Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-23 CPC PacketSiillwater THE BIRTHPLACE C F M I H H E S CT A PLEASE NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by attending the meeting in person at City Hall, by logging into https://www.zoom2ov.com or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 877 9021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 23rd, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of May 26th, 2021 regular meeting minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 2. Case No. 2021-33: Consideration of Variances to the side yard setback and the total ground coverage of an accessory building, in order to construct a "Porte Cochere.' Property located at 717 Pine St W in the RB- Two Family District. Seema Anwar and Prashant Nayak, property owners. 3. Case No. 2021-34: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed height within the Downtown Height Overlay District. Property located at 223 Main St S in the Central Business District, and the Downtown Height Overlay District. Brandon Larson, applicant and White Bear Ventures, Richard Farrell, property owner. 4. Case No. 2021-35: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum height for a replacement fence in the exterior side yard. Property located at 1025 Sunrise Ave, in the RA- One Family District. Deborah Veitch, property owner. 5. Case No. 2021-36: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an existing Accessory Dwelling Unit above a detached garage; and Variances to the Rear yard setback for an ADU, the location of an ADU within the Exterior Side Yard and the Height of an Accessory Building. Property located at 231 Everett St N in the RB Two Family District. Daniel and Jess Sather, property owners. 6. Case No. 2021-37: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment and a Heritage Preservation Use Variance to allow the property to be used as a real estate sales office. Property located at 626 4' St N in the RB Two Family district. William Griffith, of Larkin and Hoffman, applicant and Tom and Sandra Lynum, property owners. 7. Case No. 2021-38: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, associated Variances and lot line adjustment to construct a new residential apartment building on the property located at 107 3' St N and 110 Myrtle St E in the Central Business District. Nathan Landucci, applicant, Jon Whitcomb and Mark and Cathy Balay, property owners. 8. Case No. 2021-39: Consideration of a Variance to the Shoreland Overlay districts maximum impervious surface to construct a deck. Property located at 1860 White Pine CT in the Traditional Residential District. Kyle Randolph, property owner. 9. Case No. 2021-40: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow amplified outdoor music and commercial recreational uses on the property located at 123 2' St N Suite 102 in the Central Business District. Sara Jespersen, applicant and Judd Sather, property owner. VIII. DISCUSSION IX. FYI — STAFF UPDATES 10. Boards and Commission Picnic X. ADJOURNMENT ilivater THE 1INTN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 26, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Vice Chair Dybvig called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. Present: Vice Chair Dybvig, Commissioners Hansen, Hoffman, Knippenberg, Meyhoff, Steinwall, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to elect Commissioner Dybvig as Chair and Commissioner Hansen as Vice Chair. All in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of April 28. 2021 regular meeting Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2021 meeting. Motion passed 5-0-2 with Commissioners Hoffman and Knippenberg abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2021-17: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances for a two story residential addition located at 225 2nd Street N, in the Central Business District. Nat Shea, Tanek. Inc., applicant and Archangel Assets 4 LLC, property owner. Ms. Wittman reviewed the application. At the last 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 two stories to the single -story structure; each of the two new stories is proposed to be constructed to various property lines consistent with the building's footprint. On May 19, 2021 the Heritage Preservation Commission tabled the Design Permit Application until design modifications were made. As the use (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 approve the request with nine conditions, with some modifications to the originally proposed conditions including dropping the condition requiring Planning Commission May 26, 2021 a Design Permit prior to submittal of a building permit application. A letter of opposition to the height variance was received from Tom Wortman. Commissioner Steinwall asked why Condition #2, that the project should obtain a Design Permit prior to submittal of the building permit, is being dropped. City Planner Wittman said she included in Condition #1 that the design would be reviewed and approved as part of a HPC Design Permit simply because it seemed redundant. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Case No. 2021- 17, Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances for a two story residential addition located at 225 2nd Street N, with the nine staff -recommended conditions as revised in the staff report, plus adding back in Condition #2, stating the project shall obtain a Design Permit prior to the submittal of a Building Permit, for a total of 10 conditions. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicants 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 square feet of impervious surface coverage, requiring a 3.1% coverage variance to allow the impervious coverage to be 28.1% (or 3,422 square feet), whereas the maximum impervious surface coverage is 25%. Staff finds the proposed deck and concrete slab meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and practical difficulties have been established, therefore staff recommends approval of the variances with three conditions. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if the homeowners' association was notified of the request. Ms. Wittman replied that homeowners' association was notified and approval will be required. Katie Clark, applicant, said they were not aware before purchasing the house that the deck would require a variance. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2021-23, Variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage to build a deck at 2685 White Pine Way, with the three staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2021-24: Consideration of a Use Permit for a mural on the property located at 125 Main St S in the Central Business District. Ross Larson, property owner. City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. Ross Larson of Nordic LUV LLC is requesting a Special Use Permit to install a 96 square foot metal panel graphic design sign on the side of his building. She showed a slightly revised design for the sign. On April 21, 2021 the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) approved a Design Permit. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Commissioner Steinwall asked if the revised image needs to go back before the HPC. Ms. Wittman said she would not consider the changes to be substantial. Page 2 of 8 Planning Commission May 26, 2021 Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve Case No. 2021-24, Special Use Permit for a mural at 125 Main St S with the three staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2021-25: Consideration of a Variance to the exterior side yard setback to build two new residential duplex buildings at 201 Olive St W in the RB district. Ron Brenner, of Ron Brenner Architects, applicant and Todd and Laurel Anderson, Greeley Commercial LLC, property owners. Ms. Wittman stated that 201 Olive Street West is currently a vacant property due to the previous house getting destroyed by fire. The original home was on two separate lots. The property owner has requested administrative lot line adjustment approval to rotate the property line 90 degrees so that the properties will be oriented east and west of each other. This would create two properties, over 10,000 square feet each, that both front Olive Street. The lot line adjustment may be approved by staff administratively. 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 6.5' into the exterior side yard setback. The applicant is requesting a 13' variance for the front deck and a 6.5' variance for the house to allow a two-family home's deck to be set back 7' and the house to be set back 13.5' from the exterior side yard lot line, whereas the required setback is 20 feet. The City received one letter of objection from the property owner at 316 4th St South, asking that the project be shifted to the west as to not impede access to the backside of their property. However, the City will be improving the Fourth Street right of way (ROW) in 2022, thereby improving accessibility. The HPC reviewed the application and granted conditional approval of a Design Permit. Staff finds the proposed two-family house meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and practical difficulties have been established, and therefore staff recommends approval of the variances with three conditions. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if the property owner is aware that an assessment will occur as part of the City's 4th Street improvement in 2022. Ms. Wittman replied the 4th Street improvement won't go in front of their property. Assessments are based on frontage, however because this property does not front a street, she is not sure how assessments work in a circumstance like this. Commissioner Hansen asked if the 4th Street improvement was planned regardless of whether this property would be developed. Ms. Wittman answered she does not know the improvement schedules for the engineering department, however detailed planning for the 2022 4th Street project had not started yet at the time of this application. Todd Anderson, Greeley LLC, applicant, stated that he has been discussing the need for improvement of 4th Street with the City Engineer for the past two years. Architect Ron Brenner offered to answer questions. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Page 3 of 8 Planning Commission May 26, 2021 Rick Hughes, 219 West Olive Street, said he understands the developer is following the prescribed process. He likes the home design but wished the developer had contacted the neighbors. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Councilmember Odebrecht said it is prudent to talk to neighbors before applying for a project. Commissioner Hansen said it makes more sense for the City to vacate this portion of 4th Street. The 4th Street improvement is basically improving a driveway because it services only this property. Commissioner Steinwall agreed. If 4th Street were vacated, a variance would not be needed. City Planner Wittman said that street vacations have not been viewed favorably in recent years because of increasing demand for public land uses like trails. Because of the storm sewer challenges on this property, 4th Street will be used to help accommodate drainage probably on a surface level, so at this point staff would probably not support vacation of the roadway. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2021-25, Variance to the exterior side yard setback to build two new residential duplex buildings at 201 Olive St W with the three conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2021-26: Consideration of a Variance to the parking requirement for a multifamily residence at 115 Martha St S. Martin and Elizabeth Widenbrant. property owners. Ms. Wittman explain the application. This two-family home is currently being converted back into a three-family home. The parking requirement for a three-family home is six spots (rounded up from 5.5 spots), three of which must be covered spots. The existing house has an attached garage which can fit two cars and a carport which can fit two additional cars. The driveway itself can fit more two cars. At present, the applicant is meeting the parking requirements. However, parking three cars deep and only two cars wide is impractical for a three-family house. The applicants would like to widen the driveway and stop utilizing the attached garage, 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. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow there to be two covered parking spots (three covered spots required). Staff finds that the proposed parking arrangement meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and practical difficulties have been established. Therefore staff recommends approval of the variance with three conditions. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve Case No. 2021-26, Variance to the parking requirement for a multifamily residence at 115 Martha St S with the three staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2021-27: Consideration of Variances to the side and rear yard setback to expand the patio at 225 Main St N in the Central Business district and the Flood Fringe Overlay District. Sara and Jeremy Imhoff. applicants and Frank Fabio of Mainstreet, LLC Property owner. Ms. Wittman explained that 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. A patio remodel and expansion, closer to Water Street North and located in the Rear Yard Setback area, is proposed. The applicant is requesting Page 4 of 8 Planning Commission May 26, 2021 consideration of a Variance to the 20' Rear Yard setback for the construction of an elevated patio addition. The HPC approved the patio design. Staff finds that the expansion of the patio is reasonable and that the project, with certain conditions, conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of variances. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Commissioner Hansen asked if a condition should be added about enclosing the trash area. Ms. Wittman stated there is currently an unenclosed trash area shared with Forge & Foundry. She has connected River Siren with Forge & Foundry and advised that the trash needs to be screened. The enclosure of trash is a condition of approval of Forge & Foundry's use. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to approve Case No. 2021-27, Variances to the side and rear yard setback to expand a patio at 225 Main St N with the three conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #4 stating that trash must be enclosed. All in favor. 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. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. Ms. Eskierka is looking to split the 2.33-acre lot into two lots. The property is currently zoned AP - Agricultural Preservation, so the resubdivision requires rezoning from AP (Agricultural Preservation) to RA (One -Family Residential). Staff finds the 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. 2021-28. Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2021-28, Resubdivision and Zoning Amendment for a new development at the property located at 7959 Neal Ave N. All in favor. Case No. 2021-30: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment for the creation of a Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. City of Stillwater, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that 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. Three commercial nodes that were guided simply as Commercial in 2030 are being re -guided to Neighborhood Commercial. Within this expanded Neighborhood Commercial land use category, there are two subsets. 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 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." A new Zoning District is being proposed: the NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. The legacy Page 5 of 8 Planning Commission May 26, 2021 commercial properties would be eligible for rezoning to this new district. The Planning Commission is asked to review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the draft of the NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District ordinance. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if Valley Preschool wanted to convert to a single family home under this new zoning code, what would be the process? Ms. Wittman replied properties currently zoned RA or RB could be converted to single family residential. Once rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial, then they could not switch back to that residential use except by Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Steinwall pointed out that there would still be some current uses that, even after rezoning, would still be nonconforming, so this does not clean up all the nonconforming uses. Commissioner Hansen noted that in talking about this in Comp Plan meetings, the primary reason for creating this zone is to preserve these pocket commercial neighborhoods, not to create more, but to not lose such areas that exist now. Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Dybvig closed the public hearing. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if there is a way to narrow the definition of "substantially similar" uses in order to protect historic uses and places but not to allow a situation, for instance, where Len's burns down and a small footprint Best Buy store goes in its place. Ms. Wittman noted that almost all the properties under consideration are in the Neighborhood Conservation District where new infill homes require review by the HPC. The Design Guidelines are being updated. Perhaps the HPC Design Guidelines for the commercial historic district could be utilized in these pocket commercial areas. Commissioner Hansen pointed out the power of a Conditional Use Permit is that the Commission reviews it. Commissioner Steinwall suggested rather than using the word "similar," the language be clarified to actually identify those uses that could be approved with a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Hansen agreed, but added there may be future new uses that are not yet envisioned today. He is not opposed to adding more allowable uses but is leery of removing the term "substantially similar." Ms. Wittman stated that every non-residential zoning district, except the parks, recreation and open space district, has language allowing "substantially similar" uses by Conditional Use Permit. Language should be kept in line with existing districts for consistency, or consider an amendment to apply to all districts across the board. Staff appreciates the flexibility that this phrase provides. Chair Dybvig said it would be useful to not have the list of uses be too wide. Moving forward, the use table should be reviewed. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to table Case No. 2021-30, Zoning Text Amendment for the creation of a Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District, to further review the language, exploring the definition of "similar." Ms. Wittman asked for clarification on the intent. Page 6 of 8 Planning Commission May 26, 2021 Councilmember Odebrecht said he would like to avoid allowing a scaled down version of a large department store in any residential district. He is not comfortable allowing certain uses without the review provided by a Conditional Use Permit. He would like most of the permitted uses to be converted to Conditional Use Permits. Ms. Wittman stated that having all uses be by Conditional Use Permit, while providing the ability for review, also makes the district more restrictive. Councilmember Odebrecht said he is comfortable with that restrictiveness because it is in a residential district. Commissioner Steinwall said she would not be in favor of converting most of the uses to Conditional Use Permits. The Commission also should ask the City Attorney for further clarification on the recommended language. Ms. Wittman suggested the Commission consider appointing a committee to work on language with staff. Councilmember Odebrecht volunteered to work with staff on a committee and would like to include the new Community Development Director also. Commissioner Hansen suggested taking a straw vote on the motion to table, before further discussion. Commissioner Hoffman said it makes sense to further review the proposed amendment. Commissioner Knippenberg asked if the application is time -sensitive. Ms. Wittman said the Met Council asks cities to complete this within nine months but considering the City's staffing issues, taking time with the amendment and ensuring Council and community support is fine. Commissioners Steinwall and Knippenberg and Chair Dybvig said they would be happy to assist on the committee to study this. Commissioner Hansen pointed out it is the responsibility of every Commissioner to take a good look at the language. Motion to table (noted above) passed 5-2 with Commissioners Hansen and Meyhoff voting nay. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that City Hall will reopen to the public June 1, 2021. In person meetings will probably resume in July. The City is expected to have a new Community Development Director in place beginning Friday: Tim Gladhill, from Ramsey, Minnesota. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: John Dybvig, Chair Page 7 of 8 Planning Commission May 26, 2021 Abbi Wittman, City Planner Page 8 of 8 iliwater THE B f FIT H P L A C E OF MINNESOIA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-33 June 17, 2021 June 23, 2021 Seema Anwar and Prashant Nayak Seema Anwar and Prashant Nayak a) Variances to the following: 1. The side yard setback 2. The total ground coverage of the accessory buildings to exceed 1,000 square feet. 717 Pine Street West RB, Two -Family Residential Laura Chamberlain, Planning Consultant, HKGi Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Seema Anwar and Prashant Nayak own the property at 717 Pine Street West. They are proposing to construct a 12' X 45' (540 sf) attached carport on the western side of their existing home. The carport is proposed to serve as shelter over the existing driveway, which sits 1'-5" from the west property line and connects to the existing detached garage in the southwest corner of the lot, also sitting 1'-5" from the west property line. Carports are considered the same as garages in the City Code and attached carports are allowed in RB — Two Family residential zoning. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting: ■ A 3'-7" variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1) to allow the attached carport to be setback 1'-5" from the west side lot line, whereas the required side yard setback is at least 5 • A 24 sf variance to City Code Section 31-308. (a). (3).i. to allow the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings including attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings (1,024 sf) to be greater than 1,000 sf. CPC Case 2021-33 Page 2 of 5 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. An attached carport/private garage is permitted as an accessory use in the RB district. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? Side yard setback The specific purpose of a side yard setback is to have uniform patterned development in the front of properties, keeping unobstructed areas for consistent, uniform street design and adequate onsite infiltration. Accessory building lot coverage The specific purpose of the accessory building lot coverage is to prevent properties from becoming overly occupied with accessory structures, allowing properties to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Exterior side yard setback The applicant is asking for a 3'-7" variance to the side yard setback to allow the carport to be built with a 1'-5" setback instead of the required 5' setback. This puts the carport over the existing driveway, which is also setback 1'-5" from the side lot line; the existing detached garage also sits at 1'-5" from the side lot line. The RB district standards are established to recognize that the historic location of buildings in relationship to parcel lines don't necessarily conform with our modern approaches to zoning. As such, the existing house sits very close to the west side yard, and similarly the adjacent property to the west has a large eastern side yard, ensuring that the spacing between structures is still adequate. In conclusion, a variance to allow the structure to be located within the side yard setback is in harmony with the intent of the zoning code. While allowing the variance for a reduced side yard is not out of harmony with the zoning code, the Building Department has noted that eaves of new construction or additions may not be closer than 2' from the property line. As such, the variance allowed should reflect the standards of the Building Department. Accessory building lot coverage The existing garage is 484 square feet, and the proposed additional 540 square feet of carport would bring the total garage area to 1,024 square feet. Standard garage parking spaces are typically 11' x 22' (242 sf) each; if the carport is to cover two parking spaces, the effect could be achieved with slightly smaller dimensions that bring it under zoning conformance. The CPC Case 2021-33 Page 3 of 5 requested variance will be out of harmony with the zoning code, as there is no circumstance specific to this lot that would necessitate allowing over 1,000 sf of garage. 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 carport over an existing driveway will not adversely impact the Comprehensive Plan's goals for this historic area. 3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? A single family residence with an accessory garage and carport is a reasonable use for the property. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The uniqueness of this property is the location of the existing house in relationship to the side lot lines. The lot is relatively large, but because of the historic platting practices of the time, the house has a very small western side yard and a large eastern side yard. The driveway and garage access to the site also exist on the western, narrow side yard. This limits any garage expansion or carport addition to the very narrow side yard, triggering the need for a variance. Regarding the total size of attached and detached garages, the applicant has not demonstrated a circumstance unique to the property to justify a variance of 24 sf over the maximum of 1,000 sf. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner did not construct any of the existing structures on the property or locate the driveway access on the western side yard. The property owner has submitted a carport addition to the house that will fit with the historic design of the property and still serve the purpose of providing shelter over the existing driveway. However, the need for the specific size of the carport to exceed the 1,000 sf maximum of garage area has been created by the landowner. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? It is staff's opinion that the carport being proposed will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The carport addition is behind the exterior front yard line of the house and aligns with the existing driveway and garage. CPC Case 2021-33 Page 4 of 5 e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for a carport addition does not reflect economic considerations alone. PUBLIC COMMENT There has been no public comment for this case. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve: If the Planning Commission finds the associated Variance is consistent with the standards set forth for the establishment of practical difficulty, the Commission could move to approve the Variance, with or without conditions. B. Approve in part. If the Planning Commission finds the associated Variance request is partially consistent with the standards set forth for the establishment of practical difficulty, the Commission could move to approve in part the Variance, with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall resubmit site plans to show the carport addition to be no closer to the western side lot line than 2' (two feet), measured from the eaves of the carport. 2. The cumulative area of the detached garage and proposed carport shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. 3. The proposed carport shall not cause additional stormwater drainage onto the adjacent property to the west; the applicant shall be advised that if additional stormwater drainage results from the proposed carport, the City shall require gutters or some other building feature to divert stormwater and runoff. 4. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the carport addition. 5. The height of the roof of the carport shall not be higher than the bottom of the second story windows on the existing home. 6. The design and materials of the carport shall match those of the existing home. 7. 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. C. Deny. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the standards set forth for the granting of variances, then the Commission could deny the request in whole or in part. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. D. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be tabled. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION CPC Case 2021-33 Page 5 of 5 Staff finds that, with conditions of approval, the proposed carport meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance to the side yard setback, however, in light of the input from the City of Stillwater Building Department, staff recommend a variance of three feet (3') (rather than 3'-7"), allowing a setback of 2' from the west side lot line, measured from the eaves of the carport. The primary reasons for staff's recommendation of the amended variance are: - The property's existing layout, with the existing house being so close to the western side lot line, and the existing detached garage and driveway access also on the western side makes it impossible to construct an effective carport over the driveway without a variance. This proves uniqueness and that the property owner did not create this situation. - The adjacent property to the west has a large side yard on the shared lot line, so the carport will not be intrusive to the neighboring structure Furthermore, staff finds that the requested variance to exceed the total allowed square footage of 1,000 square feet for garages does not meet the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. With that, staff recommend denial of the variance; the primary reasons for staff's recommendation to deny are: The applicant has not demonstrated what unique circumstances of the property would require such a variance. The dimensions of the carport addition can be modified to bring the total garage area on the lot under 1,000 square feet and still be large enough to cover the equivalent of two parking spaces Therefore, staff recommends approval of the amended variance for a side yard setback with the conditions identified in Alternative B, above and denial of the garage square footage variance. Attachments: Location map Applicant Narrative (two pages) Site plan of existing conditions Site plan of proposed garage cc: Seema Anwar and Prashant Nayak ,< . Q . - S . t _ ti g 1t ilwater of AO31 1 • q . t � 1 ;,+. 'klirF i "> <4y� . RRf r' The Birthplace of Minnesota 810 804 ' r }, '. tat Vac 722 !!rk y 712• .. w , ; . a S Site Location , ' --71 717 Pine St W fj,,�, 2 • 0 ' yyr• 71 sty '`�1 ��ayHvF.�s '09 ' �t 05 rr .,..� q ix,., 0 50 100 200 Feet I ;iv ' ` !f ex i ! Y .fix General Site Location \' , - -,, mime i� f 511 ' '� ; Ie: E ' a:.—Thal� � I III J._PP E II. n1lLt ► trI�• •�� ���glA11l el.. � � ice.. y 11111i .�. Bryn $ ^. - 1 — us:+�: s.•. ; I• � ,. yid 806 a 4 TP �- •, r. r III®®® i a 5/5/21, 9:44 AM Dear Graham, Attached is our planning application, existing site plan and proposed site plan and personal narrative explaining need for variance. Narrative: We are requesting a variance to build an attached carport with a 1' 5" allowance from our property line. Our situation is unique in that the house sits so far to the west side leaving only 15' between our house and property line allowing room for a very narrow driveway. The current garage situation allows us to park only one car inside because of the side porch entrance jut out that doesn't leave enough room to angle in 2nd vehicle. Because the second car is parked outside, winter snow poses an inconvenience in that each morning snow has to be cleared off 1st car and backed up before 2nd car in garage can be driven. Additionally, the neighbors pine trees overhang our driveway dropping pine needles, pine cones and sticky sap on our car and leaving debris on the driveway. The proposed porte-cochere would eliminate the need to clear off snow from the car each morning and help keep driveway and car clean of debris and sap from the trees. There is no other location on the property to construct larger covered driveway or expand current garage leaving this porte-cochere as our only option. https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/sentitems/id/AQMkADAwATE2ZjI...RJw7iVZOTBgQAAACAQkAAADywRxtmC%2BnRJw7iVZOTBgQAARVHEZ%2FAAAA Page 3 of 4 5/5/21, 9:44 AM The proposed site plan shows the dimensions and elevation of the porte-cochere. It would be built to match the style of our Victorian home with similar style wood posts as are on our front porch. It would have a roof material to match what's on the home's roof. Thank you for your consideration. Seema Anwar & Prashant Nayak Get Outlook for iOS https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/sentitems/id/AQMkADAwATE2ZjI...RJw7iVZOTBgQAAACAQkAAADywRxtmC%2BnRJw7iVZOTBgQAARVHEZ%2FAAAA Page 4 of 4 PINE STREET WEST • 38'--r' 5'-0" SIDE YARD •, SET5A :K 1 .I I I 1►_5„ GARAGE EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20'_0" SITE ADDRESS: 111. PINE STREET WEST PI D#: 28. 030. 20. 34. 0058 LOT SIZE: 88X 135' + : 11,9&a.0. SQ.FT. IMPERVIOUS: 4,220 SQ.FT. (35%) NO�TI-I PINE STREET WEST 1 r— .;� �o� t:; YARD SETBACK 1'-5 1'-5" i i w AC 0 0 W 0_ 38'—l" GARAGE • PROPOSED SITE PLAN � SCALE: i � = 2A�_Q� I- SCALE: 1 "20'-0" Water THE BIRTHPLACE OF M I N N E S O 1 A PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: CPC-2021-34 MEETING DATE: June 23rd, 2021 APPLICANT: Brandon Larson LANDOWNER: White Bear Ventures (Richard Farrell) REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed height within the Downtown Height Overlay District LOCATION: 223 Main Street South DISTRICT: CBD (Central Business District); within the Downtown Height Overlay District REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Richard Farrell, with White Bear Ventures, is renovating the second and third stories of his building, and in doing so is proposing to relocate an existing stairway roof access and elevator on the building's rooftop to the northwest corner. Also proposed is an approximately 250 sf vestibule to accompany the stairs and elevator. This property is located in the Downtown Height Overlay District, and will require a variance to the height limitations. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance to: ➢ City Code Section 31-403. (b). (3). 1. to allow the height of a building, with an elevator, stairway and vestibule, to be 59', whereas the maximum height allowed is 37' ➢ City Code Section 31-403. (b). (3). 1. to allow the building to be four stories, whereas three stories is the maximum in this overlay district. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 6/23/2021 Page 2 1. 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? Many of the buildings in Stillwater's Downtown have rooftop access. Allowing stairway and elevator access to the roof top is using this property in a reasonable manner and outright permitted in the Zoning Code so long as these improvements are integral to the building. The proposed 250sf vestibule, considered to be additional living/occupied space, is quite large and at the proposed height is a bit unreasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property is already taller than the maximum height allowed, so any improvements in excess of integral accesses on the roof would require a variance. Also unique to this property is the configuration of the existing stairway (discussed below) and that the existing elevator is unable to be brought into compliance with building code. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The building was built in the 19ih century and its existing height and interior configurations were not the doing of the landowner. Currently, the stairway is set up so that one cannot obtain rooftop access from all the floors and down to the street access, without having to access the third floor's occupied space to reach the roof (which interrupts the building's businesses). d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The existing building is already above the maximum allowed height, for it stands at 45'. Furthermore, in agreement with the HPC's recommendation, City staff feels that if the stairwell and elevator exit and storage area were reduced in square footage and contain an interior height of seven feet, it would have far less of a visual impact on the building's sightline. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? The lone consideration here is not economic. The owner would like to provide more efficient rooftop access and construct a rooftop storage space. 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? Central Business District Height Overlay the purpose of this regulation is to preserve and enhance the essential character of the downtown and to ensure that structures be limited in height in order that structures close to the river not rise above the height of structures farther from the river. In other words, the regulation, in part, attempts to prevent 6/23/2021 Page 3 any buildings obstructing the views from either the land to the river or from the river to the downtown streetscape. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Stillwater Zoning Code does allow for improvements above the roofline, so long as they are customary and incidental to the building's use. Though, a variance to allow all of these improvements to be at a height of 14' 1" above the roof deck would be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. Staff and the HPC recommendation feel that if the height and area integral improvements did not exceed the code compliant minimums for ADA accessibility, the request would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. Thus, if the storage area was reduced to a minimum code compliant walkway, reducing the overall mass, then the improvement would be in harmony with the Zoning Code. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. 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 CBD, Central Business District. This building is a multiuse building with commercial on the lower level and residential above. These are permitted uses in this district'. The rooftop access is customary and incidental to the building's use. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval. 2. The stairwell and elevator must be integral to the building and installed at the time of 4th story storage area. 3. The storage area will be limited to a minimum code compliant walkway. 4. No height improvements can exceed the code compliant minimums for ADA accessibility. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. 'Uses are allowed with a Special Use Permit. The existing uses were approved by cases CPC-1991-6, A-328-CPC and A-92-CPC 6/23/2021 Page 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that if the area and height of improvements did not exceed the code compliant minimums for ADA accessibility, the request would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code, nor would there be flagrant changes to the characteristic of the building or the Downtown District (and its sightline). Therefore, staff recommends approving the request for a 22' variance to the height of the building, within the Downtown Height Overlay District, with the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative (two pages) Floor Plans for the roof (three pages) cc: Richard Farrell Brandon Larson �AIk o�f ' f �!�'Mil , Z' IIIE ,IIIIhnnlMI ,Lt�iim. il-..: .I IIl���I,►` �` �� S. Letter to the Planning Commission regarding 223 Main St S Stillwater, MN 55082 Members of the Planning Commission, I am drafting this letter to inform the Planning Commission on the intended and proposed changes to the property at 223 Main St. S in Stillwater. This building is believed to have been built in the 1880's. This is a three-story red brick Classical Revival style commercial building with Red sandstone trim and sandstone banding between second and third floors. It is topped by an elaborate broad metal paired bracketed and paneled swag parapet with dentils. Second and third story windows are newer, original opening still intact. The store front is altered with newer brick and clapboard in the Transom above main entrance. This building is mixed use with a Bakery currently operating out of the 1st floor space. 2nd and 3' floors are residential and will be owner occupied. The proposed changes include: - Moving the 3rd floor to roof stair access from the middle of the space on 3rd floor to the existing stairwell located at the Northwest end of the building. In doing this we can obtain rooftop access from all floors and down to the street entrance without having to access 3rd floor occupied space to reach the roof. This will make general maintenance of roof top mechanical equipment much more accessible for repairs or replacement without having to interrupt businesses or residents of the building. The stairs can also then be built to current building codes and life safety measures achieved. - Moving the existing Elevator from the current location and putting it next to the existing stairwell at the Northwest end of the building. (Existing elevator cannot be brought up to code) By moving this elevator location we can remove the peaked roof mass near the parapet on the East side of the roof. The new elevator will be brought to the original placement at the construction of the building. This elevator will be able to service all floors of the building. - Adding a "Covered Vestibule" approximately 250 +/- square feet to receive the elevator stop at the roof, also receive the relocated stairway to the roof from 3rd. This space will provide a covered entrance to the roof, house the elevator and stairway. Our goal for this is to allow enough clear space for the exit of the stairwell and elevator. - This structure will be comprised of the material previously approved by the HPC and board. o Exterior Facade to be dark, subdued standing seam metal o Aluminum soffit and fascia o Windows and door frame to be dark and subdued. Please see sheet A4.FL of attached Architectural drawings for the details - This structure is designed to have a flat EPDM roof to minimize the overall height. The height of this structure will be the minimum allowed by building code. A gable roof design we believe would cause more attention to the structure and is not inline with the current roof design of the building. As the roof sits right now the existing stair and elevator doghouses are not contributing to the historical look of the building. These were installed years after the initial construction of the building. The original elevator shaft location is where we intend to put the new elevator bringing it back to its original location in the building. We believe that these additions that are scattered on the roof are not physically appealing as it currently sits. Our intention is to remove those later additions making for a cleaner organized look going from three structures to one. Please see the attached Architectural drawings for the exact location and look of the proposed structure with updated street view rendering. Our overall intent in constructing this space is to clean up the roof as it sits, make the roof much more accessible than it is right now for future patrons/residents of 223 Main St, bring all means of access and egress up to code centralizing them into one location, and finally making it both useful and appealing to all that can use it and see it. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. OWNER B MAIN STREET MAIN STREET ADD - ABOVE PARAPET �4 5. 1 RESIDENCE ACCESS ONLYADD- LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION NEW FLIGHT OF STAIRS FROM 3RD FLOOR TO ROOF TOP FOR F RELL n 2 HR RATED SHAFT FOR STAIR AND FUTURE ELEVATOR ROOFTOP 403 O O O MAX. COMMON PATH OF EGRESS ADD - TRAVEL DISTANCE- 94'1" < 125' P IBCTABLE 1006.2.1 ER n n r ROOF PLAN A4.FL SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0" NORTH UP ROOFTOP 20 O lox LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION /\ O ROOFTOP 403 0 O O O O n n 11 C4.FL PENTHOUSE 2 2 ROOF PLAN SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0" NORTH FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES 1 7. FIRE ESCAPE LADDER TO 8. BELOW 9. 10. WATER STREET 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. SUMP PIT CLOSE OPENING ON ROOF, CLOSE THE FLOOR AND CEILING, FILL THE OPENING WITH 1-HR RATED FLOORING REF DETAIL 2/A6.1 FRAME IN FOR FUTURE ELEV SHAFT, UTILITY DUCT, GREASE DUCT EXISTING 4X4 WALLS, ADD 2 LAYERS OF $" TYPE "X" GYP BD. REF D2, D3 WALL TYPE EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN, REFACE AND REPAINT ON INTERIOR SIDE ANDERSEN 200 SERIES DOUBLE -HUNG WINDOWS, WHITE EXTERIOR AND UNFINISHED PINE INTERIOR, 39-1/2" X 59-1/2". ANDERSEN OUTSWING FOLDING DOOR, TRADITIONAL STYLE, 3 PANELS - EACH 3'-0" X 7'. FOLD IN TOWARDS STAIR. ANDERSEN 400 SERIES DOUBLE -HUNG WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING WINDOWS. DOOR 301 TO BE 3'X8', DOORS 310 AND 201 TO BE 90 MIN RATED DOOR AND FRAME WITH CLOSER AND GASKET DOOR 401 TO BE 3' WIDE DOOR, 90 MIN RATED DOOR AND FRAME WITH CLOSER AND GASKET. VERIFY DOOR HEIGHT WITH OWNER EXISTING DECK AND GUARDRAIL TO REMAIN STACKABLE WASHER/DRYER ELECTRICAL PANEL MOP SINK EXISTING ROOF DRAINS TO REMAIN. ALL NEW PATHWAYS TO BE 10' MIN FROM PARAPET WALL, WITH WALKING PADS AT PATHWAYS ROOF TOP UNIT REPAIR ROOF AREAS AS NEEDED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS, EXISTING EPDM ROOF TO REMAIN NEW SILL AT DOORWAY TO BE 8" HIGH TO MEET MANUFACTURER'S INDUSTRY STANDARD FLASHING HEIGHT. COORDINATE SILL HEIGHT WITH NEW FLOOR HEIGHT AND STAIR LANDING AT PENTHOUSE PENTHOUSE TO HAVE EPDM ROOF WITH CODE APPROVED SLOPE AND SCUPPER TO DRAIN ONTO MAIN ROOF GUTTER AND DOWN SPOUT 22. REPAIR/RESEAL JOINTS BETWEEN THE CAP STONES AT PARAPETD WALL. AT DAMAGED CHIMNEY CAPS, PROVIDE PLYWOOD UNDERLAYMENT AND FULLY SOLDERED CHIMNEY CAP FOR WATERTIGHTNESS 21. FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES A. INSTALL ANDERSEN DOORS AND WINDOWS PER MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS B. EXISTING ROOF DRAINS AND OVERFLOW SCUPERS TO REMAIN TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE. ROOFER TO PROVIDE TAPERED INSULATION LAYOUT SUBMITTAL FOR ALL NEW/EXISTING ROOFING TO BE INSTALLED FIRE ESCAPE LADDER TO BELOW WATER STREET FARRELL RESIDENCE REMODEL 223 MAIN STREET SOUTH, STILLWATER 00• AUROMIRA ARCHITECTS 13754, FRONTIER COURT, SUITE 101 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 a u ro m i ra a rc h i to cts . co m B I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota pursuant to MR 1800 and 1805 Name: Mythili Thiagarajan Date: 10/23/2020 Reg. No: 42440 12/11/2020 ADDENDUM-3 11/06/2020 ADDENDUM-2 10/23/2020 ADDENDUM-1 9/28/2020 PERMIT SET 9/28/2020 CHECK SET DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: DRAWN BY: MT CHK'D BY: MT COPYRIGHT: AUROMIRA ARCHITECTS LLC SHEET TITLE ROOF PLAN SHEET NO. A4.FL OWNER MAIN STREET IJMITS OF CONSTRUCTION UP 0 0 O 10 SQ FT 0 ADD- ® ,JJ-/ 43 SQ FT II 55.7 SQ FT O O 0 10SQFT O rr--- -]1 84.8 SQ FT O 10S FT Q FT O 1 0 SQ F FT O O O O 1 132.4 SQ FT ROOF DEMOLITION PLAN A2.Dy SCALE:3/16"=1'-0" NORTH FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS LEGEND EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW CASEWORK EXISTING WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING CASEWORK TO REMAIN EXISTING DOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW WALL EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN NEW DOOR i(\ EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN NEW POCKET DOOR 5'-0�� DIMENSION LINE, NOMINAL O KEYED NOTE 4' PRIVATE OFFICE ROOM NAME AND NUMBER ENTRY NUMBER Mil Kil 1A SECTION REFERENCE TAG 1A ELEVATION REFERENCE TAG 500 500 REVISION CLOUD GRIDLINE FIRE ESCAPE LADDER TO BELOW WATER STREET DEMOLITION PLAN KEYED NOTES 1. REMOVE STAIR 2. REMOVE ELEVATOR SHAFT ADD . EXISTING TALL CHIMNEY TO REMAIN. REPAIR CHIMNEY AND CAP TO ADDRESS STRUCTURAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE LEANING CHIMNEY . REMOVE SKYL , ' • • OPEN! G FOR NEW STAIR 6. REMOVE ROOF MEMBRANE TO INSTALL NEW FLOOR FINISH 7. EXISTING DECKING & RAILING TO REMAIN E D FARRELL RESIDENCE REMODEL 223 MAIN STREET SOUTH, STILLWATER 0CN AUROMIRA ARCHITECTS 13754, FRONTIER COURT, SUITE 101 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 auromi raarch itects.com C I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota pursuant to MR 1800 and 1805 Name: Mythili Thiagarajan Date: 10/23/2020 Reg. No: 42440 12/11/2020 ADDENDUM-3 11/06/2020 ADDENDUM-2 10/23/2020 ADDENDUM-1 9/28/2020 PERMIT SET 9/28/2020 CHECK SET DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: DRAWN BY: MT CHK'D BY: MT COPYRIGHT: AUROM IRA ARCHITECTS LLC SHEET TITLE ROOF LEVEL A DEMOLITION PLAN SHEET NO. 1 A2.DE OWNER METAL PANEL SYSTEM WEATHER BARRIER MEMBRANE FLASHING POSITIONING FIN- SET IN SEALANT METAL SYSTEM TRIM WITH WEEPS SEALANT WITH BACKER ROD SEALANT WITH BACKER ROD METAL SYSTEM TRIM WITH WEEPS POSITIONING FIN- SET IN SEALANT MEMBRANE FLASH WEATHER BARRI METAL PANEL SYSTE HEAD/SILL DETAIL AT WINDOW SCALE: 1-1 /2"=1'-0" 1 1 1 1. 1 PREFINISHED METAL CAP OVER MEMBRANE FLASHIN EPDM ROOF OVER TAPERED INSULATION, EXTEND EPDM OVER GYP SHEATHING BEHIND METAL CAP BEAM, SEE STRUCTURAL ITI I 2 Ham' RATETD E ERI W CORRUGATED METAL SIDI 1 4.1 1 Igr • 1 1 R21 MIN. NSULATION AT NE DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW, SE SEE WALL TYPES TO MATCH EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL PLAN HEADER AT WINDOW. SEE STRUCTURAL ADD-3 ADD-3 REFER TO ANDERSEN WINDOWS INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS w METAL FLASHING AT SILL EXISTING EPDM ROOF OVER TAPERED INSULATION, EXTEND EPDM OVER GYP SHEATHING BEHIND METAL SIDING EXISTING STRUCTURE WALL SECTION AT ROOF LEVEL SCALE: 1 "=1'-0" LNL w W >\ N ADD-2 ADD-3 \CO TOTAL DEPTH=DEPTH OF FLAT ROOF+30' MIN PARAPET WALL PER IBC 705.11.1 1111111 1111I II 1 W16X26 BEAM ABOVE OPENING TO SUPPORT ROOF, SEE STRUCTURAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N // / / / / \ \ \ \ \ 0 \ /// \ / / / / 0 \ \ \ \ \ / //z \ / / / / / \ 0 \ \ \ / / / \ /// \ / / / / / / \ \ \ / o \ \ / / / / / / / \ / M \ / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ . \ \ SEE PLAN 4, 8" S LL HEIGHT TO ALLOW FOR ROOF FLASHING PER INDUSTRY STANDARDS CO STANDING SEAM BRONZE METAL PANEL SIDING, PARAPET WALL CAP -' AND WINDOWS TO MATCH SIDING EXISTING PARAPET WALL ROOF ELEVATION WEST SCALE: 1 /2"=1'-0" 2 ROOF ELEVATION SOUTH A7.1 SCALE: 1 /2"=1'-0" 3 1 ROOF ELEVATION EAST A7.1 SCALE: 1 /2"=1'-0" FARRELL RESIDENCE REMODEL 223 MAIN STREET SOUTH, STILLWATER 00• AUROMIRA ARCHITECTS 13754, FRONTIER COURT, SUITE 101 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 auromiraarchitects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota pursuant to MR 1800 and 1805 of-L-gmitrirta-v- Name: Mythili Thiagarajan Date: 10/23/2020 Reg. No: 42440 12/11/2020 ADDENDUM-3 11/06/2020 ADDENDUM-2 10/23/2020 ADDENDUM-1 9/28/2020 PERMIT SET 9/28/2020 CHECK SET DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: DRAWN BY: MT CHK'D BY: MT COPYRIGHT: AUROMIRA ARCHITECTS LLC SHEET TITLE ELEVATIONS SHEET NO. A7.1 1 2 6 liwater ' H F 9 I R E H o_ A C E Of M I N N F ti f3 f A PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-35 June 17, 2021 June 23, 2021 Deborah Veitch Deborah Veitch a) Variance to the maximum height for a replacement fence in the exterior side yard 1025 Sunrise Avenue RA, One Family Residential Laura Chamberlain, Planning Consultant, HKGi Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Deborah Veitch owns the property at 1025 Sunrise Avenue. She is proposing to replace an existing perimeter fence that is six feet (6') tall. The western edge of the lot is an exterior side yard along a right-of-way that serves a neighboring property as an access. City code requires that replacement fences meet zoning height standards, and fences in the exterior side yard are limited to four feet (4') in height. The applicant is requesting a two foot (2') variance for the height of her replacement fence in the exterior side yard. CPC Case 2021-35 Page 2 of 5 SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a two foot (2') variance to City Code Section 31-508.3 (e) to allow a replacement fence in the exterior side yard to be six feet (6') in height, whereas the maximum height allowed by requirements is four feet (4'). ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RA, One Family Residential. A single family home with a fence is a permitted use in the RA district. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The specific purpose of a maximum fence height in the exterior side yard is to keep street frontages unobstructed by large fences and to encourage continuity of character along the street. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The applicant is asking for a 2' variance to the maximum height of a replacement fence in the exterior side yard. The exterior side yard runs adjacent to a stub of Northland Avenue, as shown in the picture below. This stub directly serves as access to only one property, 1201 Northland Avenue, which shares a lot line with the applicant's rear lot line. As such, the exterior side yard does not function like a typical corner lot, and rather, it is more like a side yard along a neighbor's very long driveway. There are no plans to subdivide this area further or extend Northland Avenue to the south. In conclusion, a variance to allow the increased height of the replacement fence in the exterior side yard is in harmony with the intent of the zoning code. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. Replacing an existing six foot fence with a fence of the same height will not adversely impact the Comprehensive Plan's goals for the area. CPC Case 2021-35 Page 3 of 5 3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? A single family residence with a fence on the perimeter is a reasonable use for the property. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The uniqueness of this property is the relationship of the existing home to Northland Avenue and that Northland Avenue to the south only serves one property, which shares a lot line with the said property. Because of the layout of the adjoining property, the applicant's exterior side yard is more functionally a side yard next to a very long neighboring driveway. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The layout of parcels and how they interact with the Northland Avenue right-of-way was established prior to the property owner owning the lot. An existing fence of the requested height already exists on the property. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? It is staff's opinion that the replacement fence being proposed will not alter the character of the neighborhood. There is an existing fence of the same height already in the same place. CPC Case 2021-35 Page 4 of 5 e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire for a replacement fence at the height of their existing fence does not reflect economic considerations alone. PUBLIC COMMENT There has been no public comment for this case. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve: If the Planning Commission finds the Variance is consistent with the standards set forth for the establishment of practical difficulty, the Commission could move to approve the Variance with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021-35, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. A fence permit must be approved prior to fence construction. 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. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the standards set forth for the granting of variances, then the Commission could deny the request in whole or in part. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. C. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be tabled. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that, with conditions of approval, the proposed fence meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance to the maximum height in the exterior side yard. The primary reasons for staff's recommendation of the amended variance are: - The property's exterior side yard along Northland Avenue is unique to the property in that Northland Avenue south of the property does not serve as a full street, but rather serves as access for one individual lot, which also shares a lot line with the applicant's property. Such a layout makes the desire for a privacy fence reasonable. - The approval of the variance will not impact the character of the neighborhood, as the fence is replacing an existing fence of the same height. CPC Case 2021-35 Page 5 of 5 Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested variance for CPC Case No. 2020-35 with the conditions identified in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Location map Applicant Narrative Survey cc: Deborah Veitch Stillwater Planning Department 216 4`11 Street North Stillwater MN 55082 May 12, 2012 My request for a variance to replace my privacy fence is based on the fact that there's been a six foot fence on the property prior to my family moving into the home in 1985. It does not hinder or obstruct traffic corning south or north on Northland Avenue nor does it hinder or obstruct traffic going east or west on Sunrise Avenue. The portion of the fence in question is set back about forty feet at a minimum from Sunrise Avenue. I've shared this dead end portion of Northland Avenue for over the past thirty years with just two neighbors; Mike & Joni Polehna and Tim & Gayla Trooien . The Polehnas live on the west side of Northland Avenue and the Trooiens live on the south end of Northland Avenue. I've asked them if they would have any issue with replacement of the fence and they both agree that there is no issue. I humbly appeal to the Planning Commission to approve my request for the variance. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $225.00 made payable to the planning commission. Sincerely, Deborah Veitch enc 7 C. R. WINDEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. L AND SURVEYORS Tel. 645. 3646 1381 EUSTIS ST., ST, PAUL, MINN. 55108 OR1?IN E. TTHOMPSON CONSTIRUCTION ('ORPOR1TION • I t°r a1 /!'r' % Ji(rp=bele ot. 1, Mock i, ,Troixwoocl Second \ddi ti on, Washington County, Minnesota >1 'arc eI f J C- r' WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED AND OF THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, IF ANY, THEREON, AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND Doted this " day al 7`. '' A D 19 C. R W-LLADEN & ASSOCIATES, INC by Surveyor, Minnesota Registration No 772._C:, iliwater THE B f FIT H P L A C E OF MINNESOIA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-36 REPORT DATE: June 17, 2021 MEETING DATE: June 23, 2021 APPLICANT: Daniel Sather LANDOWNER: Daniel Sather REQUEST: a) Conditional Use Permit to allow for an existing Accessory Dwelling Unit above a detached garage; and b) Variances to the following: 1. Rear yard setback for ADU 2. Location of ADU within Exterior Side Yard 3. Height of Accessory Building LOCATION: 231 Everett Street North ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REPORT BY: Laura Chamberlain, Planning Consultant, HKGi REVIEWED BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Daniel Sather, owner of the property at 231 Everett Street North has constructed a 24' X 28' detached garage in the Northeast portion of the lot, which has access from Mulberry Street West. This garage was built to have an equally sized dwelling unit above it. In order for accessory structures to contain habitable area, they must be constructed as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), allowed in RB — Two Family residential zoning by Conditional Use Permit. The property is located in the North Hill Neighborhood and within the Neighborhood Conservation District. In addition to the detached garage with the proposed ADU above, the lot contains a primary two-story single-family unit. The applicant built the habitable addition to the garage prior to getting CUP approval for an ADU; it appears through aerial photography from the last decade that the garage was an existing structure, which was then the second floor was added to recently. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting: CPC Case 2021-36 Page 2 of 7 • A Conditional Use Permit to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit above a detached garage; • An 18' variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow the ADU to be setback 7' from the rear lot line, whereas the required setback is 25' from the rear property line; • A variance to City Code Section 31-501. Subd. 3. (a). (4) to allow the ADU to be located within the exterior side yard; • A 2 foot variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow the height of the accessory building (22') to exceed 1 story, or 20' ANALYSIS City Code Section 31-207, Special Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit, identifies that the city may grant a Conditional Use Permit when the following findings are made: a. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and relevant area plans. With regard to conformance to the requirements and intent of the Zoning Code, City Code Section 31-501, Accessory Dwellings, identifies the following performance standards for review: • Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet. The lot is 15,343 square feet. • The accessory dwelling may be located on the second floor above the garage. The proposed ADU has been built wholly above the proposed garage. • The accessory dwelling unit must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and rear setbacks. The garage and ADU will be in conformance with the exterior side yard setback put forth in the RB-Two Family residential zoning district. However, the applicant is requesting a variance to locate the ADU within the rear yard setback. Though the fact that the garage is accessed off of Mulberry St (not Everett St), makes this rear yard setback appear like more of a side yard setback. • The accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the midpoint of the primary residence. The property is a corner lot, with the home facing Everett Street North; the garage and ADU face Mulberry Street West. While the garage is behind the primary residence for the front yard facing Everett Street North, the garage is closer to Mulberry Street West in the exterior side yard and requires a variance to the exterior side yard. The accessory building does not, however, extend past the midpoint of the residence of the neighboring property to the east, which has its front yard on Mulberry Street West. This configuration allows the garage to fit in with the neighborhood development pattern, and does not give the appearance that it is blatantly within any setbacks. • Off-street parking requirements (four spaces) must be provided. The garage provides parking spaces for two vehicles. The driveway that is located in front of the CPC Case 2021-36 Page 3 of 7 garage is 24' 1 wide and can accommodate two side -by -side parking spot. This property is able to meet its parking requirments. • Maximum size of the garage and ADU is 800 square feet. Both the garage and the ADU are proposed to be 672 sf. • The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. The garage's design has four-sided design, with matching vertical lap siding and corner, soffit, and fascia boards that match the existing residence. The applicant has constructed a roof pitch and detail similar to that of the primary structure. • The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. The height of the existing 2-story residence is hard to determine, however, it appears that the height of the garage is less than the height of the primary residence. It should be noted, however, that the height of the garage appears to be approximately between 21' and 22', which is higher than the allowed RB accessory building height of 20.' The applicant is requesting a variance for the structure height. • Both the primary and accessory dwelling units must be connected to municipal sewer and water services and be located on an improved public street. This will be a condition of approval. • Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. No public comment has been received. • The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Conditionally permitted ADUs in the RB — Two Family Residential district has not proved to be a nuisance nor detrimental to the public. The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RB, Two -Family Residential. A detached garage with ADU is conditionally permitted in the RB district. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? ' City Code Section 31-510. Subd. 1. (f). (1). Parking space. Each parking space shall be at least nine feet in width and 18 feet. CPC Case 2021-36 Page 4 of 7 Rear Yard Setback The specific purpose of the rear yard setback is to have uniform patterned development of properties, keeping unobstructed areas for private open space uses, and adequate onsite infiltration. Location of ADU (located in rear yard or behind midway point of primary structure) The specific purpose of limiting an ADU to the rear yard or behind the midpoint of the primary structure is to ensure that the primary building is the focus from the street and that ADUs do not interrupt uniform street design. Height of the Accessory Structure (1 story, no more than 20') The specific purpose of the accessory structure height maximum for the RB district is to regulate massing proportionality and to provide consistency throughout a district where historically secondary buildings were smaller than primary buildings. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Rear Yard Setback The applicant is asking for an 18' variance to the rear yard setback for the ADU, as ADUs are required to meet the setbacks of primary structures, and the primary structure rear yard setback for the RB district is 25'. The ADU has been built on top of an existing garage; the RB district allows for ADUs to be located on top of garages, and the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the ADU be located on the existing garage rather than demolishing and reconfiguring the lot and driveway access. Also being a corner lot with driveway access off Mulberry St, this rear yard setback seems much like a side yard which has significantly less strict setbacks. Location of ADU (located in rear yard or behind midway point of primary structure) The applicant is asking, due to the layout of the corner lot, to locate the ADU within an area that counts as both the rear yard as well as the exterior side yard. Because the primary structure is so far away from Mulberry Street, it creates an exterior side yard that takes up a significant portion of the lot. When compared to the adjacent property to the east, the ADU does not exceed the midpoint of that building's setback from Mulberry Street, so it still fits within neighborhood character for the street. Furthermore, the garage has been located within this part of the yard prior to the addition of the ADU. Height of the Accessory Structure (1 story, no more than 20') The standards for the RB district allow an ADU above a garage, and the applicant added an additional story to their existing garage. To maintain neighborhood conformity in the Neighborhood Conservation District, the applicant has chosen a roof pitch similar to the primary residence to maintain overall uniform site design. The increased roof pitch increases the overall height of a structure, when measured from average elevation of the front of the peak of the roof. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes infill growth and density in this area of the City. CPC Case 2021-36 Page 5 of 7 3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? A single family residence with accessory dwelling unit is a reasonable use for the property. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The uniqueness of this property is the location of the primary structure in relationship to the exterior side yard, as well as the existing location of the garage in relationship to the house. The layout of the lot and the location of the house and garage makes any proposed ADU prone to requiring multiple variances. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner built an addition over the existing garage location, which is reasonable and allowed within the district; the property owner did not determine the location of the existing garage. The property owner has also decided to build the roof at a pitch that would match the design of the existing home, making the structure higher than the allowed height, but fit better within the neighborhood. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? It is staff's opinion that the ADU being proposed will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The garage will be in the rear of the house and behind the midpoint of the adjacent house to the east for the exterior side yard. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for a detached garage with an ADU does not reflect economic considerations alone. PUBLIC COMMENT There has been no public comment for this case since submittal. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve: If the Planning Commission finds the Conditional Use Permit proposal and associated Variance is consistent with the provisions of the CUP process and the standards set forth for the establishment of practical difficulty, the Commission could move to approve CPC Case 2021-36 Page 6 of 7 the CUP and associated Variances with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall submit a certificate of survey of the property; the resulting certificate of survey shall be substantially similar to the site plan and materials on file with CPC Case No. 2021-36; if the certificate of survey shows site conditions that are not substantially similar to the submitted materials, the applicant shall have to apply for an amendment to the applicable approval. 2. The applicant shall be required to pay WAC/SAC charges for the new unit. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the ADU shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. 3. Any stormwater runoff from this garage must be contained and allowed to percolate within the said property. 4. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the approved Conditional Use Permit guidelines or the standards set forth for the granting of variances, then the Commission could deny the request in whole or in part. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. D. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be tabled. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that, with conditions of approval, the garage and proposed ADU meets the Conditional Use Permit provisions and the standards set forth for the issuance of a variances. The primary reasons for staff's recommendation of the variances are: The property's layout, in particular the existing house's location creating a very large exterior side yard, as well as the historic location of the garage have made it impossible to construct an above -garage ADU without variances. This proves uniqueness and that the property owner did not create this situation. - The ADU does not encroach into the exterior side yard beyond the midpoint of the primary residence of the adjacent parcel to the east, so its location still maintains the intention of the regulation by not interrupting the street frontage. - The applicant has designed the exterior of the ADU to have the same roof pitch and detailing as the primary residence, causing it to exceed the height limitation for accessory buildings in the RB district, but maintaining a much more compatible character with the neighborhood. Staff believes this design will not alter the essential character of the locality. CPC Case 2021-36 Page 7 of 7 Therefore, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit and approval of the requested variances for CPC Case No. 2021-36 with the conditions identified in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Location map Applicant Narrative Site plan Building plan Photos (three pages) cc: Daniel Sather pie air Well=19_17.. t' -��gy 1■ e1/ Daniel Sather 231 Everett St. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 (763) 377-0736 djsather351@yahoo.com May 23rd, 2021 Planning Department City Of Stillwater 216 4th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 PlanningDept@ci.stillwater.mn.us Dear City Of Stillwater, I am writing this letter in accompany with my application to explain the use and intent of the dwelling above my existing garage at the address listed above. We are intending to use the space as an accommodation for our extended family and friends who visit Stillwater from Texas a few times a year. We would also like to list it as a short term rental for air bnb. Mostly just weekends in the warmer seasons when we don't have friends or family visiting. The space includes a living room (15 x13) a small kitchenette (5x7) with electric stove/oven and a refrigerator. A bathroom (5 x 7) with stand up shower and a bedroom (11 x 13 ). The entrance for the unit is located on the rear side(south) of the garage located in my backyard, by way of stairs to a 6' x 10' deck. We did ask for and receive a variance to build the deck on the south side of the dwelling in 2020. It was our assumption that the entrance would be included in that variance as well. It's not feasible to access the lofted portion of the dwelling from the North side because of the driveway and slope. It's a gable roof, so the East and West elevations are not an option either. Please see photos. We appreciate your assistance. Sincerely, Daniel Sather i 1 }1- - 1 1 P-1-7k tGARAGE A 1 IA' %AV VA CA.SPIOLi) gl,Ccrpa 5. CIAPJ-75t -35;e:r•E LINE r-LARR/ D. GR/ LEIGH M. GRt 231 EVEF1ETI"S1RE SMILWATE I:1, MN 4 -1C) 31. i 14- c tP r 4: f GL. . ,.r r I '4..i+ _ reol /1 5/25/2021 20210525_204842.jpg 04 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox?projector-1 1/1 5/25/2021 20210525_204757.jpg 9-51 _cork.4-4- A)ar,f, wro'r ei Q_30);w1 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogblffinbox?projector=1 1/1 5/25/2021 J 9 '►` ,Jo20210525_204730.jpg https://mail.google. com/mail/u/0/? tab=rm&ogbl#in box?projector=l 1/1 liwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: CPC 2021-37 HPC 2021-24 MEETING DATE: June 23, 2021 APPLICANT: William C. Griffith of Larkin Hoffman representing 626 4th, LLC LANDOWNER: Tom and Sandy Lynum REQUEST: Historic Use Variance Zoning Text Amendment and Heritage Preservation Use Variance to allow 626 4th Street North to be converted from residential to office LOCATION: 626 4th Street North DISTRICT: RB — Two Family Residential NCD — Neighborhood Conservation (Overlay) District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION The company 626 4th, LLC would like to purchase the National Register -listed William Sauntry mansion, located at 626 4th Street North, and convert the single family residence and bed and breakfast into a commercial real estate office. However, MN Stat. 462.357 Subd. 6 indicates the City "may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located". That said, MN Stat. 471.193, Subd. 3(6) indicates municipal Heritage Preservation Commissions have the powers of `granting of use variations to a zoning ordinance'. Thus, on behalf of 626 4th, LLC, William (Bill) Griffith of Larkin Hoffman has submitted a request for the City's consideration to change the City Code to allow City consideration of Heritage Preservation Use Variances (HPUVs) and, simultaneously, for a HPUV to allow 626 4th Street North to be converted into a commercial real estate office. Both actions require the Commission to hold a public hearing. For the former portion of the request, the Commission makes recommendation to the City Council. For the latter, the Commission makes recommendation to the Heritage Preservation Commission who will take final action on the matter. SPECIFIC REQUEST The two -fold request includes: Case No. CPC 2021-37 & HPC 2021-24 June 23, 2021 Page 2 1. A Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to amend four sections of the City Code to allow for HPUVs; and 2. A Heritage Preservation Use Variance (HPUV) for a commercial real estate office to be operated at 626 4th Street North. ANALYSIS Zoning Text Amendment City Code Section 31-205(d) indicates that prior to making recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission must 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 Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) proposed would affect the following City Code Sections in the following ways: • Amend Section 22-7, Subd. 4(d) by adding HPUVs to the types of permits reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission; • Amend Section 31-202 by adding HPUVs to the types of permits allowed per the Zoning Code and requiring a public hearing for such permit considerations; • Amend Section 31-204, Subd.(5) by outlining the recommendation, action, and appeal board/commission. If approved, the Planning Commission will, in a public hearing, make a recommendation to the Heritage Preservation Commission who will approve or deny the request. The City Council will serve as the Appeals Boards. Additionally, the amendment will create Section 31-208.1 which outlines the purpose, general provisions, procedure and findings required of and for Historic Use Variances. The purpose of the proposed ordinance amendment is to allow for uses on structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places that would otherwise be prohibited due to the current zoning classification, in an effort to preserve and promote the city's historic resources. As proposed, this would provide an incentive to National Register designation that could possibly help provide revenue streams needed to further preserve and maintain this historic resources. This type of permit process is not uncommon in historic communities within the state. In a survey of other Minnesota communities designated as Certified Local Governments, Mankato, Minneapolis, New Ulm, Pipestone and St. Paul all responded as having similar ordinance provisions in their respective City Codes. Additionally, Duluth has provisions similar to this HPUVs which allow for `flexibility in land use' when a preservation plan is in place. Communities that do allow for similar use variances, do so with a primary goal to help further the preservation of property. As written, the City would consider the age, appearance, and structural integrity of the structure; the historical significance and previous use of the structure since its construction, and the desirability of maintaining its existence; the likelihood that the structure could be preserved and used in a manner conforming with the underlying zoning classification without the issuance of the use variance; the nature and extent of any rehabilitation planned for such structure and the likelihood that the same will enhance or diminish the historical significance of the structure; the likely impact of the Case No. CPC 2021-37 & HPC 2021-24 June 23, 2021 Page 3 proposed use on the health, safety, and comfort of the surrounding properties; and the number and nature of variances required for the proposed use. Findings necessary for the granting of a HPUV include: • The structure has been accepted for registration on the national or state register of historic places. • The use variance is in harmony with the general policies and purposes of the HPC. • The use variance is consistent with the Comp Plan objectives as they relate to preservation of historic properties. • The proposed use is reasonable and compatible with the current or historic use of the property, or is equal to or less intense than the current of historic use. • The use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or detrimentally impact the surrounding neighborhood. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan outlined a process to update the City's preservation regulations. At the time of development of the new ordinance, staff discussed HPUVs with the Council who — at the time — seemed favorable to considering the amendment as a means to help the City meet the preservation objective to "preserve and maintain historic resources and encourage adaptive reuse". However, the staff had not vetted this potential policy change through the Heritage Preservation and Planning Commissions prior and did not feel it appropriate to incorporate HPUVs at that time. As the ZAT sets the foundation for a property owner to ask if a HPUV may be considered and each use request is evaluated for the context which it is located, there is public benefit to this ZAT. One thing of note, the proposed ordinance only allows for those structures listed on a state or the National Register to be eligible for consideration. The intent is to provide incentives to Stillwater's most historic buildings. However, the City's preservation commission does not review exterior changes to structures independently listed on a state or National Register. Thus, exterior changes that jeopardize the integrity of the structure could occur. Staff would recommend either structures are locally designated or properties with approved HPUVs are subject to the City's Design Permitting review requirements. At their June 16, 2021 meeting, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the ZAT and expressed their support of the ZAT adoption; they are also favorable to provisions requiring Design Permit review. While the HPC supports local designation and the allowance for HPUVs could be an incentive for most property owners to locally designate their structure, at this time staff would recommend consideration only be given to those independently listed on the state or National Register; this recommendation would not allow structures listed as contributing to a historic district or those locally listed to be eligible. With only twelve independent National Register -listed structures within the municipal boundary, the theory is — let's start small to be able to gauge popularity, impact, etc. HPUV As noted, part of the request is for consideration of a HPUV for the William Sauntry Mansion, located at 626 4th Street North, to be converted from a residence and six -bedroom bed and breakfast into a commercial real estate office. If the ZAT is approved by the City Council, the property's Case No. CPC 2021-37 & HPC 2021-24 June 23, 2021 Page 4 listing on the National Register of Historic Places makes it eligible for a HPUV. It should be noted the prospective purchaser has indicated that, in the future, a portion of the main level of the building may be converted into an apartment for an onsite caretaker to live. This, however, is an outright permitted use in the RB — Two Family Residential zoning district. Originally constructed in 1881-1883 the structure has had expansive and decorative additions placed onto it in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The 6,300 square foot residence has been under the same ownership for the last 22 years and has meticulously maintained both inside and out. While the structure could be used as a single family residence, it's size and delicate nature demand a revenue stream for long-term maintenance. While the prospective owners do not have a specific rehabilitation plan, the conversion to commercial use will require building code upgrades, including installation of a fire suppression system, which can also help prevent catastrophic loss. Overall, if the HPC has Design Permit review authority, this is likely in harmony with the general policies and purposes of the HPC and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission must then determine if the other findings can be made including whether the proposed use is reasonable and compatible with the current or historic use of the property, or is equal to or less intense than the current or historic use. When weighing whether or not the proposed use is more or less intense than the current use, the City looks to see that — largely — the City's Zoning Code requirements can be met. Some factors for consideration include: Parking - The property currently has 14 off-street parking spaces, three of which are located inside the three -car garage. If the Off -Street Parking and Loading regulations require one parking space for every 300 s.f. of floor area, this would mean the property would need 21 parking spaces to conform to the City Code. Though not proposed at this time, the prospective property owner can create this additional parking in the side yard area. Instead, the owner's business plan is to allow for no greater than six agents in the bedroom -turned -office areas, one admin on the lower level, and (in the future), one onsite caretaker residence. If each of the office spaces demanded two spaces (for the agent and client), one admin required a parking space, and the residence required two spaces, then there would be a demand of 15 parking spaces with a total of 15 onsite. Staff asserts that, with approval conditions showing proof of parking and a requirement to install additional parking if there are negative impacts in the future, then the property's change of use does substantially conform to the intent of the Code. Traffic — Real estate sales offices (generally speaking) operate during the day. This is compatible with residential areas where daytime activities might be tame. While trip generation could be a factor for properties converting to commercial uses, 4th Street North is a common north hill route and a historically -commercial node exists 1.5 blocks to the north. The additional traffic to this property is not anticipated to be a burden to the neighborhood. Lighting — The current property's use as a bed and breakfast has had lighting limitations greater than what allowed on a single family residence. The code indicates "adequate lighting must be provided between the structure and parking areas for safety contiguous to residential structures" and "additional external lighting is prohibited". A condition of the bed and breakfast's approval is that 'no general external lighting of the site that may impact the surrounding residential area is Case No. CPC 2021-37 & HPC 2021-24 June 23, 2021 Page 5 allowed". To protect the interest of the neighborhood, all three of these should be incorporated as approval conditions. Noise — Often, when commercial uses are contemplated in residential neighborhoods, noise is a factor for consideration. Aside from exterior HVAC equipment, exterior noise on residential properties is minimal. If noise does occur outside, it is restricted to the decibel levels suitable for the residential neighborhood. As the property is not seeking commercial use activities other than an office, additional noise on the property is not likely. Trash — While offices do not produce as much trash as other commercial users, keeping trash inside is a requirement for commercial users. This, too, should be a requirement of this property. Signage — In residential districts where commercial activities (namely home occupations) do occur on residential properties, the square footage of signage is limited to two square feet in size and cannot be lit. Bed and breakfasts, however, are limited to a four -square foot sign that must match the architectural features of the building. The business should be limited to signage no greater than what is onsite today and lighting of a sign must be directed at the sign with downlit lighting preferred; LED lighting should be limited to no greater than 3500K. When weighing these factors in relationship to the permitted activities on the site, it should be noted that the property has been authorized to allow up to 40 people onsite at one time. Additionally, the Use Permit conditions allow for six special events with a capacity of greater than 20 people per month. These conditions do not transfer with this HPUV. The granting of the HPUV would be less intense than the current use. PUBLIC COMMENT To the date of memo development, staff has not received any comment regarding the proposed Zoning Text Amendment or the proposed use conversion. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve: If the Planning Commission finds the Zoning Text Amendment proposal and associated Heritage Preservation Use Variance is consistent with the provisions of the ZAT process and the standards set forth for the issuance of an HPUV, the Commission could move to: 1. Recommend to the City Council the Zoning Text Amendment allowing for the City's consideration of Heritage Preservation Use Variances be granted. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following recommended changes: i. HPUVs shall only be permitted on those structures independently listed on the state or National Register of Historic Places; and Case No. CPC 2021-37 & HPC 2021-24 June 23, 2021 Page 6 ii. Properties with approved HPUVs shall require Heritage Preservation Commission Design Permit review. Design Permits shall be required for any exterior alteration in excess of $10,000 or that would substantially alter the character of the structure. Alterations shall be reviewed for conformance to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards and generally guided by the City's adopted historic residential guidelines. 2. Recommend to the Heritage Preservation Commission a Heritage Preservation Use Variance be issued to 626 4th Street North to operate a six -office real estate sales business. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: i. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021-37 and HPC 2021-24, except as modified by the conditions herein. ii. Design Permits shall be required for any exterior alteration in excess of $10,000 or that would substantially alter the character of the structure. Alterations shall be reviewed for conformance to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards and generally guided by the City's adopted historic residential guidelines. iii. At the time of building permitting, proof of parking shall be shown for six additional off- street parking spaces. In the event the City fields numerous parking complaints, the City may require the property owner to install parking as per the approved proof of parking plan. iv. Trash must be kept inside until trash day. v. Adequate lighting must be provided between the structure and parking areas for safety contiguous to residential structures vi. Additional external lighting is prohibited. vii. No general external lighting of the site that may impact the surrounding residential area is allowed. viii. The property is limited to a four -square foot sign that must match the architectural features of the building. Sign lighting must be directed at the sign. Downlit lighting preferred. LED lighting intensity shall be limited to no greater than 3500K. ix. 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 and Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan, then the Commission could deny the request in whole or in part. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. D. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be tabled. Case No. CPC 2021-37 & HPC 2021-24 June 23, 2021 Page 7 FIDNINGS AND RECOMMENDATION While staff has addressed many of the findings within the analysis section of this report, the Code is specific that the City can only grant approval of the HPUV if it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or detrimentally impact the surrounding neighborhood. Staff asserts that, with certain conditions of approval, both the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and the proposed Heritage Preservation Use Variance for the allowance of a six -office real estate sales business is in conformance with the general principles and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code, and those of the Heritage Preservation Commission. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission recommend approval of both requests with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Narrative Request Draft Zoning Text Amendment cc William Griffith Tom and Sandy Lynum Authentisign ID: D9496C4F-7ACA-43AA-B427-89606118F365 Larkin Ho. ffman May 25, 2021 City of Stillwater Planning Department c/o Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner 216 4th Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Larkin Hoffman 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 1000 Minneapolis, MN 55437-1060 General: 952-835-3800 Fax: 952-896-3333 Web: www.larkinhoffman.com Re: Applications on Behalf of 626 4th, LLC, for Text Amendment and Historical Use Variance at 626 4th Street North, Stillwater, Minnesota Our File No. 44,557-00 Dear Ms. Wittman: We represent 626 4th, LLC, the purchaser of the above -addressed property (the "Property"), in its applications for a text amendment and historic use variance. The Property is currently owned by Thomas and Sandra Lynum and is used and operated as a bed and breakfast. The City granted a special use permit on March 3, 1997 to allow operation of a bed and breakfast on the Property. Now, the property owners would like to sell the Property to 626 4th, LLC to be operated as a commercial office. The commercial office will have a limited number of employees and generate few daily trips in and out of the site. We have worked with the City Planner and the City Attorney to prepare a text amendment which would allow the issuance of an historic use variance. In addition, we have prepared an application for variance. Accordingly, the following materials are enclosed: 1. Planning Application for Zoning Text Amendment and Historic Use Variance for 626 4th Street North. 2. Draft Text Amendment to allow authority for the City to issue an historic use variance. Authentisign ID: D9496C4F-7ACA-43AA-B427-89606118F365 City of Stillwater Planning Department May 25, 2021 Page 2 We look forward to working with you on these applications. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these materials. Sincerely, William C. Griffith, for Larkin Hoffman Direct Dial: 952-896-3290 Direct Fax: 952-842-1729 Email: wgriffith@larkinhoffman.com Enclosures cc: Justin Fox Korine Land, City Attorney 4845-1634-7883, v. 1 Authentisign ID: D9496C4F-7ACA-43AA-B427-89606118F365 1 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 22-7 AND 31-204, AND ENACTING SECTION 31-208.1 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 22-7, subd. 4(d) of the City Code, Heritage Preservation Commission, is hereby amended as follows: (d) Review of permits. In order to protect the architectural and historic character of designated local heritage preservation sites, the commission shall conduct review of applications for demolition, as outlined in city code section 31-215, and design permits and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the issuance of design permits. The commission shall also protect the unique character of Stillwater's downtown and residential neighborhoods through the review and approval or denial of: (1) Demolition permits required in city code section 31-215. (2) Design permits for required projects in the following: (i) Downtown design review overlay district. (ii) Neighborhood conservation overlay district. (3) Heritage Preservation use variance. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Section 31-202 of the City Code, Types of Permits, is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 31-202. Types of permits. The following permits and actions are established in order to carry out the purposes and requirements of this chapter: (a) Appeals; (b) Certificate of compliance; (c) Conditional or special use permit; (d) Comprehensive plan amendment; (e) Design permit; (f) Grading permit; (g) Planned unit development permit; (h) Project modification; (i) Sign design approval; (j) Site alteration permit; (k) Use determination; ULVariance; (4)(m) Heritage Preservation use variance; (m)(nl Vegetative cutting permit; and ( r)(o) Zoning amendment text/map. Authentisign ID: D9496C4F-7ACA-43AA-B427-89606118F365 1 SECTION 3. AMENDMENT. Section 31-204, subd. (3) of the City Code, Public Hearing, is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 3. Public Hearing. (a) Required. A public hearing is required for the following: (1) Appeals; (2) Conditional or special use permit; (3) Planned unit development permit; (4) Project modification (major); (S)_Variances; (5)(6) Heritage Preservation use variance; (6)0LZoning chapter text or map amendments; and (.7)0J_Other projects as determined by the community development director to have potential overall community concern. SECTION 4. AMENDMENT. Section 31-204, subd. (5) of the City Code, Board or Official Body with Final Authority in Application Approval, is hereby amended by adding the following: Permits/Action Recommendation Action Appeals Board Heritage Preservation PC HPC CC Use Variance SECTION 5. ENACTMENT. Section 31-208.1 of the City Code, Heritage Preservation Use Variance, is hereby enacted as follows: Sec. 31-208.1 Heritage Preservation Use Variances. Heritage Preservation use variances shall require the following: (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Heritage Preservation use variance is to allow for uses on Heritage Preservations Sites, as defined in City Code Section 22-7 or those properties or buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places that would otherwise be prohibited due to the current zoning classification, in an effort to preserve and promote the city's historic resources. Such authority for historic use variances is granted pursuant to Minn. Stat. §471.193 subd. 3(6), or as may be amended (b) General provisions. (1) A use variance shall only be granted to allow a use that is deemed by the Historic Preservation Committee to be similar to or less intense than the current or a former use of the property. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Heritage Preservation Commission may add conditions to the resolution approving a use variance to address the factors listed in Subsection (2), below, or other additional factors that are reasonably necessary to fulfill the policies Authentisign ID: D9496C4F-7ACA-43AA-B427-89606118F365 (c) and purposes of the Heritage Preservation Commission identified in City Code Section 22-7 subd. 2. (2) In considering an application for a Heritage Preservation use variance under this section, the following factors shall be considered: (i) The age, appearance, and structural integrity of the structure; (ii) The historical significance and previous use of the structure since its construction, and the desirability of maintaining its existence. (iii)The likelihood that the structure could be preserved and used in a manner conforming with the underlying zoning classification without the issuance of a use variance; (iv)The nature and extent of any rehabilitation planned for such structure and the likelihood that the same will enhance or diminish the historical significance of the structure; (v) The likely impact of the proposed use on the health, safety, and comfort of the surrounding properties; and (vi)The number and nature of variances required for the proposed use. Procedure. A public hearing must be held by the Planning Commission, who shall make a recommendation to the Heritage Preservation Commission. (d) Findings required. The Heritage Preservation Committee shall hold a hearing and may grant a Heritage Preservation use variance, but only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The structure has been accepted for registration on the national or state registers of historic places. (2) The use variance is in harmony with the general policies and purposes of the Heritage Preservation Commission, City Code Section 22-7 subd. 2; (3) The use variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan's objectives as they relate to the preservation of historic properties; (4) The proposed use is reasonable and compatible with the current or historic use of the property, or is equal to or less intense than the current or historic use. (5) The use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or detrimentally impact the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 6. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance: The City Code was amended to enact City Code Section 31-208.1, Heritage Preservation Use Variances, to allow for use variances for historic properties. Authentisign ID: D9496C4F-7ACA-43AA-B427-89606118F365 SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective after its passage and publication according to law. Approved this day of , 2021. Publish: Stillwater Gazette — Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk iliwater THE B{ R T H P L A I; E OF MINNF PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Nathan Landucci, Landucci Homes CASE NO.: 2021-38 Browns Creek West LLC Mark and Catherine Balay A Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances for a four-story, 40- unit apartment building 107 3rd Street North 110 Myrtle Street East Central Business District Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District Downtown Design Review District REVIEWERS: City Engineer/Public Works Director Shawn Sanders, Stillwater Police Capitan Nate Meredith, Middle St. Croix WMO, Washington County Public Works PREPARED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Landucci Homes is proposing to construct a 42-unit apartment building at 107 3rd Street North; the building is proposed to span the property line with 110 Myrtle Street East where the new structure will extend behind the historic resource located on that site. The developer is proposing to construct 32 underground spaces and two uncovered spaces outside. Residential uses, as well as Large Building Projects in the Central Business District (CBD), require a Conditional Special Use Permit. Portions of the building are proposed to be 4.5 stories and 48.5' tall (as measured from 3rd Street North). This exceeds the maximum allowable three -stories and 37' height in the Historic Height Overlay District. The applicant is requesting variances to the City's CBD Setbacks and the Height Overlay standards; while not a variance to the Off -Street Parking and Loading requirements, the applicant is also asking for City consideration of a transfer of 40 `parking credits' granted to the current landowner. Given the scope and location of the project as well as the proposed height is 10% greater than the maximum allowable limit, City Code requires the PC make recommendation for City Council (Council). Case No. 2021-38 June 23, 2021 Page 2 Approval of a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) Design Permit is required prior to Council consideration. On June 16, 2021 the HPC reviewed a Design Permit application for the property that contain a mix of residential units, enclosed common space, and rooftop terracing in a 4.5 story building. Citing the project's need to conform to the mass, scale, materials, and color of buildings in its vicinity, the HPC tabled consideration of the design, requesting consideration of: • Removing the uppermost story; • Ways to step the east side of the 107 3rd Street portion of the building towards the 110 Myrtle Street property; • Removing the easterly 3rd and 4th stories behind the historic resource; • Breaking up the metal with brick and possibly chose a color of brick that is more in line with context of brick in the area; • Landscaping between the two buildings to create more privacy and separation; and • Exploring window and balcony placement facing the historic resource. On June 17, 2021 the item was scheduled to be heard by the Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC), and advisory body to the Council. However, that Commission did not have a quorum and could not discuss the request. The City is trying to schedule a special meeting for the Commission's review. However, it that cannot occur, the Downtown Parking Commission will review the request at their regularly -scheduled July 21 st meeting. It is not customary for the Planning Commission to review requests for consideration of Use Permits and Variances without first having recommendations from advisory bodies and commissions. Given the request will be heard by other commissions in July, staff thought it good for the applicant to hear Planning Commission discussion as it might aide in potential alterations the applicant may want to take prior to reconsideration by the HPC and review by the DTPC. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of a: 1. Conditional Use Permit for 42 multi -family residences in a Large building project in the CBD Zoning District; and 2. A 1.5-story variance to the three-story maximum height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District; 3. A 11.5' variance to the 37' maximum allowable height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District; 4. Variances to the 20' (Combined) Side Yard and 20' Rear Yard Setback in the Central Business District; 5. Variance to the Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations for eight (8) parking spaces. While not necessarily for the Commission's direct consideration, the applicant is also requesting the following from the City Council: 1. Consideration of a transfer of 40 parking space credit from Browns Creek West LLC; and Case No. 2021-38 June 23, 2021 Page 3 2. Consideration of a Lot Line Adjustment and public land sale for portions of land attached to the City Parking Ramp. ANALYSIS Special 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, Conditional Use Permits, identifies the city may grant a Conditional 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 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. However, the Plan indicates high density housing (apartments or condos) is appropriate above the ground level, implying mixed -use development would be preferred. That said, the City's zoning code does not restrict apartments from being on the ground level. In fact, because of this property's proximity to residential land uses, having ground -level apartments is appropriate. The Plan indicates the City must "ensure all new housing, including high density, adheres to the highest possible standards of planning, design and construction." Lastly, density in the Central Business District is governed by the property's ability to meet the development controls in place. Average densities in the Central Business District vary: Address Common Name Residential Density 610 Main Street North Terra Springs 17 units/ acre +/- 501 Main Street North The Lofts of Stillwater 43 units/ acre +/- 350 Main Street North Mills on Main 38 units/ acre +/- Case No. 2021-38 June 23, 2021 Page 4 102+ 3rd Street South Steeple Towne 34 units/acre +/- 101 Olive Street East Runk Condos 27 units/ acre +/- 3013rd Street North Val Croix 32 units/acre +/- 200 Chestnut East 200 Chestnut 92 units/acre +/- The average density for downtown residential properties is 32 units per acre. A density of 31 units per acre exists for the three closest condo buildings (Steeple Towne, Runk Condos, and Val Croix). The applicant proposes a density of 32 units per acre. This development is in line with the densities of other residential developments in the downtown area. Zoning Code Conformance As noted, the developer is proposing variation from three sections of the Zoning Code. Analysis of these variances is addressed in a subsequent section of this report. However, there are City Code requirements worth noting: Height: The structure's proposed maximum height, when measured from the average elevation of Third Street North (the front of the building) to the top of the uppermost story, will be 48.5'. The requested maximum foot variance (of 11.5'), as reviewed later in this report, would accommodate the (partial) fourth story. The fourth story, as well as the half -story walkout on the east side of the property, also necessitates a height variance as the district is limited to three stories. Parking: As currently configured, the multiple family building requires 77 parking spaces, 42 of which are covered. The applicant is proposing 34 parking spaces, 32 of which are covered. However, the garage plan shows three parking spaces that do not conform to City standards, thus — with only 29 conforming parking spaces — the development is short 48 parking spaces. The developer is proposing mitigation through the transfer of a `parking credit' of 40 stalls. If approved by the Council, the development will be short eight (8) parking spaces. Thus, a variance is required. Traffic: The City retained the services of the engineering firm SRF to conduct a traffic analysis for the City. This report has not been completed and will not be prior to the Planning Commission's meeting. It is estimated the City will receive the traffic engineer's assessment on or before July 2, 2021. The developer is aware the City approved a 10-unit residential complex on this site in 2018. As part of the review process for that development, a two-way vehicle entrance was contemplated for the property in the location the proposed egress is (less than 45' from the Myrtle Street West and Third Street North intersection). While the traffic engineer's report indicated the volume from the 12-unit complex would not cause issues at that intersection, concern was raised about the uniqueness of the adjacent intersection. The developer is proposing a single, one-way driveway in (located to the east of the historic residence) and a one-way exit back onto Myrtle in hopes to remedy an traffic issues in this location. Stormwater Management: The property is located in the Middle St. Croix Watershed and must meet the City's adopted stormwater management requirements. The applicant is proposing to Case No. 2021-38 June 23, 2021 Page 5 do this through the installation of a green roof tray system though no design has been submitted to the Watershed Management Organization (WMO). The WMO is requesting the City place a condition of approval on the development that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, that meets the MSCWMO performance standards, be required. A maintenance and access agreement should be in place prior to the release of the building permit. Additionally, City Engineer Shawn Sanders has indicated the following storm water requirements will need to be met: 1. No net increase in rate of flow leaving the site 2. Volume control needed to meet MSCWMO requirements. 3. No new Storm water runoff shall enter onto adjacent property 4. Any storm water from the building shall be connected to the City strom sewer system Trash: The developer is proposing to keep all trash receptacles in the building's basement parking area. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to insure trash remains in the building in perpetuity. Relevant Area Plans Though not an adopted plan, the City has recently consulted with SEH to assess the downtown lighting system for the prospect of future changes and potential ownership. City staff is recommending pedestrian -scaled lighting, that conforms to the City's design standards, be installed on Third Street North and Myrtle Street West. Additionally, the developer should enter into a maintenance agreement with the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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. City Public Works Director Shawn Sanders has indicated the following public infrastructure improvements will be required: 1. The sanitary sewer and water service will need to be upsized to serve the new building. 2. The existing water service on Third Street shall be removed, if not used. 3. The sidewalks on Myrtle and Third sand the curbs on Myrtle shall be replaced as part of the project. 4. The redesigned Third Street North parking lot stalls will conform to City Code width standards. 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: Case No. 2021-38 June 23, 2021 Page 6 • 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 of the Height Overlay District is "to preserve and enhance the essential character of the downtown" by ensuring "structures close to the river not rise above the height of structures farther from the river". • 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. • The purposes of the parking and loading requirements are to "reduce street congestion and traffic hazards in the city" and to "add to the safety and convenience of its citizens, by incorporating adequate, attractively designed, and functional facilities for off-street parking as an integral part of every use of land." b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? • As discussed by the HPC, there are no 4.5-story structures adjacent to the proposed development site. The overall height — which is an element of the structure's overall mass — is out of scale with structures in the adjacent historic district. • 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 structures along both Myrtle and Third in the vicinity. • If the developer was granted a variance and mitigation/plan approval did not occur, this would not be in harmony with the requirements of the Zoning Code. 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. While reduced setbacks are in harmony with the Plan, the increased height and parking variance (as well as credit transfer) would be in conflict. A policy of the Plan is to "encourage mixed use development that incorporates housing and parking structures within Downtown". Since the developer is proposing some onsite parking with mitigation for over half of the parking required, the waiver of these parking requirements is in harmony with the Plan Case No. 2021-38 June 23, 2021 Page 7 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 greater than three stories and 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 balancing of the community's competing goals and required development standards (including height, setbacks, and parking), is not unique in Stillwater and does not create a plight for this property. In an area where the City encourages higher -density infill, accommodating for all zoning code requirements — even with raw, vacant land, can be challenging. That said, a request to not conform with the code does not constitute a uniqueness; the result of the height and parking variance requests are directly relates to the developer's desires. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property is proposed to be developed to nearly all lot lines, maximizing the development potential of the site. Though the City encourages build -out compatible with the historic development pattern, it is the desire of the developer to have the proposed number of units despite the property's inability to meet all zoning code regulations. Additionally, it is the desire of the property owner to have a 4.5-story on this building. Therefore, the property's height and the parking deficit are created by the landowner. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? As indicated by the HPC, a 4.5-story building will alter the essential character of the area the structure is proposed to be located in. While it is true this property sits higher than those (the 110 Myrtle historic resource and the Lowell Inn) and any structure could have a towering effect, creating anything greater than three stories will be domineering. Additionally, staff asserts that requiring all residential units to have (at least) one parking space would not alter the essential character of the City's parking system in this location. 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. To achieve this, maximizing the building's footprint to accommodate for more units (and parking spaces) is necessary. However, difficulties regarding conformance to the City's height and parking regulations have not been established. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: Case No. 2021-38 June 23, 2021 Page 8 A. Recommend the City Council approve the requested use permit, with or without associated variances, with (at least) the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021- 38, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. 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. 3. All mechanical units shall be enclosed or screened from public view. 4. Abutting sidewalks must be kept clean of trash, cigarette butts and other forms of debris. 5. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. If the plan includes a fee -in -lieu, the fee shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Failure to pay charges within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the fees as a condition of approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. a) Any conditions attached to the parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this Conditional Use Permit. 6. Prior to the release of applicable building, grading, right-of-way, and/or obstruction permits from the City, the developer will provide a traffic control plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. 7. Prior to the release of applicable building, grading, right-of-way, and/or obstruction permits from the City, the developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the installation of pedestrian -scaled lighting located on public sidewalks. 8. Prior to the release of applicable building, grading, right-of-way, and/or obstruction permits from the City, the developer shall enter into an access and maintenance agreement for stormwater requirements. 9. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that meets the MSCWMO shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. The project shall require full review by the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management and approval, and payment of all review fees, will be required prior to issuance of any building or grading permits by the City. 11. The sanitary sewer and water service will need to be upsized to serve the new building. 12. The existing water service on Third Street shall be removed, if not used. 13. The sidewalks on Myrtle and Third sand the curbs on Myrtle shall be replaced as part of the project. 14. The redesigned Third Street North parking lot stalls will conform to City Code width standards. 15. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. Case No. 2021-38 June 23, 2021 Page 9 16. 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. Recommend denial of the requested use permit and associated variances. 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 of this large building project is not of primary concern, the ability to meet all Zoning Code requirements is of concern. If a development cannot meet its residential parking onsite, then a Use Permit should not be approved. The State of Minnesota is specific in that Cities may grant variances but are not obligated to do so. When they do, they must make findings practical difficulty has been established. As noted in this staff report there is no difficulty in conformance to the City's maximum height (in feet and stories) requirement. Therefore, staff would recommend denial of the 11.5' and 1.5 story variance, requiring no greater than three stories facing Myrtle Street East and Third Street North. It is clear the development team has spent considerable time developing a thoughtful addition to the downtown area. As the development has not obtained HPC Design Permit approval nor DTPC parking plan recommendation, staff is unsure whether the development — as proposed — conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of a Large Building Project Conditional Use Permit. Given this, staff would recommend the Planning Commission table consideration of the matter. That said, if the Commission was favorable to advancing this project without traffic engineering and downtown parking recommendations as well as a Design Permit, staff would recommend the Commission also deny the parking variance and allow no great than 19 units onsite (which would accommodate 1.5 parking spaces for the residential units). Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Existing Conditions Site Plan Floor Plans Elevations Landscape Plans Cc: Nathan Landucci Catherine and Mark Balay Jon Whitcomb k , -- • ' 251 I / N _ --, \ mol r rr , ik 304,'", •••••••z. e,pa1/4 4 . „, * 7 - ir ,...k ' 231 231 0 .. •' . 21 \N 223 it 'it 4 NV r 1\ \, • - ..r, * .....A . Ito9 ,.....- s pw,i,, • , - A, ••- 4, . • 1 0. ,,,,,, •,., -f The 1 Birthplace I (water of Minnesota IAN_ -7.70 , -:::k ' 1. r214 1 ,. _ v's. "; /‘1 -4.„,45.- 741' \ • 10 \''''' 1 . \ -. NI •, ' - 2Q0 204 , ,*3 (5 — ‘ ' ' ' ), . t \ 115 1 cC\ s . ....A 107 ...• , ,\ 102 4 201 1 * 102 •:\ , • . 130 • s , % -, • i, , - s / /I 03 I le .'.. • lo . 106 , I, . \'.4., .408 ,, '` 113 ,,, -\' ••• t- . Site Location 103 3rd St 110 Myrtle St 0 100 200 N E 400 Feet I -A % ", , , 1S Ili o' \ , General Site Location * ' . Vlagamisk*PJ,VIIT , . • -• ' ....., 10, 1 132 ....---.' 106 1100602 tI 2. 2. 4.. . T4 k0\ 118 720 * V •wl'Illill111111111N-wd.,, iplMamPm-.riimlPkP 4411 11.111.111111i1 i.1it—tNmwM oll. i14'. _IN Imm-A• ri.l1 i„' mFiil•l:.1A7.3ii=1 iokio,. lltei lli-iviP. _N1•1. 7C/• 1IS\ I.\ \ , • ' \ 116 ---- C. ....0, ••,-10."" ' % _ .. ......- "IA , \ 1 / * 2II1I M- M tIvw•=111'e-41 — MEM b .../.- A 0 / I :I 04 it v. •• .... - . -.A •-e' --1.1,,,,,_ irim. .... NW ty II Einumem \ . • _ --- --A „, ..-. f;:r '''' 107 23 -1- 1 WM • M . .. 04 • .. A •••\ --t -rt ' ....El.w, P.. F. Mar '''' I .1, i PI ' . k..4-. . , .1 236 23 it IN ....!1;"vi'l % I i F: pol..' LUNN '41.%iiieklumil, , --,,. --- .... la , l'-s, 275 . \ 1. • . ' Plar '.1.— 1.1111Lialfilliric;" . . ir re, €.41111E1M .---ii Mlle' i. I RI" -i- - 6;:m __ May 25, 2021 Abbi Jo Wittman City Planner 216 4th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Narrative Dear Abbi, This is a formal request to the City Council for their consideration in transferring ownership of a small irregular strip of city owned land to our private locally owned entity that would own and manage the proposed apartment building. In this application we have submitted a preliminary site plan that shows the land assembly of 4 parcels owned by Jon Wittcomb, 1 parcel owned by Mark and Catherine Balay and the proposed acquisition of the city owned land denoted in red crosshatching. I currently have control of both the Wittcomb and Balay properties; the sites are under contract. The city's property that I am looking to acquire has 2 retaining walls. The walls retain dirt due to elevation changes by the the city's parking ramp and bridge to the ramp. Our structural engineer's opinion is that we will be able to remove portions of these walls in our proposal to redevelop the site. Our Architecture, Engineering and Civil plans will show how our building and retaining walls can sufficiently retain the soils during construction and upon completion of the project. The city would also take advantage of the fact that those existing retaining walls would no longer have to be the responsibility of the city to maintain and monitor. Please refer to the engineering opinion by my structural engineer, Kerry Rauschendorfer; Larson Engineering. His letter details further explanation of the current conditions and the steps we would take to ensure the construction and engineering details are acceptable to the city. Our site plan also shows the interconnected design with existing city parking and shows a net benefit of an additional 3 parking spaces. Our attached concepts shows elevations and floor plans of the proposed 42 unit market rate apartment building. I appreciate the consideration of City staff and City Council in this matter. Best Regards, Nathan Landucci; Landucci Homes, Inc. D L \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\fi v b D ° b D b v v v vD v v D b vp O D ° ✓ ° D D <i p Db v v Do p v b y D v ° D v v p D _,, ), ,. b ° • ® 0 b V D AC\i> D Dv D 9 8 DO ° D b D b v D ° tV v D by D v b v v p p v Dv LEGEND • 0 ry AC EM ET D FOUND MONUMENT 1 /2" IP MARKED RLS 15480 SET 1 /2" IRON PIPE MARKED RLS NO. 25718 CABLE TV PEDESTAL AIR CONDITIONER ELECTRIC MANHOLE ELECTRIC METER ELECTRIC PEDESTAL ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER LIGHT POLE GUY WIRE - POWER POLE GAS MANHOLE GAS METER • TELEPHONE MANHOLE T❑o TELEPHONE PEDESTAL co SANITARY CLEANOUT SANITARY MANHOLE CATCH BASIN STORM DRAIN 0 0 or 0 ® or ❑ v b D Lzq O O N co � CD IMB • X950.0 WATER VALVE BOLLARD FLAG POLE MAIL BOX TRAFFIC SIGN UNKNOWN MANHOLE SOIL BORING SPOT ELEVATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE FLARED END SECTION O STORM MANHOLE FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION HYDRANT CURB STOP WATER WELL WATER MANHOLE WATER METER POST INDICATOR VALVE OO 0 WM 728.2BW - 723.7E W - \ 1 FOUND JLM MARKED RLS 718 720 16141 Si. V N. 0.6 _ 4� UE UTV uF UT ou uG 1230 — D 747.4 - UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND CABLE TV UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OVERHEAD UTILITY UNDERGROUND GAS SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FENCE CURB [TYPICAL] CONTOURS /////////////// BUILDING LINE BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE 3)(16°55' 29" E STONE/CONC. WALL 175.10 SAN MH RIM=746.7 INV=736.1 718 , g, \ r \\_- E"LY LINE •F THE W"LY c10.00 FEET OF LOTS 16, 15 & 14. NOTE: TOPOGRAPHY TAKEN FROM SURVEY DATED 1-23-1 3. NO ADDITIONAL SURVEYING TO DATE. 745.9 720 GRAVEL BLOCK WALL 734 CONC. WALL 73..8TW 742.9 - CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! Gopher State One CaII TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 X 726.8 vD \ v —724.8 D --724.3 Dv -CATCH BASIN RIM=74 1.5 A SAN MH - A RIM=737.3 INV=724.9 STS MH - RIM=740.1 EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcels A-D is as shown on Stewart Title Guaranty Company Issued by its Agent, Land Title, Inc. Title Commitment No. 545351, dated September 21 st, 2016. Parcel A West 90 feet of Lot 1 5, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel B: West 90 feet of Lot 14, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel C: The South 45 feet of the West 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel D: The North 5 feet of the West 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel E Lot Two (2), Block One (1), SPGLI ADDITION, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, in and for the County of Washington and State of Minnesota. PER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 70740) Torrens Property Parcel F - legal description to be determined UNIT NO. ONE (1), COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY NO. 349, A CONDOMINIUM, SPGLI CONDOMINIUMS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA. SUBJECT TO ENCUMBRANCES, LIENS AND INTERESTS NOTED ON CICCT NO. 70824. SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE MINNESOTA COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP ACT, MINNESOTA STATUTES 51 5B, AND ACTS AMENDATORY THEREOF. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 70833) Torrens Property 70833. THIS CITY OF STILLWATER OWNED PARCEL IS PART OF CIC 349, SPGLI CONDOMINIUMS WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE AMENDED FOR THE TRANSFER OF THIS PARCEL. REFER TO CIC DECLARATION DOCUMENTS IF A TRANSFER IS PERMISSIBLE. AREA: TOTAL AREA AS SHOWN = 25,286 SQ.FT PARCELS A-D = 1 3,674 SQ.FT. PARCEL E = 9,526 SQ.FT PARCEL F = 2,085 SQ.FT SURVEY NOTES: 1 . BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE. 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. 4. THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS EXISTING CONDITIONS DRAWING IS A COMPELLATION OF EXISTING SURVEY DATA AT VARIOUS TIMES. NO ADDITIONAL CURRENT SURVEYING HAS BEEN DONE SINCE 2008. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. EASEMENT NOTES: The following exceptions appear on the Stewart Title Guaranty Company Issued by its Agent, Land Title, Inc. Title Commitment No. 545351, dated September 21 st, 2016 There are not survey related items shown on Schedule BII of said commitment. SUBJECT TO A WALL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT PER DOC. NO 1225824 (NOT SHOWN). EXISTING PARKING: THERE ARE 7 PARTIAL PARKING STALLS DESIGNATED ON THIS PARCEL INCLUDING 0 HANDICAP STALLS. 0 15 30 107 3RD ST. N. CONTACT: Nathan Landucci Landucci Homes, Inc. Ianduccihomes.com 651-894-2582 COUNTY/CITY: WASH 1 NGTON c i UIVTY CITY OF 5T1 LLWATER VICINITY MAP I- 0 z (NOT TO SCALE) ym m SITE---- s 1A,1R4`6 VICIN TY MAP SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 30 NORTH, RANGE 20 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA REVISIONS: DATE 11-13-17 2-26-21 REVISION INITIAL ISSUE ADDED PARCELS CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. n Number: 25718 PROJECT LOCATION: THIRD ST. N. PID#2003020420059 PID#2003020420060 PID#2003020420061 PID#2003020420169 11cI MYRTLE ST. E. PID#2803020420175 O O 2NID S. N. PID#2803020420176 1 Suite #200 1970 Northwestern Ave. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 dan@cssurvey .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. FILE NAME PROJECT NO. SURVSTO4D ST04008D EXISTING CONDITIONS REBUILD RETAINING WALL AS NEEDED REFER TO STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PROPOSED PROPERTY PURCHASE FROM CITY ADD (3) PARKING SPACES AND UPDATE SIDEWALK 107 3RD STREET NORTH, STILLWATER 4931 W. 35TH ST.. #200 ST. LOUIS PARK. MN 55416 Office: 612.615.0060 www.CNilSiteGroup.com 5 RECONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY INCLUDE CROSS ACCESS ESMT. • REBUILD RETAINING WALL AS NEEDED REFER TO STRUCTURAL ENGINEER Project NJmber: Issue Date: 21043 05/28/2021 Revision Number: Revision Date: 30'-0" SITE PLAN OPT 1 1111111111111111111111111111Wimuk111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I1111111 Myiritle Apawtm,emts Project Vision: The proposed project will be an assembly of several parcels occupying the Northeast corner of the prominent Myrtle and 3rd St. N. This intersection is a gateway to the Central business district of the historic and coveted downtown. The proposed new 42-unit residential apartment community will have 34 below grade, indoor parking stalls, will add 3 stalls due to a vacation of a drive lane on city property, and 40 grandfathered parking spaces granted by the city for this site. The total 77 spaces allow this project to be proposed without a parking variance. The residential unit mix will be comprised of one -bedroom, two -bedroom and penthouse units which will accommodate a wide variety of households including young workers in the local tourist -based economy, families, and empty nesters. The building amenities will include a ground floor lobby, welcome office and exercise room oriented toward 3rd Street. The fourth floor, stepped significantly back from the street and property lines on all sides, will house two penthouse residences along with a club room and outdoor terrace for use by residents and their guests, featuring views of downtown Stillwater's rooftops and the river and bluff beyond. The design of the building reflects substantial design cues from the historic character of downtown Stillwater. The building is cladded in warm masonry and dark metal siding with large windows and aluminum balconies. The inviting pedestrian scale of the building will dramatically improve the character of both Myrtle and 3rd Street, helping to link the downtown core to the bluff top district. The 80 or so new residents will become regular patrons of the restaurants, bars, shops and businesses that make Stillwater such a unique community. The additional residents will help stabilize and strengthen the local downtown economy. PROJECT METRICS Level Total Construction GSF Plaza / Roof Terrace GSF Total Enclosed GSF Parking/ Mech. GSF Residential Stalls Public Parallel Stalls Total Residential GSF Amenity GSF Circulation GSF Units Level - Parking 12,837 12,837 12,837 34 Level 1 12,837 12,837 12,837 578 2,050 12 Level 2 12,837 12,837 12,837 1,226 14 Level 3 12,837 12,837 12,837 1,226 14 Level 4 7,770 1,860 5850 5850 900 1,286 2 Total 59,118 1,860 57,258 12,837 34 44,361 1,478 5,788 42 PROJECT METRICS 1 BED 2 BED TOTAL Level 1 8 4 12 Level 2 10 4 14 Level 3 10 4 14 Level 4 2 2 Bedrooms 28 14 42 Project Analysis: Lot size (gsf) 25,286 Lot size .58 Proposed FAR (Building footprint divided by 25,286) Proposed DU/acre 72 Zoning District CBD: Central Business District Downtown Height Overlay Historic Building Adjacency No adjacent buildings Max height 3 stories/37' Proposed height 4 stories/48.5' Required parking 63 residential, 14 guest, 77 total Proposed parking 63 residential, 14 guest, 77 total Zoning Analysis Site = 25,286 SF LEVEL GSF % Site Level - Parking 12,837 51% Level 1 12,837 51% Level 2-3 12,837 51% Level 4 5,910 23% IHErchitects Proposed 42 Unit Apartment 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NO.. Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants 48'-6" AVERAGE GRADE N F.O. THIRD 121'-3 3/4" N F.O. SECOND 10'-7 7/8" F.O. FIRST Ir00'-0" �T.O. PARKING LEVEL 88 -8, 1!,.r_,�. %mama" Amr T a rJ F!. L 1 aINee-e ▪ • £ w -� Peer+= t � �' a weer �� —fir - - .-- tea; I .M — -a-• — 7r___— -. ae-a : mew ▪ •Pin • �- 7�eeei aw---37 -�, Q -eee- aw=MMIrt7 Man in.!: . M ■Pee: — --re- - �f Brick Veneer Wood Look Metal Panel IIIIII11111111111111111111111rIIl1111iIIIIIIIIIIII y!l�111n1111111t Vertical Metal Panel �> ree�7 S� 4R i F'�i �= a -� w• T'>�a 7 . y�� f. - —ate w- r7.i'-"� — �a'w. R.�—am.._ --' r_a its i� a�eeee- M-_� wi --ate 41--F- r-sw\'C ��� a.� a�F. smF-�� �� wrt- ^>s a�� �� �s�wE_wo �I� m� •,.s — . >_w■ �eew a� w saIr M� w — �+r ea i��.�.s — fws �i..� -- •R' :w! CT " !s a♦ wR 4-F .� we- w. cam.- !� w* 5!C ! �� �. -1� ���e: eeesa�a�L�o .� •!- - 7 - •Cage- 0--� r— - aw wFw- wi tr.— �i w• t=d aen-eeeesierY wi r— >!' .. a— rr Graf -ar• � �-� � e-� wf=M•Mi— c=g1E0`.amorp immor =Mai17 T== Black Metal Panel and Parapet • F!!-.-#---e'. .�� cis .M7.,....„. _ •W : --»iRi - _ j� L-- :sue r.>d.�4▪ � aw.l. 7e we w-Y— •� ■ we v .. -w as--r-a-�Yw 'y!!.i.:. 7♦ e a �- - _ a• l-- 'Jk M '' •iLMMW i err 4 w E— i ltev7 i wi ■ V70,---ems ee�rr . - -Mt ice-- -r:elet -eeef , -- nrF i — —w-ar' .a- a :s r� �- sae fraE- - - - •ea--i• w eeeew. wf .er• - r • `. f '111 ram - �--•� � �� aw P. iPeaNi t.a - - - ems aa• �w � _ ■ , r am=' 'g. A'� � -+ / I. - o,•••' it ffflifiC•ia/V ftNe oaf n-eic ' - MtP' � 3L7 e� T-- _- t+_ gErlIMPMEI M . 1rd#I.e.Apartments er:.�T1i wi ' --PIWEPLta wi wi per' aw t�aF r T a: •NIQEM.I.PWINM w-w- - — ii a_ - - - E - i -e--e- a--e- — w- rwM e - -.rerFd Marm.-•. ME MI Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" IHErchitects Proposed 42 Unit Apartment 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN Exterior West Elevation A4 PROJECT NO.: Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants 48'-6" AVERAGE GRADE T.O. THIRD 121'-3 3/4" T.O. SECOND 110'-7 7/8" T.O. FIRST 1 00'-0" Brick Veneer .d1flii1II1I 101111111 r/Ittl#i1111 ° f. it ill I flhIIi"JjjIN INV- �T.O. PARKING LEVEL 88 -8' afflara•1-=� w� w 0 --. • i --- SFi - a SUMS. tier FIf-S.SSL --- w r - SEIIE Sari - — SE. SS - -a - — SF ; -cam w� SS.-F S. r'- ���•IF.J#Fra. tea' Sar��• lf3fSJr`_ - iS SISII_., 1 F�� a-t — ..• SS — — - : . li' E — - A c-' ac •=ma -. MN — SS Si T :3.sS,SS. SEMIS. Wood Look Metal Panel . Ski — 7Z� -- 7:rms1611.1"...":::E=1:41.1e1=!1±61.MrLn'.. — I�a..ws' ammo —:SS S3 SS SSTSS ,SIME 3e a':. i s -SS MSSr�r —,meammemm Eall !�- arms MESEIIS --- 37 MSS w S.= Sty S — "Solis .. - �SIS11'SMISMS �z Vertical Metal Panel 1 I I I I I I I I I I I11111111111 I I I IT1"rn r11i' WSW ^'� Inaba.. MSS ASS �. �. _�—��— _ ES+.Sii SSW`, .. -- Si. .4J.= S- - .�-a e�w� �wi� r-ii- �i laS a it � _ E2MFIgammousm.SS SSE MS SS Mai, SS aFraFIW =- s SS. ,.,wmF :—� — i —ISM — — le-=-- !tea 'MSS - _IS - �,a �asw SS SS —_--- -.,mow er's-- =- � __-- t- -:•h Sri S S•SS ILS a=sklisar la+ c s'. .-F.ii !�-ana�— a r ._- • SS err:--=>�+t -- .ram-��.� . - ^,ww wSS',w wIN—SSG . a - -uw-wrem--�wSs-..• . `S — ISMS --- w • �f w4 �iawiesras�i =�wF` 'IF Jwi Kiwi w - . - w '�� w I _ S! SS w .fir +ram - =,1 w i. —SFM _ SSA -�... . =MS _ S. LI E;ri_- — Asa -• # waTS . . r.. ■ate a..T rsr. : wYF.lerr r a�ni • Se F7g: _+3. N� • ., --- SS-• -.- C�.7! _ t. Ir ISEEMMUMIF S ass, ISM 1111111111111111111f11111111111111111111I1111f111111111111111111l11111f111I l• R_�i or -VW. . Black Metal Panel and Parapet Scale: 3/16" =1'-0" IHErchitects Proposed 42 Unit Apartment 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN Exterior South Elevation A5 PROJECT NO.: Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants Brick Veneer 4011 Wood Look Metal Panel Vertical Metal Panel Black Metal Panel and Parapet l I�1111-II @Miltii.in 011 111111111IIf IIIII 1111111 h, k, ki IL ■I iVIIII `I.� J 111111111 II,, 11111111111111111111IIf II• 111111111111111111111111111111 11 1111111111111111111111111111 111111111 a .�� 1 IIIIIIIII Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" Architects Proposed 42 Unit Apartment Exterior East Elevation PROJECT NO.. Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN A6 iiillliji1l Brick Veneer 'milli 11 Iliii111111 I!!II!'II Wood Look Metal Panel Vertical Metal Panel Liiriifds mi �i ! iMmEMK W �— = - - Black Metal Panel and Parapet t1.1111111 — �s W. .Tr-" - �— . ._ � " '=� �� �� . _ - - .fig �� F - d = — 9 — ti • - _ ,ram p .f�r � �i i�Y — ---- i!�! _ doh - — r r — — �� —� sriYrF d- "� iLme ilw- •IiM #Ei .. � . Iry �- -..-.21"..-mm—la r--. L. 1-MWal :tea 1li imp IM « µ • i Rat .� r -.�� 'w.wN& '- u �� •. 1 sail- Q�. . _- � � -_ 1, • �d aIM 1 WMI =C — - r • -- • An• 4smi nor ima mama M Scale: 3/16" =1'-0" IHErchitects Proposed 42 Unit Apartment 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN Exterior North Elevation A7 PROJECT NO.. Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants PROJECT NO.. PROJECT NO.. Architects Proposed 42 Unit Apartment South East View IRIC11011111i1 Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN A10 t 3—Wm. :.arm - • ai.s } mill aid • i..#..... 5, Ed i• � , ml- =Mri r} .' .I. iR i il Mar v — .,IN -- 1NI I 9 -- ..11EIiF - - - - .-g If; 7 IHErchitects Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants Proposed 42 Unit Apartment 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN Perspective View All IRIC11011111i1 107 3RD STREET NORTH, STILLWATER 4931 W. 35TH ST., #200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 Office: 612.615.0060 www.CNilSiteGroup.com Project Number. Issue Date: 21043 05/28/2021 Revision Number: Revision Date: 1" = 30'-0" 1 m� 15'-0" 0 30'-( LANDSCAPE PLAN OPT 1 June 18, 2021 To: The Members of Stillwater's City Planning Commission Re: Case No. CPC-2021-38 Dear Commissioners, The neighboring residents of the Steeple Towne Condominiums feel the above referenced project would be considerably detrimental, as proposed. Overall, the building is too large for the site, its' height would effectively dwarf all surrounding buildings in this historic area, as well as blocking the scenic river approach to downtown Stillwater. Even more concerning is the impact the massive densification 42 units would cause for traffic problems at the already challenged Third and Myrtle Street intersection. The proposed building would be too tall and too imposing for the lot size which is at an entrance to and exit from the Historic Downtown District. It would overwhelm historic "Church Street" (Third Street.) Approaching downtown from the west, the proposed building would rise to 50 feet at the corner of Third and Myrtle. Coming up the hill from downtown, the building would rise to approximately 60 feet at the southeast corner of their lot. The design places a huge black steel monolith in Stillwater's Historic District. Three years ago, a project was discussed for this same site. It was proposed to have either 10 or 11 units on the lot's footprint. It had a site density of 32 units per acre which is similar to other projects in Stillwater. The current proposal would have 4 times the number of living units on a slightly larger footprint (made up of City property), yielding an approximate density of over 100 apartments per acre. submit that the location of this proposal does not safely and aesthetically accommodate such density. All of this intensifies yet another major problem with the proposal: Traffic Density! When the previous hearings were held in 2018, both the Planning Commission and the City Council where deeply concerned about current and potentially future traffic issues on the busy thoroughfare that is Myrtle Street. That was when only 10 to 11 living units were being proposed. Now, fast forward to 2021, and possibly a 42-unit building in the same location! 400% more cars will need ingress and egress from the building into the same problematic mid -block steep inclination situation. Additionally, traffic use will conceivably increase anyway with the additional residents from the Chestnut apartment building just one block away as well. respectfully ask the Commission to deny the Variances and the Conditional Use Permit requested for the scope of this project. suggest that a smaller footprint, lower profile and less density on this particular site would allow for a safer and more pleasing transition to Stillwater's Downtown Historic District. Stillwater is immensely proud of its' heritage and the structures that epitomize its' past. Historic "Church Street" plays a significant role in our City's architectural charm. Going forward, let's continue to strive to conceive, design, and implement the very best integration of the old with the new to enhance our City. Thank you for the opportunity to register our concerns as close neighbors to the proposed structure. Dick Sjoberg (218-686-7578) Vice President of Steeple Towne's Home Owner's Association • LUTHERRfl CHURCH June 23, 2021 Stillwater Planning Commission City of Stillwater Case No.: 2021-38 Dear Planning Commission members: TRIflITY Trinity Lutheran Church of Stillwater by and through its church council, submits this letter in regard to the request of Nathan Landucci/Landucci Homes for a conditional use permit and associated variances for the property on the east side of North Third Street at 107 North Third Street/110 Myrtle Street East. Trinity is the owner of the property on the west side of North Third Street across from the proposed development. The applications, as we understand them, are for the purpose of permitting construction of a 40 or 42 unit apartment building, with portions of the building to be 4 1/2 stories and 48.50' tall, with 29 conforming parking spaces. The church council has reviewed the Planning Report prepared by Abbi Wittman, City Planner, which recommends denial of the conditional use permit, the denial of the height variance, and the denial of the parking variance. Trinity shares the concerns stated in the Planning Report regarding this proposed development and supports the recommended denial of the conditional use permit and associated variances. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, s/ Melanie Sullivan Melanie Sullivan, Council President Trinity Lutheran Church Congregational Council TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH • PO Box 339, 115 4th St. N, Stillwater, MN 55082 • 651-439-7400 • www.trinitylc.org iliwater THE B f FIT H P L A C E OF MINNESOIA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-39 REPORT DATE: June 17, 2021 MEETING DATE: June 23, 2021 APPLICANT: Kyle Randolph LANDOWNER: Kyle and Rachel Randolph REQUEST: Variance to the total impervious surface coverage, in order to construct a deck in the rear yard. LOCATION: 1860 White Pine Court ZONING: TR, Traditional Residential (Shoreland Management Overlay District) REPORT BY: Laura Chamberlain, Planning Consultant, HKGi REVIEWED BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Kyle and Rachel own the property at 1860 White Pine Court, and are looking to install a 16' X 20' deck. This would add a total of 320 sqaure feet of impervious surface coverage to the lot. 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 already exceeds the 25% threshold, with a total impervious surface coverage of around 30.7%. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicants are requesting an 8.8% coverage variance to City Code Section 31-305. (b). (1). to allow the impervious coverage to be 33.8% (or 3,529 sf), 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 2021-39 Page 2 of 5 The property is zoned TR, Traditional Residential; a single-family house with a deck 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 600 feet as the crow flies from South Twin Lake. Furthermore, the topography on 1860 White Pine Court 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 r65p & U EASEMENT W TOO s E Elevation and Runoff Flow 1880 White Pine Court 880' 886' = Elevation = General Flow Direction 0 15 30 60 Feet CPC Case 2021-39 Page 3 of 5 i l lwater The Birthpla® of Mlnnesot N Lake Shoreland Management District 1860 White Pine Court Lake Shoreland Management District 0 100 200 400 Feet restricted to 50%, and that earmarked greenspace helps ensure protection of the waterbody. 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 deck and increasing the impervious surface coverage by 8.8%, in this case, 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 in the rear yard is reasonable in the TR zoning district. CPC Case 2021-39 Page 4 of 5 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 600 feet from the lake. If this property were located outside of the Shoreland management district, the TR district has no maximum impervious surface requirement. 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 request for the variance does not reflect economic considerations alone. The applicant would like to construct this improvement for the enjoyment of their personal property. 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- 39, 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. A water runoff treatment plan for the additional 320 square feet will need to be submitted to, and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. 4. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. CPC Case 2021-39 Page 5 of 5 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 deck 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 600' 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. 2021-39 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Rendering cc: Kyle and Rachel Randolph 4 4 Water 1.1 8740 t ? w 'IIV�I� a 41 O �, • t ' ." m I The Birthplace of Minnesota 'I 110,1 2620 2600 ` ,l,.. 2460 2560 1 2500 I iI y ' 1 1 R "`WH ITEM 4114.4 or It r yr- 2625 / ] i 2605 1 256 2535 2505 244 . % �1 243' 2400 — N ,- 2435 2405 �J 1 Jt ' �1 �!f Site Location 1860 White Pine CT . < .:1-- Q r. fU9t `, .Ylr. , ... • = t '�'sr /L .,� . 4s�k Jr h�{ `�71T� : 1860 1 ... x ,5 ue W 0 75 150 30Feet 1855 sN - 1`1837 as a � \' ' 1857 184 •• General Site Location /i\‘ . .. m � i '4 1850� 1835 l(s4 rl . 111111111111116,1110= 111 ■ W/ ffolIMIIMIIII% _ ������ �i % WI 1. ' 7k\ ,.q »>. , . 1846 K , ... , - \ 1840 . "1/4....0, 0 nJ �1,,,� i?'"' l>IiI _ _.r ®®® !» 1836 - 9t �� �i����� �1 mil` -, A" `•. _ 1830 1418' it r•� I ®® \ t X 'F ' i 4820 .'Iii.' p.r ° 11 �+ 1�■ r d r ! � <i t 7 1 ice �,�,,��i�..l�. ano1H '"� ll;�in']�I-�;- r =, ...--..1". F w#,+y�� }� , 8528 r .. ��_ lez_ _� 1� I =I' III ° + 1 18 May 2021 To whom it may concern, We are writing to request a variance at 1860 White Pine Court to add a deck to the back of our home, where a sliding glass door is already in existence for this purpose. Because our residence resides in a shoreline district, we are restricted by a percentage (25%) of land that is allowed to be developed. However, our home and the water run off does not impact flowage away or to the Twin Lakes. Our residence was constructed in 2018, adding a deck allows functionality and safety to our home given the intended design. Regards, Kyle Randolph C: (815) 382-7375 Pi�Fi .avll ` fit 1) art 4F cmfle 4:4'41 '5114 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY i•txri AU. OR to my sail Eius,' MProF�aieet arias:: CAI ate ac„'oi next^.: s 6770:8 Ly , „La-aIROO 7TH ADD. N89 23 n8.!N...134.62 • sn :EA.SEM1fEAIT �.--.^�--alIfence — 5. 