Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-12 CPC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION June 12, 1995 Present: Chairman Jerry Fontaine, Glenna Bealka, Duane Elliott Dorothy Foster, Rob Hamlin, Kirk Roetman, Don Valsvik, and Darwin Wald Absent: Terry Zoller Others Steve Russell, community development director, and Susan Fitzgerald, planning Mr. Russell introduced Ms. Fitzgerald to the commission members. Chairman Jerry Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Darwin Wald, seconded by Don Valsvik, moved approval of the minutes of May 8, 1995; all in favor. Case No.SUP/94-6. Review of revised grading/drainage and landscape plan • for Good Samaritan Center, 119 N. Owens St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Good Samaritan, applicant. City Attorney David Magnuson and City Engineer Klayton Eckles were on hand for the discussion. Mr. Elliott excused himself from the discussion due to his former relationship with SEH. Mr. Russell told commission members that since the Jan. 9, 1995, Planning Commission meeting when neighbors expressed concerns about the landscaping and drainage plans, the retaining wall and other issues, staff has met with neighbors and Good Samaritan representatives on at least 5 different occasions. Those meetings have resulted in 17 conditions of approval. Several other issues have come to light since then, he said. One neighbor is not satisfied with the landscape plan. The drainage design has been approved by the city staff, Good Samaritan and affected neighbors; a drainage easement is currently being prepared. Joanne Loer, 1114 N. William St., showed a video of conditions prior to construction, during construction and after a March 11, 1995, snowfall. She asked that each of the neighbors to allowed to address the • commission individually. • In addition to Mr. and Mrs. Loer, the following made comments: Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Shepardson, 1208 N. William; Keith Hoffbeck, 1110 N. William St.; a resident at 623 W. Wilkins St.; Mr. and Mrs. Robert Kent, 122 E. Hazel St. Mr. Kent asked why the language in the 17 conditions of approval listed for the commission's consideration was different than the language in a "working memorandum" that had been developed after the meetings with the neighbors. The commission then went through the language of the 17 conditions. • Snow removal -- neighbors wanted language that snow shall be "removed," rather than "contained." • Retaining wall -- Mr. Russell said there is no language in the conditions of approval pertaining to the wall. The wall meets code and is really part of the overall grading and drainage plan. Regarding standards for retaining walls, Mr. Eckles said walls over a certain height must be designed by an engineer. • Employee parking -- neighbors wanted language added that employees not park on William or Wilkins streets or Stillwater Avenue. It was noted that there currently is some on-street parking because the parking lot has not been accessible during construction. • On-site storm sewer runoff -- Mr. Valsvik suggested adding language that an easement for the Hoffbeck property shall be obtained. Mr. Swanlund, 718 W. Hickory St., asked about the long-term maintenance of the drainage system and who would be responsible if it turns out the system isn't adequate. Mr. Magnuson said language could be added regarding permanent responsibility for storm water drainage. • South and east wing door -- neighbors wanted language that the doors be solid wood and used for emergency purposes only. • Sound barriers -- Mr. Russell explained that the emergency generator won't be screened for noise. If there's an emergency, the generator will be used. • Damage to trees -- Mr. Russell said there have been some damaged trees that are not included in the landscaping plan. It was suggested adding language that the damaged trees be "repaired" before final approval is given, and that newly planted trees be guaranteed for three years. • Property values -- Mr. Russell noted this is a permitted use under the zoning ordinance and therefore property appraisals are not the city's responsibility. Mr. Magnuson pointed out that the issue of devaluation generally does not favor adjourning property owners; the law favors private rights. • Mr. Hamlin said when the Planning Commission reviewed the plans for the addition a year ago, commitments were made. However, what ultimately . was built is contrary to what the Planning Commission approved. He said he felt the retaining wall should come down. If "big-time' mistakes are made, "big-time" measures should be taken to correct those mistakes. Ms. Bealka said that is Mr. Hamlin's personal opinion and doesn't reflect the opinion of the Planning Commission as a whole; mistakes have been made, she said, and we have to go on from there. - Certificate of occupancy -- neighbors requested that the certificate not be issued until all issues have been resolved. Neighbors also requested that they be notified beforehand and be allowed to review the paperwork that is sent to the state of Minnesota. It was agreed to have Mrs. Loer review the paperwork on behalf of the neighbors. Mr. Magnuson said the discussion seemed to indicate three major concerns: continued responsibility for storm water; that all damages, including ress be repaired; and that landscaping be guaranteed for a three-year period. Mr. Fontaine, seconded by Mr. Hamlin, moved to table approval and hold a special meeting with the neighbors and Good Samaritan representatives. All in favor. The meeting was set for June 26. Case No-V/95-38. A variance to the back yard setback (5 feet required, 0 feet requested) for construction of a garage/carport at 720 N. Martha St. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. TJ Builder, Kevin Junker, applicant. Mr. Junker appeared regarding the request. Mr. Elliott noted that with a 0 setback, Mr. Junker would have to get an easement or written agreement from neighbors in order to maintain the building. He also expressed his concern that the commission is often making decisions based on sketches that are not drawn to scale. He suggested requiring a two-foot setback as a condition of approval. Mr. Junker said a two-foot setback would be acceptable. Mr. Elliott moved approval with the condition of a two foot setback (three foot variance) and that drainage be maintained on the property. Mr. Wald seconded the motion; all in favor. Case No. SUP/95-39. A special use permit to conduct a three-bedroom bed and breakfast and special events at 210 E. Laurel St. in the RB, Two- Family Residential District. Douglas and Deborah Thorsen, applicants. • Mr. and Mrs. Thorsen appeared regarding the request. They said they have reviewed the conditions of approval. Mr. Thorsen questioned the condition that both owners shall be on site during all special events. It was agreed that condition should be that one of the owners be on site. Neal Casey, 107 E. Laurel, expressed his concern about the impact on the residential area. He questioned what type of special events were planned. Robert Olson, 613 N. Third St., reiterated that concern, as well as a concern about parking problems that might be created by special events. Mr. Thorsen assured the neighbors that the intent is to operate a "quiet" bed and breakfast. Special events would be in keeping with the historical character of the residence. He also noted that there is on-site parking for 10 cars, and he welcomed neighbors to come to him with any complaints they might have in the future. Mr. Roetman asked whether the Thorsens would be agreeable to reducing the number of allowable special events; they said that would be acceptable. Mr. Hamlin moved approval amending the condition pertaining to special • events to allow 12 per year, not to exceed one per week, and changing the condition that both owners be on site during special events to at least own of the owners on site. Mr. Roetman seconded the motion; all in favor. Case No. SUP/95-40. A special use permit to conduct a three-room bed and breakfast and restaurant with outside dining at 114 E. Chestnut St. in the CBD, Central Business District, Mark Hanson, applicant. Mr. Hanson appeared regarding the request. He said he planned to operate the business as is has been in the past. Other than the signage, nothing would be different. He asked what needed to be shown in the site plan for the outside seating area. Mr. Russell explained the plan should show the number of seats, tables, access to the residence, etc. Mr. Roetman, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval; all in favor. Case No. SUP/95-41. A special use permit to expand a restaurant use to the gas station/bait shop at 806 S. Main St. in the RB, Duplex Residential District. Gary Carlson, applicant. • Mr. Carlson said the request is to expand the restaurant to the gas station; the pumps have been removed. He expressed a concern regarding the condition that the parking lot be repaved and striped within a year. He said he did not own the whole building and repaving the lot would be costly. He said he would patch the lot and stripe it. Mr. Elliott suggested that at a minimum the lot should be sealcoated; that was agreeable to Mr. Carlson. Mr. Valsvik, seconded by Mrs. Foster, moved approval as conditioned; all in favor. Case No. V/95-42. A variance to the front yard setback (17 feet requested, 30 feet required) to construct a 9-foot tall fence at 911 Fifth Ave. S., in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Richard and Sheridyn McClain, applicants. Mr. McClain and his mother-in-law appeared regarding the request. Six- feet is the maximum allowable fence height. Mr. McClain said because of the way the house is situated, a six-foot high fence is not adequate to provide desired privacy. The trolley comes by the home continually, with people looking into the home on a regular basis. No neighbors object to the plan, and no one's view will be obstructed, he said. • The original request was for a trellis across the top of the garage, with the fence along each side. The trellis is considered a structure, thereby requiring the front yard setback. Mr. Elliott questioned the need for the trellis. Mr. Roetman moved approval with the condition that the fence be no more than 9 feet high and consist of two separate section, with no connecting beam and no trellis. Mr. Wald seconded the motion; all in favor. Case No. V/95-43. A variance to the side yard setback (30 feet required, 14 requested) to expand an existing garage at 212 Sixth St. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Brent and Wendy Johnson, applicants. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson appeared regarding the request. Architect Tim Stepan also was present. Mr. Johnson said the family wants to stay in the neighborhood but is running out of closet/storage space etc. The proposed addition will be historically consistent with the 120-year-old residence. The request is for a 20 foot setback, rather than the 14 indicated in the planning review, he said. • There was some discussion as to moving the location of the addition in order to meet setback requirements. Moving the addition to the side would • require reshaping a patio/retaining wall, Mr. Johnson said. Moving the addition to the back would reduce a play area and would require excavation due to a three-foot grade at the rear of the property. There also was some discussion as to the location of the Johnson's front property lines. Mr. Elliott noted it appeared the Johnson's driveway had become part of the street. An original motion to deny the request, made by Mr. Elliott and seconded by Mr. Roetman, was withdrawn. Mr. Elliott later moved to continue the request until the property line issue is clarified and to allow members to view the property. The motion to continue the request was seconded by Mr. Wald; all in favor. Case No. SUP/95-44. A special use permit to operate a dog kennel at 235 N. William St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Rodney and Kathy Nord, applicants. Mr. and Mrs. Nord appeared regarding the request. Paul Dickinson, 234 N. Everett St., expressed his concern that the Nords • might breed dogs if the license is issued. Mr. Landgreen, 222 N. Everett St., suggested that the dogs should be spayed. Mr. Nord said they have absolutely no intention of breeding the dogs and said he would be willing to sign a paper to that effect. Mr. Roetman, seconded by Mr. Valsvik, moved approval with the condition that there be no breeding on site. All in favor. Case No. V/95-45. A variance to the landscaped setback requirement (20 feet required, 17'6" proposed) to add a 14-car parking area to the west side of an existing lot at 1465 Stillwater Blvd. in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. A. Peter Hilger, applicant. Mr. Hilger and Dick Zimmerman were present regarding the request. Mr. Hilger said the right-of-way has been replatted. The new lot is primarily for customer convenience. He said that some portions of the final landscaping for the entire complex hadn't been completed pending the outcome of this issue. Mr. Wald, seconded by Mr. Valsvik, moved approval as conditioned; all in favor. Case No. SUP/95-46. A resubdivision of a parcel located at 501 N. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Harold D. Kimmel, applicant. Mark Desch appeared before the commission. He and Mr. Kimmel have purchased a parcel of adjoining property from MnDOT; the request is to add the parcel to the applicants' parcels. Mr. Hamlin, seconded by Mr. Elliott, moved approval; all in favor. Case No. DP/SUP/V/95-47. This case was continued. Case No. SV/95-48. A street vacation for that portion of Elm Street abutting Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, and Lots 4 and 1, Block 3, Carli and Schulenberg's Addition in the City of Stillwater. Jessica Lange, applicant. George Lange appeared on his sister's behalf. Mr. Lange said his sister has purchased the triplex on Elm Street next to the home she purchased on Fourth Street. She plans to convert the triplex to single-family use and would like to remove the aggregate on that portion of Elm Street and sod the vacated street area to make the two properties more like one property. • The portion of Elm Street in question leads to a ravine. Mr. Russell noted the "street" is not a designated pathway and the nearby ravine was not identified in the Comprehensive Plan. It was also noted there is access to the ravine from several other nearby streets. Donald Empson said he didn't think the City should vacate any streets. He questioned giving away public lands to a private interest. Once a street is vacated, he noted, it is vacated forever. Richard Kilty pointed out that Ms. Lange could request that the street be developed, which would result in more deterioration of the area than turning it into a lawn would cause. Mr. Kilty also noted that he lives in a neighborhood with two platted streets that are not used; the streets have become dumps, he said. Mrs. Bealka, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval with the condition that a storm sewer easement be provided if needed. Vote was 7-1 in favor; Mrs. Foster voted no. Case No. V/95-32. Continuation of a variance request to the rear yard setback (20 feet required, 4 feet proposed) for construction of a 24x24 foot garage at 819 W. Olive St. in the RB, Two-Family Residential District. Arthur and Lori Bjorkman, applicants. • I• The revised plans meet the required sideyard setback. However, to meet front yard setback would require constructing the garage right up to the base of an existing tree, Mr. Bjorkman said. Mr. Elliott noted the location of the garage would be consistent with the neighbors to the south. Mr. Roetman, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval, noting the Bjorkmans had made concessions regarding the sideyard, the location is consistent with neighbors, and the location of the tree prevents moving the garage any farther back on the property. All in favor. Other business Mr. Russell gave a brief update on Plan. the timetable for the Comprehensive Mr. Roetman, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording secretary