Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-12-29 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 December 29th, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of November 17th, 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. 2021-68: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed impervious surface to construct a new single family home. Property located at 976 Creekside Crossing in the RA district. John Sharkey, property owner and Cole Charpentier, applicant. 3. Case No. 2021-69: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Tattoo shop within the Downtown. Property located at 117 (113) Main St S in the CBD district. St. John's Home Corp, property owner and Jeffrey Hagen, applicant. 4. Case No. 2021-64: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to amend the fence code regulations. City of Stillwater, applicant. VIII. DISCUSSION 5. 2022 Holiday Meeting Schedule (3RD WEDNESDAY) a. November 16th, 2022 b. December 21 st, 2022 IX. FYI — STAFF UPDATES X. ADJOURNMENT ilivater THE 1INTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 17, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Hansen, Hoffman, Knippenberg, Meyhoff, Steinwall Absent: Councilmember Odebrecht Staff: City Planner Wittman, Zoning Administrator Tait APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of October 27, 2021 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve the minutes of the October 27, 2021 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. Zoning Administrator Tait explained the case. The property owners 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 1' from both the western and southern property boundaries. The existing garage is actually set back less than 1' from each of the property lines. The proposed garage will 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. The applicant is requesting three variances associated with the construction of a detached garage and a covered walkway: 1) a 2' variance to allow a detached accessory structure to be located 1' from the rear yard lot line whereas the required setback is 3'; 2) a 2' variance to allow a detached accessory structure to be located 1' from the interior side yard lot line whereas the Planning Commission November 17, 2021 required setback is 3'; and 3) a 9.4% 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%. Staff feels that practical 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) with four conditions. Nick Olson, Olson Construction, said they would like to build the garage in the current location. Fire safety precautions will be required regardless of the setbacks. Commissioner Hansen asked what is the reason for being so close to the property line? Richard Melheim, applicant, answered he would lose about 100' of useable space in the back patio area whereas the space between the garage and house is wasted space anyway. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Louisa D'Altilia, neighbor directly to the south at 1215 Second St S, said her only concern is the closeness of the Melheim garage to her shed in the event of a fire or safety issue. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen expressed support for the new garage but he feels it should be moved toward Second St to eliminate the need for the setback variance, which is in place so garages can be maintained without being on the neighbor's property. Chairman Dybvig agreed that practical difficulty for the setback variances has not been established. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve the lot coverage variance for Case No. 2021-62 at 201 Burlington Street East but to deny the setback variances requested, and to require the garage to come into compliance with both property line setbacks (3' each), with the four staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. Ms. Wittman stated that all actions of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council. 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 N in the RB district. Brett and Kerri Ritzer, property owners. Zoning Administrator Tait stated that the property owners 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. The building coverage variance is being applied for after -the -fact and the small shed is essentially complete. He noted there was a misunderstanding between the City and the property owner. The City discovered this shed was being built based off a complaint. Staff acknowledges that there had been previous conversations between the City and the property owners, which resulted in a misunderstanding on applicable standards as applied to this structure. Given the misunderstanding and the fact that the shed was nearly complete, City staff allowed the property owner to finish the construction of the shed (to prevent weather damage) prior to variance approval. Staff has discussed ways to improve checks and balances to avoid similar situations moving forward. The applicant is requesting a 100 square foot variance to allow to total accessory building lot coverage to be 1,100 square feet, whereas the maximum is 1,000 square feet. The City received one letter opposing the variance. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission November 17, 2021 Kerri and Brent Ritzer, 1008 N Broadway St, stated they contacted the City prior to building the shed. When Zoning Administrator Tait visited the property in response to the complaint, they questioned whether to continue building it, but wanted to get it to the point of being winterized. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Larry Lappi, 216 Myrtle St W, stated when the Ritzers applied for their building permit they understood that all accessory buildings could cover no more than 1,000 square feet on their lot. He pointed out discrepancies in the references to letters submitted regarding the misunderstanding of the regulations. While the staff report stated the situation was not created by the landowner, he feels the owner did create the situation because they want outdoor storage space. There is no uniqueness to the lot. He feels granting the variance would set bad precedent because the property owners did not disclose all the facts when representing the proposal to the Planning Department. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen remarked that an after -the -fact variance should be evaluated as if it had not already been built. He believes that a large lot constitutes a practical difficulty because the RB zoning district covers a myriad of different sized properties that were platted in the 1800s, therefore large lots have the same rules as much smaller lots. He supports the variance. Commissioners Meyhoff and Hoffman and Chairman Dybvig agreed. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2021-63, variance to build a shed on the property located at 1008 Broadway St N with the three staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. 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. Mr. Tait reviewed the case. The property owner would like 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 5th St North. The garage meets all the required setbacks and accessory structure standards; however, it will bring the property 229 square feet over the maximum allowed structural lot coverage, necessitating 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%. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Fernando Bazan, 924 4th St N, directly behind the property, questioned the color choice being so similar to his own house right next door. He said the garage will have an imposing footprint making an odd impact on the neighborhood. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Meyhoff noted the hardship has been established and the Planning Commission does not deal with color. Commissioner Hansen noted the sideyard has been used for parking. He asked if a condition could be added that sideyard parking would go away when the garage is built. Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission November 17, 2021 Ms. Wittman stated there has been a parking area between the home and the Aspen Street which is wholly on the right-of-way. The parking has been there for so long that she is uncertain whether it has a permit. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2021-65, Variance to the structural coverage in order to construct a detached garage on the property located at 923 5th St N, with the three conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2021-64: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to amend the fence code regulations. City of Stillwater, applicant. City Planner Wittman announced this case will be postponed. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. DISCUSSION Accessory structure and uses discussion Ms. Wittman stated that the City has a number of City Code sections, as well as staff interpretations and policies, covering 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 that should be reviewed to determine if the City Code needs updating to align with community values and property owner needs. She led discussion of accessory structures and uses with a view toward possible eventual ordinance amendments. City Code states accessory structures should be non -habitable. Should this be re-evaluated in consideration of home offices, recreation rooms, woodshops, and accessory dwelling units? Additionally, in most districts, garages may be one story or 20' tall. There are several garages in the City that could be considered 1.5 story. How does the Commission feel about one story garages in old Stillwater - should there be more flexibility? Commissioner Steinwall commented that, in old Stillwater, she would favor allowing more flexibility to lend more unique designs, as opposed to limiting it to more typical garage design. Chairman Dybvig said he feels that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) should be limited to 1.5 story. Commissioner Hansen said it really depends on the neighborhood. A two-story carriage house may be very appropriate on a large lot but in other areas it would be out of keeping with the neighborhood. He feels garages should be allowed to be taller than one story because older Stillwater homes had steep roof pitches. Ms. Wittman stated that currently, ADUs may only be 800 square feet and the footprint for a garage may only be 800 square feet, which seems to encourage a very boxy design. If a greater square footage were allowed on the lower level with a smaller square footage above, it would encourage more unique designs. Most districts allow 1,000 sf of accessory structure coverage or 10% of lot area coverage, whichever is less. Is the Commission comfortable with this regulation, prompting variance requests, or should the 1,000 square feet be re-evaluated? Chairman Dybvig commented that 1,000 square feet is a large garage. Commissioner Hansen said he is comfortable with 1,000 square feet. Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission November 17, 2021 Ms. Wittman said that setback variances are a very common variance in old Stillwater because of the required 30' setback. Should the setbacks be reconsidered? Commissioner Hansen noted if the house is already close to the street, and the property owner wants to build a garage set back from the house, there is no reason for the Commission to address that. It depends on prevailing setbacks. Ms. Wittman noted current code says houses must be set back 20', garages must be set back 30'. This language could be tweaked to state the garage must be set back 10' further than the house. She then asked, in regard to setbacks, does the Commission truly want ADUs to be closer to the street, or keep them in the rear of the property? Commissioner Hansen noted ADUs should be kept toward the back of the property. Ms. Wittman asked if nontraditional ADUs such as portable garages and sheds should be allowed. So far staff's interpretation has been that they are structures and should abide by setbacks and coverage regulations. Chairman Dybvig said he is not a fan of these, but they should comply with zoning code if they are allowed, and they should not be allowed in front yards. Commissioner Hansen commented these are not attractive but for some people they are a temporary necessity. He would be inclined to establish a time limit, for instance up to a year as temporary storage. Ms. Wittman asked, should shipping containers used for either storage or habitation be allowed on residential properties? Commissioner Steinwall said shipping containers should be treated as temporary structures that must comply with all applicable zoning standards. Commissioner Hansen added that grading and proper site preparation should be required, and perhaps they should not be allowed not in the historic district, or be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). Commissioner Steinwall agreed that maybe they should get a design permit from HPC or be prohibited in the overlay districts. Zoning Administrator Tait noted that another issue is temporary pods in the front of houses - should the Commission look at a time limit? Chairman Dybvig suggested six months. Commissioner Hansen said six months may not be long enough, especially now when lead times for construction materials are much longer. Ms. Wittman said she will address the above issues with the City Council so regulations can be in place by construction season 2022. FYI STAFF UPDATES Stillwater Towing Appeal Update Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the Stillwater Towing case was appealed and will be heard by the City Council on December 7. December 15, 2021 Ms. Wittman informed the Commission the December meeting will be December 15. Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission November 17, 2021 ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner John Dybvig, Chair Page 6 of 6 illwater THE 6 4 R T H P L A C E OF- MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DISTRICT: REPORT BY: Planning Commission December 29, 2021 Cole Charpentier, Green Halo Builds John Sharkey Consideration of a Coverage Variance associated with constructing a single-family home. 976 Creekside Crossing RA (One -Family Residential) Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator CASE NO.: CPC-2021-68 INTRODUCTION Mr. Sharkey owns the 10,032 square foot property at 976 Creekside Crossing. This property is located in the RA Single -Family zoning district, which typically has a maximum combined lot coverage of 30%. However, this property lies fully within a shoreland management overlay district, which further restricts the lot coverage to a maximum of 25%1. The property owner is constructing a new single-family home with a footprint of 1,777 square feet. When you factor in the proposed 560 square foot driveway (and also stairs/stoops/patios), the lot coverage totals 2,492 square feet, which is 16 square feet below the maximum allowed coverage. Mr. Sharkey, however, would like to add a rear deck with stairs and an at -grade patio onto this house, which will put the coverage over the maximum allowed. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a 225 square foot (or 2.2%) variance to City Code Section 31-402. Subd. 7. (j). (1). to allow the maximum coverage to be 2,733 square feet (or 27.2%), whereas the maximum lot coverage for this lot is 2,508 square feet (or 25%). ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1 "City Code Section 31-402. Subd. 7. (j). (1). Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed 25 percent of the lot area." 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 construct a single-family house with a rear deck is being proposed to be used in a reasonable manner. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. While the maximum lot coverage in the RA District is 30%, and being in the shoreland overlay district further reduces this coverage max to 25%, this is not unique to just this property. Of the 14 lots in this development, five of them fall within the regulated overlay district (refer to "CPC/2018-08 Map"). c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The circumstances were created by the landowner because the lot coverage maximums were laid out and agreed upon in the approved planning case (2018-08). This lot is currently vacant and meets the minimum lot size requirements for a property in the RA District, therefore the City feels that achieving compliance is easily attainable. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? To certain extent, practical difficulties have been established independent of economic considerations; the owner wants a house that includes a rear deck. Though there is the obvious correlation between the size of a house and the potential profit of selling a house. 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? Impervious coverage within a Shoreland District One of the specific purposes of the maximum impervious surface coverage is to maintain open, unencumbered space to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. Furthermore, the purpose of the Shoreland Management Overlay District is "the protection of lakes, streams and water courses within its boundaries is critical for the health, safety, order and general welfare of its citizens and to preserve and enhance the quality of surface water and preserve the economic and natural environmental values of shoreland". b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Impervious coverage within a Shoreland District This variance will not be out of harmony with the zoning code. The property is large enough to allow for adequate runoff infiltration. Additionally, this property is around 255' away from the regulated stream, and storm water runoff would have to cross over the large abutting property to reach the stream (refer to attached Map). 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 RA, One -Family District. A single-family residence with a rear deck 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 got one letter stressing opposition towards the variance. The letter put forth that there was no uniqueness or practical difficulties because the applicant is working with a "clean slate". The letter suggested that it wasn't the lot that was too small, but rather, the house proposed is too large. 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- 68, 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. Deck must allow water to pass through it. 4. Area under the proposed deck must remain unpaved, unimproved, and permeable to runoff. 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 this new home (as proposed) will not have any negative affects to the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. It has been found that this project will not adversely impact storm water infiltration, nor will it create massing problems on the property. However, staff has found it difficult to justify the practical difficulties in this case, as it relates to uniqueness. Specifically, this property along with four other property's in the development, have these stricter regulations to protect Stillwater's natural resources. It is not unique to just this property, and these stipulations were known since the case was approved. Therefore, staff would recommend denial of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-68. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan CPC/2018-08 Map Shoreland Map Public Comment cc: Cole Charpentier John Sharkey . { 4 . 84o. i� z_ �,.' ,'1 ,. o z (FiJW at r I* 11IF in t .. *� 7940 ''11 •96 k ,, wyt Ll.l 995 Z f� '2997 ' L�' n. t _ cn 985 b . �,. •? 86 A f The Birthplace of Minnesota N Site Location 976 Creekside Crossing � �; E" 7789 Y i 976 Ili975 55i, I.►' 0 3 12 3 Ill 965 1,1 "; t \\1' !.. }* � !Y*96 CC " t"= t1 Y 4.fie t a s r" * TROLL rD 4 � € tor d� ale ,,,if xt � 'ti: ., �` 0 105 210 420 Feet t ,; . • * i c'' ') " $� '� • 4. TM� ' ' General Site Location ^ „!62 . 959 a4• d q 960 j A; ,. +' � a '' �;. ,: - acr i* ,` I. IIIE ■ Iimmi��f.�. IIIIhnnllLt ► .., '.4- ��� �I - r 1rll�ir •..�. tit ,• .r. - Nei UAIlb.i k.. t' i4 ' . ��I � f ; „ y , :y ;d� •",t"'., f4 I. C.-,,,J�11,�! '_"`l,� +1 pf, Y Yr-ki,, III# ..L'`W. _ �1 I .IIIIIII► _ .i 1 �i1 _ � T 'r' ;. 12960 ' �. %. `as.d: r4 '� ::'' 5� � t 9 < - —,im. -. .y _.s1 `\ �j �, mill �i� .- � �`: ®® al III mom@ � �� 1 • 1, K�� BM = --� --- 1 ' .JM ice'■. m".-Ti " . ie - _- Jenn Sundberg From: Graham Tait Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 1:54 PM To: Abbi Wittman; Jenn Sundberg Subject: FW: 976 Creekside Crossing Saunders Residence Application Submittal For Variance. Attachments: 976 Variance Application.PDF; 976 Saunders Residence Variance Information Set.pdf Looks like we will indeed be having a PC meeting next month From: Cole Charpentier <cole@greenhalobuilds.com> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 1:33 PM To: Graham Tait <gtait@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Cc: epsaunders <epsaunders@frontiernet.net>; Jackie Saunders<jacqulyn.s.saunders@gmail.com>; John Sharkey <john@greenhalobuilds.com> Subject: 976 Creekside Crossing Saunders Residence Application Submittal For Variance. [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, On behave of our clients, we would like to submit this application for a variance regarding the 976 Creekside Crossing lot's impervious surface allowance. Attached you will find a scanned copy of the filled -out application, along with additional documents relating to the variance. Our Case: Provided by the City of Stillwater, the lot at 976 Creekside Crossing has a max impervious surface limit of 2,500 square feet. This is only 25% of the lot's total coverage, which is roughly 10,000 square feet. Comparing this to the lot just north of 976, Lot 5 (986) has a 30% impervious limit, even though it is roughly the same size. This is because the lot at 976 Creekside Crossing is fully within a shoreland overlay district, while a small portion of 986 is out of this district. Because of this more restrictive impervious limit, our clients would not be able to have a back deck on their modestly sized home. As the city of Stillwater includes pass -through decks towards their impervious surface limit, and the lot itself being on the very edge of the shoreland overlay district, we feel that we have a strong case for an impervious surface variance. Our clients would like to build a 14' x 8' 8" composite deck & stairs with open gaps between the floorboards, and no concrete pad below. This would allow storm water to pass through the deck, and down into the soil. This deck will still follow Stillwater's building set back codes. To allow for this deck, we would like to request a 150 square footage increase to the lot's impervious limit. Making the new total 2,650 square feet. This would allow for the construction of a 142 square foot of deck & stairs improvement to be constructed, and provide about 17 square feet of left over square footage for unforeseen increases during construction. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any questions. Thanks, i House Total Without Deck & Stairs: 2,492 Square Feet Impervious House Total With Deck & Stairs: 2,633 Sc,uu;c Fcc� !:-.';'-orv!obier 2,731 Square Feet Impervious (With Patio) Max Impervious Limit Provided By City: 2,500 Square Feet OhilLZ J.I 1 7 taw um. i ir Tliorgric Driveway Footprint: Stoop & Stones: 560 Sq Ft 23 Sq Ft ocoof l co Proposed Deck & Stairs Square Ft: 142 Sq Ft 1 976 Creekside Crossing I ‘.\" 4 ."+ ( %'43" :%:"1: 434 0.3".03‘13Kv-3' '4".4 3: 0 3N.33 3.3,-'1 ;\`,‘' " ;3:33"3333I“2I;'143l3"'3 s,.I" 33 3.v„;.);3., i'•.";‘>" ;•""4;",'"S....•".;3"3.3.' •.,3I.‘''3,3 • I , '; • ;3,1,3,;;" • r3,„1";" :"'CtJ':I.".;/.:3(17".::33°74" •„Ad.4;3i"3lii,p`II1efi•i3l;)' 3 3'2‘4f .1A1 • : :; 3f33.3 • k" , "• „;Sn V. " if 0, cr. 'cict \ it, vitt., 6' ' ‘ ., \' d i • - ; : t , •.d„,k •3;.".i ,4,•, c • - •••• ' I •• • 4` ' '1 "• "4 . 3 1 -1 ? . .,"3iI\iI3 :3i „,3'3;.1 .` 3 P ‘ : V A g t • 7W Ee ; , 3 ti 1•• t ick . , o,..` ,p:: • • „*?,:)- "0k N . 1 ' • • 4,10'20" "31,1 43 3"3. " ("3. °d3.. '3 3 • ; ; • uce. )74, " :"` .Pv-" dip 4)) try • • it, — . • • OAMI I Consulting Engineers P.A. /ma ratIRRIGF C. neknocoo0uIK5 651,337 9259 - a miengineers corn SUPERIOR • IRO71 RANOi , . 44. war • . • it• Ei ,, : • . ; i • • • ... - - 17A. TIT 1 Vg6gAT-F%'AVA.V°' ,.. ..., .... _ . go _,. 2' . L - -.iii Mik _...- • . / ... . I .. -.. ....___ .o. "' m a. I ....•7 7 t. AN, 0 . lupe ..,. r..... _ ..,. a ii i ii . . . 5 -.. 1 If. 2. a . 0 -- - 1. ••• . 15* L9 El -1'-.1 . paa 7 '7,1 -L. .P..7........ .a.00 ,...,....... 7 ' " '... .L.Va .... ,...,., ..... rip I". EOM 244 TAO 4444, , IX, ''.. ''. ....er .. [ rt. 459. wit 44 u.... 4044 E MIXON. WI. f.rai •34:42 TO tub +.• Tt°.Ar:.;,D.,,,?ID ...„,. knt • , zsov v mu 444X P. • of— . ,_. — . 421 1 1201 444-...."111 4." -. # ....0.. ...1.±. ..."... -- ..., ....,.,./...". ... Op/ ' 111111 • - ". lir.,... 01144.41.01 ,.........,...Ar - - 30 60 6EY NOTES Z sc.KL 1. Ks [71 BiTumiNOuS PAVEmrpo (sEE DETAIL call pENERAL GEOMETRIC AND PAVING NOTES El SURMOUNTABLE cuRci THE DUNI_ 2I7, CIVIL SITE LEGEND I El TRANSITION B612 10 0412 CuRB -.- IXOT, DIMENSIONS SINOwN ON P. S., a USED FOR ALL LAYOuT WORN CHECK 1111111 SITE THIS ALL 121041 AND MAIL DITACNSIONS BUILDING AND, sn E INPROVEINENTS SHAD BE LAID NS3TOoPNoS„IO,N, CX•GN..TO ..O.2. 2(1S3E2E SIGNAGEAND MARKING NOTES EEIl 3IDmEpI„NILm,2 Iiiiin 43, L...1- 2 REFER 10 ARCHIIECTURAL PUNS ITOR BUILDING LAYOUT ENACT LOCATION MO 1 ALL SIGNS SHALL BC IN ACCORDANCE WU THE Ei RELOCATED POWER PoLE IAN NUM!) CuRRENT vERsIoN oppENsloNs oF oroops/Exls RANIPS AND PRECISE BUILDING DimENSIONS 0 - ... 2 SCE RELIT.. S. DETAIL POR SION AND I +tem ip pi se.X.V..1.4 4W xT•4•X GP` AMT., r•ON41, • 0,.0....•.‘ 17 r1T:2Y°,:•SAV :::TET," = °'"*A"u'' '''''''" A POST DETAILS AND SIGN DESIGNATION AND SUE iNNOK.,...2. INCDR.IION 4 ALL PAvING DIMENSIONS ARE TIT FLOW LINE Of CURB UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE THE PROPOSED BUILDABLE AR. MAN ImPERNICluS AREA 30X Or LOT AR. FLOW LINE Of CURB IS ASSumE0 10 BE B INCHES EROM THE BACK OF CURB CI n4":,1";`,',1LVt= ,-,°.‘`,A,':c.1.112,",Z.,sdTgul2:, A'Nf?" STRuCTURAL FOR STOOPS ' :EU'. VfA,E7NTC17u'[11rNO'T'E'T'OPER'N':77RZIPrGrNTRO'L'A 717.1741[."IrCONNTRO'L l'44" SHALL BE PRODDED AND APPROvED BT IHE CC, PRIOR 10 BEGINNNG ,NEIRN IN THE E :!r°,01.72tURAZ"roAN.fi'Lgtngt:StlgoY, g %Is 1.111,01 GM. M. Wr .., RAMPS, AND PRECISE BUDDING DIMENSIONS SEE ARDIGECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL FOR STOOPS ...4—..4, 4.2•41,41 .4 D ALL SIDEWALKS SPAL1 HAVE POSONE SLOPE AWA1 FROM THE BUILONG THE rufilmum WESTRIDGE WESTRIDGE PARTNERS 12791 BOUNVELL ROAD 511 VIAIER MN SITE PLAN 8 1 DEmiltil'iNniUl.LOINHC'SUR:AITEIT1' FELCAPTL'O'LOGTION ' OF UTILITY LINES THIS SERVICE LOCATES CROSS SLOPE SHALL BC 2 Ox AND THE 24ANIMUm LONOMATINAL SLOPE SKALl. BE 5 Os [71 DONCRETE SOEWALN (SEE OCT. 204) UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ..C.1 UNDERGROuND UTILPTY OWNED LINES BUT NOT PROUTE LINES THE LOCATIONS Or uNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOT. 7 MATCH NUN AND ExISTING ITAxEmErfr SURFACES SIDEWALKS AND CURBS AT GA,NCLII Tarrtrg.: NIC:rfqt ',r0Srl'N't'3[1'1XT'S'''' ""'" '""'" ''''" SITE DATA 8 ALLOw miNIMUM OF SEVEN EMS CURE TOR CURB AND GUTTER POIOR TO PAIHNC 1.10.40 1411 • a; a wavS .) ICSOWINetlei WOW. UT"'" ''utToVnc,:trN2.`f,,,,,7(' CalltZtOrtraUft. '2 ALL. 6.11.1.1,1 OF 24 HOUR COOLJNG PRIOR 10 ALLONING TRAFFIC ON BlIUMINous PANING U. Ai 1I0Oil•-0115. as ear 'Awn .tnoar..... ,0 PRONIDE • TRANSITION Or 1361B CURB AND GuTTER EITHER SIDI Of RECTANCULAR CATCH BASINS TO 44ATCH 4.2011H OF DAsTINo ..C.K. ay. ov Ovcavvi..77...... . att 1,4vvvf v.. ton .2.. nwn 'wan. tusivoke. . 40110o 131266 MHO 02116/2018 ,,,,v,.• ay C.I0 .,,,,..n. FG gm en. Wm. ram C2.0 1 %$ate .lam ' /+ /.- .12840 1 R 28E0_ (/�� 1 .,. ' obi Ir. i s ♦ .. —1 me ` I L � !A� / f A' The 976 Creekside CPC/2021-68 Coverage Ear !Water Ilw.._.> hpb a:I KinntiCig \ Crossing Analysis 11 1 111 1=1I 1 _ 1'1 II II 93? Z r}Q kt lJ 1111111111 `1, i 1 ,� ZSEE Legend _ as goaj 1 Subject Property l 1 y` t 14.g ' see x_ St. Croix River Overlay District and trib district Lake Shoreland Management District ~~ Parcel Boundaries ' �a DR.1 t,1 --7759 TROL__EY set r— SFS 4. - 0 M u0 280 ram•; rJ 1'�1 t tl l Jenn Sundberg From: City of Stillwater Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 8:54 AM To: Jenn Sundberg Subject: CPC 2021-68 [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Message submitted from the <Stillwater, MN> website. Site Visitor Name: Stuart Rauvola Site Visitor Email: I'm not sure how granting a variance is warranted here. This is a completely new development from which the builder had a clean slate to work from. No unique conditions exist; no practical difficulties. The conditions were created by the builder. The lot is not too small, rather the house is too big. Also, please refer to Case #2017-61 meeting minutes from exactly 4 years ago today (Dec 13, 2017): "Commissioner Kocon pointed out that in one of the plats, the lots are labeled as walkout lots but if a property owner wants to build a second story deck they would not be able to because it would exceed the maximum coverage. He suggested requiring language to make this clear to builders and property owners, to prevent having them come in and saying nobody told them about it. Mr. Turnblad said language could be developed stating that anything outside the footprint in the plans is not permitted, period. Condition #8 could be fleshed out to address this point." i Uwater THE RTHPLACE O F M i N N E S O 1 A PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission MEETING DATE: December 15, 2021 APPLICANT: Jeffrey Hagen, Secretary -Treasurer LANDOWNER: St. John's Home Corp REQUEST: A Special Use Permit for Stillwater Tattoo LOCATION: 117 (113) Main Street South DISTRICT: Central Business District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: 2021-69 INTRODUCTION Stillwater Tattoo has been operating in the building at 221 Chestnut Street East. They are seeking to relocate their business operations to 117 Main Street South (with a parent address of 113 Main Street South). The applicant request indicates the business would start with four work stations and, ideally, expand to eight in the future. SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of a Special Use Permit for a tattoo shop. ANALYSIS Tattoo shops are not a use that listed in the City's Allowable Uses in Non -Residential Districts table (City Code Section 31-325); in other words — the code is silent on whether or not the use is permitted, conditionally permitted, or not allowed. However, City Code Section 31-317, CBD — Central Business District, indicates the Planning Commission may consider "similar uses by Special Use Permit." The Code specifically states "any other use or service establishment determined by the planning commission to be the same general character as the uses in Section 31- 325 for the CBD district and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties may be permitted by special use permit." Therefore, the Commission must first determine if a tattoo shop is of the same or general character as uses in the cited use table. If the Commission determines this to be true, then the analysis of whether or not the use would impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties as part of the Use Permit analysis. Character Determination CPC 2021-69 Page 2 The City does not have standards set forth for determination of like uses. This can make this type of determination subjective. Thus, City staff turned to the North American Industry Classification System (NACIS, a non -regulatory body) which, according to census.gov, "is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy." The NAICS classifies Tattoo Parlors as Other Personal Care Services (Code 812199). Illustrative Examples of this type of use are day spas, massage parlors, tanning salons, saunas, etc. These are in a separate from the NAICS classification of Beauty Salons (Code 812112), a use that is outright permitted in this district, and Nail Salons (Code 812113), the use — in combination with massage — that has occupied this space since (at least) 2013. That said, in the past the Planning Commission has allowed for consideration of Use Permits for tattoo shops given their similarity to Beauty Parlors ("beauty shop"), a use that is listed in City Code Section 31-325, Allowable Uses in Non -Residential Districts. The premise for staff's determination is each of these industries (typically) has a 1:1 professional/client experience focused on client aesthetics/beauty and personal care. Additionally, the business model for these types of uses occurs with the client in a fixed position within the business space. It should be noted that Stillwater has had a tattoo shop on Chestnut Street for quite some time. Formerly Tatts by Zapp (noted as established in 1996 on the business's Instagram account). However, City staff has no documentation of when this business first opened. The use did not obtain a Use Permit and there is no correspondence record indicating the City granted administrative approval of the use. In other words — it just showed up and the City took no action to require a use permit at that time. Given this information, staff is seeking the Commission's direction on whether or not a tattoo shop is of the same general character as a beauty shop. The Commission must first determine this prior to reviewing the use for conformance to the Use Permitting requirements. Special Use Permit A Special Use Permit is classified in the City Code alongside Conditional Use Permits. However, this antiquated classification has not been updated in the base zoning district regulations. Therefore, a Special Use Permit is — in essence — a Conditional Use Permit and, if approved, will be a vested land use right and will run with the land forever. In order to grant a Use Permit, the Commission must make the following findings: • The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. • Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. • The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Zoning Code Conformity CPC 2021-69 Page 3 Compliance with the Zoning Code generally surrounds around whether or not the proposed use can conform to established code standards. While community standards range from landscaping, lighting and noise to design and signage, the use is proposed to operate wholly indoors; thus, there are minimal performance standards for the City to consider. In the downtown core, trash, sidewalk maintenance, and the user's ability to meet the parking requirements are primary factors for consideration. With regard to trash, the building keeps trash indoors until trash removal day; this business would be required to not only store and dispose of its trash in a fashion that is compliant with health codes, it would not be permitted to store its trash outdoors. With regard to sidewalk maintenance, a growing concern has been raised regarding the need for daily upkeep of sidewalks. In the more recent past, the City has imposed conditions on new Use Permits that the business owner is responsible for keeping the sidewalks clean of cigarette butts and other debris. Staff is generated potential conditions the Commission may want to impose. City Code requires reassessment of parking requirements when uses change. When there is a change in use that necessitates four or more additional parking spaces than the previous use, City requires all users meet their parking requirements onsite. When parking cannot be accommodated onsite, a request for mitigation can be made to the Downtown Parking Commission. The code indicates beauty shops require three spaces per chair; if tattoo shops are considered a use that is similar to a beauty shop then the tattoo shop's parking requirement would be the same. JJ Nail and Massage, the former use, had at least five pedicure stations though City staff could not determine how many manicure or massage chairs were in place before the business closed. Stillwater Tattoo is proposing four chairs/stations at this time. Therefore, they require less parking than the previous tenant space and, as such, do not require parking mitigation. However, the business plan includes doubling the number of service stations in the future. Any increase in stations beyond sixl would mean the business would not conform to its parking requirements. Staff has incorporated a condition of approval specific to parking. Comprehensive/Area Plans As noted in the applicant's request, the business has been serving the local community and visitors. Allowing the use to move to this location and expand its operations supports a number of Comprehensive Plan goals including those that encourage local business expansion and serving residents and visitors alike. The Downtown Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the City to continue to implement and refine its design review and permitted requirements. Since the property is not proposing any exterior alterations aside from installation of signage (which can be administratively approved), the only concern staff has is for conformance to Downtown Design Review District guidelines focusing on keeping storefront windows clear so people can see into the business. This has become an increasing concern in the downtown area as frosted, tinted, and screened windows can have an undesirable effect on the pedestrian experience. In the event the business requires patron 1 Stillwater Tattoo (6 chairs x 3 parking spaces per chair = 18 parking spaces) JJ Nail and Massage (5 chairs x 3 parking spaces per chair = 15 parking spaces) CPC 2021-69 Page 4 privacy, interior modification shall be done as to prevent reduced visibility into the business's storefront/lobby. Staff has incorporated one condition of approval related to this. Other Lawful Regulations/Conditions The business will be required to obtain a license from the State of Minnesota to operate in this location. The business will further need to comply with all City and County life, health, and safety codes through applicable permitting and review processes. It should be noted the City has received four letters of support for the business's relocation. These are enclosed for Commission review. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the request in conformance to the City Code requirements for the issuance of the Special Use Permit, it could approve the use permit with the following conditions: 1. This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in Minnesota State Section 462.3595. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021-69, except as modified by the conditions herein. 3. The business is granted no greater than six stations without additional review by the City. In the event greater than six stations are desired, the applicant shall submit for and obtain an amendment to this use permit. 4. The business storefront windows shall be kept clear. No tinting, frosting, or filming of the windows is permitted. In the event the business requires patron privacy, interior modification shall be done as to prevent reduced visibility into the business's storefront/lobby. 5. Trash will be kept indoors until trash day. 6. Abutting sidewalks must be kept clean of cigarette butts and other debris. 7. Plans will need to be approved by the applicable engineering, fire, building and health officials before the issuance of a building permit and/or business opening. 8. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director in advance. Any major changes will need to the Planning Commission for Use Permit amendment review and approval. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds the request to have incomplete information, the case could be tabled. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the request to be inconsistent with City Code, it could be denied. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION As noted, the City has reviewed tattoo shop requests in the past on the basis staff determines them to be substantially similar to a beauty shop, a use that is outright permitted in the Zoning Code. CPC 2021-69 Page 5 Furthermore, the use would not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties as part of the Use Permit and, with certain conditions, would not be a detriment or nuisance to the general public and conforms to adopted codes and plan. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission discuss whether or not tattoo shops are of the same general character as the uses in Section 31-325, specifically beauty shops and, if so, act on the Use Permit request. Staff further recommends, if tattoo shops are determined to be of the same general character as a beauty shop, the staff would recommend the Planning Commission move to approve the Use Permit with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Public Comments (4) cc: Jeffrey Hagen Jessie Sand Stillwater Tattoo 117 Main Street We would like to reopen Stillwater Tattoo off Main Street. We're requesting permission to return to Stillwater after our shop was taken over by a Wisconsin company in October. We spent a year cleaning up and rebranding tats by zapp, followed by four years of serving Stillwater and its community with an excellent reputation. We cut ties with the chestnut shop due to, not wishing to work for the people responsible for the decline of tots by zapp and their subpar standards of tattoos. Stillwater tattoo is a tourist destination by itself, we serve a high volume of walk-ins and encourage them all to shop, eat and stay in Stillwater. We're a traditional street shop; which entails we accommodate appointments and a high volume of walk-ins, which has been a perfect fit over the last five years for Stillwater's locals and tourists. We've found a space off Main Street, which is a far more appropriate space. It'll be handicap accessible, we will actually be able to be insured, and it's a cleaner space, unlike old location. Larger space will partially serve as a historical representation of art and tattoo history with an art galley vibe. We've made Stillwater our home and wish to continue here for the entirety of my career. HOURS Monday and Tuesday appointment only or closed. Wednesday -Saturday 11am-7pm Sunday 11pm-5pm To start we will set up 4 stations with the ability to expand. 1:1 ratio of client to artist. We will have a waiting room, but ask people to go hang around town and explore until they're called back for their tattoo. Max 8 stations, which I don't expect to happen for a few years. Handicap accessible bathroom will be built out, 4 work stations sinks and new flooring and paint. We're going for classy elegance and yet bold. Thank you for your consideration, Jessie Sand w\m Ltask 5 v901•1 QT-eez_ 3,, 5 \ Jenn Sundberg From: Cassie Tessier Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 11:30 AM To: Planning Dept Subject: Stillwater Tattoo Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessie and Scot reached out to me and let me know what had happened over at the tattoo shop. I've worked at Art n Soul for almost 8 years and have seen neighbors come and go but Jessie and Scot always made downtown welcoming and were always super friendly to us at the shop. It's felt a lot colder next door without them. I know if they got the chance to serve Stillwater again they would do it well. Thank you for reading, Cassie (and all of us at Art n Soul) i Amy & Scott Burback 213 Sherburne Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 City of Stillwater Planning Commission Stillwater, Minnesota To Whom It May Concern, We are writing to you today in support of granting zoning privileges to Jessie and Scot of Stillwater Tattoo. We are long-time Stillwater residents. As 15 year residents, we are proud to call Stillwater home as it is a beautiful and diverse city that so many others who do not live here, also recognize as a desirable destination location. As residents, we can see that it is also the businesses here that make Stillwater such an attractive destination to so many and as such, we take every opportunity to patronize local businesses and ensure they are well -supported year-round. One of these businesses that we came to know several years ago is Stillwater Tattoo. We met Jessie and Scot and quickly came to see what professionals in their craft they are. We regard them as an important part of the downtown Stillwater business district and a business we frequent. From the first time we met, Jessie spoke of how important it was to her and Scot to have established their shop in downtown and to be a part of providing their service to residents and visitors to Stillwater alike. Her words were filled with pride about what they had built and what they were a part of in this busy main street district. We have also seen first-hand that they share in a reciprocal relationship with Stillwater as they patronize local shops and restaurants as well. We are repeat customers of Stillwater Tattoo and frankly, will continue to be repeat customers regardless of whether they are in Stillwater, or somewhere else. A reputable Tattoo shop, like a hair salon, fitness studio, or any personal service business, is successful when they match high -quality services with personal attention and a genuine connection to their clients, something Jessie and Scot excel at. We have referred family and friends to them, who have all been very happy with their work. Unfortunately, we are in danger of not having them be a part of the business community they worked so hard to make a reality. They have now identified a suitable space on Main Street. We ask that you keep Stillwater Tattoo a Stillwater business and grant their zoning request so they can reestablish their important connection with the downtown business district and get back to doing what they do so well. Respectfully submitted, Amy & Scott Burback Jenn Sundberg From: Shannon Velin Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 1:33 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: New Business Recommendation [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern with the city of Stillwater, I am writing to you regarding a potential tattoo shop to have a place in our great town. Jessie (and Scott) provide such an excellent atmosphere and extreme talent when in their shop. They have endless support for our town and a deep commitment to running an incredible business in the heart of our town! I have been a resident near 30 years and have chosen to raise a family here, and also work downtown Stillwater. Myself, along with current clients of Jessie & Scott would be extremely grateful to see you allow them to grow their business and in that, bring more business to our local businesses. Word of mouth travels fast and I have never heard a negative review of either of these individuals and know they would be here for a long long time. Thank you for your consideration, Shannon Weber I. Jenn Sundberg From: Subject: Planning Dept FW: Character witness Ellen Gilbert From: Ellen Gilbert Date: November 30, 2021 at 09:44:41 CST To: Subject: Character witness Ellen Gilbert To whom it may concern, I am writing on behalf of the staff of Stillwater Tattoo Company, specifically Jessie Sand and Scot Neverdahl. For the past several years we have been business neighbors on Chestnut Street in downtown Stillwater. When Jessie and Scot can into the retail space, myself and my coworkers were relieved. Stillwater Tattoo Company with the support of Jessie and Scot recreated that space into a much more friendly and professional environment for all downtown patrons. Along with a healthier workspace for their staff. The transition from Tatts by Zap to Stillwater Tattoo Company was much needed. Pertaining to cleaning up the employees behavior, resulting in needed termination of past employment. I can attest to the previous negative space that Starts by Zap was. I have worked two doors down from their establishment for ten years. The changes I have seen are very necessary. Past employment, was an embarrassment to other surrounding businesses. Even the safety concerns of intoxication and as far as breaking and entering from past staff that my employer caught on camera in order to catch the employee stealing from their own employer. Before Stillwater Tattoo Company joined our street, it was a tattoo shop previously that I wouldn't want to enter let alone any young adult who was getting a first time service. It was not a business I would have ever recommended. Since Stillwater Tattoo Company they have turned around the business, terminated any negative influences in their employment and become positive members in our community. They take pride in their business, craft and art. Take care of the communities street and frequently shoveled for all the connecting businesses along their sidewalk in the dead of winter and feed the birds and squirrels. The families and children loved watching the wildlife feed as Chestnut Street was closed down for pedestrian areas. Jessie and Scot were friendly faces we sure miss. I am saddened yo hear of the hurdles in place as Jessie is attempting to open a new shop downtown. I hope with support and approval Jessie Sand can open a new location for her business with the support of Scot Neverdahl as an experienced shop manager. I remain confident that this community will allow a new opportunity for a positive influence in downtown Stillwater, under the capable staffing of Jessie Sand and Scot Neverdahl. Respectfully, Ellen Gilbert Salon Manager of A'salonna Salon and Spa I. liwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF M 1 N N E S O 1 A PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-64 MEETING DATE: November 17, 2021 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater LANDOWNER: N/A REQUEST: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment relating to fence regulations LOCATION: Citywide ZONING: Citywide REPORT BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION As the Commission may remember, the City has recently adopted provisions to allow for administrative citations to violations to the City Code. However, the City's fence regulations call for an enforcement process that is in conflict with the recently -adopted administrative citation process. Thus, City staff is requesting modification to the fence regulations that allow for enforcement consistent with the recently -adopted administrative citation provisions. Additionally, the current fence regulations indicate that, where a non -conformity (i.e. placement in required setback, height, etc.) exists, it is not allowed to be rebuilt. This is inconsistent with MN Stat. 462.357, Subd. le. which indicates nonconformitites may be repaired, replaced, restored, maintained, improved but not expanded. The proposed ordinance amendment brings the City's fence regulations into conformance with the State Statute. Given the City needed to modify its fence regulations, City staff reviewed the ordinance and updated it to ensure it was meeting the City's needs. SPECIFIC REQUEST The City is requesting approval of a Zoning Text Amendment to repeal and replace the fence regulations. ANALYSIS Prior to making a recommendation for approval or modified approval of a proposed amendment to the city council, the commission must first find that the public necessity, and the general CPC Case 2021-64 Page 2 of 3 community welfare are furthered; and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The intent of this Zoning Text Amendment is two -fold: 1. Come into compliance with adopted city and state regulations. Consistency with established laws is a public necessity and the general community welfare will be furthered. There are no conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Adjust the City's fence standards to ensure they are up to date with community needs. The City's current fence regulations, though amended in minor ways in 2002 and 1995, was adopted in 1994. Since that time, the City has grown and developed considerably. The proposed amendments will help streamline and clarify code requirements, while combining, adjusting and adding requirements. The new code will: • Grant exemptions to the permitting requirements for different types of fences and fence repair; and • Allow a fence height increase when screening it required as part of an approved Conditional Use Permit; and • Require fencing on top of retaining wall where public safety is a concern; and • Allow for fencing around recreational uses (i.e. backyard tennis and basketball courts) with certain perimeters; and • Require maintenance of fencing. Modifying the City Code to conform to modern standards and needs is a public necessity to which the general community welfare is furthered. The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the request, with or without alterations. B. Deny the request. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION As noted, staff finds the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use CPC Case 2021-64 Page 3 of 3 designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the requesting Zoning Text Amendment. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance (Legislative Format) Fence Ordinance Amendments (December 20, 2021) Standard Format — Existing Underlined Italics — Proposed Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section 31-508 is to provide for the regulation of fences in the city, to prevent fences being erected that would be a hazard to the public, or an unreasonable interference with the uses and enjoyment of neighboring property and are compatible with existing uses, other zoning restrictions and drainageways. Subd. 2. Permit required. Unless exempted pursuant to Subd. 3„ no fence shall be erected without first obtaining a fence permit. Application shall be made to the community development director. The fee shall be established by resolution of the city council. The community development director is authorized to issue a fence permit if the application indicates that the fence will be in compliance with this Section 31-508. The city council shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged that the community development director was in error. The appeals shall be taken as prescribed in Section 31-217 of this chapter. Subd. 3. Permit Exemptions. The following activities and uses shall be exempt from obtaining a fence permit. (a) Public park and school recreational fences, including backstops. (b) Snow fences between November 1 and April 15. (c) Fences used to secure active construction sites. (d) Fences used for erosion control. (e) Fences to enclose chicken coops/runs when a chicken keeping permit has been issued. 0 Fence repair. Subd. 4. Standards. Fences may be permitted in all yards, subject to the following: (a) Design. i. Fences in a design review overlay district must comply with adopted guidelines. ii. The side of the fence considered to be the face (finished side as opposed to structural supports) shall face abutting property. (b) Location. i. Fences may be placed on the lot line provided that the footings are within the fence owner's property. ii. No fence shall be permitted on public rights -of -way without an encroachment agreement approved by the City Council. iii. No fence may be erected on either street side of a corner lot that will obstruct or impede the clear view of an intersection by approaching traffic, subject to the provisions of Section 31-505, Subd. 1 that would control where inconsistent with this provision. iv. No fence shall be erected where it will impede a drainageway or drainage easement. v. No fence shall be erected before all lots within a drainage system or platted block have had the final grade established and approved and all lots within the system or platted block have had turf established with grass seed or sod. (c) Height. Height shall be measured from ground grade to the top of the picket. The height of fences in all districts shall be subject to the following: i. Residential a) Fences in excess of 72 inches above the ground grade are prohibited in residential districts. b) Fences are limited to a height of 48 inches in the front yard and exterior side yard setback areas. ii. Non-residential a) Fences in non-residential districts may be erected on the lot line to the height of 72 inches. Non-residential heights may exceed the maximum allowable height only if 1. It is accommodating a security arm for barbed wire, the maximum allowed height shall be 96 inches; 2. It is used for screening required as part of an approved Conditional Use Permit. iii. Residential and non-residential. a) Where public safety is a concern, a minimum 48" fence shall be required on the top of any retaining wall that is four feet in height or higher. b) Tennis courts, basketball courts and other substantially similar recreational situations in residential zones may have a single fence no higher than 10 feet. 1. Recreational fences must be set back a minimum of 10 feet from any property line. 2. With the exception of public park and school property, recreational fences cannot be located in the front or exterior side yard. Subd. 5. Maintenance. Fences must be maintained to the following standards: (a) All fences, walls and screening must be maintained and kept in good repair by the property owners. The property owner is responsible to repair or remove fences, walls or screening if it becomes unsightly or a hazard to the public. (b) Missing boards, pickets or posts shall be replaced within 30 days with material of the same type and quality. (c) Fences and walls shall be installed and maintained in an upright condition. The ability to stand and remain upright must be supported entirely from the posts or support beams. (d) Fences designed for painting or similar surface finishes shall be painted, stained or varnished to manufacturer's specifications. Metal fences must be preserved against rust. Subd. 6. Violations. Violations may result in an administrative citation pursuant to City Code Section 22-10, abatement of the violation pursuant to City Code Section 38-7, and/or a criminal citation pursuant to City Code Section 21-9.