Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-13 CPC PacketTHE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION. NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, December 13, 2010 The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, December 13, 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 October 11, 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 investigationof the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or Tess 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. 2010-45.. A variance to the fence regulations for height in the side yard located at 603 Churchill Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Judith Fugate, applicant. 4.02 Case No. 2010-46. A special use permit for a micro -brewery (Stillwater Brewing) located at 402 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Zachary Morgan, applicant. 5. OTHER BUSINESS 5.01 Discussion ofsolar panel ordinance. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Present: Dave Middleton, chair, Mike Dahlquist, Robert Gag, Eric Hansen, Mike Kocon, John Malsam, Scott Spisak and Charles Wolden Staff present: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad, Planner Mike Pogge and Attorney David Magnuson Absent: Aron Buchanan Approval of minutes: Mr. Wolden, seconded by Mr. Hansen, moved approval of the minutes of Sept. 12, 2010. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kocon, seconded by Mr. Malsam, moved approval of the minutes of Sept. 20, 201'0. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2010-44 A lot line adjustment and variance to the lot size regulations at 1011 Myrtle St. W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Folz, Freeman Erickson, Inc., representing Theodore Gillen, applicant. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request that is the result of the discovery that the applicant's garage is encroaching on a neighboring property. The neighboring property owner has agreed to transfer 95 square feet to Mr. Gillen to resolve the encroachment issue, Mr. Turnblad explained. However, the neighboring property is a nonconforming lot and does not meet the minimum lot size requirement, he stated. Mr. Turnblad stated since this situation was not created by the current property owners and not approving a variance would require tearing down the garage, staff is recommending approval. Mr. Middleton asked whether another variance would be required for the garage setback. Mr. Turnblad stated because the garage is an existing structure, that variance would not be required; a new structure would have to meet setbacks. Mr. Dahlquist asked what precipitated this request. Mr. Gillen explained the neighbor had his lot surveyed recently as he wants to put in a new driveway and pad for additional vehicles; the encroachment issue was discovered as a result of the recent survey, he said. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Malsam noted there is no controversy with the neighbor and this seems like a reasonable request and moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion. Mr. Spisak confirmed that a new structure would need to meet setbacks. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010-43 A type III home occupation special use permit at 717 Myrtle St. W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Matthew Ludt, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He noted there are 12 conditions required for the issuance of a type III home occupation permit, and said this request meets all of those conditions. On a question by Mr. Spisak, Mr. Pogge said all special use permits are tied to the property, but if the current property owner were to leave, the permit would expire after 12 months of non-use. Mr. Wolden asked about the definition of a resident; Mr. Pogge responded that a person must physically reside at the property to obtain a home occupation permit and only 20% of the structure can be dedicated to the home occupation. 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 11, 2010 The applicant was present. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kocon noted all 12 conditions are met and moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Discussion of Minnesota Supreme Court Case Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka — City Attorney Magnuson was present to discuss the implications of this decision, especially as related to variances related to existing nonconforming lots of record and existing non- conforming structures. He noted that cities and counties/townships have different standards and statutory authority for granting variances. He talked about the interpretations of "reasonable use," noting that green space has been interpreted as being a reasonable use of a property. Mr. Magnuson suggested that either the state legislature is going to change the law after the first of the year and give cities that same authority as counties/townships, which allows variances when a reasonable use is proposed that is prohibited by the regulations, or cities will have to utilize a statutory provision, enacted in 2004, that allows for nonconforming uses to continue, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, as long as those are not considered expansion of the footprint. Mr. Dahlquist said it appears that the legislature is likely to change the statute and asked Mr. Magnuson if he thinks that will happen. Mr. Magnuson said he thought that change has to occur, noting that the city of Minnetonka changed its ordinance in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling to allow expansion of nonconforming uses utilizing an expansion permit, and he said Minnetonka is likely to be sued again over the issuance of that permit. Mr. Magnuson said unless the legislature takes action, there is going to be continued problems for cities, especially older cities where many lots and setbacks are nonconforming; he said there has to be a way to make those older homes legitimately livable for people. Mr. Pogge said he attended a recent session regarding this issue and the concern is that if the legislature doesn't act quickly, nothing will get resolved this year because of the budget issues as well as a concern that environmental groups may get involved to ensure that a change doesn't open up a door for expansion of shoreline/river lots. Mr. Dahlquist expressed concern that the proposed ordinance the Commission is being asked to consider would be subject to the same kind of legal challenge the city of Minnetonka will see to its expansion permit; he said there is likely to be a hodge-podge of ways cities will utilize in an attempt to address the issue. Mr. Pogge explained the difference between Minnetonka's approach, which he said did not address the nonconforming issue, and Stillwater's proposed ordinance, which does address that issue. Case No. 2010-42 A zoning text amendment related to existing nonconforming lots of record and structures. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the proposed zoning ordinance amendment related to nonconforming lots and nonconforming structures. He noted that the current zoning districts were enacted Jan. 1, 1963, and said the majority of properties in the City's historic core are on smaller lots, about one-third of which are nonconforming lots according to the current zoning standards. Whenever the owner of a nonconforming property wants to do something such as construct a new garage or make an addition to the home, a variance is required. In addition to lot sizes, Mr. Pogge noted that setback standards also were changed with the 1963 zoning. While this proposed ordinance has been expedited due to the Krummenacher case, Mr. Pogge stated this proposal has been under consideration and was planned to be put forth after the adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan. He said staff believes this is a reasonable solution other communities have adopted to address historic, nonconformities, that in Stillwater's case the community probably wants to preserve. The proposal, he said, would consider nonconforming structures and lots of record (as of Jan. 1, 1963) to be conforming for the purposes of zoning as long as 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 11, 2010 the owner does not own any adjoining property and all other standards (setbacks, impervious coverage, etc.) are met and only one additional unit is proposed. There was discussion as to what nonconformities would be covered under nonconforming structures and whether a requested expansion of a nonconforming structure would result in an expansion of the nonconformities, such as impervious coverage. Mr. Turnblad stated a request cannot expand upon a standard that is nonconforming; an expansion that does not affect or expand upon an existing nonconformity would be allowable. On a question by Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Pogge explained that an addition to a nonconforming structure would have to meet all current zoning standards, so, for example, an addition couldn't encroach into a front yard setback, even though the existing structure does. Mr. Dahlquist asked if this would impact lots with steep slopes and make those now considered buildable; Mr. Pogge noted that the proposed ordinance does reference all overlay zoning and conservation districts to address that issue. Mr. Spisak asked whether this is specific to residential districts and whether the Krummenacher decision is specific to residential districts; Mr. Pogge noted the City does not have a lot of historic, platted commercial properties, so the scope of the proposal is limited to residential properties at this point. Mr. Turnblad said staff believes there will be relief of some sort in the next legislative session, so the intent with this proposal is to catch the majority of variances the City has seen. Mr. Turnblad said about the only variances that have been seen with commercial properties is for parking downtown. Mr. Pogge pointed out that a variance is supposed to be limited to an extreme, unique circumstance that is not seen elsewhere in the community, what is addressed in the proposed ordinance are things that the Commission has routinely granted. Mr. Pogge also stated the intent to provide relief to every property owner on an equal basis. Mr. Pogge stated the real question is whether the Commission wants to take a routine variance that the Commission has reviewed in the past and has historically granted and take that out of the variance classification. Mr. Wolden asked if this ordinance change would be nullified if the legislature makes changes to the law; Mr. Pogge said he would not see that happening, as he believes this would be part of a complete rezoning rewrite anticipated after the adoption of the Comp Plan update. Mr. Dahlquist asked whether the Krummenacher case affected the wording of the proposed ordinance; Mr. Pogge stated the wordingis pretty standard and was not impacted by the court decision. Mr. Middleton opened and closed the public hearing. Mr. Wolden moved to recommend approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. Mr. Dahlquist asked about the consequences that might occur should the ordinance be repealed at some point in the future; Mr. Turnblad said the wording of this ordinance has been in state statute to enable cities to recognize nonconformities as a different category of request. Motion to recommend approval passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of seasonal sales/outdoor food vending — Mr. Turnblad said currently the City grants special use permits for seasonal nursery -type businesses, seasonal fireworks, and vending carts downtown. He said it doesn't seem appropriate to grant special use permits for such operations since they are mobile and not tied to a property and special use permits are tied to a property. Because such operations are mobile, the special use permits are scattered throughout chain of title on several properties. He said in considering the issue, the Planning Commission felt that some type of licensure process would be the best way to handle such operations. He said the City Council or Planning Commission could grant the initial license and then the license 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 11, 2010 could be reissued annually, upon application, by staff if nothing changes. He reviewed some possible performance standards for seasonal sales and vending operations. Some standards for seasonal sales included: parking provisions and traffic circulation, signage, number of days of operation, and location on private property. Standards for vending operations included review and approval by the Washington County Public Health Department, as well as location on private property, daily hours of operation, location on private property, traffic circulation and signage. Mr. Turnblad pointed out there is a question as to what to do with the existing special use permits. Mr. Magnuson pointed out that unless a special use permit is issued as a conditional permit, it cannot be sunset; it was noted in the discussion, that a special use permit lapses if not used for a period of 12 months. Mr. Spisak suggested that a level of detail such as submitted in Linder's annual application for seasonal sales might be good to use as a standard; Mr. Turnblad agreed that submission of a scaled site plan might be a good standard to include. On a question by Mr. Spisak, Mr. Turnblad listed the existing special use permits for the seasonal/vending sales; he noted that the existing special use permits would continue to be reviewed on an annual basis. Mr. Turnblad said he would attempt the first draft of an ordinance for discussion at the November meeting and invited members to submit comments regarding the performances standards. Mr. Middleton said he had received a call regarding a sign on Greeley Street; Mr. Pogge said he would look into the matter. Mr. Spisak asked about the property on Greeley Street that the School District had considered for its ECFE center and whether the rezoning of the property had gone through; Mr. Turnblad said the rezoning was contingent upon approval of the special use permit, which was withdrawn before it became effective. Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Kocon, second by Mr. Wolden. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 4 (Water. THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Planning Commission Report DATE: REQUEST: APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: December 8, 2010 CASE NO.: 2010-45 Exterior side yard setback and height variances for fence Judith Fugate Judith Fugate 603 W Churchill Street RB - Two -Family Residential MEETING DATE: December 13, 2010 PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Judith Fugate replaced the picket fence in her exterior side yardl with a six foot tall privacy fence. Though the applicant was unaware of the City's fence regulations, the fence replacement was contrary to City Code in three ways. 1. The picket fence was non -conforming, and by City Code when non -conforming fences are replaced, they must be made conforming. 2 Though the picket fence satisfied the 42 inch height limit for exterior side yards, it was located partially on the City right-of- way. Fences are not allowed within public rights-of-way.3 So the location was non- conforming and could not be perpetuated with a replacement fence. Rather, the new fence was to be constructed with a conforming setback. 2. The replacement privacy fence is too tall. A fence in the exterior side yard can be no taller than 42 inches4, whereas the replacement is six feet tall. 3. Permits are required for the construction or replacement of a fences 1 An exterior side yard is the 2 City Code Chapter 31, Sec. 3 City Code Chapter 31, Sec. 4 City Code Chapter 31, Sec. 5 City Code Chapter 31, Sec. street side yard of a corner lot. 31-508, Subd. 5 31-508, Subd. 3(c) 31-508, Subd. 3(e) 31-508, Subd. 2 Fugate Variances Case 2010-45 Page 2 Rather than relocate the privacy fence parallel to the house and incur those costs, as well as reduce the size of the useable rear yard, the applicant has requested the City to allow her to leave the fence as it is. SPECIFIC REQUESTS In order to keep the privacy fence where it is located, the applicant requires two variances. 1. A setback variance to allow the fence to remain on the City right-of-way. 2. A height variance to allow the six foot tall fence to remain, though the maximum allowed height is 42 inches. EVALUATION OF REQUEST The Planning Commission may grant variances when the following conditions are met.6 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. NA1 Is there some physical characteristic unique to this property that prevents the property owner from placing the fence on the property rather than on public right-of-way? Or, is there a unique physical situation that prevents the fence from maintaining the 42 inch height limit? The boulevard is a bit wider than on most streets, perhaps. On many of Stillwater's streets, the back of the sidewalk is right at the edge of the property line. So, the extra wide boulevard here is somewhat unusual, though it is certainly not unique to this corner lot. With regard to the height question, the applicant has mentioned that with school traffic the street is heavily travelled, which impacts privacy in the rear yard. Therefore, the privacy fence is important in the rear yard. But, a privacy fence could be placed in the exterior side/rear yard and not need a variance. The fence would simply have to be moved away from the street and located at the same setback distance as the house. This would of course reduce the area of the rear yard that could be made private, but it would not eliminate a private yard. 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. Since the Krummenacher v City of Minnetonka ruling earlier in the year, this review criterion has become virtually impossible to satisfy. The Supreme Court ruled that even if a lot were vacant and a home could not be built without a variance, open space would be a reasonable use for that vacant lot. And even as a vacant lot, substantial 6 City Code Ch. 31, Sec. 31-208(d) Fugate Variances Case 2010-45 Page 3 property rights are preserved. So in this variance request, the fact that most of the rear yard (even though it is small) can be made private with a six foot fence would certainly be seen as preserving substantial property rights. Therefore a variance does not seem to be supported. 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. Many of the neighbors believe that the requested variances would not be a substantial detriment to their property, as evidenced by the attached petition. However, the request does run counter to the intent of the exterior side yard setback for fences. On corner lots, the City Code desires to see a relatively open corridor running the entire length of both sides of a street. This accounts for the City requirement to keep fences lower whenever they are located closer to a street than the house. Also, it is fairly difficult to argue that allowing the exclusive private use of a portion of a public right-of-way would be in the best interest of the general public. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requested variances. 2. Deny the requested variances. If the variances are denied, findings of fact in support of the denial must be given by the Planning Commission. 3. Table the requests for additional information. RECOMMENDATION City staff does not find the three variance criteria to be satisfied, and therefore recommends denial of both variances. attachments: Location and Zoning Map Lot Layout Applicant Information Packet Fugate Variances Case 2010-45 Page 4 City of illw�ter in tt It Ce_-1'I=o,-ttD-1 attu-rt 1 Location & Zoning Map Fugate Variance 603 W. Churchill 1- 0 iVE�'7 — •••PINE — ST14EGr— i�11■' -ram �r-- I �196"RiT— —6TflEE I I ST.-8144triBMIL� Zoning Districts QA-P, Agricultural Preservation ERA- Single Family Residential RB - Two Family n TR, Traditional Residential Ezu LR, Lakeshore Residential I I CR, Cottage Residential CTR, Cove Traditional Residential C C R, Cove Cottage Residential rEn]� CTH R, Cove Townhouse Residential 1 1TH, Townhouse RCM- Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential I VC, Village Commercial ® CA• General Commercial CBD - Central Business District BP•C, Business Park • Commercial cza BP•O, Business Park - Office 1--7 BP -I, Business Park - Industrial IB • Heavy Industrial _ CRD - Campus Research Development ED PA - Public Administration ED Park, Recreation or Open Space Public Works Facility = ROAD Railroad (WATER Property in Township 1 011 4114 —.-wEBf-..4MILU ,RR B EEr L 1 1 T t ,4yES4 . HGg ( 1 r Fugate Variances Case 2010-45 Page 5 Lot Layout Fugate Variance 603 W. Churchill I, Judy Fugate, along with Stephanie Hanson reside at 603 West Churchill Street, Stillwater. Our property is a comer lot at Churchill Street and Holcombe Street. The legal description of said property is Lot 1131k 9 Holcombe's Addn to Stillwater. Based on the location of our residence, we are requesting a variance for a six foot fence on the exterior side yard setback area. On October 8,2010, we received a letter from City Planner Michael Pogge. (See item #1) The letter pertained to a complaint received regarding "a recently installed fence on your property". (See item #2) The fence in question was a 42 inch cedar batten board installed between our driveway and our easement driveway. During the inspection, Mr. Pogge noticed that "a six foot privacy fence was installed along your side property line adjacent to Holcombe Street S. without a fence permit". The letter stated we had until October 22,2010 to 1) Apply for a fence permit, and 2) Either remove the portion of the fence along Holcombe Street S. or to reduce the fence height to 42 inches or less. (The fence in question, replaced an existing fence on July 7,2009. See item #3) If we were forced to move the fence in to the setback side area, the dimensions would change from 50' x 40' to 38' 6" x 40'. We would lose 11.5 feet of reasonable use of our property. The letter we received from Mr. Pogge made us aware that'we are in violation of Section 31-508 Subd 2 requiring a fence permit for all fence installations". We were not aware a fence permit was required for replacement of an existing fence. Additionally, "Section 31-508 Subd 3 (e) requires that fencing being no tall than 42 inches in height in the side yard along a public street". We did not know this was a violation based on the numerous six foot privacy fences along public streets in our immediate neighborhood (602 West Churchill Street; see item #4). On October 19,2010 at 3:15 PM, we met with Mr. Pogge to discuss the letter. We provided Mr. Pogge with the signed petition and invoice listing the date the fence was installed (July 7,2009). Mr. Pogge dismissed all provided documentation. He informed us that we would need to apply for a variance. Based on our property location, we believe special circumstances or conditions exist that deprive us of the reasonable use of our land and buildings. By removing said fence or reducing the height to 42 inches does not allow us of our right to privacy and protection. The following explanations will serve to show how our protection of property and privacy has been violated. Three blocks south of our property is Stillwater Junior High School. The school day traffic traveling past our house is constant for approximately 30 minutes prior to school start and end times. For example, the average number of vehicles passing our property is 49 vehicles per 5 minutes. The student foot traffic posses additional problems. Our previous fence (see item #5) allowed for students to taunt our dogs and easily reach over the fence to pet the dogs. After school events such as programs and sporting events pose a significant privacy concern. The school offers baseball, football, lacrosse, tennis, track and field and cross country running. Each of these events increase the amount of pedestrian and vehicle traffic past our home. Having a 42 inch fence does not allow us our privacy to enjoy our back yard. Several times throughout the summer the City of Stillwater hosts parades. The lineup for these parades is in the Junior High School parking lot and down Holcombe Street. The parades increase the amount of traffic past our home including noise levels, littering, pedestrians and floats. The six foot privacy fence limits the noise levels and allows privacy from onlookers. Starting in Spring through Fall, the trolley car travels past our home on Holcombe Street to Churchill Street. The trolley sits as high as a bus and allows passengers the opportunity to see directly into our backyard. Having a six foot fence allows for our right to privacy. Lastly, the United States Postal mailbox is located on the Southwest corner of Churchill Street and Holcombe Street. The mailbox is regularly used, not only foot traffic but also frequent vehicle stops. After dropping off the mail, vehicles routinely turn around in our driveway, making their way back to Churchill Street. This also impedes our right to privacy. In researching, we discovered a case similar to our circumstance. On June 12,2002, a representative for Jessica Lange filed for a variance to allow a six foot privacy fence be installed surrounding her front yard at 903 North 4th Street, Stillwater. This request was filed due to the invasion of Ms. Lange's right to privacy. A variance was approved (see item #6). As a tax paying citizen, we should be allowed the same right to privacy as Ms. Lange and her family. As part of our research, we traveled throughout the City of Stillwater and discovered numerous violations of fences taller than 42 inches on the public street side. (See item # 7, 8, 9) Further research found said fences were all zoning violations that was adopted by City Council June 18, 1991 and amended on August 1,1995. (See item #10 & 11 highlighted areas) Some fences discovered impede and obstruct the clear view of the intersection by approaching traffic. In closing, we hope we have shown that special circumstance or conditions surrounding our fence do indeed exist and support our request for an approved variance. We are prepared to pay any fines for said violations along with filing for required fence permits. We take great pride in enhancing and maintaining the beauty of our property. In doing so, we recently re -stained our 16 month old fence in cedar tone. This enhancement cost $2201.00 (see item #12) Clearly, we would have not spent this money had we known we would have to cut our fence to 42 inches or remove it. While enhancing and maintaining our property, we continually receive compliments from neighbors and those passing by. Many of the compliments pertain to our fence. Included in our attached supporting documents, is a petition (see item #13) signed by surrounding neighbors. All those in support were surprised that there was a concern raised on our 16 month old fence. In maintaining our fence as it currently stands, will prevent access by persons or animals and prevent visual or sound transference. Ultimately, our protection, privacy and reasonable use of our land will be preserved. We appreciate your review and consideration of this matter. Respectfully submitted, Q44 Fugate Stephanie Hanson October 7, 2010 THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Judith A Fugate 603 Churchill St W Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: Notice of a Violation of the Stillwater Zoning Code at 603 Churchill St W Dear Ms. Fugate: The City --of Sii i water has`recc %. d a"i ompiain about l l i i cii.;y e en yc ui p;'C perty at 603 Churchill St W. In response to the complaint, City Staff inspected the property on October 7, 2010. During the inspection, it was noticed that a six-foot privacy fence was installed along your side property line adjacent to Holcombe St S without a fence permit. Section 31-508 Subd 2 requires a fence permit for all fence installations. Additionally, Section 31-508 Subd 3 (e) requires that fences be no taller than 42 inches in height in the side yard along a public street. The fence was installed in violation of these two code sections. You have until October 22, 2010 to: I) Apply for a fence permit. A fence permit application has been included for your use. 2) Either remove the portion of the fence along Holcombe Street S or reduce the fence's height to 42 inches or less. The green area on the enclosed map shows the area of fence that needs to be removed or reduced to 42 inches in height. It is not our goal or intent to create an undue hardship but to simply work with you to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. To that end, if you have concerns with the timeline or suggested course of action please contact me so we can resolve your concerns. If you fail to correct this issue or contact me by October 22nd, the City will proceed with enforcement action against you. If you have any questions or need additional time to complete this work, please feel free to contact me at 651.430-8822. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, CITY OF STILLWATER Michel J. Pdgge, AICP City Planner cc: Bill Turnblad, Coimnunity Development Director Address File CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET a STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 a WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us Item #2 "a recently installed fence on your property" 603 West Churchill Street Item #3 603 West Churchill Street SOLD TO: MIDWEST FENCE & MFG. 525 EAST VILLAUME AVENUE SOUTH ST. PAUL, MN 55075 PHONE (651) 451-2221 FAX (651) 451-6939 FUGATE, JUDY 603 CHURCHILL STREET W STILLWATER MN 55082 SHIP TO: INVOICE INVOICE NUMBER: 133669 INVOICE DATE: Source: 07/07/09 Order 046287 PAGE: 1 FUGATE, JUDY 603 CHURCHILL STREET W STILLWATER MN 55082 SHIP VIA: DUE DATE: �� DUE DATE: TERMS: 08/06/09 DUE. ON RCPT CUST. ID.: P.O. NUMBER: FUGAJU P.O. DATE: OUR ORDER Na:0 6/ 11/ 09 SALESPERSON: MIKE C ITEM LD./DESC. ORDERED SHIPPED UNIT PRICE NET TX 90' 72" BATTEN BOARD WOOD FENCE 6 END/GATE/CORNE (wggrP TEA-R DI4AL ., PVC POSTS 1.00 CLEAR BOARDS, POSTS, 6' DRIVEGATE, / a%a aA.`I`E . POSTS REMOVE DISCOUNT_ TOTAL INVOICE CK# 2009 06/09/09 CK# 2064 07/07/09 WE OWE CUSTOMER PAID IN FULL THANK YOU 3551.00 325.00 3551.00. 325.00 1.00 3818.0000 3818.00 267.00- 0.00 E E E SUBTOTAL: TAX: PAYMENTS: TOTAL: 3551.00 0.00 0.00 Item #4 602 West Churchill Street S 1S agwooloH Suole aouaj PIO M 1S II!4Pang0 £09 Permit No. D Z r 3 D Date: to • 1 Z - tZ.. Fee: $25.00 Receipt No.: FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF STILLWATER Community Development Department 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082- Ordinance No. 792, Section 31.01, Subd. 25(m), Fence Regulations Address of Property: St:: 3 N. ` 1- • Legal Description of Property (Lot, Block and Addition): Property Owner: S>`'S 51 t A LeVA ke Representative: b,Q,b &serf Mailing Address: P.O e_B 6 3 9 ' I Mailing Address: QN V- y%L Si. Telephone No.: 6as-1- q39-6 73 i Telephon o.: G SI — 3S F()30 9 Signature Signatur )(`62-417-4124 Type of Fence X, Wood/ Privacy Chain Link Other Height of Fence (at ground grade): f ft. front yard • ft. rear yard _ft. side yard Include a survey or accurate site plan showing fence in relation to all property lines. "I hereby state the forgoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, are true and correct. I further certify the permit if it is granted and used." roperty Owner/Rep eP)/21Alt. sen ative Signature Date Conditions of Permit Approval: OFFICE USE ONLY to •12-02_, C•mmunity Develrector ity Plan er Date of Approval A building permit is not required for the installation of fences. However, you must call Gopher State One Call at 651-454-0002 before you dig to identify any underground utility locations. taaalS u1t7 60 L L }aaa1S Lilt 60 L L Marsh & 3rd Street (Southeast corner) Marsh & 3rd Street (Northeast corner) 109AS ytg LO£ L m 3 co co ;aallS PJE 'N 17 109-IIS Pie 'N 173V eldew y}g leaus awngays "N ZGz awngayS •N ZlZ awoy snolneid s,e6uei eoisser awoy snolnaJd s,e6uei eolssar eldew laaos Los W J �aaa�S Pa8 .N Jessica Lange's previous home awoy snolnaad s,e6uei eolsser 6 `8 `L# well Subdivision 25 3. Chimneys, flues and fireplaces may extend not more than 3 feet into a required yard. k. Exceptions to Height Regulations: 1. Roof Structures. The maximum height specified in Paragraph One may be exceeded by church spires, belfries, cupolas, chimneys, ventilators, skylights, water tanks, bulkheads and similar features and by necessary mechanical appurtenances usually carries above the roof level, provided such structure is an integral part of a building. 2. Maximum Height of Accessory Buildings in Residential Districts. In residential districts an accessory building shall not exceed 20 feet in height or the distance from the accessory building to a main building or potential location of a main building on adjoining premises in a residential district, whichever is less. 1. Land Reclamation Regulations. a. "Land Reclamation" is the reclaiming of land by depositing or moving material to elevate the grade. The term"Land Reclamation" shall not include landscaping done by or under the direction of a property owner that does not affect the drainage pattern or alter or intensify the flow into or upon public or private property. When applicable land reclamation shall be done in accordance with the Flood Plain Ordinance, Grading Ordinance and City Code Section 31.04 regarding wetlands . b. Land reclamation shall be permitted only by special use permit. The permit shall include as a condition thereof, a finished grade plan which will not adversely affect the adjacent land and as a condition thereof, shall regulate the type of material permitted, program for rodent control, plan for fire control and general maintenance of the site, controls of vehicular ingress and egress and for control of material dispersed from runoff, wind or hauling of material to or from the site. m. Fence Regulations. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for the regulation of fences in the City of Stillwater, to prevent fences being erected that would be a hazard to the public, or an unreasonable interference with the uses and enjoyment of neighboring property and are compatible with existing uses and other zoning restrictions. 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance, the following definitions shall apply: a. Fences shall be any lineal structure used to prevent access by persons or animals or prevent visual or sound transference. Zoning Page 65 Subdivision 26 3. Fences may be permitted in all yards, subject to the following: a. Fences in excess of six (6) feet above the ground grade shall be prohibited unless the abutting neighbor consents to a higher fence and permission is granted by the City Council. b. The side of the fence considered to be the face (finished side as opposed to structural supports) shall face abutting property. c. No fence shall be permitted on public right of ways. d. No fence shall be erected on corner lot that will obstruct or impede the clear view of an inter- section by approaching traffic. e. In residential districts, fences located in the front yard beyond the building line shall not exceed 42 inches in height. 4. Fences may be permitted along property lines subject to the following: a. Fences that require continuing maintenance such as wooden privacy fences shall not be erected within one foot of a property line. b. Fences in commercial or industrial districts may be erected on the lot line to the height of six feet; to a height of eight feet with a security arm for barbed wire. 5. No existing fence in violation of this section will be allowed to be replaced or rebuilt. Should an existing fence be replaced or rebuilt, it must come under the regulations of this section. 6. Violations of this ordinance may be enforced by injunction and the City shall be entitled to the remedy of abatement in order that a fence erected in violation of this section may be removed. n. Swimming Pool Locations: All swimming pools or appurtenances thereto shall be located in the rear yard at a distance of at least ten (10) feet from any property line (see City Code, Construction of Swimming Pools, 33.02 for additional requirements). Subd. 26. OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING 1. Purpose. The purpose of the regulations contained herein is to reduce street congestion and traffic hazards in the City of Stillwater and to add to the safety and convenience of its citizens, Zoning Page 66 • • ORDINANCE NO. 815 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE BY CHANGING CHAPTER 31.01 SUB. 25m KNOWN AS THE "FENCE ORDINANCE" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: Section I. AMENDING. City Code §31.01 Sub. 25m, "Fence Regulations" is amended by changing Section "4e" to hereafter read as follows: "e In residential districts, fences located in the front yard beyond the building line and in the side yard of corner lots on the street side beyond the building line may not exceed 42 inches in height." Section II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law, except that permits issued prior to the July 11, 1995 will be valid for a period of 12 months and after that time, if the fence permitted by the permit has not been built, the permit will be void. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this Al !EST: tAL Morli Weldon, City Clerk Punish.: October 4, 1995 Stillwater Gazette 1st day of August , 1995. Judy Fugate & Steph Hanson 603 Churchill Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8072 REFERAL JOB Fence wash and stain QUOTFJ PAYMENT TERMS *Refer Below DATE: AUGUST 23, 2010 QUOTE # 136 EXPIRATION DATE 8-30-10 START DATE To be determined. Scope of Work Power wash and refinish 1,975 ft. of the exterior cedar fence. Stain of choice is recommended Sherwin Williams. QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE LINE TOTAL Labor 1,975 sq ft Power wash existing fence. .25 493.75 1,975 sq ft Stain existing fence in and out. .70 1,382.50 Materials 5 gal Sherwin Williams Stain Cedar Tone 45.00 225.00 TOTAL $2,101.00 This is a quotation on the services named, subject to the conditions noted below: All Prices are final and good for ten days. *Payment Terms: $718.75 is due to start and remainin $1,382.50 is due upon completion. To accept this quotation, sign here and return: `T Thank you for your business! # 13 My name is Judy Fugate and I reside at 603 W. Churchill St. I have drawn up this petition as a result of a complaint to the City regarding a fence on my property. I have a six foot, cedar batten board fence on the Holcomb St. side of my property. This fence has been in place for 1 1/2 years now. The City of Stillwater had directed me to either move the fence in or cut it down to 42 inches. I am submitting a request to the city to allow my fence to remain "as is': I reside on a very busy intersection of Churchill St. and Holcomb St. Not only do I have extensive vehicle traffic on Churchill St., but pedestrian travel to and from the Junior High School. My six foot fence allows me to maintain my privacy and the protection of my property. I take a lot of pride in the meticulous care of of my property. I believe my fence not only enhances the look of my property but the character of the neighborhood. By signing this petition you agree that I be allowed to maintain my fence "as is" where it is located on my property. Thank you very much for your consideration and support in this matter. Name Address Signature GO, txgkiive Y1 Ire614rcJ7<< 1 S 11/x _507 ‘0 4,4W 5-/ hbid7 1/1 S(.4010*Cr s(r 14.614"vd-dtgl. tr\r-\. 3 teli okkAcik. Jr- 1 soti„ ,s 07, o'sz; /g 1` s Van rritc--elk J,) 5/14Q.A,,& 3-0aoflc (Opa NanName Address c+rmac- 522, 1/‘.7 ( .y& C I to (,.) attAxeit�.L 511 PftlfAki 2t 141 SvLif - 12\00-3\rwAwz It A ('N(1 q((,3dS. S h6/606e-' e W.0 7a6 SO. Hot Conk Of+ S l� W CLc urzc.4 SZ- L ram. r t-tev,S' S L L{, w C.N-Lt.tz c tc.zc,.k. S t CR S P C-t.J S l yid/ksi- Signature 744 IoI o ,I wriAloe, Vt 1'Lij�CON] 1) I- NnXJ R21W R2OW R19W R22W R21W R2OW Vicinity Map 30 Scale in Feet is the result 01 s compilation This reproduction of land ma as trap appear in various Washington County ollicw. TM drawing should be used for Wars.. only. Washington county is not responsible le for any Inaccuracies. Source: Washington County surveyor's Orrs. Phone (851) 6205072 Parcel data based on AS600 information currant rough: August 21, 2010 Map prin. October 12.2010 • Ordinance No. 792 An Ordinance Amending the Fence Ordinance THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: Section I. Amending. Section 31.01, Subd. 25 (m) of the Stillwater City Code entitled: Fence Regulations as follows: m. Fence Regulations. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for the regulation of fences in the City, to prevent fences being erected that would be a hazard to the public, or an unreasonable interference with the uses and enjoyment of neighboring property and are compatible with existing uses, other zoning restrictions and drainage ways. 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance, the following definitions shall apply: a. Fences shall be any lineal structure used to prevent access by persons or animals or prevent visual or sound transference. 3. Permit Required. No fence shall be erected without first obtaining a fence permit. Application shall be made to the Community Development Director along with a fence permit fee in the amount of $25. The Community Development Director is authorized to issue a fence permit if the application indicates that the fence will be in compliance with this chapter. The Council shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged that the Community Development Director was in error. The appeals shall be taken as prescribed in Chapter 31, Administration. 4. Fences may be permitted in all yards, subject to the following: a. Fences in excess of six (6) feet above the ground grade shall be prohibited unless the abutting neighbor consents to a higher fence and permission is granted by the Council. b. The side of the fence considered to be the face (finished side as opposed to structural supports) shall face abutting property. c. No fence shall be permitted on public right of ways. d. No fence shall be erected on corner lot that will obstruct or impede the clear view of an inter -section by approaching traffic. e. In residential districts, fences located in the front yard beyond the building IP line shall not exceed 42 inches in height. f. No fence shall be erected where it will impede a drainage way or drainage easement. g• No fence shall be erected before all lots within a drainage system or platted block have had the final grade established and approved and all lots within the system or platted block have had turf established with grass seed or sod." 5. Fences may be permitted along property lines subject to the following: a. Fences that require continuing maintenance such as wooden privacy fences shall not be erected within one foot of a property line. b. Fences in commercial or industrial districts may be erected on the lot line to the height of six feet; to a height of eight feet with a security arm for barbed wire. 6. No existing fence in violation of this section will be allowed to be replaced or rebuilt. Should an existing fence be replaced or rebuilt, it must come under the regulations of this section. 7. No fence shall be erected where it will impede a drainage way or drainage easement. 8. Violations of this ordinance may be enforced by injunction and the City shall be entitled to the remedy of abatement in order that a fence erected in violation of this section may be removed. Section II. Saving. In all other ways the City Code shall remain in full force and effect. Section III. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Enacted by the City Council this 19th day of July, 1994. Attest: iJ L?1 City Clerk Published: Stillwater Gazette July 29, 1994 Charles M. Ho6Cey, Mayor Affidavit of Publication STILLWATER EVENING GAZETTE STATE OF MSOTA dOs. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON Mike Ma10f1ey, being duly sworn. on oath says that he is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as Stillwater Evening Gazette. and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below. (A) The newspaper has complied with at of the requirements constituting quaiteMion es a quali- fied newspaper. as provided by Minnaota StaMe 331A.02. 331A.07. and other applicable laws. as amended. 03) The printed Ordinance No.792 • which is attached was cut from the caimans of said newspaper. and was printed and published once each week. for 1 successive WWssks: it was first published on Fri.. .tta . 29th day of July to94,and was thereafter printed and published on every Fri . a and including the 29th day of .1 u 1 y .1a. ;wand pdnied below is a copy of the lower cane alphabet from A to Z. both indueive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type usedin the composition and publication of the notice: tomz TITLE: Publisher Subscribed and sworn to balm me on this 29th prof July wt-e Notary Public .19__ .4 ELEANOR E. Mot': NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNEla WASHINGTON COU : My Comnniaian Expires July I' RATE INFORMATION (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commerdei users for comparable space ; 30. 19 (Lin.. word. or inch rat.) i (Line. word. or inch rate) s 30.19 (Line. word. or inch rate) (2) Maxim= ran 'clewed by law for fa abet, wetter (3) Rate actually dwged for the above matter Received Payment isi STILLWATER EVENING GAZETTE By THE Y `mod_:OF: THE CITY <i • STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: :Section 1 Amending Secton,31 G1 Subd .-:. (m} of Shi a .Code minted: Rene • Regulations as.ioltows m Fenea . •1. o ae. Ttib Purpose;, to provide the in 'the::City. tD prevent fence? erected that would be a hazard to fix ... public. cr,. le tdrfar.;';: enoe' with the :uses..and enjoyment of,• ` naghbonng properly atd a.tompati Di. with existing uses outer zornng re- : • stticpolys'dtainage:way s •..2.Oednitions:-FM. t epumeseoflhiscrdi='.:: nanoe,: die d itio"s .:shall. a. Fences s. to:p:.s tsy:;paracns.or •forerioe 3. Puml€ No fence andf be• • fist:obtrsr .*lanes. panmit. Application sf :1be nida the Community Deve o meat. Grit it .tong with sh fence: p.rna)t :des itt ti. • antount:ot_ .The:CDrnm! Olt aphtsrlt, Outdo( lesellhorded M harts.• • •• Ianca Permit if•tlai applicaan kids- ea xtiv : the;fencewifl be.Its ante with: this chapter.:The:.0 . shall hear.and'.l ecide :apyeafa*iiillt opment•Directoteitts in. error. ISO tri. shall be. taken as'---" •• ChGpter3l:Admi iiatradorf: e 4. Ferice3t°;inijgr.tte:peiot.let yefd!.. subjeicttytHefot ing: . .4...CiontelilW excess .of: six, (S).: feat • 'dte.: jlounds,.( 1 strati be . j eh t�d ° ;unted; :`tare;,; abutting .::'. neighbor; consents : to : Ik.,: higher. ` farce and.peimi$alcd}es gr pi*_. rite Cou kill. c: ' .: ,b. "Tho aids of.the lance considered 1.. be the :face: (firiehed st4rite. kip•': • pose l 10 structural supports) shale • be abutting 1 ropertft e. Pb#enra sheik:be•pem7dfed On r Iicriptttof wary$• •d ido fsnee s'hat be erectedctn Counter:. - • .lot•that wa obstruct.or impede the : •..cleae:view of::an inter-secuor► by.: tiffiic. • e In . fences b` cared st ttte 6nn4t yard b.yontd Nte'. bats ng. brie a tars iot:.exoeed 92 inhere inhaighL f. No dance: Pik: be erec%ed;:wtere it -. will impede:::a;,:des it!6ras;:,way; atr. ` • drainage easement g No fence! shall be erect d baton all .: IDtS:vrtthin a drainag+t°? ern plaited blocdc> fhay. bad tlhe fits ::. grade;establlsited;end app!d!ad::. at7 t 51 000•9*.+ers io ar.: Nook iwa:hattert+el�b• `. wiifh osila areid. • 5. fences may be pteniined along. prop - arty inlet subject to the following:.' . a.:'. Fences._;-•that.':require : continuing maintertance.auch.as:wooded pri- :vacy tens 'shalt rnet..be erected. within one.footofa property line. b. Fences'lri cornmerdal or -industrial • districts<inay bri erected on . lot fine to:the height: of: six' feeti tp• a . Freight of :eight feet with a.security • earl for barbed wire 6 No exisnn g fence in violation of this sO •::• eon will: be allowed to be ;replaced 9r rebuilt.:Shouid en. 0istin0 "fence be re= • piaced or. rebuilt; _it must come under the regulaitions.of this section. •7`. too fence shall be erected where it will ' • .irmpede. a draina9e.way:' 'drainage;' easement $ Violatione'of-this ordinance may en-. : forced by:injuncuon'and the beeridtted to theremedy of t in=.oidef.that • a fences efesteil Aga- . '.: • tion of this section may:be removed:: Seetionll: Saving, In alI.oilier:ways luitt Code shall remain in full forge: and effect. "Seeder. • 111. z Effectiv e•" Date. this:.: ordl nence shall. be in hill' force and effect:frorn:and after •'.: :its` passage and publcation:according•tdrlaw. Enacted. by the•, City_Coisidl.tie it9th day: • 'Charles-M; Hooley, Mayor ' . Attest: NI Moils Weldon : i:. City ClerJc ::• 1: :7/2g. Votes: o Ind. 1113774 iron pipe set. a Ind. mon, found as noted. Bearing system is assumed datum. Offsets shown to existing structures are meas. to the outside building wall line, unless shown or noted otherwise. TeI.14o.439-5630 Underground or overhead public or private utilities, on or adjacent the parcels, were not located in conjunction with this survey, unless noted otherwise hereon. Overall parcel contains 15021 sq. ft., more or less. SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR: Scott and Lisa DeMars, 603 West Churchill St., Stillwater, CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY BARRETT M. STACK STILLWATER, MINN, 55082 MINNESOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR MN 55082 DESCRIPTION! As Supplied By Client: (copy of Doc. No. 994826, Wash. Co. records) Lots 1 and 2, Block 9, Holcomb's Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. L✓ CNtRC"// Z 57 '%'. = Ga. ae fcET ,e/a° ¢1t ,---,V89°Z9.3O'E" i /DO./¢ -- -�` _- = So.:a7 —. - - / I FNo. /,P. a.z3E. e4as N "r--- 29.c,± FP s' 11 \` \ 49 /D °'av'"/, ±I N EL• N coo , 85 : 4 //o. 44 643 4' 2 STO/�Y �k'/Jrr/E //ovsE z4'i+9//PGE 1e7 2 7574 F /2" M4, "E zHEitikkieie a04e- OF --So,o7-• - s89azy'sa'1v IN.P. Loc. aF OUTS/OE ,8404- .GVNzc ''A'. (7 /c,q ) 9,D LOT / 75// fr. > 7a' Nal "AR a,zz N, , N � a• /9[�l. ��6 cis eAswW nrr Bi r. 07 i' I hereby certify that this s prepared by me or under my I am a duly Registered Land the 8to of Minnesota, (r) Datc...August..21,., 2Q02 ftomi i Na,er// /"=ZD' urvey, plan, or report was direct supervision and that Surveyor under the laws of Reg.No,..1.37.7.4 Planning Commission DATE: APPLICANT: Zachary Morgan and Justin Stanley, Stillwater Brewing Company REQUEST: A Special Use Permit to operate a micro brewery and variance to the parking requirements December 9, 2010 CASE NO.: 2010-46 LOCATION: 402 Main St N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use ZONING: CBD - Central Business District PC DATE: December 13, 2010 REVIEWED BY: Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Michel J. Pogge, City PlannerL0 BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking to locate a micro brewery called Stillwater Brewing Company into the existing Isaac Staples Sawmill building located at 402 Main St N. To do this, they are requesting a Special Use Permit for a "Light Industrial use that is clean and compatible with surrounding properties". In addition to the micro brewery they will operate a small retail store to sell merchandise (shirts, hats, and other material) along with refillable growler that will allow customers to take home 64-ounces of beer in a single container. They will also offer tours of their facility to the general public. Beer not sold via growlers will be placed in kegs and distributed to local bars and restaurants. No on -site restaurant will be associated with this use. The micro brewery will produce approximately 720 barrels of beer annually with equates to 1,440 regular sized kegs. To produce this amount of beer, they note that they will receive between 2 to 4 shipments of supplies, ingredients, equipment, and promotional materials monthly. Keg delivery will be done via a delivery van loaded behind the building. Finally, converting the office use to a retail/brewery use will require an additional two parking spaces. 402 Main St N Special Use Permit Request Page 2 of 4 EVALUATION OF REQUEST Special Use Permit Sec. 31-207(d) of the City Code states that a Special Use Petiiiit 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 — The site currently has no onsite parking spaces. The space the micro brewery will occupy is approximately 2,700 square feet in size. The previous use was an office. This creates a credit of nine parking spaces for the space. The space the micro brewery will occupy is proposed to be divided between 1,200 square feet of brewing area and 1,500 square feet of retail. The retail space requires seven parking spaces. The brewery area requires the greater of one space per 325 square feet or one per employee. The most number employees they plan to have on the site at any one given time is 3. Therefore, for the brewery area they will need four parking spaces. Over all they need a total of 11 parking spaces for the proposed use. A variance of two parking spaces is needed. (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Exterior changes — Section 31-319 of the Stillwater City Code requires that the Heritage Preservation Commission conduct a design review on exterior changes and signage. No facade changes are proposed as part of this project. The applicant has indicated to staff they understand they need HPC approval for their sign and plan to submit for these approvals at a later date. Miscellaneous • Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. • 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 or Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. • Staff has some concerns with the production of mash on site. The applicant has indicated that all of the mash for their product will be produced off -site. Staff recommends making this a condition of approval. • Staff has some concerns with a full bottling system on the site due to the noise this could generate. The applicant has noted in their application that they do not plan to conduct traditional bottling on the site except for filling kegs and growlers. Staff recommends making this a condition of approval. • Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied with the conditions listed in the SUP. 402 Main St N Special Use Permit Request Page 3 of 4 Variance As mentioned above, the proposed use 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. A reasonable alternative to use the site as an office space exists without the need to grant a parking variance. Moreover, given the Minnesota Supreme Court's recent decision in the Krummenacher vs. City of Minnetonka variance case, the City could be overstepping its authority by granting a variance where a reasonable alternative to a variance exists. However, given the fact that the City is in the process of providing an alternative to the variance process for sites located in a parking district and given the fact that time is of existence in this case, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that a variance could be issued in this case, if the Commission so chooses. With that in mind and 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 Special Use Permit and Variance as conditioned. 2) Deny the Special Use Permit and Variance. 3) Table the requests for more information. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the Special Use Permit and Variance as conditioned. 402 Main St N Special Use Permit Request Page 4 of 4 CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL If the Commission chooses to approve the project, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. All signage and exterior facade changes shall go to the Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval. 2. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 3. As part of the micro brewery use only KeyKegs or a similar keg system and growlers shall be filled on site. 4. No mash production shall be done on site. 5. The property owner shall purchase two public monthly parking permits to compensate for deficit in on -site parking or provide documentation that they have purchase two parking permits in a private lot to make up the parking deficit. Michel Pogge From: Terry Johnson [emailingterry@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 4:18 PM To: Michel Pogge; Bill Turnblad Subject: City of Stillwater Case No. 2010-46 - Special Use Permit for Stillwater Brewing/Zachary Morgan Attachments: 504619.pdf See attached file(s) I am writing in support of the special use permit for Zachary Morgan and Stillwater Brewing. I am not able to attend the meeting on Monday but wanted to weigh in . The city needs as much commercial/industrial in -fill as possible in a big way. Welcome to downtown! Thanks. Terry Johnson Lofts of Stillwater 501 N. Main St. Unit 414 Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone: 858 456-0107 Mobile: 858 449-0440 Fax: 651 344-4922 email: emailingterry(.gmail.com 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAFT"*A NT Stillwater Brewing Company, LLC Stillwater Brewers 402 Main Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 19 November, 2010 City of Stillwater Planning Commission 216 4th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Planning Commission, We are applying for a Special Use Permit for the Isaac Staples Sawmill building on 402 Main Street North in Stillwater, MN. Our anticipation is to put in a Mirco Brewery, producing around 720 barrels of beer annually, which roughly equates to 1,440 regular sized kegs annually. Upon first glance at any type of brewery, it may seem reasonable to categorize such a venture as "Bottle Works", or something similar. We, however, anticipate being nothing like a typical brewery. We are using the latest technology in brewing and kegging equipment which will allow our production to more adequately be described as "Light Industrial that is clean and compatible with surrounding properties". We are using technology to brew and keg that is mostly used in Holland, Sweden and Belgium. The brewing technology we are using allows us to ferment, chill and serve our beer from the same tanks. Instead of transferring beer from tank to tank, our tanks change to meet the need of the beer making process we are currently in. This negates the waste which occurs when transferring beer from container to container, but it also allows us to only have to clean and sterilize one tank rather than three or four per batch. We are also using a solution for cleaning (see attachment 1) the tanks which is environmentally friendly, and actually helps the sewer system. Throughout our process, we have painstakingly searched for and are utilizing products, procedures and equipment which will allow us to make as little impact as possible on the environment. Our kegging equipment is the new KeyKeg system. This is a one-way keg, meaning that once we drop it off at an establishment selling our beer, we never have to pick it back up. When the vendor is finished with our KeyKeg, they simply recycle it as it is 100% recyclable. This cuts on wasteful driving to pick up empty kegs, and the KeyKeg system weighs about 1.5 kilos empty, which cuts on waste to transport both to us from the manufacturer, but also from us to the vendor. The KeyKeg system is new to America, and utilizes a bag -in -ball technology which facilitates 100% of the fluid stored inside to be evacuated through the beer tap, providing a no -waste system for dispensing. The KeyKegs are also only 30 liter size rather than the standard 59 liter keg. Once a keg is tapped, there is a time frame of about 2 weeks in which the beer must be served or it will start to go bad. Our system also promotes less waste to the vendor as it is less likely they will have to discard many gallons of our beer on a slow week, as they might have to do with other traditional kegs. The other advantage to the KeyKeg system is that there is no triple -washing of kegs upon their return to our facility. Most breweries reuse traditional style kegs because of the cost per keg. As such, they mush sanitize the kegs upon return to the brewery. This process typically involves a triple - washing of the keg with bleach which is then dumped down the sewer. Our system negates this altogether. The KeyKegs are also filled manually, which negates the noise, power consumption and maintenance of traditional kegging equipment. The KeyKeg system is quiet, environmentally friendly, sanitary and negates wasteful sewage usage. We also are boiling our mash off -site, which is not typical of a brewery. We found that to regulate product and ensure the most quality ingredients are used in a timely fashion, we have a boiler in North Carolina which boils down our mash as soon as the grains, malt extracts and hops are ready from the importers. This also allows us to keep the side of brewing which is typically viewed as the least pleasant off site — mainly the smelly side. We have the syrup which contains the condensed version of our mash sent to our brewery in Stillwater, and there the active yeast and sugars are added to start the fermenting process. This procedure of shipping our mash keeps our facility in Stillwater clean of odors which some may view as unpleasant. It also keeps our energy usage low as we will not be boiling the mash on site or sending it through the mash tun to refine it, of which both processes require significant energy consumption to facilitate. We will receive around 2-4 shipments per month of supplies, ingredients, equipment and promotional materials — all of which will enter the building through the freight elevator in the back alley. We will not effect the regular flow of traffic into the building, and will not tie up parking spots out front so that deliveries can be made. Because of our small production, our out -going product will not be obtrusive either, and will all be loaded onto our delivery vans from the back alley as well. All -in -all, we will use less than 2,000 gallons of water per month, will use the sewer system minimally and when it is used we will utilize cleaning solutions which helps the sewer, we will ferment, chill and serve our beer from the same tanks reducing waste from transfer, keg in a state-of- the-art recyclable kegs which is light and environmentally friendly, and we will not receive many deliveries each month. We truly do fit the category of "Light Industrial which is clean and compatible with surrounding properties". We are not a typical Bottle Works facility, and we are not a typical Brewery. We feel that our attention to utilizing procedures and equipment which is not only highly efficient but also clean and environmentally friendly sets us apart from the stereotypical brewery images of large machines, filling lines and heavy, bulky, obtrusive equipment. Thank you for your time and considerations, / G — Zachary S. M rgan — Justin D. Stanley Stillwater Brewing Company, LLC Stillwater Brewers L 1 === 4 I I a. rr z --t I 's u NamaimiNgsamitamillgamilial- f PRODUCT TECH SHEET P.B.W. Patent Nos. 5,663,132 & 5,789,361 Environmentally friendly, caustic replacement with multiple uses. ❖ BENEFITS • Replaces Caustic Soda cleaners ❖ Effective at All Temperatures • Free Rinsing • Safe on Polycarbonate surfaces • Safe to handle • Generates 4 - 5% Oxygen ❖ Non -hazardous & Non -corrosive • Excellent hard water tolerance •• Removes protein soil and staining, baked on carbon, and fatty acids ❖ DESCRIPTION P.B.W. is a buffered alkaline detergent that has been proven to be more than an effective substitute for caustic soda cleaners. Because of its unique formulation of buffers and mild alkalis, it is safe on skin as well as soft metals such as stainless steel, aluminum, and on plastics. P.B.W. uses active oxygen to penetrate carbon or protein soils and is not effected by hard water. The oxygen also helps in reducing B.O.D. and C.O.D. in wastewater, which is an added environmental benefit. P,B,W. has been formulated as a C.I.P. cleaner and is very effective in removing protein soils found on brew kettles, fermenters, conditioning tanks, filters and all packaging areas. The concentrations to remove these soils are typically in the 1 % range. However, due to soil and water conditions this concentration will vary. To help in hard water areas P.B.W. has been formulated with enough chelators to tolerate hard water over 17 grains. P.B.W. is an excellent choice as a soak cleaner because it does not require excessive heat as do most caustic based cleaners. This product has cleaned brass and copper filters, and industrial aluminum surfaces successfully, ❖ PROPERTIES APPEARANCE WHITE POWDER RINSING ABILITY EXCELLENT FOAM .NONE ABOVE 100 ° F pH OF 1 % SOLUTION 12,0% ❖ GENERAL USE DIRECTIONS CIRCULATION CLEANING: Use 1 to 3 ounces per gallon depending on soil load. Heat to 13Ct to 180° F for 30 minutes. CARBON REMOVAL: Use 6 to 8 ounces per gallon of water. Heat to 140 ° F for 4 hours or allow to soak cold overnight. When using P.B.W. in food processing areas the equipment that has been cleaned must be rinsed with potable water. Just prior to use, sanitize the equipment in accordance with public health standards. ❖ SAFETY DANGER: Can be harmful if swallowed. Can cause eye irritation. Contains sodium metasilicate and sodium carbonate. FIRST AID: For contact with skin and eyes, flush thoroughly with cool running water. For eyes, flush for at least 15 minutes and get medical attention. If swallowed, do not induce vomiting. Drink large amounts of milk or water. Call a physician. Rev. 07/03 Comment: Memo Community Development Department To: Planning Commission From: Michel Pogge, City Planner Ote Date: Thursday, December 09, 2010 Re: Solar Collectors Message: The City Council directed staff to review and develop guidelines related to solar collectors on residential property within the City. Attached is a draft of a proposal developed by staff. It creates specific guidelines for solar collectors on residential properties within the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) and sets minimum requirements for solar collectors on residential properties outside the NCD. The Commission should review and comment on this proposed draft. Specifically the Commission should: 1. Provide comments on the NCD guidelines. 2. Discuss what requirements should be in place outside the NCD and what if any requirements should be in place for solar collectors mounted on the roofs of residential structures outside the NCD. Staff will incorporate comments from the Commission in the proposal and depending on the level of comments, staff will set a public hearing on the proposal in January. From the desk of... Michel Pogge, AICP City Planner • City of Stillwater • 216 N. 4th Street • Stillwater, MN 55082 651.430-8822 Fax: 651.430-8810 • email: mpogge@ci.stillwater.mn.us Heritage Preservation Commission Action The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the proposed solar collector ordinance and NCD guidelines at their December 6th meeting. The Commission spent a fair amount of time discussing them and while most of the Commissioners felt that some level of regulation related to solar collector was necessary, some expressed concern that the new ordinance may have a practical effect of prohibiting solar connectors on some properties. Since there is a review process proposed for properties within the NCD area the Commission supported those guidelines on a 6-0 vote. The commission took no official potion regulating solar collector outside the NCD. From the desk of... Michel Pogge, AICP • City Planner • City of Stillwater • 216 N. 4th Street •Stillwater, MN 55082 651.430-8822 • Fax: 651.430-8810 • email: mpogge©ci.stillwater.mn.us ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31, ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADDING "SOLAR COLLECTORS" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: 1. Purpose. The City of Stillwater finds it necessary to regulate solar collectors in order to preserve the character of its unique residential neighborhoods and for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare. 2. Amending. City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-505 is amended by a new Subdivision 3 as follows: Subd. 3. Solar Collectors (a) Installation of solar collectors within the Neighborhood Conservation District (See City Code Ch. 22, Section 22-7, Subd. 5(7)--Heritage preservation commission, additional duties). (1) When a solar collection system is installed within the Neighborhood Conservation District, the solar collection system must satisfy the design guidelines established by City of Stillwater Resolution Number 2011-XXX and any revision to it. is Reviews of solar collection systems within the NCD shall be done by the Community Development Director (CDD) or his/her designee. The CDD will either approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the proposed solar collection system. After action by the CDD, the applicant may request a design review before the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) within 15 days after action by the CDD. Review by the HPC shall follow the design review process found is Section 31-209 City Code. In reviewing the design review request, the HPC shall consider the solar collection system guidelines for the NCD. Appeals of any HPC decision shall follow the procedures outlines in Section 31-217 of the City Code. (b) Installation of solar collectors on a residentially zoned property outside the Neighborhood Conservation District. (1) Installation apart from a principal structure or accessory building i. When a solar collection system is installed apart from the principal structure or an accessory building, the solar collector system must meet the setback and height standards that apply to an accessory building 1. Since each zoning district may refer to accessory building slightly differently, for purposes of this subdivision, the teilii Ordinance No. Page 2 of 2 accessory building is intended to include height and setback standards for an accessory building, accessory structures or a garage. Whenever there are conflicting standards within a specific zoning district, the most restrictive standard is to be applied. ii. When a solar collection system is installed apart from the principal structure or an accessory building, the solar collection system is not allowed to be located within a front yard or an exterior side yard. (2) Installation on a house or accessory building. i. [SHOULD THE CITY REGULATE THIS IN A NON -HISTORIC DISTRICT? IF SO WHAT SHOULD THOSE REGULATIONS BE.] 3. Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapter 31 shall remain in full force and effect. 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this day of , 2011. CITY OF STILLWATER Ken Harycki, Mayor ATTEST: Diane Ward, City Clerk NCD Solar Panel Design Guidelines The following Solar Panel Guidelines apply only to the Stillwater Neighborhood Conservation District. Solar Panels Appropriate location for solar panels Appropriate location for solar panels Solar panels should be located to the side or rear roof planes or on a secondary structure (all gray surfaces). Solar panels shall be mounted flush with the roof Solar panels should be located in unobtrusive places. If it is necessary to mount solar panels on a historic building, rather than apart from the building elsewhere on the site, it is essential that the panels are installed such that they do not change the character of the building. If solar panels are placed on a roof they should be designed and positioned to have a minimal effect on the character of the structure. Placement on rear facing roof planes of the primary structure should be considered first. Design Objective Solar panels should not adversely affect the historic character of the structure to which they are being added. In order to reduce the visual impacts of solar panels as seen from the public right-of-way the following shall be followed: • Locate the solar panels away from public view when feasible. • Solar panels should be installed apart from the building or mounted on secondary building, such as a shed or garage, when feasible. • Solar panels should be located on newer construction, such as a newer wing, where possible. • Locate an attached solar panel in a manner such that it does not affect the primary roof facade elevations. • Location on a street facing roof plane of a primary structure over 50 years of age is inappropriate and thus not permitted. Alternative technologies, such as photovoltaic shingles, may be appropriate in certain circumstances and thus allowed on a street facing roof plane on all primary structures when it is not replacing a historic roofing material such as tin, slate, or other similar materials. • Where roof mounted, solar panels shall be flush to the extent feasible. • If not attached to the building, collectors shall be located in an interior side yard or rear yard at the setback distance equal to or greater than those established for an accessory building or structure. They are not allowed in front or exterior side yards. Their total height is not permitted to exceed that of an accessory building or structure. Exposed hardware, frames and piping should have a matte finish, and compliment the color scheme of the primary structure. • Panels not attached to the building should be screened by landscaping to reduce their visibility. However, screening materials need to be selected carefully, since with sufficient height the screening may diminish the effectiveness of the collectors to receive sunlight. City of Stillwater, Minnesota