Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-25 CPC Agenda 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 25', 2023 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of November 16th, 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. CD 2022-73: Variance for 1824 1" Street North (Rambacher Residence) (Staff Reviewer: Tim Gladhill, 651-430-8821) This request has been postponed until further notices. — Request has been postponed 3. Case No. CD 2022-83: Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for a new dance studio at xxx Washington Ave (Curio Dance) (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818) 4. Case No. CD 2022-85: Variance at 1229 3' Avenue South (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651- 430-8818) 5. Case No. CD 2022-86: Variance 503 4th St N Porch Variance (Staff Reviewer, Ben Gutknecht, 651- 430-1181) VIII. DISCUSSION IX. FYI — STAFF UPDATES X. ADJOURNMENT ilivater THE 1INTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 16, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Cox, Hoffman, Knippenberg, Steinwall, Swanson Absent: Councilmember Odebrecht Staff: Assistant Planner Gutknecht, Planning Manager Robinson APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of October 26, 2022 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to approve the minutes of the October 26, 2022 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2022-79: Ordinance Amending City Code Section 31-216 (Nonconforming uses and structures) pertaining to lawful, non -conforming structures to allow for lateral expansions on non- conforming structures provided that the non -conformity is not worsened and would have been allowed at the time of the original construction. Assistant City Planner Gutknecht stated that due to the increased volume of variance applications for requests to expand an existing structure along a lawful nonconforming setback, staff proposes clarifying language in the Zoning Code. Staff has worked with the City Attorney to propose an amendment to the lawful nonconforming standards to specifically allow the enlargement of a structure, provided it does not increase the existing nonconformity. Adoption of this amendment would allow staff to process these specific types of requests administratively and would make variances related to this type of condition less frequent. Additionally, the proposed ordinance amendment removes language that conflicts with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462.357. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve an Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-216 regarding nonconforming uses and structures. Planning Manager Robinson added that the ordinance amendment would give staff more flexibility in working with property owners, and would not preclude staff from bringing certain applications with a gray area to the Commission for interpretation. Planning Commission November 16, 2022 Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall to table Case No. 2022-79, Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-216 regarding Lawful Nonconforming Uses and Structures, to allow for further refinement of the proposed amendment. Commissioner Steinwall commended staff for bringing the issue forward. Her objections are: 1) Some of the proposed language is circular and subjective in terms of what the new exception would be. 2) Some of the language proposed to be eliminated should be discussed further because City Code is allowed to be more restrictive than State Statute. 3) There is some utility to going through the variance process because it could provide the City with input on other issues not normally considered, for example the lateral expansion of a building may block someone's view or have other impacts. Commissioner Swanson said he likes the fact that the proposed amendment enables and empowers staff to make an informed decision even though some of it is subjective. It is written so that staff can still bring it to the Commission if there is anything out of the ordinary that needs to be reviewed. Chairman Dybvig asked Commissioner Steinwall to explain her concerns, and Commissioner Steinwall noted the proposed language basically says an enlargement isn't an expansion if it doesn't enlarge. Instead she suggested, "the enlargement of a nonconforming structure is not considered an expansion of the nonconformity provided that the enlarged structure will conform to all other applicable requirements and will not result in significant adverse offsite impacts such as but not limited to traffic, noise, dust, odors or parking congestion." Chairman Dybvig asked if there are issues besides the setbacks that would be covered by this, and Ms. Robinson answered that it would cover impervious surface and setbacks; it would not affect height because maximum heights are defined in the base zoning district. The language could state, additionally, that it only applies to setbacks, or impervious surfaces. Commissioner Steinwall said that would be helpful, because the word "enlargement" of a structure could be interpreted to include other things. Commissioner Knippenberg asked if the language that is struck, for instance regarding junkyards, is covered in a different area. Ms. Robinson answered that neither Counsel nor any of the planning staff could ascertain where this language came from and the City Attorney felt it could not be upheld. There are not a lot of zoning districts that allow for junkyards. Staff can do more research and provide more background if the Commission wishes. Commissioner Steinwall asked why the language about certificates would be eliminated, as they may be helpful in real estate transactions, and Ms. Robinson replied that staff routinely provides a zoning compliance letter that makes certificates redundant. Commissioner Steinwall suggested adding language to clarify that the amendment addresses setbacks and impervious surface requirements, rather than any conceivable type of enlargement. Commissioner Steinwall renewed her motion based on the preceding discussion, to table the ordinance amendment for further refinement, and the motion was seconded by Chairman Dybvig. Motion failed 2-4 with Commissioners Swanson, Knippenberg, Cox and Hoffman voting against. Page 2 of 3 Planning Commission November 16, 2022 Motion by Commissioner Knippenberg, seconded by Commissioner Cox, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2022-79, an Ordinance Amending City Code Section 31-216 (Nonconforming uses and structures) pertaining to lawful, non -conforming structures to allow for lateral expansions on non- conforming structures provided that the non -conformity is not worsened and would have been allowed at the time of the original construction. Commissioner Steinwall asked why the Commission would not want to send it back to the City Attorney and staff for refinement. Commissioner Cox said she understands Commissioner Steinwall's concerns. She can support adding language clarifying that setback and impervious surface are the intended issues, but the rest of it is quite clear and she trusts the City Attorney and staff recommendations. Commissioner Hoffman added that there is underlying zoning code that addresses impervious surface so adding it here is redundant. Motion passed (did not hear Chairman Dybvig's vote) with Commissioner Steinwall (and possibly Chairman Dybvig) voting against. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. DISCUSSION 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 Ms. Robinson explained that over the past year, the Planning Commission has discussed changes to the Accessory Structure Regulations. At the September 2022 Commission meeting, Director Gladhill presented a version of the ordinance that addressed multiple policies and remedied conflicting language, and the Commission provided feedback. Staff has now incorporated the Commission's comments into a new draft that also includes changes in the overall format, and clarifies a few definitions. She reviewed the revisions in detail and stated it will be further refined and brought back for a public hearing. The consensus of the Commission was that the language and format changes are helpful. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Robinson informed the Commission that the City will no longer offer Zoom at public meetings, but Commissioners may join meetings via Zoom if needed, with advance notice. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to adjourn the meeting at 7:46 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: John Dybvig, Chair Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Page 3 of 3 iliwater� THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: January 25, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment to amend Section 31-325 in order to allow Commercial Recreation use in the Business Park— Industrial zoning district, and an associated Conditional Use Permit Application to permit Commercial/Recreational dance studio at 16XX Washington Avenue (PID: 32-030-20-42-0020). Case No. 2022-83. BACKGROUND The Applicant, Curio Dance & School is seeking a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, to amend the existing Section 31-325 Allowable uses in non-residential districts, to include "Indoor Commercial Recreation" as a Permitted Use in the BP -I district and amend the existing definition to better encapsulate commercial recreation uses and create categories for indoor and outdoor. The proposed Project Site is a vacant lot, located directly north of 2020 Curve Crest Boulevard (PID: 32-030-20-42-0020). At this location, the Applicant seeks to construct an approximately 10,000 square foot, one-story building that would contain four dance studios and an office that would host dance classes and performances for children and adults. Curio Dance and School is currently located in Stillwater, in the commercial development on the corner of Northwestern Avenue and Frontage Road West, and intend to relocate the existing studio to the proposed project site. The Commercial Recreation use is one of many recreation related uses in the "Entertainment" category of the City's Non -Residential Use Table. The current uses and definitions for commercial recreation are very specific and can be difficult to interpret. To rectify this, staff is proposing a minor amendment to the "Commercial Recreation" definition to make it more inclusive and to differentiate indoor and outdoor uses. Currently, the Commercial Recreation use is not allowed in the Business Park Industrial (BP -I) District. Staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney, is proposing to allow the use in the BP -I under the new definition, "Indoor Commercial Recreation". The current definition lists specific uses and excludes common recreational uses, such as dance studios. Staff proposes to amend the use to in order to facilitate a more broad and inclusive variety of possible and similar uses. Staff believes the broader definition is more appropriate for fairness and equity for similar uses and will help streamline future requests. Additionally, staff is proposing to allow Indoor Commercial Recreation as a permitted use in the BP -I and other commercial districts. This is primarily due to existing uses that are compatible in this category that already exist in these districts. Further, market trends indicate that non-traditional industrial uses that require larger building footprints are becoming more desirable in these areas, such as climbing walls, indoor sport courts, and other studios. Staff is also proposing the creation of "Outdoor Commercial