Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-28 CPC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North August 28th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of July 15th, 2019 regular meeting minutes 2. Possible approval of minutes of July 24th, 2019 special meeting minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 3. Case No. 2019-38: Consideration of Variances to the side yard setback and the 25% maximum structural coverage for the Shore Land District in order to add an addition on the home at 1002 Nightingale Blvd. John and Constance O’Neal, property owners. 4. Case No. 2019-39: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental on the property located at 603 Myrtle St W. Kim and Brandt Jackson of Homes by Kymbrandt, LLC, property owners. 5. Case No. 2019-40: Consideration of a Variance to add roof access to the building at 126 Main St N/231 Commercial St in the CBD district. Murray and Heidi McAllister, property owners. 6. Case No. 2019-41: Consideration of a Variance to build a tuck under garage on the property located at 904 Harriet St S. Brian and Kasey Posch, property owners. VI. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION VII. FYI – STAFF UPDATES VIII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 15, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Kocon and Meyhoff; Councilmember Collins Absent: Commissioners Hade and Hansen Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of May 22, 2019 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve the May 22, 2019 meeting minutes. Motion passed 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2019-21: Consideration of a Variance to the rear yard setback to add a 12’ addition to the rear of the home located at 420 Linden St W in the RB district. Kurt Klitzke, (former) property owner and Doug and Cheryl Marsh, applicants. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. Doug and Cheryl Marsh are requesting a variance to the rear yard setback in order to construct an addition onto the back of the house. On May 22nd, 2019, the Planning Commission tabled the variance request from the Marshes and requested a survey, a drainage plan to be reviewed by the City Engineer, and an assessment by the City Forester regarding the impact of the crawlspace on trees. The City received two public comments: Glenn and Becci Cox, 417 Cherry Street West, expressed concerns about impacts to a black walnut and a cedar tree and about existing drainage problems being worsened by the proposed addition. Kurt Klitzke, former property owner, stated that the property is currently at zero runoff to the rear and he believes the proposed addition would not create drainage issues. Since the last meeting, a drainage plan was submitted and approved by the city engineer, who found that with the proposed drainage plan, the addition will have no negative impacts on the neighbors. These plans include adding gables and gutters that will channel water away from the property to the north, and the installation of grates that connect to sub-surface PVC pipes to funnel the water east and away from the neighboring property. Moving the grates to the corners of the proposed addition was recommended in order to pick up the runoff quicker. The city forester analyzed the proposed addition’s impact to the black walnut and white cedar. He indicated the trees show somewhat sparse crowns and dead wood. He determined that the proposed construction may stress the two trees but would not be enough to threaten their health. The applicants are now requesting a variance to allow for an addition to be built 13 feet from the rear property line, where a 25 foot setback is required. Staff recommends approval of the variance to the rear yard setback with six conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Planning Commission July 15, 2019 Page 2 of 6 Becci Dawson Cox and Glenn Cox, 417 West Cherry Street, provided photos of the trees they are concerned with. They responded to the forester’s comment about the dead wood, saying black walnuts tend to grow like that, dropping dead wood which is normal. 48” in the back of the division would trench right across the root line of both trees. The white cedar provides the only privacy between the two houses because of the height differential. The drainage issue and the loss of the trees are equally important. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Councilmember Collins asked, are there repercussions if this goes forward and ends up damaging the trees? City Planner Wittman replied none that she is aware of. Commissioner Kocon expressed confidence in the professional opinions saying the proposed addition will not threaten the trees and it will drain properly. Councilmember Collins said his concern is with neighbor’s trees, though he acknowledged that the forester has been to the site twice. Commissioner Dybvig said he is uncomfortable that the City initially allowed the house to be built way back on the lot. Each decision made by this Commission impacts the next decision. He questioned whether granting the variance would worsen the situation. Chairman Lauer granted permission for the Coxes to come back to the podium. Ms. Dawson Cox asked if part of the reason for a 25’ setback is to protect roots of neighboring trees. Ms. Wittman stated usually the purpose of a setback is to have uniform spaces on a traditional block. Mr. Cox asked, was the forester aware of the drainage plan and fully aware of the issues in the area Ms. Dawson Cox added that the forester told them he didn’t know about the drainage plan. Ms. Wittman responded that the forester was aware of the drainage plan before he visited the second time last weekend. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2019-21, a Variance to the rear yard setback to add a 12’ addition to the rear of the home located at 420 Linden St W, with the six conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-1 with Councilmember Collins voting nay. Case No. 2019-24: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental on the property located at 437 2nd St S in the RB district. Brian Brosdahl, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicant currently operates a Type B Short Term Home Rental on the property and would like to upgrade to a Type C license. She noted that as long as the two additional sleeping areas are approved for egress by the City Building Department, all standards are met. Staff recommends approval with 11 conditions. She added that the City Council recently held first reading of an ordinance amendment increasing the number of Type C licenses available. Brian Brosdahl, applicant, stated he is currently approved for six bedrooms, allowing for 13 guests. An egress window is being installed in the seventh bedroom to meet the requirements. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2019-24, Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental on the property located at 437 2nd St S, with the 11 staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-0. Planning Commission July 15, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Case No. 2019-28: Consideration of Variances for the front and side yard setbacks to construct a new detached garage on the property located at 410 Linden St W in the RB district. Chris Rustad, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a detached garage that will match the setback of the front wall of the existing house that would extend 18 feet into the required front yard and four feet into the required side yard setback. It will increase the structural coverage 8.43% over the allowed 25%. Staff recommends approval of the variances to the front yard setback, side yard setback, and impervious surface coverage, with four conditions. Chris Rustad, 220 Chestnut St W, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Collins, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve Case No. 2019-28, Variances for the front and side yard setbacks to construct a new detached garage on the property located at 410 Linden St W, with the four staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2019-29: Consideration of a variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage. Property located at 1435 Curve Crest Blvd in the BP-I district. Packard Properties, LLC, property owner, and Stiglich Construction, Inc., applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that in 1989 a future addition was contemplated for this property. Culligan is now ready to have the additional warehouse space, so the property owner plans to build an addition a bit smaller than envisioned in the city-approved 1989 site plan, but in the same location. Upon examination, it was discovered that the proposed addition and associated driveway expansion exceed the 60% impervious coverage allowed on the property. Drainage will be entirely accommodated on site. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow 63% impervious coverage, representing a variance of 1,718.6 square feet, or a 5.1% increase over the 34,013.4 square feet permitted. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Commissioner Meyhoff asked what is “treatment” of water on site? Ms. Wittman replied in this case, treatment is considered to be infiltration. Robert Stiglich, applicant, said the designers made the changes per the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization’s recommendations for the present design. The addition will allow the user to have more storage space and keep trash inside the building instead of the existing trash enclosure. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Chairman Lauer, to approve Case No. 2019-29, variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage for the property located at 1435 Curve Crest Blvd. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2019-30: Consideration of a Variance to the Front Yard Setback. Property located at 515 3rd St S, in the RB district. ELIN Marco Group, property owner and Patrick Schmeichel, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that the Elin Marco Group is proposing to rehabilitate the existing three-family structure at 515 3rd Street South into a single family residence. The proposed project includes the addition of a porch on the front of the home. A 6’ variance to the 20’ Front Yard Setback is being requested for the construction of a 6’ deep, open covered porch. Staff finds practical difficulty has been established and therefore recommends approval with five conditions. Planning Commission July 15, 2019 Page 4 of 6 Patrick Schmeichel and Sharon Crowley, Elin Marco Group, offered to answer questions. They are trying to restore the house as historically close as possible based on what is known about its history. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The hearing was closed. Ms. Wittman noted for the record she has heard positive comments about the plans from adjacent neighbors. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2019-30, Variance to the Front Yard Setback for the property located at 515 3rd St S, with the five staff- recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2019-31: Consideration of Variances associated with a proposed Resubdivision of parcel into two lots: Variance to the maximum allowed building coverage and Variance to lot size for second lot. Property located at 1422 Martha St N in the RB district. Sally Studtman, property owner and Nancy Millard, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that the Edmund H. Studtman trustees would like to sell their homestead at 1422 North Martha Street. The property is composed of 2 1⁄2 platted lots that were combined into a single parcel. The trustees hope to resubdivide the parcel into two lots and sell both. Parcel 1 (the northern parcel with the existing house) would meet the required 7,500 square foot lot size, but would require a building coverage variance, since there would be 27.3% coverage and only 25% is permitted. Parcel 2 will need a size variance, since it has only 6,337 square feet of area. The resubdivision will be the Council’s decision; the variances fall under the Planning Commission’s purview. Five letters have been received from residents in the neighborhood: Wendy Adams, 321 Moore St W, Gwynne Fransen, 217 Moore St W, Ronald and Carol Lux, 404 W St Croix Ave, Tolis Dimopoulos, 402 Sycamore St W and Haraldsons, 411 Maple St. The primary concerns identified by the neighbors are the undersized southern lot and the grandfathered location of the existing house. Staff finds the resubdivision and the variances to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends approval with six conditions. Sally Studtman, 318 W Sycamore St, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The hearing was closed. Commissioner Kocon noted there is somewhat of an economic consideration however all lots across Martha have been subdivided. The request is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood which has smaller lots. Commissioner Meyhoff concurred that the request is in keeping with other smaller lots. Chairman Lauer said he struggles with the economic motivation. He questioned whether the application furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Dybvig wondered if the domino effect will be started by tonight’s action. He would feel more comfortable if he knew what would be built on the vacant lot. Commissioner Kocon pointed out that a home could be built within the setbacks. He does not believe the Commission’s action would create a hardship, but buyers of the second lot would have to be aware of the lot constraints. Commissioner Dybvig shared a concern that a future buyer might request a variance, saying it is an under sized lot. He reminded the Council variances cannot be justified by economic reasons. Planning Commission July 15, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Meyhoff remarked that smaller homes are currently selling, so it is market-driven. He feels it will fit the neighborhood better after being split. Councilmember Collins said there is no doubt there is an economic consideration. One of the remaining lots will be substandard. He is uncomfortable with this. Chairman Lauer noted that it goes back to the intent of the applicant. Their motivation is economic so it fails the criteria for granting a variance. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to deny Case No. 2019-31, Variance to the maximum allowed building coverage and Variance to lot size for second lot for property located at 1422 Martha St N. Motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Meyhoff voting nay. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2019-27: Consideration of a Short Term Home Rental Type B license application. Property located at 316 William St N in the RB district. Dana Mattingly, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that Dana Mattingly owns and lives on the property at 316 William Street North. She has applied for a Type B Short Term Home Rental license. The property is already operating as a Short Term Home Rental, so she is applying after the fact for the license. All of the performance standards required of Type B Short Term Home Rentals are met. Four residents submitted comments: Tom Anderson, 317 William St N (opposed), Carol Peterson, 704 Linden St W, Sandra Lynott, 717 Linden St W, and Joni Brostrom, 726 Linden St W (three in support). Staff finds that the proposed use can conform to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans, other lawful regulations, and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval with ten conditions. Commissioner Kocon asked if there have been any substantiated complaints on this rental. City Planner Wittman said there have been no substantiated complaints. Photos have been submitted regarding parked vehicles but they have not been able to be proven to be guests’ vehicles. She added that staff has allowed almost all Types A and B applicants to operate their rentals while the license application is in process. Councilmember Collins asked if the owner lives more than a half hour away. Ms. Wittman replied that the owner lives more than a half hour away but they have a property manager who lives at 504 Greeley St S. Chairman Lauer asked about parking for people who are not staying but are guests. Ms. Wittman replied parking for registered guests must be accommodated on site. The code does not specifically talk about where unregistered guests are allowed to park. The number of parking stalls required on site is based on the number of registered guests. Chairman Lauer offered the opportunity for public comments. Kelly and Dana Mattingly, applicants, said they have a farm in Wisconsin but their Minnesota home is their residence where Ms. Mattingly lives more than 51% of the time. She has been operating as a Type A license, staying with all her guests. She would like the flexibility to be able to go back to Wisconsin when needed. Ms. Mattingly said one neighbor is concerned about child molesters. They tried to sell the house last summer and were unable to sell it so they felt they would try Airbnb. Their Planning Commission July 15, 2019 Page 6 of 6 guests have been mostly families and women. She has a five star rating and enjoys hosting the guests. She has two managers living in Stillwater. One of them lives next door. Thomas Anderson, 317 William St N, said he was surprised to learn this type of commercial activity could take place in residential areas. He is concerned for the welfare of his family. There have been problems with Airbnbs in other locales. No background checks are required by Airbnb and it is easy for bad things to happen. He feels the Mattinglys are good people but he does not support the application. Van Brostrom, 726 Linden St W, said he and his wife support the application 100%. All guests have been very polite and quiet. Jana Webster, 710 Linden St W, spoke in support of the application. She works in tourism and feels that Airbnbs elevate the neighborhood. The owners have been very open and honest with the neighbors. Commissioner Kocon said if the application meets the Short Term Home Rental ordinance, he sees no reason to deny it. Councilmember Collins said that Mr. Anderson’s concerns are not new. Only one property has had substantiated complaints since the City adopted its Short Term Home Rental ordinance. Chairman Lauer said he supports the application. Watchful neighbors help resolve issues before they get out of hand. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve Case No. 2019-27, Short Term Home Rental Type B license application for the property located at 316 William St N, with the ten staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-0. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION There were no other items of discussion. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the Commission next meets July 24. She reminded the Commission of the Boards and Commissions Picnic August 22. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. All in favor, 5-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 24, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Vice Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Vice Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Kocon and Meyhoff; Councilmember Collins Absent: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Hade and Hansen Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes for approval. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2019-19: Consideration of a Variance to the front and exterior side yard setback for the reconstruction of a garage on the property located at 116 Harriet Street North in the RB district. Daniel and Allison Boblit, property owners and Jim Barton, applicant. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. Dan and Allison Boblit have requested approval of the demolition of their existing garage and replacement with a new, similarly sized garage at 116 Harriet Street North. A 15’ variance to the 30’ front yard setback and a 20’ variance to the 30’ exterior side yard setback are requested. On the basis practical difficulty has been established, staff recommends approval with six conditions. Vice Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kocon commented that the new garage will have less impact than the existing garage. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2019-19, a 15’ variance to the front yard setback and a 20’ variance to the exterior side yard setback for the reconstruction of a garage on the property located at 116 Harriet Street North, with the six conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-0. Case No. 2019-35: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a brewery and outside seating at 204 Main Street North in the CBD district. Pat Wolf, 204 North Main LLC, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that Pat Wolf, representing 204 North Main LLC and the Joseph Wolf Brewing Company, has recently purchased the structure at 204 Main Street North. She would like to convert the existing retail use into a brewery with tap room that would also serve coffee and tea. Two commercial recreational businesses and two seasonal food vending uses were previously approved for the property. The applicant would like to retain the two seasonal food vendors. Staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed uses conform to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations and will not be a Planning Commission July 24, 2019 Page 2 of 5 nuisance or detriment to the public welfare. Therefore, staff recommends approval with 14 conditions. Pat Wolf, applicant, 222 Commercial Street, Stillwater, said she would like to bring the Joseph Wolf Brewing Company back after 93 years. She clarified that the closing on the sale of the property was delayed but will soon take place. She explained that most breweries partner with mobile food trucks. She would like to partner with local restaurants to have their menus available and look to food trucks to augment that. Two mobile food trucks and a mobile cart could easily be located on the outdoor patio. She would like to reserve this option if possible, and would like to use the patio year round. She plans to open in a phased approach depending on how long the approvals take. Vice Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Vice Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve Case No. 2019-35, Conditional Use Permit to operate a brewery and outside seating at 204 Main Street North, with the 14 staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed 4-0. Case No. 2019-36: Consideration of a PUD Amendment, Special Use Permit, Vacation Easement, and Preliminary Plat to construct two row houses containing 6 live-work units on the property located at XXX New England Place. Robert Hill, property owner and Todd Konigson, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that Todd Konigson of Livwell.design would like to construct six residential units in two separate buildings on Outlot D, at the corner of Settlers Way and New England Place. The proposed units would have a first floor home office, each facing the respective street’s private garage in the rear of the building. The residence would be located above the home office space, on the second and third stories. This necessitates the following requests: 1) a Preliminary Plat for the development of six townhome units on two parcels of land to be known as Liberty Village 5th Addition; 2) an amendment to the Concept/Preliminary PUD to allow for three stories (as opposed to 2.5) while remaining under the maximum 35’ height restriction; 3) a Special Use Permit (SUP) for residences in the Village Commercial district; and 4) a partial easement vacation request. Staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare. As the Planning Commission has previously granted approval for this use on this property, staff recommends that the Planning Commission defer consideration of the Special Use Permit to the City Council. Staff would further recommend the Commission forward a favorable recommendation of approval of the Concept PUD amendment with the 17 conditions. Todd Konigson, 201 Sixth Street South, Stillwater, applicant, said he has fielded much interest in this project and has potential buyers pending City approval. He has been in communication with the land’s original developers, the Kroening family, and with the commercial association in the area to try to create a project that works for the community. He explained that he is submitting a revised gabled roof design and unit orientation per the direction of the City Council. He has re-designed three of the project’s six units to be oriented toward the Liberty Square as directed, and has oriented the other three units in the North-South direction on Settlers Glen to allow for optimal use of the lot. Commissioner Kocon commented that the first submission was mainly a square building which Mr. Konigson said at the time would be difficult to change. He asked how the design change was accomplished. He said he likes the new design better. Mr. Konigson replied that he figured out what he needed to do to meet the design objectives expressed by staff, the Council and Commissions. There are still challenges. He would prefer not to Planning Commission July 24, 2019 Page 3 of 5 have valleys in the roof due to snow, but his choice of a flat roof was denied. Standing seam metal roofs are now proposed. Councilmember Collins asked, besides the Commercial Business Association, has Mr. Konigson talked to other businesses in the area? Mr. Konigson replied no, not personally. Vice Chairman