Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-22 CPC MIN4gater IN II RT0FL ICE OF IS INN E00 TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 22, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hansen, Kocon, Meyhoff, Steinwall, COUncilmember Collins Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of June 24, 2020 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the June 24, 2020 meeting. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Meyhoff abstaining. .IT] 11►■ OCI� TllUrl There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Resolution 2020-01, resolution adopting written statement of reasons for denial pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 15.99, Subd. 2, for special/conditional use permit application for outdoor shed sales on the property located at 2001 Washington Avenue, CPC Case No. 2020-20. City Planner Wittman noted corrections to Commissioners Dybvig's name and to the year. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to adopt the Consent Agenda as corrected. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Meyhoff abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2020-24: Consideration of Variances associated with a home remodel and addition. Property located at 1001 4th Ave S in the RB district. Brett Ellingson property owner. Commissioner Meyhoff recused himself from the discussion and vote. City Planner Wittman explained the application. Brett and Alison Ellingson are requesting variances to add an enlarged rear addition and deck and an attached two -car garage on the front of their home. Requested are: 1) a 6' variance to the 20' (exterior) Side Yard Setback for an addition of enclosed living area and deck to be located 14' from the north property line; and 2) a 4' variance to the 20' Front Yard Setback for a covered porch/stoop to be 16' from the property line; and 3) a 14' variance to the 30' Front Yard Setback for garage to be located 16' from the property line. Staff finds the request conforms to the zoning code, is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and has established practical difficulty. Therefore, staff recommends approval with three conditions. Brett Ellingson, applicant, said the neighbors support these needed improvements to the home. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Planning Commission July 22, 2020 Shawna Gibson, 1005 Fourth Avenue South, voiced support for the project. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2020-24, Variances associated with a home remodel and addition at 1001 4th Ave S with the three staff - recommended conditions. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Meyhoff abstaining. Case No. 2020-25: Consideration of a Special Use Permit and associated Variances to allow an accessory dwelling unit. Property located at 1030 4th Ave S in the RB district. Christopher Charlsen, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that Chris Charlsen wishes to convert his existing accessory structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The 16.4' by 36.7' accessory structure construction date is unknown though the style suggests it was constructed around the same time as the primary residence, in 1877. The structure is constructed approximately 4' over the property line. Proposed improvements include adding a 28 square foot foyer to the front of the structure and a second story deck to the north side of the structure. The applicant is requesting: 1) a Special Use Permit to convert an accessory structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit; and 2) a 158 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot maximum allowable accessory structure coverage; and 3) a 432 square foot variance to the 800 square foot maximum allowable Accessory Dwelling unit size; and 4) a 25' variance to the 25' rear yard setback; and 5) a 2.5' variance to the 5' side yard setback. Mr. Charlsen realizes that he will need to move the structure onto the property line so it is not on the neighboring property. The neighbor is willing to grant an easement. This would be one of the conditions of approval. Staff finds that, with the exception of the deck addition, the proposed ADU meets the Special Use Permit provisions and the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a Special Use Permit and associated variances with seven conditions. Chairman Lauer asked if the concern about the deck is strictly about privacy. Ms. Wittman replied it is a use expansion. The concern is privacy of the neighbors. Commissioner Steinwall asked if the structure needs to be lifted and relocated. Ms. Wittman replied yes. Changing from an outbuilding to a residential use triggers the need to conform to today's code requirements which state the building must be 3' from the property line. However the building official said she would consider it to be in substantial compliance if the structure is placed on the property line and if there is easement for fire access. Chris Charlsen, applicant, said moving the building 4' would restrict his space to get into his 2.5 car garage which is tight right now. Neighbors have agreed to grant a 10' easement and the paperwork is in process. He added that the proposed second floor deck is 5' wide. He would be willing to put up a sight barrier such as a privacy trellis. He would still like to have the second floor deck because they are restricted as far as windows and it would be nice to have a small patio off the bedroom. Ms. Wittman stated that as an alternative to moving the building, a lot line adjustment would be acceptable for planning and zoning purposes; either would be sufficient. So Condition #4 could be changed to "owner will amend the lot line or submit a recorded easement." Commissioner Hansen asked how much of the structure will remain original. Mr. Charlsen replied that the lap siding and the building bones will be retained. They will have to see what happens when they dig into it. The building is not really square but the building mover said when he lifts it, it will come back to square. Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission July 22, 2020 Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon remarked that the proposed deck will not have more impact than the same structure without the deck. He feels putting a trellis there would solve the privacy concerns. Commissioner Dybvig said he struggles with the deck. The deck would only be 3' wider but would also be much longer than what is there now which is a stairway landing. Being on the property line and on the second story makes it a lot more problematic. Commissioner Hansen agreed with Commissioner Dybvig. The building adds another residence right in between two residences. He is not inclined to grant expansion of the nonconformance but is in favor of everything else. He feels ADUs are great and provide more affordable housing options. Commissioner Meyhoff asked if the neighbors commented on the deck itself. Julia Charlsen replied the neighbors have seen the plans and did not mention anything about the deck. They have tried to be sensitive to neighbors in not placing windows on that west wall. Ms. Wittman noted for the record the City did not receive comments from any adjacent neighbors. Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2020-25, Special Use Permit and associated Variances to allow an accessory dwelling unit at 1030 4th Ave S with the seven conditions recommended by staff (including not allowing the deck). Ms. Wittman asked if the Commission would be favorable to a smaller deck replacing the existing landing area. Chairman Lauer said he would be inclined to allow it to remain as a landing area for the stairs. Commissioner Steinwall remarked the Commission could consider an alternative design for a smaller deck or balcony but the Commission should not redesign the project for the applicants. Commissioner Hansen commented that stairs going up to a landing is a necessity but having a deck on the second level is for recreational use; they are not similar uses at all. He feels the deck should not be allowed but the existing stairs and landing could remain. Julia Charlsen asked, if they can't have the deck, would the Commission consider having a matching roofline over that area so it could be a covered first floor patio? Ms. Wittman answered that would change the impervious surface coverage and this public hearing was not noticed for it. In general, eaves and overhangs come down to whether the Commission thinks it's consistent with the plan on file today. Condition #8 could be added stating that a patio overhang would be considered substantially similar to the design on file today. Chairman Lauer proposed that amendment to the motion. Commissioner Hansen expressed concern that it not be called a roof but used as a deck in the future. Ms. Charlsen asked if it could be a pergola, matching the roofline, or could they screen in the patio? Ms. Wittman stated screening in the patio would increase the amount of structural coverage. Ms. Charlsen withdrew that request. Chairman Lauer noted the motion is back to 7 conditions, no amendment needed. All in favor. Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission July 22, 2020 Case No. 2020-27:_Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment and Variances associated with a home addition. Property located at 501 Greeley Street South in the RB and PROS districts. Jon and Julianne Summers, property owners. John Comb of Custom Craft Builders, representative. Ms. Wittman stated that Julianne and Jon Summers plan to demolish an existing detached garage, remodel the house and build an addition that includes an attached garage on their three adjoining parcels. Given the steep slopes of the McKusick Ravine on the north side, the front lot line setback for the existing house is only 18.3 feet and 14.4 feet for the detached garage. The current required front setback in the subject RB Zoning District is 20 feet for the house and 30 feet for the garage. Further complicating the situation is the mixed zoning of the property. Parcels 1 and 2 are zoned PROS — Park, Recreation and Open Space and Parcel 3 is zoned RB — Two Family Residential. In order to expand the house onto Parcel 2, it must be rezoned at least in part to RB. In order to complete the remodeling project, the contractor has requested: 1) a 1.7 foot variance to allow the expansion of the house, since its front yard setback is only 18.3 feet, and the minimum required in the RB Zoning District is 20 feet; and 2) a 9.3 foot variance to allow the attached garage to be located 20.7 feet from the front lot line instead of the required 30 feet; and 3) rezoning of Lot 17, Block 11, Sabins Addition (south half of Parcel 2) from PROS — Park, Recreation & Open Space to RB — Two Family Residential. Staff finds the variances and rezoning requests to be reasonable, consistent with review criteria established in the Zoning Code and appropriate for their setting. Staff therefore recommends approval with one condition. Jon and Julianne Summers thanked staff for their assistance. Chairman Lauer opened and closed the public hearing. There were no public comments. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve variances associated with a home addition, Case No. 2020-27, and to recommend that the City Council approve the associated Zoning Map Amendment for the property located at 501 Greeley Street South with the one staff -recommended condition. All in favor. Case No. 2020-28: Consideration of a Variance to the lot coverage to replace an existing garage to o have a larger footprint. Property located at 506 Laurel St W in the RB district. Tim and Julia Schmolke. property owners and Sussell Builders, representative. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. The house was built in 1885, and the existing detached garage is estimated to have been built in the 1960s. The garage is accessed by a driveway easement off Everett Street North that runs behind the neighboring property to the east. The current layout of the driveway and garage render the garage impractical for parking vehicles, because the garage door is located on the west face of the garage, despite the driveway entering from the east. The property owner proposes to replace the 400 square foot garage with a 870 square foot garage, installing a door that faces east, so cars can enter the garage through the driveway easement on the east side. The larger garage will bring the structural surface coverage over the maximum allowed. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow the structural lot coverage to be 29.3% (maximum allowed 25%). Staff finds the proposed garage meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and therefore recommends approval of the variance with six conditions. Tim Schmolke, applicant, stated the playhouse/shed will remain if there are no objections. It is in keeping with the character of the property. Ms. Wittman said the playhouse remaining would not change the variance and Condition #6 regarding the shed could be dropped. Mr. Schmolke said he will provide the City a copy of the driveway easement, written in 1898. Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission July 22, 2020 Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve Case No. 2020-28, Variance to the lot coverage to replace an existing garage to have a larger footprint at 506 Laurel St W with Conditions # 1-5 recommended by staff, dropping Condition #6. All in favor. Case No. 2020-29: Consideration of Special Use Permit/Conditional Use Permit for a mural on the building. Property located at 14130 60th St N in the BP-C district. Olaf Rustad, property owner, and Matthew Anderson, representative. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. Advanced Dermatology at 14130 60th Street North would like to put a 25' X 15' mural on the west side of their building, facing Greeley Street South. The reason for this mural, as stated by the owner, is not to advertise the medical office, but rather to create a community space for people to take photographs and to enjoy visually in light of the company's mission to make community members look and feel better about themselves. Staff finds the mural would not have detrimental impacts to the location or the neighborhood and recommends the approval of a Special Use Permit for a 375 square foot graphic sign with three conditions. Commissioner Kocon asked how it is classified as a mural and not as a sign. Ms. Wittman responded a sign is something that calls attention to a business. The City Attorney determined that the "Looking Good" portion is considered a mural. The business contact information below is wall signage that is counted toward total allowed signage. The business is nowhere near its total allowed signage. Dr. OJ, applicant, said they like the positive connotation of "Looking Good" and think it would be a fun thing to add to an otherwise boring wall. This side of the building is too hot for plantings. Commissioner Steinwall said the applicants' correspondence states one of their company mottos is Looking Good, so does that make this advertising? Dr. OJ replied he does not think people looking at this mural would identify it with Advanced Dermatology, as it is not a brand or logo. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Chairman Lauer commented there is a fine line between what is advertisement and art. He understands that it has an artistic flair but feels like advertising. Dr. Ruth compared their request to the Len's Market mural, "Best little market in the valley." Commissioner Dybvig agreed the Len's Market mural is much closer to being an advertising piece. Commissioner Meyhoff noted the question of what is art comes down to personal opinion. Commissioner Kocon remarked it looks like art. Approval is recommended for a SUP for a graphic sign, with the staff finding that this "mural" would not have detrimental impact. Art is in the eye of the beholder. He believes the mural can be considered art. Commissioner Steinwall suggested that part of the problem is the City's definition of a graphic sign, which is not particularly helpful from a code standpoint. If this is a SUP, it runs with the land so the Commission would actually be approving any number of artistic representations that could be applied against this property. Commissioner Dybvig pointed out one of the conditions is that the mural be substantially similar to what was shown in materials submitted. Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission July 22, 2020 Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2020-29, Special Use Permit/Conditional Use Permit for a mural on the building located at 14130 60th St N, with the three staff -recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-2 with Commissioner Steinwall and Councilmember Collins voting nay. Case No. 2020-23: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to modify code relating to setback measurement. City of Stillwater, applicant_ Ms. Wittman explained that the City's definition for Setback, building line "means a line back of the lot line that defines the setback area in all yards." The measurement of a setback from the lot line is concerning. In some cases a right-of-way (ROW) easement line, the area in which the City is permitted to build a road on private land, also exists. Where this occurs, the City would want to impose a setback, building line to be from the ROW easement or from whichever is more restrictive to maintain sufficient distance between structures and roadways. It is common zoning practice to measure the setback from the lot line or ROW easement line, whichever is more restrictive. Staff is requesting consideration of a Zoning Amendment — Text (ZAT) to clarify setback measurement requirements. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to recommend that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-101, entitled Definitions, by amending the definition for setback, building line (Case No. 2020-23). All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that, in regard to Case No. 2020-20, Resolution 2020-01 adopted tonight, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's previous decision to the City Council and after a public hearing, the Council denied the appeal in a 3-2 vote. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. All in favor, ATTEST: 46� Abbi Wittman, City Planner Page 6 of 6