Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-13 CPC MINCITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 2012 Chair Dahlquist called the meting to order at 7 p.m. Present: Aron Buchanan, Mik Dahlquist, Cameron Kelly, Mike Kocon, Chris Lauer, John Malsam, Scott Spisak, Doug 11 lenikheim Absent: Eric Hansen and Ann Siess Staff present: Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Approval of minutes: Mr. Spisak, seconded by Mr. Kocon, moved approval of the minutes of Dec. 12, 2011. Motion passed unanimously. Election of Officers Mr. Malsam nominated Mike Dahlquist to serve as chair. Mr. Kocon seconded the nomination. Mr. Malsam nominated Scott pisak to serve as vice chair; Mr. Kocon seconded the motion. Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Spisak acc pted the nominations. No other nominations were made. Motions passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2012 -01 Final plat approval for Millbrook 6th Addition, Outlots A and C of Millbrook 4th Addition. US Home Corp, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the details of the plat, including the number of singlel-family homes and townhouse buildings. He briefly reviewed the roads to be constructed and t e public utilities to be installed. He said the applicant has met or will meet all conditions impos d as part of the PUD process, and he said staff is satisfied with the layout as proposed. He no ed there are two conditions of approval for the final plat: that the developer provides as -built dr wings for the trails, and the completion of some landscaping for the townhouse units. Mr. Dahlquist asked about the condition relating to the connection of the Millbrook trail to the Brown's Creek trail by connec ing to trails in the Carlson property to the south, noting that the Carlson development is not g ing to be occurring any time soon. Mr. Pogge stated the City does have an easement through the Carlson property and the ability to extend a trail from the Millbrook development south trough the Carlson property to Neal Avenue and then connect to the Brown's Creek trail at the Brown's Creek Reserve park. He said the City is looking at applying for a state trail grant tlor local connections to the state trail; he said the Millbrook developer has indicated that ifithe City does develop the connection through the Carlson property to the state trail, the Millbrook trail system would be developed on an expedited basis to make that connection. Mr. Dahlquist noted there have been some past discussions regarding changes in home styles, and he confirmed that this does not propose any additional changes; Mr. Pogge said the palette of home styles would remain the same. Mr. Spisak asked about previous issues related to the parks. Mr. Pogge stated there are two parks in the development, a small neighborhood park and the larger park; he said as part of a development agreement, Lennar agreed to pay a fee in -lieu of doing the grading work, which was or will be done by the City. He said the City will use the 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission February 13, 2012 fees for improvements, such as irrigation. He said it is anticipated some of the development of the major park might take plaoe this summer; he said the City is also looking at applying for a regional park grant, which has the support of Stillwater Township. On a question by Mr. Spisak, Mr. Pogge said the developer has fulfilled its obligation regarding the parks. Mr. Dahlquist opened the publ c hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kocon noted all conditions have been satisfied and moved to recommend Council approval of Millbrook 6th Addition final plat and final PUD site plan, subject to the two stated conditions. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dahlquist welcomed new ember Chris Lauer to the Commission. Case No. 2012 -05 An anne ation request for a 3.88 acre property located 9098 Fairy Falls Rd N. David and Lynn Murphy, applicant. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request. He said the ultimate goal is to split the property to create one additional building site. At this point, he said the request is for annexa ion. If the annexation is approved by the City, Stillwater Township and the Municipal Board, the roperty owner will return with a request for the lot subdivision and rezoning. He pointed out that this property is not located in the Orderly Annexation Agreement area and is not subject to the criteria that regulates that area; approval can be based on whether the City can offer something that the Township cannot and whether the Township supports detachment. Mr. Turnblad said the Township does agree with the annexation request. He stated the primary benefit the City ca offer is the zoning structure that provides the ability to subdivide the property. He said staff sup orts the proposal, with several conditions: approval of the annexation doesn't bind the C ty to approve the future lot split; that proof is provided that a septic system will function satisfactorily for both Tots; and that the property owners also make application for a rezoning and minor Comp Plan amendment when applying for the lot split. Mr. Kocon noted that the City is making no guarantees regarding the lot split if the annexation is approved, and the landowner s aware of that fact. Mr. Malsam asked about the process for annexation, whether it is by lot or subdivision. Mr. Turnblad explained that in the western portion of the City, property is under the regulations /processes of the Orderly Annexation Agreement; in this instance, he said it is a matter of whether both jurisdictions are open to the requested annexation and whether there is