Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 June 15, 2021 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 2021 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Margy Davey, Michael Ford, Derek Groth, John Hinz, John Kiefer, Phil Marshall, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, EXCUSED: STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Steven Wiley, Associate Planner; Brandon Nielsen, Assistant Planner Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of June 1, 2021 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Mitchell) I. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW AREA REDUCTIONS AND MATERIALS NOT THE SAME AS THE MATERIALS ON THE ORIGINAL BUILDING AT 505 E NEW YORK AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow window area reductions and materials not the same as the materials on the original building at 505 E New York Avenue. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The owner and applicant would like to remodel the home. Work will include a second floor addition, moving the location of the existing front door, and moving the location of the window openings. The applicant will also be residing and reroofing the home. The owner and applicant would like to obtain architectural symmetry. Staff informed the applicant that Plan Commission review and a design standards variance were necessary for the window closures. Staff recommends approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow for window reductions on the front façade with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked if what is being proposed will match what’s currently there with using cedar shake siding. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 June 15, 2021 Mr. Lyons said that there is a design choice made and they do it as an integral design portion of the building. In this case we’re viewing it as the same and that is why we are recommending it’s the entire part of that area that way it’s an intentional design element and not patchwork. Ms. Davey asked if they only have to wrap the one corner and not both corners. Mr. Lyons said that it wouldn’t work for the other side since it leads into the master bedroom but that is why they are requesting it to be consistent material. Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Kiefer. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SETBACK NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVAILING BUILDING SETBACKS FOR A NEW HOME AT 834 MILLER LANE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow a front yard setback that is not consistent with the prevailing building setbacks for a new home at 834 Miller Lane. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 June 15, 2021 Mr. Nielsen presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant would like to build a new three bedroom / two bath home on this vacant lot that is 68’ long and 33’ wide from the back of the home to the front of the attached garage, with the garage portion being 22’ wide. Currently on the north side of Miller Lane there are three lots with homes and three vacant lots. The two neighboring homes to 834 Miller Lane have a front setback of approximately 39’ and 48’ and zoning code requires new homes be consistent and align with those prevailing building setbacks. The applicant is asking to reduce their front yard setback to 32’. The applicant spoke to planning staff about their proposed plans and staff advised the applicant to apply for a Design Standards Variance to allow for a front yard setback that is not consistent with the prevailing setbacks so the required 25’ rear setback could be met. Additionally, because Miller Lane has not been fully developed yet, planning staff is in favor of this variance as it will allow 834 Miller Lane to maintain a code compliant 25’ rear setback and the 32’ front setback is still more than the required front yard setback in SR-5 zoning districts. It will also assist the last two vacant lots with their front yard setback. A reduced front yard setback at 834 Miller Lane will recalculate the front yard setback average for the block, allowing for the next two vacant lots to be developed with a similar setback to 834, potentially avoiding the DSV process again when they get developed. Lastly, on the south side of Miller Lane, the front yard setbacks are not as drastic as they are on the north side; so approving a 32’ setback on the north side of the road will be consistent with the overall character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow a 32’ front yard setback for a new home at 834 Miller Lane. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Mitchell. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 June 15, 2021 Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. III. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING ADDITION WITH CLASS IV MATERIALS AT 2326 S WASHBURN STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Commercial Design Standards to allow a building addition clad in Class IV materials at 2326 S. Washburn Street. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. Toys for Trucks has proposed a 2,800 sq. ft. rear (east) addition. As it exceeds 50% of the floor area of the existing building, current building design standards apply for the addition. As proposed, the addition will be clad in prefinished metal wall panels to match the existing building and will also include overhead doors on the east facade. The metal panels are considered a Class IV material, which is prohibited as the rear of the building faces a public street (Interstate 41). Staff recommends approval of a variance from the City’s Commercial Design Standards to allow a renovation using Class IV materials with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked if there will required landscaping. Mr. Lyons confirmed that landscaping is required and will have to meet all provisions. Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 June 15, 2021 There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Ford. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. IV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A PERSONAL STORAGE FACILITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1300 S. KOELLER STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Mr. Hinz, Mr. Perry, and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow a personal storage facility located at 1300 S. Koeller Street. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant also plans to divide the subject property into two lots to provide a separate lot for future development fronting S. Koeller Street. This will be addressed administratively through a CSM. The proposed plans were brought before Plan Commission at a workshop on April 20, 2021. Plan Commission was open to the concept, with the main concern being the appearance of the storage building on a major commercial corridor. Staff is supportive of the requested base standard modification (BSM) to allow the personal storage facility. Although not permitted within the SMU district, staff feels that the proposed storage use is appropriate given the significant distance of the building from the S. Koeller Street frontage and difficulty finding a new user of the vacant “big box” retail building. Staff recommends approval of the General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked what the green space will look like since a similar project ended up looking different than he thought. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 June 15, 2021 Mr. Lyons said they are going through the discussion with the other site currently and it is not a completed green space. They have 3 years to complete it and will be coming to a future workshop to discuss the development. Mr. Mitchell said that in a workshop they had mentioned changing the asphalt/pavement area. Mr. Lyons said that when Lot 1 develops they will see significant reduction in the parking lot area. Mr. Mitchell asked if they do an assessment for how many parking spots they will need. Mr. Lyons said they can ask that and see if they will remove more than originally planned. Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ed Bowen, The Morgan Partners, stated he is representing the applicant. They are not the developer of the Lot 2 property, and are representing Lot 1 applicant. The intent is to develop Lot 1 but that will depend on the early development of Lot 2. Mr. Bowen said they plan on completely reshaping the parking in Lot 1. They can expect to see the development plan within 90-120 days. It should remove the existing parking spaces and replace it with stalls specifically for the lot use and bring them into a more code compliant configuration. On Lot 2, those are mostly covered by easement agreements with IHOP and Qdoba parcels that have already been carved out. Those are subject to a real specific site plan that is going to take a pretty heavy lift to alter those. Those stalls may not be necessary to the storage area, they are used by and subject to restrictions to IHOP and Qdoba. Ms. Propp asked what the plans are for the former ShopKo Garden Center. Mr. Bowen said that some of it will get removed. They were considering returning it to grass but because it’s over a pipeline easement, it becomes complicated. There is no plan being proposed for the location. But if there was a condition made to address that area, they would be receptive. Mr. Mitchell asked what percentage of those stalls are shared use and how they were going to try and make that area look better. Mr. Bowen that his statement was regarding Lot 1. They have control over the development of Lot 1. The owner of Lot 2 doesn’t have that much control over the shared parking. Even if they wanted to do something about those, the owners don’t necessarily have the power to do anything without the consent from IHOP and Qdoba. Mr. Perry asked if they know what they owner of Lot 2 has planned and if the use can change to allow different storage uses. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 June 15, 2021 Mr. Bowen said that they are approving a personal storage unit on site. The use doesn’t change based on the operator. The use and the BSM are being approved. Mr. Perry asked what defines personal storage, what can be stored, and who can rent them. Mr. Lyons said they are personal storage lockers/spaces. They are not able to regulate who rents the storage units. They can only regulate the land use. Mr. Perry asked that if the building couldn’t be rented to its fullest capacity if the tenant could approve potentially hazardous material. Mr. Lyons said there are federal guidelines for hazardous materials. They do not regulate who can rent it, whether it’s an individual or a business. If this plan is approved, they could not add anything exterior. If they wanted to change the interior, it would have to be building code compliant and would have to meet that definition of personal storage facility. Mr. Hinz asked if the development of Lot 1’s purpose is to have the main building closer to the frontage road which would take the parking area for that and the existing lot and encircle it with buildings. Mr. Bowen said that there is a pipeline underneath the building. There are things you can build over the pipeline but you can’t put footings or foundations in, you can’t put a structure on top and grade it with concrete and asphalt. You are restricted in how you work with that area and who is able to be on site when the work is being done. As to the development of the site, the only logical place to develop is closer to the road. Mr. Coulibaly asked how deep the pipeline is. Mr. Bowen said he wasn’t qualified to answer, but he knows there is a lot of hand digging involved when a pipeline like this is involved. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Coulibaly to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Hinz. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 June 15, 2021 Mr. Mitchell asked what would be required of parking for the development of Lot 2 and asked if the city has information on the shared stalls. Mr. Lyons said they are not privy to that information unless they were to be shared with them. Mr. Mitchell asked if Mr. Bowen would have that information. Mr. Lyons said they could condition it on supplying that information to them. This is a common issue with large scale developments with shared parking agreements. Personal storage facilities have 1-1.25 required spaces per employee. Traditionally when they are drafted, they cover the entire parking area. Maybe Qdoba only needs 25 spaces, but there are legal easements and agreements that would allow over the maximum. Mr. Perry said that he is not in support of this redevelopment for different reasons. There are too many storage facilities in the area that are visible. They have turned down the development of a storage facility that was proposed in the former JCPenney building but because it was a focal point entering the city, it was rejected. This is no different. There are still a lot of questions about the site and what is still able to be done because there is no representative for Lot 2. It should be pushed off until there can be a representative to answer the questions. Ms. Propp said that it is a slippery slope to try and take away rights from businesses who have been legally using the parking regardless of the exact easement agreement. She asked if the islands have trees on them. Mr. Lyons said that there will be installation of any landscaping that is missing on the islands. Ms. Propp said she liked the landscaping on the former ShopKo site and would be disappointed to see those go away. Mr. Ford asked if the Lot 1 development will have a lesser need for as many spots for parking as did the former ShopKo site. Mr. Lyons said that the site will be significantly reduced in spots. Mr. Ford asked that if this gets approved that it’s safe to say in a few years there will be fewer parking spots. Mr. Lyons confirmed that. Mr. Hinz asked if the location of the entrance for Lot 1 and Lot 2, if they would have an agreement for cross access. Mr. Bowen confirmed this. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 June 15, 2021 Mr. Hinz said he is in support of this redevelopment. Should this business in 10-15 years no longer be a need, this will be an easy project to redevelop. Until then we have actually something that will be active in this location. It’s not right on the road, and there will be other things in front of it. Mr. Mitchell asked if there is a flow of traffic pattern for this area. Mr. Lyons said they could pull up the DOT counts for Koeller St but they are not traditionally done internally. Mr. Mitchell said there was a concern for traffic flow for the businesses in the area especially with the coffee shop that sometimes has traffic flowing into the street. Is this the point in which its looked or it does it wait until they are ready to develop Lot 1. Mr. Lyons said that you have to look at the user for Lot 1. The storage use is not a high traffic volume generator. When Lot 1 comes back, we’ll look at the traffic impact of it and it may or may not need a TIA. Ms. Davey said she supports this project this project because in a sustainability aspect, it’s nice to have a building reused instead of being torn down and taxes will be collected for the city. It will not look like storage site and is an acceptable reuse of the building. Ms. Propp wanted to have clarification of the former ShopKo Garden Center. If this is a specific implementation plan, is there something about the exterior to the south side in the plan. Mr. Lyons said the plans are not showing any use of the area. It shows it’s removed and just used as a hard space. There are no doors shown period on the south side of the buildings. Ms. Propp stated there has to be access somewhere. Mr. Lyons said the main entrance is in the front and shown as pedestrian doors and no overhead doors. Motion by Hinz to reopen the floor for the applicant to speak. Second by Kiefer. Motion carried 8-1. Mr. Bowen said the west facing doors would be not overhead vehicular entrance points. The operator would be using those doors as pedestrian entrances only. They do not have any drive-in functionality planned. If the Plan Commission wants to make a condition on staff review and approval on how that would happen, it would be fair. As it sits, the overhead door on the south of the building is a dock height door. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 June 15, 2021 Mr. Lyons stated that if they wanted to modify anything in the future, they would have to come back to Plan Commission. Mr. Bowen said that they could condition the approval on removal of the garden area. Mr. Perry asked if the development of Lot 2 is dependent on the development on Lot 1. Mr. Bowen said if Lot 2’s development does not occur then Lot 1’s development would not occur. The redevelopment of the building unlocks the ability to redevelop the out parcel. Mr. Ford asked if they are voting on the SIP that is in front of them, and that if they wanted to change anything they would have to come back to Plan Commission. Mr. Lyons said that is correct and if they don’t match the plans exactly, they have to come back. Ms. Propp asked that if they apply for building permits and it shows doors that are not on the plan, then they have to come back. Mr. Lyons said they would have to either match this plan exactly or come back to amend the SIP approval. Mr. Mitchell if they know the purpose of the empty area by the garden center is. Mr. Bowen said that was the ShopKo unloading area. The cross access runs all the way to 9th Avenue. There are no current plans to use that area. Mr. Marshall asked if we can have the storage company come back and answer a few more questions to help figure out how they are going to access and use it. Mr. Kiefer said they would want to see them to develop the area where the dock area is. They could also see how they could use the garden area. Mr. Mitchell asked what the impact is if this gets tabled for two weeks. Mr. Bowen said there is not a direct negative impact in tabling this for the next Plan Commission. Mr. Hinz said it looks like they are closing off the loading area. Mr. Bowen said that rendering doesn’t show the dock height doors. Mr. Hinz asked if they approved this elevation, if they dock doors couldn’t be used. Mr. Bowen confirmed that is correct. Motion by Mitchell to amend the motion to table this item until the next meeting. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 June 15, 2021 Second by Marshall. Motion carried 7-2. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:15 pm. (Kiefer/Marshall) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager