Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-14 CPC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North November 14th, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of October 10th, 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. 2018-58: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Variances to operate a Short Term Home Rental on the properties located at 109, 121 and 125 Owens St S. Property located in the RB district. Heidi Rosebud- Just For Me Spa, property owner. 3. Case No. 2018-59: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling unit above the garage on the property located at 904 Harriet St S. Property located in the RB district. Brian and Kasey Posch, property owner. 4. Case No. 2018-60: Consideration of a Variance to build a detached garage on the property located at 125 Martha St N, in the RB district. James Barton, property owner. VI. FYI – STAFF UPDATES VII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Fletcher, Hansen, Kocon, Lauer and Siess; Councilmember Menikheim Absent: Commissioner Hade Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of September 12, 2018 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve the minutes of the September 12, 2018 meeting. Motion passed 4-0-2 with Commissioners Siess and Hansen abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2018-54: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 807 4th Street North. Brian and Sonja Larson, property owners, representing MAERA Y , LLC. City Planner Wittman stated that the property owners are requesting a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to City Code Section 31-216, Nonconforming Uses or Structures, and 31-315, Allowable Uses in Residential Districts, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for their property at 807 4th Street North to be used as fitness and rehabilitation wellness studio. She stated that City Attorney Land has determined that if one nonconforming use is changing to a more restrictive non- conforming use, then approval could be administrative, and she has provided amendment language to that effect. As the property owners are proposing the ZAT to allow for use changes by CUP, they have also applied for a CUP. However, if the Commission agrees with City Attorney Land’s recommendation, the CUP would not be required. Staff recommends that the Commission make a recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Zoning Text Amendment to City Code Section 31-216 based on the recommendation of City Attorney Land. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission determine that no CUP is required for the property, tabling the CUP consideration until such time as the City Council has acted on the ZAT. Planning Commission October 10, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Commissioner Siess asked, if a non-conforming use changes to a more restrictive use, could it then revert back to the former less restrictive use? City Wittman responded that as proposed, a property could not return to a less restrictive use. She added that the ability to approve the lower intensity uses administratively would be more cost effective for staff. Brian Larson, property owner, said he is seeking a way to convert the use of the property, since the current zoning code has no allowance to change the non-conforming use. The building has been an office for the past 25-30 years. He likes the idea of an administrative approach, but objects to the “less intense, more restrictive” clause and would like to strike the language prohibiting the property from returning to its previous, more intensive use. Commissioner Siess suggested that one option is to say in order for the property to return to a less restrictive use, it would have to have a CUP. City Planner Wittman referred to MN Statutes that prohibit the granting of use variances. She said the goal is that non-conforming uses slowly go away. The Commission may ask the Council to consider the City Attorney’s recommendation without the “however” clause. Commissioner Hansen asked who determines whether a use is less or more restrictive? Ms. Wittman replied that staff considers zoning code, factors like hours of operation and number of parking spaces required. Commissioner Fletcher asked to clarify language. Ms. Wittman clarified that more restrictive equals less intense. Commissioner Kocon said he likes the City Attorney’s recommendation up until the last sentence. He feels than a non-conforming use should be allowed to revert to a previous non-conforming use even if it is less restrictive. Commissioner Siess asked about the fees paid by the applicant. Ms. Wittman responded that the City may refund the CUP application portion of the fee. Mr. Larson pointed out that the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan recognizes the benefits of having small commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. Other towns are recognizing this trend as well. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen said he would like to keep these small neighborhood commercial uses. He would like to allow for changes in use even to something that is more disruptive to the neighborhood if neighbors can provide input via the CUP process. He pointed out that there aren’t many neighborhood commercial uses in Stillwater; buildings in those areas should be able to be used for a myriad of purposes. If it’s an increase in use (less restrictive), perhaps it would trigger a CUP application. Commission review would not be required often and would not be a burden. Planning Commission October 10, 2018 Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Fletcher agreed. She asked why would the City set a bar that it could only go back to a use that it had previously? She would like the regulations to stay flexible and allow for a more intensive use, because there may be uses that the Commission hasn’t even thought of yet. She added that she struggled with the original assumption that it is desirable to keep reducing intensity of uses. Ms. Wittman said in the future, the Commission may want to rezone these pockets of neighborhood commercial by adding definition to allow flexibility. Commissioner Hansen remarked that neighborhood commercial really should be its own zone with whatever restrictions the Planning Commission sees fit. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to recommend that the City Council approve the ZAT using the City Attorney’s recommendation, with the recommendation to change the last part of the sentence to strike the last portion beginning with “however.” Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Hansen asked that it be noted for the Council that this is based on wanting to create a neighborhood commercial zone as in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Case No. 2018-55: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment and Re-subdivision of the property located at 7770 Minar Lane North. Stephen Nelson, property owner. City Planner Wittman stated that as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process, the City Council determined additional study is needed for the Minar Neighborhood, a rural residential area that contains nearly 50, 2.5 acre lots; most of the lots contain a single family residence served by private septic systems and wells. On October 9, 2018, the City Council enacted a moratorium on subdivisions in this neighborhood. Prior to the moratorium, Stephen and Kathleen Nelson submitted a request to re-subdivide their property at 7770 Minar Lane North into two lots. They are requesting: a Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) for the property to be rezoned from AP – Agricultural Preserve to RA – One Family Residential; and a re-subdivision that would create a new lot to the west of the Nelsons’ existing home. Staff finds that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend rezoning the property located at 7770 Minar Lane North to RA – One Family Residential. Commissioner Fletcher asked, if the request is granted and Parcel B is developed with a septic system, could the City require hook-up to City services if they become available in the future? City Planner Wittman responded that it could be required at some point. In the past the City assessed properties at the time of hook-up or sale, allowing the assessments to be deferred until the hook-up to urban services was needed, for instance when the septic system failed. Commissioner Kocon asked, once City services are available, could the parcels be subdivided again? Ms. Wittman replied that depends on zoning and whether they would meet minimum lot sizes. They may not meet the 100 foot minimum lot frontage requirements. The intent of the moratorium is to determine if future development in the Minar neighborhood is feasible. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the purpose of annexation is to bring urban services to certain parcels. Planning Commission October 10, 2018 Page 4 of 5 Ms. Wittman replied the purpose is to bring parcels into urbanized areas for future urban development. Commissioner Fletcher suggested that this application opposes the original purpose of annexation. Ms. Wittman replied quite possibly, yes. However, the Metropolitan Council is comfortable leaving these as 2.5 acre rural residential lots and not subject to City’s 5 units/acre density requirements. Stephen Nelson, applicant, explained that he wasn’t trying to get ahead of the moratorium. He has no intention of selling the lot at this time. He wants to split it in case they want to do something with it in the future rather than having to sell it as one parcel. He pointed out the Metropolitan Council is also comfortable with one-acre lots in this area. He thinks one acre lots make sense for this area. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Terry Lobeck, 7789 Minar Lane North, said he has no opinion on the Nelson subdivision but he has concern about the way the issue of the moratorium has been handled with neighborhood residents. He wishes he had been afforded the opportunity to split his lot too because it seems that is the only way it could be preserved. He would rather be able to sell off the lot and prevent paying the assessments which he said City staff estimated would be about $30,000 an acre. Residents had very little time to put together a request prior to the moratorium being enacted. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. City Planner Wittman stated for the record that an engineering study has not been started and staff is not looking at assessments at this time. The moratorium is designed to provide time to study whether or not there should ever be any lot splits or large subdivisions there. Commissioner Siess said, and the citizens can have input on it. Ms. Wittman answered, yes. The moratorium is in effect for one year or whenever an ordinance is developed which solidifies a new regulation for this neighborhood. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that the Commission has defined the two conditions for approving a ZAM - it must be in general conformance, and must meet public necessity. She struggles with whether this ZAM is publicly necessary and furthers general community welfare. Granting it would allow one more septic system which could leak and harm groundwater. Commissioner Kocon stated if a property is more than an acre, they can have well and septic. The public necessity is that people want to live in Stillwater and there will be one more lot for them to build on. He has no issue with this whatsoever. Chairman Collins commented he originally felt he would support the application because they applied prior to the moratorium. However Commissioner Fletcher’s comments got him to pause and consider the addition of a septic system. He still thinks the request is reasonable but appreciates Commissioner Fletcher’s comments. He supports recommending the ZAM to the Council. Planning Commission October 10, 2018 Page 5 of 5 Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to recommend that the City Council rezone the property at 7770 Minar Lane North to RA Single Family Residential. Motion passed 4-2 with Commissioners Fletcher and Siess voting nay. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman reminded the Commission that staff will be at Harvest Fest this weekend to inform the public about the release of the Comprehensive Plan. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 8:21 p.m. All in favor, 6-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary PLANNING REPORT DATE: November 9, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-58 TO: Planning Commission APPLICANT: Heidi Rosebud, Just For Me Spa REQUEST: 1. Conditional Use Permit for a Type C Short Term Home Rental 2. Variance to increase number of guests LOCATION: 109, 121 and 125 Owens St South ZONING: RB, Two-Family Residential REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Heidi Rosebud owns three short term rental houses on Owens Street between Myrtle and Olive Streets. The houses are available only for guests of Just For Me Spa. The RB, Two- Family Residential zoning for the properties allows short term rentals with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a license. Rosebud has submitted an application for the Conditional Use Permit. Specifically, the use permit would be for a Type C Short Term Home Rental (STHR). This type is for property that does not serve as the owner’s primary residence, which is the case for each of these three houses. EVALUATION OF REQUEST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A license is required for every STHR in the city. And for Type C short term rentals a Conditional Use Permit is also required. The Planning Commission’s role in the vacation rental licensing program is to review and either approve or deny the property owner’s request for a Conditional Use Permit. STHR Use Permit November 9, 2018 Page 2 The review standards for the STHR Conditional Use Permit, per City Code Chapter 31-514.1, include: A. Zoning Type C short term rentals are allowed by CUP in all residential and commercial zoning districts. The subject property is zoned RB, Two-Family Residential. So, a Type C Short Term Home Rental CUP is allowed. B. Performance Standards Parking In residential zoning districts, all guest parking must be accommodated on improved surfaces on the premises. No on-street parking is allowed for guests. At a minimum, parking must be provided at the following rate: (1) 1-2 bedroom unit, 1 space (2) 3 bedroom unit, 2 spaces (3) 4 and 4+ bedroom units, number of spaces equal to the number of bedrooms minus one. Each of the three houses meets or exceed the parking requirement. 109 Owens St S has one bedroom. So, it is required to have one parking space. As seen in the graphic below, at least four spaces are available. As explained later in this report, this house is allowed three guests (based on the number bedrooms), but it is used for up to six guests. So, for the three extra guests, three extra parking spaces exist. This ought to be sufficient. (Pink squares represent standard sized parking spaces.) STHR Use Permit November 9, 2018 Page 3 121 Owens St S has two bedrooms. So, one parking space is required. At least four spaces are available. (No additional guests are being requested for this unit.) (Pink squares represent standard sized parking spaces.) 125 Owens St S has three bedrooms. So, it is required to have two spaces. Four spaces are available. (Pink squares represent standard sized parking spaces.) Number of guests The maximum number of guests allowed is limited to two times the number of bedrooms plus one. STHR Use Permit November 9, 2018 Page 4 1. 109 Owens St S has one bedroom, therefore three guests are allowed. The unit is offered for up to six guests. A variance is being requested to allow the additional three guests. [The variance analysis is provided on Pages 5-9.] 2. 121 Owens St S has two bedrooms, therefore five guests are allowed. The unit is offered for up to four guests. So, no variance is requested for this house. 3. 125 Owens St S has three bedrooms, therefore seven guests are allowed. The unit is offered for up to eight guests. A variance is being requested to allow the one additional guest. Proximity of assistance The vacation rental ordinance states: For Type B and Type C Short Term Home Rentals, the property owner or a manager/representative must be located within 30 minutes travel time of the property. The property owner managers the three short term rental houses and lives within 15 minutes of drive time. Signage No signage is allowed for Short Term Home Rentals and none is proposed. Events Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. For purposes of the short term rental ordinance, an event means a gathering of more than three un-registered guests. C. Additional STHR requirements 1. Proof of Insurance Proof of appropriate and sufficient insurance has been provided for each of the units. 2. Safety Inspection A safety inspection has been passed for each of the units. 3. Total Number of STHR Conditional Use Permits Fifteen Type C licenses can be active at any one time in the City. Eleven licenses are active at the moment. In summary, all standards are met, except for the number of guests in each house. STHR Use Permit November 9, 2018 Page 5 VARIANCE Just For Me Spa operates with a Special Use Permit that was issued by the City when use permits could be approved for whatever uses the City Council found to be appropriate in a neighborhood. That discretion was eliminated in about 2000, but the Special Use Permit is none- the-less allowed to continue. Expanding the grandfathered spa, including short term rental properties, is difficult with the City’s current set of land use ordinances. Over the last decade, or so, several publicly heard solutions were explored. One was to grant a Conditional Use Permit for the houses to operate as B&Bs. And though the Planning Commission approved the use permit, it never issued primarily because a manager did not live on site as required of B&Bs. So, until the City developed the Short Term Home Rental ordinance in 2017, no permitting process fit the situation particularly well. In terms of analyzing a variance request, state statute, state law and the zoning chapter of the city code (Ch 31, Section 208) form the body of documents that define the standards and process. To summarize that body of documents, a variance is only to be granted if both: 1) enforcement of a zoning provision causes a landowner “practical difficulties”; and 2) if permitting the variance would be in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning code and be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 1. Practical difficulties All three factors of the “practical difficulties” test need to be met to permit a variance. I. Reasonableness Applied to the variance request at hand, this factor of the practical difficulties test asks the City to decide if it is reasonable to operate the short term rental properties with extra guests. Perhaps the best way to address this is by posing a series of questions. Can 109 and 125 Owens St S reasonably accommodate the additional guests without increasing the likelihood of disturbing parties, noise, crime or other nuisances for the neighborhood? Would six guests instead of three at 109 Owens, or eight guests instead of seven at 125 Owens be crowded for the houses? Is there enough parking? Staff finds that the answers to the questions are all positive and lead to the conclusion that the use and number of guests is reasonable for the specific properties. It is important to say that the increased number of guests might not be reasonable if property and neighborhood characteristics were different. STHR Use Permit November 9, 2018 Page 6 II. Uniqueness This factor of the test asks the City to judge whether the issue is due to circumstances unique to the property, and that furthermore the uniqueness is not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness of the property stems from the fact that Just For Me Spa is grandfathered into a neighborhood that is residentially zoned (zoning as distinguished from actual land use). And, the property that Just For Me Spa is located on was already used commercially for many decades prior to the purchase by Just For Me Spa in 1991. The grandfathered (i.e. legally non-conforming) commercial status of the property when purchased was not a result of anything that the current landowner did. The issue of number of spa guests at 109 and 125 Owens is driven by guest wishes more than the landowner’s. The guests that experience the spa and want an overnight stay, want to do that with friends. And to be able to offer stays to a range of small group sizes is important to the guests. Therefore, staff finds that neither the uniqueness of the property’s commercial history, nor the small group nature of overnight stays is caused by the landowner. III. Essential character The final factor of the practical difficulties1 test is to determine whether granting the variance would alter the essential character of the area. The subject block and immediate neighborhood have a mixed land use pattern. The map on Page 8 shows this pattern. The east half of the subject block is occupied by Just For Me Spa and its parking lot. This fairly intense commercial use its activity level gives way to the less intense quasi-commercial use of the three short term rental properties on the west side of the block. (There are also two single family houses on the north edge of the block fronting on Myrtle Street.) In practice, Just For Me Spa’s three short term rental properties create a good transitional use from the more intense commercial activity on the 1 A note from the League of Minnesota Cites is in order here. In their 11/15/17 memo on land use variances, they write on Page 4 that: “State statute is clear that economic conditions alone cannot create practical difficulties. Rather, practical difficulties exist only when the three statutory factors are met.” STHR Use Permit November 9, 2018 Page 7 east side of the block to the single family homes on the north edge of the block and on the opposite side of Owens and Ramsey Streets. Another element that characterizes the neighborhood is the system of heavily travelled roads. The block upon which Just For Me Spa is located is bounded on the west by Owens Street (an arterial street), Myrtle Street (an arterial street) and Greeley Street (a major collector street). While it is not uncommon in Stillwater to have arterials and collectors traverse a residential neighborhood, generally speaking it is avoided where possible. But, to have the confluence of three such non- local roads surround a block is absolutely unique in the City to this one block. In short, heavy traffic and a mix of commercial and residential uses is a part of the defining character of this neighborhood. It may also be worth noting here that as motorists or pedestrians make their way along Owens Street in this neighborhood, it would be difficult to identify a difference between the spa’s guest houses on the east side of the street and the single-family houses on the west side of the street. In summary, the guest houses are in keeping with the character of the area. 2. Harmony with other land use controls Both of the factors in the “harmony” test must be met. I. Harmony with Zoning Code The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The specific intent of limiting the number of guests in short term rental properties is to reduce the potential impact of “commercial lodging” on residential neighborhoods. As seen in the existing land use map on the next page, the uses in the neighborhood include a mix of commercial and residential properties. In addition, as mentioned above, there is a convergence of heavily travelled roads at this block. Therefore, the impact of three additional guests at 109 Owens and one extra guest at 125 Owens is minimal given the ambient activity level in the immediate area. II. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan In the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the properties are guided for Low/Medium Density Residential use. But, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan shows the Just For Me Spa property, as well as the three short term STHR Use Permit November 9, 2018 Page 8 rental properties for their guests, as Neighborhood Commercial. If the 2040 Plan is adopted as drafted and reviewed by the City’s Commissions and Council, then a Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District would be developed in the Zoning Code and the property would subsequently be rezoned. Existing Land Uses in Subject Neighborhood ALTERNATIVES A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds approval of the variance and issuance of the Conditional Use Permit to be acceptable, it could approve them with the following conditions: 1. Parking – All guest parking must occur on the subject properties; none on the street. 2. Number of guests – The total occupancy of the properties shall be limited to six at 109 Owens Street South, four at 121 Owens Street South and eight at 125 Owens Street South. 3. Proximity of assistance a. The property owner or a manager/representative must be located within 30 minutes travel time of the property. STHR Use Permit November 9, 2018 Page 9 b. The property owner must provide the name, address and phone number for the owner or manager/representative to all property owners within 150 feet of the lot lines of the vacation rental property. This must be completed within 10 days of issuance of the license. The owner must also provide the community development department with the neighborhood notification list within this 10 day time frame. c. The community development department must be notified within 10 days of a change in the contact information of the owner or manager/representative. The property owner must also notify neighboring properties within 10 days of a change in the contact information of the owner or manager/representative. 4. Garbage - As required by City Code, all garbage must be kept in rubbish containers that are stored out of view of a public street. 5. Signage – No signage identifying the Short Term Home Rental is allowed on the property. 6. Events - Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. For purposes of Short Term Home Rental, an event means a gathering on the premises of more than three un-registered guests. 7. Length of guest stay – The property is not permitted to be rented for a period of less than one whole day. 8. Guest records - The owner must keep guest records including the name, address, phone number, and vehicle license plate information for all guests and must provide a report to the city upon 48 hours’ notice. 9. Guest disclosures The owner must disclose in writing to their guests the following rules and regulations prior to arrival. In addition the disclosures must be conspicuously displayed in the home. 1. The name, phone number and address of the owner, operating or managing agent/representative. 2. The maximum number of overnight guests at the property at a time is limited to six at 109 Owens Street South, four at 121 Owens Street South and eight at 125 Owens Street South. 3. The maximum number of vehicles is limited to four at 109 Owens Street South, four at 121 Owens Street South and four at 125 Owens Street South. These parking spaces must be clearly identified and no on street parking is permitted. 4. Property rules related to use of outdoor features, such as decks, patios, grills, recreational fires, saunas and other recreational facilities. 5. City nuisance ordinances will be enforced by the Stillwater Police Department, including reduced noise levels between 10 PM and 8 AM. 6. No events with more than three unregistered guests are permitted. 10. License number - The owner must post their city license number on all print, poster or web advertisements, in addition to posting it on the booking agent’s website. 11. Lodging tax - The owner, or booking agent on their behalf, is required to pay the city lodging tax quarterly. If no sales are made during a quarter, a report must none-the- less be submitted to the city stating that no sales were made or lodging tax collected during that quarter. STHR Use Permit November 9, 2018 Page 10 12. Conditional Use Permit Expiration - The Conditional Use Permit will expire if the property is not operated as a Short Term Home Rental for a period of twelve consecutive months. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds the request to have incomplete information, the case could be tabled. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the request to be inconsistent with City Code, it could be denied. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that all of the Short Term Home Rental regulations are satisfied; that the variance requests are in harmony with city codes; and that the three-factor practical difficulty test is met. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and the variances with the twelve conditions identified above. Attachments: Location map Patterson letter Application materials cc: Heidi Rosebud David Snyder NORTH OWENS STREETNORTH GREELEY STREETNORTH WILLIAM STREETWEST MYRTLE STREET WEST OLIVE ST WEST OLIVE WEST R ICE ST NORTH SHERBURNE STREETC S A H 5µ 0 180 36090Feet General Site Location Site Location 109 Owens St S 121 Owens St S 125 Owens St S ^ Text 1 Bill Turnblad To:Jenn Sundberg Subject:RE: Case No. CPC/2018-58 From: Susanna Patterson [mailto:susanna.patterson1969@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 6:14 AM To: Jenn Sundberg <jsundberg@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Re: Case No. CPC/2018-58 Re: Case No. CPC/2018-58, Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the properties located at 109, 121 and 125 Owens Street South Dear Ms. Sundberg: We strongly oppose the granting of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Heidi Rosebud, Just For Me Spa, property owner, but we do not believe that the City’s action will have any effect on Ms. Rosebud’s use of these houses. We were surprised to see Heidi Rosebud’s request to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance that would “allow” her to operate her Owens Street properties (109, 121 and 125) as Short Term Home Rentals because she already operates them as Short Term Home rentals, and – if past is prologue – will continue to do so regardless of whether the Variance and Conditional Use Permit are granted or denied. In 2005, she requested the City’s permission to operate a bed-and-breakfast at the 125 Owens Street property. We attended the Planning Commission hearings along with many of our neighbors, raising concerns about parking, noise and traffic. We were puzzled, too, about the appropriateness of the house for a bed and breakfast – at that time it had only two bedrooms, and the yard is quite small. Ultimately, the Planning Commission granted permission – with several stipulations, among them that a resident manager would live in the house and that only one of the two bedrooms would serve as a guest bedroom. These stipulations were ignored by Ms. Rosebud and the house has served as a “party house” since that time. There is not now — nor has there ever been – a resident manager. It is frequently occupied on the weekends, often with five or six vehicles crammed into the small driveway, with additional guest vehicles parked on both sides of Ramsey Street. To believe that the guests are all crammed into the “one guest bedroom” would require quite a leap of faith and a pretty good imagination. Despite complaints to the City Attorney from us and our neighbors, no attempts have been made to enforce the conditions placed upon this “Conditional” Use Permit. The houses at 109 and 121 Owens Street have been used as Short Term Home Rentals since approximately 2006. All three of them are prominently featured on the Just For Me Spa website (www.justformespa.com) with this caption, “Escape for a night or weekend at one of our three on-site destination Spa rental homes.” They have been advertised on the spa website since 2007 at least, and we believe that this will continue unchecked, regardless of any action the City may choose to take on this request. The traffic and parking issues that we anticipated are probably the primary annoyance connected with the spa and its short-term rental houses: Ms. Rosebud, her guests and employees seem to be exempt from parking enforcement. This is particularly evident during alternate-side parking season, when Ramsey Street – a very narrow street – is narrowed down to one lane – by snowbanks on either side. We have called the police department to report violations of the 2 alternate-side parking rule. We have been told, “Oh, well, it’s almost time for them to move to the other side, so we don’t really want to bother them about it,” regardless of what time of day we complain. Throughout the year, employees and guests of the spa frequently attempt to park in front of our driveway – or even in it, and take offense when we ask them to find someplace else to park. The qualitative impact on the character of the neighborhood of having three adjoining houses that are empty most of the time is difficult to define. But when I walk up to Len’s Family Foods on a dark winter evening, it is more than a bit disconcerting to walk past these empty, unlit structures that once housed people that I could call my neighbors. That may seem like a minor detail, but three empty houses in a row contributes to the hollowing-out of a neighborhood and the disintegration of the feeling of community. Thus, we are still wondering what motivated Ms. Rosebud to request this Conditional Use Permit and Variance at this time. The only motive that comes to mind is that she may be trying to sell her enterprise and wishes to make it appear that it is a legitimate venture. That would not alter our opposition to the granting of her request and it would not change in any way the chronic traffic problem nor the negative impact on our neighborhood of having three empty houses in the middle of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Susanna and John Patterson 1018 Olive St. W. Stillwater, MN 55082 (651 )323-7705 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: November 14, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-59 APPLICANT: Brian and Kasey Posch, property owners REQUEST: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be located at 904 Harriet Street South ZONING: RB – Two Family Residential COMP PLAN: Low/Medium Density Residential PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Brian and Kasey Posch own the property at 904 Harriet Street South. While the property contains a single family residence, the Poschs have requested HPC approval of the demolition and reconstruction of the structure. They are also planning to construct a detached garage with a second story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). As a result, they are requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to be located above the garage. 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 13,501 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 accessory structure will be located 10’ from the side (southern) property line and 25’ from the rear (western) property line. • 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 structure is proposed to be located at the midpoint of the lot, behind the primary residence. It will conform to the front (east) side yard setback. • 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. Though it is not shown on the plan, a new driveway is proposed to be located in front of the garage which will accommodate the two additional parking spaces required. CPC Case 2018-59 November 8, 2018 Page 2 The Engineering Department has requested certain conditions of approval regarding the construction of garages and associated driveways. These have been incorporated into the staff recommended conditions of approval. • Maximum size of the garage and ADU is 800 square feet. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is proposed to be 450 square feet. However, as proposed, the garage is approximately 800 square feet. The applicants are aware of the maximum size of the ADU’s garage space as well as the total accessory structure coverage. This will need to occur prior to the release of the building permit so that this structure, in addition to all accessory use coverage, meets the minimum zoning requirements. • The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. The primary residence obtained HPC design permit approval on November 7th. Included in the application was the notation the ADU will have the same level of detail and finish as the primary residence. • The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. The applicants have not submitted scaled elevations of the house and ADU. Though the ADU may be at the same height as the primary residence, the primary residence is situated on top of a hill. Therefore, from the street the house will appear taller than the ADU. • 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. 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, if conditions of approval are met, the accessory structure will meet 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 received three letters from surrounding neighbors. Millie Westcott, 918 Harriet Street South, and The Booher family, 921 Harriet Street South, have expressed support for the project. While Robert Gambone and James Peterson, 622 Churchill, have indicated they are in support of the application, they have expressed a couple concerns with the ADU. Specifically they are worried about the amount of vehicles parked near this property line and they are concerned about the possibility of a rental unit that may not fir the quiet, residential character of the neighborhood. 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. CPC Case 2018-59 November 8, 2018 Page 3 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 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. 2018-59, except as modified by the conditions herein or by approval of the Heritage Preservation Commission. 3. Any retaining walls necessary for the construction of accessory structures and uses shall be located wholly on private property. 4. An erosion control plan 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 total accessory structure size in conformance with the RB – Two Family zoning district of 1,000 square feet unless a variance is obtained prior to the construction of the ADU. iii. The house shall be siding lap and shake siding in similar color and reveal size as the primary residence. iv. The house shall contain similar corner, soffit and fascia boards as the primary residence. v. Windows shall have the same level of detail and trim as the primary residence. 6. All disturbed right-of-way shall be restored to City specifications. If sidewalk is removed, it shall be replaced to ADA standards including, but not limited to, 2% maximum cross slope and 5% max slope. The applicant shall contact the City Engineering Department prior to installation. 7. 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. 8. 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 CPC Case 2018-59 November 8, 2018 Page 4 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 DEcember, 2018 meeting. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that, with certain conditions, the proposed ADU meets the Special Use Permit provisions and recommends approval of Special Use Permit 2018-59 for the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 904 Harriet Street South with the conditions identified above ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Site Plan Proposed Improvement Elevations Public Comment (4 pages) WEST ANDERSON STREET WEST CHURCHILL STREET SOUTH MARTHA STREETSOUTH EVERETT STREETHANCOCK STREET SOUTH MARTHA STREETSOUTH HOLCOMBE STREETSOUTH SEVENTH STREETSOUTH HARRIET STREETWEST CHURCHILL STREET WEST HANCOCK STREET WEST WILLARD STREETSOUTH HARRIET STREETSOUTH HOLCOMBE STREETµ 0 290 580145Feet General Site Location Site Location 904 Harriet St S ^ Text PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 14, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-60 APPLICANT: James Barton, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of Variances for the construction of a garage to be located in the Exterior Side Yard Setback area, to exceed the 25% Maximum Structural Coverage, and to exceed the 10% Maximum Coverage for Accessory Structures for the property located at 125 Martha Street North ZONING: RB – Two-Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Low/Medium Density Res. PREPARED BY: Alex Kohlhaas, Zoning Administrator/Assistant City Planner REQUEST James Barton has applied for variances to construct a 22 foot wide by 32 foot deep garage at the property located at 125 Martha Street North. The applicant is requesting the new garage be located 8 feet from the Rice Street West right-of-way. Thus, the following variances are required:  A 22 foot variance to the 30 foot exterior side yard setback;  A variance to the 25% maximum structural lot coverage for the additional 647.25 square feet of structural surface area, representing a total of 36.93% of the lot area; and  A variance to the 10% maximum lot coverage for accessory buildings for the additional 161.7 square feet of surface area, representing a total of 12.98% of the lot area. Photo: Google Street View, August 2013 CPC November 14, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-60 Page 2 of 4 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Section 31-208, Variances, indicates the Planning Commission may grant a variance, but only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose of an exterior side yard setback and the maximum structural coverage is to maintain an open, unoccupied space for uniform yards for aesthetic open space and environmental benefits, including the preservation of areas for adequate drainage. Garages are encouraged to be located in the back yard of properties, which the proposed garage satisfies. Much of the proposed garage is located in a part of the back yard that is currently occupied by the existing garage, and the exterior side yard setback for the proposed garage is less nonconforming than that for the existing garage. The RB zoning district allows a combined maximum lot coverage of 50% including structural and other impervious surfaces. Considering the size and location of the new driveway and other existing impervious surfaces including the patio and sidewalks, the combined lot coverage with the proposed garage would be 52.2%. If the proposed 169 square foot driveway is replaced by a set of two concrete tire tracks two feet wide each, extending from the proposed garage to the street, the combined lot coverage will be 49.7%. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The property is zoned RB – Two-Family Residential and is guided for Low/Medium Density Residential use. There are no application elements that are contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. “Practical difficulties,” as used 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 proposed two-car garage is a reasonable use for a residential property. An existing 559 square foot garage is located on the property, though it is located less than 3 feet from the exterior side property line and 0 feet from the rear property line. The property owner describes numerous structural problems with the existing garage including a collapsing foundation and CPC November 14, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-60 Page 3 of 4 recurring flooding and, the proposed garage would leave greater setbacks than the existing garage. The platted lot is 43 feet wide; most other lots in this plat are 50 feet wide. Considering current zoning requirements for exterior and interior side yard setbacks of 30 feet and 3 feet respectively for garages, the linear buildable depth for garages in the rear yard of this property is 10 feet; a standard parking space is at least 18 feet deep per design requirements in the Zoning Code. Therefore, no new garage would be possible without variances. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and This property, platted in 1856, is an existing, nonconforming lot of record that is smaller than the RB Two-Family Residential zoning district minimums of 50 feet lot width and 7,500 square feet land area for a single-family home (a discrepancy has been identified between the original platted lot at 5,418 square feet and the registered survey completed by Cornerstone Land Surveying, Inc. dated April 5, 2018 indicating a lot area of 5,423 square feet.) The original 1,016 square foot house was constructed in 1882, which represents 18.74% of the total lot area. The existing 559 square foot garage was constructed in 1976 and occupies 10.31% of the lot, though it conformed to the City Code in effect at the time of construction. The applicant purchased this property in 1998. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. With the increased setbacks of the proposed garage, the proposed garage would remain consistent with other garages in the neighborhood. This includes others along this block of Rice Street West located in the exterior side yard setback and in excess of 10% maximum lot coverage for accessory buildings. The applicant has also submitted renderings of the proposed garage that indicate similar materials as the principal structure and has stated that he will give the same attention to detail to the proposed garage as to the house. Section 31-208 further indicates:  Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.  A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make the finding that practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a 22 foot variance to the 30 foot exterior side yard setback and variances to the 25% maximum structural lot coverage and 10% maximum lot coverage for CPC November 14, 2018 CPC Case No. 2018-60 Page 4 of 4 accessory buildings for the construction of a 704 square foot garage, with or without conditions. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2018-60. b. Driveway design shall be a set of concrete tire tracks no greater than 2 feet wide each extending from the proposed garage to the street, with the remaining area of the existing driveway restored to pervious surface. c. Design features of the proposed garage including but not limited to siding, trim, fascia and soffit boards will match the primary structure. d. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. e. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the 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 that the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan, and that the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends conditional approval of the variances associated with CPC Case No. 2018-60 for the construction of a detached garage to be located in the rear of the property. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Site Plan Rendering WEST RICE STREETNORTH HARRIET STREETNORTH MARTHA STREETNORTH EVERETT STREETWEST M Y R T L E S T R E E T µ 0 170 34085Feet General Site Location Site Location 125 Martha St N ^ Text