Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-08 PC Packet r illwater ~~ - ~ THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA ~ CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008 The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, December 8, 2008, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. City of Stillwater Planning Commission regular meetings are held at 7 p.m on the second Monday of each month. All City Planning Commission meetings are open to the public. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 10, 2008 AND NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS. Public Hearings are held during the Planning Commission's regular meetings. The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask City Staff to provide background on the proposed item. After the staff presentation, the Chairperson will then ask for comments from the applicant on the proposed item. The Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone present who wishes to speak for or against the proposed item. The Chairperson may require a time limit on the number of minutes each member of the public may speak, normally five minutes. Members of the public who wish to speak will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. Case No. 08-49. A Zoning Text Amendment to allow a senior care facility by special use in the Lakeshore Residential District and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change future land use from single family small lot to single family large lot for the property located at 12525 75th Street North in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District. Stillwater Select Properties, Greg Johnson, applicant. 3.02 Case No. 08-50. A special use permit request for 8 apartment units- and a variance to the parking regulations at 124 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark Balay, applicant. 3.01 4. OTHER BUSINESS 4.01 Case No.08-48. A resubdivision of one lot into two lots located at 915 West Abbott Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Ray Loida, Jr., applicant. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET . STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 . WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 10, 2008 Present: Dave Middleton, chair, Suzanne Block, Dan Kalmon, Taylor Luke, Wally Milbrandt and Charles Wolden Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Mike Dahlquist and Erica Fultz Prior to the regular meeting, the Commission met in a workshop session to review the Draft Comprehensive Plan update. In attendance were Commissioners Block, Kalmon, Luke, Middleton, Milbrandt and Wolden, along with staff members Pogge and Community Development Director Turnblad. Mr. Middleton called the regular meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Milbrandt moved approval of the minutes of Oct. 13, 2008. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 08-40 A street vacation request for a 166 x 30 foot portion of Panama Avenue and an 82 x 60 foot portion of Hubert Street in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District. Washington County Public Works, applicant. Continued from the Sept. 8, 2008, meeting. Mr. Pogge reviewed the site and the two small portions of right-of-way the County is asking to have vacated. He noted that a water main and storm sewer main are located in the portion of Panama Avenue in question and the recommendation is to reserve an easement for maintenance of that infrastructure. He stated there are no utilities in Hubert Street. He noted that there is an existing home at 15055 60th Street North that will become landlocked as a result of the requested vacation, and it is recommended that an easement be secured to provide ingress/egress to that property. Mr. Pogge pointed out that the County does have an option to purchase the 60th Street property. Mr. Pogge stated the primary reason for the requested street vacations is to have more uniform boundaries for the Government Center campus. Mr. Pogge stated Washington County has agreed to the two easements and approval is recommended. Sharon Price, representing Washington County, confirmed that the primary reason for the requested vacation is to have more uniform boundaries for the Government Center site. Mr. Kalmon asked if 60th Street would be closed entirely when the current landowner leaves. Ms. Price pointed out that 60th Street is part of MnDOT's right-of-way and she could not speak to that question. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kalmon expressed his view that when publicly-owned land is vacated - given away - there should be some value attached to the property and the public compensated in some amount. Mr. Milbrandt moved approval of the requested street vacations as conditioned. Mr. Luke seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 10, 2008 Case No. 08-47 A variance request for construction of an in-ground pool at 224 Rutherford Road in the TR, Traditional Residential District. Valley Pools & Spas, representing Donald and Janine Harvieux, applicant. Donald Gilbert of Valley Pools & Spas, Hudson, WI, was present representing the property owners. Mr. Pogge reviewed the site and pointed out the pool is to be constructed in an adjacent lot the Harvieuxs own. He said other than the rear yard setback, the proposal meets all other zoning requirements. He pointed out the variance for the rear yard setback is due to the site being located on a corner lot, with the front of the property defined as Melville Court because the front door faces that street. Mr. Pogge reviewed the three criteria for issuance of a variance, with the staff report finding in favor of granting the request. Ms. Block asked if the Liberty Homeowners Association had approved of the plans; Mr. Pogge said the plans have been submitted, but the group has not yet met to consider the request. Mr. Middleton asked if the pool area would be fenced. Mr. Gilbert said the area would be fenced and will meet the Homeowners Association guidelines. Mr. Gilbert noted there is an existing easement between the two lots which they would like vacated as it has been determined there is noting buried in the easement; that would allow the pool placement to be adjusted by about 2', he said. It was noted the easement is not a part of the variance request. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Tom Rossez, 314 Melville Court, asked about grading and drainage issues. Mr. Gilbert explained there will not be a lot of movement of dirt involved. He noted that drainage will likely come around the pool and flow in the same direction as it currently does. Mr. Rossez also asked whether just the pool area would be fenced, rather than the entire yard; Mr. Gilbert showed some of the planned landscaping. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Milbrandt asked about the role of the Homeowners Association. Mr. Pogge explained that the Homeowners Association must approve the fencing and landscaping; however, he said the City does not get involved or try to enforce the Association's guidelines. Mr. Pogge said the City does have an agreement with the Association in that it notifies the Association of a project before issuing a building permit. Mr. Milbrandt moved approval of the requested variance as conditioned. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 08-46 A zoning text amendment to the sign regulations to Section 31-509 Subd. 8 through Subd. 11 related to signage in the BP-Business Park zoning district. City of Stillwater, applicant. Copies of the proposed revisions were included in the agenda packets. Mr. Pogge highlighted the major changes - more than 1 sign is allowed, with a minimum of 100 square feet and maximum of 300 square feet of total allowable sign area, with a cap of 15 percent of the total building wall surface. He also noted the revised language would require multi-tenant buildings to submit a sign plan. The language related to automobile service station signage has been removed as that signage now is subject to the same regulations as other businesses, he said. Mr. Pogge also noted there are still certain areas with special height regulations. 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 10, 2008 There was a question whether signage would be allowed on both frontages on buildings with two street frontages; Mr. Pogge responded in the affirmative but noted the average of the building wall surfaces is used to calculate the total allowable sign area and the signage is subject to the maximum allowable area of 300 square feet. Mr. Middleton expressed a concern that there could be multiple wall signs and still be in conformance with the total allowable sign area; it was consensus to clarify that only one wall sign per street frontage is allowed. Ms. Block asked if there were changes related to the Valley Ridge center. Mr. Pogge said there is no increase in the amount of signage the owner can give to tenants, and he pointed out that the owner does have the right to limit the signage of some tenants. Mr. Luke asked about the sign faces of pylon signs if the faces are parallel or perpendicular to the road frontage. Mr. Pogge noted that depending on the situation of a sign, two sign faces of up to 100 square feet would be allowed. Mr. Kalmon asked if there is any language related to temporary signage; Mr. Pogge said those regulations are in a different section of the ordinance. Mr. Wolden questioned the language in the special sign height limits section. After discussion, Mr. Pogge suggested that it might be clearer to allow a maximum height of 25' along Highway 36, a maximum height of 20' along County Road 5, with all other freestanding signage limited to a maximum of 6' in height. Ms. Block suggested that the language specifying how the height is measured (Subd. 8 (c) (3)) be included in Subd. 10. Mr. Middleton asked about the existing signage that would not meet the maximum height; Mr. Pogge said that signage would have "grandfather" status. Ms. Block moved to recommend that the City Council approve the text amendment with the changes discussed. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Review and recommendation on Downtown Sidewalk Siqn policv - Mr. Pogge reviewed the proposed guidelines, which would allow businesses one sandwich board-type sign up to 3' tall, 30" wide and 24" deep; businesses would pay an annual $50 permit to have such signage, according to the guidelines. Mr. Middleton asked about building banners; Mr. Pogge noted banners fall under the temporary signage restrictions. Mr. Middleton asked who would enforce the proposed guidelines; Mr. Pogge responded that the process would first involve education, then an issuance of an administrative citation, if necessary, and finally a misdemeanor violation, if the violation is not corrected after those efforts. There was a question about hours the signs could be displayed; Mr. Pogge said it is the intent that the hours would be the hours of the individual business owners. Mr. Milbrandt suggested that $50 is a small fee, and suggested a fee in the range of $250 might be more appropriate if the intent is to use the revenues for downtown improvement projects. Mr. Milbrandt also pointed out that the signage in question is against state statute. Mr. Pogge stated MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation) has indicated it won't officially endorse the proposal but has indicated it is OK with the guidelines. Mr. Kalmon suggested that business owners ought to be informed there is a possibility MnDOT might remove the signage. On a question by Ms. Block, both Mr. Middleton and Mr. Kalmon indicated they would be comfortable with the $50 fee. 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission November 10, 2008 Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Kalmon, moved to approve the proposed guidelines, clarifying that there are state regulations regarding the signage on Main Street. Motion passed 4-2, with Mr. Milbrandt and Mr. Luke voting no. Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Block. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission Special Meeting November 19, 2008 Present: Dave Middleton, chair Suzanne Block, Mike Dahlquist, Dan Kalmon and Charles Wolden Staff present: Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Pogge Mr. Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Mr. Turnblad noted that he had made a formal presentation at the Planning Commission's review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission's next step, he stated, is to hold the public hearing and consider a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Wolden asked about the process if a person still doesn't agree with aspects of the document. Mr. Turnblad stated staff/consultants have kept track of substantive comments, and those comments will be presented to the Council. He stated the document to be presented to the Council represents a consensus. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that three properties in the land use chapter of the document have been singled out and will be brought to the attention of the Council as the owners of those properties would like to see them treated differently than the use proposed in the draft plan. Mr. Wolden stated his option that the Highway 36 frontage system as proposed is short-sighted and will only lead to more problems. Mr. Turnblad agreed that issue has been an item of considerable discussion. Cooperation with the city of Oak Park Heights and MnDOT will be required to make any changes and discussions in that area are at an impasse, Mr. Turnblad noted. Mr. Turnblad also pointed out that, even with construction of a new river crossing, the frontage system will be unchanged. Mr. Kalmon asked about the phasing of public improvements, specifically $500,000 listed in the CIP for trail improvements. Mr. Kalmon asked if that included the possible Zephyr trail connection. Mr. Turnblad explained the function of the five-year CIP program. Mr. Turnblad stated the $500,000 is already budgeted and is obligated specifically for Lowell Park trail connections and improvements; he noted that at this point, it is not certain when or if the Zephyr property will be purchase or how that purchase will be funded. Mr. Kalmon also questioned mention of possible future funding for a parking ramp(s); Mr. Turnblad explained the reference is to ramps in addition to the one that will be constructed at Commercial and Second streets. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Denny Trooien, White Bear Lake, of Crescent Development, which owns 50 acres of land at Manning and Highway 36, spoke of the draft Comprehensive Plan's designation of the property as Research & Development. Mr. Trooien stated they would love to bring in corporate users but suggested that realistically the City ought to consider other uses for the property in question. He asked that consideration be given to designating one-half of the property as R&D (business park) and the western half of the property designated for some retail to allow for a broader commercial base. He said his company does agree that this property should be a high quality, gateway development. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out that the proposed use for Mr. Trooien's property is the same as the property to the east, noting that the actual use becomes an issue of zoning. Mr. Turnblad agreed that the Comprehensive Plan City of Stillwater Planning Commission Special Meeting November 19,2008 is clear in that the intent is to attract a quality employment base in the land use designation of the property; the zoning district can then be changed to allow for a mix of use that will evolve as development moves forward, he noted. Mr. Kalmon asked if the City is looking for other revenue sources in anticipation of dwindling fees as the City reaches full build-out. Mr. Turnblad said there is no specific plan, dealing with that issue will require creativity on the City's part. Mr. Dahlquist asked about the issue of growth rate; Mr. Turnblad responded that is a critical component of the Plan and is addressed in several of the chapters, including demographics and housing. Mr. Turnblad pointed out the City must meet the Metropolitan Council's growth projections and analysis of each vacant parcel done as part of the Plan indicates that the City will be able to meet those projections. Mr. Turnblad stated the plan hasn't looked at the actual rate of growth, how that growth will be spread out, but pointed out that the Orderly Annexation Agreement has provided a mechanism for controlling the rate of growth in the past. Mr. Kalmon said he thought somewhere in the Plan, the City should set an example for the public in setting goals to address issues such as energy use and recycling. Mr. Kalmon, seconded by Ms. Block, moved to recommend that the Council approve the review draft of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. On a question by Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Turnblad stated that the Council can make changes to the Plan until final adoption scheduled for the summer of 2009. On a question by Mr. Kalmon, Mr. Turnblad said copies of the review draft are available on-line at the City's web site, as well as the Stillwater Public Library or City Hall. Motion to recommend approval of the review draft passed 5-0. Mr. Wolden, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved to adjourn at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 2 .' ,-,tj I fwa fer ~~~--::~~ ~~- ~, -; H [ a A T Ii r I ,\ '< for M; ~~ N !:: ~ 0 1 A j DATE: December 4/ 2008 CASE NO.: 08-49 TO: Planning Commission REQUEST: 1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2) Zoning Code Text Amendment APPLICANT: Greg Johnson, Director, Select Companies LANDOWNER: Lenard Huebscher LOCATION: 12525 - 75th Street (Co. Rd. 12) HEARING DATE: December 8/ 2008 REVIEWED BY: City Attorney, City Planner PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director ~ ~ r BACKGROUND Greg Johnson, Director, Select Companies, has submitted the final plat for SELECT SENIOR LIVING OF STILLWATER. The property is currently owned by Lenard Huebscher and is located just east of Rutherford Elementary School on County Road 12. The two lot plat would create one lot for the existing Baptist Church and its relocated parsonage. The other lot would be for the Select Companies project, a 101 unit senior facility. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat a Special Use Permit and a rezoning to LR, Lakeshore Residential on September 8, 2008. The City Council agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation, except that the rezoning would not be officially approved until the final plat came before the City Council. Though the property will be rezoned to LR, Lakeshore Residential, the preliminary plat application for the project included a request to rezone the property to RB, Two-Family Residential. Since a senior care living facility is allowed by Special Use Permit (SUP) in the RB district, an ordinance amendment was not needed when the application was Select Senior Living - Final Plat December 4, 2008 Page 2 of 5 submitted. However, as the public review process unfolded, it became apparent that a rezoning to RB was not acceptable to the City. Rather, LR, Lakeshore Residential was preferred. And though the Planning Commission and City Council found the proposed use to be acceptable within the LR district, a senior care living center is not listed in the LR zoning district as an allowed use. Therefore, it was recognized that an ordinance amendment to allow the facility by SUP in the LR district would have to be requested with the final plat application. Also, the preliminary plat request to rezone the property to RB, Two-Family Residential was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's future land use designation for the site, which is Single Family Small Lot (SFSL). However, the City's preferred LR, Lakeshore Residential zoning is not consistent with the SFSL designation. It was recognized that a comprehensive plan amendment would have to be requested with the final plat application. The amendment would be to re-designate the future land use of the site as Single Family Large Lot (SFLL). SPECIFIC REQUEST Select Companies is requesting the following of the City: 1. Approval of the Final Plat to be known as SELECT SENIOR LIVING OF STILLWATER. 2. Approval of a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use map designation of the property from SFSL, Single Family Small Lot to SFLL, Single Family Large Lot. 3. Adoption of a zoning code text amendment to allow senior care living facilities by Special Use Permit in the LR, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Of these requests, the Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing and making a recommendation to the City Council on only two: 1. Comprehensive plan amendment; and 2. Zoning code text amendment EVALUATION OF REQUEST 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The City's current Comprehensive Plan (the 2020 Plan adopted in 1995) shows the subject property guided for development at a Single Family Small Lot (SFSL) density. The guided land uses for the area can be seen in the attached map entitled "2020 Future Land Use". The two zoning districts that are consistent with this density are the RB, Two Select Senior Living - Final Plat December 4, 2008 Page 3 0[5 Family Residential and the CR, Cottage Residential zoning districts. The preliminary plat application requested a rezoning to RB. The City prefers zoning the property LR, Lakeshore Residential. But, this zoning district corresponds to the Single Family Large Lot (SFLL) density of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, not the Single Family Small Lot (SFSL). Therefore, a Comprehensive Plan amendment from SFSL to SFLL has been requested to accommodate the rezoning to LR, Lakeshore Residential. The logic for changing to the lower density is to be consistent with the half acre lots required by Long Lake's shoreland overlay district regulations, which applies to all property within 1,000 feet of Long Lake. The need for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow rezoning to LR, Lakeshore Residential is real. Never the less, the Metropolitan Council will not accept the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. This is the result of two factors. 1) A mandatory 60 day review period exists for surrounding jurisdictions. Until they have reviewed the amendment, the Metropolitan Council will not accept the application: So, the earliest the City could submit the application to the Metropolitan Council would be sometime in February. 2) The Metropolitan Council will accept no amendments whatsoever to any City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan after December 31, 2008. Apparently the December 31, 2008 deadline is a way to encourage Cities to get their 2030 Comprehensive Plans submitted to the Metropolitan Council by the end of 2008. The combined effect of the two factors is that it is not possible to submit the Comprehensive Plan amendment application necessary to rezone the property to LR, Lakeshore Residential. Consequently, there appears to be two possible courses of action. 1) Delay the release of the final plat and building permit until the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is adopted. a. The future land use map of the 2030 Comp Plan shows the property guided for Low Density Residential development. This is equivalent to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan's Single Family Large Lot classification and is consistent with the LR, Lakeshore Residential zoning district. See the attached map entitled "2030 Proposed Future Land Use". b. However, the 2030 Comp Plan probably will not be ready for adoption until September 2009. c. The delay would likely be the demise of the senior care living facility. Select Senior Living - Final Plat December 4, 2008 Page 4 of 5 2) Temporarily rezone the property to RB, Two-Family Residential. Since the RB district is consistent with the density of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, no amendment would be required. a. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Low Density Residential. The LR, Lakeshore Residential zoning district is consistent with the Low Density Residential classification. b. The ordinance temporarily rezoning the property to RB could be written such that upon adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the property would automatically be zoned to its permanent LR classification. c. To assure that the property would not be temporarily rezoned to RB and become available for development for something other than the senior care living facility, a condition of the ordinance could read that the rezoning ordinance would not be published and become effective until a building permit for the senior facility is approved for release by the City Building Official and is paid for by the developer. . 'Since the Planning Commission and City Council are in favor of the LRzoning, and delaying release of a building permit until September is unacceptable to the developer, staff recommends the second course of action. II. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment The City Code limits the land uses within the shoreland district to single-family homes, parks and historic sites, and cropland.l Therefore, at the time of the preliminary plat application, Mr. Johnson requested an amendment to allow senior care living facilities by Special Use Permit within the shoreland overlay district. This was approved by the City Council. However, as mentioned above, an ordinance amendment to allow the facility by Special Use Permit within the LR, Lakeshore Residential zoning district is necessary as well. Senior care living facilities within the City's LR district seem reasonable. Such facilities can be developed with sensitivity to lake resources, and they are already allowed in many of the City's other single family residential districts by Special Use Permit. Staff believes the fact that senior living facilities are not listed as allowed uses in any of the post 1995 neighborhoods is NOT an indication that they would be considered incompatible in those neighborhoods. Rather, that they simply have not been proposed for any of those neighborhoods yet. If the facility is designed properly, it could fit into most any residential neighborhood satisfactorily. I City Code Section 31-402, Subd. 4(b)(1). Select Senior Living - Final Plat December 4, 2008 Page 5 of 5 AL TERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the project to be acceptable, the Commission could recommend City Council approval. An approval recommendation could be in one of two forms; 1) Recommend approval of the text amendment and the comprehensive plan amendment. This would have the effect of delaying release of the building permit and the plat until sometime in September. 2) Recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment, but recommend approval of a temporary rezoning to RB, Two-Family Residential and approval of the text amendment to allow the senior care living facility in the LR, Lakeshore Residential district by Special Use Permit. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the hearing for additional information. c. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the comprehensive plan amendment and the zoning text amendment to be unacceptable, the Commission could recommend denial of them both. RECOMMENDATION Since the proposal is consistent with the approved Review Draft of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends Alternative A, 2), with the following conditions: 1. The ordinance temporarily rezoning the property to RB, Two-Family Residential shall be written in such a way that upon adoption of the 2030 Stillwater Comprehensive Plan, the property will automatically be zoned to its permanent LR, Lakeshore Residential classification. 2. To assure that the property would not be temporarily rezoned to RB and then become available for development as something other than the senior care living facility, a condition of the rezoning ordinance shall read that the rezoning ordinance will not be published and become effective until a building permit for the senior care living facility is approved for release by the City Building Official and is paid for by the developer. cc: Greg Johnson attachments: Location map 2020 Comp Plan - Land Use Map 2030 Comp Plan - Proposed Land Use Map Final plat Site plan City of Location & Zoning Map Select Senior Living J J I I I I I I 1115 I I ( \ \ ~ o~~ / - - - - - ~ I \ / tV <(; \ \ --J \ ; - -- - - - ~ ; ~ \ / <(I zl // ~ I ~) \. / "- - - -- - - -- , , \ \ - \ \ \ \. " 77TH ST N , _.L - ::.... - _ _ 4------/ " ,- 12 SITE It - - - - - - - - - ..., /I I c- -I- - - - - - - - - -1- -.~:-- -~ Lot1 RI1~ot1'BI '/~ lif~ - -I' e------- ,ous-e:. ~ SI NITS . I I I rll f---11 s.oO\...Y\ / +/- 5.3 acres +/- 5.0 acre Z ~Y/Y/iO'\ / "'" R NO a \ ~"--"/( C\~ (yo - . I W~ '\1lS$ / j'},,, ~::J ""~ l~ SU~I~ l_LJi MER fA I ~ ~ ~~~) F~~ur liE OS 0 I ~t. .~. ~ '1.,....." ,~ / .mot<\)1 ~I EN 11 ~~ - -:<.: ....J.:o r!~~y J I y, ?- ~ ~~ ~ ~-ii1 ~ ~~~N~I ~~) / ~l ~~ (jj -==- - ; - ~~ ~'kJ1~H~~/~ -:~/N '\~ - ~~ i-~ -~-'~~'~~1~1~:::' ~l\ ~_.;...:) ..P\~,."...!!!;,;!~Y~;'"...1"!.,~:'~" '1/ . ~",,~~,:~~\ ~)::j~':;:~ .~~~~~~ ~A E~~~ 1:;;}~'\ ~.;;~ ~ \ " .4 I\.\.- ~ ... ,>, - J~'; -;;+- j .,',~-:r~" I \ ~ ~'j,1 ~~ 'ilJ/'~ :\ 'I ~ '. ',' iq'~", ::. ,'/ . I ~ la:::~~ Overlay Distric/ l'l1" \- V t<:J ~ l' 71 'I" .^,. ~ . Zoning Districts 1, "'" Y '?d ((" 7 ,,'"J;>,,;'(~' ~^. ',': D A-P, Agricultural Preservation Y!<:~" .7 " V, '-."~,,, '" D RA - Single Family Residential ~ E~)~ ." '4' D RB - Two Family ~ 7.." "^J;:\)""" ~ ,7 ," ,~ ILl TR, Traditional Residential ,,~~ " a" ., . - lR, lakeshore Residential -.....::: /I ,". ~ 0 &:sJ CR, Cottage Residential J . _ CTR, Cove Traditional Residential I // I l~ ~ Z ',r '-'.. // 0 _ CCR, Cove Cottage Residential ~J II...: 1.lL0- ~ /. )Ij:' ~i:' '." .. _ CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential I =-:1'" ~ ~, ::!... .r.~' / ~ TH, Townhouse /~~' ~ -- r0~ \(.',~,,4;_./ '.;Q".,. \, ~\ ._ -, ling W RCM . Medium Density Residential Hi. .~ ~~ ,~.". '" . , \\ :~ _ \. _ RCH . High Density Residential I ~~ ~~ :1 u CD VC, Village Commercial I ~I' . ~~~~~i~lke .~ IIg~~~~~~~~~~:7:,e;;~~istrict I ~ I~~ I MJ)~ ~~ ~~./ D Bp.C, Business Park. Commercial I ::s:: ~.~ :;-.: ~'\ ~ hZ --:1\~)..' / W _ BP-O, Business Park - Office -j ~ '1=1 I ~ \..... I' D BP.I, Business Park -Industrial ~ -. . -- . c=! IB - Heavy Industrial _ CRD . Campus Research Development I!::J PA - Public Administration D Public Works Facility _ Railroad In mj WATER ~ D Outside City Limits Cilyof Select Companies 2020 Future Land Use 160 , 170 2020 Future Land Use ~RR o SFLL D SFSL _ASF _MF OCN _cc _sPc DNO _sPo OSPI ORDP OOPS OPc _CEM _PG L__'! PM _PN DES CJss o RAIL o ROW C1WAT ~^^^~ WET ClOUT _PF Cilyof Select Companies 2030 Proposed Future Land Use 7775 7755 7760 7710 I 7685 7720 7680 D 7700 12490 12360 .----- ...------ _ . Select Senior Living Plat Case no. 08-49 2030 Future Land Use D Low Density Residential 11--'1 Low/Medium Density Residential 2 _ Medium Density Residential D High Density Residential D Neighborhood Commercial D Commercial _ Downtown Mixed Use _ Research & Development Park D Industrial D Institutional D Park, Rec. or Open Space _ Marina D Road R-O-W D Surface Water ~<<1 Wetland SELECT SENIOf( LiVING OF STILLWATER ~ N W+E ~ '"C~Jt~~~g-"~;'O~--OTL"._,____\\~,~.:;- + ~\\ \~ )J~~;;;':-.- I \ I , _. \i \1 """l~. Iii Mr ~." \ I {__~C, liE ~ I'''''''' "i 'J-'l~1 I" :\ '}4 I' i ~"~~~~,,_-~~,__ { -~:=3~~3~~~-~F-=~ SW ~ J-./k~~-~,~j I I '\ -,- ~~t; f~ VIClI/Dr MAP" T'I.1 I II !i On~E#At. PiAl ScALE l.b.cK~(;()FED I ~ (;() lLO ScAIL Iv FLU SEmON M, T30#. ,fLoW WASMM>?lW ~ MlNND(JTA I 1 'f'\- --~'-'~ ~.i113oN.~~ ,~ -;~ !~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,:. .:iJ__ ~' ;: " " ~ l " ~ !! i l I I 1-- r j,/ ,::"()/'jf~ BLC~, '" /- f J :/IJl If),' It 1.- I rrt.f "..., I B()f'..J.l~"/f;:-t- .....,,*,' ,,\/',/:"',!~":.t,' ("'I/~/~~ ~ ~~~~ --- ~ ~ 58:rO'Fl"E ________3L8..3J.______ , \ c-u S!f:m.W 30 T.i1N now/ ::t rsw C.,.I'.'~,U" },IE if I::; u,wWba N NY. SE)I) ~ N..... ;,.,:;; ='", r" I~-- "I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 'I L------------------------------_______r___ , /\/ , , :<.Z (..... r'" ,_; l: 1 /~~ LOT ,8LOCK 1 , ~~ !~ ,~ ~ ! ~~ I I L \ 1~ \ ~ \ ~"'J \ ~~ \ ~1 \ -- < ~ "' L- r"(~ 1[J?"'t": t:....)/,~t/~........' /./0 l:.r[,tl 1,' .U- -1" I' .t?",::I-..1EEf ~l...~:f,~f .,.' C~;~4./{ 7...5'.7'.:/ (oi'WJ;,E,llf)dJlW __N""r5IJ"36-l f)&~l) /" (!Xt:. ':J1jJ~,wt . ~'! ~ ,..r-r' IVOl:.,:f,tl :; 7.I:.1J;J;: C~;,,4il. ~5J'~/>:i: ----------- 1'/ .1'- ~ .w*''-"""",r" ,A,k"", JL.:;J FtciY r~ Ny, / / / .,~~ . /~t\~~~~.J. ;' .J I I f l 'I 1 I '. ~;: ~~ rl -..JN7'N7Y MJ$ ~ CL_____ ---- - ---- -7- -- -1~~ ,-- ~ ,-[)I:AIN.-fg .IN/) tlru/lY &2:MEM~_/ '1 --+'b6"'.l--~ ~ / ' .- .. 118:rLT1'I'W 1118.5"1 l'" J_' ,,,, ""f)/r~/ ,I BLJ/J.ft'}J:,-- ----- ,A/:l:.}'it ~...L..o,C (I<' r~ NEt (Y ,__S=-- -*' r3'JN &oW J'_ -;1_ - A.b.tnfLr.<.L(I<'r<< SEt 1'#--' .5.<0_ .iO T.iON KlOW LOT 1 ,8LOCK Z }'./ I '.f , .' , '- ,'..;:; <'f.. .~/ l.... /:",1'~ / / / / Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING . SURVEYING . ENGINEERING 1lIHJ" 12445 55TH STREET NORTH wy' LAKE EMO, MINNESOTA 55042 , Ph,", (651) ~J9.8SJ1 F" (6511 4JO.9JJ1 LEGEND o DENOTES SET Ji. INCH BY 16 INCH IRON PIPE: MONUMENT MARKED WTH A pusnc CAP INSCRIBED -FREEMAN LS 16969-, UNLESS SHOlW OTHERVrtSE. DENOTLS FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE t+1TH PLAsnc CAP fNSCRrSED RLS 2769, UNLESS NOTLD 07HER'MS[. . NOTES 1) ORIENTAnON OF 7HIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE SOU7H UHE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SEcnON 3D, T..JON., R.2DW. !tHICH IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N89'27'1<4--W. , ,,,,"'J;' B!-Llv, ~ \ r--r; /J,- I _VJ- J , 't:I 1/:..1/ (/,>11-1- J! L- --i I ("",_T'" /:71-""--: t:.....)!,Io-!O_V ~ ! ~ I 7::"jt/ ~ff.eEEf i /-", r'': A/-I. l.,...'-'" ,- /-- /v'o ,l-:1l1 17 .1'- ~ / L- !J<()()'130r ((7,fo<5{;()'.58 \ \ L&l1.L5 ',,-' ""1" ,l,/,fJ,/if .5/:'.1/'; .- / --~:'~=0~-1 , ,,1 I \ ~ ;\~ 1 ,,' ~ I '''~ ~ I p!' t" ,,\l;1il ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~,,~ : \ J'1,~~/.2 l<< ~~ ~~ "~ / J._ >Pun A&ror.rsnrlZ)..:,lftIJ) /,IJynw'W "'$.+'7 , ~- -?~~ ~~""TK--~' Wy,,,,,r~SE~(yf;l{NfJf '" SroJ:J/.' X'. rxw. A'LaII' I '" ~ ~/",' ":,w,.; )j__~::;-i (l<'S$T_X'l3t;N~ 58,.0'1'1'& .1_- 77.53 TYPICAl.. USEMEM DerAil.. -/ )O~ ~r/{rr...,..rr",/N'...u:I'~.1ia)r~ 1i<ilSJ(!r~;WN. SELECT SENIOR LIVING OF STILL WATER SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS UTILITY PLAN ~ .....--.' C, / I./Tf/RE Sf/8.oMS.10N SAIIJTAI:Y CLEAt\Vtff ____ P.v. 713.0 '__ -":s___ SAIIJTAI:Y ~ S&V/CE Sf{JB ---- 111/ 713.~ G" S&V/CE ~ 3.WY. 8"$ ,eGO if. - 8" ftC SPK 35 ~ (J.llY. .-5 Mlfi' /' KftI(~LO.ti\ / 111/ 7X.o \ /' . 8" STUB 111/. :K!'IJ <\/ISI0tJ SUBDF . j') '" I f Lj1Uf?6 "l ~ ~~ , ~ '" ~ SUBONISIOf.! FUTURE LEGEND UTILITY NOTES ~ ~ PROPERTY BOUNDARY 1) BACKGROUND INF0Rto.1AT10N FROM FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY PAUL JOHNSON. ADDITIONAL UTILITY INFORMATION FROM AS8UJLTS BY CITY OF STillWATER. FFE. INC. OFFERS NO GUARANTEE AS TO THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. I@ EXISTING STORM SEWER 2) PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PIPE: B" PVC SDR 26 & 35 ] . ~ " '1 I g " . ] , , ! t , ~ o -8~Wt.T <( EXISTING WA TERMAIN 3) PROPOSED WATER PIPE, B" OIP CLASS 52 4) PROPOSED STORM PIPE: 12- & 18" HOPE. DRAINTILE4" PVC I1JNNECT TO EXlSTJII6 SAIIJTAI:Y MAN!~LE KIM 718h7 P.v. 87').71 -8- SAN-@-- EXISTING SANITARY SE\NER 5) MINIMUM B'OF COVER OVER NEWWATERMAIN. ~ N W+E \ ORIGINAL SCAl.L 1 INCH = 50 FEET . 2.5 , 50 SCAlE IN frET t PROPOSED WATERMAIN 7) ALL UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PER CITY OF STILLWATER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. NOTE: THE CONTRA.CTOR SHAlL NOTIFY 'THE ENGINEER OF AM' DISCREPANCIES AND SHAll NOT COMMENCE WITH ANY'NORK PRIOR TO ENGINEERS .APPROVAL PROPOSED STORM SEWER WfM.H., C.B. & F.E.S. 6) PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE TO THE CENTER OF STRUCTURE OR END OF FLARED END SECTION UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. --(t-12'ST" . OC/ PROPOSED SANITARY SEVVER THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND FAOunES OR STRuCTURES AS SHOWN ON THE PlANS ARE BASED ON AVAJI..AEIlE RECORDS AT THE TIME THE Pl..AJ'.lS WERE PREPARED AND ARE NOT GUARANTEED TO BE COMPLETE OR CORRECT. CClNTJV.CTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING All UTILmES 72 HOuRS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO DETERMINE THE EXACT lClCATlON Of' AU. FACILITIES AND TO PRO\llDE ADEOUAlE PROlECTlClN OF&JD UTILITIES DURING THE COURSE OF \l'JDRK. GOf'HER STAlEOOE CAlL1-800-252-11ffi. _e__B'VV B) VERIFY ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTIUTlES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. -8"S~- 9) CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL FOR EXISTING lITlLITY LOCATIONS. IF AI'N DISCREPANCIES BEf'toIEEN LOCATED UTILITIES AND THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ARISE. NOTE IT AND FORWARD TO THE ENGINEER. ~ ! ~ z 0 " Q. 5 Ul w 0 z 0 ~ 0 z I 100 I HEREBY CERl1FY THAT THIS PLAN, SPEClflCATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERV1SIQN AND THAT I At.( A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS Of THE SlATE OF MINNESOTA. TOOO A EJU(](5()N '10'118 UCINSE NO. 11jPlj08 OATh EeIQE) 1'1': VJV ..- .. VJV Q!O:!g ~ TAE NJW. D.m 11/1+/08 Dill. 08-134 ~ ~::i o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ 1:f~'" t5 i E i:! ~J ~ Vl LIJ Z N <( :Z 3 L{) U I ~ L{) (f) Z I ~ f- 6 L{) en ~ en ...J ~ W tJ w ~ ~ <( LIJ ...J ...J LIJ Vl a;: w Z ~ $: --' ~ --' i= Z (f) :::; LL. a. I 0 Li I CJ w z I- ~ '> ~ ::J a;: ...J :J 0 --' Z i= w U) f- (f) t-- J u w --' w (f) Hflm C4.1 SHEET 2 Of 13 , ' ;' (5tjl~ft . -- ,.... ::=::-:------ .- ~ - "'~=:;;..:- ~~ -'~'j 'HE BiRTH.CAC; 0' M "N";O" ') Planning Commission DATE: December 4, 2008 CASE NO.: 08-50 APPLICANT: Mark Balay PROPERTY OWNER: LDL Inveshnents, Mike Lynskey REQUEST: 1) Special Use Permit for eight apartment units 2) Parking Variance LOCATION: 124 Main St S ZONING: CBD, Central Business District PC DATE: December 8, 2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner ~ BACKGROUND After completing renovations after the roof collapse to the Main Street Square property at 124 Main St S the owner, LDL Inveshnents, would like to add eight aparhnents to the second floor of the building. Residential Uses in the CBD are allowed downtown by Special Use Permit. Currently the space on the second floor is used only as storage. JULY 14, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed a request for five apartment units at its July 14, 2008 meeting. No public comments were made at that meeting. There was some discussion between the commission members concerning the parking variance. The Commission approved the variance and special use permit on a vote of 8-0. SPECIFIC REQUEST Mark Balay, on behalf of the owner, has made application for a Special Use Permit to construct eight apartment units on the second floor of the space at 124 Main St S. This is an increases of three units from what was originally reviewed on July 14th. In addition, a parking variance is being requested for the apartment units. I . J 124 Main St S Apartment SUP and Variance Page 2 of 3 EVALUATION OF REQUEST Special Use Permit See. 31-207(d) of the City Code states that a Special Use Permit can be approved if the Planning Commission finds that: (1) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans. Zoning Ordinance Parking - Aparhnents are required to provide 1.5 spaces per unit; with one covered, plus one space per three units for guest parking. With eight apartment units the building would require 15 spaces, eight of which are required to be covered. Since the required spaces cannot be provided on this site a variance has been requested and is discussed below. (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Architectural design - The HPC has review and approved a request to reopen previously bricked over openings on the second floor. This change will allow the building to return to a more historically accurate appearance and provide natural light to the new aparhnent units on the second floor. Miscellaneous · Plans will need to be approved by the fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. Specifically, required ingress/ egress issues will need to be satisfied. · All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission or Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. · Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied. Variance As mentioned above, the proposed aparhnents would need 15 parking spaces, eight of which are required to be covered, to meet the Zoning Code regulation. However, the building has no on-site parking. Consequently a variance from the parking requirement has been requested. It has become common in the downtown zoning district to view the re-use of existing space as grounds for satisfying the "hardship" criteria for variance requests. Obviously, the existing set of circumstances prevents the business from creating the required number of on-site parking spaces. It is for situations such as these that Section 31-510, Subd. 1 (d)(l)i of the Zoning Ordinance was written. It allows for "alternative provisions" when the property being considered is in a parking district. The City has established a downtown parking district, which would allow for such" alternative provisions". Only in new construction has the City aggressively required the construction of new parking spaces. About the only consistent "alternative provision" that the City has required under these circumstances is that property . . 124 Main St S Apartment SUP and Variance Page 3 of 3 owners purchase monthly parking permits for the required number of spaces. This encourages the parking user to park in lots that are a little further away from the site, allowing closer free parking to be used by visitors. In keeping with past practices, staff finds the variance review criteria to be met and would recommend approval of the variance with the condition that the property owner be required to buy 15 monthly parking permits for the apartments. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the Special Use Permit and Variance with the following conditions: a. Plans shall be approved by the fire and building officials prior to the issuance of a building permit. b. The property owner must purchase 15 monthly parking permits for the apartment tenants. c. All changes to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission or Heritage Preservation Conunission for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. d. All proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. Deny the Special Use Permit and Variance. If the Planning Commission decides to deny the requests, findings of fact substantiating the denial must be provided. 3. Table the requests for additional information. RECOMMENDATION City staff reconunends approval with the conditions presented above. [. ..,. t ..' [. ,. . ......... r' ,~1rJiEED .., .~ ;~< Michael E. Balay, RA ~ I n d fan a pol I s J n d I a n'a 8878 South Street Fishers, Indiana 46038 (317) 845-9402 Mark S. Balay, RA StlJlwaterM 110 East Myrtle Street, Suite 100 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 430-3312 Innesota J-~'~I !:rj \ It ,~'i"j"i 1 . ,( I , ,'~--~ ; j I." I' ,. ~'i. . '\.' p . f. ,: , 11/14/08 City of Stillwater Attn: Michel Pogge 216 N. Fourth St. Stillwater, MN 55082 , '. Dew: Mr. Pogge: Attached are all submittal materials requested to apply for an SUP to develop 8 apa.rtnlent units at 124 S. Main St. The owner originally requested 5 two bedroom units. It has been determined in design development and construction budgeting that we must revise our request to 8 one bedroom units to make the project financially justifiable. . , ,"J! " .'.1,. , . y. As you know, this property is a previous spatial conglomeration of three original buildings facing Main St. and two buildings facing Union Alley. The apartments will be located in the two southern bays of that building combination and have egress to both streets. The HPC has already approved the reopening of all existing windows on Union and Main St. to facilitate this apartment project. if' We request your review, approval, and granting of a variance as follows: 8 Apartment units/ with no parking spaces owned by the property, We propose providing monthly downtown parking permits to each of the tenants as a portion of their rent, as Lynskey Properties is currently doing in their other upstairs apartments on Main St. A hardship exists generally in downtown Stillwater due to the historical urban development which has not left space for parking directly at properties and required individual to find other solutions as regular practice. We look forward to meeting with you at your December 8th meeting. Please do not hesitate calling if you require additional information or have questions. cc: Lynskey Properties ;. .. -co ::z\S\ \-0 \-0 ~\'-- =:s \i\ <0 -~ -~ ~~ ~~ ~ - ~"" X-' .,,'" .,," " ~ '" " mRI .,","" D 4-1- + I \J k- ~ J- D 0[ ]:0 I f- B [! - - 1\ @ ~J @fl => =L - LJ ~ fl fT ~:: ~ @ I T -r 10 '-- ~DDI,t-J d- O{ >< :z II ~ I - U ~ ,~ y ~"'~ ",:2: 0 LJ ~ .,","' 11I\.., .'" '"",,' '\ y :2:0 --, :; - e- - '\ I II@) 1(5 \ uO),L I 0[ ~ u_\S\ I ~ f\ - e ;7 c I ~ U I r\~ 4= l I I :~ I U I .-- IJw [] I - LJ@ [] i CI @\j OJ + -1+ I --L 0[ ---L O[LL I LL ]0 tI I I I I I I Ii h- Ii L- ~ [[J L-[d OJ " OJg~ L Urn ~ ."" " .,," "",,, ." ," 0- ~ '" '" '" '" '" " - ),L N),L ~~ ~~ \i\ ),L #: \S\ #: \S\ #: \S\ :j:j: \S\ \-0 \-0 \- \S\ :j:j: 0 \-0 ::z\'-- ::z\'- ::z\'-- \-0 - \i\ =:s \'- =:s~ =:ST ~\'- ~~ CO),L :j:j: \S\ \-0 ~ D ),L \,--),L :j:j: \S\ ~),L #: \S\ ') DATE: December 4, 2008 CASE NO.: 08-48 APPLICANT: Ray Loida Jr. REQUEST: Resubdivison LOCATION: 915 Abbott St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: SFSL, Single Family Small Lot PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: December 8, 2008 ZONING: RB, Two Family Residential REVIEWERS: Community Development Director, Public Works Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner ~ BACKGROUND MI. Ray Loida JI. owns the property at 915 Abbott St W. The current parcel of land contains both Lots 3 and 4, Block 5 of Holcome's Addition to Stillwater. The property contains 16,500 square feet with a single-family home constructed on Lot 4. MI. Loida is proposing to divide the property back into the original two lots. Lot 3 is 7,500 and Lot 4 is 9,000 square feet in size. The home on Lot 4 would remain. All of the subject property is zoned RB, Two Family Residential. The lots meet all of the requirements for a lot in the RB district. SPECIFIC REQUEST Mr. Loida has made application for approval of a resubdivsion recreating two lots where one now exists. Lo~da Resubdivision December 4, 2008 Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST RESUBDIVISION City Code Section 32-1/ Subd. 4(2) refers to a process whereby a new lot is being created from already platted lots as a "resubdivision". Any time two parcels are created out of one parcel of land, the request is required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission with final approval by the City Council. The required and proposed minimum dimensional standards for the resubdivided properties are summarized below. Lot 3 Lot4 Lot size proposed 7,500 9/000 Lot size required 7/500 7/500 Lot width proposed 50 60 Lot width required 50 50 The proposed lots satisfy all dimensional requirements. The Public Works Director has noted that there are required utility hook-up fees to be paid on this property at the time a building permit is issued. Prior to the issuance of a building permit these fees must be submitted to the City. Additionally, the new lot will need to pay cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication in the amount of $2,000 and make a $500 payment in lieu of constructing trails. Prior to issuance of a letter by the City approving the resubdivision and prior to filing the resolution of approval with Washington County, these fees must be submitted to the City. Washington Square Park Encroachment As part of the renovation of Washington Square, a survey was preformed to locate the boundaries of the Park with certainty. This park survey showed that Mr. Loida's garage encroached into the park by approximately 10.5 feet. This encroachment is shown on the aerial photo included in the packet. To address this issue the City Council elected to grant a "license" to allow the encroachment to remain and be maintained. In the future if the building were destroyed by fire or calamity, or to deteriorate to the point where it would need to rebuild, the structure would then be required to be located on the owner's property and any remnant removed from City land. The license was approved by the City Council on November 18, 2008. Loida Resubdivision December 4, 2008 Page 3 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives. A. Approval. If the proposed lot resubdivision is found to be acceptable to the Planning Commission, it could recommend that the City Council approve and resubdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. The resubdivision shall be to divide the existing parcel back into its original lots (Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Block 5 of Holcome's Addition to Stillwater). 2. The Public Works Director has noted that there are utility hook-up fees to be paid for one of the new parcels of property. Prior to the issuance of a building permit these fees must be submitted to the City. 3. That cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication in the amount of $2,000 and payment in lieu of constructing trails in the amount of $500 be paid for the new parcel. Prior to issuance of a letter by the City approving the resubdivision and prior to filing the resolution of approval with Washington County, these fees must be submitted to the City. 4. Any new home on Lot 3 is subject to design review by the HPC for consistency with the Neighborhood Conservation Design standards. B. Denial If the Planning Commission finds that the resubdivision is not advisable, it could recommend denial of the resubdivision. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. R'ECOMMENDATION Staff finds the requested resubdivision meets the requirements of the zoning code and therefore recommends approval with the conditions identified in Alternative A above. cc: Ray Loida J r. attachments: Resubdivision Site Plan Case 08-48 ~ . 915 Abbott St w Ray Loida r.... . """~ ' I .'" - . .~ / j. , T....- ;-i 2~~ ,,: .. ~ '! )"'1'7 . ) ~ _.~~ ~/\~ .,...~ .{k~;;~_.~ ~-}t o!:-~~ ...... " : . ~~( 'l::~ "~! .- I~~: SJ.,. ...f., _.'. ~~ l 1 - , . :t~ ~ . '-t-"'lO. ,- ( ;,;j' ~.~t:_,.~. ~~ ~J, '~_~~~,. 't,"~' t' I .. " h'~ ..... .'J'";t 1 'r.~,," . ;'t''8~~ ."'~.ei'f":-~ "1' ,(t, ..~. ~. ~ . . ,,:~...:' ./li1( ~ f J r ., . ~ . < I. , ;}t. ~'\ ~- :' , .'<r ~P~l . !' ..1"'. . .' .t" r _~. o N A IULJ I o 12.525 50 I 75 I Feet 100 City of Stillwater, MN Community Development Department 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8820 - 651-430-8810 fax 1 inch = 50 feet