Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-08 CPC Packet AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North April 8, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of March 11, 2015 regular and recessed meeting minutes IV. 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 Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of 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. V. 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. 2. Case No. V/2015-7. Request for a variance to move house door from current location on side of house, and create new doorway facing front of house located at 208 Linden St W. Shane Christenson, Owner VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION IX. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 11, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Vice Chairman Hansen called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Vice Chairman Hansen, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Kelly, Lauer, Middleton, Siess (arrived after Approval of Minutes) Absent: Chairman Kocon, Council Representative Junker Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve the February 11, 2015 meeting minutes. All in favor, 7-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no Consent Agenda items. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. SUP/2015-3. Request for an amendment to a Special Use Permit for a movable office/garden shed to be located at Abrahamson’s Nursery, 2100 Tower Drive. Daniel Sandager, owner. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting a special use permit for a 384 square foot movable garden shed/office structure to be placed in the northwest quadrant of the property. The structure will be used as a sales and design office. The structure received design approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. Dan Sandager, applicant, offered to answer questions. Commissioner Collins asked when construction started, noting the structure is already under construction. Mr. Sandager replied he was told by the City’s building permit staff that a building permit wasn’t required because it is not considered a permanent structure. He then learned from City Planner Planning Commission March 11, 2015 Page 2 of 6 Wittman that a Special Use Permit amendment is required. Because he has limited days to work on it, he wanted to begin construction. The structure will probably remain in the proposed location. Vice Chairman Hansen opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. City Planner Wittman explained that a structure less than 120 square feet doesn’t require a building permit. When staff learned it was 384 square feet, the need for a Special Use Permit amendment became apparent. Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to approve the Special Use Permit amendment for Case No. SUP/2015-3, a movable office/garden shed to be located at Abrahamson’s Nursery, 2100 Tower Drive, with the following conditions: a. Plans shall be done in conformance with the plans on file with the Community Development Department. b. Conditions of a Heritage Preservation Commission-issued Design Permit shall be incorporated into this Special Use Permit by reference. c. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. d. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. All in favor, 8-0. Case No. SUP/2015-4. Request for front yard setback variances associated with the construction of a detached garage and proposed front porch addition to the structure located at 404 North Owens Street. Craig Johnson, applicant. City Planner Wittman summarized the request. The applicant has applied for variances to add a front porch on the east side and a new two-stall garage in the rear yard. The requested variances are: a 12’ variance to the 20’ front yard setback (Owens Street right-of-way) and a 16’ variance to the 20’ front yard setback (Linden Street right-of-way) for the addition of a covered porch; a 7’ variance to the 30’ front yard setback for construction of a two-stall garage. Staff recommends denial of the 12’ variance to the Owens Street front yard setback and denial of the 16’ variance to the Linden Street front yard setback for the construction of a front porch, on the basis that practical difficulty has not been established. Staff recommends approval of the 7’ garage front yard setback with conditions, on the basis that practical difficulty has been established due to the small size of the lot and the need to make the garage fit the size of the average vehicle. Craig Johnson, EZ Home Solutions, explained that the proposed location is the only practical place for a detached garage. The grade will not be changed. Fill will be brought in to construct the garage. The front porch will increase the value of the home. It will be brought out as far as the neighbor’s front porch. He would consider scaling down the size of the porch if necessary. Vice Chairman Hansen opened the public hearing. Dave Haack, 504 Owens Street North, stated that removing the present garage and building a new garage and a front porch will add value to the home and improve the neighborhood. The size of the porch seems excessive and perhaps could be decreased from seven feet. Planning Commission March 11, 2015 Page 3 of 6 Vice Chairman Hansen closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher noted that any size porch would require a variance. She asked about the finding of practical difficulty. City Planner Wittman responded if the Commission can establish that practical difficulty exists, a smaller variance could be granted for construction of a front porch. Commissioner Hade pointed out it’s a small lot in a bad location. The applicant is trying to improve the neighborhood. The neighbor’s porch extends about the same width. He is in favor of granting the variances. Vice Chairman Hansen said he feels practical difficulty exists because the lot is a small corner lot and because the house was built so close to the street, there isn’t anything that could be done to it that would be in compliance. Front porches are part of the fabric of the City. He would like to approve the request, but he can see how 7’ would be a little excessive so he would like the porch pushed back to 4-5’ along the front section. Commissioner Middleton voiced support for the garage and the porch as proposed, because a 4 or 5’ wide porch is more of a walkway and would not accommodate even a chair. Commissioner Collins stated he would support a 5’ porch which would provide plenty of space. He would also support the garage as proposed. Commissioner Lauer remarked 7’ seems excessive - 5’ seems ample for a front porch. Commissioner Fletcher said she is torn between the need to find practical difficulty versus not wanting a 7’ wide porch. Commissioner Siess commented she would be more inclined to support a 7’ porch if there were more of an argument why a 5’ porch would not work. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to grant a 10’ front yard setback variance from Owens Street and a 16’ front yard setback from Linden Street for a 5’ wide porch, with the practical difficulty being that the house is on a unique corner lot and is built so close to the street that nothing could be built to improve the front of the structure without a variance; and to grant the 7’ garage front yard setback variance for Case No. SUP/2015-4. with the following conditions. a. Variances granted shall include all stairs and landings required for access. Stairs, landings and other means of access shall not be permitted to be built further into the setback area. b. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department. c. A grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a building permit or approval of an amendment to an existing building permit. d. A building permit or an amendment to an existing building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to exterior alterations. e. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. All in favor, 8-0. Planning Commission March 11, 2015 Page 4 of 6 Case No. V/2015-5. Request for an 11’6” front yard setback variance for a single car garage addition to the property located at 1015 3rd Avenue South. Kari Garratt, owner. City Planner Wittman explained the request. An 11’6” front yard setback variance is being requested for a single car garage addition. If approved, the garage would be located 18’6” from the western property line and approximately 45’ from the edge of the street. Staff recommends denial of the variance on the basis that practical difficulty does not exist. A letter of support was received from William and Jodi Dafeil, 936 3rd Avenue South. Kari Garratt, homeowner, introduced Tim Old, Sala Architects, to explain the proposed design. Mr. Old noted that the garage is really 12’ and has a 4’ overhang, so the actual setback variance being asked for is slightly more than 11’6”. It was determined that the garage should be on the west side of the structure because it is a dominant feature of the house. A number of alternatives were considered to scale down the garage. The new garage is slightly narrower than the existing garage. By side-loading it, they will be able to turn all the concrete in the foreground into green space. Ms. Garratt stated that a significant amount of impervious surface will be returned to green space. She doesn’t want to obstruct river views which would be the case if the garage were placed on the north. Placing it on the south is not an option either, as it would be right at the front door, so placing it on the west is the only option. She feels this makes the property unique. Third Avenue does not have a cul de sac or turnaround, so it is unique in Stillwater. Mr. Old added that if the variance is granted, there would still be 42’ between the front of the garage and the edge of the curb. The plan presents a unique opportunity to turn that whole area into green space, which would also improve the views across 3rd Avenue. Commissioner Collins asked about the change in elevation to the north. Mr. Old replied that the elevation drops significantly, which would require fill if the garage were built to the north. Commissioner Siess asked if there is any other reason why the driveway is being changed. Ms. Garratt replied it will be more pleasing to see green space replace the big cement pad. Vice Chairman Hansen opened the public hearing. Orwin Carter, 1029 3rd Avenue South, also owner of vacant lots across the street, said he fully supports the request. He would not like the garage to be built on the north side because it would detract greatly from the views across the street. It would not look good on the south side because it would block that side of the house. Commissioner Fletcher commented that maintaining river views is not considered a practical difficulty. Commissioner Lauer said he considers it a practical difficulty that a lot of fill would have to be brought in if the garage were built on the north side. Planning Commission March 11, 2015 Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Hade remarked it would be an improvement to get rid of the cement slab. Commissioner Siess remarked that the entire garage would be in the front yard setback if granted. Commissioner Kelly commented that he could be convinced that some of the issues may rise to the level of what is needed for a variance. He asked about the history of construction of the house. He agreed that the plan looks better as proposed, rather than placing the garage on the north or the south, but he struggles to identify the practical difficulty. City Planner Wittman replied the house was constructed in 1987. Ms. Garratt reiterated if the garage were built on the south side, it would be in front of the kitchen, blocking off kitchen windows. On the north, there is a steep slope and close proximity to the neighbor who has very little green space. Vice Chairman Hansen pointed out the requirements for establishing practical difficulty. The Commission is dealing with the issue of whether the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. He sees a lot of uniqueness to the property: it is a dead end street that ends going into a driveway which serves two houses; the proposal includes a drastic reduction in the amount of driveway and impervious surface; it is a large right-of-way on a narrow street. Looking at the big picture, he feels the Commission can establish that the situation was not created by the current homeowner. He supports granting the variance because of the benefit of removing the concrete from public right-of-way and reducing the footprint. Commissioner Siess asked if the reduction of driveway could still occur without adding the third stall. She struggles with the fact that the entire garage will be in the variance area. Mr. Old responded the garage could be a two-car garage and be side-loaded. Ms. Garratt asked if there have been similar situations. Commissioner Kelly stated he had a client with a similar situation who asked for a vacation of a portion of the roadway. He acknowledged the frustration with rights-of-way which are often used as extensions of yards but are technically City property. City Planner Wittman pointed out if granted as submitted, it would allow for a 3’ eave, not a 4’ eave. Motion by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the 11’6” front yard setback variance with the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department. b. A grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a building permit or approval of an amendment to an existing building permit. c. A building permit or an amendment to an existing building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to exterior alterations. d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Motion failed 4-4, with Commissioners Lauer, Fletcher, Siess and Kelly voting nay. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning Commission March 11, 2015 Page 6 of 6 There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS Draft Trails Master Plan Melissa Douglas, trail plan consultant, reviewed the implementation section of the draft Trails Master Plan. The public process will begin in April. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. All in favor, 8-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-7 APPLICANT: Shane and Aimee Christensen, property owners REQUEST: Consideration of 3’ Front Yard Setback variance for the creation of a 7’ landing and steps to the structure located at 208 Linden Street West ZONING: RB: One Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Shane and Aimee Christenson have requested a 20’ Front Yard Setback variance for the creation of a new landing and set of stairs on the front side of a pre-existing, nonconforming home. The variance, if approved would allow for the creation of this landing to be placed on the front (southern) lot line. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS The purpose of the variance is to “…allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement…would cause practical difficulties for the landowner.” In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates “[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance” and “…a previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits.” The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The front yard setback required for this property is 20’. The purpose a front yard setback is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits. The front yard is only 3.3-3.7’ deep in this location which is nonconforming with the front yard setback requirement but consistent with the existing homes and street frontage in this area. While the addition of this landing and stairs would reduce the front yard, access to the home from the front of the house would be consistent with homes on this street. CPC 4-8-2015 (2015-7) 208 Linden Street West Page 2 of 3 The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. No application elements are contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. “Practical difficulties,” as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; The property owner is proposing to relocate the entrance, landing and stairs from the east side of the home to the south side of the home. This would allow for easier access for the property owner and establish a front to the home consistent with the streetscape. Establishing a front door to the home is reasonable. Creating the entrance in the same room as the existing one will allow the property owner to maintain the current use and configuration of the home. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and The property owners purchased this home in 1998. Prior to the purchase of the home, the property was a part of a lot split which created this 4,473 square foot lot. Prior to the lot split, the property was accessed from a driveway to the east. At that time, the front of the home faced east. Since purchasing the property, the owners have constructed a garage on the west side of the home in the only location now accessible for vehicles. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be significantly altered by the granting of this variance. The neighborhood will be enhanced due to the addition of a front entrance on the front of the home. ALTERNATIVES, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the variance, with or without conditions. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: CPC 4-8-2015 (2015-7) 208 Linden Street West Page 3 of 3  Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2015-7; and  A building permit for the construction of the new southern entrance shall be reviewed and approved prior to exterior alterations; and  The eastern entrance, deck, landing and stairs shall be removed prior to receiving a final inspection on the southern entrance, landing and stairs.  Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance. 3. Table the application and request additional information. Staff finds practical difficulties do exist as the new entrance, landing and stairs is reasonable, due to unique circumstance not created by the property owner and will not significantly alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends approval of 3’ variance to the Front Yard Setback for the creation of a 7’ long landing and stairs to be placed on the south façade of the home. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Certificate of Survey Existing Conditions (2 pages) Proposed Plan N O R T H F O U R T H S T R E E T N O R T H T H I R D S T R E E T L A U R E L S T R E E T W E S T L I N D E N S T R E E T W E S T E A S T C H E R R Y S T R E E T S T R E E T W E S T C H E R R Y N O R T H F I F T H S T R E E T N O R T H S C H O O L S T R E E T M A P L E S T R E E TNORTH W E S T A L L E Y 105 625 118 626 711 720 106 713 301 212 703 626 118 117 204 510 221 324 604 209 414 218 610 110 222 410 217 515 326 319 316 614 502 613 308 622 619 618 615 610 609 606 605 704 320 222 321 621 110 420 616 424 102 218 324 510 333 303327 317 107 301 323 117 611 114 224 122 121 321 503 518 602 108 715 323 713 310 215 420 221 116 714 702 512 332 424 318334 718 718 309 102 111 112 323329 402 212 320 410 319 317 315 213 517 313 408408 408 118 218 703 709 120 423 208 314 419 407 417 113 415 411 411 304614 µ 0 150 30075Feet 208 Linde n StreetParcel Boun dariesMunicipal Bound ary 208 Linden StreetSite Location ^ To Whom it may concern, We are applying for a variance to move a door of our home and create a new landing/entryway. The previous owner had the property lines changed thus making our front door face a driveway that no longer belongs to this property. To avoid confusion, address the currently deteriorating landing and enhance the appearance of the home, we would like to move the existing "front" entry from the side of the house to the front of the house. The landing of 3 feet deep by 7 feet wide with three steps running toward our current driveway would enhance the appearance and hopefully guide people to our front door. Total improvement dimensions would be 3 feet 4 inches deep by 10 feet long running across the front of the home. We intend to have a current basement window removed and filled with block as the new stairs will run across it's path. Much Thanks, Shane and Aimee Christenson 208 Linden St West Stillwater MN 55082 l tHttl D<'sni]Hion ofzoU Lindt.'n St W<·st That p~ul of Blod I ;J, (h·igi Jl<ll Town (now city) of Stillwat<T, a<·co.rdiug to tiH: Pcrfc:ctcd I' Ia l .-;frhc <:ity ofStilh1atn recordt.'d in t ht• offin· ofdu: (:ount~-Rn:ordn, Washinfrtoll {:ouut~', MN. described us follows: Jk ~inning at· a point on the south lin<· of J>aid Hlod;: r;J diJ>t·ant l.f6.oo fc<·t 'H:slcrl~ ofth<· southeast <·ornfr of !>aid Blo<·k r;:H thcn<-c nortlu:rly ·paralld with the c a~t lioc of said Block 13 a di ~t:tnn· of 6 ;3.00 feet ; th<·nct.' we st<·rl~ paralld with s aid south liiH: of Block 1;{ a dis tal!<'<.' of '7l.OO {et·t ; th<'ll('t.' s outlu·rl~·paralld \1 i th s ai•J cas t liJH: ofBiock t:J a dis tance of 6:3.00 feet to s aid south line of Block r:Ji thnwc ca s rcrly <t lon~ sa i.cJ SOUth J.inc of Block t ;3 a di ShlllCC of7 1.00 feet to tlu: voint of bcginnillg' CERTIFICATE of SURVEY Part of Block 13, ORIGINAL TOWN (now city) OF STILLWATER sur,.ey .eae For: Ro r-nvAr ,ar oRsr,,xAe x WASHINGTON COl'NTY, MINNESOTA 41 U North 4th Street Stillwater, Minnesota. 55082 LE6,4L DESCRIPTION 208 LI1VDENSTRF.ETP4RCF_L That part of Block 13, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, according to the Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the south line ofsaid Block 13 distant 116.00 feet westerly of the southeast corner ofsaid Block 13; thence northerly parallel with the east line ofsaid Block 13 a distance of63.00 feet, thence westerly parallel with said south line of Block 13 a distance of 71.00 feet; thence southerly parallel with said east line of Block 13 a distance of 63.00 feet to said south line of Block 13; thence easterly along said south line of Block 13 a distance of 71.00 feet to the point of beginning. LE614L DESCRIPTION QIONORTHFOIIRTHSTREETPARCEL That part of Block 13, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, according to the Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the east line ofsaid Block 13 distant 63.00 fey#t northerly of the southeast comer ofsaid Block 13; thence northerly alone said east line of Block 13 a distance of62.00 feet, thence westerly parallel with the south line ofsaid Block 13 a distance of 187.00 feet, thence snutherly nandle'l a ith said east line of Rlnrk 1.3 a dict mre ni'61 00 fPPt' thence easterly parallel with said south line of Block 13 a distance of 71.00 feet; thence southerly parallel with said east line of Block 13 a distance of 63.00 feet to said south line of Block 13; thence easterly along said south line of Block 13 a distance of 16.00 feet; thence northerly parallel with said east line of Block 13 a distance of 63.00 feet; thence easterly parallel with said south line of Block 13 a distance of 100.00 feet to the point of beginning. NOTES O DENOTES 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET AND MARKED WITH A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED "FREEMAN RLS 16989". DENOTES IRON PIPE MONUMENT FOUND, SIZE AND MARKINGS AS SHOWN. ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON ASSUMED DATUM. Map lVo. 98-201 B RL 0 ed in 47 I °S DeS; ` parce ent No C ; m ND° IV I. OgIGI L N v f. 0 56.50 "Nos sese NECorner--" 13 BLOCK tjk off 60-00 Wall Corner laCo IIs on Inch Irner ofS, Found 12 +My lion rnent 1 o NewUN Gap'— Gap'- Woil r O o nce O , ,` Wire Mesh Fe / Stone c O O 13 Wall S{ one Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc. LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING11815NORTHWESTERNAVENUE • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 651) 439-8833 1- DrillHole Stone Wl ostice C°PT nI° V 1 r 100 •I'LL o n P o Inch I \ 0- iil..JJI r CA + QD o Foundsly of C° Set d In \ oc4- 2'r 1 X — N48New Mon Desi ib1 Zg7 m 1 ' ° 1 0044 / , r.r l 05 60 7 O O °j Fence" P° rGe N0' u, y o 3 .` ! / Chain LinK m o ` O moi,', C3 D ), urn m NODS co er a 1 `t.r ` t' , Sc Com3 On Cy)c , cD `, / Block Falls WallWall cn r `t , `1, , Pos blin9 ent Set O p , Cru Hurn itin9 , W No Mo co C3 o EX w , O 13rQCbaO e Block x;00 N , O ,, .. South Lin 1 5q'42 E o Horse _ , , , , e. it N 3 0 Ston Wo w16.Op 2''y11 0stre 05 ind ll 42 Y 513.54 0 corner 115.50 Wall ~' wolk p 5W 3 nCret'_ .., Side C Block 1 C - _- Concrete i o oC) N W —+;---E S SCALE: I Inch = 20 Feet o to zo as I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that l am a duly Licansed Land Surveyor under the lows of the State of r I rnesoto. 117 A i7mbTHY J. MA / ate Licensed ` r no Surveyor Lai?nescto RLS 16989 NOTE: Official Copies of This Survey are Crimp Sealed 1999 — Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc. — All Rights rued street view view from neighbor's driveway view from Linden St view from our driveway proposed plan (corner view) proposed plan (front view)