Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-26 CPC PacketC3 Zoom Meeting Si coV Original Sound: Off v Recording... 11 • in View Participants (21) .4 Stillwater AV _ % IT Alerts Sue Steinwall ,� l Eric Hoffman ■ '/, iPhone 1 Todd Anderson iPhone Connecting to audio --• ' Carla Knippenberg Katie Clark Abbi Jo Wittma... Patty Ogborn heidi@justform... Council Membe... Martin Widenbr... Jennifer , ' Eric Hansen 1 JJnie Ross Larson Ron Brenner Rick H Ct Find a participant S IT Alerts (Host, me) 0 co am 0 0 0 0 O O O et 0 co co C3 0 g Abbi Jo Wittman, City Plan... (Co -host) CS Carla Knippenberg 4 Council Member Larry Odebrecht 4 01 Stillwater AV 4 01 Todd Meyhoff 4 01 Eric Hoffman 4 03 Sue Steinwall 4 03 Eric Hansen ip 01 heidi@justformespa.com % 0 iPhone if 01 Jennifer g JJnie g Q7 Katie Clark ry Martin Widenbrant Patty Ogborn r Rick H iv 0 Ron Brenner g 0 Ross Larson %p 0 Todd Anderson % 01 w .. Siillwater 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 May 26t'', 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of April 28th, 2021 regular meeting minutes V. 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. VI. 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. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2. 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 Central Business District. Nat Shea — Tanek, Inc., applicant and Archangel Assets 4 LLC, property owner. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 3. Case No. 2021-23: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to build a deck on the property located at 2685 White Pine Way in the Shoreland Overlay District and the TR District. Pat Noonan, applicant and Kathleen and David Clark, property owners. 4. Case No. 2021-24: Consideration of a Use Permit for a Mural downtown. Property located at 125 Main St S in the Central Business District. Ross Larson, property owner. 5. Case No. 2021-25: Consideration of a Variance to the exterior side yard setback for two family residential to build two new residential duplex buildings. Property located at 201 Olive ST W in the RB district. Ron Brenner, of Ron Brenner Architects and Greeley Commercial LLC, property owner. 6. Case No. 2021-26: Consideration of a Variance to the parking requirement for a multifamily residence. Property located at 115 Martha St S in the RB district. Martin and Elizabeth Widenbrant, property owners. 7. Case No. 2021-27: Consideration of Variances to the side and rear yard setback to expand their patio. Property located at 225 Main St N in the Central Business district and the Flood Fringe Overlay District. Sara and Jeremy Imhoff, applicant and Frank Fabio of Mainstreet, LLC Property owner. 8. Case No. 2021-28: Consideration of a Resubdivision, and Zoning Amendment for a new development at the property located at 7959 Neal Ave N in the AP district. Mr. Jan N. Niemiec, applicant and Susan Eskierka, property owner. 9. Case No. 2021-30: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment for the creation of a Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. City of Stillwater, applicant. IX. DISCUSSION X. FYI — STAFF UPDATES (NO PACKET MATERIALS) 10. City Hall Reopening (June 1, 2021) 11. Community Development Director Vacancy XI. ADJOURNMENT L) Zoom Meeting coV Original Sound: Off isRecording... 11 • in View Participants (21) 1£' Stillwater AV if IT Alerts Sth Sue Steinwall Todd Anderson iPhone Connecting to audio --• ' Carla Knippenberg Katie Clark 1 Eric Hansen 1 JJnie Abbi Jo Wittma... Patty Ogborn heidi@justform... Council Membe... Martin Widenbr... Jennifer Ross Larson Ron Brenner Rick H r tom IT Alerts (Host, me) Ct, Find a participant 0 0 am 0 0 0 3 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abbi Jo Wittman, City Plan... (Co -host) 6 Carla Knippenberg 4 Council Member Larry Odebrecht 4 01 Stillwater AV 4 01 Todd Meyhoff • Oa Eric Hoffman 4 03 Sue Steinwall 4 Oa Eric Hansen /Ye Oa heidi@justformespa.com % 0 iPhone / 01 Jennifer PI 0 JJnie 1p 01 Katie Clark rzr Martin Widenbrant % 0 Patty Ogborn 5 Rick H / Ron Brenner 5 0 Ross Larson 5p 0 Todd Anderson % 01 w .. ilivater THE 1INTN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 28, 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, Meyhoff, Steinwall, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: Commissioner Kocon Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of March 24, 2021 regular meeting Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2021 meeting. Motion passed 5-0-1 with Commissioner Meyhoff abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer stated this is his last meeting as his term is expiring. He expressed gratitude for being allowed to serve, and recognized Commissioner Kocon, the longest serving member of the Commission, whose term is also expiring. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 Cities Committee and Sustainable Stillwater, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that 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 would be 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. She addressed the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance in detail using a matrix showing the existing language, the changes proposed by Sustainable Stillwater and the City staff -recommended language regarding minimum lot size, parking, placement, and design compatibility. With the staff -recommended language, staff recommends that the Commission recommend Council approval of the draft ADU ordinance amendment. Commissioner Steinwall suggested adding a condition allowing only one ADU per lot. Planning Commission April 28, 2021 Councilmember Odebrecht asked about the short term rental concerns of staff as referenced in the staff report. Ms. Wittman replied that generally, short term home rentals can compete with affordable housing, driving up costs. Councilmember Odebrecht asked, what does increasing the lot size do to the percentage of homes this may affect? Roger Tomten, Sustainable Stillwater, provided statistics for a representative three block area of the RB district. He found about 23% of the lots were greater than 10,000 square feet, about 62% were greater than 7,500 square feet, and about 98% were greater than 5,000 square feet. GreenSteps felt more homeowners should have the opportunity chance to have ADUs. Regardless of lot size, there are other constraints they will have to meet. Short term rentals are handled under the short term rental ordinance and the GreenSteps Committee didn't want to combine the two ordinances. Research shows that ADUs do not dominate a neighborhood. Typically there is only one on a city block. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Michael Russ asked about the tax impacts of the ordinance change and if Vacation Rentals By Owner (VRBOs) are taxed at a higher commercial rate. Ms. Wittman responded that if a property owner does not live on site then it is a Type C property which is taxed commercially by the County. If a unit is above a garage and property owners live there as well, it would not be taxed commercially. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dybvig said overall the expansion of ADUs seems like a good idea but he is concerned about lot size and short term home rental. He has a hard time allowing an ADU on a lot size smaller than what is the minimum for that district. It may lead to a lot of variance requests. Councilmember Odebrecht agreed with Commissioner Dybvig's concern about lot size. This feels like a very big change. He appreciates the sentiment behind it, but has not heard a big demand for this. Commissioner Hansen remarked that ADUs are a good use in any zoning district and a great way to allow for lower cost housing options. He thinks minimum lot sizes should be included. Commissioner Steinwall spoke in favor of the amendment. She suggested that instead of specifying the minimum lot size in the ADU ordinance, it could just say that the lot must meet the minimum lot size. She also proposed that there be only one ADU allowed per lot. The ADU ordinance could be silent on short term rentals as the short term rental ordinance governs them. Commissioner Hansen asked why the maximum ADU size is 800 square feet while the maximum garage size is 1,000 square feet. Mr. Tomten clarified that the 800 square foot ADU limitation came from the idea that a 1,000 square foot ADU could dwarf a smaller historic home. He added that less than 25% of the properties in the RB District meet the 10,000 square foot lot size, which limits who can have an ADU. The GreenStep Committee would like to see the opportunity extended to as many people as possible. Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission April 28, 2021 Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to recommend approval of Case No. 2021-15, Zoning Text Amendment to allow Accessory Dwelling Units within the RA One Family Residential district, with modifications requiring the minimum lot size in the base district, and allowing only one ADU per lot. Motion passed 5-1 with Councilmember Odebrecht voting nay. 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. City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. Michael Russ of Archangel Assets 4 LLC would like to 'pop the top' on this structure, adding two floors; each floor would serve as a 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 connected by a concrete walkway to the 2nd Street North sidewalk. Residential uses in the Central Business District (CBD) require a Conditional 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 to all property lines. The vertical expansion of the non -conforming structure necessitates requests for variances to the required setbacks. No height variance is being requested. Approval of a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) Design Permit is required prior to the release of a building permit. On April 15, 2021 the request was heard by the Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC). The DTPC determined the changes did not necessitate any parking requirement mitigation. The applicant is requesting consideration of: 1) a Conditional Use Permit for two multi -family residences in the CBD Zoning District; and 2) a 20' Variance to the required 20' combined Side Yard Setback to vertically expand a non -conforming structure; and 3) a 20' Variance to the 20' Rear Yard Setback to vertically expand a non -conforming structure. A letter of concern was received from Tom Wortman, stating that approval would set a negative precedent regarding height. Staff informed Mr. Wortman that no height variance is being requested. Staff recommends approval with ten conditions. Michael Russ, applicant, stated he is aware the project must go through the HPC. He shared renderings of the proposed addition. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Meyhoff noted that the proposal brings density to downtown and reuses underutilized space. Commissioner Dybvig said he has no issue with residential use in this location. He feels that zero setbacks should be considered in the downtown core. His only concern is that sometimes it is good to have a project go to the HPC before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Steinwall agreed that it is awkward for the HPC to get a proposal that the Planning Commission has already acted on. The Planning Commission may want to table the proposal until after the HPC has seen it. Mr. Russ said he is willing to appear before the HPC on May 19. He would like to begin building before the winter season. Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission April 28, 2021 Chair Lauer and Commissioner Meyhoff said they would be ready to approve the proposal now. Councilmember Odebrecht voiced support for the project. Commissioner Hansen noted that the process of application timelines is one that the Commission previously labored to correct. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to table Case No. 2021- 17, Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances for a two story residential addition located at 225 2nd Street N to the June meeting. All in favor. 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. Ms. Wittman stated that Jon and Ann Whitcomb had submitted an application 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 noticed that a majority of the houses they intend to build 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. City finds the proposed Zoning Map Amendment is in conformance to the standards set forth in City Code, and recommends approval. Jon Whitcomb, applicant, said he did not realize the builder had no flexibility in the design. It is a high quality home design but not enough of the designs meet the TR requirements. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2021-18, Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property located at 12950 75th St N. All in favor. 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. Ms. Wittman explain the application. Mr. and Mrs. Pearcy would like to tear down the existing garage and add a larger garage to two cars. However, the property is almost at its maximum allowed 25% structural coverage, and installing a larger garage will need a variance to the structural coverage and to the total accessory building coverage. The applicant is requesting: 1) a variance to allow the structural surface coverage to be 28% (maximum 25%); and 2) a variance to allow the total accessory structure coverage to be 782 square feet, whereas the maximum accessory coverage is 750 square feet (10% of the lot size). Staff recommends approval of a variance to the total structural coverage with five conditions, however staff 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 32 square feet, which will eliminate the need for one variance and keep the total impervious coverage below 50%. Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission April 28, 2021 Charles Pearcy, applicant, said he plans to bring the structure down to 736 square feet, eliminating the need for the size variance. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Ms. Wittman commended the Pearcys on their preservation efforts on their home. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve Case No. 2021- 19, Variance to the maximum structural coverage, in order to construct a garage located at 715 William St N, with the five conditions recommended by staff, amending the conditions to reflect that the garage will have a 736 square foot footprint. All in favor. 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. Ms. Wittman explained that the Kellermans would like to replace the garage roof with a new steeper -pitched, 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 necessitates a variance. The applicant is requesting two variances: 1) to allow an accessory building to have two stories, whereas the maximum number of stories is one; and 2) to allow a detached garage to be located one foot (+/-) from the rear yard lot line, whereas the minimum setback is three feet. 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. The variance would not negatively impact the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances with five conditions. Ms. Kellerman pointed out they plan to use the space for home office and home school. Their house has no basement or attic so they need this extra space. A sewer line connection can be run from the house. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hansen said the request is reasonable. He feels the zoning code is flawed because the only way to allow for space above a garage without a variance is to get an ADU. He feels the zoning code should be changed. Ms. Wittman said staff can ask the City Council to consider a zoning code amendment. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Chair Lauer, to approve Case No. 2021-20, Variances to the rear yard setbacks and to allow for a two story accessory structure located at 924 4th St N, with the five staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission Ms. Wittman said officers will be elected next month. April 28, 2021 Commissioner Hansen said he intends to serve for one more year and would be happy to serve in any role during that year. Commissioners Hansen, Meyhoff, Dybvig and Steinwall thanked Chair Lauer for his service on the Commission. Commissioner Dybvig suggested having a Planning Commission picnic this summer. Commissioner Hansen commended Commissioner Kocon for his 12 years of service on the Commission. FYI STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Chris Lauer, Chair Page 6 of 6 iliwater THE B{ R T H P L A I; E OF MINNF PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-17 MEETING DATE: May 26, 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 At the Commission's last regularly -scheduled meeting, the Commission heard a request from Nat Shea, Tanek, Inc., representing Michael Russ of Archangel Assets 4 LLC for a conditional use permit for two residential units to be added to the structure at 225 2nd Street North. As part of the plan, the developer would like to add additional stories to the single -story structure; each of the two new stories are proposed to be constructed to various property lines consistent with the building's footprint. At the April 28th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission elected to table consideration of the request until the applicant had met with the City's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). At the May 19, 2021 HPC meeting, the Design Permit application was tabled by the HPC. 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 Case no. 2021-17 Page 2 3. 20' Variance to the 20' Rear Yard Setback to vertically expand a non -conforming structure. ANALYSIS At the Commission's meeting in April, the Commission discussed the request and how it conformed to adopted City Code standards pertaining to Conditional Use Permits and Variances. A copy of the original staff report is attached to this request. Additionally, draft meeting minutes are incorporated in this May, 2021 Planning Commission packet. However, the Commission was concerned the HPC had not reviewed the request prior to being heard by the Planning Commission. As the use (of two residential units) can be accommodated onsite with or without altering the building and the variances are, in essence, to legitimize the existing setbacks, staff would recommend the Planning Commission move to approve the request. Staff recommends alteration to the originally -proposed conditions of approval, noted below. 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 reviewed and approved as part of a Heritage Preservation Commission Design Permit. 2. The project shall obtain a Design Permit prior to the submittal of a Building Permit. 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. Case no. 2021-17 Page 3 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 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: April 28, 2021 Staff Report Site Location Map Narrative Request Certificate of Survey Site Plan Basement Plan First Floor Plan Second/Third Floor Plans Public Comment cc: Michael Russ Nat Shea 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 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 May 12, 2021 May 26, 2021 Kathleen and David Clark Kathleen and David Clark CASE NO.: 2021-23 Variance to the total impervious surface coverage, in order to install a concrete pad and construct a deck in the rear yard. 2685 White Pine Way TR, Traditional Residential (Shoreland Management Overlay District) Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Mr. and Mrs. Clark own the property at 2685 White Pine Way, and are looking to install an 11' X 24' concrete pad with a 12' X 16' deck constructed above it. This would be a total of 292 additional sqaure feet of impervious surface coverage. This property is located within the Shorleand Management District, where the maximum allowed impervious surface coverage is 25%. Currently, with all structures and manmade improvements, the property is exceeding the 25% threshold, with a total impervious surface coverage of around 25.7%. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicants are requesting a 3.1% coverage variance to City Code Section 31-305. (b). (1). to allow the impervious coverage to be 28.1% (or 3,422sf), whereas the maximum impervious surface coverage is 25%. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. CPC Case 2021-23 Page 2 of 5 The property is zoned TR, Traditional Residential; a single-family house with a deck over a concrete pad in the rear yard, 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? One of the specific purposes of the maximum impervious surface coverage is to maintain open, unencumbered space to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. Furthermore, the purpose of the Shoreland Management Overlay District is "the protection of lakes, streams and water courses within its boundaries is critical for the health, safety, order and general welfare of its citizens and to preserve and enhance the quality of surface water and preserve the economic and natural environmental values of shoreland". b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? This property is in the Shoreland Management District and is located across a street and approximately 400 feet as the crow flies from South Twin Lake. Furthermore, the topography on 2685 White Pine Way slopes to the south, away from the lake (refer to maps below). The proposed variance which, would add additional impervious surface coverage, will have no negative impacts to the lake and its surrounding natural environment, because this property is located a sizeable distance from the lake and the runoff flow is directed away from the lake. Lastly, this property was part of a PUD, that was restricted to 50%, and that earmarked greenspace helps ensure protection of the waterbody. = Flow Direction —908— = Elevation (feet) CPC Case 2021-23 Lake Shoreland Management District 2685 White Pine Way Lake Shoreland M anagement District 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. Adding a concrete slab and a deck and increasing the impervious surface coverage by 3.1 % will not adversely impact the environmental goals presented in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? A property with single-family home with a deck over a concrete pad in the rear yard, is reasonable in the TR zoning district. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? This property is located in the Shoreland Management District, despite being across the street and 400 feet from the lake. If this property were located outside of the Shoreland management district, the TR district has no maximum impervious surface. CPC Case 2021-23 Page 4 of 5 c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The circumstances were not created by the owner. The owner purchased a property that had already exceeded the maximum allowed impervious surface coverage. And despite being built over the coverage limitations the house was built with a rear walkout door, that is ten feet off the ground, and clearly meant for a deck. The owner was unaware that this property had exceeded its maximum allowed coverage, and was understandably led to believe they would be able to construct a modest -sized rear deck. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? If granted, this variance would not have negatives impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. As the applicant points out, most of the houses in this neighborhood have similar rear decks. 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 install a rear deck on their property for personal enjoyment, and also due to safety concerns of having a door ten feet off the ground that leads nowhere. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. This variance was not in conflict 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- 23, 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. 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. CPC Case 2021-23 Page 5 of 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed deck and concrete slab meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Practical difficulties have been established, such as the property having stricter coverage requirements, because it is located in the Shoreland Management District, despite being across the road and 400' from the lake. Furthermore, staff puts forth that this variance would not negatively impact the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole, due to the fact that most of the houses in this neighborhood have similar rear decks. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-23 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Neighborhood Photos (two pgs) cc: Kathleen and David Clark Board members, Thank you for hearing my request for a variance at my property at 2685 White Pine Way. We were shocked to learn that without any additional hardcover added our lot was already over your hardcover limit. As far as we know the builder or previous owner did not add anything or get a variance for what was originally built. When we purchased our home one of the key selling features for us was the neighborhood and the walkout lot. Seeing all the other homes around us with decks and patios already added and having no one bring this issue up at any time through the buying process, we assumed we would be able to at least have what our neighbors already have. The fact that we have a door 10' off the ground is concerning and a safety issue if we cannot put a deck on. It seems to me that the awkward shape of our lot caused by the bend in the road and the adjacent lot being larger width at the rear than at the street has reduced a corner in the rear section of our lot. We feel this reduced our overall square footage of our lot by more than the variance we are requesting. We ask that you consider our request to add a modest project, less than 300 sq feet, so we can use our yard and home as it was intended. Please see pictures below of completed projects near us that we feel our project would be equivalent to. Thank you for your consideration, Katie and David Clark // r N � N O� O CD 0 C.� 0 (71 0 CO o-0o O� T � II II O_` 4 gI I coo 1/40 —0 — -i0 Ni 00 cn cn II ,7,n/ CO rTr N • /4'N' Z .73 co II>- Z (0(z turn r- O O 73 71 - CO 0 II- O CD co m 4 CD L. 4. Pr sr V F 's, ..1s CD w U CO 00 W AVM 3NId 31IH /N \\N ' t tt [. _ • ,Aµ "r - fi ~ Y i SC�1 • ,r�.�...... iin Il�� �,r,'"`i►�m11IIlllylll' � !�I ,�IIIIIII '�- I. �' �IIIIII 1,,,� - a w .•__.-aaanoi� aauo unnanannaan fI Maa, aaaaaaaaa rn"r Ill,, itjwx� sY �� � 5. �'"1 a$ , Xr / �'i -fir.✓$ 53, ,. - iliwater THE B{ R T H P L A I; E OF MINNF PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: PREPARED BY: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-24 May 26, 2021 Ross Larson Nordic LUV LLC Special Use Permit to install a graphic sign (mural) on the side of the building 125 Main Street South CBD — Central Business District DDR — Downtown Design Review District Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION The City sign code puts forth that murals require a Special Use permit. Specifically, City Code states, in Sec. 31-509. Subd. 3. (m)., that "Graphic design signs require a special use permit." Furthermore, Chapter 31 defines graphic signs as "[...] any mural or pictorial scene or graphic design painted on the side of a wall or building or painted on a sign board affixed to a wall and in which a mural or scene has its purpose artistic effect." Therefore, within the City of Stillwater, a Special Use Permit is required for a mural. Ross Larson of Nordic LUV LLC has made a request to install a 96 s.f. metal panel graphic design sign onto the side facade of his building at 125 Main Street South. A copy of the proposed panel design is attached for Commission review. The subject property is a contributing building to the Stillwater Commercial Historic District and, as a result, the exterior alteration requires a Design Permit. On April 21, 2021 the property owner obtained a Design Permit from the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). REQUEST A Special Use Permit for a 96 s.f. metal panel graphic design sign. ANALYSIS Case no. 2021-24 Page 2 City Code Section 31-207, Special Use Permits, identifies the city may grant a Special Use Permit or amendments when the following findings are made: The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this [Zoning] chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed or use and/or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Conformance to the Zoning Code generally surrounds around whether or not the proposed use will be compatible with its surrounding uses. As discussed by the HPC, the applicant is proposing the mural to be located on a contributing building. While this is not encouraged, this is in area where stucco has been applied over the historic brick. The date of this alteration is unknown. Given this, this is a more - appropriate place on a contributing building than a spot where original facade material is intact. Also, the mural will be painted on a metal panel and adhered to the exterior facade, thereby making it removable in the future. The era of the plan (generally peaking) fits into the following Stillwater Historic Context Statements: • Historic Context IV: Stillwater Town Planning and Development (1844-1945) • Historic Context VIII: Development of Downtown Stillwater (1850s-1940s) • Stillwater Commercial Historic District (1860-1940) The proposed design, of a 1950s-era airplane, does have a historic theme. As the applicant's narrative indicates, the its era helps support the 1950s theme of Leo's Grill. But also, the applicant has indicated the airplane style is based on a 1950s AC3 which were used for both civilian and military efforts. While Stillwater is not known for its aviation history, it does have a long-standing association with wartime efforts and the Minnesota National Guard. Therefore, the historic theme (though not specific to Stillwater) is not out of context. Lastly, Stillwater has historically been a visitor -destination community and the Fly Away message on the mural suggests a tourism theme. The installation of murals in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District is supported in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as some of the downtown's Value Statements include Historic and Hip and Lively Arts and Culture Center. The installation in this specific location is one that will also help support the overall appearance of the future Chestnut Street plaza. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021-24, except as modified by the conditions herein. Case no. 2021-24 Page 3 3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. B. Deny the requested Special Use Permit. 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. D. Refer to the request to City Council, per "Sec.31-207. (c). (1). [...] However, on the rare occasion when accountability is an issue, the planning commission may refer a conditional use permit or special use permit to the city council." STAFF RECOMENDATION It is the City's belief that this mural would not have any detrimental impacts to the individual location or the neighborhood as a whole. Staff recommends the approval of a Special Use Permit for a 96 s.f. graphic sign at 125 Main Street South, with the conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Map Proposed Mural Design Renderings (3 pages) 0 40 The Birthplace of Minnesota Site Location 125 Main St S 80 :',111111inetitw, -,74111110! NB et. tvv.7-1..0 h L'reTiCall11 mr411111 160 Feet To: Stillwater Planning Commission From: Ross Larson / Nordic LUV LLC C/O 125 Main St S, Stillwater MN 55082 Hi, I would like to ask for permission to improve the southern wall of my building overlooking Leo's Patio with a Mural that incorporates a historic piece from the 1950's, representing Leo's time period with an aviation image. This image would be first painted on a metal background and then attached onto the stucco wall, which will be re -painted to better fit the surroundings. I believe this image would improve the aesthetics of the wall and provide a beautiful addition typical of what would have been found in Stillwater and towns like it historically and a great addition to the other murals in Stillwater along with a nice addition to the new plaza on Chestnut St. Thank you for your consideration, Ross Larson Nordic LUV LLC 612-384-4334 SITE MAP QuickFire Pizza Gullywubb aiI & Massage Antiques • L. 1'2,51Main Speet-South '411 9-1# & Malt Shop Iwo AO 1/10 11111111\h .1X - IL^ Imat1eride21220 Soncile. !marten- ir2020 Maxar Tat:film:gorges. Man data ©2111201 United States Terms Send feedback 50 ft PROJECT LOCATION Ci4‘s194*.N. Wm" Uswier-4,1;%iti, 4 03/10 11'-3" 8'-6" J Q z F 0 W 0 a N co N O J H Lc) < W W Z D d E Z Z N o 0 Z W cnaa a�� J Lc, J N J F N 501 MAIN STREET NORTH #216 JENNIFER@7EDGESDESIGN.COM MATERIAL: 4" Aluminum Composite - Painted and installed flush to wall 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.: 2021-25 May 17, 2021 May 26, 2021 Ron Brenner Architects Todd and Laurel Anderson, Greeley Commercial LLC Variance to the exterior side yard setback, in order to construct a duplex. 201 Olive Street West (PID's 2803020420121 and 2803020430033) RB, Two -Family Residential Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Mr. and Mrs. Anderson own the property at 201 Olive Street West, which is currently a vacant property due to the previous house getting destroyed by fire. The original home was on two separate lots that were orientated north and south of each other. The property owner has requested administrative lot line adjustment approval to rotate the property line 90 degrees so that the properties will be orientated east and west of each other. This would create two properties, over 10,000sf each, that both front Olive Street. The property owner is proposing to build a two family house (duplex) on each of these lots. The duplexes are to face Olive Street with a driveway off of (the currently undeveloped) 4th Street South that accesses the garages in the rear of the duplexes. However in order to have both houses front Olive Street, the architect was constrained by the property's width and had to encroach six and a half feet into the extrior side yard setback. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a 13' variance for the front deck and a 6.5' variance for the house, to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow a two-family home's deck to be setback 7' and the house to be setback 13.5' from the exterior side yard lot line, whereas the required setback is 20 feet. ANALYSIS CPC Case 2021-25 Page 2 of 4 The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RB, Two -Family Residential; a two-family house is permitted in this zoning district. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The purpose of the exterior side yard setback is for uniform neighborhood development, to create and maintain "front" yards, and to encourage storm water infiltration around the home. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The variance being requested is not out of harmony with the zoning code. This property is the only property on this dead end road, so maintaining a front yard on the exterior side yard is irrelevant. Furthermore, while this house is close to the property line it will be approximately 30' from the back of the future 4th Street South curb. 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. As pointed out in the Applicant's narrative, this project does satisfy many goals put forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Perhaps the most important goal this project is achieving is that it provides quality -designed in -fill developments that relate to their natural settings, integrate with surrounding properties, and that provide connectivity with community destinations (in this case, Downtown). Also noteworthy is that this Comprehensive Plan goal is also a goal shared by Greenstep Cities as well. 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 two-family home on a lot greater than 10,000 sf is perfectly reasonable in the RB zoning district. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? CPC Case 2021-25 Page 3 of 4 The uniqueness here is created by the landowner's desire to have both houses front Olive Street. However, to rearrange the lot lines of the property so that both houses front Olive Street only allows for a property width of 75'; while this conforms to City Code, it is pretty narrow for a side -by -side duplex. The other option, in order to avoid the side yard variance would be to front 4th Street, but that will not have the desired streetscape aesthetics. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The circumstances on this property were not created by the landowner. The property owner is proposing to construct two duplexes, on two legal lots, in a design that works well with the surrounding neighborhood and topography. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? If granted, this variance would not have negatives impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The two-story design facing Olive Street is consistent with structures in the neighborhood, including the 2.5 story structure to the west and a 1.5 story structure on the other side of the 4th Street South right-of-way. Furthermore, the variance requested is on a small dead end, where no prevailing setbacks exist on the Olive Street right-of-way. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire for the variance reflects the applicant's goal to put in an attractive and compatible design that works with the streetscape, more so than it reflects economic considerations. 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. PUBLIC COMMENT The City has received one letter stating objection to this project from the property owner at 316 4th St South. The letter put forth that the project could be shifted to the west as to not impede access to the backside of their property. However, the developer will be improving the Fourth Street ROW, thereby improving accessibility. The letter also stated concern for special assessments related to the development of 4th Street, however no assessment will be made because the cost burden of the ROW will be on the developer. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variance with the following conditions: CPC Case 2021-25 Page 4 of 4 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021- 25, 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. 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 two-family house meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Practical difficulties have been established, such as in order to have both duplexes front Olive Street (the desired orientation by the City), the duplex has to encroach slightly into the side yard setback. Additionally, while this proposed duplex would be slightly into the side yard setback, it will still maintain sufficient distance from 4th Street South. 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. 2021-25 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative (four pgs) Site Plan (two pgs) Floor Plans (three pgs) Renderings (four pgs) cc: Ron Brenner Architects Todd and Laurel Anderson, Greeley Commercial LLC 4/21/2021 Olive Street Duplexes — for Greeley Commercial, LLC. PID #2803020420121 and #280302043033 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Project Overview Todd and Laurel Anderson, Owners of Greeley Commercial, LLC. are seeking approval of a variance to construct a duplex structure to within 6 feet of it's eastern property line. The lot lies at the southwest corner of Olive Street and South Fourth Street and is within the RB-Two Family District. The zoning district requires a 20 foot setback from the Fourth Street (Eastern) property line. Establishing Practical Difficulty: 1. The landowner's (applicant's) proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance because: a. The extension of Fourth Street is a dead end which only serves this property and potentially one property to the east. The proposed setback will not disrupt any predominant development pattern. b. The proposed structure is of a reasonable size and fully complies with all other zoning requirements. c. The proposed setback allows construction of a two-family duplex structure, which is allowed within the district. d. The proposed setback allows the construction of a wrapping front porch, which will enhance the streetscape image. e. The proposed setback will still be significantly away from the Fourth Street extension (approximately 30' from the Fourth Street, but to be verified by city engineering). f. The proposed setback would comply with district setback requirements if this property line were not considered a "front yard". Realistically this parcel does not act as a "corner lot" since fourth street dead ends at this property. g. The construction of the high quality, modestly scaled, architecturally sensitive duplexes will be complementary to the neighborhood and provide an appropriate transition from downtown to the single-family neighborhoods to the west. 2. The plight of the landowner (applicant) is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner property because: a. The parcel is pre-existing and dimensionally will only allow for a 75 foot lot width (which is the minimum lot width required in this district). The required 20 foot setback would not provide enough buildable width to construct a duplex structure where both units can provide an Olive Street presentation; which is highly desirable along this transitionary zone. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality because: a. No prevailing development patterns will be disrupted. The construction of high quality, modestly scaled, architecturally sensitive duplexes will be complementary to the neighborhood. Establishing that the requested variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance: 1. The requested variance, if granted, will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City Zoning because: a. The property lies within the RB-Two Family District which allows the construction of the type of structures being proposed (Duplexes). The proposed structure is of a high quality architectural design that will be complementary with Stillwater's historical housing stock. Establishing that the requested variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: 1. The requested variance, if granted, will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because: a. The proposed construction satisfies Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal 1 by providing an additional high quality living environment for the residents of Stillwater (improving and expanding the city's existing housing stock). b. The proposed construction satisfies Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal 2 by locating attached housing close to downtown community amenities. c. The proposed construction satisfies Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal 3 by providing a new housing pattern that respects its environment while meeting local housing needs and increasing the communities share of metropolitan area housing growth. d. The proposed construction satisfies Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal 4 by providing new, well maintained housing including ownership and rental housing. e. The proposed construction satisfies Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal 4 by providing quality designed in -fill development that relates to its natural setting, integrates with surrounding properties and provides connectivity with community destinations (downtown). Additional Information to be considered in review of a variance: 1. Describe the effect of the variance, if granted, on neighboring properties and on the neighborhood in general: a. The construction of high quality, architecturally significant duplexes will be complementary to the neighborhood, provide additional housing choices and fill in an empty lot, providing for a more secure environment. 2. Describe the effect of the variance, if granted, on supply of light and air to adjacent properties: a. The proposed structure will have no impact on neighboring properties due to distance to those neighbors. 3. Describe the effect of the variance, if granted, on traffic congestion in the public street: a. Garages are located on the rear side of the property and will be served by the extension of Fourth Street. This will result in no additional traffic congestion in the public street. 4. Describe the effect of the variance, if granted, on the danger of fire: a. The construction of new structures that fully comply with current fire and building code regulations will lessen the danger of fire and public safety. 5. Describe the effect of the variance, if granted, on the danger to public safety: a. The current empty lot has had a history of vandalism (and a recent fire). The construction of new duplex structures will provide for a safer environment. 6. Describe the effect of the variance, if granted, on established property values in the surrounding area: a. The construction of a new, high quality, architecturally significant structure will have a positive impact on established property values within the neighborhood. NW CORNER -OF LOT I FOUND 1" IRONj�'� 1.2' W. OF LOT LINE. FOUND 1/2" IRON ROD 0.5' W. OF PARCEL LINE i1- 1' 1-2.-6' WALL r_- / z mom o c?`o o W-tom v17 G lq peSGaw r EXISTING STORM SEWER TO BE VERIFEID R r7%- 53 99 ' 800 - 11798 3 0' --`PAR RI 739 wy7a2 79 *66.1- 3 x794.a as.r , 730.5 Yr n rct/ r ¢ aT o I N / ,F Io. ^�q> ��_-..o ®I, i I imp i,-5'. � / / I 01 2 oot I I I I x �II %r' 1-0 / I Og0 a II y i I „,:,,___.__:_•....., I 6- • 6 x .z/ e° I. 5�" O T5 y6 �. ! 1 Ili. ''' III��".".�`,. ���� n i. 738 7 031 FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE MARKED / 12L5 13774 © SET OFFSET HUB 1025.0 X 925.0 PROPOSED ELEVATION PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED DRAINAGE 4 985.0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEV. 5F DENOTES SILT FENCE 77,..q30- - EXISTING CONTOURS g10G 0,784 OW SAN DO INy=7ea2 6VVC CAPPEP 20"24 DBL 9 4 I NEW PUBLIC STREET '"' I CONSTRUCTION 1 190 St9 22 0O1 01 EXISTING \I CATCH BASIN STRUCTURE \ s9 BRICK Tao=7ee.3 INV=785.6 L--1 OVERFLOW FOUND I/2" IRON \ PIPE MARKED RLS 13774 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AREAS: (IN SQUARE FEET) PARCEL 1 HOUSE = 2,583 DECKS = 373 DRIVEWAY = 2,021 WALKS =257 WALLS = 60 TOTAL = 5,234 44.0% OF PARCEL AREA PARCEL 2 HOUSE = 2,584 DECKS = 416 DRIVEWAY = 2,302 WALKS = 249 WALLS = 0 TOTAL = 5,551 45.8% OF PARCEL AREA 22 30.0 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 3/4" COPPER WATER SERVICE PER PLANS PROVIDE BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER. \ %19 01 PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: PROPOSED PARCEL The west 75.00 feet of the following described property: All that part of Lots One (1) and Two (2), Block Thirty-three (33), Original Town, now City of Stillwater, described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Block Thirty-three (33), and running thence west along the north line of said Block, One Hundred Fifty and seventy-two hundredths (150.72) feet to the northwest comer of said Lot One (1 ), thence south along the west line of said Lots One (1) and Two (2), Ninety-five (95) feet to an iron pipe monument, thence east on a line parallel to said north line of said Block, One Hundred fifty and seventy-two hundredths (150.72) feet to an iron pipe monument set on the east line of said Block, thence north along said east line Ninety-five (95) feet to the point of beginning. All of the same lying and being in the City of Stillwater, County of Washington, State of Minnesota. and The south 15.00 feet of Lot Two (2), and all of Lot Three (3), Block Thirty-three (33), Original Town, now City of Stillwater. PROPOSED PARCEL That part of the following described lying easterly of the westerly 75.00 thereof: All that part of Lots One (1) and Two (2), Block Thirty-three (33), Original Town, now City of Stillwater, described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Block Thirty-three (33), and running thence west along the north line of said Block, One Hundred Fifty and seventy-two hundredths (150.72) feet to the northwest comer of said Lot One (1 ), thence south along the west line of said Lots One (1) and Two (2), Ninety-five (95) feet to an iron pipe monument, thence east on a line parallel to said north line of said Block, One Hundred fifty and seventy-two hundredths (150.72) feet to an iron pipe monument set on the east line of said Block, thence north along said east line Ninety-five (95) feet to the point of beginning. All of the same lying and being in the City of Stillwater, County of Washington, State of Minnesota. and The south 15.00 feet of Lot Two (2), and all of Lot Three (3), Block Thirty-three (33), Original Town, now City of Stillwater. DEVELOPMENT DATA TOTAL AREA AS SHOWN = 24,144 SQ.FT. INCLUDING 29 SQ.FT. OF DESCRIPTION GAP. PROPOSED PARCEL 1 = 12,020 SQ.FT. PROPOSED PARCEL 2 = 12,124 SQ.FT. 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. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. e CALL BEFORE YOU DIG, Gopher State One Call TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A (PER WARRANTY DEED DOC.#4189376 - OWNER GREELEY COMMERCIAL LLC) All that part of Lots One (1) and Two (2), Block Thirty-three (33), Original Town, now City of Stillwater, described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Block Thirty-three (33), and running thence west along the north line of said Block, One Hundred Fifty and seventy-two hundredths (150.72) feet to the northwest comer of said Lot One (1 ), thence south along the west line of said Lots One (1) and Two (2), Ninety-five (95) feet to an iron pipe monument, thence east on a line parallel to said north line of said Block, One Hundred fifty and seventy-two hundredths (150.72) feet to an iron pipe monument set on the east line of said Block, thence north along said east line Ninety-five (95) feet to the point of beginning. All of the same lying and being in the City of Stillwater, County of Washington, State of Minnesota. PARCEL B (PER TAX RECORDS - OWNER DON D KIRBY & MERILYN CUMMING-KIRBY TRUST) The south 15.00 feet of Lot Two (2), and all of Lot Three (3), Block Thirty-three (33), Original Town, now City of Stillwater. TITLE NOTES: NO TITLE WORK WAS PROVIDED TO US THAT WOULD SHOW ANY EASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES EFFECTING THE PARCEL SURVEYED. 1. UNDERGROUND STORM SEWER PIPE CROSSES PARCEL AS SHOWN. 2. DESCRIPTION GAP AS SHOWN ON SURVEY. SURVEY NOTES: 1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM NAD 1983. 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER ONE LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. LEGEND: • FOUND MONUMENT O ANED IRON no 6 B El CABLE TV PEDESTAL ELECTRIC MANHOLE • ELECTRIC MEER ER ELECTRIC PEDESTAL ID ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER - GUY WIRE • LIGFFF POLE POWER POLE O GAS MANHOLE a GAS METER O TELEPHONE E TELEPHONE PEDESTAL SANITARY CLEANOUT Or C• A NITARY MANHOLE r Or ® STORM •, FLARED END SECTION 00 STORM MANHOLE • 0 OU * FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION • nyown- • CURB 0 WATER 0 WATER MANHOLE E WATER METER O POST INDICATOR VALVE F•1 WATER VALVE O BOLLARD 53- FLAG POLE E MAIL BOX 35- 0 URA ROLE OSOIL BORING TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND CABLE* UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OVERHEAD LITILIN UNDERGROUND GAS SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FENCE CURB [TYPICAL] CONCRETE SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE NORTH 20 40 O 7 OLIVE ST. W. CONTACT: Todd Anderson Garnet Real Estate Services www.Garnetres.com 651-492-5652 COUNTY/CITY: WAS H I NJ GT01N COUNTY ITV O F ST1 LLWATER REVISIONS: DATE 1-6-21 1-11-20 3-4-21 4-23-21 REVISION PRELIMINARY ISSUE PROPOSED ST. VACATION MINOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT GRADING CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by Incunder my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Date 1-6-21 PROJECT LOCATION: O OLIVE ST. W. PID#2803020420121 PID#280302043033 Suite #200 1970 Northwestern Ave. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 dan@cssurvey .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. FILE NAME PROJECT NO. SURVZZ659 ZZ20659 MINOR SUBDIVISION ` 'htctur& Covey rAr \ Q. "1 ,toSX 10,/;= 12,12W Ih�t� P1114-1ro(e,= 010 xZ S% •-..,,5ps9s PI11awv 1016 43rUGtv►Iro CovexA IAr2.1- frit15 IoaLeS : 410 th'UGhv1g 6,,vtra► o�rGe� �, ---� �1'5 i(eM6 = 1 ,a11 S6 S �,� 20 X /S7o 3oD5 .atI I,StatO ro ab*uthia � AI -citir) Bros►eS =_ 3 -- '"" 1aaat3 �r R ) r - El' ! Of5P) 1,1 j �1yo • O ,, ati } j RAN �� NI3 1. i \b-c tN.4.0 oLIVE SCME`L' b►liLEXt,S Goyloc�'i�q� 1-aY}�SGctfi� Ala IC �YtlulhfX hots tiv► E '. ,see 1're re ovafah TD(Orl vial fireeS I‘rerhove OLIVE STREET DRONE VIEW Olive Street Duplexes for Greeley Commercial, LLC. EXTERIOR IMAGE SKETCHES 4/23/2021 COPYRIGHT 2021, RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS SOUTHERN DRONE VIEW Olive Street Duplexes for Greeley Commercial, LLC. EXTERIOR IMAGE SKETCHES 4/23/2021 COPYRIGHT 2021, RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS OLIVE STREET PERSPECTIVE VIEW Olive Street Duplexes for Greeley Commercial, LLC. EXTERIOR IMAGE SKETCHES 4/23/2021 COPYRIGHT 2021, RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS OLIVE STREET ELEVATION (NORTH ELEVATION) 1"= 10' Olive Street Duplexes for Greeley Commercial, LLC. EXTERIOR IMAGE SKETCHES 4/23/2021 COPYRIGHT 2021, RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS Jenn Sundberg From: Mary McNellis <mzztravel@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 6:54 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: Case # HPC 2021-18 AND CPC 2021-25 [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We object to the proposal cited above proposal. The footprint of this project is considerably larger than what it is replacing and adversely affects the traffic, noise, view and privacy of our property. Re Setback: We oppose the the request to the variance. It would negatively affect the ingress/egress to our property on 316 4th St S. Rather than locating the two buildings closer to 4th Street we propose the buildings be moved further west. There seems to be plenty of room. We just recently paid off a large special assessment from street improvement near our property that did not directly benefit us. We do not want to pay another special assessment for a street improvement that would only benefit the developers of this project. Thank you for your consideration. Stephen Gates / Mary McNellis 316 4th St S. i 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.: 2021-26 May 18, 2021 May 26, 2021 Martin and Elizabeth Widenbrant Martin and Elizabeth Widenbrant Variance to the require number of covered parking spots for a three-family home. 115 Martha Street South RB, Two -Family Residential Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Mr. and Mrs. Widenbrant own the property at 115 Martha Street South, which is two-family home currently under construction to be converted back into a three-family homer. In Stillwater the parking requirements for a three-family home are six spots (rounded up from 5.5 spots), three of which are required to be covered spots2. The existing house has an attached garage which can fit two cars. In front of the garage is a carport which can fit two additional cars. Then the driveway itself can fit more two cars. So as it stands right now, the applicant is meeting the parking requirements. However, a parking situation that parks three cars deep and only two cars wide is not very practical for a three-family house (it would create a situation in which the three tenants would somehow have to coordinate parking). Mr. and Mrs. Widenbrant would like to fix this impractical issue by widening the driveway and to stop utilizing the attached garage (since it is buried behind the carport and the driveway parking area), in order to make three rows of cars, two cars deep. This would allow each tenant to have their own parking row, so they would not have to coordinate parking with any other tenants. 1 In 1977, 115 Martha St S obtained a Special Use Permit to construct a three-family home, however at some point it was converted back into a two unit residence. 2 City Code states the parking requirements for multi -family home is: 1.5 per unit; with one covered, plus one space per three units for guest parking. CPC Case 2021-26 Page 2 of 4 SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance to City Code Section 31-510. Subd. 1. (c). to allow there to be two covered parking spots, whereas three covered spots are required. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RB, Two -Family Residential; a house with a carport and driveway, 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 purpose of requiring covered spaces is to help residents, and the community as a whole, better deal with the inclement and harsh weather (particularly winters) that Minnesota experiences. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Based on the zoning code, three parking spaces are required to be covered. While the property owner has a garage and carport that can accommodate all of the parking, in essence the code requirements for covered spaces can be met. However, the property owner is certain that stacking parking spaces three deep is not in the best interest for the tenants. As the code requirement can be met, the variance being requested is not out of harmony with the zoning code. This property will always have four covered spaces though only two will be utilized. It is not uncommon in residential neighborhoods for property owners to store other personal property in enclosed garages and have utilize their uncovered parking spaces for daily vehicle use. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan calls for infill development and higher densities in the RB-district and downtown. In the RB district, however, lots are typically small, have smaller garages and often have topographical constraints, which makes meeting the parking requirements for multi -family housing difficult. This property is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan; however, it is experiencing the common problem of not meeting all the parking requirements CPC Case 2021-26 Page 3 of 4 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 thee -family home is perfectly reasonable in the RB zoning district with a Special Use Permit. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The uniqueness here is that this is a three-family house with an existing carport structure that is too close to the north property line to expand for three cars. Also being a three-family house makes this property unique because it is essentially rendering the attached garage useless because of the parking issues it would cause amongst the tenants. Additionally, to the south of the house is all steep slopes, so building an additional garage would not be feasible. The only practical option seems to be having four uncovered spots. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The circumstances on this property were not created by the landowner. The property was recently purchased and the owner would like to take advantage of a Special Use Permit that was obtained in 1977, and revert the building back into a triplex. The parking options on this lot are severely limited by the current lot layout and the steep slopes. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? If granted, this variance would not have negatives impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. This property is on a small dead end road that only accesses two properties. Having one additional car parked in an uncovered location is negligible in this situation. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The fact that the applicant wishes to reconvert this property back to a three-family home clearly has economic considerations, since more units yields more revenue. However, the applicant's desire for the variance to parking, does not solely reflect economic considerations, but rather reflects The Widenbrant's desire to arrange the parking situation so that it will be practical for three separate living units. 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 CPC Case 2021-26 Page 4 of 4 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- 26, 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. 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 that the proposed parking arrangement, that includes only two covered parking spaces, meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Practical difficulties, such as the property being unable to expand the carport to fit three cars or having the building area for an additional garage, have been established. Furthermore, staff puts forth that this variance would not negatively impact the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. Staff feels that this proposed parking arrangement, despite needing a variance, is far more practical and functional than the existing parking situation, which is in conformance with City Code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-26 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Site Plan Existing Parking Layout (two pgs) Proposed Parking Layout (two pgs) cc: Martin and Elizabeth Widenbrant 72: 24 ,. _74:10 :702y _ 626 r 64 �•q : 4-Ae B�.riv Cry VC. /6.2 z,8 /o 7- 6 it(8y4/6 3T'•-- S�6/ RevicCa,e,z.3,a� 4,vp /Z, 4 •.5�, f e.9S// EA/z•z.^'. ic C c. Ave.t! /.464,9 r RooF ll4`So. /Z6 /7 /'Zc57/ 72 0 CARP/,er Roar CAW /bier 4/N.4td.it YE.vT \ e 4o p, 3s; 3 So, f2zcE A/d, l�O, /4.5 A Ca.e. z8 '€ iv0. N, 13??.¢ / N /4,2• SO. ��C. /Va. 42/1/7/ NIDEW,e5W,44/r % /1./v '-• Q tcltq /6. 2 1 57,6 Rao' Crie,, . 0A7 LcApecle I !tv TF 4? 5-1 lc r� d� ft 8,ee;i ,. 4RP," 4?r ee Fbie IzV 4'R 0// , Z.4 /or kbelai F/ 415.4' 19' 47s4F.a.; 3j 34zr.xr to lot line carport o Meeting Parking Ordinance fWItJ for tenants /6. 2 L7 1 1 z.B 1 - 49'/6" :?P 1.1-- but not good ZO , 4;p , /6r 7 y f f _ c4114,,v7-FR 5-1 { 1:,t, �CL 1.Chiet' p Pr'?T r. ieb • i2A N17E art\ti1 Carport / driveway Carport 1eoa,' f/. F_4. . /� 3 0/2 i/L .4/9 I Garage With two "lanes" of parking tenants from units 1, 2 and 3 are mixed, which is not optimal for tenants. Could result in more on -street parking Needing Parking Ordinance Variance o c-oA✓c. tcltq /6. 2 R4` a/,2 42 AmpEA& L . ic .yam` \ 1J7.43a. A 4' - 6' 9' — park n ot` Gov 49. 19' — cal covered sh With three "lanes" of parking tenants each unit has their own lane This solution only allows for two fully covered parking spaces to lot line <ing space, red rport, 2:2 :not covered PLANS Remove trash enclosure marked with an "X" and planters Expand driveway to iron "T" stakes, placed a minimum 4' from the property line. This would still be on the same level as the carport parking. This would allow for three sets of tandem (2) parking spaces with two covered spaces total vs. two "lanes" of three cars in series, garage, carport and driveway with four covered spaces. This would be a much better solution for tenants as only tenants from the same unit would be in the same tandem spot. iliwater THE B f FIT H P L A C E OF MINNESOIA Planning Report TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-27 MEETING DATES: May 26, 2021 LANDOWNER: Mainstreet LLC APPLICANT: Jeremy Imhoff, Imprint Architecture REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to the Rear Yard Setback LOCATION: 225 Main Street North ZONING: CBD, Central Business District Flood Fringe Overlay REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Jeremy Imhoff of Imprint Architecture and Design has submitted a Variance application on behalf of Brian Carlson who intends to convert Maple Island Brewing into River Siren Brewing Company. As part of the conversion, a patio remodel and expansion, closer to Water Street North and located in the Rear Yard Setback area, is proposed. The improvements, physically attached to the property at 131 Main Street South, are located in the Central Business District and the Flood Fringe Overlay District. However, as the improvement is proposed to be constructed above the regulatory flood elevation of 692.5', no use permit is required. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of a Variance to the Central Business District's 20' Rear Yard setback for the construction of an elevated patio addition. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. • No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. CPC 2021-27 Page 2 of 3 The property is zoned CBD. Structural additions and elevated patios are allowed by Special/Conditional Use Permit. • 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 rear yard setback is to allow for onsite parking in the Central Business. However, that district's setback from the front and side are zero. Thus, it is staff's belief the intention for a rear yard setback, when fronting a street, should also be zero. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Though, if granted, this improvement would be located closer to Water Street than adjacent properties, this design will enhance the pedestrian experience in this location. While this would result in a reduction of parking, there would be no change to the onsite parking lot adjacent to the patio. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages supporting local business expansion, creating an environment that supports pedestrians, etc. • 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? Above -grade patios are reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property at 225 Main Street South fronts three streets. This is unique. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property already contains these improvements. While the owner would like to upgrade and expand them with permanent alterations, the owner did not create the property's uniqueness of being situated along three street frontages. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? On April 21, 2021 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved the proposed design. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? CPC 2021-27 Page 3 of 3 The applicant's desire is for the variance does not reflect economic considerations but, rather, to clean up the rear portion of the property, making it more inviting to pedestrians and opening the business on the backside of the building. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested flood fringe Conditional Use Permit and setback variance with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially compliant with those on file with the Community Development Department's case file 2021-55 except as modified herein. 2. Plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the applicable Engineering, Fire and Building Inspections departments prior to project commencement. 3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. B. Deny the request. 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 RECOMMEDATION The expansion of the patio is reasonable. Constructing these improvements in a fashion that will not increase the flood stage nor will result in increased damages is being proposed. Constructing these in areas where they comply with the intention of the code is preferred. Thus, staff finds that — with certain conditions — the project conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of variances. Staff recommends conditional approval with those conditions outlined in alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Request Letter (2 pages) Site Plan Elevations (2 pages) Cc: Frank Fabio Brian Carlson Jeremy Imhoff IIIE 'in i n11Lt �. = o $11. • imprint Architecture + Design, Ilc April 23rd, 2021 RE: River Siren Brewery Review: Variance Application Project Address: 225 North Main Street, Stillwater MN This variance application request proposes to construct a new 650 s.f. wood deck, a 100 s.f. concrete stair, and 245 s.f. steel canopy extension into the 20'-0" rear yard building setback established by the Stillwater municipal code for the Central Building District. The proposed new deck will expand an existing east outdoor patio area to allow for better access to outdoor seating for brewery patrons and the proposed new concrete stair will allow better access to the Brewery off of Water Street North. We deem there are practical difficulties that currently prohibit the proposed work noted above and outlined in the proposed plans attached. They are as follows: • The existing Use Permit does allow for outdoor patios / decks as proposed in the attached plans and is substantially similar to what is located on site, but the 20'-0" rear yard setback currently prohibits us from adding a new deck at the east side of the property. If the project is granted a variance to build within the 20'-0" rear yard setback, the project would allow for better access onto and through the site off Water Street North. Additionally, the proposed work would not substantially alter any of the existing grades along the east side of the property or interfere with the existing easements in the area including the 5'-0" wide gas distribution easement that runs parallel to the east property line. • There are unique circumstances of the existing building and site that limit the addition of a new deck and stair access off Water Street. Specifically, the existing building sits +/- 9'-1 " from the 20'-0" rear yard setback limiting the ability to expand the existing east patio to a size that is more useful to outdoor table and chair seating facing views of the St. Croix River waterfront. • If the variance is granted, the proposed work will not alter the character of the neighborhood. In fact, the proposed deck expansion would complement other developments in the area and promote more pedestrian traffic along Water Street North. For example, there is currently a similar deck construction into the same 20'-0" yard setback just south of the property at 217 Main Street. At this location the Valley Bookseller, Daily Grind, and Merrill Lynch businesses all have access to a deck for outdoor seating while also affording better pedestrian access into the building off Water Street (refer to image below). Included Attachments: • Variance Application • River Siren Variance Application Drawing Set o A1.1 -Site Plan o A3.1 - Proposed Exterior Elevations o A3.2 - Proposed Exterior Elevations • Exhibits o Exhibit A: Legal Description o Exhibit B: Survey for Parcel 0069 / 0070 / 0076 o Exhibit C: Survey for Parcel 0062 / 0064 o Exhibit D: Gas Distribution Easement We appreciate your consideration of our proposed application and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Jeremy Imhoff, AIA Owner I Principal tel: 651-295-5623 jeremy@imprintarchitecture.com Imprint Architecture and Design, LLC 514 St Croix Ave West Stillwater, MN 55082 46.-2" - FIELD VERIFY EXISTING } BUILDING (223 MAIN ST.) > 0 J w LL 9 Tr) co (E) CONC. PATIO EXISTING PLANTER • + + + + + + + + w 0 J PROPERTY LINE "7/7///////////7 4'-8" + + + + • ++++++++++++ + + + + • ++++++++++++ + +++++++++++++ +++ PROPERTY LINE 6'-0" CLEAR TO E OF FINISH DECK. 0 0 PAVING WALKWAY MAIN STREET NORTH 12'-11" - FIELD VERIFY 13'-10" - FIELD VERIFY -/- EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK - EXISTING CONCRETE STAIR PROPERTY LINE, TYP V AA EXISTING EXTERIOR ° CONCRETE°PAT10° °°;69 '-0" • 42'=2' -:DECK UP ' OOD SC M 1RAS NfW WOOD DECK WOOD D(CKING UP UP EXISTING EXTERIOR ONCRETE PATIO AA A 693'-0'I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++++++NE /+3A6+STEa,FR N4E ,,,,PAicllEt+PERI Elf c Rx,AIL+++ ++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++++ + + + + + + + + +++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++++ • +++++++ + + + + + + + i+++7'1+++++++++++NAY+PL +NTINQ i+++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++ + ++++++++++++++++++ 6 EXISTING PARKING STALLS TO BE REPLACED W/ NEW WOOD DECK NEW CONCRETE PAVING WALKWAY • ° .0 0.6 +++ + + + + + + ++++++++++++▪ +++++ \ / / \ / NEW CONCRETE STAIR AND LANDING I+ + +++++ + +++++++ + + + + + + + + + + ++ / + + + +++ + + + ++ + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++ + + + + +++ + + + + + + + + + + ++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +C:+OSIDEWALK + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + • 1++++++▪ +++++ + + + O NL�Q H m Z.++++++++ w \ Q �+ + + + + ' ++ WATER STREET NORT + + + REMOVE EXISTING PLANTER AND REPLACE W/ CONCRETE PAVING EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPERTY LINE 69.1 LINE OF NEW EXTERIOR ROOF CANOPY EXTENSION ABOVE LINE OF EXISTING ROOF CANOPY ABOVE 690 REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT W/ NEW 5'-0" WIDE SIDEWALK REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT W/ NEW PLANTING BED LINE OF NEW EXTERIOR ROOF CANOPY EXTENSION ABOVE NEW EXTERIOR CONCRETE STAIR 6'69 EXISTING ASPHALT PARKING LOT PROPOSED NEW CONCRETE TOPPING SLAB 0/ EXISTING REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT W/ NEW 5'-0" WIDE SIDEWALK 0 1- CITY RECORDS DOCUMENT 21 EXISTING � z - / PARKING STALLS AT THE NORTH PARKING X LOT WITH AN ADDITIONAL 3 PARKING STALLS w Q RESERVED FOR COFFEE/FOOD TRAILER a PARKING FOR A TOTAL OF 24 STALLS 11I+++ + + + + + + + ++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + +++ +++++ + + + + + + + + + + + ++ ++++++++++ + + + + + + ++++++++++++ +++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + (5? 6YI 69 O bsa LINE • TING ROOF ANOPY ABOVE NEW CONCRETE TOPPING SLAB REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT W/ NEW PLANTING BED NEW CONCRETE EXTERIOR STAIR LINE OF NEW EXTERIOR ROOF CANOPY EXTENSION ABOVE LINE OF GAS LI ASEMENT PER W OFFICE 0 'E COUNTY RECORDER WASGTON COUNTY, MN - ' ECORD #3082052 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PLANTER AREAS EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK +++++++ + + + + + '-0" GAS LINE EASEMENT +++++++++++++++++++ + + + +++ +• +• + + + + +++++ • .1� '.GA+S tINIE.++++ + ++++++ ++ +z++ ++++: +++ + + + + + + + +++++++++ J z + + + + + + + + A. A. +++++++++ + + + + + + + +,,.+II-. +++++++++ + + + A. A. + + + + + + + + +�_+++++++ �L+ �� �L+ + I+ Ch WJ+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +++++ +++++++++++ ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ 1 EXISTING SITE PLAN & PROPOSED NEW BREWERY PLAN SCALE: 1 /8":1'-0" N ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COPYING, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT AND PERMISSION FROM IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC. COPYRIGHT 2020, IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC SITE PLAN DRAWING ISSUE: 21_0423 VARIANCE APPLICATION 21_0305 50% SCHEMATIC DESIGN `)� f Q1R CruIFAATIr nGCIr_NI DDIrINIr A1.1 U J J ■ n CD a) a) a) Ao • mlmo • • CD a) a) CO 0 co Lu Lu Lu 0 CC 00 NEW STAIR, CANOPY AND GUARDRAIL BEYOND 2.5 3'-0" TYP 12 NEW METAL ROOF 0/ NEW PAINTED PURLINS AND BEAMS ON EXISTING NEWLY PAINTED COLUMNS PROPOSED SIGN NEXT TO NEW ENTRANCE DOOR BY OTHERS 3X6 WOOD SLATS PER 3D RENDER OUTDOOR PATIO NEW STEPS PER PLAN 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXISTING LIGHTING, VFY IF TO REMAIN PROPERTY LINE EXISTING BRICK AND LIMESTONE FACADE TO REMAIN, CLEAN ALL SURFACES REMOVED EXISTING SIGNAGE, REMOVE EXISTING CANOPY, PROPOSED NEW SIGNAGE BY OTHERS NEW METAL CANOPY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 11111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 111111111 111111 11111 I1111111 111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 > 11111111111 11111II111 11111111I�1111111111 111 1111 111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111�111111111111I�11111111 1 1 111111111 J 111111111 1 1 I1111 J 111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111 M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 No- 111111111111111111111111111111111I 11 P III ---- —--- -------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 11111 11111111111111 111111111111111111 11111111111 6'-10" PER PLAN VFY PROPERTY LINE 13'-2 1/2" VFY EXISTING RAMP TO REMAIN RIVER SIREN BREWING CO 1 1 EXISTING STEPS 11 11 I 1 1111 I I 111 I1 9'-6 VFY NEW BLACK ENTRY DOOR WITH SIGNAGE OR BUILDING NUMBERS IN FROSTED GLASS 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z 111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II(IIIII II(IIIII 1111111 IIII 1 1 1111111 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1111111 1111111 1111111 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1IIIII1 1 1I1I1III1 1I1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1 1 III 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PAINT EXISTING WINDOWS AND STOREFRONT BLACK WHERE APPLICABLE, TYP 1 WEST ELEVATION - MAIN STREET 8 -0" VFY 0 (2 Q I�.��iV Ipj�iVpj�iV�.��iV�.��i� e�t!`�wi.wig%giet`et!`f�� i Wei`��e`���e��f�ei$�ei`��ei`� �i V,. j�Olp j�tlp j�tl,. j�iV�.��iV�. GiOleitleitlei.'Qi�•�N�i' i$�i�ii.��`ei�i�011se ei ei ei e� ei ei ei ei ei as GENERAL NOTES: 1.) REFER TO 1 /A3.1 FOR CALLOUTS AND DIMENSIONS IN COMMON 2.) REFER TO 3D RENDERINGS FOR PROPOSED MATERIALS AND COLORS 3.) PROVIDE PRICING FOR ALL PAINTED METAL STAIR & GUARDRAILS INDICATED ON PLAN 12 NEW PAINT ON EXISTING UPPER BUILDING, ALL SIDES NEW PAINT ON EXISTING CMU BLOCK, ALL SIDES NEW SIGNAGE BY OTHERS REMOVE EXISTING CANOPY, CLEAN CMU, PATCH AND REPAIR AS NEEDED. NEW METAL CANOPY PROPOSED SIGN NEXT TO NEW ENTRANCE DOOR BY OTHERS LL OUTDOOR PATIO 0 Co u_ > 0 PAINT EXISTING DOOR EXISTING GARAGE DOOR TO REMAIN NEW WOOD PATIO, AND MESH GUARDRAILS NEW CONCRETE STAIRS PER PLAN 13'-2 1/2" VFY 6'-10" PER PLAN VFY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COPYING, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT AND PERMISSION FROM IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC. COPYRIGHT 2020, IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DRAWING ISSUE: 21_0423 VARIANCE APPLICATION 21_0305 50% SCHEMATIC DESIGN 21_0316 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PRICING 21 0326 HPC SUBMITTAL A3.1 2 EAST ELEVATION - WATER STREET SCALE: 0 4'-0" 8'-0" PROPERTY LINE 20'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 8'-2" TO EDGE NEW PAINT ON EXISTING CMU BLOCK, ALL SIDES NEW METAL CANOPY AND BRACKETS NEW METAL CANOPY W/ WOOD SLATS BENEATH OF (N) ROOF CANOPY EXTENSIQN 5'-0" GAS LINE EASMENT 6'-0" TO EDGE OF DECK ASSEMBLY PROPERTY LINE 1'-0" NEW PAINTED STEEL COLUMNS PER PLAN, MATCH EXISTING 20'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK NEW METAL CANOPY NEW 2X6 WOOD SLATS NEW PAINTED BEAM & PURLIN1 ON TOP 8'-2" TO EDGE OF (N) ROOF CANOPY EXTENSIQN I 5'-0" GAS LINE EASMENT 1 6'-0" TO EDGE OF DECK ASSEMBLY t4 k NEW PAINT ON EXISTING UPPER BUILDING, ALL SIDES REMOVE EXISTING CANOPY, CLEAN BRICK, PATCH AND REPAIR AS NEEDED REMOVE EXISTING CANOPY, CLEAN BRICK, PATCH AND REPAIR AS NEEDED PROPERTY LINE 4'-0" TYP • 8'-0" 'h/FY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J A A A A I I I JAAAA I I I I J A A A A_I Ill/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 111111111III 11111111III 111111I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1'-4' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1111111111111111111111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I IIIIII- I I I I I I IIIIII- I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11111111 111111 11111111 111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1111111111111111 1111111111111111 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 6'-0" FIELD VERIFY (N) METAL CANOPY AND BRACKETS 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 GUARDRA L > Co LL O - Q1~ \ IIII I I 11 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIII NEW CONCRETE STEPS, PER PLAN NEW PAINTED METAL MESH GUARDRAIL NEW PAINT ON EXISTING CMU BLOCK, ALL SIDES 11 11 NEW, BLACK STOREFRONT SYSTEM IN NEW OPENING PROPOSED NEW SIGNAGE BY OTHERS EXISTING STEP LOCATION, NEW LEVEL CONCRETE TOPPING SLAB II 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ===================== iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 11 11 1 I III IIIIIII 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I111 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I III IIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III II III III 1 1111111111111III 11 III 11 III 1 III 11 II II II I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1I 1 1 I I I I I III/1111111111111111111 I I I IIII 111111111111 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111111111111111111111111111111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 - I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 PAINT EXISTING WINDOWS BLACK WHERE APPLICABLE, TYP NEW, BLACK STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR SYSTEM IN NEW OPENING 1 1 1.. 1 1_1 1 1.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111III 11II111111111111111111III 11111111 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1111111111111111111 III III I I 11111111 1111111111 11111111 1111111111 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I IIIIII I I I 1 1 1 I I 11111111111111 II II IIIIII II111111 1111111111111111 1 1 I I 1 11111111111111 1 1 I I I I 111.1 IIII IIII 111 111 11111111111111 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 111111111111 11111 I I I I I 1 1 11111111111 111111 11111111111 111111 11111111111 111111 11111111111 111111 II IIIIII II II1111111 I I I 1 1111111111111111111 I I T 111 111111111111111 1 I I I I I I I REMOVE EXISTING DOOR, CLOSE OVER EXTERIOR, PATCH AND REPAIR TO MATCH EXISTING BRICK 4'-0" TYP (N) PAINTED METAL RAILINGS PER PLAN O co 7'-7 1/2" VFY MIN w co EXISTING STEPS AND ADA RAMP, PRESSURE NASH 1 NORTH ELEVATION — CANOPY NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY NEW PAINT ON EXISTING UPPER BUILDING, ALL SIDES REMOVE EXISTING CANOPY, CLEAN BRICK, PATCH AND REPAIR AS NEEDED. NEW METAL CANOPY 0/ NEW PAINTED PURLINS & BEAMS ON EXISTING COLUMNS W/ NEW PAINT. NEW 3X6 WOOD CEILING SLATS PER 3D RENDERINGS PROPERTY LINE 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1111111111111 111111111111111 1111111111111111 1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I 11 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 11 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I I- I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 11 I 1 I 1 11 I 1 1 1 11 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 i 1111111111111111111111111111111111�1111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111 IIII IIIIIIIIII11IIII1111IIIIII11IIII1111IIIIII11IIII1111IIIIII11IIII1111111111111111111111111111 111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 1 11 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- I I 1111111111III 111111111111I I I I I 1111111111111111111111111111111 111 I I I I I I D6-6'I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1111111111111111111111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111111 11111111111111 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11111111 11111111111111111 11111111111111 II II IIIIII1111 11111111 11 1111111111 IIII 11111111111111 1111111111111111 1111111111111111 II 1111111111111111 II 11111I 111111111 II 11111111111111 1 II 1111111111111111 II 1111111111111111 II I 1 1 11 1 I I I I I I i 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 6'-0" FIELD VERIFY NEW METAL CANOPY T 24'-0" - WOOD SLATS NEW PAINTED STEEL COLUMNS PER PLAN, MATCH EXISTING 41140 EXISTING COLUMNS PER PLAN, NEW PAINT 1 6 8"-WOO I LATS NEW PAINTED METAL MESH GUARDRAIL, TYP .i i 11111111 IIIIIIII 1111111 111111I 11111111 I 1 1 11 1111I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11111111111111 1 1111111111111 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I iiiiiiiiiiiiiii ■iiiiiiiiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiiii I I I I I I I I I I I I d�'!v4`e :♦ems:♦ei �P7/we:'» e2' :��:.:E'r4 rS4`e4♦e:�%lei 'v ':♦ei:te oai� ;@i'�e�:�ei; 4�4'a�i:7ei:� $40:4r�"&�:?ea Y''',ri• �o ���� «. , .a�- P +;.. ��r;... ei•,.e•..i a a �����i:�� ei4' et .e ei . 3 . ei ei ei F ♦ ei ei ♦ tt 6 6s . e e�. ei. ei @i ei ,ei ® �ti ♦ .♦ l e e e1 e. a ei ei ei a ei ei ♦� I•'PI•'OP-.: P-.'P ..'4 PP-�.O •CP.O. ', Ct--PP-YV• P-OP-�'P• ..C.•-C..-C. P•CP•- i'tI'.ti ei ♦ .� et tt a ei. ei. ei. ev ♦ ♦ ei .e s .ri .♦ s tt e r r Isi.er..n..me�6.en..tn. i.eie.a� 8 /eat%u:♦ems ./aces:♦e '.. '4'' u: �'%�:. rE.v.:4 6:.�..:� %%:♦eu:♦eua �'�e�u: O%i %fie♦� .�5�'t.'"♦�r.' .e.°®II�.�r. �.%'�ii ii43. 1���%'"o`•: %a%ae":♦�e. ��iSI aNee/ts0 ��Se/ r���e0� 't♦�i. " %':♦� :♦ei des: �`::-tew��ei is%��u' ��u' ' '®�% e.� ..t.P.q♦' P i�-ei•' sP!•!F� a a ei a�P - . se...e♦. i�♦' .��®/i♦v,♦e %s�'vse �� :♦tte ��ti .��/Iei♦t4.e s�� '! $�:�i �✓' ,r ,�/te �!. t ett�� tII�I! ��' tiv eiiv � Its♦ ries� ..t' y ti t ti �e. ti ♦ . ti tt ti .♦ a® I te1ti� eI I'�'® tIP eit N'��t�t�el N''�tl� e t ei e ei e� ei , ei s�t ei e� eI. e/ eI a eI PI t♦ ♦ t♦ �tt t♦ t♦ t♦ I t� t♦ ei t st � ei ei ei s� t e ,ei e�i e e ei ei t ei t ii .t♦t:"tsi"t� t:"♦t ♦t:` t♦�tt:"t %,♦t:"♦t;$♦ti,♦,ttte`t:"♦t:"♦t:"♦t♦ t et♦t:"♦t: ♦�♦eo.? t♦e,♦t:�: ueu.tueue�..e eueu u. ®/ euei sue eueueu.eu.eueueueuS ..tueueueu.<..eu.sue 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 11111111 111111111 I II 111111111111111 111111111 1111 111111111111111 111111111 111111111 11 111111111111111 111111111 IIII 111111111111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1111111111111111 111iiiiiilEii■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .� t♦. et et s .�:. � ..met tt ..�♦ � ei. t ei ei ei ei %i I ei ei ei ei ei t ei ei ei ei t e.�� t♦ t♦ t♦ t♦ ,ei .��I�t ei ei ei e ei .e�i♦ ei ei ei ei .i ei ei ei ei ei ei ei .♦ ei ei ei ei ei ei ei .ei e♦"' ei ei ei ei eut...eu.eu.eueueueuS. 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I r �.P 4;�i� aV`�tIIt �♦t��ft t tt♦�e'.♦. et et et et et ei ei ei ei t e�/ t,, t♦ t♦ t♦ ei��� ..aisle t♦ t� t t♦ t♦ t♦ t t t✓ e t � t et � et t ei t I et e� et NEW PAINTED METAL MESH GUARDRAIL, TYP NEW CONCRETE ENTRY STEPS PER PLAN EXISTING COLUMNS Pr - PER PLAN, NEW PAINT EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS W/ NEW PAINT, PER PLAN • 111111111111111111111 1 1 I low I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 NORTH ELEVATION NEW 2X6 WOOD SLATS NEW PAINTED BEAMS & PURLINS SCALE: NEW PAINTED COL., MATCH EXISTING NEW CONCRETE STEPS PER PLAN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COPYING, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT AND PERMISSION FROM IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC. COPYRIGHT 2020, IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DRAWING ISSUE: 21_0423 VARIANCE APPLICATION 21_0305 50% SCHEMATIC DESIGN 21_0316 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PRICING 21 0326 HPC SUBMITTAL A3.2 U J J • CD W a) U a) • mlmo ■ ■ COLO 0- E 0 0 a) 0 a) 0 (0 0_ E N CO O LO 0 co w z z 2 w J J 1- (n w w a X 0 0 co LC) 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 0 4'-0" 8'-0" ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: Planning Commission May 26, 2021 Jan Niemic, Edina Realty Susan L. Eskierka Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment from AP (Agricultural Preservation) to RA (One -Family Residential) 7959 Neal Avenue North AP — Agricultural Preservation Abbi Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: 2021-28 INTRODUCTION Ms. Eskierka owns the property at 7959 Neal Avenue North and is looking to split the 2.33-acre lot into two lots. As the property is a part of an existing subdivision (Trolley Trail Acres), the resubdivision is reviewed and approved by the City Council. However, the property is currently zoned AP — Agricultural Preservation, the zoning district classificaiton it was given at the time it was annexed into the City of Stillwater in January 1, 2015. The purpose(s) of this zoning district is to preserve agrilutural land until urban development occurs. The resubdivision requires rezoning the property. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property from AP (Agricultural Preservation) to RA (One -Family Residential) ANALYSIS City Code requires the Planning Commission must first find that the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The City of Stillwater is a part of the metropolitan area and has been classified as a suburban community. Part of this classification requires the City to develop at a higher density with CPC Case 2021-18 Page 2 of 2 averages of five units per acre over the entirety of the City. To help the City achieve this, we have adopted a Future Land Use Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Plan calls for the property to be developed to the Low Density Residential (LDR) standard, requiring 1-4.4 units per acre. The RA — One Family Residential zoning district, which the applicant has requested this property be rezoned to, is consistent with this zoning district. Furthermore, properties within the vicinity of the subject property are also zoned RA — One Family Residential. Therefore, the proposed Zoning Map Amendment furthers the public welfare and the proposed amendment is in conformance with the land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Recommend approval of the requested Zoning Map Amendment with the following conditions. B. Recommend denial of the requested Zoning Map Amendment. 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 requested Zoning Map Amendment is in conformance with the policies and principles set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, recommends the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Zoning Map Amendment associated with CPC Case No. 2021-18. Attachments: Site Location Map 2019 Zoning Map 2040 Future Land Use Map cc: Susan Eskierka Jan Niemiec Miritionner ..® ■rem .orm 306 !iI'10V1 1 ® 31009 304 m 1 302 224 memo� ® 1205 1206 ®I®u® � 1207 230 QF(�Yj. 1 flflfl®® 202 1 \N �S q7r VVEST WORT 2,9 207 121, ,205 203 f k 205 civ rI20, 201 1212 l . 17 rEtimma ®ErEm � ®�®1ME ® MEMP 1 ME 820 yii �� 104 813 HIflflH! M 109 11p 110 ,07 = iCk7® L 125 �k'® ffliminuntemocre WIL:= '14 minginilli ® ®®�®1111®� , E -303 ®®® 11 M� ME 303 209 ®®®®ron .i�':Or3�'�308 304 ®210® ®® ®®p}®� +R61 . 1F.,...0. ®�®�3 ��®309 mar i� C�L7�1®+ 7I®®® -,®U®®�®® 1206 ®1��1EMOMENUMMIEFIU 1 IIM as :7 �102a@1111@ 1I111E� EUh==i0ill 4 atex, �� 101ip®m® �`1.■hiFIE1 1�s� 001 11 1001 �LJ1 1004 `Rii��iO3 11 1-'1008 1003 w.v �,-eam=='n� c c ��_ �wi r- M • ®®-®2,2 502��� 404 �310 306 ninon �iiR��i l'ri-ANOMME101 ME ® _ 810 _®��eiiii� ® 72®� � I 720 ® - MEM - -_ N • : - - • ���1®�®®ora t��:� o; ���n �� �0 er 409 to p16 Fir rid 1 mmElm 303 cal ITME 506E M� 905 N�� M ®R MEI Enid ® rIEMENTEMEM ®®®�®� N � 110010 ELI is IMMO M. E MEEPkW111,11WIERINPTIMIMMIE11111Frimild 1017 50 0 ' m01 - 5I� , ®� � �� 'L 1201 UUEhiEll15 i ®an BEGO - 1220 ®P nem Elm ---L___J. (,`KIIC IS.-J�O94.-lyQBTX--_ COUNTY ROAD 64 MCKUSI 0-08 3770-78 37 ��itAlMRfr-8 NE-laewM____ VI 1120 gOMI 1140-60 41 11 g- 1141-51 ri iliwater The Birthplace of Minnesota Zoning August, 2019 1,000 500 0 1,000 2,000 Feet District AP: Agricultural Preservation V° LR: Lakeshore Residential �0° CTR: Cove Traditional Residential RA: One Family Residential TR: Traditional Residential o� ' OCR: Cove Cottage Residential � RB: Two Family Residential CR: Cottage Residential � TH: Townhouse Residential CTHR: Cove Townhouse Residential � RCM: Medium Density Residential RCH: High Density Residential CBD: Central Business District VC: Village Commercial +� CA: Commercial BPC: Business Park Commercial BPO: Busness Park Office BPI: Business Park Industrial +� CRD: Campus Research Development if PA: PublicAdministration � PWF: Public Works Facility if PROS: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Parcels Located Outside Stillwater 64 .. U rban Features "N" Municipal Boundary - - Road Centerline G ROW S urface Water _- Lakes and Ponds Rivers S:1Planning\GISlzoning120191Zoning 2019.mxd ■ ■ ■ South Twin Lake MC'KEISICK--RD•N w 75TH ST N 5 tstBLVDW, 0 a 9G 11 Fgq.. o�,SQ\.� gel L,2 ■ PO ▪ Q� 1 • ■ HAZEL ST 6 IIIN111 :11 ■11 }} -_ - 1NI11111111 NIA ■- it a — q% •N 1N1 5•1•11 .1 IN .■�� _I•I 1111�111 1H11111 • IE _ !!=. M11111 111EM 1= i1� ••111E 11I 111M ■_ -11111111N1111Mpia••1H111WIrlL�lrC.l���`SwW����1'I . - III. i1111— • IV s .-. m e• El 60TH ST N ■•1 IIl111N \ mitIII111e ui11111: IIIIIIIIIIEoJI11111111 •1•1111� 5T-W 11 11•111 mommi ••1 �' v •• Ni ■ ■ L �RL•EANSST.Ea 6511H.Sir er ■ ■ z ■ •• • zW pr ■a O • •• 0 ■ • N. • • 95 59TH ST N 21 iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Future Land Use Plan City Limit Future Land Use Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial • Downtown Mixed Use ■ Business Park/Industrial /// Highway Mixed Use Institutional Research, Development Park Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Wetland Open Water ROW Figure 2.11: Future Land Use 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet PLAN OF STILLWATER 0 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 H11111111111 2-19 ijlwater THE B I R T H P L A C E OE MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT DATE: May 11, 2021 CASE NO.: 2021-30 TO: Planning Commission APPLICANT: City of Stillwater REQUEST: Adoption of ordinance to create NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND During the development of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Neighborhood Commercial future land use category was expanded. The 2030 Comp Plan only showed the Liberty Village commercial area and the small office buildings across from Lakeview Cemetery on South 4th Street as Neighborhood Commercial. But in the 2040 Comp Plan this land use category was expanded and in addition to the Liberty Village commercial area, it now includes: 1. The property opposite Liberty Village on the north side of County Road 12; 2. North 4th Street node (between Hickory and Elm); 3. The Greeley and Myrtle node (Lens, Just for Me Spa, Nelsons Ice Cream, Greeley Street Professional Building); 4. Valley Pre -School (413 S Greeley - Formerly Felix's Store); and 5. Blue Sky Yoga (522 South 4th - across from Historic Courthouse). In addition, three commercial nodes that were guided simply as Commercial in 2030 are being reguided to Neighborhood Commercial. These three are: 1. Marathon Gas on North Owens at Wilkins; 2. The Laurel Street node on Owens (Harbor Bar and Stillwater Collision); and 3. The 4th and Churchill node (Meister's Bar, Chilkoot Cafe, etc). Within this expanded Neighborhood Commercial land use category, there are two sub- sets. One is zoned VC, Village Commercial and is envisioned to regulate Liberty Village and the vacant property north of it across County Road 12. The second subset is intended to be for the legacy commercial properties that have seen neighborhood NC Zoning District May 11, 2021 Page 2 oriented commercial uses since the city's Victorian Era. However, there is no zoning district yet to regulate these properties. Instead, most of these properties are zoned residential. This results in a tenuous situation for the business owners, since their properties carry the status of non -conforming "grandfathered". So, a new Zoning District is being proposed: the NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. The legacy commercial properties would be eligible for rezoning to this new district. SPECIFIC REQUEST Review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the attached draft of the NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District ordinance. COMMENTS If the City adopts the proposed NC Zoning District ordinance, this would not automatically result in a rezoning of the individual properties. It would merely create the district. The individual rezonings would be a separate and subsequent action. The proposed ordinance consists of four parts: a) purpose, b) allowable uses, c) lot size and massing, and d) miscellaneous standards. A) Purpose. 1. Preserve traditional neighborhood commercial nodes that provide small scale commercial buildings for neighborhood businesses. 2. Provide small commercial areas within residential neighborhoods that meet residents' daily/weekly needs yet that fit the historical character of the neighborhood. 3. Support the compatible integration of commercial and residential uses that are accessible by walking and biking. B) Allowable Uses. The table of uses allowed in residential zoning districts, Section 31-325 of the Zoning Chapter, will be amended by adding a column for this NC Zoning District. The list of uses in this column generally represents local market goods and services. A "grocery with less than 5,000 square feet of retail area" was added as a new line item to the table of allowed uses and permitted in the NC District. This would allow for an expansion to Leri s but is really too small for a new grocery or food cooperative. A "Banks and financial institutions with no drive through teller" was added as a new line item to the table of allowed uses and permitted in the NC District. C) Lot Size and Massing. NC Zoning District May 11, 2021 Page 3 1. The minimum proposed lot size is 5,000 square feet. This represents the standard lot size of Stillwater's earlier plats when neighborhood stores were at their zenith. And the likelihood that new 5,000 square foot lots would be created for Neighborhood Commercial is not great, since the Future Land Use Map of the Comp Plan only guides existing legacy properties to be zoned NC. Moreover, unless a property is guided by the Comp Plan for these small legacy lots, a property could not be rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial. D) Miscellaneous Standards. 1. Buildings must have at least one functional entry along every public sidewalk. 2. Commercial activities, including food service and seating, may occupy yards. Outdoor commercial activities are prohibited between 10:00 pm and 8:00 am, unless an event permit is issued by the City. 3. Any off-street parking must be located to the rear or side of buildings. 4. Screening shall be provided along property lines abutting residential properties and along off-street parking areas abutting streets. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposed NC Zoning District ordinance to be satisfactory, it could recommend that the City Council adopt it. B. Table If the Planning Commission would like additional information, it could table the review. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the proposed NC Zoning District to be unsatisfactory, it could recommend that the City Council deny it. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the new ordinance, as it appears to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the nature of the legacy commercial properties it intends to regulate. Attachments: NC Ordinance 2040 Land Use Map Zoning Map Division 3. — NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sec. 31-XXX — NC Neighborhood commercial district. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district shall be regulated as follows: (a) Purposes. The purposes of the NC district are to: (1) Preserve traditional neighborhood commercial nodes that provide small scale commercial buildings for neighborhood businesses. (2) Provide small commercial areas within residential neighborhoods that meet residents' daily/weekly needs yet that fit the historical character of the neighborhood. (3) Support the compatible integration of commercial and residential uses that are accessible by walking and biking. (b) Allowable uses. (1) See Table in Sections 331-325 for the allowable uses within this district. (2) Similar uses by conditional use permit. A conditional use permit may be granted for other uses or services determined to be of the same general character as those found in 31-325 for the NC district and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties. The findings of same general character shall be made by the planning commission and the conditional use permit approved and issued by the city council. (c) Massing regulations. (1) Standards Building height, maximum Principal structures 35 feet Accessory structures 20 feet, but not to exceed height of principal structure Lot area, minimum 5,000 sq. ft. Front yard setback, minimum 10 feet Side yard, corner, setback, minimum 10 feet Side yard, internal, setback, minimum 5 feet Rear yard setback, minimum 10 feet Lot coverage (impervious), maximum 80% Landscaping and open space, minimum 0% (2) Additional setback standards Trunk Highway 96 (Stonebridge Trail to Co Rd. 15) 100 feet McKusick Road (Neal Ave. to Co Rd. 15) 100 feet County Rd. 12 (Northland Ave. to Co Rd. 15) 100 feet County Rd. 15 (Trunk Highway 36 to Trunk Highway 96) 100 feet Railroad 75 feet (d) Other requirements: (1) Buildings must have at least one functional entry along every public sidewalk. (2) Commercial activities, including food service and seating, may occupy yards. Outdoor commercial activities are prohibited between 10:00 pm and 8:00 am, unless an event permit is issued by the City. (3) Any off-street parking must be located to the rear or side of buildings. (4) Screening shall be provided along property lines abutting residential properties and along off-street parking areas abutting streets. Sec. 31-325 Allowable Uses in Non -Residential Districts Use Type Uses NC Retail General retail business uses or service; local market 1 P General retail business uses or service; local and regional market Specialty retail, incl. antique shops P Department store Drug store P Interior decorating sales; sale of floor covering, paint, wallpaper, materials and objects of interior decorating P Appliances and furniture, sale of Household goods, sale of (including china) Books, magazines, newspapers, stationary; sale of P Gifts, flowers, photographic supplies; sale of P Tobacco products; sale of Hardware, sale of Sporting goods; sale of Music store P Retail: Food Supermarket, retail food Grocery, <5,000 sf of retail area P Baked goods, manufacture/retail sale of (<_ 5 persons employed) P Baked goods, manufacture/retail sale of (> 5 persons employed) Eating Establishments Restaurants 3 Fast food outlet Tea rooms, deli, coffee shops, soda fountains, not including the sale of alcoholic beverages P Outside eating establishments Drive-in or drive -through: restaurant, eating places or any other use involving a drive-in or drive -through activity Services Barber or beauty shops P Shoe repair shop P Use Type Uses NC Printing shop P Photo processing Tailoring or pressing P Laundry; agencies, self-service, full service, dry cleaning. Laundry employing > 5 persons Carpet, bag and rug cleaning Banks Banks and financial institutions with no drive through teller P Offices Office; general, business or professional P Offices; finance, insurance, editorial or real estate services P Offices; administrative P Offices; business offices that are accessory to permitted uses on the site Office building Consultant services such as advertising, engineering, architects and designers P Radio or television stations Offices; medical and dental Office display or sales space 5 Automotive Automotive sales, service and storage, excluding gasoline filling stations. (See Section 31-515 for performance standards) Service stations or fuel sales (See Section 31-515 for performance standards) Gasoline filling station Auto repair and related services Outdoor Commercial recreational uses Commercial recreational entertainment Amusement and recreational establishments' Outside entertainment, commercial 8 Outside sales or special events 8 Outside storage Commercial nurseries Use Type Uses NC Exterior phonographs, paging systems, musical instruments, etc that may disturb the peace and quiet of the public Parks Trails Park structures 11 Playgrounds Nature preserve Athletic fields with lights 12 Outside tennis courts with lights 13 Outside basketball courts with lights 13 Outside hockey rinks with lights 13 Athletic fields without lights 13 Outside tennis courts without lights Outside basketball courts without lights Outside hockey rinks without lights Recreation center 14 Multiple purpose park building Golf course Golf course club house Dog park Public boat launch Other passive recreational or natural open spaces Parking lot Institutional Schools, business and technical Schools and studios for arts and crafts, photography, music, dance CUP Educational institutions, schools Libraries, art galleries, theaters for the performing arts, and other such cultural facilities Libraries or post office Churches, other places of worship P Day care/nurseries P Group day care P Governmental facilities Fire station Use Type Uses NC Hospitals, convalescent hospitals and nursing homes Hotel or motel Manufacturing Manufacturing, limited 17 Manufacture of baked goods Manufacturing, processing, fabrication or assembling of limited commodity 18 Retail sales of products manufactured on the site 19 Wholesale / storage Wholesale trade Warehousing and outside storage Warehousing and inside storage Mini -storage Industrial Light industrial that is clean and compatible with surrounding properties Limited bottling works 20 Printing & publishing or lithographic shop Laboratories Laboratories Chemical laboratories Research establishment of industrial, medical or scientific nature Research facilities or research laboratories Transportation / public works / etc. Transportation station or terminal Helipads Public works facility including office and meeting space Essential services P Public utility transmission lines and facilities Telephone exchange Parking facilities Private parking facilities > five cars Misc. Funeral home or mortuary Use Type Uses NC Club or lodge Dog Training Facility 26 Residences of all classes CUP Temporary structures Short Term Home Rental; Type A and B P Short Term Home Rental; Type C P Small Wireless Facilities in the Right- of -Way P Wireless Communication Services Towers and Antennae ■ ■ ■ South Twin Lake MC'KEISICK--RD•N w 75TH ST N 5 tstBLVDW, 0 a 9G 11 Fgq.. o�,SQ\.� gel L,2 ■ PO ▪ Q� 1 • ■ HAZEL ST 6 IIIN111 :11 ■11 }} -_ - 1NI11111111 NIA ■- it a — q% •N 1N1 5•1•11 .1 IN .■�� _I•I 1111�111 1H11111 • IE _ !!=. M11111 111EM 1= i1� ••111E 11I 111M ■_ -11111111N1111Mpia••1H111WIrlL�lrC.l���`SwW����1'I . - III. i1111— • IV s .-. m e• El 60TH ST N ■•1 IIl111N \ mitIII111e ui11111: IIIIIIIIIIEoJI11111111 •1•1111� 5T-W 11 11•111 mommi ••1 �' v •• Ni ■ ■ L �RL•EANSST.Ea 6511H.Sir er ■ ■ z ■ •• • zW pr ■a O • •• 0 ■ • N. • • 95 59TH ST N 21 iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Future Land Use Plan City Limit Future Land Use Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial • Downtown Mixed Use ■ Business Park/Industrial /// Highway Mixed Use Institutional Research, Development Park Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Wetland Open Water ROW Figure 2.11: Future Land Use 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet PLAN OF STILLWATER 0 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 H11111111111 2-19 Figure 1.3 : Zoning Map South Twin Lake Innen yr ■a • r �[l,wftsTniiihef— ■erg ---.J P 1■J�i..alrlll ■� T �11. rtl�L,i.A:Imi� j'"D y�11 sr 1 = �s�l�■11 � c� .. Q�a, N1�„%��I� ��1. .� �.c�1tWjit3•� � mir1■c+>:a1►m*� �r �, 111 ■ampyiirmarni .PgI v '� -- ■ 111111■�� " �� + i 09+11Hh �;/ritOrm,��I��r'8+��\' i ■,. 71.1.11n h • y`'• ._�HU n . _ _ .rL �■ ... nt. 21/ r: , k n;;� rr' noire J I■ifi �r. r1� �a1€Ia at• �u��.■ L ■. AIM pew � mw I__� tat �Iry T.+1rIJ • 7iL,t�IIF�11� Illib ___NIPMFASIIAIN i1Pit�/ ■I�a i - N EMI M�M� W �1=_TOIngln.. "VAT— ._ vim; .,� �•� .. . �s� 1m■ I-- 111111 E@I==IILA A1I1111111E!� r11!,":91rS111111ii Ir'lill■111 �\ '_— 111111I!IIII" 1111111 ■mi111a�� - 11■Y�11:M■1111 iriurllrali•� 11 !I"11" "III11■u1.T•�� 51 ��� 0 111c, ■■IR 1111.�IRR!I�!3-!! 6!IiI i mon 9z A♦ _ � v I �,I: ■n17111..!or:, ■■ 1111! 1■ 1M AAA" 1.,.T ilylt ■■ ,,, ■ 1111. III I II_ ��I'! :yam r i �j��Ifn �■� �iC.�.�f�■:1 1r*` r �ilpi• ■I 12 __ ■_-In L,\ �,,1 J 71 ..�a�� y'�' �1 -..,;„ F•A111■I■ m� ■.=I. _ 1 EaL�=1 1 1� Mil 1♦ > ! f II 1F /!•1/ �r :• 11i ■rota. ^ - 11 = _ 1! mitA.owSO tit 11 11111301 r ui i1111i■ ■-1111111111111111■'ja'A ■Ii114• I Inom hi I■ww,m:11 71a 1111� PINE WAY •'�'\LiiGVy II It. McKU._ ■ ME mg ii,i i FIT 1111LIEe 'ri1I■Il= ■IIIIII: \ A / �nn■ W. MOO ST. 1111111fr.:11■■11 W��-�•..».,.. �. - �� 111► >1!�_ �•1 ,.� ■ ORLEANS ■- Ial ■■1■�f .��;:--1■■'i!■11�1� list. • ■!y /. I -7. , y ■ ■■ I 111■■� mum Ili \1 , __ .� ,� 11 «73.i■ .u•, ■ ■■ I; T E II3i1 4 FP • IF a31r 1r. �3■�s1 rui — 11■ 111■1..11dY1.�l,� City of Community Development Department Zoning Map 2030 City Boundary Zoning Districts A-P, Agricultural Preservation RA - Single Family Residential RB - Two Family TR, Traditional Residential LR, Lakeshore Residential CR, Cottage Residential ▪ CTR, Cove Traditional Residential CCR, Cove Cottage Residential j CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential ▪ TH, Townhouse RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential VC, Village Commercial MI CA - General Commercial CBD - Central Business District BP-C, Business Park - Commercial BP-O, Business Park - Office BP -I, Business Park - Industrial IB - Heavy Industrial CRD - Campus Research Development PA - Public Administration TZ - Transitional Zone (Township) Public Works Facility ROAD Railroad WATER November 26, 2008 N Aim�i _ _��+ .iz��. Esc ..._-.mom �-,�s.��■If V, ■■ +swt�� , `�� T TE HW �,��1,LL����Eon1l�i '�� ���,� 1�i El �■�i■• l�iii�"� PLAN OF STILLWATER 0 Chapter 1 : Community Background 1-13