Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-17 CPC Packeti11wai THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLEASE NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by attending the meeting in person at City Hall in the Council Chambers, 216 4th St N, by logging into https://www.zoomgov.com or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 877 9021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17th, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of October 27th, 2021 regular meeting minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 2. Case No. 2021-62: Consideration of a Variance to lot coverage and setbacks to build a new garage within 1 foot of the property line. Property located at 201 Burlington Street East in the RB District. Amanda Peters of Olson Construction, applicant and Arlyce and Richard Melheim, property owners. 3. Case No. 2021-63: Consideration of an after the fact, accessory structure variance to build a shed on the property located at 1008 Broadway St S in the RB district. Brett and Kerri Ritzer, property owners. 4. Case No. 2021-65: Consideration of a Variance to the structural coverage in order to construct a detached garage on the property located at 923 5th St N in the RB district. Anthony Zappa, property owner. 5. Case No. 2021-64: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to amend the fence code regulations. City of Stillwater, applicant. -Tabled VIII. DISCUSSION 6. Accessory structure and uses discussion IX. FYI — STAFF UPDATES X. ADJOURNMENT ilivater THE 1INTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 27, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Hansen, Hoffman, Knippenberg, Meyhoff, Steinwall, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill, City Planner Wittman, Zoning Administrator Tait APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of September 22, 2021 regular meeting Commissioner Hansen stated that the motion for adoption of the August 25, 2021 minutes was seconded by Hoffman, not Hansen. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2021 meeting as amended. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Meyhoff abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2021-54: Consideration of a Re -subdivision to split the property into two lots and a rezone from AP to RB. Property located at 13187 Dellwood Rd N in the AP district. Integrity Land Development, Todd Ganz, applicant and Gary and June Jorgensen. property owner. City Planner Wittman explained that Gary Jorgensen wishes to split his 3.8-acre lot into two lots, both accessed off of the existing driveway. Applicant Todd Ganz of Integrity Land Development has submitted a request for preliminary and final plats. Because the property is currently zoned AP - Agricultural Preservation, the resubdivision requires rezoning. During the public hearing held at the Commission's last meeting, adjacent property owners Steve and Diana Middleton of 9142 Newgate Ave N expressed concern for the creation of a land -locked parcel that would be accessed off an existing driveway that crosses over the Middletons' parcel. They stated that they believed they would not be able to develop their parcel if this subdivision occurred. The Commission tabled the request and directed staff to research the Middletons' concerns. Staff did so and found that the adjacent property owned by the Middletons is not buildable as there is not sufficient land area outside of established easements and setbacks for the construction of a structure. In the event the Middletons acquire additional land that would change the buildable status of this parcel, they could request an exception to Planning Commission October 27, 2021 the City's driveway/street development standards. Therefore, the Jorg Hills subdivision does not preclude future development from occurring. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and rezoning with nine conditions. Councilmember Odebrecht stated there is broad neighborhood agreement with the plan. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2021-54, Re -subdivision to split the property at 13187 Dellwood Rd N into two lots and a rezoning from AP to RB, with the nine staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2021-57: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Outside Storage for a vehicle impound lot associated with Stillwater Towing and a Variance to the Tree and Forest Protection requirements. Property located at 1749 Greeley St S in the BP -I district. Rick Ritzer of RMR of Stillwater, property owner. City Planner Wittman explained the case. Stillwater Towing has purchased the property at 1749 Greeley St S and would like to move its business operations, including outside storage for an impound lot related to the towing operations, to this site. She pointed out that the City works with Stillwater Towing but the City has no financial gain associated with this request. The plan calls for site alterations that include tree and vegetation removal and driveway, parking and storage yard reconstruction and expansion. Though not contemplated at this time, the business may expand its operations in the future to include auto repair. She noted that automobile repair and related services are an outright permitted use in the BP -I district; however, auto sales and storage are not. The applicant is requesting: 1) a Conditional Use Permit for Outside Storage for a vehicle impound lot associated with Stillwater Towing; and 2) a Variance to the Tree and Forest Protection Regulations. Ms. Wittman further stated that Joanna Schnedler, adjacent residential property owner on Rainbow Court to the east and approximately 50' lower in elevation from the subject property, submitted written concerns about noise generated during nighttime operations. Five more written comments were received today, most focusing on tree protection requirements. While the noise ordinance limits certain activities (including operating recreational vehicles, domestic power equipment and construction activities) between certain hours, this type of business use is not specifically called out. Therefore, the business would be subject to the L10 and L50 standards. However, there is no day/night standard change for commercial or industrial operations. It is recommended the Commission consider measures to help reduce the nighttime impact to adjacent residential properties. Overall, staff finds that, with certain conditions, the requests substantially conform to City Code. Staff has developed 17 recommended conditions of approval. However staff recommends the Planning Commission defer the request to the City Council for final consideration. Commissioner Steinwall asked for clarification on automobile storage restrictions in the zoning code. Ms. Wittman replied that because the impounded vehicles are there temporarily, staff considers this use to be more of a temporary activity than other types of outdoor storage. However the Commission may decide to disagree with the staff interpretation. Commissioner Hansen asked if Stillwater Towing's existing site is grandfathered in. Ms. Wittman stated yes, there is no use permit on file for that property. Rick Ritzer, applicant, said that he has operated his business at 1656 S Greeley St since 1980. Page 2 of 9 Planning Commission October 27, 2021 Commissioner Hansen asked why the new site is so much larger than the existing site, as to require the removal of 180 trees. Mr. Ritzer replied he has outgrown the current area times 10. He has been in business since 1975. Equipment today is larger and there are more cars, so they presently have to move cars 2-3 times, and it is costly to do that. They hold cars for anywhere from 1 day to more than 75 days depending on the law, the owner and the transfer among other factors. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if a 90-day time limit would work. Mr. Ritzer runs his business well, but he does not want a future owner to turn it into a junkyard. Mr. Ritzer replied some vehicles cannot leave in that time frame due to liens, holds and so on. In the worst case scenario he would then have to move them to one of his other lots. He is able to sell only 10-15 cars/year, most are scrapped, not sold. He does not have auctions nor dismantle the cars. Pointing out that the towing business is 24/7, Commissioner Meyhoff asked how he would operate with the recommended condition of no activity from 10 p.m - 6 a.m. Mr. Ritzer replied that time restriction would be very inconvenient. Neighbors live less than 50 ft away from his present impound lot and he has not had a complaint about noise in 40 years. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Martin Widenbrant (no address given) asked about temporary versus long term storage. He stated that even if cars are rotated it would essentially still be a giant parking lot. Ms. Wittman replied that staff felt the actual storage of individual vehicles would be temporary. Mark Ogren, 1221 Third Ave S, said his family owned the property and sold it to Mr. Ritzer a year and a half ago. The property is not in the middle of a residential area, it is a commercial area and is screened. It used to be a trucking company that ran 24 hours. Accidents necessitating towing happen 24 hours a day. It would be very hard for the applicant to operate only during the daytime. Brenda Goetl, 820 Rainbow Ct, said she enjoys the quietness of the neighborhood. She voiced concerns about noise pollution, the removal of trees that are blocking noise from Greeley St, and the backup beeping of trucks all night. She said the whole understory is gone already and she has picked up garbage from that area. She also is worried about light pollution. She suggested that the replacement vegetation be required to be native trees, grasses and flowers that will put down longer roots and help stabilize the area. She reminded the Commission of the wildlife displacement and Stillwater's Bird City and Pollinator Friendly commitment. Matt Goetl, 820 Rainbow Ct, said the significant trees that will be lost are very large white pines and large, beautiful red pines. Trees are already tagged and the understory has been removed which seems like they are already moving forward without authorization. Mr. Ritzer responded that the underbrush was cut so they could get in there to tag and number the trees. Ms. Wittman confirmed no trees have been removed. Norma Wilson, 804 Harriet Dr, said she supports local businesses but the tree protection requirements should be followed. She reminded the Commission of the Bird City, Pollinator Friendly, GreenStep Cities and Sustainable Stillwater organizations that protect the environment. She expressed concern about runoff impacting yards. Page 3 of 9 Planning Commission October 27, 2021 Brenda Goetl added that cars leaking fluids will be put inside, but how will that be monitored? Ms. Wittman stated that a stormwater protection plan will be required. Councilmember Odebrecht added there is also a requirement for a stormwater test in a year and escrow for cleanup if needed. Lou Ann Marsden, 806 Everett Dr, told the Commission she was not notified of the hearing. Her main concern is why so many trees need to be removed considering the wildlife habitat there. Joanna Schnedler, 814 Rainbow Ct, said she will be able to see activities from her backyard. She appreciates the need for business expansion but questioned the need to remove so many trees. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Steinwall voiced concern about the staff interpretation of outside storage, automobile storage and sales not being permitted. She would conclude the use actually is auto storage and sales, not the more general outdoor storage, and that the more restrictive provision of the zoning code would apply. Regarding the Condition Use Permit, she does not think this use conforms with the zoning code nor the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the variance, she believes significant tree removal is contrary to the spirit of the tree preservation ordinance and would alter the neighborhood to the east. Practical hardship has not been established. Commissioner Hansen remarked it is not typical for the Planning Commission to defer a decision to the City Council but he agrees with staff that elected officials should make this decision. Generally speaking, he does not think the use is a problem on the site. It is a massive parcel and only the front part has been utilized. He does not like the removal of large trees but it is not enough to say this property owner shouldn't be allowed to develop their property because of it. That said, he does not see why all these trees need to be removed. But he acknowledged there is difference between an old growth tree stand and a bunch of weed trees that nobody ever cut down. Commissioner Knippenberg agreed the case should be deferred to the City Council. Commissioner Meyhoff also agreed with sending it to Council. He is having trouble with the definition of the variance where it says it will not alter the essential character of the locality. This will alter it. He is pro economic development and thinks this would be a good use for the property, but the variance justification seems to be based on economic considerations. Councilmember Odebrecht said he shares Commissioner Steinwall's concern about interpretation. The City Council has the advantage of having City Attorney Land weigh in. Also he would like to see native plants and species used in replanting. Commissioner Hoffman shared that he likes to see a small business grow but it looks like there is room without going into the tree stand. If it is based on business volume then it is an economic decision. He feels the City Council has more tools to handle this. Chairman Dybvig said the Planning Commission should at least try to decide the case and it will be appealed up to the Council. He has serious concerns about tree removal and feels there is not justification for the tree variance. He understands Commissioner Steinwall's objection but this is industrial land and he does not know what zoning would allow for this type of storage. If there are complaints, staff is able to bring it back before the Planning Commission for another public hearing. He would like to see this added as another condition. Page 4 of 9 Planning Commission October 27, 2021 City Planner Wittman confirmed if there are substantiated complaints or a violation, staff has the option to notice for possible revocation of the use permit, and hold a public hearing. Motion by Chairman Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Outside Storage for a vehicle impound lot associated with Stillwater Towing, 1749 Greeley St S, Case No. 2021-57, with the 17 staff -recommended conditions, adding a condition that if there are substantiated complaints, planning staff will bring the CUP back for a public hearing before the Planning Commission; and to deny the tree variance. Councilmember Odebrecht suggested an amendment to add a requirement that environmental testing of the water runoff will be required for two consecutive years, with the applicant or property owner being responsible for providing documentation. Chairman Dybvig and Commissioner Hansen agreed to the amendment. Ms. Wittman recommended adding a condition that the applicant submit a lighting plan with cutoff at the property line, to be submitted at the time of the grading permit. Commissioner Steinwall asked if the motion could be split in two, one motion on the CUP and the other on the variance. City Planner Wittman noted that the condition that is specific to tree size (Condition #11b) would probably need to be amended because if the variance is not approved, they still can remove 35% of the property's trees per City code. She suggested removing the "63 bare root trees" requirement. It is still applicable to have a landscaping plan. It would just be an amendment to 11b that full tree replacement per City code shall be required, just removing the bare root requirement. Commissioner Hansen suggested striking Condition #6 because nighttime activities are necessary with a towing company. Councilmember Odebrecht said since there are two lots, maybe the existing lot could serve as the nighttime lot and the other lot be used during the daytime. Mr. Ritzer explained that the first lot between the two buildings is just a secure area for trucks to drive into. The back part is the impound lot - he does not want to drop cars there because they need to be in a secure area at night. Regarding noise, he has been at his current location 40 years and never had a complaint. His yard, trucks, and property are kept very clean. He does not think there will be an issue with noise or lighting. Ms. Wittman summarized the motion on the table: Motion by Dybvig, seconded by Hansen, to approve the CUP and deny the variance, with three amendments agreed upon: that upon substantiated complaints about noise, light or other conditions, the CUP will be brought back before