Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-11 CPC Packetp i d 1water T HE BIRTH PLACE OF M1NN.ESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, June 11, 2014 - 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF May 12, 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. 2014-17 Request for a Special Use Permit to add a coffee counter and 12 seats to the existing store. Mama Luna Apothecary. CBD - Central Business District. 402 Main Street North. ABS Lo. Monty Brine, owner and Kiva Sherr -Nelson, applicant. 5.02 Case No. 2014-18 Request for Rezoning from RA (One Family Residential) to PROS (Parks, Recreation, or Open Space) and a Special Use Permit for an Off -Leash Dog Park Recreation Area at 2000 Myrtle Street West. City of Stillwater, owner and Allison McGinnis, applicant from Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park, Inc. 5.03 Case No. 2014-19 Request for a Special Use Permit for an addition of a Coffee Shop to the existing Valley Bookseller store at 217 Main Street North. CBD — Central Business District. Dan and Molly Priebe, owners and Tim and Megan Palm, applicants. 5.04 Case No. 2014-20 Request for Preliminary Plat/Annexation/Subdivision/Rezoning/Variance Setback on the corner of McKusick Road North and Manning Avenue North. Settlers Pines LLC, owner and Chris Aamodt, applicant. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 6.01 Trails Master Plan Draft Vision/Guiding Principles 7. ADJOURNMENT 11lWater 7NE IINT N►LACE OF IN INN EEO TA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 12, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 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, Siess, Council Representative Weidner Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve the April 14, 2014 meeting minutes. All in favor, 8-0. Chairman Kocon abstained. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. SUP/2014-13. Request for a Special Use Permit for an exterior sculpture near the church front entrance. Our Saviors Lutheran Church. 1616 Olive Street West. RA—One Family Residential. Gwen Johnson, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the property owner is seeking approval of a Special Use Permit for the installation of a sculpture near the church front entrance. The nearly 3 F sculpture contains five steel posts with steel petals to represent a flower. Each post will contain ten interchangeable colored LED lights. Staff recommends approval with two conditions: 1) plans by a structural engineer must be submitted to the Community Development Director for review prior to installation; 2) any changes to the lighting system shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Marilyn Meier, 405 West Hazel Street, Stillwater, urged the Commission to approve the sculpture as it will be an asset to the church. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kelly disclosed that he has no conflict with the request but he attends this church. Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the Special Use Permit with conditions recommended by staff. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. V/2014-14. Request for a 20' Variance to the front yard setback to construct East and West main floor porches and for a 2nd story expansion. 2023 Schulenber_ g Alley. RB—Two Family Residential. Missy Swanson (Cottage in the Alley, LLC), owner. City Planner Wittman summarized the request. The applicant is requesting: 1) an 18' variance to the 20' front/exterior side yard setback to construct a 144 square foot covered porch on the east side of the home; and 2) a 20' variance to the 20' front/exterior side yard setback to construct a (approximately) 148 square foot covered porch on the west side of the home; and 3) a 20' variance for the vertical expansion of the southern portion of the home, allowing for the single story portion of the residence to become two story. Staff recommends conditional approval of all three variances requested with the following conditions: 1) the existing roof pitch of the east/west gable shall remain the same. The finished roof pitch of the second story addition shall be consistent with the east/west gable; 2) no expansion, including eaves and overhangs, shall be permitted to extend to the north over the East Alder Street right-of-way. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Missy Swanson, applicant, offered to answer any questions. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to recommend approval of the variances with conditions recommended by staff. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. SUP/2014-15. Request for a Special Use Permit amendment of SUP/2013-24 for an outdoor eating area. 233 South Main Street. CBD -Central Business District. HAF Group, owner. Joe Elhenz, applicant. Kurt Kohl, representative. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting approval of an approximately 400 square foot outdoor eating area, to serve an additional 31 patrons, to be located on the east side of the structure located at 233 Main Street South. Staff recommends the Commission approve the Special Use Permit amendment with the following conditions: 1) all exterior designs shall obtain a Design Permit from the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to installation; 2) all trash must be stored inside or in a trash enclosure if outside. A design review permit is required for any outdoor enclosure; 3) alternative provisions to the parking regulations, as determined by the Downtown Parking Commission, shall be incorporated into the Special Use Permit conditions of approval; 4: plans will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit; 5) all changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Kurt Kohl, 108 North Harriet Street, Stillwater, representing the applicant, stated that outside seating is necessary for the business plan. He offered to answer any questions. Page 2 of 4 Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Commissioner Siess asked why the outside seating was not part of the original permit. Mr. Kohl replied that the design was not complete and the business owners needed to have discussions with their two neighbors to reach a design that would be compatible. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve the Special Use Permit amendment with conditions recommended by staff. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. ZAT/2014-10. Consideration of a Zoning Test Amendment to Municipal Code Section 41-7: Seasonal Outdoor Sales, establishing design review standards for certain seasonal food vendors. City Planner Wittman presented a draft ordinance regulating design of seasonal outdoor vendors. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval to the City Council. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Council Representative Weidner noted that he originally asked the ordinance be drafted to ensure that the design of seasonal carts would fit the downtown area. Commissioner Kelly suggested the ordinance should be extended to include vendors that are moved each day. Commissioners Middleton and Hade agreed that design review should apply to all food vending carts. They should be subject to the same design criteria as brick -and -mortar businesses. Commissioner Hansen expressed concern about limiting the ability of food trucks from other areas to come to Stillwater for certain events. Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve the Zoning Text Amendment striking the 20 hour provision, making the design review applicable to all seasonal food vendors. 8-1, Hansen opposed. Case No. SUP/2014-16. Request for a Special Use Permit for a restaurant and a 1,700 square foot outdoor eating area. 200 Chestnut Street East. CBD -Central Business District. Chestnut LLC, owner. Scott Kra_ng ess, applicant. Mark Balay, representative. City Planner Wittman summarized that the applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit for a restaurant and future outdoor eating area to be located at 200 Chestnut Street East. The Downtown Parking Commission will review a request for approval of alternative provisions to on-site parking requirements. Staff recommends the Commission approve the Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1) all trash must be stored inside or in a trash enclosure if outside. A design review permit is required for any outdoor enclosure; 2) alternative provisions to the parking regulations, as determined by the Downtown Parking Commission, shall be incorporated into the Special Use Permit conditions of approval; 3) plans will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit; 4) all changes to the approved plans will Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission May 12, 2014 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. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Mark Balay, Balay Architecture, Scott Kragness and Matt Stabenow, Rev& 324, explained the request. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve the Special Use Permit with conditions recommended by staff. All in favor, 9-0. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to adjourn the meeting at 8:21 p.m. All in favor, 9-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 4 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 11, 2014 CASE NO.: 2014-17 APPLICANT: Kiva Sherr and Jesse Nelson, Mama Luna Apothecary REQUEST: Request for a Special Use Permit for a proposed coffee shop, with outdoor seating, for the structure located at 402 Main Street North ZONING: CBD -Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU-Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit for a 300 square foot coffee shop to be located at 402 Main Street North. The coffee service counter will be added to the retail sales at Mama Luna Apothecary. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing the use of an existing outdoor eating area. Outdoor eating areas in the Central Business District require a Special Use Permit. BACKGROUND Mama Luna Apothecary is located in the southern unit of the Isaac Staples Mill. The natural family lifestyle store is located where the Supreme Bean was once located. The business owners are seeking the addition of a coffee counter, with two tables, on the interior of the structure as patrons frequently stop in requesting coffee. Additionally, an existing (shared) outdoor area would be utilized for coffee shop patrons. 402 Main Steer North Case No. SUP/2014-17 (June 11, 2014) Page 2 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS 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 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. Zoning Ordinance o Use: Coffee shops and cafes similar to restaurants have been approved in the Central Business District without complaint. o Parking: As a coffee shop was once located in this location and the new coffee shop is significantly less in size than the Supreme Bean, staff had determined there is no increased demand in parking for the business. In fact, it is a decrease. 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, signage and exterior site plans. The applicant has not proposed any exterior changes. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Staff has determined the coffee shop/cafe would not be a detriment to the public so long as all plans are approval by the fire and building official prior to the issuance of a building permit. ALTERNATIVES The Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the Special Use Permit request with or without conditions. 2. Deny the Special Use Permit. 3. Table the request for more information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Commission chooses to approve the project, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 402 Main Steer North Case No. SUP/2014-17 (June 11, 2014) Page 3 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. All exterior alterations, including new signage, shall go to the Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval. 3. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. ATTACHMENTS Narrative Request and Floor Plan To Whom It May Concern, My husband and I are the owners of Mama Luna Natural Apothecary located at 402 North Main street in the Staples Mill building. We are a natural family lifestyle store that specializes in natural body care and aromatherapy products as well as teas, whimsical toys and gifts. In the year and a half since we have opened, the North end of Main Street has blossomed into an up and coming part of town! It has been wonderful to see the increased traffic and all of the families that come down our way pushing strollers! However with the increased foot traffic we have noticed a need that is not being filled: a good cup of coffee! We would like to add a small cafe to our existing shop, dedicating approx. 300 square feet of our existing retail space to create a little cafe within our store. We will provide coffee, espresso drinks, sodas, juice and pastries. We anticipate that most of our customers will be on foot as they walk the Main street shopping district, but we will have limited indoor and outdoor seating with beautiful flower plantings during the warm season. We have had many residents of the nearby condos wishing that they could just pop into a cafe nearby for coffee without having to go all the way to the south end of town. As you all probably know, our shop used to be a cafe, and a day doesn't go by when somebody doesn't ask us for a cup of coffee! Wlth our new cafe, we hope to make the North end of Main Street even better for residents and visitors alike. Thank you for your consideration! -Kiva Sherr -Nelson Jesse Nelson 5/9/2014 Plan 2 - Ground Floor jpg (1442x2041) http://plans.sensopia.com.s3.amazonaws.coml534ead7ae2g721out/Plan%202%20-%20Ground%20Roor jpg?AW SAccessKeyId=AKIAJ2VOJUXSD6PFSA5A&Ex... 1/1 Rei{ I ce OPENSPACr- 810 6q ft {49' x 17,16,114!." � ty1 d� Cy ft t G (i t7 C7 C c% � A t CIO� ':x�iez•.'.. sit vo-,w.2.>r �..,i s�wy-�z�a�rm"'r 0` 4' 8' 12' C,00 0 http://plans.sensopia.com.s3.amazonaws.coml534ead7ae2g721out/Plan%202%20-%20Ground%20Roor jpg?AW SAccessKeyId=AKIAJ2VOJUXSD6PFSA5A&Ex... 1/1 -t " I Iwa ter r ' i V E,. 'R I W 7µ f{ A I.,...E- 0 6 M I N N f- S 0 A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 11, 2014 CASE NO.: 2014-18 APPLICANT: Allison McGInnis, President, Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park REQUEST: Request for rezoning of property from RA (One Family Residential) to PROS (Parks, Recreation or Open Space) and a Special Use Permit for an off -leash dog park to be located on a municipal parcel located at 2000 Myrtle Street West, the NE corner of the HWY 12 and Eagle Ridge Trail intersection ZONING: RA -One Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR-Low/Medium Density Res. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park, Inc. is requesting the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the rezoning of a city -owned parcel from RA (One Family Residential) to PROS (Park, Recreational or Open Space) and approval of a Special Use Permit for an off -leash dog park at 2000 Myrtle Street West. BACKGROUND The Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park, Inc. (FSADP) would like to develop and operate an off -leash dog park on City owned property just west of the Jaycees ball fields. Use of the park would be open to the general public. The site is zoned RA - One Family Residential is currently used as open space. Additionally, the City of Stillwater Public Works Department utilizes part of the area for snow storage. Dog Parks are allowed by Special Use Permit in the PROS Zoning District. FSADP proposes to install a five foot tall chain link fence around a third -acre portion of the site. (See attached site plan.) Entrance to the off -leash fenced area would be through a double (or triple) gated area that allows dogs to be taken off their leash without running at large (as indicated in the attached safety gate specification). FSADP is proposing the utilization of existing parking and drive (off of Highway 12) areas; the driveway and parking would be shared with the existing uses. No water, lighting, or portable toilets are proposed for the dog park portion of the site. While FSADP is committed to raising funds for amenities, monitoring the cleanup of the property, perform basic repairs, and provide education on rules and concerns, environmental steward practices, as well as general animal welfare, there are certain items FSADP is requesting of the City: • Site preparation: clear area of mulch and debris, installation of fence (with potential for cost sharing), and provide clean wood chips or pea gravel and waste receptacles. • On-going maintenance: snow removal of lot and path leading to gate, sanitation and waste/trash removal, and notification of rules, licenses and permits as well as winter snow storage closure. The City would enforce city laws and codes. If the Special Use Permit (and associated rezoning) is approved by the City Planning Commission, the Park Commission and the City Council, then FSADP will raise the funds necessary to make the dog park improvements. The starting date for construction will depend upon how quickly funds can be raised; FSADP will request funding assistance from the City Council as well. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES Prior to making a recommendation for approval for a rezoning to the City council, the Commission must first find that the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive pian. Furthermore, the Zoning Chapter of the City Code states that a Dog Park is allowed by Special Use Permit in the PROS Zoning District. Since the proposed site is zoned PROS, a Special Use Permit may be granted for an off -leash dog park as long as the following standards can be satisfied. (1) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area pians. Zoning Ordinance The City's Zoning Code recognizes special uses as those that have the potential to create greater land use conflict within a neighborhood than uses that are simply permitted by right of land ownership. These types of uses are required to go through a public hearing process to determine the impact and potential mitigating measures. If those mitigating measures can be implemented, the Special Use Permit could be approved with related conditions. If they cannot be satisfactorily mitigated, the specific use could be considered incompatible with surrounding land uses, and the City may deny the requested Special Use Permit. Items that may cause negative impact by an off -leash dog park include (but are not necessarily limited to): Noise of barking dogs a. The noise issue causes the greatest concern amongst neighbors. b. Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park representatives will need to satisfy the Park and Recreation Commission, City Planning Commission and City Council that barking can be controlled satisfactorily in this neighborhood. 2000 Myrtle Street West (Dog Park) Case No. DP/2014-18 (CPC: June 11, 2014) Page 2 of 5 c. The attached neighborhood map shows proximity of the proposed dog park to surrounding homes. d. At very least, the hours of operation should be used as a regulator of quiet hours for neighbors. The City's Public Works Department recommends that the hours of operation should be 8 am to sunset. 2. Dogs running at large a. This likely will not become a problem. b. Dogs are required by the FSADP to be on a leash between the parked car and the triple gated entrance to the fenced off -leash area. Details of the gated entrance are attached. c. The leash rule, and all others associated with the park use (see attached rule sheet) will be posted by the FSADP on metal signs. 3. Cleaning up dog waste a. The City will empty the dog waste receptacles several times a week, but placing the waste in the waste cans will be the responsibility of the dog park users and the FSADP. b. FASDP is not indicating the installation of a waste bag dispenser. To encourage users to clean up after their pets, this should be required on this site. 4. Facility maintenance a. Except for removal of snow from the parking lot, and emptying the dog waste receptacles, maintenance of the facility will be the responsibility of the FSADP. 5. Parking a. As the existing parking facilities are heavily utilized during bail games, parking could become a problem in this location. 6. Aggressive dogs a. This is not an issue of concern for neighbors if leash rules are observed. It can be an issue for other users of the dog park. Therefore, the FSADP rules address proper handling of dogs exhibiting aggressive behavior. Comprehensive Plan The future land use map of the City's Comprehensive Plan guides the use of the City property as RA - One Family Residential. In discussions with the Met Council, it has been determined the rezoning, though inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, will not prohibit the future residential use. Improvements to the site can easily be removed. (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. A. If the dog park is approved, one of the recommended conditions of approval would be that if the dog park fails into disuse, misuse or disrepair, the Special Use Permit would become null and void. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 2000 Myrtle Street West (Dog Park) Case No. DP/2014-18 (CPC: June 11, 2014) Page 3 of 5 City staff is not aware of issues other than are addressed earlier in this report. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: Recommend, to the City Council, approval of the Rezoning and the Special Use Permit with at least the following conditions: a. A 5-6' fence with a double (or triple) gated entry shall be installed. b. Rules of operation shall be posted and maintained in good order and visibility by the Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park. Prior to installation, a sign permit shall be obtained to verify all rules of operation are provided. c. Hours of operation shall be between 8 am and sunset. The hours of operation shall be clearly posted. d. The City will be responsible for of snow from the parking lot and emptying the dog waste receptacles. All other maintenance of the facility will be the responsibility of the Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park. e. Dogs on the site are required to be on a leash whenever they are not within the fenced area of the dog park. f. Though the dog park is to be improved and maintained by the Friends of the Stillwater Area Dog Park, the facility shall be open for use by the general public. g. Upon receipt of verified complaints of substance, the City would schedule a public hearing to review the Special Use Permit. The Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park and neighboring property owners would be notified of the review hearing, and upon cause conditions could be modified or added, or the Special Use Permit could be revoked by the City. h. Should the dog park fail into disrepair, lack of use, or misuse, in the City's sole opinion, the Special Use Permit would become null and void. i. The Friends of the Stillwater Area Dog Park must enter into a license agreement with the City to address maintenance responsibilities, use issues, etc. 2. Deny the Special Use Permit. If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is incompatible with surrounding uses and cannot be made compatible through mitigating conditions, it could deny the request. Findings of fact substantiating the denial must be provided. 3. Table the request for additional information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and conditional approval of the Special Use Permit. ATTACHMENTS Narrative Request (2 pages) Site Location Map 2000 Myrtle Street West (Dog Park) Case No. DP/2014-18 (CPC: June 11, 2014) Page 4 of 5 Site Development Plan Safety Gate Specifications OLRA Rules and Etiquette Presentation Copy (23 pages) 2000 Myrtle Street West (Dog Park) Case No. DP/2014-18 (CPC: June 11, 2014) Page 5 of 5 r. 0 O UO 15 w CL m 2 C: 0 0 co co O C:) c,i > Z6O Q C) 92 E E 0 41 IM 0 w > CL E R-7 PS. kn Friends dof Stillwater Area Dog P,Il 4/21/201-1, Plans/Proposal: OLRA (off -leash recreational area) myrtle St. W. (hwy 12) Stillwater, MN Prop. ID# 2903020130012 With the collaboration of city and Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park (FSADP), and utilizing FSADP funds, we propose to create a temporary/start —up, fenced, oft= leash recreational area at the "old dump"site off of Myrtle St. W. adjacent to Jaycee Pall Fields. General Description of area: The site is basically rectangular in shape. The OLRA would extend from the northern most portion south to GPS coordinates (East side) N 45deg. 03.475 W 092deg. 49.949 to (West) N 45deg.03.475 W 092.49.975 which is approximately % of the entire complex. Characteristics ® Good location; accessible to Stillwater Residents. ® No major adjoining residential housing — berm on the west acts as a buffer. ® Easy to fence due to existing dimensions. • Ground surface currently soil/sand. • Containment and clean-up of waste at designated locale will reduce waste on adjacent sports fields and watershed ® OLRA and sports complex could mutually benefit each another. ® Parking available. ® City to retain Southern portion for mulch and snow storage. Features to be added: • Install afive foot high welded wire fence with a double (or triple)gated entry, following perimeter approximately991 1 (possibly utilize portions of existing fence). • Gate for city vehiclesinstalled at southern cut 1 plans) u, Place signage 1, OLRA/park rules a1 1 liability . or near entrance —tp,i-D packet for rules). ane Set up two '1wastereceptacles nearparking area. Typ• plastic barrels provided by the city. • Provide I or 2 movablebenches a its+ 11" • Provide a small, movable structure (ex. benches with roof) for shade. • No portable toilet i maybe in future. • No water on patrons must bring 1 ',: 717 water for dogs. ra, Waste ;1, • dispensers — T(i> Management/Other: ® Hours of operation — 7:00am to 10:00pm or city's preference. Dog gates kept unlocked. ® Liability — covered under city policy. Waiver could be attached to dog license information as well as with posted and on-line rules. ® City dog license and proof of vaccination of rabies required. * Possible future permittfee system implementation. (not 1St year) ® Provide a sunset clause should the OLRA be improperly used. FSADPIs Commitment: 0 Raise funds for amenities/features listed. * Monitor and police grounds to ensure waste clean-up. Hold regularly scheduled "clean-up days". * Perform basic repairs (e.g. fencing, sign). * Control/resurface ®LRA if necessary. ® Enforce rules, including license and or permit use. * Communicate ®LRA rules and concerns via website, facebook, email and blog. • Promote "Canines for Clean Water" and other environmental steward practices. ® Host educational and recreational events that benefit animals and the community. City's Role: ® Clear Area of mulch/debris. * Provide notification (if needed) of temporary shut -down for snow storage. ® Assist with the installation of fence* see note. ® Snow removal of lot and path leading to gate. ® Sanitation/waste removal. ® Provide some of the needed wood chips. * Process license and or permits. * Communicate rules of OLRA on city website and or newsletter. * Enforcement of city laws and codes. Costings: Although FSADP will seek funding and contributions for these amenities from private supporters, we do ask the city to contribute, if at all possible. Fencing/gates — estimates range from $5,000 to $12,000 depending on vendor and style of fence. Rule Signage (TBD) Benches and shelter (TBD) Annual operating costs "city soft costs": ® Trash pick up four times weekly at $1,800 For installation of the fencing, FSADP would seek help from our volunteers as well as from the city staff, MN conservation core, Community Thread volunteers, and possibly sentence to serve crew. safety gate for dog run tnprevent dogs entering from interacting with dogs leaving. in only gate only rmcxit& oPo�incannot open from park - Uogn le g at at 3 to exit wait here dogs enterin -1 wait here while owners remove �U Exit only q�_--___ .` gntooponm Stillwater OLRA Mules and Etiquette 1. Park hours are from -------------- to ------ ---------. 2. Dogs must wear collar with license, proof of rabies vaccination, and handler must have permit information in possession at all times. 3. Dogs must be leashed in parking area and when entering or exiting the OLRA (in transitional corridor). 4.Owners/handlers must remain in control of dogs at all times; this means dogs must be under voice or whistle control, in view, and owner/handler must have one leash ready and available per dog. 5.Owners/handlers must be at least 16 years of age and are responsible for the actions and behaviors of their dogs; any damage or injury caused by dogs will be the liability of the owners 6. No more than 2 dogs per handler. 7. Dogs that exhibit aggressive behavior or become unruly must be immediately leashed and removed from the OLRA. Individual dogs known to have a history of aggression may not be permitted or may have permit revoked; this includes but is not limited to dogs classified as dangerous or potentially dangerous in any city. 8. Children under the age of 10 in the OLRA, must be supervised by an adult (18 and older). 9. Dogs in heat, sick dogs, and puppies under four months old are not allowed in the OLRA. No other type of animal is allowed in the OLRA. 10. No food or beverages (other than water) allowed in OLRA. 11.Owners/handlers must clean up after their dogs. Owner/handlers should bring their own waste bags and must fill in any holes dug by their dogs. 12. All other city park rules and city laws apply. Stillwater Dog Park Safety Tips & Etiquette: ® Make your first visit without your dog to familiarize yourself with the site (parking, access gates, etc). Make your initial doggie visit at a time that is not as busy. Daytime hours during the week and late afternoons on the weekend are generally quiet times at the dog park. ® Remember that many dogs who visit the dog park are not socialized to children. Keep children close and allow no running, screaming or food. Do not allow your children to approach a dog without permission from the dog's handler. ® Know your dog! Not all dogs are good candidates for off -leash dog parks. If your dog has not had regular interaction with other dogs, it may lack the necessary social skills to make your visit safe and enjoyable. Check for training schools that offer remedial socialization classes for adult dogs or for trainers who will work with you at the off -leash dog park. Socialize young puppies (8-16 weeks of age) at a puppy kindergarten class, not at the dog park. ® Let your dog off -leash as soon as you arrive within the transitional corridor of the park. Mixing leashed and unleashed dogs commonly causes problems. Leashed dogs often feel threatened by the free dogs and will display provocative body language and defensive behavior. If you are uncomfortable about letting your dog off -leash, do not visit the off -leash park. ct � °® ct ct U U ° C/) Ij a) ct C42) ° ct bA r a3 s:).� bA � U o �-q a3 ct ct c7jcn ct c .�+ ^ p bA N ct ° r' 0c3 41 C� x j � a C� 0 O ® '�' ® ct •GO . C�3 rn C�3 "� O U� � N O •� b.A� a c1d CZ O �w C/) O b��Ao NO ct O N c�3 't.S � ��y�UNO0 Cli •GO . C�3 rn � (4-4O O U� � N O •� b.A� cd N � C�3 rn � iD � b � N O ct cd I -a-J � O � � iD � b � N • CZ O �w C/) O b��Ao NO • • I -a-J � O � � iD � b � N 4J CZ O �w C/) O b��Ao NO s bA r ---i ct r, bA N � � U bbA U ® ct Cld � 0 0 � 03 cct4 v as N '� ;z • r-, . ,.., 4.4 ® u N .N ct CIS cN ro ct ct Ct bo u N bbi) ct ® � ,u ct ctro c5l ct $:4 t4 -)i �� Iw b1J,.0 v � � a3 ct 41 ct • °' v ''d 03 •_:� ct O b�A C'd�C) O � � O 'v 11 ct co N N ct U � N o O U � ,Cd ,o cd .� c o � O ct U El QJ ^ N •C • b1J c O � ,—, O •�'O'er O btJ ct U '9 Cid ct cd b.lJ'�' ct c�3 ^ ct o°�° c 03o� bb 4� o O O O CJ �O U ®. .Ct � 4cl� N > -C. > UD O 0 cd cd a) � C�l N 0c v� .N'cn _ M En N U) CG.� 'O by U 'T.3 •'-, ,� �, V1 as cci c --d P, U ct co N N ct U � N o O U � ,Cd ,o cd .� c o � O ct U El ^ � N ^ N •C � N O 4 O btJ N ^ ct cd b.lJ'�' • ''+ c�3 ^ ct ® c 03o� bb 4� o O 7� O �O U ®. .Ct � 4cl� I > -C. > ^ � N ^ 4a 41 N ^ ct cd b.lJ'�' • ''+ c�3 cQ -.�`� ct ® c Cd bb 4� o O 7� O cc3 cc3 O • �� r-+ W I c E E L) o 0 CD 01-1.1 >. LO 0) cn r,- 0 0) C:) > 0 co E m co _0 E C:> CO U) _0 C: C%4 0 0 'E a) cn C: 0 0 :3 U) -M .0 :3 co -j E 0 rml� 0 0 >. 0 E +-j -r- -(-- U) C: 0 cn a)_0 Co 0 U) — 0 :3 0 - L- 0) 0 (n ct 0 a) -0 0 (n L- U) 1 0 :3 (n 0 U) cn Q. 0 co :t� co (D 0 C'i U) 0 C: o E 0 :E C13 4- 4-4 'F M a) ®(n co 4- U� o CD 0 O Y) 0 L 0 CN c 4-a 0 U) 0).S a) -0 Co C: -0 -0 C: '2 E > U) :3 0 0- C: E U) C: 0 C C:UO O 0 < U < WD 461, •� ® Qa 3 a � ® ® � bOA"�, ,� PIZ 4-4 4-4 �' J." p � 4� `�' •""iii � CC3 ct ct 40 v w ® v ct ct N ct . ,. , ct O ct ct� N C� O N °U cd ;3 cn O bQ 0 bO ct 0i vs ct "-C� Con ct uct U ® c. N rn vs c�3 ® cd ■ f • \ C / : : . > , . .« , ; \. . . , , ' : ■ 4 / » : ? ? « ■ � ~\ . • » - \. j « \\ \ & \ ■ . . \ Fn . ■ :o f . \ ■ # 2 & . ■ .# » 0 < . \ � 4.0 o . . \ > . « :. CL \ \ ) -ke 0U) \ . i 4 ■ , \ \ ; } / CD CD CD . \ . \ w < \ / ■ © 0 CD CD CD 0 , \ . ■ . . / 00 / # / . E10,0 \ •0 CD� ; ® • ® ' . / ■ : , «: ¥ "a. CD 0 0' . § ¥ j ZC L 412-> ° \ \< s ' ' \ « y . y . . . y , y d f » § � « « 4: /}/ / \9 2 :< \. <t\ / 2 t \ > \ , » . �\ } { f; k - - : 4 \ . < \ \ \ : «; / \ \ . : \\ : / ' .� ## 0 0 0 « q 2 / / S E E a. � £ � k t E a 0 4-1 cz (1) C) (1) >1 > U) L- - (U Co i5 =3 c 0 E m cr a) W a) 0L - m a) U) a) a) M > cn > > cu am ) a) a) C- (n 0 < 0 -0 0 X �p• m=3 .- .- 4-a w -F-j o ar -J r) a)•'2 ) r-, •CU 0 co C: C - 0) E �:a :2 ) U) • -Fu com 00 0 0 0 - 0 a) • E m a) • • C) :3 0 (D < C: C —0 C .— cu 0 • • C: 40 U) C- 0 < cn E a) cif < CU C) >, U�-o 0 • of► •N a) _j a) cn -0 -1-a -1 -0 > U) CU - •0 0 •0 0 o CL ) _ (n w• _ M (D a) cu m C: 0 a) a) a) _0 U) CU U) o• 0 U) 0 C/) a) c cu cu >N< <• L- 0 .F x a) L- a) 0 ► C: 4- -0 C/) •o(/) 0 CU 0 cu (1) (1) -0 C/) cu z uiU) C• cu d -•L U) 0 (D C U 0 < .. C) D• V) -�5 a) ) 0) of co•< a) •co c• 0 C cu > L co O)o cu• 0)• M a) Z W 0 0 0 (D a) 0 CL CL = Co a).2 a) N 0 > w• -0 r) co 75 0 Z cu M a cu 0) •> n 0• CL a) 0 (D M 0 L- > 0= cn 0 =3 w U) E N cn E -6 Cl -E U) U- o cu cn .2 ►z Cf) QJ ct cn mCld Ct .� ^ • ren aACO .� •� 03 cn 03 ® C42 O v maw ° 0 v c°,� 4-4 U tc3 U v� � U ciU J O U OIS O ® • ® • � % _ v 41 v 0 Poo 2 A+ O 410 42 : 400 4) a . . � y� y a ui 2¥ « MOON � : : w : . ¥. �� : , : \ 0 Eu)� a \ 2# � 2« / . =y . < # . : : : . } *:m.Aw � \� 2• .� : \ � � : \ � . 0 \+ m 0 { . : . . : : . 04. \• 0 4 0 4 \a J ( ` :�� #� U I N °U) M 0CL O L `® 0 L 0 c 0 0) L- O - CU � 40- 0) N ® N O ®>+ .. �m a M N �_ L 13 O. ® ® d CU 0. V 0 .®� — vl L- cu .� c i0 ® 0. 0.0 :E �- .® L. � V O ^ G 0 'a °i 0) Q Lm I- V 0 N (D 0 .E*_ 0 m 0 O v .�v se > I to 4a 0 ® ++ I 0 m CL IM 0 0) 4) N42 a)� O. °0 O 0 0 O. . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 . V OMMS TOO .BEEL LEE ® L .=1 4-0 MENEM a) LEE *400000 CIE LEE 0 0 BID.® `A owSEEMS L 1+ T .. L .LEE® MEMBER .® CIE BOBER BROWNsommom 4 L 0 ov .. W.~. L L BEEBE I S"' L M*20 WEEN m L .® L L MUNION I.MENION 4- 4- 0) SEEMS 00 ED MEMBERE. ' .EEBE L - 4 • • • • • • • ' s • 4 4 Alu • • • • 4 Alu r 0 ff *` AW # � CL \ *I / 1 � } .? 2: o 0 w § d U) � y < � k ¥ / 2• # M IL < � . . , d ® <. y . ¥< # 2 ? CL : : 4 - n *:\ U. \ . . 4 # � \ / w 2 # \ : < 4 / § } >a . / s § .. r. w 2 # - a .� 2 # � � M 0 \ / 0/ \\ / <: ® 4. 4 . d • 2 . - . ■ / ? : *: / 0. a 4 .. > # / ^ d : ¥: w w <. / \ > y / 0 « � .« \ ? ? 2 ■ \ *° • # \ 0 0 ? \ § L- / / a y y # a LL o < 4 <cL cL w4 : 0 0 °� \• �\ o ¥< ?4a :.: :� .: :.: ~ . :�: \• \ i :: ¥¥ M 0 � 0 0 � 0 <% ? .. 2 \ : \ :.\M W : \ > M m 0 >% � 2 ¥> / ° \ ^ \\ mL. fl }1} : \2\ ?• E. . 22 ^ � ° .� : < \\ \ }•i }�} � \• ~ Lm ,� � � § � \ � � \• � � ~ M § U. m? � � ��� >,~ . , Cl) m \\ � <d \« L. � \ : U.to \ ƒ W-74 -4--a C) a) n ,C: >N > -0 0 CO cu co a) = C > cu m 0a) U) CU U) C: QC:U) 0 0 X ;p L) O UCL :3 c: a) 1>-, .a E o cu E M U) O 0 cor- C: 0 U) < 4-j C,q U) a) CL CD +, CU U) - a) 0) > 0 < M-0 C- C: MO >1 Q -0 a) cu .— x 0 0 a) 0 0 C: U) U 0, U) mo _Ile L- _Ile L- -0 0) ..Oe qllllt� 4-a U) a) M 0- cu a - cu c6 4— Uj -a 0 0 _0 U) -0 0=< N 0 a) N CL 0 U) U) -0 M a) C) 0 o a) W-74 c 0 w "2 co vi a) a) _0 cm ca cu 0 4— cu 0 0 C/) U) co n _0 c cu C: 0 -1-1 co 9) C) (1) ry ciT 0 cu Z 0 m a) E -0 0 CO 0 X ;p L) UCL :3 E U) C- C: 0 0 cor- C: 0 U) < 4-j Q".0 m p C: a) 0 C: -f-j C: M-0 C- a) a) a) a) 0 .— x 0 0 cn 0 0 C: U) U 0, (D 0- o to < 4-a U) a) c6 _I04- co 0 _0 U) -0 0=< 2 a) N L 0- - -0 M a) C) o a) E < CO > 0— E co U— 4— o m cn c 0 w "2 co vi a) a) _0 cm ca cu 0 4— cu 0 0 C/) U) co n _0 c cu C: 0 -1-1 co 9) C) (1) ry ciT 0 cu Z % # © © & 2 / i ■ : � : /` ` ;. ; . • ? y \ cn r , • \ \ / : \ \ $ \- © ¥ \ / \ \ . \ ■0 ? m z \ m / ■ ■ . ¥ . y / . ® : # •' \ . : ; : . 4 4 ■ - ~ \ : • ; . / \ 0 / � \ / \ ■ . « / � � \ � / :• : / \ y / ■ } / ; : < - \ - W'— . . \ ■ y y \ / ■. L. * ; .L- CD \ � � .. cS . : ■ \ \ . .> \ a < \ . > w • 2 • # . `CL u CL � & • - } \ \ \ o j , - :d \ . i . \ ; & / f \ . i \ I * . § / \ 2 ■ • Z a : ~ & ? - ; M ■ Y / • 0 � � ; -0` � � » \ : \ . ; < • / 0 . m / 0 : / R NO4 Cl, =1 11 Pah I�I 3 0 M p� Ah 4-4 UJ °® C V/ a% °~yyy = Me® tel' PW � py hMd D e YJJa /� im °� yV 4-4 Cc CL neP.nl l� L e o V v 40, /0 e\V e� WW a pry �N /M) V Pao ® ® �ryqCq@ O W V v W V V 1 En cn R NO4 Cl, =1 11 Pah I�I 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 11, 2014 CASE NO.: 2014-19 APPLICANT: Megan and Tim Palm, The Daily Grind Espresso Cafe REQUEST: Request for a Special Use Permit for a proposed coffee shop, with outdoor seating, for the structure located at 217 Main Street North ZONING: CBD -Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU-Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit for a 720 square foot coffee shop to be located at 217 Main Street North. The coffee shop is proposing to utilize a portion of the existing Valley Bookseller building. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing the use of an existing outdoor eating area. Outdoor eating areas in the Central Business District also require a Special Use Permit. BACKGROUND The Daily Grind, located at 317 Main Street South is proposing to move to the eastern portion of the Valley Bookseller structure. The business, designed to follow a Barnes and Noble model, seeks to utilize a new indoor and (existing) outdoor space. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS 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 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. 217 Main Steer North Case No. SUP/2014-19 (June 11, 2014) Page 2 Zoning Ordinance o Use: Coffee shops and cafes similar to restaurants have been approved in the Central Business District without complaint. o Parking: The property is located within the Downtown Parking District. Alternative provisions for parking shall be determined by the Downtown Parking Commission and incorporated into the conditions of approval of the Special Use Permit. ■ The current 1,826 s.f. of book store retail space requires 6 parking spaces (a rate of one space per 300 s.f.). After the coffee shop moves into the space, the book store's retail area will be reduced to 1,106 s.f., requiring only 4 spaces. The 720 square feet of indoor space to be used by the coffee shop will demand 5 parking spaces (at a rate of one space per 150 s.f.). An additional 368 s.f. of outdoor space will also be utilized seasonally. The Parking Commission will determine the number of parking spaces required for this outdoor space. The total increased parking intensity is the responsibility of the coffee shop. So, an increase of 3 spaces plus the spaces for the outdoor area will have to be mitigated. This is typically done by requiring the building owner or business owner to purchase one parking permit per month for each increased parking space. If the building owner mitigates, the parking permit cost is typically added to the business owner's lease costs. 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, signage and exterior site plans. The applicant has not proposed any exterior changes or signage at this time. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Staff has determined the coffee shop/cafe would not be a detriment to the public so long as all plans are approval by the fire and building official prior to the issuance of a building permit. ALTERNATIVES The Commission has the following options: 217 Main Steer North Case No. SUP/2014-19 (June 11, 2014) Page 3 1. Approve the Special Use Permit request with or without conditions. 2. Deny the Special Use Permit. 3. Table the request for more information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Commission chooses to approve the project, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 2. All exterior alterations, including new signage, shall go to the Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval. 3. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 4. The Parking Commission's decision on the method of mitigating the increased parking demand shall be incorporated into the coffee shop's Special Use Permit as a condition of approval. ATTACHMENTS Narrative Request Floor Plan IWIINOM iii' ef'm 'uWY@N II Ohm IG THE DAILY GRIND ESPRESSO CAFE 651-491-5434 May 16, 2014 fimothyfipa.lm@yahoo,cor 317 S Main St Dear Planning Commission, Stillwater, MN 55082 The Daily Grind Espresso Cafe has been in its current location for over 22 years. Our current lease ends on December 31, 2014, and an agreement with our current landlord could not be reached. We are seeking approval to relocate our store in the back third of the existing Valley Bookseller. We have agreed upon a design that fits both of our needs, duties, and shop hours between both businesses. We would like to proceed in doing a build -out of our coffee bar, an additional bathroom, and a seating area which will be indoors as well as seating outdoors on an existing deck. We are using Ike Austin as our designer and we have been meeting with Abby from the Health Department and Cindy Shilts the Building Inspector throughout the designs process. We will work within the boundaries of all building codes applicable and use fully licensed trades people when required. We feel moving our store will not only be a healthy move for us, but the union of the Valley Bookseller and The Daily Grind Espresso Cafe follows a proven strategy similar to that of a Barnes and Noble. With the foot traffic we generate currently, our neighbors will benefit from our move as well. We have been an institution in downtown Stillwater for 22 years, and we love the idea of being more accessible to our customers with ample parking while still keeping a river view ambiance our customers have grown to love. We appreciate your consideration, and look forward to your response. Sincere yours, - Megan & Tim Palm The Daily Grind Espresso Cafe Q —ZiWll-alvoq spy Ll LL - LJ li 11 spy Ll LL - LJ li IV 'N' I I I C) / III III �A ` f III �i REPORT DATE: June 5, 2014 CASE NO.: 2014-20 HEARING DATES: Planning Commission June 11, 2014 Joint Planning Board June 18, 2014 Park Commission June 23, 2014 City Council July 1, 2014 APPLICANT: Chris Aamodt, Settler's Pines, LLC REQUEST: 1) Conceptual Approval of Annexation 2) Rezoning to RB, Two -Family Residential 3) Setback Variances 4) Preliminary Plat approval of Rutherford Station, a 55 lot Residential Subdivision LOCATION: 8335, 8355, 8401 & 8455 Manning Avenue COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LMDR, Low/ Medium Density Residential REVIEWERS: City Engineer, Fire Marshal, City Attorney, City Forester, Browns Creek Watershed District, Washington Co. Public Works PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Chris Aamodt, Settler's Pines, LLC, pians to develop 17.5 acres of land in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of McKusick Road and Manning Avenue'. Currently the land exists as four parcels with a home on each. Three of the parcels are located within Stillwater Township and are being petitioned for annexation as part of this development process. The fourth is already in the City of Stillwater. 55 lots are proposed as part of this plat, to be known as Rutherford Station, and all would gain access to Marylane Avenue via local streets to be constructed by the developer. Sidewalks will be built along one side of each local street and out to the County trail along Manning Avenue. In addition, the Browns Creek State Trail runs along the northern edge of the development and The total site encompasses 19.98 acres. 17.5 will be developed while 2.48 have already been purchased by Washington County for additional right-of-way along CSAR 15 (Manning Avenue). Rutherford Station June 5, 2014 Page 2 access will be possible from Rutherford Station either via the County trail or off of Marylane Avenue. SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to develop the property as proposed, Chris Aamodt has requested approval of the following: 1. Conceptual Approval of Annexation of the development property and of the abutting Marylane Avenue. 2. Rezoning to RB, Two -Family Residential. 3. Variance of 50 feet for Lots 3-6, Block 5 to allow homes to be built 50 feet from the Manning Avenue right-of-way rather than the 100 foot minimum required. 4. Variance of 5 feet for Lots 7-12, Block 5 to allow homes to be built with a combined side yard setback of 10 feet rather than 15 feet. 5. Preliminary Plat of Rutherford Station, a 55 lot single family development. EVALUATION OF REQUEST I. ANNEXATION The petition to annex the site into the City is for a total of 14.98 acres plus the abutting segment of Marylane Avenue. The total site encompasses 19.98 acres plus Marylane Avenue. But, the southern 5.00 acre parcel of this project is already located in the City of Stillwater. Of the privately owned 14.98 acres that are petitioned for annexation, 13.14 acres will be developed into lots and outlots. The remaining 1.84 acres have already been purchased by Washington County for additional CSAR 15 (Manning Avenue) right-of-way. According to the Orderly Annexation Agreement, the subject property is located in the Phase IV annexation area. This area is not scheduled for annexation until after January 1, 2015. But, the infill provision of the agreement (Section 4.09) would allow the request to be approved, since each of the following criteria is satisfied: 0 100% of the subject landowners have signed an annexation petition ■ This has not occurred yet, but will occur prior to final approval by the City Council. The developer has controlling interest in the northern three of the site's four parcels, and has an agreement with the bankruptcy trustee on the fourth parcel. However, gaining controlling interest in the fourth parcel is a month or so away from being transferred. o The property is adjacent to property within the City's corporate limits ■ The southern of the four parcels is already in the City of Stillwater. o The level of growth in the entire area regulated by the agreement has not exceeded 120 permits per year ■ This is true o Utilities are immediately available to the property ■ Both sanitary sewer and municipal water are available in the Marylane Avenue right-of-way. Rutherford Station June 5, 2014 Page 3 The requested annexation is found acceptable as reviewed against the Orderly Annexation Agreement. However, at this point only conceptual approval should be given. Formal approval of the annexation petition should not occur until the final plat is approved, and a development agreement is executed. IL REZONING Mr. Aamodt is proposing to rezone the property to RB, Two -Family Residential. The Comprehensive Plan's guided use for the property is Low/Medium Density Residential. In order to create the density envisioned by this classification, RB zoning is necessary at a minimum. III. VARIANCES & PRELIMINARY PLAT A. Variances Minimum Dimensional Standards: RB District Standard Single Family Two -Family Proposed Lot area 7,500 sf 10,000 sf 8,658 sf —17,338 sf Lot width 50 ft2 75 ft2 65 —105 ft Corner lot width 70 ft 100 ft 80 — 87 feet Frontage 35 ft 35 ft 39 — 85 ft Front setback 20 ft 20 ft ok Front setback — garage 30 ft 30 ft unknown Side setback 15 ft total both sides 5 ft min on each side 15 ft total both sides 5 ft min on each side ok Side setl$ack — garage 5 ft (3 ft detached) 5 ft (3 ft detached) ok Setback'from Manning 100 ft 100 ft 50 ft The table compares the minimum standards of the proposed RB zoning district with the minimum standards proposed for Rutherford Station. As can be seen, each minimum standard is satisfied with one exception, which is the setback from Manning Avenue for Lots 3-6, Block 5. A variance was already approved for most of the proposed lots along Manning Avenue, but at that time the developer only had ownership of three of the four parcels within the development site. Now that he has an agreement to purchase the fourth parcel, a variance is being requested for lots that will be developed on that property. The variance request is reviewed in a section below. A comment should be made about garage setbacks in the RB Zoning District. In this district garages are intended to be set 10 feet further back from the street than the front wall of the house. This relieves streetscapes from garage dominance. So, the minimum setback of the house is 20 feet and the garage is 30 feet. But, several design options allow for variety. For example, if a roofed (but open) porch is at the 20 foot setback line, and the front door is at the 30 foot setback 2 Distance between side lot lines measured at right angles to lot depth at a point midway between front and rear lot lines Rutherford Station June 5, 2014 Page 4 line, the garage doors could be flush with the front wall of the house. And, if the porch or front of the house is at a 30 foot setback, the garage could be at the same setback. COMMENTS ON REQUEST FOR VARIANCES 1. Setback from Manning Avenue Request: Variance of 50 feet for Lot 3-6, Block 5 to allow homes to be built 50 feet from the Manning Avenue right-of-way rather than the 100 foot minimum required. In January 2014 the Planning Commission granted variances for the northern three of the subject four parcels. The variance was approved since it would create a setback from Manning Avenue similar to the other single family (SFR) parcels adjacent to the eastern boundary of Manning Avenue, as seen below: Subdivision Address Apx. Setback Settler's (Townhome) 3690 Ambercrombie Ln. 100' Liber (Townhome) 7225 Manning 40' Liberty West (SFR) 3726 Planting Green 50' Liberty (SFR) 456 Harvest Green 35' Stillwater Crossing (SFR) 602 Eben Court 50' Since this is the fourth and final parcel in the proposed development, it is reasonable to grant the same variance for this parcel as well. 2. Side Yard Setback Request: Variance of 5 feet for Lots 7-12, Block 5 to allow homes to be built with a combined side yard setback of 10 feet rather than 15 feet. The side yard setback requirement for the RB Zoning District is a minimum of 5 feet from each side lot line, but there needs to be a combined total setback from side lot lines of 15 feet. In practice this allows a 10 foot wide side yard on one side of the lot and a 5 foot side yard on the other. The extra space on one side of the house gives the option of constructing a driveway for a detached garage in a rear yard. The purpose of the request is to allow an extra 5 feet of width so a home builder could have the option of constructing an attached garage. The alternative to granting side setback variances for these lots would be to make them 5 feet wider. But, that would require the loss of a lot. Normally eliminating a lot would be the preferred alternative. However, the proposed development density of 3.2 homes/ acre is low compared to the Comprehensive Plans target for this property. The target is a minimum of 4.4 homes/ acre. Therefore, the loss of a lot exacerbates the density issue and consequently City staff finds this variance request to be a reasonable solution to keeping the extra lot. Rutherford Station June 5, 2014 Page 5 B. Civil Engineering The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plans and offers the following comments: 1. This development will be responsible for paying development impact fees. A) Trout Stream Mitigation Fee of $10,277.72 per acre for 17.5 acres = $179,860.10. B) The Transportation Adequacy Fee of $17,600.20 per acre for 17.5 acres = $308,003.50. C) Trunk sewer and water fees at a combined cost of $13,338.53 per acre for 17.5 acres = $233,424.28. These fees will be due prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. 2. The pians do not show improvements to Marylane Avenue. But the street is currently a gravel road and must be upgraded to a 30 foot paved width with this subdivision. The $308,003.50 Transportation Adequacy Fee payment can be credited for a large portion of the cost of the Marylane Avenue improvements. The exact amount will be included in the Development Agreement that will be part of the Final Plat review. 3. The Marylane sanitary sewer must be extended to the north end of the project site for future development in the area. 4. Stormwater Ponds 3P and 5P have 100 year elevations higher than the EOF. This must be corrected. 5. Stormwater Pond 1P must be redesigned. a. 100 yr High Water Level (HWL) is higher than the street elevation. The HWL must be lower than the street elevation by at least 1.5 feet. b. The pond HWL must be a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the road (35 feet from centerline of Marylane). 6. Stormwater pond design must be based upon NOAA Atlas 14 statistics. 7. Drainage maps must be submitted for areas outside of the project. Previously published reports show that the drainage area to the development site is 40 plus acres, which is more than the stormwater infiltration improvements are designed to handle. 8. All of the stormwater infiltration basins must be privately maintained. A Home Owner's Association will be required as will associated maintenance documents that will have to be filed in chain of title. These must be submitted to the City for approval of form and content together with final plat application materials. 9. Street widths must be 30 feet from face of curb to face of curb. 10. The grading pian needs to be revised to show a 2% minimum slope in all backyard drainage swales. 11. Replace the 12" cmp culvert under Marylane with a rcp pipe. This will match the n value used in the pond calculations. 12. Consider extending pipe and outlet south and east from south side of Summit Court. 13. Washington County will have to approve any work along Manning Avenue and McKusick Road. Rutherford Station June 5, 2014 Page 6 Washington County Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary plat and made the following comments: 1. A Washington County right-of-way permit is required for any work in the CSAR 15 (Manning Avenue) right-of-way. This would include the landscaping berms. 2. A Washington County right-of-way permit is required in order to make the connection between the development trails and the County's regional trail along Manning Avenue. 3. The developer must submit the drainage report and calculations to the County for review of potential downstream impacts to the county drainage system. C. Tree Preservation & Landscaping The City Forester, Kathy Widin, reviewed the grading and tree removal plan. She notes that most of the trees on this site were planted or are volunteer trees, and the site does not constitute a native woodland. She offers the following comments: 1. Tree Removal and Replacement - 307 trees were surveyed on the property. Almost all trees on the list are defined by City Code as "significant" and therefore subject to replacement. Of these trees, 215 are proposed to be removed (70%), 34 trees are to be saved, and 58 trees are to be transplanted (mainly to the constructed berm along Manning Avenue). These last two categories represent trees to be 'saved' and make up 30% of the trees on the site. The Tree and Forest Protection ordinance (31-522) in the zoning code of the City of Stillwater, states that private development may remove up to 35% of the existing tree cover without replacement. Over 35% removal requires 1:1 replacement. These trees would be over and above any other trees required to be planted as part of the sub -division ordinance language. 35% removal would allow 108 trees to be removed, whereas 215 are proposed for removal. Therefore 107 removed trees must be mitigated. In addition, the landscaping requirements for subdivision require three trees per lot, which means 165 trees for the 55 proposed lots. So both the tree replacement and landscaping requirements equal a total developer obligation of 272 trees. The notes on the preliminary plat submittal state that the developer and builder would plant 4 trees/ lot for a total of 220 trees. In addition there will be 47 trees trans- planted on the Manning Avenue berm. This is a total of 267, which is sufficient to meet the 272 tree planting requirement for both the tree protection and sub- division ordinances. 2. Landscape Plan - A landscape plan for the berm along Manning Ave has been submitted with the preliminary plat submittal. The plan for the berm looks fine and the new tree species proposed are acceptable. If the cedars listed for the berm are eastern red, Widin recommends the use of the cultivar 'Techny'. The landscape plan for the development, which is also the tree replacement plan, will be submitted at a later date. Both plans should include Planting Detail showing how new trees, both deciduous and coniferous, are to be planted. Details should also be included re: size of tree spade proposed to be used to transplant trees which are to be moved to the berm. Also needed will be text describing how the Rutherford Station June 5, 2014 Page 7 transplanted trees are to be cared for after planting. Species to be planted should be native or 'near -native', and should be hardy and well -adapted to this area. Species should have few serious insect or disease problems which could limit their usefulness and longevity in the landscape. Cultivated varieties may be used. A diversity of species should be chosen to keep the plan sustainable. 3. Tree Transplanting (Re -Location to Berm) - Trees moved from one area to another on the site are considered 'saved' trees if they are in a healthy condition. They should be inspected before transplanting for any major insect or disease problem which could compromise the tree's ability to transplant successfully. Since some of the trees are quite large, after-care such as mulching after planting, and watering on a regular basis for several seasons of growth, will be very important to survival of these trees. Several ash on site are proposed to be transplanted, but due to the presence of emerald ash borer in the Twin Cities area, these should NOT be transplanted. It has not been confirmed in Washington County yet, but it is only a matter of time before it's here. Any ash trees not treated with insecticide to protect them will be killed during the infestation. 4. Tree Preservation - Trees to be saved (preserved) on the site should be evaluated for health and any potential risk factors before preservation. A tree protection plan showing how these trees are to be protected during construction should be included in a later plan submittal. The County has agreed that the developer will be permitted to continue the landscaping berm and plantings found to the south. These will lie within the extra right-of-way purchased by the County. D. Park and Trail Dedication The Comprehensive Plan's park element shows no planned parks on or through the property. So, the contribution to the park system would likely have to be in the form of a fee, which would be $2,000 per lot (a total of $110,000). In terms of trails and sidewalks, sidewalks will be built throughout the subdivision on one side of each street. These sidewalks will tie into the County's regional trail along Manning Avenue. The developer will still be responsible however for a $500 contribution per lot to the city's public trail system. Though, it may be possible for the developer to construct a trail connection along Marylane Avenue from the Brown's Creek State Trail to the point where the development's sidewalk system would terminate. If this were found desirable by the Park Commission, the cost of this trail segment could be credited against the required trail fee. The Park Commission will review the plans on June 23, 2014. E. Environmental Issues Wetlands - The property has no wetlands. Rutherford Station June 5, 2014 Page 8 BCWD - Karen Kill, Brown's Creek Watershed District Administrator, and the District's engineer have completed a preliminary pre -permit plan review of the development plans. Their comments follow: Rule 2.0 - Stormwater Management triggered because the activity consists of residential subdivision or development of four or more lots. Rule 3.0 - Erosion Control triggered because the activity will involve grading or other land disturbing activities which will involve the movement of more than 50 cubic yards of earth or removal of vegetative cover on 5,000 square feet or more of land. Rule 6.0 - Watercourse and Basin Crossings MAY be triggered if the culverts under Marylane are being replaced as part of the project. Rule 7.0 - Floodplain and Drainage Alterations triggered because changes in land contours will alter stormwater flows at the property boundaries, the diversion or obstruction of surface or charnel flow and the creation of basin outlets. As a result, the lowest floor elevations will have to be evaluated against the 100 -year HWL of all stormwater management facilities. Rule 8.0 - Fees triggered because this is a private development. Rule 9.0 - Sureties triggered by this activity. While conducting this preliminary review, the District Engineer also noted additional items that will need to be addressed by the Permit Applicant in order to demonstrate compliance with the District Rules. These items include: 1. The soil map provided does not match the soils information contained in the Brown's Creek Watershed Management Plan. This mapping discrepancy will have to be rectified. 2. Stormwater calculations have been run using the old TP 40 information. The HydroCAD model will have to be re -run using the recently published NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Frequency documents. 3. There appear to be some inconsistencies between the proposed conditions routing diagram and the grading plan. Is the raingarden in the northwestern corner of the grading plan included in the HydroCAD model? 4. If the culvert under Marylane is not being replaced as part of this project, its existing hydraulic capacity will have to be evaluated to ensure that it is being modeled in HydroCAD correctly. 5. Given the reliance on stormwater infiltration, a geotechnical evaluation must be conducted and include soil borings in the location of all infiltration basins and raingardens being proposed on site. For all stormwater management facilities and waterbody crossings to be constructed and relied on by the applicant for compliance with Brown's Creek Watershed District regulatory requirements, the applicant will need to provide, for District approval, a declaration or other recordable instrument stating terms for Rutherford Station June 5, 2014 Page 9 access and maintenance of such facilities and incorporating an enforceable obligation to the District to maintain such facilities. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, variances, rezoning and annexation with the following conditions: The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following pians on file with the Community Development Department, except as may be modified by the conditions herein: • Preliminary Plat dated 3/7/14 • Preliminary Plat Grading Plan dated 5/15/14 • Preliminary Plat Utility Plan dated 5/15/14 • Berm & Screening Plan dated 5/14/14 2. The annexation, variances and rezoning will not take effect until the final plat is approved by the City Council. 3. The annexation petition will not be considered approved, nor may it be filed with Minnesota Municipal Board, until both the final plat and development agreement are approved and executed by the City and developer. 4. Civil engineering pians submitted with final plat application materials must be consistent with the City Engineer comments found in this report, and the plans must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer. 5. The developer shall submit a grading permit application to Brown's Creek Watershed District. Any permit conditions that the City Engineer finds necessary to include in the final pian set shall be included in the final plat application package. 6. This development will be responsible for paying $2,500 per lot to the City for park and trail dedication fees. These fees may be reduced by crediting trail construction costs if found acceptable to the Park Commission and City Council and thereafter included in the Development Agreement associated with this plat. These fees will be due prior to release of the final plat from the City for recording with Washington County. 7. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be specified in the pians submitted for final plat approval. 8. Storm ponds should be designed to reflect the new rainfall data from National Weather Service Atlas 14. 9. This development will be responsible for paying the Trout Stream Mitigation Fee of $10,277.70 per acre; the Transportation Adequacy/ Mitigation Fee of $17,600.20 per acre; and trunk sewer and water fees of a total of $13,338.53 per acre. The Transportation Adequacy/ Mitigation fee may be reduced by crediting Marylane Avenue improvement construction costs if found acceptable to the City Council and thereafter included in the Development Agreement associated with this plat. These fees will be due prior to release of the final plat from the City for recording with Washington County. 10. A landscaping/ tree planting pian consistent with the City Forester's review comments must be submitted together with the final plat application materials. 11. Home Owner's Association documents including stormwater facilities maintenance must be submitted with final plat application for approval by the City. When approved by the City, they must be filed together with the final plat. Rutherford Station June 5, 2014 Page 10 12. The developer shall submit right-of-way permit application(s) to Washington County for any work within County right-of-ways, including connection(s) to County trails. cc Chris Aamodt Attachments: Zoning & Location Map Manning Setback Detail Development Plans Q U m a+ (6 Q 6 E n O Q N 'C .2 m m m w W5 cw 0 w [If -. p Y o m -o -o as as us m e — m m a � � � � � 05.4.c � i o C a���w �_o o w0 o aaa�.E `off as L Q. co C m== m m m U w w L d d M N `—'LL LL o -o � o o o L m 2 w w �' .c m Q d N m as V -m C)UU o2SU as=mmm( LL y m SD��UO-Da�O r= m V 3 a a m U S U U m a U a a a[ Q� R o 0 w Q[If [If H J U U U U F-- [If [If U U> m m m U d d d M L N b N '.'� '.2 Q ias �;� '.� 'ti�1 rV'di '�",.7 ossz1 III 869409/1 ✓�� �� SII 55 069Z I 4p 099Z SV�.". R- ,A R2 oke gg .. z Utz ezEe , ,+ m ✓`fir, " «ri" ,.+ ". ,,^' `"^�, III .ars rOil sf/E r1r u«.- ✓ . ars rt osezl ,,. 51x££ 9G R 125& q 1255 g££� It €££, �.� M IIl o9€g� � 1285 � �zsa `� �!� 11=e£ €£ "U:t hY I N^'" ✓i`, w., " � � i '^ , ..,. 2s�s�y a �y5 6r ,„ "� „„,� . dL�`` v � i u ozzzl VIII uwaµmnm da w aukwrr Ouw owrrmmm da iu�'mm dmmm dry uum 01111 £ ,iU 61z ��t I Q r 00 ooh ..� 0c).�. ..�H±{ 4®y....��41N9.n* •,,,"� iii b im rna ,r "LS� °g 4 Z i LO ,°0 0 2maa0m II Ib�' Ib 0 0 1� �N VIII lf) (`) I���000 �oo��io0on0000.'oo� goo.' i,� 000.'oo� ,o. ooi Ilb'o�o 000 'i , u uo 1111111 ����� O IIII N Z ..... ................. M ................. uwuu mm i...�rvrv�uuw�m uuumn mnmmlm u,'asmm um;.uuwmasw. , ... .......... .............._ .... I W00 ,� Hl?J�ON 3f1N3AV `J NINNHW ��������� HVS� H121 N 3iNL3� °J NINNHW SL HVS�m � / N O 41 n O w a O J N V/ Q U m a+ (6 Q 6 E n O Q N 'C .2 m m m w W5 cw 0 w [If -. p Y o m -o -o as as us m e — m m a � � � � � 05.4.c � i o C a���w �_o o w0 o aaa�.E `off as L Q. co C m== m m m U w w L d d M N `—'LL LL o -o � o o o L m 2 w w �' .c m Q d N m as V -m C)UU o2SU as=mmm( LL y m SD��UO-Da�O r= m V 3 a a m U S U U m a U a a a[ Q� R o 0 w Q[If [If H J U U U U F-- [If [If U U> m m m U d d d M L N b N '.'� '.2 Q ias �;� '.� 'ti�1 rV'di '�",.7 ossz1 III 869409/1 ✓�� �� SII 55 069Z I 4p 099Z SV�.". R- ,A R2 oke gg .. z Utz ezEe , ,+ m ✓`fir, " «ri" ,.+ ". ,,^' `"^�, III .ars rOil sf/E r1r u«.- ✓ . ars rt osezl ,,. 51x££ 9G R 125& q 1255 g££� It €££, �.� M IIl o9€g� � 1285 � �zsa `� �!� 11=e£ €£ "U:t hY I N^'" ✓i`, w., " � � i '^ , ..,. 2s�s�y a �y5 6r ,„ "� „„,� . dL�`` v � i u ozzzl VIII uwaµmnm da w aukwrr Ouw owrrmmm da iu�'mm dmmm dry uum 01111 £ ,iU 61z ��t I Q r 00 ooh ..� 0c).�. ..�H±{ 4®y....��41N9.n* •,,,"� iii b im rna ,r "LS� °g 4 Z i LO ,°0 0 2maa0m II Ib�' Ib 0 0 1� �N VIII lf) (`) I���000 �oo��io0on0000.'oo� goo.' i,� 000.'oo� ,o. ooi Ilb'o�o 000 'i , u uo 1111111 ����� O IIII N Z ..... ................. M ................. uwuu mm i...�rvrv�uuw�m uuumn mnmmlm u,'asmm um;.uuwmasw. , ... .......... .............._ .... I W00 ,� Hl?J�ON 3f1N3AV `J NINNHW ��������� HVS� H121 N 3iNL3� °J NINNHW SL HVS�m � Preliminary Plat of Rutherford Station Additional Information and Discussion According to the requirements of SECTION 32 of the City of Stillwater code of ordinances, the following information must be provided. The section references are from Section 32, Subd. 5. (9) Wetland plan. A wetland delineation was performed in 2005. That delineation determined there were no wetlands on the site. Due to the passage of time, a new wetland delineation must be performed. That will be done when the delineator determines the site is suitable for a new investigation. However, if the new delineation finds wetlands exist, the requirements of article (9) will be followed in addition to other applicable rules and regulations. (11) Landscape plan. The landscape plan will be prepared after review and approval of the preliminary plat and will include the following: a. Property lines. b. Existing and proposed contours and berming at two -foot contour intervals. c. Location, type and size of existing plant material. d. Proposed lots, paved areas including streets and sidewalks and pathways, and screening from Manning Ave. The plan for screening from Manning Ave is submitted with this preliminary plat application. e. It is expected the site will be mass graded and substantially all of the existing trees will be removed or disturbed during construction. However, efforts will be made to protect as many trees as possible and that will be shown on the final grading plans. f. The location, type, size and number of proposed plant materials will be determined when the final grading plans are prepared. The requirements of the subdivision ordinance will be met regarding new tree planting. Subdivision 6 (3) q 1. Of the subdivision ordinance requires three street trees per lot. Due to the narrower width of many of these lots, it is recommended that two trees per lot on the front and one or two more on the corner side of lots be planted with one more tree planted in a rear area of each lot as proposed by the home builder. g. All areas disturbed by grading will be seeded except those areas which are sodded such as adjacent to curbs and sidewalks or those areas left undisturbed. h. A berm and screening plan is submitted for the area abutting Manning Ave. The berm will vary from 3 % to 4 % feet high and will be planted with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees. Page 1 The Berm and Screening plan has a legend and key. The final landscaping plan will also have a legend, plant list and key. The site has no significant natural features such as floodplains, lakes, and bluffs. A wetland delineation was performed in 2005. That delineation determined there were no wetlands on the site. Due to the passage of time, a new wetland delineation must be performed. That will be done when the delineator determines the site is suitable for a new investigation. k. There are no existing or proposed slopes of more than three to one on the site. There is no plan for Irrigation watering of any proposed landscaping. m. There are no parts of the site that can be described as forest or woodland areas. Therefore, no management plan has been prepared. (12) Other information. Other information to be included shall be as follows: a. The proposed use of lots is generally single family residential. It is proposed that lots greater than 10,000 square feet in area could optionally have accessory dwelling units. There will be 55 lots. Of these 32 lots are larger than 10,000 sq. ft. and could have ADUs. b. The source of water supply will be to connect to the city public water system presently installed in Marylane. c. The provisions for sewage disposal is to connect to the city of Stillwater sanitary sewer system. Surface water drainage and flood control will be in conformance with city and Brown's Creek Watershed District ordinances and rules. d. The development will conform to the comprehensive plan guidance for low/medium density residential and the zoning regulations for the RB zone. e. We have been requested to provide the following additional information by the community development director, the city engineer, the city attorney or the planning commission. 1. There are three outlots proposed to be platted. Outlots A and B will be dedicated for stormwater management usage. Since these are a public benefit, we propose they be dedicated to the public on the final plat. We also propose that these areas be maintained by the city to assure proper long-term performance in accordance with the city's stormwater management plan. 2. Outlot C will be dedicated for a trail and an eight -foot wide paved trail will be constructed to connect to the Manning Ave. trail which will be constructed by Washington County this summer. 3. We have discussed the possibility of allowing a minor reduction of sideyard setbacks on a group of lots within the southerly area of the neighborhood. These would be Lots 1 through 12, Block 5 which are grouped together and abut either Manning Ave. or the Settler's Pines townhomes. Page 2 Our proposal is that a condition of approval would be to grant administrative authority to city staff to reduce the combined sideyard setback to ten feet but not less than five feet each side, which could only be granted if a proposed house could not fit on a lot with standard setbacks by arrangement of the house location on the lot, such as increasing the front setback on a fan -shaped lot. f. There are no environmental reports required by the state environmental quality board (EQB). g. Our estimate of the traffic expected to be generated by the development is about 550 trips per day. We expect this to use Marylane and McKusick Road with about 1/3 of the trips on McKusick Road to the east and 2/3 to the west and then north or south on Manning Ave. h. The expected fire protection needs are those typical to a single family residential neighborhood. None of this site falls within the jurisdiction of shoreland, floodplain riverway bluff land/shoreland, historic preservation, forest protection, or restrictive soils on wetland regulations. Page 3 C) Z >WU _ uv) zZ O o w_ E> 6000 Q6 O_ Q 8 & o s f p Q 0000 2 x� } 3 03 osos W z3 a $ > Z J 3 — a rnmrnm W z 6000 is '^ O x oa F Q u m Z BVI u u� u UN 3 > "�°,"""�+ mmr u o m2 iaia u - a a a� o Q aLL a4 U u P 37 �9ct m 3,ql BZ°6B n Lam/ A' Ol iii rn G I A „ m z r ;.P. fir �e �p i wz a •� o pa . r" r i - e / 'V / 41/ ° i— JQoc � ma apa %v As Q % o/ ^" /ii ai�iaa err% & %i o0 0/ RIO C 01 >b n j o f n � n.° a 4 1/ II � rJ• .. b � �� I o i a / w p 0 u Y Mi x m; ° u 0 / of o> o, %e,.e rrr m4 m4 m' / b i /^r•. ✓i` z ori%%�orr w /,— �•;�r�/ 3m6E ZE 6BSae � m me, se a i .axu-a. °..n. anmm �v..v""aramm e C -- � T �C— M — eLy.,• eM Q a � i ¢r — — — — u Orcz Crcz oyez o w a9 oN'aa l noS N as��isn �iv> ~ttt- - —----—————— — — — — —— 4ada dda oar III < . .. .. . .. III . .. .. . .. ---------- T - - - - - - - - - - - J� Jul If II a Iii 2T 920.0 II920.- I Ill -7 avbu M31snmow J� >1 �7 7 LLLLU, Z o z 0 1 �;l — — — — — — — — — — — — - . . . . . . . - — — — — — — — — — -- MRS j - — — — — — — — — — — -=133'1S IHDIHM _------------III my IE ano) iiwwns -- - — — — — — — — — — — — w --- — — — — — — — — — .............. — — — — — — — — — — - le- "NAMM"W — — — — — — — — — — — 7 7 ZF 7 C) Z 1 �z 0000 wu Lr'a^=�,,a._�.sU,��.a,•.,._`�',-."'e^�.°w°.��mo"� �✓.�'_O.�rj j° �,-nr> � _- in�J'�I��i�t ; aOudz--o�a r.x ia oeaz� ��gwea�Nxu�1 J ® OO � C� o�ro�o�w �dri a w-x zOaowpas.kanfi�l��,w,t x ,i x . >w�ZQ �,wudz_Qx>az�z mof�,w 00rna0x t poQuwouo�uxQtiQmoo p ��o_ad1ww- �aF �er. - � o- � 0000 2- osos w0W 0 >0rnm W z Z ce0Q Z O aU � madnaa w _ ' I _ 7/ o� ai JrL Ol3NV71/dVPV17S' 'f tSL mi to- -- v/ -au - ir le 01,b � baa- iLLxu — u % O z/ =t r%/ ms% fjfl� ; LA Io dvrt osuCu � w at - " 49 :ON Ob AlNf10J� � � 'g -- (N —— w w •..e® a a 0 £ )o Z l ntll Itlaius 11- ONIN33HOS OaNV NH38N 133HS SNOISIn36 I JM nn a MML l II II 1 O` OI .9 Do - 401, 3O udwdro oiaon9a$ Y� %mo m� oz 401i oz 30ti31d$ '� of dlddv all/ 3,v S ..Alddv ej w d9 ���" EJL 3jnad9 �i9 4 a .E 3lddtl WIN , /�'�j Z30fYydS ldtlWS E130f72131y�(�1 3nN3nVONINNVW 9L HSV 89001 £A, 159 a roe do � �5 —0n 6{ lon-T H$tl SE lonad$� .9 -o- W bL 3lddtl d'dW 3NId h o � ssz d'a sANI Nl Q .bt 3lddb' 'T O snONiWnlie .tit 3lddb' Z a f _ OE 3onadS ,��I9L 3NIdb udwdro oiaon9a$ Y� %mo m� 11111 ON -Oea b�/b�/SO 31VO oz 30ti31d$ '� w -AIN � l woa sw@�Lapauagapf a �i9 4 a --'�S%-' V10SANNIW AO A/ a Z HStl 3nN3nVONINNVW 9L HSV 89001 £A, 159 U a ldtlW E,A"vA �5 Hstl 6{ lon-T H$tl SE lonad$� .9 -o- W * d'dW 3NId h o � ssz d'a sANI Nl Q (7 > ao Lu J C C Z snONiWnlie a O N SL 3 ,.E OOON\SStle �„ EEA,vW .bZ adl�pd 31Jfd,;a�' O L() L() N O Q., t ;W, 1HJ123 3E 3ldbW S 11111 ON -Oea b�/b�/SO 31VO -AIN woa sw@�Lapauagapf a --'�S%-' V10SANNIW AO 991,106-LS9 3nN3nVONINNVW e1V1SAHiAOSMV A iHAGNnHAANIONe 89001 £A, 159 GAHAiS IOea AInO V WV I1VH1 oNV ]VildVOXI0HO NOISInHAdns 103aIo AN HAGNn a0 eW Ae OAWdAHdSVM iaodAHHONOI1VoHIoeds -N d SIH11VH1 AA IiHAO AeeaeH Jaaulbu3 IINO pa$ua9I� 3'd "SWYapauagaa'dsawep O L() L() N O Q., t ;W, 1HJ123 3E 3ldbW S U) W 0 Z (D Z m � O L,Z J ¢ ¢ z w ¢ Ja > rq U F w w O O w a¢ U m mZ N >( C J a ¢ � O z U = W W ¢ Y ¢ :E~ Ois ZQ(7 O Y UQ2 ~ QOO = WZw wjy mw� � gzZ LL~ E O�z¢ w o LO w 0¢�O W D:E JU)OOY W W 7 Z W v U) ~ m Z¢ uz W F ��z baa OU mZU� az—a OW�U w wzaw��O�o O mJm Z O�� O,z mz�rnLL¢Li UFa OF�z��OWz�Uz �`OO F Z � � o w o o=� w z 7 z O O p z WOWOU=o�— w p¢U m(7m zoozwz wUzi O z�Oin wQ LL�wciw Q ~w U) -�, 3��Oz o� Ew �woOowz0zoo0 rZv.Z6 cw)rom a O Z z w W (C W F w W Z z Q (7 > ao Lu J C C Z a2 m a O N W O a UD LL LL (DA LU O Z t/ U) w ^) v ) ¢ry zX LL U F- O n Qa a ¢ n/ JIl AVM W )1HOI� ry� L..l_ U) W 0 Z (D Z m � O L,Z J ¢ ¢ z w ¢ Ja > rq U F w w O O w a¢ U m mZ N >( C J a ¢ � O z U = W W ¢ Y ¢ :E~ Ois ZQ(7 O Y UQ2 ~ QOO = WZw wjy mw� � gzZ LL~ E O�z¢ w o LO w 0¢�O W D:E JU)OOY W W 7 Z W v U) ~ m Z¢ uz W F ��z baa OU mZU� az—a OW�U w wzaw��O�o O mJm Z O�� O,z mz�rnLL¢Li UFa OF�z��OWz�Uz �`OO F Z � � o w o o=� w z 7 z O O p z WOWOU=o�— w p¢U m(7m zoozwz wUzi O z�Oin wQ LL�wciw Q ~w U) -�, 3��Oz o� Ew �woOowz0zoo0 rZv.Z6 cw)rom Coty of Still aLer Trails Master Plan, Date: June 11, 2014 To: Planning Commission Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Abbi Wittman, City Planner From: Melissa Douglas, Planning Consultant Re: City of Stillwater, Trails Master Plan Update — Workshop #2 Vision and Guiding Principles/Issue Identification Welcome to our second workshop to discuss the update of the City's Trails Master Plan. I hope you found value in our joint planning session with the Parks Commission last month — I really appreciated the level of participation and lively discussion. At this workshop, we will: • Review the ideas and input about the Trails Master Plan vision and guiding principles from last month's workshop, and discuss the draft vision statement and guiding principles. If possible, achieve consensus on the draft language. Begin to identify specific concerns and issues to be addressed in the Trails Master Plan update. 19REMINDER: To ensure workshops are efficient and productive, this symbol highlights materials you should review or prepare ahead of the workshop. Vision and Guiding Principles Last month, I asked you to visualize what Stillwater will look like in 20 to 25 years and to consider the future role of the community trail system. At the workshop we shared the results of this exercise. I developed a rough visual based on my notes from the workshop shown on the following page. Ideas from this discussion were grouped together and developed into the draft vision statement and guiding principles for the plan. City of Stillwater Trails Master Plan Update —Workshop #2 'I'll Using the visual above, I developed a draft Vision Statement and draft Guiding Principles: Building on Stillwater's history and natural setting, become a leading active transportation community and one of Minnesota's best trail destinations. I•! x i f, 'I'll Using the visual above, I developed a draft Vision Statement and draft Guiding Principles: Building on Stillwater's history and natural setting, become a leading active transportation community and one of Minnesota's best trail destinations. I•! City of Stillwater Trails Master Plan Update —Workshop #2 1. Communitv. A trail system that serves the people of Stillwater as well as visitors, businesses and employers. Promotes activity and wellness. Provides access to nature and understanding of the city's history. 2. Sae . A trail system that ensures safe recreation and travel for all trail users regardless of age or ability. 3. Accessibilitv. A trail system that is easily accessed and accommodates a mix of users inclusive of all abilities. Information about the trail system is readily accessible and easy to understand. 4. Connections. A trail system that connects neighborhoods, commercial areas, regional trails, public transports. S. Communication. A trail system that educates and interprets the landscape, uses technology to make information widely available and includes signage that is easy to read and understand. Remember, long-range planning can only be successful if a community establishes a vision and values that outline its aspirations for the future. Do the draft vision and principles achieve that goal? Consider the order of the principles — does it reflect your own priorities? Please come with comments, concerns, revisions or your own vision statement for discussion. Identifying Planning Issues Once we have developed a draft vision statement and guiding principles, our "big picture" for the plan update, we need to begin to get more specific. Our next task is to outline the scope of the plan or what issues should be addressed in the updated Trail Master Plan. I developed the following draft list of issues based on the stakeholder consultations to date, site visits, the existing Comprehensive Trail Plan and the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan Transportation and Parks and Trails Chapters. I would expect this list to continue to evolve. We can discuss this list in more detail at the workshop, and I can answer any questions and take additional suggestions. General, city-wide issues: • Develop a bicycle system plan as part of the City's transportation plan • Provide safe and comfortable walking routes to schools and neighborhood commercial areas • Enhance access to greenways, ravines, parks and natural areas • Add new sidewalks as needed to complete sidewalk system, especially in the north hill. • Improve accessibility and compliance with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) • Add neighborhood connections to regional trail system, downtown and commercial areas • Ensure safety for pedestrians and cyclists especially in high traffic areas 3 City of Stillwater Trails Master Plan Update -Workshop #2 • Include historic stairway system as part of trail system especially maintenance/reconstruction needs • Develop comprehensive and cohesive communication strategies that promote Stillwater and its trail system • Plan for needed amenities (restrooms, parking, water stations, trash cans, etc.) Specific corridors and locations for additional discussion/consideration: • Trail head locations for regional trails • Highway 36 frontage road • Highway 95 • Highway 5 • County Road 15/Manning Avenue • County Road 12/Myrtle Street • Greeley Street • Third Street • Neal Avenue • Boutwell Road • Eagle Ridge Trail • Curvecrest Boulevard IgAs you are out and about prior to the meeting day, please consider visiting the corridors identified above and pay attention to existing sidewalks, trails and intersection improvements as well as obvious needs to be addressed such as missing segments, conflicts, etc. 0