Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-09 CPC MIN• City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Present: Robert Gag, chair Mike Dahlquist, David Junker, Dave Middleton, David Peroceschi, Karl Ranum, Paul Teske and Jerry Turnquist Others: Community Development Director Steve Russell Absent: Darwin Wald Mr. Gag called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Teske, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved to approve the minutes of July 12, 2004; motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/04-54 A variance to the street side yard setbacks (30 feet required, 5'6" and 2' requested) for construction of a detached garage at 628 S. Third St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Kenneth and Joan Fixmer, applicants. Kenneth Fixmer and his son, Don, reviewed the request. The Fixmers stated that since the discussion at the July meeting, the orientation of the garage has been changed so access is • from the north. Mr. Junker noted that the change eliminates the previous concern about parking on the sidewalk. Mr. Turnquist moved approval as conditioned; Mr. Teske seconded the motion. There was some discussion about restoring the curb where the former driveway was located. Mr. Fixmer questioned whether that was his responsibility; he also stated he had been told the city plans to redo the street in the near future. Mr. Peroceschi suggested adding a condition that the applicant be required to remove the asphalt between the curb and sidewalk at the location of the former garage. Mr. Turnquist and Mr. Teske agreed to the additional condition. Motion with the additional condition passed unanimously. Case No. V/04-64 A variance to the natural area setback requirement (50 feet required) for construction of a pool at 3521 Eben Way in the TR, Traditional Residential District. Shelly Tompkins, representing Jim and Sarah Parks. Jim and Sarah Parks appeared before the Commission. They provided a written chronology of events that included receiving approval of the Liberty architectural review committee and issuance of a building permit and construction of the pool before being notified the pool did not meet the setback requirements. They stated there were unaware there was a conservation setback when they purchased the property in 1999 and stated they had tried to comply with all city requirements. 10 City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Mr. Teske said it appears the applicants made every effort to do the right thing, but there were some "miss-steps" on the part of the city. He asked about the development's architectural review committee process. Mr. Russell stated this was the first project the committee had reviewed. Previously, Mr. Russell stated the city had a representative on the committee; now the committee is composed of residents, with assistance from the property management firm of Durand & Associates. Mr. Russell said in future, the city needs to oversee the architectural committee's review. Mr. Teske suggested that should be formalized as a policy. Mr. Middleton suggested that a porch on a house adjacent to the Parks looks like it is closer to the wetlands than the pool. Mr. Middleton moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Teske seconded the motion. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out that hardship in granting the variance can't be monetary; he suggested this might be an issue for the Council to address. Mr. Turnquist said he was concerned about setting a precedent in waiving wetland requirements. Motion to grant the variance as conditioned passed 6-2, with Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Turnquist voting no. Case No. V/04-67 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 25 feet requested) for construction of a deck at 1327 W. Ramsey St. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Cross River Builder, applicant. Tom Larson, homeowner, was present. He stated he didn't think he needed a variance for the deck since he already had been granted a front yard variance for the house. Mr. Peroceschi asked why the deck couldn't be moved back three feet as suggested by staff. Mr. Larson stated that would create a problem with an existing patio door. It was noted a variance would still be required if the deck was moved three feet. Several members suggested that the deck might look better squared off as the applicant was requesting. Mr. Teske, seconded by Mr. Peroceschi, moved approval as conditioned; motion passed unanimously. Case No. SV/04-68 A request to vacate the unopened portion of Third Street North between Elm Street on the south (vacated) and Aspen Street on the north and that portion of Third Street North abutting Blocks 4 and 5 of Carli & Schulenberg's Addition. Jessica Lange and Josephine Kiel, petitioners. Sharon O'Flanagan, Coldwell Banker, was present representing petitioner Lange. She noted the area that is requested to be vacated is primarily a deep ravine. She provided photos of the area. 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Speaking in opposition were Bob Lockyear, 1016 N. Third St.; Don Empson, 1206 N. Second St.; Pat Sullivan, 921 N. Fourth St.; Bill Fermolz, 202 W. Aspen St.; and Adam Rix, 924 N. Fourth St. Mr. Lockyear noted that the city had already vacation a portion of Elm Street at the request of Ms. Lange. He suggested the portion of the street in question could be a critical connection in the city's trail system and spoke of the opportunity to preserve the space for the future. Mr. Empson, local historian, provided a handout and spoke of the history of street vacations. He said ghost streets are dedicated to the public, and it must be a benefit to the public for those streets to be vacated. He, too, urged preserving the land for the future. Mr. Junker questioned the viability of a trail use for that property. He noted vacation would not result in any property being landlocked and stated he would have no problem vacating that portion of Third Street. Mr. Middleton referred to the City Engineer's letter which recommends retaining the right-of-way for drainage and utility easements but which indicated there are no plans for future street improvements and which also speaks to the difficulty of constructing a trail in that location. Mr. Ranum pointed out that five years ago he would never have envisioned a trail in Mulberry Ravine, a trail that is now a reality. Mr. Teske and Mr. Dahlquist also spoke in favor of retaining the land for possible future needs. Mr. Junker moved to recommend approval of the street vacation; Mr. Middleton seconded the motion. Motion failed 2-6, with Mr. Junker and Mr. Middleton voting in favor. Case No. SUP/04-69 A special use permit for a hot dog vending cart at 204 N. Main St. in the CDB, Central Business District. Todd Romocky and Bev Krieger, applicants. The applicants were present. Mr. Middleton clarified that there will be no seating outside of the fenced area at the location. It was noted the vending cart is a mobile cart and will be taken from the site each night. Mr. Peroceschi moved approval as conditioned; Mr. Turnquist seconded the motion. Mr. Ranum suggested adding a condition that there be no seating outside the fenced area or on the sidewalks. Mr. Peroceschi did not feel that language was necessary. Mr. Dahlquist asked about the vending license process. Mr. Russell stated the city does • not issue licenses. However, he said the use will be reviewed by the Washington County [7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Public Health Department. Ms. Krieger stated they have a license from the state Department of Health. Mr. Dahlquist questioned whether the special use permit should be issued for a specified amount of time. Mr. Russell stated that generally, such permits are reviewed after one year and thereafter upon complaint. Mr. Ranum suggested adding the annual review and upon complaint language as a condition of approval. Mr. Peroceschi and Mr. Turnquist agreed to that language. Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/04-70 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 27 feet requested) for replacement of the roof at 123 Birchwood Dr. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Diannia and Gary Midbrod, applicants. Ms. Midbrod explained that they plan to remodel their home. The plans include replacing the existing roof with a higher pitched roof to accommodate cathedral ceilings. As proposed, the new roof would encroach into the required setback and require a 16" variance. She stated the requested setback is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Turnquist, seconded by Mr. Teske, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/04-71 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 19 feet requested) for construction of an addition at 1966 Tuenge Dr. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mike Brabender, applicant. Mr. Brabender was present. He explained he wants to replace an existing deck with a sunroom. He said he had spoken with neighbors, none of whom objected to his plans. Speaking in favor of the plans were neighbors Cathy Tollerud, 1956 Tuenge Dr., and Marlene Ritzer, 1976 Tuenge Dr. Mr. Ranum questioned whether granting the variance would be setting a precedent, noting that both Ms. Tollerud and Ms. Ritzer said they would like to have similar additions. Mr. Turnquist pointed out the precedent has already been set, as homes in the second phase of the development were constructed with the sunrooms that Mr. Brabender is requesting to construct. Mr. Ranum suggested that the hardship in granting the variance is that the homes in the second phase of the development include the requested addition. Mr. Peroceschi, Mr. Teske and Mr. Dahlquist all expressed a concern about the loss of open space in a planned development such as this. 4 U-.? I• City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Mr. Turnquist moved approval as conditioned; Mr. Middleton seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-3, with Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Peroceschi and Mr. Teske voting no. Case No. V/04-72 This case was tabled. Case No. V/04-73 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 21 feet requested) to construct an upper level deck on an existing residence at 1521 W. Olive St. in the RA, Two Family Residential District. Kirk Roetman, applicant. Mr. Roetman was present. He noted his house is on a corner lot. The back, with the deck, will match the front in design. Mr. Turnquist moved to approve the requested variance; Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/04-74 A variance to uses for office use at 901 Third St. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Weyer, applicant. Mark Weyer was present. He stated he has a purchase agreement to buy the property. As proposed, the building would house his insurance agency. He said the use would not generate a lot of traffic, with hours of 9-5, Monday through Friday. He said any other building tenant would be a similar use. He noted that this building has always been a commercial type use - grocery, union hall, and most recently, a church. Six parking spaces would be added at the rear of the building. Plans also call for adding windows in the building. Ellie Samuelson, 904 S. Third St., said she has no objections to the insurance use but has strong objections to the grocery store proposal (Case V/04-72). Frank Nauss, 906 S. Third St., also stated his objections to a grocery store. He asked Mr. Weyer about plans for lighting. Mr. Weyer stated he has no plans for exterior lighting, and stated the only signage would be window signage. Representatives of True Life Tabernacle Church, current owner of the property, Carol Hargate, Terry Ritzer, and Pastor Don Hargate, spoke in favor of Mr. Weyer's proposal. Ms. Hargate said while the property is zoned residential, the probability of someone constructing a home there is next to nothing. She stated it would be a hardship to require the church to find a residential buyer. Pastor Hargate suggested Mr. Weyer's proposed use would be "less invasive" to the neighborhood than the church use. Commission discussion centered on the best use for the property and the history of the parcel. Mr. Teske suggested the best use of the property - residential - is precluded I• Ie City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 9, 2004 because of what has happened to the property in the past. He asked what would happen if the requested variance is not allowed. Mr. Ranum suggested that if the variance is not granted, the property will become an "unintended eyesore." Mr. Ranum suggested the hardship in this case is that the building was constructed at a time when there was no zoning. Mr. Teske made a motion to approve the variance as conditioned; Mr. Ranum seconded the motion. Mr. Junker expressed a concern about the possibility of a future expansion of the office use by renting to additional tenants. Mr. Peroceschi also expressed a concern that approval would amount to changing the use of that land forever. Motion to approve passed 6-2, with Mr. Junker and Mr. Peroceschi voting no. Case No. SUP/04-75 A revision to a previously approved special use permit to add a restroom facility for commercial use to an existing shed at 2103 Schulenberg Alley in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Dan Challeen, applicant. Mr. Challeen was present. He expressed his appreciation to the City for the North Hill project, which has extended water and sewer service to his neighborhood, prompting his request to extend those services to the small shed he uses for workspace. Two letters of support were received from neighbors. Mr. Teske, seconded by Mr. Peroceschi, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Other items: 1) Request to revise Legends of Stillwater development fencing requirements. Present for the discussion was Stacey Bjelland of Durand & Associates, Legends property managers. Ms. Bjelland stated that in the original agreement only two styles of fencing were allowed - white or maintained white. She said the request is to expand the approved styles to include iron or iron-looking, maintenance-free fencing. She stated Durand did not know that fencing was part of the original PUD; they thought that was part of the neighborhood covenants. She also stated that Durand would be happy to meet with city staff to improve upon the architectural review committee process. Mr. Ranum asked if there were homes out of compliance with the original fencing requirements. Ms. Bjelland stated there were two. That resulted in additional discussion of the development architectural committee review process. The discussion concluded with Mr. Russell commenting that in future the city won't rely on the property management/architectural review committee, as it is the city's basic responsibility as issuers of building permits. Mr. Ranum suggested that the city must make clear to the property management firms that the city's permitting process must be followed in all instances. 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Mr. Middleton moved to approve the requested changes to the fencing regulations for the Legends development. Mr. Turnquist seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. 2) Review of RB, Duplex Residential, zoning regulations Mr. Russell stated the need to review/revise the duplex residential zoning regulations came about due to the recent request to construct a 1,000-square-foot garage with dwelling unit above. Accessory dwelling units are limited to 800 square feet. Mr. Russell also suggested the Commission might want to address the bed & room/vacation house issue and some of the issues raised during recent B&B requests. The zoning regulations will be discussed further at the September meeting. 3) Review of final recommended South Boutwell Area Plan Copies of the amended plan were included in the agenda packet. Mr. Russell briefly reviewed final changes, including recommendation No. 3 on page 10. He also stated maps had been revised to include the conceptual Neal Avenue intersect at Northland Avenue. He asked members if the amended plan fairly represented the Commission's position/concerns. Members were in consensus that it did. Mr. Russell stated the amended plan will be heard by the Joint Board on Aug. 25 and will then go to the City Council for final action. Mr. Peroceschi seconded by Mr. Ranum, moved to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 7