The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-06-26 CPC Agenda PacketI( Iwa ter 216 41h Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 The Birthplace of Minnesota www.stillwatermn.gov AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 2024 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of May 22, 2024 regular meeting minutes. IV. OPEN FORUM - Open Forum allows the public to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or give direction to staff. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA — these items are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. Anyone may request an item to be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 2. Case No. CD2024-020: Findings of Fact for Denial of Variance to Maximum Lot Coverage for Proposed Pool at 3085 Lowell Ct (Staff Reviewer: Katriona Molasky, 651-430-8822, kmolasky(a-_)stillwatermn.gov) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 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. 3. Case No. CD2024-029: Variance to Maximum Lot Coverage for Proposed Deck at 3311 Millbrook Cir (Staff Reviewer: Katriona Molasky, 651-430-8822, kmolasky(a-)_stillwatermn.gov) Vill. NEW BUSINESS 4. Zoning Code and Subdivision Code Amendment — Allowable Uses and District Standards (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818, bgutknecht(a�stillwatermn.gov) IX. DISCUSSION X. FYI — STAFF UPDATES XI. ADJOURNMENT WORKSHOP Immediately Following Regular Meeting The Workshop will not be televised. XII. CALL TO ORDER XIII. ROLL CALL XIV. OTHER BUSINESS 5. Planning Commission Work Plan Development (499ateir THE lINTNELACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 22, 2024 WORKSHOP MEETING Chairman Dybvig called the workshop to order at 5:35 p.m. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Cox, Hoffman, North, Steinwall, Swanson, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill OTHER BUSINESS Planning Commission Work Plan Development Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the draft Purpose Statement and Vision Statement developed April 17. He explained that this workshop is Part 2 of the process designed to lay the foundation for an Annual Work Plan. Planning Commission Purpose Statement draft Mr. Gladhill reviewed the proposed draft Purpose Statement, based on previous Commission input: "The Planning Commission helps guide and communicate the future vision of the community. It provides the voice of the community on important land use topics, ensuring a diverse set of voices have an opportunity to be heard. It ensures a safe, healthy, and vibrant community through the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code." He added that a Commissioner suggested the following version: "Through diligent oversight of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code [added by staff: and open communication], we commit to maintaining a safe, healthy, and vibrant community for everyone." He asked for feedback on these two versions. After discussion, the Commission agreed on: "Through diligent oversight of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, and listening to the voice of the community, we commit to maintaining a safe, healthy and vibrant community for everyone." Planning Commission Vision Statement draft Mr. Gladhill shared the draft Vision Statement created by staff based on April 17 Commission discussion: "The Planning Commission envisions a community that accelerates housing supply, retains and expands employment opportunities, and improves community accessibility that meets the community's diverse needs. It strives to strike a balance between historic preservation and economic growth. The Commission also acknowledges a need to increase focus on community sustainability and transparency." He asked for feedback. After discussion, the consensus of the Commission was: "The Planning Commission envisions a community that focuses on housing needs, employment opportunities, and a diverse community. We support historic preservation, economic growth, and environmental sustainability." Strategies Planning Commission May 22, 2024 Mr. Gladhill led an exercise asking each Commission to define potential Planning Commission strategies. Commissioner North: housing opportunities, intentionally diverse appointments to Commissions, multi -jurisdictional cooperation - for example along Highway 36, maintaining a focus on riverfront Commissioner Swanson: partnership with other communities, downtown focus, continue with zoning updates, eliminate or reduce redundancy in processes Commissioner Hoffman: continue to streamline code, housing incentives, pursue grants year- round for wintertime events, support transportation policies that improve options for the community Commissioner Steinwall: incorporate environmental provisions into the planning process in conjunction with Zoning Code updates, drill down on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code update, support developing policy statements and a housing plan, seek diversity in community participation on Commissions Councilmember Odebrecht: the City Council should use the Comprehensive Plan more, proactively seek diversities, do something with industrial park (make it more attractive via code), diversify tax base Chairman Dybvig: preemptive housing, encourage housing projects, diversity on advisory committees, historic preservation equals sustainability, figure out how to do more neighborhood commercial, get more density into the Zoning Code Commissioner Cox: proactive housing opportunities, making the community attractive to developers, seeking grant money available or other ways to sweeten the deal, think proactively regarding commercial development Commissioner Swanson added: use more tax increment financing when applicable Mr. Gladhill pointed out the City has an Economic Development Authority (EDA) that also has the powers of a housing/redevelopment authority. The Council serves as the EDA. Commissioner Steinwall suggested consideration of creating an advisory group to provide input on housing needs. Mr. Gladhill summarized: 1) housing 2) riverfront/environmental sustainability, and within that is historic preservation 3) economic development plan or strategy including industrial/job growth and neighborhood commercial growth. Also, focus on Zoning Code update, streamlining and removing redundancy, partnership with other jurisdictions, a Comp Plan deep dive, focus on diversity in Commissions. Councilmember Odebrecht described an exercise that could be done using coins, each with an assigned cost, to symbolize items on the "wish list." Chairman Dybvig recommended the Commissioners all read the Comprehensive Plan before the next meeting. The workshop was recessed at 6:34 p.m. RECESS REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Page 2 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Cox, Hoffman, North, Steinwall, Swanson, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill, Planning Manager Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner Molasky ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to nominate Dybvig and Steinwall to continue as Chair and Vice Chair. All in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of April 24, 2024 workshop and regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2024 workshop and regular meeting. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Hoffman abstaining. OPEN FORUM Marie Liberda, 1020 Nena Drive, spoke of the need for homeless services and asked that the Planning Commission support the proposed Emergency Housing Services Building. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Dybvig explained the procedure for public hearings. Case No. CD2024-021: Interim Use Permit (renewal of previous approvals) for Mobile Food Unit for Gloria's to Go Planning Manager Gutknecht explained that applicant Cory Buettner is seeking an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for seasonal outdoor seasonal food vending located at 127 Main Street South, Leo's Grill and Malt Shop. The applicant has been operating the proposed food vending in some capacity since 2020, and has been operating "Gloria's To Go" since 2021. Due to a change in Code, the applicant is now required to obtain an Interim Use Permit. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution Approving an Interim Use Permit for the Placement of a Seasonal Food Vending Trailer at 127 Main Street South (Leo's Grill & Malt Shop) (Case No. CD2024-021). All in favor. Case No. CD2024-004: Zoning Amendment, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for Washington County Emergency Housing Services Building Mr. Gladhill explained that the City has received multiple applications regarding the Washington County Emergency Housing Services Building (EHSB). The proposal is for a 30 Page 3 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 Unit Medium Density Residential Building. Zoning approvals necessary for this project include: Zoning Map Amendment and Lot Line Adjustment (for one small `infill 'parcel); Conditional Use Permit (for the overall use); Planned Unit Development Amendment (to amend the overall master plan for the Washington County Government Center Campus); Site Plan Review (for compliance with Zoning Code Massing Standards). The proposed building would be added to the existing campus, with shared parking facilities in addition to new parking constructed as part of this project. He added that the scope of the Planning Commission review is limited to conformance with the City's Zoning Code; discussion on the needs, merits, funding and operation of this proposed use is outside the scope of the Planning Commission's review. Staff recommends approval of the zoning requests. Kristen Scobie, Assistant Director of Community Development with the Washington County Community Development Agency, offered to answer questions. Councilmember Odebrecht asked what was the Washington County reaction to the conditions requested by the City of Oak Park Heights. Ms. Scobie answered that the County finds the conditions are reasonable and consistent with expectations for parking access and utility access. Regarding the suggested condition on the number of beds, the proposal is for 30 sleeping rooms which meets the anticipated need; Washington County does not anticipate adding beds in the future. Councilmember Odebrecht asked Mr. Gladhill to confirm that the proposed conditions covering parking, the review of an Oak Park Heights engineer for utilities, and future expansion are redundant to the City of Stillwater's normal process. Mr. Gladhill said yes, current code has a provision that if an expansion is minor enough it can be approved at the staff level. If the City of Stillwater wishes to require that any expansion require a public hearing, it can be put in as a condition. Staff recommends following the standard process, allowing minor expansions to be approved by staff. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Gretchen Rugg, 15143 Upper 61st St directly east of the Government Center, voiced concern that there is not a gate or fence between the neighborhood and the business to provide a boundary for the residents. Renae Oswald Anderson, 7789 Manning Ave N, provided statistics on the need for homeless housing in Washington County and urged the Commission to support the CUP. Eliza Chlebeck, Vice Chair of Valley Outreach and VP of Communications and Community for Andersen Corporation and a Stillwater resident, spoke in support of the project. Diane Berlin, a resident of St. Croix Villa townhouses directly behind the site, said 25 of the 30 Villa residents are seniors; they are scared because they will have no protection from EHSB residents coming into their area out of curiosity. They need a fence. They also are very concerned about property values. Katherine Noble, 6120 Oxboro Ave N, Oak Park Heights apartments, said she uses the footpaths around the campus and has no problem with the proposal. She does not think it will make a huge impact in the neighborhood; she looks forward to welcoming people who need housing. Blake Van Denburgh, 15169 64th St N, Oak Park Heights, also part of the Oak Park Heights Planning Commission, said he is concerned about the traffic study released today showing a Page 4 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 24% increase in traffic on Oxboro and 11% increase on 62nd St. There are small children in these communities and the increased traffic flow will cause an impact. He also is concerned about wetlands and would like the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to review the proposal for potential problems. He also is concerned about setbacks, which theoretically meet Stillwater regulations but should be re-evaluated because Highway 36 is down a steeply sloped hill. He shared concern about population changes and people walking around the neighborhood. He said all but one person who lives in a 5-mile radius of the site has said they don't want it. He does not support the proposal and feels it needs more evaluation by the City. Jeff Anderson, 932 4th Ave S, said he is in favor of the project and respects the work done by the City, County and staff to ensure all requirements are met. Chairman Dybvig asked Mr. Gladhill to respond to questions raised during the public hearing. Mr. Gladhill said he doesn't believe that a gate or physical barrier is planned to close off the trail. The proposal meets stormwater and wetland requirements and the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization did a robust review of the stormwater pond and the steep slopes that go down to Highway 36. The project meets steep slope setbacks and does not require DNR approval or any further wetland review. Denise Thompson, St. Croix Villa, echoed Ms. Rugg's concern about boundaries. She stated at an earlier meeting, she was assured that there would be a perimeter boundary. Ms. Scobie stated at this point they don't intend to make a connection to the existing trail running along the east side and do not intend to extend that to the west to connect with other portions of the trail along the Government Center. There will be perimeter fencing encompassing the entire north section of the parcel, which is green space, and extending to the south with an emergency egress per law. The very steep slope would make it difficult for people to make their way down to the trail. Councilmember Odebrecht pointed out the close proximity of the sheriff's office, and said he does not know how to put this facility any closer to police. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. He noted that his wife submitted a letter of support from Valley Outreach, but they have not had any substantive discussion and have no financial interest. Therefore he does not feel obligated to recuse himself from the deliberation. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht to recommend that the Stillwater City Council approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, the Planned Unit Development Amendment, the Consolidation of Parcels, the Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Use, and the Site Plan to Facilitate an Emergency Housing Services Building at 14949 62nd St N (Washington County Government Center), with one of the Oak Park Heights -recommended conditions modified: he does not feel it is the City's position to dictate staffing (24/7), and believes that a staffing plan deemed adequate by the City is enough at this point. Mr. Gladhill said City staff would support removal of that condition if desired. Councilmember Odebrecht changed his motion and moved to approve with the two Stillwater staff -recommended conditions but without any of the four Oak Park Heights -recommended conditions, as he feels they are redundant. Commissioner Steinwall seconded the motion with Councilmember Odebrecht's friendly amendment. Page 5 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 Mr. Gladhill pointed out that the first of two readings for the zoning map amendment for the infill parcel annexed in 2019 will be held by the City Council on June 4; it will not be full project review nor approval. The final action to be considered by the Council is expected to be June 18. Councilmember Odebrecht commented that he has a loved one who has needed the support of his community; a community can be judged best by how they treat the least. Commissioner North echoed the comment, adding that he appreciates some of the conditions suggested but he agrees that they don't fall under purview of the Planning Commission. All in favor. Case No. CD2024-017: Variance to Maximum Lot Coverage for Proposed Deck at 3060 White Pine Way Planning Manager Molasky stated that applicants Samuel and Allison Berndt are seeking a Variance for construction of a deck that would increase the lot's total impervious surface over the allowed 25%. The project site is a 12,305 square foot residential lot which contains a two- story single-family dwelling and an attached garage built in 2011. The home has a back doorway leading to nowhere, indicating a future deck was part of the final construction plans. The proposed 544 square foot deck would be located behind the house; it would increase the lot coverage to approximately 29.6% (3,642 square feet) necessitating a variance. At the time of construction a deck was not considered impervious surface coverage and would not have needed a variance. Based on the plight outlined by the landowner that their home was built to accommodate a deck but they cannot build due to a change in impervious surface interpretation, staff believes this satisfies the required practical difficulty requirements. Letters of support were received from two neighbors. Staff recommends approval of this request. Allison Berndt, applicant, added that without a deck, the rear door would not be useable for escape in the event of a fire. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to adopt Resolution 2024-PC 2024-02, Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Structural Impervious Surface of 25% at 3060 White Pine Way (Case Number CD2024-017). Commissioner Cox asked for clarification on requirements, noting two different coverage percentages of 50% and 25% in the staff report. Ms. Molasky explained the shoreland management overlay district restricts coverage to 25% while the entire Millbrook development carried a 50% threshold; the entire development is not within the shoreland management overlay district. All in favor. Case No. CD2024-016: Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Commercial Recreation (Fitness Center) in the Central Business District at 107 Chestnut St E (Historic Armory Building Mr. Gutknecht explained that the owner requests a Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Commercial Recreation for a proposed tenant to operate a fitness center in the basement level. There are no exterior modifications or expansion planned. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Steinwall asked if the Commission should be concerned about parking, and Mr. Gladhill answered no. The downtown parking system has evolved and the City has moved Page 6 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 away from the old way of doing parking mitigation with fees. The City does not put the parking burden on existing buildings any longer. Parking here is considered compliant because it is in the downtown district. There is some parking on the east side of the building and an enclosed parking garage nearby. Matthew Wolf, one of owners and part of the group that purchased the property in 2018, explained that when it was redeveloped, a parking study was done looking at availability of parking in the area. The resident parking is self contained on site. At that time the need was deemed to be 45.33 spaces as determined by City's code. Currently the office tenant is using about 15 of that capacity and the rest of the parking is not used. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Commercial Recreation located at 107 Chestnut Street East (Case No. CD2024-016). All in favor. Case No. CD2024-018: Variance to Front Yard Setback to Facilitate Accessibility Improvements at 522 4th St S Planning Manager Molasky explained that applicant Wally Nelson on behalf of Simonet Building LLC is seeking a Variance to the front yard setback to permit the construction of a vestibule and accessible entrance on Walnut Street West. The project also includes a general renovation of the exterior of the building, including new roof, siding, windows, doors, and faux stone. This was approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission on May 15, 2024. Staff recommends approval. Wally Nelson, applicant, said the project will update a building that was built in the 50s and provides office space for several users. An ADA compliant bathroom was previously added but it would be impossible to get inside the building with a wheelchair. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to adopt Resolution PC 2024-03, Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Build in Front Yard Setback at 522 4th Street South (Case Number CD2024-018). All in favor. Case No. CD2024-019: Variance to Maximum Lot Coverage for Proposed Deck at 3480 87th St N Planning Manager Molasky stated that applicant Richard L. Beard Sr. is seeking a Variance to exceed the 35% allowed impervious surface coverage and permit the construction of an approximately 128 square foot deck. The project site is a 9,152 square foot residential lot which contains a single -story single-family dwelling and an attached garage built in 2020. The home was built with a door to a small stairway leading to the backyard. The addition of the deck would increase the lot coverage to approximately 36% (3,319 square feet), an increase of approximately 1%. Based on the plight outlined by the landowner that they would like to have a deck that their home cannot accommodate, based on impervious surface requirements, staff believes this does not satisfy the required practical difficulty requirements and recommends denial. Richard Beard Sr., applicant, stated his crippled knee makes stairs difficult and the request will allow him to barbecue at his home. He bought the home because it is single story. He learned of Page 7 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 the 35% lot coverage limit for the first time when his first building permit was rejected by the City. In response, his architect revised the design to comply with the requirement but he was not advised to have a smaller home footprint to allow for a future deck. He stated that Ms. Molasky conveyed to him that staff ultimately finds the request reasonable. He believes the new deck will not alter the character of the neighborhood and will enhance the property. He shared that a variance was approved for his neighbor at 3490 whose lot is smaller than his. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Bruce Batchelor, 3484 87th St N next door, spoke in support of the proposal. Edward Otis, 12070 87th St Cir N spoke in support of the request. He provided aerial views of the other properties and read a letter explaining the history of development of the neighborhood. He questioned the strict application of the impervious surface coverage requirement, citing statute and past practice involving other variances that have been granted. He suggested viewing decks as mini parks on private property, toward satisfying park dedication requirements. Mr. Beard pointed out that Ms. Molasky had provided two resolutions to the Commission, one of denial and one of approval. Richard Beard Jr., 3358 Pioneer Place, urged the Commission to grant the variance and shared how his father greatly enjoys his backyard which is accessed by 3-4 steps leading to a ledger board. He said the steps have settled and are beginning to slant causing a safety concern. Chair Dybvig closed the public hearing. Councilmember Odebrecht stated that the deck being 2 1/2 feet above the ground precludes the possibility of creating a usable impervious surface below it. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Cox, to adopt Resolution PC 2024-04, Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Structural Impervious Surface of 35% at 3480 87th Street North (Case Number CD2024-019), with the condition that the applicant agree to not put an impervious surface underneath but instead use rock, mulch, or anything that water can flow through. All in favor. Case No. CD2024-020: Variance to Maximum Lot Coverage for Proposed Pool at 3085 Lowell Ct Planning Manager Molasky stated that applicant Ground FX Lawn and Landscaping is seeking a Variance for construction of an approximately 840 square foot pool in the backyard of 3085 Lowell Court. The proposal involves removing the current 375 square foot concrete patio and repurposing that space for a portion of the pool and deck. The addition of the proposed pool and decking, with the removal of the current concrete patio, would increase the lot coverage to approximately 49.6% (3,655 square feet), an increase of approximately 9.6%. The applicant designed a drain tile system to direct stormwater runoff from the front of the property though the system to mitigate a portion of the additional impervious surface. The project site is a 7,907 square foot residential lot which contains a two-story single-family dwelling and an attached garage built in 2012. The property is part of Millbrook 5th addition. Impervious surface was calculated at 50% for the entire development and coordinated with the watershed districts, primarily with Brown's Creek Watershed. This property is in the Carnelian -Marine -St. Croix Watershed District. Staff cannot locate records indicating a superseding lot coverage agreement, and as-builts show nearly all homes at the 25% impervious surface allowance. Staff acknowledges that since the time of this development there has been a change in impervious surface interpretation that now includes decks as part of impervious surface calculations, Page 8 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 when they were not at the time of this development. Staff also acknowledges that there are two instances of pools being approved in this development that put their respective lot coverage over the 25% allowed in Lake Shoreland Management Districts. Three letters of support were received from neighbors. Staff believes the request does not satisfy the required practical difficulty requirements and recommends denial of this request. Tom Opitz, 3085 Lowell Court, applicant, said the house is currently at 25% impervious surface without any deck/patio. In Millbrook about 50% of homes have an overage of impervious surface. When they bought the home in 2018 a pool was always in their plans and they did not know of any restrictions. They were provided with permits for the deck that the previous homeowner had built; they then added stairs with a permit, and at that time they were not made aware of this requirement. He believes this satisfies the practical difficulties test. There are various cases within the neighborhood that exceed 25% specifically with pools. The placement of a pool with their mitigation plan will improve the situation over what it is today. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing Ryan Zwonitzer, Ground FX Lawn & Landscape, Inc. said he finds Stillwater's requirement unique in that there are no credits for installation of water mitigation such as permeable pavers. Other cities allow those actions to be credited against limits. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Chairman Dybvig, to adopt Resolution PC 2024-05, Resolution Denying a Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Impervious Surface of 25% at 3085 Lowell Court (Case Number CD2024-020). Motion passed 6-1 with Councilmember Odebrecht voting nay. Mr. Gladhill stated the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Clerk within 10 days. NEW BUSINESS Zoning Code and Subdivision Code Amendment Work Plan. Framework. and Zoning Map/District Direction Mr. Gladhill stated that the Council was supportive of the zoning maps and districts previously reviewed. On June 4 staff will present the consolidated zoning districts to the City Council and then to the Planning Commission in July, with feedback from the Council regarding use tables and standards. DISCUSSION There were no discussion items. FYI STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Dybvig adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m. ATTEST: John Dybvig, Chair Page 9 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Resolution PC 2024-02, Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Structural Impervious Surface of 25% at 3060 White Pine Way (Case Number CD2024-017) Resolution PC 2024-03, Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Build in Front Yard Setback at 522 4th Street South (Case Number CD2024-018) Resolution PC 2024-04, Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Structural Impervious Surface of 35% at 3480 87th Street North (Case Number CD2024-019) Resolution PC 2024-05, Resolution Denying a Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Impervious Surface of 25% at 3085 Lowell Court (Case Number CD2024- 020) Page 10 of 10 (499ateir THE lINTNELACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 22, 2024 WORKSHOP MEETING Chairman Dybvig called the workshop to order at 5:35 p.m. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Cox, Hoffman, North, Steinwall, Swanson, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill OTHER BUSINESS Planning Commission Work Plan Development Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the draft Purpose Statement and Vision Statement developed April 17. He explained that this workshop is Part 2 of the process designed to lay the foundation for an Annual Work Plan. Planning Commission Purpose Statement draft Mr. Gladhill reviewed the proposed draft Purpose Statement, based on previous Commission input: "The Planning Commission helps guide and communicate the future vision of the community. It provides the voice of the community on important land use topics, ensuring a diverse set of voices have an opportunity to be heard. It ensures a safe, healthy, and vibrant community through the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code." He added that a Commissioner suggested the following version: "Through diligent oversight of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code [added by staff: and open communication], we commit to maintaining a safe, healthy, and vibrant community for everyone." He asked for feedback on these two versions. After discussion, the Commission agreed on: "Through diligent oversight of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, and listening to the voice of the community, we commit to maintaining a safe, healthy and vibrant community for everyone." Planning Commission Vision Statement draft Mr. Gladhill shared the draft Vision Statement created by staff based on April 17 Commission discussion: "The Planning Commission envisions a community that accelerates housing supply, retains and expands employment opportunities, and improves community accessibility that meets the community's diverse needs. It strives to strike a balance between historic preservation and economic growth. The Commission also acknowledges a need to increase focus on community sustainability and transparency." He asked for feedback. After discussion, the consensus of the Commission was: "The Planning Commission envisions a community that focuses on housing needs, employment opportunities, and a diverse community. We support historic preservation, economic growth, and environmental sustainability." Strategies Planning Commission May 22, 2024 Mr. Gladhill led an exercise asking each Commission to define potential Planning Commission strategies. Commissioner North: housing opportunities, intentionally diverse appointments to Commissions, multi -jurisdictional cooperation - for example along Highway 36, maintaining a focus on riverfront Commissioner Swanson: partnership with other communities, downtown focus, continue with zoning updates, eliminate or reduce redundancy in processes Commissioner Hoffman: continue to streamline code, housing incentives, pursue grants year- round for wintertime events, support transportation policies that improve options for the community Commissioner Steinwall: incorporate environmental provisions into the planning process in conjunction with Zoning Code updates, drill down on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code update, support developing policy statements and a housing plan, seek diversity in community participation on Commissions Councilmember Odebrecht: the City Council should use the Comprehensive Plan more, proactively seek diversities, do something with industrial park (make it more attractive via code), diversify tax base Chairman Dybvig: preemptive housing, encourage housing projects, diversity on advisory committees, historic preservation equals sustainability, figure out how to do more neighborhood commercial, get more density into the Zoning Code Commissioner Cox: proactive housing opportunities, making the community attractive to developers, seeking grant money available or other ways to sweeten the deal, think proactively regarding commercial development Commissioner Swanson added: use more tax increment financing when applicable Mr. Gladhill pointed out the City has an Economic Development Authority (EDA) that also has the powers of a housing/redevelopment authority. The Council serves as the EDA. Commissioner Steinwall suggested consideration of creating an advisory group to provide input on housing needs. Mr. Gladhill summarized: 1) housing 2) riverfront/environmental sustainability, and within that is historic preservation 3) economic development plan or strategy including industrial/job growth and neighborhood commercial growth. Also, focus on Zoning Code update, streamlining and removing redundancy, partnership with other jurisdictions, a Comp Plan deep dive, focus on diversity in Commissions. Councilmember Odebrecht described an exercise that could be done using coins, each with an assigned cost, to symbolize items on the "wish list." Chairman Dybvig recommended the Commissioners all read the Comprehensive Plan before the next meeting. The workshop was recessed at 6:34 p.m. RECESS REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Page 2 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Cox, Hoffman, North, Steinwall, Swanson, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill, Planning Manager Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner Molasky ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to nominate Dybvig and Steinwall to continue as Chair and Vice Chair. All in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of April 24, 2024 workshop and regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2024 workshop and regular meeting. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Hoffman abstaining. OPEN FORUM Marie Liberda, 1020 Nena Drive, spoke of the need for homeless services and asked that the Planning Commission support the proposed Emergency Housing Services Building. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Dybvig explained the procedure for public hearings. Case No. CD2024-021: Interim Use Permit (renewal of previous approvals) for Mobile Food Unit for Gloria's to Go Planning Manager Gutknecht explained that applicant Cory Buettner is seeking an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for seasonal outdoor seasonal food vending located at 127 Main Street South, Leo's Grill and Malt Shop. The applicant has been operating the proposed food vending in some capacity since 2020, and has been operating "Gloria's To Go" since 2021. Due to a change in Code, the applicant is now required to obtain an Interim Use Permit. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution Approving an Interim Use Permit for the Placement of a Seasonal Food Vending Trailer at 127 Main Street South (Leo's Grill & Malt Shop) (Case No. CD2024-021). All in favor. Case No. CD2024-004: Zoning Amendment, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for Washington County Emergency Housing Services Building Mr. Gladhill explained that the City has received multiple applications regarding the Washington County Emergency Housing Services Building (EHSB). The proposal is for a 30 Page 3 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 Unit Medium Density Residential Building. Zoning approvals necessary for this project include: Zoning Map Amendment and Lot Line Adjustment (for one small `infill 'parcel); Conditional Use Permit (for the overall use); Planned Unit Development Amendment (to amend the overall master plan for the Washington County Government Center Campus); Site Plan Review (for compliance with Zoning Code Massing Standards). The proposed building would be added to the existing campus, with shared parking facilities in addition to new parking constructed as part of this project. He added that the scope of the Planning Commission review is limited to conformance with the City's Zoning Code; discussion on the needs, merits, funding and operation of this proposed use is outside the scope of the Planning Commission's review. Staff recommends approval of the zoning requests. Kristen Scobie, Assistant Director of Community Development with the Washington County Community Development Agency, offered to answer questions. Councilmember Odebrecht asked what was the Washington County reaction to the conditions requested by the City of Oak Park Heights. Ms. Scobie answered that the County finds the conditions are reasonable and consistent with expectations for parking access and utility access. Regarding the suggested condition on the number of beds, the proposal is for 30 sleeping rooms which meets the anticipated need; Washington County does not anticipate adding beds in the future. Councilmember Odebrecht asked Mr. Gladhill to confirm that the proposed conditions covering parking, the review of an Oak Park Heights engineer for utilities, and future expansion are redundant to the City of Stillwater's normal process. Mr. Gladhill said yes, current code has a provision that if an expansion is minor enough it can be approved at the staff level. If the City of Stillwater wishes to require that any expansion require a public hearing, it can be put in as a condition. Staff recommends following the standard process, allowing minor expansions to be approved by staff. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Gretchen Rugg, 15143 Upper 61st St directly east of the Government Center, voiced concern that there is not a gate or fence between the neighborhood and the business to provide a boundary for the residents. Renae Oswald Anderson, 7789 Manning Ave N, provided statistics on the need for homeless housing in Washington County and urged the Commission to support the CUP. Eliza Chlebeck, Vice Chair of Valley Outreach and VP of Communications and Community for Andersen Corporation and a Stillwater resident, spoke in support of the project. Diane Berlin, a resident of St. Croix Villa townhouses directly behind the site, said 25 of the 30 Villa residents are seniors; they are scared because they will have no protection from EHSB residents coming into their area out of curiosity. They need a fence. They also are very concerned about property values. Katherine Noble, 6120 Oxboro Ave N, Oak Park Heights apartments, said she uses the footpaths around the campus and has no problem with the proposal. She does not think it will make a huge impact in the neighborhood; she looks forward to welcoming people who need housing. Blake Van Denburgh, 15169 64th St N, Oak Park Heights, also part of the Oak Park Heights Planning Commission, said he is concerned about the traffic study released today showing a Page 4 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 24% increase in traffic on Oxboro and 11% increase on 62nd St. There are small children in these communities and the increased traffic flow will cause an impact. He also is concerned about wetlands and would like the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to review the proposal for potential problems. He also is concerned about setbacks, which theoretically meet Stillwater regulations but should be re-evaluated because Highway 36 is down a steeply sloped hill. He shared concern about population changes and people walking around the neighborhood. He said all but one person who lives in a 5-mile radius of the site has said they don't want it. He does not support the proposal and feels it needs more evaluation by the City. Jeff Anderson, 932 4th Ave S, said he is in favor of the project and respects the work done by the City, County and staff to ensure all requirements are met. Chairman Dybvig asked Mr. Gladhill to respond to questions raised during the public hearing. Mr. Gladhill said he doesn't believe that a gate or physical barrier is planned to close off the trail. The proposal meets stormwater and wetland requirements and the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization did a robust review of the stormwater pond and the steep slopes that go down to Highway 36. The project meets steep slope setbacks and does not require DNR approval or any further wetland review. Denise Thompson, St. Croix Villa, echoed Ms. Rugg's concern about boundaries. She stated at an earlier meeting, she was assured that there would be a perimeter boundary. Ms. Scobie stated at this point they don't intend to make a connection to the existing trail running along the east side and do not intend to extend that to the west to connect with other portions of the trail along the Government Center. There will be perimeter fencing encompassing the entire north section of the parcel, which is green space, and extending to the south with an emergency egress per law. The very steep slope would make it difficult for people to make their way down to the trail. Councilmember Odebrecht pointed out the close proximity of the sheriff's office, and said he does not know how to put this facility any closer to police. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. He noted that his wife submitted a letter of support from Valley Outreach, but they have not had any substantive discussion and have no financial interest. Therefore he does not feel obligated to recuse himself from the deliberation. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht to recommend that the Stillwater City Council approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, the Planned Unit Development Amendment, the Consolidation of Parcels, the Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Use, and the Site Plan to Facilitate an Emergency Housing Services Building at 14949 62nd St N (Washington County Government Center), with one of the Oak Park Heights -recommended conditions modified: he does not feel it is the City's position to dictate staffing (24/7), and believes that a staffing plan deemed adequate by the City is enough at this point. Mr. Gladhill said City staff would support removal of that condition if desired. Councilmember Odebrecht changed his motion and moved to approve with the two Stillwater staff -recommended conditions but without any of the four Oak Park Heights -recommended conditions, as he feels they are redundant. Commissioner Steinwall seconded the motion with Councilmember Odebrecht's friendly amendment. Page 5 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 Mr. Gladhill pointed out that the first of two readings for the zoning map amendment for the infill parcel annexed in 2019 will be held by the City Council on June 4; it will not be full project review nor approval. The final action to be considered by the Council is expected to be June 18. Councilmember Odebrecht commented that he has a loved one who has needed the support of his community; a community can be judged best by how they treat the least. Commissioner North echoed the comment, adding that he appreciates some of the conditions suggested but he agrees that they don't fall under purview of the Planning Commission. All in favor. Case No. CD2024-017: Variance to Maximum Lot Coverage for Proposed Deck at 3060 White Pine Way Planning Manager Molasky stated that applicants Samuel and Allison Berndt are seeking a Variance for construction of a deck that would increase the lot's total impervious surface over the allowed 25%. The project site is a 12,305 square foot residential lot which contains a two- story single-family dwelling and an attached garage built in 2011. The home has a back doorway leading to nowhere, indicating a future deck was part of the final construction plans. The proposed 544 square foot deck would be located behind the house; it would increase the lot coverage to approximately 29.6% (3,642 square feet) necessitating a variance. At the time of construction a deck was not considered impervious surface coverage and would not have needed a variance. Based on the plight outlined by the landowner that their home was built to accommodate a deck but they cannot build due to a change in impervious surface interpretation, staff believes this satisfies the required practical difficulty requirements. Letters of support were received from two neighbors. Staff recommends approval of this request. Allison Berndt, applicant, added that without a deck, the rear door would not be useable for escape in the event of a fire. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to adopt Resolution 2024-PC 2024-02, Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Structural Impervious Surface of 25% at 3060 White Pine Way (Case Number CD2024-017). Commissioner Cox asked for clarification on requirements, noting two different coverage percentages of 50% and 25% in the staff report. Ms. Molasky explained the shoreland management overlay district restricts coverage to 25% while the entire Millbrook development carried a 50% threshold; the entire development is not within the shoreland management overlay district. All in favor. Case No. CD2024-016: Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Commercial Recreation (Fitness Center) in the Central Business District at 107 Chestnut St E (Historic Armory Building Mr. Gutknecht explained that the owner requests a Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Commercial Recreation for a proposed tenant to operate a fitness center in the basement level. There are no exterior modifications or expansion planned. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Steinwall asked if the Commission should be concerned about parking, and Mr. Gladhill answered no. The downtown parking system has evolved and the City has moved Page 6 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 away from the old way of doing parking mitigation with fees. The City does not put the parking burden on existing buildings any longer. Parking here is considered compliant because it is in the downtown district. There is some parking on the east side of the building and an enclosed parking garage nearby. Matthew Wolf, one of owners and part of the group that purchased the property in 2018, explained that when it was redeveloped, a parking study was done looking at availability of parking in the area. The resident parking is self contained on site. At that time the need was deemed to be 45.33 spaces as determined by City's code. Currently the office tenant is using about 15 of that capacity and the rest of the parking is not used. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Swanson, to recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Commercial Recreation located at 107 Chestnut Street East (Case No. CD2024-016). All in favor. Case No. CD2024-018: Variance to Front Yard Setback to Facilitate Accessibility Improvements at 522 4th St S Planning Manager Molasky explained that applicant Wally Nelson on behalf of Simonet Building LLC is seeking a Variance to the front yard setback to permit the construction of a vestibule and accessible entrance on Walnut Street West. The project also includes a general renovation of the exterior of the building, including new roof, siding, windows, doors, and faux stone. This was approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission on May 15, 2024. Staff recommends approval. Wally Nelson, applicant, said the project will update a building that was built in the 50s and provides office space for several users. An ADA compliant bathroom was previously added but it would be impossible to get inside the building with a wheelchair. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to adopt Resolution PC 2024-03, Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Build in Front Yard Setback at 522 4th Street South (Case Number CD2024-018). All in favor. Case No. CD2024-019: Variance to Maximum Lot Coverage for Proposed Deck at 3480 87th St N Planning Manager Molasky stated that applicant Richard L. Beard Sr. is seeking a Variance to exceed the 35% allowed impervious surface coverage and permit the construction of an approximately 128 square foot deck. The project site is a 9,152 square foot residential lot which contains a single -story single-family dwelling and an attached garage built in 2020. The home was built with a door to a small stairway leading to the backyard. The addition of the deck would increase the lot coverage to approximately 36% (3,319 square feet), an increase of approximately 1%. Based on the plight outlined by the landowner that they would like to have a deck that their home cannot accommodate, based on impervious surface requirements, staff believes this does not satisfy the required practical difficulty requirements and recommends denial. Richard Beard Sr., applicant, stated his crippled knee makes stairs difficult and the request will allow him to barbecue at his home. He bought the home because it is single story. He learned of Page 7 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 the 35% lot coverage limit for the first time when his first building permit was rejected by the City. In response, his architect revised the design to comply with the requirement but he was not advised to have a smaller home footprint to allow for a future deck. He stated that Ms. Molasky conveyed to him that staff ultimately finds the request reasonable. He believes the new deck will not alter the character of the neighborhood and will enhance the property. He shared that a variance was approved for his neighbor at 3490 whose lot is smaller than his. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Bruce Batchelor, 3484 87th St N next door, spoke in support of the proposal. Edward Otis, 12070 87th St Cir N spoke in support of the request. He provided aerial views of the other properties and read a letter explaining the history of development of the neighborhood. He questioned the strict application of the impervious surface coverage requirement, citing statute and past practice involving other variances that have been granted. He suggested viewing decks as mini parks on private property, toward satisfying park dedication requirements. Mr. Beard pointed out that Ms. Molasky had provided two resolutions to the Commission, one of denial and one of approval. Richard Beard Jr., 3358 Pioneer Place, urged the Commission to grant the variance and shared how his father greatly enjoys his backyard which is accessed by 3-4 steps leading to a ledger board. He said the steps have settled and are beginning to slant causing a safety concern. Chair Dybvig closed the public hearing. Councilmember Odebrecht stated that the deck being 2 1/2 feet above the ground precludes the possibility of creating a usable impervious surface below it. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Cox, to adopt Resolution PC 2024-04, Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Structural Impervious Surface of 35% at 3480 87th Street North (Case Number CD2024-019), with the condition that the applicant agree to not put an impervious surface underneath but instead use rock, mulch, or anything that water can flow through. All in favor. Case No. CD2024-020: Variance to Maximum Lot Coverage for Proposed Pool at 3085 Lowell Ct Planning Manager Molasky stated that applicant Ground FX Lawn and Landscaping is seeking a Variance for construction of an approximately 840 square foot pool in the backyard of 3085 Lowell Court. The proposal involves removing the current 375 square foot concrete patio and repurposing that space for a portion of the pool and deck. The addition of the proposed pool and decking, with the removal of the current concrete patio, would increase the lot coverage to approximately 49.6% (3,655 square feet), an increase of approximately 9.6%. The applicant designed a drain tile system to direct stormwater runoff from the front of the property though the system to mitigate a portion of the additional impervious surface. The project site is a 7,907 square foot residential lot which contains a two-story single-family dwelling and an attached garage built in 2012. The property is part of Millbrook 5th addition. Impervious surface was calculated at 50% for the entire development and coordinated with the watershed districts, primarily with Brown's Creek Watershed. This property is in the Carnelian -Marine -St. Croix Watershed District. Staff cannot locate records indicating a superseding lot coverage agreement, and as-builts show nearly all homes at the 25% impervious surface allowance. Staff acknowledges that since the time of this development there has been a change in impervious surface interpretation that now includes decks as part of impervious surface calculations, Page 8 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 when they were not at the time of this development. Staff also acknowledges that there are two instances of pools being approved in this development that put their respective lot coverage over the 25% allowed in Lake Shoreland Management Districts. Three letters of support were received from neighbors. Staff believes the request does not satisfy the required practical difficulty requirements and recommends denial of this request. Tom Opitz, 3085 Lowell Court, applicant, said the house is currently at 25% impervious surface without any deck/patio. In Millbrook about 50% of homes have an overage of impervious surface. When they bought the home in 2018 a pool was always in their plans and they did not know of any restrictions. They were provided with permits for the deck that the previous homeowner had built; they then added stairs with a permit, and at that time they were not made aware of this requirement. He believes this satisfies the practical difficulties test. There are various cases within the neighborhood that exceed 25% specifically with pools. The placement of a pool with their mitigation plan will improve the situation over what it is today. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing Ryan Zwonitzer, Ground FX Lawn & Landscape, Inc. said he finds Stillwater's requirement unique in that there are no credits for installation of water mitigation such as permeable pavers. Other cities allow those actions to be credited against limits. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Chairman Dybvig, to adopt Resolution PC 2024-05, Resolution Denying a Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Impervious Surface of 25% at 3085 Lowell Court (Case Number CD2024-020). Motion passed 6-1 with Councilmember Odebrecht voting nay. Mr. Gladhill stated the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Clerk within 10 days. NEW BUSINESS Zoning Code and Subdivision Code Amendment Work Plan. Framework. and Zoning Map/District Direction Mr. Gladhill stated that the Council was supportive of the zoning maps and districts previously reviewed. On June 4 staff will present the consolidated zoning districts to the City Council and then to the Planning Commission in July, with feedback from the Council regarding use tables and standards. DISCUSSION There were no discussion items. FYI STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Dybvig adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m. ATTEST: John Dybvig, Chair Page 9 of 10 Planning Commission May 22, 2024 Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Resolution PC 2024-02, Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Structural Impervious Surface of 25% at 3060 White Pine Way (Case Number CD2024-017) Resolution PC 2024-03, Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Build in Front Yard Setback at 522 4th Street South (Case Number CD2024-018) Resolution PC 2024-04, Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Structural Impervious Surface of 35% at 3480 87th Street North (Case Number CD2024-019) Resolution PC 2024-05, Resolution Denying a Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Impervious Surface of 25% at 3085 Lowell Court (Case Number CD2024- 020) Page 10 of 10 V ,. -, T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M I N N E S 0 T A DATE: June 26, 2024 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Katriona Molasky, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Case No. 2023-54: Findings for Denial for Variance request to exceed the required impervious surface and facilitate construction of a pool located at 3085 Lowell Ct BACKGROUND At the May 22, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission denied a Request for Variance to the allowable impervious surface intended to facilitate the construction of an inground pool. The Planning Commission must now adopt written findings to support the denial. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the resolution approving written findings to support the denial of a Variance to Impervious Surface for an inground pool at 3085 Lowell Court. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION PC 2024-05 RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT A DENIAL OF A VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 25% AT 3085 LOWELL COURT (CASE NUMBER CD2024-020) WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a Variance request from Tom and Kristen Opitz ("Property Owner") of 3085 Lowell Ct, legally described on Exhibit A ("the Property"), to allow for the construction of an 840 square foot pool, exceeding the maximum impervious surface by 24.6%; WHEREAS, the maximum allowable impervious surface in the Lake Shoreland Management district is 25%; and WHEREAS, the property is currently at 40.3% impervious surface and the Applicant has zero square feet available for the construction of impervious surface; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Variance at its May 22, 2024 meeting, held a public hearing and took testimony from the public. 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 impervious surface area of 25%: The requested Variance was not consistent with all the practical difficulty requirements for granting a Variance as described in City Code Section 28- 83. Specifically, there are not unique circumstances on the Property necessitating a variance to the impervious surface. 1) There are no unique physical conditions that necessitate having a pool. 2) Requesting a pool larger than allowed by City Code is not a practical difficulty. Adopted by the City Planning Commission this 26t" day of June, 2024. CITY OF STILLWATER John Dybvig, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director *:/:I 13 I r_1 Legal Description of the Applicant's Property Situs Address: 3085 Lowell Ct PID-1903020120040 Abstract Property Lot 3, Block 3, Millbrook 5t" Addition, Washington County, Minnesota V ,. -, T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M I N N E S 0 T A DATE: June 26, 2024 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Katriona Molasky, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Case No. 2024-029: Variance request to exceed the required structural impervious surface and facilitate construction of a deck located at 3311 Millbrook Circle BACKGROUND The Applicant, Joseph Loso, is seeking a Variance from the Planning Commission to permit the construction of a deck that would increase the lot's total impervious surface over the allowed 25%. The project area is located at 3311 Millbrook Circle (PID# 1903020240027) (the "Property") within the TR (Traditional Residential) Zoning District and a Stream Shoreland Management District. The property has frontage on Millbrook Circle, the rear of the property abuts a pond with a stream running behind, and it has residential neighbors on either side. The project site is a 14,309 square foot residential lot which contains a two- story single-family dwelling and an attached garage built in 2008. Currently, the main building has a back doorway leading to nowhere, indicating a future deck was ultimately part of the final construction plans. The proposed action seeks to allow the construction of an approximately 464 square foot deck located behind the house. The addition of the proposed deck would increase the lot coverage to approximately 28% (square feet), an increase of approximately 3%. Because the impervious surface coverage requested by the Applicant exceeds the 25% threshold regulated by City Code, a variance is required. ANALYSIS The Traditional Residential Zoning District has no requirements for maximum lot coverage. The Shoreland Management District allows a maximum of 25% impervious surface coverage. Currently, the project site is at approximately 25% (approximately 3,565 square feet) impervious surface coverage. The project site has no remaining impervious surface that could be used for a deck without the need for a variance. Staff has found that over 400 square feet is on the larger end of the spectrum of many previous decks approved via variance in the past years. The property is part of Millbrook (the Development). Impervious surface was calculated at 50% for the entire development and coordinated with the watershed districts. Staff cannot find any documents indicating a superseding lot coverage agreement, and as- builts show nearly all homes meeting the 25% impervious surface allowance. This property is in the Brown's Creek Watershed District. 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, 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, no additional impervious surface could be permitted by code. ii. Staff does note that at the time of the home's construction, decks were not counted toward impervious surface and would have been able to be added onto the homes without needing a variance. B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. i. The plight of the landowner is due to the Applicant's desire for a deck, which their home was originally built to accommodate with back doors that lead to nowhere. 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 deck will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The deck will be situated behind the house. Many homes in this development have decks similar to the one being proposed. D. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. i. The request to construct a deck is not based on economic considerations. Staff believes that the plight of the landowner necessitating the variance meets the practical difficulty test as none of the circumstances were created by the property owner and under previous interpretation would have been allowed when the home was built. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the plight outlined by the landowner that they would like to have a deck that their home was built to accommodate but cannot build due to a change in impervious surface interpretation, staff believes this satisfies the required practical difficulty requirements. Staff recommends approval of this request. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Variance for Case No. 2024-029 and adopt Resolution PC 2024- 06 adopting findings of approval. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION PC 2024-06 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE STRUCTURAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 25% AT 3311 MILLBROOK CIRCLE (CASE NUMBER CD2024-029) WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a Variance request from Joseph Loso ("Property Owner") of 3311 Millbrook Circle, legally described on Exhibit A ("the Property"), to allow for the construction of a 464 square foot deck, exceeding the maximum impervious surface for structures by 3%; WHEREAS, the maximum allowable structural impervious surface in the Stream Shoreland Management district is 25%; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Variance at its June 26, 2024 meeting, held a public hearing and took testimony from the public. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater hereby approves the variance to exceed the maximum allowable structural impervious surface of 25%. The approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: Findings of Fact- 1 . The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; and 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality; and 4. The variance is not based on economic considerations alone. Conditions of Approval: 1. Plans must be consistent with the materials presented as part of Case No. CD 2024-029 presented to the Planning Commission 2. Applicant shall follow recommendations for stormwater mitigation from the Brown's Creek Watershed District 3. Applicant shall follow all requirements set by the City of Stillwater Building Official for construction of the deck Adopted by the City Planning Commission this 26nd day of June, 2024. CITY OF STILLWATER John Dybvig, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Applicant's Property Situs Address: 3311 Millbrook Circle PID:1903020240027 Abstract Property Lot 1, Block 9, Millbrook, Washington County, Minnesota 30 15 0 13 30 e0 1 ) 4.0 7 O�_ C `sl % / fl Ov SETBACKS MIN FRONT YARD SETBACK -22'HOUSE.3G0GARAGEARAOE MIN- SIDE YARD SETBACK - 10' MOUSE', S MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK- 2W MOUSE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATA - WO GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION - 91v.0 BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION - 905.7 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS PRO GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION +214.10 PROPOSED TOP OF FOUNDATION FIEVA.. • 916.61 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION - ON35 r J ` 61 1 'oN 99ei3 � I` 1 LEGEND I • '1 DENOTES CATCH RASH ® DENOTES STORIA MANHOLE �I cemarre STORM APRON --; /.PPRCT.'AATE RE/R'- a...�'•:. rAO �O DENOTES IRON MONIAENT MCKTH 0 'f� O v 000.0 DEVOTES DOSING ELEVATION ,I / (000.0) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION s P'o �/ x000.0 D��:'TL7 ASSIA,T FOUNDATION ELEVATION o OA a 000.0 DENOTES ASBU:T SPOT ELEVATION GE / \ r DENOTES DIRECTION Of SURFACE DRAFM DENOTES SANITARY SEWER SERVICE ELEVATION NOTE& I)1T 5 —D UTLTEN S SHOWN ARE SHOWNANAPPRDDONATE WAY ONLY NT1IRE . `�4.. THE CONTRACTOR DOLL Offra THE EXACT LOCATON OF ANY .? ALL DCSTNG UTILITIES Berm OOIR161OD waaL HE AGREES TO! 9 FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAW1T�AfS/Il G OUT OF IS FAILURE / FARE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY NO ALL IDWNO ES \ UTET \ 2 1 MUST MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 2% SLOPE CRADONT TO ACCOMOCATE POSITIVE DRAINAGEIe &)ALL OPFSETONSARE MEASURED MND TOHUftDRFDSOFAFOOTA / \ \ \ CAN NE USED AS SBLiMND� E,- _'I HOW THE .;H . £NAY 31 '-L EE SURT. / g 5) k 7 -_E "::. Ok •. S VOT FJNNIS E0 TO THE SLVIVEY=i -_:-7 ORADE3 S-CWNA6MCDRTO SULLDIDFC-"CA CN ,, p`' / ♦ TF�': • ` `+.e \ / REFERS TO TCP OF BLACK DIRT. / W SC' BF- 905.9 \ al �,/• y 1L L� / ASBUILT ELEVATIONS . '8 IL GARAGE H--EVATION AS8UILT TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION • 915 02 IFDNASB) ASBUILT 9A<_'C!'iNT F-OCP. FLE�AIICN •9Lv 39 / I HMEBY CERTIFY THAT THIS S A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION / OF A SURVEY OF THE SOU DARES OF. LOT 1, FLOCK 9. MLLBROOK. ACCORDNG TO THE RECORDED / PLAT THEREOF, WASHMMON COUNTY, MWE90TA / AND THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS. F ANY. THEtEON, AND ALL i am F m-CAOACNINml rM F ANY. FROM OR ON END LAD. AS / SURVEYEDBY M! I ITM DAY OF SOMMSEK 2107. P-. .mange nl:I. ...A w Out aus m a— DMiB1 L. SdWrM o a.'.Ic ., I„ �.,.. _ •. u ,�o," LCBnSed LWW SwvwW, MYm. Ur Na 25147 ZI� 7--p ) g lu LL O 8 x W g ,; < ~'LEY L) co z Zoe J V U Z W J CRAWJCIECK JULOU DATE 09-0747 BOOK1PAGE NA JOB 40 50t61a7 OWG. NAME GFICAM SOW MT AINUM031 3311 Millbrook Circle, Stillwater Ledger and Flashing at house wall 14 ea DTT1Z at ledger 12' s T 4' 1 All Footings : Helical piers Deck Information Joist : 2x10 SYP 12" on Center Decking : 5/4x6" Deckorator Footings :Helical to required torque Railing : Aluminum system �5 m� �flg411p91N1h't'I IIIIIIII��IIIII ��I�� II�� , hl 11I ,��i��, 1 1 Water THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNES O T A DATE: June 26, 2024 TO: Honorable Chair and Commission Members FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Comprehensive Zoning Code Amendment (2024-2025) BACKGROUND As part of the 2024/2025 Comprehensive Zoning Code Amendment project, Staff is providing routine updates to both Commissions and City Council. Staff presented the following update at the June 4, 2024 City Council Workshop. The update focuses on review of Allowable Uses within each Zoning District and District Standards (setbacks, lot coverages, etc.). Attached to this report is the package presented to the City Council. Page four and five of the attached Agenda Package highlights specific Allowable Uses and Zoning District Standards for the Council and Commissions review. Generally, the City Council was supportive of the draft changes and recommended Staff review the following Accessory Dwelling Unit/Duplex Standards: • Minimum Parking Requirements • Minimum Lot Size for Accessory Dwelling Unit/Duplex (larger than underlying lot size) • Rental Licensing Program should be in place when expansion of area for Accessory Dwelling Unit and Duplex permissibility is approved. ACTION No action is being requested at this time. This report if for informational purposes only. 11 ater, w THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: June 4, 2024 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Comprehensive Zoning Code Amendment (2024-2025) Allowable Uses and District Standards BACKGROUND Throughout 2024 and into 2025 the Planning Division will be conducting a comprehensive zoning code amendment. Staff began the process with a kickoff meeting in March to discuss goals, timelines, and workflow. The following report will serve as a roadmap through the Amendment process and provide the City Commissions/Council with a high- level workflow. On May 7, 2024, the City Counc' viewe aft Zoning Map along with a preview of allowable uses and district stand ds. Consensus of the City Council was to move forward with the Zoning Map as present o serve as the framework moving forward. This stage will focus on formal review of Allo le Uses within each Zoning District along with District Standards (setbacks, lot coverages, etc.). [Como The primary goals for the comprehensive zoning code amendment are to consolidate the number of Zoning Districts, consolidate the Use Table and Land Uses, simplify and modernize existing and proposed regulations, and update the zoning code definitions and performance standards. Staff Resources Staff anticipates utilizing internal City Staff resources for majority of the review with budgeted assistance from the City Attorney. This will include working with Commission (along with other City Advisory Commissions), City Council, and public feedback at various points throughout the process. Overall Proiect Schedule -Kick Off Meeting -Zoning Maps and District -Consolidate Use Table -Review District Standards -Review Zoning Code Definitions -Review Performance Standards August •Environmental/ Sustainability -Additional Regulatory Sections/Standards September •Quality control and Analysis for Ordinance consistency October NovemberDecember F • Staff City •Concept • Public • Public • Public • Approval Attorney Review Comment Workshop Hearing and Draft Full Draft Period (Focused) Adoption Code Updated Zoning Code is anticipated to be fully adopted. ACTION No action is being requested at this time. This report if for informational purposes only. The Planning Commission reviewed this framework at their April Meeting and supported the approach. Stillwater Zoning Code Update Framework for Allowable Uses and Zoning District Standards June 4, 2024 Introduction Purpose: The purpose of this report is to establish a framework for a comprehensive amendment to the City of Stillwater's Zoning Code. This is a continuation of the April City Council Workshop, now focused on Allowable Uses and District Standards. The previous step established a new baseline by a Proposed/Draft Official Zoning Map. The Council previously saw these current materials (allowable uses and district standards), but now the proposals have been formalized and ready for direction. Goal: The goal of the Zoning Code Update is to streamline by consolidation. That said, this is an iterative process. Decisions made `downstream' of the Zoning Map Amendment may result in a need to step back and refine the Zoning Map. Strategy: In recognition that many of the allowable uses fairly repetitive with small differences and very detailed, it is possible to consolidate allowable uses into more general categories without creating nonconforming lots or creating additional developable area beyond the scope of our Comprehensive Plan. For those allowable uses needing more oversight and approvals (licenses, conditional use permits, interim use permits, etc., it is acceptable to list these uses in more detail). Tactic: The actual process proposed to achieve the above strategy and goal can be found in the following exhibits. Exhibit A Allowable Uses Comparison/Crosswalk Exhibit B District Standards Comparisons Tables Allowable Uses Highlights: Cannabis Regulations o Due to recent changes in the State Statutes governing cannabis there will be a change to these uses as we progress through the amendment process. Staff will be adjusting these uses including relevant performance standards later on in the process. • Motor Vehicle Sales o Motor vehicle sales was previously only allowed in the "Commercial District" with specific performance standards. With the consolidation of commercial districts into the proposed B2 the area where motor vehicle sales would be allowed is expanding. Staff will dive into this in the future including possible performance standards (lot size, setbacks, etc.) and is also seeking direction from the City Council. 0 Animal Uses in Commercial/Industrial o The current code lists "Animal Boarding" as the only animal related use in the non-residential districts, specifically allowed in the current Industrial district. Going forward staff proposes expanding animal uses in these districts to include at least veterinarian clinics, but could include, grooming, daycare, or sales. Accessory Dwelling Units and Duplexes o To align with current goals set in the Comprehensive Plan, Staff is proposing the expansion of duplexes and accessory dwelling units. The current proposal would allow duplexes in the R1, R2, and R3 districts. Accessory dwelling units would be permitted in all residential districts. Zoning District Standards Highlight: B2 (General Commercial/Mixed-Use): The proposed B2 district is comprised of the existing Village Commercial (VC), Commercial (CA), and Business Park Commercial (BPC) districts. o Staff has identified the following discrepancies as a result of this consolidation: ■ BPC district requires a 75-foot setback to abutting residential districts, VC and CA do not. This could create possible lawful nonconforming setbacks. ■ BPC currently has properties within the district boundaries that are lawful nonconforming in regards to the 75-foot abutting residential setback. On average these properties are with 45 feet of a residential property line. ■ Including VC into the proposed B2 district opens up possibility of Motor Vehicle Sales in the VC district area. o Staff has identified the following options to possibly resolve these concerns. Leave VC as a stand-alone zoning district or amend the current 75-foot abutting residential setback to 45 feet for the proposed B2 district. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on which resolution would be preferred. Prepared by: Tim Gladhill Community Development Director Ben Gutknecht Planning Manager Katriona Molasky Assistant City Planner Proposed Official Zoning Map (from previous step) S�fllwage, 2024 Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Proposed Official Zoning Map stilweter mining Zoning Distrim t, D—n— _ . Mi d use B3: Neighborhood Commerdal _ 11: CMl. and Indaslrlal _ P1: PablldDaa.W.blic - R—ast n R1: Single Family Residential R2: Neighborhood Consery tlon RI Medium Density Residential _ R4: High Density Residential Proposed District Standards and Use Tables 1. R1 — Single Family Residential a. Purpose Statement: This district provides a broad range of low and medium density residential opportunities with 5 to 9.7 units per acre. The focus is on neighborhood development in what remains of undeveloped areas in Western Stillwater and provides infill opportunities in some existing larger lots. Typical uses include housing, churches, playgrounds, and parks rather than mixed -use or commercial nodes. b. Massing Regulations: Density 5-9.7 U/A Lot Size 6,000 Lot Width 50 Lot Depth 100 Front Yard Setback 20 Front Yard Setback (Garage) 20 Side Yard Setback 5 Side Yard Setback (Garage) 5 Side Yard Corner/Exterior Setback 20 Side Yard Corner/Exterior Setback (Garage) 20 Rear Yard Setback 25 Rear Yard Setback (Garage) 5 Lot Coverage 35% Building Height 25 Building Height Accessory Structures 20 2. R2 — Neighborhood Conservation a. Purpose Statement: This district provides low and medium density residential opportunities with 5 to 9.7 units per acre. It is primarily existing residential areas in the historic neighborhoods of the city, and focuses on preserving the form, development, and function of the historic neighborhoods. It provides housing, churches, schools, and has small neighborhood commercial nodes. This district requires design review for external renovation projects and prioritizes walkability to historic commercial nodes. b. Massing Regulations: Density 5-9.7 U/A Lot Size 6,000 Lot Width 50 Lot Depth 100 Front Yard Setback 20 Front Yard Setback (Garage) 30 Side Yard Setback 5 Side Yard Setback (Garage) 3 Side Yard (Corner/Exterior) Setback 20 Side Yard Corner/Exterior Setback (Garage) 30 Rear Yard Setback 20 Rear Yard Setback (Garage) 3 Lot Coverage 30% Structural 20% Other Building Height 25 Building Height Accessory Structures 20 3. R3 — Medium Density Residential a. Purpose Statement: This district provides for a density of 6 to 14.5 units per acre. Typical uses include townhomes and small-scale apartment buildings. Provides sites for new townhomes and housing types of similar styles and densities. b. Massing Regulations: Density 6-14.5 U/A Lot Size 3,000 Front Yard Setback 20 Front Yard Setback (Garage) 25 Side Yard Setback 25 Side Yard Setback (Garage) 25 Side Yard Corner/Exterior Setback 25 Side Yard Corner/Exterior Setback (Garage) 25 Rear Yard Setback 25 Rear Yard Setback (Garage) 25 Building Separation 15 Lot Coverage Building Height 35 Building Height Accessory Structures 35 Required Recreation Space 10% of Gross Project Area 4. R4 — High Density Residential a. Purpose Statement: This district provides for a density of 12 to 25 units per acre and includes areas where apartments and condominiums are located. b. Massing Regulations: Density 12-25 U/A Lot Size 1,500 Front Yard Setback 35 Front Yard Setback (Garage) 45 Side Yard Setback 20 Side Yard Setback (Garage) 10 Side Yard Corner/Exterior Setback Side Yard Corner/Exterior Setback (Garage) Rear Yard Setback 45 Rear Yard Setback (Garage) 10 Building Separation 35 Lot Coverage Floor Area Ratio F.A.R 0.75 Building Height Stories 3 Building Height Accessory Structures Required Recreation Space 10% of Gross Project Area 5. Residential Use Table R1 R2 R3 R4 5-9.7 U/A 5-9.7 U/A 6-14.5 U/A 12-25 U/A Allowable Uses Single -Family P P Detached Duplexes P P P Townhomes (3+ P P Attached) Apartments and P Condominiums Assisted Living and Memory P P P P Care Accessory P P P P Dwelling Units Short Term Home P P P P Rentals Home P P P P Occupation K-12 Schools, Public and CUP CUP CUP CUP Private Places of CUP CUP CUP CUP Worship Cemeteries CUP CUP CUP CUP Agriculture and P Agricultural Sales Day Care (12 or P P P P fewer Day Care (13 to CUP CUP CUP CUP or more 6. B 1 —Downtown a. Purpose Statement: This district provides a community and regional mixed -use center for retail, shops, restaurants, offices, other commercial uses, and a mix of residential. This district requires design review to ensure new development and rehabilitation integrate into the historic fabric of the district. b. Massing Regulations: Lot Size 10,000 Front Yard Setback 15 Side Yard Setback 10 Rear Yard Setback 20 Lot Coverage 80% Landscaping and Open Space 20% Building Height (Stories) Refer to Height Overlay District in Section 28-299 Building Height Accessory Structures 2 Stories or 25 feet 7. B2 — General Commercial/Mixed Use a. Purpose Statement: This district is based around accommodating a wide variety of retail goods and services that are more intense than neighborhood scale commercial and serve the region. It has a Mixed -Use Overlay District that allows for the greater integration of residential with mixed -use commercial developments in a thoughtful manner overtime. b. Massing Regulations: Lot Size 10,000 Front Yard Setback 30 Side Yard Corner/Exterior Setback 30 Side Yard Setback 20 Rear Yard Setback 15 Setback to Abutting Residential 45 Lot Coverage 60% Landscaping and Open Space 20% Building Height Stories 40 Building Height Accessory Structures 1 20 8. B3 — Neighborhood Commercial a. Purpose Statement: This district preserves historic neighborhood nodes and offers neighborhood residents access to commercial goods and services. It provides opportunity for retail and services to adjacent residents and the Stillwater community. Typical uses include convenience stores, coffee shops and cafes, retail, and small-scale restaurants. It strives to preserve and promote uses that don't negatively impact the neighborhood. b. Massing Regulations: Lot Size 5,000 Front Yard Setback 10 Side Yard Corner/Exterior Setback 10 Side Yard Setback 5 Rear Yard Setback 10 Lot Coverage 80% Landscaping and Open Space 0% Building Height Stories 35 Building Height Accessory Structures 20 and cannot exceed principal structure 9. 1 — Industrial/Office a. Purpose Statement: This district provides areas for limited industrial and manufacturing and mixed office uses for the region. This area serves the greater Stillwater Community but is primarily located in southern Stillwater. b. Massing Regulations: Lot Size 1 Acre Front Yard Setback 40 Side Yard Setback 20 Rear Yard Setback 30 Setback to Abutting Residential 75 Lot Coverage 60% Landscaping and Open Space 20% Building Height Stories 40 10. P — Public/Institutional a. Purpose Statement: This district provides areas for public and quasi -public places that serve the regional community such as schools, hospitals, churches, cemeteries, and government institutions. b. Massing Regulations: Lot Size 10,000 Front Yard Setback 30 Side Yard (Corner/Exterior) Setback 20 Side Yard Setback 20 Rear Yard Setback 25 Landscaping and Open Space 30% Building Height Stories 45 Building Height Accessory Structures 20 11. Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed -Use Districts B1 B2 B3 I P Downtown General Neighborhoo Industria Public/ Commercial d I/Office Institutional /Mixed Use Commercial Allowable Use General Retail P P P A Tobacco Sales CUP P CUP CBD Retail CUP Establishment — Intoxicating Medical Cannabis CUP Distribution Facility Medical Cannabis CUP Laboratories Hemp — growing of Therapeutic Massage P P P P Business Restaurants P P P Taprooms (and other P P P P definitions) Drive Throughs CUP Personal and P P P P Professional Services Offices P P P P P Offices — Medical and P P P P Medical Ancillary Hospitals CUP Motor Vehicle Sales CUP (per perform ance standard s in code) Motor Vehicle Repair CUP (Major) Motor Vehicle Repair P P (Minor) Car Wash CUP 131 B2 B3 I P Downtown General Neighborhoo Industria Public/ Commercial d I/Office Institutional /Mixed Use Commercial Gas Station CUP Indoor Commercial P P P P Recreation Dog Training Facility CUP (per perfo rman ce stan dard s) Veterinarian Office P P Outdoor Commercial CUP CUP CUP CUP Recreation Outdoor Dining P P CUP Seasonal Outdoor Sales IUP IUP Outdoor Events IUP IUP IUP IUP IUP Commercial Nurseries P P K-12 Schools, Public and P Private Libraries and Museums P P Post Offices P P Commercial Day Care P P P P Hotels or Motels CUP P CUP Light Manufacturing P Warehousing P Indoor Self Storage CUP Transportation Terminals CUP Funeral Home or CUP Mortuary Multifamily Residential CUP Short Term Home P P Rentals Wireless Communication CUP Towers Exhibit A Allowable Uses Comparison/Crosswalk Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed -Use District Allowable Uses Crosswalk Previous Description New Description General retail business uses or service; local market' General Retail General retail business uses or service; local and regional market General Retail Specialty retail, incl. antique shops General Retail Department stores General Retail Drug stores General Retail Interior decorating sales; sale of floor covering, paint, wallpaper, materials and objects of interior decorating General Retail Appliances and furniture, sale of General Retail Household goods, sale of (including china) General Retail Books, magazines, newspapers, stationary; sale of General Retail Gifts, flowers, photographic supplies; sale of General Retail Medical cannabis distribution facility Medical cannabis distribution facility CBD retail establishments non -intoxicating CBD retail establishments non -intoxicating CBD retail establishments intoxicating CBD retail establishments intoxicating Therapeutic massage business Therapeutic massage business Tobacco products; sale of Tobacco products; sale of Hardware, sale of General Retail Sporting goods; sale of General Retail Music store General Retail Supermarket, retail food General Retail Baked goods, manufacture/retail sale of (<_ 5 persons employed) General Retail Baked goods, manufacture/retail sale of ( > 5 persons employed) General Retail Grocery, < 5,000 sq. ft. of retail area General Retail Restaurants3 Restaurants Fast food outlet Restaurants Tea rooms, delis, coffee shops, soda fountains, not including the sale of alcoholic beverages Restaurants Outside eating establishments Outdoor Dining Drive-in or drive -through: restaurant, eating places or any other use involving a drive-in or drive -through activity Drive Throughs Barber or beauty shops Personal or Professional Services Shoe repair shop Personal or Professional Services Printing shop Manufacturing? Photo processing General Retail? Tailoring or pressing Personal or Professional Services Laundry; agencies, self-service, full service, dry cleaning Personal or Professional Services Laundry employing < 5 persons Personal or Professional Services Carpet, bag and rug cleaning Personal or Professional Services Banks and financial institutions Personal or Professional Services Offices; general, business or professional Offices Offices; finance, insurance, editorial or real estate services Offices Offices; administrative Offices Offices; business offices that are accessory to permitted uses on the site Offices Office buildings Offices Consultant services such as advertising, engineering, architects and designers Offices Radio or television stations Offices Offices; medical and dental Offices, medical Office display or sales spaces5 Offices Automotive sales, service and storage, excluding gasoline filling stations (See Section 28-382for performance standards. Motor Vehicle Sales Service stations or fuel sales (See Section 28-382for performance standards. ??? Gasoline filling station Gasoline filling station Auto repair and related services Auto repair and related services Car Washes Commercial recreational uses Indoor Commercial Recreation Commercial recreational entertainment Indoor Commercial Recreation Amusement and recreational establishments' Indoor Commercial Recreation Event Centers Outside entertainment, commercia18 Outdoor Special Events Indoor commercial recreation Indoor commercial recreation Outdoor commercial recreation Outdoor commercial recreation Outside eating areas Outdoor Dining Outside sales or special events' Outdoor Sales Outdoor Special Events Outside storage Outside storage Seasonal outdoor sales Seasonal outdoor sales Commercial nurseries Commercial nurseries Exterior phonographs, paging systems, musical instruments, etc. that may disturb the peace and quiet of the public Outdoor amplified music Parks Move all to PROS (and consolidate to simply parks and related infrastructure) and zone appropriately Trails Park structures" Playgrounds Nature preserve Athletic fields with li hts12 Outside tennis courts with lights 13 Outside basketball courts with lights 13 Outside hockey rinks with lightsl3 Athletic fields without lights 13 Outside tennis courts without lights Outside basketball courts without lights Outside hockey rinks without lights Recreation centers14 Multiple purpose park buildings Golf course Golf course club houses Dog park Public boat launch Other passive recreational or natural open spaces Parking lot Schools, business and technical Schools, public and private Post secondary education institutions Schools and studios for arts and crafts, photography, music, dance ?? Educational institutions, schools Schools, public and private Libraries, art galleries, theaters for the performing arts, and other such cultural facilities Libraries and Museums Libraries or post offices Libraries and Museums Public Administrative Offices Churches and other places of worship Places of Worship Day cares/ nurseries Day cares/ nurseries Group day care Day Cares Governmental facilities Public Administrative Offices Fire station Public Administrative Offices Hospitals, convalescent hospitals and nursing homes Hospitals, convalescent hospitals and nursing homes Hotels or motels Hotels or motels EMS facilities26 ?? Manufacturing, limited17 Light Manufacturing Manufacture of baked goods Light Manufacturing Manufacturing, processing, fabrication or assembling of limited commodit 18 Light Manufacturing Retail sales of products manufactured on the site19 Retail sales of products manufactured on the site19 Wholesale trade Warehousing Warehousing and outside storage Warehousing and inside storage Warehousing Mini -storage Indoor Self Storage Light industrial that is clean and compatible with surrounding properties Light Industrial Limited bottling works20 Light Industrial Printing and publishing or lithographic shop Light Industrial Chemical laboratories Light Industrial? Research establishments of industrial, medical or scientific nature Light Industrial Medical cannabis laboratories Medical cannabis laboratories Research facilities or research laboratories Research facilities or research laboratories Transportation station or terminal Transportation station or terminal Helipads Helipads Public works facility, including office and meeting space Public Administrative Offices Essential services Public utility transmission lines and facilities Utility Facilities Telephone exchange Utilities Facilities Parking facilities See Off Street Parking Performance Standards Private parking facilities > 5 cars See Off Street Parking Performance Standards Funeral home or mortuary Funeral home or mortuary Growing of industrial hemp Growing of industrial hemp Club or lode Event Center Dog training facility25 Dog training facility25 Outside eating areas Outdoor Dining Outside sales or special events' Outdoor Sales Special Events Residences of all classes Multifamily Residential Temporary structures Temporary structures Short-term home rentals Short-term home rentals Small wireless facilities in the right-of-way Small wireless facilities in the right-of-way Wireless communication services towers and antennas Wireless communication services towers and antennas Exhibit B District Standards (Massing Standards) Residential Densit RA TR CTR LR CR CCR RR (R1b) AP R1 -new- 5-9.7 U/A RB R2 -new" 5-9.7 U/A R3 —new" 6-14.5 U/A R4 ""new"" 12-25 U/A Lot Size Lot Width 10000 75 10000 65 14000 80 20000 80 6000 50 7000 60 43560 100 435600 300 6000 50 7500 50 6000 50 5000 3000 7000 3000 0 1 1500 Lot Width (Cul de Sac) 40 Lot Depth 100 170 300 300 100 100 100 Front Yard Setback 30 20 25 25 15 20 40 50 20 20 20 20 30 20 35 35 Front Yard Setback (Garage) 30 27 32 20 40 25 20 30 3 25 25 45 45 Side Yard Setback 10 10 7.5 10 5 7.5 15 25 5 7.5 5 25 25 20 20 Side Yard Setback (Garage) 10 3 5 51 7.51 151 25 51 31 3 25 25 10 10 Side Yard (Caner/Exterior) Setback 30 10 20 25 15 20 40 25 20 20 20 25 25 Side Yard Caner/Exterior) Setback Gara a 15 40 25 20 30 30 25 25 Rear Yard Setback 25 25 25 25 25 50 75 25 25 25 25 25 45 45 Rear Yard Setback (Garage) 3 3 50 75 5 3 3 25 25 10 10 Building Separation 15 40 50 15 35 35 OHW Setback 85 Lot Coverage 30 35 35 Lot Coaera a Structures 25 30 Lot Coverage (Other Impertious) 25 20 Floor Area Ratio 0.75 h[35 35 35 28 35 35 35 25 35 35 35 35 d35 EOBuildinHei 40 Building Height Stories 3 Buildin Hei h[ Access Structures 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 35 35 Building Height Ag Buildings 50 Garage Size 1000 1000 Ld Size CBD 10, 000 B1 1P_ Vc 10A00sf CA BPO 1/2acre NO NO 5000 &3^ne w^ 5000 BPI 11 BPO 1Ac 1^new" 1 PA 10,000 PWF 5Ac. PROS WA LotWtlM1 Ld WMM1 Culdesac Ld De iM1 Front— Setbeck(rnerior Lot) 15 15 50 ID 40 30 10 from 10 Ma k t noo ronald 40 40 40 30 50 50 30 Front Yam Setback (Comer Lot aide street) w% 0to t yam regairetl on abj." ld fronting on aide street, but oo less iM1en 15 or40 rear measured rrom °«temna of aide street, wtilPM1eceris rear« 30 10 10 20 W 50 20 20 fl teal Side In. Setback °f EotM1 sides 10 25 Ifno side OPeniigs: 0 feet: Ifside cpenings:4 bet 20 20 5 5 ce «er Wsings 20 20 20 20 30 50 20 (1N10 or ago Pen' W% of front yam requlretl on abJ." lot Side YaN (Correr/Exterior) S .1, finning on side street, Dut ro less tban 15 feet or 40 bat measured from centedine of aide rear, wfiicM1esris ree 50 Rear Y.d Setback 20 20 15 30 15 10 20 feet 10 Pe"meter Wsings 30 30 30 25 ?0 50 25 AbuOin 75 75 75 75 75 75 rio-W Lct Co�ere B0% 80% 80% 50% 50% M 50% 59% 50% 25% Candace In antl OW. S ce 20% Refer to 2. ReferN -1o, 40% 2 stodes not to 20% 20% 0% 0% 30% 3 States, 20% m% Mo, 3 Sto aa. 2 Stories, 30% 1 StoN. 20 30% Bulltll�g He10M OIredW skid, Section 2&2gB Oisinc, Section t8- mCe�35 40 40 35 35 max 40 40 feat 40 feet ax mfcet 35Rmex 65 bet 45 Accessory Building Heigh 2 stones «25 be1 2 stones or 5 k 1st ooi to exceed 20 bat I: ooi a exceed i20 ket nmi n l N exceed «Incipal structure o antl nout excee pdncipal 1 Story, ftm 1 Story. 20 ftmax Floor Area Rado ..Building. moat Fese b sl M1a�e auncN°nale entry along erery public sidewalk. b.C°mmem east one 4nc,.ro entry slang eery public sidewalk. or I�MII Ida, Of 1" Meriorfront yaN. WM1ere a unibmi font yaN s&back exists w 0Is less tM1an 30 feet, any bulltll�g or s[mc[ure erected, simdu211y aXeretl b.CommercielactiNtiea, nc utlirg food s.Mce arm sealing, may caupy yams. ONdoar inci1-N or, seMce antl s«Gecko lots, acks enlagetl may oomann to iM1e establisM1ed setback but In no case will a s&back Bless c«nmemial ae prohi— �n.1OW eeti�g, s may ExceptI.. isted in GAe(Pcesibb Future an be s milarfo "� into 20 bat De allowed. W.. a ur.- front Front and side P m ant S:00 a.m., unless an eseM o py Perbmiaooe SientleNs iM1e milario ih yaN setback does not mist, iM1e minimum Ee [M1e dint setbacks s 11 to landscaped permit m issued by iM1e aty. yams. Outdoor setback es beM1ec requlretl setback sMll aw2ge setback oft. tw°adja N1 main NnInIngs; or if c.Any oR-s[ree[parkirg co mmerola for the adjacent Ibings adjacent builNings [M1ere is only one adjacent ..in builtling, iM1e s otiM11mai m,bN in sM1th ust be lasted to tM1e rear .1. side of buildings. d.Sc g sM1all ba oofvhes nbeck NI-1,i�g ,g setback less tM1an 20 bet be allm Norgree[«[M1en 30 feet be required. pmNtletl alon d In g grogem in.ua g dal prMletad batwaen -I-- - properndles antl oR along street PaMin9 areas ebudi�g sheds. 10:00 p'm' and 800 unless on perM Is uetl by ne oty. o.Ary oR- Exhibit C Sustainable Stillwater Comments Tim Gladhill From: Roger Tomten <roger@sustainablestillwatermn.org> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 2:02 PM To: Tim Gladhill Subject: Zoning Ordinance discussion Attachments: ZONING ORD COMMENTS 032324.pdf [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. Tim, In previous discussions regarding the compatibility of our current zoning codes with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Green Step Cities goals, you have asked for comments on the categories that need attention. Per your suggestion I have assembled a list of sections that should be reviewed to confirm their compatibility with the City's goals. The attached document lists the existing code section and highlights (in blue text) the comments or suggested revisions. I've tried to keep the discussion items brief but obviously much more could be said on each of these topics. In terms of the numerous residential zones, I've only addressed the RB-Two Family Residential zone at this time, as it represents the older, historic platting of Stillwater, completed prior to the zoning code being enacted. Some of the topics covered could easily reach into the other residential zones as well. Let me know if you have any comments or questions. I look forward to more discussion on this important topic. Roger Roger Tomten Board Vice Chair [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. SUSTAINABLE STILLWATER MINNESOTA [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. SustainableStillwaterMN.org Facebook: SustainableStillwaterMN Twitter: @MNsustainable Instagram: sustainablestillwatermn REVIEW OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER CODE OF ORDINANCES Current Ordinances with comments/suggestions in blue text ORDINANCE CHAPTER 31 - ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 31-308. RB two-family district. (a) Allowable uses. (b) Massing regulations. (1) Minimum standards. Lot area The RB zone represents the majority of housing built and developed prior to the implementation of the zoning ordinance. In most cases the original lot sizes were platted -40' x 130' or 5200 sq ft. This means that many developed lots were deemed non -compliant with the creation of this ordinance. This has probably been the most dramatic influence on destroying the historic character of the area and destroying the method of producing affordable housing in the area. Lot area should be minimized (-5000 sf) or eliminated as a standard. Lot width A majority of the originally platted lots in Stillwater were 40' wide. To set a requirement higher than that is destroying the historic character of the community. Lot depth This is an unnecessary requirement. Front yard setback - Main building This represents a suburban standard that should not be overlayed onto a historic neighborhood. It should be eliminated. Front yard setback - Garage A typical historic layout would include a garage de-emphasized from the front of the house. The critical criteria here would ensure that the garage is located behind the front face of the main building. Side yard setback - Interior- Main building This is a reasonable requirement for this zone. Side yard setback -Interior - Garage This is a reasonable requirement for this zone. Side yard setback - Exterior (corner side)- Main building No setback should be required here. Side yard setback -Exterior (corner side) - Garage This is a reasonable requirement for this zone. 3/23/24 Page 1 of 5 REVIEW OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER CODE OF ORDINANCES Current Ordinances with comments/suggestions in blue text Rear yard setback - Main building This is a reasonable requirement for this zone. Rear yard setback - Garage This is a reasonable requirement for this zone. Frontage requirement This is a reasonable requirement for this zone. SECTION 31-317 CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (b) Allowable uses. In general the discussion of Allowable Uses should be greatly diminished or eliminated in areas of the City where a mix of uses is desired and beneficial. (c) Massing regulations. Maximum Height The Height Overlay District in the current code was the reaction to the three large condominium projects that were built in the 1990's, and specifically in reaction to Stillwater Mills and The Lofts. Stillwater Mills replaced a predominately one story manufacturing/industrial facility. The Lofts was constructed on a former vacant site. So when these two large structures, both utilizing the full 50 foot maximum allowed height at the time, it changed the character of the area so drastically that people thought something had to be done. The "down in front" approach laid out in this overlay district should be approached carefully so as not to result in underdeveloped and blank blocks and lots, loss of value and uses in the core downtown area and loss of revenue to the City. There should also be a discussion about the method used to measure building height. The side effect of using height measurements in feet in lieu of stories is going to be the truncation of buildings all at the same height over time, and the loss of vertical articulation and a variety of forms within a block. These are defining factors in human scaled historic environments and we are zoning the character of Stillwater that we love right out of existence. Lot Area What characteristic of Historic Stillwater is this protecting? If anything it is potentially eliminating the small, human scaled development pattern that defines Stillwater and reducing affordability and adaptability. It should be eliminated. Front Setback There is no reason for a Front Setback in this setting. Such a setback only serves to destroy the historic character of the area. It should be eliminated. 3/23/24 Page 2 of 5 REVIEW OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER CODE OF ORDINANCES Current Ordinances with comments/suggestions in blue text Side Setback Similar to the Front Setback, it only serves to destroy the historic character of the area. It should be eliminated. Building Codes already establish setbacks for the safety and welfare of the public, so there is no need to repeat them in the zoning code. Rear Setback See the Side Setback comment above. Ideally the CBD should be governed by a Form Based Code to allow quicker response times for approvals and results that are in keeping with the city's historic character. Lot Coverage and Landscaped Area Similar to the Front and Side Setbacks, it only serves to destroy the historic character of the area. It should be eliminated. Additional Setback Standards None of the roadways listed are contiguous with the current CBD. This section should be eliminated. 3/23/24 Page 3 of 5 REVIEW OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER CODE OF ORDINANCES Current Ordinances with comments/suggestions in blue text ARTICLE V. - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS DIVISION 1. - RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS Sec. 31-501. - Accessory dwellings. Lot size minimums and off-street parking requirements hinder and discourage this housing option. Sec. 31-506. - Condominium conversion regulations. Subd. 4. (b) Off-street parking Sec. 31-507. - Multifamily residential district bonus. 10% bonus if 80% of units meet affordable housing standards. Such formulas (if needed) have to be careful not to concentrate affordable housing. The goal should be to entice all developments to apportion affordability into their projects, not separate market -rate from affordable housing. DIVISION 2. - RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS Sec. 31-510. Off-street parking and loading. Off street parking (or any parking) requirements need to be reanalyzed. They are one of the driving factors in the cost of housing, infill development and perhaps more importantly, the scale of infill development. Sec. 31-513. Landscaping. Subd. 1. (b) Street trees. Trees shall be planted along all streets. Street trees shall be set back a distance of ten feet from the street right-of-way. Street trees belong in the street right-of-way, not set back ten feet from the street right- of-way. The benefits of street trees are numerous and should be a part of any street improvement budget. Subd. 1. (c) Front yards: Non-residential. The minimum front yard ... shall be covered with sod ... Requiring sod is not what should stated. Instead, look more toward encouraging low water -use and native landscaping. 3/23/24 Page 4 of 5 REVIEW OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER CODE OF ORDINANCES Current Ordinances with comments/suggestions in blue text DIVISION 4. - CONSERVATION REGULATIONS - ALL DISTRICTS Sec. 31-521. - Slope regulations. These regulations should vary depending in the intensity of the development. Restrictions of building locations and roadways in the Central Business District are detrimental to the viability and walkability of the CBD. These regulations would be more appropriate in the lower density areas of the City. Sec. 31-522. - Tree and forest protection. Subd.2. District Boundaries. The tree protection regulations apply to all zoning districts within the city. Restrictions should vary depending on the intensity of development. The requirements in a sub -urban or residential zone should not be the same as those in an urban core or Central Business District zone. Subd.4. Tree Protection Plan. In lower density zones, site planning should be encouraged to avoid heritage tree locations and to incorporate them into the site plan. Using them as visual terminations, edges of open spaces, or shaded sites for group gatherings are examples of site plan integration. Subd.5. Tree replacement. Tree replacement requirements should be reviewed and adjusted based on the number of trees to be removed and the amount of space available for replacement. When new streets are built as part of the development, street trees should be required and included in the replacement count. Encourage a mix of tree sizes, using larger caliper trees for spatial definition, immediate shading needs and street tree locations. Spaded street trees (larger caliper) will not require as much pruning and maintenance and will provide shaded sidewalks and protection for pedestrians. 3/23/24 Page 5 of 5 1 1 Water THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNES O T A DATE: June 26, 2024 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Larry Odebrecht, City Councilmember — Liaison to Planning Commission SUBJECT: Planning Commission Work Plan DISCUSSION The purpose of this workshop is a continuation of the development of an Annual Work Plan for the Planning Commission to help guide and prioritize its proactive policy work. Much of the workload of the Planning Commission is reacting to land use applications. However, an important element of the Planning Commission's work is land use policy through administering the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Code. From time to time, the Commission may also recommend other plans, programs, and policies outside the scope of these core documents. This workshop is the next in a series of multiple steps. The intent is to create a framework of a high-level vision and strategy. The Commission should expect smaller follow ups in regular meetings, especially in the context of upcoming updates to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. The Community Development Director is unavailable for this meeting and this workshop will be facilitated by the Council Liaison. During this workshop, Staff recommends covering the following. • Ba Gkgro lnd Presentation of Existing Conditions, 7�LseurGes — Completed at April 17, 2024 `/� �fQT�V� �J GTJ • Planning Commission Purpose — Draft created at April 17, 2024 Workshop, Completed at May 22 Workshop • Planning Gemmissi,on Vision — Draft created at April 17, 2024 Workshop, Completed at May 22 Workshop • Strategies — Draft created at May 22 Workshop, to be completed at this Workshop 1 1 Water THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNES O T A Planning Commission Purpose/Mission and Vision Purpose/Mission Vision Why does the Planning Commission exist In the next 10-20 years... today? • Where do we want to be? • What do we want to look like? • How will we know if we were successful? Through diligent oversight of the The Planning Commission envisions a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code community that focuses on housing and listening to the voice of the needs, employment opportunities, and community, we commit to maintaining a diverse community. We support a safe, healthy, and vibrant community historic preservation, economic for everyone. growth, and environmental sustainabilit . Planning Commission Strategies A bulk of the work of this Workshop will focus on developing specific strategies for the next 1-3 years. These are still high-level strategies that explain the 'how' we will achieve our vision. These are not yet specific action items. The following themes emerged from the May 22 Workshop. 1. Housing Development Strategy: Enhance housing density through supportive regulations, develop shovel -ready sites for immediate construction, and establish robust financial structures to encourage development. Include the creation of an advisory group to assist the Council and Economic Development Authority (EDA) in decision -making. 2. Riverfront Improvement Strategy: Execute the approved riverfront enhancement plans, which have secured funding through State Bonding Bills, to improve the riverfront areas' public access and aesthetic appeal. 3. Environmental and Historical Preservation Strategy: Promote environmental sustainability by integrating green practices with the preservation of historical sites, aiming to protect both natural and cultural heritage. 4. Economic Growth Strategy: Propel industrial growth and enhance neighborhood commercial areas to boost local economic vitality and create job opportunities. 5. Zoning Code Optimization: Revise zoning codes to streamline procedures, reduce redundancy, and facilitate smoother development processes, making compliance more straightforward for developers. 6. Enhanced Partnerships and Collaboration: Develop stronger multi -jurisdictional partnerships and collaborative initiatives to harness regional strengths and resources for community projects. 7. Comprehensive Planning: Systematically review the Comprehensive Plan by integrating detailed chapter discussions into each Commission meeting, thereby embedding these insights into the strategic planning process without isolating them as a separate agenda item. 8. Diversity and Inclusion in City Commissions: Implement strategies to monitor, promote, and increase diversity within city commissions, potentially collaborating with the Human Rights Commission and/or City Council to achieve these objectives. 9. Economic Development Authority (EDA) Collaboration: Foster closer collaboration between the EDA and advisory groups to ensure alignment of economic development efforts with broader city strategies. 10. Historic Site Integration: Integrate economic development with historic preservation, ensuring that growth initiatives respect and highlight the city's historical assets. 11. Public Engagement and Communication: Enhance public engagement and communication strategies to ensure community members are well-informed and actively involved in development plans and city projects. 12. Sustainable Development Initiatives: Launch initiatives that focus on sustainable development, emphasizing renewable energy usage and eco-friendly building practices to future -proof the city's growth.