Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-14 CPC MINAbsent: Scott Spisak CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Chair Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: Aron Buchanan, Mike Dahlquist, Matt Gullick, Eric Hansen, Mike Kocon, John Malsam, Councilmember Menikheim, Ann Seiss and Charles Wolden Staff present: Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kocon, seconded by Mr. Hansen, moved approval of the Feb. 14, 2011, minutes. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2011 -05. A variance to the parking regulations (17 parking spaces required, 12 spaces requested) for the Chilikoot Cafe located at 826 4 Street South in the CA, General Commercial District. Lee Stylos, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He noted that a variance was previously granted for 11 parking spaces, and he noted the proposed use is permitted in this zoning district. He said the proposed use requires 22 parking spaces, leaving a deficit of five spaces over the previously granted variance; he said at one time there was a variance granted for a pizza shop that would have met the parking requirements, but that variance expired because the use was discontinued for more than one year. He reviewed the criteria for granting a variance. Mr. Kocon asked about the existing parking deficiencies in the immediate area; Mr. Pogge reviewed the adjacent businesses and parking spaces. Mr. Kocon asked about the distance from any City parking lot; Mr. Pogge estimated that at about 2+ blocks and noted this site is outside of the downtown parking management district. Mr. Buchanan asked how parking requirements are determined, whether that is based on full capacity at any one time; Mr. Pogge said it is based on square footage and use. Mr. Dahlquist asked if consideration is given to businesses in a Neighborhood Commercial District, such as this, where there might be a certain amount of foot traffic versus vehicular traffic; Mr. Pogge stated there is no consideration given to that factor. Mr. Buchanan asked if neighboring businesses had been contacted for input; Mr. Pogge stated notices were sent to property owners within 350 feet of the site and said two letters, included in the agenda packet, had been received from adjoining owners opposed to the variance. A representative of the applicant was present. He stated as a cafe and bike shop, the business would be promoting a healthy lifestyle; he said it is hoped a fair about of the traffic will be cycling traffic rather than car traffic and said they had received a fair amount of feedback from neighbors who are looking forward to having a place that they can walk to. Ms. Seiss questioned the location adjacent to other business of the same uses; the applicant's representative said they have a different business plan and type of business than the existing one and he suggested they will bring another choice to the neighborhood. Mr. Buchanan asked if there is any estimate of the 1 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2011 amount of foot traffic versus vehicular traffic that might utilize the business; the applicant's representative stated they have no good estimate but are hoping to promote that. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. Shelly Ram bout, owner of the Bikery, directly across the street, said she was not notified of this meeting. She said she was notified by customers of hers who are very concerned about parking. She said parking will be an issue and will be a problem. Pauline Gates, 741 Fischer Circle, questioned what need this new business will meet that is not already being served by the Bikery. She also noted that people who come to a coffee shop tend to do so at the same time of day so parking will be a problem, with people parking in front of private residences in the neighborhood. Ellie Samuelson, 904 S. Third St., asked about hours of operation. She said her primary concern was with parking, as that is already a problem. She also questioned why spaces at the second -hand store and Charlsen Trucking were mentioned in discussing the parking deficiencies in the area. Mr. Pogge explained that he was not trying to imply that individuals could park in someone else's parking lot, he was just giving an overview of the parking situation in the adjacent area. Audrin Hayes, 8883 Jane Road N., Lake Elmo, an employee of the Bikery, expressed concern about parking. Steve Meister, Meister's Bar and Grill, noted the proposal is for a bike shop and cafe and said noise shouldn't be of concern to anyone. Regarding parking, he said this is a South Hill business district, which is itself a hardship as it is the only intersection in the City in a residential area with a business on all four corners. He noted that Churchill between Third and Fifth and Fourth Street from Willard to Hancock are exempt from the even -odd winter parking ordinance because it is a business district area. He said there is a lot of on- street parking in those four blocks and said he didn't have any concern with another business. He said this is a South Hill business district that he would like to see become a destination where people have an option. The more people in the area, the better it will be for businesses in the area, he said. His only concern, he said, was on Saturday's when cyclists come with their bikes on their cars and leave the cars all day while they are out cycling. Ms. McAllister, 8883 Jane Road N., Lake Elmo, related her experiences picking up and dropping her son and her other children off at the Bikery and said parking in the area is an issue. The resident of 520 Second St. S., whose daughter also is an employee of the Bikery, expressed concern about parking, saying she has experienced the problem herself when dropping her daughter off at work or visiting the shop herself for pleasure. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. The applicant's representative addressed the comment regarding the difference between the Bikery and this business, noting that he thought the Bikery was primarily a bakery and coffee shop, while this will be a cafe with menu. Regarding hours of operation, he said this would be primarily a breakfast and lunch business, although the definite hours of operation have not been established yet. On the cycling side of the business, he said there is a cycling club in Stillwater that is looking for a shop to affiliate with; he said this would be a full - service, full -line retail shop. He said they would educate CITY OF 2 STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2011 members of the cycling club on not parking on streets in the area. Regarding the parking issue, he said he understands it is a busy area; he said the residential location is part of what appeals to the businesses and said they plan to be a resident - friendly business. Mr. Kocon asked how the neighborhood has changed in the years since the variance for the pizza shop was granted. Mr. Pogge said overall, the development pattern is essentially what existed at that time. Mr. Kocon noted that, with the possible exception of the consignment shop which has adequate on -site parking, all of the businesses in this Neighborhood Commercial District have historically had the ability to "over park." Mr. Pogge pointed out that the Bikery and architects' office are fairly close to being compliant with parking regulations. Mr. Malsam asked about the full capacity of the proposed cafe /restaurant; the applicant's representative said that has not yet been determined, but estimated there might be room for 40. Ms. Seiss asked whether the former pizza shop was take -out or sit -down; Mr. Pogge stated it was both uses. Ms. Seiss asked whether the majority of businesses in the area meet at least half of the required parking; Mr. Pogge responded in the negative. Mr. Kocon pointed out every business in the district is deficient in parking and contributes to the parking problem and the Commission is being asked to either exacerbate the existing problem or deny someone the use of their business property because of a parking issue. Mr. Dahlquist referred to a comment made by Mr. Meister that if there isn't parking, people won't visit a business, so the problem is in a sense self - limiting. Mr. Wolden asked about the impact of the Krummenacher case on the granting of variances, noting that in the downtown area, the City was able to get around the need for variances by providing an alternative parking plan, which isn't available here. Mr. Pogge said he had visited with City Attorney Magnuson regarding this case and noted the City willingly established a zoning district that set up a situation like this; he talked of the possibility of creating a parking impact district which businesses pay into and then create the parking in the future, but he noted costs could be high and it might not be appropriate in an historic residential neighborhood. Mr. Menikheim asked about the exemption from the odd -even winter parking; Mr. Pogge said he was not aware of that, but would check into that. Mr. Buchanan noted that the actual parking deficiency is not five, but is actually 16 spaces, nearly 300% more than what is required; he noted an overwhelming majority of the people spoke to the fact that parking is a problem. Mr. Buchanan suggested that staff might want to look at giving consideration to foot traffic when determining parking requirements, and also suggested that staff look into establishing a time limit, perhaps two -hour parking in the area to address the issue raised by Mr. Meister of people parking their cars on the street for an extended period of time. Mr. Malsam suggested there is an issue of fairness involved, noting there are already businesses in the area and to single out one business and say it is the cause of the parking problem and others are not, would not be fair; he also suggested there is a benefit of having a lot of people in the area to create a vibrant business environment. Mr. Hansen agreed that it is would be better to have a business there that is thriving than to have an empty building because everyone is deficient in parking spaces. Mr. Menikheim noted the area is zoned commercial but suggested there needs to be more staff research done as to how other communities handle such situations; he also suggested perhaps a solution lies in the formation of a business association for the area to address issues of concern. Mr. Menikheim suggested tabling the request at this time, pending such research. Mr. Kocon asked about the possibility of permit parking for residents; Mr. Pogge said the City has avoided that as it leads to many difficult situations. Ms. Seiss said she liked the idea of a two -hour parking limit; Mr. Turnblad noted this is a residential, mixed -use neighborhood and a two -hour limit has a negative impact on residents and the ability of have guests, which both permit and two -hour parking do, but agreed that it might be possible to do two -hour parking in front of the businesses only. 3 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2011 Mr. Kocon moved to approve the request with the condition that two -hour parking be established on the four quadrants of the Neighborhood Commercial District. Mr. Turnblad noted that the parking restriction would have to be passed by the City Council. Mr. Turnblad suggested that approval could be contingent on the Council approving the suggested two -hour parking restriction; if the Council does not approve the parking restrictions, the request would come back to the Commission for reconsideration. Mr. Kocon changed his motion to reflect the wording suggested by Mr. Turnblad and clarified the area where he would want the two -hour parking established. Mr. Buchanan seconded the motion. Mr. Dahlquist questioned whether the motion should be to recommend that the Council consider establishing the two -hour parking area, rather than making Council approval of the parking restriction a condition of the Commission's approval. Mr. Kocon said he thought it appropriate to reconsider the request if the Council does not approve the parking restriction. Mr. Hansen asked if there was a concern about throwing out a possible solution — the two -hour parking limit — without hearing from other businesses in the district; Mr. Turnblad said he thought it would be sufficient to allow business owners to testify at the Council's hearing on the parking restriction and noted that if the Council is not comfortable with the recommendation and testimony, it could send the matter back to the Commission. Mr. Buchanan raised the issue of the second criteria for the granting of a variance and the Krummenacher decision and asked how others felt. Mr. Wolden said he would be voting against the motion because of that issue, and also because he felt the condition regarding parking limitations should be a recommendation rather than a condition. Mr. Dahlquist called the question. Motion passed 5 -3, with Mr. Buchanan, Gullick and Wolden voting no. Case No. 2011 -06. A variance to the side yard setback (5 feet required, and 2.5 feet requested) for the construction of a deck landing and stairs located at 702 Churchill Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Brendon Stryhn, representing David Handley, applicant. The applicants were present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He noted that in all after - the -fact requests, the variance request is treated as if the improvement is not in place. He also noted there are several alternatives that would enable the deck /stairs to be constructed without the need for a variance. He reviewed the three requirements for granting of a variance and stated staff finds against two of the three, with denial recommended. On a question by Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Pogge stated that pavers /patio do not have setback requirements; a raised deck must meet setbacks of the principal structure. Brendon Stryhn, the original developer, reviewed the history of the project. He stated the steps were added due to a drainage issue with the neighbor to the rear of the property; he explained that he raised the whole side of the yard and added a retaining wall to deal with drainage issues, which pretty much eliminated access from the house to the garage. He said he decided to extend the deck over and place the stairs there because it was the only access he could provide to the garage without going back to Planning and Heritage Preservation Commission; also, he said, because he was building on the original footprint, he was not required to have a survey map and thought there was more room. Regarding moving the steps, he said there is a major drain tile field in place to keep the garage from flooding. Dave Handley, current resident, said they recently purchased the property and are proud of being part of taking an historic property and giving it new life; he said they were unaware of the outstanding issues involved until several weeks after moving into the home and said they have become somewhat of a referee between the City and builder, who they believe acted in good faith throughout the project. Mr. Kocon asked why the steps couldn't be 2.5' farther into the property and the deck 2.5' shorter to met setbacks. Mr. 4 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2011 Stryhn said he could have done that but didn't know exactly where the lot line was; he said he built the stairs and deck as they are to get as much drainage as possible. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. Colleen Walsh, 706 Churchill, said the lot line was an issue for the 2+ years of project construction. She said the stairway is an obstruction that almost juts into her yard and suggested there is no reason the stairs couldn't be up against the garage. She later said the 2.5 feet is important to her — it's her yard. Co -owner of the James Mulvey Inn, immediately across Harriet Street from the property, talked of the many problems Mr. Stryhn encountered with the project, which he said removed a dilapidated property that was a scourge on the neighborhood. He spoke of how accommodating Mr. Stryhn was doing the project and talked of the problem created by the requirement to retain the original garage and stay in the footprint of the original house. He said he thought it would be unreasonable to force the developer to spend $3,000 - $4,000 to take 2.5' off a deck. Kevin Pamprin, 805 Churchill, said it was nice to see a house in the neighborhood that has been retrofitted. He agreed that the 2.5' means nothing, noting that many of the houses in the area are not in conformance. Betsy Glennon, owner of the property to the north with the drainage problem, said Mr. Stryhn and his workers were exemplary partners and very accommodating during the project. She said she failed to see how this would not be a financial hardship to the developer after he spent nearly three years working with the City on the many different issues. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Handley said he and his wife feel very strongly that it is not practical to move the steps and retain the functional purpose of the deck; he showed graphics of the site to indicate this would eliminate an access point that was part of the original function of the design. He said eliminating the steps would require walking on the street to gain access to the house. Mr. Buchanan clarified that the deck and stairs were in place prior to the Handleys' purchase of the home. Mr. Pogge noted that even though the current property owner didn't create the issue, the builder was notified of the problem and he should have disclosed this to the property owner. In discussion, it was noted that a certificate of occupancy was not issued due to a number of building issues; Mr. Pogge stated a temporary certificate of occupancy has been issued because the other building issues have been resolved. Several members congratulated Mr. Stryhn on his workmanship on this project. Mr. Buchanan referred to a previous case where a property owner was required to move a fence that was installed by a contractor who had failed to meet setbacks. Mr. Kocon reiterated that the Commission must look at this as if the improvement hadn't been done and the Commission is looking at a space that is occupied that shouldn't be occupied; in spite of the hardship and issue of expense, he said this is encroaching where it doesn't need to. Mr. Dahlquist suggested the key to this case is that there is a very clear option that appears to satisfy setbacks and still maintain the access around the garage. 5 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2011 Mr. Wolden moved to deny. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion. Ms. Seiss asked whether the fact that this is an issue in an older neighborhood and older home makes any difference. Mr. Dahlquist said existing conditions have been a factor, but in this case, this element was not an existing condition and there are alternatives. Motion to deny passed unanimously. It was noted the applicant has 10 days to appeal the decision. Case No. 2011 -07. A special use permit for a Minus 5 Ice Box located at 305 Water Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. John Daly, applicant. This case was withdrawn. Mr. Pogge explained that is was determined that a special use permit is not needed as the use is similar to what exists on the patio today. The hearing was opened and closed. Case No. 2011 -08. A final plat and final PUD approval for Millbrook 5 Addition for 37 single family homes located at Outlot H Millbrook Addition. US Home Corp, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and history of the Millbrook PUD. He said the applicant is requesting one revision — to go back to the original lot layout for the area west of Lowell Court and stay with the revised lot layout for the lots east of Lowell Court. He noted the requested change will result in the loss of one lot rather than the loss of the three lots in the July 2009 revised plan. He noted the requested change still has lots that are above the minimum lot size and lot widths for the zoning district; he said staff has no issue with the requested change. He said overall the plans meet all of the conditions for the PUD permit. Mr. Pogge did address a change regarding a trail connection along Highway 96. Originally that was to be part of a state regional trail. However, he said it now appears the regional trail will be aligned with the Zephyr rail line, and the Highway 96 trail connection will likely not be needed. However, he said staff recommends, and the applicant has agreed to provide, a trail easement for the Highway 96 connection should that be needed in the future. He said approval is recommended with the three conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Dahlquist confirmed that the second PUD amendment was not associated with the amendment related to the townhome change and also that this does not change the housing mix. Mr. Pogge noted that staff has done some administrative approvals for houses and the applicant likely will be asking for more; he said staff's primary concern is that what is being requested will not result in smaller homes or garage- dominant housing plans. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Wolden, seconded by Ms. Seiss, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS 5.01 Letter from Lee Sather, owner of James Mulvey Inn, 622 Churchill Street West, request to terminate Bed and Breakfast special use permit. Mr. Pogge noted the home is reverting back to single - family use and the lender is requiring the termination of the special use permit. 5.02 Discussion of vendor sales draft ordinance — Mr. Turnblad reviewed the first draft of regulations for seasonal food vending operations, noting that currently there are three food vendors operating in the City. Mr. Wolden asked about the financial implications of going from the special use permit, currently in place, to the annual permit process. Mr. Turnblad said currently a special use permit costs $500, with no annual fee unless a major change is made; he said the fee 6 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2011 for the annual permit will likely be $15 or $20. Mr. Dahlquist noted there has been a concern that seasonal vendors may put permanent businesses at a disadvantage, but noted there will be an opportunity for feedback regarding that issue at the public hearing. Mr. Dahlquist expressed a concern about allowing the vendors to have sandwich board signage. Mr. Turnblad said the proposal is to allow such signage on the subject property, not on public sidewalk; he noted vendors are not allowed on public property. Mr. Dahlquist suggested some clarification in the language as the City does have an ordinance which allows sandwich boards on public property — sidewalks. Mr. Turnblad agreed that the language should specify location on private property only. Mr. Turnblad said the ordinance will be brought back to the Commission for a final review and be shared with member sof the industry prior to scheduling a public hearing. * Mr. Buchanan asked whether variance criteria are set by the state; Mr. Turnblad said that is established both by state statute and case law. There was discussion of cases heard earlier in the evening. Mr. Menikheim spoke of the importance of being a user - friendly City. Mr. Buchanan referred to the Krummenacher case and suggested that it is the duty of Commissioners to take the criteria and interpret them, but not just disregard them if as an individual might disagree with a criteria. Mr. Dahlquist referred to Mr. Menikheim's comments and suggested that should be a decision of the City Council, pointing out the Commission's decisions can be and are appealed to the City Council. Mr. Menikheim suggested it might be good to have a conversation with the Council. Mr. Turnblad stated the Commission has had a good working relationship with the Council for many years, and said it is well understood that the Planning Commission reviews cases from a technical, planning perspective, while the Council has the broader perspective. * Mr. Dahlquist welcomed Matt Gullick to the Commission. Mr. Kocon, seconded by Ms. Seiss, moved to adjourn at 9:55 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 7