Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-11 CPC PacketCITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING Monday, February 11, 2013 7 p.m. The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, February 11, 2013 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 January 14, 2013 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. 2013 -02. A variance request to the front yard setback (30 ft required, 15 inches requested) for the construction of an addition to front porch located at 1419 Ramsey Street West in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Jon Whitcomb, Midwest Real Estate Management, applicant. 4.02 Case No. 2013-03 A variance modification to a previously approved variance for the encroachment of an attached garage into the rear yard setback (20 feet required, 6 inches requested) and side yard setback (11'6" required and 1'6" requested) located at 322 Broadway Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark S Balay Architects, representing Brian Brosdahl, applicant. 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. OTHER BUSINESS 6.01 Housing Maintenance Ordinance Review 7. ADJOURNMENT Iviater TOE EIRTRf Iii CE Of MIOMEi ETA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 14, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Buchanan, Collins, Hansen, Hade, Siess, Lauer, Council Representatives Menikheim and Weidner Absent: Commissioner Kelly Staff: Community Development Director Turnblad, City Planner Pogge APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Siess pointed out that her last name was spelled wrong. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve the December 10, 2012 meeting minutes with the correction of Commissioner Siess's name. All in favor. OPEN FORUM As he is leaving to be liaison for a different Commission, Council Representative Menikheim expressed deep admiration for the dedication and commitment of the Commission, and introduced the new liaison, Councilmember Weidner. Council Representative Weidner noted he looks forward to working with the Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2013 -01. A request for preliminary and final plat approval for the SPGLI Plat located at 200 North Second Street, 102 North Second Street and 110 Myrtle Street East in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark Balay, Lowell Inn, and City of Stillwater. Community Development Director Turnblad explained the request, which requires no action but is for information purposes. SPGLI stands for the Stillwater Parking Garage and Lowell Inn Addition. In order to simplify property ownership issues as well as straighten out title and encroachment problems, the City decided to re -plat the property associated with the parking ramp project. Initially staff thought that the replatting process would require a formal public hearing and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. However, upon further investigation of the Subdivision Chapter of the City Code, it is clear that it can be approved administratively. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission January 14, 2013 Chairman Kocon welcomed Ryan Collins to the Commission. OTHER BUSINESS Comments on Special Use Permit Ordinance Amendment City Planner Pogge explained that in response to the Rafters roof top patio SUP request, the Council at its August 21st meeting asked that staff draft an amendment to the zoning code that requires special use permits for all roof top patios and above ground patios be reviewed and considered by the Council. Currently, the Planning Commission has the authority to approve SUPs for this type of use. Subsequently, the Planning Commission expressed concern that the proposed ordinance was unnecessary and that the current system works fine. The Commission recommended that the Council reject the ordinance amendment. On October 16th the Council heard the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment and requested that the language be altered to make the ordinance apply to SUPs in general (not specific to roof top patios), and that the Planning Commission would continue to review and issue most Special Use Permits except when accountability or unusual public safety concerns arose. On December 4th the revised language was presented to the Council, and the Council directed staff to present the revisions to the Planning Commission for review and discussion. Chairman Kocon clarified that essentially the Planning Commission is responsible for approving SUPs but if it chooses to pass along an item to the Council, it may. Motion by Commissioner Buchanan, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to make a recommendation that the Council adopt the ordinance amendment as proposed. All in favor. Events Referring to the school shooting in Connecticut last month, Commissioner Siess recalled a past hearing when the Commission considered a request from an individual who wanted to sell guns from his home. When the Commission was making the decision, it seemed there were a lot of things in the ordinance that were not specific to gun ownership and the selling of firearms. She asked how these things could be made more specific. Community Development Director Turnblad responded that ordinance amendments can be initiated by the Council, the Commission, or a resident. Commissioner Siess commented that she felt the hearing was very difficult for staff because there was a comparison between the applicant's request and what a hair salon can do. That is like apples and oranges to her. Community Development Director Turnblad replied that staff looked at the impact of the proposed use on surrounding land uses, but the federal government decides whether the sale of arms from a home is allowed - that is not the City's jurisdiction. City Planner Pogge added that the applicant in that case had wanted to sell firearms wholesale via shipping. He also considered obtaining approval to do legal transfers to individuals as a licensed firearms dealer. What made it difficult is that he needed the SUP to allow the home occupation to Page 2 of 3 Planning Commission January 14, 2013 occur on his property, but he wasn't planning on having the transfer of firearms occur on his property for a number of reasons including security of his property. Neighbors objected to both activities. Community Development Director Turnblad added that many agencies look at land use issues. A local jurisdiction (the City) looks at how a proposed use impacts a neighborhood. Other agencies look at other aspects of the proposed use. Staff can look into whether the City can legally say it will treat this type of home occupation differently than other types of home occupation. Planning Workshop Community Development Director Turnblad noted that John Shardlow has been retained to do a two -hour planning workshop. City Planner Pogge will poll Commissioners for dates that will work. Officers Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Commissioner Lauer to reaffirm officers elected at the last meeting (Kocon Chairman, Hansen Vice Chairman), since City Code requires the Commission to elect officers every January. All in favor. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m. All in favor. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 3 of 3 ater. THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Planning Commission DATE: February 5, 2013 APPLICANT: Ann Whitcomb CASE NO.: 2013 -02 REQUEST: A variance to permit the construction of a front porch within the required front setback LOCATION: 1419 Ramsey St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: LDR - Low Density Residential ZONING: RA - One Family Residential PC DATE: February 11, 2013 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Plann BACKGROUND Ann Whitcomb, is working to rehabilitate property she owns at 1419 Ramsey St W. According to the Washington County assessor the current home was constructed in 1875. Currently the home has no front door. It would appear that the front door was moved during one of the renovations to the home over the years. Additionally the gas and power services are on the front of the home which impacts the overall design of the home. The plan is to relocate the utilities to the side of the home and construct a new porch and front door facing Ramsey St. SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to construct the new porch the applicant is requesting a 28 foot 9 inch variance to the front yard setback for an open porch (30 feet required, 1 foot 3 inches requested). Front setback RA Zoning District Required /Allowed Current 30' 10.7' Proposed 3'7" (to porch) 1'3" (to stairs) 1419 Ramsey St W Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST The subject property is a 75' x 110' lot. The existing home is nonconforming since it currently encroaches in the front yard setback. The front portion of the home is likely the original portion of the home. Since the home has been in its current location it is considered legal nonconforming. 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? Design of our residential neighborhoods is important. The front of the home has no front door and several utility services are currently on the front of the home. The proposed change seeks to clean up the front of the home and help it fit into the fabric of the neighborhood. To do this, they plan to move the utility services to the side of the home, add a front door and add a front porch. Staff finds that the request as presented appears to be reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The placement of the home and the lack of a front door is generally unique to the property. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The landowners did not place the home where it is on the lot, nor did they eliminate the front door. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? While the current home is closer to the front property line than other homes in the neighborhood, the open nature of the proposed porch will have little impact on the neighborhood as a whole. For that reason, the proposal should not alter the "essential character" of the locality. 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. 1419 Ramsey St W Page 3 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The 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? Allowing a porch that encroaches into the front yard is not out of character for Stillwater. Also, the small setback would not create traffic visibility problems nor would it interfere with use of the street or maintenance of utilities. 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. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RA, One Family Residential. Single family homes and porches are allowed uses 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 March 11, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The 60 -day decision deadline for the request is March 18, 2013; however, staff can extend it for an additional 60 days if needed. 1419 Ramsey St W 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 home shall be built according to plans date stamped January 17, 2013 as on file in the Community Development Department. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance as conditioned. Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and exterior elevations. Current Front Elevation 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: V /alt! /S Date Filed: ��/ 7�/3 Fee Paid: j Receipt No.: t frfg37 v9 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. Anv incomplete application or supporting material will cause your application to be reiected 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 / f I c,1MSey Assessor's Parcel No. 29.030 - Complete Property Legal Description* le'e r (GEO Code) ( *Required - Applications will be rejected without a legal des rip on) Taxtdescriptions and property de criptions from the county are not acceptable. n Zoning District F i Description of Project 41d - -J (.4 h. -t'Y 4- �r�Y "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Required Property Owner ,4''1 r1 W l i+ei 3MN.b Mailing Address S2f? itiezq 74-v City - State - Zip -1 ^/ /1r' o'. /yr,J 2- Telephone No. - 5 a 1g g Z Email r J o/J . ;. Signature ignature is required) S :\PLANNINGIFORMSIPLANAPP.DOCX January 10, 2012 If other than property owner Representative . 7 J i4..)4411-641,4 Mailing Address S-5"S.�? 8' A( / l r City - State - Zip 54)c4e-r Telephone No. -1 2? 3q L/ Email spN (9_ j®.tie:A.)h ire, ndur.. Signature (Signature is required) Case 2013 -02 Whitcomb Property 1419 Ramsey St W City of Stillwater, MN 1 Feet Community Development Department 0 25 50 100 216 North Fourth Street 1 inch = 50 feet Stillwater, MN 55082 651- 430 -8820 — 651 - 430 -8810 fax CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: JON & ANN WHITCOMB •1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATES NAD 83. 2. ELEVATIONS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 3. EASEt.NiS, IF ANY, MAY EXIST AND ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY. 5. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WERE LOCATED 05 SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY. POI►+Q I/2' RON PIPE MARKED STACK AT Tit NW CORNER OF BLOCK B ---, NOTES: PROJECT LOCATION: 1419 WEST RAMSEY STREET STILLWATER, MN NORTH 1-NE OF 75.04 - ---NW CORNER OF BLOCK 0, MCKNSTRY AND $8 EY'S ADDITION TO STLLWATER 75 75.04 PUBLIC BITUMINOUS ROAD WEST RAMSEY STREET FOUND I/7 DM PPE MARKED 61.5 16464 0.4' 9. & 2L' 27 EAST Gf PARCEL. CORNER 58833.35'E' --- 150.00 ---- 86B LEGAL DESCRIPTION: +F All that part of Blom 8 of MWnstryand SeeWs Addition to Shcinater, described u fallows, viz Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Block, running thence East along the North Une of Said Block. 150 feet: running thence Southerly, parallel with the West line of said Block, 115 feet running thence Westerly 150 feet to the West line of said dodo, and running thence Northerly 115 feet to the place of beginning. DCOWTING THEREFROM the Westerly 75 feat thereof, Washington County, Minnesota. 'Y bPROPOSED I^ DBE oK 069 15 —150.00 — FOtM li, RON N8833'35'W PPE MA1030 615 16464 2LS' S. B — 23'EAST OF FARGEI. CORDER CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by or 11110r my direct supeMslon and that I am a duly licensed land Surveyor under the laws.; Rated Minnesota License. No. 25718 12 -24-12 n 74.96 iq S88 °33'95"ri , COr04 it FALL-9 N TREE - NO MOraIMENT SET 8�r p TOTAL AREA OF PARCEL m 6,615 SO.FT. IMPROVINEN 15 IN SQFT. HOUSE = 1,466 SHED - 65 GARAGE r 373 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY 905 CONCRETE a 64 PROP. PORCH = 172 PROP. DECK =160 NORTH SYMBOLS: O DENOTES SET 1 /2' IRON PIPE MARKED RLS 25718 • DENOTES FOUND 1 /2' IRON PIPE 0) CATCH BASIN K HYDRANT 1 SIGN — a+.— OVERHEAD WIRES o MANHOLE • FENCE CONCRETE AS° WATER VALVE • UTILITY POLE if UGHT POLE o TELE /ELECBOX 0 20 40 SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC Mers 1M 4 Fa -to Mort. /sip /ff✓� paPty READ Mao Tlagt olFNlmo TD cel>e l.IUIN(� 11 �_—_ Moveomelooth ..11,444.0 404 41" mihnec lWW1 Moat 4* ' 144;5 e l u" De tui isebectso 9p," OFeirf (. Witt(?) 2y-to tkfEp e - 1440Ea1 -W4;# li0 (MO, & f (.) Vett U beelf . Ke iFUSthIJ(0 pool Wenls(01 }yt '4 WL SoFPaG -nWbMgma SS65 VW-awes ra RVMae 64 14 441ser°RUESik rop b$ re rvc w 5 y Ew w nyQ 4atews n+P, t t tk* 4 4-egc5-.4 W tnrpunl 8,4eatc, wM.ue erte�J PLAN LARSON ARCHITECTS LLC 1419 Ramsey, Stillwater, MN 55042 807 North Fourth Street Stillwater Minnesota 55082 651.430.0056 _iLeus- 6e.".1 wwaw 10-0 -0 Cle-- er .' KINAWL*a fog. FRolrvEac prOdtOG 9!'-a" 1+6 4* -ec tiPLy Wb POptrg, e2ttriE bPAOrMil t rIV.11DE`04Kp tt4frOOtat/nL5 t1.1042•- A1.0 lit+A E1a1T { r�Rett 0 r F.t,efir lefalltvis Sf EI,E d PT 104 iacw -te•P NL1J 1.1T WNrk o �� Wf. f�.yyIAA1»JS 7po�ty� cGGJdlDaD t -nor EA * lb WIN b 00 0040 801801E trL 1MM1 'Jio" b►MeE� C) 1' l , (t GLV", O' I �i OW w Fau�tD • C� uurna5 of /01 sAl VtPIF}bPFOft.'>P-0JJt.ftngML Rrcc>z+ S j r,t. I to j 1 Q foopabs 4Z.• Tt X.41114 Eti..*") b0110'A -'1'tf• Elevations & Details LARSON ARCHITECTS LLC 1419 Ramsey, Stillwater, MN 55082 807 North Fourth Street Stillwater Minnesota 55082 651.430.0056 illy: THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Planning Commission Report DATE: APPLICANT: February 6, 2013 Brian Brosdahl CASE NO.: 2013 -03 PROPERTY OWNER: Brian Brosdahl & Heather Fox REQUEST: LOCATION: BASE ZONING: Garage Setback Variances Addition Setback Variance 322 South Broadway CBD, Central Business District PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: February 11, 2013 PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director REQUEST Brian Brosdahl and his family plan to expand their home at 322 South Broadway. Part of the planned addition will connect the existing detached garage to the house. Minimum required rear and side lot line setbacks for detached garages are less than for detached garages. Therefore, even though the garage is not changing size or location, by attaching it to the house, it is required to have increased setbacks. The Brosdahl -Fox family is asking for a variance from these increased setbacks. Also, a conservatory is planned. The conservatory would maintain the minimum required front yard setback of 15 feet, but would only have about a 5 foot side setback. The minimum required side setback for the conservatory is 11 feet 6 inches. Therefore, a variance from this side setback is needed. Finally, the planned porch on the north side of the house encroaches into the required bluff setback area, but it received a variance to do so in 2012 and therefore is not addressed as part of this case. 322 S Broadway Page 2 BACKGROUND The Brosdahl -Fox property is zoned CBD, Central Business District. The minimum and proposed setbacks are identified in the table below. See the attached plot plan for clarification. SPECIFIC REQUEST 1. 10 foot variance from the south side setback to attach the existing garage to the house. The existing setback is 1.5 feet, whereas the minimum required side setback for an attached garage is 11.5 feet. 2. 18.75 foot variance from the rear setback to attach the existing garage to the house. The existing setback is 1.25 feet, whereas the minimum required rear setback for an attached garage is 20 feet. 3. About a 3.5 foot variance from the south side setback for the proposed conservatory. The minimum required side setback is 8.5 feet, whereas the proposed setback would be about 5 feet. 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? No minimum setback is required from either side lot line. But, the total setback of both side yards must equal 20 feet. Required Existing Proposed 15' Front setback (home) 15' +/- 30' North Side setback (home) 8.5'1 8.5' 8.5' Southwest side setback (home) 11.5'1 =/- 33' +/- 15' Southeast side setback (home) 8.5'1 6.5' +/- 5' Southwest side setback (garage) 11.5'1 1.5' 1.5' Rear setback (garage) 20' 1.25' 1.25' Rear setback (home) 20' +/ -35' +/ -27' SPECIFIC REQUEST 1. 10 foot variance from the south side setback to attach the existing garage to the house. The existing setback is 1.5 feet, whereas the minimum required side setback for an attached garage is 11.5 feet. 2. 18.75 foot variance from the rear setback to attach the existing garage to the house. The existing setback is 1.25 feet, whereas the minimum required rear setback for an attached garage is 20 feet. 3. About a 3.5 foot variance from the south side setback for the proposed conservatory. The minimum required side setback is 8.5 feet, whereas the proposed setback would be about 5 feet. 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? No minimum setback is required from either side lot line. But, the total setback of both side yards must equal 20 feet. 322 S Broadway Page 3 The proposed home additions, attaching the garage and conservatory are all reasonable requests. Even with all of the proposed building coverage and hardscape, only about 60% of the lot would be covered with impervious surface. In the CBD 80% could be impervious. Even in the neighboring RB Zoning District 50% could be impervious. The variances associated with the proposal to attach the garage to the house will not affect the location of the garage, since it is already there. In one sense, the location of the proposed conservatory about 5 feet from the side lot line does not run into trouble with the side setback standard in the CBD Zoning District. The side setback in this district is determined by adding the setbacks on each side of the building. That total must be at least 20 feet. The distance from the conservatory to the north side lot line is well over 15 feet, so the 5 feet to the south side lot line adds up to at least 20 feet. But, the majority of the house has an 8.5 foot setback to the north lot line, so to be conservative staff is using the 8.5 foot setback for the whole house including the conservatory. Technically the City Code does not require the setback for every part of the house to be the same as long as totals are 20 feet for that portion of the building. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? Attaching an existing detached garage to a home is fairly unique. And, the shape of the lot, which impacts the setback of the conservatory, is quite unique. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The landowner did not create the set of circumstances associated with the garage or the lot line configuration. 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. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The major consideration is about reasonable usefulness, not economics. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The increased setback for attached garages is to acknowledge that when attached to a home, the garage combines its mass with the home and together they have an impact that the garage in isolation does not 322 S Broadway Page 4 have. In this case, the addition connecting the home to the garage maintains the required setbacks. And perhaps more importantly in this neighborhood, it will not block river views for surrounding property owners. The side setback for the conservatory is intended to provide safe fire separations, room to maintain the exterior walls, decent circulation of light and air, green space in side yards, etc. The proposed one story glass conservatory will have a side setback of at least 5 feet and will not frustrate the purposes for this setback. Moreover, the one story design of the glass conservatory will preserve the river views for the neighbor to the south. The first floor elevation of the neighbor's home is about 15 feet above the ground elevation of the proposed conservatory. Since the conservatory will likely be less than 15 feet tall, the neighbor would have minimal view obstruction. In addition, the placement of homes and accessory structures on the lots to the south and east (the most impacted by the proposed connection and conservatory) provide liberal separation of buildings. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? For some less than transparent reason, the Comprehensive Plan guides development and use of the two lots on the bluffline above Teddy Bear Park (419 and 322 S. Broadway) for central business development. However, residential structures are allowed in the CBD and the requested variances simply allow for reasonable expansion of the existing home to accommodate the family's needs and desires. 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. Single family homes are not prohibited in the CDB Zoning District. Moreover, this variance request is for building additions, not for a change in property use. 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. 322 S Broadway Page 5 2. A Design Review Permit must be approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to issuance of a building permit for any exterior work to the house. B. Deny the requested variances in whole or in part. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. RECOMMENDATION City planning staff finds the variance review criteria to be met and therefore recommends approval of the variances with the two conditions mentioned above. cc: Brian Brosdahl Attachments: Zoning and Location Map Neighborhood Air Photo Plot Plan Applicant's Narrative Floor Plans S{!11waier Hf O PL4P1ACf ei UrWNE SO, Brosdahl Variance Zoning & Location Map Zoning Districts A -P Agricultural Preservation RA - Single Family Residential RB - Two Family TR, Traditional Residential LR. Lakeshore Residential CR. Cottage Residential CTR. Cove Traditional Residential CCR. Cove Cottage Residential CTHR. Cove Townhouse Residential TH, Townhouse RCM - Medium Density Residen RCH - High Density Residential VC. Visage Commercial - CA - General Commercial - CBD - Central Business District BP -C, Business Park - Commercial - 8P -O. Business Park • Office BP -I, Business Park - Industrial - IB • Heavy Industrial - CRD - Campus Research Development - PA - Public Administration - PROS - Park. Recreation or Open Space al Public Works Facility ROAD WATER Stiliwatet .NF Mt PTNP44CE OF YIMMESOT4 Brosdahl Variance Neighborhood Photo ✓� 'ti 11wa ter _________ ',41 li r, F, C f rI 4 ,,,it S .f n Brosdahl Variance Plot Plan Porch granted bluff setback variance in 2012 Proposed conservatory would need a side setback variance Detached garage granted setback variances in 1977 By attaching garage, required setbacks increase. so. though garage is not moving, its minimum setbacks increase and would require variances. — "-- ----_ � �. A as sv S '� \ire ae\o - ?oral d►, EXtis\►n9 house >•r" _o' S \o� Gne so 13 5 13 tD o o \\ pne Conservatory Red of on P Y9 represents all setback lines Mark S. Balay, RA 110 East Myrtle Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 430 -3312 1/17/13 City of Stillwater Attn: Michel Pogge 216 N. Fourth St. Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Pogge and Planning Commission Members: 9 Michael E. Balay, RA 8482 Weaver Woods Place Noblesville, IN46060 (317) 845 -9402 Attached are application materials for the home at 322 S. Broadway . We wish to make improvements to the existing house which will attach to the existing garage. The existing garage was built in 1977 with a variance for its placement on the lot granted by the city on 10/4/77. Our clients Brian Brosdahl and Heather Fox purchased the house in 2012 and we have been working on additions which will make the house much more livable for a family of 5. The goal of this design work is to establish an expanded west wing with additional bedrooms and living space to the south in the best configuration while avoiding side and rear yard variance requirements of new construction additions, on a very unusually shaped lot. This solution will be complimentary with the historic architecture of the house, and the important historical neighborhood it is a part of. The final design details will work within the parameters of the "Stillwater Conservation District Guidelines ". This requirement was established in the previous variance hearing regarding the bluff line set back and the proposed front porch. The typical existing