HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-28 CPC PacketSjllwater
THE B I R T H P L A C E O F M I N N E S OT 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 in the Council Chambers, 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
July 28th, 2021
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Possible approval of minutes of June 23rd, 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
2. 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 3rd St N and 110 Myrtle St E in the Central Business District. Nathan Landucci,
applicant, Jon Whitcomb and Mark and Cathy Balay, property owners — Tabled from the
June meeting
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.
3. Case No. 2021-42: Consideration of a Variance to construct a porch on the property located
at 720 Everett St N, in the RB district. Jim and Julie Moy, property owners.
4. Case No. 2021-44: Consideration of a Variance to construct a detached garage on the
property located at 612 3rd Street South, in the RB district. Charles Pearcy, applicant and
Dwight and Becky Cummins, property owners.
5. Case No. 2021-45: Consideration of Variances to the Front, Side and Rear Yard setbacks
for the vertical expansion of an existing, non -conforming structure Property located at 304
Hazel St E in the RA district. Property owner, Jason Ous.-Tabled until the August meeting
VIII. DISCUSSION
IX. FYI — STAFF UPDATES
6. Boards and Commissions Picnic Flyer
X. ADJOURNMENT
ilivater
THE 1INTN►LACE OF MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
June 23, 2021
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Hansen, Hoffman, Knippenberg, Meyhoff,
Steinwall, Councilmember Odebrecht
Absent: None
Staff: City Planner Wittman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of minutes of May 26, 2021 regular meeting
Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to approve the
minutes of the May 26, 2021 meeting. All in favor.
OPEN FORUM
Lael Smith, 609 Fourth Street North, requested clarification and reasoning behind Case 2021-
30, Consideration of ZAT for Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District.
Chairman Dybvig referred Ms. Smith to the last Planning Commission meeting when the zoning
text amendment was tabled. It will be addressed again at next month's meeting. He stated it
came out of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. City Planner Wittman said she will provide Ms.
Smith with the staff reports and address her questions.
CONSENT AGENDA
There were no items on the Consent Agenda.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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.
City Planner Wittman explained that the applicants are proposing to construct a 12' X 45' (540
square foot) attached carport on the west side of their existing home. The carport will be 1'-5"
from the west property line and connect to the existing detached garage in the southwest
corner of the lot, also 1'-5" from the west property line. The applicant is requesting: 1) a 3'-7"
variance to allow the attached carport to be set back 1'-5" from the west side lot line, whereas
the required side yard setback is at least 5'; and 2) a 24 square foot variance to allow the
maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings including attached and detached private
garages and other accessory buildings (1,024 square feet) to be greater than 1,000 square feet.
Staff finds that, with conditions of approval, the proposed carport meets the standards set
Planning Commission June 23, 2021
forth for the issuance of a variance to the side yard setback, however, in light of the input from
the Building Department, staff recommends a sideyard setback variance of 3' rather than 3'-7",
with seven conditions. 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, and recommends denial of the garage square footage variance.
With the reduction, two vehicles could still be accommodated under the covered area.
Seema Anwar said it would not be a problem to stay under 1,000 square feet as recommended
by staff.
Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Steinwall, noting Condition #3, said she would be inclined to require gutters
now rather than in the future if warranted.
Ms. Wittman explained that staff did not recommend imposing this condition now because the
existing home does not have gutters.
Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, regarding Case No.
2021-33, to approve Variances to the side yard setback of 3' in order to construct a "porte
cochere" at 717 Pine St W, with the seven staff -recommended conditions, and to deny the total
ground coverage variance for an accessory building. All in favor.
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.
City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. Richard Farrell, White Bear Ventures, is renovating
the second and third stories of his building, and is proposing to relocate an existing stairway
roof access and elevator on the rooftop to the northwest corner. Also proposed is an
approximately 250 square foot vestibule to accompany the stairs and elevator. This will
require a variance to the height limitations. The applicant is requesting a variance to: 1) allow
the height of a building, with an elevator, stairway and vestibule, to be 59', whereas the
maximum height allowed is 37'; and 2) to allow the building to be four stories, whereas three
stories is the maximum in this overlay district. Ms. Wittman pointed out that stairwells and
elevators, when integral to the building, are allowed to project above the roofline per height
regulations. 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 approval of the request for
a 22' variance to the height of the building in order to have the minimum ADA compliant area,
but limiting the storage area to the minimum code -complaint walkway, with four conditions.
Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Hansen said it is clear the proposed area is intended for more than storage
because there is a sink there. Because it is already a three story building, he feels there is no
justification for adding this space.
Commissioners Meyhoff and Hoffman agreed. They asked what the space will be used for.
Page 2 of 10
Planning Commission June 23, 2021
Ms. Wittman noted that stairways and elevator bulkheads, as long as integral to the building,
are allowed to be above the roofline. The code will not allow them to build a closet for a future
elevator above the roofline - they would have to have the plans for that elevator now.
Commissioner Steinwall pointed out the other elevator is not proposed at this time so the
Commission seems justified in denying the requested variances; at the time of construction of
an integral elevator and landing, they likely wouldn't need to go before the Planning
Commission as this type of improvement is allowed to extend above the maximum allowable
height in this overlay district.
Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to recommend
denial of Case No. 2021-34, Variance to the maximum allowed height within the Downtown
Height Overlay District at 223 Main St S. All in favor.
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.
Ms. Wittman stated that Deborah Veitch is proposing to replace an existing 6' tall perimeter
fence. 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 limits fences in the exterior side yard to 4' in
height. The applicant is requesting a 2' variance for the height of the replacement fence in the
exterior side yard. Staff recommends approval with four conditions.
Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman
Dybvig closed the public hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to approve Case No.
2021-35, Variance to the maximum height for a replacement fence in the exterior side yard at
1025 Sunrise Ave, with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor.
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.
