Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-09-27 CPC Agenda Packet(Sillwiter 216 41h Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 0010"� 651-430-8800 The Birthplace of Minnesota www.stillwatermn.gov 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, 216 4th St N. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 27", 2023 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of August 23, 2023 regular meeting minutes. IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given S minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of allpublic testimony the Commission will close thepublic hearing and will deliberate and act on the proposed item. 1. Case No. CD 2023-54: Variance to Impervious Surface for the construction of an accessory building (detached garage) (Staff Reviewer, Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818) 2. Case No. CD 2022-19: Variance to Setbacks for Exterior Decks at Chapel Hill Flats (Landucci Construction) (Staff Reviewer, Tim Gladhill, 651-430-8821) 3. Case No. CD 2022-48: Ordinance Amendment of 31-514.1 Cannabis -related uses (Staff Reviewer, Tim Gladhill, 651-430-8821) VIII. DISCUSSION IX. FYI — STAFF UPDATES 4. Drive-thrus in the Neighborhood Commercial District X. ADJOURNMENT lllvvater THE lINTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 23, 2023 REGULAR MEETING Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 7:00 P.M. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Cox, Hoffman, North, Steinwall, Swanson, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: None Staff: Planning Manager Robinson, Assistant Planner Gutknecht APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of July 26. 2023 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Hoffman seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the July 26, 2023 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. CD 2023-40: Conditional Use Permit for Graphic Design Sign at 212 Main Street North (Candyland) - Continued from July 26, 2023 Planning Manager Robinson explained that the applicant, Candyland (Brandon Lamb), is seeking a retroactive Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Graphic Design Sign/Mural located in the alleyway (rear facade) of 212 Main Street North. The applicant installed the mural absent approvals in order to deter recurring unwanted graffiti. The mural is on a non -historic stucco surface, using paint as the medium, and it was installed by a local artist and employee of Candyland. The City Council recently discussed the City's existing framework for regulations and process related to Graphic Design Signs/Murals. The Council's direction requires amendments to City Code which will be completed after the 60-day deadline for this application, which must be processed under the existing process. The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) has approved the design and staff recommends approval with two conditions. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Planning Commission August 23, 2023 Councilmember Odebrecht voiced support for the applicant and the design, but pointed out that when people work outside the process, it makes it harder for the City to do things like Union Art Alley. Motion by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to adopt Resolution CPC 2023-22, Resolution Granting Conditional Use Permit Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Graphic Design Sign at 212 Main Street North (CD Case No. 2023-40). All in favor. Case No. CD 2023-41: Conditional Use Permit for Graphic Design Sign at 312 Main Street South (Nacho Mama's) - Continued from July 26, 2023 Ms. Robinson stated that the applicant, Nacho Mama's (Todd Neal) is seeking retroactive design approval for a Graphic Design Sign/Mural located on the rear facade of 312 Main Street South. The applicant installed the mural absent approvals in order to update a smaller graphic design sign/mural on the rear facade/outdoor patio. The mural is on non -historic block, using paint as the medium. As in the previous case, the City must process this application under existing regulations. The HPC approved the design and staff recommends approval with four conditions. Chairman Dybvig pointed out that the resolution mentions there cannot be business advertising, but the painting as shown includes the restaurant name. Ms. Robinson clarified that the mural currently has "Nacho Mama's" but the resolution states that the lettering must be removed. Staff agreed that removing the lettering would bring it into compliance. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Cox, to adopt Resolution CPC 2023-22, Resolution Granting Interim Use Permit Approval in the Downtown Design Review District for a Graphic Design Sign at 312 Main Street South (CD Case No. 2023-41). All in favor. Case No. CD 2023-42: Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Dwelling Unit at 205 Walnut Street East Assistant Planner Gutknecht explained that the applicant, Ian Elverum is seeking a CUP for the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). If approved the CUP would facilitate the removal of an existing accessory building and the construction of an 880 square foot accessory structure with a 700 square foot ADU on the second story. The lot is situated on the corner, with frontage off Second Street South and Walnut Street East. To the East and South are residential properties. The lot is approximately 22,191 square feet and contains a single-family dwelling constructed in 1865 and an accessory structure constructed in 1972, built to match the house. The City has recently adopted amended regulations pertaining to accessory structures and accessory dwelling units and this is the first application to come before the Planning Commission to test the new regulations. The proposed garage and ADU are compliant with the recently amended zoning regulations. While not required, the HPC reviewed and approved the design. The proposal complies with all massing standards outlined in the recently amended Accessory Dwelling Unit Performance Standards section of the Zoning Code. Staff recommends approval with two conditions. Page 2 of 3 Planning Commission August 23, 2023 Applicant Ian Elverum stated that he has worked with City staff to match the new accessory structure with the existing dwelling, similar to how the existing accessory structure does today. He will salvage and reuse materials as much as possible. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Steinwall thanked the applicant for going the extra mile to blend the proposed structure with the historic neighborhood. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to adopt Resolution PC 2023-21, Resolution Granting Approval for a Conditional Use Permit Allowing an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 205 Walnut Street East. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. DISCUSSION There were no discussion topics. FYI STAFF UPDATES The Commission thanked Planner Manager Robinson for her service to the City and wished her luck at her new job in St. Paul; and Ms. Robinson thanked the Commission for their support. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to adjourn the meeting at 7:22 p.m. All in favor. John Dybvig, Chair ATTEST: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Resolution CPC 2023-22, Resolution Granting Conditional Use Permit Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Graphic Design Sign at 212 Main Street North (CD Case No. 2023-40) Resolution CPC 2023-22, Resolution Granting Interim Use Permit Approval in the Downtown Design Review District for a Graphic Design Sign at 312 Main Street South (CD Case No. 2023-41) Resolution PC 2023-21, Resolution Granting Approval for a Conditional Use Permit Allowing an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 205 Walnut Street East Page 3 of 3 1 lwa t e r _ - HE B I R T H P L ACE 0 E MINNESOTA DATE: September 27, 2023 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Case No. 2023-54: Variance request to exceed the required structural impervious surface and facilitate construction of an accessory structure (detached garage) located at 617 Wilkins Street West. BACKGROUND The Applicant, Bryce Hanson and Representative, Dion Langness are seeking a Variance from the Planning Commission to permit the construction of a 576 square foot deck, a increasing the total structure impervious to 25.4% coverage. The project area is located at 617 Wilkins Street West (PID# 2803020210017) (the "Property") within the RB (two-family) zoning district. The property has frontage on Wilkins Street West and has residential neighbors in all cardinal directions. The project site is a 6,339 square foot residential lot which contains a one and a half story single-family dwelling built in 1876. Currently, the Property has an outdoor parking area with no garage. ANALYSIS The RB Two -Family Zoning District permits 25% maximum lot coverage for buildings and 25% maximum lot coverage for general impervious surfaces (driveways, walkways, etc.). Currently, the project site is at approximately 16.4% (1,037 square feet) coverage for structural impervious surface. The project site currently has approximately 548 square feet of remaining impervious surface in the structure category that could be used for a garage without the need for a variance. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow an additional 28 square feet for a two -stall garage that would also accommodate a full-size truck. The truck is required for the property owners' line of work. The proposed action seeks to allow the construction of a 576 square foot garage, compliant in regards to required setbacks. The addition of the proposed garage would increase the lot coverage for structures to approximately 25.4% (1,613 square feet), an increase of approximately 0.4%, where 25% (1,585 square feet) is required. Because the impervious surface coverage requested by the Applicant exceeds the 25% threshold regulated by City Code, a variance is required. Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462.357 requires that cities consider the following standards when considering a Variance. This is also known as the `practical difficulty' test. • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. • The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. FINDINGS: Variance to the Required 25% Structural Impervious Surface Requirement: A. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. i. Finding the request reasonable and note permitted by the zoning ordinance, at least as it relates to strict compliance of the plain language of the Zoning Code, is questionable. While the request conforms to all other dimensional standards, it is larger than what is permitted by code. On the face of the request, it is reasonable to request a garage for a property that does not have one but, staff have found that there is approximately 548 square feet that can be used to construct a garage compliantly without the need for a variance. B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. i. The property was platted in the late nineteenth century and the existing single-family dwelling was constructed prior to the current Property owners purchasing it. However, staff notes that the Planning Commission has found that this alone is not grounds to warrant a variance. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to the Applicant's desire for a larger garage than what is permitted via City Code to accommodate a vehicle required for their line of work. iii. While modest by comparison to new construction developments, Staff has found that a 548 square feet garage, permitted without the need for a variance is average for detached garages. C. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. I. Granting the variance to approve the construction of the proposed garage will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The garage will be situated in the side yard and situated near the rear of the property. This location deemphasizes the garage and complies with the zoning code. D. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. i. The request to construct a larger garage is not based on economic considerations. Staff believes that the plight of the landowner necessitating the variance does not meet the practical difficulty test nor is it unique in physical characteristics. The Property can support an approximate 548 square foot garage compliantly and while the request for a larger garage to accommodate a vehicle is reasonable, there is no clear practical difficulty necessitating this design. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the request in conformance to the City Code requirements for the issuance of a variance, it could approve the variance with (at least) the following conditions: 1. The proposed variance meets the practical difficulty test, as found in staff report 09/272023. 2. Plans shall be substantially like those found on file with Case CD2023-54, except as modified by the conditions herein. 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. The applicant shall work with the Middle St. Croix Watershed district to ensure compliance with any permitting requirements. 5. The applicant shall work with Building Department Staff to ensure a complete building permit is applied for. B. Table. If the Planning Commission finds the request to have insufficient information, the case could be tabled. C. Denial. If the Planning Commission finds the request to be inconsistent with City code, it could be denied. With a denial, the basis of the action would be: a. The practical difficulty necessitating a variance is created by the landowner, and the construction of a garage that complies with the City Code can be constructed without the need for a variance. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the plight outlined by the landowner that they would like to have a larger garage to accommodate a personal vehicle, this does not satisfy the required practical difficulty requirements. Staff recommends denial of this request. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to deny the Variance and adopt the Resolution adopting findings of denial for the Variance for Case No. 2023-54. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION PC 2023-24 RESOLUTION ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE STRUCTURAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 25% AT 617 WILKINS STREET WEST, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a Variance request from Bryce Hanson ("Property Owner") and Dion Langness (Representative) for property 617 Wilkins Street West, legally described on Exhibit A ("the Property") to allow for the construction of a 576 square foot accessory structure (detached garage), exceeding the maximum impervious surface for structures by 0.4%; WHEREAS, the maximum allowable structural impervious surface in the RB (Two -Family) district is 25%; and WHEREAS, the property is currently at 16.36% structural impervious surface and the Applicant has approximately 548 square feet available for the construction of structural impervious surface; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Variance at its September 27, 2023 meeting, held a public hearing, and following the hearing, determined that the Variance request did not meet the practical difficulties test and voted to deny the Variance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission now adopts this Resolution to support its findings for denial of the Variance. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater hereby adopts the following written findings for denial of the Variance request to exceed the maximum total structural impervious surface area of 25%: The requested Variance was not consistent with all the requirements for granting a Variance as described in City Code Section 31-208. Specifically, there are not unique circumstances on the Property necessitating a variance to the impervious surface. 1) The Property has sufficient space to accommodate a reasonably sized detached garage; and 2) There are no unique physical conditions that necessitate a larger detached garage; and 3) The Property Owner simply wants a larger detached garage than allowed by City Code. Adopted by the City Planning Commission this 27t" day of September, 2023. CITY OF STILLWATER John Dybvig, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director N EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Applicant's Property Abstract Property Parcel ID: 28-030-20-21-0017 Situs Address: 617 Wilkins Street West The West 65 feet of the East 75 feet of Lot 2, the North 50 feet of the East one- half of Lot 4, and the North 50 feet of the West 40 feet of Lot 5, all in Block 4, of Staples and May's Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota A-1 L■ �, low Mr, Lei Variance Request — 617 Wilkins Street W, Stillwater, MN The subject property, 617 Wilkins Street W (the "Property") is zoned RB two-family district, governed by Sec. 31-308. It is a legally non -conforming lot. Upon discussing and reviewing proposed plans for the construction of detached garage with planning department personnel, it was realized that the remaining available buildable square footage for impervious surface is 28 square feet less than what is need for the proposed garage, and a variance is required. As shown on the plans, the proposed garage is 24x24, which is 576 square feet. Under Sec. 31-308, 25% of the Property may be covered with structural impervious. The Property is 6,339 square feet. 25% of 6,339 is 1,585 square feet of structural impervious. There is currently 1,037 square feet of existing structural impervious. The available impervious is 548 square feet. Applicant is seeking a variance for the 28 additional feet necessary to construct the garage. The proposed detached garage is 24x24 as this size of a garage is necessary to accommodate a full size truck that the homeowner/applicant uses in his line of work. He is in the construction industry. The proposed use of the space is a permissible use withing the zoning classification. As a result of the age of the plat of the Property and evolution of zoning standards over time, the result is a smaller lot size that does not practically conform to the standards set forth in the applicable zoning regulations. The request is to permit a minor adjustment to the zoning regulations to allow for the special circumstance, the non -conforming size of the Property. As can be seen from the proposed plans, there is ample room on the Property to accommodate the garage as proposed without concern to meet setback. The Property will be improved with the addition of a garage by creating an aesthetic balance and a better use of the space. As detailed below, the Property and variance request meet the standards and conditions: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. A garage is a permitted use and today homeowners desire a garage. The addition of the garage will not negatively impact the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the community. Although in the RB two-family district, the Property is non-contributing, as that term is used in Section 22-71 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. As detailed in the comprehensive plan, it seeks to ensure the community characteristics continue to be assets and recognizes 1 Non-contributing means a designation applied to a building, structure or site that does not have architectural or historic significance, and does not add to the overall character and significance of an historic district, due to a lack of architectural or historical integrity or its incompatibility with other buildings, structures and sites. Non-contributing buildings can include, but not be limited to, those with incompatible additions or exterior alterations, have lost original integrity, or are outside a district's period of significance. the opportunities to build a stronger community. Approval of the requested variance improves the Property in a way that creates appeal for the Property, not only the current, but also future homeowners. It creates a place people want to live by adding a desired improvement. 3. There are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. a. The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls, namely the impervious surface limitation. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner. The need for a variance is due to the nonconforming size of the Property that is the result of its historic origins, which has not been caused by the applicant. The construction of the garage with gutters will allow for better control of runoff by directing the water to the backyard of the Property, which offers ample permeable surface whereas now, the use of the Property without a garage, the runoff flows down the driveway to the street and storm drain. This uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is, to the land and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. While planning staff have suggested the solution is to build a smaller garage, this option is not a viable alternative for the property owner. A smaller garage does not accommodate the needs of the homeowner and the size of the Property remains a practical difficulty because the lot is nonconforming, which is of no fault or cause by the homeowner. While it may not be a topographic difficulty in terms of slope or width, it is a topographic hardship because of its non- conforming size. At the time of the plat of the Property, there wasn't a need or concern for vehicle storage as there is today. As evidenced by the zoning code, a lot of this size is not permitted today because it does not accommodate the needs of homeowners. It is a real -life, practical difficulty if a vehicle cannot fit into the garage. If the lot was conforming, this variance request would not be necessary. This again reinforces the practical difficulty of the non -conforming size of the lot. c. If the variance is granted, it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed structure has been designed to match the house in pitch and will be painted the same. The garage will be set back on the Property as required so that the house is the prominent feature of the Property. As noted above, the home on the Property is non-contributing. Additionally, there are no historic homes on either side, behind, or across the street from the Property. In an effort to reconcile the request against planning staffs recommendation, as set forth in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, a variance could be imposed with conditions. For example, there is a small storage shed located on the Property that the applicant would be agreeable to removing. Fe( Measurement Result G Z LLJ W CL' Vj i Q J J From the easterly corner of the house to the property line is approximately 35.7 feet subject property 617 Wilkins 1 35.7 Feet Measurem, 14.2 Feet I From property line to neighbor's house is approximately 14.2 feet. __ I Po � 04 -------WOW - 24 E Garage IMENXR�S] Design&Buy GARAGE How to recall and purchase your design at home: How to purchase your design at the store: 1. On Menards.com, enter "Design & Buy" in the search bar 1. Enter Design ID: 312959021769 at the Design -It Center Kiosk in the 2. Select the Garage Designer 3. Recall your design by entering Design ID: 312959021769 Building Materials Department 4. Follow the on -screen purchasing instructions 2 Follow the on -screen purchasing instructions a. Garage Image 24' For other design systems search "Design & Buy" on Menards.com about:blank 1/7 Garage Dimensions Design&Buy- GARAGE Wall Configurations 'Some items like wainscot, gutter, gable accents, are not displayed if selected. 24' ENDWALL B 6 y SIDEWALL C Mastercrafi8treg; 36W x 80H Primed Steel 6-Panel For other design systems search "Design & Buy" on Menards.com 24' SIDEWALL D 3' 18, 3' ENDWALL A Ideal Door8treg; Commercial 18' x 8' White Insulated Garage Door about:blank 3/7 �1 W THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNES O 7 A DATE: September 27, 2023 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CD Case No. 2022-19: Request for Variance to Yard Setbacks for Chapel Hill Flats Proposed Balconies located at 107 3rd St S; Case of Landucci Construction BACKGROUND The Planning Commission has previously approved a Conditional Use Permit for this use. The Applicant now desires to add balconies to the proposed design. Focusing solely through a design lens, the Heritage Preservation Commission approved the revised design. However, this does require the issuance of a Variance to setbacks from the Planning Commission. The Subject Property is located within the following Zoning Districts. • CBD: Central Business District (Primary/Underlying Zoning District) • Central Business District Height Overlay District • Downtown Design Review District The Applicant is seeking to introduce balconies projecting from the exterior walls on three (3) sides of the building (3rd Street/Front, North Fagade/Side Interior, East Fagade/Rear). There would be no projections on the Myrtle Street Fagade (side corner). Staff has reviewed this inquiry with the City Attorney on multiple occasions over the past year. It is the City Attorney's legal opinion that these balconies must meet the minimum required yard setbacks and are not allowed as a projection into required yard areas per City Code Section 31-514 (Miscellaneous residential and non-residential performance standards). Even if these balconies were allowed as a projection into yard areas per this section of City Code, this provision only allows a projection of three (3) feet, where the Applicant is seeking a five (5) foot projection. In order to grant a Variance, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462.357 requires that the City find that the Applicant establishes a `Practical Difficulty" in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. In order to meet the Practical Difficulty Test, the Applicant must demonstrate the following. • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance • The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties Additionally, the City shall find that the Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinances and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, arguably, the proposal may not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The Applicant has more than maximized development potential of the site (due to the existence of an existing parking agreement with the City that allowed additional height/units by relying on off -site parking). There are other reasonable solutions to allow for balconies, most notably recessed balconies similar to nearby examples. That said, from a design standpoint, the Heritage Preservation Commission believes that, despite the Variance, the introduction of balconies will improve the design of the proposed building. FINDINGS The Planning Commission has the following alternatives to consider. 1. Approve as presented, with the following findings and conditions a. Findings i. The Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan ii. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance iii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner iv. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality v. Economic considerations alone do not constitute the practical difficulties b. Conditions i. Plans shall be consistent with those included in this report. ii. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Department. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Approve as amended (based on discussion) 3. Deny a. If the Commission finds that the Applicant has not established a practical difficulty, then the Commission may deny the request and shall adopt written findings of fact i. The Variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and is not consistent with the comprehensive plan ii. The property owner does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance iii. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property and is due to plight created by the landowner iv. The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality v. In this proposal, economic considerations alone do constitute the practical difficulties b. A revised resolution adopting written findings of fact to support the denial will be forwarded to the Planning Commission at its next meeting in this scenario. 4. Table for further information ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt resolution approving the Variance, including findings and conditions, to Yard Setbacks for Balconies at 107 3rd St N. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION PC 2023- RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE TO YARD SETBACKS FOR EXTERIOR BALCONIES AT 107 3RD ST N WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a variance application from Landucci Construction ("Applicant"), located 107 3rd St N, legally described as in Exhibit A (the "Property"),; and WHEREAS, the on September 27, 2023, the Planning Commission for the City of Stillwater considered the request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater hereby approves the variance to yard setbacks for exterior balconies. The approval of the variance is based on the following findings and conditions of approval. FINDINGS 1. The Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan 2. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance 3. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner 4. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality 5. Economic considerations alone do not constitute the practical difficulties CONDITIONS 1. Plans shall be consistent with those included in this report and as shown in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 2. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Department. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Variance approval does not constitute final approval. The Applicant must secure proper permits and approvals from the City. Adopted by the Heritage Preservation Commission this 27t" day of September, 2023. CITY OF STILLWATER John Dybvig, Heritage Preservation Commission Chair ATTEST: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Applicant's Property Parcel A (PID: 2803020420060): West 90 feet of Lot 15, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel B (PID: 2803020420061): West 90 feet of Lot 14, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel C (PID: 2803020420059): The South 45 feet of the West 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel D (PID: 2803020420169): The North 5 feet of the West 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Exhibit B Site Plan/Survey vAVlM N ms SYMBGL LEGEW Y.Es 0 I., . 4 ; jo End ff- sett. y _Ind I �^If got", �,I Ewa ter_ The Birthplace of Minnesota N W*E S Site Location 1073rdStN 0 60 120 General Site Location 240 Feet n � � PAVING NOTES 1. All street patches shall match existing grade and be within 1/4-inch of the existing pavement thickness. 2. Concrete joints are shown for general reference only to signify new light -duty and/or heavy-duty concrete pavement. Actual joints shall be constructed per the project specifications. KEY NOTES ONEW B612 CONCRETE CURB, SEE DETAIL SYMBOL LEGEND HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK SEE DETAIL HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE SEE DETAIL NEW STOOP/APRON SEE STRUCTURAL/ARCHITECTURAL I I I I GAS GAS NORTH 0 5 10 20 a) o� r ;v LO 6 .,LOIt 27) Z T -0 0 CD O IL 0 ) c J O (14 a U c 1 J m Co C VI W � C � L Jw M3L(ro) J M N 0 N O Z ■ W W 13 Cl Z Q F 1 ' Z W a O J ■ W W i J Q Z W U W M J Cl U W F .0 O U U N 00 O U) L0 z Q � � J LL z W J w Q _ � J J W z Q Q U) 2 0 U M iv o U � A) O ^L LL I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. -7--1_ QP40- Date: 08.24.23 Lic. No.: 53681 v. Date Description F Project #: 12226171.000 Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 08.24.23 Sheet Title: PAVING PLAN Sheet: BALCONIES: 10"-0"x5'-0" (ARCHITECTURAL PLEASING ADDS FACETS TO BUILDING) RAILINGS BLOCKING DOORS (ARCHITECTURAL BORING) BALCONIES: 10"-0"x5'-0" (ARCHITECTURAL PLEASING ADDS FACETS TO BUILDING) RAILINGS BLOCKING DOORS (ARCHITECTURAL BORING) BALCONIES: 10"-0"x5'-0" RAILINGS BLOCKING DOORS (ARCHITECTURAL PLEASING (ARCHITECTURAL BORING) ADDS FACETS TO BUILDING) BALCONIES: 10"-0"x5'-0" (ARCHITECTURAL PLEASING ADDS FACETS TO BUILDING) RAILINGS BLOCKING DOORS (ARCHITECTURAL BORING) 1 ater T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M I N N E S O T A DATE: September 27, 2023 TO: Stillwater Planning Commission FROM: Kori Land, City Attorney SUBJECT: CBD Beverages Ordinance Amendment BACKGROUND In November of 2022, the City Council enacted regulations surrounding CBD uses. While the legislature recently legalized adult -use cannabis, the Office of Cannabis Management, which will regulate such uses, will not be ready to approve or license cannabis businesses until approximately January of 2025. Until then, the City's ordinances still apply and CBD businesses are only allowed to sell CBD products pursuant to our ordinances and adult use cannabis businesses are illegal. We currently have 3 CBD businesses: two CBD retail licenses in the Business Park, as well as one license for a grandfathered location downtown, for a total of 3 CBD retail licenses. Under our ordinance, sales of CBD products are prohibited at liquor stores and at on -sale liquor establishments, so they are sold at tobacco stores and at one exclusive CBD store. We also prohibit manufacturing of CBD products in the City. We have recently had a request from Lift Bridge Brewery to allow manufacturing and sale of CBD-infused beverages, which would require an amendment to our CBD. We also had requests from Cub Liquor and Liberty Village Wine & Spirits to sell CBD-infused beverages. CBD-infused beverages have become quite popular since the 2022 legislation. There are two provisions regarding CBD-infused beverages in our ordinance that require the Planning Commission's consideration: 1. Sale of CBD-infused beverages at liquor stores: Our ordinance prohibits such sales at liquor stores due to a prior opinion by the Alcohol Gambling Enforcement Division of the State which said these products could not be sold at liquor stores because they were considered a "food." Under the new law, CBD-infused beverages are legal at off -sale liquor stores. The Council recently discussed allowing THC beverages at liquor stores and supports such sales. 2. Manufacturing of CBD-infused beverages: Due to the relatively small industrial park in the City, the Council determined last year that manufacturing of CBD products is prohibited. There are certain nuisance factors, including noise and odor that manufacturing from seed to product produces. With the CBD beverages, however, the manufacturing is not typically produced from seed to product, but instead, the manufacturers, such as breweries, purchase the THC in a liquid from and mix it with various seltzers to produce the THC-infused beverages. This type of manufacturing is less of a nuisance concern and after some discussion, the Council supported allowing the manufacturing of CBD beverages at breweries and distilleries as an accessory use. The Council is still taking a cautionary approach to the idea of allowing manufacturing of CBD products at this time and believed that allowing these CBD-infused beverages to be manufactured at facilities that already produce intoxicating beverages was a reasonable extension of their business and product lines. They do not want to allow it as a primary use, so it would be allowed only as an accessory use at breweries and distilleries. The zoning ordinance amendment attached allows manufacturing of THC-infused beverages as an accessory use at breweries and distilleries and allows the sale of THC- infused beverages at off -sale liquor establishments. The attached zoning maps shows where CBD products can be sold BP-C, BP-O, BP-1 (see zoning map — areas shown in purple, light blue and gray) and the second map shows where the existing breweries, distilleries and liquor stores are located. ACTION REQUESTED Consider the ordinance amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council K ZONING MAP Legend QBuffers in Business Park District ® CCR Cove Cottage Residential - CA: General Commercial ZOn lflg_2022 O RB: Two -Family Residential BPC: Business Park - Commercial District ®CR:Cottage Residential BPO Business Park - Office AP. Agricultural Preservation TH: Townhouse Residential BPI. Business Park - Industrial ® RR: Rural Residential ® CTHR. Cove Townhouse Residential - CRD: Campus Research District ® LR: Lakeshore Residential - RCM: Medium -Density Mutiple-Family Residential ® HMU: Highway Mixed Use ® CTR: Cove Traditional Residential RICH: High -Density Multiple -Family Residential - PA. Public Administrative Offices RA: One -Family Residential CBD: Central Business District ® PVVF: Public Works Faality TR: Traditional Residenbal - VC: village Commercial - PROS Park, Recreation, or Open Space EXISTING OFF -SALE, BREWERIES/DISTILLERIES AND CBD RETAIL - _ -*73 Aim h .. Green dots = Exclusive Off -sale Liquor Stores FM dots = Breweries/Distilleries Purple dots = Licensed CBD retailers Below is a list of license off -sale, distilleries and breweries that correspond to the green and pink dots Licensee Name Doing Business As Service Address Notes Northern Spirits Stillwater LLC Cellars Wine & Spirits 1920 Market Dr Liquor store SuperValu Inc. Cub Wine and Spirits #1664 1801 Market Dr Liquor store Haskells Inc. Haskells 2225 Curve Crest Blvd Liquor store Liberty Village Wine and Spirits, Inc. Liberty Village Wine and Spirits 105 New England PI, Ste 160 Liquor store North Hill Liquor Ltd. North Hill Liquor 515 Owens St N Liquor store O'Brien Wine & Spirits O'Brien Wine & Spirits 118 Chestnut St E Liquor store Mistral Wine LLC So What Wine 823 4th St S, Ste 200 Liquor store Forge and Foundry Distillery Company Forge and Foundry Distillery 223 Main St N Distillery 45th Parallel Spirits LLC 45th Parallel Spirits LLC 228 Water Street S Distillery Lift Bridge Brewing Technologies, LLC Lift Bridge Brewing Company 1900 Tower Dr Brewery River Siren Brewing Company LLC River Siren Brewing Company 227 Main St N Brewery rd City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 31, SECTION 31-514.1 REGARDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CANNABIS -RELATED USES The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: SECTION 1 AMENDMENT. Chapter31, Article V, Division 2, Section 31-514.1 subd. 3, 4 and 5 are hereby amended as follows: Sec. 31-514.1 Cannabis -Related Uses Subd. 4. Except as provided in Subd. 6, The the sale of CBD products shall comply with the following performance standards: (1) Only CBD retail establishments -intoxicating are allowed to sell, display, or provide intoxicating CBD products. (2) All CBD retail establishments —intoxicating shall have a security plan stating how the facility will address public health, welfare and safety concerns including, but not limited to: parking, traffic flow, security, fencing, lighting, window and door placement, landscaping, and hours of operation that is approved by the Police Chief; (3) No CBD retail establishment —intoxicating shall have a drive -through, walk-up window service, sidewalk displays, sales or outdoor storage or sandwich board signs; (4) There must be at least 1,000 feet between all CBD retail establishments (intoxicating and non -intoxicating); (5) All CBD retail establishments (intoxicating and non -intoxicating) shall be located at least 500 feet from any school when measured in a straight line from the edge of the building wall or tenant wall space in which the establishment is located to the property line of the school or licensed day care facility; (6) CBD incidental sales of non -intoxicating CBD products are permitted in any non- residential district. Subd. 5. The following cannabis uses are prohibited within the City: (1) CBD products that contain more than .3 percent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). (2) Medical cannabis manufacturing. (3) Hemp or intoxicating CBD manufacturing as a primary use in all zoning districts. Specifically, the manufacturing of cannabis products that includes extracting the THC from the cannabis plant is prohibited. Manufacturing of intoxicating CBD beverages is allowed as an accessory use only at breweries and distilleries, as long as the manufacturing process for the beverages does not involve the cannabis plant. Subd. 6. Exceptions. The sale of intoxicating CBD beverages that comply with subd. 5(1)Formatted: Heading 3, Indent: Left: is allowed at exclusive liquor stores and at breweries and distilleries that manufacture their own CBD beverages on -site. The sale of CBD beverages in appropriate packaging are exempt from the provisions of Subdivision 4. No on -site consumption is allowed at breweries and distilleries without a license from the Office of Cannabis Management. SECTION 2 SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance: The ordinance amendment allows manufacturing of CBD-infused beverages as an accessory use at breweries and distilleries and allows the sale of CBD-infused beverages at off -sale liquor establishments. SECTION 3 INTERIM ORDINANCE STILL IN EFFECT. This ordinance amendment is solely limited to the allowance of THC-infused beverages containing less than 0.3% THC and does not terminate the interim ordinance that was adopted on August 2, 2023, which is still in force and effect. SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this day of , 2023. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk