The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-09-10 CPC Packet CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, September 10, 2012 7 p.m. The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, September 10, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. City held at 7 p.m on the second Monday of each month. All City Planc. AGENDA 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.APPROVAL OF August 13, 2012 MINUTES 3. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address meeting agenda. The Commission may reply at the time of the sta of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comme 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to pro the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from te applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium an. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the on the proposed item. 4.01 Case No. 2012-28. A variance request to the required setback for an attached garag 317 William Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential Distr Continued from the August 13, 2012 meeting. 4.02 Case No. 2012-29. A variance to the flood plain regulations and St. Croix Riverway for the renovation of restrooms located at 204 Nelson Street East in the Stillwater, applicant. Continued from the August 13, 2012 meeti 4.03 Case No. 2012-21. A variance to the bluffline setback for the construction of a wr-around-porch located at 322 Broadway Street South in the CBD, Central Busines Brosdahl and Heather Fox, applicant. 4.04 Case No. 2012-31. A minor Zoning Text Amendment for above-grade patios and above-grade decks. City of Stillwater, applicant. 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. OTHER BUSINESS 6.01 Proposed change in Planning Commission meeting date in October. 6.02 7. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2012 7:00 P.M. Present: Commissioners Kelly, Siess, Kocon, Lauer, Hansen, City Councilmember Menikheim Absent: Commissioners Buchanan, Dahlquist, Rodriguez Staff present: City Planner Pogge, Assistant City Planner Finley, Community Development Director Turnblad Commissioner Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. It was noted that the Vice Chairman has resigned the commission, leaving a vacancy. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Councilmember Kelly, to nominate Michael Kocon as Vice Chair. All in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Siess pointed out that Mr. Kocon was absent from the meeting so should not be listed as present. On page 8, the motion to table the chicken ordinance was seconded by Mr. Hansen. On page 13, the motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Siess. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve the July 9, 2012 minutes with the corrections noted. 4-0 in favor (Commissioner Kocon abstained). OPEN FORUM Councilmember Menikheim informed the commission that acting as a citizen, he had of an amendment to an existing special use permit for construction of a rooftop deck and bar at Rafters, 317 Main Street South. He felt that, due to safety concerns and ramifications for the city, a decision of this magnitude should rest with the city council, adding that further information had come out that commission was not privy to at the time. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. Page 1 of 5 Planning Commission August 13, 2012 language and adding performance standards on coop design. Staff also looked at other d at whether coops should be heated, which he said is debated among chicken keepers - there is no consensus. Language recommended holds the chicken keeper responsible for informing the city how they propose to regulate heat so birds stay healthy. Mr. Turnblad explained the sections of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Siess asked if the ordinance addresses selling eggs. Mr. Turnblad replied it does not, because the size of flock would not allow for that many eggs to be produced. The applicant, Tisha Palmer, asked why are there so many regulations about how and where to keep chickens compared with none about how and where to keep dogs, which also require a license. She said the proposed regulations, especially on coop design, seem overly strict. Mr. Turnblad responded that because urban dwellers have more experience with dogs than chickens, most cities want to be proactive about helping people tend them properly. Mr. Kocon commented that the permit process gives chicken keeping more legitimacy and assures the makes everybody a little more comfortable. Mr. Turnblad went over regulations related to the coop: it must be in the backyard, must be weather tight, kept clean, have a pen attached so chickens can run free someplace, the pen needs to keep out vermin and predatory animals, must be well drained, and requires 10 square feet of coop and pen area for each bird. Amy McKee, 601 Fourth Street South, told the commission the coop size requirements are very prohibitive and for many, would take half the yard. She criticized the city for re- doing a lot of the research that the chicken advocates had already done. Commissioner Hansen asked if a yard is fenced already, do chickens require another caged area? Mr. Turnblad replied they need an area of 10 square feet per bird of protected outside