The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-10-08 CPC PacketTHE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESCTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, October 8, 2014 - 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street I CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 10, 2014 IV. 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 five minutes or less V. 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. A. Case No. SUP/2014-30. A Special Use Permit and Variance to convert a 2 stall detached garage to accessory dwelling unit to be located at 119 Chestnut St W. Jeff Anderson. B. Case No. SUP/ 2014-31. A Special Use Permit and Variance to create an event venue above 120,122,124 South Main St. With a parking variance. Judd Sather C. Case No. V/2014-32. A Variance for addition of a 12x20 walk-in cooler with reduction of one parking space and relocation of loading zone. To be located at 1119 Owens St N. Nathan Peterson VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT THE HINTHYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 10, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer, Middleton, Siess Absent: Council. Representative Weidner Staff: Community Development Director Turnblad, City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Lauer requested a correction on. Page 2, Case No. ZAM/2014-24. Commissioner Fletcher, not Commissioner Collins, commented about ample parking and traditional neighborhoods. Commissioner Fletcher confirmed that she made the comment. Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the July 9, 2014. meeting minutes as amended. All in favor, 9-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. SUP/2014-27. Request for a Special Use Permit for a B&B to be located at 1005 William St. N. Sherry Jespersen, Stillwater Craft Retreat, applicant. Community Development Director Turnblad explained that Ms. Jespersen hosts craft retreats in her home in a manner similar to that of a bed and breakfast, allowing up to 12 guests to rent three bedrooms and the common areas in her home for crafting weekends. Ms. Jespersen opened her Craft Retreat business this spring without a B&B Permit because she was not aware that one was necessary. Washington County Health Department regulations cap the number of guests at 10. Ms. Jespersen agreed to limit retreats to 10 guests. Staff recommends that one parking space be required for each potential guest. There would have to be a small parking lot constructed on the property to accommodate eight cars in addition to the driveway. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: a) the maximum number of crafting guests is limited to 10 at a time b) the owner must generally be on site when crafting guests are in her home Planning Commission September 10, 2014 c) only breakfasts may be served in the B&B. Crafting guests may not be served lunch or dinner from the B&B's kitchen d) crafting guests may stay no longer than a week at a time e) an all-weather parking lot for eight vehicles must be constructed similar to the staff recommendation prior to November 15, 2014. The grading plan for the parking lot must be approved by the City Engineer prior to beginning construction f) prior to installing an exterior sign, it must be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department g) prior to constructing the parking lot, the owner must submit an exterior lighting plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval h) an annual fire code inspection shall be allowed by the owner i) carbon monoxide detectors and smoke detectors must be hardwired rather than operate with batteries. The wiring must be completed before the Special Use Permit will become effective j) the owner must make application to the County Health Department for a license to operate the B&B. The license must be issued and a copy filed with the City before the Special Use Permit will be effective k) the owner must provide the City Finance Director with the B&B's tax ID number before the Special Use Permit will be effective 1) lodging guest quiet hours must be observed between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Ms. Jespersen explained how her craft retreats operate. The groups are generally headed by one person and all know each other. She is working on constructing more parking and feels there is enough space. Chaii an Kocon opened the public hearing. Jody Stoltz, 924 N. Everett St., voice strong opposition to the proposal. She questioned whether the gatherings are for crafting, saying they have been mostly bachelorette parties with hollering on the deck, disturbing the tranquility of the neighborhood. She does not want her view to be a huge parking lot. She feels there is not enough bedroom space for the proposal. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Tumblad confirmed that one bedroom is a walk-through, so it would not work as a standard model B&B, but seems appropriate for a crafting retreat. Chairman Kocon asked Ms. Jesperson if the police have been called to her residence. Ms. Jespersen responded that she hosted a few women's groups this summer and they were outside at times. She said that Ms. Stoltz had come into her yard twice and told the people they couldn't be there and she would call the police if they didn't leave. She feels Ms. Stoltz made a nuisance of herself with trespassing and harassing, so she called the police to have them tell Ms. Stoltz not to come into her yard. Ms. Jespersen was not on the property when these incidents happened. Chairman Kocon commented that if the SUP is granted, Ms. Jespersen will need to enforce quiet time at 10 p.m. Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission September 10, 2014 Community Development Director Turnblad added that the City received an email from Carrie and Gary Robertson who live within 350 feet of the site, objecting to the proposal due to concerns about traffic and parking. Commissioner Siess remarked the bedrooms don't appear to be adequate compared to the City's other B&Bs. Community Development Director Turnblad replied the Commission could limit the permit to one guest room. Chairran Kocon said he can understand calling it a B&B, with 10 people in the same space with a minimum of privacy doing a communal activity. He emphasized the requirement for quiet time beginning at 10 p.m. He feels the noise and parking are the most important issues and and feels they been addressed by the proposed conditions of approval. Motion by Chairman Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to recommend approval of Case SUP/2014-27, the Special Use Permit for a two -bedroom. B&B, with 12 conditions recommended by staff, with special emphasis to be placed on parking, requiring that snow is stored on site and does not cause sight line issues, and noting Ms. Stoltz's concern with noise. Motion failed 4-5. Case No. SUP/2014-30. A Special Use Permit and Variance to convert a 2-stall detached garage to an accessory dwelling unit to be located at 119 Chestnut St. W. Jeff and Julie Anderson, applicants. City Planner Wittman stated the applicants requested the item be tabled until the October meeting. Motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to table Case No. SUP/2014-30. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. SUP/2014-28. Request for a Special Use Pei unit for a B&B to be located at 116 Harriet St. N. Renee Haugen, applicant. City Planner Wittman summarized the request. At this time, Ms. Haugen does not own the home but has received property owner permission for the submission of the application and will pursue purchase of the home if the Special Use Permit is granted. In addition to the Special Use Permit, Ms. Haugen is requesting a variance to the minimum 900' buffer distance from other existing B&Bs, and a variance to the maximum number of guest rooms permitted. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit and the variances with the following conditions: a) the maximum number of guest rooms is limited to five b) the owner must generally be on site when guests are in the home c) only breakfasts may be served in the B&B. Guests may not be served lunch or dinner from the B&B's kitchen d) guests may stay no longer than a week at a time e) plans shall be submitted to and reviewed by the Fire Marshal and the Building Official before the Special use Permit becomes effective f) plans for exterior additions and/or significant alterations shall be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission September 10, 2014 g) an all-weather parking lot for five vehicles must be constructed wholly on site. The grading plan for the parking lot must be approved by the City Engineer prior to beginning construction h) prior to installing an exterior sign, it must be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department i) prior to constructing the parking lot, the owner must submit an exterior lighting plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval j) an annual fire code inspection shall be allowed by the owner k) carbon monoxide detectors and smoke detectors must be hardwired rather than operate with batteries. The wiring must be completed before the Special Use Permit will become effective 1) the owner must make application to the County Health Department for a license to operate the B&B. The license must be issued and a copy filed with the City before the Special Use Permit will become effective m) the owner must provide the City Finance Director with the B&B's tax ID number before the Special Use Permit will become effective n) lodging guest quiet hours must be observed between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Renee Haugen, applicant, emphasized that the property is exquisite and unique, and she would like to bring the home back to its grandeur. The home was built with four original bedrooms. She and her fiancee would make additions to the home to operate it with three guest rooms. ChaiiijIan Kocon opened the public hearing. Jim McKinney, 410 W. Rice St., asked for clarification of the staff report's statement that the proposal is for five bedrooms. He believes the applicant should adhere to the ordinances regarding the maximum number of guest rooms and asked that the Commission deny the Special Use Permit if it allows five bedrooms. He also expressed concerns about added traffic. John Macindoe, 115 N. Harriet St., echoed concerns about the five guest rooms proposed in the report, and traffic impacts. If only three guest rooms are proposed, he would like to see that in writing and may have different comments. Madeline Macindoe, 115 N. Harriet St., said she would welcome someone who would care for the house and restore the property but she would not want five guest rooms allowed. She also is concerned that there is not enough parking on site. Pat Sawyer, 108 N. Harriet St., voiced concerns about traffic, parking, and safety of the many children who play on the street. Michael Obermueller, 201 N. Martha St., said he has concerns about traffic in the area. Streets are narrow and don't have sidewalks, and there are many small children in the neighborhood. He would not want to see increased traffic. He feels commercialization of the property will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Michelle Cherrier, 418 Rice St. W., voiced concerns about the potential for increased traffic especially on Rice St. which is narrow and lacks space for snow storage. Justin Jones, 126 N. Harriet St., stated he has two children and is concerned about traffic and safety of his children and others in the neighborhood. The Harriet/Rice St. intersection is uncontrolled and there are no sidewalks. Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission September 10, 2014 Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Chairman Kocon asked where the off street parking will be located. City Planner Wittman replied that the applicant will have to find a suitable place to construct parking if they purchase the property. Parking could be accommodated in front paralleling or adjacent to the garage. Commissioner Hade voiced support for the proposal. Commissioner Hansen stated he would prefer three guest rooms over five. He questioned the size of the home for what is being proposed. Commissioner Middleton noted after the planned additions, the size of the home will accommodate three guest rooms according to the ordinance. The Commission could approve one or two guest rooms and when the property has the requisite square footage, they could be permitted to have the additional guest room. Commissioner Kelly said he would prefer to set the allowable number of guest rooms at three, based on the current size of the home. He supports granting the variance to the 900' buffer but is not in favor of granting the parking variance. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to recommend approval of Case No. SUP/2014-28, the variance to the 900' buffer, a maximum of three guest rooms based on total square footage of the home, and to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit, amending condition g) to add that a grading plan and snow storage area must be identified for the proposed and existing impervious parking areas, that the grading plan and snow storage plans must be approved by the City Engineer; and adding the following conditions: o) caution signs about children at play shall be installed; p) approval is valid upon the sale of the property to the applicant. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. V/2014-29. Request for a Variance for replacement of existing 6' fence with new fence to be located at 200 Edgewood Ave. Jeff and Janet Parent, applicants. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting a fence variance to allow a 6' fence to be located on the exterior (side) yard. The maximum height allowed in this corner lot location is 42". Measurements may be rounded up to the nearest half -foot so 48" would be allowed in this location. If the fence were set back 30' from the property line it would be allowed to be 6' high. The owner has removed a pre-existing, non -conforming 6' fence from the site. Staff recommends denial on the basis that the unique circumstances have been created by the property owner, that the essential character of the site will be altered, and that 6' tall fences are contrary to the goal of making streetscapes less tunneling. Janet Parent, applicant, informed the Commission that they desire privacy for their backyard. The previous fence was deteriorating. They feel that erecting a fence of the same height in the same exact location would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. A 4' fence would not give them the privacy, security and safety they require. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission September 10, 2014 Bill Englund, 21.1 Edgewood Ave., stated that there are many similar 6' wood fences in the neighborhood dating back to the development's early days. He urged the Commission to approve the variance. Jeff Meyer, 2603 Interlachen Dr., told the Commission he prefers another 6' fence be permitted. He pointed out that streets with trees have the same tunneling effect. Commissioner Siess commented that the Commission must uphold the ordinances from a legal standpoint. She would like to know when the ordinance was changed. Chair wan Kocon closed the public hearing. He pointed out that the Commission must follow state statute regarding reasons that variances may be granted. Commissioner Hansen recognized unless the Commission can identify a legally allowable hardship, it cannot grant the variance. Jeff Parent, applicant, noted there are a lot of new fences in Croixwood, so apparently the ordinance is not enforced or there are many homeowners who do not follow proper channels for approval. Chairman Kocon noted the ordinance is enforced by complaint. He told Mr. Parent he understands his argument, but the Commission must support the ordinance. The Commission's decisions are appealable to the City Council. Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to deny Case No. V/2014-29 based on the fact that the Commission cannot identify allowable criteria for granting the variance. All in favor, 9-0. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Chairman Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 10:28 p.m. All in favor, 9-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 6 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2014 APPLICANT: Roger Tomten LANDOWNER: Jeff and Julie Anderson CASE NO.: SUP/V/2014-30 REQUEST: Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, and associated variances at 119 Chestnut Street West ZONING: RB - Two Family Residential COMP PLAN: Low/Medium Density Residential PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Jeff and Julie Anderson own the property at 119 Chestnut Street. It is the Queen Anne home on the 4th Street bluffline between Chestnut and Olive Street. They are planning to expand their detached garage by constructing an addition to the east, as well as a southern portico, to accommodate an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Accessory Dwelling Units are allowed in the 4th Street Neighborhood if they meet specific performance standards and are granted a Special Use Permit by the Planning Commission. SPECIFIC REQUESTS In order to receive a building permit for the planned Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), the following specific items would need to be approved by the Planning Commission: 1. Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. 2. Variance from the maximum number of permitted stories. a. An Accessory Dwelling Unit structure is allowed only two stories. b. The existing walkout and upper story already constitute two stories. c. A loft, considered to be another story by the zoning ordinance, is proposed on the existing structure for the dwelling unit. So, a total of three stories are proposed. 3. Variance from the 30 foot setback required from the 4th Street right-of-way. a. One corner of the existing garage is set 4.47 feet from the right-of-way, the other is set 5.1 feet from it. b. The addition of a loft for living space would place the ADU at the same location as the existing garage. 119 Chestnut Street West Case SUP/V/2014-30 (CPC: 10-8-14) Page 2 c. The addition of balconies on the north and south side of the ADU are proposed to be located even closer to the right-of-way than the existing garage. 4. Variance from the 30 foot bluff setback requirement. a. The existing garage is less than 10 feet from the bluffline. b. The eastern addition, the southern portico and the roofline would be constructed closer yet to the edge of the bluff. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS City Code Section 31-501, Accessory Dwellings, identifies the following performance standards for review: Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet. The lot is 25,284 square feet. The accessory dwelling may be located on the second floor above the garage. While the code indicated the dwelling may be on the second floor above the garage, it does not restrict it to be in that location. The City has approved numerous ADUs connected to garages on a single level. However, the proposed three -stories would not be consistent with the two-story maximum height for Accessory Dwelling Units. The lower level, utilized for storage, has greater than 50% of the exterior walls exposed, thus identified as a floor by the Building Code. The maximum number of stories shall require a variance, which is discussed later in this report. The accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the midpoint of the primary residence. The property, though addressed off of Chestnut Street (which is the Chestnut Street stairway), faces east. The western side of the property, though having the appearance of the rear of the structure, is perceived as a front or exterior (side) yard. Thus, the existing garage does not conform to the 30' setback requirement from the front or exterior (side) yard. The setback will require a variance, which is discussed later in this report. Off-street parking requirements (four spaces) must be provided. The applicant proposing four spaces: two in the garage, one underneath a covered portico and the other on an existing parking pad. While the proposed space on the existing parking pad as well as those in the garage meet all applicable codes, the addition of the portico for the covered parking would necessitate a variance to City Code Section 31-521: Slope Regulations. This variance will be discussed later in this report. Maximum size of the ADU is 800 square feet. The applicant's floor plans depict an ADU less than 800 square feet in size. The application requires design review. The applicant is aware the application will need to be presented for Design Review approval by the HPC prior to construction. The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. No height has been proposed for the addition. The applicant is aware of the height requirements for this addition. Both the primary and accessory dwelling units must be connected to municipal sewer and water services and be located on an improved public street. This will be a condition of approval. Maximum size of the garage is 800 square feet. The existing garage is less than 800 square feet. 119 Chestnut Street West Case SUP/V/2014-30 (CPC: 10-8-14) Page 3 City Code Section 31-207, Special Use Permits, identifies the city may grant a Special Use Permit or amendments when the following findings are made: a. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit to this property conforms to the Zoning Regulations. Furthermore, it is consistent with relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. However, the Comprehensive Plan identifies steep slopes on this property and further indicates the City to develop a setbacks or buffers from the edge of sensitive areas. b. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. No public concerns have been identified through the public input process to date. One letter of support has been received and is attached to this staff report. The applicant, however, requested the Planning Commission table the application prior to a public hearing scheduled for September. This was to work with concerned neighbors regarding a second story ADU originally proposed. c. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. ADUs in the RB - Two Family Residential district have not been a nuisance or are detrimental to the public. This use would be consistent with all ADUs within the community. As indicated the following variances are requested: Stories: City Code Section 31-501 Subd. 3(a)(2): The ADU may be located on second floor above the garage. The variance would be for a three-story ADU to be located on the side of a two-story garage. Yard Setbacks: City Code Section 31-501 Subd. 3(a)(4): The ADU must be located in the rear yard. The ADU is proposed to be located in the front and exterior (side) yard. The ADU is proposed to be at the property line, which requires a 30' setback. The existing garage sits between 4.47' and 5.10' from the lot line. Bluff Setback: City Code Section 31-521 Subd. 1(d): No structure may be located on a slope of greater than 24% or within 30 feet of a 25 percent or greater slope. The ADU is proposed to be located within 30' of a steep slope. City Code Section 31-208, Variances, identifies the city may grant a variance when all of the following findings are made: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. While the variances to the stories and yard setbacks are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Regulations, the variance to the steep slope is not consistent with the general purposes of the Zoning Regulations. Reducing the size of the structure, or redesigning it could minimize the encroachment on the bluffline. 119 Chestnut Street West Case SUP/V/2014-30 (CPC: 10-8-14) Page 4 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Again, while the variances to the stories and yard setbacks are consistent with the comprehensive plan, the variance to the steep slope is not consistent with the Natural Resources chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: i. The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; Stories: An ADU in the RB - Two Family District is reasonable. From South 4th Street, the ADU will not change the height of the structure. Yard Setbacks: The proposal of an ADU on the front/exterior (side) yard is reasonable given the existing garage is located within 4.47' and 5.10' from the property line. The southern and northern balconies, however, are not acceptable. The permitting of these would permit further encroachment into the narrow setback area. Bluff Setbacks: As the existing garage is located within this 30' setback area, the ADU is reasonable. However, the expansion of the ADU footprint by adding two stories to the east as well as the covered parking area, further encroaching onto the bluff line, is not reasonable. Two covered parking spaces, as required by the Zoning Regulations, are provided in the garage. Two additional spaces are located on the side of structure. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and Stories: The existing garage is located on a hillside, as it much of the improved areas of this property. The first floor of the garage, serving as the garage foundation and storage area, is unique. Yard and Bluff Setbacks: The garage, constructed in 1950 and prior to the adoption of the Zoning Regulations, uniquely sits near the front/exterior (side) yard and the bluff setback area. However, many properties in Stillwater do not meet the current Zoning Regulations as they were developed prior to the adoption of the City's Zoning Regulations. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Stories: While the ADU will have three stories and will increase the mass of the structure, the structure will have a single -story appearance from South Fourth Street. As the garage is set to the southwest of the existing home, it will have the appearance of a rear yard improvement from South Third Street and below the bluffline. Yard Setbacks: As the garage sits within (approximately) 5' from the property line of South Fourth Street, the second story addition will preserve the same footprint as the existing structure. If the northern and southern balconies are 119 Chestnut Street West Case SUP/V/2014-30 (CPC: 10-8-14) Page 5 approved, the structure would have an appearance being two story near the western lot line, thus altering the character in this locality. Bluff Setbacks: Further encroachment onto this hillside will alter the essential character of the neighborhood, creating even greater improvements closer to the bluff setback area. Section 31-208 further indicates: Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: Approve the Special Use Permit, and associated variances thereof, with the following conditions: a. The maximum size of the ADU shall be 800 square feet. b. A Design Review permit shall be obtained from the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the submittal of a building permit. c. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property shall have entered into a Lot Line Agreement for that portion of Lot 7, Block 31 to fulfill parking requirements onsite. d. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the residence. The building permit shall clearly show the maximum height of the accessory structure, in correlation to the height of the existing residence. e. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the ADU shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. 2. Determine that the proposed ADU and associated variances are not consistent with the Special Use Permit provisions and deny the Special Use Permit. 3. Continue the public hearing until October 8, 2014 for additional information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends determining that the proposed ADU meets the Special Use Permit provisions and recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with the conditions identified above. Staff further finds practical difficulty has been established regarding the variances related to number of stories (for a total of two) and a 24.9' front/exterior (side) yard setback (as to not encroach closer to South Fourth Street than the existing garage), and recommends approval of said variances. Lastly, staff recommends denial of the 30' variance to the steep slope setback. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request, Applicant 119 Chestnut Street West Case SUP/V/2014-30 (CPC: 10-8-14) Page 6 Narrative Request, Property Owner Signatures of support (2 pages) Aerial Photo Certificate of Survey Existing Site Conditions Proposed Site Conditions Alternatives (3 pages) Floor Plans (4 pages) Facade Details (5 pages) Additions and Alterations Planset (10 pages) RCt ET 333 North Main Street SuiteZOl Stillwater, MN 55082 sday, September 24, 2014 Architecture 0 Interiors a«mai»ab|n Design Phone 851/430'0006 Fax 651/430'2414 www.archnotuea.00m City ofStillwater, Mr. Bill Tumblad.Community Development Director & Ms. AbbiWittman, City Planner 216 North Fourth Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Anderson Residence, 119West Chestnut Street, Stillwater, yWN .J Dear Mr. TunnUladand Ms. Wittman, After our submittal |mot mnnth, we had m conversation with one of the adjacent neighbors who had oconcern about the design and the impact nntheir vievv-shed. We then contacted you and noquaabad o continuance to allow ustime to address those concerns. The result of that work is illustrated in the attached documents, The nvaod| prnDnann for the Accessory Dwelling Unit has remained the oenne, but the massing of the structure has been modified. It became apparent with the pre- vious design, that any height increase above the existing ridge line would have an impact on adjacent property view -sheds. The new design responds by attaching the AOUtothe east side ofthe existing garage. The unique conditions ofthe site severely limit the locations for the ADU.|fbuilt on top of the existing garage it has visual ifor the from nd the public viewing the site from below (east). If the ADU is built to the north it impacts the historic relationship between the main house and the garage and cre- ates visual impacts for the neighbors. If the ADU is built to the south, it directly im- pacts the steep slopes adjacent to the right-of-way and creates visual impacts for the neighbors. Therefore it was felt that building to the east is the best location, VVhi|a this does move the new construction closer to the bluff line, we feel there are measures vvecan take bzalleviate any potential impacts tothe steep slopes. A wrought iron fence currently sits several feet back from the edge ofthe bluff line, and this fence will be retained during and after the construction ofthe ADU. This will ensure that the steep slope will not be impacted and that erosion will nntoc- cur. We will be installing a gutter and downspout system that will collect roof otornnvvaterand direct it to cisterns or rain barrels that will then be utilized for gar- den irrigation. This will minimize any new runoff being added to the steep slope areas. If necessary, we would be open to engaging a structural engineer to review the foundation system for suggestions relating to bluff stabilization. An always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or if there is additional information needed to complete the application. Yours truly, a RogerTo Assooata.ARCHNET MEMO TO: Stillwater City Council, Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Jeff and Julie Anderson 119 West Chestnut DATE: September 24, 2014 RE: Our Plans to Improve the Garage and Add Accessory Dwelling Space to it. We write to explain the unusual circumstance in which we find ourselves withdrawing the plans submitted for the September meeting and submitting new plans for October and to give some background explaining why we revised the proposed plan and variance request. We have long known that the existing garage was fast deteriorating and made a decision to add an accessory dwelling space/studio that would be modest and in no way obstruct or interfere with the aesthetic character of the property or obstruct the view of our treasured neighbors. In July we had Roger Tomten draw up several different plans and options trying to use the existing footprint which ultimately required that there be an increase in the elevation to get accessory dwelling space. We reviewed those plans with our neighbors directly to the west of us, Spike and Kat Carlson and John and Michelle Brodd and had Roger Tomten meet with them because we knew their view would be most affected by any increase in elevation. He had several personal meetings with them and ultimately made every accommodation to make them satisfied their view would not be significantly obstructed and had their approval on the plans which were to be submitted in September. I then went around to all the neighbors who were property owners in the neighborhood wanting to make sure everybody understood what we were doing and there were no objections to it and had them sign the attached endorsement of that plan. When I met with John and Cappy Clemency, our treasured neighbors to the northwest of us, they did express concerns that the plans as drawn did obstruct their south view of the river. We were thus horrified that it could or would interfere so we immediately contacted Roger to see if another plan could be drawn with the existing submission to see if that could be accommodated. We realized it couldn't so that is why we withdrew that plan for September and asked Roger Tomten to then draw another plan that would not obstruct their view or anybody else's and be as aesthetically inconspicuous without obstructing anybody's view. We made the decision to seek the variance as redesigned as an accommodation to all of our neighbors. I have now met with them and they are in full support of the revised plan. I attach both the original statement and the supplemental statement in support of the revised plans signed by the owners in full support. September 24, 2014 We are neighbors of Jeff and Julie Anderson, 119 West Chestnut Street, Stillwater. We have reviewed the original plans to have been submitted to the City in September and those plans did obstruct our view. On discovery of that, the Andersons re -drew the plan and we are in full support of the revised plan to be heard by HPC on October 6, Planning Commission October 8, and City Council October 21. Name Address Phone September 6, 2014 We are neighbors of Jeff and Julie Anderson, 119 West Chestnut Street, Stillwater. We have reviewed the plans for restoration of their garage, as well as the addition of an accessory dwelling unit. I understand the Planning Commission will consider this on 'Wednesday; September 10 at 7pm. I sign this in support of the plan as proposed. Name Address 1. Cir\,C-cs 2 /1, 6. 7 8. Phone )._ao aaaNi_ar- 60( 22.0 - 4 4. 35-1 4751-1472-143ciii ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: ANDERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA ARCHNET 23 SEPT 2014 2 SEPT 2014 SITE AERIAL SHEET OF 10 SHEETS 104 .11141111 So .4** 445 04,1410 400,00.\ • . 410 ,40.042442004#42V44'411. :4" KEMPER & ASSOCIATES INC. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS /71 MD 14.4011N1,1 4448 14 4 004*41441 1009151.44013 5*4I7 631-631, 0191 r. 07-434 -4805 84*0 herrilertIrra- ,er neon eat CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 8105*4 *44885 4460 4141/1148 40. .41 . • V,\. 10.14. r tge* 15 0*44840 .15 044 .10 *44 4.4 *44 t,'," 8*4 "0. ,10/11t, 40.4 444 „ 44, / .11/1141 qtt=to „, * , rtt„,' "'""eit K.. 44 t 04. 