Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-14 CPC Packet• •� • i illa..L—Thvater Puiblic THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF STILLWATER NOTICE OF MEETING The Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, July 14, 1997, at 7 p m in the Margaret Rivers Room at the City Public Library, 223 North Fourth Street Approval of Minutes of June 9, 1997 AGENDA 1 Case No V/97-36 A vanance to the corner yard setback (15'6" feet proposed, 20 feet required) for a 600 square foot addition at 438 South Broadway in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Denise and Nick Sparta, applicant 2 Case No V/97-37 A variance to the fence ordinance for the construction of a 6 foot pnvacy fence in the corner side yard setback at 518 South Greeley in the RB-Two Family Residential District Tracy and Patnce Jenson, applicants 3 Case No V/97-38 A variance to the special Boutwell Road front yard setback (30 ft requested, 50 ft required) for the construction of a house at 201 Boutwell Road in the RA, Single Family Residential District Roger and MaryJackson, applicants 4 Case No V/97-39 A variance to the side yard setback (5 feet requested, 10 feet required) for the construction of an addition and a rear yard setback (3 feet requested, 5 feet required) for the construction of a garage at 1216 West Ramsey Street in the RA, One Family Residential Distnct Paul and Joan Fnant, applicant 5 Case No V/97-40 A variance to the side yard setback (3 feet requested, 5 required) for the construction of a garage at 513 West Mulberry in the RB, Two Family Residential District Steve and Lon Skalman, applicant Other Items - Consideration of seconded detached unit policy change in RB District lots - Review schedule for Expansion Area Phase I Development plan preparation, review and approval - Initiate review of expansion area development based on comp plan and area development concepts CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 1997 Present Jerry Fontaine, chairman Glenna Bealka, John Rheinberger, Kirk Roetman, Don Valsvik, Tom Wiedner and Terry Zoller Others Steve Russell, Community Development Director Absent Dave Charpentier and Darwin Wald Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7 p m Mrs Bealka, seconded by Mr Rheinberger, moved approval of the minutes of May 12, 1997, all in favor Case No SUP/V/97-24 A special use permit for residential use and variance to the parking requirements, 18 provided, 42 required, for the renovation of 6,500 sq ft commercial space and addition of a new second and third floor (11 housing units) at 124 S Second St in the CBD, Central Business District Jon Whitcomb, applicant Mr Whitcomb and Mr Dave Brooks were present for the discussion Mr Whitcomb provided architectural renderings of the building plans and photos of the current site He provided a letter from the current owner of the building regarding the use of the Gazette parking lot Mr Whitcomb also said he had discussions with Mr Mahoney, Gazette publisher, in which Mr Mahoney indicated he would allow building tenants to use the Gazette portion of the lot during non -work hours There are a total of 45 spaces in the parking lot between Mr Whitcomb's proposed building and the Gazette Mr Russell said for the Gazette spaces to "count," there would have to be a written contract/agreement with the Gazette allowing use on weekends and non -work hours Mr Valsvik asked about the plans for the commercial space Mr Whitcomb said there would be three tenants occupying 2,000 square feet of space and said he had interest expressed from several potential tenants Wayne Wohlers of Kinsel's Liquor, 118 E Chestnut St , expressed his firm's concern about granting the parking variance and adding to the existing parking problems He also noted that the Gazette lot is full all day and already is being used by non-employees/non-tenants • • Dick Kitty noted that when he remodeled his building at 200 S Third St for mixed commercial/residential use, he complied with the parking requirements to provide an enclosed garage space for each tenant as well as the required number of spaces for the commercial use He suggested that Mr Whitcomb also could comply with the requirements without any hardship John Bourdaghs, Shorty's Cleaners, 121 E Chestnut St , also expressed his concern about the parking variance He noted that he provides 20+ spaces for his employees and customers Roger Tomten, 718 S Fifth St , chair of the Heritage Preservation Commission, spoke in favor of the project He said the project would be an attractive asset to the downtown He also stated it is important to retain the validity of the downtown area by providing a customer base for grocery, hardware stores, etc Mr Brooks, partner in the proposed project, spoke of his experience in downtown St Paul He said "eventually" the city of Stillwater will find an answer to its parking problem Mr Wohlers responded that "eventually" could be a long way off and doesn't help the existing situation Mr Zoller said he liked the idea of residential use in the downtown area but has a real concern with parking requirements, especially the requirement to provide covered parking spaces for residents Mr Valsvik spoke of the experience Trinity Lutheran Church has had with its private lot which is used so heavily that often times there's not enough spaces for the church's use Mr Rheinberger moved to deny the requested variance/special use permit Mr Roetman seconded the motion for purposes of discussion Mr Roetman suggested offering the developers an opportunity to come back to the Planning Commission with a "creative alternative" to provide residential parking Mr Zoller said he was persuaded by Mr Kitty's argument that enclosed parking for residents could be provided with an altered building design Motion to deny passed 6-1, with Mrs Bealka voting against the motion • Case No. V/97-28 A variance to the front yard setback (15'3" feet requested, 30 feet required) for construction of a two story, 2,000 • • square -foot addition to an existing single family residence at 2318 Boom Road in the RA, One Family Residential District and Bluffland/Shoreland District William C Messner, applicant Mr Messner was present for the discussion He said the existing garage is 15'3" from the property line There was some question as to whether the roof over the requested upper porch would be enclosed Mr Messner explained the request is for a roof/eaves only to keep the weather out Mr Russell said if both ends of the upper porch are open, he would not object to the proposal Mr Russell noted the request has been sent to the DNR for review, the DNR comments had not been received at the time of the meeting The request also has to go before the City Council Mr Zoller, seconded by Mr Roetman, moved approval as conditioned Motion passed 6-1, with Mr Wiedner voting no Case No V/97-29 A variance to the front and side yard setbacks for a 6 foot extension of a porch and the construction of a two -car garage with a shop above at 602 N Fifth St in the RB, Two Family Residential District Amy Senn, applicant The applicant and her husband, Jason Ruddie, were present for the discussion Ms Senn presented a list of 33 signatures of neighbors indicating there were in agreement with the proposed project She said the space above the garage primarily would be used to store tools as the couple is in the process of restoring their home, the space would not be used for any business purpose Mrs Bealka, seconded by Mr Rheinberger, moved approval as conditioned Mr Zoller said he thought the proposed improvements would add to the entire neighborhood, and Mr Fontaine noted the setback encroachment already exists Motion passed unanimously Case No. V/DR/97-30 A variance and design review for four signs, one allowed, for a restaurant located at 14200 60th St N in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District Prowood Signs Inc , applicant Tom Steinke, representing Prowood Signs, was present for the discussion He explained the requested sign package and provided colored drawings of the requested signs Jim Blichfeldt, developer of nearby twin -homes, expressed his concern about the requested sign on the western elevation of the building He also questioned the use of block on the rear elevation of the building Wayne Branum, no address given, asked how far the request deviates from the sign ordinance Mr Russell noted that the requested pylon sign is within the ordinance guidelines He also noted that adjacent businesses, Baker's Square and Rose Floral, also have signs on the front of the building, in addition to a pylon sign John Bourdaghs, Shorty's Cleaner, pointed out that when he opened his drop-off business in River Heights Plaza, he was not allowed to put a sign on the front of the building The only signage he was allowed was a "cleaners" sign on the main Plaza sign He suggested that if the city has an ordinance, it should be enforced Ken Muller representing Famous Dave's restaurant noted that the restaurant closes at 10 p m and the sign lights will be turned off at that time He said the request is for nothing more than already exists on Highway 36 businesses He further said if something has to be eliminated, the developers would prefer to eliminate the signs on the side of the building Mr Steinke said he thought the front entry signs served an important function Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Valsvik, moved approval of the requested pylon sign and the requested sign on the front elevation Motion passed 6- 1, with Mr Wiedner voting no Case No SUP/V/97-31 A special use permit and variance for construction of a detached two-story garage structure with an efficiency dwelling unit on the second level at 1213 Fifth Ave S in the RB, Two -Family Residential District Kan Nickeson-Ranum, applicant Karl Ranum represented the applicant, his wife, and made a presentation outlining their proposed plans He said the request for the efficiency apartment on the second level of the garage was merely to take advantage of the two-family zoning The only variance issue is the height of the structure which is 24 feet versus the allowable 20 feet (Later in the discussion, Mr Russell said the height of the structure meets the ordinance as it is a gabled roof ) • Ron Anderson of the Stillwater Water Department noted that the existing water service to the property is a 3/4 inch line and would not be adequate for additional living quarters Mr Russell explained staff's recommendation that the proposed use needs additional study and development of design guidelines Specifically, he said the factors outlined in paragraph five of staff's recommendation need to be studied and guidelines developed Mr Rheinberger moved to deny the request, motion died for lack of a second Mr Roetman, seconded by Mr Rheinberger, moved to continue the request in order to study the impact and address the issues as outlined by staff Motion passed 6-1, with Mr Wiedner opposed Case No SUP/97-32 A special use permit for a chiropractic practice from a residence located at 1055 W St Croix Avenue in the RA, One -Family Residential District Judd Orff, representing Nina Amundson, applicant Terry Christianson was present representing Dr Margaret Mitchell He explained that Dr Mitchell's current office space lease is expiring and she would like to operate her practice from the residence at 1055 W St Croix Ave , which she is renting, until she can find a new, permanent office space Rich Cummings, 1060 Amundson Drive, introduced a delegation of neighbors opposed to the request Mr Cummings noted that St Croix Avenue is an unimproved street He said parking is an issue, as is the fact that the request is to operate a home business from rental property Speaking in opposition to the request were Rick Kuula, 1241 Amundson Circle, Marge Jordahl, 1115 Amundson Drive, Allan Downey, and Jeff Hands, 1135 Amundson Drive Concerns centered on the potential for additional traffic, the fact that the area is heavily used by children, and the fact that the street is unimproved Shelly Michaelis, 1341 Dallager