area - - it can be the remainder of the backyard as long as nothing is getting in or out - or it can be a mobile pen area. Ms. Palmer explained there is a mobile chicken tractor, an enclosure that can move to different sections of the yard. Page 2 of 5 Planning Commission August 13, 2012 Mr. Turnblad agreed the tractor is an option. There must be a total of 940 square feet for everything. Ms. Palmer asked, with written permission of neighbors, would the commission be open to allowing chickens to be free range in the backyard? Commissioner Lauer asked if the city is more concerned with the welfare of chickens or neigh Commissioner Siess stated this is a big leap for Stillwater - public confidence is important. She said she has no problem with allowing the mobile tractor. Commissioner Hansen expressed concern about enforcement issues of a complaint- driven system, for instance if permission is obtained from neighbors, but the neighbors move. great first step, and the city can build on it as time goes on. Vice Chair Kocon closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Ms. Siess stated she would like to amend language to include the mobile chicken tractor as an option. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve with the amendment including the tractor as an option. All in favor. Mr. Turnblad told the commission this will go to the city council September 18. 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, applicants. Assistant City Planner Brian Finley explained the request and reported the assistant city engineer had no concerns. Vice Chair Kocon opened the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. Applicant Mike Johnson, 12 Founders Green, Hudson, asked if the commission would approve a two foot addition to the south side to move the stairs over two feet. Mr. Finley stated this is alright as long as the 15 foot setback from the slope remains. Vice Chair Kocon closed the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Page 3 of 5 Planning Commission August 13, 2012 Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve the request, including language that it may extend an additional two feet to the south as long as it maintains a 15 foot setback from any slope greater than 24%. All in favor. Case No. 2012-27. A variance request to the side yard setback for a carport and stacked screened in porch located at 936 Third Avenue South in the RB, Two Family Residential District. William and Jodi Defiel, applicants. Mr. Pogge explained the home was originally constructed in 1884 with an addition of a garage in 1994 under a variance to front yard setback, with the condition that the addition be no taller than existing structure. The proposed new portion is to be in front of the home but to the east. Staff initially opposed the request, but became convinced that the proposed addition will be screened from most properties in the area by the existing recommends approval with the addition being no taller than the existing structure. Vice Chair Kocon opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Mr. Lauer asked the applicants if they agree with roof lines being equal. The applicants stated they are fine with it. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the variance. All in favor. 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. Vice Chair Kocon opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to continue to the Case No. 2012-29. A variance to the flood plain regulations for the renovation of restrooms located 204 Nelson Street East in the CBD, Central Business District. City of Stillwater, applicant. Vice Chair Kocon opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to table the Page 4 of 5 Planning Commission August 13, 2012 OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Siess remind cable viewers there is an opening on the commission. Interested residents may call 651-430-8800, Diane Ward, for an application packet. Mr. Pogge thanked Brian Finley who has been interning with city the past three months, saying he has been a great asset in the department. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting adjourned 8:16 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 5 of 5 Planning Commission DATE September 7, 2012 CASE NO.:2012-28 : APPLICANT: Shannon Mulvehill REQUEST: Variances to permit the construction of a new home within the required setbacks and over the maximum impervious coverage. LOCATION: 317 Williams St N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR - Low/Medium Density Residential ZONING: RB Two Family Residential PC DATE: September 10, 2012 REVIEWERS:Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner : DISCUSSION Shannon Mulvehill, has purchased the property at 317 William St N. The current hom was constructed in 1953. The applicant is planning to demolish replace it with a new home. Since the home was built after 1945 demolition review by the HPC. The property is in the Neighborhood Conservation Design District and as such an infill design review permit is re The HPC approved the NCD Design Review permit on September 6. A number of th variances are required by the Planning Commission in order to construct the home as presented. 317 Williams St N Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUESTS In order to construct the proposed home as planned the applicant is requesting the following variances: 1. required) 2. required) 3. 4.A variance to the maximum allowable building coverage (32.0% req maximum allowed) EVALUATION OF REQUEST The subject property is existing home are both currently nonconforming. Since the lot is unchanged since it was originally platted in 1882 it size and size of the lot makes it difficult to construct a home while meeting required setbacks and maximum impervious surface requirements. The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when th criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the pro reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight o landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by th landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the esse a.Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? The current home is in advance state of deterioration. The property is zoned RB two family residential and though it is less that 10,000 s.f., a single family home is a permitted use on the property. Constructing a single family home on the property after demolishing the existing home is reasonable. Additionally, open porches are a common feature of our historic housing stock, it seems reasonable to allow an open porch to encroach into the required setback on this property. Since the porch will be setback more than the adjacent property the request seems reasonable. Finally, the rear yard setback is always opposite the front door the home. If the front door were to be reoriented toward Linden 317 Williams St N Page 3 the home would not need a rear yard or side yard setback. The HPC discussed the orientation of the home and felt it was better orient it toward Williams St N. Regardless of where the front door is oriented, the impact to the adjacent property is the same. Overall, the requests presented appear to be reasonable. b.Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to th property? The nonconforming size of the lot is a unique circumstance. c.Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The landowners did not create the lot size which was platted in 1882. d.If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of While the new home is slightly larger than the current home, it location and setback are similar to the exiting home and shoud not e.Is the lone consideration an economic one? The proposal as presented does not appear to be an economic consideration but rather one of design choices. 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 requested? The purposed of the front and rear yard setback is to maintain adequate air and light on this and the adjacent propert along with avoiding a situation where one home becomes dominant on the overall streetscape. The purpose of the maximum impervious surface requirements is to prevent excessive runoff. b.If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with t Zoning Code? The variance that allows a porch that encroaches into the front yard is not out of character with the surrounding properties. Simply moving the front door does not change the mass of the structure and how it would impact the adjacent home. Finally with proper storm water mitigation runoff from the property can be minimized. Therefore staff believes that the requests are not 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. 317 Williams St N Page 4 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is proh zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RB, Two Family Residential. The single family homes are an allowed use of the property. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1.Approve the requested variances. 2.Deny the requested variances 3.Continue the public hearing until the October 8, 2012. Planning Commission meeting. The 60-day decision deadline for the request is August 18, 2012; however, staff can extend it for an additional 60 days if needed CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL If the Commission chooses to approve the project, staff would recommend following conditions of approval: 1.All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approve Commission. 2.The home shall be built according to plans date stamped August 31, 2012 as on file in the Community Development Department. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. 3. September 6, 2012. 4.A surface water runoff mitigation plan must be submitted to and found s by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance as conditioned. Attachments: , Site Plan, and exterior elevations. #1 Northeast — 710 Linden St #2 East — 717 Linden St #3 Southeast -722 Mulberry St - VP - -_ Use: Single Family Home Use: church Use: Single Family Home Size: 1 % story — 1,602 SF Size: 1 1 /2story- 1,147 sf Size: 1 % story — 1,252 SF #4 North — 726 Linden St #5 Subject Property — 317 William St #6 South —728 Mulberry St s .pra I� 4 1 L OR Use: Single Family Home Use: Single Family Home Use: Single Family Home Size: split level — 1,928 SF Size: 1 story — 1,104 SF Size: 2 story- 1,343 SF #7 Northwest— 404 William St #8 West -316 William St #9 Southwest -308 William St ff. _ y - Use: Single Family Home Use: Single Family Home Use: Single Family Home Size: 1 story— 1,197 SF Size: 2 story — 2,331 SF Size: 1 % story — 1,415 SF HPC Case 2012-34 and CPC Case 2012-28 ± HPC Case 2012-34 and CPC Case 2012-28 Legend Structures ± � ' �� /p- '<+1✓♦�.i��i�i�l1 '. ' to ." { � `iy' - '�i.�i•ii•iI�IA� -o1�, - n Nd . �g= I� „�..�...m._.4.__ gl, ,$g�"ts.F,�- -'9�t � � ;vi �+,. `4i .:.:C'a '�++•+', x� i ..s ! > II i� °'F• - � b _ '*�.5 '�'_ ? ..�V ' -: � �essl t �r�Sjl�� ..r s, - v�ffirHliP,9`.. �.�. S '•i' ,��,. .4 e �'�:�� 9 �,�i � m_��l wm dt , — rIIr i Hi I Cn I � { iIii � ai i1 rni e � li w � � ;� ll ��i_�il� i ti.i�tt. I' l� t t lot tlt1g11 °re � II it, � �l�i�li_ l i� l �r � l� � �■ � .o _ I�� iI �r �I I ��r�i � �3 � �� ° —s��r” .i f l l -i a I I' i �Sc�r -y ._ �° � 1 - o� �� . yaw :��- r 1 �.aii�ii�a— - - -- - -- - � - -. ___�jersrrM,��+'f' �'�A"a� - -- � �I moo- _._....___-_- -- -. � h r p tJ 4 �N .. S �ErE � � K Q 6 _ M Q f N N N -�F Planning Commission DATE CASE NO.: 2012-29 : September 6, 2012 REQUEST: Variances to allow for the reconstruction of the restroom in south Lowell Park APPLICANT: City of Stillwater LAND OWNER:City of Stillwater LOCATION: 204 Nelson St E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU Downtown Mixed Use ZONING: CBD Central Business District HEARING DATE: September 10, 2012 PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner : REVIEWERS:Community Development Director BACKGROUND The City of Stillwater is proposing to rebuild the existing restroom in south Lowell Park. The restroom is connected to the sanitary sewer lift station along the south wall of the restroom. The lift station was constructed in 1959 while the restroom was in 1984. The existing restroom has two stalls in both the men and women restrooms. The restroom is in very poor shape, is over used, and at the end of it useful life. Additionally, the way it was constructed creates water intrusion issues. The new restroom is the men and women restrooms. The east wall of new restroom will be located in the same location as the connected to the lift station. . In order to avoid water intrusion issues the In order to construct the new restroom as proposed, two variances are necessary related to setback from the St Croix River and floodplain requirements. South Lowell Park Restroom Page 2 Existing Restroom Sanitary Sewer Lift Station The park is guest to hundreds of thousands people annually and w restroom facility. The current restrooms are substandard and si attached photos). The new restroom will not only provide updated facility but will also increase the number of stalls. SPECIFIC REQUESTS The City of Stillwater has requested the following variances: 1.A 10 foot setback variance from the Ordinary High Water Mark of th 2.A variance to the floodplain overlay district requirements in orn accessory structure (restroom building) in the floodplain. 720 square foot structure requested, 500 square foot square foot maximum allowed. EVALUATION OF REQUESTS The St Croix Riverway rules took effect in Stillwater on June 6, regulations to effect on September 26, 1983. The sanitary sewer lift station was built prior to either of these requirements while the restroom was built prior to the St Croix River setback requirement. Since the current restroom is smaller than 500 sq. ft. it meets the requirements of the flood plain rules as an accessory structure. Since the restroom is being completely rebuilt, it technically is required to meet the riverway and floodplain rules. Since the lift station is in good shape restroom connected to the lift station similar to how is currently is constructed, variances are requir South Lowell Park Restroom Page 3 St Croix Riverway requirements The purpose of the riverway requirements is to lessen the impacts the built environment has on the river. The City looked at moving the restroom back to meet the 100 feet; however this for two reasons. First, moving it causes it to get closer to the adjacent parking to grade changes it made it impossible to meet ADA access requirithout a series of ramps that would be visible from the river. Second, since the lift station will remain, we felt that placing the bathroom at a similar setback a justified. Since parks are permitted uses in the riverway district a restroom would seem to be a reasonable accessory use that supports the park. To address concerns raised by the DNR, the City is willing to ad side of the restroom and lift station to help screen the buildin the City will use earth tone colors on the new restroom as required by Flood overlay district requirements The base flood elevation (aka 1% annual change flood elevation or 100-year flood elevation) at this location is 692.5 feet. The regulatory flood protection elevation is one foot above base flood elevation or 693.5 feet at this location. The proposed finished floor elevation of the new restroom is . A provision in the Stillwater floodplain ordinance allows a buil b -3 or FP-4 as out lined in the Minnesota State Building Code. No mechanical and electrical equipment will be The City would build the new restroom to the required flood proofing standards. Additionally, as a non-habitable restroom building, it is the position of the City that 720 square feet in size, the building requires a variance to the maximum allowable size. The City believes that the size of the proposed restroom is needed in order to adequately serve the needs of the community. The City has discussed the proposed flood overlay district variance with the DNR and they h variance to be acceptable. South Lowell Park Restroom Page 4 The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. 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 unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the var will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone a.Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? The restroom itself is a very modestly sized 720 square foot building that serves the users of downtown Stillwater. Due to the location of the lift station and landscaping the buildings along side of the building along with using earth tone colors the proposal is reasonable. b.Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to th Building a public space for the benefit of the public is unique itself and balancing the needs of the park visitors with the zoning code can be difficult. Balancing the needs of the floodplain overlay district and the riverway rules can also be challenging. Balancing this creates a unique challenge. Therefore, staff finds the circumstances to be unique. c.Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The City 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 project seeks to construct modern restrooms that are only slightly larger than the current restroom building. The variance itself does not alter the essential character of the immediate neighborhood.If not granted, the City will keep the existing restrooms which are substandard and not desirable in the eyes of the general public. e.Is the lone consideration an economic one? The City has nothing to gain economically with these proposed variances. South Lowell Park Restroom Page 5 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Com Plan. a.What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is requested? The floodplain requirements are to protect the building from flooding and potential losses. The setback from the St Croix River seeks to minimize the loss of natural views from the river. b.If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with t Code? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. Since the lift station will remain, the impact of the built environment on the river changes little regardless if the restroom meets the required setback or not. By adding landscaping and using earth tone colors the impacts of the new restroom building on the river will be minimi Additionally, since the restroom will be built following flood proofing standards, concerns related to the flooding will be minimized. 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. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is proh zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned CBD, Central Business District. The creation of the restroom is not a prohibited use. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1.Recommend City Council approve all or part of the requested variances. 2.Recommend City Council deny all or part of the requested variances. 3.Table the variance requests for additional information. South Lowell Park Restroom Page 6 CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL If the Commission chooses to recommend that the City Council approve the project, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1.All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 2.The applicant shall submit a SAC determination letter prior to t building permit. 3.Plans shall be approved by the building inspector and fire marsh issuance of a building permit. 4.The building shall meet all flood proofing requirements of the M Code, including that no mechanical or electrical equipment may b 5.Landscaping shall be added along the east side of the building to minimize the visual impact of the structure from the St Croix River. Landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved by the DNR Area Hydrologist and the City Planner prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6.As part of the Downtown Stillwater Commercial Design Review District, the applicant shall submit final plans to the Stillwater HPC for review. Plans shall be approved by the HPC prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7.The building shall use earth tone colors. Final color selectionhall be submitted and approved by the DNR Area Hydrologist and the City Planner prior to issuance of a building plan. 8.All utilities along with all ground and roof top mounted mechani must be screened from public view. 9.All gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc. must match the color of the adjacent surface. 10.Light Plan and cut sheets on all of the lighting fixtures shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a building 11.The street address of the building shall be displayed in a location conspicuous from the public street. 