Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-12 CPC PacketCITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, December 12, 2011 7 p.m. The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, December 12, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. City of Stillwater Planning Commission regular meetings are held at 7 p.m on the second Monday of each month. All City Planning Commission meetings are open to the public. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF November 14, 2011 MINUTES 3. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Commission may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 4.01 Case No. 2011 -29. A variance request to the side yard setback (3 feet requested, 5 feet required) for the construction of a deck located at 1101 2' Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Lucia Pearson, applicant. S. OTHER BUSINESS CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, November 14, 2011 Minutes Present: Aron Buchanan, Mike Dahlquist, Eric Hansen, Cameron Kelly, Mike Kocon, John Malsam, Anne Siess, Scott Spisak and Council liaison Doug Menikheim Staff present: Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Pogge Mr. Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Spisak, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved approval of the minutes of Oct. 10, 2011. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2011 -26. A resubdivision of a 20,000 square foot lot into two lots, Lot 1 -7500 square feet and Lot 2 - 12,500 square feet, respectively, located at 215 St. Croix Avenue West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Paul Nickerson, applicant. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request. He stated the request meets all minimum requirements for zoning and development. He said the only complicating factor is the provision of sanitary sewer service to the property; Mr. Turnblad noted that cost will be the responsibility of the property owner and a condition of approval is that a sanitary sewer plan must be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to releasing the resolution of approval for the resubdivision. He said the second condition of approval is that utility hook -up fees be paid prior to release of the resolution of approval. Mr. Kocon asked when the utility hook -up fees come into play. Mr. Turnblad said the hook -up fees will have to be paid before the City releases the resolution of approval for filing with Washington County; he noted that typically yp ally the resolution doesn't get filed until a buyer is found for the new lot. Mr. Spisak asked if the sewer hook -up fee will cover the possible additional cost of construction beyond the existing manholes. Mr. Turnblad said that is unknown until plans are submitted; he said, in theory, the hook -up fee is essentially a trunk sewer fee that pays for the trunk system in place. Mr. Turnblad said usually the assumption is that trunk system is available to the property, so there is discussion necessary to determine what the fee should be — whether it should be the whole cost, plus the cost of extending the sewer. However, he said until the sewer plan is presented, that cost is unknown. Mr. Spisak asked if that issue should be covered in the resolution of approval. Mr. Turnblad said the resolution is worded so the hook -up fees must be paid before the resolution if released. The City Engineer may determines there won't be any hook -up fees as there is a credit for extending the sewer service; so the amount of the fee is not included in the resolution, merely the condition that the fee, if there is one, must be paid prior to release. Mr. Spisak asked how many accessory structures are permitted in the RB district. Mr. Turnblad stated two are allowed, but no more than 1,000 square feet total. Mr. Spisak pointed out the survey indicates there is a garage, plus two accessory structures. Mr. Turnblad noted there is always a question as to when the structures were built or whether the structures are 1 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, November 14, 2011 Minutes grand- fathered; he pointed out that one of the structures is 5'x5'. Mr. Spisak asked about front -yard setback, noting that it appears neither the existing house nor garage meet the 20' setback; he asked if approval would be creating a sub - standard lot. Mr. Turnblad said the only way a sub - standard lot would be created would be to move the side lot line closer to the garage; he said the resubdivision is not moving the front lot line, only the side lot line. Mr. Kocon said the cost of extending the sewer line should be a development cost, not a hook -up fee. Mr. Turnblad said in all likelihood the sewer won't be extended either as a lateral or a trunk; he said what has been done in other instances in this area is to extend single private services from the house to the manhole. He said what will likely happen is there will be about a $3,500 hook -up fee, plus the cost of the private service to the manhole, both costs the responsibility of the applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kocon moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2011 -27. A special use permit for a drive - through restaurant, a variance to the sign regulations for 40.97 square -foot menu boards and wall signage, a street vacation of Neal Avenue south of Orleans Street West, and a final plat to create one new lot located at 2601 Orleans Street West in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Dale Shimek, McDonald's USA LLC, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the various aspects of the request, including the final plat, street vacation, special use permit and variances. Regarding the plat and subdivision, he said all the required items, such as utilities and right -of -way access, are in place; the proposal also meets all the requirements for s street vacation, he said. Regarding the special use permit for a drive -thru, Mr. Pogge described the proposed layout and noted the proposal exceeds the required stacking spaces. He also described plans for landscaping, trash containers, lighting, and building elevations. He said staff finds that, in regards to the requested special use permit for the drive -thru, the proposal meets the requirements and intent of the zoning ordinance and West Business Park plan, will not constitute a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare, and that, as conditioned, the general public interest will be served. Mr. Pogge stated the applicant is requesting two variances related to signage, a variance to have building signage on a non - street building elevation and to allow a menu board larger than 40- square -feet. He noted the variance for the menu board is not needed as the City's code does not regulate maximum menu board size. He also noted that the West Business Park PUD allows signage on a non - street side; while this site is outside of that PUD as is was developed prior to the establishment of the PUD, he said staff believes this is a reasonable request due to the practice in the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Pogge also pointed out that the overall signage is under the allowable maximum. He stated there are a number of conditions that staff would recommend. Mr. Spisak asked if the City had conducted any traffic counts at Orleans and Market Drive and wondered if any additional traffic control measures might be necessary. Mr. Pogge said that would be an issue for the City Engineer and Traffic Committee. Mr. Spisak said he didn't think the traffic issue was an issue for the applicant, but one for the City to consider. Mr. Kocon pointed out that the proposed access will be a lot better than what was available for the former Tom Thumb store that occupied a portion of this site; he agreed with Mr. Spisak that there might be a traffic concern, but that is a City 2 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, November 14, 2011 Minutes issue, rather than the applicant's. Mr. Kocon asked about the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HPC) review; Mr. Pogge stated the only change recommended by the HPC was that banding be added on the north and west elevations. Regarding traffic, Mr. Dahlquist pointed out the Recreation Center might not have been in operation when the Tom Thumb store occupied the site; he said he shared some of the concerns about the traffic. Mr. Spisak asked about the proposed street vacation and the existing West Orleans easement; Mr. Pogge said the applicant plans to deed that portion of West Orleans that is an easement today to the City. The applicant was present. He addressed questions related to the street vacation, saying the intent is to clean up the site layout. Mr. Dahlquist asked about a sidewalk that is shown and whether that sidewalk might be extended in the future. Mr. Shimek said the plans are fairly close to the maximum allowable impervious surface, so it might not be possible to add sidewalk without tweaking plans somewhat. Mr. Pogge pointed out that currently there is no sidewalk on the west side of Market Drive. Mr. Spisak suggested there might be a lot of pedestrian traffic from the Recreation Center and said it seemed prudent to have sidewalk on the west side of Market Drive to match up with the Recreation Center walkway; Mr. Pogge said the City would not want to encourage a mid - street crossing. Mr. Dahlquist asked the applicant if they had looked at traffic flow; Mr. Shimek said their main concern is to have enough stacking so traffic doesn't back up. Mr. Shimek said they did not do a traffic count at Orleans /Market and would not be opposed to a different type of control at that intersection; he said their main concern was to keep the ingress /egress a distance away from the intersection. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Buchanan said he thought there would be traffic problems at Market/Orleans. Mr. Spisak said he thought the applicant had done a good job with ingress /egress, but said he thought there would be a pedestrian traffic issue due to the Recreation Center. Mr. Menikheim asked the applicant why there is no entrance from Stillwater Boulevard; Mr. Shimek said a lot of their traffic is drive -thru and exit on Stillwater Boulevard would have to be right -only. Mr. Pogge noted Stillwater Boulevard is a County road and the County would not allow a right -in, right -out only. There was additional discussion about the pedestrian traffic issue; Mr. Pogge suggested adding a condition that the sidewalk be extended south to the applicant's driveway at such time the City Engineer deems advisable; he said he thought that will likely occur at the same time the City makes some type of pedestrian improvements. Mr. Kocon moved approval of the final plat, street vacation, special use permit and variance as conditioned A -N, N being the condition added regarding the sidewalk extension when deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. Mr. Buchanan seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Kocon, second by Mr. Kelly. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3 Planning Commission DATE: December 7, 2011 CASE NO.: 11 -29 APPLICANT: Lucia Pearson REQUEST: A variance to the side yard setback (3 feet requested, 5 feet required) for the construction of a deck LOCATION: 1101 21,d St N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR - Low /Medium Density Residential ZONING: RB - Two - family District PC DATE:. December 12, 2011 PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City PlannertA4 BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct a new deck. They are requesting that the deck encroach two feet into the required 5 -foot setback. This property is zoned RB and currently has an existing single - family home (936 square footprint) on the site. The home appears to be directly on the north property line. The lot is 7,307 square feet in size. The property currently has a garage that is approximately 24 foot by 24 foot (576 square feet). DISCUSSION The Pearson s property is in the RB zoning district. The critical standards from the district are presented in the table below, together with the current and proposed minimums. As seen in the table, all of the RB zoning standards are satisfied except for the side yard setback requirement. RB Zoning District Required /Allowed Current Proposed Lot size 7,500 s.f. 7,307 s.f. No change Side yard, home 5' 0' No change Side yard, deck 5' n/a (no deck) 3' Building cover, max 25% 20.7% No change Other impervious, max 25% 6.7% 11.7% As seen in the table, all of the RB zoning standards are satisfied except for the side yard setback requirement. 