Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-25 CPC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North September 25th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of August 28th, 2019 regular meeting minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 2. Case No. 2019-42: Consideration of an 8’ Variance to the 25’ Rear Yard Setback in the CR – Cottage Residential District Property located at 3816 Tending Green. Ronald and Dana Mattson, property owners. 3. Case No. 2019-44: Consideration of a Variance to the front yard setback to build a front porch. Property located at 1218 6th Ave S. Douglas and Lueann Hinderaker, property owners. 4. Case No. 2019-46: Consideration of a 20”-36” Variance to allow for a sign to project 20-36” higher than the structure’s parapet. Property located at 1400 (1570) Frontage Rd W. Alon Ventura representing Valley Ridge Holdings, LLC, property owner and Gordon Skamser Jr., applicant –Tabled per applicants request 5. Case No. 2019-47: Consideration of a Variance to the rear yard setback in order to build an addition to the rear of their home. Property located at 2281 Van Tassel Drive. Mary Ann and Richard Nichols, property owners. 6. Case N0. 2019-48: Consideration of a Variance from the minimum required setback from the St Croix River shoreline. City of Stillwater, applicant. 7. Case No. 2019-49: Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment to rezone certain properties to RR- Rural Residential Zoning District. City of Stillwater, applicant. VI. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION VII. FYI – STAFF UPDATES – (NO PACKET MATERIALS) 8. 2040 Comprehensive Plan VIII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 28, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hansen, and Meyhoff; Councilmember Collins Absent: Commissioners Hade and Kocon Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of July 15, 2019 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve the minutes of the July 15, 2019 meeting. Motion passed 4-0-1 with Commissioner Hansen abstaining. Possible approval of minutes of July 24, 2019 special meeting Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve the minutes of the July 24, 2019 meeting. Motion passed 3-0-2, Commissioner Hansen and Chairman Lauer abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2019-38: Consideration of Variances to the side yard setback and the 25% maximum structural coverage for the Shoreland District in order to add an addition on the home at 1002 Nightingale Boulevard. John and Constance O’Neal, property owners. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. The applicants are proposing to construct a single story addition to the rear of the existing house. The addition would extend five feet into the required 10 foot side yard setback. It also would put the structural coverage over the allowed 25% lot coverage within the shoreland overlay district. The following variances are needed: a five foot variance from the side yard setback, ten feet required; and a variance for an increase in impervious structural coverage to 28.7%, where a maximum 25% structural coverage is allowed. The City received a letter of support from Paul and Barbara Simonet, 2871 Woodbridge Lane. Staff recommends approval of the side yard setback and impervious surface coverage variances with four conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. John O’Neal, applicant, said they would like to construct the addition so they can remain in their home as they age. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2019-38, variances to the side yard setback and the maximum structural coverage for an addition to a home at 1002 Nightingale Boulevard, with the four staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-0. Planning Commission August 28, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Case No. 2019-39: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental on the property located at 603 Myrtle Street West. Kim and Brandt Jackson of Homes by Kymbrandt, LLC, property owners. Ms. Wittman stated that Kim and Brandt Jackson are applying for a Type C Short Term Home Rental CUP for the single-family residence at 603 Myrtle Street West. There are three bedrooms and two parking spaces on site. Seven overnight guests would be allowed. Staff finds the City’s short term home rental regulations to be satisfied and therefore recommends approval of the CUP with 11 conditions. She further stated that the City Council recently increased the total Type Cs to 25, separating them so there may be 10 in the Central Business District and 15 in the residential areas. In the residential areas, ten of the allowed 15 have been issued and two are pending. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Collins, seconded by Chairman Lauer, to approve Case No. 2019-39, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental at 603 Myrtle Street West, with the 11 conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2019-40: Consideration of a Variance to add roof access to the building at 126 Main Street North/231 Commercial Street in the CBD district. Murray and Heidi McAllister, property owners. Ms. Wittman stated that Murray and Heidi McAllister are proposing to renovate the second story of the building at 126 Main Street North, converting the space from three rental units into two units; one unit will be their residence and the other will be a rental. The applicants intend to develop a rooftop patio and improve access to the patio while constructing a 138 square foot indoor sitting and storage area. A 3’ Variance to the 37’ Central Business District Historic Height Overlay is required for the construction of a 230 square foot rooftop access room. One letter of opposition was received from Tom Wortman, 219-221 Main Street North, stating that allowing this variance would set a precedent for other property owners to apply for a similar variance. Staff finds the use is reasonable and 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 recommends approval with four conditions. Chairman Lauer asked if allowing the variance would set a precedent as stated in the letter of opposition. Ms. Wittman replied that this block already has similar rooftop uses. The District allows for three stories and 37’. Mr. Wortman could ask for rooftop access to his property across the street if it met the requirements of the zoning code. It is not uncommon to have these rooftop access rooms on downtown buildings, therefore approval would not set a precedent. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Heidi McAllister, applicant, stated they are trying to repurpose an existing, old skylight. The stairs will encompass that space, which is round 4.5’ wide by 9’ long. That is what set the size of the room to be built around the opening. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen said there is an inherent amount of noise in the downtown business district. He is concerned about granting more rooftop access downtown, because it impacts the residents outside of that “bowl” but he doesn’t see this as significantly increasing the amount of noise. Planning Commission August 28, 2019 Page 3 of 4 Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2019-40, Variance to add roof access to the building at 126 Main Street North/231 Commercial Street with the four staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2019-41: Consideration of a Variance to build a garage on the property located at 904 Harriet Street South. Brian and Kasey Posch, property owners. Ms. Wittman noted that the variance is for the tuck-under garage and not for a detached garage on the property, which will be constructed soon in conformance with all the zoning code requirements. She stated that the applicants obtained approval for the demolition of a pre-1946 residence and approval of the design of a new residence with accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above a detached garage. The applicants obtained a Special Use Permit for the ADU but it was overlooked that 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. A 10’ Variance to the Exterior Side Yard setback (from Churchill Street) is being requested to construct the single car tuck-under garage. Staff finds the use is reasonable and 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 recommends approval with five conditions. 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. 2019-41, Variance to build a garage on the property located at 904 Harriet Street South with the five staff- recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Commissioner Hansen asked what motivated the increase in the number of Type C Short Term Home Rentals (STHRs) allowed. Councilmember Collins replied that the Council felt that there was space for additional STHRs. He does not believe it will be extended beyond the 25. Ms. Wittman added that the highest concentration of the Type Cs was being used in the Central Business District. It was decided to allow for some of these to be in the residential neighborhoods if they are clearly vetted through the application process. It was a citizen initiated request. Commissioner Hansen suggested imposing a three to six month delay in the permitting process for any who apply for a license after they have been discovered to be operating without a license or permit. He would like to see more teeth in this ordinance. Ms. Wittman agreed to consult with legal counsel and Community Development staff. FYI STAFF UPDATES City Planner Wittman informed the Commission that two applications have been received from citizens who wish to be on the Commission should any vacancies occur. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission August 28, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to adjourn the meeting at 7:49 p.m. All in favor, 5-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: CPC 2019-42 REPORT DATE: September 16, 2019 MEETING DATE: September 23, 2019 APPLICANT: Dana and Roland Mattson LANDOWNER: Dana and Roland Mattson REQUEST: An 8’ Variance to the 25’ Rear Yard setback to construct an attached deck and stairs LOCATION: 3816 Tending Green ZONING: CBD, Central Business District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Dana and Roland Mattson would like to construct a deck with attached stairs to their one story, lookout home. If approved, the deck would be elevated (approximately) 6’ off of the ground. SPECIFIC REQUEST Dana and Roland Mattson are requesting an 8’ variance to the 25’ Rear Yard setback to construct an attached deck and stairs. 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 CPC Case no. 2019-42 Page 2 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 deck is reasonable in this single family residential area. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The house was originally proposed with a full basement and egress facing the rear of the property. The plans approved by the City Planning Department included the egress at a higher elevation than the proposed finished grade; however, access from the structure could have been provided with stairs; stairs to provide egress are allowed to be located in a setback area. When the grading plan was approved, however, the difference between the finished grade and the patio door was 6’, creating the lookout design. This circumstance is unique to this property. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? As noted above, plans approved by the City of Stillwater created the circumstance and was not a result of the property owner. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? Though the backyard deck would be visible from the street and not a customary element in this neighborhood, back yard elements are visible on many corner lots throughout the community. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The applicant is seeking a means for egress from the home as well as outdoor living area. 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 the Rear Yard Setback is for uniform neighborhood development, to create rear yards, and to encourage infiltration around the home. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The installation of a deck in this location, adjacent to the neighboring (interior) side lot line, would still allow for a 17’ separation from the neighboring property. The deck would be a minimum of 22’ from the adjacent structure. This would still preserve rear yard space, generally conforming to the purpose of the rear yard setback while continuing to allow for side yard separation on the adjacent property. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? There are no elements of the request that are 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. CPC Case no. 2019-42 Page 3 The property is zoned CR – Cottage Residential. Single family residences with decks are permitted in this 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. 2019-42 in the Community Development Department. 2. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 3. 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- 42 with those conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Certificate of Survey Deck Plan Elevation Landscape Plan cc: Dana and Roland Mattson HERITAGE HARVEST COUNTRYROADTENDING GREENPLANTINGGREEN 401444 424 464 430 450 3163667 336 326 293 346 3664 413 3653 407 342 300 3641 3661 436 3648 3665 3670 301 3655 3660 3654 36663816 3747 3680 3673 3676 419 3729 3686 307 3681 349 3672 456 476 3750 3845 296 3738 3714 3726 313 3493 425 310 281 µ 0 140 28070Feet General Site Location Site Location 3816 Tending Green ^ PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-44 REPORT DATE: September 17, 2019 MEETING DATE: September 25, 2019 APPLICANT: Douglas & Lueann Hinderaker LAND OWNER: Douglas & Lueann Hinderaker REQUEST: 7.5 foot variance for an addition to be 12.5 feet from the front yard lot line, whereas a minimum of 20 feet is required. LOCATION: 1218 Sixth Avenue South ZONING: RB: Two-Family Res. PREPARED BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION The applicant at 1218 Sixth Avenue South is proposing to construct a porch on the front of the house to replace a porch the same size and location that it had previously existed. The house is required to have a 20 foot front yard setback. The proposed location of the porch would extend 7.5 feet into the required front yard setback. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant has made a request for consideration of the following variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b) (1): - To allow for the house to be setback 12.5 feet from the front lot line, where a 20 foot front yard setback is required. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical difficulties” in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a “practical difficulty”. a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? The use of the property, as a single family residence in a two-family residential neighborhood, is reasonable. The allowance for the construction of a porch to replace the original porch in the front of the house is 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 as like many older houses in this district, the house is situated close to the front property line. In this case, the house sits 15.5 feet from the front property line, meaning it is already within the required front yard setback. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The circumstances were not created by the owner. The owner bought the property with a house and front porch already located within the front yard setback. The only aspect of these circumstances that the owner created was not getting a permit to rebuild the porch prior to demolishing the original porch, which would have avoided the need for a variance. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The proposed addition will not alter the character of the neighborhood because the house originally had a front porch with the same footprint as the proposed porch. Additionally, a majority of the houses in this historic neighborhood are setback close to the front property lines. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The variance requested does not reflect economic considerations being the lone consideration in this case. There are no decisions in this case being made from an economic standpoint; the owner simply wants to replace the original porch that was once there. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? Front yard setback The specific purpose of a front yard setback is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space in front yards for aesthetic and environmental benefits. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? A variance to allow a 12.5 foot front yard setback would be in harmony with the zoning code, because the proposed porch would be only marginally closer to the property line than the front of the house. Therefore, adding a porch in the proposed location would not significantly reduce the existing front yard setback. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT The City received one public comment that was in support of the variance. 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. 2019-44. 2. The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 3. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 4. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a variance to the front yard setback for the construction of a front porch at 1216 Sixth Avenue South. Staff recommends that if the variance is approved that all the conditions stated above be imposed. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Aerial Photography Deck Plans (3 pages) CC: Douglas & Lueann Hinderaker STREET AVENUEFIFTHAVENUESOUTHEAST ST LOUISAVENUESOUTHEASTBURLINGTONSOUTHSTREET FIRSTSECONDSTREETMAR SH BU RLING TO N STREET 311 1024 1111 1112 1311 1204 319 1215 1303 317 303301 1226 1108 1105 1016 1338 1219 1309 1321 1334 1323 1310 1113 1329 1318 1322 1112 1225 201 207 1322 314 1312 1111 11011103110411031102 110611051107 1109 1019 209205 1032 1212 121412151214 121812171216 1221 1325 1323 1317 1318 1314 1036 1226 1305 1225 1329 1302 1306 1015 504 1017 10161017 503 1023 1336 1018 1018 506 1019 1015 µ 0 180 36090Feet General Site Location Site Location 1218 6th Ave S ^ PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-47 REPORT DATE: September 17, 2019 MEETING DATE: September 25, 2019 APPLICANT: Richard & Mary Ann Nichols LAND OWNER: Richard & Mary Ann Nichols REQUEST: 18.6 foot variance for an addition to be 6.4 feet from the rear yard lot line. LOCATION: 2281 Van Tassel Drive ZONING: RA: One-Family Res. PREPARED BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION The applicant at 2281 Van Tassel Drive is proposing to construct an addition to the rear of the existing house. The house is required to have a 25 foot rear yard setback. The proposed location of the addition would extend 18.6 feet into the required rear yard. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant has made a request for consideration of the following variance to City Code Section 31-305.(b)(1): - To allow for the house to have a setback of 6.4 feet from the rear lot line, where a 25 foot rear yard setback is required. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical difficulties” in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a “practical difficulty”. a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? The use of the property, as a single family residence in a single family residential neighborhood, is reasonable. The allowance for the construction of an addition to the rear of the house is 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 property is oddly shaped with the rear lot line starting before the back line of the house and coming across the rear yard at a sharp angle. Additionally, the existing house was constructed closer to the rear lot line than the original plans allowed, which situates the existing house within the required rear yard setback. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? As discussed above, the house was not built to plan, and the owner purchased the property as it is today. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The proposed addition will not alter the character of the neighborhood as a whole and will not be overly visible from the street. However, this addition would impact the two properties to the west and rear of this property, by making the main structure closer to these property lines. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The variance requested does not reflect economic considerations being the lone consideration in this case. The owners have put forth that constructing an addition to this particular side of the house was the most natural due to the layout of the house and that there is currently an existing patio there which would limit the impervious surface being added to the property. 2281 Van Tassel Drive is the home to the left. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? Rear yard setback The specific purpose of the Rear Yard Setback is to have a larger open space in the rear of the property for visual appeal, household enjoyment and drainage, as well as to prevent construction within close proximity to adjacent properties. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? A variance to allow a 6.4 foot rear yard setback would be out of harmony with the zoning code, because the proposed addition would be exceedingly close to the property line. However, if the variance was reduced to have a 10 foot rear yard setback the variance would at least be in harmony with the zoning code because it would be meeting the side yard setback requirement for this district. Since the location of the rear lot line on this property is where a side yard lot line would be expected for most lots, , a ten foot setback would be satisfying the intent of the zoning code. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 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. 2019-47. 2. The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 3. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 4. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 5. The addition is constructed no closer than 10 feet to the rear property line. 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 rear yard setback for the construction of an addition 2281 Van Tassel Drive. However, staff recommends that the variance be modified to be no closer than ten feet to the rear yard lot line, in order to keep the house consistent with the side yard setback requirements. Staff recommends that if the variance is approved, that all the conditions stated above be imposed. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Survey Property photos Existing Floorplan CC: Richard & Mary Ann Nichols EAGLE RIDGE TRAIL EAGLE RIDGETHORENE PLACEDRIVEVAN TASSELCOURTTASSEL VAN CRESENT2337 2265 2154 2127 2317 2176 2266 2138 1206 2309 2364 22432329 2353 2221 2222 1230 1218 2345 1202 1223 2361 2284 2281 2359 2356 2268 2246 2358 2153 2336 8313 2314 22822302 1214 2332 2316 23152337 2303 2283 2267 11052280 1226 110823602340232023002260 1110 µ 0 180 36090Feet General Site Location Site Location 2281 Van Tassel Drive ^ Te xt PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-48 REPORT DATE: September 18, 2019 MEETING DATE: September 25, 2019 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater LANDOWNERS: City of Stillwater and St. Croix Boat & Packet REQUEST: 1) Variance from 100 foot shoreline setback to construct river viewing platforms at ordinary high water level of the St Croix River; and 2) Variance from 40 foot bluffline setback to construct the viewing platforms on the shoreline. LOCATION: St. Croix Boat & Packet gangway Bridgeview Park REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION The City of Stillwater is developing plans for a project that will stabilize and restore stretches of the St Croix River shoreline between the Dock Café and the south end of Bridgeview Park. An element of the project will also be to construct a walkway along the river from Nelson Street to the Bergstein Shoddy Mill and Warehouse. The primary purpose of this walkway is to improve public safety. Currently pedestrians, bicyclists and St Croix Boat & Packet passengers (upwards of 100,000 during the summer season) all crowd into the very narrow neck of land between the river and the Boat & Packet Ticket Office. With the opening of the loop trail next spring the congestion will increase even more. Therefore, it has become necessary to separate pedestrian traffic from bicycle traffic and the new walkway along the river will be designated for pedestrians, while the existing trail will be used by bicyclists. Finally, to enhance enjoyment of the St. Croix River, two viewing platforms are planned to be built just off the pedestrian trail in Bridgeview Park and a third platform at the St Croix Boat & Packet gangway. The location of the trails, proposed river walkway and three overlooks is shown on the next page. Case 2019-48 Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST Approval of: 1. Variance from the 100 foot required setback from the ordinary high water level of the St Croix River in order to construct three 20 foot wide viewing platforms up to the edge of the ordinary high water level, rather than 100 feet away from it. 2. Variance from the 40 foot bluffline setback in order to construct the viewing platforms along the bank of the river, rather than 40 feet away from the bank. ANALYSIS Overlooks are specifically permitted in the St Croix River Overlay District (City Code