Dybvig asked how it can be ensured that there is commercial use on the first floor. Mr. Konigson said the live-work design is unique for this area. He is not sure there are similar properties available in this market. The units are for sale, not rentals. Vice Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Vice Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat and the Concept PUD amendment for Case No. 2019-36, PUD Amendment, Special Use Permit, Vacation Easement, and Preliminary Plat to construct two row houses containing 6 live-work units on the property located at XXX New England Place, and to defer approval of the SUP to the City Council, with a recommendation of approval with the 17 staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed 4-0. Case No. 2019-26: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment for the creation of a Rural Residential Zoning District. City of Stillwater, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that a one-year moratorium is near expiring on all new subdivisions and lot splits in an area referred to as the “Minar Neighborhood” that includes properties located on Minar Avenue North, Minar Lane North, 75th Street North, 77th Street North, and 77th Street Court North. The moratorium was to give the City time to determine the appropriateness of increased density, given the lack of access to City sewer and water, and to determine a corresponding Rural Residential zoning district classification, memorializing the new standards and regulations for these properties which are currently zoned AP – Agricultural Preservation. City staff has been gathering information about other communities’ rural residential zoning districts, conducting site-specific analysis, soliciting input from other public agencies, meeting with the neighborhood, and drafting the Rural Residential zoning district. The proposed amendment creates a draft rural residential zoning district aimed at maintaining large lots where urban services are not feasible. The Commission should discuss whether the district should have a one acre or 2.5 acre minimum lot size. Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Vice Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Steve Nelson, 7770 Minar Lane North, said he split his lot prior to the moratorium. He pointed out there are not many lots in the area that could be split. He feels those property owners who are able, should be allowed to split their lots. One acre lots would still fit the character of the neighborhood. Terry Lobeck, 7789 Minar Avenue, said his lot probably doesn’t qualify for a lot split but he doesn’t want to restrict other property owners from splitting their lots. He would support one acre lots. Jeff Pratt, 7960 Minar Avenue, remarked that in 1978, Stillwater Township acknowledged that lot splits would be a possibility. Consequently he built his house way on one side of his property. He feels property owners should retain the ability to split their lots if possible. Vice Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Planning Commission July 24, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyoff, to recommend that the City Council approve the Zoning Text Amendment creating a Rural Residential zoning district with a minimum lot size of one acre. Motion passed 4-0. City Planner Wittman clarified that a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment will be brought back for future consideration. No properties are being rezoned at this time. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS HPC Case No. 2019-03: Consideration of a recommendation regarding the designation of 615 Broadway Street South as a local heritage preservation site. Reid and Julie Miller, property owners. Ms. Wittman stated that on March 2, 2019, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) denied a request from Reid and Julie Miller for the demolition of their residential structure located at 615 Broadway Street South. The HPC found there was a feasible alternative to demolition of this historic resource. On April 16, 2019 the City Council upheld the HPC’s decision and ordered the preparation of a Designation Study. Ms. Wittman explained the City’ s Demolition Designation Study process. The106 Group’s impartial analysis has determined the site to not be eligible for local listing. While staff and some members of the HPC and Council maintain the front portion of the home has local significance, if only because it retains similar character and sits in the exact location as it did when it was originally constructed, the City’ s Heritage Preservation ordinance mirrors national standards. These standards require a greater level of uniqueness, character and interest. Factors such as longevity or other locally-determined values, priorities and goals cannot be the sole basis for designation. The process for review of the demolition and the subsequent designation proceedings complies with the City’ s 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s identified historic preservation objectives, policies, and programs. The demolition of the structure conflicts with the housing policies to maintain existing housing, including the preservation of homes in good condition. However, because the preservation regulations pertaining to designation criteria have not been updated to reflect changing local values, designation of this structure would conflict with adopted City Code regulations, ordinances and community policies. A public hearing has been scheduled to consider designating the structure as a local heritage preservation site. The Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the HPC to approve, reject, or to modify the proposed designation. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the HPC reject the designation in concurrence with the findings of the designation study. She added that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) just submitted its comment agreeing with the 106 Group’s findings that the property does not meet any of the City’s eligibility criteria for local designation. Commissioner Kocon remarked that the front of the house looks nothing like the back. He questioned whether the HPC had input on remodeling over the years. Ms. Wittman noted that most of the changes were done before there was routine review by the HPC. In older residential neighborhoods, the only input the HPC has is on new home construction. Peter Frank, the Millers’ representative, noted that much of the structure is not original and only the front 25 feet is considered to be of historic significance. The only thing that favors historic designation is the age of the structure. However, longevity cannot be the only factor considered in making a designation. He feels the Commission should recommend denial of the designation. Julie Miller, 620 Newman Trail, applicant, said they decided to apply for demolition only after a thorough review of the structure. There is not enough integrity in the front 25 feet to build upon it or improve it. The home has been significantly damaged by carpenter ants and rodents and nearly Planning Commission July 24, 2019 Page 5 of 5 everything in the house has been changed. The façade doesn’t look that bad when seen from the outside but is not in good condition on close inspection. Commissioner Kocon acknowledged the need to protect the City’s historic resources. In this case the City’s process was followed in obtaining an independent and impartial analysis which determined the site to not be eligible for local listing. The HPC will have more control in reviewing the future application for an infill structure that reflects the neighborhood character. Councilmember Collins said he was one of the Councilmembers who voted to deny the requested demolition. He realizes the City cannot preserve all the old properties but the character of this neighborhood is unique. In considering the expert’s study and SHPO concurrence, it is hard for him to say but it is probably appropriate for denial of the designation. Vice Chairman Dybvig pointed out the advantage of the denial is that it preserves the protections of the HPC in considering the construction of the new structure, both front and back. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to recommend that the HPC reject the designation of the structure at 615 Broadway Street South as a local heritage preservation site. Motion passed 4-0. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION There were no other items of discussion. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman reminded the Commission of the Boards and Commissions Picnic August 22. She also stated that the HPC has been awarded a grant to update its ordinances. Staff has started working with the City Attorney to streamline the demolition component and review how it and the designation processes work together in terms of meeting the local values concerning preservation. Commissioner Kocon noted he will be unable to attend the August 20 meeting in case it impacts achieving a quorum. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 p.m. All in favor, 4-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-38 REPORT DATE: August 9, 2019 MEETING DATE: August 28, 2019 APPLICANT: John and Constance O’Neal LAND OWNER: John and Constance O’Neal REQUEST: a) Five foot variance for an addition to be five feet from interior side yard lot line. b) Variance to allow 28.7% shoreland lot coverage rather than 25%. ZONING: RA: One-Family Res. PREPARED BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION The applicant at 1002 Nightingale Boulevard is proposing to construct an addition to the rear of the existing house. The house is required to have a ten foot interior side yard setback. The proposed location of the addition would extend five feet into the required side yard. Also, the construction of this addition will increase the structural coverage 14.5%, over the allowed 25% lot coverage within the shoreland overlay district. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant has made a request for consideration of the following variances to City Code Section 31-305.(b)(1): - To allow for the house to be setback five feet from the interior side lot line, where a ten foot side yard setback is required. The applicant has made a request for consideration of the following variances to City Code Section 31-402.Subd.7.(j)(1): - To allow for an increase in impervious structural coverage to 28.7%, where the maximum structural coverage is 25%. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical difficulties” in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a “practical difficulty”. a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? The use of the property, as a single family residence in a single family residential neighborhood, is reasonable. The allowance for the construction of an addition to eliminate the owner’s need to use stairs can also be considered reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property because the existing house was constructed within the side yard setback at around eight feet to the property line. And the addition would remain in line with that existing wall of the house. However the setback of the addition becomes less than the existing house because of the angled side lot line. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The entire neighborhood was developed and built out before the shoreland ordinance was adopted. And the 25% coverage limited was imposed by the shoreland ordinance. The only lot coverage standard in place when Croixwood developed was the 30% limit established by the RA Zoning District. Moreover, the proposed addition would not increase the lot’s coverage beyond the 30%. So, building the addition is completely in keeping with the development pattern of the neighborhood. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The proposed addition will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The addition will have very little visual impact when viewed from the street. Also, the abutting property is permanent open space owned by the city. So placing an addition closer to the property line will not alter the ten foot minimum spacing required between buildings within this neighborhood. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The variances requested does not reflect economic considerations being the lone consideration in this case. The owners have stressed the need for more single level living area due to their age. That being said, the location of the proposed addition is the most sensible location given the existing floor plan and the location of decks/porches. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? Side yard setback The specific purpose of a side yard setback for houses is to maintain an open, unoccupied space for aesthetic and environmental benefits, as well as to prevent development too close to the adjacent property. As mentioned above, given the City owned open space between the addition and the neighbor’s house, more than the 20 foot minimum building separation will be maintained. Impervious coverage The specific purpose of the maximum lot coverage is to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. In the shoreland overlay district, water infiltration is particularly emphasized, in order to prevent potentially polluted runoff from directly entering water bodies and stream networks. Since the entire neighborhood was developed at a 30% coverage standard, and the proposed addition would only raise the coverage of this lot to 28.7%, staff believes that protection of Long Lake will not be materially impacted by the addition. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? A variance to allow a five foot side yard setback would be in harmony with the zoning code, because the property abutting this side yard is city-owned open space, and the required side yard setback in this case is not as imperative. Granting a variance for increased impervious coverage would be in harmony with the Zoning Code because, while the proposed addition will increase the structural coverage to 28.7%, the house was originally built before the creation of the shoreland overlay district and the impervious lot coverage was 30% when the house was being constructed. Also, with the neighboring property being open space, any additional runoff created by the proposed addition will have ample opportunity to infiltrate the ground before entering a water source. c. If granted, would the proposed variances be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT The City received one public comment from Mr. and Mrs. Simonet, who live across the street at 2871 Woodbridge Lane, supporting the requested variances. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2019-38. 2. The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 3. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 4. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a variance to the side yard setback and impervious surface coverage for the construction of an addition at 1002 Nightingale Boulevard. Staff recommends that if the variance is approved that all the conditions stated above be imposed. Attachments: Application Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Public Comment Site Plan Plans for Addition CC: John and Constance O’Neal NIGHTINGALE BOULEVARDNORTHLAND AVENUEW ILD C R E S T L A N E IC E R O S E LA N E L A N E W O O DRIDG EMARINECIRCLEMARINECIRCLE N O R TH LAN D C TN OR T HL A N D A V E N UE G R E E N M E A D O W C T NIGHTINGALENIGHTINGALE BOULEVARDCROIXWOOD PLACE SK YV IEW 1166 1133 725 1165 917 3034 1180 3033 3160 2946 2954 3041 2938 2962 3200 936 942 3190 647 3170 930 651 3224 659 2652717 2618 3026 655 2651 3150 725 3140 918 3018 3180 3025 2653 2970 701 924 948 832 2656 805 639 719 825 1144 815 733 2842 643 709 954 748 824 756 2647 801 740 1148 2859 2847 901 807 819 813 764 724 716 2802 816 2839 2650 2646 800 732 606 624 612 618 708 808 700 713 2851 2860 701 707 2831 631 625 619 613 607 2850 2978 2823 909 3001 2854 2901 28062876 2804 2870 2822 2852 1011 2900 2830 2805 2846 2843 1002 2866 28072838 658 3248 2803 2844 2922 1111 2810 3009 1010 2645 1110 1116 1117 2916 2877 1018 1019 3017 2871 1125 11031102 1124 2858 1034 1026 1035 1027 2811 633 1008 915 615 1014 623 1156 µ 0 425 850212.5 Feet General Site Location Site Location 1002 3rd Ave S ^ Te xt PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-39 REPORT DATE: August 9, 2019 MEETING DATE: August 28, 2019 APPLICANT: Kim and Brandt Jackson LANDOWNER: Homes By Kymbrandt LLC REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Type C Short Term Home Rental LOCATION: 603 Myrtle Street West ZONING: RB, Two-Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Kim and Brandt Jackson own the single-family residence at 603 Myrtle Street West (seen below), situated at the corner of Myrtle Street West and Martha Street South. The property owners would like to utilize the property as a Type C Short Term Home Rental (STHR). A Type C STHR requires both a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Type C license to operate. The CUP runs in perpetuity with the property in its chain of title, whereas the license is issued for a three year period to a specific vacation rental operator. City staff can issue the license administratively, but the CUP can only be approved by the Planning Commission Case No. 2019-39 Page 2 after holding a public hearing. SPECIFIC REQUEST The property owners request the Planning Commission to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Type C Short Term Home Rental at 603 Myrtle Street West. ANALYSIS A Type C vacation rental license can be issued for a property in Stillwater if: 1) A Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the Planning Commission; and 2) The total number of STHR licenses does not exceed the limit. The Planning Commission’s role in the STHR licensing process is to review and either approve or deny the property owner’s request for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicable review standards for the STHR Conditional Use Permit, per the Licensing Chapter of the City Code, Section 41-8, include: A. Zoning Type C Short Term Home Rentals are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in all Residential Zoning Districts and in the Downtown CBD Zoning District. The subject property is zoned RB, Two-Family Residential. B. Performance Standards Parking In residential zoning districts, all guest parking must be accommodated on improved surfaces located on the property and no on-street parking is allowed for guests. This property proposes to offer three bedrooms to guests, therefore two off-street parking spaces are required. This property has enough space to accommodate the required two spots. Number of guests The maximum number of guests allowed is limited to two times the number of bedrooms plus one. So, with three bedrooms, the maximum number of guests for the house will be seven. Congruently, the applicants have indicated on their application form that they allow a maximum of seven guests. Proximity of assistance The STHR ordinance requires, that for Type C Short Term Home Rentals, the property owner or a manager/representative must be located within a 30 minute travel time of the property. Case No. 2019-39 Page 3 In this case, the property owner, Kim Jackson, will also be the manager of this STHR. She resides at 336 165th Ave Somerset which is ten miles ( ≈ 15 minutes) away. Her phone number will be provided to the guests. Signage No signage is allowed on the property of a Type A, B or C Short Term Home Rental, to which none is being proposed. C. Events Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. The STHR ordinance defines an “event” as a gathering of more than three un-registered guests. Events hosted by the property owner are allowed, however they must abide by all applicable city ordinances and polices, specifically including the prohibition on renting residential property for events. D. Proof of Insurance Proof of appropriate and sufficient insurance was submitted with the use permit application form. E. Safety Inspection The safety inspection was conducted and there were seven needed corrections that were identified. All of these corrections were made and the safety report was approved for the Type C license. F. Total Number of STHR Licenses Though there is no limit on the total number of Conditional Use Permits that can be issued for Type C STHRs, there is a current limit of 25 Type C licenses. Ten of these Type C licenses are allocated to be located in the CBD and 15 are for residential districts. Currently ten of the fifteen licenses for residential districts have been issued, and there are two pending. POSSIBLE ACTIONS A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds issuance of the Conditional Use Permit to be acceptable, it could approve the use permit with the following conditions: 1. Parking – All guest parking must occur on the subject property; none on the street. 2. Number of guests –The total number of guests shall be limited to two times the number of sleeping areas found to be code compliant, plus one additional guest. In this case, no more than seven guests will be allowed. 3. Proximity of assistance a. The property owner or a manager/representative must remain located within 30 minutes travel time of the property. b. The property owner must provide the name, address and phone number for the owner or manager/representative to all property owners within 150 feet of the lot lines of the vacation rental property. This must be completed within ten days of issuance of the license. The owner must also provide the community Case No. 2019-39 Page 4 development department with the neighborhood notification list within this ten day time frame. c. The community development department must be notified within ten days of a change in the contact information of the owner or manager/representative. The property owner must also notify neighboring properties within ten days of a change in the contact information of the owner or manager/representative. 4. Garbage - As required by City Code, all garbage must be kept in rubbish containers that are stored out of view of a public street. 5. Signage – No signage identifying the Short Term Home Rental is allowed on the property. 6. Events - Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. For purposes of Short Term Home Rental, an event means a gathering on the premises of more than three un-registered guests. 7. Length of guest stay – The property is not permitted to be rented for a period of less than one whole day. 8. Guest records - The owner must keep guest records including the name, address, phone number, and vehicle license plate information for all guests and must provide a report to the city upon a 48 hour notice. 9. Guest disclosures The owner must disclose in writing to their guests the following rules and regulations prior to arrival and must be conspicuously displayed in the home: 1. The name, phone number and address of the owner, operating or managing agent/representative. 2. The maximum number of overnight guests on the property at a time is limited to fifteen. 3. All guest parking must occur on the property. No guest parking is allowed on the street. 4. Property rules related to use of outdoor features, such as decks, patios, grills, recreational fires, saunas and other recreational facilities. 5. City nuisance ordinances will be enforced by the Stillwater Police Department, including reduced noise levels between 10 PM and 8 AM. 6. No events with more than three unregistered guests are permitted. 10. License number - The owner must post their city license number on all print, poster or web advertisements, in addition to posting it on the booking agent’s website. 11. Lodging tax - The owner, or booking agent on their behalf, is required to pay the city lodging tax quarterly. If no sales are made during a quarter, a report must none-the- less be submitted to the city stating that no sales were made or lodging tax collected during that quarter. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds the request to have incomplete information, the case could be tabled. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the request to be inconsistent with the City’s vacation rental regulations, it could be denied. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. Case No. 2019-39 Page 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the City’s short term home rental regulations to be satisfied and therefore recommends approval of the CUP with the conditions listed in Alternative A above. Attachments: Location Map Application materials Guest disclosure Site Plan Floorplans (three pages) STHR map cc: Kim and Brandt Jackson WEST RICE STREETNORTH HARRIET STREETNORTH WILLIAM STREETNORTH MARTHA STREETNORTH EVERETT STREETWEST WEST R IC E ST HARRIET ST SS T R E E T M Y R T L E S T R E E T MARTHA ST SEVERETT ST S516 115 116 618 105 810 702 604 418 115 602 110 115 111 114 717 107 617 710804 424 202 205 519 616 601 116 713723805 609 818 617 612 623 626 517 304 814 518 110 115 721 126 112 724728 104 123 129 622 108 104 611 628 809813 603607 513703 202 613 426 121 618 114 112 620 819 207 208 122 109 717 615 410 212 208 126 128 510 202201 125 126 718 719 209210209 619 210 102 116 616 522 709 132 808 724 716816 136 712 704824 624 620 606 514 µ 0 210 420105Feet General Site Location Site Location 603 Myrtle St W ^ Te xt Short Term Home Rentals Ju ly 3 1, 2019 0 0.55 1.10.275 mi 0 0.85 1.70.425 km 1:3 2,0 00 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: CPC 2019-40 REPORT DATE: August 20, 2019 MEETING DATE: August 28, 2019 APPLICANT: Murray & Heidi McAllister LANDOWNER: R & G Investments LLC REQUEST: A 3’ Variance to the 37’ Central Business District Historic Height Overlay for the construction of a 230 square foot rooftop access room. LOCATION: 126 Main Street North ZONING: CBD, Central Business District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Murray & Heidi McAllister of R & G investments LLC are proposing to renovate the second story of the building at 126 Main Street North. The renovation includes converting the space from three rental units into two units; one of the units will be their primary residence whereas the other unit will be a rental. As part of the project, the applicants intend to develop a rooftop patio and desire improving the access to the patio while constructing a 138 square foot indoor sitting and storage area. Commercial Street View, 2019 CPC Case no. 2019-40 Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST A 3’ Variance to the 37’ Central Business District Historic Height Overlay for the construction of a 230 square foot rooftop access room. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical difficulties” in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a “practical difficulty”. a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? The property’s uses include main floor commercial and second story residential. As noted, the second story will be the property owner’s primary residence. This residential use and proposed rooftop patio, are reasonable uses. Additionally, a total of 17.4% of the entire roof (280 square feet) is proposed to be located on the third story. However, only 138 square feet of the area is proposed for seating and storage. This represents approximately 8.5% of the total area of the rooftop that will be 3’ taller than what is permitted in the district. The use of this minor amount of area for bulkhead, seating and storage is reasonable. Furthermore, the additional height represents an increase of less than 10% of the maximum height permitted. As the height overlay district requires new structures to be within 10% of the height of an adjacent structure, and the improvement proposed will rise only 5’4” above the existing parapet line, the increased height is reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The need for a bulkhead slightly larger than necessary to accommodate a stairwell is unique to the property as the interior ceiling heights in the building exceed the 8’ standard height. Because of this, the height of the bulkhead rise 3’ taller than the 37’ maximum height permitted. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? Building Code will no longer allow a ship’s ladder for access to a rooftop. So, a stairwell bulkhead is required. And, the City fairly routinely grants variances for bulkheads that are nominally larger than absolutely required for the bulkhead itself. Therefore, the best way to approach the situation is probably to create an ordinance amendment that would allow an increase in the allowable size. However, since the impact of the slightly CPC Case no. 2019-40 Page 3 increased size is nominal, the City has chosen in the past to grant the variance rather than create an ordinance amendment. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The addition on this rooftop would be in keeping with the rooftops of the buildings to the south (118-124 Main Street North), historically known as the Excelsior Block (circa 1882). Each of these buildings have an oversized bulkhead, ranging between 120 and 275 square feet. Additionally, Heritage Preservation Commission Case No. 2019-07 approved the design for this rooftop improvement. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The applicant’s desire is for safe rooftop access and rooftop patio seating and storage. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The purpose of CBD height overlay districts is to ensure “structures be limited in height in order that structures close to the river not rise above the height of structures farther from the river”. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? This two-story structure sits directly east of 123 2nd Street South, a three-story structure with a parapet that rises 40’+ from the adjacent alleyway. This rooftop addition would continue to fulfill the purpose of the height overlay district. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the policy to “continue to refine and administer design guidelines so that the integrity of the existing and surrounding buildings is maintained and new development is of a height, size, and design compatible with the best examples of existing development.” Given the HPC has reviewed and approved the building alteration, the granting of this variance would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned CBD, Central Business District. The district allows for three stories and “the maximum height specified in this chapter may be exceeded by…bulkheads …usually carried above the roof level, provided such structure is an integral part of a building.” POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: CPC Case no. 2019-40 Page 4 1. Unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval, the project shall be completed according to the plans on file for CPC Case No. 2019-40 in the Community Development Department. 2. All Heritage Preservation Commission Design Permit conditions of approval shall be incorporated by reference. 3. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 4. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. PUBLIC COMMENT One public comment has been received by Mr. Tom Wortman. He is not in favor of granting the variance, stating issuance would set precedent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; and that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and that the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Therefore, staff would recommend conditional approval of CPC Case No. 2019- 40 with those conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Rooftop Plan Building Elevation Rooftop View (Looking South) Public Comment cc: Murray and Heidi McAllister E A S T M Y R T L E S T R E E TSOU TH SECOND STREETSTATE HWY 95SO MAI N STA L L E Y C O M M E R C IA L A V E N U E SO UNI ON STALLEYALLEYBURLI NGTONNORTHERNNORTH WATERST101 232 220 123 200 101 201 242 221 130 113 124 270 108 103 102 204 106 226 225 223 218 212 220 219 125 225 222 251 102 127 114 112 217 217 212 120 126124 221 102 µ 0 130 26065Feet General Site Location Site Location 126 Main St N ^ Te xt 1 Jenn Sundberg From:Tom Wortman <tomwortman@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 11:35 AM To:Jenn Sundberg Subject:231 Commercial DT No. Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hello Jenn, I am writing in response to the Notice of public hearing for August 28, 2019. I totally believe that the city SHOULD NOT allow this variance to the Historic Height Overlay for the business district of Stillwater. If the city agrees that the variance should go through, you are setting a precedence for all property owners to apply to the city for a similar variance. I would be the first one to apply for a variance for the same height as this property owner is asking for. I own the buildings at 219-221 Main St. No. That is where the River Market is and several other business are located. I have owned the building for twenty years and have abided by the height restrictions that the city has in place. Again, if the city allows this to pass, I will be applying for a variance and I believe the city would have to grant me permission based on prior precedence. If you would like to discuss, I can be reached at 651-246-1828. Thanks for your understanding. Tom Wortman. TreMar LLC PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: CPC 2019-41 REPORT DATE: August 20, 2019 MEETING DATE: August 28, 2019 APPLICANT: Brian and Kasey Posch LANDOWNER: Brian and Kasey Posch REQUEST: A 10’ Variance to the Exterior Side Yard setback (from Churchill Street) to construct a single car, attached garage LOCATION: 904 Harriet Street South ZONING: CBD, Central Business District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Brian and Kasey Posch own the property at 904 Harriet Street South. In 2018 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved the demolition of a pre-1946 residence and approved the design of a new residence with accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above a detached garage. The applicants further obtained a Special Use Permit for the ADU from the Planning Commission. Throughout the processes of these 2018 reviews, however, it was overlooked the proposed, single-car garage attached to the home was not compliant with the RB – Two Family residential zoning district’s 30’ Front Yard Setback. SPECIFIC REQUEST A 10’ Variance to the Exterior Side Yard setback (from Churchill Street) to construct a single car, attached tuck-under garage CPC Case no. 2019-41 Page 2 ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical difficulties” in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a “practical difficulty”. a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner?  A single family residence with accessory dwelling unit is a reasonable use for the property.  Having an attached and a detached garage, with a total combined square footage not greater than 1,000 square feet, is also reasonable.  Having a tuck-under garage is reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property at 904 Harriet Street South has significant grade changes from the street to where the former house sat, on top of a hill. The property owners have proposed to build the new home in nearly the exact footprint (with additions) as the previous residence. To accommodate an attached garage, the applicants designed a garage into the hillside, underneath the residence’s main floor. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The design of the home was largely based on the structure that was previously onsite and how the new home’s design conformed to the City’s Neighborhood Conservation District guidelines. Those guidelines require the house to be constructed with a prevailing setback. If the tuck-under garage were to be relocated 30’ back from Churchill Street West, the entire home would also need to be moved to a location on the lot that is not in line with the prevailing front yard setback along this street frontage. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? As noted, the HPC have found the attached, tuck-under garage as part of the new home’s design would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The applicant’s desire is for an attached garage. Economic considerations are not a factor. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? CPC Case no. 2019-41 Page 3 The purpose of the Front Yard Setback is for uniform neighborhood development, to create front yards, and to encourage infiltration around the home. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The proposed 20’ setback would be consistent with the prevailing setback on this block, still allowing for a front yard and infiltration areas. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RB, Two-Family Residential. An attached garage on a single family residential structure is permitted in the RB district. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval, the project shall be completed according to the plans on file for CPC Case No. 2019-41 in the Community Development Department. 2. All conditions of CPC Case No. 2018-59 shall remain in effect. 3. All Heritage Preservation Commission Design Permit conditions of approval shall be incorporated by reference. 4. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 5. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; and that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and that the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Therefore, staff would recommend conditional approval of CPC Case No. 2019- 41 with those conditions identified in Alternative A. CPC Case no. 2019-41 Page 4 Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Certificate of Survey Floor Plans (2 pages) Elevation cc: Patrick Schmeichel WEST ANDERSON STREET SOUTH MARTHA STREETSOUTH HOLCOMBE STREETSOUTH SEVENTH STREETSOUTH HARRIET STREETWEST CHURCHILL STREET WEST HANCOCK ST RE ET523 805 716 705 622 619 1111 705 812 726 711803 702 611 718 723 805 804 921 807 615721 706 621904 712722 629 602 701 910 502 921 715 712 1010 706 610 612 514 924 818 606 516 918 615709 520 1006 513 720 714 521 913 715 917916 1001 611 1018 722 716 601 717 602 710 1020 505 603719 600 609 709 922 522 616 812 722 702 621 1016 703 1015 717 719 811 501 1014 811 918 916 810 803 706 511 706717613521709 509 609 515 811 µ 0 210 420105Feet General Site Location Site Location 904 Harriet St S ^ Te xt August 5, 2019 Dear Planning Commission, During the submission and review of our project for our building permit it was discovered that our house was not in compliance of the setback requirements for a corner lot due to our approved tuck-under garage. The existence of the garage requires a setback of 30ft and our proposed home placement is at a setback of 23.3ft. We included this 1 car tuck-under garage, along with a detached garage, in our home design for the practicality perspective of living in Minnesota while desiring to stay in keeping with the overall aesthetic of the surrounding homes, which have detached garages. We are requesting a variance to the required setback for the following reasons: Streetscape and Visual Aesthetic: The proposed home placement aligns with the existing homes on the street and would provide for streetscape continuity on Churchill and in the area. Natural Grade: The proposed home placement allows for natural grade, if the home is moved 7.7’ to the south this will change grade considerably and the home will no longer look like it was meant to be there. We will need to add some retaining walls. We would also like to avoid using rail on the front porch, which is not desirable as we want our porch to feel more inviting and open and not so closed off. Driveway slope: The current setback provides a driveway slope of 3%, moving the house back to the required setback would reduce the driveway slope to less than 2%. Because of the North facing placement for this garage, this change increases our chances of water pooling, water infiltration, and the possibility of future property damage and premature degradation. Minimizes Retaining Wall: Allowing for the current proposed setback would reduce the amount of undesired retaining wall. Minimizes Impervious Surfaces: Allowing for the current proposed setback would reduce the amount of impervious driveway material. Visual Appeal: In our professional opinion, moving the house to the south 7.7ft to the proposed set- back will create a lack of visual appeal between the southern end of the home and the detached garage, which is placed on the southern set-back lines and can not be moved as well to bring better visual distance between the two structures. Throughout this process we have worked hard, with many professional, to be sure our homes placement, massing and aesthetic meets the needs of our Historic city, our Neighborhood and our lives personally. The current placement is believed to be an ideal placement for this home. Thank you for your time, we really do appreciate your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Brian and KaseyAnn Posch Residence Posch Sheet Number New Construction Revisions: Title Date: Project No.: ARCHITECT: 651 . 442 . 3771 Hudson WI 54016 351 Highview Road STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: michael huber architects Bunkers & Associates, LLC 6687 Forest Street Farmington, MN 55024 651.366.2853 904 Harriet St. South Stillwater, MN 55082 7.19.19 All Rights Reserved. Copying, reproduction or distribution prohibited without express written Copyright 2019, michael huber architects permission. PERMIT SET A2 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Residence Posch Sheet Number New Construction Revisions: Title Date: Project No.: ARCHITECT: 651 . 442 . 3771 Hudson WI 54016 351 Highview Road STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: michael huber architects Bunkers & Associates, LLC 6687 Forest Street Farmington, MN 55024 651.366.2853 904 Harriet St. South Stillwater, MN 55082 7.19.19 All Rights Reserved. Copying, reproduction or distribution prohibited without express written Copyright 2019, michael huber architects permission. PERMIT SET A3 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Residence Posch Sheet Number New Construction Revisions: Title Date: Project No.: ARCHITECT: 651 . 442 . 3771 Hudson WI 54016 351 Highview Road STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: michael huber architects Bunkers & Associates, LLC 6687 Forest Street Farmington, MN 55024 651.366.2853 904 Harriet St. South Stillwater, MN 55082 7.19.19 All Rights Reserved. Copying, reproduction or distribution prohibited without express written Copyright 2019, michael huber architects permission. PERMIT SET A6 EXTERIOR ELEVATION