Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-14 CPC Packetate INF IIRTNPLA CE OF MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North October 14, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of September 9, 2015 regular meeting minutes 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 Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of 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. 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. 2. Case No. 2015-33: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for an indoor play space, a Commercial Recreational use, a use similar to Amusement and Recreational Establishments. Located at 120 Main St S. John Daly, Applicant. 3. Case No. 2015-34: Consideration of Variances associated with a request for external side yard expansion of one care garage and second story dormer. Located at 624 Oak St W. Anil Moosai, Owner. 4. Case No. 2015-35: Consideration of Variances associated with the construction on of an addition to the back side of home. Located at 609 Churchill St W. Philip See, Owner. 5. Case No. 2015-36: Consideration of Variances associated with the construction of an addition to the west side of the garage. Located at 424 Laurel St. W. Steven Hamond, Owner. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VII. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 6. For Your Information — Staff Verbal Updates VIII. ADJOURNMENT ate TOE 1I1TN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 9, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer, Siess Absent: Commissioner Middleton, Council Representative Junker Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of August 12, 2015 meeting minutes Commissioner Hade indicated he was present at the July meeting. Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to approve the August 12, 2015 meeting minutes. All in favor, 8-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2015-29. Variance to the combined Side Yard Setback for a two-story addition, located at 319 Maple Street West. Peter and Amy Koltun, owners and Paul Randall, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicants propose to remove an existing 280 square foot detached garage and construct a 446 square foot two-story addition to the home. The addition will encompass a single attached garage and family room on the first floor, with a new bedroom on the second floor. While the proposed addition meets the minimum Side Yard Setback of 5', the total combined Side Yard Setback area is 13'6" thus necessitating a 1'6" variance from the minimum 15' combined Side Yard Setback. On the basis that a reasonable alternative exists, staff recommends denial of the variance. Paul Randall, contractor representing the property owners, provided drawings showing the impacts of changes suggested by staff, to include moving the wall 1'6". The lot is 43 feet wide. If the wall were moved over 1'6" to create the 7' side yard setback, the existing driveway would not line up with the garage door. With the originally proposed 6' setback, the driveway will line up with the garage door. He pointed out that the existing garage was 5' 6" off the property line. The property owner requested that the garage be set back an additional 6" making it 6' off the property line. So the proposed garage Planning Commission September 9, 2015 is already 6" further from the property line than the existing garage. Another reason for the variance is that they want a 36" door going from the garage into the house. All existing doors in the house are 32" which was the standard in years past. He cannot move the doorway over the 1'6" that is being requested. It is physically impossible. The proposed plan leaves 16" between structures so it maintains the existing character of the neighborhood. In response to a question from Commissioner Hade, City Planner Wittman said no comments from neighbors were received. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hansen said it is a necessity to have a 3' door somewhere in the house to bring in larger items. He feels there is a hardship due to the narrow lot. The requested 1'6" variance is reasonable. Chairman Kocon and Commissioner Siess agreed. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve Case No. 2015-29, a 1'6" variance from the minimum 15' combined Side Yard Setback for construction of a two story addition located at 319 Maple Street West, »»»»»»>with the following conditions: a. Abbi - there was no mention of conditions when the motion was made - was it intended to include the conditions of approval recommended by staff?«««««««« Commissioner Kelly recused himself from the vote. Motion passed, 7-0-1 with Commissioner Kelly abstaining. Case No. 2015-30. Variance to the Side Yard Setback for reconstruction of a first floor rear entry, located at 1204 Fourth Avenue South. Charlie and Rebecca Ketchum, owners. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant plans to remove an existing 6' wide by 17' long, 102 square foot single story rear entry porch located on the north facade of the structure, and replace it with a 7' wide by 17' long, 119 square foot single story rear entry. The improvement is wholly located within the 20' Front Yard Setback, therefore the applicant is requesting an 11'6" variance to the 20' Side Yard Setback for this addition. The current porch was built over what was a basement access, therefore it did not have proper footings or foundation and is compromising the integrity of the main portion of the home. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Charlie Ketchum, property owner, offered to answer any questions. The practical difficulty is that the porch is in structural disrepair. The purpose of the project is to maintain the structural integrity of the house. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve Case No. 2015-30,11'6" variance to the 20' exterior Side Yard Setback for reconstruction of a first floor rear entry located at 1204 Fourth Avenue South, with the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 Planning Commission September 9, 2015 a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2015-30. b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved before any modifications are made to the structure. c. The addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure. d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. All in favor, 8-0. Case No. 2015-31. Variance to the maximum lot coverage for the construction of a 42 square foot first floor addition, located at 424 Greeley Street North. Nancy Nelson, owner. City Planner Wittman noted that the applicant has applied for a variance to remove an existing cellar access door and concrete pad located on the rear (northwest) portion of the home, and replace it with a 42 square foot single story addition to accommodate a bathroom and laundry area. Consequently the applicant is seeking a 5% variance to the 25% maximum lot coverage for structures. One neighbor wrote that she has no conflict with the proposed addition which will be closer to her property line. Because practical difficulty exists, Staff recommends approval with conditions. Nancy Nelson, property owner, offered to answer questions. The house was likely built in the 1880s. She realizes she will lose some pantry space but that will be part of the new room. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2015-31, 5% variance to the 25% maximum lot coverage for structures, with the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2015-31. b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved before any modifications are made to the structure. c. The addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure. d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. All in favor, 8-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2015-25. Conditional Use Permit for cluster development, located at 8753 and 8911 Neal Avenue North. Kenneth Heifort, owner and Jim Boo, applicant. City Planner Wittman stated that the applicant has requested this application remain tabled. The neighborhood will be re -noticed when the public hearing is reopened. Case No. 2015-14. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to the City of Stillwater's 2008 Comprehensive Plan specifically to the City's Park Plan and Transportation Plan to incorporate a Master Trails Plan. Melissa Douglas, Planning Consultant, reviewed progress on the Master Trails Plan. A draft was circulated for public comment in May. A public meeting and public hearing were held. Revisions have been made according to input received. At its June meeting, the Parks Commission recommended adoption. Page 3 of 5 Planning Commission September 9, 2015 Commissioner Hade asked about Oak Park Heights' response to the draft plan. Ms. Douglas said the plan was well received in Oak Park Heights. Commissioner Siess expressed concern about stopping at trail crossings where drivers and trail users intersect. City Planner Wittman responded in the implementation plan, trail safety education programs are identified as a medium priority policy admin item that will be ongoing. Staff is meeting with the DNR this week to discuss challenges of having the state trail go through the community and how to address the safety concerns. Ms. Douglas said language could be added to reflect the general concerns with trail crossings, noting this will be part of ongoing implementation. She would like a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council to adopt the Master Trails Plan with amendments as discussed. Chairman Kocon reopened the public hearing. Rick Heidick, 3557 White Pine Way, said the Master Plan looks great. He is an avid bicyclist who moved to Stillwater four years ago because it is such a great place to ride. As a member of Stillwater Sunrise Rotary, he has been authorized to work with the DNR to install a bicycle repair station at Neal and McKusick as part of ongoing efforts to improve and enhance the bike trails in Stillwater. Some grants are available. He has been meeting with advocacy groups and would like to recommend that a work team be created that would be affiliated with the Planning Commission, to include bike and walk advocacy community members. Rob McKim, 1107 Eagle Ridge Crescent, who is president of the Gateway Brown's Creek Trail Association, said his group advocates with the legislature and the DNR, and has raised the same issues about trail crossings that were raised by the Commission. They also work to fund maintenance of benches and interpretive signs. They are interested in being a resource. Louise Watson, 927 Northland Avenue, expressed support for the plan. She has a group of people interested in serving as advisors to provide public input. They would like to see a committee formed to advise and assist as the plan is implemented. She also volunteers for Transition Stillwater, a group created by seniors in high school, to organize service groups in the City. Kathleen Anglo, 3336 Webster Court, a landscape architect who works for the City of St. Paul, voiced support for the plan. Wendell Fletcher, 3655 Planting Green, said he is delighted at the opportunities for biking and walking. The plan is a wonderful resource. He is very supportive of the Master Trails Plan and the concept of having an advisory committee. Aaron Johnson, 1203 Atwood Lane, echoed the comments that were expressed. He supports the plan. Jim Connors, 1302 South First Street, agreed with the previous speakers. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Page 4 of 5 Planning Commission September 9, 2015 Ms. Douglas stated as part of the implementation there is a recommendation for an advisory committee. The City Council would determine the form and format of the committee. There was much discussion on this at the hearings. Commissioner Fletcher said she feels it would be a good idea to have a citizen advisory committee. Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to recommend approval of the Master Trails Plan and relevant Comprehensive Plan amendments. All in favor, 8-0. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Staff Verbal Updates Commissioner Kelly asked about the Hazel Place Villas application. City Planner Wittman replied it was tabled and then at the last Planning Commission meeting it was recommended for denial. Commissioner Siess asked if there has been discussion on developing a Gun Ordinance. City Planner Wittman said no, there has been only one meeting at which the Council heard the application from MN Shooting Academy. There has been no direction to staff to work on a gun ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 p.m. All in favor, 8-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 5 of 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 14, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-33 APPLICANT: John & Kelly Daly, lessees, representing Kids Oasis REQUEST: Special Use Permit to operate an indoor play center, a commercial recreation use, a use similar to Amusement and Recreational Establishments to be located at 120 Main Street South ZONING: CBD-Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU-Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST John and Kelly Daly are proposing to create an indoor play space (i.e. indoor playground) and small events center at 120 Main Street South. The plan would include walk-in, open play times on weekday and Saturday mornings with rentals of the facilities in the afternoons and on the Sundays. All children at the site would be supervised by a parent or guardian; no drop -in child care services will be provided. APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS Section 31-325 indicates Commercial Recreational Uses are uses permitted by Special Use Permit in the Central Business District. Commercial Recreational Uses are defined as a bowling alley, cart track, jump center, golf, pool hall, vehicle racing or amusement, CPC 10-14-15 (SUP/2015-33) 120 Main Street South Page 1 of 5 dancehall, skiing, skating, tavern, theater, firearms range and similar uses. As the applicants are proposing to have inflatable jumping facilities in the indoor play center, the use is similar to those listed, above. Additionally, City Code Section 31-317 indicates "...[a]ny other use or service establishment determined by the planning commission to be the same general character...for the CBD district and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties may be permitted by special use permit." City Code 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. Comprehensive Plan and Relevant Area Plans Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6, Local Economy, indicates an objective of supporting business expansion in the downtown commercial district. This would be achieved through the following implementation actions: "[e]ncourage small, locally owned, businesses particularly in the Downton" and "[p]romote office and service job locations in and around the downtown." Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7, Economic Development, indicates a goal of promoting and maintaining the downtown as a central focus for community, economic and cultural activity as "tourism has allowed the Stillwater downtown to avoid the vacant buildings and physical decline seen in other traditional downtowns." While Kids Oasis may help support these goals, objectives and implementation actions, the center's use of this storefront will prohibit retail use in these units. The Comprehensive Plan indicates an estimate 20,000 square feet of new retail space could be supported by 2020. The loss of nearly 3,000 square feet of retail space on this block of Main Street, and at street level, could have a potentially adverse effect to the City's goal of "increase[ing] the tax base and providing economic growth for Stillwater." Other Lawful Regulations In review of the request with City staff, the following items were determined to be some items of concern: • Parking (including, but not limited to, the inability to stop in front of the business on Main Street as the South 100 block of Main Street has no parking or stopping provisions to accommodate for drive and turn lanes at the Chestnut and Main intersections). With a potential capacity of 88 people, the center would need 30 jijwater THE B I R 1 H P L A C€ ®F MINNESOIA parking spaces (1 car per 3 people at capacity). The most recent use (retail) required 8 spaces. So, the proposed change in use increases the parking demand by 22 spaces. A condition of approval ought to be that the applicant must receive approval of a parking mitigation plan from the Parking Commission for these 22 spaces. • Noise (including impact to neighboring residences). A center of this nature would need to follow the City noise regulations for commercial uses as outlines in Section 38-3 of the Stillwater City Code. In order to achieve this, the Planning Commission requested a soundproofing plan for the previously -approved event center business. Granted, the use proposed was of a more significant scale, which would have included live music. However, the City's use table indicates for Amusement and Recreational Establishments that are located outside of the Central Business District, that the uses may be permitted "...provided the place or building in which it is operated is sufficiently sound insulated to effectively confine the noise to the premises." This was a measurement designed to reduce the impact to the surrounding tenant spaces. While not a requirement of Commercial Recreational Uses, the sound impact both outside and inside the facility must be addressed. Staff would recommend the applicant submit a soundproofing plan to be utilized as a mitigation item in the event the noise ordinance is violated. Additionally, the plan should address mitigation efforts for the reduction of indoor noise in the event the activities within the facility become too loud for standard business operations. 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 those items address in the aforementioned section can be resolved, staff could determine necessary conditions for a recommendation of approval. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS As indicated, in 2014 the Commission made the findings for the issuance of a Special Use Permit for a large-scale events center to be located in this facility and gave a conditional recommendation of approval. During their review they requested soundproofing details as well as evidence of a parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission. If the applicant were to demonstrate the proposed use could meet the requirements for sufficient soundproofing (as well as prevention measures for indoor noise levels), and have a parking mitigation plan accepted by the Downtown Parking CPC 10-14-15 (SUP/2015-33) 120 Main Street South Page 3 of 5 Commission, then findings could be made the proposed use is in conformance with the provisions of the Special Use Permit. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the Special Use Permit request with or without conditions. If the Commission would like to approve the Special Use Permit with conditions, staff would recommend the following: a. No drop-off child care services shall be permitted. b. The three (3) meeting room spaces shall not be reserved for parties or other community meetings at any time during walk-in, open free play time periods. c. Prior to the operating of an indoor play center, the applicant shall secure all required approvals from the Stillwater Building Department, Stillwater Fire Department and other county of state departments with oversight of the operations. d. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant submit a soundproofing plan to be utilized as a mitigation item in the event the noise ordinance is violated. Additionally, the plan should address mitigation efforts for the reduction of indoor noise in the event the activities within the facility become too loud for standard business operations. i. The soundproofing plan shall be implemented in the event substantiated noise complaints are drawn against the property. e. All existing and future trash receptacles shall be stored inside the building at all times with the exception of the day of trash collection. f. Prior to the commencement of any exterior work, including the installation of lighting and signage, a Design Review permit shall be submitted and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. i. Any conditions attached to the Design Permit issued by the Heritage Preservation Commission for this addition are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. g. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. If the plan includes a fee -in -lieu, the fee shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Failure to pay charges within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the fees as a condition of approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. i. Any conditions attached to the parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. jijwater THE B I R T H I.l A I: E Of- MINNESOIA 2. Determine that the proposed play center is not consistent with the Special Use Permit provisions or the Comprehensive Plan and deny the Special Use Permit. 3. Table the application to 11/9/2015, requesting additional information from the applicant including, but not limited to, a soundproofing plan that includes potential indoor air quality mitigation measurements, as well as an off-street parking mitigation plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Case No. 2015-33 as conditioned by staff. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Narrative (2 pages) Floor Plan Floor Plan with Dimensions Parking Map CPC 10-14-15 (SUP/2015-33) 120 Main Street South Page 5 of 5 0 • The Birthplace of Minnesota 120 Main Street South CI Parcel Boundary Parcel Boundaries w.- Municipal Boundary 295 590 General Site Location i.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._»_.._..J •-4 1,180 Feet Kid's Oasis will be an indoor play space with retail and party options. This space will service families with babies, toddlers and young children under 8 along with family community groups . Our vision for the space includes the offering of quality items to purchase along with creative free play and learning for young children in a safe and stimulating environment. In Minnesota, our months of inclement weather often prevent young children from getting the active play times they need to grow and learn. Other surrounding communities offer similar indoor play options and Stillwater residents often frequent these businesses. Woodbury, Hudson, White Bear Lake, Eagan and Shoreview all offer an indoor play option. Many of these are privately held businesses that compliment the park systems within their communities. Stillwater is fortunate enough to have the best outdoor park available for children under 8; Teddy Bear Park. Our business would compliment those same families that visit the park during the colder months and rainy days. Families are used to coming into downtown Stillwater to allow their children to play, and more often than not, the families then frequent the various downtown businesses for dining or shopping. Parking for these families has not been an obstacle to overcome and with the majority of our business being projected to occur during the off peak season, parking issues should not be a determining factor on frequent visits to the play space. The retail and check in area will have room for indoor stroller parking and lockers for securing purses and bags to allow hands free play. All areas will be thoughtfully designed to be wheelchair accessible , so that special needs children will be able to access all play areas. Inclusion of all children is of key importance to our concept. The play areas will be surrounded in a town theme throughout with facades to resemble various places they would want to explore. These will include a grocery store, restaurant, post office, farm, beach, train depot, zoo and carnival. In each area, there will be creative play toys and activities for children to create their own scenarios of play while interacting with other children and parents. Many of the play options will contain the quality toys that Gammy & Gumpy's already offer to continue the continuity of the 2 spaces creating a family destination. There will be an interior door between the two spaces near the stroller parking and lobby area of Kid's Oasis to allow customers to visit both businesses. At Kid's Oasis all play spaces will have enough space for parents to be interactive with their children as well. PARENTS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILDREN AT ALL TIMES. Although we would be properly staffed for safety, there will be absolutely no times where staff are responsible for the care of any child without an adult present. The areas will be sectioned, but will remain open to allow safe access and exit, and there will be an infant space for children 0-12 months that consists of soft play flooring and toys that promote gross and fine motor skills, such as balls, shape sorters, climbing blocks and tummy time. The next area will be for all ages(0-8) and is an indoor "beach" sandbox. A walled off area with a built- in sandbox that will be 8 ft wide by 10 ft long. This area allows creative play promoting fine motor skills and interacting with others and sharing. There will be various town themed building facades that house creative exploration. These areas include a play restaurant, grocery store, post office, zoo and train depot. These all allow children to pretend to cook, serve others, learn about different fields and use their imaginations to encourage creative thinking and reasoning skills. The play areas will include 2-3 inflatable structures that allow for large motor skill play. The structures can hold up to 2001bs at a time and up to 4-6 children. Staff will monitor the number of children using the structures at any given time. The structures are specifically made with younger children's capabilities in mind and have easy access for parents to see and touch their children. The structures would be purchased from a USA made manufacturer that has high ratings of safety and complies with all commercial use and safety standards. The back portion of the space would house 3 separate party rooms for birthday parties and group rental for parent and community group meetings. Special needs children's groups will be strongly encouraged to use the space for their meetings. Each of the three rooms will be set up to host parties of 8-16 children. The parties would be a 2 hour time frame and would include one hour of play time and one hour of party room usage. Parties would have the opportunity to have per -ordered pizza delivered from Quick Fire Pizza next door, along with commercially prepared cakes from a licensed bakery. No food preparation would be done at the business. No food products would be sold with the exception of pre -bottled water or juices. The space already has in place a full sprinkling system and has proper access and fire exits for recreational usage and 2 ADA compliant Family Bathrooms would be added to meet MN code. We would work closely with the City Building Inspector and all state agencies for licenses and guidelines. children's safety and well being is of key importance to us regardless of requirements. We would maintain the proper insurance and liability insurance policies and would have a competent staff, well trained in children's needs, safety and customer service. The space would have Open play for residents and visitors Monday through Saturday from 9am -1pm. Families would pay a small fee per child and accompanying adults would be allowed in at no charge. No adults without children would be allowed into the space at any time, with the exception of staff. No child without an adult would be allowed in or out at any time. Families would receive specific wristbands to identify the children as they enter and leave the facility. No parties would be scheduled during those free play hours. The meetings and or parties are only scheduled during non public hours for exclusive use of the premises. Including proper staffing, there would be no more than 60 to maximum capacity of approximately 80 people at any given time. The projected hours of operation are Monday- Saturday 9am- 8pm and Sundays 12-6pm. We have a strong commitment to the Stillwater community and an even stronger commitment to the growth and education of our smallest citizens. We feel this opportunity to allow the use of this space to create an environment that promotes healthy learning through creative play will be a wonderful addition to the families that visit the downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods. We look forward to the day families don't need to leave our community to enjoy indoor play somewhere else. 4Lf Acidi //i.71-iJut/Li( oz)0 7/;,144gt ) _re4- seta Cr- 7717 s'-7:-41 nft64 1*-11-41,411 1A-1' —blq"rb,4,1 �� �r 2� ti� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 14, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-34 APPLICANT: Anil (Dale) & Sunny Moosai, property owners REQUEST: Consideration of a 13'variance to the 30' Exterior Side Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] from Harriet Street South for the proposed expansion of a preexisting, non -conforming garage and a 3' variance to the 20' Exterior Side Yard Setback [City Code Section 31- 308(b)] for a second story window dormer expansion to the structure located 624 Oak Street West ZONING: RB: Two Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The Moosais have applied for variances to make certain improvements to the property located at 624 Oak Street West. The improvements include a 6' addition to the single car, attached garage and for an expansion of a second story dormer to accommodate a code - complaint stairway to the second, half story of the residence. Consequently, the applicant is requesting the following variances: • A 13' variance to allow the garage addition to be 17' from the exterior side lot line, whereas 30' is its minimum required setback from Harriet Street • A 3' variance to allow the second story dormer to be 17' from the exterior side lot line, whereas 20' is its minimum required setback from Harriet Street APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...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." 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. The applicant must demonstrate that: 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 the Exterior Side Yard Setback is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits. However, the structure is not proposed to be located any closer to the property line nor the Harriet Street right-of-way than the current improvements on the property. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no application elements in conflict with the comprehensive plan. 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: 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 addition of 123 square foot addition to the garage will allow for a two vehicles to be able to be parked on the property and not on the street. The total size of the proposed garage is 472 square feet, a reasonable size garage. Furthermore, the applicant's explored alternatives for the construction of a new, detached garage that would conform to the zoning codes but would have increased impervious surface coverage and eliminated the conveniences of an attached garage. Additionally, the expansion of the dormer will accommodate for a code -compliant stairwell to access the second story. Currently the headspace at the top of the stairwell does not allow for convenient access to the upstairs. Case No. 2015-34 CPC: October 14, 2015 Page 2 of 4 The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and The applicant has indicated the uniqueness lies within the way the home was originally constructed on the property. This is not something that has been created by the landowner. While the 62' wide lot would accommodate for a 29' long garage that meets the zoning codes setbacks, working with the location of the circa 1868 structure is the desire of the applicants. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant indicates the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Further indicated is that the porch addition will help add to the historic character of the home. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make findings practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a 13'variance to the 30' Exterior Side Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] from Harriet Street South for the proposed expansion of a preexisting, non -conforming garage and a 3' variance to the 20' Exterior Side Yard Setback [City Code Section 31- 308(b)] for a second story window dormer expansion to the structure located 624 Oak Street West, 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. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2015-34. b. A building permit, or an amendment to an existing building permit, shall be reviewed and approved prior to exterior alterations. c. The garage addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure. d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance. 3. Table the application and request additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Case No. 2015-34 CPC: October 14, 2015 Page 3 of 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 conditional approval of a 13'variance to the 30' Exterior Side Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] from Harriet Street South for the proposed expansion of a preexisting, non -conforming garage and a 3' variance to the 20' Exterior Side Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] for a second story window dormer expansion to the structure located 624 Oak Street West. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request (2 pages) Existing Site Plan and Facade Rendering Proposed Site Plan and Facade Rendering Case No. 2015-34 CPC: October 14, 2015 Page 4 of 4 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota 624 Oak Street West CI Parcel Boundary Parcel Boundaries w.� Municipal Boundary 190 380 General Site Location i.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..J •-�+ 760 Feet Dale and Sunny Moosai 624 Oak St. West Stillwater, MN 55082 9/15/15 City of Stillwater Attn: Planning Commission 216 N. Fourth St. Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Staff and Planning Commission Members: Attached are application materials for the home at 624 Oak St.West. We wish to make minimal improvements to the existing home which will renovate and expand the functioning one car garage and replace it with an simple attached two car garage to modern standards. We also would like to expand an existing dormer on our 1 1/2 story house to improve substandard headroom on the existing stairway between We purchased the duplex out of foreclosure and have begun it's conversion back to a single family residence similar to most houses on Oak St. The goal of this renovation is to make minimal but modern functional changes to a simple historical home which will support the continued neighborhood improvement and avoid impacting it's historical character. Individually and as a part of an improving neighborhood. This solution will be complimentary with the historic architecture of the house, and The proposed design details work within the parameters of the "Stillwater Conservation District Guidelines" voluntarily, even though as we understand a review is not required. The typical existing historical Stillwater neighborhood development is an integral part of this property. It was built to its existing configuration under zoning setbacks that have since changed creating a specific hardship on corner lots already developed, in the process of setting standards that help control new structure development. page 2 In our pre -meeting with city staff we discussed several alternatives for accomplishing a two car garage. One of these involved a completely new detached two car garage, and another involved an all new attached garage placed further back on the lot. Since we already have a perfectly good attached one car garage in place it is undesirable to us to demolish it completely, when our two car needs can be met with a simple 6 ft. addition. The good news is that this solution will have less of an effect upon permeable surface and green space on the property, exceeding current requirements. We feel this is important in our neighborhood. We have illustrated this simpler solution for you in our attached materials. Our second exterior improvement is a proposed expansion of an already existing roof dormer by 9 '/2' to solve a physical headroom deficiency on the only stairway to the upper level. This alteration does not add any additional floor space to the house. It is also illustrated in the attached materials. We believe this variance request has been well balanced between historical, natural resource, and public safety concerns. The proposed architectural solution will allow the 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 are looking forward to meeting with you and answering any questions you may have in the public hearing. Sincerely, Dale and Sunny Moosai Enc. 144'-0" X151-1 1/0f 13UII/bl IM° NG 8,928 5- \G 1,667 5- FVIOU5 89 5� 59'-9' LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION NAME FERDINAND SCHULTZ FIVE ACRE ADDITION LOT 5 SUBDIVISIONCD O9625W 62FT OF LOT G FERDINAND SCHULTZ 5 ACRE ADDITION 2ND WARD LTD 2803020340044 N r 0 10 2fu °rinteo Scale at,I 1 xl7 11,011 �DE vr- AM 51 N 19 0°052 1,01' 8,928 5F 13UL21\G 1,789 5F + 122 IMVIU05 5F + 18G 0 CY CZ ->< O 23'-0 - - 20'-0 13'-6"+- 0I 0 10 25f-L printed 5cal e a I 1 x1 7 / 21 1 511\L�1" PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: REQUEST: October 6, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-35 Phillip & Jone See, property owners Consideration of a 3% variance to the 25% maximum lot coverage for structures [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] for the construction of a 333 square foot, first floor addition to the structure located at 609 Churchill Street West ZONING: RB: Two Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The Sees have applied for a variance to make certain improvements to the property located at 609 Churchill Street West. The improvements include a 333 square foot, single story addition which will be attached to the residence. The addition will include a new hallway, hall closet, and master bedroom and bath, which will be wheelchair accessible. Besides the addition, a new set of stairs and wheelchair accessible ramp is proposed. Consequently, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow 28% structure coverage on the lot, whereas 25% is the maximum allowed. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...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." 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. The applicant must demonstrate that: 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 the maximum lot coverage is to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate infiltration in the historic residential neighborhood which lack modern stormwater drainage and treatment facilities. Although the applicant is proposing an increase to the total structure coverage, as well as to the other impervious surface coverage with the installation of a new accessible ramp, the other impervious surface coverage total will be approximately 6%. Thus, the total lot coverage (structural and other impervious combined) would be approximately 34%, thus allowing for sufficient drainage on the property and keeping with the purpose and intent of the structural coverage provisions. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no application elements in conflict with the comprehensive plan. 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: 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; Currently there is no bedroom or full bathroom on the first floor. The applicant has indicated the addition is reasonable as it will accommodate for the ability for single - level living. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and The uniqueness is the home is not suited for wheelchair bound individuals. As such, the property owners will not be able to reasonably utilize the home. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant indicates the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality as the entire addition will be located in the rear of the home and will have the same style and appearance as the rest of the residence. ALTERNATIVES Case No. 2015-35 CPC: October 14, 2015 Page 2 of 3 The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make findings practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a variance to allow 28% structure coverage for the lot [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] for the construction of a 333 square foot, first floor addition to the structure located at 609 Churchill Street West, 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. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2015-35. b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior any construction occurring. c. The addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure. d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance. 3. Table the application and request additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 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 conditional approval of a variance to allow 28% structure coverage [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] for the construction of a 333 square foot, first floor addition to the structure located at 609 Churchill Street West. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Survey (Cornerstone Surveying) Planset (5 pages) Memo from City Attorney Magnuson Case No. 2015-35 CPC: October 14, 2015 Page 3 of 3 416 CO 418 7= 620 04 610 604 w 520 tY E 619 I 505 603 521` 519 607 i 511 2 51-3 D O 716 516 O 517 719 717 709 703 621 613 715 812 712 706 523 523 622 610 602 :418 QQ LU V N'- I T-Q , 706 F—. , y-811 814 ..;, m ,Y 8'f5 2 18 •�. .` I81 410404 `2/0416 O - w = W" WCHURCHILL H 521 ! 4iiiit 902 D MEI 0 gilt 908 913 1004 1010 809 813 2 314 STREET 319 313 IR: 807 811' 817 904 219 908 909 912 923 1007 1008 O 1015 1016 L7 1021 1020 TREET 319 Am104 b8 1116 . 1117 1013 1117 1118 The Birthplace of Minnesota 609 Churchill Street West 0 _00 GI Parcel Boundary Parcel Boundaries - Municipal Boundary 185 370 General Site Location 740 Feet .wT..�..®®® To The City of Stillwater Planning Commission: We respectfully submit a request for a variance to add an addition to our home to accommodate my evolving disabilities due to my ALS disease. Our current home has no ground -floor bedroom, handicapped accessible bathroom, or wheelchair accessible entry/exit ramp. We plan to continue living in our home as our primary residence and have explored all other alternatives to meet our changed needs due my illness. This addition will allow me to stay in my home and neighborhood until I die. The circumstances underlying this addition/modification to my home are completely beyond my control. The modification of my home is not being made by choice. The modification presents many hardships and challenges for us. Time to complete this modification is of the essence since my physical condition is declining. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be affected at all by this change. Care has been taken in the planning of the modification to preserve and enhance the architectural integrity of the existing structure, including all materials, style, and landscape design. We would appreciate an affirmative approval of this request to help us expedite the permitting process and the completion of this project. Respectfully Notes: o Ind. #13774 iron pipe set. • Ind. mon, found as noted. Bearing system is assumed datum. Offsets shown to existing structures are meas. to the outside building wall line, unless shown or noted otherwise. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY BARRETT M. STACK STILLWATER, MINN. 55082 MINNESOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR Tel. No. 439-5630 Underground or overhead public or private utilities, on or adjacent the parcels, were not located in conjunction with this survey, unless noted otherwise hereon. Overall parcel contains 15021 sq. ft., more or less. SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR; Scott and Lisa DeMars, DESCRIPTION, As Supplied By Client: (copy of Doc. No. Lots 1 and 2, Block 9, Holcomb's Addition P tarn:' SCA: Ems_. V ,,_. (t J OF Y-K'i e.,•', �, Loo . ; ``f pL• o r E o I'•• yo .I..J Or- !-.'sl;L, L(-Ff.)e.'!-- 00 'if R7 1 3 603 West Churchill St., Stillwater, MN 55082 Flo,- - (i - o './ ci, 994826, Wash. Co. records) to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. 4Ji iv J V' • _ _ / L✓. CtiU/eC/ i/L L 9 S'T 1 of, s f /v = Ga. OD FcET ,emoo ¢1t •,— -- ^/891'Z7'301,- i'7 /44./1 — — ' --- - o•. 0 7 - -- So. 0 7 -• •4--- /117, til A L . I 6'.89So. 141 t' ra g. . k i rivet. AA SL.. uLplA e7 EL . +l zit" Lo T 2 757e • /2" /1il7,0PGE: Fee. `;`-- QOeyc f'I 44- 2 I fWv Ea/ So..07 -- \'\\\\\ \\\\ \\\ I1 /7/0. /1/o. 603 2 STo/�Y F,e,9ME ��Ol/SE N N \'\ ZNP. Z. aF :4,75-40E BLOT,.. fi'.q,e,G Z--.+/V (TYPtc ) /Z.a /or /7,7 N - \\\\\\\\\,\ > 7 c' 7. / f 6',a '? 75// fT, \\\\\\\\\\ -8:I — extsrl/ ( \ b 51 b044- 41 0 c.� 6 2 1 GA,ey uE I SE `move') \I 0 .N k \, a ' if a,zzN, N L •=7' l9 a'u/. ',-- — 47, /°7`,5/`" -SD 07 -- — 6. fit-. ,_ 3, <' : ,(i_., r J F fir'4- A" .- 9CC ..:1 frQF `FT td Lam. 93 f 5.70E?mot /tio.,1 t3For 5�/�% To 4t1,^t/G%,': £ - . t- 4,0 120A--b C:OrU 1, /vO.er# /4=Z.0 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that j am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Su►te or MinneiOta. Af • 1444 • /I7 Q‘76-, � �. 4/‘07`/ Date...August..2.1.,..2QD2 Reg,No,..1.37.7.4................. Notes: CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY o Ind. #13774 iron pipe set. • Ind. mon, found as noted. Bearing system is assumed datum. Offsets shown to existing structures are meas. to the outside building wall line, unless shown or noted otherwise. BARRETT M. STACK STILLWATER, MINN. 55082 MINNESOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR Tel. No. 439-5630 Underground or overhead public or private utilities, on or adjacent the parcels, were not located in conjunction with this survey, unless noted otherwise hereon. Overall parcel contains 15021 sq. ft., more or less. SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR, Scott and Lisa DeMars, DESCRIPTION% As Supplied By Client: (copy of Doc. No. Lots 1 and 2, Block 9, Holcomb's Addition 1)9.C'?c,$c_t. EL. oIC Top bf p'ott,l pA—i-i I TV: r, p .o PoS b t car~ -P t� 84 u-fiAn- r�__oo I 9 I/ p ao Pose ' or-' TOP Q F 4.1 A 319 } L. • 1 1.. `! 0. 89.5o. k ±I -ItrP or AAAN i L ?dig 1' 603 West Churchill St., Stillwater, MN 55082 994826, Wash. Co. records) C°11 651- Saq-, .Va to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. 3,4. +/v 6g.riT g',20. CNwec,//ZLAL:2-7-i S '?'uJ = Ga, do fEET Jo7 2 7/a: N t1 1 I • " "2.:-) i. — . Gd3 . feryME' N ti t4141ei' 'o 0 Wit v NI p4e- eye. \%S) 7:/ • ZNP. La. aF au'Psr4 Bz94; �3 fl'ge.G .",V, \ % 75// fr. GA,e.4 4e T BE Mtioveb \\\.\\\\..._\--e:3 ` Z2 (J . -- ti .,fin! cAL r� 24f— ro y 6,2z N. .S I I / '6641I % S` 4M .Atia Q u4 c a Cii cp gIr. 07 S89az9' '74/ M, /,a,/.ct — // q ,•35 /" /2 dTT Doc. /t/G'. 4/6&¢9 >7,01 ,o/yvT t i, - i� I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was ' prepared toy me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the 8 to of Minnesota, et„ vAlilb ni )i LL 4 CATIr t hot2 i 13 • 900 9-1 (rap oR 04.8 . rtpt,vGA pa+R-- .Lr G o ,2.0 Zz !4A 5•{: C 4-. g95•93 dAt0,4 raAsi, 4.L... To owtrv4E Pad vE t.O RM'b c,.c) C /47e7,4, "464 Date...August..2.1.,..2002 Reg.No...1.37.7.a IZ, -in +1 'VENT: 14 P" RR S00 At Al RtDdE/ SoMT T RuSSEs 2.410. c. iftfreldiciA 5!e" G`(PSUM.1,D. 3/4" T$G o.s.E. 1%1/$N T41 a I4Ma.c. 1NsuL• W/V.b• 31 CoNG. FL. P.Y Z.XI. W/A.6,. a G o.C. SILL Ssfra..E}I, 24. R 010 1NSUL. 0 GROSS -SECTION -SPHPaiLT SHINGLES 154 PELT W/ IC.E.erUMND PER C.oDE. ire 0•. S.e,• W 1 CLIPS AIR CIHOTTES R- 50 INSUL. W/ v.b. 1 X lv HARDIEPLANK FASC) A 1..)(140 SUb-FASC Ph HARDtEPLANK SOFFIT W/VENTS /Z." GYPSUM D. ?,x.to e 160 O.G. R-i1 INSUL. WPM!). tl1." 0.6.15. HARDIEPLANK LI,P SIDING .--u--SPL.1T- FACED GONG. bLK. 8- G le CoNG. bL.K. WATE.RPRooFIN& 0 l �C 7.0" X S` CoNG. FTC. t-- ORk1NT►LE. PHIL 4 SCALE:1/7►iz.11„O" DATE: JONE SEE APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY REVISED DRAWING NUMBER 5VF5 EAST Et_.EVAT ION PHIL 4 JONE SEE. SCALE: '/q.►1='I�OM DATE: APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY REVISED DRAWING NUMBER _2or5 EXIST. 5ASEMENT) r- L. — J 11/1,I TJ% e 14"o. 13-C 1Z,1 C}ONC• bLK• ACCESS TO GplNWLI SPACE -- (I,- 7) o HOP►) I a-G le." ONG. BLK. to" $ b" oNC. PTG.. FoAM INSUL• J U'1/b" 'TJ1 e. 1c"o.C. AboV. (CRAWL LONG PAGE FL. A SuMP----i le SPLIT -FACED CoNC. bLK. (AboVv. GRADS) r- - GoNTFL ACToR -ro FIELD DESIGN I4i.c . RAMP (peg. AiPI. SPECS) PHIL $ JONE. SEE SCALE: 1 / 49 C (Loll DATE: APPROV :D BY : DRAWN BY REVISED DRAWING NUMBER 3oF 5 I SOUTH E.LEVATIC. N4 NIEvJ WINDOW SIZE To BE FIE.L D VERIFIED ASPHALT SHINGLES VAARDIEPLANIC SIDING (4" Lhp) SPLIT -FACED CoNG. gL.,K. (Above,. G?,AD ) NOTE: CONTRACTOR To VE.11c1r1 ALL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS MD DIMENSIONS. JERRY COLBWRN DRAFTING DP P WN FaR: SCALE: I /44 it, Op DATE 8• 7►0-I5 PHIL DONE SEE - APPROVED BY: bEDROOM BATE} ADDITION DRAWN BY REVISED 09 it ,y -1/ Vteta' '? DRAWING NUMBER 1 t EXIST: KITCHEN EXIST, BREAKFAST 61 I 4" Z.- ?.)Uo 2 U. DN. EXIST A 3 DINING ED. j P,00P TRUSSES e t.'t" o. G. - Ai,ovE 5EDRoom Ia,.4Xll` TW 41 2- 2.Xio I4DR.{ rfP) %O52.-2. 1, it -I& c4 DK. b-a lit•NDIGAP RAMP W/ HANDRAILS MAIN LEVEL PLAN w I NDows ARDEP►SEN (4oa SE.RtES) c . 0n CEILING He-T. To MATCH EXIST CoNTR #4.ToIN To FIELD DESIGN H. c. RAMP PER FINAL. &F.ADE &E.P 1ADA SPECS) PHIS. ONE SEE SCALE: I/L/iS, APPROVED BY: DATE : DRAWN BY REVISED DRAWING NUMBER 4OF5 MAGNUSON LAW FIRM LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN THE GRAND GARAGE 324 MAIN STREET SOUTH • SUITE #260 • STILLWATER, MN 55082-5165 TELEPHONE: (651) 439-9464 • FACSIMILE: (651) 439-5641 www.MAGNusoNLAwFutm.com DAVID T. MAGNUSON DTMAGNUSON(c .MAGNUSONLAWFIRM.COMI MEMORANDUM TO: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner Planning Commission City Council Ahi tNDA K. DREW AKDREW MAGNUSONLAWFIRM.COM FROM: David T. Magnuson DATE: September 10, 2015 RE: Philip See Variance Fair Housing Act Implications-609 Churchill Street The Fair Housing Act (FHA) was created as part of Title 8 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Originally, the protected classes envisioned by the Civil Rights Act were race, color, religion and national origin. In 1974, the FHA was amended to include gender, and in 1988 amended again to extend protection against discrimination based upon disability or family status. It is a disabled person who is in the protected class that the variance seeks to accommodate. The argument made by Philip See and his wife is that a refusal to grant a total structure coverage variance for their property would be a refusal "to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling."1 In my view, if the variance is needed to enable a disabled person to use and enjoy their dwelling, a "practical difficulty" has been established as a matter of law. This view is based upon the stated plans of constructing an accessible bedroom, restroom and a ramp for handicap access to their dwelling. Respectfully, David T. Magnus Stillwater City Att North Shore Chicago Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Village ofSkokie, 872 F.Supp. (N.D. III. 1993). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 14, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-36 APPLICANT: Steven Hammond, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a 14'variance to the 30' Exterior Side Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] from Everett Street North, an 8% variance to the 25% maximum lot coverage for structures [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)], and a 45 square foot variance to 10% maximum lot coverage for accessory buildings [City Code Section 31-308(a)(3)ii] for the construction of a 240 square foot addition to the detached garage located at 424 Laurel Street West ZONING: RB: Two Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Steven Hammond has applied for variances to make certain improvements to the property located at 424 Laurel Street West. The improvements include a 10'1 addition to the existing 24' wide, two car detached garage. This would bring the garage closer to Everett Street North. Consequently, the applicant is requesting the following variances: • A 14' variance to allow the garage addition to be 16' from the exterior side lot line, whereas 30' is the minimum required setback from Everett Street • A variance to allow 33% structure coverage on the lot, whereas 25% is the maximum coverage allowed. • A 45 square foot variance to the 10% maximum lot coverage for accessory buildings APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous ' Although the applicant's narrative indicates an 8' addition would be added to the existing 18' deep garage, the site plan with proposed addition depicts a 10' addition to a 16'garage. Staff utilized the site plan for the analysis of variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits." 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. The applicant must demonstrate that: 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 an Exterior Side Yard Setback is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits. However, the proposed addition will be situated on what is currently a concrete driveway. Additionally, garages are encouraged to be in the rear of properties, which this garage is proposed. The purpose of the maximum lot coverage is to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate infiltration in the historic residential neighborhood which lack modern stormwater drainage and treatment facilities. As the applicant indicates, the total lot coverage (including the combination of structural and other impervious surface coverages) will be less than the combined 50% allowed in the RB Zoning District. Although the applicant is proposing an increase to the total structure coverage, the other impervious surface coverage on the property is approximately 7%. Thus, the total lot coverage (structural and other impervious combined) would be approximately 40%, thus allowing for sufficient drainage on the property and keeping with the purpose and intent of the structural coverage provisions. The purpose of the 10% maximum lot coverage for accessory buildings is to ensure the City's residential neighborhoods remain residential in character. Though the additional 3.75' of depth added to the garage will increase the mass of the garage, the addition will enable the property owner to store all personal items within the garage. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no application elements in conflict with the comprehensive plan. 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: Case No. 2015-36 CPC: October 14, 2015 Page 2 of 4 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; While the property contains a garage, that garage is 16' deep by 24' long. So while the garage may accommodate two cars, the size of the car would be limited and the area would not allow for the storage of any additional items, such as a lawn mower or snow blower. As indicated to the Commission in the past, the average American car is 16' long and the size of a public parking stall is between 18-20'. Therefore, the extension of the garage by an addition 10' in depth is reasonable to allow for the storage of two vehicles and other personal property in an enclosed space. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and This property is approximately 43' deep. With a minimum Rear Yard Setback of 3' and an Exterior Side Yard Setback of 30', a garage no greater than 10' in depth would be permitted without a variance. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant indicates the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality but that it will be enhanced. While the garage will be extended closer to Everett Street, this is characteristic of garages in this neighborhood. Additionally, the garage roof form will change to a gable, consistent with the design of the home. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make findings practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a 14'variance to the 30' Exterior Side Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] from Everett Street North, a variance to allow 33% lot coverage for structures [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)], and a 45 square foot variance to 10% maximum lot coverage for accessory buildings [City Code Section 31-308(a)(3)ii] for the construction of a 240 square foot addition to the detached garage located at 424 Laurel Street West, 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. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2015-36. Case No. 2015-36 CPC: October 14, 2015 Page 3 of 4 b. No additional storage structures or sheds shall be permitted on the property. c. A building permit, or an amendment to an existing building permit, shall be reviewed and approved prior to exterior alterations. d. The garage will have similar color and materials as the residence. e. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance. 3. Table the application and request additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 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 conditional approval of a 14'variance to the 30' Exterior Side Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] from Everett Street North, a variance to allow 33% lot coverage for structures [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)], and a 45 square foot variance to 10% maximum lot coverage for accessory buildings [City Code Section 31-308(a)(3)ii] for the construction of a 240 square foot addition to the detached garage located at 424 Laurel Street West. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Site Plan Garage Facade Rendering Case No. 2015-36 CPC: October 14, 2015 Page 4 of 4 500 424 420 p"Iirk",,. ^16 415, 416EL 412 S 409 410; 407 t408 404 IL 4 0 401 504 3 WILKINpS ANINPIffik _575 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota 424 Laurel Street West CI Parcel Boundary Parcel Boundaries w.� Municipal Boundary 205 410 General Site Location 1.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..i ._4 820 Feet To whom it may concern I am looking to get approval of the Planning commission to extend the front of my garage (West facing side) 8 ft. It is not suitable build. It does not affect the look and or character of the lot or the neighborhood. Though the size of the original structure will change it will allow us to us the building in a more proper way. The garage is now a 24'x18'x 9' high the roof is rotting and leaks water. The bottom sill plate is rotting and fully gone on the North and East wall. The bottom of the 2x4 wall studs are rotting and gone on the same walls, which has caused the walls and roof to drop at the worst spot ( North East corner) 8". At this point I have releveled the walls, replaced the sill plate, drilled and epoxied new anchor bolts in, and I have fully removed the roof and I am going to replace with premade 8/12 pitched A framed attic trusses. Which are old roof was a 6/12 pitch hip roof. At this time are garage is not long enough to park a 4 door sedan. I would like to be able to extend my garage by 8' so in the winter we will be able to Park inside our garage. It is necessary for me to extend it 8' because I own a truck as a trades men. I would like to be able to park my truck and open the tail gate and also have a little room to unload and load tools. As for changing the character of the neighborhood. The garage will be closer to the sidewalk it will be 15'2 away instead of 25' away. As you drive down Everett St N. You will see that there are few other corner lots garages closer than this. The home that is on the south west corner of Maple St West Has their garage built tight to the side walk. This home is also laid out like ours with the front of the home facing north towards maple and the front of their garage facing east towards Laurel. The Home on the South east corner of Laurel and Everett is also laid out like are home and the front of their garage has about 10' — 12' from the sidewalk. I would say the biggest character change would be the roof I am putting on the garage witch I explained in the previse paragraph. A little taller and going from a hip roof to an A frame roof, which is common throughout the neighborhood. With having a longer garage we will be able to actually use what was sold as a garage as a garage. The number one thing we are looking for is being able to park in a garage in the winter. It will get are vehicles off the road and out of the snow. Changing the garage will allow us to have more adequate storage which with these old homes is a priceless thing. It will give me more room for my tools and equipment. With the shape of are old garage and having to replace the roof at this time it is the perfect time to make this inadequate garage a usable garage. The extension of my garage I do not believe will look at all out of place. I think it will actually make my lot nicer. Most important it will make my family's lives easier and more organized. Thanks Steven Hamond 5 7,3 RLYC .hr1nP 04lI • a-5' welt — red, a� _ i5,a„ 16 ac o Grd -mow .3`' 6'' P 1 \. ,l' �k !S',2n Job QTREC0426435 truss SW1 truss type COMMON midwesi manufaturing, eau claire we 54703 -i-D.o 0.0.0 HAVE ' ENGINEERED TRUSS' SPECS AND LAYOUT PLAN ON SITE FOR FRAMING INSP. 5-6-0 5.6-0 REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE 6-0.0 wry 12 My 1 THIS PLAN SHALL BE KEPT AT SITE OF WORK AND AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY BUILDING DEPARTMENT Job Reference ioplionaf) 7.610 s Jan 292015 MlTek Industries, Inc. Thu Sep 10 10:16:20 2015 Page 1 ID:aEFUgw7yvJaMFmtedGpl_Pyf47Q-PjA81K3k6LOH6wOnXDBrmD 18_FaKrfvSFroOWgyf3Sl 6-oo r; 2 1.5x4 II 3 ix6 10 x8 = 0-0-0 58-6-0 5.6-0 11 12-0-0 6x10 MT18H II 4 13 9 14 5x10 MT18H 13,0.0 Plate Offsets (X,V)-- [2:0-3-0,0-1-6] 6 0.3-0 0 T-61,[8:0-3-8,0-4 10:0-3-6,0.4-01 LOADING (psf) • TCLL(roof) 35-0 Snow (Ps/Pg) 34.7/50.0 TCDL 7.0 BCLL 25.0 " BCDL 10.0 SPACING- 2-0-0 Plate Grip DOL - 1.15 Lumber DOL 1.15 Rep Stress 'nor 'YES Code IRC2012/TPI2007 LUMBER - TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF No.2 BOT CHORD 2x6 SPF 2100F 1.8E WEBS 2x4 SPF No.2 "Except* W1: 2x4 SPF Stud CS!. TC 0.97 BC 0.63 WB 0.38 (Matrix) 12 18-6-0 1.5x4 II 5 24-0-0 26-0-0 2.0.00 6 c 7 to 8 3x6 8x8 — 18-6-0 24-0-0 DEFL. in (loc) 1/defl Vert(LL) -0.59 8-10 >481 Vert(TL) -0.84 8-10 >337 Horz(TL) 0.03 6 n/a L/d 240 180 n/a Scale = 1:67.; PLATES GRIP MT20 197/144 MT18H 197/144 Weight: 112 lb FT = ( BRACING - TOP CHORD Sheathed. BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing. MiTek recornn,ends that Stabilizers and required cross bracing be installed during truss erection, in accordance with. Stabilizer Installation guide. REACTIONS. (lb/size) 2=1403/0-3-8 (min. 0-2-6), 6=1403/0-3-8 (min. 0-2-6) Max Horz 2=-181(LC 12) Max Uplift2=-100(LC 14); 6=-100(LC 15) Max Grav2=1756(LC 29), 6=1756(LC 30) FORCES. (Ib) - Max. Comp /Max Ten. - All forces 250 (Ib) or less except when shown TOP CHORD 2-3=-2907/85, 3-11=-2981/202, 4-11=-2766/223, 4-12=-2766/223, 5-12=-2981/202, 5-6=-2907/85 BOT CHORD 2-10=-58/2309, 10-13=0/1252, 9-13=0/1252, 9-14=0/1252, 8-14=0/1252, 6-8=0/2309 WEBS 3-10=-584/222, 5-8=-584/222, 4-10=-107/1672, 4-8=-107/1672 JOINT STRESS INDEX 2 = 0.83, 3 = 0.51, 4 = 0.94, 5 = 0.51, 6 = 0.83, 8 = 0.31, 9 = 0.88 and 10 = 0.31 NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=1 15mph (3-second gust) V(IRC2012)=91mph; TCDL=4.2psf; BCDL=6.0psf; h=25ft; Cat. II; Exp B; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone and C-C Exterior(2) zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed;C-C for members and forces & MWFRS for reactions shown; Lumber DOL=1.60 plate grip DOL=1.60 Continued on oaae 2 I JOU QTREC0426435 midwesl manufalurlo buss type GABLE I russ T1E eau Claire wi 54703 jJob Reference (optional) 7.610 s Jan 29 2015 MiTek Industries, Inc. Thu Sep 10 10.17:14 2015 Page 1 ID:aEFUgw7yvJaMFmtgdGpiyy 47Q-g5RZ4ojc0wCdfDWAhZ6VycGWzO7?V6FPgFlfOhyl3S: -2-0-0 0-0-0 2-04 4.0-0 6.0.0 8-0 0 10.0.0. 12.0.0 14-0-0 16-0-0 15.0.0 20-0-0 22.0.0 24-0-0 26-0.0 , 2-0.0 , 2.0.0 , 2-0.0 , 2.0.0 , 2-0.0 , 24.0 , 2-0.0 , 2-0-0 , 2.0.0 , 24-0 , 2-0-0 , 2.0-0 , 2.4.0 = 2-0-0 , 4x4 = uty 2 My 0.0-0 2-0.0 4-0-0 6-0-0 8-0-0 10.0-0 12-0.0 14.0.0 16-0-0 1tr-0-0 20.0- 22.0.0 24.0.0 2.0-0 , 2-0-0 , 2.0-0 2.0.0 , 2.0-0 , 2.0-0 2-0-0 , 2-0-0 a 2.04 2-0.0 -0-0 , 2.0•0 , Plata Offsets (X.,Y)F- (2:0-a-1,0-0.8j, jt4:o-1-1,0-0-8j,121:0-3-0,0 3-o1 LOADING (psf) TCLL(roof) 35.0 Snow (Ps/Pg) 34 7/50 0 TCDL 7.0 BCLL 0.0 BCDL 10.0 LUMBER - TOP CHORD BOT CHORD WEBS OTHERS SPACING- 2-0-0 Plate Grip DOL 1.15 Lumber DOL 1.15 Rep Stress Incr YES Code IRC2012/TPI2007 2x4 SPF No.2 2x4 SPF No.2 2x3 SPF Stud 2x4 SPF Stud *Except* ST6: 2x4 SPF No.2 CSI. TC 0.36 BC 0.18 WB 0.25 (Matrix) Scale DEFL. In (loc) Vert(LL) -0 04 15 Vert(TL) -0.06 15 Horz(TL) 0.01 14 BRACING - TOP CHORD BOT CHORD REACTIONS. All bearings 24-0-0. (Ib) - Max Horz 2=-181(LC 12) Max Uplift All uplift 100 lb or less at joint(s) 2, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 14 Max Glav All reactions 250 lb or less at joint(s) 21, 24, 25, 26, 18, 17, 16 except 2=371(LC 2), 22=310(LC 21), 23=277(LC 21), 20=310(LC 22), 19=277(LC 22), 14=371(LC 2) FORCES. (Ib) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. WEBS 7-22=-271 /64, 9-20=-271 /62 l/defl n/r n/r n/a L/d 120 90 n/a PLATES GRIP MT20 197/144 Weight: 119 lb FT = Sheathed or 6-0-0 oc purlins. Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing. MiTek recommends that Stabilizers and required cross bracing be installed during truss erection, in accordance with Stabilizer Installation guide. JOINT STRESS INDEX 2 = 0.78, 3 = 0.51, 4 = 0.51, 5 = 0.51, 6 = 0.51, 7 = 0.51, 8 = 0.34, 9 = 0.51, 10 = 0.51, 11 = 0.51, 12 = 0.51, 13 = 0.51, 14 = 0.78, 16 = 0.51, 17 = 0.51, 18 = 0.51, 19 = 0.51, 20 = 0.51, 21 = 0.22, 22 = 0.51, 23 = 0.51, 24 = 0.51, 25 = 0.51 and 26 = 0.51 NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) V(IRC2012)=91mph; TCDL=4.2psf; BCDL=6.0psf; h=25ft; Cat. II; Exp B; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone and C-C Exterior(2) zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed;C-C for members and forces & MWFRS for reactions shown; Lumber DOL=1.60 plate grip DOL=1.60 Continued on oaoe 2