HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-08 CPC PacketThe City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, August 8, 2011 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.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF July 11, 2011 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. 2011 -17. A special use permit for the installation of a resomator into an existing
building, Celebration of Life, located at 2800 Curve Crest Blvd in the CRD, Campus Research and
Development District. James and Jayne Bradshaw, applicants.
4.02 Case No. 2011 -19. A variance request for a garage setback located at 502 5th Street North in
the RB, Two Family Residential District. Cates Fine Homes, Jennifer Cates Peterson, representing
KC Kidder, applicant.
4.03 Case No. 2011 -20. A variance to the accessory structure regulations (500 square feet allowed,
716 square feet requested), the front yard setback (15 ft required, 3 ft requested) and to the
minimum height of a building (25 ft required, 14 ft requested) for the construction of a restroom
facility related to the Downtown Stillwater Pedestrian Walkway Project. City of Stillwater, applicant.
4.04 Case No. 2011 -21. A street vacation for a portion of the east 9 ft of Water Street starting at the
north line of Myrtle St E and extending north 208.1 ft. City of Stillwater, applicant.
4.05 Case No. 2011 -09. An ordinance amendment for seasonal outdoor sales and Vending Carts. City
of Stillwater, applicant.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF MEETING
MONDAY, August 8, 2011
7 p.m.
AGENDA
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, July 11, 2011
6 p.m. Workshop
7 p.m. Meeting
Present: Commissioners Spisak, Malsam, Buchanan, Siess, Hansen, Kelly, Dahlquist,
Kocon, and Councilmember Menikheim
Absent: Commissioners Gallick
Staff: Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Pogge
Chair Dahlquist opened the workshop portion of the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Pogge stated that The Bradshaw Group, Inc., has made application for a SUP related to
conducting on -site bio- cremations at 2800 Curve Crest Blvd. Over the past year City staff from our
engineering, public works, building, and planning departments have been reviewing the proposal
along with staff from the Metropolitan Council's Environmental Services division and are satisfied
that the proposal will not have adverse impacts to our systems. The Metropolitan Council has
issued a permit for the proposal.
Mr. Jim Bradshaw stated that the goal at their new Bradshaw Celebration of Life Centers is to be
environmentally friendly, with a focus green and sustainable processes. Mr. Bradshaw's son Jason
explained that unlike traditional cremations that use combustion, the bio- cremation process uses
alkaline hydrolysis, a process that breaks down organic molecules to their basic components using
a combination of water, alkali, heat, and pressure. At the end of the process bone fragments will
remain and can be returned to the bereaved similar to a traditional cremation. In addition, nitrogen
oxides and mercury vapor emissions which are common with traditional cremations are
nonexistent with the bio- cremation process.
The worksession was reassessed at 6:52 p.m.
Commissioner Dahlquist called the regular meeting to order at 7 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Several commissioners had corrections for the June 13, 2011 minutes as follows.
1. Commissioner Kocon stated that on page 3, the word "if' should be added following
"setback issues" so that it reads, "in regard to the setback issues, if I didn't know where
the lot lines truly were..."
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission July 11, 2011
2. Name spelling correction: Mr. Malsam's name is spelled Malsam not Malsom.
3. On page 7, under Case #2011 -04, the last sentence "continued the hearing" is repeated
twice.
4. Under Other Business, in the first paragraph, it should read adjoining property owner
instead of adjourning.
5. Siess is spelled wrong in much of the minutes; it should be Siess, not Seiss.
Commissioner Spisak seconded by Commissioner Kocon moved to approve the June 13, 2011
Planning Commission minutes as corrected. Motion was approved unanimously.
OPEN FORUM
There was no one present for Open Forum.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 2011 -18. A zoning text amendment to allow craft brewery by a special use
permit in the BP -O, Business Park Office District and a request for a special use permit
for a craft brewery located at 1900 Tower Drive in the BP -0, Business Park Office
District. Dan Schwarz, Lift Bridge Properties, LLC, applicant.
City staff provided background on the two -fold request for a zoning text amendment and a special
use permit. Mr. Pogge explained that Lift Bridge Brewing Company began operating their office,
warehouse, and limited specialty beer production at 1900 Tower Drive West in the spring of 2010.
At that time, City Staff classified the limited production as an accessory use since it comprised less
than 10 percent of the total floor area and was limited to no more than 2,000 barrels of beer
production annually. Currently all of the company's on -site production is kegged for distribution,
with their main production occurring off -site at contract breweries.
Lift Bridge Brewing Company approached the City asking to increase on -site production over the
current limit of 2,000 barrels annually and to add a manual /semi - automated bottling line to the
facility. The applicant has indicated that they would prefer to continue to produce most of their
beer off -site; however, due to production constraints with their current contract brewers they
desire the ability to produce their beer on -site when they are faced with capacity challenges.
To proceed with on -site beer production the applicant has made application for a Zoning Text
Amendment to City Code Section 31 -325 entitled "Allowable Uses in Non - Residential District" in
order to permit bottling works in the BP -O zoning district and a Special Use Permit to permit a
bottling works operation at 1900 Tower Drive West.
2
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission July 11, 2011
Special Use Permit
As outlined in the proposed ordinance, bottling works in the BP -O zoning district will require a
Special Use Permit. 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. With the proposed ordinance, the
proposed use meets the requirements of the zoning code. The site currently complies with
all other zoning code requirements.
2. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Plans will
need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a
building permit. 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. The site shall comply with the City's noise
ordinance
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.
Zoning Text Amendment
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment for
bottling works in the BP -0 zoning district and approval of a special use permit for a bottling works
operation at 1900 Tower Drive with the following conditions:
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 for review and approval.
2. Plans will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the
issuance of a building permit.
3. The site shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance.
Commissioner Kocon asked if there was previously a pet boarding business at this site. Mr.
Pogge responded that there was, and they never received a noise complaint about the business, and
it appears that bottling equipment should be less noisy than barking dogs.
The State requirement is a 25,000 barrel limit, and with the equipment available at this facility,
production will be considerably less than that.
3
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission July 11, 2011
Daniel J. Schwarz, CEO, spoke to the Commission. He stated that the company currently brews
nearly all of their beer on -site, but they also contract with other breweries including Cold Spring
Brewery, which recently informed them that they are no longer able to meet their production
request. What Lift Bridge Brewing Company would like to do is install a small bottling line to
take care of the capacity inside the Twin Cities metro area. They will continue to contract with
other breweries as they grow.
Lift Bridge Brewing Company is requesting that special use be added to the Business Park - Office
(BP -O): Craft brewery producing not more than 25,000 barrels per year. This will allow their small
operation to add a manual /semi- automated bottling line to package their product. Mr. Schwarz
does not expect an increase in truck traffic. They have two vans that distribute beer four
days /week, distributors that pick up once a month, and bulk glass that is delivered either monthly
or quarterly. The facility employs three full -time employees. He further explained that the scale
of the bottling line is about 6 feet by 4 feet and fills six bottles at a time at low speed, filling about
60 bottles per minute, and is manually loaded and manually taken off.
Commissioner Dahlquist asked if the company will look at contract brewing again as they grow, or
if they might look at doing their own brewing and bottling in a different facility that could handle
larger production. Mr. Schwarz responded that this will be considered further down the road.
The present plan gives them the opportunity to bridge the gap between Cold Spring cutting off the
contract and needing a larger facility in the future. He expects that eventually they will need a
conveyer system and that the growth will result in more truck traffic.
Commissioner Spisak asked how much production could occur on the site? Mr. Schwarz
explained that with the equipment they currently have, they put out about 1500 barrels per year.
Adding tanks could take them to 2500 barrels per year, which is still a long way from the 25,000
limit. The bottling line would eventually be too slow to keep up with the greater volume.
Chair Dahlquist opened the public hearing. As no one was present who wished to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Hansen expressed that he is all for this request and feels Lift Bridge Brewing
Company has done a fantastic job of representing this city in the community.
For clarification, Mr. Turnblad provided some background information on bottling works. He
explained that the Commission knows bottling works don't normally belong in an office park
because it is an industrial process. The ordinance limits the company from having a rotary
system, conveyer, or automated system. This is specifically designed to be a two -man operation,
more of a bottling line than a bottling works. At present it is manual semi - automatic.
Mr. Pogge stated that the Zoning Text Amendment and the Special Use Permit should be handled
separately. For the Zoning Text Amendment, the Commission is making a recommendation to the
City Council. For the Special Use Permit itself, the Commission has approval authority.
4
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission July 11, 2011
Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, moved to approve Case No. 2011 -18
recommending to the City Council the Zoning Text Amendment to City Code as conditioned.
Motion was, approved unanimously.
Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Malsam, moved to approve Case No. 2011 -18
Special Use Permit as conditioned. Motion was approved unanimously.
Case No. 2011 -04. Future land use map amendments related to the Comprehensive Plan
rezoning. City of Stillwater, applicant. Continued from the June 13, 2011 meeting.
Mr. Turnblad introduced the future land use map portion of this case. He stated that on June 1,
2010 the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted. State law requires a City's Comprehensive
Plan and its "official controls" to be consistent. Consequently, 369 properties were rezoned
recently to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. However, for
a dozen properties it was agreed by the property owners and the City to create consistency by
amending the Future Land Use Map and leaving the zoning as it is.
Specific requests are as follows.
1. Amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation
of all 10 lots on Linson Circle from MDR, Medium Density Residential to LMDR, Low/
Medium Density Residential.
2. Amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation
of property located at 1750 and 1778 Greeley Street South from Industrial to Commercial.
Mr. Turnblad explained that the 10 properties located on Linson Circle are all zoned RB,
Two - Family Residential. Each lot has a duplex constructed on it, which is allowed in the RB
Zoning District. The Comprehensive Plan's vision for this cul -de -sac is to encourage
redevelopment from duplex to higher density housing, which would be consistent with much of the
surrounding neighborhood. However, a number of the property owners on Linson Circle objected
to the vision and would like the properties to be allowed to remain duplexes. The City agreed that
this was acceptable and did not rezone the properties to RCM, Medium Density Residential.
Consequently, the RB zoning and MDR guiding are inconsistent. To resolve this, the City agreed
to change the guiding to LMDR, Low/ Medium Density Residential. The two properties at the
corner of Curve Crest Boulevard and Greeley Street South (SE -TAC and the Gulf Gas Station) are
zoned BP -C, Business Park Commercial. The uses on the two properties are consistent with this
zoning. The Comprehensive Plan's vision for this corner is to encourage redevelopment from
commercial to industrial uses, which would be consistent with the properties south of Curve Crest
Boulevard. However, the property owners would like the properties to be allowed to remain
commercial. The City agreed that this was acceptable and did not rezone the properties to BP -I,
Business Park Industrial.
5
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission July 11, 2011
Consequently, the BP -C zoning and Industrial guiding are inconsistent. To resolve this, the City
agreed to change the guiding to Commercial.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments.
The public hearing was opened. As no one was present who wished to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
The Commission concurred that the amendments are a good solution to this problem.
Commissioner Buchanan, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, moved to approve the proposed
future land use map. Motion was approved unanimously.
Case No. 2011 -04. Special Use Permits for properties related to the Comprehensive Plan
rezoning. City of Stillwater, applicant. Continued from the June 13, 2011 meeting.
Mr. Turnblad introduced this case. He explained that to create consistency between the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map, 369 properties were recently rezoned. For nine of these
properties, the new zoning district classification allows the existing uses found on the properties
only by Special Use Permit (SUP). Therefore, the rezonings were approved but will not become
effective until the City approves Special Use Permits for each of the properties.
These nine properties are found in three separate areas of the City. Special Use Permits are being
requested for each of the nine properties identified. More information is included in the maps and
reference table that can be found in the packet.
1. North Owens Street
a. 1203 N Owens (Map ID #58) is a 36 unit apartment complex on property rezoned from
RB, Two - Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential.
2. North 3rd Street
a. 209 N 3rd Street (Map ID #5) is a single family home on property rezoned from PA,
Public Administration/ Institutional to RCM, Medium Density Residential.
b. 215 N 3rd Street (Map ID #4) is a single family home on property rezoned from PA,
Public Administration/ Institutional to RCM, Medium Density Residential.
3. South Greeley Street
a. 1601 S Greeley (Map ID #374) is a single family home on property rezoned from RA,
Single Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential.
b. 1602 S Greeley (Map ID #376) is a single family home on property rezoned from RB,
Two - Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential.
c. 1603 S Greeley (Map ID #370) is a single family home on property rezoned from RB,
Two - Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential.
6
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission July 11, 2011
d. 1609 S Greeley (Map ID #369) is a single family home on property rezoned from RB,
Two - Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential.
e. 1048 W Orleans (Map ID #377) is a duplex on property rezoned from RB, Two -
Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential.
f. 1656 S Greeley has two uses. The first use is a single family home on property
rezoned from RB, Two - Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential.
The second use is a non - conforming towing service. Rezoning the property from RB to
RCM has no impact on the non - conforming status of the towing service, since it is not a
conforming use in either zoning district.
The Planning Commission may grant Special Use Permits when the following findings are made:
The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of
the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful City Code Ch. 31 -1, Subd. 30(1)d.
A copy of the ordinance is included in the packet.
In each case the underlying reason for the Special Use Permit request is to create consistency
with the future land use classification of the property as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, this criterion is satisfied.
Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Since the
buildings and uses on all nine properties have been in existence for quite a while and staff is not
aware of complaints on any of them, no conditions are being suggested by staff.
The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the
community.
As mentioned above, each of the buildings have been in use for many years and public nuisance
issues do not seem to exist.
Staff recommends approving the Special Use Permits for all nine of the properties.
The public hearing was opened. No one was present who wished to speak, so the public hearing
was closed.
The Commission concurred that this is a good solution for these properties.
Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, moved to approve the proposed
special use permits as presented. Motion was approved unanimously.
7
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission July 11, 2011
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of Variance Review Criteria
Mr. Pogge drew the commission's attention to information handed out on variance review criteria,
and stated that staff will put together an ordinance amendment to conform with the new state
statute so that decisions are consistent.
In essence, the change is from a hardship criteria to a practical difficulty criteria. Previously it
had to be a hardship physically related to the property such as a topography issue. Now with
practical difficulty criteria, as long as the use is reasonable, a variance can be granted. The
guidelines are less stringent and more user friendly. The three criteria the City has been using to
grant variances will change in order to comply. Mr. Pogge explained that it is still not a use
variance, but rather a bulk regulation variance, as use variances are still not permitted in
Minnesota. The difference between a bulk regulation or dimensional standard is similar to a
setback from the front property line, or an area requirement. For example, we want houses to
have a porch to fit with the area in spite of the setback and dimension regulations, thus allowing
architectural vibrancy and variety. We need a zoning text amendment to make it a permissible
use so that all property owners live by the same regulations. Mr. Turnblad stressed that we want
reasonable requests to be approved, which is how the county does it (which came out of county
enabling legislation).
There being no further discussion, Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen,
moved to adjourn at 7:42 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Danielson
Interim Recording Secretary
8
Planning Commission
DATE: August 3, 2011 CASE NO.: 11 -17
APPLICANT: James and Jayne Bradshaw, The Bradshaw Group, Inc
REQUEST: A special use permit to allow the operation of an onsite Resomator
LOCATION: 2800 Curve Crest Blvd
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: C - Commercial
ZONING: CRD - Campus Research and Development
PC DATE: August 8, 2011
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner
REVIEWERS: Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
The Bradshaw Group, Inc. has made application for a SUP related to operating an on -site
Resomator (i.e. bio- crematory) at the Bradshaw Celebration of Life Center located at 2800
Curve Crest Blvd.
Briefly, unlike traditional cremations that use combustion, the bio- cremation process uses a
process known as alkaline hydrolysis. The alkaline hydrolysis process involves breaking
down organic molecules to their basic components using a combination of water, alkali,
heat, and pressure. At the end of the process bone fragments will remain and can be
returned to the bereaved similar to a traditional cremation. Additionally, unlike traditional
cremation there is little to no air emissions association with the bio- cremation process.
Nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2) and mercury vapor (Hg) emissions which are common with
traditional cremations are nonexistent with the bio - cremation process. The attached
material from The Bradshaw Group, Inc. provides additional information about the process
and plans for the use of it.
2800 Curve Crest Blvd
Page 2
SPECIFIC REQUESTS
In order to operate an onsite Resomator at the Bradshaw Celebration of Life Center located
at 2800 Curve Crest Blvd, the applicant will need the following approvals from the
Planning Commission:
1. A finding that the proposed onsite Resomator may be allowed with a special use
permit.
2. A special use permit to operating an on -site Resomator at the Bradshaw Celebration
of Life Center located at 2800 Curve Crest Blvd.
DISCUSSION
Same general character
Funeral homes and mortuaries are permitted in the CRD zoning district with a special use
permit. The original SUP for the Bradshaw Celebration of Life Center was for a funeral
home operation. The original SUP did not address the operation of a crematory on the site.
By definition, a funeral home and a mortuary include the preparation of the deceased for
burial or cremation, for the viewing of the body, and for funerals. The act of cremation is
not included in the common definition of a funeral home or a mortuary.
While traditional flame based cremation can cause the gaseous release of carbon dioxide
(CO2), nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2), mercury vapor (Hg), and other vapors, the bio -
cremation process has little to no gaseous releases. In fact, there are no smoke stacks or
exterior vents from the Resomator unit itself 2 . No exterior modifications to the existing
building is required. Finally, all discharges from the Resomator to the City's waste water
system is regulated by an industrial discharge permit issued by the Metropolitan Council
and as such is subject to periodic testing to ensure they within require discharge limits.
City Staff believes sufficient controls are in place to protect the present and potential use of
adjacent properties since there are no gaseous releases from the system, no exterior building
modifications, and the discharges will be periodically tested.
Therefore, the difference between a funeral home without onsite bio- cremation services and
one with onsite bio- cremation services would be negligible to most people. So staff
supports a finding that a funeral home with onsite bio- cremation services is of the same
general character as a funeral home and therefore allowable with a SUP.
' Stillwater City Code section 31 -322 (b)(2) allows the Planning commission to approved a use in the CRD district
by SUP that are similar to other uses specifically allowed by SUP in the zoning District and will not impair the
present or potential use of adjacent properties.
2 An external vent for a new water boiler that supplies hot water to the Resomator unit will be installed. The vent is
similar to a vent most water heaters have. The vent will either be incorporated into the existing venting stacks for
the building or vented out the side of the building. There will be no external vents from the actual Resomator unit
itself. Additionally, the space where the Resomator unit will located is currently not occupied by the general public.
Since family members can view the body being placed into the Resomator unit, a new air exchange unit is needed
for the space. This unit is similar to the air exchange units that exist in other public spaces in the building and
requires outside venting.
2800 Curve Crest Blvd
Page 3
Special Use Permit
If the Commission finds operating an on -site Resomator to be of the same general character
of a funeral home and that it would not impair the present or potential use of adjacent
properties, then the Commission could consider approving a SUP for the operation of a
Resomator.
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 use meets the requirements of the zoning code.
• The site currently complies with all other zoning code requirements.
(2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed.
• Plans will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials
before the issuance of a building permit.
• 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.
• The site shall comply with the City's noise ordinance.
• The Special Use Permit shall be reviewed before the Planning Commission
and City Council for revocation if substantiated complaints regarding the use
of the Resomator are received by the Community Development Director. The
determination to schedule a review of the special use permit shall rest with
the City Administrator.
• The site shall comply with the requirements of the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) Industrial Discharge Permit (permit). In the
future if the permit is amended by MCES then the property owner shall
submit a copy of the new permit to the Community Development Director
(CDD) within five business days for review. If in the opinion of the CDD the
new permit is a substantial change then the SUP shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
(3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public
welfare of the community.
• City staff from our engineering, public works, building, and planning
departments along with staff from the Metropolitan Council's Environmental
Services division have been reviewing the proposal for approximately a year.
Staff is satisfied that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts to our
systems and the Metropolitan Council has issued a permit for the proposal.
Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied with the proposed conditions.
2800 Curve Crest Blvd
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Find the proposed on -site Resomator to be of the same general character of other
uses allowed in the CRD zoning district and that the use will not impair the
present or potential use of adjacent properties. Approve a special use permit to
operate an on -site Resomator at the Bradshaw Celebration of Life Center located
at 2800 Curve Crest Blvd with the following conditions:
a. Plans will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building
officials before the issuance of a building permit.
b. 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.
c. The site shall comply with the City's noise ordinance.
d. The Special Use Permit shall be reviewed before the Planning
Commission and City Council for revocation if substantiated complaints
regarding the use of the Resomator are received by the Community
Development Director. The determination to schedule a review of the
special use permit shall rest with the City Administrator.
e. The site shall comply with the requirements of the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) Industrial Discharge Permit (permit). In
the future if the permit is amended by MCES then the property owner
shall submit a copy of the new permit to the Community Development
Director (CDD) within five business days for review. If in the opinion of
the CDD the new permit is a substantial change then the SUP shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
2. Find that the proposed on -site Resomator is not of the same general character as
other uses allowed in the CRD zoning district and that the use will impair the
present or potential use of adjacent properties. Deny a special use permit to
operate an on -site Resomator at the Bradshaw Celebration of Life Center located
at 2800 Curve Crest Blvd. With a denial, the basis of the action needs to be given.
3. Continue the public hearing until the September 12, 2011 Planning Commission
meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request as conditioned.
June 17, 2011
Project Summary
It is the goal of The Bradshaw Group, Inc. to modify our SUP at 2800 Curve Crest Boulevard to
accommodate a Resomator which performs the process of Alkaline Hydrolysis (a.k.a.
Biocremation). Over the past number of years, the rate of cremation has increased dramatically
from 30% in the 1990's to over 50% today. During this time, Bradshaw has outsourced the
process of cremation; however, this has been a competitive disadvantage as more families ask
where the cremation takes place and whether their family member ever leaves our care. It has
become apparent that we must be able to handle this process internally as the families we serve
expect that we do so. It is important to note that Bradshaw provides cremation services to over
400 families per year.
At our Celebration of Life Center, we have consistently worked toward being as "green" and
environmentally responsible as possible through our use of geothermal heating and air
conditioning, GrassPave parking, management of our own water run -off, prairie grass
landscaping, etc. Installation of crematories into funeral homes has become commonplace and
expected however, as we have investigated possible crematory installation, we realized this has
serious drawbacks including high energy use, high CO2 emissions, and significant levels of
vaporized mercury which is becoming increasingly scrutinized here and in Europe. We believe
that adding a traditional /fire -based crematory would only continue a process which is
increasingly being seen as having a negative environmental impact. We became aware and
began to investigate a process that was added into Minnesota state law as a third form of
disposition in 2006 and was developed for human use by the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN.
The process is known as Alkaline Hydrolysis and also known as Biocremation, resomation,
aquamation, water cremation, and green cremation. The process uses water, heat, alkali
(potassium hydroxide), and pressure, to reduce a human body to skeletal remains and a sterile,
amber colored, translucent liquid. The process uses 85% Tess energy through reduction of
electric and gas usage compared to traditional fire based cremation, and has an equally large
reduction of emissions. There is a 300 -400X reduction in mercury and heavy metal emission.
Alkaline hydrolysis is seen as being far more green than cremation and arguably more than
burial as there is no untreated waste or chemicals released into the environment or
consumption of land.
We see this process as being consistent with the environmentally responsible design and intent
of the Celebration of Life Center and surrounding Bradshaw addition, and would have no impact
on our neighbors. Based our experience, we see a maximum increase of 3 cars per day to our
facility, however, there are no air emissions (outside of a small amount of CO2 for the steam
boiler), no odor using the Resomator (some other large scale machines have produced a slight
soapy odor which this unit does not), and no sound (machine operates at the same level as a
Bosch dishwasher). From a city standpoint, the process does release a liquid waste in to the
sanitary sewer system. The effluent has been extensively studied and has received a permit
from MetCouncil for waste water discharge. The effluent is sterile, has a viscosity similar to
water, and is translucent. The effluent is safe, as this process was originally developed to
neutralize some of the most resilient pathogens, some which were not even neutralized by fire -
based cremation. MetCouncil will provide ongoing monitoring of the effluent. The machine itself
is licensed through the Minnesota Department of Health, Mortuary Science division. Regarding
activity per day, there is °a ° maximum number°of cycles of 5, however we are basing our numbers
on 2 cycles per day which is assuming growth of our company, as our current case volume
would necessitate approximately 1 cycle per day or less.
Given approval of the process, installation and operation would begin in Fall of 2011. We feel
this process and service offering will be an asset and benefit to the community. Through a
series of focus groups conducted with people from Stillwater we found the process to be very
well received with a high number of people who would normally select cremation indicating they
would choose this for themselves or a family member. Given that Stillwater has a high
percentage of families who choose cremation and that the green image of this process matches
that of the Celebration of Life Center, we do believe this is a good fit.
We hope this overview is of help as you consider our request. Attached we have included
supporting material regarding the machine, the process, waste water permit, and our design
plans. Please tet us' know - if there is additional information that would be of help.
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Matthews Cremation
Columbarlum Department
Contact 1- 800 -327 -2831
Pete Musacchio: ext -133
or Cory Ffrench: ext -131
Many Types to Choose From
Bronze Faceplate",
Glass Faceplates. and
Granite Faceplate'
32'
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
T,
Matthews
CREMATION DIVISION
2045 Sprint Boulevard
Apopka, Florida 32703
I ICA
10'
32'
$
WATER O
SOFTNER
COMBO
CONDENSATE/
PREHEAT
TANK
16'
BIO— CREMATOR
HYD'..YSIS CHAMBER
ACCUMULATION TANK
1
DWG #:
O
V)
W E
s
BRADSHAW STILLWATER
PROPOSED SAMPLE
LAYOUT WITH
BIO- CREMATION EQUIPMENT
DATE: 12 -17 -10
DRAWN: Jarrod Gogel
APRVD:
DWG FILE:
Br
SCALE: 1"-1'
PLOT SCALE: 1:1
SHEET: 1 OF: 1
dshawStillwaterLayout
n oong g g.
The Resomator — General Specification
Model Number:
Overall Resomator Footprint:
Approximate dry weight (empty):
Approximate maximum weight:
Internal Chamber Length:
Internal Chamber Diameter:
Maximum Cadaver Weight:
Maximum Internal Temperature:
Maximum Operating Pressure:
Safety Valve Lift Pressure:
Door Lock Mechanism:
Heating Mechanism:
Heating Medium:
S750
2500Kg (5500 Ibs)
3300Kg (7275 Ibs)
2050mm (80 ")
746mm (29
180Kg (4001bs)
180 °C (355F) (May be limited by Pressure)
10 Bar (145 psi)
11 Bar (160 psi)
Quicklock pneumatic actuation
Internal coil
Steam
3070mm (120 ") x 1280mm (50 ")
nominal (1445mm (57 ") widest point) x
1940mm (76 ") tall
Cooling Mechanism: Internal coil
Cooling Medium: Cold water
Materials of Construction:
Wetted components: 316L Stainless Steel
Frame: 304 Stainless Steel
Recommended* Utility Requirements
Electricity:
Steam:
Water:
2
230V, 3 Phase, 60 Amp
300 Kg /hr @ 14 bar
(660 Ibs /hr @ 200psi)
25mm connection, 3 — 6 bar
(1" connection, 40 — 90 psi)
Vent: 75mm (3 ") with fan extraction to
atmosphere
Drain: 75mm (3 ") open drain with air
extraction
Modem: Dedicated direct dial phone line for
remote diagnostics
* The above requirements are recommended to allow the Resomator to complete
Resomation cycles as fast as is practical. Lesser requirements may be acceptable
but will result in slower Resomation cycles. Please consult Resomation Ltd if your
facility cannot offer the above utility requirement.
Background
Cremation of Human Remains:
A Comparison of Alkaline Hydrolysis versus Combustion
by Craig Sinclair, Engineering Manager - Resomation Ltd
The combustion of human remains is commonly known as cremation. It has served the funeral
industry well for the last 100 years or so and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
However, with a rapidly growing population and an ever increasing environmental awareness,
the time has arrived to consider other alternatives for the disposition of human remains.
At the forefront of this consideration is the process of "High Pressure Alkaline Hydrolysis ",
also known as Bio CremationTM. This technology was originally developed for the
decontamination and disposal of infected animal tissues and later reengineered to assist
teaching hospitals with the disposition of donated cadavers.
Today, the alkaline hydrolysis process has been perfected as a commercially viable alternative
to traditional cremation and burial. This article gives a basic description of the Bio Cremation
process and evaluates the various environmental, social and logistical aspects of the technology
in relation to traditional cremation.
Basic Description of the Process
Unlike traditional cremation which uses a combustion reaction to reduce the cadaver to bone
fragments, the Bio Cremation process utilizes a reaction known as alkaline hydrolysis. Due to
the extensive research and development to date, and the considerable knowledge attained
through studies in both Europe and North America, this article primarily considers high pressure
alkaline hydrolysis. Low pressure systems are also available but are generally deemed not to be
commercially viable as an alternative to cremation due to the significantly longer processing
times (up to 24 hrs), odor issues and lack of data /testing.
The alkaline hydrolysis process involves breaking down organic molecules to their basic
components using a combination of water, alkali, heat and pressure. The cadaver is placed
inside a stainless steel chamber which is then filled with water. A small amount of potassium
hydroxide alkali (KOH) is then added and the contents heated to around 350 °F. After a specified
period of time the vessel is cooled and emptied leaving behind bone fragments that can be
returned to the bereaved as with traditional cremation.
From start to finish the entire process is automated and controlled using a simple touch screen
operator interface and PLC. The liquid from the process is a sterile aqueous solution of basic
organic molecules and is directed to a water treatment facility, a topic covered in more detail
later in this document.
•
Emissions and Carbon Footprint
The primary disadvantage associated with the combustion reaction used in traditional cremation
is that it creates gaseous emissions, primarily in the form of carbon dioxide (CO which are
associated with global warming and climate change.
With growing awareness of climate change, regulators are coming under increased pressure to
reduce CO emissions in all areas of industry and as a result it has become more challenging to
gain planning permissions and operating permits for crematoria. Although there are CO
emissions resulting from the Bio Cremation TM process (generating steam for heating), these are
significantly Tess than for traditional cremation. In fact, looking at the both processes in their
entirety, a recent UK independent study concluded that the carbon footprint associated with
traditional cremation was approximately 4 times larger than that of Bio Cremation.
Other harmful emissions which can be created from the combustion of human remains include
nitrogen oxides (NO and NO which again contribute to climate change and, of particular
concern in recent times, mercury vapor (Hg). Although less popular today, mercury has
historically been a main component of the amalgam used in dental fillings. When exposed to the
combustion temperatures involved in cremation this mercury will vaporize and travel into the
atmosphere where it will mix with water vapor, cool, condense, and fall to the earth as rain.
Recent studies have shown that even trace amounts of mercury can contaminate lakes and
rivers and have toxic effects on fish and other animals or humans who consume them. In many
parts of Europe this has led to the compulsory introduction of expensive filtration equipment to
separate the mercury vapor from the other combustion gases prior to exiting the crematorium.
As for the Bio Cremation process, it operates at significantly lower temperatures than traditional
cremation which prevents the mercury from vaporizing. Instead the amalgam is separated from
the bone fragments in solid form at the end of the process.
As a result of the factors mentioned above the Bio Cremation technology has the potential to be
installed in built -up commercial and /or residential areas without creating a nuisance or hazard to
the surrounding population, something which would be strictly forbidden with traditional
cremation due to strict zoning regulations.
Energy Consumption
Due to the high temperatures involved in traditional cremation (approximately 1500° — 1800 °F),
and the need to pre -heat the cremator chamber, it can be a highly energy intensive process. In
contrast, the Bio Cremation chamber does not have a pre- heating requirement and operates at
significantly lower temperatures (approximately 350 °F). Studies have indicated that the
combined electrical and gas energy requirement for the Bio Cremation process is approximately
85% less than traditional cremation.
Based on a rate of 40 cremations /month and natural gas consumption figures taken from an
independent environmental study, the cost savings on gas achieved by adopting Bio
Cremation TM over traditional cremation are in the region of $1,700 - $2,220 per month.
Efficacy and Sterilization
Both alkaline hydrolysis and high temperature combustion have been proven to be highly
efficacious in the destruction of all pathogens, bacteria and viruses. Studies have shown that
the corresponding wet and dry heats and exposure times involved in both processes ensure that
the resultant products from each are sterile.
TSEs /Prions
Unlike other kinds of infectious disease which are spread by microbes, the infectious agent in
TSEs is a specific protein called the prion protein. This makes them notoriously difficult to
destroy /inactivate as they can survive much harsher conditions. Some examples of TSEs are
BSE in cattle, Scrapie in sheep and CJD in humans.
The most common method for the destruction of TSE infected material is incineration
(combustion). However in the last 10 to 15 years there have been numerous papers written by
leading scientists in both the UK and the US stating that alkaline hydrolysis is a suitable
alternative treatment in the destruction of TSE's. In Europe extensive research was
commissioned by the European Scientific Steering Committee and carried out over a number
years at the Roslin Institute in Scotland, one of the top research centers globally in this field.
Dr. David Taylor, a world leading expert in the field of TSE contamination, and a team of other
researchers concluded that alkaline hydrolysis at elevated temperature and pressure was
indeed a suitable method for the destruction of prion infected material. This is reflected in the
official EU Animal By- Products Regulation (92/2005 amendment to 1774/2002) which lists
alkaline hydrolysis as an acceptable method for the treatment of Category 1 (confirmed and
high risk TSE) material. The USDA APHIS (United States Department of Agriculture Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service) also recognizes alkaline hydrolysis as an approved method for
the disposal of prion infected material and in some cases has documented this as the preferred
method to be applied.
Liquid
During a traditional cremation the combustion gases are emitted into the atmosphere. Once in
the atmosphere much of this gas will mix with water vapor, cool, condense into liquid and fall as
rain. During a Bio Cremation, the hydrolyzed liquid produced is typically sent to a water
treatment facility. This liquid contains no DNA or genetic material but instead is a simple bio-
chemical mix of small organic molecules.
Due to the nature of its origins, this liquid is obviously significantly higher in organic content
(known as Biological Oxygen Demand or BOD) than the typical material flowing into the water
treatment facility and is also typically higher in alkalinity (pH). Historically, when alkaline
hydrolysis has been used on a larger scale in veterinary schools and research laboratories it
has proven difficult on occasions to obtain permission from the water authorities to receive this
liquid. However, where permission has been granted it has also been proven to have little or no
effect on the operation of the water treatment facility.
In addition, given the process developments achieved in the new Bio Cremation TM system and
the fact that the process is taking place on a smaller scale, the liquid produced from the Bio
Cremation process will be less concentrated and of a much smaller volume than that of previous
animal systems. As a result this liquid will not have any impact on an average sized water
treatment facility. In addition the alkalinity (pH) of the liquid can be reduced to any desired level
prior to discharge. The fact that the starting material is a human cadaver, rather than infected
research animals will certainly make water authorities more amenable to accepting this liquid.
The viscosity of the alkaline hydrolysis liquid from animal systems has been an area of concern
from water treatment companies in the past. It is essential that the liquid going to the treatment
plant does not impede the flow through the pipes in any way. This concern has been raised due
to the fact that older animal alkaline hydrolysis systems used sodium hydroxide (NaOH) as the
alkali in the process which often resulted in a highly viscous liquid. As mentioned above, the
newer Bio Cremation systems use potassium hydroxide instead of sodium hydroxide which
prevents this viscous liquid being formed. In 2009 United Utilities (one of the largest water
companies in the UK) carried out tests on the liquid derived from a potassium hydroxide based
Bio Cremation. These tests demonstrated that there are no issues with viscosity and /or gelling
of the liquid even when added to cold, raw sewage.
In remote locations or where it is not possible or desired to release to the water treatment plant
there are other potential routes for the liquid. It can be collected and sent to an anaerobic
treatment plant where it will be converted into a soil nutrient for land application and biogas for
green energy production. This option has many benefits for the environment and is likely to
become more popular as the anaerobic treatment technology becomes more available across
the US. There is also the potential to apply the liquid directly onto cemetery/memorial gardens
to fertilize the ground as the liquid is rich in potassium, nitrogen and phosphorus, the nutrients
essential for plant life. However further research is required for this option to determine where it
may be suitable, in what quantities and the benefits /overall environmental impact.
Worker Safety
Worker safety is a key consideration for all employers and crematoria operators are no different.
The primary dangers associated with traditional cremation are exposure to the extreme heat
and light (infrared /UV) involved in the process as well the potential to inhale harmful
dust/emissions. These workers are supplied with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as
heatproof gloves, face shields and dust masks and given the necessary training to use the
equipment safely.
Similarly, workers in a Bio Cremation TM facility will also be required to be trained in the safe use
of the equipment and given suitable PPE chemical resistant gloves and aprons to protect them
from exposure to alkali.
Potentially dangerous chemicals are used in many industries and must always be treated with
care and all OSHA guidelines followed regarding spill procedures, Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDS) etc. However, as the Bio- Cremation unit is fully automated, manual handling of the
alkali is not required at any time during normal operation and when the alkali supply does need
to be replenished this can often be carried out by the supplier, not the equipment operator.
Materials That Can Be Processed
The Bio Cremation technology generally does not allow for synthetic fabrics to be processed.
Therefore the bodies of the deceased are dressed in respectful gowns made from organic fibers
such as silk or wool.
Unlike traditional cremation, pacemakers do not have to be removed prior to the process and
medical implants such as titanium hip or knee joints are not damaged or charred in any way.
Another advantage of Bio Cremation is that items of jewelry can be recovered in pristine
condition following the process.
Remains
In traditional cremation the body is converted to bone fragments via the process of combustion.
It is then crushed and returned to the bereaved.
Similarly, in Bio Cremation the body is also converted to bone fragments and is crushed and
returned to the bereaved in exactly the same way. The only difference is that bio- cremated bone
fragments have a smaller particle size and are pure white in color.
Caskets
Unlike traditional cremation a wooden casket is not used in the Bio Cremation process. Instead
a silk or wool container is preferred offering a sustainable option for the environment and further
reducing carbon emissions to the atmosphere.
As with traditional cremation a wooden rental /transfer casket can be used for the purposes of
the ceremony and viewing.
Funeral Ceremony
There is little change, if any in the funeral service for a Bio CremationTM versus traditional
cremation. Both are dignified and respectful. The differences between the two processes only
occur after the body is committed from public view.
Costs
In North America the capital cost of a Bio- cremation unit can be significantly greater than that of
a traditional cremator.
In Europe, where mercury filtration is mandatory, the cost of the Bio- Cremation is typically less
than that of traditional cremator plus filtration equipment.
Overall operating costs for the Bio- cremation unit are expected to be similar, if not less than that
of a traditional cremator.
Company Information
Resomation Ltd was formed in Scotland in early 2007 to promote Resomation as a real alternative to
burial and cremation. The basic technology behind the resomation process has been well established
for many years. However, the vision of Resomation Ltd, to make the process widely available to all is
relatively new. Resomation Ltd have expanded and developed the resomation process to make it
useable and potentially available to all.
Resomation Ltd
Resomation Ltd 1 25 Honeywell Avenue 1 Glasgow, Scotland 1 G33 6HS
+44 (0)141 882 3868 1 craigsinclairt7a.resomation.com 1 www.resomation.com
vA Metropolitan Council
U
May 18, 2011
Bradshaw Celebration of Life Center
2800 Curve Crest Blvd
Stillwater, MN 55082
RE: INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE PERMIT NUMBER 1504
FOR FACILITY LOCATED AT 2800 Curve Crest Blvd
Stillwater, MN 55082
ATTN: Jason Bradshaw
TRANSMITTED HEREWITH is the Industrial Discharge Permit for the above referenced facility. This
Permit has been issued by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for the period specified, and it
supersedes any temporary or draft permit which may exist. The discharge of Industrial Waste into the
Metropolitan Disposal System is hereby allowed, subject to any and all provisions of the Waste
Discharge Rules for the Metropolitan Disposal System, and this Permit.
THE INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE PERMIT contains Discharge Limitations, Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements, General Permit Conditions, Specific Permit Conditions, and a Compliance Schedule (if
necessary). Any failure to submit the required Industrial Waste Discharge Reports, or any reports
required by a Compliance Schedule, is a violation of this Permit. The Permit Number shall be included
on all correspondence regarding this Permit.
THE PERMITTEE is reminded that renewal of this Permit is not automatic; the Permittee must apply
for renewal at least 60 days prior to the Permit expiration date. If questions arise, contact Peter
Berglund at (651) 602 -4708 or via email at peter.berglund@metc.state mn.us.
Sincerely,
2 4/. 2 44}
Leo H. Hermes, P.E.
Industrial Waste Manager
MCES Industrial Waste Section
www.metrocouncil.org
Environmental Services
390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101 -1805 • (651) 602 -1005 • Fax (651) 602 -1477 • TTY (651) 291 -0904
An Equal Opportunity Employer
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
(MCES)
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE PERMIT
Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473 as amended and the Waste Discharge
Rules for the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) permission is hereby granted to
Bradshaw Celebration of Life Center
2800 Curve Crest Blvd
Stillwater, MN 55082
for the discharge of Industrial Waste into public sewers within the community of Stillwater tributary to
the Metropolitan Council's Saint Croix Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant.
This permit is granted in accordance with the application filed on November 23, 2010 and in
consideration of the plans, specifications, and data contained in the application.
Discharge Limitations, Monitoring and Reporting Requirements, Compliance Schedules, General
Permit Conditions, and Specific Permit Conditions are contained in following sections of this Permit.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 2011
EXPIRATION DATE: April 30, 2014
Issued by METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Page 1 of 11
Permit No. 1504
1
General Manager, or duly authorized representative Date
Keith J. Buttleman, Assistant General Manager
Environmental Quality Assurance Department
Sample Location
Parameter
Standard
(mg /L)
SP -01
Accumulation Tank
Cadmium
1.3
Sampling Port
Chromium
7.7
Copper
5.1
Cyanide, total
5.1
Lead
1.3
Mercury
0.003
Nickel
7.7
Zinc
7.7
pH Max (Std. Units)
11.0
pH Min (Std. Units)
5.0
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
A. Discharge Limitations
1. Local Pretreatment Standards
The following Discharge Limits are based on Local Pretreatment Standards applicable
to the total facility discharge, including non - process waste streams. See Attachment A.
These Discharge Limits apply directly at the monitoring point specified in Section B.1.
of this permit. Any difference between these limits and the Local Pretreatment
Standards listed in Attachment A is due to adjustment of the limits based on the ratio of
total facility discharge volume to monitoring point discharge volume.
Discharge Limits at Sample Location(s):
Local pretreatment standards for metals and cyanide are the maximum for any 24 hour period.
pH standards are continuous and apply at all times.
2. Prohibited Waste Discharges
Page 2 of 11
Permit No. 1504
Prohibited wastes are specified in Waste Discharge Rule 406 and include, but are not
limited to the following: (a) Flammable, explosive and corrosive wastes, gasoline, fuel
oil, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, motor oil, or grease; (b) Wastes that are likely to
obstruct the flow within public sewers: grease, fat or oil of animal or vegetable origin,
solid wastes, garbage, guts, bones, ash, sand, rags, lime, metal, wood, plastic, glass, or
yard wastes; (c) Wastes that are likely to cause interference, pass - through, or
operational problems: slug discharges, toxic chemicals, poisons, dyes, or inks; (d)
Wastes that are likely to cause a public nuisance: noxious, malodorous, or foam
producing substances; (e) Hazardous wastes, as defined by Minnesota Statutes; and (f}
Wastes generated outside of the Metropolitan Area.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
B. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
i) Monitoring Point:
Page 3of11
Permit No. 1504
1. Following is the specific monitoring point location, sample collection frequency, volume
determination, sample compositing, and the calculation methods required by this Industrial
Discharge Permit. Representative wastewater samples shall be collected at each sampling
point (SP) by the Permittee in accordance with these requirements and Waste Discharge
Rules 212, 213, and 215. These samples shall be collected once each reporting period on
normal operating days.
See Permit Section F (Compliance Schedule) for additional monitoring requirements.
SP -01: The sampling port on the alkaline hydrolysis process accumulation tank. The
accumulation tank shall be well mixed at the time of sampling.
Collection Frequency:
A minimum of one grab sample shall be collected during each discharge cycle (each
body processed) on the monitoring day.
iii) Volume Determination:
Total wastewater volumes for the monitoring day and reporting period shall be
determined by the incoming city water meter minus the lawn irrigation city deduct
water meter. Industrial wastewater volumes shall be the volume as recorded by sensors
on the process equipment. Lawn irrigation deduct volumes shall be determined by the
lawn deduct water meter. Domestic wastewater volumes shall be based on the
incoming water volume minus the lawn deduct water volumes and minus the industrial
wastewater volumes.
iv) Compositing Method:
All grab samples (if there were multiple discharge cycles) from an operating day shall
be combined using an equal volume from each discharge cycle to form one composite
sample.
Results from the analysis of the daily single grab sample, or the composite sample
shall be compared to Discharge Limits listed in Section A.1. for compliance
determinations.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
B. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements (continued)
Page 4 of 11
Permit No. 1504
Estimation of Total Facility Discharge Characteristics:
The MCES Strength Charge is based on total facility concentrations for Chemical
Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids, and the total facility discharge volume
for each reporting period. The Permittee may calculate the strength characteristics to
estimate the applicable Strength Charge as follows:
The total facility strength characteristics may be determined by mathematically
factoring together the analytical results for the process wastewater and domestic
wastewater characteristics. Domestic wastewater is assumed to contain 500 mg/L
Chemical Oxygen Demand, and 250 mg/L Total Suspended Solids. The domestic
waste volumes are calculated using the method described in B.1.iii. above. The
reporting period process and domestic wastewater volumes shall be used for
mathematical factoring to compute the total facility strength characteristics.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
2. Parameters
Chemical analysis, in accordance with Waste Discharge Rule 216, of the sample(s)
representing the waste discharged through the specified monitoring point(s), shall be
performed for the following parameters:
pH and Temperature of each grab sample;
Chemical Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids, and Mercury of the grab sample, or the
composite sample if multiple grabs are composited.
3. Reporting Requirements
a. The Permittee shall submit a complete Industrial Waste Discharge Report 1 time per year,
according to the following schedule:
C. Compliance Schedule
Reporting Period
January 1 — December 31
Section F
Report Due in
MCES office by
January 30
b. Permittees subject to EPA Categorical Pretreatment Standards shall submit an EPA
Categorical Compliance Report with each Industrial Waste Discharge Report.
Page 5 of 11
Permit No. 1504
The Permittee shall install additional pretreatment equipment and/or conduct necessary
operation and maintenance to comply with the Discharge Limitations in accordance with the
schedule set forth in:
D. General Permit Conditions
1. All discharges into public sewers by the Permittee shall be in accordance with applicable
provisions of the Waste Discharge Rules for the MDS and this Permit.
2. The Permittee shall not knowingly make any false statement, representation or certification in
any record, report, plan or other document submitted to MCES.
3. This Permit shall not release the Permittee from any liability, duty or penalty imposed by local,
state or federal statutes, regulations, ordinances or license requirements regarding waste
disposal.
Page 6 of 11
Permit No. 1504
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
4. The Permittee shall take all reasonable precautions to minimize all accidental discharges
including prohibited slugs, spills, and bypasses. Plans for the prevention and control of
accidental discharges shall be submitted to the Industrial Waste Section for approval within a
specified period of time when required by MCES. In the event of any significant accidental
discharge, spill, or bypass, the Permittee shall IMMEDIATELY notify the Minnesota
State Duty Officer at (651) 649 -5451 and report the facility address, and other pertinent
information.
In accordance with Waste Discharge Rule 412, the Permittee shall post a permanent notice on
an employee bulletin board or other prominent place advising employees how to notify the
Minnesota State Duty Officer in the event of an accidental or prohibited slug discharge.
5. The Permittee shall notify the Industrial Waste Section within 24 hours of becoming aware of
any violation of the Discharge Limitations in Section A. of this Permit.
6. The Permittee shall pay applicable Permit fees, Strength Charges and self - monitoring report
late fees assessed by MCES.
7. In accordance with Waste Discharge Rule 211, the Permittee shall not assign or transfer an
Industrial Discharge Permit to a new owner, or a new location, without the written approval of
MCES. The Permittee shall provide a copy of this Permit to the new owner.
8. In accordance with Waste Discharge Rule 214, the Permittee shall allow MCES personnel to
enter the Permittee's premises for the purposes of inspection, monitoring, records review and
other actions, as necessary, to verify information received by MCES and to determine
compliance with the Waste Discharge Rules and this Permit.
9. The Permittee shall retain its waste disposal records, in accordance with Waste Discharge Rule
214, for a period of not less than three years.
10. The analytical results for all wastewater monitoring conducted during each reporting period, at
the monitoring point(s) specified in this Permit or at points representing the industrial
discharge through the monitoring point(s), including in -house sampling and analysis, shall be
submitted with each Industrial Waste Discharge Report. All analytical results shall include the
operating day discharge volume. Permittees conducting more than one sampling event, in
accordance with Permit requirements in Section B, during a reporting period, shall compute an
arithmetic average for all parameters subject to EPA Categorical Pretreatment Standards. The
average operating day discharge volume shall also be included. For pH, the minimum and
maximum value in the range of measured values shall also be listed.
Permit No. 1504
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
11. If applicable, the Permittee shall install, operate, and maintain sampling and monitoring
devices in proper working order at the Permittee's expense.
12. The Permittee shall notify the Industrial Waste Section at least 60 days prior to making
changes, such as:
• moving, adding, or replacing processes or equipment, or
• modification of the wastewater monitoring point, or
• installation or modification of wastewater pretreatment equipment, or
• any other operational changes that would significantly affect the volume or
characteristics of the wastewater discharged.
This Permit shall then be subject to modification or re- issuance in accordance with Waste
Discharge Rules 206 -209.
Page 7of11
13. The Permittee shall be subject to civil liability as a result of discharges which violate the Waste
Discharge Rules, applicable federal pretreatment standards or requirements, or any requirement
or condition contained in this Permit. Further, any violation may also result in the Permittee
being subject to civil and /or criminal penalties in the amount of $1,000 per day, 90 days
imprisonment, or both.
Page 8 of 11
Permit No. 1504
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
E. Specific Permit Conditions
1. Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) is a "connection" fee levied by MCES since 1973 for new
connections or increased volume discharged to the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS). For
industrial purposes, one SAC unit equals 274 gallons of maximum normal daily wastewater
flow volume for process areas and maximum potential flow volume for commercial areas.
MCES will be evaluating the SAC history for this facility in the near future to determine SAC
Iiability, if any.
2. The Permittee shall take appropriate measures to ensure that all wastewater resulting from the
alkaline hydrolysis process is properly neutralized to a pH between of 5.0 and 11.0 Standard
Units, prior to discharge.
3. The Permittee shall take appropriate measures to ensure that the temperature of all wastewater
resulting from the alkaline hydrolysis process is less than 150 degrees Fahrenheit, prior to
discharge.
4. The Permittee shall not use sodium hydroxide (NaOH), and shall use potassium hydroxide
(KOH) as the alkaline hydrolysis chemical.
5. If the Permittee tests its new processing equipment and generates wastewater, with or without
the use of KOH, the Permittee shall notify MCES a minimum of 14 days prior to such testing.
If KOH is used during the testing, the pH of each test run shall be measured, recorded, and
reported to MCES.
6. The Permittee shall not discharge bone shadow material, medical devices, dental amalgam,
mechanical implants, plates, screws, prosthetics, pacemakers, defibrillators, or any other solids
that are expressly prohibited by this Permit or the Waste Discharge Rules.
7. The Permittee shall ensure that any material exhibiting a half -life or having radioactive
properties are in compliance with limitations and requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and any other applicable local, state or federal
statutes, regulations, ordinances or license requirements.
8. The days in which self- monitoring is conducted shall be selected as to produce representative
samples of the process discharge occurring during the reporting period.
3
Page 9of11
Permit No. 1504
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
F. Compliance Schedule
Task Task Completion Date
1. The Permittee shall complete and submit to MCES an July 15, 2011
accurate and complete Spill Control Plan.
(See Attachment B on page 11).
2. In addition to the routine monitoring requirements, the 21 days after
Permittee shall collect and analyze samples in accordance the initial third
with the Monitoring and Reporting Requirements in Section day of alkaline
B. for the initial three operating days in which bodies are hydrolysis
processed. The analytical results shall be submitted to MCES processing
within 21 days after the third day of operation. These results
may be used to fulfill the routine sampling requirements for
the corresponding reporting period.
Attachment A
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MDS Limitations on Discharges
1. Local Pretreatment Standards
(Applicable to the total facility discharge)
Parameter
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium — total (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Cyanide — total (CN)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Zinc (Zn)
pH — maximum (Std. Units)
pH — minimum (Std. Units)
Standard
(mg/L)
1.0
6.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
0.002
6.0
6.0
11.0
5.0
Permit No. 1504
Local pretreatment standards for metals and cyanide are the maximum for any 24 hour
period.
pH standards are continuous and apply at all times.
Page 10 of 11
s
Attachment B
Page 11 of 11
Permit No. 1504
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Spill Control Plan Requirements:
1. A list of the name(s), titles, and phone numbers (office and home) of the persons
assigned to coordinate spill response actions.
2. A general description (including volumes) of stored chemicals and process tanks. Also,
describe areas where chemicals are transferred or pumped.
3. A description of controls and procedures to prevent the entry of chemicals, other
materials or wastes into the sewer. Examples of such controls are: dikes, permanently
sealed floor drains, specialized valves, and procedures and record keeping related to
routine facility inspections. Also, note other procedures or equipment (if any) used for
emergency response.
4. A description of procedures for immediate MCES notification, in the event of a spill.
For example, post the Minnesota State Duty Officer at (651) 649 -5451 spill phone
numbers in numerous locations. Also, a description of employee training regarding
MCES notification, in -house notification, and other emergency response action.
5. As part of the revised EPA General Pretreatment Regulations requirements, the spill
plan should also include a list of periodic batch discharges that may constitute a "slug"
discharge to the MCES treatment plant or cause your facility discharge or the MCES
treatment plant discharge to violate standards. Therefore, if you conduct batch
discharges of wastes, you must include them as part of your spill plan.
All "significant" quantities of chemicals must be included in the spill plan. What is considered a
significant quantity will vary, case by case; however, if you are storing chemicals such as solvents,
oils, acids, caustics, dyes, or concentrated metal bearing solutions in containers equal to, or greater
than 5 gallons, then you must include these in your plan. This volume also applies to facility areas
where these types of materials or wastes are pumped or transferred in or out of containers. If you store
a raw material or product such as corn syrup, milk, etc., in tanks of 500 gallons or more, you must
include this in your spill plan. Large volumes of materials which seem harmless have the potential to
overwhelm the biological treatment process of a wastewater treatment plant and must be included in
any spill plan. A pre- existing spill plan may be used to fulfill this requirement, if it is current and if it
addresses the five elements above.
Please note that, in the event of a spill or uncontrolled discharge, you may be held liable for damages
to the collection system, and the wastewater treatment plant, and for enforcement action taken against
MCES by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the U.S. EPA.
BACKGROUND
SPECIFIC REQUESTS
.a ter
►�w
!'A'NAA rf Q! Ma NNE.ti4fA
Planning Commission
DATE: August 3, 2011
REQUEST: Variances to allow construction of new home
APPLICANT: Jennifer Cates Peterson, Cates Fine Homes
LAND OWNER: K.C. Kidder
LOCATION: 502 N 5th Street
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LMDR, Low /Medium Density Residential
ZONING: RB, Two - Family Residential
HEARING DATE: August 8, 2011
PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Directory i .
CASE NO.: 2011 -19
K.C. Kidder proposes to demolish the vacant house at 502 North 5th Street and replace it with
a new house that would be constructed by Cates Fine Homes. The Heritage Preservation
Commission has approved a demolition permit for the existing home and design permit for
the new home, both approvals with the condition that they will become effective only if the
Planning Commission approves the related variances.
In order to construct the new home as proposed, street and bluffline setbacks would be
necessary.
Cates Fine Homes has requested the following variances on behalf of their client K. C. Kidder:
1. A one foot setback variance from the North 5th Street right -of -way in order to allow
the porch of the house to be constructed 19 feet from the right -of -way, whereas a
minimum setback distance of 20 feet is required. (See attached site plan.)
2. A 20 foot setback variance from the West Cherry Street right -of -way in order to
allow the side loaded attached garage to be constructed 10 feet from the right -of-
way, whereas a minimum setback distance of 30 feet is required.
Kidder Variances
Page 2
3. An eight foot setback variance from the North 5th Street right -of -way in order to
allow the garage to be constructed two feet back from the front porch of the house,
whereas the minimum setback distance from the front of the house for the garage is
required to be 10 feet.
4. A 32 foot setback variance from the West Cherry Street right -of -way in order to
allow the attached garage to be constructed 10 feet from the right -of -way, whereas
the required 10 foot offset from the front of the house would mean the minimum
setback from the right -of -way would be 42 feet.
5. A four foot setback variance from the McKusick Ravine bluffline in order to allow
the house to be constructed 26 feet from the bluffline, whereas a minimum setback
distance of 30 feet is required.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
A house has existed on the subject property for a century. Furthermore, its existence has not
created known physical difficulties for surrounding properties or City improvements. So, it
seems reasonable to allow the modestly sized replacement house on the property as well,
especially since the new house would be further from 5th Street and further from the McKusick
Ravine bluffline that the existing house. And, the attached garage would maintain the same
setback from the Cherry Street right -of -way as the existing house.
Pertinent to the discussion is the lack of a garage on the property. Over the last century since
the existing house was constructed, a garage has become so common place as to be expected
for new single family homes in Minnesota. Unfortunately, a combination of zoning
regulations precludes the construction of a garage on this property. The zoning of the lot
requires a garage to be 10 feet further back from a street right -of -way than the wall of the
house that is parallel to that right -of -way. So on a corner lot such as this one, a garage would
have to be in the back yard. But to complicate the situation, no building is allowed in the back
yard because it would be located within the required bluffline setback area. Consequently, the
combination of requirements prohibits the landowner from having a garage without a
variance.
The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria
below.
1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical
difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that
the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted,
will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone
do not constitute a "practical difficulty ".
a. Is the request reasonable?
Both the house and the attached garage are of very modest size. The
setbacks from 5th Street and from the McKusick Ravine bluffline would
both be greater than the existing house currently have. The setback
from the platted right -of -way of Cherry Street (unimproved except for a
Kidder Variances
Page 3
private driveway) would continue to be the same as the existing house.
Therefore, staff finds the requested variances to be reasonable.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property?
There may be no other intersection in Stillwater with the same
set of physical limitations as those found at North 5th and West Cherry
Streets. Though West Cherry is a platted public street it is not improved
as a street, nor will the block west of 5th likely ever be improved as an
actual street. None the less, since it is platted as a road, the garage
setbacks apply to it the same as they do to 5th Street. The result is that
even though this section of Cherry Street will never have a streetscape
to protect, the streetscape protection rule of increasing the garage
setback 10 feet beyond the building line still applies. This forces the
garage into the back yard.
But to make the set of circumstances even more unique, the back
yard is unbuildable because it lies within the McKusick Ravine bluffline
protection setback area.
Therefore, staff finds the circumstances to be unique.
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
The landowner did not create the set of circumstances associated with
the property.
d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?
The variance would not alter the essential character of the immediate
neighborhood. All of the houses on North 5th Street south of Laurel
have front setbacks of less than 20 feet. This can be seen in the attached
neighborhood map. Except for the house directly across the street from
the subject property, every front setback is considerably less than the 19
feet requested by K.C. Kidder.
e. Is the lone consideration an economic one?
The major consideration is about allowing the property to continue to
have reasonable usefulness.
2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive
Plan.
a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being
requested?
The two major setback types at play in this request are intended to
protect the McKusick Ravine with a buffer area and to preserve the
early 20th Century streetscape. If the required 20 foot setback from the
5th Street right -of -way to the porch is maintained, the 22 foot deep house
and garage would be pushed a foot closer to the ravine. Since no other
house in the immediate neighborhood has a setback of more than 19 feet
from 5th Street, it makes sense to match that setback and maximize the
protective buffer for the ravine bluffline.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning
Code?
No, it would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. Since
Cherry Street is not improved, there is no streetscape to protect there.
Moreover, the proposed setback of the new house and garage would
Kidder Variances
Page 4
exceed that of the existing house on the lot and also meet or exceed the
front setback of every house on 5th Street between Laurel and the
McKusick Ravine.
c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan?
No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The
lot size is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use plan for
the neighborhood, and the environmental protection highlighted by the
Comprehensive Plan will be respected by the proposed improvements
to the property.
3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the
zoning district in which the subject property is located.
ALTERNATIVES
The property is zoned RB, Two - Family Residential. The proposed use of the
property would be a new single family house with an attached garage. Both
single family and two- family houses are permitted in the RB Zoning District.
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve all or part of the requested variances.
2. Deny all of the requested variances.
3. Table the variance requests for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff finds the variance review criteria to be satisfied and therefore recommends approval
as requested.
attachments: Zoning and Location Map
Site Plan
Neighborhood Map
Application materials
Case No. 2011 -19
Location & Zoning
Zoning Classifications
A -P, Agricultural Preservation
I RA- Single Family Residential
RB - Two Family
TR, Traditional Residential
LR, Lakeshore Residential
n CR. Cottage Residential
CTR. Cove Traditional Residential
- CCR. Cove Cottage Residential
CTHR. Cove Townhouse Residential
TH, Townhouse
RCM - Medium Density Residential
n RCH - High Density Residential
n VC. Village Commercial
Li CA - General Commercial
CBD - Central Business District
n BP -C, Business Park - Commercial
® BP -O. Business Park - Office
F - 1 BP -I. Business Park - Industrial
IB- Heavy Industrial
CRD - Campus Research Development
® PA - Public Administration
PROS - Park, Rec or Open Space
I Public Works Facility
ROAD
Railroad
I WATER
r��
iliwater
1NE BI.,NVl4CE
Case No. 2011 -19
502 N 5th St
OF MIMMk50,A Variances
,
Z
0
eir
25
21'
e� 5- Cr
Porch
-
19'
-
,
House
30' bluff setback line `'•,
.`
�'`�%
1
■
Top of bluff
(25% slope)
Garage
10
Existing house:
roof edge in grey
f
1
Case No. 2011 -19
502 N 5th St
Variances
7/04/2011 22:14 6 14 3 930
47/05/2011 tu:u4 r1u► osi .2. 2 .. -�
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPUCATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF STILlWATER
215 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 51012
ACTION REQUESTED
SpecieliCoaditionsi Use Permit .Zoning Amendment"
4( Variance _Kenning Unit Dsyslopment •
Certificate of Compliance
EubdivIsion' Lot A4 nt
— Camprehenei m Plan Arnen►dment'
An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of "homey and engineering fees. The fees for requested action ate MEOW
to this appkcedon.
Tho applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of sU forma and supporting material submitted in connection
with any application. Ap supp0Aing ms urlal (I e., photos, sketches .tc.) submitted wtlh application becomes tie cseporty Of
City of Stinasier. Sixteen (15) =piss of supporting maRefW we required, if implication lequlrrs City Council renew than a
total of twenty-elght (21) copfaa are required to De submitted, ReWow the awhile to the Planning Acherfordetistfon
App MC ton Paso Acr ebe complete Wet of asst et Kerns that must be submitted Any tr:aamolete gr
Re4Ulr$d - Ap vAl tie Pdicfsd
without a iepsl description. A legal dssetipUotw to found attire deed' "te the property. Attach as an e>rrlblt W
wry.
After Planning Commission approvals, there le a 10-day apps perfect. Once the 10-day appeal paned has ended, thar
applicant will receive a zoning use permit which trust be signed and submitted to tit. Obi to obtain t reed
building permits. PROPERTY IDIN1WICATIOht
Address of proje —__ Assessor's Parcel No.
`. Ir. sJ
- i
Complete Property Legal Description 411 I
(`Required - Applications wit be rejected without a legal description) Tax disc
the county are not arosptabfe.
Zoning Dblrici Deectiptbn of t'rojer t
1 hereby stets lira ooregoing statements acrd ell daft, srfon»etiton and **lance submitted herewith In ail respects, to the beat of
my lsontodpe end beat to be true and mood i hither co* 1**comply wait the permit 1' a is granted and used'
If outer thin rvperty
Properly Owner ..
• . 42.r Pepresaa!athro t) Q mk .. r c o e)
Milting Address Ar,33 n.1P' - . [.1.et Milling Address C °L-4-1.. S tttd
)
City - State - 2lp S}7 / a)) /'fl✓l S City • State - Zip ` • �� , AC Z
Telephone NO �
— ,t/ 7 g Telephone No.
Email ' it m all je n on t - f� fa. f� 1 f7 Kt ti s. ter '
Signature
CaDOcumE 7S AND SETTINGOWORINICIWCAL TnNG* LU I QO MY NTRithET
FuoCON7ENT ,OUTE0018103KIRRYwNN11PP4DOCF Jdy2Z.2010
WALT OGBURN PAGE 02
C ase No: -- __._,_.... —.
Debt Flied:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
SCALE 1" = 20 FEET
B L0
LOT
C K
5TH STREET N.
5
25
rertergrO,
1119,4044
15 30
LOT 16
TOP OF BLUFF
5
\ed
vz,
2000 industrial Blvd.
STILLWATER, MN 55082
T: 651.439.2844
DATE: June 15, 2011
TO: HPC Commission
FROM: Jennifer Cates Peterson
Cates Fine Homes
RE: 502 - 5th St N
F: 651.430.2922
Andersen Windows with wood grids
GAF 30 year architectural shingle
6" exposure Hardi board lap siding
Option- corrugated or standing seam metal roof on porch
(Otherwise to be asphalt shingle to match house)
Wood / cedar decking & railing system
Colors to be historic in nature
Flush masonite garage door
CATESFINEHOMES.COM
Please see the attached plans for the proposed new home to be built at 502 - 5th
St N. The following is a list of exterior materials that is currently being spec'd:
MN LIC# 20533260
IIIIIIIIIP
1111 1111
1
N
%•■•••=ir
i
0
0- 22
0
tpr
M
d
T
V
V
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission
DATE: August 4, 2011
REQUEST: Variances to allow for the construction of a new restroom facility
associated with the Downtown Pedestrian Walkway
APPLICANT: City of Stillwater
LAND OWNER: City of Stillwater
LOCATION: 180 Water St N
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use
ZONING: CBD - Central Business District
HEARING DATE: August 8, 2011
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planne,��
REVIEWERS: Community Development Director
CASE NO.: 2011 -20
The City of Stillwater is proposing to develop the new Pedestrian Walkway project in
Downtown Stillwater. The project will provide an attractive, multiuse pedestrian corridor
between North Main Street and Lowell Park at the Commercial Street intersection. The
Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed plans for the project at their August 1St meeting
and approved them with the condition that their approval becomes effective only if the
Planning Commission approves the related variances.
In order to construct the new restroom as proposed, three variances are necessary related to
front yard setbacks, building height, and floodplain requirements.
Pedestrian Walkway Project
Page 2
SPECIFIC REQUESTS
The City of Stillwater has requested the following variances:
1. A 9.5 foot setback variance from the front property line in order to allow the
restroom to be constructed 5.5 feet from the Water St N right -of -way, whereas a
minimum setback distance of 15 feet is required.
2. A 10.75 foot height variance to the minimum height requirements in the CBD
zoning district in order to construct a 14.25 foot tall restroom, whereas the
minimum height requirement is 2 stories or 25 feet.
3. A variance to the floodplain overlay district requirements in order to construct an
accessory structure (restroom building) in the floodplain. 716 square foot structure
requested, 500 square foot square foot maximum allowed.
EVALUATION OF REQUESTS
The concept of the Pedestrian Walkway first appeared in the 1992 Lowell Park Plan and was
detailed in the January 2004 North Main /Lowell Park Plan update. Later the City included
and funded a portion of the project in the 2006 CIP. The idea was further refined in the City's
2030 Comprehensive Plan. Mike Diem and Roger Tomten of ArchNet in Stillwater, provided
pro bono services to the city in the summer of 2010 that developed a more detailed concept
plan to help guide the City in the development of the Pedestrian Walkway. The City went out
with and RFP for design services in the fall of 2010 and selected a design team led by Sanders
Wacker Bergly for the project.
The design team held an open house on March 28, 2011 to review various concepts with the
public. Over 65 individuals from the community attended the March open house where the
plans were well received and their comments helped shape the final plans.
Since the first open house, the design team has been refining the plans and has reviewed the
plans with the Council, HPC, and Parks commission a total of 12 times. Input from these
meetings helped develop the plans to the final designs that are now before the commission.
Site Selection Background
During the planning process, three locations for the restroom building were considered. All
of the sites are located along the extension of Commercial Street. Regardless of the site, a
variance to the minimum height requirement is needed.
Site #1 is located approximately 75 feet east of Water Street. This site was eliminated since it
would be the first building located east of Water Street in this area. Additionally, the site has
a greater potential for flooding due to the lower ground elevation at this site compared to
other sites.
Site #2 is located immediately east of and adjacent to Main Street. While the site sits above
the regulatory flood protection elevation, it was eliminated due to potential impacts to the
Stillwater Commercial Historic District as listed on the National Register of Historic Places
and since the restroom would block critical views between Main Street and the St. Croix
River. This site would also require a variance to the front yard setback.
Pedestrian Walkway Project
Page 3
Site #3 is located in the S.W. corner of the new Pedestrian Walkway and immediately west of
and adjacent to Water Street. Site #3 was ultimately selected as the preferred option over the
two other site options.
Front Setback Requirement
In the CBD, the required front setback is 15 feet; however, if an adjacent existing building has
a lesser setback then the setback for the new building may is similar to the existing building.
Since there is no adjacent building to the building technically requires a 15 foot setback from
Water St N ROW is required. Moving the building to meet the require setback impacts the
openness of the walkway, the location of the pergola, and increases the likelihood that views
of the River from Main St will be impacted. For these reasons, the City is seeking a variance to
the required setback.
Height Standards
In this location there are both minimum and maximum height requirements. The minimum
height requirement is two stories or 25 feet while the maximum height requirement is three
stories or 37 feet. For purposes of the minimum height requirements, the building is
measured to the midpoint of the gable roof, which is 14.25 feet while for the maximum height
requirements the building is measured to the top of the gable which is 18 feet. If the City
would meet the minimum height requirement in this location additional views of the river
and Kolliner Park bluff line would be blocked.
Flood overlay district requirements
The base flood elevation (aka 1% annual change flood elevation or 100 -year flood elevation) at
this location is 692.6 feet. The regulatory flood protection elevation is one foot above base
flood elevation or 693.6 feet at this location. A provision in the Stillwater floodplain
ordinance allows a building to be built below the regulatory flood protection elevation if the
building is of "minimal investment ", is less than 500 square feet in size, and flood proofed to
the FP -3 or FP -4 as out lined in the Minnesota State Building Code.
The City will build the new restroom to the required flood proofing standards. Additionally,
as a non - habitable restroom building, it is the position of the City that the proposed restroom
building meets the requirements to be considered a building of "minimal investment ";
however, at 716 square feet in size, the building requires a variance to the maximum
allowable size. The City believes that the size of the proposed restroom is needed in order to
adequately serve the needs of the community. The City has discussed the proposed flood
overlay district variance with FEMA and the DNR and they have found the proposed
variance to be satisfactory.
Pedestrian Walkway Project
Page 4
The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria
below.
1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical
difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that
the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted,
will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone
do not constitute a "practical difficulty ".
a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner?
The restroom itself is a very modestly sized 716 square foot building
that serves the users of downtown Stillwater. With impacts to the
layout of the site, loss in parking, and impacts to view of the River from
Main St the proposal is reasonable.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property?
Building a public space for the benefit of the public is unique in
itself and balancing the needs of the area with the zoning code can be
difficult. Within the core of the historic district, it is critical to maintain
multistory buildings to avoid situations like the cosmopolitan bank
building. Outside of the core area a multi story building is less
important.
Balancing the needs of the floodplain overlay district with other
considerations like parking, view sheds, and protecting the historic
district can also be challenging. Balancing this creates a unique
challenge.
Therefore, staff finds the circumstances to be unique.
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
The City did not create the set of circumstances associated with the
property.
d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?
While the project seeks to convert the existing parking lots to a new
pedestrian walkway, thus changing the character of the area, the
variance itself does not alter the essential character of the immediate
neighborhood. If not granted, the required height and setback would
negatively affect views and the usefulness of the pedestrian walkway
and the adjacent public parking lots.
e. Is the lone consideration an economic one?
The City has nothing to gain economically with these proposed
variances.
2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive
Plan.
a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being
requested?
The floodplain requirements is to protect building from flooding and
potential loss. The minimum height requirements is to protect the
historic qualities and form of the downtown. Finally, the setback is to
Pedestrian Walkway Project
Page 5
provide sufficient light and air to adjoining properties and promote for
a uniform setback.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning
Code?
No, it would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. The
planning and public review that has been involved with this project has
insured that the project is well thought out in harmony with the area.
c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan?
No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The
plan was proposed in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the
zoning district in which the subject property is located.
ALTERNATIVES
The property is zoned CBD, Central Business District. The creation of the
pedestrian walkway is consistent with the zoning code and not a prohibited
use.
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve all or part of the requested variances.
2. Deny all or part of the requested variances.
3. Table the variance requests for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff finds the variance review criteria to be satisfied and therefore recommends approval
as requested.
attachments: Site Plan
Application materials
*Foth
Eagle Point II • 8550 Hudson Blvd. North, Suite 105
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 288 -8550 • Fax: (651) 288 -8551
www.foth.com
July 29, 2011
Stillwater City Council/Stillwater Planning Commission
216 4 Street N.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Sirs and Madams:
RE: Engineering Statement for Variance Submittal on Flood Plain Impacts for Bathroom Building
Main Street Walkway, Stillwater, Minnesota
Dear Sirs and Madams:
The City of Stillwater is proposing a new pedestrian walkway from Main Street (Minnesota
T.H. #95) east to Lowell Park along the St. Croix River. The alignment of the new walkway
is along the extension of Commercial Street; all within Section 28, Township 30, Range 20.
The base flood elevation at this location is 692.6. The regulatory flood protection elevation
is one foot above base flood elevation or 693.6 at this location. A provision in the Stillwater
floodplain ordinance allows a building to be built below the regulatory flood protection
elevation if the building is of "minimal investment ", is less than 500 square feet in size, and
flood proofed to the FP -3 or FP -4 as outlined in the Minnesota State Building Code.
As a non - habitable restroom building, it is the position of the City that the proposed restroom
building meets the requirements to be considered a building of "minimal investment ";
however, at 716 square feet in size, the building requires a variance to the floodplain
requirements if placed below the regulatory floodplain. The size of the restroom is needed in
order to serve the needs of the community.
Site Selection Background
During the planning process, three locations for the restroom building were considered. All
of the sites are located along the extension of Commercial Street.
Site #1 is located approximately 75 feet east of Water Street. The site is currently at an
approximate elevation of 690 (U.S.G.S. NAV). Proposed site grading would elevate it to an
approximate elevation of 691 (U.S.G.S. NAV). This site was eliminated since it would be
the first building located east of Water Street in this area. Additionally, the site has a greater
potential for flooding due to the lower ground elevation at this site compared to other sites.
Site #2 is located immediately east of and adjacent to Main Street. The site is at an
approximate elevation of 695 (U.S.G.S. NAV). While the site sits above the regulatory flood
protection elevation, it was eliminated due to potential impacts to the Stillwater Commercial
X: \MS11E12011 \I 15001 -00 \5000 Client \ Engineering Statement for Variance Submittal on Flood Plain impacts for Bathroom Building Main Street
Walkway Stillwater TJM 072011 rev MJP Stillwater 07.doc
Stillwater City Council!Stillwater Planning Commission
July 29, 2011
Page 2
Historic District as listed on the National Register of Historic Places and since the restroom
would block critical views between Main Street and the St. Croix River.
Site #3 is located in the S.W. corner of the new Pedestrian Walkway and immediately west of
and adjacent to Water Street. The building at this location has a proposed finished floor
elevation of 693.09 (U.S.G.S NAV). The location is approximately 350 feet west of the
ordinary high water mark for the St. Croix River. Site #3 was ultimately selected as the
preferred option over the two other site options.
Raising site #3 above the regulatory flood elevation
The City explored the possibility of elevating the site above the regulatory flood elevation.
To get the bathroom elevated above the regulatory flood elevation it would need to be
elevated to 693.6 with a finished grade extending out 15 feet around the building at an
elevation no lower than 692.6. This would result in the following issues:
1. A substantial portion of the site would need to be filled causing issues with the
Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for access to the bathrooms.
2. A large part of the adjacent parking lot would have to be elevated and replaced.
3. East of the restroom the ground level falls quickly toward the river. At the curb
line of Water Street the elevation is approximately 691.5. A substantial portion
of Water Street would need to be rebuilt to meet the elevation requirement.
All of the work to elevate the restroom building would likely cost more than the restroom
itself. The City believes this is impractical and unreasonable to accomplish. For the above
reasons, the City of Stillwater is seeking a variance in building size and freeboard to
construct the restroom in the preferred location.
Sincerely,
Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
Ti\tnAckp Mrs
Thomas J. Madigan, P.E.
8550 Hudson Boulevard North, Suite 105
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
651- 288 -8549
cc: Mike Pogge, City of Stillwater
Shawn Sanders, City of Stillwater
Bill Hickey, Collaborative Design Group
William Sanders, Sanders Wacker Bergly
X: \MS \1E\2011 \I 1 S001 -00 \5000 Client \Engineering Statement for Variance Submittal on Flood Plain Impacts for Bathroom Building
Main Street Walkway Stillwater TIM 072011 rev MJP Stillwater 07.doc
I / .MItlgIIMD ��'ia•[r11 1 tom' =;
'III
MP
iIP
IIb IS9s5 �..
I l i i
► PARKING .. imi
ill """""'
ii , �,,,actN x r i 1 `s
ammlik l " s: 1 ,, a -ay
� . BNB STOP t -
RETAINING WALL /
RAILING
NORTH MAIN STREET
RESTROOM LOCATION OPTIONS
tI 1
0' LSD 20' 40'
I I I
NORTH
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS
MS Cast ei1N 55101
Phone: (651) 221 -0601
Par: 651) 297-6817
E — moil:
swbincetusinternetsom
LOWELL PARK
PEDESTRIAN
WALKWAY
STILLWATER,
MINNESOTA
sp a
Sllwater. N
�°o,�on. o, 1 report w by
me or under my s and
Signature
SHEET:
RLO
SANDERS
WACKER
BERGLY
INC.
Reg. Number,
Project Number: 1024
Drawn Original sue Dale, 07/28/11
Revision: Dote: Description:
RESTROOM LOCATION
OPTIONS
S Ei1Iwat�er
752'49
'Bathroom Location
150
250 0
MAP SCALE 1" = 500'
500
H r—I
0
150
1000
FEET
METERS
300
11 11 1 11111 I 1 N iI 11
r ,d ,
® .
,III
II I
I 'rli
n"I
CC
II1
.i
11111111
FIRM
PANEL 0266E
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
WASHINGTON COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 266 OF 456
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
=Mg,
COMMUNITY MMtg,E PANEL SUFFIX
OAK PARK HEIGHTS. 270512 0286 E
CITY OF
STILLWATER, CITY OF 275249 0266 E
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below
should be used when placing map orders; the
Community Number shown above should be
used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
MAP NUMBER
27163CO266E
EFFECTIVE DATE
FEBRUARY 3, 2010
Federal Emergency Management Agency
This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood
map. It was extracted using FIRMette - Desktop version 3.0. This map does not
reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to
the date on the title block. Further information about National Flood
Insurance Program flood hazard maps is available at http: / /www.msc.fema.gov /.
.
r!! ws.c X19
g ala! ..�
►I II
1 14 -
. , aaaEl
• c -::�aar lwliS .
fsoa ®e !!xa ilnilll
:,... -a
II lw!!u imill111111 reai
est Room,
Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
Stillwater, Minnesota
July 2011
CD •
LINE OF
ROOF ABOVE
8*-5'
FD
0
0 FD
104
UTILITY
104
L
FAMILY
103
103
/
/ // /
-
28'-4
FD
Y-0" / 3'-0"
3' -0' 3' -0'
FD
- Ir
MEN'S
101
WOMEN'S
102
LINE OF
ROOF ABOVE
101
102
/
1o -o'
\ \
Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. MAINSTREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
Stillwater, Minnesota
Site Plan
Flom: Plan / / 1uly 2011
& COLLABORATIVE I u•- i n i
Architectose Engineering Historic Interiors %arming
Preservation
Site Views
Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc.
MAINSTREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
Stillwater, N'(innesot i
& COLLABORATIVE l t gnt:rttlI .;
Architecture Engineering Historic Interiors Planning
Preservation
July 2011
s4jl 4444
14 213484.91
E 50704292
N % tnn 40
E 29300.00
5642 CUM
BEE 1419
N X0930.041
E 1NO9 %A PX
ROBON CURS
SEE RATS
06•2 CURB
520 14.1.0
56.2 COOS
SEE UL19
06.2 CURS
SEE 14.19
NORTH HAM STREET / STATE HWY 95
COLORED'STRIPED
CONCRETE TO NATC2 E4cwl LNG' —
MERACpN6L PAVER SAND
SEE 80.69
SCALE. 1 80.47
REXAGO1 CONCRETE
PAVER ONO
SEE 84.6.0
COLORS t
STRIPED
CONCRETE
CROSSWALK
ESE RA6O
NCR MAN
9012016 FAQ
! se e
8EAVERT4
� CLIRO AT L6
L AYOUT PLAN - WEST
MATCNLINE TO I/L20
NORTH WATER STREET
COLORED r
VAMPED
CONCRETE
CROS
SEE 84.69
1818A DON
PAVER SAND
SEE 84.69
MAIN STREET
ENTRANCE DETAIL
SEE I/L30
LEGEND
/'EVE 440670.3 TOPO
NOTES
1W
1, ELECTRONIC DATA I6 4v44L40LE MEN
LANDSCAPE ARC204E01 FOR SITE LATENT.
TROON STAIRS LAYOUT PLAN DETAIL
2 FINAL TRAIL ALICARTENT TO 0E vERPRC
6) T4.BE FIELD 0T LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
AND LINER ALL TRAIT- COORDINATES ARE
10 TRAIL 907442 .59.
3. ALL CURB COORONATE6 ARE TO SACK OF CURS - 0C
4. ALL ROAD AND PAgC78 Dn8N61ONS ARE TO FACE OF
CORD -PC
5. EMEND ARE FAO CONCRETE 4454644017 AREAS ON T440 5110.
CONTRACTOR MIST COOLCT ALL CONCRETE CLEAN -LP
ACTIVITES DPP - SITE
6. TIE CONTR4CTC9A SHALL PLACE ROCK ROLLS RUIN 711E
RO40 4LI 47 OWENS CONSTRUCTION TO CC41700
ERJSIOI AS REDWRE-D.
1 THE GATE SHALL BE THE T9?TAL SW5.Ca GATE 57 MIDWEST
FENCE AND MANMFACT94NG CO. (661 -451 -]221) OR APPROVED
RENAL. 1H4 DATE SHALL SE MAPPED WITH A GRAN LATCH,
FOLDOACK POSTS AND REFLEGT7VE TAPE ON BOTH GATE
FACES.
L
LANDSCAPE 280014CIS 6 PLANNERS
Sant 7y I 5100/
P Aau. 4054) 224 -0401
NT O.) 241-4417
E - ne: Onsntantt td*
MAIN STREET
PEDESTRIAN
WALKWAY
STILLWATER,
MINNESOTA
Gty eon
re M. pen N,
X
P, 55002
*574 a
Oaf.
oc
1 hwpby Caddy that tole Men.
rae Acanan, « hr/e •01 a4TPM by
v ;Lntk. , area ...mason and
.Il rr ae Lmdtc
N INe1 o+ew tot bap at /M Slalp et
1Mmapeta
Papee Henan 1024
N ana SI- Sa
arra. 0m. 0rt. 42/2
SANDERS
WACKER
BERGLY
INC.
LAYOL Ti PLAN . WEST
E T '.
L1..0
.{.....
1
E i
I --Ii Y_
1
t -..4 '4
•
.._.
E
_..
±—L_
IIIIIIIMII.
I
t �
1
•
rl
• .�._.,- ..y.
_
r ig
MI
s4jl 4444
14 213484.91
E 50704292
N % tnn 40
E 29300.00
5642 CUM
BEE 1419
N X0930.041
E 1NO9 %A PX
ROBON CURS
SEE RATS
06•2 CURB
520 14.1.0
56.2 COOS
SEE UL19
06.2 CURS
SEE 14.19
NORTH HAM STREET / STATE HWY 95
COLORED'STRIPED
CONCRETE TO NATC2 E4cwl LNG' —
MERACpN6L PAVER SAND
SEE 80.69
SCALE. 1 80.47
REXAGO1 CONCRETE
PAVER ONO
SEE 84.6.0
COLORS t
STRIPED
CONCRETE
CROSSWALK
ESE RA6O
NCR MAN
9012016 FAQ
! se e
8EAVERT4
� CLIRO AT L6
L AYOUT PLAN - WEST
MATCNLINE TO I/L20
NORTH WATER STREET
COLORED r
VAMPED
CONCRETE
CROS
SEE 84.69
1818A DON
PAVER SAND
SEE 84.69
MAIN STREET
ENTRANCE DETAIL
SEE I/L30
LEGEND
/'EVE 440670.3 TOPO
NOTES
1W
1, ELECTRONIC DATA I6 4v44L40LE MEN
LANDSCAPE ARC204E01 FOR SITE LATENT.
TROON STAIRS LAYOUT PLAN DETAIL
2 FINAL TRAIL ALICARTENT TO 0E vERPRC
6) T4.BE FIELD 0T LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
AND LINER ALL TRAIT- COORDINATES ARE
10 TRAIL 907442 .59.
3. ALL CURB COORONATE6 ARE TO SACK OF CURS - 0C
4. ALL ROAD AND PAgC78 Dn8N61ONS ARE TO FACE OF
CORD -PC
5. EMEND ARE FAO CONCRETE 4454644017 AREAS ON T440 5110.
CONTRACTOR MIST COOLCT ALL CONCRETE CLEAN -LP
ACTIVITES DPP - SITE
6. TIE CONTR4CTC9A SHALL PLACE ROCK ROLLS RUIN 711E
RO40 4LI 47 OWENS CONSTRUCTION TO CC41700
ERJSIOI AS REDWRE-D.
1 THE GATE SHALL BE THE T9?TAL SW5.Ca GATE 57 MIDWEST
FENCE AND MANMFACT94NG CO. (661 -451 -]221) OR APPROVED
RENAL. 1H4 DATE SHALL SE MAPPED WITH A GRAN LATCH,
FOLDOACK POSTS AND REFLEGT7VE TAPE ON BOTH GATE
FACES.
L
LANDSCAPE 280014CIS 6 PLANNERS
Sant 7y I 5100/
P Aau. 4054) 224 -0401
NT O.) 241-4417
E - ne: Onsntantt td*
MAIN STREET
PEDESTRIAN
WALKWAY
STILLWATER,
MINNESOTA
Gty eon
re M. pen N,
X
P, 55002
*574 a
Oaf.
oc
1 hwpby Caddy that tole Men.
rae Acanan, « hr/e •01 a4TPM by
v ;Lntk. , area ...mason and
.Il rr ae Lmdtc
N INe1 o+ew tot bap at /M Slalp et
1Mmapeta
Papee Henan 1024
N ana SI- Sa
arra. 0m. 0rt. 42/2
SANDERS
WACKER
BERGLY
INC.
LAYOL Ti PLAN . WEST
E T '.
L1..0
NORTH WATER STREET
FDPOPOSPLIC CURB
OTRVIRS - NOT Pt
CGIRPACT
'MP
01 BB
(D
LAYOUT PLAN - WEST
scALE r
0
1 `.
LANDSCAPE ARCHIECTS 2 PLANNERS
51 01
Pheop: (01) 511.0401
Pea MAD 101 - MP
(41.44 444440,44414 ea,
MAIN STREET
PEDESTRIAN
WALKWAY
STILLWATER,
MINNESOTA
L" 51
Stowell, 420114
1 54110.5 11.1110 Pta 1 InD plen.
:yree
Rot am dui, mg:ow.
Pr11h11441 44e1■4 144 ,arer al the 51414
4.110144.
51,0044
0011441.1441ber. 1024
01101 67 901
0.0.1 Wato 0.401 06/03/11
LAYOUT PLAN EAST
PEE
SANDERS
WACKER
BERGIN
INC.
fle0 14041•4•
L2.0
FLOOR PLAN
ra . l
i^
f�Rlfl_�l�l�li C
YIRf a.............................. . 1 : �1a _
• ` ,'�l U El
y o2 1
r •K •�.4.7a � •►a d S •6 •.Ja ■� •. ■•:•.At.. ■J ■G
NW
e
ya ....
.axc.
Pr
vv. v+1.:c •a:.1.1 aTrw •✓.vscne■•■•asa.
•.•7c.sc•••w•• m MA X'
REFLECTED CEILING PLAN
PLAN NOTES
ROOF NOTES
IMAM
COMPOSITE
REFLECTED CEILING NOTES
RCP CEILING KEY
A
90X SIDING.
STAINED MD SEALED
OPEN TO DECNABOW
RCP FIXTURE SYMBOL KEY
O e RECESSED LED CAN FIXTURE
LEO FIXTURE. CHAIN HUNG
•
A MSCAPE ARCEmEC,S A vuNNERS
zcn s.Rw.
1,10,051, 211.0901
Pm.100 2174
Smut moMmitoellott•emin
COLLABORATIVE
DesignGroup,.
unnespe. ma. W01
MAINSTREET
PEDESTRIAN
WALKWAY -
PUBLIC
RESTROOM
N. Water Street and
Commercial Avenue
Stillwater, Minnesota
75%OWNER
REVIEW
AUGUST 3, 2011
ANN. u
NMegotx
AMA
m.
SANDERS
WACKER
BERGLY
INC.
DIMl®Y
Don
PRO.UT ARCH
FLOOR, ROOF AND
REFLECTED CEILING
FLAN
A200
m
NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SCALE: 110
1111111111111111 11111111111111
IIIIIIUIIII IIUIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
IIIIIIUIIII
0
mmonnnmmmnnmmannnmmtmmmmmmm
11 11111111 1111111 1111111 111111 111111 1 11 1 1
WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
1 -1 - 1
mmmmllll r mllim mlmmm inm mffimm m lllmmmmm m mmmmlllmmmmm u
EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SANDERS
WACKER
BERGLY
INC.
COLLABORATIVE
neaigncroup,-d.
MAINSTREET
PEDESTRIAN
WALKWAY -
PUBLIC
RESTROOM
N. Water Street and
Commercial Avenue
Stillwater, Minnesota
75 % OWNER
REVIEW
AUGUST 3, 2011
I herd, cal* that tH plan, specification or
1""' w+n^a Wlna
McMaMeadted
Wfam D. Hl,Ney
PPoRawrosut
Audvx
WM
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
A400
Planning Commission
DATE: August 2, 2011
APPLICANT: City of Stillwater
REQUEST: Street vacation of a portion of Water St N
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner* °`<
CASE NO.: 11 -21
LOCATION: A nine -foot strip of land along the east side of Water St N that
begins at the north right of way line of Myrtle St E and runs north
208.1 feet.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use
ZONING: CBD - Central Business District
PC DATE: June 14, 2011
REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director, City Engineer, and the Stillwater Board
of Water Commissioners
BACKGROUND
The City of Stillwater is seeking to voluntarily acquire a 43.88 foot by 91.4 foot parcel of
land from St Croix Preservation Co Inc, Parcel "A" on the included map. Parcel "A"
will be incorporated in the new pedestrian walkway project that connects Main St to
Lowell Park and the various parking areas east of Main Street. In exchange for Parcel
"A" the City has agreed to provide the following to St Croix Preservation Co Inc:
convey a 5.0 foot by 208.1 foot parcel of land adjacent to North Lowell Park, Parcel "B ";
vacate a 9.0 foot by 208.1 foot section of Water St, Parcel "C"; reimburse the owner for
cost related to the acquisition; provide a loan to reconstruct the entire Water St Inn
parking lot; and relocate the exiting curb line and utilities in the portion of Water Street
proposed to be vacated.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The request before the Commission is for the vacation of a nine -foot strip of land along
the east side of Water St N that begins at the north right of way line of Myrtle St E and
runs north 208.1 feet as shown as Parcel "C" on the attached map. The City will retain a
sidewalk easement over the west five feet of the portion of Water Street being vacated.
Water St N Vacation Request
Page 2
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
When considering if publicly owned property should be vacated there are three basic
items the City considers.
A. Whether the property is or is likely to be necessary or desirable for any public
purpose within the reasonably foreseeable future.
a. The City has agreed to relocate all of the public utilities located in the
portion of the ROW being vacated. The City will retain sidewalk
easement over the west five feet of the portion of Water Street being
vacated. This section of Water Street is wider than what exists both north
and south of this section. With this vacation and moving of the curb the
this section of Water Street will match the width currently in place to the
north and south.
B. Any term, condition, reservation, or dedication of any easement or interest in the
property necessary or desirable for public purposes and permitted by law.
a. Other than obtaining an sidewalk easement, City Staff does not believe
any other terms, conditions, reservation, or dedication is needed.
C. The street vacation has a public benefit and is not being vacated for the sole
benefit of an adjacent property owner.
a. The City will obtain 4 square feet of land for every 3 square feet of land
being conveyed /vacated to Water Street Inn as part of the overall land
exchange. The proposed vacation is part of a land acquisition package
where the City obtains needed land for the new Pedestrian Walkway
project.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Recommend that the City Council approve the right -of -way vacation request.
Staff would suggest the following conditions for approval:
a. A sidewalk easement be retained over the west five feet of the portion
of Water Street being vacated.
2. Recommend that the City Council deny the right -of -way vacation request.
3. Continue the public hearing until the September 12, 2011 Planning
Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve the vacation
requested as conditioned.
Attachments: Map
r
#
vacated.
See
11
NAME
t 7v eD v f ((c (c e -
C D -FcL .7'1e
S: \Planning \street vacation application petition.wpd
illwatet
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
4"
Fee
Receipt No.
City of Stillwater
PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC STREET
The Undersigned Hereby Petition That All That Portion of
p ct. t , ' e --a3o -- Zo- yf --(1
/ I
ADDRESS
2l� y� sf.ti/
*Attach a map showing the street to be vacated
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651- 430 -8800
Exhibit "A"
The east nine feet of Water Street starting at the north line of Myrtle Street East and extending north
208.1 feet.
DATE:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
REVIEWED BY:
PREPARED BY:
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
PLANNING REPORT
August 1, 2011
City of Stillwater Planning Commission
Ordinance Amendment for Seasonal Outdoor Sales
and Vending Carts
Dave Magnuson, City Attorney; Mike Pogge, City Planner
Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director'V ,,
Planning Commissioners have over the years been dissatisfied with the City Zoning Ordinance
requirement that vendors and seasonal outdoor sales have a Special Use Permit (SUP). By the
very nature of these uses, the operators are not tied to the property for which the SUP is issued.
They are more similar to transient merchants than they are to commercial uses for which Special
Use Permits are issued.
In response, the Planning Commission asked City staff to research a more fitting way to permit
these uses. At the August 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented several
options. The Commission discussed the options and came to a consensus. Subsequently the
Commission has worked through a first draft of an ordinance that creates an annual permitting
process for seasonal outdoor sales and vending. The permit for the businesses would be
approved by the Planning Commission for the first year. That initial permit would expire on
December 31st. For each subsequent year (without substantial changes), the permit would be
reviewed and issued by City staff.
In April of 2011 the Commission asked City staff to request comments on the draft ordinance
from all current vending cart and seasonal outdoor sales businesses. That is complete and the
comments were incorporated into a second draft of the ordinance.
The draft ordinance includes regulations for Seasonal Outdoor Sales (e.g. sales tents) are as
follows:
Seasonal Outdoor Sales & Vending
Page 2 of 5
Seasonal Outdoor Sales may be allowed as an accessory use within the CA and BP -C
Zoning Districts'. For purposes of this ordinance, "Seasonal Outdoor Sales" is defined to
include the promotion and sale of goods and /or services, including but not limited to
plants, vegetation, landscaping materials, lawn care items, fireworks. Seasonal Garden
Centers, a type of Seasonal Outdoor Sales, will be permitted for a maximum period of 90
days, and all Seasonal Garden Centers permitted under this ordinance must cease
operation on or before July 15 each year. Seasonal Fireworks Sales, another type of
Seasonal Outdoor Sales, will be permitted for a maximum of three weeks each year and
must cease operation no later than July 6. The annual Seasonal Outdoor Sales permit
may be approved by the City subject to the following.
(1) A completed permit application form must be submitted annually, including
permit fee, to the Planning Department. The completed application must be
submitted at least 60 days prior to the proposed opening date of the Seasonal
Outdoor Sales business. To be considered complete, the application must
include the completed application form plus the following additional information.
(a) Address of property.
(b) Site plan detailing at least the following:
(i) Size of the area being occupied by the Seasonal Outdoor Sales
operation.
(ii) Method of containing operations. Indicate materials and design
of the proposed tent or temporary structure, any fencing on the
site, and trash containment systems.
(iii) Pedestrian and traffic control safety measures. The sales area
may not impede pedestrian or vehicular circulation patterns on
the site.
(iv) Parking stalls. Number of parking stalls being used by the
entire Seasonal Outdoor Sales operation must be indicated.
The site plan must also include a note describing the number
of parking spaces that will remain available to the primary use
of the property. Sufficient parking must be available to support
both the accessory Seasonal Outdoor Sales operation and the
primary commercial use of the property.
(c) Utility plan. Indicate how water and electricity will be provided to the
site.
(d) Signage Plan. The annual permit application must include details of
all proposed signage. A drawing for each proposed sign shall be
submitted. The drawing shall show dimensions and describe
materials, lettering, colors, illumination and support systems. The
proposed signage shall be reviewed against the following standards.
1. The total number of signs associated with a Seasonal Outdoor
Sales operation is limited to three.
2. All signage for the Seasonal Outdoor Sales operation must be
contained on the subject property.
3. Signage may not be located within public right -of -ways.
4. Each free standing sign is limited to a surface area of two feet
by three feet (six square feet total).
1 Would therefore not permit the use in CBD (downtown),VC (Liberty Village), BP -O or BP -I zoning districts.
•
Seasonal Outdoor Sales & Vending
Page 3 of 5
5. Up to two banners may be permitted. They may only be
attached to the tent or temporary structure used for the
Seasonal Outdoor Sales operation.
6. One sign may be painted or affixed directly to the tent or
temporary structure used for the Seasonal Outdoor Sales
operation.
7. The size and height of the banner and affixed signs are limited
to that which is allowed in the BP, Business Park Districts as
regulated in City Code Ch. 31, Sec. 31 -509, Subd. 8(a)(1) and
(
8. No sign may be erected or installed prior to erection of the
Seasonal Outdoor Sales tent or temporary structure.
9. All signs must be removed from the property concurrently with
removal of the Seasonal Outdoor Sales operation.
(e) Signed agreement from the property owner permitting the proposed
Seasonal Open Sales.
(f) Narrative explaining details including: 1) dates and hours of operation,
2) merchandise or service being offered for sale, and 3) contact
information for the landowner, the applicant, and the manager of the
Seasonal Outdoor Sales operation.
(2) The annual permit for the first year of operation shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. The first year permit shall be valid through
December 31 of the year.
(3) The annual permit for subsequent years of operation shall be reviewed by
Planning Department staff, unless there are substantial changes to the site
plan or operations plan, or unless there are substantiated complaints of a
Public Safety nature. If there are such substantial changes or complaints,
the Planning Commission must review the annual permit application for that
year.
(4) An inspection by the Fire Marshal will be required prior to the Seasonal
Outdoor Sales operation opening for business.
(5) Seasonal Outdoor Sales are only allowed on private property. No Seasonal
Outdoor Sales are permitted on public property or public right -of -ways.
The draft ordinance includes regulations for Food Vending Carts are as follows:
Seasonal Food Vending is allowed by annual permit only on private property as
an accessory use within the CBD Zoning District. For purposes of this
subdivision, "Seasonal Food Vending" does not include food vending for events.
Event food vending requires an event permit pursuant to City Resolution No.
2010 -204 and any subsequent revisions to that resolution.
The annual permit for a Seasonal Food Vending cart or vehicle may be approved
by the City subject to the following.
2 Size. The gross surface area of a wall sign (or tent wall sign in this case) may not exceed one square foot for each
foot of building (or tent is this case) parallel or substantially parallel to the front lot line. Height — a wall sign (or
tent wall sign in this case) may not project higher than the parapet line of the wall (or top of tent in this case) to
which the sign is affixed or 20 feet as measured from the base of the building wall (or tent in this case) to which the
sign is affixed, whichever is less.
Seasonal Outdoor Sales & Vending
Page 4 of 5
(1) A completed permit application form must be submitted annually (including
permit fee) to the Community Development Department. The completed
application must be submitted at least 60 days prior to the first seasonal usage of
the cart or vehicle. To be considered complete, the application must include the
completed application form, permit fee, and the following additional information.
(a) Address of the private property upon which the cart or vehicle will
operate.
(b) Site and operations plans detailing at least the following:
1. Size and location of the area being occupied by the
Seasonal Food Vending operation.
2. Picture and dimensions of vehicle or cart.
3. Location of exits from principal building on the property.
The vending equipment and operation must not block the
exits.
4. Storage location for vehicle or cart when not open for
business.
5. Method of containing trash.
6. Pedestrian and traffic control safety measures. The sales
area may not impede pedestrian or vehicular circulation
patterns on or around the site.
7. Parking stalls. If parking stalls are being used by the
vending operation, this must be indicated on the site plan.
The total number of parking spaces required of the
principal use of the private property shall not be reduced
below the minimum number required by ordinance.
8. Miscellaneous operation details including: a) dates and
hours of operation, b) merchandise or service being
offered for sale, and c) contact information for the
landowner, the applicant, and the manager of the
Seasonal Vending operation.
(c) Utility plan. Indicate how utilities will be provided to the operation.
(d) Signage Plan. The annual permit application must include details of
all proposed signage. A drawing for each proposed sign shall be
submitted. The drawing shall show dimensions and describe
materials, lettering, colors, illumination and support systems. The
proposed signage shall be reviewed against the following standards.
10. The total number of signs associated with a Seasonal
Vending operation is limited to two.
11. All signage for the Seasonal Vending operation must be
contained on the subject private property.
12. One sandwich board type sign may be permitted if it
satisfies the standards found in Resolution No. 2009 -xxx
and any subsequent revisions to that resolution.
13. One sign may be painted or affixed directly to the vehicle
or cart.
14. No sign associated with the Seasonal Vending operation is
allowed to be on the subject property when the cart or
vehicle is not present.
Seasonal Outdoor Sales & Vending
Page 5 of 5
COMMENTS
The existing Special Use Permits for the seasonal garden centers and fireworks in the city will
be grandfathered. But, it would be advantageous to the businesses to apply for an annual
permit even though they would have to pay a small fee. The reason is that they would then not
be required to attend an annual public hearing before the Planning Commission. Their time
spent in an evening meeting would be more valuable than the small fee. None the less, it would
be left up to the operators of the seasonal businesses to decide whether they want to continue to
use their SUPs or switch to an annual permit. If they choose to apply for a permit, they would
be asked to submit a letter sun setting their existing SUPs.
If they switch to an annual permit, staff would suggest that the hearings that they have already
had before the Planning Commission would count as the initial annual permit review. So that
their first annual permit could be issued by staff. This would offer more incentive for them to
switch to the annual permit.
RECOMMENDATION
bt
(e) Signed agreement from the property owner allowing the proposed
Seasonal Vending operation.
(2) Submittal of a satisfactory inspection report of the proposed cart or vehicle
from the Stillwater Fire Department.
(3) Submittal of a permit issued for the cart or vehicle by Washington County
health officials.
(4) The annual permit for the first year of operation shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. The first year permit shall be valid through
December 31 of the year.
(5) The annual permit for subsequent years of operation shall be reviewed by
Community Development Department staff, unless there are substantial
changes to the site plan or operations plan, or unless there are
substantiated complaints of a Public Safety or Public Health nature. If there
are such substantial changes or complaints, the Planning Commission must
review the annual permit application for that year.
(6) Seasonal Food Vending is only allowed on private property. No Seasonal
Food Vending permits will be issued for operation on public property or
public right -of -ways.
(7) For public safety reasons, all Seasonal Food Vending operations must close
by 2:30 am each day. Also, if during large events it is determined by the
Chief of Police that downtown crowd control is necessary, Seasonal Food
Vending businesses may be required to close earlier than 2:30 am during
that event.
City staff suggests recommending that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance.
Attachment: Ordinance, 2nd Draft
DRAFT 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE
CHAPTER 41, ENTITLED LICENSES, PERMITS AND PROHIBITIONS
BY ADDING STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN SEASONAL OUTDOOR SALES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN:
1. Add. City Code Chapter 41, is amended by adding Section 41 -6, Subd 1 as
follows:
Subd. 1. Seasonal Outdoor Sales. Seasonal Outdoor Sales may be allowed as an
accessory use within the CA and BP -C Zoning Districts, subject to the
requirements of this subdivision. For purposes of this subdivision, "Seasonal
Outdoor Sales" is defined to include the promotion and sale of goods and /or
services, including but not limited to plants, vegetation, landscaping materials,
lawn care items, fireworks. Seasonal Garden Centers, a type of Seasonal Outdoor
Sales, will be permitted for a maximum period of 90 days, and all Seasonal Garden
Centers permitted under this subdivision must cease operation on or before June 30
July 15 each year. Seasonal Fireworks Sales, another type of Seasonal Outdoor
Sales, will be permitted for a maximum of three weeks each year and must cease
operation no later than July 6. The annual Seasonal Outdoor Sales permit may be
approved by the City subject to the following.
(1) A completed permit application form must be submitted annually (including
permit fee) to the Community Development Department. The completed
application must be submitted at least 60 days prior to the proposed opening date of
the Seasonal Outdoor Sales business. To be considered complete, the application
must include the completed application form plus the following additional
information.
(a) Address of property.
(b) Site plan detailing at least the following:
(i) Size of the area being occupied by the Seasonal Outdoor Sales
operation.
(ii) Method of containing operations. Indicate materials and design
of the proposed tent or temporary structure, any fencing on the
site, and trash containment systems.
(iii) Pedestrian and traffic control safety measures. The sales area
may not impede pedestrian or vehicular circulation patterns on
the site.
(iv) Parking stalls. Number of parking stalls being used by the
entire Seasonal Outdoor Sales operation must be indicated. The
site plan must also include a note describing the number of
parking spaces that will remain available to the primary use of
the property. Sufficient parking must be available to support
DRAFT 2
Page 2 of 5
both the accessory Seasonal Outdoor Sales operation and the
primary commercial use of the property.
(c) Utility plan. Indicate how water and electricity will be provided to the
site.
(d) Signage Plan. The annual permit application must include details of all
proposed signage. A drawing for each proposed sign shall be
submitted. The drawing shall show dimensions and describe
materials, lettering, colors, illumination and support systems. The
proposed signage shall be reviewed against the following standards.
1. The total number of signs associated with a Seasonal Outdoor
Sales operation is limited to three.
2. All signage for the Seasonal Outdoor Sales operation must be
contained on the subject property.
3. Signage may not be located within public right -of -ways.
4. Each free standing sign is limited to a surface area of two feet by
three feet (six square feet total).
5. One-Up to two banners i-smay be permitted. - I-tThey may only be
attached to the tent or temporary structure used for the Seasonal
Outdoor Sales operation.
6. One sign may be painted or affixed directly to the tent or
temporary structure used for the Seasonal Outdoor Sales
operation.
7. The size and height of the banner and affixed signs are limited to
that which is allowed in the BP, Business Park Districts as
regulated in City Code Ch. 31, Sec. 31 -509, Subd. 8(a)(1) and
(3)'.
8. No sign may be erected or installed prior to erection of the
Seasonal Outdoor Sales tent or temporary structure.
9. All signs must be removed from the property concurrently with
removal of the Seasonal Outdoor Sales operation.
(e) Signed agreement from the property owner permitting the proposed
Seasonal Open Sales.
(f) Narrative explaining details including: 1) dates and hours of operation,
2) merchandise or service being offered for sale, and 3) contact
information for the landowner, the applicant, and the manager of the
Seasonal Outdoor Sales operation.
(2) The annual permit for the first year of operation shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. The first year permit shall be valid through December
31 of the year.
(3) The annual permit for subsequent years of operation shall be reviewed by
Community Development Department staff, unless there are substantial
changes to the site plan or operations plan, or unless there are substantiated
complaints of a Public Safety nature. If there are such substantial changes or
1 Size. The gross surface area of a tent wall sign may not exceed one square foot for each foot of tent wall parallel or
substantially parallel to the front lot line. Height — a tent wall sign may not project higher than the parapet line of the
tent wall to which the sign is affixed or 20 feet as measured from the base of the tent wall to which the sign is affixed,
whichever is less.
DRAFT 2
Page 3 of 5
complaints, the Planning Commission must review the annual permit
application for that year.
(4) An inspection by the Fire Marshal will be required prior to the Seasonal
Outdoor Sales operation opening for business.
(5) Seasonal Outdoor Sales are only allowed on private property. No Seasonal
Outdoor Sales are permitted on public property or public right -of -ways.
2. Add. City Code Chapter 41, is amended by adding Section 41 -6, Subd. 2 as
follows:
Subd. 2. Seasonal Food Vending. Seasonal Food Vending is allowed by annual
permit only on private property as an accessory use within the CBD Zoning
District, subject to the requirements of this subdivision. For purposes of this
subdivision, "Seasonal Food Vending" does not include food vending for events.
Event food vending requires an event permit pursuant to City Resolution No. 2010-
204 and any subsequent revisions to that resolution.
The annual permit for a Seasonal Food Vending cart or vehicle may be approved
by the City subject to the following.
(1) A completed permit application form must be submitted annually (including
permit fee) to the Community Development Department. The completed
application must be submitted at least 60 days prior to the first seasonal usage of
the cart or vehicle. To be considered complete, the application must include the
completed application form, permit fee, and the following additional information.
(a) Address of the private property upon which the cart or vehicle will
operate.
(b) Site and operations plans detailing at least the following:
1. Size and location of the area being occupied by the Seasonal
Food Vending operation.
2. Picture and dimensions of vehicle or cart.
3. Location of exits from principal building on the property.
The vending equipment and operation must not block the
exits.
4. Storage location for vehicle or cart when not open for
business.
5. Method of containing trash.
6. Pedestrian and traffic control safety measures. The sales area
may not impede pedestrian or vehicular circulation patterns
on or around the site.
7. Parking stalls. If parking stalls are being used by the
vending operation, this must be indicated on the site plan.
The total number of parking spaces required of the principal
use of the private property shall not be reduced below the
minimum number required by ordinance.
DRAFT 2
Page 4 of 5
8. Miscellaneous operation details including: a) dates and hours
of operation, b) merchandise or service being offered for
sale, and c) contact information for the landowner, the
applicant, and the manager of the Seasonal Vending
operation.
(c) Utility plan. Indicate how utilities will be provided to the operation.
(d) Signage Plan. The annual permit application must include details of all
proposed signage. A drawing for each proposed sign shall be
submitted. The drawing shall show dimensions and describe
materials, lettering, colors, illumination and support systems. The
proposed signage shall be reviewed against the following standards.
10. The total number of signs associated with a Seasonal
Vending operation is limited to two.
11. All signage for the Seasonal Vending operation must be
contained on the subject private property.
12. One sandwich board type sign may be permitted if it satisfies
the standards found in Resolution No. 2009 -xxx and any
subsequent revisions to that resolution.
13. One sign may be painted or affixed directly to the vehicle or
cart.
14. No sign associated with the Seasonal Vending operation is
allowed to be on the subject property when the cart or
vehicle is not present.
(e) Signed agreement from the property owner allowing the proposed
Seasonal Vending operation.
(2) Submittal of a satisfactory inspection report of the proposed cart or vehicle from
the Stillwater Fire Department.
(3) Submittal of a permit issued for the cart or vehicle by Washington County
health officials.
(4) The annual permit for the first year of operation shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. The first year permit shall be valid through December
31 of the year.
(5) The annual permit for subsequent years of operation shall be reviewed by
Community Development Department staff, unless there are substantial
changes to the site plan or operations plan, or unless there are substantiated
complaints of a Public Safety or Public Health nature. If there are such
substantial changes or complaints, the Planning Commission must review the
annual permit application for that year.
(6) Seasonal Food Vending is only allowed on private property. No Seasonal Food
Vending permits will be issued for operation on public property or public
right -of -ways.
(7) For public safety reasons, all Seasonal Food Vending operations must close by
2:30 am each day. Also, if during large events it is determined by the Chief
of Police that downtown crowd control is necessary, Seasonal Food Vending
businesses may be required to close earlier than 2.30 am during that event.
3. Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapter 41 will remain in full force and
DRAFT 2
Page 5 of 5
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 , 2011.
CITY OF STILLWATER
Ken Harycki, Mayor
ATTEST:
Diane Ward, City Clerk
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
it
Variances shall require the following:
p
THE BIRTHPLACE OF M1NN SOTA
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: August 4, 2011
APPLICANT: City of Stillwater
REQUEST: Variance Review Criteria Discussion
REPORT AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director] T
During the 2011 legislative session the state law relating to variance review standards was
amended. To be consistent with the new law, the city must amend its Zoning Ordinance.
Attached is the amended law showing additions and deletions. The main change is that the
term "hardship" is now eliminated and allows a zoning authority to issue a variance to a zoning
control if there are "practical difficulties ". "Practical difficulties" are described as follows:
• "the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by an official control;
• the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner; and
• the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality."
Existing City Code
The current City Code language on variances is in Chapter 31, Section 31 -208. It is reproduced
here in its entirety.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the variance is to allow variation from the strict
application of the terms of this chapter where, by reason of the exceptional
narrowness, shallowness or unusual shape of a specific piece of property or by
reason of exceptional size, shape, topographic conditions or the extraordinary
condition of the property; or because of the use or development of lands
immediately adjoining the property, the literal enforcement of the requirements
Page 2 of 3
of this chapter would involve practical difficulties or would cause undue
hardship.
(b) General provisions. In no case may a variance be granted to permit a use
or a density other than a use or density permitted in the district. Nonconforming
uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other
districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance.
(c) Procedure. A public hearing must be held by the planning commission.
(d) Findings required. 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.
(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.
(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 chapter or the public interest nor adversely
affect the comprehensive plan.
(e) Recurrent conditions. A variance may not be authorized if the
community development director finds that the condition of the property or the
intended use of the property for which the variance is sought is so general or
recurrent in nature that a general regulation for the condition is required.
(f) Precedents. A previous variance must not be considered to have set a
precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on
its merits.
(g) Height variances. The city council is the final city authority for deciding
upon any request for a height variance that would be more than ten percent
greater than the height allowed in this chapter. The planning commission must
hold a public hearing on a height variance request and must make a
recommendation to the city council on whether the requested variance meets the
findings required in Section 31- 208(d).
Necessary Changes
Subsection (d) must be revised to be consistent with the new state law. We also might want to
revise subsection (a).
The revisions to subsection (d) could be similar to the language used in the Kidder variance case
(Case No. 2011 -19). It includes the following review criterion:
Page 3 of 3
A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical
difficulties" in complying with this chapter. A practical difficulty means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by
the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a
"practical difficulty ".
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss potential changes. Staff will incorporate discussion into a draft ordinance that will be
brought back to the Planning Commission at the September 12th meeting.
Attachment: 2011 Session Law for Varianaces
Chapter 19 - Revisor of Statutes
Minnesota Session Laws
Key: (1) languagc to be dcictcd (2) new language
2011, Regular Session
This document represents the act as presented to the governor. The version passed by
the legislature is the final engrossment. It does not represent the official 2011 session
law, which will be available here summer 2011.
CHAPTER 19-- H.F.No. 52
An act
relating to local government; providing for variances from city, county,
and town zoning controls and ordinances;amending Minnesota Statutes 2010,
sections 394.27, subdivision 7; 462.357, subdivision 6.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 394.27, subdivision 7, is amended to read:
Subd. 7. Variances; hardship practical difficulties. The board of adjustment shall
have the exclusive power to order the issuance of variances from the teams requirements
of any official control including restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall
only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
official control
and when the- terms-ef
the vatiaii. , variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. "Ilailhlnp' as u3...l
Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there
are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties,"
as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner
proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control;
the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality. Economic considerations alone shz& do not constitute
• • • : :: practical difficulties. Practical
difficulties include but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar
energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in
section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the official controls. No variance
may be granted that would allow any use that is pion ;tcd not allowed in the zoning
district in which the subject property is located. The board of adjustment may impose
conditions in the granting of variances ter. A condition must bedirectly related to and must
bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance insurc complia��,
aid to piut..ct ad pi vp.,itics thc puLli. ihtczcst. TL., Lvai.l of adjuatim...it may
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
Sec. 2 Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 462.357, subdivision 6, is amended to read:
Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and
adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable
Page 1 of 2
Search
https: / /www.revisor mn gov/laws/?id=19&year=2011&type=0 5/5/2011
Chapter 19 - Revisor of Statutes Page 2 of 2
conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has
the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance:
(1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any
order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the
enforcement of the zoning ordinance.
(2) To hear requests for variances from the lit. t al pn.,
,.,ii.liti.,irs alluWCJ by tlic uffi� ial ..,��tt.,l�, requirements of the zoning ordinance including
restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in
harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are
consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for
the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning
ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance,
means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the zonigordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner;; and the variance, if granted, will not
alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall do not
constitute
UTTdm, practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
include, but is are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section
216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and
adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any
use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone
where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case
may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two
family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions
in the granting of variances t., inn:fru .. " A
condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact
created by the variance.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
https: / /www.revisor mn gov/laws/?id=19&year=2011&type=0 5/5/2011