HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-12 CPC PacketTHE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF MEETING
MONDAY, July 12, 2010
The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, July 12, 2010, 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 June 14, 2010 MINUTES
3. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the
meeting agenda. The Commission may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of
the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or Tess
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item.
The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who
wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the
podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public
hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item.
4.01 Case No. 2010-22. A variance request to the front yard setback for the construction of a deck/carport
located at 1120 Third Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Dale and Faith Nelson,
applicants. Continued from the June 12, 2010 meeting
4.02 Case No. 2010-25. A special use amendment to relocate St. Croix Dogs from 229 Main Street South to 213
Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Steve Farr, applicant.
4.03 Case No. 2010-26. A special use permit request for a seasonal fruit stand located at 1801 Market Drive in
the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Asia Raven, applicant.
4.04 Case No. 2010-27. A variance request for the construction of an attached two -car garage with living space
above located at 1101 4th Street South in the RB-Two Family Residential District. Jennifer Trom, applicant.
4.05 Case No. 2010-28. A special use permit request for the renovation of an existing manufacturing/office
building for Early Childhood Family Center located at 1792,1850, 1862 Greeley St So and 1825 and 1845
Industrial Blvd in the BP-C, and BP -I Districts. Steve Erickson, BWBR, applicant.
4.06 Case No. 2010-29. A variance request to the sign regulations for height for two signs located at 101 Water
Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Chuck Dougherty, applicant.
4.07 Case No. 2010-30. A variance request for the construction of a two -car detached garage, an addition and
expansion of existing porch located at 1213 Myrtle Street West in the RA, Single Family Residential District.
Bruce Earhart, applicant.
4.08 Case No. 2010-31. A variance request to the front and side yard setbacks for the construction of an
addition located at 113 Cherry Street East in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay,
representing Larry Colagiovanni, applicant.
4.09 Case No. 2010-32. A zoning text amendment to allow a senior apartment complex in the Townhouse
zoning district. Michael Bjerkesett, NHHI, applicant.
4.10 Case No. 2010-12. A zoning text amendment on swimming pool safety enclosures. City of Stillwater,
applicant.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
5.01 Seasonal vending
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwatermn.us
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
June 14, 2010
Present: Dave Middleton, Chair, Aron Buchanan, Robert Gag, Eric Hansen, Mike Kocon, John
Malsam, Scott Spisak and Charles Wolden
Staff present: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad
Absent: Mike Dahlquist
Mr. Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Approval of minutes: Mr. Kocon moved approval of the May 10, 2010, minutes. Mr. Buchanan
seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
OPEN FORUM
No comments were received.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 2010-20 A special use permit and variance request for a 3,000-square-foot restaurant
with outside seating at 229 Main St. S. in the Central Business District. Rick Schmidt, applicant.
Mr. Turnblad reviewed the proposal and staff findings. He noted that the Heritage Preservation
Commission had reviewed and approved the design; he also noted that plans include a
completely enclosed area for trash storage. He said the primary challenge with a restaurant use
is the issue of parking and pointed out that the City has established a downtown parking district
that allows alternative provisions for meeting the parking requirements; he said a condition of
approval would be the purchase of 47 monthly parking permits during the peak season and 20
monthly permits from Oct. 1-April 30, when the outdoor patio seating is not being used. Mr.
Malsam asked how customers would know about the parking arrangement and where they
should park; Mr. Turnblad responded that typically employees receive the parking permits thus
freeing up parking spaces closer to the establishment. Mr. Spisak asked if the City is reaching
the point where the requirement to purchase the parking permits exceeds the ability to provide
those spaces; Mr. Turnblad said the Parking Commission does an inventory of available spaces
and said the current problem is not one of availability but of distribution of spaces, noting that
the Parking Commission has put together a directional signage system and education system to
inform people of the location of parking. Mr. Gag asked if the planned addition to the existing
building meets height restrictions; Mr. Turnblad responded in the affirmative.
The applicant briefly spoke of the planned operation. The architect reviewed plans for the
storefront and other design features.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was
closed. Mr. Spisak suggested adding address identification to the Water Street elevation for
emergency responders, as well as requiring that the pedestrian walkway/ramp on Water Street
remain open during construction to the conditions of approval. Mr. Buchanan moved to approve
as conditioned, incoporating Mr. Spisak's suggestions, and with the addition of condition No. 21,
the purchase of 47 monthly parking permits during peak season and 20 monthly permits Oct. 1-
April 30; Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Case No. 2010-21 A special use permit request for the emergency department expansion of
Lakeview Hospital at 927 Churchill Street W. in the RA, Single Family Residential District, and
1
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
June 14, 2010
the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Fabel, McGough, representing Lakeview Health
Systems.
Mr. Turnblad reviewed the proposal and the primary issues related to the proposal — traffic and
parking and rooftop mechanicals. He noted that traffic circulation/parking should not be
impacted by the proposal as the hospital is not changing access by emergency vehicles,
patients or guests. He stated the number of emergency room beds is increasing, but the number
of emergency calls is not expected to increase substantially; he said the increase in the number
of beds will allow the hospital to respond to larger/more severe incidents. He also noted that the
hospital will still be way over the number of required parking spaces if this is approved.
Regarding rooftop mechanicals, he said the acoustical study indicates that in order to meet the
City's noise ordinance, a compressor jacket will be needed and the compressor relocated so the
air handler acts as a sound suppressor as well. Mr. Turnblad noted that a letter had been
received from a resident, unable to attend the hearing, who is opposed to the expansion. On a
question by Mr. Wolden, Mr. Turnblad explained the requirement for a new water quality basin.
Mr. Spisak asked about the relocation of the existing handicapped parking spaces; it was noted
that five are being lost, with the plans indicating the replacement of just two handicapped
spaces. Mr. Spisak asked about the accuracy of the acoustical studies. Mr. Turnblad explained
that the studies must be conducted at maximum load, which rarely occurs, and said he thought
the studies were pretty accurate; he said if a complaint is received, the City would go out with
acoustical meters and do an after -the -fact mitigation requirement if the meters indicte that the
noise exceeds City ordinance.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was
closed. Mr. Spisak said he thought the hospital is an asset to the community and at the same
time, the Commission needs to be responsive to the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Spisak
moved to approve with conditions A and B, with B changed to require a post -construction
monitoring to ensure the noise levels conform to City ordinance and Condition C to require the
full mitigation of handicapped parking spaces. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously.
Case No. 2010-22 A variance request to the front yard setback for construction of a
deck/carport at 1120 Third St. N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Dale and Faith
Nelson, applicants.
The applicants were present. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request and staff findings
recommending denial of the request. Mr. Kocon asked how far the existing walls extend; the
applicants stated the walls extend 20 feet out from the house. Mr. Kocon asked whether the
walls are considered to be encroaching into the required setback; Mr. Turnblad explained that
walls used to retain soil can be located any place on a property, although, he said, he was
unfamiliar with the history of this particular case. Mr. Malsam asked what problem would occur
in simply adding a cover to the existing walls; Mr. Turnblad said the problem would be
introducing more massing close to the street, which would have a different visual impact that
just the walls. Mr. Wolden asked whether rails would be required if a roof is put over the existing
walls; Mr. Turnblad said railing should be installed due to safety issues, and he noted the intent
is to use that space as a deck. Mr. Spisak asked about setback requirements for garages; Mr.
Turnblad said if the space is turned into a garage, the 30' + 10 rule ought to be applied. Mr.
Turnblad suggested that the variance request is two -fold — to have a garage in front of the
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
June 14, 2010
house, which is frowned upon in the RB District, as well as the setback. Mr. Spisak asked about
the definition of a garage versus a carport.
Mr. Nelson said the primary reason for the proposal relates to snow storage; he said a flat roof
would enable them to remove snow to the south side of the property. Mr. Nelson briefly spoke of
plans for a slated deck and plans for a drainage system for surface water removal.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Dana Getschel, 1111 Third St. N., said from an
aesthetic viewpoint, this proposal would only enhance the property and front facade. Mike
Sobieski, 1022 Third St. N., spoke in support of the plan, noting there is no place on that lot to
park cars or to get to the rear of the property; he agreed that having a roof and deck would look
better than the existing two concrete walls. No other comments were received, and the hearing
was closed.
Mr. Kocon noted that the proposed deck doesn't encroach any farther than the existing concrete
walls do; he agreed with the neighbors that the deck would soften the appearance of the house
from the street. Mr. Gag wondered whether there would be any mechanism for design review
should the Planning Commission approve the request; Mr. Turnblad said there is nothing in the
code that would require design review but the Commission could stipulate review by staff if it so
desires or the Heritage Preservation Commission for review and comment. Mr. Spisak
expressed a concern about the lack of construction details provided; he suggested the
possibility of tabling this case until additional details are provided. Mr. Kocon noted that the
request is for a variance, that if not granted makes this a dead issue; he suggested that review
could be a condition of approval of the variance. Mr. Buchanan asked about the staff report's
indicating that there was a tuck -under garage at one point; Mr. Nelson stated there was a
garage door, but no garage. Mr. Wolden clarified that the current owners installed the existing
walls. Mr. Malsam said he didn't think the addition of a deck would encroach upon line of vision
and agreed with neighbors that the deck would be an improvement. Mr. Kocon said he thought
20x20 is a bit excessive; he suggested 12x20 might be a more reasonable size and result in
less mass. Mr. Buchanan pointed out that a determination of hardship is a criteria for approval
of a variance of any sort; Mr. Wolden suggested that the topography of the property could be
seen as a hardship in this case. Mr. Spisak suggested that if the Commission had more
information regarding the proposed end product, it would be in a position to make a better
decision. Mr. Middleton pointed out that the Commission has always considered the lack of a
garage to be a hardship, and noted there is no other location on the property to construct a
garage. Mr. Gag said he didn't think enough information had been presented for the
Commission to vote on the request and suggested that staff look into the infill design guidelines
that might apply to this proposal. Mr. Kocon moved to continue this case to the July 12 meeting.
Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. Mr. Spisak amended the motion to ask that the applicant
provide more information regarding the deck including the proposed size, railing details, etc. Mr.
Hansen seconded the amendment. Amended motion passed unanimously.
Case No. 2010-23 A variance request to impervious surface regulations, lot size and lot width,
and garage setback at 101 Lakeside Drive in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Matthew
and Bonnie Malmberg, applicants.
Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request and plans for the remodeling project. He reviewed the
requested variances, noting that the lot size and lot width variances are required because this is
a legal, non —conforming lot. Regarding the variance for impervious cover, he noted that what is
being proposed represents a slight reduction over what exists today, and the amount of the
allowable impervious coverage will be mitigated square foot for square foot. He said the DNR's
3
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
June 14, 2010
regional hydrologist and City Engineer are supportive of the impervious coverage proposal.
Regarding the garage setback, Mr. Turnblad noted that in the RB District, the standard is to
have the garage setback farther than the front of the house; he pointed out that this
neighborhood is not a traditional RB zoning neighborhood and houses do not have the 19th
century feel. He noted that if this was zoned RA what is being requested would be permitted; he
also noted that with roads on three sides of this lot, there is no place a garage could be
constructed on the property and meet the setback requirements without reorienting the house.
Mr. Wolden asked about a deck and whether that was considered to be previous or impervious
coverage. Mr. Wolden asked about the height; Mr. Turnblad stated the structure is within the
height guidelines.
The applicant was present. He stated the deck Mr. Wolden inquired about was figured as
impervious coverage in the calculations; if it can be considered pervious, the plans would be
within the allowable 20% coverage. The applicant reviewed his plans for water mitigation and
said mitigation of surface runoff would be dramatically improved if he is allowed to place the
garage/drive on the west side of the house as proposed.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Matt McGuire, 122 Lakeside Drive, spoke of the
uniqueness of the neighborhood and agreed with Mr. Turnblad's suggestion that RA is a more
appropriate zoning classification. Andrea Saterbak, 122 Lakeside Drive, spoke in support of the
Malmberg's plans. Vince Fedor, 102 Lakeside Drive, also spoke in favor of the plans. No other
comments were received, and the hearing was closed.
Mr. Malsam spoke to the issue of the garage setback, noting that if this was an historic
neighborhood, that would be an issue, but in this neighborhood it makes sense to consider an
exception. Mr. Malsam moved to approve the four requested variances with the five condition
listed by staff. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Case No. 2010-24 A special use permit for outside food vending at 210 Main Street N. in the
CBD, Central Business District. Shiqin Chen, applicant.
Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request. He noted the proposed location of the truck would allow
customers to line up without interfering with public sidewalk. He said approval is recommended
with five conditions, which he reviewed.
Mr. Spisak asked if the permit runs with the property. Mr. Turnblad said the permit does run with
the property as it will be filed with the chain of title, but, as with Bed and Breakfast operations, it
will be issued essentially to the current applicant and cannot be transferred to another owner
without approval. Mr. Spisak asked if the permit expires after a certain amount of time if not
used; Mr. Turnblad said the permit expires after one year of non-use. Mr. Spisak wondered if
there was some other mechanism, other than a special use permit, to regulate such temporary
operations; Mr. Turnblad said simple licensing had been considered, but currently a special use
permit is the mechanism outlined in the City code. Mr. Spisak said he did not think it good policy
to use a special use permit that runs with the property to regulate what is in essence a
temporary license. During discussion, it was consensus that the issue of special use permit for
temporary operations such as this should be looked at further.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was
closed. Mr. Wolden moved approval with the conditions as stated; Mr. Malsam seconded the
motion. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Buchanan moved to have staff review the issue of
special use permit vs. licensing in these instances. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion; motion
passed unanimously.
4
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
June 14, 2010
Mr. Kocon moved to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
5
Planning Commission
DATE: Jung:
APPLICANT:
010
Dale and Faith Nelson
CASE NO.: 10-22
REQUEST: Variance to the minimum front yard setback for a car port/deck (4 foot
setback requested 20 foot setback required)
LOCATION: 1120 3rd St N
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT:
ZONING:
I PC DATE: Jung'1<".201izl r'1 ,,2010
REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner It/
Note: Changes as in Iegisli°
LMDR - Low/Medium Density Residential
e
RB - Two-family District
foi
c1 highlighted
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum front yard setback for a proposed car
port/deck. This property is zoned RB and currently has an existing single-family home. The
applicant desires to cover their existing driveway with a 20' by 20' deck. Currently the home
sits 24 feet from the front property line placing the edge of the proposed deck only 4 feet from
the front property line. The required front yard setback in the RB district is 20 feet.
1 he C.orr nission firs
Comniissiox2 tabled ac,
cl ou1d look on 111
to fhis re,}piaxt
evict
tron 0
c ho:ra
ed this request th
q ieSt in order
e dravx-s were subs
n mcct-in . At that
drawin
, iac-1 are included'`.as an aitaehx
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found:
1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists.
Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
The property owner has not provided information showing a hardship that is peculiar to
this property. At one point, a unfinished tuck under garage was below the main home.
f
1120 Third St N
Page 2
The applicant indicated verbally to staff that this was removed due to health concerns.
It is possible to reopen the space and create a space for a garage and install systems that
would remove any car exhaust from the home. In this case, any hardship would appear
to be created by the desires of the homeowner and not meeting the justification of a
variance. There is no relevant hardship particular to this property.
2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by
neighbors.
This property is zoned as two-family residential which allows single family and two-
family uses. Even without these variances the property owner will be able to continue
to use the property as a single-family home, which is a reasonable use of the property.
Moreover, the property owner could taintroduce the tuck under garage and accomplish
their goal of having a covered space for their cars.
Additionally, if the variances are granted as proposed this would create conditions that
are not allowed on similarly sized lots elsewhere in the RB district.
Therefore the request is not necessary for preservation of property right and would
constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in the area.
3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the
public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan.
The general purposes of a required front yard setback include creating an open
corridor of set dimensions. Due to the topography that currently exists on the
lot, the deck itself will not reduce the visual width of that corridor. However,
granting the variance would go counter to the purpose and intent of the code.
FINDINGS
1. That the hardship is not peculiar to the property and is created by acts of the owner.
2. That a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same
vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would constitute a special privilege of the
recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
3. That the authorizing of the variance not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property; however, it will materially impair the purpose and intent of this title. It
would not necessary adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan.
1120 Third St N
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Deny the requested variance to allow a car port/deck to encroach a total of 16 feet
into the required front yard setback since an affirmative finding on the required
conditions for a variance could not be made by staff.
2. Approve the requested variance to allow a car port/deck to encroach a total of 16
feet into the required front yard setback. If the Commission chooses to grant the
variances the Commission needs to make an affirmative finding on the required
conditions for a variance. Additionally, staff would suggest the following conditions
for approval:
a. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director.
b. The deck shall be limited to a 20' x 20' platform .
c. The car port shall not be enclosed along the east elevation with wall, doors or
other devices.
3. Continue the public hearing until the July 12, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
The 60 day decision deadline for the request is July 17, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION
Since an affirmative finding could not be made for the three variance review criteria, staff
recommends denial of the requested variance.
Attachments: Applicant's Form and Site Plan
Location Map
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
Case No:
;o//ro��a
Date Filed: 5-670d °
Fee Paid: ,
Receipt No.: 354.0
ACTION REQUESTED
Special/Conditional Use Permit
Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment*
Zoning Amendment*
Planning Unit Development *
Certificate of Compliance
Lot Line Adjustment
*An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested
action are attached to this application.
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted
in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application
becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material are required. If
application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material are required. A site plan
showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications. A complete legal description of subject property
is required. Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process.
After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period has
ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the
required building permits.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project
Zoning District Description of Project
Assessor's Parcel No.
< 1.o30.a0, 3,OeO
(GEO Code)
"1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all
respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct.) further certify 1 will comply with the
permit if it is granted and used."
Property Owner cbh, it A L : ijp kb>, Representative
Mailing Address \,`aO <'3"c
City - State - Zip S.\ l Cn tr) 1) )1 -3O
Telephone No. 9 —'4 0 j 5 'I
(Signature is required)
Lot Size (dimensions) x
Land Area
Signature
Mailing Address
City - State - Zip
Telephone No.
ignature
(Signature is required)
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Building floor area square feet
Existing square feet
Height of Buildings: Stories Feet
Principal
Accessory
Proposed square feet
Paved Impervious Area square feet
No. of off-street parking spaces
H: \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP.FRM
April 9, 2008
/
TO: City nfStillwater
City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Dale A,and Faith LNelson
1l2ON.]�St.
RE: Request for Variance
Legal Description:
210300430882
[arU&Schuipnberg'sAddition Lot DOlBlock 013
We would like to build a deck over the driveway. The structure will not be attached to the house. Please
see attached plans for aoapproximately ZO'xZ0'deck/carport.
Some reasons:
* To protect cars from weather damage, hail, etc
* Improve appearance ofproperty.
* Hide garbage and recycle containers so they are not visible from the street,
* To protect our backs. As we get older it is harder for us to shovel the larger area.
* Decrease the volume of snow on either side of the driveway. We do not have a lot of area to
throw snow; whereas, the snow piles atthe end ofthe driveway tend to get quite high and this
limits visibility when backing out mfthe driveway onto the street. There really isnoother place
toput snow other than the very end nfthe driveway.
We have received feedback from our neighbors already about the addition of a deck.|don't believe any
of them have a problem with it. We would prefer to put up a permanent structure such as a
deck/carport rather than atemporary, portable garage -canopy -type shelter.
Dale and Faith Nelson
Case 10-22
1120 3rd St N
City of Stillwater, MN
F LIZJ I I I Feet Community Development Department
0 12.5 25 50 75 100 216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-430-8820 — 651-430-8810 fax
1 inch = 50 feet
Stlllwater
'..)THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: July 9, 2010 CASE NO.: 2010-25
APPLICANT: Steve Farr, St. Croix Dogs
LANDOWNER: Ozz Properties, LLC
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for Outside Sales
LOCATION: 213 South Main Street
ZONING: CBD, Central Business District
PUBLIC HEARING:July 12, 2010
REPORT AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
Steve Farr received a Special Use Permit (SUP) in 2007 to operate a vending cart business
known as St. Croix Dogs in downtown Stillwater in the mid -block pedestrian passageway
between 243 and 229 South Main Street. In 2008 an amendment was approved for his SUP to
allow the extension of hours so he can operate between 11:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. any day of the
week.
This year the property that Mr. Farr leases for his business has changed hands and the new
owner will not extend the lease. Therefore, he has found a different privately owned site for the
vending cart. The new location is on the Water Street side of the business at 213 South Main
Street. In all respects except the location, St. Croix Dogs would operate as it currently does.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
Mr. Farr has requested an amendment to his SUP to allow his vending cart to operate on the
Water Street side of the business at 213 South Main Street. The cart would be located on the
private portion of the Water Street sidewalk.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
Vending cart businesses are considered "outside sales." Outside sales are allowed in the CBD,
Central Business District if a Special Use Permit is issued for the business.1 As mentioned
1 City Code Ch. 31-1, Subd. 17(3)q
Steve Farr SUP
Page 2 of 4
above, Mr. Farr has a Special Use Permit for the business, but would like it amended to reflect
the proposed relocation.
The Planning Commission may grant a Special Use Permit or amendments when the following
findings are made2:
1. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter,
and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations.
If the vending cart is located on the privately owned sidewalk, staff believes this finding can be
made.
2. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed.
1. A garbage can shall be provided by the business for customers. This is a condition of the
current SUP and it is complied with.
2. The business owner shall be responsible for obtaining a permit from the Washington County
Health Department prior to beginning operation. This is a condition of the current SUP and
it is complied with.
3. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of
the community.
If the vending cart is located on the privately owned sidewalk, staff believes this finding can be
made.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the requested Special Use Permit amendment with the following
conditions:
a. The vending cart must be operated on private property.
b. A garbage can shall be provided by the business for customers.
c. The business owner shall be responsible for obtaining a permit from the
Washington County Health Department.
2. Deny the Special Use Permit.
3. Continue the public hearing until August 9, 2010 for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff believes that the proposed vending cart relocation satisfies the necessary findings for
an outside sales SUP and therefore recommends approval of the amendment with the three
conditions detailed above.
Attachments: Location map
Picture of vending cart
Pictures of location
cc: Steve Farr
2 City Code Ch. 31-1, Subd. 30(1)d
Steve Farr SUP
Page 3 of 4
City of
De tie time it Depafteit
Farr Vending SUP
Location Map
Steve Farr SUP
Page 4 of 4
+�► jjlwater
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
Planning Report
DATE:
APPLICANT: Asia Raven, Wescott Orchads
LAND OWNER: Cub Foods
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for Outside Sales
LOCATION: Parking Lot at 1801 Market Drive
ZONING: BP-C, Business Park - Commercial
HEARING DATE: July 12, 2010
REPORT AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
July 8, 2010
CASE NO.: 2010-26
BACKGROUND
Wescott Orchards has an agreement with Cub Foods to place a seasonal fruit stand in
their grocery store parking lot at 1801 Market Drive. The fruit stand would offer
locally grown fruit.
The fruit stand's hours of operation would be 10 AM - 8 PM on Monday, closed on
Tuesday, 10 AM - 8 PM Wednesday - Saturday, and noon to 7 PM on Sunday. The
stand would be in the Cub Foods parking lot from July 22nd through September 30th.
The dimensions of the stand are about 8 feet by 10 feet. With the drop down window
trays open and customers selecting fruit at those windows, the stand will likely use
three parking spaces. Its location, as can be seen in the attached graphics, is safely out
of the way of traffic.
SPECIFIC REQUESTS
A seasonal fruit stand is considered "outside sales". The Cub Foods property is zoned
BP-C, Business Park Commercial. Outside sales are allowed with a Special Use Permit
in the BP-C zoning district. Therefore, Wescott Orchards has requested a Special Use
Permit for their proposed fruit stand location.
Wescott SUP
July 8, 2010
Page 2
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The Planning Commission may grant a Special Use Permit when the following
findings are madel:
1. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this
chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful
regulations;
The two standards that apply to this Special Use Permit case are parking and traffic
circulation.
Parking The Cub Foods store requires 447 parking spaces. It has 475 spaces. VVhen
the Wescott Orchard fruit stand is seasonally occupying up to three spaces for the stand
and a fourth for their vehicle, there will still be 471 parking spots for the grocery store.
It is expected that the fruit stand will not generate exclusive vehicle trips, rather it will
capture visits from customers that are already parking in the lot. Therefore, the 471
remaining parking spaces will be more than sufficient for the Cub Foods parking needs.
Traffic circulation As can be seen from the attached site photos, the fruit stand would
be located out of the traffic circulation lanes, and is not anticipated to create an
impediment to smooth traffic flow.
2. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed;
Staff is not aware of any other public interest conditions that apply.
3. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public
welfare of the community.
As long as the fruit stand stays out of the flow of traffic, and the two or three fruit stand
spaces are marked off with traffic cones, the stand should not be a nuisance.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the requested Special Use Permit with the following conditions:
a. The fruit stand location must be as depicted in the attached site plans.
b. The two parking spaces used for the fruit stand must be marked off
with traffic cones while the stand is in the Cub Foods parking lot.
2. Deny the Special Use Permit.
3. Continue the public hearing until August 9, 2010.
i City Code Ch. 31-1, Subd. 30(1)d
Wescott SUP
July 8, 2010
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
City staff believes that the proposed fruit stand satisfies the necessary findings for an
outside sales Special Use Permit and therefore recommends approval.
attachments: Location map
Specific site
Applicant's letter
Photos of fruit stand
cc: Asia Raven
•
I ONO
s
mos s
------------
Wescott Orchards
Produce Stand SUP
Location Map
Cub Foods
Wescott stand "
l: ° •r+rrl
r Inr't
!=: ° !flirt 1 ,
11 ..1".
— r — — "'� .. ..
�. — — �1ti--
SIATE� HIGHWAY _ 36
r- ----R-
g
-TOWER-
1 1- 4.1410i I it
1 '.1111 y �'
60TH ST
2 spaces use
size of stand
Wescott Orchards
28085 County Road 25
Elgin, MN 55932
Don Roper -President
(P) 507.876.2891
(F) 507.876.2820
To: Stillwater Planning Department
RE: Wescott Orchard Produce Stand — Letter of Intent
Local food systems are an alternative to the global corporate models where producers and
consumers are separated through a chain of processors/manufacturers, shippers and retailers.
Conversely, the local food system redevelops these relationships and encourages a return of
quality control to the consumer and the producer respectively. These quality characteristics are
not only in the product but in the method of producing and distributing.
It is our desire to set up a produce stand to distribute locally grown produce. We will sell and
distribute locally grown products from July 22nd through September 30th and would carry a
variety of fruits and vegetables.
Our hours of operation would be the following;
Mon loam to 8pm
Tuesday — Closed
Wednesday — Saturday 10am to 8pm
Sunday — 12arn to 7pm
The stand will be 10' by 7' wide and 7' tall.
Sincerely,
Wescott Orchards
-P
Cr:
N
O
II (D
v 66'
n-
r-r
Ql
SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND DIMENSIONS
Planning Commission
DATE: July 9, 2010 CASE NO.: 10-27
APPLICANT: Jennifer Trom
REQUEST: In order to construct the proposed addition the applicant is requesting the
following:
1. A variance to the front yard setback (20' required/18.6' requested),
2. A variance to the exterior side yard setback (20' required/5.3'
requested)
3. A variance to the rear yard setback (25' required/6.3' requested)
4. A variance to building coverage on a lot (25% maximum/28.4%
requested)
5. A variance to the minimum lot size (7,500 square feet required/5,595
square feet requested)
LOCATION: 1101 4th St S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR - Low/Medium Density Residential
ZONING: RB - Two-family District
PC DATE: July 12, 2010
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner
BACKGROUND
The applicant are requesting a variance in order to construct an attached 24 x 28 garage with
living space above and associated driveway. This property is zoned RB and currently has an
existing single-family home on the site. The lot is 5,595 square feet in size. The property
currently has no garage, and the applicant desires additional living space for her family.
1101 4th St S
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Mrs. Trom's property is in the RB zoning district. The critical standards from the district are
presented in the table below, together with the current and proposed minimums.
Lot Size
Setbacks
(Principal Building)
Front Yard
Exterior Side Yard
Rear Yard
building cover, max
other impervious max
Total impervious
RB Zoning District
Required/Allowed
7,500 s.f.
20'
20'
25'
25%
25%
n/a
Current
5,595 s.f.
18.6'
5.3'
40'
14.7%
11.0%
25.7%
Proposed
Same
Same
Same
6.3'
28.4%
16.3%
44.7%
Staff's
Recommendation
Same
Same
3.5'
Same
25.0%
19.2%
44.2%
As seen in the table, the property currently fails to meet a number of items including lot size,
front yard setback, and exterior side yard setback. The applicant's request will not make these
three items more non -conforming; however, a variance would need to be granted before any
addition could be made to the current home.
The addition as proposed would cause the home to encroach in to the rear yard setback. The
City has a policy in the Conservation Design Guidelines to avoid encroachments into the rear
yard and side yard setback with living space due to the impact it have on privacy on adjacent
properties. Additionally, the proposed setback from the sidewalk along Hancock Street would
allow cars that are parked in front of the garage to block the sidewalk which is something the
City in the past has worked to avoid. Finally, the commission has recognized that given our
winters, a garage is more than a mere convenience. It approached the level of a necessity.
Therefore, a garage is a reasonable request for applicant to make.
In this request, the Commission needs to ask are if there are reasonable alternatives that permit
the garage and living space with fewer required variance requests. If so, the Commission needs
to limit the request to the fewest number of variances possible. If the applicant went to a 24' x
24' detached garage and added living space above the existing home then there would be no
need for any other variance other than those non -conforming issues that remain today. As a
detached garage without living space above it, the garage could be setback 3 feet from side
property line along the south side of the property. Placing it in this location would allow a car
to park in the driveway without blocking the sidewalk. In staff's eyes these all seem like a
reasonable alternative to the request.
11014`hStS
Page 3
Previous Commission Actions
In Planning Case 2003-53, the applicant made a request to add a 24' x 28' attached garage
without living space above the garage. Additionally the applicant was going to add living
space on the second floor of the existing home. The commission at that time denied the
requested variance on a vote of 8-0. Since that time, the City has changed its regulations
regarding building coverage and impervious surface maximums in the RB zoning district. In
2003, the maximum impervious coverage was a total of 30% of the lot. In 2006, the City relaxed
these requirements and today permits 25% building coverage and 25% other impervious
surfaces like sidewalks, patios, and driveways. This change both reflected the reality of what
was generally occurring in the RB zoning district and makes it easier for property owners to
make small additions and changes to their property without the need for a variance.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found:
1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists.
Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
The property is a 5,595 square foot lot. The current home, and the size of it, was built in
1880, prior to the current owner who purchased the property in 1993. This is a situation
that was not created by an act of the current property owner.
The desire to have an attached garage with living space above is more of a personal
desire than a hardship peculiar to the property. It would appear reasonable to permit a
24'x24' detached garage and add living space on the second floor of the home and still
meet the required rear yard setback and impervious coverage requirements.
2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by
neighbors.
This property is zoned two-family residential which allows single family and two-family
uses. The commission has recognized that given our winters, a garage is more than a
mere convenience. It approaches the level of a necessity. Therefore, a garage is a
reasonable request.
As previously stated, there is an alternative available to the applicant that would permit
a detached garage and additional living space without the need for an impervious
surface variance and a variance to encrotch into the rear yard setback. Due to this, the
granting for a variance as request would be a special privilege.
1101 4th St S
Page 4
3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the
public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan.
Granting a variance that would impede on the privacy of current and future adjacent
property owners would a detriment to those property owners.
If the Commission chooses to approve the variances as suggested by staff, the applicant
will be able to meet all other code requirements except for 1'11" encroachment into the
exterior side yard setback. Since the property will continue to meet all other code
requirements; the authorizing of the variances to the minimum lot size and front yard
setback will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, will not materially
impair the purpose and intent of this title and would not necessary adversely affect the
Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS
1. The request to extend an attached garage with living space above into the rear yard
setback are not a hardship and should be denied. The current lot size, front yard
setback, and exterior side yard setback are hardships that is peculiar to the property
and is not created by acts of the owner. To allow for the addition to the home a these
variance should be approved.
2. That a variance for an attached garage is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same
district and in the same vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would constitute a
special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. A variance to the lot
size, front yard setback, and exterior side yard setback is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights in order to allow for a
reasonable addition to the home. If granted, this request would not constitute a
special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
3. The proposal as presented could be substantially detrimental to the adjoining
property owners. With the proposed staff changes, staff finds that the garage and
addition will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property, will not materially
impair the purpose and intent of this title, and would not necessary adversely affect
the Comprehensive Plan.
1101 4th St S
Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the request as presented with a variance to the front yard setback (20'
required/18.6' requested), a variance to the exterior side yard setback (20'
required/5.3' requested), a variance to the rear yard setback (25' required/6.3'
requested), a variance to building coverage on a lot (25% maximum/28.4%
requested), and a variance to the minimum lot size (7,500 square feet required/5,595
square feet requested). With an approval staff would suggest the following
conditions for approval:
a. All minor revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Community Development Director. All major revisions shall be revised
and approve by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction
between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator.
b. A drywell shall be installed north of the garage to provide storage for water
runoff. The size of the drywell shall be sufficient to capture all of the
rainwater from the roof of the garage and the entire driveway. Final designs
shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. Approve the request in part and deny the request in part. Specifically approve a
variance to the front yard setback (20' required/18.6' requested); a variance to the
exterior side yard setback (20' required/3.5' requested); and a variance to the
minimum lot size (7,500 square feet required/5,595 square feet requested); and deny
a variance to the rear yard setback (25' required/6.3' requested) and a variance to
building coverage on a lot (25% maximum/28.4% requested). Staff would suggest
the following conditions for approval:
a. The applicant shall submit revised plan to the City Planner for review for
conformance to the approved variances prior to the issuance of the building
permit.
b. The garage shall detached from the home, no larger than 24' by 24' in size,
setback 3 feet from the south property line, be no closer to the east property
line then 3 feet, and no closer to the home than six feet.
c. The addition to the second floor shall cantilever no more than 1'11" over the
existing home.
3. Deny the request.
4. Continue the public hearing until the August 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
The 60 day decision deadline for the request is August 14, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative two as conditioned.
Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and letter.
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SIILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
SIILLWATER MN 55082
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
ACTION REQUESTED
Special/Conditional Use Permit
Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment*
Zoning Amendment*
Planning Unit Development*
Certificate of Compliance
Lot Line Adjustment
*An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for
requested action are attached to this application.
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material
submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.)
submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of
supporting material are required. If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of
supporting material are required. A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with
applications. A complete legal description of subject property is required. Any incomplete application
or supporting material will delay the application process.
After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period
has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City
to obtain the required building permits.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project 1101 SOr_r L/ St-J`erZ
Zoning District
AssPssor's Parcel No. L3C7 / eS
Description of Project 6 ✓a C( acij c '1
f 1 r ✓l SS Cic'' di)OE.41Q_P'
f C✓ C ci,rreAt J tit c f Q
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in
all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will
comply with the permit if it is granted and used."
(GEO Code)
e
Property Owner c (12C' Troy-)
117'iGCheC
Representative
Mailing Address [10 1 - Li -' Mailing Address
City - State - Zip 3 fCca ier- nil 5 Aity - State - Zip
Telephone No. O1 SO? 7 /7 I elephone No.
Signature\�� /►'� Signature
(Signature is required)
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
Lot Size (dimensions) x
Land Area
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Building floor area square feet
Existing aci square feet
Proposed '7square feet
Paved Impervious Area ? 5 square feet
No. of off-street parking spaces 3
Height of Buildings:
Principal
Accessory
Storieg
Feet
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
C hur-c kill 4 iUg150-1 ‘ 5 ) 2.01- Uo2zl t /Ot 004
HHO'S`tLi-'&/ y
H:\mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP.FRM April 9, 2008
June 17, 2010
Planning Commision
City Of Stillwater
Dear Members of the Commission:
I am requesting a variance in order to build an addition which would include a 2 car garage with 3
bedrooms and a bathroom above it. I have owned my house for 17 years and have tried to sell it for the last
year. Although I had plenty of people looking at the house I did not receive any offers. According to my
realtor one of the reasons people were not interested in making an offer was because there was no garage. I
have also received negative feedback about the general layout of the house. I am now the single mother of
two small children, a boy (4) and a girl (2). I rent the downstairs bedroom to my brother so that I can afford
my mortgage and all of the expenses that go along with raising two small children. I have been trying to sell
my house because it is too small for my current needs. Since I have been unable to sell I have had to look at
putting on an addition.
As the house is currently located, it is not possible for me to build an addition that would allow me to fully
utilize my property without a variance. This condition is unique to my home as compared to the other
homes in my neighborhood. My neighbor's home at 1104 S. Third Street, was positioned so that he was
able to build a large, three car, detached garage on his property without the need for a variance. The only
property similar to mine is 1105 S. Fourth Street and that home, which was built well after mine, is not in
compliance with the applicable ordinances and thus, I am unable to build an addition on the South end of
my property. If that house was built in compliance with the existing ordnances, I could possibly build an
addition to the South without a need for a variance. Without the ability to add a garage and additional
living space to my existing dwelling, I am deprived of the reasonable use of my land and building. I ask
that the commission grant me the minimum variance(s) that will allow me to exercise reasonable use of my
property.
The addition would be built on an area of the property that is currently used as a parking area . I have the
full support of my neighbors and the plan includes tearing down an unflattering shed located in the parking
area of my property that is visible from the street. The variance I request will not be injurious to the
property but rather will enhance it aesthetically and may also help to increase the values of the adjacent
properties.
The addition I wish to build will be on the back side of my home and will not impede the view from fourth
Street, which is the major street bordering my home.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Trom
Case 10-27
1101 4th St S
A
1 I I Feet
0 5 10 20 30 40
1 inch = 19.986077 feet
Applicant's Proposal
City of Stillwater, MN
Community Development Department
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-430-8820 — 651-430-8810 fax
Case 10-27
1101 4th St S
i
f7_rLJ I I I Feet
0 5 10 20 30 40
1 inch = 19.986077 feet
Staff Recommendation
City of Stillwater, MN
Community Development Department
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-430-8820 — 651-430-8810 fax
i.iQS
dO
„(-..?•!,C0.5 N /1/4
Is k.t...r3
1'
•
4.
•
t
sg!
Nr.I.NrAk
tt
C ITY 51 DEVV/A1-14
0
1
P-•
0
4
-T4
•
JE1NN;
, I
I !
i!
i I
r
ta
'
I w .•
...N. i-,
0 I-17
„.1
53
S
C,
`f•
. 7E 4.
,g)
\
0
1
c-1
Hz
1-lcd
tu
A/1
A 4
.92
oi
4 an (t_
k,4 r j
`i kr,
- 0
2 "4-
(4! t1/49 t4
i:00,41;
)
c.q
;
(I)
Ak0 .1+/v,".‘q
P4131-`i3 X12 52
(
043
0
1-
9
'›X
0
1
t•I'Y
t
illwater
THE BIRTHPLACE O F M I N N E S O T A
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: July 6, 2010 CASE NO.: 2010-28
APPLICANT: Ray Queener, Dist. 834 Assistant Supt. Of Business & Admin.
LANDOWNER: Johnson Kellog Properties, LLC
REQUEST: 1) Determine that for land use purposes the District 834
Early Childhood Family Center is of the "same general
character" as day care; and
2) Recommend that the City Council approve an SUP for the
Early Childhood Family Center
LOCATION: 1850 Greeley Street South
ZONING: BP-C, Business Park Commercial
PUBLIC HEARING:July 12, 2010
REVIEWERS: Assistant City Engineer, City Planner, City Building Official,
Washington County
REPORT AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Z,'
BACKGROUND
The Stillwater Area Public School District (ISD #834) has outgrown its Early Childhood Family
Center (ECFC) at 14420 - 60th Street South (Highway 36). The proposed replacement site for the
facility would be located at 1850 Greeley Street South.
A Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment and a rezoning of the Greeley Street property
from industrial to commercial were both approved by the City Council on June 15, 2010. Their
approval is contingent upon subsequent approval of a Special Use Permit for the ECFC facility
and upon a positive review of the Comprehensive Plan land use map change by the
Metropolitan Council.
Special Use Permit
The predominant land use at 1850 Greeley will be for early childhood education programs.
Early childhood education programs are not specifically listed as an allowed use in the BP-C
District 834 SUP
Page 2 of 7
Zoning District. But, day care is allowed with a Special Use Permit. And, if a proposed use is of
the "same general character" as other allowed uses in the BP-C District, it can be allowed by
Special Use Permit.1 Since the early childhood education programs have many similar
characteristics to day care programming, a Special Use Permit has been requested by the School
District.
The Special Use Permit review process for "same general character" is slightly different than the
process for requests related to uses specifically allowed by Special Use Permit. The difference is
that for standard Special Use Permit cases, the Planning Commission can approve the request.
In "same general character" cases, the Planning Commission is charged with the task of
determining whether the proposed use is of the "same general character", and if so, then the
City Council would approve the Special Use Permit.
Metropolitan Council Review of Land Use Map Amendment
The comprehensive plan amendment mentioned above was submitted to the Metropolitan
Council for review on June 29, 2010. It was sent to surrounding communities for review on June
24, 2010. When the surrounding communities have submitted their comments to the City, the
Metropolitan Council will begin their review period. The Metropolitan Council review period
could last for either 15 days or 60 days, depending upon whether they consider the amendment
to be "major" or "minor".
Until the Metropolitan Council has finished their review, the comprehensive plan amendment
cannot become effective. Nor can the Special Use Permit become effective until then.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The Stillwater Area Public School District is requesting the Planning Commission to:
1. Make a determination that for land use purposes the Early Childhood Family Center is
of the "same general character" as day care programming, and therefore would be
allowable by Special Use Permit; and
2. Recommend that the City Council approve a Special Use Permit for the Early Childhood
Family Center.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
Determination of "Same General Character"
City Code Ch. 31, Sec. 31-319 (b)(3) states:
Similar uses by special use permit. A special use permit may be granted for other uses or
service determined to be of the same general character as those found in Section 31-325 (non-
residential land use table) for the BP-C district and which will not impair the present or potential
use of adjacent properties. The findings of same general character shall be made by the planning
commission and the special use permit approved by the city council
' City Code Ch. 31, Sec. 31-319(b)(3)
District 834 SUP
Page 3 of 7
The predominant use of the building at 1850 Greeley Street South is planned to be for early
childhood programming. Each child would be at the center for several hours at a time.
Sometimes the child would be accompanied by a parent; sometimes the parent would drop the
child off and return later to pick the child up. As with day care, there would be an outside play
area right next to the building.
A secondary use intended for the facility is an actual day care. Parents would drop their
children off and return later to pick them up.
The ECFC also partners with Courage Center and ISD #916 to offer programming for children
with disabilities. This allows for efficiencies of shared gymnasium/physical therapy space, for
example.
City staff believes that there are enough similarities between the land uses associated with the
ECFC facility and a day care, that the ECFC could be considered to be of the "same general
character."
Special Use Permit
City Code Ch. 31, Sec. 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
Facility
Use
Units
Spaces required
ECFC Building
ECFC Classrooms
196 children
25
Day care
60 children
8
ECFC staff
48
48
Day care staff
6
6
Conference rooms
1,658 sf
6
Office
5,400 sf
18
Therapy space
1,320 sf
7
Office Building
Net space
14,030 sf
47
Storage Building
Gross space
8,041
9
TOTAL
174
A total of 174 parking spaces are required by the Zoning Ordinance for the
proposed uses. 184 parking stalls will be provided on the property.
Incidentally, should the number of parking spaces provided for the 196 ECFC
children be low, additional parking areas could be constructed on the property
adjacent to Industrial Boulevard. However, since the 196 ECFC students are
distributed evenly throughout the day, this is not anticipated to be needed.
District 834 SUP
Page 4 of 7
Two additional handicapped stalls will need to be provided. Six handicapped
parking stalls are required by Building Code and only four are shown on the site
plan.
Traffic
The School District contracted with FFE to do an analysis of the traffic impact of
the proposed uses. The analysis is attached. Washington County and the City
Engineer have reviewed the analysis and agree with the results and conclusions.
During peak hour use, there may be cueing and turn maneuver difficulties on
Greeley. However, with the new access to Industrial Boulevard and scheduling
flexibility, it is possible to alleviate these potential problems. To do so, the FFE
analysis offers several possible mitigation measures, which the County and City
would like to see as conditions of approval. They are:
1. The buses must be routed through the site from Greeley to Industrial
Boulevard. Exiting of busses onto Greeley cannot be allowed.
2. Stacking of busses and cars must be accommodated on the site and
not allowed to spill into the entrance and onto the street. If this
occurs, the County and City will review the circulation pattern for
route and circulation changes.
3. If left turn movements on Greeley Street become an issue, the
entrance from Greeley Street will be modified to a right in/right-out
only configuration.
4. The School District will need to issue a notice and map to parents of
the students, bus drivers and staff prior to the first day of school. The
notice should state that there are three access points to the facility and
suggest using the Industrial Avenue access as an alternate route or a
right turn from Greeley if congestion is experienced at the Greeley
entrance.
5. The School District will have to discourage pedestrians from crossing
Greeley Street to and from the District offices to the site. A crosswalk
will not be provided at this location. Either a pedestrian will have to
cross at the Curve Crest semaphore, or they will have to drive if
traffic is heavy on Greeley Street.
In addition, the City Engineer requests that the School District study the traffic
impact upon the intersection of Curve Crest Boulevard and Greeley Street. Prior
to consideration of the Special Use Permit request by the City Council, this
analysis should be submitted to the City and County.
Exterior lighting
The light fixtures in the parking lots will be of a full cutoff style that has no lens
or lamp projecting below the fixture. This minimizes "spill" of light onto
neighboring properties or public streets.
District 834 SUP
Page 5 of 7
Landscaping and Tree Replacement.
The City Forester visited the site and reviewed the tree preservation plan. She
notes that eleven trees with diameters of six inches or greater are being removed.
Of these eleven, four are considered significant by City Code. One of the four
significant trees is so large that the Forester recommends requiring five to replace
it. The recommended total number of replacement trees would therefore be
eight. Fourteen autumn blaze maples are being proposed to be planted along the
new access drive to Industrial Boulevard. This satisfies the City Code.
Parking Lot
The southern parking lot will be enlarged slightly westward, and the northern
parking lot will be completely rebuilt.
Per City Code [31-510 Subd 1 (f) (5)], curbing is required on new parking areas.
So, new curb is necessary along the west side of the south lot and the north, west,
and south sides of the north lot.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Consistency - The ECFC uses at 1850 Greeley are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan as recently amended. The City Council approved an
amendment to the land use map that changed the guided use of the property
form industrial to commercial. The Comprehensive Plan amendment was
forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review. But, until the Metropolitan
Council has finished its review, the comprehensive plan amendment cannot
become effective. Nor can the Special Use Permit for the ECFC become effective
until then.
(2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed.
Architectural design - Exterior changes are proposed. The main change will be the
addition of a canopy along the south side of the ECFC building. The changes have been
reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission.
Miscellaneous
• 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.
• Flood notes on the certificate of survey for the property should read Zone "X" of
panel 27163CO262E 2/3/2010
• The City Engineer recommends that the proposed rock construction entrances on
Greeley Street should NOT be built or used. Instead, construction traffic should
access the site only from Industrial Boulevard.
• Drainage calculations need to be provided along with a submittal to the Middle
St. Croix Watershed Management Organization.
District 834 SUP
Page 6 of 7
• Plans or testing must be provided to show that there are no clear water
connections (i.e. roof runoff into sanitary sewer).
• Existing storm sewer pipes need to be cleaned and rip rap must be added to
existing flared end sections.
(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.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Find that the ECFC programming is of the "same general character" as a day
care/nursery, and recommend that the City Council approve a Special Use Permit for
the use with the following conditions:
a. Construction shall occur according to the following plan set, except as otherwise
modified in other conditions of approval:
i. Paving and Dimension Plan C2 dated 6/17/10
ii. Grading and Erosion Control Plan C3 dated 6/17/10
iii. Utility Plan C4 dated 6/17/10
iv. Tree Preservation Plan C5 dated 6/17/10
v. Lower Level Plan 400.FL dated 6/17/10
vi. First Level Floor Plan 401.FL dated 6/17/10
vii. Site Lighting Plan SL1 dated 6/17/10
viii. Exterior Elevations dated 6/17/10
b. The Special Use Permit shall not become effective until the Comprehensive Plan
land use map amendment for the subject property becomes effective, which is
pending Metropolitan Council review. Until the Special Use Permit it effective,
no building permits will be issued for the Early Childhood Family Center.
c. Two additional handicapped stalls must be provided, for a total of six
handicapped parking stalls.
d. The buses must be routed through the site from Greeley to Industrial Boulevard.
Exiting of busses onto Greeley will not be allowed.
e. Stacking of busses and cars must be accommodated on the site and not allowed
to spill into the entrance and onto the street. If this occurs, the County and City
will review the circulation pattern for route and circulation changes.
f. If left turn movements at Greeley Street become an issue, the entrance from
Greeley Street will be modified to a right in/right-out only configuration.
g. The School District will issue a notice and map to parents of the students, bus
drivers and staff prior to the first day of school each year or session. The notice
will state that there are three access points to the facility and suggest using the
Industrial Avenue access as an alternate route or a right turn from Greeley Street
if congestion is experienced at the Greeley entrance.
h. The School District will discourage pedestrians from crossing Greeley Street to
and from the District offices to the site. A crosswalk will not be provided at this
District 834 SUP
Page 7 of 7
location. Either a pedestrian will have to cross at the Curve Crest semaphore, or
will have to drive if traffic is heavy on Greeley Street.
i. Prior to consideration of the Special Use Permit request by the City Council, the
School District must provide the City with details on the impact of the proposed
traffic on the semaphored intersection of Greeley and Curve Crest Boulevard.
j. Concrete curbing must be built along the west edge of the south lot, as well as
along the north, west, and south edges of the north lot.
k. All changes to the approved plans shall 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 prior to issuance of any building permits.
1. Flood notes on the certificate of survey for the property should read Zone "X" of
panel 27163CO262E 2/3/2010.
m. The proposed rock construction entrances on Greeley Street must NOT be built
or used. Instead, construction traffic must access the site only from Industrial
Boulevard.
n. Drainage calculations must be provided along with a submittal to the Middle St.
Croix Watershed Management Organization.
o. Plans or testing must be provided to the City Engineer to show that there are no
clear water connections (i.e. roof runoff into sanitary sewer).
p. Existing storm sewer pipes must be cleaned and rip rap must be added to
existing flared end sections.
2. Find that the ECFC programming is not of the "same general character" as a day
care/nursery.
3. Table the requests for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends an affirmative finding on the "same general character" issue, and
recommends forwarding to the City Council a recommendation of approval for the Special Use
Permit, with the conditions presented above.
Attachments: Location map
Paving and Dimension Plan
Grading Plan
Tree Preservation Plan
Floor Plans
Building elevations
Traffic Analysis
Letter from Washington County
cc: Ray Queener
Steve Erickson
Washington
County
June 8, 2010
Bill Tumbled
Community Development Director
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Public Works Department
Donald J. Theisen, P.E.
Director/County Engineer
Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E.
Deputy Director/Assistant County Engineer
RE: SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED EARLY CHILDHOOD
FAMILY CENTER
CITY OF STILLWATER
Dear Mr. Turnblad:
Washington County has been notified that a special use permit application has been submitted
to the city for an Early Childhood Family Center located at 1792-1850, 1862 Greeley Street South
and 1825 and 1845 Industrial Boulevard in the City of Stillwater. Washington County staff have
reviewed the Traffic Analysis study dated June 17, 2010 for this use and agree with the analysis,
results and conclusions prepared in the study.
As we have previously indicated, CR 66 is the section of roadway from Trunk Highway (TH) 36
to Orleans Street and is functionally classified as an A Minor Expander roadway. CR 66 has
approximately 66 feet of right-of-way in front of the site and the section between TH 36 and
Curve Crest Boulevard is currently a three -lane roadway with a continuous center left turn lane.
The roadway currently has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 10,600 vehicles per day (vpd)
near the proposed amended zoning location. Twenty-year traffic forecasts, developed as part
of the County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, show that traffic is expected to increase to
15,000 vpd. In addition, because CR 66 serves mainly a local function and has no continuity to
the north, this section of roadway is identified for a jurisdictional transfer from the county to the
city within this 20 year planning period.
Based on review of this proposed use and review of the Traffic Analysis, there may be traffic flow
issues and congestion during peak hour use. However, the suggestions made in the traffic study
offer mitigation measures that should be considered and incorporated into the permit. These
conditions include:
1. The buses shall be routed through the site from Greeley to Industrial Boulevard only.
2. Any stacking of vehicular traffic including both cars and buses shall occur within the site.
The entrance to the site shall remain free of congestion. If stacking and congestion issues
occur, they shall be reviewed by the city and the county for modification to the traffic
routing along Greeley Street, Industrial Boulevard and within the site.
11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573
Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246
www.co.washington.mn.us
Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action
3. If left turn movements on Greeley Street become a congestion issue, the entrance from
Greeley Street shall be modified to a right-in/right-out only.
4. The School District shall issue a notice and map to the parents of the students and staff
prior to the first day of opening of the school each year. The notice shall identify that
there are three access points to the facility and recommend utilizing the Industrial
Avenue access as an alternate route or a right turn from Greeley Street if congestion is
encountered at the Greeley Street entrance.
5. The School District shall discourage pedestrians from crossing Greeley Street to and
from the District offices to the site. It has been agreed by the School District and the
County that a cross -walk will not be provided at this location and that pedestrians shall
use the existing signals to cross Greeley Street if traffic is heavy.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal and working with the School District
prior to submission of the SUP application. Please call me at 651-430-4362 or e-mail me at
Ann.pung-terwedo@co washington.mn.us if you have questions or comments.
Ann Pung-Terwedo
Senior Planner
Enc.
c: Shawn Sanders, City Engineer
Todd Erickson, FFE
Wayne Sandberg, Deputy Director/Assistant County Engineer
Ted Schoenecker, Transportation Planning Manager
RAPlat Reviews\Plat Review- Stillwater\ St i liwaterschoolsrezone5-6-201 0.docx
Dl I
1
Wrry r tA I- - /17ArA
4 rrri Arnr: jfirifia 41,-*4 CaliAr 1234P. 1 •
A. Ar-ArAnirAmogr /410gAr,"fit.
-tee{ ffi k rti-a'ne � �' _.rr
it
{
NEWSIDI
1B'
LSHEL
DRI\
SYMBOL LEGEND
NEW S. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT OVER
NEW B. CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE
NEW 3' BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT OVER
NEW B' CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE
NEW a' POROUS BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
OVER 5 MNDOT 3137 CA50 AGGREGATE
OVER 2.1' COURSE FILTER AGGREGATE.
NEW a' CONCRETE PAVEMENT OVER
NEW 6' CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE
WHERE APPLICABLE, DIMENSIONS ARE FROM
BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB OR BACK OF
CURB TO END OF STALL LICE.
NORTH
0 15 30 60
Stillwater Area
Public Schools
ECFC
���(�)
B W B R
ARCHITECTS
Lawson Commons
380 St. Peter Strcct, Sore 600
Saint Paul, IAN 55102
651.222.3701
5 Larson
Engineering, Inc.
3529 Labore Road
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
651.481.9120 (1) 651481.9201
W WH.lareatengr corn
kffelry
:o .*aPa.Na
asema Mown m�rooi+ Yoe
Mean A Murphy, P.E, LEED PP
Due 00.17.10 c 42808
Iee.ed Fnr
®Reim. COP,
ems.
The 1• long en a FUY Sae sheet
Orn.:ry5n..k eppNo Fw Site SheeS.
Oue
0aI1T/10
form No.. Checked
3]OO909.00 Clacker
STeet rate
PAVING AND
DIMENSION
PLAN
C2
Copyright BWBR.Architects
ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: DEPENDING UPDN CONFIGURATION, ATTACH FABRIC TO WIPE MESH
WITH HOG RINGS, STEEL POSTS WITH WIRES, OR WOOD POSTS WITH STAPLES.
SILTATION FENCE
INSTALLATION DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
01. BF1p4' 3116:
8.42 FT
In+.818N0- B.NOK P.*IE f0 T9ESO0
1.. CIS
F-.ball DEPOSE. 9.1E40 13.8I:0/
0714 Ca5
4:54E2.AECEitEmdE9l
KSlET11ECRra n LLJ.po,.,
! n0
PLAN
400 MICRON FILTER
RAG IN EACH BASKET
2 BASKETS WITH 400 MICRON FILTER
BAGS. TO BE CHECKED PERIODICALLY AND
CLEANED OUT AFTER EACH MIN EVENT
FrrS NEENAH 1642 AND
1733 FRAMES OR EQUAL
PROFILE
INFRASAFE INLET
PROTECTION DEVICE (OR EQUAL)
NOT TO SCALE
EROSION CONTROL NOTES
1. Owner and Contractor Nall odam MPCANPDES paced. Contractor shall tea responsiae for all
I fees pertaining to Ihia peen). The SWPPP shall be kept ensile at an limes.
stall temporary erosion oanVol measures )inter protection. 0Ml fence, al rock construction
e33mces) prior to beginning arty excavation or demolition worn al Me site.
3. Erosion control meesules shown on Me erosion con.W plan are Me abs1W0 minimum. The
contractor elan MNat1 temporary eadh d0as, sedimem traps or basins. additional siltation fencing,
ander Mak the soil parallel to Me contours as deemed necessary b further control erosion. All
charges dull be remMed M Me SWPPP.
4. AN construction site entrances shall be surfaced with crushed rock across Me entirewont of Me
araanre and hmn Ma em,ance to a point Wit into Me mrtWtlion core.
5. Tottoe of Me sill fence stall be trended in a minimum of 6'. The trend bad. shall be
compacted WM 8 vibratory dale mmpede.
An grading operations shall be conducted in a manner to minim. We potential for sae erosion.
Sedimml robot prackes must be.bblished on all doom gradient penmelers before any up
g2Gent lard dWurqing activities begin.
All exposed sent areas mtst be stabilities, as soon as posside b.1 soil erosion but in m ca'se
later con 14 days after Me oonsooction activity M Mat portion of he de has temporarily or
permanently ceased. Temporary slodspnes without significant NIT day or organic nmmonend
le.g., tleen agpegate slod3Yes, demolition concrete stockpiles, sand a k0les) and We
constructed base components of roads, parking Mrs and simian surface are exempt horn this
requirement.
B. The normal wetted pek1Me of any temporary of permanent drainage ditch or swab MN drains
ter horn Nry portion N Me cen0Wtltnn ste, or divine yid. around Me site. mull 00 223802d
Whin 20O lineal Mel from Ma popery edge. or horn Me point W die.arge into am nm1.ce ode.
Stabilization W Me last 20018eal feet must . completed wiatn 24 hours after connecting to a
surface water. Stabilization W Me remaining potion of any Mmppary or permanent ditches or
swales must be mmplele Whin 14 days allot conning to a sbrfam water and ...km in
thin portion of to d4cn has tempoa,hy or permanent/ ceased.
9. Pipe ou303 must be provided Wh energy dissipation WNn 24 hours of connection to surface
water.
10. All ripap shall beirala00 MM a filter mate. or soil sepaaton fabric and comply Wb Me
M.eso0 Depanmem of Transportation Standard Spedf 4ons.
1. An norm sewers discharging Mb weldnds or water bodies shaft outlet at or below...al wale
le. W to aspetlive wetland or water body at an elevation were the downstream slope is 1
Peuent of natter. The term) water 004 sin Ce Me invert °Portion of Me outlet d the wetland or
wale, body.
All slam sewer cat. basins tot needed ter site drainage dump construction shall nd covered b
prevent runoff from entering Ire storm se. system. ...sins necessary for sae drainage
ummg consWtlien shall be provided MC .1 protection.
has where concentrated Mows occur Nu. as swales and areas in from of storm catch basis
and intakes) Me eosbn control h#M.s sren be backed by Nadlimtin sbutlu,e to protect those
facilities Mon Ma cancer.. flows.
Inspect the mmlu4ion Nte once every seven days during active construction and Minn 24 hers
after a rainfall event greater Man OS inches in 24 hours. All inspections shall be receded in Me
SWPPP.
15. AN sou fences must be repaired, replaced, or suppler.. when they become nonfunctional or Me
sedated roaches 1D of Me neigh of the fence. These repairs must be made Whin 24 hours W
discovery, or as soon as 0ad conditions 8Ibw..esv. A, omens shell be masted in the SWPPP,
16. 11 se0imem escapes the con1Mien site, Dilute ammWNs icof sediment must be removed ina
manner and al a frequency sufficient M minmice offs. imparts.
17. Al sods traded onto pavement Well be removed dairy.
18. All infil&a0om areas must be inspected to ensure Mal no sediment from ongoing m9W5rlion
a4irdy is reaching Pie nnura0on area anal Mesa areas are prdected front compaction due to
construction equipment dining amass Om int..n area.
19. Temporary soil Moo . must have Mt fence or Ober effective s liment m.OM, and rand be
pled in surface wNes, including sb1010er conveyances cod as curb ant gutter systems, or
conduits and ditches odes More is a bypass in place for pre Nom1welef.
20. Collected seel.enl, asphalt and concrete W ngs, finding debris, papa, plastic, fabric,
construction and demolition debris lid Nhe wastes must be deposed of properly and must mmdy
MM MPCA disposal requirements.
21. OM, ga5Wne, paint and any hezadous substances must be property Nall, Wading secondary
m seals. leafs or other discharge. Redid. access to storage areas must
be provided to we ent vandalism. Stage and disposal of hazardous wane must be in
come a.e wiM kW. regulations,
22. Edemal wa.ing of trucks and other construction wades des must be lied to a defined area W ins
site.0Runoff most be cont.. and waste paperlysposed ol. Calb engine etegrcas,g is allowed
22. AN liquid and solid wallas genera. by concrete washout operations most bemmainedna
leakproof mmainmenl ladiry or...eada finer. A compacted Pay finer Mal does allow
washout liquid¢ M enter ground water is considered animperme9de Not. The liquid and. solid
wastes must . monad Me pound, and Mee must ram..ne in. to cone washout
operations or areas. Liquid and a.FE wastes most be disposed N properly and in mm4Mma MM
MPCA resoMOcs, A sign must be.Miled adjacent to ...shout lad e b inform mnnoWe
equipment operators to cave dal Prop...a.
24. Upon completion of he eoject lid dedication of all graded areas, a0 temporary erosion con.
la.Mtes /sin fences. lay bales. etc.) shall be removed from le site.
25. At permanent Sedimentation basins moat be restored to their cl.on condition immediately
following s.ilimtin of the site.
26. Contactor Wall subnu Notice of Temenamn f. MICA-NPOES pemmil Whin 30 days atter Fret
SIaGI®lion,
GRADING NOTES
1. Oradea mown in paved areas represent finish elevation.
3. ...me a0 disturbed turf areas with 4' W good gualitybpsoil and seed.
3. Ad co...n shall toepo1enned in accordance Wh state and M®I Needed specifications ter
ED. AREA
.5 elk
at.CW Ara
OKaP:C4' PATr iv T• N'AO)
MAAmMOM DA-r.cw u<. ,e 14' ,,CAD)
318808T wriGHT c.3.93
.00 CPS
LO
SIAMF,T w_10HT (rU_.Ar-.ex.1
SCE VIEW
70'.99
® War ®
lff E
REU3EABLE 400 MICRON
INFRASAFE INLET FILTER BAG IN EACH BASKET
3 PROTECTION DEVICE (OR EQUAL)
NOT TO SCALE
FRONT VIEW
SPOT ELEVATION LEGEND
B .0RUI0W]O$
0. CONCRETE
TC410P OF CURB
GL•f01TER CURB
1. RHO VERIFY
410
NORTH
0 15 30
Stillwater Area
Public Schools
ECFC
B W Et R
ARCHITECTS
R
Lawson Commons
380 St. Poses Street, Suite 600
Stint Paul, API 55102
651.22_3701
Larson
Engineering, Inc.
3524 Labore Road
White Bear lake. MN 55110
651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201
nv0w_Iars0nengr.com
+e.N samuew.0, 0.r ew8.anwww
:riesMea Nei.v.a nsPea' tarn ro
M.ael A Mupny, PE.. LEEO AP
Dam 06.t2.10 Ag. N.t. 4290a
MEIT. snotal mar sea
R.drw acmT.
Re bard. A ,tong one FW Sae Snap
Drawing sons ev y m Fend sins sawn.
Diu
uv1TRo
Dow
Adbor
rdrins No.
3930906380
feu
C.ker
GRADING AND
EROSION CONTROL
PLAN
Morn Nn.
C3
Copyright EWER Ar6otects
2' MIN
-8' STEEL STA
K
18 44019ROFYLENE OR
POLYETHYLENE (40 MR. 1-I/3
'RIDE STRAP TYR.)
DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA. 'ARE -
3' Sr 120" INTERVAL (Tt9.)
TREE M1AP TO F4ST BRANCH
TURNBUCKLE MTH DOUBLE STRAND
4(4 GAUGE MRE - 3 PER TREE
4--5" LATER OF SHREDDED HARE/ROOD
MULCH IN SAUCER -EXTEND PAST STAKE
FINAL GRADE O PLANT TO
EQUAL ORIGINµ GRADE
2-s2",,30" STAKES SET 120" APART
OUTSIDE THE BALL AT ANGLE - 3 PER
TREE
BAEKF(LL MTH PLANTING SOIL
MAINTAIN PEDESTAL OF
UNDISTURBED SDK.
NOTES:
TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE SHORN.
IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES: HO3EvER. THE CONTRACTOR
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT
1HE GUARANTEE PERIOD.
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL
I
»-SHEL`
DRIB
LEGEND:
NOTE:
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
TREES TO REMAIN (PROTECT WITH
ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCE)
TREES TO BE REMOVED
AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE - 4' MIN CALIPER
TREE SAVE AREAS SHALL BE ENCLOSED WITH ORANGE
TREE PROTECTION FENCING ANO SHALL BE SIGNED
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION.
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A ONE-YEAR WARRANTY
ON ALL PLANT MATERIALS. THE WARRANTY BEGINS ON
THE DATE OF INITIAL PLANTING. REPLACEMENT PLANT
MATERIALS SHALL ALSO HAVE A ONE-YEAR
WARRANTYCOMMENCNG UPON PLNATNG.
115E A MINIMUM OF 17 LOAM PLANTING SOIL ON TREES.
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION OF Alt
UTILITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY -PER STANDARD
NURSERY PPAGTCE.
OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE
ONLY AFTER WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE.
TREES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY PLANTED UPON AFtl1IVAL
TO THE SITE. PROPERLY HEEL4N MATETOALS
TEMPORARILY, IF NECESSARY.
ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED,
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH 4' DEEP SHALL BE
PROVIDED AROUND ALL INSTALLED TREES.
4111
NORTH
0 1S 30 SO
°
Stillwater Area
Public Schools
ECFC
BWBR
ARCHITECTS
Lawson Comrnons
380 So Pete Street, Suite 600
Saint Paul, MN 55102
651.22.3701
f:�m.lonn
Gg Larson
Engineering, Inc.
3524 Labors Road
While Beat Lake, MN 55110
651.481.9120 (1) 651.481.9201
www.Mrsonergr.com
Il..am; A:.aM+be� mpwaa
a M.veu elBmac •vt.
0 5e1A 0.354,PE.. LEE° AP
Dart 06.17.10 A.A. No. 4280a
For
® This Steel H44 bee
Racer/ Cary.
T. bar 1• longer on s FIN Sim sne
Omeing Scalesespay to Full S,ee Steve.
ONK
OM1T110
Comm. Nn.
0]WA050.00
a•ecIced
Checker
.Sllm'Iias
TREE
PRESERVATION
/REPLACEMENT
PLAN
Sher NA
C5
Copyright BWBR Architects
0
1H
OW ER LEVEL • FLOOR PLAN
60 children
Office
Suite
4,700 sf
FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
000000000000000000
NOTEm,. ITVEONOTF.AV SUMO ON EACH
FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS LEGEND
CD
RIMER
i
YkORANGTOIRT
COOR
REFER
Nm
EGEROR
SKR.
10115
mxr
REFERENCE..
001,4061
OMAR. WE
11MAxR
r-i
t_ J
tots
R99 mELfi
«1000
RGOR
aEtAmx
KEYED NOTE
EEuslmaaw
e.
t.EWCPoWxE
POSING
GROURE
MIME. UNMAN. 'MEW MG
mum.. mE0E gown.
Sys
ME MAK/HOWE 1XE PMtrtIOX
IMERLINEp1ER. PM ASF
,F ROM swyxv MVEPusnox cn
Stillwater Area
Public Schools
ECFC
BWBR
ARCHITECTS
Lawson Commons
300 SL Pew Store, Suite 600
Saint P.,! MN 55102
651.2223701
Name
.0 No.
lamed rot
Imna
Dam
MIN11.1 cops km
it o,....P..s...s.t
Size51...
Dam
06,17/10
Conan. N.
32009053.00
Shea rtale
LOWER LEVEL -
FLOOR PLAN
Plan No
400.FL
Copyright BWBB Architects
a
e
16 children
FIRST LEVEL • FLOOR PLAN
12 children
12 children
16 children
12 children
16 children
16 children
16 children
Of ice
Suite
700 sf
FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
000000000000000000
431.Not.MOO WOES WOE B eONPAMN..
FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS LEGEND
PONS
OnOn
MIVOR
WB
MD
DIANN
REFERENCE TAG
MERCED
LJ
ERROCE t G
BEVA
Cape
KnpaOlRE
ANEAWMOON M SYMBOLWEE AN Yr'tN
IAING
OROH SH THE HAMM SYAEOL
TM STAR AYO NOTE OK i P pN
EAT u,SFPp
MT NOT ALLSfWaSANYFr p ONL3111P
Stillwater Area
Public Schools
ECFC
BWBR
ARCHITECTS
Lawson Commons
380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600
Saint Pad, MN 55102
651.222.3701
Consolonts
hM� ue.a.wanaaarA.:.a�
Name
tee
Reg No
[good Foz
Rae
rve
"ma
mRh.,Rm„ja rImoa�ar8saasA.a..
Onwiry& a,pyb Fut S:a.Sh. t.
Dawn
COMO
32029353.00
Shea Tale
FIRST LEVEL -
FLOOR PLAN
SheaN
401.FL
Copyright 0SVBA Achitects
e
SECONO LEVEL - FLOOR PLAN
FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
000000000000000000
NOTE; NOI LI NINO NOES NAM MD. WO NM
FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS LEGEND
INIJNANIN
NweEg
OWL 10
MM. FONT
GOOR
MANG LOCO
AwEro ILJ a 1Nx
MUNN
KOMP. DO
Nnwm
ernw a
+ma
emAnox
noon
Ixmga
TAG
rLrtmNNE
A , ON OE COBOL „a
commann, IINNAnnnt24i
w vm ,mngOWL
ONE INTAL NC NOE 111E MOON
NOBNNBt RI(fNO NO. Bt--pNltiE
R ut STA. IWY nF UNION FpN FLAY
A
Stillwater Area
Public Schools
ECFC
BWBR
ARCHITECTS
Lawson Commons
380 St. Patti Stacy Suite 600
Saint Paul, .NEN 55102
651.222.3701
�Nw.mreaNnw�.�.n..em.. a
FINN
'No No
MOM irt=00:7 La a
1NWFINNa h IONO on a FNNoe Slwi.
OFoNg >NAw FPOh h Fw 5ae $iMn.
MOON nm
action
SON Mak
SECOND LEVEL -
FLOOR PLAN
Ste, No.
402.FL
Copyright HWHR Architect.
107.7
9Ra
SAN rN
0,9046
MV=696.7
EXISTING BUILDING
FOUND I/2. RON
o `•: PRE MARKED ANEZ
At PARCEL CORNER
SANITARY SERVICE
WATER SERVICE
< SANITARY SERVCE
x 90G9
I. W0.TER SERVICE.
900.2
71-7PJTr
Li
A ry `$
EXISTING
007.0
1506.9
LOT 4`',
GRAVEL ' ' STORM WATER
EASEMENT PER
00C. N0. 904202
act` & 436263
S '9WATER LfE NOT LOCATED
• L »
1 3612CP 5\ a I,
298.43 `,,o's
1 S15 N6. ...-.... 910
a00 en -we
- 900.0E
•JP 041/=902.4 NW
661=902,5 SW
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The following legal description per FSA Title Servkes,
LLC, as agent for First Amercan Title insurance
Company Tkie Commitment No. 100107, dated March
4th, 2010.
Parcel 1:
The North One Hu inwenty-Two (1223 feet of the
South Three Hurifirl6.4099ty-Two (322) feet of the
Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section
Thirty-three (33), Township Thirty (30) North, Range
Twenty (20) West, lying West of the centerline of County
Highway No. 66. Torrens Property - Certificate of T1tte
No. 65165.
Parcel 2:
The South Two Hundred (200) feet of the Northwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NM f4 of SW1 /4) of
Section Thirty-three (33), Township Thirty (30) North,
Range Twenty (20) West, Washington County,
Minnesota, lying West of the centerline of County
Highway No. 66. Abstract Property.
Parcel 3:
All that part of the Southwest 1 /4 of the Southwest 1 /4
of Section 33 in Township 30 North of Range 20 West,
described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Northwest
corner of the Southwest 1€4 of the Southwest 1 /4 of
said Section 33 thence East along the North line of said
Southwest 1 /4 of the Southwest 1/4 for 486.3 feet to
the centerline of County Road No. 66; thence South 3
degrees 50 minutes East along said centerline of
County Road No. 66 for 200.5 feet: thence West and
parallel with said North line of Southwest 1 /4 of
Southwest 1 /4 for 501.6 feet to the West Ike of said
Section 33; thence North along said West fine of Section
33 for 200 feet to the point of beginning. Abstract
Property.
Parcel 4:
Lot Three (3), Block Four (4), Feeley's Adition,
Washington County, Minnesota, Abstract Property.
Parcel 5:
Lot Four (4), Block Four (4), Feeley's Addition,
Washington County, Minnesota., Abstract Property.
CERTIFICATION:
,-x- pews --907
STS rw
Rn=907.9
j4V-898.8
STORM SEWER 55
'I
x9Rso;'\ x,RV9
4') x�ws
II
\ I
1 STORM WATER
\ I EASEMENT PER
0 236 6I4� q00
x 906.51 x jc3as
\ 1'
\ 1% E A
r
1/L 45`9o3..
510R11 WATER -e__ 1j -' -`-+K
DRAINAGE = c
EASEMENT PER )- - - r
DOC. w550. J710856 II I /
x 407.2 - x 9as9 T9P.
STORM'AVA,TER
DRANAOE
EASEMENT PER --
000, N0. 371085656
JONT DRIVEWAY I L
EASEMENT PER
DOC. NO 3561792 I x 907 s-I-
( x'1' ,5 I
STAND
EXISTING BUILDING
Rn-907.4
10104909.1
FOUND 1/2' -
IRON PPE
MARKED ANEZ
AT THE NW
CORNER OF
THE 5W 1/4
OF THE SW
I/4
To: Stillwater Area Public Schools, Johnson Kellogg Properties, LLC, FSA Title Services, LLC,'Xis
agent for First American Title Insurance Company: 15
This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which It is based were made In �o
accordance with 'Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land Title N -
Surveys; jointly established and adopted by ALTA, ACSM and NSPS in 2005, and includes u
Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 a, 14, 16, 17 and 18 of Table A thereof. Pursuant to the
Accuracy Standards as adopted by ALTA and NSPS and In effect on the date of this $
certification, undersigned further certifies that in my professional opinion, as a Land vv�J 6
Surveyor registered In the State of Minnesota that the Positional Uncertainties resulting fror0
the survey measurements made on the survey do not exceed the allowable Positional -
Tolerance.
CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Dated:4-23-10
By'
Daniel L. Thu es
Minnesota License No. 25718
SCHEDULE B NOTES:
Survey related Items as shown on Schedule B II of FSA Tlde Services, LLC, as agent
for First American Title Insurance Company Title Commitment No. 100107, dated
March 4th, 2010.
9. Final Certificate per Book 261 of Deeds, Page 373 as Document No. 231472 (as to
Parcel 3). (DOES NOT EFFECT PROPERTY - R/W FOR S.T.H. NO. 36)
10. Final Certifcate per Book 286 of Deeds, Page 433 as Document No. 250358 (as
to Parcel 3). (DOES NOT EFFECT PROPERTY - R/W FOR S.T.H. NO. 36)
11. Right of Way for County Road 66 a/k/a South Greeley Street as shown on
available maps (as to Parcels 1, 2 and 3).
12. Drainage and utility easements as shown on the plat of Feeley's Addition (as to
Parcels 4 and 5).
13. Wetlands located on the northwest portion of Lot 3, Block 4 Feeley's Addition as
shown on the plat of Feeley's Addition and available maps.
14. Easement and Temporary Easement per Document No. 404201 as amended by
Document No. 436264 (as to Parcel 4)
15. Easement and Temporary Easement per Document No. 404203 as amended by
Document No. 436262 (as to Parcels 4 and 5)
16. Easement and Temporary Easement per Document No. 404202 amended by
Document No. 436263 (as to Parcel 5)
17. Joint Driveway Easement per Document No. 3561792 (as to Parcel 5)
18. Joint Driveway Easement per Document No. 3565420 (as to Parcel 5)
19. Storm Water Drainage Easement per Document No. 3710856 (as to Parcels 1, 2,
4 and 5).
07
m
w
PORNO I/2"
IRON PPE
AT PARCEL
CORNER
C
' FE 899 a% 12 2CP '.
�x-9.9 9045
10.6
.3+
;pry -
L9
202 -0150
x VISA ._.--
DITCH x 9002
x904,1
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2
04.9 x 905.5
STORM SEWER «
x 0057
"..x NORTH LNE OF THE SOUTH 921.00 FEExT9°TI59
E - -_
- NW 1%4 0F'THE-SW-1/4 OF SEC. 33, T30, R20 �����i ---9�"
Sons xNos .3 .� �IiF
-N89' 19'06"W x 904.4. dP 9fi.
482.57- r�4os.6
005.3 x 905"
909.9
HITUINOIH9054
FLOOR
0- RXE /x3 _-ELEV.
5 =906.6
-may. --i_. FLOOR
igy ELEV
0.1 , .. e9066
9011
•
905,2
----SOUTH 57* OF THE NW 1/4 OP THE
, SW 1/4 OF SEC:' 33, T30, R20 x 914.3
11 PARCEL 2
PARCEL 3
--NORTH LI•E OF THE 5W 1/4 OF THE
SW 1/4 OF SEC. 33, T30. R20
906 Op
EXISTING BUILDING
1792 S. GREELEY ST,
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AS FLOOR
SHOWN 8.041 SOFT. ELEV
eu10NG `. =906,6
HEIGHT
190 \
®01
FOUND 1/7 igON
PPE HARKED )WEZ
1 ,000' \ AT PARCEL CORNER --r
51 > Q
�` 9o74y
no
PROP
91Amo,
05.4
.05.3
la, 1
x 9053
----NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 200.
f NW 1/9 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC
ele .m1 ..
4t xo03.7 4,DA 0,0005 69
c B. :- 3 11® G a '
FLOOR
ELEV.
=904 5
1-FLOOR
ELEV.
- - =917,8
9I39 1-- FLOOR
ELEV.
=917.8
FLOOR
ELEV.
I i I
1 I
1 I I
} 9B 492 85 PICA .
1�N89%9'O6"W 486 30 DESC,
909
x 915.2
44
EXISTING BUILDING
1850 5. GREELEY ST.
BIMDNG FOOTPRNT AS
SHOWN 28,284 SOFT.
FLOOR
E=917,8LEV.
FLOOR
ELEV.
=912.2
FL00R
ELEV.
917 9n4 x
a'
Kane,, 4 "
1 1 1- 1 1
1 -4 I 1
1'" rgal I
a
C.0 91
Rny9254
Nw9
, V
a Q6'
54 PER PLANS x1P��
WATER 1
FEET THE
33, T30, 0220
HEIGHT
29.H
I I 1 .1- -T
4uT
� I
- FLOOR
ELEV.
=917.8
FLOOR
ELEV.
=917.8
Q PQ,G
EXISTING BUILDING
1862 5. GREELEY ST
BULONG FOOTPRNT AS
SHOWN 14,030 SOFT,
_ I
;9W2
WATER
FLOOR
ELEV, % %U
=917.8 -.. n'
.0017
9c5
WATER;
PLANS
1
SAN rN
Rn-919.4
NV=9p9.0
e4e
NCOENGE A -- 920
.0,2, BE50RPT10N-O7ERL0--
WTN A0JOINER. x 9..7
SURVEY NOTES:
1. BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED.
2. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, ELECTRIC,
ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED.
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES:
THE UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON WERE FIELD LOCATE PER VISIBLE
STRUCTURES WHERE POSSIBLE.
MOST UTILMES ARE SHOWN PER AS -GUILTS INFORMATION -
CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE BEFORE EXCAVATING.
EXISTING BUILDING
FLOOD INFORMATION:
BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING ONLY, THIS PROPERTY IS IN ZONE 'C'
OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, COMMUNITY PANEL
NO. 2702490005 C DATED 2-1-1984
AREA
TOTAL AREA OF PARCELS = 328,822 SQ.FT. / 7.55 ACRES
AREA OF PARCEL 1 = 59,021 SQ.FT. / 1.35ACRES
AREA OF PARCEL 2 = 97,845 SQ.FT. / 2.25 ACRES
AREA OF PARCEL 3 = 99,393 SQ.FT. / 2.28 ACRES
AREA OF PARCEL 4 - 36,421 SQ.FT. / 0.84 ACRES
AREA OF PARCEL 4 = 36,142 SQ.FT. / 0,83 ACRES
BUILDING SETBACK & ZONING INFO
ZONING: BUSINESS
PARK INDUSTRIAL
FRONT BUILDING SETBACK = 40 FEET
REAR BUILDING SETBACK = 30 FEET
SIDE BUILDING SETBACK =20 FEET
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT = 40 FEET
MAX IMPERIOUS AREAS = 60%
PARKING
TOTAL NUMBER OF VISIBLE MARKED PARKING STALLS LOCATED
ON ALL PARCELS = 144 INCLUDING 1 HANDICAP STALL, IT
APPEARS THAT SOME STALL MARKINGS HAVE FADED.
x.901a 921.0
,
501.6r50010
=1
SYMBOLS:
RM-9047
NV=
RN=90,4
9170
MANHOLE
CULVERT
GAS METER
FENCE
CONCRETE
DENOTES FOUND
1 /2' IRON PIPE
o DENOTES SET 1 /2' IRON
PIPE MARKED RLS 25718
TO BE SET
CATCH BASIN
HYDRANT
SIGN
WATER VALVE
UTILITY POLE
LIGHT POLE
TELE/ELEC BOX
GAS VALVE
OVERHEAD WIRES
WELL
CONTACT:
STILLWATER AREA
SCHOOLS
TONY WILLGER
1875 SOUTH GREELEY STREET
STILLWATER, MN 55082
CITY - COUNTY:
4C1-TV OF
5Tfi LLWAME Ili
WASHINGTON, COUNTY
REVISIONS:
DATE REVISION
4-23-10 FIRST ISSUE
5-3-10 ADD ELEVATIONS
6-17-ID ADD TREES
VICINITY MAP
NORTH
30 60
PROJECT LOCATION:
1850
SOUTH GREELEY STREET
PIfn NO_
3303020330014
3303020320014
3303020320013
3203020410022
3203020410023
State #B100
200 East Chestnut Street
SOBwater, MN 55082
Phone 651275.8969
Fax 651.275.8976
dan@ccssurvey
.net
CORNERSTONE
L-ANI1 SURVEYING, INC
FILE NAME
PROJECT NO.
SURVULOIA
UL0800IA
CERTIFICATE OF
SURVEY
111
111
w
A
1
A
A
co
wLjJ
0
1.1.1
7-!
0)
c
uJ
0_ 0
0 -0
a)
Z Z
Existing Brick To Remain
NOTE: Elevations are NOT to scale.
•New Canopy Below
•Existing Block To Remain
New Canopy.
New Block Wall In -Fill
•To Match Existing .—
•Existing Brick To Remain
—• New Windows To Match Existing•—
xistin• Block To Remain•
New Storefront Entry
New Windows To Match Existing•
New Canopy •
NOTE: Elevations are NOT to scale.
Stillwater Area
Public Schools
ECFC
BWBR
ARCHITECTS
Lawson Commons
380 St. Peter Sneer, Suite 600
Saint Pad, MN 55102
651.2223701
irpsnrn:a...as:mivim.. awns,
o.te *sue oaw N,
Issued For
Date
06/17/10
ItAlor
Cnecxer
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
Copyright BWBR Architects
Stillwater Arca
Public Schools
ECFC
BWBR
ARCHITECTS
Lamson Commons
380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600
Saint Paul, MN 55102
651.22/3701
Consultants
Name
Dane Issue ow Reg No.
Issued For
hor
� Ris9lwtmeynea
iM Ear aEorabt 7Z Fun Svs Sn"
pan,gSWec tppylo WxSw SMNs
Date 011oon
06/17/10 Author
Checked
cracker
Sheetlide
SITE
C„p➢
BWBR Architects
Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc.
MOO
WX4D- E
LAND PLANNING - SURVEYING-ENGLNEERLNG
Traffic Analysis
Stillwater Area Public Schools
Early Childhood Family Center
June 17, 2010
1244555th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 • Phone: (651) 439.8833 • Fax: (651) 430-9331 • Webrite: www.11i-inc.com
Bruce A.1bas LS
1939-2W1
7 1 yi . LS Todd PB
6/17/2010
ECFC Traffic Analysis
Page 2 of 2
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS NARRATIVE
Stillwater Area Public Schools
Early Childhood Family Center
June 17, 2010
Location:
Proposed Early Childhood Family Center, previously the Ufe Building Site is located at on South Greely
Street, South of Curve Crest Boulevard in Stillwater, Minnesota.
Proposed Use:
The proposed plan is for the Stillwater Area School District to utilize the existing buildings located at the
old Ufe site for the new location of the Early Childhood Family Center, or ECFC.
The existing three buildings as located on the site will be utilized as storage, staffoffices and for early
childhood and disabled student programs. The northern most building will be utilized for storage for the
school District. The central building as well as the southern most building will both be utilized as
classroom and staffoffices.
Internal Traffic Flow:
The internal traffic movements will allow for in and out movements at both of the Greely locations.
Buses will be allowed only to enter from Greely and will be directed to exit onto Industrial. Parking will
be provided for staff, visitors and for the temporary parking for parents dropping their children off at the
site. Parking will also be provided for the parents of students that will be staying with their student.
Bus stacking will occur at Entrance 2, the plan is to allow for buses to pull up and drop off students
without clogging the entrance. The current design allows for buses to pull off of the main entrance and
allowing for staff and parents to drive directly to the provided parking area.
4
Analysis:
The following map, labeled Tl, depicts the peak hour for the AM and PM along with the known 2009
traffic volumes of Greely and Curve Crest Boulevards. The AM and PM peak hour rates have been
analyzed utilizing two methods based on the use and data available.
6/17/2010
ECFC Traffic Analysis
Page 3 of 3
A parking study was completed and made part of this document, which assisted in determining the
number of cars that would be entering and exiting the site.
Traffic at the three access points to the site all have unique circumstances, which are explained below.
Entrance 1 as depicted on the following map, is the northern most entrance along Greely Street, Entrance
2 is the southern entrance along Greely Street, and Entrance 3 is the access to Industrial Boulevard.
Actual projections of use for the ECFC facility were utilized to develop the peak hour for Entrances 2 and
3. The peak hour rates for Entrance 1 was completed utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
Trip Generation Manual, 7`h Addition's Study 151, of a Mini Warehouse, based on square footage
calculations along with the addition of one-third of the traffic volumes for the ECFC was include in the
total for this entrance as well.
The analysis for Entrances 1 and 2 was done based on the projected staff, student and visitor parking
needs which was developed directly into an AM and PM analysis, based on hour of arrivaL Again one-
third of the total ECFC traffic was used at each of the entrances, except for the routing of the buses as
shown on map T 1.
Cars and buses were utilized to determine the number of vehicles entering and exiting. Staff was counted
as entering and not exiting for the AM and the reverse for the PM, unless additional staff were shown to
be arriving. Students, therapy patients, as well as all visitor traffic movements were counted as one
vehicle for both AM and PM peak hour movements. The number of buses was determined based on the
rate of eight students per bus. The rate of one car per student was utilized for students not utilizing the bus
system.
The direction of the traffic for turning movements was developed based on the zip code of the families
that are utilizing the provided services. The majority of the students utilizing the facility are projected to
be located in the Stillwater area. An estimate of 50% of the total traffic generated from the Stillwater,
New Richmond, Hudson, Marine areas was utilized to determine the percentage of traffic which would
develop from the north, or which would utilize a right turn into the facility. An estimated 10% of the total
traffic from the northern areas of the District was used to determine the amount of traffic entering from
Industrial Street. For staff and visitor parking, the entering and exiting movements were estimated at 33%
for each of the three entrances.
6/17/2010
ECFC Traffic Analysis
Page 4 of 4
Results:
The following map labeled T1 depicts the projected turning movements and the AM and PM peak traffic
levels for each of the movements based on the above calculation methods.
Total Peak Hour Traffic Level Projections (1/3 allocated to each entrance):
AM Projections
Staff = 48 (48 Entering, 0 Exiting)
Buses = 6 (6 Entering, 6 Exiting)
Visitors = 3 (3 Entering, 0 Exiting)
Cars = 173 (95 Entering, 78 Exiting)
Storage = 4 (2 Entering, 2 Exiting)
PM Projections
Staff = 46 (15 Entering, 31 Exiting)
Buses = 6 (6 Entering, 6 Exiting)
Visitors = 6 (3 Entering, 3 Exiting)
Cars = 116 (66 Entering, 50 Exiting)
Storage = 4 (2 Entering, 2 Exiting)
Percentage and Direction of Traffic for Turning Movement Projections:
* Based on Zip Code Analysis of Students
Greely Street Tragic
South Bound = 35% of total traffic
North Bound = 58% of total traffic
Industrial Boulevard Traffic
7% of total traffic
Total Average Daily Traffic Volume Projection:
Staff = 126
Buses = 12
Cars = 390
Storage = 21
Total = 549 vehicles per day (ADT)
6/17/2010
ECFC Traffic Analysis
Page 5 of 5
Conclusion:
In comparison, the Ufe site, based on its light industrial use and 53,400 total square footage, would have
generated a total of 372 ADT, based on the ITE Manual. This number is surprisingly close to that of the
400 cars per day reduction in ADT on Greely Street from 2005 to 2009, as shown on the MnDOT Survey
of the traffic volumes, which also coincides with the timing of the closing of the Ufe facility.
With the new proposed use of the facility, the total traffic volumes will remain relatively similar to that of
the pervious Ufe use. The peak hour is expected to increase on Greely Street; however the timing of the
peak hour is anticipated to be different than that of the peak hour of the local traffic on Greely, and earlier
than that of the shift change at the Ufe site.
This projection is based on the fact that the majority of the traffic will be parents dropping off their
children prior to the normal peak hour time experienced by the local traffic peak hour. In addition staff
will be arriving even earlier of that of the parents. Similarly, the evening peak hour will be after that of
local streets, because the majority of the traffic of parents will usually be picking up after normal working
hours.
In conclusion the anticipated traffic levels will be similar to that experienced with the Ufe use for entering
during the peak hour. However, an increase will be noticed in the exiting of vehicles during the AM peak
levels as parents leave the facility after dropping off their children.
It is my understanding that the School District is more than willing to work with the City and County and
to adjust the traffic flow of the staff, parents and buses to create the best situation for the traffic flow at
and around the proposed facility.
Following are suggestions to allow for good traffic flow into and out of the site:
1) Route buses from Greely to Industrial only.
2) Provide stacking for the bus drop off area that will not allow for clogging of the entrance.
3) Adjust entrance routing of buses to a right in only, from Greely, if the left turn movement
becomes a congestion issue.
4) Issue a notice and map to the parents of the students and staff prior to the first day of opening
of the school that there are three access points to the facility and suggest utilizing the Industrial
Avenue access as an alternate route or a right turn from Greely if congestion is experienced at
the Greely entrance.
5) Prepare for the possibility of a median installation by the County on Greely, which woVld
eliminate the left turn in all together from Greely.
6) Staff should be discouraged from walking across Greely if going to a meeting from the
District's buildings on the east side of Greely. It has been discussed with the County that a
cross -walk will not be provided at this location.
fA L/THON/A L/ HT/NG'
FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS
INTENDED USE — Ideal for parking areas, street lighting, walkways and car lots.
CONSTRICTION — Rugged, die-cast, soft comer aluminum housing with 0.12° nominal wall
thidmess. Die-cast door frame has impact -resistant. tempered, glass lens that is fully gasketed
with one-piece tubular silicone.
FINISH — Standard finish is dark bronze (DDB) polyester powder finish, with other architec-
tural colors available.
OPTICAL SYSTEM — Anodized, aluminum hydroformed reflectors: IES full cutoff distributions
R2 (asymmetric), R3 (asymmetric), R4 (forward throw) and R5S (square) are interchangeable.
High-performance anodized, segmented aluminum reflectors IES hill cutoff distributions SR2
(asymmetric), SR3 (asymmetric) and SR4SC (forward throw, sharp cutoff). Segmented reflec-
tors attach with tool -less fasteners and are rotatable and interchangeable.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM — Ballast: High pressure sodium: 70-150W is high reactance, high
power factor. Constant wattage autotransformer for 200-400W. Metal halide: 70-150W is high
reactance, high power factor and is standard with pulse -start ignitor technology. °SCWA°
not required. Constant wattage autotransformer for 175-400W. Super CWA (pulse start
ballast), 88% efficient and EISA legislation compliant, is required for metal halide 151-400W
(SCWA option) for US shipments only. CSA, NOM or INTL required for probe start shipments
outside of the US. Pulse -start ballast (SCWA) required for 200W, 320W, or 350W. Ballast is
100% factory -tested.
Socket Porcelain, horizontally oriented medium base socket for 70-150M. Mogul base
socket for 175M and above, and 70-400S, with copper alloy, nickel -plated screw shell and
center contact UL listed 1500W, 600V.
LISTING — UL Listed (standard). CSA Certified (see Options). UL listed for 25°C ambient and
wet locations. IP65 rated in accordance with standard IEC 529.
Specifications subject to change without notice.
Catalog Number
Notes
Type
Specifications
EPA: 1.2 ft.2
*Weight: 35.9 Ibs (16.28 kg)
Length: 17-1/2" (44.5 cm)
Width: 17-1/2" (44.5 cm)
Depth: 7-1/8" (18.1 cm)
*Weight as configured in
example below.
CID NTell UR
SERIES
Soft Square Lighting
KAD
MH: 70W-400W
HPS: 70W-400W
20' to 35' Mounting
I— 4" 17-1/2"
(10.2 cm) (44.5 cm)
7-1/8"
(18.1 cm)
ORDERING INFORMATION
Series
KAD
Wattage
High
pressure
sodiuml
70S
100S
150S
250S
400S
Metal
halide
70M12
100M1
150M
175Mzo
200M3
250M21
320M3 Ceramic
3, metal
350M— halide
400M421 70MHC1.2
100MHC1
150MHC
Voltage
120
2087 SPD Square
2407 pole
RPD_ Round
pole
347 WBD_ Wall
4807 bracket
TBa WWD_ Wood
23050HZ9 pole or
wall
Distribution
Hydroformed reflectors
R2 IES type II asymmetric5
R3 IES type 111 asymmetric5
R4 IES type IV forward
throw 10
R5S IES type V square
Segmented reflectors6
SR2 IES type II asymmetries
SR3 IES type III asymmetric5
SR4SC IES type IV forward throw
NOTES:
1 Not available with SCWA.
2 Not available with 480V.
3 Must be ordered with SCWA.
4 Reduced jacket ED28 required for
SR2, SR3 and SR4SC optics.
5 House -side shield available.
6 Segmented reflectors not available
with QRSTD.
7 Must specify CWI for use in Canada.
8 Optional multi -tap ballast (120, 208,
240, 277V; in Canada: 120, 277, 347V).
9 Consult factory for available
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
For shortest lead times, configure product using standard options (shown in bold).
Example: KAD 400M R3 TB SCWA SPD04 LPI
Mounting
Type Length10
04 4" arm
05 Warm
09 9" arm
12 12"arm
DAD12P Degree arm
(pole)11
DAD12WB Degree arm
(wall)"
WBA Decorative wall
bracket11,12
KMA Mast arm
external fitter
KTMB Twin mounting
bar
wattages.
9" arm is required when two or more
luminaires are oriented on a 90°
drilling pattern.
Ships separately.
Available with SPD04 and SPD09.
Must specify voltage. N/A with TB.
Only available with SR2, SR3, & SR4SC
optics.
Max allowable wattage lamp
included.
May be ordered as an accessory.
See www.lithonia.com/archolors for
additional color options.
Must be specified.
Must use RPOO9
These wattages do not comply with
California Title 20 regulations.
These wattages require the REGC1
option to be chosen for shipments
into California for Title 20 compli-
ance. 250M REGC1 in not available in
347 or 480V.
Ballast
(blank) Magnetic
ballast
CWI Constant
wattage
isolated9
PuseStart
SCWA Super
WA
Pulse
start
ballast
NOTE:Forshipments
to U.S. territories,
SCWAmustbe
specifiedtocomply
with EISA.
Options
Shipped installed in fixture
SF Single fuse 120, 277, 347V13
DF Double fuse 208, 240, 48013
PD Power tray14
PER NEMAtwist-lock
receptacle only (no
photocontrol)
QRS Quartz restrike system15
QRSTD QRS time delay15
WTB Terminal wiring block14
HS House -side shield
CSA CSA Certified
INTL Available for MH probe start
shipping outside the U.S.
REGC1 California Title 20 effective
1/1/2010
Shipped separately16
PE1 NEMA twist -lock PE (120,
208, 240V)
PE3 NEMA twist -lock PE (347V)
PE4 NEMA twist -lock PE (480V)
PE7 NEMA twist -lock PE (277V)
SC Shortening cap for PER
option
VG Vandal guard
WG Wire guard
Accessories
Lamp78
LPI Lamp
included
LAP Less
lamp
Finish"
(blank) Dark
bronze
DWH White
DBI. Black
DMB Medium
bronze
DNA Natural
aluminum
.a
NIGHTTIME"
FRIENDLY
Consistent with LEED° goals
& Green Globes" criteria
for light pollution reduction
Tenon Mounting Slipfitter
Order as separate catalog number.
Number of fixtures
Tenon 0.D. One Two@180°
2-3/8° T20-190 T20-280
2-7/8" T25-190 T25-280
4° T35-190 T35-280
KADVG Vandal guard
KADWG Wire guard
Two@90°
T20-29019
T25-29019
T35-29019
Three@120°
T20-32019
T25-320
T35-320
Three@90°
T20-390t9
T25-39019
T35-39019
Four@90°
T20-49019
T25-49019
T35-49019
Outdoor Sheet #: KAD-M-S AL-370
t
KAD Arm -mounted Soft Square Cutoff
Coefficient of Utilization
Initial Footcandles
KAD 400M R2 Test no. 1193083101P
ISOILLUMINANCE PLOT (Footcandle)
KAD 400M R3 Test no. 1192040902P
ISOILLUMINANCE PLOT (Footcandle)
0.25
0 N 4
NITS OF MOUNTING HEIGHT
0.25
W N O N 4
DISTANCE IN UNITS OF MOUNTING HEIGHT
25
0.5
1.1
25
5
5
r✓
' DISTANCE IN U
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
400W pulse start metal halide tamp, rated 38000
lumens. Footcandle values based on 20'
mounting height-
Classification: Type II, Short, Full Cutoff
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
400W pulse start metal halide lamp, rated 42,000
lumens. Footcandle values based on 20'
mounting height.
Classification Type II, Short, Full Cutoff
KAD 400M R4 Test no. 1191110101P
ISOILLUMINANCE PLOT (Footcandle)
KAD 400M R4HS Test no. 1192061101 P
ISOILLUMINANCE PLOT (Footcandle)
KAD 400M R5S Test no. 1194040801P
ISOILLUMINANCE PLOT (Footcandle)
W N 0 4• N 4
DISTANCE IN UNITS OF MOUNTING HEIGHT
025
0.5
W N O Lb N 4
DISTANCE IN UNITS OF MOUNTING HEIGHT
w N O N 4
DISTANCE IN UNITS OF MOUNTING HEIGHT
0.25
0.5
1 S
2..51
1
�y
oR
14
_A
2:5
6
1
�1
II
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Y
400W pulse start metal halide lamp, rated 38,000
lumens. Footcandle values based on 20'
mounting height
Classification: Unclassified (Type III, Very Short), Full Cutoff
Y
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
400W pulse start metal halide Tamp, rated 38000
lumens. Footcandle values based on 20'
mounting height.
Classification: Unclassified (Type NC, Very Short), Full Cutoff
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Y
400W pulse start metal halide lamp, rated 38,000
lumens. Footcandle values based on 20'
mounting height.
Classification: Unclassified (Type III, Very Short), Full Cutoff
Electrical Characteristics
Line current
Primary (Amps)
Wattage/ballast voltage Start/Operating
120
400CWA 208
Peak -lead 240
Autotransformer 277
480
2.50/4.00
1.45/2.30
1.25/2.00
1.10/1.75
.73/1.00
Primary
dropout Input Power Regulation
voltage watts factor (%) Line V = Lamp lumens
55
95
110 455 90+ ±10% = ±10%
125
225
Tested to current IES and NEMA standards under stabilized laboratory conditions. Various operating factors can
cause differences between laboratory data and actual field measurements. Dimensions and specifications on this
sheet are based on the most current available data and are subject to change without notice.
NOTES:
1 Photometric data for other distributions can be accessed from www.lithonia.com.
Mounting Height Correction Factor
(Multiply the fc level by the correction factor)
25 ft. = 1.44
35 ft. = 0.73
40ft.=.56
Existing Mounting Height l2_ Correction Factor
New Mounting Height /
L/THONIA LIGHTING®
AniMailtserands Company
Sheet #: KAD-M-S m 2007-2010 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc., All rights reserved, Rev. 5/3/10
Lithonia Lighting
Outdoor
One Lithonia Way, Conyers, GA 30012
Phone: 770-922-9000 Fax: 770-918-1209
www.lithonia.com
Planning Commission
DATE: July 8, 2010
APPLICANT: Chuck Dougherty, St. Croix Preservation Co. Inc.
CASE NO.: 10-29
REQUESTS: A variance to allow a wall sign to be placed higher than 15 feet on
the side of a building as measured from the base of the building
[31-509 Subd. 7(b)(3)]
LOCATION: 101 Water St S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use
ZONING: CBD - Central Business District
CPC DATE: July 12, 2010
REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planners
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow two wall signs, one on Chestnut St and
one on Water St, to be placed higher than 15 feet on the side of a building as measured
from the base of the building. Section 31-509 requires signs to be placed at or below 15
feet on the side of a building. This rule is in place to promote pedestrian oriented
signage in the downtown area.
Both signs are proposed to be aluminum with a wood frame painted gold on a green
background. The letters are proposed to be gold color injected formed plastic letters to
add definition. The signs are proposed to be 16" wide by 96" tall for a total of 10.6
square feet. The applicant is requesting that the signs be placed above the main
entrance at the corner of Chestnut St and Water St. The top of the sign will be
approximately 31 feet above the sidewalk.
101 Water St S
Page 2
ACTION BY THE HPC
The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed these two signs along with other
requests at their June 7th meeting. The Commission felt that the the style of the
building, lack of pedestrian circulation near the building, and available locations for a
sign made it difficult to meet the height regulation for a wall sign. They felt that the
proposed sign met the intent of the design guidelines and for that reason, the HPC
approved the sign. Since the height regulation is a zoning control it requires a variance
from the Planning Commission it was made a condition of the HPC approval.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting consideration of a variance to Section 31-509 Subd. 7(b)(3) of
the Stillwater City Code to allow for a sign to be placed higher than 15 feet on the side
of a building as measured from the base of the building. A variance may be granted
only when all of the following conditions are found:
1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists.
Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and
neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
The building itself is a listed property on the national register of historic places.
The style of architecture and it location makes it impossible to provide signage
that meets the zoning requires and the design guidelines of the historic district.
In balancing the two requirements it seems reasonable to grant the variance in
light that the sign meets all other requires for size of sign and design.
2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not
enjoyed by neighbors.
At times it becomes necessary to balance the requirements set out in the zoning
regulations and the intent of the design guidelines for the Downtown Area. It
could be argued on its face that this type of variance would be granting a special
privilege to one owner; however, when balance with the design guidelines this
type of request could be extended to others when justified in the context and
architectural style of a historic building.
3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section
or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan.
The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the
public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan.
101 Water St S
Page 3
FINDINGS
1. That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the
owner, exists. In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of
prospective profits and neighboring violations are not the primary motive for
requesting the variance.
2. That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the
same vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special
privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
3. That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this
title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve as conditioned.
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Heritage Preservation Commission.
2. No additional signage without approval of the Heritage Preservation
Commission.
3. The signs shall not be lit.
Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and Photos
Telephone Nod (
PLANNING ADMINISTRA — APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF STiLLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STiLLWATER MN 55082
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
ACTION REQUESTED
Special/Conditional Use Permit
X Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment*
Zoning Amendment*
Planning Unit Development*
Certificate of Compliance
Lot Line Adjustment
*An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for
requested action are attached to this application.
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material
submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.)
submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. .Sixteen (16) copies of
supporting material are required. Ifapplication is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of
supporting material are required. A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with
applications. A complete legal description of subject property is required. Any incomplete application
or supporting material will delay the application process.
After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period
has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City
to obtain the required building permits.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION (^ ./
Address of Projectp/{// 72-;d l�C% ✓O� Assessor's Parcel No. ,2lS, 030. f. Yl e9/< (�//
(GEO Code)
Zoning DistrictCd 2Description of Project 44-'0 /�� ��'' i��e f7v r �G���f �'t bave V
/;:t}A-i7----c,gei/N °ste -ge-ye.
a?77' (, C9t C
a vIGL S 7?, ✓ j C� — t ,� ' % be, v (cfr t.A-c ( <
"I hereby state the foregoing statem enth and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in
all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify i will
comply with the permit if it is granted and used."
Property Owner✓/`-( r•or r jt- •,(,)ct 'd,-t Representative / CP 1� N .4e.e7y
elTD Mailing Address/0( ci 77,-' $ 5- Mailing Address/ [‘f2 _27 , P
City - State - Zip, �! 4-6,. r-cp-,, ed /9 5/ FZ City - State��- Zip ; (1 �1-' _& . A
Telephone Noe:::7( ' 619. - 62Qc)
Signaturur� Signatur
Si(na required
(
atur required)
15207 N 63rd St.
Stillwater, MN 55082
651.206.8025
Todd@stcroixsign.com
Estimate is good for 30 days.
Project will start with 50% down,
balance due on delivery or before
installation. Drawings are the
property of St Croix Sign until paid
in full or rights for design is paid for.
Planning Commission
DATE: July 9, 2010
APPLICANT: Bruce Earhart
CASE NO.: 10-30
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum lot size (10,000
square feet required/7,589 square feet existing), the front yard setback
(30' required/18.2' requested), the side yard setback (10' required/0'
requested) and the maximum impervious surface requirement (30%
allowed/37.8% requested) in order to construct an addition to the home
and new detached garage.
LOCATION: 1213 Myrtle St W
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: LDR - Low Density Residential
ZONING: RA - One -family District
PC DATE: July 12, 2010
REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner/10
BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking to build a 6' by 16' rear addition, a 4 foot addition to the existing front
porch, and a new 22' by 26' detached garage. This property is zoned RA. The lot is 7,589
square feet in size. The lot is currently nonconforming for failing to meet the minimum lot area
of 10,000 square feet. Additionally, the existing home is a nonconforming structure for failing to
meet the minimum front and side setbacks.
1213 Myrtle St W
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Mr. Earhart's property is in the RA zoning district. The critical standards from the district are
presented in the table below, together with the current and proposed minimums.
RA Zoning District
Required/Allowed
Current
Proposed
Staff
Recommendation
Lot Size
Front Yard Setbacks
Side Yard Setbacks
impervious cover
(max)
10,000 s.f.
30'
10'
25%
7,589 s.f.
22.2'
0'
12.0%
Same
18.2'
Same
37.8%
Same
18.2'
Same
30.0%
As seen in the table, the property currently fails to meet a number of items including lot size,
front yard setback, and side yard setback. The applicant's request will not make these three
items more non -conforming; however, a variance would need to be granted before any addition
could be made to the current home.
The current home itself is a nonconforming home with a zero side yard setback and a 22.2' front
yard setback. A variance to make the home conforming is needed to allow the proposed
expansions on the rear for additional living space and the front for a larger porch. The City has
encourage porches and allowed variance for their construction; however, given the fact that the
home already has a porch it would seem unreasonable to permit it to expand, especially since it
is at a zero setback with the neighboring property.
Staff always has concerns with granting a new addition at a zero setback. First, it is impossible
to construct and maintain those additions without entering the adjacent property. It also raised
a number of building and fire code issues. Where technically feasible to get an easement from
the neighbor and overcome the building and fire code issues they still problematic. At a
minimum, any addition should be constructed to maintain a minimum of 3 feet from the side
property line to avoid potential issues.
Finally, at a minimum, a variance to the lot size would need to be granted before a garage could
be built. If the garage was moved toward the front of the home, less driveway would be
required thus reducing the amount of impervious cover and leaving a larger rear yard. By
eliminating the porch addition and reducing the length of the driveway, the applicant can avoid
an impervious cover variance.
1213 Myrtle St W
Page 3
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found:
1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists.
Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
The property is approximately 7,589 square foot. The home itself was built in its current
location in 1875. These two situations were not created by an act of the current property
owner.
The applicant desire to expand the porch is not justification for a hardship.
2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by
neighbors.
This property is zoned as two-family residential, which allows single family and two-
family uses. Without the variance to the lot size, the applicant would not be allowed a
garage. The commission has recognized that given our winters, a garage is more than a
mere convenience. It approaches the level of a necessity. Therefore, a variance to the lot
area is a reasonable request to permit a garage.
The home itself is very modestly sized and it seems reasonable to allow the property
owner to make a modest addition to the home.
3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the
public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan.
The City gets concerned anytime a variance is requested to encroach into a required
setback. Going to a zero side yard setback has the potential to impact the neighboring
property owner. To avoid issues staff recommends that any new addition remain a
minimum of three feet from the side yard. At a minimum, the applicant should be
required to obtain an easement from the neighboring property owner that allows them
to enter the neighbor's property in order to construct and maintain the portion of the
home that is at a zero setback.
Since the property will continue to meet all other code requirements; the authorizing of
the variances to the minimum lot size will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property, will not materially impair the purpose and intent of the zoning code and
would not necessarily adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan.
1213 Myrtle St W
Page 4
FINDINGS
1. The current lot size is a hardship that is peculiar to the property and is not created by
acts of the owner. Though it's the property owner's desire to have an expanded
porch this is not a reason to justify a hardship for the porch.
2. The variances requested are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in
the same vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special
privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
3. The authorizing of the variances to the minimum lot size will not be a substantial
detriment to adjacent property, will not materially impair the purpose and intent of
the zoning ordinance and would not necessary adversely affect the Comprehensive
Plan. The variance to extend the home with a zero setback would be substantial
detriment to adjacent property and should be denied.
1213 Myrtle St W
Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the request as presented including a variance to the minimum lot size
(10,000 square feet required/7,589 square feet existing), the front yard setback (30'
required/18.2' requested), the side yard setback (10' required/0' requested) and the
maximum impervious surface requirement (30% allowed/37.8% requested) to the
minimum lot size. Additionally, staff would suggest the following conditions for
approval:
a. All minor revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Community Development Director. All major revisions shall be revised
and approve by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction
between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator.
b. An easement must be secured from the neighboring property owner to allow
the applicant and future owners to enter the neighbors property in order to
construct and maintain the home.
2. Approve in part and deny in part. Specifically approve the requested garage and
rear addition as conditioned below including a variance to the minimum lot size
(10,000 square feet required/7,589 square feet existing), the front yard setback (30'
required/18.2' requested), and the side yard setback (10' required/0' requested).
Deny the variance to the maximum impervious surface requirement (30%
allowed/37.8% requested) and the applicants request to construct a expansion to the
exiting porch. Additionally, staff would suggest the following conditions for
approval:
a. All minor revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Community Development Director. All major revisions shall be revised
and approve by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction
between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator.
b. The addition to the home shall remain a minimum of three feet from the west
property line.
c. The driveway shall be reduced to the extent necessary for the site to remain
under the 30% maximum impervious coverage.
3. Deny the request.
4. Continue the public hearing until the August 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
The 60 day decision deadline for the request is August 14, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative two as conditioned.
Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, Photos and letter.
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVE LOP M ENT DEPARTM ENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
Case No: X_
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.: 35""- -I
ACTION REQUESTED
Special/Conditional Use Permit
%L Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment*
Zoning Amendment*
Planning Unit Development *
Certificate of Compliance
Lot Line Adjustment
*An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for
requested action are attached to this application.
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material
submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material F e., photos, sketches, etc.)
submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of
supporting material are required. If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of
supporting material are required. A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with
applications. A complete legal description of subject property is required. Any incomplete application
or supporting material will delay the application process.
After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period
has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City
to obtain the required building permits.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project /2- / 3 YA-7 E . lc -
Assessors Parcel No. � � '(Jw (Ye)
(GEO Code)
Zoning District �i� Description of Project AI a L Cabbh To, 1 le Sou(�p �x.a a,c gc..sE
Z z 22-' x ZG. .Zc2»i_ 47- 4-0...4-GE' /4.0 b .5 p./.4L-T ,LI i-'v�'u'A i�r�.L/E.✓>
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in
all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. 1 further certify I will
comply with the permit if it is granted and used."
Property Owner L3/zcueE%4 2.f1,44,Q % Representative
Mailing Address 4,1902. /Gus-r led Mailing Address
City - State - Zip ' G 4/4.11 2-2_ City - State -Zip
Telephone No.
Signatur
'9S'2 -2./
Telephone No.
Signature
ignatur- is required) (Signature is required)
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
Lot Size (dimensions) •t) x / �o
Land Area
7S90
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Building floor area square feet
Existing /G CC-- square feet
Proposed 22-'2. square feet
Paved Impervious Area //S-C.0 square feet
No. of off-street parking spaces 2 4'
Height of Buildings:
Principal
Accessory
Stories
Feet
1)
iy
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
H:\mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP.FRM April 9,2008
Proposal
1213 Myrtle Street W. Stillwater, MN
This proposal is for the rehabilitation of a single family home at 1213 Myrtle St W,
Stillwater, MN. The plan for this project includes the following additions and/or
modifications to the property.
1. Addition of a detached, wood frame, two car garage (22' w x 26' d) on the
east side of the lot with asphalt driveway for access. The style of the
garage will complement the existing style of the house.
2. Add a 6' x 16' wood frame addition to the rear of the existing house while
retaining the existing style of the structure.
3. Expand the front porch (current: 16' x 4', new: 16' x 8') while retaining the
existing style of the structure.
4. Add a 100 sq ft, 6" deep Rain Garden for rainwater mitigation.
5. Grade between driveway and house to direct any rainwater runoff away
from house foundation and into Rain Garden.
The additions and modifications are designed to complement the existing area
and retain the historic character of the neighborhood.
Si?E PLAN
1213 Myrtle St W
Stillwater, MN 55082
2" x 4". 16" O C Walls
2" x 6". 24" 0 C Engineered Truss
4" Floating Slab Floor
8" Lap Hardboard Siding
Grey Asphalt Shingles
3'0"
Access
Door
GARAGE PLAN
1213 Myrtle St W
Stillwater, MN 55082
I Window
A/C
Floating Slab
Floating Slab
Planning Commission
DATE: July 9, 2010
APPLICANT: Larry Colagiovanni
CASE NO.: 10-31
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback (20'
required/18 feet requested) and a variance to the side yard setback (15'
combined total required/ 14' requested) for an addition to the home.
LOCATION: 113 Cherry St E
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR - Low/Medium Density Residential
ZONING: RB - Two-family District
PC DATE: July 12, 2010
REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner�lL/
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a variance to front yard setback (20' required/18 feet requested) and
a variance to the side yard setback (15' combined total required/ 14' requested). The purpose of
the variance is to allow the applicant to expand the home's enclosed space into the exiting porch
area and add a two story tower feature in the northeast corner of the new space. This property
is zoned RB and currently has an existing single-family home.
SPECIFIC REQUESTS
In order to proceed with the project, the applicant needs a variance to the required front and
side yard setbacks.
113 Cherry St E
Page 2
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found:
1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists.
Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
The property is a conforming 7,531 square foot lot. The home was constructed in
approximately 1872. The existing porch is a more recent addition to the home; however,
it is unclear when the porch was constructed. The home's current placement meets all
requirements except for the front yard setback which the current home is only setback
18.9 feet.
All of the homes along Cherry St in this area are closer than the 20 feet permitted by
code; however, neighboring violations are not justification for a hardship variance.
Overall, staff is not able to find a hardship to justify this project.
2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by
neighbors.
This property is zoned as two-family residential, which allows single family and two-
family uses. The home currently is used as a single family home and is permitted to
remain so without this variance retaining their substantial property rights. Staff cannot
find where a denial of this variance would cause a loss of substantial property rights.
3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the
public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan.
The Commission has allowed encroachments in to a required front yard setback in the
past; however, generally these have been limited to open porch like additions.
Additionally, the character of the subject home and neighboring properties are of a
historic nature. While the porch is in desperate need of repairs, it's very presence adds
to the style and character of the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed square tower
fails to meet the style and character of similar architectural features in the community
and has the potential to distract from the historic fabric of the neighborhood. For these
reasons staff feels this addition, as proposed, has the potential to be a substantial
detriment to adjacent properties and the character they exist within.
113 Cherry St E
Page 3
FINDINGS
1. There is no hardship that is peculiar to the property that justifies a variance.
2. The variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same
vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would constitute a special privilege of the
recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
3. The authorizing of the variances to the minimum lot size will be a substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will materially impair the purpose and intent of
the zoning ordinance and would not necessary adversely affect the Comprehensive
Plan.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Deny the requested variances.
2. Approve the requested variances as request. Additionally, staff would suggest the
following conditions for approval:
a. All minor revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Community Development Director. All major revisions shall be revised
and approve by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction
between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator.
3. Continue the public hearing until the August 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
The 60 day decision deadline for the request is August 15, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and take an action.
Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and letter.
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
RCPT#_saaV
CHECK# //Q /tip
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
ACTION REQUESTED
ecial/Conditional Use Permit
i Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment*
Zoning Amendment*
Planning Unit Development *
Certificate of Compliance
Lot Line Adjustment
*An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for
requested action are attached to this application.
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material
submitted in connection with any application. Ail supporting material ¢ e., photos, sketches, etc.)
submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of
among material are regrwred. If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of
supportng material we required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with
applications. A complete legal description of subJect property is required. My incomplete application
or supporting material will delay The application process.
After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period
has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City
to obtain the required building permits.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project ( [
Zoning District Description of Project 'thPr) Ct-ram
Assessor's Parcel No. UP Y;2d igC EV'
(GEO Code)
1) -?si---11(D•LJ T-c)-1D75&)C-E
"1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in
all respects, to the best of my knowledge and beffef, to be true and correct 1 further certify / will
comply with theperm/t if it is granted and used,"
Property Owner /—ARR1 (bL V i VA 1
Mailing Address,
City - State -Zip,
Telephone No.
Signature
nature is required)
Representative 1\1 )1•R`:----.S , /kr/VI
Mailing Address
?City - State - Zi
Telephone No. (0S 1— *7 2.L7 9j�
Signatu
Signs re Is requir
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Lot Size (dimensions ` x I50 Total Building floor area square feet
Land Area % (`) -sr' Existing square feet
`� Feet Proposed square feet
Paved Impervious Area square feet
No. of off-street parking spaces
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
Height of Buildings: Stories
Principal
Accessory
-1411:5-
H:\mcnamare\sheila\PIANAPP.FRM April 9, 2008
Mark S. Balay, RA
110 East Myrtle Street, Suite 100
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
(651) 430-3312
6/18//10
City of Stillwater
Attn: Michel Pogge
216 N. Fourth St.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mr. Pogge and Planning Commission Members:
Michael E. Balay, RA
•
8878 South Street
Fishers, Indiana 46038
(317) 845-9402
Attached are application materials for additions to the home at 113 E. Cherry St. We wish
to renovate and expand the existing dwelling, and are requesting minimal variances to
front and side yards.
The subject property has been the home of Larry and Ann Colagiovanni since 1995. They
have commissioned our architectural firm to create a design which encloses the existing
porch, and adds a small two story tower to the north east corner of the house. The spatial
goal of this design work is expanded four season living spaces to replace a large open
porch which is unfortunately very deteriorated. This existing porch already sets
approximately one foot into the currently mandated setback of 20 feet.
We have preliminarily' designed a solution which does accomplishes the spatial requests
of the Client and has been approved by them. We believe this solution will be
complimentary with the historic architecture of the house, and the historical
neighborhood it is a part of.
Looking at all the nearby homes one realizes that when the neighborhood was built there
was no 20 foot setback, because all the homes are closer too the street than allowed. Also
the typical existing Stillwater north hill "vertical topography" is evident where the slope
runs down hill across the street and lot. There is an approximate drop across this site
north to south of 15 feet. The existing home has a two car garage attached to the south
end of the home's basement, with a deck above it which is south of the kitchen. These
conditions as existing historical development conditions place a hardship on any project
proposed for this property that is a unique set of challenges for this lot. The net result is a
need to consider additions to the uphill side of the existing home.
page 2
The proposed design footprint is illustrated, and respects the fact that a harmonic design
must include a horizontal definition of the vertical tower from the first floor north wall.
To accomplish this, an 18 inch protrusion the tower is moved 12" forward of the location
of the existing porch and the rest of the one story wall is moved 6" back from the existing
porch. One bay of the existing porch perimeter historical detail is preserved in its existing
position at the stoop. This "give and take" approach minimizes movement further
forward into the modem setback requirement, and is also minimizing our required front
yard variance request of one foot beyond the grandfathered condition. The renovated
house will still remain the furthest back from the street on this entire block.
The second inquiry deals with the side yard setback requirements The illustration on
Sheet Cl shows the west side yard at the rear and front of the structure both to illustrate
that the historical architectural design of the house is a saw tooth shape instead of a
rectangle which would be easier to interpret based upon the literal words of the
ordinance. This situation was not created by the owner and is unique to this properties'
existing historical design. We request a variance of one foot to the sideyard setback
requirement based upon the demands of a literal interpretation.
We believe that these requested variances combined with this conservative architectural
solution will provide the Colagiovanni family with a reasonable expansion and use of
their property, while not giving any special privilege to this specific property.
Thanks in advance for your consideration and we will are looking forward to meeting
with you and answering any questions you may have in the public hearing.
Sincerely
Mark S. Balay
Mark S. Balay Architects, Inc.
Enc.
CC: Larry Colagiovanni
Indiana
n l i s i n d i a n a
B
S t i I. w a t e M ii n n c s t a
ARCHITECTS
4
,��
_ _..
V10S N fl tl31VMTLL5
•}S XJJay3 }sD3 c t t
aDuapisaJ IUUDADI6DfO�
3HNOUVAON3a V
1 a03
0 41�
me'
-rz,a,
.' 'a""
4 tat , e . ....
e e
a r.
,"
°
1
o{
X
.d.
, ..
, , , S
b,.,
.„„...a.
z
Qa
J :
Q
cr
0
0
J
1.�
N
CC
Li
z
F_
LJ
R21W R2OW R19W
R22W R21W R2OW
Vicinity Map
0
50
Scale in Feet
This drawing is the result of a compilation
and reproduction of land records as they
appear in various Washington County offices.
The drawing should be used for reference "
purposes only. Washington County is not
responsible for any inaccuracies.
Source Washington County Surveyor's Office.
Phone (651) 430-6875
Parcel data based on AS400 information
current through: April 30, 2010
Map printed: June 4, 2010
} by
Mark S. Balay, RA
5 t i 1 4 w a t e, jai
110 East Myrtle Street, Suite 100
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
(651) 430-3312
6/18//10
City of Stillwater
Attn: Michel Pogge
216 N. Fourth St.
Stillwater, MN 55082
e s o t a
Michael E. Balay, RA
India n a p o i i s I n d i a n a
8878 South Street
Fishers, Indiana 46038
(317) 845-9402
Dear Mr. Pogge and Planning Commission Members:
Attached are application materials for additions to the home at 113 E. Cherry St. We wish
to renovate and expand the existing dwelling, and are requesting minim variances to
front and side yards.
The subject property has been the home of Larry and Ann Colagiovanni since 1995. They
have commissioned our architectural firm to create a design which encloses the existing
porch, and adds a small two story tower to the north east corner of the house. The spatial
goal of this design work is expanded four season living spaces to replace a large open
porch which is unfortunately very deteriorated. This existing porch already sets
approximately one foot into the currently mandated setback of 20 feet.
We have preliminarily designed a solution which does accomplishes the spatial requests
of the Client and has been approved by them. We believe this solution will be
complimentary with the historic architecture of the house, and the historical
neighborhood it is a part of.
Looking at all the nearby homes one realizes that when the neighborhood was built there
was no 20 foot setback, because all the homes are closer too the street than allowed. Also
the typical existing Stillwater north hill "vertical topography" is evident where the slope
runs down hill across the street and lot. There is an approximate drop across this site
north to south of 15 feet. The existing home has a two car garage attached to the south
end of the home's basement, with a deck above it which is south of the kitchen. These
conditions as existing historical development conditions place a hardship on any project
proposed for this property that is a unique set of challenges for this lot. The net result is a
need to consider additions to the uphill side of the existing home.
page 2
The proposed design footprint is illustrated, and respects the fact that a harmonic design
must include a horizontal definition of the vertical tower from the first floor north wall.
To accomplish this, an 18 inch protrusion the tower is moved 12" forward of the location
of the existing porch and the rest of the one story wall is moved 6" back from the existing
porch. One bay of the existing porch perimeter historical detail is preserved in its existing
position at the stoop. This "give and take" approach minimizes movement further
forward into the modem setback requirement, and is also minimizing our required front
yard variance request of one foot beyond the grandfathered condition. The renovated
house will still remain the furthest back from the street on this entire block.
The second inquiry deals with the side yard setback requirements The illustration on
Sheet C 1 shows the west side yard at the rear and front of the structure both to illustrate
that the historical architectural design of the house is a saw tooth shape instead of a
rectangle which would be easier to interpret based upon the literal words of the
ordinance. This situation was not created by the owner and is unique to this properties'
existing historical design. We request a variance of one foot to the sideyard setback
requirement based upon the demands of a literal interpretation.
We believe that these requested variances combined with this conservative architectural
solution will provide the Colagiovanni family with a reasonable expansion and use of
their property, while not giving any special privilege to this specific property.
Thanks in advance for your consideration and we will are looking forward to meeting
with you and answering any questions you may have in the public hearing.
Sincerely
Mark S. Balay
Mark S. Balay Arc
Enc.
CC: Larry Colagiovanni
cli a p i i 2 it d i s 1
r
S t i i
r i r r S) t ..
ARCHITECTS
Y10531040 y31.71LL5
R MI
vsv
g
. Ci�
•}S• �C��ay3 }sD3 ill
4
Y"Y I
`7�'�
a�uapisa� IUUDAD16D�0�
,.
Atl 1 tl 8
/ `
w
, �
':
.1=e:t'��
=
3H1 HOi NOUYAON3H v
16 6 6 6 6 . , , 15
>.,..
— ....,.
O,
-n
NV1d LIOO1J 1d11.ON0.
N
1
to
i
1R Q fT FXISTING ARANf)FATHFRFf1 SFTRACK
Y
n
ro
18 Ft. Requested 18 Ft requested Setback
m
a
N
Cr
DWG.
ISSUE DATE: ��
PROJECT NO.: ,,,�
5 1 i l w a 1! r 4 i n a e 9 0 1 0�
A RENOVATION FOR THE
CoIagia vanni Residence
113 East Cherry St.
STILLWATER MINNESOTA
.. 0,0..04. 00.0,
www�� ,'%a
r P �1
MAND onaco w° 't ut r
°�.,,,,,
rm w M 00 .0 O. 00
�wwnoe a
Pros
DOWN1610011
CC V.I.
' w
DATA
IMN a.:
.e.0 R,_
WARN
DATE
INIT.
DESCRIPTION
B
ALA
Y
'Mark S. Belay. RA
10E�U` Street
REV.
DATA
ARCHOICTS
ELiEwalar, MN 55082
4e1: (951) 430-3318
CELL (851) BOT-2085
I^ d
7-4-95 - Rev. Note:
Added add'l. comments
to Sheet 2 and add'1.
survey details to Sheet 1.
BMS
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
BARRETT M. STACK
STILLWATER, MINN. 55082
MINNESOTA REGISTERED
LAND SURVEYOR
Tel. No. 439-5630
SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR: Mr. Robert Collins,1 1 9 East Cherry St., Stillwater
Margaret Carlson, Marion Sapa, 113 East Cherry St.,
DESCRIPTION: As Provided By Frank Rhei nberger , Atty:
Collins: As described in Book 197 of Deeds, Page 375, Wash. Co. Records.
Carlson-Sapa: As described on Doc. No. 318606, Wash. Co. Records.
NOTES:
, MN
Stillwater,MN.
Orientation of this bearing system is assumed.
o Indicates 1/2" iron pipe set marked with a plastic plug inscribed RLS 13774.
• Indicates iron pipe found inplace.
"R." Indicates recorded value. "M." Indicates measured value.
Unless noted otherwise, underground or overhead public or private utilities on or
adjacent the parcels were not located in conjunction with this survey.
Note encroachments (enc.) and description gaps and overlaps as shown.
See proposed corrective Morrison Description and proposed Morrison to Collins
structure easement description on Sheet 2.
Were practical, flagged 4 wood lath were placed adjacent to irons set as guard stakes.
\_/
•
�<'o•
I � — e.s0
lov-. SO, 3/ = /`> : way' /�, - •.� : • ' .
EAST CHERRY 57/es-h-r
A7 '�/i.v
- - - N7„?'" oryzG E / /SO. 93 ,c-7. /sa
L
8
Lam. L.OT.i I/q,e/LS
/. P. Ser /N MAW/
/N Cave
'4
,CD r
Fl";:gez sow
.Sil7"A
25,p-
Dac. M'.
3/Bo6
7620 Sy. Fr•
To 2SM,vrx
der:
,47.4vr
/•/3'1
/P si-r,ty
Snf,us
_ 50..3_,Ag / <- 4
\ /' r 6,4,e.
4/l3QY I
•Cx. of
. v. Se�rtix
,as Oct f I sfwEe
rer aww. a 1,
/ CdJ-
W aep
Pe •
/P .f/ r
/N
AIReaV
1
1
.4j )
l.I i
NI
TN I 1 weep
'41 I FE. --
N
q i to
W.I I
i
3`43'4
LOT
-.3¢/'. • �-\
2,, awrii-
SLAG ,/,`!) LING
k
,e, /OD
M. /o&.6,Z
l
\
\\\\\
f/o. /fiO. //7
CZtdt 4/5s
d 5/; %
N.Li/vc- B<.//�
/o 7-
�_. ,
Bee, / 9 7 O�Eos
.9.c 375
//Dg/ Sy. fir , sva r. Th Es%ors.
/
Oro
_ '71o443'21' v S2.a '
Dare.
P
N /
/ A„
72aS409"1*/ I h
--/V48.45- ---/
/IO.e..Q/SOW
/t/EGY.
Cor
\ -, /• �: Se'r /"-/
i \ \
I I
1
k
>S. 6 'r
\ Owau/.v4:
\ /• %%,ee/SOA/
S. d't�'
APP,eo y. Loc. of•
Of ,PCT.
Dom. A/o. 7o9o35 l ' -# r/v4--
/!iei,ee D L 1 A/v. 39e077,3 /522e4r r.
woio Fa.?
S/.L,vc LorZ.Z
s72° - o9'W
F'/, e O. ¢4'
A/. or //
re /-
LI%
/ A'r Doc. /f/o. ¢/6 019
/LL 'v'//i'/ ie
M. Aod. as
'e. /Do Zo/-
/2
Lar/
Gor/L
£ {t
SEXY 4-Ai'
LnT /
r
4
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was
/50.e. prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota. '�<
Date July 4, 1995
Rcg.No...1,,3.7.7 4.
it
Ater
8 I R' F P ACE OF. M. i N N E.0 A
Planning Commission
DATE: July S, 2010 CASE NO.: 2010-32
APPLICANT: Michael Bjerkesett, NHHI
REQUEST: Ordinance Amendment to allow age -restricted senior apartments
by Special Use Permit in TH Zoning District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: MDR - Medium Density Residential
ZONING: TH - Townhouse
PC DATE: July 12, 2010
REVIEWED BY: City Attorney, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Michel J. Pogge, City Plannerol,/if
BACKGROUND
The National Handicapped Housing Institute (NHHI) and Accessible Space Incorporated (ASI),
two Minnesota non-profit organizations, are looking at developing a senior housing complex on
a vacant parcel of property along the west side of Stillwater Boulevard, south of the former
Jennings State Bank site/Parkwood Townhomes, and north of Long Lake Villas. NHHI and ASI
intend to apply to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for funding
under the Section 202 program in order to construct a 47-unit apartment building for low-income
seniors. The Section 202 program specifically seeks to develop housing for low-income elderly
households.
The property is currently zoned TH, Townhouse Residential. Currently senior apartments are
not permitted in the TH district. Additionally, the proposed density is greater than what is
permitted in the TH district. Consequently, NHHI submitted an application requesting an
ordinance amendment to allow the use and density on the site.
NHHI
Zoning Text Amendment
Page 2 of 6
SPECIFIC REQUEST
In order to operate a senior apartment complex, NHHI is specifically requesting:
1. An amendment to City Code Section 31-315 that would add "Age Restricted Senior
Apartments" as specially permitted uses in the TH Zoning District. At least one resident
would be required to be 62 years of age or older in order for a couple to reside at the site.
2. An amendment to City Code Section 31-310, TH that would permit senior housing
projects to exceed the 1 unit per 5,000 square foot standard for Age Restricted Senior
Apartments.
It should be noted, if these requests are approved, the applicant would still be required to submit
a site plan and building elevations as part of the development process. These plans would be
subject to public review and comment similar to all other SUP requests.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The purpose of the TH Zoning District is to provide townhome style residential opportunities.
Townhomes by definition provide a higher density development than traditional residential areas.
Currently the TH district permits single-family homes as a permitted use and townhomes as a
specially permitted use.
Relation to the Comprehensive Plan Goals
Life -cycle and Affordable Housing Goals
The recently adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes a number of goals, objectives, and
policies related to this type of senior housing. In the housing chapter of the plan, the second goal
was to "provide a balanced choice of housing types and densities suitable to a wide range of
demographics groups, with a focus on life cycle housing." Life -cycle housing entails a range of
housing options that meet people's preferences and circumstances at all of life's stages. In
particular, life -cycle housing looks for housing options beyond the predominant larger -lot,
detached, single-family home and looks to develop housing options that meet the needs of first
time home buyers and seniors. This type of project meets this goal.
The Comprehensive Plan also set out a goal for the City to provide its regional share of new
affordable housing. The affordable housing goal set out for the City of Stillwater was for 233
new affordable housing units by 2020. These 47 units will help the City achieve this goal.
Additionally, by developing these units, the City will be competitive in various grant
opportunities with the Metropolitan Council related to affordable and life -cycle housing that will
not only help use continue to meet the affordable housing goal but also provide housing that will
allow Stillwater citizens to age in the community over the long term.
NHHI
Zoning Text Amendment
Page 3 of 6
Site Specific Considerations
The site the applicant is targeting for this development is a 64,468 square feet parcel. It has a
land use classification in the comprehensive plan as MDR, Medium Density Residential and is
zoned TH, Townhouse Residential. The MDR classification guides that developments should
be between 6 to 14.5 units per acre. This is a guide and the City is allowed to vary from this
target. The TH zoning district permits a density up to 1 unit per 5,000 square feet of land or 8.7
units per acre. Developing 47 units on this site would result in a density of 1 unit per 1,372
square feet or 31.75 units per acre. A change to the code would be required (and has to be
requested) to allow this density.
Before the City makes a change that allows additional density various impacts to our local
systems needs to be considered. The following reviews the various systems and the potential
impact to them.
Traffic Impact
Various land use categories create varying degrees of traffic impacts. Using the Institute of
Transportation engineers Trip Generation Manual, Table 1 lists the traffic that is projected to be
generated from this site based on various uses. Specifically the table reviews the amount of
traffic that would be generated if the site was developed exclusively as single family residential,
residential townhouse, or attached senior adult housing. The table reviews projected total
weekday traffic, AM peak traffic, and PM peak traffic.
Table 1. Projected Traffic Generation
Number of Trips
Weekday
Peak AM
Peak PM
Housing Type
Number
of Units
per
unit
total
per
unit
total
per
unit
total
Single Family
Townhouse
Senior Apartments
13
13
47
9.57
5.86
3.48
124.41
76.18
163.56
0.75
0.44
0.08
9.75
5.72
3.76
1.01
0.52
0.11
13.13
6.76
5.17
Sources: Based on allowable/proposed densities.
Institute of Transpiration Engineers, Trip Generation, 7th Edition (2003)
As is illustrated in the above table, the overall number of trips generated with a 47 unit attached
senior housing development is more than 13 single family units or 13 townhome units. It is
important to note that the trips generated in an attached senior housing setting are distributed
throughout the day and result in fewer Peak AM and Peak PM trips then if the site would be
developed as single family or townhouse units.
NHHI
Zoning Text Amendment
Page 4 of 6
Roadway Capacity of Parkwood Lane
With the increased traffic it is important to ask if the traffic can be handled by the exiting
roadway in place. Currently on Parkwood Lane there are six single family homes, nine
development townhomes, 5 undeveloped townhomes and a 3,500 square foot youth center
(Young Life). Table 2 below shows the current traffic generated on Parkwood Ln and the
projected traffic county with a 47 unit senior apartment complex.
Table 2. Projected Traffic Generation on Parkwood Ln
Use
Weekday
Trips/Day
Units
Number of
Trips
Generated
Single Family
9.57
6
57
Townhouse
5.86
14
82
Youth Center*
22.88
3500 s.f.
80
Senior
Apartments
3.48
47
164
Total Trips
383
Sources:
Based on current development and 47
proposed senior apartment units.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip
Generation, 7th Edition (2003)
* The Youth Center traffic generation is based on 22.88 trips
per 1,000 sf of gross floor area
Parkwood Lane is a two-lane road without turn lanes. As such, it can accommodate up to 3,000
trips per day and maintain a Level of Service of A, which is considered a low volume road with
little to no delay, and unimpeded movement. The 383 trips that are projected to be generated in
this area is well below what Parkwood Lane can accommodate.
NHHI
Zoning Text Amendment
Page 5 of 6
Roadway Capacity of Parkwood Lane
From this site Parkwood Ln connects to Wildpines Ln which connects to Stillwater Boulevard.
In addition to traffic from Parkwood Ln, Wildpines Ln takes traffic from the southern portion of
Croixwood (approximately 306 units), a church and a dental clinic. Table 3 below shows the
current traffic generated on Wildpines Ln and how it would change with a 47 unit senior
apartment complex. For purposes of this review, the single family homes in Croixwood that
were used included those located south of Croixwood Blvd, but not directly on Croixwood Blvd.
100% of the trips from these homes were projected to use Wildpines Ln which is the worst case
scenario and unlikely to occur in a real life setting.
Table 3. Projected Traffic Generation on Wildpines Ln
Use
Weekday
Trips/Day
Units
Number of
Trips
Generated
Single Family
9.57
312
2986
Townhouse
5.86
14
82
Youth Center *
22.88
3500 s.f.
80
Dental Clinic *
2.48
2800 s.f.
7
Church *
9.11
10500 s.f.
96
Senior
Apartments
3.48
47
164
Total Trips
3415
Sources:
Based on current development and 47
proposed senior apartment units.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip
Generation, 7th Edition (2003)
* Number of Trips Generated are based the square footage of
the use divided by 1,000 times the number of Weekday
Trips/Day
Wildpines Lane is a two-lane road with a left turn lane on to Stillwater Boulevard. As such, it
can accommodate up to 5,250 trips per day and maintain a Level of Service of A. The 3,415
trips that are projected to be generated is well below what Parkwood Lane can accommodate.
Parks/Trails
Impact to public parks generally are in two forms, active (playgrounds/sport fields) or passive
(trail). Generally, senior housing projects will have a greater impact to passive type parks then
active parks. This site has direct access to trails along Stillwater Boulevard that connects to the
rest of the City's trail system. Trails extend to the West Business Park retail areas from this site
and have a pedestrian crossing of Stillwater Boulevard via a signalized intersection. Active
parks are available within walking distance to this site at Sunrise Park. No undue impacts to the
City's park systems are project with this change.
NHHI
Zoning Text Amendment
Page 6 of 6
Public Utilities
An impact to public utilities is another area of concern. Generally water, electricity and gas
systems are unimpacted with density changes within the range of this proposal entails. Sanitary
sewer systems is one area that needs to be examined with any density change, especially
increases in density. Torry Kraftson, Assistant City Engineer, reviewed the Sanitary Sewer
system in the area. He concluded that the system has sufficient capacity to accept increased
flows from an additional 47 units and will still have sufficient capacity for many more units.
Public Transportation
Public transportation is available via the St. Paul/Stillwater Express Bus Route (Number 294)
with a stop at the northwest comer of Stillwater Boulevard and Curve Crest Boulevard.
Conclusions
The various systems including traffic, parks, utilities and public transpiration are in place and
don't appear they would be adversely impacted by the proposed development. Additionally, the
plan hits key goals within the City Comprehensive plan for life -cycle and affordable housing.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1) Recommend approval of the requested ordinance amendment.
2) Recommend denial of the requested ordinance amendment.
3) Table the requests for more information.
RECOMMENDATIONS
City planning staff believes the proposed can be supported on the site and meets the goals &
policies set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
ordinance amendment.
Accessible Space, Inc.
July 2, 2010
Mr. Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
and
Mr. Michael Pogge, City Planner
City of Stillwater, Minnesota
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your interest in the National Handicap Housing Institute (NHHI) and
Accessible Space, Inc. (ASI) providing long term, accessible, affordable independent
living opportunities for income qualifying seniors in Stillwater, Minnesota. As discussed
in our June 25, 2010 meeting, NHHI and ASI are exploring the possibility of applying for
development financing through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Section 202 Program to construct a 47 unit, senior apartment building located on
the combined parcels currently addressed as 1167 Parkwood Lane and 6322 Stillwater
Boulevard in Stillwater, Minnesota.
By way of introduction for your discussions with others, National Handicap Housing
Institute (NHHI) is a tax exempt nonprofit organization that develops and manages
barrier -free housing for young adults and seniors with physical disabilities. Incorporated
in 1975, NHHI has developed, co -developed and consulted on the development of 1,703
units of accessible, affordable housing for very low-income adults with mobility
impairments and for seniors. NHHI also owns, co -owns and manages 12, Section
202/Section 811 barrier -free apartment buildings in Minnesota and Illinois which are fully
occupied with substantial waiting lists and has ownership interests in two others.
Located in New Brighton, Minnesota, NHHI is a recognized national leader in the
research and design of wheelchair -accessible architecture, fixtures and amenities
relating to new construction, as well a retrofit applications. NHHI Board members and
staff maintain ongoing affiliations and memberships in organizations that serve the
handicap community including: Minnesota State Council for the Handicapped,
Metropolitan Council Advisory Task Force on Transportation, Minnesota Affirmative
Action Association, Minnesota Rehabilitation Association, National Spinal Cord Injury
Foundation, City of Minneapolis Human Services Task force, Hennepin County CETA
Advisory Committee, DVR Ombudsman Project, National Architecture and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, National Center for a Barrier Free
Environment, and the League of Disabled Voters.
ASI is a national, nonprofit organization headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota that
provides accessible, affordable housing, assisted/supportive living and rehabilitation
services to very low-income adults with physical disabilities and seniors including frail
elderly. ASI is the largest provider of HUD Section 811 accessible, affordable housing in
the nation and currently operates with an annual budget of $27.5 million and employs
2550 University Avenue West, Suite 330N
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55114
651-645-7271 (1-800-466-7722) Fax: 651-645-0541 Equal Opportunity Employer
TDD/Voice: (800) 627-3529 Equal Housing Opportunity
Mr. Bill Turnblad and Michael Pogge
July 2, 2010
Page Two
over 550 people. Including the 43 developments it has obtained funding for in the last
five years, ASI has had 139 HUD Section 811 and Section 202 supportive housing
developments funded in 30 states with approximately 75% of its housing applications
receiving funding in their first year of submission. Taken in aggregate, these 139
developments have generated 3,046 units of accessible, affordable and supportive
housing representing over 413 million worth of development, construction and operating
funds. ASI also develops affordable tax -credit housing projects like its Coronado Drive
Senior Apartments which began construction on May 10, 2010. Coronado Drive Senior
Apartments is a 12 million dollar, 60-unit affordable senior rental development in the City
of Henderson, Nevada.
Together NHHI and ASI have 68 years of experience in sponsoring, developing and
managing accessible, affordable and supportive housing for seniors and for very low-
income adults with physical disabilities. Our organizations have successfully
collaborated on 40 HUD Section 811 and 202 accessible, affordable housing
developments including Hillcrest Apartments which is located in Stillwater, Minnesota.
Opening in June of 1995, Hillcrest Apartments is a HUD Section 811, 24 unit apartment
building designed for very low-income adults with physical disabilities located at 1370
Curve Crest Boulevard.
Enclosed are information packets which include copies of ASI's 2005 — 2007 Triennial
Report, "Creating Accessible Options For Life", a summary of ASI's 139 HUD Section
811/ Section 202 approved supportive housing developments, recent newsletters,
financial information and a somewhat dated article from the "Macalester Today"
publication that gives a great historical summary of the origin of ASI. Also included are
photos and renderings of some of ASI's and NHHI's Section 811 and 202 apartment
developments across the nation. [Note: For more information on ASI and NHHI please
visit our websites at www.accessiblespace.orq and www.nhhiaccessiblehousinq.com.]
The HUD Section 202 Program is the primary federally -funded program set up
specifically to provide affordable housing to seniors age 62 and older with incomes at or
below 50% of the area median income. Based on last year's allocations, we would
expect that 47 Section 202 units would again be available to HUD's Minnesota Region in
July, August, or September this year. If approved, a 2010, 47 unit HUD Section 202
application for a site located in Stillwater, Minnesota would include approximately 6.8
million dollars in HUD capital advance funding for the development.
Equally important, I believe, is that the HUD Section 202 application approval would also
include Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC) funding. The PRAC provides the
rental subsidy for the apartment building's future senior residents who will pay no more
than 30% of their adjusted gross income for rent. The PRAC funds will also pay for the
ongoing maintenance of the building including a live-in caretaker over its 40-year
minimum life cycle. The 40 year minimum use requirement for the intended purpose
(seniors only housing) is guaranteed by HUD mortgage and by HUD formatted
regulatory, use and capital advance agreements that will be recorded in Washington
County.
Mr. Bill Turnblad and Mr. Michael Pogge
July 2, 2010
Page Three
An ASI/NHHI sponsored 47 unit, supportive housing development in Stillwater,
Minnesota would allow area seniors with incomes at or below 50% of the area median
the opportunity to continue to live, work and interact in their community. These uniquely
designed apartment buildings allow individuals to live with independence and dignity in
an affordable, secure and wheelchair -accessible, as well as supportive, environment.
NHHI and ASI propose to focus the design of the 47 unit, HUD Section 202 senior
building to allow seniors to age longer in place by exceeding the 5% federal accessibility
requirements and providing a much higher percent of the resident units to be not only
accessible, but fully wheelchair -accessible. NHHI and ASI design its accessible senior
apartment units to be 100% wheelchair -accessible including wheelchair -accessible
kitchens and bathrooms with oversized wheel -in showers. The common areas are also
designed to maximize wheelchair accessibility including an emergency call system;
pneumatic trash shoot; six-foot hallways (to allow oversized wheel chairs to pass);
accessible public rest rooms; over -sized elevator; accessible community room with
kitchen; hobby/activity room; offices for management and service staff; accessible patio
area with barbeque; and secure building entrances with sliding doors powered by long-
range, proximity card reader access. Depending on local requirements and site
restrictions, buildings could be two or three stories in height. Typically we'll pull exterior
architectural elements from the surrounding neighborhood if appropriate and we of
course also include design elements as requested by municipal planning. We also
welcome suggestions from area neighbors and associations.
There is limited amount of time to work on the HUD Section 202 application so the
sooner we can start on the required documents and exhibits surrounding the site
location, the stronger application we will be able to submit. Because these are highly
competitive applications, HUD can not reimburse nonprofit sponsors for any pre -
approval design work or city planning and zoning processes. We would, therefore,
sincerely appreciate any advice and assistance to help us received the best "zoning
friendly" letter possible in the time remaining until the HUD application deadline that has
not yet been announced but could be as early as September, 2010.
It would also be important to know if there are any incentives available in the City of
Stillwater for affordable, special needs and/or senior housing that could help capture
critical evidence of "Leveraging Local Resources" application rating points. If there are
incentives available like supplemental funding opportunities, development or permit fee
waivers or reductions, we would respectfully request any information or assistance
regarding these possibilities. With the combined experience of ASI and NHHI along with
evidence of support and proper zoning from the City of Stillwater, I am confident that a
strong application to HUD's Minneapolis, Minnesota Field Office for the Section 202
accessible, affordable housing initiative can be achieved.
The proposed location for this development on Stillwater Boulevard appears to rank high
with respect to HUD -rated, site approval criteria including excellent proximities to
amenities important for the future residents, as well as all the necessary utilities
available to the site. The location will also rank very high for "demonstration of need"
Mr. Bill Turnblad and Mr. Michael Pogge
July 2, 2010
Page Four
given current census tract information, the limited accessible affordable housing for
seniors in Stillwater and the fact that no Section 202 senior housing development
has been funded in the City of Stillwater since at least 1996. As we discussed, the
key concern is being able to demonstrate zoning that would allow the intended use and
density in our HUD application. Without an acceptable zoning letter, HUD will not
approve the HUD Section 202 application nor its critical development and operation
funding.
In essence, NHHI and ASI are hoping to partner with the City of Stillwater to leverage
over $6,815,000 dollars in Section 202 capital advance funding for the development of a
47 unit accessible, affordable senior apartment building, as well as the annual Project
Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC) funding of $184,700 per year. The annual PRAC
calculated over the 40 year minimum use requirement equates to $7,388,000 in
operation funding which together with the $6,815,000 capital advance funding brings the
total federal commitment to $14,203,000.
We sincerely appreciate your kind advice and assistance in working towards the
suggested amendment to the existing town-home/assisted living zoning that would allow
this unique long-term, accessible affordable senior living opportunity and look forward to
working with you and others in the City of Stillwater to increase the supply of critically
needed, accessible, affordable housing for income qualifying seniors in Stillwater,
Minnesota. If you or your colleagues have any questions regarding ASI's/NHHI's
Stillwater, Minnesota ElderHousing Development, I can be reached by e-mail to
dbillmark(a�accessiblespace.orq or by phone at 1-800-466-7722, extension 206. Michael
Bjerkesett can be reached by e-mail to mblerk(a�nhhiaccessiblehousinq.com or by phone
at 651-639-9799
Sincerely
Dan Billmark Mr. Michael J. Bjerkesett
Director of Real Estate Development President
Accessible Space, Inc. National Handicap Housing Institute
DB/db
Enclosures
Cc:
Mr. Stephen Vander Schaaf Mr. Brad Fuller
President/CEO General Counsel
Accessible Space, Inc. Accessible Space, Inc.
R2IW R2OW R19W
32N
13IN
T3ON
T29N W T29N
T28N T28N
137N T27N
R22W R2IW R2OW
Vicinity Map
0
Scale in Feet
216
Th. drawing is Ine of a como,gal,nn
and reproduclion alland records as lhar
r office,°The drawing should be .Ieiw,aat.M+
responsible for any inaccuracwo
Source Washinglon r orn..
Phone (651) 430.60>5n�
Pargol gala based on /..5400 i to taboo
current Ihrough 0 3ot
NHHI, INC.
COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT THOUGH HOUSING DIVERSITY
June 28, 2010
Mr. Bill Turnblad
Community Development Director
City of Stillwater
216 N. 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
RE: Request for Zoning Amendment
Dear Mr. Turnblad:
We are writing to request an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow seniors
only, age restricted independent living apartments in a townhouse zoning district.
The National Handicap Housing Institute (NHHI), and Accessible Space
Incorporated (ASI); two Minnesota based not for profit corporations, wish to
jointly develop a seniors only apartment building in a townhouse zoning district at
Stillwater Boulevard and Saddle Court.
NHHI and ASI intend to apply to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for funding under the Section 202 program sufficient to
construct a 47 unit apartment building for low income seniors.
We have an option to purchase the remaining undeveloped 1.65 acres of
property in the Long Lake Estates Townhouse development located at 1167
Parkwood Lane and 6322 Stillwater Boulevard. We consider this site an amenity
rich location for senior housing.
Please find attached our application for zoning amendment and a check for
$500.00. We request your earliest possible review of this request as HUD is
expected to announce its annual Notification of Funding Availability shortly.
Feel free to contact me directly should you have questions or require additional
information.
ry sincerely yip
LLi
Michael J. Bjerkesej t, Preside
inh- 1050 THORNDALE AVENUE NW • NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA 55112 • 651-639-9799 • FAX 651-639-9699 r& 1
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SIILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
SIILLWATER MN 55082
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
ACTION REQUESTED
Special/Conditional Use Permit
Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment*
Zoning Amendment*
Planning Unit Development *
Certificate of Compliance
Lot Line Adjustment
*An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for
requested action are attached to this application.
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material
submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.)
submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of
supporting material are required. If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of
supporting material are required. A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with
applications. A complete legal description of subject property is required. Any incomplete application
or supporting material will delay the application process.
After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period
has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City
to obtain the required building permits.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project/An BiAtxna L i / 4322. 5-14014.6.664 ►'s Parcel No.
(GEO Code)
Zoning District Description of Project 97 Ul1I+ - 2.5 Sfv SCAM-5 ohiti Pi9/4/1- 4105-
l 1gy
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in
all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify I will
comply with the permit if it is granted and used."
Property Owner ACCe55e.e,
Mailing Address 25SO Olivet,- 5rti
kje, �•
City - State - Zip 5T Pb ) t ( rM� SS'/
Telephone
RepresentativeNl1a- mt k jei. 5e44--
Mailing Address io5D Irietd141.e Ave • NW
City - State - Zip iIVCt.J tchffl,o, Mkt SSItz
Telephone No. (61 ! 4,39 -- q--nC(
Signatq—f // ///
Signatu
atu '" is
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION �
Lot Size (dimensions) �x (5S,( VIZ -It 350 Total Building floor area 7J-. i square feet
Land Area /1(100 — 14,6 c 1.,c. Existing square feet
Height of Buildings: Stories�fFeet Proposed square feet
Principal oC•S 33 Paved ImperviousArea/?,am> square feet
Accessory No. of off-street parking spaces '/'(
H:\mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP.FRM April 9, 2008
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE
CHAPTER 31, ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE
BY ADDING "AGE RESTRICTED SENIOR APARTMENTS"
IN THE TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
AS A SPECIALLY PERMITTED USE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN:
1. Purpose. The City of Stillwater finds that "Age restricted senior apartments" are a use
that under certain circumstances fit compatibly with other allowed uses in the TH,
Townhouse Residential Zoning District. Consequently, such use shall be allowed
with a Special Use Permit if it meets the Special Use Permit review criteria found in
City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-207.
2. Amending. City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-315 is amended by adding "Age Restricted
Senior Apartments" as a specially permitted use "SUP14i in the TH, Townhouse
Residential Zoning District column of the "Allowable Uses In Residential Districts"
table.
3. Amending. City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-315 is amended by adding the following
note 14 following the "Allowable Uses In Residential Districts" table:
14
One occupant of each apartment unit shall be at least 62 years of age or
older.
4. Amending. City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-309 (b) (1) is amended by adding the
following note 3 to "Lot Area Per Unit":
3
When developed as an age restricted senior apartment complex the minimum
lot area will be determined as part of the special use permit.
5. Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapter 31 shall remain in full force and effect.
6. Effective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its passage
and publication according to law.
Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this day of , 2010.
CITY OF STILLWATER
Ken Harycki, Mayor
ATTEST:
Diane Ward, City Clerk
•
water.
THE •IRTH PLACE OF YINNESOTA
Planning Report
DATE: July 8, 2010 CASE NO.: 2010-12
APPLICANT: City of Stillwater
REQUEST: Consider amending Building Code to require
Vertical Safety Enclosures (e.g. Fences) for Swimming Pools
HEARING DATE: July 12, 2010
REPORT AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
INTRODUCTION
The City Council held a public hearing on April 6, 2010 to discuss the possibility of requiring
safety fencing around all swimming pools. Prior to drafting any ordinance amendment related to
safety enclosures, the Council directed staff to organize a discussion group of those who gave
testimony at the April 6 hearing.
Invitations were extended to everyone who gave testimony and the discussion group met on May
26 and June 9. Participants included: Councilmember Roush; Ann Sundberg-Siess, 170
Interlachen Way Court (resident); Marie and Dennis Lennartson, 2201 Bayberry Avenue
(residents); Kevin Balfanz, 313 West Sycamore Street (certified safety professional); and Bill
Turnblad.
On June 15, 2010 the City Council received and considered the discussion group's
recommendations. The Council was split on whether fences should be required for new pools,
and whether pool covers should be replaced with fences should the ordinance be changed. So
the Council would like the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to further consider the
situation. Specifically, the Council would like the Commission to make a recommendation on
whether: 1) new at grade swimming pools should have safety fences, and 2) if safety fences are
required for new at grade pools, should the legal non -conforming safety covers be allowed to
continue, and if so, for what length of time?
COMMENTS
The discussion group had a split opinion concerning whether a safety pool cover was sufficient
by itself. But the group did reach a consensus on the following:
• Out of an abundance of caution, require all new permanent swimming pools to have a
vertical safety enclosure around the pool. The vertical safety enclosure could include
fencing (at least 48" tall), walls (at least 48" tall), natural barriers such as bluffs, or if
4
Swimming pool safety enclosures
July 8, 2010
Page 2
approved by the Building Official other enclosures of sufficient density and strength to be
impenetrable.
• Safety covers as a supplement to the vertical pool enclosure would be optional.
• Legal non -conforming swimming pools that were only protected with pool covers should
be allowed to continue without the addition of a vertical safety enclosure for a period of
time. The period of time suggested was until the home was sold to someone else.
City Attorney Magnusson notes that it is not possible to enforce the "change of hands" time
period. As an alternate, he suggests that it would be possible to file a notice in chain of title on a
property stating that the pool cover is non -compliant and that by a specified date, a safety fence
or other enclosure approved by the Building Official would have to be installed. That date could
be five or ten years, for example.
Fourteen at grade swimming pools have been issued permits since the safety enclosure
requirement was amended to allow pool covers on June 21, 2005.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has several alternative courses of action available. They include:
1. Recommend that the Council amend the City Code to require vertical safety enclosures
around all at grade swimming pools. Existing at grade swimming pools that only have
covers would have to replace them as soon as possible with a vertical safety enclosure.
2. Recommend that the Council amend the City Code to require vertical safety enclosures
around all NEW at grade swimming pools. Legal non -conforming at grade pool covers
could remain in place for five or ten years. (A specific time period should be
recommended.)
3. Recommend that the Council leave the City Code as it is. This would allow the at grade
pool owner to decide for themselves whether to use safety covers, or vertical safety
enclosures.
4. Table the hearing until August 9, 2010 for more information.
Attachments: May 26, 2010 memo
Excepts from June 15 City Council Minutes
Proposed Code Amendment
bt
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
TO: Swimming Pool Discussion Group
FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
DATE: May 26, 2010
RE: Swimming Pool Safety Enclosures
INTRODUCTION
On March 2nd of this year the City Council directed staff to schedule a hearing on swimming pool fences.
The Council held that hearing on April 6, 2010. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the possibility
of requiring safety fencing around all swimming pools. Prior to drafting any ordinance amendment
related to safety enclosures, the Council directed staff to organize a discussion group of those who gave
testimony at the April 6 hearing.
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2004 the City Council considered adopting an ordinance amendment to allow swimming pool
covers as one means of satisfying the requirement to provide safety enclosures for in -ground pools. The
amendment was defeated on a 4-1 vote. Consequently, the only acceptable safety enclosure continued to
be fencing.
On June 21, 2005 the City Council re -considered the issue of swimming pool safety enclosures. On a 3-2
vote they adopted an amendment that would allow either fencing or pool covers to be considered
acceptable safety enclosures.
Given safety concerns associated with poorly maintained pool covers, pool covers that are not used
whenever the pool is not in use, and pool covers that are of an inferior quality, Councilmember Roush
asked the City to consider reinstating the requirement that the only acceptable safety enclosure would be a
fence.
COMMENTS
Since the adoption in 2005 of the pool cover option in Stillwater, fourteen swimming pool permits have
been issued. Some of these pools probably have safety fencing, some may have a fence and use a cover,
but some likely use only covers. Therefore, each of the owners of these fourteen properties was mailed a
notice of the April 6, 2010 ordinance amendment hearing.
Some States require fencing around all private and public swimming pools. But in Minnesota, safety
fencing is mandated only around public swimming pools. The question of safety enclosures around
private swimming pools is left up to the discretion of the City. Consequently, some Cities in Minnesota
require a fenced safety enclosure, others allow a pool cover.
Not all pool covers are designed to be safety enclosures. Those that are not safety enclosures should not
be allowed to be used for that purpose. Pool covers currently include:
Swimming pool safety enclosures
May 26, 2010
Page 2
• Winter covers. Winter covers are usually designed as safety covers. But, they can take several
people to install and are cumbersome, which discourages their use every time the pool is left
unused. Therefore, they tend to be used more often when a pool is not to be used for an extended
length of time.
• Solar covers. Solar covers are not typically designed as safety covers. They are intended to trap
solar heat or to retain water heat if a pool heater is used.
• Leaf nets. These covers are intended to keep leaves and debris out of a pool. They are not
typically designed for safety.
• Safety covers. Some safety covers are powered and can be closed simply by flipping a switch or
pushing a button when the pool is not in use. Other safety covers have to be installed manually
each time the pool is left unattended. The manual safety covers are a bit of work to install; and
on larger pools it requires two people to get the job done. The more difficult the manual safety
covers are to install, the greater the likelihood of leaving the pool uncovered when not in use.
TASK OF THE GROUP
The group should discuss which safety enclosure or combination of safety enclosures are preferred; and
which enclosures should not be permitted as a safety enclosure; etc. The discussion conclusions will be
brought to the City Council for them to decide how to proceed.
bt
City Council Meeting June 15, 2010
Councilmember Gag said he would like to see some information regarding the
financial implications of taking over the WMO duties.
Mr. Werre added that Middle St. Croix has worked with residents to install rain
gardens around McKusick, but noted that Brown's Creek Watershed District
provides those same kinds of services, he agreed with Mayor Harycki about the
possible benefit of withdrawal from the WMO.
Possible appointment to Board of Water Commissioners
Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Gag to adopt
Resolution 2010-92, Appointment of Adam Nyberg to the Board of Water
Ayes: Councilmembers Cook, Gag, Polehna, Roush and Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
Possible acceptance of bids and awarding contract for 2010 Seal Coating
Public Works Director Sanders said bids for the seal coating project were opened
June 3. He said the bid received was for $272,842, which included the
communities of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Baytown Township, Stillwater
Township and Bayport. Stillwater's cost would be $106,000 and that $100,000
was budgeted for seal coat. He said approval of the bid is sought, with staff to
monitor quantities to keep the cost within the $100,000 budgeted.
Motion by Councilmember Roush, seconded by Councilmember Polehna to adopt
Resolution 2010-93, accepting bid and awarding contract for 2010 Street Sealcoat
Project (Project 2010-04).
Ayes: Councilmembers Cook, Gag, Polehna, Roush and Mayor Harycki
Nays: None
Swimming pool covers
Community Development Director Turnblad noted that several months ago the
Council held a public hearing regarding swimming pool enclosures that led to the
formation of a discussion group to look at the issue. He said the group has met
twice and was unable to come to a unanimous opinion as to whether safety pool
covers are sufficient by themselves but did reach consensus on a number of
items. The group agreed that from this point forward, pools need to have safety
enclosures — 48" high and impenetrable — and also agreed that owners of legal
non -conforming pools (without fences) should be allowed to have those for a
certain amount of time, such as until the sale of home.
Page 9 of 10
City Council Meeting
June 15, 2010
Mr. Turnblad noted it is difficult to enforce something tied to change of ownership
and City Attorney Magnuson recommended that a notice be filed with the chain
of title that states the pool cover was non -compliant and that a fence would have
to be added within a certain amount of time.
Mayor Harycki asked how many non -conforming pools there are; Mr. Turnblad
said there could be as many as 14.
Councilmember Roush noted the real issue is whether or not to grandfather the
non -compliant pools and what type of grace period should be allowed to
implement the new requirement for fences should the non -compliant pools not be
grandfathered.
There was discussion about parental responsibility and the makeup of the
discussion group.
Motion by Councilmember Gag, seconded by Councilmember Roush to send the issue
to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation to Council.
COMMUNICATIONS/REQUESTS
Mayor Harycki noted that Peter Cox would be leaving the Gazette; the Council
wished him well.
COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS
Councilmember Polehna reported on the activities of the Yellow Ribbon Network.
He stated a joint meeting would be held with the Lake Elmo group. He said a
Black Hawk helicopter will land in Lowell Park as part of the 4th of July festivities.
He noted the Red Bulls would be serving as grand marshals of the Lumberjack
Days parade.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Councilmember Roush, seconded by Councilmember Polehna to adjourn at
9:08 p.m. All in favor.
ATTEST:
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk
Ken Harycki, Mayor
Page 10 of 10
City of Stillwater
Municipal Code
Proposed Amendment
Chapter 33 BUILDING CODE*
*Cross references: Zoning, ch. 31; subdivision code, ch. 32; building demolition, ch. 34;
stormwater drainage utility, ch. 35; wetland conservation act, ch. 59.
State law references: State building code, Minn. Stat. § 16B.59 et seq.
Sec. 33-1. Adopting the State Building Code.
Sec. 33-2. Construction of swimming pools.
Sec. 33-3. Consultant and administrative fees.
Sec. 33-4. Permit fees.
Sec. 33-5. Minimum standards for construction and reconstruction of driveways.
Sec. 33-1. Adopting the State Building Code.
Subd. 1.Application, administration and enforcement. The application, administration, and
enforcement of the code shall be in accordance with Minnesota Rule Chapter 1300. The code
shall be enforced within the extraterritorial limits permitted by Minnesota Statutes, 16B.62,
subdivision 1, when so established by this ordinance.
The code enforcement agency is the City of Stillwater.
This code shall be enforced by the Minnesota Certified Building Official designated by the City
Council to administer the code (Minn. Stat. § 16B.62, subd. 1).
Subd. 2.Permits and fees. The issuance of permits and the collection of fees shall be as
authorized in Minn. Stat. § 16B.62, subd. 1.
Permit fees shall be assessed for work governed by this code in accordance with the fee schedule
adopted by the City Council by separate ordinance. In addition, a surcharge fee shall be collected
on all permits issued for work governed by this code in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 16B.70.
Subd. 3. Violations and penalties. A violation of the code is a misdemeanor (Minn. Stat. §
16B.69 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1300).
Subd. 4.Building Code. The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to Minn. Stat.
§ 16B.59 to 16B.75 is hereby adopted as the Building Code for the City of Stillwater. The code
is hereby incorporated in this ordinance as if fully set out herein.
(1) The Minnesota State Building Code includes the following chapters of Minnesota
Rules:
i. 1300, Minnesota Building Code Administration;
ii. 1301, Building Official Certification;
iii. 1302, Construction Approvals;
iv. 1303, Minnesota Provisions of State Building Code;
v. 1305, Adoption of the 2006 International Building Code;
vi. 1307, Elevators and Related Devices;
vii. 1309, Adoption of the 2006 International Residential Code;
viii. 1311, Adoption of the Guidelines of the Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings;
ix. 1315, Adoption of the 2005 National Electrical Code;
x. 1325, Solar Energy Systems;
xi. 1335, Floodproofing Regulations;
xii. 1341, Minnesota Accessibility Code;
xiii. 1346, Adoption of the Minnesota State Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas
Codes;
xiv. 1350, Manufactured Homes;
xv. 1360, Prefabricated Structures;
xvi. 1361, Industrialized/Modular Buildings;
xvii. 1370, Storm Shelters (Manufactured Home Parks);
xviii. 4715, Minnesota Plumbing Code;
xix. 7511, State Fire Code;
xx. Minnesota Energy Code, consists of Minn. Stat. § 16B.617 (7670) and Minn.
Rules Chapters 7672, 7674, 7676 and 7678.
(2) The following optional provisions are hereby adopted and incorporated as part of the
Building Code for the City of Stillwater.
i. Chapter 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems, 1306.0020, subp. 2, existing
and new buildings;
ii. 1335, Floodproofing Regulations, parts 1335.0600 to 1335.1200;
iii. International Building Code, Appendix Chapter J (Grading). See Chapter
1300.
(Code 1980, § 33.01; Ord. No. 806, 5-1-95; Ord. No. 916, §§ la --le, 12-18-01; Ord. No.
935, §§ 1, 2, 4-15-03; Ord. No. 987, § 1, 8-7-07)
Sec. 33-2. Construction of swimming pools.
Subd. 1. Permit required. No person, corporation, partnership or firm must construct, repair,
enlarge, alter, change, remodel or otherwise significantly improve a swimming pool without first
having obtained a permit from the city.
Subd. 2. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this subdivision, except where the context clearly
indicates a different meaning:
Public or semipublic swimming pool means any swimming pool other than a private
swimming pool.
Residential swimming pool means any pool used or intended to be used as a swimming
pool in connection with a single-family residence and which is available only to the
family of the householder and private guests.
Swimming pool means any permanently located pool, used for swimming or bathing
which is over 24 inches in depth or which has a surface area exceeding 150 square feet.
Subd. 3. Approval by building official; building permit. Before work is commenced on the
construction of a swimming pool or any major alteration, addition, remodeling or other
improvement is done to an existing swimming pool, detailed plans and specifications must be
approved by the building official before a building permit is issued.
Subd. 4. Plans to be submitted. Plans, specifications and explanatory data that must be
submitted with an application for a permit to construct a swimming pool or for any major
alteration, addition or other improvement to a pool must contain the following information:
(1) The general layout of the lot on which the pool is to be located.
(2) The distances of the pool from the lot lines.
(3) Water supply systems, buried sewers and sewage disposal systems, other utilities
and any sources of possible contamination of the pool.
(4) A description of the pool's infiltration and chlorination equipment.
(5) All dimensions, including the length, width, depth of the pool, the size of the pool
deck and the liquid capacity of the pool. Plans must be drawn to a scale of not smaller
than one-fourth of an inch to one foot.
(6) Additional information may be requested by the building official.
Subd. 5. Permit fees. Permit fees will be set by resolution adopted by the city council from
time to time.
Subd. 6. Pool piping. Pool piping systems must be constructed of materials prescribed in the
state plumbing code. Installation of the piping including the pool water supply line must be done
by a licensed plumber and must be inspected by the city plumbing inspector prior to covering the
piping.
Subd. 7. Main outlets. Pools must be equipped with facilities for completely emptying the pool
and effecting surface drainage (by gravity if elevations permit). The drainage system must be
constructed in conformance with the provisions of the state plumbing code and under the
supervision of a licensed plumber, and shall not discharge directly on the land of an adjoining
neighbor or in a manner that threatens or endangers fish or wildlife.
Subd. 8. Water supply. Water supplies serving all swimming pools must be safe, sanitary and
be acceptable to the public health authority. The installation of the pool water supply piping and
connection to the source of supply must be under the supervision of a licensed plumber.
Subd. 9. Electrical requirements. All electrical installations provided for, installed and used in
conjunction with residential swimming pools must conform to the state electrical code and must
be inspected and approved by the state electrical inspector. No current -carrying electrical
conductors must cross residential swimming pools, either overhead or underground, or within 15
feet of a pool, except as necessary for pool lighting or pool accessories.
Subd. 10. Heating requirements. Permits are required for all heating units used in conjunction
with swimming pools. Installation must be made by installers licensed by the city and in
accordance with any lawful code in effect at the time of installation.
Subd. 11. Pressure relief valves. Pool contractors must certify that they have examined the
construction site with respect to the water table level and potential soil saturation. If it is
determined to be necessary, in the opinion of the building official, pools must be designed and
constructed with underdrain systems and pressure relief valves to prevent pool flotation.
Subd. 12. Shielding lights. Lights used to illuminate swimming pools must be arranged and
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining properties.
Subd. 13. Location. All swimming pools or appurtenances must be located in the rear yard at a
distance of at least ten feet from any property line.
Subd. 14. FencesSafety Enclosures. All permanent swimming pools must be provided with
safeguards to prevent children from gaining uncontrolled access. This may be accomplished with
a cover, fencing, walls, screening, natural barriers such as bluffs, rivers, lakes that would provide
the same degree of protection as a fence, or other enclosure or any combination thereof of
sufficient density and strength as to be impenetrable. Above grade pool or pool related decks
that have sides at least four feet high and are not readily climbable need only have a safety
enclosure around the means of access.
If fencing is used, all fence openings or points of entry into the pool area must be equipped with
gates. The fence and gates must be at least four feet in height and constructed of a minimum No.
11 gauge, woven -wire mesh, corrosion -resistant material or other material approved by the
building official. All gates must be equipped with self -closing and self -latching devices placed at
the top of the gate or otherwise be inaccessible to small children. All fence posts must be decay
or corrosion -resistant and set in concrete bases or other suitable protection. The openings
between the bottom of the fence and the ground or other surface may not be more than four
inches.
Note: The regulations established in this Subd. 14 apply only to fences built or replaced after the
effective date of Ord. No. 961.
Subd. 15. Safety equipment. Every swimming pool must be equipped with one or more
throwing ring buoys not more than 15 inches in diameter and having 60 feet of 3/16 of an inch
manila line, or its equivalent, attached.
Subd. 16. Aboveground swimming pools. Ladders or stairs which are attached to or placed
against the outside of aboveground tank type swimming pools having a depth of 24 inches or
more must be removed from the outside of the pool when the pool is not being used. In addition,
aboveground pools are subject to the requirements of subdivisions 12 and 13 of this section.
Subd. 17. Public or semipublic swimming pools. Swimming pools other than residential pools
must be constructed and operated in conformance with standards for installation promulgated by
the state board of health. In addition, prior to the beginning of any construction, a copy of the
report prepared and issued by the state health department showing approval of the plans must be
filed with the building official.
State law references: Public pools, Minn. Stat. § 144.1222.
Subd. 18. Operation and maintenance. Pool contractors shall instruct the pool owner in the
operation and maintenance of the pool and its filtration and chlorination equipment and the
procedures to be followed in preparing the pool for winter.
(Code 1980, § 33.02; Ord. No. 961, § 1, 6-21-05)
I
a er
THE BIRTHPLACE OF M!NNESOTA
DATE: July 9, 2010
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Bill Turnblad
REGARDING: Permitting for Seasonal Open Sales and Vending
BACKGROUND
Planning Commissioners have over the years been dissatisfied with the City Zoning
Ordinance requirement that vendors and seasonal outside sales be issued a Special Use
Permit (SUP). By the very nature of the use, the operators are not tied to the property
for which the SUP is issued. They are in many ways more like transient merchants and
peddlers than other uses for which Special Use Permits are issued.
Consequently, filing a Special Use Permit in the chain of title of the property owner
upon which the temporary or seasonal open sales merchant or vendor operates does not
seem particularly appropriate. The vendor can move several times during the course of
a year. Each time a new SUP is required, and it gets filed in the chain of title of the
property owner, not the vendor or open sales merchant.
In response to the situation, the Planning Commission has asked City staff to research a
more fitting way to permit these open sales uses.
COMMENTS
The City Attorney and City Clerk agree that issuing an annual license for seasonal
outside sales and food vendors would be a more appropriate method for permitting
these types of uses. The City already does something similar with licenses for peddlers.
Peddlers are not exactly the same as outside sales merchants or food vendors, because
peddlers are typically on the move all day, or at most stay put in a parking lot for only a
day. A food vendor may be in the same spot all season, and a seasonal merchant would
have a fireworks or garden center tent up in the same place for the whole season. A
peddler's license is issued, for example, to door to door solicitors and the merchant who
buys a truck load of thing -a -ma -jigs and parks in a lot somewhere for a day to sell them.
Seasonal Outside Sales
Page2of7
The section of City Code regulating peddlers' licenses is attached. But, the regulations
are not a good fit for outside sales and food vendors that stay put all day, or for a whole
season. So, staff would suggest that if the Planning Commission would like to pursue
licensing in place of SUPs for outside sales, then an ordinance ought to be developed
specifically for these uses.
Attachment: Peddler's License Ordinance
bt
Seasonal Outside Sales
Page3 of7
Chapter 41 LICENSES, PERMITS AND PROHIBITIONS*
*Charter references: Taxation and finances, art. X; pending condemnations, improvements
and assessments, § 15.03.
Cross references: License for sale of intoxicating liquor for off -premises or on -premises
consumption, § 43-61 et seq.; license for 3.2 percent malt liquor, § 43-126 et seq.
Sec. 41-4. Peddlers and solicitors.
Subd. 1.Definitions and interpretation. Except as may otherwise be provided or clearly implied
by context, all terms shall be given their commonly accepted definitions. The singular shall
include the plural and the plural shall include the singular. The masculine shall include the
feminine and the neuter, and vice -versa the term "shall" means mandatory and the term "may" is
permissive. The following terms shall have the definitions given to them:
Person. The term "person" shall mean any natural individual, group, organization, corporation,
partnership, or association. As applied to groups, organizations, corporations, partnerships, and
associations, the term shall include each member, officer, partner, associate, agent, or employee.
Peddler. The term "peddler" shall mean a person who goes from house -to -house, door to door,
business -to -business, street -to -street, or any other type of place -to -place, for the purpose of
offering for sale, displaying or exposing for sale, selling or attempting to sell, and delivering
immediately upon sale, the goods, wares, products, merchandise, or other personnel property,
that the person is carrying or otherwise transporting. The term peddler shall mean the same as the
term hawker. The term shall also apply to any person offering for sale any service that the person
can immediately provide.
Solicitor. The term "solicitor" shall mean a person who goes from house -to -house, door-to-door,
business -to -business, street -to -street, or any other type of place -to -place, for the purpose of
obtaining or attempting to obtain orders for goods, wares, products, merchandise, other personal
property, or services, of which he or she may be carrying or transporting samples, or that may be
described in a catalog or by other means, and for which delivery or performance shall occur at a
later time. The absence of samples or catalogs shall not remove a person from the scope of this
provision if the actual purpose of the person's activity is to obtain or attempt to obtain orders as
discussed above. The term solicitor shall mean the same as the term canvasser.
Transient merchant. The term "transient merchant" shall mean a person who temporarily sets up
business out of a vehicle, trailer, boxcar, tent, other portable shelter, or empty store front for the
purpose of exposing or displaying for sale, selling or attempting to sell, and delivering, goods,
wares, products, merchandise, or other personal property, and who does not remain or intend to
remain in any one location for more than ten consecutive days.
Seasonal Outside Sales
Page 4 of 7
Regular business day. Any day during which the City Hall is normally open for the purpose of
conducting public business. Holidays defined by State law shall not be counted as regular
business days.
Subd. 2.Exceptions to definitions. For the purpose of the requirements of this section, the terms
"peddler", "solicitor," and "transient merchant" shall not apply to any person selling or
attempting to sell at wholesale any goods, wares, products, merchandise, or other personal
property, to a retailer of the item(s) being sold by the wholesaler. The terms also shall not apply
to any person who makes initial contacts with other people for the purpose of establishing or
trying to establish a regular customer delivery route for the delivery of perishable food and dairy
products such as baked goods and milk, nor shall they apply to any person making deliveries of
perishable food and dairy products to the customers on his or her established regular delivery
route. In addition, persons conducting the type of sales commonly known as garage sales,
rummage sales, estate sales, or lemonade stands operated by children, as well as those persons
participating in an organized multi -person bazaar or flea market, shall be exempt from the
definitions of peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants, as shall be anyone conducting an
auction as a properly licensed auctioneer, or any officer of the court conducting a court ordered
sale.
Subd. 3.Registration/license. No solicitor, peddler, hauler or transient vendor of merchandise,
without having been requested or invited to do so by the owner or occupant, shall enter a private
residence of the city for the purpose of soliciting orders for the sale of goods, wares and
merchandise, or for the purpose of disposing of or peddling or hauling such goods, wares and
merchandise, without first registering/licensing with the city. The city police department is
authorized to use the CJDN terminal to run background checks on solicitors and peddlers that
register with the city.
Subd. 4.Form; contents. The registration must be completed on a form approved by the city
clerk and must include the following information:
(1) Name, address, telephone number of employer/applicant and any and all business related
telephone numbers of the employer/applicant (credentials required).
(2) Full name (including full middle name) of individuals soliciting within the city including:
Address, telephone number (cellular, if applicable) date of birth, make, model, color, license
number and state license issued of any vehicle used, if any.
(3) A copy of a picture ID (state issued driver's license or ID card) must be attached to the
application for each applicant and individual soliciting within the City of Stillwater.
(4) Location within the city for solicitation (business, residential or city park). Park board
permission required for any city parks.
(5) General description of items being sold.
Subd. 5.Procedure. An application shall be determined to be complete only if all required
information is provided. If complete, a registration/license card, initialed by the city clerk, will
be issued for each individual associated with the application. Each individual is required to show
this registration/license card and a picture ID to any resident, law enforcement officer or City of
Stillwater employee upon request.
Seasonal Outside Sales
Page 5 of 7
Subd. 6.Registration/license exemptions.
(1) No registration/license shall be required of any person going from house -to -house, door-to-
door, business -to -business, street -to -street, or other type of place -to -place when such activity is
for the purpose of exercising that person's State or Federal Constitutional rights (i.e., freedom of
speech, press, religion etc.) except that this exemption may be lost if the person's exercise of
Constitutional rights is merely incidental to a commercial activity. Professional fundraisers
working on behalf of an otherwise exempt person or group shall not be exempt from the
licensing requirements of this section.
(2) Charitable organizations, and representatives thereof, duly registered under the laws of
Minnesota as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 309.50-309.61 or those specifically
exempted from registration under the provisions thereof, including schools, scouts or organized
youth athletic leagues and their representatives.
Subd. 7.Ineligibility for solicitation within the city. The following shall be grounds for not
allowing registration under this section:
(1) The failure of the applicant to truthfully provide any of the information requested by the city
as a part of the application or the failure to sign the application.
(2) The conviction of the applicant within the past five years from the date of
registration/license, for any violation of any federal or state statute or regulation, or of any local
Code provision or ordinance, which adversely reflects on the person's ability to conduct the
business for which the registration is being sought in an honest and legal manner or that will not
adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city. Such violations shall
include but not be limited to: burglary, theft, larceny, swindling, fraud, unlawful business
practices, and any form of actual or threatened physical harm against another person.
(3) The revocation within the past five years of any registration/license issued to the applicant
for the purpose of conducting business as a peddler, solicitor, or transient merchant.
(4) The applicant is determined to have a bad business reputation. Evidence of a bad business
reputation shall include, but not be limited to, the existence of more than two complaint(s)
against the applicant with the Better Business Bureau, the attorney general's office, or other
similar business or consumer rights office or agency, or the Stillwater Police Department within
the preceding 12 months, or five such complaints filed against the applicant within the preceding
five years.
Subd. 8.Suspension and revocation. Any registration issued under this section may be suspended
or revoked at the discretion of the city council for violation of any of the following:
(1) Fraud, misrepresentation, or incorrect statements on the application form.
(2) Fraud, misrepresentation, or false statements made during the course of the
registered/licensed activity.
(3) Conviction of any offense for which granting of a registration/license could have been
denied under subdivision 7 of this section.
(4) Violation of any provision of this section.
The suspension or revocation of any registration/license issued for the purpose of authorizing
multiple persons to conduct business as peddlers or transient merchants on behalf of the
applicant, shall serve as a suspension or revocation of each such authorized person's authority to
conduct business as a peddler or transient merchant on behalf of the application whose
registration is suspended or revoked.
Seasonal Outside Sales
Page 6 of 7
Subd. 9.Notice. Prior to revoking or suspending any registration/license issued under this
section, the city shall provide the applicant with written notice of the alleged violation(s) and
inform the licensee of his or her right to a hearing on the alleged violation. Notice shall be
delivered in person or by mail to the permanent residential address listed on the license
application, or if no residential address is listed, to the business address provided on the license
application.
Subd. 1 0.Public hearing. Upon receiving the notice provided in subdivision 1, the licensee shall
have the right to request a public hearing. If the city clerk receives no request for a hearing
within ten regular business days following the service of the notice, the city may proceed with
the suspension or revocation. For the purpose of mailed notices, service shall be considered
complete as of the date the notice is placed in the mail. If a public hearing is requested within the
stated time frame, a hearing shall be scheduled within 30 days from the date of the request.
Within three regular business days of the hearing, the city council shall notify the licensee of its
decision.
Subd. 11.Emergency. If in the discretion of the city council, imminent harm to the health or
safety of the public may occur because of the actions of a peddler or transient merchant
registered/licensed under this section, the council may immediately suspend the person's
registration/license and provide notice of the right to hold a subsequent public hearing as
prescribed in subdivision 10 of this section.
Subd. 12.Appeals. Any person whose registration/license is suspended or revoked under this
section shall have the right to appeal that decision in court.
Subd. 13. Transferability. No registration/license issued under this section shall be transferred to
any person(s) other than the person(s) to whom the registration/license was issued.
Subd. 14.Duration of registration/license. The registration/license described in this section shall
be valid for 60 days from the date of issue.
Subd. 15.Prohibited activities. No peddler, solicitor, or transient merchant shall conduct
business in any of the following manners:
(1) Calling attention to his or her business or items to be sold by means of blowing any horn or
whistle, ringing any bell, crying out, or by any other noise, so as to be unreasonably audible
within an enclosed structure.
(2) Obstructing the free flow of either vehicular or pedestrian traffic on any street, alley,
sidewalk, or other public right-of-way.
(3) Conducting business in such a way as to create a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of
any individual or the general public.
(4) Conducting business before eight o'clock in the morning (8:00 a.m.), or after eight o'clock at
night (8:00 p.m.).
(5) Failing to provide proof of registration, and photo identification, when requested by
resident, law enforcement agency, city staff or others; or using the registration of another person.
Seasonal Outside Sales
Page 7 of 7
(6) Making any false or misleading statements about the product or service being sold,
including untrue statements of endorsement. No peddler, solicitor, or transient merchant shall
claim to have the endorsement of the City of Stillwater solely based on the city having issued a
registration card/license to that person.
(7) Remaining on the property of another when requested to leave, or to otherwise conduct
business in a manner a reasonable person would find obscene, threatening, intimidating, or
abusive.
(8) No peddler is permitted to operate at any location within the public parks of the city except
by permit given by the parks board.
Subd. 16.Right to deny. The city council reserves the right to deny permission to any peddler if
the number of peddlers in any park or location will cause congestion, impede, or inconvenience
the public.
Subd. 17.Violations and penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this section shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction of any violation shall be subject to a fine not to
exceed $700.00 or a jail sentence not to exceed 90 days, or both, plus the cost of prosecution.
Each day a violation exists shall constitute a separate violation for the purposes of this section.
(Code 1980, § 41.06; Ord. No. 852, § 1, 11-4-97; Ord. No. 856, § 1, 4-21-98; Ord. No. 954, § 1,
4-5-05)