Ms. Wittman explain the application. Daniel Sather 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. The applicant built the habitable
addition to the garage prior to getting CUP approval for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The
applicant is requesting: 1) a Conditional Use Permit to allow an ADU above a detached garage;
2) an 18' variance to allow the ADU to be set back 7' from the rear lot line, whereas the
required setback is 25'; 3) a variance to allow the ADU to be located within the exterior side
yard; and 4) a 2' variance to allow the height of the accessory building (22') to exceed 1 story,
or 20'. Staff finds that, with conditions of approval, the garage and proposed ADU meet the CUP
provisions and the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and therefore
recommends approval of a CUP and the requested variances with five conditions.
Dan Sather, applicant, noted the building is up to code according to the building inspector.
Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the
public hearing.
Page 3 of 10
Planning Commission June 23, 2021
Commissioner Hansen commented the garage is located in a logical place based on topography
of the lot.
Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to approve Case No.
2021-36, 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 located at 231 Everett St N with the
five staff -recommended conditions. All in favor.
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 4th
St N in the RB Two Family district. William Griffith, of Larkin and Hoffman, applicant and Tom and
Sandra Lynum, property owners.
Ms. Wittman explained that the company 626 4th, LLC would like to purchase the National
Registry -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 power to grant use variances to a zoning ordinance. Thus, William
Griffith of Larkin Hoffman has submitted a request to change the City Code to allow
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. The two -fold request includes: 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. 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 are 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 that the Commission recommend approval of both requests with nine conditions.
Commissioner Steinwall asked if a HPUV would be transferrable/run with the land.
City Planner Wittman replied it could be transferred to a new owner but that could also be
restricted by the City Code.
Commissioner Steinwall said the City Code should be clear that a HPUV, if granted, relates to a
very specific proposal, not a general proposal such as "use as offices."
Tom and Sandy Lynum, property owners, said they held a public meeting for affected
neighbors. The neighbors feel this proposal is the best way to preserve the property in its
present state because it requires a lot of maintenance and care. They pointed out that the
HPUV as written states the neighborhood impact of the proposed new use must be either equal
to present use or less than present use.
Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing.
Page 4 of 10
Planning Commission June 23, 2021
Steph Leonard, 703 Fourth Street North, said she has grown attached to the beauty of the
home. She said there is misinformation about what the HPUV would mean, for instance the
misconception that this proposal would allow the elimination of the National Register
designation.
Ms. Wittman explained that any property owner may request a structure be removed from the
National Register, however to be eligible for a HPUV, a property would have to be listed on the
National Register. A Design Permitting requirement would help ensure the exterior of the
structure is maintained in perpetuity to the standards required by the Secretary of the Interior.
Ms. Leonard said she will be sad to lose the single family/BnB but she also understands the
position the owners are in. She would like there to be some requirement that it be maintained
to the Secretary of the Interior's standards.
Lael Smith, 609 Fourth Street North, said the William Sauntry Mansion has been a good
neighbor. Noise and parking are concerns with a new use. Also, what happens when the new
owner decides to sell? How does opening it to commercial affect the rest of the neighborhood?
Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hansen said he would like a condition added to prohibit the use from being
transferrable, and a requirement that if a property owner de -lists the property from the
National Register, the HPUV goes away. He feels this proposal provides for the income stream
needed to maintain these large historic structures. It is a good use and he is in favor of the
HPUVs.
Ms. Wittman noticed another person on Zoom. Chair Dybvig reopened the public hearing.
Ms. Widenbrant (no address given) said currently the Sauntry Mansion has limits on events.
She asked Ms. Wittman to address the new limits under the proposal.
Ms. Wittman replied the new use would not allow for events at all. It would be a six -office
commercial real estate business.
Chair Dybvig re -closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman remarked this proposal would help ensure the buildings don't lose
their integrity as local icons. Requiring a Design Permit would also help.
Councilmember Odebrecht commented that the ability to have a revenue stream is in the
homeowner's and City's interest. The proposal empowers the HPC to review external Design
Permits. He thanked the Lynums for caring for the property for the past 22 years.
Commissioner Steinwall voiced support. She would like to require that the HPUV is not
transferrable, that the use be very specific, and that the National Register designation must be
maintained.
Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to recommend to the
Council approval of Case No. 2021-37, Zoning Text Amendment, establishing the HPUV process
with the two conditions in the staff report, adding Condition #3 stating that HPUVs are not
transferrable, Condition #4 stating that an HPUV would be rescinded if the property is dropped
from the National Register designation, Condition #5 stating this is not a rezoning but a variance,
and Condition #6 stating that application for an HPUV must be very specific as to use. All in favor.
Commissioner Steinwall asked the current property owners if the gardens are part of the
historic preservation, or could parking expansion potentially destroy the gardens.
Page 5 of 10
Planning Commission June 23, 2021
Mr. Lynum replied that the turn drive was always there.
Commissioner Steinwall proposed an additional condition suggesting the HPC look at whether
additional parking for example would have the potential to destroy another historic resource
on the property.
Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to recommend to the
HPC, approval of approval of Case No. 2021-37, a Heritage Preservation Use Variance to allow the
property at 626 Fourth Street North to be used as a real estate sales office with the nine conditions
recommended by staff, adding Condition #10 stating that the HPC should consider the integrity of
the garden and landscaping when reviewing Design Permits. All in favor.
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 3rd
St N and 110 Myrtle St E in the Central Business District. Nathan Landucci, applicant, Jon
Whitcomb and Mark and Cathy Balay, property owners.
Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. Nathan Landucci, 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 home located on that site. The developer is proposing to construct 32 underground
spaces and two uncovered spaces outside. 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 being 10% greater than the
maximum allowable limit, City Code requires the Planning Commission make recommendation
for the City Council. Approval of a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) Design Permit is
required prior to Council consideration. On June 16, 2021 the HPC reviewed the Design Permit
application for the property that contains 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 the design permit
application, 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 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 home. On June 17, 2021 the item was
scheduled to be heard by the Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC). 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, if that cannot occur, the
Downtown Parking Commission will review the request at their July 21 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. The
applicant is requesting consideration of: 1) a Conditional Use Permit for 42 multi -family
Page 6 of 10
Planning Commission June 23, 2021
residences in a large building project in the CBD Zoning District; 2) a 1.5-story variance to the
three-story maximum height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District;
3) an 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) a 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 a 40 parking space credit from Browns Creek West LLC; and 2)
Consideration of a Lot Line Adjustment and public land sale for portions of land attached to the
City Parking Ramp. 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).
Commissioner Meyhoff asked how the parking credits work.
Ms. Wittman replied a parking credit is basically a variance that effectively pushes 40 vehicles
into the public parking system. The agreement for 40 parking credits was part of development
negotiations with Trinity Church and the former Post Office.
Nathan Landucci, applicant, explained his project has similar height and setbacks to the project
previously approved for this site by Jon Whitcomb. This project is bigger because it
incorporates the neighboring Balay property representing a 40% increase in land area. The
inclusion of this property allows a right -in, right -out traffic pattern eliminating the need to
cross Myrtle Street traffic. The project has yet to go before the Downtown Parking Commission
but he believes a parking variance will not be needed.
Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public
hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to table a
recommendation for the City Council regarding Case No. 2021-38, Conditional Use Permit,
associated Variances and lot line adjustment to construct a new residential apartment building on
the property located at 107 3rd St N and 110 Myrtle St E.
Councilmember Odebrecht said he feels the height is more of a challenge here than the 200
East Chestnut project, which was recently approved with a fee -in -lieu of $20,000 per parking
space deficit. He is particularly interested in what the Downtown Parking Commission
recommends for this project. The exterior is well designed but he struggles with the design
encompassing the Balay house.
Commissioner Hoffman said he would like to wait for a traffic study, noting it is a very busy
intersection.
Commissioner Hansen said he cannot support any project that involves traffic mid -block on
Myrtle Street. The intersection is already dangerous. He feels the previous traffic study did not
consider large events downtown using Myrtle Street as the main arterial. He does not support
Page 7 of 10
Planning Commission June 23, 2021
any vehicles going in or coming out onto Myrtle Street. Parking and height are also sticking
points for him. He would like a Third Street entry to be considered.
Chair Dybvig agreed with previous comments. He does not see any practical difficulty for a
height variance. He also feels the sight lines will be extremely problematic especially for a
major artery. He supports delaying action to see what the other Commissions say.
All in favor of the motion to table.
Case No. 2021-39: Consideration of a Variance to the Shoreland Overlay district maximum
impervious surface to construct a deck. Property located at 1860 White Pine CT in the Traditional
Residential District. Kyle Randolph, property owner.
Ms. Wittman stated that Kyle and Rachel Randolph are proposing to install a 16' X 20' deck
that would add a total of 320 square feet of impervious surface coverage. Currently, with all
structures and manmade improvements, the property already exceeds the 25% threshold,
with a total impervious surface coverage of around 30.7%. The applicants are requesting an
8.8% coverage variance to allow the impervious coverage to be 33.8% (or 3,529 square feet),
whereas the maximum impervious surface coverage is 25%. Staff finds the proposed deck
meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance, practical difficulties have been
established, and this variance would not negatively impact the visual character of the
neighborhood 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 with four
conditions. Staff would like to revisit the Shoreland regulations that seem overly burdensome
at times.
Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing.
Denise Storck-Schattner, two houses down, said a year ago they were not able to add coverage
in a similar request, due to the 25% threshold, and they were told it was due to drain space
and flowage into Brown's Creek. She would like the regulations to be applied consistently.
Ms. Wittman said the shoreland ordinance protects all natural resources. The flowage is
proposed to go away from the creek. Staff is recommending a water runoff treatment plan
incorporating a rain garden or other infiltration system be submitted prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Chair Dybvig closed the public hearing.
Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve Case
No. 2021-39, Variance to the Shoreland Overlay district maximum impervious surface to
construct a deck. Property located at 1860 White Pine Ct, with the four staff -recommended
conditions. All in favor.
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 2nd St N Suite
102 in the Central Business District. Sara Jespersen, applicant and Judd Sather, property owner.
Ms. Wittman stated that Sara Jespersen, owner of The Lumberjack bar, is proposing an
amendment to the 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 for the ability to have
outdoor axe -throwing is also needed. Currently, The Lumberjack has one outdoor speaker on
its private property that plays low background music, as well as axe -throwing on their patio,
Page 8 of 10
Planning Commission June 23, 2021
which the City is requesting to have legitimized. The Lumberjack would like to add another
speaker for a performer to perform once a week from 7-9 p.m. The Lumberjack 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). Ms. Wittman pointed out in recent weeks,
the City has received numerous noise complaints relating to this alley. Staff believes that the
complaints will rise in response to outright granting 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.
The applicant has approached the City Council about a request to have a performer outdoors.
Councilmember Odebrecht asked who was responsible for the cleanup of Union Alley.
Ms. Wittman replied that a big part of Union Alley was cleaned up by citizen efforts led by Ms.
Jespersen. The cleanup project did not come before the Planning Commission.
Chairman Dybvig asked how long Union Alley will be available for outdoor seating.
Ms. Wittman replied the temporary outdoor seating allowed in response to the pandemic will
expire in October 2021. Staff has been directed by the City Council to consider what outdoor
seating looks like post-COVID. Time is needed to develop community policy on the issue.
Sara Jespersen, applicant, told the Commission she cleaned up the alley but the 226 Myrtle
Street East chiropractic building was not part of the cooperative. Last year she had acoustic
music once a week without realizing it was unpermitted. When she learned it needed to be
permitted, she reached out to the neighbors and they told her they would love to have music in
the evenings. She reached out to those who submitted written complaints. She would like to
keep making the alley attractive but it takes a lot of effort to keep it clean and well lit. Music is
a draw and increases her sales by 30%.
Commissioner Steinwall pointed out that some of the complaints indicate the music is so loud
they cannot do their work. She asked if piped music is used during work hours.
Ms. Jespersen said she is only open 5-10 p.m. during the week. Music is quiet so as not to
compete with the axe -throwing. The music was blaring one time only.
Commissioner Hoffman said the report states the single amp speaker will face north. He asked
if the current piped music is facing a different way.
Ms. Jespersen said it is pointed out currently.
