Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-11-16 CPC Packet 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us PLEASE NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by attending the meeting in person at City Hall in the Council Chambers, 216 4th St N, by logging into https://stillwater-mn.zoomgov.com/j/1608779021 or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 877 9021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 16th, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of October 26th, 2022 regular meeting minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and act on the proposed item. 2. Case No. 2022-79: 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. VIII. DISCUSSION 3. 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 IX. FYI – STAFF UPDATES X. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 26, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Knippenberg, Steinwall, Swanson, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: Commissioners Cox and Hoffman Staff: Assistant Planner Gutknecht, Planning Manager Robinson APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of September 28, 2022 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to approve the minutes of the September 28, 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. 2022-64: Consider Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and Variance for the construction of an Accessory dwelling unit at a reduced rear yard setback at 919 5th Avenue South; Case of Noel and Terese Molloy Assistant City Planner Gutknecht reviewed the application. The applicant is seeking a Variance and Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) above a garage at a reduced rear yard setback. The Conditional Use Permit would facilitate the replacement of an existing 576 square foot, detached garage with an 800 square foot, detached garage with a second story 800 square foot ADU set back approximately 15 feet (25 feet required) from the rear lot line. While the Conditional Use Permit request for an ADU does not conform to all standards outlined in the RB – Two Family Zoning District, the request for the variance associated with the replacement of the existing garage is reasonable. However staff believes that the proposed design should be updated to reflect four-sided design. Staff notes that nearly every Conditional Use Permit related to an accessory dwelling unit has a variance associated with it. Staff has recommended amending the setback requirement through an overarching ordinance amendment for Accessory Buildings, which has been tabled for comments. Staff recommends approval of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit with nine conditions. Planning Commission October 26, 2022 Page 2 of 5 Noel Molloy, applicant, said the garage would not function if it had to maintain the required 25 foot setback. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to adopt Resolution PC2022-07, Variance Request to Construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit with a Reduced Rear Yard Setback at 919 5th Avenue South, and to adopt Resolution PC2022-08, Conditional Use Permit Request to Construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 919 5th Avenue South, with the nine conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2022-70: Consider request for a Variance to facilitate the construction of an addition at the existing reduced exterior side yard setback of the existing dwelling at 704 5th Street North; Case of David and Kristen deLeon Assistant Planner Gutknecht reviewed the case. The applicants are seeking a sideyard setback Variance for construction of an approximately 420 square foot single-story addition at approximately 18.2 feet from the exterior (right-of-way) side lot line (20 feet required). Currently, the existing single-family dwelling is set back 18.2 feet, making it legal non- conforming and deficient by approximately 1.8 feet. The proposed addition would extend the existing non-conforming 18.2-foot front yard setback another 14 feet to the north. While the variance appears reasonable, not based on economic considerations, and if designed compliantly with the required design guidelines would likely improve the property and continue to complement the neighborhood, these alone are not grounds to approve a variance. While the existing conditions are not created by the current property owners, options are available to build the addition without a variance. Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide policy direction to assist in the determination. Kristen deLeon, applicant, said they are looking to make their house a bit bigger and it makes more sense to match the existing setback rather than a jog in. Moving the wall in 2 feet to conform with the 20 foot setback would leave no room to walk around the bed. Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to adopt Resolution PC2022-09, Variance Request to Decrease the Exterior Sideyard Setback to Facilitate Construction of an Addition at 704 5th Street North, with the five conditions recommended by staff. Councilmember Odebrecht noted there is an opportunity to start thinking about similar cases in the same way to achieve similar results. Ms. Robinson added that, because of Stillwater’s unique history and topography, there are a lot of legal non-conforming lots and structures. The challenge is balancing requirements, environment, and high quality design. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. DISCUSSION Planning Commission October 26, 2022 Page 3 of 5 Case No. CD 2022-73: CONCEPT REVIEW for Request for Variance at 1824 1st Street North; Case of Ryan and Angela Rambacher Ms. Robinson explained that concept reviews do not require action but give an opportunity for non-binding feedback and policy direction. She stated that the City has been working with the property owners regarding the proposed construction of a new dwelling. The property is legal non-conforming and deficient in lot width and overall size. It previously had a legal non- conforming single-family home which was removed due to fire. There are multiple, unique physical characteristics that make compliance with the strict interpretation of the guidelines challenging: it is partway up the valley bluff, making building height measurements challenging; its width and size is lawful, non-conforming; 1st Street North (the desired front façade) is not an improved City street (even though it is public right-of-way). The Heritage Preservation Commission was understanding of the need for a Variance to obtain a reasonably designed dwelling but had concern about the requested height Variance and requested that the owner look for ways to reduce the proposed three story structure to 2.5 stories to comply with City Code. Staff believes some degree of sideyard setback Variance is reasonable. The HPC and Planning Commission must determine the minimum Variance necessary in order to achieve a reasonable use. Strict interpretation of the Zoning Code would only accommodate a 20-foot- wide home. Ryan Rambacher, applicant, said their goals are to have an energy efficient home with a small footprint. The topography covers up the tuck-under garage level halfway back making it appear to be a two story structure. Commissioner Steinwall said the applicant will need to provide more information to demonstrate why the unique characteristics of the lot justify a variance. Councilmember Odebrecht said he views height and stories differently. The spirit of the code is to protect the view of the river from the bluff. If the applicant can stick to the 35’ height limit, he would support the proposal. Commissioner Swanson acknowledged that the topography of lot is challenging and seems to make a tuck-under garage most logical, however that doesn’t necessarily justify exceeding the height restriction. Commissioner Knippenberg noted the proposal is three stories but still 35 feet so on that basis she would support the request. Chair Dybvig said his biggest issue is defining the front on 1st Street. He asked how height would be measured if the front were on Willow, which slopes. Ms. Robinson read from the zoning code, which defines height as the vertical dimension measured from the average elevation of the finished lot grade of the front of the building to the highest point of the ceiling of the top story. She agreed that the ultimate determination of height will depend on where the front is. Staff will follow up with the applicant and help them move forward with the process. Case No. CD 2022-74: CONCEPT REVIEW for Request for Variance at 905 Hickory St W; Case of Daved Najarian Ms. Robinson reviewed the case. The owner recently received approval from the Planning Commission for a lot split to facilitate a new dwelling. The scale and massing appear appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal is deficient in the required front setback, which requires the garage to be set back at least 10 feet from the front of the home. Planning Commission October 26, 2022 Page 4 of 5 While the applicant has made efforts to add design elements to de-emphasize the attached garage, the front façade is dominated by the garage. The HPC reviewed the proposal in concept on October 19, 2022 and supported the deviation to the garage orientation due to the unique ‘rhythm of streetscape’ but requested minor modifications to emphasize the front entrance and de-emphasize the attached garage. Staff agrees, and recommends that the applicant modify the plan to recess the attached tuck-under garage and call more attention to the main (front) entrance. Daved Najarian, 905 Hickory Street, applicant, pointed out there is a hodgepodge of homes along the street and many are garage-forward. The further the home or garage is pushed back, the more the front of the home needs to be raised up, which could cause drainage issues. Chair Dybvig noted the grade is not great, so he is struggling to identify a practical difficulty as it is a fairly standard lot. Mr. Najarian stated that they explored the idea of a detached garage but got into impervious surface restrictions. He also feels that the front facing attached garage reduces the impact of the view for neighbors. Commissioner Steinwall said she would like to hear more explanation of what the practical difficulties are with this vacant lot. Mr. Najarian asked how precedents of other homes with garages on the front are considered. Ms. Robinson responded there are many conditions that may have lead to nearby homes having a front facing garage so the applicant shouldn’t focus too much on precedent, but it is worth looking into how other lots that have similar conditions have achieved certain outcomes. Commissioner Steinwall noted that variances are considered on a case by case basis. She suggested that the applicant clarify what is so unique about this lot and the conditions in this neighborhood that justify the variance. Discuss Potential Updates to Regulations Pertaining to Mobile Food Units Ms. Robinson informed the Commission that the HPC is undertaking some possible changes to the regulations pertaining to mobile food units. More information will be available in the coming months. Impervious Surface Review for Identification of Potential Variance Requests Mr. Gutknecht stated that in response to an increase in impervious coverage related variance requests, staff has reviewed the conditions in two recently approved and constructed subdivisions, to get an idea of how many lots in certain areas may apply for a variance in the future. Staff concludes that some developments were not heavily scrutinized in regards to impervious surface during both the platting and the construction phases which may result in returning variance requests for similar scenarios. Staff has not identified a broad policy remedy that would correct this, and welcomes feedback from the Commission. This will continue to be viewed on a case by case basis. Staff has already implemented updated plan review procedures to catch these situations at the building permit level. Commissioner Steinwall suggested consulting the City Attorney because she sees this as a developer-caused issue of maximizing building footprints, building floating doors to nowhere, and putting the Planning Commission in the position of responding to homeowners who just want a deck so they can use that door. She asked if there is a way to hold developers Planning Commission October 26, 2022 Page 5 of 5 responsible through developer’s agreement or the required bond to make sure that floating doors aren’t part of the construction. Or the City could consider reforming some of the ordinances to require additional set-asides so the impervious surface of the development in its totality is considered. Ms. Robinson said staff can follow up with the City Attorney but still will have to look at these situations on a case by case basis going forward. Mr. Gutknecht added that staff is now scrutinizing not only new homes and new subdivisions but all homes for this issue when looking at building plans. Councilmember Odebrecht said builders and also the City made some mistakes. He would be comfortable handling such requests, assuming no other challenges, on the Consent Agenda if it makes staff jobs easier. Commissioner Steinwall pointed out variance requests require a public hearing. Ms. Robinson said staff will follow up and discuss the ideas proposed here tonight. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Robinson said she sent out a poll requesting availability for meeting dates in November and December. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Knippenberg, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to adjourn the meeting at 8:32 p.m. All in favor. John Dybvig, Chair ATTEST: ______________ Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Resolution PC2022-07, Variance Request to Construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit with a Reduced Rear Yard Setback at 919 5th Avenue South Resolution PC2022-08, Conditional Use Permit Request to Construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 919 5th Avenue South Resolution PC2022-09, Variance Request to Decrease the Exterior Sideyard Setback to Facilitate Construction of an Addition at 704 5th Street North DATE: November 16, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner & Yasmine Robinson, Planning Manager SUBJECT: 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 bee n allowed at the time of the original construction, CD 2022-79. BACKGROUND Since April of 2022, the Planning Commission (the “Commission”) has considered four variance applications for requests to expand an existing structure along a lawful nonconforming setback. Most recently, the Commission reviewed two applications for the expansion of an existing lawful nonconforming structure at a reduced front yard lot line (Case No. 2022-63 and Case No. 2022-70). The Commission approved these variances, due in part to the fact that the applicants were not proposing to make the nonconformity worse, but only expand on that which was are already lawfully in existence. Due to the variance applications and an increased volume of similar requests, Staff felt it pertinent to propose language in the Zoning Code that would clarify this specific condition for review by the Commission. The proposed amendment would allow lawful nonconforming structures to expand laterally at the existing lawful nonconforming standard, such as setback or impervious surface, but would not permit action that would increase the lawful nonconformity or make it more severe. 