Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-28 CPC PacketSiillwater THE 6 I R T H P L A C E O F M I H H E S OT A PLEASE NOTE (NEW FOR 2021): Planning Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by logging into https://www.zoomgov.com or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 877 9021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 28t'', 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of March 24th, 2021 regular meeting minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 2. Case No. 2021-15: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to allow Accessory Dwelling Units within the RA One Family Residential district. Linda Countryman, representing the Greensteps Committee and Sustainable Stillwater, applicant. 3. Case No. 2021-17: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances for a two story residential addition. Property located at 225 2nd Street N, in the CBD district. Nat Shea — Tanek, Inc., applicant and Archangel Assets 4 LLC, property owner. 4. Case No. 2021-18: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property located at 12950 75th St N in the AP district. Jon Whitcomb, property owner. 5. Case No. 2021-19: Consideration of Variances to the maximum structural coverage and maximum accessory structure coverage, in order to construct a larger garage. Property located at 715 William St N in the RB district. Charles Pearcy, applicant and Treva Pearcy, property owner. 6. Case No. 2021-20: Consideration of Variances to the rear yard setbacks and to allow for a two story accessory structure. Property located at 924 4th St N in the RB district. Sirid Kellerman, property owner. VII. DISCUSSION 7. Election of officer's discussion VIII. FYI — STAFF UPDATES IX. ADJOURNMENT ilivater THE 1INTN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 24, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hansen, Steinwall, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: Commissioners Kocon & Meyhoff Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of February 24, 2021 regular meeting Commissioner Steinwall requested the following correction: on page 3, toward the bottom, it should state that Commissioner Steinwall "inquired whether the height of the elevator ..." rather than "requested that the height of the elevator ..." Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2021 meeting as amended. Motion passed 4-0-1 with Chairman Lauer abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Resolution No. CPC 2021-01: Adopting Written Statement of Reasons for Denial Commissioner Hansen stated he does not feel comfortable voting "yes" to something that he voted "no" for. However he will support the City Attorney's recommendation. Councilmember Odebrecht pointed out that tonight's vote is to approve the memorialization of the denial. City Planner Wittman added that the 5th Whereas in the findings lists the Commissioners who voted against the motion. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2021-06: Consideration of a Variance to the front yard setback to build a larger front stoop on the property located at 1221 1st St S in the RB district. Traci Post, property owner. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant wishes to remove the existing front stoop and construct a new 8' X 4' wooden stoop roughly two feet high with no railings. An eight foot variance is being requested to allow a front stoop to be set back 12 feet from the front yard lot line (20 feet required). Staff finds the proposed stoop meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance, practical difficulties have been established, and this variance would not Zoom Meeting 0 cov 0 Recording... r1 • Viear Participants (16) Sue Steinwall _ ,r IT Alerts John Dybvig Sirid Kellermann RC fernando Stillwater AV nshea jon whitcomb 16509969927 Q Find a participant S IT Alerts (Host, me) ® City Hall (Co -host) *Of Eric Hansen fernando 0 John Dybvig tojon whitcomb michaelruss © nshea QRC Roger Tomten Sirid Kellermann Stillwater AV 0 Sue Steinwall ® Todd Meyhoff 0 Treva O16509969927 n n - =i 16 A Pa i i.. P.II © CI CI hr r::n • .... R . i.n End Invite Mute All Planning Commission March 24, 2021 negatively impact the visual character of the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends approval with three conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to approve Case No. 2021-06, Variance to the front yard setback to build a larger front stoop on the property located at 1221 1st St S, with the three staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2021-08: Consideration of a Variance to the lot's impervious surface coverage. in order to install a pool on property located at 1910 Oak Glen Trail in the RA district. Jennine Lundquist, property owner. City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. The applicant would like to install a 21' round semi - in -ground pool in the rear yard. A variance is being requested to allow the impervious coverage to be 27.7%, or 3,531 square feet (maximum impervious surface coverage is 25%). Staff finds the proposed pool meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance, practical difficulties have been established, and this variance would not negatively impact the visual character of the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends approval with four conditions. Commissioner Hansen asked if the 800' shoreland management boundary was established before any development occurred. Ms. Wittman answered yes. Commissioner Hansen noted that over the past decade, there has been a lot of development between this property and the lake which helps mitigate water runoff. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if the corner portion of the lot that is not in the watershed could be considered an offset to the 27% impervious surface coverage. Ms. Wittman replied generally, if the boundary touches a property, the parcel is considered to be subject to the shoreland regulation. However the fact that there is a portion of the property outside the boundary may be considered a unique circumstance. Nik, Performance Pools, stated the pool will collect water rather than causing additional runoff. At the time of liner replacement, every 15 years, the water is neutralized and is not drained into any natural resources in the area. It flows into the street. Ms. Wittman added that when the liner is replaced, the pool is drained to the street and into the City's stormwater system which is allowed by the City's stormwater management policies. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve Case No. 2021-08, Variance to impervious surface coverage in order to install a pool on property located at 1910 Oak Glen Trail, with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2021-09: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for outdoor dining on an exterior patio and its proposed addition. Property located at 102 2nd Street N in the CDB district. Tim Siegfried, applicant and 102 2nd LLC, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that the Lowell Inn received approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission for the partial demolition of single -story improvements located on the south Page 2 of 5 Planning Commission March 24, 2021 facade of the building. The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to have outdoor dining on their patio and proposed two -tiered patio extension that will include an at -grade area that will accommodate four additional tables. Staff finds that the use conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of use permits and recommends approval with six conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Steinwall asked if proposed Condition #4 is intended to be "no piped music" (not "pipe" music) and asked if that means amplified entertainment. Ms. Wittman answered that outdoor amplified entertainment or music would require a use permit amendment. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2021-09, Special Use Permit for outdoor dining on an exterior patio and its proposed addition at 102 2nd Street N, with the six conditions recommended by staff, correcting Condition #4 to reference "piped" music. All in favor. Case No. 2021-11: Consideration of a Variance to the exterior side yard setback on the property located at 1312 Broadway St N in the RA district. Richard and Colleen Muske. property owners. Ms. Wittman explain the application. The applicants wish to construct a 1,000 square foot garage in their exterior side yard and are requesting a 20' variance to allow the detached garage to be set back 10' feet from the exterior side yard lot line (30 feet required). The property is extremely unique because it is comprised of two separate lots that meet perpendicularly and both front different streets, though neither of them is a corner lot. Staff finds the proposed garage meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance, practical difficulties have been established, and the variance would not negatively impact the visual character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. Richard Muske, applicant, noted the existing garage needs to be removed due to deterioration and the new garage will correct drainage issues because it will be at street level. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve Case No. 2021-11, Variance to the exterior side yard setback on the property located at 1312 Broadway St N, with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2021-12: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for outside storage located at 127 Main St S in the CBD district. Buettner Real Estate, property owner. Ms. Wittman explained that the owners of Leo's Grill and Malt Shop obtained City approval to remodel their patio to include a trash enclosure on the north side of the patio. A portion of the enclosure's roof will include customer dining and another portion will remain vacant. The property owner is seeking approval to place a walk-in freezer on top of the trash enclosure, requiring a Special Use Permit for outside storage. The applicant has agreed to screening recommended by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The proposed improvement generally conforms to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, with the requirement for opaque screening on all street -facing sides. Staff recommends approval with four conditions, amending Condition #2 to state that screening will be required on the south side as recommended by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Page 3 of 5 Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Cory Buettner, applicant, stated the noise level of the freezer will be about the same as a residential air conditioning unit. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Councilmember Odebrecht thanked the Buettner family for all their community activities. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to approve Case No. 2021-12, Special Use Permit for outside storage located at 127 Main St S, with the four staff - recommended conditions, amending Condition #2 stating that screening shall be required per the Heritage Preservation Commission Design Permit approval. All in favor. Case No. 2021-13: Consideration of a 6 lot Preliminary Plat and Rezoning. Property located at 8483 Marylane Ave N in the AP district. JAM Freedom LLC, applicant and Mark and Marlene Pavlick, property owners. City Planner Wittman explained that Jeff and Missy Hause, JAM Freedom LLC, plan to develop a 2.57-acre parcel at 8384 Marylane Avenue North. The preliminary plat for the project, to be known as Marylane Gateway Addition, shows six single family lots, one of which will contain the existing residence. In addition to consideration of the preliminary plat, the applicant is requesting rezoning of the property from AP - Agricultural Preservation to RB - Two Family Residential and vacation of the existing property's drainage and utility easements. The Planning Commission is asked to recommend to the City Council approval of: 1) a Vacation for existing drainage and utility easements; 2) Zoning Map Amendment for 8384 Marylane Avenue North to be changed from AP - Agricultural Preservation to RB - Two Family Residential; and 3) Preliminary Plat for Marylane Gateway Addition. City engineering staff have reviewed the development and found that the drainage and utility easement vacation is generally in conformance to design standards. However, there are two areas of concern: 1. A storm sewer pipe is proposed to be located between Lot 5 and Lot 6. Drainage and utility easements for Lot 5's southern lot line and Lot 6's northern lot line will each need to be increased to 10' for a total of 20' between the two. Additionally, a 10' drainage and utility easement will be required for the southern lot line for Lot 6. 2. The stormwater treatment pond outlet will cause some issues to the properties to the east, blocking an existing drainage swale and causing the water to move east toward the backyard of the properties to the east. The City will not allow this and other options will have to be investigated. Therefore, a condition of approval is recommended to ensure the stormwater design is updated prior to final plat submittal. Some tree loss will occur but it will not exceed 35% of the significant trees on the site nor 15% of the canopy cover. The development plan shows retention of some of the trees and some vegetation clearing and there will likely be removal of invasive species, however future homeowners may remove trees and vegetation after homes are built if they comply with the City's tree replacement regulations. The City's natural resources technician is comfortable with the plans and will be on site as development occurs. The developer's application to Browns Creek Watershed District is incomplete and must be completed prior to the granting of the final plat. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends the City accept fees in lieu of park and trail amenities. City staff recommends approval of the vacation, zoning map amendment and preliminary plat with 15 conditions. Commissioner Steinwall asked if park and trail dedication fees will be collected for the existing house as well as for each new lot. Ms. Wittman replied the park and trail dedication fees will only apply to the new homes. Page 4 of 5 Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Commissioner Steinwall suggested tweaking the wording of Condition #13 for clarity. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if the City attorney has looked at the Parks fee in light of the Woodbury decision. Ms. Wittman replied City staff has reviewed its impact fees in light of the Woodbury decision and there are some development fees that the City no longer imposes, but park and trail dedication fees are still charged. She explained that the City of Woodbury was sued by a developer over development impact fees collected for the future maintenance of roads constructed within the development. The City of Woodbury lost and may no longer require developers to pay for future debts. Stillwater's development fees are different because they cover debt service for costs already incurred by the City. Park and trail dedication fees are put into the existing parks and trails system, rather than being used to create new parks and trails. Steve Johnston, representing the developer, said they have no issues with the recommended conditions. Meetings are set up to review storm water issues. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioners Steinwall and Dybvig pointed out scrivener's errors in the Conditions. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2021-13, 1) Vacation for existing drainage and utility easements; 2) Zoning Map Amendment for 8384 Marylane Avenue North to be changed from AP - Agricultural Preservation to RB - Two Family Residential; and 3) Preliminary Plat for Marylane Gateway Addition, with the following clerical adjustments: Condition #7, add the word permit after BCWD; Condition # 11, remove the last, incomplete sentence; and Condition #13, change 'for each new home lot created" to 'for each new lot intended for new construction."All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. FYI STAFF UPDATES Commissioner Candidate Interviews Ms. Wittman stated that Commissioner Kocon and Chairman Lauer are not applying for reappointment so there will be Commission vacancies in May. Councilmember Odebrecht and Vice Chair Dybvig will interview candidates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to adjourn the meeting at 8:14 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Chris Lauer, Chair Page 5 of 5 I iwater FFIF RIFITHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT MEMO DATE: April 23, 2021 CASE NO.: 2021-15 HEARING DATES: Planning Commission April 28, 2021 City Council May 4 & May 18, 2021 APPLICANT: Sustainable Stillwater, GreenStep Cities Committee REQUEST: Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance amendment REVIEWED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Kori Land, City Attorney REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Majority of text by Roger Tomten, Sustainable Stillwater INTRODUCTION Linda Countryman, Chair of Sustainable Stillwater's GreenStep Cities Committee, submitted a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment on the committee's behalf to increase the number of properties eligible for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). This increase is accomplished by adding the RA, Single Family Residential Zoning District to those that allow ADUs, by reducing the lot size required for an ADU, and by relaxing several performance standards. BACKGROUND Accessory dwellings have always been a part of Stillwater's housing environment. Only recently, with the onset of universal zoning in the 1950's, were they prohibited. That is why you will see evidence of accessory dwellings throughout the older neighborhoods of Stillwater. In the late 1990's with the expansion of the municipal boundaries and the creation of additional zoning districts, accessory dwellings were allowed by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the newly formed Traditional Residential (TR) Zoning District and outright permitted in the Cove Traditional Residential (CTR) District. In addition, ADUs are also allowed by CUP in the historic residential neighborhoods zoned RB, Two -Family Residential. This ordinance amendment would add the RA, Single Family Residential Zoning District as a District in which an ADU is allowed by CUP. An Accessory Dwelling Unit, by definition in the City Code, means "a secondary dwelling unit on one lot, detached from a primary single-family residence and clearly secondary to a primary residence". Further, a Dwelling Unit is defined as "one or more rooms providing complete living facilities for one family, including equipment to provisions for cooking and including rooms used for living, sleeping and eating". ADU Ordinance Amendment April 23, 2021 Page 2 Recently, interest in ADU's has peaked, not only locally but across the region and the country, as one piece in solving the housing dilemma puzzle. The interest for ADUs generally fall into three categories; social, environmental and economic. Social benefits include: 1. The ability to provide smaller one and two -bedroom living units in areas of the city where they are in short supply. Generally, housing stock availability lags behind demographic trends and those trends currently are for smaller units in walkable neighborhoods. 2. These smaller units then provide a more affordable housing option without negatively impacting the character of the neighborhood. 3. ADU's allow multi -generational living, providing for elderly caregiving, child care or those with special needs. 4. They create separate, independent living space while maintaining proximity. 5. For seniors they allow downsizing while remaining in a comfortable and familiar neighborhood. Environmental benefits include: 1. The creation of housing units with a small environmental footprint in terms of construction, habitation and deconstruction. 2. Because of their inherent small size, they use less energy to heat and cool. 3. They tend to be located in either walkable neighborhoods or where transportation options are available, thus reducing single occupant vehicle trips, one of the highest users of energy. Economic benefits include: 1. The efficient use of existing municipal infrastructure (streets, water lines, sewer lines, electrical lines, gas lines) rather than expanding city services to far reaching edges of the city. 2. They provide housing near employment, retail or service centers and transit corridors, where there is a need for affordable housing options. 3. They create more tax revenue for the local municipality. 4. They provide construction jobs for smaller contractors who are generally more local, thus keeping the money in the local economy. 5. ADU's provide a wealth building opportunity, stabilizing housing costs for the home owner. REQUEST 1. Allow ADUs by CUP in the RA Zoning District a. 10,000 square foot minimum lot size (Sustainable Stillwater recommends 5,000 sf) b. Allow in an accessory structure or within/attached to house c. Three off-street parking spaces for property (two for house; one for ADU) d. 800 square foot maximum size e. ADU shall be consistent in design and materials with the existing house f. Height may not exceed that of the existing house 2. Outright permit ADUs in RB Two -Family District; currently a CUP is required 3. Reduce the ADU barriers in the RB Two -Family District ADU Ordinance Amendment April 23, 2021 Page 3 a. 7,500 square feet minimum lot size (reduced from current 10,000 square foot minimum; but not reduced to 5,000 square feet as recommended by Sustainable Stillwater). b. Allow in an accessory structure or within/attached to house (currently only allowed on the second story of a detached garage) c. Three off-street parking spaces for property (two for house; one for ADU - currently four are required: two for house, two for ADU) d. 800 square foot maximum size (same size as currently) e. ADU shall be consistent in design and materials with the existing house (currently a design review permit is required from the Heritage Preservation Commission) f. Height may not exceed that of the existing house g. Five-foot side yard setback and ten -foot rear yard setback back for an ADU in an accessory structure (currently three-foot side and 25-foot rear required). 4. Sustainable Stillwater recommends allowing ADU's to be used as vacation rentals, but City staff does not. 5. Change definition of "accessory dwelling unit" so that "detached from a primary single- family residence" now reads "either attached to or detached from a single-family residence". ANALYSIS The attached matrix illustrates the existing language for each zone where ADUs are currently allowed. The matrix also adds ADUs in the RA district. The language in the matrix proposed by Sustainable Stillwater is in red and that of City staff in blue. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Minimum Lot Size Generally, for the newer districts (TR & CTR) the minimum lot size represents the minimum lot size of the district, so all lots would qualify for ADUs. In the case of the RB zoning district, the lots were platted in the 1860's and most have a lot size between 5,000 and 7,500 square feet. When the zoning districts were laid over the existing plats in the 1950's the minimum lot size was set at 7,500 square feet. But, to have an ADU today, a lot size of 10,000 square feet is required. This is also the lot size that is required for duplex in the RB District. Consequently, most of the lots in the RB District cannot have an ADU. If the goal is to create more ADU's (affordable housing options) in the most walkable neighborhoods, then the minimum lot size requirement deserves reconsideration. Sustainable Stillwater proposes to lower the minimum lot size for ADU's in the RB district to 5,000 square feet. City staff recommends 7,500 square feet, which is the minimum lot size in the RB District. The RA zone consists of a mix of lots platted before the zoning code adoption and lots platted after the zoning code adoption. The lots platted before the zoning code are generally smaller than the 10,000 square feet currently required. So, Sustainable Stillwater proposes a minimum lot size in the RA District of 5,000 square feet. City staff recommends that a lot have at least the minimum 10,000 square feet in area to be eligible for an ADU. ADU Ordinance Amendment April 23, 2021 Page 4 Off-street Parking Requirements The requirement to provide a certain number of parking spots on the lot when for an ADU results in far fewer ADUs being created. If the goal of providing more efficient and affordable housing options is more important than the goal of providing more private spaces for cars in the neighborhood, then this requirement should be reconsidered. Sustainable Stillwater points out that studies on the topic have concluded that the effect of ADUs on parking has been negligible for several reasons. One, ADUs are associated with a modest number of vehicles per unit that can usually be accommodated by parking on the street. Two, ADUs are generally rare and distributed throughout neighborhoods. Therefore, Sustainable Stillwater proposes to lower the on -site parking requirements in the RB zone from four to two spaces for a property, and set the requirement for the RA zone at three off street spaces (two enclosed). City staff concurs with three spaces in the RA District (two for the main residence and one for the ADU), but would recommend three spaces in the RB District (two for the main residence and one for the ADU). ADU placement The locations for ADUs on the lot address considerations of neighborhood character and adjacent property privacy. Given that the RB zone and portions of the RA zone were platted prior to the dominance of the automobile, the locations, sizes and orientation of garages plays a key role in defining the character of the neighborhood. Here the primary residence dominates the streetscape and the accessory structures (detached garages) or ADUs are meant to be downplayed. For this reason, the requirement is to place the ADU behind the front line of the primary residence (RA zone) or behind the midpoint of the primary residence (RB zone). In the CTR and TR Districts, ADUs can be located either in a detached accessory structure, within the primary structure or attached to the primary residence. Both Sustainable Stillwater and City staff propose this to be the case in the RA District as well. In the RB District ADU's are currently only allowed above a detached garage. Both Sustainable Stillwater and City staff propose to allow ADUs in this District to continue to be above a detached garage, but also as with the other districts, to allow them within or attached to the primary residence. In the RB District, Sustainable Stillwater and City staff believe the setback for an ADU above a garage should only need a setback of 10 feet from the rear yard, instead of the current 25 feet. But, increase the side yard setback for the detached accessory building to five feet from its current three feet. Dormers facing the side yard would still be prohibited to maintain a level of privacy. ADU design compatibility The CTR and RB Zoning Districts currently require ADUs to have "design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials". However, it is unclear whether this design review is to be completed by City staff or by the Heritage Preservation Commission as a Design Review Permit. City staff recommends this be clarified to state specifically that the review is at a City staff level. The RA District's ADUs would also need a staff design review. ADU Ordinance Amendment April 23, 2021 Page 5 ADUs as Vacation Rentals Sustainable Stillwater proposes that all ADUs would be eligible for licenses to be operated as Short Term Home Rentals (Vacation Rentals). City staff does not support this use of ADUs. They run counter to all the housing benefits listed above. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached draft ADU ordinance amendment. cc Roger Tomten Linda Countryman Attachments: Summary of Ordinance Changes Ordinance - legislative version Ordinance - clean version Sec. 31-501. Accessory dwellings. TR -Traditional Residential CTR - Cove Traditional RB - Two-family RA - One -family (1) Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet; (1) Lot size must be at least 15,000 square feet; (1) Lot size must be at least 5,000 10,000 square feet; (1) Lot size must be at least 5,000 square feet; (2) May be located within or attached to the primary structure, or within an accessory structure (detached from the primary structure); (2) May be located within or attached to the primary structure, or within an accessory structure (detached from the primary structure); (2) The accessory dwelling unit may be located within or attached to the primary structure, or on second floor above the garage. (2) May be located within or attached to the primary structure, or within an accessory structure (detached from the primary structure); (3)Off street parking requirements for an accessory unit and single family residence must be provided; Four off-street parking spaces, three shall be enclosed; All four spaces must be provided within the setback boundaries of the property. (3)Off street parking requirements for an accessory unit and single family residence must be provided; Four off-street parking spaces, three shall be enclosed; All four spaces must be provided within the setback boundaries of the property. (3) The accessory dwelling unit must (3)Off street parking requirements for an accessory unit and single family residence must be provided; Three off-street parking spaces, two shall be enclosed; All spaces must be provided within the setback boundaries of the property. by the abide primary structure setbacks for side a —rear setbacks. A detached accessory structure must abide by the following setback; Side yard 5 feet Rear yard 10 feet. (4)A detached accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence; (4)A detached accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence; (4) The accessory dwelling unit 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. (4) The accessory dwelling unit must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the front line of the primary residence. (5) Detached accessory dwelling units shall not have roof dormers that face the nearest residential lot side yard property line; (5) Detached accessory dwelling units shall not have roof dormers that face the nearest residential lot side yard property line; (5) Off-street parking requirements for an apartment accessory dwelling unit and single-family residence (two f w spaces) must be provided. (5) Detached accessory dwelling units shall not have roof dormers that face the nearest residential lot side yard property line; (6) Detached accessory structure will not result in the loss of significant trees or require major site alteration. (6) Detached accessory structure will not result in the loss of significant trees or require major site alteration. (6) Maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet. (6) Maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet. (7) Only one detached accessory structure may be located on a residential lot. (7) The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. (7) The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. (8) Detached accessory uses may include one or more of the following: i. Accessory dwelling unit; ii.Accessory dwelling and one enclosed structure parking space; iii. Home office; iv. Storage. (8) The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. (8) The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. (9)Maximum size of a detached accessory structure is: i. 500 square feet, one story use of loft area is allowed; or ii.720 square feet (when grade level used as only garage, i.e., no garage attached to primary structure, 20 feet maximum building height. (9) Both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services through a single meter and be located on an improved public street. (9) Both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services through a single meter and be located on an improved public street. (10) A detached accessory structure must abide by the following setback; Side yard 5 feet Rear yard 10 feet. (10) Maximum is 800 (10) A detached accessory structure must abide by the following setback; Side yard 5 feet Rear yard 10 feet. size of garagc square feet. (11) An accessory use requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. (10) Detached accessory dwelling units shall not have roof dormers that face the nearest residential lot side yard property line; (12) Detached accessory structures may not have window openings facing the rear property line. (13) Detached accessory structures located on corner lots must have the garage doors turned away from the side street. (14) If there are two garages on site, at least one garage must not face the street or streets if a corner lot. ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31-101 REGARDING ZONING DEFINITIONS, CHAPTER 31-315 ALLOWBLE USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND CHAPTER 31-501 REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS The City Council of Stillwater does ordain: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-101, 1. relating to definition of accessory dwelling units, is deleted and replaced with the following: 1. Accessory dwelling unit means a second dwelling unit on one lot, either attached to or detached from a primary single-family residence and clearly secondary to a primary residence. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-315 relating to allowable uses in residential districts, specifically accessory dwellings, is hereby amended to read as follows: A-P LR CTR RA TR CCR RB CR TH CTHR RCL RCM RR HMU Accessory dwelling (See Section 31-501) CUP CUP P P P SECTION 3. AMENDMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-510, Subd 2, (11) relating to design of accessory dwellings in the CTR Zoning Districts is hereby amended to read as follows: (11) An accessory use unit requires design review for consistencyshall be consistent with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. SECTION 4. AMENDMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-510, Subd 3, relating to accessory dwellings in the RB Zoning Districts is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: Subd. 3 in RB districts (a) An accessory dwelling unit is a conditionally permitted use in the RB district subject to the following regulations: (1) Lot size must be at least 10,0007.500 square feet; (1)(2) The accessory dwelling unit may be located on second floor above the garage, or within or attached to the primary unit; 2,(3) Any The detached accessory dwelling units must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and rear setbacksmaintain a five foot minimum side yard setback and a ten foot minimum rear yard setback; 1 (2)(4) Any detached The accessory dwelling units 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; - (5) Three Ooff-street parking spaces requirements for an apartment and single family residence (four spaces) must be provided (one for accessory unit and two for primary unit); (5)(6) Maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet; - (7) The application requires accessory dwelling unit shall be consistent design ith the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. (7)(8) The height of any detached accessory dwelling units may not exceed that of the primary residence; (9) Both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services through a single meter and be located on an improved public street; (10) Maximum size of garage is 800 square feet; and (11) No detached accessory dwelling unit may have roof dormers facing the rear lot line or nearest side lot line. SECTION 5. AMENDMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-510 relating to accessory dwellings is hereby amended by adding the following Subdivision: Subd. 4 in RA districts (a) An accessory dwelling unit is a conditionally permitted use in the RA district subject to the following regulations: (1) Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet; (2) The accessory dwelling unit may be located on second floor above the garage, or within or attached to the primary unit; (3) Any detached accessory dwelling units must maintain a five-foot minimum side yard setback and a ten -foot minimum rear yard setback; (4) Any detached accessory dwelling units 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; (5) Three off-street parking spaces must be provided (one for accessory unit and two for primary unit); (6) Maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet; (7) The accessory dwelling unit shall be consistent with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. (1)(8) The height of any accessory dwelling units may not exceed that of the primary residence; (2)(9) Both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services through a single meter and be located on an improved public street; and (10) No detached accessory dwelling unit may have roof dormers facing the rear lot line or nearest side lot line. 2 SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Passed this ATTEST: day of , 2021. Beth Wolf, City Clerk CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor 3 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31-101 REGARDING ZONING DEFINITIONS, CHAPTER 31-315 ALLOWBLE USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND CHAPTER 31-501 REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS The City Council of Stillwater does ordain: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-101, 1. relating to definition of accessory dwelling units, is deleted and replaced with the following: 1. Accessory dwelling unit means a second dwelling unit on one lot, either attached to or detached from a primary single-family residence and clearly secondary to a primary residence. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-315 relating to allowable uses in residential districts, specifically accessory dwellings, is hereby amended to read as follows: A-P LR CTR RA TR CCR RB CR TH CTHR RCL RCM RR HMU Accessory dwelling (See Section 31-501) CUP CUP P P P SECTION 3. AMENDMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-510, Subd 2, (11) relating to design of accessory dwellings in the CTR Zoning Districts is hereby amended to read as follows: (11) An accessory unit shall be consistent with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. SECTION 4. AMENDMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-510, Subd 3, relating to accessory dwellings in the RB Zoning Districts is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: Subd. 3 in RB districts (a) An accessory dwelling unit is a permitted use in the RB district subject to the following regulations: (1) Lot size must be at least 7,500 square feet; (2) The accessory dwelling unit may be located on second floor above the garage, or within or attached to the primary unit; (3) Any detached accessory dwelling units must maintain a five foot minimum side yard setback and a ten foot minimum rear yard setback; 1 (4) Any detached accessory dwelling units 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; (5) Three off-street parking spaces must be provided (one for accessory unit and two for primary unit); (6) Maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet; (7) The accessory dwelling unit shall be consistent with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. (8) The height of any detached accessory dwelling units may not exceed that of the primary residence; (9) Both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services through a single meter and be located on an improved public street; (10) Maximum size of garage is 800 square feet; and (11) No detached accessory dwelling unit may have roof dormers facing the rear lot line or nearest side lot line. SECTION 5. AMENDMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-510 relating to accessory dwellings is hereby amended by adding the following Subdivision: Subd. 4 in RA districts (a) An accessory dwelling unit is a conditionally permitted use in the RA district subject to the following regulations: (1) Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet; (2) The accessory dwelling unit may be located on second floor above the garage, or within or attached to the primary unit; (3) Any detached accessory dwelling units must maintain a five-foot minimum side yard setback and a ten -foot minimum rear yard setback; (4) Any detached accessory dwelling units 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; (5) Three off-street parking spaces must be provided (one for accessory unit and two for primary unit); (6) Maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet; (7) The accessory dwelling unit shall be consistent with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. (8) The height of any accessory dwelling units may not exceed that of the primary residence; (9) Both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services through a single meter and be located on an improved public street; and (10) No detached accessory dwelling unit may have roof dormers facing the rear lot line or nearest side lot line. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. 2 Passed this day of , 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk iliwater THE B{ R T H P L A I; E OF MINNF PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-17 REPORT DATE: April 22, 2021 MEETING DATE: April 28, 2021 APPLICANT: Nat Shea, Tanek, Inc. LAND OWNER: Archangel Assets 4 LLC REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances for two-story residential addition LOCATION: 225 2nd Street North ZONING: Central Business District Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District Downtown Design Review District PREPARED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Michael Russ of Archangel Assets 4 LLC owns the single story, walkout commercial building at 225 2nd Street North. He would like to 'pop the top' on the structure, adding two additional floors; each floor would serve as its own single family residence. Parking for the new residential units will be located in the lowest level of the building that is currently being rented for commercial use. To accommodate accessibility, the owner intends to construct an elevator shaft on the southern facade. This will be connected by a concrete walkway to the 2nd Street North sidewalk. Residential uses in the Central Business District (CBD) require a Conditional Special Use Permit. While the property owner is not seeking to expand the footprint of the structure, the existing structure's front, side and rear setbacks are legal (in that the building was constructed prior to the City's zoning code adoption) but they are non -conforming to the current Zoning Code requirements as the building is built (predominantly) to all property lines. The vertical expansion of the non -conforming structure necessitates requests for variances to the required setbacks. Case no. 2021-17 Page 2 Approval of a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) Design Permit is required prior to the release of a building permit. To the date of memo development, no HPC Design Permit application has been submitted to the City. On April 15, 2021 the request was heard by the Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC). At that meeting it was determined the change of use of the lowest level, from commercial to parking, satisfies the zoning code standard that parking demand cannot increase by more than four spaces without mitigation. Combined with the fact that the residential use parking requirements can be met onsite, the DTPC determined the changes did not necessitate any parking requirement mitigation. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of: 1. Conditional Use Permit for two (2) multi -family residences in the CBD Zoning District; and 2. 20' Variance to the required 20' (combined) Side Yard Setback to vertically expand a non -conforming structure; and 3. 20' Variance to the 20' Rear Yard Setback to vertically expand a non -conforming structure. ANALYSIS Conditional Use Permit Generally speaking, conformance to the Zoning Code generally surrounds around whether or not the proposed use will be compatible with its surrounding uses. City Code Section 31-207, Special/Conditional Use Permits, identifies the city may grant a Use Permit or amendments when the following findings are made: The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this [Zoning] chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Comprehensive Plan Conformity With regard to residential uses in the downtown area, the City has found that they are not only compatible but a welcome addition in the highly -developed and walkable downtown area. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan's (Plan) Land Use and Downtown Urban Design Goals state a community goal is to "develop a land use plan that fosters economic growth and evolution...and welcomes both residents and visitors. Sensitively develop prime Downtown property using a compact mixture of commercial, office, residential..." Additionally, a Local Economy and Tourism goal is to "provide new locations for Downtown housing to support Downtown retail and entertainment venues." This project helps support these goals. The Plan further identifies the need to "provide for a range of new housing opportunities from large lot single family to multi -family." It elaborates that ways to do this are to "explore development concepts such as higher density infill..." and to "encourage market rate rental Case no. 2021-17 Page 3 apartments as an element of mixed use projects in the Downtown area." The City's Land Use Plan helps support higher density development in areas where it is most appropriate, including in the downtown core. The Plan's vision utilizes the 2nd Street corridor for residential development to help support the Main Street commercial uses. Zoning Code Conformance As noted, the developer is proposing variation from the Zoning Code. Analysis of the setback variances is addressed in a subsequent section of this report. There are City Code requirements worth noting: Height: Although no elevations of the future structure were provided as part of the application submission, the applicant has indicated the height of the structure will not exceed 36' from the 2nd Street North grade. The maximum allowed height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District is 37'. Thus, the request is conforming with the Zoning Code's height requirements. Design Review: The Downtown Design Review Overlay District (DDR) has been codified into the Zoning Code. As part of the HPC's review of the addition in the DDR, City Code requires the HPC to determine if the project is in conformance to established design guidelines as well as whether or not the proposed project `fits' with the locality. The HPC will need to determine the height and mass of the additional stories are consistent along this streetscape and, arguably, this addition will rise above the other single -story structures to the south and the parking deck to the north. While design modifications can help reduce that mass, without having had the design of the structure reviewed, the City does not know the additional floors for residential units conform to the guidelines and City Code. Utilities: City records show the existing sewer service line was installed in 1896. The Engineering/Public Works has indicated that, if a 4" sewer line is still present, it will need to be upgraded to a 6" line. Additionally, Water Department staff is looking into whether the service line can accommodate the multi -tenant commercial users on the main floor and the additional residences. An update from the Water Department will be available on Wednesday. Lastly, if it is the owner's intent to convert the new building's units into condominiums, separate service connections will be required. Trash: Staff is recommending a condition of approval to insure trash remains in the building in perpetuity. Stormwater Management: As the property is minimizing its additions to the structure and will be adding minimal concrete for a sidewalk, no stormwater management requirements are necessary. That said, the Engineering/Public Works Department has requested the property owner work with their offices and the Building Inspection division to determine if a clear water connection exists and to disconnect it if one exists. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed or use and/or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Case no. 2021-17 Page 4 The City has received one public comment from Tom Wortman who expressed concern for the granting of a variance to the maximum height. As noted to the Commission, the applicant is not requesting a height variance. However, as Mr. Wortman notes, allowing the additional stories on this one-story structure will set a precedent for "popping the top" of additional one-story structures in the downtown area. Variance 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." Section 31-208 further indicates: • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The requested variance would not permit a use that is otherwise not permitted 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? The purpose for Side and Rear Yard setbacks is to provide for uniform patterned development for aesthetic and environmental reasons as well as to provide for onsite parking in the rear of buildings. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Reduction of the side and rear yard setbacks in the CBD area common. In fact, the Downtown Design Review District reduces the Main Street setbacks to zero to be compatible with the historic development patterns; this is not a development pattern exclusive to Main Street. The proposed reduction of the setbacks for this property is consistent with the development patent along this streetscape and for this building. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) encourages high quality development in the downtown core that is compatible with, and does not provide a nuisance to, the downtown's historic character and its existing land uses. Reduced setbacks are in harmony with the Plan. Furthermore, a policy of the Plan is to "encourage mixed use development that incorporates housing and parking structures within Downtown". As the Case no. 2021-17 Page 5 developer is proposing to meet the residential use parking onsite, the proposed variance is in harmony with the 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? Residential properties with underground parking, including those built to the lot lines, have been found to be reasonable in the downtown area. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property owner could add two stories to the structure while maintaining the setbacks required. That said, the owner is utilizing the existing building footprint's design. If setbacks were imposed, structural alterations would be required to ensure the building could support the two additional stories. The applicant has indicated this can occur within the basement of the structure. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property was not developed by the current owner. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The reduction of Side and Rear Yard setbacks is common in the DDR. That said, if the 20' combined Side Yard setback was imposed, the second and third story addition's mass would be reduced. This could help ensure the building and its additional stories do not `stick out' along this streetscape. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? There is difficulty in meeting the community's (sometimes competing) Comprehensive Plan goals and the Zoning Code standards. While the property owner has the right to expand the building vertically by providing for two additional housing in the downtown core, doing so has economic benefits. Practical difficulties independent of economic considerations, while can be assumed, have not been established. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested use permit, with or without associated variance, with (at least) the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021- 17 and dated February 22, 2021, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The project shall obtain a Design Permit prior to the submittal of a Building Permit. Case no. 2021-17 Page 6 3. The water service line shall be upgraded to a 6" line. 4. Separate water and sewer service connections will be required if the property owner intends to convert any portion of the building into condominiums. 5. The property owner shall work with the Engineering/Public Works and Building Inspection Departments to determine if a clear water connection exists. If one exists, it shall be disconnected prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Refuse shall be kept inside at all times with the exception of collection day. Refuse containers outside on collection day shall not block the public right-of-way, including the sidewalk. 7. All mechanical units shall be enclosed or screened from public view. 8. Abutting sidewalks must be kept clean of trash, cigarette butts and other forms of debris. 9. Plans and the use will need to be approved by applicable engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 10. 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 decision -making authority in a public hearing. B. Deny the requested use permit and associated variance. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION While the residential use is not of primary concern, the ability to add two stories onto this structure in a way that it `fits' with the streetscape is of a concern. As the HPC has not reviewed a Design Permit, determining whether the project "fits" with the streetscape/locality (thus, the Zoning Code) is difficult. However, as the property owner is not seeking variances to the maximum height of the structure, overall the proposal conforms to the intent of the Codes the Planning Commission has authority over. Because of this, staff recommends the Planning Commission move to approve Case No. 2021-17 with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Certificate of Survey Site Plan Basement Plan First Floor Plan Second/Third Floor Plans Public Comment cc: Michael Russ , 1 , .. ,. „, , % 1.4) w ., --,-,-..- -o- „ 1 • • . ' . . „ -1,,- , . % 1 , .., A. . 1."X ' ,....„....„. ,_. ..... „,„.. , . • •. 16 r• 0,- t• % I 110 • • ,,, % , . .. ,,... •..-. ' -- ,....„ .0,- ; , 0.•4\\ \ , 08 . if) ' - — ' \ .._.iir . -•-, -1.L.,_ - , ... .. ., . .7, 9,• .. ___..for ,. . , - , . -----_ „AP ; -- _____-------- % j• - \ The Birthplace of Minnesota A.--b_ ,/ 304 br -:, ... ...,,,,..-e, _ cora , ..,„„, .---... _..„ . \\4, E WO A - • . - '•-.0..-,,---,--_- ' - ,. •' " ...‘ 't % •^ ,, % . '' •- ' ....,.."..7. _ _ - s - .. . ..L.... . 11 !iiiU -- --______=--- 1 _ 1 --, „t, . , \ Ali V.- % 4 • t - ,... % ' '-ii• % ,.. % % % ,+•''...-.... rtr• % \ . \ • % % a • 4 \ \ Site Location • % - ,. .... ulit,.. . % ' — ‘1.- ' 231 ' ' '. er: ik ..- - • % 231 ... .f,' al „..,-,-1' ' -. k------ % 221 - lt, ., ;)1,. o . i 31231 • - ,..,.. .1-...,.,, % ' 0 '' • 23-2 - ',.. ' ' % -,---. •lt, , -r, , ,- .. dr*,,,..., • • _--,-_A_-- -- : % ,,.:_ * .,:-4 2, 9 , . . n • • - .. 218 -%' ' - *-- •• _. _-- - _,217 • % - -, , --%- , i- -* _._,.4.,...31,0.•. ,'-‘`.-- •',.' 215 -•-,, • ,' - • % •••• 217. c _.... - - - E-4057A • ooN — - ' - ". ;:rA. . ., ••• - % 7,- . ,c,„: ,•-, ier.- - - - •-fr_n_ r • -...1 , % 130 . %r', Vc--Ix 225 2nd St o 65 130 N 260 Feet % • - % • Ire. % Ilt ,„, . .4A .. % 204 • . ,_,_41•00.,.- dll! :: '209 st'41 „- % 220 General Site Location . ,_ oga , ...\ 222 1\\I . . 409,. , ‘ • . 't % ..... , ::, .. ' 1.•i-o*". " ' .-l• _ 't . 711m1111111111017ElnliCall.1.1111, l*LelliP 1 MP .1t -1.117111 mit Immillilin111.0t . • . -. : . ' * . - - .• • ' 1 . -- 0% X X rs•.,,_'., .•. .v : 1 11161, 11---1.iia--I.p,-n-,‘, 1I11i11M11i-.I-1I11:•.: eVwlL1,U1l niL t.._,1; ..a_i 1 I 11,-.. '-‘.N1a1,klo•.me1.r3l1.@ i'- ?.f, i•Nl .A . \ , . ' - I1.0 .-,,- :,i.,;k 4..,_V-., \ % - - ..._,.-•-, •.,_--, --120 o... „0" •- r__- q44 AmN. 7 '.1 • iit f. ,% P44 • . 123 114 \ I1 . • .\" ,, , . ,..-1_--.126.... tm *— .. r 112 % •;._...-";.01 ii,-••-'7•';'. I. Pmm: • • -_ ' - % • ...------ r -.1 - ',,i'l-t\ — % \ • ... _'. 102 1. f7-7 q, 1 WM • . . .., CI ? V26 ' \ 220 "' X - \ty S X , - l',.. , ...-' -.. % 10 ' - 1 • . .. , X \ rilrIalrOatiFlarg" • Ur lirIVI.:11, li!:•,:•:!. !I... -a, . J,M1 • •: % !.,-4.1. , , z,*.*AVIMM , ... ri5—, k architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project management 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Mpls, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com Proposed Residential Addition 225 2"d Street North Stillwater, Minnesota The applicant is proposing to add two residential units on top of the east half of the existing building within a two story addition. Each residential unit will occupy one full floor of the addition, and each will have a large balcony facing east. The first floor will remain leasable commercial space. The residential addition will utilize the existing building's exterior walls and foundations for the bulk of the new exterior footprint. Additional foundations or strengthening of existing will occur inside the basement as needed. The roof of the new addition will be 36' above the street in front of the building. The existing basement has vehicular access to the alley via an ingress/egress easement with the neighbor to the south. Three parking spaces will be created in the basement to satisfy the parking requirement for the new residential units. At the south side of the building a new structure will house an exterior stair and elevator shaft that will provide accessibility. The primary materials for the new structure and addition will be composite metal panel and glass. The existing concrete block structure will be painted a complimentary color. The adjacent properties to the south all have commercial space on the first floor, and this project would retain that use facing the sidewalk. There are also residential properties across the street to the west and north, and directly east is a hotel use. The properties immediately adjacent to the north and south are only one story structures, but the hotel to the east is a three story structure, and the residential to the west is a seven story structure. The property is in a three story / 37' height overlay, and the building will stay within that limit. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ a 713.1 712.6 4 4 a 4 1 \ 44 ° 4 d d 4 7131 d 44 FOUND I/2" I2ON PIPE MARKED RLS 13774 AT -- PARCEL CO2N-E2- \ 712.2 - 711.7 - v 4 712.7- a X71244 712.7-- d O \\6- 712.5 - -\\ d A °\ 712.2 X 712.2 %12.2\ 711.5 711.7-- 711.3-- 711.1- 711.5- FOUND 1/2' IRON PIPE MARKED -__ RLS 13774 AT PARCEL CORNER O C a 4 d 4 • \ d 710.6 - \ ° 471i 2-- d ° O 4 4 co Qr O 4 a 4 4 C d d 4 4 4 s 47-4 d 4 Q d O 4 44 d 4 d d 4 d d O 4 g — a --- d d O K\NG �PMP NCR �F R - S �0�09. \-0 6 4 a 4 O sa d O d4 O 4 4 C 4 d p 4 da d 0 04 d a a d 44 d 4 d d a 4 C d 4 d a d C a 44 4 4 ° C d s 4 cl d 4 \ •'' G °0 \ C a G- \ t d ° -- ° G s — G d\ ' 1 4 4 4 4 \ 1� 4 ♦ T O ° 4 ° \ a 41 a \ ° 44 O 4 a d - 644.6T W - 643.8E W / - -700.8 5Q" 1( / 1 / 1 / 700.4 ---701.2TW 700.1 / -700.4BW �PS� I \-702.KWOU NORTH 0 10 20 SCALE: 1 INCH = 10 FEET 4 4 0U 0U \_ -Poe � 200 -- v r MPS ski ou'\ \�1� 0� 0" 6 00 \-S 0u LIE \ UE \ \ \ \ 0 \O you 0°u u ou \ \ UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. OTHER UTILITIES MAY EXIST ON THIS SITE THAT WERE NOT MARKED UP. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! Gopher State One Call TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 agent for First American Title Insurance Company's Title Commitment No. 616836, dated July 13th, 2020. All that part of Lot 5, in Block 18 of the Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, described as follows; Beginning at a point in the North line of said Lot 5, 110 feet Easterly of the Northwest corner thereof; running thence Westerly along the North line of said Lot for 110 feet to the Northwest corner thereof; thence Southerly along the West Line of said Lot to the Southwest corner thereof; thence Eastwardly along the South line of said Lot for 93 feet; thence in a direct line to the place of beginning; Together with an easement for purposes of ingress and egress only to and from the above described real estate over and across that part of Lot 6, Block 18, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, described as follows; Commencing at a point in the North line of said Lot 6, which is 75 feet Easterly from the Northwest corner thereof, running thence Easterly along the North line of said Lot 6, for a distance of 25 feet to a point; thence South in a line parallel with the West line of said Lot 6 for a distance of 32 feet to a point; thence West on a line parallel with the North line of said Lot 6 for a distance of 15 feet to a point; thence Northwesterly in a direct line to the point of beginning; said easement may be crossed on foot or vehicular or animal means of transportation. Parking on said easement will be permitted only for the purpose of loading and unloading vehicles. In the event use of this easement temporarily blocks access to adjoining property the vehicles will be removed on request of the owners of the adjacent property. Abstract Property EASEMENT INFO The following survey related exceptions are as shown on Schedule B-Section Two as shown on the Land Title, Inc. as agent for First American Title Insurance Company's Title Commitment No. 616836, dated July 13th, 2020. There are no additional easements shown on the above mentioned title commitment other than recited in the legal description. AREA: TOTAL AREA = 5,107 SQ.FT. MORE OR LESS. EXISTING PARKING: THERE ARE 0 VISIBLE PARKING STALLS ON INCLUDING 0 HANDICAP STALLS ON THE PARCEL SURVEYED. FLOOD INFORMATION: THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN THE UNSHADED ZONE X, AND THE SHADED ZONE X, AS SHOWN ON FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NUMBER 27163CO266E HAVING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 3, 2010. ALTA TABLE A NOTES SUBSTANTIAL FEATURES OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING THE FIELD WORK ARE SHOWN ON THE SURVEY. 16. NO EVIDENCE OF RECENT EARTH MOVING WORK, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, OR BUILDING ADDITIONS WERE OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING THE FIELD WORK. 17. SURVEYOR IS UNAWARE OF ANY PROPOSED CHANGES IN STREET RIGHT OF WAY LINES. 18. NO WETLAND DELINEATION MARKERS SET BY A QUALIFIED SPECIALIST WERE OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING THE FIELD WORK. 19. PLOTTABLE OFFSITE EASEMENTS OR SERVITUDES, IF ANY, ARE SHOWN ON THE SURVEY. SURVEY NOTES: . BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE. 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 3. THERE MAY BE SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES; GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. CERTIFICATION: To: Archangel Assets 4 L.L.C., Bridgewater Bank; First American Title Insurance Company and Land Title, INc.: This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on August 13th, 2020. CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. Dated: 8-17-20 Revised: Daniel L. Thurmes Minnesota License No. 25718 TheLand Title, Inc. as agent for First American Title Insurance Company's Title Commitment No. 616836, dated July 13th, 2020 as listed on this survey was relied upon for matters of record. Other easements may exist that were not shown in this commitment and are not shown on this survey. CONTACT: Michael Russ 622-325-1325 COUNTY/CITY: REVISIONS: DATE 8-17-20 REVISION ISSUED PROJECT LOCATION: PID#28030201 400 Suite 1970 Northwestern Stillwater, MN 5' Phone 651.275A CORNERSTON LAND SURVEYING, IN FILE NAME PROJECT NO. SURVRN CERTIFICATE KEY NOTES O 2ND STREET NORTH N— r12'-S" 12'-0" + 38'-8 1/2" 251 2ND STREET NORTH PARKING STRUCTURE 21'-I 1/2" + 105'-6" ONE STORY COMMERCIAL EXIST ROOF 123' S" TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION PROPOSED ROOF 143 -0" 16' 4" 10'-0" -9" 16'-0\I/2" 10'-6" 4 31'-1 1/2" + 694'-0" '-4 1/2" HOTEL PATIO 211 2ND STREET NORTH ONE STORY COMMERICAL 102'-1' + 100'-2" + 694'-0" 102'-1' + i Mixed Use Building city application 201 2ND STREET NORTH ONE STORY COMMERICAL 0' 6" 699'4," + 232 MAIN STREET NORTH THREE STORY HOTEL ALLEY > KIACCESS EASEMENT, SEE SURVEY FOR MORE INFORMATION. OMAINTENANCE FREE NATIVE PLANTINGS. O EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN. O CONCRETE EXIT SIDEWALK MAX SLOPE 1:20. O EXTERIOR METAL STAIRCASE UP TO RESIDENTIAL LEVELS. METAL ROOF ABOVE. WALKING SURFACE IS PERFORATED TO ALLOW WATER DRAINAGE. scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 02.22.2021 225 2nd Street North Stillwater, MN 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com a-10 EXISTING BUILDING STORAGE AND MECHANICAL EASEMENT Teo' -a" LE i0'-0° 9'-9" 9'-0" EXISTING STAIR I 8,4SEMENT FLOOR FLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" Mixed Use Building city application 9'-0° EXISTING BUILDING PARKING 9'-0° EXISTING OVERHEAD DOOR 9'-0° + 100' - I I / / NORTH scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 02.22.2021 225 2nd Street North Stillwater, MN 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com a-0 112'=8" 2'-o1' 111' = T' 65'-10" 3T-l" EXISTING BUILDING COMMERCIAL FIRST cLOOR 113'-0" UP 29'-9" 16'-II" RESIDENTIAL LOBBY LE 10'-0" 9'-9" EXISTING STAIR EXISTING BUILDING COMMERCIAL 26'-l" 10'-5 1/2" FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/S" = 1'-0" Mixed Use Building city application NORTI-I scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 02.22.2021 225 2nd Street North Stillwater, MN 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com a-1 38'-8 1/2" 2T-I 1/2" 31'-9" 5'-I0" 5'-0" EXISTING BUILDING ROOF SECOND FLOOR 12L'-0" THIRD FLOOR 135'=" r BEDROOM BATH IL LAUNDRY 7 OFFICE / DEN POWDER �rr1 I I 29'-9" LE CLOSET BATH rig KITCHEN 16'4" 10'-0" 9'-9 I/8" L_J U L_J L_J I SNLL 2,015SF 16'-0 1/2" MASTER BEDROOM 10'-6" 10'-6" / SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR FLANS 1/8" = 1'-0" Mixed Use Building city application NORTH scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 02.22.2021 225 2nd Street North Stillwater, MN 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com a-2 Tom Wortman <tomwortman@comcast.net> 4/23/2021 8:45 AM Case # CPC 2021-17 To PlanningDept@ci.stillwater.mn.su<planningdept@ci.stillwater.mn.su> To Planning Commission, I would like to raise a huge concern if the planning commission and the city council approves this height variance. By doing so, you would be setting a precedent for future building owners to do the same. The reason 1 am writing this is the fact that I own two building in downtown Stillwater and 1 would love to put an additional story on my buildings. If this passes, I will be the first in line to apply for a like variance for both my properties. I am sure you would have many additional owners do the same. Please deny this application as we all have to live by the height guidelines that are in place and the city has many reasons to have the same in place. Thanks inn advance for your attention. Again, do not pass this request. Tom Wortman TreMar LLC and Thomas & Thomas LLC Mixed Use Building City Application t k Issued 2.25.2021 225 2nd Street N Stillwater, MN architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project management 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com Mixed Use Building City Application 225 2nd Street N Stillwater, MN t k architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project management 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com Issued 2.25.2021 Mixed Use Building City Application 225 2nd Street N Stillwater, MN t k architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project management 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com Issued 2.25.2021 Mixed Use Building City Application 225 2nd Street N Stillwater, MN t k architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project management 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com Issued 2.25.2021 �i1111 it iiiiiiii III. ii . 11111.41,,141 Inimpi ow' ! ki emliski III • IMfMIIMMIitMPE 1 1IIM■r■■INMI111■1■ Lmmeamin*iimMUlMr■ ■ OM Willi 111111111111111.1 Mixed Use Building City Application t k Issued 2.25.2021 225 2nd Street N Stillwater, MN architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project management 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com liwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINNESOTA Planning Commission REPORT DATE: April 12, 2021 HEARING DATE: April 28, 2021 LANDOWNER: Jon and Ann Whitcomb REQUEST: Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) to rescind TR, Traditional Residential Zoning, and change the AP -zoned property to RA, One Family LOCATION: 12950 75th Street South CASE NO.: 2021-18 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LDR, Low Density Residential ZONING: AP, Agricultural Preservation TR, Traditional Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator BACKGROUND Jon and Ann Whitcomb had submitted an application (Case 2020-54) for rezoning, preliminary plat and associated variance approval of a 14-lot single family development to be known as White Pine Ridge. Originally the rezoning for this lot was from AP, Agricultural Preservation, to TR, Traditional Residential. The rezoning was conditionally approved; the Final Plat must be approved prior to the rezoning becoming effective. To the date of memo development, the Final Plat has not been approved. Thus, the property is still zoned AP, Agricultural Preservation. After embarking on this project the developer has noticed that a majority of the houses they intend to build and sell would need variances. In lieu of granting each property a variance, changing the district to RA will bring the proposed houses into conformity and no longer needing multiple variances. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant has requested the City consider rescinding their TR, Traditional Residential Zoning District approval, and rezoning the AP district to the RA, single-family district. EVALUATION OF ZONING As you can see in the chart below, the TR and RA zoning districts are extremely similar in minimum requirements. In fact, in most ways the RA zoning district has stricter requirements. CPC 2021-18 April 28, 2021 Page 2 However, based on the architect's plans the TR district does not work because they can't meet the requirement that 75% of front -facing garages must have the garage setback at least 6 feet from the front line or porch line of the house. Massing Standards: Traditional Residential vs One -Family Minimum Standards Current Zoning Proposed Zoning TR RA Lot area: single-family 10,000 sf on average 10,000 sf Lot width: single-family 65' 75' Lot depth NA 100' Lot frontage on public road 35' 25' Front setback: house 30' 30' Front setback: garage 27' 1 front facing; 20' side facing 30' Side setback: house 10' 10' Side setback: garage 5', or 3' if in the rear 10' 2 Rear yard setback: house 25' 25' 3 Rear yard setback: garage 3 25 Maximum lot coverage N/A 30% If these properties are rezoned to RA one -family lots, it is questionably nonconforming. Lots 4 may be below the required lot width4 of 75'. 1 Lot four has a lot width of only 65' at the halfway point, but this property has approximately 140' of frontage. Additionally, and maintains a width of over 75' for the front 117' of the property. As midway is defined as in or toward the middle of something, staff argues the Lot conforms to the intent of the Zoning Code and a variance would not be required. The rest of the lots will be in full compliance with the regulations of the RA district.5 FINDINGS REQUIRED. Prior to making a recommendation for approval or modified approval of a proposed amendment to the city council, the commission must first find that: A) The public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered. Rezoning the AP district to the residential district (such as the RA district), is part of Stillwater's goals for phased growth and development. B) That the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map indicates that this property is for Low Density Residential development. And just like the TR District, which is classified as 1 75% of front -facing garages must have the garage setback at least 6 feet from the front line or porch line of the house. 2 Where there is an attached garage on one side of the dwelling, the garage setback is five feet, provided no habitable space is above the garage. 3 An accessory structure located entirely in the side or rear yard at least six feet from the main building, may have a minimum side and rear yard of five feet. 4 Lot width is defined the distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines 5 Case 2020-54, Condition of Approval #30 states that the width of Lot 10 shall be amended to 35' CPC 2021-18 April 28, 2021 Page 3 low density future land use, the RA District will correspond to the guided LDR density as well. Therefore, RA is an appropriate zoning district for this situation. FLU =Lvn Density Resde n1L1 0y LamMetlm m Cie Indy Reidentiel = Ih$tllum Densrt. Re51491-4i2l ▪ Fhyr be Halt' Re vdenheE D++ecn trot ncd Cn rnmeiGpe! =lrnrneedi - I nlavm !Limed Use nfbeseaich. UN ele.mlenl Park Indusinal � 1eat{„1ierlel Park Tim-0zOpen Spice - Wins =Road Raw QOpen Mier ACTION REQUESTED The developer requests the Planning Commission to review and recommend approval of the Zoning Map amendment. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several available alternatives: 1. Recommend approval — If the Planning Commission finds that the information submitted is sufficient and that the preliminary plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compliant with City code, and is not detrimental to the neighborhood, then the Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat. 2. Recommend denial — If the Planning Commission does not find that the preliminary plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compliant with City code, and is detrimental to the neighborhood, the Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council deny it. 3. Table for more information. CPC 2021-18 April 28, 2021 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION City finds the proposed Zoning Map Amendment is in conformance to the standards set forth in City Code and recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) to rescind TR, Traditional Residential Zoning, and change the District to an RA, One Family Zoning District Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Examples of Houses handout cc Jon Whitcomb f � 1�1 �T�� /\ 1 / I 1 11 tea' ,- a ''- '{r U w-., i�c- • "` .. "� . ' . , 1 . y y_� -10 (water 1 Ilk � d e �.: '�11M. . l t "'AP-- x" ,, 4'1. c. The Birthplace of Minnesota MI _ •-'' 3295O ST NSTH' - * �► ,ry • Site Location 12950 75th Street e2 Subject Property Map North 3 I�2 12764 ��,,, 7990 7979 —" 12840 7959 7960 3325 7960 m - \ 7959 7930 7880 7879 . F, 940 4 7939 7939 12440 7750 7760 7770 7790 7819 1 •97 7919 7890 7897 12450 = 0 460 920 1 840 12430 '"H MINAR LANE NORTH 7789 7850 7857 Feet 7730 12420 ° 7775 7760 7759 7817 General Site Location 7710 12340 T TTTH STREET NORTH w 7729 A rt gr, • aomilt� �� %' 12380 12421 s 7680 7685 7720 350 71:1-/ II 1 IIIIh erit. � I ..—. nix -i a- \ ,C NY. 12345 NORTH 12377 7660 7625 7610 7699 12950 12960 c 11111 r, / 12363 miNnR AVENUE.7669 7640 7609 7639 � ��It, ��• .v all , ���� �� J% I��41 ���`;' 1 imrllIIPIr �� r■ w rEM . ®.® �.4. A ® 1 7520 _.• 250 ._wICJ Z 1 12360 12490 12530 3AH 2 EE- 1�, �1>L/�/ �;-� �V -i1` �� sTH STREE( NORTH NORTH •�o`11L�� � � JI 1 rll�lrn ■■� ®® �tr� \\ , � �'� 12721 ■ le ilia .y y '' :, I i ®�� . . It 105 =O� 12975 : _�m�11�+r1; •107 :FA_ `` i r 115 - • III y - �( : ■ *4'r— :1JRri k. White Pine Ridge Planning Narrative Jon and Ann Whitcomb are requesting that the zoning district their property is brought into the City be changed from TR (Traditional Residential) to RA (One family). The home builder that has purchased the new subdivision of White Pine Ridge determined that the homes they have planned to build and are in the process of selling do not meet the TR restrictions. A variance would be required for many of the homes that they intend to build, instead of attempting to obtain variances, it was determined a better solution to rezone the property before that was needed. With the RA district the homes being built will fit the zoning district and will not be in need of requesting variances. See attached proposed home plans: Stonegate Builders - Geneva floor plan 4-6 Bedrooms 4-5 Baths 3 Car Garage 2,952-4,860 Sq Ft Rendering - Elevation A Actual Picture DINETTE GREAT ROOM 1341,17, KITCHEN COVERED PORCH 19'-046, 3 CAR GARAGE Rendering - Elevation D OWNERS SUITE 148•X 18'A• BEDROOM 4 10'$• X 12'8• OWNERS ENSUITE BATH 15SX &0' 36.1 BATH W.I.C. 9,7 XB'S BSAuf!E SaTH HALL BEDROOM 3 10.S X 12'A• BEDROOM 2 11'g X 12'd• www.stonegatebuilders.com/home-plan/geneva Stonegate Builders - Palmer floor plan 1-5 Bedrooms 2-3 Baths 3 Car Garage 1,864-3,342 Sq Ft Rendering - Elevation A OWNERS@ USUITE GREAT ROOM DINETTE Actual Picture KfTCHEN ee i 6 MUD ROOM FLEX ROOM HALL FOYER 3 CAR GARAGE Ec.T COVPDPORCH Rendering - Elevation B FUTURE EEC ROOM OPT UNFINISHED MECH/STORAGE FUTURE GAME ROOM B LL BATH FUTURE GUEST BR FUTURE GUEST BR 2 UNESCAVATED UNESCAVATED www.stonegatebuilders.com/home-plan/palmer Stonegate Builders - Marion floor plan 4-5 Bedrooms 3-5 Baths 3 Car Garage 2,656-3,870 Sq Ft Rendering - Elevation A Actual Picture Rendering - Elevation B 1,1011.11, OWNERS SUITE 15-0^ x 1T 2^ BEDROOM 3 10'-8"x 11-4" ni -WNER$ ENSUITE BATH u•-a.a•s LAUNDRY 6 W.I.C. TA' x 1a-v LOFT 19'-0"X 1P$ HALL BATH 1 BEDROOM 2 1 U-r x 1 T-0" BEDROOM 4 11'-4" X 15.-0" www.stonegatebuilders.com/home-plan/marion g Stonegate Builders - Pepin floor plan 5-6 Bedrooms 5 Baths 3 Car Garage 4,481-5,154 Sq Ft Rendering - Elevation A Actual Picture GREAT ROOM 16'dx 1E4Y �YkL�'iffi DINETTE Nd X WIT GOURMET KITCHEN FOYER o PANTRY FFEP DIMING ROOM FLEX ROOM lznxma Pal �xr e. e. 3 CAR GARAGE Rendering - Elevation D [BEDROOM4 1 IllyLim LOFT OWNERS 1sSUITE wia LUXURY ENSUITE BATH £E BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2 www.stonegatebuilders.com/home-plan/pepin Stonegate Builders - Harriet floor plan 5 Bedrooms 5 Baths 3 Car Garage 4,287-4,981 Sq Ft Rendering - Elevation C GREAT ROOM x20-0• FOYER DINING ROOM 10'-0• x 12'-0• T.� CON). PORCH 0 0' DINETTE 14'-0• 1110-6 GOURMET KITCHEN II 7 LEX ROOM m-0. ,0.s MDR PANINV 11 Actual Picture 3 CAR GARAGE It BEDROOM 3 13'-0" X 13'-0" LAUNDRY BEDROOM 4 13'-0' X 17-0" Rendering - Elevation D W.I.C. FSX5'-0 J8J BATH ENSATTHUITE B BEDROOM 2 11'-6" X 17-0' OWNERS SUITE 14.-0" X 16'-6" BOX VAULT LUXURY ENSUITE BATH www.stonegatebuilders.com/home-plan/harriet ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-19 REPORT DATE: April 19, 2021 MEETING DATE: April 28, 2021 APPLICANT: Treva Pearcy LANDOWNER: Charles Pearcy REQUEST: Variances to the maximum structural coverage and maximum accessory structure coverage, in order to construct a larger garage LOCATION: 715 William Street North ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Mr. and Mrs. Pearcy own the property at 715 William Street North, which has a house that was built in 1862 and a small garage in the very rear. The property owners would like to tear down the existing garage and add a larger garage that can fit two cars. However as it stands, the property is almost at its maximum allowed 25% structural coverage, and installing a larger garage will necesitate the need for a variance. Additionally, the proposed 782sf garage would exceed the maximum allowed total accessory coverage. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting variance to: • City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow the structural surface coverage to be 28% (or 2102 sf), whereas the maximum coverage is 25% (1875sf). • City Code Section 31-308.(3) i. to allow the total accessory structure coverage to be 782sf, whereas the maximum accessory coverage is 750sf (10% of the lot size) ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. CPC Case 2021-05 Page 2 of 4 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 single-family house with a 2-car detached garage 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? 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. 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? In the RB district, properties are allowed to have 25% impervious surface coverage and 25% structural coverage. While the structural lot coverage is proposed to be 227sf over the maximum amount allowed, the proposed driveway (and impervious coverage) is roughly 220 feet shy of the maximum amount allowed'. In conclusion, if you combined both types of coverages it would only be about seven feet (or .1 %) above the 50% total maximum allowed coverage. Therefore, the City has confidence this property will be able to provide adequate storm water infiltration, with an enlarged garage. That being said, the variance to allow the total accessory structure coverage to be over the 10% threshold is not in harmony with the zoning code. The requested 782sf garage is a fairly large garage in terms of two car garages and a large garage for this neighborhood. In order to regulate massing proportionality and to eliminate the need for a second variance, this garage should be considered being built at or under 750sf. 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". 1 The City calculates the proposed driveway will be 1655sf. CPC Case 2021-05 Page 3 of 4 a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? A property with single-family home with a detached garage is reasonable in the RB zoning district. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The house and its existing footprint had been established a long time ago. Additionally, this property is the minimum allowed size for this zoning district. These two factors combined create some extent uniqueness to the property. The Planning Commission has historically recognized the need for reasonably sized two car garages due to Minnesota winters. However, the proposed garage is relatively larger than a two -car garage. Staff feels that the uniqueness of the property should allow for a larger garage, but the current ask is a bit too large. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? As stated above, this issue was created when the house was originally built and the property was plotted to 7,500sf. The property owner would like a two car garage, but due to the existing house's footprint and the smaller lot size, the proposal will exceed the maximum allowed coverage. The one circumstance the owner is creating, is the proposed size of the garage. Limiting the garage to 750sf will reduce the need for one of the variances, and will also bring the total surface coverage below 50%. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? If granted, this variance would could have negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The average garage size for this block is 432sf, and while the existing garage is smaller than this average, the proposed garage is far bigger. If the size of the proposed garage were to be reduced a little to come closer to compliance, staff believes that it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The garage would be tucked in the far rear of the property and will not be overly visible from the street. Also, having a garage in the rear aligns with the typical and desirable development patterns in the RB district. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variance does not reflect economic considerations. The applicant is simply seeking to construct a garage that is larger than the existing detached garage. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. There are no conflicts with any other City department's requirements or codes. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: CPC Case 2021-05 Page 4 of 4 A. Approve the requested variance with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021- 19, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Building permit plans will need to be approved by applicable engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 4. This shed must have rain gutters installed. 5. Runoff from the garage and gutters must be directed away from the adjacent properties and/or slowed down, as to allow for maximum runoff infiltration to occur on this property in question. B. Deny the requested variance. 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 some of the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Practical difficulties have been established, such as the existing house and the size of the property, limit the ability for the property owner to have a two -car garage. Staff recommends approval of a variance to the total structural coverage, however does not support the variance to allow the total accessory structure coverage to be over 10% of the lot size. Staff recommends that the proposed garage be reduced by at least 32sf, which will eliminate the need for one variance and keep the total impervious coverage below 50%. Therefor staff recommend approval of the variance to the total structural coverage for CPC Case No. 2021-19 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Building Plans (4 Pages) cc: Treva Pearcy Charles Pearcy 111111111111111WIVORZEMDLIMWM I Jle PP 111111 male Imaill111111Filleiw .11•111111.114104 11.1 ..111111111irkw 110! IP:- IR p N.: Letter of Intent In Support of Request for Variance 715 William Street North, Stillwater MN 55082 To: The Planning Commission for City of Stillwater MN, Building Department Staff and the Members of City Council This letter of Intent is in support of my request for a variance to the Zoning Code. The intention is to tear down the existing 1 car (14x20) garage and construct a new 23x34 (782 square feet) 2 car garage onto the property. The city lot is 50x150 (7500 square feet), the home has a foundation size of 1320 square feet. Per the Zoning Code, structure coverage is 25% maximum or 1875 square feet. However, it is impractical to construct the new garage and stay within the parameters of the 25% coverage. The design of the new garage permits the parking of 2 modern vehicles and storage of property maintenance equipment. About the property: The home was recently completely renovated, it was stripped to the bones and finished with Old Towne Stillwater charm in mind, inside and out. It is our intention to match the garage to the home's exterior trim. The property is located on North Hill and is positioned between a double lot to the North, a double lot to the East, 3 lots to the South that run parallel to the 150' length of the property and William Street North to the West. There are no buildings on or near the property lines where the proposed new garage is to be located, nor will it interfere with City, State or public Utilities. The ideal location for the garage is 3' from the rear property line and 8' from the North and South property lines as to provide a nicely landscaped backyard. The square footage of the new proposed garage is under the City's maximum size for a garage (1000 square feet) and with a total height of 16', it falls below the maximum height allowed. The end result would be a professionally constructed garage that meets all Local and State Building codes, sized to meet today's modern family and a structure that would complement the property and the neighborhood. We ask that a variance to build the said garage be granted, we will comply with all permits and requirements if it is granted and used. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Treva Pearcy SITE PLPIJ 715 WILL/AM Si , ST i L L A/ATa e, SLALEI 1 T¶EvA PE A1zc y STAPLES iN b MAYS ii bb LET` b TGK 13 Ze . c'o . 2.0 . al .0101 !1 EXISTftils I4 x Zo C2PtRAGe 15 LoGPTG D I f•I Sow-ra4EAsTa dot.N&rt " Z P2004i T22,kFt AND to` F ToI 600T!4 'PlLoPErzfY LINES 5 0 PRoPo5e' Di' NEvf &AR*C,E Z3x34 78Z. 5 cC FT 1 zz' 2 Zt 0 \ 3 h 4 1 1' 7 A 3 VI LLIAV 5T, NozTN LIP SMAQ:-.N ibE M 1 R PTA - '-t'2a M A1.uPe,1,N.0 ara. 12 LEFT £ fZe4 T £LELJATJti-I �1e — ire R rr P‘.A1-C Tb P ea, (1 L. e t K Ake Les -rim siA I5 wku,i nP\ Vr% h� 6T 1 I.L. kAk AvvE R.. I ,� �`.► gi EA K E LE VA II es Ni 4•.= 1_d' GhAi el.es vik SA2cy /5 1.4164.1AM s'1: w1 'T I LL W A L a, 'Mti/ Ssoaa 1 FRoncr LVAT1Of'J A117 fDIl rtg-cY 15 w , A" s T )J SI' LI,w ATCALI M'J S S"Q Z D4 6: 1 R 5 \youE Zit " O. C.. ‘I GO Nr-_FL -r6 SL A 3 Gx(p lo/fo w 0.Aes P4 Maim L OoF = I-o CHALLES y -r t/a 11 s Lpit1.L +aAA a5T. rJ 5rru A-11/2. 