Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-26 CPC Packetillwaftr The Birthplace of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us 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://stillwater-mn.zoomgov.com/j/1608779021 or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 877 9021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 26th, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of September 28th, 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. 2022-64: Consider Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and consideration of a Variance request for the construction of an Accessory dwelling unit at a reduced rear yard setback at 919 5th Ave S; Case of Noel Molloy 3. Case No. 2022-70: Consider request for a Variance to facilitate the construction of an addition at the existing reduced exterior side yard setback of the existing dwelling at 704 5th St N; Case of deLeon's VIII. DISCUSSION 4. Case No. CD 2022-73: CONCEPT REVIEW for Request for Variance at 1824 1 St St N; Case of Ryan and Angela Rambacher 5. Case No. CD 2022-74: CONCEPT REVIEW for Request for Variance at 905 Hickory St W; Case of Daved Najarian 6. Discuss Potential Updates to Regulations Pertaining to Mobile Food Units (Commissioner Request/No Packet Materials) 7. Impervious Surface Review for Identification of Potential Variance Requests (Commission Request) IX. FYI — STAFF UPDATES X. ADJOURNMENT THE 1INTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 28, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Cox, Hoffman, Knippenberg, Steinwall, Swanson, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill, Assistant Planner Gutknecht, Planning Manager Robinson APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of August 24, 2022 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve the minutes of the August 24, 2022 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2022-41: Consider Final Plat for MJG ADDITION (Caribou Coffee, 2001 Washington Ave W); Case of Mikden of Stillwater Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Cox, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2022-19: Consider Request for Conditional Use Permit for Myrtle Apartments at 107 3rd St N: Case of Landucci Homes Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the application. Landucci Homes is seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 21-unit apartment building located at 107 Third Street North. He reminded the Commission this is not a City -proposed project. In 2018, the City approved a nine -unit residential building that was never constructed. In 2021, Landucci Homes proposed a 42-unit apartment building (revised to 39 units) that was ultimately denied by the City. The applicant has again revised the plans in light of the Planning Commission's denial of multiple variances at the August 24, 2022 meeting. The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) approved the revised building design at the September 21, 2022 meeting. Because it meets the minimum requirements of the zoning code, the City is obligated to approve the project. The developer has provided a revised traffic study based on the new site plan. Though traffic modeling indicates there will a slight increase in traffic Planning Commission September 28, 2022 accidents as a result of the project, the traffic study found that the intersection of Myrtle Street and 3rd Street will operate at acceptable levels of service per accepted traffic engineering standards. The Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC) reviewed the proposed parking plan at their August 18, 2022 meeting. Though the project would ordinarily be 13 stalls deficient in parking requirements, the DTPC acknowledged that the City entered into a legally binding contract circa 2008 (reassigned circa 2017). Based on the underground parking configuration, the site would ordinarily be able to accommodate parking for 14 units. However, given the existence of a legally binding agreement/parking credit of 40 parking stalls, the DTPC recommended approval of the parking plan. The DTPC also recommended that the City terminate the remaining parking credits not needed for this project as a condition of approval (recommendation under review by the City Attorney). It appears that the developer has found a solution that maintains the same number of units (21) while achieving compliance with applicable dimensional standards in the Zoning Code. Commissioner Steinwall disagreed with the conclusion that the Commission has no obligation other than to confirm staff's conclusion that it conforms with all zoning codes. She recalled past projects in which the Planning Commission has proposed conditions of approval for the CUP. Mr. Gladhill confirmed it is appropriate to attach reasonable conditions to a recommendation for approval. Councilmember Odebrecht asked where the project stands on the 60-day clock, and Mr. Gladhill replied that this is a new application which is about halfway through the 60-day clock. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if there been any conversation with Public Works regarding any recommended condition regarding traffic. Mr. Gladhill answered that all development projects like this go through a robust review with City staff. Public Safety, Public Works, the Building Official and other staff reviewed traffic issues and found the proposal acceptable. Staff looked at different ways to do right -in, right - out, however they would interfere with fire code. The developer may sign and paint, but cannot put in curbing that would prevent reasonable access with City fire equipment. Mr. Gladhill stated he believes the Public Works Director finds the proposal generally acceptable. Nathan Landucci, applicant, said he feels the building fits the lot and meets all setbacks and parking requirements. He is totally flexible on the in and out traffic pattern with whatever the City recommends. Councilmember Odebrecht said he appreciates the developer's tenacity and willingness to work with City commissions and staff to get the project to scale. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Steinwall noted the developer's willingness to bring the building into compliance with City Code. She suggested considering some of the same conditions that were attached to the 200 Chestnut project, for consistency. She would like to discuss traffic concerns. She noted there are proposed conditions about refuse being kept inside, about mechanical units, about keeping abutting sidewalks clean, a condition that all the inside parking places be assigned to tenants, a maintenance agreement for the installation of pedestrian scaled lighting on public sidewalks. She noted the Commission hasn't discussed Page 2 of 7 Planning Commission September 28, 2022 stormwater requirements or whether a stormwater plan needs to be reviewed by the watershed district. Chairman Dybvig called for a motion prior to more discussion. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Chairman Dybvig, to recommend approval of Case No. 2022-19, Conditional Use Permit for Myrtle Street Apartments at 107 3rd St N, and in addition to the staff -recommended conditions in the staff report, adding conditions similar to the ones the Commission recommended for the 200 Chestnut project (Conditions #4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13), and also add a condition about establishing a right -in right -out for the parking garage. Councilmember Odebrecht said he would like to have the Public Works team design what they would like to have in that space (parking garage entrance). Mr. Gladhill suggested a Condition could state right -in right -out or a reasonable traffic control as recommended by the City Engineer, as a friendly amendment. Commissioner Steinwall listed suggested Conditions 4 - refuse; 5 - screening mechanical units; 6 - keeping sidewalks clean; 7 - assigning the 26 on -site parking stalls to tenants; 9 - modifying this condition to require the right -in right -out or other reasonable conditions subject to approval by the City Engineer; 10 - maintenance agreement for pedestrian scaled lighting along the sidewalks. Mr. Gladhill said staff is looking at different ways to address pedestrian lighting, and Commissioner Steinwall suggested wording the Condition to state that if pedestrian scaled lighting is deemed necessary for public health and safety along the sidewalks then the developer should be responsible for maintaining it. She then continued reviewing the proposed conditions, questioning if there is a need to state in the development agreement that the developer is responsible for stormwater handling costs. Mr. Gladhill responded if the watershed district attaches conditions, they would be part of the developer agreement. A condition could say it must comply with the Middle St. Croix Watershed management permit. The developer would have to comply whether this is stated in a condition or not. Commissioner Steinwall said she would support combining Conditions 11, 12 and 13. Conditions 14 and 15 are the standard conditions set forth in the staff report. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Councilmember Odebrecht abstaining. Case No. 2022-63: Consider Request for a variance for the reconstruction and expansion of an attached garage at an existing reduced front yard setback at 603 Broadway St. S; Case of Todd and Anne Anderson Assistant Planner Gutknecht reviewed the case. The applicant, Imprint Architecture and Design (Jeremy Imhoff) and property owners, Todd and Anne Anderson are seeking a variance to expand an existing legal non -conforming structure to facilitate the reconstruction and expansion of an existing legal non -conforming attached garage. The existing attached garage is approximately 560 square feet and set back 27 feet from the right of way and 8.1 feet from the side yard property line. It is located 2 feet in front of the primary dwelling, but several feet behind the front porch. The proposed action seeks to allow the replacement of the existing 560 square foot attached garage with an expanded 783 square foot attached garage. The proposed expansion of the attached garage will maintain the nonconforming 27-foot front yard setback Page 3 of 7 Planning Commission September 28, 2022 and decrease the side yard setback to 5 feet. The HPC supports the design. Staff recommends approval with two conditions. Councilmember Odebrecht questioned one of the practical difficulties, as stated in the staff report that the existing owner did not construct the dwelling which was built in 1870. He struggles with this justification as a hardship, as the owner purchased the property knowing its configuration. Mr. Gladhill noted that the garage is already lawful non -conforming so the proposal tries to simply maintain that. The front of the garage is not going any closer to the street and staff feels that what is being put in its place is a much better design. There are several other physical conditions of the property that justify the hardship. Jeremy Imhoff, architect representing the applicant, said the biggest issue is there is an existing mudroom behind the first stall. If they build that front wall back, it reduces the floor plan below the standard stall length, making one stall unusable. The clients want to rebuild the garage to make it more useable and fit better with the historic house. Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Steinwall stated normally she would not support increasing the legal non- conformity, but this proposal will not increase the nonconformity itself (the front yard setback) but is before the Commission because reconstruction will result in a bigger building that is non -conforming. Commissioner Cox remarked considering it's already at 27 feet and it will improve the property and match the neighborhood better, allowing them to maintain the 27-foot setback seems reasonable. Chairman Dybvig commented he struggles with supporting the request. If it were set back 30 feet, there would still be 18 feet inside the garage, even enough space for a Lincoln Navigator (17'6"). The other stall could still be 22 feet. At the same time, he is sympathetic to the fact that it's already there, and the project is not changing the look of the neighborhood much. Motion by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to adopt Resolution 2022- , Variance Request to Expand a Legal Nonconforming Structure to Facilitate Construction of an Attached Garage at 603 Broadway Street South. Motion passed 5-2 with Commissioner Steinwall and Councilmember Odebrecht voting nay. Case No. 2022-64: Consider Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and consideration of a Variance request for the construction of an Accessory dwelling unit at a reduced rear yard setback at 919 5th Ave S; Case of Noel Molloy. Item moved to the October 26th agenda. Chair Dybvig stated the applicant has requested postponement. Motion by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to postpone Case No. 2022- 64, Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and Variance request for the construction of an Accessory dwelling unit at a reduced rear yard setback at 919 5th Ave S, to the October 26 agenda. All in favor. Case No. 2022-65: Consider Request for a variance to increase the allowable amount of impervious surface to allow the construction a two -car garage at 1218 6th Ave. S; Case of Doug Hinderaker. Page 4 of 7 Planning Commission September 28, 2022 Planning Manager Robinson explained that the applicants, Doug and Lueann Hinderaker are seeking a variance to increase the amount of impervious surface allowed, to construct a 660 square foot, detached, two -car garage. The 6,715 square foot lot has a two-story, 1,942 square foot single-family house built in 1870. The proposed garage addition would increase the lot coverage for buildings to approximately 32% (2,192 square feet), an increase of about 9% (approximately 513 square feet), exceeding the 25% threshold. Staff recommends approval with two conditions. Commissioner Cox asked if there has been input from the Watershed District, and Mr. Gladhill replied this is in the Middle St. Croix Watershed. Often the "magic number" for the watershed district is 35%. Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to adopt Resolution 2022-_, Variance Request to Increase the Amount of Impervious Surface to Facilitate Construction of a Garage at 1218 Sixth Avenue South. Commissioner Cox suggested requiring the property owners to work with the watershed district to make sure the 9% excess impervious surface coverage is mitigated somehow. Chairman Dybvig suggested adding a condition requiring the property owners to comply with recommendations made by the Middle St. Croix Watershed District to mitigate additional impervious surface added to the property. This was accepted as a friendly amendment. All in favor. Case No. 2022-67: Consider Request for a variance to increase the allowable amount of impervious surface to construct a deck 3625 Summit Ln: Case of Dan Larson. Assistant City Planner Gutknecht stated that the applicant, Dan Larson, is seeking a variance to increase the amount of impervious surface allowed, to construct a 256 square foot deck. The site is 8,472 square feet and contains a two-story, 1,898 square foot single-family house built in 2019. The addition of the deck would increase the lot coverage for buildings from 23% to approximately 26% (2,234 square feet), an increase of approximately 3%. Because the impervious surface coverage requested exceeds the 25% threshold regulated by City Code, a variance is required. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. He explained Karen Kill with Brown's Creek Watershed District confirmed that the Watershed District allows lots in this subdivision to have 31% total impervious surface coverage. The total percentage in this case will be 36% considering structure and other coverage. He said that Ms. Kill provided information about mitigation techniques which was passed along to the applicants. Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to adopt Resolution 2022-_, Variance Request to Increase the Amount of Impervious Surface Coverage to Facilitate the Construction of a Deck at 3625 Summit Lane. Commissioner Cox requested an amendment to the motion (Resolution) to require the property owners to reduce the percentage of impervious surface coverage to 25% and this was acceptable to the Commission. All in favor. Page 5 of 7 Planning Commission September 28, 2022 Case No. 2022-57: Ordinance Amending Accessory Structure Regulations (sizes for larger lots, home offices/recreation rooms, remove conflicting language). Sec 31 304 Sec 31 306 Sec 31 308 Sec 31 314. Mr. Gladhill explained that the Planning Commission has been discussing several amendments to the City's Accessory Structure Regulations. Earlier in 2022, the City Council reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Commission and generally concurred. He reviewed highlights of proposed policy changes. The amendment cleans up policy language regarding large accessory structures on large residential lots, language about allowing home offices on second levels of garages, and about membrane structures being allowed only on a temporary basis. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Steinwall asked for clarification on the definitions of the term's accessory structure, accessory building, garage, and Mr. Gladhill replied perhaps the definitions could be further clarified. Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and he closed the public hearing. Chairman Dybvig asked if there is a way to ensure that accessory buildings are smaller than the house to which they are an accessory. Mr. Gladhill answered that standard was already there and would remain unchanged and staff will cross reference to make sure it's included in each district. Sometimes there are conflicts between regulations in the underlying district and the performance standards for accessory structures. Consistency is needed. Language can be changed to be very clear about attached versus detached accessory buildings or structures, limiting detached structures to 20 feet tall. Motion by Chair Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to table Case No. 2022-57, Ordinance Amending Accessory Structure Regulations (sizes for larger lots, home offices/recreation rooms, remove conflicting language), Sec 31 304 Sec 31 306 Sec 31 308 Sec 31 314, to October 26. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Councilmember Odebrecht abstaining. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. DISCUSSION There were no discussion items. FYI STAFF UPDATES Format Changes for Planning Project Approvals (Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Interim Use Permits, etc.). Mr. Gladhill stated that staff has been working with the City Attorney and City Clerk to improve processes and document execution/recording. Many of the approvals and denials directly granted by the Planning Commission will now come forward in the form of a Resolution. This not only better documents findings to support actions along with conditions of approval, the format is more appropriate for recording the document against the property's title. The Planning Commission will now be able to see the exact document format as part of the packet, as opposed to staff administratively approving a new document after Planning Commission action. This format is very common with other peer communities. Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to adjourn the meeting at 8:44 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director September 28, 2022 John Dybvig, Chair Resolution 2022-_, Variance Request to Expand a Legal Nonconforming Structure to Facilitate Construction of an Attached Garage at 603 Broadway Street South Resolution 2022-_, Variance Request to Increase the Amount of Impervious Surface to Facilitate Construction of a Garage at 1218 Sixth Avenue South Resolution 2022-_, Variance Request to Increase the Amount of Impervious Surface Coverage to Facilitate the Construction of a Deck at 3625 Summit Lane Page 7 of 7 SjI1vater T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M INN E S O I A DATE: October 26, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Case No. 2022-64: Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) located at 919 5th Avenue South BACKGROUND The Applicant, Noel Molloy is seeking two actions, a Variance and Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission to permit an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) above a garage at a reduced rear yard set back. The project area is located at 919 5th Ave S (PID # 3403020220089) and has frontage to the west on 5th Ave S, a residential neighbor to the south and east, and a vacant lot of record, owned by the applicant, to the north. The project site has a lot area of 12,303 square feet and contains a two-story, 1,616 square foot single-family house built in 1887 and a 576 square foot single story garage. If approved, the proposed Conditional Use Permit would facilitate the replacement of an existing 576 square foot, detached garage with a 750 square foot, detached garage with a second story 750 square foot ADU at approximately 15-feet from the rear lot line. ANALYSIS The RB Two -Family Zoning District allows accessory dwelling units via Conditional Use Permit, and is subject to all applicable regulations outlined in Chapter 31 of the City Code. The proposed Conditional Use Permit seeks to permit the construction of a 750 square foot, detached, garage located behind the house with a 750 square foot accessory dwelling unit on the second story. The Applicant is proposing to reconstruct the structure at the same location due to structural and physical constraints on the Property. These include steep topography on the northeastern portion of the Property and a single-family dwelling located to the rear and in the middle of the Property, restricting placement due to setbacks and physical location. Additionally, the applicant believes maintaining the same location will preserve the existing balance of the buildings on the Property. The reconstruction of the proposed garage would be compliant with typical standards affecting accessory structures. However, when an ADU is proposed, the setback distance requirements affecting rear and side yards are increased to be the same as the principal structure (the dwelling). Due to this, the proposed rear property line is deficient, thus a variance is required to construct an accessory dwelling unit at the existing garages location. Conditional Use Permit City Code, Section 31-501 Subd.3 outlines the standards that are required to be met when approving a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit in the two-family district. An accessory dwelling unit is a specially permitted use in the RB district subject to the following regulations: 1) Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet; a) The applicant owns two lots of record, the first lot is approximately 12,303 square feet and contains the dwelling and existing garage. The second lot of record is a vacant parcel directly adjacent to the north at approximately 6,789 square feet. 2) The accessory dwelling unit may be located on second floor above the garage; a) The applicant is proposing the accessory dwelling unit to be located in the second story of the proposed garage. 3) The accessory dwelling unit must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and rear setbacks; a) The proposed accessory building is proposed to abide by the primary structures side yard setback requirements. However, the proposed accessory dwelling unit does not conform to the primary structure rear yard setback of 25 feet, the current proposal is approximately 15 feet. This is the purpose for the variance request, which will be discussed below. 4) The accessory dwelling unit 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; a) The accessory dwelling unit is proposed to be located entirely to the rear of the primary residence 5) Off-street parking requirements for an apartment and single-family residence (four spaces) must be provided; a) This standard is met with the existing driveway, and proposed garage. 6) Maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet; a) The proposed accessory dwelling unit is 750 square feet and compliant with this standard. 7) The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials; a) The applicant has submitted elevation materials for review by staff for consistency with the primary unit. Based on these plans, staff may require additional materials and structural enhancements to comply with this standard. While not required by City Code, Staff recommends referring this proposal to the City's Heritage Preservation Commission for design approval due to the fact the proposed project includes a request for a Variance and is located in the Neighborhood Conservation District. 8) The height may not exceed that of the primary residence; and. a) The accessory dwelling unit is proposed to be approximately 18 feet in height, which does not exceed the approximately 23-foot two-story dwelling. 9) Both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services and be located on an improved public street a) This will be a condition of approval. 10) Maximum size of garage is 800 square feet. a) The proposed garage is approximately 750 square feet, which is complies with this standard. Variance Request Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462.357 requires that cities consider the following standards when considering a Variance. This is also known as the `practical difficulty' test. • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. • The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. FINDINGS: Variance to the Required Rear Yard Setback: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. a) The proposed construction of an Accessory dwelling unit in the RB Two - Family district is a reasonable use and is permitted within the district as a conditional use. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. a) Due to the current location of the dwelling, moving the garage forward the required 10 feet is not possible without the proposed garage and existing dwelling physically overlapping at the foundation and roof overhang. Further, it would create a situation in which access to the garage would only be possible with the removal of a portion of the dwelling/deck. Shifting the proposed garage to the side would encroach on the side yard setback. b) Relocation of the garage to the north portion of the lot is not possible due to topographic constraints to the northeast. While the garage could likely be place to the northwest, this would encroach on front yard setback requirements and be incompatible with design standards. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. a) Granting the variance to approve the construction of the proposed ADU will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The garage/ADU will be situated behind the house, obscuring it from full view. b) Further, moving the proposed ADU forward would conflict with goals and guidelines focused on deemphasizing garages and ADU. c) Lastly, the applicant has stated the proposed design mimics similar garages in the immediate area. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. a) The request to increase the replace a garage with an accessory dwelling unit above a garage within the rear yard setback area is not based on economic considerations. FINDINGS While the Conditional Use Permit request for an Accessory Dwelling unit does not conform to all standards outlined in the RB — Two Family Zoning District ADU performance standards, the request for the variance associated with the replacement of the existing garage is reasonable. Due to the topographic constraints on the north of the property, existing lot configuration and location of the existing garage, relocation of a new garage forward would create a scenario where the ADU encroaches on both the existing dwelling and/or side yard setback. Further, strict compliance with the setback standards set forth in code would ultimately conflict with guidelines and goals outlined for the Neighborhood Conservation District regarding garage location and massing. That being said, to ensure that the design guidelines of the neighborhood conservation district are completely met, staff believes that the proposed design should be updated. At a minimum, plans should be amended to show a four-sided design bringing a balanced appearance to the building, possibly with the addition of windows, as well as additional information on materials and colors proposed on the building to ensure quality and consistency. As an aside, while previous variances do not merit grounds of approval for related variances before the Commission today, Staff did want to note that nearly every Conditional Use Permit related to an accessory dwelling unit had a variance associated with it. They typically required variances for size or lot line setbacks. As such, Staff has recommend amending this requirement through an overarching ordinance amendment for Accessory Buildings has presented to the Planning Commission for consideration at their meeting on September 28, 2022. While this ordinance amendment has since been tabled with staff addressing preliminary comments, Staff continues to support this specific amendment. Finally, Staff anticipates returning said Ordinance to the Planning Commission in November. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Variance request and Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be constructed within the rear yard setback area, with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CD Case No. 2022- 64. 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 applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with updated architectural plans showing more information regarding colors and materials and also updated to reflect more design interest and creating a balanced four-sided design. 5. The exterior of all structures shall be detailed, sided and painted to match one another. 6. Long-term unsheltered storage and clutter on the property is not permitted. Accessory structures on the property must accommodate the property's storage needs. 7. The applicant shall comply with any recommendations of the Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization. 8. The applicant shall be required to pay municipal water and sewer connection 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. 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. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the Resolutions approving the Variance and Conditional Use Permit for Case No. 2022-64 with the conditions identified within this report. •�� � • ��' ;-�� ���� � ,...„ ...... .,. 4'1 ' l,- ., ti •, r:' .A.flit: . .0.44..k," , .. . . .00'. '),'' L. ,, �}I! The Birthplace of Minnesota N y o_' J. c, w, • Site Location r• II-• tj .. . • .4 ," ',!10rcr.` 919 5th Ave S 0 25 50 100 Feet , General Site Location f ' Fti qr �+�' . gi 4 E _ �l' , d ji . • r� alit p,, u -ram\, .l ,♦*r� 1T1: • i f Wu ull � ' ' 'mil . . il . 1 City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION PC2022-07 VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WITH A REDUCED REAR YARD SETBACK AT 919 5TH AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a Variance application from Noel Molloy ("Property Owner/Applicant") property located at 919 5th Ave S, legally described on Exhibit A ("the Property") regarding the reconstruction of a detached garage with a 750 square foot second story accessory dwelling unit at a reduced rear yard setback in the RB Two -Family Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the requested variance is for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit at a reduced rear yard setback distance of 15-feet in the RB Two -Family district instead of the required 25-foot rear yard setback; and WHEREAS, the on October 26, 2022, the Planning Commission for the City of Stillwater considered the conditional use permit and variance and held a public hearing and took testimony from the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater hereby the variance request for construction of the accessory dwelling unit at a rear yard setback of 15-feet. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CD Case No. 2022- 64. 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 applicant shall provide the Community Development department with updated architectural plans showing more information regarding colors and materials and also updated to reflect more design interest and creating a balanced four-sided design. 5. The exterior of all structures shall be detailed, sided and painted to match one another. 6. Long-term unsheltered storage and clutter on the property is not permitted. Accessory structures on the property must accommodate the property's storage needs. 7. The applicant shall comply with any recommendations of the Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization. 8. The applicant shall be required to pay municipal water and sewer connection 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. 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. Adopted by the City Planning Commission this 26th day of October, 2022. ATTEST: CITY OF STILLWATER John Dybvig, Planning Commission Chair Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director 2 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Applicant's Property The North one-half and the North 15 feet of the South one-half of Lot 8 and all of Lots 9 and 10. Block 17, Hersey, Staples & Co.'s Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. 3 City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION PC2022-08 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 919 5TH AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a Conditional Use Permit application from Noel Molloy ("Property Owner/Applicant") property located at 919 5th Ave S, legally described on Exhibit A ("the Property") regarding the reconstruction of a detached garage with a 750 square foot second story accessory dwelling unit in the RB Two -Family Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the requested conditional use permit is for a 750 square foot accessory dwelling unit above a 750 square foot garage in the RB Two Family district; WHEREAS, the on October 26, 2022, the Planning Commission for the City of Stillwater considered the conditional use permit held a public hearing and took testimony from the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater hereby approves the conditional use permit for the construction of a 750 square foot accessory dwelling unit above a detached garage. The approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CD Case No. 2022- 64. 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 applicant shall provide the Community Development department with updated architectural plans showing more information regarding colors and materials and also updated to reflect more design interest and creating a balanced four-sided design. 5. The exterior of all structures shall be detailed, sided and painted to match one another. 6. Long-term unsheltered storage and clutter on the property is not permitted. Accessory structures on the property must accommodate the property's storage needs. 7. The applicant shall comply with any recommendations of the Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization. 8. The applicant shall be required to pay municipal water and sewer connection 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. 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. Adopted by the City Planning Commission this 26th day of October, 2022. ATTEST: CITY OF STILLWATER John Dybvig, Planning Commission Chair Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director 2 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Applicant's Property The North one-half and the North 15 feet of the South one-half of Lot 8 and all of Lots 9 and 10. Block 17, Hersey, Staples & Co.'s Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. 3 Crafted Contracting LLC 651-342-1093 License # BC738497 Date 09-18-22 To Whom it may concern, I am in the process of trying to obtain a permit for a new garage with a dwelling unit on the 2nd floor. It has come to my attention that my existing rear set back of my existing garage does not meet the required set back requirements. I am applying for a variance to keep the same rear set back as the existing garage. This is the only location that I can build the garage, if I move the new garage forward it will encroach on my house, I cannot shift it to the south as it will encroach on my neighbors side yard set back. These circumstances are unique to the property and there is no other location on the property where the garage could be built. In my opinion it will be consistent and in harmony with both the code and comprehensive plan and will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Thank You, Noel Molloy Crafted Contracting 773-617-3824 noel@craftedcontractingmn.com EXIST DRIVEWAY EXISTING GARAGE PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT SCALE 32 = 1'-0" NOEL AND TERESE MOLLOY 919 5TH STREET S STILLWATER, MN 55082 FOOTPRINT OoLC WAY 2, ,481, 0Lt\ 11 se.1- 100,3 £tA .Pro r� e ��� � e.1-A5 rA SEVEN EDGES C O M M E R C I A L* H O S P I T A L I T Y INTERIOR DESIGN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111 11 11 11 11 111111 11 111111 12 111 1 1 1 1 1 111 111 111 111 j----- 41.- 111 1211 1111111 111111111111111111111111111 111 111111111111111111111111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 501 MAIN STREET NORTH #216 STILLWATER, MN 55082 JENNIFER@7EDGESDESIGN.COM 6 1 2. 7 5 9. I 9 3 6 4' 4' 4' 8'-2" 5' 3' 6" 5'-6" 3' S' 6" -6 3'-10" 3'-10" 1_ \ 1'-44" [ [r DASHED LINES INDICATE CEILING AND FLOOR 8' PROJECT: MOLLOY GARAGE 9 1 9 5 T H A V E. S STILLWATER, MN 55082 L 25' NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1 -4' EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 30' OSCALE a = 1'-0" © SCALE 16 = 1-0" 1 1 1 1 1 112 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111111 12 �11 1 1 11 111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T-6n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATE1111 SSUED 11 11 3'-8" 3' 1' 3' 3'-10" 111 9/8/2022 ELEVATIONS 9/14/2022 ELEVATIONS \\� \\� 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ i5 4'7 3'-10" i/ 3'-10" / 3' 1'-8" 2'-R" 1'-8'� LEGAL NOTICE: i - 3' — 5' 3' 3' THES DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN OF 7 EDGES DESIGN, LLC COPYRIGHT 2022. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. I r 1 n — — 15' 42" 15 -42 ^ _ — — project no: 22-012 date: 9-8-2022 — drawn by: JMN checked by: JMN '/ T- 1 SHEET INFORMATION: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS _,,.:077 E 4 c 10' 10' 10' SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION 4 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION €11 SCALE a = 1' 0" SCALE 16 = 1'-0" SjI1vater T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M INN E S O I A DATE: October 26, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Case No. 2022-70: Variance request to reduce exterior side yard setback to facilitate construction of an addition located at 704 5th Street North BACKGROUND The Applicants, David and Kristen Deleon, are seeking a Variance from the Planning Commission to permit a reduced exterior side yard setback for the construction of a single -story addition. If approved the proposed Variance would facilitate the construction of an approximate 420 square foot addition at approximately 18.2 feet from the exterior (right-of-way) side lot line. The project area is located at 704 5th St N. (PID# 2803020210127) within the RB (two- family) zoning district and the Neighborhood Conservation overlay district. The Property is a corner lot and has frontage to the east on 5th St N, frontage to the south on Maple St W, a residential neighbor to the north and the west. The project site has a lot area of 10,468 square feet and contains a two-story, approximately 990 square foot single- family dwelling built in 1892 and a single -story, 644 square foot garage. ANALYSIS When a property is located on a corner of two public streets it is affected by two "front yard setback" requirements. In the RB district, this means that a single-family dwelling must be setback twenty feet from the right-of-way line. Currently, the existing single- family dwelling is setback 18.2 feet, making it legal nonconforming and deficient by approximately 1.8 feet. The proposed action seeks to allow the construction of an approximately 420 square foot addition along the existing dwelling facing 5th St N. The proposed addition would extend the existing nonconforming 18.2-foot front yard setback fourteen feet to the north. Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462.357 requires that cities consider the following standards when considering a Variance. This is also known as the `practical difficulty' test. • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. • The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. FINDINGS: Variance to the Required Front Yard Setback: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. a) The proposed construction of an addition to a single-family dwelling in the RB district is a reasonable use and is permitted within the district and consistent with development in the district. b) The Applicants propose to construct the addition at the existing setback in order to provide design consistency while maximizing space. Staff also finds this to be reasonable. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. a) The property was platted in the late nineteenth century and the existing single-family dwelling was constructed prior to the current zoning regulation or the existing property owners purchased it. However, staff understands this alone is not grounds to warrant a variance. b) Additionally, Staff collectively concurs that the applicant could place the addition in a location that does comply and would not require a variance, but may not result in the best possible design. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. a) Granting the variance to approve the construction of the addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Examples of similar nonconforming front yard setbacks can be highlighted across the street and throughout the neighborhood. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. a) The request to construct an addition along the existing dwelling within the front yard setback is not based on economic considerations. FINDINGS While the requested variance appears reasonable, not based on economic considerations, and if designed compliantly with the required design guidelines would likely improve the property and continue to complement the neighborhood, these alone are not grounds to approve a variance. Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide policy direction to assist in the determination. While the existing conditions are not created by the current property owners, options are available to build the addition without a variance to City Code. 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 CD2022- 70, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The applicant shall present the proposed design to the Heritage Preservation for review and approval. 3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 4. The applicant shall work with the Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization to determine necessary permitting requirements. B. Table. If the Planning Commission finds the request to have insufficient 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. ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide policy direction regarding the decision for the above Variance request. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION PC2022-09 VARIANCE REQUEST TO DECREASE THE EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 704 5TH STREET NORTH WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a Variance application from David deLeon ("Applicant"), located at 704 5th St N, legally described as in Exhibit A (the "Property"), regarding the construction of a 420 square foot addiiton; and WHEREAS, the requested variance is for a reduced exterior side yard setback of 18.2 feet, where 30 feet is required per the RB Two -Family district; and WHEREAS, the on October 26, 2022, the Planning Commission for the City of Stillwater considered the variance and held a public hearing and took testimony from the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater hereby approves the variance for a reduced side yard setback of 18.2 feet for a 420 square foot addition. The approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with Case CD2022-70, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The applicant shall present the proposed design to the Heritage Preservation for review and approval. 3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 4. The applicant shall work with the Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization to determine necessary permitting requirements. Adopted by the City Planning Commission this 26th day of October, 2022. CITY OF STILLWATER John Dybvig, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Applicant's Property Lot 12, excepting therefrom that part of said lot now occupied for public street and also the East'/2 of Lot 11, all in Block 15, of Staples and Mays Addition to the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. 2 David deLeon 704 5th Street N Stillwater, MN 55082 Sept 22, 2022 Stillwater Planning Department 216 4th Street N Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Planning Department, We, the owners of 704 5th St N, request a variance regarding the building 20' in from the property line regulation in the case of our proposed home addition. Since our house sits 18 feet from the property line already, our addition would match the existing setback of the primary dwelling on the property. We have been in communication with the city staff, Mr Tim Gladhill and Mr Ben Gutkneckt, and have applied their recommendations for conforming with the Stillwater Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation District, to our proposed addition design. We changed our design to conform to their recommendations for our historic neighborhood, and we think it will be attractive and consistent. The proposed addition to the existing home is a reasonable use and is consistent with the requirements of the Stillwater Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation District. The circumstances are unique to the property in that this neighborhood pre -dates current zoning regulations pertaining how far a building needs to be setback from the property line. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; the proposed improvement is consistent with the existing structure and with the style of the neighborhood, The difficulties are not economic considerations alone. The proposed addition is not that large, and to function as we hope, as a bedroom, mudroom and small home office space, it would be great to be able to match the length of the existing home, since making the addition two feet shorter than the existing house would make the room too small for our bed. Our home was built in the 1870's and sits 18 feet from the property line. We would like to extend the house 14 ft to the North, matching the existing setback of the house, with a design which will be consistent with the existing character of our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration, David and Kristen deLeon . CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: DAVID DELEON 651-734-5590 • O a -0- LEGEND: FOUND MONUMENT SET IP. WON APE MARKED PIN NO. 2S719 CABLE TV PEDESTAL EIEC IRIC PEDESTAL ELECTRIC TRANSEOIDIER GOY WIRE POWER POLE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL TIMED END SECTION STORM MANHOLE OVERHEAD UTAffV ■HDNINOI SIWIAR EXISITNG LEGAL DESCRIPTION' (AS SHOWN ON AVAILABLE TAX RECORDS) Lot 12 and the East Half of Lot 11, Block 15, STAPLES AND MAYS ADDITION, Washington County, Minnesota CERTIFICATION I hereby certify [hat this survey, plan or report was prepared by nle, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed [and Surveyor under the lays of [he State of MINNESOTA. DANIEL L THURMES License No. 25718 Dale_ 9-19-22 FOUND 3/4' AWN PPE r WIVE A 2' RCN PPE GARAGE FOUND 1/2' RON PPE 0.3' I^WEST OF PARCEL LIJE PROJECT LOCATION: 704 5TH ST. N. STILLWATER, MN 55082 PROJECT NO. ZZ22763 P1092803020210127 FOUND 1/2' IRON PIPE MARKED 22440 0.3' E. & 0.2' 5. OF LOT -- CORNER S89°45'36"W 75.00 PROPOSED e ADDITION p4 04iiiiw EIQS'rh C HOUSE -- 20 -- FOUND 1/2' IRON PPE MARKED RL5-^ 2571d 75 " �,13°16 MAPLE N89°45'36"E SURVEY NOTES: i. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE. NAD 88 2. UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. 3. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IS TO SHOW THE EXISTING HOUSE IN RELATION TO THE 20' SETBACK LINE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ARE EXISTING THAT ARE NOT SHOWN. 4. VERIFY BUILDING SETBACKS WITH THE CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. NORTH 0 20 40 NORTH FIFTH STREET suite #200 1970 Northet esl ern Ave. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 danek survey net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. PEN etLelaitt N T.I iis!�a,11. i. i_ o" V IN`/L. 5I0IM6 EAST ELEv&-rin f DAVID AND IARISSti=.N DEL%ON PATE wrVilarD a7iL 7«aJ .• � tT .�JZr ::;w .� _ICI. Sri ''' w..::...1. •••ram. I ^ Il3ifBo _ 1-111 I it I 1 I1'4, 1, �I II 1 1:_Q>11 144I -4,1 L ASPHALT SHINGLES VINYL SIDING ANo SHAKOS NORTH ELEVATION DINAWN FOR: DAVID AND KRISTEN DELEON 41•11.DVED ME S.*. 5-1q-22 DRAWN J•J•a NORTH 51o& APor loN MEWING 11111.11.1•EPI I OF 3 SjI1vater T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M INN E S O I A DATE: October 26, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Case No. CD 2022-73: Concept Review for New Dwelling at 1824 1st Street North; Case of Andrea and Ryan Rambacher BACKGROUND The City has been working with the property owners of 1824 1st St N. regarding the proposed construction of a new dwelling on the Property. The Property is an existing lot of record located in the RA (single-family) zoning district and Neighborhood Conservation overlay district. The Property is legal non -conforming and deficient in lot width and overall size. The Property is currently vacant and situated on the corner of 1st Street North (unimproved) and Willow Street East. The Property previously had a legal nonconforming single-family home situated on it. In 2013, a demolition permit was approved to remove the dwelling due to fire damage. It appears no action was taken to reconstruct the dwelling as it was immediately after the demolition. It's worth noting that there are multiple, unique physical characteristics of the Property that make compliance with the strict interpretation of the guidelines challenging. 1. The Property is part way up the valley bluff, making building height measurements somewhat challenging 2. The Property is lawful, nonconforming in terms of Lot Width and Lot Size 3. 1st St N (the desired front facade) is not an improved City Street (even though it is public right-of-way) Generally speaking, Staff believes some degree of Variance is reasonable, at least as it relates to minimum setback requirement. The rhythm of the streetscape would actually encourage a Variance to the setback along Willow Street E. The question for the Heritage Preservation Commission and Planning Commission is to determine the minimum Variance necessary in order to achieve a reasonable use. For comparison purposes, in order to adhere to the strict interpretation of the plain language of the Zoning Code, the Property would only likely accommodate a 20-foot-wide home. Staff does believe that it would be reasonable to be flexible on setback standards. ANALYSIS Dimensional Standard Comparison Standard Proposed: 1824 1st St N Lot area 10,000 square feet 7,528 square feet Lot width 75' 50.27' Lot depth 100' 149.74' Lot coverage 30% (2,258.4 square feet) -2,223 square feet Front setback (dwelling) 30' -38.26' Side setback (dwelling) Exterior: 30' (from right-of-way) Interior: 10' (from interior side yard) Exterior side yard (Willow St) = 8' Interior = 10' Side setback (garage) When attached, the garage setback is five feet, provided that no habitable floor area is closer than ten feet from the property line and provided that the garage is a minimum of 15 feet from the nearest structure on the adjacent lot. Southern side yard lot line= 10' Rear setback (dwelling) 25' -64' Building Height 2.5 stories 35 feet 3 stories -35 feet Setback Distances: Staff finds that the Property is compliant with the interior side yard and rear yard setbacks. However, due to the Property being situated on a corner, the proposed exterior side yard setback is deficient, with a proposed eight -foot setback where typically thirty feet is required. Staff would like to the note that the City Code includes multiple exceptions for the RA district, one of which pertains to corner lot setback distances. The exception states that for corner lots where the corner side yard setback or front yard setback for the main building on the adjacent lot on the same street is less than the required setbacks, the corner lot setback for the adjacent main building shall govern, but in no case shall a setback of less than 20 feet be allowed. When applying this exception to the Property, Staff reviewed the dwellings directly adjacent to the east and west. • Directly west of the Property is a single-family home, also situated on a corner, with approximate front yard setback distance of thirty-two feet, the exception would not apply. • Directly east is an unopened portion of First Street North, across from which are three single-family homes with average front yard setback distances of twelve feet. When considering these properties, the exception would apply, which would allow a twenty -foot front yard setback distance. In summary, staff has determined that with or without the above exception, it would be very unlikely for the current proposed dwelling to be constructed without a variance to the front yard setback. To conform with the standards, the Applicant would have to construct an approximately twenty -foot wide dwelling, as shown in Exhibit A. Impervious Surface: It is worth noting again that this is a preliminary concept, therefore scaling and exact measurements may be slightly skewed. However, at the current configuration, the estimated proposed impervious surface may meet/exceed the allowable 30% for lot cover. This is something that should be considered at the front end to avoid any proposed noncompliant lot coverage. Building Height City Code allows a maximum height of 2.5 stories in this District. The Owner is proposing a 3-story structure, in excess of the maximum height allowed. The Owner has noted that the sloping topography presents challenges in complying with this regulation. Often, similarly situated examples include a partial basement (partially subgrade) and upper -level half -stories (upper level built into roof truss/attic area with roof dormers to create additional height and usable space). In recent years, the City appears to have remained fairly consistent in requiring these types of requests to adhere to the 2.5 story requirement. Other Review Comments: Lastly, Staff would like to highlight that the applicant will need to reach out to the Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization to discuss permitting and mitigating the addition of impervious surfaces. ACTION REQUESTED No formal action is requested at this time. This is a concept review only. The Planning Commission is asked to provide broad policy direction and identify any major barriers to the proposed project. Feedback on this concept plan is non -binding. RECOMMENDATIONS The City's Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the concept at their October 19, 2022 Meeting. Generally speaking, the HPC was supportive of the need for a Variance to obtain a reasonably designed dwelling given the unique physical characteristics and the fact that the existing lot of record pre -dates current Zoning Regulations, leaving very little buildable area. However, the HPC expressed concern about the requested Height Variance and requested that the Owner look for ways to reduce the proposed three (3) story structure to 2.5 stories to comply with City Code. EXHIBIT A: Orange area indicates required setbacks; yellow area indicates approximate slope area of approximately 30%. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: Ryan Rambacher JOB#ZZ081 90C PID#21 03020130012 SURVEY NOTES: 1 . BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE. (NAD 83). 2. MINOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT SHOWN. 3. UTILITIES SHOWN PER UTILITY BASE MAP PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER. LOCATION IS APPROXIMATE. 4. EASEMENTS ARE AS SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLAT. OTHER EASEMENTS, IF ANY, MAY EXIST. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO RESEARCH RECORDED OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS. AREA SUMMARY: TOTAL OF PARCEL = 7,528 SQ. FT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (AS SHOWN ON AVAILABLE TAX RECORDS) The North Half of Lot 1, Block 43, CARLI & SCHULENBERG'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER ADDITION, according to Myron Shepard's Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater, dated May 31, 1878, on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County Minnesota. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the. xa. e of MINNESOTA. DANIEL L.{ORMES License. No. 2571 8 TBENCH MARK I TOP NUT WO.. F--_ - 807.6 0 OorC OO LELEV =808.55 FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE - MARKED RLS 3774 I O FOUND I/2" IRON -I PIPE MARKED RLS 20595 0.4 E. OF LOT CORNER 63 0 83 co Go O OI 812.4 SET 1/2" IRON 3 / 0c?" PIPE MARKED q> RLS 25718 • X 804\6 8 /0 809.6 LEGEND SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF LOT I BLOCK 43 X 809.8 X 810.5 • FOUND MONUMENT O SET 1 /2" IRON PIPE MARKED RLS NO. 25718 GUY WIRE POWER POLE SANITARY MANHOLE CATCH BASIN STORM MANHOLE HYDRANT OO CURB STOP [xi WATER VALVE • CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE PER PLAN > PER PLAN X602.6 I 808 ou X 799.6 X 799.2 E. WILLOW ST. OU OU (150.00 PLAT) N89°46'47"W> 14 9. 74 e X799.8 X807.3s X 807.5 X 809.2 OVERHEAD UTILITY SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FENCE CURB [TYPICAL] i CONCRETE SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE °46 ' 56 794.8E 1 79 799.9 X797 791.7a war X 94.3 X 96.2 X 805.7 803. X :02.7 795.6BV( a - 6 3 r 796.06 789.7BW a / X 7: 6.9 3 X783.3 7 X 783.1 PIPE 782.5 X7p6.6 792.2TW 793.6TW X 793.4 X794. X793.3 781.6BW NORTH 20 40 SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET -O X 92.4 785.6TW 783.6 PROJECT LOCATION: 1 824N. FIRST STREET NORTH STILLWATER, MN 78 4 1880.0 779.4 1i 777.8 778.7 -- FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE MARKED RLS 779.2 13774 779.5 • I I Q GRAVEL II I I OT 8 - I 0 I 0 O I C2)I 780.8 GRAVEL 6 *779.4 * 780.6 I L1 782.8BW 1 SET 50 ON 1----- TOP OF 7TW I WALL I f 5 Z 1 J 1 GRAVEL CZ 782.6 783.0E 782.4 60' Suite #1 6750 Stillwater Blvd. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 Fax 651.275.8976 dan@ cssurvey .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC .ERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: Ryan Rambacher JOB#ZZ08190C PID-=21030201 3001 2 SURVEY NOTES: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE. (NAD 83). . MINOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT SHOWN. . UTILITIES SHOWN PER UTILITY BASE MAP PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER. LOCATION I5 APPROXIMATE. EASEMENTS ARE AS SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLAT. OTHER EASEMENTS, IF ANY, MAY EXIST. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO RESEARCH RECORDED OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS. AREA SUMMARY: rOTAL OF PARCEL - 7,528 SQ. FT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 607.6 605 TENCH BARK j {� 1 ,TOP #)i HYD, IELEV-000.55 o i d) aos IP1Tf PPE 11AR6E0 RL5 0774 o FOND I/7 RON m PRE HARKED RL5 20595 0.4 E. OF LOT GORIER GAS SHOWN ON AVAILABLE TAX RECORDS) The North Half of Lot 1, Block 43, CARL! & SCHULENBERG'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER ADDITION, according to Myron Shepard's Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater, dated May 31, 1878, on file and of record In the office of the County Recorder, Washington County Minnesota. CERTIFICATION: hereby certify that this surrey. plan or report was prepared by me r under no direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Land urveyor under Ore laws of th _ e of MINNESOTA. MA,AU L. ES Jcense. leo. 25718 5-27-22 x Q � o > 0 0 817.4 SET 1/7 IRON- PIPE MARLED 6' R15 75718 0I » 7cq PLAN PER PLAN »- 0 2 E.Iwi«OWST. 11 > 9 X8033 -803.5 t--8045 BOLA -5P'7 m ,y o 8J 1 -• 803.9SOUTH ttr I-e+E`8f X8 0 ,6 TFE NORTH HALF R LOi 1,� ` Xisa4.2 BLOCK 43 _ 1 -X.807.6 42X -500.0 Aff X799.6. X799.2 797,4 99.6 V W (150.00 'PLAT) `89e46'4 �.(yj 149.74 C Y / 717.1� I X79 8 AI 794.2 1' ao \\\xeo9s 9646▪ ,t _ xao7s . = *46 '56.'" 797. I, LEGEND X810.5 • FOUND MONUMENT O SET i 12•I110N PIPE MARKED RL5 NO, 2571 a F- GUY WIRE O/'y POWER POLE Vp SANITARY MANHOLE 0 or T8Y CATCH 9A51N STORM MANHOLE HYDRANT ® CURE STOP Aa WATER VALVE * CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE >> x807,5 OVERHEAD UTILITY SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FENCE L1IRR ITYPICALI CONCRETE SURFACE RFTUMINOUS SURFACE 8 803.� -% 02.7 71.7 79L786. - al < 79470r W �'k *Sae.' 784. x706.6 I` ry 1 B79't ^mom m X786.9 1 15" I X783,3 neaC.�1 X7631 787 51' 781.68W Hti L$ PROJECT LOCATION: 1824N. FIRST STREET NORTH STILLWATER, MN /%I I 144 793.E -7413 797-717e 5, 1m Y h� X7�'44 C'�, x 785.7 • '8r 793.6N x 793.4 796.2 X794.a X7913 NORTH 0 20 40 SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET 1S I t x7474 � r' >k 782.E 782.4 785.6TW 1 783.0814 6 A 777,0 797 IROLi PPE NAem7, RLS 779.2 0774 1 *779,4 *774.5 I I GRAVEL ; O1 78Q-1 OI I I I 760.8 *780.6 6T?AVEL 787.80W r SET 'K' ON it----� TOP r>F 7Ty.11 WALL - 60 O Slits N. 6750 Stillwater Blvd, N. Stillwater. MN 55082 Phone 651.2775.6969 Fax 651.275.8976 den@ cssurvey net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC L.e7 3 VIINtiAlucti 1tflrA/CriAtrri at CT etiVieOM 11;49 \Ai Al 147 ? ono" • 4 "If NW FLOOR SUS -TOTAL FIN. SO.FT FIN. LOWER LEVEL TOTAL FIN, SO. FT FOYER VOLUME OTHER VOLUME UNFIN. LOWER LEVEL UNFIN. BONUS ROOM GARAGE • SCREEN PORCH ice 0200512009, MUHLENPOH & ASSOC. The concepts. design, drawings and details shown are the copyrighted *material of Muhlenpoh & Assoc. No portions may be copied or reproduced without written penes:on. No warranties are expressed or implied. Final user must very sbuclural, dimensional.• decorative and code compliance. These drawings are for use solely for this project The Architect is deemed the author and owner of figs instrument of service and retains common taw, statubsfy and all other rights. ******* 4 4 • 'In, MUHLENPOH & ASSOC 10884 THONE RD • WOODBURY MN 55129 1. OFFICE (612) 840-4654 HOME (012)0411 4f154 FAX W51, 415-6011.4 :444444444:Y4f:*:** rs 0200812009 MUHLENPOH & ASSOC. The concepts, design, drawings and details shown are the copyrighted Material of %aliened' & Assoc. No portions may be copied or reproduced without written permission. No warranties are expressed or implied. Final user must verity structural, dimensional, dexative and code compliance. These drawings are for use solely for Mis project. The Aritect is deemed the author and owner ot this insimment of service and retains ab common law. statutory and all other righte 4444444444444.......440 MUHLENPOH & ASSOC. 10884 THONG PD Ma J",,OODBURY, MN 55129 Mt OFFICE: (612) 840-4654 nom HOME 9312 ii34: 4n54 iiii...7, F A X 1651 43669FAa AWN I11war THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: October 26, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Case No. CD 2022-74: CONCEPT REVIEW: Request for Variance for New Dwelling at 905 Hickory St W; Case of Daved Najarian BACKGROUND The City has been working with the Owner of 905 Hickory St W (Daved Najarian) on the construction of a new dwelling on the Property. The Owner recently received approval from the Planning Commission for a lot split to facilitate this new dwelling. The lot split actually (generally) reverts back to the original parcel lines of the original plat (at some point in the past, these parcels were combined to create a larger lot). Generally speaking, the scale and massing appear appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. This block consists primarily of 1880s era homes ranging from 1.5 stories to 2 story homes and a foot print on average of 1,000 square feet to 1,200 square feet. A few mid-century to more recent homes also exist on the block. Setbacks for adjacent structures on the same street vary without a true predominant setback on this street. Across the street from this Property is Stonebridge Elementary (located on a much higher elevation on this side of the street. The general design appears to compliment the surrounding neighborhood. However, Staff recommends that the Applicant modify the plan to recess the attached (tuck under) garage and call more attention to the main (front) entrance. The proposal is deficient in the required front setback, which requires the garage to be setback at least ten (10) feet from the front of the home. While the Applicant has made efforts to introduce additional design elements to de-emphasize the attached garage, the front facade is dominated by the garage in terms of width of the front facade and recessed entryway. While this will likely impact the internal floor plan and require redrafting of the proposed home, there appears to be sufficient space on the Property to be able to adjust the floor plan to accommodate compliance with setbacks for garages. RECOMMENDATIONS The City's Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed this proposed project in concept at their October 19, 2022 Meeting. Generally speaking, the HPC was supportive of the deviation to the garage orientation due to the unique `rhythm of streetscape' and surrounding built environment. The HPC did request to attempt to make minor modifications to the proposed plans to emphasize the front entrance and de-emphasize the attached garage. ACTION REQUESTED No formal action is requested at this time. This is a concept review only. The Planning Commission is asked to provide broad policy direction and identify any major barriers to the proposed project. Feedback on this concept plan is non -binding. �.f� r�f rnichael huber relittects g MEMO 351 Highview Road Hudson WI 54016 651 . 442 . 3771 Project: Najarian Residence To: Stillwater Historic Preservation Commission From: Michael Huber AIA LEED AP Subject: Project Narrative Date: 30 September 2022 The project consists of a modest two-story single family home for a young family. We began the project by walking the site and neighborhood to get an understanding of its fabric and context. It is diverse in architectural styles and house/garage placement including an elementary school across the street. We have provided streetscape information in the submittal packet. Additionally, the Owners commissioned a detailed site survey for us to better understand site amenities, opportunities as well as constraints. We have gone through the Schematic Design process which included input from the selected local General Contractor. We have reviewed the guidelines and City Zoning requirements and understand we vary from this information. The design challenge that brings us before the Commission was the need to incorporate a 2 car attached garage on the narrow lot, and have it not be visually dominant or its placement negatively impact the usable/livable space. We understand that the garage needs to be setback at least 30 feet from the roadside property line and 10 feet back from the principal dwelling. We have evaluated many ideas with the desired result indicated in this submittal and we appreciate the chance to highlight a few design considerations from the process. We worked hard to be thoughtful and purposeful in the design moves to minimize the visual impact a street facing garage would have. Form The home design has a traditional pitched gable roof at the main massing with a lower flat -roofed area which wraps the pure gable form. This keeps the overall massing simple but adds a touch of a modern/clean feel — which was a desire of the Owners. The gabled form and entry will be white painted board and batten siding, emphasizing verticality and the main form's prominence. The garage and area under the flat roof will have horizontal lap siding in a darker color to help the garage visually recede. The entry porch roof will be gray and have forward columns framing the entry. This porch roof extends 4 feet in front of the garage with another column support, again helping to underplay the garage and 'extending' the front porch. Siting We located the entry porch at the 30 foot setback and the face of the garage 4 feet behind that. This location is a nice median between the adjacent home site placements, visually stepping the streetscape versus the abrupt in and out of the roadside facades. This also allows for reasonable space in front for neighborhood interaction and activities, and equal rear yard space for more family focused activities. Existing site drainage is cross sloping from the lot's northwest corner to the southeast. The proposed home's location allows us to adjust the grade to have positive drainage away from the garage without raising the home too high in the landscape. In essence, the further the home is pushed back in to the lot, the higher the home needs to placed. The homes width is set within the sideyard setbacks to allow for grade adjustment and minimize disruption to the natural drainage flow pattern with the property. Page 2 of 2 30 September, 2022 351 Highview Road Hudson WI 54016 651 . 442 . 3771 We had studied a number of garage placements including behind the home but the required change in grade would heavily impact site drainage to the adjacent properties plus drastically increase the amount of impervious surface. We appreciate the Commissions consideration of our submission. We worked hard to favorably fit the intent of the City requirements and be reasonable in our solution -and create a beautiful home to enhance the neighborhood as well as fulfill the needs of the Owners. ..............."................... ill il—ii I I i I I I _ III III nia. i Ti' — 1"—E—iik 1 I III Mt I 1 Mil! 15 Massing Study Najarian Residence Massing Study Najarian Residence • 906.3- 906.4% 906.8,E04 907,0BW -7 907, 3TW - 906.9 906.8- 907.3TW — 6"S 904.2TW - DECK r r rr__,, 1 89798W x 896.9 x895. 18"CLUMP- . 9+ 906.!HW 905.0BW 905.9BW 906.7TW 905.3BW -906.1 TW -896.7 895.9-' \• �✓�95.9 SHED ",CLUMP 9.3° 896.7 (.6 105.04 UNKNOWN SAARY SEWER SERVICE TO MAPLENITSTREET 899.1 B W- INSTALL 400 L.F. OF 2" FORCEMAIN TO MANHOLE AT OWENS ST. 901.0BW- 1 907.81 NS 90V, 7 *907,6 �?t997�r - 4907.6 - 906.9 TRPL 906.5 905.7 ). 90906.6 0 J X 905.5 903.3 x907.3 02.3TW 1 -902.9 CLUMP , 1 `-901.2 =9DLteW-901,28� 908.2 7 EXISTING WATER SERVICE FOR PARCEL A About 9.8 feet from garage corner to setback line About 9.8 feet from garage corner to setback line rAbout 3.2 feet from garage to setback line About 3\ feet from garage to setback line VA.21=M . Wald F TO Sally #4 (#3 4:t-2 / About 13.5 / feet from garage to setback line About 13.5 feet from garage to setback line 411111111P4111F 46. 4.-.4111111111110 • ' .'L • r141411 klif 4 ;411111‘ 44 SO .1 0 ...7 'in 77(`::;*;:*-1.-- N.-"ii g N IS sua t #1 724 Owens St. N Looking East on Hickory Looking West on Hickory #2 823 Hickory St. W Looking East on Hickory ' . r °': Looking West on Hickory #3 905 Hickory St. W Looking East on Hickory Looking West on Hickory Looking East on Hickory #4 PROPOSED NEW BUILD LOT Looking West on Hickory #5 911 Hickory St. W Looking East on Hickory Looking West on Hickory #6 917 Hickory St. W Looking East on Hickory Looking West on Hickory SjI1vater T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M INN E S O I A DATE: October 26, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Impervious Surface Review for Identification of Potential Variance Requests INTRODUCTION In response to an increase in impervious coverage related variance requests to the Planning Commission, Staff has conducted a qualitative review of the conditions present in two recently approved and constructed Subdivisions. The resulting information can be used to provide the Commission with an idea of how many lots in certain areas may apply for a variance in the future. BACKGROUND Since the beginning of 2022, the CPC has received 5 impervious coverage variance requests specifically related to decks in newer subdivisions. After subdivisions are approved, Developers build out the homes, but routinely omit decks from the construction. In some circumstances, a new home will have a door on the rear of the home that faces a back yard, typically located on the second level of a walkout, and indicates that a deck is intended for that area. However, Developers have typically designed homes that maximize lot coverage in order to market larger homes to buyers. Often, the homes on these lots are very near the impervious lot coverage maximums for the zoning district, and when a property owner applies for a deck building permit, a variance is necessary. METHODOLOGY Staff chose to evaluate the two recent subdivisions that are near or at complete build out, Nottingham Village and Brown's Creek Cove. Utilizing the available surveys and as- builts for each lot, the approximate impervious lot coverage was calculated, as well as the square footage that remains. The remaining number, combined with evidence of any proposed or existing outdoor amenity (patio, deck, covered porch, etc.) indicates whether or not a particular lot may be able to fit a standard size deck without a variance, or if the amount of remaining space is marginal. FINDINGS Nottingham Village: located in the Traditional Residential district, total allowed impervious surface (this includes structure and other) is 35% per development agreement. • One lot has an approved variance to increase the impervious surface for a deck. It is worth noting another variance has been approved to permit a deck at a reduced rear yard setback. • Staff reviewed fifteen out of fifteen lots, and it appears that two lots remain to be fully developed. • Seven of the fifteen lots were identified to be potential future variance requests. This was based on four of the lots being maxed out for impervious surface, and three of the lots having less than 120 square feet available with no apparent outdoor amenity. Brown's Creek Cove: located in the Traditional Residential district, total allowed impervious surface is 25%, per shoreland regulations. • One lot has an approved variance to increase the impervious surface for a deck. • Staff reviewed fourteen out of fourteen lots, all of which have been developed. One lot contains a dwelling that was in existence prior to platting. • Eight of the fourteen lots were identified to be potential future variance requests, as all eight of the lots are over the approved impervious surface by at least 3% and were likely approved at that amount during construction. Three of the eight that are over the allowed impervious do not have any outdoor amenity. ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION Staff concludes that previous developments were not as heavily scrutinized in regards to impervious surface during both the platting and the construction phases. Due to this, the two developments mentioned in this memo, as well as others recently developed are likely to have returning variance requests for similar scenarios. Staff has not identified a broad policy remedy that would correct this. Staff welcomes any feedback or suggestions from the Commission to this point. It is likely that the best remedy is the continued detailed review of each scenario as it appears. Staff will continue to work with property owners as questions arise and continue to answer questions, educate, and guide property owners through the land use process. Further, Staff has already implemented updated plan review procedures to catch these situations at the building permit level.