Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-09 CPC Packetil Iwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, July 9, 2007, at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street AGENDA 1 CALL TO ORDER 2 APPROVAL OF June 11, 2007 MINUTES 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 01 Case No 07-24 A variance request to the maximum allowed impervious surface and to the minimum sideyard setback for the construction of a 34' x 40' two story addition located on the southeast corner of an existing building and a 14'8" x 24" one story addition to the west wall of an existing building located at 1826 Northwestern Avenue in the BP-O, Business Park Office District River Valley Place LLC, Summer Kuehn, applicant Continued from June 11, 2007 Meeting 3 02 Case No 07-27 A variance request to the maximum allowed impervious surface coverage for the construction of a 24' x 35' garage located at 212 Maple Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District Don and Cheryl Scoff, applicants 3 03 Case No 07-36 A variance request to the required front yard setback requirements (20 required, 16 requested), to the interior side yard setback (20 required, 6'01" requested), and a variance to allow up to two accessory buildings larger than 120 square feet located at 502 West Churchill Street in the RE -,-Two Family Residential District Mark Balay Architects, representing Brent and Chris Peterson, applicant Continued from June 11, 2007 Meeting 3 04 Case No 07-37 A preliminary plat that subdivides one lot into four lots, a rezoning from AP, Agricultural Preservation, to LR, Lakeshore Residential, and a variance to the lot width requirements located at 1133 Nightengale Blvd Damon Francis, applicant 4 OTHER BUSINESS 4 01 Extension of a special use permit for a temporary module for St Croix Preparatory Academy, Jon Gutierrez, Executive Director, located at 216 W Myrtle Street Case No SUP/04-87 4 02 Zoning Ordinance reorganization review and comment CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 c PHONE 651 430 8800 WEBSITE www ci stillwater mn us City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Present Dave Middleton Chairperson Suzanne Block Mike Dahlquist Dan Kalmon Wally Milbrandt (7 p m) David Peroceschi and Charles Wolden Staff present Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Pogge Absent Gregg Carlsen Prior to the start of the regular meeting the Commission held a workshop session with a representative of Bonestroo regarding the Comprehensive Plan draft background report Mr Middleton called the regular meeting to order at 7 05 p m Approval of minutes The minutes of May 14 2007 were approved by unanimous vote Case No 07-24 A variance request to the maximum allowed impervious surface and to the minimum side yard setback for construction of a 34 x 40 two-story addition at the southeast corner of an existing building and a 14 8 x 24 one-story addition to the west wall of an existing building at 1826 Northwestern Ave in the BP-0 Business Park Office District River Valley Place LLC Summer Kuehn applicant The applicant was present Mr Pogge reviewed the request for the three variances — parking impervious surface coverage and side yard setback — and staff findings He stated it is staff s recommendation that this case be tabled until additional information is received regarding possible mitigation of storm water runoff and provision of parking Ms Kuehn stated she would prefer that the matter not be tabled as she will be unable to attend the July meeting She stated she is proposing additional green roof space to mitigate storm water runoff and she said she will have 34 parking spots which will be shared with a neighboring business ReMax Mr Pogge pointed out that staff had never received the break down of uses to determine the parking requirement Mr Dahlquist suggested the Commission was being asked to evaluate the request based on information that is not available Members were in consensus to table the request until the supporting documentation is provided Mr Kalmon suggested that Ms Kuehn also consider treatment of runoff water on site in addition to the green roof mitigation Mr Peroceschi seconded by Ms Block moved to table Case No 07-24 Motion passed unanimously Case No 07-25 An amendment to a special use permit at Stone s Restaurant for construction of a permanent outside bar at 324 S Main St in the CBD Central Business District Eric Hawkins applicant The applicant was present Mr Pogge reviewed the request and stated the request meets all the requirements for an SUP He noted there are 10 conditions of approval to protect the public interest The HPC has reviewed and approved the design of the structure he stated Ms Block asked whether the SUP is issued for the business or property Mr Pogge stated the SUP goes with the property if the use ceases for a year the permit expires Mr Hawkins stated he was comfortable with all the conditions of approval with the exception of condition No 8 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 11, 2007 related to outdoor music and the 10 p m cutoff for outdoor music Mr Milbrandt noted that the City has a noise ordinance and the 10 p m deadline is a blanket policy Mr Pogge pointed out that the noise ordinance was in effect when the restaurant obtained the SUP the 10 p m deadline just wasn t specified in the permit language Mr Milbrandt and Ms Block noted that nothing has changed unless there is a complaint regarding noise/music Mr Middleton opened the public hearing Ginger Johnson 101 E Olive St stated she had called the restaurant on two occasions regarding the loudness of the music Dan Gruba 1439 Lydia Circle stated he thought nice dinner music wasn t objectionable and contributed to a community s nightlife No other comments were received and the hearing was closed Ms Block moved approval as conditioned with the condition that the SUP is subject to review and possible revocation due to complaints regarding noise Mr Wolden stated a basis for possible revocation should include decibel level and be citywide not just applicable to this particular business It was noted the noise ordinance does include reference to decibel level and Mr Pogge noted the suggested language does provide the City with an opportunity for revocation if there are continual violations Mr Milbrandt disagreed with the need for the language pointing out the City already has a noise ordinance Mr Peroceschi seconded the motion Mr Dahlquist concurred with the proposed language noting there is a potential for a change in use and the language provides the City with an enforcement tool in addition to the potential for a fine Mr Dahlquist pointed out that temporary signage is still in place and asked that a condition be added that the temporary signage be removed Ms Block and Mr Peroceschi agreed to add a condition regarding the removal of temporary signage Motion passed 6-1 with Mr Milbrandt voting no Case No 07-26 A variance request for the rear yard setback for construction of a deck at 1439 Lydia Circle in the RA Single Family Residential District Dan Gruba applicant Dan and Katie Gruba were present Mr Pogge reviewed the request and finding that not all three of the conditions necessary for the granting of a variance were satisfied specifically that a deck of dimensions other than proposed by the applicants could be constructed and meet setback requirements The Grubas pointed out none of their immediate neighbors have expressed concerns about their plans They noted the size deck they are requesting is sufficient for a table and four chairs a smaller area would not be sufficient to accommodate that In addition the applicants stated if they shifted the deck to the side of the house it would be more of an eyesore from the front elevation Mr Middleton opened the public hearing No comments were received and the hearing was closed Mr Wolden suggested that cul-de-sacs such as this location create the greatest potential for variance requests Mr Wolden also agreed with the Grubas assessment that it would look better to have the deck built off the house rather than moved to the side Mr Wolden moved approval as conditioned Mr Milbrandt seconded the motion Mr Dahlquist stated he could not support the variance saying he has seen similar requests in other 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 11, 2007 developments where approval results in overbuilding on small lots Motion passed 6-1 with Mr Dahlquist voting no Case No 07-27 This case was tabled at the request of the applicants Case No 07-28 A special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit and variance to the required rear yard setback for an accessory dwelling unit at 218 W Maple St in the RB Two Family Residential District Matthew Lehmann applicant The applicant was present Mr Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings/recommendations Mr Pogge noted the garage with storage space above has already been completed and the applicant wants to convert the storage space to an accessory dwelling unit He stated that the request meets all requirements for an accessory dwelling unit SUP with the exception of the rear and side yard setbacks He noted that the Heritage Preservation Commission had reviewed and approved the design Regarding granting the requested variance(s) Mr Pogge noted staff found that the request does not meet all three requirements but he pointed out that this garage was constructed prior to the City s instituting a condition regarding head space in storage areas above garages that precludes eventual conversion of the garage to accessory dwelling units Mr Dahlquist questioned whether the request meets the maximum 800 size for accessory units Mr Pogge responded that measured from the inside walls which is standard practice the space does meet the 800 maximum Mr Lehmann addressed the three criteria for granting of a variance He noted that if starting from scratch he likely still would request a variance due to the presence of four large trees that he would want to save He said the variance probably doesn t meet the criteria regarding the enjoyment of property rights but he noted that having the ability of allow family members to stay for extended period of time would allow them to enjoy their property much more than storage space As far as constituting a special privilege he noted this request is similar to what has been done in the past Mr Middleton opened the public hearing No comments were received and the hearing was closed Mr Milbrandt noted that this request is not changing the structure as currently viewed by neighbors and moved approval as conditioned Mr Kalmon seconded the motion Mr Peroceschi asked what would preclude the accessory unit from being utilized as a rental unit Mr Pogge stated the City can t prohibit that possible use Mr Wolden suggested that the current owners wouldn t remain there forever and the space definitely was constructed as a garage Mr Dahlquist referred to the time lag when the garage was constructed before the condition regarding headspace Motion to approve as conditioned passed 6-1 with Mr Wolden voting no Case No 07-29 A variance request to the required lot size regulations and to impervious surface regulations for properties in the St Croix Riverway Overlay District at 105 Lakeside Drive in the RB Two Family Residential District Mark S Balay Architects representing Mark Smith applicant Mr Balay and Mr Smith were present Mr Pogge reviewed the three variance requests staff findings and recommendation for approval with 8 conditions He stated the only question related 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 11, 2007 to condition No 3 that the addition be painted earth or summer vegetation colors as requested by Molly Shodeen of the DNR Mr Balay noted there are additional costs such as the holding structure and septic inspection involved with this project due to its location in the River Overlay District Mr Balay noted the house and addition are not visible from the River The house currently is painted baby blue and he said in conversations with Ms Shodeen she indicated the color would not be an issue Mr Dahlquist asked whether property owners currently utilizing septic systems are required to hookup to City sewer/water if available Mr Pogge explained that if a service fails or a property changes hands hookup is mandatory Regarding the condition related to the color Mr Dahlquist suggested language could be added that the structure be painted earth or summer vegetation colors or as approved by the DNR Mr Middleton opened the public hearing No comments were received and the hearing was closed Ms Block moved approval as conditioned adding language to condition No 3 requiring painting the structure earth or summer vegetation colors should the DNR make that request Mr Dahlquist seconded the motion motion passed unanimously Case No 07-30 Final plat and final PUD approval for 44 townhomes Millbrook 2nd Addition at 12427 Dellwood Road in the TH Townhouse District US Home Corporation Jay Liberacki applicant Mr Liberacki was present Mr Turnblad reviewed the site and request He noted that of the overall conditions of approval for the preliminary plat two apply specifically to the townhomes — that evergreens be planted to screen the driveways from public streets and added along the north side of White Pine Way between the street and townhome pond and that sidewalks be extended from the ends of the units to either the sidewalk along the public street or the sidewalk surrounding the pond Mr Turnblad said the condition regarding the sidewalks has been satisfied He stated he had just received the landscaping plan and expects to review those plans for compliance before this request goes to the City Council Of the eight conditions related to the townhomes a number relate to Heritage Preservations Commission requirements final HPC review is scheduled for July 7 he noted Mr Turnblad concluded by stating the final plat and PUD are similar to what was given preliminary approval Mr Liberacki gave a brief update on the progress of the project He pointed out this is the most inspected project he has been involved with due to the involvement of the two watershed districts He stated that he had one call complaining about dust being generated by trucks since the traffic has been moved off Neal Avenue there have been no more complaints he said Mr Liberacki inquired about a message he had received from Engineer Shawn Sanders regarding bump outs in the road by the major park and townhomes Mr Turnblad said that was related to a concern regarding road width and he said he thought that issue could be worked out before the City Council hearing Mr Middleton opened the public hearing No comments were received and the hearing was closed Mr Milbrandt seconded by Mr Peroceschi moved approval as conditioned Mr Dahlquist pointed out that he was not present for the discussion when the preliminary plans were amended changing from brownstone style to back-to-back townhome units and his vote 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 11, 2007 should not be interpreted as being in favor of that change Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously Case No 07-31 Preliminary plat preliminary PUD zoning map and text amendment and special use permit for construction of a new K-12 educational facility for St Croix Preparatory Academy at 8911 and 8753 Neal Ave N in the AP Agricultural Preservation District Ken Stone Kodet Architectural Group applicant Mr Turnblad reviewed the request He noted the property is in the phase 4 annexation area where early annexation is permitted if the request meets certain criteria He said it appears the criteria have been met it will be up to the City Council to decide if the timing for annexation is right He stated the proposal is to have the project completed in three phases with the first phase consisting of the school itself and certain infrastructure improvements The proposal is to rezone the property RA which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood Schools are a permitted use in the RA district with a special use permit he noted Mr Turnblad reviewed the cntena for a special use permit including that the use not constitute a nuisance or be detnmental to the neighboring area He noted that two issues — parking and traffic -- have arisen He pointed out that parking needs will increase as more students reach driving age In the first year of operation there will be no student drivers he said As upper classes are added and the school becomes K-12 more parking will be provided He stated according to ordinance 155 spaces will need to be provided Mr Turnblad said the proposed location of the primary parking lot has the potential for the most impact on the neighboring area Staff is suggesting that either the parking lot be moved to the north side of the building or a buffer — retaining wall with berm and plantings — be created Regarding traffic he stated a study done by a traffic consultant concluded that the existing network of streets with some modifications is adequate to handle the traffic that the use would generate Suggested modifications to the street network include paving Neal Avenue to Highway 96 a bypass turn at Neal and Highway 96 and change to the parking lot itself Mr Wolden asked if there are shoreland issues Mr Turnblad noted runoff from this property does not reach South Twin Lake The real concern he said is Brown s Creek and the Brown s Creek Watershed District will review plans Carroll Johnson Friends of St Croix Preparatory Academy and Jon Gutierrez director of the Academy spoke of the history and mission of the school Edward Kodet Kodet Architectural Group stated they had hosted a community meeting a week ago This will be a sustainable school and make the best use of this site he said He stated the plans are to extend the paved area of Neal Avenue 450 and leave the remainder of the road to Highway 96 gravel or overlay He briefly reviewed the parking and drop-off area noting there would be a single entrance to the school He said the school would be constructed using sustainable materials Mr Middleton opened the public hearing Chuck Benson 1950 Oak Glen Trail stated he was opposed to the project due to concerns regarding traffic, environmental issues financial issues and issues related to the Comprehensive Plan He spoke of the traffic/safety issues the project would create on Neal Avenue McKusick Road and potentially Oak Glen Trail He said the project has the potential for 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Tight and noise pollution and many DNR and Watershed District issues that must be addressed he also spoke of the wildlife that will be displaced by the project He expressed a concern about the financial feasibility and the Academy s ability to fund a project of this magnitude And he questioned why the City would consider annexing the property at this time at a cost to the taxpayers Erin Lisle 1841 Heifort Court said her primary concern was with traffic She spoke of the City Code definition of a nuisance and said use of the property for a school will be a nuisance in regard to traffic She also noted the project would take away neighbors view of a pond Jeff Klanch 1975 Oak Glen Trail suggested that 19 acres is too small for a school and the use is not a good fit for the property Ruth Bruns 8790 Neal Ave said she was shocked that plans didn t include paving Neal all the way to Highway 96 She also spoke of the wildlife in the area and agreed that the site was a small piece of property for what the school wants to do She raised a question about wetlands Kevin Mattson 2418 Creekside Court stated his children attend St Croix Preparatory Academy He said he understood concerns but said he thought things can be worked out in a good faith process G Rice 2063 Oak Glen Drive stated she was looking forward to having her child walk or bike to school She suggested that if a school doesn t occupy the site another development will and there will still be traffic problems Mark Warnken 1610 Johnson Drive said in many respects the school will be a neighborhood school He stated the school would be a good neighbor He said he understood there are concerns but thought the concerns can be addressed to everyone s satisfaction Ann Kochsiek 2151 agreed with the concerns regarding traffic She wondered whether the school would have its own generator as there are frequent power outages in the area Lisa Holmquist 2310 Oak Glen Court expressed a concern about traffic and about walkers on Oak Glen Trail She spoke of the traffic conditions at Highway 96 and County Road 15 and McKusick Road and County Road 15 She said if property owners to the south of the school are satisfied and traffic concerns are addressed she would not be opposed to the school Tom Swendenberg 13067 53rd Place N said he thought the school would be a great neighbor and said he thought concerns can be worked out Steve Schoonmaker 2300 Bayberry Ave said the school is good for Stillwater He said he knows there are a lot of challenges but asked that the school be given a chance to work through the challenges Jerry Daniels 1860 Oak Glen Drive questioned how it would be possible to get the traffic generated by a 1 000-student school up a single -lane road He stated the school was out of place in a residential area 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Eric Knutson 1930 Oak Glen Trail called for a traffic study by a non -biased source He questioned whether a berm would be possible due to the slope of the land and he raised the issue of a possible conflict of interest involving a Commission member whose children attend the Academy The Commission member in question responded that the City Attorney had advised there is no conflict of interest involved Mary Knutson 1930 Oak Glen Trail said a future expansion of the parking lot would go directly between three homes and the pond and would affect property values Sue Johnson 1940 Oak Glen Trail said she had grave concerns regarding the parking lot which she called a huge eyesore She stated there is not enough space even with a future expansion to accommodate parking for students and staff of a 1000-student school She also spoke of runoff issues and a concern about traffic noting that the intersection of Neal and McKusick is especially treacherous in the winter She also called for another traffic study by an unbiased source Tom Kramer 2030 Oak Glen Trail pointed out the site in question is private property and will be developed at some point He stated he was in favor of a school because he feels it would be a better option for the use of the site Joe Kiolbasa 1920 Oak Glen Trail pointed out that according to the Comprehensive Plan annexation of this site is not supposed to occur until 2015 He noted that the new Millbrook development is under way and will have a huge impact on traffic and other issues He suggested the site in question would be better able to handle a housing development than a 1 000-student school He stated he thought the proposal would be a nuisance and detriment to the neighborhood and asked the Commission to stay with the original Comprehensive Plan until the impact of Millbrook is determined Andy DuPlessis 1911 Oak Glen