Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-14 CPC MIN4 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2012 Chair Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: Mike Dahlquist, Eric Hansen, Mike Kocon, Chris Lauer, Anne Siess and Scott Spisak Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Aron Buchanan, Cameron Kelly and Mike Rodriguez Mr. Hansen, seconded by Mr. Spisak moved approval of the April 9, 2012, minutes. Motion passed unanimously, with Mr. Kocon abstaining. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2012 -10. A variance to the front yard setback and bluffline for the construction of a front entry and detached garage located at 220 Chestnut Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Chris Rustad and Vicky Simon, applicants. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request, which, he noted, involves three variances — 2 variances to the front yard setback and a bluffline variance. He stated the applicants are in the process of converting the home from a four -plex to a single - family residence and are restoring many of the features of the original home, including the front porch feature. Mr. Pogge reviewed the three criteria for consideration of a variance and stated staff finds that all three criteria have been met. He noted that one recommended condition of approval is that prior to issuance of a building permit, a licensed surveyor locate the east property line so the new garage maintains a three - foot minimum setback from that property line. There was a question as to whether retaining the old garage and foundation to stabilize the bluffline was a condition for permitting the new garage; Mr. Pogge said the applicant wants to have it remain and that could be added as a condition of approval if the Commission so desired. On a question by Mr. Kocon, Mr. Pogge explained the required side yard setbacks, noting side yard setbacks vary according to zoning districts and whether the structure is attached or detached. The applicant was present. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kocon said he would have no problem with the variance for the front porch as it is in keeping with the original architecture of the home and would not have a problem with the other two variances given the physical circumstances of the property. Mr. Buchanan said he thought the location of the garage represented a good compromise. Ms. Siess, seconded by Mr. Spisak, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2012 -17. A variance to the parking regulations and flood plain regulations for the construction of a 2—story building located 229 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. HAF Architects, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. Regarding the parking regulations, Mr. Pogge said staff believes there is a hardship due to the physical constraints of the property. He noted the downtown parking district was established to provide an alternative to meeting parking requirements and it is the recommendation that the property /business owner be required to purchase 22 monthly parking permits. Regarding the flood fringe permit, Mr. Pogge explained there are a number of conditions that must be met; he reviewed come of those conditions, including the required elevation of the building's first occupied floor, including basements, and elevation for vehicular access. He said both of those conditions are met with these plans. Mr. Pogge stated the building official and himself met with the applicant in April to review plans and believe the applicant is meeting all the flood plain and flood - proofing provisions required by Minnesota State Building Code and the City's flood plain ordinance and approval of the flood plain fringe conditional use permit is recommended. He pointed out the conditional use permit must be approved by the City Council and noted there are five recommended conditions of approval In discussion, it was pointed out there were previous buildings on this site; Mr. Pogge said the applicant is proposing to model this new building on one of the former buildings, the Peaslee Building. It also was noted plans had been reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Mr. Spisak asked about plans that indicate a patio space and whether that would be a separate issue that would come before the Commission at a later date; Mr. Pogge responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hansen asked whether the City is reaching a point where it is selling more parking permits than available spaces; Mr. Pogge stated there are approximately 2,000 available spaces so that is not an issue. Mr. Kocon suggested while there still may be plenty of available spaces now, at some point in the future, the use of those spaces for variances may be taking up spaces needed for customers; Mr. Pogge said he could provide a spread sheet of that information at a later date if desired. Mr. Pogge said at present, he believes that are about a total of about 200 variance - related parking space permits. Mike Hoefler of HAF was present. Mr. Hoefler asked what impact possible use of the first floor space as retail versus restaurant would have on parking requirements and when parking permits would have to be purchased. Mr. Pogge said the permits would be purchased based on actual use, with 22 being the worst case scenario. He explained the parking requirement calculation for retail space; he said the requirement would be 16 spaces for retail use and suggested that condition of approval 5 be amended to reflect the possible use as retail. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist said he looked closely at the flood plain issues and thought what was being required was reasonable; Mr. Spisak agreed and said requiring that the building be raised further might make it look out of character to adjacent buildings. Mr. Kocon moved to recommend Council approval of the flood fringe conditional use permit as conditioned and to approve the parking variance, noting that the number of required parking permits may be reduced to 16 if there is retail use. Mr. Lauer seconded; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2012 -19. A variance request for the removal and construction of a garage located at 407 Linden Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Tim Brown, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings related to the three criteria for consideration of a variance. He noted that due to the location of the existing house and the topography of the property, it would be difficult to meet the required setback; it also was noted the property to the south has a garage located in the same setback as requested by the applicant. However, Mr. Pogge pointed out staff believes the proposed size of the new garage is too large — three- stall, 972 square feet — and is recommending that the size be reduced to 648 square feet. Mr. Kocon talked about a possible reorientation of the garage on the property; Mr. Pogge noted that would require cutting into the slope on the property. Mr. Spisak mentioned an inconsistency in the provided drawings regarding the interior wall height, noting that one drawing indicated a height of 14' and another 10'. The applicant was present. Mr. Brown stated the height will be about 14'; he also briefly talked about his desire for additional space. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. Nancy Klitzke, 420 Linden St., stated she has a three - car garage and said she didn't think the applicant's plan would be detracting from anything. She spoke to Mr. Brown's efforts in cleaning up the property and said she thought the plans would be a positive move. A member of the audience asked about the width and whether there would be a loft above. Mr. Brown said the garage would have a three -stall width, with no loft. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Hansen said he thought a 24x24 garage is a minimum size and said to go smaller than that could dictate what kind of vehicles people drive; he said this is a very large lot, code species that up to 1,000 square feet is allowed and said he thought a three -car garage would be perfectly acceptable in this zoning district. Mr. Dahlquist said he is concerned about the massing, noting that the variance provides for a setback that is only 15' from the front lot line; he said the proposal is for a tall garage with not a lot of architectural details to break up the massing. Mr. Brown said he didn't know that the height would be an issue, saying requirements he read indicated that a garage could be no higher than the height of the house; he said he could probably reduce the height to as low as 10' but that would require changing the grade of the entire back yard; he mentioned some possible drainage issues. Mr. Spisak said he had some issues with the height; he noted the proposed garage would be much higher than an adjacent garage. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out the house has a lot of architectural details and said he didn't think the proposed garage fits with that; he again noted the garage would only be sifting 15' from the lot line. Mr. Pogge said according to code, in the RB District, a garage can be no more than 20' in height; he said staff would have a concern with the 14' wall, which he said he did not catch in reviewing the plans. Mr..Dahlquist said he would be in favor of tabling so the applicant can address some of the expressed concerns. Mr. Kocon said the issue for him is the massing; he said if it is a lower building in the proposed footprint, he could accept that, Ms. Siess asked Mr. Pogge whether 3 there is a lot of consideration given to architectural detailing; Mr. Pogge said that is part of the variance consideration but said he thought there was more flexibility in this case as it is a corner lot and a large lot. Mr. Spisak said he thought the applicant was entitled to some variance, but said he had an issue with the height and massing. Mr. Dahlquist moved to table this application, directing staff to work with the applicant to address the concern regarding the massing of the building to mitigate what is currently presented as a very large, flat surface, very close to the street. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2012 -13. A variance to the side yard setback for the construction of a two -stall garage located at 117 Echo Lane in the RA, Single Family Residential District. David Swanson, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the requested variances, side yard setback and impervious surface coverage. He noted the existing garage would be demolished as part of the application. He also pointed out the applicant owns the lot to the south, which would allow the new garage to be constructed in the desired location and still remain on their property; however, he said that raises issues if the property to the south is sold at some point in the future. In reviewing the criteria for consideration of a variance, Mr. Pogge stated while a two -stall garage is a reasonable use, a two -foot setback from the side lot line is not reasonable due to maintenance issues; therefore, he said some modification to plans to provide a five -foot setback, the minimum setback for an attached garage in the RA District, does seem warranted. Mr. Pogge concluded that staff recommends denial of the request for a two -foot side yard setback; if the setback is increased to five feet, staff would recommend approval with the condition that prior to issuance of a building permit, a mitigation plan to compensate for the excess impervious coverage be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. Laurie Swanson was present. She noted the existing garage doesn't meet the five -foot setback; she said if not allowed to go closer to the property line, they will lose a good portion of their backyard. She stated if they sell the other property in the future, they would give themselves an easement so they could maintain the garage. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist said he had looked at the property and said he didn't think the requirement for a five -foot setback was unreasonable, considering the existing garage nearly has that setback. Mr. Kocon pointed out staff is willing to accept the five -foot setback which would be required for an attached structure versus the 10' for detached structures; he noted meeting the five -foot setback could be accomplished by moving the garage or reducing the size of the garage and said he saw no reason to go against staff's recommendation for the five -foot setback. Mr. Spisak agreed with Mr. Kocon's comments; Ms. Siess said going against staff recommendations would be setting a precedent. Mr. Hansen concurred that two feet is probably too close to the property line. Mr. Kocon moved to approve as conditioned, with the setback increased to five feet. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion. Mr. Lauer wondered if the applicant could obtain the necessary easement prior to construction of the garage so a setback variance wouldn't be needed. Mr. Pogge stated that could be done through a minor subdivision, a staff approval item; he said Mr. Turnblad did have that conversation with the applicant. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out the applicant still has that option regardless of the Commission's action. Motion to approve with the minimum five -foot setback and as conditioned passed unanimously. e Case No. 2012 -15. A variance to the side yard setback and impervious surface requirements for an addition to garage and 2nd floor and adding a 2nd floor to the house located at 106 Lakeside Drive in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Paul Larson, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. Because this property is in the St. Croix Overlay District, he noted there are a number of requirements beyond what a typical variance would require. Mr. Pogge reviewed the pertinent 13 standards. In consideration of the regulation regarding prevention and control of water pollution and sedimentation, Mr. Pogge stated it is the recommendation that a surface water treatment plan be submitted to, and approved by, the City Engineer and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, prior to consideration of the request by the City Council. He noted that this is a non - conforming lot but was developed prior to the adoption of the City's river overlay regulations. He concluded that staff believes the variance request is reasonable, but believes some mitigation should occur; he stated it is also staffs position that no additional impervious surface be allowed and that the applicant mitigate the runoff from the existing impervious coverage to the 20% maximum allowed in the overlay district. Mr. Dahlquist clarified that the only variance being sought is the variance to the impervious surface requirements; all setback requirements are met, he noted. Mr. Hansen asked whether the deck was included in the calculation of impervious surface; Mr. Pogge said decks are considered impervious surfaces, regardless of the material, and was included in the calculations. Mr. Kocon said he thought the applicant's proposed mitigation plan looked very aggressive; Mr. Pogge said the drawings don't provide the calculations needed to accurately determine whether the plan meets the mitigation requirements. Mr. Pogge said that is an engineering issue and the City Engineer can meet with the applicant's architect to make sure the plan meets requirements; he said from staff's perspective, staff would be comfortable with the Commission, should it so desire, recommending approval to the Council with the condition that the City Engineer approves the mitigation plan before it is presented to the Council. In discussion, Mr. Pogge stated the DNR has indicated it will not accept any additional impervious surface, so the alternative is to eliminate the proposed addition or eliminate some other impervious surfaces, such as parts of the driveway, along with other mitigation efforts to offset the proposed addition. The applicant was present. Mr. Larson talked about a rain disposal system his builder is proposing to mitigate 100% of both rooflines; he said they would replace the material under the deck with a pervious material and would be able to mitigate 80% of the runoff from the driveway. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kocon suggested the decision is really up to the experts, if the plan doesn't work, the proposal doesn't happen. Mr. Dahlquist noted this approach is similar to what the Commission has done with previous requests in the Lakeside Drive area. Mr. Pogge clarified that replacing the material under the deck will not be considered as mitigation — part of the deck, part of the addition or part of the driveway will have to be removed. Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Spisak pointed out that will be resolved in discussions with the DNR and City Engineer. Mr. Spisak moved approval with staff's recommended four conditions. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2012 -16. A special use permit for a quick serve, wood fired, pizza restaurant and a variance to the parking regulations located at 116 Main St South in the CBD, Central Business District. Paul Larson, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He noted that since the space is being converted from retail to restaurant use, both a special use permit and parking variance are required. He reviewed the requirements for a special use permit for a restaurant in the downtown area. He noted the change from retail to restaurant use requires additional parking spaces and stated there is a recommended condition that the applicant participate in the downtown parking district and purchase six monthly permits to meet the parking requirements. He said staff is recommending approval with the six conditions listed in the agenda packet. The applicant was present and briefly explained his business proposal. Regarding the number of required parking permits, Mr. Larson pointed out there will never be more than 4 employees on site at one time and wondered if there was any leeway in that requirement; Mr. Pogge stated parking space is based on both customer and employee needs and said the requirement is the same for all users. Mr. Pogge stated the spaces can be purchased from the City or a private party. Ms. Siess asked whether the wood -fired oven requires any additional fire safety measures. Mr. Larson said he had met with the fire marshal already regarding that issue; he explained that this will be a self - enclosed oven with a built -in class 2 hood, with no need for sprinkling or any other additional measures. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Hansen moved to approve as conditioned. Ms. Siess asked if alcohol would be served; Mr. Larson said at this point no, but they will be looking to obtain a beer and wine license. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2012 -18. An amendment to an existing special use permit for the construction of a roof top deck and bar (The Green Room) and a variance to the parking regulations located at 215 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Christopher Durant, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He noted the plans were reviewed by and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission and have received preliminary approval by building official and fire marshal; he said a conditional of approval is that final plans be approved by engineering, fire and building officials. He stated approval of the special use permit and parking variance are recommended with the 16 conditions listed in the agenda packet. Mr. Spisak asked if the stairway is on the applicant's property and not the right -of -way; Mr. Pogge said it is located on the property, verified through a survey the applicant was required to have done. Mr. Spisak asked if the condition regarding service ceasing at 10:30 p.m. was consistent with other outdoor establishments downtown. Mr. Pogge said staff is concerned with rooftop patios and wants to be sure the• initial approvals are done correctly; he said after one year, that issue could be revisited and hours may be extended until midnight without requiring another public hearing according to the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Pogge noted the applicant has agreed to limit the rooftop deck space to 450 square feet. He explained that staff has been having conversations with the state building inspector regarding accessibility issues; he said according to state regulations, if an establishment serves no more than 31 people, it does not need to be an accessible space; limiting the rooftop space eliminates the need to install an elevator. On a question by Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Pogge addressed the intent of the condition related to the edge of the deck/patio being no closer than 3' from the building edge; he said this is a condition recommended after conversations with a number of jurisdictions that have had experience with the rooftop decks and is designed as a protection for pedestrians. Mr. Dahlquist asked whether the 3' setback would apply to the north elevation where a privacy wall will be created and asked about the material of the privacy wall; Mr. Pogge said the privacy wall will likely be a lattice structure or mesh material that can be removed in the winter and noted that will be part of the structural review. Mr. Dahlquist asked about the condition prohibiting use of all glassware; Mr. Pogge said that is the result of conversations with the other jurisdictions with experience in such areas and is a condition requested by the Police Chief. Mr. Siess asked about capacity; Mr. Pogge stated based on 450 square feet, the capacity would be 30 people, including staff. Mr. Pogge also explained the reason for the condition that there be no physical bar located on the rooftop is also due to safety concerns and a desire to slow the pace of consumption. Mr. Spisak asked about the use of the roof of the adjacent north building; Mr. Pogge stated there is no current use, with the stairway serving as a second means of egress for apartment units. On a question by Mr. Lauer, Mr. Pogge stated the conditions have been reviewed by the applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Durant said he thought all of the conditions were pretty reasonable and a starting point for the new venture. He spoke of the issue of accessibility and the desire to possibly add another handicapped- accessible outdoor dining area, a patio raised 5' above the sidewalk, in the future. He said he understands this is unchartered territory for the City and said perhaps some of the conditions can be revisited in the future. Ms. Siess spoke of an environment concerns if service is limited to paper and plastic; Mr. Durant said they would not be using anything that is disposable as it is economically not feasible. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. Larry Cramer, owner of Rafter's, said he has been working through some of these same issues with staff. He said the conditions don't necessarily lend themselves to creating a fine dining experience, but he said it makes sense to allow time to see if things go OK, after which time, the conditions might be revisited. A person who has a business in the front portion of Mr. Cramer's building said he agreed that these folks should have a chance to see this work and hopefully become a positive experience; he said he was supportive of the basic concept. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. There was a question regarding review of the special use permit, whether the applicant could request that. Mr. Pogge said staff is open to future review of the applications to amend or change conditions as needed. Mr. Kocon spoke in favor of the concept of outdoor dining and asked about the closing time, whether it was something required of other establishments in the City that offer outside dining. Mr. Pogge said he did not believe any of the other at -grade dining options have a set closing time; he said staffs concern was with noise, with an elevated area this close to the bluffline, noting there are a lot of complaints received relating to noise from outdoor dining areas in the downtown. Mr. Pogge noted that condition includes the option for review and possible increase in the hours of operation to midnight. Mr. Kocon said he was not in favor of the restricted time of operation, suggesting it should be a condition of the establishment to ensure that patrons are respectful regarding noise. Mr. Dahlquist said he thought it appropriate to learn from places who have done this before and incorporate measures those entities have taken to address issues; he said he was optimistic that there would be some opportunity for adjustments moving forward. Mr. Dahlquist questioned whether the 450 square foot limit was a building code issue; Mr. Pogge spoke of issues related to accessibility laws and mentioned some possible language change to that condition that would protect the City and provide flexibility to the applicant if there are some considerations that might enable him to provide additional space. Mr. Durant said he had spent a lot of time reviewing the accessibility code and according to code, as long as he supplies an equivalent dining area /experience that is handicapped - accessible, the rooftop area wouldn't have to be handicapped accessible because it is not a new construction and is in an historic building. Ms. Siess talked of a concern for wait staff going up and down the stairs and asked whether there was a requirement for lighting; Mr. Pogge said that would be reviewed by the building official and fire marshal. Mr. Kocon asked whether condition No. 7 would prohibit the opening of the outdoor dining area prior to May 1 should weather permit; Mr. Pogge responded in the negative. Mr. Dahlquist expressed a concern about the wording of condition No. 10; Mr. Pogge suggested adding wording that the patio shall be no closer than 3 feet from the east building edge. Mr. Spisak noted there is nothing in the conditions related to the screening wall on the north elevation; Mr. Pogge said that is part of their plans and will have to be completed and reviewed by the building official Mr. Spisak said he liked the fact that this patio will be located on the lower roof of the building and is protected and shields noise from the bluff neighborhood; he said he agreed with staff starting out by limiting the operations, stating he thought it easier to amend conditions later and be more permissive later than to try and rein in an operation if excessively permissive in the beginning. Mr. Lauer agreed with those comments. Ms. Siess moved to approve as conditioned. Mr. Dahlquist noted the suggestions to modify condition No. 8 to include a statement that refers to the purpose of the square footage -- due to building code restrictions on building accessibility- - and clarifying condition No. 10 to refer to the east edge of the building. Ms. Siess said her motion includes those modifications. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. 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. Continued from April 9, 2012 meeting. Mr. Dahlquist stated staff has indicated that discussions are continuing with the applicant and has requested that this be tabled for another month; he asked Mr. Pogge about the 60 -day deadline for action. Mr. Pogge stated the 60 -day timeframe would end the day after the meeting and said a letter will be issued extending that for an additional 60 days, which is permitted under state statute. Ms. Siess asked about the primary issues involved. Mr. Pogge stated staff has met closely with the applicant and said, for the most part, all of the issues have been resolved. However, he said issues have arisen regarding the state building code related to accessibility; he said restricting this project to 450 square feet would make it economically unfeasible and the suggestion was made to the applicant that the request be tabled so alternatives can be looked at. Mr. Cramer said most of the issues discussed at the last meeting have been resolved and said he agreed with the suggestion to table to see if there are options for dealing with the accessibility issue as it would be economically unfeasible for him to do the project if occupancy would be limited to 30 people, noting he has already agreed to limit that to 48 people. Mr. Cramer also stated it is unlikely that he would start the project until next spring if approvals are received. Mr. Spisak, seconded by Mr. Kocon, moved to table this application until the June meeting. Mr. Kocon, seconded by Mr. Hansen, moved to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. 6