12.The drainage and utility plans shall be reviewed and approved by Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13.If required, a permit from Middle St Croix Water Management Organization shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. RECOMMENDATION City staff finds the variance review criteria to be satisfied an as conditioned. attachments: Site Plan Application materials Case 2012-29 ± Case 2012-29 ± SubjectSite Photosinsidethecurrentrestroom PR LANNING EPORT September 5, 2012 2012-21 DATECASE NO.: : Brian Brosdahl and Heather Fox APPLICANTS: John and Rosalie True LANDOWNER: Bluffline Setback Variance for Porch REQUEST: 322 S. Broadway LOCATION: CBD, Central Business District ZONING: September 10, 2011 HEARING DATE: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director PREPARED BY : SPECIFIC REQUEST A 9 foot 10 inch variance has been requested to allow the construction of a wraparound porch 20 feet 2 inches from the South Hill bluffline rather than 30 fe BACKGROUND Mark Balay, Balay Architects, has submitted a request on behalf of his clients Brian Brosdahl and Heather Fox for a bluffline setback variance to add a wraparound porch to the house at 322 S. Broadway. Brosdahl and Fox have entered into a purchase agreement with the Trues who currently own the property. A contingency of the agreement is that the City would have to approve the requested variance for a closing to occur. The home [labeled with an encircled 1 on the photo below] is situated above Teddy Bear Park with a dramatic view of Downtown and up the St. Croix River Valley. The prospective buyers would like to build an eight foot wide wraparound porch on the front of the home. However, since a corner of the house is just over 30 feet from the bluffline, and the minimum bluffline setback is 30 feet, the porch cannot be added without crossing partially into the required setback area. Therefore, a variance has been requested for that portion of the porch that encroaches into the setback area. [See attached site plan.] True Variance Page 2 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 th difficultiesÒ in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical di 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 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 Ñpractical difficultyÒ. a.Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? Front porches are common on StillwaterÔs 19 Century homes. Moreover, the th majority of the proposed wraparound porch exceeds the required bluff setback. Therefore, staff finds the proposal to be reasonable. b.Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property is fairly unique in its physical circumstances. Though there are any number of homes located along blufflines in the City, there are very few like this one that do not have frontage on a public road and instead have running parallel to the bluffline in front of the home. This creates a situation where the front of the home faces the bluff. This can be seen in the attached air True Variance Page 3 photo. For almost every other bluffline home, the rear of the building faces the bluff. Consequently, for those homes a front porch would never have a concern about its setback to the bluffline. c.Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The home was built shortly after the Civil War and presumably the platted lot lines were rearranged to accommodate the home at that time. Thi before the subject purchase agreement was written between the potential buyer and the current landowner. d.If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? Staff is fairly confident that the variance for the porch would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. But, because it is in such a prominent location, staff believes the proposed porch should be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission to look specifically at the question of whether the proposal fits the historic fabric of the area. 1 e.Is the lone consideration an economic one? The principle considerations for the requested porch are not economic. Rather, they are aesthetic. 2.The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Com Plan. a.What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The bluff setback standard has two general purposes: 1) to maintain as natural a setting as possible; and 2) to protect environmentally sensitive bluff. In this case, the bluffline is unusual in that a driveway already exists along the entire width of the bluff setback area. As a consequence there are no trees or pervious soils to protect. b.If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Staff does not find any conflict with the Zoning Code. 1 Currently there is a living room addition on the east side of the house that was at one time a four season porch. The proposed new open porch would wrap around this one story living room addition. Though not included with the materials for this variance application, a second story addition above the living room addition is also planned to be built at the same time as the porch. The combination of a new porch and a second story addition merit review by the Heritage Preservation Commission. This is especially so since the home is highly visible from many angles Downtown and along the surrounding bluffs. True Variance Page 4 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 proh district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned CBD, Central Business District. Single family homes are allowed in this district. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1.The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval. 2.A Design Review Permit must be approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to issuance of a building permit for the porch and addition to the east side of the house. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the request with the conditions identified above. Attachments: Zoning & location map Neighborhood Air Photo Site plan of proposed porch Architectural Elevation Certificate of Survey cc: Mark Balay True Variance Page 7 uff Lino per 5urvo� MUL ' �' Propertq Line PAP,CLL 'A' PIA6P,,,AM/ FPUP05�P " araqe VAPIANC� 332 5. MOAPWAY E 5CA,L 1/ 8" O' —O" cl N m O m N E � n o m m C� m Q E E 0 U Notes: Bearing system is an' CERTIFICATE assumed datum o Ind. #13774 iron pipe set. • Ind, iron found as noted. "M," Ind. Field meas. value. "R." Ind. recorded value. Survey Made For: a' Brian Brosdah.l 1763 Brighton Trail Woodbury, 14N 55125 OF SURVEY a e -0c, is `d -- SS •96 6✓ /'�,f£,L1✓oL/p /�N Key �� G i ,mac �.� n < y -_ _ - L S� •a. 6� ,SQY � N _6J i �. Existing Parcel Description: (current fee owner 'Prue) I >i �Z Per Desc. Rec. in Book 306 of Deeds, _' Page 297, I ^lash. Co. records. (see "� r� U a copy transmitted with this survey) Survey Made By: v V a o r V J Stack Land Surveying 9090 No. Fairy Falls Road Stillwater, I4N 55082 �ji p� tel: (651) 439 -5630 Notes: (cont.) u Fart of the existing driveway is located on Lot 3, Block One, of Joseph Wolf Brewery Add., Wash, Co., Minnesota. If not currently defined, this use should be defined by a rec, 0 a� X ,". M easement. Part of the existing driveway is I �t % R p located on the P E' ly portion of the True Parcel, This driveway also p M b benefits the adjoiner W'ly, Harold. ;'I oa �� Q �k' Kimmel. This Use by Kimmel should be defined b easement and recorded, CO `� y Underground or overhead, public or ,V v private utilities, on or adjacent the parcels, were not located in conjunction with this survey. No existing esmnt. ti / ^ \9 desc's. benefiting or encumbering the N 4 ery 0 True Parcel were supplied to Stack ~ i �? b vI � h Land Surveying for the conduct of I �� / this survey. Offsets shown to existing structures I a: YT.1�. t -69 9£ �I � are measured at right angles to — N facing description lines, and are measured to the outside building wall /% •fir, vti tiV�,t �j line, unless no t otherwise. Any t ?yY o0� NN projections from said wall lines, fib/ �a such as eaves, sills, steps, etc., -Y/ �ti �n ��to -- BS'OO /!✓ -� Wow od will .impact indicated offsets. Interest of the The remaining 1/2 — oos/ exception parcel is described on Doc. No. 560347, Wash. Co, records. h3 'N NN 1 V VN MN 4 �3 ' � N_ tL N+ IN J�.J/ N � � � ki � V I N ti J ON VO f OOS /- 5'98 \ CD D I hereby lertify that this survey, plan, or report was V prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of l I O the State of Minnesota. ........ ............................... ti ^ Aua. 1. 20].2 13774 0 ( 6Z ' 76 3 .� M Date ......... .............................Re Nn.......'............ .......... \ li ONO iS• 9Ni7 v� Planning Commission September 5, 2012 2012-31 DATE: CASE NO.: City of Stillwater APPLICANT: A zoning text amendment to §31-325 of the Stillwater City Code t REQUEST: require City Council review of Special Use Permit of all roof to above grade patios. September 10, 2012 PC DATE: Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Michel J. Pogge, City Planner PREPARED BY: BACKGROUND In response to the Rafters roof top patio SUP request, the City st meeting asked that City Staff draft an amendment to the zoning c permits for all roof top patios and above ground patios be revie Council. Currently the Planning Commission has the authority to of use. REQUEST Staff requests the Planning Commission to conduct a public heari comments and make a recommendation on the attached ordinance. DISCUSSION Requiring City Council review of all roof top patios and above g simply as adding a that states: SUPs for outdoor eating establishments on a rooftop or on above be issued by the City Council. Since state statute requires all SUPs to be reviewed by the Plan be heard by the City Council, this change will add a minimum of for requests for roof top patios and above ground patios. REQUESTED ACTION Staff request that the Planning Commission Consider the ordinanc recommendation to the City Council. ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31, ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE BY REQUIRING CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ALL ELEVATED OUTDOOR EATING ESTABLISHMENTS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: 1.Purpose. The City of Stillwater finds that due to their inherent risks and potential to disrupt the surrounding residential neighbors, elevated outdoor eating establishments need to be reviewed by the Stillwater City Council. 2.Amending. City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-325 is amended by replacing with the following: CA CBD VC BP-C BP-O BP-I CRD PA PWFD Outdoor eating establishments SUP 25 SUPs for outdoor eating establishments on a rooftop or on abov 25 patios may only be issued by the City Council. 3.Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapter 31 shall remain in full force and effect. 4.Effective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this ____ day of _________________, 2012. CITY OF STILLWATER _______________________________ Ken Harycki, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Diane F. Ward, City Clerk