Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-08 CPC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Hade, Hansen, Lauer, Middleton (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Siess, Council Representative Weidner Absent: Commissioners Fletcher and Kelly Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Siess commented that the minutes are very weak and more details are needed especially on split votes and contentious items. The detail included in the minutes has changed over time. The minutes didn’t reflect that the meeting was very contentious. City Planner Wittman responded that the City contracts with a third party to do minutes. She can pass on to City Administration and the third party that more detail is needed in the minutes. Chairman Kocon agreed that particularly where there is a split vote, it would be great if the reasons for the votes were reflected in the minutes. Commissioner Lauer stated in the September 10, 2014 minutes, it was Commissioner Collins who requested a correction of the previous month’s minutes. City Planner Wittman stated Commissioner Fletcher should have been noted as saying something attributed to Commissioner Lauer. She will correct this. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the September 10, 2014 meeting minutes as amended. All in favor, 7-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. SUP/2014-30. Request for a Special Use Permit and associated Variances to convert a two- stall detached garage to accessory dwelling unit to be located at 119 Chestnut Street West, Jeff and Julie Anderson, applicants. Planning Commission October 8, 2014 City Planner Wittman explained the request. Jeff and Julie Anderson are planning to expand their detached garage by constructing an addition to the east, as well as a southern portico, to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit. Two balconies are proposed. To receive a building permit for the planned accessory dwelling unit, the following items would need to be approved by the Planning Commission: 1.Special Use Permit for an accessory dwelling unit 2.Variance from the maximum number of permitted stories (a total of three stories is proposed) 3.Variance from the 30 foot setback required from the 4th Street right-of-way 4.Variance from the 30 foot bluff setback requirement. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1.The maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit shall be 800 square feet 2.A Design Review Permit shall be obtained from the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the submittal of an application for a building permit 3.Prior to the issuance of a building permit the property shall have entered into a lot line agreement for that portion of Lot 7, Block 31 to fulfill parking requirements onsite 4.A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of the dwelling unit. The building permit shall clearly show the maximum height of the accessory structure, in correlation to the height of the existing residence 5.Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the accessory dwelling unit shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. Staff further finds practical difficulty has been established regarding the variances related to number of stories and a 24.9 foot front/exterior (side) yard setback and recommends approval of the stories and yard setback variances. Staff recommends denial of the 30 foot variance to the steep slope setback. Reducing the size of the structure and redesigning it could reduce encroachment of the bluff. Commissioner Hansen asked what specifically is it in the Comprehensive Plan that this is not in compliance with. City Planner Wittman responded that the natural resources section of the Comprehensive Plan discourages construction on steep slopes. Commissioner Collins asked if there was any opposition to the plan as currently proposed. City Planner Wittman replied Staff has not received any opposition. Jeff Anderson, applicant, stated he thought the garage was original to the house (1881) because it has the same foundation as the house. City Planner Wittman responded the assessor’s records indicated 1950, but they are not always correct. Mr. Anderson said he and his wife had Roger Tomten, architect, draw up several plans and options which they took around to the neighborhood. Then they realized that the plan to build on the existing footprint would have impeded the view of some of the neighbors and it would not be right to do that. Page 2 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 They don’t want to impede their neighbors’ view. So they went back to the drawing board for a proposal that would have minimum environmental impact, and would better respect the views and the neighborhood. This new proposal allows them to go to the east. This is the only way to do it without creating visual obstruction for neighbors to the east and also from the river side. It is probably less intrusive looking from every angle. He urged Commissioners to grant the variance. They understand there are concerns about bluffs. The architect has a plan for mitigation of any possible consequences to the bluff. Roger Tomten, Archnet, reviewed the process used to design the proposed addition three dimensionally. Throughout four different design plans, it was determined they would build to the east, and stay below the existing ridge line that is there now. This is the first time he has had a client openly go around to the neighbors and ask them to help design the project. Any runoff from new construction that would flow toward the river will be incorporated into gutters and rain barrels, captured and used for irrigation on the property. In addition, all new construction will stay behind that existing fence line except for one pier on the portico. This will help mitigate any erosion. In discussions with Staff, it was mentioned a structural engineer might be hired to ensure there is no hazard of the building sluffing down the hill in the future. The applicants are happy to do this with anyone recommended by the City. They feel the current design is the best solution in terms of the neighbors’ viewshed. By not making the garage taller, they are decreasing the amount of impact on the bluffline. He offered to answer questions. Chairman Kocon asked, are all the different designs for 800 square feet? The proposal does a