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 specif ic types of requests administratively and would narrow the circumstance of a variance related to this type of condition, making them less frequent. Additionally, the proposed ordinance amending City Code removes language that conflicts with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462.357. City Code contained a number of outdated provisions pertaining to lawful, nonconforming uses that simply were not authorized by State Statute. ANALYSIS/EXAMPLES In addition to the cases noted above, Staff reviewed two more cases from summer of 2022 that also fall into this category. The first is Case No. 2022-30, 1204 4th Ave South, which proposed an addition to an existing home at an exterior side yard (front yard) setback distance of 8 feet, where 20 feet was required. The Applicant was not proposing to further decrease the setback distance, but only to build an addition along the existing boundary. In this scenario the Commission determined that part of what made the request reasonable is that the nonconformity was increased, as the addition would follow the existing lawful nonconforming 8-foot setback. Had the proposed ordinance been in affect at this time a variance would not have been needed and, Staff would have confirmed the proposal was not increasing the nonconformity, the proposal was not creating any new nonconformity, and we would ensure the appropriate design guidelines were followed , but would have not needed a Variance. Another example is one that the Planning Commission has not reviewed, as it ultimately did not require a variance. A property owner proposed the construction an addition to their dwelling that would exceed the permitted impervious surface. In this case, the property was already at a lawful nonconforming impervious surface amount. In consultation with the City Attorney, Staff suggested the applicant remove areas of existing impervious surface to balance out the area that would be needed for the addition. The property owner was receptive to this idea and Staff will be working with them in the spring to ensure the impervious surface is removed. This scenario is an example where a variance was not needed, and one staff would like to replicate for other expansions of lawful nonconformities as well. FINDINGS Staff believes the proposed ordinance amendment would streamline a common and very specific variance request, allowing Staff more administrative authority to apply the ordinance. In the unique historical context of Stillwater neighborhoods, many lots have lawful nonconformities that necessitate more flexible and creative solutions to meet the City Code’s standards without need of a variance. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to recommend approval of an Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-216 regarding nonconforming uses and structures. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 31, SECTION 31-216 REGARDING LAWFUL NONCONFORMNG USES AND STRUCTURES The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: SECTION 1 AMENDMENT. Chapter 31, Article II, Division 4, Section 31-216 of the City Code, Nonconforming uses or structures, is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 31-216. Nonconforming uses or structures. Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupancy of land, buildings, structures or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this Chapter 31, may be continued (including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion) unless: (a) Discontinuance. The nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or (b) Destruction. Any nonconforming use destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its estimated market value, and no building permit has been applied for within one year 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, the city may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. (c) Following the expiration of the discontinuance or destruction in subsections (a) or (b), any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. (d) The enlargement of a structure is not considered an expansion of the nonconformity as long as it does not expand, increase, enlarge or make the extent of the nonconformity more severe. (c) Changes. Upon determination by the community development director or his or her designee, any lawful nonconforming use of a structure or parcel of land can be changed to a similar nonconforming use or to a more restrictive nonconforming use, provided: (1) The enlargement, expansion, relocation or intensification will be compatible with adjacent property and the neighborhood; and (2) The enlargement, expansion, relocation or intensification will not result in significant increases of adverse off-site impacts such as traffic, noise, dust, odors and parking congestion. However, once a structure or parcel of land has been placed in a more restrictive nonconforming use, it shall not return to a less restrictive nonconforming use unless granted a conditional use permit by the city council. (d) Displacement. No nonconforming use shall be extended to displace a conforming use. (e) Cessation; junk and wrecking yards. No junk or automobile wrecking yard that is not within an enclosed masonry building and not within a heavy industrial or unrestricted industrial district, shall be operated or maintained for more than six months after a zoning change to a use district within which such yard is not permitted. (f) Unlawful use not authorized. Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as authorization for or approval of the continuance of the use of a building, structure or premises in violation of zoning law. 2 (g) District changes. Whenever the boundaries of a district are changed to transfer an area from one district to another district of a different classification, the provisions of this chapter shall also apply to any use that becomes nonconforming thereby. (h) Certificate of nonconforming use. If requested in writing by the land owner, and if the request contains sufficient evidence to substantiate the legal non-conforming status of the property's use, the community development director shall issue a certificate of nonconforming use to all owners of legal non-conforming property, when the use does not conform to the provision of the use zone in which the property is located. In accordance with the provisions of this chapter, no use of land, buildings or structures shall be made other than as specified in the certificate of nonconforming use unless the use shall be in conformity with the provisions of the use zone in which the property is located. A copy of each certificate of nonconforming use shall be kept on file in the office of the community development department, and no permit or license shall be issued to any property for which such a certificate has been issued until the permit or license has been approved by the city council. (i) Flood Plain and Shoreland Substandard Structures in Lower St. Croix Nati onal Scenic Riverway. Notwithstanding this Section 31-216, as amended, substandard structures located in the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway and the continuation and improvement of those structures will continue to be regulated by Minnesota Rules parts 6105.0351 to 6105.0550 and the regulations of the City Flood Plain and Shoreland regulations adopted pursuant to those Rules, including Section 31-400, Subd. 11 (Non-conforming uses in the Floodplain overlay district) and Section 31-402, Subd. 8 and 9 (Substandard lots and structures in Shoreland Management overlay district). SECTION 2 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 allows for the expansion of a lawful nonconforming structure as long as it does not make the nonconformity more severe. It also amends the existing language to be consistent with state statute in regards to timelines and removes language pertaining to standards that are no longer applicable. SECTION 3 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 , 2022. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk DATE: September 28, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Case No. 2022-63 - Variance Request to expand an existing legal nonconforming structure within the required front yard setback area and facilitate the reconstruction and expansion of an existing garage at 603 Broadway St S. BACKGROUND The Applicant, Imprint Architecutre and Design (Jeremy Imhoff) and Property Owners, Todd and Anne Anderson are seeking a variance from the Planning Commission to expand an existing legal non-conforming structure in the RB – Two Family Zoning District. If approved, the proposed action would faciliatate the reconstruction and expansion of an existing legal non-confroming attached garage. The project area is located at 603 Broadway St S (PID # 2803020440092) and has frontage on Broadway St S and has two residential properties to the north and south, to the east is a steep slope and Main St S. The project site has a lot area of 25,097 square feet and contains a single-family house built in 1870. ANALYSIS 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. Currently, the existing attached garage is approximately 560 square feet and set back 27-feet from the right of way and 8.1-feet from the side yard property line. It is located slightly (2 feet) in front of the primary dwelling, but several feet behind the front porch. The proposed action seeks to allow the replacement of an existing 560 square foot attached garage with an expanded 783 square foot attached garage . The proposed expansion of the attached garage will maintain the nonconforming 27-foot front yard setback and decrease the side yard setback to 5-feet. PREVI OS U APPLI CATI O NS;FOR REFE RE N CE O NLY Because the proposed reconstruction of the garage will increase the area of a legal non-conforming structure, a variance is required to propose an increase to the existing attached garage. Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462.357 requires that cities consider the following standards when considering a Variance. This is also known as the ‘practical difficulty’ test. • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. • The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. FINDINGS: Variance to the Required Rear Yard Setback: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. a) The proposed reconstruction and expansion of an attached, two-car garage in the RB Two-Family district is a reasonable use and is consistent with development within the district and surrounding neighborhood. b) Zoning Code Section 31 -308(a)(3) further regulates accessory structures in the RB Two-Family district, describing that, “The maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings including attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings shall be 1,000 square feet or ten percent of the lot area, whichever is less.” The proposed 783 square foot garage would be the only accessory structure on site and not exceed this standard. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. a) The existing owner did not construct the dwelling which was built in 1870, nor did the construct the existing attached legal nonconforming garage at the deficient setback of 27-feet. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. a) Granting the variance to approve the expansion and reconstruction of the proposed garage will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. While the garage will not be situated behind or behind the house, the overall design is not garage-dominate and the design better integrates the new roof to blend with the overall design. The character of the neighborhood consists of multiple century homes, many of which have garage additions that are situated along side, or just behind the leading edge of the home. According to the Applicant, the design of the proposed garage would be similar in material and color to the existing house and designed to complement the front porch. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. PREVI OS U APPLI CATI O NS;FOR REFE RE N CE O NLY a) The request to increase an attached garage within the front yard setback area in the RB Two-Family Zoning district is not based on economic considerations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Commission approve the requested increase of a legal nonconforming structure the reconstruction and expansion of an attached, two-car garage with the following conditions: 1. The plans must be substantially similar to those found on file with CD Case No. 2022-63 and as approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission on 9/21/2022. 2. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the design at their S eptember 21, 2022 Meeting. The HPC specifically discussed the need to reduce the width and/or depth of the garage to better comply with the underlying dimensional requirements of City Code, but elected to support the design as presented due to the internal floor plan and depth challenges to accommodate a vehicle in the stall closest to the home. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the Resolution approving the Variance to Section 31-308(b) to allow for the expansion of a legal nonconforming structure in the front yard setback, at 27 -feet from the front property line, based on the above findings and conditions within this report. PREVI OS U APPLI CATI O NS;FOR REFE RE N CE O NLY PREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY PREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY DATE: October 26, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Case No. 2022-70: Variance request to reduce exterior side yard setback to facilitate construction of an addition located at 704 5th Street North BACKGROUND The Applicants, David and Kristen Deleon, are seeking a Variance from the Planning Commission to permit a reduced exterior side yard setback for the construction of a single-story addition. If approved the proposed Variance would facilitate the construction of an approximate 420 square foot addition at approximately 18.2 feet from the exterior (right-of-way) side lot line. The project area is located at 704 5th St N. (PID# 2803020210127) within the RB (two- family) zoning district and the Neighborhood Conservation overlay district. The Property is a corner lot and has frontage to the east on 5th St N, frontage to the south on Maple St W, a residential neighbor to the north and the west. The project site has a lot area of 10,468 square feet and contains a two-story, approximately 990 square foot single- family dwelling built in 1892 and a single-story, 644 square foot garage. ANALYSIS When a property is located on a corner of two public streets it is affected by two “front yard setback” requirements. In the RB district, this means that a single -family dwelling must be setback twenty feet from the right-of-way line. Currently, the existing single- family dwelling is setback 18.2 feet, making it legal nonconforming and deficient by approximately 1.8 feet. The proposed action seeks to allow the construction of an approximate ly 420 square foot addition along the existing dwelling facing 5th St N. The proposed addition would extend the existing nonconforming 18.2-foot front yard setback fourteen feet to the north. Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462.357 requires that cities consider the following standards when considering a Variance. This is also known as the ‘practical difficulty’ test. PREVI OS U APPLI CATI O NS;FOR REFE RE N CE O NLY • 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 construction of an addition to a single-family dwelling in the RB district is a reasonable use and is permitted within the district and consistent with development in the district. ii. The Applicants propose to construct the addition at the existing setback in order to provide design consistency while maximizing space. Staff also finds this to be reasonable. 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 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. Additionally, Staff collectively concurs that the applicant could place the addition in a location that does comply and would not require a variance, but may not result in the best possible design. C. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. i. Granting the variance to approve the construction of the addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Examples of similar nonconforming front yard setbacks can be highlighted across the street and throughout the neighborhood. 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 setback than existing structure. i. The proposed addition will not encroach any further into the legal nonconforming setback. FINDINGS PREVI OS U APPLI CATI O NS;FOR REFE RE N CE O NLY While the requested variance appears reasonable, not based on economic considerations, and if designed compliantly with the required design guidelines would likely improve the property and continue to complement the neighborhood, these alone are not grounds to approve a variance. Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide policy direction to assist in the determination. While the existing conditions are not created by the current property owners, options are available to build the addition without a variance to City Code. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the request in conformance to the City Code requirements for the issuance of a variance, it could approve the variance with (at least) the following conditions 1. The proposed variance meets the practical difficulty test, as found in staff report dated 10/26/2022. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with Case CD2022 - 70, except as modified by the conditions herein. 3. The applicant shall present the proposed design to the Heritage Preservation for review and approval. 4. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 5. The applicant shall work with the Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization to determine necessary permitting requirements. B. Table. If the Planning Commission finds the request to have insufficient information, the case could be tabled. C. Denial. If the Planning Commission finds the request to be inconsistent with City code, it could be denied. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide policy direction regarding the decision for the above Variance request. PREVI OS U APPLI CATI O NS;FOR REFE RE N CE O NLY µ 0 30 6015Feet General Site Location Site Location 704 5th St N ^PREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY PREVI OS U APPLI CATI O NS;FOR REFE RE N CE O NLY PREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY PREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY DATE: May 20, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Variance Request in RB: Two-Family District; Variance to Side Yard (Exterior) Setback for Addition/Remodel at 1204 4th Ave S BACKGROUND The Owners of 1204 4th Ave S are requesting a Variance to the Front Yard (Exterior) Setback in order to construct an addition. The project would also include the demolition of an existing deck and detached garage. The underlying zoning district is the RB: Two-Family Residential District. The site is also located in the Neighborhood Conservation District. The required front yard setback for this improvement is 20 feet. The Owner is proposing an 8 foot, 10 ¾ inch setback. ANALYSIS 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. The proposed addition to the existing home appears to be a reasonable use and is consistent with the requirements of the Stillwater Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation District. The circumstances are unique to the property in that this generally historic neighborhood pre-dates current zoning regulations pertaining to front yard setbacks. The detached accessory building/garage already includes this same condition; the approved remodel simply carries that same setback (albeit in a different location) and replaces it with a higher-quality structure. The Owner is also matching the existing setback of the primary dwelling. The Variance will not alter the PREVI OS U APPLI CATI O NS;FOR REFE RE N CE O NLY essential character of the neighborhood; in fact, the proposed improvement will arguably improve the character of the neighborhood through accepted neighborhood design elements. Finally, the difficulties are not economic considerations alone. The Owner has gone through great lengths to design a porch that meet applicable design guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Commission approve the request. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Variance to Side Yard (Exterior) Setback for a Front Porch at 1204 4th Ave S. PREVI OS U APPLI CATI O NS;FOR REFE RE N CE O NLY SOUTHFOURTHAVENUEAVENUEFIFTHAVENUESOUTHBURLINGTON STREET µ 0 140 28070Feet General Site Location 1204 4th Ave S ^PREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY PROJECT TEAMOWNER:NICOLE & MICHAEL WILLENBRING1204 4TH AVE. SSTILLWATER, MN 55082651.202.7246WILLENBRINGS@GMAIL.COMARCHITECT: PASQUE ARCHITECTURE, LLCKATIE KANGAS, AIA5592 SCHUTTA ROADSHOREVIEW, MN 55126605.415.0697KATIE@PASQUE.STUDIOSOUTH HILL ADDITIONVARIANCE APPLICATION -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPROJECT NAME: SOUTH HILL ADDITIONADDRESS: 1204 4TH AVE. S. , STILLWATER, MN 55082PROJECT DESCRIPTION:REQUESTING VARIANCE TO ALIGN EXTERIOR OF PROPOSED TWO-STORY ADDITION WITH EXISTING MUDROOM (WHICH RECEIVED A VARIANCE IN 2015). PROPOSED WORK INCLUDES: DEMO OF DETACHED GARAGE AND 2 TREES. PROPOSED TWO-STORY ADDITION INCLUDES ATTACHED GARAGE TO THE WEST SIDE (REAR) OF THE EXISTING HOME. PROPOSING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY TO REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT. DRIVEWAY TO CONNECT WITH EXISTING CURB CUTS FROM BURLINGTON STREET EAST. CURRENT RESIDENCE HAS 3 BEDROOMS AND 2 BATHS. AFTER THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS INSTALLED, THE RESIDENCE WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 4 BEDROOMS AND 2.5 BATHS.LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:HERSEY STAPLES AND CO'S ADD TO STILLWATERLot 1 & 2, Block 8, SubdivisionCd 09850ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION:1880PREVIOUS ADDITIONS / VARIANCE:2015PARCEL NUMBER:34.030.20.23.0030IMPERVIOUS AREA:RESIDENCE PAVING/GARAGE TOTALEXISTING:1,161 SF 2,006 SF3,167 SFTOTAL PROPOSED: 1,761 SF 2,240 SF4,001 SFTOTAL LOT: 13,410 SF29.8% IMPERVIOUS(30% MAX)ELEVATION OF RESIDENCE:TOTAL EXISTING ELEVATION: 2,170 SF (350 SF TO BE DEMO'D)16% DEMO OF ELEVATIONSTOTAL PROPOSED ELEVATION: 3,151 SFPasque Architecture LLC©DATE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION4/22/2022 12:40:58 PM C:\Users\ktkng\Documents\Active Projects_KK\22005_South Hill Addition_KK\Revit\22005_South Hill Addition_A21.rvtPROJECTINFORMATION-11204 4TH AVE. S., STILLWATER, MN 55082VARIANCE APPLICATIONSOUTH HILL ADDITIONN. & M. WillenbringKATIE KANGAS, AIAARCHITECT4/22/20221NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE OF PROPOSED ADDITIONPROPOSED ADDITIONEXISTING RESIDENCENTS2LOCATION MAPNORTHPROJECT LOCATION(1204 4TH AVE. S.)PREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY DEMO EXIST. GARAGE AND ASPHALT DRIVEWAY(790 SF IMPERVIOUS)DEMO 2 TREESDEMO EXIST. DECKAND SIDEWALK(400 SF IMPERVIOUS)DEMO SIDEWALK8' - 4 3/4"1' - 1 1/4"Pasque Architecture LLC©DATE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION4/22/2022 12:41:06 PM C:\Users\ktkng\Documents\Active Projects_KK\22005_South Hill Addition_KK\Revit\22005_South Hill Addition_A21.rvtDEMO SITEPLAN-21204 4TH AVE. S., STILLWATER, MN 55082VARIANCE APPLICATIONSOUTH HILL ADDITIONN. & M. WillenbringKATIE KANGAS, AIAARCHITECT 4/22/20221" = 20'-0"1DEMOLITION SITE PLAN0' 5'10' 20' 40'NORTHNTS2SURVEY INFONTS3DEMO EXIST. GARAGEPREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY 1,520 SF PROPOSED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY228 SF WOOD DECK140 SF SIDEWALK676 SF (FOOTPRINT)PROPOSED ADDITION1,161 SF (FOOTPRINT)EXISTING RESIDENCE20 SF EXIST. SIDEWALK82 SF EXIST. WOOD PORCH252 SF EXIST. PATIOPROPOSED BASKETBALL HOOPTOTAL LOT: 13,410 SFEXIST. SETBACK8' - 8 1/2"EXIST. SETBACK(2015 VARIANCE)8' - 10 3/4"PROPOSED SETBACK8' - 10 3/4"EXIST. SETBACK11' - 2 1/2"PROPOSED REAR SETBACK42' - 0"PROPOSED SIDEYARD SETBACK66' - 3"132' - 6"101' - 2 1/2"1' - 2" 24' - 0" 16' - 10"14' - 6" 22' - 0" 10' - 11 1/2"PROPERTY LINESITE PLAN LEGENDEXISTING RESIDENCE (1,161 SF)PROPOSED ADDITION (676 SF)EXISTING PAVING TO REMAIN (272 SF)PROPOSED PAVING (1,660 SF)EXISTING DECK / PORCH (310 SF)Pasque Architecture LLC©DATE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION4/22/2022 12:41:10 PM C:\Users\ktkng\Documents\Active Projects_KK\22005_South Hill Addition_KK\Revit\22005_South Hill Addition_A21.rvtARCHITECTURALSITE PLAN-31204 4TH AVE. S., STILLWATER, MN 55082VARIANCE APPLICATIONSOUTH HILL ADDITIONN. & M. WillenbringKATIE KANGAS, AIAARCHITECT 4/22/20221" = 20'-0"1ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN0' 5' 10' 20' 40'NORTHPREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY DN26' - 0"PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE26' - 0"25' - 4 3/4"24' - 9 1/2"12' - 0"19' - 9"2/-64/-61/-63/-6REPLACE EXIST. DECK IN SIZE & KIND (WOOD)REPLACE EXIST. PORCH IN SIZE & KIND(WOOD)EXIST. 1ST FLOORPROPOSED ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGEEXISTING RESIDENCE46' - 3 1/2"3 1/4"PROPOSEDSIDEWALKPROPOSEDDRIVEWAYEXIST. SIDEWALK7' - 0"10' - 0"4' - 6"22' - 0"13' - 10 1/2"13' - 4"7' - 4 1/2"6' - 0 1/4"5' - 0"7' - 0"EXISTING RESIDENCE18' - 1 3/4"10' - 6 3/4"9' - 6"9' - 0"11' - 7 1/2"2' - 6"9' - 0"15' - 5"6' - 0"EXISTING RESIDENCE28' - 1 3/4"3' - 6 1/4" 23' - 0"3' - 6"5' - 6"5' - 8"7' - 5"11' - 0"10' - 5"26' - 0"PROPOSED ADDITION26' - 0"2/-64/-61/-63/-6REMOVE ONE EXIST. WINDOW (CONFLICTS WITH EXIST. ROOF)EXIST. LINKEXIST. 