HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-09 CPC Packet
{
J
r illwater
~ ~
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA ~
. . . ~
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2009
The CitY of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, March 9, 2009, at 7 p.m. in the Council
Ch~m~ers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. City of Stillwater Planning Comm'is.sion regu}cir
meetings are held at 7 p.m on the second Monday of each month. All qty Planning Commission meetings are
open to the public. .
AGENDA
1. CAI..'- TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 9,2009 MINUTES
3. 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 Commission 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
attendimce, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less
4. 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 appli.q;lnt, after which the
Chairperson will th~n .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 take action on the proposed item.
4.oi Case No. 09-05. A variance to setbacks for the construction of a 13'6" x 12' deck located at
150 Third Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Patrick LaCosse, representing Mike
Rice and Diane Hark, applicant.
4.02 Case No. 09-06. A variance to the front yard setbacks, impervious surface and second
accessory structure on a non-conforming .lot for the construction of a single car garage located at
616 West Maple Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Brute Iverson, r~presenting
Greg and Stacy Cain, applicant. .'
4.03 Cas'e No. 09':'07. A zoning text amendment related to the regulatipn c;>f radio and television
towers, Section 31-101 and Section 31-512 of the Stillwater City Code. City of Stillwater,
applicant.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
5.01 Annual review of seasonal plant sales special use permits.
CITY HAll: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET . STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
PHONE 651-430-8800 . WEBSITE: wwwci.stillwater.mn,us
\
\
,~
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
February 9, 2009
Present: Dave Middleton, Chair, Suzanne Block, Mike Dahlquist, Mike Kocon, John Malsam,
Scott Spisak and Charles Wolden
Staff present: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge
Absent: Robert Gag and Dan Kalmon
Chair Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p,m.
Approval of minutes: Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Kocon, moved approval of the minutes of
Jan. 12, 2009, Motion passed unanimously.
OPEN FORUM
Mr. Turnblad explained this is a new agenda item at the request of the Mayor and Council. Mr.
Middleton invited any comments from the audience. No comments were received.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 08-51 A variance to the river and bluff setback for Bergstein and Shoddy Mill at 805 S.
Main St. in the IB, Heavy Industrial District. City of Stillwater, applicant. Continued from the Jan.
12, 2009, meeting.
Mr. Turnblad explained this case was tabled pending comments from the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and the National Park Service. He stated he had talked with representatives
from both agencies, The National Park Services' primary concern was that the shoreline remain
as natural as possible, noting that Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will be
responsible for that aspect of the project; he stated MnDOT has agreed to work with the Park
Service on that issue. Mr. Turnblad stated the DNR's concern is with storm water management;
the DNR would like any storm water channeled through some type of mitigation device, he said.
He noted that there will be crushed rock placed between the two buildings which can serve as
the storm water mitigation. Mr. Turnblad stated approval is recommended with the condition that
the landscaping plans and storm water mitigation plans meet the approval of the National Park
Service and DNR, respectively. Mr. Turnblad noted that if approvals of those two agencies
require substantive changes to the site, this case will come back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was
closed, Mr. Kocon, seconded by Mr. Malsam, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed
unanimously.
Case No. DR/09-03 A special use permit request for the remodeling and expansion of the
mechanical room at 927 W. Churchill St. (Lakeview Hospital) in the RB, Two Family Residential
District. BWBR Architects, Shannon Brambery, applicant.
Mr. Turnblad stated that Lakeview's application for expansion has been withdrawn at this time.
The hospital would now like remodel existing space with a goal of obtaining more single-room
patient space. In order to do that, he said, some services, such as oncology, will be relocated.
The remodeling plans, he said, require the upgrade and expansion of the mechanical space in
order to accommodate larger air handing units.
..
j
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
February 9, 2009
Mr. Turnblad stated the new mechanical room addition will be located at the southeast of the
hospital site, surrounded by the parking ramp, He stated the {1dditional will basically look like a
low-lying wall and won't be visible except from Everett Street \~r. Turnblad noted the proposal
will not create any more beds, won't generate any additional ,ffic and no additional parking
requirements. Mr. Turnblad stated any addition to the hospital. . 1uires an amendment to the
special use permit and approval is recommended.
Mr, Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was
closed. Mr. Middleton asked if there would be any mechanical units located outside that would
possibly make noise and disturb residents. Mr. Turnblad stated the existing cooling towers
would remain at their current location. Mr. Brambery, BWBR Architects, explained that all new
equipment will be located inside of the new addition and all equipment that is being replaced will
be located internally, as well. Mr, Brambery stated there would be some rooftop penetrations on
the addition to accommodate for the possibility of future expansion, Mr. Dahlquist asked if there
were any architectural drawings. Mr. Brambery stated they had not gone to that detail, but noted
that the addition will appear as a solid wall constructed of brick to match the hospital. Curt
Geisler, president of Lakeview Health, pointed out that the hospital has an interest in aesthetics
as well due to views from patients' rooms. Mr. Middleton asked if the roof would be visible from
any residences. Mr, Brambery said he did not believe the roof would be visible. Ms. Block
clarified the addition's relation to the parking lot retaining wall. Mr. Brambery said a portion of
the addition will actually serve as the retaining wall and will be slightly higher than the existing
retaining wall,
Mr. Malsam moved approval of the special use permit amendment as conditioned. Mr. Dahlquist
seconded the motion and asked if Mr. Malsam would consider an additional condition that the
architectural treatment of the addition match or complement the hospital structure. Mr. Malsam
agreed to amend his motion as suggested. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the amended motion;
amended motion passed unanimously,
OTHER BUSINESS
Communication towers in residential districts - Mr. Pogge explained that it is likely the City will
be receiving several requests for new communication towers in the upcoming months and staff
felt it would be wise to review the City's existing code requirements. Mr. Pogge noted the
existing ordinance was written in 1997 before the stealth tower technology was available, but
said he felt the ordinance was fairly well-written. Mr. Pogge briefly reviewed the various sections
of the existing ordinance. After general discussion, members were in consensus that the City
ought to be as flexible as possible considering the new towers likely will be located in residential
areas, Mr. Pogge suggested adding definitions of monopole and stealth designs to the
ordinance; he said he would come back with some recommended language.
Mr. Turnblad asked new members to consider attending one of two seminars designed for
Planning Commission members, noting that attendance would be at members' expense. Mr.
Turnblad also stated the City would be scheduling an orientation session for all new commission
members in the near future,
Mr. Middleton officially welcomed Mr, Spisak to the Commission.
2
.
'.
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
February 9, 2009
Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Kocon, moved to adjourn at 7:55 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
3
,/
..
Siillwater
- ~~:--==--;;;--'-'~,.
'HE 8IA,,,riACE 01 Mi""FS01A ')
Planning Commission
DATE:
March 4, 2009
CASE NO.: 09-05
APPLICANT:
Patrick LaCasse
PROPERTY OWNER:
Mike and Diane Hark-Rice
REQUEST:
A variance to a allow 15.6 foot encroachment in to the required side
yard setback for the construction of a deck. [31-317 (c)(I)]
LOCATION:
150 3rd St S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT:
CC - Community Commercial
ZONING: CBD - Central Business District
PC DATE: March 9, 2009
REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner>>~
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting a variance for a 13'6" by 12' deck to encroach into the
required side yard setback. In the CDB zoning district, the required side yard setback is
a total of 20 feet on both sides, The building has a zero foot setback on the north
property line which in turn requires a 20 foot setback on the south side of the building.
The south end of this building is a residential unit.
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 property at 150 3rd St S is a regular shape and sized lot for the Central
Business District. The applicant has not provided a hardship in their application
that supports a variance,
\,
150 3rd St S
Page 2
'..1
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.
The property is currently being used as a residential condominium unit and can
continue to be used as such with or without the variance. As such, it would not
appear that a variance is necessary to allow the continued use of the property as
a residential dwelling unit.
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 deck should not have any 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. There is no hardship peculiar to the property.
2. That a variance is not 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 constitute a
special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
3, That the authorizing of the variance should not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property.
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION
The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed a design review permit related to this
request at its March 2, 2009 meeting. The Commission voted 4-0 to approve the design
review permit subject to using a brick that closely matches the existing building in lieu
of the originally proposed stone material and subject to approval of a variance by the
Planning Commission.
.'
..
150 3rd St S
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the requested variance to allow a deck to encroach 15.6 feet into the
required side yard setback. If the Commission approves the variance staff
would recommend the conditions of approval listed below.
2. Deny the requested variance to allow a deck to encroach 15,6 feet into the
required side yard setback since an affirmative finding on the required
conditions for a variance could not be made by staff.
3. Continue the public hearing until the April 13, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting. The 60-day decision deadline for the request is April 14, 2009.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and take an action
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
1. All major revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission. All minor revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed
by the Community Development Director. The final determination between major
and minor revisions shall be made by the City Administrator.
2, Applicant shall use brick that closely matches the existing building in lieu of stone,
Final brick color to be approved by the City Planner.
Attachments:
Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and Photos
'.
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No,:
.,;
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER M N 55082
ACTION REQUESTED
-1\r-SpeciallConditional Use Permit
-:4- 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 all forms and supporting material submitted
in connection 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 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
, '. - .;;:l S'O~C).;;l.oY 30' 6 30 10S
Address of Project-BARIC- +<1 (.f, m; tWN( IS Assessor's Parcel No,
. I. , I i 1_ \.,.v/.-I-. (GEO Code) I .-L
Zoning District:':L:ID Description of Project ~ ~. I :'~)(OVle ~/ [,{ \<< c; 61 III d 3hY1.C
( ( . Ii '. I L~J /1' III 11
Jez!::: tv r~_ <ppf'oX. S1r1e 5-{o X ~ ()
"1 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."
Representative ?A1l<{ CK La Ct;LS~-e-
Mailing Address 2'Z/) I. C;;cffa.c( ,\N~
City - State - Zip W-udSDY\ ,W I ~tj 0 I W
TelePhon~~;e TelePhone~~~4
Slgnatur SIgnature
(Signature 5 required) (Signature is required)
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Building floor area /;:s-.Z:::O square feet
Existing /8 S-O square feet
Proposed square feet
Paved Impervious Area _ square feet
No, of off-street parking spaces
Property Owner rv~\ ~~D\ANE t-+ARl<(-Rl(p
Mailing Address \ So 'SO.'~ ST
City - State - Zip STl L tWAl'BR J fv\N ry;::;efi?;2-
,
Lot Size (dimensions@-J ~I
Land Area 43 S<
Height of Buildings: Stories
Principal c;<
Accessory
F~et I /
/ q -0'1
H: \ mcna mara\sheila \PLANAPP ,FRrvl
April 9, 2008
.(
.
Check list for
Planning Applications
Incomplete or unclear applications/plans will be returned to the applicant and may result in
delay of application processing.
Check and attach to application.
\1
~ The applica~ion form completed and signed by the property owner or owners authorized
/ representative.
o VA complete legal description of subject property.
\
0'- Building plans clearly dimensioned and scaled (16 copies),
ft' The site plan showing exterior property lines, easements, lot width and depth and lot area building(s)
location, (See attached site plan example, a parcel boundary survey may be required).
l All adjacent streets or right of ways labeled,
o Location, elevation, size, height of building or addition, dimensions, materials and proposed use of all
buildings and structures (including walls, fences, signs, lighting and hooding devices) eXisting and
proposed for the site (if the site is in a Historic District, additional design detail maybe required).
D Distances between all structures and between all property lines or easements and structures,
.\
/)
o Show Adjacent buildings to this application site and dimension from property line.
. \
CSJi All major existing trees on the site (4 inch caliber or greater), giving type, location, size and other site
f \ coverage conditions,
~ Show existing significant natural features such as rock outcroppings or water courses (existing and
proposed marked accordingly),
CA Locate all off-street parking spaces, driveways, loading docks and maneuvering areas with dimensions
.' . for driveway widths and parking space sizes,
q Pedestrian, vehicular and service points of ingress and egress; distances between driveways and
/ \ street corners.
7\' Landscape plan showing number of plants, location, varieties and container sizes (landscape plan).
S\ Existing and proposed grading plan showing direction and grade of drainage through and off the site;
\ indicate any proposed drainage channels or containment facilities,
Xl Required and existing street dedications and improvements such as sidewalks, curbing and pavement
(may not be required),
Q' Letter to the Planning Commission describing the proposed use in detail and indicating how this use
0' will effect and compatibility with adjacent uses or areas,
P Applications for new structures 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.
j'CJ Other such data as may be required to permit the planning commission to make the required findings
for approval of the specific type of application.
'j). 0~~
y;;v.C ,/ /'
Applicant/owner signature
d. IS 0/
Date
3~ 1.../ '2flct'l
'J
C/y <7/ ,['h//wa/C'i
r'/CZ/lr1//JJ C/{?/7?'~ / 'f;; /?In
Z/C ~ </~ f/;
fh//Nahu,/ MA/
La~ e 5' R r7 <,,{ 0en ~k nJC? /l
/
~/f k;f%:i /J //7 rc/,/y ~~ 4/l'JohcC' / /C'C'c:-/</e.p{ /'C?fLird-
//7)' Y<9h'/I' c;:.-qJ'(' /7&>" ()9- t>~/ LL .v4r/?t/JL..C h ;:'c'/ ~~~,; ~,r ;LAc
CPl'7f~/UC~/~ .c/ /[/ a<(/~ q"L /~ >. ;r;.{.//'L;~
/ c:f/?'l /he C'<A//7cr ,?J~ ;r0hc::-- aV4CC/7/'- /l'u,rk///}C; /p/ c:;/
/#p ~ Th//"?/ ~ Wh/c/; /5 Z:t?/J1~/--/rne~ c../'fC'Lt 41f/-hc:--- .4ff'1-
//?4/Jh -/r? a~cce.~5 "L-he//" /'ecrr ~c://c c:;.-L /~ }, ~//'~
K / de /}~r?' &-ec/ ~ /4p /lc W d'cc.~/ ,fru/- / /ce / /-,44r
/;:. /-~c /(/ t:f' /' / d /? C' <: / If/' C1 n /2;ci/ / N h / /,::::- ~h c z /'c w;r Cl /',e.. c7tl
/-hc, ~(9kl ?44"?- a.-- ~<J-r1?L ,/-/~ c7/ a///,rt?UC;/ U/LJ-t.///C '?c Y?,01/~--
0G/ S rq / /"w ccy Af "\ Af u / / / h ~h v r t>'? /' C:;/C ck, /4/1' C-IU/ /;:?
;fr e;, c/O' /1 to:. d> 7J /-h c:: 1',-:/ 4/ ~h 5' / ck <f ~ M c ~ X/? /7 r?Y # Iv' / /.c'/ /'?;J;
Nh ~c; A ~~L/~e ;::-/~ ~-/&< e1~/f' //C:_cr h/-..7' 4C'-~ C;:-,r>L7 77//77
hit;! ~/'Cl /? 1"'/"Y h .Y'~/- t'u /he./r' /"Pfar c/<:.?K,
4? ~ /7/1//7.1' C-~/5 ;/.0/1 <:pc//C{)~ /;4a/-- /7?Y/?/'o~~/V(
/). P/7 C /P (./w ce../l /J if' / tj .4'? p/'> ~ /J4'~ / hcl/(/e.- .rC-/"/ ~cl CJ' v~r'-
;1-;4~ ;/CCl/lf, 10 f~/- ~,h(/'..~4/;L~~ h f,L,/I/c-/ C(/' cf/CJ/ Y'~a-y /
f;[/7- .hu..vl' /Jp-/- -ic ?L...fc-q;..e fs:.PU/..... / 4 y/C: y&-V/' u;:.f'/5h/7c.c::....
//7 5'<5/0'/I"7't ..M"/;J:.- ~c;<::::'->r rrcfA-/e/?"J',
s: / /'1. c. ~j. c / .z::>
fd/~ct4;e f ~9
~CA?ir've. ,J/ X;/~/
//8;< w. L/eq-f >~
)/;//W4/t:'r' ~/L/
/'
~,4'<>/J ~ 6 j.....~ ~ 0/ 3-1/_ 2__'91-/)
23?J, G&,:3 -- o'!>/ Z.
III
1:,01/) 7&t1!\~
S-t~(OlX' R/Vl f!-P~
Sr00~
'/3 L0J< f
@
Over ~\-C:~j
;'0 '-....
I,
('
"-......
,.~. ~.:, ~.~
0.....
-
NORTH
o 20 40
r\r\.-J
SCALE IN FEET
1 INCH ~ 20 FEET
OFFICIAL PLAT
COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY NUMBER 320
A CONDOMINIUM
150 SOUTH THIRD STREET CONDOMINIUMS
\
\
\
\
\--
\
\
\
\
\
\
Y
\
\
\
\
\
\ ..-
\'
\
\
\
\
.\
\--
SITE PLAN
(AS-BUlL TS)
\\1
1\\
1\1
1\1
1\1
1\1
1\
1\
1\1
\\
III
\\
III
1\
\II
0111
'tIll
~III
<l-III
~III
\1>1\\
'bIll
.,111
Sol\
1,1\\
\II
III
\II
\\
III
_._.>U
( 1\1
\ 1\
~\ \II
'l~ III
~'> \~
(,~ 1\
~ \ \\\
~~ III
'" 1\
t.'t \II
'0" III
~~ III
~ III
~ \~
~~
.._..-0, \ \
r-"-::-:~\ \ \
, ~ -d----- ,,-' \
~ -"""----;.;~c~---"" \ \ \
/.--""__~::::.::~::=:~:-":~:K:!..~~:::':~:--'-/--'-~" ... :::. \ \
V?\:r=--::l .v~
\t'~-ro \ / <\ ,;
\ \ .........Y ~..--\ \ ":..of' t-.c.~ ..~~
.......-\..........., . \..... ~_.#'''- \ ~
~ "~-.1-""'~-' ' , ~---- \ \ ?).~~ 'v
\1.~~:~ ~- -- ::r~/ \
v \ \ \.....\\
\ \, \ \
, \
\ \
\ \ \
~-~\\
~~~ 13
1ff-..o~ 3. _
---
&0
---
---
---
---
---
..,.----.."..:..-
J,.
---
,',
'-'
,::'
--I
---
---
",
",
~
,
,
~--j
~stof1
---
---
---
---
'1
60
J"
.:..
SOUfH 1/ 4 COR~ Of-
\~~~\K~~,.o~' ~~y
) C,6,Si IRON MOI'U"&lf
---
---
---
--
~i
)
This CIC Plat Is part O~~hf I ra\ign Recorded
as Document Number ~ _J?1__ on J ~
this aJ.___ day of ____ 20a,c A.D,
vL~~
ashington co~~;d;- -. . . ,
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I, Daniell. Thurmu, do hereby certify that the work was undertaken by or reVIewed and approved by me for this COMMON INTEREST
COMMUNITY NUMBER 320. A CONDOMINIUM, 1 SO SOUTH THIRD STREET CONDOMINIUMS, being located upon:
Lots 4, 'BLOCK 23, of the Original Town (now CIty) of Stll~ater. and amended by Myron Shepard's Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater
dated May 31.1878, Washington County. Minnesota: and
That part of Lot 3, 810ck 23, of the Original Town (now City) of Stillwater. and amended by Myron Shepard's Perfected Plat of the City of '
Stillwater dated May 31, 1878, Washington County. Minnesota, lying south of a line drawn from a point on the easterly line of Said Lot 3 a
distance of 20.46 feet southerly of the northeast corner of said Lot 3 to a point on the westerly line of said lot 3 a distance of 19,88 feet
southerly of the northwest comer of said lot 3,
fully and accurately depicts all site plan Information required by Minnesota Statutes, Section S 15B,2-11 0,
Dated this J 5' "day of D.iu"",L (
~ '-:f3fl
. 200h,
Daniel L Thurmes, Land Surveyor
.... J _ Minnesota Ucense No.2S718
STATE OF~l~.I!!l.
COUNTY OF J.H N"""" "(1
The foregoing SurveY9r's Certlflcate was acknowledged before me this -'~_ day of _ t>eu....b-.r
Thurmes. Land Surveyor. .
tll";~J. J,t;,;
, 200Je. by Daniel L
Notary Public,Jl&..~~ County.. It! t"'~~J.rJ.,
My Commission ~~';"7." ~/, ?/SILL
ARCHITEcw.~TE
I,~ ___, Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 51 S8.2-1 01 C, do herby certify that all structural components and
mechanical systems serving more than 1 unit In all the buildings containing the units thereby created are substantially completed,
Dated this JtL- day of~. 200-':...
~__'Archltect, Minnesota Ucense No. I~
~~~FO~~~ ~
The foregoln9 Instrument was acknowledged before me this _---1fL. day of ~. 200~. by LH-~ ( ,a
Licensed Professional Architect.
-~~
Notary Public, LJ...I.:......... County.~AI
My Commission Expires_""'-'O __
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 389.09, Subd, 2, this CIC Plat has been reVIewed and approved thls.2 7~ayof !?ItCIFoMtrlflt' ,
200.k.,
8~ ~~-'
4' ,. ,...~r- e-. "TPIL
8y ~ 7. WELLII(f:1-
Washington County Surveyor
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 51 S8. 1-116 and Section 272.12, taxes payable for the ye~OO~ ~real:J;te hereinbefore
described. have been paid, there are no delinquent ta sand tr r has en entered this _-L~ day of U. ... 200-"..
fOR 1'" ~POSts Of lttl I'l.A 1. 1'" SOUl_L Y
LOE Of LOr 4. IlLOC< 23. MYRON ~AlWS
Pf"R:F~CrW PL.~.:T OF TI-E" aTY Of srUWATfR 15
ASS(X1;O 10 IICAR SWl'H 72 DI'''''''''S 25 I1Wf~S
26 ~o.vS W~Sl,
LAND S!JRVEYING. INC
SHEET 1 OF 2 5HEETS
,---
I
I ~ \1"
t~ L___
u.<JTroSCAUJ[..CS~" ~
'Io'fsr MYRfIX srml
I \'
I ~'* "'
L___
SuIWIll00
200 E... 0l001noA Slnlol
S_lor, MN 5SOIl2
Phono 851.210,_
Fu 851.275.8978
dlt-coloO
-
,not
o
L.C.~,
C.~.
OfNOl~S SOl HALr NeH RON """ ~ r1ARl<W RLs 25716
DftlOr~s LMrfD COM"oON ~
OfNOTES COM"oON ELEtENT
NlfRlOR 0talSl0NS SttO'Io'N ARE Nl'A"-"!fD 10 1'"
FN*D ~ACf Of 1'" WALLS, caN;S, AW Fi.OORS.
lOP tUT HYDRANT 'Io'HCH IS LOCAlfD ALONG l>E fASlfRL Y
SOf Of SO\JfH l.-:!D SrRffr
ELEVAlklN - 741.27 Fffr (NGVD ,q2q)
+
CORNERSTONE
IlftolCH
MAR<
.J
. illwate~_
----- .~-.
C~~~,~
-rHF 8IR.rHP~A(!: Of MiN~~f:SOlA
')
Planning Commission
DATE:
March 4, 2009
CASE NO.: 09-06
APPLICANT: Bruce Iverson
PROPERTY OWNER: Greg and Stacy Cain
REQUEST:
The applicants are requesting variances in order to construct an attached
16 foot by 23 foot garage and associated driveway. The variances include:
1, A variance to the minimum lot size, (7,500 square feet
requiredj7,350 square feet proposed)
2. A variance to front yard setback (30 feet requiredj21 feet
proposed and 10 feet setback from the front of the homej1 foot
requested)
3. A variance to maximum impervious lot coverage. (25% maximum
for other impervious coveragej35.3% requested)
4. A variance to permit a second accessory structure to exceed 120
square feet.
LOCATION:
616 Maple St W
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT:
SFSL - Single Family Small Lot
ZONING:
RB - Two-family District
PC DATE:
March 9, 2009
REVIEWERS:
Community Dev. Director
Michel Pogge, City Planner~1\'
PREPARED BY:
BACKGROUND
The applicants are requesting four variances in order to construct an attached 16 foot by 23 foot
garage and associated driveway. This property is zoned RB and currently has an existing
single-family home on the site and an existing shed that is 20' by 13' in the northwest corner of
the site. The lot is 7,350 square feet in size.
DISCUSSION
The first three variances are to Chapter 31-308 (b)(l) related to minimum massing standards in
the RB zoning district. The first variance requested is to the minimum lot size, The current lots
size is 7,350 square feet and the RB zoning district requires 7,500 square feet for a single-family
lot. The lot was platted in 1877 and its size has remained unchanged since then.
,
616 Maple St W
Page 2
The second variance is to the required front yard setback The city code requires that all
garages be setback aminimum of 30 feet from the front property line and setback 10 feet from
the front wall of the home. The purpose of this is to help limit garages from becoming the
dominate feahue in the City's historic neighborhoods. There are three properties on this block
that have attached garage in the required front yard setback Each of these garage were built
prior to the adoption of this requirement. Nine other properties on this block have the garage in
the rear or side yards and meet the required front yard setback It would appear possible to
consh'uct both an attached garage and a detach garage and still meet the required front yard
setback The placement of a garage may be undesirable in these two locations from the
applicants standpoint since it would block views from their kitchen window; however, this is a
legitimate alternative that could be taken that would not require this variance. Finally, the
traditional garage location on this block is in the rear yards were the applicant installed an in-
ground pool in 2001, The need to place the garage in the proposed location is a self-created
hardship typically making it ineligible for a variance,
The third variance is to the maximum impervious lot coverage. The RB zoning code allows up
to 25% coverage for buildings and 25 % for other impervious coverage, which are required to be
calculated separately, Currently the property has 1,157 sf (or 15.7%) of building coverage and
2,266 sf (or 30.8%) of other impervious coverage (sidewalk, driveway, pool, etc). The proposal
is to increase the building coverage to 1,157 sf (or 20.7%) and the impervious coverage to 2,592
sf (or 35.3%). Per Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization rules and past precedents
set by the Commission when one type of impervious coverage is exceeded and a variance is
required that the difference between 25 % and the proposed coverage is required to be
mitigated. Even though an applicant is under on one type of impervious coverage they are not
permitted to credit that difference toward the other type of impervious surface. In this case, if
the Commission chooses to grant the variance then the area that exceeded the 25% other
impervious surfaces is required to be mitigated. The required mitigation is 754.5 sq or 10.3 % of
the lot. The applicant's storm water calculations credited the portion on the building coverage
that they did not exceed. The applicant will need to amend their storm water calculations to
reflect this difference. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to keep 550 square feet of the
existing driveway located directly west of the proposed garage for parking. If this driveway
was reduced by 326 square feet, the site's other impervious coverage would remain unchanged,
a variance for impervious coverage would not be required and the applicant would not need to
mitigate any storm water on the site. The desire to have additional on-site parking is a self-
created hardship typically making it ineligible for a variance,
The fourth and final variance is to section 31-308 (3) iii. of the City Code to permit a second
accessory structure to exceed 120 square feet. One of the City's policies is to preserve as much
of its historical building stock as practically possible. Currently there is a 20' by 13' shed in the
northwest corner of the lot. The shed appears in the 1945 aerial photo making it over 50 years
of age. In the past, the Commission has granted a variance to allow a second accessory
structure to exceed 120 square feet when the first structure was older than 50 years of age and it
is precluded from being used as a garage for automobiles. In this case, an in ground pool is
located between the front of the property and the shed which currently makes it impossible to
store vehicles in the garage.
616 Maple St W
Page 3
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 property is a 7,350 square foot lot. The subject property is Lot 10 H R Murdock's
Addition to the City of Stillwater that was platted in 1877. The size of the lot has not
changed since it was originally platted, The existing 20' by 13' shed in the rear yard has
been there since at least 1945. These situations were not created by an act of the current
property owner. Staff supports the lot size variance and second accessory structure over
120 square feet variance,
The placement of a garage to meet the required front yard setback may be undesirable
from the applicant's viewpoint since it would block views from their kitchen window;
however, this is a legitimate alternative that could be taken that would not require a
front yard setback variance. Additionally, by building a detached garage on the north
side of the existing driveway and by eliminating the propose new driveway the
applicant would not need a variance to the impervious surface. Since these are self
created hardships staff recommends denying the variances to the front yard setback and
the impervious surface.
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 as two-family residential which allows single family and two-
family uses. Garages are generally considered an important element for residential uses
by the Commission. If the garage were to be moved back nine feet and detached from
the main home the front yard setback and the impervious surface variances would not
be needed. Since there are alternatives, it would appear that the granting of these
variances would be a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors.
Without the variance to the lot size the applicant would be deprived the right to
construct any garage on the property. Additionally, requiring the demolition of the
existing shed would run counter to the City's goal of protecting its historic building
stock. Therefore, staff finds that a variance to the minimum lot size and a variance to
permit a second accessory sh'ucture that exceeds 120 square feet are necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of rights possessed by other properties in the same district
and in the same vicinity,
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.
Impervious cover such as houses, driveways, and roads prevents water from entering
the ground leading to increased flooding downstream and an increase in contamination
and sediment in downstream water bodies, Increases in impervious surfaces are the
main causes of water quality degradation. This degradation can be seen in many of the
City's water bodies including the St. Croix River. These are just a few of the reasons the
City has implemented maximum impervious coverage standards, If the area that
616 Maple St W
Page 4
exceeds the maximum impervious coverage is mitigated than the additional coverage
should not be a detriment to adjacent property owner nor the larger community.
Additionally, the authorizing of the variances to the minimum lot size and to permit a
second shed that exceeds 120 sf will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title and would not necessary
adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan.
The requested variance to the required front yard setback for garages runs counter to the
neighborhood conservation design guidelines and the stated objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan to protect the character of our historic residential neighborhoods.
Therefore, a variance to the required front yard setback, if granted, will materially
impair the purpose and intent of the zoning code and would adversely affect the
Comprehensive Plan to maintain the historic character of the City's residential
neighborhoods.
FINDINGS
1. The current lot size and the existence of the shed that exceeds 120 sf is a hardship
that is peculiar to the property and is not created by acts of the owner. The need for
a front yard setback and impervious surface variances are not hardships that are
peculiar to the property and are conditions created by acts of the owner.
2. The variances to the minimum lot size and to permit a second shed that exceeds 120
sf are 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. The proposed variances to the minimum front yard
setback requirement and the maximum impervious surface coverage are not
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 constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed
by his neighbors,
3. As conditioned, the authorizing of the variances to the minimum lot size, maximum
lot coverage, and to permit a second shed that exceeds 120 sf will not be a substantial
detriment to adjacent property, will not materially impair the purpose and intent of
this title and would not necessary adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. The
authorizing of the variances to the minimum front yard setback will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property; however, it will materially impair the
purpose and intent of this title and would adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan
to maintain the historic character of the City's residential neighborhoods.
616 Maple St W
Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the request in part. Approve the variances to the minimum lot size and a
variance to permit a second accessory sh.ucture that exceeds 120 square feet. Deny
the variances to the minimum front yard setback and the maximum impervious
surface. Additionally, staff would suggest the following conditions for approval:
a. All minor revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Corrununity Development Director. All major revisions shall be revised
and approve by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction
between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Adminish"ator.
b. Prior to the issuance of a building permit revised plans shall be submitted to
staff for review and approval that meets the minimum front yard setback and
the maximum impervious surface. The garage can be either attached or
detached as long as it meets all other requirements of the zoning code.
2. Approve the requested variances including: 1) a variances to the minimum lot size;
2) a variance to permit a second accessory structure that exceeds 120 square feet; 3) a
variances to encroach nine feet into the required front yard setback and 4) a variance
to exceed the maximum impervious coverage for other (non-building) services by
754.5 square feet. Additionally, staff would suggest the following conditions for
approval:
a, All minor revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Corrununity Development Director. All major revisions shall be revised
and approve by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction
between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator.
b, Prior to the issuance of a building permit revised plans shall be submitted to
staff for review and approval that show the location and type of proposed
storm water mitigation devices. The storm water mitigation devices shall
retain the storm water generated by 754.5 square feet of impervious area
during a 6-inch rain event.
c. The property owner shall install all required storm water control devices to
control the additional storm water runoff from the site. The proposed storm
water controls shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Deparhnent prior to the issuance of a building permit for the garage.
3. Deny the requested variances.
4. Continue the public hearing until the April 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
The 60 day decision deadline for the request is April 14, 2009,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recorrunends alternative one of approving the request in part as conditioned.
Attachments:
Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and letter.
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No,:
,
l ~- "R,./J'
,3(1 75J~
ceMMUNllY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CllY OF Sl1LLWA1t:R
216 NORlli FOURlH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
ACll0N REQUESTED
Special/Conditional Use Permit
>{ Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivlsion~
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 fo~
requested action are attached to this application.
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting mamnal
submitted in connection 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 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.
PROPERlY IDENTIFICATION ~pep:.r!1 :{:P #:
Address of Project ~U/d1r JJ1/ftg ~r: Ag;esoor'sParcel No. ~~03ozc:zza;,~7
p ~ (GEO Code)
Zoning District.l1f2.- Description of Project l\~~W ~ 11.14Lg '"7~ 4fiJ~fiJ~~
-r J<k7 F~l/n"i.IJ Wi f}(~fV" ~tf/BIe/~.7J~.?;r.qV
~r;f~/17e;.-1rJl~L ~~p to I:rbt/~ ')
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, Information and evidence submitted herewith in
a/l 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 owner4ttB'4 r 1f to?} tR/:!
Mailing Address ~/? /t/tS~"-lJ11Rtff -:fr
City - State -Zip ?1jtiv/J:J~ IIAI' 5~Z City - State -Zip ~)(Jm-1?8.t Ny f?f?ftJ?
TelephoneNo{5/-4fr1-t?tJi51;;J., Telephone No. ~ ~ / .
Signature . \ ) c ~ :Vf-.. t)9 Signature_ _ _~~
( re Is required) (Signature is required)
Representative_~U?g: he'f11;?J
Mailing Addre$ 1.1fIJI #BtJAI jr Nu/
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No,:
I I
Lot Size (dimensions) if. x C2Z/
Land Area 1~D
Height of Buildings: Stories
Principal / (/~
AcceS!:IJry J
.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPll0N
Total Building floor area /~Z~ &:luare feet
Existing J /"'5 ';l &:luare feet
Proposed ~te;,i!f:;::, &:luare feet
Paved Impervious AreaZfT1'Zsquare feet&~)
No. of off-street parl<ing spaces "'7' 1:?1.;dA./Alsz:;:?
/
H :\mcnama ra \sheila \PlANAPP.FRJ-l
Feet /
/J!!:J
12.'
April 9, 2008
IVERSON DESIGN INC.
14301 Neon Street NW Ramsey, MN 55303
Tel: 763-427-7115
Fax: 763-323-9936
Damont Design Build
8332 Hwy 65 NE
Spring Lake Park, MN 55432
Ref: Variance Request Submittal
616 West Maple Street, Stillwater
To whom it may concern,
Greg and Stacy Cain are submitting a request for variance on a proposed residential addition, which
includes a new attached single car garage and new entry mud room extension out under existing
covered porch.
The variance request is required due to a variety of reasons. First being that the existing lot is
nonconforming because it is only 49'x150' in size, Therefore it does not meet the required minimum lot
width of 50' and is also only 7350 sq ft vs. the minimum 7500 required. Variance request is to proceed
with residential addition on a non-conforming lot.
Secondly, the need for additional storage and desire to facilitate more off street parking the proposed
plan requests variance for an attached single car garage to address these needs. The new attached
garage would reduce parking clutter, allow for much needed storage space, better facilitate on site
drainage, and would allow for easier access to the home without having to fight the elements. Site
constraints and functionality dictate that it is located as indicated on the drawings, Variance request is
for a front yard setback of 21' as indicated on drawing set vs. 30' required by city zoning.
Thirdly, because there is an existing 20'x13' (260 sf) original accessory building on the rear of lot that is
bigger then the allowable120 sq ft for a secondary accessory structure. The code allows up to 10% or
735 sq ft accessory buildings with only one larger then 120 sq ft. The new proposed attached garage
is 16'x23' (368 sf) garage and total accessory building coverage will be 628 sf and is below the
required total of 735 sf, Variance request is for a second accessory building over 120 sq ft in size,
Lastly, the current hard surface coverage of the current lot is 3423sf (buildings 1157sf and other's
being 2266sf) with the new garage addition and driveway, proposed lot coverage will be 4117sf
(buildings at 1525sf and other's being 2592sf) Variance request is for additional hard surface coverage
in category of other's because the building coverage is still below the allowable 1838sf.
If you have any questions regarding the layout of proposed addition feel free to contact Bruce Iverson,
Iverson Design Inc. at 763-427-7115.
Thank you for attention to these matters
Sincerely,
Bruce Iverson
Iverson Design Inc
Cc; Greg & Stacy Cain
IVERSON DESIGN INC.
14301 Neon Street NW Ramsey, MN 55303
Tel: 763-427-7115
Fax: 763-323-9936
Damont Design Build
8332 Hwy 65 NE
Spring Lake Park, MN 55432
Ref: Storm water run off Calculations
616 West Maple Street, Stillwater
To whom it may concern,
Greg and Stacy Cain are submitting a request for variance on a proposed residential addition, which
includes a new attached single car garage and new entry mud room extension out under existing
covered porch.
The current hard surface coverage of the current lot is 3423sf (buildings 1157sf and other's being
2266sf) with the new garage addition and driveway, proposed lot coverage will be 4117sf (buildings at
1525sf and other's being 2592sf) Variance request is for a total additional hard surface coverage of
442sf,
Surface Area Calculations:
Proposed hard surface coverage
Allowable hard surface coverage
Overage
4117 sq ft
3675 sq ft (50% of total lot area)
442 sq ft
}i" Rain "Run-Off" Calculations:
(442 sf x .5) divided by 12 = 18.4 cubic ft x 7.48 gal/cu ft = 138 gallons
Proposal:
Proposed solutions to address the additional run-off would be as follows;
(or combination of both)
- Proposal "A" install/provide (3) 45 gal rain barrels
- Proposal "B" install/provide (1) rain garden area 4'-0" x 5'-0" x 1 '-0" deep
If you have any questions regarding these calculations or proposed solutions feel free to contact Bruce
Iverson, Iverson Design Inc. at 763-427-7115.
Thank you for attention to these matters
Sincerely,
Bruce Iverson
Iverson Design Inc
Cc; Greg & Stacy Cain
..
a
- ,
-- -,. ~
~
...~
. -lll.. a
----.
a
n
II ,,"II ,n "
~
Ill.. ~."
New Existing
~ I ~
~
New Garage Addition ~ I ~~9~ Existing siding to remain
,
. I
, / ""
New roofing ~ '/ Ern x..
'/ ""
/ ""
/ ""
'~ New Entry Canopy
'A1=
^
~ ~l 7~~
-- I
New lap siding to I
match existing ~ 1----1 YL1
DODD DODD tm II II 1 ODD
DD .. D D ODD
11 .000
II
[[][[]] [D[[]] '1Dl1Dl
I
VARIANCE SET
-
Ilo
-
~~t%~
:. -=-';:;:;111:::::::-
'__._r :...----
,~~:::l.==-=:-
.;.- --. ' . ~-----=li;.:
-,":....- ..... :;~~,.~~~!.~
- -...-.... ..-. ,,-' '..~~ _.~. -'-." I
~, . ..-. . ilS'';:: ~ -, ..
..-::1IUI IU. ,?--= ...- .,.--,l:JiI' .....:-::-~:::::JI~',- iI;
ti ~'11 ftJt.:3;.:~=:::"I.I. _?--~~ :~: :.;,
_.,_I~,~dI!'.l:::" . A=- iI.....~~:...:' -,;"'"
:~~~. I~~~;~,- .;._:::-':N~"~~~~;:f!J~J.:'
.,--_._-~~ "--'--,~. ;..-~_.--:. ..'...
~ .:-';;,,:~--:i=-~~:= I ,. I tt::-:::::--~";:;~~" ~
l;,\i ~.- :::--:::t: 'k .--. :,-:"':';';!J-?'-
_......... jj'~,; .,:--. - .. 8;:.--
II . - - -
,,~
.,........
"
II
South Elevation
Scale 3/16" = 1 '-0"
ci ><
c ><
.D ><
.Q, ><
OJ
c
E
'0
Q)
'2'
0-
r:
0
... t!!
Q)
c ~
Cl
'(jj
Q) ai
0
U'i
N~
l"l""
'<t'
L()I()
I() co
z~
::i:16
-.....
~'Il:
(Il x
a. (Il
",u.
...
.5
0)
-2
0.
(/)
u.i
zO
I()M
CD~
>0'
(Ill()
;=co
.<:~
O)M
.- CD
x.....
N'Il:
l"l_
13~
\:
"
~
u
~
z
"
*
w
'"
~
o
'"
'Z
~
uJ
o
;;;
~
~
o
z
o
;::
~
"
o
u
o
;;;
ffi
ii\
~
~
w
F
~
~
~
"
'"
~
~
~
o
w
'"
o
@
"
:;
b
z
'"
w
Om
Z~C\1
wU5~
Ca>LO
_ LO
U5 fij-z
W2~
"1i)~
z~~
< <<> .~
'''' 't'""" .....
....,<<>Cl)
~
~
"
{j
'"
z
o
~
o
!E
'"
~
15
"'
~
~
~
t;;
@
z
"
w
~
o
~
>-
I
"
~
8
w
F
,.
m
g
o
!E
'"
o
~
'"
o
!E
8
'"
z
"
u;
i'j
g
~
~
z
"
*
'"
~
date
02/10/09
revisions
01
0 >< I/)
N...-
s::: >< (')"1'
"1"
.c >< 1/)1/)
1/)<0
.2, >< Z;J;
::!ECD
Cedar soffit & fascia ~~
'" x
c.. '"
.... CllU.
.li:
Cl ~
s:::
E 01
1) .5
Q) i:i
'2' (/)
ui
c. zo
1/)(')
New lap siding to (O~
c: >"
",I/)
match existing 0 ;;:<0
e .<:~
Qj 01(')
~ .- CD
s::: XI'-
Cl ~!
'w
Q) ai ~~
Cl
Existing siding to remain
New Garage Addition
New roofing
12
121
EEB
North Elevation
Scale 3/16" = 1 '-0"
T I T
I I ,
T I
,
I T
I -, ,
I I
I T
,
T I
I ./
I T ~ I -,--, New Garage Addition
/' "'- I
12 ./ I I
17/ ~, I
T ./ '"
Exisitng to New porch infill 8 I /,,'/ ~ "- 7' Cedar soffit & fascia
1/ .7
\ remain as is \ addition ..)/"/ ~ ",,-, I i7
1..1'
Y Y '/ ~ ,-, /1
T :7
'/ ~ "y I '7
/' New Entry Canopy
/' '/ /~ "-,/
'/ / ~~ ./
/ / ~~
? ", T
/'
"" ~
~ "-
I
\ \ r New lap Siding to
\ \,
~ -,- IQ][Q]
I ~~. ________ match existing
~ .....
M ~
I ~-----
I L-,
, II
I
VARIANCE 'SET
'West Elevation
Scale 3/16"= 1'-0"
<.i
:;:
z
'"
Vi
~
~
~
or
~
~
s
~
z
'"
Vi
w
c
w
'"
r
o
I!!
m
~
c
11
~
UJ
010
Z~C\1
UJCi5~
C~~
c;; g- z
UJ:2:E
O::::1i)~
Q)
Z~1\i
<C to .~
O~+-'
tOC/)
~
o
z
o
E
~
'"
8
~
!z
~
'"
~
~
w
j':
~
~
~
:>
"
:r
I
o
w
j':
f2
c
~
'"
::;
b
z
!!l
~
~
a
:;:
z
o
~
i
'"
~
()
ili
~
i
In
~
Z
:0
W
~
C
~
*
~
s
w
~
"
;
ff
!!l
c
~
g
ff
8
:;:
z
'"
~
z
~
>-
"
z
'"
~
'"
~
date
02/1 0/09
revisions
0:2
o
LO
~
_I
T"'"
N
I
I
I
I
I
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
Existing Fence /
Co
_I
N
N
-. .1
BATH
66 sq ft
BEDROOM
155 sq ft
f.-
1
N
T"'"
21046
Existing retaining wall
EXISTING
LANDSCAPE AREA
KITCHEN I
190sqft r
I
------r-
I I
I 113
.,.
I
~
. 11 '-8"
Lo
_I
LO
T"'"
EXISTING
PATIO
(85 sq ft)
"--.-,,-"-"-"-"
48'-0"
20'-0"
2630 I
r-t-l
11'- 7"
11 '-7"
b
I
(J)
..q-
LU
Z
--I
I-
o
--I
n I
I
<0
*1 I
I
EXISTING SIDEWALK
P I
I
I
-
T"'"
1
N
T"'"
-I
- - - -UVING- - ~
179 sq ft T"'"
IT"'"
/1
/J
/ I
I
I
II
-.j.J
DINING
142 sq ft
/'
/'
I '-"
I~ LIVING AREA
.,.
I '832 sq ft
'-
//
I
I
---
I
I
I
I
I
_ _ .-2B6&-- _ _ _ _ _l_ - - - - - - - - I
23'-0"
21 '-0"
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
(550 sq ft)
.0
I
o
1
N
T"'"
-
~
.~
--,-,,-"-"
--..-"-"
:V~RIAN'CE' SET
Main Level Plan
Scale 3/16" = 1'-0"
~
....J
~
W
o
-
(j)
>-
I-
()
(j
~
6
~
g
~
ci ><
c ><
.0 ><
.2, ><
~
~ ~
NT"" ~
~~ 0
~~ ~
Z"? ~
~~ ~
tf ~ ~
~u.. ~
j "
01 ~
.5 0
0. il
~ ~
zo 1;
108 15
<O"'It' i=
~l2 ~
;=r-.. !l;
-E,~ ~
:fie il
~!: ~
12~ 15
~
~
~
11
~
11
"
0:
fi'
~
~
o
w
'"
o
@
"
::;
...
o
z
!!l
~
~
...
Cl
c
E
-0
.~
E
a.
c
o
Q; Ie
.~ ~
~ m
w
(.)(j)
Z~C\1
W.......CO
(/)0 :3
C <l)LO \!
en fi~ i
w ~ ~ ~
"" ~
u.. 1ii l..."' is
Z~ ~ !
<( (0 .~ !
(.) (0 Ci) ~
z
"
w.
'"
u.
o
~
...
'"
"
~
8
w
'"
~
6l
t;
~
g:
!!l
6l
~
~
o
()
;;;
z
"
ill
"
z
o
~
~
"
z
"
~
'"
~
date
02/10/09
revisions
03
r
I
I r-
I I l
I I I 1
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
~ I I EXISTING I I
- , CRAWL I
~ 1 I I
N SPACE
I I 257 sq ft I I
I I I I
I 1 I I
I I I L
I I I
I I I
1 I I
I J
L
S
24'.0"
EXISITNG
CRAWL
SPACE
192 sq ft
W
NEW CRAWL SPACE
70 sq ft
/,<~<>~-x~ ^
LIVING AREA
820 sq ft
CO
-'
o
~
48'.0"
I
I
I
I < I
1;< I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
J L
1
Xy:<!<?<.:~'<)<;<~/:<:<)'(<':,,?~~'X)<)<)~...X~?<,,:<:/)';,,('.<,;-.?V<><<,<;,\/,,">::-</,)'~'>;-<x ,< /', ' ,/ :' v
... x,,.. 'y'x'':<''v''x~</ x' ,,' .':--1
, ,~. A A'~ /,'v' ,>/0 I
---1:'S I
x
Is> I
. >
"-
1 :> I
1 <.~ I
~>
I '::,'> I
.'\
I :~ I
x
I ;~ I
I ./' I
\~/
12< I
I I
I I
..J I
I
I
I
,W
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V A:RIANCE SET
EXISTING BASEMENT
371 sq ft
. /." :,;<'/";X,?v'<N
NEW GARAGE
UNEXCAVATED
374 sq ft
23'-0"
Foundation Plan
Scale 3/16" = 1 '-0"
1 '-0"
o
-'
<.0
~
b
-'
C\l
('I')
o
-'
<.0
~
-
I -
I
t.i
'"
i3
~
I g
~
'0 ><1 ~l~
c >< ~~ ~
.c >< ;1; Ii)
.Q, >< Ii) ~ ~
z. z"
::216
'" .... ~
~~ ~
~u. w~
~
Cl ~
,5 0
Ci. l1
~ ~
Zo -
10(') 0
lD~ ~
S iU'~ ~
... CI) ! t;' :>
~ ; r~ ~
,Ql > N'II: <(
m -: ~- ffi
o lXl a;,{!!. ~
~
w
;':
~
~
~
:>
"
rr
~
~
o
~
g
o
~
:>
::l
b
z
!!>
L--
...
Cl
c
E
t)
.~
e
c.
W
U1i5
z~C\l
W......CO
CWO
<J)I.O
__1.0
(/J g. z
W22
"'...... ~
..... (/) ~
Z<J)jB
-$~
<(<.0-
~=
U<.oU)
l
~
~
'"
z
5
5
3:
'"
~
<)
iii
~
o
~
Iii
~
Z
:J
W
E
o
~
'r
!!l
02/1 0/09 ~
w
p
revisions ~
I
&:
!!>
~
"
o
&:
I ~
z
"
~
z
g
"
~
~
15
~
'"
~
L-
date
l
104
...
-0
(]);!
gjr
t3~
~?o
!j!;
MAPLE STREET WEST
VJ.\~IANCE seT
I
..-..-'
(f)
...
~o
X'~
~Q
~m
(f)
I
m
0
0 = .ll'i
N,",
I t: l")'<t
'<t '
.c >< 1010
,Q, >< IOle
z'
~13
~~
'" x
a.. '"
... Qll1.
-'"
Cl '"
t: -I
0 E Cl
~~ tl ,5
'00 Q.
O;>J Q)
Xm 'e- ll)
lilni u.i
x." ::;:." Q. zo
"0 ~o .. 1Ol")
~o ",0 ffi co~
r
0 ~r C >-';'
Pl 0 "'<1:)
;='"
^ e .s:: .
(j; OIl")
~ ,- co
t: I",
Cl Pl~
; 'Iii
Q) ai lri~
0
49'.0'
22'-8"
21'-4'
5' 0' ,
12'.0"
~~
lilg)
OZ
)>Q
."
m
)>
;>J
!j!;
0; ~.
~~~
jg ZN
""Q
~o
;>J
<:
i
'<
~
o
-'
o
'"
11'~O.
LOT LINE 49'-0"
CITY SIDEWALK
22',8'
Total curb cut
MAPLE STREET WEST
t
N
w
(0)
Z~C\1
....... ro
W' (/) 0
Ca>LO
_ LO
en g. z
W:2~
~1i)~
z~~
<( (0 .~
, '\ ~ .......
\J(OC/)
~
z
..
~
i
~
"
1;:
8
~
z
..
ffi
o
"'
'"
...
o
on
!Z
~
o
l1
~
~
...
o
z
o
~
a'
:>
8
~
ffi
~
!
~
"'
'"
~
~
~
:>
'"
1<
;
o
"'
jE
12
~
:>
"
b
z
!'1
~
~
a
'"
z
o
~
ll:
on
~
()
ffi
1i
...
o
~
lQ
o
~
z
"
~
o
~
>-
z
..
~
8
"'
jE
~
g
o
ll:
!'1
~
I
z
~
~
g
~
~
z
~
~
!!l
jE
date
02/10/09
revisions
05
Prposed Site Plan Scale 1/16" = 1'-0"
~t--------------- -
I -----
I =, I I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
L-
I
1
I
I
[
I
1
I
1
[
L
(t)
,
iD
6'-8"
C'(
(t)
.,...
21046
iD
,
iD
.,...
b
,
(0
t:!
.,...
11'-8"
I
r
I
______L
1 1
I I~
'<t
[
I
.,...
I
N
.,...
3646
3068 11266 I I I
L II
1[ -1- - - -
I, 1
I
II I
-=-.___J: [
1
______J
PORCH
72 sq ft
VARIANCE SET
11'-7"
'"
<0
o
'<t
21046
ti
11'-7"
I
~I
I
, [
1\ I
\ [ =
~5>
\'1 ~
9
i'-
.,...
-'
N
Exisitng Main Level
Scale 1/8" = 1'-0"
w
Om
z ~ C\I ~
wU5~ ~
C Q)LO ~
__LO z
UJ g-z ill
w :2E:2: ~
r:t:1i)~~
(l) ~
Z~1U ~
_ >:> 0
<( co.2 ~
't""".- ~
OcoU5 ~
!\
w
F
l';
~
l;o
"'
02/10/09 ;
w
F
l;
g
~
!!l
o
~
~
8
;;;
z
"'
~
z
o
~
L---
g =
~=
t>>
r::
E
'0
OJ
'e-
o.
c:
o
Qj l!!
,~ ~
OJ .
o DJ
I
u
;;;
z
'"
<Ii
i!l
z
~
~....
-.r"'f
1O1O
lOre
zM
:1:<0
~~
~ ~
llU.
III
..J
Cl
,5
a.
If)
u.i
zo
tOM
<O~
>0'
III to
;:re
.c '
,Qlla
:x:""
~:!!:
tO~
@
~
~
J:
"
"
~
8
~
z
"
~
~
l';
'"
~
~
~
~
...
o
z
o
~
o
Q.
"
8
o
~
~
iij
"'
:<
~
w
F
~
~
~
"
"
:r
I
o
~
g
~
~
b
z
!!l
date
revisions
'0':,6'
T ,'. '
, .
l;
z
!!l
~
'"
~
"
- tillwater
~_.-
"~ ~ ...A~- -...-. ')
erR"rHf'ill,r.f. O!=- M1NNt:~Oj,Jl.
r II E
Planning Commission
DATE:
March 5, 2009
CASE NO.: 09-07
APPLICANT: City of Stillwater
REQUEST: A zoning text amendment related to the regulation of radio and
television tower, Section 31-101 and Section 31-512 of the Stillwater
City Code.
PC DATE: March 9, 2009
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner ~~
REVIEWERS: City Attorney and Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the current
regulations related to communication towers in the city. The Commission felt that the
current regulations failed to adequately address new innovations in the type of towers
since the City's radio and television tower regulations were first put in place back in
1997. Specially the Commission asked staff to prepare an amendment that added
language making If stealth" towers the preferred tower type in residential zoning
districts.
DISCUSSION
City Staff has prepared the attached amendments to the City's radio and television
tower regulations to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. There are four
basic parts to the proposed amendments. The changes include:
1. Sec, 31-101 is amended to define what guyed, lattice, monopole, and stealth
towers are.
2. The remaining changes are to See. 31-512 of the City Code titled Regulation of
radio and television tOIuers.
a. The requirement that only monopole towers are permitted in residential
districts is deleted.
b. Towers in residential zoning districts will now be subject to design review
by the HPC. The purpose of design review is to protect the historic
integrity, natural setting, and character of Stillwater's residential areas.
Regulation of radio and television tower
Page 2
c. Under tower construction requirements, stealth towers become the
preferred tower design in residential districts, This language would allow
the City to approve monopole towers in cases where structural, radio
frequency design considerations or the number of tenants required by the
city precludes the use of a preferred tower design. This determination
would be made during the design review process. Guyed and lattice
towers are specifically prohibited in residential districts.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Recommend approve of the proposed ordinance amendment.
2, Recommend denial of the proposed ordinance amendment.
3. Continue the public hearing until the April 15, 2008 Planning Commission
meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and take an action.
0'
Note: All proposed changE?~ are highlighted.
Sec. 31-010. Definitions.
6. Antenna when found in Section 31-512 (Regulation of radio and television towers) means
any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or radiating electromagnetic waves
including, but not limited to, directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes and
satellite dishes, and omnidirectional antennas, such as whips.
75.5. Guyed towers when found in Section 31-512 (Requlation of radio and television towers)
means a support structure secured by quy wire anchored on ,multiple sides awayJrom the tower
base,
89,5. Lattice towers whEm found in Section 31~512 (Requlation of radio and television towers)
means a support structure constructed of vertical, metal struts and cross braces forming a
trianqular, square, or other similar structure, Which often tc.jpers from the foundation tohhe toP.
-q.....,^"".".-..."c.Ai. -_-" ,.,-,- ,LiF- .,.....,.., C"'.. ,'., " ..,.-...../....,' , .. '. ,,-', .... -.- .~, _:~,. _ ,
102.5. Monopole towers when fOl.ln'd in Section 31-512 (Requlation of radio and:televisiori
towers) means a support structure constructed of a' sinqle, self-supportinq hollow metal. tube
securely anchored to a foundation.
154.5. Stealth towers when found in Section 31-512 (Requlation of radio and television towers)
means a support structure that uses man-made trees, clock towers, bell steeples, flaq;;pole,; Iiqht
poles and similar camouflaqinq desiqns that camouflaqe or conceal the presence~of antenna,
This includes monopole towers where. all antennas are internal to the tower:
166. Tower when found in Section 31-512 (Regulation of radio and television towers) means
any pole, spire, structure or combination thereof, including support lines, cables, wires, braces
and masts intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna, meteorological device or
similar apparatus above grade.
Sec. 31-512. Regulation of radio and television towers.
Subd, 1, Purpose. In order to accommodate the communication needs of residents and
business while protecting the public health, safety, general welfare and aesthetics of the
community, the city council finds that this Section 31-512 is necessary in order to:
(a) Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and
businesses of the city;
(b) Minimize adverse visual effects of towers and antennas through setting design
standards;
(c) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural
standards, lot size requirements and setback requirements; and
(d) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate new
wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to
serve the community.
Subd. 2, Location preferences for antennas and towers.
(a) Water towers.
(b) Collocations on existing telecommunications towers,
(c) Sides and roofs of buildings over two stories.
(d) Existing power or telephone poles.
(e) Government and utility sites.
(f) School sites,
(g) Golf courses or public parks when compatible with the nature of the park or course,
(h) Regional transportation corridors.
Subd.3. Antenna and towers in residential districts (RA, RB, RCM, RCH). Any person,
firm or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in a residential district must obtain a
conditional use permit and meet the following requirements:
(a) Communication antennas, subject to the following conditions:
(1) Satellite dishes for television receiving only are subject to the accessory structure
requirements for residential districts.
(2) All antennas must be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive, screened as
appropriate, not be multicolored and may contain no signage, including logos, except
as required by the equipment manufacturers or city, state or federal regulations.
(3) An antenna placed on a primary structure may be no taller than 15 feet above the
primary structure. Any accessory equipment or structures must be compatible with
the design and materials of the primary structure and flot visible from a public street.
(4) Monopoles only ~ro 3110wed in rosidQnti~1 districts.Towers are allowed subject to
desiqn review. -rohe purpose of desiqn review is to protect the historic' inteqrity,
natural settinq, and character of Stillwater's residential areas.
(5) Minimum land area for freestanding monop6,lq~A towet site,2. in residential districts is
one acre.
(6) A tower and any antenna combined may be no more than 75 feet in height, or 100
feet in height if collocated.
(7) A tower may not be located within 100 feet of any existing or planned residential
structure.
(8) A tower must be setback from a street line a minimum of the height of the tower and
any antenna; and towers or antennas may be sited in preferred locations as listed in
Subd. 2 of this Section 31-512 subject to design permit approval.
Subd.4. Stillwater West business park districts--Business park commercial, business park
office, business park industrial (BP-C, BP-O and BP-I). Any person, firm or corporation
erecting a tower or antenna in the Stillwater West Business Park shall require a conditional
use permit and meet the following requirements of this Section 31-512:
(a) Exception. Communication antennas attached to an existing structure or in preferred
location which are no higher than 15 feet above the primary structure and are allowed as
permitted use.
(b) Conditions. Communication towers and antennas are subject to the following
conditions:
(1) A tower and antenna may be no more than 75 feet in height, 100 feet if collocated.
(2) A tower may not be located within 300 feet of the property line of residentially zoned
property.
(3) A tower may be located no closer to a street property line than a distance equal to
the height of the tower plus ten feet.
(4) Minimum lot size is 0.5 acre for a primary tower use.
(5) Towers may be located no closer than one-half mile to the closest tower or other
collocation PWCS transmitting facility.
(6) If a tower is erected on a site with an existing primary structure, the site must have a
space of 1,200 square feet set aside exclusively for tower use. The tower may not be
located in the front or corner side yard setback area of the primary structure but to
the rear of the site.
Subd. 5. Central business district (CBD) and professional administrative (PA) district, Any
person, firm or corporation erecting an antenna in central business and professional
administrative districts shall meet the following requirements:
(a) Towers are not allowed in the CBO and PA districts.
(b) Antennas are allowed subject to design review, The purpose of design review is to
protect the historic integrity, natural setting and character of downtown and its historic
buildings and the national register historic district.
(c) All support service equipment must be enclosed within an existing building or located
and screened so as to be hidden from public view from the street or above.
Subd, 6. St. Croix River over/ay district. No communication antenna or communication
tower may be located in the St Croix River Overlay District, shoreland or floodplain districts,
Subd. 7, Performance standards. All personal wireless communication towers erected,
constructed, or located within the city must comply with the following requirements:
(a) Colocation requirements. A proposal for a new personal wireless communication
service tower may not be approved unless it can be documented by the applicant that
the communications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be
accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one-half-mile radius
of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons:
(1) The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned
equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified professional
engineer, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost.
(2) No existing or approved towers or commercial/industrial buildings within a one-half-
mile radius meet the radio frequency (RF) design criteria.
(3) Existing or approved towers and commercial/industrial buildings within a one-half-
mile radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to
function reasonably as documented by a qualified and professional radio frequency
(RF) engineer.
(4) The applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to collocate existing towers
and structures within a one-half-mile radius was made, but an agreement could not
be reached.
(b) Tower construction requirements. All towers erected, constructed or located within the
city, and all wiring therefore, shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) Stealth towers are the preferred tower desiqn in residential districts. Monopoles are
the preferred tower design in all other districts. _Hov/cve[, t::[he city will consider
alternative tower types in cases where structural, radio frequency design
considerations or the number of tenants required by the city precludes the use of a
monopeleprefe"rred towei-"'desiqn. ~Guyed towers wH:eS-.may not be used in any
district.' Lattice towers may not be used in any residential distriCt.
(2) Towers and their antennas must comply with all applicable provisions of this Code.
(3) Towers and their antennas must be certified by a qualified and licensed professional
engineer to conform to the latest structural standards of the Uniform Building Code
and all other applicable reviewing agencies.
(4) Towers and their antennas must be designed to conform to accepted electrical
engineering methods and practices and to comply with the provisions of the National
Electrical Code.
(5) Metal towers must be constructed of or treated with corrosion-resistant material.
(6) Any proposed communication service tower of 100 feet in height must be designed,
structurally, electrically and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's
antennas and comparable antennas at least one additional user. To allow for future
rearrangement of antennas upon the tower, the tower must be designed to accept
antennas mounted at no less than 20-foot intervals.
(7) All towers must be reasonably protected against unauthorized climbing. The bottom
of the tower (measured from ground level to 12 feet above ground level) must be
designed in a manner to preclude unauthorized climbing to be enclosed by a six-foot-
high chain link fence with a locked gate.
(8) All owners and their antennas and relative accessory structures must utilize building
materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that effectively blend the tower
facilities within the surrounding natural setting and built environment to the greatest
extent possible,
(9) No advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or
other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information
signage required by the manufacturer or by federal, state or local authorities.
(10) Towers and their antennas may not be illuminated by artificial means, except for
camouflage purposes (designed as a lighted tower for a parking lot or a ball field) or
the illumination is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other
authority,
(11) No part of any antenna or tower, nor any lines, cable, equipment, wires or
braces, may at any time extend across or over any part of the right-of-way, public
street, highway or sidewalk.
(12) All communication towers and their antennas must be adequately insured for
injury and property damage caused by collapse of the tower.
(13) All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities must be
removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time
extension is approved by the city council. After the facilities are removed, the site
must be restored to its original or an improved state.
(14) In addition to the submittal requirements required elsewhere in this Code,
applications for building permits for towers and their antennas must be accompanied
by the following information:
i. The provider must submit confirmation that the proposed tower complies with
regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those
, regulations.
ii. A report from a qualified professional engineer shall be submitted which does the
following:
a. Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and
elevation;
b. Demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and
electrical standards;
c. Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions, or
collocated antennas and the minimum separation distances between
antennas;
d. Describes the tower's capacity including the number and type of antennas
that it can accommodate; and
e. Confirmation by the provider that the proposed facility will not interfere with
public safety communications,
iii. A letter of intent committing the tower owner or his successors to allow the
shared use of the tower as long as there is no negative structural impact upon
the tower and there is no disruption to the service provided.
Subd.8. Existing antennas and towers. Antennas, towers and accessory structures in
existence as of July 1, 1997, which do not conform or to comply with this section are subject
to the following provisions:
(a) Towers may continue in use for the purpose now used and as now existing, but may not
be placed or structurally altered without complying in all respects within this section.
(b) If a tower is damaged or destroyed due to any reason or course whatsoever, the tower
may be repaired or restored to its former use, location and physical dimension upon
obtaining a building permit, but without otherwise complying with this section.
Subd. 9. Obsolete or unused towers. All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying
accessory facilities must be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations,
unless a time extension is approved by the city council. If a time extension is not approved,
the tower may be deemed a nuisance pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 429. If a tower is
determined to be a nuisance, the city may act to abate the nuisance and require the removal
of the tower at the property owner's expense. In the case of multiple operators sharing the
use of a single tower, this provision will not become effective until all users cease operations
for a period of six consecutive months, After the facilities are removed, the site must be
restored to its original or to an improved state.
I
r il ERr A 1 H PiA I:! 0 f. ~,~ 1 'l ~~ F S 0 i A
')
Planning Commission
DATE: February 19, 2009
ITEM: Annual Review of temporary garden plant sales
CPC DATE: March 9, 2009
REVIEWERS: Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner ~
BACKGROUND
The Commission annually reviews the special use permits to sell plants for about ten
weeks each spring. Once again, Cub Foods and Linder's Greenhouses are requesting
renewal of their SUPs. Currently these are location in large parking lots where there are
a great number of unused parking spaces. The City has received no complaints or
parking issues related to these temporary uses,
Related to Cub Foods, construction of the fuel station has begun and is likely to be open
prior to the opening of the greenhouse. To avoid issues with parking, staff recommends
again this year a condition that would allow the city to revoke the permit for the
greenhouse use if parking becomes a problem, Staff will monitor the situation and if
warranted work with management at Cub Foods to address any concerns.
The time period requested is mid April to July 5th for Cub Foods and mid April to July
10th for Linder's Greenhouses.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the temporary permit be granted with the following conditions:
1, These permits shall be from mid April to July 10th, 2009 only.
2. Any indication of parking problems in the area shall be grounds for revoking
the permit.
3. There shall be no storage or product sales outside of the designated area,
4. Any proposed changes to the location or size of the sales area shall be subject
to review by the Community Development Director.
5, Two signs shall be permitted no larger than 2' x 6' on each site.
Flower Mart Division
275 W Wheelock Pkwy
St. Paul, MN 55117
612.685.7993
Fax: 651.255,0445
E-mail: caiocella@linders.com
GREENHOUSES, GARDEN CENTER & FLOWER MARTS ~~-_~
..a~._"___.___~~..""""",~__""""""",,~~~
January 22, 2009
Bill Turnblad
Community Development Director
City of Stillwater
216 N. Fourth St.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mr. Turnblad,
Please consider this letter our request to renew our Special Use Permit with the City of
Stillwater for our 2009 Flower Mart at the Valley Ridge Plaza. According to our approval in
2002 the permit must be reviewed annually by the City of Stillwater.
This will be our eighth year at this location. I am very happy to report that we have been
very well received here and we are eager to return to service the customers we have
earned. We have heard many excellent comments from our customers here regarding
Linder's coming to Valley Ridge and our quality, selection, customer service and
warranties.
We are planning to locate in the same position as in 2008. This location worked very well
and had little or no impact to the traffic flow in the lot. I'm sure that if anything, it had a
good effect on the traffic through the lot.
Our selling period for 2009 will be the same as in 2008; a seventy five day period from mid
April thru July 10, and we will be setting up according to the same schedule as last year.
As in the past we will abide with all of the other provisions in the original agreement. We
are eager to continue being an excellent addition to the City of Stillwater and feel that we
are doing a very good job here and compliment the Plaza's selection of retailers.
We have contact the owner of the Center and have been able to establish an excellent
relationship. They are eager to have us return,
Pt~~ 74'e See~ 7~ glPt(.~~ ?tJa~Lt;(e
We hope that we will again have an exciting spring season here. I have attached diagrams
of the Flower Mart as it will be in 2009. If there is anything else we need to do please
contact me at 612-685-7993.
We are eager to return and be a part of providing Stillwater area residents with
employment and plant materials to beautify their properties and gardens.
Sincerely,
~~--
Caio Cella
Division Manager - Flower Marts
~~~~~~~~~~--"~~~~~~"~~~"~~;"
~~:~=O.:~~M"Q:::QOaa:==D~aaO
~~~~~~N~~:~::~~~~=~:~~~~~~~:
.~~N-..~N~...N_-NN-N---N_.-_
J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I
~;~::~~~~aw~m;~~=~~~;:~~~..Z
.,;
N
...
.
::;
..-.~..
...
'"
N
'"
;:;
N
..,
:;
!::!
r'---'
'....
"eMI uJe~seM4~ou
iii
.
/-,
I 1
1
.1-
let
/ 4-
} 5-
ci
w
:;
9
i.L
1./1
({
uJ
o
:2
..J
'0
III
o
"-
CD
Ol
III
'E
o
.l::
o
o
C\l
o
o
.....
c:
o
~
E
.e
.5;
oS
'en
~
~
~
HtH#H-H
HtH#H-H
HtH#H-H
Wffi1tH1
htHtHtH
.H+H-Ht+H
HtH#H-Hl
~~
o
I(,)
o
co
C')
>.
III
~
J:.
Ol
:c
CD
1U
1ij
{-of
~
c:
co
a.
Q)
-
'(ij
~ co ~
CJ) (\l tii
rg ~ 10
ai C\l~ 0
lO co co
'" ..
<>
: ~
a ~
.:-..! CD
a .0 :0
i+'t.: ~
f) dU~ 1;
C\1
......
o
CI)
CJ)
c
c
E
~-
C\J~
N5
CU~
--
0..
C/)
-f-I
-C~
O')tiJ
c
-- ~
(])~
..c~
..c
!-..t
<Dg
>~
- - C't)
!-..>,
tiJ
5
..c
Q)
..c
CJ)
......
C\1
......
CI)
Q)
~
. ,....(
~
;>.
Q)
~
~
ro
>
I
~
~
~
~
. ,....(
-.+-l
r./J
~
~
~
~
o
o
~
~
1.0'
M
/-.----~
------. ~----~ -.---...----- -------
/
~[:)
~
\0
j,
)
~
\
\
\
~
N
'--'
C/l
'<-'
.~
f.Ll
'D
-----_/
a.>....
.~ .s
E::;t::
a.>::l
r/JO
U
'~'-,--
o
M
,.-..,
N
'--'
....
a.>
..c:
C/l
'5
on
t::
~
~
i.i:
_.-----._---~------
-''',
(~]>"
'I_NORTH \
,I .,/
".~~.--~.'
Q)
IZl
~ -
~~
o II
Q) =
~ ~
at2
M
...c: ..
bl) (!)
~~
0-lCZl
,......
"
1::
~
~
~
x
~
~
~
~
~
~
::
. .....
~
~
(J)
~
=
(J).
u
(J)
bl)
~
~.
~
(J)
~
~
~
;>
I
~
(J)
~
~
~
~
~.
.JlIlIIt
~
00.
Cub Foods ~ .
a SUPERVALU Company
1801 Market Drive
Stillwater, MN 55082
6124302350
Sheila Wiegand
Community Development Department
City of Stillwater
216 N. 4th Street
Stillwater MN 55082
651-430-8823
Ms. Wiegand,
Here is our request for a C.D.P. for our greenhouse for the 2009 selling season.
The expected duration ofthe outside greenhouse is mid April until July 5th depending on
the availability of product.
Greenhouse dimensions are 21' x 60'
Split rail fence dimension are 60' x 180'
Power, water, and phone access will be available at curbside location adjacent to the
greenhouse fence.
The hours of operation are somewhat flexible due to weather and planting conditions.
The basic "open for sale" time frame will be 8a.m. to 9p.m.
Please let me know if you need anymore infurmation regarding aur temporary structure,
Attachments: Site map of Cub parking lot and greenhouse temporary location
ResIWctfu.llY,
{Y\.-~ ~~.
Mike Mast
Store Director
Stillwater Cub
651-430-2350
~
~
f
(;)
~
f.
1
t
~-==
-I
>
;c
Cl
rn
-I
,
\\
\
, \
\
",
"
"
"
"
"-
..............
--- ---- ------ --- -.... ...-- -----...---
--..._- --.....----
---------.. - --- --- -- .....-....--
,,--..