Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-13 CPC PacketCITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, August 13, 2012 7 p.m. The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, August 13, 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 July 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 -25. A zoning text amendment regarding Chapter 27, Section 27, for the keeping of chickens in the City of Stillwater. Tisha Palmer, applicant. Continued from the July 9, 2012 meeting. 4.02 Case No. 2012 -26. A variance request to the steep slope setback requirements for the construction of a detached garage located at 107 Everett Street South in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mike and Wendy Johnson, applicant. 4.03 Case No. 2012 -27. A variance request to the side yard setback for a carport and stacked screened in porch located at 936 3rd Avenue South in the RB, Two Family Residential District. William and Jodi Defiel, applicant. 4.04 Case No. 2012 -28. A variance request to the required setback for an attached garage located at 317 William Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Shannon Mulvehill, applicant. 4.05 Case No. 2012 -29. A variance to the flood plain regulations for the renovation of restrooms located at 204 Nelson Street East in the CBD, Central Business District. City of Stillwater, applicant. 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Present: Mike Dahlquist, Mike Kocon, Aron Buchanan, Eric Hansen, Ann Siess, Chris Lauer and Councilmember Liaison Doug Menikheim Absent: Cameron Kelly and Mike Rodriguez Staff present: City Planner Intern Brian Finley, Community Development Director Bill Turnblad Chairman Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF JUNE 11, 2012 MINUTES Chairman Dahlquist reminded commissioners to state their names especially on motions and seconds for the new recording secretary. Commissioner Hansen requested a correction on page 2 to note that he was opposed to the fact that the applicant had to redesign, as he liked the original design as well. Also on page 5 where it stated that Commissioner Hansen said he would be against requiring a permit, it was not him because he was supportive of a permit. With corrections so made, motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Buchanan, to approve. All in favor. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2012 -22. A variance to the sign regulations for Early Childhood Education and Stillwater Junior High School located at 1111 Holcombe Street South and 523 Marsh Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Stillwater Area Public Schools, applicant. Community Development Director Turnblad explained that the school district wants to install seven directional signs. Six meet the maximum size requirement of 32 square feet for informational signs allowed for institutional uses. Five are around the perimeter of the property. The only sign larger than 32 square feet is the one at the ECFE building. The variance requested is to allow eight feet of additional signage. He presented drawings showing the proposed sign which is internal to the site. Staff recommends approval of the variance because it is internal. Dennis Bloom, director of operations for the school district, presented drawings showing where each of the signs will be located. He explained that the requested signs are consistent with others throughout the district. Because Courage Center and 916 are leasing property from the school district, the district felt a larger sign was warranted. The sign as requested would be three feet wider than allowed. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 Mr. Hansen asked what is the motivation is for the extra eight square feet? Mr. Bloom responded to have a presence in front of the building and keep the signs as consistent as possible. Mr. Hansen asked if the signs for the leasing partners could be on the building itself? Mr. Bloom said the district is emphasizing the partnership aspect, so separating the signs would make it look like they are separate entities. No public comments were received. The public hearing was closed at 7:22 p.m. Mr. Buchanan said he would support the request because it seems to be in scale with the development and it is internal. Ms. Siess expressed there is a reason for the ordinance and she feels the sign could be kept within the required 32 feet. She doesn't see a reasonable cause to grant the variance. Mr. Hansen said he likes the look of the sign packet, but agrees with Ms. Siess that there is a reason for the ordinance. He suggested considering the fact that the sign represents more than one entity. He asked if the signs for the partners could be put on the building. Mr. Hansen agreed with point made that aesthetically speaking, the consistent look makes sense, but more information is going on a sign that is within the limitations than the one that is the subject of the variance. Mr. Dahlquist asked Mr. Bloom if the sign is out of scale with the building? Mr. Bloom responded that the sign being a little wider goes better with the building versus a higher sign. Mr. Buchanan stated it looks like three signs even though it is on the same placard. He said it is like splitting hairs but does the city want to make the district put another post hole in the ground and split the signage by a foot or an inch? Chairman Dahlquist said what is proposed looks better and would have less impact than two separate signs would look. Mr. Hansen said he would lean toward approving the variance because it is internal to the property. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 Motion by Commissioner Buchanan, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve the request. Motion passed 4 -1 with Siess voting nay. She stated that it is not the city's problem to think of an alternative. Case No. 2012 -23. A variance request to the side yard setback for an addition located at 2632 Edgewood Court in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Jerad and Chloe Rasmussen, applicants. Brian Finley, city planner intern, explained that the applicants wish to replace the existing deck with a sunroom. Due to the orientation of the home parallel to the street, the home is at an angle to the side lot lines because it's on a cul de sac. The northeast corner of the home is approximately ten feet from the side property line. The new sunroom is proposed to extend ten feet off the back of the home and be flush with the east side of the home. Since the home is at an angle, the foundation of the new sunroom will encroach approximately four feet into the required side yard setback with the soffits encroaching an additional two feet. Therefore, a four foot variance to the side yard setback is requested to have the wall six feet from the lot line instead of ten. Mr. Finley said City Planner Pogge and he have spoken to the neighbor most impacted, who noted that she would gain privacy because the sunroom would not have a window facing her whereas the present deck is open. He added that staff didn't find a variance on file for the existing deck. Without a survey, it isn't possible to know definitively whether a variance would have been needed. Mr. Rasmussen shared that he and his wife bought the home about a month ago. The deck is very deteriorated and needs to be removed. He said they have talked to neighbors who are all OK with the proposal. There were no public comments. Commissioner Buchanan commented that there seem to be alternative ways to build the project in the same location without requiring a variance. Ms. Siess recognized that cul de sac lots are hard to work with. Mr. Dahlquist said the proposal looks reasonable. Mr. Hansen said you couldn't get less than ten feet and have a functional room. He said spaces that use the geometry of the lot often look like an eyesore. He doesn't mind approving the proposal. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve the variance. All in favor. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 Case No. 2012 -24. A variance request to the required setbacks, accessory structure regulations and impervious surface regulations for the construction of a garage located 719 Myrtle Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Eric Greeder, applicant. Community Development Director Turnblad informed the commission that Mr. Greeder is renovating the property in two phases: first, adding a wrap around porch on the front and side of the home with 140 square foot storage area under the porch, which is possible because of the sloping grade of William Street, and second, adding a 692 square foot garage which may not occur until next year. He showed graphics of the lot and proposed additions. Seven variances are requested: 1. A 2.8 foot variance to the front yard setback for an open porch (17.2' requested /20' required) 2. A 13 foot variance to the exterior side yard setback for an open porch (7' requested /20' required) 3. A 23 foot variance to the exterior side yard setback for an attached accessory structure (7' requested /30' required) 4. A 14 foot variance to the exterior side yard setback for a detached garage (16' requested /30' required) 5. A variance to the maximum allowable garage and accessory building size (832 square feet requested [692 square foot garage + 140 square foot accessory building] /576 square feet allowed) 6. A variance to permit a second accessory building that is over 120 square feet (140 square feet requested /120 square feet maximum allowed) 7. A variance to the maximum allowable building coverage (36.01 % requested /25% maximum allowed) Using the site plan, Mr. Turnblad walked the commission through the variances requested. Staff suggests that the space below the porch could be enclosed without a variance because the space is not a freestanding structure but is under the deck of the porch. Therefore, variances number three and six are not needed. Mr. Turnblad added there is no way to put a garage on the property without the variance. Staff is supportive of some type of a garage, but recommends denial of the variance for the larger- than - normal garage since the property is smaller than what would be required today for this zoning district. Instead, staff recommends allowing a 576 square foot garage which is a standard two -car garage. This would still be over the allowed impervious surface percentage, but staff believes it's reasonable to have a two - car garage. A mitigation plan for excess surface water runoff will have to be approved by the city engineer before a building permit is issued. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 Mr. Greeder told the commission that the garage requested, 692 square feet, would be only 117 square feet larger than allowed. Regarding variance number 5, the 140 square foot addition should not be counted in the impervious surface calculation because it is the storage area to be built under the deck. In lieu of having a garden shed, he would like to be allowed to add the 120 square feet onto the garage size instead. If limited to 576 square feet, he would not know how to reshape the garage to make it useful for his purposes. He pointed out it's a custom garage and to spend the money it needs to be a useable size. There were no public comments. Mr. Dahlquist recalled a previous applicant who was asked to redesign his garage because of the small size of the lot. With this project, the character of the garage seems to fit the site well, so it bothers him Tess. He added that he has no issue with the addition of the porch. Mr. Hansen said he understands the staff's position, but in a way it dictates the type of vehicles a person can drive. He feels the design is good and what is requested is a nice addition to the property. He supports the other variances as well. Mr. Buchanan stated he feels a 24 by 24 garage is doable. He supports the porch requests. Motion by Mr. Hansen, seconded by Mr. Lauer to approve five variance requests, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 with conditions: 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 open porch as shown on the site plan date stamped May 21, 2012 as on file in the Community Development Department; 3. A surface water runoff mitigation plan must be submitted to and found satisfactory by the city engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the garage. All in favor, motion passed. Case No. 2012 -25. A zoning text amendment regarding Chapter 27, Section 27, for the keeping of chickens in the City of Stillwater. Tisha Palmer, applicant. Community Development Director Turnblad reminded commissioners that the present ordinance requires a three acre lot size for chickens, but there are no three acre lots in the city so they are effectively zoned out. The request is to eliminate the minimum lot size and allow five chickens on any size property, and to allow up to eight chickens if a property is large enough or if all neighbors whose homes are less than 50 feet from the chicken enclosure agree to the extra chickens. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 Mr. Turnblad said staff has researched other cities and looked at the American Planning Association, Humane Society and agencies that work with urban farming. 188 square feet is recommended per chicken. Considering the backyards of typical RB zoned homes in Stillwater, five birds would be the recommended allowable number. He reported that staff recommends that five chickens be the maximum allowed. All enclosures also should be in backyards, the coop itself should meet accessory building setback of three feet from each property line, and design guidelines should be adopted for the enclosures, coops and pens. Staff also believes slaughtering of chickens on site should be prohibited, and chickens should not be allowed in all zones, only in selected zones. Mr. Turnblad clarified that because the proposed ordinance was drafted by a resident, the commission's task is to respond to that wording at present. Staff has reviewed the proposed ordinance, recommends changes in wording and is prepared to redraft the proposed ordinance and bring it back in a month if the commission desires. In response to a question from Ms. Siess about how many lots would meet the minimum if one acre were required, Mr. Turnblad said only a handful, and not any of those who made the request. He stated he has gotten mixed comments from the public. There have been slightly more in favor of allowing chickens in an urban setting, but others are concerned about nuisances such as smell, feed attracting rodents, and noise. If well managed, these concerns can be mitigated. Staff is comfortable using the Duluth ordinance as a model, but will look at additional items as well. Chair Dahlquist pointed out because one accessory structure is allowed, having a coop eliminates the possibility of also having a garden shed as worded currently. Mr. Turnblad explained that the 188 square feet recommended by the Humane Society is made up of the coop, the pen, and the supervised exercise yard. All needs to be fenced. Mr. Hansen asked if there are organizations that provide offsite slaughtering. Mr. Turnblad replied offsite processing is available. Tisha Palmer, 1115 First Street North, addressed concerns previously mentioned. From most of her research, the average noise a chicken makes is 70 decibels, only 10 decibels above average conversation and quieter than the average barking dog. Regarding cleanliness, she stated most people with urban chickens are for greener, more sustainable living. Chicken manure can be composted, virtually eliminating smell. She added that chicken feed will not attract rodents any more than dog food, fish in 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 outdoor ponds, birdbaths or hanging bird feeders common to many backyards. Ms. Palmer also presented a list of other major cities that allow chickens. Ms. Siess asked about other animals such as mink, wolves, coyotes, owls or bobcats that may want to eat the chickens and what might attract them. Ms. Palmer responded that the only problem she foresees is dogs roaming outside their own yards which she said isn't allowed in the city. Ms. Palmer said she agreed with the changes to the ordinance suggested by staff. She added that requiring a permit may convince residents who oppose chickens that chicken owners are responsible. She also said requiring some sort of certification of training is a good idea. Chairman Dahlquist opened the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. Brenda Goelti, 723 Sixth Street South, Stillwater, elaborated on ways to protect the chickens from stray animals that may want to get them. She also said there are chicken keeping classes and extensive web sites to be used as resources. There are different chicken sizes from small to large, some chickens are quieter than others, some are more cold - hearty than others. She has researched ways to keep chickens safe and warm during the winter without heating the coop with electricity. She has found native songbirds are much louder than chickens if there isn't a rooster present. Walt DeYoung, who lives on Square Lake, spoke in favor of allowing chickens. He recounted how he was raised on a large poultry farm in New Jersey, raised bees and horses in Bemidji, taught at Breckenridge and headed up a family farm project before becoming bridge tender at Stillwater. He took a class through a commercial chicken processing plant and said he would never recommend it. He said chickens grazing in the yard eating natural things are healthier than those commercially raised. Julia Sandstrom, 212 West Cherry Street, spoke in support of allowing chickens. She told the commission that chickens can be kept warm in a semi insulated coop, they make less noise than dogs, and their feed doesn't attract rodents as it has to be kept dry in a closed container. She said she believes for $5, people would be willing to license their chickens. Anybody who is going to raise chickens will take care of their investment and make sure they are safe in their yard. Tim McKee, 601 South Fourth Street, said for his family, the chickens are pets and a way to know better where their food comes from. He equated the ease of care to that of a cat. His family hasn't experienced a fowl odor at all, they store food in closed containers, and the chickens make less noise than dogs. He said they are very 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 maintainable pets. He said it's troublesome that chickens are allowed in many other cities but not Stillwater. Kyle Palmer, 1115 First Street North, spoke in favor. He said building a coop was a good learning experience for his three daughters. He said coops don't have to be insulated but it's more comfortable for the chickens. The runs or exercise area required don't have to be long. He would prefer a free range style rather than using cages because chickens are able to get at bugs all over the yard. He feels the best protection for chickens is having dogs on the property, for instance most raccoons, coyotes or mink won't enter an area with dogs. He said watching chickens in the yard can be a very relaxing thing. He said he would like to see, not a permit per chicken, but a permit per flock. Chairman Dahlquist closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Ms. Siess suggested moving forward with the ordinance. Mr. Dahlquist said he likes the concept of a permit being good for a couple of years. He would like staff to come back next month with an ordinance that incorporates feedback received during the meeting. Motion by Commissioner Siess to table, seconded by . All in favor. 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 June 11, 2012 meeting. Mr. Turnblad showed a graphic depicting the request. He said staff believes tonight's proposal resolves previous issues: • both entrances to the patio will be internal, the main access being a stairwell; • along one side of the patio, a decorative nine foot wall has been added to keep people from going onto adjacent property; • there is considerable separation from the building to the north; • the height to the fabric and stairwell has been lowered and now meets city criteria requiring no variance; • the guardrail along the edge of the patio has been moved to be set back three feet from the parapet. He conveyed that police and fire, fire marshall, building official all recommend approval with conditions expressed in the staff report. He added that an elevator is not required 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 due to the size of the area, therefore there won't be handicapped access. The security cameras are being required for this patio at the request of the police chief. Mr. Dahlquist questioned the area being described as being for rooftop dining versus rooftop gathering. Mr. Turnblad said the area can be used for meals, or solely for drinks. The patio of the Green Room, in contrast, is for meals, which he said is the distinction between the two businesses. Mr. Hansen questioned basing recommendations on the building configuration versus based on the tenant. Mr. Turnblad said every property is unique, for example, the Green Room is not on a rooftop, it's in a niche of the building. The Rafters patio area is totally on the top level, and downtown acts as a natural amphitheater so what happens on a rooftop like this is perceived differently by residents. As ownership or clientele changes affecting the usage, owners can come in to ask for an amendment to the special use permit. Larry Cramer, applicant, explained there is a six foot high fence covered with netting on the north side. The parapet wall is an eight foot wall. There will not be more than 48 people on the patio. He pointed out the distinctions between the Rafters and other businesses. He said they will not allow people to have drinks only on the patio unless they spend a minimum amount of money; it will be managed basically as a dining facility. Mr. Cramer recognized that his business has to live with the conditions to get the required variances but he would like the option of modifying some of them in the future, such as closing hours, live music, and security cameras. Not having a physical bar on the patio was a big point of discussion with the city, but he said the definition of physical bar may not yet be clear. He said there are no plans to have plumbing on the patio but he would like to have an ice cooler there. He believes that this would be allowed as he reads the conditions. He intends to have a server station for water and beverages. He believes Mr. Pogge wrote the conditions to include some latitude on the issue of the ice cooler. He said he has already spent $5 -6,000 but can't move forward with the design without a decision on the proposal. Ms. Siess noted that many of the conditions seem restrictive but noted Mr. Cramer can always come back to request changes. Mr. Hansen said he would like to leave conditions as is for a year, so the conditions regarding music and closing hours could be reviewable within a year so perhaps something like light amplified music might be allowed. Mr. Cramer added that he doesn't intend to use the patio for a big band concert; but felt the condition isn't fair because Shanghai Bistro plays all kinds of music into the night. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 Smalley's plays live music into the night. He said there is now live outside music at the Water Street Inn. He realizes his patio is higher, but said the condition of "no amplified music of any kind" seems unfair. Lowell Lindstrom, 3696 Abercrombie Lane, Stillwater, said he feels there might be double standards for the estimated 15 outdoor dining sites in Stillwater, for instance, the Legion Club's music vibrates downtown and up the hill, as does that of Shanghai Bistro. He said there's a big difference between amplified music and someone playing a guitar. He said Mr. Cramer is just trying to run a business, be successful, bring in jobs, and make a living. He feels it would be a nice opportunity to go to the patio for food and drinks, and feels there are a lot of people in Stillwater who are interested in seeing Rafters succeed. John Odne, 418 S. Williams Street, said he goes to Rafters every Friday in the summer and almost every weekend in the winter. He enjoys taking his children there. He said he is impressed with the way Mr. Cramer has modified his plans to suit the city. He feels Mr. Cramer has done everything the city has asked him to do and he hopes the commission recommends approval. Chairman Dahlquist closed the public hearing at 10:01 p.m. Ms. Siess said she was expecting something very similar to the Green Room's conditions of approval but this proposal has a lot more requirements. Council Member Menikheim said he understands the effort that Mr. Cramer has put into the proposal, but Rafters does not exist in a vacuum. Four elements concern him greatly: safety of being 43 feet in the air with 48 people and alcohol is not a good idea. His second concern is with historic downtown Stillwater. Rafters sits right in the middle of the natural amphitheater and the proposal doesn't fit with the historic downtown skyline. He also is concerned about noise. He hears from constituents about noise all the time. In addition, he views the proposal in the context of the city, not just one business. If the city starts putting things on rooftops without thinking about what it wants to do with the rooftops, he feels the city is making a bigger problem than it needs to - it should be better thought out. Mr. Cramer is doing everything he can, but the commission needs to think about the whole downtown especially in light of the old bridge closing and the new bridge coming which will change the character of downtown. Mr. Dahlquist said his view is the 42 inch high rail set back three feet from the edge of the roof seems to be a relatively standard approach compared with other areas. He understands Mr. Menikheim's points but asked if the issue isn't really the history of the site. He said the conditions seem onerous, perhaps because of the past history of the site. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 Mr. Hansen said it seems like the unfortunate situation of Mr. Cramer that he is the first one who wanted to do this. The commission needs to consider that this is the first proposal of its kind in downtown Stillwater. Mr. Cramer also had to deal with his neighbors who were opposed to the proposal. He would like to approve the project with conditions as is which he feels are a good compromise. Mr. Lauer said the St. Croix River is as big a problem, with drunk people walking around, as a rooftop bar. The city has analyzed this to death with every city official. Mr. Turnblad said acoustic music is allowed under the conditions. Mr. Buchanan said he is fine with most of the conditions. The 9:30 cut -off and zero amplified music seem onerous. He also appreciates the issue of wait staff having to run up and down stairs to get water, soda, beer etc. Motion by Mr. Buchanan to approve the recommendation with conditions as stated, seconded by Mr. Hansen Mr. Dahlquist said though not happy with all conditions, the applicant accepts them all. He clarified that condition number seven refers to the east edge of the patio, and condition number 11, no physical bar or beverage station, is overly restrictive and it should say no physical bar or alcoholic beverage service station. These changes were accepted by the maker of the motion and the second. In response to questions from Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Turnblad said an amendment to the special use permit may be made after a year if the applicant wishes to go through an application process. The commission could put together language to require a review, at no charge to the applicant, if it desires. It could be a review at the applicant's choice, or initiated by complaint; in either case there would not be a charge to the applicant, if it relates to minor amendments. Motion passed, all in favor. Case No. 2012 -12. A ordinance text amendment regarding Chapter 27, Section 27 -3 the "Keeping of Bees." City of Stillwater, applicant. Continued from June 11, 2012 meeting. Mr. Turnblad reported at the last meeting there was consensus among commission members to make three changes to the proposed ordinance: • location of honey bees is limited to single family zoned properties and two family zoned district if the owner residing on the premises is the beekeeper • annual permit is required 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 • beekeeping training is required Mr. Turnblad said he has heard some concerns expressed by residents, but overwhelmingly reaction has been positive. Two people allergic to beestings expressed concern. Typically it is not honeybees that randomly sting, it is usually wasps and hornets rather than managed colony bees. He added that staff recommends a longer permit, perhaps every two years. Mr. Dahlquist asked about the proposed ordinance statement that the city shall consult with beekeeping instructors at the University of Minnesota or Century College about alternate training methods - is that a burden we should put on the city? He felt the applicant should determine the equivalency demonstration from one of those instructors. Mr. Turnblad agreed. Walt DeYoung stated that genetic manipulation is wiping out bees, and asked commissioners to view the film, "The Vanishing of the Bees." He wants to put Stillwater on the map by showing that bees are important to our health and wellbeing. Margaret Thomas, 2842 Wildcrest Lane, Stillwater, spoke about allergic reactions to beestings, having grown up with a father who was a physician. She took the Minnesota Beekeeping for Northern Climates course where she learned anyone with a true medical allergic reaction to bees likely carries an epipen. The severity of the reaction varies from person to person, but true concerns about a medical allergic reaction to a bee sting should be taken to a physician. She spoke highly of the beekeeping research and information available at the University of Minnesota. Chairman Dahlquist closed the public hearing at 10:38 p.m. Motion by Ms. Siess, seconded by Mr. Hansen to approve with changes regarding bi- annual permit, item number four replace "city" with "applicant" providing equivalency determination about alternate training methods. Motion passed, all in favor. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER BUSINESS First draft discussion of Marina Zoning Amendment. Mr. Turnblad reported the nonconforming status of marinas in town was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. Since then, he talked with DNR Area Hydrologist Molly Shodeen about what the city might include in the list of accessory uses. She strongly recommended that the city not list accessory uses, but instead look at each proposed 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2012 accessory use on a case by case basis. This is because the St. Croix River being a Wild and Scenic River, the only way to increase the capacity of a marina is through an environmental impact statement because of the impact on the natural resource of the river. She recommends the city allow marinas by conditional use permit in the RB zoning district but not list accessory uses. Changes in technology, in other words, ways of doing things the marinas already do, would not trigger a change. Mr. Turnblad agreed to bring back a draft ordinance to the next meeting and set a public hearing for the next month. Commission membership. Mr. Dahlquist said there are only five members present because Commission Member Scott Spisak had to submit his resignation this week. The position is open. He suggested next month's agenda include election of a new vice chair. He also stated that his own home is now for sale, so he may not be on the commission much longer and may not be here next month, though he anticipates it will take more than a month to sell his home. Ms. Siess suggested the commission start advertising that there is an opening. Applicants need to be 18 years old and live in Stillwater. They can submit the application form found online. The chair, vice chair and one council member usually interview the various applicants, recommend an appointment to the council, and the position is filled. A formal advertisement will be made. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Buchanan. All in favor. Adjourned at 10:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary 13 DATE: August 9, 2012 TO: Planning Commission REGARDING: Chicken Ordinance APPLICANT: Tisha Palmer HEARING DATE: July 9 & August 9, 2012 AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND The City's Zoning Ordinance currently requires a minimum lot size of three acres to keep chickens.1 This standard prevents residents from keeping chickens in the City, since lots are not that large in Stillwater. Tisha Palmer, 1115 1st Street North, has submitted an application requesting an ordinance amendment that would eliminate the three acre minimum lot size and allow 5 chickens on any property in the City. According to the requested amendment, up to 8 chickens would be allowed if a property is large enough, OR if all neighbors whose homes are less than 50 feet from the chicken enclosure agree to the extra chickens. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached ordinance amendment. DISCUSSION Chickens have begun reappearing in urban settings. They are even allowed now in some of the densest cities in the country. For example, New York City and Chicago have both passed ordinances allowing chickens. 1 City Code Ch 31 -514, Subd. 1 Page 2 of 4 The main hurdles to passing such ordinances are concerns over disease, vermin, noise and smell. Research shows fairly clearly that if chickens are tended well in an urban setting, these concerns do not materialize. If chicken waste is properly managed, fly problems and excessive odor can be dramatically reduced. Rodents can be controlled if chicken feed is cared for properly, especially in moist areas. And, the noise issue is usually addressed by prohibiting roosters from the urban coop. Requested Amendment Tisha Palmer is requesting approval of an ordinance that would do the following: • Eliminate the current three acre minimum lot size. • Allow up to 5 chicken hens on any lot in the City. • Allow up to 8 chicken hens if: a) the chicken enclosure is no closer than 50 feet to any dwelling on an adjacent lot, or b) written permission is received from the owner of each dwelling on an adjacent lot within 50 feet of the chicken enclosure. • Prohibit chicken roosters. • Require a $10 permit from the City that is good for two years. Staff Comments on Request • Number of chickens o Based upon an analysis of the space requirements for chickens,2 a maximum of 5 chickens seems appropriate in the City's RB Zoning District. o The RB District was chosen for this analysis, since the main interest for amending the ordinance has come from owners of RB lots. o According to the source cited below, a minimum of 188 square feet of property is needed for each chicken.3 So, 5 chickens would require a total minimum of 940 square feet. To help visualize 940 square foot enclosures in RB Zoning District back yards, staff studied a typical RB block and produced the attached graphic. The space for 5 chickens can be accommodated on many of the lots, but not all. However, increasing the fenced enclosure from 940 to 1,504 square feet to accommodate 8 chickens would be excessive for all of these back yards. 2 "Recommendations For Municipal Regulations Of Urban Chickens ", by Chicken Run Rescue, 2010. Endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States and many poultry and animal care agencies. 3 Coop = 4 s.f./bird; fenced coop pen = 10 s.f. /bird; fenced exercise yard = 174 s.f/bird. Total is 188 s.f./bird Page 3 of 4 o For the sake of simplicity of enforcement, staff recommends a single maximum flock size. But, if the City desires, it could allow more chickens in larger lot zoning districts. • Staff recommends allowing chicken enclosures (coops, coop pens, fenced exercise yards) only in rear yards. None should be allowed in side yards (interior or exterior), or in front yards. • The coop will have to meet the zoning and building code setback and separation standards for accessory structures (3' side and rear lot line setback in the RB Zoning District; 6' separation from any other structure.) • Staff recommends that all chicken enclosures should maintain a minimum separation of 20 feet from neighboring houses. More than this would have the effect of reducing the maximum flock size, since the fenced space would have to be reduced. • Since most urban land owners do not have experience keeping chickens, staff recommends adopting design guidelines for the coop, pen and exercise yard. The standards included in Chicken Run Rescue publication cited above seem reasonable. • The City should consider whether it should prohibit slaughtering chickens on -site. Most cities that allow chicken keeping have decided to prohibit slaughtering on -site. It is not something they want to see done outside in the middle of an urban neighborhood. And, most homes today are not designed to handle slaughtering inside. • The City should consider whether permits should be required, or whether chickens would simply be allowed as long as the ordinance is followed. On the one hand a permit system generates work for the applicant and staff that may outweigh public benefit. But, it offers an opportunity for the would -be chicken keeper to learn a bit about responsible care of chickens. Perhaps the solution is to produce educational materials that are available without creating a permitting system. • If a permit is required, should it be annual or some other renewal interval? • Should the City allow chickens on any property, or should it be limited to residentially zoned property? If only on residential property, should it be allowed on single - family and two- family property only? Planning Commission Comments The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on July 9, 2012. By consensus the Commission directed City staff to create a draft ordinance that incorporates the applicant's language, but also: • Requires a minimum amount of chicken raising education. This could be in the form of literature that the City would make available. • Sets a maximum number of chickens per property at 5 hens. Page 4 of 4 The requested language has been incorporated into the attached ordinance draft. In addition, the Commission requested that staff draft a matrix of performance standards that other cities have incorporated into their ordinances. And, that more research be done on whether chicken coops should be heated in the winter. Research on the question of heating the coop did not uncover a definitive answer. There is a rigorous debate over whether heating in northern winters is always advisable, especially for all chicken varieties. Therefore, staff recommends this language: Prior to issuance of a permit, the prospective permit holder must provide a plan for maintaining an adequate temperature in the coop for the safety of the chicken hens. The plan must address both extreme winter and summer temperature conditions. At least with the suggested language, the applicant will be forced to think about the options for moderating extreme temperatures inside the coop. REQUIRED ACTION It is the Planning Commission's charge to formulate a recommendation to pass on to the City Council. Options include: A. Recommend approval of the ordinance amendment as requested. B. Recommend approval of the draft ordinance as revised. C. Recommend denial of the ordinance amendment. D. Table the request to gather more information and consider potential revisions. Attachments: RB District application of draft ord Revised ordinance draft Comparison matrix Chicken Run Rescue publication Case 2012 -25 Chicken Ordinance 940 s.f. fenced enclosures minimally sufficient for 5 hens Typical block in RB District 20' min. separation from fenced chicken yard to neighbor's house [Applicant's proposed ordinance text Amendment to Chapter 31 § 31 -5414 Subd. 1 of the Stillwater Code of Ordinances relating to keeping chickens on less than 3 acres including within city limits. Chickens Limited. Subd. 1. No person shall keep or harbor hen chickens unless they have been granted a permit. The permit shall be subject to all terms and conditions of this Chapter and any additional conditions deemed necessary by the planning commission to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The necessary permit applications are available in the City clerk's office. A permit for the keeping of chickens may be revoked or suspended by the planning commission for any violation of this Chapter following written notice and a public hearing. The fee of $10 will be charged for each permit which shall expire on December 31 of the second year of the permit. Permit. Subd. 2. It is unlawful for any person to keep or harbor chickens on any premises unless issued a permit to do so as provided in this chapter or except as specifically allowed under §31 -514. Subd.1. No permit shall be issued for the keeping or harboring of more than five hen chickens on any premises. No permit shall be issued for the keeping of any rooster chicken on any premises. Sub. 3. A permit may be issued for the keeping or harboring of up to eight (8) hen chickens if the applicant's chicken enclosure is no closer than 50 feet to any dwelling on an adjacent lot, or, the applicant obtains written permission from the owner of each dwelling on an adjacent lot within 50 feet of the applicant's chicken enclosure. Conditions. Subd. 4. No person who owns, keeps or harbors hen chickens will permit the premises where the hen chickens are kept to be or remain in an unhealthy, unsanitary or noxious condition or to permit the premises to be in such condition that noxious odors are carried to adjacent public or private property. The premises must be kept vermin free. Chicken feed must be kept in rodent proof containers. Any chicken coop and run authorized by permit under this Chapter may be inspected at any reasonable time by a City Public Service Officer or other agent of the City. Violations. Subd. 5. Any person who keeps or harbors hen chickens in the city limits of Stillwater without obtaining or maintaining a current permit or after a permit has been suspended or revoked by planning commission action shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 31 -514 RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS IN THE CITY The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: 1) Section 31 -514, Subdivision 1 of the City Code entitled "Farm Animals" is amended to hereafter read as follows: Subd. 1. Farm animals. In all districts any lot upon which farm animals are kept must be at least three acres in size. Farm animals are defined as: horses, cows, sheep, bees, pigs, chickens, ducks, rabbits and other commonly known domestic farm animals. (a) See Section 27 -3 for regulations related to beekeeping. (b) See Section 31 -514, Subd. 6 for regulations related to keeping of chickens. 2) Section 31 -514 is amended by adding the following Subdivision: Subd. 6. Keeping of Chickens. (1) Any person who keeps chickens in the City of Stillwater must obtain a permit prior to acquiring the chickens. The first permit is valid for up to two years beginning on the date the chickens arrive on the site and ending on December 31 of the following year. Subsequent permits are valid from January 1 of one year to December 31 of the second year. Applications for permits must be made to the Community Development Department. i. Fees charged for the issuance of a permit to keep chickens will be set by the City Council. ii. The City may refuse to grant or may revoke a permit if the chickens become a nuisance, as evidenced by a second substantiated violation (within 12 months of a first substantiated violation) of this Section of City Code, or Chapter 38 (Nuisances) of City Code. iii. The City may refuse to grant a permit to, or may revoke a permit from, a person convicted of cruelty to animals. iv. Permits are non - transferable and do not run with the land. v. A permit constitutes a limited license granted to the chicken keeper by the City and in no way creates a vested zoning right. vi. Prior to issuance of a permit, the prospective permit holder must acknowledge they have read the Chicken Run Rescue publication entitled "Recommendations for Municipal Regulations of Urban Chickens (2010)" or similar publications approved by the City's Community Development Department. vii. Prior to issuance of a permit, the prospective permit holder must provide a plan for maintaining an adequate temperature in the coop for the safety of the chicken hens. The plan must address both extreme winter and summer temperature conditions. (2) Each person holding a permit to keep chickens within the City of Stillwater shall comply with the following: i. The principal use of the specific property must be either single - family residential or two- family residential. A permit will not be issued for any property which is used principally for something other than single - family or two - family. If the property's principal use is two- family residential, then the property owner must sign the permit in addition to the chicken keeper; ii. No person may keep more than five chickens; iii. No person may keep a rooster; iv. No person may allow chickens to range freely without fencing; iv. No person may keep any chickens inside the house; v. No person may slaughter any chickens within the City of Stillwater; vi. Chickens must be provided a secure and well ventilated roofed structure ( "chicken coop "); vii. The roofed structure and required fencing for the chickens may only be located in a rearyard and must meet setback and building separations as established in City zoning and building codes, except that the roofed structure and fencing must maintain a twenty foot separation from dwellings on adjacent properties; viii. The roofed structure shall be fully enclosed, wind proof, and have sufficient windows for natural light; ix. The floors and walls of the roofed structure shall be kept in a clean, sanitary and healthy condition with all droppings collected on a daily basis and placed in a fireproof covered container until applied as fertilizer, composted or transported off the premises; x. Chickens must be kept in the roofed structure or an attached pen whenever they are unattended by the keeper, but when attended by the keeper, the chickens are allowed in a completely fenced exercise yard; xi. The coop's attached pen must be securely constructed with at least a mesh type material and shall have protective overhead netting to keep the chickens separated from other animals; xii. The coop's attached pen must be well drained so there is no accumulation of moisture; and xiii. The floor area of the roofed structure or a combination of the floor area and attached pen area must equal at least ten square feet of area per chicken. 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 Chicken Ordinance features found in a sample of other ordinances Blanks indicate that the ordinance in question did not address the feature. 1 To be decided by Animal Control Officer and applicant. The decision is based upon site visit and a number of other criteria. This is staff time intensive. 2 To be determined by applicant, but temperature control methods are to be specified in permit application. 3 This includes both coop and attached pen. Chicken Run Rescue Duluth Vancouver Cedar Rapids Ann Arbor St. Paul Stillwater draft 2 Permit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Permit term 1 yr 2 yrs 5 yrs 1 yr 2 yrs Zoning Single Family Single Family Single or Two Family Single or Two Family Maximum chickens 3 -5 4 6 4 TBD1 5 Rooster No No No No No No Free range (i.e., no fence around exercise yard) No No No No No Chickens in house No No No Slaughter on -site No No No No Coop required Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Separation from neighboring houses 25' 25' 40' 20' Heated coop Yes Yes TBD2 Minimum area per chicken3 14 sf 10 sf 10 sf Windows Yes Yes Yes Neighbor consent Yes Yes Yes Instruction required Yes Yes Yes Blanks indicate that the ordinance in question did not address the feature. 1 To be decided by Animal Control Officer and applicant. The decision is based upon site visit and a number of other criteria. This is staff time intensive. 2 To be determined by applicant, but temperature control methods are to be specified in permit application. 3 This includes both coop and attached pen. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF URBAN CHICKENS For distribution to public and permit applicants BASIC CHICKEN CARE INSTRUCTIONS (pages 2 -8) REQUIREMENTS FOR KEEPING CHICKENS (page 9) Mary Britton Clouse Chicken Run Rescue 2010 Endorsed by Chicken Run Rescue Eastern Shore Sanctuary and Education Center Farm Sanctuary The Humane Society of the United States Sunnyskies Bird and Animal Sanctuary United Poultry Concerns Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary http:// www. brittonclouse .com /chickenrunrescue/ Page 1 2/15/101 BASIC CHICKEN CARE INSTRUCTIONS CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE ACQUIRING A CHICKEN Lifespan - Chickens can live as long as a dog or cat— up to 14 years or longer. - Egg laying for a hen generally starts at 6 months old, peaks at 18 months and declines with age. Cost - Start-Up costs for coop, maintenance, tools, cleaning equipment, heating / cooling appliances, dishes, nets, food storage, scale, fencing, security locks, lighting, motion detectors, monitors, cameras, permit application ($2- 3,000) - Annual supplies per bird for food, bedding, nutritional supplements, hygiene supplies, permit fee, utilities ($300) - Vet care per bird per service (office exam $66, fecal test $28, plus other services as needed for illness or injury). Are you able to provide the birds with proper veterinary care needed? Time - Average 1 hour per bird per day minimum for cleaning, parasite control, grooming, physical exam, travel time to purchase supplies, construction, repair, medication, feeding, supervise free time out of pen. - Chickens need to be tended to twice daily. Will you have a person ready to substitute for you when you have reason to be absent? Space At least a 6 ft x 12ft x 6 ft high space in a yard is needed for a coop and pen for 4 birds, in addition to a larger fenced area for regular exercise. Location Coop and pen should be located in an area that provides shade, direct sunlight, good drainage and protection from prevailing winds and will not present a problem to neighbors. Uninvited guests Chickens will attract bird -mites and lice, mice, yard birds, squirrels, raccoons, dogs, coyotes, fox, mink, opossum, rats, owls, bobcats, hawks, snakes, weasels, ferrets, fishers, martens and humans. ACQUIRING A CHICKEN: ADOPTION OR PURCHASE /BREEDING? The recent interest in having chickens has overwhelmed animal rescue organizations with inquiries from people wanting to give up unwanted chickens. As with all other animals surrendered to shelters, rescue organizations cannot help them all. There are never enough homes for displaced animals, so adoption of birds who need homes is always the kindest choice. instead of purchasing from a breeder or hatchery. Adoption- By adopting from a rescue organization or a private individual, you can know what to expect with regard to the bird's health, sex, behavior and personality. Reputable rescue organizations can provide advice on selecting the right bird and care information, and they generally have a generous return policy to insure that bird will be happy, compatible and well cared for. Purchase /breeding- The identification of the sex of chicks by feed stores, breeders and hatcheries is often wrong and not apparent until the bird is 6 months old. 50% of the chicks hatched are roosters who are killed or otherwise discarded of as waste. Newborn chicks shipped through the postal service are deprived of their mothers, warmth and food. The younger the birds, the more fragile and difficult they are to care for. http:// www. brittonclouse .com /chickenrunrescue/ Page 2 2/15/102 HEALTHY BIRD CHECKLIST Eyes: clear, clean, wide open, alert Face / comb / wattle: clean, soft, blemish free, healthy deep red indicating good blood supply, (some faces are not red) Posture: head erect, good balance, stands or perches on both feet on extended legs, good grip on perch, facing activity Odor: none or slightly fermented hay Beak / nostrils: clean, uniform, shiny and solid Legs / feet: clean, shiny, uniform scales and nails; foot bottom soft and blemish -free; legs and toes straight and functional Feathers; clean, bright, shiny, smooth or fluffy; free of mites or Tice Wings: held close to body, symmetrical, smooth movement in joints when flexed, flight feathers intact Skin: clean, soft, pale pink and translucent (some breeds have bare red patches at shoulders and keel), free of mites or lice Droppings: 70% odorless green/ white, firm, 30% stinky brown pasty (cecal), watery if stressed Keel (sternum): Straight, good muscle mass on either side, lump free Crop (on bird's right side of lower neck): full, contents of consumed food easily palpated Vent: petite, clean, moist, soft, pliant Respiration: 12 -37 per min., inhalation louder and shorter than exhalation, minimal chest movement, closed beak NUMBER OF BIRDS Calculating available space, time, and cost (see above) will dictate how many birds can be properly cared for: Coop: 4 sq. feet of floor space minimum per bird for the interior (an area 2 ft x 2 ft per bird) Pen: 10 sq. ft of floor space minimum per bird (an area 3 ft x 3.3 ft per bird) Range/ exercise yard: 174 sq. ft per bird (an area about 10 ft. x 17 ft per bird) A single chicken is a sad chicken. Plan to have at least 2— they are flock animals and need the companionship of other chickens. Generally, 3 -5 compatible chickens can be well maintained in a typical city environment. Individual birds' sex, ages and temperaments can affect compatibility. Over crowding chickens is the most common mistake. Hens should outnumber roosters. Sometimes single birds can thrive with a human friend if they have special needs. Roosters, single or in pairs, are very sociable and can make terrific companions if handled gently and often. HANDLING & RESTRAINT Never handle a chicken by wings, feet or legs. Herd bird to corner using slow deliberate movement. (Fast= predator, slow = less threat.) Place hands over top part of wings (shoulders) and hold securely but do not squeeze. Pick up and hold under arm to keep wings in place. Support feet with other hand if bird will tolerate. To restrain for transport or examination, drape a towel over shoulders cape -style and wrap around body. TRANSPORTATION Consider travel time and avoid extreme weather conditions. Heat exhaustion can develop quickly, and interior car temps can reach fatal point 10 minutes. Medium - sized, hard pet carriers work well for security, safety, stress. Line with a towel, shredded paper or straw. Food is a good stress reducer. Offer wet food like greens or cucumber for long trips. ARRIVAL If other birds are already present, a 2 -week quarantine in a separate area is recommended to watch for http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/ Page 3 2/15/103 signs of illness and parasites. Avoid noisy, high - traffic areas, and allow the bird to acclimate before introducing to other birds, animals and family. PROVIDING A GOOD HOME NATURAL HISTORY It is important to understand how chickens live in the wild and to provide them with an environment that meets those instinctive physical and psychological needs as closely as possible. Chickens are all descended from Tropical Jungle Fowl and are adapted to living in a natural habitat that is spacious, richly vegetated, diverse and warm. This presents a particular challenge in a small, urban setting in a cold climate like Minnesota. Flocks have a highly developed social structure and members depend on one another for companionship and security. Naturalists have observed that they can recognize and remember 180 other individual flock members. They are ground - dwelling birds. Most are capable of low flight in short distances; smaller birds can fly higher and farther. In the wild, they roost in trees at dusk before they sleep or to escape predators. They hide their nests in cavities in the ground. The majority of their waking hours are spent active, widely ranging, grazing and foraging for food— plants, bugs and occasionally small rodents. In their natural state, they typically travel 1/2 mile from their roost each day. In the wild, they are never over crowded; if the population becomes too dense, members will break off into subgroups and spread out. They move on from one area to another, which allows food sources to regenerate and prevents their waste from concentrating in one place so it can decompose without health risk to the flock. Roosters alert the flock to danger, find food and call the hens to it and stand guard as they eat. They select and build nests and will even participate in caring for the young. They also act as peace keepers to intervene in disputes that can develop between flock members. Roosters will start to crow and display courting behaviors at about 6 months of age. It is essential to gently handle a rooster on a daily basis to establish that you are the flock leader (Alpha) and maintain a well - socialized companion. The hens spend their time scratching for food, dust bathing, preening, playing and napping. Hens begin to lay eggs at about 6 months of age. Hens in the wild produce only a few clutches of eggs a year for the sole purpose of reproduction. Domesticated hens have been bred to lay one egg a day, but by 18 months of age, egg - laying frequency generally diminishes, and many adult or senior hens stop laying altogether. Chickens are sociable, cheerful and intelligent creatures who can form lifelong bonds with each other and other species including humans, dogs and cats. Because of their keen intelligence and instinctive physical activity, they need a stimulating environment that mimics as much as possible the rich and diverse world nature designed them to enjoy. COOP, PEN, RANGE/ EXERCISE YARD "Housing and infrastructure. The primary purpose of poultry housing is to protect flocks against adverse weather and predators (coyote, fox, stray dogs, raccoons and raptors). Weather is of critical concern in the Upper Midwest, where summers can be extremely hot and winters bitterly cold. Housing must provide shade from sun and cover from rain. It must be able to withstand high winds and snow loads if it is to be used for year -round operation. These basic housing considerations apply to all poultry." - Poultry Your Way: A Guide to Management Alternatives for the Upper Midwest, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 2005 http:// www. brittonclouse .com /chickenrunrescue/ Page 4 2/15/104 COOP: The house, closed structure or enclosed room which provides shelter from cold, heat, wind, rain, snow and predators for protected roosting, nesting, feeding and watering space. Construction & Materials – Coops can be purchased ready made or in kits, constructed within an existing structure or built from scratch. Local building codes should be followed to prevent damage from snow, wind, etc. NOTE: rabbit hutches, plastic igloos, dog houses and such are not appropriate structures. Required features: Size: 4 sq. feet of floor space minimum is required per bird for the interior (an area 2 ft x 2 ft per bird). So, four birds will need a coop with an inside floor space of at least 4 ft x 4 ft, not including nest boxes. Outside dimensions should be about 5 ft x 5 ft x 6 ft high. Overcrowding is the most common cause of behavior problems, injury and disease. Coops should be high enough for a human to stand up comfortably for cleaning, maintenance and egg collection. It also allows for additional roosting. Temperament and social structures should be taken into account, and partitions should be available for birds who are sick, injured or lower in the pecking order. Access to electricity: This is required in free standing structures. Floor: The floor should not collect and hold moisture, should be easy to clean, should retain heat in cold weather and should exclude rodents /predators. A dirt floor draws heat away and is not easy to clean or to rodent /predator - proof. A wood floor is adequate, provided it is at least a foot off the ground, insulated and sealed properly— but it is difficult to sanitize because it is porous. A concrete floor is ideal since it discourages rodents /predators and is easy to sanitize. Regardless of the floor type, bedding strewn on the surface is needed is to absorb moist fecal matter and facilitate cleaning. Leaves or wood shavings work best and can be composted or easily bagged and disposed of as solid waste. Walls- Materials that are resistant to moisture and mold and easily cleaned are best. Chemically treated materials should be nontoxic. A good compound with anti fungal agents is good for humid areas. Clear varnish is also good. Everything should be treated or painted before it is assembled. Wooden structures should be draft free and built with double walls that have at least 11/2 inch insulation layer between them. Roof: The coop roof should be made of a material that will not collect and hold heat and should be built with double walls that have at least 11/2 inch insulated layer between them. The roof surface should be covered with an insulating tar paper to protect it from heavy rains. The roof should be slightly inclined, to allow water to run off. An overhang at the front wall will protect from downpours. A few small openings along the eaves allow moisture to escape and provide fresh air. Doors: One human -sized door is needed for daily access. Doors for chickens should be just large enough for the largest bird and can be positioned anywhere from ground level to about 2 feet high with a stable ramp with cleats. Chickens are ground dwellers, not parrots —small doors at heights greater than 3 feet with flimsy, unstable ladders are not appropriate. Doors must be able to be secured against predators at night. Windows: Chickens love windows and need natural Tight. Double glaze for warmth. Cover with 1/2" metal screen so they can be opened for ventilation in hot weather. Allow one square foot of window for each 10 square feet of floor space. Roosts: Lumber or branches can be used. They should be strong enough and mounted securely enough to hold all birds. The surface should be rough for good grip with no splinters or sharp edges. For medium sized birds, 2" or 4" flat or 1 1/2" diameter is best for foot comfort. The longer the roost, the better it will prevent competition. They should be set 18" from the wall, 2 -3 feet off the floor. If mounted higher, rung steps are needed, spaced 8 -12 inches apart. The addition of a dropping board underneath and an elevated roost will collect droppings and keep floor space below clean and inhabitable. Climate: Shelters should be kept at a comfortable temperature for the animals. According to the Minn. Dept. of Agriculture, "Minimum Temperature 55 °(F), maximum temperature 70° (F)." (Ibid.) The coop should be heated to maintain a temperature above 32° F during the coldest part of the winter and cooled below 85° F in the hottest part of the summer. http:// www. brittonclouse .com /chickenrunrescue/ Page 5 2/15/105 Below 32° F, birds are uncomfortable and cannot maintain body temperature. Below 15 °F, frostbite begins, and hypothermia increases. Oil- or water -filled safety heaters (i.e. brands Pelonis, DeLonghi, Honeywell) are completely closed, sealed systems that run on electricity. The oil is heated from within and the heat is radiant, so there are no exposed heating elements to create dangerous problems even if they tip over. Heat lamps should only be used with extreme caution and should be firmly attached at least 3 feet from animals and far from any flammable item, especially dry straw or bedding. Smoke alarms are highly recommended. Extra bedding should be available to keep animals warm and comfortable in cold seasons. Between 75° and 85° F, panting and dehydration begin; above 85° F, heat stress and danger of heat prostration increases. Ventilation: Doors, windows and vents near the ceiling supply oxygen, remove heat from breathing, remove moisture from breath and droppings, remove harmful gasses and dust particles, and dilute disease - causing, airborne organisms. Fans should be provided for hottest weather. Light: Natural light from windows and /or skylights are required. Can be supplemented with full spectrum incandescent light to follow normal seasonal light cycles and for cleaning and maintenance. The minimum light intensity you should provide should be enough to clearly see the hens feed when standing over the feeder. Feeders: Food receptacles should be made of non - corrosive material that is easily cleaned, minimizes spillage, prevents contamination with droppings and keeps food dry. The containers should be large enough for all the birds to comfortably eat at once or numerous enough to prevent competition or intimidation. Large, heavy, rubber feed buckets work nicely. Hanging dishes or feeders work as well and should be hung at about the level of the bird's back. If dishes are outside the coop, they should be set under an overhang to keep them dry when it rains. Waterers: Water receptacles should be made of non - corrosive material that can be cleaned and disinfected with a solution of chlorine bleach, prevent contamination with droppings and is spill and leak proof. The containers should be large enough for all the birds to comfortably drink at once and hold enough water for all birds for an entire day. They should be slightly positioned higher than the feeder or far enough away to prevent contamination with food. Nestboxes- One nest box is needed for every 3 hens. A 12 "W x 12 "D x 14 "H box is most versatile. Chickens prefer wooden nest boxes with covered opening for privacy placed on or as low to the floor as possible. If set higher, they require a perch in front of the opening. They should be filled with 2 -4 inches of straw, litter, or grass. They prefer to nest in the southeast corner of the structure whenever possible. PEN: The pen is a fenced area surrounding the coop that provides secure access to exercise, sunlight, earth and vegetation and is freely available to the birds when they are unsupervised. It is constructed to prevent the birds' escape and prevents entry by intruders /predators. Construction & Materials — Kennel pens can be purchased ready -made or in kits, or built from scratch. Local building codes should be followed to prevent damage from snow, wind, etc. Temperament and social structures of flock should be taken into account, and partitions should be available for birds who are sick, injured or lower in the pecking order. Required features: Size: 10 sq. feet of floor space (an area of 3 ft x 3.3 ft) minimum per bird is required, so 4 birds will need floor space of at least 6 feet x 7 feet. If the coop is adjacent to the pen, at least a 6 x 12 foot space in a yard is needed. If the coop is elevated 2 feet so the chickens can use the space underneath, the coop and pen can occupy some, but not all, of the same footprint. Having most of the pen in deep shade all of the time is conducive to unhealthy bacterial and fungal development. The pen should be high enough for you to stand up comfortably for cleaning, maintenance, capture and also to allow for additional roosting. Substrate: Choose a well- drained area. Substrate material for the pen should be clean, nontoxic, biodegradable, readily available, inexpensive and replaceable. Since it will become compacted from little feet and contaminated by concentrated droppings and parasites, it will need to be raked out and http:// www. brittonclouse .com /chickenrunrescue/ Page 6 2/15/106 replaced frequently to reduce odor and fly activity. Play -sand, leaves, municipal wood chips, sod and hard - wearing ground cover work well. Metal fencing / predator control: The type of fencing depends on what the most likely predators are in your area. Dogs, rats, raccoons, hawks and coyotes are the most prevalent in city neighborhoods, but others include fox, mink, opossum, bobcats, snakes, weasels, ferrets, fisher and marten. It's best to build the strongest deterrents possible. Chain -link panels or welded or woven fencing on a sturdy frame, reinforced at the bottom with small -mesh metal wire that prevents predators from tunneling under the fence will discourage most intruders. Regular inspection is the key to security. Gate: A gate is needed for easy human access. Cover: The pen should be covered to keep birds in and predators out. The type of covering needed will depend on the type of predators. Covering part of the pen with a roof such as corrugated fiberglass can provide shade and rain shelter. Windbreak: Providing a wind and snow break will give the birds a protected area to be outdoors even in winter. Shade: Shade must be available and can be provided by vegetation or strategically placed materials. Dust bath: Taking a dust bath is the closest thing to heaven for a chicken. They derive pleasure and contentment by bathing in the sun and in loose, dry soil depressions in the dirt, which cleans their feathers and rids them of parasites. Birds will usually dig their own hole for dust baths. Keep the soil in the dust bath loose, and add play -sand if it is a heavy clay soil. Adding a little poultry dust, diatomaceous earth or wood ash increases the effectiveness of parasite control. Large, heavy rubber feed buckets filled with play -sand are a welcome addition to the indoor coop in the winter. Enrichment furnishings: There is nothing sadder than a barren pen, when compared to the rich jungle environment chickens evolved in. Lots of large branches, stumps or platforms provide places to go and things to do, and they look natural and attractive in the pen. Include bushes, boxes or other objects to sit in or hide behind. Plant kale or other safe, edible vegetation around the outside of the pen for forage. Overcrowding, boredom and barren pens are the most common causes of behavioral problems. RANGE/ EXERCISE YARD: The larger fenced area like a backyard that provides ample space for safe exercise, forage, sunlight, earth and vegetation that is regularly available to the birds when supervised. For regular exercise, 174 sq. ft per bird (an area about 10 ft x 17 ft per bird) is required. Four birds will need access to a 40 ft x 70 ft fenced area in the yard. If there is no access to a larger range/ exercise yard, 16 sq. feet of floor space minimum per bird (an area 4 ft x 4 ft per bird) in the pen must be provided. Fencing: 6 feet of privacy fencing prevents and discourages uninvited human and animal visitors. It also promotes the safety and security of the birds and neighbors. Nontoxic plants: Chickens are inquisitive and voracious eaters of vegetation and many ornamental garden plants can be toxic to them. Learn which of your plants might be harmful and fence them off or better yet replace them with safe and nutritious plants. Security: Chickens are susceptible to theft, vandalism and predators and need to be securely shut in the coop at night. Security cameras, lights and baby monitors are also highly recommended deterrents. PROVIDING GOOD CARE FOOD / WATER Fresh food and water are required daily and should be available at all times. Hay, grain and prepared feed should be fresh —less than one year old and free of mold, insects or other contaminants. Daily intake should include: 60 % nutritionally balanced, prepared feed appropriate for the age of bird, 20% scratch (cracked corn, oats, black oil sunflower seeds, milo, barley) 20% fresh (nutritious foods and table scraps — caution, toxic: onion, avocados, chocolate). Supplements: oyster shell or limestone for calcium, granite grit for digestion, mineral salt or ground salt licks. Chickens drink 1 -2 cups of water a day. http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/ Page 7 2/15/107 Feed should be stored inside rodent -proof containers in a cool, dry area inaccessible to animals. Stored feedbags should be rotated to ensure that feed is always fresh. Food that is uneaten or spilled should be removed from animal enclosures daily. SOCIAL NEEDS Temperament and social structures of animals should be taken into account, and separate areas should be provided for incompatible birds. VET CARE Locate a veterinary clinic nearby that will see chickens before one is needed — preferably one that specializes in avian care. Chickens are welcome in increasing numbers of city clinics. Check vet backgrounds at httD: / /www.vetmed. state .mn.us /Default.asax ?tabid =803. Have an isolation area or roomy carrier and heating pad for sick or injured birds. Critical /emergency first aid supplies should be kept, including roll gauze, gauze pads, tape, vet wrap, blood -stop powder, antibiotic ointment, antibacterial scrub and solution, and bandage scissors. SANITATION Manure and wet bedding should be removed from the coop and animal feeding and lounging areas daily. Thorough, complete cleaning of walls and perches, removal of all bedding, and disinfecting of the coop and furnishings should be done at least once a year. Keeping shelter areas clean and dry will help prevent bacteria, fungi, insects, rodents, etc. Rodent levels will be minimized by keeping all feed in rodent -proof containers and removing spilled or uneaten food promptly. Litter can be double bagged and disposed of as solid waste or composted, but composting must be done in an area where chickens will not scratch for at least a year. Housing animals in spacious, clean and relatively dust -free environments will keep them healthy and will minimize human exposure to infectious disease. Sources: Poultry Your Way: A Guide to Management Alternatives for the Upper Midwest, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 2005 Standards of Care for Chickens, Adapted from Standards of Care for Fanned Animals, The Association Of Sanctuaries (TAOS). Edited by Chicken Run Rescue. 6/2008, revised 4/7/09 Poultry Housing Considerations for Low Input Small Scale Producers, David Sullenberger, TimeWarrior Farm Chronicle Special Reports, Revision E, fall 2003 Building Chicken Coops: Storey Country Wisdom Bulletin A -224, Gail Damerow, 1999 Chicken Health Handbook, Gail Damerow, 1994 http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/ Page 8 2/15/108 REQUIREMENTS FOR KEEPING CHICKENS The Permit for keeping chickens and other domestic fowl is contingent on your meeting responsibilities to your neighbors and the birds. Our department so often sees animals in inappropriate settings. Before going further, please read the enclosed CHICKEN CARE SHEET. Consider the commitment needed with regard to the lifespan, cost, time, space , location, and other consequences of caring for chickens. Next, consider the kind of impact they may have on your neighborhood. You must provide sufficient control so that their presence will not disturb neighbors with property damage, activity, noise, odor or trespass. You must keep your property clean and maintained in a manner that prevents insect and rodent infestations. Finally, consider the birds themselves. Are you willing to assume a long term commitment to them? They must be provided with food, water shelter and veterinary care. They also need kindness and personal attention. COOP: The house, closed structure or enclosed room which provides shelter from cold, heat, wind, rain, snow and predators for protected roosting, nesting, feeding and watering space. size: 4 sq. feet interior floor space minimum per bird (an area 2 ft. x 2 ft. per bird). access to electricity floor: wood- 1 ft. off the ground, insulated / sealed or concrete bedding: clean, absorbent, nontoxic, biodegradable and replaceable material walls: varnished, treated or painted draft free double walls 11/2 inch insulation roof: will not collect / hold heat, min. 1-1/2 inch insulation, insulating tar paper, inclined, vents doors: 1 human-size, 1 bird door 0 -2 ft. high, stable ramp, secure latch windows: 1 square foot of window per 10 square foot of floor space roosts: 11/2 diameter or greater , 18" from wall, 2 -3 feet off the floor. climate control: heater, fan, ventilation to maintain temperature 32° min.- 85° max. F Tight: full spectrum, windows and /or skylights, incandescent light or other to follow normal seasonal light cycles. feeders/ waterers: non corrosive, clean, size and number sufficient, accessible for all birds nestboxes- 1 per 3 hens, bedding PEN: The fenced area surrounding the coop that provides secure access to exercise, sunlight, earth and vegetation and is freely available to the birds when they are unsupervised. It is constructed to prevent the bird's escape and prevents entry by intruders /predators. size: 10 sq. ft of floor space minimum per bird (an area 3 ft. x 3.3 ft per bird) substrate: well drained area; clean, nontoxic, biodegradable and replaceable matter metal fencing and gate / predator control: sufficient to keep birds in /predators out tover: sufficient to keep birds in /predators out windbreak, shade, dustbath, enrichment furnishings (ie. branches, stumps or platforms bushes, boxes) RANGE/ EXERCISE YARD: The larger fenced area like a backyard that provides ample space for safe exercise, forage, sunlight, earth and vegetation that is regularly available to the birds when supervised. size: 174 sq. ft per bird (an area about 10 ft. x 17 ft per bird) If no access to a larger Range/ Exercise Yard, pen must provide 16 sq. ft. of floor space minimum per bird (an area 4 ft. x 4 ft per bird) fencing: 6 ft privacy fencing FOOD / WATER: Fresh food and water daily, calcium supplement, grit, stored in rodent proof containers, uneaten / spilled removed daily. SOCIAL: separate areas provided for incompatible birds. VET CARE: designated veterinary clinic , isolation area SANITATION- manure /wet bedding removed daily; clean / disinfect coop and furnishings annually. Soiled litter double bagged for solid waste or composted in an area inaccessible to chickens for at least a year. http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/ Page 9 2/15R09 Planning Commission DATE: August 8, 2012 REQUEST: Variances to allow construction of new home APPLICANT: Mike and Wendy Johnson LAND OWNER: Mike and Wendy Johnson LOCATION: 107 Everett Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LMDR, Low /Medium Density Residential ZONING: RB, Two - Family Residential HEARING DATE: August 13, 2012 REVIEWED BY : Community Development Director and City Planner PREPARED BY: Brian Finley, Intern City Planning Dept Egg CASE NO.: 2012 -26 BACKGROUND Mike and Wendy Johnson propose to build a new house and detached garage on the vacant lot at 107 Everett Street. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved a design permit for the new home and garage on Monday, August 6th. The approval of the garage was conditioned by the HPC and will become effective only if the Planning Commission approves the related variance. The proposed detached garage encroached into the required 30 -foot steep slope setback; therefore, a variance to the steep slope setback is necessary. The garage and home meets all other required bulk regulations and setbacks. Johnson Variance Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUESTS Mike and Wendy Johnson have requested a 15 foot setback variance from the bluff line (setback) in order to allow a detached garage to be constructed 15 feet from the bluff line (setback), whereas a minimum setback distance of 30 feet is required with slopes of 24% or greater. (See attached site plan). Approximately 40% of the garage is in the setback area. The survey submitted by the applicant calls out the top of bluff for a slope that is 18% or greater. Even though the setback requirement is for slopes 24% or greater, the applicant did not want to incur the expense of a professional survey so they chose to treat the top of bluff as a slope that was greater than 24 %. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Due to our climate, garages are an important feature and are expected for new single family homes in Minnesota. In our historic areas it is important to try to set garages in the rear of the homes to lessen their impacts on the adjacent streetscape. Unfortunately, due to the steep slope setback requirement it is impossible to construct a garage behind the home and still met the required setback from a steep slope. 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 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. Both the house and the detached garage are of very modest size. While an attached garage could be built without a variance, the character of this older neighborhood would lend itself better to a detached garage. Therefore, staff finds the requested variances to be reasonable. Johnson Variance Page 3 b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? While steep slopes exist in the community, most lots are flat and not subject to steep slopes. Additionally, while it is possible to build an attached garage on the lot given the setback requirements both the HPC and City prefer detached garages in its historic neighborhoods. 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. Some of the properties near the ravine also have setbacks of less than 30 feet. This can be seen in the attached neighborhood map. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? No. In fact, it is generally more expensive to build a detached garage than an attached garage would be. 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 setback at play in this request is intended to protect the ravine with a buffer area. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. The garage encroachment into the ravine setback is minimal. Additionally, Middle St Croix Water Management Organization rules will require that a rain garden be constructed on the lot due to the additional runoff the lot will create. If the rain garden is situated correctly some of the impacts of locating the garage in the setback could be mitigated. With the required rain garden, the city engineer has confirmed the impact on the ravine would be minimal. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. Johnson Variance 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 a new single family house with a detached garage. Both the proposed uses are permitted in the RB Zoning District. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requested variance. 2. Deny the requested variance. 3. Table the variance request for additional information. 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 bluff line setback shall be limited to the garage as shown on the site plan date stamped July 20, 2012 as on file in the Community Development Department. 3. A surface water runoff mitigation plan must be submitted to and found satisfactory by the Middle St Croix Watershed Management Organization prior to issuance of a building permit for the garage. RECOMMENDATION City staff finds the variance review criteria to be satisfied and therefore recommends approval as requested. attachments: Zoning and Location Map Site Plan Neighborhood Map Application materials Case 2012 -26 107 Everett St S N A City of Stillwater, MN 1 Feet Community Development Department 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651- 430 -8820 — 651 - 430 -8810 fax 0 20 40 80 1 inch = 40.864004 feet Mike and Wendy Johnson 12 Founders Green Hudson, WI 54016 July 19, 2012 Stillwater Planning Commission 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: 107 Everett Street South, Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Commissioners: Enclosed you will find an application for a variance to the steep slope setback requirements for the construction of a detached garage located at 107 Everett Street South in the RB — Two Family Residential District. We respectfully request the granting of this variance to accommodate the detached garage specified in the enclosed site plan. It is our understanding the required steep slope setback requirement for this lot is currently 30 feet from the slopes of 24% or greater. We request a modification to a 15' setback in the northeast corner of the lot to accommodate a 24' x 24' detached garage. We believe the newly constructed home together with the detached garage is consistent in design with other homes in the block and surrounding blocks and will compliment the essential character of the surrounding neighborhoods. It is our belief that this variance is necessary based on the unusual and unique topography of the lot as well as the extraordinary set back requirements in place as a result of the unusual topography. It is our goal to create a home the both honors and enhances the historical character and nature of Stillwater while accommodating contemporary needs. Absent a variance in the northeast corner of the lot, we are unable to locate the proposed garage elsewhere on the property. It is our belief the Stillwater Planning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 2 proposed location will have the least impact on the established setbacks and will still allow for the construction of home in keeping with the historical character and style of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, 4,4,4I Michael R. Johnson Wendy C. Johnson Encl. cc: Mike Pogge, City Planner Tory Kraftson, Assistant City Engineer Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Table of Contents Applications.... Request for variance Design Review Application and Checklist Landform Maps Topographic Site Plan Lot Photos Proposed Home Plan Proposed Garage Plan 4 5 6 7 8 0 Proposed Landscape Design 10 Tree Protection Plan 11 Thompson, Parker, and Mower's Second Addition Complimenting Homes 12 Homes on Block 11 14 Histong of the Bungalow Home 17 _2_ Applications -3- 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 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 1117 t-4t— ray gc,LLfl» Assessor's Parcel No. 2 ) , Qi cYI014 (GEO Code) Complete Property Legal Description* R (2,8-44,y24 4-1,..444-1 : ( *Required — Applications will be rejected without a legal description) Tax descriptions and property descriptions from the county are not acceptable. Zoning District E..6 Description of Project `i..11 .13.1-rl.(L'. l);,- 1f?fir_ f-atf I,t,`Ei=0 zirwei L', .Z . 'I' "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 1 will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Required If other than property owner Property Owner Representative MIS iii Mailing Address Mailing Address City - State — Zip City - State — Zip P- i171c; '; 'i 11AJ i. Telephone No. Telephone No. Idril z ' CT P, Email Email <n;1)14., I ,F rs,; 4,f r�! `i � Vkiiiirritii Signature (Signature is required) S: \PLANNINGFORMS \PLANAPP.DOCX January 10, 2012 Signat am (Signature is requir Legal Description of 107 Everett Street South: Lot Six (6) except the north 3.00 feet thereof, and Lot Eight (8), all in Block eleven (11), Thompson, Parker and Mower's Second Addition, Washington County, Minnesota. Together with a utility easement over, under and across the east 20.00 feet of Lots 2 and 4 and the north 3/00 feet of Lot 6, all in Block 11. Design Review Application and Checklist This Design Review Application and Checklist should be submitted with a City Planning Application Form Contact: Stillwater City Planning Office 651 -430 -8821 City Hall 216 N. 4th St. Stillwater, MN 55082 www.ci.stillwater.nm.us Project Address: Applicant name, address, telephone 1. Neighborhood Architectural Styles: Vernacular ❑ Italianate ❑ Queen Anne ❑ Gothic ❑ Greek Revival ❑ Second Empire American Foursquare Ar Other: Stiiier r J 2. Prevailing neighborhood streetfront setback: (Guidelines #1, #2, #3) Prevailing setback on block (est.) A' Average setback on block (est.) SD irk Proposed new house setback 2.6pr Stick 3. Is the pattern of homes in your neighborhood 1,1 -1/2, or 2 stories high? (Guidelines #4, #5) Stories 1 1 -1/2 2 House on right lam, ❑ ❑ ❑ House on left ❑ ❑ ,r House to rear ❑ ❑ Prevailing on block ❑ d ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ O ❑ Proposed new house ❑ ,e` ❑ 4. Prevailing Front Porch pattern in your neighborhood: (Guideline #13) Front Porch P" House on right N:t:l✓ House on left House to rear Prevailing on block Prevailing opposite block ,e' Proposed new house p' Notes: IL): � zidvir '`'�,s' ihm.}i1 i' J None 0 5. Prevailing Garage Location pattern in yourneighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) Front Rear Side Garage Garage ❑ ❑ Garage House on right Wca- , ❑ House on left House to rear Prevailing on block ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ Proposed new house ❑ 6. Prevailing Garage Size in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) 1 stall 2 stall 3 stall Garage Garage Garage House on right h sE> ❑ ❑ ❑ House on left ❑ .a ❑ House to rear ❑ ,❑' ❑ Prevailing on block ❑ .d ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ ❑ Proposed new house ❑ ,0 ❑ 7. Is the proposed garage compatible in form and detail with the design character of the main house? (Guideline #14) iii- pvrphe d fc tea C ^•? t4.' 8. If the proposed structure /garage location, setbacks, size or general design character does not fit prevailing neighborhood patterns, how do you propose to reduce its impact on the neighborhood and streetscape? : Stillwater Conservation District (p 1 of 2) Design Guidelines Design Review Application and Checklist 9. Does the proposed structure work with natural slopes and contours of the property? (Guidelines #6, #7, #8) Af Structure sited parallel to slope ❑ Building deigned to reduce cut and fill (minimized retaining walls) ❑ Landscaping incorporated into grading changes Notes: 10. Are there significant trees onthe property? Will any trees be removed or damaged by new construction? (Guideline #9) ta Types of trees ;s:p . I/NA , . EtA o Heights ftitig Ern;L. a a Trunkdiam. \rt;.ilti'.) /.0), i• t i.iC1.1 12? Notes: Cs) t) 1,'t (;) l -ir'1,, 1. ;10_i, i.r_ -'r! - r1 esoC2Jeri +c Laf w 14 Good Neighbor Considerations 1. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbor's access to sunlight in adjacent yards, patios or rooms? (Guideline #21) House to right: ki6 House to left: kio House to rear: 1.4 Notes: How will you mitigate any negative sunlight impacts on neighbors? ,p" Locate structure on lotto minimize impact o Adjust building height, or portions of building, to minimize impact ❑ Other: Stillwater Conservation District Design Guidelines 2. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbors' privacy ?(Guidelines #22, #23) House to right: NA House to left: i' 2 House to rear: Notes: How willyoumitigate any negative impacts on neighbors' privacy? ❑ Offset/locatewindows to reduce impact ❑ Use obscure glass in window ❑ Locate balconies to minim ize impact. .z" Use landscaping elements for screening ❑ Other: 3. How is outdoor lighting impact minimized for neighbors ?(Guideline #25) ❑ Lights are located or directed away from neighboring property % Light fixtures are shielded to prevent glare at neighboring property ❑ Other: To be included with this Application and Checklist: A' Site Plan: include location ofproposed building(s) on property, lot area; indicate impervious surface, property lines, street/ sidewalk location and approximate location of adjacent structures. Indicate proposed outdoor deck/patio and landscaping features. Building Plan: dimensions, first floor area square footage. Building Elevations: indicate building height, windows, materials, and color on all elevations. Indicate proposed exterior lighting. Photographs of site and streetscape. Regular Planning Department DevelopmentApplication Bonn (p2of2) Landlonn Maps - Signed - 4 - 60 L • J WATER - *16116 SAN SAN V/1 WATER WATER WATER WATER— VA WE S- -M-5YR ( CONCRETE SURFACE) N89°16'11 "E 126.46 CQYREIE SIDEWALK 'AT66TCR WATER COVE e°, PORCH EXISTING HOUSE (2- 5TORY) R _ SEC 0.6 BITUMNOUS DRIVEWAY TV 1599, 0 7 60 60 J L 1 I N I PARCEL A ' _ -J � o 12,132 s00 . 8956'12T 126.30 t, 3 I p Tb to O H __ _ .... .,cc- „ o � o ' I Qi I ,PARCEL B _ iHgH ,3 e EATEq 4e 12,243 s9.01 (4/ L'' : 1 51066)5 GR THAN I01 E NOTE: 605S6LE FLL AND 010 FOUND' . .`: N L,LIL AREA T OPT SLOPE --------- • 126.14 w0 1 N89° 16' 13 "E 60 EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 2. 4. 6, and 8, Block 11. THOMP50N PARKER AND MOWERS SECOND ADDITION, WonheoLon Co*, unt rMnesoto. (THIS DESCRIPTION PROVIDED BY OWNER) tMi PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A Lots 2 and 4 and the north 3.00 feet or Lot 6, • n Nock II, THOMPSON PARKER AND MOWERS SECOND ADDITION. Woshegtm Cawtr, Ein,rsota. S**Nect to a ut r oosessent over, under and ocrons the eon 20.00 feet ereof. PARCEL B Lot 6. eecept the nor. 3 -00 feet thereof. and Lot 8, m n Nock II. 500065ON PARKER A90 MOWER'S SECOND ADDITION, Weshn9tan County. `68699212 129ether h o LAU, easement v n er a w under d ocrass the 20.00 feet or Lots 2 and 4 and the north 3.00 feet of Lot 6, of n Nock NOTES L THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE 66961T OF A TITLE COMMENT. 2. T((ERE ARE NO EXISTING EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY 3. BEARING SYSTEM 5 ASSUf20 4, ELEVATIONS BASED ON N 029961ION PROVIO60 BT TIE CTTY OF STILLWATER SITE SYMBOLS EIOSTPC 065C26TpN CONTOUR SPOT ELEVATION CO.: *`AT6 ;RE FENCW2' SOL BORNE: POWER POLE MANHOLE CATCH BASIN HYDRANT SIGN GATE VALVE POWER POLE LICHT POLE TELE. BOX GAS VALVE OVERHEAD WIRES STOP BOX CULVERT GAS METER FENCE CONCRETE • 0E800E5 FOUND 1/7 RON PIPE O DENOTES SET I/7 IRON PIPE MARKED RICE 25718 0 20 40 7:7-J SCALE IN FEET L NORTH LOCATION 611 WEST MYRTLE STREET STILLWATER. MINNESOTA SHEET one PEV. / DATE 6 896 s -22 -93 CHANGED PARCEL LINES PROJECT : ST. CLAIRE PROJECT STILLWATER. MINNESOTA L nindfotm F� ti e ng 6 +2. 252 9070 H og Co (fax)662 252.5 DATE: 7 -7 -99 FILE NAME CERTTOIOS °wag PROJECT N0. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Topography -5- cn L- )45 4 • 44 ° 44. OS 01,EATEP, 9404 18% \ t 4 , Z ' 1 „., , ( ca. ClAtitt4 19 ,00 N00"59458 W 107 Everett Street South Legal description: Lot six (6), except the north 3.00 feet thereof, and Lot eight (8), all in block eleven (11), Thompson, Parker and Mower's Second Addition, Washington Country, Minnesota. Together with a utility easement over, under and across the east 20.00 feet of Lots two (2) and four (4) and the north 3.00 feet of Lot six (6), all in block 11. Looking east at lots 6 & 8 107 Everett Street South Looking north at back yard of 617 Myrtle Street Looking south to ravine Proposed Home Plan ,EVA.TIONI , 952 S(. FT. 94 LEVEL •.• .• • • • • . 1 . . . 1 . . . . . , • . • ■ 1 MR SO FT. UPPER LEVEi. - 8 - () IA' E.'"'" IblkEPTED Wet 11 111111 uIIIIIj "1"1 Fttt.11.171ple1101.1 INSERIELIDD4 li 7-1 1-60,11y1 (715)248-3010 euvereadteleettelokletyboro i?rFe" eyeetenu =T" 1!".7 NOTICE, DI/WE Ft TO VERIFY At b DIMOdElate ,GIZES. AND LOOTIONS AND FIEFORT' NY MORE PRIOR TO P.RIILIEEDIbell. Paplpilen Mike & Wendy Johnson sur.ssiow ELEVATIONS eon iked,e1 ',And Wax, nate leen; Cele Ant Al s Indlubled L'0LEVN2L 4 i b — I IJ MA LAUNDRY MO 17 11.0 i O 0 ♦ } A 1 R erom EATON iara 15.tl X. 11AEN r,Yy. ;II .r 44. I \� IIVT,T5 p /- AIIINIMI II u I I 1 1 1 I I .R I I I I m m b ` b ` a N2 SO. FT. MAIN LEVEL m roll n,,.,mwuw No „e (715)248 -3010 www,CiroP OMI.w,P0rT. NOTICE! 111111.1222 10 VERIFY /11 DIMENGIOND, SIZED. AND LOCATIONS AND REPORT 0710 ERRORS PRIOR 10 P200150010, Dromlolbn Mike & Wendy Johnson Bungalow MAIN LEVEL Pw1,.101.I NIROPYI DMe m N 4a Rm A3 V4' = 7.10 [1> BBB WI FT, UPPER LEVEL. (715)248-3010 YAW, 3,16,0110,110.col,, LL11.1,7" LtLL..1"" NOTICE! WIPER TO VERIFY All OIKNEIONE, WEB. Ala, LOWITIONE MD REPORT 00 744040 P4104 10 PRO00E0NI3. No, Orst,,,Ion Mike & Wendy Johnson Bungalow UPPER LEVEL Pt, 01.10.1 00100 um, ME, DWI, own 14 414 A4 04.0 1 L ! I 1 r "I rl r I I' II . I I I 1 il 1 1 °111'.107111 1 — 11.134 11.4 a. , • 40: :n7 r L 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I BBB WI FT, UPPER LEVEL. (715)248-3010 YAW, 3,16,0110,110.col,, LL11.1,7" LtLL..1"" NOTICE! WIPER TO VERIFY All OIKNEIONE, WEB. Ala, LOWITIONE MD REPORT 00 744040 P4104 10 PRO00E0NI3. No, Orst,,,Ion Mike & Wendy Johnson Bungalow UPPER LEVEL Pt, 01.10.1 00100 um, ME, DWI, own 14 414 A4 04.0 Proposed Gaza 6e Plan 1 E a CI I E I I 12.±LH FIR-filda,E1 O INSERTED 3O -1 OREAR ELEVATION ,l8"•1' -y © INSERTED 3D 2 O FRONTELEVAOON sto +eITilm YOU GeLfr VC R (715)248 -3010 www.3ddeslpnniWan.cae NOTICE! BUILDER TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. SIZES, AND LOCATIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING. Mike & Wendy Johnson Garage ELEVATIONS •., Project Number Issue Date ormio Sill rr.+•JM Jim Al Ae Indicated 111D U,PmPER,LrEE •0, 4 41 Er 0 , ,1n$4 YOU OEcEn 0 DR IEREE (715)248-3010 www.3-cldinigflonlIfom NOTICE! BUILDER TO VERIFY ALL DEAENSIONS, SIZES. AND LOCATIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING. „agrxigl=xtrr.. nartmat 0-^"ezavta... QUANTITIESANDSIZEOFAltWLNIK IIRerplopi Mike & Wendy Johnson Garage FLOOR PLANS Project Number Issue Dale DEE,. Ain A2 Rely EC, 1, 1111111111 - ! 4 41 Er 0 , ,1n$4 YOU OEcEn 0 DR IEREE (715)248-3010 www.3-cldinigflonlIfom NOTICE! BUILDER TO VERIFY ALL DEAENSIONS, SIZES. AND LOCATIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING. „agrxigl=xtrr.. nartmat 0-^"ezavta... QUANTITIESANDSIZEOFAltWLNIK IIRerplopi Mike & Wendy Johnson Garage FLOOR PLANS Project Number Issue Dale DEE,. Ain A2 Rely EC, 1, Proposed Landscape Desian otd,„ „ 96 .00N 00 '`.6 I vH7 4• 12 a, • L) f *•••••••• 24 FT I • ° 1 ° rk2L-E2E1 • •• •• - 10- Tree Protection Plan Applicants: Mike and Wendy Johnson 12 Founders Green Hudson, WI 54016 651,- 235-0273 It is anticipated that three substantial trees will be removed during the construction process. A white pine located in the northeast corner of the property, to facilitate city water and sewer hook-up, a birch tree and a willow tree situation in approximately the center of the lot. It is anticipated that all trees will be replaced bid trees of similar substantial nature and that the replacement trees will situated in complimentary positions on the home site. One seedling black walnut exists on the property. This tree will be transplanted elsewhere on the property. Great care will be taken to preserve the existing trees on the property. We have consulted with the University of Minnesota on how to best approach construction around the mature trees and will ensure a preservation plan is in place prior to start of construction. Please see accompanying representative drawing indicating future plantings and removed trees. Thompson, Parker, and Mower's Second Addition Complimenting Homes 110 Everett Street South XXXX Olive Street XXXX Olive Street XXXX Olive Street - 12 - XXXX Olive Street XXXX Olive Street XXXX William Street XXXX Olive Street XXXX Olive Street - 13 - Thompson, Parker, and Mower's Second Addition Homes on Block 11, Parcels 1-14 617 Mijrtle Street (Parcels 2 & 4) 607 Mjrtle Street (West half of Parcels 1 & 3) - 14 - Thompson, Parker, and Mower's Second Addition Beginning in July 1856, there were seven additions made to the city of Stillwater. Levi E. Thompson, Theodore L Parker, and William H. Mower purchased the tract from Andrew Randall. This addition is delineated by Mulberry Street to the north, Olive Street to the south, Holcombe Street to the east and William Street to the west. Then, as is often the case now, people identified themselves and were often identified by the subdivision in which them lived. The Thompson, Parker, and Mower's Second Addition was home for a variety of professional and trades people. Today, the Thompson, Parker and Mower's Second Addition is experiencing a revival. Homes are being updated and renovated, re.- embracing the beautiful historic qualities of the original homes for yet another century to come. Many of the historically relevant homes in the area are of the Bungalow, Vernacular, Foursquare or Stick built design. -16- History of the Bungalow Home American Bungalow Style 1905-1930 The term bungalow is commonly used to describe a small one- or one-and-a- , half-story home, The word "bungalow" is actually derived from the Indian Hindustani word bangala, meaning belonging to Bengal. Bungalows were first built in India in the mid - nineteenth century by the British. The intent was to design an informal, easily constructed, one -story rest house for travelers. Built low to the ground, the structure had large porches sheltered by wide overhanging eaves, a perfect waif to deal with the country's hot, sunny climate. The American version of the bungalow appeared around the turn of the century. First built in southern California, where most landmark examples of the style are found, it was the dominant style in the United States between 1905 and 1930. Relatively few of these houses were built after 1930. The American Bungalow had a small interior, a low-pitched roof, and ample porches. Practical, and economical, the bungalow met the needs of young families and first-time home buyers. For others, the appeal was more fundamental: Stylistically, the bungalow's simplicity was a refreshing departure from ornate Victorian designs that, come the new century, somehow seemed less impressive. Easij to build, bungalows could be adapted to almost any taste or region. At the height of the style's popularity, several companies r - 17 - even sold bungalow kits through mail-order catalogs. Sears, Roebuck & Companij started selling plans and building supplies in 1895, but it was the Aladdin Companlj of Bay Citlj, Michigan, that in 1906 started to offer complete kits. All the building components (e.8., pre-cut lumber, nails, doors, plumbing) were delivered to the construction site, where local craftsmen erected the homes according to the kit instructions. Characteristics Simple design, sparse decoration, and natural materials —these were the essential components of the Bungalow stljle. Bungalows alwaljs had front porches and a low sloping gable roof. Materials The materials used for the bungalow's exterior usualllj suggested warmth and informalit-y. Clapboard was the most common siding, followed blj cedar shingle, with the wood usually stained a natural shade of brown. Stone, brick, or concrete block, molded into a decorative form, were also used. Geographic location often dictated the exterior material to be used. In the midwest, for example, wood, natural stone and brick were materials indigenous to the area. Roof The roof was a low - pitched gable with wide overhangs to shield the house from the sun. Exposed rafters usually extended out from the house, with their ends sometimes cut -to- profile for decorative purposes. Dormers, if present, tended to be in the front with a gable roof or occasionally a shed roof. Dormers, if they existed, usualllj had low shed roofs. The most distinctive decorative element on a bungalow was the triangular knee brace that projected from the face of the front gable of the roof. Although meant to suggest the extension of the beams that supported the roof rafter, they -18- were usually decorative and, as such, could be assembled in a variety of ways, depending on aesthetic requirements. Windows Windows were most often double -hung with large, single panes of glass in each sash; occasionalltj the top sash had multiple panes. Some bungalows had casement windows. The windows were usually arranged as singles, grouped in pairs, or, for a prominent gable feature, arranged as a threesome. Window trim was alwatjs simple and flat wood. Entrance A front porch was a quintessential part of the bungalow design. Most had a unique supporting -post design, with short, square upper posts resting on massive piers or solid porch railings constructed of antj one of a variety of materials, including stone, brick, concrete block, stucco, clapboard, or shingle. The piers, often used in place of posts, frequently began at ground level and extended without break up to the roofline of the porch. Often they tapered as they rose, thus accentuating their structural purpose. Front doors were usually wood paneled with a small multi -paned window in the top. - 19 - Planning Commission DATE: August 9, 2012 APPLICANT: William & Jodi Defiel CASE NO.: 2012 -27 REQUEST: A 14 foot variance to the required 20 foot front yard setback for an attached garage and screened in porch. LOCATION: 936 3rd Ave 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; DISCUSSION William & Jodi Defiel owners of 936 3rd Ave S are requesting a variance to construct a garage and screened in porch on their property at 936 3rd Ave S. The original home was built in 1884. In 1994, the Defiel's received a variance to add a two stall garage to the front of the home (Planning Case 1994 -11). The variance approved in 1994 allow for 6 foot front yard setback and required that the addition be no taller than the existing structure. The new garage and screened in porch addition is also proposed for the front of their home and adjacent (east) of the addition built in 1994. It would have the same setback that was approved in 1994. The drawings included in the packet shows a roof that is taller than the current structure. While the applicant calls it a "car port" for purposes of zoning and the building code we consider it a garage since it is enclosed. Additionally, if approved the porch could be either screened in or be enclosed with glass. 936 3rd Ave 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 (6 feet requested). 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 a previous variance approved the current garage to be built with only a 6 foot variance it would seem reasonable to allow the existing setback to be continued with the new proposed addition. Additionally, the addition will be on the east side of the property. Since Dubuque St and Third Ave S are dead end roads, the addition will mostly be hidden by the existing garage. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The previously approved variance along with the nature of the street pattern in the area are unique circumstances of the property. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? While the current property owner built the current garage, the street pattern along with the bluff that is on the north and east sides of the property are unique to this property and not created by the landowner. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? Since the current garage already encroaches into the normal 20 foot front yard setback it would seem that the proposed addition will have little additional impact. Due to the decreased setback and to prevent the home from dominating the streetscape, it would seem reasonable to require the addition to be no taller than the existing structure. 936 3rd Ave S Page 3 e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? Adding the proposed addition makes the property more useable; thus, it is not solely an economic consideration. 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 purpose 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? Due to the placement of the existing garage, a variance that allows a garage and screened in deck to encroach 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 a garage and screened in deck are allowed uses in the RB district. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requested variance to encroach 14 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 14 feet into the required front yard setback. 3. Continue the public hearing until the September 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. The 60 -day decision deadline for the request is September 18, 2012. 936 3rd Ave S Page 4 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 garage and screened in porch as shown on the site plan date stamped July 21, 2012 as on file in the Community Development Department. 3. The proposed addition shall be no taller than the existing structure. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance as conditioned. Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and exterior elevations. Case 2012 -27 936 3rd Ave S NA City of Stillwater, MN 1 Feet Community Development Department 0 20 40 80 216 North Fourth Street 1 inch = 40 feet Stillwater, MN 55082 651- 430 -8820 — 651 - 430 -8810 fax PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 21h0 NORTH FOURTH STREET "!LLWATER MN 55082 Special /Conditional Use Permit —V- 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 ✓11/ 701 *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. ixteen (16) copies of supporting material are required. If application requires City Council review then a total of twenty -eight 28) cop es 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 13�, 3 rl A.� S 54' 1(uia � �7 9.0434010 J As essor's Parcel No. {ac h(er S�uj /eS (GEO Code) Complete Property Legal Description* GYrc AlePe v.J 10 l `C( ter ( *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 4 Coo for-`- Q rnc( 5 ckecl 5 cpee i.ec2 todedi . issues "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,. If other than property owner Property Owner t∎vo.fv -r -To d, Representative Mailing Address \3(0 3 - S Mailing Address City - State — Zip 5 -r SS O'a — City - State — Zip Telephone No. tot Z— 11 c — 8 (000 Telephone No. Email 4 'r +YC$pt)c c{ 're '1 CO 10'1 Email Signature Signature (Signature is required) - (Signature is required) S \PLANNING \FORMS \PLANAPP.DOCX January 10, 2012 .totes: Bearing system`is an assumed datum. BARRETTM. STACK • Indicates monuments found as noted. STILLWATER, MINN. 55082 Offsets shown to existing structures o Indicates /13774 iron pipe to be set. MINNESOTA REGISTERED are measured to the outside building wall "M." Indicates field measured value. LAND SURVEYOR line, unless shown or noted otherwise hereon. "R.' Indicate plat record value. Td.No,439 -5630 Any projections from said wall lines, such as Underground or overhead public or private utilities, on or adjacent the parcels, were not located in conjunction with this survey, unless shown otherwise hereon. -- -0U - -- Indicates overhead utility Iines in place. SURVEYMADEEXCLUSIVELYFOR, Jack and Lillian McKay, 614 East Dubuque St., Stillwater, MN 55082 DESCRIPTION, As Supplied By Client: (copy of Warranty Deed, Rec. in Bk. 312 of Deeds, Pg. 692) Lot 4, Block 18, Hersey, Staples and Co's. Addition to Stillwater, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds, Washington County, Minnesota. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Notes: = s, steps, decks, bay windows, etc., will impact indicated offsets accordingly. See Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets for Proposed Temporary Existing Structure Easement Description. /err/ /B - -- I !or 2 1 1 Beacr FND. M'. ff.e7 L•ps'& / 's; ti - - - 4Y87'SC ;r/'E - -/y ff. rs -- -- —� a. es .- 1 /. 172- /5:;WCEL c5.763 Sp Fr. ESM T, �I4.f \\\\\ ' 31•L :44 r1 /JZ _Co -- -. ?-p N. Cr. ZS K r. V V 0 f ir. we- trr 4 Zy B. ■ fvOl r/J 4' E 1 Rear R. ct DEF /EL �Eer• %%TIE /kb. 35353 r,, -r,rae ,r lsacc I S. f Z' S7747 ▪ Z 5r4er ,./OUSE { -4.1".7.7'17/7A-7 �f /ey ,`. e. fJ r.+'�. - Fi N, 4147 .4o e .2 p. 'ss' -4 °11W' i ,Cm - %.v0, I .e. c e • 4!•27Nc. 'SfcY • P 'fare. /Jr N o 4'44 '•. / t1) { 4 V• 1 / p ae-v PL" - J� r .vg7 °SL :z7"1" ZS7 /B , -? . Daevgvz= `. Plot - -, = GG A f7 CaK. evsd 1 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or' report wu by me or under my direct supervision and that am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Sate of Minnesota. Date Feb. 20, 2006 R No 13774 e6• Office of the County Recorder Washington County, MN Certified filed and/or recorded on: 2006/04/14 9:41:00 AM 3579123 Cindy Koormenn County Recorder 41, JAM ES F. flJONET ST I_ LAN Ft, Z-t,<?,g • oF t_P • '1.62 ;" C.2 65912 4... 2 ut • eAt•••••"%440._ e'fAtt. (I) AP r•rt-Zr. SURVEY MADE P'frit: -7.:""em L /1/0,e70,4J, -4"-reA.6"etle p$: ;4 p 40/40, S ri'd WA, P.4,2 40,AWae. DESCRIPTION: ...54.4reav f: .6'1V.r, 4 J 1 .4910c." ,44"4-$Arte, 5,-..q.0.04C e.:* 4.957,74 4,4414 "We /1114444, 4.: c V %,'2 /..(7.' tk5912 aereby certify that I. surveyed the property described , • above and that the above is true An'd correct plat of • sa.d survey. • te . .. /962 Scale: 1 bleb . • z..0e 0 Indicates Irons. Surveyor WV.1409.1;0•1.00404, directory ARChITECT , E ,cc L0H00.. COW OWNER fr DEFIEL ADDITION location map abbreviations = 936 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH, STILLWATER, MN 55082 index to drawings ARCHITECTURAL: ,,aamae ratAarac.'"‘ date: issue record — descriptiOn: sheet no. HAF GROUP— 0 E4 H1F A 8 C H 04 C 5c ara,rmaad. ,ertriFfz. Vg-l=g Ti ERMINGRIONtAllefl .10.1,1■Knle- / 1 FOUNDATION PLAN !.1 HAF GROUP ARCMITPCTUte HRIF ARCHITECTS wwVe.11141"(xlreCTS.Cam 1177■1/10,ARVOTICTS.K.POT.001.1 AO talsnx0.0.5.14nw..-VFARY OPUIN43 01SYNC C003110 0,1011 SENI MOW CYAN., ITPES ISSONSS 'AMY. SIA00001 ION SSIOS NC= CNN S/COYS SONIC 1,100e10001= ANY. 0050N0ONSS 0,0000y1t001.0 yyy CC WOOD YNOWNY 300910,C.700WFIC ;0=Or 50,71•0490 CY 0 DOORS TO NYMAN II II 0111111110 111111111 ;1 00. BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Hr•IF ARCHITECTS ,,,,, life •■ 11C WWW.14,111SCITSCSS.CON leK Al 1 MAT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN HAF GROUP `■°.°c".,1::,4j. Hlr:11F ARCHITECTS 1111...,11A(AROIIMTS.0.0..0,COM MAINCEV€I.FLOOAPLAN A2 0 EXTERIOR ELEVATION 341•5101 •-=15.1.1•454510011510 ----------------------------------------- 77=44, =.6555.55,1•••15115,5005 =I • " 1.4.11.0 5.1b.Nc 715 MI 1010•4101515EIZZO71,54, F ARCHITECTS PAT"' 6.51.00F110•50 TOP._05,1149,1,4,1 .51 /400••■• •ACT11•105 MAIM 111 1 111 1 sl 1 1 CDEXTERIOR ELEVATION 35•1•1501 ^ e • e t 0 6 I. '• &WrZATA;;;,r6s A4 • =MI EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1 ARCHITECTS Ieww.■ AAAAA (14.7,75.701e ETTAANeleFUNITICESAlosseAACOM A5 • ,ATITEICIAWAIVISMA sEs.zo•nnou '11111111111111111111111111111111•1111M °BUILDING SECTION ealizrztts___ \ BUILDING SECTION HAF GROUP HF ARCHITECTURE 0 0 : R*UP C*T El 0 IrY ARCHITECTS „ ..... „ WAWA ..... RIIITER•S.COM IREIREIHERATIIIITICITAI061./.COM BUILDING SERIONS A6 • °BUILDING SECTION HAF GROUP APCIIITPC71./RE 0 0 : 7 17'117, 0 4 111..71.271.7f" 1-1.1F ARCHITECTS ..... Atcxolects te NWW.MArk11[1417f,,COM WWW.1,1,[000g COMONOAMCNI/M15 11/11,010.1■011VECI.LOSSIO,COM ;a416Ztaai A7 • • 01),,,..ELAIL @ WINDOW SILL - BASEMENT LEVEL eSZT,'17:741• ■ET-76.- 5.111,01,7,VPIH,MA1411 W•Sernu■spemoou AulnlwinVow•SarlAnPoRAIO0fa 0 DETAIL 0 WINDOW MULL - BASEMENT / MAIN LEVEL 1.1[1,1,1r e•+-n7:771-"r1-' W•SEEPLA10011.00a (2) DETAIL WINDOW SILL - MAIN LEVEL ® DETAIL 0 WINDOW HEAD - BASEMENT LEVEL 0 DETAIL 0 WINDOW SILL - BASEMENT LEVEL 1.ta,ra. oo DETAIL 0 DECK DETAIL 0 DECK rtrEalr.OHIEEnD1100FTRUESES62 3/4,001.5MEA111111¢ USW. H■EWISHWAS.A•COLOIrTemAICIMISM. Nueee0A0 WHO TOMATCHERISIIHG 07:1.CAL DETAIL @ ROOF 12 12 3/V.P1110 2.WAUSH10 1/YRIERIORSKAMIN4 1.0014.A., EIMIA7100.11. 1/1.4111. StleA Pe. EISIZSMOWRAP FV-VOHO [01. AN us ...mos teac 111.A1,043.1101.1 MnICIOPSYSIVA.16.0.0 3/0.1.MWOODettYNO ®TYPICAL DETAIL 0 MAIN LEVEL A W LISTUDS T I .0, 1/YERIERIOR RUM. WWI". 1/2.1941.104$11eATH.6 :'40.A'1"1"4=WItr'. 1111 MI III SC IV If ,1,10 MICrirVAIM WO* TYPICAL DETAIL @ FOOTING 1.a.r.o• WEI 12,11.1001FOCOSCRAR i00/1.4 HAF GROUP ARCHITECTURE [ g 4 HrliF ARCHITECTS www.II•rAn(141,C13,0. O'N;,L7.°"""'"'"' A8 Memo Community Development Department To: Planning Commission From: Michel Pogge, City Planner} Date: Thursday, August 09, 2012 Re: Planning Case 2012 -28: A variance request to the required setback for an attached garage located at 317 William Street North. Message: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and construct a new home on the property located at 317 Williams St N. The HPC reviewed the design of the new home on Monday, August 6, 2012. Due to a few concerns raised at the meeting the request was tabled at the HPC meeting so that the applicant could revise their plans. The new plans may require additional variances; therefore, the applicant has asked that their request before the Planning Commission be tabled so they may address any additional variances at one hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Table action to the September 10, 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 Memo Community Development Department To: Planning Commission From: Michel Pogge, City Planner Date: Thursday, August 09, 2012 Re: Planning Case 2012 -29: A Variance to the flood plain regulation for the renovation of restrooms located at 204 Nelson St E (South Lowell Park) Message: Due to concerns raised by the MnDNR, staff is requesting that the application be tabled to the September 10, 2012 meeting in order that we can adequacy address their concerns. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Table action to the September 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. From the desk of... Michel Pogge, AICP • City Planner • City of Stillwater 216 N. 4ti, Street • Stillwater, MN 55082 651.430 -8822 • Fax: 651.430 -8810 email: mpogge @ci.stillwater.mn.us