Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-12 CPC MINCITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, September 12, 2011 7 p.m. Meeting Present: Commissioners Buchanan, Dahlquist, Hansen, Kelly, Kocon, Siess, and Spisak Absent: Commissioners Gallick and Malsam Staff: Community Development Director Turnblad, Planner Pogge and Councilmember Menikheim Chair Dahlquist opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On page 14, last paragraph, first line, correct the line to read, Commissioner Spisak (not Dahlquist) asked a number of questions... Commissioner Siess asked that on page 6, the number of neighbors that the notice went out to should be added which was 16. Add that Mr. Pogge was asked how many communities use our water treatment facility, and the answer was three. Commissioner Spisak, seconded by Commissioner Buchanan, moved to approve the August 8, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as amended. Motion was approved unanimously. OPEN FORUM There was no one present for Open Forum. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2011 -22. A zoning text amendment for variance criteria in the City of Stillwater. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Tunrblad introduced the case, stating that during the 2011 legislative session the state law relating to variance review standards was amended. To be consistent with the new law, the City should amend its Zoning Ordinance. The primary change in the state statute is that the term "hardship" is now eliminated and allows a zoning authority to issue a variance if there are "practical difficulties" which are described as follows: • the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 • the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and • the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The packet contains copies of the statutory changes and the first draft of revisions to the city code, along with the League of Minnesota Cities brief. Mr. Turnblad went through highlights of the changes, noting that text in red is a change, underlined is added, strike - through is deleted. Section (a) explains the purpose of a variance. Section (b) gives general provisions. Section (c) explains the procedure. Section (d) is especially important in that it lists the findings required in granting a variance. Sections (e), (f), and (g) explain recurrent condition, precedents, and height variances. Commissioner Siess asked if this amendment is this in line with other cities, to which Mr. Turnblad replied that it is in line with state guidelines and that the City Attorney has reviewed the document. Staff advises the Planning Commission to recommend that City Council adopt the proposed code amendment. Chair Dahlquist opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak. Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, moved to approve Case No. 2011 -22. Motion was approved unanimously. Commissioner Hansen asked if after number 3, on the second page, the line "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties" should be even with (d) (3). Mr. Turnblad replied yes. Case No. 2011 -23. A variance re uest to the im ervious surface regulations for the construction of a two -stall garage located at 223 Pine Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Richard Van Horne, applicant. Planner. Pogge introduced the case. The applicants are requesting a variance in order to construct a detached 22'8" wide by 25'4" deep garage and associated driveway. This property is zoned RB and currently has an existing single - family home on the site. The lot is 8,949 square feet in size. The current 20 foot by 22.5 foot garage is proposed to be demolished and replaced with the new garage. The HPC approved the demolition of the garage in HPC Case 2009 -30. The Van Home's property is in the RB zoning district. The critical standards from the district are presented in the table included in the packet, together with the current and proposed minimums. 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 As seen in the table, the building coverage does not satisfy the RB zoning standards. The variance is to the maximum impervious lot coverage. The RB zoning code allows up to 25% coverage for buildings and 25 % for other impervious coverage, which are required to be calculated separately. Past precedents set by the Commission when one type of impervious coverage is exceeded and a variance is required, the difference between 25% and the proposed coverage is required to be mitigated. In this case, the proposal would cause the site to be only 75.75 sq ft over on building coverage while at the same time the site will be under the allowable total lot coverage by 1,369 sq or 15.3 %. Due to the minimal amount the proposal exceeds in building coverage and how much under the proposal is in total lot coverage staff feels that mitigation of the difference can be waived in this case. It is felt there is enough green space to handle any run -off this change could produce. Mr. Pogge presented an evaluation of the request, noting that the applicant has rehabilitated the home, re- introducing the original porches on the front and side of the home. Without these porches the property owner could construct the proposed garage without the variance. He noted that the City has consistently granted variances to enable projects when historic considerations are a factor. As other criteria are being met as well, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request with the following condition: All minor revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. All major revisions shall be revised and approve by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator. Staff recommends approval of the request. Commissioner Kocon wondered why this came up for variance last year and wasn't granted. Mr. Pogge responded that staff has since changed their position. The applicant pointed out elements on the house that bring it back to its historic condition and grandeur, such as adding the porches back on, and feels that a variance should be given for the garage. Commissioner Hansen expressed his opinion that a 24 x 24 garage should no longer be considered standard, as it is no longer considered big enough. Mr. Pogge said that it would depend on lot area, and the 24 x 24 is basically a minimum and that setbacks must be considered as well. Commissioner Dahlquist noted that the applicant is showing storage above the garage, and if that would eventually be habitable space, we are looking at a different application. Mr. Pogge responded that the upper floor would be limited to 6 '/2 feet in height and thus would not be habitable. A garage can only be one story; otherwise it becomes an accessory building. Staff reviews the plans before a building permit is issued to be sure the height issue is enforced. Chair Dahlquist opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak. 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 Richard Kielty, who lives at 118 West Oak and owns property at 424 South 4t'', a block from Mr. Van Home's property, said that this is the second notice received on this property, and feels the city is nitpicking — that the general appearance is a great improvement and the variance should be approved. Staff clarified that the applicant could have gotten the variances when the porches were approved, but it was an oversight by the architect. Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, moved to approve Case No. 2011 -23 as conditioned. Motion was approved 6 -1. Commissioner Spisak voted no. Case No. 2011 -24. A zoning text amendment to amend the Building Demolition Ordinance, Chapter 34 of the Stillwater City Code. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Pogge explained that currently, before a structure over 50 years of age is demolished, a public hearing before the Heritage Preservation Commission is required unless the structure is an immediate life safety hazard. Applicants are required to complete what is known as the "nine steps" before the HPC will approve a permit. Once the nine steps are completed, the HPC is required to approve the demolition peiinit unless the structure proposed to be demolished is on the National Register of Historic Places (currently 8 residential structures and 64 commercial building in the downtown area are on the NRHP) or are locally designated (currently no structure in the City is locally designated). The city's original demolition ordinance was adopted in 1995 and was intended to be a temporary ordinance. HPC has been looking at improving preservation efforts, and was authorized by City Council to look at revisions. Due to the rather relaxed requirements of the current ordinance, important structures could be demolished and are not protected. For example, homes like the Alexander and Ida Nelson house on top of Chestnut Street stairs; the John and Anna O'Brien house, now home to Rivertown Inn; and Adolphus and Aurora Hospes House, now home to Aurora Staples Bed and Breakfast, all fall outside of any real protection that the City's demolition review ordinance provides. On the other hand, currently all structures over 50 years of age that are proposed to be demolished require a public hearing before the HPC, even those that clearly have no historic integrity. A change should be made to allow staff to initially review demolition requests. Staff could then approve the demolition of buildings that do not have historic value or integrity. For example, a 1950's block garage on a property with an 1800's home would be an instance where staff could approve the permit. Finally, the ordinance fails to clearly define what constitutes a partial demolition. Staff has researched demolition ordinances from 37 HPC's around the State of Minnesota. Two ordinances worthy of consideration are from Chaska and Minneapolis. In Minneapolis, staff conducts an initial review to determine if a structure is potentially historic and if not, staff administratively approves the demolition request. This would expedite clear -cut cases and allow them to be quickly approved. Other more significant structures would continue to be reviewed by 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 the HPC. Both Chaska and Minneapolis have a provision that allows their HPC's to impose a 180 -day waiting period, an approach that is common throughout the nation when it comes to demolition reviews and allows the community time to search for an alternative to demolition. The Minneapolis ordinance takes it one step further and allows the Minneapolis HPC the opportunity to consider locally designating the property during the waiting period, and if approved by the HPC and City Council, the demolition of the property could be blocked. While rarely applied, it provides a relief valve of sorts, which also requires City Council approval to ensure that properties are not locally designated without just cause, The Heritage Preservation Commission has been discussing revision of the current ordinance over the past year and a half. The packet contains the HPC's proposal based on this work, which can be found in the staff report under "Discussion — The proposed building Demolition Ordinance does four main things." The revised ordinance better defines potential historic significance, demolition, historic resource, historically significant building or structure, and non- historic structure or building. Based on specific criteria, many demolition requests could be approved on the staff level, rather than going through HPC. Mr. Pogge noted that there are many checks and balances included in the revised ordinance. Commissioner Siess asked about a previous discussion about a house that had the stairs by the garage that was demolished but was not supposed to be. Mr. Pogge responded that this house was issued an emergency demolition as part of the building was already demolished, and the owner did end up going through HPC. Commissioner Kelly asked what's to keep someone from going through the process in phases? Mr. Pogge replied that we have to have faith in our citizens, but this is an issue not yet addressed. The 60 -day rule applies to staff considerations. They are not zoning applications per se. Many cities have the 180 -day delay in their ordinance to complete the process. The 180 -day rule can be applied if the commission is going to recommend denial based on historical significance of the property, there is an alternative to demolition, or that they have not advertised or tried to find a way to preserve the property. The revised ordinance spells out seven points that determine whether or not a structure is a historic resource. Commissioner Spisak questioned having a set date (ex: January 1, 1945) versus 50 years or older as a deterniining factor as to whether or not a structure is potentially historically significant. HPC has asked that staff use a rolling date set at 50 years of age or older, as 50 years is when a property is first eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Staff requests that the Commission consider an amendment to the City's Building Demolition Ordinance. Under State Statute, the HPC is technically an arm of City Zoning. As such, any new zoning ordinance is required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission before it is adopted by the City Council. Staff recommends City Council approval of this request. If the Planning 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 Commission agrees with City Staff, the Commission should amend the proposed ordinance to change the definition of "building or structure of potential historic significance" to be those buildings or structures built on or before December 31, 1945. They should then recommend that City Council approve the demolition ordinance. Councilmember Menikheim stated that when he was campaigning a year ago, a number of constituents had strong responses to the demolition ordinance as it currently exists. There's an area of subjectivity that needs to be addressed. HPC made changes on Thursday night, then changes were made to the ordinance, but it has not yet been shared with the public. Historical preservation is critical to Stillwater, but there is also the issue of homeowners rights and property rights, i.e., what rights does the citizen have and what control does the city have over those rights. He feels it is important that the public be heard and wondered if architectural control should be in the hands of the City. Chair Dahlquist opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak. Commissioner Dahlquist had some questions. In the ordinance it provides city staff the opportunity to make determinations on clear -cut cases. If this ordinance goes forward, he suggests that a report be made to the Historic Preservation Commission on these decisions, so that everyone agrees that it is the clear -cut cases that are being decided on the staff level. Also, regarding changes associated with structures that are not currently listed on the historic register, we have the opportunity as they currently exist to do local designations, but we have elected not to do that. He asked why some of these properties are not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Pogge responded that the National Register has very high standards and the property needs to be of national significance. Developing local designation takes neighborhood education and study; the City doesn't want to designate a neighborhood against its will, so we need to educate people on why communities do this and what the benefits are, such as improving property values as much as 30 %. Historic settings contribute to the economy of the city — boat rides, trolley rides, tourism and more. Studies of a neighborhood can take as long as a year, so it takes time and money. Architectural control assures that new homes going into a neighborhood are compatible with existing homes and the setting. Commissioner Spisak asked what is Minnesota Statute Chapter 463 as listed in the ordinance under "Demolition shall not mean any of the following: (1) A structure required to be demolished in accordance with Minn. Stats. Ch. 463." Mr. Pogge responded that it addresses a structure that is deemed to be a safety hazard. When asked how many structures have been demolished without HPC approval under the current ordinance, he responded that it was 3 or 4. Once a structure is lost, there is not much that can be done. The city has prosecuted a few cases, and when confronted three of the individuals have donated money to the Heritage Preservation fund that was set up. In some cases it's a matter of the owner not understanding the ordinance. The date of 1945 rather than a rolling date of 50 years old was selected to protect what are considered historic 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 properties. It doesn't mean that structures built after 1945 can't be protected, but it would take a proactive act to do that. Commissioner Siess suggested that more public notice needs to be given, and that this should be tabled for one month to allow for more discussion. Mr. Pogge has talked to various architects, HPC, and others who care about preservation. Commissioner Kelly expressed his concern about putting too much power in the hands of the city regarding local designation and property owner's rights. Mr. Pogge said that Chapter 22:8 of our ordinance codifies the process in a very detailed manner. Commissioner Dahlquist reiterated that the Planning Commission has not dealt in great depth with this subject before. What is different between the two ordinances is that right now HPC is compelled to issue a permit at some point, but the new ordinance allows them to hold up the demolition. City Council has to approve local designations before the process is even begun, then the year -long process of architectural surveys and education of the neighbors begins. In looking back, Mr. Pogge estimates that 65% of cases could have been decided by staff, but currently applicants have to go through the nine steps, costing $300 -500, and taking at least a month of time. It's a matter of trusting staff to determine what is historic and what isn't, taking the 1945 date into consideration. If the Commission decides to table this, staff will waive the 60 days and cancel the public hearing set for October 3. The local newspaper could be asked to publish a press release about this ordinance and notify people of the opportunity to attend the next meeting that will be opened up for comment. Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, moved to table Case No. 2011 -24, with the understanding that we will hear public comment at the next meeting. Motion was approved unanimously. Case No. 2011 -09. An ordinance amendment for seasonal outdoor sales and Vending Carts. Ci of Stillwater a I . licant. Continued from Au ' ust 8 2011 meetin Director Turnblad stated that Planning Commissioners have over the years been dissatisfied with the City Zoning Ordinance requirement that vendors and seasonal outdoor sales have a Special Use Permit (SUP). By the very nature of these uses, the operators are not tied to the property for which the SUP is issued. They are more similar to transient merchants than they are to commercial uses for which Special Use Permits are issued. In response, the Planning Commission asked City staff to research a more fitting way to permit these uses. At the August 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented several options. The Commission discussed the options and worked through a first and second draft of an ordinance that creates an annual permitting process for seasonal outdoor sales and vending. The permit for the businesses would be approved by the Planning Commission for the first year. That 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 initial permit would expire on December 31 s`. For each subsequent year (without substantial changes), the permit would be reviewed and issued by City staff. In August of 2011 the Commission opened a public hearing on the 2nd draft of the ordinance. In response to an article in one of the Twin Cities newspapers, the hearing was tabled until September and staff was asked to investigate noise related to the generators that some food vending trucks use. Though the reporter for the above referenced newspaper suggested that generator noise is a concern, it is apparently not a large enough concern to have been addressed by many communities in the Twin Cities area. Staff did not find much in -state information. However, the City of Asheville, NC has been engaging the question. In an e -mail exchange with their Assistant Planning Director, staff learned that in Asheville the following regulations are being considered: 1. Electrical power provided to food vendors by connection to peirnanent electrical outlets is preferred over the use of generators. 2. If electrical generators are used within 100 feet of a residential unit, they are limited to inverter technology "whisper" generators (maximum of 50 decibels). 3. If electrical generators are used further than 100 feet from a residential unit, they are allowed to create a maximum of 65 decibels of noise. 4. No generator may be used between 12 midnight and 6 in the morning within 200 feet of a residential unit. No generator may be used anywhere downtown between the hours of 3 AM and 6 AM. (In Stillwater's case, our vendors are not open after 2 AM) In addition, the Asheville nuisance ordinance states that "noise disturbance" is prohibited. Noise disturbance is defined in part as "disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivity." Stillwater's nuisance ordinance is similar. And though it is a challenge to know what a "reasonable person of normal sensitivity" is, the provision does give Ashville the flexibility to deal with situations where 65 or even 50 decibel generators are just too loud. Mr. Turnblad further stated that if the Planning Commission feels that generator noise is a potential problem in Downtown Stillwater, any or all of the Asheville regulations could be included in the Stillwater ordinance, though modification of some of them maybe advisable, in the section on utility plans for vendors. It should be noted that the same regulations will not apply to vendors associated with special events, since they operate under a special event permit not a vendor permit as regulated by this proposed ordinance. Staff recommendation is to discuss the 3rd draft of the proposed ordinance, as well as potential generator noise regulations, and make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Kocon asked what the decibel level is for traffic on Main Street. Should we worry about a generator when we have cars, trucks, and motorcycles creating way more noise than a generator? He feels that #1 and #4 are fine, but the rest are way too much. A vendor having a tent sale is in the parking lot of a business and are not bothering nearby residences. 8 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 Director Turnblad explained that every year new permits are issued. If there are no complaints, staff reissues the permit based on the previous year's application. Otherwise it goes to the Planning Commission for approval. If the ordinance were to change, it would apply to new applications, but the City has the ability to revoke a permit if too many complaints are received. The Nuisance Ordinance, in which noise level is addressed, could also be used. There is flexibility to change the ordinance in the future as needed. Chair Dahlquist opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak. Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, moved to approve Draft 3 of the Ordinance for Case No. 2011 -09. Motion was approved unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS There being no further discussion, Commissioner Spisak, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, moved to adjourn at 9:06 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Carol Danielson Interim Recording Secretary 9