Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-09-23 CPC Packet0 Zoom Meeting Participants (19) Pixel 3 XL c ail water. -_mil L. f :.till:;atc, -commissioner -John Dybvig Jennifer Quinn Program John Colburn Pete Hayes -Council memberr-Ryan ... c• ill Sue Steinwall ,/ -commissioner -Eric Han... iPhoneKatie's ph... John Holdorph Cormac Molloy" g 22'32_ Tad Nelson Car Q Find a participant City of Stillwater (Host, me) 6 5 0 ® City Hall (Co -host) C3 4 01 O -commissioner -Todd Meyhoff .$ 01 OiPhoneKatie's phone 4 0 O -commissioner -John Dybvig 4 01 OCar % 0 . j -commissioner -Eric Hansen r 01 Cormac MolloyrA -Council member -Ryan Collins 5 01 Jennifer Quinn 5 0 0 John Colburn 5 0 John Holdorph 5 0 Pete Hayes 5 0 OProgram 5 ® Sue Steinwall 5e 01 aTad Nelson /,r 0 0 161227032-- 171543104-- OPixel 3 XL 01 Invite Mute All iliwater� THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA 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 September 23rd, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of August 26th, 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. 2020-14: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Variances related to building a garage with living space above it, on the property located at 816 William St N, in the District. Brent from Image Contracting, the applicant and Sarah McFarland, the property owner. 3. Case No. 2020-38: Consideration of a Variance maximum accessory structure size on the property located at 6 River Heights, in the RA district. William Samuelson, property owner. 4. Case No. 2020-39: Consideration of a Special Use Permit and associated Variances for an Accessory Dwelling Unit with associated Variances attached to a new garage on the property located at 1124 5th Street South, in the RA district. Miles Winslow, property owner. 5. Case No. 2020-41: Consideration of a Variance to the front yard setback for a new covered front entry stoop on the property located at 301 Willow Street East, in the RA district. John and Katie Schoenecker, property owner. 6. Case No. 2020-42: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed structural coverage on the property located at 820 Maple Street West, in the RB district. Sarah Imhoff, applicant; and John Holdorph, property owner. 7. Case No. 2020-43: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum lot coverage to build a four -season on the property located at 1410 Surrey Lane, in the RA district. Jennifer Quinn, property owner; and Noel Malloy applicant. 8. Case No. 2020-44: : Consideration of a Variance to the maximum accessory structure size on the property located at 8325 Marylane Ave N, in the RB district. Joel Lieffring, property owner. VI. FYI — STAFF UPDATES — (NO PACKET MATERIALS) VII. ADJOURNMENT ilivater THE 1INTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 26, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Hansen, Kocon, Meyhoff, Steinwall, Councilmember Collins Absent: Commissioner Dybvig Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of July 22, 2020 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve the minutes of the July 22, 2020 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Lauer stated that Case No. 2020-36, Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreational business at 321 Main St S in the CBD district has been tabled by the City. 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. Commissioner Hansen recused himself from the discussion and vote. City Planner Wittman explained the application. The Englunds would like to install an in -ground pool in the interior side yard. Despite having a large property (38,104 square feet), they feel their options are limited as to where to locate a pool, due to their heavily shaded property. They have several trees and would prefer to locate the pool in an area that receives sunlight. They have planned a future garage with an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) (City approved). The applicants are requesting a variance to locate a pool and associated appurtenances in the interior side yard, whereas pools are required to be located in the rear yard. This location for the pool on the side of the home, well behind the front line of the adjacent residence, 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 and recommends approval of the variances with four conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2020-31, Variance to construct an in -ground pool in the interior side yard at 303 Olive St W with the four conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 5-0-1 with Commissioner Hansen abstaining. 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. Ms. Wittman stated that Chris Rustad is rehabilitating an existing legal nonconforming home. Portions of the home sit within the 30' steep slope setback area. Earlier this year Mr. Rustad obtained several variances for the proximity to a steep slope in order to rehabilitate and add on to the home. He is now requesting a 10' variance to the 30' steep slope setback requirements in order to add a 10' X 10' deck off the second story of the northeast corner of the house. The only encroachment into the steep slope area will be the footings for the deck. Staff finds that the proposed deck would not have any negative effects on the property or the surrounding properties. The deck will not be any closer to the steep slope than the previously granted variances. Therefore, staff would recommend approval with three conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Case No. 2020-32, Variance to build a deck in the steep slope setback on the property located at 1401 Broadway St N, with three staff -recommended conditions, based on the staff report analysis. All in favor. 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 2nd St N, in the RB district. Linda Garrity, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that the 864 square foot garage, which was permitted in 2003, contains a 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 restriction. The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to convert the existing garage loft into an ADU and a 64 foot variance to the 800 square foot maximum garage requirement. Staff finds that the proposed ADU meets the Special Use Permit provisions and the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance, and therefore recommends approval of a Special Use Permit and associated variance with five conditions. Commissioner Meyhoff asked how the ADU will be accessed. Ms. Garrity replied there are no exterior modifications planned. The existing stairs going up the side of the garage will be used to access the ADU. There is no interior access. She added that she will combine the two lots, as required in one of the recommended conditions, as she has no plans to build any other structures on the property. Commissioner Hansen asked why the code specifies an 800 square foot maximum footprint for a garage ADU. He feels it is worth looking at changing the garage size limitation within the zoning code. If a garage without an ADU may be up to 1,000 square feet he sees no reason to require garages with ADUs to be smaller. Ms. Wittman replied the intent was to keep the mass of ADUs as compact as possible so they would not dominate the lots. The City has had a rise in inquiries about ADUs particularly in the RA single family district. There will likely be more discussion about code surrounding ADUs as the City explores housing opportunities to increase density. Chairman Lauer opened and closed the public hearing. There were no public comments. Page 2 of 5 Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve a Special Use/Conditional Use Permit and Variances associated to allow an accessory dwelling unit on the property located at 1008 2nd St N with five staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2020-34: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to build a three 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. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. Gary Bray is proposing to build a 16' X 12' screened porch on the rear of his house. This property is in a Shoreland Management Overlay District, and has already reached the 25% maximum allowed impervious lot coverage. The property is also located in the TR Zoning District, which does not have a lot coverage limit Currently this property has a lot coverage of 26.9%. The addition of the 192 square foot porch would increase the impervious surface coverage to 28.4%. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow the impervious surface coverage to be 28.4%. Staff finds the proposed garage meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and therefore recommends approval of the variance with four conditions. Gary and Kelly Bray and Ken Nelson, 1st Choice Builders, LLC, offered to answer questions. Commissioner Kocon noted there is a swale in the rear of the property which should alleviate any runoff concerns. Mr. Bray acknowledged that behind the house is a graded water flow leading to a culvert. Commissioner Steinwall noted that a proposed condition is that a water runoff treatment plan be submitted. She asked what this would be. Ms. Wittman said usually it is a plan to capture the water on site, for instance via a rain garden. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve Case No. 2020- 34, Variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to build a three season screened porch addition located at 2560 White Pine Way with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2020- 35: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to build a deck on the property located at 3494 87th St N, in the TR district. Scott and Lori Allaire, property owners. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. 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. The Allaires have requested the following 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; 2) 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. Staff finds that 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 with three conditions. Commissioner Steinwall asked if there is a definition of a deck or some way to ensure there will be be gaps between the boards and not a solid surface. Page 3 of 5 Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Ms. Wittman said it would be appropriate to expand or add a condition that there be space between the boards to allow filtration of the water to the surface below. Decks are considered to be structural coverage because they are attached to structures, however there are challenges with how to consider decks in regard to impervious surface. Commissioner Kocon said decks can become three season porches making them clearly impervious. Commissioner Hansen said it would be hard to regulate what surface is placed underneath a deck. There is no good answer. Mr. and Mrs. Allaire said they feel a 10' X 12' deck would be too small. They do not plan to screen in the deck. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen noted this is a reasonable minor variance. However he recalls when this plat was approved, it was the desire of the Planning Commission to ensure that the builder would inform homeowners they are building a house that is absolutely maximizing the buildable footprint of the lot. It seems that information is not usually conveyed to the home buyers. He wondered if the allowable maximum structural coverage could be increased to allow for small additions. Ms. Wittman said this goes back to how to deal with decks. It also is an issue in older homes. She would encourage the Commission, when looking at plats in the future, to question building envelopes when they seem to maximize the coverage. Chairman Lauer agreed it is a difficult issue. Mitchell Binford, 12260 87th Street North, property owner to the north of the Allaires, wondered if they are aware that the drainage for the development runs through the back of their property. If they expand the deck by four feet to the east it could potentially impact that drainage way. Mr. Allaire said the Assistant City Engineer came out last week to look at the drainage situation. The Engineer indicated there is a drainage issue on the property next to the Allaires and he was going to talk to the builder about addressing that. The Allaires definitely want to keep the water moving through and are not planning on making any changes to the land contours. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Steinwall suggested adding Condition 4 that the decking material and design allow for infiltration to the ground. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2020-35, Variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to build a deck on the property located at 3494 87th St N, with the three staff -recommended conditions and adding Condition 4 that the decking material and design allow for infiltration to the ground. All in favor. Case No. 2020-37: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to modify city code relating to preservation regulations. City of Stillwater, applicant. Ms. Wittman explained that in consultation with an advisory committee, the Heritage Preservation Commission (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. 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. She reviewed the ordinance amendment in detail. The requested Zoning Text Amendment will repeal and replace the City's existing preservation -related ordinances related to design and demolition permitting and create two new zoning overlay districts. The HPC recommended approval Page 4 of 5 Planning Commission August 26, 2020 of the ordinance amendment. Staff recommends the Planning Commission make a favorable recommendation of approval of the ordinance amendment to the City Council. Commissioner Steinwall asked whether requests to construct a new garage or outbuilding in the Neighborhood Conservation District would come before the HPC under the amendment. She added that having been on the HPC, she remarked that the governing ordinances really were difficult to understand and this cleanup work will be a public benefit. Ms. Wittman replied that outbuildings and garages still would not be reviewed by the HPC. There will be discussions in the future about amendments. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen commented that this may provide an opportunity to see that some things in the City's policies might be too stringent especially in the area of affordable housing. For instance, restrictions for an old house that is not necessarily well built could raise prices in a way that could price an old house out of someone's budget. Those are the kind of things that have a massive effect on affordable housing in a city. He would like to see this issue examined. The City needs to balance historic preservation with an understanding that not all old houses are nice houses. He truly appreciates the effort that has gone into cleaning up the ordinance and making it easier to understand. Ms. Wittman recognized that preservation and community livability sometimes clash. The City is not asking for upgrades but wants people to maintain their old homes. Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to recommend that the City Council approve a Zoning Text Amendment to modify city code relating to preservation regulations. Motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Meyhoff voting nay. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. FYI STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Chris Lauer, Chair Page 5 of 5 ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission September 17, 2020 September 23, 2020 Brent Johnstone, Image Contracting LLC Sarah McFarland CASE NO.: 2020-14 a) A Special Use Permit to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit above a new garage; and b) Variances to the following: 1. The total ground coverage of the accessory buildings 2. The height of the accessory dwelling unit exceeds the height of the primary residence 3. The exterior side yard setback 4. The total ground coverage of the accessory buildings to exceed 1,000 square feet. 816 William Street North RB, Two -Family Residential Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Sarah McFarland owns the property at 816 William Street North. She is planning to construct a 20' X 40' detached garage in the Northwest portion of the lot, which will be accessed from Elm Street West. This garage is proposed to have an equally sized dwelling unit above it. In order for accessory structures to contain habitable area, they must be constructed as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), allowed in RB — Two Family residential zoning by Special Use Permit. The property is located in the North Hill Neighborhood Preservation Planning area. Currently existing on the lot is a small 340 sf attached garage on the west side of the house which accesses Elm St W, and a 200 sf shed in the southeast corner of the lot; the shed is proposed to be removed and the existing garage has not been proposed to be altered in any way. This planning case originally came to the planning commission in April of 2020, but was denied. The main reason for denial was that the accessory dwelling was proposed to be in the front yard, CPC Case 2020-14 Page 2 of 7 beyond the front line of the house. This would have been in contrast to the character of the existing neighborhood. Additionally, it was hard to prove a hardship since there was another, more compatible location. This more compatible location is now the general location that is being proposed. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting: • A Special Use Permit to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit above a new garage; • A 192 sf variance to City Code Section 31-308. (a). (3). ii. To allow for the total ground coverage of the accessory buildings (1140 sf) to exceed the ground coverage of the principal building (948 sf); • A 3 foot variance to City Code Section 31-501. Subd. 3. (a). (8) to allow the height of the accessory dwelling unit (22') to exceed that of the primary residence (approx. 19'); • A 10' variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow the garage to be setback 20' from the exterior side yard lot line and 8' behind the exterior side line of the house, whereas the required setback is 30' from the property line or at least 10' behind the house; and • A 140 sf variance to City Code Section 31-308. (a). (3).i. to allow the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings including attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings (1140 sf) to be greater than 1,000 sf. ANALYSIS City Code Section 31-207, Special Use Permits, identifies the city may grant a Special Use Permit when the following findings are made: a. 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 be at least 10,000 square feet. The lot is 12,144 square feet. • The accessory dwelling may be located on the second floor above the garage. The new ADU would be located wholly above the proposed garage. • The accessory dwelling unit must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and rear setbacks. The garage and ADU will be in conformance with the rear yard setback put forth in the RB-Two Family residential zoning district. However, the applicant is requesting a variance to locate the ADU within the exterior side yard setback. • 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. The property is a corner property, with the home facing Elm Street West; the garage and ADU will be located in the rear yard, but will require a variance to the exterior side yard. CPC Case 2020-14 Page 3 of 7 • Off-street parking requirements (four spaces) must be provided. One parking space is proposed to be located within the new garage and the existing garage can also accommodate a single parking space; together meeting the requirements for two covered parking spaces. The driveway proposed to be located in front of the new garage will accommodate the additional parking spaces required. • Maximum size of the garage and ADU is 800 square feet. Both the garage and the ADU are proposed to be 800 sf. • The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. The garage's design shows four-sided design, with matching vertical lap siding and corner, soffit, and fascia boards that match the existing residence. The applicant has chosen a roof pitch and detail similar to that of the primary structure. • The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. The height of the existing 1.5-story residence is hard to determine However, using 360 degree LIDAR data provided by Washington County, it appears the (approximate) height of the structure is 19' (to the peak of the gable). The two-story garage height is proposed to be 22' feet (to the peak of the gable). Therefore, the property owner is applying for a variance to allow for the height of the ADU to exceed the height of the primary residence by approximately three feet. • 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. • Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. No public comment has been received. • 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 or are 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. A detached garage with ADU is specially 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? CPC Case 2020-14 Page 4 of 7 Total ground coverage of accessory buildings The specific purpose of the total ground coverage of accessory buildings is to prevent accessory structures from being built larger than the primary structure, in order to minimize the presence garage -dominated properties. This is to help minimize the mass and bulk associated with two family properties and help ensure accessory structures and their uses are not larger than primary residences. Height of the ADU (less than main structure) The specific purpose of the ADU height maximum is to regulate massing proportionality and to provide consistency throughout a district where historically secondary buildings were smaller than primary buildings. Exterior yard setback The specific purpose of the side yard setback is to have uniform patterned development in the front of properties, keeping unobstructed areas for consistent, uniform street design and adequate onsite infiltration. Accessory building lot coverage The specific purpose of the accessory building lot coverage is to prevent properties from becoming overly occupied with accessory structures, allowing properties to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Total ground coverage of accessory buildings While the total square footage of accessory buildings exceeds that of the main structure, no individual accessory building will be larger than the primary structure. Being that this is a large property, these two accessory buildings would not appear overly dominant. Height of the ADU (less than main structure) The existing house is only 1.5 stories tall, so the only way to accommodate an ADU above a garage, would be through the approval of a variance. To maintain neighborhood conformity in the Neighborhood Conservation District, the applicant has chosen a roof pitch similar to the primary residence to maintain overall uniform site design. The increased roof pitch increases the overall height of a structure, when measured from average elevation of the front of the peak of the roof. Exterior side yard setback The applicant is asking for a 10' variance to the exterior side yard setback to allow the garage to be built with a 20' setback instead of the required 30' setback. In addition this garage location requires a 2' variance from the requirement to set the garage 8' behind this line rather than the required 10' . This location is in contrast to the original location, and has taken all of the planning department's recommendations into account since the first Planning Commission meeting. Originally the garage was proposed to be located in the interior side yard, two feet from the front property line. This put the garage notably past the front line of the house and required an additional variance to allow an ADU to be located outside of the rear yard. The newly proposed location addresses both of these concerns by locating the garage in the rear yard and behind the exterior sideline of the house. While, this new location still requires a variance to the exterior side yard, it will have an exponentially less impact on the neighborhood than previously proposed. In conclusion, a variance to allow the structure to be located within the exterior side yard setback is in harmony with the intent of the zoning code. CPC Case 2020-14 Page 5 of 7 Accessory building lot coverage This will not be out of harmony with the zoning code because this property has an above average lot size. The total lot coverage of all accessory buildings will remain under 10% of the total lot. 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. The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes infill growth and density in this area of the City. 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 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 uniqueness of this property is the small size of the existing house. This house is small in terms of both the footprint and the height, which sets the bars for the allowed size and height of the ADU. The small size of the existing house makes any proposed ADU prone to various variances. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner did not construct any of the structures on the property. The property owner has worked with staff and the Commission to explore the various options for the location of the garage and have chosen the less desirable location in order to be closer to conformity. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? It is staff's opinion that the ADU being proposed will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The garage will be in the rear of the house and behind the exterior side yard line of the house. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for a detached garage with an ADU does not reflect economic considerations alone. PUBLIC COMMENT There has been no public comment for this case since resubmittal. The City did receive one letter during the first round of this planning case, from Mr. and Mrs. Robertson who live at 608 Elm St CPC Case 2020-14 Page 6 of 7 West (located across Elm St from the said address), who are in favor of the accessory dwelling unit. 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. 2020-14, except as modified by the conditions herein. 3. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineering Department and a grading escrow, in an amount deemed sufficient by the Engineering Department, for the new construction shall be submitted. 4. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the residence. 5. 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. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the detached garage/ADU, the shed must be demolished or removed from the property. 7. A water runoff treatment plan for the 140 square feet (additional accessory coverage) will need to be submitted to, and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. 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 or the standards set forth for the granting of variances, then the Commission could deny the request in whole or in part. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without 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 CPC Case 2020-14 Page 7 of 7 Staff finds that, with conditions of approval, the proposed garage and ADU meets the Special Use Permit provisions and the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. The primary reasons for staff's recommendation of the variances are: - The property's existing house has a rather small footprint and is not very tall in height, making it impossible to construct a reasonably sized ADU without variances. This proves uniqueness and that the property owner did not create this situation. - The property itself is rather large, which would support an increased structural coverage for accessory buildings on the property and would still remain less than 10% of the total lot coverage. This also is a unique quality of this property. - The applicant has followed staff s initial recommendations of relocating the garage behind the front line of the house and is much more compatible with the neighborhood. Which staff believes will not alter the essential character of the locality. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit and approval of the requested variances for CPC Case No. 2020-14 with the conditions identified in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Location map Original Applicant Narrative Site plan of proposed garage Garage Elevations (three pages) Garage/ADU Floor Plan (two pages) cc: Brent Johnstone, Image Contracting LLC Sarah McFarland ri . �� EPi1-61,1 r' 1Py 1 �, �, I um a r ��. I 1 1 Image Contracting EST. 2005 General Construction & Restoration Services www.imagecontractinglIc.com To: Gram / Committee Members Property: 816 William St N, Stillwater Re: New garage Date: 4-7-2020 To all, My clients are new to this house as of last year. They love the area and the house, unfortunately like many older houses the existing garage space is very limited. Their current 1 stall garage is used as a storage area and the current driveway is almost nonexistent. The two of them currently park on the street year-round. The proposed garage build solves many problems. It provides 2 parking spaces inside of it plus enough storage space to remove / dispose of the existing shed on site. The driveway will also allow additional off-street parking for their growing family. Like many families that live in older houses there is also not enough space for guests. The proposed garage provides a small living space upstairs for when family or friends come to visit. In their case it's grandparents. The proposed garage is designed to match the house as much as possible. Its location is planned between their 2-story house and the neighbors 2-story house. The roof elevations will be very similar in height. Because of a large pine tree that shades both properties the garage would protrude out in front of the existing house a bit. See provided drawing for placement and setbacks. This is a corner lot so not sure how that plays into our situation. Thanks for looking into our request. I hope we're able to satisfy your requirements and provide for this great family's needs. Please feel free to reach out with any questions. Respectfully, Brent 763-464-8700 Respectfully, Brent Johnstone Elect Polotaage President Image Contracting LLC MN Lic # 753576 44748 Dapple Ct. Harris, MN 55032 www.imagecontractingllc.com Office: 651-674-5530 Brent Cell 763-464-8700 /1M„LZ,9c.69S. 02'0-1, -',17 1 101 v 7 (O a) - !V NJ API') A4 giu(kfi *) etA tr 4Q,,rvi-eyk-, 4-e...) ,Lf&k f. r• SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION ; 1• e, LI 1 r.1 r L.JI -1--\ REAR ELEVATION sr I • L0j4 0 5-e* EJLIDOIDCIEI OCIDEICIOCI LiDODDLII1E1 LC. SIDE ELEVATION ft, / 071 LAik Pool "Agri Ili%) 3 • (cc co.s.toi 61,4410 5 • 12: - 1 _ A L -14,jav-e. - • irileti eedo, 1 1 ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission September 3, 2020 September 23, 2020 William Samuelson William Samuelson Variance to the maximum accessory structure size. 6 River Heights Drive RA, Single -Family Residential Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director CASE NO.: 2020-38 INTRODUCTION William Samuelson owns the property at 6 River Heights Drive, which is a single family house built in 1961. Mr. Samuelson is proposing to build a 11' X 18' (198 sf) shed in the southwest corner of his property. In the RA district, Code allows an accessory building to be no greater than120 square feet. Mr. Samuelson is requesting a variance to exceed this maximum size allowed by 78 sf to allow a 198 square foot shed. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting: A variance to City Code Section 31-305 (a). 2. iii. to allow a shed to be 198 sf, whereas the maximum allowed size is 120 sf. CPC Case 2020-38 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 RA, Single -Family Residential; a shed in the rear of the property 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? Size of accessory structure The requirement that places a maximum size for a shed is to prevent properties from becoming overly occupied with large accessory structures, allowing properties to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Size of Accessory Structures If granted, the proposed variance would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code because a shed that is 192 sf on such a large property will not create any issues with massing. Additionally, the property is currently 905 sf below the maximum allowed lot coverage and still would provide adequate storm water infiltration. 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 15,150 sf property with single family residence would be proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner by adding a 192 sf shed to the rear of their property. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is partially due to circumstances unique to the property. There is a 120 sf limit to the size of a shed across this whole district, and this property does have an existing two car garage. However, while the zoning code does not allow this structure to be above 120 sf, the building code does allow a structure of up to 200 CPC Case 2020-38 Page 3 of 4 sf to be built without a building permit. This property is also somewhat unique to the RA district, in that fact that it is 50% larger than the minimum required lot size. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner did not create these circumstances. The house with the existing garage (and its size) was built in 1960. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? The shed will be tucked back into the far rear corner of the property, and in relation to the overall property size, is not that big. This would have little to no effect on the neighborhood as a whole. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variances is to store landscaping equipment (etc...), 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- 38, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 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 Staff finds the proposed shed meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2020-38 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. CPC Case 2020-38 Page 4 of 4 Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Depiction of shed cc: William Samuelson 21322 20 1 2023 cn _ . c26 Q r m 202 w 2Q2 1. `'. 1924` w .. O 1915 1'-_ 1912 ' H UX' vi407905 1908 101. 224 EAST WILLOW ,. 1$17 ' 1824 H 1818 06 ct to 801 ! _ 1802 AR STREET 1122 p' Z RIVE5„J-IEIGHTS D E ' ,3mm r � 11,621 r615 is � "'Text , w` 1611 NY 101 w cc _ F rr. �r ' 105 11606 0) v Ilk 14421 cac, RIDGE _LANE DRIVE o 575`s.1,i24 f6 02 `;; . ,i- 1511 1151'!2 t 1511 _ { r i .� ? 1�95 r 1509 rt,. 1"50 w 1�04 .i 15f 3 W,. 0, '°�'.i.lit � Z ,, F=- r t ,, ir4214 1122 O 1419 .31i21 li°'\4f1 1425 rr �1415 1 14Xi.1'412 1419 14gkj, .;.1410,w `t T408 ' 1 1 01, ''• .... +bi-. �� 1413 . '`FAST SYCAMORE ST �, E SYCAMORE 13`22 T y 1340 w �1319 4 : ' `1324,, .11323 y - r � i' � 131,E F_Cw ,1>31 S. ' Si4 , �� �' 13'13 , .1320. 4illwater The Birthplace of Minnesota r Pkv"4".-c ( y�w-t SS ; Q N /t( tFL' Zeriek t,,i,),("/2.67),.7-,4 621-fidx.;7 '�`; `c rv{!r'�`�- �� �� "' ads c„1f (vE, .c 6 X• a LAPIc Frenkk, if/2-64,66(0 /1660 (-L_ I OfX.01-- .e ;t( /1444104 ouv,z I eE&C.1 �c. i Tuttiumv1106476 Pitoi)(5.4L /1- //ir le-,;(Ga\ &tope c,cA-e 4,t.�c�e.+..Cif /` � ek:Ncfq- C-k"sL. ewat . vs-- eu_ &42 Rotx t4elifix4 /2,1 I S 4i/,A� ,,ere-g-t- ,---cfiat:4 "R (1,14-41N � ACc.cL�'��nc 7/14/2020 6 River Heights - bilisamuelson31@gmail.com - Gmail • -r- I 60 . PATIO S89° 14'20"W 150.02 PATIO PATIO —/ r1 A /. —r— .e. / 1- e /I r 1 / r 1 / I 1 PATIO 0 =C° PRQPQSEq • 30 a•. EXI5TING HOUSE 4 i 0 1 I 1,4-- 1 LIi CO Tt o _ _ L_.5.5' --� . 5J 31.5' -- 150.00 -- ;= 89° 13'43 HW 1" 40Ff - r • A i • —r— r / /-r i+ / r-- tzz - S00°39'47 fi https:l/maii.google.camlmail/uf0f;e#inbox/FMfcgxwJWrXHppLxghIMDzPzSbSSVPSl3?projector=1 &messagePartld=0.1 1/1 *CO �— 2._4 V ;i 1 1 i 1 1 S i -_ I ] 1 1 1_ 1 H 77' ?��\;- -o VfII ' "`^ ' i. z' y oLy� LI\ SI/teti I `I ! Ilwater T F1 E 6cRIH PEA C E Of M INNE S E T A PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-39 REPORT DATE: September 15, 2020 MEETING DATE: September 23, 2020 APPLICANT: Miles Winslow LANDOWNER: Miles Winslow REQUEST: a) A Special Use Permit to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) above an existing garage; b) a Variance for the accessory structure footprint to exceed the footprint of the primary residence LOCATION: 1124 5th Street South ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Miles Winslow owns the properyt located at 1124 5th Street South. The proeprty owner would like to construct a 504 square foot car garage with an attached 294 square foot, lower level Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). SPECIFIC REQUEST 1. A Special Use Permit to convert the existing garage's loft into an Accessory Dwelling Unit; 2. A 110 square foot variance for the accessory structure footprint to exceed the primary residence's footprint area. ANALYSIS Street View - September, 2020 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 2020-39 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 be at least 10,000 square feet. The proeprty is 10,078 square feet. • The accessory dwelling may be located on the second floor above the garage. The property owns is proposing a first floor ADU which is not prohibited. • The accessory dwelling unit must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and rear setbacks. The proposal conforms to this standard. • 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. The proposal conforms to this standard. • Off-street parking requirements (four spaces) must be provided. Between the enclosed garage and the attached driveway, four parking spaces (including two covered spaces) will be located onsite. • Maximum size of the garage and ADU is 800 square feet. This standard has been met. • The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. The garage's design is four-sided and the modest details reflect the design of the existing residence. The owner proposes a 12/6 pitched roof though a 12/10 would be more in line with the home's design. Staff is recommending the owner consider this though not requesting the Commission consider it as an approval condition. • The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. The single level garage will not exceed the height of the 1.5 story home. • 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. There are no additional public interest conditions recommended by staff. 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. CPC Case 2020-39 Page 3 of 5 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 to less than the primary structure's footprint helps reduce accessory structure mass on a property. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? While the owner could reduce the footprint by placing the ADU on top of the garage, this would not help meet the development site goals for accessibility. Additionally, if located on the second story, the garage would likely exceed the height of the primary residence. The proposed structure is in conformance to the maximum 10% accessory structure lot area requirement. Also, the accessory structure is proposed to sit behind the main line of the house. Therefore, given additionally variances would be needed with an amended design, the proposed substantially conforms to the intent of the Zoning Code. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 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 property, platted in 1882, contains a pre-1900s residence. Turn of the century homes contain smaller footprints. While this is not unique to the property, the owner is proposing the garage to be smaller than the footprint of the primary residence. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner did not develop the property. CPC Case 2020-39 Page 4 of 5 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. 2020-39, except as modified by the conditions herein. 3. The driveway shall be improved in compliance with City Code Section 33-5. 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 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 the accessory structure's footprint exceed that of the primary residence, the design minimizes potentially negative impacts. CPC Case 2020-39 Page 5 of 5 Staff finds that the proposed ADU meets the Special Use Permit provisions and the substantially conforms to 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. 2020-39 with the conditions identified in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Site Plan Floor Plans Facade Rendering cc: Miles Winslow JR 917,011[918 (05 9217,922 £ 924 I. 1001 1006 520 516 1014 1018 k WEST I a 921 923 1009 1013 1017 916 922 1002 1004 1010 1016 1020 HANCOCK 0 501 421 411 403 W W 1111 fn 523 WEST 1117 1123 1205 1209 1211 1215 919 920 923 1002 1007 1008 1015 1021 STREET 319 1016 1020 1104 1108 1116 1124 WEST 1206 0 1212 = 1— 1213 1220 1303 1302 1309 1306 1316 1325 1324 1333 1405 ORLEANS 1330 1338 1422 1426 STREET 913 921 1003 1013 916 924 1006 1010 1019 1022 1117 1123 1205 1209 1104 1001 1- 1009 1015 1019 EAST 1101 1105 919 918 921 920 1002 1006 1010 1014 1022 1104 f- W 1112 1109 1110 1118 1206 1119 1120 1207 1206 1212 = I- 1213 1214 1216 1222 2 1225 1224 MARSH 1301 1304 1307 1315 1323 1327 1333 1339 CO 218 216 1312 1326 1334 = 1- O CO 1342 STREET 1303 1309 1315 1323 1306 1314 1320 1329 1328 1333 1334 1338 1342 1345 1346 CSAH 24 1339 6429 6472 6450 6438 = 913 H H O I- O z 919 1001 1003 1007 1009 1013 1021 HANCOC 65TH S1 0 illwatei The Birthplace of Minnesota N Site Location Map 42 Subject Property 160 320 640 Feet .1A1i tvrtal 1 L__— DETACHED GARAGE — — S_90°00'00" E 134.401' EXISTING HOUSE S 90°00'00" W 134.401' PLOT SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" i tri ti, 0 O ALL RIGI-ITS. INCLUDING BUT NOT LinTED TO, COPYRIGHTS OF THE BL,PRINTS OR FLOOR pLANS CREATED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. ARR. BUILDING CENTER LICENSES THE BLUEPRINT OF FLOOR pLAN TO THE ...TOMER FOR PURPOSES OF CON97.1CTING THE STRUCTURE DEPICTED IN T. BLUEPRINT OR 1,001i PLAN. THE .9-TOMER Si,. NOT DUPLICATE DISTRIMIE TO T. PUBLIC OR DISPLAT THIS BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN. THS BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN NOT A WORK MADE FOR HIRE AS DEFIN. UNDER 11 U.S.C. SECTION 101. BEEN MADE PREPARIN THEM FOR ACCURACT. THE CONTRACTOR/HOMEOWNER IKIST HEADER AND BEAM SIZES. ALL AND BE RESPONS,BLE FOR THE SAME w z w 0 z_ 0 J m 0 cC PHONE:651-439-3518 2000 TOWER DRIVE W STILLWATER MINNESOTA N CO O LC) w 0 z W 0w U VJ o = 0 A z 1124 5TH ST S u_ STILLWATER MINNESOTA N c0 O 12 12 MOM IMEM IMOMI FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SDI N Cr \-koUS� ci)t. LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" r nrtrcuw BUILPNG CENTER OWNS ALL RIGHTS . INCLUDE. GUT NOT LIMITED TO. COPYR.HTS Or THE BLUEPRINTS OR FLOOR PLANS CREATED .DER THIS AGREE/ENT. ARIROUI BUILDING CENTER LICENSES THE ISLUEPRNT OF FLOOR PLAN TO THE CUSTOMER FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTOYO TYE STRUCTURE DEPICTED IN THE BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN. THE STOMER SHALL HOT DU PLICATE DISTRIBUTE TO THE OR DISPLAY THIS BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN. THIS ISUJEPRINT OR PLAN IS HOT A MADE FLOOR HIRE (U! D91 INED UNDERK R DER H EVERY EPPOFT HG9 HE4DERaHp BESnH SIZES, nL��. OTHER BD P E RESPONSIBLEFOR TNE SAME w 0 z w 0 w oC 0 Z zz o� N co 10 O N N i 33'-4" `2'-101/2", 6'-3" 6'-3" x 4" 4'-5" 3'-3" 3'-3" x 4" 16'-61/2" i // / // ///// 4 0 °o a. °ov a° ; v. 0 p bo U N EXCAVATED oa U N EXCAVATED 4" CONC. SLAB ��, Q° a b`- Ga q4 4" CONC. SLAB 1 c ° 12'-4" /o°° 21'-0„ °C b- /////////// i i / 8'-81/2" 3'-3'r x X 3'-3" /1' „ 33'-4" 18'-3" x 4" 18'-3" FOUNDATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 9 O O N \ \ 33'-4" 12'-4" 21'-0" / 6'-0" 6'-4" / 2'-10" 18'-2" 2 PLY c-1/2" 6'-0" LVL I 2-2x10 X � \ 3' 0" in O GUEST SUITE GARAGE D.W. 61 Io ap cl I I IJ mm REF. 00 0 \ J / O 8'-0" 4'-4" 00 00 N , 21'-0" i r I 3 -0 18'-0"x8'-0" O.H. DOOR 3'-0" 2-2x10 5'-6" I, x 3'-6" 2-2x10 4'-10" /2'-0"/ 2 PLY 11-7/8" LVL 18'-0" 12'-4" 1'-6" 21'-0" 33'-4" i NOTES: FOUNDATION WALL DIMENSIONS FROM OUTSIDE OF CONC. WALL DIMENSIONS FROM OUTSIDE OF SHEATING DETAILS: FOUNDATION WALL HGT. MAIN FLOOR PLATE HGT. ROOF PITCH HEADER HEIGHT = 3'-4" = 9'-1 1/8" = 6/12 = 7'-0" MAIN FLOOR SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 800 SQUARE FEET 0 T -1 X \ 1'-6" ARR. BUILDING CENTER OWNS ALL RIGHTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMIT. TO, COPYRIGHTS OF THE BLUEPRINTS OR FLOOR PLANS CREATED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. ARR. BUILDING CENTER LICENSES THE BLUEPRINT Of FLOOR FLAN 70 THE CUSTOMER FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTR.ICTING THE STRJCTURE DEPICTED IN i.1E BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR pLAN. THE CUSTOMER SHALL NOT DUPLICATE BLIC, OR [AWL., 714t5 BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN. THIS BWEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN 15 NOT A WORK MADE FOR HIRE AS DEFINED UNDER 11 U.S.O. SECTION 101. BEEN MADE IN PREPARIN THESE PLANS AND C.C. NG CONTRACTOR/HOMEOWNER ,LIST E.EvATIONS ROUGH OPEN NGS, HEADER AND BEAM NEES ALL. OTHER IMENSIONS AND SAME. HE AND BE ieLE FOR T. PE 0 T J It LC w T Zc'9 LiJ U10 0 Z 0 CI— J is QCO N LO O 01=Z CC CC 2000 S N w U z w 0 w u) O,� w= cc 0 VJ Z 1124 5TH ST S STILLWATER MINNESOTA N O O Ilwater T F1 E 6cRIH PEA C E Of M INNE S E T A PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission September 17, 2020 September 23, 2020 John and Katie Schoenecker John and Katie Schoenecker Variance associated with the construction of a front stoop 301 Willow Street East RA, One -Family Residential Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director CASE NO.: 2020-41 INTRODUCTION In July of this year, John and Katie Schoenecker received a building permit to reconstruct an existing front stoop and add a 3' overhang to the front of their home at 301 Willow Street East. When demolition of the stoop commenced, the property owner discovered footings/foundation for a stoop that was 9.5' wide and 6' deep. The property owners desire constructing a new front stoop with roof overhang of those dimensions. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a 17' variance to the 20' Front Yard setback for the construction of a concrete stoop and overhang. 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." The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. Case No. 2020-41 Page 2 of 3 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RA, One -Family Residential. Single family homes with covered entryways are a use permitted by right in this 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? Requiring a front yard setback allows for uniform patterned development along residential streets, providing open unencumbered space for personal use and stormwater drainage. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? In the RA — One Family Residential zoning district, a prevailing front yard setback of 20' is permissible. All the homes on this side of the street have a prevailing front yard setback of 10'+/-. While this improvement will encroach into this prevailing setback area, the home is situated (approximately) 23' from the edge of the roadway. So, the intentions of the zoning code will be substantially met. 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 single family residence with covered stoop utilizing existing foundation and footings is reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property, platted in 1854, was developed prior to the turn of the 20th Century. It is likely the home had a front entry of this size given the discovered footings/foundation. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner did not develop the property. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? No. In fact, City policies and regulations encourage front porches and stoops on homes. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? Yes. Case No. 2020-41 Page 3 of 3 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make the finding that practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve variance to the Front Yard Setback for a covered stoop, with or without conditions. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: • Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2020-41. • The siding, trim, fascia and soffit boards will be the same color as the primary structure. The use of wood is encouraged. • A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. • Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the finding that practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance, with or without prejudice. 3. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends conditional approval the variance associated with CPC Case No. 2018-41 for the construction of a front stoop at 301 Willow Street East. Attachments: Site Location Map Site Plan Renderings cc: John and Katie Schoenecker 125 104 0 Z 0 U W ( ) 2 L1_ 0 Z 222 EAST W 304 324 Z HAZEL STREET 1917 1924 1921 W W 1915 1912 '� ( ) 1905 1908 F- () 300 1901 224 LL EAST WILLOW STREET 1817 1813 1801 1721 1723 5 1824 1818 0 Z 301 1911 307 308 309 1818 1812 1806 1802 1920Lo T V J >- 2 N BROADWAY ST 410 1921 102 104 E POPLAR STREET 305 1710 1722 106 108 4 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota N Site Location Map 42 Subject Property 80 160 320 Feet 0 rn Z 0 0 r Proposed r-D Roof Over Entry 7._6- _x stinc _/ House • 26'-7" • Existing Deck 44'-4 " No Scale O N Sheet # 1 Of: 2 Date:8/14/20 Gim Midleton Buzz Chickley, Inc. 1117 Broadway St N Stillwater, MN buzzchickley©gmail.com 0 -0 � a CDCD John and <ate Schoenecker 301 Willow St E Stillwater, VN Site Plan 6 IJ En Y 9 ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission September 15, 2020 September 23, 2020 Sara Imhoff John Holdorph Variance to the maximum allowed structural coverage. 820 Maple Street West RB, Two -Family Residential Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator Abbi Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: 2020-42 INTRODUCTION John Holdorph owns the 5,663sf property at 820 Maple Street West, which has a single family house originally built in 1873. Mr. Holdorph is proposing to add a 63sf addition to the first floor of this house. However, the maximum structural coverage for a lot in the RB disrtict is 25%, and this addition will just trickle past this threshold by 21 sf . SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting: A variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow the lot's structural coverage to be 25.4%, whereas the maximum allowed structural coverage is 25% 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. CPC Case 2020-42 Page 2 of 4 The property is zoned RB, Two -Family Residential; a single family house with a small ground level addition 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? Maximum Structural Lot Coverage The specific purpose of the maximum lot coverage is to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Maximum Structural Lot Coverage If granted, the proposed variance would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code because it is a small addition to a house that is within a neighborhood of medium density and heavy massing (as seen in the photo below). Furthermore, the addition is small in scale and represents less than 1 % change in overall coverage, staff believes there will be no adverse effects to storm water infiltration. 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. MAPLE ST W 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 2020-42 Page 3 of 4 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 property with single family residence would be proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner by adding a 63sf addition to the main floor of their house. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. The property is 5,663sf, which is 1,837sf smaller than the required lot size in this zoning district. Even within this block, all the properties to the west have a backyard that extends 15' longer than this property. Therefore, with a property of this size, it is very difficult to keep the structural coverage below 25%, especially when trying to preserve historical attributes of the house. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner did not create these circumstances. The house was built in 1873 and has had additions added throughout the years. Also, the property has been platted at this small size, which is no fault of the landowner. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? This is an extremely small addition that is 4' in width and won't be very noticeable from the front. Also, this addition is filling in somewhat of a "gap" in the footprint of the house and will not clash with the existing house (this gap can be seen in the photo of the west elevation above). e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variances is for the personal enjoyment of their house, and does not reflect economic considerations. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: CPC Case 2020-42 Page 4 of 4 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020- 42, 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. The addition shall be sided with the same materials and details as the existing structure. 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. 5. The addition must have rain gutters that in which the downspout directs the water to the south and not in the direction of the neighboring property to the west. 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. Attachments: Site Location Map Site Plan Floor Plan Existing Conditions Photos Building plans (three pgs.) cc: Sara Imhoff John Holdorph ELM STREET _�.. iStillwater 3 ., r _ - 71 'e� e ' i • - 1 e " � 61 • « .?t The Birthplace of Minnesota J r. WE' - 1. oir 917 911: 90523l rli 724 1 Site Location 4 16 71� .4 ` 820 Maple St W g i r 924'11922it�1 916 910 906 ;902 824 1 820 ' .gyp _ ..y - ' 818 s 14 722 7 4 ,i : 7112 , '706 7O2 6201 q16 j_'6 k�r _- 604 ,, _ .704 ULitv 9_ i WEST MAPLEf.---Apip STREET . i _ .,„ ! . 923 91'5 s" 90 819_ 618 C' 9 717ij71 711'70 r . I, il, ) f ... r ?03 701 7 619 615 611'60 603Feet 0 110 220 440 g21 924 — .- �` , L, �� - t' w. General Site Location , - =11711-11 s 16 ,1912 908 ; 9a4 ;822' 804 -� •`l, - , F 716 ? 7"12 7fl6 -_- a.614 1— ( �� 702 6 - 602 l.,_, 620 61'6 - _ 1■.1��'liW Ohl i��, � i �'" 'i Mall�IP114R ■� •r�iry �� �I<a�♦./ 'ti_,. . ;,i,.� IIII~IILt� .►e= ♦♦I l- COUNTY Ra _64 6 AlfrArildi w� Nu�� -�� � �■� _ �I 1 4E T 1,40151. liir4IlllIl���• 1 lei • +.4 ;:. . y ` t .' aJC Fss 517 ... * r 1. R to 1 �lTl� �� / ': : •. I• I Ian .,� 1104 �r 509 � I .._.1 4x _ � � i`W J �tr'11' ��. Jli _�,1: ur i .11-I kll. : � 04 505 � t.� 501:' r � , ._,J 04 !. ll.. "ri , PLO .KO AREA OF WORK - NEW ADDITION TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING WEST SIDE OF BUILDING GARAGE DRIVEWAY ( HATCHED AREA - INDICATES NEW ROOF Str.G f4 VW MAPLE STREET WEST PROPOSED SITE MAPLE STREET WEST 1 EXISTING SITE SCALE: 1 0 8' 16' 5� s41114 Agily0 rE8 Hi ft �s Ir xw 3 CL OCZ z W Ow :J 5 a w v/ w 0 a 0 re a z 1- 0 w A1.1 EXISTING WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED 4'-0' 18-4• EXISTING MAIN FLOOR DEMO PLAN pa NEIOf WAU ADDRION EXTERIOR SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE PLYWOOD SHEATHING 2XR FRAMING (g10OC W/ BATT INSULATION VAPOR BARRIER 1/2' GWB 09ECOME AN WtEAKKI • EXTERIOR SIDING TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH GWB (1/7) (.._.-.._.., 06T1NO WALL TO BE KEPL [ — ] FYffiTINOWALLTO BEDENCLr3HED 1 AREA OF WORK OPTIONAL NEW WINDOW PER PDI r NEW WINDOW PER A0.1 EXISTING CLOSET S 0) PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR (OBTING MUD ROOV Fxi, TINS rRC IFII S rn r1 DAYBED T-2• VIF LOSE7la GAINiGGY, I NORTH SOUTH FXOST+NF SNINO ROOXS (7:1 Aa, 1 63 SOFT PROPOSED NEW ADDITION SCALE: 1 0 4' 8' 54o iEZW piwO EXISTING/PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR PLAN A2.1 NORTH ,.t SOUTH 3 SOUTH WEST EXISTING PHOTOS A0.2 n North AREA OF WORK - NEW B76ST31YO FF1O DErmus NEW ADDITION MATCH EXISTING SIDING South EXISTING FRONT -OF-HOUSE + - PORCH REFER TO 2A0.2 EXISTING WINDOW TO BE SHORTENED FROM BOTTOM TO ALLOW NEW ROOF 0 East West NEW RODE TO MATCH E ISUNG ROOF NiO EAVE DEMO AREA OFWORK ti ELEC❑ HO ❑ VENT❑ PROPOSED ROOF n 23'-9" V VI F PROPOSED NEW ELECTRICAL SERVICE LOCATION EXISTING ELECTRICAL ELEMENTS TO BE MOVED NEW ADDITION MATCH EXISTING SIDING NEW WINDOWS TRIM BOARD FINISH CEILING S' - 7"� VIF EXISTING MAIN FINISH FLOOR 0'-0" VIF FOUNDATIONurn, VIF PROPOSED ROOF 2i•9" MF FINISH CEILING B'-7" V VIF EXISTING MAIN FINISH FLOOR_Ap 0'-0" VIF _FOUNDATION e' Vi F SCALE: f - 0 4' 8' A3.1 TTP NEW ROOF ABSSMBLT ASPHALT SH3+ULE • 1+1:6C1EIGSTWO WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE 3Nr PLYWOOD SHEATHING FRAMING PER STRUCTURAL W/ BATT INSULATION 1-12" AIR SPACE VAPOR BARRIER SB GWB 2 MUD ROOM ot_Lf r_ 1 eD SECTION LOOKING EAST TYP NEUDOF15NIHG`lEY=zs II Di]NS3 DErAp-S1: WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE 3/4" PLYWOOD SHEATHING FRAMING PER STRUCTURAL WI BATT INSULATION 1-12` AIR SPACE VAPOR BARRIER SIB- GWB 1 12' SOFFIT VENT W/ CONTINUOUS INSECT SCREEN PROVIDE MBULA11071 BAFFLE AND I" AIR SPACE FOR VENTp7G HEAVE p3181" EXISTING DOOR TO OFFICE I4W BEDROOM Uitlrf r1 FLOOR JOISTS TO BE 2LHOL65HED ARO REPLACPO STpPPOSITE 12RECTIDH PER Data!Y FLOOR A85EMBLY 3/4- WOOD FLOORING VAPOR BARRIE NEW FLOOR JOISTS PER STRUCTURAL W/ SPRAY FOAM INSULATION AIR VENTING AS REQUIRED CEMENT BOARD WI PAINTED FINISH SECTION LOOKING NORTH 1 MEW BEDROOM I L I. I CT-r nl-i-I ■ EI8ST1110 DlNI6lQ UM PROPOSED ROOF 23' VIF FINISH CEILING L� 8'-- VIF DEMOLISH DROP DOWN CEILING IN OFFICE, REPLACE TO MATCH EXISTING CEILING THROUGHOUT REST OF MAN FLOOR EXISTING MAIN FINISH FLOOR 0'-0"�1 VIF TIP NEW FLOOR ASSEMBLY' 314" WOOD FLOORING VAPOR BARRIER NEW FLOOR JOISTS PER STRUCTURAL W/ SPRAY FOAM INSULATION AIR VENTING AS REQUIRED CEMENT BOARD WI PAINTED FINISH FOUNDATI{7N Air a. D.. VIF PROPOSED ROOF Au 23'-9" VIF - - - EXISTING SECOND FLOOR FINISH CEILING 8' -� VW DEMOLISH DROP DOWN CEILING IN OFFICE, REPLACE TO MATCH EXISTING CEILING THROUGHOUT REST OF MAIN FLOOR EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS •• -- EXISTING FLOOR JOISTS EXISTING MAIN _FINISH FLOOR VIF EXISTING FOUNDATION WALLS FOUNDATION -8' - 0" VIF SCALE: Ii7 I 0 4' 8' Ss1 068 uffi gt �°'ao W aZ o • w • 0 _IrnCe SECTIONS A4.1 TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING env..* COGR----- NORTH SOUTH 1, 7-3 VIF a EAST NEW WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING ®WEST SCALE: NEW BASE TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING 0 2' 4' 1741 einig aiPsh ikis iip.fi- A.0.21 aV a'Z w s 0 Jgo ago co O wcc INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5.1 Ilwater k E 6. FI T H P L A C F 6 F M I N N F S 6 1 A PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission September 18, 2020 September 23, 2020 Neil Molloy representing Crafted Contracting MN Jennifer Quinn Variance associated with the construction of a four -season porch addition 1410 Surrey Lane RA, One -Family Residential Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director CASE NO.: 2020-43 INTRODUCTION Jennifer and John Quinn own the property at 1410 Surrey Lane. They would like to add a 300 square foot four -season porch to the rear of the structure in a location where an existing, deteriorating deck. The result is an increase in 50 s.f of total lot coverage. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for 33.8% maximum lot coverage opposed to the 30% maximum allowed in the RA — One Family Residential zoning district. 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." The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. Case No. 2020-43 Page 2 of 3 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RA, One -Family Residential. Single family homes with rear yard additions are permitted in this zoning district. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The purpose of the maximum lot coverage is to ensure properties have open space area to ensure onsite stormwater infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? A total of two-thirds of the property will remain unencumbered allowing for onsite infiltration. Additionally, a drainage way exists in the rear of the property which will allow for the capture of water that is not absorbed onsite. 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 single family residence with enclosed four -season porch opposed to an open deck is reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property is legal, nonconforming as it does not meet the RA — One Family Residential zoning district's minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet. If the property did conform, the requested variance would not be required. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property was platted prior to the purchase by the existing owners. Additionally, while the property owner is proposing the improvement, the porch is proposed to replace the existing deck that has reached the end of its useful life. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The rear of properties in this neighborhood have four -season and screen porches. The adding of a screen porch in this area keeps with the essential character of the neighborhood. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? Yes. Case No. 2020-43 Page 3 of 3 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make the finding that practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve variance to maximum lot coverage for the addition of a four -season porch addition, with or without conditions. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: • Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2020-43. • The additions shall have the same level of finish and details as the existing structure. • A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction occurring on the property. • Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the finding that practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance, with or without prejudice. 3. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends conditional approval the variance associated with CPC Case No. 2018-43 for the construction of a four -season porch on the back of the structure. Attachments: Site Location Map Site Plan Narrative request Deck Photos (3) Site Photographs (2) Neighborhood Examples (2) cc: Jennifer Quinn Noel Molloy 1261 1323 1331 1342 1350 1333 1345 1357 1396 C% 1415 1402 -Po 1414 <� '"9. 1426 143 1457 1500 1358 1366 1374 1369 1382 1381 1390 1395 1339 1347 1355 1363 1371 1398 1403 1402 1418 1427 11434 1451 1466 11502 1516 11530 1010 1116 1126 1216 1208 1224 1272 1280 1232 1288 1240 1264 1248 1256 DR/B/NG 1209 1201 1217 1225 1403 �4-4. 1450 1544 El 11558 -1572 1419 BENSON BOULEVARD EAST 1460 PARK 1420 1273 1265 1324 1233 1241 1249 1257 1 1400 1336324 1314 SURREY 1451 1467 1503 1517 1531 1308 1300 1-ANE 1430 1419 U 1311 O w 0 U a U 1321 1411 1401 1339 1556 1548 1540 1532 DRIVING PARK 1524 1460 1500 1508 1516 1301 1313 1325 1337 1407 1280 1401 TROTTER CT 1441 1451 1501 1507 1513 �o r 1519 1525 1531 1579 1573 1567 1537 1561 1555 1549 1543 1677 1390 1360 1330 1301 1431 1376 1386 1281 1198 1300 1411 1421 1376 0 1401 1251 0 Sti11WatL The Birthplace of Minnesota N Site Location Map 4 Subject Property 145 290 580 Feet it ��E;��iq\ , I..�. III;Illlhnn Ara =�L' N4* INV / 1 •\ Crafted Contracting LLC 651-342-1093 License # BC738497 To Whom it may Concern The property requesting the variance is located at 1410 Surrey Lane, Stillwater. The reason for the variance request is to allow the construction of a 4 season porch in the place of an existing wood deck in the back yard. The current deck is deteriorated and rotting and is a safety hazard. The home owner is a school teacher who is doing all online class this year, And with a growing family and a small living space, and with the current hybrid/home schooling system in place, the home owner would like to utilize the space taken up by the deck, to create a 4 season porch at the rear of the property. This would give the family some much needed space and comfort. The removal of the deck which is 250sqft and the construction of a 4 season porch which is 300sqft would only change the used square footage by 50sgft. There are other 3 / 4 season porches in the neighborhood similar to the one being requested. There is a culvert at the rear end of the property, that runs through the subdivision, approximately 40ft away from the proposed structure. The lawn has an existing gradual slope to the culvert so water runoff will not be an issue on any level. This variance would greatly improve the quality of life and create a comfortable space for the family to grow, and at the same time would maintain the aesthetic integrity of the current home and neighborhood. Thank You, Noel Molloy Crafted Contracting 773-617-3824 noel@craftedcontractingmn.com RE ** * PIQNUIIIR * engineering ** tom smarms • OH . OKINEERS tlw. PL1MaRe . LOOSCPPE ARGNTECIS Certificate of Survey for: House Address: House Model: Lakeview II 1 �P 61uck EN-) = 951.1 ! '!1' E D 1 0 2020 I C"IT11' ? ST€Ll1NATEh BUILQ1 :IC i?L" AR fm'. `'IT _Gra.r€: rr0) Ps - F3sr 1 6-1Z -9S N 86 35'24" W 58.64 epro cat o.5 1 91a.y �RRE ILA 948.7 .00.0 Denotes Existing Devotion KIND Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Drainage Flow Direction — Denotes Drainage & Utility Easement Denotes Monument Denote. Dffiet Hub Bearings shown are assumed 2422 Enterprise Drive Mendota Nelphte, MN 55120 (812) 881-1914 FAx881-9488 825 Highway10 N.E. Blaine, MN 55434 (812) 783-1880 FAX:783-1883 CLASSIC HOME DESIGN. INC. 1410 Surrey lame itDa1� 3 Plat,, gN 3 gP 8 N Tor e,loce EI<.r =`751•`T nn ee tt� Yt 1 Lowest Floor El wtlan: 940.3 " 9s Top of Block Eevotlon: `7EI. Garage Slob awaken: 981•2 9So•4 NOTE: PrvQul.d busd%np site grading u h occaysow .MJi tn. Studirei P oppnr.d by the AY WIOIYMr. NOTE Contester must ye* oil d n .M... r driveway dos. LOT 2 e BLOCK 4 HIGHLANDS of STILLWATER 5th WASHINGTON COUNTY. MINNESOTA We hereby certify that this survey, pion or report woe prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly Ilcsneed Land Surv.yor under the laws of th. Stat. of Minnesota. Dated this Zr1tN day of Febr'r7 A.D. 19, 2—a7-95 Rey: sad Noss. odddJ 3rd GrGwr• Signed: PIONEER EN NEERIN P.A. Robert B. Slklch, LS. Reg. No. 14891 or Terrence E. Rothenbacher, L.S. Reg. No. 20595 Scale: 1 = 30' 3721 14224.07 _ . l*tL•kr7'..c. :-.;.y• • • • - • r - -.10 • • - ' I; ' t -- V:1.-A • . , 7- . ir s ,r.-- • - I ' 1 .i1,--.' ' '4 ' ' °: .-4,--s;ti7-9''''').1'";',0-..- : ...! '.1. • ' 1 . • . .. , :,- . ,1c71,1 • illf,j. i. x }—,....*7,441P. .- • . , 4 1 .!:, 4. ..,,, ir, t..,,:. ,ry.. s% .—k., • ..,.... _....,?... .. . ... . . ... -.... :P. . ;' '11 :,''' ''ii.• . :'571-4:-,* - . -. .. f• , 44.-....- -:; -F:--4 •1•••• • : ' d:"6. 74, 2 — ' • t).:. . • ,';••"----st71;_- • • ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-44 September 15, 2020 September 23, 2020 Joel Lieffring Joel Lieffring Consideration of a Variance to construct a 168SF accessory structure. 8325 Marylane Ave North RB, Two -Family Residential Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Joel Lieffring owns the 17,225SF property at 8325 Marylane Ave N., which is an interior lot, located in the Marylane Meadows development. Mr. Lieffring would like to construct a 168 SF shed, however the maximum allowed accessory structure size (once you already have a garage) is 120SF. However, Mr. Lieffring does already have a garage, so a second accessory structure is limited by Zoning Code to 120 SF. Therfore, he is requesting a variance to exceed this maximum size allowed by 48SF. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance to City Code Section 31-308. (a). (3). iii. to allow a second accessory structure to exceed the maximum allowed square footage by 48SF. 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. CPC Case 2020-44 Page 2 of 4 The property is zoned RB, Two -Family Residential. A second accessory structure 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? Size of Accessory Structures The requirement that places a maximum size for a second accessory structure is to prevent RB Zoned properties from becoming overly occupied with accessory structures, allowing properties to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Size of Accessory Structures If granted, the proposed variance would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code because a shed that is 168SF on such a large property will not create any issues with massing. Typically, RB Zoned properties have a size of only about 7,500 sf, whereas this lot has a size of 17,225 sf. Additionally, the property has an enormous easement in the rear that allows for adequate storm water infiltration on the property, and an additional 48SF over the allowed amount will have no impact on this. 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 17,225SF SF property with a single family residence would be proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner by adding a 168SF shed. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. First, it is important to note that there is a 120SF limit to secondary accessory structures across this whole district; however, the building code does allow a structure of up to 200SF to be built without a building permit. What is unique to this property, though, is it is very large (especially for a property in an RB district). There is also a large easement in the rear, which allows opportunity for more drainage than the average property. Lastly, the property is unable to expand the garage to the north nor the west, to provide for more accessory storage area, because that would require a variance to the lot lines setbacks. CPC Case 2020-44 Page 3 of 4 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? Planning staff does not believe this will have any impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. The shed is in the rear yard of this large property and is only slightly larger than the allowed amount. In fact, providing these residents with the opportunity to store their recreational vehicles indoors, might have an overall positive impact on the neighborhood. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variance is simply a preference of wanting a shed large enough to fit their recreational equipment when it is not in use. 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- 44, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 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 construct a shed that is not in conformance to the City Code requirements that limit it to a size of 120SF. Though, staff feels that there is a uniqueness to this property, and the size and location are reasonable and will not detract from the neighborhood's character. CPC Case 2020-44 Page 4 of 4 Staff finds the proposed accessory structure meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2020-44 with the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan cc: Joel Lieffring Y1 & 4`.a ..y �4 12120 • i. 12210 3Tg3 1 'r° ..i.,.... -GOIJN IX ----ROAD 64 .� ..„ 1472 149/ ,0--qi. ?� 14E 1462 _ % 11 - "t ® © 7 ROf--,...----------- Sti1,0 The Birthplace W /4- Iwater of Minnesota ` , 1498 1 #1I.P 1,456- H 1465 b4 n cc 1497 r;'` w 1491 1450 8 1445 w \ �_ ., -- z H 1435 -s o 0 � 1444 1425 36 (0'N • r �^ ` _ 2 2 ` 399 D 3650 14,8 ,' WRIGHT `� 1 ., Site Location 36 \ 8307,' ,- . 1432, 6 1428 f ;.. . 310 371 3655 83-7 1420 - 3702 .m 361� 12191217 362,E i $ " �� �' \ t , 91215 3694 - '1 8325 Marylane Ave N �. f ' !337 s- 3686��a, .15 3611 36 �� "" - r 4 qT 3678 337 1 6 1331 f366 1239 220.4� FOOD 3650 I ' .8325 1330 25 )358 i .�� 7 1252 �% 8313 132 } 'Li 1317 �- =- 4 Y1850 SUMMIT LANE nr w + 8301 170 y - ?1258 Text 3213• > 1318 ` `Y - - _ 3207 8299 O 3219 err ate.. ;1312 �P = 0 0 212.5 425 85Feet != arar :. 1i4 s i W (3b0 GAO I. Q m; .�1T84, �1235 �' '} �`►r Site Location .: r ` 3206 35+p 343 �OoO 1 (General '' rlit 36�` 35 35 36 6 369i 360. 35.8 Q 8233 �jf : P 122`►1229 �, , .° g 3249 y� . • , 1223`172 �d.!'�1' - i 3255 `1A79 �I pm (f��f:�. �h Ii, .... � ._ ■ I ■111,� -'�� �Z+.�� :`, ►:=- \�!, M l ,,, ,. -..• �pI .• e i` �r FRS t ROB -'" ; r„ ; 3 �al�a i d 3539 II ` Ig ��, 1t 3252 3246 0� 1160 1 '� ...\ Si' " �==:.•f154 1 �� ,�*#s�►� __�G��as, `� ;r �1 0 3: �4 1,148 O °Y15 / ' 304 In If111�i•.� �''tt�:_` �ri��• • -1�0� +� .« ♦ Da II .I _ ���� �,' :,mow r. i.- �, r rr11, '� i `Ir �� " `I� 1 ' 1 t r v warm= _ 35 ' _. y� 352 35 35 I '77.� `��" ��J ',,1 I 517 r _�, C� = 3505 ' N O2i . .�'i1' 513 •�, �' 6' i 4/9C F O� yea/ ').- � �, ' + a G. 0 1 II r I! ,.'a 1143/`� �} •`{ $=- OURT� ,3301 1142 r 14 G ." „ z 1141'N 11 33 II < i' I �`�_1 309 136 II 11 --- z 1130 ' I 1�351 31136 MI r . C / , �. �TL��`� /J ■'� ��� , I = �' '- � 1 �� t • ` '. Il�lrn %. •• /��1 - ` 1 8 n?1133 �7 .. ` , ��.t..+1 dui;'.._.._ ' � • -y v r �� ' 1 ellti riil'111N.7iiitgi i_,J i o r- 24 0117 1 2 m 1106 - 101 r+.r J -f � -' 1.1100 .!. : Stillwater City Planning Commission, I am requesting a variance to build a storage shed that is 12x14 feet. This is larger than the standard 12x10 structure allowed. The reason I am requesting the variance is that I also own an ATV that I use to ride with my family on the state/county designated ATV trail systems. Our garage space is fully utilized by our vehicles and other automotive related items. I would like to store the ATV in a shed along with our lawn and garden equipment. Unfortunately, a 12x10 shed does not provide enough space for these combined items. The specific lot that we purchased for our home build was a larger lot without an association. We specifically purchased it because we thought we would be able to build a shed of this size with no restrictions. Stillwater is a beautiful place and I do not want to create an eyesore in my neighborhood by storing my ATV outside in my backyard. We will be using the same roof shingles and siding that was used on the house so that the shed will match our residence. Also, the location of the shed will fit nicely within our fenced in backyard behind our large Green Ashe tree. I hope this meets the requirements necessary to grant an exception for this shed build. L R 83`l.5 IA L A E pRAiu46� P-kOpetiT4 L1NE - - - EASE)'tEN1% 1 S �1 t-'ID IL FECE- 1 � �r4EE 4 7.3 7 r 1 q