The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-01-22 CPC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North January 22nd, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of December 19th, 2019 regular meeting minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 2. Case No. 2019-69: Consideration of Special Use Permit amendment for the property located at 123 2nd St N. Judd Sather representing Frederick Real Estate Group, LLC, property owner. 3. Case No. 2019-70: Consideration of a Variance for the minimum width lot depth for the property located 7960 Minar Ave N. Jeffrey and Patricia Pratt, property owners. 4. Case No. 2019-72: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for a coffee shop on the property located at 209 Main St S. Happy Bridge, property owner and Michael Herman, applicant. 5. Case No. 2019-73: Consideration of a Variance to build a garage exceeding 1000sf. on the property located at 615 Broadway St S. Reid and Julie Miller, property owner. VI. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION VII. FYI – STAFF UPDATES – (NO PACKET MATERIALS) VIII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 19, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Kocon, Meyhoff; Councilmember Collins Absent: Commissioners Hade and Hansen Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of November 27, 2019 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve the minutes of the November 27, 2019 meeting. Motion passed 4-0-1 with Commissioner Dybvig abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Resolution CPC 2019-01: Adopting Findings of Fact for CPC Case No. 2019-46 Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adopt the Consent Agenda. Motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. Ms. Wittman stated that during construction of the Hotel Crosby, Midnight Real Estate LLC used the property at 217 2nd Street North as a construction headquarters. After the opening of the hotel, the building was converted from the office space into a mixed use building for guests of the hotel to hold 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. Hotel Crosby has applied for a Special Use Permit for a multi-use facility to include shared office space and private event rental space, including an outdoor patio; and 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. 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 difficulty as the circumstances were a direct result of the owner’s conversion. 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 and 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 Planning Commission December 19, 2019 Page 2 of 5 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 a 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. Comments from the neighbor were received stating they would not support anything being on their property. Staff recommends approval of a Special Use Permit for a multi-use facility to include shared office space and private event rental space with 14 conditions; and approval of a variance to allow for 96.5% maximum lot coverage on the site. Anne Loff, Midnight Real Estate LLC, stated that a portion of the patio lies within the easement but they are working on conformance and will not continue to block the easement area. Commissioner Dybvig asked about the timeline for a new plan to show how the patio will be moved, how much of the asphalt will be removed and where the drainage will be. Ms. Loff replied they do not think they will have to remove asphalt. There is an area on the other side of the patio that can meet the requirements of the infiltration. They have a couple of options for meetings those requirements. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dybvig commented that he would prefer to table the application until there are more detailed plans for the size and location of the patio and lift. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig to table Case No. 2019-63, Special Use Permit and Variance to operate the property at 217 2nd St N as an event space. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Chairman Lauer, to approve Case No. 2019-63, Special Use Permit and Variance to operate the property at 217 2nd St N as an event space, with the 14 staff- recommended conditions. Motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Dybvig voting nay. 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. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. The applicant has installed a prefabricated, 10X20’ shed in the required front yard setback of the property. He is requesting a 30’ variance to the 30’ front yard setback to allow the 10’ x 12’ shed to remain. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dybvig pointed out there are two shed applications on the agenda. The other application has a condition that requires consistency of the style and trim with the existing house. He would like to add that condition to this application to get the color to match that of the house. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2019-65, Variance to build a shed on the property located at 917 Hickory St W, with the three conditions recommended by staff and adding Condition #4 that the siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. Motion passed 5-0. 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. Planning Commission December 19, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Ms. Wittman stated that 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. A letter was sent to the property owner requesting that either the structure be removed or a variance be applied for. The property owner applied for a variance to the exterior side yard setback. Analysis of the property revealed that the property will also need variances for the maximum lot coverage and the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings. The applicant has applied for: 1) 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; 2) 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; and 3) 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. Staff recommends approval of variances to the exterior side yard setback, maximum lot coverage and the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings, with five conditions. Commissioner Kocon asked how the right-of-way area came to be so large. Ms. Wittman replied Neal Avenue will be widened in 2020. The City has been acquiring ROW for many years to expand the roadway. The street project will make the building closer to the roadway, a hardship not created by the property owner. Commissioner Kocon commented that the shed appears very tall. He reminded the applicant this is an after-the-fact application. Amy Williams, applicant, stated they were unaware of the setback restrictions and believed they were in compliance. The shed appears tall because it is on a raised foundation to avoid runoff in the backyard. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Ron Johnson, 2360 Walnut Creek Drive, spoke in support of the project, adding that the widening of Neal Avenue will still allow a buffer from the road and trail. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Ms. Wittman noted that the City zoning code for the RA District states that an accessory structure should have a minimum setback of five feet. The code does not differentiate between interior and exterior sideyard so clarification is needed. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Councilmember Dybvig, to approve Case No. 2019-66, Variances associated with building a 10x20 shed on the property located at 2355 Walnut Creek Dr W with the five staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-0. 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. City Planner Wittman explained that the property owners have applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Type C Short Term Home Rental. 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. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Planning Commission December 19, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2019-67, Conditional Use Permit to operate a Short Term Home Rental at 1313 Martha St N, with the 12 conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 5-0. 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. City Planner Wittman stated that the property owner is requesting a variance to locate a 20’ X 40’ pool in the interior side yard of the property, whereas pools are required to be located in the rear yard. Staff recommends approval of the variance with four conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve Case No. 2019-68, Variance to construct an in-ground pool on the property located at 120 Wilkins St W, with the four staff- recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2019-64: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment for Heritage Ridge. Property located at 1902 William St N. City of Stillwater, applicants. City Planner Wittman stated that on September 5, 2017 the City Council approved a preliminary plat 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 final plat was approved on August 21, 2018. The applicant is now requesting a Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) to rezone Heritage Ridge properties to RA – One Family Residential (RA). The owner’s representative, Sterling Black, supports this action. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and therefore recommends the Planning Commission move to make a favorable recommendation of approval to the City Council. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. James Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, said he is very relieved that there will finally be a resolution to this battle that is in keeping with the neighborhood. He supports the rezoning to RA. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2019-64, Zoning Map Amendment for Heritage Ridge located at 1902 William St N, with the 10 staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2019-25: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to amend the city Sign code. City of Stillwater, applicant.--Tabled by applicant. City Planner Wittman stated that the applicant requested that Case No. 2019-25, Zoning Text Amendment to amend the city Sign code, be tabled. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Norman Quacks Planning Commission December 19, 2019 Page 5 of 5 Ms. Wittman notified the Commission that the Norman Quacks variance denial has been appealed to the City Council by the applicant. FYI STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. All in favor, 5-0. Chris Lauer, Chair ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-69 REPORT DATE: January 16, 2020 MEETING DATE: January 22, 2020 APPLICANT: Judd Sather LANDOWNER: Frederick Real Estate Group LLC REQUEST: Consideration of a Special Use Permit amendment to allow for the building at 123 2nd Street North to keep trash outdoors LOCATION: 123 2nd Street North DISTRICT: Central Business District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Judd Sather owns the building at 123 2nd Street North. The building is commonly referred to as the former Connolly Shoe Factory. A Special Use Permit and several amendments have been approved for the property over the years. One of the conditions that appears in use permit and its amendments is that all trash containers have to be stored indoors. However, over the course of this last year, property owners and business owners on Main and 2nd Street North adjacent to the alley between Myrtle and Commercial Street (sometimes referred to as Union Alley) organized to clean up the alley. A proposal to consolidate the dozen (plus) trash and recycling containers in the alley, with a business cooperative utilizing two sets of trash and recycling roll-off containers as well as one grease trap, has been proposed to the City Council (as these Case no. 2019-69 Page 2 facilities would be located on public land). The consortium has worked with a licensed trash hauler to pick up the trash, four times a week, and bill the businesses an agreed percentage (based on current use). Businesses in the building at 123 2nd Street North would like to utilize this cooperative trash program. When the first Use Permit request (CPC Case No. 2014-38) for the building came before the Planning Commission, the City was concerned with the large amount of waste that would be accumulated by the large event center. At the time of the Use Permit approval, the building’s floor plan included a trash storage room; a condition of approval was place on the original Use Permit that trash would be stored inside or in an onsite enclosure, only to be outside on trash collection day. Subsequent amendments to the Use Permit (i.e. CPC Cases 2015-19, 2018-15 and 2019-11) included this same condition of approval. However, existing use permits for businesses in the building require all trash to be stored inside the building or in an onsite enclosure. Therefore, Mr. Sather hopes the Planning Commission will allow his Special Use Permits to be amended again by allowing him and his tenants to participate in the consortium’s cooperative trash program. SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of a Special Use Permit amendment to allow the 123 2nd Street North building and its tenants to participate in the cooperative trash agreement for the 100 block of Main Street North. ANALYSIS The trash consolidation plan appears to be a win-win. It would reduce the total number of trash cans in the alley. While this alley has historically been utilized for storage of these containers, there presence has become a nuisance in the past several years. First, this alleyway is only 16’ wide, making the area hard to keep free of snow and ice. During the winter months, city Public Works personnel have greater difficulty navigating around the bins to keep the alley clean. Secondly, a reduced number of trash and recycling facilities in this alley would help promote a cleaner alley, limiting the area of potential spillage two only two locations. Lastly, if property owners are willing to sign an agreement for the maintenance and upkeep of these areas, there are less chances the areas around the containers will have debris. This will not only improve the cleanliness of this public alley, it will reduce the potential for stormwater contamination. As noted, allowing the building at 123 2nd Street South to participate in the program would be in violation of the approved use permits. This is because the building and its tenants would be utilizing Case no. 2019-69 Page 3 public lands for their trash storage. The volume of trash and recycling produced from the users in this building represent 33% of the total volume produced; without their participation in the program, the total number of weekly pickups would not be as high, there is not as much of a cost benefit to the other users, and it is likely there would be a Saturday pickup. In essence, without the participation of the building at 123 2nd Street North, it is unlikely the consolidation program would come to fruition. When considering use permit approval the City Code requires the Planning Commission consider whether or not: the proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations; any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; and that the use will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The original proposal, keeping the trash inside the building, fulfilled these requirements. So, too, does allowing the building to participate in the consolidation program if the building owner is willing to enter into agreement with the city to help maintain the area, free and clear of debris. In other words, the request is not in conflict with the findings necessary to grant the amendment. That said, there is concern that, if the City outright removes the original permit approval condition and the consolidation program goes away, that a high volume of trash and recycling will be added to the public way. This would create a situation where there would be excess containers in the alley. One solution to this would be the City not remove the original condition approval but, rather, amend the Use Permit by adding a new condition that requires trash to be in the building unless the City has approved a consolidation program and the owner has entered into agreement with the City for the upkeep of the area. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested Special Use Permit amendment with the addition of the following condition: 1. The property owner may enter into agreement with the City to use the alleyway for trash and recycling needs. If no agreement is in place, the property owner and its tenants shall keep trash inside as per the conditions of approval of all previously-approved Use Permits. B. Deny the requested Use Permit amendment. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the Use Permit amendment request by adding an additional condition of approval to previously-issued Use Permits for the building located at 123 2nd Street North. Attachments: Site Location Map cc: Judd Sather (via email) E A S T M Y R T L E S T R E E TSOU TH SECOND STREETSTATE HWY 95SO MAI N STA L L E Y C O M M E R C IA L A V E N U E SO UNI ON STALLEYALLEYBURLI NGTONNORTH WATERSTS T A T E H W Y 3 6 200 232 200 102 212 220 123 124 201 101 242 221 130 251 113 110 102 108 103 102 204 106 225 226 270 101 132 225 223 218 212 127 220 219 217 125 222 109 114 112 217 212 224 201 120 221 124 131 308 µ 0 140 28070Feet General Site Location Site Location 123 2nd St N ^ PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-70 REPORT DATE: January 14, 2020 MEETING DATE: January 22, 2020 Parks & Recreation Commission: January 27, 2020 City Council: February 18, 2019 APPLICANT: Jeffrey & Patricia Pratt LANDOWNER: Jeffrey & Patricia Pratt REQUEST: Variance to the minimum lot depth LOCATION: 7960 Minar Avenue North COMPREHENSIV PLAN: Very Low Density Residential ZONING DISTRICT: Rural Residential REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Jeffrey and Patricia Pratt have submitted a request to subdivide their 2.50 acre homestead lot at 7960 Minar Avenue North into two lots. As the property has been previously platted, a request for a resubdivision is not required to be heard by the Planning Commission. However, the depth of one of the lots does not meet minimum requirements. So, the Planning Commission must hear the request for this variance. SPECIFIC REQUEST Specifically, the Pratts have requested the City approve the following: 7960 Minar Avenue (Google Maps – August, 2013) CPC Case No. 2019-70 Page 2 1. Variance of 48’ to the minimum 300’ minimum lot depth requirement in the RR – Rural Residential zoning district. ANALYSIS Lot depth means the average horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines. The minimum lot depth required for property in the RR – Rural Residential district is 300’. The minimum lot depth of the property cannot be met with the proposed subdivision. Thus, the applicant has requested consideration of a variance prior to the Council’s consideration of the resubdivision. 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 RR, Rural Residential. If the variance is approved, it would allow for the granting of a resubdivision. A resubdivision, for the addition of another single family residence in this neighborhood, is reasonable. 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 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 300’ minimum lot depth requirement is to help ensure large lot sizes in this more rural neighborhood and can help provide separation between adjacent homes. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? At the time the RR district regulations were put into place, the existing property did not conform to the minimum 300’ requirement; the property only has 283’ of lot depth. This was a one-off fluke as nearly all other properties in the district due conform to this minimum standard. That said, the property (including those to be potentially created) will continue to meet the minimum (large) lot size (of one acre). Additionally, the property backs city-owned Boutwell Park land. Separation to other structures near the rear of the property is not a concern. Proposed (Re)subdivision CPC Case No. 2019-70 Page 3 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 use of the property for single family residences is reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? This property does not conform to the City’s newly-developed 300’ minimum lot depth whereas the other properties in the neighborhood do. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The landowner did not create the circumstances as they did not plat the existing parcel nor were they responsible for the development of the existing RR district regulations. Furthermore, the 300’ minimum lot depth was not a requirement in Stillwater Township. Therefore, the City imposed greater restriction on this property than what was granted for this property prior to the City’s annexation. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? As the existing lot depth is already less than the minimum allowable depth, the granting of this variance for the potential lot split would not be out of character with the neighborhood. A second home could be placed within all required setbacks on a lot that meets the minimum land area requirement. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The variance requested does not reflect economic considerations being the lone consideration in this case. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has several alternatives: A. If the Planning Commission finds the request is consistent with the standards set forth for granting variances, the Commission may move to approve the variance with or without conditions. B. Table the request for more information. C. If inconsistent with the standards set forth for the issuance of variances, the Commission should move to deny the request. CPC Case No. 2019-70 Page 4 RECOMMENDATIONS Staff finds the request conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of variances. Therefore, City staff recommends approval of a 48’ variance to the 300’ minimum lot depth for the future subdivision of 7960 Minar Avenue. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request cc Jeffrey and Patricia Pratt MORGAN AVENUE NORTHAVENUENORTHMI NARNORTH M O R G A N AV E N BO UTWELL FARM ROAD 7959 7879 7960 7880 7819 12744 7790 8060 12764 8055 127242570 7770 8045 7760 2585 2580 8160 2540 8170 81108140813081508120 8077 2560 2550 2555 254525752565 7789 µ 0 230 460115Feet General Site Location Site Location 7960 Minar Ave N ^ From:Jeff Pratt To:Abbi Wittman Subject:Pratt Property Request for Variance Date:Friday, January 03, 2020 10:19:00 AM Hi Abbi Thanks for your time today. Let me know if you have any suggestions or if I should change anything. Our one acre lot split will be used in a Reasonable Manner as shown on Certificate of Survey which lays out the new lot the best way we thought possible considering a tree line that we planted years ago for this purpose. Our plight is that Minar Ave N hugs our side of the road which then creates a much smaller property boundary on the northside of our property. Our properties north boundary is smaller than many others in our development. Years ago planning when we planned for a lot split, Stillwater Township did not have the regulations that are now used by the City of Stillwater, that is why we laid out the way we did. If the variance is granted it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Patti and I believe the proposed survey will be a much better lot shape then if we had to move the property line for the new lot which would create an odd shaped lot. Thank You Jeff & Patti Pratt PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-72 REPORT DATE: January 15, 2020 APPLICANT: Michael Herman LANDOWNER: Happy Bridge, LLC REQUEST: Special Use Permit to convert portion of 209 Main Street South to a Coffee Shop LOCATION: 209 Main Street South ZONING: CBD, Central Business District REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Michael Herman is planning to lease 209 Main Street South for use as a coffee shop and electric bike rental shop. The two businesses will be known as Greenbridge Coffee and Mike’s Electric Bikes. The most recent use of the space was for the retail store known as Life is Good. The second floor of the building is used as vacation rental space and will continue to be used that way. Main Street view (209 S Main is left half of bldg.) Water Street view SPECIFIC REQUEST Special Use Permit to operate a coffee shop at 209 South Main Street. Greenbridge Coffee Shop Page 2 ANALYSIS The subject property is zoned CBD, Central Business District. The electric bike rental shop is a retail use and is permitted by right. But, restaurants and coffee shops1 need a Special Use Permit2 in this zoning district. The Main Street portion of the building, which is seen on the left side of floor plan below, is planned to be Greenbridge Coffee. The seating area for the coffee shop is outlined in red. The Water Street portion of the building, outlined in green, would be for Mike’s Electric Bikes. Floor Plan – Main Street entrance on left and Water Street on right Zoning and Location Map 1 The footnote to “restaurant” explains that a restaurant includes a number of related food/beverage service establishments. One of these is the sale and consumption of beverages of all kinds. 2 City Code Ch 31-325 Greenbridge Coffee Shop Page 3 Sec. 31-207(d) of the City Code states that a Special Use Permit can be approved by the Planning Commission, if the Planning Commission determines that: (1) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans. Zoning Ordinance Parking - If there is an increased parking load generated by changing the use of any property in Downtown Stillwater, and that load increase is more than four parking spaces, then on-site parking spaces must be provided or a mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission3. Given the space limitations on historic properties downtown, expanding and new businesses cannot typically provide sufficient on-site parking. For this and other reasons, the City has created a downtown parking district, which allows for what the Zoning Ordinance calls “alternative provisions” for parking. Essentially the alternative provisions are either to lease nearby private spaces, or if sufficient convenient parking spaces are available, to rely on the public parking system. A third alternative is also possible, which is to grant a variance to the parking requirement. The third alternative has not been approved by the City since the early 2000s. According to the parking requirements table in the City Code’s Zoning Chapter, the current parking load for the ground level of this property is 11 spaces4. The proposed coffee shop and electric bike rental uses will generate a parking load of 14 spaces5. The increased parking load is 3 spaces. Since an increase of 4 spaces is allowed before additional parking is required, no parking variance or parking mitigation plan is necessary. Comprehensive Plan The proposed downtown coffee shop and bike rental is consistent with the goals identified in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Downtown Plan Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan promotes a mix of uses that cater to both residents and visitors, aspiring to make Stillwater a desirable place to live, work, shop, recreate and visit. Additionally, the Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan states envisions providing jobs in close proximity to housing and with convenient access, which may include transit. (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. 3 City Code Sec 31-510, Subd 1 (d)(4) Parking requirements for nonconforming structures or uses. [“Nonconforming” in this sense means that the property does not meet the minimum number of parking spaces required for the existing uses.] In the case of structures in any district, which are reconstructed, enlarged, structurally altered, changed in occupancy to a more intensive use category or otherwise increased in capacity, off-street parking shall be provided only for that portion of structures or use constituting the increase in capacity; except that no additional parking need be provided for nonresidential uses, if the increased capacity results in an increase of four or fewer off-street parking spaces. 4 2,216 sf of retail at 1/200 sf = 11.08 spaces. The bathroom and mechanical room are not counted in the retail area. 5 790 sf of restaurant area at 1/120 = 6.58 spaces. 2 spaces for the food preparation area. 1,130 sf of bike rental area at 1/200 = 5.65 spaces. This is a total of 14.23 spaces. Greenbridge Coffee Shop Page 4 Miscellaneous  Except for signage, no exterior changes are proposed for the building. The signage will require review by the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to installation. If in the future any exterior changes are planned, they will require review and approval by the Heritage Preservation Commission as well.  Any interior changes will require approval by City fire and building personnel before the issuance of a building permit.  All changes to the plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission and/or Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval as appropriate.  Prior to opening the coffee shop, the owner of the coffee shop must enter into an access and maintenance agreement for the nearest City owned trash enclosure on Water Street. No outside storage of trash or grease will be allowed except in a City owned trash enclosure.  Property owners are responsible for keeping the public spaces adjacent to their businesses (essentially these are the sidewalks on Main Street and Water Street) clear of trash, cigarette butts and other debris.  No outdoor seating is proposed for this business, nor will it be permitted either on Main Street or Water Street. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.  Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied. POSSIBLE ACTIONS A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the Special Use Permit consistent with the provisions of the SUP process, the Commission could approve the Special Use Permit with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 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. 2019-72, except as may be modified by the conditions herein. 3. Prior to the commencement of any exterior work, including the installation of lighting, signage, new windows, mechanical equipment, and doors and/or demolition, a Design Permit request shall be submitted and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 4. Any changes to the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 5. Prior to opening the coffee shop, the owner of the coffee shop must enter into an access and maintenance agreement for the nearest City owned trash enclosure on Water Street. No outside storage of trash or grease will be allowed except in a City owned trash enclosure. Greenbridge Coffee Shop Page 5 6. The business owner or property owner must keep the sidewalk adjacent to the business on both Main Street and Water Street clear of trash, cigarette butts and other debris. B. Table. If the Planning Commission finds the request to have incomplete information, the case could be tabled. C. Denial. If the Planning Commission finds the request to be inconsistent with the provisions set forth for Special Use Permits, it could be denied. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed uses conform to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit for a coffee shop at 209 South Main Street, with the six conditions identified above. bt PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2019-73 REPORT DATE: January 9, 2020 MEETING DATE: January 22, 2020 APPLICANT: Reid Miller LAND OWNER: Reid & Julie Miller REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance for a 1060 square foot garage LOCATION: 615 Broadway Street South ZONING: RB: Two-Family Residential PREPARED BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION The property owner is proposing to construct a 1,060 sf garage at 615 Broadway Street South. The construction of this house, along with a garage, was approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Originally the approved design was permitted by the Building Inspections department for a 650 square foot 2-car garage, however the applicant is now proposing to build a 1,060 sf garage in which around 60% of it will be tucked under the backside of the house. On the property there currently exists a porte-cochere (drive through “carport”) over the driveway, which is used as a drop-off area. The City has taken the opinion that this 298 sf structure is an accessory (garage) structure and is included in the tallying of the total coverage of accessory buildings. Therefore, the city holds the view that adding a 1,060 sf garage will bring the total lot coverage of accessory buildings to 1,358. Conversely, it has been put forth by the applicants that because this building will not be used to store vehicles (or anything else) and is just a drop off location1, that it should not be considered in the total count of accessory building square footage. 1 Moreover, the applicants have explained that at no point in the future would cars be able to semi -permanently park under the porte-cochere because it would block the one-lane driveway, prohibiting cars from entering and exiting the property. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant has made a request for consideration of a variance to City Code Section 31-308. (a). (3). i. for the following:  A 358 sf variance to the 1,000 sf maximum accessory structure coverage, to construct a 1,060 square foot garage and a 298 sf porte-cochere, for a total accessory structure coverage of 1,358 sf. 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. In the RB district, uses and buildings incidental to permitted uses are allowed. 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 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 specific purpose of maximum accessory structure size limitations is to help ensure residential lots are not dominated by nonresidential accessory structures. The 1,000 square foot maximum is also supported by the limit of the total number of accessory structures as well as the provision that accessory structure coverage cannot exceed the ground coverage for the residence. b. 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 only 400 sf of the garage will not be tucked under the house, which does not lend to this property being dominated by accessory structures. It is also worth noting, that if the porte-cochere were to not be considered an accessory structure, the proposed garage would only be 60 sf over the allowed coverage. Lastly, the house itself is rather large and sits on a large .45 acre lot, so in no way would the proposed accessory structures seem out of scale with the existing property conditions. 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. Typically, with a proposal for a large garage in this neighborhood, both the Housing and Historic Resources chapters of the Comprehensive Plan would be the most vulnerable for being out of harmony; in this case it did not contradict the intent of the Comp 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 use of the property, as a single family residence in a two- family residential neighborhood, is reasonable. Constructing a garage would be using the property in a reasonable manner. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The property is able to fit a smaller but adequately sized garage without a variance. However, if the alternate view was taken that the porte-cochere is not an accessory structure, than the variance being requested would only by for 60 sf. The arguments put forth by the applicant as to why the porte-cochere is not an accessory structure is because it will not be housing cars or storing items, and furthermore no cars would be able to park there because it would block the one-lane driveway, prohibiting cars from entering and exiting the property. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? These circumstances were created by the landowner. Though, it is important to note that the applicants are, to the best of their ability, both tucking the garage under the house and locating it in the rear side of the house to limit its visual impact on the property and neighborhood (further discussed below). And also as mentioned above, if the porte-cochere were not classified as an accessory structure the variance requested would be marginal. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The proposed variance would have little to no impact on the essential character of the locality. The garage will be located in the rear portion of the north side of the house. It will be tucked into grade and under the home, as to make it so only around 40% of the garage will not be under the house (refer to image below). Given the location of the garage, it will only be partially visible from the street when viewed from north to south down Broadway St., and will not be visible when viewed on Broadway St from the south. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The variance requested does not reflect economic considerations being the lone consideration in this case. 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. 2019-73. 2) A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. 3) Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow a 1,060 sf side-loaded, attached garage at 615 Broadway Street South. Staff does recommend that if the variance is approved that all the conditions stated above be imposed. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative (3 pages) Garage Plan - Approved Garage Plan - Proposed Elevations (3 pages) CC: Reid and Julie Miller E L O C U S T S T S O U T H MA I N S T R E E T 603 515 615 609 663 623 657 620 610 604 654 206 655 300 522 651 516 527 205 660 510 µ 0 110 22055Feet General Site Location Site Location 615 Broadway St S ^ NARRATIVE & PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES PROJECT: Miller Residence LOCATION: 615 Broadway Street South Stillwater, MN 55082 DATE: December 27th, 2019 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Miller residence project is a City of Stillwater permitted single-family home with an attached, primarily tuck- under style garage located at 615 Broadway Street South in Stillwater, Minnesota. The lot is zoned ‘RB – Two Family Residential’ and is a part of the Neighborhood Conservation District and the Downtown Design Review District. The design of the home has been approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission with conditions, and the City of Stillwater has permitted the plans for constructing the home. During the design process, we have focused extensive efforts on balancing the competing desires of minimizing the mass of the home, the footprint of the structure, and the rhythm and architectural significance of the locality. In response, one of the concepts we introduced into the plan was to locate the garage at the back of the home, tucked into grade and under the main home with limited or zero visibility from the street. This allowed for a view corridor towards the river, modulation of the façade, and avoided any chance of the garage dominating the streetscape. To achieve this location, and still retain the functionality of the garage and cohesiveness of the plan, we also included a drive through area, open to the elements, with structure above. One of the resultant effects of this scheme was that the extents and limitations of the garage became bound to the structure of the home above, as well as additional pressure on the accessory space maximum due to the drive through area being classified as such. At this time, Condition #2 – Garage size (per the HPC Approval) has been met insomuch as it has been adjusted for building permit to conform to the 1,000 square foot maximum size accessory (garage) requirement. The square footage for the attached tuck-under garage as well as the drive-through drop off area (porte cochere) was included in this maximum. The garage proper is ~650 square feet and could be described as a smaller sized two car garage. The Miller residence project proposes that the attached tuck-under garage be constructed at ~1,060 square feet and the drop off area not be taken into account as a “portion of (the) building in which motor vehicles used by the residents of the building…are stored or kept.” This request will in no way change the footprint, mass, or any other exterior element of the as-approved and permitted home. It is solely limited to interior adjustments of the lower level of the home as depicted in the attached documentation, and will result in a larger two-car garage with flexible space for the home owner. ANSWERS TO VARIANCE CONDITIONS: (1) The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The proposed variance is in response to the desire during the design process to minimize the footprint of the accessory garage use on the lot as well as the desire to limit garage dominance on the street. This is achieved by virtue of its location at the rear of the home (enabled by the drive-through drop off area), and its location primarily below the home above and partially below grade (as a tuck-under). Under consideration is the 1,000 square foot limit. We feel the inclusion of the drop off area as car storage in this maximum accessory number is not necessary, as it will be used only as a drop off at the side entry door and drive through to access the garage, which is where the vehicles on premises will be stored and kept. As there is no way to access the garage but through this drive through, it cannot be functionally used as car storage. The 1,060 square foot size of the proposed garage is a direct result of the approved home structure above, per structural engineer and builder input as to best practices and economy of materials. Walls are aligned with loads and walls above to create a straightforward buildable system. As proposed, this garage footprint is our best layout taking into account those constraints. Also of note, if storage areas in the rear of the garage are removed from the calculation this takes the actual garage space below 1,000 square feet. Further, the garage has been both tucked into grade, and under the home. The garage is essentially invisible from the south, and is only partially visible from the north. This results in just 400 square feet of site footprint as ‘garage only’ (one garage space). The remaining amount is house foundation, whether designated as ‘garage’ or not. This design move very much helps minimize the impact of the garage from any angle. The client and design team are dedicated to designing and constructing a home that upholds the standards of the zoning code and the character of Stillwater and we feel that this variance request is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning code. (2) The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There is no conflict with the comprehensive plan. (3) The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance means all of the following must be found to apply: (i) 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. The proposed variance will not alter the use of the land, or the approved design of the home. Please see response to Variance condition (1) above. (ii) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner. Please see response to Variance condition (1) above. Also, as described in the above responses, all the multiple important completing priorities have come together to create a beautiful design and great addition to the streetscape of Stillwater. We feel that this process has put us where we are today as a team, and that there is not any one choice that has necessarily been created by the landowner, the builder, architect, or City of Stillwater. We are all looking for a beautiful building that is functional for the owner, consistent with the intent of City code, and that this variance, if granted, will only enhance the design further. (iii) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed variance is completely within the approved envelope of the home. No change to the outside of the approved plans is requested. HPC has approved this design. UP 4R @ 75 8" EXERCISE 2 CAR GARAGE BATH MUD MECH / STO LOWER MUD PORTE COCHERE UP 9+4R @ 73 8" (EL. 806.4) (EL. 806.5)17'-4"ADD'L PARKING TV EXT WALL ABOVE SLOPE DOWN MINIMAL SLOPE IN THIS AREA SLOPE DOWN (EL. 809.0) (EL. 809.0) LANDSCAPE PATH / STAIR TO TERRACE LEVEL TBD EXT GRADE ~811.0'? 1' DEEP EGRESS WELL? SEALED CONCRETE (IN-FLR ZONE 1) RESILIENT MATS OVER SEALED CONCRETE - DROP SLAB SO MATS ARE FLUSH W/ HALL CONC FLOOR F.D.SEALED CONCRETE (IN-FLR ZONE 1) ELECTRICAL IN FLOOR. LOCATION TBD PELOTON 809808807MECH SHAFT ABOVE 3'-51 2"3'-3"2'-6" M.O. 10'-4" (EL. 806.3) F.P.ABOVE DROP TRUSSES ESTI ROOM POOL BATHF.D.5'-0" FD VESTIBULE PAVERS SEALED CONCRETE (NO IN-FLR HT?) COATS BENCH & LOCKERS 2' SHLVS1' SHLVS3'-112"STORAGE 2' SHLVSFLEX SPACE6'-10"6'-11"13'-2" COATS 11'-5"16'-5"FUTURE ARROWLIFT ELEVATOR (36x60 CAB) ELEVATOR HYDRAULIC POWER UNIT & ELEC PANEL, VFY IDEAL LOCATION FOR EQUIP MANUF. REQ'D 36"x36" CLEAR SPACE 28"X72" BED FD BUILDER TO VERIFY EQUIP & SIZE REQ'TS @ MECHANICAL ROOM. MAY INCLUDE: ·BOILER ·FURNACE/ AIR HANDLER & A/C ·ELECTRONICS / SECURITY HUB ·WATER PURIFICATION SEALED CONCRETE - (IN-FLR ZONE 1) WOOD (IN-FLR ZONE W/ MAIN) RADON & SUMP PUMP GATE2'8" GLASS 3'0"2'8"2'8"2'8"3'0"2'6"3'0" 3'0" 10'0" x 7'10" OHD W/ LOW CLEARANCE OPENER (SIDE?) POTENTIAL STORAGE AREA (UN-CONDITIONED) HOOKS 2'4" GLSLOWER HALL STORAGE2'6"2'6"2'8" POSSIBLE STEP(S) UP TO ADJ FLOOR - TBD ON BEDROCK , DOOR HIDDEN IN MIRROR WALL 3'-11"5'-1112"LOCATE STACK W/D @ THIS LEVEL FOR POOL, EXERCISE & ESTI ROOM TOWELS ETC. W MIRRORS @TV WALLFUTURE CABINETRY, N.I.C.STORAGE WALL HUNG TOILET 5/8" TYPE X GWB @ FIRE SEPARATION WALL & SHARED CEILING W/ LIVING SPACE ABOVE PRECAST CONC ABOVE 2'-0" 8'-0"19'-71 2" 11'-51 2"18'-01 2"25'-8"10'-10" 17'-81 2"2'-0"2'-0"11'-10"BURNISHED CONCRETE (IN-FLR ZONE 2) BURNISHED CONCRETE (IN-FLR ZONE 2) 10'-4"1'-71 2" 60" SLIDING DR 60" SLIDING DR1'-612"HOOKS 2' SHLVS1' SHLVS 1' SHLVSLINEAR TRENCH DRAIN SITE VERIFY LOCATION OF BRICK LEDGE STEP, SHOWN HERE @ CORNER D POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE WALL, GRADE SIMILAR TO PORTE COCHERE ENTRY SLOPE 1/4"/FT 4'-1"4'-3"2'-6"M.O.2'-6"M.O.LINEAR TRENCH DRAIN (EL. 806.3) 10'0" x 7'10" OHD W/ LOW CLEARANCE OPENER (SIDE?)5'-3"GATE 2x62x6 7'-11"2'-0"R.O.1'-112"2'-0"6" 9'-10" 6" 3'-51 4"3'-51 4"2'-0"2'-0"M.O.1'-4"1'-112"5'-71 2"2'-0" M.O. 3'-4"5'-0"12'-0"5'-8"8'-0"5'-8"19'-6" 12'-10" F GUARDRAIL TO BE MIN 36" HIGH W/ MAX 4" SPACING @ CLEAR OPENINGS, TYP. 36" SLIDING DR OUTDOOR SHOWER BURNISHED CONCRETE (IN-FLR ZONE 2) 2'-0"2'-0" BENCH 4'-3"2'-6"M.O.4'-3"4'-112"2'8"2'8"AIR HANDLING UNIT / FURNACE? BUILDER TO LOCATE F.D.CABINETS/STOR1'6"1'6"AREA = 660 SF A A30 A 32 4 B 5 63.5 5.1 7 4.3 5 C D E TERRACE TERRACE 11'-6"8'-11 2"21'-81 2"20'-10"15'-4" 1 3 8'-0"20'-312"19'-4"11'-6"1 C A32 D A32 B A31 APPROVED GARAGE AREA = 660 SF LOWER LEVEL AREA CALCS FINISHED - 910 SF (Incl Pool Bath) GARAGE - 680 SF PORTE COCHERE (TEMP DROP OFF) FLEX SPACE - 370 SF (w/ Fire separation frm Garage) UNFIN - 642 SF (Storage, Mech & other unfin space) GROSS SF - 2,562 SF (Not incl Porte Cochere) PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1. PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF SHEATHING OR FACE OF CONCRETE @ EXTERIOR WALLS UNO. 2. INTERIOR PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD UNLESS NOTED @ CL OR OTHERWISE. IF NO STUD, DIMS. ARE TO FACE OF CABINET. 3. TYPICAL INTERIOR BEARING WALLS ARE 2X6 STUDS @ 16" O.C. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE (SEE STRUCTURAL) 4. ALL WALLS & FLOORS SEPARATING GARAGE FROM REMAINDER OF HOUSE TO BE U.L. RATED 1 HOUR CONSTRUCTION. 5. COORDINATE ALL MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL OPENINGS/METERS/VENTS/EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS IN WALLS, FLOORS, CEILINGS, ROOFS OR OTHERWISE ON WALK-THRU W/ ARCHITECT & OWNER - SEE E-SERIES SHEETS FOR ELECTRICAL DIAGRAM AND CEILING FINISHES. LIMIT PENETRATIONS THROUGH BUILDING ENVELOPE TO THE LEAST VISIBLE SIDE OR LOCATION ON THE HOUSE & DISCUSS FINISH WITH OWNER / ARCHITECT 6. VERIFY MECHANICAL GRILL AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE SELECTIONS WITH ARCHITECT & OWNER 7. COORDINATE WITH OWNER ACOUSTIC INSULATION IN WALLS & FLOORS / CEILINGS AROUND BEDROOMS, BATHROOMS, LAUNDRY, OFFICES ETC. AND IN FLOORS BETWEEN LEVELS 8. NO SPRAY TEXTURED CEILINGS OR TEXTURED WALLS 9. REFER TO S-SERIES SHEETS FOR STRUCTURAL INFORMATION, ELEVATIONS (A2X), AND SECTIONS (A3X) FOR HEIGHTS AND ADDITIONAL FINISH-RELATED INFORMATION. SEE MATERIALS GUIDELINE ON SHEET A04 FOR ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION AND CONTACTS. 10. SEE ELEVATIONS FOR WINDOW & DOOR SIZES & MANUFACTURER'S CALL #'S. 11. INFORM ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN SHEETS 12. PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR OWNER / ARCHITECT REVIEW ON ALL TRUSSES, DOORS, WINDOWS, COUNTERTOPS, MILLWORK, AND EXPOSED STEEL. ALLOW MINIMUM 10 BUSINESS DAYS FOR SHOP DRAWING REVIEW, MORE FOR WINDOWS. 13. PROVIDE MOCKUPS / SAMPLES AT OWNER / ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL... INCLUDING PAINT, TRIM, EXTERIOR FINISHES, STONE, GLASS, FINISH WOOD, STEEL, OR AS REQUESTED 14. USE 1/2" WALL GYP BD OR ACOUSTICAL GYP BD; NOTE 1/2" PLY BACKER WHERE NEEDED FOR SHEAR AND ART HANGING. GYP BD SHOULD BE LEVEL 5 FINISH. 15. RADIANT HEAT IN ALL FLOORS U.N.O.; FINISH FLOORS TO TIME OUT - DROP SUBFLOOR BETWEEN TRUSSES IF NEEDED (NOTE CURBLESS SHOWER IN MAIN LEVEL MASTER SUITE 16. DO NOT SCALE OFF OF DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS; IF A DIMENSION IS NOT NOTED SPECIFICALLY, VERIFY WITH ARCHITECT 17. PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR FUTURE GRAB BARS REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC.2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER:Julie & Reid Miller Residence 615 Broadway Street SouthStillwater, MN 55082December 27, 2019 VARIANCE 18-071 12/27/2019 - VARIANCE APPLICATION SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONA10 APPROVED LOWER LEVEL PLAN JRL, JK 0 2 4 8 1 APPROVED LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" on 24x36 1/8" = 1'-0" on 11x17 N H O U S E F O O T P R I N T + C O V E R E D A R E A S 2 ,9 6 7 S F (I n c l u d i n g P o r t e C o c h e r e , T e r r a c e s , P o r c h e s ) L O T S I Z E = 1 9 ,2 8 9 S F R E A R D R I V E 1 ,1 4 0 S F F R O N T D R I V E 6 0 7 S F P O T E N T I A L P O O L & P O O L T E R R A C E ~1 ,6 2 5 S F (T B D ) LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS TOTAL SITE AREA 19,269 SF PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE = 2,967 SF (15.4%) MAX ALLOWABLE = 25% IMPERVIOUS SURFACES = 3,560 SF (18.5%) MAX ALLOWABLE = 25% TOTAL PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE = 33.9% TOTAL EXISTING LOT COVERAGE = 38.7% MAX ALLOWABLE = 50% ** NO CHANGE IN LOT COVERAGE AREAS REQUESTED P O R T E C O C H E R E B E L O W W A L K 1 8 8 S F O U T L I N E O F M A I N L E V E L E X T E R I O R W A L L (D A S H E D ) A P P R O V E D A R E A O F G A R A G E B E L O W (W I D E R H A T C H ) A D D 'L P R O P O S E D G A R A G E S P A C E (T I G H T E R H A T C H ) D R I V E T H R U / D R O P O F F A R E A . S O L E A C C E S S T O G A R A G E E N T R A N C E S . (2 9 8 S F ) O U T L I N E O F M A I N L E V E L E X T E R I O R W A L L (D A S H E D ) S E A S O N A L P O O L B A T H B E L O W A R E A B E L O W T H E H O U S E A R E A B E Y O N D T H E H O U S E REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC.2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER:Julie & Reid Miller Residence 615 Broadway Street SouthStillwater, MN 55082December 27, 2019 VARIANCE 18-071 12/27/2019 - VARIANCE APPLICATION SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLOT COVERAGE DIAGRAM Surveyor, RLAN 1 LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAM 1/8 = 1'-0" on 24x36 1/16" = 1'-0" on 11x17 MAIN LEVEL SUBFL (EL. 817.0') LOWER LEVEL F.F. (EL. 806.5') SIDE ENTRY F.F. (EL. 809.0') UPPER LEVEL SUBFL ROOF TERRACE SUBFL B.O.TRUSS B.O. UP.LVL TRUSS B.O. RF TRC TRUSS B.O. RF TRUSS MID LEVEL SUBFL 8'-838"9'-118"8'-1078"1'-718"1'-718"8'-118"1'-718"8'-218" TO MID-LEVEL8'-0" TO MAIN LEVEL2'-6"B.O.MID LVL RF TRSS 8'-118"5 12 7 12 7 12 34'-6"TO MIDPOINT OF PLATE & RIDGE PER 31-101 HEIGHT DEFINITION 35'-0" MAX PER TABLE 31-308 (b) 5 12 UCA2036 UCA 2036 UCA 3272 UCA2448 UCA2448 UCA 2644 UCA 2644UCA 2044 UCA 2848 7 12 UCA 2656UCA 2656UCA 2656 UCA 3272UCA 3272UCA 3272UCA 3272 UCA2656 3'-0"MINVFY3'-0" ABOVE WALKING SURFACE UCA 2848 UCA 2848 UCA 2848 UCA 2848 UCA 2848 UCA 2848 UCA 2848 UCA 2848 8'-0" TO LINTEL(7'-10" DOOR)0 2 4 8 2 NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" on 24x36 1/8" = 1'-0" on 11x17 DRIVE THROUGH / DROP OFF AREA. SOLE ACCESS TO GARAGE 660 SF OUT OF THE 1,060 SF OF PROPOSED GARAGE IS TUCKED UNDER THE HOUSE PROPER (62%) 400 SF OUT OF THE 1,060 SF OF PROPOSED GARAGE ACCOUNTS FOR ADD'L FOOTPRINT (38%)REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC.2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER:Julie & Reid Miller Residence 615 Broadway Street SouthStillwater, MN 55082December 27, 2019 VARIANCE 18-071 12/27/2019 - VARIANCE APPLICATION SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONA20 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS JRL, JK 7 12 12 5 UCA2036 UCA2036 UCA3272 UCA3272 UCA3272UCA3272 UCA3272UCA3272 UCA3264UCA3264UCA3264 UCA2656 5 12 7 12 5 12 UCA 2848 UCA 2848 MAIN LEVEL SUBFL (EL. 817.0') LOWER LEVEL F.F. (EL. 806.5') SIDE ENTRY F.F. (EL. 809.0') UPPER LEVEL SUBFL ROOF TERRACE SUBFL B.O.TRUSS B.O. UP.LVL TRUSS B.O. RF TRC TRUSS B.O. RF TRUSS MID LEVEL SUBFL 8'-838"9'-118"8'-1078"1'-718"1'-718"8'-118"1'-718"8'-218" TO MID-LEVEL8'-0" TO MAIN LEVEL2'-6"B.O.MID LVL RF TRSS 8'-118"0 2 4 8 1 WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" on 24x36 1/8" = 1'-0" on 11x17 DRIVE THROUGH / DROP OFF AREA. SOLE ACCESS TO GARAGE REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC.2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER:Julie & Reid Miller Residence 615 Broadway Street SouthStillwater, MN 55082December 27, 2019 VARIANCE 18-071 12/27/2019 - VARIANCE APPLICATION SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONA21 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS JRL, JK 5 12 7 12 5 12 5 12 UCA 2036 UCA 2036 UCA 2656 UCA 2656 UCA 3048 UCA 3048 UCA 3048 UCA 3048 UCA 3048 UCA 3048 UCA 2648 UCA 2648UCA 2648 UBFLD 18080 5L/1R CUIFD 5070 CUIFD 5070 CUIFD 5070 CUIFD 5068UCA 2672 UCA 2672 UCA 2656 MAIN LEVEL SUBFL (EL. 817.0') LOWER LEVEL F.F. (EL. 806.5') SIDE ENTRY F.F. (EL. 809.0') UPPER LEVEL SUBFL ROOF TERRACE SUBFL B.O.TRUSS B.O. UP.LVL TRUSS B.O. RF TRC TRUSS B.O. RF TRUSS MID LEVEL SUBFL 8'-838"9'-118"8'-1078"1'-718"1'-718"8'-118"1'-718"8'-218" TO MID-LEVEL8'-0" TO MAIN LEVEL2'-6"B.O.MID LVL RF TRSS 8'-118"0 2 4 8 2 EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" on 24x36 1/8" = 1'-0" on 11x17 DRIVE THROUGH / DROP OFF AREA. SOLE ACCESS TO GARAGE REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC.2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER:Julie & Reid Miller Residence 615 Broadway Street SouthStillwater, MN 55082December 27, 2019 VARIANCE 18-071 12/27/2019 - VARIANCE APPLICATION SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONA23 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS JRL, JK