Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-11 CPC PacketCITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, June 11, 2012 7 p.m. The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, June 11, 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 May 14, 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 -20. A variance to the front yard setback for the construction of a porch located at 921 7th Street South in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Matthew Hall, applicant. 4.02 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. Continued from the May 14, 2012 meeting. 4.03 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 May 14, 2012 meeting. 4.04 Case No. 2012 -12. A ordinance text amendment regarding Chapter 27, Section 27 -3 the "Keeping of Bees ". City of Stillwater, applicant. 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. OTHER BUSINESS 6.01 Discussion on Marina Ordinance. 7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2012 Chair Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: Mike Dahlquist, Eric Hansen, Mike Kocon, Chris Lauer, Anne Siess and Scott Spisak Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Aron Buchanan, Cameron Kelly and Mike Rodriguez Mr. Hansen, seconded by Mr. Spisak moved approval of the April 9, 2012, minutes. Motion passed unanimously, with Mr. Kocon abstaining. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request, which, he noted, involves three variances — 2 variances to the front yard setback and a bluffline variance. He stated the applicants are in the process of converting the home from a four -plex to a single - family residence and are restoring many of the features of the original home, including the front porch feature. Mr. Pogge reviewed the three criteria for consideration of a variance and stated staff finds that all three criteria have been met. He noted that one recommended condition of approval is that prior to issuance of a building permit, a licensed surveyor locate the east property line so the new garage maintains a three - foot minimum setback from that property line. There was a question as to whether retaining the old garage and foundation to stabilize the bluffline was a condition for permitting the new garage; Mr. Pogge said the applicant wants to have it remain and that could be added as a condition of approval if the Commission so desired. On a question by Mr. Kocon, Mr. Pogge explained the required side yard setbacks, noting side yard setbacks vary according to zoning districts and whether the structure is attached or detached. The applicant was present. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kocon said he would have no problem with the variance for the front porch as it is in keeping with the original architecture of the home and would not have a problem with the other two variances given the physical circumstances of the property. Mr. Buchanan said he thought the location of the garage represented a good compromise. Ms. Siess, seconded by Mr. Spisak, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. 1 l 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. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. Regarding the parking regulations, Mr. Pogge said staff believes there is a hardship due to the physical constraints of the property. He noted the downtown parking district was established to provide an alternative to meeting parking requirements and it is the recommendation that the property /business owner be required to purchase 22 monthly parking permits. Regarding the flood fringe permit, Mr. Pogge explained there are a number of conditions that must be met; he reviewed come of those conditions, including the required elevation of the building's first occupied floor, including basements, and elevation for vehicular access. He said both of those conditions are met with these plans. Mr. Pogge stated the building official and himself met with the applicant in April to review plans and believe the applicant is meeting all the flood plain and flood - proofing provisions required by Minnesota State Building Code and the City's flood plain ordinance and approval of the flood plain fringe conditional use permit is recommended. He pointed out the conditional use permit must be approved by the City Council and noted there are five recommended conditions of approval. In discussion, it was pointed out there were previous buildings on this site; Mr. Pogge said the applicant is proposing to model this new building on one of the former buildings, the Peaslee Building. It also was noted plans had been reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Mr. Spisak asked about plans that indicate a patio space and whether that would be a separate issue that would come before the Commission at a later date; Mr. Pogge responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hansen asked whether the City is reaching a point where it is selling more parking permits than available spaces; Mr. Pogge stated there are approximately 2,000 available spaces so that is not an issue. Mr. Kocon suggested while there still may be plenty of available spaces now, at some point in the future, the use of those spaces for variances may be taking up spaces needed for customers; Mr. Pogge said he could provide a spread sheet of that information at a later date if desired. Mr. Pogge said at present, he believes that are about a total of about 200 variance - related parking space permits. Mike Hoefler of HAF was present. Mr. Hoefler asked what impact possible use of the first floor space as retail versus restaurant would have on parking requirements and when parking permits would have to be purchased. Mr. Pogge said the permits would be purchased based on actual use, with 22 being the worst case scenario. He explained the parking requirement calculation for retail space; he said the requirement would be 16 spaces for retail use and suggested that condition of approval 5 be amended to reflect the possible use as retail. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist said he looked closely at the flood plain issues and thought what was being required was reasonable; Mr. Spisak agreed and said requiring that the building be raised further might make it look out of character to adjacent buildings. Mr. Kocon moved to recommend Council approval of the flood fringe conditional use permit as conditioned and to approve the parking variance, noting that the number of required parking permits may be reduced to 16 if there is retail use. Mr. Lauer seconded; motion passed unanimously. 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. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings related to the three criteria for consideration of a variance. He noted that due to the location of the existing house and the topography of the property, it would be difficult to meet the required setback; it also was noted the property to the south has a garage located in the same setback as requested by the applicant. However, Mr. Pogge pointed out staff believes the proposed size of the new garage is too large — three - stall, 972 square feet — and is recommending that the size be reduced to 648 square feet. Mr. Kocon talked about a possible reorientation of the garage on the property; Mr. Pogge noted that would require cutting into the slope on the property. Mr. Spisak mentioned an inconsistency in the provided drawings regarding the interior wall height, noting that one drawing indicated a height of 14' and another 10'. The applicant was present. Mr. Brown stated the height will be about 14'; he also briefly talked about his desire for additional space. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. Nancy Klitzke, 420 Linden St., stated she has a three - car garage and said she didn't think the applicant's plan would be detracting from anything. She spoke to Mr. Brown's efforts in cleaning up the property and said she thought the plans would be a positive move. A member of the audience asked about the width and whether there would be a loft above. Mr. Brown said the garage would have a three -stall width, with no loft. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Hansen said he thought a 24x24 garage is a minimum size and said to go smaller than that could dictate what kind of vehicles people drive; he said this is a very large lot, code specifies that up to 1,000 square feet is allowed and said he thought a three -car garage would be perfectly acceptable in this zoning district. Mr. Dahlquist said he is concerned about the massing, noting that the variance provides for a setback that is only 15' from the front lot line; he said the proposal is for a tall garage with not a lot of architectural details to break up the massing. Mr. Brown said he didn't know that the height would be an issue, saying requirements he read indicated that a garage could be no higher than the height of the house; he said he could probably reduce the height to as low as 10' but that would require changing the grade of the entire back yard; he mentioned some possible drainage issues. Mr. Spisak said he had some issues with the height; he noted the proposed garage would be much higher than an adjacent garage. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out the house has a lot of architectural details and said he didn't think the proposed garage fits with that; he again noted the garage would only be sitting 15' from the lot line. Mr. Pogge said according to code, in the RB District, a garage can be no more than 20' in height; he said staff would have a concern with the 14' wall, which he said he did not catch in reviewing the plans. Mr. Dahlquist said he would be in favor of tabling so the applicant can address some of the expressed concerns. Mr. Kocon said the issue for him is the massing; he said if it is a lower building in the proposed footprint, he could accept that. Ms. Siess asked Mr. Pogge whether 3 there is a lot of consideration given to architectural detailing; Mr. Pogge said that is part of the variance consideration but said he thought there was more flexibility in this case as it is a corner lot and a large lot. Mr. Spisak said he thought the applicant was entitled to some variance, but said he had an issue with the height and massing. Mr. Dahlquist moved to table this application, directing staff to work with the applicant to address the concern regarding the massing of the building to mitigate what is currently presented as a very large, flat surface, very close to the street. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. 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. Mr. Pogge reviewed the requested variances, side yard setback and impervious surface coverage. He noted the existing garage would be demolished as part of the application. He also pointed out the applicant owns the lot to the south, which would allow the new garage to be constructed in the desired location and still remain on their property; however, he said that raises issues if the property to the south is sold at some point in the future. In reviewing the criteria for consideration of a variance, Mr. Pogge stated while a two -stall garage is a reasonable use, a two -foot setback from the side lot line is not reasonable due to maintenance issues; therefore, he said some modification to plans to provide a five -foot setback, the minimum setback for an attached garage in the RA District, does seem warranted. Mr. Pogge concluded that staff recommends denial of the request for a two -foot side yard setback; if the setback is increased to five feet, staff would recommend approval with the condition that prior to issuance of a building permit, a mitigation plan to compensate for the excess impervious coverage be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. Laurie Swanson was present. She noted the existing garage doesn't meet the five -foot setback; she said if not allowed to go closer to the property line, they will lose a good portion of their backyard. She stated if they sell the other property in the future, they would give themselves an easement so they could maintain the garage. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist said he had looked at the property and said he didn't think the requirement for a five -foot setback was unreasonable, considering the existing garage nearly has that setback. Mr. Kocon pointed out staff is willing to accept the five -foot setback which would be required for an attached structure versus the 10' for detached structures; he noted meeting the five -foot setback could be accomplished by moving the garage or reducing the size of the garage and said he saw no reason to go against staff's recommendation for the five -foot setback. Mr. Spisak agreed with Mr. Kocon's comments; Ms. Siess said going against staff recommendations would be setting a precedent. Mr. Hansen concurred that two feet is probably too close to the property line. Mr. Kocon moved to approve as conditioned, with the setback increased to five feet. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion. Mr. Lauer wondered if the applicant could obtain the necessary easement prior to construction of the garage so a setback variance wouldn't be needed. Mr. Pogge stated that could be done through a minor subdivision, a staff approval item; he said Mr. Turnblad did have that conversation with the applicant. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out the applicant still has that option regardless of the Commission's action. Motion to approve with the minimum five -foot setback and as conditioned passed unanimously. e Case No. 2012 -15. A variance to the side yard setback and impervious surface requirements for an addition to garage and 2nd floor and adding a 2nd floor to the house located at 106 Lakeside Drive in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Paul Larson, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. Because this property is in the St. Croix Overlay District, he noted there are a number of requirements beyond what a typical variance would require. Mr. Pogge reviewed the pertinent 13 standards. In consideration of the regulation regarding prevention and control of water pollution and sedimentation, Mr. Pogge stated it is the recommendation that a surface water treatment plan be submitted to, and approved by, the City Engineer and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, prior to consideration of the request by the City Council. He noted that this is a non - conforming lot but was developed prior to the adoption of the City's river overlay regulations. He concluded that staff believes the variance request is reasonable, but believes some mitigation should occur; he stated it is also staff's position that no additional impervious surface be allowed and that the applicant mitigate the runoff from the existing impervious coverage to the 20% maximum allowed in the overlay district. Mr. Dahlquist clarified that the only variance being sought is the variance to the impervious surface requirements; all setback requirements are met, he noted. Mr. Hansen asked whether the deck was included in the calculation of impervious surface; Mr. Pogge said decks are considered impervious surfaces, regardless of the material, and was included in the calculations. Mr. Kocon said he thought the applicant's proposed mitigation plan looked very aggressive; Mr. Pogge said the drawings don't provide the calculations needed to accurately determine whether the plan meets the mitigation requirements. Mr. Pogge said that is an engineering issue and the City Engineer can meet with the applicant's architect to make sure the plan meets requirements; he said from staff's perspective, staff would be comfortable with the Commission, should it so desire, recommending approval to the Council with the condition that the City Engineer approves the mitigation plan before it is presented to the Council. In discussion, Mr. Pogge stated the DNR has indicated it will not accept any additional impervious surface, so the alternative is to eliminate the proposed addition or eliminate some other impervious surfaces, such as parts of the driveway, along with other mitigation efforts to offset the proposed addition. The applicant was present. Mr. Larson talked about a rain disposal system his builder is proposing to mitigate 100% of both rooflines; he said they would replace the material under the deck with a pervious material and would be able to mitigate 80% of the runoff from the driveway. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kocon suggested the decision is really up to the experts, if the plan doesn't work, the proposal doesn't happen. Mr. Dahlquist noted this approach is similar to what the Commission has done with previous requests in the Lakeside Drive area. Mr. Pogge clarified that replacing the material under the deck will not be considered as mitigation — part of the deck, part of the addition or part of the driveway will have to be removed. Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Spisak pointed out that will be resolved in discussions with the DNR and City Engineer. Mr. Spisak moved approval with staff's recommended four conditions. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. 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. 5 Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He noted that since the space is being converted from retail to restaurant use, both a special use permit and parking variance are required. He reviewed the requirements for a special use permit for a restaurant in the downtown area. He noted the change from retail to restaurant use requires additional parking spaces and stated there is a recommended condition that the applicant participate in the downtown parking district and purchase six monthly permits to meet the parking requirements. He said staff is recommending approval with the six conditions listed in the agenda packet. The applicant was present and briefly explained his business proposal. Regarding the number of required parking permits, Mr. Larson pointed out there will never be more than 4 employees on site at one time and wondered if there was any leeway in that requirement; Mr. Pogge stated parking space is based on both customer and employee needs and said the requirement is the same for all users. Mr. Pogge stated the spaces can be purchased from the City or a private party. Ms. Siess asked whether the wood -fired oven requires any additional fire safety measures. Mr. Larson said he had met with the fire marshal already regarding that issue; he explained that this will be a self - enclosed oven with a built -in class 2 hood, with no need for sprinkling or any other additional measures. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Hansen moved to approve as conditioned. Ms. Siess asked if alcohol would be served; Mr. Larson said at this point no, but they will be looking to obtain a beer and wine license. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. 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. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He noted the plans were reviewed by and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission and have received preliminary approval by building official and fire marshal; he said a conditional of approval is that final plans be approved by engineering, fire and building officials. He stated approval of the special use permit and parking variance are recommended with the 16 conditions listed in the agenda packet. Mr. Spisak asked if the stairway is on the applicant's property and not the right -of -way; Mr. Pogge said it is located on the property, verified through a survey the applicant was required to have done. Mr. Spisak asked if the condition regarding service ceasing at 10:30 p.m. was consistent with other outdoor establishments downtown. Mr. Pogge said staff is concerned with rooftop patios and wants to be sure the initial approvals are done correctly; he said after one year, that issue could be revisited and hours may be extended until midnight without requiring another public hearing according to the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Pogge noted the applicant has agreed to limit the rooftop deck space to 450 square feet. He explained that staff has been having conversations with the state building inspector regarding accessibility issues; he said according to state regulations, if an establishment serves no more than 31 people, it does not need to be an accessible space; limiting the rooftop space eliminates the need to install an elevator. On a question by Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Pogge addressed the intent of the condition related to the edge of the deck/patio being no closer than 3' from the building edge; he said this is a condition recommended after conversations with a number of jurisdictions that have had experience with the rooftop decks and is designed as a protection for pedestrians. Mr. Dahlquist asked whether the 3' setback would apply to the north elevation where a privacy wall will be created and asked about the material of the privacy wall; Mr. Pogge said the privacy wall will likely be a lattice structure or mesh material that can be removed in the winter and noted that will be part of the structural review. Mr. Dahlquist asked about the condition prohibiting use of all glassware; Mr. Pogge said that is the result of conversations with the other jurisdictions with experience in such areas and is a condition requested by the Police Chief. Mr. Siess asked about capacity; Mr. Pogge stated based on 450 square feet, the capacity would be 30 people, including staff. Mr. Pogge also explained the reason for the condition that there be no physical bar located on the rooftop is also due to safety concerns and a desire to slow the pace of consumption. Mr. Spisak asked about the use of the roof of the adjacent north building; Mr. Pogge stated there is no current use, with the stairway serving as a second means of egress for apartment units. On a question by Mr. Lauer, Mr. Pogge stated the conditions have been reviewed by the applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Durant said he thought all of the conditions were pretty reasonable and a starting point for the new venture. He spoke of the issue of accessibility and the desire to possibly add another handicapped - accessible outdoor dining area, a patio raised 5' above the sidewalk, in the future. He said he understands this is unchartered territory for the City and said perhaps some of the conditions can be revisited in the future. Ms. Siess spoke of an environment concerns if service is limited to paper and plastic; Mr. Durant said they would not be using anything that is disposable as it is economically not feasible. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. Larry Cramer, owner of Rafter's, said he has been working through some of these same issues with staff. He said the conditions don't necessarily lend themselves to creating a fine dining experience, but he said it makes sense to allow time to see if things go OK, after which time, the conditions might be revisited. A person who has a business in the front portion of Mr. Cramer's building said he agreed that these folks should have a chance to see this work and hopefully become a positive experience; he said he was supportive of the basic concept. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. There was a question regarding review of the special use permit, whether the applicant could request that. Mr. Pogge said staff is open to future review of the applications to amend or change conditions as needed. Mr. Kocon spoke in favor of the concept of outdoor dining and asked about the closing time, whether it was something required of other establishments in the City that offer outside dining. Mr. Pogge said he did not believe any of the other at -grade dining options have a set closing time; he said staff's concern was with noise, with an elevated area this close to the bluffline, noting there are a lot of complaints received relating to noise from outdoor dining areas in the downtown. Mr. Pogge noted that condition includes the option for review and possible increase in the hours of operation to midnight. Mr. Kocon said he was not in favor of the restricted time of operation, suggesting it should be a condition of the establishment to ensure that patrons are respectful regarding noise. Mr. Dahlquist said he thought it appropriate to learn from places who 7 have done this before and incorporate measures those entities have taken to address issues; he said he was optimistic that there would be some opportunity for adjustments moving forward. Mr. Dahlquist questioned whether the 450 square foot limit was a building code issue; Mr. Pogge spoke of issues related to accessibility laws and mentioned some possible language change to that condition that would protect the City and provide flexibility to the applicant if there are some considerations that might enable him to provide additional space. Mr. Durant said he had spent a lot of time reviewing the accessibility code and according to code, as long as he supplies an equivalent dining area /experience that is handicapped - accessible, the rooftop area wouldn't have to be handicapped accessible because it is not a new construction and is in an historic building. Ms. Siess talked of a concern for wait staff going up and down the stairs and asked whether there was a requirement for lighting; Mr. Pogge said that would be reviewed by the building official and fire marshal. Mr. Kocon asked whether condition No. 7 would prohibit the opening of the outdoor dining area prior to May 1 should weather permit; Mr. Pogge responded in the negative. Mr. Dahlquist expressed a concern about the wording of condition No. 10; Mr. Pogge suggested adding wording that the patio shall be no closer than 3 feet from the east building edge. Mr. Spisak noted there is nothing in the conditions related to the screening wall on the north elevation; Mr. Pogge said that is part of their plans and will have to be completed and reviewed by the building official. Mr. Spisak said he liked the fact that this patio will be located on the lower roof of the building and is protected and shields noise from the bluff neighborhood; he said he agreed with staff starting out by limiting the operations, stating he thought it easier to amend conditions later and be more permissive later than to try and rein in an operation if excessively permissive in the beginning. Mr. Lauer agreed with those comments. Ms. Siess moved to approve as conditioned. Mr. Dahlquist noted the suggestions to modify condition No. 8 to include a statement that refers to the purpose of the square footage -- due to building code restrictions on building accessibility- - and clarifying condition No. 10 to refer to the east edge of the building. Ms. Siess said her motion includes those modifications. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion; 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. Continued from April 9, 2012 meeting. Mr. Dahlquist stated staff has indicated that discussions are continuing with the applicant and has requested that this be tabled for another month; he asked Mr. Pogge about the 60 -day deadline for action. Mr. Pogge stated the 60 -day timeframe would end the day after the meeting and said a letter will be issued extending that for an additional 60 days, which is permitted under state statute. Ms. Siess asked about the primary issues involved. Mr. Pogge stated staff has met closely with the applicant and said, for the most part, all of the issues have been resolved. However, he said issues have arisen regarding the state building code related to accessibility; he said restricting this project to 450 square feet would make it economically unfeasible and the suggestion was made to the applicant that the request be tabled so alternatives can be looked at. Mr. Cramer said most of the issues discussed at the last meeting have been resolved and said he agreed with the suggestion to table to see if there are options for dealing with the accessibility issue as it would be economically unfeasible for him to do the project if occupancy would be limited to 30 people, noting he has already agreed to limit that to 48 people. Mr. Cramer also stated it is unlikely that he would start the project until next spring if approvals are received. Mr. Spisak, seconded by Mr. Kocon, moved to table this application until the June meeting. Mr. Kocon, seconded by Mr. Hansen, moved to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. 9 Planning Commission 1 DATE: May 9, 2012 June 7, 2012 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 1 HEARING DATE: 14- 241-? June 11, 2012 REVIEWED BY: Community Development Director CASE NO.: 2012 -19 PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner Note: Changes to the May 9th report are shown is legislative format. 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.l BACKGROUND Tim Brown would like to demolish the existing single car garage on his property at 407 Linden 1 St W and replace it with a new 36-28 foot wide by 27 34 foot deep 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 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. Brown /Tessier Variance Page 2 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. 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 36-28 feet wide by 27 34 feet deep for a total of 972-952 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. The revised garage plan is less dominant and appropriate in this case. and reduced to a two car gara; • _a All other code requirements including total lot coverage and garage height 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. Brown/ Tessier Variance Page 3 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 the 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. 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? Last month, the applicant requested A a variance to allow 36 foot wide garage facing a street would which staff felt was not be-in harmony with many of the basic purposes for the side yard setback requirement for garages. Reducing the wide of the garage facing the public street helps reduce the impact of the garage and allows it to fit s better in the streetscape of the City's smaller lots. 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. 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. 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 approval. part with the following conditions: ess specifically modified by other conditions of BC. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. GB. Table the request for additional information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval Alternative BA. Attachments: Site plan of proposed garage Site plan of recommended garage location Application materials cc: Tim Brown 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: 0)--/q Date Filed: Fee Paid: ` %`i ',2 Receipt No.: Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment VS? *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. Address of Project PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Lk) 7 Irh LiZcifk 51- tJ Assessor's Parcel No. 2�- 0.30, C ZQ 0105- O Code) Complete Property Legal Description* �v f 1 t5h Z® 1of 02 - 1/2 fo 03 (*Required — Applications will be rejected without a legal description) Tax descriptions and property descriptions from the county are not acceptable. i� i 11 / Zoning District Kb Description of Project 1� 1tA�. lr�,JA IOC ��nv � MOVV°L � � (.20u' -1-00 - of c pv - ltAt_ &w -- i onc_. "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 !i wt ,.6iroiJ Mailing Address q07 1,J 61- City - State — Zip 6h11 ct.f P mk, 35081 Telephone No. &51 303 o23 Email Signature If other than property owner Representative Mailing Address City - State — Zip Telephone No. Email Signature (Signature is required) I,/ (Signature is required) C \DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \SWIEGAND \LOCAL SETTINGS \TEMPORARY INTERNET 'ILES\ CONTENT .OUTLOOK \K6SUFJRY \PLANAPP.DOCX July 22, 2010 12 28' 10' erieral _.,t Efev No f 2 Gc. o {6 /f s 1 “nd Mom >flt I1 V6/20' Sti A 4,6011.490 MI11.11.11111t ir,� S 3' (5" 34' 23' 3' -6" 34' • r 0 10' 23' 0 34' 18 feet Garage Door with 8 foot height 23' Planning Commission DATE: June 7, 2012 APPLICANT: Matt Hall CASE NO.: 2012 -20 REQUEST: A 10.6 foot variance to the required 20 foot front yard setback for the construction of a porch LOCATION: 921 7th St S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR - Low /Medium Density Residential ZONING: RB - Two Family Residential PC DATE: June 11, 2012 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner L° DISCUSSION Matthew Hall owner of 921 7th St S is in the process of renovating the property. As part of the work he is planning to add a front porch on the existing home. The original home was constructed in 1874. The home currently is approximately 16.8 feet from the front property line. The new porch is proposed to extend 6.5 feet off the front of the home toward 7th St S. This will leave the porch 10.3 feet from property line, which equates to a 9.7 foot encroachment into the required front yard setbacks. 1 Note that the property line is approximately 1.5 feet east of the sidewalk. The applicant assumed that the property line corresponded with the edge of the sidewalk, which is not the case. That is why there is a discrepancy between this report and the applicant's letter to the Commission. 921 7th St S Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to allow for the applicant to proceed with the project as requested, they need approval of a variance from City Code Section 31 -308 (b)(1) which requires a 20 foot front yard setback (10.3 feet requested). In this case, the applicant is requesting approval to encroach 9.7 feet into the required front yard setback in order to construct the porch. 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? Since open porches were a common feature of our historic housing stock, it seems reasonable to allow an open porch on this property. Additionally, since the porch will be setback more than the adjacent property the request seems reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The location of the home makes it impossible to locate a porch on the property and meet the required setback which creates the unique circumstance. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The landowners did not cause placement of the home in its current location. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? Even with the new porch, several of the surrounding homes will in fact be closer to 7th St S than this home and porch. Additionally, adding the porch will in fact improve the character of the neighborhood; thus, it will not alter the "essential character" of the locality. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? Adding a porch to the property enhances the home's appearance thus adding a porch is not the lone economic consideration. 921 7th St S Page 3 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 purposed of the front yard setback is to maintain adequate air and light on this and the adjacent properties along with avoiding a situation where one home becomes dominant on the overall streetscape. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? A variance that allows a porch that encroaches into to the front yard would not be out of harmony with the zoning code. 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. 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 porch is an allowed use of the property. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requested variance to encroach 9.7 feet into the required front yard setback. With an approval staff would recommend conditions of approval listed below. 2. Deny the requested variance to encroach 9.7 feet into the required front yard setback. 3. Continue the public hearing until the July 9, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. The 60 -day decision deadline for the request is July 19, 2012. 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 variance to encroach into the required front yard setback shall be limited to the porch as shown on the site plan date stamped May 21, 2012 as on file in the Community Development Department. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance as presented. Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and exterior elevations. PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Special /Conditional Use Permit "S.. 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 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 C{Z I 74rt-i S . Soot l-1 Assessor's Parcel No. 3 3 ,O:2) 0 .20 - 12 Ct 1 6 (GEO Code) Complete Property Legal Description* L4c i S Zz= 23 c>ica CA-turf-Ai J L. ,I k) `, ScAutti- tTE,►:s ►=tear Vi L..,)i4ZD� ( *Required — Applications will be rejected without a legal description) Tax descriptions and property descriptions fr7 n the county are not acceptable. 'Oi ,0 041-he . Cgui.C.i.ii LC. D -(L r 5LiVel Et i o17 tE z. 3iocL._ 10 c s, r iy [�� 5..431) � iGIL) Cif, oq1 )may..' Zoning Districts , ,0 t Description of Project Orld ill aj c CC1/43Cet)) lict.oLA Poa i4 "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. 1 further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Required If other than property owner Property Owner XrfAit.3,0 1I4L� Representative Mailing Address 5i e O«xAs S4 .110 Mailing Address City - State — Zip `31 <C ;} ✓ Mik-) City - State — Zip Telephone No. 2 -346- 17 OZ. Telephone No. Email iY1hCct I22i h.o t . C (WN Email Signature (S Signature s required) (Signature is required) S: \PLANNING \FORMS \PLANAPP.DOCX January 10, 2012 Vot-tati, , pe4-1-4 ikkauLvLecc -Qitz.GZU ( Lakis' .,.1.04 tv Ls:4 evus11.. co_ pa:v:1A_ - aqi 0111-C" ektfi YUL fLA- r) 141:1--) L33,1-j, ktA (SL cL 5XJ ZU- LD fr\ 2 24QA,I,U,S) ptdi.A.A.k ax, v,,At kikk -L. Case 2012 -20 921 7th St S J 0 15 30 1 inch = 30 feet I Feet 60 City of Stillwater, MN Community Development Department 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651 - 430 -8820 — 651 - 430 -8810 fax "5774,4k=" ts-rtt,...Ausa7.„.1.r !I I 1- 7 : I 7, 7-7 p It ti rt. t ft.'t tt t; ff ' , — tt tt 71 tk tt t, • ' - i1.jLflj. • 1 • .S"°' #.. -22 ALL. to" ovs .5-1.412 \)-xaot- s-11°Lic.:170,3 , 3:4 tfti 42,Y tlrf h,or-A4 <ivy, Design #: 41741 04/26/2012 Illustration intended to show general deck size and shape. Some Options selected may not be shown for picture clarity. Today's cost for materials estimated in this design with options: $1 686 05 You may buy all the materials or any part at low cash and carry prices. Because of the wide variable in codes, Menards cannot guarantee that materials listed will meet your code requirements. Check with your local municipality for plan compliance and building permit. These plans are suggested designs and material lists only. Some items may vary from those pictured. We do not guarantee the completeness or prices of these structures. Tax, labor and delivery not included. The base price includes: 40 PSF deck live Load, AC2 2x6 deck boards in horizontal direction, AC2 4x4 framing posts, precast concrete (1 bag) footing, AC2 2x8 joists and beams with two feet cantilever, galvanized framing fasteners and joists hangers, and premium deck board screws. Tax, labor and delivery not included. *(Base Price): $745.32 * * *If purchased today, you save: $87.58 * ** ** *Monthly BIG Card Payment would be: $10.00 * ** liF . `,,,�. s Memo Community Development Department To: Planning Commission From: Michel Pogge, City Planner Date: Thursday, June 07, 2012 Re: Message: 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. The applicant is revising their plans, which are not complete at this time. They have requested that their applicant be tabled until the July meeting. They have also approved an extension to the review deadline to September 15, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Table action to the July 9, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. From the desk of... Michel Pogge, AICP • City Planner • City of Stillwater • 216 N. 4th Street • Stillwater, MN 55082 651.430 -8822 • Fax: 651.430 -8810 email: mpogge@ci.stillwater.mn.us Rafters 317 S. Main St. Stillwater, MN 55082 June 5, 2012 Michel Pogge City Planner City of Stillwater City Hall 216 N. 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: Planning Commission Case 2012 -08, Special Use Permit for Outdoor Dining Dear Mr. Pogge: Pursuant to our conversations this letter is our formal request for providing a 60 day extension to the referenced case. This is needed as all items necessary for a final design approval are still not complete. Please grant extension until 9/15/12. If you have any questions regarding this matter, do not hesitate to call me at 612- 817 -7414. Thank you. Sincerely, Larry R. Cramer cc Brian Larson iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE O F MINNESOTA s 1 DATE: June 6, 2012 TO: Planning Commission REGARDING: Beekeeping Ordinance HEARING DATE: June 11, 2012 AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND On April 17, 2012 several hobby beekeepers asked the City Council to consider amending the City Code to allow more beekeeping to occur in Stillwater. Currently the City allows one beehive on a property if that hive maintains a 500 foot setback from all property lines. Given the relatively small lots in Stillwater, the 500 foot setback essentially precludes beekeeping in the City. The City Council directed staff to conduct research on beekeeping standards and regulations in other Cities. The research was brought back to the City Council on May 1St. The Council found that the research merited a public hearing to determine if Stillwater should adopt new beekeeping regulations. Therefore, staff was directed to draft an ordinance and initiate the public hearing process. REQUEST Staff requests the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing, receive and consider public comments, and make a recommendation on the attached beekeeping regulations. DISCUSSION Hobby beekeeping in an urban setting has become an increasingly popular discussion amongst Cities in the United States. In some Cities new ordinances have been adopted that balance the desires of hobby beekeepers with the desires of neighbors. Neighbors are primarily interested in minimizing potential bee Page 2 of 5 nuisances. In other Cities these discussions have led to a decision not to allow beekeeping in town. Pros and Cons of Urban Beekeeping There are many benefits from allowing hobby beekeeping in urban settings. Some of them are: 1) honey produced from urban nectar is less likely to be linked to chemicals associated with commercial agriculture - first the specific chemicals used by urban gardeners are different that rural agri - businesses and second the chemicals applied by urban gardeners are often applied in the evening after work when bees are not foraging; 2) they support necessary pollination for urban vegetable, fruit and flower gardeners; 3) the hobby provides a means for families to connect to nature in their back yards. There can also be negative aspects if an apiary is not managed well. These can include: bees at a neighbor's pool (or other water feature); bee swarms; aggressive bees; a bee flight path that interferes with a neighbor's use of property. If managed properly, these negative aspects can be minimized or eliminated. • Bee colonies that are established in a yard that already has a close, reliable, water source will get their water from within the apiary; not from the neighbor's pool. • Swarming can normally be prevented if colonies are closely and properly managed. • Aggressive bees can usually be avoided if the colonies are managed properly. This includes, among other things using only European honeybee queens that are purchased from breeders who have a good track record of providing docile queens. • To encourage a flight path that does not interfere with a neighbor's use of property, hive placement is critical. In Minnesota and in several other states and countries, hives are recommended to be placed at least 25 feet from all property lines. After that distance, bees tend to be flying at an elevation that is not a problem for neighbors. In a few states 50 feet is the recommended hive setback distance. For both setback distances a provision is often offered for hive placement closer to a lot line. To be closer a flyway barrier is required. A flyway barrier is (usually) a six foot tall obstruction. This could be a wooden privacy fence or a dense vegetative barrier. Bees fly above the barrier and continue on that flight path. Though not incorporated into the attached draft ordinance, some Cities have adopted other standards to further minimize the likelihood of nuisances. If desired, Stillwater could consider these as well: Page 3 of 5 • Minimum beekeeping training and classes required from certified programs. If minimum training is required, also requiring a City permit for beekeeping is probably advisable. • Specific water source standards adopted to assure water does not run out during the day, or if beekeeper goes on vacation. • Security fencing to discourage neighborhood access to apiary. • Re- queening: Some Cities recommend or require that a colony be re- queened every two years at the longest. Not only does this tend to reduce chances of hive aggressiveness, it keeps productivity higher and reduces hive infections. • Allow an extra temporary hive if the resident beekeeper is using it to capture swarms that may be found on other properties in the City. The hive could be allowed to house the captured swarm for up to 30 days while a host apiary can be found to relocate them. If the City chooses to allow this extra swarm control hive, then the City should require a beekeeping permit. Upon complaint an enforcement officer could simply check the permit file to see if the beekeeper is allowed to have a swarm control hive. • Provisions of the ordinance shall not prevent the City from destroying bees or a bee colony in the event that there is an immediate need to protect the public safety. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to: (1) A bee colony not residing in a hive structure intended for beekeeping; (2) A swarm of bees that leaves the apiary; or (3) A colony residing in a standard or man -made hive which, by virtue of its condition, has obviously been abandoned by the beekeeper SUMMARY OF TYPICAL REGULATIONS A matrix summarizing the ordinances of Cities that provided information, as well as information from the Planning Advisory Service of the American Planning Association is found below. For reference purposes, Stillwater's regulations are included in the matrix as are the regulations and standards of the Hobby Beekeeper's Association (HBA) Model Ordinance. City Permit Neighbor consent Hearing Hive setback Fence Flyway barrier Colony density Notes Lindstrom Yes No If requested by neighbors 10' Yes Yes' <0.5 ac = 1 .5 - .75 ac = 2 .75 -1 ac = 4 >1 = 82 A, B, C, D, E, F Centerville Yes Yes' No 25' No No 3 hives max; .5 ac min lot Bloomington No No No None No No 1 ac per hive G St. Paul Yes Yes No None Yes Yes 1 hive per 2,000 square feet of lot F, G, H Minneapolis Yes Yes If requested by neighbors None' Yes Yes' <0.5 ac = 2 .5 - .75 ac = 4 .75 -1 ac = 6 >1 = 82 B, C, D, E, F, J Allen Park, MI Yes No No 10' No Yes 2 B, C, H, Belvidere, IL Yes No No 50' No Yes$ <.25 ac = 3 >.25ac =6 B, C McFarland, WI No No No 20' No Yess Not specified B, C Racine, WI Yes No No None No Yes` Not specified B, C Stillwater (current) No No No 500' No No 1 hive maximum Stillwater (proposed draft) No' No No None4 No Yes1 <0.5ac =2 .5 - .75 ac = 4 .75 -1 ac = 6 >1 = 8 g C, D MN Hobby Beekeeper's Model Ord. No No No None4 No Yes] <0.5 ac = 2 5 .75 ac = 4 .75 -1 ac = 6 >1 = 82 B, C, D, E Notes: See next page 1 Unless hives are more than 25 feet from lot lines, then no flyway barrier is required. 2 One more hive allowed temporarily if the resident beekeeper provides swarm services in the City. 3 100% of abutting residents. 4 No minimum lot setback, but if a hive is less than 25 feet from lot line, a flyway barrier is required. ` 75% of residents within 150' of applicant's property lines, or proof that the applicant's property lines are 150' or more from any structure. 6 80% of residents within 100 feet of applicant's property lines and 100% of residents immediately adjacent to applicant's property lines. 7 Hearings only if there is an alleged violation of the ordinance by a beekeeper. d Unless hives are more than 50 feet from lot lines, then no flyway barrier is required. ' No minimum lot setback, but if a hive is less than 50 feet from lot line, a flyway barrier is required. 10 The apiary operation does not require a permit, but selling honey on the residential property require a Home Occupation Permit. Page 5 of 5 A. Hives can be in rear yard only. B. Bees must be kept in hives with removable frames. C. A convenient source of water must be maintained as long as bees are active outside of hive. D. No wax comb or other material that encourages robbing by other bees may be left on the grounds. E. For each hive (colony) permitted, one nucleus colony (but only one) is also permitted. F. Self - latching fence at least 10 feet from hive area and five feet tall. G. Not allowed on multiple family lots (three or more dwelling units). H. "Warning Bee Hive" must be posted on fence. I. Beekeeper shall defend and hold City harmless against any claims arising from the beekeeping. J. Beekeeping training required. ORDINANCE NO. KEEPING OF BEES The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: 1) Sec. 27 -3 of the City Code entitled "Keeping of bees" is amended to hereafter read as follows: "Sec. 27 -3. Keeping of Bees. Subd. 1. Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section unless the context of their usage indicates another usage. 1.1 "Apiary" means the assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single location. 1.2 "Beekeeper" means a person who owns or has charge of one or more colonies of bees. 1.3 "Beekeeping equipment" means anything used in the operation of an apiary, such as hive bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards and extractors. 1.4 "Colony" means an aggregate of bees consisting principally of workers, but having, when perfect, one queen and at times drones, brood, combs, and honey. 1.5 "Hive" means the receptacle inhabited by a colony that is manufactured for that purpose. 1.6 "Honey bee" means all life stages of the common domestic honey bee, apis mellifera (African subspecies and Africanized hybrids are not allowed). 1.7 "Lot" means a contiguous parcel of land under common ownership. Subd. 2. Purpose of ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish certain requirements for beekeeping within the City, to avoid issues which might otherwise be associated with beekeeping in populated areas. a. Compliance with this ordinance shall not be a defense to a proceeding alleging that a given colony constitutes a nuisance, but such compliance may be offered as evidence of the beekeeper's efforts to abate any proven nuisance. b. Compliance with this ordinance shall not be a defense to a proceeding alleging that a given colony violates applicable ordinances regarding public health, but such compliance may be offered as evidence of the beekeeper's compliance with acceptable standards of practice among hobby beekeepers in the State of Minnesota. Subd. 3. Standards of Practice. a. Honey bee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames, which must be kept in sound and usable conditions. b. Each beekeeper must ensure that a convenient source of water is available within 10 feet of each colony at all times that the colonies remain active outside the hive. c. Each beekeeper must ensure that no wax comb or other material that might encourage robbing by other bees are left upon the grounds of the apiary lot. Such materials once removed from the site shall be handled and stored in sealed containers, or placed within a building or other insect -proof container. d. Each beekeeper shall maintain his beekeeping equipment in good condition, including keeping the hives painted if they have been painted but are peeling or flaking, and securing unused equipment from weather, potential theft or vandalism and occupancy by swarms. e. Each beekeeper is allowed to make in person sales of honey from the beekeeper's residence as long as the following standards are met: i. The beekeeper must live on the apiary lot; and ii. All honey sold in person on the residential premise must be produced by the beekeeper's hives that are located on the subject residential premise; and iii. No products may be sold in person at the residence except honey produced from hives on the premise; and iv. No outside storage or display of products or merchandise; v. No traffic that is greater than the residential level of the neighborhood; vi. No separate business entrance; vii. Only one sign, located on the apiary lot, with a dimension not exceeding two square feet; viii. Not more than 15 percent of the total gross floor area of the residence or 300 square feet, whichever is less is devoted to making, storing and selling honey; ix. No activity or equipment may be used that creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odor, or electric or television interference is permitted if it is detectable by adjacent neighbors; x. All beekeepers that are allowed to make in person sales of honey from their home according to the terms of this section must be registered with the community development director on a form provided by the city; and xi. No nonresident employees are permitted. Subd. 4. Colony density. a. No person is permitted to keep more than the following numbers of colonies on any lot within the City, based upon the size of the apiary lot: i. One half acre lot or smaller: 2 colonies; ii. Lot larger than half acre but smaller than 3/4 acre: 4 colonies; iii. Lot larger than 3/4 acre lot but smaller than 1 acre: 6 colonies; iv. One acre lot but smaller than five acres: 8 colonies; v. Larger than five acres: no restriction. b. In each instance where a colony is kept less than 25 feet from a property line of the lot upon which the apiary is located, the beekeeper shall establish and maintain a flyway barrier at least six feet in height. Subd. 5. Penalty for violation of section. Any person who shall violate the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this day of , 2012. CITY OF STILLWATER Ken Harycki, Mayor Attest: Diane F. Ward, City Clerk THE B I NTH ►LAC E OF MINNESOTA Planning Commission Report DATE: June 7, 2012 CASE NO.: 2012 -20 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater REQUEST: Discuss Amendment That Would Allow Marinas in RB District BASE ZONING: RB, Two - family Residential District OVERLAY ZONING: St. Croix River Overlay District PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director REQUEST Discuss an amendment to the RB, Two - Family Residential Zoning District to allow marinas on the St. Croix River by Conditional Use Permit. BACKGROUND Marinas are allowed in the St. Croix River Overlay District. But, they are not allowed in any of the City's base zoning districts. Therefore, they are not a permitted use in the City. Each existing marina operates under a grandfathered Conditional Use Permit. So, they are legal operations, but they are all non - conforming operations. Legal non - conforming uses are allowed to continue to operate as they do, but they are not allowed to build major expansions. They are also prevented from implementing substantial business changes that impact the way the land is used. In addition, if a marina owner wishes to sell the business, it is often difficult to convince a banker to approve a loan for a non - conforming property. In order to remove the non - conforming status of the marinas, an ordinance amendment is necessary. The amendment approach preferred by the marina owners is to leave all of the properties zoned RB as they currently are, and amend the RB Zoning District to allow marinas by Conditional Use Permit. Their existing use permits would continue to be valid, no rezoning would be necessary, and their non - conforming status would be removed. CURRENT STATUS OF MARINAS . As mentioned above, all existing marinas within Stillwater are legal, but non - conforming uses. Marina Regulations Page 2 a. The base zoning for all Stillwater marinas (and the St. Croix Boat & Packet) is RB, Two - Family Residential i. Since about 2004 marinas were not permitted in the RB zoning district. ii. Until 2004 a Conditional Use Permit could be issued for any use the City Council thought appropriate within any zoning district in the City. All four of the current marinas, and the St. Croix Boat & Packet, were issued Conditional Use Permits under this provision. iii. The provision was struck from the City Zoning Ordinance in about 2004. Since that time, a land use must be specifically listed in a zoning district's use table as "permitted" or "allowed with Special Use Permit" or the use is prohibited in that zoning district. iv. Consequently, in 2004 all of the marinas became "grandfathered" legal non- conforming uses. b. All riverfront properties also lie within an overlay zoning district known as the "St. Croix River Overlay District ". This overlay district allows marinas with a Conditional Use Permit. i. When there are conflicting regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, the most restrictive regulation applies. Therefore, even though the overlay district allows marinas by Conditional Use Permit, since the RB zoning does not allow them, they are prohibited ii. Grandfathered uses are allowed to continue, but they are generally not allowed to expand or substantially change their property usage. CURRENT REGULATIONS There are a number of jurisdictions that regulate the marinas along the Sr. Croix River. The two that have jurisdiction for the land use activities associated with marinas are the City and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. As seen in the regulations from the City and DNR below, the City defers to the State rules for marina performance standards. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31 (Zoning), Section 31-401 (St. Croix River Overlay District) Subd. 11. Marinas. Marinas in the St. Croix River overlay districts shall be regulated as follows: (a) New and /or expanded marinas may be allowed (b) New marinas must meet the design standards of the state department of natural resources regulations, including Minnesota Rules part 6105.0410, subpart 2. (c) Permit requirements. No construction or development associated with a marina may begin until all of the following authorizations have been obtained by the applicant: (1) Marinas are a conditional use in the St. Croix River Overlay District. (2) For uses and structures above the ordinary high -water mark associated with a marina, a public hearing must be held by the city council to consider a marina as a conditional use in accordance with the state department of natural resources regulations including Minnesota Rules part 6105.0530. The city council may approve Marina Regulations Page 3 or deny the marina on the standards of the state department of natural resources. If the city council approves the marina, final issuance of the local permit must be conditioned upon granting of all state and federal permits required by the state department of natural resources including Minnesota Rules part 6105.0410. State of Minnesota Administrative Rules 6105.0410 MARINAS. Subpart 1. District location. New marinas may only be allowed between the Boomsite Highway Wayside and Stillwater and downstream from the northern city limits of Stillwater in urban districts. Subp. 2. Design standards. New marinas or marina expansions may be permitted only if they are in the public interest, their size does not exceed the resource limitations of the site, and their design involves utilization of existing harbors in the watercourse or construction of harbors landward of the watercourse. The design of a marina shall allow for screening between the harbor and the main channel of the watercourse so as to make marina facilities visually inconspicuous in summer months as viewed from the river. An alternative to use of the water surface for new marinas or marina expansions could be the provision of drydocking facilities for the storage of boats during the open -water season. Subp. 3. Permit requirements. No construction or development associated with a marina shall begin until all of the following authorizations have been obtained by the applicant: A. Land authorization. Marinas must be listed as a conditional use in a Saint Croix Riverway ordinance. For uses and structures above the ordinary high -water mark associated with a marina, a public hearing shall be held by the local authority to consider a marina as a conditional use in accordance with part 6105.0530, subparts 2 to 5. The local authority may approve or deny the marina as a result of the public hearing. If the local authority approves the marina, final issuance of the local permit shall be conditioned upon the granting of all state and federal permits required for a marina. B. Water authorization. (1) Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.245 requires a permit from the commissioner to change the course, current, or cross - section of public waters wholly or partly Marina Regulations Page 4 within the state in the Saint Croix Riverway by any means, including, but not limited to, filling, excavating, or placing of any materials in or on the beds of public waters. (2) Under section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and /or section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, a permit for structures and /or fill is also required from the Army Corps of Engineers. (3) If the local authority grants the conditional use permit, then prior to the issuance of a permit required by Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.245 for the construction, reconstruction, or expansion of a marina in the Saint Croix Riverway, the commissioner may hold a public hearing as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.311. (4) Preservation of existing screening, or the establishment of adequate screening shall be a primary consideration of the commissioner in reviewing marina permit applications in the Saint Croix Riverway. Aesthetic incompatibility with the purposes of these standards and criteria shall be adequate justification for denial of a permit application by the commissioner. (5) Shoreline protective structures authorized by permit, such as rock riprap revetments, shall be of natural earth color tones so as to be visually inconspicuous from the river. (6) Below the ordinary high -water mark in the watercourse outside of harbors, no permanent pilings, piers, docks, levees, jetties, breakwaters, or the like shall be authorized for marinas. C. Sanitary authorization. All fueling and sanitary facilities associated with a marina shall conform to applicable standards, criteria, and rules of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and any applicable local government regulations in terms of location, size, construction, use, and maintenance. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS City staff suggests that the City continue to incorporate the State marina rules by reference into the St. Croix River Overlay District regulations. But in order to remove the non - conforming status of the existing marinas, staff recommends adding marinas as an allowed use with a Conditional Use Permit in the RB Zoning District. In addition, the Planning Commission may want to consider specifying which accessory marina uses would be acceptable. This can be done in one of two ways. 1) Simply state that customary accessory marina uses are allowed. a. This option could include a requirement that the accessory use must be approved by the Planning Commission and specifically listed in the Special Use Permit. b. Alternatively, this option could simply allow customary accessory uses as a right of marina operation. If there is a question whether a particular accessory use is customary or not, the issue could be required to appear before the Planning commission for a decision. 2) Create a list of acceptable accessory uses. Marina Regulations Page 5 a. If the Planning Commission wishes to take the list approach, staff would suggest asking the marina owners and operators what they would like to see in the list. Staff would then ask the DNR to review the proposed accessory use list and thereafter bring it to the Planning Commission for discussion. SPECIFIC REQUEST Staff requests that the Planning Commission decide: 1) Whether the City should continue the current practice of incorporating State marina rules by reference, or whether the City should create its own; and 2) Whether customary accessory marina uses should be specifically listed or allowed generically. cc: Marina Owners Molly Shodeen, DNR Attachments: Marina maps • • • fffffffffffffff I I i • I • `. ,/ ,`. / ss, , N ., , i , ,%ss i 1I,`� / ,%\ / • 1 1 r c414 111111 /111rt IM ill �Illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Dutchtown Marinas 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. Rec or Open Space Public Works Facility ROAD WATER 1 2030 City Limits June 1,2011 u 1 rrr • 1 ter t t I �° t % I �- ..rrrr t ' - t t ,.r t t t • t \$ \t t I • i11watr d • T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F MINNESOTA Downtown Marinas 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 -0. Business Park - Office BP -I. Business Park - Industrial IB - Heavy Industrial CRD - Campus Research Development PA - Public Administration PROS - Park, Rec or Open Space Public Works Facility ROAD WATER EA 2030 City Limits • t • rr, • ♦ t \ .rrrr • t • It _1 .� rrrr • • — , t r • t .rr'r'r!' t • t , •.. 1,\ t 1,, June 2011 ..... • "water , . ''' "1 I� ;Y . THE Bi RTH VLACE OF MINNESOTA %— % Sunnyside Marina 1 � • ♦�.;� — Zoning Map ° - - -= `• t F _ ,. ,. DCity Limits � a � ♦ A -P, AgricuRural Preservation 1� , ♦ ♦?" RA- Single Family Residential / ; RB - Two Family ♦♦ t TR. Traditional Residential A ♦ `�, nta LR, Lakeshore e I R. aRsdI ♦♦ Coe T Traditional Residential �~` „` ♦♦ . ♦ CCR, Cove Cottage Residential • �'� Ls CTHR. Cove Townhouse Residential ♦♦ - TH. Townhouse ® RCM - Medium Density Residential ♦�, t RCH - High Density Residential -♦C♦ VC. Village Commercial 1 • - CA - General Commercial 1 _ CBD - Central Business District 1 ♦ BP -C. Business Park - Commercial t - BP -O. Business Park - Office •.. BP -I, Business Park - Industrial - IB - Heavy Industrial _ CRD - Campus Research Development ?`. SO PA- Public Administration ,`, ;, PROS - Park. Rec or Open Space •` �,�, Public Works Facility I ROAD WATER • • •`,, 1 •. ; `; June 2011 1 ■ ' i �_ ! —..., , \ ..� I i %, ' , 1 11 11 i i. 1 1 1 «: t 1 � 1 1 , I 1 • 1\ % I; • / 1 11. - • ■