Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-09-12 CPC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North September 12th, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of August 8th, 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. 2018-44: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a bakery and café on the property located at 310 Main St S in the CBD District. Justin and Jill Kaufenberg, property owners. 3. Case No. 2018-46: Consideration of a Variance to the Front Yard Setback and the 25% Maximum Structural Coverage to build a covered porch in the RB – Two Family Residential Zoning District. Property located at 1217 1st Street South. Sherri Colberg, property owner and Charles Pearcy, applicant. 4. Case No. 2018-47: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to allow retail sales within the BP-I district. Property located at 1815 Greeley Street South. Tim Sauro, property owner representative. 5. Case No. 2018-48: Consideration of a Special Use Permit and associated Variance(s) as needed to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit in the RB – Two Family Residential zoning district. The property located at 414 Harriet St S. Randal and Alaina Berger, property owners. 6. Case No. 2018-49: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for a “Commercial Use Not Found Objectionable by the Neighbors” in the RCM – Medium Density Residential zoning district. Property located at 320 Myrtle St West, located in the RCM district. Amy Haugen, applicant. 7. Case No. 2018-51: Consideration of a Variance to allow a three car garage in the CR – Cottage Residential zoning district. Property located at 3816 Tending Green. Creative Homes, property owner and Chris Wilcox, applicant. Withdrawn no variance needed VI. FYI – STAFF UPDATES VII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Fletcher, Hade (arrived at 7:04), Hansen, Kocon, Lauer and Siess; Councilmember Menikheim Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of July 11, 2018 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2018 regular meeting. Motion passed 5-0-1 with Commissioner Siess abstaining. OPEN FORUM Jane Paskvan, 314 Fourth Street North, expressed frustration about loud music downtown last night. City Planner Wittman noted that as part of Night to Unite there were over 20 outdoor block parties throughout the community to heighten crime and drug prevention awareness. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2018-36: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment requiring City Code Section 31-521 apply only to the top of slope. Mary Russell, property owner and Larry Lappi, applicant. City Planner Wittman noted this application doesn’t apply to a specific property. Larry Lappi and Mary Russell have applied for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) that would eliminate the setback requirement from the toe of steep slopes. Staff finds that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the strict application of the removal of the toe of slope setback could jeopardize the stability of some slopes, thereby being in conflict with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. With adequate engineering, the purpose and intent of the City’s Natural Resource protection regulations could be preserved. Therefore, staff would recommend the Planning Commission make a favorable recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Zoning Text Amendment to City Code Section 31-521, Slope Regulations. Subd. 1(d) to read: (d) No structure may be located on a slope of greater than 24 percent or within 30 feet of the top of a 25 percent or greater slope. Additionally, construction adjacent to the toe of a slope could compromise the integrity of other slopes, therefore Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 2 of 15 staff would recommend the following Subpart be added: A structure may be located within 30 feet of the toe of a 25 percent or greater slope if a soil engineer’s report is submitted that documents that slope stability will not be compromised by such structure. Commissioner Fletcher asked, if something significant were to happen such as significant rain events, who would be liable for damage to the structure built in the toe of the slope? City Planner Wittman replied that the City Attorney did not indicate concern about liability arising from the ZAT. Commissioner Kocon said another concern is the likelihood of water in the basement or living space. Commissioner Hansen said he shared the concern about water in the basement. Commissioner Siess asked what did the City have before 1997? City Planner Wittman said the City doesn’t appear to have had any conservation regulations that regulated slope setbacks. Larry Lappi, Post Office Box 283, informed the Commission he has a buildable lot that would be impacted by the ZAT. It would allow him to build a two car garage without the need for variances. Mary Russell, 921 North Second Street, addressed the issue of water in the basement. She said her parents built their house on the top part of the lot 60 years ago. The basement does not have any cracks. Many houses in Stillwater are built into slopes. She concurs with the need to get a good contractor and ensure the slope is stable before building. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen voiced support for cleaning up the ordinance to eliminate the need for variances, and for having an engineer sign off on it. Commissioner Hade suggested using the term professional engineer. Commissioner Fletcher said she felt comfortable with the amendment since it is consistent with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource’s (MN DNR’s) interpretation for slopes in the Riverway which indicate that a setback is required only from the top of the slope and not the toe. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve Case No. 2018-36, Zoning Text Amendment requiring City Code Section 31-521 apply only to the top of slope, with the following attorney-recommended modification to the subpart: A structure may be located within 30 feet of the toe of a 25 percent or greater slope if a professional engineer’s report is submitted that documents slope stability will not be compromised by such structure. Motion passed 7-0. Case No. 2018-37: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Amendment to rezone and subdivide land into three lots for the property located at 8040 Neal Avenue North in the AP district. Richard and Cheryl Ross, property owners and Dan Thurmes, applicant. Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 3 of 15 City Planner Wittman stated that Richard and Cheryl Ross plan to subdivide their 1.25 acre homestead property at 8040 Neal Avenue into three lots. One lot will continue to be the Ross homestead accessed from Neal Avenue. The other two lots will be for new houses and both will gain access from Creekside Crossing. The subdivision is to be known as Neal Meadows 6th Addition. In order to subdivide the property as proposed, application has been made for: 1. Rezoning from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RA, Single-Family Residential; 2. Preliminary & Final Plat of Neal Meadows 6th Addition; 3. Vacation of the platted drainage and utility easements. Staff finds the rezoning to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the neighborhood. Additionally, staff finds the preliminary and final plats to be consistent with the development standards found in the City Zoning and Subdivision Code. Since completion of the staff report, the City Attorney recommended two additional conditions: Condition #6, “The sewer and water hook-up charges for the existing residence must be paid prior to hooking up to sanitary sewer and water”; and Condition #7, “Tree removal in excess of 35%, or five trees per lot, will require 1:1 replacement. A tree preservation and removal plan shall be submitted with the grading permit. Replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with City Code Section 31-522, prior to the release of the grading escrow.” Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve the rezoning and plat requests with seven conditions. Dan Thurmes, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve Case No. 2018-37, Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Amendment to rezone and subdivide land into three lots for the property located at 8040 Neal Avenue North in the AP district, with the seven conditions recommended by staff including a revision to Condition #3 to state “This development is responsible for paying the applicable development impact fees including the Transportation Adequacy fee, AUAR (Storm Sewer) and Trunk Sewer and Water fee prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County.” Motion passed 7-0. Case No. 2018-38: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Amendment to rezone and subdivide land into three lots for the property located at 8120 Neal Avenue North in the AP district. Bruce and Linda Livermore, property owners and Dan Thurmes, applicant. City Planner Wittman stated that Bruce and Linda Livermore plan to subdivide their 1.25 acre homestead property at 8120 Neal Avenue into three lots. One lot will continue to be the Livermore homestead accessed from Neal Avenue. The other two lots will be for new houses and will both gain access from Creekside Crossing. The subdivision is to be known as Neal Meadows 7th Addition. 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 & Final Plat of Neal Meadows 7th Addition; 3. Vacation of the platted drainage and utility easements. Staff finds the rezoning to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the neighborhood. Additionally, staff finds the preliminary and final plats to be consistent with the development standards found in the City Zoning and Subdivision Code. Since completion of the staff report, the City Attorney recommended two additional conditions: Condition #6, “The sewer and water hook-up charges for the existing residence must be paid prior to hooking up to sanitary sewer and water;” and Condition #7, “Tree removal in excess of 35%, or five trees per lot, will require 1:1 replacement. A Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 4 of 15 tree preservation and removal plan shall be submitted with the grading permit. Replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with City Code Section 31-522, prior to the release of the grading escrow.” Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve the rezoning and plat requests with seven conditions. Dan Thurmes, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve Case No. 2018-38, Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Amendment to rezone and subdivide land into three lots for the property located at 8120 Neal Avenue North in the AP district, with the seven conditions recommended by staff including a revision to Condition #3 to state “This development is responsible for paying the applicable development impact fees including the Transportation Adequacy fee, AUAR (Storm Sewer) and Trunk Sewer and Water fee prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County.” Motion passed 7-0. Case No. 2018-39: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to allow for outdoor events to be held at the Stillwater Public Library, located at 223 4th Street North in the PA district. Mark Troendle, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that the City Council recently approved an ordinance amendment to allow outside events by Special Use Permit in the PA, Public Administration/Institutional Zoning District. The motivating factor for approving the ordinance was to allow the Library to offer its terrace for events. The Library has been offering its terrace for events since the building addition and renovation was completed in 2006. The City Council at that time expected terrace rentals to be a source of revenue for the Library. However, the zoning code did not specifically allow for outside events in the PA District. To resolve the situation, the Council approved the ordinance amendment and the Library has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit to allow the outside events to continue to be held. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with eight conditions. Commissioner Hade suggested that restricting event parking to the east side of the building would encourage event-goers to use the parking ramp, reducing neighborhood parking issues. City Planner Wittman replied that there are homes to the east as well, and the ramp might not be open if the library itself is not open. Mark Troendle, Library Director stated the library parking ramp is open during events. Overflow is directed to the City parking ramp. He said the Library Board has worked diligently over the past year to improve its communication, revised its meeting and event policy, increased the noise deposit fee, and repeatedly made vendors aware of rules. They wish to continue to offer outside events as a community service and a way to generate revenue to support library services. Chairman Collins asked how many meetings the Library Board had with neighbors. Mr. Troendle replied that all Library Board meetings are public and neighbors are welcome to attend. In February when the new meeting and event policy were on the agenda, notice was sent to all the neighbors. Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 5 of 15 Sandy Ellis, Library Venue Coordinator, added that a library events task force had two meetings with neighbors. Chairman Collins asked if there have been recent issues regarding where vendors may or may not park. Ms. Ellis responded that a tent company truck blocked the driveway to the north (Fourth Street) which is also a resident driveway. The neighbor informed the vendor they were blocking the driveway, the vehicle was moved and the company was ticketed by the Police Department. Library staff tries to make sure that vendors are not parking where prohibited. She has had two complaints that were both noise from other venues or the street. The Library has had over 20 events this year and has about 20 more scheduled. Another situation involved an event-goer who parked too close to a fire hydrant. As soon as library staff were notified, they had the person move the vehicle. Commissioner Hade asked if parking signs are put out when events occur. Ms. Ellis replied she tells the bride and groom to put the parking directions in their invitations. The Library does not put signs on streets. Commissioner Lauer asked how much onsite supervision is there during events. Ms. Ellis replied she is there with a security officer during the entire event. Commissioner Kocon asked if Ms. Ellis has had to ask the events to turn down the volume. Ms. Ellis replied yes, based not upon complaint but her own judgment. She has not had to pull the plug on anyone. Commissioner Hansen asked what is the noise deposit fee? Ms. Ellis stated $500. Commissioner Hansen asked what is the average rental fee? Ms. Ellis replied for a full wedding, $3,500. Commissioner Siess asked what is the largest group size? Ms. Ellis replied there are chairs for 300. There has been one dinner event for 275 people. Most average around 150 people. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Suzi Quaderer, 304 North Third Street, said she would be speaking for herself and her neighbor, Kelley McCabe, her landlord living in the downstairs unit of the house. She thanked Councilmember Menikheim for taking the lead in looking at this issue. She added that the vendors constitute the majority of the parking problems. She asked if the noise deposit has ever been withheld. Ms. Ellis replied not this year. Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 6 of 15 Ms. Quaderer stated that, as proposed, the Library will be allowed to hold outdoor events with amplified music seven days a week May through October. There are 11 homes within 100 feet of the Library. She reviewed the schedule of upcoming events and discussed problems related to illegal parking, rowdy/drunk wedding parties and guests, discourteous vendors, garbage, and inability to access her driveway. Positive changes have been made and Ms. Ellis has been wonderful and listened to neighborhood concerns, but there are still problems. She would like the City to limit the number of events and number of attendees. She feels it is time that the entire community starts paying more to support the library expansion rather than the neighborhood paying the price. Commissioner Siess requested that the written statement become part of the record. [Written statement available in Planning Commission official packet.] Jane Paskvan, 314 North Fourth Street, stated the whole town is becoming noisy due to increasing outdoor events and the topography of the valley. The Library has been wonderful this year and she is pleased that Ms. Ellis is working with the neighbors. Timothy Paskvan, 314 North Fourth Street, brought up the term “substantiated.” He said the concept of community is based on an ongoing dialogue. More meetings are needed to continue the dialogue. Ms. Ellis is the “local volume control” - otherwise there is actually no volume control. He questioned whether it’s productive to have police focusing on sound control rather than violent crime. Mr. Troendle pointed out that the vendor parking in the loading zone last week was not event related, it was a Washington County delivery contractor. He understands the issue was resolved. If the number of events is to be limited, he would like to define “event,” for instance, is a Yoga class or a noiseless stargazing event to be counted toward the quota? He reiterated that the public is welcome to attend the monthly Library Board meetings the second Tuesday of every month normally at 7 p.m. Commissioner Kocon asked has the neighborhood ever been invited to the board meetings? Mr. Troendle stated the meetings are publicly noticed and are on the web site. Commissioner Siess asked, can they ask to be part of the agenda? Mr. Troendle replied there is a public comment portion. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kocon summarized that parking and noise seem to be the two issues. Dialogue in the last year has resulted in better outcomes. He understands it’s important to have ordinance control and not lean on the police. If it’s made clear where vendors are to park, he doesn’t know what more can be done. He suggested specifically inviting the neighbors to the Library Board meetings. He feels the SUP is going in the right direction and he could support it. Commissioner Siess commented that this permit seems somewhat lax compared to some of the institutions downtown that have more restrictions on how many events they can have. She is slightly encouraged by the suggestion to limit the number of events. Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 7 of 15 Commissioner Kocon commented that there are more restrictions on bars because they could be having an event every Friday and Saturday. Commissioner Hansen commended the current leadership of the Library for making major improvements. Twelve years of back history can put neighbors on edge for every event. He feels the City should review the permit annually. He would support the proposal and limit the number of events, possibly to 40 per year. Commissioner Siess asked about the fee schedule for receptions versus weddings. Ms. Ellis explained there is a 4-hour rental fee and a 12-hour rental fee. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the reception or the ceremony. Commissioner Fletcher recognized that noise is the #1 issue and parking is a distant second. Stillwater has become a destination for events. The City needs to start figuring out how to manage the cumulative effect of all the outdoor music. Chairman Collins said he likes the idea of limiting the number of events to 30-40 and reviewing the permit annually. Commissioner Siess said she would like to define event. Commissioner Hade suggested defining a sound event vs. non-sound event. Ms. Wittman stated that amplified is a term that has been used to distinguish the type of outdoor sound. If a limit is set, the definition of events needs to be clearly established. Commissioner Hansen said his reason for wanting to limit the number of events isn’t to cut back on what’s happening right now, but to have some control so it doesn’t run wild. Commissioner Kocon pointed out that the noise is tied to a reception more than a class or wedding ceremony. He could support limiting events with amplified music. Commissioner Hade suggested sending the application back to staff to present at the next meeting after inserting the words amplified or non amplified music. Ms. Wittman pointed out that Condition #3 already refers to amplified music sound. Commissioner Siess asked what if it were limited to 20 amplified events? Ms. Ellis replied there were 27 receptions this year. Commissioner Hansen pointed out that acoustic music with 300 people can still cause a noise problem whether there is amplification or not. The City should consider the amount of cumulative noise generated, not just whether it’s amplified. Commissioner Kocon asked what is the season for outdoor events? Ms. Ellis replied it is May through October. Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 8 of 15 Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve Case No. 2018-39, Special Use Permit to allow for outdoor events to be held at the Stillwater Public Library, located at 223 4th Street North in the PA district, with the eight conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #9 stating, “The SUP will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on an annual basis” and Condition #10 stating, “The library is limited to 30 outside events annually from May through October, with DJs, musicians or performers who provide amplified music/sound.” Councilmember Menikheim said he didn’t know if the City can limit the number of events that can be held, based on his understanding of the statute that originally established the library. Commissioner Kocon disagreed, saying that City ordinance may restrict outdoor entertainment regardless of the entity. Councilmember Menikheim stated that in the Council meeting minutes regarding the library addition, there is a statement that the Library would be expected to have events in order to be able to fund it. This implied that the Library would have to host events as a revenue source. This Special Use Permit will put the City back in compliance with its own ordinances. The dollars raised by events are critical to the funding of the library. Motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Siess opposed. Case No. 2018-40: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit on the property located at 406 Wilkins Street West in the RB district. Kyle and Jennifer Anderson, property owners. Ms. Wittman stated that Kyle and Jennifer Anderson plan to remove the existing accessory structure and build a two-car garage with living space above. They are requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to be located above the garage. Staff finds the proposed ADU meets the SUP provisions and recommends approval with seven conditions. Kyle and Jennifer Anderson offered to answer questions. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2018-40, Special Use Permit to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit on the property located at 406 Wilkins Street West in the RB district, with the seven conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 7-0. Case No. 2018-41: Consideration of a Variance to the 30% maximum allowed lot coverage to build a new residence and associated improvements on the property at the corner of Pine and Seeley located in the RA district. Henry Borg, property owner. City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. Henry (Hank) Borg would like to construct a single family residence with attached porch, swimming pool and driveway at the southwest corner of Pine Street West and Seeley Street South, a 22,560 square foot (.52 acres) parcel of undeveloped land. Since Pine Street has such a steep grade and challenging site distances at this location, the safest place to build a driveway is from Seeley Street. But, in order to reach the house from Seeley Street, an Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 9 of 15 unusually long “S” curved driveway is necessary. The resulting impervious coverage of the driveway pushes total lot coverage over the maximum allowance. The 30% maximum lot coverage would allow for 6,768 square feet of coverage; the property owner is requesting 3,217 square feet of structural/pool coverage and 4,942 square feet of coverage for the driveway. The 8,159 square feet of coverage represents 36% of the total lot area. Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 30% Maximum Lot Coverage for the addition of 1,391 square feet of coverage area for a total of 36% total lot coverage. Two different sets of questions/comments were received from Rick and Connie Hill, property owners of 1619 Pine Street West, regarding soil erosion and runoff, tree loss, wildlife habitat, water and sewer connections, property values, traffic and street parking. Comments were also received from Corrine and Herb Lundberg who live directly to the south of the site, with concerns about water drainage and erosion. On the basis the application is in harmony with the intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends approval of a variance to allow 36% maximum lot coverage for the construction of an additional 1,391 square feet of impervious surface coverage on the property located at the Southwest corner of Seeley and Pine, with eight conditions. Chairman Collins asked the width of the driveway. Ms. Wittman responded it is 12 feet. Commissioner Siess asked if staff asked the applicant to make the driveway a little narrower. Ms. Wittman said staff mentioned it but the applicant has requested the driveway as described in the staff report. Commissioner Siess asked the lot coverage calculations without the pool. Ms. Wittman replied the pool is only 800 square feet, so without the pool there still would be a difference of just under 600 square feet. Property owner Henry Borg stated he has owned the property for 40 years. He plans to sell the home to be built there. He has no issue with the proposed conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Fletcher asked why is a pool being considered? Mr. Borg replied it is the potential buyer’s wish to build a home with a pool. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Herb Lundberg, speaking for the Corrine Lundberg Trust, 515 Pine Tree Trail, expressed concern about drainage from the driveway right next to the property line affecting his plants. He would like a requirement for permeable pavers, at least for the parking area by the garage and the area that is adjacent to his driveway, or some requirement that the drainage/snow not come onto his property. Rick Hill, 1619 West Pine Street, said he has lived there since 1984. He feels the lot is too steep, too sandy and has stormwater containment issues. He knows of other builders who have concluded that building on this site is a disaster waiting to happen. The risk of serious complications outweighs the development. His primary concern is water runoff containment and erosion control. The more trees that are removed, the worse it will be. He is particularly interested in knowing whether the Planning Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 10 of 15 Commission has ordered and reviewed computer simulations to calculate the additional water runoff that would be caused by violating the 30% standard, and the effect of the impermeable driveway. If they have not seen computer simulations, the variance should be denied. He questioned snow removal and accumulation. He pointed out that Lily Lake is in the process of being clarified and stabilized at huge expense to the City. He discussed the devastating impact that additional water flow could have on adjacent properties and on Lily Lake. Jackie Ulrich, 612 Lake Drive, a resident for 34 years, asked how high is the retaining wall in the back going to be and how much water will it have to hold back? She stated there are a lot of problems with water going into Lily Lake. This lot cannot support a large house and it would be out of place in an area of ramblers. To speak to an issue discussed earlier, her husband was a police officer in Stillwater in 1980-81 and the biggest complaints were from noise downtown, so noise is nothing new to downtown Stillwater. Marlene Junker, 1717 Pine Street West, stated her concerns have been covered. She would like to know how high the retaining wall would be. She opposes the removal of trees. Sheldon Mann, resident of 1618 Pine Street West since 1970, said that prior to the concrete road being put in on Pine Street Hill, residents were told that the Hill property and what became his property were covered with sand. The proposed driveway will be a nightmare to keep clean in the winter. He is concerned about where water will go when the pool is drained. Anne Farnham, 617 Pine Tree Trail, recalled that two weeks ago there was a terrible storm that caused a lot of water in driveways and yards. Today a man from Xcel Energy asked if they could use her yard to bring some equipment because the yard below had been so destroyed by the storm event that they wanted to make a terracing system. She asked how will the water be stopped from eroding that property? Mary Mann, 1618 West Pine Street, stated when that area was built, Pine Street stopped there because the hill was so steep. They finally decided to make it go up and when it rained, the grass went away. There are springs all over that area. Much of the area is sand which will wash away. Kristy Johnson, Curve Crest Boulevard, spoke about her parents’ property at 611 Lake Drive. She recalled water problems in the neighborhood dating back to when she was a child. She has sympathy for Mr. Borg in that he has a piece of property that is almost unbuildable and a possible buyer. She asked if the potential buyer has considered doing a pervious driveway. She feels the lot really needs a way to handle the water. Making it less pervious than the code allows is crazy. Mr. Borg addressed the comments and pointed out that the City and County have very competent staff. He has confidence in their suggestions for addressing environmental and drainage issues. Regarding the comment about the number of builders who have looked at this property and deemed it unbuildable, he has never had a builder discuss building on this property until now. He has had experience putting in pavers and finds they make snow plowing a bit of a challenge. Mr. Hill assured Mr. Borg that many people have considered building on this property, but perhaps they didn’t know who owned the property. His basement is dry and the water runs away from his property currently. He asked if he could sue the City if he is negatively impacted by erosion and water caused by the granting of the variance. Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 11 of 15 Ms. Wittman advised Mr. Hill to consult legal counsel on that question. Brad Smith, 13877 Square Lake Trail, Baytown Township. asked Mr. Borg if anyone has ever tried to buy this property. Mr. Borg replied no. Mr. Smith said if the neighbors didn’t want to have another neighbor, they should buy the lot. If the builder has a good plan for landscaping, walls and so on, they’ll actually slow down the erosion. As a builder himself, he is always annoyed when a neighbor complains that someone is going to build on a lot - they should have bought it. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen stated the discussion is about a variance for lot coverage, not about whether this lot may be built upon in general. It could be built upon without a variance. He believes that the pool is an add-on that they want but don’t need. The topography doesn’t seem to make sense. He is not in favor of granting the 4% additional variance to put the pool in. Having the driveway come off Seeley rather than Pine is a good compromise. He is in favor of granting a 2% variance. Commissioner Kocon reiterated that a driveway off Pine would be shorter and would meet the impervious surface requirements, but it would cause a blind intersection, so the safest place to build the driveway is off Seeley. The parking pad could be made pervious and the pool could be smaller. There are some things a designer can do to reduce the 6% variance. Ms. Wittman stated that staff does not consider permeable pavers to be a substitute for land in regard to impervious surface coverage, because they require a higher level of maintenance and can eventually become impervious. She aded that eliminating the pool would bring the surface coverage to 33% (actually 32.6%). Commissioner Hade said he favors granting the variance. He doesn’t see it as a big problem for the neighborhood. The neighborhood has had an unofficial park there for 40 years. Chairman Collins said he visited the site and saw it has a serious elevation issue. The only way to do it is to do this kind of driveway but the extra 6% coverage makes him uncomfortable and he cannot vote in favor of the variance. Commissioner Fletcher said she feels she cannot grant the 6% variance until the Watershed Management Organization reviews and recommends the application. Commissioner Siess said if the Commission denies the request and finds that practical difficulties do not exist, what difficulty would she say does not exist? Commissioner Fletcher replied she would prefer to table the request to get more information from the Watershed Management Organization. Commissioner Kocon pointed out that Watershed Management Organization (WMO) review is a condition of approval. He would be willing to grant the variance up to 33% coverage and trust the Watershed Management Organization to make the right decision. He suggested adding two Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 12 of 15 conditions, that the driveway must be canted inside so that it drains on site, and that the plans must be submitted for approval by the WMO. Commissioner Fletcher stated the WMO may have significant concerns that could then change the layout of the house. That is why she would prefer to table it versus granting a 2.6% variance now. Commissioner Siess stated a structure could be built without a variance, however there are economic considerations because the owner wants to sell it. That is her reason for denial. Commissioner Hansen asked, if the Watershed Management Organization says it can’t be done as proposed, do they have the authority to deny it, or would it be a recommendation? Ms. Wittman stated that professionals in the construction world acknowledge that anything can be built with the right engineering. If the WMO does not approve, the City can’t issue a permit, so the builder would have to design a new plan to meet the regulations. Commissioner Lauer said he would be OK allowing the variance without the pool. Ms. Wittman noted for the record that if lot coverage was at 30%, it would allow for about an 1,800 square foot footprint plus the driveway, to be in conformance with the existing code. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve Case No. 2018-41, Variance to the 30% maximum allowed lot coverage to build a new residence and associated improvements on the property at the corner of Pine and Seeley located in the RA district, to allow a maximum of 32.6% lot coverage with +/- of .4 with the eight conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #9, stating “All parking and drive areas shall be sloped to prohibit runoff on neighboring properties” and Condition #10, “Prior to the submission of grading and building permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization (MSCWMO) for review of compliance with MSCWMO regulations.” Motion failed 3-4, with Commissioners Hade, Siess, Fletcher and Chairman Collins opposed. Motion by Chairman Collins, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to deny the Variance to the 30% maximum allowed lot coverage to build a new residence and associated improvements on the property at the corner of Pine and Seeley. Motion passed 4-3 with Commissioners Hade, Hansen and Kocon opposed. Mr. Borg remarked if the driveway is built off Pine Street, that would not exceed the maximum impervious surface coverage and negate the need for a variance. Ms. Wittman stated that is correct. She added that any interested party has 10 days to submit in writing an appeal with a $50 fee. The case would then be scheduled for a de novo hearing before the City Council. Case No. 2018-42: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed structural coverage and accessory structure coverage at the property located at 1114 4th Street North in the RB district. Gretchen Froehner and Rebecca Tarvainen, property owners. City Planner Wittman reviewed the request. The property owners have applied for a variance to construct a 15’ deep by 23’ wide addition to the backside of their garage located at 1114 4th Street Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 13 of 15 North. The purpose of the 345 square foot addition is to provide additional storage and workshop space on the property. The applicants are requesting: 1. A variance to the 25% Maximum Structural Coverage for the addition of 345 square feet of accessory structure coverage for a total of 28.8% structural coverage [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)]; and 2. A variance for the accessory building’s coverage to exceed 10% of the total lot area [City Code Section 31-308(a)(3)i]. With the 345 square foot addition, the garage’s total area will increase to 873 square feet, for a total of 10.7% accessory structure coverage. As noted, increases to accessory structure coverage above 10% of the total lot area are not easily justified. On that basis, staff finds that only portions of the application are in harmony with the intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant established practical difficulty. Therefore, staff recommends partial approval as follows, with four conditions. 1. Conditional approval of a variance to the 25% structure coverage allowance [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)], to permit the construction of a 323 square foot garage addition to the property located at 1114 4th Street North; and 2. Denial of the variance to allow more than 10% accessory structure coverage [City Code Section 31-308(a)(3)i], thus allowing for the construction of no more than 323 square foot garage addition at the property located at 1114 4th Street North. The applicant stated they considered many other options for adding space and felt this was best plan. Metal siding was chosen rather than stucco because stucco could not perfectly match, so metal would be distinctly different. They would consider board and batten if required to blend with the neighborhood better. Regarding the 10% accessory coverage, serious consideration was given to the area as proposed. They still would like the 15 x 23’ addition to fit the plans for use of the structure. Ms. Wittman suggested other materials might blend with the neighborhood better. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon commented that 12.5 x 23 is functional for a garage and would fit within the 10% requirement. He doesn’t see practical difficulty in exceeding the lot coverage amount. Regarding the exterior material, he would prefer anything as long as the color is carried through. Chairman Collins agreed. He would be OK with the first variance. He also feels that galvanized metal will not fit the neighborhood. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Chairman Collins, to approve a Variance to the maximum allowed structural coverage and accessory structure coverage at the property located at 1114 4th Street North in the RB district to allow 28% coverage, and to deny the variance to accessory coverage to exceed 10% of the total lot area, with the four conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition #b to add, “The color of the siding material match the existing home.” Commissioner Lauer disagreed that the same exact color should be used. Commissioner Kocon and Chairman Collins agreed to further modify Condition #b to eliminate the reference to color but to stipulate that galvanized metal not be used. Motion passed 7-0, with Condition #b modified to add “The addition shall not be galvanized metal.” Planning Commission August 8, 2018 Page 14 of 15 Case No. 2018-43: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to for two existing, second-story dwelling units, a new bar and grill, and a distillery at the property located at 227 Main Street South in the CBD district. Mark Miller of Neon, LLC, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicant is requesting the following for the structure at 227 Main Street South: 1. A Special Use Permit for two existing second-story dwelling units; and 2. A Special Use Permit for an approximately 1,350 square foot bar and grill to be known as Stillwater Proper; and 3. A Special Use Permit for an approximately 450 square foot distillery to be operated by 45th Parallel, a distillery currently in operation in New Richmond, WI. Comments were received from Jeff at the Mad Capper questioning the approval of more food and liquor establishments. 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 detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a Special Use Permit for two existing second story residential units and to operate a bar and grill restaurant and distillery on the property located at 227 Main Street South, with eight conditions. Mark Miller, 227 Main Street South, offered to answer questions. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2018-43, Special Use Permit for two existing, second-story dwelling units, a new bar and grill, and a distillery at the property located at 227 Main Street South in the CBD district, with the eight conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 7-0. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION There were no items of discussion. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman reminded the Commission of the Boards and Commissions picnic on August 23. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 10:32 p.m. All in favor, 7-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 12, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-44 APPLICANT: Justin and Jill Kaufenberg, property owners REQUEST: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for a bakery and café to be located at 310 Main Street South ZONING: CBD-Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU-Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The property owner is requesting a Special Use Permit for the structure at 310 Main Street South to operate: • A commercial bakery in (approximately) 1,138 square feet, at the back of the building; and • A (approximately) 1,146 square foot café/restaurant to be located on the lower level, accessed from Main Street South The applicants have indicated the second story will be a shared office space. Professional offices do not require a Conditional/Special Use Permit. BACKGROUND According to the National Register listing for the Stillwater Commercial Historic District, this building was built between 1873 and 1874 and it, along with the other structures on this Photo Credit: Traditional Construction Services, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-44 CPC September 12, 2018 Page 2 building, were known as the Union Block. The inventory record indicates “This two story stone building with flat roof has lost all historic fabric on the front façade. The storefront has been altered, the original three second story windows and openings with hood molds have been removed and the entire second story face has been covered in stucco and pierced with two small square windows.” In 2017 the property was sold to the current owners who conducted extensive renovation of the property, returning it to its existing state (as shown on the previous page); the façade was carefully designed to mirror its original historic appearance as close as possible. As exterior renovations were completing, the property owners began discussions with the existing Minneapolis-based, small-independent business, Mon Petit Cheri, regarding permanent relocation to Stillwater. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Municipal Code Section 31-207 indicates the following must be determined by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a Special Use Permit (SUP): The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this (Zoning) chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Zoning Ordinance Use Restaurants in the CBD have been determined to be in substantial conformance with the SUP provisions when the proposed use mitigates potential negative effects. For this type of use, the impacts of trash, parking and noise have been determined to potentially have negative impact to the downtown core. Trash The applicant’s site plan indicates dumpster storage will be in the existing garage. However, based on aerial imagery, two waste receptacles have been stored behind the building. While the City has not had complaints about the waste receptacles in this area, Union Alley trash has been discussed as a growing concern. The Planning Commission should require waste to be kept inside the building until collection day. Noise The storefront was constructed with fixed windows and a new interior entryway is proposed. Additionally, no outside activities are proposed. Therefore, there should be no noise associated with the business. Parking There are three onsite parking spaces: one in the attached garage and two located behind the building. However, these three spaces does not fulfill the parking requirements associated with this change of use. The property is located within the CPC Case No. 2018-44 CPC September 12, 2018 Page 3 Downtown Parking District. When there is a deficit of onsite parking, the City allows for a mitigation plan to be submitted for review and approval by the Downtown Parking Commission prior to the release of the Special Use Permit. The following addresses the existing parking (credit) in comparison to the proposed uses and parking requirements: Use Requirement Spaces Existing Gallery (3,942 s.f.) 1/500 s.f. 7.88 Office (1,138 s.f.) 1/300 s.f. 3.79 Total Credit 11.67 (12) spaces Proposed Bakery (1,138) 1/200 s.f. 5.69 Restaurant (1,146 s.f.) 1/120 s.f. 9.55 Office (2,457) 1/300 s.f. 8.19 Total Required 23.43 (24) spaces The applicants will need to mitigate nine (9) parking spaces 1. While they have not developed a parking mitigation proposal, it is assumed they would like to purchase parking permits. The item will be placed on the September 20th Downtown Parking Commission’s agenda. Comprehensive Plan – The Local Economy chapter of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Page 7-4) “encourages small locally owned businesses particularly in the downtown.” Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; and Staff has not identified any public interest concerns. Exterior changes – Section 31-319 of the Stillwater City Code requires that the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) conduct a design review on exterior changes, signage, and mechanical units. The HPC reviewed the storefront renovation; any new signage will require HPC review and approval prior to installation. Miscellaneous – Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. Additionally, as noted above, other local, state and federal review and approvals will be required. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Staff has determined that if a mitigation plan can be determined acceptable by the Downtown Parking Commissions, the bakery and café would not be a detriment to the public. 1 24 spaces required, 3 spaces available = deficit of 21 spaces. Previously 12 spaces were needed. So, 9 spaces will need to be mitigated. CPC Case No. 2018-44 CPC September 12, 2018 Page 4 ALTERNATIVES The Commission has the following options: A. Approval: If the Planning Commission finds the Special Use Permit amendment proposal is consistent with the provisions of the SUP process, the Commission could move to approve the SUP with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2018-44, except as modified by the conditions herein 3. Waste receptacles shall be kept indoors until trash collection day. 4. All signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to installation. Any conditions attached to the Design Permit issued by the Heritage Preservation Commission for this addition are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. 5. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. Any conditions attached to the parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. i. If the plan includes a fee-in-lieu, the fee shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Failure to pay charges within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the fees as a condition of approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. 6. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the City of Stillwater engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 7. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the approved Special Use Permit guidelines, then the Commission could deny the request. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. D. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be tabled the October, 2018 meeting. CPC Case No. 2018-44 CPC September 12, 2018 Page 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 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 detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of a Special Use Permit for a bakery and café to be located on the lower level of the structure located at 310 Main Street South. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request (2 pages) Floor Plan E A S T C H E S T N U T S T SECOND STREET SOUTHSTATE HI GHWAYS 95 & 36N E L S O N S T SOUTHSOUTH WATER STREETRAI LROADUNI ON ALLEYN E L S O N A L L E YE O L IV E S T S T A T E H W Y 3 6 N E L S O N S T R E E T MAIN STREETS OUTH BROADWAY STREET110 305 423 207 324 437 322 200 302 204 107 214 428 275 430 301301301301 301301 301301 301 435 121 413 124 419 317 101101 101 101 437 229 114 201 438 315 321 209221 401 124 236 232 213 132 243 311 210 233 126 400 202 302 301 223 441 219 233 324 224 406 320 116 239 224 µ 0 180 36090Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 310 Main St S PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 12, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-46 APPLICANT: Charles Pearcy, representing Sherri Colberg, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of variances associated with a 1.4’ encroachment of the existing, nonconforming residence and the construction of a 6’ deep front porch addition on the structure located at 1108 5th Street South ZONING: RB: One Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant would like to construct a 6’ porch onto an existing, non-conforming residence. As a result, the following variances are being requested: 1. A 1.4’ variance to the 20’ Front Yard Setback for an existing, nonconforming residence; 2. A 6’ variance to the 20’ Front Yard Setback for a screen porch addition; and 3. A 1% variance to the 25% maximum structural coverage for 63 square feet of the 147 square foot screen porch addition. APPLICABLE BACKGROUND According to the historic building permit inventory, the existing single family residence was constructed by Oliver Belisle for Madore Campbell in 1889. The two-story structure was constructed with its existing T-shaped gable, as it still stands today. The structure first appears on the 1891 Sanborn Map. As depicted on the next page, the structure’s existing design is much the same as it was 127 years ago. The only difference is that in 1891, the Photo Credit: Google Maps (August, 2013) Case No. 2018-46 CPC: September 12, 2018 Page 2 of 4 structure had an L-shaped front porch that wrapped around to the south side of the home. The City’s building permit record does not indicate when the front porch was removed nor by whom. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS The purpose of the variance is to “…allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement…would cause practical difficulties for the landowner.” In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31- 208 indicates “[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance” and “…a previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits.” 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 a front yard setback is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits. 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. While a front porch addition would encroach into the required 20’ Front Yard Setback area and would increase the maximum structural coverage in excess of the maximum 25% lot coverage, a front yard area will continue to existing to allow for sufficient separation from the public way and to allow for drainage to occur in the front yard. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. No application elements are contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan. Case No. 2018-46 CPC: September 12, 2018 Page 3 of 4 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 the property, as a single family residence in a single family residential neighborhood, is reasonable. The reconstruction of original structure elements is also reasonable. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and In addition to the historic Sanborn maps, the applicant-submitted photograph depicts an open, unenclosed porch on this property. The applicant did not remove the porch from the home. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The next two properties, to the south, both have front yard encroachments. The new porch will not extend further into the required 20’ Front Yard Setback than those two homes. Additionally, of the ten residences along this block, this home is one of two that do not have a front porch or portico; there are six other homes with porches along this street. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make the finding that practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve variances to the Front Yard Setback and the 25% Maximum Structural Coverage for an existing, nonconforming encroachment and a 6’ L-shaped front porch addition, 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: • Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2018-46. • The siding, trim, fascia and soffit boards will be the same color as the primary structure. The use of wood is encouraged. • A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. Case No. 2018-46 CPC: September 12, 2018 Page 4 of 4 • 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 recommends conditional approval the variances associated with CPC Case No. 2018-34 for the construction of a 6’, L-shaped front porch to be attached to the home and located at 1217 1st Street South. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Certificate of Survey Porch Plans (4 pages) Historic photo STREET AVENUESOUTHEAST STREETFIRSTSECONDSTREETMARSH BURLINGTON ST REET 117 311 1111 11121112 1102 1311 1204 319 1215 1303 317 303 1330 301 12261224 1108 1338 1105 1304 1312 1314 1324 1329 1219 1337 1309 1321 1334 1336 1323 1310 1113 13421337 1318 1322 1112 1225 201 207 1322 314 1312 1111 1338 11011103110411031102 110611051107 1109 209205 1212 1214121512141214 1218121712161218 1221 1325 1323 1329 1317 1318 1314 1226 1305 1225 103 1302 1306 1309 1115 1103 1215 1024 1303 1305 1340 1333 110 1209 1323 1032 1036 1221 µ 0 180 36090Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 1217 1st St S PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: September 5, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-47 APPLICANT: Tim Sauro REQUEST: Special Use Permit for limited retail sales in the BP-I, Business Park – Industrial Zoning District LOCATION: 1815 South Greeley St ZONING: BP-I, Business Park – Industrial COMP PLAN: Industrial PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Tim Sauro has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit on behalf of the property owner, Mike McGrath, and his tenant, Sew With Me. Sew With Me has a retail store in Woodbury and another in Duluth. Their business here in Stillwater is located at 1815 South Greeley Street and supports the two retail stores as well as on-line sales. The primary uses at the Stillwater location are: sewing machine service and repair, operation of industrial quilting machines that complete quilts for customers, filling and shipping of on-line orders, manufacture of quilting kits, development of store samples for their retail stores, and production of educational videos for their website. All of Page 2 these uses are permitted in the BP-I Zoning District within which the property is located. In addition, a small percentage of the business’s floor space is dedicated to the retail sale of sewing machines, parts and related sewing supplies. SPECIFIC REQUEST Special Use Permit to allow retail sales by Sew With Me at 1815 S Greeley St. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS I. City Code Section 31-325 allows general retail business uses or services in the BP-I Zoning District with a Special Use Permit under one of two scenarios: 1) If the retail sales are limited to products manufactured on the premises, then up to 20 percent of a building’s floor area may be used for retail purposes. 2) If all of the products offered for retail sale are not produced on the premises, then a total of only 10% of a building’s floor area, or 4,000 square feet, whichever is less, may be dedicated to retail sales; however, the retail sales must be of products associated with a primary service offered by the business on the premises. The second scenario applies in this case.  Most of the products offered for retail sale are not produced on the premises.  Less than 10% of the building’s floor area is used for retail sales. The total building area is 40,000 square feet. Of that, 3,8131 square feet are leased by Sew With Me. And, of that, only a minority of their leased space is devoted to retail sales.  Retail sales are of products associated with the business’s primary services. II. City Code Section 31-207 identifies three general performance standards that all requests for Special Use Permits must meet in order for the Planning Commission to approve. 1 3,000 sf of finished space and 813 sf of warehouse space. Page 3 1) The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations.  Zoning Ordinance o Use: As mentioned above, the proposed retail sales are allowed in the BP-I Zoning District with a Special Use Permit. o Parking: The property is a multiple tenant building with a 34 space parking lot on the west side of the building and a similarly sized parking lot on the south side2. The building has 30,000 square feet of warehouse space and 9,000 square feet of finished space. The required parking for the entire building is 57 spaces.3 The warehouse space has not needed anywhere near the 30 spaces required for it, and when space is needed for warehouse use, vehicles can be parked in the unmarked spaces in the rear of the building or in the south lot. Therefore, staff finds that sufficient parking is available for the building as configured.  Comprehensive Plan – The Comprehensive Plan encourages industrial type uses in the subject neighborhood, and the proposed use is predominantly industrial in that it includes warehousing, quilt production, sewing machine repair, quilting kit production, etc. 2 The lot on the south side is currently fenced and used for outside storage. 3 30,000 sf warehouse requires 30 spaces. The 9,000 sf of finished space (minus 10% for restrooms, hallways, utility space, etc) requires 27 spaces (8,100 leasable sf at 1 space per 300 square feet). Page 4 2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Staff has not identified any other elements of the proposal that might negatively impact the public interest. 3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Staff does not believe there are any aspects of the proposal that will constitute a nuisance or be a detriment to the public. ALTERNATIVES The Commission has the following options: A. Approve. If the proposed use permit meets the Special Use Permit guidelines, the Planning Commission should approve the request. Staff would recommend the following conditions for approval. 1. This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595. 2. A master signage plan is required for this multiple tenant building and will need to be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 3. All changes to the amount of space used for retail sales will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the Planning Commission finds that the proposal is not consistent with the approved Special Use Permit guidelines, then the Commission could deny the request. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. D. Table. If the Planning Commission needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be tabled to the October 10, 2018 meeting. The 60- day deadline for Planning Commission action is October 16, 2018. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with the conditions listed above, the proposed retail use in the BP-I Zoning District meets the Special Use Permit provisions. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the conditions listed above. Attachment: Application materials bt PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-48 APPLICANT: Randal and Alaina Berger, property owners REQUEST: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and associated Variances thereof, to be located at 414 Harriet Street South ZONING: RB – Two Family Residential COMP PLAN: Low/Medium Density Residential PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Randal and Alaina Berger own the property at 414 Harriet Street South. A two-story home located on a 13,021 square foot lot. They are planning to remove the existing garage and build a two-car garage with living space above the new garage. As a result, they are requesting: • A Special Use Permit (SUP) for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to be located above the garage; and • A 15’ Variance to the 25’ Rear Yard Setback for the ADU to be located 10’ from the rear property line. BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT HISTORY The property is located in a neighborhood that has not yet been surveyed for historical and architectural significance. According to Washington County Assessor’s Office records, the residence was constructed in 1880. While the City does not have the best documentation for the property, it does appear on the 1924 Sanborn Map, as shown on the next page; the map indicates the property was utilized as apartments. Photo Credit: Randal and Alaina Berger, 2018 CPC Case 2018-48 CPC: September 12, 2018 Page 2 The map provides a little insight to the development of the property. It appears the accessory structure has been located on the property since, at least, 1924. Staff reviewed the request for demolition of the accessory structure prior to the development of this staff report. Upon a site investigation, it was determined the garage does not contain any distinctive stylistic features nor is it an example of skilled craftsmanship. Therefore, it has been determined to not be a historical resource and may be administratively approved for demolition. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS City Code Section 31-501, Accessory Dwellings, identifies the following performance standards for review: • Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet. The lot is 13,021 square feet. • The accessory dwelling may be located on the second floor above the garage. The new ADU would be located wholly above the proposed garage. • The accessory structure must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and rear. The applicants are requesting a variance to this standard. The Variance request is analyzed in the subsequent subsection in this report. • The accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the midpoint of the primary residence. The new garage will conform to Front and Side Yard dimensional setbacks for structures: 22’ from the front property line and 7.3’ from the North side property line. • Off-street parking requirements (four spaces) must be provided. Two parking spaces are proposed to be located within the garage, meeting the requirements for two covered parking spaces. A new driveway is proposed to be located in front of the garage which will accommodate the two additional parking spaces required. • Maximum size of the garage and ADU is 800 square feet. Both are proposed to be 768 square feet. • The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. • The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. The garage height is proposed to be 19’-10” feet (to the peak of the gable). The existing home appears to be 32’ from grade to the peak of the gable. However, a condition of approval will be that the proposed garage conforms to this requirement. 1924 Sanborn Map CPC Case 2018-48 CPC: September 12, 2018 Page 3 • Both the primary and accessory dwelling units must be connected to municipal sewer and water services and be located on an improved public street. This will be a condition of approval. Section 31-208, Variances, indicates the Planning Commission may grant a variance, but only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose of the Rear Yard Setback is to have larger open space in the rear of property for visual appeal, household enjoyment, drainage, as well as to prevent construction within close proximity to adjacent properties. However, the City’s codes encourage garages to be located in the rear of the property. With ADU’s, a concern arises for the adjacent neighbor’s backyard privacy. The applicant’s proposal, in the rear corner is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Additionally, as the subject property is a double lot, there is sufficient land area for visual appeal, household enjoyments and drainage. While the applicants have proposed two windows on the rear of the garage, their placement would not affect the rear yard privacy of the properties accessed off of Martha Street South. The view from the first floor window will be blocked by an existing privacy fence and the second story window, located in the stairwell, will operate similar to a transom window above a doorway. This second-story window is intended to bring light into the residential unit but will not be located in a place where occupants may directly look out of. 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 City of Stillwater has determined the use of ADUs in the RB – Two Family Residential zoning district is reasonable. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and CPC Case 2018-48 CPC: September 12, 2018 Page 4 The placement of the garage is designed to maximize the use of the existing curb cut and driveway, located between the house and the (North) side yard property line. While the garage could be located 15’ from the property line, its placement in compliance with the Rear Yard Setback would not accommodate for additional vehicles to be parked in front of the garage bays. Additionally, the property owners could have difficulty maneuvering around the house, if the garage was located closer to the home. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant is proposing a detailed ADU that compliments the primary residence. It will be set back from Harriet Street South, in a location that will be minimally visible from the street. It will be placed in a location that is within proximity to other accessory structures. Lastly, it is surrounded by properties (613 Oak Street West, 413 Marth Street South, and 417 Martha Street South) that contain two story homes. 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. City Code Section 31-207, Special Use Permits, identifies the city may grant a Special Use Permit or amendments when the following findings are made: a. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. The additional residence on this property conforms to the Zoning Regulations. Furthermore, the accessory structure meets all accessory structure coverage limitations. The proposal is consistent with relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. b. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. The City has not received any comments of concern. Certain conditions of approved, listed below, are recommended to help protect the public interest. c. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. ADUs in the RB – Two Family Residential district have not been a nuisance or are detrimental to the public. This use would be consistent with all ADUs within the community. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: CPC Case 2018-48 CPC: September 12, 2018 Page 5 A. Approve: If the Planning Commission finds the Special Use Permit amendment proposal is consistent with the provisions of the SUP process, the Commission could move to approve the SUP with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2018-48, except as modified by the conditions herein. 3. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 4. A grading and erosion control plan and grading escrow, in an amount deemed sufficient by the Engineering Department, shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the release of the building permit. 5. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the residence. The building permit shall clearly show: i. The maximum height of the accessory structure, in correlation to the height of the existing residence, shall be shown. The height of the accessory structure shall not be greater than the height of the primary residence. ii. The house shall be siding lap and shake siding in similar color and reveal size as the primary residence. iii. The house shall contain similar corner, soffit and fascia boards as the primary residence. iv. Windows shall have the same level of detail and trim as the primary residence. 6. At the time of building permitting, the applicant shall be required to pay WAC/SAC charges for the new unit. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the ADU shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. 7. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the approved Special Use Permit guidelines, then the Commission could deny the request. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. D. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be tabled the October, 2018 meeting. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds: • The proposed ADU meets the Special Use Permit provisions and recommends approval of Special Use Permit 2018-40 with the conditions identified above; and CPC Case 2018-48 CPC: September 12, 2018 Page 6 • That on the basis the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends approval of a 15’ variances associated with CPC Case No. 2018-48 for the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 414 Harriet Street South. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Existing Site Plan Existing Garage Photo Proposed Site Plan Exterior Elevations Floor Plans 520 620 616 603613623 522 704 716 703 420 414 610 717 717 718 712 704712 713 414 513 607 514 517 624 606 513 620 417 511 603 519 419 417 413 709 604 703 413 416 521 619 505 506 418 418 504 806 510 820 814 519601609617623 304613 µ 0 140 28070Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map414 Harriet St S Randal & Alaina Berger 414 Harriet St. S. Stillwater, MN 55082 612.805.6388 August 10, 2018 City of Stillwater Planning Department 216 4th St. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Chairperson and Board Members: This letter of intent is to support our request that you consider our plan for construction of a new detached garage at our home at 414 Harriet St. S. which is located in the RB - Two family district. Our intention is to tear down our single-story detached garage which is in disrepair and rebuild a new 2- car garage with livable space above it. Our current building design and plan coordinates with the architecture of our existing home, specifically making sure that the siding, soffit boards, fascia and trim are the same color as the house. We hope to place a rainwater garden on the site to further retain water on our property. It is our intent to include where possible distinctive finishes that match the existing residential properties in our neighborhood. The garage will be 24 feet in height, which will not be taller than our house. We would also like to the committee to consider the use of a transom window for lighting purposes only on the second floor of the west facing side of the garage, which is in the stairway/hallway entrance to the second-floor livable space. When deciding on placement of the garage on the property we are considering the fact that the back of our house needs to be separated from the garage by enough distance to ensure fire protection for both structures and allow enough space for vehicles to maneuver in and out of the garage. In order to accomplish this, we would like to ask that the committee consider our request to allow the garage be placed at the rear of the property with a setback of 10 ft. This placement is also intended to take into consideration proper drainage and sewer line needs. We feel that the proposed style and structure of the garage is in step with the existing neighborhood and that it would be an improvement to our home resulting in an overall increase in property value. We would like to begin construction as soon as possible and hope the Planning Board can consider this request at its earliest possible date. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully, Randal H. Berger and Alaina L Berger 5" WH-PINE 1" APPLE 5" ARBORVITAE 5" ARBORVITAE 5" ARBORVITAE 5" ARBORVITAE 5" SPRUCE 8" BOXELDER 3" PLUM 3" PLUM 3" CRAB-APPLE5" BOXELDER 6" BOXELDER 3" BOXELDER XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXWV6ƒ (100.056ƒ : 130.211ƒ :100.061ƒ ( 130.49 SANITARY MH RIM ELEV. 900.93 S BENCHMARK TOP NUT HYDRANT ELEV. = 902.7450.0350.0350.0350.03HARRIET STREETPLA STI C S H E D GAR A G E 1-1/2 STORY W O O D F R A M E H O U S E COVERED PORCH HOUSEBITUMI N O U S S U RFA C E BITUMI N O U S D RI VE WAY PAVERS PAV E RSPAVERS CONCRETE BACK STOOP FIRE PIT AND CONCRETE PATIO WOOD PANEL FENCE DILAPIDATED WOVEN WIRE FENCE WOOD PICKET FENCE B618 CURB AND GUTTER CHAIN LINK FENCE CONCRETE RETAINING WALL DRILL HOLE IN CONCRETE RETAINING WALL STONE RETAINING WALL STONE RETAINING WALL STONE RETAINING WALL STONE RETAINING WALL WOOD RETAINING WALL CONCRETE SIDEWALKWROUGHT IRON FENCE WROUGHT IRON FENCE 4.0 1.7 18.6 6.629.9 18.919.77.06.85.9 6.830.1 16.04.0 3.94.0 23.614.420.2 20.517.2 5.83.210.1 9.710.1 9.71.5 9.5 24.711.0 6.7COVERED SCREENED PORCH7.319.39.8 9.50.5GARAGE 0 SCALE IN FEET 5 10 20 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DAVID L. DUPAY DATE: 05/20/2015 LICENSE # 17252 Plot Date: 05/21/2015Drawing name: X:\0107_RandelBerger\001_HomeLot\08_3D_HomeLot\BergerCertificatePlan.dwgXrefs:1 NO DATE BY REVISION 2 3 4 5 6 TOPO GRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY STILLWATER, MN 55082 DESIGN BY DRAWN BY DLD DLD SHEET 01 OF 01 SHEETS RANDAL H & ALAINA L BERGER 414 HARRIET STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 BDI PROJECT NO. 0107-001 CERTIFICATION OF SURVEY 2315 PERIWINKLE AVENUE NORTH STILLWATER, MN 55082-1634 (651) 436-1787 davedupay@comcast.net IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DESCRIPTION AREA (S.F.)%TOTAL PARCEL TOTAL PARCEL 13,042 HOUSE 1,815 COVERED PORCH 245 GARAGE 395 SUB-TOTALS 2455 18.82% DRIVEWAY 998 PAVERS 419 CONC. SW & STEPS 67 WALLS 165 BITUMINOUS @ NW CORNER 800 TOTALS 2,449 18.78% LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1 and 2, Block 2, THORNES 2ND ADDITON, Washington County Minnesota INDICATES AN INPLACE 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MARKED WITH A PLASTIC PLUG INSCRIBED "DUPAY - RLS 17252". UNDERGROUND OR OVERHEAD PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES ON OR ADJACENT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL WERE NOT LOCATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS SURVEY, UNLESS SHOWN OR NOTED OTHERWISE. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 13,042 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. OFFSETS SHOW TO EXISTING STRUCTUREDS ARE MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE BUILDING WALL LINE, UNLESS SHOWN OR NOTED OTHERWISE. ANY PROJECTIONS FROM SAID WALL LINE SUCH AS EAVES, SILLS, DECKS, ETC., WILL IMPACT THESE OFFSETS ACCORDINGLY. CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM, 1988 ADJUSTMENT. THORNES 2ND ADDITON IS RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. 416049 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA. LEGEND DRAF T C O P Y SUBJ E C T T O C H A N G E 2.23.201614 3 2.23.20164 2.23.201642 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 12, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-49 APPLICANT: Amy Haugen, representing Stillwater Skin LLC REQUEST: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a skin care business to be located at 320 Myrtle Street West ZONING: RCM – Medium Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: High Density Res. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Amy Haugen, owner of Stillwater Skin LLC has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a skincare business in the structure located at 320 Myrtle Street West, a single family residential structure. The business, licensed as a salon, would be the only occupant. PROPERTY BACKGROUND According to the Washington County Assessor’s records, the property was constructed in 1882. Although the property is located adjacent to the Greeley Addition and South Hill Neighborhood Architectural Survey areas, the property has never been surveyed; therefore the City has little record of the property’s history. That said, Planning Department records show the property has been predominantly used for multi- and single-family residential uses. A lot split was approved in 1985 which created another building site to the south of this residential property. A single Home Occupation Permit, for an interior design studio, was approved in 1987. The approval allowed for 800 square feet of the 2,400 total square feet to be used on the main floor of the building. Relevant conditions of approval included: Photo Credit: Google Images dated August, 2017 CPC Case No. 2018-49 CPC September 12, 2018 Page 2  Business signage allowed for a single, one square foot, flat, non-illuminated sign could be affixed to the front of the residence.  A small directional sign shall be placed next to the driveway indicating parking in the rear. The directional sign shall be erected before the business opens. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Municipal Code Section 31-207 indicates the following must be determined by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (SUP): The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this (Zoning) chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Zoning Ordinance Use The applicant currently operates Stillwater Skin Medical Spa in Oak Park Heights. The business offers facials, skin laser procedures, as well as injection services that are overseen by Dr. Merlin Brown, affiliated with Fairview Southdale Hospital and offices out of Edina. The proposed business model would be to operate in the subject property as they currently do in Oak Park Heights. The business operations include two licensed estheticians (the applicant and Jen Tousignant) and a single receptionist. The applicant is the licensed salon manager. While the applicant has not indicated the hours of operation, the application materials indicate the business would service 8 clients per day with a maximum of two clients per hour. Trash Neither the applicant’s narrative nor their site plan address accommodations for waste. The City has a contract for household waste removal. Therefore, a condition of approval should be that the business will utilize the largest household trash and recycling containers available to them. Additionally, containers shall be kept out of the public view until collection day. Noise The business plan does not include any outdoor activities. Therefore, no outdoor noise is expected on this site. Parking and Drive Areas City Code Section 31-510 indicates Beauty Parlors require three parking spaces per chair. However, this type of business does not have chairs. While there are four service rooms proposed, staff has determined requiring twelve onsite parking spaces is excessive. Therefore, staff has determined an appropriate number of required off- CPC Case No. 2018-49 CPC September 12, 2018 Page 3 street parking spaces should be three per practitioner plus one for the business receptionist; therefore seven spaces should be required. This, as well as the limit on the number of practitioners, should be a condition of approval. The existing site has parking behind the residence. Three stalls are located in a 32’ wide by 24’ deep garage. Additionally, there is room onsite for three more parking spaces to be located facing directly east; please see the attached Parking Analysis map for reference. The applicant has indicated they would remove a portion of the rear- yard patio to accommodate for an additional parking stall. Based on requirements of the Building Inspection division, a total of eight parking stalls (one of which would be accessible) may be required to help protect the neighborhood from the possibility of off-street parking issues. There are two existing, nonconformities related to drive lanes and parking area setbacks for this property. The first is that two-way drive lanes are required to be 24’ in width. While the property can meet this directly adjacent to the head-in parking, the drive lane is only (approximately) 15’ in width. Additionally, the driveway and some of the onsite parking will not meet the required 10’ setback required. Signage The applicant has indicated they would like to utilize their existing business signage that is 5’ tall by 8’ wide. They are proposing to place the sign over the middle window of the upper floor. However, the RCM district does not allow for signage. Additionally, the sign would be located in a fashion that would obscure the architectural features of this building. Therefore, the applicant’s signage request is not permissible. However, the previous Home Occupation granted allowance for a single, one square sign and a directional sign for parking. Additionally, City Code Section 31-509, Subd. 6(a) indicates “professional nameplate wall signs not exceeding two square feet in area” are permitted in residential districts. That said, conditions of approval for signage should be limiting in number, size and placement to help preserve the character of this residential district. Comprehensive Plan – The Future Land Use (FLU) map identifies this property as “High Density Residential” along with several other properties on both sides of Myrtle Street West in this location. Though the proposed use is not consistent with the FLU map, the use is not inconsistent with this neighborhood. The Local Economy chapter of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Page 7-4) “encourages small locally owned businesses ....” Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; and Staff has not identified any public interest concerns. CPC Case No. 2018-49 CPC September 12, 2018 Page 4 Miscellaneous – Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. Concern has been raised as to whether or not the property will be able to meet the commercial code requirements. Staff has advised the applicant to start working with a licensed architect on whether or not the structure can conform to commercial code requirements. Staff is recommending the Conditional Use Permit would not become effective prior to building permit issuance, ensuring compliance with all local construction codes for commercial facilities. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Staff has determined that if the applicant can meet certain conditions of approval then the use will not constitute a nuisance nor be detrimental to the public welfare. PUBLIC COMMENT Two neighborhood comments have been received from the occupants of 330 and 332 Myrtle Street West. Both letters indicate their support for the proposed salon. ALTERNATIVES The Commission has the following options: A. Approval: If the Planning Commission finds the Conditional Use Permit proposal is consistent with the provisions of the CUP process, the Commission could move to approve the CUP with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. This permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2018-49, except as modified by the conditions herein 3. The business is limited to two licensed practitioners and one receptionist. 4. The business shall utilized the largest trash and recycle containers available for residential household use. Receptacles shall be kept from public view. Waste receptacles may only be located on the public sidewalk the day of collection. 5. The business shall be limited to one, two (2) square foot sign. The sign shall be located on the building in a fashion that does not obscure the architectural features or it may be located in the easterly planter bed. The sign must obtain a sign permit prior to the installation of the sign. 6. A one square foot directional sign shall be placed next to the driveway indicating parking in the rear. The directional sign shall be erected before the business opens. 7. To ensure compliance with the parking requirements, the application shall submit a scaled parking plan to be reviewed by the Planning, Zoning and Engineering Departments prior to the release of a building permit. CPC Case No. 2018-49 CPC September 12, 2018 Page 5  The plan shall include the portions of removal of the patio area and the installation of new parking in compliance with the 10’ setback from the Side Yard property line.  The plan shall also include designation of the accessible route to the building.  The plan shall include construction plans for the new parking areas and upgrades to existing parking and drive area. All parking and drive areas shall be constructed to City Code Section 33-5. 8. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the City of Stillwater engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 9. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 10. This Conditional Use Permit shall not become effective until the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City’s Building Department. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the approved Conditional Use Permit guidelines, then the Commission could deny the request. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. D. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be tabled the October, 2018 meeting. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 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 detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a salon to be located at 320 Myrtle Street West. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request (3 pages) Floor Plans (2 pages) RM Realty Photos (5 pages) Parking Analysis Map Public Comment (2 pages) W E S T M Y R T L E S T R E E T SOUTH FI FTH STREETSOUTH SI XTH STREETW E S T C H E S T N U T S T R E E T R A M S E Y S TJEANNIE STREET114 118 116 206 315 115 410 216 116 418 128 105 201 310 108 121 216 321 221 216 320 1320 424 102 301 207 211 122 108 306 356 220 426 330332 µ 0 140 28070Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map320 Myrtle St W A P X . 4 4 'APX. 30'APX. 36' 320 310 114 µ 0 20 4010Feet Sub ject Prope rtyFuture Parkin g AreaParcel Bound aries General Site Location 320 Myrtle Street WestSite Location Map ^