Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-09 CPC Packeti 5. OTHER BUSINESS 5.01 Seasonal vending THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, August 9, 2010 The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, August 9, 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 July 12, 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 less 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 -34. A special use permit for a hair salon located at 222 3r St So in the RCM, Medium Density Residential District. Theresa Dzuik, applicant. 4.02 Case No. 2010 -35. A special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit and a variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 3 feet requested) for the construction of a garage with an accessory dwelling unit located at 718 Pine St W in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Nathan and Lucy Smith, applicants. 4.03 Case No. 2010 -36. A special use permit for outdoor sales to operate a U -Haul rental facility and a propane tank refill station with an existing business (Lucky's Station) located at 1750 Greeley Street South in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Scott Stevens, applicant. 4.04 Case No. 2010 -37. A zoning text amendment to the VC- Village Commercial District to allow a restaurant with alcohol sales and a special use permit for a restaurant located at 145 New England Place in the VC- Village Commercial District. Brian Pilrain, Roman Market Inc., applicant. 4.05 Case No. 2010 -12. A zoning text amendment on swimming pool safety enclosures. City of Stillwater, applicant. Continues from the July 12, 2010 meeting. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651 - 430 -8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Present: Dave, Middleton, Chair Aron Buchanan, Mike Dahlquist, Eric Hansen, John Malsam, Scott Spisak and Charles Wolden Staff present: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Rob Gag and Mike Kocon Mr. Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Spisak, seconded by Mr. Malsam, moved approval of the June 14, 2010, minutes. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. Continued from the June 12, 2010, meeting. The applicants were present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and noted the requested drawings had been submitted; he noted that staff continues to find that the request does not meet the three requirements for issuance of a variance. On a question by Mr. Dahlquist, it was noted the requested deck is 16x20'. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Buchanan noted that garages forward of a house are not permitted in the RB District and suggested that a carport is similar to a garage. Mr. Malsam pointed out, as was discussed at the last meeting, that the walls are already in place, and the request is due to a difficulty with snow removal /storage. Mr. Malsam also noted that neighbors expressed support of the proposal at the last meeting. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out that it appears the walls were constructed with the intention of putting something above and questioned whether the Commission would have approved the plans if submitted as a single proposal. Mr. Hansen said there was discussion at the last meeting that there is something of a unique hardship involved with this lot as there is no other location for a garage, and the applicants have made a concession in reducing the size of the deck from 20x20 to 16x20'. Mr. Buchanan asked for an interpretation of the staff comments related to finding No. 2; Mr. Pogge responded that primarily relates to staff's opinion that a tuck - under garage could be introduced to the basement area. The applicant responded that a tuck - under garage would still leave the issue with snow storage. Mr. Spisak spoke of the configuration of the lot which doesn't leave much choice for protection of vehicles, which he said creates a rather unique situation. Mr. Malsam moved to approve the variance to allow the carport and deck to encroach 16' with the three conditions of approval. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. Mr. Wolden asked about the condition that the carport not be enclosed; Mr. Pogge responded that is partially due to the request and partially due to building code. Motion passed 5 -2, with Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Buchanan opposed. Case No. 2010 -25 A special use permit amendment to relocate St. Croix Dogs from 229 Main St. S. to 213 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Steve Farr, applicant. 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 12, 2010 The applicant was present. Community Development Director Turnblad reviewed the request and stated staff recommends approval with three conditions. Mr. Spisak asked what happens to the original special use permit which is tied to chain of title to 229 Main St. S.; Mr. Turnblad stated after a year of non -use, the permit expires. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were heard, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Middleton noted that the applicant has had his operation in the downtown area for three years, and there have never been any complaints that he is aware of. Mr. Buchanan moved to approve the amendment as conditioned. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -26 A special use permit request for a seasonal fruit stand at 1801 Market Drive in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Asia Raven, applicant. Doug Raven was present representing the applicant. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request and location of the proposed stand. He addressed issues related to parking requirements and traffic circulation and said approval is recommended with two conditions. Mr. Spisak asked how many special use permits have already been issued for the Cub property; Mr. Turnblad stated there are two other permits, one for the garden center and another for fireworks sales, neither of which runs concurrently. Mr. Dahlquist asked whether the length of the selling season would remain the same or change next year; Mr. Turnblad said it is likely that will change, but staff felt that could be addressed after a decision is made regarding the process for handling outside sales. Mr. Raven spoke briefly about the planned operation. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Wolden moved approval as conditioned changing condition No. 2 to condition the use of no more than three parking spaces. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion, asking about signage requirements. Mr. Turnblad stated normally signage has generally been limited to the structure, along with temporary signage in some instances; he said, in this case, signage hasn't been requested so it is assumed signage will be limited to the stand itself. The applicant stated the intent is to have the sign painted on the stand. Mr. Dahlquist expressed a concern about potential overlapping of the temporary sales in the future and suggested adding a condition for annual review in the event a change is not made in the way seasonal sales are handled. Mr. Wolden agreed to amend his motion to include annual review and limit signage to one sign on the stand. On a question by Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Turnblad explained the rationale for not requiring annual review for St. Croix Dogs. Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010/27 A variance request for construction of an attached two -car garage with living space above at 1101 4 St. S. in the RB -Two Family Residential District. Jennifer Trom, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He said staff is recommending that the applicant do the addition as proposed in 2003, a 20x24.5 second floor addition that would cantilever over the existing home, and detach the 20x24 garage which would eliminate the need for an impervious surface variance. He noted there are concerns regarding privacy issues with the living space above the attached garage as proposed due to the proximity to the property lines, as well as a concern about parking in the driveway as proposed. He noted that the 2003 request was denied, primarily due to issues with impervious coverage; since that time, the City has changed the allowable impervious coverage in the RB district, he noted. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out that alternative 2 (staff's suggested alternative) is not something the applicant has requested and is a major departure from what is being requested; he asked if staff has had that discussion with the applicant. Mr. Pogge stated he had a brief conversation with the applicant. Mr. Pogge said the applicant asked whether she would have to come back to the 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Commission if she went with the alternative; he said his recommendation is that any re- submittals that can meet all other requirements, other than the side yard setback, be done on a staff level. The applicant spoke of changes in her personal situation since 2003. She noted she has been trying to sell her home, but has been unable to do so primarily due to the house layout and lack of garage. She said the current plan is proposed because it has the least impact on the house and is about two - thirds Tess costly than the previous plan. The applicant's father said he had a plan to mitigate any excess impervious coverage. He said in order to have habitable space above the garage it has to be tied to the existing house, and he explained how he situated the proposed attached garage for access to the house. The problem with adding onto the existing house, he said, is the cost involved and the need to obtain a loan. The applicant stated she has the complete support of her neighbors. It was noted that there is parking on the street so there would be no need to park in the driveway. Mr. Dahlquist spoke of the grade of the lot and asked whether the garage would be sited above the existing grade and require a lot of fill. The applicant's father stated no fill would be required. Mr. Dahlquist asked if the applicant would be interested in Mr. Pogge's proposal; she stated that is not financially feasible. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Buchanan questioned the fact that garages are seen as a necessity. Mr. Dahlquist noted the roofline and massing of the proposed addition are different than the primary structure. Mr. Wolden moved to deny the request. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion, saying he would have supported Mr. Pogge's suggested alternative. The motion was taken off the table, while the applicant considered whether to consider the alternative. Mr. Spisak suggested tabling the matter to give the applicant more time. Ms. Trom asked whether she would still have the option of appealing the decision to the City Council. Mr. Turnblad stated the applicant either receives a denial that can be appealed or the matter is tabled or a new proposal submitted. The applicant said she would prefer the denial at this time. Mr. Wolden reintroduced his motion to deny, with Mr. Dahlquist seconding. Motion to deny passed 6 -1, with Mr. Hansen voting no. Case No. 2010 -28 A special use permit request for renovation of an existing manufacturing /office building for Early Childhood Family Center at 1792, 1950, 1862 Greeley St. S. and 1825 and 1845 Industrial Blvd. in the BP -C and BP -I Districts. Steve Erickson, BWBR, applicant. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request and staff findings. He noted that in this case the Planning Commission will make a finding and recommendation as to whether the proposed use is of the same general nature as a use permitted with a special use permit, with the Commission's recommendation forwarded to the City Council for a final determination. Mr. Turnblad spoke to the issue of "same general character," noting that the predominate use for the building will be for early childhood programming, which is not like a typical school program and acts more like an early childhood daycare. He stated there is a second use on the site that is specifically daycare. He said staff feels that are enough similarities between daycare programming and young children in the early childhood programming proposed to find that the uses are of the same general character. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the site, proposed changes /uses and spoke to several design standards related to the issuance of the special use permit — including parking requirements and traffic circulation. On a question by Mr. Malsam, Mr. Turnblad reviewed the Council approved zoning of the parcels, noting that the parcels on Greeley Street will be commercial and those on Industrial Boulevard will remain zoned industrial. On a question by Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Turnblad reviewed the differences between school and daycare uses; Mr. 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Hansen asked whether this use /programming should be included in the zoning text and considered for a possible amendment to the zoning ordinance; Mr. Turnblad noted that early childhood programming likely wasn't even a recognized used when the zoning ordinance was written and said staff didn't recommend an amendment to the text as it believes the uses are substantially similar to daycare, a permitted use. Mr. Middleton expressed a concern about impact of traffic on Greeley Street; Mr. Turnblad noted that traffic engineers reviewed the proposal and Washington County is comfortable with the numbers. Ray Queener, District 834 assistant superintendent, spoke about the traffic studies and noted that the study found that traffic levels will be similar to that experienced with the former UFE use during the peak hour and also noted that the studies were based on worst -case scenario. Mr. Middleton asked about the number of buses. Mr. Queener stated the buses do not all arrive and depart at the same time as this use does not operate as a typical school program; he also noted that buses are used primarily for the special education programs and typically are not the full - size buses. Mr. Hansen expressed a concern about the impact on the Greeley /frontage road intersection and suggested adding an impact analysis on that intersection to condition No. I. Mike Murphy, project civil engineer, reviewed revised plans made in response to comments received from Assistant City Engineer Kraftson. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Regarding the finding that the use is of the same general character as a daycare, Mr. Buchanan said while the requested use does not fit in a neat box, he does believe it is of the same general character. Mr. Dahlquist said he had done some research on this issue and noted that in early childhood programming, unlike a typical daycare, parents attend programs with their child and this is not a complete drop -off program as with a typical daycare; however, he noted that there is an education component to the early childhood programming, which is not typical of a daycare. Mr. Malsam pointed out this is not a single - purpose education facility, but rather a multi - purpose commercial facility with uses including education, daycare, therapy and offices. Mr. Spisak agreed with Mr. Dahlquist noting that early childhood is a parent/child experience, not daycare in the sense of dropping the child off. Mr. Queener pointed out that he would hope that education is a component of any daycare program so a child isn't at a facility for 8 hours with no opportunities for development; he suggested that this is a "shade" of daycare, closer to daycare than a K -12 facility; he also pointed out that the existing early childhood facility operates under the same kind of special use permit as the one requested. A representative of the applicant spoke to the therapy component of the uses that goes beyond a typical school use, noting that those therapy uses are allowed in this zoning district. Mr. Wolden suggested this proposal is not really a school per se and moved to support this use as of the same general character as a daycare. Mr. Middleton said he would support that, referring to the age of the children involved and the SUP at the current site. Mr. Buchanan seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -2, with Mr. Spisak and Mr. Dahlquist opposed. Mr. Buchanan moved to recommend approval of the SUP for the Early Childhood Family Center with the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion, asking that condition I be amended to include the Greeley /Frontage Road intersection. Mr. Spisak said he had concern regarding condition F, which he said is rather subjective and ought to be clarified as to what would trigger the modification, and condition H, which he suggested ought to be changed to require that District post "no crossing" sigs from the District office to the Early Childhood offices. Mr. Turnblad noted that the County will not allow a crosswalk at Greeley at the location in question and suggested that the District would not be opposed to placing a sign 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 12, 2010 stating "No crossing" at that location. Mr. Dahlquist suggested that the concern with condition F could be alleviated by adding language "when this becomes an issue as determined by City Planner." Mr. Spisak suggested amending condition F to state that if left turn movements at Greeley Street become an issue "in the opinion of City and /or County staff," ... Mr. Buchanan agreed to amend his motion with the three changes discussed related to conditions F (language change as suggested by Mr. Spisak), H (a no crossing sign of some sort be installed) and I (to include a study of the Greeley /Frontage Road intersection as suggested by Mr. Hansen). Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -29 A variance request to the sign regulations for height for two signs at 101 Water St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Chuck Dougherty, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He noted the signs were reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission, and the HPC felt that the style of the building, lack of pedestrian circulation around the site and the available locations elsewhere on the building make it difficult to meet the height regulations when balancing the design guidelines for the downtown district; he stated the HPC did review and approve the signage subject to the Planning Commission's approval of the variance. He reviewed the three criteria required for the granting of a variance and said staff found in the affirmative for all three criteria. On a question by Mr. Spisak, Mr. Pogge clarified the proposed height of the top of the sign as being 25 feet about the sidewalk, rather than the 31 feet listed in the staff report, noting that height was changed in response to the review by HPC. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Buchanan questioned the hardship involved in this instance, noting there is already window signage. Mr. Dahlquist agreed with the staff findings and spoke of the uniqueness of the building and hardship involved. Mr. Dahlquist moved approval of the variance request, clarifying that the height of the top of the sign is 25 feet, as conditioned. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion. On a suggestion by Mr. Wolden, Mr. Dahlquist added a condition that the maximum height of the top of the sign be 25 feet; Mr. Spisak accepted that amendment. Amended motion passed 6 -1, with Mr. Buchanan voting no. Case No. 2010 -30 A variance request for construction of a two -car detached garage, an addition and expansion of existing porch at 1213 Myrtle St. W. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Bruce Earhart, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and the variances involved. He noted this is a legal, non- conforming lot requiring a variance to the minimum lot size, front and side yard setbacks in order for any expansion to take place. He noted that staff would suggest that the requested front porch addition is more of a desire than a need. He noted that the proposed side yard setback is 2' rather than 0' as listed in the staff report, and said although there may be code issues the applicant will have to deal with, staff would be willing to entertain the 2' setback. Mr. Pogge spoke to the issue of moving the garage forward to reduce the impervious coverage variance, noting that would create an issue with visibility from a neighbor's rear yard porch, but suggested that the garage could be situated so that there would be views of both their rear yard lot and the neighboring rear lot; he also noted there may be other ways to reduce the impervious coverage such as reducing the width of the drive and eliminating the front porch addition. He reviewed the three criteria for the issuance of a variance, noting that staff found in the affirmative for hardship other than for the requested porch addition. He noted staff would recommend that an easement be obtain from the neighboring property owner from maintenance of the addition, should the Commission find in favor of allowing the requested addition as proposed. He noted that staff's 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 12, 2010 recommendation is to approve in part and deny the request in part, approving the garage and rear addition, denying the maximum impervious coverage variance and addition to the front porch. Mr. Earhart reviewed his request. He noted that currently the front porch amounts to front steps and is not usable as a porch. He said his intent is to maintain the historical character of the property and said the proposed addition to the porch would maintain the Victorian look to the house, but would make it a usable, sitting space. He stated the proposal to go straight back from the house with the proposed addition will keep the look of the house the same as it was when built in 1875. He noted that he did obtain a 10' easement for the entire west side of the property from the neighboring property owner which will provide access for construction, maintenance, fire etc. Regarding the garage, he said the original plan was to have it entirely in the back of the lot, but he has since moved it forward given the amount of impervious coverage; to move the garage any more forward, he said, would interfere with the neighbor's rear view and wouldn't make sense, in his opinion, logistically or aesthetically. He said the proposal is to install a rain garden and re -grade the lot to direct runoff to the rain garden. He said he would be willing to reduce the width of the drive and be willing to reduce the front porch addition by half if need be. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. On a question by Mr. Malsam, the applicant said his plans for the rain garden mitigate the impervious coverage by more than what is required. Mr. Middleton pointed out the garage is larger than a traditional two -car structure; the applicant stated that is due to the limited storage space in the home and lack of a basement. Mr. Wolden noted that this house was built in 1875 and when the zoning code was adopted it became an RB -sized lot trapped in a larger zoning district; he suggested than it might be argued that the impervious coverage requirement is overly restrictive given the lot size. Mr. Spisak agreed with Mr. Wolden's comments, noting that the lot size is about 25% smaller than the 10,000- square -foot RA lot, and a 25% increase on the allowable 30% impervious coverage would result in coverage of about 37.5 %. Mr. Hansen asked if concern about runoff to neighboring properties should be considered in instances involving side yard setback requests; Mr. Dahlquist said that has been done with the requirement for gutters. Mr. Dahlquist said when he first looked at this request he thought the proposal for the front porch was excessive, considering the front yard setbacks of neighboring porches; it was suggested that concern could be addressed with a condition regarding the maximum front yard setback. Mr. Hansen moved to approve the variance request for alternative A, with the conditions A and B listed in the staff report and the additional conditions that the plans for impervious coverage mitigation be reviewed by the City Engineer, that the easement with the neighboring property owner be recorded, that the driveway width be reduced to 9', and the front yard setback minimum be 20.2 feet as opposed to the existing 22.2. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion. In discussion, it was noted the intent was to reduce the width of the main driveway only, not the turn -in area. Mr. Hansen amended his motion to reflect that the reduction is for the main portion of the drive only; Mr. Dahlquist agreed to the amendment. Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -31 A variance request to the front and side yard setbacks for construction of an addition at 113 Cherry St. E. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay, representing Larry Colagiovanni, applicant. 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings, noting that while staff did not find in favor of the three criteria for issuance of a variance, due to the condition of the porch and the limited nature of the proposed encroachments, staff is not making a recommendation. On a question by Mr. Dahlquist, it was noted these plans would not be subject to review by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Mr. Balay provided photos of the existing house /porch and provided drawings of the proposed plans. He spoke of the topography of the site, which limits any addition to the house, and suggested that the proposed addition will improve the character of the neighborhood and support old town Stillwater. He suggested the challenge is trying to make a 19 century house work for a 21 century family and said he thinks the proposed plans accomplish that without losing the architectural character of the neighborhood. Mr. Colagiovanni spoke of the interior changes made since they purchased the house in 1995 and the need for additional space with a growing family; when considering changes to the exterior, he said they wanted to do something that fit the style of the house and neighborhood. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Wolden noted regarding the side yard setback, the applicant has an easement that basically extends to the property line. Mr. Dahlquist agreed with the comments regarding the side yard setback; he said the front yard setback for an enclosed area concerns him somewhat except for the minimal amount encroachment involved. The applicant noted that even after the project, his house will be setback farther than any of the neighboring houses. Mr. Malsam said he thought the design would enhance the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Spisak moved to approve based on alternative 2 with condition A. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion. Mr. Pogge clarified that the motion is based on the architectural plans as displayed at the meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -32 A zoning text amendment to allow a senior apartment complex in the Townhouse zoning district. Michael Bjerkesett, NHHI, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He noted that at this time the applicant has no site plans but is requesting the zoning text amendment to allow the project to proceed and as part of the special use permit process the authorization to exceed the density limits within the Townhouse residential district. He gave a Power Point presentation reviewing the site and potential access points; issues related to Comprehensive Plan goals, including life -cycle and affordable housing; site specific issues including density, traffic impact and road capacity, parks and trails, public utilities and public transportation. He provided photos of a similar senior apartment project the applicant has constructed in Bloomington. He noted that staff would recommend one minor language change to the proposed ordinance. In discussion, it was noted the proposed ordinance change would affect all TH districts in the City. On a question by Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Pogge identified other districts where the proposed density would be allowed. Mr. Spisak asked about the public hearing notification requirements, whether residents in proximity to all TH districts were notified. Mr. Pogge noted the requirement is for publication in the newspaper, but residents near the proposed site were notified even though that was not required; he noted that residents near the other TH districts were not notified as those are already fully developed. The applicant briefly reviewed the financing of the project and the population demographics of such projects. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Quentin Johnson, 1155 Parkwood Lane, said he thought this looked like a good project but wished the applicant could find a larger parcel of land with a road that isn't the end of a cul -de- sac. He stated he is on the board of Parkwood Villas and the people he has talked with are 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 12, 2010 concerned about traffic, density, and the height of the structure. He suggested that the number of people who drive who would be living in the proposed complex is higher than the projections given, citing the Bodlovick apartments as an example of the number of seniors who drive. Vernon Hill, resident of Wildpines Lane and director of Young Life, said he has expressed concerns about the area in question on several occasions, specifically a concern about the transition from commercial to high density to large -lot residential. He noted that when approval was given to the Young Life building on Parkwood Lane, it was with the understanding that the building retain a residential character. He said he is concerned about the density, which he said will be, according to the figures provided, 4 to 5 times greater than allowable under the current zoning. Andy Sundgaard, 1148 Parkwood Lane, said he would be opposed to the special use permit and zoning amendment. He said this has nothing to do with this particular project -- it has to do with zoning. He said he thought there is a good transition neighborhood now, from townhomes to the higher end townhomes on Parkwood Lane to the larger lot single - family homes then to Croixwood with higher density single - family homes. He said the area seems to be zoned properly at this time. He said to have two significant zoning changes in a relatively short time is significant; going from six years ago when this was single - family to 47 units on a 1.5 -acre site is a lot to consider, he said. He also suggested that the availability of funding should not be what drives a decision to change the zoning. He questioned that the site can support the zoning change simply because it has the availability of good roads, utilities, etc., suggesting that then any 1.5 acre site could support such a project. He stated he would be opposed to a second zoning change in six years. Pat Hodges, 1161 Parkwood Lane, said their townhomes were sold to them as "executive condos." She spoke of the recent drop in their property values and said for many of the residents in this townhome development. She said she is concerned about the proposed density, the impact on the street and parking, noting that while not a lot of seniors in such apartments drive, they do have a lot of visitors. The resident of 1156 Parkwood Lane spoke of the current traffic conditions on the street, with the way the two sections of Parkwood are disjointed, with one leading into the Croixwood development. He also spoke of concerns regarding parking. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Bjerkesett was allowed to comment. Wiith respect to the building height, he noted the site has a significant slope making it relatively easy to put one of the three floors into the hill so the neighborhood would only see the two -story portion of the building. Regarding property values, he said they have done a study of their existing properties and without exception, property values have increased after the introduction of the building to the neighborhood. Mr. Middleton noted that three letters had been received from residents of the area. Mr. Spisak said while the Commission is being asked to consider the proposed ordinance only, this site is apparently the only site the ordinance would apply to. He questioned whether this would be spot zoning. He noted that many residents in that area purchased their properties based on the TH zoning and density that has been in place for some period of time. Mr. Pogge explained the definition of spot zoning and said this instance wouldn't follow that definition. Mr. Buchanan said he thought low- income housing is something this community should support. Mr. Dahlquist said there is nothing in the proposed zoning amendment that addresses low income, so that should not be an issue in this consideration; the amendment does impact the four TH districts in the City, he noted, and could influence redevelopment. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out that it is very 8 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 12, 2010 competitive funding the applicant is seeking and if the City were to pass this amendment and the applicant was not successful in obtaining the funding, the change would open the site up for someone else to come in and do another project. Mr. Dahlquist expressed concern about the wording in the proposed amendment that when an age- restricted senior apartment complex is developed, "the minimum lot area will be determined as part of the special use permit," which he said leaves things wide open; he also spoke to the importance of transition in zoning and said an apartment complex doesn't seem to fit with that concept. Mr. Middleton agreed with the important of providing a transition in zoning, and he spoke to changes that can occur even with age- restricted buildings. Mr. Dahlquist agreed that once a building is in place, there may not be a mechanism to prevent a change in the concept of age- restricted use. Mr. Bjerkesett pointed out a condition of receiving the funding is the requirement that the building be maintained as seniors -only housing for 40 years. Mr. Pogge stated the proposed ordinance would allow the City to enforce that the use remain age- restricted for seniors. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that it has been practice to make such changes contingent on the issuance of the special use permit where such restrictive language can be included. Mr. Dahlquist stated his concern regarding density. Mr. Middleton pointed out that several sites have been approved for such projects but haven't been able to get funding; he, too, expressed concern about the density, going from large -lot to that density. On a question by Mr. Hansen, Mr. Pogge stated there are areas in the City zoned to accommodate the proposed density, but there are no vacant parcels in those areas. Mr. Bjerkesett pointed out that it is very important to have commercial areas available within walking distance from the proposed facility; he said a parcel in Stillwater that would meet the density requirements and be near commercial /retail facilities needed to support the residents doesn't exist. Mr. Malsam said he thought the overriding issue is perhaps the transition in zoning, going from what there is now -- low and medium density -- to high density. Mr. Dahlquist moved to recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposed ordinance. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -12 A zoning text amendment on swimming pool safety enclosures. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Buchanan moved to continue the public hearing. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Middleton asked that in the future when the City Council reverses a Planning Commission decision and the matter comes back to the Commission, information be provided regarding the Council's votes and comments. Mr. Spisak noted that there is a non - voting Council representative on the Commission and suggested that perhaps reporting on such instances be an agenda item. Mr. Pogge and Mr. Turnblad spoke of the rarity of the Council's overturning the Commission's decision. Mr. Spisak moved to adjourn at 11:25 p.m. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 9 BACKGROUND THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: August 3, 2010 APPLICANT: Theresa Dziuk PROPERTY OWNER: Bruce Peterson Planning Commission Report CASE NO.: 2010 -34 REQUEST: 1) Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Use in RCM District 2) Parking Variance LOCATION: 222 South 3rd Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: HDR, High Density Residential BASE ZONING: RCM - Medium Density Residential OVERLAY ZONING: None Applicable PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: August 9, 2010 CITY COUNCIL HEARING: Not Applicable PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Theresa Dziuk would like to open a hair salon in the multiple use building at the corner. of Olive and South 3rd Street. The 2,600 square foot building currently has a 1,300 square foot apartment on the upper level and two 650 square foot commercial spaces on the lower level. One of the commercial spaces is leased by a chiropractor, the other is vacant and proposed to be leased for this three -chair salon. The property is zoned RCM, Medium Density Residential In this zoning district, single family uses, multiple family uses and commercial uses are all allowed with use permits. Until recently the vacant space was leased by a retail flower shop, which had a Conditional 222 S 3 Street Page 2 Use Permit (CUP). However, the space has been vacant for more than six months, so the CUP has expiredl. Therefore, the hair salon owner is making application for a new CUP. As mentioned above, previously this 650 square foot space was a retail flower shop. The parking requirement was one space for each 200 square feet of floor area; three spaces total. A beauty parlor is required to have three spaces per chair (one for operator, one for customer being served, one for a waiting customer). The proposed three -chair salon would therefore need nine parking spaces. The City Code states that in instances where non - conforming buildings increase their requirements for parking, the increased parking must be provided on the property. Since the hair salon would require nine spaces and the previous use was only required to have three spaces, the increase is six parking spaces. There are no spaces available to the commercial tenants on the Peterson property. Therefore a six stall variance would be necessary for the hair salon. SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to open the proposed hair salon, the applicant requires: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for a commercial use in the RCM, Medium Density Residential Zoning District; and 2. A variance of six parking spaces. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Conditional Use Permit When considering a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission has to determine that: 1. The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the comprehensive plan, any relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. The subject property is located outside of the central business district, outside of the downtown height limit overlay district, and outside of the nationally listed historic district. Therefore, the only pertinent regulatory documents for this review are the Zoning Ordinance and the general chapters of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. No physical expansion is proposed for the existing building. Only an interior tenant finish would be necessary to accommodate the hair salon. Since no expansion is proposed, the fact that the lot size, setbacks and other massing standards are non- conforming is not pertinent to this CUP review. The use of the space will intensify slightly. Previously the space was leased by a flower shop and the maximum number of people in the store at any one time rarely went above three or four including the employee. When all three chairs are in use, the proposed change could see six to as many as nine people in the business at The Zoning Chapter of the City Code, Section 31 -204, Subd 6(4) states that any use permit expires when the use has ceased for six consecutive months, whether or not it is the intent of the permit holder to abandon the use. 222 S 3 Street Page 3 peak periods. This is not a large number of people, but it would result in a slightly larger demand for parking. Since there is no parking on the property, all customers would have to park on the street or in the city parking lot a block to the east. Peak periods for hair styling are largely during non -peak business hours, so the slight increase in parking demand should not negatively impact other drivers looking for parking spaces in the immediate area. None the less, since nine parking spaces are required and there are none available on the property, a variance from the parking standard is necessary. This variance is addressed later in the planning report. 2. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Any signage proposed for the business will need to be approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 3. The use will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. City staff is not aware of any way that the proposed hair salon could be considered a nuisance or a detriment to the public welfare. Variance For non - conforming structures such as the Peterson building, as long as the parking requirement does not increase when a use changes, on -site parking does not need to be provided. 2 As mentioned above, there is no on -site parking available for the hair salon. But, the change in use from a flower shop to a three -chair hair salon increases the on -site parking requirement from three spaces to nine spaces. The increase in parking has to be provided on the property. Since there is no room on the property for additional parking, a variance would be needed. By unwritten policy, in the downtown parking district the Planning Commission and City Council have consistently viewed the re -use of existing property that has no on -site parking (or very limited on -site parking) as grounds for satisfying the "hardship" criteria for parking variance requests. Given the existing set of circumstances with the size of the lot and location of the existing buildings, the landowner can not physically provide on -site parking for his commercial tenants. It is for situations such as these that Section 31 -510, Subd. 1 (d)(1)i of the Zoning Ordinance was written. It allows for "alternative provisions" when the property being considered is in a parking district. Though the property is not in the downtown parking district, staff believes that alternative provisions could be applied to this multiple use building because it fronts immediately on the downtown parking district and is located within a block of an existing city parking lot. If the Planning Commission concurs, staff would recommend granting the parking variance but requiring the building owner or business owner to buy monthly parking permits for the number of the hair salon's deficient parking spaces. This alternate provision has been applied with every recent downtown parking variance request. 2 City Code Ch 31, Section 31 -510, Subd 1(d)(4). City Code Ch 31, Section 31 -510, Subd 1(c). 222 S 3rd Street Page 4 The hair salon owner will install all three chairs before she opens for business. However, until her client base grows large enough to hire additional beauticians, only one chair will be in service. While only one chair is in service, the parking demand will be three spaces, which is no greater than the former flower shop. Consequently, it does not seem equitable to be paying for the six monthly parking permits that the second and third chair require if they are not even in service. Consequently, staff recommends that the Conditional Use Permit include a condition that as long as only one chair is in service, no monthly parking permits need to be purchased. When the second chair is put into service three monthly permits must be purchased. When the third chair is put into service, six monthly permits must be purchased. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has at least the following options: 1. Conditionally approve the Conditional Use Permit for a commercial use in the RCM Zoning District, and approve the variance to allow the parking demand to increase from three to nine spaces without providing any on -site parking for the proposed change in use. Conditions of approval are: a. The previous use permit issued in 2003 is null and void. b. No signs may be installed for the business until after approval by the Heritage Preservation Commission and subsequent issuance of a sign permit. c. As long as only one chair is in service, no monthly parking permits need to be purchased. When the second chair is put into service three monthly permits must be purchased. When the third chair is put into service, six monthly permits must be purchased. 2. Deny the parking variance request, since the property is not located within the downtown parking district, and deny the Conditional Use Permit on the grounds that increased parking demand for a three -chair hair salon cannot be accommodated with on -site parking. 3. Table the requests for more information. RECOMMENDATION Since the property fronts on 3rd Street, which is the boundary for the downtown parking district and the Central Business District, and since a municipal parking lot exists within one block of the proposed hair salon, staff recommends approval of the parking variance and the CUP for the proposed commercial use. cc: Theresa Dziuk, Business owner Bruce Peterson, Land owner Attachments: Zoning and Location Map Air photo of property City of Community Development Department Dziuk Conditional Use Permit Location and Zoning Map r9 lege SIP' s IR ( OW 11114WP;WISI 1% cvlsia (r,Am° At t " c 00,1-ta q s i _ � N ost Zoning Districts x O Subject C. property � S -SREE1 133 001` li°7044 crk A -P, Agricultural Preservation RA - Single Family Residential RB - Two Family TR, Traditional Residential LR, Lakeshore Residential CR, Cottage Residential CTR, Cove Traditional Residential ▪ CCR, Cove Cottage Residential ME CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential TH, Townhouse RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential VC, Village Commercial CA - General Commercial ▪ CBD - Central Business District BP -C, Business Park - Commercial ® BP -O, Business Park - Office BP -1, Business Park - Industrial ▪ IB - Heavy Industrial CRD - Campus Research Development PA - Public Administration II II Public Works Facility ROAD ® Railroad WATER Property in Township r City of Community Development Department Dziuk Conditional Use Permit Neighborhood Air Photo PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Property Owner Mailing Address City - State - Zip Telephone No. Signature Lot Size (dimensions) Land Area Height of Buildings: Principal Accessory FI: \mcn a mara \shei l a \PLANAPP. FRM x Z 3' A April 9, 2008 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Signatur ACTION REQUESTED Special /Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Paved Impervious Area Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: *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, t9s 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. Address of Project 2-? fi Sid / Assessor's Parcel No.' . a C.)0 7 , ao® .0113 (GEO Code) Zoning District`3 AI Description of Project Ha is ('C &; ,C "! 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 use • " 4d � � -- � Ot h4„) JffL 6 0- -910. 4 ikk Representative�l C L 0?--, � u K Mailing AddressSIK) 1�� SAW City - State - Zip` OSetr\;tk, fJ SSG Telephone No.l Imo 41- — O? p (Signature is required) (Signatur Total Building floor area U►'� Existing Stories Fe t Proposed lLtip _1 re No. of off - street parking spaces 26 square ed) square feet square feet square feet eet To whom it may concern, Avante Salon LLC would offer hair care(shampooing, coloring, cutting, styling, ect) and waxing services and provide hair and skin products for retail. Theresa L Dziuk Sa n Floor Pla can submit blue prints of formal drawing with codes listed on previous page) NAME OF SAWN l J Y`-�aC "� 11 LLCM Total Floor Space (from salon floor plan below) (96 0 square feet Total Deductions (from calculation at Right) — square feet Total Work Space (rotalfoorSpaoe) minus (Total square feet Calculate any Reoeptton, Restroom and Sup* areas which are part or the salon floor space: Reception Area = square feet Restroom Area = square feet Supply Area = squarefeet Total Deductions = square feet Prepare a diagram of the salon floor plan, using the Sample Floor Plan and the Code Leiters attached. Each square below equals five square feet if your salon is larger than 50 feet by 50 feet, attach additional pages to show complete floor plan. �QS tV.f\ WAAT 5 l sr to" max; mum ob ,�,.. 5y int as 1:r c -e w- Ooc1 c 30,1.- ; Y\ Ig P 2 cs S (9S0t tu Art,. PtU` - /9' iw' r1 i r 4. kz—ss' ('" lam, 111. / s 0 oti � ; ` Itv , i5i,e i 1 p v � �f!)i r tAAWP worx;4 r' • / � , I ./ �''�l ore 5.111 vt t In fjtr Sa n Floor Pla can submit blue prints of formal drawing with codes listed on previous page) NAME OF SAWN l J Y`-�aC "� 11 LLCM Total Floor Space (from salon floor plan below) (96 0 square feet Total Deductions (from calculation at Right) — square feet Total Work Space (rotalfoorSpaoe) minus (Total square feet Calculate any Reoeptton, Restroom and Sup* areas which are part or the salon floor space: Reception Area = square feet Restroom Area = square feet Supply Area = squarefeet Total Deductions = square feet Prepare a diagram of the salon floor plan, using the Sample Floor Plan and the Code Leiters attached. Each square below equals five square feet if your salon is larger than 50 feet by 50 feet, attach additional pages to show complete floor plan. �QS tV.f\ WAAT 5 l sr to" max; mum ob ,�,.. 5y int as 1:r c -e w- Ooc1 c 30,1.- ; Y\ Ig P 2 cs S (9S0t Salon Floor Plan (can submit blue prints of formal drawing with codes listed on previous page) NAMEOFSALIDN (AVG( Salon LL ....J Floor Space (from salon floor plan below) (Q square feet Total Deductions (from calculation at Right) — square feet Total Work Space (Total FioorSpace) minus (Total Deductions) = square feet Calculate any Reception, Restroom and Supply areas which are part of the salon floor space: Reception Area = square feet Restroom Area = square feet Supply Area = square feet Total Deductions = square feet Prepare a diagram of the salon floor plan, using the Sample Floor Plan and the Code Letters attached. Each square below equals five square feet. If your salon is larger than 50 feet by 50 feet, attach additional pages to show complete floor plan. # 12 p 5 3 o V I ,r, 1A S4 c--/-7. >> _ _ T s ' e t R /.� ` V ay`i (N f(`'�\ /� , �„ ! ck .ri c'.) %I ta / Gil ry) 1 1a . L .Y t 5J 7" lA�/ I.0.1-._3! et-- 9-'3 �Y °_'_a.s - -VIAcJ IC��JCJ, ►( /� �,ru 1 q' n QWrn o q uo o \ r I _ _ _ ._ - .. f 1 _7' __ - -> \T rr l Salon Floor Plan (can submit blue prints of formal drawing with codes listed on previous page) NAMEOFSALIDN (AVG( Salon LL ....J Floor Space (from salon floor plan below) (Q square feet Total Deductions (from calculation at Right) — square feet Total Work Space (Total FioorSpace) minus (Total Deductions) = square feet Calculate any Reception, Restroom and Supply areas which are part of the salon floor space: Reception Area = square feet Restroom Area = square feet Supply Area = square feet Total Deductions = square feet Prepare a diagram of the salon floor plan, using the Sample Floor Plan and the Code Letters attached. Each square below equals five square feet. If your salon is larger than 50 feet by 50 feet, attach additional pages to show complete floor plan. # 12 p 5 3 o V I DATE: August 3, 2010 APPLICANT: Lucy and Nathan Smith PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Plann BACKGROUND Property owners Lucy and Nathan Smith are requesting a special use permit and variance for an accessory dwelling unit on their property at 718 Pine St W. The project involves demolishing an existing garage and constructing a new accessory dwelling unit in its place. The building would contain just less than 556 square feet of garage space in the first floor and a total of 728 square feet of habitable space on the first and second floor that will be used as an accessory dwelling unit. Planning Commission CASE NO.: 10 -35 REQUESTS: Special Use Permit to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit LOCATION: 718 Pine St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: L/ MDR - Low /Medium Density Residential ZONING: RB - Two Family HPC PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 2, 2010 The lot size is 11,250 sq. ft., and 10,000 sq. ft. is the minimum lot size permitted by the ordinance for an accessory dwelling unit. 718 Pine St W Smith Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Review Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST To proceed with this project, the applicant has made application for the following items: 1. A special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit. 2. A variance to the required rear yard setback (25 feet required /3 feet requested). EVALUATION OF REQUESTS Special Use Permit Accessory dwelling units in the RB (two- family district) zoning district are permitted special uses in the RB district subject to the following conditions: a. Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet. The subject lot is 11,250 square feet. b. The accessory dwelling unit may be located on second floor above the garage. The proposed accessory dwelling unit is located mainly on the second floor above the garage with a small entry on the first floor. c. The accessory dwelling unit must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and rear setbacks. The proposed accessory dwelling unit is proposed to have a 3 -foot rear yard setback and an 8.5 -foot side yard setback. The proposed side yard setbacks meet the requirements of the RB district. The proposed 3 -foot rear yard setback fails to meet the requirements of the RB zoning district; however, the circumstances that exist on this lot are unique. The City owns a 10 -foot strip of land that runs behind this lot that runs between Martha St and William St. This was originally platted as an ally that was never developed by the City. Currently there are electrical utilities owned and maintained by Xcel Energy running through this strip. On the other side of the 10' strip of land owned by the City, the Smith's own a 128' deep by 75' wide parcel of land. Due to the existence of the utilities coupled with the fact that the City has a standing policy to retain and not vacate right -of -way the Smith's are left a required 25 -foot setback along their north property line they share with the ally. Without this ally way the Smith's could construct the garage as proposed. d. The accessory dwelling unit must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the midpoint of the primary residence. The proposed accessory dwelling unit is behind the main home and meets the requirements of the code. 718 Pine St W Smith Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Review Page 3 e. Off - street parking requirements for an apartment and single- family residence (four spaces) must be provided. The proposed accessory dwelling unit will provide the required four off - street parking spaces with two spaces in the garage and a minimum of two in the driveway. f. Maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet. The proposed area of the living space in the accessory dwelling unit is 728 square feet. g- The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. The applicant has provided plans for the proposed accessory dwelling unit. The garage is proposed to have a gable roof with asphalt shingles. The main roof will be a 12/12 pitch and match that of the main home. It includes a saltbox style roof on the North and South elevations in order to create more living space on the second floor of the garage while limiting the overall height of the garage. Finally, the renderings show the use of fiber - cement board siding with 3 -inch reveals along with shakes on the gables. h. The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. The existing primary residence is a two story home. The proposed accessory dwelling unit is also proposed to be two stories. The height of the accessory dwelling unit is shorter than the primary residence. i. Both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services and be located on an improved public street. Today, the primary dwelling unit is connected to municipal sewer and water services. The proposal calls for the development of a kitchen and bathroom in the accessory dwelling unit, which assumedly means it will be connect to municipal sewer and water services. j. Maximum size of garage is 800 square feet. The proposed area of the garage in the accessory dwelling unit is 556 square feet. 718 Pine St W Smith Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Review Page 4 Variance 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 main parcel at 718 Pine St W is a rectangular 75' by 150' lot. The property owner also owns a 75' by 128' parcel that is separated by a 10' wide ally that was platted with the County Auditors Plat 9 in 1922. The City owned 10' wide ally runs between Martha St and William St. This was originally platted as an ally; however, it was never developed. Currently there are electrical utilities owned and maintained by Xcel Energy running through this strip. Due to this, the City will not vacate the property. If this ally was not in place and owned by the property owner the garage could be placed to meet all requirements of the zoning code. The configuration of the property was set prior to the property owner's purchase of the property thus was not created by an act of the property owner. 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 RB, two - family residential, which allows accessory dwelling units. The accessory dwelling unit will meet all other requirements of the code. Therefore, staff believes the rear yard setback requests is acceptable. 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 purpose of the rear setback requirement to protect the privacy of adjacent properties and residential homes. Since the ally is used simply as a utility corridor and the property owner owns the land to the north, no property will be impacted if this variance is granted. Thus 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 title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. ACTION BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed a design review application for this accessory dwelling unit on August 2, 2010. The HPC approved the design review of the accessory dwelling unit with the conditions listed below. 718 Pine St W Smith Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Review Page 5 FINDINGS Special Use Permit 1. The request meets all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the intent of the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed accessory dwelling unit will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Variance 1. There is a hardship peculiar to the property not created by the property owner. 2. That the proposed variances 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. That the authorizing of the variance should not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the special use permit for the new accessory dwelling unit as presented with the following conditions: a. All revisions to the approved plan must be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. b. The accessory dwelling unit must be similar style, materials and color as the primary dwelling unit. If exterior lighting is used it must be soffit style lighting units. The City Planner shall review final plans for the Accessory Dwelling Unit prior to issuance of the building permit. c. The accessory dwelling unit shall connect to public sanitary sewer and water service. d. The applicant must meet the drainage requirements of the Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization. 2. Deny the special use permit for the new accessory dwelling unit. If the Commission chooses to deny the special use permit, the commission needs to make a finding of fact on that supports the denial. 3. Continue the public hearing until the September 13, 2010 Commission meeting. The 60 -day decision deadline for the request is September 13, 2010. RECOMMENDATION Since an affirmative finding was made, staff recommends approval of the requested special use permit and variance requests. attachment: Application and supporting documents from the applicant July 15, 2010 Community Development Department City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Planning Commission, Lucy Smith 718 Pine St. W., Stillwater, MN 55082 651 - 983 -5805 1 am planning to construct a new garage with a dwelling unit above it in the place of my existing garage. I want the new structure to appear as is if it were a carriage house constructed in the early 1900s, but have the efficiency of a modern green built home. As a result, I have spent time working with a designer to ensure the new carriage house matches the architectural details of my 1 3i story bungalow. Here is a list of details on my home which 1 have incorporated into the new building: • 1 Y2 story frame with dormers • Same 12/12 roof pitch with asphalt shingles • 3" reveal, clapboard, fiber- cement siding • Fiber - cement shakes on the gables • Open bead -board soffits • Front porch on the garage • Similar trim size and style My home, at 718 Pine Street West consists of two parcels separated by a 10' strip of land owned by the City of Stillwater. The City doesn't use the 10' linear parcel, and it has been integrated into my yard and my neighbors' yards. We each use and maintain the portion of the City's parcel which passes through our lot. My main parcel adjacent to Pine Street is 75' wide by 150' deep. My back parcel is 75' wide by 128' deep. The City's rear lot setback for an accessory dwelling is 25'. The purpose of which is to give rear neighbors privacy and separation from accessory dwelling units — an issue which is inapplicable to my circumstance. Since I own the back lot, the neighbor to my rear will be over 140' from the accessory dwelling unit. Due to the special circumstances of my two parcels, I am applying for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 3'. Please review the photos and diagrams I have included to clearly explain the situation. Thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Lucy Smith Itc SUPPORTING PICTURES A) Existing Home B) View of rear parcel facing North - taken from the back of the front parcel. The rear property line is beyond the trees. C) View of rear parcel facing South - taken from the North property line of the rear parcel. The existing garage can be seen in the background. B C A r 122.0 1 1 AA OR= 1 °Alamo 1. 22.0 PONE SU Off/ NATHAN SMITH - PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE 718 PINESTW SCALE: 1" = 20' -0° DATE: 7.16.2010 STILLWATER, MN 55082 I DRAWN BY: RHETT BORNER b ARROW BUILDING CENTER Division of Consolidated Lumber Company 876 COUNTY RD. U HUDSON, WI 54016 -7642 OFFICE: 715- 386 -2371 FAX: 715 - 386.5804 W W W.ABC- CLC.COM ALL COORDINATES, PROPERTY LINES, SETBACKS, AND DIMENSIONS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR OR OWNER THROUGH LOCAL OR CITY GOVERNMENT. 0 z m r m 1 0 z W -1 VW 111111lII1lUfhI 11111111 1 1 B -1 V8' I 1 1, 314 APPROX. I I ' f I 1 1' < &d' O Z W -11/4, 1 • 1 143/4' I I 11-0 314' W -11/8 1!11111 lltl lluul 8 -, 1/8' DRAWN FOR: SCALE: SMITH - CARRIAGE HOUSE ELEVATIONS CONSOLIDATED LUMBER OWNS ALL RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHTS OF THIS DRAWING. ANY DUPLICATIONS OF THIS DRAWING IS ILLEGAL VERIFY HEADER AND BEAM SIZES. GRADES. ELEVATIONS, ROUGH OPENINGS. FTC. SIZES. AND ALL OTHER DIMENSIONS AND SPECS. ARROW BUILDING CENTER Dhfiaion of Cormidated Lumber Company BTS COUNTY RD. U HUDSON, WI 54018 -7842 OFFICE 715386 -2371 FAX 7153885804 WWWABC-CLC -6064 DRAWN 8Y: RHETT DORMER PRELIMINARY DATE 07.142010 REVISIONR1 DATE REVISION WZDATE o I DRAWN FOR SMITH - CARRIAGE HOUSE CONSOLIDATED UMBER OWNS ALL RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHTS OF INS DRAWRIC. ANY DUPLICATIONS OF THIS DRAWING LS ILLEGAL ARROW BUILDING CENTER DNb1n0 NONINGINe1 L1ndv a0rV DRAWN LIT RIIETT DORMER PREU WARY DAIS 0! 1.2010 10 SCALE. , �,.- MAIN & UPPER FLOOR VERIFY HEADER AND BEAM SIS. GRADES. ELEVATIONS. ROUGH OPENINGS. FIG. SIZES, AND ALL OTIER DAENSIDNS AND SPECS. ITS COUNTY RD.0 HUDSON. VA SNIt &1012 OFFICE. 71S31142371 FAIL man WW CABOOLC COM REVISION 01 DATE o REVIBIONaOATE o I i 10 o I SW zs 15-5 l S $$ 12-O US' 24 21'4' 1 I8 - MEMO - To: City of Stillwater Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council From: Todd Remely, President, Liberty on the Lake HOA Date: August 6, 2010 Re: Patriot's Tavern Restaurant Proposal On August 5, 2010, the Liberty on the Lake Master Homeowners Association held an open house for its homeowners to discuss the proposed Patriot's Tavern. The open house was well attended by approximately 50 neighborhood residents. At the open house, the promoters of the restaurant, Brian and Brent Pilrain, presented their business concept, construction plans, and menu concepts. They also answered questions from the residents. The Mayor and City Council Member Polehna were also in attendance, as was City Planner Mike Pogge. City representatives presented information pertaining to the restaurant's liquor license application, review process, parking, and other issues. While it is difficult to accurately reflect the opinions of 50 people at an open house, and although we reserve the right to change our recommendations during the approval process, I believe that the following accurately describes the tenor of the meeting: 1. The Liberty on the Lake community is initially supportive of a restaurant, with a full liquor license, at the former Liberty House Cafe location. The type of restaurant proposed by the Pilrains is consistent with the needs of the neighborhood and having a solid business in that location is important to the continued development and viability of the Liberty Village commercial area. 2. The neighborhood's support of a liquor license for the establishment is conditioned upon the City revising the applicable Ordinance to include a requirement for. a. Limiting the hours of operation of the holder of the liquor license, with a 10:00 p.m. closing being the most frequently mentioned closing time; and b. Requiring that at least 60% of the restaurant's revenues come from food sales; and c. Requiring adequate on -site and overflow parking that does not include parking in the residential area (i.e. Liberty Parkway, Settler's Way, Rutherford Road, and others); and d. Requiring adequate ventilation to prevent food odors from encroaching on the residential area 3. In addition to the liquor license concerns, the City should review the project to make sure signage issues are well handled from the outset. Mr. Pogge mentioned other likely conditions on a liquor license, such as a prohibition on happy hour (and other liquor- focused events), limits on marketing and promotions, etc. These were also generally well received. The board of directors of the Liberty on the Lake Master Association has also approved initial support of the proposed restaurant, assuming the conditions mentioned above are put in place not only for the current applicants, but also for all future applicants. On behalf of the Liberty neighborhood, we encourage the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve the proposed restaurant and its liquor license request, subject to all of the reasonable conditions outlined above. Michel Pogge From: DEANHOVEY @comcast.net Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:25 PM To: Bill Turnblad; Michel Pogge Cc: Julie Hovey Subject: case 2010 -37 Mark and Bill, I am really excited about the possibility of a Roman Market opening in the old Liberty Creamery building. I would love to walk there. Make it happen! Dean Hovey 7275 Manning Ave. N Stillwater 1 BACKGROUND Planning Commission DATE: August 4, 2010 APPLICANT: Scott Stevens, Lucky's Station CASE NO.: 10 -36 REQUEST: A special use permit for outside U -Haul rentals and an outside propane tank refilling station LOCATION: 1750 Greeley St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: I - Industrial ZONING: BP -C - Business Park - Commercial HPC DATE: August 9, 2010 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner 14 ,4 The applicant is requesting a special use permit for outside U -Haul rentals and an outside propane tank refilling station for Lucky's Station at 1750 Greeley St W. All outside sales in the BP -C district requires a special use permit from the Planning Commission. As part of the U -Haul rentals, the applicant indicated in his letter that he plans to have 3 to 4 U -Haul vehicles on the location at any given time. They will be located along the south property line between the main gas station building and the car wash. Just west of the building the applicant wishes to install a large propane tank that will be used to refill portable propane tanks. 1750 Greeley St W Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST All outdoor uses in the BP-C requires a special use permits. 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. • The proposed location of the U -Hauls are proposed to be located in a location that is visually unobtrusive. As rental and retail sale uses, the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning code, comprehensive plan and relevant area plans. (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. If approved, Staff recommends the following conditions to protect the public interest: • All U -Hauls shall be parked in the area marked on the map submitted by the applicant and on file in the Community Development Department. • Existing landscaped areas shall remain in place unless approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. • No more than five U -Hauls shall be on the site at any given time. • The propane tank shall have no signage on the tank other than the word "Propane" with letters that are no taller than 1 foot. No additional signage, for the propane or U- Hauls, shall be installed without approval of the HPC. • All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. • Plans for the propane tank shall be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. • The trees within the parking lot island where the propane tank is proposed to be placed must be maintained. If the trees must be moved in order to accommodate the propane tank, the trees must be replaced with similar size and type of trees within the parking lot island. (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 with the conditions listed above. 1750 Greeley St W Page 3 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requests in whole or in part. 2. Deny the requests. 3. Continue the request for more information. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is September 19, 2010 and the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 13, 2010. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the special use permit and variance as conditioned. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL If the Commission chooses to approve the project, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. All U -Hauls shall be parked in the area marked on the map submitted by the applicant and on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Existing landscaped areas shall remain in place unless approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 3. No more than five U -Hauls shall be on the site at any given time. 4. The propane tank shall have no signage on the tank other than the word "Propane" with letters that are no taller than 1 foot. No additional signage, for the propane or U- Hauls, shall be installed without approval of the HPC. 5. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 6. Plans for the propane tank shall be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 7. The trees within the parking lot island where the propane tank is proposed to be placed must be maintained. If the trees must be moved in order to accommodate the propane tank, the trees must be replaced with similar size and type of trees within the parking lot island. attachments: Applicant's Form and packet Site photos of 1750 Greeley St W 1 L ucky ' s Station 17340 Albavar Path • Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 Community Development Center City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 Subject: Application For Conditional Use — U -Haul License, Propane tank To Whom It May Concern: 21 July 2010 The nature of this letter is to provide documentation to define and detail the special use requests for the property located at 1750 Greeley St., located in Stillwater; those being, (1) obtaining permission for a U -Haul license and (2) requesting approval to place a propane tank on site. 1. U -Haul license — Applicant would like to place a U -Haul retail center inside existing convenience store with appropriate parking located outside. Equipment placement will be as identified in the attached photo with parking area outlined in Green. Please note parking placement will be in subtle locations so as not to take away from the store's curb appeal. It is estimated that the site, on average, will have no more than 3 -4 vehicles on location. 2. Propane Tank placement — Applicant would like to place larger scale propane tank behind the store to the north side of the building. The approximate tank location will be as identified on the attached photo and in blue. Propane refilling will be an extension of the existing retail business. In the event you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. 1 thank you in advance for your consideration. Respectfully, Scott L Stevens President p 651 - 207 -5047 f 651 451 - 7377 a sstevens @luckyoil.net PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 *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. /t Address of Project 11SZ3 1 -7 Assessor's Parcel No. Y (GEO C de) Zoning District elephone No. tcm ature Lot Size (dimensions) Land Area Height of Buildings: Principal Accessory Cit - State - Zip .-:. L44- - f :53 - as;?._ FI: \mcnamara \sheila \PLANAPP.FRM 651 -ti S — 4 37/6, April 9, 2008 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION tV Description of Project 4 - ;c:- Representative Mailing Address City - State - Zip Case No: > /a Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: ACTION REQUESTED d. rf Paved Impervious Area square feet No. of off - street parking spaces v5 Special /Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment "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 l will comply with the permit if it is granted an used." Property Owner , + our Lte, Mailing Address _ 0. — lc 1 13 v 416.41v &✓ Telephone No. 637, 9-Q 7. T 1 7 Signature /-4,2 -015 (Signature "s req. rred) (Signature is req SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION x Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Stories Feet Proposed square feet Afr1/4 1M M4 r :11.41 rigs Mr' Certificate o No, 59177 Transfer from No. 43284. Originally registered the Fourteenth day of January, 1918, Register of Titles 2, Page 15, Washington County, Minnesota. STATE o4 MINNESOTA, s REGISTRATION COUNTY WASHINGTON i `'' Zhts is to cert that STANFOUR, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company residing at 2020 Silver Bell Rd. #23 in the City a f Eagan County of , and State of Minnesota is_ now the owner of an estate; in fee simple of anrf in the fodowitg desenied land, situated in the County of 'Washington and State 0/ Minnesota: The South Ten (10) feet of the North Two Hundred Seventy (270) feet of all that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW; of SW1) of Section Thirty -three (33) in Township Thirty (30) North of Range Twenty (20) West described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Tract, and running thence North along the West line of said tract Eight Hundred Twenty -two (822) feet to a point, running thence East at right angles, Four Hundred Eighty-nine (489) feet, more or less, to the center line of the traveled road running Northerly and Southerly across said tract; running thence South along the center line of said traveled road to the South line of said tract, and running thence West along the South line of said tract to the place of beginning. AND The North One hundred thirty (130.0) feet of the South Five Hundred Fifty -two (552) feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW; of SW1) of Section Thirty -three (33), Township Thirty (30) North, Range Twenty (20) West, Stillwater Township, Washington County, Minnesota, lying West of the centerline of County Highway No. 66, Subject to right - of -way of said County Highway No. 66. AND All that part of the following described Tract which lies South of the South 10 feet of the North 270 feet thereof and North of the North 130 feet of the South 552 feet thereof to -wit: All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW; of SW;) of Section Thirty -Three (33), in Township Thirty (30) North, of Range Twenty (20) West, described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said tract and running thence North along the West line of said tract Eight Hundred Twenty -two (822) feet to a point; running thence East at right angles, Four hundred eighty -nine (489) feet, more or less, to the center line of the traveled road running Northerly and Southerly across said tract; running thence South along the '/ center line of said traveled road to the south line of said tract, and .Jf, /,./ /e // running thence West along the South line of said tract to the place of at titer, beginning. znr/x, /ic( /. toiler 7ia.4.1, nliti nrl r•t ty.e.e1 0erx17 (.2 r.)f1i( /rd ((nnfd r47( fatal rF reef. crrf9rtgrqu.rb r7 rnn (/ri4( /,5lf6 44, rok:r4 ar1 9 /alc f+�isri e./ wruite.. /(• retie ..r f etre:W. 2. •'.. fob)!. r/ any N.(1l i lo / re /ltd/ let? (-2 2/4,2/2/ fblx.wiet /r/ • t. • •X6 { r/ 1.((X �,i. r) /( 0f 7r / I / % /.11fr4Jrr � /�/I/. *(1141 (1 /lrr.w i1 r!r /r /11/ 41(1 /. ' /11 /ie. /r r /41 /(111'1!.x.1 /%r lire /tree t. i'. .. /r! 7r /�f 11/ / r r�r� 'rorr YA1 rL / /.. rr. /41 CIL,rr� ' .i. •� / ir/ r,✓ // f/ (lieu / '.2 2l %/ 4. r / /efret /2)rr /r/.tr / /.If /lff. ry// / iw /44. / m f7 ria.rn(r/ / (.4i) (4'04 t. f,, .(...)& titer /1 r/ r6/P7 / 1 tx.n ill. /ItgX91iP 1r rurr�E � fA at rP)c /wr /:/ ll,x. a4.(1/ Apia /4/. (41'11(4 r*/ /% 1 t/Cf liar/ 7. �l rr/ /1 /1F)lt / '1y /ateliern )( iri /1(. 24746 fakr.4 may 4)11/ (email xr /i1 /L) .5/.1.0/ /. .i /•i. /J r at the Said / �iW/is not) of the age of ei hteen years or older, is under no (gar incapacity except__ y and (single /merle to incapacity except .. , who (iVis not) of the age of eighteen years or offer and is under no legal In Witness Whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of my office lhts__ Tt�ent seventh day of Au•us t 20 03 c BOOK 188 PAGE 96 Tt e Registrar of ?tles, In and forU, e County of Washington and State of Minnecota By Q.1 t .t t c , : Doc. No. 1134468 Deputy. _ ... . - . . . _ ..... ....... . ._ . . . ..., l . . ... .IIN i/LIIVIM I I CIIII 11 .. . .. , . - --. — .. ---- I III IST11111K ,...,, .. !MT In REGIS — IFUI ION W N i won 1 110011111AI It/ MONTI. IIAV VI An - • ,,„„,,„ ,,, NI , „,, ...._, 1980 14 Iwporp, mi ■ AVI 'It 1 ,1 _... 6 0 1 59 --moi Easement INSI3lni illill BIE 5 City of Stillwater, a municipal corporation P.3 rant, bargain utili ies over, . d con !nd ac 11 a per t he tual eas- llowing t for street and . . . .. North prope la whi escri est o eginn • e Cou at th y Highwa Southwes rner of said NW4 3 Z a l . h w 0 S- 0 C L :u mis flx; then 1111 ' I ao rig OI OI•- • q + ;:i O e e ngles ine o or 489' .a o ie 1-4 said along - -rlin d Sou 5 South o the e of nt of id NW4 olx; •eginning thence West ! ee Doc. No. .0159 purpolgf Rge. 539.6 sto bein t. Nap storalpOver, terly 85 ill nder anditimmominimmo. the Nor117.6 .. 11 feet of the South I 8 4 1 1 7 Order Aug. 1987 tom 28 1987 City Order • • cil, .ntng ity Spe • tillw Use P , Min sota. S.- t, in he Matte al Use Proceedings. • e • anning ase I • 141 Use P- sales t be 50 So . or th ey St e of •mmercial Const ction of -!vice station with re al 30, Fli . es. 20; N , • ill e o • being • ing ll e e p 130 • S. 552' rty: ec. 33, wp. - - of St ater, gill; No.11111. • 9 2 9 6 2 Variance Nov. Sign 9 1 VI 1988 nance IIIIIII . • Oct. 20 1988 y . Open signs • n the fo 9 . ... 1#11* of • • a variance to the ' est-ribed-propert 30, R cente 20, N e of • Vl G 1 o O ill eing y. 66 . 30 ft. of S. 55' . said 4 4 lying W. of Special Use Feb. 10 1989 3 47 Jan. 27 1989 Permit City Reque cil, •El : Jo . tillw; sota. 1 C Matter of the Plannin. No. SUP/88-50. be gr nt delmisto • isluns. (S- - . • . . 1024220 Financing Statement Mar. 26 993 3 Wellington Capital Corporation This appl ncing s, et nt co e pre ers ise all • ' ilding m desc ibed in ials, fixtures, equipment and SMITAIFTMIF1 79111= 1. _ 1042539 Memorandu ofAssign.Jan. 26 1995 11106 Sept. 20 1994 ' - o ease This Twin liti emo andum s Sto is es by a ., a tween Finasery /are c rporatio nc., a Texas corporation ( ),. ssignee an 'gren roper ies r up, landlurd-en 'j u I a-Milt tenan descr en bed • t ered in th's e 'n ers lease ficat • Oct er 31, 1 ssi n r has as , s ed the tenant's interest irithe Lea e to As herew e pur etwee. uat A an A or, A sigiment, siglee Assumpti a: landlor id Amendment of Lease uf even date miniiiamamil)liMil 1042540 Mortgage, Sec. A re Jan. 1995 12 5 Se t. 1 1994 13,500,055 I5 Association, a national bankin ix. FiI.l Mo • the 'cate and pr • s des r rea • .d in his ate. association tmt. &Ass &Re gn Ce 1060780 Amend 6 Mg Sec & FIZ.Fin state &ere- - • 11511 ,, ii,Lail 21,300,000. Norwest Bank Minnesota, tional Association O fANIN. Arne don ds no. !ertga 106sj as d. all •, o. 15 2540, (S -e cular ) - 1064988 Memorand of Lea se h .... 0 - This limit-d 9 em.randu 1997 iabil 3:07 of ty . 6e.t. ,,e Is , ersh 12 -nt a 1997 red ilt by Og d Twi Cities 1 I. II 4 .'. t ... l'roperties Group, LLP a Minnesota 1 L I 271 a corporation. e • - _.. _.. ___ . N o. 0 . ..: • 4 .... 1 __ 1 1 ! ..._. _....... .... _..... _ _ 96 MEMORIAL • • •• • • • • .• • IAfI.Mi • • • .• I Iid •• • iND DESCRIIIEI) IN THE CERTIFICATE rrny NI7IC111:11. - rataitight4 0 ;( k ) Deputy .7r, D . _ . Deputy 0 "ratr101 Ltittit. )rt Deputy -1 1 1 Deputy . titurtwo tt -.Deputy - `-"k V eputy itu v) irtr, ;. Deputy - • i:L1141 Deputy tRi -`,Kgratita46g.) Book 188 Page 96 MEMORIAL OF ESTATES. EASEMENTS OR CHARGES ON THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HERETO ATTACHED. Mortgage • & Assign. 1 frrixrtrre — • - -.. of Rents Dec. �9 , 1997 .�. 3:)7 .. _... _.. Filing Mortg ge the p em“es apt_ 12 escri.ed Assig s rtga:e f.le.l as Do . Assign. ' Oct. '6 1998 9:09 I my 7 end. to ortgage 1 Dec. Assn. o1 This eras & N,ti fixture F 1 .` 1998 dment Bark, uipme ive a as s remai 12 :07 is ad as Tru Oct. betw tee ( ele her end e a 1997 1998 in C agee) 989, ass ties Sto 989'. Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Company, L7.C - --- Certifi a __.__._.— . -- - -- -- -- A ' are_Limito Liability Company, under the laws of itt laC. 11e uarineaJ B'nk. as 'rr under that certain Loan Pool dated as of Ju ly 7, 1998 fi98em d by Doc. No. 1064900. Inc. (Mortgagor) and LaSalle am the M d shall modified ct. 1064989 I064990 1074066 1075166 1. T e E e fec 3. E cep s all reby date sed f of, a .und • . d and d eff age filed as doc. no. 1064989 onger be deemed to be Collateral. rilri�. t DOCUMENT NUMBER 1234469 KIND OF INSTRUMENT Mtg. Sec Agreemen &Fix. Fin DATE of REGISTRATION AM Aug. 27 2003 14:1 Au a. DATE G/ 'n •...w wT n • V 2003 I1$ 675.00O.hO ILi'Or RUNNING IN FAVOR OF National Bank, a na SIGNATURE OF REGISTRAR t $e iii! ! Certifi.�l .... .: .:.. .. 1134470 Assign' ents eases & 21 2003 4:111[11111/1112003 6k1 T s Assig Arent Des h.nt• . tan LL i • s gnor • an. transfe Nat ona : an Ass gnee . By Q t I 1.� . • 1 Y 41 .. , See D.c. o. 11 f.. furt er details. l l l l l l l l l l --■,■„■,■-,_ — - ■.■..I■.■I-,I_ -I■.■..I■.■ -,I _. -I■.■.. ■.■I-, �_ Book 188 Page 96 MEMORIAL OF ESTATES. EASEMENTS OR CHARGES ON THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HERETO ATTACHED. Mortgage • & Assign. 1 frrixrtrre — • - -.. of Rents Dec. �9 , 1997 .�. 3:)7 .. _... _.. Filing Mortg ge the p em“es apt_ 12 escri.ed Assig s rtga:e f.le.l as Do . Assign. ' Oct. '6 1998 9:09 I my 7 end. to ortgage 1 Dec. Assn. o1 This eras & N,ti fixture F 1 .` 1998 dment Bark, uipme ive a as s remai 12 :07 is ad as Tru Oct. betw tee ( ele her end e a 1997 1998 in C agee) 989, ass ties Sto 989'. Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Company, L7.C - --- Certifi a __.__._.— . -- - -- -- -- A ' are_Limito Liability Company, under the laws of itt laC. 11e uarineaJ B'nk. as 'rr under that certain Loan Pool dated as of Ju ly 7, 1998 fi98em d by Doc. No. 1064900. Inc. (Mortgagor) and LaSalle am the M d shall modified ct. 1064989 I064990 1074066 1075166 1. T e E e fec 3. E cep s all reby date sed f of, a .und • . d and d eff age filed as doc. no. 1064989 onger be deemed to be Collateral. rilri�. t DOCUMENT NUMBER 1234469 KIND OF INSTRUMENT Mtg. Sec Agreemen &Fix. Fin DATE of REGISTRATION AM Aug. 27 2003 14:1 Au a. DATE G/ 'n •...w wT n • V 2003 I1$ 675.00O.hO ILi'Or RUNNING IN FAVOR OF National Bank, a na SIGNATURE OF REGISTRAR No delinquent taxes and transfer entere Certificate of Real Es Value ( 1 filed (-rnot required ,f-a-/ (Date) Molly E O'Rourke, Auditor - Treasurer / ounty Auditor by < , 5 /��/.la2 33 o .9. 3- 7.O62 Deputy )w (reserved for recording data) 2 - / ola /03 QUIT CLAIM DEED l v7op3 -- STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ I , /p 5 Date: March 10, 2003 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Stephen D. Ogren, and his wife Ann M. Ogren, hereby convey and quitclaim to STANFOUR, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, Grantee, real property in Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: See Attached Exhibit A The Seller certify that Seller knows of no wells located on the subject property. The consideration for the transfer of this property is less than $500.00. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances. WASHINGTON COUNTY Receipt No: 166116 Date: 08/22/2003 Deed tax hereon of: $1.65 PAID MN Conservation Fund M.S. 473h $5.00 PAID Molly F. O'Rourke, Auditor by BAMvers Grantors Stephen D. Ogren _4 1191468 WastggitrorcircUe4 Certified filed and/or recorded on: 2003/08/27 4:09:00 PM 1134468 ICertificate #: 59177 I Book #: 188 I Page #: 96 Cindy Koormrnn ne0lrtrer of Tides STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this 10 day of March, 2003, by Stephen D. Ogren and Ann M. Ogren, grantors. Husband & Wife PAUL W MUILENBERG NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA Cornmisson Expires Jan, 31, 2005 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS): Ogren Properties Group, LLP 1749 South Greeley Street P. O. Box 15 Stillwater, MN 55082 e SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDG Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should be sent to (Include name and address of Grantee): Twin Cities Stores, Inc. 2020 Silver Bell Road #23 Eagan, MN 55122 EXHIBIT A The South Ten (10) feet of the North Two Hundred Seventy (270) feet of all that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW' of SW1/4) of Section Thirty -three (33) in Township Thirty (30) North of Range Twenty (20) West described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Tract, and running thence North along the West line of said tract Eight Hundred Twenty -two (822) feet to a point, running thence East at right angles, Four Hundred Eighty -nine (489) feet, more or less, to the center line of the traveled road running Northerly and Southerly across said tract; running thence South along the center line of said traveled road to the South line of said tract, and running thence West along the South line of said tract to the place of beginning. AND The North One hundred thirty (130.0) feet of the South Five Hundred Fifty -two (552) feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW' /4 of SW') of Section Thirty -three (33), Township Thirty (30) North, Range Twenty (20) West, Stillwater Township, Washington County, Minnesota, lying West of the Centerline of County Highway No. 66, Subject to right -of- way of said County Highway No. 66. AND All that part of the following described Tract which lies South of the South 10 feet of the North 270 feet thereof and North of the North 130 feet of the South 552 feet thereof to -wit: All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW' /4 of SW' /a) of Section Thirty -three (33), in Township Thirty (30) North, of Range Twenty (20) West, described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said tract and running thence North along the West line of said tract Eight Hundred Twenty -two (822) feet to a point; running thence East at right angles, Four hundred eighty -nine (489) feet, more or less, to the center line of the traveled road running Northerly and Southerly across said tract; running thence South along the center line of said traveled road to the south line of said tract, and running thence West along the South line of said tract to the place of beginning. ENTERED IN TRANSFER RECORD WASHINGTON COUNTY; MINNESOTA ..e1.4,2-7 .2 2 -2611 MO LLY ^ '' O'ROURKE, AUDITOR- TREASURER BY C,l/ 1) i Gf/i1/1� a DEPUTY -Ap Yigofifr Location Map R21W R2OW R19W R22W R21W R2OW Vicinity Map 0 PVII■ / Scale in Feet 1 ),04-1A-1 5 i�►'1 Sh U f\-) 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 24, 2010 Planning Commission DATE: August 4, 2010 CASE NO.: 2010 -37 APPLICANT: Brian & Brent Pilrain, Roman Market Inc. OWNER: Don Nelson, Liberty Property Management LLC REQUEST: 1) A zoning text amendment to §31 -325 of the Stillwater City Code to permit Restaurants with Alcohol Sales in the Village Commercial (VC) zoning district with a Special Use Permit 2) A Special Use Permit for 145 New England Place for a Restaurant with Alcohol Sales LOCATION: 145 New England Place COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: NC - Neighborhood Commercial ZONING: VC - Village Commercial PC DATE: August 9, 2010 REVIEWED BY: City Attorney, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Michel J. Pogge, City Planner*i9 BACKGROUND The property owner and applicant are seeking to develop a restaurant in the former Liberty Cafe site located at 145 New England Place which would be called Patriot's Tavern. To accomplish this they are requesting a zoning text amendment to §31 -325 of the Stillwater City Code to permit Restaurants with Alcohol Sales in the Village Commercial (VC) zoning district with a Special Use Permit. Additionally they are requesting a Special Use Permit for 145 New England Place for a Restaurant with Alcohol Sales. 145 New England Place Zoning Text Amendment and Special Use Permit Request Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION On -sale alcoholic beverages within the Liberty Village Commercial area has been a long discussed topic dating back to 1996 when the VC zoning district was first created. At that time the language "Tea rooms, deli, coffee shops, soda fountains, not including the sale of alcoholic beverages" was included against the initial wishes of the developer who wanted the ability to allow a family restaurant that served alcoholic beverages. The file /record is not very clear why the City included this restriction at the time. Later in April of 2003, the City was limited in the number of full liquor licenses it could issue within the City. At that time the City Council "reserved" a license for use in the Liberty Commercial area; however, no liquor license was ever issued and the zoning code was never amended to permit alcoholic sales in the VC district. In April of 2005, the City approved a special use permit for 145 New England Place for a "1,600 square foot coffee and ice cream shop" called Liberty Cafe. Liberty Cafe recently moved out of 145 New England Place making it available for the applicant to locate a full service restaurant into the space. Additionally, plans call for adding an outside freezer /cooler unit and a patio area in the northwest corner of the site. For a full restaurant with on -sale alcohol, the applicant will need the following approvals from the City before the project can proceed: 1) A zoning text amendment that allows a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages (Planning Commission and City Council) 2) Special Use Permit to allow the restaurant (Planning Commission) 3) Design review of the exterior changes and signage (Heritage Preservation Commission) 4) A liquor license (City Council) EVALUATION OF REQUEST Zoning Text Amendment The purpose of the VC Zoning District is to provide "a local center for convenience shopping and personal services primarily in proximity to a residential neighborhood ". A restaurant that serves the surrounding residential area has been long sought for this area. As noted above, discussions for family style restaurant started back in 2003 when the City "reserved" a liquor license for the development. The key is what restrictions should be put in place on a restaurant in the VC zoning district to ensure that it will be geared toward the surrounding residential neighborhood versus becoming a regional draw. Based on experience and complaints the City has received from other areas in the community the following restrictions seem prudent: Gross receipts are at least 60% attributable to the sale of food. No live entertainment is permitted on the site. No outdoor amplification of sound is permitted. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM to 10:30 PM Friday & Saturday. No happy hour specials nor advertising intended to attract a regional clientele is permitted. The attached ordinance includes the above restrictions for restaurants within the VC zoning district. 145 New England Place Zoning Text Amendment and Special Use Permit Request Page 3 of 5 In discussions between Staff and residents within Liberty, some concerns have been raised concerning the percentage of alcohol sales in the restaurant. MN Statute 340A.404 Subd.5 (b) provides that a restaurant can obtain a license to sell liquor when their gross receipts are at least 60% attributable to food sales. The City could be more restrictive in the zoning code; however, it opens up two issues. First, the state annually audits businesses to ensure that at least 60% attributable to the sale of food. If the City were more restrictive in the zoning code then the City would be required to conduct these audits. Due to the cost and time involved it would be unrealistic for the City to conducted audits on any regular basis. Second, if the state has set the standard at 60% then what basis /standard is there for the City to be more restrictive? How is 70% more safe then 60 %? Staff believes if we are going to allow liquor sales at all then it would be prudent be consistent with State Statute. Special Use Permit As outlined in the proposed ordinance, all restaurants in the Village Commercial Zoning District will require special use permits. 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 — Liberty Village was developed with on- street parking and small and condensed off - street parking fields. The key idea behind this was that some within the residential areas would walk to the business and that the on- street parking could be shared and allocated between the businesses. Within the PUD, eight on- street parking spaces were specifically allocated to this site. Today there are 14 off - street parking spaces which with the on- street parking equates to a total of 22 parking spaces for this site. Plans call for the elimination of three parking spaces for the new freezer /cooler unit leaving a total of 19 parking spaces. Currently the site requires 19 parking spaces, 6 for the upper level office area and 13 for the lower level deli /restaurant use. The applicant is looking to develop an outdoor patio within the area left in the three parking spaces that will be removed with the new freezer /cooler unit. The outdoor patio will require five additional parking spaces for 24 spaces, which leaves a deficit of five parking spaces. The applicant has verbally indicated to Staff that they have been in contact with the owner of the adjacent Veterinarian Clinic. The applicant has verbally indicated to Staff that she is willing to allow the five spaces to be constructed on her property directly adjacent to the parking lot at 145 New England Place. If this occurs, the parking requirements for the patio would be met. Staff recommends including a condition in the SUP that the outdoor patio would be permitted if five parking spaces are created to cover the new demand. 145 New England Place Zoning Text Amendment and Special Use Permit Request Page 4 of 5 Outdoor Uses — Section 31 -319 (d)(1) requires all outdoor uses to be appropriately located and designed. All outdoor uses are subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission. In this case, a cooler /freezer unit is proposed to be added along the northwest corner of the building. To accommodate the unit and maintain accessible access to the building, the sidewalk will be realigned causing the loss of three parking spaces. Within the remaining area, the applicant would like to develop and outdoor patio. In this location, the building will act as a partial buffer between the patio and the residential area to the south. The proposed zoning text amendment prohibits amplified sound on the patio and in all outdoor locations. Additionally, to ensure that the patio has a minimal impact on the residential area staff recommends that the patio be required to close by 9:00 PM daily. (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Exterior changes — Section 31 -319 of the Stillwater City Code requires that the Heritage Preservation Commission conduct a design review on all exterior changes. This application is set to go before the HPC on September 8, 2010 to review the signage and the outdoor cooler /freezer. Miscellaneous • Plans will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. Specific issues are listed in the conditions below. • All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission or Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. • Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied with the conditions /requirements in the proposed ordinance. 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 Approve the Zoning Text Amendment and the Special Use Permit as conditioned. 145 New England Place Zoning Text Amendment and Special Use Permit Request Page 5 of 5 CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL If the Commission chooses to approve the project, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. 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. 2. Per the zoning code: Gross receipts shall be at least 60% attributable to the sale of food. No live entertainment is permitted on the site. No outdoor amplification of sound is permitted. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM to 10:30 PM Friday & Saturday. No happy hour specials nor advertising intended to attract a regional clientele is permitted. 3. The outdoor patio shall close by 9:00 PM daily. 4. Plans will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 5. Prior to opening the outdoor patio, five additional off - street parking spaces shall be developed to cover the additional parking demand. Plans shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to the opening the patio or installing the new parking spaces. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31, ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADDING "RESTAURANTS" IN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL 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 neighborhood oriented restaurants under certain circumstances fit compatibly with other allowed uses in the VC, Village Commercial 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 -325 is amended by replacing the Restaurants section of the use table with the following: 3 Including restaurants, lunchrooms, cafeterias, and other such eating places; and places for the sale and consumption of soft drinks, juices, ice cream and beverages of all kinds; BUT, excluding drive -in establishments. 17 Gross receipts are at least 60% attributable to the sale of food. No live entertainment is permitted on the site. No outdoor amplification of sound is permitted. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM to 10:30 PM Friday & Saturday. No happy hour specials nor advertising intended to attract a regional clientele is permitted. 3. Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapter 31 shall remain in full force and effect. 4. 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 CA CBD VC BP -C BP -0 BP -I CRD PA PWFD Restaurants 3 P SUP SUP 17 P SUP ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31, ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADDING "RESTAURANTS" IN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL 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 neighborhood oriented restaurants under certain circumstances fit compatibly with other allowed uses in the VC, Village Commercial 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 -325 is amended by replacing the Restaurants section of the use table with the following: 3 Including restaurants, lunchrooms, cafeterias, and other such eating places; and places for the sale and consumption of soft drinks, juices, ice cream and beverages of all kinds; BUT, excluding drive -in establishments. 17 Gross receipts are at least 60% attributable to the sale of food. No live entertainment is permitted on the site. No outdoor amplification of sound is permitted. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM to 10:30 PM Friday & Saturday. No happy hour specials nor advertising intended to attract a regional clientele is permitted. 3. Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapter 31 shall remain in full force and effect. 4. 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 Roman Market Inc. PO Box 625 460 Stillwater Road Willemie, MN 55090 651- 653 -4733 re: Patriot's Tavern family restaurant & bar zoning text amendment Dear Sir/Maddam, We are requesting a zoning text amendment for Liberty Village to allow a restaurant and the sale of alcoholic beverages. The property at 145 New England Place is currently zoned VC- Village Commercial and currently only allows, "Tea Rooms, Deli, Coffee Shops and Soda Fountains." In April of 2003 the Stillwater City Council reserved a liquor license for use in the Liberty commercial area but the area was unable to attract a restaurant and a license was never issued and the zoning code was never amended to permit a restaurant or on -sale liquor sales. We currently own and operate "Roma Restaurant, Bar & Market at 460 Stillwater Road in Willemie, MN and would like to propose a restaurant/bar in Liberty Village called, "Patriot's Tavern." It is a family restaurant open for lunch and dinner with 80% food sales and 20% beverage sales. We are proposing an English, colonial -style restaurant with burgers, pizzas, seafood, salads, and sandwiches similar to our exisiting Roma restaurant but different in theme. We are not open late for bar business and do not attract a bar crowd. Our proposed name, "Patriot's Tavern" reflects early colonial America in the context of a meeting place to consume food and drink. Traditionally a "tavern" was an upgrade to the local "pub" or public house which primarily served drink and a poor selection of food whereas the "tavern" was a meeting place for trade and commerce, higher -end foods and drink, and often served as the local courtroom and hotel for dignitaries and local politicians. We wish to recreate the environment of this early American treasure in conjunction with the patriotic colonial theme of Liberty Village! Please see the attached business plan for further details on the proposed project. Sincerely, Brian Pilrain Vice President Roman Market Inc. 651- 271 -3931 PATRIOTS TAVERN 5amifi c1staurant Brian Pilrain Brent Pilrain Roman Market Inc. 460 Stillwater Road, P.O. Box 625 Willernie, MN 55090 651- 472 -5615 Executive Summary page 1 The Company page 3 Market Evaluation page 4 Patriot's Tavern Menu page 5 Operating Expenses page 7 Roma Sales Chart page 8 Start-up Estimate page 9 Contents Executive Summary Imagine walking into the year 1779 and seeing the colors of Red, White and Blue as the imperial emblems of a rich colonial empire adorn the walls of a delicious food tavern. Patriot's Tavern family restaurant and bar is the celebration of our nations early history serving the community with premium food products and decorations inspired by our English, Italian, French and German heritage. We purchase food items from local wholesalers and sell it directly to consumers. Consumers in our target area currently have no full - service restaurant. We would remedy this by installing a restaurant and bar selling 80% food, 20% alcoholic beverages with a full - service staff where consumers can communicate their needs directly to our culinary team and waitstaff and be given the correct information and recommendations for their food items. Our Certified Food Managers are trained in all areas of meat procurement and processing, food safety and sanitation, as well as food preparation and culinary technique. Owner Brian Pilrain, a specialist in computers and business administration has a total of fifteen years of experience in the industry and recently, the most current five years have been spent managing Roma Restaurant in Willernie, MN. Owner Brent Pilrain, a Certified Chef, also has a total of fifteen years of experience in the industry with the majority of that time spent in kitchen management. Brent has also been awarded First Place, "Chef Par Excellence" by the Minnesota Pork Association in 2004 after competing against fourteen of Minnesota's most recognized Chefs and is currently the Executive Chef at Roma. Each owner's individual success in the industry combined with the target area's demographics equal the sum for a successful business. Our target customer base is made up of Stillwater people who enjoy dining in a casual environment while being served an upscale menu that is exciting for adults and friendly for kids. Our pricing is on the higher end for food and beverages which discourages troublesome patrons as well as socially disruptive groups and loitering teenagers. We are able to communicate with all of these customers in person, by phone, or through the Internet to have their needs met and any information that they require about our products and services readily available. Products that we would offer include an exciting menu full of East coast fare as well as traditional English and European dishes. We are also a licensed caterer in Minnesota and offer services for business luncheons, family gatherings, company meetings, and holiday parties. Page 1 Patriots Tavern will be located at 145 New England Place, Stillwater, MN. We will purchase most of our food items from U.S. Food Service, and Merrill Foods. Miscellaneous items will be purchased from various vendors. Our hours of operation will be Sunday through Thursday, 11:OOam to 9:OOpm and Saturday /Sunday, 11:00 am to 10:OOpm. Our staff will consist of two full -time Certified Food Managers /Chefs, nine part-time cooks and kitchen help along with 7 part-time waitstaff including 3 managers. Critical tasks such as training, ordering, bookkeeping, and scheduling will be handled by managers. Advertising will consist of building signs, print advertisements, and a website featuring weekly and seasonal specials. Our nearest competition is a local favorite serving traditional German cuisine and our own Roma restaurant which serves mainly Italian fare. Both are more complimentary rather than competitive since variety for locals is a benefit. We hope to encourage locals to continue to patronize local business as well as draw people from other Stillwater neighborhoods to our community there at Liberty Village. Our customers see our business as a unique and fun idea that promotes creativity and special family time. Customers also see our restaurant as a place where their concerns and questions are welcomed with open minds and their purchases will be guided and well -made. They also see our smaller restaurant size and know that they will be treated as friends. Most importantly, customers will enjoy the decorative flavor of our old -world English colonial empire theme which is very unique and fun. Page 2 The Company Roman Market Inc. is owned and operated by brothers Brent and Brian Pilrain. We were born and raised in Stillwater, MN as well as graduates of Stillwater Area High School and are both current residents of this fine city. We currently own and manage "Roma Restaurant, Bar and Market" just 5 minutes West of Stillwater in Willernie, MN. We offer our community a chance to taste some delightful creations inspired by our theme and presented by 2004 Minnesota State Champion Chef Brent Pilrain. Our family restaurant seats 75 people and is a friendly place for business luncheons, families with children, and people who are looking for a casual environment with an upscale menu. Our strategy is to continue the traditional full - service style restaurant and incorporate a more specific theme based on the desires of the local community The current goal for Roman Market Inc. is to create a colonial "New England - style" restaurant in Liberty Village called the, "Patriot's Tavern Family Restaurant" to capture a significant amount of the local market share and increase the cash flow of our business as well as employ local staff thus creating jobs. To achieve this goal we have allotted a certain amount of cash reserve for advertising and to maximize repeat business from our customers we have an email club in place where we can communicate with our existing customers regularly through newsletters, e- flyers, and other online promotions. Our business is one of specialty service and we intend to fully implement our skills as listeners as well as salesmen. Customers will be able to submit suggestions and ideas easily with our online form or in person. We look forward to creating personal relationships with our customers and their families so as to mold Patriot's Tavern into a pleasant neighborhood gathering place. Other goals include creating a stronger sense of community through our services offering patrons a place where they can buy food items rich in European heritage, showcase cultural and traditional recipes, and give the beautiful Liberty Village business district a strong partner to increase local commerce. Roman Market Inc. is an S- Corporation and has granted the titles of "C.E.O." and "President" to Owner Brent Pilrain. Titles of "C.F.0." and "Vice President" have been granted to owner Brian Pilrain. Both owners serve as the company's Directors and hold equal shares of company stock. Company meetings are held on Wednesday morning of every week at our corporate headquarters at 460 Stillwater Road. Page 3 Market Evaluation The following market evaluation is based on the 2009 Demographic Detail Comparison Report compiled by Welsh Companies. Total population within a three -mile radius of our proposed site is 22,931 of which the vast majority of our target demographic resides. The average household income of this population is $97,341 with over 65% of households possessing two or more vehicles which is sufficient evidence to suggest a modest amount of surplus income. According to the Forbes.com article on 7/19/06 titled, "How Americans Make and Spend Their Money" 13.3% of household income is spent on food, and 42% of that is spent at restaurants. Using the statistics from the article we can deduct that households in our three mile radius spend approximately $5437 per year at restaurants which suggests a total market value of approximately $50 million dollars considering 9316 households. Our conservative business goal is to capture 2% of the market share at $1,000,000 annually within our first two years and our cap is at approximately 2.5% or $1,250,000 at full volume. In comparison, our other restaurant, "Roma" is in it's third year of business and is at $1,176,500 in annual revenue with approximately the same amount of seating. Page 4 Starters — White Cheddar & Onion Dip — served with brioche. — Maryland Crab Cakes — with gunpowder remoulade and frisee. — Patriot Pommes Frites — Belgian fries. Choose from our sauce menu. — Glazed Chicken Wings — BBQ, papaya - habenero, rum- buttered, or buffalo. — Oysters Rockefeller — bacon, onion, spinach, gruyere, and hollandaise. — Conch Fritters — choose from our sauce menu. — Spinach & Crab Dip — served with herb flatbread. — Buttermilk Onion Rings — Your choice of sauces. Dipping sauces: - Avacado ranch - Bleu cheese - Balsamic mayo - Peanut satay PATRIOTS TAVERN Bill of Fare - Horseraddish sauce - Truffle mayo - Cranberry mustard - Thai chili aioli - Wasabi Mayo - Papaya habenero - Lemon dill mayo - Cheddar cheese - Dijon mustard - Gunpowder aioli - Roasted tomato mayo - Barbecue - Red curry ketchup - Honey mustard - Frite Sauce Soup & Salad — New England Clam Chowder or Tavern Daily Specialty. — Classic Cobb Salad — chicken, bacon, chopped egg, tomato, avacado, and bleu cheese dressing. — Butter Poached Lobster Salad — bibb lettuce, fresh peas, tomatoes, and champange dressing. — Captain's Iceberg Salad — iceberg wedge, tomatoes, cucumber, parmesan- peppercorn dressing. - Strawberry Spinach Salad — with kiwi, candied almonds, chevre, and raspberry vinaigrette. — Green Apple Salad — cheddar, maple glazed hazelnuts, micro greens, and Frangellico dressing. Burgers & Sandwiches — Patriot Burger — applewood smoked bacon, cheddar, greens, tomato, red onion, and mayo. — Haystack Burger — fried onion, peppers, crispy hash, fried egg, and aioli. — Firecracker Burger — cajun season, jalepeno bacon, pepperjack, habenero aioli, rocket greens. — Spanish Burger — southwest seasoning, avacado, tomato, cheve, and cilantro -mayo. — Paris Burger — smoked portobello, creamy brie, greens and aioli. - Fungi Burger — cave aged bleu, carmelized onion, wild shrooms, greens and balsamic mayo. — Ale Potted Beef - on grilled ciabatta with English cheddar and aioli. — Maine Style Lobster Roll — butter grilled roll with scallion, celery, and creamy mayo. — Classic Reuben — corned beef, kraut, swiss, 1000 island dressing, on pumpernickle bun. — Tavern Steak Melt — grilled filet mignon, carmelized onion, smoked shroom,s and provolone. — Colonial Turkey Melt — ovengold turkey, grilled sourdough, basil, brie, and cranberry sauce. — Beer Battered Cod — a gormet bun with lettuce, tomato, cheddar, and lemon -dill mayo. — Oyster Po' Boy — fried oysters, crispy andouille, lettuce, tomato, and gunpowder remoulade. Pizzas — Margherita — virgin olive oil, garlic, fresh tomato, marinara, fresh mozzarella, and basil. — Tartufo — garlic- cream, cheese, fried potatoes, mushrooms, scallions, truffle oil, and balsamic. — Rocket BLT - four cheese, marinara, jalepeno bacon, teardrop tomatoes, garlic, and arugula. — Italian Combo — sausage, pepperoni, onion, green pepper, green olive, and mushroom. — French Quarter — andouille sausage, cajun shrimp, tomato, corn, bell pepper and onion. — White Clam Pie — garlic cream, bacon, four cheese, clams, and fried potatoes. — BBQ Chicken — with tomato, smoked mozzarella, bacon, red onion, and fresh cilantro. — Fig & Bleu — olive oil, and four cheese. Finished with procuitto, balsamic, and fig molasses. — Chicken Florentine — alfredo, four cheese, roasted red pepper, and spinach. — Plain Jane — marinara and four cheese. (add what you like) Entrees — Liberty Ribs — slow cooked and wood - fired. Smothered in our house sauce. — Rum Buttered Chicken — spit roasted over our wood -fired grill. — Ale Potted Beef Skillet — peas, bacon, carrot, pearl onion, rich gravy, and mashed potatoes. — Charbroiled Lobster — served on frisee with fresh herbs, and lemon -sherry butter. — Maple Bourbon Pork Chop — with blackstrap molasses, and mustard jus. — Reveres Ribeye — bone -in ribeye with pearl onion, mushroom, and brandy - peppercorn demi. — Jumbo Shrimp — hand breaded and fried with gunpowder remoulade. — Scallops Newberg — jumbo breaded scallops over linguini with lobster - sherry cream. — Prawns & Polenta — firecracker glazed and grilled. Served over creamy polenta with garlic jus. — Linguini & Clams — served in a white wine - garlic cream. — Filet Oscar — charbroiled with sweet crab, asparagus, and hollandaise. — Grilled Salmon — on lemon scented greens topped with cranberry- mustard and breadcrumbs. Sides — Boston Baked Beans — with Vermont maple and smoked bacon — Colonial Cornbread — served with spiced honey -butter — Fresh Peas — with lardons and pearl onion. — Carolina Slaw - sweet and sour based dressing. — Buttermilk Biscuits — served with soft butter. — Roasted Corn Saute' — honey and cajun spices. — Garlic Mashed Potatoes — finished with cream and butter. Dessert — Boston Cream Pie - topped with whipped cream and chocolate curls. — Decadent Brownie Tower — brownie bites, vanilla ice cream, whipped cream, and cherry. — Pecan Pie — with carmel sauce and bourbon - cinnamon whipped cream. — Strawberry Shortcake — fresh berries, strawberry sauce, shortcake, and whipped cream. — Peach Cobbler — brown sugar -oat crumble, whipped cream, and vermont maple. Patriots Tavem SG&A Rent Payroll Officer Salary MN Unemployment Insurance Fed Unemployment Ins Patriot Investment Loan Health Dept. Food License Trash & Recycling Accounting Service Liquor License Health Ins Premiums Business Liability + Liquor Insurance Rug & Towel Service Dishwashing Machine Rental Water Worker's Comp Electric/Gas Wood Tap Cleaning Shamrock rental Telephones Credit Card Merchant Services Internet/Cable Google Search Marketing Office Supplies/Menus Advertising Campaigner Email Marketing Hood Cleaning Refrigeration Maintenance Fire /Plumbing Maintenance Cost of Goods Sold Total SG & A Estimated Revenue Estimated Profit Operating Expenses Yearly $ 34,800.00 $ 272,160.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 36,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 3,336.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 3,900.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 3,941.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 1,164.00 $ 800.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 360.00 $ 420.00 $ 1,284.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 1,571.00 $ 85.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 800.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 423,360.00 $ 912,081.00 $ 1,008,000.00 Monthly Weekly $ 2,900.00 $ 669.23 Staff Labor $ 22,680.00 $ 5,670.00 27.00% $ 5,833.33 $ 1,458.33 $ 133.33 $ 33.33 Annual Payroll $ 141.67 $ 35.42 $342,160.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 750.00 $ 50.00 $ 12.50 $ 278.00 $ 64.15 $ 166.67 $ 38.46 $ 325.00 $ 75.00 $ 500.00 $ 115.38 $ 328.42 $ 75.79 $ 400.00 $ 92.31 $ 97.00 $ 22.38 $ 66.67 $ 15.38 $ 100.00 $ 23.08 $ 1,200.00 $ 276.92 $ 300.00 $ 69.23 $ 30.00 $ 6.92 $ 35.00 $ 4.00 $ 107.00 $ 24.69 $ 1,333.33 $ 307.69 $ 130.92 $ 30.21 $ 7.08 $ 1.63 $ 250.00 $ 57.69 $ 83.33 $ 19.23 $ 50.00 $ 11.54 $ 66.67 $ 15.38 Twice Annually $ 83.33 $ 19.23 $ 50.00 $ 11.54 $ 35,280.00 $ 8,141.54 $ 76,006.75 $ 17,540.02 $ 84,000.00 $ 19,384.62 Bi- weekly Payroll $14,256.67 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 120000 110000 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 RomanMarket Inc. 2006 $0 $0 $0 $21,316 $37,138 $36,761 $35, 309 $35,207 $30,007 $26,626 $24,566 $35,134 $282,064 2007 $19,665 $21,799 $29, 550 $31,910 $45, 372 $38,039 $37,297 $42,034 $34,597 $28, 983 $33,057 $37,236 $399,539 ROMA Sales 2008 $26, 848 $38,462 $61,063 $88,790 $107,391 $93,831 $92,863 $88,171 $81,023 $87,631 $78,040 $89, 006 29% Growth 57% Growth 16% Growth $933,120 $1,112,665 Sales 2009 2010 $74,491 $85,317 $80,444 $82,493 $90,685 $96,252 $94,956 $98,205 $106,962 $107,652 $94,536 $110,805 $93,350 $97,200 $91,795 $97,545 $87,367 $103,334 Roman Market Page 1 Restaurant Opened Column B IN Column C Column D f Column E ■ Column F Patriot's Tavern Opening Expense List: Woodfire Oven $7,000 parts & labor Slicer Purchased Grill $3,000 Flat Top /Range /Ovens $4,000 Fryers $2,000 Wind Oven Purchased Hood /Make up Air $30,000 parts & install Walk -in Cooler/freezer $12,000 parts,labor, & compressors Shelving $3,000 Keg Cooler $1,200 Ice bin /cold plate $400 Ice bin /cold plate $1,000 Booths $4,000 Fixtures /Decor $2,000 Awnings $1,200 Signs $1,000 Bar Top & labor $3,000 Back bar/Wine rack $3,000 Insurance Downpayment $800 work comp, liability, liquor Liquor License $3,600 Sunday on -sale $300 Buyers Card $20 Health Dept Plan Review $600 Wine cooler $400 Beer Bottle cooler $400 Microwave $300 Grill Prep cooler 6' $1,000 Pizza Prep cooler 6' $1,000 Hot Line with Heat Lamps $1,000 Ice Machine $2,000 Prep table /cooler 8' $1,700 Triple Sink $600 Hand Sinks $200 Vegetble Prep Sink $600 With spray nosel Dump Sink (Bar) $300 Dining Tables & Chairs $1,000 Hi Top Tables & Chairs $1,000 Shutters $1,000 Blinds $500 Window Boxes $200 Restroom changing table $500 Server station cart $200 Hutch for breezeway $1,000 Undercounter Dishwasher $1,000 Ecolab Dishwasher $0 Contract lease POS System Deposit $1,500 Contract lease Suzie Anderson Painting $500 Smallwares and misc. $8,000 Security Deposit $4,775 First Month's Rent $2,900 Inventory $10,000 Operating Account $15,000 $141,695 I SHEET TITLE ! �uv PAGE !REVISION I DRAWN BY: MG ! RELEASE DATE: I JOB NUMBER: DATE DRAWN: 1/22/2010 I P DECK : ORCH: I UPPER LEVEL: I LOWER LEVEL: MAIN LEVEL: 2315 N RESIDENCE OF: o A ROMA MARKETS' PATRIOT'S TAVERN rq . ADDRESS: 0 a 145 NEW ENGLAND PLACE. SUITE 100 > STILLWATER, N. 55082 rri LOT: BLOCK: NEIGHBORHOOD: LIBERTY MAACTIVE\Patriot's\Patriotskug, ?010 3:39:45 PM == 1010111 Illm III I 1 1111 I I I I III 1111 1 1...F ....... ■ MN �► 1 g I1111111uuuu1111 ..R..■ .. -a. /\ i Q a Atli 111 1 I SHEET TITLE W NATION• 'REVI SION I DRAWN BY: MG ' RELEASE DATE: I JOB NUMBER: DATE DRAWN: 1/22/2010 I PORCH: DECK: I UPPER LEVEL: GARAGE: LOWER LEVEL: MAIN LEVEL: 2315 N RESIDENCE OF: o 3- ROMA MARKETS' P'ATRIOT'S TAVERN - ADDRESS: 0 0 145 NEW ENGLAND PLACE. SUITE 100 > STILLWATER MN. 55084 m LOT: BLOCK: NEIGHBORHOOD: LIBERTY MAACTIVE\Patriot's\Patriots.dwg, 2010 3:40:06 PM • = = 111 ■■■■■ MIN 0 v 0 • lllll MOM I ..... ...... ■ ■■ 11.111 1,. X1 1 == •u1 III in min111i111111ii inn iiiiiiii111111111111iiiiii11111 1111 ■■1111, I IO■I r 41■ - -1- __1_ /\ / 1111r•11r-■1 1 11111111.11■ ■111 N SHELLER S/! MIN .= INN 4 LE0 Pi E \Pa s \P 201 :29 PM s I.Jr'r ❑ ❑ . ' I 11:1111 ih IN•t - o __.. u � — g I_. IMEril MAI , _ ►SEMI [ � :•i.. I!Qj! MINI ® ®® ® e®®®®® ®® ® 00 ® ® 0® 00 1 N RESIDENCE OF: ROMA MARKETS' PATRIOTS CAVERN ADDRESS: 0 0 145 NEW ENGLAND PLACE SUITE 100 STILLWATER n 55052 m LOT: BLOCK: NEIGHBORHOOD: LIBERTY o E \Pa s \P 201 :29 PM s I.Jr'r ❑ ❑ . ' I 11:1111 ih IN•t - o __.. u � — g I_. IMEril MAI , _ ►SEMI [ � :•i.. I!Qj! MINI ® ®® ® e®®®®® ®® ® 00 ® ® 0® 00 1 N RESIDENCE OF: ROMA MARKETS' PATRIOTS CAVERN ADDRESS: 0 0 145 NEW ENGLAND PLACE SUITE 100 STILLWATER n 55052 m LOT: BLOCK: NEIGHBORHOOD: LIBERTY 1 1 1 i i 1 i 1 1 i i 1 P E \Pa s \P 201 :29 PM s I.Jr'r ❑ ❑ . ' I 11:1111 ih IN•t - o __.. u � — g I_. IMEril MAI , _ ►SEMI [ � :•i.. I!Qj! MINI ® ®® ® e®®®®® ®® ® 00 ® ® 0® 00 1 N RESIDENCE OF: ROMA MARKETS' PATRIOTS CAVERN ADDRESS: 0 0 145 NEW ENGLAND PLACE SUITE 100 STILLWATER n 55052 m LOT: BLOCK: NEIGHBORHOOD: LIBERTY I SHEET TITLE MIN WM. PLOON PLAN ' PAGE A T I !REVISION I RAW N BY MG! RELEASE DATE: JOB NUMBER: DATE DRAWN: 1/22/2010 I PORCH: DECK: I UPPER LEVEL: GARAGE I LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL: 2315 RESIDENCE OF: o ROMA MARKETS' PATRIOTS TAVERN m -, ADDRESS: 0 o 145 NEW ENGLAND PLACE. SUITE 100 > STILLWATER, MN. 55082 m LOT: BLOCK: NEIGHBORHOOD: LIBERTY MAACTIVE\Patriots\Patriots.thvg, 2010 3:40:50 PM 9p,1Y 801'�nT - - I I I I 1 I 1 I In 1 2 '4 DATE: August 4, 2010 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater INTRODUCTION COMMENTS iliwater T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M I N N E S O T A Planning Report CASE NO.: 2010 - 12 REQUEST: Consider amending Building Code to require Vertical Safety Enclosures (e.g. Fences) for Swimming Pools HEARING DATE: July 12 & August 9, 2010 REPORT AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director 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 if the ordinance were to 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? On July 12, 2010 the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, but given the late hour of the meeting, continued the hearing without discussion until August 9, 2010. 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: Swimming pool safety enclosures August 4, 2010 Page 2 • 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 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. One suggestion from the discussion group was that the "grace period" for legal non - conforming safety covers might be until the home was sold to someone else. But, 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. An undetermined number of these pool owners chose not to have safety fences. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternative courses of action available. They include: Attachments: May 26, 2010 memo Excepts from June 15 City Council Minutes Proposed Code Amendment Email exchange with the McKeowns bt 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 or augment them 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. If this recommendation is forwarded to the Council, it may be prudent to specify which pool covers would be considered acceptable. 4. Table the hearing until September 13, 2010 for more information. THE $ I R T H P 4 A C E O P MINNESOTA INTRODUCTION l ater TO: Swimming Pool Discussion Group FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director f r, DATE: May 26, 2010 RE: Swimming Pool Safety Enclosures On March 2 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 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 • 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. 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. Stiliwater'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 There was discussion about parental responsibility and the makeup of the discussion group. 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. 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 ATTEST: 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 4 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. Diane F. Ward, City Clerk Ken Harycki, Mayor Page 10 of 10 Chapter 33 BUILDING CODE* City of Stillwater Municipal Code Proposed ;1r:nendment *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 fiiiii 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. i e ttc'e J ;if i 1 r e_l at it, c>_s;.. All perrnanu t swimming pools must be provided with safeguards to prevent children from gaining uncontrolled access. This may be accomplished with c,- - fencing, \v j1(4,_ screening, natural barriers such as blufl:s, rivers, lakes that would provide of` ,rest .iun a a fence, or other enclosure or arty combination thereof of sufficient density and strength as to be impenetrable. ,'ybov e aide jot or pool related decks zh are not read 1 > >° c rll l3 l lc Heal only have a 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 iiur N 1 1 - 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) Bill Turnblad From: DANIEL W MCKEOWN [danmckeown @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:25 PM To: Jim Roush Cc: Bill Turnblad Subject: Re: pool fence issue follow -up eamil Jim, Thanks for your thoughtful response. I would agree that the word covers is vague but I assume that Bill in reviewing all permits clarifies what a cover means and what is permitted. The same uncertainty could be made for the terms fence or walls. The key point here is a valid safety measure. Your point that if a cover is removed, then the pool is not compliant is true and the same would hold if you removed the fence or removed or left any gate permanently open. Which my view is that gates are open many times anyways. I have had very good experience with my cover and I had one failure and due to its nature, the people from Poolside came out immediately and repaired it. My problem was that the cover would not open. If a cover was left open due to failure, then a temporary fence is the only logical choice which would be true if a fence wads damaged in a storm or a gate broken. I have had my garage doors break where my house is unsecured and it required immediate repair. My recommendation to you and Bill is to expand on the definition of pool cover much as the ordinance has on fencing. This would include covering all parts of open water, requiring a certain minimum weight level, and a lockable switch to prevent unauthorized access. A similar code is written for hot tubs requiring certain switches, shutoff's and distance from the tub to prevent electrocution and to have immediate shutoff in the event of some drain issue. Clarifying is a more reasonable approach since in addresses a lack of clarity in the original ordinance, ensures that safety measures are considered, and allows current owners who have covered these issues to remain compliant without incurring new expense. These covers are very expensive to install and integrate into their pool. I will not be in town for the next planning meeting. I will be at the Liberty meeting about Roman's restaurant in order to hear my neighbors concerns. I believe that Ken and Mike will be there so I will try to introduce myself to them. Thanks for your response and I hope these changes can be incorporated into the ordinance that will be proposed. I would have joined you at earlier meetings but I was made aware of this very recently. Dan On Jul 30, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Jim Roush wrote: > Dan, > To your question about safety covers, the current ordinance does not refer to safety covers, but rather just "covers." Covers come in all types and functions: safety covers, Winter Covers, Solar heating Covers, etc... . i > Hence, if taken literally, a solar heating cover meets the current ordinance as a level of safety, which of course is absurd. In addition, as the ordinance is currently written and as I previously mentioned, as soon as any such cover is removed from the pool, that pool is technically not compliant at that time, which again, is absurd. > As a pool owner myself, I have a safety cover and a fence. My safety cover (top of the line) has been out of service 2 times in recent years. Both times, the pool was open for 1 week while the problem was being resolved. Had I not had a fence, this pool would have been exposed and a nuisance /hazard to our community. Having a fence, prevented this from occurring. > It is obvious that the current ordinance is not written to satisfy the needs of our community. If you have specific terminology that you wish to be considered in the new ordinance, we would most certainly be pleased to receive it and take it into consideration. > Best regards, > Jim Roush > City Councilman, Ward 3 > City of Stillwater > From: DANIEL W MCKEOWN [mailto:danmckeown @comcast.net] > Sent: Fri 7/23/2010 10:40 PM > To: Jim Roush > Subject: Re: pool fence issue follow -up eamil > Jim, > I am little confused. We contacted the city before we built the pool and were told the covers are approved. We submitted a permit to build which was approved by the city. So to say the ordinance does not approve safety covers is the opposite of what we were told and what was approved. > In my view, the change it is a change in ordinance not a clarification from a homeowner's perspective. I have read the ordinance and specifically says that covers are method to safeguard the pool from children under the section safety enclosure. To have the word covers removed is clearly a change in ordinance and change in policy for the city. > So I need some help here in understanding why you see this is unclear yet by removing the word covers it is more clear. It refers to other methods too such as walls or screening but does not specify the means or methods to ensure safety. This is true for covers also. > Under the fencing, it does not clarify if the fence must be open or closed when in use. > It would be better to specify how safety covers should be used and controlled rather than strike them totally. Since they are in my view more effective and easier to determine if the pool is secure or not, it would be helpful to define the expectations for the owners on operation similar to the fence definition. I can also suggest that many fences can be left open and unsecured and unless an owner walked the perimeter each night, you would not know if you pool is or is not secure. With a cover, it is obvious if it is open or closed. 2 > So please update me on why you feel the ordinance does not refer to safety covers. > Dan McKeown > On Jul 21, 2010, at 2:34 PM, Jim Roush wrote: » Dear Mr. McKeown, » Thank you for your input regarding this issue. I would like to add to Mr. Turnblad's comments that, the current ordinance is written such that safety covers are not specifically named as approved safety barriers. It is in fact, written such that if a pool owner removes any existing cover (such as to actually use their pool), the pool is then at that time, non- compliant. Please refer to the pervious and current ordinances to help you see why we must re- address this issue. » Best regards, » Jim Roush » City Councilman, Ward 3 » City of Stillwater » From: DANIEL W MCKEOWN [mailto:danmckeown @comcast.net] » Sent: Thu 7/15/2010 12:53 AM » To: Bill Turnblad » Cc: Ken Harycki; Robert Gag; Micky Cook; Jim Roush; Mike Polehna » Subject: Re: pool fence issue follow -up eamil » Hi Bill, » Thank you so much for getting back to us. » I get the strong feeling that the group that is looking into this does not want to grandfather in any pools as you stated and is biased against the covers and their proven safety. I was hoping that maybe they would consider grandfathering in a safety covered pool » that is on acreage and is in a private location. It is just so odd that it has passed our city's vote and the issue was resolved and that the insurance companies also agree that the covers are safe, and here it is back up for discussion. It baffles us some. We wonder who is on this committee, how it was selected, and if the committee has a balance of neutral members who can be objective. » My husband is very concerned that a fence around our pool will bring » down our property value. It would be an eye soar on our property, » not to mention a huge financial cost to us. When we built the pool, they city would not allow any retaining walls around a pool of any small height, because of a pool that was put in in Liberty that had some boulders around it, so we had to move the location which meant we had to take out the septic tank and hook to city water. This was a huge task and a huge cost. We learned the fencing and cover rules and placed our pool accordingly and purchased a very expensive cover to meet the requirement. We have followed the cities requirements to a "T" and have paid dearly for it already. To have this issue come up now is a great surprise 3 - to us and a very big concern. How much more will we have to pay for something that we did correct in the first place? Our pool has only been in a few years! » Again, please pass this along to this committee and ask that we please be grandfathered in. Our property is so unique. It is a renovated barn on acreage and on a lake and is so tranquil and private. We have placed the pool so you can see the lake and forrest near it, a fence would be such an eye soar. » Quite frankly, one could drown in our lake much easier than our pool » with the safety cover on it. To not be grandfathered in would be a huge blow to us. We have followed the cities rules in building, placing and covering our pool at a huge financial cost already, please honor that. We are not interested in a grace period as you stated. » Thank you for including our emails in the planning commissioner's agenda packets for next month. And thank you for letting us know when the next meeting is as we will surely hope to attend it. » Very Sincerely, » Heidi and Dan McKeown » On Jul 14, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Bill Turnblad wrote: » Heidi and Dan, » A public hearing was set for the planning commission on July 12 to discuss a possible ordinance amendment. The agenda was so lengthy that we did not get to the item until after 11:30 PM, so it was tabled until the next commission meeting which is August 9th. » The ordinance amendment that is being discussed is to require all NEW pools to have a safety fence. Other safety features are the owner's option, but the fence would be a requirement. » One issue to be resolved yet is what would be required of pools that have legally existing safety covers. Would they be "grandfathered "? Or would they be required to have a safety fence? If a safety fence is required for them, what grace period would be allowed? The pool safety discussion group that was formed to make a recommendation on the issues feels that they should not be grandfathered, but that a liberal grace period should be granted. » In any event, I will include your emails in the planning commissioners' agenda packets for next month. And, if you are interested, please attend the hearing on August 9th so that you can offer your comments in person. » <image001.jpg> » Bill Turnblad » Community Development Director » City of Stillwater » 651.430 -8821 (direct) » From: DANIEL W MCKEOWN [mailto:danmckeown @comcast.net] » Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:53 PM » To: Bill Turnblad; Ken Harycki; Robert Gag; Micky Cook; Jim Roush; Mike Polehna » Subject: Fwd: pool fence issue follow -up eamil 4 » Greetings Again to Mr. Mayor and City Counsel Members and also » to Bill Turnblad, » My husband was just looking on- line to try and learn more about this pool /fence /cover issue. We were told that we should have » received some kind of a letter from the city, which we have not received. We saw a packet for a meeting that is dated for July 12th. We are wondering » if the meeting occurred and what the outcome was. We also would like to know if there is going to be further recommendation to the council » on this issue and when will that meeting occur? » If we wanted to come down and meet with someone in person, who would that person be? This is an important issue to us and we would » like to be notified and kept informed on it. » As stated before, we never received a letter, so we are doing some catch -up in trying to understand what is going on. » Bill, I've included you on this email as we saw your name involved in this. Please read the emails below to familiarize yourself » on who we are and what we are asking. » We appreciate all that you do and we look forward to talking with you. » Thank you, » Sincerely, » Heidi and Dan McKeown » Begin forwarded message: » From: DANIEL W MCKEOWN <danmckeown @comcast.net> » Date: July 13, 2010 11:18:00 AM CDT » To: kharycki @ci.stillwater.mn.us, rgag @ci.stillwater.mn.us, mcook @ci.stillwater.mn.us, jroush @ci.stillwater.mn.us, polehna @usfamily.net » Subject: Fwd: pool fence issue follow -up eamil » Greetings to you Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, » Just following up on my past email. We are still trying to learn more about the fencing issue and how it is related to pool covers. » We have not received anything from the city on this and have just recently received information from one other concerned pool owner and I'm sure is the » case in such circumstances, we are only hearing one side of the story. » We are still very surprised that this is an issue. We are having a hard time understanding the logic of why it is. » I can tell you that when we researched the pool covers, our insurer, which is State Farm, was satisfied with the cover we purchased » and the cover met all their strict qualifications on safety and thus our pool is fully insured with absolutely no objections from the 5 » insurance company. An important aspect of the safety of our cover is that the controls to open it are located in a hard to find location, and they are locked with a keyed lock, which remains locked when the pool is not in use. » If someone wanted to gain access to the controls, which is the only way to open the pool, they would have to smash the lock box with a crow bar and in which case > -> they would have also broken the controls. There is no fence that can be jumped over or left open. The cover is closed and locked, period. We actually believe that our cover is » safer than a fence. It would be devastating if a fence was accidentally left open and a death occurred. With our cover, again, it is closed and it is locked, period. » We have our cover inspected at the beginning of the pool season and we monitor it's operation throughout the year. The only issue we have » had with it is that the tension had to be adjusted on it once so that it moved faster, which did not compromise any safety issues. In the winter, the pool retains » it's water level and the cover stays intact and locked. Again, one can walk on it, jump on it etc. Several of us walk on it at one time in order to clean the surface of it. As the manufacturer states, it was made » to function this way and as our insurance company supports, it is made safe. » If one did not understand the rigorous testing and safety of these covers, I could see how they could be perceived as a threat. » As a pool owner, it took us awhile to understand how they work and how they are safe. It took our insurance company to help us to believe that yes, they are safe. » And at that time, the city of Stillwater fully endorsed the covers, so again we felt very confident that it was the right application for our pool. At some point, the city of Stillwater approved the covers. It would be interesting to see why they did » and what changed to cause concern now. » Another important fact about our pool is that it is located on 5 plus acres with no immediate homes or children near by. It is a very private location that one would have to try very hard to find. It is not a nuisance nor an attraction to others. » I hope this email helps to explain our concerns on this matter. » Please contact us with more information so we can be informed as to what is happening on this matter and also whom » we need to be in contact with regarding it. » We very much ask that we be grandfathered in if this regulation should change. We followed the cities regulations when » building our pool and we certainly hope that the city will stand by us in solving this issue. » Thank you! » Respectively, » Heidi and Dan Mckeown » our pool is located at 7150 Melville Court » Our home address is 3330 Heritage Court » and our home phone is 651- 342 -6140 6 » Begin forwarded message: » From: DANIEL W MCKEOWN <danmckeown @comcast.net> » Date: July 11, 2010 11:44:46 PM CDT » To: kharycki @ci.stillwater.mn.us, rgag @ci.stillwater.mn.us, mcook @ci.stillwater.mn.us, jroush @ci.stillwater.mn.us, polehna @usfamily.net » Subject: pool fence issue » Greetings to You Mr. Mayor and Council Members, » We have just become aware of some issue regarding a vote that is coming up that has to do with » adding fencing around swimming pools, even pools that have a safety cover that is now current code. » We do have a pool that has a cover that is locked and is so strong that you can stand on it without threat of » a safety issue. (actually several people can stand on it with no threat) We are tremendous believers of pool safety and take this responsibility of having a pool very seriously. » When purchasing our pool we researched the safety of covers extensively, as it is paramount that they work and are safe. We are very satisfied that our cover is safe and is not a » threat to others. » We would like to request that if the ordnance should change requiring a fence to be added, that we could be grandfathered in and that our pool could remain as it is. It is our very firm belief » that it is safe, it is locked and we are confident that it could be grandfathered in and the situation could have a positive outcome for all parties involved. » It is surprising to us that this is even an issue, as the cover we have is so safe. But since the issue is up for a vote, there must be some concern generated from someone. It is always good to review » safety issues and we certainly understand and respect that. We do however feel very strongly that we have a safe cover and we are responsible pool owners who again, would really appreciate » it if we could be grandfathered in! » I sincerely thank you for your consideration in this matter. » Very Sincerely, » Heidi and Dan McKeown 7 BACKGROUND COMMENTS Jllwater T H E B I R T H P I A C E O F M I N H E S Q T A DATE: August 4, 2010 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Bill Turnblad IT- REGARDING: Permitting for Seasonal Open Sales and Vending 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 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. 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 a short while. 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 or 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 Page 2 of 7 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 a new ordinance ought to be developed with performance standards and an identified review process specifically for vendors and seasonal open sales merchants. Attachment: Peddler's License Ordinance bt Seasonal Outside Sales Page 3 of 7 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 infouuation: (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 infoiniation 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 haini 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 deteimined 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) - MEMO - To: City of Stillwater Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council From: Todd Remely, President, Liberty on the Lake HOA Date: August 6, 2010 Re: Patriot's Tavern Restaurant Proposal On August 5, 2010, the Liberty on the Lake Master Homeowners Association held an open house for its homeowners to discuss the proposed Patriot's Tavern. The open house was well attended by approximately 50 neighborhood residents. At the open house, the promoters of the restaurant, Brian and Brent Pilrain, presented their business concept, construction plans, and menu concepts. They also answered questions from the residents. The Mayor and City Council Member Polehna were also in attendance, as was City Planner Mike Pogge. City representatives presented information pertaining to the restaurant's liquor license application, review process, parking, and other issues. While it is difficult to accurately reflect the opinions of 50 people at an open house, and although we reserve the right to change our recommendations during the approval process, I believe that the following accurately describes the tenor of the meeting: 1. The Liberty on the Lake community is initially supportive of a restaurant, with a full liquor license, at the former Liberty House Cafe location. The type of restaurant proposed by the Pilrains is consistent with the needs of the neighborhood and having a solid business in that location is important to the continued development and viability of the Liberty Village commercial area. 2. The neighborhood's support of a liquor license for the establishment is conditioned upon the City revising the applicable Ordinance to include a requirement for. a. Limiting the hours of operation of the holder of the liquor license, with a 10:00 p.m. closing being the most frequently mentioned closing time; and b. Requiring that at least 60% of the restaurant's revenues come from food sales; and c. Requiring adequate on -site and overflow parking that does not include parking in the residential area (i.e. Liberty Parkway, Settler's Way, Rutherford Road, and others); and d. Requiring adequate ventilation to prevent food odors from encroaching on the residential area 3. In addition to the liquor license concerns, the City should review the project to make sure signage issues are well handled from the outset. Mr. Pogge mentioned other likely conditions on a liquor license, such as a prohibition on happy hour (and other liquor- focused events), limits on marketing and promotions, etc. These were also generally well received. The board of directors of the Liberty on the Lake Master Association has also approved initial support of the proposed restaurant, assuming the conditions mentioned above are put in place not only for the current applicants, but also for all future applicants. On behalf of the Liberty neighborhood, we encourage the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve the proposed restaurant and its liquor license request, subject to all of the reasonable conditions outlined above. Michel Pogge From: DEANHOVEY @comcast.net Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:25 PM To: Bill Turnblad; Michel Pogge Cc: Julie Hovey Subject: case 2010 -37 Mark and Bill, I am really excited about the possibility of a Roman Market opening in the old Liberty Creamery building. I would love to walk there. Make it happen! Dean Hovey 7275 Manning Ave. N Stillwater 1