1101 2 °d St N Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; 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. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty ". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? The home appears on the aerial photo to have a zero foot setback. The applicant originally discussed with staff their desire to have the deck extend to the north wall, which would be a zero foot setback similar to the home. Since construction and maintenance of a structure built with a zero lot line is impossible without encroaching on the neighboring property, staff encouraged the applicant to provide some type of setback from the property line. The applicant agreed to this suggestion and is proposing to have a three -foot setback. Staff believes the request is reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The location and shape of the home presents a unique challenge in the placement of the deck. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The landowner did not create the set of circumstances associated with the property. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The variance would not alter the essential character of the immediate neighborhood. The proposed deck is designed to fit in well with the current home. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The major consideration is about allowing the property construct a reasonable deck. 1101 2nd StN Page 3 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The purpose of the minimum side yard setback is to 1) provide separation to protect from fire, 2) provide the ability to construct and maintain a structure without encroaching on a neighboring property, and 3) improve a neighboring properties access to light and air. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? No, since the existing home currently has a zero setback to the property line. By keeping the deck three feet from the property line the owner will have the ability to maintain it without encroaching on to the neighboring property. Finally, the nature of the deck will not affect the neighboring property's access to light and air. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RB, Two - Family Residential. Decks are permitted in the RB Zoning District. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the request with the following conditions of approval: a. 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. 2. Deny the request. A denial needs to be accompanied by substantive findings of fact. 3. Continue the public hearing until the January 9, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. The 60 -day decision deadline for the request is January 13, 2012. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request. Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and letter. Case 2011 -29 1101 2nd St N 1 Feet 0 15 30 60 1 inch = 34.068333 feet City of Stillwater, MN Community Development Department 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651- 430 -8820 — 651 - 430 -8810 fax November 16, 2011 Planning Commission City of Stillwater 216 N. Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Planning Commission: I would like to apply for a two -foot variance to build a new deck off the back of my house located at 1101 Second Street North, Stillwater. Attached please find the completed application form, together with my check in the amount of $150 to cover the filing fee. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ucia Pearson 1101 Second Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 430 -0416 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Special /Conditional Use Permit —X—Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* ACTION REQUESTED Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this application. The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material are required. If application requires City Council review then a total of twenty- eight�28) copies ar re equired to be submitted. Review the Checklist to the Planning Administration Application Form for the complete list of required items that must be submitted. Any incomplete application or supporting material will cause your application to be rejected by the City. Required - Applications will be rejected without a legal description. A legal description is found on the deed to the property. Attach as an exhibit if necessary. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10 -day appeal period. Once the 10 -day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project /16/ Seeti jcJ 5C . A/. Assessor's Parcel No. a 1. d3o. 070. Q ,,.c �/ (GEO Code) Complete Property Legal Description *J ,tl� CI h .,, d/Od /V, aveil AND aftwavi ( *Required - Applications will be rejected without a legal description) Tax descriptions and,property descriptions from the county are not acceptable. �� 0fdi t`!ON Do S'tfi / /&,q'r r Zoning District 'g Description of Project ,�L<J t�rt�JC "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Required If other than property owner Property Owner cveue 4/9 / .9.4'JO/i/ Representative Mailing Address / /O/ feezmA2/ • .0// • Mailing Address City - State - Zip //,(tiV74./�T6, -%., !,!!ill �,j'p City - State - Zip Telephone No. G /•" 4/3 2 -OY /C Telephone No. Email laeo9A000 j/ (701,2r4,57: /VP% Email Signatures` y /` _ -_�;�` Signature ignature is required) (Signature is required) C: \DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \SWIEGAND \LOCAL SETTINGS \TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\ CONTENT .OUTLOOK \K6SUFJRY \PLANAPP.DOCX July 22, 2010