HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-14 CPC PacketCITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF MEETING
MONDAY, May 14, 2012
7 p.m.
The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, May 14, 2012 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 April 9, 2012 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. 2012 -10. A variance to the front yard setback and bluffline for the construction of a front entry and
detached garage located at 220 Chestnut Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Chris Rustad and
Vicky Simon, applicants.
4.02 Case No. 2012 -17. A variance to the parking regulations and flood plain regulations for the construction of a
2 —story building located 229 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. HAF Architects, applicant.
4.03 Case No. 2012 -19. A variance request for the removal and construction of a garage located at 407 Linden
Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Tim Brown, applicant.
4.04 Case No. 2012 -13. A variance to the side yard setback for the construction of a two -stall garage located at
117 Echo Lane in the RA, Single Family Residential District. David Swanson, applicant.
4.05 Case No. 2012 -15. A variance to the sideyard setback and impervious surface requirements for an addition to
garage and 2nd floor and adding a 2nd floor to main house located at 106 Lakeside Drive in the RB, Two Family
Residential District. Paul Larson, applicant.
4.06 Case No. 2012 -16. A special use permit for a quick serve, wood fired, pizza restaurant and a variance to the
parking regulations located at 116 Main St South in the CBD, Central Business District. Paul Larson, applicant.
4.07 Case No. 2012 -18. An amendment to an existing special use permit for the construction of a roof top deck
and bar (The Green Room) and a variance to the parking regulations located at 215 Main Street South in the CBD,
Central Business District. Christopher Durant, applicant.
4.08 Case No. 2012 -08. An amendment to an existing special use permit for the construction of a rooftop deck
and bar (Rafters) located at 317 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Larry Cramer, applicant.
Continued from April 9, 2012 meeting.
S. NEW BUSINESS
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 9, 2012
Chair Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Present: Aron Buchanan, Mike Dahlquist, Eric Hansen, Cameron Kelly, Chris Lauer, John
Malsam,
Anne Siess, Scott Spisak and Council liaison Doug Menikheim
Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge
Absent: Mike Kocon
Approval of minutes: Mr. Menikheim noted the minutes did not reflect his attendance. Mr.
Spisak, seconded by Mr. Buchanan, moved approval of the minutes of February 13, 2012, with
that correction. Motion passed unanimously.
OPEN FORUM
No comments were received.
Mr. Dahlquist noted that this would be Mr. Malsam's last meeting and thanked him for his
service on the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
Case No. 2012 -07. A special use permit request for an off -leash dog park located east of the
City of Stillwater's Public Works Facility (3325 Boutwell Rd) in the PROS (Parks, Recreation and
Open Space) District. Allison McGinnis, President, Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park,
applicant.
Mr. Pogge stated the Joint Board held a public hearing on this case on April 4. He noted
because this location is in the Orderly Annexation Agreement area, the Joint Board has the
authority to review and could approve or deny the request. He said the Joint Board tabled its
action until May 2, so it is recommended that the Commission open the hearing, take comment
and table action until its May meeting. On a question by Ms. Siess, Mr. Pogge explained the
function of the Joint Board.
Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received. Mr. Malsam, seconded
by Ms. Siess, moved to continue this case until the next meeting, May 14; motion passed
unanimously.
Case No. 2012 -08. An amendment to an existing special use permit for the construction of a
rooftop deck and bar (Rafters) located at 317 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business
District. Larry Cramer, applicant.
Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He noted there are three components to the
request: a special use permit for outdoor dining; variance to the parking requirements; and
variance to the maximum allowable height - 44.25' allowed, 47' requested. Mr. Pogge reviewed
the criteria for the issuance of a special use permit and variances and stated staff recommends
approval with seven conditions of approval. He noted the Heritage Preservation Commission
had reviewed the proposal at its April meeting; he said the HPC is supportive of the concept but
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 9, 2012
tabled action pending additional information about architectural details such as colors and
materials. Mr. Pogge stated staff is recommending that condition of approval No. 6 be amended
to reflect that the deck is a seasonal use and that the project may be done in phases; the
suggested change is to require the purchase of 1 monthly parking permit for every 120 square
feet of patio space annually between May 1 and October 31.
He reviewed photos taken from various perspectives to demonstrate the potential impact of the
requested height variance; he said the photos demonstrate the proposal will have limited if any
impact on views of the river.
Mr. Dahlquist asked whether the HPC had tabled action in anticipation of significant changes or
details such as colors and materials. Mr. Pogge said there was some discussion as to whether
there would be an exterior stairway; he reviewed an original proposal with an exterior stairway
and a second proposal, the one under consideration, which eliminates that stairway. Mr. Pogge
said the HPC's primary concern was regarding details including colors, materials and lighting.
On a question by Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Pogge explained how the allowable height is figured for an
infill project.
Mr. Buchanan asked if there is any issue with noise regarding this proposal and if that is part of
the Commission's consideration. Mr. Pogge said that can be an issue, and the applicant has
stated there will be no outside entertainment so that is not part of the special use permit; he
stated outdoor music does require a special use permit so if there is a request for that in the
future, it would require an additional SUP, and he noted that City Code does specify decibel
levels the applicant will have to adhere to.
There was discussion of the concerns expressed by clients of Jeanne Anderson regarding trash
and intruders; Mr. Pogge reviewed the physical space between the two buildings and the
proposal to construct a barrier wall. Ms. Siess asked if there have been similar requests for
rooftop restaurant use, and she asked about occupancy; Mr. Pogge said there have been many
inquiries regarding such a use and said he expects a proposal in the near future; he said he was
unsure about the capacity.
Brian Larson, architect, was present representing the applicant, Larry Cramer. Mr. Larson said
at this point, the applicant would be seeking approval of the concept of the internal stairs, with
an exterior stair for emergency exit only, that stairway would always be closed off to the public
and would return back into the second level of the building. He said that plan is dependent on
reaching an agreement for an easement with the adjacent property owner. Mr. Larson provided
a diagram of the exterior stair connecting with the interior; he noted those plans don't affect
height, parking or any other issues the Commission is concerned with.
Mr.Larson reviewed plans for a wall that would not allow anyone near the alleyway between the
two buildings. There was a question as to whether the wall might require a setback easement;
Mr. Pogge noted there is a zero setback requirement in the downtown. Mr. Larson said if an
agreement between the property owners can't be reached, plans would revert back to option 2
that are essentially the same but with an exit somewhere else on the west end of the building.
2
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 9, 2012
Mr. Spisak asked whether concept approval was being sought, as suggested by Mr. Larson's
comments, or final approval; Mr. Pogge said this was the first time he had seen these plans, so
he didn't have a staff reaction to the plans. Mr. Pogge said he does know that the applicant
wants to get started on the project this summer and doesn't want to invest a lot in doing plans
and structural engineering if the Commission is not comfortable with the plans. Mr. Spisak
asked about hours and capacity. Mr. Larson said the hours would be the same as the main
bar /restaurant, and he said when built -out, capacity would be about 90 -100, noting that if the
project is phased in construction, as is planned, capacity would be about 40 for the first phase.
Mr. Larson said the applicant is seeking approval of what was originally submitted and the
issues brought forward by Mr. Pogge; he said what he presented is identical in every way
except for the exit stair, which he said they would like concept approval of in the event an
agreement can be reached with the adjacent property owner.
Mr. Larson addressed a question from Ms. Siess regarding the exit stairs terminating inside the
building, rather than being a total exterior stairway; he said plans have been discussed with the
building official and noted there are two interior stairs at that point. Mr. Dahlquist asked if the
applicant had looked at plans that might not require a height variance; Mr. Larson said getting
the height variance will enable them to work with almost any condition that is encountered.
Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing.
Patrick Anderson, one of the partners in Marine Leasing, owners of the property at 321 S. Main
Street, the El Fresco building, provided a letter clarifying their position. He stated they have no
particular objection to the existing use as long as it is done within the property lines and permits
can be obtained. He said he expects that the City through its review and approval process will
ensure proper security of the adjoining roofs as to fire hazard, trash, garbage, noxious
materials, trespassing, etc. He stated Marine Leasing will not furnish any easements for its
property.
Mike Kranz, owner of the other adjacent property, 301 S. Main St., spoke of a potential drainage
issue. He asked about the maximum height; Mr. Pogge explained how the maximum allowable
height is determined. Mr. Kranz expressed concern about not having more detailed information
available in advance so he could pursue his options with an attorney. He spoke of a concern
about maximum occupancy and weight loads, trash and more pollution on the roof of his
building, smoking and cigarette butts. He asked about any requirement for an elevator; Mr.
Pogge said that issue falls within the building code and it can be waived if it is not structurally
feasible to provide such service. It was noted that information, including drawings provided by
an applicant, is available to those who received notice of public hearing; information is available
at the City's web site or by contacting City staff.
Nancy Nelson, another of the owners of the building to the south, noted they put an elevator in
their building and questioned why the same wouldn't be required of this applicant. She spoke of
existing problems with the alleyway space, the majority of which they own, between the two
buildings, and suggested that adding more people will create more problems.
No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed.
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 9, 2012
Mr. Larson responded to the concern regarding the drain on the property to the north; he said
he thought that was a problem that could be dealt with and should not present an issue. He said
if there is a concern about debris, they could possibly construct a barrier as was discussed for
the west side of the deck to discourage people from disposing of debris on that side. Regarding
garbage and other such issues, Mr. Larson said he didn't know a lot of the history, but said he
thought it was a bigger issue with previous owners; he said the current owner has been working
hard to address those types of concerns. Regarding smoking, he said he did not have the
authority to talk to the actual operations of the bar. Regarding the elevator, he said the building
official is considering the situation and is not making that a requirement, he said. Mr. Larson
noted that the summer season is a slow season for this bar because many people go to the
places with outdoor facilities; he said this owner is trying to be a viable business in town and
part of that is trying to get their summer business on par with other areas. He said a rooftop bar
will go a long way toward helping the summer business; he said he thought the owner could
address some of the adjacent property owners' concerns about sanitation and keeping the place
clean.
Mr. Spisak expressed concern about the possible noise impact on the South Broadway
neighborhood, noting the owner also could apply for a special use permit for music in the future.
Mr. Spisak also questioned whether there is an issue regarding ADA accessibility; he also
expressed concern about lack of certain details, which he said may be important to see. Ms.
Siess agreed with Mr. Spisak's comments; she said this will set a precedent for other rooftop
businesses and suggested tabling for more information regarding use of glass, hours of
operation, etc.
Mr. Buchanan asked Mr. Pogge if he had contacted any other cities where there are a number
of rooftop bar /restaurants regarding items such as railing setbacks from the edge of the roof; Mr
Pogge said he could contact other communities.
In discussion, it was noted this is not a new concept and it might be helpful to find out what
cities such as Minneapolis and St. Paul are doing regarding conditions of operation.
There was a question as to what role the Planning Commission could play in addressing the
garbage issue raised by the neighboring property owners; Mr. Pogge agreed this is a difficult
issue to try to proactively regulate, noting there are some enforcement measures the City can
take if sanitation becomes an issue.
Mr. Dahlquist noted this is a special use permit and is reviewed upon complaint, which does
provide some motivation for the applicant be a good neighbor. Mr. Dahlquist said he, too, is
concerned that this proposal is concepts at this point, suggesting that adding another screening
wall makes it almost appear as another story on the building rather than a light, open roof that
will be used seasonally. Mr. Dahlquist also expressed concern about the height, noting the
Commission spent lots of time working on the height regulations for downtown and said he
would be somewhat reluctant granting height variances in this area as it will be setting a
precedent.
11
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 9, 2012
Mr. Hansen said he thought there might be a benefit to granting a variance to allow for
construction of walls and a partial roof to deflect sound away from the South Hill area; he
agreed that noise will be a major issue.
Mr. Menikheim expressed concern about safety. Mr. Larson clarified that the scheme presented
to the Planning Commission for consideration is the one that does not involve the outside stair
and does not involve any easements.
Mr. Kelly moved to table this case to the Commission's May 14 meeting. Mr. Buchanan
seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Case No. 2012 -09. A special use permit for a self -serve frozen yogurt bar, Cherry Berry, and a
variance to the parking regulations located at 125 Main Street South in the CBD, Central
Business District. Randy Jordan, applicant.
Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He reviewed parking requirements and the
condition to purchase off -site parking spaces. He reviewed the requirements for a special use
permit.
The applicant was present. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were
received, and the hearing was closed.
Mr. Spisak moved approval as conditioned; Mr. Malsam seconded the motion; motion passed
unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion on signage in the PA (Public Administration) Zoning District. Mr. Pogge said this
issue arose with the completion of the Post Office site when it was discovered there is no
allowance for signage in the PA district; he said he thought that omission was just an oversight
on the part of the City. He noted the majority of the uses in the PA district are institutional uses.
With some retail space in the Post Office building, he said there should be a provision for some
signage opportunity. He said in discussion about this issue with the Heritage Preservation
Commission, it was suggested that the PA district have the same sign regulations as the Central
Business District and the General Commercial District; he said the HPC was comfortable with
that suggestion. He said staff would bring a zoning amendment to the next meeting making that
change if the Commission agrees. There was a question as to how the change might impact
existing church bulletin boards, for example, whether a church could request signage in addition
to the existing message board. Mr. Pogge said there may be some instances where a church
may want to make an existing sign larger, but said he thought the overall impact would be pretty
insignificant. On a question by Mr. Spisak, Mr. Pogge reviewed the PA district locations. There
was discussion as to why the Cub Food headquarters site and Post Office site wouldn't be
rezoned. On a question by Mr. Spisak, Mr. Pogge said staff did look at what the change might
mean for Cob Foods headquarters, for example; he said the existing monument sign could be
expanded slightly, but could not have an additional building signs.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Dahlquist talked about the Planning Commission moving forward and future issues. He
wondered if there is a need for the Commission to have discussion about some of the upcoming
issues. Mr. Pogge agreed there are some opportunities and challenges facing the City and
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 9, 2012
Commission in the future. There was brief discussion of education /training opportunities
available; Mr. Menikheim encouraged new commissioners to take advantage of those
opportunities. Mr. Menikheim talked of the need for the Council to set its priorities and provide
direction to all of the Commission as to how they can help the City move forward.
It was noted that a recommendation has been made for the appointment to replace Mr. Malsam
on the Commission.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Siess, moved to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
2
Iwa ter
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: May 7, 2012
CASE NO.: 2012 -10
APPLICANT:
Chris Rustad and Vicky Simon
LANDOWNER:
Chris Rustad and Vicky Simon
REQUEST:
Variances for construction of garage addition and porch
LOCATION:
220 W Chestnut St
ZONING: RB, Two - Family Residential
HEARING DATE: May 14, 2012
PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development DirectorVh
SPECIFIC REQUEST
1. A 7 foot variance to allow construction of an entryway porch 13 feet from the front lot
line rather than the 20 feet minimally required.
2. A 5 foot variance to allow construction of a garage addition 25 feet from the front lot line
rather than 30 feet as minimally required.
3. A 10 foot variance to allow construction of a garage addition 20 feet from a bluffline
rather than 30 feet as minimally required.
BACKGROUND
Chris Rustad and Vicky Simon have submitted an application for variances that would allow
them to construct a garage addition and porch at 220 W. Chestnut Street.
Mr. Rustad is converting what was a four -plex into a single family residence. He is also
restoring as much as practical of the original home's features. As part of the restoration project
he would like to add an open front porch as the main entrance to the house. Originally the late
1911, Century home had a wraparound front porch. But it was removed in the mid -20th Century.
The new front porch would be the same width as the original, but it would not take up the
entire front and sides of the house. Rather, it would just serve as a front entryway.
Rustad Variances
Page 2
The property owners also plan to build an addition onto the existing single -car garage space.
Given the physical characteristics of the property, which include a pronounced St. Croix Valley
bluffline, the improvements require variances prior to issuance of a building permit.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria
below.
1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical
difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that
the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not
constitute a "practical difficulty ".
a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner?
It is reasonable to have a protective roof over the entrance to a
home. The proposed front porch provides about the minimal space
needed as a landing. To provide less space would be dangerous.
The existing garage is only sufficient for a single car. A two car
garage is reasonable for a property of the size and width that the subject
property possesses.
Staff finds the requested variances to be reasonable.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property?
Given the location of the bluffline in relationship to the city street,
the depth of the lot is not sufficient to maintain both a 30 foot front
setback and a 30 foot bluffline setback. (See attached site play.) Only a
small percentage of residential properties in the City have this same set of
circumstances.
To make the set of circumstances more unique, the garage onto
which the addition is planned to be built is located right at the bluffline.
Therefore, staff finds the circumstances to be unique.
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
The landowner did not create the set of circumstances associated with the
property.
d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?
The variance would not alter the essential character of the
immediate neighborhood. Front porches are a common element of the
City's 19th Century neighborhoods. Therefore, the variance to allow the
reconstruction of a front porch on this house would make the property
more compatible. Furthermore, the closest step of the porch to the street
would be the same distance from the street as the front wall of the
neighboring house to the east.
Rustad Variances
Page 3
The proposed location of the garage addition would maintain a 10
foot setback from the neighboring home's front wall. Moreover, it would
be set far enough back from the bluffline that set amongst the cluster of
buildings as proposed, it would be virtually impossible to see it from
below the bluffline. (See attached neighborhood air photo.)
e. Is the lone consideration an economic one?
The major consideration is about reasonable usefulness, not economics.
2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive
Plan.
a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested?
The 30 foot garage setback is intended to create an offset of 10 feet
for homes set 20 feet away from front lot lines in the City's historic
residential neighborhoods. The offset is required to give street
prominence to the home rather than to the garage door. In this instance
the garage setback would be 25 feet instead of 30. But, with the restored
front porch and the fact that the neighbor's house is about 5 feet closer to
the road than the applicants' house, the garage will appear to have a
larger setback.
The 30 foot bluffline setback is intended to protect the bluff from
erosion and collapse, as well as to soften the visual impact of buildings
along the bluffline as seen from below. Given the orientation and
location of the structures along the bluffline in the area, the placement of
the garage addition will barely be visible from below the bluffline. And,
if the existing garage and foundation are left as they are proposed to be,
the concerns of erosion and sloughing should not become issues.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning
Code?
No, granting the requested variances would not be out of
harmony with the Zoning Code.
However, it should be pointed out that the existing garage seems
to cross over the side property line and encroach onto the neighbor's
property. The garage addition appears to be right on the property line.
The garage addition will need a minimum setback of 3 feet from the side
property line. Therefore, prior to issuance of a building permit for the
garage addition, a licensed surveyor must locate the east property line
and stake the foundation of the garage addition such that it will maintain
the 3 foot minimum setback.
c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan?
No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
The lot size is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use plan for
the neighborhood, and the environmental protection highlighted by the
Comprehensive Plan will be respected by the proposed improvements to
the property.
Rustad Variances
Page 4
3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning
district in which the subject property is located.
The property is zoned RB, Two - Family Residential. The proposed use of the
property would be to convert the non - conforming four -plex to a single family
residence with a detached garage large enough to be useful.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the requested variances with the following condition:
Prior to issuance of a building permit for the garage addition, a licensed surveyor
must locate the east property line and stake the foundation of the garage
addition such that it will maintain a 3 foot minimum setback.
2. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision
must be provided.
3. Table the request for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the first alternative.
Attachments: Zoning & location map
Site plan
Neighborhood air photo
Application materials
cc: Chris Rustad
LLLUAII
r
W
W
WEST
0
U)
gZR
,.-c GHERRY
O�Z
T
G�
q
z
0
N� � SSREES '
Ater
Rustad Variances
,ocation & Zoning Map
Zoning Districts
A -P, Agricultural Preservation
RA- Single Family Residential
RB - Two Family
TR, Traditional Residential
LR, Lakeshore Residential
CR, Cottage Residential
® CTR, Cove Traditional Residential
- CCR, Cove Cottage Residential
CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential
-- TH, Townhouse
RCM - Medium Density Residential
RCH - High Density Residential
VC, Village Commercial
CA - General Commercial
_ CBD - Central Business District
BP -C, Business Park - Commercial
® BP -O, Business Park - Office
BP -I, Business Park - Industrial
IB - Heavy Industrial
- CRD - Campus Research Development
PA - Public Administration
PROS - Park, Recreation or Open Space
Public Works Facility
ROAD
WATER
Case 2012 -10
Rustad Variances
220 W Chestnut
Bluff line
Existing house
Proposed
garage addition
Proposed-
5TA:-� landing
txisung
garage
0
cNr
•
ppp-
i
PM,
t
REQUEST FOR VARIANCES - 220 CHESTNUT ST.
Stillwater Planning Commission
Stillwater, MN
04 -19 -2012
Chris Rustad and Vicky Simon
1322 Ramsey St. W.
Stillwater, MN 55082
612 - 710 -1215
Re: Request for Variances at 220 Chestnut St. W., Stillwater
Dear Planning Commission Members,
In 2010, we purchased the property at 220 Chestnut St., which at the time was a four unit rental property. We
have been renovating the house as a single family home with the intent of moving into it at the end of 2012.
The house combines Greek revival and Italianate architectural features. As much as possible, we have been
restoring it to its original late 1800's design, recreating ornate corner posts, carved roof brackets, detailed trims,
and an open porch. We have done our due diligence in researching the original architectural details of the
house by studying sketches in hand -drawn maps at Stillwater Public Library and uncovering details hidden or
damaged by the contemporary renovations of previous owners. We are particularly sensitive to the historic
quality of the house and its neighborhood, as well as its contribution to the historic qualities and appeal of our
community.
To complete our renovation project, we would like to construct a front porch on the house and add to the
detached garage on the east edge of the property. Both these projects require variances. The front porch entry,
which will replace the original one that was torn off, is a necessary feature for practical and aesthetic reasons.
The proposed garage is needed to meet reasonable contemporary storage and parking needs.
We are concerned about the drainage implications of construction at this location on the top of the river bluff.
As part of the construction plan, we will do our part t4 p "revent water run -off from our property from eroding
the bluff and entering the city's sewer system. We have included plans for a large rain garden that will prevent
or slow the drainage of water from our buildings. If the present plans are not feasible, we are willing to work
with the city to design the best plan that benefits the property and the city.
If you wish to see the property, feel free to stop by. Chris is there most days and 6 -8 pm every evening.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Christopher Rustad and Vicky Simon
REQUEST FOR VARIANCES - 220 CHESTNUT ST.
Property Address
220 Chestnut St. W., Stillwater, MN 55082
Purpose
1. Variance request for the 20 ft setback to accommodate a 7ft maximum front entry porch
2. Variance request for the 30 ft setback from the bluff and 10 ft setback from the front of the house for the
garage addition.
1. Variance Request for Front Porch Entry
1a.Purpose
To request a variance on the 20 ft setback for a front entry porch.
1b. Considerations
a) The existing front of the house sits 35 ft from Chestnut St and 20 ft from the lot line.
b) In the late 1800's, the house had a wrap - around porch from corner A to corner C. See the
Comprehensive Layout Plan. The original porch had an overhang of approximately 6 -7 ft. The wrap-
around porch was removed in approximately the 1940's.
c) The existing front entry has no overhang. The door, wood trim, and original wood ornamentation have
deteriorated from rain and weather exposure.
d) The current entry system is not original and is not architecturally appropriate for the historical house.
1c. Goal
a) Replace the front entry system with 22" antique double doors and wood storm doors.
b) Add a paneled or stained glass transom above the double doors.
c) Replicate the original wood trim and ornamentation around the doors.
d) Build a front entry porch that extends approximately 7 ft from the front of the house (to the edge of the
last step) to protect the doors, trim, and ornamentation.
e) Design the front porch to replicate the house's original architectural details, including column features,
crown molding, roof brackets, and spindles. See Front Entry Plan.
2. Variance Request for a Garage Addition
2a. Purpose
Approval for setback variance from the front of the house and from the edge of the bluff to construct an
addition to the detached garage.
2b. Considerations
a) A single car garage exists on the property that is not original to the property. See the Lot Map.
b) The existing garage is structurally sound and in reasonable condition.
c) The steep bluff in back of the house and garage is a special property characteristic.
d) The setback rule of 10 ft from the front of the house and 30 ft from a steep incline allow for only 10 ft
in which to build a new structure.
e) An existing large Class 5 impervious parking surface creates a water run -off problem for the buildings
below the cliff and city services. See Area F in the Comprehensive Layout Plan.
f) The existing garage has a 12 -15 ft stone foundation that extends down the steep incline to support the
garage and act as a stabilizing retaining wall.
g) The architectural details of the house benefit the historic appeal of the neighborhood and community
and should not be obstructed from view by a garage.
2c. Goal
a) Add a 26 ft x 28 ft, 2 -stall garage directly in front of or attached to the existing garage with a total
footprint of 985 sq ft. See the Lot Map.
b) Obtain a variance of 5 ft from the front of the house or 25 ft from the front lot line for the front of the
garage addition.
c) Obtain a variance of 19 ft from the bluff to the back of the garage addition.
d) Decrease the size of the impervious surfaces on the parking area by approximately 2 /5ths .
e) Keep the existing garage, due to the complexity of removing it from the edge of the bluff and to retain
the benefit of stabilizing the bluff.
f) Design the garage addition in a style that is appropriate for the architectural style of the house.
Washington County Assessor - General Parcel Info
0
Washington County Assessor
General Information
Pin: 28.030.20.42.0143
Address: 220 CHESTNUT ST W
STILLWATER MN 55082
Class: Residential
< 007 &THAT PT IT
008 SD BLK DESC AS
FOLL:BEG @ SW COR SD IT
008 THN NLY ALG W LN
THEREOF DIST 25FT THN
ELY PARL WITH S LN SD LT
008 DIST SOFT THN SLY
PARL WITH W LN SD IT 008
DIST 6IN THN ELY PARL
Legal. WITH S LN SD IT 008 DIST
SOFT THN SLY ON LN PARL
WITH W LN SD IT 008 DIST
24.5FT TO S LN THEREO &
THN WLY ON SD S LN
1 OOFT TO POB
SubdivisionName
STILLWATER BLOCKS 18 -27
Lot 6 Block 22
SubdivisionCd 10691
http:// washington .minnesotaassessors.com /basic -p...
Prior Year Value Information
Year Land Value Dwelling Value Improvement Value Total Value
2012
114,300
79,800
0
194,100
2011
149,100
72,500
0
221 ,600
2010
150,600
0
81,300
231,900
2009
78,900
0
242,800
321,700
2008
50,000
0
220,400
270,400
2007
50,000
0
220,400
270,400
2006
50,000
0
220,400
270,400
2005
50,000
0
145,300
195,300
1 of 2 4/13/12 16:16
Washington County Assessor - General Parcel Info
http://washington.minnesotaassessors.com/basic-p.-.
Residential Building information
Occupancy Style Year Built Total Living Area
Single - Family / Owner Occupied 2 Story Frame 1865 3,181
Land Information
Lot Basis Square Feet Acres
Sq. Ft. x Rate 17,424 0.40
Building Permit information
Date
Number
Amount
Reason
10/18/2011
11 -00986
7,500
Hvac
1/3/2011
1 1- 00001
95,000
Siding
11/22/2010
10- 00995
0
Hvac
10/12/2010
10 -00819
0
Plumbing
5/28/2010
10 -00324
400
Demolition
8/21/2007
683
8,900
Roofing
2 of 2 4/13/12 16:16
r),o cv\e s-t rte'
J
E
@ac) (�3
i-x+ - I-D eIN& Ck- S�44P-PD
N+ +0 L&
Clao LDc-,
m
gx�
Existing front entrance
Existing garage on north east corner of the
property.
Rear garage foundation and retaining wail
viewed from above.
Front entrance damage from water exposure.
Rear garage foundation and retaining wall.
a �
W3
io
�~
-� s }ham
- x
Y =
C�
ct
��
V �
t
` 1
W !
Sc3
DATE:
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
LAND OWNER:
LOCATION:
r
a ter
l son—
I H E
0 I R T.H P I. A C E 0 f M I N N E S 0 1 A
Planning Commission
May 10, 2012
CASE NO.: 2012 -17
A parking variance and a flood fringe conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of a 2 -story mixed -use
(retail/ restaurant/ office) building
Mike Hoefler /HAF RED
Watermain Crossing
229 Main St S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use
ZONING: CBD - Central Business District
HEARING DATE: May 14, 2012
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Plann%I
REVIEWERS: Community Development Director
SPECIFIC REQUEST
Watermain Crossing is proposing to develop a two -story office building located at 229 Main
St S. To allow the building they need the following approvals:
1. A variance to the parking regulations. 22 spaces required, 0 spaces provided.
2. A flood fringe conditional use permit.
BACKGROUND
The property at 229 Main St S is located northeast of the intersection of Main St and Olive St.
The site sits between Main St and Water St. The northern portion of the larger parcel contains
two buildings that will remain. The proposed building will be located on the southern 27 feet
of the parcel, which today acts as a walkway between Main St and Water St. The walkway is
private property and is not owned by the City. The project calls for the construction a two
story building that will contain 1,920 square feet of restaurant or retail space on the first floor
and 1,920 square feet of office space on the second floor. The building facade along Main
Street will be similar to the former Peaslee building, which was destroyed by fire. The HPC
approved design review for the proposed structure on April 2, 2012.
229 Main St S — Peaslee Building
Page 2
EVALUATION OF REQUESTS
Parking Variance
As shown in the table below, the applicant needs to provide 22 parking spaces for the new
building with a restaurant use on the first floor and an office use on the second floor.
Area
Use
Area
# of Parking
Space per S.F.
# of required
parking spaces
1st Floor
Restaurant
1920 s.f.
120
16
2nd Floor
Office
1920 s.f.
300
6.4
TOTAL # REQUIRED PARKING SPACES - - - -> 22.4
Typically, the City requires new construction to provide all required off street parking spaces
on their site as a condition of approval. With a 27 foot wide lot it is simply not possible to
provide any meaningful parking on this property. This is an obvious hardship related to the
physical constraints of the property. Consequently a variance from the parking requirement
has been requested.
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 ". About the only consistent "alternative provision' that the
City has applied under these circumstances is that the business owner would be required to
purchase monthly parking permits. In practice, the permits are used by employees or the
business owners. This encourages the employees to park in lots that are a little further away
from the business, allowing closer free parking to be used by customers.
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 property or business owner be
required to buy 22 monthly parking permits.
Flood Fringe Conditional Use Permit
The subject property is identified to be in the flood fringe of the St Croix River as shown on
the FEMA flood insurance rate maps. The current ground elevation of the subject site varies
and is approximately 690.8 feet across the site. The 1 % annual flood elevation (100 -year flood)
is 692.5 feet in this location. In order to be a permitted use, the site is required to be filled to
693.5 (one foot above the 1% annual flood elevation) with this grade extending at least 15 feet
beyond the outside limits of the structure. First, since the site is only 27 feet wide and second,
since the proposed building will span between two existing building (both the north and
south) it is physically impossible for the applicant to have fill that extends at least 15 feet
beyond the outside limits of the structure. As an alternative the applicant can follow the
criteria for a flood fringe conditional use.
Floor fringe condition uses are required to follow a number of design and certification
requirements to ensure that the structure is safe to occupy, will not be unduly damaged
during a flood event, and the building itself will not become a hazard during a flood event. In
229 Main St S — Peaslee Building
Page 3
order to qualify for a conditional use there are a number of conditions that must be met. The
two most notable are:
1. The building's first occupied floor; including basements but excluding
crawlspaces, must be at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation (which
is the 100 -year flood elevation plus one foot). In this case, the regulatory flood
protection elevation is 693.5 feet. The applicant is proposing the first floor to be at
an elevation of 693.5 feet. This requirement has been met.
2. All new principal structures must "have vehicular access at or above an elevation not
more than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation ". In this case, two feet
below the regulatory flood protection elevation is 691.5 feet. The adjacent road
elevation on Main Street is 692.2 feet which meets this requirement.
City staff, including the building official, met with the applicant on April 19, 2012 and is
satisfied with the plans at this stage of the process. When the applicant submits for a building
permit, the applicant will need to submit evidence that the building has been designed to
meet state building code design requirements for flood proofing.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Corrunission has the following options:
A. Approve the parking variance and recommend City Council approval of the flood
fringe conditional use permit.
B. Deny all or part of the requests.
C. Table the requests for additional information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the parking variance and recommend City Council approval of the flood fringe
conditional use as conditioned.
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
If the Commission chooses to approve the project, staff would recommend the following
conditions of approval:
1. Approval from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
2. No storage shall be permitted below the regulatory flood protection elevation.
3. The occupants of the building shall follow flood emergency response procedures
during flood conditions.
4. The applicant shall follow all requirement of the State Building Code for flood
proofing for conditional uses in the flood fringe.
5. The building owner(s) must purchase 22 parking permits each month to compensate
for the deficit in on -site parking.
attachments: Location Map
FEMA FIRM Map
Application materials
irk
go w
go gr
A•
Y`' s
.A
.,r t
R21W R20W R19W
3 N
T32N
771
731N
O
�-
YOU Hm
•.' l .. '
�'►')
1 law 'Ole
"�
1
T29N
72IN
rm
irk
go w
go gr
A•
Y`' s
.A
.,r t
Vicinity Map
Subject Site
0 ISO
Scale In Feet
TY trxYq h h rw�N d e cmphem
.pp.. n..Aw. wrMylvi cwy dllu4
MVmKedf. W�SW��7hno1
�rpdhth b ery trav2tl�e.
Swxw: W Woybn Cwy 8urvgoM1 09b
PIY.fg (B6t)190lQl6
vaim am ewe m woo r+amaoan
exrw�Mw(/�: WiM 91, 2012
Mlp prlrOBE: Mry10, 2012
R21W R20W R19W
3 N
T32N
771
731N
YOU Hm
73ON
729N
T29N
72IN
rm
727N
T27N
R22W R21W R20W
Vicinity Map
Subject Site
0 ISO
Scale In Feet
TY trxYq h h rw�N d e cmphem
.pp.. n..Aw. wrMylvi cwy dllu4
MVmKedf. W�SW��7hno1
�rpdhth b ery trav2tl�e.
Swxw: W Woybn Cwy 8urvgoM1 09b
PIY.fg (B6t)190lQl6
vaim am ewe m woo r+amaoan
exrw�Mw(/�: WiM 91, 2012
Mlp prlrOBE: Mry10, 2012
MAP SCALE 1" = 500'
250 0 500 1000
F—i 117-11 FEET
METERS
150 0 150 300
his is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood
ap. It was extracted using FIRMette - Desktop version 3.0. This map does not
eflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to
®
PANEL 0266E
FIRM
m
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
WASHINGTOW:T BOUNTY,
m
MINNESOTA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
m
PANEL 266 OF 456
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
a
m
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
OAK PARK HEIGHTS, 270512 0266 E
CITY OF
STILLWATER, CITY OF 275249 0266 E
ED
ED
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below
should be used when placing map orders; the
Community Number shown above should be
used on insurance applications for the subject
a
community.
OF' F,y
, MAP NUMBER
27163CO266E
EFFECTIVE DATE
GJ
qND SE FEBRUARY 3, 2010
MIMFederal
Emergency Management Agency
his is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood
ap. It was extracted using FIRMette - Desktop version 3.0. This map does not
eflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to
4
SHEET..1 OF 3 SHEETS
SurveY Prepared For;
Seasons Fir, Inc, Notes; - -
229 South Hain Street orientation of this beariW eyate,
St llwater, Minnesota 55082 .re ae asamma.
(65 1) eetc! 40 ,; CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
See Sheet 2 for Pro Died 2006 Seasons o xnamntra troo pile .ocborl
91ttxi utG 131— wnleae
Tique, Inc, Parcel tact 1ptlon: HRra3se.
(intended to 'be used for an See the ^rerfeMed Plat' of the city action to quiet title or to ? of sti —ter, reu><aea ae oocunent
Register-Title-only) PART OF BLOCK 28 ORIGINAL TOWN NOW CITY OF STILLWATER N,mbet a fiOde, washigmn County
—der. office, for � i.
MINNESOTA. < nine tha oaigin of Stimpaan's
'<""' J Witty. tom+ krarn as venter street)
Jan. 2006 Barrett M. Stack, Land Surveyor she ant is into a
1[gxovarenes then the . bu roads
shrnm m the cacal� tuilairg wall
'd 1 " lire at greed level, any overhang or
Scale) I = 10 Minn. Reg.No. 13774 <es �= , \ yvApa �� projeetla beyad seta"I"bre
'V tituMa er?ditwrel ece eaclnent
Notes: , < %"• z, '`� I— said roads.
1 °> Bt c.r a"> Surveyea see prop tad des,
P Intli cafes Iron pipe set marked STACK /°•°° y p ~;, ly 1' a +' � rare P —Aim3a cn
13774,: unless noted ".at herwtse, „qy o wv. ige .sheet 2. Parcel surveyed ccra
m indlcetes I r on DIPe found In place - NIT't N B'1 9966 'spore feet.
marked STACK RLS 3774 noted a = - •.m. -
otherwwlse.
UP
der,10Und or overhead pUbllc a, Private
utiiltles, on or adlacent. the pparcel, were ,✓. fS 9a� Bgo'"3 ll ^,y % h
not I unles afed to Cool ad wit se this. survey, MNZ�.�l/ g�,f2�
unless shown or noted otherwise hereon, 5
Graphic details of offset irons, wall and tea. �.� // 3 ;��
facia lines and other Improvements that are
in congestetl areas aft not drawn to scale
for aid in IlI Strat ln9 details of same.
NORTH ,� � y WAS,- , /q9•m X�i+: � y 0
7.
G j
R iii z
Cn BCOLK � �
/� s>< � P °' ✓° / °d ('"`� pct � �� 7 1l
..._.�,. - ., i - \� p— r ✓" s `. e's, Q� P.aRCEtI CONVwI o .R "F
,. ..,,_ _�.�._ C - ✓r ",. sa
9C,c
ql 9 ..
e es ° P5Q AAA / p/
Notes: (continued)
See Prior survey and descr l ptlon
work done by me on tfits ppaarcel for
Mr Fred Brass, dated 5 -27 81, as -
revlsed 6 -3 -81, for additional l .R�i �pyf.
dekai is and sUfvey reDOft, The
prop \ a, °1 D(,
descr 1ptlon, Ns goneratetl In 1981, is -
6urrently of record In 0". No 458903, of /
ands also recited in Lawyers Title
Insuprance Corporation Commitment far - i
TlVe Insurance, Fite No. 52072, dated _ o
Nov. 9, 2001, on SLh,,Phd D thereto This a AL °r y. ;y s //c 4
1981 proposed Oescripttan, overlaps onto tthe -
adloiling parcel northerly, as descrdDed in' '3 '';O,P✓ ' = ° N .`°`' J,
D c, No. 580423, Mash. Co, records. As directed, ! {
ilia Proposed 2?106 Seasons Tlque [nc., Parcel n�,d` Bj° s , i>•l s� sf j o
Description ho tls the described southerly line of ti
sa id parcel desc. 1n Doc, No. 580423 as the northerly \ & f /. 'm y
PfdPafty`line'Of the Seasons Ttque, Inc. parcel, m `` 'v R Cdr A // 1 r/' P Itgt°'A
40�
I hereby certify to Guaranty commercial Title, Inc „ ,) 3 /ter 69.
La y rs Title Insurance Corporation, Seasons Ti4ue, Inc., (dl�
ulr
and Frederl tk tl. dress, trustee, that I sur, eyed
property descrLed on Street 2 oP 3 Sheets of this survey, 1 w of y' 8y ✓ �'? 1 30
and that this survey shows all matters relating to Doc. -� ^^a: Lod
No 'a 4 59g03 and 3159391, s referred to in Lawyers title > '.� January 25, 2006 - Revision Note:
insurance Corporation i,rileeNo for Title Insurance, ,f Corrected drafted dlmensi 1: or on Sheet 1,
Schedule 9 Section II, rile description Oat"I N v. 9, � _
2005, and that the n w Dercel descript[on, a d the survey rys i >L .°°. un 1'7 party wall easement dimension corrected to 7.13
of the same ere correct, to the best oP myk 1 edge
ur S�wyr it Of• p
and belief. p ' L' Lj�{,$ feet. Chen9 d caption of P 6 sad 2006 Seasons
�' v N> • �' Ss E/� c° - Tlnue, Inc., Parcel GDescrt ftla Igo et z) to
g' \ o w L CountYmRm9i, art Of;it.t of the Yesnin9ton
l ranee Lana sarraror �^`" Ih 9ws
o,•/ r
Date: / -zl 7, Nl nn. Li c. No. 13771
— by Wrtlfy
repo tha y N miS muwvriey er Pion
p a
!M , suP vieim aM that d la tm
t
I we duly p.glatetad
r ° N of Minlsaota Vriaer tlx Lwwa tit the State
stack land sur ryi, "r '�` �/ y F
.11" Fai1Y Falls Mad —In S ti .gyp. fmM / -1,3 ^Od Re9. No.- -: —
Stillwater, Miroeaotm 55092'
(RSt'139 -5630'
`'5i^ nt I
y
q
I
i
I HAF'
G R O U P
A R C N I T E C T U k E
D E V E F b V M E " I
C ON 5 1 9 U C i 1 Q N
HM*j F
t94. FASS.CNFSI N11 f,51 kFk i
r N o s l e l_ r x al B
I
I N T E Y 1 LJ 4 S
I9a 151 C
utSlNl{i Sf
suffTtq,
.Nll�✓niSB, u +�
ruoxe i s
i -. c. roBlo.t.
wYa N.nAfi.AU GNtska rs,GOM I
tr F.BOOk:COMI•ax4gC xiif.<ti
IIYiP: of IIAI'A RL NI fflf 5.0 (.fIGt Fn F.CbM
dB Nt1.
�eAgi�.e
i
1
N
Y
HAF
G R O U P
A R c N. I T E C T U R C
tl. V F t 0 P M E N T
C 0 N 5 7 k U C. T 1 n N
IOO.EABt..G NESINII {, S�YEEt
v II d 5 1 2 1 1 T] X fl
/ff"f IN tr-V?'L. M,400/e
�ik wo.
A p C H 1 TOE C T U Q E
p k V E L P M fi N T
C O N 5 T a U C T I U N
oo.Rns r,cn9sTNUT..sTn eRr
R 11 X 6 5 1 3 l 1 7 Y 14 8
H M*j F'
A R C H I T E C 7 5
A Q C, II I r f C ,I U R. V
Y l A N N t N G
` i_/ nsutre ta. N
STrl i'NAiR p, M
W W W h.F 4 A Ne. 111 T n
WWW IA
<E DOUN,CUM: NnIn NC a1r [<rs
Mi.[G;trNFTbPCNITBC TI�DLn GStl4T'_KflM
r�e.Q�1e�e.
ui ld nA
r,N1,.t.1w1.
HAF'
G R ® U P
' A R C 11 1 T E C T U R E
0 E V E L O P M R N T
C O N S T R u C T 1 0 N
r on. en s r. C. [SIUUi.S ".
s r L r r w n T L e, M N., s n`nri
HM*A
�+ A R C H I T E C T S
A R f, 11 1 L E O I u R E
P L N N 1 N G
..........
a
�.,_.�.- _�- _..�......�....��� �_ ._._.._..- �..��.. ......_ . ..._.......�............�....._ _....�_. ...-��-- ._��_._.__... L./ ... Sur ^' 1 o I ii
_ f
WI Vlaa Nt a 3.; r o P
�P
1- -�-- -' i +rrr :�rrer Anunl l r s,nLacsPaY.coM
eq�sle.
,mss rag xu :Y.W
.. �� � � 1 _ � � � ..re+t w, wr.�..nw, r..» ,..... •. ICI
HAF'
G R O U P
A R C H I T E C T UK E
U. f v E t O v M E N T
C O N 3 1 N U C T 1 O N
Itlry. t A 51.0 NP51 HIl.I S'REti
5 1 1 I A T k k, k !u f 1 p b 1
0 11 6 5! 2?! X 2 M b
A R C H E T E C T S
wvr,ul seer live
1 l A N H I N G
1 N T E f[ [) R 5
IRO fx5[Grl lilNrlr 1[.
6 Uli[ I
s[I[I Kx[kp � k.N
V[ItlNL R 4
€ \VW kNAYAkGNll tf. YS;.0 4N
({ S AC[. BU 11, CUM, IIAI� A N C N I I II II
j WY�p:� ACA wIf[IT[CYS. ttd USkUY_YUM
vecmlec
�tl� ids
��tYlhe Ace eneyl.pvs somm,'�t
VA-rice
HAF'
G R O U P
A R C F i P E C'r U k E
D E V E t Q tl M E N 1
C O N S 1 k U C T 1 0 N
19R[AS r.CN [5 YN4 {. S`[4tY
Er in
A a C H t T E C r 5
A P, C 11 I f E C, I U 4 F
t o N N 1 N G
_.._._..« v.. ._..m...,s_...a,..._..._. ®..m.. .m_._ _. _._........ ..... ._...._..__". �...,_.:. _......._ ...............:....:� �. N i E P I O e r
.... tDF FF.r CI t51NVF Sr.
._ __...... ..... .. ......... _._ ... ,... ,., _..,. _. .»,_...,,e_..,,.., ..... .... ....... . __.... .. _ ....,.._ .. ._.. .....,. ,... _.. _.__., ..... ..... 5r1 Al N
, _.... ..._ ... ... . . .. ... ...... _...._....._,..— . . 541 YC 101
E[. M
PMO NI•. 1 1 1 F.6
W W A 11 A r A N C 4 1 1 t C r S:. C O M
.. FtlO4K.CVM:NA {AFCNI {YK Y'S
IMP III YGCYS.[t4l:f PQ t,S<aM
?ecuslee
w
Nor rtt 54F v. TMH
,t ..... MFIM4FMraa[
A(O
\570417-i -LC- Vwrlofy
HAF
G R O U P
A I C H I T f C T U R E
0 E v I: F O R M F "I
C O N S r v U C r 1 0 N
HM*-j F"
IO6.I Af I.l NiSfNU1.SIK£ti
S l l l t W A r P R S S O b
M 11 b i l l JM.e Y s n tl
A R C H I T E C T S
♦.k r II I r P C I U R e
F N T K k I O K S
106 6 .r <xF51r11!1 SI.
.IIItwA+Ke�Mru
W ww. en9u K�cl>u�lFa ran<xl rrl;crm.
xiTR.. /I4A Ya XCIIi?C't i.S,044 GYKOT,CAN
r�� gip;.N11n
SxF AflO
i
A
HAF-
G R Q U P
A R C N I T E C T u u C.
O C V E I 47 P M E N T
G Q N 5 1 R U C T I O N
! A4 CN k$tNU1, S'Ek 11
S I I A t t W A t E k M N S f O n>
IIt 5 5 1% Y A P i H p
HM*j F"
A R C H I T E C T S
autllLrtcrl]ae
I N T G R 1 G t 5
a 1 , r.NES!uuf xr..
srnin•.E:ie YM
ruaaa e E r t s. t ti Y
W W W N n E A p N I r E C l 1. i Sf M
r lf. pWOE'. CUM:.I�AEANti NI EEC I.x
WIi P'rtHAEApC N11tE (S,BI.OGPf)i.I:WM
�i1,ii ldi �y
HAF'
G R O U P
A a[ H. i Y f C T Q k E
4 E V E 1 O f M F W T'
C O N 5 1 k t1 C( 1 0 N'
IOe.f n3i .. C.II f'UI NIII.SICEE1
S llA 3 W ni E Q, M N5 S U B.r
HCMo-4
C T S
A. R C 11 i 1 E C I U k 1
o
ACT N W I N G
I W T. E t 1 0 k S
I lit �i Orl Ni
.(IIa:W xi E4, MN
W WN♦ nR<NLI f.f
+AiC fYbM.Cq M: Nn«n UC Nitt[��AI
Wf ik -.: +Nn(n4C N11F(TS.UL.gGl Egi,�gM
1�w
vuM
q ..
i
.Na
A I I
3
I i
R
"f r
ato
Planning Commission
DATE: May 9, 2012 CASE NO.: 2012 -19
APPLICANT: Tim Brown
LANDOWNER: Tim Brown and Stacie Tessier
REQUEST: Variances for construction of garage
LOCATION: 407 Linden St W
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR -Low/ Medium Density Residential
ZONING: RB - Two - family District
HEARING DATE: May 14, 2012
REVIEWED BY: Community Development Director
1
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner
SPECIFIC REQUEST
A 51 foot variance to allow construction of a garage 15 feet from the side lot line rather than the
66 feet required.,
BACKGROUND
Tim Brown would like to demolish the existing single car garage on his property at 407 Linden
St W and replace it with a new 36 foot by 27 foot three car garage.
The property is a corner lot at the intersection of Linden Street and Harriet Street. The existing
home itself is setback 56 feet from Harriet Street. Garages are required in the RB zoning district
to be setback 10 feet behind the principal dwelling unit, which would then require a setback for
the garage of 66 feet. No other variances are required for this request.
1 City Code Section 31 -308 requires garages to be setback a "minimum of 30 feet and set back at least 10 feet from
the front setback line of the principal dwelling ". In this case the home is setback 56 feet from Harriet Street N thus a
66 foot setback is required.
w
Brown /Tessier Variance
Page 2
There is approximately a 4 -foot grade change that starts at the rear of the existing garage, which
makes it difficult at best to locate the garage any further to the west on the property. The
property to the south has the front face of its garage located in the same setback that is
proposed by the applicant. Finally, the location of the home leaves insufficient room to locate a
garage on the west side of the property.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria
below.
1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical
difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that
the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not
constitute a "practical difficulty ".
a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner?
The purpose of the code requirement to require a 10 foot setback
behind the principal building is to lessen visual impacts of the garage on
the adjoining streetscape. The proposed three stall garage is 36 feet wide
by 27 feet deep for a total of 972 square feet. The Commission generally
considers garages and specifically a two -car garage an important element
for residential uses. A standard 24' x 24' two car garage is 576 square
feet. Staff believes that while a garage is a reasonable request, such a
dominant garage is inappropriate and recommends that it be reduced to a
two car garage with a dimension of 24 feet wide by 27 feet deep for a total
of 648 square feet. Staff supports the additional depth for two reasons.
First, the additional depth has very little impact on the streetscape and
second all other code requirements including total lot coverage
requirements are being met.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property?
Slopes behind the current garage make it difficult to move the
garage any further then what is proposed. Additionally, the location of
the home makes it impossible to locate a garage on the west side of the
property off Linden Street.
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
The landowners did not create the slope or the placement of the
home.
d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?
The existing single stall garage is located at the same setback as
the requested garage is proposed to be located. This also matches the
setback of an garage that is located immediately to the south on the
adjacent property. The proposed garage would be larger, but it is hard to
argue that it would alter the "essential character" of the locality.
Brown/ Tessier Variance
Page 3
e. Is the lone consideration an economic one?
It is true that placing the garage further into the back yard would be more
expensive because it would require a longer driveway and more grading.
However, it is not the lone consideration in this case.
2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive
Plan.
a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested?
The front yard setback has a number of purposes. They include
creating safe separation between garage and neighboring street to park a
car in front of the garage; and avoiding garage dominant streetscapes.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning
Code?
A variance to allow 36 foot wide garage facing a street would not
be in harmony with many of the basic purposes for side yard setbacks.
Reducing the wide of the garage facing the public street helps reduce the
impact of the garage and fits better in the streetscape of the City's smaller
lots.
If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan?
No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning
district in which the subject property is located.
The property is zoned RB, Two Family Residential. The proposed three car
detached garage is an allowed use of the property.
L
Brown /Tessier Variance
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A. Approve the requested variance with the following conditions:
1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community
Development Department
B. Approve the requested variance in part with the following conditions:
1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community
Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of
approval.
2. The garage shall be no larger than 24 feet wide by 27 feet deep.
C. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision
must be provided.
D. Table the request for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval Alternative B.
Attachments: Site plan of proposed garage
Site plan of recommended garage location
Application materials
cc: Tim Brown
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM Case No
Date Filed
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
Special /Conditional Use Permit
9r Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment*
ACTION REQUESTED
Zoning Amendment*
Planning Unit Development
Certificate of Compliance
Lot Line Adjustment
4-
*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 requires City Council review then a
total of twenty -eight (28) copies are required to be submitted. Review the Checklist to the Planning Administration
Application Form for the complete list of required items that must be submitted. Any incomplete application or
supporting material will cause your application to be rejected by the City. Required - Applications will be rejected
without a legal description. A legal description is found on the deed to the property. Attach as an exhibit if
necessary.
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 qo-7 k1�1 w Assessor's Parcel No.3�' �. Z�a 01"
DD �y(� O Code)
Complete Property Legal Description* Loo I 151o&K ZO fh 1� 02 9 L 112. CT! �yj`' 03
( *Required - Applications will be rejected without a legal description) Tax descriptions and property descriptions from
the county are not acceptable.
Zoning District Kb Description of Project IZKA - L— J." olk 6ev- ► yylo & fLe &f✓ La ftK .
"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. "
-r Required If other than property owner
Property Owner 1+ M &Q j \ Representative
Mailing Address qo -7 I,Xcn Sf i--)
City-State-Zip m y 35062
Telephone No. 651 363-o236
9"fl[i .
Mailing Address
City - State - Zip
Telephone No.
Email
Signature Signature
(Signature is required)
C: \DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \SWIEGAND \LOCAL SETTINGS \TEMPORARY INTERNET
FILES\ CONTENT .OUTLOOK \K6SUFJRY \PLANAPP.DOCX July 22, 2010
(Signature is required)
Case 2012 -19
407 Linden St S
N City of Stillwater, MN
Feet Community Development Department
0 15 30 60 216 North Fourth Street
1 inch = 30 feet Stillwater, MN 55082
651 - 430 -8820 — 651 - 430 -8810 fax
a
4�'SL
a ±\
+j )0
+91p V H
Jr p�j f
e
0
..
---- -------
x.
----
------- rt
i1 I
r
f
DATE:
APPLICANT:
LANDOWNER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
HEARING DATE:
PREPARED BY:
SPECIFIC REQUEST
PLANNING REPORT
May 8, 2012
David Swanson
David & Laurie Swanson
CASE NO.: 2012 -13
Variances for construction of garage
117 Echo Lane
RA, Single Family Residential
May 14, 2012
Bill Turnblad, Community Development Directors-
1. An 8 foot variance to allow construction of a garage 2 feet from the side lot line rather
than the 10 feet required.
2. A variance to allow 34.5% impervious surface rather than the 30% maximum allowed.
BACKGROUND
David Swanson would like to demolish the existing single car garage on his property at 117
Echo Lane and replace it with a new 24 by 28 foot two car garage.
Given the location of the home's side entrance stairs and the location of the home on the lot, the
applicant proposes to build the garage two feet from the side lot line. Since the minimum
required side setback for a detached garage is 10 feet, the location would require an eight foot
variance.
The proposed garage location would be the easiest way to avoid the entrance stairs and drive
straight into the northern stall of the garage. But if the garage were located further back into the
yard, the setback to the side lot line could be increased. (See attached site plans.) However,
locating the garage further in the rear yard is unappealing to the property owner for several
reasons: 1) more of the rear yard would be covered in garage; 2) more driveway length would
i I L e r
* H a ;.. A i., t 0 F M I N N E ti 0 1 a
PLANNING REPORT
May 8, 2012
David Swanson
David & Laurie Swanson
CASE NO.: 2012 -13
Variances for construction of garage
117 Echo Lane
RA, Single Family Residential
May 14, 2012
Bill Turnblad, Community Development Directors-
1. An 8 foot variance to allow construction of a garage 2 feet from the side lot line rather
than the 10 feet required.
2. A variance to allow 34.5% impervious surface rather than the 30% maximum allowed.
BACKGROUND
David Swanson would like to demolish the existing single car garage on his property at 117
Echo Lane and replace it with a new 24 by 28 foot two car garage.
Given the location of the home's side entrance stairs and the location of the home on the lot, the
applicant proposes to build the garage two feet from the side lot line. Since the minimum
required side setback for a detached garage is 10 feet, the location would require an eight foot
variance.
The proposed garage location would be the easiest way to avoid the entrance stairs and drive
straight into the northern stall of the garage. But if the garage were located further back into the
yard, the setback to the side lot line could be increased. (See attached site plans.) However,
locating the garage further in the rear yard is unappealing to the property owner for several
reasons: 1) more of the rear yard would be covered in garage; 2) more driveway length would
1
Swanson Variances
Page 2
have to be constructed; and 3) landscaping in the rear yard would not be visible from the rear of
the home.
Complicating the situation further is the fact that merely placing the garage further back into
the yard will not resolve all zoning issues. It would allow for an increased side yard setback,
but it would also require a longer driveway. Currently the property has approximately 31.3 %
impervious coverage. Since 30% coverage is the maximum allowed, a longer driveway requires
even more excess impervious coverage to be mitigated.
If the variances are approved as requested, the total impervious coverage would be about 34.5 %
This is about 455 square feet more than permitted on the property. This amount would need to
be mitigated on -site with pervious pavement, rain garden or other surface water management
techniques.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria
below.
1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical
difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that
the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not
constitute a "practical difficulty ".
a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner?
A two stall garage is a reasonable use of the property. However; a
two foot setback from the side lot line is not reasonable. Though the
applicant also owns the lot immediately to the south, there is nothing that
guarantees that Mr. Swanson will always control both lots. Consequently
the question of maintenance of the south side of the proposed garage is a
real issue. Moreover, the lot to the south may someday desire to build an
accessory structure in the same side yard as the proposed garage. This
would raise fire code and building separation concerns.
At very least a five foot side yard setback should be maintained in
the RA Zoning District. If a garage were attached to the house in this
Zoning District, it would only have to have a five foot setback. If a garage
is detached the setback increases to 10 feet. Typically this is to
compensate for activities that occur in detached accessory structures that
may not occur in an attached garage.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property?
Side yards that are too narrow to accommodate a two stall garage
are fairly common. Consequently to desire to place a structure very close
to a side property line is not unique to this property.
Swanson Variances
Page 3
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
The narrowness of the garage approach is caused by the location
of the side stairs. This circumstance is not of the landowner's doing.
However, the landowner does desire to have the garage located closer to
the side lot line than is necessary. There are reasonable options available
to increase the side yard setback to at least five feet.
d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?
The existing single stall garage is located about five feet from the
side lot line. The proposed garage would be larger and closer to the side
lot line, but it is hard to argue that it would alter the "essential character'
of the locality.
e. Is the lone consideration an economic one?
It is true that placing the garage further into the back yard would be more
expensive because it would require a longer driveway and more
impervious coverage mitigation. However, it is not the lone
consideration in this case.
2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive
Plan.
a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested?
Side setback The side setback has a number of purposes. They
include creating safe separation between buildings on neighboring lots;
creating room on the subject property to maintain buildings and yard;
and encouraging openness for light and air circulation.
Impervious coverage The 30% impervious coverage standard in
the RA District is to encourage a specific minimum amount of openness
on properties and to encourage sustainable surface water management
within a watershed district.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning
Code?
A variance to allow a two foot side yard setback would not be in
harmony with many of the basic purposes for side yard setbacks.
Granting a variance for increased impervious coverage would
only remain in harmony with the Zoning Code if the excess coverage
were mitigated through the use of pervious pavements or on -site surface
water treatments such as rain gardens.
If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan?
No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning
district in which the subject property is located.
The property is zoned RA, Single Family Residential. The proposed two car
detached garage is an allowed use of the property.
Swanson Variances
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions:
1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community
Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of
approval.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a plan to compensate for the excess
impervious coverage must be submitted to the City and approved by the City
Engineer.
B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision
must be provided.
C. Table the request for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denying the request for a two foot side yard setback. However, if that
setback were increased to five feet, then staff would recommend approval with the conditions
identified in Alternative A.
Attachments: Zoning & location map
Site plan of proposed garage
Site plan of recommended garage location
Application materials
cc: David Swanson
F7
Zoning Districts
r A -P, Agricultural Preservation
RA - Single Family Residential
RB - Two Family
TR, Traditional Residential
- I R, Lakeshore Residential
CR, Cottage Residential
CTR, Cove Traditional Residential
CCR, Cove Cottage Residential
CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential
TH, Townhouse
RCM - Medium Density Residential
RCH - High Density Residential
(� VC, Village Commercial
CA - General Commercial
CBD - Central Business District
U BP -C, Business Park - Commercial
BP -O, Business Park - Office
BP -I, Business Park - Industrial
IB - Heavy Industrial
- CRD - Campus Research Development
PA - Public Administration
PROS - Park, Recreation or Open Space
0 Public Works Facility
0 ROAD
M Railroad
WATER
Property outside of City
St croix river finalshp.shp
CS q .
y
PINE
WEST MYRTLF� STREET
w w
W LU
C
w
Y �
U �
m WEST RAMSEY U STREET
T =
0
0 0
- rsAH s i
Swanson Variance
Location and Zoning Map
n
■I■ �■ ■■� ■� ■■ 1
�� ■ice ■ -■.1
m:an.ymaa
��� ■�� -:.WAS
■_ ■■ m■ m IN
■.■ ■■ ■■
•
milli ■■�� III
■1
on _ . .
�_ ■■ ■■
PINE STREET
' X11
STIR
W
W
W
a
—J
Swanson Variance
Case 2012 -13
Proposed Location
5' required rear setback
(accessory structure)
_ N_ e_w garage 10' required side setback
(detached garage)
existing garage
5' required setback
(attached garage)
2' setback requested
+/- 3,460 sf impervious
+/-34.5%
Swanson Variance
Case 2012 -13
Recommended Location
5' required rear setback
(accessory structure)
1
I
I
I
1
I
15' setbac
I
-r
I
- - - -- 1 10' required side setback
— i (detached garage)
720 sf of New garage
impervious pavement _ J
5' required setback
(attached garage)
+/- 3,720 sf impervious
+/-37.1%
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
Special/Conditional Use Permit
=Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment*
ACTION REQUESTED
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
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 requires City Council review then a
total of twenty -eight (28) copies are required to be submitted. Review the Checklist to the Planning Administration
Application Form for the complete list of required items that must be submitted. Any incomalete application or
supportina material will cause your application to be rejected by the CIty, Required -Applications will be rejected
without a legal description. A legal description is found on the deed to the property. Attach as an exhibit if
necessary.
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 Assessor's Parcel No. � 0'_S d '�0Lq o
p Code)
Complete Property Legal Description* 1 �. L f� S �L 1t C-�� C t (GECT
( *Required - Applications will be rejected without a legal description) Tax descriptions and property descriptions from
the county are not acceptable.
Zoning District I 4 Description of Project N erg L(X- ���f�`j
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify i will comply with the permit if it is granted and used. "
Required
Property Owner �� 0 b ,'s 'S i„y P\ NS eN
Mailing Address 11 ` c_ 1... Al
City -State -Zip IS l ii 1 1� kk p K ,g f �) S 5 )-
Telephone No. 39-
Email _�SW tk_ .A1 A C, 0 nn
Signature _
( Signatur is required)
S:IPLANNINGTORMS\PLANAPP.DOU January 10, 2012
If other than property owner
Representative
Mailing Address
City - State - Zip
Telephone No.
Email
Signature
(Signature is required)
April 18, 2012
Dear Council Members,
We are building a new 24'x 28' garage and request a variance to build
it two feet from our property line at our home located at 117 Echo Lane
in Stillwater. There is currently a single car garage that we would
remove. The property next door, 111 Echo Lane, is also owned by us
and my business partner that we rent out. The extra foot would allow
us to drive straight into the new garage without having to angle around
the steps to our back door. If we have to build 3 -5 feet from the line,
the garage would need to be built further back and more into the yard.
This would block the view of the landscaping along the back of our
property and take away more of our small back yard.
Besides having the two car garage, the extra storage space it would
give us is much needed as the house is a small rambler.
Thank you for your consideration of this request,
David and Laurie Swanson
t
Form No. 29•M —QUIT CLAIM DEED
Individual (sl to Joint Tenants
_1q. o ;o . Ao . 41. 0o4o
Almnasntn Uniturm alenk, (11178)
No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate
of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( X) not required
Cer iflcate of Real Estate Value
1X A- 19 9-1_.
VIRGINI . F.ROAHL AUDITOR- TREASURER
County Auditor I
by
Deputy
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: -$ 1.65
Date: February 1, , 19 99
YtCC
.3�� ►' P I I S ? � f.'. '99
1078615 51402_
X17699 p - 6
L(reserved for recording data)
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, ._David J. Swanson and Laurie A. Swanson, Husband and Wife
- - -_ _ Grantor (s),
(marital status)
hereby convey (s) and quitclaim (s) to _ David J. Swanson and Laurie A. Swanson, Husband and
Wifte _ Grantees
as joint tenants, real property in _ _ Washington _County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Lot Thirteen (13), Block One (1), of RADLE'S SUNNY SLOPE ADDITION, as surveyed and
platted and now on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles of said
County of Washington and State of Minnesota. i
The total consideration for the transfer of the above property is $500.00 or less.
i
"Seller certifies that the seller does not know of any wells on the above described real
property."
(if more space is needed,
continue on back)
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto,
WASHINGTON COUNTY ALexroaaREAsurtet
D "
Receiot No.: 108769 02-12-1999
Dai d J, S So
Deed tax hereon of $1.65 Paid
— :A -
MN Conservation Fund M.S. 473H $5.00 Paid
Laurie A. Swanton
Virginia R. Erdahl , Auditor•Treasurerby: BLDyer
STATE OF MINNESOTA
_
SS.
COUNTY OF Ramey
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before
me this ls_ t day of February '19-29-1
by David J. Swanson and Laurie A. Swanson
Husband and Wife
Grantor(s).
NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK)
SIGNATURE P RS T KINO ACI NOWLIDOMENT
KAY CARSON
Tex Statemm a for t ul pioDarb described In this Instrument should
be sent to (Include ne and add » — or Oranles)s
NOTARY PUBLIC • IIINNE80TA
YyClwatsladonEllplraJu.9I,4090
Marine Midland Mortgage Corporation
2929 Walden Avenue
Depew, NY 14043
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS):
and
David J and Laurie A. Swanson
David and Laurie Swanson
117 Echo Lane
117 Echo Lane
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
i
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
01
�i
1
D
/3.87
D
0
DATE:
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
Planning Commission Report
May 10, 2012
APPLICANT: Paul Larson
PROPERTY OWNER: Paul Larson
REQUEST: Impervious coverage variance
LOCATION: 106 Lakeside Drive
BASE ZONING: RB - Two - family District
CASE NO.: 2012 -15
OVERLAY ZONING: St. Croix River Overlay District
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: May 14, 2012
CITY COUNCIL HEARING: June 5, 2012
PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Directors F
REQUEST
1,147 square foot variance from impervious coverage allowed in St. Croix River Overlay
District
BACKGROUND
Paul Larson is planning a major remodeling project for his home at 106 Lakeside Drive. The
project would include:
1. A 7 foot by 23 foot addition to the north side of the house (see attached plot plan)
a. On the ground level this addition would be garage space
b. On the upper level this space would be part of the master bedroom
2. A second story over the garage and a second story over the main portion of the
existing split level home.
As seen in the table below, the proposed remodeling project complies with all massing
standards. It also falls well below the maximum allowed impervious coverage for the
106 Lakeside Dr
Page 2
neighborhood's base zoning district. However, since the property lies within the St. Croix
River Overlay District, only 20% of the lot may be covered with impervious surface.
Currently the property has 28.6% impervious cover. The additional footprint of the
proposed project would bring the total to 30 %.
REQUEST DETAILS
The maximum permitted impervious surface coverage in the St. Croix River Overlay District
is 20 %.2 Since the lot has a size of 11,412 square feet, impervious surface for the property is
limited to 2,282 square feet. Currently the property has a coverage of 3,268 square feet
(28.6 %). The proposed remodeling would add 161 square feet of footprint. Therefore, the
total coverage after the project is completed would be 3,429 square feet (30.0 %). This is 1,147
square feet more than permitted.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
When considering a variance in the St. Croix River Overlay District, the City must review it
against the thirteen standards3 found below.
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 home is not a riparian lot. Two tiers of homes and two street segments
paralleling the river lie between the St. Croix and the Larson home. Therefore, the
single story addition will not be easily viewed from the river.
2. The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions.
The home is currently connected to public water and sanitary sewer. The home is
accessed from public roads. The addition will be built in accordance with Minnesota
building standards.
1 Substandard lots are considered buildable without a lot size variance.
2 City Code Ch. 31, Section 31 -401, Subd. 6 (b)(1)
3 City Code Ch. 31, Section 31 -401, Subd 16 (g) and Ch. 31, Section 31 -208 (d)
Standard
Existing
Proposed
Lot size'
20,000 sf
11,412 sf
11,412 sf
Garage size
1,000 sf max
483 sf
552 sf
Front setback home
20'
29.65'
29.65'
Front setback (garage)
39.65'
+/- 46'
+/-461
North Side setback
5'
12.67'
5.67'
South side setback (deck)
10'
+/ -10'
+/ -10'
Rear setback
25'
+/- 45'
+/- 45'
Height
35' max
[split entry one story]
27
Impervious cover
20% max
2,282 sf
28.6%
3,268 sf
30.0%
3,429 sf
REQUEST DETAILS
The maximum permitted impervious surface coverage in the St. Croix River Overlay District
is 20 %.2 Since the lot has a size of 11,412 square feet, impervious surface for the property is
limited to 2,282 square feet. Currently the property has a coverage of 3,268 square feet
(28.6 %). The proposed remodeling would add 161 square feet of footprint. Therefore, the
total coverage after the project is completed would be 3,429 square feet (30.0 %). This is 1,147
square feet more than permitted.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
When considering a variance in the St. Croix River Overlay District, the City must review it
against the thirteen standards3 found below.
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 home is not a riparian lot. Two tiers of homes and two street segments
paralleling the river lie between the St. Croix and the Larson home. Therefore, the
single story addition will not be easily viewed from the river.
2. The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions.
The home is currently connected to public water and sanitary sewer. The home is
accessed from public roads. The addition will be built in accordance with Minnesota
building standards.
1 Substandard lots are considered buildable without a lot size variance.
2 City Code Ch. 31, Section 31 -401, Subd. 6 (b)(1)
3 City Code Ch. 31, Section 31 -401, Subd 16 (g) and Ch. 31, Section 31 -208 (d)
106 Lakeside Dr
Page 3
3. The prevention and control of water pollution, including sedimentation.
A primary reason that river district lots are required to be at least 20,000 square feet
in area is to allow rainwater and snow melt to percolate into the lot's yard rather than
runoff into the river. Consequently, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
rigorously advocates its 20% impervious cover rule, which has been incorporated into
City ordinances.
In this case, the undersized lot (11,412 square feet instead of 20,000) together with the
proposed expansion of the home's footprint results in 30 impervious cover.
To consider granting a variance to allow an increase in stormwater runoff, the 1,147
square feet of surface that exceeds the maximum allowance needs to be mitigated. A
surface water treatment plan will need to be submitted to, and approved by the City
Engineer and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to
consideration by the City Council. This mitigation could be accomplished through
the use of engineered raingardens, roof run -off collection, subsurface on -site
stormwater holing areas, pervious hard surfaces with engineered subsurfaces, etc.
Moreover, the DNR and city staffs believe that there should be no increase allowed in
the total amount of impervious, especially since there is already 8.6% more on the
property than allowed along the St. Croix River. The 166 square foot increase created
by the addition could be removed from the 854 square feet of driveway surface. This
may be possible through a "honeycomb" grid that is 30 -50% grass, for example.
The size of the lot may not be sufficient to make on -site treatment of the existing
excess stormwater economically feasible. If this turns out to be the case, an option
would be to eliminate the 166 square foot expansion to the footprint. If this were to
occur, City staff would have the authority to issue a building permit for the rest of the
project.
4. The location of the site with respect to floodways, slopes and blufflines.
The home is outside the Floodway as identified by FEMA. 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.
The lot is relatively flat with only a 4% slope across the property. None the less,
storm sewers in the street lead directly to the river. So erosion control will have to be
installed prior to beginning any earth work on the lot.
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.
106 Lakeside Dr
Page 4
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 is connected to public sanitary sewer.
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.
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 practical difficulty peculiar to the property exists, which was not created by any
act of the owner. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective
profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
The home was constructed in 1972, 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.
The amount of existing impervious surface on the lot was inherited by the current
owners.
However, it may be hard to argue that it is reasonable to increase the amount of
impervious coverage on the property, particularly since it is already substantially
more than currently allowed.
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 additional 7 foot by 23 foot addition would surely be a convenience, as it would
allow additional garage space, a more inviting front entryway, and additional floor
area in the master bedroom. But, the property already supports a single family home
with an attached two car garage. Therefore a variance is not necessary to preserve
substantial property rights, they already exist.
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 proposed remodeling would result in a home that is only 27 feet tall that would
maintain all minimum setback requirements. Therefore surrounding properties
would not be negatively impacted.
106 Lakeside Dr
Page 5
However, holding properties along the St. Croix River to 20% impervious coverage is
important to the integrity of the river. No net increase is important as is a solid
surface water runoff plan and conscientious installation of those water treatment
improvements according to current best practices.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Recommend that the City Council approve the requested variance.
2. Recommend that the City Council deny the variance.
3. Table the variance request until additional stormwater treatment information has
been submitted to the City Engineer and DNR for review.
In most instances, the Planning Commission is authorized to make a decision on variance
requests. However, since this property is located within the St. Croix River Overlay District,
the Planning Commission's role in this case is to forward a recommendation to the City
Council.
RECOMMENDATION
If the surface water runoff from all impervious surfaces in excess of 20% can be mitigated to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Department of Natural Resources, and there is
no net increase of impervious coverage on the property, then staff would recommend
approval of the variance with the following conditions:
1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community
Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval.
2. A surface water runoff mitigation plan must be submitted to the City Engineer and the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and found satisfactory by both prior to
consideration of the variance request by the City Council.
3. An erosion control plan must be submitted to the City Engineer and found satisfactory
before any earth work begins, or a building permit is issued. Furthermore, an erosion
control installation inspection must be scheduled with the City Engineering Department
and found satisfactory prior to beginning any earth work on the property.
4. The exterior colors of the entire home shall be limited to earth tones. The specific earth
tone colors must be specified by the property owner and approved by the Community
Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit.
cc: Paul Larson
Molly Shodeen, DNR
Attachments: Zoning and Location Map
Plot Plan
Applicant's Narrative
Exterior Elevations
96
9154 9098
9033
I 9090
9
2278 2280 2326
®- -COURT (y 2216
2276 j 11 2210
.�W 2285 A,
O JQ 2230
00 ?2P 00
O 0
14440 14490 2263 �v 22
y. 2248 2220 78
—_ 2260 0 2240 "0
2202 2250 2202
°F < <wp0p 2270 y
Rpq°
0
NpRrh
14491 ,�
y /ctiy.
jA1 51 4
428
3
W ALDER ST E ALD R ST R ST
203 305 202 !410 21 2023
2012 N 2012 - 2018 i 2021 W 2021
2 13 06 17
p 2017 2015
2016 ¢ 2011 2011
=zoos
° 2007 w zoos
110 122 222 324 m g
225 Z
w EAST HAZEL STREET
ST HAZEL
W 101 1917 1924 w 1921 'fl 1921 j 124
1910 Z 1914 K } 102 > 101 0
1910 �n 0 1915 1912 v~i 1911 0 122
w = 104 103 w
1913 1907 �? 1905 1908 120
K ,I 1901 2q 300 06 105
1902 0 900 S– EAST WILL( 107 ¢ 118
1801 7 1819 125 A 188 Larson lot Q 116
812
0 1813 1816 16 z
O 110 114
1802 ° 1806
104 Z 1801 308 '° 102
w 1802 Z ".;
WEST POPLAR STREET REET
1723 305 1 22
1721 1710
1 5 1
RIVER HEIGHTS DRIV 2
1615 6 1621 �I
h N'
1 11 w 101
101
� w
w
aW 1605 1606 N 160 5
N ID E LA D E i
0 1575 1524 i 6
zoz
0 I 22
W 1511 512 I 1511
I 1505
�' 1505 1504 I 1503
0 4
Z I
I
I
ter
a
Case 2012 -15
Larson Variances
Location & Zoning
Zoning Districts
A -P.. Agricultural Preservation
RA - Single Family Residential
RB -Two Family
TR, Traditional Residential
- LR, Lakeshore Residential
CR, Cottage Residential
- CTR, Cove Traditional Residential
- CCR, Cove Cottage Residential
CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential
- —� TH, Townhouse
RCM - Medium Density Residential
RCH - High Density Residential
VC, Village Commercial
CA - General Commercial
® CBD - Central Business District
-� BP -C, Business Park - Commercial
BP -O, Business Park - Office
BP -I, Business Park - Industrial
IB - Heavy Industrial
® CRD - Campus Research Development
PA - Public Administration
PROS - Park, Recreation or Open Space
® Public Works Facility
ROAD
WATER
M
0
s
Q,
d
Driveway
Foot print of
existing house
_•
Deck
F--7
W
a Case 2012 -15
a) Larson Variances
Cn
a�
Plot Plan
J
Existing Home
Paul and Kelly
106 Lakeside Drive
Stillwater, Mn
Home Remodel
Watershed Retention Plan
Garage Addition
Second Story Master Bedroom & Media Room
April 18, 2012
Paul & Kelly,
Currently, your lot size is about 11,412 square feet. Your home foundation footprint with
entry is 1,742 square feet, adding 168 square feet, drive is about 800 square feet, deck is
another 672 square feet, making these three impervious surfaces 3382 square feet, or 29%
of your lot size, exceeding the 20% limit for impervious surfaces, if 100% is applied to
the ratio. Zoning requires a limit in your area of 20% impervious.
Here is my site plan modification list:
1. Modify the grade area under the deck, removing any plastic underlayment fabric
and replacing the rock liner with permeable fabric.
2. Cut your drive about 10' above your gutter, on the high end of your utility
easement, and install a trough and grate to collect 640 sq.ft, or all of your upper
drive runoff, deflecting that into your northeast collection garden.
Figure your total roof collection grid by adding gutters around the entire
perimeter, and your square footage house collection estimate is 2322 sq. ft., 1678
sq. ft. of which collects to the north two corners. This total rainfall is collected for
use on site.
a. Add four 300 gallon rainwater collection containers, two under the deck, and
two on the garage corners behind lattice screening or fencing.
b. Dig in three deep bioretention areas on the north lot line as shown. These would
be dug 3' -4' deep, and filled with a mixture of sand, mulch, and topsoil. Another
more shallow collection area would be dug along your south sidelot, developing
the area between your pervious deck lining and large existing maple trees.
I'll sketch these on a site plan for zoning review. Your impervious area now not
mitigated is reduced to the 10'x16' drive apron.
Michael Lamont
I 1AA
t/� t
` N E 9 I W. T 1 f P I n O F N, N N F ti a 6
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: May 8, 2012 CASE NO.: 2012 -16
APPLICANT: Paul Larson
LANDOWNER: Mike Lynskey
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for Restaurant
Parking Variance
LOCATION: 116 S Main Street
ZONING: CBD, Central Business District
HEARING DATE: May 14, 2012
PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
SPECIFIC REQUEST
1. A Special Use Permit to operate a pizza restaurant at 116 S Main Street.
2. A variance for 6 parking spaces.
BACKGROUND
Paul Larson plans to convert the current space leased by Alesci Furniture Gallery at 116 S Main
Street to a wood -fired pizza restaurant. The 1,750 square foot space would offer eat -in or carry
out pizza that is prepared quickly in a wood -fired oven. The preparation process is fast enough
that it would be able to service a lunch or dinner crowd.
Since the 25' x 70' space would be changed from a retail use to a restaurant use, the parking
demand would increase. The increased parking demand in the downtown parking district is
compensated through the purchase of monthly parking passes for the downtown parking lots.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
Special Use Permit
Restaurants are allowed in Downtown Stillwater by Special Use Permit (SUP). Sec. 31- 207(d) of
the City Code states that a SUP can be approved if the Planning Commission finds that:
Quickfire Pizza
Page 2
(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 - Quickfire Pizza is planning to lease the 1,750 square feet of space at 116 S
Main. At the rate of one parking space for each 120 square feet of space, the use
would need 15 parking spaces. The most recent use of the space was retail, which
required one parking space for each 200 square feet of space, or 9 spaces. Therefore
the proposed change in use will generate the potential need for 6 more spaces. Since
the required spaces cannot be provided on site, a variance has been requested and is
discussed below.
Comprehensive Plan
The Local Economy chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Page 7 -4)
"encourages small locally owned business particularly in the downtown ". Since
interstate commerce laws are clear that Cities may not prohibit "chain" stores or
"franchises ", most Cities whose goal it is to encourage local business find ways to
discourage but not prohibit these stores. Stillwater's approach has been to include
language in the Downtown Design Manual (Page 7) stating "trademark buildings
are prohibited ". Focusing on architectural compatibility with our historic
downtown is legitimate, while at the same time it discourages franchises that insist
on their incompatible trademarks. Since Quickfire Pizza will use existing historic
building space, the proposed restaurant improvements are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed.
Architectural design - Other than signage, no exterior changes are proposed. For the
exterior signage, a design review application will need to be submitted to the Heritage
Preservation Commission for review and approval.
Miscellaneous
• Building permit plans will need to be approved by the fire marshal and building
official prior to issuance of a building permit for interior remodeling.
• Since the use is a change from retail to restaurant, a Sanitary Sewer Access
Charge determination will need to be made by the Metropolitan Council. This is
initiated by the applicant submitting a "Determination Letter" to the appropriate
Metropolitan Council staff.
• 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.
• No outdoor seating shall be permitted on Main Street.
(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.
Quickfire Pizza
Page 3
Variance
As mentioned above, based on the change of use, the proposed Quickfire Pizza Restaurant
needs an additional six parking spaces to meet the Zoning Code standards. However, the
building within which Quickfire would relocate has no on -site parking. 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 new 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 applied under these circumstances is that the business owner would be required to
purchase monthly parking permits. In practice, the permits are used by employees or the
business owners. This encourages the employees to park in lots that are a little further away
from the business, allowing closer free parking to be used by customers.
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 business owner be required to
buy six monthly parking permits.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A. Approve the variance and Special Use Permit requests with the following conditions:
1. Building permit plans must be approved by the fire marshal and building official
prior to issuance of a building permit for any interior or exterior alterations.
2. The applicant must submit a Sewer Access Charge Determination Letter to the
appropriate Metropolitan Council staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. Any changes to the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director. Any major changes must go to the Planning
Commission for review and approval.
4. No outdoor seating is permitted on Main Street.
5. Prior to installing any exterior signage, a design review application must be
submitted to the Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval.
6. The business owner must purchase six parking permits each month to
compensate for the deficit in on -site parking.
B. Deny the requested Special Use Permit and variances. With a denial, findings of fact
supporting the decision must be provided.
C. Table the request for additional information.
Quickfire Pizza
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative A.
Attachments: Location map
Application materials
cc: Paul Larson
Mike Lynske
-tckir
April 20th, 2012
Quickfire Pizza is requesting a Special Use Permit for a restaurant located a4 VSouth Main St Stillwater
MN 55082.
Concept
Quickfire Pizza in Stillwater will be the first permanent location for this company which currently
operates a wood -fired pizza concession trailer at fairs, events and festivals all over the region. Quickfire is
a quick serve restaurant concept serving
• Made -to -order individual pizzas
*Wood-fired to perfection
In 90 seconds.
Downtown Stillwater has very few options for a quick bite to eat. Our restaurant will provide busy
downtown workers a new and tourists alike a unique meal option. Quickfire is modeled after Subway
restaurants' ability to provide fresh ingredients, made -to- order, in a very short amount of time.
Quickfire's key to success is the unique ability to provide a made -to -order and delicious pizza in less than
90 seconds. Quickfire has developed a system which uses only high - quality products including a specific
crust and specific fresh, frozen, cooked or raw toppings that can be assembled in 30 seconds. Once
put into the 1,000 degree wood -fired oven, each pizza is cooked to perfection in only 60 seconds. The
time from ordering to delivery is under two minutes, and each customer gets a personal pizza, with the
ingredients of their choosing, all starting at a $5.99 price point.
Ordering & Preparation
When a customer steps up to the Quickfire counter they are greeted by a prep chef who will assemble
each pizza with the exact desired ingredients. Each pizza is made while patrons are walked down the line
of ingredients — similar to a Subway. There will be two prep chefs allowing for up to four pizzas per
minute going into the wood -fired oven.
Cooking
Once assembled, the oven chef places the pizza into the 1,000 degree oven which cooks each pie to a
perfect, crispy, golden -brown in just 60 seconds. While the pizza is cooking, customers will pay at the
cashier station and receive a cup to fill their own fountain drink.
Delivery
By the time the customer has filled their drink, their pizza will be coming out of the oven. It is then cut
and handed to them on a tray with their side salad. The entire time it takes to order, prep, cook, and pay
for a pizza is less than two minutes.
Al
The Pizza
Whether dining in or carrying out, every customer is guaranteed a consistent, delicious pizza every time.
Using specially prepared ingredients and uniform crusts, each pizza can be topped to order and cooked
consistently in 60 seconds. Robust sauces, the meatiest meats and fresh veggies top a thin and crispy crust
that has been a proven hit at fairs and festivals all over the state. Our current menu has 25 pizza choices
plus a build your own option. The 9" pizzas range from $5.99 to $7.99 and you have the option of a side
salad and drink combo.
Dine -in or Carry -Out
Customers will have the option of dining with in the restaurant or getting their pizza to -go in our carryout
boxes. Customers can even place orders online and have them ready for quick pick -up. This is a quick
service concept as opposed to your more traditional sit down style restaurants. Customers will come
up to the counter for their food and then seat themselves afterwards as well as clearing their own table
afterwards.
Hours of Operation
Quickfire will be open 7 days a week serving primarily to lunch and dinner crowds. If the opportunity
arises we have the ability to serve late night crowds as well as breakfast pizzas in the morning.
Modern Decor
The Quickfire restaurant will have a very clean modern feel inside a very classic space. Keeping with the
modern theme, LED accent lighting and digital menu boards will be used. These digital boards keep the
clean, modern look and provide the ability for quick changes to the menu and daily specials.
Cooking Equipment
The only piece of cooking equipment used is the wood fired oven itself, there are no fryers, grills or other
type of oven. The oven will be vented through the roof in the area of the building that is single story.
Transformat,
The space ate S'A'th Main was most recently used it salon. The transformation will include
building a new counter in the area ere the e ' g counter is, removing their bathroom and changing
rooms and creating a food prep area e all of our refrigeration will be located and build 2 new
handicap accessible restrooms. T ood floo rick walls and sheetrock ceiling will stay as well as the
recently upgraded HVAC, w heaters and electrica ervice. The transformation will be more of a face
lift and adapting the room it our needs.
Thank you for your consideration, we look forward to doing business in Downtown Stillwater.
Paul Larson
106 Lakeside Dr
Stillwater MN 55082
612.723.2790
paul@alchemysoundandvision.com
APPLICANT: Christopher Durant
PROPERTY OWNER: South Upton Properties
REQUEST: A special use permit for outdoor seating on a roof top deck and a
variance to the parking requirements.
LOCATION: 215 Main St S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use
ZONING: CBD - Central Business District
PC DATE: May 16, 2012
REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City PlannerA
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow outdoor seating for the First
National Green Room. The building is a two -story building along Main St S; however,
the rear portion along Water Street is only a one -story building. The patio will be
situation on the one -story section of the building. Since no on -site parking would be
provided for the restaurant expansion, a parking variance is also needed.
Due to constraints within the building code, the applicant has agreed that they will limit
the size of the deck to 450 square feet in size.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
In order to add the roof top deck, the applicant will need the following approvals from
the Planning Commission:
1. A special use permit for outdoor dining.
2. A variance the parking requirement (4 spaces required /0 provided).
1
215 Main Street S
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 - The rooftop deck is 450 square feet in size. At the rate of one
parking space for each 120 square feet of space, the use would need 4 parking
spaces. Since the roof is currently a non - habitable area no parking credit for
the space is provided. Therefore the proposed change in use will generate the
potential need for 4 more parking spaces during the summer. Since the
required spaces cannot be provided on site, a variance has been requested
and is discussed below.
(2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed.
Architectural design - On May 7th, the HPC reviewed and approved the design
review request.
Miscellaneous
• Plans will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building
officials before the issuance of a building permit. Specific issues are listed
in the conditions below.
• 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.
(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.
t
215 Main Street S
Page 3
Parking Variance
As mentioned above, based on the change of use the proposed roof top deck, the First
National Green Room will need an additional 4 parking spaces to meet the Zoning
Code regulation. However, the building within which the First National Green Room is
located has no on -site parking. 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 new 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 applied under these circumstances is that the business
owner would be required to purchase monthly parking permits. In practice, the
permits are used by employees or the business owners. This encourages the employees
to park in lots that are a little further away from the business, allowing closer free
parking to be used by customers.
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 property or
business owner be required to buy 4 monthly parking permits.
Liquor License
A question concerning the type of liquor license that the application held was raised by
Commissioner Spisak in relation to a different rooftop patio that was considered last
month. Due to that staff will take a moment to discuss this for the benefit of the entire
Commission. According to the City Clerk, currently all of the liquor license in the City
are "restaurant with liquor" with the exception of the Harbor Bar which has a "full bar
liquor license ". To be eligible for a restaurant with liquor license a business must have
a minimum of 60% food sales and not more than 40% liquor sales. This 60/40
requirement is the same standard that was established a year ago to have an outdoor
patio in the Village Commercial zoning district.
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 June 18, 2012 and the next Planning Commission meeting is
scheduled for June 11, 2012.
215 Main Street S
Page 4
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. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission.
2. The applicant shall submit a SAC determination letter prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
3. The application shall submit plans on the roof top deck certified by a structural
engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. Plans shall be approved by the city engineer, building inspector and fire marshal
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. The applicant shall receive all appropriate Washington County Health Department
approvals.
6. The applicant shall revise their liquor license with the City of Stillwater prior to
serving alcohol on the rooftop patio.
7. The property or business owner shall purchase 4 monthly parking permits to
compensate for deficit in on -site parking between May 1St and October 31St each
year.
S. Rooftop deck (excluding walkways) shall be limited to 450 square feet.
9. Drinks of all types are permitted on the roof top patio; however, no physical bar
shall be located on the rooftop. A ice station with water and non alcoholic
beverages is permitted on the rooftop patio.
10. The edge of the patio shall be no closer than 3 feet to the building edge.
11. No smoking shall be permitted on the roof top patio.
12. No amplified music shall be permitted on the roof top patio.
13. Food and beverage service for all customers on the outdoor patio shall cease at 10:30
pm daily. All customers shall exit the outdoor patio area by 11:00 pm daily. The
permit may be reviewed annually by the Community Development Director in
consultation with City Public Safety Departments to consider increasing the hours of
operation on the rooftop patio to 12 midnight daily. Hours beyond 12 midnight
requires Planning Commission approval.
14. No glassware or glass bottles shall be available on the roof top patio.
15. There shall be no waiting area on the roof top patio.
16. This special use permit shall be reviewed before the Planning Commission and City
Council for possible revocation or amending the conditions of this permit if
substantial verified complaints, safety issues, or violations of the conditions of this
permit are received by the Community Development Director.
attachments: Applicant's Form, packet, and location map
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM Case No:
Date Filed
Fee Paid:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Receipt No.
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
ACTION REQUESTED
Special /Conditional Use Permit Zoning Amendment*
— Variance Planning Unit Development
Resubdivision Certificate of Compliance
Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment
Comprehensive Plan Amendment'
a
"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 requires City Council review then a
total of twenty -eight (28) copies are required to be submitted. Review the Checklist to the Planning Administration
Application Form for the complete list of required items that must be submitted. Any incomplete application or
supporting material will cause Your application to be rejected by the City Required - Applications will be rejected
without a legal description. A legal description is found on the deed to the property. Attach as an exhibit if
necessary.
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 S, a 1 lfe 6 Assessor's Parcel No L-� /.fL� f I.63 012-
(GEO Code)
Complete Property Legal Description" ? ca CAc'e -,k 'co'
(`Required - Applications will be rejected without a legal description) Tax descriptions and property descriptions from
the county are not acceptable.
Zoning District Description of Project by.1 Q- dLLkM0;--1+-
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify 1 will comply with the permit if it is granted and used. "
Required
Property Owner ryl t�
Mailing Address r } '� b(
City- State -Zip JY inne.6,p01 S Mini SSga�
Telephone No. �0 t `( Q, i
If other than property owner
Representative
Mailing Address -2)5- S, (r-N c n S�
City - State - Zip (�;� e (I,.. A�`� llr) iy �-
Telephone No. Co 5 1 3U F- la t ()
Email Email
Signature
.� Signature
(Signature is required) (Signature is required)
C: \DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \SWIEGAND \LOCAL SETTINGS \TEMPORARY INTERNET
FILES\ CONTENT .OUTLOOK \K6SUFJRY\PIANAPP.DOCX July 22, 2010
To whom it may concern:
The intention of us adding a patio is to give our diners an outdoor seating option for the
few months we have in Minnesota to enjoy a good meal outside. The area we intend on
building it is a 23x41 foot roof off of the back of our restaurant. It would be a second level patio
blocked on one side by the neighbors 3rd floor (Brines), the back of it would an entrance to the
dining area of the Green Room, to the left is the roof of the Salon, and in front is a nice view of
the river and bridge. We would like to put a very small service bar in the corner, just big
enough for our wines by the glass, bottled beer and basic cocktails. It would be a full service
dining patio. We would offer our full menu for both lunch and dinner. It would be nonsmoking.
The area is (in my option) a perfect spot for a quiet meal with a good view. I believe this
location is ideal in preserving both the historic nature of downtown and showcasing the
beautiful waterfront and Lift bridge of Stillwater. We would like to call it the Lift Bridge Patio.
Classy trendy food and a nice glass of wine with a great view!
We do not feel that this will impose any compatibility problems with our neighbors. You
are unable to see the patio from Main Street, you cannot see it from any residences on the hill.
The right side of it is a stone 20 foot wall. The back is our restaurant, the left is an empty roof
with a three story building on the other side of that and the front is a parking lot. The
neighbors on either side have no opposition to us building this patio.
In closing we would like to give people one more reason to visit our beautiful downtown
Sincerely
First National Green Room
t
i`"+
ON
� =�
,��' °�
��` ,'
'�°�
4h yE r�
'��'
�� �` �-
�, F,�, ��,:, _ vQ �,
;�
��
.)EAST STOREFRONT ELEVATION
1 nor ,
3/16" = V -0"
the green room
215 south main street
Stillwater, mn 55082
5/1/12
SIDEWALK PLAN
3/16" = V -0"
the green room
215 south main street
stillwater, mn 55082
5/1/12
i
ya r I
F
X W
e`wr�
INt
•r
y
\ i \
±r \ s \
1
1
i
I
I
I
I
LlL�
1
1
r
J
r W,
1
� � t
ryfR �
' t _
_,i
i���lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ONE W-0-mmumm"
C
d
r
.
71! .raaUtz imhi
.�
... ......
-f
Memo
Community Development Department
To: Planning Commission
From: Michel Pogge, City PlanneI4
Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Re: Planning Case 2012 -08:
A special use permit for outdoor seating on a roof top deck, a
variance to the parking requirements, and a variance to the
maximum allowable height.
Message:
Staff has been discussing and reviewing this request with the applicant. At this time,
these discussions are not complete. Due to this, staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission table action to their June 11, 2012 meeting in order that staff can
resolve a few outstanding items.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Table action to the June 11, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.
From the desk of...
Michel Pogge, AICP - City Planner - City of Stillwater - 216 N. 411, Street - Stillwater, MN 55082
651.430 -8822 • Fax: 651.430 -8810 • email: mpogge @ci.stillwater.mn.us