Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-19 CPC Packeti11wai THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North December 19th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of November 27th, 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. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 2. Resolution CPC 2019-01: Adopting Findings of Fact for CPC Case No. 2019-46 (Available Thursday) VI. 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. 2019-63: Consideration of a Special Use Permit and Variance to operate the property as an event space. Property located at 217 2nd St N in the BD district. Midnight Real Estate, LLC, property owners. 4. Case No. 2019-65: Consideration of a Variance to build a shed on the property located at 917 Hickory St W in the RB district. Mark Grey, property owner. 5. Case No. 2019-66: Consideration of Variances associated with building a 10x20 shed on the property located at 2355 Walnut Creek Dr W in the RA district. Lee and Amy Williams, property owners. 6. Case No. 2019-67: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Short Term Home Rental at 1313 Martha St N in the RB district. Eric and Jerilyn Jackson, property owners. 7. Case No. 2019-68: Consideration of a Variance to construct an in -ground pool on the property located at 120 Wilkins St W in the RB district. Tiffany Parr, property owner. 8. Case No. 2019-64: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment for Heritage Ridge. Property located at 1902 William St N. City of Stillwater, applicants. 9. Case No. 2019-25: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to amend the city Sign code. City of Stillwater, applicant. --Tabled by applicant VII. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION VIII. FYI — STAFF UPDATES — (NO PACKET MATERIALS) IX. ADJOURNMENT ilivater THE 1INTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 27, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Hansen, Kocon, Meyhoff; Councilmember Collins Absent: Commissioners Hade and Dybvig Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of October 23, 2019 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve the minutes of the October 23, 2019 meeting. Motion passed 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 Road West. Alon Ventura representing Valley Ridge Holdings, LLC, property owner and Gordon Skamser Jr., applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that Gordon Skamser Jr. is requesting a variance to allow for the Norman Quacks sign to project higher than the parapet line of the wall and to rise greater than 20 feet as measured from the base of the building. The installation of a sign above the parapet, greater than 20' in height, where the sign obscures an architectural feature, sets a precedent for this and adjacent properties. Staff finds the requested variance is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code, is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, nor has practical difficulty been established. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the application. Franny Skamser Lewis, applicant, said they hired a sign professional and were under the impression that everything was being transacted as it ought to be. When they became aware that it was not approved, they began working diligently to resolve the problem. The sign initially cost $20,000 and it would cost $15,000 to alter it to a less interesting presentation of their brand. The pergola is permanently attached to the building, so to move the sign down further, they would have to either remove the pergola or take off the bottom part of the sign. They love the sign, have gotten great feedback from the community, and have signed a long-term lease. They feel the scale of the sign is right for the space. They understand that a variance is not likely to be approved, and feel their best path forward is to bring the case to the City Council. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen remarked that a lot of time and energy has gone into ordinances that regulate signs. The sign does not fit in with anything else in the building especially with the height. He does Planning Commission November 27, 2019 not support the variance because it sets a precedent for other businesses. Commissioner Kocon and Chairman Lauer agreed. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to deny Case No. 2019-46, Variance to allow for a sign to project 20-36" higher than the structure's parapet on the property located at 1400 (1570) Frontage Road West. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2019-52: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit amendment and associated variance to build a community building within a residential apartment complex located at 14810 62nd Street North in the RCM district. David Walter representing Heartland Realty Investors, property owners and Susan Nackers Ludwig representing LNA Design, applicant. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. Heartland Realty Investors would like to construct a 1,045 square foot community building near the southeast corner of the property to house the manager's office and community classroom space. The proposed building will require the relocation of an existing trash enclosure facility to a location near the northeast corner of the property. The applicant has requested a Special Use Permit amendment and associated lot coverage variance. The applicant does not have to go to the watershed district for review because that will be done through the City's review process. Staff has determined the proposed use to be in substantial conformance to the zoning code. The property owner has established practical difficulty in compliance with the regulations pertaining to maximum lot coverage. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the amendment and variance with seven conditions. Susan Nackers Ludwig, applicant, explained that accessibility is a main reason why the proposed location was chosen. Construction should begin in spring 2020. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2019-52, Conditional Use Permit amendment and associated variance to build a community building within a residential apartment complex for the property located at 14810 62nd Street North, with the seven conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2019-55: Consideration of a Variance to the minimum lot size for a two family residence. Property located at 423 Laurel Street West in the RB district. Judith Kalbrener, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that in 2016, the property owner got a building permit and refinished the basement, installing a bathroom and a wet bar. During this process, staff informed the property owner that the basement must remain connected to the main house and the two floors must remain a single unit due to the lot size being below the required minimum size for a two-family dwelling. In August 2019, the Planning Department received a complaint regarding the property functioning as a two-family house with the tenant living in the basement portion of the house. A letter was sent to the property owner requesting that she reconvert the house into a single dwelling unit. The property is now requesting a 4,644 square foot variance to the minimum lot area for a two-family dwelling, to allow for a two-family residence on a 5,356 square foot lot, where a 10,000 square foot lot is the minimum area required. One letter of support and one letter in opposition were received. Staff recommends denial of a variance to the minimum lot area required for a two-family residence based on the facts that: 1) the lot is roughly half the square footage required for a two-family residence; 2) it was put forth to the property owner during the basement renovation that this must remain a single residence, and this variance was only initiated because a notice of violation was sent to the property owner following a complaint. Therefore, it is the Planning Department's concern that granting this variance would set a precedent that encourages property owners to violate code under the assumption that if they get caught, they simply need to apply for a variance to "make it right." Page 2 of 8 Planning Commission November 27, 2019 Commissioner Hansen asked if there is a way to add a condition on this variance that upon the sale of the home, it must be made back into a single family residence. Ms. Wittman said she did not think so, but could not confirm without legal counsel. Use permits run with the land. However, the Commission may initiate revocation if it becomes a problem. Commissioner Hansen asked Ms. Wittman to explain the difference between a Short Term Home Rental, if the homeowner had applied for a STHR permit, and having a long-term tenant. Ms. Wittman clarified that STHR is less than 30 days. The City does not have a licensing program for long term rentals greater than 30 days. Commissioner Kocon asked how the situation differs from intergenerational housing, for instance a mother-in-law apartment, and if that would require the same lot size. Ms. Wittman explained if the units are separate, the lot size must meet the 10,000 square foot two- family requirement. Properties may have two kitchens, two living rooms, two bathrooms and so on, and as long as there is free access between them, City staff interprets them as a single residence. The difference with this case is that there is a separation between the two living units and no access between them. Judith Kalbrener, applicant, said she is a realtor in Hawaii and uses the house in the summer when she returns to Stillwater. She likes having someone living there so it is not vacant. She would not be interested in using it as a short term home rental. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Curtis Hudak, 817 Mulberry Street West, said he and his wife check on the property regularly for Ms. Kalbrener. Had there not been a tenant in the house last year, the damage from a broken pipe would have been extraordinary. The property is in better shape with someone living in the house. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon noted that minimum lot size is important and the lot is tight for even a single family home. Chairman Lauer reopened the public hearing. Ms. Kalbrener stated it's a bedroom and bath studio downstairs, it's not an apartment. It would be tight to have more than one person living there. She views it like renting a bedroom in her house so somebody is there when she is not there. Commissioner Hansen asked what has been done to close off the lower level from the upper level. Ms. Kalbrener replied it's a locked door. Commissioner Hansen responded that the property does not support a duplex, but he does not think it needs to. If the door is removed then there is not a problem. He too would prefer to have somebody living there full time. The Commission needs to figure out a way to make it compliant with City ordinances. He is not in favor of the variance for a duplex but highly recommends that the property owner remove the door and speak with Ms. Wittman to figure out a workaround. Chairman Lauer commented that the City told the applicant she could not create a duplex, and then she did so. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Councilmember Kocon, to deny Case No. 2019-55, Variance to the minimum lot size for a two family residence on the property located at 423 Laurel Street West. Motion passed 5-0. Page 3of8 Planning Commission November 27, 2019 Ms. Wittman stated that any action by the Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of this hearing. Case No. 2019-58: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Text Amendment to allow a school within the BP -I district. Property located at 1835 Northwestern Avenue. Wild River Office Park LLC, property owner and Paul Loomis, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that Chesterton Academy, a Catholic high school, has applied for a zoning text amendment to allow the vacant office building at 1835 Northwestern Avenue to be used as a school. The property is zoned BP -I, Business Park -Industrial. Though schools are allowed in the BP-0 Zoning District across the street, schools are not allowed in the BP -I Zoning District. Therefore, Chesterton Academy is requesting that the City amend its zoning code to allow schools by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the BP -I District. They are concurrently asking for a CUP in the case that the City were to approve the requested zoning code amendment. City staff finds that the continued conversion of industrially zoned property to non -industrial uses is poor practice and inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the City believes that the proposed high school is an acceptable use at 1835 Northwestern Avenue, then a better practice would be to amend the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the property and surrounding properties to BP- O. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission recommend that the City Council deny the request for a zoning text amendment. The Commission may act on the CUP or defer to the Council on that application as well. Commissioner Kocon asked about after school athletics and activities which are noted as offerings in the school's information, yet the staff report notes there will be no athletics at this location. Larry Keller, a Stillwater resident and Chesterton Academy parent, replied that the school will cooperate with other schools for athletic activities. He explained the criteria used in seeking a location: safety, east metro location, a building they could grow into, an area to hold daily Mass, and cost. This building meets all the requirements. He and the realtor assumed this building was zoned BP-0 because of the building mass and the types of buildings around it. Nowhere adjacent to this location is there a hint of industrial business. The building has always been used as an office space since it was built in 1985. Industrial zoning is inconsistent with the history and current use of the area. A lease has been signed, with Chesterton Academy moving in May 1, 2020. Paul Loomis, Chair of Chesterton Academy of the St. Croix Valley Board of Directors, who has two children attending the school, explained the school's approach to instruction and curriculum. This would be the first Catholic high school in the City of Stillwater. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Roger Kuehn, owner of the building, spoke in support of the request. He pointed out all the nearby education, health and office uses. Logan Connolly, 3197 69th Street East Inver Grove Heights, Prefect President of the Student Body, spoke in support of the request. Father Michael Isen, St. Michael's and St. Mary's Church, stated Chesterton Academy would bring new people and new business to the City. John Florin, 2171 Grafton, Oakdale, the business administrator at the Church of the Blessed Sacrament where Chesterton Academy has been for the last three years and parent of two Chesterton graduates, voiced support for the school. Nathan Metzinger, 6841 Lydia Alcove, Woodbury, parent of two graduates and current students, spoke in support of the application. Page 4 of 8 Planning Commission November 27, 2019 Brad and Beth Tressell, 404 Manger Street, West St. Paul, parents of a student, said the school would be an economic boon to the Stillwater area. It is a great location and perfect space. Father Robert Gravener, Assistant Pastor at St. Augustine and Holy Trinity in St. Paul, former sheriff deputy, said he has seen Chesterton students mature and develop character. Dave Beskar, 1230 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, Chesterton Academy Headmaster, shared that Chesterton is a family -led school that would be great for the local community. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. He noted the large amount of support for the school. He likes the idea of having a Catholic high school in Stillwater. He acknowledged the question of erosion of tax base by having a nonprofit in an industrial zone, but feels that may be offset by those coming into the City who will use local businesses. Commissioner Kocon spoke to the value of a private school education. The issue is with the land use consistency. Industrially zoned property is the biggest tax generator. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. Staff is recommending denial not because this is a bad idea but because it should be enabled in a better way. He is compelled to follow the staff recommendation. Commissioner Hansen acknowledged there is no question the school would be a positive addition to Stillwater, the question is, is this a good spot for it? Whether there is actually a lot of industry or not, it's important to have industrially zoned land available because that is how the City attracts industrial users. It's great to have parents, students and faculty spend money in the community but if the City doesn't have a higher tax base in that area then it must raise taxes on those other businesses. There are uses there that have semis, delivery trucks, traffic, big machinery that aren't complementary to schools. The school may be a better use for the property than an industrial use, but that is not what it is zoned for. He ultimately supports the school in that location, but it needs to be addressed in a way that's more than just allowing for schools in this zone and granting a CUP for this school. It needs to be addressed at a higher level. Commissioner Kocon noted that Community Development Director Turnblad has provided guidance. He supports the idea, but denial of the application. He feels the City should rezone rather than adopt a zoning text amendment. Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that rezoning of the property would require another public hearing and take another 30-60 days. State law doesn't allow spot zoning, so rezoning this parcel alone to BP-0 cannot occur, the City would need to consider all the surrounding parcels. Within nine months, the City will be reviewing all zones for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Hansen reiterated that he does not want to see schools in industrial zones. He would prefer that the property be rezoned so the school could be in that location. Commissioner Kocon suggested deferring the case to the City Council. Chairman Lauer re -opened the public hearing. Mr. Loomis clarified that if the Commission prefers, they would be happy to take the issue to the City Council to ease the burden on the Commission. Mr. Keller added they are faced with the issue of recruitment and need to secure a location so the families know where the school will be. They would like an answer as quickly as possible. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to pass along to the City Council Case No. 2019-58, Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Text Amendment to allow a school within the BP -I district for the property located at 1835 Northwestern Avenue, with neither a recommendation of Page 5of8 Planning Commission November 27, 2019 approval nor denial, adding that a majority of the Commission are in favor of a school being in this building but are not in favor of a zoning text amendment for the BP -I district. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2019-59: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental at the property located at 301 Myrtle Street West in the RCM district. Ryan and Emily Bretzel, property owners. City Planner Wittman stated that Ryan and Emily Bretzel have applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Type C STHR. The STHR 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 of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the CUP with 12 conditions. Ryan and Emily Bretzel said they bought the property with the intent of using it as a STHR. It borders a commercial area and is a good use for the property. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve Case No. 2019-59, Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental at the property located at 301 Myrtle Street West, with the 12 staff -recommended conditions, modifying Condition #3 to seven guests. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2019-60: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a distillery and tap room at the property located at 223 Main Street North. Minnesota's Wine Growers Co, Stephen Watkin, representative, and Christie Wanderer and Andrew Mosiman, applicants. City Planner Wittman stated that Christie Wanderer and Andrew Mosiman of Forge and Foundry Distillery would like to operate a distillery and tasting room at 223 Main Street North, formerly used as Northern Vineyards Winery. Their operations include an approximately 2,250 square foot production, warehouse and storage space, an approximately 1,100 square foot tasting room, 1,150 square foot, second -story office and storage space, and a 195 square foot, second story outdoor dining area. For reasons unknown, Northern Vineyards Winery never obtained a Use Permit for their operations. The applicants are requesting a Special Use Permit for a distillery and a Special Use Permit for a tasting room to include outdoor seating, including a future first -level patio in the rear of the building. A letter from adjacent property owner Tom Wortman was received, voicing concern about the smell. 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 of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with 10 conditions. Andrew Mosiman, applicant, said they plan to seal the brick walls so there will be no more smell than was generated by the previous winery. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2019-60, Special Use Permit to operate a distillery and tap room at the property located at 223 Main Street North, with the 10 staff -recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2019-62: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a restaurant and for a graphic design sign at 218 Main Street North. Michael Lynskey Jr., and Lee Bjerk, property owners, and Dariush and Sarah Moslemi, applicants. Page 6 of 8 Planning Commission November 27, 2019 City Planner Wittman stated that Dariush Moslemi, owner of Rusty Mile, LLC, is requesting a Special Use Permit to operate a restaurant at 218 Main Street North. The applicant is proposing an interior remodeling on the first floor, to combine the two units into a single unit that will operate as a restaurant. The second floor will remain offices. The property has access both from Main Street and the alley on the south side of the building. A new door at the back of the building will be installed for deliveries. Off of the alley, in the rear, is a nose -in parking area that will accommodate six vehicles. Building changes include: a new rooftop HVAC system; new rear -faced delivery door; a hood ventilation exhaust on the south elevation; combining the two interior spaces into one unit; replacement of the existing signage and installation of a graphic design sign on the south elevation. The applicant is requesting: 1) a Special Use Permit for a new restaurant; and 2) a Special Use Permit for a graphic design sign (i.e. a mural). Staff finds that the proposed use is in conformance with the requirements and 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 of the community. Therefore, staff recommends the approval of a Special Use Permit with eight conditions. Dariush Moslemi, applicant, informed the Commission that trash can be stored inside. The grease hood protruding from the wall will be incorporated into a mural as suggested by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2019-62, Special Use Permit to operate a restaurant, and for a graphic design sign at 218 Main Street North, with the eight 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 2020 Meeting Calendar Because of the Thanksgiving and Christmas weeks/weekends, the dates of the November and December, 2020 meetings were changed to: Thursday, November 19 and Thursday, December 17. FYI STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 9:17 p.m. All in favor, 5-0. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Chris Lauer, Chair Page 7of8 RESOLUTION NO. CPC 2019-01 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ADOPTING WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DENIAL PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, § 15.99, SUBD. 2, FOR A VARIANCE APPLICATION TO ALLOW A SIGN TO EXTEND 20-36" ABOVE THE PARAPET AND TALLER THAN 20' FROM THE BASE OF THE BUILDING WALL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1570 FRONTAGE ROAD WEST CPC CASE NO. 2019-46 WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a request from the Applicant Gordon Skamser Jr. for a Variance to allow an existing, nonconforming sign to be located 20-36" above a parapet and to be taller than 20' from the base of the building wall for the property located at 1570 Frontage Road West (PID 3203020440025) on November 27, 2019, legally described as follows: LOT 1, BLOCK 4, AND THAT PART OF LOT 2, BLOCK 4, LYING WESTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL TO AND 100 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, ALL IN STILLWATER INDUSTRIAL PARK EXCEPT THAT PART OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, STILLWATER INDUSTRIAL PARK, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, according to building plans on file with the City, Valley Ridge Mall, where the applicant is located, is 18.5' from the parking lot grade to the top of the roof with parapets extending to 22' tall from ground grade; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 31-509 subd. 2 states that a wall sign may not project higher than the parapet line of the wall to which the sign is affixed or 20' as measured from the base of the building wall to which the sign is affixed, whichever is lower; and WHEREAS, the Applicant had requested variances to project higher than the parapet line of the wall to which the sign is affixed, and greater 20 feet as measured from the base of the building wall to which the sign is affixed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in the Applicants' Application at their regular meeting on November 27, 2019; and WHEREAS, at the November 27, 2019, Planning Commission meeting, a motion was made by Commissioner Meyhoff and seconded by Commissioner Kocon to deny the application. The Commission voted 5 in favor, with none opposing, and the motion passed; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statutes, § 15.99, Subd. 2(c), provides that "[i]f a multimember governing body denies a request, it must state the reasons for denial on the record and provide the applicant in writing a statement of the reasons for the denial. If the written statement is not adopted at the same time as the denial, it must be adopted at the next meeting following the denial of the request but before the expiration of the time allowed for making a decision under this section. The written statement must be consistent with the reasons stated in the record at the time of the denial. The written statement must be provided to the applicant upon adoption." NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater hereby adopts the following written statement of the reasons for denial stated on the record at the November 27, 2019, regular Planning Commission meeting by Commissioners voting to deny the requested Design Permit amendment: 1. The requested Variance was not consistent with all the standards for granting a Variance as described in Section 31-208. More specifically, the Planning Commission members voting against the requested Variance stated on the record at the November 27, 2019, regular Planning Commission meeting that the request was not justified for the following reasons: a. The height of the sign is not in harmony with the Zoning Code. b. The sign does not fit with the surroundings; allowing it to exist would alter the essential character of the building and neighborhood. c. The applicant has indicated the plight is due to circumstances created by the applicant. Adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater this 19th day of December, 2019. Chris Lauer, Chair Attest: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner Jll!r FHE 6 I R T H P I A [. E OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DESIGNATION: Planning Commission December 12, 2019 December 19,2 019 Midnight Real Estate LLC Midnight Real Estate LLC CASE NO.: 2019-63 Consideration of: 1. A Special Use Permit for a multi -use facility to include shared office space and private event rental space, including an outdoor patio; and 2. A variance to the 80% maximum lot coverage to allow for 98.7% total lot coverage to allow for an above -grade patio and asphalt. 217 2nd Street North N/A DISTRICT: Downtown Design Review District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION During construction of the Hotel Crosby, Midnight Real Estate LLC acquired the property at 217 2nd Street North to be used as a construction headquarters. After the opening of the Hotel Crosby, the building was converted from the office space into a mixed use building where guests of the hotel were permitted to utilize the building for private events. The conversion included the installation of a 20.7' by 30' raised patio and asphalting the back (easterly) portion of the property. Neither the change in use nor the exterior improvements were approved in advance by the City of Stillwater. As a result, Hotel Crosby has submitted a Planning Application for the City's consideration to allow for the property at 217 2nd Street North to be utilized as a multi -use facility to be known as the Stills. The proposed uses include corporate offices for the hotel as well as indoor and outdoor meeting and small private event space. In addition to the Planning Commission's review of the request, a Design Permit for exterior improvements has been submitted for review and approval by the Heritage Preservation Commission which will review the request on December 18, 2019. Case no. 2019-63 Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of: 1. A Special Use Permit for a multi -use facility to include shared office space and private event rental space, including an outdoor patio; and 2. A variance to the 80% maximum lot coverage to allow for 98.7% total lot coverage to allow for an above -grade patio and asphalt. ANALYSIS Special Use Permit City Code Section 31-207, Special Use Permits, identifies the city may grant a Special Use Permit or amendments when the following findings are made: The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this [Zoning] chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed or use and/or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Conformance to the Zoning Code generally surrounds around whether or not the proposed use will be compatible with its surrounding uses. Other uses in the vicinity include the Hotel Crosby to the east, offices to the north and south, and residential located to the west, across 2nd Street North. Generally speaking, multi -use buildings (including those with event rental facilities) have been found to be compatible with the downtown area when certain conditions are imposed. In staff's review of the request, the following items were determined to be of concern: Exterior Improvements: The existing, unpermitted improvements and proposed alterations to the exterior of the building will need to be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission for conformance to the Downtown Design Review District guidelines. The (approximately) 600 square foot above -grade patio and stairs does not meet the side yard setbacks (of 20' combined) in the Central Business District; a 2' setback is maintained on the south. However, it can be perceived this portion of the lot and the new improvements are infill. City Code Section 31-317 indicates "for infill lots, the front, side and rear setback may be similar to the setback for the adjacent buildings." Most of the buildings within a close proximity to the Case no. 2019-63 Page 3 Stills are built to their respective lot lines. So staff has determined the patio to be in substantial conformance to the required setbacks. However, review of a 1996 survey of the property shows the northwest property corner is located over the northern property line; therefore, the patio was installed over northern the property line, shared with the property at 225 2nd Street North. Additionally, the exterior improvement is located in the following easement areas: • A public utility easement, to which the City of Stillwater is a party to, exists on the eastern side of the property. The purpose of this easement was for an underground storm sewer. Fortunately, that storm sewer was relocated during the time of construction of Hotel Crosby. However, the City has not vacated the original easement nor obtained easement for the existing storm sewer in this location. This will need to occur prior to the structure. • A private access easement benefitting the property at 225 2nd Street North may also exist on the site. This easement, as noted on a submitted 1998 Certificate of Survey, allows 225 2nd Street North to cross the property "on foot or by vehicular or animal means of transportation". The easement further indicates "[p]arking on said easement will be permitted only for the purpose of loading or unloading vehicles". While the improvement may be blocking a portion of this easement, it is a private easement and is up to the private property owner (of 225 2nd Street North) to enforce. obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy on Stormwater Management: The Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization required stormwater management through onsite infiltration for any creation of impervious surface area meeting or exceeding 500 square feet. The combined patio and asphalted surface equal (approximately) 1,200 square feet. This will require a total of 110 cubic feet of volume control area to be installed on the site. The WMO's guidelines for new volume control areas require they are not greater than 18" in depth. Therefore, approximately 73 square feet of 1.5' deep infiltration area will need to be installed on the site. Parking: The property was previously used exclusively for office use. The change in use will require the property owner to mitigate any parking deficit. The request is scheduled to be heard before the Planning Commission on December 19. A verbal update will be provided to the Planning Commission at the meeting. Trash Storage Case no. 2019-63 Page 4 There is a growing issue with outdoor trash storage in the downtown core. It is assumed this business will be using the Hotel Crosby's trash storage on the public parking deck. However, the Stills will have to provide documentation they are keeping all trash indoors or are using a screened trash enclosure either on this or adjacent property. Event Security and Noise As the property is proposed to be utilized for private events, the site will need to remain secure and adhere to City Code Section 38-3, Noise Control and Regulation. Included in this requirement will be that the business may not have any outdoor music, including music piped to the patio. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6, Downtown Stillwater Plan, identifies the following goal: "Encourage a viable and compatible mix of community and visitor -serving activities that builds on the assets of Downtown as a desirable placed to live, work, shop, recreate and visit consistent with the capacity of public services and facilities and the natural resources. Promote a diverse range of uses, a welcoming and engaging atmosphere, and unique activities and events oriented to a range of ages and cultures". Additionally, Chapter 7, Economic Development, identifies the following goal: "Support business expansion in the downtown commercial district..." While the Stills will help the city achieve these goals, this use is not uncommon in Stillwater. Numerous event spaces exist in the downtown area and two of the four downtown hotels have private rental spaces available for their guests. That said, the use is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Variances The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. 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. Outdoor patios and asphalted areas associated with event centers have been permitted. 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 maximum lot coverages is to ensure adequate, onsite infiltration in dense areas where there is no stormwater treatment before runoff enters the river. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The granting of the variances to allow for the property in excess of the maximum allowable coverages without meeting stormwater management requirements would be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? Case no. 2019-63 Page 5 The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identities the goal to "encourage natural drainage systems to maintain the natural character of ravines and waterways". Additionally, the 2040 Plan adopted the updated Local Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) by reference. A goal of the SWMP is to manage land disturbance and increased impervious surfaces to prevent flooding and adverse impacts to water resources. The granting of the variance would not be in harmony with these goals. Allowing for construction to nearly all lot lines without adequate water treatment increases the likelihood of runoff onto adjacent properties and the risk flooding. 3. 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 patio and asphalted area itself is reasonable though, in excess of the maximum allowable lot coverage area, is not reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property had a grade change between the back of the building and the rear of the lot prior to the recent disturbance on the property. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner made improvements without seeking permission from the City. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The essential character of the area would not be altered by the granting of the variance. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The applicant's desire is for a patio on the building and asphalted area on the property. The removal of these improvements would be at a cost. Therefore, economic considerations are a factor but they are not the sole factor. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2019- 63, except as modified by the conditions herein 3. All outdoor activities associated with the business shall occur on private property. The patio nor any of its appurtenances, whether permanent or temporary, shall be Case no. 2019-63 Page 6 located closer than 0' to the northern property line and 2' to the southern property line. An as -built survey shall be submitted to the City for verification prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. Exterior facade modifications, including the installation of signage, the outdoor patio area, and lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 5. Trash must be kept indoors, unless the applicant can provide proof to the City that they have access to a shared trash enclosure with another business(s) downtown. Trash may not be stored on public lands without a permit from the City. 6. Abutting sidewalks must be kept clean of cigarette butts and other debris. 7. At the time of building permit submittal, the project shall be reviewed for conformance to the MSCWMO's rules and Stillwater City Code Chapter 35, Stormwater Drainage. 8. Prior the release of the Certificate of Occupancy, the property owner shall request vacation of the existing (but abandoned) storm sewer easement and grant the City of Stillwater easement to the recently installed storm sewer on the adjacent property. 9. No exterior amplification, pipe music, or entertainment is permitted. If these uses are desired, an amendment to this Special Use Permit shall be obtained prior to the activity commencing. 10. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 11. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. If the plan includes a fee -in -lieu, the fee shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Failure to pay charges within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the fees as a condition of approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. a) Any conditions attached to the parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. 12. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 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 With the exception of parking, the requirements set forth in City Code pertaining to the granting of a Special Use Permit can be met by conditionally approving the request. However, the request for the variance fails to meet the requirements necessary for the establishment of practical as the Case no. 2019-63 Page 7 circumstances were a direct result of the owner's conversion and the request is not in general conformance with the intent of the Zoning Code. That said, improving access to the building on the sloped site was necessary. The property owner should remove the encroachment on the property at 225 2nd Street North. Additionally, the property owner should develop the required 110 cubic feet of volume control area on the site. If this occurs, then a total of 96.5% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. This is more in conformance to the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. As a portion of the patio must be removed from the north side of the property, removal of an additional 3.5' of the north side of the patio would be more conforming to the intent of the Zoning Code as it would allow for the possible installation of an infiltration area. This would create an (approximate) 5' buffer area between the building at 225 2nd Street North and the subject property as well as maintain (approximately) 3.5% of the lot as open area, helping capture some of the runoff from the subject property. However, staff is not recommending the City require a setback from the north property line. That said, staff would recommend conditional approval of: • a Special Use Permit for Stills, a multi -use facility to include shared office space and private event rental space; • a variance to allow for 96.5% maximum lot coverage on the site with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Certificate of Survey Site Plan and Adjacent Properties Site Photograph Floor Plans (2 pages) cc: Anne Loff, Midnight Real Estate LLC Midnight Real Estate, LLC 314 1st Avenue N Minneapolis, MN 55401 November 11, 2019 Bill Turnblad City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: 217 North Second Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 We would like to use the property located at 217 North Second Street in Stillwater, MN as a mixed use building. We would like to use the main level (main entrance off of N 2'd) as a shared office/meeting and small (less than 42 people) private event space. The lower level would be used as a small meeting/office/bridal preparation room (less than 7 people) space. /z ej- v f `, (! e' ` }'n&ki t` LA.. se d s a /oaific/ area a c p 1 ? a Y� (S C t.v c� be i e Ci The above uses are complimentary to the Hotel Crosby, both staff and clients alike. The meeting space within the Hotel Crosby has proven insufficient to meet the needs of our clients. Please contact me with any questions/comments you may have. Sincerely, Anne Loff Midnight Real Estate, LLC cc Brian Asmus Chris Diebold Attachments SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS � r• r •8toce---- •t 1 1 1 1 � sx. /8 '• ,4'/a -ST ',t 7 ~t ./ XWke �t Lor CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 1e,vt of f%rtriivi L.,.vi r Si�.✓S .%i�.� 111✓i •f7 47 E KAN4RS0i94z ' 4CAtt .�srrrre Bees,: fw1,a. 3/63 -sQ Fr. "` Sve►S, Td EsM 7's. - vrrrsac B�o� l�tt �tOt.ee 4.¢?I. of cat, %11 Li/ drvc• a. aj MD. CoNG. -- - 12.32 1 { �iiIAL.0 -� _.._. , e. SO H. S1•3.t-- S coND 57 Go r 1 144 oT'k 4) 1 I5.Oa - - rwli.r, \sr dfsrr 3 0D Ocsr..✓,f./i r Survey Prepared Exclusively For: Lynn and Michael Vanorsdale 9351 Otchipwe Avenue North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 tel; (651) 430-2015 Parcel Description Furnished: (copy of Fidelity Nat'l. Title Ins. Co. Policy Number 5312-68465, supplied by client) THE WEST ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET OF THE NORTH THIRTY TWO (32) FEET OF LOT NUMBER SIX (6). IN BLOCK EIGHTEEN (18) OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN, (NOW CITY) OF STILLWATER, AS SURVEYED AND PLATTED AND NOW OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND STATE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Notes: Orientation of this bearing system is asuumed datum. o Indicates 1113774 iron pipe set. • Indicates iron pipe found. ---DU--- Indicates overhead util. lines inplace. Dimension shown to existing structures are meas.•to the outside building wall line, unless shown or noted otherwise. Note description gap/overlap along the s'ly line of the above desc. parcel with the n'ly line of Commercial Alley, as desc. in Book "V" of Bonds, Pg. 474. Note encroachment of a 30" R.C.P. storm sewer pipe line as shown. This use is not described as to centerline location or r/w width. Underground or overhead public or private utilities on or adjacent the above described parcel were not located in conjunction with e this survey,unless shown or noted otherwise. "M." Indicates measured value. "R." Indicates record value. Utilities serving or crossing the above described parcel are not defined by written easement. The recorded plat of the original Town, now City of Stillwater, is recorded as Doc. No. 416049, Wash. County records. The present orientation of the gravel parking area e'Iy of the above described parcel would req. the use of part of the esmnt., as desc. in Book 271 of Deeds, Page 9 & 10, for access to said park- ing area, as now identified and laid out. Discuss matters and items, as noted and shown hereon, with legal counsel for an opinion on what . steps, if any, that may need to be undertaken to address the same. Nov. 24, 1998 - REVISION NOTE: Added Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets, Prop. Revised Boundary and Prop. sewer easement descriptions. Revised Sheet 1 of 2 Sheets to illustrate details of same. • 1. BMS Sir t eat LorL 1 hereby certify that this survey. plan, or report wis prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Registered Lind Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota, _ Date Oct. 30, 1998 Rcg.Nn 13774 '1.�'Z.^•hair,�'1:v..fu4i,•.?Yl¢'t,%SrGt:'lTit!?GA:�[i-r,K.::.T�+aj.:.:r-^-.�rra�TTw^.:::^.:.;ia�47'�::"�'S:a�1�ii+7:r..'C:ztkln"tea;-v.:a-,:arr:Y7c�:iwT.: rF+aLi'uc�Ycrt.:i lar..'v: °-{- w :x� :�f ..-)� ��!'ir'l•}"L+�I:.1t�xlyiLWit�;x'.Y.:��u.:Y,SiY1�7.0 Y:(=.4T. ,': iv'�T%L['��F. `i�{?�YL3fCOY-iti•::}C':4�.LC/.Tl�.�.�L..l'l:{f{'Oftiif�,isiT.?'fM.RtiR�/A.Fn'F'7i2.5'�{iTIJt411i'd/.S1T�L'1fi..x,.tM'�'!U'iYFji01�1i FCR1':i.:'A:�J:YuC�l'gTJST.ft]M'iJ�iiLiQii4Ji'.'<Y`h AWk1AJ�+W1{Y{f�1iVl�HK.tA0.`�!: - O1/32" = 1._0" 2ND STREET N SITE LAYOUT ST. CROIX RECREATION 217 2ND STREET N EASEMENT THE CROSBY HOTEL COURTYARD THE CROSBY HOTEL L J /////// / COMMERCIAL ALLEY ///////// MAIN STREET CODE REVIEW SUMMARY TN EI/;$ REFER TO SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT BY CINDY SHILTS, BUILDING OFFICIAL DATED OCTOBER 28, 2019. THE HOTEL CROSBY UTILIZES 217 2ND STREET N, (R-1 OCCUPANCY) AS AN AMENITY USE TO THE HOTEL OPERATIONS AND LICENSING. PRIMARY USES ARE HOTEL OPERATION MEETINGS, HOTEL STAFF OFFICE, PRIVATE CONFERENCES, OFFICE OVERFLOW, SOCIAL PRESENTATIONS, SMALL GROUP GUEST GATHERING; THE ORIGINAL OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION IS GROUP B. CHANGE OF USE PER 2015 MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE SHALL BE ASSEMBLY WITH MINOR MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING IN TWO PHASES. PHASE I: TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY COMPLIANCE PHASE II: CHANGE OF USE PERMIT WITH MINOR MONDIFICATIONS CODE INFORMATION OCCUPANCY: GROUP: A-2 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: III-B STORIES: TWO STORIES < 9500 SF / STORY FIRE PROTECTION: PARTIAL NFPA 13 EXITS: MIN. 2 EXITS REQUIRED; TRAVEL DISTANCE < 250 L.F. (TABLE 1016.2) STAIR CONSTRUCTION: STAIR WIDTH 44" PER IBC SECTION 1009.4/TABLE1004.1.2; STAIR RISERS 7" PER IBC SECTION 1009.7.2 ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE Al MAIN ENTRY: ALTERNATIVE METHOD AND MATERIALS (SEE APPLICATION (PHASE II) A2 LOWER ENTRY: NEW LIFT (PHASE II) A3 MAIN LEVEL TOILET MODIFICATION (PHASE II) RE: A5 A4 LOWER LEVEL TOILET MODIFICATION (PHASE II) RE: A5 PLUMBING FIXTURE COUNT (PER TABLE 2902.1) WATER CLOSET: 1 PER 75 LAVATORY: 1 PER 200 DRINKING FOUNTAIN: 1 PER 500 SERVICE SINK: 1 BLUE-PENCIL COLLECTIVE THE STILLS EVENT/MEETING CENTER 226 Myrtle Street E. Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 968-4487 www.bluepencilcollective.com CODE COMPLIANCE PLAN - PHASE II CHRIS DIEBO, MIDNIGHT REAL ESTATE LLC (612) 987-2024 chrisbiebo@comcast.net I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state ofMinnesota. ure: S�'4 Signature. '44^ Typed or Printed Name: Cynthia Marie, AIA Date: 12/11/2019 License Number: #57314 CODE REVIEW SUMMARY Project number Date Drawn by 00034.01 12/11/2019 Author Al Checked by Checker Scale As indicated Copyrighted by BLUE-PENCIL COLLECTIVE 2020 PERMIT #: 2019-00152 SHEET INDEX AO COVER SHEET S1 SITE SURVEY Al CODE COMPLIANCE SUMMARY A2 MAIN LEVEL PLAN A3 LOWER LEVEL PLAN A4 STAIR AND ALCOVE DETAILS A5 RESTROOM DETAILS NOTES: PLEASE ALSO REFER TO 1. PHASE 1 DOCUMENTS DATED 11/20/2019 2. WASHINGTON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT REVIEW: ABBY MILLER SUB -CONTRACTORS ELECTRICAL O'NEILL ELECTRIC, DAN ASHLEY FIRE PROTECTION SUMMIT COMPANIES DOOR HARDWARE ACE LOCK & KEY, CHAD & AL PLUMBING HAUSSNER PLUMBING HVAC ANDERSON HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING GENERAL LABOR AMG MAINTENANCE STAFF BLUE-PENCIL COLLECTIVE THE STILLS EVENT/MEETING CENTER 226 Myrtle Street E. Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 968-4487 www.bluepencilcollective.com CODE COMPLIANCE PLAN - PHASE II CHRIS DIEBO, MIDNIGHT REAL ESTATE LLC (612) 987-2024 chrisbiebo@comcast.net I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature: Typed or Printed Name: Cynthia Marie, AIA Date: 12/11/2019 License Number: #57314 COVER SHEET Project number 00034.01 AO Date 12/11/2019 Drawn by KC Checked by CM Scale 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyrighted by BLUE-PENCIL COLLECTIVE 2020 226 Myrtle Street E. Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 968-4487 www.bluepencilcollective.com Al 18 OMAIN LEVEL PLAN 1 /8" ,1'-0" GROSS SF: 1770 PATH OF EGRESS EXISTING EMERGENCY LIGHT FIXTURES OCCUPANT LOAD BANQUET AREA (1273 SF / 15 NET) STORAGE (94 SF / 200 GROSS) EXISTING SPRINKLER SYSTEM 85 PEOPLE 1 PEOPLE TOTAL OCCUPANTS 86 PEOPLE HAND SINK 59'-0" EXISTING TOILET A:) OPEN TO BELOW BANQUET AREA PLAN NOTES TN REMOVE FLOOR OVER FRAMING FOR NEW STAIR OPENNG REMOVE EXISTING CABLE RAILING GUARDRAIL AND REPLACE PER 31A2 2. COMPLETE FIRE SPRINKLER COMPLIANCE PER SUMMIT COMPANIES LETTER DATED 10/23/2019 8. REMOVE AND REPLACE STAIR SYSTEM PER DETAIL. RE: A5 9. NEW STAIR GUARDRAIL PER 3/A4 12. RELOCATE EMERGENCY EXIT LIGHT WITH BATTERY BACKUP AT NEW ALCOVE 14. NEW ELECTRICAL WORK 15. UPDATE PLUMBING PER 16. UPDATE RESTROOM PER DETAIL 3/A5 17. HVAC: A. INSTALL RESTROOM EXHAUST FAN B. HEATING AND COOLING LOADS: C. VENTILATION CALCULATIONS; 18. NEW ENTRY ALCOVE PER DETAIL 5/A4 19. INSTALL NEW AUDIBLE ALARM EMERGENCY SYSTEM THROUGHOUT 20. REMOTE ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE SYSTEM PER ALTERNATIVE METHOD AND MATERIALS APPLICATIONS (SEE ATTACHMENT) BLUE-PENCIL COLLECTIVE THE STILLS EVENT/MEETING CENTER CODE COMPLIANCE PLAN - PHASE II CHRIS DIEBO, MIDNIGHT REAL ESTATE LLC (612) 987-2024 chrisbiebo@comcast.net I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state ofMinnesota. u Sre: Signnature: Typed or Printed Name: Cynthia Marie, AIA Date: 12/11/2019 License Number: #57314 MAIN LEVEL PLAN Project number Date Drawn by 00034.01 12/11/2019 Author A2 Checked by Checker Scale 1 /8" = 1'-0" Copyrighted by BLUE-PENCIL COLLECTIVE 2020 226 Myrtle Street E. Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 968-4487 www.bluepencilcollective.com LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1 /8" = 1'-0" TOILET, A4 16 58'-0" GROSS SF: 1543 (1113 FINISHED, 430 UNFINISHED) PATH OF EGRESS EXISTING EMERGENCY LIGHT FIXTURES OCCUPANT LOAD OFFICE AREA (705 SF / 100 PPL MECHANICAL/STORAGE (430 SF / 300 PPL) 8 PEOPLE 2 PEOPLE Sim TOTAL OCCUPANTS 10 PEOPLE I II II II II II II 111 II 11 II II II F BI=E =01 PATIO COMMERCIAL ALLEY PLAN NOTES ST. CROIX RECREATION /// • A2 EASEMENT FUTURE LIFT OPTIONS NEW ELECTRIC TO ADA LIFT OPTION 1: NEW ADA CHAIR LIFT MFG: SPECTRUM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PRODUCT: AQUA BUDDY 350 POOL LIFT WITH ANCHORS NOTES: 24" X 49.25" FOOTPRINT W/ 36" X 48" ADA CLEAR SPACE OPTION 2: NEW ADA VERTICAL PLATFORM LIFT MFG: ASCENSION LIFT PRODUCT: PROTEGE NOTES: LIFTS UP TO 42" H; 1 48" X 61" FOOTPRINT; WITH OPTIONAL OUTDOOR USE PACKAGE AND UPPER LANDING GATE PROPERTY LINEtt — COORDINATE WITH XCEL ENERGY FOR REMOVAL OF ABANDONED ELECTRIC POLE EXISTING FENCE 1. INSTALL NEW FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT LOWER LEVEL PER NFPA 13 7. LOWER LEVEL FINISH... 8. REMOVE AND REPLACE STAIR SYSTEM PER DETAIL. RE: A5 14. NEW ELECTRICAL WORK... 16. UPDATE RESTROOM PER DETAIL 4/A5 17. HVAC: A. INSTALL RESTROOM EXHAUST B. HEATING AND COOLING LOADS PER MECHANICAL SUB -CONTRACTOR C. VENTILATION CALCULATIONS PER MECHANICAL SUB -CONTRACTOR D. REMOVE/REINSTALL HVAC PER MN MECHANICAL CODE 18. AT EXISTING SINK INSTALL PLUMBING GUARD 19. NEW FLOOR TRANSITION RAMP 20. REMOVE 32" WIDE (CLEAR) SECTION OF EXISTING PARTITION WALL. INSTALL RAMP TRANSITION. 21. REMOVE EXISTING HANDRAIL L TN el!) BLUE-PENCIL COLLECTIVE THE STILLS EVENT/MEETING CENTER CODE COMPLIANCE PLAN - PHASE II CHRIS DIEBO, MIDNIGHT REAL ESTATE LLC (612) 987-2024 chrisbiebo@comcast.net I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state ofMinnesota. u Sre: Signnature: Typed or Printed Name: Cynthia Marie, AIA Date: 12/11/2019 License Number: #57314 LOWER LEVEL PLAN Project number Date Drawn by 00034.01 12/11/2019 Author A3 Checked by Checker Scale 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyrighted by BLUE-PENCIL COLLECTIVE 2020 PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-65 REPORT DATE: December 11, 2019 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2019 APPLICANT: Mark Grey LANDOWNER: Mark Grey REQUEST: Consideration a 30' variance to the 30' Front Yard Setback for the allowance of a 10'X12' shed. LOCATION: 917 Hickory Street West ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Mark Grey owns the property at 917 Hickory Street West and has installed a prefabricated, 10X20' shed in the required front yard setback of the property. SPECIFIC REQUEST Street View — August, 2013 (Google) The applicant is requesting consideration of a 30' variance to the 30' Front Yard Setback for the allowance of a 10'X12' shed. CPC Case 2019-65 Page 2 of 5 ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. 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; detached accessory structures are permitted in this zoning district. 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 a Front Yard Setback is to have uniform patterned development in the front of properties, keeping unobstructed areas for consistent, uniform street design and adequate onsite infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? If granted, the property would still have ample front yard area and the total accessory structure coverage would not exceed the maximum allowed for the property (of 1,000 square feet or 10% of the lot area, whichever is less). Front Yard View from Hickory Street West — Looking East (2019) CPC Case 2019-65 Page 3 of 5 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. 