something gained by the annexation. Mr. Turnblad said in this case, he believes there is enogh gain to be supported. Mr. Dahlquist noted the gain is for the property owner and wondered if there is any gain to the City. Mr. Turnblad said the Cit 's gain would be the additional tax base and, in the short -run, no additional costs for road maintenance. Mr. Dahlquist asked about the Township's position, suggesting it seemed unusual that it wouldn't object due to the loss of tax base. Mr. Turnblad said he thought it was simply matter of the Township wanting to work with the City and if there is a resident who believes the a is something to be gained by paying the higher taxes of the City, then the Town Board believes it best to abide by the resident's desires. Mr. Spisak asked if there is past history regarding single parcel annexations. Mr. Turnblad responded in the affirmative, citing the example of properties along Neal Avenue that have requested annexation as their septic systems fail; Mr. Dahlquist pointed out those properties lie within the future boundaries of the City as described by the Orderly Annexation Agreement. Mr. Spisak asked if staff had reviewed the proposed lot to determine whether it would meet standards regarding slopes, etc. to qualify as a buildable lot; M. Turnblad responded in the affirmative, noting the most stringent 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission February 13, 2012 of the regulations are related t the National Park Service's scenic easement over the property, regulations which can be met. Mr. Turnblad said the one unknown at this time is the result of perk tests to determine wheth r septic system will work for the additional lot, which is why the condition was added. The applicant was present. He said they understand the conditions in the staff report and hope to be able to proceed with their proposal. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. Kari Simkins, 2216 Orwell Court N., directly abutting the property in question, expressed concern about the impact to the neighborhood. She said they purchased their property with the good faith understanding as to City's boundaries and the belief that property sizes were guaranteed. She said the property in question d rectly impacts her property, and she spoke in opposition to the proposal to subdivide and buili on the new lot. She mentioned concerns about construction issues, having an additional residence in the area, possible drainage issues, and the impact on the habitat. She also expressed concern about setting a precedent for other annexation petitions. She noted the owners of the lot in question are planning to move and suggested that they try to sell the lot as a who e first, as perhaps a new owner might like the lot to remain as is. Rex Perry, 9033 Fairy Falls Rcbad, said he was not in favor of the annexation, primarily because of the precedence it may set. He spoke of the potential for a domino effect for additional development, which he said w II ruin the nature of the area. Jordan Simkins, 2216 Orwell Court N., spoke in opposition to the proposal. He said to allow the annexation will not only affect their property but could also set in motion annexation of other properties that are in that area. He said now this is a nice, private, wildlife area; if all these properties are annexed, it will transform the neighborhood into more of a suburb area of north Stillwater. He said they worked long and hard to be able to purchase a piece of property that they purchased in good faith and are hoping can remain as it is. Another resident of 2216 Orwell Court N. also spoke in opposition, citing the desire to keep the area as private it currently is. She said it would be unfortunate to have another residence destroying the nature of that Wooded lot. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Buchanan said he could appreciate the neighbors' sentiments and the concern about the possible impact on wildlife, but he noted the Township supports the request and said he felt the requirements for the annexation are being met. Mr. Buchanan also noted that the proposed lot split will make the new lot similar in size to the lots of the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Malsam asked if there was a long -range plan for this area, whether it is inevitable that the boundaries of the City will move north in that direction. Mr. Turnblad stated as this area is not in the Orderly Annexation Agreement area, the municipal boundary is the boundary, with no plans to go beyond that. Mr. Dahlquist asked if there is a City policy in an instance, such as this, when one property owner along the edge of the City is looking for annexation; he suggested this is an issue that the Commission /City may be faced with more and more in the future. Mr. Dahlquist said, personally, he feels the City's minimum lot size for an 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission February 13, 2012 un- sewered parcel is a bit small and may have been adopted for areas that are already developed in a more dense pattern; he said he wasn't convinced that the 1.5 -acre lot size is something that should apply td this situation. Mr. Dahlquist said this is the first request he could recall that is outside of the Annexation Agreement area and outside the City limits. Regarding Mr. Dahlquist's comments about lot size, Mr. Murphy pointed out there are 16 Tots behind his property that are in the City and not one of those lots is close to 1.5 acres; this proposed lot would be the largest by far in that area, he said. Mr. Turnblad spoke to the natural boundaries of the City — the St. Croix River on the east, Manning Avenue on the west, Highways 36 and 96 to the south and north. He noted the area in question is outside of the normal boundary of Highway 96 and talked about the history of that fact; he suggested for this area, Fairy Falls Road could be a natural boundary or Highway 96, which would require detaching all of the properties in this area from the City. He also talked about minimum lot size for un- sewered lots, noting that by any agency's standards, including the state, 1.5 acres is sufficient, a$ long as it perks. On a question by Mr. Spisak, Mr. Turnblad stated this request would go to the City Council and, if approved, to the state Municipal Board that makes decisions on boundary changes. Mr. Spisak asked if the Municipal Board r quires that a property be adjacent to a city before approving an annexation; Mr. Turnblad said unless there is an overall plan, the Board does not look favorably on leap -frog annexation requests. Mr. Spisak expressed his concern that this request may set a precedent for future requests that are not part of an orderly planned agreement. Mr. Dahlquist asked if there was any discussion about future expansion of City boundaries in this area during the recent Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Turnblad stated there was that discussion as part of the Metropolitan Council's sewer expansion plan and the proposal to extend sanitary sewer services north of Highway 96; he said the City told the Town Board and Met Council that it was not interested in that expansion. Mr. Spisak said he thought an benefits in this annexation accrue to the property owner rather than the City. Mr. Turnblad sai that is not a requirement, the benefit can be just to the property owner. Mr. Malsam spoke of t e need to work on some kind of orderly plan, rather than considering one lot at a time. On a question by Mr. Buchan n, Mr. Turnblad said he believes this decision is purely discretionary, but dually discre ionary, at the discretion of both the Township and the City; other than that, he said the only guidance from the Municipal Board is that the requested annexation has to be contiguous to the Ci`.y or part of a plan. Mr. Kelly said if the decision is purely discretionary, then perhaps the City should have more of a plan before making a decision on a single parcel or at least a policy as to whether it is beneficial to the City to annex parcels when requested. Mr. Kocon noted that neither the City nor the Township oppose this request, there will be no great effect on road service and no financial detriment to either the Township or the City, and there is a benefit to the property owner. Mr. Kocon said he believes the landowner has a right to develop his property, but note that is not the issue at this point — this is strictly a request for 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission February 13, 2012 annexation. He said he understood the concern about a domino effect, but at this point the request is to annex 3.88 acres on a parcel that is contiguous to the City and on a road that is part of the City of Stillwater. Mr. Dahlquist said he agreed that perhaps Fairy Falls Road is the natural City limit in this area and spoke of the need for some type of planning for that eventuality; he said his concern was not with this particular property, 14 with the future requests in this area. Mr. Kelly said he would be interested in hearing more about what is in the best interests of the City and what the over - arching policy is going to be from this point going forward; he asked about the timeframe for this type of application. Mr. Turnblad said because this is not in the City, there is no timeframe; he said he didn't see anything wrong with tabling the application for a time to enable staff to talk with the Town Board to determine whether the Board would even be interested in exploring discussions about the future of this area. Mr. Kocon moved to approve the requested annexation with the three stated conditions. Mr. Buchanan seconded the motion. Mr. Dahlquist said he was not nherently opposed to this annexation but would like more guidance for that area; he said he wasn't sure if tabling would be a good thing to shed more light on the issues or if it would derail it. Mr. Malsam said he would vote to table because of the lack of an existing policy; he said he thought there should be a policy in place. Mr. Buchanan asked for an estimate as to how long it might take to get a policy for consideration; Mr. Turnblad suggested giving him a month to talk with the Town Board to get some idea whether the Board s interested in pursuing conversations regarding the future planning for the area. Mr. Turnblad suggested that if policy is what the Commission is interested in, the Commission could make a recommendation to the Council on this particular request along with the recommendation that staff explore a policy. On a question whether to amend the motion to indicate that, Mr. Turnblad said staff likely will be looking at developing a policy n any case. Mr. Buchanan said while he agreed with the need to develop policy, he said he thought it would be hard to deny this based on what is on the books right now. Motion to recommend approval of the annexation as conditioned passed 5 -2 in favor, with Mr. Malsam and Mr. Kelly voting against. Mr. Dahlquist noted the Commission does request that City staff talk with the Township to explore the possibility of developing a policy for this area. Mr. Turnblad said staff is committed to talking with the Town Board to determine its desire on what a policy might be; he said he would bring a recommended policy to the Council at the same time as the recommendation for annexation itself. Mr. Turnblad said this action is scheduled to go before the Council on March 6, but if there has been no time t� talk with the Town Board, the action will be tabled until those discussions have taken place; he told those in attendance to call him regarding the actual scheduling of the Council hearing on this matter. 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Case No. 2012 -06 Amend ent to the City of Stillwater 2030 Comprehensive Plan specifically to the City's Transportation Plan (addressing changes to Metropolitan Highways and Transit Routs & Facilities) and the City's Park Plan (by adding the Middle St. Croix Valley Regional Trail Search Corridor) as required by the release of a Metropolitan Council System Statement. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Pogge stated the City is required to update its plans to reflect recent changes to the Metropolitan Council's systems statements for transportation and parks and trails. He reviewed the changes made to the Met Council's plans, specifically the addition of the St. Croix river bridge and associated improvements along Highway 36 and a change in the transit market areas in the transportation system and the addition of the Middle St. Croix Valley regional trail search corridor in the parks and trails system. He said the City's parks and trails map has been updated to reflect the changes and several paragraphs of the text of the Comprehensive Plan revised as required. Mr. Dahlquist opened the pub) c hearing. John Wahlquist, 1301 Orleans' St. W., Stillwater, asked whether there are any secondary street changes planned, as a surveygr recently was on his property checking several monument markers 543' into his property; he said he thought it peculiar that a surveyor would be doing that. He asked if there were plans tg put a road through from Greeley Street. Mr. Turnblad stated there are no such plans, but said staff could check on why the surveyor was on Mr. Wahlquist's property. In discussion, Mr. Turnblad said the surveying work could be due to a change in ownership of the nearby apartment complex. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Malsam moved to recommend approval of the changes as described by staff. Mr. Buchanan seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of ornamental fence height — Mr. Pogge said staff has received a number of complaints regarding the height of fences, some of which are open style, ornamental and picket fences. He showed photos of Several fences of the open style that are in the front yards and more than 42" in height. He noted that city code allows fences up to 42" in height in front and exterior side yards and asked for input about a possible change in the ordinance to allow decorative /open styles of fenc ng perhaps up to 6' in height in front and side yards. Mr. Kelly said he thought there was a visual obstruction issue, as well as a design issue involved, referring to chain link fencing as an example. Mr. Malsam asked about the nature of the complaints. Mr. Spisak asked if the complaints are related to fences constructed by permit or without permit; Mr. Pogge said one of the fences shown in the photos did have a permit and another is grandfathered; the remaining three were erected without permits. Mr. Spisak said he thought this was an enforcement issue; hej said he didn't know why the ordinance should be changed simply because folks are going out and building fences taller than permitted. Mr. Dahlquist spoke of the new variance process and said perhaps that is the way to approach this issue, saying he thought there is some merit to architecturally detailed fences of whatever height. 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Mr. Spisak said the issue becomes subjective, such as the spacing of the slats in picket fences; he spoke of instances where a picket fence can create sight line problems. Mr. Malsam said he thought 42" was an odd number, suggesting that perhaps 4' might be a more reasonable figure. Mr. Ppgge noted that at a staff level permits have been issued for 48" fencing as chain link fencing isn't available for purchase at 42 ". Mr. Kocon said, for him, the biO, issue is where the fence is located, whether it is on the owner's property, not on right -of -way or in the sight triangle; he said he thought there should be some discretion at the staff level regarding height, width of the pickets, etc. Mr. Kocon said he did think the issue of sight triangle should be addressed in the ordinance along with perhaps changing the allowable height to 48 ", with staff discretion used for requests exceeding 48 ". Mr. Pogge stated he did not think the variance process was the way to address this issue, noting that variances are used to deal with unique circumstances, such as topography; he said he thought the right approach would be some type of amendment to the ordinance, should the Commission so choose. Mr. Dahlquist said if the ordinance is amended, he would prefer it be specifically for ornamental fences that tie into some historic feature of the primary structure; he said he wouldn't favor a blanket change to allow higher fences, as even open style fences higher than 42" change the character of an area and make it a less inviting place. Mr. Spisak suggested that if the allowable height is increased to 48" there be a setback requirement from an adjacent sidewalk and increasing the setback as the height of the fence is increased; he said he wasn't particularly interested in making any changes to the existing ordinance. No action was taken. OTHER BUSINESS Update of Comprehensive Plan amendment consistency rezoning for marina properties - Mr. Turnblad explained that all marinas in the City are legal, non - conforming uses with special use permits. He