Sec 31-401, Subd 3(b)(4). However, the standard setbacks for all structures in the overlay district are 100 feet from the edge of the river and 40 feet from bluffs, which by definition would include the river bank in this case. The purpose of the viewing platforms is to give trail users the opportunity to view the scenic St Croix River from the river’s edge. The platform at St. Croix Boat & Packet will also be the access point for the gangway to the cruise boats. Applying bluffline and shoreline setbacks to these structures would frustrate their purpose. Moreover, the platforms will not rise above the grade of the river bank. Consequently, their impact on the aesthetics of the scenic river are not at all comparable to that of structures for which the setbacks are actually intended. Therefore, the City has submitted a request for the setback variances. Overlook 1 – The most northerly viewing platform, seen to the left (location shown in map above), will be largely unnoticeable from the river. It will be screened by large boats, dock and gangway infrastructure. Thereby, the fact that its surface is located 11’ 2” above the normal water level of the river is neutralized. Case 2019-48 Page 3 This overlook is located on land owned by the St. Croix Boat & Packet Company. So, an easement has been entered into with the City for public use. In addition to the public purpose, the platform will also function as a safe place for passengers to gather as they make their way down the gangway to the cruise boats. Currently this gathering occurs on, and obstructs, the public trail that runs between the boat ticket office and the gangway. Overlook 2 – This viewing platform is located just south of the Bergstein buildings near the point where the upper and lower trails separate. A substantial stormwater outlet pipe is located in this spot on the shoreline. Whether a boater would prefer to see the stormwater pipe or the platform is debatable, but the platform will draw the eye away from the pipe. The surface of this platform is at 6’ 2” above the normal water level of the St Croix. Case 2019-48 Page 4 Overlook 3 – The most southerly platform is also situated immediately next to a stormwater pipe outfall structure. Its surface would only be 3’ 4” above normal water level. Variance Guidelines The State enables a City to grant variances if 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? Extending the public trail to provide riverside views of the St. Croix Valley seems to be reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The most effective way for the public to view the river and valley from the heavily treed shoreline along Bridgeview Park is by placing viewing areas on the shoreline rather than 100 feet back of it. While a private property owner desiring to place a new home right on the shoreline might make the same argument, that owner could not make that claim that the views are intended for the general public. The public ownership of the shoreline and the public viewing purpose is unique. c. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? Except for the railings, the viewing improvements would not project higher than the grade of the river bank. And, the color (found satisfactory by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Heritage Preservation Commission) of the concrete base of the viewing area was selected to blend in with the natural surroundings. So, the visual impact of the southerly two platforms would be minimal amongst the treed landscape of the neighboring shoreline. And, the platform at the St Croix Boat & Packet will be completely in keeping with the character of the large boats and dock surrounding it. Case 2019-48 Page 5 d. Is the lone consideration an economic one? Economic factors did not play a role in siting the viewing platforms. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The primary purpose for setbacks on structures such as being proposed have to do with aesthetic protection of views from the river. As discussed above, design decisions were made specifically to minimize the visual impact from the point of view of boaters. 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 proposed overlooks are specifically allowed in the River Overlay District. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the variances with the following conditions: 1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval. 2. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the Planning Commission. 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 design and public purpose of the viewing platforms to satisfy the variance review criteria, and therefore recommends Alternative A. Copy: Jenn Sorenson, Regional Hydrologist, MnDNR bt PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-49 REPORT DATE: September 18, 2019 MEETING DATE: September 25, 2019 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater LANDOWNER: Multiple REQUEST: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property to RR – Rural Residential zoning district. LOCATION: 7520-7960 Minar Avenue North, 12420-12460 77th Street Court North, 7625-7790 Minar Lane North, 12300-12499 77th Street North, 12530 7th Street North, and Lot 1, Block 2, Springcreek ZONING: AP, Agricultural Preservation REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND On October 5, 2018, the Stillwater City Council enacted a one-year moratorium on all new subdivisions and lot splits in an area referred to as the “Minar Neighborhood”, an area that includes properties located on Minar Avenue North, Minar Lane North, 75th Street North, 77th Street North, and 77th Street Court North. The moratorium is designed to give the City time to develop and adopt a zoning district appropriate for the neighborhood. On August 20, 2019 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1131, creating a Rural Residential zoning district designed for low-density residential neighborhood development. SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone Boutwell Valley Estates and Springcreek properties to RR – Rural Residential. REQUEST ANALYSIS Prior to approving a rezoning, the Commission must find that Case No. 2019-49 Page 2 of 3  The public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and  That the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the A-P (Agricultural Preservation) district to maintain and enhance agricultural operations and preserve agricultural lands utilized for crop production and to serve as a holding zone for lands where phased urban expansion will occur. However, these A-P zoned lands do not have active agricultural operations occurring on them. They are (on average) 2.5 acre lots, platted while a part of Stillwater Township and contain single family residential. The general community welfare is furthered by rezoning these properties in line with how they currently operate and how they may operate in the future. While the City is encouraged to have greater density throughout the community, it has been determined the installation of public sewer and water in these neighborhoods is cost prohibitive. The purpose of the Rural Residential zoning district (RR district) is to maintain large (minimum one acre) lot neighborhood design and characteristics in areas where urban services are either unavailable or it is unfeasible to extend services to. To allow for some additional single family residential development in the neighborhood, it is a public necessity to rezone the properties to the RR zoning district where lots may be eligible to be split. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides these properties for Low Density Residential (LDR) development. LDR is defined as having a density of 1-4.4 units per acre. The RR district, with one acre lots, is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Plan in the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as Very Low Density Residential. The draft plan states “This land use designation is a new category, which was created to preserve a well-established neighborhood (2.5 acre lots) developed in the late 1980s prior to being annexed into the city limits. This area is not anticipated to redevelop during the life of this plan, and reflects a density range of 0.25 to 1 unit per acre”. Therefore, the propose Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with the principles and policies set forth in the existing and draft Comprehensive Plans. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the provisions of ZAM, the Commission should forward a favorable recommendation of approval of both of the ZAM requests. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the proposal, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the provisions of the ZAM regulations, the Commission should forward recommendation of denial to the City Council. The Commission should indicate a reason for such recommendation. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Case No. 2019-49 Page 3 of 3 The purpose of the Rural Residential district is to maintain large lot neighborhood design and characteristics in areas where urban services are unavailable. As urban services are unavailable, and unfeasible to install, to the Boutwell Valley Estates and Springcreek neighborhoods, the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered by rezoning 7520-7960 Minar Avenue North, 12420-12460 77th Street Court North, 7625-7790 Minar Lane North, 12300- 12499 77th Street North, 12530 7th Street North, and Lot 1, Block 2, Springcreek to RR – Rural Residential. Additionally, staff finds the rezoning is consistent with the existing and draft Comprehensive Plans. Therefore, staff would recommend the Planning Commission make a favorable recommendation of approval to rezoning the aforementioned properties to RR - Rural Residential. Attachments: Site Location Map Ordinance No. 1131 cc: Boutwell Valley Estates and Springcreek subdivision property owners (via email) 80TH 77TH STREET NORTH 7 5 T H S T R E E T N O R T H R O A DRUTHERFORD R U T H E RF O R D BLVD.PIONEERRO A D R U T GREENFIELDSSUMMER PI O N E E R P L A C E PLACEPIONEER LIB E R T Y PARK WAY GREENFARM HILL WAYS T R E E T NO RTH M E LVILL E COURT NORTH 75TH STREET NORTH C S A H 1 2 C S A H 15S C H O O L H O U S E C IR C L E PLANTINGGREEN COUNTRYSETTLER'S WAYENGLA N D PLACE SETTLER'S WAYLIBERTY PARKWAYTA L L P I N E T R A I LMANNING AVENUEMANNING AVENUEMARYLANE AVENUE NORTHMANNING AVENUE NORTHC S A H 15NORTHSTREET80TH 77THMANNING AVENUENORTHC S A H 15C S A H 1577TH STREET COURT NORTHLANECOTTONWOODH A W T H O R N E COURTCOURT STREET 75THMINARMINAR AVE NOM I N A R AV E N U E NORTHC S A H 1 2 STREET NORTH72ND NORTHAVENUEINTERLACHEN CTAVENUEAVENUENORTHLANDNORTHLANDINTERLACHEN DRIVETAMARACK COURTEAGLE RIDGE TRAILVAN TASSELCOURTNEALAVENUENORTHWALNUT CREEK DRIVE NORTHMORGAN AVENUE NORTHSTREET CREEKSIDE CIRCLECREEKCREEKSIDE CROSSINGCT MIN AR LAN E NO RTH NORTHA VENUENORTHMI NARBOUTWELL ROAD NO RTH SIDEEAGLE RIDGE TR NEAL AVENUE NORTHLA NE ABERCROMBIE W E B S T E R C O U R TMACEY WAYMACEY WAY M O R G AN AVE N AT W O OD C IR A B E RCROMB I E LANEATWOODLANEPINE HOLLO W GRNPINEHOLL OW PLNEWATWOOD CTSUMMER 72ND ST REET NORTHHERFORDRD.FIELDS CT CREEKSIDE CROSSINGTROL LE Y DRIV E BRIDGEWATERWAYBOUTWELL FAR M ROAD 115 3325 12092 107 7865 12950 7190 7749 12525 7789 12960 7837 12055 1221112121 12360 12125 12490 129977824 7671 12550 7959 12377 7775 12975 7160 7685 7625 7720 7640 7819 7660 77607710 7759 7879 7750 7960 7729 7639 7680 7520 7730 7699 7790 7669 7789 7609 7880 7610 7755 8097 7155 7150 7181 8087 7130 12440 12744 12363 12380 12345 12430 12420 8233 12340 12450 12421 12530 12840 12721 125 2412 12764 2418 3550 7939 7959 7979 2803 7770 8045 8055 8077 135 7760 3630 7710 240 7330 1128 8031 7919 8075 8005 234 7990 µ 0 970 1,940485Feet General Site Location Site Location ^ Te xt Properties Proposed to be Rezoned Properties Located within 350' ORDINANCE 1131 AN ORDINANCE CREATING ARTICLE 31-301, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND AMENDING ARTICLE 31-315,ALLOWABLE USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Article 31-301 of the City Code, Rural Residential District is hereby created as follows: a) Purpose. The purpose of the RR district shall be to maintain large lot neighborhood design and characteristics in areas where urban services are unavailable. b) Allowable uses. 1. See Table in Section 31-315 for the allowable uses within this district. c) Detached accessory buildings. 1. No detached accessory buildings may be located within the required front yard. 2. All detached accessory buildings located within a side yard must be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the side lot line in the case of an interior lot or 40 feet in the case of a corner lot. 3. All detached accessory buildings located in the rear yard must be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the rear lot line. d) Massing regulations. 1. Minimum standards. 1 Lot area per dwelling One (1) acre Lot width 100 feet Lot depth 300 feet Front yard setback 40 feet Interior Side yard setback 15 feet(COS) Exterior yard setback 40 feet Rear yard setback 50 feet Maximum lot coverage 25% Height of residence v^um 35 feet 20 feet and not exceeding Height of accessory structures height of main residential structure 2. Additional setback standards. 2 Trunk Highway 96 (Stonebridge Trail to Co Rd. 15) 100 feet McKusick Road(Neal Ave. to Co Rd. 15) 100 feet j County Rd. 12 (Northland Ave. to Co Rd. 15) jioo feet County Rd. 15 (Trunk Highway 36 to Trunk Highway 96-100 feet j Railroad 75 feet 1 All standards are minimum requirements unless otherwise noted. 2 Measured from right-of-way line. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Article 31-315 of the City Code, Allowable Uses in Residential Districts, is hereby amended to add the following: ALLOWABLE USES Tzoiss RR Single-family dwelling 1 P Accessory dwelling (See Section 31-501) Type I home occupation(See Section 31-500) P Type II home occupation (See Section 31-500)CUP Accessory building and use 1A Short Term Home Rental; Type A and B P Short Term Home Rental; Type C CUP Agricultural produce sales p14 Essential services P Small Wireless Facilities in the Right-of-Way P Personal Outdoor Storage Ply 14 Sales of fresh, whole, raw, or processed produce grown onsite only and sold onsite at a farm stand, at farmers' markets or by delivery. 15 Storage of personal operable vehicles, including any car,truck or trailer, or self-propelled or pull-behind recreational vehicles, including, but not limited to, snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, watercraft, golf carts, etc. so long as adequately screened by fence or landscaped from roadways and neighboring views. No outside business storage is permitted. SECTION 3. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk,the following summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance: The ordinance amendment establishes a purpose for a new Rural Residential zoning district while establishing the allowable uses of, and the massing regulations and setback standards for new structures proposed within the district. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective after its passage and publication according to law. Approved this 3rd day of September, 2019. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: 1/4-6d Beth Wolf, City Cler Publish: Stillwater Gazette— September 6, 2019