Place expressed a concern about the possible impact on what folks have strived a whole lifetime to achieve He stated he was unaware of the proposal until just a week before the meeting Tom Gabriel 1985 Oak Glen Trail spoke of his experience as a police officer regarding schools He stated in addition to accidents schools generate complaints about overflow parking litter and noise He called for a non -biased impact study and he stated he thought it would be wrong to have a school in this close a proximity to any residential area Don Fair 1861 Heifort Court stated there will not be enough parking when proud parents show up for school events He also spoke of the potential for light pollution Dennis Uppman 1965 Oak Glen Trail said 19 acres is not enough for a school He mentioned changing plans to move the school to the north of the property Nancy Kiolbasa 1920 Oak Glen Trail questioned the financial feasibility of the project noting that it is not unheard of for charter schools to go belly up 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Bob Kroening 1923 Swenson St stated his biggest concern was with traffic and said he was not certain enough study had been done regarding the traffic impact No other comments were received and the hearing was closed The applicant was given an opportunity to respond to comments/concerns The consultant from Wenck Associates who prepared the traffic impact study reviewed the results of that study which found that all affected intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service He noted the recommendations include the paving of Neal Avenue the installation of a bypass lane on Highway 96 and widening of the exit from the school He stated that development of a traffic management plan would be important and strongly encouraged development of such a plan as part of the project In response to a question by Mr Kalmon he stated the study was paid for by the school but was required by the City and reviewed by the City Regarding environmental concerns Mr Kodet stated they will be working with the Watershed District and will adhere to the highest environmental standards He stated the school will have its own generator and he stated it will be possible to landscape/berm to provide a visual barrier He said lighting will be restricted to the site And he said they would develop a traffic management plan as suggested by the traffic consultant He also addressed parking He said 80 parking spaces will be provided in the first phase with the ability to provide an additional 50 spaces on the edge of the playing fields that number can be doubled if need be he said Mr Gutierrez addressed comments about the financial feasibility of the project He explained state funding of charter schools He stated that while some charter schools clearly over estimate their number of students they have a waiting list of students He noted that financial projections do not include any federal funding He spoke of the school s mission of academics character and leadership Mr Kalmon and Mr Wolden asked whether they are any requirements for the size of a school site Mr Kodet responded that this site is acceptable if not large for the type of school programming proposed Mr Gutierrez pointed out that guidelines relate to square footage of buildings rather than the size of a site Mr Kalmon asked if there would be any further process for public input Mr Kodet said they would incorporate comments made at this meeting and have a follow-up public meeting with neighbors Mr Dahlquist questioned why the process involved a special use permit rather than a PUD and development agreement Mr Turnblad explained that generally the PUD process involves mixed -use developments such as Rutherford School and Liberty on the Lake Mr Milbrandt said the first question to be addressed is that of annexation and he suggested that the City is in no way prepared to annex this site at this time He noted that a month ago the Commission denied a 42-home development due to traffic issues It s not a matter of use he said it is a matter of not being prepared to annex at this time Mr Middleton pointed out there has been a lot of discussion about development in the northwest quadrant of the City and the need to complete the Comprehensive Plan before any more development He agreed this is not an issue of school use it s an issue of where the City 8 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 11, 2007 is with its Comprehensive Planning process Mr Kalmon agreed the school is a good applicant but the Comprehensive Plan ought to be completed before annexation Mr Dahlquist noted this request is different than a housing development He suggested that the amount of traffic generated may be of the same magnitude as the Mil!brook development and he questioned whether the City was prepared to handle that at the location in question He said this may be the best location for a school but he said that needs to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan He noted that schools involve emotional issues and he said all the elements need to be addressed so it is done right Ms Block stated she was saddened by having her intentions as a volunteer member of the Planning Commission questioned She noted that any traffic will impact her greatly as she lives on Neal Avenue However she stated she thinks the school is a good fit for the site And she said she would make her decision based on facts based on what s best for the community and what s best for the school Mr Milbrandt moved to deny Case No 07-31 Mr Kalmon seconded the motion Motion passed 5-2 with Mr Peroceschi and Ms Block voting against denial Mr Turnblad pointed out the request for annexation will go before the Joint Board on June 20 with the whole package to go before the City Council on July 3 Case No 07-33 A variance request to the minimum lot size requirements for construction of an addition and garage at 907 Sixth Ave S in the RA Single Family Residential Distnct River Valley Restoration representing Amy and Sean McDonough applicant The applicants were present Mr Pogge reviewed the request and findings in favor of the variance He noted the HPC has given preliminary approval for the demolition of an old garage on the site Mr Middleton opened the public heanng No comments were received and the hearing was closed Mr Peroceschi seconded by Mr Kalmon moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unanimously The meeting was adjourned at 11 50 p m Respectfully submitted Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 9 Ii liwater I E SIR 11 A O f- MINUFSOIA Planning Commission DATE June 7, 2007 July 3,2007 CASE NO 07-24 [Revisions to the original plannungfreport are all highlighted, deletions are shownwitha strikethrough,'additions are shown underlined APPLICANT Summer Kuehn REQUEST Variances to the maximum impervious cover standard, side yard setback, and a special use permit for a shared parking facility LOCATION 1826 Northwestern Ave COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT BPO - Business Park Office ZONING BP-0 - Business Park - Office District PC DATE June 11, 2007 July 9, 2007 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum allowed impervious cover, and the required side yard setback, and to the off ciuirz.street parking r„rafio. % for _ ice. m mm { Specifically the property owner is requesting a variance to the maximum impervious coverage of 60% [31-1-20(5)d], a e ar ance tF t quired number of off air provided131 1 25(2)], and a 2 foot encroachment into the required 20 foot side yard setback [31-1-20(5)d] Also, the applicant is asking -for a Special Use Permit for a shared parking facilityi Impervious Cover Currently the site contains approximately 62 8% impervious surfaces With the additions and changes to the site the total proposed impervious surfaces will increase to 63 4% The applicant has proposed to mitigate the effects of the additional run-off through the use of a green roof (sod roof) on additions "A" and "B" The City Engineer has reviewed the storm water calculations submitted by the applicant If the system is 1826 Northwestern Ave Page 2 designed and implemented as proposed the green roof will result in less storm water leaving the site than what currently leaves the site t If the green roof is not counted toward thc impervious surfaces the total impervious surfaccG onthe r t<, • ula onl<, _tie 0% of th., 1 tiga+ l� lr1 b, ,-1 th lJl �r7 ncici��6 "i-�e—��di�6iicnzz�rrcrgn croir�rrv=aTcro cTccjnTrcci-vrrcne-srt-e- -T-his could .thy - be 1,5L,e.a t1., 1, the nt eeluen . 1 1 surfaces, or additional green roofs ll Off -Street Parking Currently there are 77 74 parking spaces on the site With this addition a total of 2 spaces will be lost on the property leaving 75 72 spaces Additionally, through an agreement with St Croix Orthopedics to the west the club has exclusive use of 20 parking spaces on the clinic's site and an additional81 59 spaces during evening hours Finally, the applicant has verbally indicated that theyhave an agreement with ReMax Realty to use their 34 parking spaces after hours, Therefore, after the addition is completed there will be a total of95,94 parking spaces available at all times with an additional 115 59 during everung hours for a total of 210151 spaces During day time hours and during non -peak times of the year parking is not generally an issue on the site During evening and weekend time and especially during the winter months (January -March) parking around the site can become critical The applicant has submitted a parking calculations worksheet showing different ways to calculate parking`demands for the site Using the City's parking ordinance the site would require 314 spaces, which staff agrees with The owner has completed their own calculation based upon what the applicant feels is the actual parking demand In the applicant's parking calculation they believe that the parking demand for the building is 206 stalls Staff has reviewed their calculations and is generally agreeable to the calculations The parking code allows the shared parking facility with a special use permit "Health Club" for purposes of determining the regu rel� number of narks St f f 1 1 t ,a t 't t„1 Cloor a ,-. the 1. u l.l,,. g as 29,102 square feet Health Clubs required 1 space per 100 square fect_of floor arc thus, this site requires 291 parking spaces' The use of the space in the addition includes expanded offices, storage, and pool side sitting areas These uses will increases the parking demand, however, they arc not of particular concern ,.One of the areas includes area for expanded salon services Staff i3 concerned that this could increase demand at thc site and future exaggerate the situation 1826 Northwestern Ave Page 3 applicant time to prepare and submit a detailed parking ^__a'_yei_ of th^ ±c 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 A hardship is a constraint of the property (slope, irregular shape lot, etc) that prevents the reasonable use of a property The southern side yard property line angles on this lot Due to this it is impossible to build an addition that squares off the southeast corner of the building and meet the required side yard setback It would seem that this would be a reasonable hardship request Related to the portion of the request for variances to the maximum impervious coverage there appears to be nothing related to the physical conditions of the property that precludes reasonable use, therefore there appears to be no hardship It would appear that the request is simply for expansions that do not fit on the site The site as it currently exists has an impervious surface of 6618 % This request proposed to increase the overall impervious'surface by 0 6% or to 67 4% of the over all site This change will have onlya minor impact to the community, and with the proposed storm water controls will actually improve conditions 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors The property is zoned Business Park - Office District Even without these variances the property owner can continue to use the property as a health club, which is a reasonable use of the property Additionally, if the variances are granted as proposed this would create conditions that are not allowed on similarly sized lots elsewhere in the BP-0 district Therefore the request is not necessary for preservation of property right and would constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in the area 1826 Northwestern Ave Page 4 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 Generally, impervious cover such as buildings, driveways, and roads prevents water from entering the ground leading to increased flooding downstream and an increase in contamination and sediment in downstream water bodies Increases in impervious surfaces are the main causes of water quality degradation This degradation can be seen in many of the City's water bodies including the St Croix River These are just a few of the reasons the City have implemented maximum impervious coverage standards In this case, by adding a green roof system to the roof, the storm water leaving the site should actually decrees Therefore, the authorizing of the vanance 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} Staff has discussed with thc'property concern with the amount of building coverage on this Site The property owncr`has proposed 4 ti 3 additional run off from the site Additional areas of green roofs or the introduction of dccp,root plantings, an on site holding facil , �`� ' drive with a pervious surface, or other alternative methods could be considered' L the greater public Interestl ACTION BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed a design review application for the proposed additions on June 4, 2007 They approved the design review with conditions ALTERNATIVES The Planning Comrrussion has the following options 1 Approve the requested variance to the maximum impervious coverage of 60% (63 4% proposed) [31-1-20(5)d], a 2 foot encroachment into the required 20 foot side yard setback [31-1-20(5)d], and a special use permit to allow shared parking facility s 291 (151 space prepesed to be provided) If the Commission chooses to grant the variances and special use permit the commission needs to make an affirmative finding on the required conditions for avariance Additionally, if the commission chooses to approve the variances and special use permit staff would suggest that the Commission approve it with the conditions for approval listed below 1826 Northwestern Ave Page 5 2 Deny the requested variance to the maximum impervious coverage of 60% (63 4% proposed) [31-1-20(5)d], a 2 foot encroachment into therequired 20 foot side yard setback [31-1-20(5)d], and a special use permit to allow a shared parking facility since an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance could not be made by staff 3 Continue the public hearing until the August 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant time to propose additional storm water mitigation for exceeding the allowable maximum impervious coverage standard and to submit a proof of parking for the site The 60 day decision deadline for the request is July 17, 2007 As permitted by State Law, City staff can extend the 60 day decision deadline once to September 15, 2007 RECOMMENDATION water mitigation for,,excecding the allowable;maximum impervious coverage standard Review and take an action on the request CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1 The project construction shall be in compliance with the plan set dated May 11, 2007, which is on file in the Community Development Department 2 All minor modifications to the Design Review Permit shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator 3 The material for the new wall surfaces for addition 'A' and 'C' shall match the materials used on the adjacent existing wall surfaces 4 The banding on the south elevation should be continues along the south elevation of addition 'A 5 If the applicant constructs an outside garbage storage enclosures it shall match the building materials The location and screening of the equipment shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit 6 Any exterior mechanical units shall meet the design standards found in the West Stillwater Business Park Plan The location and screening of the equipment shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit 7 An exterior lighting plan for the addition shall been submitted The location and planting materials shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit 8 All landscaping shall be installed prior to final project inspection 1826 Northwestern Ave Page 6 9 No roof equipment, including roof vents, shall be visible to the general public Any exterior mechanical units shall be fully screened The location and screening of the equipment shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit 10 All trees are required to remain on site, as indicated on the plans, and shall be protected by fencing or other necessary measures shall be taken to prevent damage during construction activity 11 Continuous concrete curbing shall be installed to separate parking areas from landscape areas 12 Handicapped parking spaces and signage, in compliance with State requirements, shall be shown on building permit plans and installed before final inspection of the project 13 The street address of the building shall be displayed in a location conspicuous from the public street 14 All gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent surface 15 Construction projects shall conform to the City's Noise ordinance Construction during the dry season shall mitigate excess dust problems 16 The applicant is not required to install berming along Northwestern Ave due to the existing landscaping that would be impacted 17 The existing metal building is to be removed with the construction of addition "C' 18 The applicant shall propose additional storm water control to mitigate all of the increase in impervious cover The storm water control shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit 19 The installation of the storm water control sha119be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, 20 The applicant shall submit copies of the agreements from the property owners _who are allowing the applicant to use their parking lots during evening hours' 21�'' The special use permit for fashared parking facility shall subject to review and revocationby the Planning Commission if the parking demands should exceed the available parking, if one of the businesses that are part of the shared parking facilities should no longer make their parking lot available for use by the applicant; or if complaints regarding parking are received by the Community Development Director related to this site and use The determination to schedule a review of the special use perrrut for the shared parking facility shall rest with the City - Administrator Attachments Applicant's Form, letter, and Site Plan gary Bressigr Architect 9800 primrose avenue north stiliwater minnesota 55082 tel (651) 439 1208 fax (651) 439 0840 Xi 1.C\3IteCt June 28 2007 Planning Commission City of Stillwater 216 No Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 Attn Michel Pogge City Planner Case No 07-24 Dear Mr Pogge Enclosed you will find revised preliminary drawings for the River Valley Athletic Club Additions presented to the Commission earlier this month for variance requests Also included is a spread sheet identifying the the occupancy vs parking calculations we have made identifying our assumptions and observations The three items requiring the variances are 1 Steps taken to reduce the 544 SF increase in impervious surface 2 An explanation of the parking capacity anticipated and the additional parking provided 3 A reduction of the building setback along the south property line common with the City Water Department property on Tower Avenue Impervious Surface Following our meeting on Wednesday June 27, Summer Kuehn and I met with Rusty Schmidt the natural resource specialist at the Washington Conservation District office in Stillwater per your suggestion Mr Schmidt has designed LEED rain gardens and green roofs and follows current thoughts on the subjects closely After a conversation with a designer at Kestrel Designs in Minneapolis the following rain runoff coefficients for green roofs were confirmed from two different sources and would benefit the project as follows Green roofs on 4' of type A' soil reduce runoff to 45% 6 40% 8' 35% Type A soils are sandy granular in nature with the best drainage Type B' soils are more loamy with slower absorption Type C' and `D' soils are denser and heavier with the least absorption We are proposing 6 to 8 inches of soil with either a prairie plant blend or a more succulent sedum blend requiring minimum maintenance and drought tolerance Using the 40% runoff for the green roof with the six inch soil depth the impervious surfaces would be reduced as follows Addn 'A' 1382SF Because of access requirements to rooftop equipment and my reluctance to extend the green roof to the parapet flashings an 80% cover is anticipated 1382SF x 80 roof coverage 1105SF x 40 runoff coef 442SF (equivalent area of impervious surface) 940SF added pervious surface Addn `B' 352SF With no rooftop equipment, only edge parapets, we will be close to 100% coverage of 8 inch applied green roof a 95% roof coverage is used 352SF x 95 334SF x 40 134SF (equivalent area of impervious surface) 218SF added pervious surface Addn 'C' 208SF No green roof is anticipated at this time but we are offering the removal of (3) 8ft x 8ft concrete squares in the pool patio area 192SF added pervious surface 1350SF total pervious surface 544SF excess impervious surface 806SF net pervious surface gain The resulting roof drainage from addition A and the portion of the parking surface affected by the work will be directed to the lawn area to the south of the building not to the storm drains in Northwestern Avenue Consideration will be given to rerouting the roof drain leader in the SE corner of the existing building to be similarly directed to the south Parking Calculations Attached is a spread sheet identifying the building occupancies floor area breakdown by occupancy and ratios reflecting Stillwater parking ordinance guidelines and the owner s/my assumptions that we have used in the past work for the Athletic Club In January of 2006 we joined St Croix Orthopedic Clinic in a joint parking improvement project on the corner property that the Club had an interest in We gained 20 designated Club parking stalls with the number of shared after 5pm stalls remaining largely unchanged Since then that 20 stall lot as been a good barometer for the parking needs of the Club with only 6 to 8 stalls normally used during the busy times of the year With our proposed additions we sought out/and received an option for 34 additional shared stalls directly across Northwestern Avenue as after 5pm parking if needed The spread sheet is self explanatory with the Club's observations of 1 1 to 1 2 occupants per car a good evening average and the number of members officed next door and across the street that walk back and forth to the club during the course of the day in lieu of driving Building setback at south property line The south property line angles slightly with the existing building set at approximately 20 feet off the line the new addition if flush with the original building will encroach about 2 feet into that setback With competition within the athletic club business increasing and at least two other clubs looking at Stillwater as a desirable demographic, we wish to thank you for considering these variances and allowing the consideration of the green roof systems which may prove to be the next energy initiative in buildings The Club should demonstrate some added efficiencies in the heating and cooling of the building interest in this alternative solution might be demonstrated on this first modest application Rest assured that all 18 points mentioned in the June 7 correspondence have been addressed, with most points reflected on the revised drawings Sincerely l Gary Bressler Architect Enclosures MAIN FLR River Vallley Ath Club OCCUPANCY BY BLDG AREAS/PARKING CALCS 6 28 07 Existing Proposed Addn A Addn B Addn C SECOND FLR Existing Proposed Addn A Grand totals Descriptn Area SF BB court 2400 Spin 700 RacBall(2) 1600 ChildCare 1600 WomLkrs 1494 MenLkrs 1360 UtilLaundr 1020 Hallways+ 1532 Pool deck 2304 pool 2606 Lobby Off 1340 Spa 1056 19012 IBC FireOccLoad Ratio Occ /50sf = 48 /50 14 /50 32 /35 46 /50 30 /50 27 /300 3 /100 10 /15 157 /50 49 /100 13 /100 11 440 Salon 1027 /100 Mechl Tit 355 /300 PoolEquip 352 /300 PoolSitting 208 /15 1942 StillwaterParkgOrd Ratio Stalls /100sf = 24 /100 7 /100 16 /100 16 /100 15 /100 14 /300 3 /100 10 /100 50 /300 16 /100 13 /100 11 195 11 3/chair 18 1 /300 1 1 /300 1 13 /100 2 26 22 Bridge 608 /100 7 /300 2 Exercise Cardio 6780 /50 136 /100 68 Office 270 /100 3 /100 3 Shop 160 /300 1 /100 3 Mechi 130 /300 0 /300 0 Toilet 72 /100 1 /100 1 Class/Off 273 /50 5 /100 3 Stairs/Lan 418 /100 4 /100 4 8711 157 84 Cardin exp 1254 /50 1254 30919 25 /100 13 25 13 648 ! 314\ c}ual c,.+,t (?lc, Z9I OwnersParkgObservations Ratio Occ 20 14 8 4 /50sf = 15 /100 14 2 /300 5 24 /100 13 12 131 18 0 0 0 18 /300 2 60 /100 3 1 0 0 2 0 66 Remarks 4 5man teams 14 positions 4 2man teams 4 employees 2 employees 24 adults+children 2per 4massage 2off 2wtg 3 per chair/6chrs 1 maint employee in shop same see pool above equipment stations plus wtg 1 maint employee same 2 employees 12 equipment stations plus wtg 12 227 allowing for 1 1 people per car, we project the need for 206 parking stalls 1 Parking Totals Exist ng lot 66 81 parking stalls shared with nelghbonng Clmrc 20 parking stalls reserved for RV Athlebc Club Proposed lot 87 75 parking stalk ncludes 3 ADA stalls after loosing 4 and gaining 2 34 parking stack across Northwestern A e ava table after ho rs 210 parking stalls Location Map SITE INFORMATION -lot 67 Zon ng BPO Bus ess Park-Offce D stnct Site Area Allowable Impervo S dace Emir g Bldg A eas Parking Areas Co crete walks Patio @ Pool 87 128 SF 60% of 87 128SF 52 277 SF 19 012 SF 27 760 SF 2 646 SF 5 280 SF ( xcl des pool) 58 207 SF (66 8%) Proposed Add A 1 382 SF (ncl des 80% g een oof system) Add 8 352 SF ( nit de 95% green roof yst m) Add C 208 SF 1 942 SF less displaced parking walks paho pool equ p bldg dd south walks 1 398 SF net Impernous surface 544 SF add f r g een roofs 1 158 SF add (3) 8 x8 la dscaped stands I patio 192 SF net ncrease of pervious surface 806 SF 58 751 SF (67 4%) 0 6 k mpery ous s rface area increase 57 753 SF (66 3 k) i s7 0-0005C)� _TgeVArres.— D 0 Mt4 DORor E_ 71Tm —Y1 1± fpw W R DLO) $�ECt�Rr/E _ 0v dig - .3 ate. M x ^ - n 4 4 r EV%gC'r vas-tWari3 >1 Tc43 E'er 1 — �ve slice r — at r 1f ed MA1. I Fw LI srk tuft, -gym_ t+�+•_ �� o 1 11a1 fT,rs. AEI River Valley ATHLETIC CLUB 1826 Northwestern Ave Stillwater MN 55082 439 7611 aress er Architect 9800 pnmrose avenue north shllwate m nnesota 55082 tel 03511438 1208 1a.4851) 439.3840 6,0 HM,147a Pad' W-AU MrL %+NT rim% eirce eqr►. ww HUM, w0.0S N-- rITI.ro,r i aN Per, UriiWEQ HNDU79 _-e'���5� 91-4' 10-0 r3� ne• \ / a // / ic b t2 4%1=44- ff-rc f Rru DO iter-gmx- tZq Fe atw 1.0rfltiertfil, c0LIFTS efiO4 —ln011-11w w iss," t --/rmaeC rIFO I Jarte.ct NFL _ e___tddgesdett.celer3 River Valley ATHLETIC CLUB 1826 Northwestem Ave Stillwater MN 55082 439 7611 3-l-r a gary Bressler Architect 9800 prim ose a enue no ttt st Ilwale m nnesota 55082 �f Lc} WI 16511439 120W fax (651) 439 OB40 .—•aayt, Ps --- h — Iraftr ak ca446ks MEM 1111111U ■I■I= MEEK >r- 4` inoL 1.1I li F ems i iUL IIl I ,i Uf Weil/W S& _EwAs e lvxcepi - Rive V alley 1 /jTJill. E1ac C-L,;9B$ 1826Iorttty estenAve. $hilt' stare 082� r=�39-i �` per- 9HDD-P>im11sA9nue-ta s*'� * r mtrmesara_550§R.. vRcjtect ; ry ., u r te1 f851) 439120E la f85114390840 HE BIM HPL Of M N ti F 0 1 A Planning Commission DATE July 3, 2007 Junc 7, 2067 CASE NO 07-27 [Revisions to the original planning report are all highlighted, deletions are shown with a strikethrough,radditions are shown underhned ]r APPLICANT Mariay Smith PROPERTY OWNER Don and Cheryl Schoff REQUEST Variances to the maximum lot coverage, minimum lot size, the maximum allowed size for an accessory building; and the minimum setback of an accessory structure from a principal dwelling unit LOCATION 212 Maple St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFLL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING RB - Two-family District PC DATE June 11 2007 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum lot coverage, minimum lot size and the minimum setback from a principal dwelling unit for a proposed garage This property is zoned RB and currently has an existing single-family home The lot is 6,184 square feet is m size Currently there is an existmg 20x24 garage on the property The applicant desires to demohsh the ex_rstmg garage and build a 24x34 accessory structure for a total of 816 square feet Garages m the RB district are allowed to be no larger than 1,000 square feet or 10% of the lot size, which ever is smaller -In this case the maximum allowed garage size on the property is 618,square feet' The new accessory structure is proposed to contain a 24x24 garage area and a 10x24 shop area Currently the site exceeds the maximum lot coverage of 25% by 0 28% or 17 75 square feet The proposed new garage will add an additional 336 square feet of impervious cover on the site and increasing the site's overall building coverage to 30 62% The driveway is proposed to cover 23 55% of the site bringing the total site coverage to 54 17% The applicant has subrrutted storm water calculations to the City The ap-phcant hasxproposed to reshape the rear ofthe lot in order to keep as much of the storm water on the property and absorbed into the land The City Engineer has reviewed the calculations and found that if the system is installed by the applicant correctly and if the area provides for the same absorption K 212 Maple St W Page 2 rate as shown m the tests then the amount of storm water run off will be less than what currently occurs 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 owner has not provided information showing a hardship that is pecuhar to this property A hardship is a constraint of the property (slope, irregular shape lot, etc ) that prevents the reasonable use of a property In this case the property owner claims that the lot is an irregular shaped parcel of land due to the angle of Maple Street But even if the lot were rectangular the shape is not causing the difficulty The lot size causes the difficulty There is no relevant hardship particular to 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 as two-family residential which allows single family and two- family uses Even without these variances the property owner will be able to continue to use the property as a single-fanuly home which is a reasonable use of the property Moreover the property owner could demolish the old garage and build a similarly sized new garage Finally, if the variances are granted as proposed this would create conditions that are not allowed on similarly sized lots elsewhere in the RB district Therefore the request is not necessary for preservation of property right and would constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in the area 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 Impervious cover such as houses, driveways, and roads prevents water from entering the ground leading to increased floodmg downstream and an increase in contamination and sediment m downstream water bodies Increases m impervious surfaces are the main causes of water quality degradation This degradation can be seen in many of the City s water bodies including the St Croix River These are just a few of the reasons the City have implemented maximum impervious coverage standards The applicant has proposed a storm water system on their property that will reduce the amount of storm water run off leaving the site even with the increase in impervious surface area Staff has ,h ed .i +t, t +t, +t, + f �rrot' r +t .�R-a�=�ou«�= ite—One-alterna + ff t d +1. th + t, O v e-n.TccaTj Q�cDtccryyzcrr-ac�l c�7rc�srncmZyicza possible mitigation of the storm water run off from the site ,There are a number of methods that could be ed 1 +1 a-. t ` f ,1 o+ l ti ry + 4 212 Maple St W Page 3 h 1dr tg fa,,,i,,y p , wits. „ - i rf - - ther air emat13v4 , methods Without mitigation this will increase downstream water and impact the greeater,public zntcrest The proposal as submitted will not be a detriment to property owners in the community and will not impair the purpose and intent of the zoning code FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is not peculiar to the property and is created by acts of the owner 2 That a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and m the same vicuuty, and that a variance, if granted, would 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 will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title It would not necessary adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Deny the requested variances to the maximum lot coverage requirement, minimum lot size and the minimum setback since an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance could not be made by staff 2 Approve the requested variances to the maximum lot coverage requirement minimum lot size and the mi umum setback If the Commission chooses to grant the variances the Commission needs to make an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a vanance 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 garage shall be limited to a 24 by 34' structure _ c The installation of the storm water control shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engeeeermg Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy foi the garage The applicant shall propose home type of,storm water controlto mitigate the increase in impervious cover The storm water control shall be reviewed and approved_ byFthe City Engineer priorlo the issuance of a building permitf 3 Continue the public hearing until the July 9, 2007 Planning Commission meetmg The 60 day decision deadline for the request is July 17, 2007 RECOMMENDATION Since an affirmative finding could not be made for the three variance review criteria, staff recommends demal of the requested variance Attachments Applicant s Form Site Plan elevations, letter, and letters from adjoi ung property owners PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED /Special/Conditional Use Permit A 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 anyappl►cat►on All support►ngmater►al (► e photos sketches etc) submitted with application becomes the propertyof the C►tyof 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 nr� PROPERTY - IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 2. I Z. (.J f 1 r p � S t" Assessors Parcel No pp�� (GEO Cop) i I Zoning District Ri3 Description of Project Ief o l L S Y l e XI.