Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997-08-11 CPC Packet
k • r � Iwa ter THE BIRTH PLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF STILLWATER NOTICE OF MEETING The Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, August 11, 1997, at 7 p.m. in the Margaret Rivers Room at the City Public Library, 223 North Fourth Street. Approval of Minutes of July 14, 1997. AGENDA 1. Case No. SUP/97-41. A special use permit for office use in a residential district at 713 County Road 5 in the RA, One Family Residential District. John Roettger, applicant. 2. Case No. ZAM/97-1. A zoning map amendment from RA, One Family to RB duplex residential at 713 County Road 5 in the RA, One Family Residential District. John Roettger, applicant. 3. Case No. ZAT/97-1. A zoning text amendment regulating the location and construction of commercial towers and antennas for personal wireless communication service (PWCS). City of Stillwater, applicant. 4. Case No. V/97-42. A variance to the rear yard setback (25 ft. required, 5' 3" at nearest point and 8'6" from furthest point proposed) for the constriction of a 12' x 14' deck at 1420 Surrey Lane in the RA, One Family Residential District. Scott Faust, applicant. 5. Case No. V/97-43. A variance to allow the construction of a new home while maintaining occupancy in current residence at 7155 Melville Court North in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District. Rick and Karen Reidt, applicants. 6. Case No. SUP/97-44. A special use pen -nit for a farmer's market at 227 North Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Larson and Stefan, applicant. Other Items: - Proposed language for allowing accessory dwelling units in the RB district. CITY HALL. 216 NORTH FOURTH STiLLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 PLANNING COMMISSION July 14, 1997 Present: Jerry Fontaine, chairman Glenna Bealka, John Rheinberger, Kirk Roetman, Tom Wiedner and Terry Zoller (7:50) Others: Steve Russell, Community Development Director (7:40) Absent: Dave Charpentier, Don Valsvik and Darwin Wald Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Mr., Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved approval of the minutes of June 9, 1997; all in favor. Case No. V/97-36 A variance to the corner yard setback (15'6" feet proposed, 20' required) for a 600-square foot addition at 438 S. Broadway in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Denise and Nick Sparta, applicant. Mr. Sparta explained their plans. He said they wanted to maintain the historic value of the home. The existing line of the house will be continued farther back in the yard. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved approval as conditioned; all in favor. Case No. V/97-37 A variance to the fence ordinance for construction of a 6-foot privacy fence in the corner side yard setback at 518 S. Greeley in the RB-Two Family Residential District. Tracy and Patrice Jenson, applicants. Mr. Jenson was present for the discussion. He explained the request is to secure more privacy from traffic. He said extending the fence 23 feet as recommended by staff would require giving up too much of the yard. Marion McDonough, 105 W. Willard, expressed her concern regarding safety and said she felt a 42-inch high fence would be more appropriate than the requested 6'. Bronson Simonet, Jenson's neighbor to the north, suggested having the police decide whether the requested fence would obstruct vision and create a safety hazard. He said the Jensons are entitled to some privacy and he would be in favor of the request if it is determined the fence would not create a safety concern for traffic. Neal Casey, who lives at the corner of Olive and Willard, echoed the concern regarding safety. Mr. Wiedner said he had been in the Jensons' yard and there is no privacy. He said he did not understand the rationale of extending the fence 23 feet versus to the Jensons' property line. Mr. Roetman moved to allow the requested fence no closer than within one foot of the property line along Willard St., with condition of approval No. 2 as recommended by staff, and a third condition that the fence be reviewed upon complaint. Mr. Wiedner noted that review upon complaint could be difficult once the fence is constructed. Mr. Roetman agreed to eliminate his third condition of approval. Mr. Fontaine suggested adding a condition that the request be reviewed by police/public works to determine if the proposal will create a traffic hazard. If it is determined the fence will obstruct vision for traffic, the request is denied. Mr. Roetman accepted that as a third condition. Mr. Wiedner seconded the motion; all in favor. Case No. V/97-38 This case was withdrawn. Case No. V/97-39 A variance to the side yard setback (5 feet requested, 10 feet required) for construction of an addition and a rear yard setback (3 feet requested, 5 feet required) for construction of a garage at 1216 W. Ramsey St. in the RA, One Family Residential District. Paul and Joan Friant, applicant. Mr. and Mrs. Friant were present for the discussion. Mrs. Friant explained that they would like to remain in their home, but need extra room for their family. The front of the addition will be aligned with the front of the existing home. She said drainage will be guttered to the center of the home and then drained by piping to the rear of the yard. Mrs. Friant also explained that fire retardant material will be used in the garage due to the closeness of the neighbor's existing garage. Charlotte Dauffenbach, 103 S. Grove St., said her only concern was with the drainage and said she wanted to be sure that the drainage will be inspected. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved approval of both variances as conditioned; all in favor. Case No. V/97-40 A variance to the side yard setback (3 feet requested, 5 feet required) for construction of a garage at 513 W. Mulberry in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Steve and Lori Skalman, applicant. Mr. Skalman briefly explained the request and material being used in the retaining wall. Mrs. Bealka, seconded by Mr. Rheinberger, moved approval as conditioned; all in favor. Other business • Consideration of a second detached unit policy change in RB District lots. Mr. Russell explained the matter had been referred to the Heritage Preservation Commission which recommended six points to consider in an amended policy. Mr. Russell said if the ordinance is amended, the Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and notify all RB owners. It was agreed to have Mr. Russell develop a proposed amended policy to be brought back to the Commission in August, with a public hearing to be set after that time. There was a brief discussion of the AUAR which was scheduled to be considered for adoption at the July 15 City Council meeting. Review of Phase 1 expansion area Mr. Russell introduced the "principals" in the Phase 1 development area: Homer Tompkins of Contractor Property Developers Company which will be participating in the Charles Cudd development of the Newman property; Marc Putnam of Charles Cudd; Dan Herbst of Pemtom Land Company, developers of the Stahloch property; and Greg Kopischke of Westwood Professional Services. Mr. Russell said the Newman and Staloch properties were combined for the purposes of land analysis. Mr. Kopischke went through the land analysis -- topography, slope, soil/wetlands, vegetation data, etc. Using the technical data, the net developable acreage is about 215 acres, Mr. Russell said. Taking out about 35 acres for roads, leaves about 180 to be developed in the Phase 1 area. A total of 500 units is proposed, with a mix of large lot (2 units per acre), small lot (4 units per acre) land use ` proposed. The recording secretary left at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. SUP19741 Planning Commission Date: August 11, 1997 Project Location: 713 County Road 5 Comprehensive Plan District: One Family Residential Zoning District: RA Applicant's Name: John Roettger Type of Application: Special Use Permit Project Description: A Special Use Permit for office use in a residential district to conduct counseling services. Discussion: The applicant is representing the St. Croix Valley Life Care Center. The request is for a Special Use Permit to utilize a residential. house for conducting counseling services to women experiencing a crisis pregnancy. The center employs six part-time volunteers and two part_ time paid employees. Two staff members are on duty at a time to answer phones and meet with clients. The Center is open Monday through Friday between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM. The facility will not be used for overnight visits. A Board meeting is held once a month in the evening hours. The property has a three car garage and room in front of the garage for three more cars. The Center does not expect more than three people on the premises at a time. The other request is for a monument sign. The applicant will bring a drawing with dimensions, materials and colors of the proposed sign to the meeting. Conditions of Approval: Should the Commission approve the request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. No exterior lighting shall be allowed, with the exception of a light at the door. 2. The Special Use Permit is not transferable to other organizations that may inhabit the house. 3. The sign shall be no larger than two square feet. 4. The use permit shall be reviewed before the Planning Commission for revocation if complaints regarding the use are received by the Community Development Director. Recommendation: Denial Findings: The proposed use does not conform to the requirements of the RA, Single Family Zoning District. Case No:,5 1 %-V Date Filed: fA i yl 1 Fee Paid: 4° 5Z Receipt No.:S61k� PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED: FEE Certificate of Compliance S70 Conditional or Special Use Permit OP Design Review Planned Unit Development* S500 Variance S70/200 Comprehensive Plan Amendment* S500 Zoning Amendment- S300 Subdivision* S100+S50/10t Resubdivision S100 Total Fee *An escrow fee is also required to cover the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) -The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 7/3 G�- � ? I F [1 Assessor's Parcel No. 3L - Zoning District Isj�t:L�F/ i4A Description of Project - f `' "'- e "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further certify 1 will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." l Property Owner V U r1`lu, F - c' yam--7�yl�--/2 Representative Mailing Address���L S% C,w�f /l_ Telephone No Signature U y Mailing Address Telephone No. c � Signature ___ _ SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION G _G I - Lot Size (dimensions) ti5 x ' Land Area Height of Buildings: Stories Fe Principal -� X__ Accessory LDS/rrr l�. Total building floor Ara ! y 7�f sq. ft. Existing 7 sq. ft. � G Proposed iri'sq. ft. Paved Impervious Area 'r sq. ft. l Number of off street parking spaces provided _ Revised 5/22/97 Lo Y, 00- 2 �6 LLJ- 00ad C4 In TV 6 L 0 .00 C) co 41 VV6 00 CO ci C/) af -i 84 ui 0 0 S L 00,0Z L Lo. Lo N 0 C) x % 11 9C6 cc cn NJcn Ln -V6 0 Z 9,3,3 .50 0 co LLJ U? L 3Snc)�, -q- x ONLLSIX3 0 3Sno'� V6 LLsi X3 0 CT)wr O '3 g$_. co 2C6 < L < ELY, 0 0 0 ZC5. 929 7 OE6 ---------- :11 I z LJ /eZ6 Ld z -2 Lj v) < Z 0 F- La -j _j c14 LIj < XZ z < z (L 0 F z w z Lw,3 _j z O TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sue Fitzgerald DATE: August 11, 1997 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RA) TO TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RB) AT 713 COUNTY ROAD 5. The Planning Commission has received a request from the owner of the residence at 713 County Road 5 to consider rezoning the parcel. This lot is currently zone RA - Single Family Residential. A notice has been sent out to area property owners. The lot currently has a single family house and three car garage. Land to the south of the RA lot is zoned RB - Two Family Residential. Land to the north is zoned RA Single Family Residential. The Commission should consider the request, hear public comment and make a recommendation on the rezoning to the City Council. Either the RA or RB zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: Application Form Map of Site Case No: 7 Date Filed: / ;7 Fee Paid:'34 �7 Receipt No.:,�. PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED: FEE Certificate of Compliance S70 Conditional or Special Use Permit S50120❑ Design Review S25 Planned Unit Development* S500 Variance S70!200 Comprehensive Plan Amendment* S530 Zoning Amendment* �00� � Subdivision* 0+S500tlot Resubdivision S100 Total Fee *An escrow fee is also required to cover the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 7la Assessor's Parcel No. ' Zoning District Description of Project r � "! hereby state the foregoing statements and al/ dPt'a, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used. " Property Owner J�#AJ T- Representative Mailing Address r:lailing Address . Telephone N - Telephone No. Si nature �- ���� _ Signature _ 9 - SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION /<— /vas Lot Size (dimensions) Land Area Height of Buildings: Stott Principal Feet Accessory l _.-- Total building floor Ara rz�i sq. ft. Existing / f � sq. ft. Proposed -SAME sq. ft. Paved Impervious Area :3 `�) sq. ft. Number of off street parking spaces provided Revised 5'22i97 -v, \ 0-02 Y, et 6 LLI- �06d 0 9*6 CD IN CD 0 1 C2"OL tr., cn n IN 4 1'�, C cc,zz ulo'OR 11*6 00 ------ mo N� AA 6 C. t, 0 U) ---- — ---------- -OZ L 0 0 S L 00 C� -q- N 0- ol - ------ x 19 9�6 45 A4 co k, 0) U� < cm cn 2:*6 00 LLJ LO CY) 2SnoH x o C) .0 2Sn o H' LLslxl JON f 0.* 6 0) 'k 00 t LI/ 0 g�.. Z, ID Li 9C6 ------ CD — --------- 929. \ cn 67 ' � sit \ �_.(� �f Ll La /2Z6 LLJ 0 N Z of (YO vv 0 z 2Z6 z CC z < z LJ p C) z Li Z LL(LI) LLJ -yo a 0 0 O MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director DA: July 29, 1997 RE: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGULATING LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TOWERS AND ANTENNAS FOR WIRELESS PERSONAL COMMUNICATION Background The telecommunications act of 1996 changes the way cities can regulate telecommunications service providers. The federal government, through its actions, has increased the demand and competition for telecommunications sites. In developing the proposed Stillwater regulations, other city ordinances and information from the League of Minnesota Cities was reviewed and adapted to Stillwater conditions. The ordinance limits the location of towers and antennas in residential districts to vacant sites of two acres where towers would be 350 feet away from a residential land use. The height of a tower/antenna in a residential district is limited to 75 feet. In the Stillwater West Business Park, towers are limited to 100 feet in height and located 500 feet from residential land use. Other requirements address setbacks, landscaping and spacing of towers. The city council has adopted a moratorium of tower/antenna development. The moratorium will end September 3, 1997. Recommendation: Approval of ordinance. Attachment: Ordinance regulating commercial use of towers and antennas. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER AMENDING THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATING COMMERCIAL USE TOWERS AND ANTENNAS Subd. 1. Purpose. In order to accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of the community, the council finds that these regulations are necessary in order to: a. facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city; b. minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and setting standards; c. avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements; and d. maximize the use of existing and approved towers and structures to accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. Subd. 2. Definitions. a. Antenna. Any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or radiating electromagnetic waves, including but not limited to directional antennas, such a panels, microwave dishes and satellite dishes and omni-directional antennas, such as whips. b. Personal Wireless Communication Services (PWCS). Licensed commercial wireless communication services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services. c. Public Utility. Persons, corporations or governments supplying gas, electric, transportation, water, sewer, cable or land line telephone service to the general public. d. Tower. Any pole, spire, structure, accessory structure or combination thereof, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces and masts intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna, meteorological device or similar apparatus above grade. Subd. 3. Location Preferences for Antenna and Towers. a. Water towers. b. Collocations on existing telecommunications towers. c. Sides and roofs of building over two (2) stories. d. Existing power or telephone poles. e. Government and utility sites. £ Golf courses or public parks when compatible with the nature of the park or course. g. Regional transportation corridors. Subd. 4. Antenna and Towers in Residential Districts (RA, RB, RCM, RCH). Any person, fine, or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in a residential district shall meet the following requirements: A. Communication towers and antennas are subject to the following conditions: 1. Satellite dishes for television receiving only are subject to the accessory structure requirements for residential districts. 2. All antennas shall be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive, shall be screened as appropriate, shall not be multi -colored and shall contain no signage, including logos, except as may be required by the equipment manufactures or city, state or federal regulations. 3. An antenna placed on a primary structure shall be no taller than 15 feet above the primary structure. Any accessory equipment or structures shall be compatible with the design and materials of the primary stricture or located so as not to be visible from a public street. 4. Mono poles only shall be allowed in residential districts. 5. Minimum land area for free standing mono poles site in residential districts shall be two (2) acres. 6. A tower and any antenna combined shall be no more than 75 feet in height; 7. A tower shall not be located within 350 feet of any existing or planned residential structure. 8. A tower shall be set back a minimum of the height of the tower and any antenna; and 9. Antenna may placed on public buildings or structures in the residential district if they meet the purposes of this ordinance and receive design permit approval. Subd. 5. Stillwater Business Park Districts (BP-C, BP-O AND BP -I) Any person, firm or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in the Stillwater West Business Park shall require a Conditional Use Permit and meeting the following requirements: 1. Communication antennas attached to an existing stricture shall be no taller than 20 feet higher than the primary structure. 2. Communication towers and antennas are subject to the following conditions: a. A tower and antenna shall be no more than 100 feet in height. b. A tower shall not be located within 500 feet of any residential zoning district. c. A tower shall be located no closer to a property line than a distance equal to the height of the tower. d. Minimum lot size shall be 1 acre for a primary tower use. FA e. Towers shall be located no closer than '/2 mile to closest tower or other collocation PWCS transmitting facility. f. If a tower is erected on a site with an existing primary structure the site shall have a space of 10,000 square feet set aside exclusively for tower use. The tower shall not be located in the front or corner side yard of the primary structure. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. Towers must be self supporting without the use of wires, cables, beams or other means. The design shall utilize an open frame design or monopole configuration. Subd. 6. Prohibited Locations. a. No communication antenna or tower shall be located in the bluffland/shoreland, shoreland districts or flood plain districts. Subd. 7. Performance Standards. a. Co -location Requirements. All personal wireless communication towers erected, constructed, or located within the City shall comply with the following requirements: A proposal for a new personal wireless communication service tower shall not be approved unless it can be documented by the applicant that the communications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one-half mile radius of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons: The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced or modified to accommodate planned equipment at a reasonable cost. b. The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the interference cannot be prevented at 'a reasonable cost. c. No existing or approved towers or commercial / industrial buildings within a half -mile radius meet the radio frequency (RF) design criteria. d. Existing or approved towers and commercial / industrial buildings within a one-half mile radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and licensed professional radio frequency (RF) engineer. 3 e. The applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to co -locate existing towers and structures within a one-half mile radius was made, but an agreement could not be reached. 2. Tower Construction Requirements. All towers erected, constructed, or located within the City, and all wiring therefore, shall comply with the following requirements: a. Monopoles are the preferred tower design. However, the City will consider alternative tower types in cases where structural, RF design considerations, and /or the number of tenants required by the City preclude the use of a monopole. No guy wires shall be used. b. Towers and their antennas shall comply with all applicable provisions of this Code. c. Towers and their antennas shall be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to conform to the latest structural standards of the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable reviewing agencies. d. Towers and their antennas shall be designed to conform with accepted electrical engineering methods and practices and to comply) with the provisions of the National Electrical Code. e. Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with corrosive resistant material. f. Any proposed communication service tower shall be designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas or at least one additional user. To allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower, the tower shall be designed to accept antennas mounted at no less than 20 foot intervals. g. All towers shall be reasonably protected against unauthorized climbing. The bottom of the tower (measured from ground level to 12 feet above ground level) shall be designed in a manner to preclude unauthorized climbing to be enclosed by a six foot high chain link fence with a locked gate. h. All towers and their antennas and relative accessory strictures shall utilize building materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that effectively blend the tower facilities within the surrounding natural setting and built environment to the greatest extent possible. No advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information signage required by the manufacturer or by federal, state, or local authorities. 0 Towers and their antennas shall not be illuminated by artificial means, except for camouflage purposes (designed as a lighted tower for a parking lot or a ball field) or the illumination is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authority. k. No part of any antenna or tower, nor any lines, cable, equipment, wires, or braces shall at any time extend across or over any part of the right-of-way, public street, highway, or sidewalk. All communication towers and their antennas shall be adequately insured for injury and property damage caused by collapse of the tower. m. All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within 6 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City Council. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an improved state. n. In addition to the submittal requirements required elsewhere in this Code, Applications for Building Permits for towers and their antennas shall be accompanied by the following information: 1. Written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and any appropriate state review authority stating that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations. 2. A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which does the following: a. describe the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation; b. demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and electrical standards; c. documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions ,—or co -located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas; d. describes the tower's capacity. including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate; and e. documents what steps the applicant will take to avoid interference with established public safety communications. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower. as long as there is no negative structural impact upon the tower, and there is no disruption to the service provided. Subd. 8. Existing Antennas and Towers. A. Antennas, towers and accessory structures in existence as of July 1, 1997 which do not conform to or comply with this division are subject to the following provisions: 1. Towers may continue in use for the purpose now used and as now existing, but may not be replaced or structurally altered without complying in all respects within this section. 2. If such tower is damaged or destroyed due to any reason or course whatsoever, the tower may be repaired or restored to its former use, location and physical dimension upon obtaining a building permit, but without otherwise complying with this division. Subd. 9. Obsolete or Unused Towers. All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within six months of the cessation of operations unless a time extension is approved by the Council. If a time extension is not approved, the tower may be deemed a nuisance pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section 429. In the event a tower is determined to be a nuisance, the City of Stillwater may act to abate such nuisance and require the removal of the tower at the property owner's expense. The owner shall provide the City with a copy of the notice of the Federal Communications (FCC) intent to cease operations and shall be given six months from the date of ceasing operations to remove the obsolete tower and all accessory structures. In the case of multiple operators sharing the use of a single tower, this provision shall not become effective until all users cease operations for a period of six consecutive months. The equipment on the ground is not to be removed until the tower structure has first been dismantled. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or to an improved state. 3 w� M.A'S 61st Annual Conference: THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 AND ITS IMPACT ON MUNICIPAL REGULATION John H. Gibbon, Esq. Law Director, City of Cleveland Heights, Ohio Partner, Walter & Haverfield, Cleveland, Ohio; J.D., Case Western Reserve University, 1972; B.A., Oberlin College, 1967. Although the rules are still being written, it is obvious the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will have a significant impact on local governments and their ability to manage the use of the public rights -of -way by cable television and telecommuniedcations service providers. The stat purpose of the Telecommunications Act is to provide a national policy framework that promotes competition and reduces regulation in order to speed the deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services, as well as to secure lower prices for these services and technologies. While this objective is one that most everyone would agree is a good one, local governments should beware of the implications of reduced regulation, especially in the midst of a competitive free-for-all to use the public rights -of -way to bring these services and technologies to market. The new law includes provisions that preserve some local government authority to manage their public rights -of -way and to receive fair and reasonable compensation for that use from any telecommunications provider. However, the Act is more conceptual than detailed, expressing very broad principles. Key Provisions of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 Recognizing the convergence of key technologies such as the use of fiber optic cable and the increasing use of digital transmission technologies, the Telecommunications Act redefines how the telecommunications providers and cable television operators relate to one another in the marketplace. Telecommunications Services Prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the regional Bell Operating Companies ("BOC") were only permitted to provide service within their assigned "local access and transport area" or "LATA". Regional BOCs were prohibited from providing interLATA or long distance services. The Telecommunications Act lowers the barriers to entry, allowing BOCs to provide long distance service, immediately within their region and, after they meet certain conditions that demonstrate they have opened their markets to competition, they may provide long distance service outside their region. Long distance (or "interexchange") carriers such as AT&T, MCI or Sprint are now allowed to provide local telephone service. Competition in telecommunications is now open to all comers, including cable operators and certain public utilities. Telecommunications providers must interconnect their facilities with other providers. It is likely that eventually a user 42705-2 L-Mzip Z («dQo aqi„) 9661 f° l3V �uaaaQ sttotivarunww0D ac{l Pali�i uotioas a suieiuoo iod aq,L lualu03 Suttut w-&0Jd •saotnias algeo opinoid of f4joede0 mbai iou st `iana�eoq SAO uV •�Ciloedeo Isiseq s ,uxaisXs sit asn pinant vqh+ Biagio of aiesai iao of Pai. sit vP1,14l-auo JOAO uopaiostp sunuu-M oid giiM iatiieo u � to.8dR tagl3o spstt{1-Oml I�i 3 ol r{i0ieutuAlostpuOu a u0 Siaututel20id paieiit�eul S aaoxa pueutap ivana aqi u? `aiagnn uiaisxs ie axetu isnui ioieiado aqi `�itoedeo iauue� SAO Q1qt eii a se paieinSai Sutaq inogi?M gumr ueiSoid ,ttanilap vap►n e st SAO 'Suedum alq pP O idaouoo c11gp apinoid oa- �Cueduioo suotiealununuooaiai Hooke Pinom gaRm «auoileip oapin„� uiQISSS oapin uado„ ue iauieo uounuoo-tsenb snotnaid aqi sa otstnsa ai id-mootp e 2unuaouoo uo s�tnvid A mwud aqy 3o idaouoo paieaio SjMau aqi si saou►ias u I ig uiais,&s oaptn uado ue apnlout a uuai aqy -Xtm jo-iou oggnd a asn Alfaniae iou pip legi inq `}iced iou soop Osle «tuaisis igro„ uotstnalai euuaiue iaiseui ialteii a iv 3utpling ivatuuede ue anus pinom iegi suiaisXs (,,A.LVWS,) . �er�- O-i a otlgnd Cue Suisn inogll W SlOVOSgns sanias iegi airllaie5 `apnloxa pinanti srgy ' 3 q suotlie . nuiuuOoalay al oe due apnloxa vi ,,utais�Cs algeo„ a jo uollpgop aqi ,�noireu sac►p ia� o to uourladwo�) pun uolloaloid.�atansuoD a,4,y '[µio'd o eO Z66 i w aqi) 7661 l� uotstnala� algnD a�fL Ag ulanoS �Clueuzud st ivatudtnbO pm `sao rso� d vorumuulo ioaiJoutielnSaaqiaiim`i(HioV aigg 3 Ulls an saowas a[geo itaoliipeii `iced Isom aqi io3 algnD arm iagun pauxana sao!eaag uolsuialaL algn3 satit[tin �Cq paurao satzrtitoej iatliv pue solod `sl?npuaa e uantS a isnui siaptnoid suQileorunurwoaaiai -NM uvlstnalai algeo `�CiioedEo Sutisrxa °i Ssaoo g • n °sai a iou ueo satized uaatniag aindsip e aiagm sivauigoelie ivaiotns si aiat{i aiat� pa I q a i d•itnnbai °coeds clod vi ssaooe clod ioi sa9ietlo aqi SunuanO, suotielrt3ai aquosaid Oi ��3 q 103 uoeiesuadtum ite aqi $utiIiano$ suotstnoid mau saieaio put sa$uego osie ioy aqy -suotinitisut aieo pleaq igoid toads ie i aptnoid iegi suolmoid ale -u°u pue sauezgrl `slootlos io,� paniasai ag pinogs sleap �. q aia i `uatiepp uI Put iTLI ut aigEYrene aq saotnias su°tieorunuiuio a�� ogas nsaas q e M-M ISO-3 q3i P Put sai8i a ce io it atgei. p� S=Was paouenpt at ss000e saiouioid Imp p i P �e !� n ietli sapcnOid iegi aoi''i iesiantun �utquosap soldtouud 1eiaua'2 sap�noid io�d aq . p�°g aotnias aiEIS PLM [e3apa3 iutof t,io itlratsianO aqi iapun ooa ai is Mu, sanzedutoo �timin ooggnd io �eip of st DD3:341 M-Mui saour.as suotieontnuzLu I Suotieotunurtuooala,3, ZU Jiva all} pue ootnias lesian}un jo sanssl aqi sassaippe vsie iob •aoLuas aqi sopinoid oqh. 8uutetuai `, algeliod„ st iegl iagwnu auogdalai a aneq Iiln�+ uotieooi uant$ a ut iauetu ou cures aqit. . 1which aims to prevent the distribution of obscene, indecent and violent content over communications media such as the internet or a cable system. Users of the internet found guilty of posting "indecent" material on-line without taking precautions to keep that material from minors will be subject to fines or imprisonment for not more than two years. However, access providers such as America Online and CompuServe are protected as providers to the extent that they afford access but do not control the content being created by access users. Cable operators are subject to increased fines for transmitting obscene programming via cable and must scramble programming so that it cannot be received by nonsubscribers. A cable operator may refuse to give permission to carry public and leased -access programming containing obscenity, indecency and nudity. These provisions have been challenged and they are currently under review by the United States Supreme Court. In the CDA, Congress finds that violent and indecent video programming has an adverse impact on children and that there is a compelling government interest in addressing this problem. The FCC is authorized to set up an advisory committee to address violence and indecency on television and to prescribe rules to rate programming containing sexual, violent or indecent content so that parents can be informed. The CDA requires new televisions over a given size to incorporate a device that will block programming based on an electronically coded industry rating. Television manufacturers must develop and install this device, commonly known as the V-chip by February, 1998. Impact on Local Government Management Traditional Cable Television Services As mentioned earlier in this article, the cable television franchise, as governed by the 1984 Cable Act, remains a valuable tool for a franchising authority to regulate cable television providers. In addition to franchise fees, franchising authorities can also secure commitments for priority items such as system upgrades, capacity and financing for PEG access channels, community information networks and emergency alert systems. However, certain provisions in the Telecommunications Act potentially weaken the franchising authority's position. Section 622 of the 1984 Cable Act is amended to require that franchise fees be derived strictly from cable services. As mentioned above, the definition of "cable service" has been narrowed. This means that revenues from non-traditional cable services offered by a cable operator may not be subject to franchise fees under the franchise agreement. In this light, it is very important to define the extent of the rights being given to the cable operator in the franchise agreement. Over the past several years, traditional cable companies and telephone companies, eager to enter each others area of business, have already conducted extensive experimentation with the technology necessary to provide each others services utilizing their existing or upgraded plant. 42705-z 3 IV z-0LZIF 'dare astgouelg aql ui 8unu migold oaprA Sum uusuell lolElado olgo ,Cure uo pasodun zn saaj asigoue.g gargAA 1e a1El 441 paaoxa 1ou 1pgs pasodtui an saaj Mans rlorgm iE a1Ei aqs •aaj asigauEg algEo agl jo nail ui AluoglRe Suisrgotm-g luool E Aq pasodun aq htu gorgnn sanuanal SSOJ2 uo ao %S tuntuixulu E of do jo luauuCEd aql of loafgns osTe alE slolElado `lananmOH •asrgauEg algEo luool E 8urumiclo wo-g lduraxa an aoI all Aq pagpiao on wql slapinold SAO 'toy al83 17861 all jo suoisinold ,1liunlloddo luomiAoldtua imbo all puE suorsrnold AoEAud laquosgns all aoiojuo of lq'Bu oql suq osre 44ucglnu 8utsigouEg aiZ lolElado olquo E lo; osogl ump pouraluoo suorlESilgo oql uEgl lassal io ralvaiS ou aq pinols SuoTlEsilgo ioigm `ssaooE (.IJ3d„) lEluauiul0n08 puE lEuoilEonpo `oilgnd ioj AlioedEo apiAold Ism s1ap�Aoid SAO •1olElado algeo E of AlddE osre lEgl suoilEjnBal u!Wao lruuad saop li ,stualsAS oapiA uadO ioj suopinq AlolEingoi paonp i,, io3 spo loy suogVoiunu wooalaZ oql gSnoglly EWPUDEA0 uialsAs alquo Edo %OI uLqi alotujo drgslautAo AuEdtuoo ouogdolal 8uiulaAOS salTU agl Jo .I9AM n 8J0 aAOlddESip ttEUI 14LIOg1RE SuiSigotmig E `uoilippu uI •lajsuerl 11D alas E jo luAOIddE loj lsanbal E uo laE puE AAainal of sAEp OZI M Mils ,14uoilnE 8uisigotmg all gSnogilE `panoural ST uialSAS olgeo E jo laisuell to ales E nUe luauraimbal 8uiploq rea,C aargi aigl `drtlslaunno �o la suEl1 agl of preSal glrnn `AlleuU 'slliq laquosgns ui o1 pasoddo sE `suiratu ua11� a1guomi Sire Aq uaniS oq ur AESa$uvgo amr pue aorAlas SuiplESal slaguosgns of soopou lutll uoTldooxo aql ql?m paAlasold Si sp mpms ooLuas lotuolsno aolojua of f4iligL, s,,14uollnE SuisigauEl3 agZ •«uoggodtuoo aAilaa$a„ gm Vj si tuaisAs E wogm paddolp are ran Diidrisoog otims ail uiilinn turOjiun aq SalEl lEgl luauialinbal aqZ •,,ioltuado alquo lleius„ jo uotliugap oql 8uiptmdxo `slolElado algEo llEtus jo uopr1rigalap lalEals loj sopiAoid loy suoilEotununuooalas aqZ -666I `I £ gojuw uo lasuns Mm ( jail aoiAlas 8unuumi2old olquo„ aql paaual aSLVL1a1qlo) latl laddn aql jo uoprInEw alrU -van asigouElg all ui ,uoililaduroo aniloaJJa„ si alagl plun loin ui summar aom ias algwjo lail oiSEq oqi jo uoilEln2o i 2juU •stualsAs alg:) jo digslaueno jo slapuell puu sprepuEls aoinlas latuolsno `uourinSol olEl an uoilElnSar pool of loafgns lliis on jinn sanssT pairpal asrlouEg l0il0 •luatudmbo olgo og13o suoildo ooLuas puE lonpold laglo pue sl000lold `suoilounj `salnlro; loExa agl sa0l03 19311eui 01 aAEal lsntu suopuirtSal asagl lnq uialsSs olgEo pue `slaprooal QUaSSEo oapiA `Suotsinalal Suoum )4iligllEduioo alnsuo of suoilEingol aquosald of DD3 all sari nbal lay suoilmiunurm000las ailio (010£ uoiloaS 'luauudtnba algEojo Xwligijvduuoo oq1 ipm suiEllad anssi lsug y •spnpum [Eoiugaal s,ODd all aolojua of sailuoglnE SuTsigout:l� lrannollE goclnn joy ai�0 V86I agl jo (o)tZg uoiloaS ui o8En8uEl panoural lay suoilroruntutu000la,l, all `AlBuisudins puE uoilippE uI •sailiunurtuoo Aum Blinn oidol alos E `Slajlanuoo jo osn ail oluln8al of Ajiliqu sli ui ,4luoglrre Emu E Bung pinonn sign •f8olou4301. uoissnusuEll AuE to luatudinba laquosgns o adfl Attu 3o osn spolsAs algEo E Suiloulsal to Suruoiirpuoo `$ugigiqold tuog ,tluoilnE 8uisiiouEg E luanald saop uoisinold mou y •lay suourotunurm000las ail Aq popuoum lou sr `sopvjSdn ro3 slesodold a-nnbal of sailuogirm SuisigouElj slitulad go" `joy alquo 17861 agl jo 9Z9 u01132S 'tualsAs alquo E lob suollEogiaads frotugaal jo uomllnBal aql uo suoguliunl on alall l8noilly What a franchising authority may not do is to require a franchise from an OVS operator for its video services. However, assuming that State or local law permits franchising of telecommunications providers, this preemption does not prevent a local government from requiring a franchise with a telecommunications provider or for the provision of telecommunications services, even if the provider also provides video services on an open video system. Direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") is termed "direct -to -home" ("DTH") satellite service in the Act and is defined as only that programming transmitted or broadcast by satellite directly to the subscribers' premises without the use of ground receiving or distribution equipment, except at the subscribers' premises or in the uplink process to the satellite. The Act exempts DTH service from the collection or remittance, or both, of any tax or fee imposed by any local taxing jurisdiction. A state however, is not preempted from taxing a DTH satellite service and local taxing jurisdictions may receive funds collected through state taxes or fees. Wireless Services The Telecommunications Act preserves the rights of local government to regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless services activities. Such regulations must not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services and must not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. State or local authorities must act on any request for authorization to construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is made taking into account the nature and scope of such request. A state or local government may not regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that the facilities comply with FCC regulations. Unfortunately, FCC rules which were adopted August 5, 1996 preempt state or local zoning regulations that impair signal reception for small, DBS-type satellite dishes, unless the state or local government can demonstrate that such a regulation is reasonable. Reasonableness is based on whether the regulation has a clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic objective and whether the regulation unnecessarily burdens federal interests in ensuring access to satellite services and in promoting fair and effective competition among communications service providers. Telecommunications Services For local governments, the key provision for handling the entry and operation of varied telecommunications providers is Section 101 of the Telecommunications Act. On the one hand, this provision forbids a state or local authority from prohibiting the entry of any entity into the telecommunications market. On the other hand, this section protects state and local government authority to manage the public rights -of -way and to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers on a "competitively neutral" and "nondiscriminatory' basis. It 42705-2 5 9 Z-50LZ4 -suoymadp luawt uawD uo aaljnutuoD ygy ayl fo l today n sn ,..taG+n7 unglfl,, ayl of pallttugns s A .tadnd aaogn aql -aajjtunuoogns suoptniummuoaalaL ptav algn� uor�nroossy rng unortatuy ag��o unuutngo-oo sr uoggtD H ugof suotlnlilsut oclgnd iaglo pus slooilos of soopuas pus [4q .0. Ul aql of uogesuodtuoo ssoipps osle pinogs aousuipio agl `pan!twod st It aiayA salsls ul aousmsut pue 44gtgsq `p nouiai `suotlsoolai `aoueualu! u `Suipunoj2iopun se sansst gons qj!m leap pinogs pus AwA jo-sjgSu aq; Suisn ssaptnold suotlsontnunuooalol ioj ltuuad E io uot38ilst2ai lanoo pinogs saoumnpio gons `lssal ,Clan aqi is `pus suialsAs oapin uado pus siolsiodo uialsAs olgeo io3 suoisrnoid apnlout hm saou mplo asaq j -Asnn jo-slq$u oggnd nags aSsuEui of saoueutp10 leiaua8 fool Sur uip an satliledio�unui Aueui `saSusgo Suigosoidds agl jo aos3 aql uI -mvl lezol Pus alels uo ,ClaSsel puadap llLA Aenn ;jo-s3gSu o�lgnd slt aSsueut of �Clmgs sluauuutanoS lsool lggl sisaddB PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. V/97-42 Planning Commission Date: August 11, 1997 Project Location: 1420 Surrey Lane Comprehensive Plan District: One Family Residential District Zoning District: RA Applicant's Name: Scott Faust Type of Application: Variance Project Description: A variance to the side yard setback (10' required, 5' 3" at nearest point and 8'6" from furthest point proposed) - note it is the side yard, not rear yard as stated in the agenda. Discussion: The applicant is proposing to construct a 12' x 14' cedar deck. It would be located off the existing sliding glass doors on the west side of the house. A 12' x 14' dimension is request to allow space for a table, chairs, grill and entertaining. The rear of the house on the adjoining property will look out at the deck. This house is on Benson Blvd. E. and is about thirty-five feet from the applicants property line. Recommendation: Denial - it is staffs recommendation that a smaller deck could be constructed to comply with the setback ordinance. Findings: 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. 2. That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 3. That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: Application Form/Site Plan b//LL/iJJ 1J.4L 4J000lU - - --- tL Case No: -2 Date Filed: r Fee Paid: _ ,'%D _ Receipt No.: '5 7031 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED: FEE Certificate of Compliance 570 Conditional or Special Use Permit 501200 Design Review 525 Planned Unit Development` 500 Variance 57 Comprehensive Plan Amendment' 500 Zoning Amendment; $300 Subdivision* 5100+550110' Resubdivision 5100 Total Fee 'An escrow fee is also required to cover the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION dress of Project s 'Sltr %P L e�oe Assessor's Parcel No. Zoning District Description of Project I-2 x /�/ , - "I hereby state the foregoing statements and al/ data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. i further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Property Owner Mailing Addr Telephone No. Signatur Representat Mailing Addre Telephone No. Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Principal Accessory Total building floor Area sq. ft. Existing sq. ft. Proposed sq. ft. Paved Impervious Area sq. ft. Number of off street parking spaces provided Revised 5 22/97 SCOTT AND SUSAN FAUST 1420 SURREY LANE STILLWATER, MN 55082 The project is a proposed 12' x 14' deck. The deck will be located off the sliding glass doors on the West side of the house. Based on the design this is the only logical place to build the deck. This size is requested to allow adequate space for table, chairs, grill and entertaining. The deck will be built by a licensed contractor. The material to be used is cedar. There will be nice landscaping (rock and shrubs) all around the deck. The rear of the house on the_ adjoining property will look out at the deck. The house on Bensen Blvd. E. is a significant distance away from the property line. The deck and landscaping, when completed, will be very pleasant to look at. S coir f -S�S a n �ig cas' T— 7 Azlle4�- S�' urre / falm Sca10 � �� ��c 5 Ol� A,- Pa.r7 Y, rn posed d.ec.k u-ou �� n r� Pn P Cl h c2 vtt c. h es Fri• 1 r ne a 4- il;u s r `'i n f - �� U dew wo v ►ct b--- ILi b-t w � � �� ► � �Qt 1<rn�1. PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. V/97-43 Planning Commission Date: August 11, 1997 Project Location: 7155 Melville Court North Comprehensive Plan District: Agricultural Preservation District Zoning District: AP Applicant's Name Type of Application Rick and Karen Reidt Variance Project Description: A variance to allow the construction of anew home while maintaining occupancy in current residence. Discussion: The request is for a variance to allow the applicant live in their present home while they construct a new home. Construction is scheduled for early fall and occupy the new home by the end of the year. The neighbors have approved the new home site, this is required by a neighborhood development covenant. When the new home is completed, the existing house will be removed and replaced with natural prairie type vegetation. Since they will most likely move in the winter months, the applicant is requesting a four month window to remove the current home. Along with the above request the applicant is asking that the final grading and filling of the existing foundation be completed no later than one month after the road restrictions are lifted in the spring of 1998. Conditions of Approval: All plans be approved by the city engineer and building official. 2. Final grading and filling of the existing foundation be completed no later than one month after the road restrictions are lifted in the spring of 1998. Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Findings: 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. 2. That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 3. That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: Application Form Site Plan Photos Case No: y " 1 �O Date Filed: • 2H-97 Paid: Receipt No. PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM -,*:, -3°J•I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED: FEE Certificate of Compliance S70 Conditional or Special Use Permit S50/200 Design Review S25 Planned Unit Development* S500 `/ Variance 200 l Comprehensive Plan Amendment* 60 Zoning Amendment* S300 Subdivision* S 100+S50/lot Resubdivision S100 Total Fee *An escrow fee is also required to cover the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project �� �' - -!�.`� ��� �� Assessor's Parcel No.Z-1 Zoning District Description of Project "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Property Owner �/�= � �a��� ��"�>� Representative Mailing Address �/s ����%r' �'� �. Mailing Address—___ Telephone No. ��J -"��= � Telephone No. �� � ��'��/1 �-- r J Signature� ),:�_ _ Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION l�l Ct h �C Lot Size (dimension r x Total building floor Area sq. ft. Land Area Existing //v cy sq. ft. Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposedv o sq. ft. Principal 1 2 Paved Impervious Area ; �`> -_ sq. ft. Accessory Number of off street parking spaces provided Revised 5/22/97 I ArnA I o „X _ rn ' Z 910 Z r (f) 900 �9D 07/23/97 To: City of Stillwater -Planning Commission/City Council 216 N. 4th Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 From: Rick and Karen Reidt 7155 Melville Court North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 RE: Variance Application for Lot 3, Block 1, Jackson Estates Dear: Planning Commission/City Council Members, This letter is to request a variance allowing us to build a new home on our property while maintaining occupancy in our current home located on the same property. It is our plan to start construction early this fall and occupy our new home by the end of this year. Our neighbors have approved our new home site as required by our neighborhood covenants. Upon completion of our new home we will remove our current home and restore the landscape to natural prairie type vegetation. Since we will most likely move into our new home in the winter we would request a four month window to remove the existing home. We would request that the final grading and filling of the existing foundation be completed no later than one month after the road restrictions are lifted in the spring of 1998. I have enclosed several photographs of our property and a site plan locating the existing buildings and our future home site. Thank you for your time. Rick and Karen Reidt : a ���. ', . :� -` � �� � , �` � � ��� ƒ�� ` . � � \. .z� z �~\� ���,® �/�:�1, �\% � ���I;; ��3 2 . /• \ \\% \ ��� � ��2� �� � . � � -•� � �� � »f';\_9 «/ Z» � \. y�» m< .\yam \/>,rw, � . � 27�- v>@//%2 � «� \2; »\29\< . � �\}/ \�� � �} \��� . �,��i�- '\� �' .� , � � - 2Z ,� 2� . � ^ � � » ~ «-\-�. �� z �- <m\ . � �� .--- � \�����.: ° \" {� ©%��.-�� :s--d «� ���- . } Aye � ° «� � �� � - }� 2 � 2�� ��w ' ��\��� »� / �� < z ` - - » % ., / PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. SUP/97-44 Planning Commission Date: August 11, 1997 Project Location: 227 North Main Street Comprehensive Plan District: Central Business District Zoning District: CBD Applicant's Name: Vern Stefan Type of Application: Special Use Permit Project Description: A special use permit for a Farmer's Market. Discussion: The Farmer's Market that is presently located at the bank parking lot at Chestnut Street and 2nd Street is requesting approval to relocate in the parking lot of the former Maple Island building on Main Street and Mulberry Street. The Market sells fruits, vegetables, and garden produce and products from June 1 to Oct. 31. Hours of operation are 7 AM to 12 noon only on Saturdays. There will be approximately 15 to 25 vendors. The applicant is requesting the use of temporary signage in the form of sandwich boards" to direct customers to their location. The request will need a variance from the Planning Commission. A sample of the signs will be brought to the meeting. Conditions of Approval: 1. Any changes to the above request come before the Heritage Preservation Commission. Recommendation: Approval as conditioned. Findings. - The proposal meets the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines. Attachments: Application r , Case No:-�__ r � / -) Date Filed: -= ��' �'7 Fee Paid: Z 7�• o�i Receipt No.:�_OZ� PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED: FEE(') Certificate of Compliance E7'0Z1 Conditional or Special Use Permit 70 Design Review -0- Planned Unit Development S270 _ Variance S70 Comprehensive Plan Amendment S300 Zoning Amendment S300 Subdivision I Do- 50/10t Resubdivision S50 Total Fee The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. P PE Y IDENTIFICAT Obi Address of Project s isor's Parcel No. Zoning District Description of Project "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used. " �_�/Re resent iv �'!� ! 1a i ling Property Owner F� AddressG, Mailing Address, SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Telephone Into. Lot Size (dimensions) x Total building floor Area Land Area Existing _ sq. ft. Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed ^ sq. ft. Principal Paved Impervious Area sq. ft. sq. ft. OADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW Revised 9/19/95 Record of Action Date Application Filed Decision Authority Date of Action by Decision Authority Appeal Period Ended Appeal Files Appeal Decision Zoning Permit Issues Zoning Permit Signed by Owner Zoning Permit recorded with Washington County Development Certified as Completed Meeting all Conditions of Approval Comments MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director DA: July 29, 1997 RE: PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR ALLOWING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE RB DISTRICT Attached is draft amendment language to the RB zone district to allow for accessory dwelling units under certain conditions. The language should be reviewed and changed as necessary by the planning commission and set for public hearing at your meeting of September 8, 1997. Recommendation: Review, modify draft ordinance language and set item for public hearing. Attachment: Draft accessory dwelling unit amendment language. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Definition Accessory dwelling unit. A second housing unit on one lot detached from the primary single family residence and clearly secondary to the primary residence. RB Duplex Residential Regulations permitted uses with a special use permit. (Add) Accessory dwelling unit subject to the following regulations: 1. Lot size shall be 10,000 square feet. 2. Dwelling shall be located above the garage. 3. The dwelling unit shall abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and rear setbacks. 4. The dwelling shall be situated to the rear yard residence or be setback beyond the midpoint of the primary residence. 5. Shall meet off-street parking requirements for an apartment and single family residence. 6. Maximum size of dwelling unit shall be 800 square feet. 7. Shall require design review for consistency with primary unit in design, detailing and materials. 8. Shall not be taller then primary residence.