Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-12 CPC Packetillwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. October 8, 2014 IV. 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 V. 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. A. Case No. SUP/ 2014-31. Continuation of a request for a Special Use Permit to create an event venue at 120-124 South Main St. Judd Sather, applicant. B. Case No. SUP/2014-33. Request for a Special Use Permit to allow for overnight lodging in the 2nd story apartment located at 120 Main St N. Katherine Francis, property owner and applicant. VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Master Trail Plan Discussion VII. ADJOURNMENT TME NINTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Hade, Hansen, Lauer, Middleton (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Siess, Council Representative Weidner Absent: Commissioners Fletcher and Kelly Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Siess commented that the minutes are very weak and more details are needed especially on split votes and contentious items. The detail included in the minutes has changed over time. The minutes didn't reflect that the meeting was very contentious. City Planner Wittman responded that the City contracts with a third party to do minutes. She can pass on to City Administration and the third party that more detail is needed in the minutes. Chairman Kocon agreed that particularly where there is a split vote, it would be great if the reasons for the votes were reflected in the minutes. Commissioner Lauer stated in the September 10, 2014 minutes, it was Commissioner Collins who requested a correction of the previous month's minutes. City Planner Wittman stated Commissioner Fletcher should have been noted as saying something attributed to Commissioner Lauer. She will correct this. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the September 10, 2014 meeting minutes as amended. All in favor, 7-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. SUP/2014-30. Request for a Special Use Permit and associated Variances to convert a two - stall detached garage to accessory dwelling unit to be located at 119 Chestnut Street West, Jeff and Julie Anderson, applicants. Planning Commission October 8, 2014 City Planner Wittman explained the request. Jeff and Julie Anderson are planning to expand their detached garage by constructing an addition to the east, as well as a southern portico, to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit. Two balconies are proposed. To receive a building permit for the planned accessory dwelling unit, the following items would need to be approved by the Planning Commission: 1. Special Use Permit for an accessory dwelling unit 2. Variance from the maximum number of permitted stories (a total of three stories is proposed) 3. Variance from the 30 foot setback required from the 4th Street right-of-way 4. Variance from the 30 foot bluff setback requirement. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. The maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit shall be 800 square feet 2. A Design Review Permit shall be obtained from the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the submittal of an application for a building permit 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the property shall have entered into a lot line agreement for that portion of Lot 7, Block 31 to fulfill parking requirements onsite 4. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of the dwelling unit. The building permit shall clearly show the maximum height of the accessory structure, in correlation to the height of the existing residence 5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the accessory dwelling unit shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. Staff further finds practical difficulty has been established regarding the variances related to number of stories and a 24.9 foot front/exterior (side) yard setback and recommends approval of the stories and yard setback variances. Staff recommends denial of the 30 foot variance to the steep slope setback. Reducing the size of the structure and redesigning it could reduce encroachment of the bluff. Commissioner Hansen asked what specifically is it in the Comprehensive Plan that this is not in compliance with. City Planner Wittman responded that the natural resources section of the Comprehensive Plan discourages construction on steep slopes. Commissioner Collins asked if there was any opposition to the plan as currently proposed. City Planner Wittman replied Staff has not received any opposition. Jeff Anderson, applicant, stated he thought the garage was original to the house (1881) because it has the same foundation as the house. City Planner Wittman responded the assessor's records indicated 1950, but they are not always correct. Mr. Anderson said he and his wife had Roger Tomten, architect, draw up several plans and options which they took around to the neighborhood. Then they realized that the plan to build on the existing footprint would have impeded the view of some of the neighbors and it would not be right to do that. Page 2 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 They don't want to impede their neighbors' view. So they went back to the drawing board for a proposal that would have minimum environmental impact, and would better respect the views and the neighborhood. This new proposal allows them to go to the east. This is the only way to do it without creating visual obstruction for neighbors to the east and also from the river side. It is probably less intrusive looking from every angle. He urged Commissioners to grant the variance. They understand there are concerns about bluffs. The architect has a plan for mitigation of any possible consequences to the bluff. Roger Tomten, Archnet, reviewed the process used to design the proposed addition three dimensionally. Throughout four different design plans, it was determined they would build to the east, and stay below the existing ridge line that is there now. This is the first time he has had a client openly go around to the neighbors and ask them to help design the project. Any runoff from new construction that would flow toward the river will be incorporated into gutters and rain barrels, captured and used for irrigation on the property. In addition, all new construction will stay behind that existing fence line except for one pier on the portico. This will help mitigate any erosion. In discussions with Staff, it was mentioned a structural engineer might be hired to ensure there is no hazard of the building sluffing down the hill in the future. The applicants are happy to do this with anyone recommended by the City. They feel the current design is the best solution in terms of the neighbors' viewshed. By not making the garage taller, they are decreasing the amount of impact on the bluffline. He offered to answer questions. Chairman Kocon asked, are all the different designs for 800 square feet? The proposal does a very good job of addressing all the issues of the neighbors but still runs afoul of the bluffline restriction. Mr. Tomten replied that all designs are right around 800 square feet in size. Chairman Kocon remarked that the bluffline is still the "elephant in the corner." Commissioner Siess noted the staff report says the structure is proposed to be located within 30 feet of the steep slope. Mr. Tomten stated the corners of the building are five feet off the bluffline. The 30 foot setback goes right to the northeast corner of the existing foundation. Then it takes a sharp jog to the south because that is the edge of the road. Chairman Kocon asked if the parking spaces will be pervious or impervious. City Planner Wittman replied that all the parking requirements can be met with the existing spaces. One area is already impervious that would accommodate two vehicles. Commissioner Middleton asked the architect to provide elevations along the retaining wall moving from west to east, and asked what the wall is made of. Mr. Tomten responded it's a keystone cement face masonry material. Mr. Anderson stated they are proposing to retain an open parking area built about 15 years ago with keystone block, and adding a fourth stall. Page 3 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 Commissioner Middleton asked what is the grade from existing garage to the bottom of the retaining wall. Mr. Tomten replied it's fairly flat. Commissioner Middleton asked if the applicant has ever had any erosion problems. Mr. Anderson replied he has had no problems at all - no shifting, no cracks. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Spike Carlsen, 220 4th Street South, stated the applicants kept them apprised of the design every step of the way. The things they do are top notch. This is the old part of town, it's goofy, an area where variances are frequently asked for. He supports every part of the plan. It will look great. John Clemency, 205 West Chestnut, said the applicants took the plan to him and listened to his concern that six months of the year when leaves are off trees it would take away his view. Mr. Anderson immediately contacted the architect and revised the plan. He is perfectly fine with the present plan and fully supports it. Richard Kilty, 105 West Chestnut, stated he has not been contacted though he owns property immediately to the east. He asked the applicant if they would rent the space above the garage. He also noted they don't use the garage, they park on the street. He doesn't think the variance should be granted because the area is on top of pilings placed there when a swimming pool was put in. Mr. Anderson responded his family has three boys who had three cars. All of them are out of the home now. They try to use the garage as much as they can but it is in disrepair right now. He apologized for not contacting Mr. Kilty. He didn't think of Mr. Kilty as the property owner because it was the apartment building and Mr. Kilty does not live there. Regarding the swimming pool project that was a disaster several years ago, that has nothing to do with this proposal. It has been corrected. They do not intent to rent the dwelling unit. They intend to use it as a studio for their own personal use. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen stated he remembers a different case on the north side of Chestnut that had a bluffline issue - the Commission allowed it because they felt it was engineered in a way that would reinforce the bluffline. He would say he is in favor of this proposal. It's honorable that the applicants reached out to the neighborhood and that the design is respectful to the neighbors. He would like to hear ways it is intended to be engineered into the bluffline so it won't further erode. He suggested another condition be added that the design would need to be reviewed by an engineer. From the standpoint of addressing all the points, the major issue seems to be the bluffline setback. He would be comfortable stating that the Comprehensive Plan has guided the Commission to address that as a City, and that the City has therefore addressed it. City Planner Wittman stated she believes what Commissioner Hansen is saying is that there is no conflict - the City has already addressed the Comprehensive Plan concerns through the zoning ordinance. She would recommend requiring the applicant to contract with an engineer to develop those plans. Page 4 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 Chairman Kocon remarked he agrees with Commissioner Hansen, the applicant has worked with the neighborhood very well to address concerns. That is admirable. His concern is the bluffline. Commissioner Hansen has suggested a way to work with the constraints that are there. He thinks no one wants to see the bluff on Main Street or homes rushing down the hill. He too would support the proposal, with the additional condition of engineered plans being submitted. There has to be a plan that is making this a structurally sound building and topography that is not going to slide down the hill. City Planner Wittman suggested requiring a geotechnical engineer instead of a structural engineer as a geotechnical engineer would look at how a structure placed on the land would be supported. It would be submitted to City as part of the building permit plans. Commissioner Siess stated she loves the property and thinks the applicants treat their neighbors wonderfully. But she feels the proposed setback is too close for her. Commissioner Collins stated he likes the fact that the applicant has talked with neighbors and has been very open with them, that they were willing to change the plan when they heard from neighbors who were not supportive, and that the height of the garage doesn't change. The way it's designed it fits more with what is currently there. His concern is the bluffline He would feel a lot better with the inclusion of a geotechnical engineer's review and he can get behind that. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to recommend approval of Case SUP/2014-30, a Special Use Permit and Variance to convert a two -stall detached garage to accessory dwelling unit, and associated variances, with five conditions recommended by staff, adding a sixth condition that the plans be submitted with geotechnical engineered plans for construction as part of the building permit application. Motion carried, 5-2, with Commissioners Lauer and Siess voting nay. Case No. SUP/2014-31. Request for a Special Use Permit and Variance to create an event venue above 120, 122, 124 South Main Street with a parking variance, Judd Sather, applicant. City Planner Wittman summarized the request. Judd Sather is proposing the installation of a two- story event center. The two -phased plan includes opening the first floor of the establishment first, with the second floor expansion to follow within the next few years. The second phase would also include a catering kitchen on the second floor. The business is to be known as JX Events Center. Since there is no on-site parking, the Parking Commission will review alternative parking options at its October 23, 2014 meeting. Staff is waiting for more detailed floor plans and associated information to share with other departments for their review. Regarding ADA compliance - The Building Inspector and Assistant Fire Chief have visited the site and determined that with certain upgrades, plans could be submitted to approve the applicant's ability to meet interior requirements. Staff recommends imposing a condition that the applicant shall secure all necessary building, fire and health department permits prior to opening. The Building Inspector and Assistant Fire Chief have indicated the most significant challenge will be determining accessible exits, accessible routes and accessible parking spaces. The nearest public parking is not close. Right now the only accessible entrance is off Main Street, however this Main Street location has no parking or stopping so there is no direct access to an accessible exit. There would need to be some accessibility improvements with the first phase to achieve ADA compliance. With the potential of 1200 occupants, there would be the requirement of 400 parking spaces. Security and noise were identified as potential issues by the Police