71 I!1*L \ v ;-1 �` � � I sill IBrIGe �il '0�rin p -ey �d::, rk ;,i r;fir ( \ \ fl \o" t,A. \ \ \ salsa �a m \� s: I. i it ' VA Ili_ \\ \ti a4 \\ ... _. ^ \\ 0 20 \\ \ 429 \ A\y _'• \ GRAPHIC SCALE / / "tug,\\ 'v \\ Scale: 1 Inch = 20 Feet / / NOTES \ T' a1 ri \ �"� / 1. Bodine @awdofm inn es eta ardcIdla feces* otiknenskes aspfadbd bred: ed. rlrielact ntf�rsgowe�n forowmm3 and foundation dimensions. 2 0, ,caaLs iivy7Rfae6onfo6 h89 pen880dm Les be by Flint000041.. rein Etiarson dresesneL Istsr:A*0y dens to steeped the ener:adhaucse. a APfor-3L Ate xrJth tins bae1PMdsd 62,tlenMio e+emi>=nrn ar,oae✓fal1I= esimebderd orarlem-Jar! dement- LF•7yarrxrwnts ycr ft•Y+:F'yWP'e:,'Ne maw]. 2p-0 • mart acv' =�. rRti. t T[q G !saw Cf mss Aqy... PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1860 While Pine Court Stillwater. Minnesota PID 19.03020.14.0045 PREPARED FOR: Jason Heinen jhetnen@helnenhomes.com Cell 763-370-1458 Fax 763-263-9330 ERICKSON CIVIL 333 Nonh Maio Snert, Suitt 201 &limner, M®esoo 55082 Phone (612) 309.3804 www.erickserich lsite.com T e BQt, Ina of Lot T, Bloat 1, BROWNS CREEK COVE Is assumed to haws the beefing ofN89731TB'W, based upon the recorded pleL BOLDING SE784CKREOUIREMEYTBc FRONT SETBACK AWAIT SETBACK GARAGERiONrFACAG FRONraE7aACR GARAGE SAW FACeIi 87 IiARAGESOESETBACK 8 a+AESE'Oi,AGc(COANENLOla) 15fA7t,SE,90 aARAQE HOUSE SIDE SMACK D' AEMSETBACK 3 '® De'e es Przpd Edvrhn earMaroT8 i8'9) • !]emotes Ewsting S(.nf@evefloa a Oa+Tanes Found 1/2 inch lice Mon maef of Lot Caner (RCS 25718) e aerKeaa Bpse FEef+ed B: Lotlhw(d:C1,2•j °FeetSiowal - — — - Denotes at Feming LOT SURFACE ANALYSIS Tall Squire Faomge: 10.301 Sq. Ft Proposed Impetvfoue&area: 3.215Sq. FL (312%) Proposed House Tap chair = 89800 Proposed Garage Top called( _ 80g.00 Proposed Garage Opening Elevation 8 867 PrbpouedLomest Opening eSt.-la e61.00 Proposed Lowest Roar = 199/719-891.00 BENCHMAROC TNR1Lel 18 Bbdt 1= 899.99 LOT 1, BLOCK 1, BROWNS CREEK COVE, ACCOl201NO TO THE RECORDED RAT, ON F1Ew TitE OFRCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER WASHNGTON COLNTX MNNESOTA / heathy cs%1ye7aredsplan ass000a10mo wanderety0$acIeweve&AmaAefOaf/ eat BeufyLienaedSLete)Asundr Ups ofNl SAtledMlenesage. Lowest Floor 1 Revision 12122117\ • -.--. TMs plan lemmata Unrecorded bouncy dthe subbelproperly The balmdmyaas ad tiered revised crew let aidd idedsepadofthesurvey File No. 17-156 Contractor: Deck and Basement Co. Phone: (612) 581-0002 Address: 6907 Logan Ave S Minneapolis Site Address: 1860 White Pine Ct Stillwater, MN Notes: Dark Hickory Decking with Black Railing, White Fascia and Post Wraps rilasen Deck! meet Company RECEV'E CiTY OF STILLWATEP. ErYLDING tiEPARTMENT Water THE BIRTHPLACE OF M I N N E S O 1 A PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DISTRICT: REPORT BY: Planning Commission June 23rd, 2021 Sara Jespersen, "The Lumberjack" Frederick Real Estate Group LLC CASE NO.: CPC-2021-40 Consideration of an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit to allow for outdoor commercial recreational entertainment (axe throwing) and outdoor entertainment (live music performers and daily piped music) 123 Second Street North CBD (Central Business District) Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION In reaction to the pandemic, Stillwater has created an outdoor seating program allowing restaurants and bars in Downtown to operate in public streets and alleyways. The property at 123 2nd St N already has a private rear patio, abutting the alleyway, which was approved in 2018. In 2019 there was a change of use at this property, which allowed for axe -throwing indoors (but did not allow for it outdoors). Sara Jespersen, owner of "The Lumberjack" bar, is proposing an amendment to this property's Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for live music with amplification once a week and a speaker outside on her private patio that plays "background music". In review of the property record, it was determined a Use Permit forthe ability to have outdoor axe -throwing is also needed. Currently, The Lumberjack does have one outdoor speaker on its private property that plays low background music, as well as axe -throwing on their patio, which the City is requesting to have legitimized. The Lumberjack would like to also add an additional speaker for a performer to perform once a week from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM. SPECIFIC REQUEST The Lumberjack, at 123 2nd St N would like to amend their CUP to: 1. allow for outdoor commercial recreational entertainment (axe throwing); and 2. outdoor entertainment (live music performers once a week and a background music speaker on their private patio). June 23, 2021 Page 2 ANALYSIS Prior to issuing a Special or Conditional Use Permit, City Zoning Code indicates the Planning Commission must find that: 1. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations; 2. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; and 3. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The City allows for outdoor entertainment and commercial recreational entertainment in the Central Business District with a CUP. Generally speaking, the consideration around outdoor uses stems from whether or not the use will be a nuisance to the neighborhood. Largely, for outside uses, noise is the most -contributing factor. Noteworthy is the fact that these last two summer seasons have brought about a lot of "first times" and exceptions to outdoor uses, in order to help businesses survive the pandemic. The rear of the Lumberjack Bar is along an alley that runs behind a handful of businesses with a plethora of uses. Some of the uses are more quiet in nature than bars, and the music and crowd noise can be disruptive to their business model. Originating this last May, the City has been fielding complaints from these businesses regarding noise from both The Lumberjack Bar and CPC Case No. 2021-40 123 Second Street North Neighboring Uses = Location of Lumberjack's outdoor patio A= Retail Stare (Modern Roots) B= Office (RM Realty) C=Hair Salon (Uptown Curl) D=Retail Store (River Jeans) E = Office ! Retail (Brick + Linen} F = Bar / Resturant G Retail and Resturant (Forgive Me Not & Osaka} H = Offices (massage. chiropractor. spa} 0 20 40 86 Feet By: Graham Tait 6/1012021 June 23, 2021 Page 3 other adjoining restaurants, on a weekly basis. Additionally, the City received a letter of concern from a therapist whose office abuts the alley. She has put forth that at current conditions she is already finding the noise levels to be disturbing to her business. According to the site plan provided, the outside entertainment of both axe throwing and acoustic performance could create a conflict in this area. The limited size of the patio, the configuration of the axe throwing and performer (playing towards the alley) could produce nuisances on both public and private property. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment to the CUP to for a proposed forms of outdoor entertainment and commercial recreational entertainment to be reasonable, it could approve the amendment to the CUP. This would allow The Lumberjack Bar to have live amplified music one a day a week, piped music on their private patio and outdoor axe -throwing. Partial approval may be considered as well. Approval is recommended with the following conditions: o The use of speaker on the patio shall be limited to the hours between 11:30 am and 10:00 pm., and shall be kept at low volume that would be described as background music. o This special use permit shall be reviewed before the Planning Commission and City Council for possible revocation or amendment to the conditions of this permit if substantial verified complaints or violations of the conditions of this permit are received by the Community Development Director. B. Table If the Planning Commission would like additional information or further input from adjacent tenants/owners, it could table the review. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment to the CUP to allow piped music to be reasonable, it could recommend that the City Council deny it. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The City of Stillwater Planning Department always has economic vitality and development of local business at the forefront of its decision making However, the City strives to maintain a balance between the different kinds of businesses in the downtown district. In recent weeks, the City has received numerous noise complaints relating to this alley and believes that the complaints will only rise in response to outright granting approval this CUP amendment. Additionally, as the patio has been approved for outdoor dining and it is the desire to continue axe throwing on the patio, the multitude of uses could conflict with one another. Simply put, there is not enough room for multiple types of commercial recreation and entertainment in this location. Therefore, staff is recommending partial approval of this request to amend the CUP. Staff recommends allowing the Lumberjack to keep the existing outdoor axe -throwing and speaker on their private patio, however staff would recommend denial of a weekly outdoor performer. June 23, 2021 Page 4 Attachments: Site Location Map Alleyway Seating Plan "Neighborhood Comments" Public Comment cc: Frederick Real Estate Group LLC Sara Jespersen Intil !WTI"! 4111111arill)27. 1111 IIi rill11-1-111111411: 111:1111111411 1:141147 I 1;1 I at. LJ Patio Acoustic Artist Lumberjack 15' 0 0 32' 0 ° 0 68' O O3' 000 260 00000 Z Osaka Lolito LJ Patio Lumberjack Cn 15' 0 0 32' O O 0 68' 0 Z D 000 O O O O O O 23'CTI 26 v Osaka Lolito AXE PIT It HVA Lumberjack 32' 0 0 0 0 0 0 68' 0 c o' CD Ax ww.TH E LUMBER i IC FOLL q : LEAGUE OW US aathetU berjack ,F MEMBERSHIPS , rT PRIVATE Pq R7IES1E5rnm 11.IE grvENUE Door4 Union Alley & Lumberjack Patio Entertainment & Seating The Lumberjack - contact Sara Jespersen 651-308-3552 sara@thelumberjackmn.com • April (weather dependent) - Oct 1 • Live acoustic music - between 6-9pm • Single amp speaker will face North to push sound away from existing businesses towards the LJ seating and Commercial Street • Axe throwing is available weather permitting: Wed -Fri 5-10pm, Sat 2-10, Sun 2-7 Jenn Sundberg From: Sara Jespersen <sara@thelumberjackmn.com> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2021 8:18 AM To: Jenn Sundberg Subject: Neighbor Notes... [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. Hello Jen, I emailed, texted, and talked in person to the residential units around our alley. I didn't hear back from all of them, but the ones I did are listed below. Heidi McAllister (closest to the music) to Sara Hey Sarah It was nice of you to consider us. We don't hear it much up front, so I checked with Sarah and Dar and they both are good with it- we all like the music- we kind of make it a date night inside .) heidi Sunny (midway from the south end and our patio) "The music is beautiful and anyone renting our condo will get a real treat." Alon ( directly across from our patio area, next to Sunny, upper and lower level) It's a free concert for our guests, we love what you've done with the alley. Richard McDonough (commercial lessee lower level) Last summer the music at times can be disruptive - we never know when we may be writing an offer with a client. Sara's response: Here is my cell phone number call or text anytime you find a problem and we'll take care of it. Sara Jespersen 651-308-3552 1123 2nd St N. Ste 102 THE LUMBERJACK AXE THROWING BAR 1 From: Rita Mara Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 1:58 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: Outside Music [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. Hello, My name is Rita and I'm a massage therapist on Myrtle Street in downtown Stillwater. I'm sending this email in regards to the music being played in the alleyway behind my studio. I know it's on your agenda for the meeting next week but I just wanted to shoot you an email and say I'm not in support of it. With the customers already eating and talking right next to my studio, the music really adds to the volume level. I try to set a quiet and relaxing environment for my clients and would prefer the music is not played until after 7pm. Thank you, Rita MBody Massage LLC MBody Massage LLC Rita Jenn Sundberg From: Rita Mara <mbodymassage.abmp@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 1:58 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: Outside Music [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. Hello, My name is Rita and I'm a massage therapist on Myrtle Street in downtown Stillwater. I'm sending this email in regards to the music being played in the alleyway behind my studio. I know it's on your agenda for the meeting next week but I just wanted to shoot you an email and say I'm not in support of it. With the customers already eating and talking right next to my studio, the music really adds to the volume level. I try to set a quiet and relaxing environment for my clients and would prefer the music is not played until after 7pm. Thank you, Rita MBody Massage LLC MBody Massage LLC Rita 1 Jenn Sundberg From: Tayler <taydiedrichsen@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 3:37 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: In regards to the amplified music request, case #CPC2021-40 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [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. To whom it may concern, I am writing in regards to the amplified music request made by the restaurants at 123 2nd St N, case number CPC2021-40. I rent an office space in the building that borders the alley. In this space, I regularly conduct interviews, meetings, and video recordings for my job as a medical scribe manager. With that being said, I need my space to be quiet, which has never been too big of an issue. However, once the weather warmed up and the patios in the alley opened back up, I have had a constant noise issue, especially from the level of music playing. The restaurants have now become disruptive to my business, and I am often left apologizing to my superiors or interviewees about the noise. In fact, I am often left unable to complete my tasks, as I need to wait for the few quiet periods there are. It might be one thing if they would turn down the volume when requests were made, but they persist to play loud music that makes my business look unprofessional and makes it almost impossible to do parts of my job. I ask that you deny their request, especially since they have already caused issues in my position before their request was even made. Thank you for your time and consideration, Tayler Diedrichsen I do ask to remain anonymous, as they have answered requests to be quiet with hostility. i Jenn Sundberg From: Daniel Forest <DrForest@live.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 3:31 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: Case: CPC 2021-40 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [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. Case: CPC 2021-40 Address: 123 2nd St N In regards to the request for music in the alley. This variance would be very disruptive to my businesses I run in the building that shares the alley. As is, I get complaints regularly from tenants regarding the surrounding restaurants playing music in the alley already (despite not having the approval). I also run a chiropractic clinic and a medusa in the building which . requires a quiet workspace. As is, the tables in the alley block a fire exit and they have a table up against a door to our building. The city planner had put the tables in those spots which has also been disruptive to my business and other tenants' businesses. Even if they are allowed to play music in the alley and have it limited to a specific decibel rating, I doubt they would follow it as they regularly play music in the alley despite not being allowed to and despite me politely asking that they discontinue the use of it or even just turn it down. I even asked if they would be willing to meet with me for a few minutes to chat about having quiet hours during times that we are working and potential moving tables to a different configuration so that it wouldn't impact our business; I was met with a "tough luck" and they hung up. All of last year we didn't complain despite the constant smoking in the alley and the additional noise because we all felt bad for what happened to the restaurant businesses. We like their restaurants, but on the same note, our businesses shouldn't be negatively affected over the ability to play music in the alley. I'd also ask that they consider moving the tables away from our building, or at a minimum away from the fire exit. It has been incredibly frustrating getting calls from tenants complaining about the noise in the alley and the music and having to call Graham and Bill to get them to remind them they're not allowed to. I don't like complaining and did my best to work with them myself, but it has been an ongoing problem. At one point the Lumberjack had the music blaring in the alley so loud that I had to have the police come and write a report since they weren't even on the premises to turn it down/off in the alley, per Graham's instructions. Thanks for your time, Daniel Forest 1 Jenn Sundberg From: Elianne McMahon -Miller <elianne@beneviverespa.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 4:16 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: Alley Usage Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [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. Hello, I am the business owner of Bene Vivere Massage and Wellness at 226 Myrtle Street. Currently, the restaurant across the alley is using the space as an additional seating area. This creates an intermittent loud noise level from the music as well as conversational noise from the table located beneath my window (see photo). This interrupts the relaxing calm environment the I am trying to create for my clients. Additionally, cigarette smoke comes into my space even with the windows closed. My business hours are from 9 am to 9 pm. If we could limit the noise and eliminate the smoking that would be very helpful. Thank you. i • s i • a i i �•� • • • ...jzz. jz. "et% ts• •Lifiz • Mk .4114. • • • Jenn Sundberg From: Heathyre Sayers <drsayers@live.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 3:41 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: Case CPC 2021-40 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [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. Case #: CPC 2021-40 Address: 123 2nd St N, Stillwater, MN 55082 I am writing about the request for amplified music in the alley for the patios that are currently set up there. I felt like we were very understanding and sympathetic to them last year with all of the restrictions that were placed on their businesses. However, this year all of the restrictions have now been dropped. My chiropractic office has a wall that borders the alley and the music and the talking from the diners is very loud. My clients can literally hear every conversation and the music was incredibly disruptive. My business relies on a professional environment and clients being able to relax. Some street noise is to be expected in downtown Stillwater, but this is so much more than when we first moved here. We have reached out to try to come to some kind of a mutual agreement that worked for everybody but they have refused to even discuss it or to show any respect for my business or my clients. I ask that you do not allow them to play amplified music through the alley and to consider even removing the patios altogether. Perhaps they can move them to Commercial St? Other patios in town do not blast music over the streets. No Neck Tony's, for instance, has always been very respectful. Not every restaurant needs a patio. Heather I. Jenn Sundberg From: Marilyn Schmotter <marilynbws@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 12:18 AM To: Planning Dept Subject: CPC 2021- 40 Conditional Use Permit for Amplified Music Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [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. Dear Community Planning Staff, I hope this has reached you in time. I was just made aware of this proposal earlier today. My name is Marilyn Woodruff. I am an owner of a Personal Service business, located at 226 Myrtle Street East. I am writing today to express my concerns regarding the application for" Amplified Music." As a personal services provider my clients come to me to De -Stress and Relax. Amplified music, AKA, LOUD Music, is definitely not going to give us those results.This will have a huge Negative impact on my business. It will impose a disruptive atmosphere, and take away from the peaceful environment which I've worked Very hard to create. I would hate to see this happen. For the good of Everyone, Please consider the impact this will have on All of Us. Thank You for your time, Sincerely, Marilyn Woodruff i ,,,I 1‘,‘I‘ 1‘1‘88‘,‘I‘ it, k, ft, CITY OF STILLWATFR ANNUAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PICNIC YOU AND YOUR GUEST ARE INVITED TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER ANNUAL PICNIC DATE: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 TIME: Social Hour, 5 p.m. Picnic, 6 p.m. to 8:3o p.m. PLACE: Pioneer Park in Stillwater (North 2nd Street) Please RSVP by Wednesday, August 2, 2021, so we can plan food accordingly. nmanos(a�ci.stillwater.mn.us. Thank you!