Stillwater South Hill Bluff "vertical topography" is very evident and visible to the entire community, as this house can be seen prominently from all of downtown Stillwater,. The historical development , established in 1862, on these two adjacent platted lots, placed a significant hardship on any project proposed for this property based upon modern zoning regulations which apply simply, to a more standard lot. The geometry of setbacks here offers a unique set of challenges for this very unusually shaped and positioned lot. page 2 In working with the city Planning staff it was determined that the attachment of the house to the existing garage altered the nature of the variance that was previously granted in 1977 and thus requires our request for a modification of the configuration of that variance for the attached garage position as shown in our attached diagram. The proposed additions of living space have been carefully designed to require no variance for new construction. The garage is remaining as it exists with only required code update renovations for properties so close to property lines. We believe that this resulting variance modification has been minimized and the proposed architectural solution will allow the Brosdahl/ Fox family fair, reasonable, and functional use of their property, while not giving any special privilege to this specific property. Thanks in advance for your consideration and we will are looking forward to meeting with you and answering any questions you may have in the public hearing. Sincerely, 2 -"Mark S. Balay Mark S. Balay h. c s, Inc. Enc. CC: Brian Brosdahl Nohl svill n I d n ARCHITECTS t Min nesoia xistinq 6arage tuff Line per Surve4 6' 6" Side Yara 1-3' a-2" ar Yard 5et 13ack 5et13ack PAUL '13' ope Ine Set Back Proposed w encroachment Area 191 sf Porch 11' -6" Side Yard Set xis Intl cArn° bUall 19-6" 2IAG VAI IA\C 552 5, .OA2WAY FARM- 'A' ZMAl \L MO 111 16" scale °05";-9 2IFICA1 ON iliwater T H E B k R T H P L AC E O F M 1 N E S O T A Planning Commission Report DATE: February 6, 2013 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater SUBJECT: Minimum Housing Maintenance Standards Vacant Home Registry REVIEWED BY: Dave Magnuson, City Attorney Larry Hansen, City Administrator PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND The City Council directed the City Attorney to draft an ordinance that would address some of the maintenance issues associated with our residential building stock. The proposed ordinance will in effect amend the City's Nuisance Code. The first reading of the proposed Ordinance took place before the Council on December 4,2012. Upon closing the public hearing, the Council referred the first draft to the Planning Commission for comments. DISCUSSION The proposed ordinance, known as the "Minimum Property Maintenance Standards Ordinance," has two principle purposes. 1. The first is to aid the City in its efforts to mitigate problems associated with vacant houses by requiring that all owners of vacant properties register those properties. The hope is that if the City has current contact information for the owners, then problems can be more efficiently communicated and resolved. If a property is vacant for more than 6 months, its owner would have to register the property. The annual registration fee would be 51,000. 2. The second is to provide a minimum exterior maintenance standard for residential structures, both houses and accessory buildings. If exterior systems such as drainage, foundations, walls, roofs, windows, stairs, porches, etc. are not kept in an adequate state of repair (as loosely defined by the ordinance), then the City will encourage the property owners to improve the property. The City plans to contract with a private building inspector to administer the maintenance portion of this proposed ordinance. "1 -he contract inspector would respond to complaints about badly maintained properties, conduct inspections, notify the property owners of the problems, conduct follow up inspections, and keep a record of the progress. The City's role would be to file the progress records in the tiles of the subject properties. REQUEST The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to consider and comment on the proposed ordinance. Attachments: Ordinance 12/4 /12 Council Minutes Excerpt ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: 1. AMENDING. Chapter 38 is of the Stillwater City Code is amended by adding Sections 38.6 through 38.12, that will read as follows: "Section 38.6. There exists in the city structures which are substandard, or which may in the future become substandard with respect to structure, equipment, maintenance or energy efficiency. These conditions, together with an inadequate provision for light and air. insufficient protection against fire hazards and unsanitary conditions. constitute a menace to public health, satCty and welfare of its citizens. It is further found and declared that the existence of these conditions, factors or characteristics, adversely affects public health and safety and leads to the continuation, extension and aggravation of urban blight. It is further found that adequate protection of public health, safety and welfare, requires the establishment and enforcement of minimum property standards. Section 38.7 — Applicability and Scope. Every parcel occupied or intended to be occupied for residential purposes and its premises must comply with Sections 38.8 through 38.12. Section 38.8 — Pre - existing structures and buildings. This chapter establishes minimum standards for structures and buildings and does not replace or modify standards otherwise established for the construction, repair, alteration or use of building equipment or facilities or already set forth in Section 38.1 or the Minnesota State Building Code, or other provisions of the Stillwater City Code. Section 38.9 — Short title. This chapter is called the "Minimum Property Maintenance Standards ". Section 38.10 — Exterior property areas. The owner of any premises must comply with the following requirements: 1) Sanitation. All exterior property areas must be maintained free from any accumulation of garbage, mixed municipal solid waste, animal feces or refuse. 2) Grading and drainage. All premises must be graded and maintained so as to drain water away from occupied structures and minimize the accumulation of water on the premises. 3) Insect and rodent infestations. It is the responsibility of the owner to control or eliminate any infestation of insects, rodents or other pests in all exterior areas and accessory structures on the premises. 4) Accessory structures. All accessory structures including, but not Limited to, detached garages, sheds and fences, must be maintained structurally sound and in good repair. 5) Stored materials. It shall be unlawful to accumulate and store outside andy building material, lumber, boxes, cartons, portable storage containers, inter modal cargo containers or other containers, machinery, scrap metal, junk, raw material, fabricated goods and other similar items. Section 38.11 — Exterior structure. The owner of any premises must comply with the following requirements: 1) Foundations, walls, roof and other exterior surfaces. Every foundation, exterior wall, roof and all other exterior surfaces must be maintained in a professional state of maintenance and repair: (a) The foundation elements must adequately support the building at all points. (h) Every c.ytcrior must he tree cal lu, {cs, breaks. loose or rotting boards or timbers aiici anv other conditions which might admit dampness to the Ulterior portions of the wall or to the ulterior space of structures. (c) All exterior surfaces, other than decay- resistant woods, must be protected from the elements and decay by paint which is not lead -based paint or by other protective covering or treatment. (d) The roof of all structures, including porches and sheds, must be tight and kept in a professional state of maintenance and repair, impervious to water and have no defects which admit water or dampness to the interior. No building roof may be used for storage o any materials or objects. 2) Stairs, porches and railings. Every outside stair, porch and deck must be constructed safely and kept in sound condition and good repair. 3) Windows, doors and hatchways. Every window, exterior door and basement hatchway must be substantially tight and kept in sound condition and repair. Section 38.12 — Vacant building registration. 1) The owner of a vacant building must register with the City not later than six (6) months after the building becomes a vacant building. 2) The registration must be submitted on forms provided by the City and must include the following information supplied by the owner: (a) A description of the premises; (b) The names and addresses of the owner or owners; (c) The names and addresses of all known lienholders and all other parties with an ownership interest in the building; (d) The period of time the building is expected to remain vacant; and a plan and timetable for returning the building to appropriate occupancy, use or demolition. Vacant building fees: (a) The owner of a vacant building must pay an annual registration fee of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) each year the building remains a vacant building. The registration fee is intended to at least partially recoup, and is reasonably related to the administrative costs for registering and processing the vacant building owner registration form and for the costs of the city in monitoring the vacant building site. (b) The first annual fee must be paid at the time of registration after the building becomes vacant. 4) The responsibility for enforcement of departments of the City, or to contractors determined by and under the auspices of the C 5) I'iolatio 1. Violations of Sections 38.P nuisances. and may also be abated according Subd. 9 these standards will be assigned among the engaged by the City for this purpose as 'ity Administrator. - 38.12 are deemed misdemeanors and also to the procedures set forth in Section 38.1, 2. Saving. In all other ways the City Code will remain in force and effect. 