Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-10 CPC MINCITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION October 10, 2011 Present: Mike Dahlquist, Eric Hansen, Cameron Kelly, Mike Kocon, John Malsam, Anne Siess. and Scott Spisak Absent: Aron Buchanan and Matt Gallick Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge and Councilmember Menikheim Chair Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Spisak moved to approve the minutes of September 12, 2011. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 noted this case was continued from the September meeting. He stated several people have come forward with questions and concerns about the proposal. He said staff has been unable to meeting with those individuals up to this point and would recommend that this case be tabled pending a meeting with the concerned individuals. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. Jeff Johnson, chair of the Heritage Preservation Commission, offered to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have regarding the proposed changes to the demolition ordinance. Mr. Dahlquist asked Mr. Johnson if he would be able to attend the November meeting when the Planning Commission will reconsider the proposal; Mr. Johnson stated he would be in attendance if that is the desire of the Planning Commission. Mr. Kocon, seconded by Mr. Malsam, moved to continue this case; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2011 -25. A special use permit for a Type III Home Occupation Permit located 927 Sixth Avenue South in the RB, Two Family Residential Distract. Chris Hocuk, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. Mr. Pogge reviewed the pertinent federal regulations regarding firearms transfer and sales and reviewed the 12 conditions for type III home occupation permits; he also reviewed the difference between type I and types II and III home occupation permits. Mr. Pogge pointed out that the special use permit is required in this instance because customers will be coming to the site. He stated there currently is one additional federal firearms licensee in the City; however, that dealer does not have customers visiting the site and therefore does not require a type III home occupation permit. He said there have been no public safety issues with the existing licensee or previous firearms dealer licensees. Mr. Pogge pointed out that firearms transfers is a highly regulated activity and requires extensive background checks from the ATF, with on -site checks as well as personal criminal background checks; he also noted the City has no authority to prevent the ATF from granting a license once the background checks are completed. Mr. Pogge stated a number of concerns have been voiced related to the public notice process and acknowledged that the notice only stated application had been made for a type III home occupation permit; he said if the Commission believes additional notice is needed and so directs, 1 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION October 10, 2011 staff would re- notice and provide additional detail for action at the November meeting. He said other questions have been raised about the compatibility of firearms sales with a residential neighborhood; he pointed out that all firearms will have been pre - purchased through a third -party and customers would be coming on site to complete the paperwork for the transfer. Mr. Pogge said staff believes that use can be compatible with the neighborhood and certainly less intense than other type III businesses. He said the applicant has agreed to all 12 conditions required for the type III permit, as well as additional conditions related to signage, hours of operation and non - resident employees. He noted that a permit can be revoked for violations of any conditions or upon complaint on specific issues related to the operation of the business. He stated staff believes the application meets all requirements for the type III permit and approval is recommended with the 12 normal conditions, with the additional conditions that a copy of the federal firearms license be filed with the police department prior to operation, that a home security system be installed prior to the operation of the business, and that the business meet all Minnesota state fire code requirements related to the storage of ammunition and other explosives on site. Mr. Kocon asked about the storage of the firearms on site prior to the transfer of ownership. Mr. Pogge said the applicant has indicated all firearms will have locks on them and be stored in a safe, and the recommendation is that a condition be added that a home security system be installed. Mr. Kocon asked whether there would be an inventory of guns stored on site; Mr. Pogge said there may be some inventory for the applicant's gun shows and mail catalogue business. Mr. Dahlquist asked if both parts of the business plan were covered by the permit application; Mr. Pogge responded in the affirmative. Mr. Malsam asked about the proportion of the transfer side of the business to the normal sales business. In discussion, it was noted that the applicant wouldn't need a special use permit if customers did not come to the home; that type of business would be a type I business occupation permit approved by staff. Ms. Siess asked if the City could require a specific type of gun safe; Mr. Pogge responded in the affirmative. Ms. Siess also asked how the City regulates the conditions regarding visits by appointment only. Mr. Pogge agreed that, to a large extent, the City is relying on good -will compliance by the business owners, but said the City does occasionally receive calls from neighbors when a business is operating outside of the hours, in which case staff contacts the business owner in an effort to get compliance or the permit could be brought back to the Planning Commission for possible revocation. There was a question as to whether the issue regarding compatibility with the neighborhood was more of an issue with ordinance language; Mr. Pogge said there is an issue with compatibility and if the Commission feels the business is simply not compatible with a residential neighborhood, staff believes the Commission has some leverage to deny a permit on that basis. Mr. Pogge said there is no clear ordinance language that provides that ability, but if the Commission has a discussion about the issue and lists reasons why it does not believes the business is compatible, he said staff believes that could be a sufficient basis for denial. On a question byregarding types of businesses that would not be compatible, Mr. Pogge stated the ordinance is geared toward sole proprietorship businesses and addresses primarily the impacts rather than actual uses; he said the ordinance is silent on the types of uses allowed. Mr. Spisak clarified that at this time there are no type III firearm businesses in the City. Mr. Hocuk explained the type of safe he will utilize for storage of the firearms — a thick gauge, steel gun safe bolted to the floor and foundation wall. He said the primary focus on the business will be internet- based, so he will have a small inventory of merchandise for sale at gun shows — less than 10 firearms at one time. He stated he did not want to make enemies in the neighborhood, noting 2 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION October 10, 2011 he has two small children, and said he respects firearms very much. He explained the process he would utilize before asking people to his house, explaining he would have an initial meeting off -site and background check before having a customer on site. He said he would not do anything to jeopardize the safety of his family. He said his primary focus is the safety of his family; he said his long -term goal is to have an off -site business. Mr. Malsam asked why a firearm transfer is necessary; Mr. Hocuk explained that a firearm cannot be shipped to an unlicensed dealer -- the transfer must be made by a licensed dealer who completes the required paperwork and background check. Mr. Hocuk said he would not expect to do more than 5 transfers per month. On a question by Mr. Malsam, Mr. Hocuk explained the process when someone would purchase a firearm directly through him via his web site; those sales cannot be done on premises, he said, and would not involve any on -site business. Mr. Hocuk said the AFT does a site visit and interview with license applicants. On a question from the Commission, he said the AFT requires only gun locks, not a safe, but he said he will be utilizing a locked gun safe. On a question by Mr. Spisak, Mr. Hocuk explained how potential customers could locate him, noting he would not have his home address listed on his web site or at gun shows. Mr. Spisak asked what would happen if someone involved in a gun transfer failed the background check; Mr. Hocuk said the firearm would not be released to that person and he said that is why he will be doing a pre- background check. Mr. Spisak asked about the portion of the business model which states that retail firearms and ammunition accessories will be available for purchase on site; Mr. Hocuk said the intent is have firearm accessories only — holsters, ammunition, targets, etc. — available for retail sale on site. Mr. Hocuk reiterated that he will not be selling firearms on site, only transfers will be conducted on site, people purchasing firearms from him will do so via a third -party FLL or at a gun show. Mr. Hansen asked at what point Mr. Hocuk would move his business off site, whether that would occur when he facilitates 20 -25 transfers a month, versus the four or five he expects to do at this time. Mr. Hocuk said moving off -site would depend on financing and his sales via the internet; he expects the transfer side of the business to be only about 5% of the total. On a question by Mr. Kelly, Mr. Hocuk said he would not have his home address listed on the FFL site or his web site. Mr. Kocon questioned whether there are any restrictions in the state of Minnesota regulating how many guns a private citizen may own or how those guns must be secured; Mr. Pogge said he was not aware of any restrictions. Ms. Siess pointed out that someone can obtain an address if they are determined to do so; she also pointed out that Mr. Hocuk is applying for a type III permit and if denied the type III could still do the type I business. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Ecker, 931 Sixth Ave. S., expressed concern about the public notice from the City and the lack of information included in the notice. She said her biggest concern was with the compatibility with a neighborhood with lots of small children. Chuck Wolden, 924 Fifth Ave. S., suggested this type of use goes above what is the normal type of home business use, noting the condition for a home security system and storage of ammunition would indicate this is a potentially dangerous use. He suggested that if the applicant is afraid to put up a business sign, then the neighbors are afraid too and the Commission should not consider approval. Jan Wolden, 924 Fifth Ave. S., asked how guns would arrive at the premises and how they would be stored after delivery. She also suggested that this permit would be precedent- setting and could lead to many others selling firearms from their homes. She also suggested that the applicant could not be compliant with the conditions, specifically referencing condition No. 7, saying that guns have the same dangerous potential as fumes or fire. 3 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION October 10, 2011 Erin Wolfe, 317 Churchill St. E., expressed concern about having a retail business in a residential neighborhood, with the potential for growth and increase in traffic and deliveries and the likelihood that Mr. Hocuk's address will be known. She also wondered if someone could just stop by the house to purchase ammunition. She asked who regulates compliance and who to contact with concerns /complaints. She expressed concern about people knowing there are guns in the home. Linda Moses, 1009 Fifth Ave. S., expressed concern about the risk of having weapons in the neighborhood, currently a very quiet, peaceful neighborhood. She said she was concerned about the compatibility issue. She said if there are items in the business plan that are unclear, those items should be clarified before the Commission makes a decision. Erich Stolffo, 1009 First St., said he believes this type of business is incompatible with the neighborhood. He noted the purpose of opening a business is to grow it, which seems to be at odds with all the things being considered here to try to limit the business. He also noted that this involves a lot of voluntary compliance and suggested there is a lot of risk involved. He also questioned the definition of retail sales, given the fact that type III permits cannot have retail sales on the property. Amy Mino, 915 Sixth Ave. S., said she disagreed with staff's assessment that this will not be injurious or detrimental to the neighborhood, saying she thought that is would be both injurious and detrimental. She said she thought the City should consider the safety concerns of the residents of the neighborhood and also the compatibility of the business with the character of the neighborhood. She also suggested this would be setting a precedent for the entire City. She said she thought this use would leave the neighborhood open to potential burglaries and said if something goes wrong with a transaction ,the entire neighborhood bears the risk. She also noted that the proposed hours of operation are when children are playing in the neighborhood and would be exposed to any potential issues that could occur; she also expressed concern about storage of firearms on the premises. She said she thought a residential area was not an appropriate place for a business of this type. She said residents have a right to feel safe in their neighborhood and safe in their homes. Chloette Haley, 924 Sixth Ave. S., said she was against guns and said she did not want them in her neighborhood or people selling them in the neighborhood. Ed Caouette, 1013 First S, agreed that Mr. Hocuk has the right to sell guns, but he doesn't think he should be doing it in a neighborhood. He also addressed the issue of retail sales on premises, noting that a sale is not complete until it is consummated -- when the person takes possession of a firearm; he also noted that accessories will be sold on site and said he didn't believes there was anything in the ordinance which would permit that. He said he was opposed to the proposal. John Baer, 812 Sixth Ave. S., suggested property values and salability of homes in the area would be negatively affected if this is approved and said he believed it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. He said he believed the business belongs in a commercial area, in a secure building. Sean McDonough, 907 Sixth Ave. S., echoed the concern about property values in the neighborhood and suggested a gun store doesn't seem compatible with the things that promote property values such as good schools and parks. He pointed out the chief regulatory agency in this case, the ATF, has provided no input up to this point and suggested it would be premature to approve anything without some input from federal authorities. Karen Esworthy, 923 Sixth Ave. S., said she thought this business would cast a whole different feeling on the neighborhood and said she would not like feeling uncomfortable in her home or neighborhood. Peter Lee, 816 Sixth Ave. S., pointed out the address of the business cannot be totally hidden. He 4 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION October 10, 2011 also pointed out that security systems don't prevent tragedies. He pointed out there is a commercial area just three blocks from Mr. Hocuk's house and wondered whether he would be subject to the same restrictions there as are proposed here. He expressed concern about the location of the safe and its possible proximity to the furnace. He said he was not opposed to guns and was not either totally for or against the proposal. He said it is the details that will determine whether this is safe. Joe Thompson, 911 Sixth Ave. S., echoed the concerns about safety. He spoke of the ease in which he obtain Mr. Hocuk's address from the Secretary of State's office and said no matter what Mr. Hocuk tries to do, people can find out where he lives. He said his chief concern was with the safety of the neighborhood. Tom Corman, 936 Fifth Ave. S., said he did not want guns sold in his neighborhood. Christopher Taylor, 901 Sixth Ave. S., said he is pro- business and pro -guns, but not pro - criminal. He noted that most violent crimes are committed with stolen guns; he said he was not worried about the guns that would be sold, but with the guns that might be stolen. He also questioned that difference between the two businesses, retail and off -site, and said he was confused about the zoning requirements. Dan Linwick, 1009 Sixth Ave. S., said one of this primary concerns was with the notification received from the City. He also referred to the conflicting statements from staff regarding the compatibility with the neighborhood. He said he was strongly opposed to the issuance of the permit. A person who commented earlier spoke of the availability of commercial space at relatively low cost and suggested that is where this business ought to be located. Mr. Hocuk said he hopes that his business will grow so he can, as was suggested in the comments, move to a commercial location. He said he was unsure about the requirements for delivery of firearms to the home and said he would have to check into that. Mr. Kocon asked if people could just drop by the house to purchase ammunition, for example; Mr. Hocuk said that would not be allowed and said that would be very clearly communicated with potential customers. Mr. Malsam asked about monitoring of practices and whether the ATF periodically looks into whether background checks, etc. are being conducted properly; Mr. Hocuk said the ATF generally does an annual premises check to verify records, etc. Mr. Dahlquist reviewed the four elements of the business plan, including the retail sales of accessories. Mr. Hocuk said he had asked staff for an explanation of the definition of accessories to a business; he said it would be his intent to sell small amounts of ammunition and said he is checking into state fire codes to be sure he would be in compliance. Mr. Pogge addressed questions regarding the City's review of compliance issues, noting planning staff would be responsible for concerns regarding hours of operation, number of customers, etc., while public safety staff would be responsible for monitoring areas related to fire code compliance, etc. He briefly reviewed fire code regulations regarding the amount of ammunition allowed on site and staff's recommendation regarding a home security system. Mr. Pogge reviewed the ordinance regarding retail sales, which states that any retail sales must be accessory or incidental to the primary residential use. He said he thought there were several questions /concerns raised during the public testimony, such as the amount of information that must be listed on the ATF web site, sale of ammunition and on -site retail sale of firearms, that staff should have further discussions with the applicant about or research further. Mr. Pogge addressed the issue of compatibility with the neighborhood and suggested that if the Commission were to deny the permit on that basis, it should give specific examples of why it does not believe the business to be 5 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION October 10, 2011 compatible. Mr. Malsam asked about the definition of compatibility. Mr. Pogge suggested that staff would be looking for very specific examples of why a business is not compatible due to noise, smell, etc. Ms. Siess expressed concern about using the example of an in -home hair dressing business, noting this proposal is totally different. Mr. Pogge asked for direction from the Commission, speaking of the statutory timelines involved for taking action on the application; he also suggested that if the Commission is leaning toward denial, it take a straw poll and direct staff to develop findings of fact. Mr. Kocon said there were questions about the public notification, suggesting that if more detailed information had been provided, more residents might have appeared to provide testimony; he also said he would like questions regarding delivery of firearms and the issue of perhaps requiring a sprinkling system addressed before taking action on the application. Mr. Dahlquist suggested that the neighborhood was well represented, so the word did get out in some way, even if by word -of- mouth. Mr. Kelly said he would like this to be re- noticed, pointing out there was no mention of firearms in the public notice. Mr. Hansen said he felt this goes beyond this immediate neighborhood and perhaps more people should be noticed. Mr. Malsam said he didn't think it was an issue of informing more people, suggesting that the comments provided indicate the residents don't think this is compatible with the neighborhood; he said he thought there were two issues that speak to compatibility — safety and regulation or monitoring of the business. Mr. Spisak expressed concern about the applicant's desire to keep his address anonymous, pointing out that is no longer possible and leads to security concerns; he said he would favor having City staff and City attorney develop recommendations / finding of fact for denial for consideration by the Commission. Mr. Dahlquist spoke of the new technology of internet sales and pointed out that City code really doesn't address that; he said he thought this comes down to a measure of compatibility and questioned whether concern in itself indicates a use is not compatible. Ms. Siess suggested it takes a village to raise children and have a good neighborhood and said that is what these residents are trying to say: Is this right for Stillwater? Mr. Spisak agreed with the concern about the code not addressing internet sales and also expressed concern about some lack of definition in the code regarding safety, levels of traffic; he said he thought the code ought to be reviewed and perhaps strengthened. Mr. Spisak said he thought this application has pointed out a number of weaknesses in the home occupation code. Mr. Dahlquist invited Councilmember Menikheim to provide input. Councilmember Menikheim suggested that Mr. Hocuk's business plan neglected to consider goodwill, goodwill both to customers and neighbors. He said he thought there would be value in tabling this proposal so people could talk more about this and offered to be a contact point for further discussions. A straw poll was taken as to how many Commissioners were leaning toward denial, with four responding in the affirmative. A straw poll was taken as to how many were leaning toward denial but who would like more information before making that commitment; vote was 7 -0 in favor of that approach. Mr. Hansen said he thought it would be prudent for staff to put together findings of fact but said he would still like more information about questions Mr. Pogge said he would be taking with the applicant about. Mr. Spisak agreed that a two -track approach should be taken, having staff prepare findings of fact and working with the applicant to get answers to the questions raised. Mr. Spisak moved to table this item to the November 14 meeting, directing City staff to re- notice the neighborhood giving details of the request and work with the applicant to answer questions raised at this meeting, as well as prepare findings of fact for a possible denial. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -1, with Ms. Siess voting no. There was a question about the future process and whether action will be taken at the next meeting. Mr. Dahlquist stated if a 6 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION October 10, 2011 decision is made at the next meeting, there is an opportunity for the applicant or member of the public to appeal the decision within 10 days. Mr. Pogge explained the procedure and timeline should an appeal be made to the City Council. Mr. Kocon, seconded by Mr. Spisak, moved to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 7