The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-06-09 PC Packet r illwater "~ ~ THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA ~ CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2008 The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, June 9, 2008, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. City of Stillwater Planning Commission regular meetings are held at 7 p.m on the second Monday of each month. All City Planning Commission meetings are open to the public. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF May 12,2008 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS. Public Hearings are held during the Planning Commission's regular meetings. The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask City Staff to provide background on the proposed item. After the staff presentation, the Chairperson will then ask for comments from th~ applicant on the proposed item. The Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone present who wishes to speak for or against the proposed item. The Chairperson may require a time limit on the number of minutes each member of the public may speak, normally five minutes. Members of the public who wish to speak will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 3.01 Case No. 08-18. A variance request on a non-conforming lot, for side yard setback and impervious surface regulations to construct an addition to a single family residence located at 716 Greeley Street South in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Mary Mazzarese, applicant. Continued from the May 12, 2008 meeting 3.02 Case No. 08-21. A variance request on a non-conforming lot for the side yard setbacks to construct an addition with a wrap around porch located at 356 Ramsey St W in the RB, Two Family Residential 'District. Bjorn Nelson, Custom Carpentry Remodeling and Construction, applicant. Continued from the May 12, 2008 meeting 3.03 Case No. 08-24. A variance request on a non-conforming lot for the side yard setback for the construction of an addition located at 1215 pt Street South in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Donald Michels, applicant. CITY HAll: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET . STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 · WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us 3.04 Case No. 08-25. A variance request to the sign regulations for a second sign located at 1987 Industrial Blvd in the BP-I, Business Park Industrial District. Jim Schulte, Modernistic, applicant. 3.05 Case No. 08-26. A variance to the sign regulations for a commercial building located at 901 South 3rd Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Weyer, applicant. 4. OTHER BUSINESS 4.01 Case No. 08-28 Discussion of Long Range Campus Master Plan for Lakeview Hospital. 4.02 Update on Comp Plan City of Stillwater Planning Commission May12,2008 Present: Dave Middleton, Chair, Mike Dahlquist, Erica Fultz, Taylor Luke, Wally Milbrandt, David Peroceschi and Charles Wolden Staff present: Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Pogge Absent: Suzanne Block and Dan Kalmon Mr. Middleton called the meeting to order and 7 p.m. and explained the procedure for the public hearings on the agenda. Approval of minutes: Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Milbrandt, moved approval of the minutes of April 17, 2008. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 08-16 A variance request to the front and side yard setbacks for construction of a residence at 1905 Second St. N. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Boyd Knudsen, applicant. The applicant was resent. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request, the three criteria for the granting of a variance, and staff findings. It was noted the new structure will be set back 6' farther from the front property line than the former structure and other than a bump-out on the new structure, the side yard encroachment will be unchanged. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. The applicant was asked if he was aware of the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Knudsen said he was aware of and would comply with the conditions. Mr. Dahlquist moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Luke seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 08-17 An amendment to a current special use permit for the extension of hours of operation for the hot dog stand at 229 S. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Stephen Farr, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request. Mr. Turnblad stated no complaints have been received regarding this operation in the past year. Mr. Farr has an existing lease for use of the space, and he said he thought the space was a good location for this use. Mr. Milbrandt asked if notices had been sent to affected property owners; Mr. Turnblad stated that notices were sent to the affected owners. Mr. Dahlquist asked why there was a restriction on the hours of operation in the original special use permit. Mr. Turnblad stated that restriction was placed by the Planning Commission, there is no such restriction in the ordinance. He suggested the reference to hours could be removed if the Commission so desired, noting that this use is reviewed upon complaint. Mr. Peroceschi asked about other employees; Mr. Farr responded that he had no other employees last year. Mr. Peroceschi asked about signage. Mr. Farr stated he used a couple of sandwich board signs; the Commission indicated staff will be sending Mr. Farr a flyer regarding acceptable signage, Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr, Luke moved approval as conditioned, eliminating condition G pertaining to hours of City of Stillwater Planning Commission May12, 2008 operation. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion. Mr. Turnblad noted there are additional conditions included in the SUP such as that the holder of the permit have a signed lease in place and that the use is reviewed upon complaint. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Case No. 08-18 A variance request on a non-conforming lot for side yard setback and impervious surface coverage regulations to construct an addition to a single family residence at 716 Greeley St. S. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Mary Mazzarese, applicant. Mary Mazzarese and Jason Noren were present. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request and staff findings which concluded there are no unusual physical characteristics of the lot which represent a hardship to support the granting of the requested variances. Ms. Mazzarese explained that they are hoping to construct an addition so they can have a master bedroom and build a new two-car garage in order to get their vehicles off the street. Mr. Milbrandt noted there is an existing concrete RV pad on the property which could be removed to reduce the amount of impervious surface; Mr. Turnblad noted that there are pervious paver systems which could be utilized for the RV spot, as well as other options for that use. Ms. Mazzarese pointed out there are planning to install a rain garden; Mr. Turnblad pointed out that rain gardens treat surface water runoff and are a plus, but are not pertinent to the issue of the impervious coverage. Mr. Wolden asked whether the addition couldn't be across the house to the south; Mr. Noren responded that could create a problem with tying into the roof of the existing house due to the location of a chimney. Mr. Dahlquist noted that reducing the proposed addition by just 4' would enable the applicant to meet the side yard setback. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Middleton expressed his concern about the amount of impervious coverage, noting that the width of the existing driveway and the RV pad push the impervious coverage over the maximum allowable. Mr. Luke noted there is pervious concrete that can carry the weight of an RV. Mr. Dahlquist also expressed a concern about the amount of house on the lot, an overbuilt look. Mr. Peroceschi asked whether consideration had been given to constructing a second story, rather than a first-floor addition. Ms. Mazzarese said she didn't want a two-story home due to the need to negotiate stairs and other reasons. Mr. Milbrandt moved to table this case for 30 days to give the applicant an opportunity to revise plans, perhaps by eliminating the RV pad, narrowing the drive and shifting the recreation room to the south. Mr. Peroceschi seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 08-19 A variance request to the fence regulations for placement of a 6' cedar fence at 2602 Hawthorne Lane in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Philip Jackson, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings that there is no hardship peculiar to the property to support the request for a variance. In the staff report, it was recommended that should the Commission decide to grant the request for a 6' fence, rather than grant a variance, staff be directed to revise the ordinance to permit 6' high fences in exterior side yards. The applicant was present and noted that none of his neighbors think the proposed fence would impede their views and many believe it would be more of a benefit than inconvenience to them. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission May12, 2008 Mary Rabenort, 2601 Hawthorne Lane, said the proposed fence would not obstruct any views. She referred to a nearby house that does have a 6' fence that does obstruct views. Brian Kittelson, 2607 Hawthorne Lane, noted that other homes in Croixwood have 6' high fences. He noted the Jacksons' property is not on a rain road, and the fence would not impede any views. He also suggested it is nice to be able to have a privacy fence and there is no reason to deny this request. Vicky VanLaanen, 2593 Bayberry Ave., said there would be no tunneling effect with this fence, and said she had no problem with the proposal. Kim McClish, 2608 Hawthorne Lane, said she had no issue with the Jacksons desire to have a privacy fence and there would be no tunneling affect with this fence. Mike Jacobe, 2566 Hawthorne Lane, noted the proposed fence would be on a short run of the Jacksons' property, would not obstruct views for traffic, and would not have any tunneling effect. He said he was in favor of the request. Mrs. Jackson noted that they own dogs and the new fence may help eliminate the dogs barking as people pass by. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Peroceschi, seconded by Ms. Fultz, moved to approve the variance. Mr. Middleton noted the suggestion from staff is that rather than grant the variance, staff be directed to change the ordinance. Mr. Pogge stated that if the Commission believes the 6' fence is acceptable, the ordinance should be changed to make things fair for all corner lots and noted the regulation as it exists is to protect adjoining property owners. Mr. Peroceschi pointed out that the proposed fence only runs for half the length of the property. Mr. Milbrandt noted that the proposed fence is behind a mature tree line and said he would not want to amend the ordinance for what is a unique situation. Mr. Turnblad suggested that Commissioner comments regarding the uniqueness of the situation - an extra wide boulevard in this area, the fence sitting physically behind a mature tree line and entirely within the rear side yard - could be used to justify the granting of a variance. Mr. Wolden said he did not believe a variance was warranted, noting the applicant could put up a 4' high fence; Mr. Dahlquist agreed with Mr. Wolden. Mr. Milbrandt asked that the motion to approve the variance be amended to include the unique situations enumerated by Mr. Turnblad. Mr. Peroceschi agreed to amend his motion as requested; Ms. Fultz agreed to second the amended motion. Amended motion passed 5-2, with Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Wolden voting no. Case No. 08-20 A variance request on a non-conforming lot for side yard setbacks to construct an entry addition and dormer addition at 1314 N. First St. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Carol A. DelaVergne, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings that the request meets all three criteria for the granting of a variance. Ms. DelaVergne said they would like to enclose the steps to avoid snow and ice issues and obtain a little more room for storage upstairs with the addition of the second- story dormers. 3 , City of Stillwater Planning Commission May12,2008 Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Milbrandt, seconded by Mr. Wolden, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 08-21 A variance request on a non-conforming lot for the side yard setback to construct an addition with wrap-around porch at 356 Ramsey St. W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Bjorn Nelson, Custom Carpentry Remodeling and Construction, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the staff findings that the lot does create a hardship. However, he noted that staffs' recommendation is that any addition be kept north of the existing south wall and no closer to Ramsey Street than the existing home. Mr. Pogge noted that staff also has concerns about access for utility maintenance. William Wells, architect, said the intent is to create an addition that matches the context of the neighborhood; he said they could pull the footings of the deck back and make the turret a bit smaller to meet staffs' concerns. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Ruth Sparrow, 122 Sixth St. S., said the plans look good. However, she said the existing garage, which will be demolished under the proposal, serves as the retaining wall for her property. She expressed concerns about what temporary measures would be utilized to keep the dirt in place. She also expressed concern about a small portion of the property south of the garage and said she would like to see more detailed plans for how the applicant plans to maintain that area. Brent Johnson, 212 Sixth St. S., said he had not seen plans but would echo the concern regarding drainage and said he worries a bit about the proposed setbacks. However, he said he thought this looks like an improvement. Wendy Johnson, 212 Sixth St. S., said plans seem a large scale for the size of the lot, and said she would like to see the plans scaled down a bit. She also noted the turret would provide a better view if it was on the northwest. Katie Keller, 207 Sixth St. S., said she had seen the plans, and the plans are lovely and in keeping with the neighborhood. However, she said she thought it was a little extreme to go right up to Ramsey Street. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Wells stated the addition will be more than 22' from Ramsey Street and the footings 25' away. He said they will install silt fences during construction and are aware of the need for temporary barriers. He said they will be doing a swale to address Ms. Sparrow's concerns about drainage. Mr. Milbrandt aid he was not comfortable with the commitment to move the footings back. He said he would like to see more definitive plans and would like the revised plans reviewed by engineering staff regarding drainage and access to utilities. Mr. Middleton said he thought the drastic elevation change of the property was of concern. Ms. Fultz said she thought the plans were beautiful. Mr. Wolden asked if any thought had been given to not having the porch wrap around the side of the house. Mr. Dahlquist said he would suggest that the footings not extend beyond the end of the house 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission May12,2008 and the porch not extend beyond the existing stoop; he said he would also like feedback regarding plans to deal with drainage during construction as well as permanent plans to address drainage/erosion. Mr. Milbrandt moved to continue this case pending feedback from the engineering department regarding drainage, as well as revised plans for the placement of footings. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 08-22 A special use permit for a restaurant and variance to the parking regulations at 317 S. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark Balay Architects, representing Dairy Queen, applicant. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request. He noted that most businesses in the downtown do not have enough on-site parking spaces and variances are allowed unless there is a huge increase in the number of spaces required due to a change in use. He noted that the previous use of this space was retail, with a 12 space parking requirement; this proposed use would require 18 parking spaces. He said there is a hardship due to the location in the Central Business District and the City does have a managed parking district in place, which would support the granting of the variance to the parking regulations. He noted that the issue of franchise businesses is not addressed other than the design manual for the historic downtown prohibits trademark buildings. In actual practice, Mr. Turnblad pointed out there is a Starbucks currently operating downtown. Mr. Turnblad said staff would recommend both the special use permit and the parking variance. Mark Balay and Dairy Queen franchise holder Paul Williquett were present. Mr. Balay noted that Mr. Williquett is a local resident and his family has operated this Dairy Queen since 1978. Ms. Fultz asked about signage. Mr. Balay said Dairy Queen corporate will allow the use of historic style signage. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Shane Nelson, local resident and downtown business owner, expressed a concern about allowing a Dairy Queen and expressed concern that would be setting a precedent for other franchise businesses, such as a McDonald's, to move into the downtown. Sunni Dudas, owner of Barbara Ann's Fudge, 317 S. Main, expressed her concern about being pushed out by a competing business in the same building. She also voiced concern about franchises coming into the historic downtown. Megan Keister, owner of the Daily Grind, said her primary concern was with the proposed layout of the space and a walk-up window in a narrow hallway. Charles Dudas, spoke of his wife's longtime business and keeping the tradition of Stillwater. He also referred to the congestion in the hallway where the Dairy Queen space would be located. Larry Kramer, St. Paul, owner of the building at 317 S. Main, noted that they have lost many businesses in the building, with another business soon to be leaving. He noted that this Dairy Queen is locally owned. He noted that soft-serve ice cream as served at Dairy Queen will not 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission May12,2008 compete with Brown's Ice Cream that is sold by Ms. Dudas. He suggested that this use will bring people into the building and be of benefit to other tenants. The co-owner of the Daily Grind expressed a concern about having a walk-up window in the narrow hallway where it is difficult to walk side by side. He said he would recommend that there be no window but an entrance into the mall instead. He said he supported having the Dairy Queen there saying he did not think Dairy Queen would compete with Ms. Dudas or his business. He said he thought the increased foot traffic that Dairy Queen would bring would be of benefit to the other tenants. No other comments were received, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Peroceschi said he was concerned about the walk-up window and asked if there was any alternative to that. Mr. Balay noted that Dairy Queen International has not yet approved of plans and that issue has not yet been determined. Mr. Williquett noted there will be a door into the hallway as suggested. Mr. Balay noted that traffic will flow into the space from Main Street and exit out into the mall. Mr. Milbrandt agreed that he would not be comfortable with a walk-up window in that environment. Mr. Milbrandt moved approval as conditioned, with the additional condition that there be no walk-up window. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Milbrandt noted that the franchise issue is a City Council issue, not a Planning Commission issue. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of a senior care campus on County Road 12 adiacent to Rutherford Elementarv School - Greg Johnson, director Select Senior Living, was present for a preliminary discussion to locate a facility for senior citizens on a 5-acre parcel of property located between Rutherford Elementary School and Grace Baptist Church. Mr. Turnblad noted that if a portion of the property is located in the shoreland overlay district, this use would require an ordinance amendment and he suggested that Mr. Johnson begin discussions with the DNR right away. Mr. Johnson said the proposal is for a 1 OO-unit facility that would provide life cycle housing for seniors. He said the building would complement the school and no variances would be needed. On a question from a resident of 2637 Hawthorne Lane, Mr. Johnson said this is a privately- owned company; the intent is to provide a facility that meets the void for affordable senior housing. He noted that this proposal does not involve any nursing home closure. Mr. Dahlquist commented that this property should be zoned RA, not CR, in which case a variance wouldn't be needed for this use. He noted that along this corridor of County Road 12, there is a prevailing setback that would result in this building being quite a large mass up to the street. He suggested the applicant be careful of the architecture so as not to create an abrupt change in the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Milbrandt expressed a concern about the potential impact on adjacent property owners, whether those owners might be landlocked or due to density precluded from a reasonable return on their property. Mr. Milbrandt also noted this property is in the orderly annexation area and the Township may have concerns to be addressed. 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission May12, 2008 Mr. Dahlquist reiterated that the key will be to try to fit the character of the neighborhood, suggesting this appears to be a lot of building for 5 acres. Ms. Fultz said she thought this was a good idea, and Mr. Middleton agreed there is no question there is a need for this type of housing in the community. · Mr. Pogge noted that the City Council and Planning Commission will hold a joint meeting on June 3 regarding the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Peroceschi, seconded by Ms. Fultz, moved to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 7 ~ Planning Report DATE: March 8, 2008 CASE NO.: 08-18 APPLICANT: Mary Mazzarese REQUEST: 1) Lot size variance to expand home 2) Side setback variance 3) Impervious coverage variance ZONING: RA, Single-Family Residential LOCATION: 716 South Greeley Street PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: May 12,2008 REVIEWERS: City Planner, Public Works Director, Building Official PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director ~ ~ BACKGROUND Mary Mazzarese would like to build onto her home at 716 South Greeley Street. The addition would include: 1) removal of the attached one car garage and replacement with a two car garage; 2) an office; 3) a recreation room; and 4) a patio. SPECIFIC REQUEST The property is located in the RA, Single Family Residential Zoning District. Massing standards for the district are presented in the table below, together with the current and proposed measurements. Minimum 10' 5' 29' 10,000 sf 75' 2,881 sf Current 21' 7' 7" 80' I Average of setback for homes on each side 2 30% of lot size Mazzarese Variances May 8, 2008 Page 2 of 4 The highlighted entries in the table are noncompliant4. In order to construct the addition as proposed, variances are requested for these items. Specifically, the requests are: 1. Lot size variance. The lot size is substandard. City Code Section 31-216 states that a nonconformity can not be expanded. This has been interpreted consistently by the City staff to mean that a building permit can not be issued for a new home or a home addition on a substandard lot. Consequently, a variance is being requested from the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size in the subject RA Zoning District, since the applicant's lot only has a size of 9,604 square feet. This then would allow a building permit to be issued for the home addition. 2. Side lot line setback variance. Section 31-305 (b)(l) and (b)(3)iii state that a house in the RA District must have a 10 foot side yard setback, except that an attached garage may have a side setback of only 5 feet. The distinction being that living space must have at least a 10 foot side setback. Since the addition is proposed to be only 6 feet 4 inches from the side lot line, and the addition includes both garage and living space, the living space must have a setback of 10 feet. A variance is requested for the new living space. 3. Impervious cover variance. Section 31-305 (b)(l) states that the maximum impervious coverage allowed on the subject RA lot is 30% of the lot area. In this case, that means 2,881 square feet of impervious cover. The proposed construction would result in about 4,390 square feet of impervious cover, or about 46%. A variance has therefore been requested from this standard. COMMENTS ON REQUEST The Planning Commission may grant the variances only if the following conditions are found to be satisfied5: 1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. The purpose of the variance process6 is to allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance where, by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness or unusual shape of a specific piece of property or by reason of exceptional size, shape, topographic conditions, the literal enforcement of the terms of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties or undue hardship. In this case, the lot is very nearly as large as minimally required in the RA District. Moreover, it exceeds the minimum lot width and dept requirements. In addition, there is nothing exceptional about the topography or physical features of the immediately abutting home sites. In short, the physical characteristics of the property are fairly standard in the RA District and are not the cause of the difficulty. Consequently, approving a variance for the large amount of impervious coverage and the proximity of living space to the side lot line would set a 3 Including shed, patio, driveways and sidewalks. 4 The measurements are based upon county aerial photography and a plot plan submitted by the applicant. To verify all measurements and impervious coverage, a detailed topographic survey would have to be commissioned by the applicant. 5 City Code Section 31-208( d) 6 City Code Section 31-208(a) Mazzarese Variances May 8, 2008 Page 30[4 precedent that all owners of standard size RA lots in the City would arguably want to have applied to their property as well. Staff does not find this criterion to be satisfied. 2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. Granting the right to cover 46 % of a RA lot with impervious surface, and put living space within 6' 4" of a side lot line without a fairly obvious physical abnormality in the property can arguably be considered a special privilege granted to this property owner. Staff does not find this criterion to be satisfied. 3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. The proposed addition along with the stormwater management improvements probably meets this criterion. However, if 46% of a goodly number of RA lots were allowed to be covered with impervious surface, there would be issues with both the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Note: If the recreation room is not constructed, and the northern 5 feet or so of the northerly driveway is removed, then the side lot line variance would be eliminated and the impervious coverage would be reduced to 3,494 square feet (36%). ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives. A. Approve If the property owner's proposal is found acceptable to the Planning Commission, it could approve it subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a final stormwater management plan shall be submitted by the applicant and found acceptable to the City Engineer? 2. The rear lot line shall be located by a surveyor to verify that the 25 foot minimum rear yard setback will be maintained. B. Deny If the Planning Commission finds that the variance review standards are not satisfied, it could deny the variances. With a denial, the basis of the action should be gIVen. cc: Mary Mazzerese attachments: Site plan Application materials 7 A preliminary stormwater management plan has already been approved by the City Engineer. <fJ Il) o ;:1 ,;S I-< oj >00 Il)O..,y- <fJ 0 t;..., ~ r: 0 ~oo..,y- N >. Il) oj oj OJ) ~~~ '3 ~ en Q) o c eo .L- eo > Q) en ~ ~ eo ~ ......, :c :E ~ c CO a.. Q) ~ C/) <( PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED / Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this application, The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted In connection with anyappfication.Allsupportingmaterial (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submittedwith application becomes the property of the Cityof Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required. If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required. A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications. Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 7/(0 G( e e It' \1 51". 'SC't\ + \, Assessor's Parcel No. "VA A \ .. . . (GEO Code) Zoning DistricLb"~ Description of Project Ctr,"")CUCc. Of- -ey I 'uh ('Ie, Cnt:' C'.(y\ \ c'C\c.\~ \-\ ',y, C~ 2.. CD" C c\.\Ci..C e c<...Y\c\ t\")(D ~' . t \-- cf \ <Of hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Property OwnN fi(\{'~ if I, 7.2C,(/'."',(- Reprosent"tive Mailing Address '~71l.D -., ~ e ~ I Cl.f 'St, YC&\-\ Mailing Address City - State - Zip ;5~ \ \ \;\:;nWv ~~)l\). 6---SOE)L City - State - Zip Telephone No. Lc CS' I - Y 30-/ C: ':")7 Telephone No. Signatu,e "Y'Y\c,n)):5\ ,m[~ Ctl)j4i! ~ Signatu,. (Signa~ re is requir )) (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) ~;O x \2..L Land Area . c, ~(\OGZ-C:~ Height of BUildings Storiek Principal I Accessory Feet if' Total Building floor area "L5'L-1 S square feet Existing "/ D tv 4- square feet Proposed _ I if e square feet Paved Impervious Area .l..k3J square feet No. of off-street parking spaces /i II PI;\jJi,PPFrnl June 9. 2006 Mary Mazzarese & Jason Noren 716 Greeley Street South Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 430-1037 April 13; 2008 Planning Commission City Of Stillwater 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 To City of Stillwater Planning Commission: We are applying for a three variances for an addition to a single-family residence located at 716 Greeley Street South. . The first variance is for the lot area. Required: 10,000 square feet Existing: 9,600 square feet . The second variance is for side yard setback. Required: 10 Foot setback Proposed: 6' -6" setback . The third is for maximum lot coverage. Required: 30 percent Proposed: 46 percent The purpose for this addition is to add an additional garage parking space, we have two vehicles that are used on a daily bases and we would like them both to be garaged every night. The house has only one bedroom and we would like to have the option to add a master bedroom suite in the feature. We are not intending to use this area as a bedroom initially, but having this option will make the home more marketable in the future, if we ever decide to sell. We will be using this area as a recreation area. (i.e. hobbies, crafting, entertaining) The house also needs a guest bedroom that we would like to put in the basement of the addition. This addition will minimally affect our neighbor at 710 Greeley St. South, which is directly north of us. This neighbor has a large privacy fence in their back yard, so they will only see the upper portion and the roof of our addition. They have also signed a petition stating they will not contest the addition. Our neighbors to the south at 1006 Abbott Street West will see 35 feet of the addition from their back porch. This neighbor has also signed a petition stating they will not contest this addition. Our neighbor to the west a 720 Greeley Street South will see 28 feet of the rear and a portion of the south facing side. This neighbor has also signed a petition stating the will not contest this addition. Attached please find supporting documents and drawing. Sincerely, Mary Mazzarese ;' ) / / ,./ Jason Noren Proposed rainwater run off plan for 716 Greeley Street South Collect rain from three roof surfaces and channel the water to a rain garden located at the southwest corner of the lot. The lot is 9600 square feet allowing 2880 square feet of runoff. With the addition I will be covering a total of 4261 square feet with impervious surface that is 1381 square feet over the minimum of 30% coverage. I am proposing to collect 2085 square feet of runoff from the north, south and west facing roofs and channel the water in gutters, downspouts and leader pipes to a 150 cubic foot rain garden. The rain garden will be 6" deep 15' wide and 20' long with a channel to help direct water. I will be planting native grasses, wild flowers, plants and shrubs in the garden. In addition to the water garden I will be directing all downspouts at the front of the house to the front lawn. Please find attached supporting drawings: Proposed plot plan Current water drainage Proposed water drainage 35"()" 25'-4t" 62'-0" 34'-7i" ~ 25'-2!" RO'-O" ~ Hi'-)" ?R'-1" ?9'-0" 150 cubic foot water garden planted with native grasses, wildflowers, shrubs and plants ,_ II ~aple tree 50' high 40' crown 01 RECREATION ROOM FEAUTURE MASTER BEDROOM SUITE 2I'-lOi" 10'X]2' CONCRETE PAVER PATIO maPletree30'high20'~ o ----- BEDROOM (i ~~':;Gj:,IDlliN GARAGE42, 0" TWO - PARKING SPACES '- " 1?'-4" 4fi'-1" 17'-]0" Greeley Street 25'-0" 65'-4" 120 -0" 29'-8" Mazzarese residence 1l0'-O" 16'-5" 56'-0" 7'-7" B 60'-0" 62'-0" BEDROOM 120 -0" DEN & D_GI~ITCHEN ROOM GARAGE 25'-41" 4 34'-7*" Mazzarese residence 1)'-4" 46'-1" 17'-10" f16N~ l' cum:ntplCltplan 716GrcdooySlnoelSolltb Greeley Street -' ,.. ,t fTIITT-'g ~ II III I I~ ~ II"i - I' I ~i '\!II ~~ L IJJ I ~ ~,~.~W ~ Ef:~B II 9=~' ~ ~ ~~;~ III II II :;~ bJ III~ H==r-:1=b ft. ~ ~~ 0 r [~~j: Illl Ild~.. ~,_I= J I I -I ='- ~= rr=n 1---J:::L = E1=_:O-- II = d=1- -t=- '-- L ~~~~ l = E - I I f=\:;::= I TIT I -i_I:lLJ I I I, , I ---' r~ ,I -' ~ ,.. ~ :1 J I - .. I' I .., ,- ::; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~ ~ N ....en e; -0 ,,",c oS- (D ~!t ~ VJ tb~ (D '<:!a ~ en _. @ qg :;:: a 2:; VJ en 00 _. 0 (:l. ~ (D ::s i:l (j ;s (D ill " I F r--L- ~ l- ~ 1= 1= l- '- '-- 1:: L- = F = ~ = -t='- = \:::: I- = ~ rn '-1= '- L- =\::::r= - 1= -= - f- /-- - ~ = = '-- - F'-' - -L-;::: ~ - - -I- '- = \::::r= - - '- I- = I- - 1-'-,-- -= -I- w ~ ~ '" = c:: L- = ~ f- = -1= t::- = ~ '--'-- -1-= L- -- II II =\-- - c:: ;::: F = - I- ~ =- ::::: - -= = = =L L- i= - ~ -'-- c::r--_ ~ = - L- '- L- II II !:::: l= \-- -~ -J- =,- i= F ~ '--- -- f-- .\ ~ 1= L- L- I- 1-1==1= '- L- - = ~f=:'- ='- = , \-'-- I- - := -t:: - l= '- L- I::: = =- l- F - ~ /-- =1::: I~~ - -= \=: i= 'h= f=:....... 't~i= rn /= c l= =l= - t 1- - :::: =t:: ::::: )::::: 1- = f=: 'i =)::: =t: I::::~ =1= L..= I- 1=1:::: I- ~ -I- '- -~ L- != :=I- ~~ ~ ..I .. '" t; '" ,:.. -' ~ :.. ~~ ,:. ~ .1 .. :: " "' 'i' :: L~ ~ q, z "' drainage from adjoining property El- I>> S' ~ ~ ..9: o S' S' (JQ ~ 't:l ~ DATE: Mazzarese residence REVISED: 4/14/08 current water drainage 716 Greeley Street South Greeley Street drainage from adjoining property Er '" S' '" O<l (1j S '" ..&. o S. S' O<l 't:l a 't:l (1j ~ ;- Er ~ a- s ll> ..&. o ~: (JC> "Cj a "0 ~ Mazzarese residence 4/14/08 proposed water drainage 716 Greeley Street South Greeley Street REVISED: > > side of neighbors house > lid -- I )> 7 T 6' lrigb pri,,,y f~~ 14 _SJ." <::: < side of neighbors ~ara~e / ~ < <::: <:: Mazzarese residence adjacent buildings 716 Greeley Street South -. r1illwater -----=-- -- '~- ~'- ,.~ ') tHf' 81RTH?LAC!: or M1NNESOl'ft Planning Commission DATE: June 5, 2008 CASE NO.: 08-21 APPLICANT: Bjorn Nelson REQUEST: A variance to allow an expansion and alteration of a structure on a non-conforming lot [31-102 (a)] and a variance to allow up to an 18 foot encroachment into the required 20 foot exterior side yard [31- 308(b)I]. LOCATION: 356 Ramsey St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFLL - Single Family Large Lot ZONING: RB - Two Family Residential PC DATE: June 9, 2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director Michel Pogge, City Planner W' ~ PREPARED BY: DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-102(a) of the Stillwater City Code in order to expand the amount of living space of the existing structure which is on a non-conforming lot. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31- 308(b)1 of the Stillwater City Code to encroach up to 18 feet into the required 20 foot exterior side yard setback. 356 Ramsey St W Page 2 MAY 12. 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed this request at its May 12, 2008 meeting. At that meeting the Commission elected to table the item. The Commission requested that staff locate the exact location of the utilities in Ramsey St W and work with the applicant to develop an erosion control plan related to the slope on the north side of the lot. Since the last meeting, staff has located the utilities in Ramsey St W. The construction of a porch up to the property line should not adversely affect the utilities nor hinder the City's ability to maintain the utilities in the future. City engineering staff had a meeting setup to meet with the builder and their engineer on site. Noone from the builder's team attended that meeting. Since that time staff has been unable to set up a second meeting with them. Staff would recommend that this item be continued until this meeting on the erosion control can occur. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is June 17, 2008. As permitted by State Law, City staff can extend the 60 day decision deadline once for an additional 60 days to August 16,2008. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission table action to your July 14, 2008 meeting. <-Sti llwate~, ~--=---------=:::::;;;;; ~, !HE 8jR'rt~Pi,ACf Of MiN~~FSOfA J Planning Commission DATE: June 5, 2008 CASE NO.: 08-24 APPLICANT: Donald Michels REQUEST: A variance to allow an expansion and alteration of a non- conforming structure [31-216] on a non-conforming lot [31-102 (a)]. LOCATION: 1215 1st St S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING: RB - Two Family Residential PC DATE: June 9, 2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner lM5f DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-216 and Chapter 31-102(a) of the Stillwater City Code in order to expand the amount of living space of a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. The existing home fails to meet the required front yard setback (20 feet required, 19.5 feet provided) and the side yard setback (5 feet required, 1.5 feet provided) Additionally, the current lot area of 6,758 square feet fails to minimum lot area requirement of 7,500 square feet. The applicant is making these variance requests in order to add a rear addition to the existing home. The proposed addition will meet all of the required setbacks and other bulk regulations included the maximum allowed building coverage requirement. 1215 1st St S Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. The lot was platted in 1887 and its size does not meet the current zoning requirements. The home itself was built in the late 1800' s. The size the lot and the home's location on the lot are conditions that were not created by an act of the owner. 2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. This property is zoned for a single-family home and is currently being used as a single-family home. Since the addition meets the requirement of the zoning code the proposed addition seems reasonable in this case. If this was a conforming lot with a conforming structure the addition would be permitted without the need for a variance. 3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. The proposed addition will have no negative impacts on any of the surrounding properties. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS 1. That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. In this context, personal financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not. 2. That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 3. That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. 1215 1st St S Page 3 AL TERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the variance to allow an expansion and alteration of a structure on a non-conforming lot [31-102 (a)] and a variance to allow an expansion and alteration of a non-conforming structure [31-216]. Additionally, staff would suggest that the following conditions for approval: a. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Deny the variance to allow an expansion and alteration of a structure on a non-conforming lot [31-102 (a)] and a variance to allow an expansion and alteration of a non-conforming structure [31-216]. If the Commission chooses to deny the variance the commission needs to make a negative finding of fact on the required that supports the denial. 3. Continue the public hearing until the July 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is July 13, 2008. As permitted by State Law, City staff can extend the 60 day decision deadline once for an additional 60 days. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission approve the requested variances as conditioned. PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No,: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARlMENT CITY OF SllLLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET SllLLWATER MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED Special/CondItional Use Pennit X Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this application. The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of a II forms and supporting material submitted in cO(lnection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material are required. If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material are required. A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications. A complete legal description of subject property is required. Any incomplete application or supporting mr::tcri::1 wit! d3/ay the application process. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City lo obtain the required building permits. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATlON Address of Project /Z/S /sr .s-f. Sovr/t Assesror'sParcel No. R 33 .O$eJ.ztJ.,.4.oo/4/ (GED Code) Zoning District~ Description of Project $~~ A f&.t.~~1- "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply wilh ihe permit if it is granted and used." Property Owner Do"".. I J /'III /c. t. ~ I oS Representative Mailing Address /%1 &- s. J::i",,&f" S"'. City - State - Zip Sl-i//W4 f,,., ~N. ~r()B~ Telephone No. "~/. 411.. 4/48' Mailing Address City - State - ZiP.. - Telephone No. Sign"lture_ Signature (Signature is required) (Signature is required) PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No., Lot Size (dimensions) S32. x / :54 Land Area 6 700.).,. .j:'-f . Height of Buildings: Slories Principal 7,0 AcceSSJry / . 0 Feel z.(p I~ SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area /03(4 square feet Existing /03" square feet Propo::ad 3 () 8 square feet Paved Impervious Area ..11.L square feet No, of off-street parking spaces '2 1"-1 :\rn(0drnarij \~,he; 1;'1 \P\AN/...PP .i:R.~4 April 9, 2008 1215 South First Street Request for a Variance Description of Project: (Please refer to the attached figures): An addition to the existing house located at 1215 First St. South is proposed as indicated on the attached Figures. The addition will comprise an area of 14 feet by 22 feet for an increase in building footprint of 308 square feet. It is the owners' intention to complete the addition with close attention being paid to period architecture and style of the existing structure and neighborhood in general. The existing structure is non-conformant with current zoning side-lot setback requirements; therefore, the owner is requesting a variance. Please note the proposed addition lies further away from the lot line than the closest part of the current structure and would conform with existing side-lot setback requirements. Please also note that with the addition, the property will conform with existing requirements for percentage of impervious surface. Based on a review of the neighborhood and town, it appears that a significant number of homes are in the same situation with respect to non-conformance with current side-lot setbacks. Homes constructed in the period ofthe subject property were commonly built close to lot lines as the width of lots were insufficient to build structures which would conform to existing zoning standards. The addition as proposed would provide a benefit to the overall appeal and value of the property and neighborhood. "C .. - 1)-= <I> - ~CQ V> {t': ]~ u.. .c - - ~ o V> = I.nE .,.. ... N= .,..V> 'Cc UO ff.l'- 0= c.... 0'" ...C Cl.. 1j~ .:! u .l:lCI. ::! 0 ~ ... Cl.. o c:>C...;lt....f'VN tn cd.., b tn '= u, ,~ " J l en ;::;: <<l m i" < !lol ... ci" :J " ... o :!l i" I i Fligure B 1~15 South First Street Vlariance Request N --- Existing Side-lot Setback = 1.5 ft Existillg Side-lot Setback = 5.5 ft ..".-I .-"'" r o ..... r -. :J (I Prol:losed Side-lot lwater HE BIRTHPLAC, 0' ""Nllfl'O'< ') Planning Commission DATE: June 6, 2008 CASE NO.: 08-25 APPLICANT: Jim Schulte of Modernistic REQUESTS: A variance to allow a second sign for a business in the BP-I zoning district [31-509 Subd. 8]. LOCATION: 1987 Industrial Blvd COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: BPI - Business Park Industrial ZONING: BP-I - Business Park Industrial CPC DATE: June 9, 2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREP ARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner ft11f DISCUSSION Jim Schulte of Modernistic is requesting a variance to the sign ordinance to allow a second sign in the Business Park Industrial zoning district. Section 31-509 Subd. 8 of the Stillwater Zoning code permits only one sign per business in the Business Park Industrial. The applicant is requesting a second sign due to the large size of the site (9.87 acres) and the. visibility from both the entrance along Industrial Blvd on the west side of the building and Highway 36 along the east side of the building. Currently there is a wall sign facing toward Greeley Street on the east elevation of the building. The current request calls for placing a wall sign facing Industrial Blvd on the west elevation. Each sign is proposed to have white channel letters and measures 25' 11" x 3' 2" for a total area of 103.66 square feet. The new sign facing Industrial Blvd is proposed to be non-illuminated. . 1987 Industrial Blvd S Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of a variance to Section 31-509 Subd. 8 of the Stillwater City Code to allow for a second wall sign that would face Industrial Blvd. A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. The site has visibility from both Greeley Street and Industrial Blvd. These are two opposing elevations that need signage that can be viewable from both street frontages. Certainly it can be argued that the applicant gains prospective profits if the variance is granted; however, the hardship for the variance is related to the physical size and is not dependent on financial necessity. 2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. Without the approval of a variance the applicant would be denied reasonable visibility of the property due to the nature and location of the property. The Commission has recently denied requests for a second sign in the BP district. The most recently was for Edina Realty. This case is a little different in part because of the physical layout of the property and to the fact that neither sign is visible simultaneously. The granting of this variance does not create a special privilege since basic business identification is common for business of this type. 3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. The proposed signs have been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. The purpose of this review is to ensure the sign's consistency with the intent of sign size and location guidelines. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. , .... nnr""7 T 1 .. 1 rt1 1 n 1987 Industrial Blvd S Page 3 FINDINGS 1. That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not the primary motive for requesting the variance. 2. That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 3. That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Approve as conditioned. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. The sign shall conform to the Heritage Preservation Commission's approval of the sign in design review case 2007-22 or the property owner shall receive approval for a new sign design shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. All temporary signs are to be removed prior to the installation of any of the permanent signage. 3. No additional signage. Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and Photos PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM _ /1 .a C." "0 V/~-~? Date Filed: ~ Fee Paid: Receipt No.: I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATE:R 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 ACTION REQUESteD -~ Special/Conditional Use Permil Variance Resubdivision Subdivision" Comprehensive Plan Amendment" Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An l!!$crow fee is 81so required to offset the costs of attorney and engine~ring fees. Thfil feeS for requested action are attached to this application. The applicant is re.sponsible for the completeness and accuracy of 811 forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All sUPPorlingmateria/ (i e., photos, .sketches, etc.) $ubmittedwith application become.sthe properly of the City 0' Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required. If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required. A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications. Any incomplete application or supporting material will de/fljl the application process. After Planning Commission approvals, there is 8 10-day appeal per;oct, Once the 10-day appeal period IJas ended, the applicant wUl receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project Iq~1 ~ustr/~vJ 0 A$~fr~~l;!?el No. R ?f2.~ OX>t In. i}~, CfXI3 on ; - L 2~e(, 'Il' ,.,L1\ ((;E.OCode) ,l.P." Zoning Dis~nct12r..::..L Descri~tio~ of Project t:t!.UT ~ \.~DI1"-1 . vmlV\~) ~I ~Yl ()l/\,\tt.L ~~~Ir/J~,c:; 111)<:1.- -tD f\'l<l-IVI ~JW't'.J "I hereby state the foregoing statements and afl data, information and evidence submitted 11erewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I wJJf comply with the permit if it is granted and lIsed. .. , Property Owncwr JIM 8ch,~j, ~!J!kJv-l1ish~ Representative Mailing Address ICfB==J .k~;'d{ 61vA3 Mailing Address City - State - ZiP-6f/~ W~ ('v) N tj.508~ City - state - Zip 1- 21-; 3 I ~~ ~~ ~ relephone No. _ S. / IgnaflJre Telephone No. 4'.? Signature nature is required) (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimenSIOn!~ x ~ Land Area_ q. . LvI ~ Height of BUildings: Stories PrinCIpal Acoessory Faet Total Building floor area_ ~)ltV square feet Exi$ting square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area _ square feet No, of off-street parking spaces H:\mrn~m~'A\~h"II~\PI ANAPP FRM JUne 9. 2006 '-- Screen Graphics" Converting Technologies ODERNISTIC - '~B-~1r. :;'~~.1,~'JDri!=:lli'lf@f{f1!i<ii{.18~~Ji{illJl3G=I~$~~iiGlI::iG~~~!'~~,:::"li;t~1l~:'~j~<<6ji.';~:~&~~~tiii:&~~~~~: May 16, 2008 Mike Pogge Planning Commission City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 Subject: Sign Variance Letter of Hardship Dear Mike Pogge: Attached please find our variance permit application for an additional building sign. Last year, we were granted permission for an illuminated LED sign on the east side of the building (Permit#2007-5). We propose to erect a second non-illuminated building sign on the west side of our building along Industrial Boulevard South. We have attached a pictorial rendering of our existing and proposed sign locations. We feel that this variance is justified based on the following points: . Given the large size of our campus (429,937 sq ft /9.87 acres) and building (158,000 sq ft); a sign attached to our building on the access street (Industrial Blvd S) will give important visibility to our customers and vendors, and also provide visibility on the west elevation. . This variance would not be out of character with similar properties in the neighborhood. Adjacent neighbors with two or more signs include: DiaSoren, UFE, Acapulco, Daily Fresh, Brines, Simonet, Suttlers, etc. If you have any questions regarding this proposal please contact me directly at 612-919-1357. tfUIlY,., ~/ ~~IhY~dc ,/ "J / / James A. Schulte ~ CEO/Owner Modernistic, Inc. DKS 1987 Industrial Boulevard South, Stillwater, MN 55082-6049 651-291-765041 800-641-4610 .. Fax 651-291-2571 www.modernisticinc.com . PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: RElceipt No.: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dl:PARTMENT CITY OF SrlLLWATER 216 NORTH rOURTH STREET STillWATER MN 55082 ACTION REQUESteD : Special/Conditional Use Permit V Variance Resubdivision Subdivision" Comprehensive Plan Amendment" Zoning Amendment.. Planning Unit Development .. Certificate of Compliance *An esc;:raw fee [s a/::>o required to offset the costs of attOfney and engineering fees. The fees for request~d action are attached to this application. The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connect/On with any application. All sUPPorlingmateriaf (i e'J photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the propettyofthe Cityo'Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies af supporting material is required. If application is SUbmitted to the City Council, twMve (12) copies of supporting material ;s required. A site plan showing drainage ami setbacks is required with applications. Any incomplete application or supporting material will de/flY the application process. After Planning Commission approvals, there is 8 10-day appeal perioct. Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submItted to the City to obtain the required building permits. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of r~roject Iq~1 -Wusfna,(--.aJvJ t) A$~fr~~~1 No. R ?JZ- O:J)t 2D~ i.}~, C(;(I3 OJ) j - L 11Vlt{ I ./,. --t .6\ ({JEP Code) r 1.P. II Zoning Dis:nct.IX::..L Descri~tion of Project f:;..Ytll5, Cl ~ -, tt1on-1 wmlY\~) ~I ~t1 (11/\ ,I/t-L, ~~~fr,;J~~,<; I'I1.Xt -tp tl'\d-/V\ fJ1frJl1U..J "I hereby state the foregoing statements and al/ data, information and evidence submitted 11erewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and beliQr. to be true and Correct. I further certify I will comply with the permU if it is granted and lIsed. " Property Owner ~ M Sc , MailingAddress /fiB1 ~fYl\ rJ3 City - State - Zip-.6f/a wk 1'1 N1j508~ City. State - Zip -f.- 21-;3 Representative ~?5 ~~ ~ Mailing Address Telephone No. Signature /' Telephone No. <Co Signature gnature is required) (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Feet Total Building floor area OO)lXlJ square feat Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area _ square flSlet No. of off-street parking spaces Lot Size (dimenSlonfl3:--7(- Land Area_ q~ . LvI <<'.;;, Height of BUildings: Stories PrinCipal Accessory l-!:\mrMm~r"'\~h"llil\PI ANAPP FilM JUne 9. 200G '-- en c :.0 :::l ..n '+- o OJ "'0 "Vi +-' Vl OJ 5 c o "'0 OJ +-' C :::l o Ln E N "'0 C 10 OJ Q.. 10 ..c Vl o +-' +-' :::l U 10 '"- +-' C Vl OJ ;!:: ..c 5 E E (V) .- I , \0 (V) c en Vl en c ~ Vl 'x w "'0 OJ +-' 10 c 'E :::l o W .....J OJ +-' ..c S 00 (V) ,- l"'- I.!) ~ T""" 0> C\I I T""" I.!) <D >< it . I I I I :l I I 00 N o T""" <D 't T""" '<t <D I o o ~ T""" ~ . o I.!) <D li- T""" 0> C\I I T""" I.!) <D . C\I C1J o I.!) I.!) z ~ I __',q.r.., ,..;........._.... ..~ ; c en 'Vi "'0 OJ +-' 10 C E :::l L- ID - ro ~ ()(jj - =~ _CJJ Z~ a:~ 1&1 'C Q~ O-g I~ ~III 10 '"- +-' C .- OJ Vl u E~ E c (V) .~ .- Vl o +-' "'0 en OJ c ..c .- u"'O 10= +-' :::l 1U..n en c "'0 :::l ..n -, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1_,"-- , I , I I I I. '. I <.5ti Ilwa te~ ..... ~~~ ~. " tnI:' B!HTHP;ACr. Of. MiN~~E:';OlA J Planning Commission DATE: June 6, 2008 CASE NO.: 08-26 APPLICANT: Mark Weyer REQUESTS: A variance to allow signage on a non-conforming commercial building in the RB zoning district [31-216 and 31-509 Subd 6.]. LOCATION: 901 3rd St S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING: RB - Two Family Residential CPC DATE: June 9, 2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner yVl ff DISCUSSION Mark Weyer is requesting a variance to the sign ordinance to allow signage on a non- conforming commercial building in the RB zoning district. Section 31-509 Subd. 6 provides for limits for signage in residential districts. Wall signs for business in the RB district are limited to two square feet per business. If this property were in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district they would be allowed to have one wall sign on the building. The zoning ordinance states building signs in the NC ' .. .may have an aggregate area not exceeding one square foot for each foot of building face.. .'. The applicant's retail space is 60 feet long facing Churchill St and 31 feet along Third Street. The total sign area of the proposed wall signs are 24 square feet for both signs, which is smaller than the square footage allowed by the ordinance for signage in the NC zoning District. 901 3rd St S Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of a variance to Section 31-509 Subd. 8 of the Stillwater City Code to allow for a second wall sign that would face Industrial Blvd. A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. The site has historically had commercial business and the structure is conducive to business activities. Certainly it can be argued that the applicant gains prospective profits if the variance is granted; however, the difficulty in this request is the total prohibition of a reasonable sign that other non-conforming commercial businesses enjoy. 2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. Without the approval of a variance the applicant would be denied reasonable visibility of the property due to the uses that occur on the property. Other than the number of signs, the request seems reasonable when you consider the type of signage that is allowed in the NC zoning district. The Commission may want to consider allowing only one wall sign on the building. 3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. 901 3rd St S Page 3 FINDINGS 1. That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not the primary motive for requesting the variance. 2. That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 3. That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Approve as conditioned. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. Only one wall sign is permitted. The sign may be placed on either Churchill or Third St, but not on both. 2. No additional signage. Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and Photos . I PLANNING ADMINISrrRA TION APPLICATION FORM I i I I I i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER I 216 NORTH FOURTH STRE~T STILLWATER MN 55082 ! I I I I I i i I Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit v Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment i *An escrow fee is also requfred to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this ~pplication. i The applicant is responsib/~ for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submittet in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with applicatiot becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixt~en (16) copies of supporting material are required. J application is submitted to Ithe City Council, twelVe (1 copies of supporting material are required. A site pial showing drainage and setb~cks is required with applications. A complete legal description of subject properl] is required. Any incompJetf application or supporting material will delay the application process. After Planning commissiJn approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period ha! ended, the applicant will reqeive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. i I PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project--90 \ b. ?:>r..!.. SA. Assessor's Parcel No. I Desc~iption of Project rLL~. "I hereby state the fOregOink statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my ~nowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and u~ed. " Property Owner mo./"' 9 Wey (lr Mailing Address qo \ ~.l 3"1 ~. I City - State - Zip SV, \\WCl W. (VtIJ 5508'z.. I Co \ i 2~ Zoning District :5;~ f'eIj 1.( e-5 ~ {; (GEO Code) IlofAJ: ~ l41W ~ Representativ City - State - Zip Telephone No. Signature Signature ature is irequired) I Lot Size (dimensions) x I - r-- Land Area I Height of Buildings: storieF Principal . Accessory Feet (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No. of off-street parking spaces H:\mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP.FRM ! April 9, 2008 Check list for Planning Applications Incomplete or unclear abplications/plans will be returned to the applicant and may result in delay of application processing. Check and attach to apPlicJion. I o The application form co~pleted and signed by the property owner or owners authorized representative. I o A complete legal descriFtion of subject property. o Building plans clearly dimensioned and scaled (16 copies). o The site plan showing e~terior property lines, easements, lot width and depth and lot area building(s} location. (See attacheq site plan example, a parcel boundary survey may be required). I o All adjacent streets or ri~ht of ways labeled. I o Location, elevation, size, height of building or addition, dimensions, materials and proposed use of all buildings and structure& (including walls, fences, signs, lighting and hooding devices) existing and proposed for the site (if~he site is in a Historic District, additional design detail maybe required). o Distances between all s~ructures and between all property lines or easements and structures. I I o Show Adjacent buildings to this application site and dimension from property line. I o All major existing trees ~n the site (4 inch caliber or greater), giving type, location, size and other site coverage conditions. I \ o Show existing significa~t natural features such as rock outcroppings or water courses (existing and proposed marked acco~dingly). i o Locate all off-street parking spaces, driveways, loading docks and maneuvering areas with dimensions for driveway widths and[parking space sizes. o Pedestrian, vehicular a~d service points of ingress and egress; distances between driveways and street comers. I I o Landscape plan showinb number of plants, location, varieties and container sizes (landscape plan). r o Existing and proposed grading plan showing direction and grade of drainage through and off the site; indicate any proposed ~rainage channels or containment facilities. I o Required and existing s~reet dedications and improvements such as sidewalks, curbing and pavement (may not be required). I I o Letter to the Planning Cbmmission describing the proposed use in detail and indicating how this use will effect and COmpatib,ity with adjacent uses or areas. I o Applications for new stn\Jctures on slopes of 12 percent or greater must include an accurate topographic map. The map must contain contours of two-foot intervals for slopes of 12 percent or greater. Slopes over 24 percent shall be clearly marked. I o Other such data as ma~ be required to permit the planning commission to make the required findings for approval f the speCific tY. of application. i 5/ /)/O-g Date MARK J. WEYER INSURANCE AGENCY LTD. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP 901 S. 3rd St Suite 202 STILLWATER, MN 55082 Tel: (651)439-8825 Fax: (651)439-8823 E-mail: mweyer@farmersagent.com May 15, 2008 Stillwater Planning Commission: I would like to request a minor adjustment to the zoning regulation on my property at 901 South Third Street. Spe<;:ifically, I would like to request a variance to allow signage on the building. The special circumstance which drives this request revolves around the difference between the original intent of the building and the zoning laws, or lack there of, at the time it was built, versus the limitations that current zoning laws imply. The building was originally built as a grocery store and has always been used in a commerciaVpublic manner. Unfortunately, when zoning laws were adapted over time the building was lumped into the residential category. Most of the buildings which share this distinction in the area (within a block there is Charlsen Trucking, The Lived in Room, Tim's Comer Store, Meisters, etc.) have already received various forms of zoning changes and/or variances to correct this misclassification. Additionally the county taxes the building at a commercial rate which matches the only practical use of the building. The building has a hall through the middle which was a suggestion of the Heritage Foundation, (Original design had three office suites with each enjoying access to a window on Churchill) and as such three offices have windows on Churchill and three on the South side ofthe building do not have windows. Current zoning allows for window signage which leaves three offices without external representation. Strict application of the provisions of the current classification would deprive us of reasonable use of the building. Our poling of neighbors has resulted in support for our request with further agreement that signs would enhance the building and enforce a more occupied look. The signs be would be white with green lettering (matching the existing exterior trim colors). They would be six, one by four, grouped together in the same location and size that the previous building owner used on the Third Street and Churchill Street sides. Thank you for your consideration, please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or concerns. Best regards, Mark Weyer :1Il ---- --.., :~_''''~"- .ii <t -r' 'Ill _ '~i:*:Aii .....- -,I i .- i{J' I _:~ '9 J" Exa I . mp eofWest Side . . :1.: ~. .-......::.... , . ; I i i . F:~~Ti,~-=-~ 1- "==0. (--- ~ ~L~~I ~~~ : ,--:.- IQ' :."- - I '7--.J i I I I I I i I II i I I! )-" ,.- L ~ ~ Offices ~8U North Side 'Current layout' Office suites ~aL North Side 'Original layout' (;... ti~ater~ rHf~HrHPL~CL G' """...,;01' ') Planning Report DATE: June 5, 2008 TO: Planning Commissioners CASE No: 08- 28 REQUEST: Lakeview Hospital Discussion of master plan concept COMMISSION DATE: June 9, 2008 PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director ~.rr:. BACKGROUND Lakeview Hospital's board of directors has been studying options for future growth. Their two basic options are either to stay in their current location and try to identify ways to grow on the site, or find a new site with more acreage. The board has decided to keep the hospital where it is, even though the site presents growth challenges. Their next step is to develop a master facilities plan that would meet projected needs for the next 30 years. The hospital has retained BWBR Architects to help them with a staged growth plan. Their preferred conceptual plan has been submitted to the City for discussion purposes. After discussion by the Planning Commission and City Council, a finalized master plan will be submitted to the City for a Special Use Permit. REQUEST Lakeview Hospital requests the Planning Commission to consider and discuss the various planning issues associated with their conceptual master plan. THINGS TO CONSIDER Allowable uses · The property is zoned RA, Single Family Residential and RB, Two-Family Residential. In both of these districts a hospital is allowable with a Special Use Permit issued by the City Council. The hospital has been issued Special Use Permits for all additions and improvements since 1976. Lak~view Hospital June 5, 2008 Page 2 Description of master plan In general terms, the hospital believes that over the next 30 years there may be a need for 280,000 square feet of additional space. Currently there are about 182,000 square feet of space. The additional space would be developed in four phases as follows: o Phase I · Horizontal expansion with two levels on Everett Street just south of the clinic building. 33,000 square feet in the basement level and 33,000 square feet in the ground story. · This phase would be constructed in the near-term future. o Phase II · Vertical expansion of three levels added on to the Phase I building. 33,000 square feet for each proposed story. · This would represent completion of the first addition to the hospital. · The total height of this addition would be four stories. · A four story height is not permitted in a residential district. It is only permitted with a variance. · Staff and legal counsel are still researching the height history of the current hospital. It already appears to be taller than the 35'/three story standard. · If the existing height was approved through a variance, it may be arguable that the variance height became the height maximum allowed for the entire site. This too needs to be researched further. o Phase III · Horizontal expansion of three levels which would replace the existing clinic building. 23,000 square feet on each level. · This phase would be constructed in the mid-term future. o Phase IV · Horizontal expansion of two levels that would be located directly north of the existing hospital and west of the existing clinic building. 23,000 square feet each level. · This phase would be constructed in the longer-term future. Performance standards for each phase · Building massing o RA District · 30 foot setback from each street lot line · 30% lot coverage · This may become an issue. All of the various parcels should be combined into a single parcel. Then the open space on the south side of the property could be counted toward the open space required for the whole site. · Even if the parcels are combined, a coverage variance may be needed to develop at the proposed density. · The existing conditions seem to represent more than a 30% impervious coverage already. If this is true, a variance may have been approved for the excess impervious surface. o Staff and legal counsel are still researching the impervious surface history of the current site improvements. Lal\eview Hospital June 5, 2008 Page 3 o If what appears to be excessive impervious coverage was approved through a variance, it may be arguable that the current percentage of cover becomes the percentage allowed for the entire site. This needs to be researched further. · 2 Y2 story height limit, not to exceed 35 feet · See height comments above. o RB District · 20 foot setback from each street lot line · 25% building coverage; 25% impervious coverage · See coverage comments above. · 35 foot maximum height · See height comments above. . Parking o Hospitals require one parking space for each two beds plus one for each employee on the shift with the maximum number of personnel. · The state licenses Lakeview to have up to 97 beds and 15 bassinettes. Currently there are 66 beds and 15 bassinettes. · Currently there are 572 parking spaces on the campus. · Since the clinic moved to Curve Crest, the required number of spaces dropped and the actual number of parking spaces exceeds the parking need. · Landscaping and screening o Though not technically applicable, it would seem appropriate to use the landscaping guidelines for the office district (City Code Sec. 31-513, Subd 1) · Traffic analysis o A traffic impact and internal circulation analysis should be completed and submitted by the hospital as part of the SUP application package. · Noise impact upon neighborhood oEMS? o Helicopters? · Surfacewater runoff management will need to be a part of the SUP application package. · Signage o This can either be part of the SUP application package, or it could be handled as a separate sign permit application. Public review process · SUPs for hospitals in a residential district require a public hearing and approval by the City Council. As a matter of practice, the SUP also goes before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. o Currently all variances, SUPs, PUDs, etc. expire two years after approval "unless the action permitted has been completed." · This has been interpreted in various ways in the past. In this specific case, this language could be interpreted to mean that the construction for the first phase has to be completed within two years; or that construction for all phases has to be completed within two years. It makes more sense to interpret the language for phased projects to mean that the first phase has to be completed within two years, and that each subsequent phase would occur according to the phasing schedule. · To make the phrase clearer, staff would suggest an ordinance amendment. The amendment could specify that for multiple phased projects, the project could be Lakeview Hospital June 5, 2008 Page 4 approved as a Conditional Use Permit rather than a Special Use Permit. State law specifically allows a city to use flexible permit validity periods for Conditional Use Permits. This would allow the city to tie the Conditional Use Permit to a phasing plan that exceeds two years. · What level of detail is required in order to approve a SUP for each of the four phases? o Enough information would need to be provided to show that all of the applicable performance standards and related requirements would be satisfied. At least the following would likely be needed with the SUP application: a certified and scaled plot plan showing all existing conditions; a legal description of the property (for resolution and county filing purposes); a narrative explaining the master phased plan; height of buildings; perspective views of the phases; square footage of all phased space; general uses of the phased space; general layout of the phased space; parking and traffic circulation for the phases; pedestrian circulation for the phase; landscaping for the phases; amount of building coverage and impervious surface for each phase; plans for screening rooftop or ground located utility units; exterior lighting plans; . o If the hospital prefers not to provide this level of detail for all four phases from the outset, the SUP could be structured similarly to a Planned Unit Development permit, whereby conceptual approval is given for the entire plan, but final approval is given only for the first phase. For subsequent phases, final approval would be given when they were needed and more detailed information is prepared. Attachments: Zoning Map Neighborhood Air Photo Phasing graphics City of ~ !water .:;:;: =----- -- COImnunity Development Department Lakeview Hospital ~'" 11'1' l I I I I /1' - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -: - - - - - - - -: \/ ' ,,- I I I ~ -----, 1 I \' " I I I I I I 1 \ r-------------L I - - - - - - - -I - - - - - 1 I I \ I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I f----------~---- I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I /j L I / I / 1 / 1 / 1 / .... .\\ / Zoning Districts / --......... D A-P, Agricultural Preservation D RA. Single Family Residential / ~ D RB - Two Family / D TR, Traditional Residential / D lR, lakeshore Residential / i:S."Sl CR, Cottage Residential / _ CTR, Cove Traditional Residential /~ \ D CCR, Cove Cottage Residential _ CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential _ TH, Townhouse / D RCM - Medium Density Residential / - .-- _ RCH - High Density Residential /j > _ 1 , .. CD VC, Village Commercial / .' \ '" Of';; " , . ''"<-'''',.'' ..J _ CA - General Commercial / 'l 0'~;:-;\:: " _ CBD . Central Business District ,'j . iY2:~~l~'" .. D BP-C, Business Park - Commercial ".'. _ BP-O, Business Park. Office J : ~~::;{~fA~;; :..: . -- l ;" 1:~..:t~{!..tf.',J :' .. ~.. D BP-I, Business Park - Industrial ~. ~\ '" 'O';':IIB - Heavy Industrial 1_ '., {X~~~t&~~ '.: .,\~.; ~ ~ CRD - Campus Research Development I ':':;:~~~:;~ D PA - Public Administration . f D TZ - Transitional Zone (Township) 't;~ '. ,'. I D Public Works Facility ,-~. .. \ " 'I ,'.'. ..... -, D ROAD ,'.-' _ Railroad D WATER lakeview Hospital Current Zoning .tel. Community Devclomnent Departmcn~ City of ~~~ LAKEVIEW HEALTH o 122.00/ June 2, 2008 BWBR Architects I 2008 o 1 \^'es~~~"r~~:Ilc~v~~~______________1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -flt-\;.TH\;t bt11 H -o-tl-c:et" t Existing Parking Deck ~\~\\\\\\~ / L 0' f-- 1 I 1 I 1 ~~~ LAKEVIEW HEALTH D · Horizontal Expansion · lower level and First Floor · 2 levels @ 33,000 sf ea. = 66,000 sf total ] - g BWBR Architects I 2008.122.00/ June 2, 2008 Existing Parking Deck , I I ) / / / / / / I / ~--=/ "':.:;..- LAKEVIEW HEALTH - -- · Vertical Expansion · 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Floors · 3 levels @ 33,000 sf ea. = 99,000 sf total 0 BWBR Architects /2008.122.00 / June 2. 2008 I \^'~~~ f"'h. 'r~h:1I C'~..~~~ ______________1_______ -------------y-y~\:..ITttI bffiH-C::XI"""C\Jt' t I Existing Parking Deck f-- I I I I ) ~ ~ I I I I I I , ) , / , / ~-==~/ LAKEVIEW HEALTH Horizontal Expansion lower level 1 st and 2nd Floor · 3 levels @ 23,000 sf ea. = 71,400 sf total 122.00/ June 2,2008 o . . BWBR Architects I 2008 D - - - - -West-Cffim,ffim -Stl'eet - - - - - - -- Existing Parking Deck I I I I I ! ~ ~ ~~ LAKEVIEW HEALTH D · Horizontal Expansion · lower level and I 1st Floor · 2 levels @ 23,000 sf ea. = 64,000 sf total ] . 0 BWBR Architects I 2008.122.00/ June 2,2008 I I -------+----- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~GAurGJ:lill_StFeet-- I .ffnl~ - - , t , ~ ~ I j I ~I c ~~ ~ Phase IV Phase II ~ + () ~ c - E C Phase I & II / , / , / , / , / / I / , / Existing , / Parking , Deck I / I I ~;?-'/ LAKEVIEW HEALTH ~~' from Northwest Perspective View o BWBR Architects /2008.122.00 I June 2, 200e ~""----~// ~.r.r ~~~ LAKEVIEW HEALTH from Northwest Perspective View g BWBR Architects I 2008.122.00 I June 2, 2008 ~"'-- --'C/~ - - - ~_.:..........- LAKEVIEW HEALTH from Northwest Perspective View o BWBR Architects I 2008.122.00/ June 2,2008 ~-"-- .-c::// ' -, ~-:;~ LAKEVIEW HE A LT H from Northwest Perspective View o BWBR Architects /2008.122.00 / June 2.2008 ~~ LAKEVIEW HEALTH from Northwest Perspective View g BWBR Architects I 2008.122.00 / June 2, 2008