very good job of addressing all the issues of the neighbors but still runs afoul of the bluffline restriction. Mr. Tomten replied that all designs are right around 800 square feet in size. Chairman Kocon remarked that the bluffline is still the “elephant in the corner.” Commissioner Siess noted the staff report says the structure is proposed to be located within 30 feet of the steep slope. Mr. Tomten stated the corners of the building are five feet off the bluffline. The 30 foot setback goes right to the northeast corner of the existing foundation. Then it takes a sharp jog to the south because that is the edge of the road. Chairman Kocon asked if the parking spaces will be pervious or impervious. City Planner Wittman replied that all the parking requirements can be met with the existing spaces. One area is already impervious that would accommodate two vehicles. Commissioner Middleton asked the architect to provide elevations along the retaining wall moving from west to east, and asked what the wall is made of. Mr. Tomten responded it’s a keystone cement face masonry material. Mr. Anderson stated they are proposing to retain an open parking area built about 15 years ago with keystone block, and adding a fourth stall. Page 3 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 Commissioner Middleton asked what is the grade from existing garage to the bottom of the retaining wall. Mr. Tomten replied it’s fairly flat. Commissioner Middleton asked if the applicant has ever had any erosion problems. Mr. Anderson replied he has had no problems at all - no shifting, no cracks. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Spike Carlsen, 220 4th Street South, stated the applicants kept them apprised of the design every step of the way. The things they do are top notch. This is the old part of town, it’s goofy, an area where variances are frequently asked for. He supports every part of the plan. It will look great. John Clemency, 205 West Chestnut, said the applicants took the plan to him and listened to his concern that six months of the year when leaves are off trees it would take away his view. Mr. Anderson immediately contacted the architect and revised the plan. He is perfectly fine with the present plan and fully supports it. Richard Kilty, 105 West Chestnut, stated he has not been contacted though he owns property immediately to the east. He asked the applicant if they would rent the space above the garage. He also noted they don’t use the garage, they park on the street. He doesn’t think the variance should be granted because the area is on top of pilings placed there when a swimming pool was put in. Mr. Anderson responded his family has three boys who had three cars. All of them are out of the home now. They try to use the garage as much as they can but it is in disrepair right now. He apologized for not contacting Mr. Kilty. He didn’t think of Mr. Kilty as the property owner because it was the apartment building and Mr. Kilty does not live there. Regarding the swimming pool project that was a disaster several years ago, that has nothing to do with this proposal. It has been corrected. They do not intent to rent the dwelling unit. They intend to use it as a studio for their own personal use. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen stated he remembers a different case on the north side of Chestnut that had a bluffline issue - the Commission allowed it because they felt it was engineered in a way that would reinforce the bluffline. He would say he is in favor of this proposal. It’s honorable that the applicants reached out to the neighborhood and that the design is respectful to the neighbors. He would like to hear ways it is intended to be engineered into the bluffline so it won’t further erode. He suggested another condition be added that the design would need to be reviewed by an engineer. From the standpoint of addressing all the points, the major issue seems to be the bluffline setback. He would be comfortable stating that the Comprehensive Plan has guided the Commission to address that as a City, and that the City has therefore addressed it. City Planner Wittman stated she believes what Commissioner Hansen is saying is that there is no conflict - the City has already addressed the Comprehensive Plan concerns through the zoning ordinance. She would recommend requiring the applicant to contract with an engineer to develop those plans. Page 4 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 Chairman Kocon remarked he agrees with Commissioner Hansen, the applicant has worked with the neighborhood very well to address concerns. That is admirable. His concern is the bluffline. Commissioner Hansen has suggested a way to work with the constraints that are there. He thinks no one wants to see the bluff on Main Street or homes rushing down the hill. He too would support the proposal, with the additional condition of engineered plans being submitted. There has to be a plan that is making this a structurally sound building and topography that is not going to slide down the hill. City Planner Wittman suggested requiring a geotechnical engineer instead of a structural engineer as a geotechnical engineer would look at how a structure placed on the land would be supported. It would be submitted to City as part of the building permit plans. Commissioner Siess stated she loves the property and thinks the applicants treat their neighbors wonderfully. But she feels the proposed setback is too close for her. Commissioner Collins stated he likes the fact that the applicant has talked with neighbors and has been very open with them, that they were willing to change the plan when they heard from neighbors who were not supportive, and that the height of the garage doesn’t change. The way it’s designed it fits more with what is currently there. His concern is the bluffline. He would feel a lot better with the inclusion of a geotechnical engineer’s review and he can get behind that. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to recommend approval of Case SUP/2014-30, a Special Use Permit and Variance to convert a two-stall detached garage to accessory dwelling unit, and associated variances, with five conditions recommended by staff, adding a sixth condition that the plans be submitted with geotechnical engineered plans for construction as part of the building permit application. Motion carried, 5-2, with Commissioners Lauer and Siess voting nay. Case No. SUP/2014-31. Request for a Special Use Permit and Variance to create an event venue above 120, 122, 124 South Main Street with a parking variance, Judd Sather, applicant. City Planner Wittman summarized the request. Judd Sather is proposing the installation of a two- story event center. The two-phased plan includes opening the first floor of the establishment first, with the second floor expansion to follow within the next few years. The second phase would also include a catering kitchen on the second floor. The business is to be known as JX Events Center. Since there is no on-site parking, the Parking Commission will review alternative parking options at its October 23, 2014 meeting. Staff is waiting for more detailed floor plans and associated information to share with other departments for their review. Regarding ADA compliance - The Building Inspector and Assistant Fire Chief have visited the site and determined that with certain upgrades, plans could be submitted to approve the applicant’s ability to meet interior requirements. Staff recommends imposing a condition that the applicant shall secure all necessary building, fire and health department permits prior to opening. The Building Inspector and Assistant Fire Chief have indicated the most significant challenge will be determining accessible exits, accessible routes and accessible parking spaces. The nearest public parking is not close. Right now the only accessible entrance is off Main Street, however this Main Street location has no parking or stopping so there is no direct access to an accessible exit. There would need to be some accessibility improvements with the first phase to achieve ADA compliance. With the potential of 1200 occupants, there would be the requirement of 400 parking spaces. Security and noise were identified as potential issues by the Police Chief. The applicant indicated he would do extensive soundproofing but has not yet submitted Page 5 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 plans or details. The applicant also indicated he hires security staff for his current event venue, the Loft at Studio J. Staff proposes the Planning Commission continue the request until alternative parking options have been determined and that more information be requested, specifically: accessible exits and route plan depicting access to accessible parking spaces; a parking plan depicting alternative parking provisions, which has been determined by the Downtown Parking Commission to be acceptable; an event security plan; and soundproofing details. Commissioner Middleton asked if the monthly parking fee has anything to do with the application. City Planner Wittman replied that the Downtown Parking Commission has identified some options for businesses that don’t have onsite parking. For instance, if a business is short 10 spaces, they pay $10/month for that number of spaces. There are other unique circumstances in which the City accepts a percentage of the total sales of the business as an income generator for the parking system. The Downtown Parking Commission has a handle on how many spaces there are downtown to weigh out the best solution. In other circumstances, the use of shared facilities is recommended. Other options are a valet system or other sort of unique compromise or use of spaces in the Chestnut Building. Judd Sather, applicant, reminded the Commission that he obtained a Special Use Permit for the Lofts and Studio J about a year and a half ago. He does 90% weddings. Clients usually ask about parking. The point person for the event tells guests where to park. This makes the City ramp more profitable. He believes comments about limited parking downtown are due to visitors looking for free parking by the river. Parking problems have been far fewer than anticipated with his current event center. The proposed site can house larger special events such as festivals and art fairs. The upstairs needs a lot of work. He really wants a 350-person venue - 1200 would be too many. He explained the tentative improvements proposed for the first phase. The second phase upstairs will require additional accessibility improvements and an elevator. In discussions with the Building Inspector he determined that the rear entrance does not need to be accessible. The rear egress from the building is shared with the T-shirt shop. If an elevator went in there it would have to have four stops. The architect put it in the spot where it exists now which is to the north and not in the shared egress area. There are two accessible entrances in the front on Main Street. There are three handicapped parking spots around the building but with the potential number of occupants, more handicapped parking spaces would be required. He is not currently leasing the space, this is just a concept. The proposal would create more jobs and more revenue for the City. Chairman Kocon noted it’s been suggested by Staff to table the proposal. He asked how Mr. Sather feels about that. Mr. Sather replied that tabling it a month would cause additional rent costs. He had to cancel six events for his previous venue because construction took longer than expected which created extra costs. He would like to obtain approval conditional upon meeting requirements. His security right now is that drinks don’t go out and wedding crashers don’t come in. He doesn’t know who else would approve all the security plans and requirements, other than this Commission. This venue doesn’t need the structural enhancements so it is less invasive structurally. The soundproofing needing to be done is just for the interior of the space which will help with the apartments. There is one apartment directly above the back side and he will lease it for an office. There are some apartments adjacent that might get some sound bleed. He doesn’t anticipate too many problems but is willing to do whatever is required. He would be doing a ten year lease so does not want to upset neighbors. Page 6 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 Commissioner Hansen asked if he wants to ever reach a capacity like 1250 and if not, maybe the Commission should put a different cap on it. Mr. Sather responded that the current capacity at the Loft at Studio J is 327 but when it reaches 225, people start getting irritated about how crowded it is. In reality, they have sat down 240 people two or three times and it’s hard for the servers to get in between tables. What is comfortable is roughly a third less than the actual capacity. Commissioner Hansen asked if multiple events would occur at one time, one on each floor. City Planner Wittman clarified that the 1250 is loosely based on building code occupancy and would include both upstairs and downstairs. It was calculated by measuring by one person per seven square feet and one person per 15 square feet for the first floor; for the second floor, open standing and seating areas were considered. These calculations are standing room only, maximum capacity. Mr. Sather added that he would favor a lower cap on capacity. Two events could possibly occur at one time because the upstairs and downstairs have separate entrances. There is much less storage, mechanical and bathroom space upstairs so that is why the upstairs capacity is larger. Commissioner Collins asked if customers have to bring their own alcohol. Mr. Sather replied that currently when customers do a BYOB event, which are roughly half the events, he hires bartenders who have liquor liability insurance. These third parties serve all the alcohol. Mr. Sather’s employees don’t serve the alcohol. He would likely also have a cash bar option with the new proposal. He has not applied for a BYOB licensure for the proposed site yet. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Richard Kilty, 118 West Oak Street, remarked the Commission should consider the parking issue. Soon the Armory will be freed up and under City ownership, so where is the parking? Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess stated she understands that business is business, but the Commission only got the detailed packet today, so she has not had a chance to review all the Staff recommendations. The Commission needs to discuss security and soundproofing plans, parking, and look further into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She feels the event center could be a great thing for Stillwater, but approval is premature. Commissioner Middleton pointed out that the questions being asked about items that would help clarify the request are issues he feels confident Staff can review, so he wonders if the Commission really needs to see those things. Commissioner Siess stated there is a whole comprehensive plan piece related to approval - it would be premature and not good City planning if the Commission doesn’t really look at this like it looks at every other case. Page 7 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 Case No. SUP/2014-31, Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Chairman Kocon, to table a Special Use Permit and Variance to create an event venue. Motion passed, 6-1, with Commissioner Middleton voting nay. Case No. V/2014-31. Request for a Variance for the addition of a 12 x 20 walk-in cooler with reduction of one parking space and relocation of loading zone to be located at 1119 Owens Street North, Nathan Pearson, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting a parking variance for the reduction of one parking space in order to place a 12 foot by 20 foot walk-in cooler on the area that is currently utilized as a loading zone as well as a parking space. Since a 1994 parking variance was granted, the number of beds in the facility has decreased from 132 to 94 and the number of employees has decreased from 175 to 140. This reduction results in a parking demand decrease larger than the requested six parking space variance. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1.The property owner shall stripe all parking and loading areas upon installation of the cooler system 2.The cooler system shall receive a building permit prior to the installation. Chairman Kocon asked how many parking spaces are required and is a variance even needed? City Planner Wittman replied that one parking space is required for every employee who is on duty during the largest shift, which was not provided in the application. Commissioner Siess asked if the applicant had known that number, would they even have had to come before the Commission? City Planner Wittman replied that the facility itself has not changed since the 58 spaces were required in 1994. Nathan Pearson, administrator for Good Samaritan Society, informed the Commission they have raised funds for this walk-in cooler over the last two years. It will greatly enhance the quality of care for residents. He thought the application stated the largest staff shift has about 58 people on-site not including visitors. That is why they made the variance request, because they did not have one space per employee on the largest shift. He provided photos representing 1:30 p.m. just before shift change showing ample parking in the lot. He does not believe the one parking space would impact the community. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Council Representative Weidner remarked that parking is woefully inadequate there already. The employees already spill out onto the street and surrounding area in order to keep on-site spaces open for guests. One parking space will not make a significant difference but there already is a significant impact to the community because parking is inadequate. So if there are any additional ways to accommodate parking, they would be appreciated. Page 8 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 City Planner Wittman stated the facility is already operating with less loading zone space than required but that doesn’t seem to be an issue. She agreed with Council Representative Weidner that employee parking spills out onto streets. No comments were received from property owners notified about this request, however, in 1994 there was quite a lot of public involvement in discussions involving the Special Use Permit granted at that time. Chairman Kocon reiterated that one less parking space will not make a lot of difference. They may need to give up a visitor spot or two to ameliorate that. Commissioner Middleton stated he lives nearby and doesn’t feel there are problems. Case No. V/2014- Motion by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve 32 with the two conditions recommended by Staff. All in favor, 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. All in favor, 9-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 9 of 9