On a question from Commissioner Meyhoff, Ms. Wittman explained the axe -throwing was
approved as part of the temporary COVID provisions.
Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing.
Dan Forest, property owner of 226 Myrtle Street East, said he has been getting many
complaints from his tenants and a couple of them have considered not renewing their lease
due to the noise. The music piped into the alley has been a consistent problem. He asked Lolito
at one point if they would be willing to talk about it and they declined. He did not talk with The
Page 9 of 10
Planning Commission June 23, 2021
Lumberjack at the time but didn't realize their music was also piped into the alley. The music
affects all of his tenants and his ability to lease the building.
Councilmember Odebrecht asked Mr. Forest about business hours of his tenants.
Mr. Forest said they start at 9 a.m and the latest one goes until 10 p.m. Having music after 10
p.m. is totally fine. The 10 p.m. one is an aesthetician and she has a room that has a door that
enters into the alley. There is a table in the alley blocking the door which may be a fire exit.
Ms. Wittman remarked this is the first she has heard of blocking an exit. It is a Lolito table and
she has asked the Zoning Administrator to take a look at it.
Ms. Jespersen said none of her staff said they have ever talked to anyone from Mr. Forest's
building. She would immediately make a change. She has never known about this complaint
until tonight.
Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Odebrecht said this request did not move forward at the City Council meeting
last week because of Councilmember concerns about it being on public land. However he is
supportive of the newly configured plan for the music to be on private property. He pointed
out Ms. Jespersen is the community volunteer of the year for the Chamber of Commerce. He
believes she will address the issues with the neighbors. Many of the businesses downtown
have music that spills onto the street; it should be considered to be part of the downtown
landscape. He would support allowing an outdoor musician Saturday/Sunday after 7 p.m.
Commissioner Hansen said it is important to be respectful of all the businesses. He has concern
that noise can escalate. It is a little easier to justify amplified music here because the location is
somewhat contained. He would not be in favor of going past 10 p.m. on a weeknight.
Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Case No.
2021-40, Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow piped music during business hours, axe -
throwing any day of the week, and to allow amplified single -speaker live outdoor music one night
per week Thursday through Sunday, from 7-10 p.m. All in favor.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
FYI STAFF UPDATES
Ms. Wittman reminded the Commission of the Boards and Commissions picnic August 11.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to adjourn the meeting
at 9:47 p.m. All in favor.
ATTEST:
Abbi Wittman, City Planner
John Dybvig, Chair
Page 10 of 10
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
July 28, 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, 39-
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 39-units 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 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 and the applicant is requesting variances to the
City's CBD Setbacks and the Height Overlay standards. 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 Planning Commission make recommendation for City Council (Council).
While not necessarily for the Commission's direct consideration, the applicant is also requesting
the City Council's consideration of a Lot Line Adjustment and public land sale for portions of
land attached to the City Parking Ramp.
' Reduced by three units since June, 2021 PC review.
Case No. 2021-38
July 28, 2021
Page 2
The development requires a total of 74 parking spaces onsite: 59 for the multi -family units (39 of
which must be covered), two (2) for the single family residence, and 13 guest spaces. In addition
to retaining the attached, two -car garage for the single family residence, the developer is
proposing to construct four (4) uncovered, tandem spaces outside of the building at the entrance
to the garage, 20 underground spaces, and an additional 35 spaces in two different KLAUS
Multiparking machines. Therefore, 24 spaces are `standard', 35 are requested to be approved
utilizing alternative provisions, and 13 are requested to be waived. 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.
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 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.
The HPC considered an updated plan at their July 21, 2021 meeting date. As noted to the HPC,
while the Developer did incorporate some of the requested changes, the design changes made do
not conform to all those requested by the HPC. Ultimately, the HPC denied the Design Permit
for the current proposal but indicated a willingness to consider a similar project at 3 stories tall.
The HPC noted general support for the overall design, but felt the overall height and mass was
inconsistent with the surrounding area (most notably the historic home on Myrtle Street) and not
an appropriate deviation from City Code provisions.
The Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC) considered the request on June 23 and again on
July 15. As an advisory body to the City Council, the DTPC noted the plan was not in
conformance with adopted City Code and unadopted DTPC policy. The DTPC expressed
concern that the KLAUS Multi -parking system may not conform to City Code requirements and
that consideration of whether it does or not, as well as the 40-space credit transfer, was outside
the DTPC's scope. Given the development site's distance and topography from public parking
that allows for residential permitting overnight, the DTPC recommends all parking be located
onsite.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The applicant is requesting consideration of a:
Case No. 2021-38
July 28, 2021
Page 3
1. Conditional Use Permit for 39 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. Approval of the parking mitigation plan which includes:
a. Mitigation of 35 required resident parking spaces; and
b. Variance of 13 required guest parking spaces; and
c. Assignment of the 40-space credit currently assigned to Browns Creek West LLC.
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
Case No. 2021-38
July 28, 2021
Page 4
Plan indicates the City must "ensure all new housing, including high density, adheres to the
highest possible standards of planning, design and construction." 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 +/-
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 64 units per acre2 for this (proposed) .61-acre site.
This development is above average for similar sites along 3rd Street North.
Lastly, the Downtown chapter of the Plan calls out the Myrtle Street West corridor out of
downtown to the top of the hill as a primary downtown gateway. Gateways into downtown form
first impressions, as well as provide a sense of orientation for visitors. The Plan also notes "the
natural features that define the boundaries of Downtown also create long encompassing views
that allow you to see the entire Downtown from one vantage point" (including from the river).
The Plan identifies key objectives for the improvement of gateways and view corridors within
Downtown; they include to "reinforce natural features, landmarks, steeples, and significant
structures along gateway corridors." It further identifies the downtown churches as focal points
within the downtown district. Steeple Town Commons, located kiddie -corner from the subject
site, and Trinity Lutheran Church and Ascension Church, both located on 3rd Street North to the
north of this development site, are such focal points; arguably, a nearly 50' tall building in this
area will have an effect on these focal points. Staff argues this structure will not support the
Plan's objectives to protect focal points, gateways and viewsheds.
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
2 While the total unit count has been reduced, staff incorrectly reported the dwelling unit per acre at the PC's
previous meeting.
Case No. 2021-38
July 28, 2021
Page 5
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's parking requirements for the
residential units (at a rate of 1.5 spaces/unit) is proposed to be met through the use of two
different KLAUS Multiparking systems. Staff has discussed the use of KLAUS Multiparking
systems with City of Minneapolis Planning and Economic Development staff. There is at least
one functioning system in the City though Minneapolis did not require future verification of
maintenance and servicing. This is something City staff is proposing.
That said, use of these types of systems are not inherently new; however, located in the place
of 13 surface spaces, they account for 2/3 of the required resident parking. As noted to the
DTPC, in the event components of the vending systems fail, up to 35 additional vehicles (in
addition to the 13 guest parking) would be pushed onto the public system; this means the
developer would only be meeting 40% of the required parking onsite. As permit lots in the
public system are quite a distance (and elevation) from the subject property, pressure could be
placed on the 3rd Street North corridor.
Traffic: 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 (approximately 55' 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 any traffic issues in this location.
Staff retained the services of SRF Consulting to update the traffic impact study for this project.
The study concluded the development could occur without concern that it would represent a
significant negative impact to the study area. While copies of the study are available upon
request, staff notes the following study findings:
• A modest increase of site trips will occur from the site but no significant delay or
queuing issues are anticipated at the study intersections (Myrtle/3rd and Myrtle/2nd)
This overall Level of Service (i.e. the time a car would have to wait to make its move)
will continue to be within acceptable limits
• Both of the study intersections (Myrtle/3rd and Myrtle/2nd) are noted as having a
significantly higher critical crash rate than similar intersections analyzed by MNDOT.
There is a high probability that roadway conditions at the intersection are contributing
to the crashes. Disregard of the traffic control and failure to yield (predominantly west
bound traffic) are the leading causes of accidents.
• Consideration should be made to limit any sight distance impacts from future onsite
structures, landscaping features and signing.
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
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
Case No. 2021-38
July 28, 2021
Page 6
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 developer and/or 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:
■ Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Case No. 2021-38
July 28, 2021
Page 7
• 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
July 28, 2021
Page 8
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.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Case No. 2021-38
July 28, 2021
Page 9
The City has received public comment from Trinity Lutheran Church and the Steeple Towne's
Home Owner's Association, both located across 3rd Street North from the subject property. Both
organizations are recommending the City deny the requested actions.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
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. Inspection and maintenance records of the KLAUS Multiparking systems shall be
submitted on a quarterly basis for the first five years and every one year thereafter.
7. 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.
8. Prior to the release of applicable building, grading, right-of-way, and/or obstruction
permits from the City, the developer shall enter into a developer or maintenance
agreement for the installation of pedestrian -scaled lighting located on public
sidewalks.
9. 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.
10. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that meets the MSCWMO shall be
reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Case No. 2021-38
July 28, 2021
Page 10
11. 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.
12. The sanitary sewer and water service will need to be upsized to serve the new
building.
13. The existing water service on Third Street shall be removed, if not used.
14. The sidewalks on Myrtle and Third sand the curbs on Myrtle shall be replaced as
part of the project.
15. The redesigned Third Street North parking lot stalls will conform to City Code width
standards.
16. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building
officials before the issuance of a building permit.
17. 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
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. In fact, the approval of these is in direct conflict with established
overlay districts, including the Downtown Design Review District and the requirements set forth
for Design Permitting, a function designed to help protect the historic integrity of Stillwater.
Therefore, staff recommends the Commission recommend to the Council denial of the 11.5' and
1.5 story variance, requiring no greater than three stories facing Myrtle Street East and Third
Street North.
Additionally, City Code is specific the Planning Commission may only grant variances when the
following are found:
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.
While staff has noted residential uses are welcome in the downtown area, there are a
combination of factors that suggest the volume of units is not to scale for this site:
• The City's Comprehensive Plan states this is a prominent gateway and view corridor,
citing the church steeples in the area are focal points. The installation of this building on
this site will not only tower over the historic resources in the area (i.e. the residence at
Case No. 2021-38
July 28, 2021
Page 11
110 Myrtle Street West, the Lowell Inn, and the Stillwater Commercial Historic District
to the east), it will negatively affect the gateway, view corridor and focal points along 3rd
Street North. Staff asserts the development project is in conflict with aspects of the
Downtown Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan,
• While the proposed volume of traffic is not anticipated to have a negative impact on the
traffic patterns, including intersection queuing, there will be a modest increase in traffic
in this area. Given the critical crash rates at 3rd/Myrtle and 2nd/Myrtle, and that most
accidents are caused by a failure to yield to west -bound traffic, there will be greater
impact to the crash rating. This could be detrimental to the public welfare of the
community.
• Lastly, the development cannot achieve all of its parking onsite. While the KLAUS
Multiparking system and a 13-space credit transfer have been proposed, the combination
of these account for such a significant portion of the overall parking requirements for the
development. Given the limited availability of overnight public parking within the
vicinity, this could be a public nuisance to the 3rd Street North corridor.
Therefore, staff recommends the Commission recommend the Council deny the Conditional Use
Permit request.
Attachments: Site Location Map
Narrative Request
Site Plan
Updated Floor Plans
Updated Elevations
Updated Landscape Plans
Public Comment: Trinity Lutheran Church
Public Comment: Steeple Towne HOA
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.
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
Architects
9'-0'
MECH. ROOM
13
14
15
16
n
1720'-0'
STAIR
22
20'-0"
GARAGE
INTAKE
(VENTILATION)
12
dJ
11
10
CV
ELEVATOR
LOBBY
33
32
24'-0" i 20'-0"
12,837 sf
37 Stalls
GARAGE
INTAKE
(VENTILATION)
131'-6"
ELEV.
//
/
MYRTLE ST. E
7
Proposed 39 Unit Apartment
TRASH
4
5
DOG WAS
STATION
STORAGE
3
35
37
EXISTING
HOUSE TO
REMAIN
2
10' -0"
GARAGE
INTAKE
(VENTILATION)
e
Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"
PLAN
NORTH
Garage Level Plan/ Site Plan: 12,837 sf.
PROJECT NO..
Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants
107 3rd St. N
Stillwater , MN
AO
'
I
I
9150.
ro«
I
Md.
Box°
d
sro�sE
cx°se
roan.
s J
LOBBYELEVAT
I r
BBs GHEEBRn
a
'BEDROOM
\I
OFFICE
r
MOSE ROOM
°
rod
CORR.
2 BEDROOM as°a.
m 6 .
j
i a:::::
/ /
I BEDROOM
MORON
l
MYRTLE ST. E
FLOOR 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom Total
FIRST FLOOR: 5 6 11
SECOND FLOOR: 7 6 13
THIRD FLOOR: 7 6 13
PENTHOUSE 2 2
TOTAL: 19 20 39
Scale: 3/32" =1.-0"
NORTH
f[Arciutects
Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants
Proposed 39 Unit Apartment
107 3rd St. N
Stillwater, MN
Proposed First Floor Plan: 12,817 sf.
Al
i
no:
MI.
nos2
BEDROOM
91.
I 9
STORAGE
Vr
CHUT2
BEDROOM
Asa.
CORR.
9
�
\
I
2 BEDROOM
,n"
„una
% j
I
s
I
2 BEDROOM
DES
/
/
_ST,IR
////
HOUSE TO
REMAIN /
eeER
I BEDROOM
2 BEDROOM
////ii,. %//
/
,,.
9
DECK
MYRTLE ST. E
FLOOR 1 Bedroom
FIRST FLOOR: 5
SECOND FLOOR: 7
THIRD FLOOR: 7
PENTHOUSE
TOTAL: 19
Bedroom Total
11
13
13
2
0 39
Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"
NORTH
Hychitects
Proposed 39 Unit Apartment
107 3rd St. N
Proposed Second and Third Floor Plans: 12,817 sf.
A2
Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Reslamants
Stillwater, MN
I
2sAssumxnwsr.au,.
_�
I
e
I
soo s
s
IIIIII
V
V
w,
m
I
STORAGE
I
\
PATIO
Imort
,.
snI
PATIO
,
%
j
j::::::::iREMAIN
s
I
11111
/ HOUSE TO
f[Arciutects
Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential l Reslamants
Proposed 39 Unit Apartment
107 3rd St. N
Stillwater, MN
0
FLOOR 1 Bedroom
FIRST FLOOR: 5
SECOND FLOOR: 7
THIRD FLOOR: 7
PENTHOUSE
TOTAL: 19
Bedroom Total
11
13
13
2
0 39
Scale: 3/32" =1'-0"
PLAN
NORTH
Proposed Penthouse Level
A3
TI-131VIS
immeg=lati
�. r
■__� L� i
•
aJ
Brick Veneer
Vertical Metal Panel Black Metal Panel
and Parapet
1�1
.0. PARKING LEVEL
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
IHErchitects
Proposed 39 Unit Apartment
107 3rd St. N
Stillwater , MN
Exterior West Elevation
A4
PROJECT NO..
Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants
=Mb.
•
•
r . -
■Mr •
Brick Veneer
01
W. THIRD
'-3 3/4"
SECOND
NO'-7 7/8"
�T.O. FIRST
1 0'-0"
_orsit".0. PARKING LEVEL
Vertical Metal Panel Black Metal Panel
and Parapet
mina if1iL JJ J:i+�
•' _ . .
1111.
w.n
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Architects
Proposed 39 Unit Apartment
Exterior South Elevation
Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants
107 3rd St. N
Stillwater , MN
A5
lei*dal+--i
!!i IMr71
=Pi -
t
.m4L 1".41M
wig • . El--
•
Brick Veneer
Vertical Metal Panel
Black Metal Panel
and Parapet
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Architects
Proposed 39 Unit Apartment
Exterior East Elevation
PROJECT NO..
Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants
107 3rd St. N
Stillwater , MN
A6
Architects
Al 1ZWIel
our
1 IN
Wm. L
�r r
ILL mi.,r i
■ •11IIIMM111
■iF
w
.•- —
M.
Brick Veneer
Vertical Metal Panel
Black Metal Panel
and Parapet
Proposed 39 Unit Apartment
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
or North
Elevatio
n
on
PROJECT NO..
Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants
107 3rd St. N
Stillwater , MN
A7
30'-0"
107 3RD STREET NORTH, STILLWATER
gyijSite
P
4931 W. 35TH ST., #200
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
Office: 612.615.0060
www.CivilSiteGroup.com
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Project Number:
Issue Date:
21043
07/21/2021
Revision Number:
Revision Date:
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
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: CPC-2021-42
MEETING DATE: July 28, 2021
APPLICANT: Jim and Julie Moy
LANDOWNER: Jim and Julie Moy
REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to the front yard setback
LOCATION: 720 Everett Street North
DISTRICT: RB (Two -Family Residential)
REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator
INTRODUCTION
Mr. and Mrs. Moy own the house on the 15,000sf property at 720 Everett St North, which was constructed in
1876. They are proposing to construct a six -foot -wide wrap -around porch onto the front and south side of the
house. The Moy's have made some additions to the rear of the house and garage in the past, but the front face of
the house is original. The Moy's feel like they are "missing something" in the front of their home and would
like to add a relatively small front porch to allow the home to better fit the character of the neighborhood.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a 1.5-foot variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow a six-foot (6')
deep front porch to be setback 18'-7" from the front yard lot line, whereas the required setback is 20 feet.
ANALYSIS
The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below.
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
A property within the residential district proposing to add a front porch is
proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. This is especially true in the RB
district where front porches are a common feature of homes constructed prior to 1946.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property?
Even though this is a rather large property, the house is located just 24'-7" from
the front property line. The house was built in the nineteenth century, and properties with
a small front yard setback are fairly typical of this time period. Zoning Standards
(including front yard setback) have changed since this home has been constructed.
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
As stated above this problem was inherited with the property and was not created
by the landowner.
d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?
This neighborhood is largely made up of homes built in the late 1800's, along with a few
more modern houses. In this neighborhood, having a front porch is a common theme, as
well as having a house with a small front yard setback. As exemplified in the
"Neighborhood Pattern and Zoning" Map (last page), you can see that nine of the fifteen
properties (excluding subject property) have a front porch or a porch within the front yard
setback. Additionally, you can see on this map that over half of the properties have their
house or accessory structure within the front yard setback. Therefore, staff believes the
proposed front porch would fit into the neighborhood and would not have negative
impacts to the locality.
e. Is the lone consideration an economic one?
The lone consideration here is not economic. The owner would like to further their
enjoyment of their property by adding a front porch. Secondly, the owners pointed out
their desire for their house to better fit in with the surrounding houses, which typically
have front porches.
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?
Front yard Setback The Front Yard setback is required for a uniform
neighborhood development pattern and to allow for onsite drainage.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code?
This is a large property that is much wider than the average property on this block. This
variance is only encroaching into the setback by 1.5' feet and the porch only six feet
wide in entirety. This proposal neither disrupts neighborhood development pattern nor
onsite drainage.
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 RB, Two -Family District. A single family residence (with a front porch) is
an allowable use in the district.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions:
1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021-42, except as
modified by the conditions herein.
2. Building permit plans will need to be approved by applicable engineering, fire and building
officials before the issuance of a building permit.
3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review
and approval.
4. In order to remain in compliance with Sec. 38-1. 13. (b), runoff from the front porch cannot flow
directly onto public lands (sidewalk/street).
B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided.
C. Table the request for additional information.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds the proposed porch meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Practical difficulties
have been established, such as the location of the existing house is only 4'-7" from the front yard setback.
Furthermore, staff puts forth that this variance would be in harmony with the visual character of the
neighborhood as a whole. In fact, staff feels that this small front porch would make the property conform even
more with the surrounding neighborhood development pattern. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
variances for CPC Case No. 2021-42 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A.
Attachments: Neighborhood Pattern and Zoning Map
Site Location Map
Applicant Narrative
Site Plan
Rendering
Local Property Setbacks Examples
cc: Jim and Julie Moy
•mot•
Parcel Boundaries
Subject Property
Properties with front porches or porches
within the front yard setback
Front Yard Setback (2Y
1887 Year house built
Neighborhood Pattern and Zoning
0 25 50 100
Feet
By: Graham Tait
6/29/2021
'9 i s� n : .,41 ?ls
104- �'
409 403
�} a f�•
(Water
M1 7 al
ia� ;j �+ ` . µ
r' `g ,� '�S "` ,+ -- •;,.o a.<
{�, s*•, ,.�
_•
411,
The Birthplace of Minnesota
ijl
r9
512
" '
5
' 514 •
MailliMmagolor-9.r
4...
ot:.i.:
14O•504
cF: �, r
Site Location
'•;• r: -0. - f '�1•Y-�w
.' a • dfs4 4.4-I n
720 Everett
St N
r F
x
# .��� 9 err d J� ^'
"724 3 y 724
-tea pf r
4j,-, - t 'hy:
y
.- -r 720
a
�w
0 50 100
200
Feet
, # .
t,.719
�,
.s.-
- ,
General Site Location
�.
�
r ' '
IIIE
�•• •► -�
♦♦�
•}
.IIIIIILti
518 514 02 '09 418
4 4 ' 408NI
All
+\ ]
, �T �
: r
-;
I.
NB
BM EMM
�
*' j- ` f. V tip �k.. ,�� ir.
`h
!
-
'I,
- ®®� N♦
•
+0. ~!t zM' - -- •. -fix. . �l ,s�i+a
- '`11.7R'"� �•`4. 4' k > 42. r zip
.
ra � �11 n•���1�1
'I ii • i ,�
+ `
i r�:• • N�
t���11
A'•` • •
■....=1��
Applicant Narrative
Jim & Julie Moy
720 Everett St N
Porch addition — within the front yard set back
The following is our response to the 3 questions asked to justify our variance request.
(i)
The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in
the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official
controls;
We are proposing to add a 6' wide wrap around porch to our existing house. This is
permitted in the current zone, but we will be crossing the 20' front yard set back by
approximately 1'-5". The front of the porch (with the requested variance) will be 18'-7"
from the property line.
(ii) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not
created by the landowner; and
The front portion of the house is the original 1'''A story home that was built in the 1800's.
We have added onto the back of the original home and added a garage — but the front
face of the original home has not changed. The house seams to be missing something and
that is a front porch like many of the homes in our neighborhood. We are planning on a
modest 6' wide open porch with decorative columns that blend into the existing
neighborhood. If you look at the house today, you will see a scare on the front of it where
we intended to do this work when we put on the back addition. This request is to
complete the overall project and make the home better fit the character of the
neighborhood.
(iii) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
We feel that granting this variance will allow us to blend into the neighborhood more and
help strengthen the essential character of the neighborhood.
If you look at the attachment we added to this application, you will see 7 homes on our
block and the block just to the north that have setbacks ranging from 8'-2" to 17'-4" — well
within the current 20' setback. We are requesting a variance to allow for an 18'-7" set
back.
We have lived in this home since 1996 and love this neighborhood because of the variety
of homes, styles and even the proximity of the homes to the street. We want to continue
to improve our home and the neighborhood by completing this project.
1
1
1
1
•
1
•
■
SHED
i
0
N
T _
'r
l
GRAPIIIC SCALE
( IN h'h:H'.'I' )
1 inch 20 ri.
I'i I..- NIN'',
150.00'
■
18'-7" —141
Porch to
Property Line 1
■
24'-7"
House to
ropert Line •
•
o
lot area
15,000 sq ft
11
1
0
0
0
0
r
EVERETT ST N
PAGE - 2
Jim & Julie Moy
720 Everett St N
Front Porch Addition
Persp
ective
NOT TO SCALE
30" Rail
- 3" top rail
20" baluster
- 3" bottom rail
- 4" space off floor
PAGE - 1
11'-8" to porch
Approximate set backs for a
few of the local properties on
Everett St N - measured
from the face of the sidewalk
with a laser tape
-ickory St W
Hickory St W Hickory St W
Maple St Vi
11'-1" to house
8'-5" to porch
1 6'-2" to house
17'-4" to house
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: CPC-2021-44
MEETING DATE: July 28, 2021
APPLICANT: Charles Pearcy
LANDOWNER: Dwight and Becky Cummings
REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to the side yard setback
LOCATION: 612 Third Street South
DISTRICT: RB (Two -Family Residential)
REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator
INTRODUCTION
Mr. and Mrs. Cummings own the house on the 15,465sf property at 612 3rd St S, which was constructed in
1875. Up until recently, they had a unique garage setup, in which they shared a garage with the neighbor, which
spanned across the property lines (see image below). The neighbor has since removed and relocated their garage
which has left the Cumming's with
a garage right on (100% flush to)
the property line, with no eaves. The
lack of eaves has proved to be
detrimental to the garage's integrity
over time, and the garage now needs
to be replaced. To avoid a repeat
issue, the property owner would like
to push the garage out one foot from
the property line, and install eaves,
which would be right at the property
line.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a two -foot variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow a garage to be
setback one foot from the side yard lot line, whereas the required setback is three feet.
ANALYSIS
The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below.
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?
A property within the residential district proposing to reconstruct a detached
garage is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. This is especially true in
the RB district where detached and generously setback garages seem to be the norm.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property?
This situation is incredibly unique to this property. The fact that is used to be a
single large garage that was shared with the neighbor is unique. Also the location of the
existing house makes it so the garage cannot be moved further from the property line
without impeding a smooth and safe entrance into the garage.
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
These circumstances were not created by the landowner. The negative effects to
the garage started when the neighbor removed their garage, because this caused the
garage to just completely cut-off at the property line without eaves. Ultimately the water
running under the garage contributed to the deterioration of, and thus need to replace, the
garage.
d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?
This would not have any impact to the surrounding neighborhood because the garage is
only being proposed to be moved one foot away from the property line. The proposed
change will be practically unnoticeable. The only property this really could potentially
affect is the property directly to the south, in which the situation is created where the
Cumming's have an inability to maintain the south wall of the garage, thus creating a
nuisance. However, due to the presence of a three-foot easement, staff does not consider
this a concern at all.
e. Is the lone consideration an economic one?
The lone consideration here is not economic, but is a decision being made to protect the
future of their property's structures.
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 for garages is to maintain
an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits, as well
as to prevent development too close to the adjacent property.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code?
Yes, this variance would be out of harmony with the zoning code, however it would be
an improvement and would be more harmonious with the Code than it currently is. The
garage is not able to be pushed back any further due the location of the house. Making
this the only option, shy of shrinking the garage's proposed size.
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 RB, Two -Family District. A single family residence with a detached
garage in the rear is an allowable use in the district.
4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes.
The state building code does not allow projections (eaves) to be closer than 2' to the property
line. However due to the existing garage's location and the proximity issues often found in Old
Stillwater, the City Building Official approves of this proposal. The Applicant will be
responsible for appropriate Building Code and Fire Code requirements (fire rated walls).
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions:
1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021-44, except as
modified by the conditions herein.
2. Building permit plans will need to be approved by applicable engineering, fire and building
officials before the issuance of a building permit.
3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review
and approval.
4. A certificate of survey must be obtained prior to the construction of the new garage.
5. Prior to any construction, the City must conduct a site inspection to verify the location of the new
garage.
6. The garage must have rain gutters that in which the downspout directs away from the direction of
neighboring properties (particularly the property one foot to the south) and is retained and
infiltrated largely on the said property.
B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided.
C. Table the request for additional information.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds the proposed detached garage meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Practical
difficulties have been established, such as the location of the existing house making it not possible to push the
garage further from the side property line. Furthermore, staff puts forth that this variance would not negatively
impact the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
variances for CPC Case No. 2021-44 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A.
Attachments: Site Location Map
Applicant Narrative
Site Plan
cc: Charles Pearcy
Dwight and Becky Cummings
."11P :74;14.-310 "'in"
(CIrtu*.•.
•
Letter of Intent
In Support of Request for Variance
612 South 3rd St., Stillwater MN 55082
To: The Planning Commission for City of Stillwater MN, Building Department Staff and the Members of
City Council
This letter of Intent is in support of my request for a variance to the Zoning Code. The intention is
to tear down the existing 2 car (24x24) garage and construct a new 24x24 (576 square feet) 2 car garage
onto the property.
It is our intention to tear down existing garage that was altered when one stall was cut off the
original 3 car garage in an agreement with the neighboring property owners to the south and construct a
new 2 car garage in the same location sitting on the south property line. The existing garage has suffered
slab damage due to elevation changes, creating pooled water. The new garage would have an extended
slab/footing of 14"on the south side to gain a 1 foot overhang on the north and south ends of the
garage, the garage slab would protrude approximately 6" higher out of the ground than present
elevation to avoid water containment and under slab penetration from the neighboring property as a
result of the removal of the 3rd stall from the garage and landscape being altered. The positioning of the
new garage is critical for vehicles entering and exiting the garage. The slab and 12" overhang would be
on the property line to the south.
The square footage of the new proposed garage is under the City's maximum size for a garage
(1000 square feet) and with a total height of 15', it falls below the maximum height allowed.
The end result would be a professionally constructed garage that meets all Local and State
Building codes, sized to meet today's modern family and a structure that would complement the
property and the neighborhood.
We ask that a variance to build the said garage be granted, we will comply with all permits and
requirements if it is granted and used.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully s mitted,
Charles Pearcy, representing Dwight and Becky Cummins
-19
150'
50'
41'
24'
24'6"
Existing House
Garag
91'
170'
Pt c-Ac-c ?De Iry 5 -
c_oc1- SLAr5 0 (zoPmay-'' Lini
p'qr) 7 S i (Lu c Ti.>12- E 1412
o F F Su v r-ta. 1' (Lc 't-yz-T-7
,,,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!