Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-11 CPC Packet• illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, December 11, 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 NOVEMBER 13, 2006 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.01 Case No. ANN/06-61. Annexation petition for the property located at 7979 Neal Avenue North in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District. Kemal Schankereli, applicant. 3.02 Case No. V/06-63. A variance to the slope setback requirements for an addition located at 1723 2nd Street North in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Boris Popov, applicarii. 3.03 Case No. SUB/06-64. A resubdivision of an existing lot of 38,4G6 aluare feet into two lots: Lot A: 11,616 square feet and Lot B: 26,790 square feet, respectively, and a waiver of platting fees and required street with (50 feet required, 22 feet existing) located at 1904 5' Street North in the RA, Single Family District. Karen Kramer, applicant. 3.04 Case No. SUP/V/06-65. A special use permit and a variance to the bed and breakfast regulations for the required 900 foot separation from another bed and breakfast to operate a two -room bed and breakfast in the carriage house of the Mulvey Inn located at 807 South Harriet Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Truett and Jill Lawson, applicant. 3.05 Case No. V/06-66. A variance to the rear yP` ' Setback (25 feet required, 8 feet requested) for the construction of a reside, ice located at 406 South Fifth Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Willis, applicant. 4. OTHER BUSINESS 4.01 Case No. ZAT/06-05. Further consideration of a zoning ordinance text amendment revising the building height limits for downtown. City of Stillwater, applicant. 5. ADJOURNMENT CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us J City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 13 2006 Present Robert Gag Chairman Suzanne Block Gregg Carlsen Mike Dahlquist David Junker Dan Kalmon Brad Meinke Dave Middleton and David Peroceschi Others Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Pogge Approval of minutes The minutes of October 9 2006 were approved as submitted PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No SUP/06-56 An amendment to a special use permit for the transfer of ownership of a bed and breakfast (James Mulvey Inn) at 622 W Churchill St in the RB Two Family Residential District Cynthia Hannig applicant The applicant was present Mr Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings/recommendations Ms Hannig is requesting to convert one of the two existing family rooms to another guest room bringing the total number of guest rooms to five She stated that a minimum of five guest rooms is necessary in order to make the operation successful In addition Ms Hannig asked that she have the ability to rent out rooms in the carriage house on the property from time to time The former owners of the James Mulvey Inn Truett and Jill Lawson will retain ownership of the carriage house Ms Hannig said the occasional use of the carriage house rooms would be done in cooperation with the Lawsons Mr Gag opened the public hearing Truett Lawson previous owner spoke in favor of the requested transfer and reviewed some of the history of their operation of the James Mulvey Inn Mr Lawson stated while they have no interest in operating a competing B&B they would be open to the James Mulvey Inn utilizing a room(s) from time to time No other comments were received and the hearing was closed There was some discussion about the number of parking spaces provided There was discussion about two separate properties/owners operating the same B&B — renting out rooms to the other owner Mr Dahlquist wondered if that type of arrangement would run counter to the ordinance requirement regarding the 900 distance between B&Bs Mr Kalmon said he thought the proposed arrangement supported the opportunity for both properties to remain stable well -kept historic structures Mr Dahlquist moved approval of the requested transfer of ownership (special use permit amendment) with the 16 conditions of approval as recommended by staff with an additional condition that should the carriage house at 807 Harriet St S be purchased by the applicant the applicant can use two of the rooms in the carnage house as guest rooms for the Bed and Breakfast Motion was seconded and passed unanimously Case No SUP/06-58 A special use permit for Crabtree Lawyers and Clinic Doctor Inc at 610 N Main Street #300 in the CBD Central Business District Larry D Grell applicant Mr Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings/recommendations There was discussion of the availability of parking in the development The applicant was present 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 13 2006 Mr Gag opened the public hearing Ned Gordon president of the 610 Homeowners Association said the Association had no objection to the proposal He did speak to the availability of parking noting that generally there is sufficient parking it was also noted that public parking is available across the street No other comments were received and the hearing was closed Mr Middleton seconded by Ms Block moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unanimously Case No CPA/ZAM/ZAT/06-53 A Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Map Amendment and 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 S Greeley St) in the RB Two Family Residential District Timothy Freeman representing Heidi Rosebud applicant Mr Peroceschi asked what the applicant s original request was that prompted the proposal for rezoning Mr Freeman explained that the onginal request had to do with an expansion of the spa portion of Ms Rosebud s business With that expansion there was discussion of parking needs In the initial discussions with staff Mr Freeman said they were made aware that they would not be able to do anything without creating a conforming use out of what is now a legal non -conforming use He noted there are many other similar situations in the City and this is an issue that needs to be addressed Mr Freeman said staff told them that due to time constraints the only way changes would be made was if someone came forward with a proposal Ms Block said it would be nice for the Commission to know Ms Rosebud s vision for the properties/business Mr Pogge reviewed the requests the Commission made at its initial hearing on this matter — a definition of Neighborhood Business Use list of existing commercial uses in residential areas and how to address issues related to expansion/growth of a business in a Neighborhood Business District — and staff response to those requests as listed in the agenda packet Mr Pogge reviewed the draft ordinance which would create a Neighborhood Business District he noted that the ordinance does not address B&B operations Mr Pogge noted if the new Neighborhood Business District zoning is adopted existing property owners would have to apply for the new zoning and would be considered on a case -by -case basis It was decided to handle the three actions — Zoning Text Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment — separately Mr Gag opened the hearing to comment regarding the Zoning Text Amendment Mr Freeman suggested item 2a in the draft which lists the specific properties is not necessary and inconsistent with 2b Mr Freeman also noted that the draft in item 2d limits any other properties from being designated Neighborhood Commercial in the future Mr Freeman also suggested item 4b seemed overly punitive — requiring a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow reconstruction due to catastrophic occurrences Mr Gag opened the meeting to public comment regarding the Zoning Text Amendment Don Empson 1206 N Second St pointed out the City recently adopted a Neighborhood Conservation District He expressed a concern that the proposed ordinance was not in the spirit 2 .1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 13 2006 of the Conservation District and would be the first step in allowing expansion of commercial development with the potential for the demolition of homes to allow for such expansion Mr Empson also suggested that the term neighborhood business is a misnomer as the business does not truly serve the neighborhood residents Susanna Patterson 1018 W Olive St raised the issue of spot zoning Ms Patterson also questioned why notices of this meeting had not been sent to potentially affected residents Mr Pogge pointed out that this matter had been continued from the October meeting Ted Gillen 1011 W Myrtle St expressed a concern that this would open the door for expanding beyond the original properties Expanding without control he said does not serve the people of this community Susan Sidoti Gorodisher May Township fitness director for the Stillwater Fitness Center attested that contrary to the point made by Mr Empson many people from the surrounding neighborhood walk to the Fitness Center and the Center certainly is a neighborhood business She spoke in favor of Ms Rosebud s request and shared her experience as a member and employee of the Stillwater Fitness Center as well as her perspective as a resident of the greater Stillwater community She spoke of Ms Rosebud s contributions to the community Mike McCarthy 410 Linden St W stated he purchased his residence based on the understanding that his home was located in a residential neighborhood and he suggested that his purchase represented an agreement with the City and obligation on the part of the City to protect his residential neighborhood Mr McCarthy also noted that a business owner has a choice of location and if the choice is in an existing residential neighborhood that limits the opportunity for expansion He also described recent changes to the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the Fitness Center/Spa He suggested that the proposed ordinance s purpose is to grow commercial enterprises and expand them in residential neighborhood something that undermines other property owners property values and property rights Ryan Bakke 114 S Owens St said he believed the fitness center and spa serve the community and questioned how the three homes involved in the current request would serve the community Kurt Weidler 206 S Greeley St expressed a concern that the proposed use of the properties would change the character of the neighborhood There was a question whether the proposed ordinance would affect all other such businesses in town and whether notices should have been sent to residents living near other existing businesses Mr Pogge noted the ordinance would affect all other businesses but the zoning would not change requests for zoning changes would be done by request/application at which time notices would be sent to neighboring property owners Ann Terwedo 1408 W Linden St spoke in support of Ms Rosebud s request She said she is a member of the Fitness Center and does walk to the Center making it a truly neighborhood business Ms Terwedo noted that the existing neighborhood businesses identified by staff are located in four distinct neighborhoods and said she would like the Commission to treat the four areas separately -- look at the architecture and patterns of development in the neighborhoods and future expansion issues and how those relate to the neighborhoods 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 13 2006 Dick Reed 118 S Owens St spoke in favor or orderly growth and due process He spoke in favor of protecting what we have growing what we have and developing what we have all done in the context of a master plan No other comments were received and the discussion was returned to the Commission table Mr Pogge reviewed the questions before the Commission regarding growth/expansion and addressed some of the comments related to the Conservation District and the potential for demolition of homes Mr Pogge also briefly reviewed the language of the proposed draft ordinance It was noted that should the ordinance be adopted there would be separate public hearings for each of the existing neighborhood businesses that request a rezoning under the ordinance Mr Junker spoke of the changes to the neighborhood businesses that have occurred over time and suggested that developing a neighborhood district plan will be a time-consuming task Mr Junker suggested addressing issues related to Ms Rosebud s request and this specific site might be better done through a new conditional use permit There was discussion as to what prompted the 2002 change in the zoning code that eliminated the ability to issue special use permits for commercial uses in Two -Family Residential Distract Mr Dahlquist said he would like to hear from the other existing neighborhood business owners and what they have to say about the proposed ordinance There was a question as to how to return to the previous process that was utilized before the zoning change of 2002 Mr Turnblad said the Commission could recommend that action to the Council Mr Kalmon said the proposed text amendment represented a more comprehensive plan approach than action on a case -by -case basis Mr Pogge said he thought the proposed text amendment was more protective of neighborhoods than returning to allowing special use permits in the RB District Mr Gag noted that the City s Comprehensive Plan will be updated in 2007 and perhaps this is an issue that can be worked on in that process In the interim Mr Gag said the Commission could recommend the Council return to the previous process of considering special use permits in the RB District Mr Dahlquist spoke against opening up the potential for more commercial requests in the RB District Mr Carlsen agreed with the need for more information regarding what prompted the change in 2002 Mr Kalmon asked about the process/consequence of tabling or denying the request altogether Mr Pogge spoke of the 60- day rule and noted that the Commission would have to take some action at its December meeting unless the applicant agreed to another extension of the 60-day rule Ms Block said she thought the proposed ordinance allowing limited expansion within the confines of the existing property would keep homeowners secure in the knowledge that their neighborhood block would not be eaten up by one business yet it allows a business to make changes to their property which they currently cannot do Ms Block moved to adopt the zoning text amendment with the limited expansion Mr Kalmon seconded the motion adding that any expansion beyond as indicated in the ordinance would have to go through a neighborhood approval/review process Mr Pogge noted that such a process is required in the draft ordinance Mr Kalmon withdrew the amendment to his second Mr Dahlquist asked whether uses such as Bed & Breakfast should be excluded Mr Dahlquist suggested that normal wear and tear be stricken from item 4b he also questioned the regulations regarding signs as listed in item 3b and whether that is restrictive enough Mr Turnblad explained that item 3b is based on the most restrictive signage regulations those of the Central Business District Mr Freeman noted that under the limited growth policy the applicant will not be able to do anything she is seeking to do with her property Mr Dahlquist noted that the ordinance as proposed includes a list of specific properties a list that does not include the piece of property where Ms Rosebud s parking lot would eventually be located Mr Pogge noted that the list of properties could be amended after requested rezoning changes 4 I City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 13 2006 Mr Carlsen said he did not feel comfortable with adopting the ordinance at this time Mr Gag agreed that this is a complicated issue that deserves more time before making a decision Mr Junker also spoke in favor of spending more time on this issue Motion to approve the zoning text amendment failed by unanimous vote Mr Middleton moved to continue this matter to the December meeting and call for a special meeting prior to the regular December meeting to address this issue Mr Carlsen seconded the motion Staff was requested to provide information regarding the 2002 zoning change who made the decision whether the Planning Commission was involved whether public heanngs were held Ms Block wondered whether the other 18 business owners should be informed of the meeting during discussion it was suggested that the other owners will not be affected by the ordinance — they can request a zoning change Motion to table passed unanimously Mr Turnblad suggested that the issue be taken up at the next regular Planning Commission if possible Motion was made and passed unanimously to table this matter to the regular Planning Commission of Dec 11 OTHER BUSINESS Concept discussion for the Hazel Street golf course neighborhood Putman Planning and Design Lynskey & Clark Companies applicants Mr Turnblad reviewed the site and the developer s preference for the two-family concept which would result in 13 structures with a total of 26 households Mr Turnblad spoke of the Comprehensive Plan and Single Family Large Lot (SFLL) classification and existing inconsistencies in the properties that have been held to the SFLL standard of a minimum lot size of 20 000 square feet The staff report also provided options for dealing with the inconsistencies Marc Putnam reviewed plans He spoke of the topography and slopes on the site He stated that 18 home sites have been identified but noted that the single-family market is at a standstill perhaps in part due to the aging population He said it is the development team s belief that two-family homes in one -family clothing is the right approach for the site He provided drawings of such homes and possible road layout There were questions about the slopes and whether the building sites would meet the City s slope ordinance Mr Kalmon asked about the tree inventory and the number of trees that would be removed There was discussion about the property to the east and whether that would ever be developed Mr Carlsen said he liked the idea of having a duplex situation that is a little more rural but said he was concerned about the dominance of the garage appearance he suggested perhaps side - loading Mr Kalmon said in neighborhood meetings related to the sewer project there was a strong consensus in favor of narrow roads the prominence/visibility of vegetation and trees and rural feeling of the neighborhood Mr Kalmon said he didn t think the design model or streetscape and proposed road layout fit the existing neighborhood Mr Putnam pointed out that the road is as narrow as City staff will allow Mr Kalmon also spoke to drainage issues, noting there are serious erosion problems in the area Mr Putnam noted the rules they must adhere to are much higher regarding rate and volume than for existing neighborhoods Mr Peroceschi said he would favor keeping the area RA Mr Kalmon expressed a concern about density Mr Dahlquist noted that if the density was reduced the developer might be able to address the concern about the appearance of the garages perhaps some could be side loaded rather than side by side front loading and fit the lay of the land better Mr Dahlquist said he was intrigued with the dual -family concept as it is a housing stock type that is needed in the 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 13 2006 City Mr Middleton said he thought the RB zoning would be fine he spoke of the demand for the proposed housing type and noted the development would not be highly visible from the road Mr Middleton said he was unsure about the proposed number of units Ms Block spoke of conflicting information such as affordability and the estimated cost of the units she also questioned the elevation from the golf course which she said appears to be a three-story structure not a twin -home Ms Block said she was open to either concept — single-family or dual -family -- at this point Mick Lynskey addressed the density issue by suggesting that the 13 twin -home structures represent Tess density than the 18 potential single-family structures Bob Clark said they had looked at ways to have less impact on the neighborhood and less structures he invited Commission members to walk the property Mr Peroceschi said if you walk the property it is hard to believe it would be possible to build 18 houses on the site Mr Meinke said he thought the twin -homes look less dense Mr Kalmon asked if the developer had looked at other options such as clustering Mr Kalmon said he didn t think going to RB would be a problem it is how the development is designed that is the issue Mr Gag asked for a straw vote the straw vote indicated that the majority of the Commission would be open to the dual -home concept Case No ZAT/06-05 This case was continued to the December meeting The meeting was adjourned at 11 30 p m Respectfully submitted Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 6 8TA7F rmq ��. MIME Mins MIME a NI. MILES wiRRES ximincEOPPO 41 0- 1' FAR' _,... !MEL ��. ;:�t�q( ,7PlimmarrirEirf\ r 5 . C e VERMINIfila "IIIPORRNIO6 Whim imp Lnwneet ng Department 025 Mlles O • December 11, 2006 Planning Commission Project Locations 06-61 Schankereh Annexation 06-63 Popov Vanance 06-64 Kramer Resubdivision 06-65 Lawson Special Use Permit and Vanance 06-66 Willis Variance O06-05 Downtown Height Regulations Stillwater HE A 91PPL*C 0 AIVHE 011 DATE December 5, 2006 TO Planning Commission REQUEST Annexation APPLICANT Kemal Schankereli LAND OWNER Kemal Schankereli LOCATION 7979 Neal Avenue, Stillwater Township MEETING DATE December 11, 2006 REVIEWERS Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Police Chief, City Planner PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director` s CASE NO 06-61 BACKGROUND Mr Schankereli has submitted a petition for annexation of his +/- 2 3 acre homestead property at 7979 Neal Avenue North Ultimately he would like to be able to create two to four lots from this property If this annexation request is approved by the City and Joint Planning Board, then he will make application for the subdivision EVALUATION OF REQUEST 1 Orderly Annexation Agreement (OAA) • According to the OAA, the subject property is located in the Phase IV annexation area This area is not scheduled for annexation until 2015 • However, the mfill provision of the OAA (Section 4 09) allows the City Council the discretion of approving smaller "infill" annexations if each of the criteria below are satisfied o 100% of the subject landowners have signed an annexation petition • This criterion is satisfied o The property is adjacent to the City Schankereh Annexation Page 2 of 3 • The property to the north is already within the City Also, Neal Avenue along the site's west side has been annexed to the City Therefore, this criterion is satisfied o The level of growth in the entire area regulated by the OAA has not exceeded 120 permits per year • This criterion is satisfied There have been a number of years during which 120 building permits were not issued Consequently, there is a reserve of building permits that the City is allowed to issue now • Section 4 08 of the OAA does not obligate the City or Township to approve an annexation request even though it may satisfy all of the provisions of the OAA o If City utilities are not available or are not sized correctly to service the Schankereli property, the annexation should not be approved • The public works department notes that both sewer and water are available in the cul-de-sac at the northeast corner of the subject property Moreover, they have a depth and size necessary to service it Therefore, utilities are not a concern that would prevent annexation 2 General comments on potential subdivision • The current request is only for annexation If the annexation is approved, then the Schankerelis will make application for a subdivision of their property • Mr Schankereli is not certain at this time how many lots the property could support He has provided sketches that show between two and four lots They are attached o No lots can be sold and should not be marketed until a subdivision application is submitted and approved by the City • In order for future development of the neighborhood to be accommodated, it may be advisable to provide at least a 30 foot wide half right-of-way along the eastern lot line While it is recognized the property to the west may have unsuitable soils for development, property to the south is probably subdividable The half right-of-way could provide some sort of loop street alignment back out to Neal Avenue somewhere within this neighborhood • Together with the subdivision application, the landowner or developer will also have to request a Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment reguiding development of the property from its current RR, Rural Residential classification Since the properties to the north are guided SFLL, Single Family Large Lot it may be logical for the Schankereli property to be guided for the same land use and density • Upon annexation, the property will automatically be rezoned to A-P, Agricultural Preservation by the state municipal board So, a rezoning to perhaps RA, Single Family Residential (10,000 square foot minimum lot size) will Schankereh Annexation Page 3 of 3 have to be requested along with the subdivision and comprehensive plan amendment applications • If only one additional lot is created, a single driveway would likely be built from the existing temporary cul-de-sac at the northeast corner of the property for the new building site If the property is rezoned to RA, only 25 feet of frontage is needed on an improved public street The temporary cul-de-sac would meet this standard None the less, it may still be advisable to provide an unimproved public street right-of-way along the east side of this new lot This would allow for further subdivision of the Schankereh property ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Recommend approval of the requested annexation 2 Recommend denial of the requested annexation 3 Continue the public hearing until the next meeting for more information RECOMMENDATION In general the City Council has established a position this year that annexation and development in the western portion of the City should be delayed until the 2008 Comprehensive Plan has been completed and adopted However, the Council has made allowances to annex small acreage properties Since the applicant lives on the property, the property is only about 2 3 acres in size, and the total number of potential new lots is very small, the annexation request would seem to be consistent with the Council's position of allowmg small acreage properties to be annexed Therefore, staff recommends approval attachments Exhibit A, Neighborhood Map Exhibit B, Location and Zoning Map Applicant s Petition & Sketch Plans cc Kemal Schankereh City of Community fhyelnnnxnt [)epartment Schankereli Annexation Neighborhood Map Exhibit A Ater Schankereli Annexation Location & Zoning Map ('onimunity De\ eh) m cnt I krkirtrnent Zoning District Classifications A-P, Agricultural Preservation L. 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 7-1 RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential MI VC, Village Commercial IIII 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 MK PA - Public Administration F—1 Public Works Facility Railroad WATER Road right-of-ways MI Property outside City limits Exhibit B mv/v/D & —& / eft./e/ ; 2 2 I Petition for Annexation This Petition is Made this 29 day of October , 2006 byKemal Schankereli 1 Property Kemal Schankereli is owner of the property located at 7979 Neal Ave N PID 2903020220002 legal to govern (lengthy legal) according to the plat therein on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder at Washington County 2 Adjacency That the property of the ownei is now within the Town of Stillwater and is adjacent to and shares a border with the City of Stillwater (The "City") all in Washington County, Minnesota 3 Orderly Annexation That Section 4 09 of the Agreement Between the City of Stillwater and the Town of Stillwater for Growth Management, Orderly Annexation and the Exercise of Joint Powers for Planning and Land Use Control, dated August 16,1996 (The "Orderly Annexation Agreement") allows owners of property adjacent to the City to petition for annexation of their property to the City 4 Request The owner therefore hereby petitions the City for annexation of his/her property to the City pursant to Section 4 09 of the Orderly Annexation Agreement Dated to/,-/ /0 6 peA,,,a Signature of Property Owner MtAL AVthliE hOH' 1310-3r ,31,,'5 003 217 53 217 51 La 217 80 0 9-) 17 80 O O O 90 00 w 90 00 110 136 360 — Cn 0 105 42 85 00 WWlt Rai GRIEE7c 85 00 110 00 -, c' O 90 00 0 0 0 11171 90 00 220 00 O O MEAL AVi`PUE h0 3113r 316 5 03933 21 53 217 r1 217 80 G 0 0 O L 110 105 42 136 360 — 85 00 N 85 00 217 80 YPAicraui 4tvEL>n uRIVE 110 00 90 00 (a N O 0 N O O O 11171 90 00 220 00 O O O 90 00 N 90 00 O O NEAL A4 EPUE NON I 1010-37 B1.,'3 100J-3 21- 9J a 217 9'1 217 80 J rp -9 fi r t r 0 i 17 80 r c '�— 110 O to O 105 42 i.l 136 360 — 85 00 85 00 0 0 ti s Q 6yALAJT CRJEaP DRIVE 110 00 {M1 90 00 N 0 0 111,71 9000 220 00 to 0 0 0 90 00 N 90 00 0 0 A • iliwater H E El I R 1 H P l A f f 0 l M I N N(\ 0 1 DATE December 4, 2006 TO Planning Commission REQUEST Slope Setback Variances APPLICANT Boris Popov and Tatjana Zem LAND OWNER Boris Popov and Tatjana Zem LOCATION 1723 N 2nd Street MEETING DATE December 11, 2006 REVIEWERS Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Police Chief, City Planner PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director CASE NO 06-63 BACKGROUND Boris Popov and Tatjana Zem purchased the property at 1723 North 2nd Street The property is located along the 2nd Street bluffline looking over the St Croix River As can be seen in Exhibit A the lot consists of a peninsula of relatively flat land that is surrounded on three sides by steep slopes The applicants are currently remodeling the house As part of the remodeling they would like to build a master bathroom addition The minimum required setback from the steep slopes surrounding the home is 30 feet 1 The current home does not meet the 30 foot setback, nor would the proposed addition meet the slope setback Since the existing home was built before the slope setback regulation was adopted, the home is considered a legal non -conforming structure Legal non -conforming buildings can not be expanded 2 Therefore, a variance is being requested from the slope setback requirement for the existing home in order to remove its legal non- conforming status This would then allow the home to be expanded Zoning Ordinance Chapter 31-5 Subd 2 (3) 4 2 Zoning Ordinance Chapter 31-1 Subd 9 f ,a Popov Variances Page 2 Also, since the master bathroom would be closer to the slope than the footprint of the existing home, a setback variance specifically for the expansion would be necessary REQUEST The applicants are requesting two variances 1 A slope setback variance for the existing legal non -conforming residence This variance would remove the non -conforming status of the structure, which currently is as little as 14 feet from the 25% slopes on the property (the deck is as little as 11 feet from the 25% slopes), whereas 30 feet is the minimum required setback 2 A slope setback variance for the master bathroom addition to allow about a 9 foot setback, whereas a 30 foot minimum setback is required EVALUATION OF REQUEST The Planning Commission may grant a variance when all of the following conditions are satisfied 1 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 As seen in Exhibit A the lot has an unusual shape It consists of a narrow peninsula of relatively flat land surrounded by 25% slopes If the required 30 foot setback were applied, as well as the front or rear setback from the westerly lot line, there would be no usable building envelope on the lot Though the peninsula -like setback difficulty may not be exclusively peculiar to this property, it certainly is not a common occurrence Neither the physical configuration of the property, nor the location or layout of the existing home on the property are a result of any action by the current owner 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 Though a master bathroom is not a requirement necessary to enjoy substantial property rights, it is fairly common to expect a home of the caliber in question to have one Moreover, the variance would allow the bathroom to have a slope setback only a few feet less than the existing home So, the small additional setback variance would not likely confer special privileges Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied Zoning Ordinance Ch 31 1 Subd 30 (2) d r Popov Variances Page 3 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 existing home and deck are located with setbacks from the slope that are fairly similar to the one requested for the bathroom Therefore, if the addition is visible from below the bluff or from the river, its relatively small size would be lost in the mass and angles of the existing house The two existing homes to the south and southwest of the Popov property would be able to see the addition, at least partially These two neighbors both support the proposed addition So, from their perspectives the proposed addition would not be considered a substantial detriment The steep slopes themselves will not be impacted There will be no grading or excavation on the slopes Moreover, as long as best management practices including silt fencing between the addition and the slopes are put into place, the slopes will be protected Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be satisfied ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Deny the requested setback variances 2 Approve the requested setback variances 3 Continue the public hearing for more information The 60 day decision deadline for the request is January 14, 2007 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested slope setback variances with the condition that a soil erosion plan be submitted to and found satisfactory to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the addition attachments Exhibit A, Site Map Exhibit B, Location Applicant s Letter Neighborhood support letter cc Boris Popov Popov Variances Page 4 Property lines Ai 25% slope bluffline [_� 30 foot slope setback Cih of Community Development Department Popov Variance Location Map 07. 00 is • "♦ • • NM NS 1 1 1 1 1 MI 1 I I 1 int • • • •, 1 } 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Popov property IIMI 1�- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ♦ • Exhibit B I vp 11 / 12/06 To Stillwater Planning Commission From Bons Popov/Tatjana Zem 1723 N 2nd St Stillwater, MN Zoned RA-1 Family Dear Commission Members We have been advised by city staff that a vanance will likely be needed for the addition of a master bathroom to our home being currently renovated We are requesting a variance be granted for the 30 foot slope set back requirements Our reasons for requesting a variance are as follows 1) There is no practical nor reasonable location to place the master bedroom bathroom at any other location than attached to the master bedroom Any other location either worsens the non -conformity or creates more functional hardships 2) While the zoning regs state " no structure may be located on a slope of greater than 24 percent or within 30 feet of a 25% or greater slope" it also earlier states that " steep slopes are defined as slopes of greater than 24 percent as measured over a distance of 50 feet measured horizontally " In our situation, this restriction is not so easy to determine, especially so if the intent of the regulation is factored in The measurable area of the steep slope is in reality the very upper reaches of a gully that ceases to exist adjacent to our property Technically speaking, if one measures a 100 foot honzontal, or 50 foot honzontal distance for the purposes of determining the drop or nse over that honzontal distance, in our case the end horizontal measurement would span the gully to the other side In fact one could argue that there is no downward slope there at all, since the starting point and the end point of the horizontal distances end up nearly at the same exact elevation Our situation is unique and not caused by the landowner 3) We have discussed the location of the addition with the affected landowners and no one has indicated any opposition to the addition 4) The intent of the slope restnction is to " minimize the nsks associated with project development in areas characterized by vegetation and steep or unstable slopes " We do not feel the addition in any way creates any increased risks to either concern, since there is no affected vegetation, and the short span of the gully does not increase the likelihood of the addition destabilizing the slopes involved Tanana and I thank you in advance for your efforts in hopefully resolving this matter Bons Popov Tanana Zem 1:1--- f CONTOUR LEGEND 00 4 SECTION.TOWNSHIPTRANGE INDEX \` \' \\ \• COUNTY VICINITY MAP f 1 IS SECTION VICINITY MAP 1 1 1 1 1 _ktu3 an GZ 1 10(0.00 1 I 1t2- Li 1 \4 Alvs6 leg. ,'\--NA E\ a Sti11wair B H I H P L A l t OF MINNCNOIA DATE December 4, 2006 CASE NO SUB/06-64 APPLICANT Karen Kramer REQUEST 1) Resubdivison 2) Waiver of the Platting Requirements LOCATION 1904 5th St N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SFLL, Single Family Large Lot PLANNING COMMISSION DATE December 11, 2006 ZONING RA, Single Family Residential REVIEWERS Community Development Director, Public Works Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner At19 BACKGROUND Ms Karen Kramer owns the property at 1904 5th Street N It is a 39,963 square foot lot with a single-family home constructed on it She is proposing to divide a 12,115 square foot lot from the existing lot leaving a 27,848 square foot lot that the existing home will be on All of the subject property is zoned RA, Single Family Residential The proposed lots will meet all of the requirements for a lot in the RA district SPECIFIC REQUEST Ms Kramer has made application for the following specific requests 1 Approval of a resubdivsion creating two lots where one now exist, and 2 Approval of a waiver from the platting requirements s Kramer Resubdivision & Waiver December 4 2006 Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST I RESUBDIVISION City Code Section 32-1, Subd 4(2) refers to a process whereby a new lot is being created from already platted lots as a "resubdivision" As long as no variances or waivers are required, the resubdivision request would go directly to the City Council for approval In this case, a waiver of the platting requirement is requested, so the application must first be reviewed by the Planning Commission before the City Council may take action The required and proposed minimum dimensional standards for the resubdivided properties are summarized below Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Lot size proposed 11,190* 24,528* Lot size required 10,000 10,000 Lot width proposed 88 202 Lot width required 75 75 *Net area not including right-of-way easements or areas of 25% slope The proposed lots satisfy all dimensional requirements The Public Works Director has noted that there are deferred utility hook-up fees to be paid on this property at the time a building perrrut is issued Prior to the issuance of a building permit these fees must be submitted to the City Additionally, the new lot will need to pay cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication in the amount of $2,000 and make a $500 payment in lieu of constructing trails Prior to issuance of a letter by the City approving the resubdivision and prior to filing the resolution of approval with Washington County, these fees must be submitted to the City IT WAIVER The property today is an unplatted parcel The resubdividion process requires the parcel proposed to be split to be a platted lot The proposed lot split involves the western 88 feet of the parcel and is a simple split Additionally, the property owner has agreed to provide all of the easement to the City that would normally be secured through the normal platting process In this case there is no benefit to the City requiring the property owner to formally plat the property division The resubdividion process is a simplified subdivision process that in this case would save time and money for the the property J ) Kramer Resubdivision & Waiver December 4 2006 Page 3 owner Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the requested waiver to the platting requirement is appropriate ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives A Approval If the proposed waiver and lot resubdivision are found to be acceptable to the Planning Commission, it could recommend that the City Council approve the waiver and resubdivision, subject to the following conditions 1 The resubdivision shall be substantially similar to Certificate of Survey on file with the Community Development Department dated November 17, 2006 2 The Public Works Director has noted that there are deferred utility hook-up fees to be paid for the property Prior to the issuance of a building permit these fees must be submitted to the City 3 That cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication in the amount of $2,000 and payment in lieu of constructing trails in the amount of $500 be paid for the new parcel Prior to issuance of a letter by the City approving the resubdivision and prior to filing the resolution of approval with Washington County, these fees must be submitted to the City B Denial If the Planning Commission finds that the resubdivision and waiver are not advisable, it could deny the waiver and recommend denial of the resubdivision With a denial, the basis of the action should be given RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the requested resubdivision and waiver to be reasonable and therefore recommends approval with the conditions identified in Alternative A above cc Karen Kramer attachments Resubdivision Site Plan PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No 605 , 6. — Date Filed / 1p Fee Paid %/OU Receipt No ,72 rf, q--R ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision X. Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The fees for requested action are attached to this application The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (► e , photos, sketches etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If appIicat►on is submitted to the City Council twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period Once the 10-day appeal period has ended the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits Address of Project / 90 4f NO' PROPERTY-�IDENTIFICATION 5 y Assessor s Parcel No'I6 397p2 V66 / J Zoning District £ 4 Description of Project S i/,j cl / vi 3 / v ti/ O P L c9 r !4 11 r 0/AlvQi1--4 pro v i cip s L c tv t &f o r.i tat 0' (GEO Code) "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 I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner 't11n 4-- ii!'_ a Representative Mailing Address l 1 b 4 N O E' Si; Mailing Address City - State - Zip Stl I 1 V\iCil6V ' 5 0g 2- City - State - Zip Telephone No (b 1- 4 3°1- .2 3 ? 14 Signature `70,t_a_At� CL Telephone No Signature (Signature is required) (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal Accessory Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM May 25 2006 Sheet 5 of 5 Sheets STACK LAND SURVEYING 9090 North Fairy Falls Road Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439-5630 November 16, 2006 Karen Kramer 1904 North Fifth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 PROPOSED PARCEL 2 DESCRIPTION: (existing Kramer dwelling parcel) All that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, described as follows: Beginning on a line produced 350.00 feet West of the East line of said Northwest Quarter and running parallel thereto to a point 180.00 feet North of the South line of said Northwest Quarter; thence North on said parallel line 138.00 feet; thence West at right angles 290.00 feet; thence South parallel with said East line 137.61 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of the South 180.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter of Section 21; thence easterly along said Northerly line 290.00 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom the West 88.00 feet thereof. Parcel contains 27,848 square feet or 0.639 acres, more or less. Subject to the right of way of the public road locally known as Willow Street along the northerly line thereof. Subject to a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for drainage, utilities and roadway purposes over, on and across the North 10 feet of the above described parcel. Subject to and together with Drainage and Utility Easements as the same are more particularly described on Document Number , Washington County records. I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Barr tt M. Stac Date: /7-- / a License No. 13774 Sheet 4 of 5 Sheets STACK LAND SURVEYING 9090 North Fairy Falls Road Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439-5630 November 16, 2006 Karen Kramer 1904 North Fifth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 PROPOSED PARCEL 1 DESCRIPTION: (presently vacant land) The West 88.00 feet of the following described parcel of land, to wit: All that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, described as follows: Beginning on a line produced 350.00 feet West of the East line of said Northwest Quarter and running parallel thereto to a point 180.00 feet North of the South line of said Northwest Quarter; thence North on said parallel line 138.00 feet; thence West at right angles 290.00 feet; thence South parallel with said East line 137.61 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of the South 180.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter of Section 21; thence easterly along said Northerly line 290.00 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Parcel contains 12,115 square feet or 0.278 acres, more or less. Subject to the right of way of the public road locally known as Willow Street along the northerly line thereof. Subject to a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for drainage, utilities and roadway purposes over, on and across the North 10 feet of the above described parcel. Subject to and together with Drainage and Utility Easements as the same are more particularly described on Document Number , Washington County records. I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws, the State of Minnesota. ff Barrett M. Stack Date: !/—/6' — 0 6 License No. 13774 Sheet 2 of 5 Sheets STACK LAND SURVEYING 9090 North Fairy Falls Road Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439-5630 November 16, 2006 Karen Kramer 1904 North Fifth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 EXISTING OVERALL KRAMER PARCEL DESCRIPTION AS SUPPLIED: (per copy of Document No. 909012, Washington County records) All that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, described as follows: Beginning on a line produced 350.00 feet West of the East line of said Northwest Quarter and running parallel thereto to a point 180.00 feet North of the South line of said Northwest Quarter; thence North on said parallel line 138.00 feet; thence West at right angles 290.00 feet; thence South parallel with said East line 137.61 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of the South 180.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter of Section 21; thence easterly along said Northerly line 290.00 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Subject to the right of way of the public road locally known as Willow Street along the northerly line thereof. Subject also to a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for drainage, utilities and roadway purposes over, on and across the North 10 feet of the above described parcel. I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws ofihe State of Minnesota Barrett M. Stack Date: /! — / 6 O 6 License No. 13774 Sheet 3 of 5 Sheets STACK LAND SURVEYING 9090 North Fairy Falls Road Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439-5630 November 16, 2006 Karen Kramer 1904 North Fifth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIPTIONS: (to be conveyed to the City of Stillwater prior to the conveyance of Parcels 1 or 2:) Drainage and Utility Easements only, over, under and across strips of land located on parts of the following described overall parcel of land, to wit: All that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, described as follows: Beginning on a line produced 350.00 feet West of the East line of said Northwest Quarter and running parallel thereto to a point 180.00 feet North of the South line of said Northwest Quarter; thence North on said parallel line 138.00 feet; thence West at right angles 290.00 feet; thence South parallel with said East line 137.61 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of the South 180.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter of Section 21; thence easterly along said Northerly line 290.00 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Said Drainage and Utility Easements being strips of land located on the above described overall parcel and being more particularly described and defined as follows, to wit: The South 10.00 feet thereof; The South 10.00 feet of the North 20.00 feet thereof; The West 10.00 feet thereof The East 10.00 feet thereof, and The East 10.00 feet of the West 93.00 feet thereof. The above Drainage and Utility Easements are granted subject to and together with any other valid easements, reservations or restrictions. I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Barrett M. Stack Date: 4— — Q g License No. 13774 SHEET OF 5 SHEETS No.er# h' /e, ( SCE f/✓EGVi/ i; i\.n — IOG. /Va. 3¢7O/.J 7 L%v4- ix Ooc. e8ao — ./ WI LLOW 3�9a/�7 KRAMER RESUBDIVISION PLAN CERTI FI CA E OF SURVEY Notes: Orientation of this bearing system is an assumed datum. Indicates monument found in place, as noted. PART OF NW I/4 OF SEC. 21, T3ON, R 20W, WASH. CO., MINNESOTA. FOR: KAREN KRAMER 1904 NORTH 5th STREET STILLWATER, MN. 55082 Tel. (651) 439-2384 Signed: Survey Prepared By: Stack Land Surveying 9090 North Fairy Falls Road Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 439-5630 Date: November 17, 2006 I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota, ,0011 Barrett M: Stack, Lic Land Surveyor Minn. License No, 13774 !Yo. Li ves SCI� kiN 7a 7z 7L 7G _ 725' K 8,40 84 -\I BC 88 ?e AzV /✓ivy¢ tor 2 OV >spt APC 2>N,„ tkl pot zot odiq ic kti x 4N, BB o Indicates 1/2" I.D. iron pipe Marked'STACK RLS 13774 to be located or set after resubdivision approval by the City of Stillwater. "OU" Indicates overhead utility lines inplace. "SCG" Indicates Surmountable Concrete Gutter in place. Contours and spot elevations shown hereon are based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), 1929 adjustment. BENCHMARK: Top Centerline Well casing, Elevation 866.94, NGVD 1929 Adjustment. See Sheets 2 thru 5, of this survey, for existing and proposed parcel and easement descriptions. Existing parcel description supplied to Stack Land Surveying for purposes of this survey work was a copy of Doc. No. 909012, Washington County records. No title opinion of the subject parcel was furnished and existing easement research is limited -to those easements that are noted hereon. 25% " Indicates location of a 25% grade line, as noted. "MH" Indicates Manhole found inplace. "ZY' Indicates tree trunk location, size and type as noted. Offsets shown to existing structures are measured to the outside building wall line, unless noted otherwise. Any projections from said wall line such as eaves, sills, steps, etc., will impact indicated offsets accordingly. Underground or overhead public or private utilitieS, on or adjacent the parcel, were not located in conjunction with this survey, unless shown otherwise, - Gki 0 V 4- /347,CEL /N Box Notes: (continued) "DAJ.E" Indicates location of existing Drainage and Utility Easements, "DUED" Indicates Proposed Drainage and Utility Easements Described on Sheet 3 of 5 Sheets AC tx STREEt IN() ze_78:/Z7ziez /1C/.9,;;;. ez 111111111111111116. Or /1 / o ti5.8a, K aER\ tyrz' TZ k'iLL4 78 68 880 AreW- H F B I R T H 1 A 0 MINI 0 1 A Planning Commission DATE APPLICANT REQU EST LOCATION COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CPC DATE REVIEWERS PREPARED BY December 5, 2006 CASE NO SUP\06-65 Truett and Jill Lawson Special Use Permit and Variance to operate a Bed and Breakfast in the Carriage House of the James Mulvey Inn 807 Harriet St South PLAN DISTRICT SFSL - Single Family Small Lot RB - Two Farruly December 11, 2006 Community Dev Director Michel Pogge, City Planner /715P DISCUSSION The applicants, Truett and Jill Lawson, are requesting a special use permit and variance to operate a bed and breakfast in the Carriage House of the James Mulvey Inn The Commission in November reviewed and granted a request to transfer the special use permit for the main home of the James Mulvey Inn bed and breakfast from the current owners Jill and Truett Lawson to Cynthia Hanrug Ms Hanrug is proposing to purchase the main home and continue to operate the bed and breakfast At this time the Lawson s will be retaining ownership of the carriage house and would like to continue to operate two bed and breakfast rooms in the carriage house in collaboration with the new owner of the Mulvey Inn The James Mulvey Inn currently has 7 units with 4 units in the main home and 3 units in the carriage house Under the new arrangement 5 units would now be operated out of the main home and 2 units in the carriage house 807 Harriet St South 'Pam 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST Special Use Permit All bed and breakfasts require a special use permit A special use permit may only be granted after the applicant has demonstrated that they have met the 12 conditions for a bed and breakfast With the exception of the 900 foot requirement between bed and breakfast this site meets all of the conditions for a bed and breakfast including the required number of off-street parking spaces and the home being built over 100 years ago The exterior facade of the building and the name of the Inn are proposed to remain the same Variance Since the carriage house is less than 900 feet from the main building, a separation distance variance is being requesting The applicants currently operate a bed and breakfast in the carriage house and have a substantial investment in the carriage house Without this variance they would lose the right to continue to operating a bed and breakfast in the carriage house The granting of a variance would not constitute a special privilege that they don't currently enjoy Since the property is currently being used as a bed and breakfast, the granting of a variance would not materially change the use of the property Staff is satisfied 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 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives A Approval If the proposed variance and special use permit is found to be acceptable to the Planning Commission, it should approve the variance and recommend that the City Council approve the special use permit, subject to the following conditions 1 This Special Use Permit is issued to Truett and Jill Lawson, and shall not be transferred, assigned or conveyed to any other firm or successive owner unless otherwise specified in this Special Use Permit 2 The owner or manager of the residence shall live on -site 3 The owner shall comply with all Health, Fire, Building, and Safety Rules and Regulations of the State of Minnesota and the City of Stillwater 4 That a maximum of two bedrooms and four guests per day shall be accommodated at the 807 Harriet St S property at any one time 807 Harriet St South •Pag�3 5 The property at 807 Harriet St S shall be marketed and operated in conjunction with the property at 622 Churchill St West 6 No pets of guests shall be allowed at the facility 7 Meals may be served only to guests of the facility without a separate Special Event Permit 8 The premises shall not be used as a rooming house, boarding house, hotel or motel 9 The Bed and Breakfast is allowed one identification sign not exceeding four (4) square feet and shall be located on site The sign plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director before installation 10 The applicant shall subrrut the type of lighting and intensity level for the walkway lighting for review and approval by the Community Development Director 11 There shall be no additional external lighting of the site or residence 12 One off-street parking space for each guestroom shall be set aside and marked "FOR GUEST ONLY " Two off-street parking spaces shall be available for the on -site manager 13 Visitor parking shall all remain on the applicant's property, not on Harriet Street or Churchill Street 14 The property owner shall help keep the portion of the ravine on their property clean 15 All previous planning cases related to this property, with the exception of 2006-56, shall expire and be null and void upon approval of this Special Use Permit 16 The Bed and Breakfast Use Permit shall be reviewed before the Planning Commission and City Council for revocation if complaints regarding the bed and breakfast are received by the Community Development Director 17 If the carriage house at 807 Harriet St S is purchased by the Cynthia Hannig in the future than Cynthia Hannig can continue to use 2 of the rooms in the carriage house as guest rooms for the bed and breakfast in conjunction with the main home at 622 Churchill St West B Denial If the Planning Commission finds that the special use permit and variance are not advisable, it could deny the variance and recommend denial of the special use permit With a derual, the basis of the action should be given RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the requested special use permit and variance to be reasonable and therefore recommends approval with the conditions identified in Alternative A above Attachments Applicant's Form and Letter Assessor s Parcel No _5=1'c,2/Ce�S Zoning District 71 I Description of Project e- u_ c . 28 Q.�ta-6 co-►.�-tiv� Q 4T Code c 1, G at-✓ 2 r oo inns I v. t k\ 5 Cc\r, r i e. c (-\-,,u. S p -1*x L o c, r�'2-e V -. f c�kn,. eS 11 a e- i T,nt. �, a rS e ;741ereby 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 I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " '✓ Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The fees for requested a pplicatio PLANNING ADMINISTF"-,TION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 action are attached to this n The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (0 e , photos sketches etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting mater►al is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications Any incomplete appl►cat►on or supporting material will delay the apphcat►on process After Planning Commission approvals there is a 10-day appeal period Once the 10 day appeal ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits 1 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project , C') 7 u.Y (k"eA Sfi$ Telephone No Signature �ac� Lot Size (di Land Area JtpQ( ► ?,r*cr Height of Buil i gs Stories j� Principal ► 1 Accessory n N Property Owner I (-UG'rr o-u--COJLw . 0N/ Mailing Address 601-2- w Cv. &vc-t,`Zii (*- City - State - Zip #- , _ z-teY (i (\J ��O 5' Z i City - State - Zip 43o Soo (C ' 3 Utz ttiticr� Telephone No _""-'ti'' C`l `,— Signature gnature is required) Signature is req uired) 3 ‹3e7 �,3--j - C 6iwz AA-)) v< c 1�1�- �' C nsions�lJ x i �, oyio�S�- N o he. Gu,✓(eve Qa-fs (Scf zoo p c ,TE ANp PROJECT DESCRIPTIONd) e EJ -E� I' 3 4-:A- Feet H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED ✓ Special/Conditional Use Permit Apnl 20 2005 Representative Mailing Address I ^ Total Building floor area (4o square feet Existing ✓ square feet Proposed � k square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off street parking spaces_ I in Ci9.-Y OP ...On 622 West Churchill Stillwater, MN 55082 November 17, 2006 Mr Rob Gag, Chairperson Mr Mike Pogge, City Staff City of Stillwater Planning Commission 216 4th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Commission Members Thank you for your service to the city and for hearing our request for variance Our request is To allow a conditional use permit to operate two bed and breakfast rooms at 807 Harriet (the Carriage House of the Mulvey property) in collaboration with the new owner of the James Mulvey Inn Several things are important as you consider our proposal 1 Cynthia Hannig, the proposed proprietor of our business after transfer of title, proposed this to the Planning Commission 2 This seven -room bed and breakfast inn has been a leader in the bed and breakfast community and an asset to the neighborhood and to Stillwater 3 The Mulvey property has operated as a seven -room bed and breakfast for 14 years and with your approval it will continue to operate with the same number of rooms We are asking for no more total rooms 4 This provision will provide a seamless transition of the full business when the new owner is able to buy the Carriage House We recognize the two conditions of this proposal were not envisioned in the template for the bed and breakfast ordinance Those would be one owner operator and 900-foot location distance between bed and breakfast operations On these, we would like to suggest these thoughts for your reflection 1 We are not proposing two bed and breakfasts beside each other The rooms in the Main House (622 W Churchill) and the Carriage House (807 Harriet) would be one business, the James Mulvey Inn, as it has been for 14 years 2 Also, the city recognized the unique nature of this property (one historic estate with two legal descriptions) when they allowed us to operate previously, both 807 Harriet and 622 W Churchill, as the James Mulvey Inn 3 The fact that there are two parties involved does not violate the bed and breakfast ordinance's intent that the operators be owners From a personal point of view, your approval would allow Jill and me some level of continued involvement in the Stillwater bed and breakfast community After 14 years, it was clear we needed to reduce the demands on our lives, but this proposal would allow some continued contact with our new owners and the bed and breakfast community Sincerely, Truett and Jill Lawson *I a llwater, HE 11 IA Of M I N N F 0 1 A Planning Commission DATE December 6, 2006 APPLICANT Mark Willis CASE NO V\06-66 REQUEST A variance to allow up to an encroachment into the required rear yard setback LOCATION 406 South Fifth Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING RB - Two -Family District PC DATE December 11, 2006 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner 0015,9 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-1 12(5)a 6 of the Stillwater City Code to allow for a garage to encroach up to 17 foot into the required 25 foot rear yard setback The applicant is making this request m order to construct a new in -fill home 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 406 South Fifth Street is currently a vacant lot and is subject to the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) design guidelines (infill guidelines) The lot itself is a regularly shaped conforming single-family lot The NCD design guidelines require the setback of adjacent home and the views from adjacent properties to be considered in the placement of a new home 408 South Fifth Street to the south is a deeper lot and the home is setback beyond the rear lot line of the subject property The proposed home could be situated to • 406 South Fifth Street Page 2 meet the required setback, however, it would impact both the view of the neighboring property and the rhythm of the block The requirements of the NCD design guidelines create a hardship for this property 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 This property is zoned for a single-family home In this case there is a conflict between the NCD design guidelines and the RB zorung district Since the NCD guidelines consider adjoining properties staff would suggest that a variance to the RB zoning district regulations is appropriate in this case to protect the property owner to the south 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 If the garage was detached from the main home it could be placed in the same location as proposed Since the garage could be located in the same location as proposed, granting this request will not create a detriment to adjacent property, since the garage could be located here with a slightly different home design FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personal financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not at issue 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 406 South Fifth Street Page 3 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Approve the requested variance to allow a 8 5 foot encroachment into the required 25 foot rear yard setback for all structures in the RB district [31- 1 12(5)a 6] since an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance was made by staff Additionally, staff would suggest that the following conditions for approval a All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director b The new home be located no closer than 8 feet to the rear property line c The driveway be widen to 12 feet in width from the street to the front of the home at 404 South Fifth Street in order to provide adequate fire protection 2 Deny the requested variance to allow a 17 foot encroachment into the required 25 foot rear yard setback for all structures in the RB district [31- 1 12(5)a 6] If the Commission chooses to deny the variance the commission needs to make an appropriate finding 3 Continue the public hearing until the January 8, 2007 Planning Commission meeting The 60 day decision deadline for the request is January 16, 2007 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approved the requested variance Attachments Applicant's Form, Site Plan and Aerial Map PLANNING ADMINISTRA I ION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No " / v'r' ‘06 Date Filed ////7/0(D Fee Paid V /00 Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The fees for requested action are attached to this application The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (i e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project Assessor s Parcel No (GEO Code) Zoning District Description of Project "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 I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner L11-11_ I I s Cittel Por Mailing Address (70Sc7 7i •• 7 City - State - Zip Jk/t. S5OV Telephone No Signature 3o-3S1O (Signature is required) Representative Mailing Address City - State - Zip Telephone No Signature (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) x /SO Land Area 1700 'a. Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal 1%, Accessory i c an4i2. Total Building floor area Existing p Proposed Paved Impervious Z07 No of off street parking spaces Z fi G0.4,19. square feet square feet square feet square feet H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM May 25 2006 1.o1 ,9TQ*U 0ri)0i• Qrs moot & ?r1-35. 9 r✓o / LL usrdoyd 1 it eta pA 0 P( roa^-VA v-e-F'c/ .;274-11 TilJ1Tj102f4 -j30WrQcs'MIr0j- Aka do O_TS -4VI1'1 „+t-aL S'vn Tr O b 1 r) ' r o f -t' v..►n»/-LL1'r'� f' o-- LA-ts?L_0dOyd -kJ oil yoj rr)oy,,y 91r0r', J' C 2-/ cl(4/P7,TS h2 Od o ye 2 (-- , ) , 8 0 a►-74,ev_,nS +1 .7/' L/ n e r^ a et Pi _Lol ? zc1-0 r+viSl t{ r,rt c,S' fi-{'t.t r 7 j:1 In PP p r4o7..0 S' -f71 ,a(-1 11= P-1 O 2 al -' SO oR n Yai fir/ 90 - L / Y' or Community Development Depannent o- it 11:- 2 h o r It o— s cp o, 0 P / 74 ct I k /\ L 1 t Cx\ T of t P' • N 7 1 1 F RIP 11 P A F 0 M I N K I S 0 1 A PLANNING REPORT DATE December 5, 2006 CASE NO 06-05/ZAT APPLICANT City of Stillwater REQUEST Amend Height Overlay District Ordinance for Downtown REVIEWED BY Dave Magnuson, City Attorney, Cindy Shifts, Building Official, Mike Pogge, City Planner PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director I BACKGROUND This past summer the City Council directed staff to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission for the purpose of discussing a revision to the recently adopted downtown height ordinance On August 14, 2006 the Planrung Commission conducted the public hearing Two motions resulted from the public hearing and discussion The first motion clarified ambiguity in the downtown height limits by adding the words "whichever is less" to standards in each of the five height zones This motion passed unanimously The second motion was to investigate whether the number of stories allowed for each downtown height district was even possible within the maximum height restriction in each of those districts For example, could a three story building actually be constructed within the 35 foot height allowed on Main Street? This motion failed on a 4-4 vote On September 19, 2006 the City Council opened a public hearing on the ordinance amendment and approved the first reading The motion to approve the first reading included a statement that the height limit in the historic portion of downtown should be increased to 37 feet This would allow for a taller ceiling in the first floor retail space Staff was also directed to bring back language to clarify what is meant by "adjacent buildings" for infill projects Height Ord Amendment December 5, 2006 Page 2 of 13 On October 3, 2006 the Council considered the second reading but delayed action on it Instead, it was referred back to the Planrung Commission for further analysis of several topics 1 New freestanding buildings a What building height is appropriate in each of the five height districts given the number of stories allowed in each of those districts? 2 New infill buildings a What should the infill standard be if a proposed building has existing buildings on each side of it? DISCUSSION OF TOPICS 1 NEW FREESTANDING BUILDINGS a A proposed building downtown has to be either a freestanding building or an infill building i Mills on Main is an example of a freestanding building An entire site about the size of a block was cleared of buildings and in its place is a single building The new building adjoins no other buildings ii The Reeds Building is an example of an infill building The entire block of buildings was not cleared A new building simply replaced an existing structure (or two?) and the final product was a building that adjoined an existing building b If the proposed building is to be a freestanding building, the new downtown height limits would apply The infill standard would not apply c The height standards for new freestanding buildings proposed for each of the five downtown height overlay districts are discussed below i CBDR-Central Business District and RB Two Family District Riverside 1 This district includes property between the former Burlington Northern Railroad and the river from the Dock Cafe to the Minnesota Zephyr 2 The current height standard in this district is 15 stories or 20 feet 3 What building height is appropriate? a The 1 5 story building allowed in the CBDR district would likely fit reasonably within the current 20 foot height limit This would be especially true if the building had a flat roof (See Exhibit A ) , Height Ord Amendment December 5, 2006 Page 3 of 13 b It may not be necessary to adjust the existing height limit for this district ii CBDP-Central Business District Parkside 1 This district lies roughly between Water Street and the former Burlington Northern Railroad 2 The current height standard in this district is 2 5 stories or 30 feet 3 What building height is appropriate? a The 2 5 story building allowed in the CBDP district would likely fit reasonably within the current 30 foot height limit, especially if it had a flat roof Though, it may be a rather tight fit for some projects (See Exhibit B ) b It may not be necessary to adjust the existing height limit for this district CBDH-Central Business District Historic 1 This district is the core of the historic downtown area With a few exceptions it is located between Water Street and Second Street 2 The current height standard in this district is 3 stories or 35 feet 3 What building height is appropriate a In the historic district it is important for new buildings to be compatible with the height of existing buildings b The first floor of late 19th Century buildings in Stillwater typically had retail space with rather tall ceilings To replicate the first floor space, a ceiling of about 12 feet is needed c According to the City's Building Official, the average ceiling height today of non-residential space averages anywhere from 9 to 12 feet d The ceiling cavity requires an average of 2 feet of space e Residential space can get by with 8 feet of wall height f The minimum parapet height by building code is 3 feet Height Ord Amendment December 5 2006 Page 4 of 13 g As seen in Exhibit C, the dimensions mentioned above yield a minimum building height of 37 to 38 feet1 i If the historic ceiling height of the first floor is eliminated, the minimum building height could be reduced to 35 to 36 feet ii If "Class A" space is desired, the building height may have to increase to 41 feet h Consequently, a building with historically correct first floor ceiling dimensions could not be built within the current 35 foot height limit and still have three stories as allowed in this district i To allow for a three story building the height limit would have to be increased i The minimum height likely needed to accomplish this would be 37 or 38 feet iv CBDB-Central Business District Bluffside 1 This district lies both on the west side of Second Street between Myrtle and Nelson Street, and westward of Main Street roughly between Mulberry Street and Elm Street 2 The current height standard in this district is 4 stories or 45 feet 3 What building height is appropriate? a The 4 story building allowed in the CBDB district would likely fit reasonably within the current 45 foot height limit if a flat roof were used However, if a pitched roof were used, four stories would not fit within 45 feet of height About 52 feet would be necessary (See Exhibit D ) b If the City desires to have four story buildings with pitched roofs in the CBDB district, it would have to increase the height limit c In this part of the downtown area, flat roofed buildings are generally more appropriate Therefore, a height adjustment may not be necessary v CBDBT-Central Business District Blufftop 1 With a few exceptions, this district lies on the east side of Third Street between Myrtle Street and Oak Street ' The building height in the downtown overlay districts is measured to the top of the parapet or the highest point of a pitched roof This is in contrast to height measurements everywhere else in the city Everywhere else the height is measured to the high point of a flat roof (excluding parapet) and the mid point of a pitched roof Height Ord Amendment December 5 2006 Page 5 of 13 2 The current height standard in this district is 3 stories or 35 feet 3 What building height is appropriate? a The 3 story building allowed in the CBDBT district would likely fit reasonably within the current 35 foot height limit, but only if it had a flat roof (See Exhibit E) b A 3 story building with a historically pitched roof would require about 42 feet of height c If the City desires to have 3 story buildings with pitched roofs in the CBDBT district, it would have to increase the height limit d In this part of the downtown area, both flat roofed buildings and pitched roof buildings are about equally common e Given this district's location along the bluffline, a steeply pitched roof on top of a 3 story building could be very visible both from downtown and from properties uphill to the west f Perhaps the City would prefer to encourage flat roofed buildings in this district and leave the height limit at 35 feet as it now is 2 NEW INFILL BUILDINGS a If the proposed building is an infill building, then the infill height standard would apply However, if the infill height were to exceed the downtown height limits, then the downtown height limits would apply since they would be more restrictive 1 Exhibit F is a flowchart that graphically explains how the interplay between the two standards works i The purpose of the infill height standard was to preserve the historic massing and visual character of the downtown blocks of buildings This was done in 1989 by establishing both a rrunimum and maximum building height for the City's central business district The minimum height needed for an infill building is 10% less than the adjoining building The maximum height allowed is 10% more than the adjoining building b What should the infill standard be if a proposed building has existing buildings on each side of it, not just on one side? ' For example if an infill building were proposed today next to an existing 50 foot building the infill height limit would allow a 45 foot tall building Since the new 35 foot height limit is more restrictive it would apply Height Ord Amendment December 5, 2006 Page 6 of 13 i To maintain the existing massing, staff suggests that if the infill building adjoins more than one existing building, then the height of the infill building should be within 10% (higher or lower) of the average height of both adjoining buildings 3 MISCELLANEOUS a The managers of Rivertown Commons have asked if they would be allowed to rebuild their building if it were to burn down, or if a tornado were to destroy it The regulations for non -conforming structures specifically say that the structure could be rebuilt as long as a building permit were issued for it within one year of the fire, tornado, or other damage 1 b The intent of the current downtown height ordinance was to set the heights of existing buildings at whatever they currently are Section 2 E (f) of the ordinance memorializes this intent The section says that only if a building is intentionally demolished would a new building on the property have to abide by the new height restrictions c But, seemingly to the contrary, Sections 2 B a through 2 B e of the current height ordinance all include the following language i all buildings hereafter proposed for construction, whether on existing vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of demolition or destruction of an existing structure, are subject to the standards ii The destruction language here could be interpreted to mean that if a building were destroyed (whether intentionally or unintentionally) that a new building would have to meet the more restrictive height standards 1 As mentioned above, unintentional destruction was never meant to trigger the more restrictive standards 2 Consequently, it is suggested that the language be revised as follows to clarify the intent a all buildings hereafter proposed for construction, whether on existin vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of he'int ntioni demolition R dcstrtctiort of an existing structure, are subject to the standards ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has at least the following alternatives available City Code Section 31 1 Subd 9 (2) Height Ord Amendment December 5 2006 Page 7 of 13 1 Recommend that the City Council leave the current downtown height ordinance as it is This would have the effect, for example, of allowing a three story building in the CBDH district, no matter how tall the three stories were 2 Recommend that the City Council revise the downtown height ordinance The Planning Commission could recommend a revision package as represented in the attached draft ordinance Or, it could recommend other revisions 3 Continue the discussion at the January Planning Commission meeting attachments Height Overlay District Map Draft Ord 969 Revisions Exhibits A-E Elevahon Drawings Exhibit F, Flowchart Excerpt from 8/14/06 Planning Commission Meeting Height Ord Amendment December 5, 2006 Page 8 of 13 DRAFT [��il�l diaft�revisions�are`tughhghted� DeletionOre shown n strikethroughh A4,ditions,areshownfunderlined ] REVSIONS TO ORDINANCE NO 969 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CODE, CHAPTER 31 ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING "THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY" TO REZONE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) AND RB—TWO FAMILY DISTRICT (RB) BY CREATING OVERLAY DISTRICTS TO KNOWN AS THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT RIVERSIDE (CBDR), CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKSIDE (CBDP), CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT HISTORIC (CBDH), CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BLUFFSIDE (CBDB), AND CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BLUFFTOP (CBDBT) The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain 1 PURPOSE The City Council finds that the Central Business Distnct (CBD) has been the core area of the City and its most identifiable resource Since 1930 when Lowell Park was established through the generosity of Elmore Lowell and the cooperation of the Federal Government WPA program, Lowell Park and the downtown have served as the gateway to the City The CBD has become a desirable place to work, shop, live and enjoy cultural and recreational activities and it is therefore apparent that regulations be adopted that will preserve and enhance the essential character of the downtown and that structures be limited in height in order that structures close to the nver not nse above the height of structures farther from the aver 2 AMENDING A Section 31-1, Subd 10, Use districts, is amended by adding subsections RE 1�9 20 2`l and 22 (26 ; (27r-(28 29, and (A0' that will hereafter read as follows �26 CBDR—Central Business Distnct and RB Two Family Distnct Riverside 127' CBDP—Central Business Distnct Parkside (20)::(28) CBDH—Central Business Distnct Historic (2f(29) CBDB—Central Business Distnct Bluffside (24 3th CBDBT—Central Business Distnct Blufftop Height Ord Amendment December 5, 2006 Page 9 of 13 B Section 31-1, Subd 17, CBD—central business district and RB— two family distract, are amended by adding subsection (6) a, b, c, rd and e that will read as follows "(6) C Section 31-1, subsection "a" a Height 1 Overlay district regulations a In addition to, and not in lieu of other official controls, all buildings and uses hereafter proposed for construction, whether on existing vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of intentiona demolition pr deetmction of an existing structure, are subject to the standards regulations and provision of the Central Business District Riverside ("CBDR") b In addition to, and not in heu of other official controls, all buildings and uses hereafter proposed for construction, whether on existing vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of the r o- min �-� �:�- _� ��,� - �, ,��,9 tentiona� demolition , „_ of an existing structure, are subject to the standards regulations and provision of the Central Business District Parkside ("CBDP") c In addition to, and not in lieu of other official controls, all buildings and uses hereafter proposed for construction, whether on existing vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of e kitentional demolition r 4 ''4�, a of an existing structure, are subject to the standards regulations and provision of the Central Business Distract Histonc ("CBDH") d In addition to, and not in heu of other official controls, all buildings and uses hereafter proposed for construction, whether on existing vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of he intentional demolition dew of an existing structure, are subject to the standards regulations and provision of the Central Business District Bluffside ("CBDB") e In addition to, and not in lieu of other official controls, all buildings and uses hereafter proposed for construction, whether on existing vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of Ohe intenfiona demolition 3 of an existing structure, are subject to the standards regulations and provision of the Central Business Distnct Blufftop ("CBDBT) " Subd 17(5), General regulations, is amended by adding a new that will hereafter read as follows of buildings CBDR—Central Business Distnct Riverside Height Oi d Amendment December 5 2006 Page l0 of 13 !Freestanding building' maximum height 1 5 stones,~note=to exceed, 20 feet, measured from the front street level Infill buildinmaximum and=riunimiini heig thth or vacant lots immediately adjacent to' an existing buildm thehei t of the°§infill.buildin "'i to b`c within 10% rihigher or lower of the ',height of'the adjacent building Pi -buildings lLthetnfill'buildmg between adjacent4buildings then the height of themfill buildingis-to,bewithin,-l0%o.(highereor-lower) of the gverageheighttof thefadjacent buildings_ on broth sides 2 CBDP-Central Business Distract Parkside Freestanding,buildmgl maximum _eight 2 5 stonesstonesrnOttOtaceecCei 30 feet, measured from the front street level Infill bmldifig `maximum and minimum Height for vacant lots immediately adjacent to' an existing building thehei'glit'oftitlie infillbuildingig to be within 10% igher or loweni W of the rdje9ei�t1heightro f�the cljacen building orliuildingtthe�nfill building ism betweeladjacnbuildings; thensthe height;ofithamTh buildingiso-be withinc10%(higher or lower) average heighthof the adjacent 1 uildings on both sides 3 CBDH-Central Business Distnct Histonc 'reestandinibiiildingl maximum pieighu 3 stones not atexceed 6F 35~3 feet, measured from the front street level Infill , uildmg ¥maximumand'mmuriumeheight M,or vacant lots immediately adjacent to' an existing building4iftelle-iiii,olhhre4rifIliguildin. tobawithin 10% higher or lowe ;tl e . the ,beight�ofAthe adjacent building PrAUuilania i fithe uifill+buildmgizs between adjacent buildmgs;,flhen the1height'vof the`tnfi11 v a a i t& x3 f i1t iu k a °c � � kd t n�k7s �� i -i - b i�ldmg is4oAbe withinl0%"(higherorlower)`Tof the Wet a ei eight`'omiteadja giiSt rldmgs(on;both sae's-) For purposes of calculating the height of an Infill building immediately adjacent to is synonymous with adjoining and does not include buildings that are on the opposite side of a street alley or open space of any kind Height Ord Amendment December 5, 2006 Page 11 of 13 4 CBDB—Central Business Distnct Bluffside iIFreestanlmg bi 1duigi maximum Veal 4 stones;a not4O'exceede 45 feet, measured from the front street level Infill building = maximum and minimumtheiihi Eor vacant lots immediately adjacent to' an existing building'ahe6lielair'of the`infill ;buil'ding iS to b'e within 10% khigher or lowe la#lianfiii the cent height of theme adjacent building oo building (f theinfillf bduilding s etween ad�acenttbuilding'sl{thenth�e height'of the�infill buildifig is to 1 wi 1 n 10%o(higherflor rower) offthc average heighfi'of;tl eYadjacen bbuildings oriabothisides� 5 CBDBT—Central Business District Blufftop _reestanding buildmgj maximum 3 stones, nol tto exceed ,e 35 feet, measured from the front street level Infill building maxirnuin andxrnlninium height flor vacant lots immediately adjacent to' an existing buildm athe;height of the mflhlbuilding is to -e within 10% ' igher or Lowe 4t#tm the djacent building r buildin s heiglitgof the Tfthe++irif ll�buil`dingis� petween a��" d a nt buil'dings;rthenatli height of tlief nfi11 building=is tolbe witlunTRkr(liigher t= lowe%) of tli averagelieight ofrtheadiaceht°tiiuldinngsionxboth sides D Section 31-1, Subd 12(5)a, Development regulations is amended by adding (5)a 8 , which will hereafter read as follows 8 Height limitations for parcels Maximum 1 5 stonest nottoWeeec& within the RB—two family ® 20 feet, measured from front distnct, subject to the CBDR street level Riverside overlay distnct E General regulations In all overlay distncts created by this ordinance, the following regulations will apply a For flat roofed buildings, height will be measured from the lowest street curb level to the highest parapet wall of the proposed building For purposes of calculating the height of an mfill building immediately adjacent to is synonymous with adjoining and does not include buildings that are on the opposite side of a street, alley or open space of any kind Height Ord Amendment December 5 2006 Page 12 of 13 b For peaked roofed buildings, height will be measured from the lowest curb level to the highest roof peak of the proposed building c In areas within the flood plain as depicted on the FEMA "Flood Insurance Rate Map," height will be measured starting from one (1) foot above the regional flood elevation of the property d All properties abutting on Main Street with frontage on more than one street must have height measurements taken from the Main Street side e All properties along Third Street must have height measured from the Third Street side f Buildings existing on Apnl 18, 2006 will, for the purpose of this ordinance, will be in lawful height conformance for purposes of improvements, repairs, remodeling, or refinancing This provision will not apply to buildings that are intentionally demolished 3 SAVING In all other ways, the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and effect 4 EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 18th day of Apnl, 2006 By Jay L Kimble, Mayor ATTEST Diane F Ward, City Clerk • _ • • • • • •- Height Overlay District Height Height District Riverside Parkside Historic Bluffside Bluff Top C J • • • • • • • Limit 1.5 Story/20' 2.5 Story/30' 3 Story/35' 4 Story/45' 3 Story/35' FLOOD PLAIN AREA 730' ELEVATION oo\ SAINT � CROIX RIVER W .: �1 s 400 Feet Height Ord Amendment December 5 2006 Page 13 of 13 City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14 2006 EXCERPT Present Chair Robert Gag Suzanne Block Gregg Carlsen Mike Dahlquist David Junker Brad Mernke Dave Middleton David Peroceschi Others Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Chairman Gag called the meeting to order at 7 p m Approval of Minutes Mr Peroceschi seconded by Mr Dahlquist moved approval of the minutes of July 10 2006 as presented Motion passed unanimously PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No ZAT/06 05 A zoning test amendment to the CBD Height Regulations City of Stillwater applicant Mr Tumblad explained the recent proposal submitted for 227 N Main St , the Stefan project, raised a question about the interpretation of the new downtown height overlay district He noted the current language limits structures to a certain number of stories or a certain height in feet The question that came up in the Stefan proposal was whether that language was to be interpreted as the number of stones or height m feet whichever is less or whichever is greater Mr Turnblad reviewed the arguments for the whichever is less and whichever is greater language Mr Gag opened the public hearing Vern Stefan 717 Sixth Ave S suggested puttmg a number m height to eliminate misinterpretation Mr Stefan noted that it is not possible to have three floors and 35 feet and meet state codes — it shouldn t be three floors it should be two floors if that is the City s intent No other comments were received and the hearing was closed Mr Junker said in all the previous discussions and hearings the focus was height He said when he voted on the height overlay district he was under the assumption that the limit was the lesser of the allowable number of stories or height Mr Junker said the current language suggests that the greater number is allowable Mr Middleton suggested taking out the language specifying stones and just stating maximum height Ms Block suggested allowing 37 which would enable a three story structure to built and meet state code she asked whether 35 took into account that a three story building cannot be constructed and meet code Mr Gag said he would be comfortable with eliminating language stipulating stories and staying with height Mr Middleton pointed out that a three story building could be constructed at 35 it just wouldn t have the historical feel of the high ceilings for retail space Ms Block spoke in favor of language that allows a building of three stones or 37 in height Mr Dahlquist said what was being suggested is some more research to venfy that the height numbers are correct Mr Junker moved to add verbiage limiting stories and height to whichever is less in all five categories of the height overlay zones leaving everything else as is Mr Mernke seconded the motion Mr Turnblad asked that the motion include the housekeeping changes related to Section references Mr Junker agreed to include those changes in his motion Mr Meinke agreed to second with those changes Motion passed unanimously Ms Block moved to review the numbers in the height overlay district to ensure that the stories indicated match an appropnate minimum number of feet required by Minnesota building codes to build each of the referenced number of stories Mr Dahlquist seconded the motion Mr Dahlquist also suggested that height of the existing buildings be documented Mr Dahlquist also said he would not favor having a flat line appearance to Main Street Motion failed on a 4 4 vote Typical lLtory Histor is CBD Building CBD R - �1vc7Z SIDE 7////7 A 2 foot• ��- Parapet 3 tt //�'/r��,` // ///� /77//0M F(Qsr FAR (O C I( itt4 ///MS/Z////g//// 3A5E, I ///////////////%////////////////////// I CkmeAot zod-t I 5" ao-wt-4.443 en 24. AkenCto Ais Par< 1Nc.D/NCt fFcC(A'- Typical2%ZStory Histoi i J CBD Building CISf - PAVStDt_. 4 HT oueziAy bIsrn`cT ///7 A 2 foot awl a. Esgrr rr Parapet 3 ft ram"" r e (Q:-7' ?l A c_ 2 foot.e,ethi ` FF,cc 0e5 r Oe.vT A c._ auttAQA4-- Cat_ 2 % 4 el- 3p D kitt&M $ to Av S P I&4!c, D i/a(,t. Q-rP rG (4 c-- TypicaI3-Story Historic CBD Buildrrig CIS.pH- — gist -oat f. t AFT oft -J� Ats7-2tc ,CAS A , t N((NI A41.4/A 31 2 footwerfrrrg to r 2 foot oetlrnr to 2 foot 4e4kt g+ `2` MINIMuH L stoetc l �' Fto042 Parapet aft Third floor foot walls (Z�cUtArr. Second floor �-t -1 foot walls ©rF,G'- we' % b0- t A - //, 2WZ"/ Ground floor 12 footwalis 3/— 3i CjMM9 CtA'(-- CwzAtA4 Aft& 3 ,4/4 01 3 C 3� Z t D MEMScors 1'2- IIk1LD,1L4 Orr( C4A` Typical 4,-Stot y Historic CBD Building M«(MuA -DiM1seoN 5 ifOCifrou4( Ns 1T . t • /p ` ref --Poor , `i (tcr „„ = 40 4 3 {Dv- 414- roof parapet fitor t ('2_1 for R to) I - _ I f 3 ` - -e(af rap Mst- 5 z fo✓ rt {o( roe 2 foot.eerlrrrg 2 foot 4•444144.0 2 f o of wertrrrg- Ex'l4 id•I% .1) ffr.rParapet 3 ft " yy:M,',W; Third floor O foot walls Second floor gfoot walls / /0" 74ff / ///0/ d Ground floor D i£.footwalls CIMARAtt tAfforPet, Lf Ar4AA94 AP% L ftpp o,4O' rifoe6 ter DtMwAStoAJs P MIL-t & tA - Typical 3-Story Histoi i f CBD Building c8-0 3r - 3wFF TVP 0U Li 7 snztcr . tO t- IZ' /-C(oor a FCa( r.of 13 1 Ctikct • PH- eked oaf 6 "v1/ 3 5 r'' C4 Amur( to tZ e✓ l Z t z- roe f would aheokf '2 r Coale mar Act... A 2 foot aa+twg 2 foot oeihng 2 foot ae+krrg EN6r E AV'4( ,4(N"M044 b i'(S14NS ��- Parapet 3 ft Third floor Sit foot walls //// /7,aw/ Second floor Cd foot walk Ground floor -4-2400twalls etatiteivA ,cae 3 1424444 401‘-- (i(A&NSLo,VS PER__ 81,4(LblNGt OffrG(A Ibbmgcmfi -11:1_1014 Ti@m@halou • Infill Height > standard limit? • Is building freestanding or mfill? Infill height regulation applies Freestanding 1 Standard height regulation applies Exhibit F 4 THE B RTHPI AI E OE 1INN - O fA Memo Community Development Department To Members of the Planning Commission From Michel Pogge, City Planner 0/09 Date Tuesday, December 05, 2006 Re Planning Commission Responsibilities and Organization Message With the departure of Rob Gag a question was raised concerning the procedures of electing a new chairman Attached for your reference is Section 22-5 of the Stillwater City Code that establishes the Planning Commission Each year at the first meeting in January the Commission is to select a chairman among its appointed members for a term of one year Staff will include an action item to select a new chairman at your January meeting If you have any questions please let me know From the desk of Michel Pogge AICP City Planner City of Stillwater 216 N 4th Street Stillwater MN 55082 651 430-8822 Fax 651 430 8810 email mpogge@ci st llwater mn us 4 § 22 4 STILLWATER CODE Subd 4 Civil defense plan The director shall prepare a comprehensive general city plan for the civil defense and shall present the plan to the city council for its approval When the city council has approved the plan by resolution, all civil defense forces of the city shall perform the duties and functions assigned by the plan Subd 5 Reports The director shall prepare and present to the city council periodically a report of activities and recommendations (Code 1980, § 22 04) Sec 22 5 Planning commission Subd 1 Establishment of commission The planning commission of the city is confirmed Subd 2 Members and terms The planning commission shall consist of rune members all of whom shall be appointed by the city council Members shall be appointed for terms of three years Appointees shall hold their offices until their successors are appointed and qualified Va cancies during a term shall be filled by the city council for the unexpired portion of the term Every appointed member shall, before entering upon the discharge of their duties, take an oath that they will faithfully discharge the duties of their office All members shall be residents of the city and shall serve without compensation , Subd 3 Organization At the first meeting in VW� January, the commission shall select a chairman from among its appointed members for a term of one year The commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month It shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions and find ings which record shall be a public record On or before January 1 of each year, the commission shall submit to the city council a report of its work during the preceding year Subd 4 Adoption of a program of work The commission shall proceed with the preparation and adoption of a program of work outlining activities proposed to be undertaken in the exer case of its powers and the performance of its duties This program of work shall be revised not less than annually and progress on the program shall be included in the annual report to the city council Subd 5 Comprehensive city planning It shall be the duty of the planning commission to review the comprehensive plan of the city and to recom mend amendments or additions to the plan for adoption by the city council whenever changed conditions or further study by the comnussion indicate that amendments or additions are neces sary It shall be the duty of the planning commis sion to recommend to the city council reasonable means for putting the plan into effect in order that it will serve as a pattern and guide for the physical, economical and social development of the city Subd 6 Procedure and amendments No change shall be made in the comprehensive plan, subdi vision or zoning ordinance or regulations until the proposed change has been referred to the plan ning comnussion for study and report and a copy of the report has been submitted to the city council Failure of the planning commission to report within 60 days, or a longer period if al lowed by the city council after reference, shall be deemed to be its approval of the proposed change Subd 7 Duty to review The planning commis sion shall review the city zoning ordinance and may recommend to the city council amendments or additions, whenever changed conditions or studies by the commission indicate that amend ments or additions are necessary In addition the commission shall exercise the powers given to it with respect to administration of requests for variances, special and conditional use permits, subdivisions requests and general project review as set forth in section 31 1, subdivision 30 Subd 8 Capital improvement program The planning commission shall obtain a descriptive list of proposed improvements planned by the city for the ensuing five year period The planning commission shall also request a similar list of pubhc works proposed by Independent School District No 834 The planning commission shall list and classify these proposed pubhc works and shall prepare a coordinated program of proposed public works for the ensuing year and for a projected five year period The program shall be Supp No 9 CD22 4 /) CITY ADMINISTRATION recommended by the planning commission to the city council and to other officers, departments, boards or public bodies that have jurisdiction over the recommended planning or construction of the public work Subd 9 Official map The planning commis sion, after adoption of a comprehensive plan, a street plan, community facilities plan or capital improvement program, may, and upon nnstruc tions by the city council, shall prepare an official map of the city and adjoining territory, indicating upon the map the land that is needed for future streets and public facilities After the map has been prepared it shall be submitted to the city council Before adoption by the city council, a public heanng shall be held upon the proposal at least ten days after a notice of time, place and purpose has been pubhshed in the official city newspaper (Code 1980, § 22 05, Ord No 748, 1-7 92) Cross references —Zoning ch 31 subdivision code ch 32 wetland conservation act ch 59 State law references —Planning commission Minn Stat § 462 351 et seq comprehensive municipal plan Minn Stat § 462 355 official map Minn Stat § 462 359 Sec 22-6 Absentee ballot counting board Subd 1 Establishment There is estabhshed an absentee ballot counting board for the purpose of counting all absentee ballots cast in the city Subd 2 Number required The board shall consist of a sufficient number of election judges appointed as provided in Minn Stat §§ 204B 19 to 204B 22 Subd 3 Duties The duties of the absentee ballot counting board shall be those duties de- scribed in Minn Stat § 203B 13, subd 2 Subd 4 Compensation of members The clerk, with the approval of the city council, shall pay a reasonable compensation to each member of the absentee counting board for services rendered dunng each election Subd 5 Applicable laws Except as otherwise provided by Minn Stat § 203B 13, all of the laws applicable to absentee ballots and absentee voters and all other provisions of the state election law shall apply to the absentee ballot board (Code 1980, § 22 06, Ord No 682, 8 12 88) Charter reference —Elections art IV Supp No 3 § 22 7 Sec 22 7 Heritage preservation commis Sion Subd 1 Declaration of public policy and pur pose The city council declares that the preserva tion, protection, perpetuation and use of areas, places, buildings, structures and other objects having a special historical, community or aes thetic interest or value is a pubhc necessity and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the community The pur poses of the hentage preservation commission are to (1) Safeguard the city's heritage by preserv- ing sites and structures which reflect ele- ments of the city's cultural, social, eco- nomic, pohtical, visual or architectural history, (2) Protect and enhance the city's appeal and attraction to residents, visitors and tour- ists and serve as a support and stimulus to business and industry, (3) Enhance the visual and aesthetic charac ter, diversity and interest of the city, (4) Foster civic pride m the beauty and nota- ble accomplishments of the past, and (5) Promote and preservation and continued use of lustonc sites and structures for the education and general welfare of the city's residents Subd 2 Definitions The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascnbed to them in this subdivi sion, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning Heritage preservation site means any area, place, building, structure, lands, districts or other objects which have been duly designated hentage preservation sites pursuant to subdivision 4(7) of this section Subd 3 Established The hentage preserva tion commission shall be estabhshed as follows (1) Members There is established a city her itage preservation commission, the "com mission," which shall consist of seven vot ing members to be appointed by the city CD22 5