Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-09 CPC Packeti THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, October 9, 2006, at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street AGENDA 1 CALL TO ORDER 2 APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 MINUTES 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 01 Case No V/06-52 A variance to the street side (front yard) setback (30 feet required, 0 feet requested) for the construction of a two -car garage located at 521 South Fifth Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District Barbara Greeder, applicant 3 02 Case No CPA/ZAM/ZAT/06-53 A Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment and a Zoning Text Amendment to create a new zoning district for lots 1,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 Block 10, Greeley and Slaughters Addition to Stillwater (110 South Greeley Street) in the RB, Two Family Residential District Timothy Freeman, representing Heidi Rosebud, applicant 3 03 Case No V/06-54 A variance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 5 feet requested) for the construction of a garage located at 609 South Broadway in the RB, Two Family Residential District Myron Reubendale, applicant 3 04 Case No V/06-55 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 14 feet requested) for the construction of a porch located at 209 N 3rd Street in the PA, Public Administration District Tom Huninghake, applicant 4 OTHER BUSINESS 4 01 City of Stillwater - Determination of TIF District amendment consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 5 ADJOURNMENT CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651 430 8800 WEBSITE wwwci stillwatermn us f City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 11 2006 Present Robert Gag Chairman Suzanne Block Gregg Carlsen Mike Dahlquist David Junker Dan Kalmon Brad Meinke and David Peroceschi Others Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Absent Dave Middleton Mr Gag called the meeting to order at 7 p m Approval of minutes Mr Junker seconded by Mr Dahlquist moved approval of the minutes of Aug 14 2006 with the addition that the motion to approve case No ANN/ZAM/CPA/PUD/SIB/06-45 was seconded by Mr Middleton Motion to approve the August minutes with the addition/correction passed unanimously PUBLIC HEARINGS Legacy on Long Lake (Case No PUD/SUB/ZAM/06-16) Mr Turnblad reported that the developer still has some issues with the DNR and recommended that the public hearing be officially closed rather than continued once again Mr Turnblad stated that when the developer is ready to proceed the case will be republished Mr Dahlquist seconded by Mr Junker moved to officially close the public hearing Motion passed unanimously Zoning Text Amendment (Case No ZAT/06-04) A zoning text amendment to the CR Cottage Residential District for driveway widths City of Stillwater applicant Mr Pogge briefly reviewed the previous discussion and verbiage changes made to the proposed amendment Mr Gag opened the public hearing No comments were received and the hearing was closed Mr Dahlquist suggested adding the word tapered to the ordinance language to clarify that the allowable driveway width is a maximum of 18 feet at the back of the curb tapered to 12 feet at the street right-of-way line Mr Junker moved to recommend Council approval of the proposed ordinance adding the word tapered as suggested by Mr Dahlquist Mr Dahlquist seconded the motion motion passed unanimously Conger and Maas Variance (Case No V/06-48) A variance to the required 5-foot rear and side yard setback (0 feet requested) for an accessory structure variance to the 120-square-foot maximum allowed (182 square feet requested) accessory structure variance to the required 10-foot setback for a pool (6 5 feet requested) variance to the required 25-foot rear yard setback for deck (22 5 feet requested) and variance to the required 10-foot side yard setback for a deck (4 5 feet requested) at 413 Hanson Place in the RA Single Family Residential District Chris Conger and Roberta Maass applicants Mr Pogge reviewed the various variances involved in the request and the staff findings Mr Pogge noted the applicant had submitted revised plans for the accessory structure which would City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 11 2006 meet the allowable size but still would not meet the required setbacks Mr Pogge also noted that the City had received a complaint regarding the structures Ms Maass said they were only recently made aware that a complaint had been received She read a letter addressing some of the issues Ms Maass said they would be willing to withdraw the request for the accessory structure and remove the accessory structure and asked that the Commission consider alternative 2 in the staff report -- deny the variances for the accessory structure and approve the variances for the pool and deck Ms Maass noted that there are five mature oak trees on the property which make it difficult to meet required setbacks Mr Junker questioned why the structures had been installed/constructed without the necessary permits Ms Maass said they would have to plead ignorance on that issue Mr Dahlquist suggested that the Commission should consider this case as if the structures were not already in place and moved for denial of Case V/06-48 Mr Carlsen seconded the motion motion to deny passed unanimously Bruggeman Properties (Case No ANN/ZAM/CPA/06-49) Mr Turnblad told the Commission the applicant had requested that this case be withdrawn Hoffbeck Variance (Case No V/06-50) A variance to the side yard setback (5 feet required 2 feet requested) to allow a garage to encroach into the required side yard setback at 206 S Owens St in the RB Two Family Residential District Dennis and Denise Hoffbeck applicant Mr Hoffbeck was present Mr Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings He noted that the request is to replace the roof truss on the existing garage to provide a new higher pitched roof and to install a new single garage door Mr Pogge noted that the existing garage is a legal non- conforming structure Expanding a non -conforming structure requires a variance he explained Mr Peroceschi asked about the age of the garage and noted that it is likely more than 50 years old and can t be torn down according to the City s demolition ordinance Mr Pogge said the applicant can put a new roof on the garage in order to preserve the structure the question is whether to allow the expanded use Mr Hoffbeck explained the request He said the current flat roof portion of the structure leaks most of the time is rotting and needs to be replaced He said the current hip part of the garage has a second floor above it and the intent is to have a straight 12/12 pitch roof to match the house and to create more dry storage space He said the proposed dormers are for aesthetics and not space He reiterated that the intent is to create more storage space not living space Mr Gag opened the public hearing No comments were received and the hearing was closed A letter was received from a neighbor in support of the plans Mr Carlsen asked whether the proposed dormers would be a violation of state code as suggested in the staff report Mr Pogge said that was an issue the Commission did not have to consider the plans will have to be modified if necessary to meet state code Mr Junker seconded by Mr Dahlquist moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unanimously 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 11 2006 Stang Planned Unit Development Amendment (Case No 06-51) An amendment to the Oak Glen Planned Unit Development for construction of a 7 800-square foot maintenance building at 1825 McKusick Road in the RA Single Family Residential District Greg Stang applicant Mr Turnblad reviewed the request and staff comments The new building will be aesthetically more pleasing he said and staff recommends approval as conditioned Mr Stang was present and said they had no problem with the conditions of approval however he said it may to difficult to relocate the existing fuel tanks and their enclosure so they are entirely out of the City easement Mr Turnblad said staff could work with the applicant on that issue pointing out the primary concern was with the current location of the tanks on top of the water main Mr Junker asked about exterior materials Mr Stang said there would be a decorative block exterior of neutral color which would be a nice upgrade from the existing structures Mr Kalmon asked if there was a spill response mitigation plan for the fuel tanks considering the proximity to Brown s Creek Mr Turnblad noted that plans will have to be reviewed by the Brown s Creek Watershed District Mr Gag opened the public hearing The resident of 1830 Oak Glen Drive said he generally was in favor of the proposal and encouraged approval of the project He asked about the elevation noting that if the structure is moved farther south to meet the suggested setback of 30 feet depending on the height of the structure he would lose some of his existing view He said he would like the structure placed as far north as possible He also said he was willing to work with the applicant regarding the requirement for additional landscaping He asked about outside storage and whether there would be a dumpster on site Mark Fuhrmann 1840 Oak Glen Drive said he too was in general support of the project He also expressed a concern regarding storage issue and asked for the removal of a rock pile and two vehicles that had been stored outside the existing building all summer He said he supported visual screening on the north and west elevations and said he would prefer the new building be located as far south as possible to preserve his existing views No other comments from the public were received During discussion it was noted that the views of neighboring property owners would improve regardless of the setback as the existing barn is taller than the new building will be Mr Turnblad also noted that because this request is in a PUD the Commission has the option of being more flexible with setbacks Mr Junker moved approval with the 11 conditions recommended by staff changing condition No 4 to require a minimum setback distance of 29 feet from the north property line Mr Dahlquist seconded the motion and asked whether the issue of a dumpster enclosure should be addressed Mr Junker amended his motion to include a condition of approval No 12 that an enclosed dumpster be provided on the north side of the site Ms Block suggested requiring an enclosed dumpster but leaving the location up to the applicant Mr Junker agreed to that language Mr Dahlquist seconded the amended motion Motion passed unanimously Ms Block seconded by Mr Peroceschi moved to adjourn at 8 20 p m Respectfully submitted Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3 i f 0 1 0 11 P A 0 M I N l F 0 1 A Planning Commission DATE October 4, 2006 CASE NO V\06-52 APPLICANT Barbara Greeder REQUEST A variance to allow an encroachment into the front yard setback for a detached garage LOCATION 521 Fifth Street South COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFLL - Single Family Large Lot ZONING RB - Two-family District CPC DATE October 9, 2006 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner /P DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-1-12(5)a 81 of the Stillwater City Code to allow for a new detached garage to be setback only 2 feet three inches from the front property line and to be located in front of the principal dwelling The applicant currently has an exiting garage that is location along Walnut Street approximately 3 inches from the front property line The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a new garage to be situated within the same general footprint with the exception of setting it 2 addition feet north of the front property line and away from Walnut St West Since the existing garage is located approximately 9 feet from the back of curb and it is being completely rebuilt, public safety and engineering staff has requested that the garage be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the back of curb in order to allow a car to be parked in front of the garage without encroaching to in Walnut Front yard A minimum of 30 feet and set back at least 10 feet from the front set back line of the principal dwelling f 521 Fifth Street South Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The property at 521 Fifth Street South is a legal conforming lot The existing garage currently encroaches into the required front yard setback and is located approximately 3 inches inside the front property line along Walnut St West The property was subject to a swale/ditch area that cut across the northeast corner of the lot which is a condition that was not created by the property owner The area has been filled, however, the type, quality and compaction of the material used is unknown and therefore is difficult to determine if a garage could be located in this location 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors Due to the swale/ ditch that ran through the northeast corner of the property and with the sanitary sewer that exists from the neighboring property without the approval of a variance the applicant would be required to conduct soil sampling and would have to locate the existing sanitary sewer service in order to protect it The cost to construct a garage in a location that met all of the setback requirements could potentially be cost prohibitive 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan The current garage is setback 13 feet from the eastern property line The proposed garage will have a mass that is similar to the proposed garage This change will have a negligible impact on the adjoining property owner Additionally, by added a minimum setback of 20 feet from the back of curb of Walnut St West the situation on the property will be improved The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan 521 Fifth Street South Page 3 FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties nn the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan ACTION BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Since the existing structure is over 50 years old the applicant was required to make application for a demolition permit from the made application for a demolition permit to the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) The HPC reviewed and approved the demolition permit on October 2, 2006 RECOMMENDATION Approval as conditioned CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1 All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director 2 The garage shall be located no closer than 20 feet to the back of curb of Walnut Street West Attachments Submittal package from the applicant Barbara Greeder 521 S 5t St Stillwater, Mn 55082 651-439-8695 August 31,2006 Re Stillwater Planning Commission Gentlemen and Ladies My request is to build a garage in or near it's existing location Request to move it back 2 feet from present location It is not wise to move it beyond that point as there is a sewer easement of 15 feet in that back area of my property The location unknown of this sewer easement for the house located at 513 S 5th St Owner Pat Becchetti Said sewer easement was agreed upon by Ralph Adkins and Maynard Nelson ( former owners of both homes in 1952 This sewer could involve the properties on 2 building adjoining my property Paper from abstracts are included I feel it is not necessary to disturb this sewer by borings or digging to move garage My new garage should not affect said sewer with the extra 2 feet variance I cannot move garage west as that may also be included on the sewer easement of that 15 feet Thank you Sincerely Barbara Lou Greeder \►\ -SE'V-10 vt-A 1c-A-10 nc w Sew SCHEDULE "A" e The South Fifty (50) feet of the West One hundred fifty (150) feet of Block number Thirty eight (38) of the onginal Town (now City) of STILLWATER as surveyed and platted and now on file and of record in the office of Register of Deeds in and for the County of Washington and State of Minnesota subject to a nght of way 12 feet wide along the East side of said tract, subject to perpetual nght and easement to lay, maintain operate repair and remove sewer and water pipes over a 15 foot strip through and over the South 62 feet of the SW1/4 of Block 38 of the Onginal Town (now City) of Stillwater as shown in that deed from Maynard R R-elson and Beatrice R Nelson husband and wife to Ralph L Adkins and Ella E Adkins husband and wife as shown in Book 181 of Deeds page 569 ENTERED INTRAN8FER RECORD WASHINGTON COUNTY MINNESOTA '71a05 MOLLY LLYF 0 R URKEgAUD • R TREASUR , piu 43 0o65 I I } 6 ► i I i 1 1 d c z A r ► _7 4 �M ; 1 ._ \ r� — — I\ II G - 1 S fl P C'--'11 -� � t If • 911 Soa7% �`-�'�✓ 2ie 1 O? 13 201i 39$' , 2 poiv '/f 9 '/ ' a:"0:) II _E 7flr fir VWit/ �_ - v °,1) tr' )UO79 a))E 1 or) ,r!� i oc.] , V--- e*)1..1) -i ) E 0? `Y*5'n)}1 iv 'Pt �iaSv `ji R2IW R2OW RI9W 1- r T32N1 I T32N T3IN I T3IN T3ON L` i ^YTOU ARE HERE a , ram T29N l - i fI T29N r t'� h T28N I T28N r i __i 127N t:? i T27N ,--..✓` } R22W R2IW R2OW Vicinity Map 0 38 Scale in Feet This drawing is the result of a compilation and reproduction of land records as they. aptea In various Washington Courtly offices. The dravang should be used for relevance purposes only. Washington County is not nesponsihte for anyinaccuraces. Source: Washington County Surveyor's Office. Phone (651) 430.6875 Parcel data eased on AS400 mlormacon amend through: May 31, 2006 Map prided: July 7, 2006 F Ft I F I! F I A f P N! 1 0 A Planning Commission DATE APPLICANT LANDOWNER REQUESTS LOCATION CURRENT ZONING CURRENT LUP PC DATE REVIEWERS PREPARED BY October 5, 2006 CASE NO 06-53 Timothy Freeman of Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc Heidi Rosebud 1) Zoning Text Amendment 2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3) Zoning Map Amendment South of Myrtle St W, West of Greeley St S, East of Owens St S, and North of Ramsey St W except the two properties in the Northwest corner of the block (917 and 919 Myrtle St W) RB PROPOSED ZONING NB SFSL PROPOSED LUP NC October 9 2006 Community Dev Director, City Attorney Michel Pogge, City Planner DISCUSSION Timothy Freeman, representing Heidi Rosebud owner of Just For Me Spa and Stillwater Fitness, has requested a Zoning Text Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Zonmg Map Amendment for Lots 1, 3, and 5-14 m Block 10 of Greeley's and Slaughter s Addition These lots represent the existing Just For Me Spa and Stillwater Fitness property (Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, East 90 feet of Lots 11 and 13, the east 1 foot of Lot 8, and the east 1 foot of the south 19 feet of Lot 6), the bed and breakfast approved in July 2005 (Lot 14 and the West 36 feet of Lots 11 and 13), and the existing residential homes owned by Ms Rosebud (Lots 6, 8, 10, and 12 excluding the east 1 foot of Lot 8 and excluding the east 1 foot of the south 19 feet of Lot 6) PCP Case 06-53 Rosebud - ZAT, CPA, and ZAM Page 2 BACKGROUND 110 Greeley St South The site at 110 Greeley St South was originally built as a dairy Aftei the dairy closed the property was first converted to a warehouse and then m 1978 a SUP1 was granted allowing the building to be converted to an office building In 1992 the apphcant was granted a variance and SUP2 to allow an expansion of the fitness club 122 Greeley St South This property was originally a single-family home In 1980 the City issued a SUPS to allow an automotive repair shop to be operated out of the garage of the home The property was purchased by applicant in May of 1996 In 1996 the planning commission granted approval for the demolition of the existing home to make way for the expansion of the 110 Greeley St South building onto the site The building was never demolished In 1998 the applicant made application for a revised SUP and variance4 in order to renovate the house and move all of the spa achvihes into the home that also allows the fitness center to expand into the space previously occupied by the spa 125 Owens St South The property was originally a single-family home The applicant purchased the property in May of 2005 At that time the applicant applied for and received a SUP and design reviews for a bed and breakfast at the site As of the date of this report the according to the applicant, the house is not being used as a bed and breakfast and is simply being used as a rental property, including short term rentals 6 121 Owens St South The applicant purchased the property m 2005 The property is currently being used as rental property, including short term rentals 109 Owens St South The applicant purchased the property in October of 2005 The property is currently being used as rental property, including short term rentals REQUESTS Until May of 2002 the City's zoning code allowed the City to issue special use permits m the Two -Family Residential District for limited commercial uses that supported the surrounding neighborhood In May of 2002, the RB Zoning District regulations were CPC Case #314 2 CPC Case #92 34 s CPC Case #387 4 CPC Case #98 74 5 CPC Case #05 38 and HPC Case #05 33 6 Minn Stat §327 70 Subd 5 Transient occupancy Tiansient occupancy means occupancy when it is the intention of the parties that the occupancy will be temporary There is a rebuttable presumption that if the unit occupied is the sole residence of the guest the occupancy is not transient There is a rebuttable presumption that if the unit occupied is not the sole residence of the guest the occupancy is tiansient PCP Case 06-53 Rosebud - ZAT, CPA, and ZAM Page 3 changed removing this language Additionally, Minnesota statutes prohibit approval of variances that allow uses that are otherwise prohibited in a zoning district? Due to these changes coupled with the requirements of state law related to uses, staff suggested to the applicant that an amendment to the zoning code would be required before the applicant could expand the commercial business To accomplish this, the applicant would need to make application for a zonmg text amendment to either 1) provide an opporturuty for the City to issue a special or conditional use permit for commercial uses in the RB District, similar to the process that was eliminated with the zoning amendment in 2002, or 2) create a new Neighborhood Business District Staff suggested that the creation of a Neighborhood Business District may be more appropriate in this case Zoning Text Amendment - At the request of the applicant, staff has created language for a new zoning district called Neighborhood Business District (NB) This language is modeled in part on an ordinance the City considered in 1980 When this language was first proposed all of the dozen or so historical commercial properties in the City were being considered for rezoning and a number of residential property owners objected to the proposed district, especially as it would effect the business property in their neighborhood Consequently, the proposal was diopped by the Council The proposed ordinance, and the previous ordinance from 1980, seeks to recognize the historical commercial properties that are not in conformity with the regulations of the residential zoning districts they are located in today The new district makes the existing uses legal and conforming, but only the existing uses This is to say that the lists of permitted uses normally found in a zoning district would not be included in this NB district This eliminates the woiry of surrounding residential properties that other uses could simply occur one day and upset the status quo None the less, since many of these non-residential uses provide substantial economic investments and due to the good condition many of the structures are in it is not sound public policy to require the removal of these uses from the neighborhoods they are part of This zoning district, with a Condition Use Permit (CUP), allows a property owner to put an addition onto their building Also, with neighborhood discussion at a public hearing, the property owner could request a change in use to some other use that may be considered by all participants to be compatible with the neighborhood If this district is created, then individual property owners could make application to have their properties rezoned to the NB District This approach distinguishes itself from the last attempt to create a NB District in that all the historic commercial properties would not be rezoned at this time Currently, the City would only be considering a rezoning of the Rosebud property Generally individual property owners would rezone their properties when there is a change in use proposed or when they desire a building expansion When a property is rezoned to the NB District the pi operty owner would need at the same time to submit an application for a CUP Items such as off-street parking, exterior lights, Minn Stat §394 27 Subd 7 No \ ariance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located PCP Case 06-53 Rosebud - ZAT, CPA, and ZAM Page 4 landscaping, and other exterioi elements can be setout in the CUP This gives the Commission and Council greater control and flexibility to address item on a site by site biases Comprehensive Plan Amendment - In order to zone a property to the new Neighborhood Business District the land use map needs to first be changed to the Neighborhood Commercial classification8 The Stillwater Comprehensive Plan describes Neighborhood Commercial as Commercial uses that cater to the immediate residential area surrounding the activity The uses are convenient to the adjacent areas and not for community -wide uses If the Commission and Council find the NB zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan s 'neighborhood commercial classification, then this neighborhood commercial land use classification would be appropriate for the property Zoning Map Amendment - The final request is the rezonmg of the property to Neighborhood Business District (NB) The NB language, as currently drafted, is geared to legalizing existing historical business properties n1 residential neighborhoods The former dairy buildmg and the later remodel, conversion/expansion of the home at 122 Greeley Street S for Just for Me Spa, and the Bed and Bieakfast located at 125 Owens St South are commercial buildings that are in good condition Existing businesses like these are examples of businesses that could be rezoned to the NB District The applicant has shared with staff that eventually she would like to relocate the house on 125 Owens Street to the open parcel between 121 and 109 Owens Street This would make room on 125 Owens Street for an addition to Just for Me Spa and for a new parking area along Ramsey Street W The relocated home and the two other existing homes would each be on lots that conformed to the RB zoning i egulations Before she could undertake these changes the applicant would need to apply for and receive approval of a Conditional Use Permit, a house moving permit and likely a lot subdivision request The property at 109 and 121 Owens St South are conforming single-family homes in the RB Zoning District and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Due to this and with the proposed mtent of the NB district to apply to properties that were historically commercial in a residential district, staff is of the opinion that these properties should not be rezoned and should retain their RB zoning classification and single family use Ultimately this is a policy issue for the Commission and Council to decide 8 Minn Stat §473 865 Subd 2 A local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device which is in conflict with its comprehensive plin or v,hich permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans PCP Case 06-53 Rosebud - ZAT, CPA, and ZAM Page 5 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Follow staff recommendation listed below, as conditioned, by approving the Zoning Text Amendment approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14, East 90 feet of Lots 11 and 13, the east 1 foot of Lot 8, the east 1 foot of the south 19 feet of Lot 6, and the West 36 feet of Lots 11 and 13, but denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for Lots 6, 8, 10, and 12 excluding the east 1 foot of Lot 8 and excluding the east 1 foot of the south 19 feet of Lot 6 2 Approve the requested Zoning Text Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Zoning Map Amendment Additionally, staff would suggest that the following conditions for approval a The Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning shall not become effective until after application is made and approved for a Conditional Use Permit b The Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning for Lots 6, 8, 10, and 12 excluding the east 1 foot of Lot 8 and excluding the east 1 foot of the south 19 feet of Lot 6 shall not become effective until after application is made and approved for a Conditional Use Permit, a house moving pei mit, and a lot subdivision c If the Metropolitan Council requites and significant modification to the Comprehensive Plan amendment as proposed, then the Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be reconsidered by the City d If the Metropolitan Council makes a finding that the Comprehensive Plan amendment has a substantial impact on, or contains a substantial departure from, and metropolitan system plan, that the Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be reconsidered by the City 3 Deny the requested Zoning Text Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Zoning Map Amendment If the Commission chooses to deny the requests the Commission needs to make an appropriate finding 4 Continue the public hearing until the November 13, 2006 Planning Commission meeting The 60 day decision deadluhe for the request is November 7, 2006 If the Commission chooses to continue the public hearing staff will issue a written notice to the applicant extending the 60 day decision deadline for an additional 60 days as allowed by Minnesota Statues ' PCP Case 06-53 Rosebud - ZAT, CPA and ZAM Page 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Zoning Text Amendment 1 Recommend City Council approval of the Neighborhood Business District regulations as proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2 Recommend City Council approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map change from Single -Family Small Lot (SFSL) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) for Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14, East 90 feet of Lots 11 and 13, the east 1 foot of Lot 8, die east 1 foot of the south 19 feet of Lot 6, and the West 36 feet of Lots 11 and 13 subject to the following a The Comprehensive Plan amendment shall not become effective until after application is made and approved for a Conditional Use Permit b If the Metropolitan Council requires and significant modification to the Comprehensive Plan amendment as proposed, then the Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be reconsidered by the City c If the Metropolitan Council makes a finding that the Comprehensive Plan amendment has a substantial impact on, or contains a substantial departure from, and mehopolitan system plan, that the Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be reconsidered by the City 3 Recommend City Council deny an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Single -Family Small Lot (SFSL) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) for Lots 6, 8, 10, and 12 excluding the east 1 foot of Lot 8 and excluding the east 1 foot of the south 19 feet of Lot 6 Zoning Map Amendment 4 Recommend City Council approve an amendment to the Zoning Map from Two -Family Residential (RB) to Neighborhood Business District (NB) for Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14, East 90 feet of Lots 11 and 13, the east 1 foot of Lot 8, the east 1 foot of the south 19 feet of Lot 6, and the West 36 feet of Lots 11 and 13 subject to the following a The Rezoning shall not become effective until after application is made and approved for a Conditional Use Permit b If the Metropolitan Council requites and significant modification to the Comprehensive Plan amendment as proposed, then the Rezoning shall be reconsidered by the City c If the Metropolitan Council makes a finding that the Comprehensive Plan amendment has a substantial impact on, on contains a substantial departure from, and metiopolntan system plan, then the Rezoning shall be reconsidered by the City 5 Recommend City Council deny an amendment to the Zoning Map from Two -Family Residential (RB) to Neighborhood Business District (NB) for Lots 6, 8, 10, and 12 excluding the east 1 foot of Lot 8 and excluding the east 1 foot of the south 19 feet of Lot 6 10/5/06 DRAFT Subd 18 1 NB — NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT I General Intent This District is designed to recognize certain existing non-residential uses that are not in conformity with the regulations of the residential zoning distnct within which they are located Due to many decades of continued non-residential use, substantial economic investments, soundness of physical structure, vested property rights, or other similar considerations it is neither reasonable nor practical to continue to designate the uses as non -conforming Such existing non -conforming uses a) that are located on property that is re -zoned to NB, Neighborhood Business on the Zoning Map, and b) that pursuant to this Section 31- 1, Subd 18 1 of the City Code are issued a Conditional Use Permit after rezoning to the NB distract by the City, shall be considered legal, conforming uses under conditions and regulations contained hereafter Since any property re -zoned to NB, Neighborhood Business is by its very nature surrounded by and in close proximity to residential uses, it is public policy to regulate the non-residential uses to minimize land use incompatibilities 2 Permitted Uses with Conditional Use Permit All uses of structures and land in the NB, Neighborhood Business Zoning District require Conditional Use Permits A non- conforming business property owner may request a Conditional Use Permit, and the City Council may issue that Conditional Use Permit after review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, but only if all of the following cntena are met a The property is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Distnct, b The use for which the Conditional Use Permit is being requested must be a legal non -conforming use at the time of the request, which is to say that the use must either have been in existence pnor to adoption of the zoning regulations that resulted in the use's non -conforming status, or the use must have been specifically approved by the City Council or Planning Commission subsequent to adoption of said zoning regulations, c Together with the Conditional Use Permit request, the property owner must also request a rezoning of the property's base zoning district to NB, Neighborhood Business, 1 If the City Council determines that the Conditional Use Permit and the rezoning requests are both acceptable, then the City Council shall approve the rezoning request concurrently with the Conditional Use Permit request, and d If the property is not currently designated Neighborhood Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map then together with the Conditional Use Permit request, the property owner must also request a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment that reclassifies the future land use of the property to Neighborhood Commercial No uses are allowed on an individual parcel of property within the NB, Neighborhood 10/5/06 DRAFT Business Zoning District except those uses that are specifically identified in the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council for that individual parcel of property All conditionally permitted uses within the NB, Neighborhood Business Zoning Distract are allowed to continue only at the size and in the manner of operation identified in the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council, unless an amendment to increase the size or change the manner of operation is requested of the City Council and approved by the City Council 3 Development Regulations a Area, Setback and Height regulations The area, setback, and height regulations of the property shall be specified in the Conditional Use Permit b Off-street parking, exterior lights, landscaping, and other extenor elements shall be addressed in the Conditional Use Permit Changes to these items shall require and amendment to the Conditional Use Permit c Signs Signs in the NB District shall follow the CBD sign controls and shall require design review by the HPC 4 Other Uses Permitted By Conditional Use Permit Any use deemed appropnate and compatible within the neighborhood by the City Council, but that is not specifically identified in the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council for an individual parcel of property may be allowed, but only if a Conditional Use Permit amendment is requested of the City Council and approved by the City Council 5 Exceptions and Additions a Upon application for a Conditional Use Permit, but prior to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, the City Council may require reasonable conditions for immediate property improvements such as removal of junk and debns, installation of screening, building and yard maintenance, and conformity to the performance standards of the zoning ordinance b Any accessory use existing on the date of Conditional Use Permit issuance is a permitted accessory use c Lot areas, lot widths, and setback requirements, as existing on the date of Conditional Use Permit issuance shall be considered conforming d Parking, landscaping, signage and extenor lighting, as specifically descnbed on the Conditional Use Permit are permitted 6 Amendments to existing NB, Neighborhood Business District Conditional Use Permits A proposed amendment to a Conditional Use Permit in the NB Distnct shall be considered as if it were a new Conditional Use Permit for procedural and administrative purposes Re -Zoning of Block 10, Greeley and Slaughters Addition Page 1 of 1 Michel Pogge From Susanna Patterson [spatterson@asgc mail com] Sent Thursday October 05 2006 1 16 PM To Michel Pogge Cc Weidler Kurt psommars@aol com j spatterson@peoplepc com Subject Re -Zoning of Block 10 Greeley and Slaughters Addition We oppose Heidi Rosebud's plans to remove the house from 125 Owens Street and turn the property into a parking lot, as do our neighbors The house was built in 1862 and is thus one of the oldest houses in the neighborhood It is in excellent condition and is suitable for continued residential use Last July Heidi Rosebud sought -- and received -- approval for converting that house into a Bed and Breakfast We did not believe then that she really intended to operate this single family dwelling as a B&B - and indeed she never has We had already figured out at that time that she wanted to remove the house from the property and turn it into a parking lot When we confronted her with our suspicions back in July of 2005 she denied it vehemently saying I d NEVER tear that house down! (Note she still insists that she does not intend to tear the house down but intends to move it - not really the most practical option for her and not one that would really preserve the house s historic character ) She has purchased a total of 3 houses on that block and we are convinced that she wants to tear them all down in turn to further expand her business and further enlarge her parking lot We are absolutely and categorically opposed to this plan Removing just the house at 125 Owens Street would not only destroy a piece of our history it would eliminate several trees and flowering shrubs that contribute to the beauty tranquility ambience and overall quality of our life in our neighborhood Where is the Heritage Preservation Commission in all of this??? What about our Historic District designation'? Do we cast this all aside just because someone wants to put up a parking lot? Once the historic character of an area is destroyed there s no bringing it back As the Joni Mitchell song says "You never know what you've got 'til it's gone " We re hoping that the historic character of our neighborhood will NOT be destroyed and that every time we look out our kitchen window every time we step out into our back yard every time go out to work in our garden we will NOT have to see a vast expanse of asphalt and glaring commercial lighting fixtures but will continue to enjoy the trees the shrubs the lilac bushes - and the residential atmosphere of our historic neighborhood' Please make our comments and concerns a part of your report Susanna & John Pailcrcon 1018 West Olive Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651 351 2004 (home) 612 225 2310 (office) spatterson@asgc mail com j spatterson@peoplepc com REc 1LP V OCT - 6 2006 CUi�'hviul311 Y DE'!EL OPMENT DCPARTI"-h,T 10/6/2006 Michel Pogge From Sent To Subject Importance Follow Up Flag Flag Status Weldler Kurt [Kurt Weidler@bestbuy coin] Tuesday October 03 2006 9 32 AM Michel Pogge Neighborhood Business District ReZone request High Follow up Flagged RECEIVED OCT - 3 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I think the Zoning changes requested to create the new classification is needed by the city to consistently control and contain these currently non -conforming businesses that are in Residential areas throughout the city I believe the city needs to change every business property that falls into this category into this new classification to contain them so as to not change the character of the surrounding residential neighborhoods where they reside The issue I have is that Heidi Rosebud is wanting to fold three currently conforming Residential properties (109,121 and 125 Owens) that she recently purchased into this new Residential Business (commercial) classification along with the 110 and 122 Greeley Street properties I see no reason for her to request this unless her intent is to raze the existing structures or sigmficantly modify the USE of these properties away from their current residential use (these are all currently fully homesteaded residential properties) Heidi has spoken to us and she may want to MOVE the home on 125 Owens to the double lot(s) between 109 and 121 Owens!!! She could then make the 125 Lot into Parking and expand the 122 Greeley Property into part of the L shaped lot Is it true that she could then build to zero clearance to the lot line or treat them all as a single property'? This is NOT what I as a homeowner in this residential area wants to have happen This is a residential neighborhood and Heidi has the NON -CONFORMING properties at 110 and 122 Greeley We are determined to NOT let the character of our neighborhood turn to "commercial" any more than it already has by the city approving vanance after vanance to non -conforming properties Heidi runs a nice business at her current location We have no issue with the existing business that was here before we purchased our home She may be at the point in her business planning cycle that makes the existing location no longer suitable for her plans to expand and grow If this is the case, she should consider re -locating to another location within the city that would better conform to her business's expansion requirements as other businesses do when they outgrow existing locations Please include these thoughts into the recommendation / findings of facts that you will make to the planning commission and forward a copy of the report to me when completed later this week Please call to discuss further if you'd like to Thanks Kurt Weidler, 206 Greeley Street South Work 612-291-2153, Cell 612-865-8301, Home 651-351- 7884 OCT-5-2006 04 53P FROM TO 6514308810 P 2 Dear Neighbor, October 3, 2006 I am writing to provide Information about the application for rezoning of the area where my business, Just For Me Spa and Stillwater Fitness, is located As I will set forth below, there are few reasons for my request, to improve the aesthetics of the current facility, to alleviate traffic congestion and to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood My hope is that with a better understanding of my plans for the property and an open dialogue regarding your concems we, as neighbors, will be able to work together As you may be aware, the City of Stillwater has sent letters to you and other property owners in our neighborhood regarding my rezoning application Unfortunately, the letter fails to provide you with the reasons for my application, please take a moment to review a few of them now Stillwater Fitness is in need of a new roof Without rezoning my property I am unable to make changes that will make the structure more appealing than its current state If the proposed rezoning is approved, the necessary improvements may be made which will not only improve the integrity of the structure, but also will improve the appearance of the structure and the neighborhood as a whole We have all experienced the problems with parking on Ramsey and Greeley Streets I propose to move the home located on the double lot adjacent to the Spa, to the open lot that will allow for more off-street parking and space My intention is to relieve the parking congestion and improve visibility and traffic flow through this area You may be aware that I own several residential properties adjacent to the Spa and Stillwater Fitness I have no intention in changing the character of the neighborhood, my residential properties shall remain residential Although our location is beneficial, there has been and continues to be a strain on our long standing neighborhood businesses, such as the grocery store, ice cream shop as well as my business, due to the zoning In our efforts to alleviate these problems, we consulted with, among others, staff at the City of Stillwater We determined that rezoning would be the best approach to ease some of the pressures on our neighborhood This is why I have submitted my application to rezone the property Please contact me with any questions or concerns you may have regarding this matter Your support is truly appreciated Yours in good health, ikae- 4c._A-- Heidi Rosebud Heidi Rosebud 110 South Greeley Street Business (651) 439-4662 Cell (612) 247-7363 Justformespa c@hotmail com OCT-05-2006 09 09 AM P 01 Stillw : ter City Council 216 N 4th Street StIllw, ter, MN 55082 Dear ounoil Plea = consider this as a letter of support for the rezoning application as presented to the C of Stillwater by Just for Me "the Spa" and the Fitness Center, located at 110 So Greeley, Stillwater I was under the mistaken understanding that the area in ques+on had been planned for and rezoned by Mr Magnuson some years ago The "- pa" and Fitness Center have been good neighbors providing services without creat g concerns for the neighborhood We already have multiple businesses in our area hat may need to make improvements to property without being limited by resid : ntial zoning The 1= adership at the Spa and Fitness Center have shown great vision and unde standing for improvemnets that would benefit not only the businesses of the area, but would also maintain the character of the residential area, relieve parking cong = stion, and Improve neighborhood appearance I would urge you to rezone the area n question with all due speed Thank you very much Sin rely, C::::X , 14) Den is W Harcey 125 - o Greeley Still ater, MN 55082 OCT-04-2006 04 14 PM 0 . ' er 4, luub P 01 r City of Stillwater, I am writing this letter on behalf of Heidi Rosebud, owner of Just For Me Spa We chased our house at 917 W Myrtle St., 3 years ago We realized that our property was butting up to a c . mercial business and we were also across the street from a very busy grocery store We liked the ho and took the chance on the properties around us We are pleased we did Het to 1'.� pro has been more than a gracious neighbor She planted the trees that line our property so we don't have k at her parking lot Heidi does all the tree trimming and upkeep on the east side of our home She y cleaned out all the weeds, trammed the trees and laid new wood chips the whole length of our erty We have never had to ask her to take care of anythmg She is Johnny on the spot i always consults us before doing something that might affect our property We find her ideas to be skiing and all in the best interest of the neighborhood We would love to see a new roofline on the spa, is the main view we have from our sunroom We : 1so talked about the possibility of a parting lot off Owens I believe parking Tots do not have to be an eye -ore and Heidi has the ability to make it attractive Hei . i does not take the easy or cheap way around her projects We see her plans as beautiful and an asset to e community Hei ' i has been a great neighbor and we will support her idea for improvements on her property Sincerely, RECEIVED OCT - 4 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT October 4, 2006 Mr Bill Turnblad Mr Mike Pogge Community Development Directors Planning Commission City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 RECEIVED OCT - 5 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - Case no CPA/ZAM/ZAT/06-53 (Heidi Rosebud, Just For Me Spa) Dear Planning Commission This letter is to state categoncal approval of and complete support for the request from Heidi Rosebud for amendment and/or creation of a new zoning district Why is this important to me? Stillwater and the community is my home - My great -great grandfather, John Reed, came to Stillwater in 1873 via appointment by the Governor of the State of Minnesota to become Warden of the Territorial Prison He served for 13 years, living in the now historic Warden's House - My great-grandfather, Will Reed, also served at the pnson and resided on School Street - My grandfather, John Abbott Reed, resided at 220 West Olive Street (now the Stillwater Residence) - My father resided at 720 West Olive - I am the current property owner and resident at 118 South Owens Street, adjacent and directly west of the Heidi Rosebud properties (specifically, the three residential homes) Our house was originally built in 1888, over the years the structure had been added on to several times, in 1973 my wife's parents bought the property and many subsequent years of fond memones established it as a family home - My wife and I purchased the home in 2002 with the goal of "keeping it in the family and preserving the memories" Dunng the past few years my wife and I have diligently invested in and updated the interior and extenor of the house, and landscaping We work hard at keeping it looking good, yes, for us, but also for the community We love our home, our street, our neighborhood, our city We want to preserve and improve on what we enjoy most about our community My wife and I are of modest means We are conservative We encourage family values We espouse law and order We support stability and competent planning initiatives to guide and protect our community, our families, our real estate values our current and future way of life Over the years, we have observed and experienced the consistent, progressive, orderly and aesthetically -pleasing expansion and development of the Just For Me Spa business A local business a local owner a local operator To say that they have been good for, and contributed to, the neighborhood would be an understatement It is inevitable that Stillwater will continue to grow and develop Our area's population will continue to increase Pressures of change will continue With competent zoning, our growth can be managed and, most importantly, our interests, our residential interests as well as our neighborhood business interests can be protected I feel strongly that the City of Stillwater Community Development/Planning Commission needs to address and approve Ms Rosebud's application Very sincerely yours, Richard "Dick" Reed (and Mary Reed) 118 South Owens Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651-274-5279 RichardReed@aol com DAVID T MAGNUSON HOWARD R TURRENTINE TURRENTINE AND MAGNUSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW OAK PARK HEIGHTS STATE BANK BUILDING SUITE #2O3 STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 (812) 439 9484 August 29, 1980 MEMO TO TOM FARRELL, CHAIRMAN, STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION FROM DAVID T MAGNUSON, ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF STILLWATER IN RE PROPOSED EXISTING BUSINESS ZONING CHANGE I enclose herewith a copy of a proposed zoning ordinance that would change certain property within the City of Stillwater to existing business This change was prepared pursuant to your request in furtherance of the August 4, 1980 resolution of the Planning Commission wherein this change was initiated Your suggestion about the Conditional Use Permit being a formal contract is one that I have long thought would be very useful in maintaining proper control over zoning matters The problem is, however, that currently there is no zoning administrator to handle and work out these sort of contracts Each of the 16 properties that you suggest be rezoned to existing business would need a Conditional Use Permit and the proposal that you suggest would require that each, contract be negotiated with each property owner. In addition, this written document form of Conditional Use Permit should be used throughout the City, not )ust in existing business neighborhoods The problem is, however, who would negotiate each of these contracts, who would draft the documents, and who would see to it that they are properly obeyed once they are in effect? It seems to me that this sort of a change should not be enacted unless the City Council is willing to provide for the proper administration of the ordinance once it's passed I think I also mentioned that we must ask the City Council to designate a proper person to prepare the legal descriptions and other necessary data for the rezoning of these parcels I think it should be Jack Shelton working together with the engineer and I would be happy to contribute what I can to the effort Lastly, our zoning ordinance does provide for the treatment of abandoned non -conforming uses Perhaps the City Council could direct the Building Inspector to write to each of the three locations listed under Paragraph C of your suggestions and inform them that the City Council has determined that there has been an abandonment of their non -conforming use The letter could also provide that they could appeal to the City Council from said determination the would also inform them that a Conditional Use Permit would be required for anything but residential development on their property We would not be able to do this, Page Two however, with the property at Wilkins and Owens Streets which is commonly known as the Kress or Knefelkamp store - filling station that is now evidently owned by Oasis Oil Company This property is zoned CA - Commercial by a special act of the Council I would think it would be wise to include this property in the property rezoned as existing business and this would bring it under more effective control than the City has now under the CA classification Please let me know your thoughts David T Ma;nuson Subd 19 1 EB - EXISTING BUSINESS DISTRICT (1) General This District is designed to recognize certain existing non-residential structural land uses which may not be in conformity with the comprehensive municipal plan, but which, due to substantial economic investments, soundness of physical structure, vested property rights, or other similar considerations are impractical for reasonable consideration and designation as non -conforming uses Such existing uses or vacant land which may not be in harmony with adjacent and nearby land uses nor in conformity with the comprehensive municipal plan and designated as EB on the Zoning Map shall be legal, conforming uses under conditions and regulations contained hereinafter, it shall be public policy to strictly regulate and control EB uses in the general public interest (2) Permitted Uses All uses of structures and land as they existed on the effective date of this ordinance and for which a Conditional Use Permit has been issued shall be permitted uses. Said uses may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing only if the uses are specifically noted as permitted on a Conditional Use Permit for the land as issued and approved by the City Council (3) Conditional Uses (a) Any structural alteration, any change, expansion, or intensification of structural or land use or new building or use on vacant land (b) Any new or moved signs, off-street parking, exterior lights, or other similar changes or alterations (c) Reconstruction following damage by fire, windstorm, normal wear and tear, explosion, or acts of God (d) Uses deemed appropriate and compatible with the environment by the City Council (4) Exceptions and Additions (a) Prior to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit the City Council may require reasonable conditions in the public interest for immediate property improvements such as removal of junk and debris, installation of screening, building and yard maintenance, and conformity to the performance standards of the ordinance (b) Each use shall be assigned a Conditional Use Permit number on the effective date of the ordinance (c) Nothing in the ordinance shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by the City (d) Use of a building or premises in the district which use has been abandoned shall not thereafter be resumed A use shall be considered abandoned when it is discontinued for a period of one year, and at such time the property shall be rezoned by the City in conformity with the comprehensive municipal plan (5) Permitted Accessory Uses Any accessory use existing on the date a Conditional Use Permit is issued may be continued (6) Lot Area, Lot Width, and Yards, as existing on the date a Conditional Use Permit is issued and as may be modified from time -to -time in accordance with the requirements of a Conditional Use Permit, may be continued (7) Parking, Loading, Signs, as noted on the issued Conditional Use Permit may be continued S ILLklATE < ILAnJ 11C ,,OIu ISL0i p LSDI11 Anne Bodl ovick A Tzoepke 1d i anurn neiste! .,Manson p weitz T Panel' ABSSm1T D Knefelkarnp TII'±E ? 00 p DATE August 4, 1980 The 'neeting vas called to oraer at ? 10 g li 1 Chairman Tom Tarrell introduced Jhe subject of E isting Business Zoninc He reterrod to the recoiiendations bj Carl Dale concerning this subject, see para 1 on attached sheet He stated that once a business nas ceased to exist for one year it returns to its origina2 zoning povever there is considerable legal involvement Members of the planning CoArission made mention of the attached list of businesses iahich they felt could well fall into the E.B. zoning regulations Anne Bodlovicquestioned how Kinder Karp a'id tne proposed gas station at Croixuood Blvd and County 5 would oe effected by the D B zoning Tom Farrell felt tnis problem irignt not arise until 1iid September At this point the Chairman decided it would be nest if the waiting r.:ribers of tne public be permitted to proceed with their petition and she E B zoning discussion 1 as temporarily terminated Ilowever, for the purpose of continuity in these minutes it appears preferable if tne final decisions be recorded in context with the above An,ie Bodlovick stated that she felt a moral responsibility to follow the old ordinance brought in six years ago, although Brookts Supernarl et owners have always peen aware of the situation. A Ranum felt that within the context of the law the City is overwhelmed by a group of people from Croirwood who refuse to have anything built in that area you cannot prevent by law anybody selling his property (Alienation of property rights statute) It vas proposed by Russell weitz and seconded by Alfred Roepke that the planning Commission recommend that the Council endorse the Existing Business Zoning procedure as recommended by carl Dale under Section j 11 E.B. Existing Business District on June 50, 1980 The motion was approved unanimously. See attached memo sent to the council for their comment and discussion at their meeting planned for September. 2 7 homeowners from Northland Avenue in Croixwood presented member, of the planning Commission with a copy of a proposal they have prepared for the consideration of tne Council A copy has been filed with the minutes of this meeting. Great concern was felt about the silting and debris caused by poor drainage in the area to the rear of homes in the Northland and Interlachen intersection ZOi1I!IG L�IS'lI'IG ooUSI At the August iF meeting in 1980 of the planting Com lission the following resolution t as l asoed It Tres proposed by Russell wei tz and seconded b,r Al area Poeotre that uhe planning Comfiission recommend that tne council c zdorse tne Listing Business zone zg procedui e o ; re core vended o,, Carl Dale under Section 5.11 LB 1-listing rusiness District on Tune 30, 1980 (Council members should have copies of this memorandum) Ileiibers of the planning commission ap )roved the above notion unanimously. In view of this the businesses below are recommended ac beinu suitable for F.B. 1 Zoning A L) fisting that the with the property 2 3 I 3usiness Zoning a: recoiiiended oy Carl Dale, plus L ecorn,iendation conditional use permit be defined as a formal zoninf, contract land and that the contract be filed at the County v th the deed Croixwood Blvd P oy 5 E corner of Owens & Iryrtle 'Vest side of Greeley betireen yrtle and P nsey 2ast :ide of h rilliam bet keen North Pico aid 5 I' E Corner of Greeley olive 6 Last side o _ gwens oetl een Linden & Laurel lu la corner of ovens `Laurel Co,ripley of businesses on cnurchill Fourth 9 9 St?tion anti uvint shop on uAy. 95 north 10 Labor Temple 3 - Churchill 11 Antique shot'., on rourtn St 12 Arro\, business office ea Fourth St 15 Stilltirater country Club 14 Orleans St ,till atcr Clinic 15 Siaonett Funeral Home 16 Ambulance service still rater EIS and Ta C Abandoned ,,tat1 ons pcvert to pesidentl al Zone 1 (Brook's Suooret re) (holiday („ Lation) (Davian Bldg (rook', $uperett2 Rooster Como) (Br(Prn Ice Cream) Nap_ y' ' arbor) (pod„ Shop) i Ser%ic, (abandoned gas station 2 Libertj ) JilLin a Owen, (aoandoned station) 5 Fast ,amide of Greeley oaLween pine and O al (Fell, nadio peoair) If ,Members of the City Council have aiy questions rcbax ding u is above lease feel free to contact me I, ne Tree Trail and ,oanty 5 reap= ctfully submitted -2-L1,42QC Tom Fari ell Chairman of tne StLllwater Planning Commission 0• .14 NEW BUSINESS 3 to ww for P s 4 I1 IMP • �/ • September 2 1980 1 On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson seconed dfby Councilman rate for the proposed assessments for Local Improvement Nos 173 and 166 were set at 7 25% as recommended by Mr Kriesel 2 On motion of Councilman Powell seconded by Councilman Roger from Paul G Donlin St Paul for an accident in Lowell Park McGarry -Kearney Insurance Co (all in favor) Mr Farrell discussed with the City Council the proposed ordinance for Existing Business Districts the purpose of this is two -fold -- all of them will be treated alike and the City Cpuncil would have a better control of the property if it is zoned this way He had mailed out a memo on this matter and he proceeded explain this memo at this time He recommended that a legal contact with the deed that is filed with the County on such properties and there would have to be legal descriptions drawn up these properties The Planning Commission is also conce led about three abandoned businesses and he felt that the Council should costa,,. these property owners as to what they plan to do with these properties MR MAGNUSON suggested that the owners be notified and do all of the preliminary work before the ordinance is passed and check out other areas that could be included in this ordinance On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick a resolution was introduced APPOINTING RUTH DOERR AS AN ELECTION JUDGE FOR THE FIRST WARD SECOND PRECINCT TO REPLACE MARCIA FOURNELLE WHO IS UNABLE TO SERVE AYES --Councilwoman Bodlovick Councilmen Harry Peterson Roger Peterson Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS --None (see resolutions) 5 On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson seconded by Councilman Powell the Council authorized both of the requests submitted by Allen Zepper Building Official (attendance at North Hennepin Commercial College on each Tuesday and attendance at a seminar at North Hennepin Community College on October 16 1980) (all in favor) 6 MR ZEPPER stated that he and Mr Shelton are concerned about various areas in the City that are being filled in and did not feel that the City had any ordinance or control over MR MAGNUSON felt that this is possibly covered by the Wetlands Ordinance and it was concurred that Mr Magnuson Mr Zepper and Mr Shelton will check out the present code and report back to the Council on this matter 7 On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson a resolution was introduced DIRECTING THE PAUMENT OF THE BILLS with the addition of the appraisal payment to John Ogren AYES --Councilwoman Bodlovick Councilmen Harry Peterson Roger Peterson Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS --None 'see resolutions) INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS None at this time APPLICATIONS Powell the interest 152 167 175 171 (all in favor) Peterson the claim was referred to the On motion of Councilman Powell seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick the follow- ing Contractor s Licenses were approved (all in favor) All Construction Inc 10740 110th St N Stillwater General Renewal McCarron s Bldg Center Inc 23840 Lake Blvd N Forest Lake Mn 55025 General New COMMUNICATIONS From the League of Minnesota Cities regarding Local Government Aid Reductions Mr Kriesel stated that we should be informed sometime after September 15th on thi., matter 19� • • • • • September 16 1980 215 • PETITIONS From Shamrock Construction Co for a watermain to serve Brown Creek Heights Addition and abutting properties 0n motion of Councilman Roger Peterson seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick a resolution was introduced ACCEPTING THE PETITION AND ORDERING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE WATERMAIN TO BROWN CREEK HEIGHTS ADDITON UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 Zoning for Existing Businesses was held over for a futu8 meeting M It e WO NEW BUSINESS 1 2 and 3 were taken care of under committee reports at the 4 o clock meeting 4 On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson a resolution was introduced DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS AYES Councilwoman Bodlovick Councilmen Harry Peterson Roger Peterson Mayor Junker NAYS None (see resolutions) 5 There were no Planning Commission items 6 0n motion of Harry Peterson seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick a resolution was introduced ACCEPTING THE WORK AND MAKING FINAL PAYMENT FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NOS 171 AND 173 AYES- Councilwoman Bodlovick Councilmen Harry Peterson Roger Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS- None (see resolutions) 7 On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson a resolution was introduced ACCEPTING THE WORK AND MAKING FINAL PAYMENT FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO 152 AYES Councilwoman Bodlovick Councilmen Harry Peterson Roger Bterson and Mayor Junker NAYS --None (see resolutions) INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS CARL TALBERT the sub -contractor for the painting of the Ice Arena appeared before the Council on their contract MR ELLIOTT explained that they met at the job site with Mr Magnuson and Mr Wilson and there is a concern on the part of the City to the ability to perform within the time frame that is available and they are very concerned whether or not they can perform MR MAGNUSON stated that one option which might be a viable option and one which they discussed with Mr Talbert and Mr Wilson both as to whether or not the City would consider just a mutual release pay Mr Wilson and Mr Talbert for the value of the work for the time that they have on the job and the materials and in return for a lease and any further obligation to them and release their bond from any obligation - this is7way to minimize a lawsuit and wait until neat spring to relet the contract for the painting This is not one that would suggest but one that the Council should consider MR TALBERT felt that a commitment is a commitment they did get started late and there were problems on how to do the job and he felt that they could do the job If they are release that the City would have it done next spring he suggested that they still have time to possibly do part of it could they go as far as they can get it done and then complete it next spring at the same price MAYOR JUNKER asked if by October 1st would they have some of the beams painted and he responded that they could go a certain distance - have it blasted and painted possibly get half of it done i° they pushed they could get the whole thing done MR ELLIOTT stated that one point that he is touching upon is that the specifi cations call for a nominal $100 per day liquidation damages after Octob er 1st and in discussing this plan the City would be waiving that liquidation damage and we will allow you to get half way through and they would have to keep the bond in force for that period of time MR TALBERT stated that when they do a job they want to do a job etc Ho was not asking for something that they were not already gixing - the long part of it was getting started learning what to do to protect the ceiling which was the major part of it and that they have finally figured out • • • • City of Commumt% Drrrlupnwnl Drnartmrnt Case No. 06-53 Site Map 7 1 1 ti1iw?ter J E BIRTH P A Of M I N N( O A Planning Commission DATE October 4, 2006 CASE NO V\06-54 APPLICANT Myron Reubendale REQUEST A variance to allow an encroachment into the corner lot side yard (front yard) LOCATION 609 Broadway Street S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFLL - Single Family Large Lot ZONING RB - Two-family District CPC DATE October 9, 2006 REVIEWERS Commuruty Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner 0#72 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-1-12(5)b 31 of the Stillwater City Code to allow for a home addition to encroach up to five feet into the required 10 foot side yard setback for an attached garage with habitable living area above The applicant is making this request in order to construct an addition of a garage with living on the second floor on the north side of the existing structure Side yard When there is an attached garage on one side of the dwelling, the garage setback is five feet, provided that no habitable floor area is closer than ten feet from the property lme and provided that the garage is a minimum of 15 feet from the nearest structure on the adjacent lot t 609 Broadway Street S Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The property at 609 Broadway St S is a legal conforming lot The home sits on the west central portion of the lot The lot is 76 feet wide and 255 feet deep The total area of the lots is 19,187 square feet in size The minimum lot size of a lot in the RB zoning district is 7,500 square feet The eastern portion of the lot slopes away from the home making it difficult to construct a driveway and garage in the rear yard and meet the City's requirements related to slopes According to the Washington County Assessor the home was constructed in 1876 The location of the home and lot configuration was not a condition created by the current home owner With the house centered between the side lot lines it is imposable to construct a detached garage due to the location of the existing home 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors Without the approval of a variance the applicant would be denied the opportunity to construct a two car garage Several homes in the area currently have similar garages Finally, a five foot setback is allowed for either a single story garage or a two story addition without the garage, therefore, granting the variance does not convey a special privilege to the property owner 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan The mass of the home with the addition is very similar to other homes in the neighborhood Again, a five foot setback is allowed for either a single story garage or a two story addition without the garage, therefore, the property owner could construct an addition without a variance that would have a similar impact as the proposed addition The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan 609 Broadway Street S Page 3 FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan ACTION BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed a design review application for this accessory dwelling unit on October 2, 2006 The HPC approved the application with the conditions listed below and with the condition that the applicant receive a side yard variance from the Planning Commission and if the variance is denied that the design review shall be returned to the HPC for further review RECOMMENDATION Approval as conditioned CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1 All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Adnunistrator 2 The windows in the addition shall be double hung sash windows 3 The addition shall incorporate similar siding and roof pitch of the existing structure 4 A drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit Attachments Submittal package from the applicant PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case o Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance The fees for requested action are attached to this application *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting matenal (i e, photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copes of supporting material is required If applscation is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting matenal is required A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project (Bt`j Assessors Parcel No Zoning District, Description of Project tutJ (GEOCode) 1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. 1 further certify I wi11 comply with the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner Ky.► �:�A{-� Representative Mailing Address (LCCI City- State - Zip (Yr LLLt- - tM� Mailing Address City - State - Zip Telephone No C l A-5 3 t5 a- Telephone No Signatui+i�\i- ature is required) Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Principal Accessory Feet Signature (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area Existing Proposed Paved Impervious Area square feet square feet square feet square feet No of off-street parking spaces S 1 1 September 19 2006 We plan to add a 20 x 26 garage to our home having been without a garage for the 16 years we have owned the home The driveway and garage floor have been in place for 10+ years in anticipation of building the garage on the north-west corner of the house To maintain the Victorian image of our 2-story home and balance the existing structure it is desirable to build a 2nd story over the entire garage To provide a useable two -car attached garage this 2nd story will extend the existing lines of the home blending the addition into what will appear to have been the original home We request a variance to extend the second floor to the edge of the proposed garage 5 from the property line This variance will not only enable an original look and feel to the addition but will also provide a structural balance to the overall home Thank You Myron Reubendale 609 S Broadway Stillwater MN 55082 (651) 253-8152c (651) 430-9184h Community Development Ihmarntxm w `3 rLtviATI _L - i1)/OLD( ? -cd tit Q UA 1700(2- U (�1 4 Tai ® /[o°O G> /6,° x Z;tb at-�".-sac I�a�fZ uP2� >Vf;!- i P ry l/4J 1 ` ' 60 ?Ps 0W/6, y IA I NCI � `l�- T { �' k- f O b aI 1 %- I O'/g, ` , y- I C 'f �' v, 1, R 0 >'` R-0 T 1 rt— IN 72- u(AI— 7r V�(Pie D Gp Y'S lJ1IltDDu (j '( nJ I/4i`7' Afl l4e- p X T100 Wei-si l,e,vC\vt'J I WOW- I 1/0►1r 1'ya — --- iJ-)az-- li-_ - V1 ONJ ---- VV- l c1211 #s1 N t 5N PLoa (z- -*T �- LU (v! eoR- I✓r.1 et-) dneT31 © ic/o y I r fr j f opr fztgtP 1P5n 64'I r-I R.ccY Gt�P W / -c,-7 ! t/\ T r- ------ —r I v e 4i +mil - noPP- r r � - — -(_,E/to.\-n O&) It-31 Lt Fikk (L raW001'j 67t' 1 f-) hNW 1 1L"0 G l M012- c0/1-1A 4ai-- rat 41 i ,vC J h I➢JA°ra- t� ef4t.. 14i{ - ve.c.. 1/btb l L1211 s\ October 3, 2006 Stillwater Planning Commission City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re Myron Reubendale Side Yard Setback Variance Request TO MEMBERS OF THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION The undersigned reside at 657 South Broadway and are neighbors of Myron Reubendale, who resides at 609 South Broadway We are in receipt of a request from Mr Reubendale for a variance to the side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for the construction of a garage We wish to advise you that we have no objection to the requested variance and urge the Commission to give favorable consideration to the request It is our opinion that the proposed garage will enhance our neighborhood, and we encourage you to approve the same Very truly yours, m and Sharon Lammers f IN B RTHPLA L OF tt NNE 0 1 A DATE October 4, 2006 TO Planning Commission REQUEST Front Setback Variance APPLICANT Tom Humnghake LAND OWNER Tom Humnghake LOCATION 209 North 3rd Street MEETING DATE October 9, 2006 CASE NO 06-55 PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Directoi3 BACKGROUND Tom Huninghake purchased the residence on 209 North 3rd Street and is restoring it During the early stages of the restoration it became apparent that the addition on the rear of the home had considerable rot in the structural members Therefore, it was removed except for the foundation Mr Huninghake would like to build a new addition over the existing foundation As seen in the attachments, the addition would be cantilevered out over the existing foundation making it two feet longer than the original addition The minimum required front yard setback for the Huninghake property is 30 feet However, the home only has a 16 foot front setback Therefore, the house is considered a non -conforming structure As such, the Zoning Ordinance prohibits an expansion of the structure 1 Since the proposed addition is larger than the original addition, it would be considered an expansion of the non -conforming structure Consequently, the proposed addition is not permissible unless a front yard setback variance is granted to remove the non -conforming status of the structure F Zoning Ordinance Chapter 31 1 Subd 9 Huninghake Variance October 4 2006 Page 2 REQUEST Mr Huninghake is requesting a 14 foot variance from the 30 foot front lot line setback requirement, to allow his existing home with a 16 foot setback to be expanded EVALUATION OF REQUEST The Planning Commission may grant a variance when all of the following conditions are found2 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The home at 209 North 3rd Street was constructed in the 19th Century, which was long before the current 30 foot front setback requirement was adopted Moreover, it was constructed in this location long before Mr Hurunghake purchased the property Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be satisfied 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors The size of the home is not large, even with the proposed slightly expanded addition A home of its footprint size certainly could be found on most any lot in the historic residential areas of Stillwater Therefore, granting the variance for the existing setback would not create a special privilege for the homeowner Consequently, staff finds this criterion to be satisfied 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan The proposed addition will have no negative impacts on any of the surrounding properties As seen in Exhibit B, the setback to the rear lot line would be 80 feet and to the south side lot line would be 5 feet Both of these setbacks meet or exceed minimum standards Moreover, the addition would be on the back side of the house, which would not worsen the substandard front setback Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be satisfied 2 Zoning Ordinance Ch 31 1 Subd 30 (2) d Hurunghake Variance October 4 2006 Page 3 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Deny the requested 14 foot front setback variance 2 Approve the requested 14 foot variance 3 Continue the public hearing for more information The 60 day decision deadline for the request is November 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the 14 foot setback variance for the existing home attachments Exhibit A, Location Map Exhibit B, Site Map Applicant's Letter Building elevations cc Tom Hunmghake City or .)eveloomem Department f 1 Property lines Road center lines o ing Districts A-P, Agricultural Preservation RA - Single Family Residential • RB - Two Family • LR, Lakeshore Residential C _', TR, Traditional Residential ▪ CTR, Cove Traditional Residential CCR, Cove Cottage Residential I. CR, Cottage Residential TH, Townhouse CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential — 1 RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential CBD - Central Business District CA - General Commercial CRD - Campus Research Development MI VC, Village Commercial MN BP-C, Business Park - Commercial I. BP-O, Business Park - Office - BP -I, Business Park - Industrial I IB - Heavy Industrial ® PA - Public Administration Public Works Facility a Island POTENTIAL RIGHT-OF-WAY WATER Railroad Huninghake Variance Location & Zoning Map Exhibit A (it'or ( 1111111111111\ Do. elonitlellt [)eDartlllent Huninghake Variance Site Map feet Previous addition Existing house o osed addition , BO e% / > 5 feet / Exhibit B e September 15, 2006 Planning Commission City of Stillwater 216 N Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Sirs, Please find our enclosed application for a variance to the front yard set back to our home at 209 North 3rd Street, Stillwater We request this variance because we have a 16' set back and 30' is required Since the house was built in 1916 and has quite deep roots in its present location, a vanance seems easier than moving the house We are replacing the rear porch on our home due to detenoration and aesthetic reasons The porch is being built on the existing foundation, no variance is required to rebuild to the same size although, we propose an additional 2' across the width An expansion and thus a vanance is required due to our non conforming set back We have been to the Hentage Preservation Commission and they have approved our plans with or without the additional 2' Please see enclosed letter It is also our understanding that with this vanance it would resolve our set back problem once and for all making any future improvements n e , garage, or additional remodeling etc would be covered I thank you m advance Sincerely, lam /1-edLvt-m^/‘ Tom Humnghake d 7 d G,/,‘1SFSyS CS S SOS 3 < > M 4 r \ .4 1 c 0 , a n jc 0 I t = d I 7 1 1 01 1 O9 (011 / A,�3 tt� 4 4,114, r 3h. 1cl ij' �{ J rj1Y� 1ii 'j,i / Sir ui Y { G 6 6 (J1 6 r p Y- , 4 6 A U U 1 oa 7 0 D (L) r :t. 74 /F Heritage Preservation Commission City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Sirs, Please review our proposed plans to replace the porch on our home at 209 N 3`1 Street in Stillwater The existing porch was m dire need of repair and did not do the house justice, quite ugly if you will, therefore, has been taken down to the first floor level Our proposed plan is to replace it with something that will blend seamlessly with the existing home We will be going to great lengths, both time and expense to replicate the sidmg and windows as close as possible The siding is described as 6" Hardy Plank, ripped in half to obtain the 2 '/< reveal as on the rest of the home The windows will be Andersen double hung which will be the same sizes and styles as the homes existing windows All exterior details will be replicated, trim, soffits, etc The roof shingles will match the new Architectural Carriage House shingles in which we recently put on the entire home The color scheme will match the rest of the home, as seen m the pictures provided The whole porch will be built on the existing foundation that is m_good condition and has been in place for 50 years The only real addition will be the 8' deck on the rear of the porch extending to the east It will be 75' plus from the rear property line It will not extend north or south beyond the width of the home The deck railing will be turned spindles and match the railing on the upper balcony Great attention will be paid to every detail in this project to make to make it a beautiful addition to an already beautiful home as the pictures bare We realize our plan does not show every detail, and hopefully this letter better descnbes our intentions We will replicate closely as humanly possible with the matenals made available in this modern age We thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter Regards, Tom Hurnnghake Memo To Planning Commission From Sheila McNamara, Community Development Department Date October 6, 2006 Subject TIF District Amendment The information regarding TIF District amendment will be presented at meeting time