2ND FLOORPROPOSED2ND FLOORPROPOSED DECKPasque Architecture LLC©DATE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION4/22/2022 12:41:12 PM C:\Users\ktkng\Documents\Active Projects_KK\22005_South Hill Addition_KK\Revit\22005_South Hill Addition_A21.rvtFLOOR PLANS-41204 4TH AVE. S., STILLWATER, MN 55082VARIANCE APPLICATIONSOUTH HILL ADDITIONN. & M. WillenbringKATIE KANGAS, AIAARCHITECT 4/22/20221/8" = 1'-0"1MAIN LEVEL1/8" = 1'-0"2UPPER LEVEL0'2'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0"16'-0"PREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY Pasque Architecture LLC©DATE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION4/22/2022 12:41:24 PM C:\Users\ktkng\Documents\Active Projects_KK\22005_South Hill Addition_KK\Revit\22005_South Hill Addition_A21.rvtEXISTINGELEVATIONS-51204 4TH AVE. S., STILLWATER, MN 55082VARIANCE APPLICATIONSOUTH HILL ADDITIONN. & M. WillenbringKATIE KANGAS, AIAARCHITECT 4/22/2022NTS1ELEVATION - EASTNTS2ELEVATION - NORTHNTS3ELEVATION - WESTNTS4ELEVATION - SOUTHPREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY REPLACE FRONT PORCH IN SIZE & KINDEXISTING RESIDENCE45' - 9 1/4"TWO STORY ATTACHED GARAGE ADDITION26' - 7 1/2"MATCH EXISTING RESIDENCE MATERIALS: WOOD LAP SIDING, TRIM, AND ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF NEW WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING DOUBLE HUNG IN STYLE & PROPORTIONMATCH EXIST. BRACKETS & ITALIANATE TRIM DETAILSPROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE ADDITION26' - 0"PROPOSED DECK WITH ITALIANATE DETAILINGREPLACE / ADD WINDOWSMATCH STYLE OF SOUTH ELEVATION WINDOWS(COLONIAL DOUBLE HUNG AND CASEMENTS)EXISTING RESIDENCE45' - 8 1/2"PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE ADDITION26' - 7 3/4"Pasque Architecture LLC©DATE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION4/22/2022 12:41:29 PM C:\Users\ktkng\Documents\Active Projects_KK\22005_South Hill Addition_KK\Revit\22005_South Hill Addition_A21.rvtELEVATIONS-61204 4TH AVE. S., STILLWATER, MN 55082VARIANCE APPLICATIONSOUTH HILL ADDITIONN. & M. WillenbringKATIE KANGAS, AIAARCHITECT 4/22/20221/8" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATION (4TH AVE S. - FRONT)1/8" = 1'-0"2NORTH ELEVATION (BURLINGTON ST. E - SIDE)1/8" = 1'-0"3WEST ELEVATION (REAR YARD)1/8" = 1'-0"4SOUTH ELEVATION (SIDE YARD)0' 2'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0" 16'-0"PREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY Pasque Architecture LLC©DATE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION4/22/2022 12:41:45 PM C:\Users\ktkng\Documents\Active Projects_KK\22005_South Hill Addition_KK\Revit\22005_South Hill Addition_A21.rvt3D VIEWS-71204 4TH AVE. S., STILLWATER, MN 55082VARIANCE APPLICATIONSOUTH HILL ADDITIONN. & M. WillenbringKATIE KANGAS, AIAARCHITECT 4/22/20221NORTHEAST CORNER2SOUTH ELEVATIONEXIST. RESIDENCEEXIST. MUDROOM SETBACKPROPOSED ADDITION TO ALIGN WITH EXIST. MUDROOM SETBACKEXIST. RESIDENCEPROPOSED ADDITIONPREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY A3.0105A3.0106A3.010111223344AABBCCDD5566EE7710'-0"9'-6"7'-6"9'-0"18'-0"5'-0"21'-0"8'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"65'-9 5/8" 21'-0"8'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"79'-2 1/4" EXIST. BACK PORCH EXIST. FRONT PORCH EXISTING WINDOW WELL APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEA3.010403BUILDING FOOTPRINT 2,334 SF EXISTING POOL EXISTING PATIO EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING DRIVEWAY25'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK - APPROXIMATE10'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK (HOUSE) - APPROXIMATE 10'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK (HOUSE) - APPROXIMATE 5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK (GARAGE) - APPROXIMATE 20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK (HOUSE) - APPROXIMATELINE OF EAVES ABOVE ROCK ROCK PLANTING BED5'-0"5'-0"ROCK PLANTING BED ROCK PLANTING BED LINE OF EAVES ABOVE APPROXIMATE IMPERVIOUS AREA EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT 2,334 SF EXISTING HARDSCAPE & DECKS 1,709 SF EXISTING POOL & PATIO + 2,055 SF TOTAL EXISTING 6,098 SF LOT COVERAGE COVERAGE CALCULTIONS TOTAL COVERAGE 6,098 SF LOT AREA 14,202 SF EXISTING COVERAGE PERCENTAGE = 42.9% ALLOWABLE = 25% EXISTING FENCE AT PROPERTY LINE, TYP EXISTING FENCE AT PROPERTY LINE, TYP EXISTING GATE EXISTING GATE BIRCH BIRCH BIRCH BIRCH BIRCH BIRCH BIRCH PINE PINE PINE SHEET NUMBER TITLE PROJECT ISSUE CHART 514 St. Croix Ave. W Stillwater, MN 55082 www.imprintarchitecture.com Imprint Architecture and Design, LLC Copyright © 2022 Imprint Architecture & Design, LLC All rights reserved. Copying, reproduction, or distribution prohibited without written consent and permission from Imprint Architecture and Design, LLC.22 SEPTEMBER 2022 - VARIANCE APPLICATION - NOT ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTIONAutodesk Docs://Young Renovation/YoungReno_R22.rvt22 AUGUST 2022 YOUNG RESIDENCE 3435 HERITAGE CT. STILLWATER, MN 55082 VARIANCE APPLICATION SITE PLAN EXISTING A0.03N02'12'16'4' 8'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1SITE PLAN - EXISTINGMARK ISSUE DATE VARIANCE APPLICATION 22 AUG 2022PREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY 11223344AABBCCDD5566EE77A3.1105A3.1106A3.1101A5.01710'-0"9'-6"7'-6"9'-0"18'-0"5'-0"21'-0"8'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"65'-9 5/8" 21'-0"8'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"79'-2 1/4" EXIST. BACK PORCH EXIST. FRONT PORCH EXISTING WINDOW WELL APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEBUILDING FOOTPRINT 2,334 SF EXISTING POOL EXISTING PATIO EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING DRIVEWAY APPROXIMATE IMPERVIOUS AREA EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT 2,334 SF EXISTING HARDSCAPE & DECKS 1,709 SF EXISTING POOL & PATIO 2,055 SF PROPOSED NET IMPERVIOUS AREA CHANGE + 0 SF TOTAL PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE 6,098 SF COVERAGE CALCULTIONS TOTAL COVERAGE 6,098 SF LOT AREA 14,202 SF PROPOSED COVERAGE PERCENTAGE = 42.9% EXISTING COVERAGE PERCENTAGE = 42.9% 25'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK - APPROXIMATE10'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK (HOUSE) - APPROXIMATE 10'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK (HOUSE) - APPROXIMATE 5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK (GARAGE) - APPROXIMATE 20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK (HOUSE) - APPROXIMATELINE OF EAVES ABOVE ROCK ROCK PLANTING BED5'-0"5'-0"ROCK PLANTING BED ROCK PLANTING BED LINE OF EAVES ABOVE NEW PERVIOUS PLANTING BEDNEW THREE SEASON PORCH & OUTDOOR KITCHEN 496 SFNEW PERVIOUS PLANTING BEDNEW PERVIOUS PLANTING BEDKEY EXISTING PAVING TO BE REMOVED, NEW PLANTING BED AND PERVIOUS PAVING SYSTEM = 195 SF NEW THREE SEASON PORCH OVER EXISTING PLANTING BED = 195 SF NEW THREE SEASON PORCH OVER EXISTING IMPERVIOUS PATIO = 302 SF NEW PERVIOUS PAVING SYSTEM BIRCH BIRCH BIRCH BIRCH BIRCH BIRCH BIRCH PINE PINE PINE SHEET NUMBER TITLE PROJECT ISSUE CHART 514 St. Croix Ave. W Stillwater, MN 55082 www.imprintarchitecture.com Imprint Architecture and Design, LLC Copyright © 2022 Imprint Architecture & Design, LLC All rights reserved. Copying, reproduction, or distribution prohibited without written consent and permission from Imprint Architecture and Design, LLC.22 SEPTEMBER 2022 - VARIANCE APPLICATION - NOT ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTIONAutodesk Docs://Young Renovation/YoungReno_R22.rvt22 AUGUST 2022 YOUNG RESIDENCE 3435 HERITAGE CT. STILLWATER, MN 55082 VARIANCE APPLICATION SITE PLAN PROPOSED A0.13N02'12'16'4' 8'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1SITE PLAN - PROPOSEDMARK ISSUE DATE VARIANCE APPLICATION 22 AUG 2022PREVIOSU APPLICATIONS;FOR REFERENCE ONLY DATE: November 16, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Yasmine Robinson, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Discussion of Updated Accessory Structure Ordinance BACKGROUND Over the past year, the Planning Commission (the “Commission”) has discussed and reviewed changes to the Accessory Structure Regulations. Most recently, at the September 2022 Commission meeting, Director Gladhill presented a version of the ordinance that addressed multiple policies and remedied conflicting language. The Commission provided feedback on the proposed changes, related to accessory structure and building definitions as well as size limitations of accessory structures. 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. Format The current format of the zoning code forces the reader to look for regulations related to accessory uses in multiple places. The reader must look at the zoning district, and then to the performance standards. The information located in these places may be different due to past updates to one section, but not to another, or may simply contain typos. To remedy this, Staff has moved accessory use-related code from the zoning districts, to the performance standards so that the zoning district tells the reader if certain accessory uses are allowed, and the performance standards describes how the use may be designed and situated. Staff believes this proposed format change makes the zoning code more user - friendly for all and decreases the chance of inconsistencies due to text changes in th e future. Staff has also moved the Accessory Structures performance standards section to come before the Accessory Dwelling Unit performance standards in order to provide the reader a baseline of information about district-specific regulations regarding accessory uses in general. Staff believes that providing this information going from general to specific, is more organized and provides a higher-quality document. Commission Directives from September 2022 During Commission discussion in September, a few directives were given to Staff regarding the definition of accessory structures, temporary accessory uses, and the height and square footage of accessory structures in relation to a primary structure. Staff has updated and/or clarified the following: 1. Language used in definitions related to accessory uses are now consistent with each other in their use of the words “building” and “structure”. 2. Accessory uses are subordinate to primary structures. 3. Shipping containers and carports are not considered accessory, but only temporary. 4. A garage is an accessory use no matter if it is detached or attached to a primary structure. 5. An accessory structure cannot exceed the square footage or height of a primary structure. Next Steps After discussion with the Commission, Staff will further refine the document at the Commission’s direction, renumber where needed, double check cross-references, conduct legal review and bring the document back to the Commission for possible referral to the City Council. ACTION REQUESTED No action is requested, review is intended for discussion purposes only. Created: 2022-07-11 12:01:04 [EST] (Supp. No. 88) Page 1 of 1 Sec. 31-101. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter of the Code the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meanings given in this Section 31-101. When consistent with the context, words in the plural include the singular and words in the singular include the plural. 3. Accessory use, or buildings, or structure means a subordinate use, building or structure customarily incidental to and located on the same lot with the main use or building. Throughout the zoning ordinance, the terms "use," "building" or "structure" are synonymous and the term "building" includes within its meaning "use" and "structure" when applying the development regulations in each district. Fabric carportsCarports and shipping containers are not considered Accessory buildings or structures, and are temporary in nature. 4. Accessory use, building, or structure when found in Section 31-400 (Floodplain overlay district) means a use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. Created: 2022-07-11 12:01:06 [EST] (Supp. No. 88) Page 1 of 6 Sec. 31-5013. Accessory structures. General Provisions. a. The following provisions apply to accessory structures located in all residential zoning districts unless otherwise noted below: 1. Accessory structures may not exceed 20 feet and not exceed the height of the main residence. 2. Detached accessory structures square footage may not exceed the principal dwelling’s foot print. Subd. 1. In AP districts.. (1) No detached accessory structures may be located within the required front yard. (2) All detached accessory structures located within a side yard must be set back a minimum of ten feet from the side lot line in the case of an interior lot or 25 feet in the case of a corner lot. (3) All detached accessory structures located in the rear yard must be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the rear lot line. (4) Height of agricultural structures may not exceed a maximum of 50 feet. Subd. 2. in LR districts. (1) Maximum allowable accessory structure square footage may not exceed 2,000 square feet or 10% of net developable area (as defined by this chapter, i.e. wetlands, lakes, rivers, ponds, steep slopes, etc.) of lot, whichever is less (2) All accessory structures must meet the requirements for the bluff and shoreline set forth in Section 31-402 (Shoreland Management overlay district). (3) No accessory structures or uses that result in the cutting of trees or clearing of vegetation are permitted. (4) Front facing garages must be setback at least six feet more than the front wall or porch line of the house. House and garage setbacks are strongly encouraged to meet special design guidelines for variety of garage types and locations (front loaded, side loaded and recessed) and front and exterior side house elevations. Subd.3. in CTR districts. (1) Detached accessory structures may not have window openings facing the rear property line. (2) Detached accessory structures located on corner lots must have the garage doors turned away from the side street. (3) If there are two garages on site, at least one garage must not face the street or streets if a corner lot. (4) Detached accessory uses may include one or more of the following: i. Accessory dwelling unit; ii. Accessory dwelling and one enclosed structure parking space; Commented [BG1]: Staff is open to suggestions regarding creating a “General Provisions” section to capture standards that the City would like to administer for residential accessory structures throughout the city. Created: 2022-07-11 12:01:06 [EST] (Supp. No. 88) Page 2 of 6 iii. Home office; iv. Storage. v. Recreation room (5) Garages must be set back at least six feet behind the front wall of the house or porch. Except that on 40 percent of the lots, garages may be placed in front of the six-foot setback. For the 40 percent garage in front of the six-foot setback, front facing garages can be no more than two feet in front of the front wall of the house or porch; and for side loaded garages, they may be in front of the home but must meet special design consideration of four side architecture. (6) Detached accessory structure must not result in the loss of significant trees or require major site alteration; (7) Only one detached accessory structure may be located on a residential lot. (9) Maximum size of a detached accessory structure is: i. 500 square feet, one story use of loft area is allowed; or ii. 720 square feet (when grade level used as only garage, i.e., no garage attached to primary structure), 20 feet maximum building height. (10) A detached accessory structure must abide by the following setbacks: Side yard 5 feet Rear yard 10 feet (11) Detached accessory structures may not have window openings facing the rear property line. (12) Detached accessory structures located on corner lots must have the garage doors turned away from the side street. (13) If there are two garages on site, at least one garage must not face the street or streets if a corner lot. Subd.4. in RA districts. (1) The maximum lot coverage of all accessory structures including attached and detached private garages and other accessory structures shall be 1,000 square feet or ten percent of the lot area, whichever is less. (2). The total ground coverage of the accessory structures shall not exceed the ground coverage of the principal building. (3) No more than two accessory structures (one private garage and one other accessory structure 120 square feet maximum) shall be located on a residential premises. (4) An accessory structure shall not be designed or used for human habitation, business or industrial accessory use. (5). Side yard setback. When there is an attached garage on one side of the dwelling, the garage setback is five feet, provided that no habitable floor area is closer than ten feet from the property line and provided that the garage is a minimum of 15 feet from the nearest structure on the adjacent lot. Created: 2022-07-11 12:01:06 [EST] (Supp. No. 88) Page 3 of 6 (6) Side and rear yard setback. An accessory structure located entirely in the side yard at least six feet from the main building shall have a minimum side and rear yard setback of five feet. Subd. 51. In TR districts. (a) Accessory structures are subject to the following regulations: (1) Maximum allowable accessory structure square footage may not exceed 1,000 square feet or 10% of net developable area (as defined by this chapter, i.e. wetlands, lakes, rivers, ponds, steep slopes, etc.) of lot, whichever is less (2) One detached accessory structure may be located on a residential lot. (2) Uses may include one or more of the following: i. Accessory dwelling unit, 500 square feet maximum; ii. Accessory dwelling and one enclosed structure parking space (720 square feet maximum); iii. Home office; and/or iv. Storage. (3) Maximum size of a detached accessory structure is: i. 500 square feet, one story use of loft area is allowed; or ii. 720 square feet (when grade level used as only garage, i.e., no garage attached to primary structure), 20 feet maximum building height. (4) A detached accessory structure must abide by the following setbacks: Side yard, 5 feet Rear yard, 10 feet (5) The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. (6) Detached accessory structures shall not have window openings facing the rear property line. (7) Detached accessory structures located on corner lots shall have the garage doors turned away from the side street. (8) If there are two garages on site, a minimum of one garage shall not face the street or streets if a corner lot. Subd.6. in CCR districts. (a) Attached garages. Attached garages shall be regulated as follows: (1) On 70% of the lots, garages must be set back a minimum of 6 feet behind the front wall or the front porch of the residence. (2) On 30% of the lots, garages may extend beyond the front line of the dwelling. These garages may be side loaded. (3) Third car garages may be side entry or separated from the main garage, at an angle to the main garage, or otherwise screened by a portion of the house, porch, or facade. (4) Corner lots may have side loaded garages. Created: 2022-07-11 12:01:06 [EST] (Supp. No. 88) Page 4 of 6 (5) Garages may be no larger than three stalls. Subd. 72. In RB districts. (a) Accessory buildings are subject to the following performance standards: (1) The maximum lot coverage of all accessory structures buildings including attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings shall be 1,000 square feet or ten percent of the lot area, whichever is less. (2) The total ground coverage of the accessory structures buildings shall not exceed the ground coverage of the principal building. (3) No more than two accessory structuresbuildings, one private garage and one other accessory building, 120 square feet maximum, shall be located on a residential premises. (4) Must comply with applicable design requirements (54) The upper level of a detached accessory building may include an accessory dwelling (in accordance with Sec. 31-501 of this chapter), storage, home office or recreation room. The lower level of Anan accessory building shall not be designed or used for human habitation, business or industrial accessory use.An accessory building shall not be designed or used for human habitation, business or industrial accessory use. Subd.8. in CR districts. (a) Accessory uses. No more than two accessory structures (one private garage and one accessory structure 90 square feet maximum) may be located on a residential premises. The garage may be no more than two stalls wide. (b) For single-family residences: a minimum of 25 percent of lots must have garages completely recessed (more than six feet from front of a building or porch), a minimum of 25 percent of lots must have the garages set back two feet or more and a maximum of 50 percent of garages may project a maximum of six feet out from the front wall of the residence. Of that 50 percent, 25 percent must have habitable space above the garage and 25 percent must have front porches extending in front of the residence. House and garage setbacks are strongly encouraged to meet special design guidelines for variety of garage types and locations (front loaded, side loaded and recessed) and front and exterior side house elevations. For two-family residences: 1) all garages must be set back 6 feet from the front of the residence; 2) only two stall garages at a maximum are allowed; and 3) and each garage must be accessed from driveways on different streets. Subd.8. in CTHR districts. (a) Townhouse garages must front on private alleys. Only end units may front on public streets. Elevation views should include patios and porches. Sec. 31-502. Accessory dwellings. Subd. 1. In TR districts. (a) Accessory dwellings are permitted in the TR districts subject to the following regulations: Created: 2022-07-11 12:01:06 [EST] (Supp. No. 88) Page 5 of 6 (1) Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet; (3) May be located within or attached to the primary structure, or within an accessory structure (detached from the primary structure); (4) Off-street parking requirements for an accessory unit and single family residence must be provided; Four off-street parking spaces, three shall be enclosed; All four spaces must be provided within the setback boundaries of the property; (5) A detached accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence; (6) Detached accessory dwelling units shall not have roof dormers that face the nearest residential lot side yard property line; (7) Detached accessory structure will not result in the loss of significant trees or require major site alteration. Subd. 2. In CTR districts: (a) An accessory dwelling unit is a specially permitted use in the CTR districts subject to the following regulations: (1) Lot size on which an accessory dwelling is located must be at least 14,000 square feet; (2) Accessory dwellings may be located within or attached to the primary structure, or within an accessory structure (detached from the primary structure); (3) Off-street parking requirements for an accessory unit and a single-family residence must be provided: Four off-street parking spaces, three must be enclosed. All four spaces must be provided within the setback boundaries of the property; (4) A detached accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence; (5) Detached accessory dwelling units may not have roof dormers that face the nearest residential lot side yard property line; Subd. 3. In RB districts. (a) An accessory dwelling unit is a specially permitted use in the RB district subject to the following regulations: (1) Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet; (2) The accessory dwelling unit may be located on second floor above the garage; (3) The accessory dwelling unit must abide by accessory structure setbacks outlined in this code. the primary structure setbacks for side and rear setbacks; (4) The accessory dwelling unit must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the midpoint of the primary residence; (5) Off-street parking requirements for an apartment and single-family residence (four spaces) must be provided; (6) Maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet; (7) The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials; Created: 2022-07-11 12:01:06 [EST] (Supp. No. 88) Page 6 of 6 (8) The height may not exceed twenty feet, and that of the primary residence; and (9) Both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services and be located on an improved public street. (10) Maximum size of garage may not exceed is 1,000800 square feet and is consider part of the total allowable accessory structure square footage.. Sec. 31-503. Duplex accessory dwelling units. Subd. 1. In TR districts. (a) Duplex accessory dwelling units are permitted special uses in the TR district subject to the following requirements: (1) Minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet. (2) Garages must be separated if street facing or on separate street fronts for corner lots. (3) The design of the duplex must appear as a single family house. (4) The number of duplexes is limited by the PUD for the subject property. (5) Duplexes must be located at least 200 feet apart. (6) Design review is required for consistency with traditional neighborhood design guidelines. (7) Duplexes must meet the development standards for single family structures. (8) Home offices are permitted accessory uses if located above a garage that is located in the rear yard.