Chief. The applicant indicated he would do extensive soundproofing but has not yet submitted Page 5 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 plans or details. The applicant also indicated he hires security staff for his current event venue, the Loft at Studio J. Staff proposes the Planning Commission continue the request until alternative parking options have been determined and that more information be requested, specifically: accessible exits and route plan depicting access to accessible parking spaces; a parking plan depicting alternative parking provisions, which has been determined by the Downtown Parking Commission to be acceptable; an event security plan; and soundproofing details. Commissioner Middleton asked if the monthly parking fee has anything to do with the application. City Planner Wittman replied that the Downtown Parking Commission has identified some options for businesses that don't have onsite parking. For instance, if a business is short 10 spaces, they pay $10/month for that number of spaces. There are other unique circumstances in which the City accepts a percentage of the total sales of the business as an income generator for the parking system. The Downtown Parking Commission has a handle on how many spaces there are downtown to weigh out the best solution. In other circumstances, the use of shared facilities is recommended. Other options are a valet system or other sort of unique compromise or use of spaces in the Chestnut Building. Judd Sather, applicant, reminded the Commission that he obtained a Special Use Permit for the Lofts and Studio J about a year and a half ago. He does 90% weddings. Clients usually ask about parking. The point person for the event tells guests where to park. This makes the City ramp more profitable. He believes comments about limited parking downtown are due to visitors looking for free parking by the river. Parking problems have been far fewer than anticipated with his current event center. The proposed site can house larger special events such as festivals and art fairs. The upstairs needs a lot of work. He really wants a 350 -person venue - 1200 would be too many. He explained the tentative improvements proposed for the first phase. The second phase upstairs will require additional accessibility improvements and an elevator. In discussions with the Building Inspector he determined that the rear entrance does not need to be accessible. The rear egress from the building is shared with the T-shirt shop. If an elevator went in there it would have to have four stops. The architect put it in the spot where it exists now which is to the north and not in the shared egress area. There are two accessible entrances in the front on Main Street. There are three handicapped parking spots around the building but with the potential number of occupants, more handicapped parking spaces would be required. He is not currently leasing the space, this is just a concept. The proposal would create more jobs and more revenue for the City. Chairman Kocon noted it's been suggested by Staff to table the proposal. He asked how Mr. Sather feels about that. Mr. Sather replied that tabling it a month would cause additional rent costs. He had to cancel six events for his previous venue because construction took longer than expected which created extra costs. He would like to obtain approval conditional upon meeting requirements. His security right now is that drinks don't go out and wedding crashers don't come in. He doesn't know who else would approve all the security plans and requirements, other than this Commission. This venue doesn't need the structural enhancements so it is less invasive structurally. The soundproofing needing to be done is just for the interior of the space which will help with the apartments. There is one apartment directly above the back side and he will lease it for an office. There are some apartments adjacent that might get some sound bleed. He doesn't anticipate too many problems but is willing to do whatever is required. He would be doing a ten year lease so does not want to upset neighbors. Page 6 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 Commissioner Hansen asked if he wants to ever reach a capacity like 1250 and if not, maybe the Commission should put a different cap on it. Mr. Sather responded that the current capacity at the Loft at Studio J is 327 but when it reaches 225, people start getting irritated about how crowded it is. In reality, they have sat down 240 people two or three times and it's hard for the servers to get in between tables. What is comfortable is roughly a third less than the actual capacity. Commissioner Hansen asked if multiple events would occur at one time, one on each floor. City Planner Wittman clarified that the 1250 is loosely based on building code occupancy and would include both upstairs and downstairs. It was calculated by measuring by one person per seven square feet and one person per 15 square feet for the first floor; for the second floor, open standing and seating areas were considered. These calculations are standing room only, maximum capacity. Mr. Sather added that he would favor a lower cap on capacity. Two events could possibly occur at one time because the upstairs and downstairs have separate entrances. There is much less storage, mechanical and bathroom space upstairs so that is why the upstairs capacity is larger. Commissioner Collins asked if customers have to bring their own alcohol. Mr. Sather replied that currently when customers do a BYOB event, which are roughly half the events, he hires bartenders who have liquor liability insurance. These third parties serve all the alcohol. Mr. Sather's employees don't serve the alcohol. He would likely also have a cash bar option with the new proposal. He has not applied for a BYOB licensure for the proposed site yet. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Richard Kilty, 118 West Oak Street, remarked the Commission should consider the parking issue. Soon the Armory will be freed up and under City ownership, so where is the parking? Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess stated she understands that business is business, but the Commission only got the detailed packet today, so she has not had a chance to review all the Staff recommendations. The Commission needs to discuss security and soundproofing plans, parking, and look further into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She feels the event center could be a great thing for Stillwater, but approval is premature. Commissioner Middleton pointed out that the questions being asked about items that would help clarify the request are issues he feels confident Staff can review, so he wonders if the Commission really needs to see those things. Commissioner Siess stated there is a whole comprehensive plan piece related to approval - it would be premature and not good City planning if the Commission doesn't really look at this like it looks at every other case. Page 7 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Chairman Kocon, to table Case No. SUP/2014-31, a Special Use Permit and Variance to create an event venue. Motion passed, 6-1, with Commissioner Middleton voting nay. Case No. V/2014-31. Request for a Variance for the addition of a 12 x 20 walk-in cooler with reduction of one parking space and relocation of loading zone to be located at 1119 Owens Street North, Nathan Pearson, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting a parking variance for the reduction of one parking space in order to place a 12 foot by 20 foot walk-in cooler on the area that is currently utilized as a loading zone as well as a parking space. Since a 1994 parking variance was granted, the number of beds in the facility has decreased from 132 to 94 and the number of employees has decreased from 175 to 140. This reduction results in a parking demand decrease larger than the requested six parking space variance. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The property owner shall stripe all parking and loading areas upon installation of the cooler system 2. The cooler system shall receive a building permit prior to the installation. Chairman Kocon asked how many parking spaces are required and is a variance even needed? City Planner Wittman replied that one parking space is required for every employee who is on duty during the largest shift, which was not provided in the application. Commissioner Siess asked if the applicant had known that number, would they even have had to come before the Commission? City Planner Wittman replied that the facility itself has not changed since the 58 spaces were required in 1994. Nathan Pearson, administrator for Good Samaritan Society, informed the Commission they have raised funds for this walk-in cooler over the last two years. It will greatly enhance the quality of care for residents. He thought the application stated the largest staff shift has about 58 people on-site not including visitors. That is why they made the variance request, because they did not have one space per employee on the largest shift. He provided photos representing 1:30 p.m. just before shift change showing ample parking in the lot. He does not believe the one parking space would impact the community. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Council Representative Weidner remarked that parking is woefully inadequate there already. The employees already spill out onto the street and surrounding area in order to keep on-site spaces open for guests. One parking space will not make a significant difference but there already is a significant impact to the community because parking is inadequate. So if there are any additional ways to accommodate parking, they would be appreciated. Page 8 of 9 Planning Commission October 8, 2014 City Planner Wittman stated the facility is already operating with less loading zone space than required but that doesn't seem to be an issue. She agreed with Council Representative Weidner that employee parking spills out onto streets. No comments were received from property owners notified about this request, however, in 1994 there was quite a lot of public involvement in discussions involving the Special Use Permit granted at that time. Chairman Kocon reiterated that one less parking space will not make a lot of difference. They may need to give up a visitor spot or two to ameliorate that. Commissioner Middleton stated he lives nearby and doesn't feel there are problems. Motion by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve Case No. V/2014- 32 with the two conditions recommended by Staff. All in favor, 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. All in favor, 9-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 9 of 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 12, 2014 Parking Commission: October 23, 2014 Planning Commission: October 8, 2014 CASE NO.: SUP/2014-31 APPLICANT: Judd Sather REQUEST: Special Use Permit to operate an event center at 124 Main Street South ZONING: CBD -Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU-Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND At the Planning Commission's last regularly -scheduled meeting, the Commission tabled an application from Judd Sather for the creation of JX Events Venue, a two-story events center to be located at 120-124 Main Street South. At that meeting the Commission continued the public hearing, requesting the following materials be submitted by the applicant: 1. An accessible exits and route plan depicting access to accessible parking spaces; and 2. A parking plan depicting the alternative parking provisions determined to be acceptable by the Downtown Parking Commission; and 3. An event security plan; and 4. Soundproofing details developed by a professional engineer that specializes in sound transmission. Since the Commission's meeting in October, the applicant has submitted an event security plan as well as soundproofing details which have been determined to be sufficient by City staff. Since the original application submission the applicant has reduced the total occupancy of the venue to 630 people. This would be achieved by utilizing fixed seating in half of each of the floor areas not designated as storage, office, restrooms, or kitchen. This reduces the total parking requirement to 211 parking spaces. The existing uses require 45 spaces, leaving a deficit of 166 parking spaces. The applicant met with the Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC) on October 23 to discuss alternative provisions to the deficit of 166 parking spaces for this venue. In a 3-3 vote, with one member abstaining due to a conflict of interest, the DTPC did not approve a parking plan. Since that meeting, the applicant has proposed utilizing valet services with loading zones dedicated on Chestnut Street near the intersection with Main as well as on Union Alley. This proposal has not been reviewed by the DTPC. The applicant has also proposed the creation of a main entrance off of Union Alley in the first phase (the first story) of the venue. A main entrance in this location, with an interior elevator, would provide for an accessible entrance with access to a single accessible on -street parking space. The nearest public parking on an accessible route is located approximately one and a half blocks (500 feet) away to the surface lot #16, below the armory, and two blocks (600 feet) away to the parking ramp. The Main Street entrance is also an accessible route but there is no parking or loading in this location. Lot #6, at the pedestrian plaza, is approximately 450' away. J u=c Ai First phase event center The proposed use is surrounding uses. APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS Section 31-325 indicates that assembly halls in the Central Business District require a Special Use Permit. Section 31-207 establishes the review standards for Special Use Permits: 1) The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. allowed within the subject zoning district, if it is found compatible with Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6, Local Economy, indicates an objective of supporting business expansion in the downtown commercial district. This would be achieved through the following implementation actions: "[e]ncourage small, locally owned, businesses particularly in the Downton" and "[p]romote office and service job locations in and around the downtown." Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7, Economic Development, indicates a goal of promoting and maintaining the downtown as a central focus for community, economic and cultural activity as "tourism has allowed the Stillwater downtown to avoid the vacant buildings and physical decline seen in other traditional downtowns." While the events center may help support these goals, objectives and implementation actions, the event center use of two storefronts will prohibit future retail use in these units. While there is no ordinance requiring the first floor to remain commercial, the use of an events center is at odds with the Comprehensive Plan's guidance. The Comprehensive Plan indicates an estimate 20,000 square feet of new retail space could be supported by 2020. The loss of 7,000 square feet of retail space on this block of Main Street could have a potentially adverse effect to the City's goal of "increase[ing] the tax base and providing economic growth for Stillwater." Other Lawful Regulations In review of the request with City staff, the following items were determined to be some items of concern: CPC 11-12-14 (SUP/2014-31) Continued Public Hearing 120-124 Main Street South Page 2 of 4 • ADA compliancy (including accessible routes and distance to accessible spaces): ADA compliancy and building exiting can be achieved with significant upgrades and improvements to the structure. Building Official Shilts, as well as Assistant Fire Chief Ballis, have conducted site inspections and determined plans will need to be submitted to show proof of the applicant's ability to meet current code standards. A condition of approval would include the applicant shall secure all required approvals from the City's Building Official and Fire Marshall, as well as Washington County Health Department, prior to operating the event center. This includes, but is not limited to, installing required exiting and meeting ADA requirements. • Parking and Traffic (including, but not limited to, the inability to stop in front of the business on Main Street as the South 100 block of Main Street has no parking or stopping provisions to accommodate for drive and turn lanes at the Chestnut and Main intersections): The concerns of the impact to the traffic in this location, as well as the deficit of parking, has not been resolved. • Event security and noise (including impact to neighboring residences): Updated security and soundproofing details have been provided. 2 Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed or use and/or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The focus of this review standard is whether the proposed use can operate in its proposed location without negatively impacting surrounding uses, or the general neighborhood. In October staff indicated if issues of security, soundproofing, accessibility as well as parking could be resolved, staff could determine necessary conditions for a recommendation of approval. However, issues regarding parking and traffic safety have not been resolved with a satisfactory level of detail. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the Special Use Permit request with or without conditions. If the Commission would like to approve the Special Use Permit with conditions, staff would recommend the following: a. No greater than 3,500 square feet of the first floor would be utilized as rentable areas for events or event functions for a total occupancy of no greater than 367 persons. Of the total rentable area, no less than 1,750 square feet must be permanently fixed table seating. A total of 1,750 square feet may be dedicated to flexible seating. b. No greater than 2,500 square feet of the second floor may be utilized as rentable area for events or event functions for a maximum occupancy of 263 persons. Of the total rentable area, no less than 1,250 square feet must be permanently fixed table seating. A total of 1,250 square feet may be dedicated to flexible seating. CPC 11-12-14 (SUP/2014-31) Continued Public Hearing 120-124 Main Street South Page 3 of 4 c. Prior to the operating of an event center, the applicant shall secure all required approvals from the Stillwater Building Department, Stillwater Fire Department and Washington County Health Department. d. The applicant shall implement the soundproofing plan, as submitted with the Planning Commission's November 11, 2014, meeting packet. e. The event venue shall adhere to the event security plan, as submitted with the Planning Commission's November 11, 2014, meeting packet. f. All existing and future trash receptacles shall be stored inside the building at all times with the exception of the day of trash collection. g. Prior to the commencement of any exterior work, including the installation of lighting and signage, a Design Review permit shall be submitted and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. i. Any conditions attached to the Design Permit issued by the Heritage Preservation Commission for this addition are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. h. The applicant must propose a detailed parking and drop-off/pick-up plan that is found acceptable to the City Council. Any required parking mitigation fees or other conditions required by the City Council must be included in the applicant's Zoning Permit. i. The applicant shall secure all required approvals from the City's Building Official and Fire Marshall, as well as Washington County Health Department, prior to operating the event center. 2. Determine that the proposed events center is not consistent with the Special Use Permit provisions or the Comprehensive Plan and deny the Special Use Permit. 3. Table the application by extending the 60 -day deadline to 1/17/2015 and request the applicant develop a plan to alleviate traffic safety concerns as well as an alternative to the parking provisions that is found to be acceptable to the Downtown Parking Commission and/or City Council. As there are still parking and traffic safety concerns with the proposed events center, staff recommends the Planning Commission deny SUP/2014-31 for JX Events Venue or table the application by extending the 60 -day deadline to 1/17/2015. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Revised Narrative First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan Soundproofing Estimate CPC 11-12-14 (SUP/2014-31) Continued Public Hearing 120-124 Main Street South Page 4 of 4 k f_ r r 22 i _ .� 102 _Sti1wate& 110s �� 224 •_ -* , . _- ■ e• z ` _ 132 �, 9 k �`' rare .,EP , , SB - PAC7crr 1 ±,;.' . c t j 1111 0 yy P of—lb � ti _ - a % it , .., Ilk 1 113 * - = p , S ' 4 � 3'08 - r �= * 201 The Birthplace of Minnesota 120-124 Main Street South SITE LOCATION 0 20 40 80 Feet s ' A a MWt %* .. �1�!fr. ` p� y. tOg K°A -Z. ...mai '''k 1101111SIN ' EPS�GNESr....,,....,,14 N0j �s 2 ��`` 111 3 Z c N •�' SZ 0 Planning Commission supplemental information for JX Event Venue November 1, 2014 Dear Planning Commission, We are excited to bring more people to the north end of Stillwater, as well as and to bring the parking ramp to higher profitability with the proposed opening of JX Event Venue. We have worked hard with architect Mark Balay and building official Cindy Shiltz to modify the floor plan so the maximum capacity would be reduced to 367 people on the lower level and reduced to 263 people on the upper level for a total of 630 total maximum occupants. This reduction was done by adding bigger bathrooms, kitchens, storage areas, and fixed seating. Phase One (120/122 South Main) Phase Two (124 South Main) Z 0 6 CR. 8 N N 4 It has been determined per building code that an elevator would be required for accessibility at the Union Alley entrance. This would require that we would be asking for the special use permit for both phase one and phase two. The upper level (which has been vacant for 25+ years) would be built out as the budget allows over one to two years, and the elevator would be limited to lower level and the Union Alley grade level. An event venue provides business to many other local businesses. Following is a list of all of the local businesses that have been contracted by clients of The Loft at Studio J (214 Main Street South): Famous Dave's, Green Mill, The Green Room, LOLO, Marx, Lake Elmo Inn, Hanson's Liquor, Oaks Wine & Spirits, Buttercream of Stillwater, Sara's Tipsy Pies, Quickfire Pizza, Stillwater Trolley, Our Shop, Camrose Hill, and countless other vendors including hotels, B & B's, musicians, DJs, florists, makeup artists and hair stylists. For comparison purposes, 95% of our current events at The Loft at Studio J are seated wedding dinners and receptions with an average of 54% of max occupancy (175 average guests with 327 max occupancy). We have 25 of the 31 Saturdays booked already in April -October of 2015. 