HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-23 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
March 23rd, 2022
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Possible approval of minutes of February 23rd, 2022 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 act on the
proposed item.
2. Case No. 2022-12: Consideration of a Variance to the pool location requirements to allow a
pool in the side yard. Property located at 1220 Broadway Street North in the RB district. Nik
Hawley, applicant and Sam Mahn, property owner.
3. Case No. 2022-13: Consideration of Variances to the Side and Rear Yard setbacks for an
existing, six -unit apartment building. Property located at 516 Myrtle Street West in the RB
district. Michael Koch of PMI Homes, Inc., applicant and Steve and Lynn Thron, property
owners.
4. Case No. 2022-15: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling
Unit and Variances to Maximum Accessory Structure Coverage. Property located at 1015
Olive Street West in the RB district. William and Ashleigh Harris, property owners.
5. Case No. 2022-17 Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment regarding swimming pool
locations. City of Stillwater, applicant.
VIII. DISCUSSION
IX. FYI — STAFF UPDATES
X. ADJOURNMENT
THE 1INTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 23, 2022
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, Councilmember Odebrecht
Absent: None
Staff: City Planner Wittman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of minutes of January 26, 2022 regular meeting
Commissioner Odebrecht asked to be noted as not in attendance.
Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman , to approve the minutes
of the January 26, 2022 meeting as amended. Motion passed 5-0-2 with Commissioner Meyhoff
and Councilmember Odebrecht abstaining.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
There were no items on the Consent Agenda.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Case No. 2022-01: Consideration of Variances to the minimum size lot in order to split their lot
into two separate lots. Property located at 1330 5th St S in the RB district. Jamie Jacobson,
property owner.
City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. In January, the Commission reviewed variance
requests from the property owner wishing to resubdivide the property. Neither of the
properties proposed would meet the minimum lot area requirements and the lot proposed to
retain the exiting home and driveway would be slightly over coverage limitations. The
Commission tabled the matter and directed staff to work with the City Attorney to develop
appropriate conditions of approval. City Attorney Land has reviewed the case and understands
the Commission's concerns about future variances on either property. She recommends the
Commission consider adding the following condition of approval: "The approval of the lot split
for Lots 7 and 8 shall not be used as justification for a practical difficulty when considering a
variance for minimum setback, building or impervious surface coverage maximum and/or
maximum height, or massing regulations." Additionally, since the Public Hearing, staff has
discussed the request with the applicant's neighbors who speculated that the existing dwelling
was being utilized as a two-family residence. The City has been billing this property for two
units since at least 2005, even though building, planning and zoning records do not indicate
approval as a two-family dwelling and the Washington County Assessor's Office has classified
Planning Commission February 23, 2022
this as a single-family residence. On February 15, 2022 staff conducted a site visit. While city
staff observed two kitchens in the dwelling, there was free and open access between the
upstairs and the downstairs living spaces without any separation between them that would
classify the property as a two-family dwelling. Thus the property would be considered single
family and a lot split could be approved. Staff has revised the original conditions of approval to
reflect the single-family dwelling use requirement and request the property owner remove all
door jams. The applicant is requesting: 1) a 788 s.f. variance to the 7,500 s.f. minimum lot area;
and 2) a 792 s.f. variance to the 7,500 s.f. minimum lot area; and 3) a variance to the maximum
25% impervious surface lot coverage requirement to allow the property to have a total
impervious surface lot coverage of 25.8%. Staff recommends approval of all three variances
with seven conditions.
Commissioner Steinwall asked the reason for Condition #2 requiring the properties be utilized
as only a single family residence since this zoning district allows two family dwellings.
City Planner Wittman said that two family dwellings are allowed only where lot size is 10,000
square foot or greater. Without the lot split, the lot meets those requirements but when split
into two, both lots are below that minimum. Staff suggests including the conditions so that
future owners would be aware that this is a single family dwelling.
Commissioner Steinwall said it seems punitive to require in Condition #3 that the door jams be
removed. Commissioners Hansen and Hoffman agreed.
Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to approve Case No.
2022-01, variances to the minimum size lot in order to split the lot into two separate lots, located
at 1330 5th St S, with six of the seven staff -recommended conditions, removing proposed
Condition #3. All in favor.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
DISCUSSION
There were no discussion items.
FYI STAFF UPDATES
Supporting Local Control for Zoning
Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the City Council recently adopted a Resolution
supporting the protection of Local Decision -Making as it relates to Zoning, Development Fee
and Building Permit Fees, in response to proposed legislation.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to adjourn the meeting
at 7:18 p.m. All in favor.
ATTEST:
John Dybvig, Chair
Page 2 of 3
Planning Commission February 23, 2022
Abbi Wittman, City Planner
Page 3 of 3
ilwater
THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2022-12
MEETING DATE: March 23, 2022
APPLICANT: Samuel and Kristi Mahn
LANDOWNER: Samuel and Kristi Mahn
REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to locate a swimming pool and the associated
appurtenances in the interior side yard.
LOCATION: 1220 Broadway Street North
ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential
REPORT BY: Frannie Nielsen, Interim Zoning Administrator
INTRODUCTION
Samuel and Kristi Mahn own the property at 1220 Broadway Street North, at the corner of
Broadway Street North and St. Croix Avenue East. The property owners would like to install an
18' x 36' inground pool. The property is a corner lot that essentially has no rear yard. City Code
Section 31-514. Subd. 5 indicates pools must be located in the rear yard. Therefore, the property
owner is requesting a variance to locate the pool in the interior side yard of the property.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The applicants are requesting:
A variance to City Code Section 31-514. Subd. 5. and City Code Section 33-2. Subd. 13. which
requires all swimming pools or appurtenances thereto to be located in the rear yard at a distance
of at least ten feet from any property line.
ANALYSIS
The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria
below.
1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning
district in which the subject property is located.
CPC Case 2022-12
Page 2 of 4
The property is zoned RB, Two -Family Residential. Pools are outright permitted in this
zoning district.
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?
Swimming pool locations The requirement to allow for pools in the rear yard is
to prevent them from being installed in the front of residences and thereby
disrupting the traditional front -yard pattern of neighborhoods. The request is in
harmony with a newly proposed zoning code text amendment which would
specifically allow pools meeting location requirements on corner lots.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code?
Swimming pool locations If granted, the proposed variance would not be out of
harmony with the Zoning Code because the pool will be set back roughly 40 feet,
from the east lot line along Broadway Street, well in conformance to the 30'
front yard setback for accessory structures. Additionally, the pool is proposed to
be shielded from the front of the property by fencing and landscaping. Lastly,
this is a corner property; if it were not, and the front yard was along St. Croix
Avenue East, then this pool would in fact be located in the rear yard.
c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive
Plan?
No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. 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 22,651 SF property with a single-family residence would be proposing to use their
property in a reasonable manner by adding a pool.
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
orientation and size of the lot limit the location options for a pool. The property
essentially lacks a rear yard; therefore, a pool cannot be placed in the rear yard as
required by city code. The applicant is proposing a pool in the only location that is
realistically feasible for the property.
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
The property owner did not create these circumstances.
CPC Case 2022-12
Page 3 of 4
d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality?
The proposed location for the pool does not protrude beyond the east and west ends
of the house on the property; the pool will not be visible from a south facing view of
the property because of the house. The pool is proposed to be located within required
setbacks and screened with a 4' tall decorative fence along the east side of the pool
and existing 5'-6' tall shrubs along the east property line. It is the belief of the
Planning Department that the proposed plan will not make the at grade pool visually
impactful to the surrounding neighborhood.
e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations?
The applicant's desire is for the variance is due to factors apart economic
considerations.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment at the time this report was written.
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. 2022-
12, except as modified by the conditions herein.
2. A fence permit must be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
fence permit will meet both the building code regulations put forth in Section 33-2.
Subd. 14., and the agreed upon fence and landscaping plan.
3. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building
officials before the issuance of a building permit.
4. 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. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given.
Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal
of a substantially similar application within one year.
C. Table the request for additional information.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
The applicant proposes to install a pool that is not in conformance to the City Code requirements
so that it is conveniently located south of the home. The proposed location conforms to the intent
of regulation. By putting the pool on the interior side of the home and well within required
CPC Case 2022-12
Page 4 of 4
setbacks, the pool's location is reasonable and will not detract from the neighborhood's
character.
Staff finds the proposed pool meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Staff
recommends approval of variances to allow a swimming pool and its associated appurtenances to
be located in the interior side yard at 1220 Broadway Street North. Staff does recommend that if
the variance is approved that all the conditions stated above in Alternative A be imposed.
Attachments: Site Location Map
Applicant Narrative
Site Plan
cc: Samuel and Kristi Mahn
%,...„,, ...
, ., ..., h
�'� .. ♦ _gyp;...:
'�'� +�„., .., ...
�-} � [
k�. 1 .� .rv�r'
_l
The
Birthplace
llwater
of Minnesota
'ail Ui * ._..41� r "d $~ - 191.,
1
Y _ -
Site Location
- •
•
,
1220 Broadway
St N
,:. G
... A
R♦i,
i ,"
�yy
�89iL
%,.
F p
'v hTr
E�!
-r
e'er.
-yam. '
lr`
a
r
.
$°
4
ti,
��1� ..0
}
yam ♦ +', ..- J. l
to ; 9' }^x,,
N '1 Y t
0 75 150
300
Feet
(�
at '.' ' ,,
Site Location
.,,
•11/.'.`r`/ f f °Y'. �r
!2 r '�. •�
i>�l.
�Mmi�^,♦�.
iii
`
bra
sweGeneral
IL
��D
rat - r - ._�
RRR n; TIII
$ "� ; 8?•. ^} a
'
4
�:, \��fII l
\� �I4-E1'
—��l`.II
�1■,
® ®
al•
I' i
:i� ••
-
i
•
•
y..1 ,5 .'1 F r/ j `
8'tM 0'. ' Ci z ..
'�'tl4 ... ...,flt► ��_ �• 1 :I � •, -µ S
�
•• ; �� � i
II� �'
J .� l�
®®
®.�
� rr� �
■m n
Swimming Pool Variance
Mahn, Sam & Kristi
1220 Broadway St N
Stillwater, MN 55082
We are proposing a variance for an 18x36' in ground swimming pool. Due to the uniqueness of
the property being on a corner lot, this doesn't currently permit a pool to be located in the south part of
the property. We are building an average size pool with an average amount of patio space around the
pool. In addition, we are keeping 100% of the project behind the front face of the home on the East and
are 35' off the property line. This can be seen in our detailed plans. This should be found to be
consistent with reasonable use of the land. This will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Thank you
Sam & Krisi Mahn
Toonfro :019
cos
Coot flan N f
..444
CE
TIFICAT F
Added deta i 1 s of ex i sting and
proposed ut 1 1 ty easement% over
and across parts of Lots ? and 3.
Block 1O, See Sheet 2 Tor existing.
and proposed ift 1 11 fy ease lent desc is .
Added details et visible %ewer. line loc.
Added Sheet 2,
Eltt,
LINA t.4 ETT AA. STACK
Ui URA MINN t
ft-4,41 strtok wriontroitiiw
ixtirt; $44,AV1441114
444. tia, -094$49
TomitortisomAtitowta.LtialVElgiitINI; • "MO": ISM Casey., T3ZO figratitt itreAtt., Stinwater, titiN 5S0.92
(4;;IltlION; tot, 1 ono l 1tot 2 illotk, tOu tacit acTi Artnadombufigss Additled TM Stitiollitier,
WOO d ton County 14ir;n05-rt4t,.
NOTTS: The above description xas provided by Cfm flit Caisev. Csel, SchalanbufacT AtIA
is recorded as Boos No. 41604 9: Washington County RC:cord:ars Office.
iodinates //2' 1, O. iron pipe in place mmrked with 4 plaalilr 'plug o. Indicates iron pipe monument found in place at notnig, trisffiticA NTS t3774.
Orientation or the bearing systen used in this survey is an assumed datum.
Underground or overhead public or fir: vete utilities, 00 or adjacent the parcel, were not
located 1 n conjunction wi th th s survey, un 1 ess Noted otherwise. Existing draiefielil location
shown hereon wets scaled from if slietch provided by Tim Casey and is appoximate VOTi fy the
exact loc.ation, widfsb and depth of the drainfield prior to any excavation on the parcel.
Offsets shown to existing structures are measured to the outside building wall line, unless.
noted otherwise. Any projection% from said wall 1 ine such as sills, eaves, etc., wi
docreose these of fseAs accordingly.
(Tee 4.9 J.,' emOr kat- 4
fat ;
, ilawcalv,Av
V W. GaW 94
GARAGE HOUSE
73,7
Ar
76,
1 c°
Pod E.,.
13114, ,..rro.Decorgetve
9
=fn. X113.2
.4;44444;444";41—.44
, 44
1117 /
a a
hereby cer:ily that tine surety, plan. or :COort wAt
prApArC4 by ;11c or under my direct ropervilion ad UM
A duly tregntered land Surveyor under thr 1A,.r: or
StAtt; of Minnesota,
ge?-1,--C-4- tea • a*-4;re
aea-,1
Prepared By:
Performance Pool & Spa
2405 Annapolis Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
(651) 775 - 3940
(651) 731 - 8372 Fax
Attn: Ken Ronsberg
Kenronsberg@Comcast. net
Home Owner :
Mahn, Sam & Kristi
1220 Broadway St N
Stillwater, MN 55082
(
507 ) 261 - 1704
Lot 1 Block 16
Subdivision -
CARLI AND SCHULENBURG'S
PID 21.030.20.43.0035
Pool Dimensions
Width X Length
Pool ( 18 X 36 )
Deck ( 31 X 51 )
( 955.35 ) Denotes Proposed Elevation
X 955.35 Denotes Existing Elevation
Denotes Drainage Direction
X X Denotes Silt Fence
Scale -1 Inch = 20 Feet
City Codes / Setbacks
Principal 10Water
Side - 10' Concrete
Rear 10' Concrete
Equipment - Same as S&F
Fence - 4' Tall
Septic -10' Water
Well - 20 ' Water
SHED
DRIVEWAY
GARAGE
GFE = 832.66
832.00
4' Wide Gate/ Self-closing/Self-Latching/Lockable 2X
63.7
73.7
HOUSE
Wdod
Deck
co
NI
0
a
Sidewalk
X 833.42
1.63 X
ro
X 833.14
X 833.54
Pool Equipment
4' Tall Decorative Aluminum Fe
$ j1.47 i 833.34 X
f?ropal! Pool i
18 36 i
Proposed plevatiori
(833.41)
831.88 - 833.4fi X
x x
Silt Fence
x
X 832
74 X 833.5
34.8
X 033.70 39.9
0)
m
X 833.80
Drainfield -20' Water
Neighbor's 5' Tall Decorative Aluminum Fence
Uwater
THE RTHPLACE O F M i N N E S O 1 A
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: CD 2022-13
MEETING DATE: March 23, 2022
APPLICANT: Michael Koch of PMI Homes, Inc.
LANDOWNER: Steve and Lynn Thron
REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to rear yard setbacks associated with a
proposed Resubdivision
LOCATION: 516 Myrtle Street West
DISTRICT: RB — Two Family Residential zoning district
NCD — Neighborhood Conservation (Overlay) District
REPORT BY: Frannie Nielsen, Interim Zoning Administrator
INTRODUCTION
Steve and Lynn Thron own the property at 516 Myrtle Street West and are requesting the City
Council's consideration of a Resubdivision to split the property into two lots. When Resubdivisions
are contemplated, the applicant must show each property and its improvements can conform to all base
zoning district requirements. The existing structure would not meet rear yard setbacks as a result of the
resubdivision. Therefore, the owner is requesting a variance to the minimum rear yard setback in the
RB district.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
Consideration of the following variance to allow for a Resubdivision:
1. A 5' variance from Section 31-308 RB two-family district rear yard setbacks of 25 feet to
reduce the setback to 20 feet.
ANALYSIS
The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below.
1. 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 Residential. The existing and proposed uses are
compatible or have received appropriate approvals to be in the RB zoning district.
CD 2022-13
March 23, 2022
Page 2
2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
• What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested?
Minimum rear yard setbacks' purpose includes ensuring structures do not interfere
with traffic visibility, fire department access, and retaining uniform land development.
• If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code?
Although the existing structure faces toward Myrtle Street, access to the parcel is from
Martha Street N for pedestrians and from Harriet Street N for vehicular traffic.
Following approval of the resubdivision, the rear yard will be located along the
eastern side of the property (which currently serves as a side yard). The proposed
variance would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code because of the parcel's
and structure's unique shape and orientation.
• If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan?
No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. 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".
• Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner?
The applicants are proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner; the proposed lots
meet size requirements, and the proposed uses are permitted in the RB zoning district.
• 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 existing
structure is surrounded by ample greenspace enough for multiple structures. The existing
parcel's land area has the ability to accommodate an additional lot where both resulting
parcels meet minimum lot size requirements.
• Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
The property owner did not create these circumstances. The property owner did not
construct the existing 6-unit building that interferes with setbacks that would be required as
part of a future resubdivision.
• If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality?
The proposed variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed
and existing housing types are permitted in the RB zoning district. Additionally, the
property is located in the Neighborhood Conservation District and the design of the new
home will need to obtain Heritage Preservation Commission review and approval prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
• Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations?
The applicant's desire for the variance is due to factors apart economic considerations.
While there is an economic benefit to adding an additional parcel of land, the existing
CD 2022-13
March 23, 2022
Page 3
structure already sits 20' from the eastern property line. Though the future Resubdivision
would re -orientate the property to have its front facing Martha Street North, this does not
change the property and its structure's current configuration.
ALTERNATIVES
A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the request in conformance to the City Code
requirements for the issuance of a variance, it could approve the variance with (at least) the
following conditions:
1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with Case CD 2022-13, 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 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
The property's condition is not a result of the applicant and is quite unique in this neighborhood. The
proposed configuration is not inconsistent with the neighborhood it is situated in. The property owner
has made a reasonable request to create two lots from one that fit with the size of others within the
neighborhood. They have shown that both properties resulting from the resubdivision generally
conform to the intent of the Zoning Code.
Given these findings, staff finds that — with reasonable conditions — the request conforms to the
standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and recommends approval of the variance with
conditions outlined in Alternative A, above.
Attachments: Site Location Map
Narrative Request
Minor Subdivision Survey
cc: Steve and Lynn Thron
Michael Koch
iliwater
Planning Department
216 4th Street North Stillwater MN 55082
651-430-8800
www.ci.stillwater.mn.us
PlanningDept@ci.stillwater.mn.us
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE
Dear Stillwater Planning Commission,
Per the requirements of the variance application we are submitting, please find our comments below to
support our request to the planning commission and the associated conditions to be met:
As the property owners, we would like to express our intentions of use for the property identified in the
attached survey showing parcel "A" and parcel "B": This survey will show the existing six unit residential
structure and associated conditions. The survey will also show our proposed property line dividing this
site so the newly created property can be used to build our new home where we plan on living.
If this variance is granted, we are committed to using this land in a reasonable manner for the sole use as
permitted by the City of Stillwater and its associated zoning and building ordinances where this property
is located, but whereas our proposal to do so is not permitted by other official controls or departments.
Although, our intentions are to meet the "Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Regulations" with
this variance request.
The difficulty we are facing as the property owners is due to existing conditions unique to this property
and something that we have not created and of which has been beyond our control.
If the planning commission grants our variance, we have no intentions of altering the essential character
of this neighborhood, and as noted above, we intend on meeting the requirements set fourth in the
neighborhood conservation district regulations.
We understand that there are practical difficulties in complying with all applicable requirements
regarding our intentions for this property but we ask that you consider our comments above
addressing our restraints and our intentions for use of this property and grant this variance allowing us
to move forward with this project.
Thank you for your consideration!
Steve and Lynn Thron
DOE
A
0E
TW 844.3
BW 839.0
10"A
EXISTING
HOUSE
14"A
.11
1
2 /
I /
/I
/I
/I
/ I
/ I
/ I
e• IS
cP
12"A 1111
1111 j EXISTING 6 UNIT
APARTMENT j
11 % BUILDING
INFORMATION
SHOWN FROM
SURVEY BY OTHERES
DATED 2002.
-844.3
X 843.4
TW=838.4
BW=834.0
(251.85 DESC.)
889°11'39"W
252.48 ---
EXISTING GARAGE
6 RESIDENCE STALLS
I OWNER STALL
PARCEL A /
a e j//A -- 20 I --
44Sk //X844.4 .d sr,
4
4
/ ,--PROPOSED PARCEL LIN
544.6 X `
u1 TW=844.4 bh �
/ BW=840.8 qa �
u1 1 TW=844.2 O
/ Ni-r ' I BW=841.4 N 4%
/ °17 49"W , 1 ,-16"
/ i S891 34.71 30"0 J t i t/
---
l�l
(841 .-2)
X 844.1
X 843.7
POS OUSE
TOP OF FOUNDATION = 841 .9
GARAGE FLOOR = 841 .5
BASEMENT FLOOR = 832.4 (9' POURED)
843.2 -
- 843.4
=833.5
WALKOUT
134. 33
�N89°17 49 E
o2\
I
W. MYRTLE ST.
> > > >
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
Gopher State One CaII
TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002
TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166
C.S.A.H. NO. 12
0
X831.2 I
NORTH
20 40
X843.6 840.3)
STONE WALL
EXISTING
GARAGE
\--14"A
N
EXISTING
KENNEL
TW=834.0
BW=831 .9
830
STONE W
ou
EXISTING '0'.
/ HOUSE
s
/ OF SEC 2
PERFECTED
1 11 TO MARTHA 5 .
36 251.85 DESC.)
LINE OF THE 51/2 OF
iTHE NE 4 OF THE SW 1/4
T30, 1220 PEP
LAT
4"-
INGRESS & EGRESS
= yEASEMENT PER
/ DOC. NO. 685518,
/ 677233 4213386
117.62
N89°05'01" E
(117.60 DESC.)
INGRESS & EGRESS
EASEMENT PER
DOC. NO. 677233,
4242133
(117.60 DESC.)
--NORTH LINE OF
1 MYRTLE ST.
t(117.60 DESC.) -y
(251.25 DESC.) -
EXISTING
HOUSE
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS:
PARCEL A
All that part of the following described property lying north of the south 85.00
feet adjacent to Myrtle Street West:
All that part of the S1/2 of the NE1 /4 of the SW1 /4 of Section 28, Township
30, Range 20, described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the West line of Harriet Street, as the same is laid out
and established in said City of Stillwater, where the North line of the S1/2 of
the NE1 /4 of the SW1 /4 of said Section 28 intersects the same; and running
thence South along the West line of said Harriet Street 237.35 feet, more or
less, to the North line of Myrtle Street, as the same is laid out and established
in said City of Stillwater; thence West along the North line of said Myrtle Street
251.95 feet to the East line of Martha Street, as the same is laid out and
established in said City of Stillwater; thence North along the East line of said
Martha Street 236.37 feet, more or less, to a point where the North line of the
S1 /2 of the NE1 /4 of the SW1 /4 of said Section 28 intersects said East line; and
thence East along said last mentioned North line 251.85 feet more or less, to
the place of beginning; EXCEPTING therefrom the following: Beginning at the
intersection of the North line of Myrtle Street as the same are laid out and
established, thence Northerly along the West line of said Harriet Street as laid
out and established; a distance of 21 5.1 5 feet; thence Westerly a distance of
117.60 feet to a point 214.57 feet Northerly of the North line of Myrtle Street
as laid out and established; thence Southerly parallel with said West line of said
Harriet Street a distance of 214.57 feet to the North line of said Myrtle street;
thence Easterly along said North line of Myrtle Street as laid out and established
a distance of 117.60 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating.
PARCEL B
The south 85.00 feet adjacent to Myrtle Street West of the following described
property:
All that part of the S1/2 of the NE1 /4 of the SW1 /4 of Section 28, Township
30, Range 20, described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the West line of Harriet Street, as the same is laid out
and established in said City of Stillwater, where the North line of the S1/2 of
the NE1 /4 of the SW1 /4 of said Section 28 intersects the same; and running
thence South along the West line of said Harriet Street 237.35 feet, more or
less, to the North line of Myrtle Street, as the same is laid out and established
in said City of Stillwater; thence West along the North line of said Myrtle Street
251.95 feet to the East line of Martha Street, as the same is laid out and
established in said City of Stillwater; thence North along the East line of said
Martha Street 236.37 feet, more or less, to a point where the North line of the
S1/2 of the NE1 /4 of the SW1 /4 of said Section 28 intersects said East line; and
thence East along said last mentioned North line 251.85 feet more or less, to
the place of beginning; EXCEPTING therefrom the following: Beginning at the
intersection of the North line of Myrtle Street as the same are laid out and
established, thence Northerly along the West line of said Harriet Street as laid
out and established; a distance of 21 5.1 5 feet; thence Westerly a distance of
117.60 feet to a point 214.57 feet Northerly of the North line of Myrtle Street
as laid out and established; thence Southerly parallel with said West line of said
Harriet Street a distance of 214.57 feet to the North line of said Myrtle street;
thence Easterly along said North line of Myrtle Street as laid out and established
a distance of 117.60 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
EXISTING THRON LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER DOC. NO. 818078
All that part of the S1/2 of the NE1 /4 of the SW1 /4 of Section 28, Township
30, Range 20, described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the West line of Harriet Street, as the same is laid out
and established in said City of Stillwater, where the North line of the S1/2 of
the NE1 /4 of the SW1 /4 of said Section 28 intersects the same; and running
thence South along the West line of said Harriet Street 237.35 feet, more or
less, to the North line of Myrtle Street, as the same is laid out and established
in said City of Stillwater; thence West along the North line of said Myrtle Street
251.95 feet to the East line of Martha Street, as the same is laid out and
established in said City of Stillwater; thence North along the East line of said
Martha Street 236.37 feet, more or less, to a point where the North line of the
S1/2 of the NE1 /4 of the SW1 /4 of said Section 28 intersects said East line; and
thence East along said last mentioned North line 251.85 feet more or less, to
the place of beginning; EXCEPTING therefrom the following: Beginning at the
intersection of the North line of Myrtle Street as the same are laid out and
established, thence Northerly along the West line of said Harriet Street as laid
out and established; a distance of 21 5.1 5 feet; thence Westerly a distance of
117.60 feet to a point 214.57 feet Northerly of the North line of Myrtle Street
as laid out and established; thence Southerly parallel with said West line of said
Harriet Street a distance of 214.57 feet to the North line of said Myrtle street;
thence Easterly along said North line of Myrtle Street as laid out and established
a distance of 117.60 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating.
EASEMENT NOTES:
NO TITLE COMMITMENT OR TITLE OPINION WERE PROVIDED THAT WOULD SHOW US
EASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES EFFECTING THE PROPERTY SURVEYED. EASEMENTS
SHOWN ARE LIMITED TO THOSE SHOWN ON COUNTY HALF SECTION MAPPING AND
KNOWN TO THIS SURVEYOR. OTHER EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN.
WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO UPDATE HIS SURVEY IF SAID TITLE WORK IS RECEIVED.
1. EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, UTILITIES, MAINTENANCE PER DOC. NO.
4213386
2. INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 677233
3. INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 685518
SURVEY NOTES:
1 . BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED.
2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER CITY OF
STILLWATER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS,
ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED.
4. DATE OF FIELD SURVEY BY OTHERS ON THE MAJORITY OF
THE PARCEL = 2002. SUPPLEMENTED BY CORNSTONE
LAND SURVEYING, INC IN 2019.
DEVELOPEMENT DATA (IN SQ.FT.)
TOTAL PARCEL AREA = 34,409
PROPOSED PARCEL A = 22,962
PROPOSED PARCEL B = 11,447
PROPOSED PARCEL A
EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
TO REMAIN
HOUSE = 2,836
GARAGE = 1,854
CONCRETE = 1,192
BITUMINOUS = 609
GRAVEL = 4,883
TOTAL = 11,374
EXISTING BUILDINGS = 4,690 20.4%
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS = 6,684 29.1%
RB - TWO FAMILY
BUILDING SETBACKS:
FRONT = 20' HOUSE, 30' GARAGE
SIDE = TOTAL 1 5, GARAGE 5'
REAR = 25' HOUSE, 5' GARAGE
25% BUILDING COVERAGE
25% IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
PROPOSED REMOVALS OF GRAVEL = 950 SQ.FT.
PROPOSED BUILDINGS 4,690
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS = 5,734 24.97%
AREA OF PARCEL BURDENED BY ACCESS EASEMENTS = 2,002
PROPOSED PARCEL B
HOUSE = 2,664 (23.3% OF PARCEL)
PATIO = 240
DRIVEWAY = 1,446
WALLS = 149
EXISTING WALLS = 1 83
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS = 2,01 8 (1 7.6%)
NOTE: THE PROPOSED HOUSE AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
AND FOR FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY FOR THIS SUBDIVISION.
LEGEND:
•
0
rV
IACI
Eh
IEPI
Er
r(
55
CO
or®
® or
0
FOUND MONUMENT
SET 1 /2" IRON PIPE
MARKED RLS NO. 25718
CABLE TV PEDESTAL
AIR CONDITIONER
ELECTRIC MANHOLE
ELECTRIC METER
ELECTRIC PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
LIGHT POLE
GUY WIRE
POWER POLE
GAS MANHOLE
GAS METER
TELEPHONE MANHOLE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
SANITARY CLEANOUT
SANITARY MANHOLE
CATCH BASIN
STORM DRAIN
FLARED END SECTION
STORM MANHOLE
FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION
HYDRANT
CURB STOP
® WATER WELL
® WATER MANHOLE
WATER METER
8 POST INDICATOR VALVE
WATER VALVE
O BOLLARD
®- FLAG POLE
MAIL BOX
tT TRAFFIC SIGN
® UNKNOWN MANHOLE
la SOIL BORING
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
WM
to
CONIFEROUS TREE
DECIDUOUS TREE
UE
UTV
OF
ur
oU
uG
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
UNDERGROUND CABLE TV
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
OVERHEAD UTILITY
UNDERGROUND GAS
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
WATERMAIN
FENCE
CURB [TYPICAL]
CONCRETE SURFACE
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
MINOR
SUBDIVISION
CONTACT:
STEVE & LYNN THRON
730 FONTANA DR.
PUNTA GORDA FL 33950
651-491-7549
thronfamily@gmail.com
COUNTY/CITY:
WASH 1 NGTON
CO U I JTY
C I O F
STI LLWATER
REVISIONS:
DATE REVISION
2-20-22 PRELIMINARY ISSUE
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am
a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the state of Minnesota.
Davie L. Thurmes Registration mber: 25718
Date: 2-20-22
PROJECT LOCATION:
5 7 �
MYRTLE ST. W.
PID#280302031 0006
1
Suite #200
1970 Northwestern Ave.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Phone 651.275.8969
dan@cssurvey
.net
CORNERSTONE
LAND SURVEYING, INC.
FILE NAME
PROJECT NO.
SURVSTO2
ST02002
MINOR
SUBDIVISION
iliwater
THE B f FIT H P L A C E OF MINNESOIA
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
MEETING DATE:
APPLICANT:
LANDOWNER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
REPORT BY:
Planning Commission CASE NO.: CD 2022-15
March 23, 2022
Ashleigh and William Harris
Ashleigh and William Harris
1. Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances to convert an existing
accessory structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit; and
2. Variances to the Accessory Structure size and Maximum Coverage
1015 Olive Street West
RB, Two -Family Residential
Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
INTRODUCTION
Ashleigh and William Harris own the property at 1015 Olive Street West which contains a single
family residence, three -car garage converted from an old horse barn, and small garden shed (intended
for removal). With the exception of the garden shed, the structures on this property were constructed
prior to 1904 (accoridng to the Sanborn Fire Insurance map). Though they have not been surveyed,
their construction era is during several of the City's periods of historical significance.
The property owners have begun to convert the former barn (turned three -car garage) into accessory
structure space for their family. Their short-term use of this structure is for personal (not business)
needs. The long-term use of the barn would be for conversion into an Accessory Dwelling Unit to
accommodate their family's future needs. Additionally, in the future, they would like to attach a
three -car garage on to the east side of the single-family residence. The property owners are aware
that some of the work they have done to the property is in conflict with the City Code. Given
unpermitted actions have occurred, the City has asked the applicants to stop working on the property
and come into compliance with zoning code requirements prior to finishing the current exterior
alterations.
The RB — Two Family residential zoning district indicates properties may only have two accessory
structures, specifically stating one garage and one other accessory structure - not to exceed 120
square feet in. Since the property owners no longer intend to use barn as a garage, the 816 square
foot structure does not conform to the 120 square foot maximum. Additionally, when combined with
the (future) 1,144 square foot, three -car garage proposed for the future, the property would be well in
excess of the maximum 1,000 square feet of accessory structure coverage.
CPC Case 2022-15
Page 2 of 6
This request is multi -fold and the property owners have noted the work will be conducted in phases.
Though several varainces are outlined in this report, the intentions of the applicant are to preserve the
structures on the property, remodel and make alterations to accommodate modern needs, as well as to
adatively reuse the former horse barn. As noted later in this staff report, the request is in
conformance with the City's preservation goals.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The applicant is requesting:
• A 696 square foot variance to the 120 square foot maximum "other" accessory structure size;
• A 960 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot maximum accessory structure coverage;
• Variances associated with size and setbacks required for an Accessory Dwelling Unit; and
• A Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Accessory Dwelling Unit in a historic barn,
ANALYSIS
Use Permit
City Code Section 31-207, Special Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit, identifies that the city
may grant a Conditional Use Permit when the following findings are made:
a. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter,
and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. The
proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and relevant area plans. With regard to
conformance to the requirements and intent of the Zoning Code, City Code Section 31-501,
Accessory Dwellings, identifies the following performance standards for review:
• Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet. The subject property is 20,038 square feet in
size. Additionally, the property owners own the vacant lot next door to the subject property.
That parcel is 10,019 square feet. The total size of the property's is 30,057 square feet, well
in conformance to this standard.
• The accessory dwelling may be located on the second floor above the garage. The
Accessory Dwelling Unit is not proposed above a garage.
• The accessory dwelling unit must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and
rear setbacks. The accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary
residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the midpoint of the primary
residence. The property owners are unable to meet these requirements and variances are
being sought. As noted, the proposed ADU would be located in the historic barn. That
structure is legal, non -conforming in that it sits close to the western and southern property
lines. In order to meet this requirement, the structure would need to be relocated on the
property. In addition to this not being practical or feasible, it is in conflict with preservation
principles; keeping the barn and residence's original orientation is preferred.
Additionally, the property faces three streets, an extremely uncommon situation in Stillwater.
However, the home faces Olive Street West. Thus, the proposed ADU is located in the rear
of the property. Furthermore, if the side and rear of the property were not facing streets, the
future ADU would be located exactly where most desired.
CPC Case 2022-15
Page 3 of 6
• Off-street parking requirements (four spaces) must be provided. The property owners
currently have a driveway that accommodates three vehicles. Additionally, when the three -
car garage is constructed, there will be ample space in the garage and driveway to
accommodate the vehicular needs of the two dwellings.
• Maximum size of the garage and ADU is 800 square feet. The footprint of the barn is 816
square feet. It is a two-story structure. Thus, the total size of the future ADU would be 1,632
square feet. Thus, this is an additional variance sought.
• The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design,
detailing and materials. The garage's design has four-sided design, with matching vertical
lap siding proposed to match the residence in the future.
• The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. The height of the barn does not
exceed that of the residence.
• Both the primary and accessory dwelling units must be connected to municipal sewer
and water services and be located on an improved public street. This will be a condition
of approval.
• Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. This will
be addressed in this reports Findings and Recommendation section.
• The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public
welfare of the community. Conditionally permitted ADUs in the RB — Two Family
Residential district has not proved to be a nuisance nor detrimental to the public.
Variance
As noted, specific variances are requested. The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances
when they meet the review criteria below. It should be noted the City is not compelled to grant
variances.
1. 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
Residential. Detached ADUs and attached garages are permitted in this zoning district.
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?
• Maximum Accessory Structure Size and Coverages: The purpose of these regulations is
to help ensure accessory structures do not dominate over primary structures on a
property.
• ADU Setbacks: The purpose of these requirements is to help ensure properties maintain
neighborhood compatibility when there is more than one residence.
• ADU Maximum Size: The purpose of this requirement is to help ensure accessory
dwellings do not dominate over primary dwellings.
CPC Case 2022-15
Page 4 of 6
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The
property has ample land area to accommodate existing and future improvements. The
footprint of the primary residence will continue to exceed that of the existing and future
accessory structures and uses. Therefore, the variances would not be out of harmony with the
zoning code.
c. If granted, would the proposed variance be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan? The
request overwhelmingly conforms to Comprehensive Plan goals pertaining to historic
preservation and housing.
3. 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? City Code currently allows
for an ADU on properties in the RB — Two Family Residential zoning district when
properties have greater than 10,000 square feet. As noted, the culminative property size
is three -times greater that required by code. Therefore, the property is proposed to be
used in a reasonable manner. That said, long-term unsheltered storage and clutter on the
property is not reasonable. The accessory structure must accommodate the property's
storage needs.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? There are
several unique factors to this property. First, the property was platted in 1856. While
this is not the most unique, the fact that the property was never split since it was first
developed is unique. This oversized lot facing three streets is very uncommon in
Stillwater. Additionally, a property containing an original (then) farmhouse and barn on a
property is extremely rare in the community. It is the combination of the oversized lot
and the original characteristics of the property and its improvements, that warrant the
variances.
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? While the property owner has begun
work on the conversion of the existing garage to an `other' accessory structure, the work
was being done as to accommodate the family's current needs. However, the work is not
in conflict with the uniqueness of the property.
d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? With the
exception of the attached garage, the property will not change. As the property owners
own adjacent land that can accommodate the garage addition (proposed with a footprint
small than the existing residence), the approval of the variances will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood. With regard to the attached garage, it is larger than
average for the neighborhood. However, its footprint is not greater than the size of the
residence. Therefore, it is not out of character with the property.
CPC Case 2022-15
Page 5 of 6
e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations?
The applicants are aiming to accommodate their family's needs by adaptively reusing the
historic barn and adding on an attached garage. These factors are not economic.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The City has received two comments from neighbors; they are enclosed for Commission review.
Both neighbors are concerned about the size of the attached garage, citing it not appropriate for the
house or neighborhood, as well as well as environmental concerns. The property is allowed to have a
total of 25% square feet of other impervious surface coverage. The combination of existing
hardscaped surfaces and a new driveway is not anticipated to exceed the 7,514 square feet allowed.
At the time of permitting for the garage, the City will address standard water runoff and property
infiltration requirements.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A. Approve: If the Planning Commission finds the Conditional Use Permit and Variances are
consistent with the provisions of the CUP and process and the standards set forth for the
establishment of practical difficulty, the Commission could move to approve the CUP and
associated Variances with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the
following conditions of approval:
1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with Case No. 2022-15, except as
modified by the conditions herein.
2. The accessory structure may not be used for business or commercial use.
3. Prior to work commencement, required building permits shall be obtained for all interior and
exterior work requiring a building permit including, but not limited to, windows, siding and
trim, and interior work for the conversion of the barn to an accessory structure and/or an
ADU.
4. The exterior of all structures shall be detailed, sided and painted to match one another.
5. Long-term unsheltered storage and clutter on the property is not permitted. Accessory
structures on the property must accommodate the property's storage needs.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the conversion of the barn, the property owner
will provide a minimum of four off-street parking spaces on the property.
7. The applicant shall be required to pay WAC/SAC charges for the new unit at the time of
building permitting. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the ADU shall be
connected to municipal sewer and water.
8. The future garage's driveway shall be improved in compliance with City Code Section 33-5.
9. 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. Approve in part.
C. Deny. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the approved Conditional Use
Permit guidelines or the standards set forth for the granting of variances, then the Commission
could deny the request in whole or in part. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be
CPC Case 2022-15
Page 6 of 6
given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of
a substantially similar application within one year.
D. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to decide, the request could be tabled.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
While the Conditional Use Permit request for an Accessory Dwelling Unit does not conform to the
RB — Two Family Residential zoning district's ADU standards, the request for variances associated
with the barn's conversion are reasonable. There are several unique factors to the property —
including the size and the historical orientation of the property and its improvements. Conversion of
the barn to an accessory structure now, and an ADU later, will remain in character with the
neighborhood.
Additionally, the property currently has a three -car garage. Converting this garage into an accessory
structure now, and an ADU later, while adding a three -car garage onto the home is also reasonable.
Given the attached garage's size is not greater than the size of the existing residence, it will not
dominate over the older portion of the structure. Furthermore, size the total accessory coverage will
be split between the old barn and future garage, significantly separated on the property. These
factors, too, help justify practical difficulty.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit and approval of the requested
variances for Case No. 2022-15 with the conditions identified in Alternative A, above.
Attachments: Site Location Map
Narrative Request
Site Plan (Current)
Site Plan (Future)
Future Garage Plans
Public Comments (2)
cc: Ashleigh and William Harris
{ err
'-- ' "
r:all, , y� r • ,as,.
,..
:--,� 1 k�
►:
..... .;
;r e
,-�
Water
' �.f •. "^. ^_ {..,
R. 4 •$f�1�!R' %XtT+"+,r
-�ryhK. ,
#. 4,. '..
•
I i ItU
,.
` �
1 ) R �
�
lid '
d ,,fit /
1il -- �yK, . 9
' ''� ?'-
- .. - �:. •fix t
T
-'
,, e .tom m
The Birthplace of Minnesota
�w
\
. IL,
,a, �,
A q ES OLIVE ro Fr
6
�
Site Location
1015 Olive St
W
—
,9
-,
�S � �'� `"� �'{ Air.
w. yy
.
K S T R E Ef
c, 95 190
380
Feet
_
a• ey- .. �0�-
General Site Location
'
x `
.1 VJ
IM1
J
tf,.3
la_... ■ .i, M .r+'ikt
�+ .di -'� a � ..� .may s ., i `a'� a ^ � ....k :;�; .. ' .,
i�l.
II;..Ir,
��1��1�
rqutk:
/.
_ •t
�,`
j .--. 1.1
ink
�`1��_p�
N?f,
'Y • �� .,� � • ,�
■f
1111':-.•�•
®®
-,, . ' 1 aw '
I
��u...\II Il,\ � u�uf
1►
�I.T
i
a., ,
—. ,
•
,V
r
=
E,47 _ ' 4:
:
IA/��
:�J
�'IL ,L
- l o
MB
��
lip
��
\ ‘•
i\� D
A historic home for the modern family
March 2, 2022
015 OL
THE HOUSE
GOALS:
Put back on original front
porch.
Add on attached garage to the
house facing Olive street.
Side the house with white LP
SMARTSIDE siding to preserve
the houses structure and give a
clean classic farmhouse
aesthetic
THE BARN
GOALS:
Use the space for a home
office, workshop, and hang out
for our family. Treat it like a
finished basement but
detached in the backyard!
Apply for a variance to keep a
historic building standing and
in good shape.
Side the barn with white LP
SMARTSIDE siding to preserve
the structure and give it a
clean farmhouse aesthetic.
Eventually have water and
sewer attached for aging
parents if needed in future.
V
S
Barn + Attached Garage
We love Stillwater. The river view, the small businesses,
restaurants, and the community. We chose to buy an old home in
hopes to restore it to its former glory while simultaneously
making it a space for a modern family of 5 . With such a large lot
(almost i acre) we have always hoped to fix up the barn to be a
family room, home office, and hang out when our kids got older.
Covid and the cramped working/teaching conditions moved us
along and made us realize we needed more space to make our
home function optimally while still staying true to fixing up an
old home and loving it. Converting the barn means we need to
add on an attached garage so that we can store my massive
amount of Christmas decor, our vehicles, family bikes, and even
the snowmobiles. This would allow us to keep our yard tidy while
also giving us the space we need for storage. As many know old
homes have few closets, cramped attics, and unfortunately small
wet basements making storage a major hassle when dealing with a
young family and its many activities and hobbies. By allowing us
1
A historic home for the modern family March 2, 2022
WHAT'S UNIQUE:
• The barn is 150+ years old. It
was used for horses, holding
hay, and it had stalls in the
original design. Each window
facing Owens was for a horse
to look out.
• The house has only had 4 total
owners. The original
lumberjack James Mulvey, his
son, Gary Sample, and now us.
Because of this we have gotten
to hear a lot stories about the
original home and the changes
made over the years. We even
have pictures of the original
front porch.
• The plum tree in the back has
fallen over 3 times but
continues to produce fruit. We
had some old ladies ask to pick
from it 3 summers back. They
were the original grandchildren
who grew up playing in our
yard.
• Cocker Spaniels dogs have
been owned at this house for
over 80 years and still are
today.
• The beams in the barn are all
from white pines that grew
right here in Stillwater. We plan
to keep them all exposed.
to convert the barn to a useable space for a family and add on an
attached garage it gives us the chance to have the space we need
while improving an old home that we hope to redeem and
restore. When we bought the home 6 years ago AS -IS we knew
we would have a lot of work cut out for us and have done so
joyfully as we know old homes should get second chances and not
just be used for cheap rentals or "flips" but as family homes for
good people who want to invest in Stillwater. We have the
original owner come and visit our home often and he continues
to be happy with how we are bringing his old home back to life.
He says he doesn't even miss the orange shag carpet and the
original hardwoods are very pretty. By adding on an attached
garage it would allow us to have the storage we need, stay in the
community, and continue pouring into our neighborhood and
community economically and relationally. We hope you can catch
a glimpse of our vision and dream for our home and hope that we
can convince you that this would be a right step for good
renovations in Stillwater for vears to come.
Gary celebrating his birthday
with us at his old "new" home!
io new trees, hundreds of native
plants, & flowers all added by us!
Siding & Trim inspiration.
Hard -work for today built to last!
24hPlans.com
Your success is our mission
0
0
0
L 0
I ui
--2O•Oo_
-.Property.
-Uoe:
1
5' Front 5�ec[-c
:'T''
115. -
202.40
—{ --
Lincof 1!
• 2f! •Frbert afheo4s: •
line
• 30'-Slds Settati*-'4
• . 25' Rear. •.
setbads• • -
CARRIAGE
US
24.33
0
0
c
202.40
Owens St S
1�
J
m
0
Address: 1015 olive St W
Stillwater, MN 55082
Zoning: RB
Scale 1'=20'
1015 Olive Street West Aerial (and Future Garage Addition)
05/28/2020 - 07/29/2020
ION
11HE55 PLANS ANC, PI21Nf5 REMAIN ME EXCLUSIVE CONPIC,EN9AL P2OPER1Y OP 1115 OWNER, ANC,
MAY (%E U5EC, EY 0I11E25 ONLY POR THE PURPOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTNORIZE5 61, THE OWNER,
UNAUTHORIZEC, COPYING 0R P5PRO511CTIONS OP ANY PORTION 15 POR312,5N
BACK /ATION
0
L LI
(WWII
®®
ELI
FkONE1' ���VA11ON
ECPLv a!, 55 Q!!
SSAWS 5Y:
LOf:1
12A1 :
2/ 3/ 2021
EV, t7AM
SCALE:
SEEPLAN
O
44'-0"
L
I CRS 6" CONCRETE (8OCK
G I� 5 CR58" CONCRETE /LOCK
1- GIBG 1 V 16" x 8" CONCI1TE FOOTING PIN NEW FOOTING TO 7
W/ 2 u4 RE-6AR EXISTING [PEPPING WA-L.
TOP' CO4R64 OF 6LOCK
L I
CONCRETE 5.53 6EAING
I CPP56"
CONC664TE /LOCK IINEXGAVATEI7
5 6R5 8" CONCY11E /LOCK FILE TO NEIGF1
16" x 8" CONC664TE FOOTING
W/ 2 P9 P.E-6AR
1 CP56" CONCRETE /LOCK PIN NEW FOOTING TO
CPS 12" CONCRETE 6L(KK EXISTING 6EPPING WALL
20" x 8" CONCFOOTING
W/ 2 144 HP -PAP
®
/�j�i/�j��jjjjjjjjjjj��/
Z,-O„
10'-9y2'M.O, ee�OO���D�i�0
%%.//����/�����j��/��iiooii®®®iiooii®®®000ii
M,O,
�,-0„
3'_5Y2�� M.O.
�'9�2II
44'-0"
FOUN7A11ON f'L-AN
811E56 PLANS ANP P1511455 REMAIN ME EX2L1151VE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF THE OWNER, NJG
MAY 6E IAPP 6Y 0-ME25 ONLY FOR THE P1I0506E 5PECIFICA1LY AUTNORIZPP 6v THE OWNER,
UNALITNORIZI6 COPING OP PPPRO5u6T1ON5 OF ANY PORTION 15 FOR6IGGEN
naVVN riv:
LOf:I
17AT:
2/ 3/ 2021
I?EV, t7ATE
SCALE:
SEELAN
sHEEr
A-2
Jenn Sundberg
From: Beth Wolf
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 1:02 PM
To: Jenn Sundberg
Subject: FW: Comment for CD 2022-15: 1015 Olive St W - CUP and Variances for ADU and
coverage
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This came into our general email box.
From: David Bottger
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 12:03 PM
To: Stillwater <stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us>
Subject: Comment for CD 2022-15: 1015 Olive St W - CUP and Variances for ADU and coverage
[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,
I have reviewed the application for CD 2022-15 and would like consideration made for the following.
The garage addition is disproportionate to the rest of the house, to the neighborhood, and to the historic aesthetic. The
request is effectively 4 stalls and should be reduced to a size of 2 or 2-1/2 stalls.
Considerable greenspace would be lost with the garage and the adjoining driveway pad. Permeable pavers and/or a
minimal footprint (least required for ingress/egress from stalls to street) should be used for the driveway to reduce
rainfall runoff. Rain gutter downspouts on the addition should be directed towards grass, not concrete.
Thank you,
David Bottger
212 Greeley St S, Stillwater, MN 55082
1
Jenn Sundberg
From: Frances Bottger
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 2:34 PM
To: Planning Dept
Subject: Case No CD 2022-15
[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,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the conditional use permits and variances request made by the
homeowners Ashleigh and Will Harris, at 1015 Olive Street W. I have a multitude of concerns regarding the requests
made by the Harris family, a few of which I will address here.
My main concern about the proposal is that the garage the homeowner is hoping to build is far too oversized for the
historic look and feel of the neighborhood. An attached, 3 plus car garage is something one might find in a far more
suburban, or even rural setting. Simply put, the greatly oversized garage is not appropriate for the neighborhood. And
with regards to building such a large garage, and adding yards and yards of concrete, I have great concern about rain
runoff. The current yard which absorbs rain and snow melt will be gone, and that will leave tons of water without any
proper drainage. My concern is that this runoff will find its way into neighboring basements, and the sewer system will
be overwhelmed with more water than it can handle.
Another concern I have is that this home has been under construction, one way or another for the past couple years. It
appears that none of the exterior projects have been completed. The property has become a dumping ground for
construction materials, and odds and ends. My concern is the homeowners will not finish this new project they are
hoping to get permission for, and the home will continue to be under constant construction. Judging by the plans
submitted to the City of Stillwater, the new project is massive. And from what I can tell as a pure observer, I do not
believe the homeowner will finish the project in the allotted time, nor will the City enforce the rules about timely
completion of said project.
I am not completely against the project, nor do I have any feelings of malice towards the homeowners but it appears
that this request is too grand. The proposed structure (attached garage) is far too big for the lot, especially when one
takes into consideration the sizes of the other structures on the property, and as previously mentioned, the aesthetics of
the neighborhood. However, what I would approve of is, allowing the family to turn the building facing Owens (aka the
"barn") into a garage, and building a livable space above it.
City planning is extremely important. I have been in way too many cities, towns, villages etc that have lacked
"planning". The hodge podge of structures in these places have no cohesion, and show no character. Unfortunately,
Stillwater already has seen some serious LACK of planning in the past but it's not too late. We do not need to keep
repeating these same mistakes. If these permits and variances are approved, I believe it will greatly lessen the character
of the neighborhood, and may perhaps even bring down home prices.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to share my comments and concerns. I will be watching closely for the final
decision.
Best regards,
Frances Bottger
1
liwater
THE BIRTHPLACE OF M 1 N N E S O 1 A
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2022-17
MEETING DATE: March 23, 2022
APPLICANT: City of Stillwater
LANDOWNER: N/A
REQUEST: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment relating to pool locations
LOCATION: Citywide
ZONING: Citywide
REPORT BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner
INTRODUCTION
Currently the City restricts pools to the rear yard of properties. However, when a pool is
proposed for a corner lot, this regulation is hard to achieve on corner lots. In the past, the City
has considered (and granted) variances to allow for pools to be located in an (interior) side yard
of corner lots. However, variances are intended for dimensional standards and, therefore,
granting a variance to allow for a pool to be located in a side yard (opposed to a rear yard) is not
entirely in line with the requirements set forth for the issuance of a variance.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The City is requesting approval of a Zoning Text Amendment to establish pool location
requirements for corner lots.
ANALYSIS
Prior to making a recommendation for approval or modified approval of a proposed amendment
to the city council, the Planning Commission must first find that 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 designations set forth in the
comprehensive plan.
The intent of this Zoning Text Amendment is two -fold:
1. Reduce the number of variances requests associated with pools on corner lots.
Case No. 2022-17
Page 2 of 2
Though the City does not field many variance requests to this requirement, the nature of
these requests (not to a dimensional standard) is not entirely in line with principles that allow
the City to grant variances. Modifying the City Code to be consistent with overarching
principles and law is a public necessity.
2. Expand the pool location requirements for corner lot properties.
Expanding the requirement to allow for pools in the (interior) side yard of corner lots gives
corner lot property owners greater flexibility when incorporating a pool on their property.
The general community welfare is furthered when modifications to development controls are
made to allow for greater flexibility of reasonable property development requests.
This Zoning 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
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)
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF STILLWATER
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31-514, SUBD.
5 REGARDING CORNER LOT SWIMMING POOLS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 33-
2, SUBD. 4(1) REGARDING CORNER LOT SWIMMING POOLS
The City Council of Stillwater does ordain:
SECTION 1. REPEAL AND REPLACE. Stillwater City Code Section 31-514, Subd. 5
Swimming pool locations is hereby repealed and replaced as follows:
Sec. 31-514. - Miscellaneous residential and non-residential performance standards.
Subd. 5. Swimming pool locations.
a) Except on corner lots, all swimming pools or appurtenances thereto shall be located in the
rear yard.
b) Swimming pools or appurtenances thereto shall be located at a distance of at least ten feet
from any property line.
c) Swimming pools shall be permitted in (Interior) side yards only on corner lots.
d) Swimming pools, their appurtenances, and their required fencing on corner lots shall be
setback from the front property line:
1. A minimum of 30'; and
2. At least 10 feet behind an imaginary line extending from the street -facing edge of
the principal structure to the interior side lot line.
e) See Chapter 33-2 Subd. 4 for additional requirements.
SECTION 2. AMEND. Stillwater City Code Section 33-2, Subd. 4(1) relating to the
construction of swimming pools shall be amended as follows:
(1) The general layout of the lot on which the pool is to be located (see Chapter
31-514 Subd. 5 for additional requirements for pool location).
SECTION 3. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the
entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is
approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance:
The miscellaneous residential and non-residential performance standards ordinance has
been revised to allow swimming pools on corner lots. The revision includes location
standards for pools on corner lots.
1
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from
and after its passage and publication according to law.
Passed this day of , 2022.
ATTEST:
Beth Wolf, City Clerk
CITY OF STILLWATER
Ted Kozlowski, Mayor
2