Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-14 CPC PacketW [I waa t (e r THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Monday, April 14, 2014 - 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street 3. APPROVAL OF March 10, 2014 MINUTES 4. 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 five minutes or less 5. 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. 5.01 Case No. V/2014-11 Consideration of a request for consideration of a variance to the front yard setback for the vertical expansion of an existing, non -conforming structure 916 6th Avenue South. RB Two Family. Charlene Sukhun, owner. 5.02 Case No. SUP/V/2014-12 Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit and Variance to open a store front restaurant Wok on Wheels or TBD (Wok on Water) at 126 Main Street North. CBD - Central Business District. Timothy Michel, owner. Shiquin Chen, applicant. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.01 Sign Ordinance Amendment Discussion 6.02 Trails Master Plan Visioning Session and Guiding Principles Workshop Invite E4iater :=R= THBIRTHPLACE Of MINNEIIIIINA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 10, 2014 Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 7:00 P.M. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer, Middleton, Council Representative Weidner Absent: Commissioner Siess Staff- City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Tumblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Hansen noted that in regard to the annual election of officers, Kocon was elected Chair and Hansen was elected Vice Chair, with the motion being by Fletcher, seconded by Hade. Commissioner Fletcher requested that the sentence regarding I'D Pappy's be changed to: In answer to an inquiry, it was explained that PD Pappy's has never had a threshold event. Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve the February 10, 2014 meeting minutes as amended. All in favor, 8-0. There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. SUP/V/2014-07 Request for consideration of an amendment to a Special Use Permit, and associated variances, for the development of a three-story addition to the Water Street Inn located at 101 Water Street South. St. Croix Preservation Company, Inc., owner and Roger Tomten, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is proposing an addition to the existing Water Street Inn that would create a new primary entrance to the hotel on Myrtle Street. The existing hotel lobby would be converted into a fon-nal dining area. Existing dining areas would be converted into meeting spaces. The first floor would contain administrative offices, meeting and rental space. The second and third floors of the addition would include 20 new hotel rooms. A clock tower on the northwest comer of the property would serve as a rooftop patio and outdoor bar. Two Special Use Permit amendments would be required: one for the addition and one for the outdoor dining. The associated variances being requested are: a 15' front yard setback variance from Myrtle Street; a 25' 10" height variance for the tower frame and a 37' 10" variance for the tower mast; and a 116 space Planning Commission March 10, 2014 parking variance. City Code allows for alternative parking provisions. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit amendments for the hotel and outdoor dining with six conditions. Staff recommends denial of the height variances and the front yard setback variance. She noted that the City's Comprehensive Plan identifies Lowell Park as the most prominent public green space in the city and identifies the Myrtle Street corridor as the most dramatic view of Stillwater's natural setting. Staff has determined that the height and setback variances are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because they would interfere with this "dramatic view." Roger Tomten, architect with Archnet, summarized the history of the site. The applicant would like to bring back the tower element that was part of the Union Depot which once occupied the site. The metal frame structure as proposed would replicate the shape of the original tower. He referenced architectural research indicating that adding landmark structures can focus and enhance a viewshed. Therefore, the tower can be interpreted as a complement to the viewshed, and the applicant believes the character of the neighborhood will not be altered in a negative way. A "Sketch -Up" program was used to trace the form of the original tower to create the 3D massing. City Planner Wittman noted that the original tower was in the 72-75 foot range, though it is unclear where it was measured from; as proposed, it is approximately 50' 8" to the top of the clock tower, 70' 2" to the top of the metal framed tower, and 81' 10" to the top of the mast. Chairman Kocon asked why the proposed tower is taller than the original tower. Mr. Tomten replied the design is at a very conceptual stage. The 3D massing was created from an existing photograph. He agreed that the final form of the tower component should be adjusted and would have no problem making it 66' plus a weather vane if the Commission wishes. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the view of the residents on the hill was considered. Mr. Tomten responded that the idea for the tower frame, as opposed to the full tower, came about to mitigate impacts on views. Commissioner Kelly asked what non -economic circumstances unique to the property justify the 15' setback variance. Mr. Tomten replied that the site is unique because he is not aware of any place else in the City that has a property line that goes halfway into a right of way. He believes the purpose of a setback should be to protect public safety and health but not to preserve a viewshed across private property. Mr. Dougherty added in 1995 a plan for the site was approved that would have had a square corner instead of the tower. Unfortunately, economics dictated that the building plans had to be pared down to what the building is now. With the tower element, the building will welcome visitors coming into town. To make the current expansion feasible, plans need to include the additional 20 rooms. There were no public comments. Chairman Kocon said he likes the concept of the tower. He feels it enhances the view and gives a face to the building. Page 2 of 5 Planning Commission March 10, 2014 Commissioner Hade stated when he first saw the drawings, he preferred the look of the original tower, but the idea of the frame structure has grown on him and he sees a resemblance to the lift bridge and feels it is appropriate as proposed. Commissioner Middleton commented that he likes the project and finds it admirable that the historical architectural elements are included. Commissioner Kelly pointed out that other downtown buildings are built out to property lines. He believes the tower will be a nice feature. Commissioner Lauer concurred that he likes the tower feature. Commissioner Hansen recognized that the reason for placing the building at the property line was to include the tower element. He feels the setback variance is justified. Commissioner Fletcher concurred and added she has no issue with the height. She feels the tower plays an important role in defining the area, though perhaps it could be made a little more stout to resemble the original tower. Chairman Kocon agreed that the setback requested is similar to that of other downtown buildings. Commissioner Hansen suggested that the justification for the setback variance could be that the property owner did not create the hardship of the Myrtle Street setback. The proposal is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to recommend approval of the two Special Use Permit amendments with the six conditions noted in the staff report; and to approve the three height variances; and to approve the setback variance. All in favor, 8-0. Case No. SUP/2014-08 Request for a Special Use Permit for the conversation of an existing office unit into a residential unit located at 902 Fourth Street South in the CA General Commercial District Jon Whitcomb, applicant. City Planner Wittman summarized the request. The property owner is requesting a Special Use Permit to convert an existing office unit into a residential unit. The residence would be the fourth in this mixed-use structure; two units will remain commercial. Staff received one objection from a future property owner located at 912 Fourth Street South, who expressed objections to the additional residential unit due to tree growth near the property line. Staff does not perceive the issue to be relevant to the interior remodeling and change of use. Staff recommends approval with one condition. Jon Whitcomb, applicant, explained that neighbors have told him there was a residence in the proposed location previously, but staff was unaware of it. He is not proposing to expand the building pad, but only to use existing space. There were no public comments. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit, with one condition indicated in the staff report. All in favor, 8-0. Page 3 of 5 Planning Commission March 10, 2014 Case No. V/2014-09 Request for a 2' variance to the 3 minimum side yard setback for the reconstruction and enlargement of a nonconforming detached garage located at 518 Olive Street West, in the RB, Two -Family District. David and Madeline Rogers, applicants. City Planner Wittman stated the owners are seeking a 2' variance to the 3' minimum side yard setback for the reconstruction and enlargement of a nonconforming, detached garage. The pitch of the new garage would be similar to the existing home. Staff recommends approval of the variance with four conditions. Dave Rogers, applicant, informed the Commission that the original garage was built on fill which had settled dramatically, causing the building to tilt back toward the ravine. He is willing to work with the City to make the project work. The upper level will be used for storage. Commissioner Hansen remarked that since there is an existing non -conformity, the homeowners should be allowed to build as proposed. Commissioner Kelly stated he is fine with the eave encroaching the neighboring property line provided that the applicants have permission from neighbors. Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve the variance with four conditions noted in the staff report, with the following modifications to the conditions: In Condition #2, removing bullets c and d; in Condition #3, changing wording to "if eave or structural encroachment exists, property owner must submit a recorded easement to include property maintenance access signed by the property owners of 602 Olive Street West." All in favor, 8-0. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER BUSINESS Consideration of a recommendation to the Stillwater City Council for an amendment to the Planning Commission meeting schedule. City Planner Wittman asked if Commissioners would like to hove meetings to the second Wednesday of every month at 7 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Chairman Kocon, to recommend to the City Council to move the Planning Commission meetings to the second Wednesday of each month. All in favor, 8-0. COMMISSION REQUEST ITEMS There were no Commission request items. YEN 191611'Y Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to adjourn the meeting at 9:11 p.m. All in favor, 8-0. Page 4 of 5 Planning Commission Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 5 of 5 March 10, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 14, 2014 CASE NO.: V/2014-11 APPLICANT: Charlene Sukhun, property owner REQUEST: Request for a variance to the minimum front yard setback for the vertical enlargement of a nonconforming structure located at 916 6th Avenue South ZONING: RB- Two Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Low/ Medium Density Res. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittm REQUEST The property owner is seeking approval of a 9.6' variance to the 20' minimum front yard setback for the vertical enlargement of a pre-existing, nonconforming residence located at 916 6th Avenue South. The reconstruction includes increasing the 4' second -story walls to 8' for a full second story on the original portion of the structure. The work for which the variance has been requested has already been completed by the property owner. APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS Section 31-101 defines a nonconformance as an existing building, structure or use of land that does not conform to the regulations of the district in which it is located. Section 31-216 indicates any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupancy of land, buildings, structures or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this [zoning] chapter, may be continued (including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion). Section 31-101 further states additions to existing structures may be erected provided that 1) the owner of the lot does not own any adjoining property; and 2) the proposed addition itself meets all setback and development standards for the zoning district. The purpose of the variance is to allow variation from the strict application of the terms of zoning chapter where, by reason of the exceptional physical characteristics of the property (or Case No. V/20-14.."1"1 CPC -4 X14 2011 918 (ill, Avenue So. Pai;k_' 1 oc'� T H E H N T H P I. A f" f 0 P M 7 N N E S 0 T A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 14, 2014 CASE NO.: V/2014-11 APPLICANT: Charlene Sukhun, property owner REQUEST: Request for a variance to the minimum front yard setback for the vertical enlargement of a nonconforming structure located at 916 6th Avenue South ZONING: RB- Two Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Low/ Medium Density Res. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittm REQUEST The property owner is seeking approval of a 9.6' variance to the 20' minimum front yard setback for the vertical enlargement of a pre-existing, nonconforming residence located at 916 6th Avenue South. The reconstruction includes increasing the 4' second -story walls to 8' for a full second story on the original portion of the structure. The work for which the variance has been requested has already been completed by the property owner. APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS Section 31-101 defines a nonconformance as an existing building, structure or use of land that does not conform to the regulations of the district in which it is located. Section 31-216 indicates any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupancy of land, buildings, structures or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this [zoning] chapter, may be continued (including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion). Section 31-101 further states additions to existing structures may be erected provided that 1) the owner of the lot does not own any adjoining property; and 2) the proposed addition itself meets all setback and development standards for the zoning district. The purpose of the variance is to allow variation from the strict application of the terms of zoning chapter where, by reason of the exceptional physical characteristics of the property (or Case No. V/20-14.."1"1 CPC -4 X14 2011 918 (ill, Avenue So. Pai;k_' 1 oc'� p W a ter 4 T h1 f B I R T H P I A L F O F M I N N F. 111 1 A structure), the literal enforcement of the requirements would cause practical difficulties for the landowner; economic considerations alone cannot constitute practical difficulties. Section 31- 208, Variances, indicates the Planning Commission may grant a variance, but only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general spirit and intent of this [zoning] chapter. The general spirit of the code is to allow for residences and accessory uses in the RB - Two Family district. It also generally allows for expansion of non -conforming buildings. In this case the upward expansion maintains the existing front yard setback of 10.4' 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. One objective of the Comprehensive Plan's Chapter four, Housing, is that the City shall retain the unique and/or historic character of existing residential areas. 3. The applicant for the variance establishes there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a variance means that all the following must be found to apply: a. The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by official controls. While the residential use is reasonable in this district, the zoning chapter clearly indicates the expansion and enlargement of non -conforming structures must be done in accordance with all setback and development standards for the zoning district. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstance unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner. Having been constructed in 1876, the low ceiling height on the second story and the placement of the house in relationship to the street were unique circumstances to meeting today's zoning regulations. However, the property owner conducted the work without formal zoning approvals, thus creating landowner plight. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character to the locality. While the City Code indicates nonconforming uses of neighboring lands, structures or buildings may be considered grounds for issuance of a variance, the applicant has indicated this is an older neighborhood where residences were constructed (during the 1870s -1890s were constructed with close proximity to the street. The four nearby structures range in distance from 5' to 13.25' from the front property lines. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Although the request is reasonable, consistent with the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan, and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, the plight is due to the Case No, V/201-1 -11 CPC 1-1=1..201 4 918 611' Ati emw So. Page 2 of ,3 7, illwater B ( R T 11 P [ A 0 F M I N N t `, 0 1 A Landowner's action of increasing the wall height without first obtaining a variance. The Commission has several options: approve, approve with conditions, deny or table the application (requesting additional information to be submitted). Should the Planning Commission impose conditions, they must be directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff would prefer the Comn-dssion deny the variance on the basis that the plight of the landowner was self-created by doing construction work that was not permitted. If the Commission finds the variance review standards to be met, then staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to the plans on file in the Community Development Department, dated March 18, 2014. 2. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. ATTACHMENTS Bird's Eye Site Location Map Applicant's March 18, 2014 Narrative (3 pages) Application attachments (14 pages) Cose 1V1o, V1201 1-11 (T( 1 1-1 201-1 91,`r hll, At cjmc S), P'lge 3 of:; Pictometry Online httpJ/pol.pictornetiy,com/en-us/app/print.plip?title=916 6th Avenue South Site Location M Print Date: 04/09/2014 Image Date:05/03/2011 Level: Neighborhood of 1 4/9/2014 1:41 PM To: Stillwater Planning Commission, Stillwater Zoning/Building Inspector and close neighbors to 916 6th Ave S From: Charlene Sukhun (owner), 651-331-9812 VARIANCE REQUEST: Allow the original part of the house on 916 6th Ave S that faces 6th Ave S to have the second floor walls raised 4' higher than the original height. I purchased the home on 916 6 th Ave S in June of 2013 with the intent of fixing it up and living in it. I always liked the historic areas of Stillwater and really liked the lot the house sits on. The house was a foreclosure and was gutted, but I thought I could make the front 2 story section of the house 'livable' and replace the rear I story addition as it was not structurally sound and it would be better to replace it than totry and fix it. The original permit was to build a 1 story addition in back with a basement under the new addition only. We started work on the house the middle of October and planned to finish the beginning of December so I could move inbyChristmas. During the remodel additional structural, foundation, and bedrock issues were identified that needed tobo repaired and increased the cost and timeframe of the project. The weather also slowed us down considerably. For multiple reasons I decided to make the addition in back a 2 story addition instead of a 1 story addition. 4dthat point I was hoping to finish the project and be able to move in by the beginning of April. PROBLEM OUTLINE: When the opening on the second floor was created between the original 2 story house facing 6 th Ave S and the new 2 story addition in back, extensive fire damage was found in the attic that was not repaired correctly. The studs on the EM walls of the house did not all reach the roof, and some roof joists were not sistered/supported correctly. See attached pictures. Note: Replacing the roof system in the original 2 story part of the house was never planned. It wasn't until the opening onthe 2 nd floor was made between the old and new was done that the extent oythe problem was identified. / knew there was efire afone time but was told by2contractors that dwas repaired and it was structurally sound. The contractor said the roof system needed to bereplaced and the structural engineer agreed. Two options were Opt 1: Replace the roof system with a hand -framed roof system just like original roof with the same height m Pros: o New roof would bostructurally sound o Adormer could beadded tothe small bedroom for 8negress window * Cons: o Bedrooms would still have the same 4' side wall height o The maximum ceiling height would still be 7'2" in the onrder n Insulation in side wm!|a and attic would not be increased Opt 2: Replace the roof system with an engineered roof truss system 4' higher than original roof w Prom: o The side walls would be raised to a full 8' height with 2x6 studs sistered to the 2x4 side wall studs o The ceiling height would be a minimum of 8' height o The attic would have a 12" energy heel and would allow for sufficient insulation to meet code o The 2x6walls would allow for sufficient insulation tomeet code o The small bedroom could have anegress window added without udormer o Additional windows could beadded tothe large bedroom without dormers The cost difference was less than $50Obetween the 2options. | told the contractor that option 2was the most logical solution and toproceed (incorrectly assuming there wasn't a problem with the city - the engineer approved this option and the rear addition had the same roof truss system). I submitted the permit change request to the building inspector who said zoning also had to approve it since the roof would be higher. Atthis time the trusses were ordered but were not in and there was not a finn delivery date. When the zoning department called a few days later and I knew there was a problem, I called the contractor who said the trusses had just been installed that day. I informed the Zoning Department and the Building Inspector of the status of the project. Per the city's request, we agreed to stop all work on the 2nd floor of the original part of the house until the variance decision is made — roughly 6 weeks (4/25/14). This kswhy the engineered trusses were installed before the variance request is approved. * Anew roof onthe original 2story part ofthe house was never inthe plans. ° The project started mid-October and multiple problems have delayed the project time frame and increased the scope ofthe project. 0 We were finally getting where we were making good progress and were hoping to finish by the end of April/beginning of May. ° 1 didn't think there would be any problems getting the permit change request approved as the engineer approved the approach to fix the damaged attic/roof, and the proposed roof system was just like the one inthe new addition inback, but narrower. At this point, the 2 nd floor side walls are raised to 8'with 2x6 sistered studs and the engineered roof trusses are installed. The interiornu wa||sonthe� floor are not installed and the roof plywood base for shingles ia not installed. See attached photos and sketches of house with front of house at original height and the proposed new height. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES REQUIREMENTS: * The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in a zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not ponnU±ed by other official controls. o 1 believe the variance request to have the second floor height higher is reasonable and the space allows for more usable bedrooms m The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner. o The problem was caused by fire damage that occurred years ago that did not get properly � The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character ofthe locality o 1 do not think the essential character of the locality will be altered by granting this variance request. There are other homes on the same street within a block that are close to the street and that have tall 2»ostories — see attached photos. OPTIONS: Allow the Variance ° The front ofthe house will bm2 stories high with full height walls nnthe second floor and 8'minimum ceiling heights inside. * The side wall structure and roof trusses currently nnthe house will remain ° The roof and upper level will befinished oeplanned w Side walls will be 2x8 construction that is 8' high * Roof trusses have 12" energy heel to allow for enough insulation to meet code in attic and walls w The small bedroom will have olegal egress window without adormer ° Bedroom interiors will have more usable space p The front part of the house would be approximately 2.5' shorter than the new addition in back Not Allow the Variance * The front of the house will be 2 stories high with 4'side walls and 7'2" maximum interior ceiling heights (mm itwas oh8ina|k). « The smaller bedroom would have to have a dormer added in order to have an egress window large enough for olegal bedroom * The new 2xGside wall studs that are 8'high will beshortened to4' • The new engineered roof truss system will be removed and replaced with a hand -framed roof system the same height asthe original roof * The maximum interior ceilings will be7'2^high ^ New insulation will be added to provide as much R -Value as possible in the walls and attic ^ The front part of the house would be approximately 7' shorter than the new addition in back | really feel that allowing the variance makes the most sense and that the house would aUU [d in in the neighborhood. I would love to finish the house and finally be able to move in as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration on my variance request. Please let me know if you have any questions or ChedoneGukhun 651-331-9812 * Variance Request Application Form ° Legal Description —VVashington County records = City ofStillwater Property Information • Survey/Site Plan — before rear addition was replaced; shows proximity offront o[house (original section) toN.S.and Elot lines w Elevation sketnh—Ohgino| height offront 2 stories with new addition in back * Elevation sketch Proposed height of front 2 stories with new addition in back " Floor plan sketch — 2nd floor with original height walls and ceiling • Floor plan sketch — 2nd floor with proposed height walls and ceiling * Photos — Attic fire damage showing burned roof joists that are not sistered and studs on end walls of house (E/VVwalls) that donot reach the actual roof ° Photos — Original house in front with new addition in back — second floor and roof are original height = Photns- Original house in front with new addition in back — second floor and roof are proposed height if variance ieapproved m m w Photos — Neighboring homes within 1 block nf01G8 AvaG—eUaraonG AveG EMAIL FROM STLLVVATER ZONING DEPARTMENT REGARDING NEED FOR VARIANCE From: Abbi VVittman[mm0o:awittman@ci.sUUwateroln.us] Sent: Wednesday, K8ernh 12' 20144:08PKA Tu:'csukhun@oonleast.not' Cc: John Nobles Subject: RE: Potential Variance at 016 6th Ave So. Charlene: As we discussed, the older portion of the structure sits 10.4+ from the front property line. The zoning regulations indicate any expansion or enlargement must conform to the existing setback provisions (20' in the front yard). Given this, any addition (including vertical additions, as in the case with a 4' increase in the wall height) will need to be set 20' back from the front property line or a variance will need to be obtained. This means vvewould allow the (approximate) western 14`to be increased without avariance. As I indicated, a variance of this nature can only be approved by the Planning Commission. Information on Requests for Variances can befound at: . This webpagoalso contains the application packet. Included with the $276application fee must be the simple application form, a copy of the legal description, a narrative request outlining the projectand addressing the practical difficulties, as well as a site plan (using the survey for your site plan would be most beneficial). You are welcome to submit photos, elevation renderings as well as any other information you determine necessary forthe Planning Commission. The complete application deadline (for the Planning Commission's April 14mmeeting) is 4:30 pm on March 21st. |wou|d be happy to review e narrative request prior iothis date. Please let meknow how you think you will beproceeding. Abti ' Page l of Parcel Number. 