stated in 2004, the City changed the provision for the issuance of special use permits so a special use perm t can only be issued if the use is permitted or allowed with special use permit in a zoning district. Because all the marinas are in the RB zone and marinas are not a permitted use in that zoning ditrict, the marinas became grandfathered, legal, non - conforming uses, he said. He said the legal, non - conforming status creates problems for the owners as those uses are not allowed to be expanded. He said staff is recommending removing the legal, non - conforming status of the Marinas by amending the zoning ordinance to allow marinas in the RB District by special use permit or rezone the properties to some other district. He said the owners would like the zoning t remain as is and allow the use by special use permit; he said staff supports that approach with the addition of several performance standards, such as allowing accessory uses, inclu ing a minimum property size. He said the Department of Natural Resources is comfortable with that approach because if the underlying zoning remains RB and the marina use is discontinued at some point, the property would remain residential, low density zoning. He asked for Commis ion input and said the goal would be to bring back a draft ordinance at the next Commission meeting. 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Mr. Dahlquist asked why the marina owners favor remaining zoned RB. Mr. Turnblad said he thought it is because whenever there is a rezoning, it offers the opportunity for more resistance from neighbors; he said another factor is that the two owners that could possibly have accessory buildings on site would like to have accessory dwelling units, a permitted use in the RB district. Mr. Turnblad said he didn't think there was a strong reason other than a general unease at rezoning the properties. On a question by Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Turnblad said staff believes the RB zoning does make sense. He noted originally it was thought the marinas would be rezoned to the new PROS (Parks, Recreation or Open Space) district created in the updated Comprehensive Plan. However, he said the types of uses allowed in the PROS district are very restrictive, which would prohibit marina accessory use such as ships' stores, clubhouses, etc. He pointed out that keeping the RB zoning would iiot affect any other properties, other than the existing four. He said the other agencies charged with overseeing the River are OK with the RB approach. There was a question about possible commercial zoning. Mr. Turnblad said he would strongly recommend against commercial as anything listed in the Central Business District could be done on the property; he said the DNR and National Park Service would be strongly opposed to that. He said the problem with any type of commercial zoning is the possibility of opening the properties up to non - residential uses other than marinas; he said the intent is to impact the River as little as possible that still gives the marina owners the flexibility to be successful. Mr. Spisak asked about the suggested minimum property size (5 acres) and asked whether that would open the possibility of a marina on any other parcels on the River; Mr. Turnblad said the only parcels, other than the marinas, zoned RB along the River are well under an acre. There was discussion about PD Pappy's, and Mr. Turnblad agreed that perhaps it makes sense to zone that CBD. Mr. Dahlquist asked about thelpossibility of other marinas proposing bar /restaurant accessory uses; Mr. Turnblad said he wouldn't envision allowing a full bar /restaurant but would envision some type of clubhouse feature being allowed. Mr. Turnblad suggested that if the Commission approves of this approach that staff put together some performance standards as to what accessory uses would be allowed. Mr. Turnblad said he would begin putting together a draft ordinance for additional discussion. Update on armory project — Mr. Turnblad told the Commission there was a good turnout for the recent open house for the proiect. He said he had compiled the written comments, which were included in the agenda packet He said comments primarily centered on the traffic control /access issues; concerns about the loss to fire response times to the North Hill and South Hill neighborhoods and concerns about noise generated by a new fire station; and concerns about performance standards,', such as landscaping, parking lot lighting, screening, etc. He noted a project schedule also was included in the agenda packet. He said the schedule calls for 35% of the design to be completed by August, with the public hearings before the Planning Commission on issues such as annexation, rezoning, etc. to begin after that. Mr. Spisak asked about the concerns about response times and whether any studies had been conducted. Mr. Turnblad stated a response study was done previously for the entire City using a 8 City of Stillwater Planning Commission February 13, 2012 one - station model to determine a location which would enable all parts of the City to be within a 6- minute response time; he said there has been discussion of possibly using the existing station as a sub - station to address concerns raised about increased response times to the North and South hills. Mr. Turnblad said the response study is included on the City's web site. Mr. Dahlquist raised an issue regarding process, noting that generally with major developments there are some preliminary discussions with the Planning Commission, which won't be done in this instance. Mr. Kocon, seconded by Mr. SiDisak moved to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 9