Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-22 CPC PacketSjllwater THE B I R T H P L A C E O F M I N N E S OT A PLEASE NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by attending the meeting in person at City Hall in the Council Chambers, by logging into https://www.zoom2ov.com or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 877 9021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 22nd, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of August 25th, 2021 regular meeting minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 2. Case No. 2021-51: Consideration of a Variance to the rear yard setback to construct a deck. Property located at 1015 Sycamore St W in the RA district. Melissa and Soren Straarup, property owners. 3. Case No. 2021-52: Consideration of several Variances to allow the construction of a new garage which will be the second accessory structure on the property. Property located at 663 2nd St S in the RB district. Miles Tibbetts, property owner. 4. Case No. 2021-53: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new garage with living space above it. Property located at 846 Willard St W in the RB district. Chad Johnson, applicant and John Fresonke, property owner. 5. Case No. 2021-54: Consideration of a Re -subdivision to split the property into two lots and a rezone from AP to RB. Property located at 13187 Dellwood Rd N in the AP district. Integrity Land Development, Todd Ganz, applicant and Gary and June Jorgensen, property owner. 6. Case No. 2021-56: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment amending the sign code. City of Stillwater, applicant. VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS IX. DISCUSSION X. FYI — STAFF UPDATES XI. ADJOURNMENT ilivater THE 1INTN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 25, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Hoffman, Knippenberg, Meyhoff (via Zoom), Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: Commissioners Hansen and Steinwall Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Gladhill, Zoning Administrator Tait APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of July 28, 2021 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2021 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Resolution CPC 2021-03, 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. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. Zoning Administrator Tait explained that the property at 304 Hazel Street East had fallen into disrepair and was in violation of City Code for number of reasons. Jason Ous purchased this property in October of 2019 and began fixing up the property including removing the front porch and popping the top of the eastern side of the building. However, Mr. Ous did not obtain any building permits nor permission from the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), nor permission from the Planning Commission (PC) for several needed variances. The property owner was informed of the violations and what corrective actions to take. In response, Mr. Ous submitted the needed permit applications to begin the review process after the fact. On April 21, 2021, the request for demolition was recommended by the HPC for denial. Subsequently, the City Council denied the demolition permit and the applicant was directed to return with substantially changed plans that better reflect the goals of the HPC. These plans were Planning Commission August 25, 2021 submitted, and are now under review. The applicant is requesting two variances: 1) to allow a 6' deep front porch to be set back zero feet from the front yard lot line (required setback is 30 feet) and 2) to allow the house to be set back zero feet from the side yard lot line (required setback is 10'). Staff finds the proposed porch meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance, and popping the top on a single -story addition is reasonable. City staff recommends approval of the variances with six conditions. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Councilmember Odebrecht remarked that the owner, a licensed contractor, should have known about the need for permits before so drastically altering this 1870s home. He supports the staff recommendation in order to make the home livable, but emphasized that codes are important to protect current and future homeowners. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve Case No. 2021-45, Variances to the Front, Side and Rear Yard setbacks for the vertical expansion of an existing, non -conforming structure located at 304 Hazel St E, with the six staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. 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. City Planner Wittman stated that 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, located adjacent to their Curve Crest clinic at 1500 Curve Crest Boulevard. This would require re -platting the property which would come back before the Planning Commission at a later date. City staff recognizes 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. However, 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. By providing expansion opportunities for Lakeview EMS, the City's economic and sustainability goals and objectives are being furthered. Commissioner Knippenberg stated she is employed by Lakeview Health. She asked if she should recuse herself from the discussion and the vote. Ms. Wittman answered that the City Attorney would advise recusal if there was a monetary benefit, but a Zoning Text Amendment would not imply monetary benefit. Nathan Pulscher, Interim President of Lakeview Hospital, introduced Jon Muller, EMS Facility Director, and Eric Siskow, Facilities Director. Mr. Pulscher said in five years the service area has almost doubled. EMS has outgrown its present space at the hospital. Lakeview owns this property and it makes sense from a strategic perspective to put EMS in this location. Councilmember Odebrecht stated Lakeview Hospital is an incredible asset to the community. He asked if there would be room to expand into the current location's parking area especially considering the development of Central Commons across Highway 36. Mr. Pulscher replied that expanding in the present space would be a challenge from a bricks - and -mortar perspective. In the 20-30 year plan, it is not an ideal location. Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission August 25, 2021 Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to recommend approval of Case No. 2021-47, Zoning Text Amendment to allow for Emergency Medical Services facilities to be located in the BPI zoning district. All in favor. 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. Mr. Tait reviewed the case. The applicant is requesting an 8' variance to construct an 8' wide wrap -around porch onto the front and north side of the house to help prevent rainwater from getting into the basement. The required setback is 20'. The variance would allow the porch to be set back 12' from the front yard lot line. Staff finds that if the size is reduced to 6', the porch meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and recommends approval with five conditions. Councilmember Odebrecht referred to previous discussions of prevailing yard setbacks and pointed out that the aerial overlay shows several properties in this same situation. Ms. Wittman explained that the RA and RB are the City's oldest residential districts. The RA district continues to allow a "prevailing front yard setback" but at some point the "prevailing front yard setback" was dropped from the RB district. There are setback challenges with older 1800s homes. She agreed this is worthy of a conversation in the future. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. He agreed that the Commission should review the standards, considering how many old houses were built right up to the lot line. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2021-48, Variance to construct a front porch on the property located at 213 Greeley St N, with the five conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. 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. Mr. Tait explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a 240 square foot deck with a 40 square foot staircase. The proposed deck and stairs will put the property 71 square feet over the maximum allowed structural coverage. The applicant is requesting a .7% variance to have a structural coverage of 25.7%, whereas the maximum structural coverage is 25%. While the structural coverage after the deck construction will be .7% above the allowed coverage, the property is significantly below the total impervious surface coverage (25% allowed, currently at 7.5%). 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. However, staff feels 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. If the deck is reduced, staff recommends approval with seven conditions. Glenn Parker, applicant, JRG Custom Homes, said the proposed deck is a bit larger than other decks in the neighborhood because the house is bigger than the others. While it is proposed to be over the structural coverage, the total impervious surface coverage is much below what is allowed. They wish to build the deck at full size as requested if possible. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if the homeowners' association approved the plan. Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission August 25, 2021 Mr. Parker said yes. Councilmember Odebrecht commented that some Lennar Homes have a solar room bump -out that makes for more deck space. He asked if this home has the bump -out. Mr. Parker answered no. Therefore part of the reason for building a bigger deck was to better access the backyard. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to approve Case No. 2021-49, Variance to construct a deck located at 3686 Summit Lane, with the seven staff - recommended conditions, changing Condition #7 to state 240 square feet. All in favor. Case No. 2021-50: Consideration of a Variance for a free standing multi -tenant sign. Property located at 226 Myrtle St E in the CBD district. Heathyre Sayers, applicant and Daniel Forest, property owner. Ms. Wittman explained that the property owner applied for a Heritage Preservation Commission Design Permit for the installation of a wall sign on the front of the building. The HPC noted a sign on the front of the building would detract from the character of the building. The HPC tabled consideration of the Design Permit and requested the applicant seek a variance 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 two conditions: 1) the sign shall be shifted further away from the building or towards the west; 2) the height of the sign shall be limited to 6'. The applicant is requesting two variances: 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 6', as measured from the grade of the nearest roadway, is allowed. Staff recommends the Commission deny a 1' variance to the 7' maximum height, and approve the setback variance with two conditions. Heathyre Sayers, applicant, explained that the sign will be 6' not 3' from the sidewalk. Also it could be set back as close to the building as possible since she originally wanted the sign to be on the building. Commissioner Knippenberg asked if there was consideration of going lower and wider as opposed to taller. Ms. Sayers replied the original design mimicked the dimensions of the windows but the HPC wanted it to be below the window height. She has a lot of tenants in the building and is trying to give them as much space as possible. They would all prefer to have their own sandwich board and yard sign and she wants to eliminate that. Ms. Wittman added that the HPC contemplated a lower sign with two columns, but blocking the driveway access point would be a problem. There are many challenges with the site and visibility of the driveway. Ms. Sayers also said the building is very narrow, so the allowable square footage for the signage is low. If the sign is limited to 6' high, she would lose another 18-24" from the bottom. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission August 25, 2021 Ms. Wittman said there are competing demands between zoning code setback requirements, and the HPC's desire to not block visibility of the building. Staff supports the proposed location. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve a setback variance for a 6' maximum height free standing multi -tenant sign sign (measured from ground grade) to be located 1' to 2' from the building located at 226 Myrtle St E, Case No. 2021- 50. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2020-60: Discuss Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan for 200 Chestnut Apartments for Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Director Gladhill stated that 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 is asked to consider the consistency of the proposed use (high -density residential) with the Comprehensive Plan, in view of the application for TIF. Specifically, this is an analysis of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, not specific review of compliance with the Zoning Code. He noted that detailed financial analysis and recommendations are not within the scope of the Planning Commission; the full financial analysis will be presented at the City Council public hearing on September 21, 2021. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission confirm that, from a land use perspective, the utilization of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for 200 Chestnut is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Odebrecht clarified for TV viewers that tax increment financing is not a "give back" to the developer, but tax dollars that are being collected and directed to the City's parking fund. Mr. Gladhill explained that the taxes paid today on the base assessed value will still be collected and distributed to the City, County and School District as normal. The newly generated taxes that would not exist without this project will be captured for a short period of time, to pay eligible costs. In this case, those dollars will pay into the City's fund to advance the second parking ramp, as well as go toward eligible site costs. Part of the package will include $780,000 toward future parking ramp #2. The consensus of the Commission was that the development as proposed is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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 City Planner Wittman led discussion of a new Zoning District being proposed: the NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. The Planning Commission was first introduced to the accompanying Zoning Text Amendment in May, 2021. At that meeting, the Commission directed staff to work with a sub -committee to determine if some of the proposed permitted uses should be converted to conditionally -permitted uses. Since that time, the committee has concluded the staff -recommended Zoning Text Amendment's proposed use table amendments are appropriate. The Planning Commission is asked to review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the draft of the NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the new ordinance, as it appears to be compatible with the Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission August 25, 2021 Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the nature of the legacy commercial properties it intends to regulate. Roger Tomten, Sustainable Stillwater, thanked staff for working on the new district. It will enhance walkability and bikability by helping preserve commercial nodes. He noted that traditionally, commercial setbacks have been 0', and asked about required 10' setbacks in the new district. Ms. Wittman replied that the traditional 0' setback makes sense but there was concern about expansion to zero lot lines where it does not exist now. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to recommend approval of a Zoning Text Amendment for the creation of a Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. All in favor. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the City Council denied the Landucci apartment complex appeal. Staff is in discussions with the developer about modifications that can be made to bring the project more in conformance with zoning code. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner John Dybvig, Chair Page 6 of 6 iliwater THE B I R` H o I. ALE OF M INN E S 0 1 0. PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: CPC-2021-51 MEETING DATE: September 22, 2021 APPLICANT: Melissa & Soren Staarup LANDOWNER: Melissa & Soren Staarup REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to the rear yard setback. LOCATION: 1015 Sycamore St W DISTRICT: RA (One -Family Residential) REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Mr. and Mrs. Soren own the house on the 16,988 s.f. property at 1015 Sycamore Street West. They are proposing to construct a 378 .sf. deck on the rear of the house. However, this deck is proposed to be located only 12' from the rear property line, which will require a variance. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a 13' variance to City Code Section 31-305. (b). (1). to allow a rear deck in RA District be located 12' from the rear yard lot line whereas the required setback is 25'. 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 a residential district proposing to add a rear deck is proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property is an oddly pentagonal shaped lot with the house pushed back over 55' from the front property line. Additionally, the house was built right back to the 25' rear yard setback line. The configuration of the property only allows for an awkward triangle shaped deck, like the existing deck, in order to not encroach into the rear setback. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The problem was not created by the landowner. The house was purchased with limited room in the rear for any improvements. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The rear side of this property abuts the interior side yard of the property to the south. The proposed variance will not infringe on the neighbor's rear yard, nor will the deck be too close to the neighbor's house. In fact, the deck will face neighbor's garage with living space above it, however no windows from habitable space face the subject property and the proposed deck. This deck will have no other possible impacts to any other individual properties due to its large distance from other dwellings. Nor will this proposed variance alter the neighborhood as a whole because the deck cannot be seen from the front street and is and blocked by vegetation and is over 80' from the side street. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? Practical difficulties have been established independent of economic considerations. The owner would like to better utilize their backyard 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? Rear Yard Setback The purpose of the Rear Yard Setback is for uniform neighborhood development and to prevent structures from being built too close to the neighboring property for aesthetic, drainage, and safety related issues. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? This variance will not aesthetically clash with the neighboring property. As discussed above, the deck will be facing the neighboring interior side yard where their garage is located. This variance will have no negative impacts to the drainage on this property. The property is rather large and is still below its maximum surface coverage. In conclusion, the proposed variance will not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RA, Two -Family District. A single family residence (with a rear deck) 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- 51, 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. 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 large property remains below the surface coverage threshold and can handle the additional drainage imposed by this deck. Practical difficulties have been established and the deck meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-51 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Deck Plan cc: Melissa and Soren Staarup Jenn Sundberg From: Graham Tait Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 8:10 AM To: Jenn Sundberg Subject: FW: Variant From: Melissa Straarup Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 3:02 AM To: Graham Tait <gtait@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Variant [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern : My name is Melissa Straarup and I moved here in October 2018 from Texas snd purchased the house at 2015 Sycamore. I love everything about my house but one thing. The way it is on the lot is awfull. We have no backyard at all . Our home sits all the way to back and side from property lines. Since it is 5 feet on the side and close in back we are asking for this to be approved. We want to sit outside and the old deck did not allow room . Thank You for your time 1 1 101 5- G mom- —. s 1l( 4k{ AS - BUILT SURVEY SURVEY FOR: NOW DUPRE 1Il 2499 Hidden Valley Lane Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 LEGEND Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. IAN SURVEYING e suaverwc FNOIMIDUNG 5610 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH, SM/WATER, M N 55081 Plum (651) 439,1113 Fe 1651) 4109111 %Wk. nnranhemm 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 7 BLOCK 1, DALLAGER ESTATES, EXCEPT THE SOS 80.00 feet thereof, according to the plat on file and of record in toe office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. NOTES 1) ELEVATIONS ARE NCVD MEAN SEA -LEVEL, 1929 ADJUSTMENT 2) ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE RECORDED PLAT OF DALLAGER ESTATES ORIGINAL SCALE r Wag . JO Par 44 0,4N / C�=vih�1. Mop NO. 04•-105 45-BIAL1 1P 77 Q R=293. 00 4=3'16.'541' L=18.78 148,89 S89a41'29'E DENOTES ) INCH PIPE MONUMENT MARKED WITH A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED "FREEMAN LS 169E19•', UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE DENOTES FOUND MONUMENT, SIZE AND MARKINGS AS INDICATED DENOTES EXISTING DRAINAGE DIREC DON DENOTES AS -BUILT GROUND SPOT ELEVATION 1 hereby certify Mai this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Timothy J. Fre Minnesota Lk tae No. 1689 Note: Official Copies of this map ere 039e4—Fv Freeman, Eoekw N bk.- All CEIVEE )IUG 0 Z 2021 mps lfe ss ma CITY OF STILLWATER BUILDING DEPARTMENT • g Cn 0) CD Cl) E 3 rt z O no vi CD O .-r co • m m 3 O m x c7)' cc v m 0 0 oW • - 0 0. = O m O 3 = O w • V CD 00 CD cn y � q, Et: —I CD a- m 0 N O CO 1 GI Q CD E AUG 0 1 2021 CITY OF STILLWATER C UILDING DEPARTMENT iliwater THE B I R` H o I. ALE OF M INN E S 0 1 0. PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DISTRICT: REPORT BY: Planning Commission September 22, 2021 Miles Tibbetts Miles Tibbetts CASE NO.: CPC-2021-52 Consideration of Variances associated with constructing a detached garage. 663 2nd St South RB (Two -Family Residential) Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Mr. Tibbetts owns the house on the 19,657sf property at 663 Second St South. He is proposing to construct a 672sf detached garage in the exterior side yard of the property, which accesses onto Willard St E. This property has an existing accessory building with historic value, which the owner is trying to maintain, therefore the property will need two variances associated with having two large detached accessory buildings. Also, there are two other variances related to the location of the garage and its proximity to steep slopes and property lines. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting four variances associated with the construction of a detached garage: ➢ An 18' variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow a detached garage in RB District be located 12' from the exterior side yard lot line whereas the required setback is 30'. ➢ A 30' variance to City Code Section 31-521. Subd. 1. (d). to allow a structure to be located within zero feet of the top of a regulated Steep Slope (where slope is greater than 24%). ➢ A 228' variance to City Code Section 31-308. (a). (3). (i). to allow the total square footage of accessory buildings to be 1,228sf, whereas the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings including attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings shall be 1,000 square feet. > A variance to City Code Section 31-308. (a). (3). (iii). to allow two private garages (or accessory structures over 120sf) on the property, whereas Code limits this number to one private (detached) garage. 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 a residential district proposing to add a new garage (while preserving a historic carriage house) is proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? Due to the existing historic carriage house, its access from the street, and the location of the house, a new garage would have to be placed in the southern portion of the property, which lands the garage in the exterior side yard setback. Putting the garage closer to the house (on the west side of the existing drive) would create a massing problem with the garage and house clustered along the property lines, and also this would eat up a large chunk the owner's useable backyard. The best option is to put the garage on the east side of the existing drive, which requires that the garage be within the steep slope setbacks. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The problem was not created by the landowner. The house as well as its historic carriage house was constructed over a century ago and the regulated slopes and associated setbacks take up a sizable portion of the property. Furthermore, the variances associated with having two accessory structures is not an issue created by the landowner, rather the landowner's attempt to save a historic outbuilding. d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The variance to be closer to the steep slope has no impact on the character of the locality. The two variances associated with having two accessory structures (plus additional square -footage) has a positive effect on the neighborhood character, because these variances allow for the preservation of the historic carriage house. Furthermore, this property is large enough to handle the additional accessory structure building and square footage, because the property's overall coverage is still below the maximum allowed coverage. The one variance with the most potential to impact a neighborhood is the variance to the exterior side yard, however given the layout of this large property along a steep slope at a section of road that make a 90° turn, makes this garage way less impactful to the neighborhood pattern. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? Practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations; the owner simply wants a new, functioning garage. Additionally, the owner would like to preserve the historic carriage house, which directly aligns with City preservation goals. 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? Exterior Side Yard Setback The purpose of the Exterior Yard Setback is for uniform neighborhood development, to create and maintain "front" yards, and to encourage storm water infiltration around the home. Steep Slope Setback The steep slope setback is designed to protect personal property, minimizing the risks associated with project development in areas characterized by vegetation and steep or unstable slopes. A further purpose is to avoid the visual impact of height, bulk and mass normally associated with building on any steep slope. Accessory Building Lot Coverage The specific purpose of the accessory building lot coverage is to prevent properties from becoming overly occupied with accessory structures, allowing properties to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water infiltration. Number of Accessory Buildings The specific purpose of the accessory building lot coverage is to prevent properties from becoming overly occupied with accessory structures or to become a "garage -dominant" property. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Exterior Side Yard Setback The variance to the exterior side yard will not have any negative impact to the overall drainage on this property, because this property has a large exterior side yard and adequate opportunity for onsite drainage. Additionally, staff feels that this variance does not disrupt the neighborhood development pattern and that this exterior side yard will remain largely open yard. Steep Slope Setback As a condition of approval the City recommends that an engineer soil report is submitted to ensure that the slope's stability will not be compromised by the construction of a garage. Furthermore, there won't be any negative visual impact of height, bulk and mass associated with building on this steep slope, because the garage can be no higher than one story and 20', and this will allow for ample vegetative screening of the garage. Accessory Building Lot Coverage The total accessory lot coverage, while over 1,000sf, is well below 10% of the entire lot. Therefore, staff feels that there will be ample opportunity for storm water infiltration on this large lot and will not be in conflict with the Zoning Code. However, staff does feel that the proposed garage is unnecessarily large when compared to Stillwater's Minimum parking stall size (9'X18'), Therefor staff would recommend a garage no larger than 20' X 26' (or 520sf), to accommodate the width for two cars and a length that can equip one car and additional storage room. This would reduce this variance request to only 72sf. Number of Accessory Buildings There will be two accessory buildings (or garages), however these two structures are spaced far apart and does not lend the property to feeling overly dominated by accessory structures. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned RB, Two -Family District. A single family residence with a detached garage 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- 52, 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 garage cannot flow down the steep slope and directly onto adjacent private lands. 5. Prior to building permit approval, the property owner shall submit a soil engineer's report documenting slope stability will not be compromised by the construction of the structure in the steep slope area. 6. The garage shall be a maximum of 20' X 26' (520sf). 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 detached garage in the exterior side yard will not have any negative affects to the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. Practical difficulties have been established and the garage meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. However, staff does feel that the proposed garage is unnecessarily large and staff would recommend a garage no larger than 20' X 26' (or 520sf). If the garage size were limited to 520sf, the overall accessory structure coverage will be reduced to 1,076sf, requiring a variance of only 76sf., as opposed to 228sf. Furthermore, reducing the footprint of the proposed garage could lessen the extent of the variances to the side yard (east) property line and the steep slopes. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-52 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Garage Rendering cc: Miles Tibbetts !fi1111if1i14��'llliiu • Py •simi aim, ow N. IIIEIllli nll f '�•• �'' -- % Stillwater Planning Department 216 4th St N Stillwater, MN 55082 August 26th 2021 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AT 663 2ND ST S Having just recently acquired said property from my late mother, I am seeking permission to build a one story 2 car garage on the lot. In keeping with the historic nature of the house and barn the new building would be in scale of the existing structures in terms of dimensions, roof pitch and siting. Mike Thiets the general contractor recommends the site seen on the views provided. Building size would not exceed size indicated and I plan on going smaller, approximately 20 x 26 to keep it in scale with the old barn. The old barn is just not economically feasible to turn into a garage. It's too close to the property line, has basement in structure and not wide enough for two cars. The structure is used for storage and a workshop. Having turned 150 years old this year and the Tibbetts family being in the house since 1960 I'm hoping to start a new chapter here at 663 2nd St with a new garage. Thank you for your consideration. Miles Tibbetts 663 2nd St S - proposed garage CPC 2021-52 ••—•—•• Top of Steep Slope Distance to Property Line (feet) 0 12 5 25 50 Proposed Garage Subject Property Boundary Parcel Boundaries By: Graham Tait 6/29/2021 Feet iliwater THE B f FIT H P L A C E OF MINNESOIA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-53 MEETING DATE: September 22, 2021 APPLICANT: Chad Johnson, CDJ Construction LANDOWNER: John Fresonke REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Accessory Dwelling Unit above a detached garage LOCATION: 846 Willard St West ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator INTRODUCTION Mr. Fresonke, owner of the 15,682 s.f. property at 846 Willard St West, is seeking to tear down an existing garage and construct a new 26'X35' garage in the rear yard, which is accessed off of William St South. This new garage will be built to have a 675 s.f. dwelling unit above it. In order for accessory structures to contain habitable area, they must be constructed as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), allowed in RB — Two Family residential zoning by Conditional Use Permit. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit above a detached garage. ANALYSIS City Code Section 31-207, Special Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit, identifies that the city may grant a Conditional Use Permit when the following findings are made: a. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and relevant area plans. With regard to conformance to the requirements and intent of the Zoning Code, City Code Section 31-501, Accessory Dwellings, identifies the following performance standards for CPC Case 2021-53 Page 2 of 4 review: • Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet. The lot is 15,682 square feet. • The accessory dwelling may be located on the second floor above the garage. The proposed ADU will be built wholly above the proposed garage. • The accessory dwelling unit must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and rear setbacks. The ADU will be in conformance with all the setbacks for a primary dwelling that is put forth in the RB-Two Family residential zoning district. • The accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the midpoint of the primary residence. The property is a corner lot, with the home facing Willard Street West; the garage and ADU facing William Street South. The garage is in the rear of the primary residence and not located in the exterior side yard. • Off-street parking requirements (four spaces) must be provided. The garage provides parking spaces for two vehicles. The driveway that is located in front of the garage is 26' wide and 34' in length and can easily accommodate at least two vehicle parking spots'. This property is able to meet its parking requirements. • Maximum size of the garage and ADU is 800 square feet. The garage is proposed to be 910sf and the ADU is proposed to be 675sf. Both these sizes are below the respective maximum areas. • The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. The proposed garage and ADU is designed so that it is consistent with the existing primary residence. The proposed ADU is a cross -gabled roof, matching the roof of the primary residence. The roof pitch appears to be as steep as the home, as well. Also, the siding color is similar to the color of the home. One design element that staff found concerning is the roof and trim of the garage is dark (black) whereas the home is white. • The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. The applicant has stated that the height "will be put into the parameters of what the city allows and what we can do. The pitch can and will be adjusted to that. Whether it be 10/12 or 12/12." As part of the building permit process the Planning Department will ensure the height is not exceeding that of the primary structure. • Both the primary and accessory dwelling units must be connected to municipal sewer and water services and be located on an improved public street. This will be a condition of approval. 1 City Code Section 31-510. Subd. 1. (f). (1). Parking space. Each parking space shall be at least nine feet in width and 18 feet in length. CPC Case 2021-53 Page 3 of 4 • Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. No public comment has been received. • The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Conditionally permitted ADUs in the RB — Two Family Residential district has not proved to be a nuisance nor detrimental to the public. PUBLIC COMMENT There has been no public comment for this case since submittal. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve: If the Planning Commission finds the Conditional Use Permit proposal is consistent with the provisions of the CUP process and the standards set forth for the establishment of practical difficulty, the Commission could move to approve the CUP with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall be required to pay WAC/SAC charges for the new unit. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the ADU shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. 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. 3. The height of the ADU may not exceed the height of the primary structure (the house). 4. The roof and trim of the garage must match colors with the roof and trim of the primary house. B. Deny. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the approved Conditional Use Permit guidelines, then the Commission could deny the request in whole or in part. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. C. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be tabled. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the garage and proposed ADU meets the Conditional Use Permit provisions. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit and approval of the requested variances for CPC Case No. 2021-53 with the conditions identified in Alternative A, above. CPC Case 2021-53 Page 4 of 4 Attachments: Location map Applicant Narrative Site plan Building Plans (two pages) Rendering cc: Chad Johnson John Fresonke IIIE Illl i nll ?" °' IN 111! {�i1�1 111 1' \ Jenn Sundberg From: Chad Johnson Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:30 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: 846 Willard garage [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The following is a narrative for the project for John Fresonke at 846 Willard St. in Stillwater, MN 55082 The customer already has an existing garage which will be torn down and replaced with a new garage in the same place just slightly larger with an open loft above. As the plans show the new garage will have more of a historical look to match the existing house and materials will be characterized to match as well. There will be a full stairwell with bathroom upstairs fully insulated. Hand framed TGI roof system with parallel cord floor trusses. 2 x 6 wall framing at 16 inches on center. A full 42 inch foundation. The new garage wall height will be approximately 8 foot 10 siding will be Borden Batten LP smart side. The roof will be steel and will it match the existing house color. If any additional information is needed for this please feel free to contact me and let me know thank you Chad Johnson - - - - - - Sent from my iPhone 1 TOTAL AREA: 15,682 sq. ft. (as per county info.) PROPOSED GARAGE: 854 sq. ft. EXISTING DRIVEWAY: 881 sq. ft. EXISTING HOUSE: 1,451 sq. ft. EXISTING DECK STRUCTURES: 547 sq. ft. N E PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 10' WILLIAM ST S WILLARD ST W (V W CO U o z 11, o�� v7 z 0 we W J W Z < O (nIOJ W d- DATE E-1 S-21 REVISED FAG NUM1SER: w POLE r•io 1 NEW GARAGE - EXISTING LOCAT' ON \ NEW CONCRETE SLAB UNFINISHED INTERIOR CLG - i LvL Hoed.. • zsgn.. 2 - • x r WT.& • - -HEW r..21.1=IPTE APRON • 4 A POLE !tW 12' v STUDIO OVER G4RAGE • • ••• • • • • • •-• 4. • • • 1. • • 4 iiiHi1111 - 1111111111r ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: Planning Commission September 22, 2021 Todd Ganz, President, Integrity Land Development Gary Jorgensen CASE NO.: 2021-54 Consideration of: 1. A Zoning Map Amendment from AP (Agricultural Preservation) to RB (Two -Family Residential) 2. Preliminary Plat approval for Jorg Hills Estate 13187 Dellwood Road AP — Agricultural Preservation Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Gary Jorgensen owns the property at 13187 Dellwood Road and is looking to split the 3.8-acre lot into two lots both accessed off of the existing driveway. As the property has never been platted, it requires a formal platting process. Thus, the applicant, Todd Ganz of integrity Land Development, has submitted request for consideration of preliminary and final plats. However, the property is currently zoned AP — Agricultural Preservation, the zoning district classificaiton it was given at the time it was annexed into the City of Stillwater in January 1, 2015. The purpose(s) of this zoning district is to preserve agricultural land until urban development occurs. The resubdivision requires rezoning the property. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting condition of: 1. A Zoning Map Amendment from AP (Agricultural Preservation) to RB (Two -Family Residential) 2. Preliminary Plat approval for Jorg Hills Estate ANALYSIS Zoning Map Amendment CPC Case 2021-54 Page 2 of 5 City Code requires the Planning Commission must first find that the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The City of Stillwater is a part of the metropolitan area and has been classified as a suburban community. Part of this classification requires the City to develop at a higher density with averages of five units per acre over the entirety of the City. To help the City achieve this, we have adopted a Future Land Use Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Plan calls for the property to be developed to the Low/Medium Density Residential (LMDR) standard, requiring 5-9.7 units per acre. However, as the Commission may remember, there are numerous site constraints (access and proximity to South Twin Lake, predominantly) which may development to that density standard unfeasible. City Attorney Kori Land has advised the property currently does not conform to the City's adopted Future Land Use map. Given the developer is seeking to reduce the nonconformity by adding an additional parcel of land, the property would be more conforming that the current status. Thus, the request is in general conformance with the City's guiding principles and land use policies. Preliminary Plat Zoning Code Compliance The 3.8-acre parcel is proposed to be subdivided into two lots. One home currently exists at the northern edge of the property; this structure would remain onsite on a newly -platted, 2.75-acre lot. Because of their oversized nature, each of the proposed lots and their improvements conform to the minimum dimensional standards set forth for the RB — Two Family Residential zoning district'. When building permits are issued, each new residence will be reviewed against the setback and lot coverage requirements. Proposed residences that do not conform to the standards will not be permitted. There are two areas where private improvements for the proposed Lot 1 will affect the proposed Lot 2: • The City allows for two properties to be accessed off a single driveway without requiring the driveway to be constructed to City street standards. The current driveway is located wholly on the future Lot 1. Thus, a driveway easement and maintenance agreement should be required to protect Lot 2's future access. • Public utilities are not available to the property. Thus, each lot is proposing to utilize private wells and septic systems. The existing home's drain field is partially located on the future Lot 2. Thus, an easement for such improvement will be required. Staff has recommended conditions of approval addressing these items. 1 While the property does not have frontage along a public street, the HWY 96 right-of-way easement extends to this property. Thus, the property substantially conforms to the intent of the City Code that the property is accessible and visible from a public roadway. CPC Case 2021-54 Page 3 of 5 Engineering Requirements City Engineering staff have reviewed the development. Generally speaking, the proposed development conforms to the City's Engineering design standards as, though it has never been platted, it is merely a lot split. Thus, the City is requesting both properties be platted with drainage and utility easements able to accommodate future public utility extensions in the future. Additionally, a condition of approval has been incorporated indicating future construction and improvements may not direct drainage onto adjacent properties. Lastly, the property is located in Browns Creek Watershed District. Thus, the developer will be responsible for paying $3,787/acre Trout Stream Mitigation fees for the new 1.05-acre lot. The 2021 fee total is $3,976.35; fees shall be adjusted annually. Environmental Concerns Water Resources The property is in the Shoreland Overlay District. The uses proposed, the density sought, as well as the overall development of the site are in conformance to that Overlay District's regulations. The property is not in the floodplain nor are there any wetland onsite or on adjacent properties that will be affected by this development. Tree and Forest Protection and Landscaping A total of 193 significant trees are located on the subject property. A total of 67 trees are permitted to be removed before tree replacement is required. Approximately 25 trees are located in the area projected to be disturbed for the new home and septic system. Thus, the property is well in conformance to the City's tree and forest protection regulations. However, staff is recommending some conditions of approval for tree protection during home, driveway, and septic system construction. As per City Code, three trees are required to be installed on each lot. However, since significant tree preservation is proposed, staff is recommending this development be exempt from this regulation. Park and Trail Dedication The City's park and trail dedication requires 10% of the land area be dedicated for public parks. The property is located in an area that is greater than mile from a city park or school. While this site would be ideal for a public park given the lack of amenities in this neighborhood, access to the site is limited to the single driveway. Since this driveway cannot be improved to a public roadway, park dedicated in this location would not be of a benefit to the public. Therefore, when this request is heard before the Park and Recreation Commission on September 27, 2021, staff will recommend the City accepted a fee in lieu of land dedication. Additionally, while a future trail is noted along HWY 96, there is a private property between this property and the POSSIBLE ACTIONS CPC Case 2021-54 Page 4 of 5 The Planning Commission has several available alternatives: 1. Recommend approval — If the Planning Commission finds that the information submitted is sufficient and that the preliminary plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compliant with City code, and is not detrimental to the neighborhood, then the Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat and rezoning. 2. Recommend denial — If the Planning Commission does not find that the preliminary plat or rezoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compliant with City code, and is detrimental to the neighborhood, the Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council deny it. 3. Table for more information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that, with certain conditions, the requests conform to City Code. Therefore, City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and rezoning with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following plans on file with the Community Development Department, except as may be modified by the conditions herein: • Preliminary plat Sheet S2 Dated 9/2/2021 • Grading, Drainage, & Erosion Control Plan Sheet C 1 Dated 8/27/21 2. The rezoning shall not become effective until after the approval of the final plat. 3. Materials may not be stored in the critical root zone of trees to be saved, nor may equipment or materials be leaned or stacked against trunks of trees identified to be saved. 4. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval. 5. Drainage for this development shall not be directed onto adjacent properties. In the event drainage adversely effects adjacent properties, Jorg Hill property owner shall be responsible for rectifying the drainage issues. 6. Prior to the release of the final plat, the developer shall submit to the City a shared driveway easement and maintenance agreement. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and, upon approval by the City, recorded against both properties. Proof of recording shall be submitted to the City. 7. Prior to the release of the final plat, the developer shall submit to the City a septic drain field easement benefitting Lot 1. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and, upon approval by the City, recorded against both properties. Proof of recording shall be submitted to the City. 8. The developer will be responsible for paying development fees based upon the net developable acreage of the project, which, for 2021, is $3,787.07 for Trout Stream Mitigation ("AUAR"). If the fees are not paid in 2021, the fees will be adjusted annually. The fees will be payable prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. 9. In lieu of park and trail land dedication, the developer shall be required to pay a $2,000 park and a $500 trail dedication fee for each new home lot created. The fees will be payable prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. CPC Case 2021-54 Page 5 of 5 Attachments: Site Location Map Existing Conditions Preliminary Plat Final Plat Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan cc: Susan Eskierka Jan Niemiec 2214 122336 72 OAK GLEN] CRE �w9 PLAN SYMBOLS EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED CENTERLINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT LINE PERMANENT LOT SECTION -900- 901.25 901 X W X BM WB 900 INTERMEDIATE INDEX GRADE BREAK INTERMEDIATE 901.25 SB 0 X INDEX W X 0 r _� OHE 0 W TREE SYMBOLS WB WB PROPERTY LINE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS CLEAR ZONE EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS BUILDING SETBACK EXISTING TREES SEDIMENT LOGS SILT FENCE WETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING TREES (TO REMAIN) BENCH MARK / IRON MONUMENT LIGHT POLE / BOLLARD BUILDING RIPRAP EXISTING SOIL BORING ADDITIONAL SOIL BORING WETLAND BUFFER UTILITY SYMBOLS 1:›5(IS< MN< G EXISTING O H E OVERHEAD >IXISTING 1?ROPOSED PROPOSED ® O EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING G PROPOSED PROPOSED DS ELECTRIC POWER POLE STORM DRAIN LINE FLARED END SECTION CATCH BASIN MANHOLE WELL SEPTIC SYSTEM CLEANOUT AND MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED - I -4- WATERMAIN AND HYDRANT PROPOSED VALVE PROPOSED GAS METER 2" SPRINKLER LINE DOWNSPOUT LOCATION HATCH LEGEND o' EXISTING GRAVEL REMOVAL BITUMINOUS REMOVAL GRAVEL AVERAGED WETLAND BUFFER \\\\\\M\ 8 FOOT POND ACCESS ROAD TEMPORARY EROSION CONSTRUCTION EXIT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONTROL BLANKET JORG HILLS ESTATE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 1 / - / I HIGHWAY 96 2 • iO q/ 040 Nc , , , 407- , L i i i 0 50 100 200 FEET VICINITY MAP SEC. 20, T30, R20 WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA NEAL AVENUE N NOT STATE HIGHWAY 96 SITE TO SCALE J_ CIVIL ENGINEER: RFC ENGINEEERING, INC. DAVID A. KRUGLER, P.E. 13635 JOHNSON ST. NE HAM LAKE, MN 55304 TEL. 763-862-8000 FAX 763-862-8042 LAND SURVEYOR: CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. DANIEL L. THURMES 1970 NORTHWESTERN AVE. SUITE #200 STILLWATER, MN 55082 TEL. 651-275-8969 FAX 651-275-8976 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC DEBRA A. SCHROEDER, P.E. RYAN M. BENSON, P.E. 6160 CARMEN AVE. E. INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55076 TEL. 763-499-9175 FAX 651-389-4190 PLAN REVISIONS DATE SHEET NO. APPROVED 9/2/2021 C1, S2 DAK PROJECT LOCATION WASHINGTON COUNTY THE 2018 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" AND THE 2018 EDITION OF THE "MATERIALS LAB SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" SHALL GOVERN. ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2018 EDITION OF THE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAIL PLATES FOR STREET AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AND SIGNING SHALL CONFORM TO THE MMUTCD, INCLUDING FIELD MANUAL FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS. \DEX SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION 1 TITLE SHEET S1 EXISTING CONDITIONS S2 PRELIMINARY PLAT S3 FINAL PLAT C1 GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN THIS PLAN CONTAINS 5 SHEETS ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS AND ORDINANCES WILL BE COMPLIED WITH IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF JHE STATE OF MINNESOTA. SIGNED AAA. DAVID A. KRUGLER DATE: 8 / 27 / 2021 REG. NO. 48768 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FINAL FIELD REVISIONS, IF ANY, OF THIS PLAN WERE MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. SIGNED DATE: REG. NO. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street NE Telephone 763-862-8000 Ham Lake, MN 55304 Fax 763-862-8042 JOB NO. 1908 SHEET \O. 1 OF 5 SHEETS EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: POINT NUMBER ELEVATION w N 2104 900.4 12 DECID 2105 899 8 DECID 2106 898.1 8 DECID 2112 902.8 8TRI DECID 2115 904.3 8DBL DECID 2117 903.7 7 DECID 2118 904 7 DECID 2119 906.5 10 DECID 2120 906.5 6 DECID 2121 906.5 15 DECID 2122 905.6 9 DECID 2123 906.9 12 DBL DECID 2124 907.6 6CLUMP DECID 2125 906.4 6 DECID 2126 904.7 6DBL DECID 2127 905.1 9 DECID 2128 905.1 8CLUMP DECID 2129 905 10 DECID 2130 903.6 8 DECID 2131 903.6 12 DECID 2132 904.2 6 DECID 2133 904.7 6 DECID 2134 905.9 7 DECID 2135 907.1 12 DECID 2136 907.5 8DBL DECID 2137 908.2 8 DECID 2138 908.2 8 DECID 2139 908.2 9 DBL DECID 2140 908 30 DECID 2141 908 36 DECID 2147 901.1 10DBL DECID 2148 901.4 6DBL DECID 2180 901.9 8 DECID 2181 900.6 12 DECID 2208 897.6 9 MAPLE 2209 897.4 8 SPRUCE 2210 897.3 8 SPRUCE 2218 896.1 18 QUAD ELM 2219 895.5 15 MAPLE 2220 895.7 8 SPRUCE 2221 896.5 12 DBL MAPLE 2245 904.5 12 BIRCH 2264 907 8 DECID 2265 907.1 18 DECID 2268 907.4 36 DECID 2269 906 24DECID 2270 905.2 8 DECID 2271 904.7 8 DECID 2272 906.8 15 DECID 2273 909.6 12 MAPLE 2299 910.3 24 ELM 8987 900.7 17 CONIF 8988 900.3 12 CONIF 9045 903.6 15 CONIF 9046 903.4 13 CONIF 9103 901.9 18 MAPLE 9116 902.3 18 LOCUST 9125 903.6 SP9 CONIF 9127 905.3 16DBL MAPLE 9129 903.1 13 DECID 9166 904 11 SPRUCE 9167 904.2 10 SPRUCE 9168 904.2 10 SPRUCE 9175 907.4 9 SPRUCE 9177 906.5 10 DECID 9179 906.2 24 MAPLE 9187 906 9 SPRUCE 9189 905.2 9 SPRUCE 9221 896.6 8 DECID 9222 896.4 8 DECID 9223 896.2 8 DECID 9225 895.6 6 CONIF 9239 900.1 8 DECID 9241 899.1 9 DECID 9251 907.6 24DBL DECID 9278 909.1 9 DECID 9279 910 10 DECID 9280 909.7 10 DECID 9290 907.4 27 DECID 9291 910.9 15 SPRUCE 9292 910.7 27 DECID 9293 910.7 8 DECID 9294 910.7 8 DECID 9295 910.6 13 DECID 9296 910.7 13 DECID 9297 910.7 8 DECID 9298 910.5 8 DECID 9299 910.7 8 DECID 9300 910.7 11 DECID 9301 910.4 9 DECID 9302 910.1 9 DECID 9303 910.7 7 DECID 9304 910.6 7 DECID 9305 910.5 7 DECID 9306 910.5 24 DECID 9307 909 10 DECID 9308 908.1 11 DECID 9309 908.3 7 DECID 9310 909 8 DECID 9311 907.8 11 SPRUCE 9312 906.7 8 DECID 9313 906.4 8 DECID 9315 908 8 DECID 9316 907.6 22 DECID 9317 907.5 7 DECID 9318 907.5 7 DECID 9319 907.6 8 DECID 9320 907.7 6 DECID 9321 908.3 9 DECID 9322 907.8 6DBL DECID 9323 907.4 10 DECID 9324 907.6 6 DECID 9325 908.1 10 DECID 9326 908.1 9 DECID 9327 908.2 7 DECID 9328 908.4 7 DECID 9329 908.7 18 DECID 9330 907.8 18 DECID 9331 908.5 9 DECID 9332 909.2 7 DECID 9333 909.4 8 DECID 9334 909.5 11 DECID 9335 909.3 8 DECID 9336 909.2 7 DECID 9337 909.8 20 DECID 9338 908.9 6 DECID 9339 909 8 DECID 9340 909.1 8 DECID 9341 909.5 7 DECID 9342 909.2 8 DECID 9343 910.6 12 CLUMP DECID 9344 906.9 6 SPRUCE 9345 906.6 9 SPRUCE 9346 906.5 7 SPRUCE 9349 906.6 6 SPRUCE 9370 906.5 15 DECID 9385 910.7 24 DECID 9386 911 13 DECID 9393 914.2 10 SPRUCE 9396 912.5 8 SPRUCE 9397 910.6 11 CONIF 9398 910.5 9 CONIF 9399 910.2 8 CONIF 9402 910.3 9 DECID 9407 910.4 10 SPRUCE 9408 910.7 11 CONIF 14081 912 50 MAPLE 14082 913.9 50 MAPLE 14083 910.4 6 PINE 14084 910.6 6 PINE 14085 910.4 6 PINE 14086 910.7 6 PINE 14087 911 6 PINE 14088 911.4 6 PINE 14089 912.6 6 PINE 14090 913.3 6 PINE 14091 913.5 6 PINE 14092 914.6 6 PINE 14152 910.3 12 DECID 14153 910 24 DECID 14154 909.8 24 DECID 14172 907.7 16 DECID 14173 907.7 12 DECID 14174 907.7 10 DECID 14176 909.8 26 DECID 14177 910.5 10 DECID 14178 909.1 60 ROTTEI DECI D 14180 910.8 12 ELM ELM 14181 910.7 24 DECID I 0U --SB SSB 2 g00.01 0 r Z f eN X9 T.. q04 OU 906 X 904.3 TUG 0106 OU X 906.4 SOUND 1/2 INCH SON PIPE PsfARKED RLS 215718 904.4 00.1 897.9 V X8g6.7 X8ci6.5 r- X 6 7C0 co co �N4- v92cr 8 ro co TREES: 9221 8" 9222 V V ID CO co cs- X X X 902.9 210 P8" 2120--� 6" X 905.1 X907.0 0 X908.5 2121 15" X 905.3 OU X907.5 OU 2123 12"DBL X904.8 2112 8"TRPL 9 X902.6 '44 6 896 tfi m vqh �� 96 119239 9241 CC) V �=� 89s� I 8" 24 6"CLUMP 5 -,a\tl I I OU \C X905.1 6 2126 6"DBL 2127 q" 906.0 N O 2181 SB 4 12"w N p g02.33 ~ 3 't 90 Z Z L 0=0 I- 1_OSE Eca 7�/N U SLOES NOTE 904.2 yjam INCH I PIPE MARKED DENOTES SIGNIFICANT TREE AS LOCATED BY CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. ON 11-8-20 TYP. DECIDUOUS TREE POINT NUMBER 3307 IL, TREE SIZE TYP. CONIFEROUS TREE 3307 908 X 907.1 TU� 9, 329.78 X908.4 X910.1 -2135 12" 2134 2 8" -2138 9/0 2139 X906.2 X90 -''�2132 131 -� 1�2130 p i _8„ I v, 271 8" 21.9 0" X903.6 227Ri X 9L 6.2 903.2 904.9-- X 902.2 BL .2 '' 2269 24" X 906.6 912.3 - CS' 910.7 X'07.6 227 - 12" 0 64 2265 18" / C ANOUT - -- TO907.8 MH REFU' L=901.4 TOP=909.4 WATER 905.6 SOT=901.3 909.0 X909.7 2245 12"TRPL X909.7 X9 X 910.8 o0 NO OPTION 2299 4"EL X907.0 X907.1 907.9 X 907.7 ENTS X908.3 910 X9 0 N89°10 '57" 4 70.9 7 X 914.9 SEE SEPTIC NOTE X 912.6 OU X 913.0 0U X 913.8 914 iAl2 OU X 913.0 913.5 OU 141.19 X 915.3 14092 i_, NORTH LINE OF T 6"PINE OF THE NW I 916.0 14091 X 916.5 14489 6" NE 14172 6"PINE 4085 -7 6"PINE 14084 6"PINE 73 12" X908.2 X 908.3 I INCH IRON PIPE MAR LEGEND: • 0 0 or 1111 FOUND MONUMENT SET 1/2" IRON PIPE MARKED RLS NO. 25718 CABLE TV PEDESTAL AIR CONDITIONER ELECTRIC MANHOLE ELECTRIC METER ELECTRIC PEDESTAL ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER LIGHT POLE GUY WIRE POWER POLE GAS MANHOLE GAS METER TELEPHONE MANHOLE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL SANITARY CLEANOUT SANITARY MANHOLE CATCH BASIN STORM DRAIN FLARED END SECTION STORM MANHOLE CD 0 q10. *I4083 6"PINE 4152 2" X 910.3 4153 24" 4 X 909.2 X909.7 X 908.4 r-14174 10" X 916.3 X 916.7 X 916.8 X 911 f `r 1 � 1 Lf1 00 SB 13rrnn �q 10.30 910.0 X 910.4 50"MAPLE r 1 X 9115 ll1 910.9 X 9291 SP"I5 9293 8" 9292 27" 9294�, 8" X910.7 9295 13" 9297 9302 8" I9 03 X 913.5 /2 OF THE WI/2 OF SEC. 20, T30, R20. X 911.5 SB2-KSD--�� q 10.37 X910.6 14081 50"MAPLE ;r p / 1 A0 9343 12"CLUM 909.0 9" 9342 14180 8" X 908.7 FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION HYDRANT CURB STOP WATER WELL WATER MANHOLE WATER METER POST INDICATOR VALVE WATER VALVE BOLLARD FLAG POLE MAIL BOX TRAFFIC SIGN UNKNOWN MANHOLE SOIL BORING TRAFFIC SIGNAL . CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE 14178 9346 E 46 902 UE UTV Ur - UT OLJ UG 11 ct? 904 INCH RON X 907.1 9334 9335 933 20" X910.2 SB3 -KS • 932 306 903.9 UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND CABLE TV UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OVERHEAD UTILITY UNDERGROUND GAS SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FENCE CURB [TYPICAL] CONCRETE SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE 0 938 CONCRETE- A TABLE 9398 9385 9393 X 908.3 8" X cr" X910.4 9332 9336 7' 9328 7" 9331 9327 X907 .8 9312 X 907 9311 SP II" spqm 9329 18" 9179 24"M 9127 NCH RON PIPE MARKED Xe111.11, FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON 9396 PIPE WEST LIN FOUND 110NUNEN 9408 9402 X 909.4 X 909.6 003. /3:°C)/\ < 9330 10" -9325 FOUND I RE -9323 cr 9167 -906.4 SPIO" 9189 9187 Jre X 904.2 9129 3" SHED ISTING USE =912.0 OAK GLEN ER EXISTING HOUSE X 906. 90 X 905.2 9166 9168 SP II" 90 13' EXISTING HOUSE x fr 116 902 FLOOR- Cm +90 9 006 I -BENCH NARK 9045 - v 901.2 SAN NH SAN 00.6 That part of East 1/2 of the West 1/2 Northwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota lying Northerly of the Northerly lines of Lot 10, Lot 11, and Lot 13 and the Westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 10 all in Block I, OAK GLEN 8th ADDITION, as monumented, and lying Northerly and Westerly of the Westerly lines of Lot I, Block 2, and Lot 3 and the Northerly extension of the Westerly line of said Lot I all in Block I, OAK GLEN I Oth ADDITION, as monumented, according to the plats on file in the office of the registrar of titles, Washington County, Minnesota, Stillwater Township. TITLE NOTES: The following surveying related exceptions appear on the Legacy Title as agent for Stewart Title Guarantee Company Title Commitment No. MN16650 dated October 30th, 2020. 1. Apparent driveway easement and maintenance agreement, with the Northerly neighbor (PID# 17.030.20.33.0010), allowing encroachment of the driveway and access to Dellwood Rd. N. AREA MORE OR LESS SLOPES 0% - 24% = NOT SHOWN 24% AND ABOVE = SHOWN HOWEVER NO AREAS RUN GREATER THAN 50' HORIZONTALLY. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKET NUMBERS 203100793 AND 203100804. SOME MAPS WERE RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! Gopher State One Call TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 EXISTING SEPTIC EXISTING SEPTIC AREA SHOWN PER EXISTING CLEANOUTS AND MANHOLES AS SHOWN ON SURVEY. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHOWN PER SEPTIC SKETCH DATED 1-10-2002 BY EKILIN SOIL TESTING. LOCATION OF DRAIN FIELD AND PIPE ARE SURVEY NOTES: . BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM NAD 1983. 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER ENGINEERING 3. THERE MAY BE SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES; GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. 4. SUPPLEMENTAL 2 FOOT CONTOURS OUTSIDE OF PARCEL BOUNDARIES SHOWN PER LIDAR CONTOUR DATA OBTAINED FROM THE DNR MNTOPO WEBSITE. NOT FIELD VERIFIED CONTACT: INTEGRITY LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. ATTN: TODD GANZ PHONE: 612-369-2747 tdganz@gmail.com COUNTY/CITY: NORTH 0 40 80 REVISIONS: DATE 8-27-21 8-31-21 REVISION PRELIMINARY ISSUE NAME CHANGE I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Date: 11-10-20 PROJECT LOCATION: 1 3 1 7 DELLWOOD RD. N. PID#200302022001 9 Suite #200 1970 Northwestern Ave. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 dan@cssurvey CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. FILE NAME PROJECT NO. SURVTGO7 EXISTING CONDITIONS OU .4 I -C I • --SB SBI2 900.01 / I LA_ OU q04.4 00.1 8q5.6- q22I 80 q222 or 8" cr 00 A- X X co 0, CO V 906 X q04.3 00% X q06.4 OU OUND 1/2 INCH SON PIPE rIARKED RLS 718 8q5 6 N TREES: OU X q05.3 X q07.5 OU X q07.0 9 0 X q08.5 10DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASE ENT _2123 12"DEIL. 2120 ---- 6" s X q04.8 X q05.1 02.7 2148 210e g'1.0 °IOU ,-17‘' ci.°1)‘. 0 .„ I2105 8" 21061 Co I 8" A 0 0 \. 210 P8" 5 c) O q.i.q 02.0 2208 2013L X q02.6 INCH I cD‘ X q05.1 6 0,04-4 PIPE MARKED RLS 9232 2126 6"DEiL 2127 q" DENOTES SIGNIFICANT TREE AS LOCATED BY CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. ON 11-8-20 TYP. DECIDUOUS TREE SURVEY POINT NUMBER 3307 15" TREE SIZE TYP. CONIFEROUS TREE 3307 15" OU X q0 2130 8" 21 q 0 X q03.6 6.2 903.2 X q02.2 u _ / v / 4 / / V I/ \ X q07.1 clos DS HR IREEwDA y X q05 .4 OU 9,0 329.78 -2135 12" 2134 8" -2138 X0106.2 2132 I- - - - -1 2140 DRIVEWAY 1 30" I TO REMAIN I 214 •q07 .q 9 0 C51 q10.7 227 X q'S .2 226q 24X q06.6 " X 07 6 227 12" 111) 2265 64 C ANOUT - TO q07.8 MH - 0,\O • REFU L=q01.4 T0P=q0q.4 WATER q05.6 80T=q01.3 q0q.0 X clOg-7 2245 12"TRPL X q0q.7 xi X q10.8 Oc\° 22qq \-) 24"EL X q07.0 X0107.1 q07.q /._ r.... / / 910 xcl08.3 °OK 205, pAcE. 103 910 X q12.6 OU '313 0 _ j20' DRIVEWAY EASEMENT Ou X q13.8 N89°10 ' 57"W 171BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT I 94 SEE SEPTIC NOTE 470.97 140q I X q16.5 SEE .1"-. SEPTIC NOTE q16.7 r, 7 6 PI 40 6"PINE 14085 -1 6"PINE 14084 6"PINE 910. q278 14172 X0108.2 X q08.3 14083 6"PINE 14152 X q16.3 )016.7 X q16.8 X q11.1 X 6110.3 4153 24" q27q 0" 280 0" X q08.4 14174 10" Xq0q.2 X q0q.7 X q08.6 X q08.7 X q07.01 Xcl07.7 KAINAGE AND UTILIT2,1E0ASENE15144 24"DEIL SP6" q07 27" .o LE FOUN IAC1 IEPI X q07.3 8TP1-906 ch98'1- 10NUMIENTS LEGEND: • FOUND MONUMENT 0 SET 1/2" IRON PIPE MARKED RLS NO. 25718 ▪ CABLE TV PEDESTAL AIR CONDITIONER ELECTRIC MANHOLE ELECTRIC METER ELECTRIC PEDESTAL ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER LIGHT POLE GUY WIRE POWER POLE GAS MANHOLE GAS METER TELEPHONE MANHOLE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL SANITARY CLEANOUT SANITARY MANHOLE CATCH BASIN STORM DRAIN FLARED END SECTION STORM MANHOLE 32 14180 12"ELM 14177 0 X q08.5 / // / // //\/ L./1 I IS/1 V FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION HYDRANT CURB STOP WATER WELL WATER MANHOLE WATER METER POST INDICATOR VALVE WATER VALVE BOLLARD FLAG POLE MAIL BOX TRAFFIC SIGN UNKNOWN MANHOLE SOIL BORING TRAFFIC SIGNAL • CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE 0134 Pq" FOUND I INCH IRON IRE--902 UE LITV UP UT OU LIG >> 141.19 X ql1.5 .1 10' DRAINAGE & TILITY EASEMENT 910.37 X q10.6 14082 50"MAPLE 50"MAPLE bo _Los\13 q343 12"CLUMP q33 20" 012q5 13" q2q7 q302 8" q 03 7 q342 8" q3 4 q2qq 7" 8" q30 0 X q10.6 q2q8 5133-K5 ioN08.5 q340 5" q34 I 7" q32I X q0q.8 306 4" 908 X q07 I 1 1 8. \ X q02 q UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND CABLE TV UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OVERHEAD UTILITY UNDERGROUND GAS SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FENCE CURB [TYPICAL] CONCRETE SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE Xq11.5 q" 1385 4 rSEPTIC AREA BY KLOEPPNER a" SERVICES & DESIGN LLC DATED 8-27-21 ill Xql0 .4I X41 X q11.5 X q08.3 --qui WATER -q14.1/" X SP 0' c, xi© FOUND 1/2 IN q3q6 I PIP I2°N P WEST LINE OAK GLEN 5P82.I- - 10TH ADDITION PER Xq10.2 q336 7" q328 7" q33 I X q07.8 q3 12 - 8" - - X q07. q3 II SP II" ql7q 24"M q127 16"DBL M 125 - spq.. y402 0 9/0 .v-1- q407 5 'S:0::c1.°5"L X q0q.4 X ;O. 3_116 X E ISTING USE _FLOOR =q12.0 =q08.4 324 .4 X/ 1q0133,..2,23 /010 5 S F1167PIO" I 0, ) FOUND INCH IRON PIPE MARKED RLS 9232 X q04.2 z X q06.q q168 5P II' FLOOR - -=q06.2 EXISTING HOUSE 01045 q166 ,t"o 15" 6 • 904 04P - -96 9- i3 - z >4 [BENCH MARK Li-NH=900.27 j z X q03.0 A , • -8q8 5 - SAN MH RIM=801q.0 INV= rBENCH MARK I:NH=905.65 /-- /\/ / //\/ V . / r' - A-- 1 AI I I SAN 00 .6 V=88q.2 EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of East 1/2 of the West 1/2 Northwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota lying Northerly of the Northerly lines of Lot 10, Lot 11, and Lot 13 and the Westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 10 all in Block I, OAK GLEN 8th ADDITION, as monumented, and lying Northerly and Westerly of the Westerly lines of Lot I, Block 2, and Lot 3 and the Northerly extension of the Westerly line of said Lot I all in Block I, OAK GLEN I Oth ADDITION, as monumented, according to the plats on file in the office of the registrar of titles, Washington County, Minnesota, Stillwater Township. TITLE NOTES: The following surveying related exceptions appear on the Legacy Title as agent for Stewart Title Guarantee Company Title Commitment No. MN16650 dated October 30th, 2020. 1. Apparent driveway easement and maintenance agreement, with the Northerly neighbor (PID# 17.030.20.33.0010), allowing encroachment of the driveway and access to Dellwood Rd. N. DEVELOPMENT DATA TOTAL PARCEL AREA = 165,600 SQ.FT./ 3.80 ACRES. PROPOSED LOT 1, BLOCK 1 = 119,872 SQ. FT. / 2.75 ACRES PROPOSED LOT 2, BLOCK 1 = 45,728 SQ. FT. / 1.05 ACRES SLOPES SLOPES: 0% - 24% = NOT SHOWN 24% AND ABOVE = SHOWN HOWEVER NO AREAS RUN A GREATER THAN 50' HORIZONTALLY. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKET NUMBERS 203100793 AND 203100804. SOME MAPS WERE RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! Gopher State One Call TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 EXISTING SEPTIC EXISTING SEPTIC AREA SHOWN PER EXISTING CLEANOUTS AND MANHOLES AS SHOWN ON SURVEY. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHOWN PER SEPTIC SKETCH DATED 1 -1 0-2002 BY EKILIN SOIL TESTING. LOCATION OF DRAIN FIELD AND PIPE ARE APPROXIMATE. SURVEY NOTES: . BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM NAD 1983. 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 3. THERE MAY BE SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES; GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. 4. SUPPLEMENTAL 2 FOOT CONTOURS OUTSIDE OF PARCEL BOUNDARIES SHOWN PER LIDAR CONTOUR DATA OBTAINED FROM THE DNR MNTOPO WEBSITE. NOT FIELD VERIFIED V; I-1 I I_ I_ E MA -I- E PRELIMINARY PLAT CONTACT: INTEGRITY LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. ATTN: TODD GANZ PHONE: 612-369-2747 tdganz@gmail.com COUNTY/CITY: NAIAS I-1 I NJGNJ l__J I 5-1- 1 I_ NORTH 0 40 80 REVISIONS: DATE 8-27-21 8-31-21 9-1-21 9-2-21 REVISION PRELIMINARY ISSUE NAME CHANGE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT REVISE SEPTIC CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Daniel L. Thurmes Registration mber: 25718 Date: 1 1-10-20 PROJECT LOCATION: 1317 DELLWOOD RD. N. PID#200302022001 9 1 Suite #200 1970 Northwestern Ave. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 dan@cssurvey .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. FILE NAME PROJECT NO. SURVTGO7 TG20007 PRELIMINARY PLAT S 2 JORG HILLS ESTATE NW CORNER OF SEC. 20, T30, FOUND WASHINGTON COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT 589 °10'57"E _--- 654.03 A - LO (0 O LO CO i CENTERLINE OF STATE / ALIGNWI"IENr O' 96 PER MNDOT / • • FOUND 1/2 INCH 120N PIPE MARKED RLS 25718 / / 1 329.78 / /, /, '\ / / , ^ , n / '� v Y / = — ///, / ; /-1 /-1 i / / / Y V \ L A / \V/ / // HWY RIGHT OF WAY PER BOOK 205, PAGE 103 / N89°10'57"W 470.9E 1 � 1 L- \\ 1 A 1 , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ► 1 I I I I I I Y =1 I� - I I� co I I-� uNi l I m M I Iz I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N OUND 1 /2 NC 20v P E "3.2<=2) P_5 023E DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT 352.77 -- NORTH LINE OAK GLEN 8TH \\./ /ADDITION PER FOUND MONUMENTS 1 /-i /1 �c/ /--,/ /-- /\/I /t / 7 -,/ /i i / L /1 / /'.//V DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN AS THUS: (NOT TO SCALE) --10I-J 5 BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING PLAT BOUNDARIES AND BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING LOT LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLAT. l V\ 471.62 S89°04 '22"E -HOUND 1/2 INCH 120N PIPE MARKED 2LS P232 FOUND I/2 INCH 120N PIPE tlY_3 NORTH 0 40 80 SCALE: 1 INCH = 40 FEET SCALE IN FEET L _, NORTH LINE OF THE NW OF THE E I/2 OF THE WI/2 1/4 OF SEC. 20, T30, 220. 2 118.85 0 N 1/4 CORNER OF SEC. 20, --�' T30, R20, FOUND WASHINGTON COUNTY STONE MONUMENT FOUND 1/2 I ---INCH IRON 1 PIPE 1 I I I 1 1 S89°10'57"E ii -----_ 1491.13 -- \ \1 - FOUND 1/2 I INCH IRON PIPE WEST LINE OAK GLEN ------ I0TH ADDITION PER J ,ork-- FOUND MONUMENTS 6' ll v FOUND 1/2- INCH I20N PIPE MARKED NLS 9232 0 0 THE ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED UPON THE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 20, T30, R20 WHICH IS ASSUMED TO HAVE THE BEARING OF N89°10'57"W. p DENOTES SET 1/2 INCH X 18 INCH IRON PIPE MARKED R.L.S. 25718 UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. • DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MARKED AS SHOWN. KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Gary Jorgensen and June E. Jorgensen, husband and wife, fee owners, of the following described property situated in the County of Washington, State of Minnesota, to wit: That part of East 1/2 of the West 1/2 Northwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota lying Northerly of the Northerly lines of Lot 10, Lot 1 1 , and Lot 13 and the Westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 10 all in Block I, OAK GLEN 8th ADDITION, as monumented, and lying Northerly and Westerly of the Westerly lines of Lot I, Block 2, and Lot 3 and the Northerly extension of the Westerly line of said Lot I all in Block I, OAK GLEN I Oth ADDITION, as monumented, according to the plats on file in the office of the registrar of titles, Washington County, Minnesota, Stillwater Township. Have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as JORG HILLS ESTATE and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the easements created by this plat for drainage and utility purposes only. In witness whereof said Gary Jorgensen and June E. Jorgensen, husband and wife, have hereunto set their hands on this day of , 202___. Gary Jorgensen June E. Jorgensen STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON The foregoing instrument by Gary Jorgensen and June E. Jorgensen was acknowledged before me on this day of , 202___, on behalf of the company. (SIGNATURE) (PRINT) Notary Public County, Minnesota My Commission Expires January 31, 2025 I, Daniel L. Thurmes, do hereby certify that I have surveyed and platted or directly supervised the surveying and platting of the property described on this plat as HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on the plat have been correctly set; that all water boundaries and wet lands as of this date, as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 505.01, Subd. 3, are shown and labeled; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 202 . Daniel L. Thurmes, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 25718 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON The foregoing Surveyor's Certificate was acknowledged before me on this day of , 202___, by Daniel L. Thurmes, Licensed Land Surveyor. (signature) (print) Notary Public, Dakota County, Minnesota My Commission Expires January 31, 2025 VICINITY MAP (STATE HWY NO 96) DELLWOOD RD. N. (NOT TO SCALE) NEAL AVE. N w c5 < J MCKUSICK RD. N. (CO. RD. NO. 64) 2' 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER The foregoing plat of JORG HILLS ESTATE was approved and accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, this day of , 202____. By its Chairperson By its Secretary CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER This plat of JORG HILLS ESTATE was approved by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, this day of 202___ and hereby certifies compliance with all requirements as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2 By , Mayor By , Clerk WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYOR Pursuant to Chapter 820, Laws of Minnesota, 1971, and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this day of , 202 By By Washington County Surveyor WASHINGTON COUNTY AUDITOR/TREASURER Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable for the year 202___, on the land hereinbefore described, have been paid. Also pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.1 2, there are no delinquent taxes and transfer entered, on this day of 202 By Washington County Auditor/Treasurer By Deputy WASHINGTON COUNTY RECORDER Document Number I hereby certify that this instrument was recorded in the Office of the County Recorder for record on this day of 202___, at o'clock ____. M., and was duly recorded in Washington County Records. By Washington County Recorder Deputy 2' By CORNERSTONE SEC. 20, TWP. 30, RNG. 20, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MN LAND SURVEYING, INC. NOTES: RIGHT OF WAY PER BOOK 205, PAGE 103 /I OHE / / - O — i / — J OHE CO 0 v \9q5/// /// \\ v „i\ OHE / co / \ \ :v: / I 44 / / I I �4 /\ ( 2 \ - r, �II I 1 — .p ,,,,, 2 ,'�'C/ 167 it\ \ _."- \\ \ 7 1 .zi v i 7 , ) —908 \\ \ 'c'' 0 0 /0T' , 1 1 7 / — "A . / Av.. 1 ,I /( /k \b .'\ / / , 1)1 (111HV \\ III 1 1 7---- ---- \\ _' I 11', ��\- 1 'I, '`\)>\(\ 91 '\\ \ _ ` \/ 09 \`� `\ \ 910 �\ \/ ,----)---) -\ \ \ \ \ `1 \ \ \ I k) < `P� -J1 \ l �1 I SB-4 \ ,� a I 4 c \' `\ 1/ Z r ,S j / / / 1 EXI�II�G\ \ , \,sr WATER \ \ 1 TO II I.4) � � � \ LI// ,9 9 AD 7 / / ij� - 2 -gp3�9°%� J / '° TILITY D X / '') e 6. / i� i �i/ /// 911'FIS MEN T \\((--, ` -7----7-- = �� ,___-___ t2 OHE�� OHE / OHE I — OHE- 5 1—� OHE 9 _e)-- 1 ,/ / J� ---- _ I \ \ \ \ `t'= 48' PROPOSED -� f i w4 � DRIVEWAY �/9°ii \ \ EASEMENT \\ \ `-h \� \ ' �— ter: \ \ \ ) ) \\\\�\ * c () E9 \ \ 7 \\ \\ \\ OHE // / � GP�G� G UGE ''(/GE / �I I N i /°' \ \ \ I\ //' ;r O S\ -- \ \o \ c&\ \ \ I )cI STI;N G 4\ I S PI a; TO' N� \ 903 I REM�AII� i 1, Tr: \\ i N N A\N ,\(/ /\>\ \ / J/ \ / 2 / � \ /// 7 • 100' T.Hi9O°496 R/W SETBA6K EXISTING W 17 so 906 9by' LL 1rQ REMAIN/ 7 PROPOS- EASEMENT LINE 147, PROPOSED PROPERTY O SB/2A LINE 2 905 900 909 T GAS — — 913 — 914 OHE DlciE 150' T.H. 96915CL SETBACK 1 II I I I SHORELAADB 13i I LIMITS / II / / 4/////// //// 3 910.1 00 0, x 907.4/) 913 OHE CD 96 2 _;c 903 ft: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. 1 6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRIPPING AND STOCKPILING OF TOPSOIL. TOPSOIL SHALL BE STOCKPILED IN AREAS DESIGNATED BY THE ENGINEER. COVER OR SEED ALL STOCKPILE AREAS. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED, MULCHED AND FERTILIZED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF ROUGH GRADING. *SEE SWPPP AND THE PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION GRADING PLAN FOR DETAILS. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO BEGIN PRIOR TO SILT FENCE PLACEMENT. AREAS USING SEDIMENT LOGS WILL BE PLACED AS THE SECOND LAYER OF PERIMETER CONTROL BEHIND THE SILT FENCE, CLOSEST TO THE PROTECTION AREA SILT FENCE CANNOT BE REMOVED UNTIL RCWD HAS DETERMINED ALL DISTURBED AREAS ARE FULLY STABILIZED. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CANNOT BE REMOVED. ALL GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR SITE EROSION. SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO THE STREET FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WILL BE REMOVED ON A DAILY BASIS. WHEREVER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTES INTERSECT PAVED PUBLIC ROADS, PROVISIONS MUST BE MADE TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT(MUD) BY RUNOFF OR VEHICLE TRACKING ONTO THE PAVED ROAD SURFACE, THE ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY AT THE END OF EACH DAY. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ROADS BY SHOVELING OR SWEEPING AND BE TRANSPORTED TO A SEDIMENT CONTROLLED DISPOSAL AREA. STREET WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER SEDIMENT IS REMOVED IN THIS MANNER. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE SILT FENCE AND ROCK EXITS, WHICH SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MADE SERVICEABLE PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING OPERATIONS. ALL EROSION FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR DURING GRADING OPERATIONS AND UNTIL AFTER TURF IS ESTABLISHED. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO DISPOSE OF LEGALLY AND OFF -SITE, ALL TREES, STUMPS, BRUSH OR OTHER DEBRIS FROM REMOVALS OR ANY DEBRIS THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION AREAS. ALL GRADED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 4:1 . THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND CONNECTION POINTS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES, CITY , STATE AND COUNTIES. ALL INFILTRATION AREAS MUST BE INSPECTED TO ENSURE THAT NO SEDIMENT FROM ONGOING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS REACHING THE INFILTRATION AREA AND THIS AREA IS PROTECTED FROM COMPACTION DUE TO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DRIVING ACROSS THE INFILTRATION AREA. PIPE OUTLETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF CONNECTION TO SURFACE WATER. TREE PROTECTION CONSISTING OF SNOW FENCE OR SAFETY FENCE INSTALLED AT THE DRIP LINE SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY GRADING OR DEMOLITION WORK AT THE SITE. GRADES SHOWN IN PAVED AREAS REPRESENT FINISH ELEVATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PREFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND PRIOR TO TURF ESTABLISHMENT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DE -COMPACT THE SOILS IN AREAS THAT WERE DISTURBED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. DECOMPACTION SHALL CONSIST OF RIPPING, CULTIVATING, OR SCARIFING THE TOP 12" IN ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE THE INFILTRATION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOILS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE LOW IMPACT EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT TO PREVENT COMPACTION OF THE UNDERLYING SOILS FOR BOTH TEMPORARY AND FINAL GRADING AND SMOOTHING OF THE TOPSOIL PRIOR TO SEEDING. PAYING FOR DECOMPACTION SHALL BE FOR THE PRICE QUOTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. SPECIFICATIONS THAT APPLY ARE THE CITY OF STILLWATER, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MNDOT AND BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL DUST CONTROL. THE COST SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE PROJECT. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE A AND B WILL BE RETAINED, STOCKPILED, STABILIZED AND USED IN POST CONSTRUCTION INFILTRATION BASINS. IF C OR D SOILS ARE FOUND IN THE INFILTRATION BASIN, THEY WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A OR B SOILS. DEWATERING IS NOT ANTICIPATED DUE TO GROUNDWATER ELEVATION, IF DEWATERING DOES OCCUR IT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE WATERSHED. DEWATERING AND DRAINING NOTES: • CONTRACTOR SHALL USE SKIMMERS AND FILTERS PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES. • DEWATERING SHALL TAKE PLACE AFTER SEDIMENT HAS SETTLED. • CONTRACTOR SHALL PREVENT EROSION AND SCOUR AT DISCHARGE POINTS THROUGH THE USE OF AN ENERGY DISSIPATION DEVICE. • DEWATERING MUST AVOID NUISANCE CONDITIONS. LEGEND TREES TO REMAIN TREES TO REMOVE BUILDING SETBACKS .416 FEET 60 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 GOPHER STATE ONE in CALL 800-252-1166 651-454-0002 DATE REVISION HISTORY MISC REVISIONS 9/2/21 LOOKOUT GRADING I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL DATE 8/27/21 • F NGINEERIN , IN onsulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 JORG HILLS ESTATE GRADING, DRAINAGE 8c EROSION CONTROL PLAN DWG: 1908 GRADING 1 DATE: 08/27/21 JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEET: C1 OF 5 FILE: 35-2-105 REG. NO. 48768 DESIGN BY: DAK DRAWN BY: DAK CHECKED BY: TPC liwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF M I N N E S O I A Planning Report TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-56 MEETING DATE: September 22, 2021 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater LANDOWNER: N/A REQUEST: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment removing Design Permit requirements for Downtown Design Review District signage and creating sign code standards for the CA, CBD and NC Zoning Districts LOCATION: Citywide DISTRICT: CA (General Commercial) and CBD (Central Business District) REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION In 2020 the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) was awarded a Certified Local Government grant from the State Historic Preservation Office to consolidate the HPC's design guidelines. Design guidelines, which represent the ideal design for alterations to historic structures and streetscapes, are a tool the HPC uses when reviewing Design Permits in the City's preservation -based zoning overlay districts. SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of a recommendation for a Zoning Text Amendment, removing Design Permitting requirements for signage in the Downtown Design Review District and establishing sign code standards for signage in the General Commercial, Central Business District, and Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Prior to the adoption of a Zoning Text Amendment, the City must find: 1. The public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment; and 2. The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan and any adopted area or specific plan. During the design guideline consolidation process, the City Council directed staff to work through the process of converting sign guidelines into standards (i.e. adopted in City Code). With sign code standards in place, City staff can administratively approve sign permit applications in the Central Business District (CBD) where, historically, a Design Permit has been required. Without having the requirement of a Design Permit, sign permits in the central core can now be processed in a limited number of business days, opposed to weeks until the subsequent HPC meeting is held. Expediting the sign permit review and issuance process is good practice to help support Stillwater's business community. That said, conversion of guidelines to standards (City Code) places additional regulation on signage in these areas. For the CBD, most signs conformed to the existing sign standards and guidelines. Conversation of guidelines to standards will not be any bit more restrictive in the downtown core. However, the sign code consolidates signage in the CBD and the General Commercial (CA) zoning districts. This is because most of the CA zoned properties are located in the older part of the City. As such, they are areas with similar characteristics; there is neighborhood benefit to having signage standards the same or very similar. But, signs in the CA district (and those in the future NC district) will have additional limitations placed on them that do not currently exist today. Given the City is in the process of creating the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district and that district is intended to preserve the legacy commercial properties in the City's Conservation District, it seems fitting commercial properties in the City's older neighborhoods are held to a higher standard than the City's modem commercial developments. These neighborhood commercial businesses are not typically those on major transportation corridors (i.e. TH 36), yet smaller neighborhood businesses integrated within a residential neighborhood. That said, this will create non -conformities throughout the community including signs placed on an awning or parapet as well as properties with multiple tenants (as the new code promotes signage consistency. As a reminder to the Commission, non -conformities are allowed to be maintained, repaired and replaced but, if they are removed, they must come into conformance with the City Code. The City Council has approved the First Reading of the Ordinance establishing the Neighborhood Commercial District and is scheduled to complete the required second (and final) reading of the ordinance at their September 21, 2021 meeting. After that step, the City will begin amending the Official Zoning Map to apply the Neighborhood Commercial District to specific sites, closing the loop on the discussion above. Note — there are a couple of sites that are currently in the CA Commercial District that are guided to become Community Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. These are retail areas somewhere in between Neighborhood Commercial (legacy commercial tucked in residential neighborhoods) and Highway Mixed Use or Business Park Commercial (larger highway -oriented retail). These existing sites in the future Community Commercial District are the more modernistic retail/commercial sites whereby the same CBD sign standards may not be appropriate. The proposed amendment has been drafted in such a way to create distinction. Finally, to repeat the above for clarity, this amendment only applies to a portion of commercial buildings. Primarily, this applies to the Central Business District and the Neighborhood Commercial District. It does not apply to other areas such as commercial sites along TH 36 or the Liberty Village site at Manning (County 15) and 75th Street (County 12). POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment to be satisfactory, it could recommend that the City Council adopt it. B. Table. If the Planning Commission would like additional information, it could table the review. C. Denial. If the Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment 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 the public welfare is furthered by its adoption. Attachments: Draft Sign Standards Zoning Map Proposed Sign Standards (CA, CBD and NC Districts) BLACK = Existing Adopted Guideline Proposed to be Converted to Standard RED = New Standard Signs The following standards are proposed to be added to the Sign Ordinance for the CA, CBD and NC Districts: General Regulations 1. Sign shapes shall be relatively simple and understandable to complement the architecture of buildings. 2. Signs shall not obscure architectural features of buildings, including openings. 3. Sign shall be used to display the primary name of the business only. 4. Use only one line of lettering, if possible. 5. Use simple, bold lettering with sufficient contrast between the lettering and the background. 6. Sign Lighting a. Indirect incandescent lighting shall be permitted. b. Place spotlights discreetly to shield from pedestrians and vehicular traffic. c. Neon lights are permitted in window signs only; design them with respect to historic ambiance. d. Backlit and internally lit signs are not permissible. Wall Signs 1. In the Central Business District, signs shall generally be constructed of the traditional materials used during the primary development period of downtown Stillwater buildings. If modern materials, such as acrylic, vinyl, or plastic, are used for signs, they shall be painted and simulate the texture and depth of traditional downtown sign materials, such as wood and metal. 2. In the Central Business District, three-dimensional letters/symbols, with at least one -quarter inch depth or revel, are required unless an approved sign plan permits otherwise. 3. If a signboard area exists on the building facade, a wall sign shall fit within this space and not extend above, below, or beyond the edges of the signboard area. 4. In the Central Business District, no part of any sign shall be placed higher than the height of the sills of the second story windows of a multi -story building. 5. Wall signs may not be directly painted onto historic masonry. Multi -tenant Wall Signs 1. Design the sign plan to emphasize the whole width and geometry of the building and individual storefronts and tenant spaces. 2. Placement of individual tenant signs shall be coordinated to achieve a unified signage appearance. Do not put up signs piecemeal. 3. Tenants and owners shall use a common lettering style and color scheme. 4. A sign shall not span across different buildings. 1 Free -Standing Signs 1. For all free-standing signs: a. Placement of individual tenant signs shall be coordinated to achieve a unified signage appearance. b. The area around a monument or freestanding sign must be landscaped. c. Externally illuminated letters are allowed, but no internally illuminated signs are allowed. d. Pedestrian and vehicular sight lines must not be blocked. 2. In the CA District: a. The area of a monument or freestanding sign may not exceed 30 square feet. b. A monument or freestanding sign may be located in any required yard but must have a setback of 15 feet from any point of vehicular access, public roadway and property line. c. A monument or freestanding sign may not project higher than six feet, as measured from the base of the sign or grade of the nearest roadway, whichever height is less. 3. In the CBD District: a. The area of a monument or freestanding sign may not exceed 15 square feet. b. A monument or freestanding sign may be located in a required yard but must be pedestrian in scale and does not block architecture features, including window and door openings. c. A monument or freestanding sign may not project higher than five feet, as measured from the base of the sign or grade of the nearest roadway, whichever height is less. d. Tenants and owners shall use a common lettering style and color scheme. Awning or Canopy Signs 1. Signage on awnings is permitted on the end panel or front valance only. Use lettering proportional to the space available. Projecting Signs 1. Projecting signs shall generally be oriented to visibility by pedestrians and small in size so that they do not obscure other signs, both projecting and wall signs. 2. No part of any sign shall be placed higher than the height of the sills of the second story windows of a multi -story building. 3. The mounting bracket for a projecting sign shall be a black metal material and designed as a decorative element of the sign that is complementary of the building's architectural style. Graphic Design Signs 1. Graphic design signs may only be placed on non-contributing buildings or portions of contributing buildings where historic brick does not exist. 2 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