Recreation" as a conditional use in the Commercial districts. This is to help clarify where the indoor and outdoor commercial recreation will primarily be permitted and by what mechanism. Alternatively, if the Commission wanted to allow the Indoor Commercial Recreation use in the BP -I district, but with additional controls, the Commission could amend the Zoning Text Amendment to require the Indoor Commercial Recreation use be a Conditional Use Permit. If this is the case, the applicant has prepared a complete Conditional Use Permit application for their review. PART I: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT ANALYSIS Land Use/Planning and Zoning Information Comprehensive Plan Designation Business Park/Industrial Zoning District Business Park Industrial Overlay Zoning District West Stillwater Business Park Business Park/Industrial Designation — 2040 Comprehensive Plan The City created the Business Park/Industrial land use designation to provide sites for traditional industrial, limited manufacturing and processing of products. According to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, properties in this land use designation typically see a floor area ratio of 0.25 to 0.50 and buildings are typically one to three stories in height. This land use designation is located north of Highway 36 and South of Orleans Street. The Comprehensive Plan also guides specific goals for economic development that include supporting business expansion in the West Stillwater Business District. BP -I: Business Park — Industrial District Zoning District The purpose of the Business Park — Industrial district is to provide a district for light industrial and office uses. The Zoning District is generally located in two major areas in the Highway 36 corridor. A portion is located between New Orleans Street and Curve Crest Boulevard. Another portion is located south of Curve Crest Boulevard, between Northwestern Avenue and Greeley Street. Overall, the development throughout the district has been diluted by the practice of allowing unrelated uses by Special Use Permit (SUP). This has allowed a number of similar but not light industrial uses as outlined in the district purpose to develop in the BP -I district. In the area between Orleans Street and Curve Crest Boulevard, development has historically consisted of a mix of commercial, medical, and office uses. Here we see uses that include medical practices, automotive body repair, veterinary clinics, and general contractor offices. Further, most of the land use directly to the north and east is medium to high density residential, and commercia/office uses to the west and south, which also includes indoor recreation opportunities. In the area south of Curve Crest Boulevard and between Northwestern Avenue and Greeley Street, development has historically consisted of a similarly diverse category of uses such as offices and commercial activities, even including some existing recreational/event buildings. However, in this section we see an increase of light industrial, manufacturing, and ancillary automotive uses. Both areas described above are adjacent to business park commercial and office districts. Both of which have seen the permitting of indoor commercial recreation activities that continue to exist today, such as, skating rink and sports center, athletic clubs, and event centers. West Stillwater Business Park Plan The West Stillwater Business Park Plan was approved in 1990 to guide the future development of this area from an allowable use and design standard standpoint. A key component of the plan was to guide new development. Since then, the majority of the BP- I area has been developed, and the current application of the plan mostly related to the regulation of design and landscaping standards. After Staff analysis, the proposed use and design appear consistent with the West Stillwater Business Park Plan. PART II: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE PLAN REVIEW ANALYSIS Bulk Standards: • In reviewing the bulk dimensional standards, it appears the proposal is consistent with most of the standards outlined in Section 31-322. Required Proposed Building Height 40 Feet Single Story — Height Unknown Lot Area 1 Acre 1.28 acres Front Setback 40 Feet (must be landscaped) 134 Feet Side Setback 20 feet Abutting Residential — 75 Feet (must be landscaped) South side setback 21 Feet North side setback = 25 Feet Rear Setback 30 feet Abutting Residential — 75 Feet (must be landscaped) 30 Feet Lot Area Coverage (Impervious) 60% Maximum 57.5% Landscaped Area 20% "42.4% greenspace with proposed landscaping Parking Standards: • The applicant is proposing a total of 52 parking stalls, and three handicap stalls. • The applicant arrived at this specific parking amount by utilizing the City's required parking for Dance Halls, which is one stall for each three persons of design occupancy without fixed seats. Staff finds this to be an appropriate parking standard to utilize with a lack of existing dance studio or commercial recreation parking standards. • One item worth noting, staff identified that in their site plan dated 12/16/2022, they are proposing one more than the required number of handicap stalls, they appear to be undersized. The proposed stalls are approximately 18'x8', the required size is19'by12' Traffic Circulation: • The parking lot is proposed to have two points of entry/exit. • There is a proposed parking island in the interior of the lot. Drive aisles throughout the lot are proposed at 24' wide. The proposed circulation is compliant with required standards. • Staff would like to note one comment, the southern access point will be shared with the neighboring property to the South, currently a Veterinary Clinic. In order to allow this configuration, the applicant will need to record a shared access easement if one does not already exist. Landscaping Standards: • The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan that appears to meet requirements outlined in the City Code Section 31-513 Subd.1 and West Stillwater Business Park. Outside trash containers • City Code requires outside trash receptacles be completely screened with the same building materials as the main building. This standard must be met for the proposed trash receptacles on the north side of the lot. Exterior Lighting: • Building and Parking lot lighting shall be downcast and shrouded from direct view of the public. Light spillage on the north side of the property adjacent to the trail and on the south side of the property directly adjacent to the public right of way may not exceed 0.0 luminaires. Design Standards: • The proposed building material appears to be architecturally consistent with the requirements of the West Stillwater Business District. At this moment staff does not have a visual rendering or architectural plans to confirm compliance with other design standards (roof top screening, architectural consistency on all sides, etc.) but review of such items will be a condition of approval. Lastly, when reviewing the Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the land use category staff finds that while the proposal is not within the "industrial" use category, the proposed use does compliment multiple economic goals. These include supporting business expansion into the West Stillwater Business Park Area and promoting the economic vitality of all commercial and industrial areas in the City. Additionally, when reviewing for compatibility with neighboring uses and zoning districts staff finds that the proposed use compliments both the neighboring commercial uses and medium to high density residential uses. The proposed use specifically compliments the indoor recreation directly across the street, consisting of an indoor ice rink. Further, it serves as an appropriate transitional use with a lower impact than traditional light industrial for the residential developments just north of the property. ALTERNATIVE POSSIBLE ACTIONS A. Approval, no change to Proposed Text Amendment. Recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment as written with Indoor Commercial Recreation Use as permitted. No action on the Conditional Use Permit as the proposed use would be permitted, if approved by City Council. B. Approval, with revisions to Proposed Text Amendment. Should the Planning Commission determine that the Zoning Text Amendment must be updated to require Indoor Commercial Recreation as a Conditional Use in the BP -I distirct and finds the proposed Conditional Use in conformance to the City Code requirements, it could recommend approval of the Text Amendment, with changes, to the City Council and approve the Conditional Use Permit with (at least) the following conditions (if the Zoning Amendment is approved as a Permitted Use (administrative approval), these conditions would still be attached on an administrative approval): 1. A zoning text amendment allowing indoor commercial recreational uses in the BP -I (Business Park — Industrial) district must be approved and adopted by the City Council. 2. All utilities and ground or roof top mounted mechanical equipment must be screened from public view. 3. A sign permit must be reviewed and approved by City Staff for any signage on building or property. 4. Lights for the parking lot and building shall be down cast and directed away from view by the public. Light shall not exceed 0.0 luminaires at the property lines. 5. Any outdoor trash receptacles must be completely screened with the same building materials as the main building. 6. The applicant shall provide Civil Plans, including grading, utility, ands stormwater plans for review and approval by the City Engineers prior to issuance of a building permit. Any majors change to approved plans due to this review may have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. 7. Applicant shall update site plan to show compliant ADA parking stall dimensions. 8. The applicant must receive approval from the Brown's Creek Watershed District prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. All plans shall be reviewed and approved by applicable fire and building inspection personal prior to issuance of permit. 10.Applicant shall obtain an easement for shared access with 2020 Curve Crest Blvd. 11. All changes to the approved plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to be approve by the Planning Commission or Heritage Preservation Commission. C. Table. If the Planning Commission finds the request to have insufficient information, the case could be tabled. D. 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 RECCOMMENDATION ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT Historically, the industrial district has seen a healthy mix of industrial, office, and a variety of commercial uses. Even with the minor development differences of the primarily two areas of BP -I zoning district, the proposed indoor commercial recreation use would be appropriate in the BP -I district, and continue to complement existing uses as well as neighboring zoning district uses. Expanding on that, Staff agrees that due to the mixed development in the adjacent Commercial and Office Park zoning districts, amending the City Code to allow indoor commercial recreation use as permitted use in the Business Park Commercial, Office, and Industrial districts would be reasonable and allow the make the existing uses further conforming with the zoning code. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached ordinance amendment to the definitions and non-residential districts use table to the City Council. ACTIONS REQUESTED 1. Motion to recommend approval of the attached ordinance amendment to Section 31-101 definitions and Section 31-325 non-residential districts use table to the City Council. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 31, SECTION 31-101 AND SECTION 31-325 REGARDING COMMERCIAL RECREAION DEFINTIONS AND BUSINESS PARK — INDUSTRIAL ALLOWABLE USES The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: SECTION 1 AMENDMENT. Chapter 31, Article 1, Section 31-101 of the City Code, Definitions, is hereby amended by changing the following definition: Commercial Recreation means commercial use of a building or premises for sports or leisure activities and/or rentals. means bowling alley, cart track, jump center, golf, pool hall, vehicle racing or amusement, dancehall, skiing, skating, tavern, theater, firearms range and similar uses. SECTION 2 AMENDMENT. Chapter 31, Article III, Division 3, Section 31-325 of the City Code, Allowable Uses in Non -Residential Districts — Entertainment, is hereby amended as follows: ALLOWABLE USES _ ZONING DISTRICTS CA CBD VC BP-C BP- 0 BP -I CRD PA PWF D PROS HMU NC Entertainment Commercial P CUP P recreational usealndoor Commercial Recreation Outdoor CU CUP CUP Commercial P Recreation SECTION 3 SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 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 ordinance establishes definitions for the use, commercial recreation. The ordinance also establishes the use, indoor commercial recreation as permissible in the Business Park — Industrial, Business Park — Commercial, Business Park — Office, and General Commercial Districts. The Ordinance also establishes the use outdoor commercial recreation, as permissible via conditional use permit within the General Commercial district, Cetral Business District, and Business Park — Office District. SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this day of , 2023. ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor 2 City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION PC2023-01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN INDOOR COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USE (DANCE STUDIO) AT VACANT PROPERTY PID: 3203020420020 WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a Conditional Use Permit application from Curve Crest Property, LLC ("Property Owner") and Patricia Schaber ("Applicant"), located at vacant property 16XX Washington Avenue, legally described as in Exhibit A (the "Property"), regarding the construction of a 10,000 square foot dance studio; and WHEREAS, the requested conditional use permit is for the construction of a 10,000 square foot dance studio in the BP -I (Business Park — Industrial) district; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2023, the Planning Commission for the City of Stillwater considered the Conditional Use Permit 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 Conditional Use Permit for a 10,000 square foot dance studio. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. A zoning text amendment allowing indoor commercial recreational uses in the BP -I (Business Park— Industrial) district must be approved and adopted by the City Council. 2. All utilities and ground or roof top mounted mechanical equipment must be screened from public view. 3. A sign permit must be reviewed and approved by City Staff for any signage on building or property. 4. Lights for the parking lot and building shall be down cast and directed away from view by the public. Light shall not exceed 0.0 luminaires at the property lines. 5. Any outdoor trash receptacles must be completely screened with the same building materials as the main building. 6. The applicant shall provide Civil Plans, including grading, utility, ands stormwater plans for review and approval by the City Engineers prior to issuance of a building permit. Any majors change to approved plans due to this review may have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. 7. Applicant shall update site plan to show compliant ADA parking stall dimensions. 8. The applicant must receive approval from the Brown's Creek Watershed District prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. All plans shall be reviewed and approved by applicable fire and building inspection personal prior to issuance of permit. 10.Applicant shall obtain an easement for shared access with 2020 Curve Crest Blvd. 11.AII changes to the approved plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to be approve by the Planning Commission or Heritage Preservation Commission. Adopted by the City Planning Commission this 25th day of January, 2023. ATTEST: CITY OF STILLWATER John Dybvig, Planning Commission Chair Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director 2 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Applicant's Property Abstract Property Type Parcel ID: 32-030-20-42-0020 All that part of Lot 4, Block one, PRIME SITE SUBDIVISION, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the East 157.30 feet of said Lot 4. Containing 55,665 square feet, more or less, subject to easements of record. 3 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota Site Location Vacant Property PID: 32-030-20-42-0020 37.5 75 150 Feet METRO EAST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES Curio Dance Facility - Project Overview Curio Dance and Curve Crest Partners, LLC are requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Text Amendment for a proposed Commercial building to house a Commercial/Recreational dance studio. The Facility will be approximately 10,000 square feet, single story building situated on Lot 4 of Prime Site subdivision. The new facility would have dedicated space for up to four studios and office space for the operations. The site is directly across from the Lumberyard, Recreational skating and sports facility and on the North side of the Stillwater Veterinary Clinic. Curio Dance is a performance -based dance school led by professional dancers with advanced training in dance technique and performance. The classes focus on the dancer and the capabilities that emerge when learning is positive, fun, and rigorous all in an encouraging environment. Curio Dance provides opportunities for pre - professional and professional performance throughout the year. Located in Stillwater, Curio Dance & School is proud to be rated the best dance school in Washington County. 1950 Northwestern Avenue, Suite 101, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 + 651.351.5005 ;J Flenome: CURIO DANCE STUDIO\CURIO DANCE STUDIO —Al Ilk S89'30'11 "E 212.30 r —TRANSFORMER TRASH ENCLOSURE I 1 I / I 1 O • I / DANCE 4/ PROPOSED /$UnL 9,024/ S.F. di* 7 30' 0'1 But NAGE1 Z 1rnu NT y0'-01 PARKING SETBACK ^'J �J --- S89'59'47"W S87'25'54"W 247.59 52.71 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1' 4110 NORTH SITE DATA LOT SIZE — 55,665 - 1.28 ACRES ZONING — BP —I, BUSINESS PARK INDUSTRIAL BUILDING — 9,024 S.F. DANCE STUDIO IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 32,037 S.F./ 55,665 S.F. - 57.6% < 607E MAXIMUM GREEN SPACE 23,628 S.F./ 55,665 S.F. — 42.47E > 207E MINIMUM PARKING DATA 150 OCCUPANTS AT 1/3 OCC - 50 STALLS 52 STALLS PROVIDED J • LAMPERT ARCHITECTS 420 Summll Avenue A=t. St. Pool, MN 55102 IUI Phone:763.755.1211 F0,0763.757.2819 Iomper101amperl—arch corn ARCHITECT CERTIFICATION: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY UE OR UNDER YY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT 1411k0ULY IJCENSED AROP9ECT LAWS OF THESiik4 TA. Copy,Igh1 2022 Leonard Lomperl Arohllecie Inc. Project Deliver: JAMES B Drown By. JRB Checked By. LL ReKelene 12/16/22 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Sheet Number Al Project No. 221207-1 /i/i/i// v;/�;//��i/)v /v ce Li III II 'II III111 III III III III= 3x ROOTBALL DIAMETER TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: NOT TO SCALE Li CURIO DANCE STUDIO\CURIO DANCE STUDIO-L1 0) E 0 a) RETAIN TREES NATURAL FORM. REMOVE ONLY DEAD OR DAMAGED BRANCHES DO NOT CUT LEADERS ROOT COLLAR 1-2" ABOVE GRADE WOOD CHIP MULCH REMOVE WIRE BASKETS AND POLY TIES. CUT BURLAP FROM UPPER 1/2 OF BALL EXISTING GRADE BACKFILL WITH EXISTING SOIL. WATER THOROUGHLY TO ELIMINATE AIR POCKETS BREAK DOWN SIDES OF HOLE UNDISTURBED SOIL BENEATH BALL GROUND COVER OR MULCH AS SPEC. TURN BACK BURLAP REMOVE POLY AND WIRE SET BALL ON UNDISTURBED GROUND BACKFILL WITH EXISTING SOIL SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PLANTING SCHEDULE QTY. KEY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE MTHD REMARKS 3 IH IMPERIAL HONEYLOCUST GLEDITSIA TRICANTHOS 2.5" CAL. BB 3 CT COFFEE TREE GYMNOCLADUS DIOICUS 2.5" CAL. BB 2 RS RED SPLENDOR CRAB MALUSxHYBRIDS 'RED SPLENDOR' 1.5" CAL. BB 4 BH BLACK HILLS SPRUCE PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA 6' TALL BB 21 BB COMPACT BURNING BUSH EUONYMUS ALATUS 'COMPACTA' 18"-24" TALL CONT. 24 GS GOLDMOUND SPIREA SPIREA X BUMALDA 'GOLDMOUND' 18"-24" TALL CONT. 6 BJ BLUE CHIP JUNIPER JUNIPERUS BLUECHIP 18"-24" WIDE CONT. 8 UA UPRIGHT ARBORVITAE THUJA OCCIDENTALIS 18"-24" TALL CONT. 20 FR FEATHER REED GRASS CALAMAGROSTIS ACUTIFLORA 'STRICA' 12" TALL CONT. LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. SEED/SOD AREAS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 2. SEE PLAN FOR PLANTINGS LOCATED IN ROCK MULCH BED. ROCK MULCH BEDS SEPARATED FROM SOD BY BLACK VINYL EDGER. OTHER PLANTINGS TO HAVE WOOD MULCH RING TO PREVENT WEED GROWTH AND CONSERVE WATER. PROVIDE WEED BARRIER BENEATH ROCK MULCH. 3. UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE PROVIDED FOR ALL FOUNDATION PLANTINGS AND TURF AREAS. PROVIDE MOISTURE SENSOR. IRRIGATION DESIGN BY CONTRACTOR. 4. SEE PLAN FOR EXISTING TREES TO BE SAVED OR REMOVED. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING TREES AND ADJUST REMOVALS AS REQUIRED 209 S.F. S89°30'11 "E 212.30 SOD I o 1 1) f— i / REMOVE EXISTING TREE ROCK MULCH BED 243 S.F. SOD > S89°59'47"W 247.59 LANDSCAPE PLAN REMOVE EXISTING TREE NORTH ROCK MULCH BED 0 w w 307 S.F. 129 S.F. PARKING ISLAND CALCULATION: PARKING AND DRIVE AREA — 20,398 S.F. ISLAND AREA — 2,101 S.F. 2,101 S.F./ 20,398 S.F. = 10.3% < 10.0% ROCK MULCH BED 7 • SEED > • 0 0 REMO TREE 0 w w (!) VE EXISTING EXISTING TO REMAIN i i . CV . LC) O 15'-0" DRAINAGE AND UTILIT EASEMENT EXISTING TREES TO REMAI SO FAR AS POSIBLE FIELD LOCATE • • Z 0z LAMPERT ARCHITECTS 420 Summit Avenue •�• St. Paul, MN 55102 iui Phone:763.755.1211 Fax:763.757.2849 lampert®lampert—arch.com CURIO DANCE STUDIO Stillwater, Minnesota Copyright 2022 Leonard Lampert Architects Inc. Project Designer: JAMES B Drawn By: JRB Checked By: LL Revisions 1 / 1 1 /23 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN Sheet Number Li Li SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" Project No. 221207-1 CURIO DANCE EXAMPLE EXTERIOR FRONT CURIO DANCE EXAMPLE EXTERIOR FRONT ?'s split face block is produced with a textured relief look that provides depth and dimension to each individual block whilE uperior quality and durability. Our split face block meets ASTM-C90 standard specifications for load -bearing concrete iits and can also be used at and below grade. This product is ideal for interior and exterior facades and accent bands that and character to your project. rIONS: COMMERCIAL INTERIOR EXTERIOR CRETE MASONRY UNIT - SPLIT FACE FINISH Masonry Split Face CMU has a textured relief look that provides depth and dimension to each individual block while still :ing superior quality and durability. The split face texture typically provides a more aesthetically pleasing presentation on Its than a smooth finish. lere's no difference in quality between ground face and split face concrete blocks — it's only appearance that Electing split face CMU blocks allows for the same level of performance but with far more attractiveness. DATE: January 25, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner and Yasmine Robinson, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Case No. 2022-85: Variance request to reduce the required garage front yard setback distance to facilitate the construction of an attached garage located at 1229 3rd Avenue South. BACKGROUND The Property Owner, Mark Ogren and Represenitive, Bob Moser are seeking a Variance from the Planning Commission to permit a reducution to the required front yard placement for the the construction of an attached garage. City Code requires the garage be setback at least ten feet from the front of the principal dwelling. If approved, the proposed Variance would facilitate the construction of an approximate 400 square foot garage in line with the principal dwelling. The project area is located at 1229 3rd Avenue South (PID# 3403020230114) within the RB (two-family) zoning district and the Neighborhood Conservation overlay district. The Property is an interior lot and has frontage to the west on 3rd Avenue South, a residential property to the north (also owned by the applicant) and a residential neighbor to the south. To the rear is a steep slope leading down to State Highway 95. The project site has a lot area of 32,814 square feet and currently contains a single -story, approximately 1,800 square foot single-family dwelling and attached garage built in the 1950s. The applicant is propsoing to demolish the existing principal dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling, including the attached garage. The Applicant appeared in front of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) on January 18, 2023 related to a Neighborhood Conservation District Design Permit for the proposed structure, which was approved with conditions related to Staff approval of some of the exterior materials. ANALYSIS The proposed action seeks to allow the construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached garage in -line with the dwelling at a reduced front yard garage placement, when the garage is required to be situated ten feet behind the leading edge of the dwelling. The RB Two -Family Zoning District allows detached and attached garages at a maximum size of 1,000 square feet or 10% of lot area, whichever is less. Garages must be set back a minimum of 30-feet from the right-of-way and setback 10-feet from the front setback line of the principal dwelling. Additionally, attached garages must be setback a minimum 5-feet from the side yard. The existing attached garage is currently in -line with the principal dwelling and the entire structure is set back approximately 23- feet from the right of way and has a zero -foot setback on the northern property line. Generally, the proposed location of the principal dwelling and garage is compatible with the predominant setback of the dwelling on the east side of 3rd Avenue. Additionally, majority of the dwellings on the east side of 3rd Avenue were constructed in or around the midcentury, with garages prominently situated in the front of the dwelling. Overall, the proposed new construction is situated in a way to create greater balance with the existing dwelling in regards to front yard setbacks on the east side of 3rd Avenue South and is less nonconforming than the existing structure. 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 Garage Placement: A. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. i. The proposed use of the property as a single-family dwelling with an attached garage is a reasonable use and is permitted within the district and consistent with development in the district, provided appropriate regulations are followed. B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. i. The property was platted in the late nineteenth century. The existing single-family dwelling, which is currently lawful nonconforming in regards to structure front yard setback and garage placement was constructed in 1950, both of which the current property owner did not create. However, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a new dwelling and attached garage. ii. Further, while the applicant is bringing the overall principal structure into compliance with regards to structure setbacks, they are designing the proposed attached garage in a nonconforming layout. Staff does recognize an attempt by the applicant to design the attached garage in which the garage is deemphasized by situating the front porch ten feet in front of the garage and principal structure. iii. Additionally, Staff collectively concurs that the site does have physical constraints in regards to slopes in the rear yard. There also appears to be room to shift the principal structure forward so that it continues to comply with the required structure front yard setback and the garage placement setback, without having to move the entire structure back where it may impact steep slope setbacks. However, staff recognizes that moving the structure forward would impact the applicants attempt to standardized the front yard setback with adjacent dwellings. C. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. i. Granting the variance to approve the construction garage located in line with the principal structure will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Examples of similar lawful nonconforming garage placements can be seen in the adjacent home to the north and the pattern continues along the east side of 3rd Avenue South. Specifically, most dwelling along the east side of 3rd Avenue South have prominent garage in front of the principal structure. ii. It is also worth noting that on the west side of 3rd Avenue South, garages are primarily compliant, detached, and set in the rear of the yard. These residences are also primarily late nineteenth century construction. D. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. i. The request to construct the attached garage located in line with the principal structure is not based on economic considerations. E. This standard could have been met at original time of construction with original code at said time of construction. i. Based on the existing dwelling and those adjacent along 3rd Avenue South, it is likely that this style could be constructed at time of original construction. F. The proposed structure would not encroach any further into setback than existing structure. i. It is worth noting that the existing structure is currently lawful nonconforming in regards to the entire structure setback as well as garage placement. While the new structure would not impact the overall setback requirements, the garage placement would not nonconforming. While the requested variance appears reasonable, not based on economic considerations, will likely not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and is proposing to bring an existing nonconforming structure into greater conformance overall. It is worth noting that these alone are not grounds to approve a variance. Further, while there are alternatives to the existing proposal, they may not leave the applicant with the desired single -story walkout design. Lastly, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the design permit request on January 18, 2023 and found that the proposed garage configuration would be acceptable in regard to the design requirements of the Neighborhood Conservation District. RECOMMENDATION Given that the overall proposal is replacing a structure like -for -like' and setting the structure (and garage) further from the street, Staff does recommend approval of this request. Additionally, in future code updates, Staff recommends that the City clarify when front porches can count towards the 10-foot garage setback to front of home and when a front porch is simply an `appurtenance' and not used to consider the garage set back from the front of the home. In recent past practice, front porches have not counted. In this case, if the front porch ran the entire width of the front of the home, Staff could find that reasonable justification for considering the garage set back from the front of the home and comply with the Neighborhood Conservation District Design Guidelines. 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. The proposed variance meets the practical difficulty test, as found in staff report dated 01/25/2022. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with Case CD2022- 85, except as modified by the conditions herein. 3. The building plans must be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 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 and/or the Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval. 5. The applicant shall work with Building Department Staff to ensure a complete building permit is applied for. 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 Motion to approve the Variance to the required garage front yard setback/placement to reduce the required 10-feet setback from the leading edge of the dwelling to 0-feet for the construction of a new single-family dwelling with an attached garage for property located at 1229 3rd Ave S, based on the above findings and conditions within this report. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION PC2023-02 VARIANCE REQUEST TO DECREASE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND GARAGE PLACEMENT TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 1229 3rd AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a Variance application from Mark Ogren ("Property Owner") and Bob Moser ("Applicant"), located at 1229 3rd Avenue South, legally described as in Exhibit A (the "Property"), regarding the construction of a 400 square foot attached garage; and WHEREAS, the requested variance is for a reduced front yard setback of 0 feet from the leading edge of the principal dwelling, where 10 feet is required per the RB Two -Family district; and WHEREAS, the on January 25, 2023, 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 front yard setback of 0 feet from the leading edge of the principal dwelling for a 400 square foot garage. The approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: The proposed variance meets the practical difficulty test, as found in staff report dated 01/25/2023 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. a. The proposed use of the property as a single-family dwelling with an attached garage is a reasonable use and is permitted within the district and consistent with development in the district, provided appropriate regulations are followed. 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. The existing single-family dwelling, which is currently lawful nonconforming in regards to structure front yard setback and garage placement was constructed in 1950, both of which the current property owner did not create. However, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a new dwelling and attached garage. b. Further, while the applicant is bringing the overall principal structure into compliance with regards to structure setbacks, they are designing the proposed attached garage in a nonconforming layout. Staff does recognize an attempt by the applicant to design the attached garage in which the garage is deemphasized by situating the front porch ten feet in front of the garage and principal structure. c. Additionally, Staff collectively concurs that the site does have physical constraints in regards to slopes in the rear yard. There also appears to be room to shift the principal structure forward so that it continues to comply with the required structure front yard setback and the garage placement setback, without having to move the entire structure back where it may impact steep slope setbacks. However, staff recognizes that moving the structure forward would impact the applicants attempt to standardized the front yard setback with adjacent dwellings. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. a. Granting the variance to approve the construction garage located in line with the principal structure will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Examples of similar lawful nonconforming garage placements can be seen in the adjacent home to the north and the pattern continues along the east side of 3rd Avenue South. Specifically, most dwelling along the east side of 3rd Avenue South have prominent garage in front of the principal structure. b. It is also worth noting that on the west side of 3rd Avenue South, garages are primarily compliant, detached, and set in the rear of the yard. These residences are also primarily late nineteenth century construction. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. a. The request to construct the attached garage located in line with the principal structure is not based on economic considerations. 5. This standard could have been met at original time of construction with original code at said time of construction. a. Based on the existing dwelling and those adjacent along 3rd Avenue South, it is likely that this style could be constructed at time of original construction. 6. The proposed structure would not encroach any further into setback than existing structure. a. It is worth noting that the existing structure is currently lawful nonconforming in regards to the entire structure setback as well as garage placement. While the new structure would not impact the overall setback requirements, the garage placement would not nonconforming. Conditions of Approval 1. The proposed variance meets the practical difficulty test, as found in staff report dated 01/25/2022. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with Case CD2022- 85, except as modified by the conditions herein. 3. The building plans must be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 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 2 the Planning Commission and/or the Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval. 5. The applicant shall work with Building Department Staff to ensure a complete building permit is applied for. Adopted by the City Planning Commission this 25th day of January, 2023. ATTEST: CITY OF STILLWATER John Dybvig, Planning Commission Chair Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Applicant's Property Abstract Property Type Parcel ID: 34-030-20-23-0114 The South 19 feet of Lot 7, Lot 8, the North 6 feet of Lot 9, the North 6 feet of Lot 10, Lot 11, the South 19 feet of Lot 12, Block 10, Hersey, Staples and Co.'s Addition to Stillwater, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Washington County, Minnesota, and vacated Second Avenue South, lying between the Southerly line of the lots above -described produced Easterly and the Northerly line of the lots above -described produced Easterly; and The North 76 feet of the South 120 feet of Lot 18 and the North 76 Feet of the South 120 feet of Lot 19, Block 11, of Hersey, Staples & Co.'s Addition to Stillwater, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. and That part of Lots 18 and 19, Block 11, Hersey, Staples and Co.'s Addition to Stillwater, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Washington County, Minnesota which lines north of the south 120.00 feet thereof EXCEPTING therefrom the north 5.00 feet thereof; and The East Half of vacated Second Avenue South, lying between the Southerly line of the lots above -described produced Westerly and the Northerly line of the lots above -described produced Westerly. 4 To: City of Stillwater From: Mark and Dawn Ogren Date: December 26, 2022 RE: 1229 3rd Ave. South Stillwater, MN 55082 Variance request To whom it may concern: We are the current homeowners at 12213rd Ave. South. We also purchased the property at 1229 3rd Ave. South. It is our intention to remove the existing home at 1229 3rd Ave. South and construct a new residence for our family on that site. The current home is in a state of disrepair to the extent that it is not practical to remodel it. It is also of a design that is not compatible with other homes in the area. Furthermore, it is a non -compliant structure that does not meet the side yard setback requirements of the City. Years ago, our family supported the previous owners' request to construct a garage addition in this manner, but we would like to address that now as part of our project plans. Attached is a variance application to request approval for the construction of a home with an attached two -car garage. As designed, the garage does not comply with the required set back of at least 10 feet from the front set back line of the principal dwelling. We have prepared this narrative to communicate how an approval can be justified by the facts that 1) the request is in harmony with the purpose of city's ordinance, 2) the proposed plans are consistent with the comprehensive plan, and 3) there are practical difficulties that substantiate our request. The proposed building plan is attached for your reference. It is proposed to replace a home originally constructed in 1950 that we will demolish. Per the plan, the garage is shown flush with the front of the home foundation footprint. Based on the city's code, the garage would need to be set back an additional 10 feet to be a compliant structure. Please note, however, that the front porch footprint does extend 10 feet in front of the house foundation. Unfortunately, as we desire to construct a home that is more fitting for the neighborhood, the topography and size of the lot pose some constraints. If we are required to shift the garage back further than proposed, we encounter practical difficulties as summarized below: 1) The existing structure on the lot sits much closer to the street than the majority of the other homes in the neighborhood. We would like to construct our new home in a manner that is more compatible with adjacent properties. If you refer to our proposed survey and the setback exhibit that is being submitted as part of this application, you will see that we plan to place the home 53.3 feet from the front property line. On the average, this is a slightly greater setback than others on our block. It is important to note, however, that this aligns the rear of our home foundation with others on the block since the significant majority of the homes on the east side of 3rd Ave. South have the garages in front of the homes. (See Exhibit A) 2) In an effort place the home in a location and at an elevation that is most consistent with neighboring structures, we are challenged by the topography of our lot that has a significant and steady decline towards the rear of the property. As the home is currently designed and proposed, it fits the lot in an appropriate manner. If the garage needs to be shifted back we only have two options. A) The home would need to be constructed lower and at an elevation inconsistent with those nearby. Furthermore, it would put the garage at an elevation much lower than the street which is not desirable for aesthetic and drainage reasons, Finally, it puts the basement floor height at an elevation lower than that city sewer connection. This would create a need for a lift station instead of being able to rely on gravity flow for all of the home's sewer needs. Page 2 Mark and Dawn Ogren December 20, 2022 Variance Request B) As an option, since the lot has a steady and declining grade towards the east, significant quantities of fill would need to be imported to accommodate the expansion of the home footprint to the rear, while keeping it aligned with the elevations of adjacent properties. The proposed survey that is being submitted as part of this application shows how the present design fits nicely. (See Exhibit B) The modified grade lines shown in red show that the fill and grading needed is rather limited in scope. If significant amounts of fill were imported to elevate the house pad further back in the lot, there would be implications as far as aesthetics and drainage are concerned. 3) The plan shows that we have fully utilized the building area available to us on this narrow 76' wide lot while meeting side yard set back requirements. As previously stated, expanding the floor plan to the rear is not a reasonable alternative. Therefore, our only other design options would be to 1) lose available floor plan space with this one-story design or 2) pursue a two story design to make up the space. Since this floor plan is not of an extraordinary size, we do not want to lose square footage. It is important to note that we designed this one-story home to address long term accessibility needs. Since a two-story home is not practical for that, we do not want to pursue that option. As you evaluate this request, please note that we are proposing to construct a home that complies with all other requirements of the city code and the city's comprehensive plan. Our new home will replace a home with compromised physical conditions. The new home and the garage will both be at a set back from the road greater than what currently exists. The variance request is based on a minimal lot width with a significant slope. The challenges posed by the size and topography of the lot are unique and special circumstances that impact our ability to construct a new home appropriate for the neighborhood. These circumstances were not created by us. If approval is granted, the property will be used in a reasonable and permitted manner, and the end result will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. In fact, we believe that our proposed improvements will enhance the neighborhood. We hope that you agree with our proposal. We greatly appreciate your consideration of our request. Please let us know if any additional information is needed as you evaluate our application. Sincerely, Mark and Dawn Ogren CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ~fof: 2029 3RD AMENUENC SOUTH, STILLWATER, MN LEGAL DESORIPTION Lot 11, Block 10 of HERSEY STAPLES AND COMPANYS ADDITION according to the perfected plat of the City of Stillwater of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. Also, the North 6.00 feet of Lots 9 and 10 of said Block 10 and the west half of vacated Second Street (A.K.A. Second Avenue South) which accrued to said North 6.00 feet. Also, Lot 8 of said Block 10 and the west half of vacated Second Street (A.K.A. Second Avenue South) which accrued to said Lot 8. Also, the South 19.00 feet of Lots 7 and 12 of said Block 10 and the west half of vacated Second Street (A.K.A. Second Avenue South) which accrued to said South 19.00 feet. Also, the North 76 feet of the South 120.00 feet of Lots 18 and 19 of Block 11 of said HERSEY STAPLES AND COMPANYS ADDITION and the east half of vacated Second Street (A.K.A. Second Avenue South) which accrued to said North 76.00 feet. NOTES Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc. on 6/03/22. - Bearings shown are on Washington County Coordinate System. Parcel ID Number: 34-030-20-23-0114. - Curb shots are taken at the top and back of curb. This survey was prepared without the benefit of title work. Additional easements, restrictions and/or encumbrances may exist other than those shown hereon. Survey subject to revision upon receipt of a current title commitment or an attorney's title opinion. OHU www.egrud.com I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. KEVIN C. MCCAIN Date: 12/28/2022 LEGEND License No. 58542 • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET, MARKED RLS# 58542 ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN •cs DENOTES CURB STOP ❑E DENOTES ELECTRICAL BOX X 952.36 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION © DENOTES GAS METER DENOTES HYDRANT O DENOTES MISCELLANEOUS MANHOLE `Q - DENOTES POWER POLE OD DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE ❑T DENOTES TELEPHONE PEDESTAL DENOTES RETAINING WALL, AS NOTED DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS DENOTES OVERHEAD UTILITY DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE DENOTES PROPOSED RETAINING WALL DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS E.G. RUD it SONS, INC. Professional Land Surveyors 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tel. (651) 361-8200 Fax (651) 361-8701 ST. LOUIS STREET E. iD 0 0 0 846.1 TC 66 3RD AVENUE SOUTH 844.4 CBT 66 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS TOTAL LOT AREA 32,829 S.F. PROPOSED HOUSE, GARAGE & PORCH2,866 S.F. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 1,001 S.F. PROPOSED SIDEWALK & PATIO 368 S.F. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 4,235 S.F. PERCENT IMPERVIOUS 12.9% 845.6 TCCUT 845.3 CUT 845.0 CUT 845.3 TCCUT 845.0 TC 844.6 TC 844.0 CBT OD ❑ 1 oo oo 845.3 845.3 �? N oo O 10 co ,- 3.9% L_ 8¢3,x 844.7 •6- 84� 00 els 845.8 TIMBE_ WALL 845.7 845.7 845.4 844.6 8 838 5 8 SOUTH 19 00 FEET OF •a37o / LOTS 7 AND OC ..53 Ix838.8 ,. •i, 838.8 838,2 837.3 836:3 Eli 31.67 x u? L, M 1835.5 el N et Tr, ro. i;a m�.1L .•0 co \ lY G 833.7. x (11 .0.:836.9 a 2.0 e- r- ♦ / 1-- Y -� L_ 1 ' _t EXISTING HOUSE /1 8 ...I.... I_\ 1-, PROPOSED RETAINING' 8„A.• .ice-- WALL••(NOT TO EXCEED 4 FT / / 4,L.. IIV HEIGHT) (ww / .. 12 BLOCK 1Q,••'w. \ CO . 'NORTH LINE O.F'THE •�.844.2 \ 2.5% .835.0 mrTriT im LO- 11, BL(�CI •^y deck/ I a patio O- L<•" below I1 L: i i �� O. i 6:0 N . 1 1 oe '-'\ /DROP GRADE N O $3�•c j AND FOOTINGS 1'1 m 831 a37.ax N I PLQNG WALL_SO:UTH �JExO' 836:.7 832.8 ( LOT 11, 47LO MAW2846.17 8 oo ASxMONUMENTED..... L- / 834.9 g3 ,.,.....� N$9°•55'34 "E,. \ 1 . L, • . 431.59•...,. 833.7 .830.8 \,_NORTH LINE OF LOT 8, BLOCK 10 x830.2 A i\ 826.9 323.84 g30 ............. • x sz9.8 829.0 0 M co 'x 827.9 r �.��_�°Gio 41.! d_�_Qe rs Q1 i.i►.� �.i_Q.4.�_�.4_� 4....Mr M 835. • N/LLCQEST TREE DETAIL 832.7 O 833.0 Lc; Lo I � a s o • \ 00 z \ __SOUTH LINE OF THE PROPOSED. "NORTH 6.00 FEAT OF \---_ RETAININ6,,WALL LOTS 9 AND 10,: BLOCK (NOT TO EXCEED 4 10; AS MONUMENTED FT IN HEIGHT) s2S .........1 x 826.0 227 v I w 0 DENOTES ELEVATION ti6 ;ti--------- DENOTES TREE QUANTITY oPtio_ DENOTES TREE SIZE IN INCHES DENOTES TREE TYPE 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE: w N w 1 1 '1 1 1 11 x s2s.z I O Ia; I � .a26 x 830...•'• .x.828.0 x 823.6 /\ \ �,. •' r\ A 1. I ,•'\ / e I I , ,.\/•I F- /\ 1\ 1..•• Y 825.0 824.8'". PIN15 1 1 .: 824.9 SOUTH LIN.E..OF1:7.. LOT 8,..$LOCK 10 822.2 x:• 104.75:20.1 824.9 x824.8... 823.2x 66 IRON PIPE• :842.5 • 66 w LJ Ftecx 823.4 . Bi$.7 O.•nz LLD I O'N Ll�•''LI2 ,. Z n x819.5 .•• ...• • Q.•w I,/I U Ce .• cr.•< �. $1' 1''•'gLLI • > w. x822:7 1- \ I.••' x 819.5 430.92 x 8184 S89°55'34"W • x 818.8 I C \A _ . / .1 • I -( -- H- I L_ BENCHMARK r- e- I- L_ \/ BENCHMARK: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION GSID STATION #95574 (NAME: SUNNYSIDE RESET) ELEV. = 691.10 (NAVD 88) • 73/4 INCH IRON PIPE m m m m cti x 814.9 66 L_ 66 • 807:2. x • c••Q 809:b ,.•''•6 'O..'' .'800.0 r /\ 1 1 1 \I I -\ Ll LJ I 166.86 GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 1 INCH = 30 FEET 60 . NORTH LINE OF TH E• SO.UTH. 120.00 FEET OF LOTS 18 A N Q' 19; B LCYCK.11, AS`MONUMENTED; •• x 802.7 -r 1 I I I I -\ A i 1 I I\I \/ I \ SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 76.00 FEET OF -THE SOUTH 120.00 FEET OFE LOTS 18 AND 19, BLOCK 11, AS MONUMENTED SOUTH LINE OF - - LOTS 18 AND 19, BLOCK 11 NORTH vJ WS O L_'„ 1 Cn __EAST LINE OF LOT 19, BLOCK 11 (9FT. POURED BASEMENT) PROPOSED ELEVATIONS TOP OF FOUNDATION = 844.2 GARAGE FLOOR = 843.8 LOWEST FLOOR = 835.5 DRAWN BY: KCM JOB NO: 220595LS DATE: 6/06/22 CHECK BY: JER FIELD CREW: DT/CT 1 12/28/22 REV HOUSE JEN 2 3 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY S:\RUD\CAD\22PROJ\220595LS\220595LS-HOUSE CERT.DWG 220595LS 2S' O 1'J/1&"± N \ \ go .14 o • NOON HA17)12 H�IG,Hf 4 MAWL1iV1;L pLAT5,HIGHT WIAIbOW MAIIJ L1iVL SU3-�LO012 Top or roulJbATIo►J 4 Tor or rooTIQA LEFT ELEVATION WI bow H�Ab�� H�IGH1' GA3L1; v JT Hb12 H1iIGHT MAILI 1-5v5L rLAT1; H5tAHT WIAIbOW H�Ab$I� H�IG�HT MAI1J L�V1;L SU3-�LO012 4 Top 01-1-ouo7ATlokl - GULTUI25b 6Tok11; 012 THI1J 6-1* 3►21Gk V7;1J1;1iI2 W/ 2'/4" 5'1'01J1; GAp = 8/12 28" x 48" 12 II III IIII 1111 III IIII IIII IIII 111 11,11 11,11 11,11 111 11,11 11II111IIIII 11111II111II111IIIII 11111II111II 11 11 11 11 1 11 11,11 11 11 11 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIII II111II111IIIII 11111II111III11II111II111II111II111II1111 11 11,11 11,1I 11,1I II11 11,11 11,1I 11,1I I11 11,11 11,1I 11,1I I11 11,11 , 1 IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII II 1II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111 II IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII 11II 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1 1 1 11 II1I1II111III11IIIII 11111II111III11IIIII 11111II111III11IIIII 11111II111III11IIIII 11111II1111111II1I 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1 1 1 1111 1111 1 II111IIIII 11111II111II111IIIII 11111II111III11IIIII 11111II111III11IIIII 11111II111III11IIIII 11111II111III11IIIII 11111II11 1 1,11 III 1 1,11 11,11 1,11 III 1 1,11 11,11 1,1 1 III 1 1,11 1,11 1,11 III 1 1,11 1,11 1 1 1 III 1 1,11 1,11 1,11 III 1 1,11 1,11 1,1 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1I1II111II111IIIII 11111II111II111IIIII 11111II111II111IIIII 11111II111II111IIIII 11111II111II111IIIII 11111II111II111IIIII 11111II111II111II1 1 1 1 1 1 I.1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 I 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 I 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 I 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 I 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 I 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 I 1 1 1 1, 1111 IIII IIII IIII 1111 IIII IIII IIII 1111 IIII IIII IIII 1111 IIII IIII IIII 1111 1111 IIII IIII 1111 IIII IIII IIII 1111 IIII 1111 IIII 1111 I I I I LOUV7i121i17 V4IJT 12- 121%TAIlJ11JG WALL A5 125,07 3Y G12A17. 6AI,1i : 1/4" = 1' O" 1I111II111II111II111II1111 111 1111 11,11 IIII 111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 II 1111II111II111II111II111II111II111II1I 11II111II111II111III Ager 1•III•III•III•III•III•I i11111•.i■iui■iui■haul 61 12= 8/12 7 1 1, 1, 1, 1 11 I111 II11 II11 II11 I 1II111II1IIII1IIII1IIII111III II 1111 11II 11.11 HI 11111111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 II1111I111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' 1111 HI I II IIII 1111 HI I II IIII II,I1 HI 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 II 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 111 11III111II111II111II111II111II111II111II11111111II111II111II111III II111II111II111II111II111II111II1111 II1IIII1 IIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 HI 11 11 11 11 11 11 HI II ,11 111 11 II 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 11, 1111 III 11II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II111II11111111II I 1 I ,11 11 I ,11 I ,I 11 1 ,11 11 I ,11 I ,I I 11 11 I ,11 I ,I I 1 1 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 III1I1Li111LiIII II III II III II111IIIII 11111111111111111111111111111111 11,11 11,11 11,11 11,11 11 1 111,11 11,11 11 1 111,11 11,11 11,11 11 1 111,11 11,11 11 IIII IIII II11 I111 I111 IIII II11 I111 I111 IIII II11 I111 I111 IIII 1 11111111111 1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 1111111111111111111 1 I I I I III �IIJI�Hiib 13A51i /ji/ 2' 10" 1-OIJ1; GAP 1720ppb 0rr11' W:2App�17 IIJ G�bA2 AREA TABULATIONNJ 3AS1;M1;tJT 2,283 5 " -�IIJISH�b 1,g55 5r- -UIJrIIJI.5H1ib 328 5 "- MAIM L1;V1;L 2,283 .5r TOTAL ru 115H1ib 4,275 5 " TOTAL LIVA3L7; 4,275 5r GAI24,61 400 5� GoV1 P t)1i1/41T12Y 145 5r 1756k 1g5 5r I2Al2 pATIO 1g5 5� rLO012 A121%A6 A121% GAL.O.U1-A-r17 rFoM THE oUT51b Or r0U0AT101J WALLS A1Jb/OI2 ou-r 117; rAG7i Or 1;XT1i121o12 STUB Al rI2AM1;b WALLS. 6TAII25 A125 ILIGLUb51) IQ GALGU1.-ATI0U5 AT ALL L1;V1;L5. GENERAL NOTES - ALL WI21TT1;AI bIM1i1J5101J5 SHALL TAk1i p12G51,5 1d. ov1;12 6GA1-I4 or 1,12AWIkIG6 - kIGkoUT rLASHIIJG TO 31; IIJSTALLi;b AS 1J1ii;b;17 - 1;XT121012 WALL 1=11JI6H7i12 TO V7i►21r`( KIGkoUT rLASHIIJG IS 11J6TA1-1-b pl21o12 TO rIIJISHIIJG - 64,12p ►JTI2 TO SLASH ALL 5xT51210F W11J1,0W5 * b00P-5 pi;l2 MIIJ. ALIO II2G GO171; 121io1A2 MIJT5 - WHIL7i 5V1;12`(1;rp012T HAS t,55 J MA1,5 TO IIJS TH7;5$ pLA1J5 Al2AGGu12AT5 AIJb GOMpL 1;, TH7i OW1J7i12/3UIL1)512 MUST V7i1211=`( ALL bIM1i1J GOA15TI2U6TIOAI M1i1H0 , 61.1'1i Goklt7r1101J5 6r cirlGAT101J5. - AAI`( IJOTATIOIJS or 6IZ♦i5 or STj2UGTU12AL 1"I9 t2� SUCH A ' rooTIIJGS, rOU1JbATIOAI SIZIIJG, p0 31iAM5, FOISTS, 12A1=T1;125, TI2U5551;TG. App1iAl2 OIJ TH�51; pLA1J5 A121; 1=012 t) 175 AIJb 301,I1J61 pUI2p055 oIJL`(. I 1 IS 121iGOME A pl2op551o1JAL-OD ^ GALGULAT6T12UGTU12AL P Qt4 2 11JVOLV1ib IIJ THIS 6T12u6TU121i. Z WILIboWs - 0 Et- _.„,„.p6. 400 531211i5'HOW J W 1 - p1;12 pLA1J ct 0 Q - 1,1I0701N6 b1;516,1JATi;b WITH G12`tea - 3UILb1i12 To V7i12Ir`( ALL ROUGH Op1;1JlIJG bIM® 1J AIJb H1iAb1i12 H1;IGH1 . Q �X'�1iI21OI2 �IIJISH1i5 Z 0 - 61014 (A5 LOTiib) - HAl2b1-61-114L6014 - 7" 1ixp05U121; - 1-kA12171 rAi.1 1, V02TI6AL 6014 - SMOOTH IN/ 3ATTLI 30A121,5 AT 1Cp" - 1-tAI2b1W1121M 30A1205 WIbTH AS 1J01i;b z 0o mo W Li_ 07) *** 'r12UG'rU12A1. L1Q1 *** ALL 61-I2UGTUI2AL ,AM A1Jb 1-1 A17 2 SIZ1i5, 31iAl2I1.A 600b1-n01.16 AO AVJ61-rOI2ILIG p epu1I21iM1i1JT5 MUST 31% p v1$W1ib 11 ,/ A 51-12U61-1A2AL 1i1JG11J1;1;12 3AS1ib OBI 1iX1 1-1k1G SITi; Gok101110L15. OWiJ1;12/UILbI2 TO A6UM7i ALL I2Sp01.15131L11-N( ro261-I2uGTup . '/4X4 OLI 4/4X1O 4/4x4 Top .AIJb 4/4x4 GOI2IJri>2 ¶I21M 6/4x8 I21M +I O C4 ROYAZOAKS DESIGN. 651-964-2726 www.royaloaksdesign.com CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL BUILDING DESIGNER NATIONAL COUNCIL OF Kieran J. Liebl 24-106 I ROYAL OAKS DESIGN, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY STRUCTURAL OR DIMENSIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VERIFICATION AND CHECKING OF ALL NOTES, DETAILS, ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND FLOOR PLANS AND NOTIFY ROYAL OAKS DESIGN, INC. OF ANY ERRORS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. ROYAL OAKS DESIGN, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORKMANSHIP OF THE SUB -CONTRACTORS. LIJ zwLIj toLLI > oaW 1- Lucn Z0a! liimcNicn t9 0 Document Date: 9/28/2022 Document Phase: Drawn by: bMl, ISSUE DATE REMARK 01 07/22/22 - bMl. 02 OS/15/22 pI2�1-IMIIJAI2Y - GNU 03 0S/1Co/22 p{2�.I.IMILIA12Y - bMl. 04 08/18/22 pI2�1-IMIIJAI2i - bML EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ©Royal Oaks Design, Inc. FRONT ELEVATION - V1 5GA1.� - 1/4" = 1' O" COLUMN DETAIL O' 2' 4' ��Al.1s : 1//2" = 1" 0" AI.17 Copyright © 2022 Royal Oaks Design, Inc. GENERAL NOTES - 61/12 )= 12 1 1 1 II IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1II IIII IIII 11II IIII IIII IIII 11II IIII IIII II IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11 1 1 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1,1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 11 1 1 11 I I 1 IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111,1 11.1 1II 1 1 1,1 1 1,1 11.1 1II 1 1 1 1,1 1 1,1 11.1 1II 1 1 1,1 1 1,1 11.1 1II 1 1 1,1 1 1,1 I IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII II 1I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 1111 1111 1111 1 1 I 1 11 ,I 1 11 ,1 1 1111 HI I 1111 1 1111 1111 1 1 I 1 11 ,I 1 1111 1111 1 1 I 1 11 ,I 1 1111 1111 HI I IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII I 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111,11 1 1 11 11,11 11,11 11,11 1 1 11 11,11 11,11 11,11 1 1 11 11,11 11,11 11,11 1 1 11 11,11 11,11 11,11 1 1 11 11,11 11,11 11,11 1 1 11 11,11 11,1 IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII I 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 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 11 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 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 1 ,1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1 ,1 I II III IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IJ1U111L111U111U111U111L111U1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 GULTUp t7 6To► I o12 THIIJ .5>; r e;,1216k V1i1J1;1i12 W/ 21/4" 6TOlJ1i GA? RIGHT ELEVATION SGAL.1i:1/4"=1'O" \ \ 0o WIIJbOW HbAb�j2 H$ICa,H'j 4 MAIIJ 1.- vL pLAT>; H1;IAHT WIIJbOW HA1,12 H�IGH'I' �j MAIIJ L>iV1;L 5U�-�LOoI2 T --- ll TOP Or roUIJbATIOIJ (ram ------- WI iibOW H�Ab�12 H�IG,HT \� \ LOW1;12 L1;v1iL.5LA� REAR ELEVATION WIIJbOW Ht1:43,l2 HVAI.11- - AA�L>i SAL.51i WbW HbI2 H1;IAHT MAIIJ L�VL pLAT� H1;IGHT None., H�Abbl2 H�IC�HT MAIIJ L�V1;L SUIU-LOO}2 1 --- Tor' OrOUIJbATIOIJ� SGAL.`1i : 1/4" = 1' 0" - ALL wI21TTi 13.1m iJ.5l0L1.5.5HALL TAk1i p12�G1ib1i1JGr; ovI2 SGALIIJA or b12AWIIJA6 - .IGKOUT rLA6HIIJA To t?,� IIJSTALLb A.5 - 1;xTI21012 WALL rIIJ15H12 To v12Ir`( IeZkouT rLASHIIJA IS p121012 TO rILISHIIJA - G4I21v kl-r 2 To rLA6H xTplop WIIJboWS b00126 1:21;12 MIDI. ALIO 112G Gobi; 2QU112M1J1- - r012-r HAS 1;li MAt, To IIJ6UI21i TI-1 6 pLAl,15 AI21i AGGUI2AT>% AIJb Gomrl- -r , THi; OWIJ1i12/t!,UI1,1%.12 MU6T v1i121r`( ALL bIMAI6101J6, GOIJ6TI2U6TIOVJ M1-THOb.5, .5IT>; GOIJbITIOIJ6 AO, 61%1iGIrIGATIOI1/416. - AIJ`( IJOTATIOIJS Or.5IZ1i.5Or.5TI2UGTUI2AL m ivli31%125 SUCH A5 1 oo-t-1 JG5,1-ou►JbAT10►J 6=14, pO6T.5, �1iAM.5, FOI6T6,I2ArT1;126, Ti2U65�6 LTG. THAT Amv sa,Z OIJ TH7i51i pLAlJS 41/4I2r.O2 17 1761GIJ 121;v11iW Akio pUt2p0.51i.5O1JL`(. rr I6 121iGOMM1i1Jb�b A pPo>-1i56IOIJAL IJ61A611i17 To GALGULAT>; AIJb b.5IAIJ ALL 6TI2UGTUIFAL GOMp(AIIJT.5 ikivol..v17 IQ THIS 6TI2UGTU12. - AIJb1;12.51i J 400 .51i1211i.5.5HOWVJ - TYp1i AIJb Slz>i p12 pLA�I - WI0oN6 b516,IJATb WITH '1i' MT GI265 GOb1i5 - V>i121r.i ALL 12oUAH Op1iIJIlJA bIM1iU1/4151oL16 AIJb H�Abii►2 H1iIAHT.5. X-1- 1210iz �I�lI5H1i5 - 6I1,14 (o r ) - HAIZbl1i-.5HIlJAL7i 61014 - 7" 1iXp0'U121i - HAIZb11ipAL - VIZTIGAL 61014 - 6MOOTH W/ epATTi;►J 130AI21,6 AT O.G. - HA12011i121M :.0A12176 - THIGkIJ1i5.5 AIJb WIbTH A6 I,IOTb *** '112u6-ru12AL *** ALL 5T►2UG1"U12AL �1iAM AIJ7 h 4,1%.12 51Z7;5, 4 APILIA 6001'11006 AIJb AIJGH0214 MUST 131i I21iv11iW1ib 1 (A 51'12U61'U12AL 1;IJG,I►Jiiiil2 13A61i17 GOIJbI1-I0iJ5. otAlkl 2/e,ult,t, t2 To A66UM7i ALL 121i5po1JSIl31L11'Y 1-0121iIJ11121i 6112uGTu121i. AREA TABULATIONNJ TOTAL ru 11.5H1ib TOTAL LIVA�L7; GAI2AG,1; GovP 171;IJ1'12% b1iGk 12Al2 pA1"10 2,283.5r 1,6155 6r- 28 .5r- 2,283.5r 4,275 .5r 4,275 .5r 1=L0012 AI2>%A.5 4,I21 . GALGULA-r 17 r120M TH>; OUTOr r0U0ATIOIJ WALLS AIJb/012 ouT.5117 rAG7i Or 1ixT1%t21o1261'0 AT pI2AM1;b WALLS. 6TA1126 A121i IIJGLUb1ib IIJ GALGULATIOU.5 Al' ALL L1;v1;L5. / r J Z Oz 0 w0 00 V 0_0W _ u) >. ct0Q Ow Q z 0 0 m0 W 0 ROYAZOAKS DESIGN. 651-964-2726 www.royaloaksdesign.com CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL BUILDING DESIGNER NATIONAL COUNCIL OF Kieran J. Liebl 24-106 I ROYAL OAKS DESIGN, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY STRUCTURAL OR DIMENSIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VERIFICATION AND CHECKING OF ALL NOTES, DETAILS, ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND FLOOR PLANS AND NOTIFY ROYAL OAKS DESIGN, INC. OF ANY ERRORS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. ROYAL OAKS DESIGN, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORKMANSHIP OF THE SUB -CONTRACTORS. W (i) zwLIj LLI > oaW 1- Lu Z0a! LLImcNicn t9 0 v1;LLUx 6Pfl-iAHTS (3) Gos 1' 61" x 4' 6. 7/1s" Document Date: 9/28/2022 Document Phase: Drawn by: bML ISSUE DATE REMARK 01 07/22/22 - bMl. 02 OS/15/22 pI2�1-IMIIJAI2Y 03 0S/1Co/22 - bMl. 04 08/18/22 pI2�1-IMIIJAI2i - 01,4. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AI.17 ©Royal Oaks Design, Inc. O' 2' 4' 16,' Copyright © 2022 Royal Oaks Design, Inc. EXHIBIT A LJ nm 0 A n� Qnm H A n O 0' WEST LINE OF BLOCK 10 OG tn\\ -, 833.2x 6.0 833.5 MAP15 w D O rn v mO21 �N zm G) m • X. • 831.4 .. m mD 0 • CO 00 6.0 H co 845.9co MAP24 844.9 0, 3RD AVENUE SOUTH n� O � A nog 07 Cw � O ▪ 845.5 845.6 �4S) N00°03'12'9Y 76.13 • 845.7 co A A co 845.4' 845.3 .0 FLDO � N osa$o: •o.w i� 843.8 � "O7 g41 .83838.'wa • 21.5& �' 13. �9 NC m G GEE. Io�fr -, • m FLU'—` 43.8 �..wr z 77 -. ..... V. V AW Zon ] L-- — to o c1 _ PROPOSED HOUS co. a 9' PRD. BSN1T 43•5 01 ' 1�ZOm i—= a • r-VI rT, Q.O' \A, r- Z W C -I —coC19.170 0 N r=�.O o-..C.01p•µ= 0 1633 may m r 835A�.ti o -A- ,r 1�835.0� 0 m I, Oar z .ce L _ , 0 r", :O 0 It II j...., co 832r8 - 0 833.0 e J . VI v1 CO T ••O `J rN. =- Tr \ °° m 1 I X 844.4 0 N ter" c_1 mC} • r.. I 843.8 • • co DATE: January 25, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Case No. 2022-86: Variance request to reduce exterior side yard setback to facilitate the reconstruction of a porch located at 503 4th Street North BACKGROUND The Applicant, Sheryl Weitzel, is seeking a Variance from the Planning Commission to permit a reduced exterior side yard setback for the reconstruction of a previously lawful nonconforming porch. If approved, the proposed Variance would facilitate the construction of an approximately112 square foot enclosed porch set back approximately 6 feet from the exterior side yard lot line. The project area is located at 503 4th Street North (PID# 2803020130074) within the RB (two-family) zoning district and the Neighborhood Conservation overlay district. The Property is a corner lot and has frontage to the west on 4th Street North, frontage to the south on Cherry Street West, a residential neighbor to the north and the east. The project site has a lot area of 7,551 square feet and contains a two-story, approximately 1,200 square foot single-family dwelling built in the 1880's and an attached single -story, 565 square foot garage. In 2019, the Property Owner received a permit to have a 112 square foot porch located within the exterior side yard removed, with a plan to replace it shortly after. At the time of removal, the porch was considered lawful nonconforming and could have been replaced as it was, provided a building permit was applied for/issued within one year. However, due to other work being done at the property, the porch was never replaced within the life of the building permit and lost the legal non -conforming status. 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 property line. Currently, the existing single-family dwelling is setback approximately 14 feet, making it legal nonconforming and deficient by approximately 7 feet. Prior to the porch's removal, the previous exterior side yard setback was approximately 7 feet. City Code Section 31-216 currently states that any nonconformity, including lawful use or occupacny of land, buildings and structures may be contineud (including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintence, or improvement, but not including expansion) unless the nonconfomrity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year. This means that should a property owner want to continue a lawful nonconforming use or repalce a lawful nonconforming structure, they have one year after the time of the use or structure being removed to reinstate it as it was without increasing it. City files indicate the previous porch was not oringal to the home, and likely constructed in the 1920s. Prior to the porch's removal, it was considered a lawful nonconfomring structure that had lawful nonconforming rights. However, a structure/use that has been discontinued loses it's lawful nonconfomring rights after one year of discontinueance. The original porch was removed in September of 2019. Since it has been approximately 3 years since the removal of the porch, there are no longer lawful nonconforming rights related to the porch. Staff has coordinated with the City Attorney on this request. The proposed action seeks to allow the reconstruction of an approximately 112 square foot porch along the existing dwelling facing Cherry Street West. The proposed porch would replace a previous lawful nonconforming porch that has since lost its' lawful nonconforming rights with an approximate exterior side yard setback of 7 feet. 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: A. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. i. The proposed reconstruction of a previous lawful nonconforming porch in the RB district is a reasonable use and is permitted within the district and consistent with historic development in the district, provided appropriate regulations and timelines are followed. B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. i. The property was platted in the late nineteenth century and the existing single-family dwelling which is currently lawful nonconforming and the previously existing porch 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. ii. Further, while there was the intention to reconstruct the porch as is and events prevented its immediate reconstruction, the discontinuance of the original porch was created by the property owner in 2019. iii. Additionally, Staff collectively concurs that there are other opportunities for outdoor amenities to service the existing door facing Cherry Street W. For example, steps, walkway, or patio could be installed to give the door functional purpose. However, these options do not result in the desired indoor area, nor replace what was existing three years ago. C. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. i. Granting the variance to approve the construction of the porch will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Examples of similar lawful nonconforming front yard setbacks, specifically for porches, can be highlighted across the street, directly adjacent to the Property, and throughout the neighborhood. D. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. i. The request to construct an addition along the existing dwelling within the front yard setback is not based on economic considerations. E. This standard could have been met at original time of construction with original code at said time of construction. i. The request to construct the addition would have met standards in effect at the original time of construction. F. The proposed structure would not encroach any further into the setback than the existing structure. i. It is worth noting that the proposed porch does not encroach further into the previous lawful nonconforming setback. However, staff does acknowledge the proposed addition will encroach further into the current lawful nonconforming setback that was established one year after the discontinuance of the original porch. The requested variance appears reasonable, not based on economic considerations, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and is proposing to reconstruct what was previously considered lawful nonconforming and in existence for approximately 100-years. Staff would like to note for Commissioners consideration that these alone are not grounds to approve a variance and the original porch has since lost its' lawful nonconforming rights. 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. The proposed variance meets the practical difficulty test, as found in staff report dated 01/25/2022. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with Case CD2022- 86, except as modified by the conditions herein. 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 Building Department Staff to ensure a complete building permit is applied for. 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. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the fact that this porch previously existed and efforts were originally made to replace under lawful, nonconforming protections, Staff does recommend approval of this request. Additionally, based on a number of similar requests granted and the Heritage Preservation Commission's Design Guidelines that encourage these types of covered porches in the Neighborhood Conservation District, Staff would encourage the City to consider an amendment to City Code to allow covered porches as a 'permitted encroachment' or `allowable projections into required yard areas' in future code updates. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Variance to the exterior side yard setback, where 25-feet is required to allow for the reconstruction of a previously lawful nonconforming enclosed porch with an exterior side yard setback of 7 feet for property located at 503 4th Street North, based on the above findings and conditions. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION PC2023-03 VARIANCE REQUEST TO DECREASE THE EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 503 4th STREET NORTH WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a Variance application from Sheryl Weitzel ("Applicant"), located at 503 4th Street North, legally described as in Exhibit A (the "Property"), regarding the construction of a 112 square foot addition; and WHEREAS, the requested variance is for a reduced exterior side yard setback of 7 feet, where 20 feet is required per the RB Two -Family district; and WHEREAS, the on January 25, 2023, 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 exterior side yard setback of 7 feet for a 112 square foot enclosed porch addition. The approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: The proposed variance meets the practical difficulty test, as found in staff report dated 10/26/2022. 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. a. The proposed reconstruction of a previous lawful nonconforming porch in the RB district is a reasonable use and is permitted within the district and consistent with historic development in the district, provided appropriate regulations and timelines are followed. 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 which is currently lawful nonconforming and the previously existing porch 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. Further, while there was the intention to reconstruct the porch as is and events prevented its immediate reconstruction, the discontinuance of the original porch was created by the property owner in 2019. c. Additionally, Staff collectively concurs that there are other opportunities for outdoor amenities to service the existing door facing Cherry Street W. For example, steps, walkway, or patio could be installed to give the door functional purpose. However, these options do not result in the desired indoor area, nor replace what was existing three years ago. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. a. Granting the variance to approve the construction of the porch will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Examples of similar lawful nonconforming front yard setbacks, specifically for porches, can be highlighted across the street, directly adjacent to the Property, 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. 5. This standard could have been met at original time of construction with original code at said time of construction. a. The request to construct the addition would have met standards in effect at the original time of construction. 6. The proposed structure would not encroach any further into the setback than the existing structure. a. It is worth noting that the proposed porch does not encroach further into the previous lawful nonconforming setback. However, staff does acknowledge the proposed addition will encroach further into the current lawful nonconforming setback that was established one year after the discontinuance of the original porch. Conditions of Approval 1. The proposed variance meets the practical difficulty test, as found in staff report dated 01/25/2022. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with Case CD2022- 86, except as modified by the conditions herein. 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 Building Department Staff to ensure a complete building permit is applied for. Adopted by the City Planning Commission this 25th day of January, 2023. ATTEST: CITY OF STILLWATER John Dybvig, Planning Commission Chair Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director 2 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Applicant's Property Abstract Property Type Parcel ID: 28-030-20-13-0074 All that part of Block 6 of the Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Block, and running thence North along the West line of said Block 150 feet to a point; thence Easterly on a line parallel with the South line of said Block 50 feet to a point, thence Southerly on line parallel with the West line of said Block 150 feet, more or less to the South line of said Block and thence West along the South line of said Block 50 feet, more or less to the point of beginning , Washington County, Minnesota 3 Sheryl Weitzel 503 4th St. N Stillwater, MN 55082 970-381-2935 I am requesting a variance to be granted to replace a porch on 503 4th St. N on the south side of the house. The porch enhanced the house for 70 plus years and I am just looking to replicate the size and aesthetics of the porch. I am aware it no longer meets the set back from the street but there is nothing I can do to change what was done in the past. I can only replicate what existed. In 2019 I was granted a permit for demolition and restoration for the porch and I was so ecstatic. When it was torn off I was devastated. It was shocking to see the house was no longer sitting on its foundation. It took over three years to find someone who was competent, reasonably priced, and interested in taking the job. In the meantime the permit had run out and there was no need to ask for an extention because I wasn't able to meet the timeline. During those three years I spent hours vacuuming up water and mud off of the basement floor due to rain and snow. From there it was all poured into five gallon buckets to be hauled upstairs and outdoors. I was beginning to worry about the south wall collapsing. It was finally in 2021 that I found a great contractor who stabalized the south wall and fixed the foundation. I needed a break in 2022 to acquire more money to move forward to finally getting the porch put back on. When a new permit was denied due to noncompliance of depth on the setback from the sidewalk and street I was crushed. My understanding is I need to show a "practical difficulty" in order to have a chance for the variance to be granted. The main level in my house is 1050 sq. feet. Within this 1050 sq feet I have five doors - only one door serves a purpose other than going straight outdoors and that is the one that leads to the garage. By explaining where each door is located you will become aware of the awkwardness of the multiple doors. Door #1 Is the front door opening into a hall entry way. You are first met with a set of stairs going up. A few feet past the stairs is the opening into the living room. Further down the hall is the opening to the dining room. Door #2 was a sliding door in the kitchen that let you go out onto the patio. I replaced the sliding door with what looks like a French door, however one side is stationary and the other half is serviceable. I've actually have learned to appreciate the ability to go in and out the door to grill and offer drinks. Full drapes feel a bit strange for privacy but I have gotten use to it. Door #3 has another sliding door that is off of the kitchen in a hall that also houses a bathroom. 1 This door was very sledomly used in order to go outside to the eastside of the house. The eastside or the back of the house is just a narrow stripe where the air conditioner is located and as a result,it served no function. I decides to put up metal shelving in front of the sliding door to create a greenhouse affect for plants to over winter, or when I raise seedlings. It is now very useful and brings a lot of joy. Door #4 is in the same hallway as Door #3. At the end of the hallway is the garage door. It functions great like any garage door. Door #5 is a door located in the dining room. Its purpose was acceptable because it allowed access to the porch otherwise it would be an awkward door to the outside. If the porch is not reconstructed the doorway needs to be closed up. The living room has four windows and the dining room has a massive plate glass window so outside lighting is not a problem. The following is a list of things that would have to be done to close the openning of the door if the variance is denied: *In 2019 the house was resided. The openning to the porch door got a facelift along with the house. If the door is removed the south side of the house would have to be resided to create a cohesive look. *For some reason the south side of the house has an excessive amount of dirt. If the variance is denied the dirt will need to be excavated to be at the level of the rest of the landscaping. To do this the equipment will have to drive across two major mature beds tearing them up. Otherwise the dirt is not a problem with the porch in place. *The inside of the house will need the door opening to be sheetrocked, the floor to be fixed to take a transome out, and new baseboards put in place. Lastly, the entire room will need to be repainted. *This is an enormous amount of money to make the house cohesive. I delighted in sitting on the porch and seeing the river from my view. Every homeowner in Stillwater would love to have a porch view of the river. Loosing both the porch and the view makes the value of my house go down. I hope you will take that into advisement. Enclosing, the nonconformance to the porch and the house is something that has been in place perhaps as far back as the house was built in 1856. Forcing the house to conform to todays standards takes away its uniqueness and quirkiness. Collectively, each old house in Stillwater with its own personality is what makes Stillwater a very special place to live and flourish. 2 as 503 4th St NI Cmy Stillwater Lender/Ciient MidwestOne Bank County Washington state MN Zip Code 55082 Subject Side 503 4th St NI Sales Price 325,000 Gross Living Area 2,080 Total Rooms 6 Total Bedrooms 3 Total Bathrooms 2 0 Location B;Res;Park/Dwnin close View N;Res; Site 7449 sf Quality Q4 Age 160 Subject Side Subject Side Form PICPIX,SI -'TOTAL" appraisal soitr;ate by a la mode, inc, - 1-800-ALAMODE \Y 46, 7450 It lallik a. lb•`� ' "'t jiit aczp-yYw 'b • y Nam. mil.\O�Ili Itipe Nk act Ws ■ k' 11y��„y (,9^, Ak0��'L� teal V Ga WW1 !' • W l i rl i . i l ; i , ; 1 _. . _. I TJC-.1:j 01- '447 koer,;c-• ; ! fl • I ; __ • ____ • ; t1--- tlie4-40- r f ' • ! . „ -all.-5-67h?, 9 V It? "Dee !Doi_ . i 1 I • ti • Oft " - - I