33.030.20.11.0129 Property Address. 01O6TH AVE S GT|LLVVATER. MN 55082 yMAPS Class�RES|OENT|AL Legal Description: & LOT 6SUBD|NS|ONNNNECHURCHILL NELSON SLAUGHTER ADD LOT 5BLOCK 165UBO|V|S|ONCDO08O5 Prior Year Value Information Year Land Value Dwelling Value Improvement Value Total Value 2014 $75.000 $68.300 $U $143.300 2013 $61.400 $56.200 $O $117.600 More Years... Land Information LotTy9e Square Feet Acres Lump Sum 10.800 0.248 Residential Building Information Occupancy Style Year Built Total Living Area Single-Faimily / Owner Occupied l Story Fra 'me 1876 r Sale Information Sale Date Amount Recording 06/24/2013 $70.000 Dote NumberAmount Reason 12M2/201313-01063 80000 Addition 09/ 17/2013 _ _ 13-OU8O3 - ' - 8000 ---�'-�-,_-_--_- Sidi ' -' -- �s�- 07/25/2011 11-00583 4500 Roofing 11/ 2 201064 GOOO Roofing http://washington.minnesotaassessors.com/parcel.php?gld=839422 3/16/2014 City of Stillwater, MN -- On -Line Property Information Lookup Application -- Parcel Inf.. Page I of 2 City of Stillwater City of Stillwater Community Development Department 216N 4th Street On -Line Property Information Lookup Application Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8820 Parcel Information Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 3303020110129 Site Address: 916 6TH AVE S avrar STILLWATER, MN 55082 Tax Description: %-,''ck Y ic \,el'iIheI Fix 'nQL212 SO 2k, Washington Co. Property Information :Pr,,4,,rM,, Ca.,, AdgMonal `1�1'1 .itp Datafinder: Gja f',,Iap Washington Co. Assessor's Web Site :D, -1'a Zoning Information CBD Height Overlay District Zonir,q Zoning District Nirne. Bulk Regulations Allcywable Uses Is, the property in the CBD Height Overlay District? RB Two Family Residential (D� VL-tv �"- 3 - _C u = 3 No Design Review District None Is the propefty in the Neighborhood Conservatiww District (NCD)? Yes IS the PrOlaert, III the HairlOOM and Landmark Sites Program? No. In Lake Shorelind Area? No Design Districts Shoreland Management Information In Stream Shorelind Area? No FEMA FIRM Flood Information Panel Number Zone Nlap Revision Date 27163CO266E X 2/3/2.010 NOTICE: The City of Stillwater, MN provides this information as a public service. The City of Stillwater does not guarantee the information listed on this page and it is not meant to satisfy the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act. For a guaranteed determination you need to hire a licensed professional engineer to make a determination. For additional FIRM data please contact the City of Stillwater Community Development Department at 651-430-8820 Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic River Is the prope, by in 'tie Lowef St. Croix Wild and Scenic River District? No Note: Click on the permit number for inspection information Planning Cases Case Number No Planning Cases found. Contact the City of Stillwater Community Development Department at 651-430-8820. Note: Click on the case number for additional information. Case Final "Tyke Action http:llwww.stillwater-mn.orglzoningwebISample—interfacelCate,p,orieslparcel-ext.asp?dp=3... 7/1/2013 Building Permits Permit Number Pertnit Type, Constructionrype. Applicant Issued Date Closed Date 21, U " Q 93 4 BUILDING REROOF WEATHERGUARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 11/25/2002 2/1812010 200",- G BUILDING GARAGE DETACHED SUSSEL CORPORATION 10/19/2005 2/18/2010 2 0 1 0 56, BUILDING REROOF GUNNER CONSTRUCTION LLC 7/2512011 Note: Click on the permit number for inspection information Planning Cases Case Number No Planning Cases found. Contact the City of Stillwater Community Development Department at 651-430-8820. Note: Click on the case number for additional information. Case Final "Tyke Action http:llwww.stillwater-mn.orglzoningwebISample—interfacelCate,p,orieslparcel-ext.asp?dp=3... 7/1/2013 CERTIFICATEOF SURVEY SET MAGNAIL N89 -46-14E 135.43 MEAS. 135 PLAT k•., ,sxe.:�cr�oa�c 13 j -- 10.4t GAF- HOUSE d O 3 __ _� O QUj W 0) v GARAGE ASPHALT LT DRIVEWAY � 3:... ... ........ .. __G_. w _ r- ' �� w CO) OC1 CONC. SLAB i ` N Q� C� Z Ge G S89-46�9W 135.43 MEAS. 135 PLAT Q1 W N M N89 -45-24E 270.85 SURVEYOR'S NOTE: w a CURB SPLIT WAS USED TO DETERMINE BLOCK 16 WHICH FIT FOUND STARK IRONS. S 20 40 60 W Lots 5 and 6, Block 16, Churchill, Nelson and Sbru hWe Addition to Stillwater, according to the recorded plat thersof In the In the County R OfBoe, Washington County, Minnesota. m ?1 hereby ow* that this survey was prepared by me and that I a duly licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State z of Minnesota. CHARLENE SUKHUN 916 6TH AVE. SO. / STILLWATER MN 55082 'N6948 -15E 270.85 Brandon W. Kang 42597 CONCRETE WALL FALLS NORTH OF LINE Minnesota Proftwslonal Land Surveyor 2 PLASTIC FENCE FALLS ON LINE. 7-15-13 3� CYCLONE FENCE FALLS 0.6* SOUTH OF LINE 4 WOOD FENCE FALLS 0.81t SOUTH OF LINE 5Q Fww STARK IRON wmS so1-1037W 80.00 FRO'g BOCK CORNER. o DENOTES A SET 3/4" X 18" IRON REBAR THE BEARINGS SHO HEREON ARE BASED WITH PLASTIC CAP D 42597. ON ASSUMED DATUM. DENOTES FOUND ST 5/8" IRON PIPE. BRANDON KING LAND SURVEYING, LLC N324 CO. RD. D SUITE A EAU GALLE WI 54737 715839.6243 SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS BCU --COM IL.Ilmmmm . . . . . . . . . . . . .tin. IL.Ilmmmm z .- a y, lie AN AQv A r ��� a i d f r 4s - z u �'t r `'"�...^k ✓ k "4"� n,F'� ' y�kmw.'u`e' 1%'" Ma .�:,�,�..,�.,.,,�.�..� �� ,F. �s "`'�l'�i� an1� dw�'&w,w.�.��..o-`�`e �.%�aJshY�J',�! b�mr,�",yn;uvNO,.# �.,mnW«a $'°da�.c�',..°ra "�^'��`"w4a -• Pi" 2a. r{ . �^"'� ...�..., .c..... i w�, �'���rv' Zwu�+ww�aen - _ MTM'rr w aE �„»'" " _^ .:. 0�1.�w.�.°a"L..,.�°':..,�'s^r*v,.� �s y ,R 7F ;L - _ Was �r wf � T --o N AGe- -- IV ky,� (� -Olu+ C+ -F 6E 6f Ao-rc�D � I � u �,tom AV -6- -- sir 41- ,, �„ r �, ��wra�m'^ v a� ,,,,.;�� .. r,�; .. >,. ��a �.... ter I I B I R I F1 P L A C 1 0 f 61 1 N N I 1 0 1 A I M, R alty, X13 UT n M" Sn' IN I MEETING DATE: April 14, 2014 CASE NO.: SUP/V/2014-12 APPLICANT: Shiqin Chen, applicant REQUEST: Request for a Special Use Permit for a restaurant at 1.26 Main Street North ZONING: CBD -Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU-Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Plan REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to operate a restaurant at 126 Main Street North. Also, the Downtown Parking Commission will review a request for approval of alternative provisions to on-site parking requirements. BACKGROUND Shiqin Chen owns the Wok s Al 10 BA AO '5- AbI r1 A V 4& ' eA "I— AG 0 AA on Wheels vending truck that serves food from the front yard of Let There Be Light on the Northwest corner of North Main and Commercial Street. He would like to expand by opening a restaurant one storefront south of Commercial Street at 126 Main Street North. The new restaurant would be called Wok on Water and would replace the vending business. The space that Wok on Water would do business in had previously been occupied by a dental office. Ian a a a [W."I tna nallp W.,Vv 1631"my."wo RX. -I Irnam"I Municipal Code Section 31-207 indicates the following must be determined by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a Special Use Permit: The proposed strnctnre or nse conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lazifi4l regulations. Zoning Ordinance o Use: Restaurants are allowed in the Central Business District by Special Use Permit. o Parking: No on-site parking will be available for this business. Since, the property is located within the Downtown Parking District, alternative provisions are possible for meeting the restaurant's parking obligations. Review of this application is scheduled for the April 17th Downtown Parking Commission meeting. Comprehensive Plan - The Local Economy chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Page 7-4) "encourages small locally owned businesses particularly in the downtown." Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; and Staff has not identified any public interest concerns. Exterior changes - Section 31-319 of the Stillwater City Code requires that the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) conduct a design review on exterior changes and signage. At this time, the applicant has not proposed any exterior changes. Miscellaneous o Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Staff has determined the restaurant would not be a detriment to the public. FINDINGS Staff finds the use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. With the certain conditions, the proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATION The Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the Special Use Permit with or without conditions 2. Deny the Special Use Permit 3. Table the request for more information Staff recommends the Commission approve the Special Use Permit 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. Case No. SUP/V/201-1-12,126 Main Street No. CPC :a._;14. 2014, flare 2 of 3 2. All signage approval shall go to the Heritage Preservation Comn-fission for review and approval. 3. Exterior facade modifications less than $5,000 or that alters the essential character of the structure, shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 4. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 5. Alternative provisions to the parking regulations, as determined by the Downtown Parking Commission, shall be incorporated into the Special Use Permit conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS Narrative request Floor plan Casc No. SUP/V/2014-'12, 120 kbin Sti-cut No, (TCA. 1-1 2014, Rq,,e ;� of 3 Wok onWheels 651-998-9394 3-2O-JO14 Community Development Department City ofStillwater � 216North 4~ St. Stillwater MNS5082 Dear Stillwater Planning Commission: Myname is ShiqinChen. Myfamily and | been operating Wok onWheels food truck in dovvntovvnSdUvvaterintheparWnQ|otof"LETTHEREBEL|GHT"storesince201O.Novv|'mxvrhjn&this letter to seek a special use permit for 126 Main North property to open a storefront restaurant, this would give us an opportunity to open year around. The 126 Main Street North property been unoccupied for many years, a Chinese restaurant will fits in the main street surrounding area nicely, we will offer quick inexpensive meals to dine in or take out, and it will bring more people to the north end of town. We will need an obtained parking variance. Please see attached special use permit application and floor plan, ifyou have any question let nneknow. Property legal description: PT OF LOT 0 BLIK 18 COM ON VV LINE MAIN ST 183FT N OF N LINE MYRTLE ST THENCE N 19FT TO COMMERCIAL AVE THENCE W ON COMMERCIAL AVE 84 FT TO MYRTLE ALLEY THENCE S 19FT THENCE E 84FT TO BEG Sincerely Shiqin Chen Wok onWheels 26* 10, 17-4' V-11, - i I 'a ter r W4 TNE�B!R'H PLA GE GK M1NNESO!A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 14, 2014 CASE NO.: N/A REGARDING: Future Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) for City Code Section 31-508, Sign Regulations PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City BACKGROUND City staff has been asked by the City Council to address the following specific provisions in City Code Section 31-508: Sign Regulations: ® Subd. 5(e): No sign may display any moving parts, be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights or may be animated, except time and temperature information. Specifically, the City has been asked to consider the allowance of LED/LCD screens (dynamic signage) as a form of advertisement. ® Subd. 7(b): Wall signs in the CBD or CA districts shall meet the following requirements: o Area. The total building signage may have an aggregate area not exceeding one square foot for each foot of building face parallel or substantially parallel to a street lot line. Specifically, the City has been asked to allow for an increase of the maximum allowable square footage for business signage for the central businesses district. As a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) will be required, City staff has also found there are no sign regulations for institutional signage; this is true for instructional zoning districts, such as the area of City Hall and the Post Office, or for institutional uses in residential districts, such as schools, churches and the hospital. The City has been approving applications for institutional signage under the City's Special Use Permit process. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Staff is requesting the Planning Commission discuss the following: ® Should the City allow for LED/ LCD screens (dynamic signage) as a form of advertisement? ® If the City would be favorable to allowing LED/ LCD screens (dynamic signage) as a form of advertisement, are there certain areas the City should allow and/or prohibit them (downtown, HWY 36/5 corridor, commercially and/or residentially zoned areas)? a r Wij- ter T H E�.a R T H? i.. A G E 0 i M I N N F�G T A` Are the sign regulations for downtown businesses sufficient or should the City consider allowing for greater maximum square footages for downtown businesses? Should the City develop institutional signage regulations so proposed signs for these uses are reviewed through the sign permitting procedure, opposed to through the Special Use Permit procedure? If institutional signage regulations are developed, should the provisions for institutional districts be the same as institutional uses in residential districts? COMMISSION ACTION The goal of the discussion will be to provide staff with guidance for the drafting of a ZAT. A draft will be brought back before the Commission for further discussion and a public hearing, prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. The ZAT will also include minor edits for clarification and to better facilitate administration of this City Code Section. ATTACHMENTS To help guide discussion, the following items have been attached for reference: League of Minnesota Cities "Sign Ordinances and the First Amendment" League of Minnesota Cities "Regulating Dynamic Signage" City Code Section 31-508, Subd. 7 League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust LAC 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 4.ffW of mi.,.Ot. Gt'.0 (651) 281-1200 - (800) 925-1122 Fax: (651) 281-1298 • TDD: (651) 281-1290 www.imno.org PON 111111 NUNN J Sign ordinances have received nationwide attention lately as several well- publicized cases raised successful challenges on First Amendment grounds. This memorandum discusses some of the basics of designing a sign ordinance that meets the requirements of the First Amendment, 1. General First Amendment Principles The law regarding signs ordinances is different than most other land use provisions, because sign ordinances implicate the greater protections of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Most city decisions, if challenged in court, are subject only to rational -basis review. That means a city decision will generally be upheld if there is any rational basis to it at all. If the First Amendment is involved, the review is not so easy. The First Amendment protects signs as speech, and courts will look very closely at any attempts to limit non-commercial speech. This highest level of review is called strict scrutiny, Courts will look very closely on these limitations to make sure that the city is not giving disparate treatment based on the message content or the identity of the speaker. Restrictions on commercial speech (advertising) do not receive same level of scrutiny as those on non-commercial speech. However, the First Amendment is still implicated so the level of scrutiny is still elevated, and is known as intermediate scrutiny. Under this standard, regulation will be upheld so long as it is narrowly tailored to accomplish a legitimate government purpose and is no more restrictive than necessary. Thus, even content neutral restrictions must be drafted carefully so as to be no more restrictive than necessary to accomplish a legitimate purpose. Intermediate scrutiny can present a number of challenges with the practical implementation of sign ordinances. Cities should be particularly careful with broadly sweeping regulations. For example, complete bans or moratoriums on all signs might be difficult to justify as narrowly tailored to accomplish a legitimate government purpose. Cities should also be careful about the practical effects of making fine distinctions or exemptions to otherwise valid rules, Consider a regulation that prohibits all moving or flashing signs for reasons of public safety, because they are distracting to drivers, but which exempts such signs for city and park facilities. It might be difficult to show that this regulation is narrowly tailored to accomplish a legitimate government purpose because allowing flashing signs in some situations takes away the credibility of the public safety concern. With this background in mind, there are several steps that cities can take when drafting ordinances. 11. Provisions All Sign Ordinances Should Have All sign ordinances should be drafted to take into account the First Amendment principles discussed above. Therefore, it is recommended that every sign ordinance contain the following provisions, A. A Statement of Purpose. The statement of purpose is a guide to how the ordinance was drafted and should be applied. It should establish that the ordinance should not be read to include content - based restrictions. It should also include a statement of the government purposes and describe how the ordinance is narrowly tailored to meet those purposes. It may also help to draft findings of fact that discuss the governmental interests that the ordinance is addressing and how the ordinance addresses them. B. A Substitution Clause. The City must ensure that it does not treat some types of non-commercial speech differently than other types of speech. One way to ensure this is to include a clause that provides that for every type of sign that is allowed, any non-commercial message could be legally substituted. C. Severability Clause. Ordinance should specifically state that in the event that any provision of the ordinance is found to be invalid, the remainder of the ordinance is intended to stand on its own and still be valid. This may prevent a -court from invalidating an entire ordinance because of a constitutional flaw in part of it. D. Acknowledgement of election season pre-emption as found in Minnesota Statute. Minnesota Statute provides: 211B.045 Noncommercial signs exemption. In any municipality, whether or not the municipality has an ordinance that regulates the size or number of noncommercial signs, all noncommercial signs of any size may be posted in any number from August I in a state general election year until ten days following the state general election. Sign ordinances must comply with this state law. However, it is also important not to apply the converse of this regulation by only allowing some types of non-commercial speech during this designated time. The most common example are ordinances prohibiting political yard signs except during election season. These ordinances are almost certainly unconstitutional content -based restrictions if other types of yard signs are allowed. Ordinances should make clear that providing non-commercial speech this extra latitude during election season does not impose any additional restrictions or prohibitions 2 outside of that period. Otherwise -valid content -neutral restrictions on time, place, manner, or size may still apply the rest of the year. E. Content Neutral regulations based on time, place, and manner. As a general matter, sign ordinances should avoid regulating on the basis of content. Instead, regulations should be based on reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner. Valid time, place, and manner restrictions are upheld be courts if they: (1) Are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech; (2) Are narrowly tailored; (3) Serve a significant governmental interest; and (4) Leave open ample alternative channels of communication III. Provisions All Sign Ordinances Should Avoid A. Unfettered discretion. Approval or permitting of signs should never be conditioned upon a discretionary approval by the city. Having discretion at all, regardless of how it has been applied, creates the potential for favoring some messages or messengers over others. Any permit requirements should be transparent and objective. A very common provision in ordinances allows signs on public property only with approval by the City Council. This is very problematic and should be avoided. B. Exemptions or favoritism for certain groups or types of signs based on content. Another common provision in ordinances is to exempt certain groups or messages from permit requirements. For example, church signs and official flags are often exempted. This is content -based discrimination and should be avoided. Note that this is different from providing exemptions based on valid time, place, or manner restrictions. For example, it is common and acceptable to exempt all signs under a certain size from permitting requirements. C. Inadvertently treating non-commercial speech differently by defining "sign" as "advertising." Beware of over -defining terms. This occasional problem area is the combination of a few steps: (1) Signs are defined narrowly as bearing advertising messages. (2) A provision is made allowing the enumerated signs to get permits. (3) All other signs without permits are prohibited. Courts have read these kinds of ordinances as impermissibly prohibiting all non- commercial speech. On the flip side, ordinances that discuss only advertising signs may inadvertently fail to include non-commercial speech in time, place, and manner restrictions. For example, it could result in a sign ordinance that had no limits on the size and number of non-commercial speech billboards. 3 IV. Common Questions and Issues A. Off -premise advertising. Off -premise advertising consists of commercial signs that do not advertise for a business on the same premises as the sign. It is legal to forbid off -premise advertising, so long as the prohibition does not extend to noncommercial messages. B. Flags. Be cautious of regulations that might favor the some types of flag, particularly the United States Flag, over other flags. This is an example of the substitution clause; if one type of noncommercial flag would be acceptable, any noncommercial flag should be allowed. C. Yard Signs. A number of courts have held that yard signs are constitutionally protected and cannot be prohibited. Be especially cautious about provisions that favor some messages over others. The most common types that get special treatment are real estate or construction project signs. V. Summary First Amendment law can be very confusing even to experts. For purposes of drafting sign ordinances, cities should err on the side of caution or tread very carefully. Keep in the mind these basic rules of thumb: (1) Avoid regulations that depend on the content of the sign. (2) Do not favor commercial speech over noncommercial speech. (3) Provide clear procedures and follow them. (4) Explain the rationale and purpose of your ordinance. There are exceptions to these rules, but they should be approached very cautiously and with legal advice. This is by no means a comprehensive list of every argument that a plaintiff could make if bringing a lawsuit, but applying these principles will help in the majority of cases. For further assistance, feel free to contact LMCIT land use attorneys Paul Merwin at 651-281-1278 or Jed Burkett at 651-281-1247. 9 '�;,,,.' 0 INFORMATION MEMO HAGUE o Regulating MINNESOTA CITIES City options for regulating large electronic billboards with changing images and movement known as "dynamic signs" to provide safe roadways and observe constitutional protections on speech. Provides links to studies and an ordinance sample. RELEVANT LINKS: 1. Dynamic signs In the fall of 2006, a number of Minnesota cities were surprised by the appearance of large electronic billboards akin to giant television screens. These signs are the next generation of sign displays with the ability to feature changing images and movement—known collectively as dynamic signs. SRF Consulting Group, -Dynamic Attempts to regulate them resulted in litigation in at least one community- Signage: Research Related to Driver Distraction Minnetonka. In developing a regulatory response, Minnetonka partnered and ordinance with the League of Minnesota Cities to commission a study on the impact of Recommendations", June 7, 2007. such dynamic signs on traffic safety. This memorandum discusses the legal framework of regulating dynamic signage in light of the recent litigation and study. 11. Regulatory framework Highway Beautification Act, While the federal and state government can enact and have enacted laws 23 U.S.C.§ 131. regulating signs, those regulations only provide minimum standards. Courts Metromedia, Inc. v. city of have explicitly recognized that cities have the ability to regulate signs, San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 101 S. Ct. 2882 (1981). including dynamic signs, more restrictively. There is no uniform system of regulation that cities must follow. Each community is different and has different needs that local ordinances may reflect. Such regulations must meet the same basic legal tests for all sign regulation. LMC inforrnadon memo, Most city land use decisions get a very deferential standard of review known Taking the Mystery Out of Findings of Fact as rational basis review. Under this level of review, city decisions will be upheld if they have any rational basis. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West www.imc.org 7/26/2007 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2013 All Rights Reserved RELEVANT LINKS: LMC information memo, Sign Ordinances and the First Amendment. Metromedia, Inc. v. City qf San Diego, 453 U.S. , 490, 101 S. Ct. 2882 (1981). La Tour v. City of Fayetteville, 442 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 2006). 23��= Because sign regulations implicate free speech rights which are protected by the First Amendment, they are subjected to higher levels of scrutiny. The highest level of scrutiny, called "strict scrutiny," applies when government tries to regulate based on the content of speech. The only content -based sign regulation that courts have upheld is treating off -premise signs (billboards) differently than on -premise signs that advertise the business on the same property. One distinction that may seem like it is content based, but our federal court of appeals has said is not, is a ban on dynamic signs with an exception for time and temperature displays. The court held that because of their unique nature, allowing only time and temp displays is not a prohibited content - based regulation. It is important not to overstate this, however. Regulations that go further and carve out a broader exception for "public information" are likely to be struck down as impermissibly content -based. Sign regulations that are not content based are subject to "intermediate scrutiny", which tests whether the regulation is substantially related to a significant government interest. This roughly translates to "regulate for a good reason." Cities should take care that the scope of the regulation is not excessive when viewed in light of all of the regulatory objectives, and that they do not create exceptions to the regulations that cannot be justified by reference to one or more of the city's articulated objectives. A. Safety, values, preferences, aesthetics The available research on traffic impacts supports significant content -neutral limits or even bans on dynamic signs for safety reasons. The studies confirm that billboards can tend to distract drivers, dynamic features contribute to the distraction, and even short distractions can increase the risk of accidents. This is not surprising as promotional materials put out by sign companies themselves boast the signs' ability to hold viewer attention as a benefit of dynamic signs. Safety is only one concern. Cities may also regulate signs based on values, preferences, and aesthetics. Not every sign is appropriate in every community or every neighborhood. Not every community wishes to become Las Vegas or even downtown Minneapolis. Cities can take a number of different macro -level approaches to regulation. Some examples include: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/27/2007 Regulating Dynamic Signage Page 2 RELEVANT LINKS: • Complete or near-complete bans that do not allow dynamic signs at all. • Allow dynamic signs with restrictions such as minimum display time, allowing only a percentage of a sign to change, or text size limitations. • Allow different things in different zoning districts, such as allowing brighter dynamic signs in a downtown business district than in residential neighborhoods. • Offering incentive programs to billboard companies to allow dynamic signs in exchange for removal of non -conforming static signs. • Encourage dynamic displays. Some communities like the clean, new look of dynamic signs and encourage them to remove old blighted and poorly maintained signs. B. Sign aspects Sample sign ordinance, City A content -neutral regulation that regulates dynamic signage will be subject of Hopkins. to intermediate scrutiny, so a community must show a regulation is substantially related to a significant government interest. In plain language, you must articulate what problem a regulation is intended to address and how the regulation addresses it. There are at least six aspects of dynamic signs that regulations may address this. The specifics of how to regulate each of these aspects is up to each community. Because review of regulations must face intermediate scrutiny, cities have to take some extra steps when drafting and adopting ordinances. For each aspect regulated, cities should consider adopting findings or local studies that articulate the reason and any support for the regulation. The SRF study and other materials can provide a scientific basis for a number of regulatory steps. In addition, cities may choose more stringent regulation in order to take a conservative approach to protecting safety. 1. Duration of message/speed of changeover Studies have described the Zeigarnik effect, a psychological need to see a task through to its end. In the case of dynamic signs, a driver's desire to read an entire message before it changes or to complete a scrolling message has been shown to negatively impact drivers' tendencies to maintain a constant speed or remain in a lane. To address these issues, many cities have imposed minimum message durations that might vary depending on community preference and traffic conditions. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/27/2007 Regulating Dynamic Signage Page 3 RELEVANT LINKS: 2. Motion, animation, video Motion can range from simple visual effects to full realistic video. Motion can extend the period of time a driver will keep watching a sign, increasing distractedness. Cities may prohibit motion or limit it either to specific areas or to specific characteristics such as a motion time frame calibrated to traffic speed. 3. Brightness Brightness can be a safety factor, particularly at night, as sudden brightness can be distracting or diminish night vision. A number of communities limit brightness based on time of day and by color displayed. This can be difficult to quantify and measure. 4. Sign placement and spacing The number of signs and their location can be a big factor in driver awareness. A large number of signs can increase distractedness. Poorly placed signs may block views or cause distraction in unsafe areas. Cities may impose site standards and spacing requirements. These may present regulatory challenges as spacing may be dependent on the actions of neighboring property owners. 5. Size of signs Size can have impacts in several ways. Too big, and it obstructs views and distracts. Too small, and it takes longer to read and encourages sign users to sequence messages. Cities may limit dynamic signs or the percentage of a sign that can be dynamic. 6. Text size and legibility Signs that are difficult to read invite increased driver focus. Regulations can, for example, require minimum sizes based on road speed. I. Planning ahead Cities should think about dynamic signs as early as possible. Regardless of Minn. Slat. § 462.357, sued. your city's approach, it is better to make a rational Choice rather than having Ie. dynamic signs arrive before you have thought about the issue. Once the 1AC information memo, signs are up, Minnesota's nonconforming use law arguably grants them Land Use Nonconforinities. "grandfathered" status, with a narrow exception for safety. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/27/2007 Regulating Dynamic Signage Page 4 RELEVANT LINKS: Paul Merwin, Defense Attorney pmerwin@lmc.org 651.281.1278 Contact League staff for more information, resources or assistance on regulating dynamic signs. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/27/2007 Regulating Dynamic Signage Page 5 Sec. 31-509. Sign regulations. Subd. 7. Permitted signs by a sign permit in the central business or general commercial district. The following signs are permitted in the CBD -central business or CA -general commercial districts with a sign permit: (a) General requirements. All signs in the CA -general commercial or CBD -central business districts are regulated by the following requirements: (1) Number. One wall, monument, awning and canopy or three dimensional sign is allowed per business. When a building or business abuts two or more public streets, an additional sign located on each street building face is allowed. (2) Sign plan. When there is more than one business or use in a building with more than one sign, a building sign plan must be provided with the sign permit application. (3) Permit review. All signs in the central business district require a design permit and meet the approved downtown design guidelines for signage. (4) Other requirements. All signs must meet area, location and height requirements. (b) Wall signs. Wall signs in the CBD or CA districts shall meet the following requirements: (1) Area. The total building signage may have an aggregate area not exceeding one square foot for each foot of building face parallel or substantially parallel to a street lot line. (2) Location. A wall sign may not project more than 16 inches from the wall to which the sign is affixed. (3) Height. A wall sign may not project higher than the parapet line of the wall to which the sign is affixed or 1.5 feet as measured from the base of the building wall to which the sign is affixed, wl-dchever is lower. (4) Lighting, Externally illuminated or back lit letters are allowed, but no internally illuminated signs are allowed. (5) Special conditions. Where a principal building is devoted to two or more permitted uses, the operator or each use may install a wall sign for their use. A sign plan must be submitted for the entire building. The total gross signage for the entire building may not exceed one square foot for each foot of the building face parallel, or substantially parallel, to a street lot line with a maximum of 25 square feet per business. (c) Freestanding signs. Freestanding signs in the CBD or CA districts shall meet the following requirements: (1) Area. The area of a monument type freestanding sign may not exceed 30 square feet. (2) Location, A monument sign maybe located in any required yard but must have a setback of 15 feet from any point of vehicular access, public roadway or property line. (3) Height. A monument sign may not project higher than six feet, as measured from the base of sign or grade of the nearest roadway, whichever is lower. (4) Landscaping.'Yhe area around a monument sign must be landscaped. (5) Lighting. Externally illuminated or back lit letters are allowed, but no internally illuminated signs are allowed, (d) Awning and canopy signs. Awning and canopy signs in the CBD or CA districts shall meet the following requirements: (1) Area. The gross surface of an awning or canopy sign may not exceed 50 percent of the gross surface area of the smallest face of the awning or canopy to which the sign is affixed. (2) Location. An awning or canopy sign may not project higher than the top of the awning or canopy or below the awning or canopy. (e) Three-dimensional sign. The total area of a three-dimensional sign in the CBD or CA districts is determined by enclosing the largest cross section of the sign in an easily recognized geometric shape and computing its area. The area may not exceed nine square feet. (f) Projecting sign. A projecting sign in the CBD or CA districts shall meet the following requirements: (1) Area. The total area of a projecting sign may not exceed six square feet. (2) Special conditions. A projecting sign must be easily visible from the sidewalk and not be a hazard to pedestrians. (3) Lighting. If lighted, projecting signs must be externally illuminated. r 1wa ter T H E�8 tR7HP ACE 4F M1NNES0tA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMO TO: Parks and Recreation Commissioners and Planning Commissioners FROM: Community Development Department staff REGARDING: Trails Master Plan Visioning Session and Guiding Principles Workshop As Commissioners may be aware, the City has entered into a contract for services with Melissa Douglas to assist in the development of a city-wide Trails Master Plan; Melissa's proposal and scoping schedule, approved by the City Council, is attached for reference. On May 12th, from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m., Melissa and staff will be hosting a visioning session with Parks and Recreation and Planning Commissioners. An addition outcome of the workshop will be the determination of guiding principles for the plan. All Commissioners are encouraged to attend this workshop; dinner will be provided. March 11, 2014 Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director City of Stillwater, City Hall 216 4th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Bill: Thank you for considering this proposal to update the City of Stillwater's Trail Master Plan. The impetus for the proposed update is the anticipated completion of two exciting additions to City's trail system in the next three years, Brown's Creek Trail and the Saint Croix Valley Loop Trail. I would welcome the chance to work with the City Council, commissions, staff, businesses and residents to develop a plan that takes full advantage of opportunities created by these major trail projects while minimizing or mitigating any challenges. Deliverables and Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan Deliverables for this project will include a stand-alone Trail Master Plan for the City of Stillwater and related Comprehensive Plan amendments. The Trail Master Plan will include: • Updated inventory of existing trails, amenities, signage and facilities • Vision statement and principles to guide planning • Discussion of needs and issues • Planned and proposed trail options, amenities, signage and facilities • Implementation plan with goals, policies, standards and priorities • Revised and updated maps and other graphics Concurrently with the Trail Master Plan update, the City will retain a separate consultant to complete a park master plan for the Hersey Bean property south of downtown Stillwater. The Trail Master Plan update and the new Hersey Bean Park Master Plan will require amendments to City's Comprehensive Plan. This project will include drafting necessary amendments, circulating for comment and submitting the amendments to the Metropolitan Council for review. Completing these amendments will allow the City to make infrastructure investments needed in the near term for the Brown's Creek Trail and the Saint Croix Valley Loop Trail. An update of the City's Downtown Master Plan is also planned to begin in late 2014. These master planning efforts and the subsequent completion of the new Saint Croix river crossing and related improvements in 2016/2017 will set the stage for the City's ten-year Comprehensive Plan update in 2018. Planning Process 1. Grant authorization to proceed. o Designate Planning Commission to lead Trail Master Plan update and Comprehensive Plan amendments in consultation with Parks and Recreation Commission. o Approve planning process, cost and schedule. 2. Gather information. o Update existing trails inventory/maps. ® Review existing GIS resources. ® Review aerial photos. ® Complete field verification after snow melt, consider using volunteers to assist with field verification. ® Develop regional context. ® Inventory/photograph examples of existing trail types, signage, amenities and other features. o Review related documents. ® City Comprehensive Plan, past trail plans and master plans. ® Plat and planned unit development approvals since last trail plan update. ® Comprehensive plans for Washington County and adjacent communities. ■ State and regional park and trail plans. ® Exemplary trails plans advocacy organizations and similar communities. N o Consult with city staff. ® Community development ® Engineering ® Public works ® Public safety ® Watersheds ® Document existing standards, practices and ordinances related to trails and sidewalks construction and maintenance. o Consult with agencies, adjacent communities and stakeholders. School district MnDOT WDOT DNR Washington County Saint Croix County Adjacent communities HOAs/neighborhood organizations Chamber of Commerce Downtown Revitalization Committee Visitors/Convention Bureau Bike MN ® National Park Service • Metropolitan Council ® Trail user groups 3. Review data and develop vision/guiding principles. o Summarize purpose statements and goals from existing documents and plans. o Summarize new topics — sustainability, expanded bikeways, new regional trails, etc. o Provide updated trail inventory and maps. o Meet (jointly or separately) with Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. o Develop draft vision/guiding principles for Comprehensive Trail Plan. 4. Identify needs/issues for discussion and resolution. o Summarize needs/issues from existing documents and plans. o Summarize new topics — sustainability, expanded bikeways, new regional trails, etc. o Provide updated trail inventory and maps. o Meet (jointly or separately) with Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. o Develop issues and solutions for updated Comprehensive Trail Plan. 3 5. Citizen participation. o Issue press release after authorization to proceed with anticipated planning process/schedule and opportunities for public participation. o Maintain webpage with periodic updates on planning process and electronic comment form. o Hold public meeting after information gathering complete and draft vision/principles and draft issues/proposed solutions developed. o Hold public meeting after draft plan developed. o Hold public hearing at plan adoption. 6. Develop draft plan. o Update proposed trail maps. o Update proposed trail sections/templates especially for on -road bicycle paths. o Address storm water impacts/native landscaping/environmental concerns. o Discuss public safety through environmental design. o Expand signage section to include larger and more detailed section on amenities ® Signage (directional, interpretative, maps, markers) ® City identity/branding ■ Lighting ® Parking • Bathrooms/water fountains ® Furniture ® Landscaping o Implementation — goals, policies, standards and priorities. o Funding o Meet (jointly or separately) with Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council to review draft plan before release for comment. 7. Circulate draft for comments. o Submit to affected jurisdictions and adjacent communities, request expedited review. o Submit to organizations and groups consulted during information gathering. o Issue press release and post on website for general comment. 8. Develop final plan for adoption. o Address comments received during comment period. o Meet (jointly or separately) with Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission to review final plan. Commissions need to recommend approval to schedule public hearing. o Schedule and notice public hearing with City Council for plan adoption. 4 9. Submit for Metropolitan Council review. o Submit required resolution and worksheets. o Plan effective upon Metropolitan Council acceptance. Schedule and Cost Task Schedule Estimated Hours Complete information gathering March to June 2014 90 Complete vision/guiding principles June 2014 20 Identify issues/needs June to July 2014 50 Draft plan document/comprehensive plan updates August 2014 80 Submit draft to adjacent communities/affected jurisdictions (request expedited review) Au ust to September 2014 10 Public comments/response to comments August to September 2014 10 Final plan document/comprehensive plan updates September to October 2014 30 Metropolitan Council submission and review October to November 2014 10 Target effective date/Total hours November 2014 300 Cost estimate: 300 hours at $45/hour = $13,500 Qualifications I was fortunate to serve as Interim City Planner with the City of Stillwater for five months in 2013. 1 have worked in municipal planning in the Twin Cities for over 12 years, mostly in Washington County. My planning experience extends over 20 years with work at the local and regional level in three states. My undergraduate degree is in Environmental Planning from the University of California, Davis, with graduate coursework in Public Administration at Hamline University. Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal, and I look forward, to working with you. Sincerely, Melissa Douglas