Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-26 CPC Packet,5i (11 Water THE 61 RTHPLACE�FM�NSR PLEASE NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by logging into zoom.us/join or by calling 1-312-626-6799 and enter the meeting ID number: 674 129 610 * AMENDED * PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 26th, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL 111. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of July 22nd, 2020 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. 2020-31: Consideration of a Variance to construct an in ground pool in the interior side yard. Property located at 303 Olive St W in the RB district. Todd and Jennifer Englund, property owners. 3. Case No. 2020-32: Consideration of a Variance to build a deck in the steep slope setback on the property located at 1401 Broadway St N in the RA district. Chris Rustad, property owner. 4. Case No. 2020-33: Consideration of a Special Use/Conditional Use Permit and Variances associated to allow an accessory dwelling unit on the property located at 1008 2' St N, in the RB district. Linda Garrity, property owner. 5. Case No. 2020-34: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to build a 3 season screened porch addition on the property located at 2560 White Pine Way in the TR district. Ken Nelson representing I" Choice Builders, LLC, applicant and Gary Bray, property owner. 6. Case No. 2020-35: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to build a deck on the property located at 3494 871 St N, in the TR district. Scott and Lori Allaire, property owners. 7. Case No. 2020 361 Consideration of a Conditional Use PeR:nit for- a eowmer-eial r-eefea4ional business — * TABLED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER 8. Case No. 2020-37: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to modify city code relating to preservation regulations. City of Stillwater, applicant. VI. FYI — STAFF UPDATES — (NO PACKET MATERIALS) VII. ADJOURNMENT mew w C, I (I fnz n,,j ray HAI (c, 11,0) Olirl: Rultld « f I; 'am,(", a v. ,vim ualf « f Dnda «« bald"'ll ,5i (11 Water THE 61 RTHPLACE�FM�NSR PLEASE NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by logging into zoom.us/join or by calling 1-312-626-6799 and enter the meeting ID number: 674 129 610 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 26th, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER 11. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of July 22nd, 2020 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. 2020-31: Consideration of a Variance to construct an in ground pool in the interior side yard. Property located at 303 Olive St W in the RB district. Todd and Jennifer Englund, property owners. 3. Case No. 2020-32: Consideration of a Variance to build a deck in the steep slope setback on the property located at 1401 Broadway St N in the RA district. Chris Rustad, property owner. 4. Case No. 2020-33: Consideration of a Special Use/Conditional Use Permit and Variances associated to allow an accessory dwelling unit on the property located at 1008 2' St N, in the RB district. Linda Garrity, property owner. 5. Case No. 2020-34: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to build a 3 season screened porch addition on the property located at 2560 White Pine Way in the TR district. Ken Nelson representing 1st Choice Builders, LLC, applicant and Gary Bray, property owner. 6. Case No. 2020-35: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to build a deck on the property located at 3494 87t1i St N, in the TR district. Scott and Lori Allaire, property owners. 7. Case No. 2020-36: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreational business in the CBD district. Property located at 321 Main St S in the CBD district. Paul Saarinen, applicant and Marine Leasing, LLC, property owner. 8. Case No. 2020-37: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to modify city code relating to preservation regulations. City of Stillwater, applicant. VI. FYI — STAFF UPDATES — (NO PACKET MATERIALS) VII. ADJOURNMENT 11 �Vvater THE 7INTNYLA CE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 22, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hansen, Kocon, Meyhoff, Steinwall, Councilmember Collins Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of June 24, 2020 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the June 24, 2020 meeting. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Meyhoff abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Resolution 2020-01, resolution adopting written statement of reasons for denial pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 15.99, Subd. 2, for special/conditional use permit application for outdoor shed sales on the property located at 2001 Washington Avenue, CPC Case No. 2020-20. City Planner Wittman noted corrections to Commissioners Dybvig's name and to the year. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to adopt the Consent Agenda as corrected. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Meyhoff abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2020-24: Consideration of Variances associated with a home remodel and addition. Property located at 1001 4th Ave S in the RB district. Brett Ellingson, property owner. Commissioner Meyhoff recused himself from the discussion and vote. City Planner Wittman explained the application. Brett and Alison Ellingson are requesting variances to add an enlarged rear addition and deck and an attached two -car garage on the front of their home. Requested are: 1) a 6' variance to the 20' (exterior) Side Yard Setback for an addition of enclosed living area and deck to be located 14' from the north property line; and 2) a 4' variance to the 20' Front Yard Setback for a covered porch/stoop to be 16' from the property line; and 3) a 14' variance to the 30' Front Yard Setback for garage to be located 16' from the property line. Staff finds the request conforms to the zoning code, is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and has established practical difficulty. Therefore, staff recommends approval with three conditions. Brett Ellingson, applicant, said the neighbors support these needed improvements to the home. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Planning Commission July 22, 2020 Shawna Gibson, 1005 Fourth Avenue South, voiced support for the project. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2020-24, Variances associated with a home remodel and addition at 1001 4th Ave S with the three staff - recommended conditions. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Meyhoff abstaining. Case No. 2020-25: Consideration of a Special Use Permit and associated Variances to allow an accessory dwelling unit. Property located at 1030 4th Ave S in the RB district. Christopher Charlsen, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that Chris Charlsen wishes to convert his existing accessory structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The 16.4' by 36.7' accessory structure construction date is unknown though the style suggests it was constructed around the same time as the primary residence, in 1877. The structure is constructed approximately 4' over the property line. Proposed improvements include adding a 28 square foot foyer to the front of the structure and a second story deck to the north side of the structure. The applicant is requesting: 1) a Special Use Permit to convert an accessory structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit; and 2) a 158 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot maximum allowable accessory structure coverage; and 3) a 432 square foot variance to the 800 square foot maximum allowable Accessory Dwelling unit size; and 4) a 25' variance to the 25' rear yard setback; and 5) a 2.5' variance to the 5' side yard setback. Mr. Charlsen realizes that he will need to move the structure onto the property line so it is not on the neighboring property. The neighbor is willing to grant an easement. This would be one of the conditions of approval. Staff finds that, with the exception of the deck addition, the proposed ADU meets the Special Use Permit provisions and the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a Special Use Permit and associated variances with seven conditions. Chairman Lauer asked if the concern about the deck is strictly about privacy. Ms. Wittman replied it is a use expansion. The concern is privacy of the neighbors. Commissioner Steinwall asked if the structure needs to be lifted and relocated. Ms. Wittman replied yes. Changing from an outbuilding to a residential use triggers the need to conform to today's code requirements which state the building must be 3' from the property line. However the building official said she would consider it to be in substantial compliance if the structure is placed on the property line and if there is easement for fire access. Chris Charlsen, applicant, said moving the building 4' would restrict his space to get into his 2.5 car garage which is tight right now. Neighbors have agreed to grant a 10' easement and the paperwork is in process. He added that the proposed second floor deck is 5' wide. He would be willing to put up a sight barrier such as a privacy trellis. He would still like to have the second floor deck because they are restricted as far as windows and it would be nice to have a small patio off the bedroom. Ms. Wittman stated that as an alternative to moving the building, a lot line adjustment would be acceptable for planning and zoning purposes; either would be sufficient. So Condition #4 could be changed to "owner will amend the lot line or submit a recorded easement." Commissioner Hansen asked how much of the structure will remain original. Mr. Charlsen replied that the lap siding and the building bones will be retained. They will have to see what happens when they dig into it. The building is not really square but the building mover said when he lifts it, it will come back to square. Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission July 22, 2020 Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon remarked that the proposed deck will not have more impact than the same structure without the deck. He feels putting a trellis there would solve the privacy concerns. Commissioner Dybvig said he struggles with the deck. The deck would only be 3' wider but would also be much longer than what is there now which is a stairway landing. Being on the property line and on the second story makes it a lot more problematic. Commissioner Hansen agreed with Commissioner Dybvig. The building adds another residence right in between two residences. He is not inclined to grant expansion of the nonconformance but is in favor of everything else. He feels ADUs are great and provide more affordable housing options. Commissioner Meyhoff asked if the neighbors commented on the deck itself. Julia Charlsen replied the neighbors have seen the plans and did not mention anything about the deck. They have tried to be sensitive to neighbors in not placing windows on that west wall. Ms. Wittman noted for the record the City did not receive comments from any adjacent neighbors. Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2020-25, Special Use Permit and associated Variances to allow an accessory dwelling unit at 1030 4th Ave S with the seven conditions recommended by staff (including not allowing the deck). Ms. Wittman asked if the Commission would be favorable to a smaller deck replacing the existing landing area. Chairman Lauer said he would be inclined to allow it to remain as a landing area for the stairs. Commissioner Steinwall remarked the Commission could consider an alternative design for a smaller deck or balcony but the Commission should not redesign the project for the applicants. Commissioner Hansen commented that stairs going up to a landing is a necessity but having a deck on the second level is for recreational use; they are not similar uses at all. He feels the deck should not be allowed but the existing stairs and landing could remain. Julia Charlsen asked, if they can't have the deck, would the Commission consider having a matching roofline over that area so it could be a covered first floor patio? Ms. Wittman answered that would change the impervious surface coverage and this public hearing was not noticed for it. In general, eaves and overhangs come down to whether the Commission thinks it's consistent with the plan on file today. Condition #8 could be added stating that a patio overhang would be considered substantially similar to the design on file today. Chairman Lauer proposed that amendment to the motion. Commissioner Hansen expressed concern that it not be called a roof but used as a deck in the future. Ms. Charlsen asked if it could be a pergola, matching the roofline, or could they screen in the patio? Ms. Wittman stated screening in the patio would increase the amount of structural coverage. Ms. Charlsen withdrew that request. Chairman Lauer noted the motion is back to 7 conditions, no amendment needed. All in favor. Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission July 22, 2020 Case No. 2020-27: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment and Variances associated with a home addition. Property located at 501 Greeley Street South in the RB and PROS districts. Jon and Julianne Summers, property owners. John Comb of Custom Craft Builders, representative. Ms. Wittman stated that Julianne and Jon Summers plan to demolish an existing detached garage, remodel the house and build an addition that includes an attached garage on their three adjoining parcels. Given the steep slopes of the McKusick Ravine on the north side, the front lot line setback for the existing house is only 18.3 feet and 14.4 feet for the detached garage. The current required front setback in the subject RB Zoning District is 20 feet for the house and 30 feet for the garage. Further complicating the situation is the mixed zoning of the property. Parcels 1 and 2 are zoned PROS — Park, Recreation and Open Space and Parcel 3 is zoned RB — Two Family Residential. In order to expand the house onto Parcel 2, it must be rezoned at least in part to RB. In order to complete the remodeling project, the contractor has requested: 1) a 1.7 foot variance to allow the expansion of the house, since its front yard setback is only 18.3 feet, and the minimum required in the RB Zoning District is 20 feet; and 2) a 9.3 foot variance to allow the attached garage to be located 20.7 feet from the front lot line instead of the required 30 feet; and 3) rezoning of Lot 17, Block 11, Sabins Addition (south half of Parcel 2) from PROS — Park, Recreation & Open Space to RB — Two Family Residential. Staff finds the variances and rezoning requests to be reasonable, consistent with review criteria established in the Zoning Code and appropriate for their setting. Staff therefore recommends approval with one condition. Jon and Julianne Summers thanked staff for their assistance. Chairman Lauer opened and closed the public hearing. There were no public comments. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve variances associated with a home addition, Case No. 2020-27, and to recommend that the City Council approve the associated Zoning Map Amendment for the property located at 501 Greeley Street South with the one staff -recommended condition. All in favor. Case No. 2020-28: Consideration of a Variance to the lot coverage to replace an existing_ garage to have a larger footprint. Property located at 506 Laurel St W in the RB district. Tim and Julia Schmolke, property owners and Sussell Builders, representative. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. The house was built in 1885, and the existing detached garage is estimated to have been built in the 1960s. The garage is accessed by a driveway easement off Everett Street North that runs behind the neighboring property to the east. The current layout of the driveway and garage render the garage impractical for parking vehicles, because the garage door is located on the west face of the garage, despite the driveway entering from the east. The property owner proposes to replace the 400 square foot garage with a 870 square foot garage, installing a door that faces east, so cars can enter the garage through the driveway easement on the east side. The larger garage will bring the structural surface coverage over the maximum allowed. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow the structural lot coverage to be 29.3% (maximum allowed 25%). Staff finds the proposed garage meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and therefore recommends approval of the variance with six conditions. Tim Schmolke, applicant, stated the playhouse/shed will remain if there are no objections. It is in keeping with the character of the property. Ms. Wittman said the playhouse remaining would not change the variance and Condition #6 regarding the shed could be dropped. Mr. Schmolke said he will provide the City a copy of the driveway easement, written in 1898. Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission July 22, 2020 Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve Case No. 2020-28, Variance to the lot coverage to replace an existing garage to have a larger footprint at 506 Laurel St W with Conditions #1-5 recommended by staff, dropping Condition #6. All in favor. Case No. 2020-29: Consideration of a Special Use Permit/Conditional Use Permit for a mural on the building. Property located at 14130 60th St N in the BP-C district. Olaf Rustad, property owner, and Matthew Anderson, representative. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. Advanced Dermatology at 14130 60th Street North would like to put a 25' X 15' mural on the west side of their building, facing Greeley Street South. The reason for this mural, as stated by the owner, is not to advertise the medical office, but rather to create a community space for people to take photographs and to enjoy visually in light of the company's mission to make community members look and feel better about themselves. Staff finds the mural would not have detrimental impacts to the location or the neighborhood and recommends the approval of a Special Use Permit for a 375 square foot graphic sign with three conditions. Commissioner Kocon asked how it is classified as a mural and not as a sign. Ms. Wittman responded a sign is something that calls attention to a business. The City Attorney determined that the "Looking Good" portion is considered a mural. The business contact information below is wall signage that is counted toward total allowed signage. The business is nowhere near its total allowed signage. Dr. OJ, applicant, said they like the positive connotation of "Looking Good" and think it would be a fun thing to add to an otherwise boring wall. This side of the building is too hot for plantings. Commissioner Steinwall said the applicants' correspondence states one of their company mottos is Looking Good, so does that make this advertising? Dr. OJ replied he does not think people looking at this mural would identify it with Advanced Dermatology, as it is not a brand or logo. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Chairman Lauer commented there is a fine line between what is advertisement and art. He understands that it has an artistic flair but feels like advertising. Dr. Ruth compared their request to the Len's Market mural, "Best little market in the valley." Commissioner Dybvig agreed the Len's Market mural is much closer to being an advertising piece. Commissioner Meyhoff noted the question of what is art comes down to personal opinion. Commissioner Kocon remarked it looks like art. Approval is recommended for a SUP for a graphic sign, with the staff finding that this "mural" would not have detrimental impact. Art is in the eye of the beholder. He believes the mural can be considered art. Commissioner Steinwall suggested that part of the problem is the City's definition of a graphic sign, which is not particularly helpful from a code standpoint. If this is a SUP, it runs with the land so the Commission would actually be approving any number of artistic representations that could be applied against this property. Commissioner Dybvig pointed out one of the conditions is that the mural be substantially similar to what was shown in materials submitted. Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission July 22, 2020 Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2020-29, Special Use Permit/Conditional Use Permit for a mural on the building located at 14130 60th St N, with the three staff -recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-2 with Commissioner Steinwall and Councilmember Collins voting nay. Case No. 2020-23: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to modify code relating to setback measurement. City of Stillwater, applicant. Ms. Wittman explained that the City's definition for Setback, building line "means a line back of the lot line that defines the setback area in all yards." The measurement of a setback from the lot line is concerning. In some cases a right-of-way (ROW) easement line, the area in which the City is permitted to build a road on private land, also exists. Where this occurs, the City would want to impose a setback, building line to be from the ROW easement or from whichever is more restrictive to maintain sufficient distance between structures and roadways. It is common zoning practice to measure the setback from the lot line or ROW easement line, whichever is more restrictive. Staff is requesting consideration of a Zoning Amendment — Text (ZAT) to clarify setback measurement requirements. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to recommend that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-101, entitled Definitions, by amending the definition for setback, building line (Case No. 2020-23). All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that, in regard to Case No. 2020-20, Resolution 2020-01 adopted tonight, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's previous decision to the City Council and after a public hearing, the Council denied the appeal in a 3-2 vote. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Chris Lauer, Chair Page 6 of 6 1 Water T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M 1 N N E S 0! A PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-31 REPORT DATE: August 11, 2020 MEETING DATE: August 26, 2020 APPLICANT: Todd and Jennifer Englund LANDOWNER: Todd and Jennifer Englund REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to locate a swimming pool and the associated appurtenances in the interior side yard. LOCATION: 303 Olive Street West ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Todd and Jennifer Englund own the property at 303 Olive Street West. This 38,104SF property sits at the corner of Olive Street West and and Fifth Street South.They would like to install an inground pool, however the proposed location is in the interior side yard, which would require a variance. Despite having a large property, they feel their options are limited as to where to locate a pool, due to their heavily shaded property. They have 11 mature trees and six immature trees, and would prefer to locate the pool in an area that recieves sunlight. They have planned out a future garage with an ADU (City apporoved). SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicants are requesting: A variance to City Code Section 31-514. Subd. 5. 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 CPC Case 2020-31 Page 2 of 4 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. Pools are outright 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? Swimming pool locations 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. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Swimming pool locations If granted, the proposed variance would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code because the pool will be set back at a substantial distance, roughly 60 feet, from the front lot line. Additionally, the pool is proposed to be shielded from the front of the property by fencing and landscaping. Lastly, this is a corner property, but if it were not a corner property and the front yard was along 5th St South, then this pool would in fact be located in the rear yard. 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? A 38,104 SF property with a single family residence would be proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner by adding a pool. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property owner puts forth that most of the yard is shaded by trees, which is not desirable for a swimming pool. Furthermore 11 of these trees providing shade are mature trees that should be preserved. The applicant has mapped this out and City staff agree with this notion. However, the applicant has noted that there are two alternative areas for the pool, one of those alternatives would be considered the CPC Case 2020-31 Page 3 of 4 exterior side yard, so there is in fact only one alternative area for the pool that lies in an unshaded area (see below). The alternative location is notably far from their house, and would, in fact, be closer to the rear neighbor's house. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner did not create these circumstances. However, the owner is choosing this location over another alternative, which would not require a variance. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? The pool is proposed to be located behind the front line of the house and roughly 60 feet from the front property line. Not only is the pool behind this property's dwelling, it is far behind the front line (almost behind the rear line) of the neighboring property's house Additionally, the applicant has put forth a plan that includes fencing and landscaping, that will make the pool unseen from the front of the property. 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. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variance is simply a preference of the pool's location and has no correlation to economic considerations. CPC Case 2020-31 Page 4 of 4 POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020- 31, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. A fence permit must be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. The fence permit will meet both the building code regulations put forth in Section 33-2. Subd. 14., and the agreed upon landscaping plan. 3. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 4. 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. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The applicant proposes to install a pool that is not in conformance to the City Code requirements so that it is conveniently located between the home and future garage with ADU. Although there is an alternative location that can conform to the City Code, the proposed location conforms to the intent of regulation. By putting the pool on the side of the home, well behind the front line of the adjacent residence, the pool's location is reasonable and will not detract from the neighborhood's character. Staff finds the proposed pool meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2020-31 with the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan (two pgs) Existing tree coverage (two pgs.) cc: Todd and Jennifer Englund 201 F 1206 �3ry 4- 356 207�_S> 2 2C , st6 c .. w 318 v ' 6 316 309� 315 - f$j 302 x._, ,. 321 220 TeX_ / ?7rA J 310 3151. -�.' f wr NNtook 404 to '. 404, 32 318 3 327 -32$ ,. i. 408 h r 416 323 F t•. � - _ ar 407 4 5 411 409 v 410 418 1 (Water The Birthplace of Minnesota J N WF. S Site Location 303 Olive St W 0 70 140 280 Feel General Site Location V Englund's Request for Residential Pool Variance at 303 Olive St W We are requesting a variance to add a residential inground swimming pool to the interior west side yard of our corner property instead of a traditional backyard pool. Our 1906 home is located on a 0.83 acre lot on the corner of Olive St W and 5th St S on the south hill and we would like to add a pool adjacent to the house in the sunny west side yard. Since we live on a corner lot we have no true backyard out of sight from the street and our lot is significantly shaded adding additional challenges on pool location. The majority of our yard is shaded by 17 trees that keep the yard from direct sunlight most of the day. We have 3 locations that get good sunlight during the afternoon and early evening hours that would be conducive to place a pool. In order to utilize other shady areas of the yard for a pool it would require us to remove a healthy, beautiful, and very large Black Walnut tree (estimated by a local arborist to be over 200 yrs old). Two of the three possible pool locations are located at the opposite side of the yard (furthest away from any existing electrical or plumbing) and one is even located along 5th St S. So not only are these locations inconvenient for daily use and utilization of existing electrical and plumbing services, but the other two locations will also be more challenging to blend in the pool area with landscaping as they will be very visible from the street. The most ideal pool location is adjacent to the house on the west. Thus allowing us to use the pool conveniently and we will also be able to utilize existing electrical and plumbing (especially since we will also be building a garage with ADU in the near future immediately south of the proposed pool area, this variance was approved in 2019). We are coordinating these projects to efficiently build each project with the other in mind for not only electrical and plumbing purposes, but also for esthetics and functionality. Placing the pool adjacent to the house allows for us to utilize garage utilities and act as a south privacy wall, the existing house as an east privacy wall, and we will be able to use landscaping and fencing to complete the privacy on the north and west sides. This location will also allow us to tuck the pool into the house and garage space and will make landscaping easier and more visually appealing from the street. With this configuration the pool area will really only be visible from a small area on Olive St W and minimally visible at all from 5th St S. Englund's Request for Residential Pool Variance at 303 Olive St W w/ AUU (Variance was approved 2019) < — — — — — — — — Olive St W— — — — — — — — > eway = existing landscaping (includes lilacs, viburnum, ferns, and hydrangeas) = New landscaping to compliment existing landscaping and a privacy fence En/und% Request for Residential Pool Variance at SOS Olive S W Englund's Request for Residential Pool Variance at 303 Olive St W The yard is shaded by 11 mature trees and 6 immature trees. This causes the yard to be shaded nearly all day except for only a few small areas thus limiting alternative locations for a pool that will get enough sun exposure. 0 These are the only other pool options that are not fully shaded by mature trees, except these locations are inconveniently located on the opposite end of the yard and one option is right along the road. See photos below. Englund's Request for Residential Pool Variance at 303 Olive St W 7 We will be adding a privacy fence (likely similar in nature to the photo above) along the NORTH side of the pool and will add landscaping facing the street that compliments the existing landscaping. Sunny area located at far SW corner of yard (farthest location from house or utilities). Photo taken at 3pm on July 5th. Very shaded rest of the yard with the large walnut pictured to the far right. Photo taken at 3pm on July 5th. This sunny spot is located along 5th St S on the SE area of the yard. The pool would be located along the street and would need to be placed forward of the neighbors house or at best even with the front of their house. TO: 1 Water T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M 1 N N E S 0! A PLANNING REPORT Planning Commission REPORT DATE: August 17, 2020 MEETING DATE: August 28 2020 APPLICANT: Chris Rustad LANDOWNER: Chris Rustad CASE NO.: 2020-32 REQUEST: Variance to the maximum structural lot coverage. LOCATION: 1401 Broadway Street North ZONING: RA, One -Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Chris Rustad owns and is rehabilitating his home at 1401 Broadway St North. Since originally being constructed around 1887, portions of the existing, legal, nonconforming home sit within the 30' steep slope setback area. Additionally, earlier this year Mr. Rustad applied for several variances (Planning Case 2020-18) for the proximity to a steep slope in order to rehabitate and add on to the new home. In the prior variances Mr. Rustad got approved to construct a new attached garage, kitchen and mudroom addition to the existing residence while adding a full second story addition to the entire home. The specific variances granted were: 1. A 20' variance to the 30' Steep Slope Setback for an attached garage with second story living space; 2. A 10' Variance to the 30' Steep Slope Setback for a two story breezeway with second story living space 3. A 17' Variance to the 30' Steep Slope Setback for a single story kitchen addition. Mr. Rustad is now requesting one additional variance to the steep slope requirements in order to add a 10'X10' deck off the second story of the northeast corner of the house. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting: CPC Case 2020-32 Page 2 of 4 ❖ A variance to City Code Section 31-521. Subd. 1. (d). to allow a 10' variance to the 30' Steep Slope Setback. ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement... would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits." 1. No variance maybe granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. Single family homes with second story decks are permitted in the RA — One -Family Residential 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 Steep Slope setback is designed to protect personal property, minimizing the risks associated with project development in areas characterized by vegetation and steep or unstable slopes. A further purpose is to avoid the visual impact of height, bulk and mass normally associated with building on any steep slope. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The existing home currently sits within the steep slope setback area, and this request is not asking to be any closer to the steep slope than the previously granted request. As determined in Planning Case 2020-18, the home's placement, tucked below many homes on Riverview Drive and 1st Street North is uniquely situated, well screened, and minimally visible from adjacent properties — including NINDOT right-of-way in wintertime conditions. City staff does not believe that the addition of a 10'X10' deck would in any way alter these previously reached conclusions. 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 a single family home with a relatively small second story deck is reasonable. It is extremely common for houses along the bluffs and hillsides to have second story decks. CPC Case 2020-32 Page 3 of 4 Also, the applicant is not asking to build an unnecessarily large deck; rather, a deck that is modest in size and proportional to the house's size. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The circa- 1880s home is situated on a property with a steep slope on both sides. The existing home and all permitted improvements are located within the steep slope setback to some degree. The legal, nonconforming nature existed prior to the owner purchasing the property. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? While the underlying conditions were not created by the landowner, it is however, the landowner's desire to further add to the existing nonconformities within the steep slope setback area. As discussed above, the house itself was already within the setbacks, so options with this property are very limited. Mr. Rustad's requests are reasonable and these are not circumstances he created. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? This home sits by itself, above a highway and (approximately) 50' below other bluff top properties. The proposed deck is in the rear of the house and not visible from the street. The project would not alter the character of the neighborhood. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? Yes, Mr. Rustad simply wants to add a second story deck and deems this side of the house to be ideal. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020- 32 (as well as CPC Case No. 2020-18), except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 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. 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 The proposed deck would not have any negative effects on the property or the surrounding properties nor the neighborhood as a whole. Most importantly, this deck will not be any closer to CPC Case 2020-32 Page 4 of 4 the steep slope than the previously granted variances in Planning Case 2020-18. Therefore, staff would recommend conditional approval of CPC Case No. 2020-32 with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Site Plan cc: Chris Rustad 202 ` 1511 vlolk 1509 +1: y�421 1;4I1425 T4'12 " s: 1419 or F1410 1408 _t � 1 1413 I E SYCAMORE ST 1323i' -� r ' 8F 11317 r `> ( 1320 I 1313 * 13h 1307 � 13&'..32 �... i<. f 1303 Y�■ in 1513 > i ,t All � � �� � • y'gklyr� „F 2 #• y y (Water The Birthplace of Minnesota J N WE s Site Location 1401 Broadway St N 0 70 140 280 Feet General Site Location Christopher Rustad July 22, 2020 220 Chestnut St. W. Stillwater, MN 55082 Stillwater Planning Commission 216 4t' Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Request for variance to the setback from the steep slope to construct a IWO deck on the house located at 1401 Broadway St. N, Stillwater, MN Dear Planning Commission, I am rehabilitating the house located at 1401 Broadway St N, Stillwater. I am requesting a variance to the setback from the steep slope on the East side of the property to build a 10x10 deck off the second story. After looking at the remodeling plans in detail, I determined that the northeast corner of the house would be an ideal location for a deck. The deck would be constructed off the master suite and provide a view of the surrounding woods and the St. Croix River. The deck would not change the house's impervious service or be visible to any neighbor. House Details: • Built 1887 Currently 854 sq ft Lot size of approximately 20,000 sq ft Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Christopher Rustad 612-710-1215 rater wjj�A T 11 7:67 ft i ;11P;:L;:A;:C�E �FM SN E S 0 i A PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-33 REPORT DATE: August 17, 2020 MEETING DATE: August 26, 2020 APPLICANT: Linda Garrity LANDOWNER: Linda Garrity REQUEST: a) A Special Use Permit to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit above an existing garage; b) a Variance to the 800 s.f. maximum garage structure size. LOCATION: 1008 2nd Street North ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Linda Garrity owns the property at 1008 2nd Street North, legally described as Lot 3, Block 10, Carli and Schluenburgs Addition. It is a corner lot property containing a single family residence and detatched garage accessed off of an undeveloped portion of the Aspen Street right-of-way. The exisitng garage is located on a sepearete tax parcel, legally described as lots 4 & 5, Block 10, Carli and Schulenburgs Addition. Permitted in 2003, the 864 square foot garage contains an interior accessed loft area which the property owner would like to convert into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The size of the structure exceeds the maximum 800 square foot garage requirement. Therefore, a variance is requested. SPECIFIC REQUEST 1. A Special Use Permit to convert the existing garage's loft into an Accessory Dwelling Unit; 2. A 64 foot variance to the 800 square foot maximum garage size. ANALYSIS 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: CPC Case 2020-25 Page 2 of 5 1. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and relevant area plans. With regard to conformance to the requirements and intent of the Zoning Code, City Code Section 31-501, Accessory Dwellings, identifies the following performance standards for review: • Lot size must beat least 10,000 square feet. Each property is greater than 10,000 s.f.. If legally combined, the property is nearly 30,000 square feet in size. • The accessory dwelling may be located on the second floor above the garage. The owner is proposing the accessory structure's loft be converted to living space. • The accessory dwelling unit must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and rear setbacks. A 25' rear yard setback is required. In 1991 a former owner of the proeprty requested, and was granted conditional approval of, a new single family residence on the legally seperated lot in the rear of the property. At that time, the owner was granted a 20' variance to the 30' (exterior) side yard from the undeveloped portion of 3rd Street North, located to the west. As varainces `run with the land', if all original approval conditions are met, a residence is permitted to be located 10' from the rear property line. The current garage, constructed in 2003 after City approval of a lot combination of Lots 3 and 4, is located greater than 20' from the western (rear) proeprty line. It is also located greater than 30' from the southern property line which serves as the (exterior) side yard of the property. Therefore, the strucure's ADU will be in conformance with the primary strucrure side and rear seatbacks. • The accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the midpoint of the primary residence. This proposal conforms to this standard. • Off-street parking requirements (four spaces) must be provided. Two parking spaces are located within the separately detached garage; this meets the requirements for two covered parking spaces. The driveway also contains (at least) two parking spaces. • Maximum size of the garage and ADU is 800 square feet. This standard is not being met. Variances have been requested and are addressed in a subsequent section of this report. • The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. The garage's design is four-sided. While the design's details and materials do not match the exterior facade of the primary residence, the garage exists and the exterior is not proposed to be altered significantly. • The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. The existing structure's 1.5 story height does not exceed that of the primary residence's two story height. CPC Case 2020-25 Page 3 of 5 • Both the primary and accessory dwelling units must be connected to municipal sewer and water services and be located on an improved public street. This will be a condition of approval. 2. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. While the City has conditionally approved the construction of a single family home on this site, the property the garage is located on is independent from the residence. It does not appear the city's 2003 approval process legally combined the home and the garage. If services for the ADU are extended from the primary residence, the properties will need to be formerly combined. Certain conditions of approved, listed in the subsequent section, are recommended to help protect the public interest. 3. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Conditionally permitted ADUs in the RB — Two Family Residential district have not been a nuisance nor are they detrimental to the public. 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. Accessory Dwelling Units are permitted in the RB 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? Limiting the size of accessory structures and dwellings helps reduce accessory structure mass on a property. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The existing structure conforms to the maximum accessory structure size limitations for the RB — Two Family district and is well in conformance to the maximum 10% lot area requirement. 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. In fact, the code discusses increasing density in Stillwater; construction of ADUs on properties that can accommodate them are one way the City can help achieve greater densities. 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 CPC Case 2020-25 Page 4 of 5 essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? A single family residence with accessory dwelling unit is a reasonable use for the property. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The garage structure has existed on the property since prior to the current owner's purchase. Furthermore, the City has already given approvals in the past to allow for another dwelling in this location. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner did not construct any of this accessory structure. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? No. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? Yes. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve: If the Planning Commission finds the Special Use Permit amendment proposal and associated Variance is consistent with the provisions of the SUP process and the standards set forth for the establishment of practical difficulty, the Commission could move to approve the SUP and associated Variance 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. 2020-33, except as modified by the conditions herein. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner will legally combine Lots 3-5, Block 10, Carli and Schulenburg's Addition. 4. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the residence. At the time of building permitting, the applicant shall be required to pay WAC/SAC charges for the new unit. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the ADU shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. 5. 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 approved Special Use Permit guidelines or the standards set forth for the granting of variances, then the CPC Case 2020-25 Page 5 of 5 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 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 City has established standards for the construction of ADUs to ensure they are accessory to properties and that they do not dominate a property. While the applicant is proposing to exceed the 800 square foot limitation, the reason is to utilize the existing garage's loft. Staff finds that the proposed ADU meets the Special Use Permit provisions and the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit and associated variance for CPC Case No. 2020-33 with the conditions identified in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request 2020 Floor Plan 2003 Garage Plan 1991 Survey 1991 Variance cc: Linda Garrity 211 1116 1112 r '' 106 i 120 0 b:e i A 1106 lot ___---------- ---- 1 _ a.r r 1j i` 0.;�� d? *_105- 16 ". 1016 'ib22 a� t 105� !�"`'�f 1012 11007 1007 1008 " 10Ef8_y ikr 1002 1001 - lY 7 6., S ,f EAST ASPEN STREET 21 92�` 0 sf 921 918 , 1 x V J f _ _ 904 ar 903 1 _ _ - t X- s 1 water The Birthplace of Minnesota N WE S Site Location 1008 2nd St N 0 70 140 280 Feet General Site Location 1 � V To: The City of Stillwater— Community Development From: Linda Garrity, Owner of 1008 2M Street N., Stillwater Date: July 21, 2020 Re: Completion of Space Above the Garage Hello and thank you for taking the time to review my application. My plan is to complete the space above the garage and create a studio style apartment/studio. It would consist of a % bathroom and a small kitchen (stove, fridge, sink, microwave). The remainder of the 450 sq. ft. space will remain open and the only walls will be to house the bathroom. There will be one closet and some of the knee wall space will be used as built-in storage. Electric heat and an electric water heater will be used as far as mechanicals are concerned. The former owner had plans to actually convert the entire garage into living space, creating an entire new home on the property, but I am not that ambitious! The lower portion of the garage would remain a garage. There is already a separate entrance in place for the upper part of the garage and it's already been framed in/windows & door put in place. My intent is to create a space that will house a family member who has been displaced by Covid-19 and is currently living with us in our home. Nothing about the footprint of the building itself will be changed. The former owner of the home began this garage project but it was left with holes in the roof, a rotting door & windows, no soffits, soggy/moldy insulation and has been deteriorating rapidly. We'd appreciate the opportunity to repair this structure and use it to its full potential. Thank you so very much for your consideration and please let me know if you have any questions at all. Linda Garrity, Owner of 1008 2°d St. N., Stillwater I!nda@redpinereaIty.com 218-370-8313 s e i o I o 0 � 5T, 0 Lv'�N - r 4 _... ._. I � i , �,�� .ar � 1 -_ _'� -. f CERTIFICATE OMURVEY Pr: Doro'lhy S'�oaise 1008 No. S'eConQ! Phone, 439. 7,9 6.3 pro er�gsCri r) LOTS 4 d 5 8/0Ck 10', Carla X SC4 ulen burs Aar 1111on fo S #Wolfer, Minnesota Washin¢ton Counf y j /W42. /Vo%: -Ais proper/ has been surveyed using the revised' plat of Carly / s'ehu - /ln ur�s Addition fo .lfi//wa>er OT di arvn b X ron .e qr 19 6 4nd h on ine in /U Off ice o/ e Coun/Y ,Qerder, g. • denofcs iron rnonumen/ 10'und. - • o denotes iron mon umenl . se/. S 71. 5 p/a/. 70.c6 fmas. ' Il9%ne wall i N O ti I AsPcN ST �v i, �'Qt6ar 5o I SCALE:i Inch = 4o Feet 1 o Denotes Iron Bearings shown are on an assumed datum.1 Job No. 06 0 Book -&g. Poge.Ja We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, if any, E.G. RUD & SONS, INC. thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. LAND SURVEYORS 711 E.G. RUD a SONS, INC. 9560 Lexington Avenue N. Dated this 7 day of by Circle Pines, Minnesota 55014 Minn 'Reg. No. Telephone: 786-5556 f GGO 729 STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF STILLWATER VARIANCE PROCEEDINGS lanii�±;5se'' No. V191-11 ORDER GRANTING VARIANCE REQUEST BY: DOROTHY SPAISE ner JOHN AND HEATHER HAUG APPTICant The above entitled matter came on to be heard before the City Council for the City of Stillwater on the 2nd day of _April 1991, on a nt request for a variance pursuao `e Uity Code for aging described property: Lots 4 and 5, Block 10, Carli and Schlenburgs Addition to the City of Stillwater. (PIN 9270 and 3500) Purpose: RegVest for variance to the sideyard setback requirements for a new home. Northeast corner of Third and Aspen Streets. Upon motion made and duly approved by the requisite majority of the City U Council, it is ordered that a variance be granted upon the following conditions: (If no conditions, state "None'.) 1. Utilities to the site shall be provided Department and Water Department requirements.according to Public Works —, 2. A grading/drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval with the building permit plans. 3. Access off Aspen Street to the lot shall be provided by the property owner as required by the Public Works Director. 4. A drainage study shall be prepared ensuring that the new Aspen Street drainage pipe can handle the drainage flaw. S. A Development Agreement implementing these conditions shall be prepared by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council. Dated this day of 19$1. 01 �a9OXi f Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF STILLWATER OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Ma"Iyy CouJow'son;`C.ity Clerk, for -the city -Of StiIlwater_Minnesota,.do- hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy and Order Granting Variance with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be correct and true transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand and the. seal of the C ty""of o tii water,"Minnesota, in th County of Washingtoh on the o,)W_ day DRAFTED BY: David T. Magnuson City Attorney Suite 203, The Grand Garage 324 South Win Street Stillwater, MN 55082 C r P.It C3 :.Mtrt w .401 LO I X TO: REPORT DATE: 1 Water T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M 1 N N E S 0! A PLANNING REPORT Planning Commission August 11, 2020 MEETING DATE: August 26, 2020 APPLICANT: Ken Nelson, 1" Choice Builders LLC LANDOWNER: Gary Bray CASE NO.: 2020-34 REQUEST: Variance to the maximum lot coverage in a Shoreland Management overlay district. LOCATION: 2560 White Pine Way ZONING: TR, Traditional Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Gary Bray owns the property at 2560 White Pine Way, which was built in the Millbrook neighborhood in 2017. Mr. Bray is proposing to build a 16' X 12' screened porch on the rear of his house, however this property is in a Shorelnd Management Overlay District, and has already reached the maximum allowed impervious lot coverage. The property is located in the TR Zoning District, which does not have a lot coverage limit, however the Shoreland Management Overlay District has a maxium lot coverage of 25%. Currently this property has a lot coverage of 26.9%, and the addition of the 192 SF porch would increase the impervious surface coverage to 28.4%. SPECIFIC REOUEST The applicants are requesting: ❖ A variance to City Code Section 31-402. Subd. 7. 0). to allow the impervious surface coverage to be 28.4%, whereas the maximum allowed impervious surface coverage in the Shoreland Management overlay district is 25%. CPC Case 2020-34 Page 2 of 4 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 TR, Traditional Residential; a 192SF screened porch off the rear of the house is 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? Impervious surface coverage One of the specific purposes of the maximum impervious surface coverage is to maintain open, unencumbered space to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. Furthermore, the purpose of the Shoreland Management Overlay District is "the protection of lakes, streams and water courses within its boundaries is critical for the health, safety, order and general welfare of its citizens and to preserve and enhance the quality of surface water and preserve the economic and natural environmental values of shoreland". b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Impervious surface coverage If granted, the variance would not be out of harmony with the zoning code. It is a comparatively small addition to this large property which will only add 1.5% more coverage, and the property will still maintain 9,359SF of unencumbered pervious yard. 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? A 13,068SF property with single family residence would be proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner by adding a 192SF screened porch to the rear of their house. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? CPC Case 2020-34 Page 3 of 4 This property is unique in the sense that the surface coverage requirements are extra strict in this overlay district. To add to the perplexity of it, the house and drive were built and sold, while already being right up to the threshold of allowable coverage. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner did not create these circumstances. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? This is a modest -sized screened porch in the rear of a home, and will have zero to little effect on the neighborhood as a whole. Additionally, as shown in the exhibits provided by the applicants, a rear porch is common throughout the neighborhood. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variances are for the personal enjoyment of their property, and does not reflect economic considerations. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020- 34, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 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. 4. A water runoff treatment plan for the 192 square feet will need to be submitted to, and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed garage meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2020-34 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. CPC Case 2020-34 Page 4 of 4 Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Building plans (two pgs.) cc: Gary Bray Ken Nelson, 1 st Choice Builders LLC .:0 nr' ..0 Q It July 20th, 2020 City of Stillwater, MN Community Development Dept, 216 4t" Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Variance request for 2560 White Pine Way, Stillwater, MN 55082 The homeowner, Gary and Kelly Bray, propose to build a 16' x 12' screen porch addition to the back of their house. The intended purpose is to create a space to enjoy the outdoors, eliminating the nuisance of flying insects. Practical difficulties 1. The addition is a residential structure in line with use in this neighborhood —The impervious surfaces requirement of 25% has triggered this request 2. The property is located in the Shoreland overlay district which has a more stringent requirement. Even after the addition the impervious surface coverage will be less than 30% 3. The character to the neighborhood will not be significantly impacted, as other houses in the area have similar additions. Please direct questions and concerns to me Rorr�rrJc Ken Nelson Project Manager 15t Choice Builders, LLC 612-227-8748 ken@lstchoicebuildersmn.com aL_%JCK 2 0 STORM MAW ® CATCH BASIN N GTE VALVE t7 IMRANF o IRON PPE SET • NON PIP,FOUNA m SANITARY MANHOLE .we r. so41TT M FELD CW M. DKGI1 DRAWN 8Y: MW CFIECKM BY IRS f I N p iz, fib,, suefn pvdx ad LI - SURVEY LEGEND .r.Ns GRDutm EIF'AnON 0 DQWT NC TREE IRa]I PRROPt75Ep ELEVADON O PROPS TREE 0 WETLAND UW ER POST it PROPOSED TREE LHI HAND HOLE E r 7 BITIANHOUS [E] ELECTRIC rRANWORWR I-, j'� CONCRE IF. IELEPHONE PEDESW ^QW— CONIOW PROPO4D 071LIlY PEDESTAL CONTOUR r.sjwc WZ SEWER SERVICE ELEVATION DRA"AGE ARROW REVZONS; NA REVISED STORMINATER PUN 1710711a BRV -s RESTATE HOUSE & OFFSETS 1-11-17 SM J 1 CONCRETE CLWS XMS Fd1OAT10N AASKJILT ELEVATION — SAMITAW SEWER X972S WADING ASWLT ELEVATION --STORM SEWER I—wAlErpIMN - -- PROPOSED SLF rENCE =• ORV, THE t FENCE —OM— OULDMG SETBACK UNE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY SATHRE-6RGQl1I5T INC. CERTIFICATE ASBUILT roe—o" WR v w zATVV we W>tI ton 4m uz PREPARED MR V LENNAR OF MINNESOTA Dcrridba La 2, Bb k 3. 341LA9ROOK TM AMMON..madmt I. the Iscwdea PW Illeeof, Wa ww- C_jay. Mimcot 1_ Addlo 25W White I— Way, sLIDwaee• Mianesneti of hi 2 Faixary Ic'-'-- NRIo.•n nc r-0ora is .n apgnsialalc .'a7 �T'• The cna0'aClor aaaD dceemdnc Rlr exact lxs:inv a! eay arda9 a:lCieg unTT,es xlwe aa..nc.-int p i,f He tin a he n7 �.por,sd,'c !x sr r and all d.magcx of ilAa nNI Ai;— [� e.ls_tiv tocaee xnd •J; �yyC .�, .� a�aeYtinj W1i[j« 3. Mtm malm lA8 minimm92%Wpe gtadhat m.emmmodmicpositive drafimr- 4. All Y-uffxi im ne mtasmed to bandreAbi nfa fool and m be UndM easaatvla 5. T&c plapord drfreway rhowa is cm cqm l only and does Imt MMM b show raaedy bow rxc drirrwxy shop he beM& 6_ A IitL- epnim "I aex fun 6hd la rbK �uveyor a pss of (Na rrney- Only ea-MCTCF's 1✓s Lkc_dnE ala: NC ihowr. unless p[hCYwiat-r;fCeC k-ea 7• Pmpocd In dee shown 4IIceAl to baUdee fou dwim Mefeo m cop of black din. >4 Verify sanitary mine invert pdar cowry cooeete wort 9. BareAnwrk TNN Loh 5l6, Bock 2. M1LLBROOK 7rN AMMON.9I405 Fee 'W TNN Lots 1&2. Block 4. MILL8ROOK Mi AMMON-9S&I2 Fed DIM me. t L>Ia B Hall - LO GxaarT kw Ekv.liw -9093 l.oalwle Opemva F.k.Miva +9DS0 9ascRK•1 hi L triw_ r 9014 P'C�!- >som PropoFcd Ga:a� fltax E3crtioe - 910.4 hopoxd. of FwmdpNy ESevnlou .M.7 P[°Pn'cd L°oNmq Elcrar'sm - 903.9 >�Poscd 8mrtcat Plaar F3tvNiea A.sbuilr F:Icrallyes R'p ii i � A 1>7QiE1 �a[vr iloNy f-3c1y6on 910A Asbvl4 Top of FumKi om Ekvalko - 9 10.9 1 fowRdwiOa.ksbldlll Ashmlr Kry Fla FJ.V.K w A34vih 13aNeRerot 17NW Fk+'/Loa - 70i.71FoarP5rlim AahuiNT AsivT1 P-*. P Dp1?T>.g Yiva:o• 96jx a['tLFI1C1i4 Min FrwHYwdsemaw-2r LiviRE, 3p,O I I IAk Skit Yet4 SdImck Siyrgc. IV Lw*s ! Min_ Reim Yard Sntwk • IS J L__ oaawA�vAw wwry rwwai. s.a•.na.y Lp:IaWl aR�9MTN• WCIlIl Aa9aMM I hmby mnM ry [Ids this surrey. planet rcpWl was prepuW by Ole 9E order my dh" cT wppvisiw Nock ITm I am a (Lily L ctmm d LArA SoTroyos uhdw the 4wa a the Sole of wrist uft Mud this 12th day of Oaoher. 2016. Demcl L- SGhmW1. PLS MNUIOSda Lioc No.26147 sehmidt&mhm eD TI S6000n 19 - TOWndlip MD. RaNy 020 30 13 O 15 30 60 SCALE iN FEET YA NDOY4 5GHEDULE QT1' MOTH HEIGHT IR/O IDESCRIPTION IGOMMENT5 3 351, 'i9 515 " 39"X80 30' 5UN5PAGE 4 TRACK WINDON 1 44 " TG 3/8 " 45"X80 3/8" 15UNSPAGE 4 TRACK WINDOLN 3 501, 19 3/8 " 1.51"X80 3/8" 15UN5PAGE 4 TRACK WINOON DOOR 5CHEDULE YVIDTH jHF16HT IWO DE5GRiPTI0N 1COMMENTS 12 " lqb,, 14"X4R" IMARVIN ELEVATE 5LIDER 1EX15TING HEADER Scope THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPRIETARY WORK PRODUCT AND PROPERTY OF1 ST CHOICE BUILDERS LLC., DEVELOPED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF 1ST CHOICE BUILDERS LLC, USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS CONTAINED THEREIN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF1 ST CHOICE BUILDERS LLC. IS PROHIBITED AND MAY SUBJECT YOU TO A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. RECEIVED JUL - 8 2020 CITY OF STILLWATER BUILDING DEPARTMENT I I in o L— N so ifilmic.. 1 I 1 4! x < r T w r (2) 11 1/8" LVH Full Length � I 55" x 19 3/8" 38" xI9 3/b" 38" x 19 3/8" 3 ! Blood Light Above 17 I �J 12' Tm .fl sA O O e X fi: 3 �G T�cx,y (2) W0 Tres Flush Bean 12' i o`er-r.*w°01�c -------------------- i•.s-c.s u�`c eor`�r w wcx m+ F nnooe.o-xn j uso�vJ n� oci e.nrc �roc.A oounerornan Porch to house connection �srKc*raucrru i THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPRIETARY WORK PRODUCT AND PROPERTY OFSST CHOIC BUILDERS ".. DEVELOPED FOR THE E%CCUSA USE OF 1ST CHOICE BUILDERS LI.C. USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS CONTAINED THEREIN VATHOUTTHE WRITTEN PERMISSION OFIST CHOICE BUILDERS LLC. IS PRgHt8tTED AND MAY SUBJECT YOU TO A CLAIM FOr DAMAGES r nod Calculation=_ 2ooF Beams. 2ooFArea: 14k06=224 sgft -otal Roof Load: 224egft x 551be = 12,320 Ibs Seam Load: 12,320 / 2 = 61601bs Team 2-11 1/5" LVL Varsa-Lam 2.0 'ooting Load: 61 b0 / 2 = 30501bs :enter Deck Beam 8 Footings: -loor Beam Load 96sgft x 4011,s/sgft = 3540 Ibs 'ooting Load 3b40/2 = 1,g201bs °ooting: 16" Footing = 1.39sgft x 1500 psf = 20851bs Jutside Deck Beam 8 Footings: 'loor Load 48 sgft x 4011,s/sgft 1920 Ibs =ooting Load: 19201bs / 2 = %Mm -otal Footing Load: 305011be,%G = 40401bs °ooting: 16" Footing Belled to 24" = 3.14sgft x 1500 psf = 47101bs JUL - 8 2020 CITY OF STILLWATER BUILDING DEPARTMENT -Asphalt 5hingles to Match aS5 felt and Ice d V UV" as Eavaa -Alluminum Drlp Edge -1/2" 0513 Sheathing -Manufactured Truss System 24" o c -Vinyl Siding to match -House Wrap -T/16"05B sheathing -2x4 framing 16" o c -T86 wood interior siding -0oncrete Footing -Galvanized post base bolted to Footing -Full length 6xb from footing to roof beam -Deck beam hung from post with concealed flange hangers M sill ( r a ter T H E gI R T H PLA1,t OF Ml NNE S 0 T A PLANNING REPORT DATE: August 14, 2020 CASE NO.: 2020-35 TO: Planning Commission APPLICANT: Scott & Lori Allaire LAND OWNER: Scott & Lori Allaire REQUEST: 1) Impervious coverage variance for deck 2) Rear setback variance for deck LOCATION: 3494 8711, Street North ZONING: TR - Traditional Residential REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Scott and Lori Allaire purchased a model home at 3494 871h Street North in Nottingham Village. The location of the property and its neighborhood is illustrated in the graphic to the right. The house currently has no deck, but will accommodate one of a 10' x 12' size. The Allaires are hoping to build a 14' x 16' deck, which would need several variances. At the time of development, it was recognized by the developer and the City that decks in Nottingham Village would likely need to be of a modest size. To help alleviate the anticipated problem, the City Council allowed an increase in the impervious coverage from 30% approved with the preliminary plat to 35% at final plat approval. Planning Case 2020-35 August 14, 2020 Page 2 Allaire Deck Variances 3494 87th St N Legend Compliant deck Requested deck 22-5' —26.5' Impervious cover 34.9% with compliant 10' x 12' deck 36.1 with recIeusted 14'x 16'deck ANALYSIS SPECIFIC REQUEST The Allaires have requested the following specific variances: 1) A 99 square foot variance' to allow 3,361 square feet of impervious lot coverage, whereas the permitted 35% coverage on the lot would only allow 3,262 square feet. 1) A 2.5' variance to allow the deck to have a rear lot line setback of only 22.5 feet, whereas 25 feet is the minimum required. The city code allows for "...variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement... would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." Naturally, the code also establishes criteria for reviewing these requests. One general criterion is that nonconforming uses and structures elsewhere in the city cannot be considered grounds for issuance of a variance request. Nor may previous variances be used as a precedent for granting a variance request. Each case must be considered on its merits.3 Furthermore, a set of specific variance review criteria4 are found in the code that conform to state statutes and land use case law. Those specific criteria are: 1. No variance maybe granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. A single-family home with a deck is a primary permitted use in the subject TR — Traditional Residential 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? ' A 3% increase of 99 sf beyond the 3,262 sf allowed on this lot. This brings total requested impervious cover to 36.1%. 2 A 10% variance (2.5' variance to the 25' minimum requirement). 3 City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-208 4 City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-208(b) Planning Case 2020-35 August 14, 2020 Page 3 The impervious coverage limit typically is intended to address stormwater management issues. And setback standards are usually used both to set limits on the mass of a building and preserve specific yard/green spaces areas. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Given the relatively small sizes of the requested variances, 3% additional impervious coverage and 10% less setback distance, the impact of the proposed deck would be minimal. However, as mentioned above, a concession was already made for decks by allowing 35% impervious coverage rather than 30% c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan encourages the protection of natural resources through stormwater management. And, reducing the pervious area of a yard reduces the amount of stormwater that can be treated on site through percolation. So, the Comp Plan couldn't be considered to support the request. However, decks often have pervious materials beneath them, and as long as rain water can flow between deck boards and percolate into the ground beneath, the minimally sized variance would be largely self -mitigated. 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? A moderately sized deck would by most people's standards be considered reasonable in a single-family residential zoning district. Whether the requested size increase for the deck reasonable is much more subjective. The proposed 14' x 16' deck is 104 square feet larger than the allowed 10' x 12' deck. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? There is nothing unique about the lot that would make it more difficult than the average lot in the subdivision to stay within its 35% impervious surface allowance. Topography is relatively flat and there are no physical features or lot shape issues that make the property unique. And in terms of size, this lot is larger than eight of the fifteen in the subdivision. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The lot size and house dimensions were not created by the landowner. They existed before the property was purchased by the Allaires. And the relatively small size of the permitted 10' x 12'deck compared to the mass of the house is not of the current landowner's doing. Planning Case 2020-35 August 14, 2020 Page 4 d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? Since both variances are minimal in size, the essential character of the subdivision would not be altered if the variances were granted. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? Economics play only an indirect role in the proposed size of the deck. Given the cost of lots in the subdivision (and the city in general), new homes tend to maximize allowable building footprints. This naturally leaves less space for accessory options like decks and patios. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020- 35. 2. All changes to the case file 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. 3. No impervious surface of materials may be placed under the deck. 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 There are no unique circumstances setting the subject lot apart from others in the subdivision that would offer support for the requested variances. But, since the requested variances are minor in magnitude, staff does not believe they will create any negative impacts upon this or surrounding properties. Therefore, staff would recommend approval of the variances. Attachments: Location & Zoning Map Application materials cc: Scott & Lori Allaire Planning Case 2020-35 August 14, 2020 Page 5 water. in[ 915rna C- O4n[f0— Zoning Districts A-P, Agricultural Preservation RA- Single Family Residential RE -Two Family TR, Traditional Residential _ LR, Lakeshore Residential u CR, Cottage Residential - CT R, Cove Traditional Residential - CCR, Cove Cottage Residential - CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential TH, Townhouse RCM - Medium Density Residential - RCH - High Density Residential VC, ViNage Commercial CA- CeneralCommerclal - CBD - Central Business District nBP-C. Business Park -Commercial - BP-C, Business Park- Office BP -I, Business Park- Industrial - IB- Heavy Industrial - CRD - Campus Research Development - PA - Public Admnistration - PROS- Park, Recreation or Open Space LLJ Public Works Facility ROAD = WATER Febr2, 2019 K 7 7 n Location and Zoning Map 'Allaire Propertvl Scott and Lori Allaire 3494 871h St N Stillwater, MN 55082 City Planner - Abbi Wittman 216 41h St N Stillwater, MN 55082 July 231, 2020 Dear Abbi, We would like to apply for a variance for a 14'x16' natural cedar deck at our newly acquired property. We understand that the concern is about the amount of non -permeable land. We intend to cover the ground under the deck with landscape fabric and rock, which should remain permeable to water. In this way, we would remain consistent with the overall plan for this property. We feel this deck size is appropriate for a property of this type. It will allow us to enjoy our backyard with friends and family. The originally planned 12'x10' patio or deck would have been too small. Our backyard is enclosed in a 6' privacy fence, so this deck will not alter the character of the neighborhood. We consider a deck an extension of our home during the warm weather months and we like to spend a lot of time outdoors when we are able. We thank you for your consideration. Yours sincerely, Scott Allaire Lori Allaire u eRC�ruo Ml� 5A ` o oN m m T[3w o mpOp�mm6 ��5> v "'o m,x��xrt�+ �jRjmv r 2 <c� c o°u�r �m yoo mvv Zm -� ' �� O� 0To p 00000 mN O m0 m� z'� mmm I�t �t�i rt�r-ii O rm Ay z n� o-+ ovv waowa,v z 3 " sz a i cFi c= m$o ggg§ r� N 1=Ozm � 1 Z ��mo =� <D ITT O��0 m I mz Qr� zmmmg Om�z ��! " �+ 0 '�sm2�2 ±�H i3l(liiw CyTy4j 1m 13 iC mm� 7g7pm�1y $mOm yr� j� Zn 02 20 DymzO °z°za vgi Z W 5 moo so n yZ t z -" / I O ff �Z? m a� mho° �• l l y i/ i 1/i3n\OA1 t ",� -V� yzet V V� r -- — I — — — — — — — — — ► ► I ► I , � I � ► I a i I Ir ► I C)+ r I m w I I I I� l II z z I z m I it I — '-------- ---.� E � t0-ital iman\am \ I al • \ I \ II r\ lk" . g� N 9aVaMZ3£95-i968.4'£S IM' 'VaHMA :01 AslluayUIV TO: REPORT DATE: rater wjj�A T 11 7:67 ft i ;11P;:L;:A;:C�E �FM SN E S 0 i A PLANNING REPORT Planning Commission August 20, 2020 MEETING DATE: August 26, 2020 APPLICANT: Paul Saarinen representing Starcade CASE NO.: 2020-36 LANDOWNER: Marine Leasing LLC REQUEST: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate an arcade, a commercial recreational business LOCATION: 321 Main Street South DISTRICT: CBD: Central Business District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Paul Saarinen would like to operate an arcade, a commercial recreational business, in the lower level of the building at 321 Main Street South. The business, to be known as Starcade, will have all games available for sale. Therefore, the lower level is a combination of commercial recreational and retail sales. Retail sales, the current use of the property, is outright permitted in the Central Business District. 321 Main Street South (Google, May 2019) Although the applicant has verbally indicated there is a desire to operate concessions, including the possibility of prepared food and beverage sales, this is not considered at this time. Vending concessions will be available. The applicant is aware that changes to the business model that include prepared foods and beverages and/or alcohol sales will require a use permit amendment. Case No. 2020-36 Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting permission to operate an arcade, a commercial recreational business, at 321 Main Street South. ANLAYSIS The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Zoning Ordinance Commercial recreational businesses have been found to be complimentary to the existing uses in the downtown area. The use of an arcade is not in conflict with the zoning code and has little potential to become a nuisance as business operations are proposed to be located wholly indoors. With certain conditions placed on the storage of trash, and adherence to other nuisance regulations, the business will operate with minimal to no change as current building operations. That said, the property is located within the Downtown Parking District; changes in building use require review of the building's overall parking requirements and approval of a parking mitigation plan, if required. With half of the lower level's use changing from retail to commercial recreation, there will be an increase in required parking. However, the building floor plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to opening. Lower level changes required by the building code are likely to alter the floor plans, thereby potentially reducing the parking requirements. The applicant has requested the Downtown Parking Commission review the final floor plans for the business at a later date. Consequently, a condition of approval is recommended to ensure the development and approval of, as well as conformance to, a parking mitigation plan occurs. Comprehensive Plan The Downtown chapter of the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan cites a goal to "[e]ncourage a viable and compatible mix of community and visitor -serving activities that builds on the assets of Downtown as a desirable place 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..." Generally speaking, a greater number of different types of activities in a centralized area will help increase the overall amount of time a person spends within that area. Additionally, when these uses are located indoors, they help activate the area year round which is a challenge for Stillwater in the wintertime months. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; and Staff has not identified any public interest concerns. Waste Accumulation, Storage and Screening Case No. 2020-36 Page 3 The City has experienced a rise in trash -related nuisances associated with businesses that have not been required to keep their trash in their building, on their own property and/or out of public sight. A condition of approval is recommended to keep trash inside until trash day or proof of entering into agreement for the use of cooperative facilities located on public land. This may require the building owner to enter into agreement with the city to keep cooperative facilities clean. Additionally, there has been a greater effort to clean up cigarette butt waste on public sidewalks and streets. The City has been petitioned to require cigarette butt receptacles on private property where there may be a higher prevalence of smokers. Consequently, staff would recommend a condition of approval requiring the property owner to keep the public spaces adjacent to their business free and clear of trash and debris. Exterior changes Section 31-319 of the Stillwater City Code requires that the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) conduct a design review on exterior changes, signage and waste receptacle. The HPC has not reviewed any exterior changes. Their review of changes, including but not limited to new signage, will be required. Miscellaneous Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Staff has determined that if a parking mitigation plan can be made to offset the increase in parking spaces, the arcade would not be a detriment to the public. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Commission has the following options: A. Approve. If the proposed use permits meets the Special Use Permit guidelines, the CPC should move to approve Case No. 2020-36. Staff would recommend the following minimum condition for 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. 2020- 36, except as modified by the conditions herein 3. Exterior facade modifications, including but not limited to the installation of signage, shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a sign permit. 4. All existing and future trash receptacles shall be stored inside the building or in an enclosed onsite trash facility, at all times with the exception of the day of trash Case No. 2020-36 Page 4 collection. If use of cooperative trash facilities on public lands is desired, the property owner will enter into agreement with the City to maintain the cleanliness of the enclosure. 5. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 6. Abutting sidewalks must be kept clean of cigarette butts and other debris. 7. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. Any conditions attached to the parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. i. 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. 8. 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 approved Special Use Permit guidelines, then the Commission could deny the request. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, the denial 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 the September, 2020 meeting. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 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 conditional approval of a Special Use Permit to operate an arcade on the property located at 321 Main Street South. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Floor Plans (2 pages) cc: Paul Saarinen Tom Cogan IONO& A a ,45\ ;;i Starcade is a free -play model classic arcade targeted at 30-50 year olds. A customer pays $15 for all day play of our large assortment of classic arcade games from the 70's through the 90's. We will also have a retail component that sells arcade themed merchandise, snacks out of vending machines, and a small office to manage minor game repairs. Our proposed hours are from 11AM to 11 PM 7 days a week. This business will be located on the main floor. This will compliment existing entertainment venues, and drive year round business. The second floor will house existing office units with existing and new tenants. SO SQFT ,o A,.[ /III 11 s ,s TO: REPORT DATE: jill a., e r T H E B I F1 T H P C A C F O F M I N N E S 0 1 A PLANNING REPORT Planning Commission August 21, 2020 MEETING DATE: August 26, 2020 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater LANDOWNER: Citywide CASE NO.: 2020-37 REQUEST: Consideration of Zoning Text Amendments updating the City's preservation regulations LOCATION: Citywide DISTRICT: Citywide REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Within the municipal boundaries of the City, there is a National Register -listed historic district (a large part of the downtown area), a Neighborhood Conservation District (encompassing most older neighborhoods in Stillwater), a draft archaeological district, (approximately) one dozen structures and sites individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places as well as numerous design review districts. To help protect the character and nature of the community's historic resources, the City has developed an ordinance (codified as Section 22-7 of the City Code) specifically pertaining to its Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). However, certain activities of the HPC (or activities which the HPC may be required to be involved with) are also addressed in over one dozen other City Code Sections. This complex and disconnected system for the preservation of Stillwater sites and structures has made it difficult for the public to understand and for the HPC to administer. Consequently, City of Stillwater staff is challenged when assisting elected and appointed officials as well as property owners through specific application review processes and permit approvals. In consultation with an advisory committee, the HPC and the general public including business members and property owners in the downtown core, the City has been working on preservation - related ordinance amendments for the better part of one year. This was the first goal of the City's Comprehensive Plan's Historic Preservation chapter. The ordinance update is intended to be an overhaul of the existing ordinances for better clarity and understanding but to not substantially change the existing preservation program. Staff has aimed to incorporate comments from the general public, ordinance update committee members and the HPC based on guidance from City Attorney Kori Land. Enclosed is the final version for consideration by the Planning Commission (PC) who will make recommendation to the City Council (CC). SPECIFIC REQUEST The City is requesting consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to repeal and replace the City's existing preservation -related ordinances related to design and demolition permitting as well as the creation of two new zoning overlay districts. ANALYSIS A summary of the proposed amendments is included within this section. Where there is conflict or substantive change from the existing regulations, staff has identified such. 22-7: Heritage Preservation Commission Originally adopted in 1973 and minimally altered since that time, this is the enabling ordinance, granting the HPC the right to conduct certain preservation -related activities within the community. While not a zoning code change, the Commission's review of this section for understanding of how it ties with the zoning code amendments is important. The City has expanded the nomination process, identifying persons who can nominate structures within the community. Nomination criteria has been updated to reflect local goals while requiring site integrity (such as retaining original features or maintaining original location) as a component of consideration. The code clearly states when design permits are required for locally -listed structures and sites. It also identifies the City's Heirloom and Landmark Sites program, codifying the differences between these two different types of historic resources. This ordinance specifically calls out the HPC's role in demolition permit review throughout the community and design permit review in established preservation related zoning overlay districts (i.e. Downtown Design Review and Neighborhood Conservation). The section drops the HPC's previous role in review of design alterations that occur in the West Stillwater Business Park; review of the design of these structures will occur at the staff and Planning Commission level. Lastly, it requires owners of National Register -listed structures and sites, heritage preservation sites, and buildings or structures of potential historic significance to maintain their properties as to prevent deterioration. This is a new requirement in the code but one which the HPC and staff believe is important to the long-term vitality and preservation of the community. 31-209: Design Permit Design permits, a function of zoning, have been reviewed and approved by the HPC for decades. However, there was not a strong tie to the HPC enabling ordinance nor a differentiation from Site Alteration Permits (a permit required for changes to a designated historic site). From here on out, all actions reviewed by the Commission (with the exception of complete demolition) to any structure, regardless of its designation, will require a design permit; and site alteration permits will no longer be referenced in the City Code. Standards have been updated requiring four-sided design, conformance to neighborhood rhythm, mass and scale, and substantial conformance to adopted guidelines; these standards will be applicable to all design permit requests. 31-215: Demolition Permit This code section will repeal and replace the existing demolition review ordinance, making demolition permit review a part of the Zoning Code. Subject to the State of MN's 60-day review, the new review process will significantly reduce the amount time demolition review and permitting can take. The ordinance is clear that demolition is generally prohibited to help achieve community goals focused on community sustainability, protection of affordable housing and the preservation of community character of Stillwater's residential neighborhoods. However, it does allow a property owner (or the City, in the case of neglect) the right to request demolition permit review for a heritage preservation site or a pre-1946 structure. The process can align with a designation process, if a Councilor, HPC member, or HPC staff liaison requests. The process leans on city staff to prepare (or have prepared by a consultant, if needed) historical, condition and appraisal reports for the city consideration of the demolition permit application (which is required to have reconstruction plans and cost comparison included). The HPC will consider the matter in a public hearing and, in the event they would like to deny the demolition, forward their recommendation onto the City Council. Prior to approving a demolition permit, the City must determine the demolition is supportive of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and there is a situation substantially inadequate to specific health and/or safety needs or that denial of the demolition permit would deprive the owner of all reasonable economic use. 41-404: Downtown Design Review District Overlay This is a new section of the City's Zoning Code and helps strengthen the tie between the City's preservation regulations and zoning functions (including applications reviewed by the Planning Commission). For this district, the overlay is merely to conduct review of design permit applications for properties in the district. Staff has included HPC review of both private and public projects (similar to the existing ordinance). The code section is specifically tied to adopted guidelines which will be updated 2020-2021. 41-405: Neighborhood Conservation District Overlay This overlay will continue the HPC's practice of reviewing the design of new homes on vacant lots in the oldest part of Stillwater. It also allows for the HPC to review Design Permits for partial demolition (i.e. alteration of greater than 20% of a front/exterior facing fagade or 30% of the total fagade). The only substantial change is the HPC is proposing to reduce the overall demolition review down to 30% of the total exterior fagade. The rationale for this is inappropriate additions can have a significant impact on the overall character of the structure and the neighborhood. ANALYSIS As noted, the regulations are not intended to be changed as to alter the HPC's current operations significantly. However, some changes were necessary to help clear up confusion, to create greater flexibility, and to increase the HPC's review of alterations to older buildings, sites and structures. Prior to the adoption of an ordinance amending any of the provisions of this chapter, the city council must find that: The public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment. The City's current HPC-enabling ordinance is nearly 50 years old and has had only minor modifications since adoption. However, within that time period the City has created preservation- and design review -related regulations in dozens of other City Code sections. This has created a patchwork preservation program that is hard to understand and difficult to administer. When combined with the City's lengthy and cumbersome demolition review process, the City's preservation program has not exemplified good preservation regulation. The general welfare of the community warrants this amendment. The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan and any adopted area or specific plan. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5, Historic Resources, specifically outlines a ten-year work plan for the HPC. While the chapter notes the City has not designated any structures or sites since the late 1990s, it acknowledges the City's preservation regulations are not well-defined. The first work plan item was to update the preservation program so the HPC would be in a better position to consider nominations of structures and sites as it continued to survey neighborhoods. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options available to them: 1. If the Planning Commission finds the public necessity, general community welfare and good zoning practice permit the amendment and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan, the Commission may forward to the City Council a favorable recommendation of approval of Zoning Text Amendment 2020-37 allowing for modifications to Chapter 31. 2. Make findings that the public necessity, general community welfare and good zoning practice do not permit the amendment or that the proposed amendment is not in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan, and forward to the City Council recommendation of denial of the requested ordinance amendment. 3. Table consideration for more information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment and that the amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan and any adopted area or specific plan. Heritage Preservation Commission At their regular meeting on August 191h the Heritage Preservation Commission recommended the Planning Commission approve the enclosed ordinance amendments. Staff Staff recommends the Planning Commission make a favorable recommendation of approval of the enclosed ordinance amendments to the City Council. Attachments: 22-7: Heritage Preservation Commission 31-209: Design Permit 31-25: Demolition Permit 31-404: Downtown Design Review District Overlay 31-405: Neighborhood Conservation District Overlay HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 1 of 8 Sec. 22-7. - Heritage preservation commission. Subd. 1. Commission established. City of Stillwater Ordinance #506 established the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission in 1973. Subd. 2. Declaration of public policy and purpose. The city council declares that the preservation, protection, perpetuation and use of areas, lands, places, buildings, structures, districts or other objects having a special historical, community or aesthetic interest or value is a public necessity, and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the community. The purposes of the heritage preservation commission are to: (1) Safeguard the city's heritage by preserving sites and structures that reflect elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, visual or architectural history; (2) Protect and enhance the city's appeal and attraction to residents, visitors and tourists and serve as a support and stimulus to business and industry; (3) Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest of the city; (4) Foster civic pride in the beauty and notable accomplishments of the past; and (5) Promote preservation and continued use of historic sites and structures for the education and general welfare of the city's residents. Subd. 3. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the definitions ascribed to them in this subdivision, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1) Alter or alteration means to change the exterior of an existing building, structure, or site, including features that materially modify its historic appearance or construction. (2) Building, structure, or site of potential historic significance means a building, structure or site, or a portion of same, with a construction date of 50 or more years ago. (3) Character defining features. The particular materials, ornamentation and architectural features that together define the historic character of the building, site, or district. (4) Commission means the heritage preservation commission of the City of Stillwater. (5) Contributing means a designation applied to a building, structure or site that adds to the overall character and significance of an historic district due to its historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological, or engineering significance and its compatibility with other buildings, structures and sites within a historic district. A contributing structure has intact major character defining features and although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally reversible. Historic materials may have been covered over but evidence indicates they are intact. (6) Demolition means any act or process that destroys in part or in whole. (7) Demolition by neglect means the long-term neglect of a building, site or structure that contributes to a level of dilapidation so severe that rehabilitation of the building, site or structure may no longer be a viable option. (8) Design permit means the written approval of a permit application for proposed alterations to a heritage preservation site or a contributing building, structure or site within a historic HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 2 of 8 district, based on findings that the work is appropriate and does not adversely affect the heritage preservation site. (9) Heirloom home means a house that has good historical physical integrity and represents one of the architectural styles of the late nineteenth century or the first half of the twentieth century. (10) Heritage preservation site means any areas, lands, places, buildings, structures, districts or other objects that has been duly designated a local heritage preservation site by the city council because of its historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological or engineering significance, pursuant to subdivision 5(2) of this section. (11) Historic context means a summary document created for planning purposes that groups information about historical properties based on a shared theme, specific time period and geographical area. (12) Historic district means a collection of all contributing and non-contributing properties within a defined area designated as a historic district by the city council because of its historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological or engineering significance. A historic district is a type of heritage preservation site, subject to all heritage preservation site regulations, and may contain independently designated heritage preservation sites. (13) Historic resource means any building or structure that is not currently designated as a heritage preservation site, but which may be worthy of such designation because of its historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological or engineering significance. (14) Integrity means a site's ability to convey its significance through retention of the physical aspects of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. (15) Inventory means the City's listing of locally designated heritage preservation sites and districts, including contributing properties within a district. (15) Landmark site means a site that is among the most historically and architecturally significant properties in Stillwater. A landmark retains its architectural integrity and has a strong connection to the history of the city. (17) Non-contributing means a designation applied to a building, structure or site that does not have architectural or historic significance, and does not add to the overall character and significance of an historic district, due to a lack of architectural or historical integrity or its incompatibility with other buildings, structures and sites. Non-contributing buildings can include, but not be limited to, those with incompatible additions or exterior alterations, have lost original integrity, or are outside a district's period of significance. (18) Period of significance means the span of time that properties attain the character defining features that qualify them for designation. (19) Significance means the importance of a heritage preservation site, historic district, or historic resource. (20) Staff means designated Community Development Department staff liaison to the heritage preservation commission or designee. HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 3 of 8 (21) Survey means a systematic examination of an area designed to gather information about historic properties sufficient to evaluate them against predetermined criteria of significance within specific historic contexts. Subd. 4. Powers and duties of the commission. The commission shall have the following powers and duties, in addition to those otherwise specified in this section: (1) Survey. The commission shall survey all areas, lands, places, buildings, structures, districts or other objects in the city which the commission, on the basis of information available or presented to it, has reason to believe are significant to the city's culture, social, economic, religious, political or architectural history. Surveys are intended to identify potential sites and districts that have the potential for local designation as a heritage preservation site. The city clerk's office is designated as the repository. (2) Designation. The commission shall recommend to the City Council areas, lands, places, buildings, structures, districts or other objects to be considered for designation as a local heritage preservation site or district. The commission shall also recommend to the City Council any city -initiated nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. (3) Recognition. The commission shall maintain a listing of recognized historical properties that constitutes the Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites program. The commission shall review and approve or deny applications submitted by property owners to participate in the Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites program, as outlined in City Code Section 22-7 Subd. 6. (4) Review of permits. In order to protect the architectural and historic character of designated local heritage preservation sites, the commission shall conduct review of applications for demolition, as outlined in City Code Section 31-215, and design permits and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the issuance of design permits. The commission shall also protect the unique character of Stillwater's downtown and residential neighborhoods through the review and approval or denial of: a. Demolition permits required in City Code Section 31-215 b. Design permits for required projects in the following: 1. Downtown design review overlay district 2. Neighborhood conservation overlay district (5) Advocacy. The commission shall continually survey all areas to determine needed and desirable improvements of older buildings throughout the city, acting in a resource and advisory capacity to owners of historically significant sites regarding their preservation, restoration and rehabilitation. (6) Recommendations. The commission may request the City Council: a. Acquire by purchase, gift, or bequest, of a fee or lesser interest, including preservation restrictions, in designated properties and adjacent or associated lands which are important for the preservation and use of the designated properties. b. Use the City Council's power of eminent domain to maintain or preserve designated properties, properties eligible for designation, and adjacent or associated lands be HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 4 of 8 acquired by gift, negotiation or by eminent domain as provided for in Minn. Stat. Ch. 117. (7) Public education. The commission strive to develop programming for the continuing education of the city's residents with respect to the city's cultural, architectural, archaeological, and engineering heritage. The commission shall share the history of Stillwater, including its individual sites and neighborhoods, through a broad variety of mediums. (8) Record keeping. The commission shall keep current a public inventory of locally designated heritage preservation sites and districts, including contributing sites within districts. The commission may on a continuing basis collect and review certain city planning and development records, documents, studies, models, maps, plans and drawings to be entered into the public library historical archives as a permanent record of city history and development. (9) Annual reporting. An annual report shall be prepared by October 31St of each year as required in accordance with Minnesota Statues 471.193, subd. 6 for submission to the State Historic Preservation Office and shall file a copy with the city clerk for distribution to the City Council. Subd. S. Designation of heritage preservation sites. Heritage preservation sites shall be designated as follows: (1) Nomination. The nomination of a heritage preservation site, which may include areas, lands, places, buildings, structures, districts or other objects at least 50 years old or older, shall be made to the commission on a nomination application form and include all supporting documentation. The nomination of a heritage preservation site shall be submitted by one or more of the following: a. A member of the heritage preservation commission. b. A member of the city council. c. The HPC staff liaison. d. Any person with a legal or equitable interest in the subject property. (2) Criteria for heritage preservation site designation. In considering the designation of heritage preservation sites, the commission shall determine the request meet one or more criteria in each of the following subsections: a. Historical physical integrity. One or more of these criteria establishes historical physical integrity due to: i) Retaining original character defining features, materials, and character. ii) Maintaining original location or same historic context after having been moved. iii) The structure has been accurately reconstructed or restored based on historical documentation. HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 5 of 8 b. Historical significance. One or more of the following criteria establishes historical significance: i) The character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the neighborhood, city, county, state, or nation. ii) The location as a site of a significant historic event for the neighborhood, city, county, state, or nation. iii) The identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the city's culture and development. iv) The identification with or embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an historic context, architectural style, period, form or treatment associated with the neighborhood, city, county, state, or nation. v) The identification as work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the city's development. vi) The embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation for the neighborhood, city, county, state, or nation. vii) The unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the city. (3) Criteria for designation as a historic district. A district shall be eligible for designation if it constitutes a geographically definable area, which contains two or more areas, places, buildings, structures, lands, or other objects, or a combination thereof which: a. A majority of the areas, places, buildings, structures, lands, or other objects, collectively, contribute to special character or special historical or cultural interest of value of the district; b. Represent one or more periods or styles of architecture typical of one or more periods of significance of the city, county, state or nation; and c. Cause such an area, by reason of such factors, to constitute a visually distinctive section of the city. (4) Communications with Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office. A copy of the commission's proposed designation of a heritage preservation site, including boundaries, shall be sent to the State Historic Preservation Office. (5) Planning commission review. All applications for the designation of a heritage preservation site shall be submitted to the planning commission for its recommendation with respect to the relationship of the proposed heritage preservation designation to the comprehensive plan, the effect of the proposed designation upon the surrounding neighborhood and any other planning considerations that may be relevant to the proposed designation. The planning commission shall offer its recommendation of approval, denial or modification of the proposed designation to the commission. HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 6 of 8 (6) Hearings. Following receipt of the recommendation from the planning commission, the heritage preservation commission shall hold a public hearing on the application. Notice of the public hearing shall be published in the city's official legal newspaper at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing, sent to all owners of the property proposed to be designated a historic preservation site, and sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the property lines of the area to be designated. (7) Findings and recommendations. The commission shall determine if the proposed heritage preservation site is eligible for heritage preservation as determined by the criteria specified in Subd. 5 (3) and (4) of this section, and make a recommendation to the city council. (8) City council designation. The city council shall consider the application and may by resolution approve the designation as a heritage preservation site. In the event the proposed designation, including contributing status of a property in a proposed historic district, is not supported by the property owner, the City Council designation shall require a supermajority vote. (9) Stillwater Inventory additions. Following any City Council designation of a heritage preservation site or district, the commission shall update the Stillwater Inventory. The city clerk's office is designated as the repository for at least one copy of all studies, reports, recommendations and programs required under this section. (10) Recording of heritage preservation sites. The resolution designating the heritage preservation site shall be recorded against the property with the county recorder or registered with the registrar of titles and kept on file with the building official. (11) Stillwater inventory removals. In the event any heritage preservation site or district is no longer deemed appropriate for local designation, the commission or property owner may initiate removal of the site or district from the Stillwater Inventory by the same procedure and criteria for establishing the designation, except a supermajority vote of the City Council is required to remove a heritage preservation site designation. Subd. 6. Recognition of Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites. The commission may adopt a policy, subject to approval by the city council, which lists the structures of historical or architectural integrity that have been recognized as Heirloom Homes or Landmark Sites, to which the commission may add to from time to time, in order to recognize and encourage the protection, enhancement, and use of such structures. Nothing in this section shall be constructed to impose any additional regulations or controls upon Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites included on this list. (1) Nomination. An application for recognition as an Heirloom Home or Landmark Site may be submitted by the property owner or, with the property owner's permission, any other person or organization, including the heritage preservation commission. (2) Criteria for recognition. The commission shall consider applications to recognize a structure as an Heirloom Home or Landmark Sites if the structure is of historical or architectural integrity. a. Heirloom Homes represent a variety of house styles, large and small, representative of nineteenth century Stillwater. They retain a fair amount of their HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 7 of 8 original design elements such as siding, windows, doors and porches and may possess potential for local designation. b. Landmark Sites are the finest old houses and the most remarkable sites in Stillwater. They have architectural integrity and a strong connection to the history of Stillwater. Landmark Sites may be eligible for or already listed in the National Register of Historic Places and possess potential for designation as a heritage preservation site. Subd. 7. Review of design permits for alterations to heritage preservation sites. Requirements for design permits, using the procedure set forth in Zoning, Chapter 31, Sec. 31-209, are as follows: (1) Heritage preservation sites. Prior to the issuance of other applicable city permits and licenses, the commission shall review and approve or deny the issuance of a design permit for any of the following types of alterations to a heritage preservation site that involve: a. Remodeling, alteration or repair that will change the exterior appearance of a heritage preservation site. b. New construction. c. Signs. d. Moving of buildings. (2) Administrative review. To expedite the review process, the following types of applications and plans for minor alterations may be approved by the Community Development Department when the work is in substantial conformance with the criteria identified herein. a. Interior work affecting only the interior of a structure (such as plumbing, insulation, flooring, finishes, etc.) b. Minor alterations in keeping with the integrity of the site and do not impact the overall architecture character including: i. Ordinary and routine maintenance not exceeding $10,000 ii. Siding similar to the existing materials, finish and form iii. 1:1 replacement of windows with same form including pane arrangement, materials and finish iv. Replacement of roofing materials v. Landscaping including fencing vi. Installation of garbage or recycling enclosures vii. Replacement of awnings c. Emergency repair. In emergencies where immediate repair is needed to protect the life, health or safety of the structure and its inhabitants, the building official, in consultation with the HPC staff liaison, may approve the repair to the extent necessary to protect life, health or safety without prior commission action. HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 8 of 8 Additional work shall require a design permit. In the case of a design permit issued under this subdivision or any emergency repair affecting a heritage preservation site, the building official shall immediately notify the commission of its action and specify the facts or conditions constituting the emergency. (3) Design permit standards for heritage preservation sites. All commission decisions with respect to design permits shall be in substantial accordance with the Secretary of Interior's General Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Subd. 8. Maintenance. Owners of National Register -listed structures and sites, heritage preservation sites, and buildings or structures of potential historic significance shall not allow their buildings to deteriorate by neglect (i.e. failing to provide ordinary maintenance or repair). Such conditions as broken windows, doors and openings which allow the elements and vermin to enter, the deterioration of exterior architectural features, or the deterioration of a building's structure system shall constitute failure to provide ordinary maintenance or repair. Subd. 9. Penalty for violation of section. An owner or occupant of any area, place, building, structure or other object within a duly designated heritage preservation site who remodels, repairs, demolishes or moves a heritage preservation site in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each such day is a separate violation, and it shall be punishable as such. The imposition of the penalties prescribed shall not prevent the city from instituting civil actions allowed by law, such as but not limited to abatement or administrative citations. HPC Ordinance Amendments: Design Permit Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 1 of 2 Sec. 31-209. - Design permit. Design permits shall require the following: 1) Purpose. The purpose of the design permit procedure is to ensure that building and site development is designed to complement the character and integrity of Stillwater's traditional neighborhoods and commercial districts, including adjacent buildings, the streetscape, and the natural environment. 2) General provisions. Requirement for approval of a design permit shall be established within Sec. 22-7 and the Downtown Design Review (DDR) and Neighborhood Conservation (NC) overlay zoning districts. 3) Procedure. A design permit application is subject to the following procedure: a) Submission of application. Applicant shall submit a complete design permit application accompanied by detailed plans including a site plan, building elevations and design details, application requirements established in adopted special design guidelines, and materials deemed necessary by the Community Development Department to evaluate the request. b) Heritage preservation commission (HPC) review. The HPC shall consider the application at a hearing and approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. If the application involves a new dwelling house within the NC overlay district, the hearing shall be a public hearing. For all other applications, no public hearing is required. 4) Design permit standards. In making a determination whether to approve or deny an application for a design permit, the commission shall be guided by the following standards: a) Proposed alterations to a heritage preservation site shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. b) Proposed alterations shall conform to special design guidelines for areas or districts of the City officially adopted by the City Council. c) Proposed alterations shall conform to the existing primary and secondary structure setbacks and neighborhood street rhythm. d) The height, scale, mass and proportion of the proposed alterations, including fagade openings and roof style, shall be compatible with the site and its surroundings. e) Proposed alterations shall have four-sided detailing and materials. f) The location, height and material of walls, fences, hedges, trees and screen plantings shall ensure compatibility with adjacent development and the environment and conceal areas, utility installations and other unsightly development. g) The appearance of the number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall be compatible with adjacent development. h) The HPC may include conditions in its decisions that it deems reasonable and necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter and this section. Upon findings by the HPC that the application, subject to conditions as it deems necessary, will meet the above criteria, secure the purpose of this chapter, the comprehensive plan, and the heritage preservation ordinance, the HPC may approve the design permit. If findings are made that an application would violate the criteria of a design permit, the HPC must deny the application. 5) Findings required and criteria. The HPC shall make findings that the application meets each of the following criteria in order to approve a design permit: a) The proposed building alteration or new construction, including its appurtenances, does not materially impair the architectural or historic integrity of the building and site, adjacent HPC Ordinance Amendments: Design Permit Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 2of2 buildings and sites, or the neighborhood as a whole. b) If located in a historic district, the proposed building or site alteration or new construction is compatible with, and will ensure continued significance and integrity of all properties within the historic district based on the period(s) of significance under which the district was designated. c) Granting the design permit will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter and does not negatively alter the essential character and significance of the building, site, and its surroundings. 6) Appeals. The design permit applicant or any party aggrieved by the Community Development Department's or HPC's decision shall have a right to appeal such order and decision to the City Council as follows: a) Filing. Appeals from a decision of the Community Development Department or HPC shall be made in writing and shall state the reasons for the appeal. The appeal, accompanied by the appropriate fee, must be received by the city clerk not later than ten calendar days following the date of action from which the appeal is being taken, unless otherwise specified in this Section 31-217. b) Stay, pending appeal. The receipt of a written appeal will stay all action and approvals or permits which may have been granted, pending the decision of the City Council. 7) Modifications to design permits. Modification of design permits shall be as follows: a) Minor modifications. The Community Development Department may administratively approve modifications to conditions imposed on any design permit, at the request of the design permit holder, where evidence has been submitted by the design permit holder that the requested modification: i) Is substantially similar to the approved design permit; and ii) Will not significantly alter the design permit; and iii) Is made because of changed circumstances. b) Major modifications. The Community Development Department must refer major modifications to any design permit to the HPC. A modification is considered to be major when it constitutes a significant revision to a permit including but not be limited to setback and rhythm, height, scale/mass and proportion, detailing and materials, or appropriate screening. HPC Ordinance Amendments: Design Permit Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 1 of 3 Sec. 31-215: Building Demolition Permit Subd. 1. Purpose. To aid the City in achieving goals focused on community sustainability, protection of affordable housing, and the preservation of the community character of Stillwater's residential neighborhoods, the unnecessary demolition of National Register -designated structures and sites, Heritage Preservation Sites and buildings or structures of potential historic significance built prior to January 1, 1946 is generally prohibited. Whenever feasible, National Register -listed structures and sites, heritage preservation sites, and pre-1946 buildings or structures of potential historic significance shall be preserved and repaired, rather than demolished, except as otherwise allowed under this subsection. Subd. 2. Demolition Permit required. Any property that is a National Register -listed structure or sites, Heritage Preservation Site, or pre-1946 building or structure of potential historic significance must obtain a demolition permit prior to demolition. Demolition permit applications may only be submitted by the property owner or the City when said property has been neglected and in disrepair. Subd. 3. Inspections required. The owner shall allow access to the subject property by appropriate city Staff for: a. A mandatory pre -demolition permit application inspection; and b. The purpose of inspections and/or appraisals required city as part of its review of a demolition permit application. Subd. 4. Demolition permit submission requirements. The applicant shall submit a demolition permit application and documentation regarding: a. Architectural plans, elevations and/or renderings depicting the proposed demolition and site redevelopment's conformance to applicable overlay guidelines; b. A cost comparison of the rehabilitation of the existing building or structure of potential historical significance and demolition and redevelopment of the site, including demolition and disposal costs; c. Historic, if any, and current photographs of the elevations, exterior architectural features, and structural members; and d. Photographs of the adjacent buildings or structures, or setting. Subd. 5. Review authority. Demolition permits shall be reviewed by the City upon submittal of a complete demolition permit application. To aid the City in its review of demolition, the City may engage properly licensed architects, engineers, historic preservation specialist, and/or real estate appraisers to investigate and prepare: a. A written report on the significance of the building, site or structure and its ability to reasonably meet the National, state or local criteria for designation as a heritage preservation site; the age and overall integrity of the building, site or structure, including its significant features, unusual or uncommon design, texture, and/or material; and the relative importance of the building, site or structure in the context of the block where such building or structure is located (Historical Report); and A written report upon the existing condition and feasibility of preservation of the heritage preservation site proposed for total demolition (Conditions Report). Said Conditions Report HPC Ordinance Amendments: Design Permit Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 2 of 3 shall include an estimate of the reasonable cost of all work required to preserve, rehabilitate, or restore the historic building or structure; and c. A written report upon the County's ten-year appraised value and/or existing market value of the relevant heritage preservation site (Appraisal Report), for the purposes of comparing this value against the cost estimate contained within the Conditions Report. Subd. 6. Staff review and report development. Upon submission of a complete demolition permit application, City staff or its consultants will prepare and compile the necessary Appraisal, Conditions and/or Historical Reports. Subd. 7. Heritage Preservation Commission review. The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) will consider all demolition permit applications in a public hearing. 1. Requests for demolition of a National Register -listed structures or sites or a Heritage Preservation Sites shall be reviewed by the HPC who will make recommendation of permit approval or denial to the City Council. 2. Request for demolition of a pre-1946 buildings or structures of potential historic significance shall be reviewed by the HPC. a. The HPC will consider the following review criteria prior to making its decision: 1. The structural integrity of the building, site or structure proposed for demolition and evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain it; 2. The ability of the building, site or structure to be reused onsite in a reasonably economical way; 3. The cost and economic feasibility of restoring the building, site or structure; 4. The ability of the building, site or structure to be practically moved to another site in the town; and 5. The site development proposal's conformance to the established district adopted guidelines and: a. Any impact(s) that will occur to the visual character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact(s) that will occur to the historic importance of the buildings, structures or objects located on the property and adjacent properties. c. Any impact that will occur to the architectural integrity of the buildings, structures or objects located on the property and adjacent properties. b. Upon reviewing the reports and review criteria, the HPC will make determination the demolition permit should be approved based on demolition permit approval findings found in Subd. 9. If the HPC denies the permit application, it will forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Subd. 8. City Council review. The City Council shall review the HPC recommendation, demolition permit application and all applicable reports and take action on the request. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, demolition permit approval findings found in Subd. 9 shall be made. Subd. 9. Findings. Prior to the approval of a demolition permit, the City must find: 1. Demolition of the resource has been evaluated against and, on balance, has been found supportive of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and relevant area plans, taking into account HPC Ordinance Amendments: Design Permit Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 3 of 3 factors such as: the merits of proposed new development on the site, the merits of preserving the resource, and the area's desired character; and 2. Denial of a demolition permit would effectively deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the site. a. For investment or income -producing properties, the owner's inability to obtain a reasonable rate of return in the present condition or if rehabilitated under Design Permit criteria. b. For non -income producing properties consistent of an owner -occupied single- or two-family dwelling and/or institutional use not solely operating for profit, the owner's inability to convert the property to a compatible and conforming use in its present condition or, if rehabilitated. c. Noneconomic Reason: there is situation substantially inadequate to meet the applicant's needs because of specific health and/or safety issues. Subd. 10. Penalty for violation of section. An owner or occupant of building, site or structure subject to this section demolishes said structure, or a portion thereof, in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each such day is a separate violation, and it shall be punishable as such. The imposition of the penalties prescribed shall not prevent the city from instituting civil actions allowed by law, such as but not limited to abatement or administrative citations. HPC Ordinance Amendments: DDR Overlay Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 1 of 3 Sec. 31-404. — Downtown design review (DDR) overlay district. The downtown design review overlay district shall be regulated as follows: (a) Purpose. The downtown design review overlay district is established to conserve and enhance downtown Stillwater's appearance, preserve its historical and architectural assets, protect and encourage areas of existing or potential scenic value, and assist property owners. It promotes working together effectively when new construction, renovation, and restoration are proposed. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that building alterations emphasize the design and materials of the original building and remove inconsistent materials and features, that new construction maintains the scale and character of existing buildings and that downtown pedestrian quality is maintained and enhanced. (b) District boundaries. This section shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the city of Stillwater, Minnesota as shown on the official zoning map and/or the attachments thereto as being located within the boundaries of the downtown design review overlay district. (c) Design permit required. A design permit is required for new construction and any alterations to existing structures/sites that have the potential to alter the architectural integrity of that structure/site. (1) Heritage preservation commission review. Prior to the issuance of other applicable city permits and licenses, the heritage preservation commission shall review and approve or deny the issuance of a design permit for any of the following uses and development types: i) Residential structures including single- and two-family dwellings. ii) Commercial, office, institutional, and industrial structures, including land not involving buildings (e.g. outside storage, loading, or utility areas). iii) Accessory structures and uses. iv) Any structure for which a variance has been requested. v) All signs requiring a sign permit. vi) Any projects where the applicant is a public agency over which the city exercises land use controls. vii) Parking lots of five or more spaces. viii) Any planned unit development or subdivision. (2) Administrative review. To expedite the review process, the following types of applications and plans for minor alterations may be approved by the Community Development Department when the work is in substantial conformance with the criteria identified herein. i. Interior work affecting only the interior of a structure (such as plumbing, insulation, flooring, finishes, etc.) ii. Minor alterations in keeping with the integrity of the site and do not impact the overall architecture character including: 1) Ordinary and routine maintenance not exceeding $10,000 2) Siding similar to the existing materials, finish and form 1 HPC Ordinance Amendments: DDR Overlay Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 2 of 3 3) 1:1 replacement of windows with same form including pane arrangement, materials and finish 4) Replacement of roofing materials 5) Landscaping including fencing 6) Installation of garbage or recycling enclosures 7) Replacement of awnings (d) Design standards. The following shall apply: (1) Main Street setbacks. i. Front yard setback. For infill lots fronting on Main Street, the front yard setback shall be zero. Exceptions are allowed if it is designed as an expansion of the public pedestrian environment and generally aligns with the setbacks of adjacent buildings. ii. Side yard setback. For lots fronting on Main Street, the side yard setbacks shall be zero. Exceptions are allowed if it is designed as a public pedestrian way and generally aligns with adjacent street design and form. (2) Fagade transparency. i. At street level, a minimum of 60% of the street facing fa�ade(s) shall be transparent; side and rear facades shall be 30% transparent. ii. Reflective glass, mirrored glass, and heavily tinted glass shall be prohibited. (3) Prohibited building exterior materials. Building exteriors shall not utilize exposed or painted concrete masonry units. (4) Lighting. i. Lighting fixtures shall be concealed or integrated into the overall design of the site; ii. Light sources shall be hidden from direct pedestrian and motorist view; and iii. Unshielded wall pack light fixtures shall be prohibited. (5) Signs. i. Only one sign containing the business name or graphic logo shall be permitted per street - facing side. Projecting signs are not considered to face the street. (1) A window sign, not requiring a sign permit, may be used in addition to other sign types. ii. Signs shall be located in such a way as to not obscure any architectural features of the building. iii. Neon signs shall only be permitted as interior window signs. iv. The following materials or sign types shall be prohibited: (1) Backlit and internally lit signs. (2) Signs with changeable or movable letters or graphics. (e) Design guidelines. The city's review of any proposed new construction or alteration shall also be subject to any design guidelines specific to the downtown design review district that have been officially adopted by the City Council. 2 HPC Ordinance Amendments: DDR Overlay Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 3 of 3 HPC Ordinance Amendments: NC Overlay Final Draft: August 21, 2020 Page 1 of 1 Sec. 31-405. — Neighborhood conservation (NC) overlay district. The neighborhood conservation overlay district shall be regulated as follows: (a) Purpose. The neighborhood conservation overlay district is established to protect and preserve the unique character of Stillwater's residential neighborhoods by regulating new infill development and partial demolition within the district. Its purpose is to conserve traditional neighborhood character, guide future infill and partial demolition development within the district, and discourage unnecessary demolition of structures that contribute to the district's historic character. It also preserves neighborhood pride, property values, a diverse and affordable range of homes, and the general economic vitality of the neighborhood. (b) District boundaries. This section shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the city of Stillwater, Minnesota shown on the official zoning map and/or the attachments thereto as being located within the boundaries of the neighborhood conservation overlay district. (c) Design permit required. A design permit is required for the following uses and development types: (1) The construction of a new dwelling on a vacant lot (2) The demolition of a pre-1946 building or structure that is of potential historic significance and demolition is: i) greater than twenty percent (20%) of all external walls of a building or structure, measured based upon their total surface area, when such walls are visible from a street, public way or the St. Croix River except when removal is for the construction of a front porch; or ii) greater than 30% of total exterior is demolished regardless of the visibility of such walls from a street, public way or the St. Croix River. (d) Design guidelines. The city's review of any proposed new construction or alteration shall also be subject to any design guidelines specific to the neighborhood conservation district that have been officially adopted by the City Council.