Laserfiche WebLink
June 1, 1982 <br />they then said that you must put in Conuiercial ccxikitV,, facilities - you must put in <br />fire protection - you must put in fire doors - you must have fire escapes, etc. - so <br />government in the form of the State of Minnesota caid to this property owner 'look you <br />must rake these investments' - now we are saying; tl-::t the only reasonable use of this <br />property is a single family and there is no way that you are going to get a si.mgle family <br />to occupy this premise - may find it falling into disrepair over the years - instead of <br />being a high tax property, it becammes one that will be pretty much of an eyesore to the <br />neighborhood rather than one that can be utilized. He felt that the City has to encourage <br />the use of these bigger homes and if it means sane breakdown of the "so-called" single <br />family neighborhood so be it. <br />MOLLY S EWART felt that the family should reside in the residence and this would be a <br />different story and she felt that this is a hotel - it is not her understanding, of a <br />bed h breakfast. <br />COUNCILMAN PEIERSON WAS CONCERNED that this be a residence as well. <br />MAYOR JUNKFA stated that they own a house on North Fourth and they plan on owning that <br />home and running this other at the same time, but they will be spending a lot of time <br />there. <br />MRS. VEGSUND stated that they intend to reside at 306 West Olive Street - they have a <br />bedroom picked out for themselves - they intend to stay there - they do not have a <br />kitchen at 402 North fourth Street - they intend to use the kitchen a, Olive Street - <br />they intend to use the living space there - they are keeping this hank- as a "retreat" <br />and possibly there will be a "nor sale" sign on the Fourth Street hang as they will trove <br />entirely over to Olive Street. They have not proposed to sell their "lame at 402 North <br />Fourth Street at this time, but they will be staying; in the bedroom on Olive Street. <br />MR. KASTELLE felt that they would be remise if the only use was a commercial venture of <br />the bed -breakfast type - there are a number of things that can be done with this structure - <br />condominiums, apartnent's - felt that they should not be locked in on one use for this <br />property. <br />NARY A% RHEINBERGER, 818 West Olive Street, stated that she travelled extensively in <br />Europe and stayed at bed and breakfast homes nimerow; times and it had been her <br />experience that they do party there and if these people do not reside there, then there <br />would mmure of a case where they do party. <br />a <br />OOUNCIUAOMAN AVISF asked for some clarification asked about the vested rights for/building <br />and under the existing; ordinances would the Council be able to either pernmit or deny the <br />use that is being requested. <br />MR. MA NU''SON replied that this would be much different than the case on South Broadway - <br />in a way it is similar because the way the zoning; ordinance is written that is where <br />conmercial uses are permitted by Conditional Use Permit, it means that the burden is on <br />the City Council if they chose to deny it to come forward to show legally sufficient <br />reasons and he has stated marry times that the objections of the neighbors alone without <br />other grounds are not erwugh and it is the quality of the neighborhood approach that is <br />iq)ortant - sufficient reasons are those related to the health, safety and welfare of <br />the community - traffic hazards, health hazards, serious depreciation of neighboring <br />properties, and those sort of concerns. The mere aesthetic concerns that the neighbors <br />have are really not - so the Council has to have evidence demonstrated on the records <br />and the record }}�����}} t has occurred tonite to support the denial would have to be <br />legally sufficiO5 ,, §y her than just valid objections. <br />C0LNCILWQW4 AVISh SIA1711;U that it see ned to her that referring to the Comprehenr ive Plan <br />and the preservation of Stillwater that they have a too sided issue - first of all there <br />is the Preservation of tlu nc i}'hlxnixxxi as a residential ncighborlx)od - there could be a <br />question there ,ms to w',u•,'.ifr or ix)t with the Avtcn;on fac:il:ty has been there-�CcLher it <br />