Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-11 CPC PacketTHE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, October 11, 2010 AGENDA The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, October 11, 2010, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. City of Stillwater Planning Commission regular meetings are held at 7 p.m on the second Monday of each month. All City Planning Commission meetings are open to the public. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF September 12, 2010 and September 20, 2010 MINUTES 3. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Commission may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 4.01 Case No. 2010 -44. A lot line adjustment and a variance to the lot size regulations located at 1011 Myrtle Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Folz, Freeman Erickson, Inc., representing Theodore Gillen, applicant. 4.02 Case No. 2010 -43. A type III home occupation located at 717 Myrtle Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Matthew Ludt, appplicant. 4.03 Case No. 2010 -42. A zoning text amendment related to existing nonconforming lots of record and structures. City of Stillwater, applicant. 5. OTHER BUSINESS 5.01 Discussion of Minnesota Supreme Court Case Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka related to variances and possible zoning code changes related to existing nonconforming lots of record and existing nonconforming structures. City Attorney Dave Magnuson. 5.02 Discussion on outdoor food vending. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651 - 430 -8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.lnn.us Present: Eric Hansen and Charles Wolden Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 13, 2010 Absent: Dave Middleton, Mike Dahlquist, Robert Gag, Mike Kocon, John Malsam, Scott Spisak and Aron Buchanan Mr. Wolden called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m as acting chair. Approval of minutes: Mr. Hansen, seconded by Mr. Wolden, moved to table approval of the minutes of August 9, 2010. Motion passed 2 -0. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2010 -38 A variance to the impervious surface regulations (25 percent allowed, approximately 27 percent requested) for the construction of a detached garage located at 223 Pine Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Douglas Danks, representing Rick and Suzanne Van Horne, applicants. Mr. Wolden opened the hearing. Mr. Hansen moved to continue the public hearing to a special September 20 meeting, seconded by Mr. Wolden. Motion passed 2 -0. Case No. 2010 -39 A variance to the side yard setback (5 feet required, 3 feet requested) for the construction of a two - garage located at 2203 Oak Ridge Road in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Phil and Linda Mitchell, applicants. Mr. Wolden opened the hearing. Mr. Hansen moved to continue the public hearing to a special September 20 meeting, seconded by Mr. Wolden. Motion passed 2 -0. Case No. 2010 -40 A variance to the impervious surface regulations (25 percent allowed, approximately 27 percent requested) for the construction of a detached garage located at 223 Pine Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Douglas Danks, representing Rick and Suzanne Van Horne, applicants. Mr. Wolden opened the hearing. Mr. Hansen moved to continue the public hearing to a special September 20 meeting, seconded by Mr. Wolden. Motion passed 2 -0. Case No. 2010 -41 A special use permit for a coffee shop /gallery located at 413 Nelson Street East in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike McGuire, applicant. Mr. Wolden opened the hearing. Mr. Hansen moved to continue the public hearing to a special September 20 meeting, seconded by Mr. Wolden. Motion passed 2 -0. 1 Case No. 2010 -12 A special use permit for a historical museum facility located at 2159 Curve Crest Blvd in the BP -O, Business Park Office District. Mark Balay, representing Washington County Historical Society, applicant. Mr. Wolden opened the hearing. Mr. Hansen moved to continue the public hearing to a special September 20 meeting, seconded by Mr. Wolden. Motion passed 2 -0. Discussion of Minnesota Supreme Court Case Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka Mr. Hansen moved to continue the item to a special September 20 meeting, seconded by Mr. Wolden. Motion passed 2 -0. Meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michel Pogge Recording Secretary 2 Present: Dave Middleton, chair, Mike Dahlquist, Mike Kocon, John Malsam, Scott Spisak and Charles Wolden Staff present: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad Absent: Aron Buchanan, Robert Gag and Eric Hansen Mr. Middleton called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Wolden, moved approval of the minutes of Aug. 9, 2010. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 20, 2010 Mr. Middleton noted that a recent Minnesota Supreme Court Case Krummenacher vs. City of Minnesota affects all zoning code changes related to non - conforming lots of record and existing non - conforming structures. He stated Community Development Director Turnblad had been asked to give a summary of how the court case affects the Planning Commission's decisions to be made at this meeting and future meetings. Mr. Turnblad stated the state Supreme Court ruling was made in June of this year and cities have been trying to determine the impact of that ruling. He said the City has received opinions from the League of Minnesota Cities as well as Stillwater's City Attorney. He said City Attorney Magnuson would be at the October Planning Commission to brief the Commission on the ruling. Mr. Turnblad said for the past 20 years or so, cities have been making variance decisions based on a hardship test that turned on whether or not the proposed use under consideration was reasonable, and he said courts have sided with cities if the decision was based on that determination. In the Krummenacher vs. City of Minnetonka case, Mr. Turnblad said the court reversed that position and ruled that that whether the proposed use is reasonable is immaterial, the real test is whether or not reasonable use of the property exists. He said while the exact impact of the ruling is still being examined, it does completely reverse how cases are viewed. The court said very specifically, based on enabling legislation provided to cities, the granting of a variance should be rare, he said. Mr. Turnblad stated that the League of Minnesota Cities and others are finding sponsors for legislation changes, but, in the meantime, he said the City must limit its exposure and be very conservative about granting variances. He said staff is also working on suggestions for changing City Code, which will be brought back to the next Planning Commission meeting. He said the City Attorney has been consulted on the cases on this agenda and has given his opinion on each. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2010 -38 A variance to the impervious surface regulations (25 percent allowed, about 25.85 percent requested) for construction of a detached garage at 223 Pine St. W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Douglas Danks, representing Rick and Suzanne Van Horne, applicants. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request. He noted that the requested new garage would be only slightly larger than the existing garage, and he noted that with the existing garage, the structures are slightly over the 25% allowable impervious coverage. Reducing the size of the 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 20, 2010 garage to meet the allowable impervious coverage would make it no longer useable as a two - car garage, he pointed out. He stated the City Attorney and staff have looked at the implications of the new court ruling and believe that this request turns on whether or not the Planning Commission believes a single - family lot in Stillwater needs a two -car garage to have reasonable use of the property. He said, in the past, the Commission has been of the opinion that a two -car garage, as long as it is not egregiously large, is reasonably needed in Minnesota. He said the Commission, to grant this variance, needs to determine that a two -car garage is necessary for reasonable use of the property. Mr. Dahlquist asked whether the court ruling changes the hardship test, noting that previously consideration was given to a hardship not created by the owner. He noted that in this case, the residence currently is being expanded and asked whether the hardship discussion is still a valid discussion. Mr. Middleton referred to the small amount of square footage involved in this variance request, about 89 square feet. Mr. Danks stated in discussions with City staff, 24'x24' was viewed as a minimal size for a two - stall garage. He said their proposal is for a garage of equivalent square footage, slightly narrower, in deference to the massing of the historic original house, and slightly deeper. He suggested that the square footage of the lot alone is a condition of the site, not a condition created by the homeowners either in the design of the new garage or the house, which is undergoing remodeling. Mr. Kocon stated he thought a 20x24' garage is appropriate for Minnesota winters and said he would have difficulty granting a variance to get a garage up to the equivalent of a 24x24' structure. Mr. Danks said he thought they had made the garage as narrow as they are comfortable with and still maintain an historic appearance; he said they could go to a narrower structure if they utilized a single garage door rather than two smaller doors, but the two smaller doors are more in keeping with the architectural style of the original house. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Richard Kilty, 118 W. Oak St., asked why the variance is even being considered, noting work has been going on at that site all summer. Mr. Kilty asked whether there was another fee for this appearance and why this wasn't included in the original building permit. He noted this work was started before the Supreme Court decision referred to earlier. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Turnblad noted that the house and garage are two different projects; he said the variance is being considered because it was requested by the property owner and there is a fee for every variance request. On a question by Mr. Kilty, Mr. Turnblad stated if the garage had been included in the original application, there would have only been one fee; that is the land owner's option, he said. Mr. Kocon suggested a 22x22' garage would still accommodate the two single doors, avoid the need for a variance and have a usable two -car garage. Mr. Wolden noted the site was brought before the Commission previously, and the Commission agreed to two variances to maintain the historical character of the original home, as well as the addition to the structure. Mr. Wolden suggested that the home owner has created the constrictions on the impervious percentages, and he noted that a two -car garage could be constructed that would fall within the allowable percentages and not require a variance. Mr. Dahlquist reiterated Mr. Kocon's point regarding a 22x22' structure and pointed out there was awareness of the lot coverage restrictions when the variances were issued for the remodeling that is occurring at this time. Mr. Dahlquist moved to deny the requested variance. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion. Mr. Danks pointed out that the previous variances were required because the original house was a non - conforming structure and said he hoped that would not be an encumbrance on the question of granting a variance for 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 20, 2010 the garage; he also pointed out that this design was undertaken and building permit granted well in advance of the Krummenacker decision. Mr. Malsam said, excluding the court decision, what is under consideration here is the reasonableness of the size of the requested garage, and the belief that a reasonable - size garage can be constructed that fits within the guidelines. Mr. Dahlquist stated his motion is not based on the new Supreme Court decision; even under the Commission's old guidelines, he said he would not be in favor of the requested variance. Mr. Middleton praised the applicants for the work they have done on the historic home. Motion to deny the variance passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -39 A variance to the side yard setback (5 feet required, 3 feet requested) for construction of a two -car garage at 2203 Oak Ridge Road in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Phil and Linda Mitchell, applicants. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request and site. He stated that staff believes there is a reasonable alternative, a tandem garage, that would meet the need for a two -car garage and not require a variance. Because of the existence of a reasonable alternative, he said staff is recommending denial of the variance request. Mr. Mitchell was present. He said he didn't think a two -car garage in tandem was efficient, referring to differences in work shifts, and the need for boat storage. He said he would be willing to compromise with a 20' wide garage but would still need a variance. He said he did not have a survey done, because he was told there was no need. He said a 19' wide garage just wouldn't work, and he noted that neighbors on both sides of his property have received variances for garages. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Mary Falfen, 2209 Oakridge Road, said she had no problem with the request and said they had supported a similar request from another neighbor. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kocon spoke of his experience with a tandem -style garage, saying that it worked for them. Mr. Spisak said he had trouble with the lack of precision in the request, and the lack of a survey to know the exact amount of variance involved. On a question by Mr. Middleton, Mr. Turnblad said he thought the variance would be fairly close to the 3' requested. Mr. Wolden pointed out the garage would still be 36' deep, which provides a lot of room. Mr. Dahlquist said it thought this case was impacted more by the recent court ruling and agreed there is a reasonable alternative, although not one that the applicant had hoped for; he said he didn't think the Commission had much of a choice other than to deny because there is a reasonable alternative. Mr. Malsam agreed that the court case does affect this decision because of the reasonable alternative. Mr. Middleton and Mr. Spisak spoke of the potential for legislative changes that might clarify or change the court ruling in the future. Mr. Kocon said he didn't think the court decision makes that much difference in this case, pointing out that the alternative is a usable one. Mr. Dahlquist urged the applicant not to get the idea that things may change 6 months down the road. Mr. Kocon moved to deny the request. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -40 A special use permit for a coffee shop /gallery at 413 Nelson St. E. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike McGuire, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request for the special use permit and parking variance for seven spaces. Mr. Turnblad noted there is a parking district for the downtown area which provides for the purchase of monthly parking permits to meet parking requirements. He noted that this variance is based on an alternative parking system that the City already provides. He stated staff is proposing an amendment to the ordinance to allow 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 20, 2010 parking deficits where there is a parking district, such as downtown, to be met by special use permit rather than variance. He said Attorney Magnuson has given the opinion that since the City is in the process of changing its ordinance to go to special use permit and since the City has the downtown parking district and prescribed method for deficit parking, he would be comfortable with granting this variance. He said staff is recommending approval with the five conditions, including the purchase of seven monthly parking permits. Mr. Dahlquist clarified that if the required monthly permits are not used, those spaces are not tied up and are still available for public use; Mr. Turnblad confirmed that. Mr. McGuire asked whether the parking permit purchase has been required of other businesses; it was noted this has been a uniform requirement. Mr. Turnblad said what is new is going from a variance to a special use permit to meet the parking deficits in the downtown parking district. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Spisak said the only thing that concerned him was the variance, but noted the City Attorney has given his opinion that is acceptable to proceed in that manner; Mr. Malsam agreed with that concern. Mr. Kocon pointed out that in the previous cases, the variances encroached on space, while in this case, the variance uses space that is already created. Mr. Wolden moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -41 A special use permit for an historical museum facility at 2150 Curve Crest Blvd. in the BP -O, Business Park Office District. Mark Balay, representing Washington County Historical Society, applicant. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request and site. He noted that there is sufficient parking for the initial proposed uses and the ability to develop additional parking should additional uses be added in the future. He said if uses change and additional parking is required, the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission to amend the special use permit. He also noted that any exterior changes to the building will be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. He said approval is recommended as the proposal meets all the code requirements. Mr. Spisak asked if impervious coverage would be a consideration in future parking; Mr. Turnblad said that would definitely be a consideration and noted there are pervious system that could be utilized to meet the coverage requirements. Mr. Balay was present and explained that obtaining the special use permit is the first step in the process of obtaining the building. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Mr. Kilty, 118 W. Oak St., suggested that the parking at that site is not expandable as described. Mr. Turnblad explained that the western of the four platted lots could be converted to parking if necessary. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Spisak moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Malsam seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -12 A zoning text amendment on swimming pool safety enclosures. City of Stillwater, applicant. Continued from the Aug. 9, 2010 meeting. Mr. Turnblad noted that based on previous discussions, staff has looked at the definition of pool covers and safety covers and industry standards. He cited the definition of a power safety cover in one of the ASTM publications; he stated this publication does not provide guidance on what kind of barriers to use, but establishes specifications for the various barriers. However, he said a document called the ASTM Pool Audit talks about layers of protection and recommends that whatever layering of protection is being used, the various elements should add up to 7 points; 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 20, 2010 for example, a self - latching gate on a fence is worth 6 points so another layer must be added to get to the 7 points, such as self - latching doors on the house itself. A power safety cover alone is valued at 3 points. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, he said, recommends that the best way to prevent child from drowning in residential pools is for the pool owner to construct and maintain a barrier, which is defined as a fence, wall, building wall or combination that completely surrounds a swimming pool; in addition, he said, if the barrier uses part of the house as part of the wall, additional features should be added at the doors or a power safety cover on the pool. The CDC, he said, recommends a four -sided pool fence that completely separates the house and play area from the pool area. He stated that none of the groups staff reviewed recommend pool safety covers as a stand -alone safety barrier. Mr. Turnblad reviewed several alternatives: amend the code to be compliant with the Consumer Product Safety Commission's recommendation for a safety fence or wall and provide a certain amount of time for people that utilize safety covers only to meet the ordinance or grandfather those properties; amend the code by adopting the pool audit system with the various layering options; leave the code as is (providing the option of fencing or cover), but at least amend it to state that if a cover is utilized it must be a power safety cover as referenced by the ASTM definition. Mr. Malsam thanked staff for the additional information; he said it appears from the information provided that all the groups say the most effective method is some kind of fence or barrier, but a pool cover itself is not adequate. Mr. Turnblad agreed that the various agencies don't believe that a pool cover is sufficient as a stand -alone barrier, but said he thought that almost all of the groups recommend some kind of layering of protection. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Robert J. Coleman, 1320 Amundson Place, spoke of his property and use of a locked safety pool cover, along with berming, and trees that secure his pool. He also pointed out ponds are not fenced and people can drown in those. Dan McCune, 1750 Melville Court, said not grandfathering existing safety pool covers and requiring fencing would be detrimental to his property value and view of Long Lake. He said he believed safety covers are safer than fences, noting that fences are often left unlocked. He said he thought it would be unfair to existing owners to have to add a fence and not have safety covers added to those with fences only. He said he agreed that the code should be clarified as to the definition of a safety cover. He also referred to the challenges of enforcement. He referred to insurance deductions for pool covers. He said his concern as a homeowners is that they have gone through all the permitting, have made a substantial investment in the property and it would create an undue financial burden to change it. Later in the discussion, he talked about the ability to close the pool with a locked safety cover that isn't possible with a fence to ensure the safety of children. Marie Lennartson, 2201 Bayberry, said she could understand how people could be concerned unless they have researched pool covers. She said they did extensive research and decided to utilize the pool cover. She spoke of the many violations she had observed with fences. She said if the decision is to change the law, they should be grandfathered in as they obtained all the necessary permits, paid fees, researched the safety issue and believe they made the right choice. Later, she said her research indicates that 66% of children five years and younger who die in pools, die in their own pools and 33% die in a relative's pool. The resident of 170 Interlachen Way Court. As a mother of three, she said she believes that having an unfenced pool is wrong and dangerous. She spoke of the effectiveness of fences as a 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 20, 2010 passive barrier for an attractive nuisance. She said she has researched the issue and can find no reputable source that says a pool cover is fine for the primary protection; she said it is layers of protection that always starts with a fence. She referred to the National Consumer Protection Commission's statistics for the risk of drowning in a fenced pool versus an unfenced pool, and the risk of downing in a pool with a four -sided fence versus a three -sided fence where the home is part of the fencing, as well as similar statistics from U.S. Library of Medicine and American Academy of Pediatrics, which recommend the use of four -sided fencing. She spoke of a number of drownings in unfenced pools, including several that had been grandfathered -in in their communities. She said she would favor requiring fencing and not grandfathering the pool covers only. She said if the decision is to grandfather -in the existing pool covers, there needs to be some enforcement mechanism in the law if a pool is left open; she also referred to the power issue and instances of mechanical breakdown of the automatic pool covers. Desmond Kilcoyne, 1213 Third Ave. S., noted that a homeowner is liable, the City of Stillwater is not liable, and suggested that a homeowner should have a choice as to what kind of protection they want for their families and neighborhood. He said he would appreciate at least grandfathering in those who did the research and put a pool in according to the ordinance. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist referred to the comment that a person receives a discount on their insurance because they have a fence and pool cover; he wondered where the insurance industry stood on this issue. Mr. Middleton said he had spoken with an insurance representative who indicated there are some carriers that do not cover stand -alone pool covers. Mr. Spisak talked about the layering concept and posed a question that if fences are required around pools with safety covers, then what about pools with fences, perhaps three -sided fences, without safety covers? Given the number of pools in the City, Mr. Spisak suggested this opens up a huge issue of how much the City wants to be or should be involved in regulating safety; he noted that the people who spoke in the public hearing, followed the ordinance that was in place when they installed their pools and said he would not feel comfortable telling them at this point that they now have to have a fence. Mr. Spisak suggested that if the City is really interested in safety, the entire ordinance should be opened up and redrafted and could become onerous on every existing pool owner. Regarding enforcement issues, Mr. Spisak said there could be as many enforcement issues with fences as with pool covers; he suggested an alternative might be to require an annual permit with inspection by the City to see that all the layers of protection are functioning, another big issue. Mr. Spisak said at this point, he would be in favor of not changing the existing ordinance but tightening up the definition of the safety cover. Mr. Wolden spoke of the responsibility of the pool owner, noting that neither a cover or fence is fool -proof or effective if not used properly; he said he thought the City should have a minimum not a maximum standard, tighten up the language as to what constitutes an adequate cover and allow either a cover or fence. Mr. Malsam said he thought this was asking the Planning Commission to make a decision on an issue that takes experts; he said if the Commission changes what exists now, it needs some credible authority to make a recommendation as to how to proceed. Mr. Malsam said according to the information provided, the first barrier recommended is a fence, but agreed it would be hard to go back and tell people who have decided on the covers to reconstruct their pool areas. Mr. Kocon noted that everyone who has spoken is a safety advocate; he spoke of risk management and suggested that the current ordinance works to manage risk whether by building a fence or installing a cover or with numerous layers. Mr. Kocon said city code as it now stands is not against safety and said the ASTM defines a power safety cover as one that can keep a five -year old out of the 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 20, 2010 water. Mr. Kocon suggested recommending the ordinance be left as is but define the power safety cover according to the ASTM standards. Mr. Middleton talked about owner responsibility and agreed with leaving the ordinance as is with a definition of the safety pool cover. Mr. Dahlquist suggested that both systems have issues, and the responsibility ultimately ends up with the homeowner, and he agreed with Mr. Wolden's comments that the City is setting the minimum, not the optimal, level of protection. Mr. Dahlquist wondered whether this is a Planning Commission decision at all. Regarding enforcement, Mr. Dahlquist asked whether someone should contact the City if a violation, such as an open pool cover or open gate, is observed; Mr. Turnblad said enforcement is by complaint to the City. Mr. Kocon moved to recommend to the City Council that the code be left as is, allowing the responsible homeowner to make the decision regarding levels of protection, and that power safety covers be defined as defined by the ASTM. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion. Mr. Malsam said he would have to vote against the motion as the materials indicate that a fence is the preferred first barrier of protection. Motion passed 4 -2. Mr. Middleton thanked staff for providing the requested information. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of Minnesota Supreme Court Case Krummenacher vs. City of Minnetonka Mr. Dahlquist noted in the materials provided, there was mention of cities changing their ordinances as a result of the case and wondered whether the City should do that. Mr. Turnblad said staff is currently evaluating whether to do that and nothing would be done before the next meeting when City Attorney Magnuson would be present to discuss the case and related ramifications. Meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 7 DATE: October 7, 2010 APPLICANT: Theodore Gillen BACKGROUND SPECIFIC REQUEST il l p ater. B I R T H P L ACE O F MINNESOTA Planning Report CASE NO.: 2010 -44 PROPERTY OWNERS: Theodore Gillen and Alan Geisenkoetter REQUEST: Lot size variance for transfer of 95 square feet of property LOCATION: 1011 W. Myrtle St & 108 S. Owens St ZONING: RB - Two - family District HEARING: October 11, 2010 PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Mr. Gillen lives at 1011 W Myrtle Street. He has an existing garage that recently was discovered to encroach on property at 108 S Owens Street that is owned by his neighbor Mr. Geisenkoetter. To allow the garage to be located completely on Mr. Gillen s property, Mr. Geisenkoetter has agreed to allow the transfer of 95 square feet of his property to Mr. Gillen. Mr. Geisenkoetter owns a lot that is currently nonconforming. It only has 6,085 square feet of land and the minimum lot size in the subject RB, Two - Family Zoning District is 7,500 square feet. Therefore, he is not able to satisfy the subdivision code requirement that a transfer of land can only be approved if the size of the "giving" parcel maintains the minimum lot size after the transfer. Therefore, Mr. Gillen is requesting that a minimum lot size variance be granted for the Geisenkoetter property to allow the land transfer. Mr. Geisenkoetter has submitted a signed statement that he agrees to the transfer of land. In order to allow the land transfer, Mr. Gillen requests a 1,510 square foot minimum lot size variance for the Geisenkoetter lot, since the resulting size of the Geisenkoetter lot would be 5,990 square feet, whereas 7,500 square feet is the minimum lot size requirement. Gillen & Geisenkoetter Variance Page 2 The Planning Commission may grant variances when the following conditions are met. 1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. The detached garage was built an undetermined number of decades ago. Presumably at the time the garage was constructed, the owners of both lots believed the garage to be located completely on the lot at 1101 W Myrtle. Though this happens on occasion throughout the city, it is relatively uncommon. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. This review criterion addresses the "reasonable use" test. Does reasonable use of the property exist if the variance is not granted? This is a somewhat subjective question in this instance. If the variance is not granted, the garage could be torn down or moved. But since both parties agree to the land transfer, and since the garage has existed where it is for many decades, staff believes it is fair to consider this criterion satisfied. 3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest, nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. As mentioned above, the garage has been located in its current encroaching position for many decades. Since it is the status quo, and both affected parties agree to the transfer, staff finds that the variance would not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent property. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requested lot size variance. 2. Deny the requested lot size variance. 3. Table the variance request for additional information. RECOMMENDATION City staff believes the variance review criteria are met for this variance request and recommends approval of it. Attachments: Zoning and Location Map Survey Survey detail PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SIILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET SIILLWATER MN 55082 Telephone No. 457 - /39 — X1310 Signature (Signature is required) PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION ACTION REQUESTED Variance Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: lfo 1011 f/l ISD Special /Conditional Use Permit Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance X Lot Line Adjustment *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this application. The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material are required. If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material are required. A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications. A complete legal description of subject property is required. Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10 -day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. Address of Project /O // I/t/ES r My2ri,,E Sr. Assessor's Parcel No. 28- 030-2C -3Z- (GEO Code) Zoning District 2 V Description of Project IN/E/6#431' e% ,46 - /Z6ED 7DT0iA/ /.v /I Go% thVE 4DTa ST M E#.i T 7b RE S.o1 -4/.E 4 G,4,244 g GA2AG,E dd /3EE,S/ LOCArEO in/ SA/►-iE 14.4e.E so./cE ,4T [.EAST 114 "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Property Owner 77-tEOLOQ.6 G /ALE# Mailing Address /0 // bt/EST L/1y/L7t6 ST/ZeET City - State - Zip 5ri4c.ra/4 ree Mw/ 55062 Representative F r2ezA- tANE/zIC Mailing Address /24"/S 5 Sr. AJ City - State - Zip L-4 &6" EL.ot.4d � /N�tl S Telephone No. !o S/— 431 8933 Signature �ti a� 7` (Signature is required) G G. i - al i a1 ZI(1 4# .J' PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM ( - CEO /FiCATE) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) V.. x /Z_o Total Building floor area square feet Land Area 5, Poo Sp rT Existing square feet Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed square feet Principal 2- Paved Impervious Area square feet Accessory _ 1___ No. of off - street arkin p g spaces H: \mcnamara \sheila \PtANAPP.FRM April 9, 2008 Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: Check list for Planning Applications Incomplete or unclear applications /plans will be returned to the applicant and may result in delay of application processing. Check and attach to application. ,E The application form completed and signed by the property owner or owners authorized representative. „B A complete legal description of subject property. ❑ Building plans clearly dimensioned and scaled (16 copies). ,® The site plan showing exterior property lines, easements, lot width and depth and lot area building(s) location. (See attached site plan example, a parcel boundary survey may be required). ,❑ All adjacent streets or right of ways labeled. ❑ Location, elevation, size, height of building or addition, dimensions, materials and proposed use of all buildings and structures (including walls, fences, signs, lighting and hooding devices) existing and proposed for the site (if the site is in a Historic District, additional design detail maybe required). ,J Distances between all structures and between all property lines or easements and structures. 21 Show Adjacent buildings to this application site and dimension from property line. ❑ All major existing trees on the site (4 inch caliber or greater), giving type, location, size and other site coverage conditions. .0 Show existing significant natural features such as rock outcroppings or water courses (existing and proposed marked accordingly). ❑ Locate all off - street parking spaces, driveways, loading docks and maneuvering areas with dimensions for driveway widths and parking space sizes. ❑ Pedestrian, vehicular and service points of ingress and egress; distances between driveways and street comers. ❑ Landscape plan showing number of plants, location, varieties and container sizes (landscape plan). ❑ Existing and proposed grading plan showing direction and grade of drainage through and off the site; indicate any proposed drainage channels or containment facilities. ❑ Required and existing street dedications and improvements such as sidewalks, curbing and pavement (may not be required). ❑ Letter to the Planning Commission describing the proposed use in detail and indicating how this use will effect and compatibility with adjacent uses or areas. El Applications for new structures on slopes of 12 percent or greater must include an accurate topographic map. The map must contain contours of two -foot intervals for slopes of 12 percent or greater. Slopes over 24 percent shall be clearly marked. ❑ Other such data as may be required to permit the planning commission to make the required findings for approval of the specific type of application. 5EPT,E,t-tIEZ 07, ZOv Applicant /owner signature Date WHEREAS, Theodore M & Jean C Gillen reside at 1011 West Myrtle Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 ( "Gillen ") and whose estate currently hold good abstract title to said property. WHEREAS, Alan J Geisenkoetter reside 108 South Owens Street, Stillwater, MN 55082. ( "Geisenkoetter') and currently hold good abstract title to said property. WHEREAS, as a result of a survey performed by Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc preliminary dated September 2, 2010 indicates the properties stated above are adjacent properties. WHEREAS, as a result of the survey it was discovered that the Gillen exiting garage that was built over 50 years ago encroaches on the Geisenkoetter property. NOW THEREFORE, Gillen and Geisenkoetter mutually agree to a lot line adjustment which results in the Gillen existing garage to be included, in total, within the Gillen property limits Agreed to on the 01 7 day of Theodore M Gillen can C Gillen , 2010 817 236 230 225 228 221 114 216 220 213 214 211 208 205 o 201 206 204 5£Z £66 905 225 226 221 114 110 220 215 214 211 210 205 210 202 233 236 231 230 118 225 114 110 115 218 219 1122 214 213 210 203 206 204 1111 126 119 122 117 118 111 114 110 115 1118 106 1122 101 1112 104 125 126 121 f ZO£ 119 118 113 114 115 112 107 106 101 1018 125 126 119 f ZO£ 117 120 113 116 111 112 106 1018 104 235 234 229 f ZO£ 225 228 312 222 215 218 L 666 6666 LOLL f ZO£ 8614 -Z666 312 Zoning & Location Map Gillen Adjustment & Variance Rth--I-YG W12 1210 1211 CO N NIP • 1 0 4 8 2 '4 402 N O N - -s - - S-TREE' CO 1205 1206 1207 1208 116 1202 1212 ti 0 L5 F I 1127 212 1205 232 226 202 Zoning Districts A -P, Agricultural Preservation RA - Single Family Residential J RB - Two Family I I TR, Traditional Residential II .. LR, Lakeshore Residential ® CR, Cottage Residential CTR, Cove Traditional Residential CCR, Cove Cottage Residential CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential TH, Townhouse RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential VC, Village Commercial CA - General Commercial CBD - Central Business District I I BP -C, Business Park - Commercial BP -O. Business Park - Office J BP -I, Business Park - Industrial IB - Heavy Industrial CRD - Campus Research Development IME PA - Public Administration I I Public Works Facility I I ROAD - Railroad WATER - Property in Township 1 I 102 N C0 0 N 6 RE E'er l l - r - - - WEST z 1013 115 117 1014 1011 114 118 126 rn 125 ti rn SITE 121 104 110 122 205 1114 206 216 WEST - CFVE -ST - w LY H U) 1117 409 415 41)2 —408-- 414 y - WEST - - -- - OAK WEST h - - - MULBERR1 RICE E-+ STREET - 121 117 111 820 124 120 110 808 O CO MYRTLE STREET - 1018 206 212 U) O i- O C C T cp N O C O C 403 409 413 404 410 412 813 125 RAMSEY oo 920 0) 0) I- -/ WEST EH 305 w H 313 I I S -TREEfi 401 407 413 402 410 209 205 129 123 S TREE; 210 208 202 126 MORTH - - - WEST RICE 115 — 116 109— 718 ti 0 CO 11 110 1 N co -WEST M CO 816 110 104 6) O CO 808 O) CO LO co 41 5 I EH SURVEY FOR: Theodore and Jean Gillen 1011 W. Myrtle St. Stillwater, MN 55082 Fa_ 3/3 Ave 53303es A , Rr avec 5 2. , am 15 11, m�,s d / ewe L 11.6 is— S ones N89'11'50E 1198 i • CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Lot Line Adjustment Lot 1 and Lot 3, Block 11 GREELEY AND SLAUGHTER'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER B e� ti I f a:eo x 1 B1,OCK J'YEST A ixerzE STREET N89'11:50 E 151.95 R • 15110 pnu /ban lv - m330 . 3 aew Errsnias GARAae — 1.540 N3•7'L'E EX/A133 GAMa2 58rl9'IB,Y 153J0 R • AVM ; tea' / r f • G . N89•12307 126.18 rmm- a a u ern Mhos , a L er 1 s Exam, s 49.64 = 5,,800 Sa F7, -30330 U nor 1 /i•/ A/89 3'O E 10049 Thy 1 m- am .we Pane Rev 340 042300•32000 i Ler 3 ARRA = 5,,990 SG. F7. &ism. base S89•1937 126.50 0RA21AY 4; i s ADDITION 6k'EE �1Y AND I ER =-' I /ba• 1, Sioarvet .L y r — s NY ss,aavaes Raomce -, At vrvw fin=e &MO 00 l - -- S " S AVMmv Sa O 11 Atve N fvr 6 //2 Sean, Of /w mcuj 2 3 s0 L_ � And ORIGINAL SCALE 1 INCH - 20 FEET SCALE IN FEET LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LEGEND R• NOTES Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING 12445 55TH STREET NORTH LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 Phone (651) 439.8833 Fax (651) 430.9331 DENOTES SET J¢ INCH BY 16 INCH R011 PIPE MONUMENT 1NTH A 0 PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED 'FREEMAN LS 16989, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. DENOTES FOUND J¢ INCH RON PIPE MONUMENT MIN A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED IS 25719', UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE DENOTES RECORD VALUES FROM THE PLAT OF GREELEY AND SLAUGHTER'S ADDRIGN TO THE 0TY OF STILLWATER. 1) ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON 114E EAST UNE OF BLOCK 11, GREELEY AND SLAUGHTER'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, WHICH IS ASSUMED TO BEAR SOUTH 01 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 51 SECONDS EAST. 2) THE REASON FOR THE BOUNDARY SURVEY, AND TIE PURPOSE OF THIS CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY WITH CORRESPONDING DESCRIPTIONS 15 041E TO 1HE FACT THAT MR GILD'S GARAGE IS OVER THE PROPERTY UNE BY TV/0 - THREE FEET. THE DISTANCE BETWE04 THE TWO GARAGES SHORN ON THIS SURVEY IS APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET. THE GARAGES SHOWN ARE NOT PARALLEL WITH THE PROPERTY UNE AND THE LOCATION OF 1HE PROPOSED LOT UNE IS MIDWAY BETWEEN THE GARAGES 3) IF THE PROPOSED LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT IS NOT APPROVED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER, OR IF THE CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON IS NOT ACCOUPUSHED, THIS SURVEY IS NULL AND VOID. Existing Gillen Description Book 265 Deeds, Page 633 Lot One (1) and the North Two (2) feet of Lot Three (3), Block Eleven (11), Greeley and Slaughter's Addition to Stillwater, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds, Washington County, Minnesota Proposed Galen Description Lot One (1) and the North Two (2) feet of Lot Three (3), Block Eleven (11), Greeley and Slaughter's Addition to Stillwater, according to Myron Shepard's Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater, dated May 31, 1878, on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota. That part of Lot Three (3), Block Eleven (11), Greeley and Slaughter's Addition to Stillwater, according to Myron Shepard's Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater, dated May 31, 1878, on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 3; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 08 seconds West, (assumed bearing) along the west line of said Lot 3, a distance of 43.99 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 87 degrees 27 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 25.57 feet; thence North 00 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds West, a distance of 3.34 feet, to the south line of the north 2.00 feet of said Lot 3; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 40 seconds West, along said south line, a distance of 25.60 feet, to said west line of Lot 3; thence South 01 degrees 20 minutes 08 seconds East, along said west line, a distance of 4.13 feet to the point of beginning. Existing Geisenkoetter Description Doc. No. 3382117 Lot 3, except the Northerly 2 feet, Block 11, Greeley and Slaughter's Addition to Stillwater. Proposed Geisenkoetter Description Lot 3, except the Northerly 2 feet, Block 11, Greeley and Slaughter's Addition to Stillwater. And also excepting that part of Lot Three (3), Block Eleven (11), Greeley and Slaughter's Addition to Stillwater, according to Myron Shepard's Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater, dated May 31, 1878, on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 3; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 08 seconds West, (assumed bearing) along the west line of said Lot 3, a distance of 43.99 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 87 degrees 27 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 25.57 feet; thence North 00 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds West, a distance of 3.34 feet, to the south line of the north 2.00 feet of said Lot 3; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 40 seconds West, along said south line, a distance of 25.60 feet, to said west line of Lot 3; thence South 01 degrees 20 minutes 08 seconds East, along said west line, a distance of 4.13 feet to the point of beginning. Timothy J. Minnesota er Note: Official Copies of this map are crimp sealed I hereby certify tat this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under t Laws . State fa A LS e No 1.989 09/07/2010 Date MapNo. 10-144 f0R7101CA1E OF SURVEY - Lot Lhs AdaUStment 02010 -Pots, Freeman, Erickson, Tae. -All Right. Reserved DATE: October 7, 2010 APPLICANT: Matthew Ludt Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2010 -43 REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a Type III Home Occupation in order to operate an in -home law office. LOCATION: 717 Myrtle St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: L /MDR - Low /Medium Density Residential ZONING: RB - Two Family Residential PC DATE: October 11, 2010 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner tiA DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a special use permit for an in -home law office. The business will be operated from the home at 717 Myrtle St W. Clients will be on site during scheduled appointments for law services. This type of business, with clients visiting the home, requires a type III home occupation permit. A type III home occupation permit is permitted in the RB, Two Family Residential zoning district with a special use permit. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A special use permit for a type III home occupation may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. No outside storage or display of products, equipment or merchandise is permitted. The applicant indicated in his letter that there will be no storage or display of products equipment or merchandise on the site. 2. Any retail sales must be accessory or incidental to the primary residential use. The applicant has indicated that there will be no retail sale of goods /products on this site 3. Infrequent hobby, craft or art sales are permitted twice a year for not more than six (6) days per calendar year. The applicant has indicated that there will be no hobby craft sales on the site. 717 Myrtle St W Page 2 4. Any sign must be unlighted and smaller than two (2) square feet. The applicant has indicated that if there he installs a sign it would comply with this requirement. 5. Customers are permitted by appointment only. The applicant has indicated that the customers will be by appointment only. 6. Not more than twenty percent (20 %) of the total gross floor area of the dwelling unit may be used for the Home Occupation or four hundred square feet, whichever is less. The applicant has submitted plans for the home which indicated that the businesses will occupy only one room. The total area for the office is 156 sq ft and is less than 20 percent of the overall home. The area being used for the home occupations meets the size requirements of the code. 7. No activity or equipment may be used that creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odor, or electric or television interference is permitted if it is detectable by adjacent neighbors. The applicant has indicated that no special equipment will be used that cause noise, fumes, vibration, or electrical inference. 8. Business hours are limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The applicant has indicated that appointments will generally be between 8 AM and 5 PM with appointment never running past 8:00 PM. 9. Off street parking must be provided for customers. One off - street parking is available in the driveway. 10. No more traffic which is allowed other than in a normal residential area. The applicant has indicated he believes traffic will be minimal. 11. No more than one (1) nonresident employee is allowed. The applicant has indicated there will not be more than one non - resident employee allowed on the site. 12. Type III Home Occupations are subject to review upon complaints from the neighborhood. If in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator the complaints are substantial, a public hearing must be held, at which time additional conditions may be added to this Special Use Permit or in the alternative, the Type III Home Occupation Permit may be revoked. The applicant will be required to sign the zoning use permit indicating that he understands and agrees to this term. FINDINGS The proposed use meets the code requirements and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance. 717 Myrtle St W Page 3 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requested Special Use Permit for a Type 3 Home Occupation Permit. Staff would suggest the following conditions for approval: a. No outside storage or display of products, equipment or merchandise is permitted. b. Any retail sales must be accessory or incidental to the primary residential use. c. There shall be no hobby, craft or art sales on the property. d. Any sign must be unlighted and smaller than two (2) square feet. e. Customers are permitted by appointment only. f. Not more than twenty percent (20 %) of the total gross floor area of the dwelling unit may be used for the Home Occupation or four hundred square feet, whichever is less. g. No activity or equipment may be used that creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odor, or electric or television interference is permitted if it is detectable by adjacent neighbors. h. Business hours are limited from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.. i. Off street parking must be provided for customers. j. No more traffic which is allowed other than in a normal residential area. k. No more than one (1) nonresident employee is allowed. 1. Type III Home Occupations are subject to review upon complaints from the neighborhood. If in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator the complaints are substantial, a public hearing must be held, at which time additional conditions may be added to this Special Use Permit or in the alternative, the Type III Home Occupation Permit may be revoked. 2. Deny the requested Special Use Permit. A denial needs to be accompanied by substantive findings of fact. 3. Continue the public hearing until the November 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. The 60 -day decision deadline for the request is November 1, 2010; however, staff can extend the deadline for an additional 60 days. RECOMMENDATION Approve the request as conditioned. Attachments: Applicant's Form and applicant's letter a p t THE LAW OFFICE OF M. E. LUDT, LLC HELPING YOU PROTECT YOURSELF, YOUR FAMILY, AND YOUR FUTURE City of Stillwater Attention: Michael Pogge 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 September 3, 2010 RE: Type III Home Occupation Dear Mr. Pogge, Enclosed please find a check for $50.00 and the Planning Administration Application Form. In regards to the criteria: 1. As an attorney I have no products, equipment, or merchandise to store or display outside; 2. I don't sell any retail products as the practice of law is purely a service, one of which is primarily conducted via telephone, email, and U.S. Mail; I occasionally receive UPS deliveries of stationary and such but never have deliveries of goods the likes of which retail stores do. Such service work is an accessory use of my home. 3. No hobby, craft or art activities or sales whatsoever. 4. At this time there is no sign; however I am considering a sign that would be unlighted and smaller than two feet that doesn't address my practice of law but rather identifies the house by address and the year in which the house was built. However I recognize to post such a sign that I will need an approved sign permit first. 5. My clients that visit me at the house are indeed only permitted by appointment only. I am not "open for business" such that anyone is free to drop in without prior planning. Nor would I be amenable to that as that doesn't comport with the times I'm at the house during the week and my work style. 6. Presently I have 156 square feet of dedicated space that I use for the home occupation, which is one room. This is below the 20% /400 square foot rule. 7. I have no activity or equipment that creates any noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odor, or electric or television interference. 8. My hours that I schedule appointments are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with an occasional meeting that runs after 5:00 p.m. but never past 8:00 p.m. 3500 WILLOW LAKE BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 -5135 MATTLU DT@ MI N N ESOTA-TRIAL-LAWYER.COM WWW.MINNESOTA TRIAL LAWYER.COI \( FACSIMILE: (651) 4)0-1580 TELEPHONE: (651) 488 -9700 4 9. This is the one criterion that caught me off guard; however I can easily use my driveway to accommodate client parking as it is long and unobstructed and I am accustomed to parking my car on Myrtle Street. 10. Strictly speaking traffic -wise I can't possibly add to the traffic on Myrtle Street. However I appreciate the intent in that I will need to operate in a manner that doesn't precipitate more visitors to the house than a normal residential area. I can and will take such measures to make sure that any cause that arises that would overly congest the block or bring a lot of traffic is diverted for us to meet elsewhere so as to adhere to the criterion. 11. There will not be more than one non - resident employee allowed. 12. I understand this criterion though there aren't any parts of it to speak to. Otherwise I have provided a check for $50 of the $150 fee due as you and I had discussed applying the $100 that I paid for the home occupation permit to this application. If that's not suitable please advise and I'll remedy. Thanks for the opportunity to continue the present activity whilst this application is considered. I really appreciate it. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. MEL/ Enclosure Cc Sincerely, THE LAW A Li FFICE OF M. E. LUDT Liab / - ompany ATTHEW E. LUDT, ESQUIRE Minnesota Attorney Number 327542 Wisconsin Attorney Number 1074556 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Special /Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this application. The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material are required. If application requires City Council review then a total of twenty -eight (28) copies are required to be submitted. Review the Checklist to the Planning Administration Application Form for the complete list of required items that must be submitted. Any incomplete application or supporting material will cause your application to be rejected by the City. Required - Applications will be rejected without a legal description. A legal description is found on the deed to the property. Attach as an exhibit if necessary. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10 -day appeal period. Once the 10 -day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. Address of Project 7(1 tR it - t1'c- St - WtSt Assessor's Parcel No. 28. 0 50 . 26 .3 1 . 010 (GEO Code) Property Legal Description* it1 nr•p sir Pa�� e,rt� sWpr�S L' Ad t L6f 2. 3 \ ck t2 +A 3%):tx CD 11.2Zt (*Required - Applications will be rejected without a legal description. Tax descriptions and property descriptions 2 from the county are not acceptable.) Zoning DistrictF6 i F Description of Project Or . - nom "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Required If other than property owner Property Owner N E Representative Mailing Address 7 ri M r ffe Slrp� CJesi City - State - Zip 5k r IM.r\1 S5 ` Z Telephone ••'' No. (ca(2 -f ) 6 /6,` - Z ZS`I Email I l �, t L(- e. t � Cs �r•- Signatur / 617 ./._ (Signature is required) S: \PLANNING \FORMS \PLANAPP V2.DOCX July 22, 2010 ACTION REQUESTED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment w 1�`i►jPi 1 / / - 4 /O/S Mailing Address City - State - Zip Telephone No. Email Signature (Signature is required) Type I Home Occupation are permitted in the RA, LR, TR, CR, and RB Zoning listricts. Regulations for Type I Home Occupation: 1. No outside storage or display of products, equipment or merchandise. 2. No in- person sales. 3. No traffic greater than the residential level of the neighborhood. 4. No separate business entrance. 5. No signs. 6. Not more than fifteen percent (15 %) of the total gross floor area of a dwelling unit or three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is less is devoted to Home Occupation use. 7. No activity or equipment may be used that creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odor or electrical or television interference is permitted if it is detectable by adjacent neighbors. 8. All Type I Home Occupations must be registered with the Zoning Administrator on a registration form provided by the City. 9. Any Type I Home Occupation use that exceeds the standards set forth in this section requires a Special Use Permit. 10. Home Occupation is non - transferable. 11. Permit will be reviewed by the Community Development Director complaint. Date Location of Business Type of Occupation Zoning Officer Signature TYPE I HOME OCCUPATION Registration Form Name �a^ Phone ( k f- Z25 � Date (0 (III DATE: October 7, 2010 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater PC DATE: October 11, 2010 �a ter H P i. A C f. 01- M N iJ E S 0 l A Planning Commission REQUEST: Ordinance amendment related to nonconforming lots and nonconforming structures REVIEWED BY: City Attorney, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Michel J. Pogge, City Planner CASE NO.: 2010 -42 BACKGROUND Looking back at past Commission actions, the Commission has considered and consistently approved variances that allow new structures or additions to structures on nonconforming lots and/or an addition to nonconforming structures when the proposal meets all setback, lot coverage, and other zoning requirements. Due to the recent Krummenacher vs City of Minnetonka case, it will be difficult for the City to grant many of these same requests in the future. Staff has been reviewing ways to allow these types of projects to continue. The attached ordinance aims to address this. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Much of the eastern portion of the City developed prior to the formal adoption of the current zoning regulations by the City on January 1, 1963. Where many of the properties in the historic core meet the area and setback requirements established by zoning, a number of properties fail to meet these standards since they were built or their property lines were set prior to the establishment of the modern zoning regulations. The original purpose of a variance is to provide relief from the strict interpretation of the zoning regulations due to unusual or extraordinary conditions. Since the Commission has taken up a number of variances related to this issue and has routinely provided relief to the property owners when all other regulations (i.e. setback, area coverage, etc) are met. Since this has become the norm, it seems prudent that a code change be made and the benefit be extended to all property owners in the community. Nonconforming lots and nonconforming structures Zoning Text Amendment Page 2 of 2 It is important to consider the purpose of considering a property to be nonconforming and what the ramifications this change has. Traditionally, when zoning is implemented, one goal is to gradually have nonconforming properties become conforming properties over time. It can take years (or decades) to accomplish through remodeling, reconstruction or other changes; however, as changes occur they provide an opportunity to have every property conform with the standards set in the zoning regulations. In the context of our historic core, change like this could be undesirable. If a historic home for example, fails to meet a front yard setback, as a community we may not want to see it tore down and rebuilt to simply meet the current zoning standards. In fact, for that reason, many of the variances that have been grated has been under the auspice of preserving the neighborhood fabric and character while allowing the property owner to modernize the home to meet their current needs. Existing nonconforming structures Related to nonconforming structure in which a permit for the structure was issued on or prior to December 31, 1962, the code change will consider the structure to be conforming and allow an addition to the structure so long as the 1) the owner of the lot does not own any adjoining property; and 2) the proposed addition itself meets all development standards for the zoning district. If the owner does own any adjoining property and if by combining those two properties the structure would be less nonconforming or outright conforming then the property owner would be required to combine the two lots prior to the issuance of a building permit. Existing nonconforming lots of record For nonconforming lots of record, if the lot was of record as of January 1, 1963 and has remained unchanged since that time then the lot will be considered conforming for the purposes of zoning so long as: 1) the owner of the lot does not own any adjoining property; and 2) only one dwelling unit shall be allowed unless the lot meets the minimum lot area requirements of the zoning district for additional dwelling units; and 3) all other development standards for the zoning district are met. This change would allow a new structure on a vacant lot or an addition to an existing structure on the lot. This change would not apply to lots that fail to meet an area, width or depth requirement of Chapter 31, Article IV, "Overlay Zoning Districts and Regulations" or Chapter 31, Article V, Division 4, "Conservation Regulations — All Districts ", which includes rules covering the St. Croix Riverway, shoreline regulations, and steep slope regulations. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1) Recommend approval of the requested ordinance amendment. 2) Recommend denial of the requested ordinance amendment. 3) Table the requests for more information. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment. (g) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31, ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: 1. Purpose. The City of Stillwater finds it necessary to provide relief to property owners with nonconforming lots and nonconforming structures. 2. Amending. City Code Chapter 31, Section 31 -101. Definitions is amended by adding the following definition for "Lots of Record ": 91.5 Lot of Record means a parcel of land that has been of record in the Washington County Recorder's Office prior to January 1, 1963 and that has had no property line modifications since that date. 3. Amending. City Code Chapter 31, Section 31 -102. Application of regulations is amended by adding the following subsection (g) and (h) related to "Existing nonconforming lots of record" and "Existing nonconforming structures ": Existing nonconforming lots of record In any district where residential uses are permitted, structures may be erected on any lot of record, irrespective of its area, width or depth, provided that: 1) the owner of the lot does not own any adjoining property; and 2) only one dwelling unit shall be allowed unless the lot meets the minimum lot area requirements of the zoning district for additional dwelling units; and 3) all other development standards for the zoning district are met. If the owner of the nonconforming lot also owns adjoining property, the subject nonconforming lot must be combined with the adjoining property prior to receiving a building permit for erection of a structure. This subsection shall not apply to lots that fail to meet an area, width or depth requirement of Chapter 31, Article IV, "Overlay Zoning Districts and Regulations" or Chapter 31, Article V, Division 4, "Conservation Regulations — All Districts ". (h) Existing nonconforming structures. In any district where residential uses are permitted, additions to an existing structure (primary or accessory) may be erected on any such structure for which a building permit was issued on or prior to December 31, 1962, irrespective of existing nonconformities that may exist for the structure, provided that 1) the owner of the lot does not own any adjoining property; and 2) the proposed addition itself meets all development standards for the zoning district. If the owner of the lot also owns an adjoining parcel, prior to constructing the desired addition, that parcel must be combined with the parcel upon which the subject nonconforming structure is sited, if that property combination would make the structure conforming or lessen its nonconformity. If such a property combination is irrelevant to the Ordinance No. Page 2 of 2 nonconformity, then the combination is not required prior to erecting the addition. As an example, if a structure has a nonconforming side property line setback, and the owner of the lot owns the adjoining property adjacent to the subject side property line, then the properties must be combined prior to construction of the addition. If however, the owner also owns property on the opposite side of the structure, combination of the two parcels would not improve the nonconforming side setback and therefore the parcels would not have to be combined. 4. Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapter 31 shall remain in full force and effect. 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this day of , 2010. CITY OF STILLWATER Ken Harycki, Mayor ATTEST: Diane Ward, City Clerk BACKGROUND THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Planning Report DATE: October 11, 2010 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Bill Turnblad REGARDING: Seasonal Open Sales and Vending Planning Commissioners have over the years been dissatisfied with the City Zoning Ordinance requirement that vendors and seasonal outside sales be issued a Special Use Permit (SUP). By the very nature of the use, the operators are not tied to the property for which the SUP is issued. They are in many ways more like transient merchants and peddlers than other uses for which Special Use Permits are issued. Consequently, filing a Special Use Permit in the chain of title of the property owner upon which the temporary or seasonal merchant or vendor operates does not seem particularly appropriate. The vendor can move several times during the course of a year. Each time a new SUP is required, and it gets filed in the chain of title of the property owner, not the vendor or open sales merchant. In response, the Planning Commission asked City staff to research a more fitting way to permit these open sales uses. At the August 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented several options. The Commission discussed the options and the consensus was that seasonal open sales and vending should not be reviewed as Special Use Permits, but as annual licenses. The license for a business should be approved by the Planning Commission or City Council for its first year. It would expire on December 31st. For each subsequent year without substantial changes, the license could be reviewed and issued by City staff. Signage would need to be addressed in the ordinance establishing licensure for the outdoor uses. Also, if any substantiated complaints are received for a business, the complaints would be considered by the Planning Commission during the next year's license review. Outdoor seasonal sales & vending Page 2 of 2 DISCUSSION Prior to drafting an ordinance amendment, potential performance standards should be discussed. Staff suggests that at least the following standards should be considered. Seasonal Sales • Does the site plan for the seasonal sales use provide sufficient parking and still leave sufficient parking for the primary land use? • Is the vehicular and pedestrian circulation for the seasonal use and the site's primary use satisfactory to the Public Works and Public Safety Departments? • Is the proposed use and its site plan satisfactory to the Fire Department? • Is proposed signage (freestanding as well as any on the tent or stand) compliant with the standards? (Standards will have to be developed. What are the Commission's thoughts on this? Perhaps limit the size of a sign on the tent /stand. And either prohibit freestanding signs or limit their number and size - perhaps real estate sized 2x3 foot signs.) • Should there be a limit on the number of days a "seasonal" open sales business can operate? Should there be a limit on the daily hours of operation? • Seasonal sales can only be conducted on private property. Has the property owner granted written permission for the use? • Should the existing seasonal sales SUPs be grandfathered? Vending • Vending can only be conducted on private property. This means that vending IS NOT permitted on public park land, public streets, public parking lots, or any other land owned by the City. Has the property owner granted written permission for the use? (The prohibition on the use of public property does not apply to vending associated with special events that are issued event permits by the City.) • Is the proposed location satisfactory to the Public Safety, Public Works and Fire Departments? • Has Washington County Health Department approved the vending business? • Should there be a limit on the number of days the vending business can operate? Should there be a limit on the daily hours of operation? • Should signage be limited to the vending cart /vehicle? • Should the cart /vehicle be required to be stored off the site when not open for business? • Should a trash receptacle be required of the business? If so, it should be removed with the cart /vehicle on a daily basis. • Should the existing vendors downtown be grandfathered under their SUPs? bt