Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-15 CPC Packet Special Meeting PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North July 15th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of May 22nd, 2019 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. 2019-21: Consideration of a Variance to the rear yard setback to add a 12’ addition to the rear of the home located at 420 Linden St W. Property located in the RB district. Kurt Klitzke, (former) property owner and Doug and Cheryl Marsh, applicant. 3. Case No. 2019-24: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental on the property located at 437 2nd St S in the RB district. Brian Brosdahl, property owner. 4. Case No. 2019-28: Consideration of Variances for the front and side yard setbacks to construct a new detached garage on the property. Property located at 410 Linden St W in the RB district. Chris Rustad, property owner. 5. Case No. 2019-29: Consideration of a variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage. Property located at 1435 Curve Crest BLVD in the BP-I district. Packard Properties, LLC, property owner, and Stiglich Construction, Inc., applicant. 6. Case No. 2019-30: Consideration of a Variance to the Front Yard Setback. Property located at 515 3rd St S, in the RB district. ELIN Marco Group, property owner and Patrick Schmeichel, applicant. 7. Case No. 2019-31: Consideration of a Resubdivision of parcel into two lots, Variance o the maximum allowed building coverage and Variance to lot size for second lot. Property located in at 1422 Martha St N in the RB district. Sally Studtman, property owner and Nancy Millard, applicant. VI. NEW BUSINESS 8. Case No. 2019-27: Consideration of a Short Term Home Rental Type B license application. Property located at 316 William St N in the RB district. Dana Mattingly, property owner. VII. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION VIII. FYI – STAFF UPDATES – (NO PACKET MATERIALS) IX. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 22, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hansen, Kocon and Meyhoff; Councilmember Collins Absent: Commissioner Hade Staff: City Planner Wittman ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to nominate Commissioner Lauer as Chair. Motion passed 6-0. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Chairman Lauer, to nominate Commissioner Dybvig as Vice Chair. Motion passed 6-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of April 23, 2019 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve the April 23, 2019 meeting minutes. Motion passed 5-0-1 with Commissioner Kocon abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2019-15: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a commercial recreational business on the property located at 123 2nd St N in the CBD district. Judd Sather, property owner and Sara Jespersen, applicant. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. Sara Jespersen is requesting an amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for an additional commercial recreational business to be incorporated into the approved commercial catering kitchen/restaurant. The business would be the Lumberjack, an axe throwing establishment. A mechanical utility enclosure is located on the southeast side of the building which will include hood exhaust, air intake, and a generator for the building. It is proposed to be open to the alley and there has been concern about generator noise in the alley. 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 with eight conditions and possibly a ninth condition for the mechanical area. Chairman Lauer asked if noise from mechanical equipment is currently a problem. Ms. Wittman said staff is not aware that it is currently a problem, however, mechanical equipment is usually on top of a building. The property owner has gotten most equipment inside or above the Planning Commission May 22, 2019 Page 2 of 5 building but venting new equipment for the lowest level up to the rooftop is impractical because the second and third floors are already built out. Sara Jespersen, 1104 Meadowlark Drive, applicant, explained that the Lumberjack will showcase the area’s lumbering history and will be focused on safety. Councilmember Collins asked about the setup of the axe throwing booths and the possibility of an axe richocheting back. Ms. Jespersen said they will have a special absorbent flooring to minimize bounce, and rubber material hanging from the ceiling so if an axe is thrown high it will fall directly to the floor. They are following the rules of the World Axe Throwing Federation. Commissioner Meyhoff asked what the generator is used for. Ms. Jespersen said it is an emergency generator. Mr. Sather added that, due to the occupancy level, they the generator is required to provide egress in case of emergency. It would be used only in the event of a power outage. He asked for explanation of the possible condition requiring a four-sided enclosure. Ms. Wittman said one of the commissioners suggested it as a condition of approval to help reduce trash visibility and noise in the alley. Mr. Sather said they plan to try to clean up Union Alley of existing garbage cans, possibly through a shared garbage unit. That is why they wish to leave the fourth wall of the trash enclosure open. Ms. Jespersen suggested waiting to resolve the trash enclosure issue until after they have talked to all the surrounding property owners to figure out a solution. Ms. Wittman concurred that staff is comfortable moving forward as long there is discussion. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve Case No. 2019-15, Special Use Permit to operate a commercial recreational business on the property located at 123 2nd St N., with the eight conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #9, stating “The air-handling, electrical, and hood equipment being installed in the southeast corner shall be enclosed on all four sides. A functional gate can be used for access to the utility patio.” Motion passed 6-0. Case No. 2019-18: Consideration of a Variance to the exterior side yard setback to rebuild garage on the property located at 503 4th St N located in the RB district. Sheryl Weitzel, property owner and Paul Gunderson, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicant is proposing to tear down an existing 16’ by 18’ garage and reconstruct a 22’ by 22’ garage in its place. This would require a variance to City Code Section 31- 308(b)(1) to allow for a garage to be set back 26’ from the front lot line, whereas a 30’ front yard setback is required. Staff finds that the application is in harmony with the intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant has established practical difficulty and the proposal does not alter the essential character of the locality. Therefore, staff recommends approval with four conditions. Paul Gunderson, applicant, 12863 Keller Avenue, Hugo, said the entire house will have new siding, soffit and fascia. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Planning Commission May 22, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2019-18, Variance to the exterior side yard setback to rebuild garage on the property located at 503 4th St N, with the four staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed 6-0. Case No. 2019-19: Consideration of a Variance to the front and exterior setback for the reconstruction of a garage on the property located at 116 Harriet St N in the RB district. Daniel and Allison Boblit, property owner and Jim Barton, applicant. –Tabled to June meeting per applicants’ request Case No. 2019-21: Consideration of a Variance to the rear yard setback to add a 12’ addition to the rear of the home located at 420 Linden St W in the RB district. Kurt Klitzke, property owner and Doug and Cheryl Marsh, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicants are proposing to construct an addition that will extend 12’ further into the required rear yard setback of the house at 420 Linden Street West. This would require a variance to City Code Section 31-308(b)(1) to allow for the main building to be set back 13’ from the rear yard, where a 25’ rear yard setback is required. Staff is impartial on recommendation of a variance to the rear yard setback for the construction of the addition, because there are concerns. Public comments were received from the Coxes, neighbors to the north, expressing concern about the mature red cedar and black walnut trees experiencing root damage, and concern about the drainage impacts to their home which is significantly downhill from the site. An additional concern is that the home was constructed in 1992 but there is no survey of the property to verity that the home was originally constructed in compliance with setback provisions at the time. The City agreed to a new drainage plan for this property in 2006 directing drainage away from the property. The property owners feel that adding gables and gutters on the addition will channel the runoff to the northeast, protecting the property owner to the north. They will also put a downspout on the west side of the home to direct water underground to the northeast side of their property. Staff recommends that if the variance is approved, seven conditions be imposed. Chairman Lauer asked if there are existing drainage problems. Ms. Wittman replied staff is not aware of any continuing drainage problems since the 2006 drainage plan was approved for construction of the garage. Gutters and downspouts will help, but all runoff cannot be captured on site. Commissioner Hansen remarked that if approved, he would like to see the drainage plan specify that its goal is to protect the property owner to the north and direct drainage more to the east. He also asked why the variance is 13’ while the survey would be required to verify there is a minimum of 10 feet from the property line? Ms. Wittman responded the property corners cannot be verified because there are no survey markers. Aerial imagery shows the back fence is off the property. Because there is a 2-3’ discrepancy in aerial imagery, staff would like to require a survey. Chairman Lauer asked if the proposal will exceed impervious surface coverage limits. Ms. Wittman replied the proposal will not put the project over the 25% threshold. Commissioner Kocon pointed out that the gabled roof across the entire back will drain east and west and help the drainage situation. Doug Marsh, 1421 Bay Drive, Forest Lake, applicant, said current roof drains toward the neighbors. A gabled roof will help redirect the drainage. In addition the driveway pavers are open. The 12’ is asking for is only 9’ off the jut-out in the back of the house right now. The addition won’t show from the street. He is willing to consider the proposed conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Planning Commission May 22, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Becky Dawson Cox and Glenn Cox, 417 W. Cherry Street, stated when the house was built the lot was raised considerably. A berm was built but it is long gone and now there is a steep slope from the house toward their basement. Their big concerns are the possible impacts on a 100+ year black walnut tree almost on the lot line, which they will probably lose if the root line is compromised; a 50+ year old cedar right between the houses that provides the only screening; and drainage into their property. Water has been an issue ever since the house was built. They have no basement drain. The whole back of the proposed addition site is covered in landscape rock or pavers. There is lot of space in front and they would like the applicants to consider building onto the front of the house instead. There were no other public comments. The hearing was closed. Commissioner Dybvig noted he is uncomfortable with the variance because the slope in the back is already fairly steep. A rear addition would make the hill behind the building even steeper. If the front wall were moved further forward it would not contribute to drainage problems in the rear. He would like to see a drainage plan in advance of any approvals. Commissioner Kocon commented he doesn’t understand why the house was built the way it was in the first place. It is a large lot with an incredibly short slope. The gabled roof would help, but there still would be no place for absorption of the drainage. He cannot support the variance. Commissioner Hansen pointed out there is room to build out the front of the home but it would require a complete gutting of the house so it is not really an option. Requiring a drainage plan may help resolve existing drainage issues. There are ways in which granting the variance might solve some of the existing problems. He would prefer to have a survey and drainage plan before approval. Commissioner Kocon expressed concern about the impact of construction on the roots of the large trees. Mr. Marsh stated there would only be a crawlspace under the addition. Commissioner Hansen asked the applicant, if a survey and drainage plan were required, would he accept those costs without a guarantee of approval? Mr. Marsh said he would like to have a survey done. Commissioner Meyhoff suggested the city forester look at the trees to determine potential impacts. City Planner Wittman said the Commission has 60 days and must act on this application by June 25. The 60 days may be extended if necessary. Motion by Councilmember Kocon, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to table Case No. 2019-21, Variance to the rear yard setback to add a 12’ addition to the rear of the home located at 420 Linden St W., to request a survey, a drainage plan to be reviewed by the City Engineer, and an assessment by the City Forester regarding the impact of the crawlspace on the trees. Motion passed 6-0. Case No. 2019-23: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to amend city code pertaining to the citing of wireless towers. City of Stillwater, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that there are inconsistencies in the City Code regarding wireless towers. While one section indicates towers and antenna are preferred on public lands, other sections of the code indicate they are outright prohibited on public lands. City staff is seeking to clarify in which public districts antennas and towers are allowed to be located. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a favorable recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Zoning Text Amendment to City Code Sections 31-325, Allowable uses in non-residential district, and Section 31-512, Regulation of radio and television towers. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing and, with no public comment, closed the hearing. Planning Commission May 22, 2019 Page 5 of 5 Commissioner Dybvig asked if ham radio towers are covered under the code. Ms. Wittman replied she is not sure and will check into it with City Attorney Land. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2019-23, Zoning Text Amendment to amend city code pertaining to the citing of wireless towers, with clarification from the City Attorney regarding whether the proposed new title will preclude ham radio users and/or other radio/television services. Motion passed 6-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2019-16: Consideration of an amendment to City Code Chapter 31, Zoning, and Chapter 35, Stormwater Drainage, specifically affecting the stormwater design standards and submittal, review, and permitting processes and requirements. City of Stillwater, applicants. --Tabled from the April meeting. City Planner Wittman stated that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requires that the City of Stillwater adopt stormwater infiltration regulations. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2019-16, amendment to City Code Chapter 31, Zoning, and Chapter 35, Stormwater Drainage. Motion passed 6-0. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION There were no other items of discussion. FYI STAFF UPDATES Comprehensive Plan Update Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the six month review time for the Comprehensive Plan is over. Comments from adjacent communities indicated no major concerns, only minor issues that were able to be addressed. The City Council held a public hearing on May 7, 2019 to adopt the draft plan and authorize its release to the Metropolitan Council for review. The complete draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is available on the City’s website. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 p.m. All in favor, 6-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-21 REPORT DATE: July 8, 2019 MEETING DATE: July 15, 2019 APPLICANT: Doug + Cheryl Marsh LAND OWNER: Doug + Cheryl Marsh REQUEST: 12 foot variance to the rear yard setback for an addition to be 13 feet from front lot line. ZONING: RB: Two-Family Res. PREPARED BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Doug and Cheryl Marsh are requesting a variance to the rear yard setback in order to construct an addition onto the back of the house. This property has had two variances in the past. The first variance was for an addition that projected 3’8” into the rear yard setback. The second variance was for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit located in front of the midpoint of the primary dwelling unit. One of the conditions of approval for this second variance was that a drainage plan had to be submitted and approved by the city engineer; and the subsequent submitted drainage plan indicated most of the runoff would drain off the property to the east side. On May 22nd, 2019, the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Doug and Cheryl Marsh to add a 12 foot addition to the rear of the house that would extend the house to 13 feet from the rear lot line. At that time the Planning Commission tabled the case to request a survey, a drainage plan to be reviewed by the City Engineer, and an assessment by the City Forester regarding the impact of the crawlspace on the trees. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant has made a request for consideration of the following variances to City Code Section 31 308(b)(1): Case No. 2019-21 Page 2 of 5 - To allow for an addition to be built 13 feet from the rear property line, where a 25 foot setback is required. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical difficulties” in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a “practical difficulty”. a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? The use of the property, as a single family residence in a single family residential neighborhood, is reasonable. The allowance for an addition to the rear of the home is also reasonable, since the two bedrooms in the house are small in size. Though, it is important to note the rear yard will be reduced by 50%, which does create some degree of concern. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property is very unique with, both, the size of the house and the location of the house. Firstly, the house is small for the neighborhood in which it is located; it is 715 square feet with two 70 square foot bedrooms. In comparison, the other houses on this block have an average house size of 1208 square feet. Secondly, the house is set back unusually far from the front property line, at a distance of 45 feet. In comparison, the other houses on this block have an average front setback of about 20 feet. The location of the house being setback a sizable distance from the front property line situates the house close to the rear property line. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The need for a rear yard setback variance is not of the landowner’s doing, because the house is uniquely small and adding an addition to the front of the house would require a complete remodel of the house. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The proposed addition is to be located in the rear of the property and will not visually alter the property when viewing from the street. Therefore the proposed addition will have no impact to the essential character of the overall neighborhood. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? It is true that building the addition in the front of the house would be more expensive, however, it is not the lone consideration in this case. Adding to the front of the house would completely change the design and character of this house when viewed from the street. Case No. 2019-21 Page 3 of 5 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? Rear yard setback The specific purpose of the Rear Yard Setback is to have larger open space in the rear of the property for visual appeal, household enjoyment, drainage, as well as to prevent construction within close proximity to adjacent properties. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The construction of the proposed addition originally raised concerns about drainage, but a drainage plan was submitted by the applicant and was approved by the city engineer. Though, it is important to note, the size of the rear yard will be significantly reduced and the house will lay 12 feet closer to the neighboring property. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT The city received two public comments: a. 417 West Cherry Street, Glenn and Becci Cox- This property is directly behind 420 Linden St West. There were concerns that a black walnut and a cedar tree would be negatively affected by the proposed addition. Furthermore, there were concerns about existing drainage problems being worsened due to the proposed addition. b. Kurt Klitzke, former owner- Stated that the property is currently at zero runoff to the rear property and believes this proposed addition would not create drainage issues. Case No. 2019-21 Page 4 of 5 POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2019-21. 2. The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 3. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 4. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 5. Any impervious surfaces (which shall include the rock garden and turf pavers) that result in over 50% lot coverage, will be required to be treated by on-site stormwater improvements such as a raingarden. Therefore, if the impervious surface exceeds 50% on the property, then the applicant will be responsible for amending the submitted drainage plan to reflect onsite treatment of stormwater. 6. Adjusting the drainage plan to reflect the city engineer’s recommendation of moving the grates to the corners of the proposed addition. A. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. B. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Since the last meeting, when the case was tabled, there have been three findings that has directed staff in their analysis of this case:  A drainage plan was submitted and was approved by the city engineer. It was found that, with the proposed drainage plan, the addition will have no negative impacts on the neighbors. These plans include adding gables and gutters that will channel water away from the property to the north. In addition, it shows the installation of grates that connect to sub-surface PVC pipes, which funnel the water east and away from the neighboring property. However it was recommended moving the grates to the corners of the proposed addition (especially the Southwest grate), in order to pick up the runoff quicker.  The City Forrester, James Burks, inspected the site and analyzed the proposed addition’s impact to a black walnut and a white cedar. It was determined that the magnitude of the proposed construction would not impact the two trees enough to threaten their health (both of which trees already display show somewhat sparse crowns and dead wood). Case No. 2019-21 Page 5 of 5  Mr. Marsh was able to locate his property pins and determine the location of his rear property line. The property line is accurately reflected in the original plans that were submitted. Staff recommends approval of a variance to the rear yard setback for the construction of an addition at 420 Linden Street West. Staff recommends that if the variance is approved that all the conditions stated above be imposed. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Site Photos (5 pages) Public Comment (2 pages) Drainage Plan James Burke’s Tree analysis City Engineer’s Drainage Plan Approval Letter CHERRY STREET STREET W E S T C H E R R Y 614 451 327407 422 420424 417 506 411 424 502 610 428616 410 504 510 µ 0 125 25062.5 Feet General Site Location Site Location 420 Linden St W ^ Te xt 1 Jenn Sundberg From:Kurt Klitzke <kurt.klitzke@mac.com> Sent:Friday, May 17, 2019 2:59 PM To:Jenn Sundberg Cc:Abbi Wittman; Graham Tait; Nancie Klitzke; dmarsh888@msn.com Subject:Re: 5/22/2019 CPC Packet Available Hi Jenn, Thank you for forwarding the information packet to me. A few things I would add is that the packet questioned the rear lot line. Per our building permit issued for the auxiliary building (garage) in 2006 by the City of Stillwater the privacy fence is approximately 2 feet from the lot line. The stakes delineating the lot lines are still present. It also mentions a 3.8 foot variance on the house. The variance was on the garage, the configuration of the house today is as it was when the original house was permitted and built in 1992. Additionally at present the lot is currently “zero run off” as submitted to and approved the City of Stillwater engineer in an engineering plan for the issuance of the permit (as amended) in 2006. It was done by mutual agreement with the city after several issues that occurred prior to final landscaping to appease the owner to the east of us. There is more than adequate ability to prevent any run off from any additional roof surface. This can be ascertained by revue of the engineering plan on file with the city engineer. Please feel free to contact if you need further clarifications. Best regards, Kurt Kurt Klitzke 612 868-6962 Kurt W S Klitzke Sent from my iPad On May 17, 2019, at 14:35, Jenn Sundberg <jsundberg@ci.stillwater.mn.us> wrote: Greetings, You are receiving this email as you have interest in an application that will be before the Planning Commission on Wednesday, May 22nd, 2019 at 7pm in the City Hall Council Chambers, address listed below. A copy of the materials distributed to the Commission is available by clicking here. 1 Graham Tait From:James Burks <jlburks@q.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 5:27 PM To:Shawn Sanders; Abbi Wittman Subject:Potential Impacts of addition on existing trees on property to north. Abbi, Shawn, We met this morning with the potential buyer of the home in question and discussed his construction plans for the rear of the house( (a crawl space storage area). Per the potential buyer, the work would include footers only as close as 17’ away from the nearest trees in question. (no slab will be necessary for the project). You asked me to address likely consequences to the approximately 22” diameter-breast-height black walnut and the approximately 16” dbh white cedar Both trees show somewhat sparse crowns and dead wood. The proposed construction would of course act as a stressor to the trees; but in my professional opinion, not significant enough to threaten the health of these two trees. James Burks, Forester Sent from Mail for Windows 10 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avg.com 1 Jenn Sundberg From:Abbi Wittman Sent:Thursday, June 06, 2019 2:10 PM To:Graham Tait; 'dmarsh888@msn.com' Cc:Jenn Sundberg Subject:FW: 420 Linden Street Attachments:4457_001.pdf Graham and Mr. Marsh: Here are comments from the City Engineer for the file. Abbi Abbi Jo Wittman P: 651-430-8822 F: 651-430-8810 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us From: Shawn Sanders Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 2:03 PM To: Abbi Wittman <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: FW: 420 Linden Street Abbi, This is what we talked about when I met with them the other day. Moving the gates to the corners, at least the Southwest grate would pick up the runoff quicker. Shawn Sanders Director of Public Works City of Stillwater Office 651 430-8835 E-mail ssanders@ci.stillwater.mn.us From: Abbi Wittman Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 1:56 PM To: Shawn Sanders <ssanders@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Cc: Graham Tait <gtait@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: 420 Linden Street Shawn: Attached is a drainage plan for the potential rear yard addition to 420 Linden Street West. Would you take a look and provide comment as to whether or not it would adequately address drainage concerns in the rear of the property? PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-24 REPORT DATE: June 21, 2019 MEETING DATE: July 15th, 2019 APPLICANT: Brian Brosdahl LANDOWNER: Brian Brosdahl REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Type C Short Term Home Rental LOCATION: 437 South 2nd Street ZONING: RB, Two-Family Residential REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Brian Brosdahl owns the single- family residence at 437 South 2nd Street (seen at right). The property at the corner of Pine Street and Chilikoot Hill1 currently operates with license as a Type B Short Term Home Rental (aka. vacation rental). However, Mr. Brosdahl would like to upgrade the property to a Type C license. A Type C vacation rental requires both a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Type C license to operate. The CUP runs indefinitely with the property in its chain of title, whereas the license is issued for a three year period to a specific vacation rental operator. The license can be issued administratively by City staff, but the CUP can only be approved by the Planning Commission after holding a public hearing. 1 The author recognizes that this spelling is not consistent with the geographic namesake in Alaska. None-the-less, long-time Stillwater residents refer to the 2nd Street hill as “Chilikoot Hill”. Case No. 2019-24 Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST Mr. Brosdahl requests the Planning Commission to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Type C Short Term Home Rental at 437 S. 2nd Street. ANALYSIS A Type C vacation rental license can be issued for a property in Stillwater if: 1) A Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the Planning Commission; 2) The Conditional Use Permit has not lapsed [in those instances where a license renewal is being requested, or a new owner wishes to operate the vacation rental]; and 3) The total number of STHR licenses does not exceed the limit. The Planning Commission’s role in the vacation rental licensing process is to review and either approve or deny the property owner’s request for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicable review standards for the STHR Conditional Use Permit, per the Licensing Chapter of the City Code, Section 41-8, include: A. Zoning Type C Short Term Home Rentals are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in all Residential Zoning Districts and in the Downtown CBD Zoning District. The subject property is zoned RB, Two-Family Residential. 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. This vacation rental property proposes to offer seven bedrooms to guests. So, six off-street parking spaces are required. This property has at least 10 code compliant parking spaces, which includes nine dimensionally standard parking lot spaces and one in the garage. The application form notes that there are 18 off-street spaces available for guest parking. And, this may be physically possible but not convenient or practical, since double parking would Case No. 2019-24 Page 3 occur and cars would be blocked from exiting without moving multiple cars. Non-the-less, there are at least 10 spaces that are standard, accessible spaces. And, only six spaces are required. Therefore there is sufficient parking on the lot. Number of guests The maximum number of guests allowed is limited to two times the number of bedrooms plus one. So, with seven bedrooms, the maximum number of guests for the house will be 15. This number is consistent with the total number of guests that the owners have indicated on their application form. 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 owners will also be the managers of this vacation rental. Since they will live next door just to the north of this house, they meet this standard. Signage No signage is allowed on the property of a Type A, B or C Short Term Home Rental. None is proposed. C. Events Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. For purposes of the vacation rental ordinance, an event means a gathering of more than three un-registered guests. Events hosted by the property owner are allowed, but must abide by all applicable city ordinances and polices, including the prohibition on renting residential property for events. D. Proof of Insurance Proof of appropriate and sufficient insurance was submitted with the use permit application form. E. Safety Inspection The safety inspection was completed and corrections were made and approved for the Type B license. However, the Type B license was issued for only five bedrooms. Consequently, the house will need to be inspected again to verify that the two additional rooms have code compliant egress. This will have to be completed prior to issuance of the Type C license. F. Total Number of STHR Licenses Though there is no limit on the total number of Conditional Use Permits that can be issued for Type C vacation rentals, there is a current limit of fifteen Type C licenses. And, currently all fifteen have been issued. Case No. 2019-24 Page 4 However, a pending ordinance amendment has been reviewed and given conceptual approval by the City Council which will increase the number to twenty-five. Fifteen of these may be issued in residential neighborhoods, and ten Downtown. Currently five Type C licenses have been issued for Downtown and ten in residential neighborhoods. So, when the ordinance is formally adopted by the City Council on July 16th, a Type C license will be available for this residentially zoned property. In summary, as long as the two additional sleeping areas are approved for egress by the City Building Department, all standards are met. And soon, Type C licenses ought to be available. POSSIBLE ACTIONS A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds issuance of the Conditional Use Permit to be acceptable, it could approve the use permit with the following conditions: 1. Parking – All guest parking must occur on the subject property; none on the street. 2. Number of guests – If the City’s Building Department inspects the two additional sleeping areas being proposed as part of this upgrade from the current Type B license to a Type C license, and finds them to be code compliant, then the total occupancy of the property will be a maximum of fifteen. If the two additional sleeping areas are not found code compliant, then the total number of guests shall be limited to two times the number of sleeping areas found to be code compliant, plus one additional guest. 3. Proximity of assistance a. The property owner or a manager/representative must be located within 30 minutes travel time of the property. 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. Case No. 2019-24 Page 5 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 on the property at a time is limited to fifteen. 3. All guest parking must occur on the property. No guest parking is allowed on the street. 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. 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 the City’s vacation rental regulations, it could be denied. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION As long as the two additional sleeping areas are found acceptable to the City Building Department, staff finds the City’s vacation rental regulations to be satisfied and therefore recommends approval of the CUP with the conditions listed in Alternative A above. Attachments: Location Map Application materials cc: Brian Brosdahl P IN E S T R E E T E A S TSECOND STREET SOUTHN E L S O N S T SOUTH C S A H 23N E L S O N A L L E YE O L IV E S T E A S T W A L N U T S T R E E T N E L S O N S T R E E T MAIN STREETS OUTH BROADWAY STREET110 101 611 423 437 515 402 207 205 324 603 322 425 502 610 604519 207 302 609 428 615 113 430 438 522 516 623 301301301301 301301 301 301 509 517 435 206 620 109 509 413 445 507 527 510 441 509 518515 520 210 437 419 119 123 101101 101101 604 305317 516 315 321 401 505 206 311 275 301 406 239 400 µ 0 210 420105Feet General Site Location Site Location 437 2nd St S ^ Te xt PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-28 REPORT DATE: July 9, 2019 MEETING DATE: July 15, 2019 APPLICANT: Chris Rustad LAND OWNER: Chris Rustad REQUEST: a) 18 foot variance for detached garage to be 12 feet from front lot line. b) Four foot variance for detached garage (in front yard) to be one foot from the interior side yard. c) Variance to allow 33.43% structural coverage rather than 25%. ZONING: RB: Two-Family Res. PREPARED BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION The applicant at 410 Linden Street West is proposing to construct a detached garage that will match the setback of the front wall of the existing house. The garage is required to have a 30 foot front yard setback and a 5 foot side yard setback. The proposed location of the garage would extend 18 feet into the required front yard and four feet into the required side yard setback. In addition, the construction of this garage will increase the structural coverage 8.43% over the allowed 25%. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant has made a request for consideration of the following variances to City Code Section 31 308(b)(1): - To allow for a detached garage to be setback one foot from the interior side property line, where a five foot side yard setback is required (when the garage is located in the front yard). - To allow for a detached garage to be setback 12 feet from the front property line, where a thirty foot setback is required. - To allow for an increase in impervious structural coverage to 33.43%, where the maximum structural coverage is 25%. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical difficulties” in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a “practical difficulty”. a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? The use of the property, as a single family residence in a single family residential neighborhood, is reasonable. The allowance for the construction of a garage is also reasonable, since the property currently has no garage or driveway. In addition, parking safely on the street is challenging due to the street making a ninety degree turn just east of the property; especially in the winter during single-side parking months. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property is unique, in both the slope of the property in the southern portion and the small size of the lot. The slope of the property and location of the house makes it impossible to situate the garage within the setbacks without undertaking a significant grading project and adding a substantial amount of impervious surface thru the installation of a driveway. Also to note, the property is only 5,600 square feet, notably smaller than the minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The small lot size makes the property susceptible to exceeding the maximum allowed structural coverage. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The need for a side yard and front yard setback variance and a lot coverage variance is not of the landowner’s doing. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The garage will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood already consists of a decent proportion of its properties with garages at or in front of the front house line (refer to picture below). Also the location of the property being at the end of a street, where two streets meet at a ninety degree angle with no intersection, deemphasizes the property’s impact on the overall neighborhood. Lastly, the garage is proposed to be built with architectural elements consistent with a house from the late 1800’s, which will keep the property uniform with the houses on Linden to the west of the property. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? It is true that placing the garage further into the back yard would be more expensive, however, it is not the lone consideration in this case. Placing the garage further into the back yard would increase impervious surface due to the the associated longer driveway and it would require the removal of tress adjacent to the bluff. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? Side yard setback The specific purpose of a side yard setback for garages is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits, as well as to prevent development too close to the adjacent property. Since the property abutting this side yard is city-owned open space, the required side yard setback is not as imperative. Front yard setback The specific purpose of a front yard setback for garages is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for A look down Harriet St. (the perpendicular street in front of 410 Linden ) aesthetic and environmental benefits, and additionally, to help ensure residential lots are not dominated by accessory structures. Impervious coverage The specific purpose of the maximum lot coverage is to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? A variance to allow a one foot side yard setback would be in harmony with the zoning code because the adjacent property is city owned open space. A variance to allow a 12 foot front yard setback and have the front of the garage line up with the front of the house would be in harmony with many of the basic purposes for front yard setbacks within this district. Granting a variance for increased impervious coverage would be harmony with the Zoning Code because, while the proposed garage will increase the structural coverage to 33.43%, there is very little non- structural impervious coverage existing. The overall impervious coverage will remain below 50%. c. If granted, would the proposed variances be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT None were submitted. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2019-28. 2. The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 3. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 4. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a variance to the front yard setback, side yard setback, and impervious surface coverage for the construction of a detached garage at 410 Linden Street West. Staff recommends that if the variance is approved that all the conditions stated above be imposed. Attachments: Application Site Location Map Applicant Narrative (2 pages) Site Plan Garage Building Plan (7 pages) CC: Chris Rustad STREET STREET W E S T C H E R R Y 614 327 451 407 422 420424 417 502 506 411 414424 301 428 410 504 610 410 510 µ 0 125 25062.5 Feet General Site Location Site Location 410 Linden St W ^ Te xt PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-29 REPORT DATE: June 19, 2019 MEETING DATE: July 15th, 2019 APPLICANT: Stiglich Construction, Inc. LANDOWNER: Packard Properties, LLC BUSINESS: Culligan REQUEST: Variance to allow 5.1% increase in impervious coverage LOCATION: 1435 Curve Crest Boulevard ZONING: BP-I, Business Park - Industrial REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION In 1989 Stiglich Construction built the Culligan facility at 1435 Curve Crest Boulevard. The City issued a Certificate of Compliance for the property, per Case CPC 1989-51. In 1989 a future addition was contemplated and included on the site plan for the Certificate of Compliance. Culligan is now ready to have the additional warehouse space. So, the property owner plans to build an addition, which is a bit smaller than envisioned in the 1989 site plan, but in the same location. However, upon examination, it was discovered that the proposed addition and associated driveway expansion exceed the 60% impervious coverage allowed on the property. SPECIFIC REQUEST A variance to allow 63% impervious coverage, whereas City Code Sec. 31-308, (b) 1 permits a maximum of 60% building coverage. The actual requested coverage is 35,732 square feet, whereas a maximum of 34,013.4 square feet would be allowed on the 56,689 square foot parcel. This represents a variance of 1,718.6 square feet, or a 5.1% increase over the 34,013.4 square feet permitted. Case No. 2019-29 Page 2 ANALYSIS The Planning Commission is responsible for hearing and deciding on the variance request. The variance review criteria are found in City Code Sec. 31-208 and are reproduced below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical difficulties” in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a “practical difficulty”. a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? The approved site plan from 1989 is shown here next to the current proposal. 1989 Site Plan 2019 Proposal Case No. 2019-29 Page 3 Though the size and location of the addition is generally the same as envisioned in 1989, actually smaller, the site plan at that time did not include the extra 1,207 square feet of bituminous necessary to bring pavement up to the warehouse doors. Without this extra (necessary) pavement, the coverage of the property would be 60.9%. Since it addition was envisioned when approved in 1989, it seems reasonable to allow to actually be built. And, the extra pavement that makes the warehouse doors usable is also, therefore, reasonable to allow. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? Desiring more impervious cover than is allowed on a property is not unique. But, the circumstances associated with the site plan that was already approved by the City do create a rather unique situation. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The City could have remarked in 19689 that the future addition could not be built as envisioned. So, the landowner’s current design is in reliance upon that former decision. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The size of the variance is minimal and the addition meets all required height and setback standards. So, there should be no alteration of the essential character of the neighborhood. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? City staff does not find that the only consideration for requesting the variance in based in economics. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The building coverage standard has two major purposes: 1) maintain open spaces, and 2) prevent poor stormwater management practices. The open space being preserved is so close to the minimum 40% that it would not be visually noticeable. But, the increased impervious area could have an impact upon stormwater runoff. The increased runoff will need to be captured and treated on site in keeping with Brown’s Creek Watershed District rules and guidelines. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? For reasons stated above, staff believes the two variances would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? There are no known Comprehensive Plan elements that would suggest the minor coverage variance should not be approved. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned BP-I, Business Park – Industrial. The zoning district allows the office/warehouse uses present and proposed for expansion. Case No. 2019-29 Page 4 POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variance with the following conditions: 1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file for CPC Case No. 2019-29 in the Community Development Department. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Brown’s Creek Watershed District must review and approve the stormwater management plans. 3. Major modifications to the approved variance must be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per City Code Section 31-204, Subd. 7. Minor modifications must be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. B. Deny the requested variance. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the variance to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in compliance with the variance review criteria, and compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends Alternative A. Attachments: Location map Plan set ORLEANS CTCU RV EBENSON BOULEVARD EASTCURVECRESTB O U L E V A R D NORTHWESTERN AVENUEINDUSTRIALBLVDWEST ORLEANS ST11981460 1875 1395 1826 1677 1500 1730 1745 1770 1435 1775 1835 1815 1809 1875 1301 133013601390 1825 1845 1300157215431549155515791561153715671573 µ 0 260 520130Feet General Site Location Site Location 1435 Curve Crest Blvd ^ PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: CPC 2019-30 REPORT DATE: June 19, 2019 MEETING DATE: July 15, 2019 APPLICANT: Patrick Schmeichel LANDOWNER: Elin Marco Group REQUEST: A 6’ variance to the 20’ Front Yard Setback for the construction of a 6’ deep, open, unenclosed covered porch LOCATION: 515 3rd Street South ZONING: RB, Two-Family Residential REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION The Elin Marco Group is proposing rehabilitate the existing three-family structure at 515 3rd Street South into a single family residence. The proposed project includes the addition of an open, unenclosed covered porch on the front of the home. SPECIFIC REQUEST A 6’ variance to the 20’ Front Yard Setback for the construction of a 6’ deep, open, unenclosed covered porch. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1.A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical difficulties” in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the CPC Case no. 2019-30 Page 2 property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a “practical difficulty”. a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? As the enclosed 1884-1924 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps depict, a full-width, approximately 6’ deep porch was historically located on the front of this structure. Additionally, both residences on either side of this one have front porches. Given a porch historically existed and the street pattern includes homes with front porches, the addition of a 6’ deep, open, unenclosed covered porch is reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The City’s Historic and Architecture Inventory Record indicates the structure was likely constructed in 1880. The structure is legal, nonconforming as its location on the site has not changed in nearly 140 year and was in place prior to the adoption of the City’s Zoning Code. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? While the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the porch to similar historic dimensions, which necessitates the variance, the applicant did not remove the once-existing porch. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The addition on this home would be in keeping with the historic character of the structure and the neighborhood. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The applicant’s desire for a porch on the front of the home is to keep with the historic character of the structure and neighborhood. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? Front Yard Setback The purpose of the Front Yard Setback is for uniform neighborhood development, to create front yards, and to encourage infiltration around the home. The proposed 14’ setback would be consistent with the prevailing setback on this block, still allowing for a front yard and infiltration areas. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? A variance to allow a 14’ front yard area would preserve the intent of uniform neighborhood development, the creation of front yards, and allow for infiltration around the home. Thus, the proposed variance is in harmony with the Zoning Code. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. CPC Case no. 2019-30 Page 3 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RB, Two-Family Residential. A front porch on a single family residential structure is permitted in the RB district. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval, the project shall be completed according to the plans on file for CPC Case No. 2019-30 in the Community Development Department. 2. The porch shall not be enclosed. 3. All Heritage Preservation Commission Design Permit conditions of approval shall be incorporated by reference. 4. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 5. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds practical difficulty has been established. Therefore, staff would recommend conditional approval of CPC Case No. 2019-30 with those conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan Photographs Proposed Front Elevation Sanborn Maps cc: Patrick Schmeichel W E S T L O C U S T S T R E E T P IN E S T R E E T E A S TSECOND STREET SOUTHC S A H 23S T R E E T E A S T W A L N U T S T R E E TSOUTH BROADWAY STREET611 110 101 609 437 206 205 663 322 604 601 620 502 610 604519 655 207 612 207 613 428 654 118 113 430 438 522 516 628 623 517 435 515109 660 618 622 509 400 510 509 518515 520 210 437 419 119 123 441 445 516 518 507 505 320 522 324 206 509 402 670 506 406 µ 0 210 420105Feet General Site Location Site Location 515 3rd St S ^ 1884 Sanborn Map 1888 Sanborn Map 1910 Sanborn Map 1924 Sanborn Map PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-31 REPORT DATE: July 9, 2019 MEETING DATE: July 15, 2019 APPLICANT: Nancy Millard, Trustee of Edmund H. Studtman Trust LANDOWNER: Sally Studtman, Trustee of Edmund H. Studtman Trust REQUEST: a) Resubdivision to create a second parcel b) Lot size variance to allow 6,337 sf lot where 7,500 sf is min. required c) Building cover variance to allow 27.3% for existing home where 25% is max permitted LOCATION: 1422 North Martha Street ZONING: RB, Two-Family Residential REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Shawn Sanders, City Engineer INTRODUCTION The Edmund H. Studtman trustees would like to sell their homestead at 1422 North Martha Street. The home was built in 1888 (according to County Assessor records) and is situated on a parcel across Moore Street from the Stillwater Country Club. The property is composed of 2 ½ platted lots that were combined into a single parcel. Photo from Google Maps The trustees hope to resubdivide the parcel into two lots and sell both. Parcel 1 (the northern parcel with the existing house) would meet the required 7,500 square foot lot size, but would Case No. 2019-31 Page 2 require a building coverage variance, since there would be 27.3% coverage and only 25% is permitted. Parcel 2 will need a size variance, since it has only 6,337 square feet of area. SPECIFIC REQUEST a) The resubdivision1 of the 13,839 square foot platted parcel at 1422 North Marth Street into two parcels. b) A variance for Parcel 1 to allow 27.3% building coverage, whereas City Code Sec. 31- 308, (b)1 permits a maximum of 25% building coverage. The actual requested coverage is 2,049 square feet, whereas a maximum of 1,875.5 square feet would be allowed on the 7,502 square foot parcel. This represents a variance of 175.5 square feet, or a 9.25% increase over the 1,875.5 square feet permitted. c) A variance for Parcel 2 to allow a 6,337 square foot lot area, whereas City Code Sec. 31- 308, (b)1 requires a minimum 7,500 square feet. This represents 1,163 square feet less than required, or a 15.51% shortfall compared to the 7,500 square feet required. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission is responsible for hearing and deciding on the two variance requests. The City Council will be responsible for deciding on whether to approve the resubdivision. However, since the variances and resubdivision are inextricably bound together, both will be presented in this report. The Planning Commission action will be to decide upon the variances and forward to the City Council a recommendation on the resubdivision. I. Resubdivision Dimensional Standards Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Standard Existing/Proposed Standard Proposed Lot area 7,500 sf 7,502 sf 7,500 sf 6,337 sf Lot width 50’ 73.32’ 50’ 61.94’ Lot depth 100’ 102.31’ 100’ 102.31’ Lot cover: bldg. 25% 27.31% 25% TBD Lot cover: other impervious 25% 8.09% 25% TBD Front setback (Martha): house 20’ 7.4’ 20’ TBD Exterior side setback: (Moore): house 20’ 5.3’ NA NA Exterior side setback: (Moore): garage 30’ 19.1’ NA NA Interior side setback 5/15’2 24.2’ 5/15’2 TBD Rear setback (west lot line) 25’ 23’ 25’ TBD 1 As defined by City Code Sec. 32-1, Subd. 4(2). 2 A total of both interior side yards of 15’, with a minimum of 5’. Case No. 2019-31 Page 3 In addition to the excessive building coverage for the house on Parcel 1, the table above and site plan below illustrate several non-conforming setbacks. If the house is remodeled, and is not enlarged, its legal non-conforming (aka grandfathered) setbacks and lot coverage can remain as they are. However, if the Planning Commission grants the variances necessary for this resubdivision, then a condition of approval should be that the grandfathered setbacks and lot coverage are extinguished if the house is demolished. Incidentally, since the main portion of the house was built before 1946, the Heritage Preservation Commission and City Council would have to review a request for demolition. Existing home on Parcel 1 Footprint of the existing house is outlined in purple. Code compliant building envelop is shaded in pink. It should be pointed out that the greatest amount of building coverage permitted on Parcel 2 will be 1,584 square feet. This would allow for a modest sized house and perhaps a two stall garage at most. So, the parcel would likely require a custom designed house. Sewer and Water – There is neither sanitary sewer nor municipal water in Moore or Martha Streets. The sewer for the existing home is a service extended from a manhole in the interior of the block. The manhole is to the west of the property and can be seen in the graphic on the next page. The sewer for proposed Parcel 2 will have to be extended as a service from the intersection of West Sycamore and Martha. Likewise, a water service will also have to be extended from this intersection. The total hook-up fees for the water and sewer service extensions will be $8,606 if paid in 2019. Case No. 2019-31 Page 4 Existing and proposed public utilities Easements - Any drainage and utility easements platted around the existing lots that make up the parcel to be re-subdivided must be vacated, and new drainage and utility easements must be created by the owner along the boundaries of both reconfigured parcels. The easements will need to be submitted to the City prior to release of approved deeds from City offices for recording with Washington County. The new drainage and utility easements will need to encumber the areas shaded in blue in the sketch below. [Note that the standard 10 foot wide easement in the front yard of Parcel 1 is not advisable given the non-conforming location of the existing home.] New Drainage & Utility Easements Each parcel will need drainage and utility easements as shown above. Case No. 2019-31 Page 5 Accessory Structures - Sheds are allowed only as accessory buildings on a lot. Which is to say, that a house must exist on a lot before a shed can be located there. Consequently, the two existing sheds on Parcel 2 will need to be removed prior to releasing the approved deeds for the parcels from City offices. Park & Trail Dedication – Neither parks nor trails are planned for the property or its immediate surrounds. Therefore, the Park Commission recommended the payment of fees in lieu of land. So, a $500 trail fee and a $2,000 park fee will be due to the City for Parcel 2 upon release of its approved deed from City offices for recording with Washington County. Parcel 1 has an existing home and is therefore exempt from both of these fees. II. Variance A. Review Criteria The State enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical difficulties” in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a “practical difficulty”. a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? Lot coverage variance request. The additional 157.5 square feet of building coverage is minimal, as it represents less than a 10% increase. Moreover, the total building and other impervious surfaces is allowed to be a combined total of 50% and the proposed total coverage for Parcel 1 would only be 35.4%. Lot size variance request. While the size variance for Parcel 2 is substantial since it would have a deficit of 1,163 square feet (15.5% less than required), given the size of lots on Martha Street in the area, the request is not unreasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? Typically there is nothing particularly unique about a parcel that does not have enough land to subdivide out a second buildable lot. But, what makes this situation unique is that Martha Street has a fairly strong pattern of “key lots”3, especially between Stillwater Avenue and Moore Street. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? Certainly the desire to have more lots than are mathematically permitted by the zoning code is a circumstance created by the landowner. But, the “key lot” development pattern of Martha Street was not created by the owner. 3 A “key lot” is defined as a lot that adjoins the side or rear yard of a corner lot and fronts on a secondary street. Case No. 2019-31 Page 6 d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? Lot size variance request. As seen in the graphic to the right, resubdividing the back portion of lots to create lots with frontage on Martha Street is fairly common. Most of these “key lots” fronting on the side street are smaller than 7,500 square feet. The lot at 1413 N. Martha St has 5,455.2 sf of area. The lot at 1407 N. Martha St has 5,391.6 sf. The corner lots at 321 Moore and 322 Sycamore have 6,779.3 sf and 6,835.3 sf respectively. So, the proposed 6,337 sf of Parcel 2 is in keeping with the locality. A letter opposed to the variance was submitted by a resident living at 404 St Croix Avenue. The location of letter of opposition can be seen in the map to the right. And, the letter itself is attached to this report. Lot coverage variance. The same argument can be made for the minimal lot coverage variance being requested. Since many of the lots on Martha, especially on the east side, are undersized “key lots”, their building coverages exceed 25%. So, the proposed 27.31% proposed on Parcel 1 is in keeping with the character of the locality. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The primary consideration for the creation of the second parcel is most likely the desire to increase the value of the property for the heirs. But, by splitting the lot, at least two objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan could also be furthered. The Comprehensive Plan encourages efficient use of property as well as the maintenance of affordable housing. If the existing home is modestly remodeled, it could preserve both the historic structure and provide affordability. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? Lot size variance. Establishing minimum lot sizes is related to both the allowable density of housing units in a zoning district and the character of a neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan guides the density for the subject neighborhood at 4.4 – 9.7 units per acre. If all parcels were Case No. 2019-31 Page 7 at the size of proposed Parcel 2, the neighborhood would have a density of 6.87 units per acre. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And as mentioned above, the “key lot” configuration of Martha Street housing defines the character of this location. The proposed second parcel maintains that “key lot” development pattern. Lot coverage variance. The 25% building coverage standard in the RB District works together with the 25% impervious coverage standard. A total of 50% of a lot can be covered. The coverage standards have two major purposes: 1) maintain open spaces, and 2) prevent poor stormwater management practices. In this case, the house is grandfathered into a location close to both Moore and Martha Streets. (See picture of house on Page 1.) So, generous side and rear yard spaces exist. However, if the existing house is granted a demolition permit by the City, a condition of approval should be that the new home must not exceed the 25% building cover standard, and must meet the current required setbacks. Another purpose of the lot coverage standard is to prevent a lot from being overbuilt and thus create stormwater management issues. In this case, only 35.4% of the lot will be in hard surfaces, whereas 50% is allowed to be. So, stormwater should not be an issue. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? For reasons stated above, staff believes the two variances would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? As noted above, the requested variances are not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RB, Two-Family Residential. The zoning district allows single- family houses, which are the proposed uses of the two parcels. B. Neighborhood comments Four letters have been received from residents in the neighbor- hood. The locations of these concerned neighbors are shown to the right. Their letters are attached to this report. The primary concerns identified by the neighbors are the undersized southern lot and the grandfathered location of the existing house. Case No. 2019-31 Page 8 POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances and recommend that the Council approve the resubdivision, with the following conditions: 1. If the existing house on Parcel 1 is granted a demolition permit, then the legal non-conforming building setbacks and lot coverage on Parcel 1 are extinguished and new house construction must meet current City Zoning Code standards. 2. Any drainage and utility easements platted around the lots of the existing parcel must be vacated and new drainage and utility easements must be created by the owner around the two proposed parcels. These easements must be submitted to the City prior to release of approved deeds from City offices for recording with Washington County. 3. The two existing sheds on Parcel 2 must be removed prior to releasing the deed for either parcel from City offices for recording with Washington County. 4. A $500 trail fee and a $2,000 park fee will be due to the City for Parcel 2 upon release of its deed from City offices for recording with Washington County. 5. The sanitary sewer and municipal water hook-up fees of $8,606 (plus annual cost of construction increases if paid later than 2019) must be paid prior to release from City offices of the approved deed for Parcel 2. These fees do not apply to Parcel 1. 6. A stormwater management plan must be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to release of a building permit for Parcel 2. The plan must show that the runoff volume control standards of the City or watershed district, whichever is more restrictive, are met. B. Deny the requested variances and recommend that the City Council deny the resubdivision. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the requests for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the resubdivision and the variances to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends Alternative A. Attachments: Location map Zoning map Survey Opposition letters cc: Nancy Millard Sally Studtman STR E ET STR E ET STREETM O OR E SY CA M O R E 313 303 415 306402 411 503 1422417423 419 416 410420502 303 315 318 309 308 1319 322 321 1313 507 1316 1322 1413 1407 302 µ 0 125 25062.5 Feet General Site Location Site Location 1422 Martha St N ^ WEST ASPEN STREET STREET WEST STREET AVENUE NORTHCARNELIANSTREETNORTHWILLIAMSTREETWEST STREET WEST AVENUE STILLWATER AVENUEWEST NORTHMARTHASTREETWILKINS WEST STREETMOORE SYCAMORE ST CROIX WEST ASPEN STREET EAST ASPEN STREET STREETSTREETEAST SYCAMORE ST EAST ST CROIX WEST STILLWATER AVE EAST STILLWATER WEST WILKINS STREET EASTNORTHTHIRDSTREETNORTHFOURTHSTREET NORTHSECONDSTREETStillwater Country Club Site Staple's Field Zoning Districts A-P, Agricultural Preservation RA - Single Family Residential RB - Two Family TR, Traditional Residential LR, Lakeshore Residential CR, Cottage Residential CTR, Cove Traditional Residential CCR, Cove Cottage Residential CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential TH, Townhouse RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential VC, Village Commercial CA - General Commercial CBD - Central Business District BP-C, Business Park - Commercial BP-O, Business Park - Office BP-I, Business Park - Industrial IB - Heavy Industrial CRD - Campus Research Development PA - Public Administration PROS - Park, Recreation or Open Space Public Works Facility ROAD WATER Febr 2, 2019 PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-27 REPORT DATE: July 10, 2019 MEETING DATE: July 15, 2019 APPLICANT: Dana Mattingly LAND OWNER: Dana Mattingly REQUEST: Type B Short Term Home Rental (STHR) license for 316 William Street North ZONING: RB, Two-Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Dana Mattingly owns and lives at the property on 316 William Street North. She has made application for a Type B Short Term Home Rental license. The property is already operating as a Short Term Home Rental, so she is applying after the fact for the license. A Type B Short Term Home Rental is defined in the Stillwater Zoning Code as a home that is offered to transient guests, where the property serves as the operator’s primary residence but the operator is not present while the transient guests are there. When a Type B license is requested, the Zoning Code requires a notice to be mailed out to neighbors explaining the request. If there are any objections, those concerns will be considered by the Planning Commission. If there are no concerns, the license is issued administratively by City staff. In this case, the Planning Department received a letter from one neighbor stating their concerns. Therefore, the planning commission must review the license request and all objections, as a new business item, at its next regularly scheduled meeting. SPECIFIC REQUEST Dana Mattingly of 316 William Street North is requesting the approval of a Type B Short Term Home Rental license. CPC Case No. 2019-27 316 William St N STHR Type B July 15, 2019 ANALYSIS All of the performance standards required of Type B Short Term Home Rentals, as laid out in City Code Section41-8, are met. Type B Short Term Home Rentals are permitted by use in the RB Two-family Residential District. Performance Standards Parking: In residential zoning districts, guest parking must be accommodated on improved surfaces on the premises. City Code requires that STHRs accommodate parking, in which the number of spaces equals the number of bedrooms minus one. This property has four bedrooms available for guests, therefore it must accommodate three parking spaces. The driveway on this property is approximately 67 feet, and at 18 feet per parking space, the driveway can fit three parking spots. Number of guests: The maximum number of guests allowed is limited to two times the number of bedrooms plus one. Limiting the number of guests allowed on a property is important for a number of reasons including the safety of guests, preventing parking problems, and discouraging a property from potentially becoming a nuisance in residential neighborhoods. The property has four bedrooms allocated to guests, so given this, the maximum number of overnight guests in this residence will be nine. Proximity of assistance: The STHR ordinance requires a manager/representative be located within 30 minutes travel time of the property. The property owner says she will be able to handle most issues because she will be living at the residence for over 50% of the time. In addition, the will be a manager available for contact that will be within thirty minutes. Mrs. Mattingly also noted that for the times she is not at the residence, she will be 45 minutes away in Glenwood City, Wisconsin. Signage: No signage is allowed on STHR properties. August, 2013 Street View (Google Images) CPC Case No. 2019-27 316 William St N STHR Type B July 15, 2019 Events: Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. For purposes of the STHR Ordinance, an event means a gathering of more than three un-registered guests. Proof of Insurance Proof of appropriate and sufficient insurance was submitted with the license application form. Safety Inspection The safety inspection for this property was conducted in March, 2019. A few deficiencies were identified but, as a re- inspection April 25, 2019 verified, they were all corrected and the safety inspection was approved. Total Number of Type B STHR 35 Type B Short Term Home Rentals may be issued at any one time. To date, eleven Type B licenses have been issued. PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment has been submitted by four residents (one opposed, three in favor):  317 William Street North (Two separate letters). This neighboring property owner expressed concerns about the allowance of a Short Term Home Rental at this address: o The property owners will be full time operators and residents at their property in Glenwood City. o Concern that there may not be thorough background checks on guests. o Since the owner will be offsite, what happens if there is a problem in the middle of the night? o It is a residential neighborhood with families and young children and teenagers; and the potential for issue to arise with an unknown guest.  On Friday June, 21 2019 the Planning Department received a complaint regarding on-street parking by the guests of the STHR.  704 Linden Street West and 717 Linden Street West (same letter signed by both parties). The letter stated their approval for the allowance of a STHR, based on the fact that the Mattinglys have been conscientious members of the neighborhood and that will reflect on their AirB&B.  726 Linden Street West. The letter stated their approval for the allowance of a STHR, based on the fact that Mrs. Mattingly is responsible. She has no doubt the STHR will not negatively impact the neighborhood. CPC Case No. 2019-27 316 William St N STHR Type B July 15, 2019 The licensing chapter of the City Code, Section 41-8, specifically requires a STHR’s guests to abide by the City’s nuisance ordinances, which must be included in all guest disclosures. The property owner is aware that three substantiated complaints against the property will result in the loss of STHR license for six months. To keep the line of communication open between neighbors and the STHR owner/manager, the ordinance requires current contact information to be distributed to neighbors and sets up a violation schedule; the City will distribute this information once all requirements of a Conditional Use Permit and the License has been met. POSSIBLE ACTIONS A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the Type B STHR proposal is consistent with City Code Section 31-514.1, the Commission could move to approve the STHR license with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. Parking – All guest parking must occur on the subject property. No parking may occur on the street. 2. Number of guests – The total occupancy of the property shall be limited to nine. 3. Proximity of assistance a. The property owner or a manager/representative must be located within 30 minutes travel time of the property. b. 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. Events - Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. For purposes of Short Term Home Rentals, an event means a gathering on the premises of more than three un-registered guests. 6. Length of guest stay – The property is not permitted to be rented for a period of less than one whole day. 7. 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. 8 Guest disclosures- the following shall be added to the Guest Disclosure: i. 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. ii. The name, phone number and address of the owner, operating or managing agent/representative. iii. The maximum number of overnight guests at the property at a time is limited to nine. iv. The maximum number of vehicles at the property is limited to four. No on-street parking is allowed for guests. v. Property rules related to use of outdoor features, such as decks, patios, grills, recreational fires, saunas and other recreational facilities. CPC Case No. 2019-27 316 William St N STHR Type B July 15, 2019 vi. City nuisance ordinances will be enforced by the Stillwater Police Department, including reduced noise levels between 10 PM and 8 AM. vii. No events with more than three unregistered guests are permitted. 9 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. 10 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. 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 the provisions set forth for Conditional Use Permits or City Code Section 41-8, it could be denied. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed use can conform to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans, other lawful regulations, and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Type B Short Term Home Rental to be located at 316 William Street North. Attachments: Application (two pages) Floor Plans (two pages) Guest Disclosure Public Comment (eight pages) 1 Jenn Sundberg To:Abbi Wittman Subject:RE: Dana Mattingly Application for Short Term Rental License From: Joni [mailto:thejonibrostrom@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 12:15 PM To: Abbi Wittman <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Dana Mattingly Application for Short Term Rental License I am writing in support of Ms. Mattingly’s application for a Short Term Rental License. I have known Dana for several years and live across the street from her property. My address is 726 Linden Street West. I know Dana to be extremely responsible and genuinely concerned for the neighborhood. I am completely in support of her being granted this license and have no doubt that the neighbors will not experience any negative impact if the license is granted. Sincerely, Joni Brostrom 651-354-2811 Sent from Mail for Windows 10