Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-08- CPC PacketCITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, October 10, 2011 7 p.m. The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, October 10, 2011 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. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF September 12, 2011 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 Tess 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. 2011 -24. A zoning text amendment to amend the Building Demolition Ordinance, Chapter 34 of the Stillwater City Code. City of Stillwater, applicant. 4.02 Case No. 2011 -25. A special use permit for a Type III Home Occupation Permit located 927 6th Avenue South in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Chris Hocuk, applicant. 5. OTHER BUSINESS CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, September 12, 2011 7 p.m. Meeting Present: Commissioners Buchanan, Dahlquist, Hansen, Kelly, Kocon, Siess, and Spisak Absent: Commissioners Gallick and Malsam Staff: Community Development Director Turnblad, Planner Pogge and Councilmember Menikheim Chair Dahlquist opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On page 14, last paragraph, first line, correct the line to read, Commissioner Spisak (not Dahlquist) asked a number of questions... Commissioner Siess asked that on page 6, the number of neighbors that the notice went out to should be added which was 16. Add that Mr. Pogge was asked how many communities use our water treatment facility, and the answer was three. Commissioner Spisak, seconded by Commissioner Buchanan, moved to approve the August 8, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as amended. Motion was approved unanimously. OPEN FORUM There was no one present for Open Forum. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2011 -22. A zoning text amendment for variance criteria in the City of Stillwater. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Turnblad introduced the case, stating that during the 2011 legislative session the state law relating to variance review standards was amended. To be consistent with the new law, the City should amend its Zoning Ordinance. The primary change in the state statute is that the term "hardship" is now eliminated and allows a zoning authority to issue a variance if there are "practical difficulties" which are described as follows: • the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 • the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and • the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The packet contains copies of the statutory changes and the first draft of revisions to the city code, along with the League of Minnesota Cities brief. Mr. Turnblad went through highlights of the changes, noting that text in red is a change, underlined is added, strike - through is deleted. Section (a) explains the purpose of a variance. Section (b) gives general provisions. Section (c) explains the procedure. Section (d) is especially important in that it lists the findings required in granting a variance. Sections (e), (f), and (g) explain recurrent condition, precedents, and height variances. Commissioner Siess asked if this amendment is this in line with other cities, to which Mr. Tumblad replied that it is in line with state guidelines and that the City Attorney has reviewed the document. Staff advises the Planning Commission to recommend that City Council adopt the proposed code amendment. Chair Dahlquist opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak. Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, moved to approve Case No. 2011 -22. Motion was approved unanimously. Commissioner Hansen asked if after number 3, on the second page, the line "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties" should be even with (d) (3). Mr. Turnblad replied yes. Case No. 2011 -23. A variance request to the impervious surface regulations for the construction of a two -stall garage located at 223 Pine Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Richard Van Horne, applicant. Planner Pogge introduced the case. The applicants are requesting a variance in order to construct a detached 22'8" wide by 25'4" deep garage and associated driveway. This property is zoned RB and currently has an existing single- family home on the site. The lot is 8,949 square feet in size. The current 20 foot by 22.5 foot garage is proposed to be demolished and replaced with the new garage. The HPC approved the demolition of the garage in HPC Case 2009 -30. The Van Home's property is in the RB zoning district. The critical standards from the district are presented in the table included in the packet, together with the current and proposed minimums. 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 As seen in the table, the building coverage does not satisfy the RB zoning standards. The variance is to the maximum impervious lot coverage. The RB zoning code allows up to 25% coverage for buildings and 25 % for other impervious coverage, which are required to be calculated separately. Past precedents set by the Commission when one type of impervious coverage is exceeded and a variance is required, the difference between 25% and the proposed coverage is required to be mitigated. In this case, the proposal would cause the site to be only 75.75 sq ft over on building coverage while at the same time the site will be under the allowable total lot coverage by 1,369 sq or 15.3 %. Due to the minimal amount the proposal exceeds in building coverage and how much under the proposal is in total lot coverage staff feels that mitigation of the difference can be waived in this case. It is felt there is enough green space to handle any run -off this change could produce. Mr. Pogge presented an evaluation of the request, noting that the applicant has rehabilitated the home, re- introducing the original porches on the front and side of the home. Without these porches the property owner could construct the proposed garage without the variance. He noted that the City has consistently granted variances to enable projects when historic considerations are a factor. As other criteria are being met as well, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request with the following condition: All minor revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. All major revisions shall be revised and approve by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator. Staff recommends approval of the request. Commissioner Kocon wondered why this came up for variance last year and wasn't granted. Mr. Pogge responded that staff has since changed their position. The applicant pointed out elements on the house that bring it back to its historic condition and grandeur, such as adding the porches back on, and feels that a variance should be given for the garage. Commissioner Hansen expressed his opinion that a 24 x 24 garage should no longer be considered standard, as it is no longer considered big enough. Mr. Pogge said that it would depend on lot area, and the 24 x 24 is basically a minimum and that setbacks must be considered as well. Commissioner Dahlquist noted that the applicant is showing storage above the garage, and if that would eventually be habitable space, we are looking at a different application. Mr. Pogge responded that the upper floor would be limited to 6 '/ feet in height and thus would not be habitable. A garage can only be one story; otherwise it becomes an accessory building. Staff reviews the plans before a building permit is issued to be sure the height issue is enforced. Chair Dahlquist opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak. 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 Richard Kielty, who lives at 118 West Oak and owns property at 424 South e, a block from Mr. Van Horne's property, said that this is the second notice received on this property, and feels the city is nitpicking — that the general appearance is a great improvement and the variance should be approved. Staff clarified that the applicant could have gotten the variances when the porches were approved, but it was an oversight by the architect. Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, moved to approve Case No. 2011 -23 as conditioned. Motion was approved 6 -1. Commissioner Spisak voted no. Case No. 2011 -24. A zoning text amendment to amend the Building Demolition Ordinance, Chapter 34 of the Stillwater City Code. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Pogge explained that currently, before a structure over 50 years of age is demolished, a public hearing before the Heritage Preservation Commission is required unless the structure is an immediate life safety hazard. Applicants are required to complete what is known as the "nine steps" before the HPC will approve a permit. Once the nine steps are completed, the HPC is required to approve the demolition permit unless the structure proposed to be demolished is on the National Register of Historic Places (currently 8 residential structures and 64 commercial building in the downtown area are on the NRHP) or are locally designated (currently no structure in the City is locally designated). The city's original demolition ordinance was adopted in 1995 and was intended to be a temporary ordinance. HPC has been looking at improving preservation efforts, and was authorized by City Council to look at revisions. Due to the rather relaxed requirements of the current ordinance, important structures could be demolished and are not protected. For example, homes like the Alexander and Ida Nelson house on top of Chestnut Street stairs; the John and Anna O'Brien house, now home to Rivertown Inn; and Adolphus and Aurora Hospes House, now home to Aurora Staples Bed and Breakfast, all fall outside of any real protection that the City's demolition review ordinance provides. On the other hand, currently all structures over 50 years of age that are proposed to be demolished require a public hearing before the HPC, even those that clearly have no historic integrity. A change should be made to allow staff to initially review demolition requests. Staff could then approve the demolition of buildings that do not have historic value or integrity. For example, a 1950's block garage on a property with an 1800's home would be an instance where staff could approve the permit. Finally, the ordinance fails to clearly define what constitutes a partial demolition. Staff has researched demolition ordinances from 37 HPC's around the State of Minnesota. Two ordinances worthy of consideration are from Chaska and Minneapolis. In Minneapolis, staff conducts an initial review to determine if a structure is potentially historic and if not, staff administratively approves the demolition request. This would expedite clear -cut cases and allow them to be quickly approved. Other more significant structures would continue to be reviewed by 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 the HPC. Both Chaska and Minneapolis have a provision that allows their HPC's to impose a 180 -day waiting period, an approach that is common throughout the nation when it comes to demolition reviews and allows the community time to search for an alternative to demolition. The Minneapolis ordinance takes it one step further and allows the Minneapolis HPC the opportunity to consider locally designating the property during the waiting period, and if approved by the HPC and City Council, the demolition of the property could be blocked. While rarely applied, it provides a relief valve of sorts, which also requires City Council approval to ensure that properties are not locally designated without just cause. The Heritage Preservation Commission has been discussing revision of the current ordinance over the past year and a half. The packet contains the HPC's proposal based on this work, which can be found in the staff report under "Discussion — The proposed building Demolition Ordinance does four main things." The revised ordinance better defines potential historic significance, demolition, historic resource, historically significant building or structure, and non - historic structure or building. Based on specific criteria, many demolition requests could be approved on the staff level, rather than going through HPC. Mr. Pogge noted that there are many checks and balances included in the revised ordinance. Commissioner Siess asked about a previous discussion about a house that had the stairs by the garage that was demolished but was not supposed to be. Mr. Pogge responded that this house was issued an emergency demolition as part of the building was already demolished, and the owner did end up going through HPC. Commissioner Kelly asked what's to keep someone from going through the process in phases? Mr. Pogge replied that we have to have faith in our citizens, but this is an issue not yet addressed. The 60 -day rule applies to staff considerations. They are not zoning applications per se. Many cities have the 180 -day delay in their ordinance to complete the process. The 180 -day rule can be applied if the commission is going to recommend denial based on historical significance of the property, there is an alternative to demolition, or that they have not advertised or tried to find a way to preserve the property. The revised ordinance spells out seven points that determine whether or not a structure is a historic resource. Commissioner Spisak questioned having a set date (ex: January 1, 1945) versus 50 years or older as a determining factor as to whether or not a structure is potentially historically significant. HPC has asked that staff use a rolling date set at 50 years of age or older, as 50 years is when a property is first eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Staff requests that the Commission consider an amendment to the City's Building Demolition Ordinance. Under State Statute, the HPC is technically an aciii of City Zoning. As such, any new zoning ordinance is required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission before it is adopted by the City Council. Staff recommends City Council approval of this request. If the Planning 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 Commission agrees with City Staff, the Commission should amend the proposed ordinance to change the definition of "building or structure of potential historic significance" to be those buildings or structures built on or before December 31, 1945. They should then recommend that City Council approve the demolition ordinance. Councilmember Menikheim stated that when he was campaigning a year ago, a number of constituents had strong responses to the demolition ordinance as it currently exists. There's an area of subjectivity that needs to be addressed. HPC made changes on Thursday night, then changes were made to the ordinance, but it has not yet been shared with the public. Historical preservation is critical to Stillwater, but there is also the issue of homeowners rights and property rights, i.e., what rights does the citizen have and what control does the city have over those rights. He feels it is important that the public be heard and wondered if architectural control should be in the hands of the City. Chair Dahlquist opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak. Commissioner Dahlquist had some questions. In the ordinance it provides city staff the opportunity to make determinations on clear -cut cases. If this ordinance goes forward, he suggests that a report be made to the Historic Preservation Commission on these decisions, so that everyone agrees that it is the clear -cut cases that are being decided on the staff level. Also, regarding changes associated with structures that are not currently listed on the historic register, we have the opportunity as they currently exist to do local designations, but we have elected not to do that. He asked why some of these properties are not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Pogge responded that the National Register has very high standards and the property needs to be of national significance. Developing local designation takes neighborhood education and study; the City doesn't want to designate a neighborhood against its will, so we need to educate people on why communities do this and what the benefits are, such as improving property values as much as 30 %. Historic settings contribute to the economy of the city — boat rides, trolley rides, tourism and more. Studies of a neighborhood can take as long as a year, so it takes time and money. Architectural control assures that new homes going into a neighborhood are compatible with existing homes and the setting. Commissioner Spisak asked what is Minnesota Statute Chapter 463 as listed in the ordinance under "Demolition shall not mean any of the following: (1) A structure required to be demolished in accordance with Minn. Stats. Ch. 463." Mr. Pogge responded that it addresses a structure that is deemed to be a safety hazard. When asked how many structures have been demolished without HPC approval under the current ordinance, he responded that it was 3 or 4. Once a structure is lost, there is not much that can be done. The city has prosecuted a few cases, and when confronted three of the individuals have donated money to the Heritage Preservation fund that was set up. In some cases it's a matter of the owner not understanding the ordinance. The date of 1945 rather than a rolling date of 50 years old was selected to protect what are considered historic 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 properties. It doesn't mean that structures built after 1945 can't be protected, but it would take a proactive act to do that. Commissioner Siess suggested that more public notice needs to be given, and that this should be tabled for one month to allow for more discussion. Mr. Pogge has talked to various architects, HPC, and others who care about preservation. Commissioner Kelly expressed his concern about putting too much power in the hands of the city regarding local designation and property owner's rights. Mr. Pogge said that Chapter 22:8 of our ordinance codifies the process in a very detailed manner. Commissioner Dahlquist reiterated that the Planning Commission has not dealt in great depth with this subject before. What is different between the two ordinances is that right now HPC is compelled to issue a permit at some point, but the new ordinance allows them to hold up the demolition. City Council has to approve local designations before the process is even begun, then the year -long process of architectural surveys and education of the neighbors begins. In looking back, Mr. Pogge estimates that 65% of cases could have been decided by staff, but currently applicants have to go through the nine steps, costing $300 -500, and taking at least a month of time. It's a matter of trusting staff to determine what is historic and what isn't, taking the 1945 date into consideration. If the Commission decides to table this, staff will waive the 60 days and cancel the public hearing set for October 3. The local newspaper could be asked to publish a press release about this ordinance and notify people of the opportunity to attend the next meeting that will be opened up for comment. Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, moved to table Case No. 2011 -24, with the understanding that we will hear public comment at the next meeting. Motion was approved unanimously. Case No. 2011 -09. An ordinance amendment for seasonal outdoor sales and Vending Carts. City of Stillwater, applicant. Continued from August 8, 2011 meeting. Director Turnblad stated that Planning Commissioners have over the years been dissatisfied with the City Zoning Ordinance requirement that vendors and seasonal outdoor sales have a Special Use Permit (SUP). By the very nature of these uses, the operators are not tied to the property for which the SUP is issued. They are more similar to transient merchants than they are to commercial uses for which Special Use Permits are issued. In response, the Planning Commission asked City staff to research a more fitting way to pen lit these uses. At the August 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented several options. The Commission discussed the options and worked through a first and second draft of an ordinance that creates an annual permitting process for seasonal outdoor sales and vending. The permit for the businesses would be approved by the Planning Commission for the first year. That 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 initial permit would expire on December 30. For each subsequent year (without substantial changes), the permit would be reviewed and issued by City staff. In August of 2011 the Commission opened a public hearing on the 2nd draft of the ordinance. In response to an article in one of the Twin Cities newspapers, the hearing was tabled until September and staff was asked to investigate noise related to the generators that some food vending trucks use. Though the reporter for the above referenced newspaper suggested that generator noise is a concern, it is apparently not a large enough concern to have been addressed by many communities in the Twin Cities area. Staff did not find much in -state information. However, the City of Asheville, NC has been engaging the question. In an e -mail exchange with their Assistant Planning Director, staff learned that in Asheville the following regulations are being considered: 1. Electrical power provided to food vendors by connection to permanent electrical outlets is preferred over the use of generators. 2. If electrical generators are used within 100 feet of a residential unit, they are limited to inverter technology "whisper" generators (maximum of 50 decibels). 3. If electrical generators are used further than 100 feet from a residential unit, they are allowed to create a maximum of 65 decibels of noise. 4. No generator may be used between 12 midnight and 6 in the morning within 200 feet of a residential unit. No generator may be used anywhere downtown between the hours of 3 AM and 6 AM. (In Stillwater's case, our vendors are not open after 2 AM) In addition, the Asheville nuisance ordinance states that "noise disturbance" is prohibited. Noise disturbance is defined in part as "disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivity." Stillwater's nuisance ordinance is similar. And though it is a challenge to know what a "reasonable person of normal sensitivity" is, the provision does give Ashville the flexibility to deal with situations where 65 or even 50 decibel generators are just too loud. Mr. Turnblad further stated that if the Planning Commission feels that generator noise is a potential problem in Downtown Stillwater, any or all of the Asheville regulations could be included in the Stillwater ordinance, though modification of some of them maybe advisable, in the section on utility plans for vendors. It should be noted that the same regulations will not apply to vendors associated with special events, since they operate under a special event permit not a vendor permit as regulated by this proposed ordinance. Staff recommendation is to discuss the 3rd draft of the proposed ordinance, as well as potential generator noise regulations, and make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Kocon asked what the decibel level is for traffic on Main Street. Should we worry about a generator when we have cars, trucks, and motorcycles creating way more noise than a generator? He feels that #1 and #4 are fine, but the rest are way too much. A vendor having a tent sale is in the parking lot of a business and are not bothering nearby residences. 8 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 12, 2011 Director Turnblad explained that every year new permits are issued. If there are no complaints, staff reissues the permit based on the previous year's application. Otherwise it goes to the Planning Commission for approval. If the ordinance were to change, it would apply to new applications, but the City has the ability to revoke a peiniit if too many complaints are received. The Nuisance Ordinance, in which noise level is addressed, could also be used. There is flexibility to change the ordinance in the future as needed. Chair Dahlquist opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak. Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, moved to approve Draft 3 of the Ordinance for Case No. 2011 -09. Motion was approved unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS There being no further discussion, Commissioner Spisak, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, moved to adjourn at 9:06 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Carol Danielson Interim Recording Secretary Memo Community Development Department To: Planning Commission From: Michel Pogge, City Planner:,'@ Date: Thursday, October 06, 2011 Re: 2011 -24 - A zoning text amendment to amend the Building Demolition Ordinance, Chapter 34 of the Stillwater City Code. Message: A group of individuals have come forward with questions, comments, and concerns with the proposed revisions to the Building Demolition Ordinance. Staff has not been able to meet with the group to date. As such, we would request that the Commission hold off on taking an action on the proposed revisions to the Building Demolition Ordinance until this meeting can occur. Staff Recommendation The Commission table action on the proposed revisions to the Building Demolition Ordinance until your November 14, 2011 meeting. From the desk of... Michel Pogge, AICP • City Planner • City of Stillwater • 216 N. 41h Street • Stillwater, MN 55082 651.430 -8822 .Fax: 651.430 -8810 email: mpogge@ci.stillwater.mn.us Planning Commission DATE: October 6, 2011 APPLICANT: Chris and Jennifer Hocuk CASE NO.: 2011 -25 REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a Type III Home Occupation in order to operate an in -home firearm transfer and sales business. LOCATION: 927 6th Ave S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: L /MDR - Low /Medium Density Residential ZONING: RB - Two Family Residential PC DATE: October 10, 2011 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City PlanneI A tf 1 BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a special use permit in order to operate an in -home firearm transfer and sales business. The business will be operated from the home at 927 6th Ave S. Clients will be on site during scheduled appointments in order to complete the transfer of the firearms. Mr. Hocuk will obtain a federal firearms license in order to perform this type of work. Additionally, clients of Mr. Hocuk will undergo federal background checks prior to receiving the firearm. This type of business, with clients visiting the home, requires a type III home occupation permit. A type III home occupation is allowed m the RB, Two Family Residential zoning district with a special use permit. 927 6th Ave S Page 2 DISCUSSION Staff reviewed this request from both zoning and public safety prospective. The following recaps that review. Zoning Review The City allows home occupations in our residential districts under certain conditions. These conditions seek to lessen the impact a home occupation has on the residential nature of the neighborhood they reside in. Common home occupations in the community include beauticians, massage therapy, attorneys, seamstress, and other similar uses. While firearm transfers and sales may diverge from what a typical home occupation, if the operator follow the conditions outlines in the zoning code from a zoning prospective staff see little negative impacts from the use. Public Safety Review Firearm transfers and sales is a highly regulated activity controlled by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). To provide this type of service a Federal Firearms License (FFL) is required from the ATF. In order to obtain a FFL an individual undergoes an extensive background check and site interview. Once an FFL is issued, by law a copy is required to be filed with the local police department. Other than the requirement that the FFL be filed with the local police department, the City has no control over who can hold an FFL. Currently there are a number of FFLs within the City of Stillwater, some within residential areas. The other FFLs complete the firearm transfers at gun shows or other venues thus they are type I home occupations and don't require a Special Use Permit as part of their home occupation permits. Since this request involves customer visits to his home, an SUP for a type III home occupation is required. Public Comments This request has generated a number of inquires to the City. Most of the concerns are around the question of compatibility of firearm sales in a residential area. Attached are copies of the emails and letters that have been received as of Thursday, October 6th. There are two general concerns. First, neighbors are concerned that the notice mailed by the City did not clearly state the proposed use. Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and simply stated "A special use permit for a Type III home occupation permit ". Staff agrees that the letter should have been more descriptive and will make this change in the future. With the number of letters, emails, and phone calls staff believes that the neighborhood is having an active conversation about the proposal and as such staff believes the neighborhood is aware of the true extent of the proposal. With that said, if the Commission wishes, they could direct staff to mail additional notices to the adjacent property owners with a more descriptive notice and table action to your November 14th meeting. Second, neighbors are concerned with the idea of having this type of use in a residential district. If the applicant follows the conditions outlines in the staff report, staff finds that the use is similar to other home occupations and is compatible with the neighborhood. 927 61h Ave S Page 3 EVALUATION OF REQUEST A special use permit for a type III home occupation may be granted if all of the following conditions are met: 1. No outside storage or display of products, equipment or merchandise is permitted. The applicant indicated in his letter that all products, equipment and merchandise will be stored indoors. 2. Any retail sales must be accessory or incidental to the primary residential use. The applicant has indicated that the retail sales will be incidental to the primary residential use. Verbally the applicant has indicated that he feels that less than five transfers a month would occur at his home. 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. 4. Any sign must be unlighted and smaller than two (2) square feet. The applicant has indicated that no sign will be installed. 5. Customers are permitted by appointment only. The applicant has indicated that customer visits to his home 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 100 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 there would be none. 8. Business hours are limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The applicant has indicated that appointments will be between 5 PM and 8 PM Monday through Friday. 9. Off street parking must be provided for customers. One off - street parking space is available in the driveway. 10. No more traffic is allowed than in a normal residential area. The applicant noted that the appointments will be no greater than one per hour with few deliveries. 11. No more than one (1) nonresident employee is allowed. The applicant has indicated there will be no nonresident employees. 927 6th Ave S Page 4 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. 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. A copy of the Federal Firearms License shall be filed with the Stillwater Police Department prior to operating the Home Occupation. b. A home security system shall be installed prior to operating the Home Occupation. c. Storage of small arms ammunition shall meet Minnesota State Fire Codes and NFPA 495. The Stillwater Fire Department shall be consulted regarding these standards. d. No outside storage or display of products, equipment or merchandise is permitted. e. Any retail sales must be accessory or incidental to the primary residential use. f. There shall be no hobby, craft or art sales on the property. g. No sign indicating the home occupation shall be displayed on the site. h. Customers are permitted by appointment only. i. 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. j. 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. k. Business hours are limited from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.. 1. Off street parking must be provided for customers. m. No more traffic is allowed than in a normal residential area. n. No more than one (1) nonresident employee is allowed. o. 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. 927 6th Ave S Page 5 3. Direct staff to mail a more descriptive notice on the home occupation to property owner within 300 feet of the subject property and continue the public hearing until the November 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. The 60 -day decision deadline for the request is November 7, 2011; however, staff can extend the deadline for an additional 60 days. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the request as conditioned. Attachments: Applicant's Form Applicant's Packet Letter from Janet and Chuck Wolden of 924 5th Ave S Letter from Jerry and Darlene Foley of 1005 5th Ave S Email from Marek Mino Emails from Bath Ecker Email from Bob Jorgensen PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 x Special /Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* ACTION REQUESTED Case No: L Date Filed: SD Fee Paid: 7,7,9// Receipt No.: Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance 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 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. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 927 6th Ave S Stillwater MN 55082 Assessor's Parcel No, 3403020220024 Subdivision name Hersey Staples and Co. Add to (GEO Code) Complete Property Legal Description* Stillwater Lot 12 block 16 subdivision cd.09850 ( *Required — Applications will be rejected without a legal description) Tax descriptions and property descriptions from the county are not acceptable. Zoning District RB Description of Project See attached documents "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. 1 further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Required Property Owner Jennifer Hocuk Mailing Address 927 6th Ave S City - State — Zip Stillwater Minnesota 55082 Telephone No. 651 - 351 -2459 Email jhocuk @msn.com If other than property owner Representative Chris Hocuk Mailing Address 927 6th Ave s City - State — Zip Stillwater Minnesota 55082 Telephone No. 651-351-2459 Email chocukl@msn.com Signature ...... A/ 14 I `I t e. l� Signature C' ignatur it required) (Signature is required) C: \DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \SWIEGAND \LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\ CONTENT .OUTLOOK\K6SUFJRY\PLANAPP.DOCX July 22, 2010 Description of project I plan to conduct an internet and gun show based firearms selling business out of my home. I will be obtaining my Federal Firearms License. I will not be selling firearms directly out of my home. I would be receiving the merchandise I will be selling at gun shows and off my website through standard delivery means (UPS, FedEx)and storing it on site. I would allow customers into my business premises though an arranged appointment during my business hours, they would of bought a firearm off the internet or through a mail order catalogue and need it shipped to a licensed dealer in their area for the required owner transfer. When the customer is on site for the transfer I would have retail firearms accessories available to purchase. The majority of my business would be through my website and at state wide gun shows. I believe this type of home occupation will be in no way detrimental to the surrounding dwellings, their occupants and the general feel of the neighborhood. I expect to operate this business in a professional and courteous way and respect my city and fellow neighbors. Business Model River Valley Arms Stillwater MN 55082 rvarms @hotmail.com 651 - 351 -2459 I Chris Hocuk plan to manage and perform a Federal Firearms Licensed business from my home. Below I will explain my business model in depth. 1. I plan to sell firearms, ammunition and accessories at a retail level via the Internet (my website www.rvarms.com, gunbroker, auction arms, etc...) with the full intent to make a profit. 2. I plan the sell firearms, ammunition and accessories at a retail level at state wide gun shows with the full intent of making a profit. 3. I plan to have my business premises open to the public by appointment. This would be in the form of a dealer to dealer transfer for the customer which 1 charge a fee. The customer would buy the firearms from another dealer (via the internet or mail order) and they would ship the firearm to me. The customer would then come to my business premises to complete the required paperwork and background check. Once everything checks out the customer pays my transfer fee and they receive their firearm. 4. I plan to offer the ability for retail sales out of my home in the manner of firearm and ammunition accessories. This is accomplished when the customer comes to my business premises to complete a firearm transfer (above #3). While waiting for the process to be completed (ATF background check and paperwork to be filled out) I will have retail firearms and ammunition accessories (cleaning supplies, targets, holsters, etc...) available for the customers purchase at their desire. Type III Home occupation permit conditions met: 1) No outside storage or display of products, equipment, or merchandise is permitted; a) All products, equipment and /or merchandise will be stored indoors. 2) Any retail sales must be accessory or incidental to the primary residential use; a) All retail sales made from the business premises will be accessory to the customer's primary purpose. The customer will be having a firearm transferred to them from an on -line or mail order purchase. He will not be purchasing the firearm from me. My business will provide the required transfer of ownership from the original owner to them. 1 will charge a fee for this service. When the customer is waiting for the necessary paperwork and background check to be completed he will be able to purchase at their desire firearm and ammunition accessories (cleaning supplies, targets, slings, etc...) which I will have on site. 3) Infrequent hobby, craft or art sales are permitted twice per year for not more than six days per calendar year; a) There will be no hobby, craft or art sales. 4) Any sign must be unlighted and smaller than two square feet; a) There will be no signs. 5) Customers are permitted by appointment only; a) All customers will have to call and make an appointment. 6) Not more than 20 percent of the total gross floor area of the dwelling unit may be used for the home occupation or 400 square feet, whichever is less; a) Total house sqft is 1744. Room to be used is my mechanical room, its 10'x10' which is 100 sqft. 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; a) There will be none. 8) Business hours are limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; a) My business hours will be M -F from 5:OOpm to 8:OOpm. 9) Off- street parking must be provided for customers; a) Off street parking will be provided in my driveway (see attached image). The parking area is approx. 17' wide by 25' deep (425 sqft). This amount of space will accommodate up to (2) vehicles to be parked. 10) No more traffic which is allowed other than in a normal residential area; a) The amount of appointments that! will receive will be by appointment only and will be no greater than (1) per hour. The other traffic I will be receiving will be deliveries to my home, which will be no greater than normal residential deliveries. 11) No more than one nonresident employee is allowed; and a) I will have no employee's. 12) Type III home occupations are subject to review upon complaints from the neighborhood. If in the opinion of the community development director 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!!! home occupation permit may be revoked. a) !agree to these terms. % 1 .. . . . , , ... - . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 N 1 1 1.. 0 0 1 h 1 h 1 1 7 , hi■ m 10,- cnr— 0=-- ° m \\\\ \ INIM. .\\\\.\\ \ -... 8� C ➢- U) › ?,J) , 1 1 1 ig8 I II iilk ho 1 9 1 1 1 7 3 0 0 0 h 1 \ A \ ..... q 1 ..im Available off street parking 17'x25' 425sgft E3 .d October 3, 2011 To Members of the Stillwater Planning Commission: We are writing in regards to the application of Chris Hocuk to open a home based business selling firearms and ammunition. We are not opposed to home based occupations in general and have had a costume maker on our block and have an attorney based business in the next block. What is of great concern is the product under consideration; firearms and ammunition which we strongly feel are incompatible with a residential neighborhood. To pass this conditional use permit would be to set a precedent for anyone, anywhere in the city to open a similar business. In his application and accompanying documents Hocuk says in his description of project that "I will not be selling firearms out of my home." but in his business model he speaks of firearms to purchase from his home. At any rate it seems clear that firearms will be brought into the neighborhood from both gun shows and being delivered by UPS and Fed X. What kind of individuals will this bring into the neighborhood? Since firearms sold at gun shows do not have to be sold by licensed dealers, this certainly brings in the possibility of a criminal element interacting with neighbors. The manner in which guns and ammunition will be secured is not addressed at all. One question would be the possibility of break ins when criminals realize that firearms are stored in a home. Mixing firearms with families, seniors and especially children is simply inappropriate. In summary, we strongly oppose having a gun store on property adjacent to ours. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Janet and Chuck Wolden 924 5th Avenue South Stillwater, MN 55082 RECEIVED OCT -6 2011? 4?FvELOPMENT 10/6/2011 Dear Members of the Stillwater Planning Commission, We are writing this letter In regards to the application of Chris Hocuk to open a home based business selling firearms and ammunition. While we're not opposed to home based businesses, we are opposed to the type of business our neighbor is considering. Our main concern is item number 3 on his "River Valley Arms" business model. It states that customers would come to Mr. Hocuk's residence to receive the firearms previously purchased via the internet or mail order. This transfer of firearms in a residential neigh- borhood is not only disturbing but potentially dangerous. The interaction of firearms and criminal activity cannot be ignored. In addition, what kind of regulations will Mr. Hocuk have on the security of these firearms? Will he have the same set of requirements as a public firearms business? If so, who will oversee these requirements and who will pro- tect our neighborhood families should problems arise? Finally, if we allow Mr. Hocuk the opportunity to sell firearms from his residence, we are setting a precedence for anyone to open a similar business in our community. With the rise of internet based firearm companies, this would be a detrimental mistake to the city of Stillwater and future resi- dential neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Tom & Val Corman 936 5th Ave. S. Stillwater, MN 55082 Michel Pogge From: Beth Ecker [Beth.Ecker ©conwedplastics.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 8:34 AM To: Bill Turnblad Cc: Michel Pogge Subject: RE: Type III Home Occupation Permit Thank you very much I appreciate your help in helping us to understand what this is all about. I know that 2 of the neighbors to the north of his home are also quite concerned about this and plan to attend the hearing. Beth From: Bill Turnblad Imailto: bturnblad@ci.stillwater.mn.usj Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 8:31 AM To: Beth Ecker Cc: Michel Pogge Subject: RE: Type III Home Occupation Permit Beth, I have not reviewed the application yet. If he is actually selling the firearms from his home, that could be contrary to the provisions of the home occupation regulations. This is an issue that will have to be addressed in our staff report for the case. Bill Turnblad Community Development Director City of Stillwater 651.430 -8821 (direct) From: Beth Ecker Imailto: Beth .Ecker(aconwedplastics.comj Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 4:09 PM To: Bill Turnblad Subject: RE: Type III Home Occupation Permit Bill, I have a copy of the business model that Chris Hocuk has submitted. In reading it, it appears that he does have the intent to have people at his home to do the paperwork associated with owning a firearm and then will give them the gun from his home once the paperwork has been approved. i Have you seen the business model? Maybe I am reading it incorrectly. We will plan to try to attend the hearing on the 10th Thank you. Beth Ecker 931 6th Ave 5 From: Bill Turnblad j mailto: bturnblad (a>ci.stiliwater.mn.usj Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 11:25 AM To: Beth Ecker Cc: Michel Pogge Subject: RE: Type III Home Occupation Permit Hi Beth, A Type III Home Occupation is commercial activity that is allowed in a home by Special Use Permit. To obtain a Special Use Permit, the person who is proposing the home occupation must appear before the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Neighbors have an opportunity at the hearing to learn about the proposal and make comments. A Type III Home Occupation cannot have outside storage, cannot have retail sales on the property (except incidental sales such as shampoo to a client whose hair you cut), customers are allowed only by appointment, signs are limited to two square feet in area, business hours are limited to 7 am to 8 pm, off - street parking must be provided, only one non- resident employee can work on the property. If complaints are received about the home occupation, the Special Use Permit can be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The specific request by Chris Hocuk at 927 6th Ave S is to have an internet based business to sell firearms. Sales of the firearms will not occur on the property. Orders would be taken and filled from the home. Bill Turnblad 651 - 430 -8821 From: Beth Ecker [ mailto :Beth.Ecker©conwedplastics.coml Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:08 AM To: Bill Turnblad Subject: Type III Home Occupation Permit Hi Bill, I live at 931 6th Ave So and my next door neighbor, Chris Hocuk -927 6th Ave 5, is applying for a Type III Home Occupation Permit according to the letter we received from the city. I assume 2 that this is a permit allowing some type of business to be run out of the home. Is this correct? I am not sure what a Type III Home Occupation Permit is and the letter did not explain it. Thanks for your help. Beth Ecker Beth Ecker, CPIM, CSCP Master Production Scheduler Conwed Global Netting Solutions 760 29th Avenue SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 612 - 623 -1716 office 651 - 295 -9704 cell beth.ecker @conwedplastics.com 3 Michel Pogge From: Bill Turnblad Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 11:02 AM To: Bob Jorgensen Cc: Michel Pogge Subject: RE: William Street Commercial Property Bob, You should write the letter to me. It should explain operation and space use details on the property. This is necessary to make a connection to the grandfathered commercial use on the site. If your proposed use is substantially similar to the grandfathered commercial use on the property, then the grandfathering could be extended to your proposed use. The major concern the last time we spoke, I believe, was the length of time the commercial building has stood vacant. Technically, after a year the grandfathered right to continue commercial activity on a residentially zoned property is lost, whether your proposed use is similar to previous commercial uses or not. Since even more time has past since we spoke, it is more of a concern now than then. Bill Turnblad Community Development Director City of Stillwater 651.430 -8821 (direct) Original Message From: Bob Jorgensen [mailto :bob- iorgensenPcomcast.net] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:06 PM To: Bill Turnblad Subject: William Street Commercial Property Hi Bill, I don't know if you remember me, but my wife and I met with you earlier this year to discuss the commercial use of the building at 215 William Street (i.e. the old grocery store location). At the time we we were looking to buy the building as a new location for our retail /wholesale businesses. When we met with you, you seemed to think that what we had in mind would be deemed acceptable for commercial use. Anyway, the property is still for sale, and we are again looking to purchase the property, so I would like to start the process of getting the necessary approvals for using this property for our business. You told us when we met that the process would start with a letter from us. Can you remind me what this letter should state /request and who it should be addressed to? Thanks, Michel Pogge From: Bill Turnblad Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 11:23 AM To: MarekMino @comcast.net Cc: Michel Pogge Subject: RE: Notice of Public Hearing - Case # 2011 -25 A Type III Home Occupation is commercial activity that is allowed in a home by Special Use Permit. To obtain a Special Use Permit, the person who is proposing the home occupation must appear before the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Neighbors have an opportunity at the hearing to learn about the proposal and make comments. A Type III Home Occupation cannot have outside storage, cannot have retail sales on the property, customers are allowed only by appointment, signs are limited to two square feet in area, business hours are limited to 7 am to 8 pm, off - street parking must be provided, only one non - resident employee can work on the property. If complaints are received about the home occupation, the Special Use Permit can be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The specific request by Chris Hocuk at 927 6th Ave S is to have an internet based business to sell firearms. Sales of the firearms will not occur on the property. Orders would be taken and filled from the home. Bill Turnblad 651 - 430 -8821 From: MarekMino@comcast.net fmailto:MarekMino©comcast.netj Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:59 PM To: Bill Turnblad; Michel Pogge Subject: Notice of Public Hearing - Case # 2011 -25 I just received a notice of public hearing (Case #2011 - 25) for a special use permit for a "Type 111 Home Occupation Permit ". Your names were listed as a contact if we had any questions. What is it? Can you use terms that normal people understand when you send out these notices? Sincerely, Marek Mino 1