the Planning Commission for a public hearing; that environmental testing for runoff will occur for two consecutive years and the applicant will be responsible to provide documentation; that a lighting plan with photometrics will be submitted at the time of grading permit. Lighting shall be cut off at the property line; amending Condition #11b, removing "63 bare root trees"; and removing Condition #6. Councilmember Odebrecht asked, what is the appeal mechanism? Ms. Wittman replied any person who has an interest in the application (applicant or anyone impacted) may appeal within 10 days in writing with the appeal fee of $50. That gets scheduled for a public hearing at the City Council. The whole thing is a do -over at the Council level. Page 5 of 9 Planning Commission October 27, 2021 Motion passed 6-1 with Councilmember Odebrecht voting nay. Case No. 2021-58: Consideration of Variances associated with constructing a new entryway and covered front porch. Property located at 125 Sherburne St N in the RB district. Brian and Sundi Dobson, property owners. Zoning Administrator Tait stated that the applicant is proposing to replace an existing 8.4' X 12.1' entryway, with an 8' X 10' entryway surrounded by a 14' X 21.75' front porch, necessitating three variances: 1) a 7.7' variance to allow a porch in RB District be located 12.3' from the front yard lot line where the required setback is 20'; 2) a 15.6' variance to allow a porch to be located 4.4' from the exterior side yard lot line where the required setback is 20'; and 3) a 17.46% variance to the structural lot coverage, to allow for the structural lot coverage to be 42.46%, where the maximum structural lot coverage is 25%. The City received two letters supporting the variance. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Sundi Dobson, applicant, stated the porch is detached from the house and needs replacement. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2021-58, Variances associated with constructing a new entryway and covered front porch at 125 Sherburne St N, with the three conditions recommended by staff (removing Condition #4 which was in the first draft of the staff report and removed before discussion). All in favor. Case No. 2021-59: A Conditional Use Permit for a Type III Home Occupation to operate creative arts day retreats and a Variance to the 20% maximum gross floor area requirement for Type III Home Occupations. Property located at 625 5th St N in the RB District. William Griffith, applicant and Martin and Judy Nora, property owners. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. William Griffith of Larkin Hoffman, representing Jeanne Francis Dietrich, has applied for a Type III Home Occupation Permit for the residence at 625 5th St N, known as the William Sauntry Recreation Hall. Ms. Dietrich intends to purchase the home for use as her residence and operate a creative arts day retreat in a portion of the home. The business would have one non-resident employee in the future. The applicant is requesting: 1) a Conditional Use Permit for a Type III Home Occupation to operate creative arts day retreats; and 2) a Variance to the 20% maximum gross floor area requirement for Type III Home Occupations. Staff recommends approval with 15 conditions. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Jeanne Francis Dietrich, applicant, explained her plan to live on site and operate the retreat center very occasionally. It will have very low impact and her guest clientele will support other Stillwater businesses. Bill Griffith, representing the applicant, said the very large 1400 square foot living room was built to serve as a place of assembly, constituting a non -economic hardship. The plan will give new life to this historic home. Don Schoff, 212 Maple St W, said the proposed use will be preferable to the building's past use as an apartment building. He supports the proposal and has no concerns. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to approve Case No. 2021-58, Conditional Use Permit for a Type III Home Occupation to operate creative arts day retreats Page 6 of 9 Planning Commission October 27, 2021 and a Variance to the 20% maximum gross floor area requirement for Type III Home Occupations, located at 625 5th St N, with the 15 conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2021-60: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate an assembly hall and outdoor events at 324 Main St S in the Central business district. Corey Burstad of Elevage Group, applicant and Grand Garage Holdings, property owner. Community Development Director Gladhill explained that Corey Burstad of Elevage Group has submitted a Design Permit application to convert the rear of the Grand Garage building, formerly occupied by Lion's Tavern, into the Lora Hotel Event Center. There are two major components of the project: 1) reconstruction of the former restaurant into an event center with modifications to the interior floor plan and facade improvements to the Nelson Street facade and patio facing facade; and 2) reconstruction of outdoor patio for continue use for outdoor event space. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the conversion of the former restaurant space into an event center, and amendments to the previous use permit for the outdoor patio to allow for regular outdoor events and expanded hours of use. The use will be similar to the previous use, except that the restaurant will not be open to the public, only utilized for private events as a component of the Lora Hotel. A public comment was received from a residential neighbor asking that the City ensure that the noise from the outdoor patio be managed so as to not create a nuisance. Another public comment from Cameron Murray, 350 Main St, suggested adding a requirement for smoking stations and requiring cleanup of the City sidewalk and street along the property after events. This space with the outdoor patio has generated past complaints because the topography/elevation lends itself to noise traveling into the residential neighborhood to the west. The City recently revised its Code Enforcement Tools, most notably Administrative Citations, to be able to better respond to nuisance complaints. Staff is hopeful that past concerns can be alleviated. Staff originally recommended a condition of approval stipulating that outdoor amplified music end no later than 10:00 p.m. The applicant has requested that events be allowed to utilize this outdoor space until 12:00 a.m. (midnight) on weekends. Additionally, the applicant would like to start events earlier than 12:00 p.m. (noon). Therefore staff revised that condition, which must be approved by the City Council as a waiver to code. Staff recommends approval with ten conditions. Commissioner Hansen asked if this is treated as an independent facility from the Lora Hotel in terms of parking mitigation. Mr. Gladhill replied there will be some overlap in attendees, but not everyone at the event will be a hotel patron, so the Downtown Parking Commission felt that mitigating 15 spaces was an appropriate approach. Commissioner Steinwall asked if a waste removal plan is in place. Mr. Gladhill replied that waste removal requirement tools are in City code but it could be added as a condition. Corey Burstad, applicant and owner of the Lora Hotel, explained that clients are looking for a small venue with a small hotel. The hotel's existing restaurant is not suitable for events. This plan will improve an empty, under-utilized property. The max capacity will be 150 people. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Cameron Murray, 350 Main St N, Sustainable Stillwater, stated the event centers downtown are the largest source of cigarette butts on the street. Some smoking stations have been placed but there are still litter problems. He asked that a condition be added requiring smoking stations and cleanup after events. There is little that can be done after a CUP is issued. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Page 7 of 9 Planning Commission October 27, 2021 Commissioner Meyhoff commended Mr. Burstad on the quality of the Lora Hotel and his conscientiousness in business matters. He supports the proposal. Commissioner Hoffman noted the property has been under -used and the proposal will drive traffic. His only question is how to handle the request to go later than 10 p.m. Councilmember Odebrecht suggested amending Condition #10 to do a 90 day review and allowing for review on complaint. Commissioner Steinwall asked, since the Council must approve the condition allowing amplification past 10 p.m., is it appropriate for the Commission to remove that condition? Mr. Gladhill replied that normally, the Planning Commission would approve a CUP. If the Commission wishes, it could recommend the Council approve the CUP with the recommended conditions, and the Council could decide whether to allow events to go past 10 p.m. Mr. Burstad said he supports a clean city and will continue to keep his properties clean, but he does not want people smoking near the door. Commissioner Hansen asked how many restaurants have been allowed to have amplified sound past 10 p.m.? Ms. Wittman replied maybe only 2-3. Commissioner Hansen said the downtown is a natural amphitheater and he is not in favor of pushing outdoor noise past 10 p.m. It would open the floodgates. Otherwise he thinks this use is perfect for the space. Councilmember Odebrecht said he likes the idea of deferring the case to the City Council because the noise issue needs to be a policy decision. Chairman Dybvig asked if the Council is able to change conditions on a CUP. Mr. Gladhill replied the Council may update City code based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. The applicant may appeal the decision. Ms. Wittman added that the Council also could initiate a new hearing - that would be the only time they could amend a condition. They can't just remove a condition. Mr. Burstad clarified that the request for amplified music was to mirror the Water Street Inn. It was not to set a new standard, only to make both venues equal. Mr. Gladhill pointed out the Water Street Inn's events may go until 11:30 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve Case No. 2021-60, Special Use Permit to operate an assembly hall and outdoor events at 324 Main St S, with the ten conditions as stated in the staff report. Councilmember Odebrecht suggested an amendment adding language in Condition #10 reserving the right to review the SUP on an ongoing basis after the 90 day review, on complaint, as determined by the Community Development Director. The amendment was OK'd by Steinwall and Knippenberg. All in favor. Case No. 2021-61: Consideration of a Variance to the front yard setback for the addition of an entryway to the house property located at 2472 Hidden Valley Ln in the RA District. Joseph Hansen, property owner. Mr. Tait explained that Joseph Hansen is proposing to add an entryway to the front of his house, which includes a 4' X 6.5' foyer and a small approximately 4' deep roofed porch off the Page 8 of 9 Planning Commission October 27, 2021 front of the foyer. The house is currently 32' from the front property line and the construction of a new front foyer and porch will necessitate a 6' variance to the front yard setback. Staff recommends approval of the enclosed section of the variance with three conditions, and recommends denial for the additional 4' roofed porch. He added that this is not a unique request and the City is likely to hear more similar requests. The Planning Commission should consider updating existing front yard setback regulations to allow 25' setbacks or allow front porches to be a permitted encroachment into the front yard setback to assist with future requests. Joe Hansen, applicant, said the language used in the code, such as "altering the essential character of the neighborhood," is subjective and open to interpretation. "Uniform setbacks" precludes organic variations that lend interest within neighborhoods. His entryway is smaller than others and the improvement is needed for space. What would be allowed under code would look like a side door on the front of the house. The proposed improvement will not harm anything, cut down trees or displace wildlife. Kathryn Davis, 636 Evergreen Ct, on Zoom, voiced full support of the plan. She would like to do the same improvement at her house. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Larry Krause, 2496 Hidden Valley Ln, spoke in support of the plan. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knippenberg affirmed the entryway of the house is very, very small. She appreciates the modernization and supports the addition of the porch as it adds character. Commissioner Hansen agreed that there is so much uniformity in that neighborhood that sticking with the essential character there would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He is not 100% in favor of changing the code to allow for different setbacks as suggested by staff. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2021-61, Variance to the front yard setback for the addition of an entryway to the house property located at 2472 Hidden Valley Ln, with the three conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. DISCUSSION The Commission changed meeting dates to November 17 and December 15. FYI STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: John Dybvig, Chair Page 9 of 9 Planning Commission October 27, 2021 Abbi Wittman, City Planner Page 10 of 9 illwater THE 6 4 R T H P L A C E OF- M I N N E S O 1 A PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DISTRICT: REPORT BY: Planning Commission November 17, 2021 Amanda Peters Arlyce & Richard Melheim Consideration of Variances associated with replacing a 428 Square foot detached garage with a 552 Square foot detached garage and 120 Square foot covered walkway. 201 Burlington St East RB (Two -Family Residential) Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator CASE NO.: CPC-2021-62 INTRODUCTION Mr. and Mrs. Melheim own the house on the 6,720 square foot property at 201 Burlington St E. They are proposing to replace an existing 428 square foot detached garage with a larger 552 square foot detached garage, along with a 120 square foot covered walkway that connects the garage to the house. The garage is being proposed to be built in the southeast section of the property, with a distance of one foot from both the western and southern property boundaries. The existing garage is actually setback less than one (1) foot from each of these property lines. The proposed garage will actually have slightly more setback from the property line. Minnesota Statute would protect this setback deficiency as a lawful, nonconforming use so long as the nonconformity is not expanded. In this case, the nonconforming building is expanding, so issuance of a Variance is an appropriate tool. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting three variances associated with the construction of a detached garage and a covered walkway: ➢ A two -foot variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow a detached accessory structure in RB District be located 1' from the rear yard lot line whereas the required setback is three feet. ➢ A two -foot variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow a detached accessory structure in RB District be located 1' from the interior side yard lot line whereas the required setback is three feet. ➢ A 9.4%1 variance to the structural lot coverage, to allow for the structural lot coverage to be 34.4%, where the maximum structural lot coverage is 25%. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner A property within a residential district proposing to add a 552 square foot garage with a covered walkway is reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstance is that the lot size is small; the property is 6,720 square feet, whereas the minimum lot size for this district is at least 7,500 square feet. Additionally, this property is legal nonconforming, and is already 5.8% over the structural coverage, and the current request only tacks on an additional 244 square feet of coverage. Similarly, the existing garage also does not conform to the district's setbacks, and is located less than a foot to the property line. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The circumstances were not created by the landowner because the house was constructed in 1884, and the garage in 1970. The property is already over the allowed structural coverage, and any expansion necessitates a variance. The garage is currently within the required setbacks. However, staff feels that with the complete reconstruction of the garage, conformity with three-foot setbacks can easily be achieved by shifting the location of the garage and/or slightly decreasing the size of the garage. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. In this historic district, most of the properties have garages 1 The current structural coverage is 30.8% (legal nonconforming), so the request is only for an additional increase of 3.6% structural coverage. that are detached and in the rear of the property, and typically its area is no larger than 10% of the lot size. The Melheims are proposing a garage that matches this description and will fit right in to the neighborhood. The variance to the setbacks, could have negative effects on the locality, because there are already neighboring garages crammed into this corner, and this expansion could create or exacerbate any fire -safety hazards and drainage issues. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? Practical difficulties have been established independent of economic considerations; the owner simply wants to replace the garage on their property, with a slightly larger garage. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? Rear Yard Setback The purpose of the Rear Yard Setback is for uniform neighborhood development and to prevent structures from being built too close to the neighboring property for aesthetic, drainage, and safety related issues. Interior Side yard setback The specific purpose of a side yard setback for garages is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits, as well as to prevent development too close to the adjacent property. Structural Lot Coverage The specific purpose of the maximum lot coverage is to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Rear Yard Setback and Interior Side yard setback The proposed variances will be somewhat out of harmony with the Zoning Code. They City recognizes that this structure is currently located really close to the property lines, but believes that with the expansion of this garage (and structural coverage) the setbacks should be brought into conformity. Requiring a three-foot setback to the rear and side property lines will alleviate drainage and fire -safety concerns while giving the owner room to maintain these sides of the new structure. Structural Lot Coverage The proposed variance will not be out of harmony with the Zoning because, while the structural coverage is over the maximum, the combined coverage is only 45.7%, which is 4.3% below the combined 50% coverage threshold. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RB, Two -Family District. A single-family residence with a detached garage with a covered walkway is an allowable use in the district. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. This variance was not in conflict with any other City Department's requirements or codes. However, the City Building Official did stress preference to have the garage maintain three-foot from the property lines, particularly due the proximity of the neighboring sheds. Also, the proposed garage may require special building requirements pertaining to fire -safety. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021-63, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Building permit plans will need to be approved by applicable engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 4. The garage cannot allow stormwater to fall onto, or direct runoff towards the, adjacent property. B. Approve the variance in part. Include the conditions listed in Action A, as well as: 5. The garage must come into compliance with all property line setbacks, and shall remain at least three feet from the side and rear property lines. C. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. D. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff puts forth that a variance to allow the construction of a garage with a covered walkway on this property will not have any negative affects to the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. Practical difficulties have been established and the garage meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a structural coverage variance. However, staff feels that practice difficulty has not been established for the variances to the rear and interior side yard setbacks. The garage can be slightly shifted in location and/or reduced in size to avoid these two variances. Therefore, staff recommends an approval in part (denying the setback variances) for CPC Case No. 2021-62 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative C. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative (two pgs) Site Plan (two pages) Sketches (five pgs) cc: Amanda Peters Arlyce & Richard Melheim REQUEST FOR VARIANCE - 201 Burlington Street E Application Narrative We have enjoyed our home and neighborhood on the South Hill of Stillwater since we moved in on January 1, 1990. We raised our babies there and hope to grow old there. We'd love to live in it another 20 years if we can, but we have a problem we need to address to keep the property safe. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES 1. The 135-year-old cistern beneath our existing cement block garage is sinking, causing: a. The garage floor to sink 4-5 inches on the south side (Photo 1) b.The south wall to buckle 3 inches at the base (Photo 2A, B) c. The north wall to crack enough to see light through it. (Photo 3A, B) 2. Along with the garage, the driveway is also sinking and cracking above the cistern (Photo 4) 3. The existing garage, built around the turn of the century, is not suitable for today's cars. We are unable to park both of our vehicles in it to keep them safe from winter weather. 4. The existing garage butts up next to two existing garages with unusable space for either of our neighbors to the south or east. 5. Our lot is a very small non-standard city lot. The current garage is located on the southeast corner of the lot close to the lot lines. Because our lot is so very small, the new garage needs to be as close to the lot lines as allowed by the variance. There just isn't any space on our lot for a modern -size garage unless it can be tucked back into that southeast corner as the current garage is. PHOTO 1: Sinking East Floor PHOTO 3A: North Wall A short video of the garage is available at https://youtu.be/GSDARYdEVmU PHOTO 2A: South Wall PHOTO 2B: South Wall PHOTO 3B: North Wall PHOTO 4: Cistern/Driveway City of Stillwater Planning Department - We are looking to tear down the current garage at 201 Burlington Street East and build a new one, which will be bigger. The new garage will be 23'x24'. This is to provide the homeowner the ability to park 2 vehicles in the garage for the winters to come. Thank You, Olson Construction BURLINGTON 5T E PROPERTY LINE 100.0 PROPERTY LINE 61.2 Porch 126 50 FT LOT SIZE TOTAL STRUCTURES PERCENT OF LOT \24.0 \\\\o l m\ Prop• cri \Garaoe I q 552 50 FT\ 24.0v\\\� \• 0 PROPERTY LINE 61.2 6120 562 FT 1938 SQ FT 28.8% o d s ORFIELD DRAFTING SERVICES PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Orfield Drafting Services 201 Burlington St E Stillwater, MN 55082 3507 W 50th St. Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 I SHEET TITLE: BfegaIlipms DATE: 9/27/2021 SCALE: 1%&'M1'0" SHEET: A-7 APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE 16' X S' PROPOSED GARAGE 23' COVERED PATIO INTERIOR OF HOUSE UNCHANGED in PROPOSED PORCH 15'-4" 25' APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE o d s ORFIELD DRAFTING SERVICES SHEET TITLE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Orfield Drafting Services 201 Burlington St E Stillwater, MN 55082 3507 W 50th St. Minneapolis, MN 55410 Main Floor Plan, Proposed (952)-454-2705 - I DATE: 9/27/2021 SCALE: 1/4"=1'0" SHEET: A-1 .I.I.I.I. .I.I.I.I. .I.I.I.I. PROPOSED El EXISTING .I.I.I.I. .I.I.I.I. .I.LLI. iii iii o d s ORFIELD DRAFTING SERVICES SHEET TITLE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Orfield Drafting Services 201 Burlington St E Stillwater, MN 55082 3507 W 50th St. Minneapolis, MN 55410 West elevations, Comparison (952)-454-2705 DATE: 9/27/2021 SCALE: 1/8"=1'0" SHEET: A-2 ........... .............. ............... EMERNMEMERNMEMEMERNMEMEMERNMEMEMERNMEMI • ❖. ❖. ❖. ❖.❖.•. mil;;; -� PROPOSED ■■ s EXISTING ---------------- - =�= =�= = O �= M �= =�= =�= =- �= M �= � �= M �- =�= M MMMINEM NMM -n . ===-------------- ====� ==� ==� ==- ====� ==� ==� ==- ====� ==� ==� ==- ====� ==� ==� ==- ====� ==� ==� ==- ---------------- ----------------- ====� ==� ==� ==- ====� ==� ==� ==- ________________ HUHU o d s ORFIELD DRAFTING SERVICES SHEET TITLE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Orfield Drafting Services 201 Burlington St E Stillwater, MN 55082 3507 W 50th St. Minneapolis, MN 55410 East Elevations, Comparison (952)-454-2705 DATE: 9/27/2021 SCALE: 1/8"=1'0" SHEET: A-3 PROPOSED EXISTING o d s ORFIELD DRAFTING SERVICES SHEET TITLE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Orfield Drafting Services 201 Burlington St E Stillwater, MN 55082 3507 W 50th St. Minneapolis, MN 55410 South Elevations, Comparison (952)-454-2705 DATE: 9/27/2021 SCALE: 1/8"=1'0" SHEET: A-4 Mom/ MN MN n H u PROPOSED EXISTING o d s ORFIELD DRAFTING SERVICES SHEET TITLE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Orfield Drafting Services 201 Burlington St E Stillwater, MN 55082 3507 W 50th St. Minneapolis, MN 55410 North elevations, Comparison (952)-454-2705 DATE: 9/27/2021 SCALE: 1/8"=1'0" SHEET: A-5 o d s ORFIELD DRAFTING SERVICES SHEET TITLE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Orfield Drafting Services 201 Burlington St E Stillwater, MN 55082 3507 W 50th St. Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 DATE: 9/27/2021 SCALE: SHEET: A-6 illwater THE 6 4 R T H P L A C E OF- M I N N E S O 1 A PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission MEETING DATE: November 17, 2021 APPLICANT: Brett and Kerri Ritzer LANDOWNER: Brett and Kerri Ritzer CASE NO.: CPC-2021-63 REQUEST: Consideration of a Variances associated with constructing a 120 sf shed. LOCATION: 1008 Broadway St North DISTRICT: RB (Two -Family Residential) REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Mr. and Mrs. Ritzer own the house on the 33,928 square foot property at 1008 Broadway St North. They have recently constructed a 120 square foot shed that puts them over the allowed 1,000 square foot accessory building lot coverage maximum. The shed meets all other zoning requirements, but does require an accessory building coverage variance. This variance is being applied for after -the -fact and the small shed is essentially complete. However, it is important to note that there was a misunderstanding between the City and the property owner. The City discovered this shed was being built based off a complaint. After a discussion with the property owner, Staff does acknowledge that there had been previous conversations between the City and the property owners, which resulted in a misunderstanding on applicable standards as it applies to this structure. Essentially, based on information provided at the time of the inquiry, it was unclear to Staff that there was an existing accessory structure already constructed on the site. Staff was unaware at that time that the 120 square foot shed would result in exceeding the total square footage allowed for accessory structure of 1,000 square feet. Given the misunderstanding and the fact that the shed was nearly complete, City staff allowed the property owner finish the construction of the shed (to prevent weather damage) prior variance approval (see attached "Email") so long as the risk to the property owner needing to remove the structure if a variance was not approved. In conclusion, the fact that this was an after -the -fact variance was not malicious in intent, and contrary to most after -the -fact variances, should not be viewed negatively. Finally, City Staff has discussed this type of situation and ways to improve our process of checks and balances of checking existing conditions as part of all inquiries. Staff believes it has put sufficient process improvements to avoid similar situations moving forward. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a 100 square foot variance to City Code Section 31-308. (a). (3). i. to allow to total accessory building lot coverage to be 1,100 square feet, whereas the maximum is 1,000 square feet. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner A property within a residential district proposing to add a 120 square foot shed is proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner This is a relatively small shed on a relatively large (and uniquely shaped) lot within this Zoning District. Staff might recommend a bit more opposition if this were a larger (and second) garage intended for automobile and other equipment storage. However, this smaller shed is intended for more smaller storage ancillary to the residential use. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstance is that the lot size is far larger than the average property in the RB Zoning District. And while the accessory coverage is over the 1,000 square foot threshold, it is well below ten percent of the lot size and the combined accessory structure coverage does not exceed the coverage of the primary structure. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The circumstances were created by the landowner because the existing garage was built just shy of the maximum accessory building lot coverage allowance. However, after meeting with City Staff, the Applicants interpreted City Code that they would be allowed to exceed this 1,000 square feet with the construction of a 120 square foot shed. City Code Section 51-503, Subd. 2(3) indicates "no more than two accessory buildings, one private garage and one other accessory building, 120 square feet maximum, shall be located on a residential premise." Whether interpreted correctly or incorrectly, the Applicant did rely on feedback from City Staff in taking steps forward. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. This small shed is in the rear yard of a large property at the end of a dead-end road, and has no impact on the general locality. Small sheds in addition to primary garages are common in single-family neighborhoods. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? Practical difficulties have been established independent of economic considerations; the owner wants to additional outdoor storage on their property. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? Accessory building lot coverage The specific purpose of the accessory building lot coverage is to prevent properties from becoming overly occupied with accessory structures, allowing properties to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Accessory building lot coverage This variance will not be out of harmony with the zoning code. The property is large and the total accessory building coverage is far below 10% of the lot, and there is ample opportunity for storm water infiltration. Also due to the large lot size, there are no issues with massing proportionality and there remains large amounts of open and unencumbered yard. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RB, Two -Family District. A single-family residence with a detached garage is an allowable use in the district. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. There are no conflicts with other City Department's requirements or codes. PUBLIC COMMENT The City received one letter that is in opposition of this variance. The letter puts forth that this variance fails to meet the requirements laid out in City Code and emphasizes that this is an after - the -fact variance. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021- 63, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 3. Gutters must be installed on the shed and all runoff must be directed away from the adjacent property. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff puts forth that a variance to allow the placement of 120 square foot shed in the rear yard of this property will not have any negative affects to the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. It has been found that this shed will not adversely impact storm water infiltration, nor will it create massing problems on the property. Generally speaking, practical difficulties have largely been established and the shed does meet the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-63 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Email to Applicant Public Comment cc: Brett and Kerri Ritzer 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota Site Location 1008 Broadway St N 85 170 340 Feet Filo orr I41 IIE;IIIIImn11Lt' =0 ► NI ii ilwr- NY/ •1 1 1 44 :..\\. 10/20/21 City of Stillwater Planning Department 216 4th St N Stillwater MN 55082 Dear Community Development Department / Planning Department, We are requesting an "After the Fact Variance" for our 12X10 Garden/Toy Shed that we hope to use for yard maintenance equipment and outdoor play equipment. We were notified by Graham Tait on October 12, 2021 that our partially built shed is 100 sq ft over the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings in the RB single family district. We believed that we had done our due diligence prior to construction of the shed by contacting the city and clarifying all requirements and getting the go ahead from Graham. Kerri Ritzer spoke with Graham on October 5, 2021 and was informed that we had a quite large lot (31,064 sq ft) with only the one detached garage and should be sure to stay at least 30 feet back from the front property line and 3 feet from the side lot line. He also clarified that the maximum footprint was to be no more than 120 sq feet with a max height of 20 ft. We began the construction on Friday October 8, 2021 and have continued with reservation at the suggestion of the city to complete the shed to protect it from the possible elements that will be here shortly. Our lot is unique in that it is "L" shaped and covers an area of 31,064 sq ft. We understand that the code allows maximum accessory structure coverage to be 1,000 sq ft or 10% of the lot coverage, whichever is less and that is why we are asking for the variance. We are currently only at 4% of the lot coverage with our existing garage and possible shed. We have carefully placed the shed 10 feet off the property line to allow for ease in maintaining the yard and the shed and have it tucked back off of the actual road (approximately 75 ft from the front property line). It will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because it's small and unobtrusive and in keeping with other storage options nearby. We have placed it between a quite old Crab Apple Tree and existing clothesline so there was no need to remove any existing landscape other than to level the one corner. We are also very fortunate that our shed will not negatively impact the neighborhood as we are located on a dead-end. Thank you Brett and Kerri Ritzer �. ▪ "•/I/ / i. A J/. e -. i /Q . 500 ,/d9143'1f'W M,29997 — 1�z ,e. / 90 M. /49: 9f .2 /¢9.fd5 /A'1MER Pie. /3/,m. 338387 2.8't flaysc %.---/Y98's9D4'f .4'4, 9Sr'.s,/%E4' % 4 wv 1,0 SA/ Co,e, Ov�ec c /39.eC'EL .3/ DG¢ . y. T = D. 7//ak ` M/1-Y99 r --- ,- d.7 C •r/ [oT 3' LOT 4 B7 17 /F9,r7 ,e/TZER Dec. A/o. ¢4377 99- - - sets Gs rz/ /w 6' HHiei/'/ A/0Po fE. -" 1,9 /e• J00 M,2.99— ao z �.8 /¢q r9 /11. 291, 78 _A .( 0d,+ . G' fbvs,' r r2— /OATS t.r.1 f -.�..4 3'--,- I/. G • %7/00SE IAA. • /DO 8 �a ?i 1/7Z i.,: ;� 54./7_'` �J , i /3G. • /i��f 23 /3p 99 ,fiT /, A OVE/e /=NO. STrv. /MN. S� coo .GGc.8 mac. /ilo, 55 59 (SFE CoA/D/ T/DINS O/ l 'c 4' T/ W) 3 //.8 NA O ;o Graham Tait From: Graham Tait Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 9:06 AM To: Cc: Tim Gladhill; Abbi Wittman Subject: 1008 Broadway St N Mrs. Ritzer, This email is regarding the 120sf shed you are building in the rear of your yard. As discussed yesterday, there has been a misunderstanding between you and the Planning Department, in which you put forth you were granted permission to build a shed. As it stands right now the shed puts the property 100sf over the allowed maximum accessory structure coverage and WILL need a variance to remain on your property. Normally, in these circumstances we would ask you to halt construction and apply for a variance. But due to a handful of circumstances, including the winter season approaching, we are allowing you finish the construction of this shed. It is extremely important, though, that you recognize this is by no means approval for the shed or an exemption. An after -the -fact variance will have to be applied for, and variances are never a guarantee. Please respond in an email that says you understand that you will still have to go thru the variance process, and if the variance were to be denied the shed would have to be removed. Thanks, Graham Tait I City Zoning Administrator City of Stillwater - Community Development 651-430-8818 gtait@ci.stillwater.mn.us 1 November 2, 2021 Abbi Wittman, City Planner Planning Commission Members City of Stillwater 216 North 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Ms. Wittman and Members of the Planning Commission: This letter is in regards to Case # 2021- _ : Consideration of a Variance to the 1,000-square foot maximum lot coverage by all accessory buildings located at 1008 Broadway St. N. Property owners, Brett and Kerri Ritzer. On October 6, 2017, Brett and Kerri Ritzer were issued a building permit to build a new 980-square foot, 3- vehicle garage. The 18-foot tall garage was built with a large upper loft storage area that is 600-square feet. Stillwater Zoning Code Sec. 31-503. - Accessory structures. Subd. 2. In RB districts states the following: "Accessory buildings are subject to the following performance standards: (1) The maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings including attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings shall be 1,000-square feet or ten percent of the lot area, whichever is less." Brett and Kerri Ritzer understood this requirement when they applied for their building permit for the new garage and they agreed to remove an existing 528-square foot garage that was built on the property in 1971. On October 8, 2021, Brett and Kerri Ritzer began building a separate 120-square foot accessory structure. This structure, combined with the 980-square foot garage, exceeds the 1000-square foot lot coverage maximum by 100-square feet. The Ritzers understood the 1,000-square foot lot coverage limit, by all accessory buildings, when they began construction. Of note, the survey that the Ritzers provided in their Planning Application shows that there is also an existing 1 and 1/2 story garage that is partially on their property. "The purpose of a variance is to allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning chapter where, by reason of exceptional physical characteristics of the property, the literal enforcement of the requirements would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In this case, there are no exceptional or unique physical characteristics of 1008 Broadway St. N. that justify approval of a variance. There are no special or extraordinary circumstances that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by Zoning Code Sec. 31-503. Also, enforcement of the requirements of the Zoning Code will cause no practical difficulties for Brett and Kerri Ritzer as they already have a 980-square foot accessory structure on their property. In summary, Brett and Kerri Ritzer chose to build an additional 120-square foot accessory structure that is not in compliance with the requirements of Zoning Code Sec. 31-503. There are no practical difficulties that prevent the Ritzers from complying with Zoning Code Sec. 31-503 and adhering to the maximum 1,000- square foot maximum lot coverage requirement for all accessory buildings. The plight of Brett and Kerri Ritzer is not due to circumstances unique to 1008 Broadway St. N. Variances should be requested before any construction begins. Brett and Kerri Ritzer have already built the 120-square foot accessory structure. Now, they are are requesting an "After the Fact Variance". Brett and Kerri Ritzer have not establish that there are any practical difficulties with complying with Zoning Code Sec. 31-503. They are requesting an "After the Fact Variance" because they have a 31,064-square foot lot and one detached 980-square foot accessory structure. Therefore, an "After the Fact Variance" should not be granted for the new 120-square foot accessory structure. Sincerely, Larry Lapp 216 Myrtle St. W. #283 Stillwater, MN 55082-3522 illwater THE 6 4 R T H P L A C E OF- M I N N E S O 1 A PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DISTRICT: REPORT BY: Planning Commission November 17, 2021 Anthony Zappa Anthony Zappa Consideration of a Variance associated with constructing a 576 sf detached two -car garage. 923 5th Street North RB (Two -Family Residential) Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator CASE NO.: CPC-2021-65 INTRODUCTION Mr. Zappa owns the house on the 7,500 sf property at 923 5th St North. They currently do not have a garage and are looking to construct a 24' X 24' detached two -car garage. The garage will be located in the southwest corner of the property and will access off of 5th St North. The garage meets all the required setbacks and accessory structure standards; however, it will bring the property 229 sf over the maximum allowed structural lot coverage, necessitating a variance. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting three variances associated with the construction of a front entryway and porch: ➢ A 3.1% variance to the structural lot coverage, to allow for the structural lot coverage to be 28.1%, where the maximum structural lot coverage is 25%. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner A property within a residential district proposing to add a 576 sf detached two -car garage is proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstance is that the lot, despite meeting the minimum required lot size, is already at 20.4% structural coverage, but lacks a garage. The City has realized that having a garage in Stillwater is more than reasonable, due to the harsh winters. And in order to construct a garage, this property would require a variance for any garage larger than 347 sf. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? Although the built environment circumstances were created by previous Property Owners, the circumstances were not created by the current landowner. The house itself was built in 1868 (as were the three additions), and the two porches were built at some point prior to 1970. This property has been existing at 20.4% structural coverage for over 50 years, and nothing has been done by the current landowner to increase the structural coverage on the property. In this case, several factors and City Code changes have occurred over time since the home was originally built. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The garage is not overly large and will be tucked into the rear yard along the interior side yard. The location and size of the garage will fit in with the existing pattern within this neighborhood, such as the neighboring property to the east. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? Practical difficulties have been established independent of economic considerations; the property lacks a garage and thereby the owner would like to construct a garage. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? Structural Lot Coverage The specific purpose of the maximum lot coverage is to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Structural Lot Coverage The proposed variance will not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code because, while the structural coverage is over the maximum, the impervious coverage is only around 14%. So, this property has a combined coverage 41.8%, which is 8.2% below the 50% combined coverage threshold. In conclusion, this property will still have 58.2% of the lot be unencumbered space, allowing for adequate stormwater infiltration. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RB, Two -Family District. A single-family residence with a detached garage is an allowable use in the district. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. This variance was not in conflict with any other City Department's requirements or codes. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021- 65, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Building permit plans will need to be approved by applicable engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. The Applicant is responsible for ensuring a scaled, accurate site plan drawing. 3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff puts forth that a variance to allow the construction of a detached garage in the rear of this property will not have any negative affects to the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. Practical difficulties, such as the below average lot size, have been established and the garage meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-65 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative (two pgs) Site Plan cc: Amanda Peters Arlyce & Richard Melheim .a -• i : ' ice♦'!^ ^4 _� . , y� - i �l ;,��� �: - . „w r . eL atr o R;.• 1016 1E1 _ 1 1 i, . 7 + 1 h s d 4 The Birthplace of Minnesota ''t.� x tiy4 f �^ r •ry^ `< F W ,A� i v 1003 -4 4•y Air. .. �• •• i... . { Site Location r� . ti ,, r10 T ASP E 923 5th St N ,!i r; 0 '31 . dr .: - y, ys' i ' ?Xx� fir. _•`+fr•�tt; ,.. ¢ :,Y 4_al�-• ` -, 0 50 100 20Feet rr ' ,i1JJ 9 r r .: `# Generaler_Site Location r ' WWI � j• ; a s' � s ew • l • •�`.., .• ;41, I�� PA' .��� t. M ...1 • • 11'1� �A1111 �, ' t' ♦S• , ♦ z ': • S ,x i., ' ' -sir .z _` � , _ r4. 30 ai/2 t 21 r'h ♦fix. y� ` 906 F r. .. l: wain:;I 114 ri1:b1i 1� , —�`F J��� Ilirlllllllr ' • II 1 +I, •1 .St,• ' rii 1� •j i'_ • �^ :. )*it: a,. n�, . Y i- a r� = i 10 - '' $ +# J � l III ® i .. 1 r�, , �r y. �.- w r\3i��crilli�u 7111 �1s111.�p... n! ■ �: ti M R 2 T `-*, ,,Alen -_I 1t 1..- 4_ Anthony Zappa 1322 Meadowlark Dr Stillwater, MN 55082 320-247-7786 Stillwater Planning Department 216 4th St N Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: 923 5th St N Variance Request of Garage and Driveway As the owner of the property at 923 5th St N, I am proposing to build a 24'x24' two -car, detached garage. To do so, a variance is requested for the coverage area. The current calculations are listed below based on the 75' x 100' lot which is 7500 square feet. Points of Interest: 1. A garage is an essential element for a single family home, especially in Minnesota. This property does not have a garage. 2. This is a modest sized garage for just two cars and storage space above. 3. This lot has no off-street parking. The former owner had the easement area along Aspen paved as a driveway and parked along side the house. This asphalt has been removed to beautify the area to the north of the house. 4. Adding the driveway and garage will remove vehicles from sight and off the road for city maintenance. 5. Even with the proposed garage, there is only a slight 3% increase of structural coverage above the allowed 25%. And, the impervious surfaces and total surface coverage are both under the respective 25% and 50% allowance. 6. The placement of the garage in the back of the yard fits the characteristics of the neighborhood. It is the most attractive and accessible location. Also, with the existing tree which the driveway will curve around, the visual impact of the building will be obscured. 7. The work has the support of the surrounding neighbors. 8. The garage will be built to match the house using the same materials and construction. 9. The addition of a garage will add value to the property and the neighborhood. Calculations: Structures House: 1528 Structural limit: 7500 x 25% = 1875 sf Over/Under: 1875 - 1528 = 347 sf under limit With Garage: 576 sf - 347 sf available space = 229 sf over (3%) Percent Structural Coverage: 2104 sf structures / 7500 = 28% Impervious Surfaces Walkway: 131 sf Proposed Driveway: 1015 sf Impervious Surface Limit: 7500 x 25% = 1875 Over/Under: 1875 - (131 + 1015) = 729 sf under Total Limit: 7500 x 50% = 3750 sf All coverage as proposed: 2104 sf buildings + 1146 surfaces = 3250 Over/Under: 3750 - 3250 = 500 sf under In summary, the variance is only for a slight overage to the limit of structures on a property. This construction should be within the limits for the impervious surfaces and for the total coverage. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Anthony Zappa May 13, 2 RECEIVED cm. 1 9 2021 Washington County, MN 1:300 0 12.5 25 50 ft I ti r 0 4.25 8.5 17 m CITY OF STILLWATER BUILDING DEFAR.TIVIKKIeL ap and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. liwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF M 1 N N E S O 1 A PLANNING MEMO TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: N/A MEETING DATE: November 17, 2021 REGARDING: Planning Commission Discussion Regarding Accessory Structures REPORT BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner The City has a number of City Code sections, as well as staff interpretations and policies, surrounding accessory structures. City staff has found numerous areas of the code where there are either inconsistencies (especially in relationship to the Building Code), where staff needs more clarification or direction pertaining to plausible violations, or we simply should review to determine if the City Code needs updating to align with community values and property owner needs. At the next Planning Commission meeting, staff will guide the Commission in discussion focusing on accessory structures and uses. What is gleaned from this discussion, as well as consultation from the City Council, will possible lead to relevant ordinance amendments. Specific topics include, but are not necessarily limited to: • Bulk (height and square footage) and setback regulations in various districts and for various uses (i.e. Accessory Dwelling Units) • The use of accessory structures or a portion thereof (i.e. wood shops, office/studios, Accessory Dwelling units) • Non-traditional accessory structures (i.e. portable garages/sheds and shipping containers)