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 allowance of accessory structure space on a single family lot is reasonable. The owner has indicated the accessory structure will be used to house items needed at the front of the home (a snow blower and a trailer). It is reasonable to allow for easily accessible enclosed accessory structure space. In review of whether other reasonable alternatives exist, the property owner has indicated adding onto the existing garage and/or placement of the shed on the west side of the home is unreasonable. Adding onto the home would, too, require a variance and would be a significant cost. Additionally, there is a large grade change directly to the west and behind the home. Adding to the matter is the location of the existing landscaping and the jagged front property line. The combination of these two things would reduce the property owner's ability to utilize the structure as desired. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? Though the property is significantly larger than average properties in this district, most of the property is located on the sides and in the rear of the home. There is an 18' drop between the front of the property and the rear of the property, making this area less accessible to vehicles. The only easily accessible area on the property is within the Front Yard Setback area. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner did not construct the home on this property. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? This property is at the dead-end of Hickory Street West. Hickory Street, west of Owens Street North, has an 18' wide asphalted area; this is, approximately, one-half of the asphalted width of Hickory Street east of North Owens. With Stonebridge Elementary to the north and accessing only six residential properties, this portion of Hickory Street has the feeling of an alley. Compounding that feeling is the fact that half of the six properties currently have accessory structures in the front or exterior side yard area bordering the Hickory Street right-of-way. CPC Case 2019-65 Page 4 of 5 &As s 22 ff21 The adjacent property, 911 Hickory Street West, has a detached garage located (approximately) 4' off of the Hickory Street right-of-way and located (approximately) 4' from the adjacent property. The addition of another, smaller (in height and footprint) accessory building in this area would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. However, as it currently sits, a portion of the shed sits in front of the garage to the east and appears to be located in the Hickory Street right-of-way. This is not consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The applicant's desire is for accessible accessory structure coverage on the property to enclose personal property. Economic considerations are not a factor. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve: If the Planning Commission finds the Variance is consistent with the standards set forth for the establishment of practical difficulty, the Commission could move to approve the Variance with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2018-54, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The building shall be set back a minimum of 3' from the front and side property lines and shall extend no closer to the north than the front line of the garage at 911 Hickory Street West. 3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the standards set forth for the granting of variances, then the Commission could deny the request in whole or in part. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without CPC Case 2019-65 Page 5 of 5 prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. D. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be tabled. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The purpose of the front yard setback is to help ensure consistent neighborhood design while allowing for infiltration on properties. The unique grade of the property at 917 Hickory Street West limits the ability for the property owner to construct accessory structure coverage anywhere but within the front yard setback area. As the front yard setback area (or exterior side yard setback area) is where the majority of properties on this frontage have constructed accessory structures, permitting a small accessory structure in the front yard of 917 Hickory Street West is reasonable. The existing location set in front of the garage to the east and potentially located on public lands, could alter the essential character of the neighborhood. However, with certain conditions, the proposal does conform to the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff would recommend conditional approval of a 30' variance to the 30' front yard setback for the installation of a 10' by 12' accessory structure with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Aerial Imagery (2) Site Photos (3) cc: Mark & Marissa Grey, via email 901 819 10/30/2019 STILLWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 216 4TH STREET NORTH I STILLWATER MN 55082 We are requesting a variance to allow a shed to be located in our front yard. We have a steeply sloped yard on both sides and the rear, which does not allow sufficient flat surface to locate a shed based on the regulated set -backs. Further, our rear yard is so steeply sloped to accommodate a walk -out basement that we would lose all utility by placing a shed in the rear of the house. We take pride in the appearance of our home and yard and we are buying a beautiful shed that has more of a "home" aesthetic with front door and windows befitting front yard placement. The shed is part of an overall curb appeal improvement of the house as we are also in progress on removing the hard surface asphalt drive and replacing with a grass front yard. Lastly, these changes will have minimal impact on other residents as we are the last home on the dead-end Hickory St. W and our front yard faces the back of Stonebridge Elementary. Our shed will be mostly blocked from view by our neighbor's large garage building which abuts the street (due to our same challenges) and likely predates these ordinances that we are requesting a variance thereof. SINCERELY, MARK & MARISA GREY 917 HICKORY ST W I STILLWATER MN 55082 \or x 1 2f EB C; 1J (%rhoy a.( fo kz r,Mootd �, - - -• 1 iJ f! • rk yy .t .� a i w• • {T .. LrY •�/ '. t• j• �] •...J:.w i r i Jai': •t1y-Yc"1 -� _ • • • r- .• .. I - s a I R ♦ .r~t N:.. w;.��r� �" ; -•1 ,.yp Y •i"i ..y, • -:•S' r.r v ; •�. :.T , .T.'J_ ,.'x��3. }. ' ♦.^ _r• �•• y�y� . ►' - - _ / �. , • r r fa_ t �- ' Y • IS x �a tr'; � s _ - - ' _ ;c l • _ • r . 1 _; ♦.. - f -1x• Rye •. . f .�1r4. .� • - ♦ 54 . ' " . 2 :G' w y� •rp.. •'mot? _ 7M1�4: !-�: r- . s ^s - z. ' ' S ik ... 0. y,- �} a i r r_ Fax�y 4r - - — _ • _ - - i•:iG. �• •� ..• .,. Sr• M+t'►!"- _l •i, yr' _ +. " • Ii. r -« d b• ..tit v• �- • • Y +L . _ ".G ,l• • •a 1. �- •� r'." .74• .♦.y .... .._ ::1 �"a.. •�...�;ya,,))x �.`ter +,. - .� u. :.' _ .i . 1 y .{' - -'!4 _ � ice' :� • _• �_ - t ♦ - v - b•. .4J'" _, r. •• � ):':w r,..• :.' `.}x••�••:t['414'�r 57 '. 411 •• R .. • ;'Sca yx`.iR,�!}" 2 w•iLs_'F'i'i at r / 1 . _ r 0 A iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission December 10, 2019 December 19, 2019 Lee & Amy Williams Lee & Amy Williams CASE NO.: 2019-66 Consideration of variance to the exterior side yard setback, maximum lot coverage and the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings. 2355 Walnut Creek Drive RA: One -Family Residential Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION In November 2019, the Planning Department fielded a complaint regarding a "large shed being built very close to the property line" at 2355 Walnut Creek Drive. Subsequently, a letter was sent to the property owner requesting that either the structure be removed or a variance is applied for. Ultimately, leading to the property owner requesting a variance to the exterior side yard setback. After an analysis of the property it was identified that the property will also need variances for the maximum lot coverage and the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant has made a request for consideration of the following variance: ❖ A 24.5 foot Variance to the exterior side yard setback to allow for a shed to be located 5.5 feet from the exterior side yard lot line, where as 30 feet is required. ❖ A 437 square foot Variance to the maximum lot coverage to allow for 33.56% impervious surface coverage, where 30% is the maximum allowed coverage in this district. ❖ A 36 square foot Variance to the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings to allow for 1036 square feet of lot coverage by accessory buildings, where 1000 square feet is the maximum allowed lot coverage by accessory buildings in this district. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. 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 RA, One -Family Residential. Having a shed, in and of itself, in ones backyard in the RA district is permitted. 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? Exterior side yard setback The specific purpose of the exterior side yard setback is for uniform neighborhood development, to maintain open space between the structure and the public right-of-way, visual appeal and to encourage infiltration around the home. Maximum lot 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. Accessory building lot coverage The specific purpose of the accessory building lot coverage is to prevent properties from becoming overly occupied with accessory structures, allowing properties to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? TIN 20 — Shed 080 "I NS fa CONS 1TO N )40 8000 )ADDITION I 7970 D CMS 7940 SUNSEll RIDGIE EST WALNUT C 355 12335 8075 2315 I 8031 8005 7979 Exterior Side Yard Setback In this unique case a variance to the exterior side yard setback would not be out of harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code, because the public right-of-way is far larger on the side of this property than it is for the properties to the south and across the street to the west. (refer to map on the left). Also important to note, is the verbiage in this section of the code. The Code puts forth that if an accessory structure is entirely in the side yard than the setback is five feet to the "side yard" and rear yard setbacks. However, the City does and has interpreted this section of the Code to refer to interior side yards and not exterior side yards. Maximum lot coverage A variance to the maximum allowed surface coverage is out of harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code. With an already over the limit yard (in coverage), adding any other structures will further reduce the area of unencumbered open space. Alternatively, the ability for adequate storm water infiltration on the property will be minimally affected because the shed is proposed to be propped up allowing the drainage to flow beneath the shed. Accessory building lot coverage A variance to the amount of total lot coverage by accessory buildings would not be out of harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code. The accessory building lot coverage is at such a large number because of the existing attached 3-car garage. The requested variance is insignificant in size and the total square footage of accessory buildings still remains under 10% of the total lot size. I c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of 739 harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the w Comprehensive Plan. The addition of a 200sgft shed does not conflict with the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. IMAGE 2 3. 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 one -family residential neighborhood, is reasonable. Constructing a shed in the backyard of a property located in the RA District 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. Due to three factors it would be very hard to impossible to locate a shed on this property without applying for a variance. First, the property is a corner lot and has a large side yard setback. When totaling all the area of the lot that lies within setbacks, it accounts for 54.5% of the property The second factor is that the house is located in the center of the property, which doesn't allow for a sizable, single and unused piece of the property to lie outside of the required setbacks. Lastly the property is already exceeding the maximum allowed surface coverage, so the construction of any structure, regardless of the size, would require a variance. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? These circumstances were not created by the landowner. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? Typically, such a large shed so close to the side yard lot line, would undoubtedly alter the character of the locality. However, since the public right-of-way is far larger on the side of this property (approximately 57' from the road to the property line) than it is for the properties to the south and across the street to the west (refer to Image 2), the shed does not have any substantial impacts to the neighborhood. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The variance requested does not reflect economic considerations being the lone consideration in this case. As discussed above, in order to put a shed on this property, a variance is inevitable. The property owner has recently added another driver to the family, and in order to free up garage space, they need a storage shed. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variance with the following conditions: 1) Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2019-21. 2) The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 3) No additional impervious surface, of any kind, be added to the property without obtaining the proper permits and/or needed variances. 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 application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of variances to the exterior side yard setback, maximum lot coverage and the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings. Staff does recommend that if the variance is approved that all the conditions stated above be imposed. Attachments: Site Location Map Street View Photos Applicant Narrative Site Plan CC: Lee and Amy Williams 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota Site Location 2355 Walnut Creek Drive 55 110 General Site Location 220 Feet 11/13/2019 °Aauest for Variance related to Violation #: E/2019-77 To whom it may concern, Lee and Amv Williams of 2355 Walnut Creek Dr West (legal description: Lot 1, Block 2, Sunset Ridge Estates, Washington County, Minnesota) are requesting a variance for a shed that we are in the process of building at the northwest corner of our property. During a recent inspection, it was identified that we are out of compliance regarding the setback requirements. After further investigation, we have determined that it is impossible to comply with this requirement and the following explanations will outline the "Practical difficulties" provision: • The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls We are a family of 5 and very active in all things outdoors which equates to an abundance of equipment and miscellaneous materials. With the recent addition of a 3rd driver (our teenager), we quickly outgrew our storage space in the garage. The purpose of the shed is to provide a weatherproof place for storage throughout the year while maintaining adequate space in the attached garage stalls for vehicle storage. • The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are created by the landowner As indicated in the drawing, the 30ft and 25ft setbacks eliminate any opportunity to build in our yard. The house and the lot have been in existence since the early 1990s and we have not made any modifications since moving here from Texas in June 2018. • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood The design (including the roof's slope angle) of the shed is intended to look similar to the house including similar building materials and a complementary color scheme. The foundation of the shed is built on pier and beam at approximately 20in off the ground to allow the natural runoff of water. As homeowners and members of the community, it is our intent that the addition of the shed will increase the overall property value of this house. We appreciate your consideration of this variance request. Sincer , Lee & Amy Williams ti ,,o(1- Y - k o ff+ r'{"u i.r` vim.. ►12- . 1 b t. L4- / 31 b cad 5 urc+ f,,+.4:rs �,csr•• Jam' p\ `` o ay 4 4 co \I.�r i X � �c6,5k-� 37c+ fi 1-ttf) i11wate r THE BRTHLLE OF MNNFOA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-67 REPORT DATE: December 11, 2019 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2019 APPLICANT: Jerilyn and Eric Jackson LANDOWNER: Jerilyn and Eric Jackson REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Type C Short Term Home Rental LOCATION: 1313 Martha Street North ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Jerilyn and Eric Jackson own the single-family residence at 1313 Martha St North, situated slightly south of Sycamore St W and slightly north of Saint Croix Ave W. The property owners would like to utilize the property as a Type C 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 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 1313 Martha Street North. Case No. 2019-67 Page 2 ANALYSIS The purpose of conditionally permitted uses is to allow the integration of essential or desirable uses which may be suitable only in certain zoning districts or designed or arranged on a site in a certain manner. In approving a Conditional Use Permits, it must be determined by the Planning Commission that: • The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations; • Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; and • The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 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 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. Case No. 2019-67 Page 3 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 a lengthy driveway with two spaces off of the driveway. 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. The applicants have indicated the maximum number of guests is six. 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. In this case, the property owners, Jerilyn and Eric Jackson, reside just north of city limits roughly ten minutes away. Their 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. In their submitted Guest Disclosure, the applicants have stated that events aren't allowed. D. Proof of Insurance Proof of appropriate and sufficient insurance was submitted with the use permit application form. Case No. 2019-67 Page 4 E. Safety Inspection The applicant has passed all necessary inspections that were perfoiiiied by City Building Department staff 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. This limit has not been reached. MARTHA ST N POSSIBLE ACTIONS • SYCAMORE ST W SAINT COX AVE W 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. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2019-67, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Parking — All guest parking must occur on the subject property; none on the street. Case No. 2019-67 Page 5 3. 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 7 guests will be allowed. 4. 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 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. 5. Garbage - As required by City Code, all garbage must be kept in rubbish containers that are stored out of view of a public street. 6. Signage — No signage identifying the Short Term Home Rental is allowed on the property. 7. 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. 8. Length of guest stay — The property is not permitted to be rented for a period of less than one whole day. 9. 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. 10. 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: a. The name, phone number and address of the owner, operating or managing agent/representative. b. The maximum number of overnight guests on the property at a time is limited to fifteen. c. All guest parking must occur on the property. No guest parking is allowed on the street. d. Property rules related to use of outdoor features, such as decks, patios, grills, recreational fires, saunas and other recreational facilities. e. City nuisance ordinances will be enforced by the Stillwater Police Department, including reduced noise levels between 10 PM and 8 AM. f. No events with more than three unregistered guests are permitted. 11. 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. 12. 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 Case No. 2019-67 Page 6 be submitted to the city stating that no sales were made or lodging tax collected during that quarter. 1. Table If the Planning Commission finds the request to have incomplete information, the case could be tabled. 2. 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. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The STHR 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 of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the CUP with the conditions listed in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Location Map Guest disclosure Site Plan Floorplans cc: Jerilyn and Eric Jackson The Birthplace of Minnesota Site Location 1313 Martha St N GUEST DISCLOSURE Welcome to our home. We hope your stay here in Stillwater is wonderful! As our guests and guests of the community, we are happy to have you with us and would like to point out that your stay may be more enjoyable for everyone if you keep the following in mind: 1. Our names are Jerilyn and Eric Jackson. Our primary residence is at 10560 Norwood Ave. N. Stillwater. We can be reached at 651-491-5923. 2. Six guests are allowed on this property. 3. Three vehicles is the maximum number allowed on this property. Parking is allowed on the pavement in back of the house and in the driveway. 4. No outdoor fires allowed on the property. 5. City noise ordinances will be enforced by the Stillwater Police Department, including reduced noise levels between 10 AM and 8 PM. 6. No events are allowed to be hosted on the premises. That means that no more than three unregistered guests can gather on the property. 7. Useful telephone numbers i. Jerilyn and Eric Jackson 651-491-5923 ii. Fire department (non -emergency) 651-351-4950 iii. Police department (non -emergency) 651-351-4900 8.Useful websites i. Stillwater Convention and Visitor's Bureau http://www.discoverstillwater.com/ ii. Stillwater Independent Business Association http://mainstreestillwateriba.com/ iii. Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce http://greaterstillwaterchamber.com/ cvr '. (1 A> . c..LE v CaANLk)il�t`v Siff WALL SaUiR O t3tel r 271' fX \ha f•,,. K TiI CLoT. C 1 e iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission REPORT DATE: December 11, 2019 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2019 APPLICANT: Rob Anderson All Poolside Services Inc LAND OWNER: Tiffany Parr REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to locate a swimming pool and the associated appurtenances in the interior side yard. LOCATION: 120 Wilkins Street West ZONING: RB: Two -Family Residential PREPARED BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director CASE NO.: 2019-68 INTRODUCTION The property owner is proposing to put in a 20' X 40' pool at 120 Wilkins Street West. The property is a corner lot that essentially has no back yard. Therefore, the property owner is requesting a variance to locate the pool in the interior side yard of the property. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant has made a request for consideration of a variance to City Code Section 33-2. Subd. 13. for the following: • To locate a pool and the associated appurtenances in the interior side yard, whereas pools are required to be located in the rear yard. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. 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. Having a pool in the RB district is permitted. 2. 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. Constructing a swimming pool in the expansive interior side yard 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. This property is a sizable 30,002 square feet, however the house is situated so far back from the street that there is little to no backyard. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? These circumstances were not created by the landowner. The house was located in this rear portion of the property long before the house was obtained by the current property owner. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The pool is proposed to be located behind the front line of the house, which is roughly 50 feet from the front property line. Additionally, the house is on a hill and the property slopes upward when looking from the street towards the direction of the proposed pool. It is the belief of the Planning Department that these two factors will not make the at grade pool visually impactful to the surrounding neighborhood. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The variance requested does not reflect economic considerations being the lone consideration in this case. As discussed above, since locating the pool in the rear yard is not possible, the side yard is the only feasible option (other than the front yard, which would not be a suggested location). 3. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 211 What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The requirement to allow for pools in the rear yard is to prevent them from being installed in the front of residences and thereby disrupting the traditional front -yard pattern of neighborhoods. 28. 1 I a. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The proposed variance will not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code because the pool will be set back at a substantial distance from the front lot line. Additionally the pool will also remain 34 feet from the interior lot line. The location of the proposed pool is in agreement with the intent of the Zoning Code. b. 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 variance with the following conditions: 1) Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2019-68. 2) A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 3) Any future installation of fencing will need a Fence Permit approved by the Planning Department. 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 allow a swimming pool and its associated appurtenances to be located in the interior side yard. Staff does recommend that if the variance is approved that all the conditions stated above be imposed. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative / Site Plan CC: Rob Anderson Tiffany Parr The Birthplace of Minnesota Site Location 120 Wilkins St W Property Address: 120 Wilkins St W Stillwater, MN 55082 Property Owner: Tiffany Parr The property owner desires to construct an in -ground pool on the property. The home was built in 1868 on top of a hill on 0.69 acres. The home is located on the corner of Wilkins St W and 4th St. The home is positioned on the northwest side of the lot. The lot does not have space behind the home for a pool where current zoning permits a pool. The property owner requests permission to construct a pool in the side, rear yard. The property owner will construct the pool 24' from the home, 25' from the north property line, and 34' from the east property line. The pool equipment will be 10' from the property line. This location will be on top of a hill minimizing the view from the street. The fence will be black wrought iron consistent with the historic neighborhood. Legal Description: ALL THAT PT LTS 2-3 BLK 12 BND AS FOLL BEG AT PT ON 5 LN SD LT 3 100FT W OF SE COR THER OF THN NLY & PARL WITH E LN SD LTS 2-3 150FTTO PT 100FT W OF E LN SD LT 2 THN WLY & PARL WITH S LN SD LT 2 SOFT TO W LN SD LT 2 THN SLY ALG W LN SD LTS & PARL WITH E LN SD LTS 150FT TO S LN SD LT 3 THN ELY ALG S LN SD LT 3 SOFT TO POB & ALSO LT 4 & 51/2 LT 5 SD BLK SubdivisionName CARLI AND SCHULENBURG'S ADD TO STILLWATER Lot 2 Block 12 SubdivisionCd 09270 a N t Black wrought ✓ � iron fence consistent with historic neighborhood Pool is 25' from the north property line Pool Equipment is 10' from property line Wilkins St W Pool is located on top ofahill and set back from Wilkins St W to minimize visibility from the street liwater THE B I R T H PLACE OE M I H N E 0 r A PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-64 December 5, 2019 December 19th, 2019 City of Stillwater Fairway Dev LLC Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) to rezone the property to RA — One Family Residential zoning district. 602-608 Heritage Place (Lots 1-7, Block 1, and Outlot A, Heritage Ridge) RB, Two Family Residential Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND On September 5, 2017 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-163 approving a preliminary plat (CPC Case No. 2017-14) for Heritage Ridge (formerly known as Hazel Place). A condition of approval was that "the entire property shall be rezoned to RA — One Family Residential prior to the issuance of a building permit". The Heritage Ridge final plat (CPC Case No. 2018-45) was approved on August 21, 2018 with the City Council's approval of Resolution No. 2018-180. SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) to rezone Heritage Ridge properties to RA — One Family Residential (RA). REQUEST ANALYSIS Prior to approving a rezoning, the Commission must find that • 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. Case No. 2019-64 Page 2 of 3 Though there is no formal definition in the City Code, the intent of the RA district is to outright allow for single family residences and their accessory uses. The district is generally reserved for single living units and not for multiple families or commercial ventures. When the property was proposed for redevelopment in 2017/2018, concern was raised regarding the existing two-family land use allowance. Concerns were two -fold: • First, Heritage Place is a cul-de-sac located off of the dead-end Hazel Street West. The City limits the length of cul-de-sacs and dead-end roads to help reduce the amount of residents impacted in a public safety emergency. New properties in this neighborhood will result in additional residents. By reducing the total density of the development, the city is assured a lesser number of residents would be impacted in event Hazel Street West and/or Heritage Place access are blocked for any reason. • Second to that is the fact that the predominant land use within one -quarter mile of Heritage Ridge is single family residential. The allowance of multiple families on these lots was determined to be inconsistent with the prevailing neighborhood development pattern. During the review of the preliminary and final plats the Planning Commission and City Council directed staff to incorporate the low -density land use requirement into the updated comprehensive plan. On November 5, 2019 the City Council adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan by approving Resolution No. 2019-129. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides those properties on Heritage Place for Low Density Residential Development. The RA — One Family Residential zoning district is consistent with the future land use map's Low Density Residential (LDR) designation. LDR is defined as having a density of 1-4.4 units per acre. The RA district, with one quarter -acre lots, is consistent with the updated Comprehensive Plan. 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 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 As noted, it is a public necessity to ensure land uses are consistent with, or compatible to, their surroundings. More so, however, it is a public necessity to limit the amount of residents potentially affected in public safety situations. With the Heritage Place cul-de-sac located at the end of the dead-end Hazel Street West, less dwelling units will result in less residents impacted Case No. 2019-64 Page 3 of 3 in a public safety situation. Staff finds the general community welfare will be furthered by rezoning the properties in Heritage Ridge. Additionally, staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission move to make a favorable recommendation of approval of the rezoning of 602-608 Heritage Place to RA — Single Family Residential. Attachments: Site Location Map Draft Ordinance 2020 cc: Sterling Black, Fairway Dev LLC (via email) 0 POPLAR STRE The Birthplace of Minnesota Site Location Map ifLil Heritage Ridge Parcels 125 250 500 Feet ORDINANCE 2020 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31, ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE RB - TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BY ADDING THEM TO THE RA - ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain: Section 1. The zoning of the subject properties, location of which are legally described as: Lots 1-7, Block 1, Heritage Ridge Outlot A, Heritage Ridge is hereby amended to RA, One Family Residential. This proceeding is known as Planning Case No. 2019-64. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after publication according to law. Section 3. In all other ways the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and effect. Adopted by the City Council this 21st day of January, 2020. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk