Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-09 CPC MINC? STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Date: Aug. 9, 1993 Time 7 p.m. Members Present: Glenna Bealka, Duane Elliott, Dorothy Foster, Jay Kimble, Kirk Roetman, Don Valsvik and Darwin Wald Steve Russell, Comm. Dev. Director, and Ann Pung Terwedo, planning Members Absent: Gerald Fontaine, Chairman, and Rob Hamlin Vice Chairman Don Valsvik called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Darwin Wald to approve the minutes of July 12, 1993; seconded by Duane Elliott. All in favor. 0 PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. V/93-4,6 - A variance to the rearyard setback requirements (25 feet required, 20 feet requested) for construction of a home at 2047 Oak Glen Drive in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Applicants Mr. and Mrs. Freels appeared before the Commission. Mr. Freels said when they bought the lot last year, they thought the setback requirements were 20 feet, front, and 10 feet, back, rather than 30 and 25 feet, which they discovered after an architect had already designed a home for them. He said the architect has tried a number of things, including shortening the garage by two feet and placing the house as far. north on the lot as possible, but the structure still won't fit on the lot without a variance. Without a variance, they won't be able to have a dinette in the home. The variance is needed for just a small -- five feet deep by seven feet long -- point of the lot, he said Mr. Russell suggested the possibility of a two and one-half foot variance for both the front and backyard setbacks. He noted the lot was on a curve, which lessens any visual impact, and it is the last home in that part of the development. Mr. Freels pointed out that because of the curve in the road, except for the small corner where the variance is needed, the house placement would exceed the setback requirements. 0 2 Mr. Valsvik noted the lot is in the RA District which has various setback requirements • that everyone has to maintain. Mr. Roetman made a motion to approve the variance request due to the unique location of the lot in the development and the fact the variance is for just a portion of the house, not the entire length of the structure. Dorothy Foster seconded the motion. Jay Kimble suggested that hardship could be demonstrated by the shape of the lot. Mr. Elliott said although he was inclined to vote against the request, not too long ago the Commission granted a variance for a garage addition because it was on a corner lot which should have been able to accommodate the addition without a variance. Motion passed five to two, Mr. Valsvik and Mr. Elliott voting no. Case blo. V/93-47 - A variance to the total square footage allowable for accessory structures (1,000 feet maximum allowable for all structures, 1,320 feet proposed) for construction of an attached garage at 811 W. Pine St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Applicant Duane Arndt appeared on his own behalf. Mr. Arndt said the proposal is to remove an existing two-car garage that was built in the 1920s. He said it may or may not be attached; if not attached, he said he would not need a sideyard variance. He said the size of the proposed garage was not out of place given the size of the property, and he said the proposed structure would compliment and blend in with the • house and carriage house. Mr. Elliott pointed out the dimension listed in the request were incorrect. He said the proposed new garage would be in excess of 900 square feet, putting the total square footage for accessory buildings in excess of 1,600 square feet. Mr. Valsvik asked whether the structure would be "grandfathered in." Mr. Russell said the existing accessory structures are legal non-conforming uses that are permitted as long as kept in existing use; one a structure is removed, the new structure is subject to the current ordinance requirements. Mr. Elliott moved to deny the variance request; Mr. Roetman seconded the motion. Mr. Kimble suggested the ordinance was overly-restrictive in this instance. If someone wants to build a big garage on a big lot, and the garage isn't going to be used for commercial purposes, why not? he asked. Mr. Valsvik also said he didn't see a problem with the request, considering a structure was there before. Mr. Roetman said part of the Commission's duty is to maintain the integrity of ordinances, granting exceptions based on hardship. Right or wrong (the provision regarding accessory structures), that's the ordinance, he said. Motion to deny the requested passed 4-3; Dorothy Foster, Mr. Kimble and Mr. Valsvik voted against the denial. 0 3 • Case No. V/93-48 - A Variance to the frontyard setback requirement (30 feet required, 20 feet requested) for construction of a 23 by 26 foot garage at 817 S. Fifth St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mr. Hesse, applicant, appeared before the Commission. He said he would like to build a 24 by 26 foot garage, rather than the 23 by 26 foot listed on the request. He said the house was built in 1890; the garage would match the house in color, pitch of the roof, and other design elements. A setback variance is needed because of a retaining wall which separates the property's front and rear yards. Mr. Elliott noted that viewed from the other side, the garage would not protrude, and would actually be more in line with other existing structures. Mr. Kimble expressed a concern about the proximity of the garage to the house. He suggested firewall sheetrock may be required on the wall closest to the house. He later suggested adding a condition that the garage be located a minimum of five feet, six inches from the residence. Mr. Wald made the motion to approve the variance as conditioned; Dorothy Foster seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. Case No. V/93-49 - A Variance to the side and rearyard setback requirements (5 feet side and rearyard required, 2 feet 8 inches proposed) for construction of a garage at 912 W. Laurel St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. . Ray Davis and Connie Devich, applicants, appeared before the Commission. They said the garage would be located at the extreme back and east of the lot, the only logical place on the small site. Most other garages in the neighborhood are located in about the same place on the lots. Due to a "severe mud problem" this spring, they said they had a driveway paved and had a slab poured for the garage, not knowing they would need a variance. They said although they were unaware of the need for a variance, they recognize they had made an error in proceeding. Glenna Bealka made the motion to approve the variance request; Darwin Wald seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. COMPREHENSIVE PL8N UPDATE Commission members were asked to turn in their questionnaires. Mr. Russell said City Council members also are being asked to complete the form. Each Commission member was asked to list their personal priority issues. There was a general discussion about the comprehensive plan as it relates to annexation issues. Mr. Russell told the Commission that staff "feels strongly" it will take a minimum of one year to complete the plan update. SHORELAND ORDINANCE r1 U 4 Mr. Russell said the ordinance will have to be brought back at a later date. In researching DNR and watershed regulations, it was found that Long Lake has to be included in the ordinance. Duane Elliott moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.; seconded by Kirk Roetman. All in favor. Submitted by: Sharon Baker Acting recording secretary 0 n U