HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-09 CPC PacketCITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF MEETING
MONDAY, April 9, 2012
7 p.m.
The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, April 9, 2012 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 February 13, 2012 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. 2012 -07. A special use permit request for an off -leash dog park located east of the City
of Stillwater's Public Works Facility (3325 Boutwell Rd) in the PROS (Parks, Recreation and Open Space)
District. Allison McGinnis, President, Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park, applicant.
4.02 Case No. 2012 -08. An amendment to an existing special use permit for the construction of a
rooftop deck and bar (Rafters) located at 317 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District.
Larry Cramer, applicant.
4.03 Case No. 2012 -09. A special use permit for a self -serve frozen yogurt bar, Cherry Berry, and a
variance to the parking regulations located at 125 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District.
Randy Jordan, applicant.
5. NEW BUSINESS
6. OTHER BUSINESS
6.01 Discussion on signage in the PA (Public Administration) Zoning District.
7. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 13, 2012
Chair Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Present: Aron Buchanan, Mike Dahlquist, Cameron Kelly, Mike Kocon, Chris Lauer, John
Malsam, Scott Spisak, Doug Menikheim
Absent: Eric Hansen and Anne 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 Spisak to serve as vice chair; Mr. Kocon seconded the motion. Mr.
Dahlquist and Mr. Spisak accepted 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 single - family homes and townhouse buildings. He briefly reviewed the
roads to be constructed and the public utilities to be installed. He said the applicant has met or
will meet all conditions imposed as part of the PUD process, and he said staff is satisfied with
the layout as proposed. He noted there are two conditions of approval for the final plat: that the
developer provides as -built drawings 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 connecting to trails in the Carlson property to the south, noting that the
Carlson development is not going 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 through 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 for local connections to the state trail; he said the Millbrook
developer has indicated that if the 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 place 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 public 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 member Chris Lauer to the Commission.
Case No. 2012 -05 An annexation request for a 3.88 acre property located 9098 Fairy
Falls Rd N. David and Lynne 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 annexation. If the annexation is approved by the City, Stillwater Township
and the Municipal Board, the property 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 can offer is the zoning structure that provides the ability to subdivide
the property. He said staff supports the proposal, with several conditions: approval of the
annexation doesn't bind the City 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 is 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 enough 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 City'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 a matter of the Township wanting to work with the City and if there
is a resident who believes there 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; Mr. Turnblad responded in the affirmative, noting the most stringent
2
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
February 13, 2012
of the regulations are related to 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 whether 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 directly impacts her property, and she spoke in opposition to the
proposal to subdivide and build 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 whole first, as perhaps a new owner might like the lot to remain as is.
Rex Perry, 9033 Fairy Falls Road, 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 will 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 to 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, as 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 requires 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 any benefits in this annexation accrue to the property owner rather
than the City. Mr. Turnblad said that is not a requirement, the benefit can be just to the property
owner. Mr. Malsam spoke of the need to work on some kind of orderly plan, rather than
considering one lot at a time.
On a question by Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Turnblad said he believes this decision is purely
discretionary, but dually discretionary, 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 City 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 noted that is not the issue at this point — this is strictly 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, but 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 inherently 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 is 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 in 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 to 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 Amendment to the City of Stillwater 2030 Comprehensive Plan
specifically to the City's Transportation Plan (addressing changes to Metropolitan
Highways and Transit Routes & 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 public hearing.
John Wahlquist, 1301 Orleans St. W., Stillwater, asked whether there are any secondary street
changes planned, as a surveyor 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 to 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 fencing 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; he 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. Pogge 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 big 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 permit 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 district, 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 to 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, including 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 Commission 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 uses such as ships' stores, clubhouses, etc. He pointed out that
keeping the RB zoning would not 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 the possibility 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 project. 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. Spisak moved to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
9
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: April 5, 2012 CASE NO.: 2012 -07
APPLICANT: Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park, Inc.
Allison McGinnis, President
LANDOWNER: City of Stillwater
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for Off -Leash Dog Park
LOCATION: 3111 - 80th Street North
ZONING: PROS - Park, Recreation or Open Space
PUBLIC HEARINGS: April 4, 2012 (Joint Board Meeting)
April 9, 2012 (Planning Commission)
PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director, City of Stillwater
The Joint Board held their public hearing for this case on April 4. But, they tabled their decision
until May 2. The Joint Board has the authority to deny the Special Use Permit, which would
mean that the Planning Commission would not hear the case at all. Therefore, until the Joint
Board makes a decision, it is premature for the Planning Commission to hold their hearing and
consider the case.
Staff requests that the Planning Commission open the hearing without comment, and continue
the hearing until May 14, 2012.
Planning Commission
DATE: April 4, 2012 CASE NO.: 2012 -09
APPLICANT: Randy and Jody Jordan
REQUEST: 1) Special Use Permit for Cherry Berry Self -Serve Yogurt Bar
2) Parking Variance
LOCATION: 125 Main Street South
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use
ZONING: CBD - Central Business District
PC DATE: April 9, 2012
REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner VV
BACKGROUND
Randy and Jody Jordan are proposing to open a Cherry Berry Self -Serve Yogurt Bar at
125 Main St S. This space was formally occupied by Rose Mille as a retail shop.
Restaurants and other eating places, including ice cream and beverage of all kinds, are
allowed downtown by Special Use Permit.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The Jordan's, operators of Cherry Berry, have made application for a Special Use Permit
to operate a restaurant downtown. In addition, a parking variance is being requested.
Cherry Berry SUP and Varianc
Page 3 of 3
Variance
As mentioned above, based on the change of use the proposed Cherry Berry store needs an
additional six parking spaces to meet the Zoning Code regulation. However, the building
within which Cherry Berry would relocate has no on -site parking. Consequently a variance
from the parking requirement has been requested. It has become common in the downtown
zoning district to view the re -use of existing space as grounds for satisfying the "hardship"
criteria for variance requests. Obviously, the existing set of circumstances prevents the new
business from creating the required number of on -site parking spaces. It is for situations such
as these that Section 31 -510, Subd. 1 (d)(1)i of the Zoning Ordinance was written. It allows for
"alternative provisions" when the property being considered is in a parking district. The City
has established a downtown parking district, which would allow for such "alternative
provisions ". Only in new construction has the City aggressively required the construction of
new parking spaces. About the only consistent "alternative provision" that the City has
applied under these circumstances is that the business owner would be required to purchase
monthly parking permits. In practice, the permits are used by employees or the business
owners. This encourages the employees to park in lots that are a little further away from the
business, allowing closer free parking to be used by customers.
In keeping with past practices, staff finds the variance review criteria to be met and would
recommend approval of the variance with the condition that business owner be required to buy
monthly parking permits for all employees of the business.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the Special Use Permit and Variance with the following conditions:
a. Plans shall be approved by the fire and building officials.
b. The property or business owner shall purchase six monthly parking permits to
compensate for deficit in on -site parking.
c. All changes to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the
Planning Commission or Heritage Preservation Commission for review and
approval prior to issuance of any building permits.
d. There shall be no outdoor seating on Main Street.
2. Deny the Special Use Permit and Variance. If the Planning Commission decides to deny
the requests, findings of fact substantiating the denial must be provided.
3. Table the requests for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends approval with the conditions presented above.
Attachments: Location map
125 South Main Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
March 29, 2012
Community Development Department
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
RE: Special /Conditional Use Permit Application
Dear Committee Members:
We are the owners of Stillwater CherryBerry soft -serve frozen yogurt bar that is located at 125
South Main Street in Stillwater. We were recently informed that we are in need of a
Special /Conditional Use Permit for which we have enclosed our application and $500 fee.
CherryBerry is a self -serve frozen yogurt bar with toppings. There is no food preparation other
than cleaning and cutting fresh fruit. The atmosphere is a clean, fun, family - friendly place for
everyone. Our anticipated opening date is April 26, 2012.
Thank you for your consideration of this application. We are excited to be a part of the
Stillwater community and business owners in Downtown Stillwater.
Sincerely,
Randy and Jody Jordan
Owners
Attachments
Case 2012 -09
125 Main Street South
N
0 25 50
1 inch = 50 feet
I Feet
100
City of Stillwater, MN
Community Development Department
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
651 - 430 -8820 — 651 - 430 -8810 fax
Planning Commission
DATE: April 5, 2012
APPLICANT: Larry Cramer
CASE NO.: 2012 -08
REQUEST: A special use permit for outdoor seating on a roof top deck, a
variance to the parking requirements, and a variance to the
maximum allowable height.
LOCATION: 317 Main St S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use
ZONING: CBD - Central Business District
PC DATE: April 9, 2012
REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner
\a,
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow outdoor seating for Rafters Bar
& Grill. The outdoor seating area would be located on top of the building. Since no on-
site parking would be provided for the restaurant expansion, a parking variance is also
needed. Finally, the proposed east stair and enclosure and bar area are proposed to
exceed the allowable height and will also need a variance.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
In order to add the roof top deck, the applicant will need the following approvals from
the Planning Commission:
1. A special use permit for outdoor dining.
2. A variance the parking requirement (13 spaces required /0 provided).
3. A variance to the maximum allowable height (44.25' allowed /47' requested).
317 Main Street S
Page 3
Parking Variance
As mentioned above, based on the change of use the proposed roof top deck, Rafters
will need an additional 13 parking spaces to meet the Zoning Code regulation.
However, the building within which Rafters is located has no on -site parking.
Consequently a variance from the parking requirement has been requested. It has
become common in the downtown zoning district to view the re -use of existing space as
grounds for satisfying the "hardship" criteria for variance requests. Obviously, the
existing set of circumstances prevents the new business from creating the required
number of on -site parking spaces. It is for situations such as these that Section 31 -510,
Subd. 1 (d)(1)i of the Zoning Ordinance was written. It allows for "alternative
provisions" when the property being considered is in a parking district. The City has
established a downtown parking district, which would allow for such "alternative
provisions ". Only in new construction has the City aggressively required the
construction of new parking spaces. About the only consistent "alternative provision"
that the City has applied under these circumstances is that the business owner would be
required to purchase monthly parking permits. In practice, the permits are used by
employees or the business owners. This encourages the employees to park in lots that
are a little further away from the business, allowing closer free parking to be used by
customers.
In keeping with past practices, staff finds the variance review criteria to be met and
would recommend approval of the variance with the condition that property or
business owner be required to buy 13 monthly parking permits.
Height Variance
The Planning Commission may grant a variance1 when all of the following conditions
are satisfied:2
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 request is to exceed the maximum height for the stairway
enclosure and bar roof by 2.75 feet in order to have a total building
height of 47 feet tall. The request represents less than a 5% variance
which seem reasonable.
Not related to parking.
2 City Code Section 31- 208(d)
317 Main Street S
Page 5
c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan?
The comprehensive plan talks about the importance to protect
viewsheds of the riverfront, and other natural vistas. As previously
noted, the proposal will have limited impacts to the river and other
natural vistas that are currently enjoyed by other property owners.
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 CBD, Central Business District. Outdoor dining is
permitted in the Central Business District with a special use permit. The
creation of outdoor dining is consistent with the zoning code and not a
prohibited use.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the requests in whole or in part.
2. Deny the requests.
3. Continue the request for more information. The 60 day decision deadline for
the request is May 15, 2012 and the next Planning Commission meeting is
scheduled for May 14, 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the special use permit and variances as conditioned.
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
If the Commission chooses to approve the project, staff would recommend the
following conditions of approval:
1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission.
2. Property lines between this site and the site to the south shall be verified prior to the
issuance of a building permit. If the stairs cross the property line between the two
sites appropriate easement shall be in place prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
3. The applicant shall submit a SAC determination letter prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
4. The application shall submit plans on the roof top deck certified by a structural
engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. The applicant shall receive Fire Department approval of any fire pit on the site.
6. The property or business owner shall purchase 13 monthly parking permits to
compensate for deficit in on -site parking.
7. Roof top deck shall be limited to 1,550 square feet.
attachments: Applicant's Form, packet, and location map
LRC Management
Company
1928 Warbler Lane
Saint Paul, MN 55119
Office 651- 739 -9574
Fax 651- 739 -9574
3/15/12
City of Stillwater Planning Dept.
Attn: Mike Pogge
Re: Letter of Intent
Dear Mr. Pogge:
This is our letter of intent to accompany our Design Review application to
construct a rooftop deck and bar on our River Exchange Building located at 317
Main St. S.
Our intent is to construct a small 600 -1200 ft2 seasonal deck and have a small
semi enclosed bar to service customers that are dining or enjoying refreshment
while taking in the spectacular view of the Scenic St. Croix River Valley.
This would be a wonderful addition for our customers to enjoy and allow us to
compete with other outside venues during the summer and fall seasons.
Thank you for your assistance on this project.
Sincer
Case 2012 -08
317 Main Street South
Nelson Alley
0 25 50
1 inch = 50 feet
I Feet
100
City of Stillwater, MN
Community Development Department
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
651 - 430 -8820 — 651 - 430 -8810 fax
Case 2012 -08
317 Main Street South
Site where photo 44 as taken ` <..
Site where photos #1, 2, and 3 were taken
N
0 75 150
1 inch = 150 feet
City of Stillwater, MN
I Feet Community Development Department
300 216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
651 - 430 -8820 — 651 - 430 -8810 fax
!II I I; um
-E1.11.112
AAR-
-,
1 1 1 I I Ill 111111
Ito
hin
• 4" 1111E11 1"
41Rlign
- am=
Maw=
111WWW
InEkinfai
J.711,.
NM' talBli
Mt11111., .
!WM
MIT MITI:
arnarrun
JI
A *V VI I 41110M
it!
VIM N. ,
• 1111IN
IMIIIIIMY N.
74110/1 la i 't,
uftz .. 1/4
=rm:14,
11111&\\
' \MINIM • la - •Imasaisaapariaamalwasa . saw .._
\IIIIIIIIMA
VOMMECea I t ' A
WNW \ 11
xlmomml.
mimmi■A\
1111111LV
vim&
Nom&
!*,
Wink ir
ea SIMI UR
*WM,
4:19A.;11!
1:114:11F
;
■1314.1111•11r-
I r
JarU.111.1.;11141' I 111
1161 I
rawaamaaaaaw oaaaaaaayalaalliNal
FPGMaiii=nlingF1
ea movalatamas
MillIMIM
Milm:VIII 1 wr* "I,
1.11111.--..,,t4tcqb.
:tosili',111:71.):a.
i.) AI
lcum45,14..
..--......-..... W
1 Irirtillirs'Iry
!ilsrmi.^....INIvr.
1 ti ammilimi__.- 4
I t
t
cA
�r
r
f oo
� � U
co
0
wa
a O a p
rn Z 4
LA Lf,
O cn
LA ON
oo
Nrt
•
5
•
1 i
f
S
4
fi
;I
1(
;li
I
tj
•
5
'
Z
5'
E
•
ANDERSON
_EGAL SEgVtCES PLLC
Jeanne M. Anderson, Attorney at Law
Licensed in Minnesota & Wisconsin
April 5, 2012
Mike Pogge
Planning Commission
City of Stillwater
214 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re: 317 South Main Street Proposal
Dear Mike and Planning Commission Members:
I represent Marine Leasing, LLP, owner of the neighboring property at 314 South Main Street, Stillwater. The
above - referenced proposal has come to the attention of the Partnership.
The Partnership is concerned about the security of their building's roof from trespassers and trash, including
cigarette butts which may not be fully extinguished, and also about any additional dumping or throwing of
debris into the space between the two buildings. My client and I are aware of another downtown building
where a roof collapsed, possibly due to activities of rooftop trespassers.
Sincerely,
Jeanne M. Anderson
Anderson Legal Services, P.L.L.C.
Copies: Marine Leasing, LLP
Page 1 of 1
226 Myrtle Street East
Stillwater, MN 55082 -5176
Phone: 651 - 439 -1389
Fax: 651 - 430 -1293
www.stillwater-attorney.com