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this day of 2013. ATTEST: Diane F. Ward, City Clerk 3 CITY OF STILLWATER Ken Harycki, Mayor iv Court, i l l _t:ng December 4, 201 Mayor ITIarycki suggested the rc\'ised'.anguagc go to the Planning Commission for review, as a courtesy. Motion by Councilmember Cool:, seconded by Councilmember Roush, to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code Chapter 31, entitled Zoning Ordinance, by providing for referral of some special use permits to the City Council. Ayes: Councilmembers Cook, Roush Nays: Councilmembers Menikheim, Polehna, and Mayor Harycki COoncilnlenlber Polchil I expiiiesso Commission. Councilmember Cook reiter tted Commission, iind ..'c would ! hr umiti! irnent, o the tal:g:Ia2e rev:sioL. reels it is had policy to not include the Planning that the issue has already been before the Planning issue 'cci she is still a council nlenlhcr. niss"o 41� laced to notify the Planning Commission UNFINISHED BUSINESS Possible approval of first reading of an ordinance to establish property maintenance standards. City Attorney Magnuson reported that Councilmembers and staff have been trying to figure out how to address the problem of deteriorating housing stock. It became apparent that building standards were in City Code until 1983 but because there was no enforcement staff, they were stricken. tie has reworked the City of St. Paul's standards for consideration by the City of Stillwater. They address outside yard standards and exterior structure standards. Houses vacant for six months or more would need to be registered with the City. Councilmember Menikheirn commented that the standards are needed. Mayor Harycki asked if this has gone to the Planning or Heritage Preservation Commission for review or comment, and Community Development Director Turnblad answered that it has not gone before the Commissions. City Attorney Magnuson added that this is not a zoning ordinance, it's a nuisance ordinance, so may not be under the purview of the Commissions. Councilmember Cook expressed that this is an important beginning because the Council has been discussing problem properties for a long time. Councilmember Roush stated that he has an issue with defining a vacant building. As worded, someone whose house has not sold for two years could be assessed $2,000. City Attorney Magnuson stated the registration fee of $1,000 applies only if they leave the house open and unattended for six months. Councilmember Cook asked if exemptions would be allowed. City Attorney Magnuson replied that a provision could be added to apply for an exemption if a home will be secured and looked after. The goal is to target homes that are vacant and neglected. Page9of15 City Council .cvlectillrJ December 4, 2012 City Administrator Hansen added that staff has suggested various changes since the ordinance was drafted last Friday, so it needs More tine tuning, Mayor Elarycki suggested that an other revisions, the wording about grading and drainage needs to be tweaked to account for rain gardens. Councilmember Menikheim noted that the Council should tweak it more to get it right, but the process is underway and that's the most important thing. Councilmember Polehna stated that the ordinance is needed and enforcement needs to be looked at too. Councilmember Cook c:\p1e ; >t:i. f {ustralroI1 ',h£tt lire' i- oilncil has he n trying to resolve this issue For years and now it's down 10 %[;`: NISI (WO meelings GS tt]C'. verb. Council directed s, Ito rc\ Itvv" and tys,,11 11c ordinance and 01'110 In`:ca: to Council. 1 s ihlC 3Op1 "o1' ll Ot t ,1Ci;il ,ti t C4; „St: ,i i )1' I l _ 31) Ior the demolition 01 a sin &le 1211111F1 home located at i).' 4 i'tJii "ll', South aun Case \v. I :lvti2012- 31216 Willard Street in the RB Two Famil Residential District in com +fiance with Ordinance No. 1047 of the Stillwater City Code, City Planner Pogge reviewed the history of the demolition requests. On October 2, 2012 the City Council took public testimony on both requests and took a straw vote denying the requests. On October 11, 2012 the church requested that the Council delay final action to discuss the issue with property owners. On November 8 the church held a neighborhood meeting. The church is now requesting the Council reconsider the October 2 straw vote. The Heritage Preservation Commission has denied the demolition permits. Mayor Harycki recalled the discussion about whether the homes were historically significant, and Mr. Pogge indicated that the issue of significance derives from how those properties impact the neighborhood, not necessarily that a significant person lived there. The Council needs to determine whether it should initiate a process that would locally designate these buildings. If' this process is initiated, the City has until May 5 to obtain an independent consultant's report supporting the designation. If the consultant finds the buildings aren't significant, the demolition permit would be automatically approved. tf the consultant finds the buildings are significant, that triggers a process of review by the Heritage Preservation and Planning Commission, and the Council would have to hold a public hearing to approve the designation. If this process is not completed by May 5 that automatically approves the demolition permit. He presented the three options available to the Council for action. Councilmember Cook pointed out that from what City Planner Pogge has stated, the consultant's determination, not the Council's action, represents the final voice in the matter. City Planner Pogge responded that the independent consultant chosen would have to meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation, and would have to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office. Under the current ordinance, the consultant would be hired at City cost. Councilmember Menikheim stated on October 2 he voted against the denial, but has now reconsidered. At the November 8 meeting he heard more information about the mission of the church and the work that had gone into the proposal. He believes it was a mistake to demolish Page 10 of 15