Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-14 CPC MINCity of Stillwater • Planning Commission November 14, 2005 Present: Chairperson Robert Gag, Gregg Carlsen, Mike Dahlquist, Dave Middleton, David Peroceschi, Paul Teske and Jerry Tumquist. Mr. Gag introduced Suzanne Block, a new member. Others: Community Development Director Steve Russell. Absent: David Junker Mr. Gag called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Approval of minutes: It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of October 10, 2005. Minutes were approved unanimously. Case No. V/05-64 A variance to the Duplex Residential Zoning Regulations for a commercial use, therapeutic healing retail sales home business located at 104 North Owens Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Lisa Ann Clark, applicant. Ms. Clark was present. She has owned the property on the corner of Owens Street since 2002. She said she initially couldn't tell what the property was built to be but finally figured out it was a duplex. Ms. Clark added that it was not safe structurally when she bought it. There is an • upstairs apartment. Ms. Clark is trying to figure out what to do with the downstairs since the lower area doesn't have plumbing other than a bathroom-no kitchen plumbing or appliances. She's going to school for therapeutic horticulture at the Arboretum. Part of her training is learning to make natural healing balms. Ms. Clark would like to sell therapeutic healing items at the duplex. Ms. Clark anticipated that most of her business would be from referrals. Mr. Tumquist wondered what Ms. Clark was going to do with the apartment. She stated she was planning to keep it. Ms. Clark said a family member would live upstairs. Her business hours would be very flexible-she is willing to cooperate with the community. Ms. Clark doesn't anticipate parking issues because she doesn't believe there will be large groups of customers coming at the same time. Mr. Peroceschi asked if the variance stayed with the owner or the property. Mr. Russell advised that the variance stayed with the property. Mr. Gag invited the public to approach the podium. Ted Gillen, 1011 W. Myrtle, stated he lives across the street from the property in question. He does not want to see commercial use of this building. Right now there is a tremendous problem with traffic and parking because of the nearby store. If the store property is sold and the owner decides not to have a store, it reverts back to residential use. Mr. Gillen doesn't feel the area warrants adding more commercial structures. He noted the proposed use could be located • elsewhere. He knew the prior owners and acknowledged part of the house was not in good condition. There were facilities in the lower level for a kitchen. Mr. Gillen didn't City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 14, 2005 Page 2 have a problem with the apartment. However, he didn't think there was a second egress for the upstairs. He objects to the commercial use due to the probability of (1) increased traffic and (2) the affect on adjacent property values. Al Ruttger stated he lives across the street from Ms. Clark's property. He agrees with Mr. Gillen's concerns and noted there is a lot of traffic. There was no further comment from the public. Mr. Peroceschi stated that despite the merits, it's clear that the proposed use of the prop- erty is a use variance. The code is clear that a use variance is not allowed. The Commis- sion would have to deny the request. Mr. Peroceschi moved to deny it. The motion was seconded by Mr. Turnquist. Mr. Teske commented that it was a nice business plan. However, in the proposed area, it doesn't seem to be fair for the neighbors to have to deal with additional traffic. The motion to deny was passed unanimously. Case No. SUB/05-65 A subdivision of Lot 3, Block 15 Carli and Schulenberg's Addition (15,000 square feet) into two lots of 7,500 square feet each located at 324 Wilkins Street East in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Scott Junker, applicant. Mr. Junker was in attendance. The property is on the north hill. There was a fire last year. The City cleaned up the site and Mr. Junker purchased it. He would like to con- struct two homes, instead of one. The house to the west (where water and sewer cur- rently is) would be about 2000 square feet; the house to the east 1400-1500 square feet. Mr. Junker would like to have both driveways come off of Broadway. The homes are similar to the one he built on Poplar by the golf course. They would be similar to one another with two stories, porches and two-car garages. There currently is a two-car ga- rage on the site that will be removed. The public was invited to comment. Brian McMann, 1107 North First Street, stated his backyard is contiguous to the property. He moved to the north hill because he didn't want to live in a new development area. The houses in the area are 100-150 years old. He's afraid that the message will be sent that no matter where someone may live, if there's a fire, two, three or more houses could be crammed onto a piece of property and the overall effect would destabilize the area. There being no further comments from the audience, it was brought back to the Commis- sion. Mr. Middleton commented that he was glad to hear there are no proposed variances. He felt there was nothing that would stop the development as it meets the minimum lot size. He moved to approve the application. Motion was seconded by Mr. Peroceschi. Mr. • City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 14, 2005 Page 3 • Teske remarked that as he's gone through the neighborhood, he noticed a definite pattern of the houses on the corner lots. He was hesitant to change the character of the neighbor- hood. Although skeptical, he acknowledged there was a benefit of having two homes in- stead of one on the property. Ms. Block asked if either home was going to be for the ap- plicant's personal use. Mr. McMann said no. Mr. Gag noted that the application was a clear thought out plan with no variances. Mr. Peroceschi stated he had driven around the neighborhood and considered its charac- ter. Some of the homes are on very small lots. He still has some of the same concerns as Mr. Teske. Mr. Middleton wondered if the assessment had been paid. Mr. McMann re- plied that was his understanding. Condition #2 is a certificate of survey. Mr. McMann wasn't aware of it. He wondered why he would need one when the property is already platted. There being no further discussion, a vote was taken. The application passed unani- mously. Case No. V/05-66 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 23 feet re- quested) for the expansion of a garage located at 928 South Greeley Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Dennis Peters, applicant. • Mr. Peters was resent. He wants to widen the b 6'. He would not be building garage upward. There is no other way to provide a two-car garage on the property which is for sale. A two-car garage is a necessity today. Most of the houses in the area have two-car garages. Currently, the site has a 1-1/2 stall garage which was built in the early 1950's, not 1995. Mr. Peters presented a series of photos showing current and proposed sizes. He introduced Julie, a photographer from Woodbury, who explained each of the pictures. Mr. Russell acknowledged that the original garage does not meet the setback require- ments. The proposed addition also does not meet the setback requirement. Mr. Gag invited the audience to speak Jim Qualey, 1014 South Greeley Street, stated there is a safety issue if the addition is added. The visual at Greeley and Churchill is poor because of a large garage in the area. Utility and telephone poles as well as vehicles line along the street. The house is empty and for sale. Mr. Qualey didn't feel the variance was good for the neighborhood as the lot (50') is too small for the size of proposed garage. There being no further comments from the audience, it was brought back to the Commis- sion. Mr. Peroceschi asked where applicant parked his car. Mr. Peters replied he parks in the garagea vehicle is parked on the driveway would be on the sidewalk. Mr. Gag • City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 14, 2005 Page 4 commented that the garage seems too big for the size of the property. Mr. Turnquist agreed-it's too big now without the addition. Mr. Turnquist moved to deny the applica- tion; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Case No. V/05-67 A variance to the rear and side yard setbacks (5 feet required, 3.5 and 2.4 feet requested) for the construction of a garage located at 1006 West Pine Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Brian Roeller, applicant. Mr. Roeller was present. He wants to rebuild the garage. He is having problems finding a contractor to take the exiting garage down because it may fall on one of the neighboring garages. Mr. Gag invited comments from the audience. There being none, Mr. Dahlquist moved and Mr. Peroceschi seconded to approve the application. Mr. Roeller agreed to the con- ditions. The motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/05-68 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 25 feet re- quested) for the construction of a porch located at 315 West Olive Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Greg Stokes, applicant. Mr. Stokes was in attendance. He owns a lovely Victorian home and wants to reconstruct the front porch-making it a wraparound. He had a picture from the library of a similar porch. The porch that was on the home was failing so he took it down. Mr. Gag invited public comment. Judy Lacy stated she lives across the street. She thought it was great that Mr. Roeller was restoring the porch. Paul Lacy remarked that Mr. Stokes has done a lot of good work on the house. Jeff Johnson, 309 South Fifth Street also agreed that Mr. Stokes has done a great job in restoring the house. He approved of adding the porch. Mr. Teske moved to approve the application; motion was seconded and passed unani- mously. Case No. SUP/05-69 A modification to a special use permit for the Rivertown Inn Bed and Breakfast for a 270 square foot kitchen addition located at 306 West Olive Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay, representing Jeff and Julie Anderson, applicant. Mr. Balay, representing the applicants Jeff and Julie Anderson, was present. He reported that the Heritage Preservation Commission approved the plan as historically accurate. Mr. Balay showed some floor plans. Expansion is to the west. Neither addition goes be- yond the original "footprint" of the building. All of the addition is being placed on ex- City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 14, 2005 Page 5 9 isting concrete. The rear entrance will be improved. The east driveway is currently be- ing reconstructed. The inn was closed November 7. The owners hope to have the kitchen addition completed in the next four months. Mr. Peroceschi asked Mr. Balay to address the noise and venting. Mr. Balay stated a new, smaller hood will be installed. An air conditioning coil will run like a residential coil (i.e., quiet). Mr. Balay noted the expansion would not increase the size of the parties that can be held at the inn as no rooms are being added. Mr. Teske inquired why there was a need for a larger kitchen. Mr. Balay said the existing kitchen is probably smaller than that in most homes. The owners are trying to correct some architectural problems. Mr. Gag invited public comment. He suggested that Mr. Balay address all the questions at the end. Judy Lacy, 318 W. Olive, stated she lives next door to the inn. She asked where the parking spaces were on the map. She commented that she has gone through the appeal process for noise problems. She wanted assurance that the vents, mechanicals, etc. would be all new. She also did not want anything on the south or west side of the B and B. Paul Lacy pointed out the trash container area and parking spaces on the floor plan, nothing there is no provision for trash. He said the reason the kitchen is small is because part of it was "lopped off' to make other rooms. If the plan is approved, he would like a fourth condition that vents, fans, etc. shall be located on the north or east side of the house. He would not want mechanicals put on the roof. Kathy Ertle, 118 South Fifth Street, stated that people should be able to remodel houses and kitchens. She remarked that the property has become magnificent. However, she did question the size of the addition, especially for a B and B and had concerns regarding the parking. Over the years she has attended many Planning Commission meetings and the definition of this B and B has changed over the years. There is no permanent resident. There are evening dinners. She and her husband have supported most of the changes but question what's going to happen in the future, especially if the current owners sell it. They fear it may become a hotel or restaurant. At some point, she would like the Plan- ning Commission to ask for a five-year plan from the B and B. Over the years numerous variances have been granted to the B and B and that unfortunately has pitted neighbor against neighbor. Ms. Ertle noted there has been major construction in the neighborhood for the past three years due to work on the B and B and other homes in the area. She also asked if the Planning Commission ever got any reports on the activities at the B and B. She thought this was supposed to occur. 0 City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 14, 2005 Page 6 The discussion was brought back to the Commission. Mr. Balay confirmed with the ma- son that the parking space did not exist previously in that location. He also didn't think the City believes it's a parking space. The trash has been brought inside. The structure does not move closer to the property line. Regard mechanical equipment and noise-the current plans address the Lacy's concerns. The B and B ordinance has provision for an annual inspection which is occurring. Mr. Balay's understanding was that if the current owners sell the property, the new owners would have to get a permit to operate it as a B and B. Mr. Russell stated that was correct. The inn is currently shut down. There is a dumpster behind the house and there is a pod in the street. He agreed that there has been a lot of construction in the neighborhood. Mr. Gag asked Mr. Russell if the quarterly summary of reports had been done (#15 under Conditions of Approval). Mr. Russell stated he didn't think so. Mr. Gag noted there seems to be a pattern with B and B's that they continue to grow. Can the City ask for a five-year plan? Mr. Russell didn't know if the City could require that. It could provide information for the neighbors. Mr. Russell said it could be made a condition of approval. Ms. Block expressed surprise that the owners don't live at the B and B. Mr. Teske said a B and B must have an on-site manager. Mr. Russell said this particular B and B has more bedrooms than what the B and B ordinance allows. This is not a variance but an expan- sion of the use permit. Mr. Middleton noted that the biggest concern the furnace location (if it will be on the roof). Mr. Balay said it would have to be on the roof or in the basement. Mr. Middleton was concerned about the noise in a residential neighborhood if the furnace is outside. Mr. Balay said it could be put in the basement although it would be a little more difficult. That could be made a Condition of Approval. Mr. Middleton would like to see vents and fans on the east side of the structure. Mr. Tumquist concurred that the furnace should be inside. Mr. Teske stated he didn't see the need for expansion. He noted the B and B has been able to accommodate some pretty extensive parties in the current set up. Mr. Teske commented about the controversy and debate. He stated that there constantly is a dump- ster on the street although it's not always for the B and B. He didn't feel a compelling argument had been made for the expansion. Mr. Peroceschi wondered what the purpose of the B and B ordinance was. Is the pro- posed plan necessary? Has there been any discussion of the purpose of the B and B ordi- nance by the Historic Preservation Committee? Jeff Johnson of the HPC said that they look at whether the addition or change reflects the character of the house-not the use. 18 They did not hear anything about the furnace being on the roof. • • 0 City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 14, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Gag admitted that the building is now a magnificent building. He felt the applicants had, in the past, made a number of promises. He acknowledged that the proposed addi- tion will probably look very nice. However, Mr. Gag felt the Planning Commission also was supposed to look out for the neighborhood's interests. He would feel more comfort- able having a five-year plan. Mr. Gag acknowledged that B and B's do some great things, such as maintaining large homes that otherwise might fall into disrepair. He was struggling with a decision but said it would be hard for him to approve the proposal. Mr. Carlsen noted he lives close to the B and B and understands neighbors' concerns. He has never noticed any noise or parking problems and said he would probably vote to ap- prove. Mr. Peroceschi didn't see anything wrong with the proposal since the owners are not adding rooms for more guests-they just want to expand the kitchen to provide better service for the guests. Ms. Block wondered what would happen if the property revered to residential at some point. Mr. Balay acknowledged that was a possibility-the Lowell Street Inn was con- verted back to a single family residence and there was some construction involved. However, he doubted the Rivertown B and B would revert to a single family home. Mr. Balay said that the county has grandfathered several things in for the kitchen. If the owners gutted the kitchen, they would not be able to comply with all the county require- ments because there would not be room. Mr. Middleton moved to approve the application with the three conditions and adding a fourth that the furnace was not to be on the exterior and any vents would not protrude out the west and south sides of the home. Mr. Russell added that no parking space shall be lost and trash shall be in an enclosed area. Mr. Tumquist seconded the motion. The mo- tion passed 5-2. Other Items: Washington County presentation on Manning Avenue improvements. Mr. Russell stated that when the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was done in 1996, widening of Manning was anticipated. A limiting restraint has been resources. Phase growth will start in the next year or so. The County will talk tonight about what's "on the boards." Joe Laux, Transportation Manager for the County, stated that Manning Avenue was built in 1961. Initial traffic was 350 vehicles/day and has now grown to 15,000. There are large delays every day. He said there are problems making left turns and the pavement is City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 14, 2005 Page 8 getting bad. The County has proposed a four-lane divided highway. There will be a trail on the east side and ditches on the west. The County has sponsored two well attended open houses. One of the main concerns of neighbors has been traffic noise and proximity to homes. Options for mitigation such as berms would be intrusive into residential back yards. There's a bike trail that doesn't meet standards. If berms are built, all the trees between the homes and road will be removed. There is no easy solution. One possibility is to nar- row medians and turn lanes. Others include (1) keeping the existing trail where it is; (2) moving the trail; or (3) moving the trail and adding a berm. If a retaining wall is built, fewer trees would need to be removed. The County is open to suggestions from the public. Nothing is pending immediately. The County applied for federal funding for 2007 which should cover 70% of the project. The County and cities of Grant and Stillwater would also contribute. The project will go from Highway 36 to 12. Mr. Turnquist wondered why the trail is on the east side. Mr. Laux responded there is more use on the east side. Mr. Gag asked if the audience had any questions or thoughts. Art Baumeister stated that the back of his house faces Manning and noted there's a blind hill. He wondered how far down the road would be sunk. Ms. Cullen said that hasn't been considered yet. The lower the road, the more significant impact there would be on Baumeister's property. Mr. Laux advised that the traffic study has not been completed. Ms. Cullen said that 62'd and Liberty does not have enough traffic right now to warrant traffic lights. Ms. Block asked if it would be possible to repaint some of the streets. Mr. Laux said that has been done-there is a bypass lane. An audience member asked what the next step was for the process-is there a way to meet with all the Liberty people? There have been separate meetings. Mr. Laux said there are different options for different neighborhoods. The County has tried to separate things by similar concerns. Mr. Laux said he could hold a large meeting for everyone. Mr. Gag thanked the staff from Washington County for attending. ? J City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 14, 2005 Page 9 It was moved by Mr. Turnquist to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded and passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara J. McDonald Recording Secretary /bjm • 0