1040 119 fi CKSM2T 8404,05 ok,, WM' __ Tr, fr' '4" *IT 040,00-00'."0.00, 4*4 44 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET CITY OF STILLWATER, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA *444 88> 44444454 ,144 THE ANDERSON RESIDENCE 44 Cat LEGAL 8447011P11Ced KUM) LEGENO ,ItUrFN 44*0*04944848*81 mNT *444 044 ..41. 0 *4*444*84 wnto Ow*44*4*44 14*414048 4484440 44. 144.1. „ 00. 044 04*044 414414.414* rgiv. MP, • 7.77; iNr4 44 to 4844.14 4444444 1C04 OLP, M 1.1'0,17 N:7.7 n4340 1014 444 114 4*4414 '14 of 144 444441 11 %.1114414, 4*04 104 444a14 00.000.0 4K4 .40444. 4NY.„.„„ ,,t•;.484$ 64 MA 04000 ZW144 fklAkkriPEt47$„ 00*084*48 VA M** :I tZ4,..':?:" WAIN kg, 0000 ' .4.4 Oka 401444*4 4*141 4444814 14.11 44444 004 • 41 .1041103.41448414 .441 ,k1 0.0 -484441 „ *KV 004 4111. 44.0 ot,„, i140+KO 0. 4.4 44. 41484. 4.04, * 1/1144 .81 111v:z1.4,,1„, 14 1.44414 414444 44/1 1.1 04, , 411 4144844,11 44414*0 4414.4 • 4404 /44 14 .0. It .01 ▪ 44*14.41. 61 /a 41.41 ..414 .4 6.4* 44411/1. .114,404 U., *4 *44*4 414 44440854 .r* 144*/144111143 01 44 W 1111041 t114. 141 .4.4 0446 111141144 141 1141.144. Amt. r=r41114'17411.4t114V.1"it.t. ,4141.Ce,141114=T414T4t.' 814 .41114414*40 ANt. A.RAM.Ut. 44414 AO 004111, 4.4.44 44 . 444 411141.01 444 14* 44,4444 4844 VW/ 4.4 11111414041114 441111. C44*1/411.41.4 '4t2,11.1,4=1'411%.11414'4 444.1 1.4144.141411 .4, 4 41.4.44 1.144494410/4111 10 .4144.1. 4.11 M44*810 $V, A.Wr & ,hooso, ,10 vcs, otvmo 1444 4444458,81 44:4g 01141... 4 414. naqt 114114, .44 0.41111111. 044 414141/11 41' 1111 411141 ..1,40 amli* wwkaut. ,Mos wrr.m... STAtf Sta ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: ANDERSON CARRIAGEHOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA ARCHNET 23 SEPT 2014 2 SEPT 2014 SITE SURVEY SHEET OF 18 SHEETS ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: S. 3rd Street S. 4th Street ANDERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA ARCHNET IZI Ell la 0 23 SEPT 2014 2 SEPT 2014 SHEET OF 16 SHEETS ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: Itti,Vtet, S. 4th Street SITE DATA - ORIGINAL LOT 150x168 OVERALL SITE AREA BUILDINGS 2,758 SF. 11% IMPERVIOUS 5,974 SF. 24% OPEN SPACE 16,565 SF. 65% SITE DATA - WITH ADDITIONAL 35' x 50' LOT OVERALL SITE AREA BUILDINGS 3,072 SF. 11% MPERVIOUS 6,235 SF. 23% OPEN SPACE 17,740 SF. 66% 3'0" ANDERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 25,298 SF. 27,047 SF. ARCHNET lEll 0 23 SEPT 2014 2 SEPT 2014 SHEET 4 OF 16 SHEETS VIEW OF CONCEPT B-2.5 ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: VIE OF CONCEPT A 205 CHESTNUT VIE OF CONCEPT C ANDERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA VIEW OF CONCEPT D ARCHNET 23 SEP 2014 0 SEP 2014 15 AUG 2014 SHEET 5 OF 10 SHEETS EXISTING VIE VIEW OF CONCEPT B-2. ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: A VIE OF CONCEPT A VIEW OF CONCEPT C DERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA VIEW OF CONCEPT DI ARCHNET 23 SEP 2014 9 SEP 2014 15 AUG 2014 SHEET s OF 18 SHEETS VIEW OF CONCEPT B-2.5 ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: VIE OF CONCEPT A VIE OF CONCEPT C ANDERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA VIEW OF CONCEPT DI ARCHNET 23 SEP 2014 9 SEP 2014 15 AUO 2014 SHEET 7 OF 10 SHEETS ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: ANDERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILL WATER, MINNESOTA LOWER LEVEL 1/8' = l'-0" 284 SQ.FT. CONCEPT D 1 ARCHNET Ell El 111 23 SEP 2014 9 SEP 2014 15 AUG 2014 SHEET 8 OF 16 SHEETS ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: ANDERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILL WATER, MINNESOTA MAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 11-0" 315 SQ.FT. CONCEPT D 1 ARCHNET 23 SEP 2014 SEP 2014 15 AUG 2014 SHEET 9 OF 10 SHEETS ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: 504,..0\1 y ANDERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA ATTIC LEVEL 1 /8" = 1 I-0" CONCEPT D 1 ARCHNET al El 112 23 SEP 2014 9 SEP 2014 15 AUG 2014 SHEET I 0 OF 18 SHEETS ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: -"!;0:-,r* pottxtioc," 117 Section Scae: 1/4" ANDERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET ARCHNET El El ID 23 SEP 2014 9 SEP 2014 15 AUG 2014 SHEET 11 STILL WATER, MINNESOTA OF 18 SHEETS ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: „„g4:146 II IIII = = II = = = Id West Elevation Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" ttlitri044k '11.0010'‘I \47" ***mow 10,* ANDERSON CARRIAGEHOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILL WATER, ARCHNET Ill El 23 SEP 2014 9 SEP 2014 15 AUG 2014 SHEET 12 OF 16 SHEETS ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: t• 44 ''4at,'4 ISIAV aaaa A ,. !, '0; ''' 4444aNI,''' ..Aleitg ' *44 • • * 0:. a a • a a • • • US • • • • • is aga -aaaa asa.4 aaa aa4a3aaaa,; 1,1Va, South Elevation Sc&e: 1/4" 4444 al 4,44a MUM altflOa141 414,4a 44 424 14,4 t, 4 ' 0", aaaaVa a4444 AS444.14 Saggiii444X4W 4aWa4 .444,0444444444 '4444*„, 44, aa,alWa4MINYNOWatMjaiaaaaMaaraM*NaMaaaffialalaaa=aaaaalOa*AM'40a*; ,=!;;;,,, aaaa aa'oaaaa,amotaga, %Wald, amaanava a4,44444,414444, ,41444.4444,444'4,34 44444,44, a a ANDERSO'N CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA ARCHNET 1311 1131 23 SEP 2014 9 SEP 2014 15 AUG 2014 SHEET I 3 OF 15 SHEETS ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: East Elevation Scale: 1/4" ANDERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILL WATER, MINNESOTA ARCHNET 23 SEP 2014 9 SEP 2014 15 AUG 2014 SHEET 14 OF 18 SHEETS 44" 'Att.14,41,4="" .4t444.411.0t1t.t1..4.41to144 t , 41, op eodENY,k0,,,M; pW,V1041, ad " t= ttUtnta.Vatt, %Wt., tAtt 44,4ttut ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: NW, North Elevation Scale: 1/4".1.-0" , 00440','4, 040 ,„ 040444 ,t; Prtttit' ttv.kt ‘ty,to ttavAt10.10Nt 4,6601411114,01t4=4"4 0-4 000104 ,.4,44,4: 00' 00014ii0, 44000007744,444, ANDERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET ARCHNET iti Ell 13 23 SEP 2014 9 SEP 2014 15 AUG 2014 SHEET 15 STILLWATER, MINNESOTA OF 16 SHEETS ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO THE: ANDERSON CARRIAGE HOUSE 119 WEST CHESTNUT STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA VIEW OF CONCEPT D 1 ARCHNET 1111 El El 23 SEP 2014 9 SEP 2014 15 AUG 2014 SHEET 16 OF 16 SHEETS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 8, 2014 APPLICANT: Judd Sather CASE NO.: SUP/2014-31 REQUEST: Special Use Permit to operate an event center at 124 Main Street South ZONING: CBD-Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU-Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Judd Sather is proposing the installation of a two-story event center at 124 Main Street South, which would eventually be able to accommodate up to 500 guests. The two -phased plan includes opening the first floor of the establishment with the second floor expansion to follow within the new few years. The second phase would also include a catering kitchen on the second floor. The business is to be known as JX Events Center. Since there is no on -site parking, the Parking Commission will review alternate parking options at their October 23, 2014 meeting. APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS Section 31-325 indicates that assembly halls in the Central Business District require a Special Use Permit. Section 31-207 establishes the review standards for Special Use Permits: 1) The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district, if it is found compatible with surrounding uses. Staff is waiting for more detailed floor plans and associated information to share with other departments for their review. It is hoped that their review will be completed early next week, so we know whether all code and regulations are met. If so, a more detailed CPC; 1()-.8_I1 (SUP/2 )}4_11) 12,1 Main Street Souuth Page 1,of2 report will be provided to the Planning Commission. If not, staff will recommend tabling the case until November 12, 2014. 2 Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed or use and/or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The focus of this review standard is whether the proposed use can operate in its proposed location without negatively impacting surrounding uses, or the general neighborhood. If it can, perhaps with the mitigating effect of conditions added to the Special Use Permit, then the Planning Commission could approve the request. As with the first review standard, when more detailed floor plans are received, staff will provide a revised Planning Report. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATION These will be included in the revised report. ATTACHMENTS Applicant Narrative Applicant Narrative (Parking Commission) Sketch Plan September 17, 2014 Dear planning and parking commissions of Stillwater, It is our intent (Judd Sather and Studio J) to upgrade 120, 122, and 124 South Main Street to an A2 occupancy for an event venue. 120 and 122 used to be Country Charm Antiques and 124 is the upstairs of half of that bay and the other half is above the T-Shirt Factory. We are seeking a special use permit and parking variance for this project. We would be revitalizing a first and second floor space with new HVAC, floor and wall coverings, commercial elevator, and kitchen within 4 years. We also plan on opening the bricked -over windows on the second floor - possibly with TIF funds if available. There is one apartment that is upstairs of the space that would be affected by noise that we are including in the deal of the event venue. I just reached terms with the landlord, so detailed drawings will be available shortly but attached is a sketch. Phase 1 of the project would all be internal tenant improvements if the rear egress is OK'd by the building inspector. Structural engineering, fire, and city inspectors have all met about the space so we are ready of move forward with the project with an opening date of February 1 pending financing. Thank you for your consideration of our project! Judd Sather Owner, Studio J and Judd Sather Photography The Loft at Studio J judd@studiojphoto.com 651-342-1476 October 1, 2014 JX Event Venue - Parking Commission Proposal Purpose: To provide an event venue space for 300 occupants in downtown Stillwater by March 2015, and 500 occupants by 2017 utilizing the upstairs. Benefits to parking system: Higher profitability of parking ramp (2 blocks away), and future paid parking system (swiped meters?). Clients will direct their guests directly to the ramp with wedding invitations and parking directions with our guidance coming into town on Myrtle, not HWY 36. This eliminates the "hunting" for parking spaces that causes frustration. Precedent: With the Loft at Studio J, we agreed that The Loft should not pay any more than the max that any other business pays downtown (12 spots I believe?) Reasoning: as a "weekend -only" event venue, the load on the parking system is no greater than a restaurant that is open 7 days a week. Illustration: JX Event Venue (Years 1 and 2): (4 events/month & average of 125 cars per event (250 guests)) = 500 cars/month JX Event Venue (Years 3+ once upstairs space is completed): (7 events/month & average of 175 cars per event (350 guests)) = 1225 cars/month Restaurant (medium-sized): (100 guests per day (50 cars/day = 350 cars/week or 1400 cars/month)) Note: At The Loft at Studio J, we offer a shuttle service for client that have parking concerns, and only about 2% of clients are concerned enough to hire this shuttle. Proposed Construction: Phase 1 (120 and 122 South Main - downstairs): Increased floor structure and other commercial A2 occupancy code improvements including HVAC, fire separation, prep kitchen, service bar, stage, bathrooms, accessibility alterations, lobby, and soundproofing. Phase 2 (124 South Main - upstairs): HVAC, bathrooms, open old windows facing Main Street (TIF funds hopefully), commercial elevator, new opening in west wall and kitchen (will need HPC approval), and new stairs. Vt ( 1Lt0 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2014 APPLICANT: REQUEST: CASE NO.: V/2014-32 Nathan Pearson, Administrator, Stillwater Good Samaritan Center Consideration of a parking variance for the reduction of one parking space at the property located at 1119 Owens Street North ZONING: RA - One Family Residential COMP PLAN: Low Density Residential PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of a parking variance for the reduction of one parking space on the property located at 1119 Owen Street North. The variance comes before the City as the applicant has requested placing a 12 foot by 20 foot walk-in cooler on the area that is currently utilized as a loading zone as well as a parking space. ,f'f.'914itifigtPittin$kAbt,.! 040tittle Adtftftkpfs.V*.rt • •,•'.• • 1119 Owens Street North Case V/2014-32 (CPC: 10-7-14) Page 2 The walk-in cooler is proposed to be located in the center of the picture above, and would take the place of the larger striped area and one abutting parking space. COMMENTS The current Special Use Permit for 1119 Owens Street North was issued in 1994. Together with the Special Use Permit, the property received a variance for five parking spaces. A total of 58 parking spaces were required; 53 parking spaces were approved. Furthermore, the 48,764 square foot structure is required to have two loading spaces but is only providing one onsite. The existing loading zone does not meet the current standards of 10' wide by 30' long. [The current loading zone is seen above as the striped area in the center of the photo.] The applicant is proposing a relocation of the loading zone to an area adjacent to the outside trash facilities. If the loading zone was relocated to this area, the 58' long by 10' loading zone would accommodate larger deliveries in a space currently utilized by larger delivery vehicles. Additionally, a 15' drive lane would be maintained alongside the loading zone area. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Section 31-208, Variances, indicates the Planning Commission may grant a variance, but only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose of Section 31-510 is to ensure that a property provides sufficient on -site parking spaces to accommodate its needs and not create a burden on the neighborhood through on -street parking. As noted in the applicant's attached 1119 Owens Street North Case V/2014-32 (CPC: 10-7-14) Page 3 letter, since the grant of the parking variance in 1994, the number of licensed beds has reduced from 132 to 94. In addition the number of employees has decreased during that same time period from 175 to 140. This reduction results in a parking demand decrease larger than the requested six parking space variance (five space original variance plus the current variance request for one space.) 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. No application elements are contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: i. The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; The property owner's installation of a cooler on the property is reasonable. The cooler is in association with a specially permitted use in this residential district. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and The unique circumstance of the property are the boundaries of the property and the existing parking and drive areas. The property owner is not able to create additional parking next to this existing parking and drive area without a reduction in open space and infringement on the neighboring properties. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The existing parking and drive areas will not be affected by the granting of this variance as deliveries will continue to be made in the same fashion as they have been. The reduction of one parking space would not create an alteration to the existing character of the neighborhood. Section 31-208 further indicates: • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the variance, with or without conditions. The planning commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. 2. Deny the variance 3. Table the application and request additional information. 1119 Owens Street North Case V/2014-32 (CPC: 10-7-14) Page 4 On the basis the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends approval of V/2014-32 with the following conditions: 1. The property owner shall stripe all parking and loading areas upon installation of the cooler system. 2. The cooler system shall receive a building permit prior to the installation. ATTACHMENTS Narrative Request Proposed Site Plan Existing Site Plan Property Plat Cooler Addition Plan Additional floor plan 1119 N Owens St Stillwater, MN 55082-4399 STILLWATER September 19, 2014 Planning Commission City of Stillwater 216 N. 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone: 651-439-7180 Fax: 651-439-4502 www.good-sam.com I am writing on behalf of the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society dba Good Samaritan Society -Stillwater to request a variance for the center, located at 1119 Owens Street N. The original building unit was constructed in 1965 by Gold Medallian/Maple Manor, and an addition was constructed in 1974. Good Samaritan Society purchased the property from Good Neighbor in 1992, and constructed a second addition in 1994. Good Samaritan Society -Stillwater wishes to add a 12' x 20' walk in cooler/freezer on to the existing building, which creates the "practical difficulty" for which we are requesting a variance. We are approaching the Planning Commission because we believe that the variance to the property request to install this piece of equipment is reasonable for the purpose it will serve. Center neighbors and the neighborhood may experience slight inconvenience by the loss of one parking space after installation. Our request for a variance to install the walk-in cooler/freezer is due to circumstances unique to our property and services. The request is based on results of internal nutrition service assessments and a desire to serve residents the quality and variety of meals that they are requesting. For the past several years, resident and family surveys suggest and request that we stretch toward improved nutrition and better tasting meals by serving a higher percentage of fresh and non -processed foods. Our ability to provide fresh fruits, vegetables, and fewer canned and processed food is severely limited by current refrigeration/freezer space. We have considered and tested other options to the walk in, including increasing the number of food deliveries each week and moving to scratch cooking. Several deliveries each week are not cost effective. Scratch cooking actually requires additional storage for dry goods as well as refrigeration. Installing the walk in cooler will allow us to remove two side by side 2' x 5' freezers and three 2' x 6' refrigeration units to increase shelf space for dry goods. Wasted food is an another frustrating and expensive issue we frequently face, as we have little storage space to save things like peas and carrots for the next day's soup, or make roast beef, ham or turkey sandwiches for lunch from a meal the night before. While there are several economic considerations outlined here, the primary consideration is that we are charged with being good and capable stewards of payments received for excellent care and quality of life that our residents deserve. Meals/nutrition are key component in both care and quality of life. In Christ's Love, Everyone Is Someone. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Construction/installation will take place on the south side of the center in an area that is basically shielded from both the street and the neighborhood except to backyards of two neighbors on Wilkens Street. The walk-in cooler freezer will be located on the north side of the parking lot, virtually across the width of a city street from the Wilkens Street neighbor back yards. Installing the walk-in cooler freezer will be in alignment with the current building and require losing one parking space and moving the loading zone. I ask you to consider current situation. Since the 1994 special use permit was granted, building occupancy has decreased from 132 to 94 beds, a reduction of 38 beds. The number of employees has decreased from 175 in 1994 to 140 today. Further right -sizing of the center and its services may decrease the number of beds and staff, reducing the need for parking spaces. I invite Planning Commission members for a site visit to see the proposed space, shared property lines, parking lot and neighborhood. I will be happy to contact and provide information/site visit to our neighbors as well. Please contact me directly at 651-275-2911 if you have questions that will help infolln your review. Respectfully submitted. Anchored In C Nathan Pearson Administrator 211111111 � |GOOD SAMARITAN OOC|E SDLLVVATER 04/13/2011 Ti o ° CENTER NUMBER: GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIE STILLWATER PROJECT TITLE DRAWING TITLE: OCATION; J BASEPLAN DRAWN BY TILLWATER, MN EYANGELI� 00 ocie :44 4. '4.. ---------- 401 5111 1.3nIJ,S I-E-1744'; BRUCE A. ROL Z 8 A 'SOC. LAND amvEYING — LAND PLANNING {401,71.t.bf.F.STFAN *VENUE 3.42 II '-'11—•—•H --0- , -1! 4-; !•;;! i 241 , 4 11 r , 11— • 1,4,z1. VIOS „K.,stili" !!.!! BB; I_4-- , ABRE-E-B48,44-8-14-E-4,84' i4,449 0,C-4 i I 1 E4. ; :11 4 1 ! 1 1 .2 I 1 4 --- 1 I, t--- ----- i• '-i .:-. ? 4.4_11.4. ; 0 ' i 1 ; 4 1 21 1 .41".,...._ 1 173 1 , BBB,— -44,8- 4 1BIL 1,„; 4 888,7444 4 4, 1:1 1 H 11.1117) 1 1 1 1 I ; I I 11 0 1 11' ,zrz%ztv..-44r-= r,T4Tvc'-- mit-44;-;,avm,m.r°4,444n; 24 ECBABBErIBER-R--5 " (.4 ,,,,554r4 4 T-"p!"3.aPh ..^.x ,77 5 1,, KA ?LC /