Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-11 CPC MIN 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 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 Case No. SUP/2015-3 amendment for , 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. Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission March 11, 2015 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 Case No. SUP/2015-4 front yard setback variance for . 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. Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission March 11, 2015 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. Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission March 11, 2015 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 Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission March 11, 2015 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 Page 6 of 6