trail. He spoke of the improvements the Mutters and other neighbors have made to the area where the trail will be located. He said they believe a vacation, versus a license, is the best way to accomplish this, noting that with a license, the City could with six month's notice at any given time force the improvements, in this case an attached garage, to be removed. He noted that this request differs from the previous vacation request in that the area has been 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 13, 2009 shrunk as much as possible and still allow the Mutters to keep what is there and provide the City with necessary easements. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Nancy Brown, 8787 Stonebridge Trail, who formerly occupied both the Voves and Mutter homes, spoke of the improvements the Mutters and Voves have made to the area surrounding their property and asked the Commission to work with them to give them some latitude to have privacy and still have the trail and improvements the City would like to see. Ken Kress, 403 N. Sherburne, spoke against the request. Ron Zaniewski, 1112 W. Linden, noted this issue has been dealt with before. He stated courts have ruled a vacation shall not be done for the benefit of a single property owner, or, in this case, two property owners. He asked the Commission to deny the request. Donna Mueller, 1321 Meadowlark Dr., said she was for the homeowner. She said there have been a lot of issues with the trail, and the trail wraps right around the Mutters' home. Even though the City owns a 75' swath, the trail is being placed right on the border of the Mutters' property, she noted. She said she felt the Mutters are being punished for somebody else building a garage in its current location in the 1980s; she asked how the house could have been sold to the Mutters if the title wasn't clear and asked why the Mutters are being punished for a decision made in the `80s. Mary Christenson, 415 N. Center St., noted the trail will abut their property in the rear. She said she thought maybe there was some confusion in that another name has been added to this request. She said she understands what the Mutters are asking due to the garage issue and said she thought there needs to be some agreement to get that title clear for them. Mr. Pogge responded that the request does include both names as adjoining property owners; however, he said no land would be conveyed to the Voves. Mary Kress, 403 N. Sherburne St., asked if the Mr. Mutter knew about the title when he purchased the property. She noted he had the opportunity to apply for a license to protect his property after the earlier request, and she wondered what the Mutters' plans are for the additional property in this vacation request. Leslie Mclnenley, 1115 W. Linden St., expressed a concern about the street vacation due to setting a precedent. She said she thought the license represents a good compromise. Tom Voves, 518 Owens St., said he was probably the one most affected by the vacation and said he would be in favor of the vacation. Anthony Mutter, 1104 Meadowlark Drive, spoke of the improvements they have made to their home and property. He said they want a vacation just to make sure that people don't go on their land. Maureen Voves, 518 Owens St. N., stated everyone has a right to make improvements to their property. She said this is an issue that should have been dealt with 30 years ago. She said this is a very small area that is being requested to be vacated so the Mutters can use their garage, back out of their garage and put up a fence to put up a buffer between the trail and the garage. She said the vacation is for the City's purpose too, for those who use the trail. 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 13, 2009 John Mueller, 1321 Meadowlark Dr., said he thought it unfortunate the Mutters were getting a bad rap for something that happened 30 years ago. He spoke of the improvements they have made to the property and questioned why anybody would be opposed to those improvements; he said any improvements that have been done have been with concern to improve the lake (McKusick). He suggested Commission members walk the proposed trail to see why the vacation is imperative, as the trail surrounds three sides of the Mutter house, plus now there will be a canoe landing in front of their house. He suggested the benefit to the public for the vacation request is so the Mutters can back out of their driveway without going over the trail. Jay Voves, 518 Owens St., questioned why anyone would care about the vacation so the Mutters can have some privacy and asked that the vacation be approved. Eloise Zaniewski, 1112 W. Linden St., said the problems began when the Mutters moved in and started encroaching on property that wasn't theirs. Bruce Werre, 1314 Meadowlark Dr., stated the trail proposal has pitted neighbor against neighbor and upsetting to everyone. He spoke of forgiveness and doing the right thing. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Herran addressed the question of the location of the driveway, noting that the driveway is located in the area of the proposed trail; in their proposal, the driveway would be relocated to the area to be vacated. Mr. Herran spoke of the license scenario that allows the City to require removal of a structure with six months notice, which in this case would involve an integral part of the home as it is an attached garage. He said the goal is to use the smallest amount of property possible to suit everyone's purposes. Mr. Pogge clarified the location of the driveway and turnaround and the proposed relocation; he also noted the area requested to be vacated is substantially less than the 2003 request. Mr. Mutter responded to comments about improvements that encroached on City property, saying that any improvements have benefitted the City in cleaning up the property/ravine and improving the lake. Mr. Spisak wondered why this is not a title or deed issue. Mr. Middleton referred to a recent experience with a license for a property with two structures encroaching on a City park, and he noted that the license did not stop the property from being sold. Mr. Dahlquist noted the Commission has no evidence that there was a bad survey that showed there was no problem in 1980 or when the property was sold; he said what the Commission is looking at is an encroachment problem that has nothing to do with the trail or past activities - it is an encroachment that has occurred for some reason or another and what is the best remedy for that encroachment. Mr. Dahlquist said he did not think a vacation was the solution and said he thought the best the applicant could hope for is a license. Mr. Gag echoed Mr. Dahlquist's comments and noted that this issue has been seen before with this property and other properties, and he said he did not see the public benefit to a street vacation. Mr. Kalmon stated he is not in favor of street vacations and believes when a vacation is approved, the property ought to be appraised and paid for; he agreed that licensing is probably the process to follow in this instance. Later in the discussion, Mr. Turnblad pointed out that the City cannot charge for vacated property as it is property that is held in public trust. Mr. Kalmon suggested screening of the trail 8 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 13, 2009 is an issue and perhaps the City could participate in cost-sharing of installation of a fence or screening of some sort between the trail and the property. Mr. Dahlquist moved to deny the request for the street vacation. Mr. Kalmon seconded the motion. Ms. Block said she understood the need for screening and wondered whether that could be included in the motion somehow. After discussion. It was consensus screening should be dealt with in any licensing agreement. Motion to deny the street vacation passed unanimously. Case No. 09-32 An amendment to the height regulations ordinance to require that all requests for a variance of 10% greater than the maximum height allowed in all zoning districts be approved by the City Council. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request, which he said was prompted by a concern over the potential height of cell towers and wind turbines. He reviewed the possible amendment language. The proposed language would make the City Council the final authority for deciding any request for a height variance more than 10% greater than the allowed height in any zoning district. The Planning Commission, according to the language, would hold the public hearing on the height variance requests and make a recommendation to the City Council, with the City Council having the final decision-making authority. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Ms. Block moved to approve the proposed amendment language. Mr. Kalmon seconded the motion. Mr. Kalmon asked whether there have been a number of decisions that the Council felt have gone the wrong way that prompted this requested change. Mr. Dahlquist suggested this represents a subtle shift in the decision-making structure. In discussion it was noted that currently there are some instances where the Planning Commission has decision-making authority, barring appeal, and others whether the Commission makes a recommendation to the Council. After discussion Ms. Block rescinded her motion as did Mr. Kalmon his second. Mr. Dahlquist moved to forward the results of the public hearing to the Council with no recommendation; Mr. Spisak seconded the motion. After additional discussion, Mr. Kalmon suggested it might be appropriate to recommend denial as the status quo has worked effectively and there are other avenues for the Council to look at those cases it wants to see. Mr. Dahlquist withdrew his motion as did Mr. Spisak his second. Mr. Kalmon moved to recommend denial of the proposed amendment language. Mr. Middleton seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Block moved to adjourn at 11:25 p.m. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. 9 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 13, 2009 Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 10