Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-12 CPC Packetit Water THMV loFASTILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2010 The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, April 12, 2010, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 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 FEBRUARY 8 and MARCH 8, 2010 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 attendance, 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 applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 4.01 Case No. 10-06. A variance request for front and side yard setbacks (20 ft required, 12 ft requested and 20 ft required, 4 ft requested) for the construction of a front porch and two - car garage located at 901 6th Ave S in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Todd and Audrey Hansen, applicants. 4.02 Case No. 10-07. A special use permit request to convert retail space into a coffee shop located at 200 Chestnut St E in the CBC, Central Business District. Stacie Berg, applicant. 4.03 Case No. 10-09. A variance to impervious surface regulations for the construction of an addition located 104 Lakeside Drive in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Michael Bergum, applicant. 4.04 Case No. 10-10. A special use permit request for change of use located at 201 Main St So in the CBD, Central Business District. Brian Larson, Larson Brenner Architects, applicant. 5. OTHER BUSINESS CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us City of Stillwater Planning Commission February 8, 2010 Present: Dave Middleton, Chair, Suzanne Block, Mike Dahlquist, Robert Gag, Dan Kalmon, Scott Spisak and Charles Wolden Absent: Mike Kocon and John Malsam Staff present: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Mr. Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Spisak, moved to approve the minutes of Dec. 14, 2009. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Block abstained. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2010-01 A special use permit for change of usage from commercial to residential for the building at 114 Chestnut St. E. in the CBD, Central Business District. Tom Theis, Investment Lending Group, LLC, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings; he noted the request is for a special use permit for the change in usage, as well as a variance to the parking requirements. He stated, with the exception of the parking requirements, the proposed use conforms to the requirements of the zoning ordinance, Comprehensive Plan and other pertinent plans. He noted that any changes to the interior of the structure will require the issuance of building permits and reviews by the various City departments — building, fire, etc. — and changes to the exterior require approval by the Community Development Director or, if substantial, approval by the Heritage Preservation Commission and/or Planning Commission. Regarding the parking variance request, Mr. Pogge noted that the proposed use of mixed use residential and office requires 5 off-street parking spaces, while there are 2 off-street spaces located on the site. Mr. Pogge stated the City does have a Parking Management District in the downtown which allows the issuance of variances; a condition of the variance would be the requirement to purchase 3 monthly parking permits in the downtown lots. He said staff is recommending that requirement be deferred until there is a demonstrated need for the additional spaces as staff believes the use as proposed at this time will not create the demand to require the additional 3 spaces. Ms. Block asked whether there would be additional business -related vehicles parking at the site. Mr. Theis stated the building resident is doing independent plumbing repairs, with no additional employees; he also stated there is no reason for customers to visit the office, as the building resident receives referral calls, rather than direct contact with customers. Mr. Kalmon asked what would trigger the requirements for the additional spaces; Mr. Pogge said, as written, the trigger would be a change in use or public complaint. Mr. Spisak noted that a special use permit runs with the property so the Planning Commission's action on this request could run in perpetuity; Mr. Pogge noted there have been a number of special uses of this building over the years and if there is a change in this use for more than six months, the permit automatically expires. Mr. Theis stated they are actively marketing the building at this time; if his company 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission February 8, 2010 keeps the building for any given length of time, there are various ideas for uses, such as rental retreats, that would have to come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Spisak wondered if there was something other than a change in use, perhaps a sunset of an interim use, which would trigger review of the parking. Mr. Pogge stated there is no other mechanism in place that would trigger review, but noted that uses such as mentioned by Mr. Theis would require a special use permit and therefore automatic review by the Commission. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out part of the justification for deferring the parking requirement is the fact that there will be just one tenant occupying the building and wondered whether a change in the number of tenants might be a potential trigger for review of the parking; Mr. Pogge stated that would be hard for the City to track. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Ms. Block moved to approve with the three conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion, but said he would propose that the condition retaining to parking be changed to "upon complaint or change in use or resident.". Mr. Dahlquist said he would suggest that change because it would serve as notice to whoever buys the building that additional parking may be required and also gives the City an extra tool for review. Ms. Block said she was in agreement with that change and amended her motion to include Mr. Dahlquist's proposed language. Mr. Kalmon asked how the change in tenants would work — whose responsibility it would be to notify the City of such a change; Mr. Dahlquist said, as the conditions are written, it would seem to be the Community Development Director's decision to review. Mr. Dahlquist said the primary purpose for the new wording is to ensure that whoever buys the property understands the parking requirements. Motion to approve with the amended conditions passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Comprehensive Plan Update discussion — Mr. Turnblad briefly reviewed the City's response to the Metropolitan Council's finding that the City's Comprehensive Plan update application was incomplete. He noted there were no substantive changes to the City's plan that were required by the Met Council's comments. He said there were some inconsistencies and errors/edits that the Met Council wanted to see. While the changes were minor, he said, in some cases, the changes required the City to redo analysis for dozens of sections in the Plan. He said the changes do not have any major impact on goals/policies or substantive changes to the Plan. Mr. Dahlquist asked about item 5 (land use), saying he thought the Comp Plan is supposed to be a guide to an ultimate goal, and this appears to be a series of intermediate targets; he asked what the City would be measured on. Mr. Turnblad responded the Met Council wants some kind of benchmarks between now and 2030 to see if a city is close to arriving at its 2030 goal; he said the important numbers are the long-range numbers. Mr. Turnblad said the Met Council wants to see that there is staged growth, rather than a city trying to accomplish its growth all within a five- year period, for example. Mr. Dahlquist asked about the section related to residential growth accommodation, noting the language related to the number of building permits in the annexation area is inconsistent, with the maximum number of permits listed as 125 in one portion of the language and 120 in another; he stated his belief that permits should be limited to a certain number per year, and not allow the unused permits to accumulate, with the potential of a great number being issued in one year. Mr. Turnblad said the number listed in the orderly annexation agreement is 120, and the reference to 125 is an error and will be changed. Mr. Spisak pointed out the last sentence in that section related to residential growth accommodation lacks final 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission February 8, 2010 punctuation and appears to missing something; Mr. Turnblad stated the sentence is missing the date, the sentence should conclude with the date Jan. 1, 2020, the year when parts of the annexation agreement expire. Mr. Wolden asked about language referring to the installation of septic systems; he wondered if there shouldn't be a requirement for hookup to city services for new developments. Mr. Turnblad said the City does that have that requirement in its ordinances -- when City sewer and water is available, hookup is required within a certain timeframe; in discussion, it was noted that there are some exceptions to the requirement, for example, when it is so exorbitantly expensive to hookup. Mr. Turnblad said the comments will go to the City Council for review before submission to the Met Council. Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Kalmon, moved to adjourn at 7:40 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission March 8, 2010 Present: Dave Middleton, Chair, Suzanne Block, Mike Dahlquist, Robert Gag, Mike Kocon, Scott Spisak, Charles Wolden Absent: Dan Kalmon and John Malsam Staff present: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Mr. Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: The minutes of Feb. 8, 2010, were not available for review OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 10-03 A variance request for construction of a four -season porch at 1420 Fourth St. N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Cates Fine Homes, respresenting Judith Gorfain, applicant. Ms. Gorfain was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He stated the proposed addition will meet the side yard setback but does encroach into the 20-foot front yard setback; he noted that the existing home sits at 16' from the front property line, with the addition 18'6" from the front property line. Mr. Pogge reviewed the three criteria necessary for the issuance of a variance and said staff believes the request meets all the criteria. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist moved to approve as conditioned, noting the proposed addition does not increase the existing encroachment. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 10-04 A Zoning Text Amendment for the CCR, Cottage Cove Residential District, amending Chapter 31, Zoning Ordinance, Section 31-307(b) to allow in -ground swimming pools. Eric Thole, applicant. Mr. Turnblad said the zoning ordinance prohibits accessory structures in the Settlers Glen development, where the Thole home is located. He said staff has interpreted accessory structures to include swimming pools. After receiving the Mr. Thole's application, he said staff researched the issue and contacted the previous Community Development Director who said in his 20 years with the City, he had never interpreted swimming pools as accessory structures. In looking at the Planned Unit Development documents for the development, Mr. Turnblad said he did find the architectural guidelines and covenants which state that pools must be in -ground and behind the home, thus indicating that pools were to be allowed in that area of the development. While the request for a zoning text amendment has been withdrawn, Mr. Turnblad said the request will come back to the Planning Commission next month for consideration of a setback variance for the pool. Mr. Dahlquist asked if there are setback requirements for pools for the City as a whole; Mr. Turnblad stated those setbacks are outlined in the building code. 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission March 8, 2010 Mr. Dahlquist suggested the key to the ramp will be the way -finding signage, not the sign on the building; he noted the sign that is proposed is a 400% variance, with half of the signage decorative. Mr. Dahlquist said if the Parking Commission had proposed a simple building sign with the P for parking in combination with the way -finding signage, he might have looked at the request a bit more favorable; he suggested that the Stillwater logo could be put on the building as an architectural feature, rather than be part of the proposed projecting sign. For the record, Mr. Dahlquist noted that he voted against the variance for Stone's additional signage and likely will be voting against this proposal, saying he thought there were other options. Mr. Kocon spoke of the importance of signage in locating parking facilities even with other directional signage, and he said he thought the use of the Stillwater logo, thus increasing the size of the proposed sign, was architecturally pleasing. Mr. Wolden pointed out that the massing of the structure is the key, noting that the size of the proposed sign is not that big when considering the mass of the building. Mr. Kocon moved approval with the one condition as recommended by staff. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion. Mr. Gag said he thought the prudent thing to do would be to put four people (from the two commissions) in a room and have them talk about the differences; Mr. Middleton noted the HPC would still have to approve the design of the sign. Mr. Spisak said he was not entirely opposed to the size, but agreed with Ms. Block's concern about opening the door to future requests .Mr. Spisak noted that the size is relatively small compared to the mass of the structure and when compared to what would be allowed for a surface - mounted or free standing sign, but said he thought it would be difficult to consider massing in future similar requests since there is no criteria regarding lineal feet for projecting signs; he reiterated the concern with setting precedent with the City granting itself a variance. Mr. Middleton pointed out the Parking Commission could request a 200-square foot wall -mounted sign and not even need a variance; he also said he didn't think a wall -mounted sign would like as good as the projecting sign proposed, speaking of the amount of work spent on the facade of the ramp. Ms. Block asked if there was a way to avoid a problem with setting of precedent by having the ordinance address projecting signage as related to mass of a building. Mr. Pogge said that would be possible in the future, with the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission working to develop appropriate language. Mr. Pogge pointed out that regarding precedence, any timea variance is considered, the Commission sets the tone of the rationale for granting the variance — that sets the precedence; in having the discussion about massing and the unique circumstances involved, the Commission determines the scope of any precedence. For a legal standpoint, Mr. Pogge stated six -months is a time period for precedence, once six months is passed, a precedent doesn't matter from a legal standpoint, especially when there is a change of membership on a commission. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that massing isn't pertinent to projecting signs, as those signs are meant for pedestrian traffic; this instance is unique, he said, in that the projecting sign is intended to catch the attention of motorists on Myrtle Street, rather than pedestrian traffic. Mr. Turnblad referred to graphics of the proposed sign, noting that if the sign were reduced to the P logo only, it would be reduced to 9 square feet, a size that is not really visible from Myrtle Street. Mr. Turnblad suggested this is a unique situation and the hardship is being able to attract motorists from Myrtle Street; he said he didn't think granting a variance would be setting a precedent because every single case has its own set of parameters. Mr. Dahlquist reiterated his position that he feels the proposed sign is bigger than it needs to be and he believes there are options to accomplish what the Parking Commission desires, perhaps a wall sign utilizing the Commercial Street gateway or some other combination of signage. Mr. Kocon called the question. Mr. Spisak said he thought it might have been nice to see a complete presentation of the package of the signage, including the guide 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission March 8, 2010 signs; he also expressed a concern about the pressure to decide the issue at this meeting as the ramp has been completed for quite some time. Motion to approve failed 2-4, with Mr. Kocon and Mr. Wolden voting in favor and Ms. Block, Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Middleton and Mr. Spisak voting against. Mr. Dahlquist moved to table. Ms. Block seconded the motion; motion passed 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS Renewal of special use permit for Linder's Flower Mart at the Valley Ridge Plaza and Cub Foods outside greenhouse — Mr. Pogge said both applications are substantially the same as last year. He noted that last year, staff did visit the Cub outside greenhouse a number of times to make sure traffic circulation and parking were not issues due to the new fuel sales at Cub. He said the Linder's mart will be at the same location in the parking lot as the past several years. The plant sales are scheduled to run from April through the early part of July. Staff is recommending approval, with the five listed conditions, he said. Mr. Gag asked whether the applicants pay a fee each year for a special use permit; Mr. Pogge responded in the negative. Mr. Gag asked whether the City could require payment each year; Mr. Pogge stated special use permits run with the land, so the permits are indefinite as long as they are utilized annually. He said the City has chosen to review the permits on an annual basis, and the applicants have agreed to that review. Ms. Block asked if there is an application fee for the review; Mr. Pogge said no fee has ever been charged. Ms. Block noted that in the past there has been discussions regarding the fact that there are local businesses that pay property taxes and other taxes that come back to the community. Mr. Gag pointed out that each year, staff takes time to prepare the review documents and often visit the sites and no fee is charged; he wondered whether the City could look into classifying these requests as something different than a standard special use permit and see if any fees could be associated with the use. Mr. Turnblad said staff could check into the options but said typically, the approach is to consider these as annual permits, with an administrative fee attached to it, or as special use permits, which run with the land. Mr. Turnblad said the only way to do away with a special use permit is if there is something deemed to be an egregious violation of the conditions of the permit; he said the decision made many years ago to treat these as special use permits set the course for these operations. On a question by Mr. Gag, Mr. Turnblad said the City could change the way other properties are treated or amend the ordinance to take such operations out of the special use permit classification and allow them in the business section of the code as an annual permit, for example. Mr. Turnblad said staff could look at options. Ms. Block wondered if sign violations would be a reason to end an SUP; Mr. Turnblad said that would require a public hearing before the Council. Ms. Block said she did visit the sites last year and did not experience any issues related to parking at either location. Mr. Spisak asked if the City reserves the right for reimbursement of staff time to review permits; Mr. Turnblad said that is done with the initial application, but not beyond the initial application. Mr. Turnblad said staff could look into making reimbursement of review a voluntary condition of approval for these two operations. Mr. Dahlquist said he thought it would be good to look at doing future similar operations by permit, rather than special use permit; he noted the fact that the City reviews these two outdoor sales operations annually is a decision made by the City. Mr. Dahlquist noted both of the developments where the flower sales are located do contribute to the community and the flower operations are of benefit to those businesses; he said there have been no complaints about these operations taking away business from other local businesses. 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission March 8, 2010 Mr. Dahlquist moved to accept the annual review and request that staff look into the possibility of permitting future requests rather than classifying them as a special use permit. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Discussion of downtown refuse enclosure — Mr. Pogge told the Commission the City Council has directed staff to look at a comprehensive way of treating downtown refuse and look at different options for doing so, as well as conduct a survey of downtown property and business owners regarding this issue and the current condition of trash in the downtown area. Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Spisak, moved to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 6 State Highway 96/Dellwood Rd 75th St N/County HwY 12 County 15/Manning A State Highway 36 0 4.03 4.01 Project Location Map 4.02 4.03 Case No. 10-06. V for home addition. 901 6th Ave S. Todd and Audrey Hansen Case No. 10-07. V & SUP for coffee shop. 200 Chestnut St E Stacie Berg Case No. 10-09. V for home addition. 104 Lakeside Dr Michael Bergum Case No. 10-10. SUP for Cafe. 201 Main St S Gartner Properties Planning Commission DATE: April 7, 2010 CASE NO.: 10-06 REQUEST: Variances to allow expansion of a non -conforming structure Front setback variance for larger porch APPLICANT: Todd and Audrey Hansen LAND OWNER: Todd and Audrey Hansen LOCATION: 901 Sixth Avenue South COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING: RB - Two -Family Residential MEETING DATE: April 12, 2010 PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND The Hansens propose to demolish their existing enclosed front porch, its deck, and their existing garage and replace them with larger structures. The existing 6.5 foot wide enclosed porch would be replaced with an 8 foot wide open porch. The existing 22 foot by 22 foot attached garage would be replaced with a 27 foot wide by 22 foot deep garage. Also, the Hansens propose to add to the northwest corner of their house by extending the north and west walls. According to the survey submitted with the application materials, the home currently has a 10.1 foot setback from the lot line on South Sixth Avenue (to the front wall of the existing enclosed porch). A 20 foot setback is required. And the existing garage has a setback of 4.1 feet from the lot line along East Hudson Street, whereas 20 feet is required. Consequently, the house is considered non -conforming. Since a non -conforming structure can not be expanded, and the proposed project is an expansion of the house, variances are required from both of the non -conforming front setback dimensions to remove the non -conforming status of the house. Hansen Variances Case 10-06 April 7, 2010 Page 2 In addition, the front porch is proposed to be 1.5 feet wider than the existing porch, so a 1.5 foot variance would be needed for that. SPECIFIC REQUESTS To remove the non -conforming status of the home, allowing the expansion, two specific variances are requested: 1) A 9.9 foot front setback variance from the lot line along South Sixth Avenue, since the actual setback is 10.1 feet and the required minimum setback is 20 feet; and 2) A 15.9 foot front setback variance from the lot line along East Hudson Street, since the actual setback is 4.1 feet and the required minimum setback is 20 feet. Also, since the replacement front porch is proposed to have a lot line setback of only 8.6 feet, and the existing porch has a setback of 10.1 feet, an additional variance of 1.5 feet is requested for the wider porch. EVALUATION OF REQUEST The Planning Commission may grant variances when the following conditions are met. 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 location of the home on the lot, along with the garage and porch, were decided by previous owners of the property. They were there when purchased by the applicants. 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 two variances requested to remove the non -conforming status of the house are necessary to preserve the existing property rights enjoyed by the Hansens. However, the request for decreased setback to allow for a wider front porch may not rise to the level of guaranteeing "substantial property rights". Clearly an 8 foot wide porch is more useable than a 6.5 foot wide porch, but the Planning Commission will need to decide whether the extra foot and a half is necessary to preserve property rights. 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 question here is whether the extra foot and a half of porch width is detrimental to neighboring properties, or whether it would set a difficult precedent in applying setback standards in the RB Zoning District. In determining whether there is some detriment to the neighborhood, the location of the current deck attached to the porch should be considered, as should the proposed stoop that would be attached to the new open porch. Hansen Variances Case 10-06 April 7, 2010 Page 3 Currently there is a deck in front of the enclosed porch with dimensions of about 7 x 12. The deck comes to within about 3 feet of the front property line (which is a distance of about 7 feet from the back of the sidewalk and about 16 or 17 feet to the back of the curb on Sixth Avenue). The proposed covered "stoop" on the new open porch appears to be about 3 x 8 and would come to within about 5 and a half feet of the property line (about 9 and a half feet from the back of the sidewalk and about 18 or 19 feet to the back of curb). So, though the covered "stoop" would be set further back than the current deck, it would be closer to the lot line than the current porch. As a means of comparison, the setback of the neighboring house to the south is greater than the existing enclosed porch. However, the next home further south has less of a setback than even the proposed porch. FINDINGS 1. There is a hardship peculiar to the property. 2. The two variances that remove the non -conforming status of the house could be considered necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the right to use the property for residential purposes. However, the Planning Commission should discuss and decide whether the extra foot and a half of width rises to the level of protecting a "substantial property right". 3. Authorizing the variances to remove the non -conforming status of the house would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property or create precedential difficulties. Whether the extra foot and a half of porch width would be detrimental will need to be discussed and decided upon by the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve all of the requested variances. 2. Approve the two variances necessary to remove the non -conforming status of the house. But, deny the setback variance necessary to permit the extra foot and a half of porch. 3. Table the variance requests for additional information. RECOMMENDATION If the Planning Commission finds the extra foot and a half of porch width to be acceptable, staff would recommend approval of all three variance requests. attachments: Applicant's Letter and accompanying material City of ComrnIlit De ehpineItDepart('Flt 603 `,r- 654 a, 660 663 670 D- - TSTREET- -- I 203 704 709 712 713 717 720 723 802 807 815 808 819 218 O41 GH1L� 304 310 314 320 1004 hI 1012 018 CD QD t - T R-E T- 903 905 915 911 912 915 918 920 1001 inn. 1007 1013 IMP 1017 1018 K _ i — —STREET-- w op L_ Lh 703 704 709 712 711 718 717 801 805 808 812 nsen Property--- 304 I 822 co m i in 317 910 915 917 916 919 924 923 928 1007 1002 1009 1013 1010 1017 1016 Lir JD Hansen Variances Zoning & Location Map 725 805 809 907 906 911 910 915 919 923 927 931 cr) 935 936 1 —EAST— — —L—-D w 918 924 1003 1009 1015 1019 1004 1008 1016 Zo II,+:I Dt:trIcts -P,A.grlcIIto !al Prezewathl P-angle Farn II•; Pezidellal n R & - Two Farn II TP, Tradtthial Peskle Itlal MI LP, Labe ziore Pet kleltlaI CP,Coltage Pet !deotlal - CTP,Cove Traci lama I Peskielllal ▪ CCP,Cove Cottage es He otlal CTHP.,Cove Tow llooze PezIleltlaI TH,TOW llog ze PCM-IIedlim Delsltr Pesi:leotlal n P.:H -HIgi DeIttt•., Petrie Mal n'•.'C, village Comrne rclal ® A-GeieralCommerclal CbD-CeotalBozhezz Ditit n 6P-C,6osloezz Part-CommetolaI 5P-4. 5Izilezz Pari - vVic* n FP-I,6isllezz Parl-IlclortrIal E-13IF• - Heavy Ildlztlal .:PD-Campos Pezearci Deeehpmelt j� PA - P obit A.dm Ilktrathm Pobiic 'A' orbs Facility f—� PC•A.D - railroad WA.TEP. r 1 Property b TOW lsilp r• Pt:er.tlp March 15, 2010 To: Planning Commission, City of Stillwater Re: Request for Variance, Proposed Remodel at Todd & Audrey Hansen Residence 901 6th Ave S, Stillwater We are requesting a variance to the front yard setback (20' required, 12' requested) in order to demolish a deck and enclosed front porch, both of which extend beyond the setback, and replace with an open front porch at 8' deep, full width of the front of the house. The new open porch will be 18' wider than the existing porch, but will also be set back 5' further from the front lot line than the existing structures. An open front porch was part of the original 1890's design of the house, is appropriate to the style and era of the house and in keeping with the neighborhood. We are also requesting a variance to the side yard setback (20' required, 4' requested). An existing attached garage is proposed to be demolished and replaced on its existing footprint which is now 4' from the lot line. The garage is only 22' deep (outside dimension) and cannot be useable at less depth. We also propose to increase the width from 22' to 27' in order to provide reasonable overhead door dimensions and a small amount of storage space (a metal storage shed in the back yard will be demolished following construction — there is no additional storage available). Additionally, the proposed 27' width will follow wall lines on the house and provide design symmetry as a result. It should be noted that there is no other location on the property where a garage would not be problematic. Any location in the back yard would also create access and setback issues and would block the river view of both our house and neighboring houses. While this location is unusually close to the lot line, it works well for access to Hudson street and doesn't block any views. Modifications to the house foundation when the original garage was built would be compromised if exposed to weather, so the garage is also providing protection for the house. The necessity of this garage rebuilding is based on the condition of the existing structure. The original garage was built in 1943 and is irreparably deteriorated. A poured slab roof leaks water in several places onto cars below. The concrete block side walls are cracked and heaving inward. Mortar joints below the steel support beam are open and leaking dirt and water from the ground around the garage, which is about 50% below grade. The brick exterior facing Hudson street is separating from its block substrate and the brick material is spalling off. The exterior appearance is unattractive and getting worse each year. The new design will have framed walls above grade and be sided to match the house. New steel overhead doors will be an upgrade from the existing and 9' width rather than the current narrow doors which make access unusually difficult. Removing and replacing the garage will also allow us to correct landscape and grading issues and generally improve the appearance of the property. Finally, the roof of the garage, which is currently a poured slab patio with minimal railing, will have a wood deck with a code safety rail. ,�£ i o ;`thr. vk / - - O/:7 4/ A1;0,,/a aiv -` .'W .77.p 72 ia274. a7 C cio i+LS T —'474• •l2•- ) "9/ ! 1 �' R 4.z-z 4, t z ..i.A W % .X... Z_ : 94 ,�a�ka� _ 1/8 C0z1 flJ 'fit` -45x/S -1d�� .s��� s- _75,7/7, �r.7� A:14 R21W R2OW R19W T32N T32N T31N T31N T3ON T29N T29N r T28N T28N T27N ``f T27N R22W R21W R2OW Vicinity Map 0 Scale in Feet 20 This drawing is the result of a compilation and reproduction of land records as they appear in various Washington County offices. The drawing should be used for reference purposes only. Washington County is not responsible for any inaccuracies. Source: Washington County Surveyor's Office. Phone (651) 430-6875 Parcel data based on AS400 information current through: January 31, 2010 Map printed: March 11, 2010 EXISTING SITE PLAN HANSEN RESIDENCE 901 SIXTH AV S STILLWATER, ICI 9'6" 13' 16' 4' 66'8" 132' 6 1/4" s--IU I14 J.7.1114 b'b'y`"—*I'J"^7F 9 1/2" BATH PORCH DECK 11 OFFICE LR 21/4" KITCHEN —" DINING 6c 12 GARAGE .'---14'1 20' 7 3/4" 3/4" t6'103/4" 2; 6" 4, 4' 2" "f---9' 3 3/4" —.-414—n' F"-..-4,-7' 3" --,R 4 + / 9' 3/4" --1 22' 6" 1 66' PROPOSED SITE PLAN HANSEN RESIDENCE 901 SIXTH AV S STILLWATER, MN 1 9'6„ 132'61/4" Jr--- 10' 1/4" 35' 2 1/4" 8' 13' 912" 16' 2 1/4" 76'73/4" BATH OFFICE KITCHEN nub' DINING GARAGE PORCH 4-r .♦ • 16' 9" 8' 3" 39' 4' 6" 4, 26'6" 9' 3 3/4" 12' 7 3/4" 13' 16' EXISTING FLOOR PLAN HANSEN RESIDENCE 901 SIXTH AV S STILLWA I tat, MN 1U'1/4"--y 35'21/4" /`-6'6"- /-7' 2 3/4" •• •/'3"---f /--4' 8" --ate 5' 4 1 /4" / 12' 8" 15' 3 1 /2" 14' 1 /4" 2' 6" 8' 7'1 31/2" I. 1/4" BATH 8' i 1 4" 11' r----- 6' 8 1 /2" OFFICE lR 2' 11 " P 11'31/2" 7' 11 1/2" 5' 7 12" DINING �� KITCHEN 6 9 5, 3" 2 GARAGE 22 /-4'2"-f--12' ,'--10'31/2" "-- 141/ R' R" 7, a" 1/4" / 11'1 1/2"----1 7 -6'111/4"-f -9' 11 3/4" .( 12'1/4" / 13'7" '9' R" 1-3' R" / -"-- 9"1 '1/4" PROPOSI=0 FLOOR PLAN HANSEN RESIDENCE 901 SIXTH AV S STILLWATER, MN 10' 1/4" /-4' 8" -i -5' 4 1/4" .1'--7' 2 3/4" 12' 8" 5' 2 1/4" 14': 1/4" 15' 3 1/2" e' 8' 13' 9 12" 7' 1 1/4" 6' 8 1/2" BATH OFFICE 4' 10 3/4" 16' 21/4" 11' 7'1112" 2" 5' 3" KITCHEN DINING LR PORCH 15' 6' 9" GARAGE * r 22 9' 11 3/4" 26'6" / 9'3 3/4" 8' - / 3' -1 aid,» ,W 27oy 7I7.a7 44 1) `J • Lki ) ' 7,57 7 •M ;,L•z - -` fl/99 �✓ �. 6f, /O, O/V�- +. L'Z k 1749, •dc' •- 2 :ZS" H1-?J/may 1d7p' �+ Div 1 ` v °,, 1 1 4 ,/ Planning Commission DATE: April 8, 2010 APPLICANT: Stacie Berg OWNER: Chestnut LLC CASE NO.: 10 01 REQUEST: A special use permit for a restaurant and variance to the parking requirements LOCATION: 200 Chestnut St E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: CC - Community Commercial ZONING: CBD - Central Business District PC DATE: April 12, 2010 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner BACKGROUND The applicant, Stacie Berg, is requesting a special use permit to allow a restaurant) and a parking variance for Common Grounds Coffee Shoppe. Currently this site is deficient three parking spaces with 82 spaces required and 79 spaces provided. The conversion of the space from a retail space to a restaurant space will require two additional parking spaces. With the change in use, the site will be deficient a total of five parking spaces. Per the zoning code in §31-325, coffee shops are defined as a restaurant. 200 Chestnut St E Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST Special Use Permit Sec. 31-207(d) of the City Code states that a Special Use Permit can be approved if the Planning Commission finds that: (1) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans. Zoning Ordinance Parking - 79 parking spaces are provided for the building in the parking ramp on the north side of this site. Based on the parking demands of the tenants, uses in the building, and this change in use the total required parking for this site is 84 parking spaces. A variance has been requested for these five spaces. (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Miscellaneous • All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need • to go to the Planning Commission and/or Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval as appropriate. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. • Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied. Variance As mentioned above, coffee shop will generate the need for two additional parking spaces to meet the Zoning Code regulation. Consequently a variance from the parking requirement has been requested. It has become common in the downtown zoning district to view the re -use of existing space as grounds for satisfying the "hardship" criteria for variance requests. Obviously, the existing set of circumstances prevents the business from creating the required number of on -site parking spaces. It is for situations such as these that Section 31-510, Subd. 1 (d)(1)i of the Zoning Ordinance was written. It allows for "alternative provisions" when the property being considered is in a parking district. The City has established a downtown parking district, which would allow for such "alternative provisions". Only in new construction has the City aggressively required the construction of new parking spaces. About the only consistent "alternative provision" that the City has required under these circumstances is that property owners purchase monthly parking permits for the required number of spaces. This encourages the parking user to park in lots that are a little further away from the site, allowing closer free parking to be used by visitors. 200 Chestnut St E Page 3 In keeping with past practices, staff finds the variance review criteria to be met and would recommend approval of the variance with the condition that the property owner be required to purchase five monthly parking permits for site. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requests in whole or in part. 2. Deny the requests. 3. Continue the request for more information. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is May 15, 2010 and the next Planning Commission meeting is ca for 10 2010. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the special use permit and variance as conditioned. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL If the Commission chooses to approve the project, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. Any exterior changes, including any new vent and/or building penetrations, requires review and consideration by the HPC prior to their installation. 2. The trash dumpster shall be enclosed and screened as required by the downtown design guidelines or moved to a location that is not seen from a public right-of-way including Union Street. 3. The property owner shall purchase five monthly parking permits to compensate for deficit in on -site parking. attachments: Applicant's Form and packet Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Principal Accessory PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No: 5OP ii% t9 -et/ Date Filed: CO J Fee Paid: Receipt No.: r//DD`lb ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit 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 Address of Project Q E 40+ Assessor's Parcel No. iZ,.b O30Q0}1QDoi (GEO Code) Zoning District CR) Description of Project CoK.VE1,rw. (5,P. $potwt.. 4o ccfr& j f. "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." Property Owner s id IC Mailing Address /300 I•/ Pub,. fD. 50 201 City - State - Zip NAdi tl (( )A, %'Da7s City - State - Zip Telephone No. %ZS — 35 351 Signatures^ (Signature is required) (Signature is requiired) Representative S144a € , j2G Mailing Address //10 K/eii DR yammb ne. , G✓/ 5101,E Telephone No. Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area /eV& square feet Existing /a96 square feet Proposed 26(96 square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No. of off-street parking spaces H:\mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP.FRM April 9, 2008 March 18, 2010 Planning Commission City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 To whom it may concern: I am writing this letter on intent as a new business (Common GroundZ Coffee Shoppe) in the Chestnut Building at 200 East Chestnut Street in Stillwater Minnesota. It is my intention to convert the previous retail space, located on the main floor in suite 100 (1006 sq. ft.) into a coffee shop. Throughout this conversion, we will be in compliance with all health department and city building regulations. Thanks so much, Starail3. Stacie Berg 1180 Klein Drive Hammond, WI 54015 4,4 C 4 0 0/ (10162. 3z4_42-, 219\nnat9 g- tJ a_. "vo 4.4411a evrttl ai----gAt4q dS v-N-u"J „9E rt -6 c i`Qp /7 - g/9 to-Y.% _j " elSIVOS.11 57 .t0 1 Planning Commission DATE: April 8, 2010 APPLICANT: Michael Bergum PROPERTY OWNER: Michael Bergum REQUEST: CASE NO.: 10-09 Variances to River Overlay District standards for Non -conforming lot size, non -conforming lot width, And impervious surface coverage. LOCATION: 104 Lakeside Dr COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFLL - Single Family Large Lot BASE ZONING: RB - Two-family District OVERLAY ZONING: River Overlay District PC HEARING: April 12, 2010 PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUN D Mr. Bergum is planning a home remodeling project that will include adding a third stall to the garage and building a second story over all three stalls of the garage. According to the survey, the lot has an area of 13,480.6 square feet and a width of 90 feet. Within the St. Croix River Overlay District a lot with sanitary sewer must have a minimum of 20,000 square feet1 and a minimum width of 100 feet. Therefore, both the lot size and width are non -conforming. A non -conforming property can not be expanded. Therefore variances have been requested for both the lot size and width. If granted, the non -conforming status of the lot would be removed and the home expansion could occur. ' The lot currently has a septic system, but when the additional bedroom above the garage is added, the City's Building Official will require that the home is connected to the sanitary sewer line. Therefore, this review assumes the property is connected to sanitary sewer. 104 Lakeside Dr Page 2 In addition, to the non -conforming status of the property, a variance would be needed from the maximum permitted impervious cover in the River Overlay District to receive a building permit for the increased building footprint size. The maximum permitted impervious cover is 4,000 square feet or 20%, whichever is less. On the Bergum property, the maximum coverage is 2,696.12 square feet. The proposed remodeling and expansion project would create 4,032 square feet of cover. A variance has been requested to allow this. SPECIFIC REQUESTS In order to receive a building permit for the planned home remodeling project, Mr. Bergum has requested the following three variances. 1. Lot size variance - The minimum lot size for a sewered lot in the St. Croix River Overlay District is 20,000 square feet, whereas the existing lot has a size of only 13,480.6 square feet. Therefore, in order to build a house expansion on the non -conforming lot, a variance of 6,519.4 square feet, or 32.6% is being requested. 2. Lot width variance - The minimum lot width for a sewered lot in the St. Croix River Overlay District is 100 feet, whereas the existing lot has a width of only 90 feet. Therefore, in order to build a house expansion on the non -conforming lot, a variance of 10 feet, or 10% is being requested. 3. Impervious cover variance - The maximum impervious cover allowed on a lot in the St. Croix River Overlay District is 4,000 square feet, or 20%, whichever is less. Therefore, on the 13,480.6 square foot Bergum lot, the maximum permitted impervious cover is 2,696.1 square feet, whereas the impervious coverage proposed is 4,032 square feet. Therefore, a variance of 1,335.9 square feet, or 49.5% is being requested. EVALUATION OF REQUEST When considering a variance in the River Overlay District, the Commission must consider the following items: 1. Preserving the scenic and recreational resources of the St. Croix Riverway, especially in regard to the view from and use of the river. The ridge line of the proposed garage addition would only be four feet taller than the ridge line of the existing home. Given the fact that the home is in the third tier of homes from the river's shoreline, this additional four feet should be nearly indiscernible from the river. 2. The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions. The home is currently connected to public water and if the variance is granted and the remodeling project occurs, the home will be connected to public sanitary sewer. The home is accessed from public roads. The addition will be built in accordance with Minnesota building standards. 3. The prevention and control of water pollution, including sedimentation. This is the most critical standard for the proposed project. A primary reason that river district lots are required to be at least 20,000 square feet in area is to allow rainwater and 104 Lakeside Dr Page 3 snow melt to percolate into the lot's yard rather than runoff into the river. Consequently, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources rigorously defends its 20% impervious cover rule, which has been incorporated into City ordinances. In this case, the undersized lot and the proposed footprint expansion result in a request to increase the allowed impervious cover by nearly 50%. If this 50% increase cannot be reduced, perhaps through pervious driveway pavement for example, then all 50% will need to be mitigated. This mitigation could be accomplished through the use of engineered raingardens, roof run-off collection, etc. In a similar impervious surface increase request across the street at 105 Lakeside Drive, a subsurface on -site stormwater holding improvement was required. If the impervious surface variance is granted, prior to issuing any building permits for the project, Mr. Bergum will need to propose a stormwater mitigation plan and the City Engineer and Department of Natural Resources will need to review and be satisfied with that plan. 4. The location of the site with respect to floodways, slopes and blufflines. The home is outside the Floodway as identified by FEMA. The property slopes far less than 12% and therefore is not subject to slope standards. There are no blufflines on the property or within 100 feet of the property lines. 5. The erosion potential of the site based on degree and direction of slope, soil type and vegetative cover. When compared to other lots in the area and within the City there are minimal slopes on the property. Therefore the erosion potential is low. None the less, since the property is within the river overlay district, erosion control must be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project 6. Potential impact on game and fish habitat. The neighborhood and this lot are already developed. So the impact upon game and fish habitat would be negligible. In fact, with the required stormwater mitigation, and connection to sanitary sewer, the amount and cleanliness of the runoff and groundwater from the lot could be improved. 7. Location of the site with respect to existing or future access roads. The home has access on a paved public street (Lakeside Drive). No changes are proposed with this addition. 8. The amount of wastes to be generated and the adequacy of the proposed disposal system. The home will be connected to public sanitary sewer if the variances are granted and the remodeling is done. And there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer system to support the home addition. 9. The anticipated demand for police, fire, medical and school services and facilities. The home is currently a single-family home and no change of use is proposed with the addition. Adequate public support services are available for this property. 104 Lakeside Dr Page 4 10. The compatibility of the proposed development with uses on adjacent land. The home is a single-family home in a single-family neighborhood. The use is compatible and comparable to the developed land use pattern of the area. 11. 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 home was constructed in 1968, according to the Washington County Tax Services department. The City's river overlay regulations were developed in May of 1974. The conditions on the lot existed prior to the adoption of the ordinance and were not created by the current home owner. 12. 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 two variances requested to remove the non -conforming status of the lot are necessary to preserve the existing property rights enjoyed by Mr. Bergum. However, the request for increased impervious cover may not rise to the level of guaranteeing "substantial property rights". Perhaps the impervious coverage could be reduced by eliminating the metal shed and replacing the proposed bituminous with pervious bituminous. 13. 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 question here is whether the extra impervious surface is detrimental to the river or neighboring properties, or whether it would set a difficult precedent in applying the impervious standard to other properties in the river overlay district. The Planning Commission should consider this carefully. FINDINGS 1. There is a hardship peculiar to the property. 2. The two variances that remove the non -conforming status of the lot could be considered necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the right to use the property for residential purposes. However, the Planning Commission should discuss and decide whether the impervious surface rises to the level of protecting a "substantial property right". 3. Authorizing the variances to remove the non -conforming status of the lot would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property or create precedential difficulties. Whether the extra impervious cover would be detrimental will need to be discussed and decided upon by the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve all of the requested variances. 104 Lakeside Dr Page 5 2. Approve the two variances necessary to remove the non -conforming status of the lot. But, deny the setback variance necessary to permit the extra impervious surface. 3. Table the variance requests for additional information. RECOMMENDATION If the Planning Commission finds the extra impervious cover to be acceptable, staff would recommend approval of all three variance requests. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. The project shall be completed according to the plans entitled Bergum Residence Plan #100305 dated 3-3-10 and found on file at City Hall. 2. The proposed addition to the footprint of the house shall be limited to 240 square feet. 3. The variance shall not become effective until Mr. Bergum submits a stormwater mitigation plan found satisfactory to the City Engineer and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 4. The applicant shall submit a grading and erosion for review and action by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City. 5. The variance shall not become effective until after review by the Minnesota Commissioner of Natural Resources. Attachments: Zoning and Location Map Overlay Zoning District Map Survey Applicant Letter Building Plans City of +:omrnl ult., De velopme it DeI:+altrnelt Bergum Variances Base Zoning & Location Map 1— w Z. __ — EAST . __ 'i' 1924 w Z 1g14 I— C 1915 1; Berqum Property w uJ 1905 1908 sn -a 1901 224 Li 300 L EAST WILLOW= 1817 1824 2 1818 z 1813 1816 EASLDER 2021 2023 2021 2017 2017 r-- ▪ 2011 UJ 0 0 STREET 2007 w 410 HAZEL STREET---L — — w. HAZEL 101 EE o 103 w u'a 105 Lu 107 1921 102 514 T 2021 2015 2011 2009 122 120 -J 1 119 D I> tl ►c td n P,. Jllclttla! Plea?r:atk}1 P.4-^Ilijl? Fam It P?s lclel gal P6- Two Fain IL 11 TP. Tiadltia lal Pe.> kle ltkal an LP.La}.e:Yore Pe. Vie ItLal P.Co'Ray Pe; ICI? la! I,TP.Cove Dart ttlila1Fez. kle111aI - CC: P.,Cove Cottag? PeskleltLal _+:THP.Cove Twuliot a Pea. klekW! - TH.Tow 1Yo1s? 1-71-1:letlli111 Delalf; Peakl?1tlal nR;H -HI:J Delatt; Pe.skteltlal F-1 Illy)? ComlilelcLal MN CA -Ge he Ia1Colnlllelclal -+,BD-Ceuta!61alless DIs41ct r� 6P-G.61a11?aa Part. -Comm eroLi1 BP :. 61411?Zvi Pall - C'WV* n 6P-1.6Ia11?ss Pall-11tluatlla! 16 - Hea' ; 11+IIs4Lal :PD-': alnpla Pea?a lcl D?'ie lop melt rn P.4 - P 11? Ib Actin H 1 ttat l 1-1 PWII.-:;on.a Faclltt, r7 P r.D - Pallloacl TEP 1 1 r-1 Ptope it: 11 Tow'i. I: n PR?L:ip City of • ate •.•mmuilt DeerbpmeitDepatmert Bergu 1 Variances Overlay Zoning 222 -- EAST- E ALD 305 ER ST 202 >- 2018 06 0 rY 04 \324 co z 2016 - HAZELSTREET 1917 1924 1915 1914 1 1921 4 it 1 4 Bergurrl Property 1905 1908 w 1901 224 =AST -WI ELO = 1817 1824 0 1813 1818 1816 1801 1723 1721 z 300 - STREET (17 0 308 1818 1812 1806 1802 2103 428 EAS\LDER ST 1921 w w iuJ '1` HAZEL w 102 101 104 106 E SIDE 103 WIo .110 105 w II� 107 2021 2015 2011 2009 ST 124 122 120 118 116 Brawn's Creek overaly district 114 n St. Croix River Overlay District 102 E - POPLAR - STRE-ET 305 ER -HEIGHTS DRI E 1615 1 311 w re 1722 1710 1 1621 r 161 7 Landmark Custom Homes and Remodeling 895o Lake Jane Trail Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651-77o-Too Office 651-770-3366 Office Fax 651-436-8598 Jim's Fax 651-492-7936 Jim's Cell www.landmarkcustomhomes.som Project Overview for: 104 Lakeside Drive Stillwater, MN Mike Bergum *This overview is intended to be used as clarification to the blueprints that will be submitted with this document Landmark Custom Homes and Remodeling intends to do the following work to current building codes at the above address: 1. Demo & Prep work a. Tear down the existing garage b. Demo the interior of the home as needed c. Add foundation to the North side of the garage to extend the garage 1o'to the North to accommodate the new design d. Add a 12"x24"xz4" concrete footing in basement to carry remodeled open front entry e. Add 2 24"diameter x 48" deep concrete footings to behind the garage to support addition above f. Add an engineered steel beam to the kitchen area above the center island to facilitate the open kitchen design g. Add 2 8" x 48" poured walls to the front of the home to facilitate the new front entry design h. Remove existing roof over the home to facilitate the new roof design i. Remove all windows 2. Framing siding and roofing and decking a. Reframe garage according to plans with 2x6 exterior walls, frame new front entry area, frame all new interior walls b. Add all new roof trusses according to design c. Roof entire home with 3o year architectural shingles to code with ice and water shield,15Ib felt, dormer flashing, step flashing, chimney flashing and preformed valley in the appropriate areas d. Install all new high efficiency window and doors throughout. Windows and doors are to be installed with angled pan flashing, Vulkem caulk behind the nailing fin and window wrap over the nailing flange with Tyvek lapped over the window wrap e. Tyvek entire home f. Install new fiber cement board siding with Miratec trim boards according to plan. Soffit and fascia will be maintenance free. g. Add a cultured stone veneer according to the plan h. Decking will be an exterior Trex decking product i. Paint home in a 2 color paint scheme 3. Plumbing, HVAC and Electric a. Plumb home according to plans using all new pvc waste pipe and new copper/pex supply lines b. Connect to city sewer service c. Replace both existing furnaces with new 92% efficient natural gas, add ductwork to accommodate plans d. Replace current water heater with new power vent or tankless model e. Wire to code, add subpanel if necessary 4. Insulation and Drywall a. Repair and replace all insulation. All new wall insulation will be formaldehyde free. In existing 2x4 walls, all new insulation will be r-13 batts. All 2x6 insulation will be r-2i batts. Vapor barriers will be installed, taped and sealed on all new and repaired areas. All roof insulation will be blown in r-5o. Attic venting will be via roof vents and soffit vents. Garage ceiling and all rim areas will be closed cell spray foam b. Entire garage area will be drywalled with 518" fire x rock and fire taped. The rest of the home will be drywalled to code with 5/8" on ceilings and %" on walls. 5. Interior Finish a. Interior will be finished to the homeowners specifications with all new railings to code. All floors will be finished except for the basement. 6. Driveway, Sidewalk and Landscaping a. A new asphalt driveway will be installed from the street to the new garage. Driveway will be the width of the garage tapering to 22' at the street b. A new front sidewalk will be installed from the new driveway to the new front entry. c. All landscaping will be completed by the homeowner 7. Miscellaneous a. All work will be completed by or supervised by Landmark Custom Homes and Remodeling b. Construction time will be about 5 months from the day we can pull the permit c. Landmark is used to working in residential areas. Work will begin at 8:ooam and finish at 5:0o pm Monday through Friday. d. The jobsite will be kept clean at all times e. The street will be kept clean at all times f. Silt fence will be installed where needed For further clarification, please contact Jim Zuccone at 651-492-7936 or Bob McAdam at 651-770-9100. S 89°29'50" W 150.00' 8'35" E 90.00' 1n 10. O. LOT 10 40. 2.00 102 LAKE SIDE DR. EXISTING 2 STORY HOUSE 29 33.8' n N 89°29'50" E 150.00' Z w 2 co w FOUND } 1/2"IP DN. 1.0' J \ \ 261.1 SF 12.19' w 0, d Bo LOT 9 13,480.6 SqFt \ \ PART OF —� METAL SHED O �� _ 26sgL Y\ V l--,\i 5' S \\GE'n j' Y' 2/ \\ 12' • IRool FOUND 3/4"RE-BAR DN. 0.5' I � N DECK 405 SgFt 140.15 23.06. 32.21 104 LAKE SIDE DR.f 26 SF IT 2.00 1.99 ti EXISTING 2 STORY HOUSE 1927 SqFt 43.4r `CONC. STEPS 30 SF 35.4' WATER EASEMENT S 89°29'50" W 145.61' LOT 8 r 23. N) 0 8.0 106 LAKE SIDE DR.' EXISTING 2 STORY HOUSE 42.1E U - Z w ▪ = 2 29.65 S 89°29'50" W 103.58' N 0°38'35" W 90.00' S 0'38'35" E 90.00' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ADDRESS: 104 LAKE SIDE DRIVE STILLWATER, MN 55082 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LOT COVERAGE HOUSE = 1927 SF FRONT'STEPS = 30 SF DECK = 405 SF DRIVEWAY = 686 SF SHED & OVERHANG = 261 SF PART OF METAL SHED = 28 SF SIDEWALK IN BACK = 26 SF TOTAL = 3,363 SF LOT 9 = 13,480 SF PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE = 25% DRIVEWAY AND PAD NOT INCLUDED IN IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE= 576 SF SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION 0 30' MIN II= FILE NAME M.BERGUML9LAKEVIEWTERRACE.TRV SCALE 30 Ft/In DATE 2-23-2010 DRAWN BY INSERT NAME JOB 10-337 REVISION 1/1 SHEET 1/1 This map drawn with TRAVERSE PC, Software I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF: LOT 9, LAKEVIEW TERRACE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AND THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, IF ANY, THEREON, AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND, AS SURVEYED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. PJ LAND SURVEYING, LLC � PAUL A. J SON LAND SURVEYOR, MINN. LIC. NO. 10938 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: MIKE BERGUM P J LAND SURVEYING, LLC 104 LAKE SIDE DRIVE 12510 MCKUSICK ROAD NORTH STILLWATER, MN 55082 STILLWATER, MN 55082 651-248-4369 651-303-0025 Traverse PC Planning Commission DATE: April 8, 2010 APPLICANT: Gartner Properties REQUEST: A special use permit for a restaurant LOCATION: 210 Main St S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: CC - Community Commercial ZONING: CBD - Central Business District PC DATE: April 12, 2010 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner CASE NO.: 10-10 BACKGROUND Brian Larson on behalf of Gartner Properties, is requesting a special use permit to allow a restaurant". The restaurant will occupy approximately 400 square feet of floor area on the first floor. Gartner Properties is in the process of completing a number of facade changes to facilitate their move to the building. Along with the restaurant use, the first floor will contain approximately 3000 square feet of retail space, approximately 1000 square feet of back office space for the retail use, and approximately 1000 square feet for storage, utility, restrooms and other auxiliary space. The second floor will contain approximately 3000 square feet of office use. With the new uses, the parking demand for the building will actually decrease from 36 required parking spaces to 32 parking spaces. Per the zoning code in §31-325, cafes/bakeries are defined as a restaurant. 200 Chestnut St E Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST Special Use Permit Sec. 31-207(d) of the City Code states that a Special Use Permit can be approved if the Planning Commission finds that: (1) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans. ▪ Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied. (2) Aiiy additional conditions I ecesd y for the public inteiest itcl.ve been Unposed. Miscellaneous • All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission and/ or Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval as appropriate. • It should be noted, in the future if the rear (eastern) portion of the building is remodeled or converted into occupied space additional parking will be required and it will likely trigger the requirement for an elevator to be installed per the State Building Code. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. • Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requests in whole or in part. 2. Deny the requests. 3. Continue the request for more information. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is May 15, 2010 and the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for May 10, 2010. 200 Chestnut St E Page 3 APRIL 5, 2010 ACTION BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION At the April 5, 2010 meeting, the HPC reviewed the design review permit. The HPC approved the plans with conditions 1 and 3-9 listed below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the special use permit as conditioned. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL If the Commission chooses to approve the project, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. All revisions to the approved exterior elevation plans (dated April 5, 2010 as on file with the City of Stillwater) shall be reviewed and approved by the T-Tnrita0-e, Preservation Commission. 2. AU revision to the proposed uses and plan need to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission and/or Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval as appropriate. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator. 3. Details of any outdoor lighting fixture specifications must be submitted for review by City Staff before installation. Shielded light fixtures shall be used with appropriate wattage of light bulbs and lighting fixtures to be approved by City Staff prior to installation. 4. No signage shall be installed without approval of the HPC. 5. The trash dumpsters shall be kept inside the building or an outdoor enclosure shall be built as required by the design guidelines. If the trash enclosure is to be located on a parking space then a lease shall be obtained from the City prior to locating the enclosure on City Property. 6. The applicant shall receive all appropriate Washington County Health Department approvals. 7. The applicant shall submit a SAC determination letter prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. As noted on the original plans dated March 19, 2010, the two windows along Main Street shall be infilled with salvaged brick. 9. The final signage plan and trim colors shall be resubmitted and approved by the HPC prior to instillation of the signage or painting any exterior elements. The brick is not to be painted without HPC approval. attachments: Applicant's Form and packet PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: ACTION REQUESTED anance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment Lf onditional Use Permit *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 Address of Project '21,1 2. T Assessor's Parcel No. PW # 1.%O'hot 04 1001 ID (GEO Code) Zoning District GSD Description of Project SEE- #1 .t+1c47 LTr-TT "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 1 will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Property Owner-'(IJEr..` P�PT'lfC.ej Mailing Address 2.W E.. ple-tt 4 V City - State - Zip 'j'TVAAAi L.. (1i (J t City - State - Zip Telephone No. � 11 ex, Telephone No. Representative BRIAN UA(24ek.1 A(A t..Pe240n1 $t2e NNR- W4-tteaS, I'iO12-11-4 Feldierti' ‘7TIumisipaia M J 9 0caz Mailing Address Signature Signature is required) (signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area 12 dSb' square feet Existing 12, Ga 5$ square feet Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed (2.0 51, square feet Principal Z. 2,1)' toy' Paved Impervious Area square feet to.. Accessory 1.04. - No. of off-street parking spaces 0 Lot Size (dimensions) x SI Land Area 6,O2°) SF• H:\mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP.FRM April 9, 2008 LARSON BRENNER 03.19.2010 ARCHITECTS 807 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Telephone: 651 - 430 - 0056 Facsimile: 651 - 439 - 1179 www.la7sonbrenncr.eom City of Stillwater Planning Commission 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Special Use Permit Request Application for 201 Main Street Members of the Commission: This letter is on behalf of Gartner Properties, owners of the property located at 201 South Main Street in Stillwater, Minnesota. The owners will be undertaking work to change the use of the building's upper floor level from its current Mercantile Group M Occupancy to a Business Group B Occupancy comprised of professional services offices. The main floor level of the building will remain a Mercantile Group M Occupancy with a new accessory use Business Group B Occupancy. The owners also plan to renovate the existing building exterior, including replacement of existing windows, creation of new window openings, construction of a new decorative building cornice, and installation of sun control canopies/awnings. This letter accompanies a Special Use Permit Request Application Form and Checklist. Due to exterior changes to the building, a Design Review Permit Application has also been submitted to the HPC. Requested Special Use Permit The owners are submitting this application for a Special Use Permit requesting the change in use for the building's upper floor level from its current Mercantile Group M Occupancy to a Business Group B Occupancy. The proposed Business Group B Occupancy would be in harmony with the general zoning and permitted uses adjacent to the structure. I would be pleased to provide additional information as required to assist the Planning Commission with its review of the Special Use Permit Request Application. Please contact me if I may be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Brian Larson, AIA Larson Brenner Architects EAST ELEVATION - BACK VIEW FROM NORTHWEST WEST ELEVATION - FRONT PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION - SIDE LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS 201 Main Street Building Remodel 201 Main St Stillwater, MN 3-19-2010 Al A.31 (c) (B) B.8 (c) (1) (1) O201 South Main Street - 2nd Floor Plan (2) cl (3) (1) (5) krizsizsanwelkilWavidnimil PROPERtt L4E 15 FACE OF d91B161R4L DESIGN 2260 SF FUTURE WORK (2) (3) (2) East Chestnut Street (3) `Z061 1 01 SF nfere ce (4) (4) (5) (5) FRCPERTY 0E15 FACE OF &5111N6 3111 ENTRY LEMY J033 SF I MOM PRODIGY MOM :2 000001 LASH RE6 CABINET /7,21 316 SF RETAIL AREA 1101 I 2361 SF MONET FRCOIR R155F11 Ma SOLID COLOR a PROPERTY LEEE Flo OF (1) (2) (3) O201 South Main Street - lst Floor Plan COPIER 1 MITER AREA WORK 236 1323 SF 5 1 (4) BREAK ROOM (Th 202 SF UTILITY 11RIOOM 171 SF 1 -A.31 440 (B) .8 (c) (A) .31 MOPE i4 L06215 FAGS OF W➢D r nut B) .a (c) 1652' O' 8' 16' 52' LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS 201 Main Street Building Remodel 201 Main St Stillwater, MN 3-19-2010 A2 NEV V(INPO : COMBINING TNO EXISTING OPENINGS N/ STEEL CHANNEL LINTEL ABOVE TYP. T SILL --a-- POSSIBLE --- SIGNAGE OR ANNING 11'STEM -GLAZING 4 DOORs NINE? 1Ai5 IN FILL EXISTING ND N/ SALVAGED BRICK NEN V4INDONS Mar' NEN STOREFRONT .UT `EXIS NINDON SYSTEM 4 FI3IS JAM SAL\ AG BRICK "FINS„ WEST ELEVATION - FRONT LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS 201 Main Street Building Remodel 201 Main St Stillwater, MN 3-19-2010 A3 Ilia 7■ III" II■ NORTH ELEVATION - SIDE LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS 201 Main Street Building Remodel 201 Main St Stillwater, MN 3-19-2010 A4 NORTHWEST VIEW LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS 201 Main Street Building Remodel 201 Main St Stillwater, MN 3-19-2010 A5 NORTHEAST VIEW LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS 201 Main Street Building Remodel 201 Main St Stillwater, MN 3-19-2010 A6 NORTHWEST VIEW LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS 201 Main Street Building Remodel 201 Main St Stillwater, MN 4-5-2010 A6