$) n(,t �-Icon (l e (-►IA-L ` t 1 n 1(171 A. 161 fa flew (1rrnc1r I 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 !))n 3. (. Y 1 r 01 1 .S,Lhc( Mailing Address 212. W fr) op It ,S Mailing Address City State Zip S f I I I W 1 L"- r (Yin 55- 2-City Telephone No Signature 3) ;-7 OffewiL (Signature/is required) Lot Size (dimensions5 I x Land Area L Lf>5 5 r•' Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal Z ;47 i Accessory _J i 1 i i1�1 Iz ► 9 A S fin. -+h �Z1 �1 3►�) (- `)-h 1 I la.n - rnn '55oi2_ Telephone No 6,5 I `1 30 34 W1 Signature Representative State - Zip SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIO ► gnat re is required) Total Building floor area Existing O square feet Proposed Paved Impervious Area 1426 square feet No of off street parking spaces 2. squaree feet square feet {-1 Z5— H mrnamara\aheda\PI AFIAPP FRi1 June 9 2006 June 2, 2007 Dear neighbors The existing garage on our property at 212 W Maple St was constructed in 1974, 16 years before we purchased the property in 1990 Unfortunately, this garage was never a well-built structure Now, at 33 years old, its basic structural problems are glanng The garage is in an advanced stage of deterioration We are asking the city to let us replace the garage with a standard 24-foot-wide structure (4 feet wider than the current garage) This would make the garage a true two -car garage We are also asking that we be allowed to have a 10-foot shop in the back of the garage This would make the structure 24-by-34 feet The city code states that all buildings on a lot cannot exceed 25 percent of the lot size Because we have such a small lot, this proposed building will increase the footpnnt to 31 percent Therefore, a vanance is required for the building permit Our new garage will benefit the neighborhood in four ways 1 The existing ugly garage will be removed 2 The new structure would mimic the house's roof pitch and detail, thus fitting in -- instead of fighting with — the lovely tone of this old neighborhood 3 It will allow us to put our cars in a garage for the first time, therefore getting them off the dnveway 4 The new garage will resolve any potential problem of rainwater run off from the roof by routing the water underground along the driveway straight south to the front of the lot and to the street We will be meeting with the city planning committee on June 11 to review our request We are asking our neighbors to sign this letter so we can show the committee that our neighbors favor of this variance Thank you for your consideration Signature -k Name r-Dv‘,..ZAhtC Skb.A tAQ. Address 7 C 2 N (iU t to C 9 �C - > > > 7) if-IIt4S: ►1,e.,11,(1001 l---Q,S r10v (t lvc)1, �3.._4L,/\ ()Q..). -- -\(ZkV\-ii.I v•_(1 .>"Ait< �fl.L�) UcL.t:.0L..-F �1(,St `4 >L�›� i , F� )1 V c( 1 _t rt t-e L l U, i f In i L.,1,1 -V\ 4 j i 6 v c/ t t 'j t SS.,t , y k;4. ` b) 1 10 l.tA,> t ►\-cj June 2, 2007 Dear neighbors The existing garage on our property at 212 W Maple St was constructed in 1974, 16 years before we purchased the property in 1990 Unfortunately, this garage was never a well-built structure Now, at 33 years old, its basic structural problems are glaring The garage is in an advanced stage of deterioration We are asking the city to let us replace the garage with a standard 24-foot-wide structure (4 feet wider than the current garage) This would make the garage a true two -car garage We are also asking that we be allowed to have a 10-foot shop in the back of the garage This would make the structure 24-by-34 feet The city code states that all buildings on a lot cannot exceed 25 percent of the lot size Because we have such a small lot, this proposed building will increase the footprint to 31 percent Therefore a variance is required for the building permit Our new garage will benefit the neighborhood in four ways 1 The existing ugly garage will be removed 2 The new structure would mimic the house's roof pitch and detail, thus fitting in -- instead of fighting with — the lovely tone of this old neighborhood 3 It will allow us to put our cars in a garage for the first time, therefore getting them off the driveway 4 The new garage will resolve any potential problem of rainwater run off from the roof by routing the water underground along the driveway straight south to the front of the lot and to the street We will be meeting with the city planning committee on June 11 to review our request We are asking our neighbors to sign this letter so we can show the committee that our neighbors favor of this variance Thank you for your consideration _ n ...... Signature r-1 Name Address 2/ i-<-1 ,�/- June 2, 2007 Dear neighbors The existing garage on our property at 212 W Maple St was constructed in 1974 16 years before we purchased the property in 1990 Unfortunately, this garage was never a well-built structure Now, at 33 years old, its basic structural problems are glanng The garage is in an advanced stage of deterioration We are asking the city to let us replace the garage with a standard 24-foot-wide structure (4 feet wider than the current garage) This would make the garage a true two -car garage We are also asking that we be allowed to have a 10-foot shop in the back of the garage This would make the structure 24-by-34 feet The city code states that all buildings on a lot cannot exceed 25 percent of the lot size Because we have such a small lot, this proposed building will increase the footpnnt to 31 percent Therefore, a variance is required for the building permit Our new garage will benefit the neighborhood in four ways 1 The existing ugly garage will be removed 2 The new structure would mimic the house's roof pitch and detail, thus fitting in -- instead of fighting with — the lovely tone of this old neighborhood 3 It will allow us to put our cars in a garage for the first time, therefore getting them off the driveway 4 The new garage will resolve any potential problem of rainwater run off from the roof by routing the water underground along the driveway straight south to the front of the lot and to the street We will be meeting with the city planning committee on June 11 to review our request We are asking our neighbors to sign this letter so we can show the committee that our neighbors favor of this variance Thank you for your consideration Signature 9:v) 11.l) -v Oil Name JL�'n (-'(J) S 0 nnOJ) Address 7/-S ,(J r ,� -� Si June 2, 2007 Dear neighbors The existing garage on our property at 212 W Maple St was constructed in 1974, 16 years before we purchased the property in 1990 Unfortunately, this garage was never a well-built structure Now, at 33 years old, its basic structural problems are glaring The garage is in an advanced stage of deterioration We are asking the city to let us replace the garage with a standard 24-foot-wide structure (4 feet wider than the current garage) This would make the garage a true two -car garage We are also asking that we be allowed to have a 10-foot shop in the back of the garage This would make the structure 24-by-34 feet The city code states that all buildings on a lot cannot exceed 25 percent of the lot size Because we have such a small lot, this proposed building will increase the footpnnt to 31 percent Therefore a variance is required for the building permit Our new garage will benefit the neighborhood in four ways 1 The existing ugly garage will be removed 2 The new structure would mimic the house's roof pitch and detail, thus fitting in -- instead of fighting with — the lovely tone of this old neighborhood 3 It will allow us to put our cars in a garage for the first time, therefore getting them off the driveway 4 The new garage will resolve any potential problem of rainwater run off from the roof by routing the water underground along the dnveway straight south to the front of the lot and to the street We will be meeting with the city planning committee on June 11 to review our request We are asking our neighbors to sign this letter so we can show the committee that our neighbors favor of this variance Thank you for your consideration Signature r �.4-`-7,4z "66 Name Address ) ), it June 2, 2007 Dear neighbors The existing garage on our property at 212 W Maple St was constructed in 1974, 16 years before we purchased the property in 1990 Unfortunately, this garage was never a well-built structure Now, at 33 years old, its basic structural problems are glaring The garage is in an advanced stage of deterioration We are asking the city to let us replace the garage with a standard 24-foot-wide structure (4 feet wider than the current garage) This would make the garage a true two -car garage We are also asking that we be allowed to have a 10-foot shop in the back of the garage This would make the structure 24-by-34 feet The city code states that all buildings on a lot cannot exceed 25 percent of the lot size Because we have such a small lot, this proposed building will increase the footprint to 31 percent Therefore, a variance is required for the building permit Our new garage will benefit the neighborhood in four ways 1 The existing ugly garage will be removed 2 The new structure would mimic the house's roof pitch and detail thus fitting in -- instead of fighting with - the lovely tone of this old neighborhood 3 It will allow us to put our cars in a garage for the first time therefore getting them off the driveway 4 The new garage will resolve any potential problem of rainwater run off from the roof by routing the water underground along the dnveway straight south to the front of the lot and to the street We will be meeting with the city planning committee on June 11 to review our request We are asking our neighbors to sign this letter so we can show the committee that our neighbors favor of this variance Thank you for our c,o si s - ration Signature - ,L 6'2'-6\ Name JC1CC/ �"«'<` /VUII� Address PJ:---7 - ` A 3 / June 2 2007 Dear neighbors The existing garage on our property at 212 W Maple St was constructed in 1974, 16 years before we purchased the property in 1990 Unfortunately, this garage was never a well-built structure Now, at 33 years old, its basic structural problems are glanng The garage is in an advanced stage of deterioration We are asking the city to let us replace the garage with a standard 24-foot-wide structure (4 feet wider than the current garage) This would make the garage a true two -car garage We are also asking that we be allowed to have a 10-foot shop in the back of the garage This would make the structure 24-by-34 feet The city code states that all buildings on a lot cannot exceed 25 percent of the lot size Because we have such a small lot, this proposed building will increase the footprint to 31 percent Therefore, a variance is required for the building permit Our new garage will benefit the neighborhood in four ways 1 The existing ugly garage will be removed 2 The new structure would mimic the house's roof pitch and detail, thus fitting in -- instead of fighting with — the lovely tone of this old neighborhood 3 It will allow us to put our cars in a garage for the first time therefore getting them off the driveway 4 The new garage will resolve any potential problem of rainwater run off from the roof by routing the water underground along the dnveway straight south to the front of the lot and to the street We will be meeting with the city planning committee on June 11 to review our request We are asking our neighbors to sign this letter so we can show the committee that our neighbors favor of this variance Thank you for your onsideration Signature Name Address cf A/ z 1<.) T Pedestrian vehicular and service points of ingress and egress distances between dnveways and street corners Check list for Planning Applications Incomplete or unclear applications/plans will be returned to the applicant and may result in delay of application processing Check and attach to application The application form completed and signed by the property owner or owners authonzed representative ❑ Building plans clearly dimensioned and scaled (16 copies) The site plan showing extenor property lines easements lot width and depth and lot area building(s) location (See attached site plan example a parcel boundary survey may be required) 4II adjacent streets or nght of ways labeled / / i / / / ,_'' Q Location elevation Size height of building or addition dimensions materials and roposed use of all buildings and structures (including walls fences signs lighting and hooding devices) exi ing and proposed �f r the site (if the site is in a Histonc Distnct additional design detail maybe required) Distances between all structures and between all property lines or easements and structures ® Show Adjacent buildings to this application site and dimension from property line All major existing trees on the site (4 inch caliber or greater) giving type location size and other site overage conditions LrJ Show existing significant natural features such as rock outcroppings or water courses (existing and roposed marked accordingly) Locate all off street parking spaces dnveways loading docks and maneuvenng areas with dimensions for Iveway widths and parking space sizes Z,Candscape plan showing number of plants location varieties and container sizes (landscape plan) Existing and proposed grading plan showing direction and grade of drainage through and off the site indicate any proposed drainage channels or containment facilities i equired and existing street dedications and improvements such as sidewalks curbing and pavement (may not be required) LI etter to the Planning Commission describing the proposed use in detail and indicating how this use will effect and compatibility with adjacent uses or areas Applications for new structures on slopes of 12 percent or greater must include an accurate topographic map The map must contain contours of two foot intervals for slopes of 12 percent or greater Slopes over 24 percent shall be clearly marked ZOther such data as may be rec} fired to permit the planning commission to make the required findings for approval of the specapylication (AhtUre Date 1 notesnonasurmo seM a Corr O CO P— W 150 63-76- , �� IZ R n v 7:0120), - 5 rry ll ��-elN kO•t. rr rxr CD 1 ��- ) r-n or rra CI 1 H R_ivmowLcs 50 63 63 4 , -- _1 Vicinity Map o (0131)� 1 50 . ____-� -,',21 ,._ I 50 6 Co `r Cr) r 7 o 5 2 20 2) I CO/ \ 61 ) ` 1 , 0 42 i 2 n`o 5 62 2 M PS3 V' Sp O I1�\-G ,\ 0 Scale in Feet 1 I i 1 Location Map 1GJ / 1 � V "" ,.. w� r �, a June 2, 2007 Community Development Department City of Stillwater 216 N Fourth St Stillwater, MN 55082 To whom it may concern The existing garage on our property at 212 W Maple St was constructed in 1974, 16 years before we purchased the property in 1990 At that time, we knew this garage was not a well-built structure Now, at 33 years old, the garage's basic structural problems are glaring The building is in an advanced stage of deterioration The largest of its problems is the concert slab, which has numerous large cracks, some as wide as 4 inches Several experts have told us it cannot be repaired And if the slab cannot be repaired, the structure above the slab — the garage — cannot be repaired Replacing the garage was always part of our long-term plans It has been obvious for quite a while that we need to replace it with a standard 24-foot-wide structure The current garage is only 20 feet wide and can't accommodate two cars, much less other typical garage items like a lawn mower and a snow blower and a bike or two We intend to replace the existing ugly garage, which in no way resembles our 1880s house, with a new structure that would mimic the house's roof pitch and detail, thus fitting in — instead of fighting with — the lovely tone of this old neighborhood Our initial plan was to build a two-story structure with a garage below and a workshop above However there were problems with this approach • We would need variances for the setback on the east side of the garage This setback of 10 feet would make the garage difficult to use and unappealing to look at • We would need a vanance for the ceiling height • And we were womed about proportion The second story would be a lot of building very close to our neighbors to the east And since our house is not large and we did not want it to be overwhelmed by the garage Our scaled -down plan is for a 24-by-34-foot one-story structure a standard 24-by- 24-foot two -car garage with a 10-foot shop behind We need a structure that is 34 feet deep, which would be large enough for a garage, storage and a workshop With no usable attic or basement space in our house, we need additional room in the garage The modest workshop in the back would house egwpment for both leatherworking and metalworking — both quiet and clean pursuits This revised garage plan solves many problems • It would eliminate the ill -matched eyesore that currently masquerades as the garage • The new structure would mimic the house's roof pitch and detail, visually tying it to the house and the neighborhood • It would allow us to put our cars in a garage for the first time, therefore getting them off the driveway and out of sight • The new garage would resolve any potential problem of rainwater runoff from the roof by rerouting the water Please note that we have enclosed signed statements from six of our closest neighbors showing their support for our proposed project We understand that this project increases the footprint on our property Right now, house and garage cover 25 percent of the lot House (1,109 square feet) plus garage (480 square feet) equals 25 percent of lot (6,285 square feet) Our handicap is not only that our lot is the smallest in the neighborhood but also it is an irregular shape The angling of Maple Street robs us of critical space Our lot is 15 feet shorter on the east than on the west So, here's the rub If we had a true rectangle (130 4 by 52 20 feet), our proposed larger garage (24 by 34 feet) when added to the house would cover only 28 percent of the total lot, closer to that magic number of 25 percent Therefore, because this is a well -conceived project that will be well received by our neighbors, we request a variance for an increase in the maximum lot coverage for buildings and structures from 25 percent to 31 percent This would enable us to build the garage we require with the workshop we need and, in the process, rid the neighborhood of a major eyesore T (//?(I-, z. S'./ Do choff Cheryl Burch-Sdhoff 212 W Maple St Stillwater, MN 55082 t?r}D1 !1 r ,}' Ji ' i 1� Js X7�--31„kyLJ1 i ► S tid r 91 1jc cy L' r 41h1 S g .� IhZ1 = L1 , — `, -A j . bo( 1 - l d,y i K ji 1 % ! L' i> ��`P Sc2z9 — r2i ; °"1 1, Z2 ,2 F J.� b 2-Li w x 3' h - y 1 "11(1 t r - i) i 32' r, 7' , 'Yr,r 1 r _ th Imo%- L) 2. 0- 62.55 L i -Pro pe:S& _.L.rr .pr'J 4::1 . Dr :1 (k,lo ► �L °/ -73 ^ 1 r rYdtr-, ra ;� i C c1,1 r,' Rc! r PYc,p. I r rye 0 - eo T A� Lc C�rncr P►nt .f� t i 1 t, L, (i, 1.) () 1_�i' hu6 if 1 Lf;pr f + r 1 'S ► 02 1 1 PQ 6-Arisafl ttt4r'-^1 1 ik�: (7) r)r p`),- I kJ 35 i h. g 1Z. I /.3 1 `DS 6 e-A%crn 're (At- I 1 f'7?,,,, / /A / i �- '�'t.''�.�� 3 ' P o , Ir ('U1 , / Ft s t 1 ./ 0L / r \!/ k)J \ , \ NNN \ - r ZI 1 r/, t / I a) 4aor`_, \a'1) S'irg4 6, s A d C ,,,)- I Ja I, II c:e L I �' p �r1 F -S real (/vet,t-ice �r !‘ ( i t - f� l P L-x'f Pip las t) z)Id i to"O1 `. i /' r hq lit Eo' 1, 1 t �� L 7 f i 4 � JE=it7j3J. 7 D M 1,1A P Q CJ 1 lJ 1 Cl ? 1 r7 ?l (►Y)u4 \Tom pi.,2-aday jt ,,11 ' A 1 ,11) �,1 j-) Trorn cx k'1 b { i \ci Lin� -r3J2}c 0 i l 0 d cur (1)1.� �g 1 ( 1 e � /// -1,1101 /7 • / / FI t il Storm Water Control Plan (Case No 07-27) Don Schoff and Cheryl Burch, 212 W Maple St , Stillwater, MN This plan will address the cities concerns over the amount of impervious surfaces on our lot The goal of this plan is to keep as much water runoff as possible on our lot and absorbed by the ground within our lot This will prevent the run off from degrading the cities bodies of water At the present time, the house and garage on our lot have 1,589 square feet of roof area The new garage/shop would add 336 square feet for a new total of 1,925 square feet By using the back yard (grass) as a collection system, we can capture and absorb the ram run off from 1,371 square feet of our roofs or 71 % of the rain runoff from our house and garage/shop This would be the entire run off from the proposed garage/shop and the west side of our house Currently we do not capture any rain run off Therefore, even with the larger garage/shop, our ram run off would be 86 % lower than now The water collection system would work by shaping the back yard into a basin to hold the rainwater We would do this by routing the gutters from both sides of the garage/shop roof directly into the basin The house on the other hand has a steel roof Gutters would not survive the first winter on the house However, for the past 15 years, we have been collecting water from the west side of the house roof (on the ground) and piping that water under our patio onto the grass Currently this water is channeled through the center of the lot and out the northeast corner All we need to do is convert this channel to a basin that holds the water Below, I have listed the rainfall at the Minneapolis/ St Paul airport dunng the last year I have excluded the winter months 2006 June 2 81 inches 2006 July 1 29 inches 2006 August 6 90 inches 2006 September 2 44 inches 2006 November 92 inches 2007 Apnl 1 11 inches 2007 May 1 99 inches Total 17 46 inches or an average of 2 49 inches per month To test how this collection system would absorb water in our back yard, I have run a number of full-scale tests. Below I have shown how I have calculated the amount of water that would come off of the west half of the roof of our house and the new garage/shop. Roof area 1,371 square feet (1/2 of the house roof and the complete garage/shop roof) * 144 (square inches in a square foot) = 197,424 square inches of roof area. If it rained 1 inch we would collect 197,424 cubic inches of water. 1 gal = 231 cubic inches of water 197,424 / 231 = 855 gals of water 855 gals of water / 2 = 428 gals or 'A inch of rain. Currently the way the back yard is sloped, our collection area is about 3 x 16 feet or 48 square feet. After changing the contour of the yard, we can increase the settling area to 341 square feet. To test the amount of water the yard will absorb, I put 428 gals of water on this 3 x 16 foot settling area. This will simulate a rainfall of 1/2 inch on our 1,371 square feet of roof area. Thursday 6/21 - 428 gals of water (it took 79 minutes to put on this amount of water) (water was completely absorbed within 30 minutes) Friday 6/22 - 428 gals of water (it took 79 minutes to put on this amount of water) (water was completely absorbed within 40 minutes) Saturday 6/23 - 428 gals of water (it took 79 minutes to put on this amount of water) (water was completely absorbed within 30 minutes) As you can see, if we expand our settling area by 7 times from 48 square feet to 341 square feet, we will be able to handle 7 times the rain fall in the test. This would be a 3.5-inch rainfall in one storm or well over a month's average rainfall. Should we get a very heavy rainfall that the basin will not it. An overflow will carry the excess water out the northeast corner of the lot. This is the same way all of the water has flowed off or lot for the past 15 years. This has never cause any problems for the neighbors. or us. Attached is a drawing of the backyard detailing the water basin and a picture taken at the end of the last test. This picture shows how much water remained in the settling area once the flow of water was stopped. All three tests were completed within 36 hours. AJ WAte 0N-fro I P ' J PAT i‘o EX(STIN J Pro €a1 i-'KC vita. Poi.--. ` s V ."1t —iree Pn ito (lose 7 /////zz/ TO 1JasiN Tnpr•i Re curr'aiv T i-fa a 4 S{i1.1wT BIRIMPL A( Of M11 INE 0 A Planning Commission DATE REQUEST June 26, 2007 CASE NO V/07-36 1) Variance to front yard and side yard setbacks 2) Variance to allow second accessory structure to be larger than 120 square feet 3) Variance to allow third accessory structure APPLICANT Brent and Christine Peterson LOCATION 502 West Churchill Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFSL, Single Family Small Lot ZONING RB, Two Family Residential MEETING DATE July 9, 2007 REVIEWED BY Community Development Director, City Planner PREPARED BY Nicole Ormand, Community Development Intern BACKGROUND Brent and Christine Peterson have made an application for a variance to allow the addition of a second accessory structure to be larger than 120 square feet at the corner lot of 502 West Churchill Street They have an existing detached garage with an area of 405 square feet and would like to relocate the unit farther into the northwest corner of the property Then, build an addition onto the house which includes increasing the living area and an attached garage of 500 square feet The plan for the addition complies with setback requirements The home is currently a non -conforming structure and thus another variance is required in order to do any type of addition to the home SPECIFIC REQUEST Non -Conforming Structure The Peterson property is zoned RB, Two -Family Residential Therefore, the required front yard setback is 20 feet and the required side yard setback is 30 feet for corner 02 W Churchill St Variances Page 2 lots1 In this case, the front yard and side yard setback requirements are not met making the existing house non -conforming City Code2 states that non -conforming properties can not be expanded In order for the Petersons to proceed with their addition they need approval of front and side yard setback variances for the existing property Since the existing home does not meet minimum front and side yard setback requirements, a variance is being requested to remove the non -conforming status of the property This would then allow the home to be expanded with the addition Accessory Structures Attached garages are considered an accessory structure in the RB zoning district Only one "accessory structure" may be larger than 120 square feet in this district With the proposed garage use in the addition, the Petersons are requesting variances to allow a second accessory structure larger than 120 square feet on the property With the addition, the property would continue to meet setback, lot coverage, and impervious coverage requirements foi Two Family Residential zoning Another variance is requesting for the allowance of a third accessory structure on the lot The property has another accessory structure that is less than 120 square feet located near the existing garage EVALUATION OF REQUEST The Planning Commission may grant a variance 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 home at 502 West Churchill Street was constructed m the 19th Century, which was long before the current 20 foot front yard setback and 30 foot side yard setback requirements for corner lots were adopted Furthermore, it was constructed in this location long before the Petersons purchased the property Therefore, staff finds this a hardship particular to this property and not created by the property owner 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 as Two Family Residential and being used as a permitted single-family household The potential historical significance of the existing garage discourages the idea of demolishing the building The property owners would like to have a garage that meets current standards for modern vehicles without losing a structure that adds character to the community With ' City Code Ch 31 1 Subd 12 (5)a 6 2 City Code Ch 31 1 Subd 9 3 City Code Ch 31 1 Subd 30 (2) d 502 W Churchill St Variances Page 3 the allowance of a second accessory structure, the lot coverage would remain below the maximum 25 percent and the proposed addition does not increase the current non -conformity of the structure Therefore, staff believes the requested variances for the front and side setbacks are acceptable 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 addition meets the current setback requirements for the property thus creating no negative impacts on any of the surrounding properties With the current existing garage of 405 square feet and the proposed addition of 665 square feet, the total lot coverage still remains under 25 percent Therefore, staff finds the authorization for the setback variances, the allowance of a second accessory structure larger than 120 square feet, and allowance of a third accessory structure acceptable ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Deny the requested variances 2 Appiove the requested variances in whole or in part 3 Continue the public hearing for more information The 60 day decision deadline for the request is September 6, 2007 and the next Planrung Commission meeting is scheduled for August 13, 2007 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 The project construction shall be in compliance with the plan sets dated June 15, 2007 which are on file in the Community Development Department All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the Planning Commission Determination of the distinction between "major" and 'minor' shall rest with the City Administrator 2 The design of the addition shall be consistent with the current design of the house RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the variance review criteria to be met for the setback variances, the allowance of a second accessory structure larger than 120 square feet, and the allowance of a third accessory structure 11, A 502 W Churchill St Variances Page 4 attachments Applicant s Letter Applicant s Plot Plan Location Map cc Brent and Chiistine Peterson R i J �-. .� I 4 �' Ct s .{.^ rY' , j irtrr, l' R ,_4. , 1 L4 3i LS 1 r + kI +�'�E' �' ' ik ll�' N Y� A' } s 4 +r 'G ., i o? . yJ�4 3 4 TS a ` t RIW R2OW RI)W 4 Ti NIIII 11 V as wfy . ,E.I i y F a. 2 .. f� rt>•F I { 1 '"_j J �;�,r( r < ALL I. �- f.�� = M_. T IN r l T71N S h 11171 c ti s. T 1 N 4 _ 4T'YN ks� T29N x p Y rF @ F$ r �,t 1's✓T Y ` ti t 4 T BN PgN ha a �,.� + A.,� ,1 t 'e.. it,� ..i'4. r 1 L f u ;x ffr r w r- S- _ 3'✓ *2 f ''`' '[ m ..,. ' C f fX' n ° .8 " ti d,+� h- — "tFP �°' T,'m R2W RIW T27N R'(IW 1 to v m sT,x. - 1 d'r. Z ''' i,l'''--- - y --^� r I .0u's' e a3s� f '' ^ t 7P' w , ..tt �"Ya 4 Aiss``t�' T t t 4 n3 _ {e x� --` 14 r,� Vicinity Map 'E f F T jo� �} Asti ,(ram -6 r yam a o ca m (.}I� P ' u� v{ P w .�JP '+�fF i�+,- �M `t �/ ,,Sr 'ice �ij tUA`1� Y1�, v i 3 I K�4- itry.j 2.. 4 `% ,.E Tt f� fc y J9.y I ..... S Y� h '� R., € fL ,dYt � : ,+{ `� ere'I,r ,.„. , 4 n �f �B I ", fI ,> IS` +� >x '" ti c.�a ,�' rrt," b 6' 't c' a ...- - Lim 1� '1f �" �'�. tf , T S , f $ram` H u r+37j., _4'L•-- ten 0 25 a `-' � r S> 7r —la 1 ' ,..r.,. T s " ., 4 a. ., rr Ir2 _ t 6 ,bi •t, 47- w' §� s i w , , 1 d �.' r a N H�k:T '" r 'i't'7s 'i j'., P r r i ¢ r �, # a �Ri $�; ` c*"� rn F tr 9 r S }r h '" i'i n. gg' } iy,- � 4 "W' �midS ,--, I apR ir-«. fti '1 ,} „'T p! tc�'i �'' �ll ._.d` !i ,yam r .f ''1, 11 ryry�� 'f �` i .51 9 �P �ha1 b $'U i i 9 61 - dp r /' d i" .� ! - ✓ Scale in Feet �dn mThie il, InW WE �b p�Gmy Oyu aMn WuhY9bn Gaudy ertlm Tlr meAO�IWJ4�uWbtir�� yr tt�K, 4, M1 , r r"' , 1 — _.a _,....., F � W 1xcintls dbM Location Map 1 .�`t k3 , ., 7, ...>r �I �m+ wuNnNm�,V' FM. ...-• sc,,, Hama1� I ,�,e uw b baud m•51h0YJom�Wn w.v win.a .rM 2037 Mark S Balay AIA S t i I t w a t e r M i n n e so t a 110 East Myrtle Street Suite 100 Stillwater Minnesota 55082 (651) 430 3312 6/15/07 City of Stillwater Attn Michel Pogge 216 N Fourth St Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr Pogge B A L A ARCNRECTS r Michael E Balay AIA Indiana p o i i s I n d i a n a b801 Lake Plaza Dave Suite C 305 Indzanapols Indiana 46220 (317) 845 4402 Attached are all matenals requested to apply for a variance to the setbacks on the Peterson Residence The Site Plan drawing describes the portion of the existing histonc home which is beyond the setback limitations on both Churchill and Seventh St The proposed addition will comply with a 20 setback on both streets based upon adjacent structures and the current zoning ordinance The relocation of the histonc garage complies with all current zoning requirements The impervious surface and building coverages are both below required maximums You may calculate this based upon my application data We are requesting that a variance be granted due to the hardship caused by the establishment of the zoning RB zoning district after the construction of the home as it is The addition and renovation proposed does not increase any non-compliance given a 20ft setback form both streets Please do not hesitate calling if you require additional information or have questions Sincere] S Balay Mark S Balay Arclects, Inc A- 0 T1 71 -U 6 O 0 0 0 0 11 -1 0 7 7 0 0 0 5VN 5 HOU5E DWG ¢wf °. c PP. II Mg5 II 1 A REMODEL & ADDITION FOR THE PETERSON RESIDENCE 502 W CHURCHILL STREET S1ILLWATER MINNErO1A a'..MOM °"' "" b MAR OniE N1 DESCDIP 0 BALAY M ks a.,, �A °IN ` `/ �' // _ # p;A �P MRC s 51 1 MN 650&, De/ (651) 9D AVe n, (65)) 30-000e a 8 ° 0 Memo To Planning Commission Members From Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director 1r 7 Date July 5, 2007 Subject Case No 07-37 Please open and continue the public hearing for Case No 07-37 to the August 13, 2007 meeting Ti E B t 1 lwa ter ,MsL:t's4 THPLA A E 0 t1 I N N I- 0 A DATE July 2, 2007 APPLICANT St Croix Preparatory Academy REQUEST Special Use Permit Extension LOCATION 216 W Myrtle Street ZONING PA, Public Administration PLANNING COMMISSION DATE July 9, 2007 PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director CASE NO 04-87 BACKGROUND The St Croix Preparatory Academy has a Special Use Permit (SUP) for their temporary educational module at 216 W Myrtle Street The SUP was issued in 2004 for a two-year period and a one-year extension was granted in 2006 The school has not yet been able to find or build additional classroom space Consequently, a request has been submitted to extend their SUP for another year to the end of June 2008 COMMENTS • An application for approval of a site plan for a new school facility is pending consideration by the City Council • No complaints have been received against the existing temporary classroom space RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a one-year extension with the following conditions 1 The module unit shall be removed by June 30, 2008 2 No additional modular units shall be permitted 3 No additional signage bt Memo To Planning Commission Members J From Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Date July 5, 2007 Subject Zoning Ordinance Reorganization Review and Comment The Zoning Ordinance reorganization will be distributed at meeting time for review and comment at the August 13, 2007 meeting