The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-12-12 CPC MINCity of Stillwater Planning Commission December 12, 2011 Present: Aron Buchanan, Mike Dahlquist, Eric Hansen, Mike Kocon, John Malsam, Anne Siess, and Scott Spisak Absent: Cameron Kelly Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge and Council liaison Doug Menikheim Mr. Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Malsam noted corrections to those in attendance at the Nov. 14, 2011, meeting; those not in attendance included Mr. Malsam, Ms. Siess, and Mr. Hansen. Mr. Kocon, seconded by Mr. Buchanan, moved approval as corrected. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2011 -29 A variance request to the side yard setback (3 feet requested, 5 feet required) for construction of a deck at 1101 2nd Street N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Lucia Pearson, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He noted that the home sits at a 0 -foot setback. He said initially the applicant was asking to match that 0 -foot setback, but has agreed to pull the deck back to a 3 -foot setback, which still encroaches into the required side yard setback. He said the proposal meets all of the RB zoning standards except for the setback. He reviewed the three criteria for the issuance of a variance and said staff believes the request meets the criteria. The applicant was present. Mr. Buchanan asked about the height of the deck; Ms. Pearson said she wasn't exactly sure but estimated it would be about 5' high. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. Gary Stewart, neighbor, showed photos indicating the closeness of the properties and described an experience with the applicant removing a cement slab. He said he was against the plan due to the proximity of the homes. Mr. Dahlquist noted that the applicant is now planning to move the deck back away from the edge of the house, 3` in from the property line. Mr. Stewart noted that 5' in pretty much the national standard for the setback in question and suggested there is a reason for that. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kocon pointed out if this were a new home, the request would have to meet the required 5' setback; however, this is not a new home and there is a hardship involved that was not created by the homeowner. Mr. Kocon said he did not think a deck sitting back 3' from the property line when the rest of the home is on the property line is an added imposition. Mr. Spisak asked about the extent of the cement slab that was removed; the applicant indicated the position of the slab and steps. There was discussion of a previous case of a variance for deck and stairs on Churchill. Mr. Dahlquist noted that if the applicant were to pull the deck farther back to meet the full 5' required, it would 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 12, 2011 result in a railing in the middle of a window; he said he thought 3' seems to be a reasonable number. Mr. Buchanan pointed out that meeting the required 5' setback would result in about a 5' wide deck; the applicant said the 3' setback would allow a bit more room for a table and chairs. Mr. Buchanan said he thought the 3' setback seems to be a reasonable compromise considering the closeness of the houses and will provide for reasonable use of a deck. Mr. Menikheim suggested perhaps tabling the matter until neighbors meet and discuss the issue. It was noted any decision of the Commission can be appealed to the City Council and any action by the Commission wouldn't prevent the neighbors from getting together in an effort to reach an alternative design. Mr. Hansen and Mr. Malsam both said they thought the 3' was a reasonable compromise based on the age and proximity of the houses. Mr. Kocon moved to approve the variance with the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Pogge noted the action could be appealed to the City Council within 10 days; after 10 days, the action becomes final. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Dahlquist asked for Commissioner's thoughts and opinions on the size of the Commission. He noted the Commission has effectively been operating with eight members for the past year, pointing out that the Commission is supposed to have nine members. He noted that Councilmember Menikheim had brought this issue to the City Council's attention; Mr. Menikheim said the Council's reaction was immediate -- that a nine member body is better than a seven - member body because more members makes for a higher quality decision. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out that according to City Attorney Magnuson, City ordinance allows up to nine members, but does not require a nine - member body. Mr. Pogge said the issue has been brought before the Council on two occasions; he said initially there was concern that there be equal Ward representation on the Commission. There was discussion as to the importance of Ward representation, with Mr. Kocon suggesting that the Commission makes City -wide planning decision. Mr. Pogge pointed out that equal Ward representation is a guideline and factor for appointments to other Commissions. Mr. Kocon said Ward residence is an arbitrary demarcation; he said he thought representation by Ward would be sufficient if there is one person from each Ward, with the remaining members at -large representatives selected by the basis of merit. Mr. Kocon also said with the size of the Commission at nine, educational opportunities are limited due to City budgetary constraints; he said he would be comfortable remaining at eight members until someone resigns and then going to a seven - member body. Mr. Buchanan asked about the impetus for going to seven members. There was discussion of past appointment practices prior to the interview process now used; Mr. Dahlquist noted that at times, there are very few applicants and appointments have been made based on whoever applied. Mr. Malsam said he initially thought nine was a bit large and pointed out than can be quorum issues; he said he thought 1 person from each Ward, excluding the chairman and several at -large appointees for a body of seven or eight would provide for a good functioning commission. Mr. Hansen also spoke of issues related to having a quorum with a body of nine members. 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 12, 2011 Mr. Spisak said, as part of his job, he appears before councils and planning commissions throughout the area and has never seen a Planning Commission of nine people; he said five is the typical number. He said he was surprised that a city the size of Stillwater would have a Planning Commission of nine; he said he thought there have been times in the past where the size perhaps dragged out discussions that could have been a little more concise. Mr. Spisak said he believes the Commission could operate effectively with seven members; he noted there are other City commissions that have fewer than nine members and said he would be in favor of seven. Mr. Dahlquist said this issue was brought to the forefront with him when the change was made making the Council representative a non - voting member. Mr. Kocon said his personal preference would be for seven members, but said if the decision is to remain at nine members, and the ninth member is an active participant, he would be OK with that, too. Mr. Spisak said he thought the focus should always be on selecting the best applicant, whether trying to fill a vacancy based on Ward residence or an at -large position. Mr. Menikheim raised the question of what makes for the best candidate. Ms. Siess suggested that everyone has a reason for making application to serve on the Commission and said anyone can be a good salesperson when in the interview process; she said she thought equal representation between Wards is somewhat important. Mr. Kocon said folks who want to serve on the Commission because they have aspirations for political office or who want to protect their neighborhood will make decisions that are biased and inappropriate; he said he thought the interview process would bring out the reasons an applicant has for wanting to serve. Mr. Kocon, seconded by Mr. Spisak, moved to adjourn at 8 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3