Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-27 CPC MINS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 27, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hade, Hansen and Siess; Councilmember Collins Absent: Commissioner Kocon Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of February 27, 2019 regular meeting Regarding Case No. 2019-02, Commissioner Dybvig requested that the wording be changed from “requested adherence” to “inquired about” the advertised tour times. Motion by Councilmember Collins, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve the February 27, 2019 meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed 4-0-2 with Commissioners Hade and Hansen abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2019-01: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental on the property located at 214 Main Street South in the CBD district. Michael Lynskey, property owner and Judd Sather, applicant. --Tabled to April meeting per applicants’ request Case No. 2019-07: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Final Plat and a drainage and utility easement vacation for the property located at 7817 Newberry Court, located in the AP district. Dan Thurmes, applicant and Michelle and Scott Lindquist, property owners. City Planner Wittman explained the request. Scott and Michelle Lindquist plan to subdivide 2.06 acres of land located at Lot 8, Block 1, Valley High Estates (7817 Newberry Court North) into three lots. The Lindquists would retain the northerly lot that contains their residence while two lots will be for new homes. The subdivision is to be known as Valley High Estates 2nd Addition. In order to subdivide the property as proposed, Dan Thurmes, applicant, has requested approval of the following: 1. Rezoning from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RA, One-Family Residential; 2. Preliminary Plat; 3. Vacation of a portion of the platted drainage and utility easements; 4. Final Plat (City Council action). She stated that there is a single onsite wetland, located adjacent to the western property line. Though the City’s 2008 Surface Water Management Plan classifies the wetland as a Manage 2, requiring a 50’ buffer, Browns Creek Watershed District (BCWD) Executive Director Karen Kill has indicated no buffer is required. Therefore, a City Code-complaint 16.5’ buffer is proposed. There is a wetland adjacent to this property to the east side of the property. That wetland has been designated as a Preserve, requiring a 60’ buffer plus a 20’ building setback. As that resource is located in the Middle St. Croix Watershed, the applicant is proposing a buffer average. Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 2 of 7 However, the average shown is for a 100’ buffer. Therefore, the buffer average is not required as the area of construction is shown outside of the 80’ setback. All three lots will have drainage and utility easements for the protection of the wetlands. A condition of approval should be that conservation easements for all lots will be required to be filed with the final plat for all wetlands and wetland buffer areas. The applicant is requesting a reduction of a 720 square foot portion of the platted easement to the 16.5’ (one rod) requirement outlined in City Code Section 31-325, Stormwater Management Practices, Subd. 7(h)(6). The City Code indicates the 16.5’ area must be a “protective buffer strip.” Therefore, a condition of approval should indicate the wetland buffer area shall be signed as a non-disturbance area. There will be a shared driveway access for the two new lots, which will line up with Maryknoll Drive. Staff recommends a Planning Commission recommendation of approval with 11 conditions. Commissioner Siess asked why do they want the 720 square foot reduction? City Planner Wittman answered partially to be able to get a structure on that site. Councilmember Collins noted that usually shared driveways are avoided but in a development like this where there is a busy street such as Boutwell it makes sense to have a shared driveway. Ms. Wittman added that two houses using one driveway is permitted in City code. Staff believes that lining it up directly across from Maryknoll drive and having both homes access is a suitable solution. If the driveway were on Marquee Court, it would have required 6’ retaining walls and it would have been a 12% grade. Commissioner Siess asked about the wetland buffer. Ms. Wittman provided a map showing the existing wetland buffer and the drainage and utility easement proposed. The applicant requested the vacation of a strip along the buildable site area in the event that they need to disturb that area slightly for construction of the home. A significant portion of the easement will be retained. The applicant is proposing the buffer in the event water would get into this area. The City’s study was done 10-12 years ago. Now the Watershed District has deemed that resource does not have the same classification it once had and they would not require a buffer. However the City has a standard that every wetland no matter its classification must have a minimum of one rod protective vegetative buffer. Commissioner Siess stated there is known to be water in this area. She asked, if this is approved would it come back when they have plans for the houses? Ms. Wittman replied this is the preliminary grading plan. The final grading plan will be reviewed by the engineering department prior to the construction of the home. Chairman Lauer asked what a driveway into Marquee Court would look like. Ms. Wittman showed the drainage and utility easement to service the properties. The option could be to put in a driveway and a driveway easement in this location as well across the original Lot 1. Dan Thurmes, Cornerstone Land Surveying, applicant, explained the buffers. When proposed to Brown’s Creek Watershed District, they didn’t know what the buffer was because there are two watershed districts involved. Because the buffer was so big, to get two building sites he had to include a wall and that is the reason for the request for the variance. A driveway on Marquee would require a lot of retaining walls and a lot of expense. The garages would be loaded from the back and the house presence would be on Boutwell which would be odd. Commissioner Siess asked if there will be less impervious surface because of the shared driveway. Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Thurmes stated there would not be any parking along Boutwell because it’s a busy, narrow street. So parking bays were added allowing vehicles to back up and exit which is safer than backing out onto Boutwell. These are big lots that are well under the maximum impervious surface coverage. Commissioner Hade asked, will there be any rain gardens? Mr. Thurmes replied that would be the responsibility of the future property owner in compliance with the City or the Watershed District. Commissioner Hansen remarked the proposal seems to meet all qualifications. A shared driveway makes sense to avoid parking on Boutwell. He was concerned about impervious surface but it seems like that will be OK. He is favor of it. Commissioner Siess commented that her biggest concern is about water in this area but at this juncture it will work its way out as it gets further down the line. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2019-07, Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Final Plat and a drainage and utility easement vacation for the property located at 7817 Newberry Court, with the 11 conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 6-0. Case No. 2019-08: Consideration of a final plat, rezoning, and a drainage and utility easement vacation for the property located at 8393 and 8313 Marylane Ave. Fenway Land Company, property owner. City Planner Wittman stated that Mark Guenther, Fenway Land Company, plans to develop two small acreage parcels on Marylane Avenue North (8313 & 8393 Marylane Avenue North) with a total size of 4.49 acres. The preliminary plat for the 11 lot single-family project was considered by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2019 and conditionally approved by the City Council on February 5, 2019. In error, staff did not legally advertise for the rezoning, so a public hearing process is required for the rezoning. The request at hand is to rezone the property to RB, Two- Family Residential, and to vacate the drainage and utility easements surrounding both of the existing lots. The Planning Commission does not need to review the final plat. It is presented for information purposes only. The developer requests the Planning Commission review and recommend approval of the rezoning and the vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements. An adjacent private property owner asked today whether the City would impose a conservation easement over some of the drainage easements to protect some of the trees. This is designated as a semi natural area in the Comprehensive Plan but semi natural areas don’t have protected species so staff does not think it’s appropriate to impose a conservation easement because they are not high quality lands. The property owner may, if they choose, have Home Owners’ Association (HOA) covenants restricting tree removal in those areas. Staff finds that the requests are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are not detrimental to the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the rezoning and the vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements. Commissioner Siess asked, what is considered high quality land? Ms. Wittman replied high quality land is generally considered untouched land, usually with oak stands. These areas, on the other hand, are largely filled with volunteer trees such as ash. Commissioner Dybvig said it looks like Lots 1-5 have huge easements behind them. He asked if others have smaller easements. Ms. Wittman replied yes, where there is a much larger easement, there are two retaining ponds proposed and that is why they have larger drainage and utility easements. Mark Guenther, Fenway Land Company, applicant, stated that there is no HOA planned as there is no need for one. To set one up just for tree preservation would be challenging and difficult for the Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 4 of 7 homeowners to manage. The easement area is an infiltration basin for all the water to be kept onsite. The Watershed District is finishing their review now and he anticipates approval from them April 9. Commissioner Siess noted the design of the houses is like row houses. She asked, was there ever consideration of doing a cluster of houses? Mr. Guenther replied he looked at lot of options. The depth of the site didn’t allow a road to be able to cluster this property. To cluster it would have required taking out all the trees and trying to create a ponding situation would have been challenging. The configuration proposed is the best situation to manage stormwater and save the natural tree line behind those properties. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Chris Tetrault, 1342 Macey Court, voiced concern about manipulation of the tree line. His home was impacted by Rutherford Station drainage manipulation that occurred last fall. He felt there could have been less trees taken in that project. Another concern of one of his neighbors who could not be here tonight is that there already has been some manipulation of the environmental buffer and he feels like some of the maps are not reflecting how it looks currently. He would like it to be looked at more closely to confirm the maps are accurate. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess asked Ms. Wittman to address Mr. Tetrault’s concern about the buffers. Ms. Wittman replied that aerial imagery isn’t going to show the tree loss that occurred from the City drainage project in 2018. Because the developer is not proposing any tree loss in that area, the City will not require tree surveys. They are not proposing to remove greater than 30% of the canopy cover which would have triggered a tree survey. Commissioner Siess stated she would like there to be a comment to the City Council about the citizen’s concerns for the tree removal since it was not brought up in the preliminary plat. Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2019-08, final plat, rezoning, and a drainage and utility easement vacation for the property located at 8393 and 8313 Marylane Ave. Motion passed 6-0. Case No. 2019-09: Consideration of a Variance to construct a three-car garage on the property located at 1260 McDougal Green. Property located in the CR district. Necole Kahn, property owner. City Planner Wittman stated that on January 23, 2019, the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Michael and Necole Kahn to construct an open, unenclosed (carport) stall onto their two-car garage. The Planning Commission did not find practical difficulty and denied the application. On February 19, 2019 the property owner appealed the decision to the City Council. The City Council did not find practical difficulty existed and denied the appeal. The applicant would like to construct a third, attached and enclosed, 12’ wide stall onto their existing two-car garage. They have applied for a variance to City Code Section 31-309(a)(2) to allow for a garage to be greater than two stalls wide. Staff finds that the application is in harmony with the intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has established practical difficulty and the proposal does not alter the essential character of the locality. Therefore, staff recommends approval with four conditions. Commissioner Siess asked, in the CR district when did it come about that a property could only have two-car garages? Ms. Wittman responded when the district was created due to its small lots. Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Siess remarked it’s interesting because the lots are so small and they couldn’t really accommodate a third stall. She asked if this requirement is really needed. Ms. Wittman replied there are some corner lots that could accommodate three-car garages. Commissioner Hansen asked, aren’t there side-loading garages? Ms. Wittman replied there are some side-loading garages that have three stalls. It’s hard to determine how some of them were approved. The location of references to the two-stall requirement in the code varies. CR is the only district in the City that has a requirement like this. Michael Kahn, applicant, stated his home is not truly front-facing and the home directly to the north is side-loaded and has a three-car garage. The third stall will not make the garage visually dominant because it will not be seen from the street. He feels it will be a good alternative versus the open plan originally requested. It is needed because there is no street parking in the winter and there have been break-ins in the neighborhood. Chairman Lauer voiced support as it is a uniquely situated property and the design fits. Commissioner Hansen stated the previous version did not meet the characteristics of the neighborhood. This design fits better. Commissioner Siess stated this is costly to homeowners in this district who have a property like this that could sustain a third car garage. She asked, is this something that the City would ever consider removing from the code? Ms. Wittman replied the neighborhood is fully developed. City staff may initiate code amendments when it is felt to be in the public interest. Staff can review it. It would compete with a lot of other higher priority workload items. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve Case No. 2019-09, variance to construct a three-car garage on the property located at 1260 McDougal Green, with the four conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 6-0. Case No. 2019-05: Consideration of an amendment to the Short Term Home Rental Ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify existing language and to make minor procedural changes. City of Stillwater, applicant. City Planner Wittman stated that staff is requesting the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to consider changes to the Short Term Home Rental ordinance. She reviewed the changes: Transfer of the ordinance from the Zoning Chapter of the City Code to the Licensing Chapter; reorganization of text and clarification of ambiguous text; procedural changes including requiring the public safety inspection(s) to pass prior to issuance of the license but not prior to submitting the application; and making the property manager responsible for letting neighbors know when management contact information changes. Enforcement options also will be made more robust. Councilmember Collins asked, has anyone had a license suspended? Ms. Wittman replied no. One license holder has had two substantiated complaints in the last year. Things went quiet when they knew that the third complaint would result in revocation of their license. Commissioner Siess asked, would they get a $750 fine also? Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Ms. Wittman said she wasn’t certain whether the is fine listed under the existing ordinance. That is part of the reason for transferring it to licensing so staff can do administrative citations and fines. Commissioner Siess said she feels that the fines are too light. She would be in favor of making them stiffer starting with $500 because the City has gotten a lot of concerns from neighbors. She talked to Community Development Director Turnblad about the crimes related to the VRBO but her question is, what if they had a different crime? Ms. Wittman said staff has not yet talked to City Attorney Land about that. She will touch base with her on this to determine what kind of impact a crime could have on the license. Commissioner Siess asked, what would a crime involving a short term rental be? Ms. Wittman replied maybe a party where there are minors - that could be a crime against a rental. Commissioner Siess said she wonders if it would be more robust to include language referring to any felony misdemeanor. Ms. Wittman replied that a challenge with that is that it’s easier to track property issues versus issues against persons. She is not sure how the Planning Department would know about a crime committed by a property owner. Commissioner Hansen said, for instance if a married couple are property owners and there’s a violation, who gets fined, is it both of them if there is a crime? Ms. Wittman replied if there is a violation, it could get assessed to a property under shared ownership. She reminded the Commission they could table this to get more answers from City Attorney Land. Chairman Lauer asked, where did the levels of fines come from? Ms. Wittman stated they were in the original ordinance and represented staff’s best guess at appropriate fines at the time. Commissioner Hansen asked, has the property owner who had the two substantiated complaints referred to earlier had to pay $750 fine to date? Ms.Wittman replied she is not sure. Commissioner Hansen stated on page 8, I, II and III, asked if “one to two bedroom units or sleeping areas” should be changed and bedrooms made plural? It’s a grammatical question. Ms. Wittman made note of the question. Removing the word “unit” may clarify the intent. Chairman Lauer asked, is there a parking requirement per number of people? Ms. Wittman replied it’s based on the number of bedrooms, not people. Double occupancy is assumed. There are occupancy limits on all units. Chairman Lauer continued, for instance, a room in basement with four bunkbeds in it? Ms. Wittman replied staff looks at a bedroom as having dual occupancy and those two people would ride in the same car. She summarized that the Commission would like to explore the crimes aspect and wants more detail on the fines, how they came about, are they relevant, do they make an impact, and what other cities are doing. Commissioner Siess said if the amendment is tabled, it would be interesting to know how many of each type have been used. Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 7 of 7 Ms. Wittman replied there is one Type C left and 20-some Type A and Type B left. The Type Cs have to come before the Commission for the conditional use permit (CUP) first. Just because a property is issued a CUP doesn’t mean it will automatically become a STHR. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to table Case No. 2019-05, an Ordinance Amending and Renumbering Short Term Home Rental Regulations in the Stillwater City Code. Motion passed 6-0. FYI STAFF UPDATES Election of Officers Ms. Wittman said election of officers will take place in May. There will be two open seats. Commissioner Siess indicated she will not ask for reappointment, and Commissioner Hansen indicated he would like to be reappointed. One application has been received. There will be another advertisement in the Gazette next week. Applications are available online through the City web site. ZAT RB 65’ for two family Ms. Wittman stated the zoning text amendment (ZAT) for 65 foot lots in the RB district to allow for two families was denied by the City Council. Commissioner Siess pointed out the case with the armory was denied as well. Applications Commissioner Siess asked if the City has talked about advertising these commissions on their main web site so there can be more applicants. She would like to see a blurb stating there are vacancies. The Facebook page and the footer should be used to advertise commission vacancies. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m. All in favor, 6-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary