The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-06-13 CPC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North June 13th, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of May 9th, 2018 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 or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. 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. 2018-29: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat and ZAM to rezone and subdivide land into three lots for the property located at 7990 Neal Ave N in the AP district. Craig Wahlquist, property owner and Dan Thurmes, applicant. 3. Case No. 2018-30: Consideration of Variances for the construction of a garage to be located in the Exterior Side Yard Setback area and to exceed the 25% Maximum Structural Coverage for the property located at 1423 Olive Street West in the RA district. David Hennes, property owner and Jeremy Wilkerson, applicant. 4. Case No. 2018-31: Consideration of a Variance to the 25% Maximum Structural Coverage for the construction of a single story addition on the rear of the home located at 805 3rd Street South in the RB district. Michael and Olga Canning, property owner. 5. Case No. 2018-33: Consideration of a variance for the construction of a detached garage to be located in the Front Yard Setback and Exterior Side Yard Setback area for the property located at 709 Everett Street North in the RB district. Jason Dell and Ann Gulbrandsen, property owners. 6. Case No. 2018-34: Consideration of a variance for the construction of an attached deck to be located in the Rear Yard Setback area and to exceed the 30% Maximum Lot Coverage for the property located at 221 Boutwell Road North in the RA district. Eileen and Mark Douglass, property owners. 7. Case No. 2018-27: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to allow special events in the PA Zoning district and a Special Use Permit for the Stillwater Public Library located at 224 3rd Street North. Bill Turnblad representing the City of Stillwater, applicant. VI. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION VII. FYI – STAFF UPDATES (NO PACKET MATERIALS) 8. CPC Case Files - City Council Actions Update 9. Planner I/Zoning Administrator Vacancy 10. Upcoming Meetings and Events: a. June 26 (7:00 pm): Joint City Council and Planning Commission b. June 27 (6:00 pm): Comp Plan Advisory Committee c. July 10th, 24th, and 31st: Summer Tuesdays VIII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 9, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Fletcher, Hansen, Lauer and Siess; Councilmember Menikheim (arrived after the start of the meeting) Absent: Commissioners Hade and Kocon Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of April 11, 2018 regular meeting Chairman Collins stated that on page 7, it should read that he spoke with Councilmember Menikheim about the reappointment of Commissioners Lauer and Kocon, not Commissioners Fletcher and Kocon. Commissioner Siess stated that she did not say she would nominate Commissioner Fletcher as indicated on page 8. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve the minutes of the April 11, 2018 regular meeting as corrected. Motion passed 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2018-02: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum structural coverage in the RB – Two Family District for the property located at 618 Third Street South. Michelle and Shane Quinn, property owners (Tabled from the April meeting per applicant’s request) City Planner Wittman stated that Shane and Michelle Quinn have applied for a variance to construct an addition to an existing home and build a new detached garage at the property located at 618 Third Street South. There is an existing shared garage straddling the northern property line. The applicants hope to remove the portion of the existing garage that extends onto their property, but they have not yet reached an agreement with the adjacent property owners to allow for the release of an easement currentl y requiring the garage to remain in place. In addition to the proposed structural improvements, the applicants are also proposing a new driveway connecting the proposed garage to Third Street. There is an existing 339.45 square foot concrete pad on the north side of the property, required to remain by the easement. Because an agreement has not yet been reached with the owners Planning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 2 of 13 of the property to the north, the applicants are proposing two alternative plans. Alternative A assumes an agreement is reached to allow for the removal of the existing garage stall, while Alternative B assumes that an agreement is not reached and the existing stall must remain. Ms. Wittman explained Alternative A would result in a total of 50% of the lot area being covered by structures or impervious surfaces and require a variance to exceed the 25% allowed building coverage area by 18.4%. Alternative B would result in a total of 49.8% lot area coverage and require a variance to exceed the allowed building coverage area by 27.2%. Two comments were received from neighbors regarding Alternative A, expressing concern about drainage. Therefore the applicant is offsetting the driveway parking strips as proposed so all drainage will be on the applicant’s property. On the basis that practical difficulty has been established by the applicant, staff recommends approval of Alternative A (an 18.4% variance from the 25% maximum structural coverage) and Alternative B (a 27.2% variance) with two conditions. Chairman Collins asked who would be responsible for any repairs needed as a result of removal of a portion of the garage. Ms. Wittman said it would be part of the agreement between the two parties. Referring to the letter from the Davises, Commissioner Siess asked what is the bulge? Ms. Wittman replied it could be anything. The Davises indicated they thought there might be an oil tank buried there. It will be up to the property owner to mitigate if it is disturbed during construction. Commissioner Hansen asked if the total lot coverage percentage in the staff report is after project completion. Ms. Wittman replied yes. Shane Quinn, 618 Third Street South, explained the addition is a master bedroom on the main level. The existing garage is shared, with no wall separating the stalls. He plans to remove one stall and pay for construction of a new wall, re-sheet, paint and shingle the existing garage so it would be fully operational for the neighbor. He is currently working out the details with the neighbor and will write up a new easement. Commissioner Siess asked Mr. Quinn why he brought two options before the Commission. Mr. Quinn replied he is trying to get going on the construction schedule. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Tom Davis, 622 South Third Street, voiced concern about water drainage and potential damage to both houses because of how narrow the area is and the amount of pavement that would be there. He feels there may be an alternative for entry to the Quinn property which may not have been explored and may solve some of the problems. He acknowledged he needs to meet with Mr. Quinn to work out the details. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher noted that a separate garage helps reduce property issues. She is comfortable approving the variance. Commissioner Hansen stated he wished the neighbors’ easement issue was resolved, but being under the 50% impervious surface total is very important. Commissioner Lauer said the proposal seems reasonable. Planning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 3 of 13 Commissioner Siess said one of her biggest problems is with the uniqueness to property. The property is smaller than all but one other property on the block. She feels that the Commission is sending the message saying, if you want something bigger on your property, you just have to go around and find all the other properties that are bigger. Commissioner Hansen said he agrees to an extent. He is comfortable approving this because it is a modest size garage and he feels the addition of a two stall garage is reasonable. Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Alternatives A and B for Case No. 2018-02, variance to the maximum structural coverage for the property located at 618 Third Street South, with the two conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Siess voting nay. Case No. 2018-16: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a three unit Type C Short Term Home Rental at the property located at 209 Main Street South in the CBD district. Yani Abotbul, property owner and Mark Balay, applicant City Planner Wittman stated that Happy Bridge, LLC has applied to operate three (3) Type C Short Term Home Rentals (STHR) at this commercial property. Staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans, other lawful regulations, and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval with 13 conditions, with an edit to Condition #2 stating that the number of guests should be reflected on the web site. Mark Balay, representing Yani Abotbul, stated the new property owner is trying to bring compliance to the existing non-conforming use because it has already been used for overnight rentals. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve Case No. 2018-16, Conditional Use Permit to operate a three unit Type C Short Term Home Rental at the property located at 209 Main Street South, with the 13 conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition #2 to indicate that the website must be updated to reflect the number of bedrooms and maximum occupancy. Motion passed 5-0. Case No: 2018-18: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for an outdoor commercial recreational business to operate a bike rental station on the property located at 101 Water Street in the CBD district. Chuck Dougherty, property owner and Darren Dobier, applicant City Planner Wittman stated that Darren Dobier operates Diro Outdoors, a local outdoor activities and gear rental business. He is requesting the installation of up to 17 bicycles at a self-serve kiosk facility to be located on the undeveloped portion of the Water Street Inn’s parking lot. While this business will be operated seasonally, the infrastructure improvements (including signage and bicycle mounts/locks) would be permanently installed on the site. There would be no onsite management but, rather, users would be able to rent a bicycle from their smartphone. Staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations and will not be a nuisance or Planning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 4 of 13 detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval with nine conditions. Darren Dobier, 12444 Quill Way North, applicant, spoke of the need for bike rentals in Stillwater. He said the bikes will be taken offsite in the winter; the stands will remain. Bikes will be available to check out from sunrise to one hour prior to sunset. Signage will explain users must be 18 or older. Smart phone technology will allow him to verify which bikes have been checked back into the station and how many bikes are out. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Joshua Allison, 4401 Osgood Avenue North, asked if there are plans for biker awareness signs around downtown. Mr. Dobier replied the sign at the station will have a map showing all local bike routes, dedicated bike paths and on-street routes, and a QR code taking users to their web site for more detailed information on the safe routes. Matthew Stepaniak, 210 Laurel Street, said his guests use bike rentals a lot. He supports the request. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess noted that she appreciates the compliance with the comprehensive plan and that the proposal was very well done. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Case No. 2018-18, Special Use Permit for an outdoor commercial recreational business to operate a bike rental station on the property located at 101 Water Street, with the nine conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition #1 to allow 17 bicycles. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2018-19: Consideration of a Variance to the wetland setback to build a porch in the rear of the home. Property located at 3549 Eben Way, in the CR district. Dean and Roberta Hansen, property owners City Planner Wittman explained that Dean and Roberta Hansen are requesting approval of a 5’ variance to the 100’ wetland buffer setback for the construction of 12’X12’ porch and associated footings to be added to the rear of the home. If approved, approximately 20 square feet of the proposed 144 square foot porch would be located in the setback area; the remainder of the porch would be located outside of the setback area. Ms. Wittman explained that Dean Hansen purchased the property in 2000 with the acknowledgement there was a protective easement on the property. As part of the Liberty on the Lake 2nd Addition, a scenic/conservation easement was in place for the protection of wetlands and other open space areas not located on the subject property. However, at the time of the development’s approval, a less restrictive set of wetland setbacks were in place. In some locations, the existing easements are as close as 18’ to the wetland edge; in other areas the setback is well in excess of 100’. In 2008 the City updated its Local Surface Water Management Plan and wetland classification map based on data provided by Brown’s Creek Watershed District. At that time, the City adopted regulations requiring a 100’ setback from high quality wetlands, which includes this wetland. For many of the properties adjacent to high quality wetlands, portions of structures as well as yard areas encroach into the new setback areas. On the basis the application is in harmony with the general intent of the zoning ordinance, substantially consistent with the Planning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 5 of 13 comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends approval with four conditions. Dean Hansen, 3549 Eben Way, stated he built the home, choosing that lot because of the unique nature of the lot and opportunity to eventually add a porch in the back. The original plans included a 20’ porch that was not built. They are selling the property and the new owner would like to have the porch. He was shocked that the wetland setbacks could be changed without notice to the homeowners directly impacted. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Susan Sisola, 3543 Eben Way, said she supports the request. She expressed dismay to find out at this point that half of her home is within the extended wetland setback area and there are property owners to the east whose entire home may be within the setback area. She asked that the City plan something in the very near future to explain the implications to the neighborhood property owners. Tom Conroy, proposed buyer, explained when the porch plan was designed, he never thought he would have to get a variance. He said he plans to move the retaining wall out to encompass extra area behind the driveway. The patio underneath the porch will have to be cut out to put footings in for the porch and be restored. The landscaping extends out several feet from the porch. He would like to get the variance to extend out to the edge of the existing patio which is 19.5’ out from the house. He may not need all that area but doesn’t want to be restricted as far as what he can do with landscaping. City Planner Wittman responded that is different than the application that was submitted. The existing improvements may all be maintained, to include existing retaining walls. The porch and necessary improvements for its construction include footings, foundation and associated landscaping around it, which would still be considered to be reasonably similar to the plans submitted. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen said the request is reasonable and he would support a 7’ variance. He does not want to grant a 5’ variance if the property owner really needs a 7’ variance. Ms. Wittman stated that granting a 7’ variance into the 100’ setback for the porch, necessary appurtenances and landscaping as shown on the plan still would be in substantial conformance with the request as it has been made. The public hearing did not notice specifically for a 5’ variance, so it still appears to be legally within the conformance of the notice. Commissioner Fletcher stated that the 100’ setback is important but she feels the variance is a justified. Commissioner Siess said she would prefer to table the case to determine the exact amount of variance needed. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Chairman Collins, to approve Case No. 2018-19, a 7’ Variance to the wetland setback to build a porch in the rear of the home and necessary appurtenances to include associated landscaping as depicted on the plans submitted for the property located at 3549 Eben Planning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 6 of 13 Way, with the four conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Siess voting nay. Case No. 2018-20: Consideration of a Variance to the side yard setback to build an addition on the home located at 518 Owens Street North in the RB district. Matt and Kristin Hall, property owners Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. Matt and Kristin Hall are requesting a variance to the required 5’ side yard setback for the expansion of an existing three-season porch on the rear of their home. The porch is non-conforming and currently sits less than the required five feet from the north property line. The proposed expansion would involve moving the north wall one foot, six inches to the north and moving the west wall two additional feet to the west, ultimately making the currently non- conforming north wall two feet longer and bringing it closer to the north property line. The north wall is not parallel with the north property line, so it is unclear exactly how close the expanded wall will be to the property line. The applicant will need to clarify this prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, Building Code requires that all walls and projections within five feet of a property line must be fire-rated. On the basis that practical difficulty does exist and the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality, staff recommends approval of the variance request with four conditions. Matt Hall, property owner, 518 Owens Street North, explained the plans to put an addition on the rear of the home replacing the existing three season porch and deck with living space below and above. The northwest corner of the existing structure is approximately four inches from the property line. The rear corner of the planned addition is two feet from the property line at the closest point. The overhang will not get any closer to the property line. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Case No. 2018-20, Variance to the side yard setback to build an addition on the home located at 518 Owens Street North, with the four conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2018-21: Consideration of a Seasonal Outdoor Sales permit to allow the sale of food from a food truck on the property 223 Main Street North in the CBD district. Dennis Youngquist of Minnesota Winegrowers Co-op, property owner, representing Kowalski’s City Planner Wittman reported that Northern Vineyards has submitted an application on behalf of Kowalski’s Market to allow for their food truck to be located at 223 Main Street North on Fridays between July and October from 3:00 to 7:00 pm. The truck would take up two or three of the winery’s three parking spaces. The Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC) will review the proposal next week. Three public comments were received expressing concern about competition with local businesses. Staff finds that with certain conditions, the application meets all requirements of the Food Vendor licensing provisions and recommends approval of the permit with eight conditions. Commissioner Siess remarked it would have been nice if the Downtown Parking Commission had addressed this first. Ms. Wittman replied the Planning Commission meeting is the first to take place after the application submission deadline. The DTPC meets next week. Planning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 7 of 13 Commissioner Hansen agreed that downtown parking is a changing scenario. He asked what the Downtown Parking Commission uses as its standard for considering a request. Ms. Wittman said she could provide more information on parking numbers downtown. The DTPC looks at at ratios, how many permits are given and how many spaces are mitigated. Dennis Youngquist, 223 Main Street North, General Manager, stated that the winery business has become very competitive so he has to do an event every weekend to draw customers. Regarding the dissenters’ letters, he sends many of his customers to River Market Co-op for deli food. He is not stealing lunch business, the food truck is scheduled when their business is slower and it is not every Friday, it’s only four Fridays. The food is not the same as what is offered at the River Market Deli. His business has spaces for four cars but they are seldom used, as his staff all walks to work. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Mead Stone, General Manager of River Market Community Co-op, congratulated Mr. Youngquist on Northern Vineyard’s 40th year in business. He stated it was a hard winter for downtown businesses. He questioned if a food truck contributes to city taxes. In 2014 the Co-op invested $300,000 in its deli and over $1 million for a total store remodel. On behalf of its 5,000 local owners he would be remiss if he didn’t express a complaint. Northern Vineyards is a winery and should focus on wine. He has no animosity toward the winery, but objects to their proposal. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. City Planner Wittman clarified that the staff report indicates Fridays July to October because even though the application says intermittently, any time there are more than three events per year they have to become part of the business plan or go into a vendor license program. She added that there are about 1800 public parking spaces downtown. Commissioner Siess said she would like to know how many spaces are required for all businesses downtown. Commissioner Hansen expressed concern about parking. He has no problem with food trucks and understands the issue of competition. Commissioner Fletcher commented she did not think the food truck with a limited number of hours will hurt the Co-op. Motion by Chairman Collins, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve Case No. 2018-21, Seasonal Outdoor Sales permit to allow the sale of food from a food truck on the property 223 Main Street North, with the eight conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 5-0. START HERE Case No. 2018-22: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a distillery and tasting area on the property located at 107 Chestnut Street East, in the CBD district. State of MN Department of Military Affairs, property owner and Andrew Mosiman and Christie Wanderer, applicants City Planner Wittman stated that the applicants are requesting a Special Use Permit for a distillery and a Special Use Permit for a tasting room to be located in a portion of the structure at 107 Chestnut Street East, previously used as the armory garage. Staff finds that with certain conditions, the Planning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 8 of 13 proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval with nine conditions. Commissioner Siess asked if the business will use any part of the armory building. Ms. Wittman said the distillery will have exclusive use of a bathroom and a bunker room that are in the old armory portion. The bunker room, to be used as an office, is accessed only from the garage portion of the armory. Commissioner Hansen asked about parking and whether the applicants will use any of the driveway in front of the garage for off-street parking. Ms. Wittman said there is some parking along the west side of the building. The driveway area in front of the garage doesn’t meet design standards for parking. The Commission could request that the existing driveway be maximized for off-street parking as a component of the parking mitigation plan. Christie Wanderer, applicant, 13630 Paragon Avenue North, said the name of the business and the proposed location have changed since a Special Use Permit was granted in 2016 for a nearby location. This site is more cost effective and is tall enough to allow a 16 foot still. The garage building will be split in half between production and tasting room. They will only be allowed to serve what they make on the premises. They have no intention of selling food. Commissioner Siess asked for Ms. Wanderer’s opinion of the parking situation. Ms. Wanderer said she understands there is no parking on the site but also does not understand how Stillwater can grow as a community if it does not allow people to open new businesses without having to mitigate parking. She said it seems like the City penalizes new businesses, whereas existing businesses don’t have to pay into the parking system. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Siess said that she has an issue with the lack of parking and that 12 spaces is a lot of parking to have to mitigate. She pointed out that residents have trouble finding parking downtown. She would like to know how much parking current downtown businesses use. Commissioner Hansen said he supports the concept but feels the armory is shooting itself in the foot because this is “the” parking area. If all of it is eliminated that leaves no parking options for other additional uses for the building. He would like to know how downtown parking requirements are calculated. He too has trouble finding parking downtown. City Planner Wittman stated that City staff is in discussion with future owners of the armory about a parking solution and has had conversations with almost every other property owner on this block. The City is looking at the need to construct more parking downtown. There are a lot of challenges with the sale of the armory. It ’s a large building and it takes time to figure out the best use. It is still being worked out by potential purchasers. Commissioner Siess recalled that after significant pushback on parking, the Crosby Hotel reconfigured their parking. Ms. Wittman explained that the hotel agreed to build a parking deck for the City instead of being allowed to just use the City’s parking. Planning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 9 of 13 Commissioner Lauer commented that he likes the idea of the distillery and finds it difficult to deny the use based on parking as the sole factor, however he agrees that parking needs to be addressed. Commissioner Hansen said this might be worth discussing with the Council at the joint meeting. Ms. Wittman pointed out that the Commission may make recommendations to the Council for code amendments, and also may defer any action to the City Council. Commissioner Hansen he is concerned about the parking but also the use of the armory. Therefore he thinks the Council could speak to it better than the Planning Commission could, with a larger overview of the issue. Commissioner Fletcher said she does not have the same concern about the armory itself. She does not want to hold up this business due to a larger, city-wide parking concern. Commissioner Siess said she views her role as Commissioner is to look at what is best for Stillwater. City Planner Wittman stated that the earliest this case would be on the Council agenda would be June 5. The applicant could still go to the DTPC which meets next week. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to refer to the City Council Case No. 2018-22, Special Use Permit to operate a distillery and tasting area on the property located at 107 Chestnut Street East, due to the proposal’s impact on the the parking system and the use of the armory as a whole although the use is acceptable in the CBD. Motion passed 3-2 with Commissioners Fletcher and Lauer voting nay. Commissioners Lauer and Fletcher stated that their nay votes were not to be construed as being against this particular use. Case No. 2018-23: Consideration of a Special Use Permit and Variance thereto, to build a new residential Condominium on the property located at 107 Third Street North, in the CBD district. Brown’s Creek West LLC, property owner City Planner Wittman reminded the Commission that on February 20, 2018 the City Council considered an earlier version of this project. The massing of the building and the combination of setback and height variances were found to be incompatible with the neighborhood and consequently the Planning Commission and Council denied the project. However, the use as a residential property was found to be acceptable, therefore the Council’s decision to deny was without prejudice. This was done intentionally to allow the developer the option to redesign the project and bring it back to the City for consideration without waiting for a year. The building has now been redesigned to address the Planning Commission and Council concerns. The new building has been reduced from 11 units to 9 units. The fourth floor with its penthouse has been eliminated and the footprint and mass of the building have been decreased. The resulting building now meets the height limit and required side yard setbacks. Moreover, the setback from the east lot line has been increased from 5 feet to 13 feet, which increases the separation between the proposed condo building and the single family home next door. In order to construct the revised building, the property owner has requested the following: 1. A Special Use Permit to allow the construction of a 9-unit residential building in the CBD Zoning District; 2. A Variance from the 20 foot rear yard setback to allow the east wall of the building to be 13 feet from the rear lot line; 3. A Variance from the 15 foot front yard setback to Planning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 10 of 13 allow a portion of the west wall of the building to be 5 feet from the front lot line. Seven public comments were received. Most of the comments were from neighbors in the vicinity expressing concerns about traffic impacts and the proposal’s impact on the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit and setback variances with 16 conditions. Commissioner Siess asked about the variances. Ms. Wittman explained the variances are required to be able to accommodate the parking on site. Without the variance they may not be able to get all the required parking on site; 17 spaces are required, 24 are proposed. Commissioner Siess asked if the traffic study took weather into account. City Planner Wittman replied that the traffic study does account for some weather. Additionally in the first review, staff looked at accident reports at this site and found them to be pretty minimal, in the last 10 years less than one per year. It is well known that it is a confusing intersection, but there is not a lot of evidence that the intersection is as problematic as perceived. Roger Tomten, ARCHNET, representing Jon Whitcomb and Brown’s Creek West, explained that the new design now complies with the height requirement, reducing the building scale and eliminating two units. They have eliminated the need for some setback variances. Regarding blocking views, that is always a tough issue when starting with an empty lot. A building of any mass or scale would block somebody’s view. He offered a correction to a comment in one letter that from the deck of the library, the southern view of the St. Croix River would be blocked by this building. He stated that this building will not block any view of the river from the library plaza. Mr. Tomten stated that the developer obtained a traffic study which is summarized in the packet. He feels the new design has done a good job of utilizing the vernacular architecture of the area to create something that fits into the City. The developer will discuss with the City Council how their 40 spaces allocated in the City ramp will be incorporated into the final development package. The mansard roof will screen the public space (rooftop patio). It will be aesthetically pleasing for the residents, incorporating some green roof elements. Commissioner Siess pointed out that the comprehensive plan anticipates commercial uses on street level in the core of downtown. She spoke to Community Development Director Turnblad who told her that he feels this is not the core of downtown and she found that interpretation interesting. She asked if the applicant considered the lower level being commercial. Mr. Tomten replied yes, they considered a mixed use. Potential commercial occupants felt that the location was too far off Main Street. Another problem with mixed use was the issue of building height. By incorporating a strict foot limit on building height, the City has almost negated the ability to create mixed use space that is in character with the historic zone, because historically, commercial space has a very tall ceiling up to 16 feet. If the building were designed with a 16 foot ceiling on the first level and still have to stay under 35 feet, it would be down to a two story building which would not be financially feasible. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Rhonda Bright Doren, 112 Third Street South (Steepletowne Condominium) thanked the developer for making the building more aesthetically pleasing. She expressed concern about traffic, saying if there are 24 cars turning in twice a day, that makes 48 opportunities during the day that people behind those cars will have to stop halfway up the hill before they get to the intersection. She would Planning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 11 of 13 like the access removed off of Myrtle Street. She has not seen an accident but sees a lot of near misses. There are more and more pedestrians who don’t cross at the intersection because of the risk. Julie Dahl, 110 Third Street South, agreed with Ms. Bright Doren’s comments. She witnessed two accidents last summer. She feels adding more traffic to the intersection will make it worse. Scott Wallace, 112 Third Street South, Steepletowne Building, noted that the applicant has been very proactive in reaching out to neighbors. The development as now proposed represents an architecturally appropriate improvement. The traffic concerns focus on pedestrians and turning traffic. He understands the applicant’s constraints about accessing the underground parking. Residents of the Steepletowne building are concerned about their views to the northeast. Jon Whitcomb, applicant, 12950 75th Street, said the current project may have struck the right balance. He pointed out there are many bad intersections throughout the City. The engineer’s report indicated that every intersection going west from Main Street has fewer traffic accidents. It also came up that there were no private driveway incidents recorded in 10 years. The accidents are at public intersections and 80% of them are due to inattentive drivers. This project will not change inattentive driving. Regarding the number of trips per day, most people who live in this type of housing don’t use their cars as much as average. He hired engineers to see if this project would burden the intersection in a negative way. The study found that the intersection will still function as before. It will not be better but will not be substantially worse as a result of the project. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess asked if the Commission’s decision will have to go to the Council. Ms. Wittman said she doesn’t believe so but the notice stated there will be a City Council hearing on June 5. Chairman Collins agreed that this is a better project. The mansard roof really cleans up the site. He acknowledged there will be some views lost. He does not think it would be possible to have a different access point as suggested by one speaker. He likes the fact that there are fewer variances and appreciates the applicant spending the money to do the traffic study. He feels the proposal is reasonable for the site, but recognized it is a poor intersection and hopes that staff can look at improving it somehow, maybe eliminating a parking spot to improve sight lines. City Planner Wittman said the Commission could recommend that the Traffic Safety Review Committee look at this intersection. Commissioner Hansen said he hates the intersection, which handles the majority of E-W traffic exiting downtown Stillwater, as guided in the comprehensive plan. He considers it to be the worst intersection in the City. He appreciates all the revisions and elimination of the variances, and is completely behind it but he is still really worried about the entrance on Myrtle. He recognized that according to the traffic study this development will not make the intersection any worse. But the intersection must be addressed. The City should eliminate parking on the south side of Myrtle between 2nd and 3rd Streets, and even though it would be hard in the winter, the City should probably put a four way stop sign there. The City needs to make efforts to improve the intersection if the project puts 24 more parking spaces in that area. Planning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 12 of 13 Commissioner Lauer said he has the same intellectual conflict with drivers going up or down the hill having to stop for people turning into the development. However, he really likes the way the revised building looks. Commissioner Siess said she agrees with the traffic concerns and regrets not bringing this up when it first came up, but a lot of people have come up to her and said they could be more excited about the project if it were creating more of a tax base. Having a commercial tax base is important. In the 2030 plan there also was nothing about affordable housing. So the project does not increase the City’s commercial tax base, and only a very small percentage of society will be able to afford the housing there. This is her opinion. Commissioner Fletcher acknowledged that she too struggles with this intersection but feels perhaps this project could serve as a reason to finally fix the intersection. She favors allowing this project to go forward but fixing the intersection as well. She does not want to penalize the landowner, who has worked very hard to listen to feedback and revise plans accordingly. Commissioner Hansen pointed out if the traffic study found this project will not make the intersection any worse, he doesn’t know whether the Traffic Safety Review Committee will have a different recommendation. He believes the Commission should pass it on to the Traffic Safety Review Committee and also to the City Council. Commissioner Siess said if the Commission wants the City Council to really force the issue, it should be referred to the Council. Chairman Collins said he is OK moving the project forward and giving direction to staff and Council that the Commission wants the intersection of Myrtle and Third Streets to be a high priority. Motion by Chairman Collins, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve Case No. 2018-23, Special Use Permit and Variance thereto, to build a new residential Condominium on the property located at 107 Third Street North, with the 16 conditions recommended by staff. Motion failed 2-3, with Commissioners Siess, Hansen and Lauer voting nay. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to refer this to the City Council. Motion passed 4-1, with Chairman Collins voting nay. Commissioner Lauer pointed out “With our strong recommendation that they look at this intersection.” FYI City Planner Wittman reminded the Commission of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee meeting May 23 for the City Council, Planning, Parks, and Heritage Preservation Commissions. She added that Commissioners are always welcome to attend any Advisory Committee meetings. Chairman Collins noted the joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting will be held Tuesday June 26 at 7 p.m. at City Hall. Ms. Wittman stated Mayor Kozlowski and Chairman Collins will set the agenda. Planning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 13 of 13 ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 2018 Commission Appointments and Chair Elections Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to elect Collins as Chair. Motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Siess voting nay. Motion by Chairman Collins, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to elect Lauer as Vice Chair. Motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Siess voting nay. Ms. Wittman reported that a Linden Street variance for a rear yard deck, which the Commission voted to deny, was appealed to the Council and the Council upheld the Commission’s decision. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to adjourn the meeting at 10:48 p.m. All in favor, 5-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 4, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-29 APPLICANT: Dan Thurmes, Cornerstone Land Surveying, LAND OWNER: Craig Wahlquist REQUEST: 1. Rezoning to RA, Single-Family Residential 2. Preliminary Plat approval of Neal Meadows 5th Addition, a 3 lot residential subdivision at 7990 Neal Avenue North 3. Vacation of platted drainage and utility easements COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LDR, Low Density Residential REVIEWERS: City Planner Wittman, City Engineer Sanders PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Craig Wahlquist plans to subdivide his 1.27 acre homestead property at 7990 Neal Avenue into three lots. One of the lots will be for the Wahlquist home and two lots will be for new homes. The subdivision is to be known as Neal Meadows 5th Addition. SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to subdivide the property as proposed, a request has been made to approve: 1. Rezoning from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RA, Single-Family Residential 2. Preliminary Plat of Neal Meadows 5th Addition 3. Vacation of the platted drainage and utility easements EVALUATION OF REQUEST I. REZONING The proposal includes a request to rezone the property to RA, One-Family Residential. The Comprehensive Plan’s guided use for the property is Low Density Residential, for a total of 7990 Neal Ave Page 2 of 5 1 to 4.4 units per acre. The proposed rezoning and the density of 2.36 units per acre are consistent with the future land use classification. II. PRELIMINARY PLAT Lots Standards Minimum standard Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Proposed Lot 3 Proposed Minimum Lot Width 75’ 90’ +/- 90’ +/- 100.2’ +/- Minimum Lot Depth 100’ 290.9‘ +/- 144.9’ +/- 146.2’ +/- Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sf 29,047 sf 13,042 sf 13,158 sf The lots as proposed exceed all minimum standards. Engineering and Streets City Engineer Sanders has reviewed the preliminary plat and plans. The proposal includes extending the public sewer and water system under Neal Avenue to the site. This extension would service the existing home and the new home on Lot 3. The new home on Lot 2 would be serviced from one of the three existing sets of stubs for this property on the east side of Creekside Crossing. However, City Engineer Sanders does not recommend extending the public utilities under Neal Avenue. Instead, he would recommend having only Lot 3 served under Neal Avenue. This would be done by a private hook-up to existing services on the east side of Neal Avenue. Then the existing home on Lot 1, as well as the future home on Lot 2, would be connected by private service stubs to the Creekside Crossing utilities. With proper construction methods, the cost of running the private connection for Lot 1 westward to Creekside Crossing should not be more than the proposed boring of an 8” sewer line. Development Agreement and Fees If no extension of the public utilities is constructed, as recommended by the City Engineer, then no Development Agreement is needed. The following development fees will be required at the time of the release of the executed Final Plat from City offices. Fees quoted are based on 2018 rates, which are adjusted annually in sync with the cost of construction index.  Transportation Adequacy Fee: $8,379/acre for the two new lots o 0.601 acres x $8,379 = $5,035.78  AUAR (Storm Sewer) Fee: $6,100/acre for the two new lots o 0.601 acres x $6,100 = $3,666.10 7990 Neal Ave Page 3 of 5  Trunk Sewer and Water Fee (Boutwell West Area): $10,946/acre for the two new lots o 0.601 acres x $10,946 = $6,578.55  Sewer and water hook-up charges for the existing home is limited to $2,500 for sanitary sewer and $2,500 for municipal water1. o $5,000 total Therefore, the total due at time of release of the Final Plat from City offices will be $20,280.432. Park and Trail Dedication The Comprehensive Plan’s park chapter shows no planned parks on the property. So, the contribution to the park system would likely have to be in the form of a fee in lieu of land, which would be $2,000 per new lot created. In terms of trails and sidewalks, a sidewalk on the west side of Creekside Crossing exists, so no additional sidewalks are needed. And, while a trail is proposed for Neal Avenue to connect the Boutwell Road trail with Brown’s Creek Trail, it is proposed to be constructed on the east side of Neal Avenue. Therefore, no trail easement or construction would be needed for this subdivision. Therefore, the contribution to the trail system would have to be in the form of a fee in lieu, which would be $500 per new lot created. The $2,500 park and trail fee for each or Lots 2 and 3 will be payable prior to release of the final plat from City offices. (No trail or park fees would be applied to the existing home.) Tree Preservation and Landscaping As the property owner does not intend to grade the land area of the new lots, less than 35% of the significant trees and less than 50% of the vegetation crown cover on site would be removed. Therefore, no tree replacement would be required by the zoning ordinance for this residential development. The subdivision ordinance requires three trees on average for every planned lot (City Code Ch. 32, Subd. 5 (13)(q)(1)), whether tree replacement is required by the zoning ordinance or not. So, a total of 6 trees would be required for the 2 new buildable lots requested in this preliminary plat. However, City Code Section 32-1, Subdivision, Subd. 4(9) indicates alternative design standards may be considered when there are ‘unique conditions’. Since the property has many mature trees, and none of them will be removed to develop the lots, the City should consider waiving the requirement for the landscaping trees. This has been done for the other lots that have subdivided between Creekside Crossing and Neal Avenue. 1 Orderly Annexation Agreement, Section 6.01, d and e. 2 This total is based on the 2018 rates. Rates increase annually in step with the cost of construction index. 7990 Neal Ave Page 4 of 5 Miscellaneous The City of Stillwater obtained a narrow strip of land between the Creekside Crossing right- of-way and this property’s western boundary through foreclosure. This foreclosed strip of land was created as Outlot G when Creekside Crossing was developed. The City obtained the outlot for extra road right of way. So, driveways crossing them can be done without an easement. No comprehensive drainage plan is required for subdivisions that contain less than four lots. III. VACATION OF EASEMENTS The existing drainage and utility easements platted on this property need to be vacated so the wider easements recommended by the City Engineer can be platted. Those wider easements are included in the preliminary plat. The documents vacating the easement will need to be signed by the land owner prior to release of the final plat from City offices, and then filed together with the new plat. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the rezoning and preliminary plat requests to be satisfactory, then the Commission should move to recommend that the City Council approve them both. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a recommendation, it could continue the review for additional information. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the rezoning and preliminary plat requests are not satisfactory, then the Commission could recommend that the City Council deny them both. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial and state whether or not the denial is with prejudice. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the rezoning to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the neighborhood. And finds the preliminary plat to be consistent with the development standards found in the City Zoning and Subdivision Code. Therefore, staff recommends Alternative A with the following conditions: 7990 Neal Ave Page 5 of 5 1. All future electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. 2. If determined acceptable by the Park and Recreation Commission, this development will be responsible for paying $5,000 to the City for park and trail dedication fees. These fees will be due prior to release of the final plat from the City for recording with Washington County. 3. This development shall be responsible for paying the applicable development impact fees prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. 4. Lots 1 and 2 must receive their sanitary sewer and municipal water from the stubs located on the east side of Creekside Crossing. Lot 3 must receive its sanitary sewer and municipal water from the east side of Neal Avenue. The construction means and methods for connecting Lot 3 to these utilities must be approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing any construction work or issuing a building permit. 5. The documents necessary to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements must be signed by the land owner prior to release of the final plat from City offices, and then filed together with the new plat. Attachments: Site Location Map Preliminary Plat Concept Grading Plan EAGLE RIDGE TRAIL NEALAVENUEWALNUT CREEK DRIVE NORTH CREEKSIDE CIRCLECREEKCREEKSIDE CROSSINGCT BOUTWELL ROADSIDEEAGLE RIDGE TR NEAL AVENUE NORTH7930 7939 7979 7959 12997 12840 12991 7919 7940 2418 7990 8120 8040 12880 8031 1128 12920 12955 8005 8075 2419 2412 1116 1122 7970 12993 7890 8080 1003 12764 1134 8045 1110 1108 1200 2260 1115 1205 8160 2359 1104 2401 1201 2360 1223 22802413 1170 1008 1140 1110 23152337 2303 2283 1190 13033 1150 2267 23558055 1175 1206 1155 1201 1135 1095 1075 23202340 2300 1130 1016 2407 2401 22668220 2335 2315 2400 123022822336235823022314 µ 0 290 580145Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 7990 Ne al Ave N 312BLOCK 1146.26146.1417.32105.28 N89°56'45"W289.72N00°03'15"E90.00143.44146.267.76 90.04 10 NEAL MEADOWS 5TH ADDITIONKNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Craig D. Wahlquist, a single person, fee owner, of the following described property situated in the County of Washington, State of Minnesota,to wit:Lot 4, Block 2, NEAL MEADOWS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Washington County, MinnesotaHave caused the same to be surveyed and platted as NEAL MEADOWS 5TH ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the easements created by this plat fordrainage and utility purposes only.In witness whereof said Craig D. Wahlquist, a single person, has hereunto set his hand this _________ day of ______________, 201___.________________________Craig D. WahlquistSTATE OF MINNESOTACOUNTY OF WASHINGTONThe foregoing instrument by Craig D. Wahlquist, a single person, was acknowledged before me on this _______ day of ______________, 201___.____________________________________ ___________________________________Notary Public ________________ County, MinnesotaMy Commission Expires January 31, 2020I, Daniel L. Thurmes, do hereby certify that I have surveyed and platted or directly supervised the surveying and platting of the property described on this plat as NEAL MEADOWS 5THADDITION; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels arecorrectly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on the plat have been correctly set; that all water boundaries and wet lands as of this date, as defined in Minnesota StatutesSection 505.01, Subd. 3, are shown and labeled; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat.Dated this _________ day of ___________________, 201___.______________________________Daniel L. Thurmes, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 25718STATE OF MINNESOTACOUNTY OF WASHINGTONThe foregoing Surveyor's Certificate was acknowledged before me on this _________ day of ___________________, 201___, by Daniel L. Thurmes, Licensed Land Surveyor.______________________________________ ______________________________Notary Public,Dakota County, MinnesotaMy Commission Expires January 31, 2020PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STILLWATERThe foregoing plat of NEAL MEADOWS 5TH ADDITION was approved and accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, this _________dayof__________________, 201____.By _________________________ its Chairperson By_________________________ its SecretaryCITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATERThis plat of NEAL MEADOWS 5TH ADDITION was approved by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, this _________day of__________________, 201___ and hereby certifiescompliance with all requirements as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2By _________________________, Mayor By_________________________, ClerkWASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORPursuant to Chapter 820, Laws of Minnesota, 1971, and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this _______ day of______________, 201_____.By __________________________ By __________________________ Washington County SurveyorWASHINGTON COUNTY AUDITOR/TREASURERPursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable for the year 201___, on the land hereinbefore described, have been paid. Also pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and transfer entered, on this _________ day of ________________ 201_____.By ________________________________Washington County Auditor/Treasurer By ________________________________ DeputyWASHINGTON COUNTY RECORDERDocument Number ___________________I hereby certify that this instrument was recorded in the Office of the County Recorder for record on this _______ day of _____________, 201___, at ____ o'clock ____. M., and was duly recordedin Washington County Records.By_________________________________ Washington County Recorder By _______________________________ DeputyCORNERSTONELAND SURVEYING, INCVICINITY MAPSE1/4SW1/4NE1/4NW1/4SITESEC. 19, TWP. 30, RNG. 20, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MNNOT TO SCALEDENOTES SET 1/2 INCH X 18 INCH IRON PIPE MARKED R.L.S. 25718 UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. SCALE IN FEETNORTHSCALE: 1 INCH = 30 FEET030601010ARE SHOWN AS THUS:DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS(NOT TO SCALE)55THE ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED UPON THE EAST LINE OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 19, T30, R20, WHICH IS ASSUMED TO HAVE THE BEARING OF N00°01'56"E.BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOININGSTREET LINES AND BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTHAND ADJOINING LOT LINES AND BOUNDARYUNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLAT.DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE. 312BLOCK 1146.26146.1417.32 105.28 N89°56'45"W289.72N00°03'15"E 90.00143.44146.267.76 90.04 POSSIBLEFUTURE LOT(12,800 SQ. FT.)FUTURE LOT LINE 10 PID#1903020110007OWNER:Craig Wahlquist7990 Neal Ave. NStillwater, MN 55082651-402-0387COUNTY/CITY:REVISIONS:PROJECT LOCATION:DATEREVISION7990LEGAL DESCRIPTION:NEAL. AVE. N.CITY OF STILLWATERWASHINGTONCOUNTYLot 4, Block 2, NEAL MEADOWS, Washington County, Minnesota5-4-18PRE-PLATCERTIFICATION:I hereby certify that this plan was prepared byme, or under my direct supervision, and that I ama duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws ofthe state of Minnesota.Daniel L. Thurmes Registration Number: 25718Date:__________________NEALMEADOWSZZ17457SURVZZ457PRELIMINARYPLATLAND SURVEYING, INC.CORNERSTONESuite #16750 Stillwater Blvd. N.Stillwater, MN 55082Phone 651.275.8969Fax 651.275.8976dan@cssurvey.netPROJECT NO.FILE NAME5-4-18BENCHMARKSELEVATIONS BASED ON NAVD 88.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES:THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEENLOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION ANDEXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NOGUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWNCOMPROMISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER INSERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOESNOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIESSHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATEDALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATEDAS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATIONAVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATEDTHE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALLLOCATE TICKET NUMBER 181091947. SOME MAPS WERERECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TOTHE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICHWE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST.CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!TWIN CITY AREA:TOLL FREE:1-800-252-1166651-454-0002Gopher State One Call1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIEDBY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE.2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHERONE LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BYTHE CITY OF STILLWAER PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT.3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS,ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED.SURVEY NOTES:0NORTH2040DEVELOPEMENT DATALEGEND:UNDERGROUND ELECTRICUNDERGROUND CABLE TVUNDERGROUND FIBER OPTICUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEOVERHEAD UTILITYUNDERGROUND GASSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATERMAINFENCECURB [TYPICAL]CONCRETE SURFACEBITUMINOUS SURFACEFOUND MONUMENTSET 1/2" IRON PIPEMARKED RLS NO. 25718CABLE TV PEDESTALAIR CONDITIONERELECTRIC MANHOLEELECTRIC METERELECTRIC PEDESTALELECTRIC TRANSFORMERLIGHT POLEGUY WIREPOWER POLEGAS MANHOLEGAS METERTELEPHONE MANHOLETELEPHONE PEDESTALSANITARY CLEANOUTSANITARY MANHOLECATCH BASINSTORM DRAINFLARED END SECTIONSTORM MANHOLEFIRE DEPT. CONNECTIONHYDRANTCURB STOPWATER WELLWATER MANHOLEWATER METERPOST INDICATOR VALVEWATER VALVEBOLLARDFLAG POLEMAIL BOXTRAFFIC SIGNUNKNOWN MANHOLESOIL BORINGTRAFFIC SIGNALCONIFEROUS TREEDECIDUOUS TREEPRELIMINARY PLAT5TH ADDITIONVICINITY MAPS E 1 / 4SW1/4NE1/4NW 1 / 4 SITESEC. 19, TWP. 30, RNG. 20, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MNNOT TO SCALEEASEMENT VACATIONTHE FOLLOWING REQUEST TO VACATE ALL EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITYEASEMENTS COVERING THE EXISTING LOT 4. NEW EASEMENTS WILL BEDEDICATED ON THE PROPOSED PLAT OF NEAL MEADOWS 5TH ADDITION.Those particular Drainage and Utility Easements over all of Lot 4, Block 2, asdedicated on the plat of NEAL MEADOWS, Washington County, Minnesota.BUILDING SETBACKS:FRONT = 30'REAR = 10'REAR = 25'MAX 30% LOT COVERAGETOTAL PARCEL AREA = 55,247 SQ. FT.LOT 1, BLOCK 1 = 29,047 SQ. FT.LOT 2, BLOCK 1 = 13,042 SQ. FT.LOT 3, BLOCK 1 = 13,158 SQ. FT. 312BLOCK 165.00 41.00898.6 65.00898.6 898.6898.6GARAGE 896.5 X 895.5X896.6 7.0 %PROPOSED HOUSEGF=898.9 TOB=899.4BF=890.7 (9'POURED)897.5897.7XX2.0 %894.72.0 %X41.00146.26146.1417.32 105.28 N89°56'45"W289.72N00°03'15"E 90.00143.44146.267.76 90.0465.00 41.00900.3 65.00900.3 900.3900.3GARAGE 899.3 X 897.2X X897.9X 7.0 %PROPOSED HOUSEGF=894.7 TOB=895.1BF=886.4 (9'POURED)900.0X2.0 %2.0 %41.0065.00 41.00906.3 65.00 901.5 894.6GARAGE 904.5 X903.8X905.0X 4.2 %XPROPOSED HOUSE GF=906.8 TOB=907.2 BF=898.5 (9'POURED)904.5X892.02.0 %X41.00POSSIBLEFUTURE LOT(12,800 SQ. FT.)FUTURE LOT LINE LOOKOUT WINDOWS SEPTIC AREA 896.0X898.2X10 TC POSSIBLE UTILITY SERVICE CONNECTION R EMO V E D R A IN F I E LD AND T AN K S REMOVE WELLDIRECTION BORE UNDER NEAL AVE.1" WATER SERVICETIE INTOEXISTINGSAN &WATER8" SANITARY1" WATER SERVICENEWMH0NORTH2040LEGEND:UNDERGROUND ELECTRICUNDERGROUND CABLE TVUNDERGROUND FIBER OPTICUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEOVERHEAD UTILITYUNDERGROUND GASSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATERMAINFENCECURB [TYPICAL]CONCRETE SURFACEBITUMINOUS SURFACEFOUND MONUMENTSET 1/2" IRON PIPEMARKED RLS NO. 25718CABLE TV PEDESTALAIR CONDITIONERELECTRIC MANHOLEELECTRIC METERELECTRIC PEDESTALELECTRIC TRANSFORMERLIGHT POLEGUY WIREPOWER POLEGAS MANHOLEGAS METERTELEPHONE MANHOLETELEPHONE PEDESTALSANITARY CLEANOUTSANITARY MANHOLECATCH BASINSTORM DRAINFLARED END SECTIONSTORM MANHOLEFIRE DEPT. CONNECTIONHYDRANTCURB STOPWATER WELLWATER MANHOLEWATER METERPOST INDICATOR VALVEWATER VALVEBOLLARDFLAG POLEMAIL BOXTRAFFIC SIGNUNKNOWN MANHOLESOIL BORINGTRAFFIC SIGNALCONIFEROUS TREEDECIDUOUS TREEPID#1903020110007OWNER:Craig Wahlquist7990 Neal Ave. NStillwater, MN 55082651-402-0387COUNTY/CITY:REVISIONS:PROJECT LOCATION:DATEREVISION7990NEAL. AVE. N.CITY OF STILLWATERWASHINGTONCOUNTY5-4-18PRE-PLATCERTIFICATION:I hereby certify that this plan was prepared byme, or under my direct supervision, and that I ama duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws ofthe state of Minnesota.Daniel L. Thurmes Registration Number: 25718Date:__________________NEALMEADOWSZZ17457SURVZZ457CONCEPTUALGRADING PLANLAND SURVEYING, INC.CORNERSTONESuite #16750 Stillwater Blvd. N.Stillwater, MN 55082Phone 651.275.8969Fax 651.275.8976dan@cssurvey.netPROJECT NO.FILE NAME4-26-18CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN5TH ADDITIONVICINITY MAPS E 1 / 4SW1/4NE1/4NW 1 / 4 SITESEC. 19, TWP. 30, RNG. 20, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MNNOT TO SCALELEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 4, Block 2, NEAL MEADOWS, Washington County, MinnesotaBENCHMARKSELEVATIONS BASED ON NAVD 88.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES:CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!TWIN CITY AREA:TOLL FREE:1-800-252-1166651-454-0002Gopher State One Call1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIEDBY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE.2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHERONE LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BYTHE CITY OF STILLWAER PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT.3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS,ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED.SURVEY NOTES:DEVELOPEMENT DATAEASEMENT VACATIONTHE FOLLOWING REQUEST TO VACATE ALL EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITYEASEMENTS COVERING THE EXISTING LOT 4. NEW EASEMENTS WILL BEDEDICATED ON THE PROPOSED PLAT OF NEAL MEADOWS 5TH ADDITION.Those particular Drainage and Utility Easements over all of Lot 4, Block 2, asdedicated on the plat of NEAL MEADOWS, Washington County, Minnesota.BUILDING SETBACKS:FRONT = 30'REAR = 10'REAR = 25'MAX 30% LOT COVERAGETOTAL PARCEL AREA = 55,247 SQ. FT.LOT 1, BLOCK 1 = 29,047 SQ. FT.LOT 2, BLOCK 1 = 13,042 SQ. FT.LOT 3, BLOCK 1 = 13,158 SQ. FT.THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEENLOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION ANDEXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NOGUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWNCOMPROMISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER INSERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOESNOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIESSHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATEDALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATEDAS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATIONAVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATEDTHE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALLLOCATE TICKET NUMBER 181091947. SOME MAPS WERERECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TOTHE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICHWE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 13, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-30 APPLICANT: Jeremy Wilkerson, representing David Hennes, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of Variances for the construction of a garage to be located in the Exterior Side Yard Setback area and to exceed the 25% Maximum Structural Coverage for the property located at 1423 Olive Street West ZONING: RA – One Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Low Density Res. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Jeremy Wilkerson has applied for a variance to construct a 32’ wide by 24’ deep garage at the property located at 1423 Olive Street West. The applicant is requesting the new garage be located 20’ from the Hemlock Street South Right-of-Way. Thus, the following variances are required:  A 10’ variance to the 30’ Exterior Side Yard setback; and  A variance to the 30% Maximum Lot Coverage for the addition of 208 square feet impervious surface area, representing a total of 32.6% of the total lot 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 an Exterior Photo Credit: Google Images (dated August, 2013) CPC June 13, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-30 Page 2 of 4 Side Yard setback and the Maximum Structural Coverage is to maintain an open, unoccupied space for uniform yards for aesthetic open space and environmental benefits, including the preservation of areas for adequate drainage. This exterior side yard area serves as the front yard area for adjacent properties. While a uniform development pattern exists on Hemlock Street South, the garage would be consistent with other garages in the neighborhood, which are set back, generally behind the front façade of the residence. Furthermore, the property would still contain 67% of open, unencumbered area. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The property is zoned RA – One Family Residential and is guided for Low Density Residential use. There are no application elements that 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; An existing 20’X22’, single car garage located on the property; the garage was constructed in 1973 and conformed to the City Code in effect at that time. The garage does not provide adequate space for the property owner’s needs. Removing a single car garage and adding a two-car garage is reasonable. While a standard sized, 22’x24’ garage would be able to be accommodated without requiring a Maximum Lot Coverage variance, the proposed structure or a modified design is not likely to be outright permitted. Any garage with a depth greater than 22’ would necessitate an Exterior Side Yard Setback variance. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and This property, platted 1856, is an existing, nonconforming lot of record because it is smaller than the RA, One Family Residential zoning district minimum of 10,000 square feet. The existing residence was constructed circa 1888. Aside from the 1973 garage construction, the existing lot coverage has not changed since prior to 19461. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Along with several other structures in the vicinity, the residence was constructed prior to the City’s modern zoning regulations. In contrast, while many of the other homes to the south were constructed in the 60s and 70s. Therefore, while 1 According to the City’s 1946 aerial imagery. CPC June 13, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-30 Page 3 of 4 the garage will be located closer to the property line than some of the southerly residences, the garage addition will not change the character of historic residences, where garages are located near the rear of the property. Additionally, the property owner is proposing to side the garage with a 3” horizontal lap siding and use soffit, fascia and corner boards. These materials are consistent with the look of the residence, the primary structure on the property. If the applicant utilizes matching colors, and potentially a larger pitched roof, the property will have a uniform appearance. Uniform design of structures on a property is indicative of historic neighborhoods. 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. Make the finding that practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a 10’ variance to the 30’ Exterior Side Yard setback and a variance to the 30% Maximum Lot Coverage for the addition of a 768 square foot garage, 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. 2018-30. b. The siding, trim, fascia and soffit boards will be the same color as the primary structure. c. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 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 finding that practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance, with or without prejudice. 3. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. 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 CPC June 13, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-30 Page 4 of 4 recommends conditional approval the variances associated with CPC Case No. 2018-30 for the construction of a detached garage to be located in the rear of the property. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Site Plan Garage Plans MYRTLE RAMSEYBRICK GROVEOAK STREET WEST OLIVE STREET CSAH 5SOUTHSTREET STREETSOUTHSTREETSTREETSTREETWEST 114 1616 111 403 1521 1322 316 403 322 15111613 1612 404 315 320 406 1503 1417 314 321 1331 13231401 115 113 1524 1404 1529 1326 408 404 321 1510 1611 1418 201 1424 1623 1405 410 1311 411 13191323 409 1402 320 1502 14121508 1419 1619 1327 1423 315 1514 103 15201618 414415 412 1219 403 313 411 µ 0 180 36090Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 1423 Olive St W PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 13, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-31 APPLICANT: Michael and Olga Canning, property owners REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to the 25% Maximum Structural Coverage for the construction of a single story addition on the rear of the home located at 805 3rd Street South ZONING: TB – Two Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Low/Medium Density Res. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The Cannings have applied for a variance to construct a 16’ deep by 24’ wide, single story addition to the structure located at 805 3rd Street South. The addition will include a new main floor bedroom, family room and stairway to the basement. Besides the addition, a new sets of exterior stairs will be constructed on the north side and rear of the home. Thus, the applicant is requesting:  A variance to the 25% Maximum Structural Coverage for the addition of 384 square feet of enclosed, living area with two, 100 square foot stairwells and landings for a total of 27.5% coverage. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS 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. Photo Credit: Google Images (dated August, 2013) CPC: June 13, 2018 Case No. 2018-31 Page 2 of 4 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, the other impervious surface coverage total will remain at 8.5%. Thus, the total lot coverage (structural and other impervious combined) would be approximately 36%, thus allowing for sufficient drainage on the property and keeping with the purpose and intent of the structural coverage provisions. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no application elements in conflict with 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 use of a single family residence, with a main floor bedroom, is not only reasonable but it is a necessity for those who want to age in their homes. Access into the home from two sides, necessitating the stairwells and landings, is required by the Building Code. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and This property, platted in 1857, is an existing, nonconforming lot of record because it is smaller than the RB, Two- Family Residential zoning district minimum of 7,500 square feet. The existing residence was constructed circa 1888; a portion of the proposed rear addition was a part of the originally- constructed home, as shown on the 1888 1888 Sanborn Map CPC: June 13, 2018 Case No. 2018-31 Page 3 of 4 Sanborn Fire Insurance map. Aside from the addition of rear decks, the existing lot coverage has not changed since prior to 19461. iii. 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. The applicant is further proposing to restore the original lap siding as part of this renovation. 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. Make the finding that practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a variance to the 25% Maximum Structural Coverage for the addition of 484 square feet of structure area, 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. 2018-31. b. The siding, trim, fascia and soffit boards will be the same color as the primary structure. The use of wood is encouraged. c. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 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 finding that practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance, with or without prejudice. 3. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 1 According to the City’s 1946 aerial imagery. CPC: June 13, 2018 Case No. 2018-31 Page 4 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 variance to allow 28% structure coverage [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] for the construction of a 384 square foot, first floor addition and necessary stairwells and landings to the structure located at 805 3rd Street South. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request (2 pages) Site Plan Planset (8 pages) Public Comment FIRSTFOURTHTHIRD STREETSECONDEAST CHURCHILL STREET E L O C U S T S T STREETWEST LOCU S T S T R E E T C S A H 23EAST WILLARD STREET STREETSTREET611 609 808 663 704 703 807 720 601 660 654 655 821 712 612 704 613 206 712 913 704 604 203 822 911 924 822 815 912907 720 802 719 215 218 904 920 819 715712 804 723 801 909 906 904 814 718 628 823 817 807 623 670 814 719 918916 709 219 618 622 810 915 801 215 710 716 920 910 914913 815 807 909 806 620 925 10011004 806 820 826 1001 704 1003 816 912 808 813 713 219 1002 713 10011002 817 808 708 715 811 805 811 720 902 724 801 903 905 717 916 713 901 807 919918919 805 901 913 920 915 905 921921 114 715 802 823 10031006 µ 0 230 460115Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 805 3rd St S From:John Vaughn To:Jenn Sundberg Subject:805 3rd St. variance Date:Wednesday, June 06, 2018 9:54:05 AM Hi Jenn. My name is John Vaughn. I live at 808 2nd. I can see the Canning's backyard from mine. I am in support of this variance. It is not a significant variance, is in the rear of the property, and will contribute to the market value of the residence as it pertains to surrounding values and the property tax base. Thank you. John PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 13, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-33 APPLICANT: Jason Dell and Ann Gulbrandsen, property owners REQUEST: Consideration of a variance for the construction of a detached garage to be located in the Front Yard Setback and Exterior Side Yard Setback area for the property located at 709 Everett Street North ZONING: RB – Two Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Low/Medium Density Res. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The property owners have applied for a variance to construct a 24’ wide by 26’ deep detached garage at the property located at 709 Everett Street North. The applicant is requesting the new garage be located in front of the residence. Thus, the following variances are required:  A 20’ variance to the 30’ Front Yard setback from Everett Street North; and  A 10’ variance to the 30’ Exterior Side Yard setback from Maple Street West. 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 Maple St. W. View - Credit: Google (August, 2013) Everett St. N. - Credit: Google (August, 2013) CPC June 13, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-33 Page 2 of 4 regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose for a Front Yard setback and the Exterior Side Yard setback is to maintain an open, unoccupied space for uniform yards for aesthetic open space and environmental benefits, including the preservation of areas for adequate drainage. The property owner is proposing to retain some open, unoccupied space in both yard areas. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The property is zoned RB – Two Family Residential and is guided for Low/Medium Density Residential use. There are no application elements that 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 will continue to be utilized as a single family residential property. The proposed garage will allow for enclosed storage of vehicles and other personal items. However, the garage placement would not be outright permitted by City Code. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and Although property was platted in 1873, the residence was not constructed until 1952; both of these actions occurred prior to the City’s adoption of the modern zoning code. While most of the neighborhood’s properties were developed prior to 1900 and follow a traditional neighborhood pattern, this home was constructed in a fashion that it follows the development patterns of Everett Street North. As a result, the traditional front yard area has been left unencumbered by structures whereas the land area encouraged for garages (the rear, interior corner of the property), is CPC June 13, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-33 Page 3 of 4 encumbered by the residence and mature vegetation. While the narrow width of the lot is a factor for the placement of garages on corner lots, no uniqueness is presented regarding the property owner’s request for a 10’ variance to the 30’ Exterior Side Yard setback (from Maple Street). As the graphic on the previous page indicates, the proposed garage (in yellow) could be placed in conformance with the 30’ setback (the black, cross-hatched). This may prevent the loss of mature trees in this area. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. As depicted in the enclosed Google images, the southern and eastern edge of the property have significant mature vegetation; this will help screen the garage from the street. However, the property owner is proposing to place the garage within the 30’ Exterior Side Yard setback (from Maple Street) which would likely result in the loss of the mature trees on both street front. This, coupled with the fact that the garage will face Maple Street West, it could be argue that the 30’ Exterior Side Yard setback (from Maple Street West) would alter the essential character of the locality. 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. Make the finding that practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a 20’ variance to the 30’ Front Yard setback from Everett Street North and/or a 10’ variance to the 30’ Exterior Side Yard setback from Maple 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. 2018-34. b. The siding, trim, fascia and soffit boards will be the same color as the primary structure. c. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. CPC June 13, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-33 Page 4 of 4 2. Make the finding that practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance(s), with or without prejudice. 3. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis a portion of the CPC Case No. 2018-33 is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends: 1. Conditional approval of a 20’ variance to the 30’ Front Yard Setback (from Everett Street North) to construct a detached garage; and 2. Denial of a 10’ variance to the 30’ Exterior Side Yard Setback (from Maple Street West). ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Site Plan Garage Plans WES T L AU R EL STR EET NORTHWES T HIC KO RY STR EE T WES T EL M STR EE T NORTHMARTHAEVERETTNORTHNORTHWILLIAMWEST ELM S TR EE T W E S T PARK PL 720 523 409 502 626419 723 324 720 819 604 820 522 610 422 812 417601 816 519 515 716 506 326 319 501 316 814 603 616 704 501 321407 615 813 616 522 512 333 317 408416620 902 816 502 323 608 724 403 850 421 409 308 414 312 504 410 522 845 406 321 313 302522514314 709 410 520 418 323 715 719 715 416 714 502 720 322 310 423 817 724724 810 512 506514518510 404 413 318 408 502 516 404 614 306 415 527 332 617 910 604 318334 411 309 616 808 602 401 323329 616 602 515 420424 406 404 521 511611 320 512 319 317 315 919 312 615 517 505507607515 313 423509 422 412 501 712 418 602 302 512 510 702 µ 0 230 460115Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 709 Everett St N Jason Dell Ann Gulbrandsen Everett St. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Stillwater Planning Department 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Variances for 709 Everett St. N., Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Stillwater Planning Department: We are remodeling our home which is located at 709 Everett St. N in Stillwater, MN. The lot is located at the corner of Everett St. and Maple Ave. This is a smaller corner lot with the dimensions of 50 x 150. Due to the smaller lot size with no garage as well as the current home which is smaller in nature, we are requesting variances to help accommodate our family’s needs. These requested variances will allow us to construct a two-car garage on the property: 1. Variance to the 30-foot setback from Everett St. N 2. Variance to the 30-foot setback from Maple Ave. The planned garage will be 24’ wide by 26’ deep. The setback variance is needed due to the corner lot width of 50’ which would not accommodate the preferred garage size. We would like to construct the garage close to the south lot line off of Maple Ave. The above garage space is desired to be used for needed storage with a maximum finished height of 6’6”. Please consider these variances as they will allow us to grow and rehabilitate the property which would in turn continue to improve the overall beauty and value of the neighborhood and surrounding properties. Sincerely, Jason Dell jaypdell@gmail.com (651)491-6656 Ann Gulbrandsen anniejodell@gmail.com (651)491-6254 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 13, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-34 APPLICANT: Eileen and Mark Douglass, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a variance for the construction of an attached deck to be located in the Rear Yard Setback area and to exceed the 30% Maximum Lot Coverage for the property located at 221 Boutwell Road North ZONING: RA – One Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Low Density Res. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Eileen and Mark Douglass have applied for a variance to construct a 36’ wide by an (average) 14’ deep deck at the property located at 221 Boutwell Road North. The applicant is requesting the new deck be located 14’ from rear property line. Thus, the following variances are required:  An 11’ variance to the 25’ Rear Yard setback; and  A variance to the 30% Maximum Lot Coverage for the addition of 472 square feet of deck, landing and stairway area, representing a total of 35.8% of the total lot 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 Photo Credit: Google Images (dated September, 2013) CPC June 13, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-34 Page 2 of 4 land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose for a Rear Yard setback and the Maximum Lot Coverage is to maintain an open, unoccupied space for uniform yards for aesthetic open space and environmental benefits, including the preservation of areas for adequate drainage. On open space outlot was subdivided from the subject property and sold to the neighbor. The outlot is not developable and will therefore remain open space. So, the intent of the zoning code to maintain at least a 25 foot open rear yard will still be met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The property is zoned RA – One Family Residential and is guided for Low Density Residential use. There are no application elements that 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 will continue to be utilized as a single family residential property. The proposed deck will allow for additional outdoor use of the property. However, the deck placement and size would not be outright permitted by City Code. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and This property was platted in 1995. As mentioned above, as part of the platting process, a portion of the property was platted as an outlot (as shown by the stipple pattern on the image on the next page); the intent of the platting of this outlot was to preserve a mature tree stand. The current configuration of the lot, shown in aqua on the image on the next page, includes a jagged rear yard line. As a result, the house was constructed approximately 28’ from the nearest point of the rear property line. Had the property been platted as a traditional lot, shown in yellow on the image on the next page, the deck would be in conformance with the 25’ Rear Yard Setback. Furthermore, if the deck, landing and stairwell size was reduced by 72 square feet, the property would be in conformance with the 30% Maximum Lot Coverage of a lot that included a portion of the platted outlot area. In other words, had the outlot not been platted and 221 Boutwell’s rear yard was straight in line with those properties to the south, the lot’s coverage maximums would have been able to accommodate all existing and proposed improvements, less 72 square feet. CPC June 13, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-34 Page 3 of 4 iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The deck is proposed to be located in the rear of the home. This is consistent with properties in this 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. Make the finding that practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a 11’ variance to the 25’ Rear Yard setback and a variance to the 30% Maximum Lot Coverage for the addition of a 472 square foot deck, 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: CPC June 13, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-34 Page 4 of 4 a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2018-34. b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. c. 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 finding that practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance(s), with or without prejudice. 3. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. 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 the variances associated with CPC Case No. 2018-30 for the construction of a deck to be attached to the home and located in the rear of the property. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Site Plan Garage Plans BO U T W E L L R O A D N O R T H BOUTWELLCOURT MALLARDCOURTWILDWOODCT IN T E R L A C H E N W A Y C O U R TBAYBERRYCSAH 1 2 B O U T W E L L PLACEINTERLACHEN WAY BAYBER R YAVE COURT WEST MYRTL E S T R E E T BO U TW E L L ROADNORTH EAGLERIDGETRAILCSAH 12 L A N E 13305 13315 13339 102 13295 1900 141 190 520 555540 100 521 154 510 501 341 340 460 13349 515 142 570 380 270 162 321 172 301 122 601 310 100 290 172 591 100 180 210 401 125 118 620 1502360 600 136 621 360 535 461 480 192 230 431 600 211 140 13031 640 181 500 580 540 221 160 231 2341 201 110 47 2340 2460 170 120 240024402420 175 2320 620 233163 180 7817 660 2241 2300 643 µ 0 290 580145Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 221 Boutwell Rd N PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 5, 2018 TOPIC: Ordinance amendment to allow outside events in PA, Public/Institutional Zoning District FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION On April 3, 2018 staff was directed by the City Council to draft an ordinance that would allow the Library to operate outside events by Special Use Permit. On May 1, 2108 staff presented the draft of the ordinance and a draft of a Special Use Permit Resolution to the Council. The Council then directed staff to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission. SPECIFIC REQUEST The Planning Commission is requested to hold the hearing on the ordinance and forward a recommendation to the Council. If the ordinance is adopted by the Council, then the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing in July on the Special Use Permit itself. COMMENTS Attached is the draft of the ordinance that was found acceptable to the City Council. It would add the PA, Public/Institutional Zoning District to the list of districts that allows outside events with a Special Use Permit. A first draft of a Special Use Permit Resolution for the Library is also attached. Conditions that are found in the Resolution are based on the Library Board’s adopted event policy. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Draft Special Use Permit ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE SEC. 31-325, ALLOWABLE USES IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is allow for outside events in the PA, Public/Institutional and BP-I, Business Park - Industrial Zoning Districts by Special Use Permit. 1. Amending. Stillwater City Code Section 31-325, Allowable uses in residential districts, is amended as follows: 8 These uses may be approved directly by the city council if the event is a one-time special event not occurring on a regular basis. 2. Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapter 31 shall remain in full force and effect. 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to the law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 19th day of June, 2018. CITY OF STILLWATER ______________________________ Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Diane F. Ward, City Clerk Allowable uses Zoning Districts CA CBD VC BP-C BP-O BP-I CRD PA PWFD PROS Outside sales or special events8 SUP SUP SUP SUP RESOLUTION 2018- CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE EVENTS FOR THE STILLWATER PUBLIC LIBRARY CPC CASE NO. 2018-17 WHEREAS, outdoor events are allowed in the PA, Public/Institutional Zoning District with a Special Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Stillwater Public Library is located within the PA, Public/Institutional Zoning District and has requested a Special Use Permit to operate outdoor events on the library property; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2018 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Special Use Permit request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater hereby approves the Special Use Permit because it finds the requested use to conform to the Zoning Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and other lawful regulations; and further finds that with the conditions below, the use will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 1. Rental is available on Fridays and Saturdays until 12:00 midnight; and all events must end by 11:00 p.m. to allow for clean-up and closing by midnight. Sunday through Thursday, event rental is available until 9:00 p.m. Event start times may vary based on parameters set by the Library. Upon receiving an application, the Library Board may make an exception to the Sunday through Thursday end-time schedule. The Venue Coordinator will work with the Renter to determine arrival and departure times. 2. The Renter is required to put down a Noise Deposit fee as set by the Library Board prior to the event. This deposit will be returned after the event if there have been no infractions of the Library Noise Procedures. 3. DJs, musicians, and any other performer who provides amplified music/sound for the Renter will be instructed by the Venue Coordinator of our strict noise procedures. They will be given a copy of the City of Stillwater Code that pertains to noise and instructed about the decibel levels within compliance and penalties incurred for noncompliance. Page 2 of 2 4. DJs, musicians, and any other performer must honor requests from the Venue Coordinator, on-site Security Officer, Library Staff, or Stillwater City Police for reduction of music/sound levels. The Library retains the right to end the play of music at any time if a request to reduce the volume levels is not obeyed. The Library retains the right to determine reasonable volume, amplification, and bass levels. 5. DJs, musicians, and any other performer must keep the music/sound volume levels within City of Stillwater Noise Ordinance compliance. All requests for reduction of music/sound levels from the Venue Coordinator, on-site Security Officer, Library Staff, or Stillwater City Police must be obeyed. 6. All outdoor amplified music/sound must end no later than 10:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturdays. On Sundays through Thursdays, all outdoor amplified music/sound must end no later than 8:00 p.m. unless a special allowance has been approved by the Library Board. 7. All vendor vehicles must be parked in the designated area for efficient loading and unloading of event materials. Noise from carts, dollies, and hauling of equipment should be done as quietly and respectfully as practical. 8. Vendor staff will be instructed that the Library is located in a residential neighborhood and they need to conduct themselves accordingly. 9. The Library is not responsible for the noise or activities of the Renter and their guests outside the Stillwater Public Library premises. Adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this 18th day of July, 2018. CITY OF STILLWATER Ryan Collins, Chair ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner