Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-15 CPC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 12, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Lauer, Middleton, Siess, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioners Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of July 8, 2015 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve the July 8, 2015 meeting minutes. All in favor, 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2015-23. Variance for building and installation of an internally accessed vertical lift/elevator, located at 408 Maple Street West. Ryan and Kara Forcier, owners. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicants are requesting a 6’variance to the 20’front yard setback to construct an interior-accessed vertical lift/elevator. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Ryan Forcier, applicant, explained they wish to install the vertical lift/elevator to transport their son, who is severely disabled, between the upper and main level of their home. Commissioner Middleton asked if the back side of the home would work instead. Mr. Forcier said there is already a wheelchair ramp at the back entrance to the home. Eric Olson, 324 Maple Street West, voiced support for the request. It would not detract from the neighborhood. Case No. 2015-23 Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to approve , a Variance for building and installation of vertical lift, located at 408 Maple Street West, with the following conditions: Planning Commission August 12, 2015 a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2015-23. b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to exterior alterations. c. The addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure. d. Major exterior modifications to the Variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. All in favor, 5-0. Case No. 2015-24. Special Use Permit and associated Variances for 952 square foot garage with 682 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit, located at 1343 First Street South. Lowell Schmoeckel, owner. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant plans to construct a two-story garage. Because garages in this district are restricted to one story, he is requesting a Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) which would require a 180 square foot Variance to the maximum garage size of 800 square feet, and a 17.6’Variance to the 25’rear yard setback for the ADU. The applicant does not intend to finish the second-story dwelling unit at this time; the space will be used for his hobbies. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit for an ADU and approval of the 17.6’Variance to the rear yard setback, with conditions. Staff recommends denial of the 180 square foot Variance to the 800 square foot maximum garage footprint provision, finding there is no practical difficulty other than the applicant’s desire for more storage on the main floor. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Lowell Schmoeckel, applicant, explained an originally planned gable roof design did not fit the property. A hip roof would be more consistent. The second story will be used for storage. He is willing to stub in sewer and water but has no intention of using it for dwelling space. Commissioner Siess asked if the applicant would consider reducing the size by 152 feet. Mr. Schmoeckel responded he needs the additional space for storage as he has no useable basement. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Chairman Kocon commented that the building appears large. He would prefer a smaller footprint. Commissioner Siess agreed. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the 17.6’Variance to the 25’rear yard setback and to deny the 180 square foot Variance, for a 952 square foot garage with 682 Case No. 2015-24 square foot ADU for , located at 1343 First Street South, with the following conditions: a. Plans shall be in substantial conformance to those on file with the Community Development Department Case No. 2015-24. for b. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department and a grading escrow in an amount deemed sufficient by the Engineering Department for the new construction shall be submitted. c. A Design Permit shall be obtained from the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the submittal of a building permit. d. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of the garage. The building permit shall clearly show the maximum height of the ADU, in correlation to the height of the existing residence. e. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the ADU shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. All in favor, 5-0. Page 2 of 8 Planning Commission August 12, 2015 Case No. 2015-25. Conditional Use Permit for cluster development, located at 8753 and 8911 Neal Avenue North. Kenneth and Geraldine Heifort, owners and Bim Boo, applicant. City Planner Wittman noted that the applicants are requesting that the Commission table consideration of this item until the Commission’s September 9 meeting. Chairman Kocon opened and continued the public hearing to September 9. Case No. 2015-28. Variance to setback requirements for construction of an attached porch, located at 812 Harriet Street South. Margaret (Betsy) Glennon, owner. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting a 9’Variance to the 20’front yard setback and a 17’Variance to the 30’slope setback to construct a porch to be added to the existing structure. The existing 5’+/- porch located on the rear (north) will be replaced with a 16.5’long porch that would extend 9’beyond the wall of the home. Staff recommends approval of the Variances with conditions. Betsy Glennon, applicant, reviewed the history of the home. The porch is a simple screen porch overlooking the ravine. The original porch is rotting on its footings and she would like to restore it to its original heritage using historical colors and architecture. It will be a modest addition. Commissioner Siess asked how steep the hillside is. Ms. Glennon replied the slope varies but the hillside is steep and access is challenging. Commissioner Middleton asked about the vegetation on the slope to the northwest. Ms. Glennon responded there are old lilacs, box elder, elm and volunteer scrub trees, grapevines and burdock. She has added birch, chestnut, burr oak and cherry trees. There is no erosion. Commissioner Middleton asked if there are gutters on the home and if gutters could be directed to the existing rain garden. Ms. Glennon said yes. and she will put gutters on the porch if desired. She would not object to gutters leading to the rain garden. Commissioner Collins thanked Ms. Glennon for her preservation efforts and asked about screening. Ms. Glennon responded because of the nearby bed and breakfast, the north side will be screened. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed. Case No. 2015-28 Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to approve , a 9’Variance to the front yard setback, and a 17’Variance to the slope setback for construction of an attached porch, located at 812 Harriet Street South, with the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department for Case No. 2015-28. b. A building permit, or an amendment to an existing building permit, shall be reviewed and approved prior to exterior alterations. c. The porch addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure. d. Major exterior modifications to the Variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. All in favor, 5-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Page 3 of 8 Planning Commission August 12, 2015 Case No. 2015-21. Variance for the total number of signs permitted for the construction of a free-standing monument sign at the south entrance of Lake Elmo Bank, located at 1937 Greeley Street South. Mike Johnson, applicant. City Planner Wittman stated that at its July meeting, the Commission continued the public hearing and notice for an additional Variance associated with the installation of a second free-standing sign to be located on the Lake Elmo Bank property, because the proposed location would require a variance that was not lawfully noticed for. Since that time, the applicant has submitted a new site plan indicating where the second sign is proposed to be located. The 5’wide sign would be 5’6”from the property line, necessitating a 4’6”variance. However, in correspondence with Jim Hall, Principal Project Manager for the Minnesota Department of Transportation Highway 36 project, it appears there is limited space between the property line and the back of the parking lot curb in this location. While MnDOT’s right of way plan indicates 5.85’in this area, Mr. Hall stated this is not based on survey data and is not 100% accurate. He also indicated the ROW is not parallel to the parking lot curb. The applicant is requesting a second free-standing sign and an up to 15’setback Variance for the location of the sign, to be located within 1’of the property line. Staff recommends approval of the Variance Case No. 2015-21 for to allow for one additional free-standing sign, for a total of two free standing signs to be located at 1937 Greeley Street South; and approval of a 15’Variance to allow for a free- standing sign to be located on the edge of the West Frontage Road right of way, with conditions. Mike Johnson, Graphic House, applicant, acknowledged he understands the staff report. They have an issue with proposed condition #3 about lighting. A reasonable alternative would be to make the background of the sign opaque so it doesn’t light at all, so that the only thing that lights in the evening are the letters. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed. Case No. 2015-21 Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Chairman Kocon, to approve , Variance for the total number of signs permitted for the construction of a free-standing monument sign at the south entrance of Lake Elmo Bank, located at 1937 Greeley Street South, with the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2015-10 dated July 14, 2015. b. Prior to the issuance of a sign permit the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Survey showing the proposed sign in relationship to the parking lot curb, the West Frontage Road curb and the property line. c. The free-standing sign adjacent to West Frontage Road may be lit during business hours only. d. Any lighting shall produce no lumens at the property line. All in favor, 5-0. Case No. 2015-22. Consideration of a 19-lot residential Preliminary Plat and associated Variances, located at 1902 William Street North. Sterling Black, applicant. City Planner Wittman reviewed the request. The applicant came before the Planning Commission on July 8, 2015 with a 20-lot preliminary plat to be known as Hazel Park Villas, located at the western end of Hazel Street next to Stillwater Country Club. The initial application included numerous Variances such as street width, lot frontage, cul-de-sac length and building coverage. The Planning Commission could not find in favor of the Variances requested and tabled action to allow the developer to revise the preliminary plat. The revised plat dated July 28, 2015 has eliminated one lot and all Variances. The current 19-lot plan meets all lot dimension standards, coverage standards and road design standards. Staff received three comments: letters from Melanie Ebertz and Gail Plewacki, and Page 4 of 8 Planning Commission August 12, 2015 a submission from 22 residents representing 10 properties, opposing the application on the basis the cul-de-sac is a risk to the public. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Sterling Black, applicant, stated the lots have been reconfigured since the last meeting, one unit has been cut, and the length of the cul-de-sac has been reduced to comply with City requirements. The current proposal is a better product for them, the City, the neighbors, and the watershed district. Roger Humphrey, Humphrey Engineering, informed the Commission that the project was revised due to neighborhood and watershed district input. He explained the revisions - eliminating a lot and moving the cul-de-sac while maintaining the same number of units on the golf course side. New utility, grading, erosion and stormwater management plans have been done to create a better plan for everyone. The cul-de-sac length is measured from the center of the cul-de-sac to the edge of Hazel Street. It is based on the standard block which is 660 feet long. He offered to answer any questions. In regard to Condition #2 related to the “T”intersection, Mr. Black stated they have not fully studied its impacts and would prefer an island as a more defined entrance to the neighborhood, as proposed. Mr. Humphrey described the way the center island with plantings is designed, as opposed to the City- recommended “T.”They would be willing to work with engineering staff to find a suitable controlled intersection design. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Ken Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, noted that the City’s subdivision ordinance was completely amended in 1996. Cul-de-sacs are normally limited to 400-800 feet in the interest of public safety. A 1,500’cul- de-sac creates a public safety issue for access and for safety vehicles. Hazel Street is 28’wide, which is substandard according to City code. The street narrows down to 21.5’at its narrowest, going up the steep hill. Adding traffic through this narrow funnel is not a good idea. The previous 2007 approval won on a 3-1 City Council vote. It came down to a local person working their connections who got it through. It was a very ugly process. James Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, expressed concern about the defoliation of the property. The existing foliage provides drainage, so eliminating it will force stormwater into the ravine in his backyard. If allowed to go forward, developers should be required to utilize the existing topography and leave a substantial amount of foliage in place to facilitate drainage. They also should be required to post a security bond so if they go bankrupt, the neighborhood can be restored. Brian Boucher, 317 West Hazel Street, summarized that the neighbors are not against the property being developed, but are concerned about the number of units. 19 units does not fit into the character of the neighborhood. Brian Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, agreed that the number of units proposed is too high. This affects the entire North Hill and the entire City. He submitted a letter with a number of signatures expressing concerns about the cul-de-sac length. The site is very unique in its topography. There is one way in and one way out, and it has ravines and the golf course on its sides. There won’t be another way to access the homes if the street is blocked. The cul-de-sac is not truly 590 feet but more like 1,400 feet. The hill is treacherous. An often-quoted standard of the American Institute for City Planners lists disadvantages of cul-de-sacs including: access to interior lots can be blocked, long cul-de-sacs encourage increased traffic speeds and mid-block turning, dead-end watermains encourage Page 5 of 8 Planning Commission August 12, 2015 sedimentation which adds to fire hazards, public equipment such as fire trucks have difficulty maneuvering. A second dead end street should not branch off from a cul-de-sac. Other research done in Massachusetts by the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy recommends that cul-de-sacs must be measured from center of the cul-de-sac to the nearest intersection with a through street (a street with more than one access). He asked the Commission to look at the issue as unique and see the public safety issue. It should be clarified in City ordinances as well. John Schoenecker, 301 Willow Street East, stated Willow is the only route available off Highway 95. So most of the construction and public traffic will be coming up and down Willow, whose residents are still paying for street reconstruction. He is concerned about the extra weight causing deterioration of the street. He asked if the developers will be held responsible for any damage. He does not like the density of the development but realizes development will occur regardless. Liz Nelson, 300 Willow Street East, stated on the two blocks of Willow there are six elementary aged schoolchildren. Busses don’t use those streets so the kids are walking down the street. In icy conditions cars go off the road regularly. It doesn’t make sense to add that much traffic into a small area. The integrity of the area should be preserved, especially considering the money that has been put into Brown’s Creek natural area. Dave Hatch, 2009 Third Street North, voiced concern about safety and limited sight distances. James Meier, 405 West Hazel Street, pointed out that streets in the area are substandard, raising safety concerns. He agreed with previous speakers in opposing the development as proposed. Debbie Sinclair, 14411 Dellwood Road, shared her concern about light pollution spilling over into neighboring properties, especially with all the trees gone and the density of the development. As many of the trees as possible should be retained. Tim Sinclair, 14411 Dellwood Road, questioned the proposed engineered walls on the north edge of the property. The last two houses on the north are right up against those walls. Lots of pressure would be created against the wall by a heavy rainfall. He would hate to have it all give way and end up on Brown’s Creek Trail. The development as proposed is not feasible. Mary Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, agreed with the previous speakers and thanked the Commission for listening. Melanie Ebertz, 1924 North First Street, reiterated concern expressed at the last meeting, about the bike trail. Her home is at the top of the hill, so she has seen a lot of close calls on the road. The previously approved project was planned before the trail was completed. Hazel Street is now a trailhead. People have to accelerate to get up the hill and they careen down it. She believes it would be negligent and unlawful for the City not to consider the use of the trail which is being promoted statewide. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. He summarized the public concerns that were expressed. He does not wish to denigrate any objections that were brought forward, but the developer has come forth with a proposal that fits the zoning and comprehensive plan. He feels property owners have the right to develop within the zoning codes. In contrast with the plans that were approved eight years ago, the revised plan has a shorter cul-de-sac, less density, less impervious surface, and does not require a variance. City staff has determined that the cul-de-sac will work within the City ordinances. Page 6 of 8 Planning Commission August 12, 2015 Commissioner Middleton agreed that property owners have a right to develop. But the City’s obligation is to ensure that codes are followed and that the fabric of the community is considered by the developer, and he feels that failed in this case. Stillwater has a cul-de-sac length restriction of 600 feet. In his opinion, a 1,400+ foot cul-de-sac is proposed. He cannot support the development. Commissioner Siess stated this new proposal is better than the previous one, but she strongly agrees that the proposal should be recommended for denial. Commissioner Collins said even though one house was eliminated, public safety issues remain. He thanked the neighbors for their input. He worries about safety after having driven back there numerous times. The street is very narrow especially when two cars pass. He believes the development as proposed would totally change the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Lauer remarked he doesn’t support the proposal, but he is feeling constrained by the fact that last month, the Commission told the developer to come back with a revised proposal. It now fits within the regulations set forth by the City. The streets are substandard, but the property owner has the right to develop even though the project will be completely detrimental to the area. Case No. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to recommend denial of 2015-22, Preliminary Plat and associated Variances for a 20-lot residential development, located at 1902 William Street North. Commissioner Siess clarified that the basis for the motion to recommend denial is the finding that the cul-de-sac length does not meet the 600 foot requirement in the subdivision ordinance. City Planner Wittman suggested the Commission may want to document the finding that the applicant inadvertently has asked for an 850-foot Variance and that there is not a practical difficulty established for a Variance of that nature. This finding would essentially differ from staff’s interpretation of the code. While it was staff’s interpretation that no Variance was needed, the Commission appears to believe that the cul-de-sac should be measured from Fifth Street, and therefore a Variance would be needed. Commissioner Siess agreed that her motion was based on findings as City Planner Wittman stated. City Planner Wittman mentioned the motion could also include the findings of fact that were made by the Planning Commission in 2007. Commissioner Siess agreed her motion was made in support of the findings of the Planning Commission and its recommendation for denial in 2007. Motion passed 4-1, with Chairman Kocon voting against. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Meeting Schedule Discussion Page 7 of 8 Planning Commission August 12, 2015 City Planner Wittman noted that after the last very lengthy meeting, she and Community Development Director Turnblad discussed how to prevent such lengthy meetings. An alternate meeting date could be set if there are several hearings scheduled for one meeting. Chairman Kocon commented that staff may be able to work with some applicants ahead of time to cut the meeting length, but he does not support a second meeting date. Commissioner Siess stated she felt like the discussions were muted in some of the cases toward the end of the meeting. She asked about limiting the number of public hearings per meeting to six. City Planner Wittman replied sometimes she can predict the amount of time a given case will take, but she is looking for input on whether the Commissioners want to have a secondary meeting in a given month. Maybe this should be brought before the full Commission. Chairman Kocon said it has been suggested previously to take a show of hands at the beginning of the meeting and then re-order the agenda to hear the case with the largest number of attendees first. City Planner Wittman recognized that public hearings are all advertised for 7 p.m. They are placed on the agenda in the order in which the applications are received by the City. When an agenda is published, there is some expectation of applicants as to when they need to arrive to the meeting. Council Representative Junker pointed out it’s not just the Commission, it’s also the applicants - look at it from their point of view as well. It is not a consistent pattern that meetings go until midnight. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to adjourn the meeting at 9:59 p.m. All in favor, 5-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 8 of 8