23 of the 25 events are weddings. We are asking that the parking and planning commission grant a variance where we offer valet services to the parking ramp and other public lots if needed. The Parking Commission voted 3-3 on the question to mitigate 86 permits for phase one only. At that time, it was not known that the elevator would be necessary. Below is additional information requested by city staff including a security plan, soundproofing plan, parking plan, and map of accessible entrances. Parking Plan - JX Events (Event Venue) The parking ramp is one block from the proposed event venue. The Parking Commission was concerned that we could not guarantee that guests would park in the ramp. Since that meeting, we came up with the valet idea that would guarantee that cars would get to the ramp and pay the fee, which would profit the city more than mitigation. Also as an event center, we have the luxury of communicating with a bride exactly where we want her guests to park. After one year of operation of The Loft at Studio J (214 Main Street South), parking has not been an issue with very little complaints. We offer shuttle services through the Stillwater Trolley that has only been contracted about 5% of the time for clients that are most concerned about parking issues. Parking is largely a perceived issue, so I took some time to check out the use of the ramp over the last couple of weeks during peak times. The first check was 2pm on Saturday, October 18. It was a beautiful autumn day in town with hundreds of people walking around and we had a wedding at The Loft as well as other venues. It was about the time guests would show up for a wedding. I noted that 5 of the 6 accessible parking spaces within one block of 120 and 122 Main Street were open and the parking ramp was only about 10% occupied. The next check was another beautiful fall day on Saturday, October 25 and at fpm the ramp was about 10% full, at 2pm it was about 20% full, and at 6pm it was 50% full. There were weddings at The Lowell Inn, Water Street Inn, The Grand, and The Loft at Studio J. This means that there were still over 100 parking spaces available in the ramp at a peak time when all those wedding guests were at the venues. Many people have commented that the only time the ramp is full is the fourth of July. Adding phase 2 to the Special Use Permit would increase the parking mitigation to 166 spaces. At $10 per space that is $1,660 per month that is not feasible in our business plan. With the valet idea, two or three spaces in Union Alley or Chestnut Street would be leased to allow for the valet service. This valet service could be shared among other businesses as well. The parking commission also had concerns with no stopping / loading near the front entrances. This would be alleviated with the creation of the main entrance on Union Alley. When the bridge closes in 2016, there may be added drop-off areas on Main Street and/or Chestnut in the yellow curb area (see below). Accessible Entrance #1 - x (New fining for elevator( ix x - Accessible Entrance #2 Events x - Accessible Entrance #3 (Pr0Qosed( f : ,,r J� A-Nfr r' FUTURE PLAZA? More parking and/or city-wide valeta 1 -- We are open to a reduction in the amount of occupants by ordinance to make this project work! PRECEDENT: The Loft at Studio J is mitigating 12 parking spaces for a max occupant load of 327. Here is a list of the parking lots nearest to the proposed JX Event Venue. Public Lots (Total of 459 spaces): Parking Ramp: 218 spaces plus 6 Handicapped Teddy Bear Park: 88 spaces plus 4 Handicapped Courthouse Memorial Lot: 71 spaces plus 4 Handicapped Lower Courthouse Lot: 82 spaces plus 2 Handicapped Private Lots (Total of 103 spaces and would need to be privately contracted): Cub Lot: 51 spaces plus 3 Handicapped US Bank: 22-38 spaces Chestnut Building: 20-40 spaces Shorty's: 7-10 spaces Security Plan - JX Events (Event Venue) We spoke with Nate Meredith from the Stillwater Police Department and came up with this security plan together: 1. Security Cameras with DVR recording (4 downstairs, 2-4 upstairs) a. Viewable on monitors at host office and on mobile devices 2. Security personnel onsite (One security person per 250 guests) a. Training to keep out non -invited guests and keep all drinks inside building at all three exits b. Call police in case of emergency c. Have enough staff onsite for one security person per exit 3. Keep gift table adjacent to building host office 4. Have bartenders serving alcohol be trained and have their own liquor liability insurance 5. Put in writing to clients that loading / unloading is not to happen on the curb in front of event center, but in Union Alley or parking on Chestnut Soundproofing plan - JX Events (Event Venue) We conducted a sound test on November 3 and heard no sound transfer at neighboring business The T -Shirt Factory. Music could be heard in the offices above the proposed venue. These businesses above will normally be closed during event hours, but the following measures will be taken to stay within city noise ordinances. 1. Carpet / Acoustic tiles on North and South walls providing maximum sound dampening a. This will minimize sound echo within the event venue, and virtually eliminate sound transmission to neighboring businesses (adjacent and above) that will generally not be open during event hours 2. Sound tiles on ceiling (2x4' tiles spaced evenly every 8') to eliminate sound transmission to second floor 3. Blown insulation in second floor per fire code to eliminate sound transmission to between floors 4. Monitor bass levels with DJs and bands, which is the sound that travels the most. 5. Double 5/8" layer of sheetrock in ceiling between lower level and apartment in Northwest corner that will be part of the venue lease. 6. Vendor - ATS Acoustics - www.atsacoustics.com (See attached quotes) Thank you for considering our proposal to breathe life into this historic building. It is exciting to have the possibility of a large enough event center to attract high-end events and fundraisers that would normally stay in St. Paul or Minneapolis. JX Event Venue could also host craft fairs and the like that Stillwater residents currently only can enjoy during the summer. Use of the space for citywide events could even be part of the parking mitigation. This venue would be an upgrade from The Loft at Studio J in three ways: first floor access, larger, and closer to parking. A year-round, first class event space would be a benefit for many businesses in town and bring the city's parking ramp investment to higher profitability. Judd Sather Owner, The Loft at Studio J - 214 Main Street South Judd@ studiojphoto.com, 651-342-1476 cri 1.066Y cons 0 13 V\11NG ❑ E o 2ANCF fLOOP 5-176 CA -MING KI1'CH N UP V51-[3L� 51-O JA6 MSCI -1 51-0, OFrIa 1/100 51'0 A( 1/200 CAr- VING KI1'CN�N 1/200 5-"A6 I/I5 5vA11NG I/ 7 and I/ 15 5f01Z66 1/200 W 2OWN I vsi-m Scale when plotted on I1x17 Is 3/'52" -1'-0" (A\ ACOUSTICS Just Listen, Quote Number: 86595-8371 Date: October 27, 2014 Valid through: November 26, 2014 Your contact: Heather Phone: 866-787-7881 Fax: 815-364-0242 15 W Main St, Box 260 Piper City, IL, 60959 atsinfo@atsacoustics.com www.atsacoustics.com Your Quote from ATS Acoustics Dear Judd Sather, Thank you for the opportunity to provide this quote. If you have any questions or additional requirements please don't hesitate to contact me. I'll be happy to help in any way I can. Thanks! Heather Sales Representative ATS Acoustics Items Quoted Description Unit Price Quantity Extended ATS Acoustic Panel - 24 x 48 x 2 Color: Black Fire Rating: ASTM E84 Class A Desired edge profile: Beveled $57.20 214 panels $12,240.80 Subtotal $12,240.80 Shipping to 55082 via LTL Freight $1,093.52 Total Before Discount $13,334.32 Discount Saves You $500.00 Total $12,834.32 • Hardware is included in this quote • If customer requires a lift gate service, Conway will charge an additional $90.00, which will be added to the shipping cost. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 12, 2014 CASE NO.: 2014-33 APPLICANT: Katherine Francis, property owner REQUEST: Request for a Special Use Permit to allow for overnight lodging in the 2nd story apartment of the structure located at 120 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 the conversion of a second story apartment into an overnight lodging unit. Overnight lodging, any type of lodging for a period of less than 30 days, has been occurring on this site for the past year. After damage occurred to the unit from a long term rental, the owner determined overnight lodging would be a beneficial addition to the property and community. The owner is requesting the Special Use Permit to come into compliance with the municipal regulations, including payment of lodging taxes. 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: Hotels and motels and other overnight lodging facilities are permitted in the Central Business District by Special Use Permit. o Parking: The property is located within the Downtown Parking District. The unit would be required to have two onsite parking spaces. As the property cannot accommodate for these spaces, the property owner will need to purchase monthly parking permits. • Comprehensive Plan The Downtown Stillwater Framework Plan, a part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, indicates downtown could support up to 250 new housing units over the next two years with up to half being age -restricted as significant rental demand is from the senior population. While the conversion of this unit to short-term rentals would take one housing unit out of the downtown market, the second story unit is not universally accessible and not conducive for an aging population. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan indicates over 50% business in downtown is attributed to tourism (Chapter 7, Economic Development). The Framework Plan suggests reinforcing an environment for commerce while preserving the historic core and a policy to do this is to attract visitors and shoppers to the community. The potential for a new type of visitor who may have an extended, short term stay in the Historic Commercial District could help support this policy. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; and • 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 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 overnight lodging in this apartment would not be a detriment to the public so long as the fire and building officials, as well as the health department, have conducted site inspections and the property meets the property life, safety and health codes for commercial rental use. ALTERNATIVES The Commission has the following options: 120 Main Steer North Case No. SUP/2014-33 CPC: November 12, 2014 Page 2 1. Approve the Special Use Permit request with or without conditions. 2. Determine that the proposed overnight lodging unit is not consistent with the Special Use Permit provisions and deny the Special Use Permit. 3. Table the request for more information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Commission chooses to approve Case No. 2013-33, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. The owner must provide the City Finance Director with the facility's Tax ID number before the Special Use Permit will become effective. 2. Two monthly parking permits shall be purchased by the property owner to offset the demand created by the residential commercial use. The permits shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Failure to pay parking permit charges within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the parking permit purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the parking permit fees as a condition of approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. 3. Inspections by the Building Official, Fire Marshall and Washington County Health Department official shall occur and, within three months of the Special Use Permit issuance, the property owner shall come into conformance with all life, health and safety measures applicable to this commercial use. 4. Any exterior alterations shall go to the Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Floor Plan (1St Floor) 120 Main Steer North Case No. SUP/2014-33 CPC: November 12, 2014 Page 3 --.........-----, The 120 Main SITE 0 15 l Birthplace 30 1 lwater 218 123 , i, 1. 212 2264 204 _ •1 ii i _ . 126 124 120 118 118 114 112 sa 'r220 r ' * 102 , '" r ; ti4 _ rt' ' 219 .. , of Minnesota J Street North LOCATION i �,� 60 Feet r -� _ P r 1. _ 4 towl Alerbrr1_1.1- 1, B" 1 - �#1� -'yam oi{ .r' i '� _ ., ill , ' 0 ', WO 0 ifrtto li %SW o0MERe��z�,� , iiiiV.r ' N�04 'Wr . FREE' `. N �. .' n2 o N O. ' Q �'� ' SdiaN ' NEPS�rw5\wc-.4 Jii. ```, v',. f ti�SN23 t + \ tiS�tWoR.,. 3 October 20, 2014 Stillwater Planning Commission Stillwater, MN 55082 Stillwater Planning members, I am the owner of 120 North Main Street, Stillwater, MN. I purchased the property in 1986. The street level suite has always been rented as a commercial property, most recently, The Tea Room. It was also the Art Gallery and Paint Store before that. The second story was rented as a one bedroom private living quarters. The last renter I had did extensive and costly damage to the apartment. It took me over a year and several thousand dollars to repair the damages while keeping the historic integrity of the unit in tack. After the work was completed, I made the decision to never rent on an annual basis again. The lease came due for the Tea Room, and the owner decided not to renew in the Stillwater location. This left me holding a building with no income, thousands of dollars invested into repairs, a mortgage and taxes to pay. Friends of mine had a VRBO (Vacation Rental By Owner) and, after talking with them, I thought this might be a great way to generate income for the building. It started as a trial to see if it could work. I was absolutely unaware that I needed to obtain a Special Use Permit, I would never intentionally violate any regulations. About the building: There are 3 floors in the building. All three floors have an overhead sprinkler system, including the basement. I have secured parking spots from David Paradeau at the Stillwater Depot with our names put on them at location to the south in his private parking lot, for all the guests. In closing, I would like to add that my neighbors, Camy Couture and River Jeans have been delighted with the VRBO idea, as each time it has been rented, the guests have visited and made several purchases at their stores. My guests leave comments regarding all the restaurants and shops that they visited while staying in Stillwater. I believe this is a good use for my building and good business for Stillwater. It brings a lot of people into our city that normally would not have stayed here, or only made a day trip. As an original HPC commissioner, I have always been cognizant of our downtown businesses. I continue to strive to build our business without losing the wonderful charm and beauty of Stillwater. Moving forward, I ask that you please work with me to correct any violations or errors that are currently on the table. Respectfully, Katherine B. Francis -Harvey Frederick L. Harvey (1.00+0,1 .. 4 gt,EfO'J TA As ao 11. 3te 1,7 ;to" 1‘ t 711"5.E9-ltsr cxrT: '1‘ ,._ 5' ,'•,i-!::,•1'.7::::: i':!--..f1;',1-Kr".1..f.P.,..:":"..'1.;!.;:i:::.:1•!;". .'",:.:•c\''.!..,:•:;:;-...: r; '..,.1.".:"..:.:;.!;':%..1?_--:',E-.,fi!.',--*;:-,:c•-•,,!•;;;:::::-.-:*.;.;•:".1-,:.,..-i;:i;;;•es-i:7.,:ri ::".P.I.7•;;;(,1•:%!:,i;r)Iffl.:5:::*;*;fi, ';:i•l",•:-':':,!--;"-:?:,;::*; ;•,,;,$'1:e'r 0i n•tr,:e ,.. 41.:%iii‘ ... ,k ,,. ... ...., .._..................,.....,„,.... ..e. N s, i: ,,,"1.,,,,, , • • • 5.4" \L. ; ••,.. • r. . • • • • • ‘• • 'a • • •.' • .11,P Kati $7E. /EON \ \ s : . . / •Is St9" 114. itK. ' KAI s 101 Paul DisPt491 MEA. T' BE iite4t0ge0 L.gvo_o 3=6" -E.-- i5tt" Date: To: From: Re: City of Stillwater Trails Master Plan November 10, 2014 Planning Commission Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Abbi Wittman, City Planner Melissa Douglas, Planning Consultant City of Stillwater, Trails Master Plan Update, Sidewalk Standards Vision and Guiding Principles Build on Stillwater's history and natural setting to become a leading active transportation community and one of Minnesota's premier trail destinations. Community. A destination trail system that serves the people of Stillwater as well as visitors, businesses and employers. Promotes tourism, job creation and economic vitality. Provides access to nature and understanding of the city's history. Safety. A trail system that ensures safe recreation and travel for all trail users regardless of age or ability. Encourages activity and wellness. Accessibility. 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. Connections. A trail system that links neighborhoods, schools, employment opportunities, commercial areas, regional trails and public transportation and connects members of the community to each other and the landscape. Communication. A trail system that educates and interprets the landscape and natural setting, uses technology to make information widely available and includes signage that is clear and informative. I will be traveling this week, so Abbi will lead the discussion on sidewalk standards as part of the regular Planning Commission meeting and provide me with a summary of the discussion and your recommendations. This memorandum provides background information useful for review prior to the meeting. Existing Conditions Sidewalks existing as of the last Comprehensive Plan update in 2008 are shown on the attached map. Residential areas in Stillwater vary depending on the era of development — some neighborhoods have sidewalks on both sides of the street, some neighborhoods have sidewalks on one side of the street and others have no sidewalks or sidewalks on major (collector and arterial) roadways only. Zoning and Land Use Zoning and land use maps for Stillwater were included in your background information folder provided at an earlier workshop. Please review these maps before the Planning Commission meeting. City of Stillwater Trails Master Plan Update — Sidewalk Standards Both land use and zoning are tools planners use to regulate development. In residential areas, land use designations regulate density, typically in units per acre. Zoning standards regulate the type of housing (single-family homes, apartments, etc.), the arrangement of housing units (attached versus detached, building height, setbacks) and lot sizes. At previous workshops, the Planning Commission discussed sidewalk standards that reflected neighborhood character. One method to achieve that goal would be to link sidewalk standards to zoning districts. For example, areas with lower densities and larger lots could only need sidewalks on one side of residential streets. Areas with higher densities and smaller lots would have more use and need sidewalks on both sides of residential streets. TYPICAL CROSS ECTION 2 City of Stillwater Trails Master Plan Update — Sidewalk Standards To meet the vision and guiding principles outlined for the Trail Master Plan update and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, I would recommend a minimum standard of sidewalks one side of all residential streets in the RA — One -Family Residential, TR - Traditional Residential and LR - Lakeshore Residential zoning districts. Sidewalks should be installed on both sides of the street in other residential districts, in commercial areas and along any arterial roadways (excluding Highway 36). The plan should include flexibility for planned unit developments so that the City would have flexibility to tailor sidewalk requirements in larger planned developments. 3 Figure 8.2A : City Parks & Sidewalks Map • Millbrook Commm141111 ty iniIIIIIIP!!" PRIPILmminia. t1 111111 1 Park • j Millbrook Neighborhood Park 1700•40: MIEN El ��NEP c.) • - Brown's Creek _.._.._ 1 Browns Creek Natural Preserve '■'• 11.1► . ��41►� - - Oak Glens 64 ,���Q1rI��=IIS • Browns) GGolf Course ♦ �j Creek p,�ti��p1/� �►�1 �Park �I���♦Prairie ►��/1�� �: �1►��II■��I1�plc).� 0� Park�■■III■��������I���1�g :IP �� �� 1111111�� lir: GTS 111111.111111 roma ��� rink* #McKusick Lake ♦��• Trail & Dike Public ' 'G Creeksitle-Park I��% it' Works l Nrillailfilottir _ t, `` B `.11(J` Cem Mci ill jilAll. 11 �-1rr J �141 0.4 al NM N. MIN 01.1 Of • 'u1 6■.,I Ray V.i i- ■1111/ X111! ■a a Groverl� r,1� r 11_ 111111 !11I I I�I�IIll ` 1� \11►1�: �(y�• viii Meadowlark ��1�■ �I .1: 11-.`_ ♦♦♦ X11►►r ♦r.,■v/l■■-■G■--■C■- � ��♦�QIII/•��rrPark ---- .. StillwatCountry Oak Glen Golf Course T FairyFalls Open Space "MI\ MalIII =\_ff ■■■� ���SchulenbergParkler•■■■■II -'� ■■ l"- `tel Club, ,2 ,`Wu J�piwim MEmE -r■ c %!I-- •♦ 111"7 ;4:11 Liberty-SquareOw EVA mu 11m. NAL 10.2110 49 LIR 1=1116111111 1111 e• Legends Park sv/A �fl /fes:• Bergman NIB 15 lir •Par 'MIIII O� =se In -IIr�1 � �-- - -I�iuEH:I:I \n -r -se — it, woo • 1111111/ 111111111 111■■11 1111111M 11111111 Ell 111111 MM MIN Ma OE 11111 Inn M= ....mu.4"111-. Min lig1111- i1 #d l■11■1111111.111�-1■■IL_1im -. ■■ I``■11+ \111 i■ ■■- -1111. 1�i �IIIIIII r-. 1111111■ .111 ♦� - . .�11 ',♦,�- �11111 �� �1% 404 �-7e �III'III�' •r• :IrI11111 1:78414 r:„. �II• ♦♦�■1� Elem. School �� 111111 41Ip 111 JEWrp rr[ • ■1■ 1111 11! ■114. t'* � 11111"11111111 III a • za Sunripe �Ip,hjhh''4 1 1� t Park . Q♦�♦�♦��i�i��I/11Dt, %%•Lily Lake 1��i IIr•♦'' �„/,�������;11■�== Park ■ 15 MEI Lakeside Open Space ei 0 114 n.LEI m. dii 1.111.11 1:: ::::v-ti---4 Dm.- la to Park 1 11u1:;:IIILI Washington 1111 -S .Ii IIr ■� .111.: Nightingale Park Sql �• .1 Win 11111 • -1111 ■ 1110'40* ,— F _ �:�� �-/; I St. Croix ds / Valley o ��=�I��;����r'', Recreation ■°uv Center unmeAtim Long Lakei■mm1` IIIIII Open -space i ��= -1111 Benson Park 1■■ ■■111■ IMP 11111 IUII Stillwater Junior High UH 11111.• ur 66 WNW —I _..11I�11 '7.111 =1=f1== 1111►/ .��1I tpn = mind Anez.Ridge Park ■, 411■■M I ...-I ��� ��-�- 7!!1■11 �a ! �1■ 1l�■I 1 IIL . = 1111111, 11 • ■ . - - - • • • OE ENE :". • .. 'II im ii 11 EM mm EN mo mm Mm mE :_ EZ 1a• • Eds nm SE in Kolliner Park Teddy Bear Park Triangle Park ' Gf �� G„ IFA ow Old Athletic_Eierl- Ms PR — Oak -Park 1111111 HOME MEE ER NE Future Loop Trail Lit L Essi EN 1111 EIH \IAIle 110, Hwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Parks and Sidewalks 2008 Comprehensive Plan 800 0 800 1,600 Feet — Sidewalks Existing Park Future Parks Golf Course School Properties Right -of -Way Open Water Bonestroo December 8, 2008 PLAN OF STILLWATER El IIIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMIIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMIIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMII Chapter 8 : Parks and Trails 8-9