Court, a realtor, noted there is a lot of commercial property available for rent Mr Christianson said Dr Mitchell only sees one patient an hour, and her office is only open from 9 30 to 6 30 Monday through Wednesday He said the doctor has set herself a deadline of Oct 1 for finding a permanent location for her practice • Mr Roetman asked if the ordinance has any stipulation regarding the use of a rental residence for a home -based business Mr Russell said the ordinance has no such stipulation Mr Fontaine said he was concerned because of the unimproved road and difficult access to the property Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved to deny the request based on the safety issue, motion passed unanimously Case No V/97-33 A variance to the side yard setback (30 feet required, 19 feet proposed) for construction of a 12 x 16 deck at 924 N Everett St in the RB, Two Family Residential District Scott and Jody Stoltz, applicant The Stoltzes were present for the discussion Mrs Stoltz explained they built the deck and then received a letter stating they needed a permit and a variance She said the placement of the deck eliminates a previous water problem, and she said she had signatures from neighbors, none of whom were opposed to the deck Mr Valsvik moved approval, noting the deck improves the appearance of the house but reminding the Stoltzes they should have come before the Planning Commission before constructing the deck Mr Rheinberger seconded the motion, all in favor Case No PUD/97-34 A planned unit development for the construction of seven single-family, two-story homes with shared driveways at 1303- 1373 S Fifth St in the RB, Two -Family Residential District John Roettger, applicant Case No SUB/97-35 A resubdivision for lots 16-22, Block 1, Churchill's Second Addition, and the north 30 feet of lot 15, Block 1, and the south 27 feet of Lot 23, Block 1, Churchill's Second Addition into seven single- family lots at 1303-1373 S Fifth St in the RB, Two -Family Residential District John Roettger, applicant Mr Roettger and Shelley Michaelis were present for the discussion Mr Wiedner excused himself from the discussion as his firm has represented Mr Roettger Mr Roettger said his plans have changed He will be constructing six, rather than seven homes, as he has been unable to come to an agreement to • purchase the additional property that would enable the seventh unit He explained his plans for construction of Victorian style, three bedroom homes, all will have front porches and several will have back porches/decks The proposed street setback is 30 feet It was noted the front setback could be reduced as existing homes in the area have a 20-25 front setback Al Ehnert, 1324 S Fifth St said he was happy the number of units had been reduced A resident, who did not identify himself, expressed concern about retention of the existing trees at the rear property line Michael Anderson, 1312 S Fourth St , also expressed a concern about retaining the trees and a concern about the appearance of the homes from the rear Jane Haas, 1222 S Fourth St , asked about market value of the new homes and whether an excavation plan would be submitted Ron Anderson, 216 W Orleans St , expressed a concern about existing drainage from his property and potential cost to himself Lee Petersen, 1334 S Fourth St , asked whether the style of the garages would be similar to the style of the homes The neighbors were generally in favor of the project There was some discussion regarding the concerns about drainage Mr Zoller noted the developer will have to work with the city engineer before final construction plans are approved Mr Zoller asked whether the developer will have to pay a park dedication fee since the request is for a planned unit development, Mr Russell will check on that requirement Mr Rheinberger moved approval of the six unit PUD and accompanying resubdivision with the five conditions of approval Mr Roetman seconded the motion Motion passed unanimously, with Mr Wiedner abstaining Case No ZAT/97-1 An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding zoning for newly annexed land Agricultural Preservation, AP Land City of Stillwater, applicant Mr Russell explained that the new Agricultural Preservation zoning would be something of a "holding zone" for the annexation area Mr Wiedner, seconded by Mr Zoller, moved approval, motion passed unanimously • Case No SUP/94-2 Request for extension of special use permit for trailer in parking lot at 216 W Myrtle St in the PA, Public Administration District Trinity Lutheran Church, applicant Steve Whitehouse of Family Service St Croix explained the request and reason the extension is needed Mr Valsvik excused himself from the discussion due to his association with Trinity Lutheran Church, Mr Wiedner excused himself due to his association with Warm World Mrs Bealka, seconded by Mr Roetman, moved approval of the requested extension to March 1, 1999 Motion passed unanimously, with Mr Valsvik and Mr Wiedner abstaining Other business • Long Lake ordinance - After a brief discussion, members agreed the draft Long Lake ordinance prepared by staff was a fair representation of what had been decided at the joint meeting with the Park and Rec Board Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Roetman, moved to recommend the draft ordinance for consideration by the City Council, motion passed unanimously Mr Roetman, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved to adjourn at 10 10 p m Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/97-36 Planning Commission Date July 14, 1997 Project Location 438 South Broadway Street Comprehensive Plan Distnct Two Family Residential Zoning Distnct RB Applicant's Name Denise and Nick Sparta Type of Application Variance Project Description A variance to the corner yard setback (20 feet required, 15'6" requested) for a 600 square foot addition Discussion The request is to construct an 600 sq ft addition to the existing home Setback requirements for a comer lot in the RB District is 20 ft, the proposed addition will not encroach further than the existing home The lot size is 11,250 sq ft Impervious surface coverage allowed by the Zoning Ordinance is 30% of the lot, which is 3375 sq ft of this particular lot The existing house and garage is 2625 sq ft plus a 600 sq ft addition equals 3225 sq ft Conditions of Approval 1 The addition shall be similar in style and materials as the existing house 2 Plans be approved by fire and building officials 3 Any changes to final plans be reviewed by Planning Department Recommendation Approved as conditioned Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, Toss 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 0 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 Construction Documents • Case No ti� 1 ; Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No 5 .q 2 717 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED FEE Certificate of Compliance $70 Conditional or Special Use Permit $50/200 Design Review $25 Planned Unit Development* $500 X Variance $70/200 Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 Zoning Amendment* $300 Subdivision* $100+$50/lot Resubdivision $100 Total Fee *An escrow fee is also required to cover the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application • Address of Project / endwi Assessor's Parcel No / 2 9o2— % Zoning District Description of rotect PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify ! will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner _De1%/$v 1II t _I j/ i'7 Mailing Address 'Ay (5 3(octcli Telephone No )c (/ Signature I ILO( Representative Mailing Address Telephone No Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Principal • Accessory Feet Total building floor Area Existing sq ft Proposed sq ft Paved Impervious Area sq ft Number of off street parking spaces provided sq ft Revised /22/97 Application • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Zoning Amendment (text or map) Fee $500 $300 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept $500 Final $500 Subdivision Resubdivision/land survey review Preliminary Plat Final Plat $100 $100 + $50/lot $250 Escrow 1-40 acres - $1,000 41-80 acres - $1,500 over 80 acres - $2,000 1-40 acres - $1,000 41-80 acres - $1,500 over 80 acres - $2,000 0-40 acres - $2,000 41-80 acres - $2,500 over 80 acres - $3,000 0-40 acres - 41-80 acres - over 80 acres - ///e4 `"' -2— '-t-' 7?-/-g----- k4J.0 iiiii/4-_4'S A /why.' Afrie AO .../4‘;.1/7/4-- II/e- // "( o'u 6't /- //z /�1 A // � ice`„ / .., ZnAre,),ei 7h/ s 7/?&/7,,,z) i_ii,ocr4/_, fii, /M.1 /)---ta he/E/,.- ‘a, _y 77.e.,F,/- ,7, U/ e7az 1eit> e _I ,o % / // he, ,JL/-/ei 70 Gum- , , r� 4_45 /-7,4-,e,f, ilz- /i,/, .--7,K,,,-- 74;;_,c 6,44/,,,,e' hn /X / /c/5,�e' /17U`e' cii--- Zeow /e( ie. miz-,L -//1 c., 6,17 s N 4 011 e 7 Ae 41//-74,ti czi,,,, 4/ he ,fre7),- leZ et, Lie- yt1/0/0 60, i/ w , 4 , :c ,,,,,i f"{Z'--/ S nil/ M)41 i-e, ale& Z/e.v,/,-(__ e-,-- e/e/f h Aie 1/L-W-7 410evised 5/22/97 /J/ (I%-/ ad / 0 e/ A io2 �.�C 6 Z L F% L �,5Alf�' f2 4/ C' 1 ��j11/// /'G 77/VL� 4 e) M L)�,U/�LC% T $250 $2 000 $2,500 $3,000 eV X l (iN e- %/le— C ,t -&ewi-e-aL /NS(i/ei d&' pa/i el _SAA. A/fe- / ZjrJ-/i`--/e---- %j/ (ij/ /Clv A t}5e A7.1 zJ S -c- / -ei9 D / A ,4i '.c- mid 4,-), Mir G :'< Z ()/i 7 fi r /7"9� , /4)/oe /9-71-ei____ / xi Ae-- e"z% /I/VI/4e 2 41. 4 • • n ^t$ 1h —I I /e ,LL,t7cf\i 'To -7-1-IE. 77r wCot a c rrr.E n w T \T co GR+ KIT 114.� /p\ /11.1 1 2 1 \ K � c.. �u•4 LPL. rIY�! rM ;' N I ICI 1II•I III I ot.j_P—it. HouGE Ell /�OChwi�'f�M in RN(— J 'ARTIA- �P —I 77 or, t1 1UlU Ulu I IFH O. CJI 1 r 4- • WCST Ei- r vA- Toh.l /e = o Y" m - l_ I.I�w NJGS l,JG SOUTH r�-r=�c�T1Gti1 H 6 urn J R le yvv_ht} %r_c-r1c)N °l - 4 ,S rraoOwAY STI--1-wn-Ttp- MN / i_/'- / c LYS n n N r r ny.- F C r MI I lid l II LIN A A All r l • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/97-37 Planning Commission Date July 14, 1997 Project Location 518 South Greeley Street Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning Distnct RB Applicant's Name Tracy & Patrice Jenson Type of Application Variance Project Descnpt,on A variance to the fence ordinance for the construction of a six foot privacy fence in the corner side yard setback Discussion The request is to place a six foot fence in the side yard setback of property on the street side The Fence Ordinance No 31 02 states that a fence on a corner lot side yard must not exceed 42 inches in height The attached site plan shows the location of the proposed fence This placement, abutting the street could potentially cause visibility problems for motorists on Willard Street It is staffs opinion the fence should be moved closer to the home and away from the street Conditions of Approval Should the Commission approve the request, staff recommends the following conditions of approval 1 The fence should be moved 23 feet rather then the proposed 43 feet from the porch leaving room for traffic visibility 2 The side of the fence considered to be the face (finished side as opposed to structural supports) shall face outside of property Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, Toss 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 detnment 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 a (e\c' Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED Certificate of Compliance Conditional or Special Use Permit Design Review .Planned Unit Development* V Variance Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Subdivision* Resubdivision Total Fee `7 3'7 FEE $70 $50/200 $25 $500 $70/200 $500 $300 ^/ $ I OOTS5O/lot $100 *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 �ItS 0-6 /3 Address of Project �R�� S Assessor's Parcel No Zonin=t Description of Project RALCZ. -d. Catet -tikP /{ "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct 1 further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used ' Property Owner A_ .‘,./.4/Representative Mailing Address St S €lt- Mailing Address Telephone No `f — 9s S Telephone No Signatur- 1/1.6eipi Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) (( 3 x i-e6 Total building floor Area sq ft Land Area Existing sq ft Height of Buildings Stories Feet Proposed sq ft Principal Paved Impervious Area sq ft iAccessory Number of off street parking spaces provided Revised 5/22/97 ).\ _77223 ?J1-.9 S Rt � 1 r? 1�te 01 v 37/1!3-j 21-9-1 /vit-id 31/ S 99)191-1 (-0 h o!h-orh (4 ),81Sb-bh aa(S 1,'-a7 aazi9 S SIs - Iv!!C g?JV1-j-4- till r eh 9 plci/ Wareel7r .r fir N :virgrti ,,K11 7791e111477 2 11 /7 L,) se' ;2L?'V • • • • Tracy & Patrice Jenson 518 S Greeley Street Variance / Fence Proposal My wife & I were granted a fence permit earlier this year, approving a 42 inch fence surrounding our whole lot We have realized that a fence of that nature is not adequate for our family We are now proposing the following A six foot pnvacy (tall picket) fence coming out even with the front of the house on each side (facing Greeley St) The 6 foot fence to run to the neighbors lot line to the north and to Willard St to the south The 6 foot fence to continue down our lot along Willard St to our dnveway The rest of the fence would be either 42 or 48 inches in height That includes the area along our lot line & our neighbors to the north, as well as along the dnveway The are 4 reasons we feel we need a vanance to the fence policy, due to excessive traffic noise They are (1) to reduce the noise level outside in our yard (2) to reduce the noise level inside our home (3) safety for our 2 young children and (4) pnvacy The noise level is very loud Our screen porch faces Willard St and it is often times to loud to even talk on the phone out there If we have guests over it is very distracting and the noise level usually cuts the night short on the screen porch It is difficult for us to be in our back yard, as the garage takes up nearly all of it, unlike our neighbors on the block who all have large back yards We need to be able to access and use our side yard but without a pnvacy fence we will have no pnvacy or escape from the traffic & the noise The noise level inside our home is also very loud due to the traffic We are never able to open windows on the Greeley St side Even when the windows are open that face north and south, the noise level is rather loud A pnvacy fence would block most noise from Greeley and Willard, as most windows will be inside the fence perimeter Contnbutmg factors to the noise level are ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, many automobiles with either inadequate or no exhaust systems, Harley Davidson motorcycles, and loud music (bass thumping cars that shake the glass in our house) The safety of our rune month old twins is also a concern That is the reason we initially applied for the fence permit My wife & I feel it is necessary to have a fence facing the busy streets that is neither easily accessible from the outside or easy for our children to get out of from the inside Willard St is becoming busy as well as many people now cut over to get to Pine St faster by avoiding the intersection at Greeley & Pine In addition, there are people walking & nding bikes right through our yard, close to the house, without permission This is a safety issue as well as a privacy issue We appreciate your consideration in this matter Sincerely, ' Tracy & Piltnce Jenson r • • 1 L� 1 I c- July 10, 1997 Sue Fitzgerald This is to notify the City of Stillwater that we are withdrawing our request for a variance on Lot 1 in Wildpines #4 We would appreciate a refund of our $70 fee Thank you Mary Jackson Roger Jackson • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/97-39 Planning Commission Date July 14, 1997 Project Location 1216 West Ramsey Street Comprehensive Plan District One Family Residential Zoning Distnct RA Applicant's Name Joan and Paul Fnant Type of Application Variance Project Descnption A variance to the side yard setback (5 feet requested, 10 feet required) for the construction of an addition and a rear yard setback (3 feet requested, 5 feet required) for the construction of a garage Discussion The request is to construct a 20 foot x 23 foot addition to the west side of the existing house It would be 26'3" from the neighboring house The exterior design would look like a continuation of the existing structure Due to the layout of the house on the property, other than expanding at the front of the house, the west side is the only side that could be expanded (see site plan) A 15 foot x 23 foot addition could be constructed within the approved side yard setback The request includes a request for a variance to the rear yard setback for construction of a 22 foot x 32 foot garage The required setback is 5 feet and the applicant is asking for approval of a 3 foot setback There is no garage on site now There is an existing neighbors garage on the west side that is within a few feet of the property line The applicant states in the attached letter that the garage would be constructed with fire - retardant wall board Conditions of Approval Should the Commission approve the project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval 1 The exterior materials shall be used to present a coordinated appearance for the existing and the new structures 2 All drainage shall remain on site 3 Plans must be approved by the fire and building officials Recommendation Denial of the side yard setback request A 15' x 23' structure could be built Approval as conditioned of rear yard setback request Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, Toss 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 0 a e • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/97-40 Planning Commission Date July 14, 1997 Project Location 513 West Mulberry Street Comprehensive Plan Distnct Two Family Residential Zoning Distnct RB Applicant's Name Steve and Lon Skalman Type of Application Vanance Project Description A vanance to the side yard setback (5 feet required, 3 feet requested) for the construction of a garage Discussion The applicant is proposing to construct a 20 foot by 25 foot detached garage for a single family home There is no garage on site A porch is attached on the south side of the house inhibiting vehicle entry into the garage rf it was built with a 5 foot side yard setback Conditions of Approval 1 All matenals and colors to match the existing house 2 All Construction Documents be approved by the fire and budding officials 3 Drainage shall remain on site Recommendation Approval as conditioned Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial drfficulties, Toss of prospective profits and neighbonng violations are not hardships justifying a vanance 2 That a vanance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property nghts possessed by other properties in the same distnct and in the same vicinity, and that a vanance, if granted, would not constitute a special pnvilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authonzing of the vanance will not be of substantial detnment to adjacent property and not matenally impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application Form/Survey • Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED 70 DEPARTMENT Certificate of Compliance — Conditional or Special Use Permit Design Review Planned Unit Development _. Variance Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment Subdivision Resubdivision Total Fee FEE"' $70 $70/170 -0- $270 $70 5300 S300 S 100—$50"lot $50 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Addddress of Project �; 1 �r v`�" r' `t t Assessor's Parce No . C )30 r.O 2 t 0O �,6 ress District R'S3 Description of'Project ('_ •-• CA- e 0 P_tr),- In e, C� "1 hereb} state the foregoing statements and all data information and evidence submitted het ewith in all respects to the best of my knowledge and belief true and correct 1 further certify 1 will comply with the pet mit if it is gi anted and used " Property Owner C) `� t ���.. ( r` Representative gtF.V e, i c'.� i Y�n^� r Mailing Address C'f'ro I P.r eJt, (.) Mailing Address S 13 lY\ i )1 (`, 2, r t y W Telephone No 351 Telephone No 35 17 r) 1 Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions)w.ji x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Principal 1 Feett 1 Total building floor Area COO sq h Existing sq ft Proposed sq ft Paved Impervious Area C) sq ft .ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW Re%ised 9/19 9• CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY BARRETTM STACK STILLWATER MINN 55082 MINNESOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR Tel No 439 5630 )OB NO None SURVEY MADEEXCLUSIVELYFOR Steven and Lori Skalmin 513 West Mulberry St Stillwater MN DESCHIPlION As Described on Certificate of Title No 48480 Lots Two (2) and Four (4) excepting therefrom the the West Sixty and thirty eight one hundredths (60 38) feet in Block Two (2) THOMPSON PARKER and MOWER S SECOND ADDITION to Stillwater Washington County Minnesota NOTES Orientation of this bearing system is assumed o Indicates a 1/2 I D iron pipe set marked with a plastic plug inscribed RLS 13774 unless noted otherwise M Indicates neasured value R Indicates record value Underground or overhead public or private utilities on or adjacent the site were not located in conjunction with this survey unless shown or noted otherwise OU Indicates overhead utility lines inplace Note encroachnent of adjoining util service lines over and across the above described parcel without recorded easement Overhead utility lines servicing the above derribed parcel encroach over and across the adjoiner easterly without recorded easement THOMPSON PARKER and MOWER S SECOND ADDITION to Stillwater Washington County Minnesota is recorded as Doc No 416049 in Washington County records Offsets shown to existing structures are measured to the outside building wall line unless shown otherwise Projections fron said wall line such as eaves sills etc will decrease these offsets accordingly /Y.✓Wir Lenz r cow Ler 6 I Erg 1 ea /T6 N#f os JJ E �C�e M /IfB9= -- 60e75' — q0 T L., ll 4.1 6038 LOI e t - L✓ 6d F z `J s VP /-eI74/ /9cc 4/n A/6699 -- �/ / z BERRY Sr /1.0, - GO core - q. rote o.re fre -- 1k.. -5f/-- A --' 1 2Jr1 2r I Y 1 Q 16n c 6.v1,4- / ti Lr .//filet ZZ.; -n S \\\♦\ a>8V",e/rt \ & rl3/ii" r \ err So 6rsrr Jos e , r c 6 re) /Ye H S/3 .SKAL MAN /1 56- --587/628k/ 3L /LO ,t M Mne1 Swap J x� 006 (!w✓ e. /e \BL I 'I F Wy o OU— G / ( .7 /Zf89 T /26 — — I - '' R ` Terri uD! 1 hereby certify that this survey plan t r cp rt uas //Yr prepared by me or under my direct supcnts n a Id that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor the lass of LOT % the S to of Minn so/ s Dace AACi 1 16 1997 Reg ho 13774 • • • MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FR Steve Russell, Community Development Director DA July 11, 1997 RE SECOND DETACHED UNIT IN RB DISTRICT This item was referred to the Hentage Preservation Commission for their review and comment The HPC looked at it from the perspective of the impact of the second unit on the histonc quality of the older neighborhoods Attached to his memo is their comments The item is being referred to the building department, public works and water department for comment regarding service capacity and building codes It is recommended that the Planning Commission, after receiving that information, hold a public heanng with broad notification to the RB district property owners for input before a decision on the change Staff can prepare a draft RB zoning ordinance amendment for consideration at your next meeting and public hearing • • • MEMORANDUM To HPC From Steve Russell Date July 2, 1997 Subject Consideration of allowing second detached single family units in the RB Distnct The City has received several inquines regarding 2nd unit carnage house type dwelling units in the RB District There are benefits to allowing these 2nd units including the provision of smaller rental housing units in existing deN,eloped areas Other factors are parking traffic and design This item is referred from the Planning Commission to the Hentage Preserrat►on Commission for comment and recommendation regarding the design impact of allowing 2nd units in the RB Distnct (older Stillwater) Besides looking at allowing or not allowing the 2nd unit, conditions of allowing 2nd units could be suggested -Subject of HPC design review -Certain unit size maximums -Restnctions on location of unit -2nd fuel carnage house only If 2nd detached units are allowed it will potentially have a significant visual and impact in older neighborhoods The Commission will consider this item again at their Meeting of 7-14-97 Facsimile Cover Sheet I To 4S0e- Firti_0824 Company Ail OF �v i U , Date & Joy,' 9i Total, number of pages. (including this one) From c2o6. TAtitl message Iimsc. tz timm _?N CW TD PLPSN NZNcv RO"- V N Clzi ! f ? DtSTRi !X 1 Cb 11 itt I ss 10K PWL4 2"t i,E L CAR P1oe rtouse W r cat wcn (61101 optS 2 1,APer 4i Pr-t vwfvf y E .vcN( la veri1100 , t T i u N CC Fair u e5r?trr PPrP414 It. ) w Q.st cgg" 4- ' GA&4 4 P c 4OJc. N oT et, '1AtuEL 1fl\A.1 Pi14 t ' 1\0 j `fipvct'V ► CA k Hal cr (& Fv6W1 -5rt-€t , - iii'r�Awl TV 'j' fsms, - ro t►ar sT7zs raj to t. wW vw co- «tje ‘O, oo to so. F-r. (MO— T &vim mp,rtee. biSa'SStort ' — NPG Da tC.ot,! 12-e-! inJ CAOPA this [WS Eg. r-. aa. K r its-rt. x ` - w tom! t0.J ke-oti --• Pc tnn t t•t t wnu W\ p&tis 1--PttoutotA cxvYt ? CI E 100 49s' au, 'iF\lov tifws- ,a,q 0 Tomlen Environmental Design n PO Box 272 0 Manne on St Croix MN t] r5047 O CI phone (612)4335600 0 fax 433 5601 0 • • • MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FR Steve Russell, Community Development Director �✓ DA July 11, 1997 RE REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AUAR RESULTS AND SITE CONDITIONS FOR PHASE I CITY EXPANSION AREA Background Last Fall the Planning Commission began consideration of Phase I expansion area development At that time, the developers presented information on possible development concepts to the Planning Commission The Planning Commission held two field tnps, one touring the expansion area attended by park board members as well as the planning commission and one field tnp visiting recent or ongoing development project on the west side of the metro area Those early meetings introduced the commission to the site and recent development types in the area At that point, it was decided to prepare an alternative urban area wide review AUAR of the overall city comprehensive plan expansion That process began in January 1997 and will be completed mid August with City Council adoption of the mitigation plan A copy of the mitigation plan is attached Jerry Fontaine was on the AUAR Technical Committee that provided input to the AUAR Of particular importance to development of this area is mitigation #3 on page 5 The AUAR will be presented at Monday's meeting Environmental information will also be presented at meeting time to begin a new discussion of the Phase I expansion area land This will be the start of Planned Unit Development preparation and review It is anticipated the project review will continue for the next three or four months with PUD approval coordinated with utility construction and AUAR mitigation improvements Because of summer vacation schedules, it is suggested the commission set August 18th as your next meeting to discuss expansion area development (3rd Monday) and September 8th and October 13th It may be necessary based on the regular planning commission agenda load to schedule a special meeting on expansion are development dunng that period Recommendation Set schedule for expansion area plan development review for August 18, September 8 and October 13 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CI I Y OF S1ILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED DEPARTMENT Certificate of Compliance Conditional or Special Use Penult Design Review Planned Unit Development Variance Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment Subdivision Resubdivision Total Fee Tx - FEE") $70 $70/ 170 -0 $270 $70 $300 $300 $100+$50 lot $50 fhe 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 /c'/(o 1,✓ /?C.97fey 574 Assessor's Parcel No ////D - 23.50 Zoning District Description of Project C�-�dre-fin _A /0 ad 74 0ii /U A01,-7 & r" p� Grr4 G e. I he/ cbi state the foregoing statements and all data information and evidence submitted herewith in all cspccts to the best of my knowledge and belief true and correct I fitrthei certify 1 will comply with the pei tint if it is gi anted and used " Property Owner-PLL /.c /nay �i'-i61,1-6 Representative Se/12 Mailing Address /2/6, !.V.7 7in5'E'c1. 574 Mailing Address <-5c.,.r, e- 1/,//vu /fir', ,-2-7 /tJ',3'SC 9Z Telephone No Telephone No <k •9' 7V 7 5 n i(/ 1 Signature -� AcX (/v(h Signature zz SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) 70 ' x 450 Land Area /(> SDO ,L 17.1 Height of Buildings Storiesu Feet Pi incipal / 013 13" Total building floor Area f 5/60 sq ft Existing // v 6O sq ft Proposed 960 sq ft Paved Impervious Area 9Z8 sq ft ("ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW Rc� ued 9/19 9., June 16 1997 Mr Steve Russell Director — Community Development Department City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater Minnesota 55082 Dear Steve Thank you for sending us the Planning Administration Form which we requested We are enclosing the completed form and the following information which may be helpful to the Planning Board 1 Address 1216 West Ramsey Street Stillwater MN 55082 Parcel #11110-2350 East 20 feet of Lot 8 and all of Lot 9 Block 1 Sinclair s Addition 2 Dimensions of lot 70 by 150 West side of house 25 from property line East side of house(porch) sidewalk/driveway 13 6 + 9 9 grass = 23 3 from property line 3 Proposed addition 20 wide by 23 deep on west side of house equal to depth of original section of house roof line perpendicular to old roof line ( story and a half ) 4 Requested variance 5' setback from west property line (rather than standard 10' setback from property line) addition would be 26 3 from neighbor s house (corner of addition to nearest south east corner of neighbor s house professionals will be consulted to insure drainage away from hill that slopes to neighbor s property 5 Proposed garage 22 wide by 32' deep on northeast portion of lot 6 Requested variance 3' setback from east property line (rather than standard 5' setback from property lone) garage would be 10 from neighbor s house garage would be constructed with fire -retardant wall board 7 A civil engineer is preparing a contour map of the lot to insure proper slope (build- up and cut -down) and drainage from all structures -2- 1 1 We have consulted an architect and two engineers in the planning of these projects The following points support our plans 1 Addition to house 1 -Our present house has three very small bedrooms upstairs (ours is 11 by 12' our teenage and 11- year -old sons share an 8 by 9 room our daughter s room is no larger than a walk-in closets) and a small living room dining room' kitchen and bathroom on the main floor The basement is the old Stillwater dungeon type which is suitable in size for the furnace and water heater but offers no dry storage or living space We plan to remove the outside "shed entrance to the basement which will enclose the stairway within the new addition, allowing basement access from indoors —The proposed addition will includeia full basement 20 by 23 first level and the typical 1/2 story above the first level for two bedrooms —The exterior will be appropriately designed to appear as a continuation of the renovation we have completed on the exterior of the original structure This design is in keeping with the era (1880 s) of the original (front) structure of the home —The addition will enable us to add two reasonably -sized bedrooms upstairs (for a total of 4 bedrooms as the two tiny bedrooms will be converted into one) a family room and home office basement storage and very importantly a second bathroom The proposed addition to our house is on the southwest portion of our lot This location is the furthest away (on the west side of our lot) from the neighbor s house We will be consulting experts to determine the appropriate directions for drainage to prevent water from draining towards our neighbor s property 2 Garage —The existing driveway runs from Ramsey Street along the east side side of our home We will be removing the worn-out existing driveway and widening the driveway to accommodate side -by -side parking of two cars The new driveway will run approximately 25 feet further north to the (proposed) garage apron —The location for the proposed garage is next to the neighbor s garage and will not disrupt any view from his home It will improve his view of our lot bicycles lawn mower wheelbarrow garbage can, etc will have proper storage in the garage —We have also considered the fact that this neighbor complains about the noise of our car doors closing in the evening as our present parking area is under his bedroom window Our proposed garage site is 40 feet from where we now park our car(s) and would cut down on this noise -3- We bought our home twelve and one-half years ago (January of 1985) when our oldest son was eighteen months old As our family has grown (we have three children) so has our attachment to this neighborhood and the home that we have so diligently worked on to bring up to the standards of the area Ours is a lovely neighborhood with wonderful friends and neighbors around us We have chosen to stay here and have our home grow with us We believe the design and layout of our plans will only enhance the improvements we have made on our lot The variance requested for the addition will give us the much -needed living space we desire The two -foot variance for the garage will prevent a curve in our driveway that would bring the garage to block most of our view of the back yard from the kitchen window Presently this is the only main -floor window facing north (to the backyard) We are enclosing the proposed layout with additional features which may be helpful in visualizing our plans and how they relate to the present structure and landscaping Also enclosed is a petition signed by many of our neighbors within the 350 foot notification radius which indicates their approval of our proposed plans Thank you for your consideration of our plans Please contact us if you have any questions or further information is requested Respectfully submitted (— t' i(J Paul and Joan Friant 1216 West Ramsey Street Stillwater MN 55082 439-7475 / 50' 23- F /I' --20� <— 22' i T 16 ENV < 70 ONPIP 23' •LCT S/zs-: 7®'/50 REQUL5T D *44NCE ifoRAbD,776,v 5 (Wts T 1o7 L/A/E) ,FoR &-4R, O (EAST to- LINE -) A B 1 C 150, vv657- F.; FL r3 4 L21 N //C -5E our-s iD 43E"N/ENr F '7 PaRcW 5/DEwALK ?DR/ /CAA 'AAy l=En%cr, SUGAR MM0,7zt l/4,'D /4'/�4,2Z6 ,451/ 54 VVK /,//2- s 315 s"P 'vcO L:DIae,,/L k) G:ui X,95Pv'EA'A y pNrd/7" PRcPc5EJ iI D�>/ 7JoN Se4hc: / C.', = AFT \n�L= Si 5 i.Dc U�= Z 2T - 1-JrCf-1 P/R �OSEZ) A'2' /4D2,/7"/aN cfIS % SiG,& Cif /6 T - L c/a )-) i4/& / v or),, C J L- 4,e//6 C IA/z=s--r Zor - 4,./77cuvi ei 7- — L / A / /2/7 7-/5Ey Th'E T TrtIrr �.11.1l1J 1�;11 r 111111111 � i i � : it1►iriltiiiiii A/57- /7N5-Ey „s-TeE,7- P,E9z/z ,704/v A-7v74/v7 • A,ea/t/ j fijql 11'7 Aim • • eyzCL-' /c'o /v/c7‘ $d2j6/1/e/k4 7-e) s C-ibe#96 I have read Paul and Joan Friant's proposal to the Stillwater Community Development Department (Planning Board) and looked at their plans for the improvements to their lot I am not opposed to the addition to the house or the garage planned at 1216 West Ramsey Street Address Telephone # / 5// -7 y3J- l� fz 1/39- 01 /? /1 7 6 )-i,<•_-L /) )31Jij —111-q—Lat&-h5-f3 IthA72-6—j A202 10 ( 14 )(2(,e,„}„,zp,pdA---_/ d / (/ - 28".f3 (-' 7V-(4_77/ /Po V L/ r/2-6 I,✓, Pise y 3V-9-54 ic ST • 1 EET G R 0 V E S T L1. 0 \ E T C E N T E R S T k�' i EE SET .. • fr ..,,,q;;;, • .reenlial.; •••••••••, 4111•••• e. q4001.00,;••• ANchigkeJaxr 1.„Clr • ; • P • • cirtivioNrioos t tits** osiofy 'that this phin vsii pysysysid by thik Im3indif ibydfroetsi*Tvisbr. ihtt.thstlbat &duly' ..1'.1411* AtwitOthS ttele. of Mimosa*: cv odorol' how wo- bibits- Soh of sty pan* Ns. picosieuvit, *about • 1 WINDsCA 0