Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-25 CPC Packet1 cSt.,.ya,fer 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 August 25th, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of July 28th, 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. 2. Resolution CPC 2021-03: Adopting Written Statements of Reasons for Denial CPC Case No. 2021-3 8. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 3. 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 from the July meeting 4. Case No. 2021-47: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to allow for proposed Emergency medical services facility to be located in the BPI zoning district. Eric Siskow, representing HealthPartners-Stillwater Clinics, property owner. 5. Case No. 2021-48: Consideration of a Variance to construct a front porch on the property located at 213 Greeley St N in the RB district. Jon Mulak, property owner. 6. Case No. 2021-49: Consideration of a Variance to construct a deck. Property located at 3686 Summit Lane in the RB district. Glenn Parker, applicant and John Hoffarth, property owner. 7. Case No. 2021-50: Consideration of a Variance to for a free standing multitenant sign. Property located at 226 Myrtle St E in the CBD district. Heathyre Sayers, applicant and Daniel Forest, property owner. VII. NEW BUSINESS 8. Case No. 2020-60: Discuss Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan for 200 Chestnut Apartments for Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. Case No. 2021-30: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment for the creation of a Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. City of Stillwater, applicant. —Tabled from the May meeting IX. DISCUSSION X. FYI — STAFF UPDATES XI. ADJOURNMENT ilivater THE 1INTN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Hansen, Hoffman, Knippenberg, Meyhoff, Steinwall, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Gladhill, Zoning Administrator Tait APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of June 23, 2021 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve the minutes of the June 23, 2021 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. Zoning Administrator Tait explained that the applicants are proposing to construct a six -foot - wide wrap -around porch onto the front and south side of the house to allow the home to better fit the character of the neighborhood. A 1.5-foot variance is requested to allow a six-foot deep front porch to be set back 18'-7" from the front yard lot line, whereas the required setback is 20 feet. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. Jim Moy, applicant, stated that to be useable, the porch must be at least 6'. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve Case No. 2021-42, Variance to construct a porch on the property located at 720 Everett St N, with the four staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. Planning Commission July 28, 2021 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. Chairman Dybvig announced this case was withdrawn by the applicant. 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. Chairman Dybvig announced this case is being tabled by staff until the August meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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 City Planner Wittman explained that Landucci Homes is proposing to construct a 39-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. A Conditional Special Use Permit is required. 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. On June 16, 2021 the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the Design Permit application and requested that the developer consider 1) removing the uppermost story; 2) stepping the east side back; 3) removing the easterly 3rd and 4th stories; 4) breaking up the metal with brick; 5) landscaping between the two buildings; and 6) exploring window and balcony placement facing the historic home. The HPC considered an updated plan on July 21. While the developer incorporated some of the requested changes, the changes made do not conform to all those requested by the HPC. The HPC denied the Design Permit for the current proposal but indicated a willingness to consider a similar project at 3 stories tall. The Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC) considered the request on June 23 and July 15 and heard the applicant's proposal to use a stacker vending machine style system to accommodate resident parking. The DTPC noted the plan was not in conformance with City Code and may not conform to City Code requirements. Given the site's topography and distance from public overnight parking, the DTPC recommends all parking be located onsite. 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. The applicant is requesting consideration of: 1) a Conditional Use Permit for 39 multi -family residences; 2) a 1.5-story variance to the three-story maximum height; 3) a 11.5' variance to the 37' maximum allowable height; 4) variances to the 20' (Combined) Side Yard and 20' Rear Yard Setback; 5) approval of the parking mitigation plan which includes mitigation of 35 Page 2of4 Planning Commission July 28, 2021 required resident parking spaces and variance of 13 required guest parking spaces; and 6) assignment of the 40-space credit currently assigned to Browns Creek West LLC. The City has received public comment from Trinity Lutheran Church and the Steeple Towne Home Owner's Association, both located across 3rd Street North, asking that the City deny the requested actions. Staff recommends denial, citing a combination of factors that suggest the volume of units is not to scale for this site. Nathan Landucci, applicant, explained the design changes that have been made. He feels the project meets resident parking requirements on site but is short 14 guest parking spaces which they would like to mitigate. Councilmember Odebrecht commented it is a beautiful design. He asked Ms. Wittman to clarify that the Planning Commission does not act on the parking mitigation. Ms. Wittman clarified that parking is a factor considered when looking at use but the Planning Commission does not act on parking mitigation. Councilmember Odebrecht said he would love to see how the novel parking solution would work. It is clear a lot of work has gone into the project however he shares the concerns expressed by staff and neighbors. Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knippenberg voiced concern about the height and the way the building would alter the view. Commissioner Hoffman recognized the amount of work done to make the changes, but feels the height is still a challenge. The corridor going down the hill is important. Commissioner Meyhoff said the parking solution is brilliant. He could support the height and feels the project is very well designed. His only concern is the potential for traffic issues. Commissioner Steinwall stated the variances seem entirely driven by the economics of the project. State law does not allow variances to be granted for economic reasons. Commissioner Hansen remarked there are many sticking points but his biggest concern is the height. There are no grounds to grant the height variance. A four story building in this area is too tall. It is already a dangerous intersection and adding mass, height and blocking views would make it irresponsible to approve. He added that the applicant has done good job of trying to think outside the box on parking. Chair Dybvig reiterated there appears to be no practical difficulty justifying a height variance. He voiced concern about the way this project interacts with the historic home. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to deny Case No. 2021-38, the 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, and recommend the City Council deny the Conditional Use Permit. All in favor. Community Development Director Gladhill noted that staff is committed to working with the developer to meet the zoning code standards including consideration of economic development tools available to bridge the financial gap. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission July 28, 2021 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 7:31 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner John Dybvig, Chair Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. CPC 2021-03 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ADOPTING WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DENIAL PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, § 15.99, SUBD. 2, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ASSOCIATED VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY AT 107 3RD STREET NORTH AND 110 MYRTLE STREET EAST CASE NO. CPC 2021-38 WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a Planning application from Nathan Landucci of Landucci Homes, applicant, and Browns Creek West and Catherine and Mark Balay, property owners of 107 3rd Street North and 110 Myrtle Street West, respectively, for a 4.5 story, multi -family structure in the Central Business District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in the application in a public meeting held June 23, 2021; and WHEREAS, at the June 23, 2021, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the request and noted the request had not been acted upon by advisory commissions. Commissioners directed the applicant to seek recommendations and approvals from the Downtown Parking and Heritage Preservation Commissions. Commissioner Meyhoff made motion to table the request, which was seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht. All commissioners voted in favor; and WHEREAS, at the July 28, 2021, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed amended plans for the building. Councilmember Odebrecht made motion to deny the request, which was seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg. All commissioners voted in favor; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statutes, § 15.99, Subd. 2(c), provides that "[i]f a multimember governing body denies a request, it must state the reasons for denial on the record and provide the applicant in writing a statement of the reasons for the denial. If the written statement is not adopted at the same time as the denial, it must be adopted at the next meeting following the denial of the request but before the expiration of the time allowed for making a decision under this section. The written statement must be consistent with the reasons stated in the record at the time of the denial. The written statement must be provided to the applicant upon adoption." NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater hereby adopts the following written statement of the reasons for denial stated on the record at the July 28, 2021, regular Planning Commission meeting by Commissioners voting to deny the requested Conditional Use Permit and Associated Variance request: 1. The request was not consistent with all the standards for granting a Variance as described in Section 31-208 of the Stillwater Zoning Ordinance. More specifically, the Planning Commission members voting against the request stated on the record at the July 28, 2021, regular Planning Commission meeting that the request was not justified for the following reasons: • The proposal was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the building would alter the viewshed and gateway corridor. • Practical difficulties have not been established. • Economic conditions are a factor for the variance request. Adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater this 25th day of August, 2021. Amy Mino, Chair Attest: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner i1Iwateir THE BIRTHPLACE OE MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission MEETING DATE: August 25, 2021 APPLICANT: Jason Ous LANDOWNER: Jason Ous CASE NO.: CPC-2021-45 REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to the front and side setbacks LOCATION: 304 Hazel Street East DISTRICT: RA (Single -Family Residential) REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Jason Ous owns the 6,079sf property at 304 Hazel Street West, historically known as the August Iserman house. The Dutchtown Heritage Preservation Planning Area Study's Architecture - History Inventory Form indicates the structure was construction circa 1870s. Described in 1998 as a two-story front gable house with side porch and tin roof, the structure's state had not changed much from when the inventory record was created. While the structure was associated with state and local historic contexts, it was not determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register and was listed in fair condition. In recent history, the property at 304 Hazel St East had fallen into disrepair and was in violation of City Code for number of reasons (Enforcement Case E/2019-14). Jason Ous purchased this property in October of 2019 and began to work on fixing up the property and removing all exiting nuisances. This work also included removing the front porch and popping the top of the eastern side of the building. However, Mr. Ous did not obtain any building permits or any permission from the Heritage Preservation Commission) (HPC), nor gained permission from the Planning Commission (PC) for the several needed variances. On December 30, 2020 and again on January 27th, 2021, a letter was sent to Mr. Ous which outlined the violations on the property and what corrective actions to take. The letters advised the unpermitted work would require review and approval by both the City's HPC and PC prior to the 1 This property is in the Neighborhood Conservation District and any work greater than 30% of the total exterior, including 20% of the wall visible from the street, a Building Demolition Permit is required to be approved prior to the work occurring. review of the building permit application. In response, Mr. Ous submitted the needed permit applications to begin the review process after the fact. At the HPC meeting on April 21st, 2021, the request for demolition was recommended denial. Subsequently, at the May 18th, 2021 City Council meeting the request was denied and the applicant was directed to return to the Commission with substantially changed plans that better reflect the goals of the HPC. These plans were submitted, and are now under review. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting two variances to City Code Section 31-305. (b). (1).: 1. To allow a six-foot (6') deep front porch to be setback zero feet (0') from the front yard lot line, whereas the required setback is 30 feet. 2. To allow a house to be setback zero feet (0') from the side yard lot line, whereas the required setback is 10'. 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 and to raise the eastern side of the house from one to two stories is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? These circumstances are unique to the property, because The home was originally constructed in a location where it hugs the front and side property lines given the proximity to the steep slope in the rear. When the easterly, single story addition was constructed, it was placed over the property line. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? In part these circumstances are not created by the landowner, because the house lies just 2.2' away from the front yard property line. This house had a porch prior to the unpermitted demolition, and the HPC has ordered a porch be replaced. What circumstances were created by the property owner is that he chose to pop the top on the east side of the legal nonconforming house, already encroaching over the side yard property line. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The variance to the front yard setback for the addition of a six-foot porch would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Most of the homes in this neighborhood are located at or near the edge of the front right-of-way. The second story addition to the east side of the house in some ways fits in nicely with the surrounding neighborhood, for example the mass of the structure is respective of the setbacks and rhythm of the neighborhood. e. Is the lone consideration an economic one? These variances are being applied for after the fact, for the construction is already complete. Denial of these variances would result in the property owner having to remove any noncomplying work that was completed. 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. Interior 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? Front yard Setback The addition of a covered porch in the front yard setback will be in harmony with the Zoning Code, because a uniform neighborhood development will be maintained This neighborhood is largely comprised of historical houses that were built right up to the front property line. Additionally, this variance to the front yard setback would not affect the drainage, this property is fairly sloped and all the rain runoff runs off the front property towards State Road 95 to be managed by its storm water system. Interior Side yard setback The addition of a second story on the east side of the house, within the required setbacks will mostly be in harmony with the Zoning Code, because the footprint already existed over the property line, and the expansion is solely vertical in nature. Also, to further alleviate any potential issues with drainage or maintaining unoccupied space between properties, this property is uphill from and bordered on the east by a 125' wide DNR-owned open space walking trail. 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 RA, One -Family District. A two-story single family residence with a front porch is an allowable use in the district. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. This variance to allow the front porch to cross over the front property line is in direct conflict with the Building Code. However, the City Building Official has expressed some degree of support because there was a preexisting porch, and this support is conditioned on if Council grants an encroachment license. This house, including the section of vertical expansion, also crosses over the property line into DNR lands. This property will have to get permission from the DNR for this existing and vertically expanded encroachment. 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- 45, 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. An encroachment license must be obtained from City Council, for the front porch encroachment. 5. Permission to encroach onto DNR land must be obtained and submitted to the Community Development Department prior to any permit approvals. 6. Runoff from the porch should in no way impede or affect driving conditions on Hazel St. 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 , such as the location of the existing house is situated so close to the front and side yard setback lines, have been established. Furthermore, staff puts forth that that a front porch in general would be in harmony with the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. The variance to the side yard property line is not as easy to justify. However, popping the top on a single -story addition is reasonable. The pre-existing single -story addition, which was not a situation created by the applicant was encroaching over the property line. Additionally, the variance won't have any negative impacts to the locality. Therefore, staff feels that practical difficulty has been established. City staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-45 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Site Plan Front Facade cc: Jason Ous All This is a quick description of changes made to structure at 304 Hazel St. Upon acquisition we removed the "greenhouse" type structure at the from of the home and also removed the porch area that was built on top of foam, presumably from Wolf marine when they upgraded their marina. The porch was poorly constructed and was a complete liability. No other pure demo work was done to the home. West roof structure failed during our remodel. We intended to save the 1/2 story area above the west addition (existing done in the 30-50's). Failure dictated a solution, and a full walled section was built to accommodate the available materials during Covid. No trusses were being made and water was filling the home thus resulting in the choice of solid strand materials as shown in drawing by Larson engineering, you have copies from initial re pull of permitting. Pictures have been supplied of all four sides of now existing structure. I will submit via digits next week for easier viewing. Landscape has been altered in the following ways. To the west of the home/garage there were two dead trees, greater than 8" in diameter and the remainder was buckthorn and thick under growth. This space is now a full fescue finish leaving the remaining trees along the north to maintain the integrity of the steep slope. To the north of the garage and between the garage and the home there were numerous branches carrying over the garage and near the home. We removed those branches again leaving the bulk of the tree to continue to hold the steep slope. At this location we also restacked the existing stone retaining wall, where failing. We added pines with shallow but wide spreading roots to again create more rigidity at the top of this elevation change. With that we chose to install stone works at the base of the west elevation of the living structure to absorb any impact from any moving rock, which is always a possibility. This area is also planted out in lilies and ferns to remove as much moisture as possible at this location. No removal of any trees to the north of the living structure nor to the east. The only other addition is shown in the south elevation which are a pair deep rooting arborvitae to shore up the only area where excavation work was done. Window and door location have stayed consistent from acquisition. Changes have been made to lesson the size of two opening due to cost and availability of materials. All efforts we made to accommodate the age of the house and the balloon framing that existed. When any alterations are done to a home that is balloon framed the entire house must then be built to carry new load numbers through engineering that will never pass todays structural requirements. I am specifically noting the requirements for a cost comparison in the HPCA form. Norm was able to engineer that design to carry load down to a footer in the basement removing any load being transferred back into the existing framing. There again is no cost-effective way to use 100 year old framing in any new applications RE a two story structure. I will also note the concerns of the letter writer as for the overall structure being out of level. The home does have a bit of a tilt, this was discussed with the engineer. There is no concern as the plumb/level of the home irregularities as they are common is structures of this age and posed no concern when initially just doing a cosmetic rehab. When things failed and caused a new plan the design was created to also provide full support to those details as the work would need to be done. All existing sheathing was re secured with 16p fasteners. The entire structure was then covered again in a 7/16" OSB to shore up all issues and tied into the new cube form at the east to complete the tie together. As for the exterior finish I chose a clapboard style and flat panel design. We used the torn off roof from the porch to tie in the old look. We also used all heritage paint colors from Valspar to finish the exterior. Windows have lattice work and details added to break up the monotonous nature of the building. You can note we shoes to change the orientation on the siding on the southern face at the second story and subdued the paint to change the eyes movement from one of linear movement to a compartment movement. As for any historically significant components to this home they either never existed or were lost in time. I have spoken to two families who lived in the home, and they could not think of one prominent thing of detail they remembered. This parcel had two small structures on it many years ago and the addition off the east elevation being the last time any real work was done. The home had paneled walls from the 70's through out the main and hard surface coverings from the turn of the century upstairs covered by carpet. The exterior was Masonite over asphalt rolled siding. No detailed millwork in or outside of the home. I believe we were as mindful as one could be regarding how we handled this home from the perspective of how the finished product retained its charm and how we were able to add character. It did not go according to plan. It did not stay on budget. It did not go any easier with all the issues covid provided. I know all we hear are those who voice discontent, but I will say rarely a day went by without a passer by stating how happy they were to see the changes or ask to walk through and see what it now looks like. All incredibly positive interactions . A11 1el perStrn Cen,1ts•sekt'�o►N WOU A rood 1 IL 10 cnec;+- Scer -01 s fraferH 304 Hazel St E 304 HAZEL STREET STILLWATER, MN Distance to Property Lines Proposed Deck Parcel Boundaries 0 10 20 40 Feet By: Graham Tait 6/29/2021 '14 • 2, tt“Alf-d6 qs malm.••• Pol..<44- ,)1*;,!,' 0 TO rkbprFHL C-r-t7L1 ,„•s; .... P 171r*.! r I tj 1'4 codc i11water THE BRTHLLE OF MNNFOA PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: Planning Commission August 25, 2021 Eric Siskow Stillwater Health System Zoning Text Amendment to allow EMS Facilities in the Business Park Industry (BPI) zoning district N/A BP -I, Business Park - Industrial Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner CASE NO. 2021-47 INTRODUCTION Stillwater Health System is seeking a Zoning Text Amendment to allow Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Facilities in the Business Park Industrial (BP -I) zoning district. If approved, they will start the process to request an EMS Facility, to be used by Lakeview Hospital, be located adjacent to their Curve Crest clinic, located at 1500 Curve Crest Boulevard. This would require re -platting the property which would come back before the Planning Commission at a later date. SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of a Zoning Amendment — Text (ZAT) to allow Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Facilities in the Business Park Industry (BPI) zoning district. ANALYSIS The Zoning Chapter of the City Code (Section 31-205) makes allowance for amendments if: 1. The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan and any adopted area or specific plan; and 2. The public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment. Goal 1 of the Land Use Chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to "maintain a healthy balance in land uses between residential, commercial, research & business park, industrial, and park/open space." Unconditionally changing the allowed uses in the industrial zoning district to Case 2021-47 Page 2 non -industrial uses works against the Comprehensive Plan goal. However, a total of 105.5 acres are zoned BP -I, but only half that acreage is currently put to industrial uses; currently only 52.8 acres, or 0.9% of the City's land area, has industrial uses on it. In other words, the City allows for uses in this district that are in conflict with the intent of the district as well as the land use goals of the current Comprehensive Plan. Lakeview EMS has no opportunity for growth in its current location nestled in a residential area at Lakeview Hospital, 927 Churchill Street West. The Economic Development Chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan places emphasis on supporting business expansion in the West Stillwater Business Park area. Changing the City Code to allow for EMS Facilities to be located in the Business Park — Industrial area would support the goal to "[i]ncrease the tax base and provide opportunities for economic growth for Stillwater and Stillwater area residents." It could also help support health equity within the community, as noted in the Sustainbility Framework. The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the Business Park/Industrial land use provides for traditional industrial, limited manufacturing and processing of products. It notes proximity to regional road corridors is a critical factor in locating in these areas. While EMS Facility operations are not consistent with traditional industrial uses, they do have similar needs. All city -zoned BP -I lands are located along or within a close proximity to Major Collector or Minor Connector roadways; quick access to these roadways and regional road corridors is critical to response times. Currently, the City Code does not contemplate the allowance of EMS Facilities in any zoning district. That said, the BP -I district allows for medical and dental offices as outright permitted uses. Additionally, government facilities and fire stations are allowed as conditionally -permitted uses. It could be argued that EMS Facilities are ancillary to these medical uses and are substantially similar to the conditionally -permitted uses. Therefore, allowing EMS Facilities in the BP -I (potentially as a conditionally -permitted use) would be relatively consistent with the zoning code. Furthermore, placing restrictions on size and/or location, such as adjacency to existing medical facilities, could help preserve industrial lands. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Recommend that the Council approve the Zoning Text Amendment with modifications that the use be conditionally -permitted and that placement must be adjacent to existing or planned medical facilities. B. Recommend that the City Council deny the Zoning Text Amendment. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION There is a need by Lakeview EMS to expand their facilities. Doing so in an area within close proximity to major roadway and the regional transportation corridor would be an asset to their operations. Changes like the one requested, however, would allow one more non -industrial use Case 2021-47 Page 3 possible. City staff finds that the continued conversion of industrially zoned property to non- industrial uses is poor practice and inconsistent with the land use given by the Comprehensive Plan. On the other hand, it could be argued that if the amount of industrially zoned land was insufficient, there would be pressure to increase the amount of land available for manufacturing and product processing. That has not been the case for decades. Additionally, it unlikely the City would field requests for multiple EMS Facilities within the community. So, on balance with other Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives, the request helps support a number of other intents for the community. By providing expansion opportunities for Lakeview EMS, the City's economic and sustainability goals and objectives are being furthered. Attachments: Application Narrative City Zoning Map 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Cc: Eric Siskow . LOUCKS LAKEVIEW EMS FACILITY - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Request for a Zoning Text Amendment to allow for a proposed Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Facility located on the current HealthPartners Clinic property in the Business Park Industrial (BPI) zoning district. The proposed EMS building will be an estimated 11,250 sf facility of one-story height with a decorative exterior masonry / brick facade. The vehicle garage area will be 6,500 SF and will contain (6) drive-in bays to hold up to (12) emergency vehicles. The garage will also be utilized for light maintenance and repair work. The EMS living quarters will contain (6) sleeping units, along with a kitchen, dining, lounge area, and workout room for staff. The building will also have a large training room for up to 20 EMS staff. There will be on -site parking per city requirements along with a detached outdoor trash enclosure constructed of like materials. Re -platting of the property will occur to combine the parcels with PIN numbers 32.030.20.42.0021 and 32.030.20.42.0022. An approximately 4.00-acre parcel will be created on the northwest side of the property for future sale in the BPI zoning district. PLANNING I CIVIL ENGINEERING I LAND SURVEYING I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I ENVIRONMENTAL www.loucksinc.com 17200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300, Maple Grove, MN 55369 1763.424.5505 Miritionner ..® ■rem .orm 306 !iI'10V1 1 ® 31009 304 m 1 302 224 memo� ® 1205 1206 ®I®u® � 1207 230 QF(�Yj. 1 flflfl®® 202 1 \N �S q7r VVEST WORT 2,9 207 121, ,205 203 f k 205 civ rI20, 201 1212 l . 17 rEtimma ®ErEm � ®�®1ME ® MEMP 1 ME 820 yii �� 104 813 HIflflH! M 109 11p 110 ,07 = iCk7® L 125 �k'® ffliminuntemocre WIL:= '14 minginilli ® ®®�®1111®� , E -303 ®®® 11 M� ME 303 209 ®®®®ron .i�':Or3�'�308 304 ®210® ®® ®®p}®� +R61 . 1F.,...0. ®�®�3 ��®309 mar i� C�L7�1®+ 7I®®® -,®U®®�®® 1206 ®1��1EMOMENUMMIEFIU 1 IIM as :7 �102a@1111@ 1I111E� EUh==i0ill 4 atex, �� 101ip®m® �`1.■hiFIE1 1�s� 001 11 1001 �LJ1 1004 `Rii��iO3 11 1-'1008 1003 w.v �,-eam=='n� c c ��_ �wi r- M • ®®-®2,2 502��� 404 �310 306 ninon �iiR��i l'ri-ANOMME101 ME ® _ 810 _®��eiiii� ® 72®� � I 720 ® - MEM - -_ N • : - - • ���1®�®®ora t��:� o; ���n �� �0 er 409 to p16 Fir rid 1 mmElm 303 cal ITME 506E M� 905 N�� M ®R MEI Enid ® rIEMENTEMEM ®®®�®� N � 110010 ELI is IMMO M. E MEEPkW111,11WIERINPTIMIMMIE11111Frimild 1017 50 0 ' m01 - 5I� , ®� � �� 'L 1201 UUEhiEll15 i ®an BEGO - 1220 ®P nem Elm ---L___J. (,`KIIC IS.-J�O94.-lyQBTX--_ COUNTY ROAD 64 MCKUSI 0-08 3770-78 37 ��itAlMRfr-8 NE-laewM____ VI 1120 gOMI 1140-60 41 11 g- 1141-51 ri iliwater The Birthplace of Minnesota Zoning August, 2019 1,000 500 0 1,000 2,000 Feet District AP: Agricultural Preservation V° LR: Lakeshore Residential �0° CTR: Cove Traditional Residential RA: One Family Residential TR: Traditional Residential o� ' OCR: Cove Cottage Residential � RB: Two Family Residential CR: Cottage Residential � TH: Townhouse Residential CTHR: Cove Townhouse Residential � RCM: Medium Density Residential RCH: High Density Residential CBD: Central Business District VC: Village Commercial +� CA: Commercial BPC: Business Park Commercial BPO: Busness Park Office BPI: Business Park Industrial +� CRD: Campus Research Development if PA: PublicAdministration � PWF: Public Works Facility if PROS: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Parcels Located Outside Stillwater 64 .. U rban Features "N" Municipal Boundary - - Road Centerline G ROW S urface Water _- Lakes and Ponds Rivers S:1Planning\GISlzoning120191Zoning 2019.mxd ■ ■ ■ South Twin Lake MC'KEISICK--RD•N w 75TH ST N 5 tstBLVDW, 0 a 9G 11 Fgq.. o�,SQ\.� gel L,2 ■ PO ▪ Q� 1 • ■ HAZEL ST 6 IIIN111 :11 ■11 }} -_ - 1NI11111111 NIA ■- it a — q% •N 1N1 5•1•11 .1 IN .■�� _I•I 1111�111 1H11111 • IE _ !!=. M11111 111EM 1= i1� ••111E 11I 111M ■_ -11111111N1111Mpia••1H111WIrlL�lrC.l���`SwW����1'I . - III. i1111— • IV s .-. m e• El 60TH ST N ■•1 IIl111N \ mitIII111e ui11111: IIIIIIIIIIEoJI11111111 •1•1111� 5T-W 11 11•111 mommi ••1 �' v •• Ni ■ ■ L �RL•EANSST.Ea 6511H.Sir er ■ ■ z ■ •• • zW pr ■a O • •• 0 ■ • N. • • 95 59TH ST N 21 iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Future Land Use Plan City Limit Future Land Use Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial • Downtown Mixed Use ■ Business Park/Industrial /// Highway Mixed Use Institutional Research, Development Park Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Wetland Open Water ROW Figure 2.11: Future Land Use 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet PLAN OF STILLWATER 0 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 H11111111111 2-19 i1Iwateir THE BIRTHPLACE OE MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission MEETING DATE: August 25, 2021 APPLICANT: Jon Mulack LANDOWNER: Jon Mulack REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to the front yard setback LOCATION: 213 Greeley Street North DISTRICT: RB (Two -Family Residential) REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator CASE NO.: CPC-2021-48 INTRODUCTION Mr. Mulack owns the house on the 13,150sf property at 213 Greeley Street North, which was constructed in 1878. They are proposing to construct an eight -foot -wide wrap -around porch onto the front and north side of the house. Mr. Mulack puts forth that this porch would help the house fit in well with the neighborhood, but most importantly, it will help prevent rainwater from getting into his basement. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting an eight -foot (8') variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow an eight -foot (8') deep front porch to be setback 12 feet 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 20' from the front property line, which is right where the current Zoning Code places the front yard setback 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? In this neighborhood roughly two-thirds of the homes were built in the mid to late 1800's. Also in this neighborhood, there is a prevailing pattern of the structures being located within front yard setback. As exemplified in the "Neighborhood Pattern and Zoning" Map (last page), you can see that twelve of the eighteen properties (excluding subject property) have structures that are closer than 20' to the front property line. Additionally, around half the properties in this area have front porches. Therefore, staff believes a front porch would fit into the neighborhood and would not have negative impacts to the locality. However, the size of this proposed porch does not necessarily conform to traditional porches from this time period or existing porches within the neighborhood. A porch with a width of six feet would be more appropriate. 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. Specifically, the owner also states a main reason for the porch is to prevent water in his basement. 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. If this porch's width were reduced to six feet, staff could confidently say that this variance would have no impact on the neighborhood development pattern nor drainage. However, at eight feet wide this porch does push a little farther into the setbacks than the prevailing neighborhood pattern. 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. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. This variance was not in conflict with any other City Department's requirements or codes. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested 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. The porch shall not exceed 6' in depth from the front and side facades of the residence. 3. Building permit plans will need to be approved by applicable engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 4. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 5. 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, such as the location of the existing house is situated right at the front yard setback line, have been established. Furthermore, staff puts forth that that a front porch in general would be in harmony with the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. However, staff feels that an eight -feet wide deck is a bit wider than a traditional porch for this architectural style and that eight feet would put the porch too far into the setbacks; whereas, a six-foot wide porch would be most appropriate for this neighborhood and situation. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-48 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Neighborhood Pattern and Zoning Map Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Porch Detail cc: Jon Mulack Neighborhood Pattern and Zoning 273 Greeley Street North 1CPC-2D27-18j Subject Property Parcel Sou ndaries Frank and Exterior Side Yard Setback {21fl 1887 Year house built a 30 GO 120 Feet , 7,- r _ a L. t{-. 71 1* 815 1 T 703 1 I l� ale! f 4+�'Jyr g y 'f 430 , r, �, 1 lM ._ 312 r_ t rj >tiL / �! -,� 1. so5i ?. 1 i_S air.' 7 ley ma`s• � [ 817k ' ,,. , , R ��. 4. � ,E : _ - _, '' : r 4 * r .— ., ✓ + � Y The Birthplace of Minnesota No Site Location J r�, w,.: 37 ^V ``l. ■ ': � L 226 1, w , 2 * y a * yam.. *� :.> .__. 3 e c p t � r ¢ ,, q .mot. r "ti nIL 225 1 vi 4 �22 I 213 Greeley St N .—�> z,Ct - y I II r. 1 ,. ' _ z. , . '�i� • ' i ' ,,"i "fir' .24 a^ , +�', 9' '� i i � �214�' -- _. 215 t-2 ; ' u 1 w '� 0 85 170 340 Feet ._ . ryyy `} ` 1 J H 'SST.Faiiiiiift- . �.�� �{{. / $ .2]� frt, -. r4 � n i $ s General Site Location a.. •02%, 201 Id 1 + �1 i IIIi1111IILt..i . el .\�► ;I • \ O� 1`k`y O � �_ p I 810 1 204 # S' "_ t7(I 1 «)3`. aat -9 y,\,f r ' 2 r a — ". � �� }�:r / II' :, �`t 11 1 l�I`Ih� I,I:.�I1I�I��, lu!IIIIII'I �11■ � ® ami ���-1- 1 �i , • 1 -s � �r� I ^� 'T .1 ,t _'I � //�, 1 '�� II \ \ ,\�; .. /VEST IC ;�,�i , ® *N. !: :- _ .,,19 ..,y.at N.rr.. Z� +irar :.� .ss`:`. 115 � �i/l�� �. ` i ` ��\ 1Ify �y �`�Ybl . i.'.:.,:. mi` , r 'I �,1 �i ■n: n.1■ '��3i���rali�u �� 111Vy -'': 7111 g1 `1��11� n� 11 _wig ■ 1-1 1 x„ }. . pry faY r. , - 441' - —� .. t:' .. — O —10_-.7A1N l. ..,...p i L/��J���J� �• i ��l .. 1111 ' '..,`-,-TiII J" : �� ,1._ ° -- \WI Z&, Zee f (SI &I 1-ey- Plii-th,. Vep , L , oN iRt./_pcap-4( 0...) ?--/ 3 4veel y 1 is Un1�GYS .lte,_d ii j 7 7 L--r._S o [v6r es;�� Jj7 -rc -Area-- �I3� $ a er4yfS"j T1-te Ur/ft /►/ 71A_A-8_26 1 doA e� .vim -RA(.4 riles fra.V re_ e-v 7;7/1. prop Lp rcL wouE.1 g �_v W / f -►ice e b)vk d€ . hi-- I) `I ,1-/s el pre tE EVE y 6/ 6- `f "o Ao E 1_ A Ito / .S��f1f .a.r.- -� 61.4 4'LASI / �J} y, l ur // 7'V--1& °T _ t) -eV 7 o rnv fie- t -e - rr L S GL.N a_lic - (i}> — co ri[fE� 0-e AchAL,Al_esa-Y-hui --/A--- ge,e,1 -Coy 0-- hd-Se.,71-.,) Cufrt p -AA14,__, vv r-1 ctirr2:/J /,,, TomJJ+ 4 S AA- - 6--'' itidoce f V�u/Ack Hons 3 Sr; /I A4A) (E) L; erg a glikdib Loi.- (C) L5/- r 630 Cal ----- Uri Ottoxl no prop. L Eits6- 6Ac kou y-e, z(' N aukjf. 15)05-[L n5 40c6.6 pordh 54f-tt+ A 0 RECEIVED MAY 2 0 2021 1 CITY OF STILLWATER BUILDING DEPARTMENT E,1 -evoi,11 r r a Doohie ax3 'm Tf e4fd 4? oTdist (/aAy er t-e-d9" , `` A 6P/ctSh werook _. , �P 5"Ledyer 2x'B4c( -� illwater THE 6 4 R T H P L A C E OF- MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DISTRICT: REPORT BY: Planning Commission CASE NO.: CPC-2021-49 August 25, 2021 Glenn Parker John Hoffarth Consideration of a Variance to the maximum structural surface coverage. 3686 Summit Lane RB (Two -Family Residential) Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Mr. Hoffarth owns the house on the 9,583sf property at 3686 Summit Lane. He is proposing to construct a 240sf deck with a 40sf staircase. However, this proposed deck (and stairs) will put the property 71 sf over the maximum allowed structural coverage. The applicant puts forth that the proposed deck will add much needed functional space to the rear of his house while still providing appropriate drainage. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a .7% variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow a property in the RB District to have a structural coverage ("buildings") of 25.7%, whereas the maximum structural coverage is 25%1. 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 ' This property is 9,583 sf. And has maximum structural coverage of 25%. Therefore, the maximum structural coverage of this 9,583sf property is 2,396sf. The property currently exists with a structural coverage of 2,187sf and is proposing a 280sf deck, which would create a total structural coverage of 2,467. In conclusion, the property would exceed the maximum structural coverage by 71 sf. 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 a residential district proposing to add a rear deck is proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner. That being said, the size of the deck is quite larger than the average deck within this neighborhood. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? What makes this situation unique is that the building permit for this new house indicated that the property would be right at its maximum allowed coverage, yet the house was designed to accommodate a walk -out deck. More recently, staff has been flagging issues like this and alerting the applicant before building approval. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The problem was not created by the landowner. The house was purchased with limited wiggle -room for more structural coverage, and the owner hasn't done any improvements to further increase the coverage. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The deck is in the rear yard and cannot be seen from the front of the house (or the road). Furthermore, this deck would be distanced from the houses in the rear by over 100'. However, this deck is a bit larger than other rear yard decks in the neighborhood, and shrinking this deck in size, will allow it to more appropriately fit into the neighborhood. 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 rear deck. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? Maximum Structural Lot Coverage The specific purpose of the maximum lot coverage is to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The deck, proposed to bring the structural coverage .7% above the maximum allowed, the impervious structural coverage is only at 7.6% whereas 25% is allowed. So, if the variance is approved, the total coverage for this property will be 33.3%, which is well below the allowed combined 50%. Furthermore, Rutherford Station Development was designed with a comprehensive drainage plan, that has drainage easements running thru the rear of each property, including the subject property. Rutherford Station was designed so that lots would be able to accommodate at least 50% combined coverage for each individual lot (refer to "Drainage Map"). That being said this deck is a bit larger than other decks in the neighborhood. Staff feels that if the size of the deck (excluding the stairs) were reduced to an area of no greater than 200sf2, this size would be more appropriate. 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 rear porch) is an allowable use in the district. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. This variance was not in conflict with any other City Department's requirements or codes. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021- 49, 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 rear deck cannot flow directly onto adjacent private lands 5. The total surface coverage (impervious and structural) may never exceed 50%. 6. Any additional structural coverage (including improvements not requiring a building permit, such a shed) added to the property in the future will require another structural coverage variance. 7. The maximum area of the deck (excluding the 40sf staircase) is to be 200 sf. 2 The area of 200sf seemed appropriate because that would bring the property just shy of its maximum allowed structural coverage (excluding the stairway). This size deck is also much closer in size to neighboring decks. 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 puts forth that a variance to allow a rear deck will not have any negative affects to the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. And this property is well equipped to handle the additional drainage imposed by this deck. However, with all this said, staff does feel that the size of the rear deck requested is a bit larger than other properties in the neighborhood and a modest reduction in size is a reasonable alternative. Staff believes that a deck no larger than 200sf (plus the 40sf staircase) should be the maximum size, in order to allow for minimal impacts to the neighborhood, while accommodating for the property's practical difficulties. If the deck is reduced, then practical difficulties would be established and the deck would meet the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-49 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Certificate of Survey Drainage Map Deck Drawing cc: Glen Parker John Hoffarth 1420, 37021 3671 ) F 4 • 3663 /' 3615-_ 3611 mart pia molt 3641 3633 3625 648 3642 3622 ' 3630 362'8 Date: August 3rd, 2021 To: Stillwater City Planning Commission Re: 3686 Summit Lane Variance Request Dear Stillwater Planning Commission, Based on initial feedback from the City, I understand that the deck size I have proposed (20' x 14', inclusive of a 4' x 4' landing w/ staircase) puts my property slightly over the city requirements for structural hard cover. In my conversations with the City -Zoning department, I understand that while my proposal may put me slightly over this limitation, my property, as well as the surrounding development is well below the allowable impermeable requirements. I greatly feel that the size of the deck is not extravagant, and will add much needed functional space to the rear of my house while still providing appropriate drainage while respecting the aesthetic, functionality, and will still respect the intent of the City's coverage policies within reason. The deck size is consistent with that of others in my development, while I have a much larger backyard then many of my neighbors. In addition, my house backs up to a drainage easement, which slightly decreases my usable yard, while significantly, helping to control runoff / drainage from both my property and others. I have also sought, and received permission and approval from my local Homeowners Association for the construction of the deck, including size, design, materials and construction, which I will happily provide upon request. Given the above factors, I feel strongly that the proposed variance is reasonable in manner and in line with the original zoning of the property and respects the intent and spirit of the original zoning. While new to Stillwater in the last 2 years, we have quickly fallen in love with the City and the people here and we are grateful to call Summit Lane in Stillwater home. I greatly appreciate the City's and the Commissions time, consideration and attention to this matter. For any inquiries, please feel free to contact me directly at (218) 779 —1131. Sincerely, John Hoffarth OFFICIAL PLAT ••:--•••••-• — c. • 7-• RUTHERFORD STATION SECOND ADDITION r'•--isoiopmeRA • • • Vi...71j—,„. ".• L 3,1071,, Et LSI Lb. •-•,}4.4, OW or To, kA1 NO • ' - r = ' ' - 47`0.- . • •-••• ;.s.2•36-'• - summir LANE • 00_,...121.0 6,1131, WW1. CNN 1. Gurt,01 A -a • 3).). QUI 12 - L.foretr.- WAY = 1! . Vtarict_ - -191900 - ' i17: rr 9 _ _ ernr!.re .. ,...: &o. w, ; to ,C4IYAIT • . flf .14 ell " ....sew • • . ,- 4 21 CC - /7.02 N.131;-:"---...:7: .• .• .;;,%4 i.d9.1 -11r- • 'r - -1. .5.7 I I 1 1 ! 1 . .... . BLOCK I ..1..- Y. l' N 'I • 41 2 ..;I:tg i • I. ', = riis r.. ! • k....,.. t .,..--:-• ....x .'ill!':1 ...s. .. V. • , .L .• I. .4 - • - . • • •.:, • ......, '.‘:=1...NLt..........--- r - . ki :-.1.1., • •••, , .! :7, . .4 • . 10.4 , 643.6Z $00'29.13E NS, Uld 904.01 h thaveh.067 1.1111•1 TAN *DOM* P0,141 profe/1- rs\ n (.1 P.A005.1 NV Wain WA AllAr0 +Al1l6AS FIWRI I7D7 20 'CAW Its. loi L 11. Agog ToTar 0.• *Om 0ACIA.0005.4 Mit (RI' fnlej Arre MAC 5 WI SY INOZN AIN> AryeAANYl; 11,-T I PM. IRS415 OM...1SW UNINA CM: ND RA I THE OMIDITATION Of TH5 IDAADIC STSTIN IS RAM UPON ?MC I•137 um( Of °MOT; 155156IONY STATION nOTAWinati. 1/0/04 6 AS5.5110 TO HAW A WAXING (lf 512221113.2 O 0190011$ PIT la NCH X INCN NON FIN MARINO ALS 25718 WADS OTHERWISE INDICATED • MOTU FOWID I a INCH PION PIM WARM ALS 1000 MIMS OTA•11.012 nowArso • 0055115 POUND 2 WEN ALUMINUM CAP 52AAIREO6016I CO. SUIDIVOR Mart OF wow NM VICINITY MAP A .1 K. I.: S •.. SEC I. HAN ID &VG zo. ••ks.•-:In,co.•••••r• NORTH Si,1.1 I IMEN SCALE 1 ACM SO FEET SCALE IN FEET CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING. INC SeIrCT 2 Or 2 SI IECTS • .. • • . • 4 • • • • • • . . • • ♦ e • ♦ —. * , -...•, • I 47, + _ a • • • • • • • A'1♦ . . . . ♦ •x • . o• • .h •c . • . . • • • . , . , • . . . . . . . l54i14e wt, . • 16 j•r , I (. o,; . . • .. w/ . 5.--icio 6X-f. • . . • . . CPC, J'e • f 91i17- &4/ �VecfrAA%Z•r J/ r4€//L). . . • ry fe •. • • •• illwati THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission MEETING DATE: August 25, 2021 APPLICANT: Heathrye Sayers LANDOWNER: North Forest LLC REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance for a free-standing sign LOCATION: 226 Myrtle Street East DISTRICT: CBD (Central Business District) REPORT BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: CPC 2021-50 INTRODUCTION Heathrye Sayers, representing North Forest LLC, the property owner of 226 Myrtle Street East, applied for a Heritage Preservation Commission Design Permit for the installation of a wall sign on the front of the building. At their July 21 st meeting, the HPC discussed the sign placement, noting its location on the front of the building detracts from the character of the building. The HPC tabled consideration of the Design Permit and requested the applicant seek a variance to the City Code to allow for a free-standing sign to be placed within the sign setback area. On August 18, after this variance application was made, the HPC reviewed the amended plan which requests the free-standing sign be placed 1' in front of the building. The HPC conditionally approved the Design Permit request for a free-standing sign with the (applicable° conditions: • The sign shall be shifted further away from the building or towards the west. • The height of the sign shall be limited to 6' SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting two variances to City Code Section 31-509, Subd. 9(3): 1. To allow a sign to be 12' from the vehicular drive, 8' from the public roadway, and 3' from the property line whereas a 15' setback from each is required; and 2. To allow a 7' tall sign from ground grade whereas six feet (6') from, as measure from the grade of the nearest roadway, is required. ANALYSIS Case No. 2021-50 Page 2 of 3 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? The multi -tenant commercial use with free-standing sign is reasonable. Alternatives, such as placing it on the building, have been explored. A 7' tall free-standing sign located 3' from the sidewalk may not be reasonable. While the applicant designed the 7' tall sign to be located on the wall and fill in an area between the front window and the building edge, a free-standing sign is not bound by the wall's limitations. There are other alternatives, including redesigning the sign panel to accommodate two columns for the multiple tenant spaces. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The structure was constructed prior to the City's adoption of setbacks. However, it was constructed with a small front yard area though that area is not sufficient to meet the 15' setback requirement. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The landowner did not choose to construct a free-standing sign; the City's Heritage Preservation Commission could not make findings the installation of a sign on the building would not alter the essential character of the structure. However, the height of the sign is a choice of the landowner. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The placement of a sign in front of the building would not necessarily alter the character of the locality. However, the placement of a 7' tall sign, 3' from the sidewalk, could. Thus, the HPC has indicated the sign should be no greater than 6' in height. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? Yes. 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 roadway and driveway setback is to help reduce visibility issues. The purpose of the 7' height limitation is to reduce the vertical mass associated with signage. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The location in the front garden area would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. As noted, a 7' tall sign located 3' from the sidewalk will not be in harmony with the City's design goals. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned CBD, Central Business Case No. 2021-50 Page 3 of 3 District. A multi -unit commercial building with a multi -tenant sign in the front yard is permissible. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. There is no conflict with other lawful regulations. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances, or a portion thereof, with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021-50, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The building and its driveway location make placement of the sign in conformance to the City Code standards impossible. However, placement of a sign on the front of the building defies historic structure guidelines and standards. It is unique the property has this small setback area. Therefore, placement of a free-standing sign in the limited area is reasonable. That said, a 7' tall sign located 3' from the sidewalk in an area the City is trying to promote for pedestrians is not in line with the character of the neighborhood. Thus, staff recommends the Commission: 1. Deny a 1' variance to the 7' maximum height of a freestanding sign in the Central Business District; and 2. Approval of setback variance(s) for CPC Case No. 2021-50 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Site Plan Sign Panel Design cc: Heathrye Sayers 226 Myrtle Street East it 1 } jr\- cf2,„,,kredc 05/28/2020 - 07/29/2020 L# /47Z i I\ Ciro I LLA. L 1.1 7---me Li_ I 1 C-C 1 A 41 LA--) 10‘....v • .k - • 7F' • • ••`. (r) \ 0C tI eY nci ,•••• / - • ' ').1].7.4";:rP) • • . . • - • ct '..•) •- .'!;4114741W'W-41%-_f:14-3t-XWAlitiVratia4Maiii‘..4t10.64ft•StSblSo - - - %cr,t eL.:k;.•.ert 64:-;:-4S•t?'"-q-4 __•17...vi;it 1 Cap t Ion ,ACldress sign is /' w\ x _O h Lach placard is T'll x 111"vV Overall sign dimensions are /1-1"h x 1,0''w Each placard will be designed by the individual tenant to reflect their business and will be able to be independently removed/replaced as 1CW tenants move In without damage to the building There will be one sign on the front of the building rind one Sign on the side of the building 226 lllvrtle Si E 1 Tenant 2 Tenant Tenant 3 4 Tenant 5 Tenant 6 Tenant 7 Tenant 8 Tenant 9 Tenant 10 Tenant Tenant 11 Uwater THE RTHPLACE O F M i N N E S 0 1 A PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: CPC-2020-60 MEETING DATE: August 24, 2021 APPLICANT: Reuter Walton LANDOWNER: 200 Chestnut Partners, LLC (Reuter Walton) REQUEST: 200 Chestnut Apartments: Confirm TIF Plan in Conformance with Comprehensive Plan LOCATION: 200 Chestnut Street COMPREHENSIVE: Downtown Mixed Use PLAN: DISTRICT: CBD: Central Business District REPORT BY: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION On May 4, 2021, the City Council approved a series of Applications related to the proposed 200 Chestnut Apartment Development, a 4-story, 61-unit apartment with 72 underground parking stalls. The City is now reviewing a request for Tax Increment Financing (TIF). The Planning Commission has a role in establishing new TIF Districts in terms of ensuring the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Tax Increment Financing is a financial tool available to cities that captures the new taxes generated by a new project within a specific geographic area instead of being distributed to the City, County and School District. It is important to note that current taxes (base value) are still distributed to these three (3) taxing jurisdictions. It is only the new captured value (increment) that is kept within the district for eligible costs. Once the eligible costs are reimbursed over time, the new captured value is then brought into the City's overall taxable value and distributed to the standard taxing jurisdictions (City, County, School District). f Value Capture - How itWorks August 20, 2021 Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST The Planning Commission is asked to consider confirm that the proposed use (high -density residential) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and thus is appropriate from a land use perspective to utilize Tax Increment Financing. The Developer has applied for fmancial assistance through a tool known as Tax Increment Financing. Specifically, this is an analysis of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, not specific review of compliance with the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission's scope is limited to analysis as to conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Planning Commission should determine if the proposed use (apartments/high-density residential) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Detailed financial analysis and recommendations are not within the scope of the Planning Commission. Staff will not be presenting the detailed fmancial analysis at this meeting. The City Council is scheduled to hold a Public Hearing on September 21, 2021 where the full fmancial analysis will be presented. ANALYSIS As demonstrated by traditional zoning approval, the project appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of land use. The Comprehensive Plan is the broader planning and visionary document for land use for the City. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan guides this site as Downtown Mixed Use. The Comprehensive Plan states as follows as it relates to the Downtown Mixed Use designation: Historically the downtown area has been guided for commercial land uses, but the Mixed Use label is being used in the 2040 Land Use Plan because it more accurately reflects the evolving nature of the area. Stillwater's downtown offers both the community and the region a vibrant, mixed use center. The range of uses includes residential, retail shops, restaurants, offices and other commercial uses. Redevelopment sites are expected to include a mix of residential (30%) and commercial uses (70%). The Downtown Mixed Use category may range from 100,000 to 500,000 square feet in size and Floor Area Ratio may range from 0.25 to 2.00. Buildings may range from 1 to 4 stories in height and residential components may range from 25 to 50 units per acre, with increases allowable through the Planned Unit Development process. Projects should incorporate more of an urban environment, with a variety of public spaces and pedestrian - friendly streets. Housing Chapter Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan lays out the following Housing Goals: 1. Provide a quality living environment for the residents of Stillwater by maintaining and improving the city's existing housing stock and by planning for a range of new housing opportunities. August 20, 2021 Page 3 2. Provide a balanced choice of housing types and densities suitable to a wide range of demographic groups, with a focus on life cycle housing. 3. Establish a housing pattern that respects the natural environment while striving to meet local housing needs and the community's share of metropolitan area housing growth. 4. Establish a community of well -maintained housing and neighborhoods including ownership and rental housing. Specifically, the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan outlines a potential need for 197 units of this density type by 2040 to meet local housing needs for area economic development. Economic Development Chapter Furthermore, the Economic Development Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan outlines the following economic development tactics and guidance: • Financial resources are limited • Financial decisions require long-term perspective • Public funds should lead to private investment The Economic Development Chapter specifically calls out Tax Increment Financing as a primary tool to advance projects to achieve our Comprehensive Plan goals. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan welcomes residential uses are a welcome addition to the highly - developed and walkable downtown area. The Comprehensive Plan states a community goal to "develop a land use plan that fosters economic growth and evolution [...] and welcomes both residents and visitors" and guides development to "sensitively develop prime Downtown property using a compact mixture of commercial, office [...] and residential". Additionally, the plan sets economic development goals to "provide new locations for Downtown housing to support Downtown retail and entertainment goals". The project helps support these goals. ALTERNATIVES 1. Confirm/Not Confirm that, from a land use perspective, that the utilization of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for 200 Chestnut is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan 2. Table the resolution for further discussion and clarification RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission confirm that, from a land use perspective, that the utilization of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for 200 Chestnut is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: Site Plan Materials August 20, 2021 Page 4 CC: PROJECT VISION The proposed project will redevelop a site currently occupied by a 1960's-era two-story commercial building and parking structure into a new 61-unit residential apartment community with 73 below -grade park- ing stalls. The residential unit mix will be composed of one -bedroom, two -bedroom and penthouse units which will accommodate a wide variety of households including young workers in the local tourist -based econo- my, families, and empty nesters. The building amenities will include an inviting ground floor lobby oriented toward Chestnut Street, and a main level club room with access to a large outdoor patio facing Union Alley. The fourth floor, stepped significantly back from the street on all sides, will house three penthouse residences as well as a small club room and outdoor terrace for use by residents and their guests, featuring views of downtown Stillwater's rooftops and the bluff beyond. The design of the building draws heavily from the 19th-century character of downtown Stillwater. The simple building volumes will be clad in warm masonry and punctuated with vertically proportioned windows. The invit- ing pedestrian scale of the building will especially improve the character of Myrtle Avenue, helping to link the downtown core to the bluff top dis- trict. The 100 or so new residents will become regular patrons of the bars, restaurants and shops that make Stillwater such a unique community. PROJECT METRICS Level Total Construction GSF Plaza / Roof Terrace GSF Total Enclosed GSF Parking/ Mech GSF Residential Stalls Public Parallel Stalls Total Residential GSF Amenity GSF RSF Circulation GSF Units Efficiency (RSF/GSF) Minus 1 27,958 27,958 27,958 73 Level 1 25,883 2938 22,945 1,716 26 21,229 2,182 16,303 2,744 18 76.8% Level 2 22,620 22,620 22,620 20,217 2,403 20 89.4% Level 3 22,620 22,620 22,620 20,217 2,403 20 89.4% Level 4 8,990 3138 5,852 5,852 749 4,633 470 3 79.2% Total 108,071 6,076 101,995 29,674 73 26 72,321 2,931 61,370 8,0201 61 Unit Metrics Studio Alcove 1 Bed 1 Bed + D 2 Bed Total Levell 5 7 2 4 18 Level2 4 6 2 8 20 Level3 4 6 2 8 20 Level4 3 3 Total 0 13 19 6 23 61 Bedrooms 13 19 12 46 90 PROJECT ANALYSIS Zoning Analysis Lot Size (gsf) 29,035 Lot Size (acres) 0.67 Proposed FAR 2.49 Proposed DU/acre 92 Zoning District CBD: Central Business District Downtown Height Overlay Historic Building Adjacency no adjacent buildings Max height 3 Stories / 37' Proposed height 4 Stories / 48.5' Required Parking 92 Residential, 20 Guest Proposed Parking 73 Residential, 26 Parallel Stalls Building Area Analysis Site = 29,035 SF Level GSF % Site Minus 1 27,958 96% Level 1 25,883 89% Level 2-3 22,620 78% Level 4 8,990 31% esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT SUMMARY 3 CO '4- 2ND STREET S ELEVATOR OVERRUN AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY CURRENT DESIGN AND UPDATED HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 11-0" esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION - HEIGHT 11 0 m 2ND STREET S AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY PARKING PARKING CURRENT DESIGN AND UPDATED HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" eSG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN WEST ELEVATION - HEIGHT 13 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN BIRDS EYE VIEW - SOUTHEAST 16 esc R EUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN BIRDS EYE VIEW - NORTHWEST 17 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SE CORNER VIEW 19 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LOOKING WEST ON MYRTLE ST 24 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LOOKING NORTH ON UNION ALLEY 27 MYRTLE STREET SOUTHEAST 2'-5" TO P.L. 25 24 23 3' - 0 3/8" TO P.L. 1,307 SF 1 ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 1,262 SF GARAGE ACCESS RAM P DOWN PARKING 1,716 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF — SCREENED TRANSFORMER 1 BED 895 SF 1 BED 887 SF 19 UNION ALLEY 1 BED 856 SF 1 BED 986 SF TERRACE 2,938 SF 1 BED 856 SF CIRCULATION 2,586 SF 2ND STREET SOUTH 1 BED 986 SF 1,249 SF 1 BED 887 SF 6 ALCOVE 602 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF ALCOVE 602 SF 13 8 -1' - 4 1/4" TO P.L. LOBBY/LEASING 1,642 SF 10 FITNESS 540 SF 11 ALCOVE 540 SF 2 BED 1,252 SF 12 1'-O"_} TO P.L. Scale: 1" = 20'-0" TO DOWNTOWN CHESTNUT STREET SOUTHEAST PLAN NORTH eSG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 1 I Al 32 1,309 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 2 BED 1,249 SF 66' - 0" 115' - 0" 1,409 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF 1,342 SF 1 BED 887 SF 66' - 0" 41' - 0" 1 BED 864 SF CIRCULAI IUN 2,4n1 SF 1 BED 986 SF 33' - 0" 1 BED 864 SF 1 BED 986 SF 1,251 SF 1 BED 887 SF 41' - 0" 1,409 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF 66' - 0" 66' - 0" 1,309 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 1,249 SF Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH e G REUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 2-3 I A2 33 O 66' - O" 115' - 0" 66' - 0" PATIO - 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 1,779 SF 1,456 SF 1,398 SF CIRCULATION 1,710 SF PLANTERS GREEN ROOF TRAYS PATIO "O TERRACE 3,138 SF GREE ROC IRA' AMENITY 749 SF Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 I A3 34 2'-5" TO P.L. 247'-0" GARAGE EXHAUST LOUVER RAM P UP 0 PARKING 27,958 SF 5 5 a 0 J 3.90% 0 n 0 0 0 r r TRASH T 0 0 0 r, r, NVA S - STANDARD STALL = 8'-6" WIDE X 18'-0" DEEP C - COMPACT STALL = 8'-6" WIDE X 16'-0" DEEP 9- 1'-41/4" TO P.L. Scale: 1" = 201-0" PLAN NORTH eG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL MINUS 1 I A4 35 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #1 - EXISTING 41 _ '• -sue • #■ - f do& mon.44 11 k IIP .011.11111111 4111 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #1 - PROPOSED 42 esc R EUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #2 - EXISTING 43 NMI =NI amp imaniewomaamasilagolNliam esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #2 - PROPOSED 44 ,r�.. a.. e. ^` ' 1l11 111 li �� i ig1a* _rI rillswMrrUMMarrammr.�aarammrrr _ ■1- mi!• amm a a amaaam 0: araa arr� aaa -0.i�r�iasarmaria Tea 0MmwampoismOM aaia a_a 001/00/000010= ar s�a. air0.01....0010100000 am as Mom L-� a ��",G.�a��a � rya r�jlri� ii'In C ! ra 080.0m e 110. i 11 BEM Y.NT S- esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #3 - EXISTING 45 rnrir,Tuinwnrrsr� -_ : — �-- fi--KfKi-i.i —. =AIM ME me EMI UM M al.M.m11.1.1INIMI .111..116.1 NM K MO K�IKirn OM to � r. K_ aiw+Mrs-0.r s Kt- E• ,nur � =Nra-. o w�.wrw..wr-�-+=-w irimums -rl-iMi NM Mt Ilm --ram ii-.i OOSIE. Mods 9 leg. esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #3 - PROPOSED 46 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT EXISTING ROOF LINE 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - EXISTING 48 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - PROPOSED 49 esG REUTER'WALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - EXISTING 51 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - PROPOSED 52 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - EXISTING 54 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - PROPOSED 55 Uwater THE RTHPLACE O F M i N N E S 0 1 A PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-30 MEETING DATE: August 25, 2021 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater LANDOWNER: N/A REQUEST: Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Text Amendment LOCATION: N/A ZONING: N/A REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION During the development of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Neighborhood Commercial future land use category was expanded. The 2030 Comp Plan only showed the Liberty Village commercial area and the small office buildings across from Lakeview Cemetery on South 4th Street as Neighborhood Commercial. But in the 2040 Comp Plan this land use category was expanded and in addition to the Liberty Village commercial area, it now includes: 1. The property opposite Liberty Village on the north side of County Road 12; 2. North 4th Street node (between Hickory and Elm); 3. The Greeley and Myrtle node (Len's, Just for Me Spa, Nelson's Ice Cream, Greeley Street Professional Building); 4. Valley Pre -School (413 S Greeley — Formerly Felix's Store); and 5. Blue Sky Yoga (522 South 4th — across from Historic Courthouse). In addition, three commercial nodes that were guided simply as Commercial in 2030 are being reguided to Neighborhood Commercial. These three are: 1. Marathon Gas on North Owens at Wilkins; 2. The Laurel Street node on Owens (Harbor Bar and Stillwater Collision); and 3. The 4th and Churchill node (Meister's Bar, Chilkoot Cafe, etc). Within this expanded Neighborhood Commercial land use category, there are two sub -sets. One is zoned VC, Village Commercial and is envisioned to regulate Liberty Village and the vacant property north of it across County Road 12. The second subset is intended to be for the legacy commercial properties that have seen neighborhood oriented commercial uses since the city's Victorian Era. However, there is no zoning district yet to regulate these properties. Instead, most of these properties NC Zoning District August 25, 2021 Page 2 are zoned residential. This results in a tenuous situation for the business owners, since their properties carry the status of non -conforming "grandfathered". So, a new Zoning District is being proposed: the NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. The legacy commercial properties would be eligible for rezoning to this new district. The Commission was first introduced to this Zoning Text Amendment in May, 2021. At that meeting, the Commission directed staff to work with the sub -committee of the Commission to determine if some of the proposed permitted uses should be converted to conditionally permitted uses. Since that time, the committee has done work and concluded the staff -recommended Zoning Text Amendment's proposed use table amendments are appropriate. SPECIFIC REQUEST Review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the attached draft of the NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District ordinance. COMMENTS If the City adopts the proposed NC Zoning District ordinance, this would not automatically result in a rezoning of the individual properties. It would merely create the district. The individual rezonings would be a separate and subsequent action. The proposed ordinance consists of four parts: a) purpose, b) allowable uses, c) lot size and massing, and d) miscellaneous standards. A) Purpose. 1. Preserve traditional neighborhood commercial nodes that provide small scale commercial buildings for neighborhood businesses. 2. Provide small commercial areas within residential neighborhoods that meet residents' daily/weekly needs yet that fit the historical character of the neighborhood. 3. Support the compatible integration of commercial and residential uses that are accessible by walking and biking. B) Allowable Uses. 1. The table of uses allowed in residential zoning districts, Section 31-325 of the Zoning Chapter, will be amended by adding a column for this NC Zoning District. The list of uses in this column generally represents local market goods and services. 2. A "grocery with less than 5,000 square feet of retail area" was added as a new line item to the table of allowed uses and permitted in the NC District. This would allow for an expansion to Len's but is really too small for a new grocery or food cooperative. 3. A "Banks and financial institutions with no drive through teller" was added as a new line item to the table of allowed uses and permitted in the NC District. C) Lot Size and Massing. 1. The minimum proposed lot size is 5,000 square feet. This represents the standard lot size of Stillwater's earlier plats when neighborhood stores were at their zenith. And the likelihood that new 5,000 square foot lots would be created for Neighborhood Commercial is not great, since the Future Land Use Map of the Comp Plan only guides existing legacy properties to be zoned NC. Moreover, unless a property is guided by the Comp Plan for these small legacy lots, a property could not be rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial. D) Miscellaneous Standards. NC Zoning District August 25, 2021 Page 3 1. Buildings must have at least one functional entry along every public sidewalk. 2. Commercial activities, including food service and seating, may occupy yards. Outdoor commercial activities are prohibited between 10:00 pm and 8:00 am, unless an event permit is issued by the City. 3. Any off-street parking must be located to the rear or side of buildings. 4. Screening shall be provided along property lines abutting residential properties and along off-street parking areas abutting streets. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposed NC Zoning District ordinance to be satisfactory, it could recommend that the City Council adopt it. B. Table review. If the Planning Commission would like additional information, it could table the C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the proposed NC Zoning District to be unsatisfactory, it could recommend that the City Council deny it. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the new ordinance, as it appears to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the nature of the legacy commercial properties it intends to regulate. Attachments: NC Ordinance 2040 Land Use Map Zoning Map Division 3. — NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sec. 31-XXX — NC Neighborhood commercial district. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district shall be regulated as follows: (a) Purposes. The purposes of the NC district are to: (1) Preserve traditional neighborhood commercial nodes that provide small scale commercial buildings for neighborhood businesses. (2) Provide small commercial areas within residential neighborhoods that meet residents' daily/weekly needs yet that fit the historical character of the neighborhood. (3) Support the compatible integration of commercial and residential uses that are accessible by walking and biking. (b) Allowable uses. (1) See Table in Sections 331-325 for the allowable uses within this district. (2) Similar uses by conditional use permit. A conditional use permit may be granted for other uses or services determined to be of the same general character as those found in 31-325 for the NC district and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties. The findings of same general character shall be made by the planning commission and the conditional use permit approved and issued by the city council. (c) Massing regulations. (1) Standards Building height, maximum Principal structures 35 feet Accessory structures 20 feet, but not to exceed height of principal structure Lot area, minimum 5,000 sq. ft. Front yard setback, minimum 10 feet Side yard, corner, setback, minimum 10 feet Side yard, internal, setback, minimum 5 feet Rear yard setback, minimum 10 feet Lot coverage (impervious), maximum 80% Landscaping and open space, minimum 0% (2) Additional setback standards Trunk Highway 96 (Stonebridge Trail to Co Rd. 15) 100 feet McKusick Road (Neal Ave. to Co Rd. 15) 100 feet County Rd. 12 (Northland Ave. to Co Rd. 15) 100 feet County Rd. 15 (Trunk Highway 36 to Trunk Highway 96) 100 feet Railroad 75 feet (d) Other requirements: (1) Buildings must have at least one functional entry along every public sidewalk. (2) Commercial activities, including food service and seating, may occupy yards. Outdoor commercial activities are prohibited between 10:00 pm and 8:00 am, unless an event permit is issued by the City. (3) Any off-street parking must be located to the rear or side of buildings. (4) Screening shall be provided along property lines abutting residential properties and along off-street parking areas abutting streets. Sec. 31-325 Allowable Uses in Non -Residential Districts Use Type Uses NC Retail General retail business uses or service; local market 1 P General retail business uses or service; local and regional market Specialty retail, incl. antique shops P Department store Drug store P Interior decorating sales; sale of floor covering, paint, wallpaper, materials and objects of interior decorating P Appliances and furniture, sale of Household goods, sale of (including china) Books, magazines, newspapers, stationary; sale of P Gifts, flowers, photographic supplies; sale of P Tobacco products; sale of Hardware, sale of Sporting goods; sale of Music store P Retail: Food Supermarket, retail food Grocery, <5,000 sf of retail area P Baked goods, manufacture/retail sale of (<_ 5 persons employed) P Baked goods, manufacture/retail sale of (> 5 persons employed) Eating Establishments Restaurants 3 Fast food outlet Tea rooms, deli, coffee shops, soda fountains, not including the sale of alcoholic beverages P Outside eating establishments Drive-in or drive -through: restaurant, eating places or any other use involving a drive-in or drive -through activity Services Barber or beauty shops P Shoe repair shop P Use Type Uses NC Printing shop P Photo processing Tailoring or pressing P Laundry; agencies, self-service, full service, dry cleaning. Laundry employing > 5 persons Carpet, bag and rug cleaning Banks Banks and financial institutions with no drive through teller P Offices Office; general, business or professional P Offices; finance, insurance, editorial or real estate services P Offices; administrative P Offices; business offices that are accessory to permitted uses on the site Office building Consultant services such as advertising, engineering, architects and designers P Radio or television stations Offices; medical and dental Office display or sales space 5 Automotive Automotive sales, service and storage, excluding gasoline filling stations. (See Section 31-515 for performance standards) Service stations or fuel sales (See Section 31-515 for performance standards) Gasoline filling station Auto repair and related services Outdoor Commercial recreational uses Commercial recreational entertainment Amusement and recreational establishments' Outside entertainment, commercial 8 Outside sales or special events 8 Outside storage Commercial nurseries Use Type Uses NC Exterior phonographs, paging systems, musical instruments, etc that may disturb the peace and quiet of the public Parks Trails Park structures 11 Playgrounds Nature preserve Athletic fields with lights 12 Outside tennis courts with lights 13 Outside basketball courts with lights 13 Outside hockey rinks with lights 13 Athletic fields without lights 13 Outside tennis courts without lights Outside basketball courts without lights Outside hockey rinks without lights Recreation center 14 Multiple purpose park building Golf course Golf course club house Dog park Public boat launch Other passive recreational or natural open spaces Parking lot Institutional Schools, business and technical Schools and studios for arts and crafts, photography, music, dance CUP Educational institutions, schools Libraries, art galleries, theaters for the performing arts, and other such cultural facilities Libraries or post office Churches, other places of worship P Day care/nurseries P Group day care P Governmental facilities Fire station Use Type Uses NC Hospitals, convalescent hospitals and nursing homes Hotel or motel Manufacturing Manufacturing, limited 17 Manufacture of baked goods Manufacturing, processing, fabrication or assembling of limited commodity 18 Retail sales of products manufactured on the site 19 Wholesale / storage Wholesale trade Warehousing and outside storage Warehousing and inside storage Mini -storage Industrial Light industrial that is clean and compatible with surrounding properties Limited bottling works 20 Printing & publishing or lithographic shop Laboratories Laboratories Chemical laboratories Research establishment of industrial, medical or scientific nature Research facilities or research laboratories Transportation / public works / etc. Transportation station or terminal Helipads Public works facility including office and meeting space Essential services P Public utility transmission lines and facilities Telephone exchange Parking facilities Private parking facilities > five cars Misc. Funeral home or mortuary Use Type Uses NC Club or lodge Dog Training Facility 26 Residences of all classes CUP Temporary structures Short Term Home Rental; Type A and B P Short Term Home Rental; Type C P Small Wireless Facilities in the Right- of -Way P Wireless Communication Services Towers and Antennae ■ ■ ■ South Twin Lake MC'KEISICK--RD•N w 75TH ST N 5 tstBLVDW, 0 a 9G 11 Fgq.. o�,SQ\.� gel L,2 ■ PO ▪ Q� 1 • ■ HAZEL ST 6 IIIN111 :11 ■11 }} -_ - 1NI11111111 NIA ■- it a — q% •N 1N1 5•1•11 .1 IN .■�� _I•I 1111�111 1H11111 • IE _ !!=. M11111 111EM 1= i1� ••111E 11I 111M ■_ -11111111N1111Mpia••1H111WIrlL�lrC.l���`SwW����1'I . - III. i1111— • IV s .-. m e• El 60TH ST N ■•1 IIl111N \ mitIII111e ui11111: IIIIIIIIIIEoJI11111111 •1•1111� 5T-W 11 11•111 mommi ••1 �' v •• Ni ■ ■ L �RL•EANSST.Ea 6511H.Sir er ■ ■ z ■ •• • zW pr ■a O • •• 0 ■ • N. • • 95 59TH ST N 21 iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Future Land Use Plan City Limit Future Land Use Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial • Downtown Mixed Use ■ Business Park/Industrial /// Highway Mixed Use Institutional Research, Development Park Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Wetland Open Water ROW Figure 2.11: Future Land Use 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet PLAN OF STILLWATER 0 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 H11111111111 2-19 Miritionner ..® ■rem .orm 306 !iI'10V1 1 ® 31009 304 m 1 302 224 memo� ® 1205 1206 ®I®u® � 1207 230 QF(�Yj. 1 flflfl®® 202 1 \N �S q7r VVEST WORT 2,9 207 121, ,205 203 f k 205 civ rI20, 201 1212 l . 17 rEtimma ®ErEm � ®�®1ME ® MEMP 1 ME 820 yii �� 104 813 HIflflH! M 109 11p 110 ,07 = iCk7® L 125 �k'® ffliminuntemocre WIL:= '14 minginilli ® ®®�®1111®� , E -303 ®®® 11 M� ME 303 209 ®®®®ron .i�':Or3�'�308 304 ®210® ®® ®®p}®� +R61 . 1F.,...0. ®�®�3 ��®309 mar i� C�L7�1®+ 7I®®® -,®U®®�®® 1206 ®1��1EMOMENUMMIEFIU 1 IIM as :7 �102a@1111@ 1I111E� EUh==i0ill 4 atex, �� 101ip®m® �`1.■hiFIE1 1�s� 001 11 1001 �LJ1 1004 `Rii��iO3 11 1-'1008 1003 w.v �,-eam=='n� c c ��_ �wi r- M • ®®-®2,2 502��� 404 �310 306 ninon �iiR��i l'ri-ANOMME101 ME ® _ 810 _®��eiiii� ® 72®� � I 720 ® - MEM - -_ N • : - - • ���1®�®®ora t��:� o; ���n �� �0 er 409 to p16 Fir rid 1 mmElm 303 cal ITME 506E M� 905 N�� M ®R MEI Enid ® rIEMENTEMEM ®®®�®� N � 110010 ELI is IMMO M. E MEEPkW111,11WIERINPTIMIMMIE11111Frimild 1017 50 0 ' m01 - 5I� , ®� � �� 'L 1201 UUEhiEll15 i ®an BEGO - 1220 ®P nem Elm ---L___J. (,`KIIC IS.-J�O94.-lyQBTX--_ COUNTY ROAD 64 MCKUSI 0-08 3770-78 37 ��itAlMRfr-8 NE-laewM____ VI 1120 gOMI 1140-60 41 11 g- 1141-51 ri iliwater The Birthplace of Minnesota Zoning August, 2019 1,000 500 0 1,000 2,000 Feet District AP: Agricultural Preservation V° LR: Lakeshore Residential �0° CTR: Cove Traditional Residential RA: One Family Residential TR: Traditional Residential o� ' OCR: Cove Cottage Residential � RB: Two Family Residential CR: Cottage Residential � TH: Townhouse Residential CTHR: Cove Townhouse Residential � RCM: Medium Density Residential RCH: High Density Residential CBD: Central Business District VC: Village Commercial +� CA: Commercial BPC: Business Park Commercial BPO: Busness Park Office BPI: Business Park Industrial +� CRD: Campus Research Development if PA: PublicAdministration � PWF: Public Works Facility if PROS: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Parcels Located Outside Stillwater 64 .. U rban Features "N" Municipal Boundary - - Road Centerline G ROW S urface Water _- Lakes and Ponds Rivers S:1Planning\GISlzoning120191Zoning 2019.mxd