0 MtJ 5S`a6tL ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-20 April 15, 2021 April 28, 2021 Sirid Kellermann Sirid Kellermann Variance to allow for a two story accessory structure and to the rear yard setbacks. 924 Fourth Street North RB, Two -Family Residential Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Mr. Kellerman owns the corner property at 924 North Fourth Street, which has a house, that was built in 1882, and a 576 square foot garage in the rear. The property owner would like to replace the garage roof with new roof that has a steeper pitch and thus taller roof, in order to create a second story on their garage. However, City Code does not allow for garages to be any taller than one story. Additionally, this structure is legal nonconforming because it sits around one foot from the interior side yard lot line, and the expansion of this structure necesitates a variance. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting two variances to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1).: • To allow an accessory building to have two stories, whereas the maximum number of stories is one. • To allow a detached garage to be located one foot (+/-) from the rear yard lot line, whereas the minimum setback is three feet. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. CPC Case 2021-20 Page 2 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; a single-family house with a detached garage, is permitted in this zoning district. However, the addition of a second story begs one to ask is this accessory structure being designed for human habitation. City Code Section 31- 308.(a).(3).iv. indicates "an accessory building shall not be designed or used for human habitation. Thus, the request could be in turn allowing a prohibited use. City Code does not define habitable space. The Merriam -Webster dictionary defines habitable as "capable of being lived in: suitable for habitation". Additionally, the Building Code defines it as a space "for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bath, toilet room, closets, halls, storage or utility or similar areas are not considered habitable spaces." The applicant has indicated they intend to use the space for home office and homeschooling. Additionally, they would like to put a 1/2 bath in the second story of the garage. As the space will be designed with a'/2 bath (with no bathing facilities) and without a kitchen, City Planning staff does not believe that this second story should be considered habitable space. Therefor the uses proposed comply with the allowed uses for 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? The specific purpose of limiting accessory structures to one story was to limit the mass accessory structures have on a property. The purpose of the Rear Yard Setback is for uniform neighborhood development and to prevent structures from being built too close to the neighboring property for aesthetic, drainage, and safety related issues. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The proposed variance would be out of harmony with the original intent of the code. Though, as referenced above, staff no longer feels that the original intent is relevant with today's family and housing trends. Present families simply require more spacer than in the past and instead of expanding the footprint of this historic house (which may require a variance as well). The garage is legal nonconforming because it is within the rear yard setback. The applicant does not plan on modifying the walls or the footprint of the structure, and just the pitch of the roof, and this will not be out of harmony with the zoning code. 1 This has particularly been the trend recently, with COVID-19 forcing many to work (and school) from home. And light of the societal changes than have occurred, present families simply require more (and flexible) space than in the past. Instead of expanding the footprint of this historic house (which may require a variance as well), the addition of a steep -pitched roof to accommodate the family's changes needs is appropriate. CPC Case 2021-20 Page 3 of 5 c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, proposed variance works in favor of two goals of the comprehensive plan. • Historical Resources: The Comprehensive Plan calls out that it strives to "continue to preserve and maintain historic resources, and encourage adaptive reuse." By not making any expansions to the house, or even the garage walls, and simply changing the pitch of the garage roof, this property will be able to achieve the extra space that is required for home office and homeschooling uses. • Natural Resources: The comprehensive plan recognizes sustainability as an important goal. The intent of sustainability is to balance near -term interests with the protection of the interests of future generations, to maintain and potentially improve environmental quality. This variance is a perfect example of balancing present interests (expanded accessory space) with environmental protection (eliminating the need for expanded surface coverage). 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 property with single-family home with a detached garage less than 1,000sf in size is reasonable in the RB zoning district. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? This issue is unique to this property to the extent that it is a historic house and exterior modifications are undesirable. However, City staff believe this reflects a larger pattern change of how people want and need to use their property in the current day. Secondly, the circumstance necessitating the variance to the rear yard lot line is unique to the property because this structure had been built over 50 years ago right on the property line and is currently legal nonconforming. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The circumstances were not created by the landowner; the garage was constructed 51 years ago and predates the current owners. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? If granted, this variance would not have negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The garage will is tucked into the back of the property, and is not overly visible from the street. As far as the adjacent property, their house does not CPC Case 2021-20 Page 4 of 5 line up with the garage and there will be no west facing windows on the second story of the garage. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variance does not reflect economic considerations. The applicant is simply seeking to expand their house to add more office space. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. There are no conflicts with any other City department's requirements or codes. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variance with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021- 20, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Building permit plans will need to be approved by applicable engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 4. No west facing windows can be installed on the second story of the garage. 5. This bonus room above the garage, shall not be altered in such a way that it takes on the form of a separate apartment from the main dwelling. A Special Use Permit is required for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. B. Deny the requested variance. 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 second story addition to the garage meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. The second story will have an office space and a half bath, but will not be considered habitable living space. Practical difficulties have been established, the property owners need more space, and are attempting to avoid altering their 1882 home. Furthermore, staff puts forth that this variance would not negatively impact the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-20 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. CPC Case 2021-20 Page 5 of 5 Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan cc: Sirid Kellermann 1010 I 04 SMASPEN STREET 213 211 Dear members of the Stillwater City Planning Commission, March 26, 2021 We would like to construct an addition above the existing detached garage at our home at 924 4th St. N, where we have lived since 2010. The modest addition will provide critically -needed habitable space for home-officing and homeschooling for our family of four, and is envisioned to be an open space with a half -bathroom (sink and toilet). A variance from the City's Planning and Zoning department would allow us to proceed with the design of this accessory space, in harmony with the character of the house and our lovely North Hill neighborhood. Due to the local zoning classification, we would like to request a variance for the proposed garage addition that is consistentwith the City's comprehensive plan, fits harmoniously with the design of the house, and enhances the livability of our home.Even prior to this past challenging year of working and schooling from home, the present design of our house establishes some practical difficulties that we believe would be well addressed by adding a separate office and schooling space above the garage. These points are elaborated as follows: (i) This proposed addition uses an existing structure in a reasonable manner without burden to the neighborhood. We foresee that work -from -home and online schooling activities will continue well beyond the restrictions imposed by the current pandemic and believe that the best way to leverage our present home footprint for additional habitable space is by building a modest addition above our detached garage. This new `A -frame' space will not be used as a rental unit. (ii) The addition would update the utility of our house for in -home work and schooling that was not foreseen by theoriginal design of the property. We are a family of two adults and two children in a three -bedroom house. There is presently no room in the house that can be dedicated as a quiet space for office activities like video-conferencing, or for schooling. Currently, Fernando has configured a desk in the master bedroom and Sirid has a cramped standing office arrangement in the corner of the living room (see picture on following page). One of our children has learning difficulties and will homeschool for at least the next four years. Our other child is a budding artist and would likewise benefit from a protected space. Our house was built in 1873 and, despite a 2004 remodel (before we purchased the property), the height of the basement precludes its development as a finished space, and the attic is similarly low-ceilinged, not insulated and untenable. (iii) The requested variance will not alter the essential character of the house or neighborhood. The proposed addition to the garage would be relatively modest and retains the footprint of the present structure. It will not add an entire second story to the existing garage, but rather makes efficient use of existing empty space under the present roof by raising the peak of the angled roof by about 6 feet, with new windows facing north and south. A half -bathroom will be feasible, as the garage sits across a narrow 6-foot corridor from the side of the house where the upstairs and downstairs bathrooms are located, with their convergent sewer connections. While architectural plans will be developed once the variance is granted, the addition is envisioned to seamlessly blend with the design of the house and character of the neighborhood, whose historic charm is the very reason we chose to raise our family here on the North Hill. Although our house is located on 4th St., which is on the trolley route, it is situated on a corner and the driveway is off of Aspen St. The garage (and thus the proposed addition) are well -set back from view and not visible from 4th St. Raising the height of the garage will also not infringe on the view for the neighboring houses, which respectively have built a shed and a garage close to the west face of our garage. We have attached images showing views of our house and garage and some of the relevant dimensions. We also include a photo of a garage addition a few blocks away that serves as a good model of what we envision. Thank you very much in advance for your kind help and consideration, and we look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, J. Fernando Bazan (651) 324-7983 Sirid Kellermann(650) 966-9927 jfbazan@gmail.com sirid1000@gmail.com Proposal for an addition of habitable space above garage for home office & schooling at 924.4th St. N, Stillwater, MN 55082 P24 4th St N, [Sli 1.,^;eter. MN 557i1'_ View of W face View facing N View facing E Sirid's corner LR office 4_ N CO N Garage dimensions 2 cars 24.5 ft +6 f 46. z, T 24.5 ft View facing S 0 CD cD This is a garage added to a house nearby on the North Hill, a good model of what we'd like to do