Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-08-12 CPC Packet
i 1 ate 1IE OIRTRRLA CE OF MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North August 12, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of July 8, 2015 regular meeting minutes 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 Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. 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. 2. Case No. 2015-23: Variance for building and installation of vertical lift. Located at 408 Maple St W. Ryan Forcier, Owner 3. Case No. 2015-24: Special Use Permit and associated Variances for 952 sq ft garage with 682 ft ADU. Located at 1343 1st St S. Lowell Schmoeckel, Owner. 4. Case No. 2015-25: Conditional Use Permit request for cluster development. Located at 8753 and 8911 Neil Ave N. Kenneth Heifort, Owner Bim Boo, Applicant. 5. Case No. 2015-28: Variance request for setback requirements. Located at 812 Harriet St S. Margaret Glennon, Owner. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. Case No. 2015-21: Variance for the total number of signs permitted for the construction of a free-standing monument sign at the south entrance of Lake Elmo Bank. Located at 1937 Greeley St S. Mike Johnson, Applicant. 7. Case No. 2015-22: Consideration of a 20 lot residential Preliminary Plat and associated Variances. Located at 1902 William St N. Sterling Black, Applicant. VII. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 8. Meeting Schedule Discussion VIII. ADJOURNMENT ate THE 1I1TN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 8, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer, Middleton, Siess, Council Representative Junker Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Turnblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of June 10, 2015 meeting minutes Commissioner Hansen pointed out the minutes should be corrected to reflect that Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve the June 10, 2015 meeting minutes as corrected. All in favor, 9-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2015-15. Special Use Permit and associated variances for Minnesota Shooting Academy to redesign the existing building into an amusement and recreational establishment, located at 2159 Curve Crest Boulevard. Mark Kamas, MN Shooting Academy, applicant and Paul Simonet, owner. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit for an indoor target practice range to be located in the existing Simonet Furniture building. The use would require: 1) a 4,040 square foot variance to the maximum 3,000 square feet allowed for a Commercial Recreational Establishment; 2) a 26-stall parking variance; and 3) an 18% variance to the 60% maximum impervious lot coverage allowed by City Code. In addition to the specially -permitted use, MN Shooting Academy is proposing retail sales, a lounge and vending area, warehouse space and space for administrative offices, which are all permitted uses. The application included information about sound baffling and test records from similar facilities which indicate decibel levels will be compliant with City noise ordinance provisions. Staff recommends approval of the 4,040 square foot variance, as practical difficulty and uniqueness of circumstance have been established, and approval of the Special Use Permit with conditions. Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Chairman Kocon asked what recourse the City has if dba thresholds are exceeded. City Planner Wittman said the establishment would be under noise ordinance regulations as well as State statute provisions allowing for temporary closures and injunctions against the business if it violates noise standards. Chairman Kocon asked what kind of maintenance is done on a permeable surface. City Planner Wittman said an underground tank system needs to be vacuumed out. Barry Schalkle, representing the applicant, noted there are very strict OSHA requirements for handling lead. When air goes out of the building it is filtered, so it is cleaner than when it is drawn in. Regarding the proposed conditions, 14 lanes are now proposed, rather than 12; the additional 2 lanes will be used for law enforcement. Square footage would remain the same. Roger Tomten, Archnet, project architect, addressed the proposed condition about parking. The majority of parking stalls required relate to the retail component of the space. Recognizing this use will be less popular than other types of retail uses, they would like to use the "proof of need for parking" approach, using the existing spaces and agreeing to provide more parking at a later date if it is warranted. To address sound concerns, the building has 12" thick masonry walls. A concrete box will be constructed within the building with 12" thick concrete walls with a concrete cap. The sound will be encapsulated within the first shell of concrete. Regarding the proposed condition about the trail easement, Mr. Schalkle noted if they are the only business on the block, it doesn't make sense. City Planner Wittman replied that the easement would be on the Washington Avenue side to install future pedestrian improvements, in conjunction with the City's Master Trail Plan. Commissioner Fletcher asked about public safety. Mark Kamas, applicant, replied that State safety laws govern handling of firearms outside the building. Good business practices must be used such as not bringing in uncased weapons. There will be a safety officer present at all times to ensure compliance. Commissioner Collins asked about hours of operation. Mr. Schalkle replied the hours would be Monday through Friday 10 a.m. - 9 p.m., closing earlier on Saturday and Sunday. Commissioner Lauer asked how the law enforcement lanes will be allocated. Mr. Kamas replied they are working with other agencies to design the law enforcement lanes. If not used by law enforcement, those lanes would be open to members. Commissioner Siess asked if this is a common type of location for a shooting range. Mr. Kamas replied that usually, you see ranges in industrial parks, but they are trying to be more mainstream to be more like other entertainment/sports establishments. Commissioner Middleton asked what percentage would be used by members versus law enforcement. Mr. Kamas replied that police usually shoot on off -hours, either early in the morning or late at night. There would be special hours for police. There is a lot of interest because the law enforcement agencies have a hard time finding places to shoot. Page 2 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are restrictions on type of firearms that can be discharged in the facility. Mr. Kamas replied it is more the type of ammunition than the firearms themselves. Mr. Schalkle noted that education is an important part of the proposal. In addition to firearms safety, there will be safety classes focusing on general home safety and protection when in public. Commissioner Fletcher asked about compliance requirements for federal regulations. Mr. Kamas replied the facility must be evaluated by OSHA, EPA and ATF regularly and in random checks. Commissioner Collins asked if only one set of doors can be open at a time. Mr. Kamas replied that is correct. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Diane Dietz, 2221 Oak Ridge Road, Stillwater, expressed concerns about adding to the existing noise from traffic. The establishment will bring a potential nuisance to the area because there is no other shooting range on this side of the metro area. If the business is not viable, what will happen to the building? She also is concerned about its impacts on nearby Stillwater Veterinary Clinic and Stillwater Medical Group. She is concerned about the proposed lounge and whether it will sell liquor, about the loss of green space and devaluation of property. She urged the Commission to deny the proposal. Brian Naughton, 1457 Case Avenue, St. Paul, who is in the medical field with clients throughout the metro area, spoke to some of the economic and societal benefits of a shooting range. Shooting sports retailers provide a variety of firearms designed for all shooters. Compared to skiing, biking and skateboarding, shooting is not limited to the physically trained athlete. Safety training and education make shooting sports quite safe. There is a much greater risk from motor vehicles. The Minnesota Shooting Academy has conveyed its long range plans for a program to ensure all members and guests are trained in safe gun handling. Neighborhood and community relations will also be part of their long range plan. He presented figures confirming the economic benefits of shooting ranges. He is VP of the Minnesota Second Amendment Association. He urged the Commission to approve the proposal. David Kalinoff, Woodbury, said he grew up in Stillwater. He is a full time police officer and an avid participant in shooting sports. An indoor range is a safe and clean place to shoot. He has taught his wife and children firearms safety. The educational benefits for the public are great. The classes also teach legal concepts involved in handling firearms. George Riley, Upper 36th Street North, Oakdale, spoke in support of Mr. Schalkle and Mr. Kamas as ethical longstanding community service leaders and knowledgeable instructors with a wide range of experience. He feels the proposal is well thought-out. Carrie Brockman, 5995 Oren Avenue, Stillwater, noted her CPA office has had a number of clients express concerns to her that the proposal will detrimentally affect their businesses. She expressed concerns about noise from air blowers located on the roof, how emergency personnel would get into the facility, and how much more traffic will be generated. Traffic on that corner is heavy already. Don Slinger, 4620 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, retired training and planning coordinator for the DNR, stated it is hard to find individuals qualified to work in the conservation field who are knowledgeable about firearms. It is difficult to find ranges where re -certification can be obtained. Page 3 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Brian Simonet, 79 Maryknoll Drive, Stillwater, one of the many owners of Simonet Furniture, refuted a statement made previously about the relationship between the ownership of Simonet Furniture and the current lessee. Tiffany Britz, 13991 60th Street Court North, Stillwater, a certified NRA firearms instructor, said having an indoor range in Stillwater would be great, but she feels it is not a good location due to the noise and traffic it would generate. There will be a woman -owned firearms range located in the area soon that is in the final stages, in which she has an interest. Paul Simonet, owner of Simonet Furniture and Carpet Company, stated they have been trying to sell the building since 2009 when the store went out of business. After lowering the price in the last year and a half, they have finally seen some interest. The furniture store never had a problem with fire trucks getting into the parking lot. He has been hearing a lot of misinformation. He owns a gun and goes to shooting ranges. They teach a lot about safety. As for traffic, signal lights are needed at that intersection. Traffic has always been a problem there. Greg Clark, 3701 Oakgreen Avenue, Baytown, asked about plans for the rest of the building, if there are sprinklers for the firing range, and if the ventilation system will be on the ground or the rooftop. The unit is about the size of a semi trailer and runs at 80 DBA. If more lanes are added, and another ventilation unit would be added, where would it be installed? Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. City Planner Wittman replied that the exchange system would be required to follow the noise ordinance, 70 dba from 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m., 65 dba at night from 10:00 p.m. - 8:00 a.m. A larger range would require an amendment to the Special Use Permit. If the range were doubled in size, another variance would be required as well. Everyone within 350 feet would be noticed. She believes the building code would require sprinklers. The applicants would work with the Building Department to ensure compliant fire suppression. Commissioner Kelly stated he has a conflict and won't participate in the discussion or vote. Chairman Kocon said he is not a big gun fan, but the discussion is about meeting ordinances and restrictions. It's a business decision. He views the proposal as viable with the 11 stated conditions. Commissioner Fletcher said she is not against guns but other cities have had significant discussion before approving indoor shooting ranges. She is concerned there is not an ordinance in place to specifically address indoor shooting ranges. Because there is not a restriction on the type of firearms used, she interprets to mean this facility will allow high powered automatic weapons. She feels there should be more discussion as a City before allowing the use. Commissioner Collins stated he lives just a couple blocks away from the site. He doesn't believe there will be an adverse effect on traffic. He does not own a gun but went to a gun range the other day to familiarize himself. It wasn't as loud as he thought it would be, inside or outside. The proprietors have not had an incident since it opened in 2003. He is passionate about education and is in favor of firearms education. This facility could be a good thing for the community Commissioner Lauer stated that, as Chairman Kocon said, it is a business decision. If guns were taken out of the equation, the public safety aspect probably turns in the other direction when considering the Page 4 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 education. Those who shoot at a gun range are responsible gun owners. Noise is the biggest issue for him. It seems as if it can be addressed if requirements are not met. He is comfortable with the proposal. Commissioner Siess stated she has gun safety certification but feels this is not a proper location for this type of business. She feels it will alter the essential character of the neighborhood and she cannot support the proposal. Commissioner Middleton commented he too is concerned about the noise which could be very unnerving. He cannot support the request. Commissioner Hansen noted he is generally in favor of granting the request but he would not feel comfortable letting the applicant do parking mitigation later. It sounds as if parking should be addressed now. Chairman Kocon reminded the Commission that he too would like the parking addressed now. Commissioner Hansen pointed out the future comprehensive plan includes retail use for this area, but there are many other uses. There are other industrially zoned properties that are closer to residential neighborhoods with similar traffic issues. City Planner Wittman confirmed there is quite a mix of uses, for instance a clinic in an industrial zone, retail in office zone. It has a future land use designation of commercial. Motion by Chairman Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2015-15, a Special Use Permit and a 4,040 square foot variance for Minnesota Shooting Academy, located at 2159 Curve Crest Boulevard, with the following conditions: a. No greater than 14 firing lanes shall be permitted. A minimum of five of the firing lanes shall be made available for rental to community service personnel and community education activities. b. The establishment must have at least one adult employee or adult supervisory volunteer in the premises during all hours of operation. c. Soundproofing specifications shall be submitted with the building permit application. d. The establishment shall install appropriate and sufficient soundproofing to be in compliance with City Code Section 38-3, Noise Control and Regulation, for sound levels outside of the establishment. e. A total of 26 parking spaces shall be created onsite. A permeable surface parking area and suitable base found satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be utilized for all new parking and drive areas. f. A grading plan shall be reviewed by the City engineering Depai tiuent and a Brown's Creek Watershed District permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of the additional parking spaces. g. Upon the sale to Minnesota Shooting Academy and prior to the release of necessary building permits, a 15' trail easement shall be dedicated to the City along the eastern property boundary for future trail connection between Curve Crest Boulevard and Highway 36. h. Conditions of a HPC-issued Design Permit shall be incorporated into this Special Use Permit by reference. i. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. j. 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. k. Quarterly maintenance of the permeable pavement and documentation of maintenance shall be submitted to the City quarterly. Motion passed 5-3, with Commissioners Fletcher, Middleton and Siess voting nay and Commissioner Kelly abstaining. Page 5 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Asked by Commissioner Hade, City Planner Wittman acknowledged that any interested party or Commissioner may appeal the decision to the City Council. Case No. 2015-16. Special Use Permit for construction of a detached garage and accessory dwelling unit, located at 912 5th Street South. Eileen Gibson and Larry Wheeler, owners. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicants have applied for a Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be located above a two -car garage that they plan to build. The property owner adjacent who shares the driveway has expressed concerns about adding a dwelling unit, the potential for access to be blocked during or after construction, and potential drainage issues. Staff recommends approval with conditions which address the neighbor's concerns. Eileen Gibson and Larry Wheeler, applicants, stated they are custom home builders who specialize in traditional homes. They want to adhere to the requirements, do a good job and enhance the property. The home is currently vacant. Commissioner Lauer asked if the applicants have spoken with the adjacent landowner. Mr. Wheeler said he was not part of the easement agreement 34 years ago. He would prefer to separate the driveways if that is the desire of the Commission and the neighbor. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. David Harrison, 920 5th Street South, who shares the driveway with the applicant, stated he sees the carriage house as a rental property with double the traffic and the people. The driveway has a 10% grade so the water will erode it more. It gets very icy in the winter. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen pointed out it is refreshing to address a Special Use Permit that doesn't require a variance. He supports the proposal. Commissioner Middleton said he has a minor concern about the neighbor's conflict, but it appears Mr. Wheeler is amenable to resolving it. He supports the request. Commissioner Collins noted that the site plan looks good. He favors approval. Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to approve Case No. 2015-16, a Special Use Permit for construction of a detached garage and accessory dwelling unit, located at 912 5th Street South, with the following conditions: a. The shared driveway shall not be blocked at any point during construction. b. The shared driveway shall be kept free and clear of debris during construction. c. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineering Depai tiiient and a grading escrow, in an amount deemed sufficient by the Engineering Department for the new construction shall be submitted. d. To the greatest extent possible, drainage on the south side of the garage shall be retained onsite. e. The maximum size of the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be 800 square feet. f. A Design Permit shall be obtained from the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the submittal of a building permit. Page 6 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 g. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction. The building permit shall clearly show the maximum height of the accessory structure, in correlation to the height of the existing residence. h. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. 2015-17. Special Use Permit for a drive -through to be installed on the building located at 1750 Greeley Street South. Stanfour, LLC, owner and Jeff Berends, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is proposing a new drive -through to be located on the south side of the existing structure, for a proposed Rita's Italian Ice. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Jeff Berends, applicant, offered to answer questions. Asked by Commissioner Siess if there have been traffic studies, he stated there have not been traffic studies but the plan has taken into consideration the proper stacking, and the exit to the car wash to eliminate traffic conflicts. City Planner Wittman added that the City Engineer found no potential conflicts with the drive -through exit. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hansen said it's refreshing to see a Special Use Permit that doesn't require a variance. He supports the use. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve Case No. 2015-17, a Special Use Permit for a drive -through to be installed on the building located at 1750 Greeley Street South, with the following conditions: a. Lighting fixtures must provide a complete cut-off so the bulb/source of light cannot be seen from off the property and, at the property lines, the illumination has to be engineered to be 0 lumens. b. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the Engineering, Fire and Building Officials before the issuance of a building permit. c. 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. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. 2015-18. Special Use Permit for outdoor sales to be held on the property of Stillwater Medical Group, located at 1500 Curve Crest Boulevard. Coleen Ebner, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to conduct a Farmers' Market in the Lakeview Clinic parking lot on Tuesdays from 2:00-6:00 p.m. from July to October. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Chairman Kocon asked where farmers' market customers will park. City Planner Wittman replied there will still be a significant amount of parking on the south side. Commissioner Middleton asked if food trucks would be allowed. City Planner Wittman responded food trucks would not be allowed in this district. Coleen Ebner, applicant, stated everything sold would have to be made there. The intent is to promote healthy foods, fruits, vegetables, honey and jams, and possibly bread. There would be no food trucks. Page 7 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2015-18, a Special Use Permit for outdoor sales to be held on the property of Stillwater Medical Group, located at 1500 Curve Crest Boulevard, with the following conditions: a. The outside sales shall occur between June 1 and October 31 annually. b. The hours of operation shall be limited to Tuesdays from 2:00-6:00 p.m. c. All vendors shall be situated along the south edge of the parking lot. d. Access shall not be restricted on the drive lane by vendors or parked vehicles. e. Same -day signage shall be reviewed and approved by Community Development Department staff. f. No more than two signs, one at each parking lot access point, shall be permitted to be installed during the event. g. Substantial changes shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. 2015-19. Special Use Permit for multi -tenant, multi -use associated with Case No. 2014-38 located at 123 2nd Street North. Judd Sather, owner. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting an amendment to Special Use Permit 2014-38 for JX Events Venue to be located at 123 2nd Street North, the Connolly Shoe Factory building. A single Special Use Permit is needed to address all uses in the proposed multi -use, multi - tenant building. The three-story structure would house the events venue on the upper story, a design similar to the originally proposed venue; however, the occupancy has increased to 1,200 people. The second level, accessed off 2nd Street North, would include medical and professional offices. The first level would contain a catering kitchen, lounge and brewery. There is a current parking mitigation plan determined sufficient by the Downtown Parking Commission for the third floor event venue of $210/month mitigation fee for the previous capacity of 800 people. A new mitigation plan for parking will be needed due to the increase in capacity of the event venue. A carryover condition from the original Special Use Permit is the future removal of the 8' by 24' loading dock. A draft agreement between Mr. Sather and the City which addresses the removal of the loading dock is being negotiated. The primary entrance to the building will be on Second Street, so there will be less of a need for the loading dock, which is built on public property. Judd Sather, applicant, explained that for the "big room" design concept, there will probably be a need for a fourth stairwell which would be right where the loading dock is. He plans to draw weddings of 300-400 people or corporate events of 400-500 people. The business plan is not for 1,200 people which would be standing room only. That is simply the total allowable capacity based on square footage. Parking is an issue but will be worked out with the Downtown Parking Commission. There is a lot of momentum in the community for this project. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Siess asked how many parking spaces will be needed. City Planner Wittman replied the number is not known at this time. It will be addressed by the Downtown Parking Commission. Page 8 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Chairman Kocon remarked that Mr. Sather has been very open to suggestions and he supports the concept. Commissioner Hade said he likes the thought of the loading dock being removed. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve Case No. 2015-19, a Special Use Permit for multi -tenant, multi -use associated with Case No. 2014-38, located at 123 2nd Street North, with the following conditions: a. The third floor shall be used as rentable area for events or event functions. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted with Case No. 2015-19, Planning Commission supplemental information for JX Events Venue. b. The main level (off 2nd Street North) shall contain uses permitted by right as identified in City Code Section 31-325, Allowable uses in non-residential districts. c. The main floor, accessible off 2nd Street North, shall not be utilized as rentable area for events or event functions. d. The lower level, accessible off the alley and Commercial Street, shall be utilized as restaurant and catering kitchen space or similar uses. e. The lower level, accessible off the alley and Commercial Street, shall not be utilized as rentable area for events or event functions. f. Prior to the operating of an event center, the property owner shall remove the loading dock on the north side of the structure or enter into a license agreement with the City Council for its continued use. g. 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. h. All existing and future trash receptacles shall be stored inside the building or in an enclosed onsite trash facility at all times, with the exception of the day of trash collection. i. Prior to the commencement of any exterior work, including the installation of lighting, signage, new windows and doors, and/or demolition, a Design Permit shall be obtained and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission, and a building permit shall be obtained. 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. j. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off- street parking requirements. If the plan includes a fee -in -lieu, the fee shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Fees unpaid within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the 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. Any conditions attached to the parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this permit. k. 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. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. 2015-20. Consideration of a 15-lot residential Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and associated variances, located at 8528/8602 Neal Avenue North. Todd Baumgartner, WB Development, LLC, applicant and Jon Whitcomb, owner. Community Development Director Turnblad explained that the applicant has applied for a Preliminary Plat for a 15-lot single family residential development referred to as Brown's Creek Cove, located at Page 9 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Neal Avenue North and McKusick Road North. The site has a total area of 8.91 acres. Lots range in size from 10,070 square feet to 19,917 square feet. Two of the 15 lots have existing homes. The applicant is seeking a Preliminary Plat for 15 lots, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow cluster residential development in the South Twin Lake Shoreland District, within the Brown's Creek Stream Shoreland District. A planned outlot will include the continuation of the trail system from Millbrook. A 2008 plat was approved for this property but was never developed. The original request was to make Outlot A a public park to satisfy park dedication requirements. The comprehensive plan indicates no need for a public park here so staff recommends that Outlot A remain a private outlot and the park dedication requirement be satisfied with fees rather than land. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit with conditions. Todd Baumgartner, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. David Stone, who owns property adjacent to the site, expressed concerns about layout of the lots in light of setback restrictions in the Brown's Creek Shoreland District. Chairman Kocon replied that in the staff report, setbacks, lot lines and slopes are addressed. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Chairman Kocon, to approve Case No. 2015-20, a 15-lot residential Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following plans on file with the Community Development Department, except as may be modified by the conditions herein: • Existing Conditions, Sheet C2 dated 6/19/15 • Site Layout Plan, Sheet C3 dated 6/19/15 • Erosion Control Plan, Sheet C4 dated 6/19/15 • Grading Plan, Sheet C5 dated 6/19/15 • Street Plan & Profile, Sheet C6 dated 6/19/15 • Sanitary Sewer & Water Plan, Sheet C7 dated 6/19/15 • Storm Sewer Plan & Profile, Sheet C8 dated 6/19/15 • Details, Sheets C9, C 10, C 11 & C12 dated 6/19/15 • Landscape Plan, Sheet L1 dated 6/19/15 b. The Final Plat application materials must document a maximum of 25% impervious cover on Lot 8. c. Review comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources must be included in the Final Plat application materials. d. The landscape plan submitted with Final Plat application materials must specify proposed ground cover in all disturbed areas. To the extent that this lies within the creek and wetland buffer, re-established vegetation will need to be native grasses and vegetation rather than turf. e. The Final Plat application materials must detail the dimensions and setbacks of the building pads on all of the lots. f. The development impact fees and trunk utility fees (a total of $172,389.28) must be paid to the City prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording with Washington County. g. All electrical and communications utility lies shall be buried. This shall be specified in the plans submitted for Final Plat approval. Page 10 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 h. The Washington County Highway Department requires that the Final Plat include a notation that access will be restricted along McKusick Road. i. Review comments from the Brown's Creek Watershed District must be addressed in the Final Plat application materials. This includes review and approval of the location of the average wetland buffer limits. j. On the Final Plat application materials, a trail segment must be considered along the north edge of Lot 1 to connect the Millbrook Trail to Neal Avenue. k. A trail easement found satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney shall encumber the trail alignment over Outlot A in favor of the public, and shall be filed at Washington County together with the Final Plat. 1. A trail easement found satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney shall encumber the trail alignment over Lot 2 in favor of the public, and shall be filed at Washington County together with the Final Plat. m. On the Final Plat application materials, Outlot A must be shown as private rather than a public park. n. All civil engineering plans must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction prior to release of the Final Plat for filing with Washington County. o. Prior to release of the Final Plat for recording with Washington County, a $26,000 park dedication fee shall be submitted to the City (minus any credit for pre -approved excess trail costs). p. One model home may be constructed on either Lot 11 or Lot 12. The building permit for the one model will only be issued after filing the Final Plat with Washington County and after development fees are paid to the City. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. 2015-21. Variance for the total number of signs permitted for the construction of a free-standing monument sign at the south entrance of Lake Elmo Bank, located at 1937 Greeley Street South. Mike Johnson, Graphic House, Inc., applicant. City Planner Wittman summarized the request. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a second free-standing sign to be located at a new property access point off the newly designed West Frontage Road. While the applicant is deeming it directional signage, no directional arrows are shown on the proposed sign; therefore, staff has determined it is a monument sign which must conform to the provisions for free-standing signs. There is a uniqueness on the property in that originally the site did not front a street, but with the redesign of the frontage road, the property will front the street. Staff finds that practical difficulties do not exist, as there are other reasonable alternatives, including the installation of additional wall signage, and that the essential character of the site would be altered due to placement of the sign in the middle of the parking and drive area. There was one phone call from a neighbor in the residential development to the east of the property expressing a concern about the placement of a sign impacting the neighborhood. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Chairman Kocon noted that the sign may affect sight lines as a driver is exiting or entering the parking area. There are many restrictions to vision that could cause collisions. City Planner Wittman stated the sign cannot be placed within 15 feet of the property line. The only other suitable location could be in a median area but that would not serve the directional purpose the property owner is trying to achieve. Commissioner Hansen commented that a wall sign seems like an obvious alternative to a monument sign. However the awning may block the view. Page 11 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Mike Johnson, Graphic House, applicant and Dan Raleigh, Lake Elmo Bank, explained the application. Mr. Johnson informed the Commission they view the sign not as directional but as identifying the driveway. Since road construction has taken place over the past year, the entrance off Greeley is restricted to northbound traffic and it is a difficult driveway to negotiate. Traveling south on Greeley, a median prevents access to the driveway. If the staff recommendation for wall signage were followed, it would not be visible from the intersection because it would be facing east so it would not accomplish the goal. They wish to enhance the traffic flow, not to advertise. The sign is proposed to be 3' x 5' rather than 2' x 4' so it can be seen from the intersection. Regarding the setback of the sign, it is not proposed to be placed in the middle of the driveway. It is intended to be placed 20' back from the curb so it poses no vision problems for drivers exiting the driveway. Regarding the concern from the neighboring resident, a 5' tall sign would not be visible due to the 10' fence in this location. Mr. Raleigh added that the sign's purpose is to make the driveway more visible as a customer entrance rather than looking like a deliveries -only entrance. Commissioner Siess asked if the applicant would consider moving the existing sign. Mr. Raleigh stated the existing sign was moved during road construction. Mr. Johnson added that they were originally going to place the sign closer to the corner or south of where it is now, but due to road construction, culverts and drainage, there was no available place for it. They had to place it just about where it was due to road construction. City Planner Wittman stated the curb is not the property line, so to achieve a 15' setback the placement would be in the median. Commissioner Hansen asked if the applicant considered putting the sign on the east side of the new proposed driveway. Mr. Johnson replied yes, but there is even less space there and it would have ended up being closer to the road. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Marsha Zahler, 1940 West Ridge Circle, voiced concern that the sign not be lit upwards so it does not shine into the bedroom windows. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kelly said he feels the situation warrants the second sign variance requested but another variance might be needed. North -south traffic on Greeley was previously able to enter the site, but due to road construction, access has been re-routed and is harder to find. From a safety perspective, if the sign were located as far back as possible in the grass area, it would be far enough back that it would not be in the sight line of traffic. He acknowledged the neighbors' concerns but feels it would be addressed through the condition about lighting. Commissioner Siess suggested the application should be tabled so the Commission and the applicant can better define the specific variance that is needed. Motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to table Case No. 2015-21, Variance for the total number of signs permitted for the construction of a free-standing monument sign at the south Page 12 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 entrance of Lake Elmo Bank, located at 1937 Greeley Street South, to the August 12 Planning Commission Meeting. All in favor, 9-0. Case No. 2015-22. A 20-lot residential Preliminary Plat and associated Variances, located at 1902 William Street North. Sterling Black, applicant, and Fairway Development, LLC, owner. Community Development Director Turnblad explained the request. The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat application for a 20-lot single family development to be known as Hazel Place Villas, located at the western terminus of Hazel Street next to Stillwater Country Club. The project site has a total area of 7.17 acres, 5.90 of which are located outside the Brown's Creek buffer area and therefore considered developable. Lots range in size from 7,501 square feet to 20,264 square feet. To develop the property as proposed, the application requires the following approvals: 1) Preliminary Plat for a 20-lot single family subdivision; 2) a 17' cul-de-sac length Variance; and 3) a building coverage Variance. Other proposed variances have been eliminated from the original 2007 submission because the plat has been redone. The woodlands will not be disturbed, but will be an outlot preserved by the homeowners' association. The 20 proposed lots meet all minimum lot standards and the building pads meet all setbacks. The building coverage Variance is being sought because the location of the road was pushed to the west for the purpose of protecting a buffer area to Brown's Creek and to push the homes further away from existing homes in the neighborhood. Therefore eight lots in Block 1 end up smaller and with more than 25% building coverage. This evening, a table was received that shows the building coverage for each lot. Staff feels that the option exists to remove a lot or reconfigure the road alignment to eliminate the lot coverage variance. More than 35% tree canopy will be removed so 45 more trees will need to be added to meet requirements. Regarding the cul-de-sac length variance, it is minimal and staff recommends approval of the length of the cul-de-sac, however staff is uncomfortable with the number of lots being requested in light of the coverage variance being requested. If the Commission recommends approval, there are possible conditions of approval provided. Commissioner Hansen asked if the 45 trees are in addition to the proposed planting plan. Community Development Director Turnblad replied yes, there are 85 total trees to be planted. Commissioner Middleton asked if a cul-de-sac could be placed off the cul-de-sac. Community Development Director Turnblad replied it is customary to have more than one route into a neighborhood. If the golf course were undeveloped property, the City would require the road continue and connect with the road system. Chairman Kocon asked what has changed about the plat since the original submission in 2007. Community Development Director Turnblad replied that the lots that were under 35 feet of frontage have widened so there will be no more frontage variances. Chairman Kocon pointed out the submission went from three lots having coverage issues to eight lots with coverage variances required. He asked if an adjustment in the number of lots could change the depth of the cul-de-sac. Community Development Director Turnblad replied that it could, but the ability to have 35' of frontage on all the lots would then be lost. Sterling Black, property owner and developer, explained that a 20-unit twin -home concept was previously approved in 2007. He has worked with the watershed and various groups to ensure those permits are still in place. Over the past year, they have tried to improve on the project with input from surrounding property owners. The original plan is the contingency plan if they cannot get the current proposal approved. Page 13 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Roger Humphrey, Humphrey Engineering, stated over the past several years they have been involved with permit extensions for this project. The project has been revised to meet concerns of the watershed district. They have made the homes one story ramblers in response to neighbors wanting smaller building massing. The square footage provided in the submission included the decks over the tops of the buildings. He reviewed a chart showing building area as a percentage of total lot area. By pulling the road to the west, they are being sensitive to the neighbors who raised issues with the size of the buildings. All lots on Block 2 meet the requirement. In addition, the previous plan had eight units on that side while the current plan has seven units on that side. The houses have been pulled back from the bluffline. The roofline of the main portion of the buildings is at least five feet lower than originally proposed. The street was widened from the first plat with the goal of having low -impact design. Chairman Kocon asked about the concept of twin homes versus single family homes. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that there is a final plat in effect for the previously planned twin home project that could be constructed today. That project would have had reduced massing. Chairman Kocon asked if the City could restrict the building size to reduce building area coverage per lot. Community Development Director Turnblad replied that if the Commission denies the variance to the 25% building coverage, then the developer would have to build within the allowable lot coverage area. Mr. Humphrey remarked that the developers are struggling to make the project economical. All the buildings can be built within the front and backyard setbacks. Yes, they could construct a smaller building, but they recognize that the golf course is basically open space in the back. Mr. Black added that there are eight or nine different floor plans. They want buyers to have freedom to make some choices. Many customers want three -car garages. Len Pratt, Pratt Homes, added there is growing demand for single family homes with two bedrooms on the first floor. Chairman Kocon said he feels the developers could build what would be within the Code. Mr. Sterling noted that in Block 2 the overall area is under 25% coverage. The lot lines are invisible because of cross -easements for maintenance by the homeowners' association. The coverage is 18% on Block 1 and 24.7% on Block 2. Commissioner Hansen asked about the configuration of the garages and driveways in relation to impervious surface. Community Development Director Turnblad answered that non -building impervious coverage is minimal. As for garage setbacks, the intent of the City Code was to create neighborhoods that mimic historic neighborhoods with garages set behind the house, by requiring that the garage be ten feet back from the front of the house. However, the actual words in the Code state the garage has to be set back ten feet from the front building setback line (20') so the proposal meets the words but not what he believes is the intent of the Code. The developer has tried to soften the impression of the garage by turning the garages away from the street as much as possible. Mr. Humphrey commented that the original plan had the same type of layout. The primary difference is that all garages were facing the street. On the current plan, the garage is de-emphasized by having a side -loaded garage on 15 of the lots. Page 14 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Melanie Ebertz, 1924 1st Street North, Stillwater, at the corner of 1st and Hazel, criticized the rezoning of the neighborhood in 2007. She has concerns about the safety of the road which she monitors closely. The hill has an 18% grade. There are two places to access what will be the busiest bike trail in the state - downtown, or on Hazel Street. She loves having the trail but the nature of Hazel Street is that people use it for a trailhead. She felt the bike trail was not addressed in 2007 when the original development was approved. Hazardous issues surface daily at the top of the hill. To fail to address the safety of Hazel Street in considering the development is absurd. She urged the Commission to require a reduction in the density of the project. Rick Schefchick, 2031 Oak Glen Lane, Stillwater, a member of the Stillwater Country Club Board of Directors, introduced himself. Ed Simonet, a member of the Stillwater Country Club Board of Directors, stated they are concerned about golf balls hitting the homes and about the proposed rain gardens. They would like the developer to provide information so the golf course engineer can determine if they will have any adverse effect on the golf course. Mr. Schefchick added that the course has spent thousands of dollars to alleviate areas where water gathers. They want to hire an engineer to find out whether the rain garden abutting the golf course property will cause any leakage or seepage. Mr. Simonet added that a number of board members are concerned about these issues. Brian Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, Stillwater, credited the developer for changing to single family houses as he feels this is the right direction. However he would like the developer to have a more appropriate density, respect the neighborhood patterns, and acknowledge that it is at a dead end. The development will have considerable impact on the whole North Hill. The spot zoning that occurred in 2007, to select a small RA area and call it RB, was not recommended by Commissions or staff at the time. As suggested, all the homes could be made small enough to fit the lots. Or there could be fewer lots, which would achieve a more appropriate density. The number of units is the heart of the problem and all the variance requests. He agreed with other speakers that the previous approval was a mistake. The development as proposed does not fit the neighborhood. The lengthy cul-de-sac providing only one way in and out of the development is a big concern. Garage setback and coverage variances are not warranted as they set precedence. Variances are to be allowed only when the plight of the property is not created by the landowner, and if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. He suggested tabling the proposal and asking the developer to come back with a better plan with fewer units. Pat Lockyear, 2001 Hazel Court, Stillwater, reiterated Mr. Larson's concerns. The development will incredibly change the nature of the neighborhood and remove some beautiful trees and topography that is integral to the watershed. Tim Sinclair, 14411 Dellwood Road North, Stillwater, voiced similar concerns to those stated previously. To put 20 lots on the site will require clear -cutting where there are a lot of old oaks and maples. The developer is trying to squeeze as many units in as they can. He is concerned about the lack of extra parking and ability of emergency vehicles to get in. Ken Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, Stillwater, clarified that the previous agreement had a clause that the twin homes would be $600,000-$750,000 each. Market conditions is probably the reason why those twin homes are not being built there now. The neighbors are not trying to kill the project, but just Page 15 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 trying to get the right fit for the neighborhood. He voiced concerns about off-street parking as the curve at Hazel is very tight, about traffic on Hazel which is a substandard street, about lighting, and screening at the entrance. The new entrance would remove some of the screening that is there now. He feels the development is going in the right direction but less development would be better. Jim Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, Stillwater, agreed with much of what was said. The development seems like a house of cards built on one variance after another. In 2007, nobody supported the project except the developer. The neighborhood's Council representative admitted 70% of his constituency was against it, but he voted for it. He is concerned that logic and rules sometimes take a back seat to the Good Old Boy network. The neighbors have known for years that the property would be developed, but they would like to have the development fit the neighborhood. He is concerned about safety of the extremely long cul-de-sac. Dick Paukert, 303 West Hazel Street, Stillwater, said the safety issues on Hazel Street are tremendous. The trail has added a completely new dimension from 2007. The neighborhood does not need another 20 homes on seven acres. He agreed with the other speakers. Colleen Roach, 1901 Second Street North, Stillwater, said whenever there is construction in the neighborhood, she bears the brunt of all the traffic. She is concerned about the scale of the development in relation to the narrowness of Hazel Street. Trail users do not stop at Hazel Street. There is no traffic management on the trail. To add more traffic will bring more problems. She encouraged the Commissioners to drive up Hazel Street. Dave Hatch, 2009 3rd Street North, Stillwater, who purchased his house last week, said he was drawn to the homes on nice sized lots and very little traffic. The street is inadequate for the traffic. He agreed with the other speakers' concerns. Brian Boucher, 317 West Hazel Street, Stillwater, agreed with everything that was said by the neighbors. He does not feel the proposal is in harmony with the existing neighborhood. Traffic safety is a big concern. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Collins recognized he just visited the area and feels it is one of the best kept secrets in Stillwater. The proposal totally changes the neighborhood and he would have a hard time supporting it as proposed. Commissioner Hansen disagreed with having any development there but feels it is probably a foregone conclusion that it will happen. He does not support granting variances for almost half the properties for impervious surface coverage. He would like to table the application for more information. Chairman Kocon acknowledged there were many good concerns expressed. He would be ok with tabling the request to find a project that works for everyone. Commissioner Siess said she feels like the packet is incomplete. Market forces do not concern the Commission. She disagrees with the argument that with a homeowners' association, lot lines don't matter. Page 16 of 18 Planning Commission July 8, 2015 Commissioner Middleton echoed the sentiments from the neighbors. He too was surprised the City Council approved the original concept in 2007. The cul-de-sac is clearly 1,200 feet which is too long. He hopes the developer can bring back a more sensible request for the neighborhood. Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to table Case No. 2015-22, a 20-lot residential Preliminary Plat and associated Variances, located at 1902 William Street North, stating the Commission would like the developers to more clearly delineate the variances, and either reduce the number of lots or reduce the number of lots requiring a variance. All in favor, 9-0. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION There were no other items of discussion. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Chairman Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 11:53 p.m. All in favor, 9-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 17 of 18 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 12, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-23 APPLICANT: Ryan and Kara Forcier, property owners REQUEST: Consideration of a 6' variance to the 20' Front Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] from Maple Street West associated with the construction of an interior accessed vertical lift/elevator to the structure located at 408 Maple Street West ZONING: RB: One Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Ryan and Kara Forcier have applied for a variance to make certain improvements to the property located at 408 Maple Street West. The improvement is the addition of an (approximately) 6' square vertical lift/elevator shaft to be located within the Front Yard Setback area. Consequently, the applicant is requesting a 6' variance to the 20' minimum setback area. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits." Section 31-208 further indicates: • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. The applicant must demonstrate that: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose a Front Yard Setback is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits. Much of the yard in front of the home will be maintained. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no elements of the application that are contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; As the application indicates, the installation of the lift is necessary for the property owners to be able to continue to use their home. Additionally, other alternatives have been explored but the location, on the eastern edge of the structure, he property owner's will be able to best maximize the need for the elevator to be accommodated into the two-story home. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and The applicant cites the uniqueness to how the home is situated in close proximately to the street, a reality that has existed on this property since the late 1800s. Another uniqueness is that a single -story addition was placed on the rear of the structure, therefore preventing any two-story improvements that would be compliant with the zoning district's setbacks. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant indicates the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make findings practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a 6' variance to the 20' Front Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] from Maple Street West associated with the construction of vertical lift/elevator to be added to the structure located at 408 Maple Street West, with or without conditions. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Case No. 2015-23 CPC: August 12, 2015 Page 2 of 3 If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2015-23. b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to exterior alterations. c. The addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure. d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance. 3. Table the application and request additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends conditional approval of a 6' variance to the 20' Front Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] for the construction of vertical lift/elevator to be added to the structure located at 812 Harriet Street South. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request (2 pages) Building Plans (8 pages) Site Photos (2) pages) Aerial Imagery (2 pages) Case No. 2015-23 CPC: August 12, 2015 Page 3 of 3 New Text Document (2) ATTN: Planning Commission Dear Sir or Madame: In the matter of the installation of a vertical lift/elevator system on the exterior of our home: Our proposed use for this vertical lift is to safely transport our son between the upper and main level of our home. our son, zachary, is severely disabled and lacks head control. Carrying him up and down our stairs is difficult and dangerous as he weighs 39 lbs, he is 44 inches long, and he is 6 1/2 years old. He must be carried like a newborn with full support of head and neck. Our stairs are narrow, steep and frankly if we are not able to install this vertical lift soon, an injury to zachary or a caregiver will happen. An injury of this nature could end zachary's life due to how fragile his body is. An injury to a caregiver would compromise zachary's care. The vertical lift will effect our neighbors only by the change in the exterior of our home. We are not taking land away from any neighbors. This land is between our home and driveway. It is on the front of our home, and unfortunately there is no better place for this vertical lift that will actually connect to our upstairs and stay off a neighbors property. we intend to have the vertical lift sided to match the exterior of our home. Many homes in Stillwater have quirky additions/bumpouts which add to the character of the neighborhood. Our intention is to have this blend in with our home as much as possible. This vertical lift will not affect the compatibility with adjacent uses or areas. It will impact our family and only our family. we will have to sacrifice some landscaping area, but it is a necessary sacrifice for our son. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Ryan or Kara Forcier. Thank you, Ryan and Kara Forcier (651) 295-4697 (612) 718-0131 Page 1 Request for variance REQUEST FOR VARIANCE: (i). The property owner proposes to use the land in a resonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; we will be using the land to create a vertical lift/elevator for our son, zachary, who is wheelchair bound. zachary is severely disabled and he is on a Medicaid waiver program who is funding this project called the CAC waiver. zachary is unable to walk, roll, crawl or even maintain head control when carried. Carrying him is very similar to carrying an overgrown newborn (zachary is 6 1/2 and weighs 39 lbs). we have explored the option of installing a stairlift in our home, but unfortunately our stairs do not meet code for the project and in order for them to meet code it would require extensive construction to the front entry of our home extending it into the street. our home is out of code where the front our our home is within about 6-7 feet from the street. we have looked into installing lifts in other areas in our home and unfortunately there are no good areas that wouldn't interfere with neighbors land. (ii). The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and This project would not be taking place if it weren't due to the our son's severe disability and the fact that our home is needing to be modified for his safety. we would have never purchased this home 10+ years ago if we had anticipated having a child with a disability, but our son was born 6 1/2 years ago and we have already made considerable modifications to our home for zachary. we have modified our bathroom, widened doorways, installed a wheelchair ramp, etc. we have not created this plight for ourselves in any way. we were not under control of the fact that our son was born disabled. we are not under control that our home was built in 1878 and was placed where it was in relation to the road. we are in desperate need of a safe option for our son to get upstairs to his bedroom every night as being carried up and down the stairs every night is becoming more and more dangerous for him and for us. In the near future if this vertical lift/elevator isn't installed, zachary or a caregiver will suffer and serious injury due to a fall. A fall of this nature could end zachary's life since he is so fragile. If a caregiver is injured this compromises zachary's care greatly. (iii). The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Our intention is to have to the elevator shaft sided to match the exterior of our home so it will blend in with our home. It should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Many of the homes in our areas have lots of quirky additions/bumpouts, etc, I anticipate this will look very similar to those. Page 1 0911=Pk : 31bs n vld doo8 i -1.3-3zl1S 3 7d V YY t JAW HS t_ — ♦Z 71bn Noi1 a7 motiryim yPUS 3 2(1 rt moaritrA oYY9t1 771 i rill i, f S 1� I ball hie 10.14y b i d F.1157i'161 14,24ke PLo S YS /JE W ©oo jZ (4entlx-2 AS kept) ExisT1N6, H0USE WALL ScALC l/21' _ (Lb" r' 2x� 545-FqS{CA ALu m, So f Pi r �. AC�r�Fi9SEd4 EAST WAL1 OF SKAFT 5CALE'gh": i' 00 2x$ CoctAR.T1C 2 x G RA FTee.S 1/Z"0S4 S/4TC, TAR. PA Pe? R 381iJ5: 1/z Ro c iC 2x(0 TbtST: MASauirc Sit»A 3//i b 11.T- rTc 2IL STLI1Ss R 19 I SCAT, MATH' WALL of S O CP ,mow 11 01. • 1 4. er▪ - k i .� NR fib' w to kt 0 Do 0 V 70 IlUlb I WAY SAMt SIUt PU 11-UKM(III 1 IUN) VPL-32008 SERIES VERTICAL PLATFORM LIFT TECHNICAL DATAI$PECIFICATIONS RATED LOAD: • 750 Ibs maximum. INPUT POWER SOURCE: -DC BATTERY POWERED UNIT: 110-120 Volt 3 Amp 80 Hz battery charger. DRIVE: -DC BATTERY POWERED UNIT: VPL-3200B: 1 hp motor, 1750 rpm, 24 VDC, continuous duty. INTERMEDIATE REDUCTION: Dual 4L style Poly-V belts and pulleys, 3.94:1 pulley reduction. FINAL DRIVE: VPL-32008 1.28" dia. ACME screw w/bronze nut and bronze safety back up nut. MOTOR CONTROLLER: -DC BATTERY POWERED UNIT: 24 VDC Relay control. SPEED: -DC BATTERY POWERED UNIT: 10 feet per minute maximum For complete technical specifications please see ILS-00986 "VPL-3200B Series Residential Vertical Platform Lift Technical Specfticafion" PERFORMANCE STANDARDS USA FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION: CLASS II, 510(K) Exempt, File No. 890.3930, Si Product Code: PCE ANSI/ASME: A18.1: 2011 Section 5 Safety Standards for Platform Lifts and Stairway Chairlifs CSA B613-00 (JAN 2002) Private Residence Lifts for Persons with Physical Disabilities ANSI/ASME: CSA B44.1-11/ASME :A17.5-2011 Elevator and Escalator Elsctricai Equipment OO98: 3 ($38)(4J'/13)(DPG) i j 96b�NIC,,, 700 DriveP.04;1116lt84, Oconomowoeg;W1 bl066 madatiobwYholA ermbxbndBnmo 11vkpAldr Mowe> prot1bi16d. AMy v !menus the **Ito make otbnpotto tp alias at nyb %exit t out notks. for 0 ©Bruno Ir)Clependent Living Aids, Inc. F C'n httpri/w oglexzwn/maps/place/408+Maple+St+W,+Stillwater,+Mp1+55082/045.061051,-92.815501,3a,75y,5.23h,87.34t/data=!3m7!lel!3m5!lswalsbGNHP15xTrmicdbp el2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggF .,�. Apps Beyondar.eskr_.. CI Anporled Roan IL - - 1it►car LR. z.. Mole Stw. *wit St wr Lwia1 St w 6D, x 4- C 111 htips://woragootjecom/ma ps / €)4 5 . 06 1 048 , - 92 . 8 1 5628 , 3a, 75 424h, 84 .62t/data =!3m6!lel gmCsiv 11 G M RT- ell [hall pH kA! 2 e0 i 1 3 3 12 ! 8i66 56 ! 6m 1! 1 e 1 App &vend bores Ayr- 0 Imported ham E 411 %pie St W SAftatef. lAmeAta- Sam flew Aug 2t113 bid x '... F C https://www.googlecom/maps/place/408+Maple+St+W,+Stillwater,+MN+55O82/@45.0612671,-92.81572O8,82m/data=!3m1!le3!4m2!3m1!190x52b2c9bce3844d69:Oxbbb451a6378a8f64!6m1!lel Apps aer,d Birder& k... l] tired hornE 408 Maple St W, Stillwater, MN 55082 ras AIM 1 9 AO f • Sign in • Mw #ito INVI 5 Grmgk 3D earth view not available Tvme Prh.E4,, Repo, a praigl.m 20 ft gt 41:6 *pi Si fisiajt* f C https://wmpoglecomilmaps/place/408+Maple4St+W,+Stillwater+MN+55082/@45.0612671,-92.8157208,82m/data=!3ml!le3!4m2!3mEls0x52b2c9bce3844d69:Oxbb6451a6378a8164!6ml!lel Uwater H¢ g l X I H P 4 A f, E OF MINNESOTA. PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 12, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-24 APPLICANT: Lowell Schmoeckel, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, and associated variances, for an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be located at 1343 1st Street South ZONING: RB - Two Family Residential COMP PLAN: Low/Medium Density Residential PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Lowell Schmoekel own the property at 1343 1st Street South. The applicant approached the City to construct a two-story garage on his property. As the district he is located in restricts new garages to a single story, he is requesting consideration of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). As there are certain standards applicable to new ADUs, the applicant is requesting the following variances: • A 180 square foot variance to the maximum garage size of 800 square feet.1 • A 17.6' variance to the 25' rear yard setback for the Accessory Dwelling Unit.2 Although Mr. Schmoeckel is requesting the ADU SUP, he has indicated he does not have the intention of finishing the second story dwelling unit at this time. It is his intention to build the structure and unit for future living use but that the room will be utilized for storage and hobbies. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits." ' City Code Section 31-501, Accessory Dwellings, Subd. 3(a)(10) 2 City Code Section 31-501, Accessory Dwellings, Subd. 3(a)(3) & City Code Section 31-308(b)(1), Massing Regulations, Minimum Standards — Rear Yard Setback Section 31-208 further indicates: • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. City Code Section 31-501, Accessory Dwellings, identifies the following performance standards for review. The analysis of each respective variance is included in the following. • Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet. The lot is 13,229 square feet. • The accessory dwelling may be located on the second floor above the garage. The new ADU would be located wholly above the proposed garage. • The accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the midpoint of the primary residence. While the new garage will conform to all dimensional setbacks in the Front and in the side yard, a variance is requested for the rear (east) yard setback area. Regarding The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose of the Rear Yard Setback is to maintain open, unoccupied space in the rear of the property. However, when a garage is proposed in the rear corner, the City allows for a reduction of the garage space to 5' on the side and on the rear. Consequently, the proposal keeps with the general purposes of the zoning code by still maintaining front and side yard areas. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no elements that are contradictory to the comprehensive plan. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; The location of the garage, approximately five feet from the property line, is reasonable. However, such close proximity of this two-story structure to the property line may be imposing to the neighboring properties. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and Existing improvements on the property present challenges for the construction of the proposed garage. The garage would not be able to achieve the Rear Yard 1343 1st Street South Case 2015-24 (CPC: 8/12/2015) Page 2 Setback of 25' as it would require the garage and house would be near connected, creating a significant wall face in this area. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The essential character of the locality will not be affected. The character of the neighborhood will be maintained with a garage set back from the streetside property lines. • Off-street parking requirements (four spaces) must be provided. Two parking spaces are proposed to be located within the garage, meeting the requirements for two covered parking spaces. A new driveway is proposed to be located in front of the garage which will accommodate the two additional parking spaces required. • Maximum size of the ADU is 800 square feet. The proposed ADU size is 658 square feet. • The application requires design review. The applicant received design review approval by the Heritage Preservation Commission on August 3, 2015. • The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. The garage height is proposed to be 24'11" from the ground grade to the top of the ridge. However, the Heritage Preservation Commission has advised the applicant that efforts to reduce the overall height to 23'6" should be made. • Both the primary and accessory dwelling units must be connected to municipal sewer and water services and be located on an improved public street. This will be a condition of approval. • Maximum size of the garage is 800 square feet. The garage is proposed to be 952 square feet. Additionally, 330 square feet of this garage space is proposed to encompass the entire height of the structure. Regarding the 152 square foot variance for the maximum size of the garage: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The purpose of the ADU provisions is to allow for the construction of smaller units to provide alternative housing opportunities. However, due to the two- story nature of these structures, the standards for their construction limits the footprint size to be able to limit the mass of the structure. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. No application elements are contradictory to the comprehensive plan. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: 13431st Street South Case 2015-24 (CPC: 8/12/2015) Page 3 The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; The use of a garage and ADU is reasonable. The increase in size for the garage is consistent with garages in the RB - Two Family District. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and The increase in size is due to the property owner's desire to utilize the garage for storage of vehicles and other household items. There is no uniqueness identified. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The two-story garage in this neighborhood would have similar appearance to other two-story homes in this neighborhood. City Code Section 31-207, Special Use Permits, identifies the city may grant a Special Use Permit or amendments when the following findings are made: a. 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. The additional residence on this property conforms to the Zoning Regulations. Furthermore, it is consistent with relevant area plans and other lawful regulations if practical difficulty is established and certain conditions have been met. b. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Conditions necessary for the public interest have been recommended. c. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. ADUs in the RB - Two Family Residential district have not been a nuisance or are detrimental to the public. This use would be consistent with all ADUs within the community. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the Special Use Permit, and associated variances thereof, with the following conditions: a. Plans shall be in substantial conformance to those on file with Case No. 2015- 24. b. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineering Department and a grading escrow, in an amount deemed sufficient by the Engineering Department, for the new construction shall be submitted. c. A Design Permit shall be obtained from the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the submittal of a building permit. 1343 1st Street South Case 2015-24 (CPC: 8/12/2015) Page 4 d. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the residence. The building permit shall clearly show the maximum height of the accessory structure, in correlation to the height of the existing residence. e. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the ADU shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. 2. Determine that the proposed ADU is not consistent with the Special Use Permit provisions and deny the Special Use Permit. 3. Continue the public hearing until September 9, 2015 for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The applicant has demonstrated that with certain variances and conditions, the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit meets the standards set forth for Special Use Permits. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty exists regarding the 17.6' variance to the 25' rear yard setback as the proposal is reasonable, there are unique circumstances to the location of the primary structure and the issuance of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant has not demonstrated practical difficulty exists regarding the 152 square foot variance to the 800 square foot maximum garage footprint provision for ADUs. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and a 17.6' variance to the Rear Yard Setback. Staff recommends denial of the 152 square foot variance to the 800 square foot maximum garage footprint provision for ADUs. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Certificate of Survey Additions and Alterations Planset (4 pages) 1343 1st Street South Case 2015-24 (CPC: 8/12/2015) Page 5 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota 1343 1st Street South Subject Parcel Parcel Boundaries - Municipal Boundary 70 140 280 Feet General Site Location u o c a.. D I \-5 t 1 a c,i • July 18, 2015 Attn: Abbi Jo Wittman; City of Stillwater From: Lowell Schmoeckel Subject: New construction garage I am requesting permission from the Planning Commission for approval to build a two story garage. My request for a variance is based on the following: room for two cars, a 16ft- fishing boat, two snowmobiles, snow blower, lawn mower, tool box and a car lift on the East side of the garage. The plans have been drawn are for 980 sq ft lower level and a 658 sq ft upper level bonus room. The reason for the bonus room is for my hobbies such as, model railroading, lure making and to store my collection of Stillwater memorabilia. The plans that I came up with match the design of the existing property, and also the roof style in the neighborhood. Lowell Schmoeckel CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: LOWELL SCHMAECKEL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 13 and Lot 14, Block 1, of CHURCHILL'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. NOTES: UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT LOCATED OR SHOWN EASEMENTS, IF ANY, MAY EXIST. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO RESEARCH RECORDED OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED. THE EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO RESEARCH OR SURVEY THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES FOR GAPS AND OVERLAPS. PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS GARAGE FLOOR = 891.3 AREAS: OVERALL AREA= 13,251 SQ,FT. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA HOUSE=1,41 7 SQ. FT. SHED=98 SQ. FT. CONCRETE=766 SQ. FT. DECK=336 SQ. FT. TOTAL AREA=2,61 7 PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA HOUSE & PORCH = 1,294 SQ.FT. ADDITION=1 87 SQ. FT. GARAGE=972 SQ. FT. DECKS=261 SQ. FT. SIDEWALKS=312 SQ.FT. DRIVEWAY=1 ,287 TOTAL AREA=4,31 3 SQ.FT. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the tale of Minnesota. DANIEL L. TURMES License. No. 25718 ate 8-27-07 W ©cr CURB AND b 18" TREE GRAVEL SURFACE J 18" .TREE 'E AT) EXISTING HOUSE 30" TREE N89°350 134.33 134.2 ( 15" TREE �i iiiii�}iu-�ii��i DECK STONE WALL - Lu1LLLu1L� m_ , /////ir -- 34.4j ,l////////////i//l// 10 - 18" TREE PROPOSED_ ADDITION __ ///////////////////////i L-__L 20" TREE '-SET DRILL HOLE CONfC. CURB AND CUTTER 0-i o- a001 - ro 134:2 (PLAT) 134.33 S89°34' 10"W ORLEANS STREET (BITUMINOUS,' SURFACE) CONC. CURB AND GUTTER 6- co LILAC BUSHES 6" PINE 10" PINE' 8" PINS 48" STUMP w en cY)VD O o co o o-. ;,GS, FOUND I" —IRON PIPE cp c PROJECT LOCATION: 1343 1ST Street Stillwater, Minnesota NORTH 20 40 SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET LEGEND: SYMBOLS • �852 — 909 — DESCRIPTION WATER VALVE UTILITY POLE OVERHEAD WIRES GAS METER FENCE CONCRETE DENOTES FOUND 1 /2" IRON PIPE DENOTES SET 1 /2" IRON PIPE MARKED RLS 25718 DENOTES PROPOSED ELEV. DIRECTION OF PROP. SURFACE DRAINAGE PROPOSED CONTOURS Suite #B100 200 East Chestnut Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 Fax 651.275.8976 dlt-csls@ mcleodusa .net CORNERSTONE LANE) SURVEYING, INC �I1TIIMPT c 179 --\ \ — O - L Mi"MiMiii11111''Tillr'iiMiiiii■■■'■■�i'ii�i■"■'ii'ii�ii■'ril�i�i�iii�iiiil:'ii'�ir1'i'i�r'■i ■"�iii�iii�■'�r"r�■i�■�■i ■■■ '■■■■■■■■■N�_.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �■ON ■■� ■■■ ■■■■■■� ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■�■■ 1iNIMI■■■■-�� ■I■■■■I■■■■1■■■■1■■■■I■■■■I■■■■I■■■■1■■■■1■■■■I■■■■r■■�■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r ■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■ire■■■■■■■■■■■■■r■■i■■■■■�■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■r■■■■■■■■■M■■■■r■■■■r■■■■1■■■■ MILIII■■■r■■■■I■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■M■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r■■■■r ■■■■■■■ ■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1 ■1■■■■I■■■■1■„■I■■■■1■■■■I■■■■1■■■■I■■■■1■■■■I■■■■I■■■ I■■■■Ii�i�r■■■I■■�1■■■■1■■■■��1■■■■I■■■■1■■■■r■■■■r■■■■1■■■■I■■■■r■■■■1 r-� REAR ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE -----+-- ti �1 Of' 0 ti LEFT ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" SCALE J - FLOOR & ROOF LOADING - FLOOR LOADING: LI480 DEF. ROOF LOADING: U240 DEF, LOAD DURATION: 1.00 L.D.F. LOAD DURATION: 1.15 L.D.F. LIVE LOAD: 40 P.S.F. LIVE LOAD: 40 P.S.F. T)PAD I OAD- 15 P S.F DEAD LOAD: 70 P S F TOTAL. LOAD: 55 P.S.F. TOTAL LOAD: 60 P.S.F. III y II RIGHT ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" SCALE �■ L L , ■■■1■■■ I■■■1■■■■1■■■■1■ �■■■ 11■■■■1 ■/■■; Ut■ 1■■■■■■■■■■■■ !! ■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■ NINE MINIM ■■■■■■■■■■i■■ ■■•■■■■■■■■l■1 ■■■■■ II 11 1■■■■ MI■M■■1.,■■'■■■ I■■■I■■■■I■■■■1■■ I■■■■1■■■■1■■■■1.I 11■■■MI I MINI 1■■■■■1■■■■■■ 1 ■■■■■■ITHINI f' F■■NN' ■■■■ ;:::;::: ;::! :;:::;:: IMM ::: ;::: ;::: ;. MINI .:: I I::: i:■. u:::ammimmicounrum� ' '.' ii. 1111 ' ::C4'.■ �::1 �:1:11 ::�: ■■■■ ■:::::■iI I11 ■::: 11.I BIMI : :,,:'..: : : :: � : � NIIII ■ MINI.i:: N .■U � 11:� ::::■ .::■'M:N. :: � ::■■: ■■■■■I■■■■I�■I■M■■I■MM■I■M■■I■■■■I M■ IH �■.i■1■ra■U■1■■■■I■■■■ MIIMI■aa1■■■■1■■■■r■■■■I■■.■Il/■II■■■■I■■■■I ■ ■1■■/■1 I 1 1 I. IT I 1 I 1 I. 1 1 1. I 1 1 1 1 FRONT ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE - - \ - O --'_\ -- DESIGN PHASE PRELIMINARY DATE: 10.16.2013 CHECK SET DATE: 07.15.2015 FINAL CHECK SET DATE: REVISION 1 DATE: REVISION 2 DATE: REVISION 3 DATE: 46. ABC arrow BUILDING CENTER 876 COUNTY ROAD U HUDSON, WI 54016 PH: 715.386.2371 FAX: 715.386.5804 SCHMOECKEL -GARAGE 1343 1ST STREET - STILLWATER, MN 55082 ARROW BUILDING CENTER OWNS ALL RIGHTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHTS OF THE BLUEPRINTS OR FLOOR PLANS CREATED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. ARROW BUILDING CENTER LICENSES THE BLUEPRINT OF FLOOR PLAN TO THE CUSTOMER FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING THE STRUCTURE DEPICTED IN THE BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN. THE CUSTOMER SHALL NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE TO THE PUBLIC, OR DISPLAY THIS BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN. THIS BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN IS NOT A WORK MADE FOR HIRE AS DEFINED UNDER 17 U.S.C. SECTION §101. ALTHOUGH EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE IN PREPARING THESE PLANS AND CHECKING THEM FOR ACCURACY, THE CONTRACTOR/HOMEOWNER MUST VERIFY GRADES, FOOTING SIZES, ELEVATIONS, ROUGH OPENINGS, HEADER AND BEAM SIZES, ALL OTHER DIMENSIONS AND SPECS, AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. DRAWN BY: GORY TUNHEIM SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SHEET: 1 OF 3 ROOM SIZE & SHAPE MAY VARY BONUS ROOM 11 — 8'-0" CEILING W/ SLOPES 3/4" T&G SUBFLOOR TYPICAL 2x6 EXTERIOR WALL: CEMENT LAP SIDING 7/16" OSB SHEATHING 2x6 STUDS @ 16" O.C. SHOP R19 BATT INSULATION `- g'-g" CEILING 4 mil POLY V.B. 1/2" DRYWALL TAPED & SANDED 3-1/2" CONCRETE FLOOR 6X6-10 X 10 WELDED WIRE MESH 1 COURSE - 8" BLOCK CONTINUOUS THROUGH SLAB AND .. BENT DOWN ALONG EXTERIOR EDGES. 1/ 6'• T\ NI =.-.- 9 ll 1 ._. ' i - 1 - - ONES nE I . _ =,I _==...•• _ � _. 1 _ _ II y- -W---III=W�WIII�AI -. �IA�A..WAI....- - 11 --lJ I - - - _ - _ 1 11 111 1 1 1 1 R 11-111=RI- 111- 111 11-1 — 1 11 Iid _ • —li elll i t ii n>°II®®Ir�l �WI--�. � �W- =m-"=III =-. _ _ _ _ - III==1Ili-L-Ifi- - - - = n -I - ....mW....- I Wi Wm mj_j_iA el - W i I - H - i 111 n - W i I - n - H -11- - I_ a DI= _ . 41@! _ - I iffi i"$I! i-1 -- - - ,- � sumiLIorms I®i1=�1 u- i_ i = iel l i ' ROWS OF CONTINUOUS REBARiE ArallAaii EI= ism N=ril_p1 HICKENED EDGE FOOTINGT_IIEIEI-111i31E11 '- -11 fmlailE1 =11E1- 11=111=111=111=111=111-11-' E111=111=111=111E11EIB EIIE IEIEIb-III 1� IIEII ,_ Par- -11 EH>glll=,t i, "Ell Ell = I =II OU=MMIEIII`_'I,IJ= = IEIIEEEn® 11i81= - IEIIIEIEITi= I wPIIEITIEITIE1T1=ITI=m=wdl mirefflEnnl= 1 -1=1E11®IIEII=IIIEI 1 I -�, Er - - 1: _II F MUM UIEII - MA t3 = E=11=I !=11 IIIEI = E rat- 71 11- - - rr _ 1 r rr-1r_ -. _. _ - MIME _- `-" IEEEMEII MEEEIII=_ , EMEIE EM11-11 EEC N UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE BONUS ROOM: 658 SQ. FT. XXXXXXXX WINDOWS SHOWN ALL HEADERS TO BE (2) 2X10'S UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL HEADERS 6'-0" WIDE AND LARGER TO HAVE MINIMUM OF 2 TRIMMERS UNDER EACH END UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ?" DIA. GALVANIZED ANCHOR BOLT. 0" O.C. MAXIMUM SPACING. VO BOLTS PER PIECE MINIMUM. FURTHER THAN 12" FROM ENDS. n `7 - FLOOR & ROOF LOADING - FLOOR LOADING: U480 DEF. LOAD DURATION: 1.00 L.D.F. LIVE LOAD: 40 P.S.F. DFAII I OAD 15 P.S F TOTAL LOAD: 55 P.S.F. ROOF LOADING: U240 DEF. LOAD DURATION: 1.15 L.D.F. LIVE LOAD: 40 P.S.F. fFA01 OAD: 2D P.S.F TOTAL LOAD: 60 P.S.F. 34'-0" 23'-6" BONUS ROOM 8'-0" CEILING W/ SLOPES - • • • idC J W W rx 0 co 1n 0 0) ad ■ N 19 a N O I 4'-3" 3'-7'/e' x 3'-0%" 8'-6" 3'-7%" x 3'-01/8" 3 8'-5%" 10'-6" OPEN TO BELOW VAULTED CEILING VAULT LINE STRUCTURAL SCISSOR GABLE END TRUSS. BALLOON FRAME WALL TO BOTTOM CHORD OF TRUSS. -7''/e' x 3'-0W 3'-7%" x 3'-0%" 8'-61/z' 4'-3" 34'-0" DESIGN PHASE PRELIMINARY DATE: 10.16.2013 CHECK SET DATE: 07.15.2015 FINAL CHECK SET DATE: REVISION 1 DATE: REVISION 2 DATE: REVISION 3 DATE: JIMarrow BUILDING CENTER 876 COUNTY ROAD U HUDSON, WI 54016 PH: 715.386.2371 FAX: 715.386.5804 EL - GARAGE fILLWATER, MN 55082 SCHMOECKI 1343 1ST STREET - S" ARROW BUILDING CENTER OWNS ALL RIGHTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHTS OF THE BLUEPRINTS OR FLOOR PLANS CREATED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. ARROW BUILDING CENTER LICENSES THE BLUEPRINT OF FLOOR PLAN TO THE CUSTOMER FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING THE STRUCTURE DEPICTED IN THE BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN. THE CUSTOMER SHALL NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE TO THE PUBLIC, OR DISPLAY THIS BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN. THIS BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN IS NOT A WORK MADE FOR HIRE AS DEFINED UNDER 17 U.S.C. SECTION §101. ALTHOUGH EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE IN PREPARING THESE PLANS AND CHECKING THEM FOR ACCURACY, THE CONTRACTOR/HOMEOWNER MUST VERIFY GRADES, FOOTING SIZES, ELEVATIONS, ROUGH OPENINGS, HEADER AND BEAM SIZES, ALL OTHER DIMENSIONS AND SPECS, AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. DRAWN BY: CORY TUNHEIM SCALE: 1/4" = 11-0" SHEET: 3oF3 �" a///////////////////////////4 1 /, 7 l / / X / ///// / j j/ 1 COURSE - 8" BLOCK ATOP 3-1/2" CONCRETE SLAB WITH THICKENED EDGE FOOTING 2 ROWS OF CONTINUOUS REBAR / / / / // / j / 1/2" DIA. GALVANIZED ANCHOR BOLT. v/1, 6'-0" O.C. MAXIMUM SPACING. TWO BOLTS PER PIECE MINIMUM. % N y // NO FURTHER THAN 12" FROM ENDS. ,,L UNEXCAVATED / / / ' / // o 0 4 /I// / / 6X6-10 X 10 WELDED WIRE MESH ' / CONTINUOUS THROUGH SLAB AND 1/ / BENT DOWN ALONG EXTERIOR EDGE$. ' / / �/ y / / \ v/ / _ _. _ - _.. _..._ __ _.-_.. ____. /// ////__ // / 2 -7 I, 16'-3" 3' 1" L 9'-3" 2'-10" 34'-0" FOUNDATION PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE Co N MAIN FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE GARAGE: 952 SQ. FT. 9'-9 1/8" HIGH PLATE HEIGHT XXXXXXXXXX WINDOWS SHOWN ALL HEADERS TO BE (2) 2X10'S UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 0 N ALL HEADERS 6'-0" WIDE AND LARGER TO HAVE MINIMUM OF 2 TRIMMERS UNDER EACH END UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. - FLOOR & ROOF LOADING - FLOOR LOADING: U480 DEF. LOAD DURATION: 1.00 L.D.F. LIVE LOAD: 40 P.S.F. DEAD LOAD- 15 P S F TOTAL. LOAD: 55 P.S.F. ROOF LOADING: U240 DEF. LOAD DURATION: 1.15 L.D.F. LIVE LOAD: 40 P.S.F. DAD I OAD: 20 P.S F TOTAL LOAD: 60 P.S.F. 34'-0" 23'-0" 4'-0" x 2'-0" 11'-0" 16'X8' (3) 1.55E - 14" LSL HEADER F TYPICAL 2x6 EXTERIOR WALL: CEMENT LAP SIDING 7/16" OSB SHEATHING 2x6 STUDS @ 16" o.c. R19 BATT INSULATION 4 mil POLY V.B. 1/2" DRYWALL TAPED & SANDED GARAGE VAULTED CEILING 3-1/2" CONCRETE FLOOR • • • O 1n U N c0 LLJ O 2 F FL. VAULT LINE 8' X 8' 10'-8" 15'-11" 7'-5" / DESIGN PHASE PRELIMINARY DATE: 10.16.2013 CHECK SET DATE: 07.15.2015 FINAL CHECK SET DATE: REVISION 1 DATE: REVISION 2 DATE: REVISION 3 DATE: iliamABC Arrow BUILDING CENTER 876 COUNTY ROAD U HUDSON, WI 54016 PH: 715.386.2371 FAX: 715.386.5804 SCHMOECKEL -GARAGE 1343 1ST STREET - STILLWATER, MN 55082 ARROW BUILDING CENTER OWNS ALL RIGHTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHTS OF THE BLUEPRINTS OR FLOOR PLANS CREATED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. ARROW BUILDING CENTER LICENSES THE BLUEPRINT OF FLOOR PLAN TO THE CUSTOMER FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING THE STRUCTURE DEPICTED IN THE BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN. THE CUSTOMER SHALL NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE TO THE PUBLIC, OR DISPLAY THIS BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN. THIS BLUEPRINT OR FLOOR PLAN IS NOT A WORK MADE FOR HIRE AS DEFINED UNDER 17 U.S.C. SECTION §101. ALTHOUGH EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE IN PREPARING THESE PLANS AND CHECKING THEM FOR ACCURACY, THE CONTRACTOR/HOMEOWNER MUST VERIFY GRADES, FOOTING SIZES, ELEVATIONS, ROUGH OPENINGS, HEADER AND BEAM SIZES, ALL OTHER DIMENSIONS AND SPECS, AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. DRAWN BY: CORY TUNHEIM SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SHEET: 20F3 34'-0" PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 12, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-25 APPLICANT: Kenneth and Geraldine Heifort, property owners REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a cluster residential development to be known as Heifort Hills, 8753 & 8911 Neal Avenue PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION At the developer's request, staff is requesting the Commission table consideration of this item until the Council's September 9 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 12, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-28 APPLICANT: Betsy Glennon, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a 9' variance to the 20' Front Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] from Harriet Street south and a 17' variance to the 30' Slope Setback [City Code Section 31-521m Subd. 1(d)] associated with the construction of an attached porch proposed to be added to the structure located at 812 Harriet Street South ZONING: RB: One Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Betsy Glennon has applied for variances to make certain improvements to the property located at 812 Harriet Street South. The improvement is for the removal of an existing 5' +/- porch, located on the rear (north), and the replacement of it with a 16.5' long porch that would extend 9' beyond the wall of the home. Consequently, the applicant is requesting the following variances: • A 9' variance to the 20' Front Yard Setback from Harriet Street • A 13' variance to the 30' Slope Setback APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits." Section 31-208 further indicates: • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. The applicant must demonstrate that: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose a Front Yard Setback is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits. However, the structure's existing easterly wall will remain approximately 1' closer to the property line than the new addition. While the variances to the Front Yard Setback is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Regulations, the variance to the steep slope is not consistent with the general purposes of the Zoning Regulations, to reduce risk associated with developed by steep or unstable slopes. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies steep slopes on this property and further indicates the City to develop a setbacks or buffers from the edge of sensitive areas. The variance to the steep slope is not consistent with the Natural Resources chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; The applicant has indicated the addition is reasonable as it will be in keeping with the character of the home. As the proposed improvements include a reconstruction of the existing addition, with a 66 square foot increase, the use is reasonable. Although the porch will extend 4' closer to the bluffline, adequate separation of 13' to the top of bluff will minimize disturbance to the top of bluff in this location. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and The applicant cites the topography of the lot is unique. While this is partially true, the uniqueness lies also in the placement of the home, situated at the southeast corner of the property. The construction of the home maximized the flat areas of the lot and maintained a distance from the top of bluff. With that, expansion of the home into the Front Yard Setback area and closer to the top of bluff are the few options this structure has for expansion. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Case No. 2015-28 CPC: August 12, 2015 Page 2 of 3 The applicant indicates the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Further indicated is that the porch addition will help add to the historic character of the home. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make findings practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a 9' variance to the 20' Front Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] from Harriet Street south and a 17' variance to the 30' Slope Setback [City Code Section 31-521m Subd. 1(d)] associated with the construction of an attached porch proposed to be added to the structure located at 812 Harriet Street South, with or without conditions. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2015-28. b. A building permit, or an amendment to an existing building permit, shall be reviewed and approved prior to exterior alterations. c. The porch addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure. d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance. 3. Table the application and request additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends conditional approval of a 9' variance to the 20' Front Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)] from Harriet Street South and a 17' variance to the 30' Slope Setback [City Code Section 31-521m Subd. 1(d)] associated with the construction of an attached porch proposed to be added to the structure located at 812 Harriet Street South. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Survey (Cornerstone Surveying) Contour Map (Washington County) Building Plans Case No. 2015-28 CPC: August 12, 2015 Page 3 of 3 To: From: Margaret E. (Betsy) Glennon 812 Harriet St S Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Request for Variance from slope setback Planning Commission, City of Stillwater, MN am requesting a variance from the slope setback requirement for purposes of restoring the traditional main entryway to my 1880's era cottage , which entry way overlooks an undeveloped portion of my lot facing a wooded ravine. Strict application of the standards does not take into account the topography of the 16,000 foot lot and a minor adjustment is requested. Practical difficulties in complying with the current requirements are encountered given the unique topography of the lot, as demonstrated in the accompanying contour map from Washington County. The elevations meander across the entire lot, and strict adherence would render most of the lot unbuildable and/or restorable. The use of the entryway is reasonable, as it is in character with the historical purpose of the home and will be completed using reclaimed lumber in the existing entryway's screened porch, historical colors, etc. The circumstances are unique to the property's topography, which has not been altered since the original home was built. In fact, efforts have been made to preserve the top of the slope with tree plantings, rainwater installation, drainage improvements, and native grass and garden plantings. If granted, the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and will, in fact, enhance it. The northside entry is shielded from public view and overlooks an undeveloped, forested area which is landlocked on three sides. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR: Margaret Glennon PROJECT LOCATION: 81 2 HARRIET STREET SOUTH & 706 CHURCHILL ST. WEST STILLWATER, M I N N ESOTA O LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: EXISTING PARCEL A LEGAL DESCRIPTION The East Haif of Lot 10 and all of Lot 1 1 , Block 7, HOLCOMBE'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, Washington County, Minnesota. PROPOSED PARCEL A LEGAL DESCRIPTION (SUBJECT TO APPROVALS) The East Haif of Lot 10; Lot 11 except the north 18.02 feet of the east 25.12 feet thereof, Block 7, HOLCOMBE'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, according to Myron Shepard's Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater, dated May 31, 1878, on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota. ABBOTT STREET• (UNIMPROVED) N89°42'30 " W 18 100.14 • O' W CJ • O ; EXISTING PARCEL B LEGAL DESCRIPTION (as referenced in Warranty Deed Doc. 902361) Lots 1 and 2 and the north 12.00 feet of Lot 12, Block 7, HOLCOMBE'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, S89°4 1 '55 "E Washington County, Minnesota. Together with an 25.04.E easement only over and across the North 12.00 feet of the East 20.00 feet of Lot 11, said Block 7. — ; 07 to „ 0.... PROPOSED PARCEL B LEGAL DESCRIPTION (SUBJECT TO APPROVALS) Lots 1 and 2; the north 18.02 feet of the east 25.12 feet of Lot 11; the north 12.00 feet of Lot 12, all in Block 7, HOLCOMBE'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, according to Myron Shepard's Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater, dated May 31, 1878, on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota. PROPOSED EXCHANGE PARCEL I.EGAL DESCRIPTION (SUBJECT TO APPROVALS) The north 18.02 feet of the east 25.12 feet of Lot 11, Block 7, HOLCOMBE'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, according to Myron Shepard's Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater, dated May 31, 1878, on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota. NORTH 30 60 SCALE: 1 INCH = 30 FEET O NOTES: 1. UTILITIES NOT LOCATED OR SHOWN 2. EASEMENTS, IF ANY, MAY EXIST. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO RESEARCH RECORDED OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS. 3. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED. 4. THE EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO RESEARCH OR SURVEY THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES FOR GAPS AND OVERLAPS. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the a of Minnesota. DANIEL L.419131tI(•IES License. No. 25718 REVISED 6-11-1,, ate 6-7-12 , 111 r+ Y \o[ a H O O z'l =p , O 1-f- OfO k_ N J i J i , , , v, -- 3w PARCEL A---'' 1- 0 50.00 PLAT OL 50.00 PLAT c3 I C ) O -- PARC'EL B .-- ,• 12 X 20 FOOT EASEMENT AS RECITED IN THE LEGAL DESCIRPTION AND FURTHER DESCRIBED IN DOC. NO. 371540 S89°41'SS�E _4 95 LOT 2 ` LOT II o 3. N '\ o Q � 25.12 0 S89°41'551"El O ,4 GARAGE 75.12'i _2' 0 EXCHANGE--`z PARCEL `OUCH LINE OF BLOCK 7, HOLCOMBE'S Ah)DIhTION — //// / DECK a//l// a j EXISTING HOUSE y; oLs k7o6/CHURCHILL T. W w i c) w u. '1. CON.. CURB & GUifER POSSIBLE r J - FOUND 1/2" IRON STREET 0 J yi LOT .I I LOT I? BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY, 6 FOUND P.K. NAIL T 4 50.07 S89°41 '55 "L`'," -ram EDGE OF BITUMINOUS �I DRIVEWAY M F -% EXISTING GARAGE _ EXISTING HOUSE +. 75.10 ----- PIPE MARKED VACATION S89°4 1 ' ? 1 "E "STACK" CHURCHILL STREET WEST (BITUMINOUS SURFACE) (PLATTEb AS PENNOCK ST.) • DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT MARKED AS NOTED AREA: AREA OF EXISTING PARCEL A = 11,261 SQ.FT. AREA OF EXISTING PARCEL B = 1 O,6 16 SQ.FT. 4REA OF PROPOSED PARCEL A = 10,808 SQ.FT. AREA OF PROPOSED PARCEL B = 16,.U69 SQ.F1. AREA OF PROPOSED EXCHANGE PARCEL = 453 SQ.FT. DENOTES OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE O DENOTES 1 /2" X 1 8" IRON PIPE SET AND MARKED BY RLS 25718 1 60' R/W CONIC. CURB & GUTTER Suite #1 6750 Stillwater Blvd. N. . Stillwater, MN 55082 `, Phone 651.275.8969 .. Fax 651.275.8976 dan@ cssurvey .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC $17.00 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SURVEY AND LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION 14949 62nd Street Notth, P.O. Bar 6 SNlwater, Minnesota 55082-0006 (651) 430-6875 surveyortkawashirraton.mn.us wym.co.washIngton.mn.us/surveyor CONTOUR LEGEND 10 FOOT INTERVAL CONTOUR 2 FOOT INTERVAL CONTOUR Contours are provided courtesy of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Minnesota DNR makes no representation or warranties, express or imMied, with mixed to the muse of data pmvided herewith, regardless of its format or the means of transmission. There is no guarantee or representation to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability, or reliability of this data for any purpose. The user accepts the data as is, and assumes at risks associated with its use. The Minnesota DNR assumes no responsibility for actual or consequential damage incurred as a result of any user's reliance on this data. LEGEND DNR PROTECTED WATERS . • ---- • • DNR PROTECTED WE -RAND — DNR PROTECTED WATERCOURSE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY PARK BOUNDARY NORTH SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet SECTION -TOWNSHIP -RANGE INDEX 1--1-1--1 132°3°2°133°3°2°134°3°2°1 COUNTY VICINITY MAP * = LOCATION OF THIS IAAP SECTION VICINITY IMP 22 2/' I 12 11 23WfW24t 1 -3NIE 14 32 31 42 41 slist 4_ 33 34 43 44 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FORMAT (GEOCODE) SECTON PNINSNIP RANGE WARIER SPECIFIC KAREN MSUER NUMBER OUNRER PARCEL Si ### tt tt till (owl) .1/417H.A.Millf8 m=.B.OFP110PINIff THIS DRAWING IS THE RESULT OF A COMPILATION AND REPRODUCTION OF LAND RECORDS AS THEY APPEAR IN VARIOUS WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICES. WASHINGTON COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INACCUR4CIES. PROPERTY LINES AS SHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES AND MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL LOCATIONS, MAP IAST UPDATED: Janumy30, 2015 NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO DATE DATE OF CONTOURS: November, 2011 DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY: May, 2013 © Copyright 2015, Washington County 05 8 Letive s 01, e r-ro-tme `v‘i 441,m? octifs A' io - S Aultej IA— tf itz'' okx:._ Pywayeis z xc. JO$1L ce, ll, 0+1 5 TA'N'fjjAgr �,1Q oc- rile' iv lea kootTrii tit :5-/-1, z" ovarkti,47 12" Ligk deep w 7 Ris < fi r RL?t Uwater H¢ S I X I H P 4 A f, E OF MINNESOTA. PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 12, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-21 APPLICANT: Mike Johnson, Graphic House Designs, representing Lake Elmo Bank REQUEST: Consideration of a certain variances for a free-standing sign to be located at 1937 Greeley Street South ZONING: BPC - Business Park Commercial COMP PLAN: Commercial PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND At the Planning Commission's July meeting, the Commission held a hearing for a variance associated with the installation of a second free-standing sign to be located on the Lake Elmo Bank property, 1937 Greeley Street South. The sign necessitated a variance as City Code' indicates properties may have one freestanding sign. It was determined in the hearing the desirable location for the applicant was not as submitted but, rather, a location that would be closed than 15' to the property line. As the City Code further indicates "[a] freestanding sign must be set back 15 feet from the front or side property line," and the location would require a variance that was not lawfully noticed for, the Commission had to continue the public hearing and notice for the additional variance. UPDATED REQUEST Since the hearing, the applicant has submitted a new site plan indicating where the second sign is proposed to be located. The applicant's site plan indicates the 5' wide sign would be 5'6" from the property line. Thus, a 4.5' variance would be required. However, in correspondence with Jim Hall, the Principal Project Manager for the Minnesota Department of Transportation project, it appears there is limited space between the property line and the back of the (parking lot) curb in this location. While MNDOT's Right of Way (ROW) plan indicates 5.85' in this area, Mr. Hall indicated this is not based on survey data and is not 100% accurate. Mr. Hall indicates the ROW is not parallel to the parking lot curb. Given the City does not have a survey of the property, and provided the MNDOT Site Plan is accurate, the applicant's request is for a second free standing sign and an (up to) 15' setback variance for the location of the sign to be located within 1' of the property line. ' Section 31-509, Subd. 8(a) APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits." Section 31-208 further indicates: • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. The applicant must demonstrate that: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The purpose of the sign regulations is to keep them within reasonable boundaries consistent with the objectives and goals of the community to retain its special character and economic advantages which rest in part on the quality of its appearance. The size of the sign and general location of the sign is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no contradictory elements with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; The installation of signage adjacent to this street frontage is reasonable. As indicated in oral testimony in the July hearing, the desire for a free-standing sign in this location is to direct traffic from Greeley Street to this newly -created business entrance. At the hearing, the Commission determined the free-stnading sign is reasonable. In relationship to the placement of the sign, the location may not be reasonable given the fact the applicant has not been able to demonstrate the proposed sign would be located wholly on the subject property. If certain conditions were met, then the location may be found to be reasonable. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and 1937 Greeley Street South Case 2015-21 (CPC: 8/12/2015) Page 2 Prior to 2015, Lake Elmo Bank was not located adjacent to a street in this location. As the property boundaries were redefined with the roadway realignment, signage at the new access is important to identify the building and note access to the property. At the hearing, the Commission determined the reconfiguration of the roadway and driveway accessed to be unique. The uniqueness of the roadway and driveways created the difficulty for the owner to meet the 15' setback, as well. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. During the July hearing, the Commission took public testimony which included neighborhood opposition to the sign, specifically to the lighting of the sign. In the hearing it was indicated that the lighting would have a negative effect on the essential character of the locality. The Commission determined, however, the locality would not be substantially altered by the approval of the variance. In regards to the setback variance, the character of the locality will be slightly altered with this sign located within such close proximity to the ROW. However, if an (approximate) buffer 13-15.5' of boulevard exists between the sign and the developed street, then the character will be maintained. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Find practical difficulties does exist and approve the variance, with or without conditions. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2015-10 and dated July 14, 2015; and 2. Prior to the issuance of a sign permit, the applicant will submit a Certificate of Survey showing the proposed sign in relationship to the parking lot curb, the West Frontage Road curb and the property line; and 3. The sign shall not be internally lit. 4. Any lighting shall be directed at the face of the sign and shall have produce no illumes at the property line. 2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance. 3. Table the application and request additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The application has demonstrated that practical difficulty exists for the second free-standing sign in that what is proposed is reasonable, there are uniquenesses to the property that were not created by the landowner or business and that, if certain conditions are met, the essential character of the property will not be altered. 1937 Greeley Street South Case 2015-21 (CPC: 8/12/2015) Page 3 The applicant has demonstrated that if certain conditions are met, a 15' setback variance should be granted as practical difficulties exist as the location is reasonable, the roadway and boulevard configuration is unique and the essential character of the locality will not be significantly altered. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of the following variances: 1. A variance to City Code Section 31-509, Subd. 8(c)(4) to allow for one additional free- standing sign for a total of two free standing signs to be located on the subject property. 2. A 15' variance to City Code Section 31-509, Subd. 8(c)(2) to allow for a free-standing sign to be located on the edge of the West Frontage Road Right -Of -Way. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request (July 14, 2015) Updated Site Plan (July 14, 2015) Sign Specifications MNDOT Site Plan (July 16, 2015) July CPC Staff Report and Attachments 1937 Greeley Street South Case 2015-21 (CPC: 8/12/2015) Page 4 APHE HOUSE, M1C I CORPORATE OFFICE 9204 PACKER DRIVE WAUSAU, WI 54401 TELEPHONE: 715-842-0402 FAX: 715-848-9108 July 14, 2015 City of Stillwater ATTN: Abbi Wittman 216 4th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Abbi, Enclosed are your requested variance documents for Lake Elmo Bank located at 1937 Greeley St. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me at 715-842-0402 ext 251 or email me at jamusb@graphichouseinc.com. Thanks again, we look forward to being added to your next meeting agenda. Jamus Baumgardt Project Manager Enclosures 9204 Packer Drive, Wausau, WI 54401 115-842.0402 ewx.graphf chQesesEcccm' OPPOSITE SIDE MATCHES FRONT WEei1 LAKE'ELVOEANK STILLWAtTER, M`i • 5' 0 LAKE ELMO BANK A TRADITION OF SERVICE 5' O SALES REP,. OATE JOB RRNBER: MIKEI 4-i5.2015 MI-8110 SAILS AUDIORIZASIOR: REVISION- 114.2015-B SIGN SFEDFICATIONS TO 0/F MDR ILMI..NIMB I DR MIIIIs11 OENIIMMOOFMN. NIB IIM1Ic 9113E24IWIRL •FIIss NFOLraIMIIMM UCORIMOMEDRIME* SHINNlEtMIRMINIM • Met FINS ILIFLLIGUMEN WON NMI rM31411 RR VIM IUMW OMO. •ILSEHNMREM=RBIS$ NMISITMMYOM). CLIENT HAS IDENTIFIED THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE SIGNAGE IS TO BE INSTALLED. THE CLIENT HAS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES TO SUPPORT THE SIGNAGE. Alt RIGIITS RESERVED 1111.1MM wWD°NXIIMK r'�°r° i IIPMNWE.AILO fa 1014iaw�rmr°r""miRNINOMPINICRIiR� M1°m' MCCIUMf OOLOV,MM111re011111i d IEIBII NOM DIIle10%03w31N9WUKwmOaa n[a"uww k,�'n"�eR'wan.nt. um"`Ku,`°A"`ur keWOR AC1Wtr. as p1"`, 1 I k6 GREELEY AVE T 1 9EL TON DRIVE LAKE ELMO BANK RIONT-OF•wAY ee FRORTApE RW Q 1L I L * rr 11 „-rj SCALE IN FEET oil a SEH ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING MN APPROACH PROJECT S.P. 8214-114 LAKE ELMO BANK RIGHT OF WAY Uwater H¢ B l X I H P 4 A f, E OF MINNESOTA. PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-21 APPLICANT: Mike Johnson, Graphic House Designs, representing Lake Elmo Bank REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance for a second free-standing sign to be located at 1937 Greeley Street South ZONING: BPC - Business Park Commercial COMP PLAN: Commercial PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a second free-standing sign to be located at a new property access point off of the newly designed West Frontage Road. While the applicant is proposing what is indicated as directional signage, no directional arrows are provided on the sign. As such, city staff has determined this sign to be a monument sign and must conform to the provisions for free-standing signs. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS City Code Section 31-509, Subd. 8(a) indicated properties may have one freestanding sign. City Code Section 31-208, Variances, identifies the city may grant a variance when all of the following findings are made: The gross surface area of a freestanding sign may not exceed 100 square feet for each exposed face nor exceed an aggregate gross surface area of 200 square feet. Location. A freestanding sign must be set back 15 feet from the front or side property line. A freestanding sign may not project higher than six feet. Signs shall be measured from base of sign or grade of the nearest adjacent roadway, whichever is lower. 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The purpose of the sign regulations is to keep them within reasonable boundaries consistent with the objectives and goals of the community to retain its special character and economic advantages which rest in part on the quality of its appearance. The size of the sign and general location of the sign is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no contradictory elements with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: i. The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; The installation of signage adjacent to this street frontage is reasonable. As such, the City Code allows for wall signage on the facade adjacent to the new Frontage Road, which staff has determined to be a reasonable alternative to the secondary free-standing sign. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and Prior to 2015, Lake Elmo Bank was not located adjacent to a street in this location. As the property boundaries were redefined with the roadway realignment, signage at the new access is important to identify the building and note access to the property. While this presents a uniqueness for this property, the ability to add wall signage reduces the arguments for a need for this free-standing sign. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant is proposing to place the sign 20' back from the property line; a minimum of 15' setback is required. If located 20' from the property line, the sign will be placed in the drive area adjacent to the roadway. This could cause significant traffic issues on this site. A free-standing sign could not be placed in the West Frontage Road boulevard and be compliant with the City Code provisions for a 15' setback. Section 31-208 further indicates: • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Find practical difficulties does exist and approve the variance, with or without conditions. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: • Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2015-10; and • The sign must be set back at least 15' from the property line; and • The sign may not be located in any existing parking and drive areas but may be located in landscaped medians. 1937 Greeley Street South Case 2015-21 (CPC: 7/8/2015) Page 2 2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance. 3. Table the application and request additional information. Staff finds practical difficulties do not exist as other reasonable alternatives, including the installation additional wall signage, and that the essential character of the site will be altered. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the second free-standing sign. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Sign Specifications Site Plan (Applicant Submission) Site Plan (Pre -Application Submission) 1937 Greeley Street South Case 2015-21 (CPC: 7/8/2015) Page 3 13 ;" W 1390 1360 1330 b' 164(i , ..1 2 1 56' W . a ,a , , 4675 I� i I 1� % l �l r1198 er _ 0 • _ 1439a 106 ^ a173 ., CURE 0 j� '� 1709 - 1050 ^ 1672 t �> BLVD , CREST ° s The Birthplace of Minnesota N .. w' / E 10 181 ss +., �tlT� r. ie. � r Ailli 0 a _ _ _ F _ a 1- f i 9". i _J X F,. . # - - ag b' Alas��. SF , _ �. Aq eh 1, < m ELT N_ L � 1937 Greeley Street South Subject Property Parcel Boundaries -0..- Municipal Boundary 0 180 360 720 Feet p �• cD ,i ^ �� I' a — r 11 !i CO ° 191" ,� General Site Location �P � a `1940 40 _ C LI ^ 470 T r a If a --- @3 " '� i {20o as,: ° x . ao ,-� poer. R, ��, }i ..� 111- i0� 141• =� 'r �� � . ] a � i�p,i ®' � s n , r `'� ' t o �� & � ,. , ; 1 �� � gg�� �r �\\��• RMF I. d. - I sue -. T ,9Ti- .. - . _. - � Request for Sign Variance Lake Elmo Bank, Stillwater, MN Lake Elmo Bank is requesting a variance to add one additional freestanding monument sign to identify the south entrance to their property. Due to the road changes this entrance has become much more important to access the property and many more of the Banks Customers as well as potential customers will be using this entrance. Obviously, the bank had no control in the road construction plans. The West entrance now has limited ingress and egress, and customers need to be directed to use the south entrance for ease and safety. A small sign would accomplish this without creating any additional clutter or visual concerns. This sign is not advertising in nature. It is to identify an entrance and be directional. This sign would not in any way impact or alter the character of the neighborhood. There are many much larger signs on neighboring properties. Thank you for your consideration, Mike Johnson Sales Graphic House, Inc Hartlind Outdoor, tic Phone- 715-842-0402 ext 242 Fax- 715-848-9108 :U.its, a .nc:.. GRAPHIC House tla usau?i4154d 01:"T . 5:1=2-! eizrephithou eiac.cor_ ,.. OPPOSITE,SIDE MATCHES FRONT LAKE ELMO BANK A TRADITION OF SERVICE 5.0' 96H SPECIIC1nORS 11C111311111.1011111E2111 21COME1610EF mama ERIOX •FICSgEAIIEABIEFgSCMEAREAEEAfiID IRA RIRIEtd47D131FTE811111/ Ol. *UAL FHBAH9iWWI 1E11®ARCA ARM TECUPL2UROC ENQOOL 'WESAMOM=FOUR INESIB[R EIM APPROX. NIGHT VIEW LAKE ELMO BANK A TRApir,ON OF SCRVICC CLEW RAS RIEHUREO THE LOCAPOP M MUCH THE =RACE IS TO BE WALLED. THE CUSIT RAS THE SOLE RESPOIISIORRY FOR THE STRUCTURAL &ECRU OF ALL EXISTING SFROCTORES TO SUPPORT THE SIGRACE. RLLRIGRISRESERID°aN`" .a = imonecca=ow 1.1m" "ems ,.. '" ' mesas I6 :R6.ua® 1 N...1I."°°' lieentE- �a1 . ;A a' ! t'0tit rY 'Is Us A NROPOSEO PRf3Pt7SED �`� ACCESS ACCESS` � c ogQ Se+ back frof er-vy AC OPTION 1 REUSES EXISTING CANOPY & EQUIPMENT • ACCESS FROM WEST IS THROUGH PARKING • TIGHT TURN FROM DRIVE THRU TO SOUTH • TIGHT TURN INTO DRIVE THRU FROM SOUTH • RELOCATE TRASH ENCLOSURE • RECONFIGURE PARKING ON EAST • ADD PARKING AT CLOSED WEST ACCESS (.2) PYi..s`3'N ' iy NEW ;TRASH - ` ENQOStiR PR I • ED ACIaliS ACTS LAKE ELMO BANK SITE REVISIONS- OPTION 1- W/ REVISED MNDOT PROPOSED ESS 431 Nohow 3111/1r1 Mum MA ._ ,OT. �IA WeXS Fs MALMO igiala MI MN erralsigepiftionim Stillwater, MN December 12, 2014 EXIi1BIT A SrllLwatEr_ 7 HE BIRTHPLACE fl T MINNESOTA •• Planning Commission Report DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE ZONING: REVIEWERS: August 6, 2015 August 12, 2015 Sterling Black, Developer Fairway Development, LLC Preliminary plat for 19 lot single-family subdivision Western terminus of Hazel Street PLAN: LMDR, Low/Medium Density Residential CASE NO.: 2015-22 1) Base Zoning District: RB, Two -Family Residential 2) Overlay District: Stream Shoreland Management District for Brown's Creek. Public Works Director, City Planner, Deputy Fire Chief, Browns Creek Watershed District PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Sterling Black came before the Planning Commission on July 8, 2015 with a 20-lot preliminary plat to be known as HAZEL PLACE VILLAS. The property is located at the western terminus of Hazel Street next to the Stillwater County Club. The initial application included numerous variances such as street width, lot frontage, cul-de-sac length, and building coverage. The Planning Commission could not find in favor of approving the variances requested and tabled action to allow the development team time to revise the preliminary plat. The revised plat (revision date 7/28/15 - attached) has eliminated one lot and all variances. The current 19-lot version meets all lot dimension standards, coverage standards and road design standards. Hazel Place Villas August 6, 2015 Page 2 The base zoning for the property is RB, Two -Family Residential. A small portion of the site is also encumbered by the Brown's Creek Stream Shoreland Management Overlay District (referred to as the "Stream Overlay District"). However, the Stream Overlay District only applies to the northern steep slopes, which will not be disturbed during this project. The entire overlay district will be included within Outlot A, and as a condition of plat approval will be encumbered by a conservation easement. The project site has a total gross area of 7.17 acres, 5.90 of which are located outside of the Brown's Creek buffer area and therefore considered developable. The 19 lots range in size from 8,907 square feet to 32,088 square feet. The minimum lot size allowed on the RB zoned property is 7,500 square feet. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant requests approval of the 7/28/15 version of the Preliminary Plat known as HAZEL PLACE VILLAS. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Minimum Dimensional Standards 1) Minimum lot standards for the subject RB Zoning District are given below. Lot Standards Area Width1 Frontage Depth Required 7,500 sf 50' 35' 100' All lot standards are met or exceeded by the 19 proposed lots. 2) Minimum building setbacks for the RB Zoning District are: Building setbacks Front (house) Front (garage) Side Rear Required 20' 30' Combined sides 15' (min 5') 25' All proposed building setbacks meet the letter of the Code. However, a primary goal of the RB Zoning District is to emphasize the house and not the garage. To accomplish this, staff believes the intent of the garage setback for the district is to set the garage at least 10 feet back of the front building line of the house. In other words, 10 feet further back from the street than the house. But, the words in the code say 10 feet back of the "front set back line" of the house. The ' Measured midway back along the side lot lines. Hazel Place Villas August 6, 2015 Page 3 effect of the literal words is to allow the garage to be 10 feet back of the 20 foot front set back line; or, 30 feet from the front lot line (irrespective of where the front wall of the building actually is located.) Therefore, the proposed garages meet the literal 30 foot setback requirement, even though they are in front of the house. In recognition of the conflict between literal and intended Code requirements, the developer is proposing to de-emphasize the proposed garages by side loading most of them. At least, standard windows will be visible from the street rather than expansive garage doors. 3) Maximum impervious surface coverage. In this zoning district, buildings are allowed to cover 25 % of the lot area, and in addition impervious surfaces can cover another 25 %. The driveways are all short enough that the impervious coverage is not an issue on any of the lots. And, as seen from the attached table, the building coverages have all been reduced below 25 % in this version of the Preliminary Plat. B. Civil Engineering The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and makes the following comments: • The proposed Hazel Court/Hazel Place/Hazel Street intersection should be redesigned to create a T-intersection. Hazel Street should simply continue straight through into the proposed development, and Hazel Court should be realigned to become a 90 degree stop -sign controlled intersection. • This would create a safer corner, since Hazel Court traffic would stop for traffic to and from the new subdivision. • To protect the integrity of the edge of the road, a minimum 12" wide, 7" thick concrete flat ("ribbon") curb shall be installed along the edge of the road in all areas where standard curb and gutter is not installed. • All the infiltration basins/rain gardens are shown to be on private property. They must therefore be privately maintained. Private maintenance will include all the storm sewer pipes including those under the right of way. Pipes under the road must be concrete. • The developer's civil engineer will need to submit data with Final Plat application materials to demonstrate that the pond material will achieve the proposed infiltration rate. • In reviewing the storm water calculations, there are a few concerns in areas where the ponds appear to overtop into the road. These need to be corrected in the Final Plat application materials. The distance from the High Water Level of a pond shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the road. Hazel Place Villas August 6, 2015 Page 4 • The overflow for pond 8C must not flow to the cul-de-sac, but to the west down Hazel Street. • The storm water plans must be reviewed and approved by the Brown's Creek Watershed District prior to City approval of the final plat. • The construction plans must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer prior to commencement of any site grading. • The property is serviced by sewer and water trunks that were installed as part of the North Hill Project. Trunk sewer and water charges are $11,249 per unit. Since the now demolished farm house was already assessed for sewer and water, one of the lots will be given credit. The total cost for the other 18 lots will be $202,482. This payment will be required prior to release of the Final Plat for recording with Washington County. • All electrical and communication utility lines are required to be buried. C. Fire Protection The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans and has found them satisfactory. The street lanes at the entrance will need to be at least 14 feet in each direction around the entrance island. D. Tree Removal, Replacement & Landscaping The significant trees on site have been located, numbered, sized and identified, and this information is shown on the plans and an attached table of tree species and size. Grading (and clearing) limits are also depicted on the plan. The trees on this site are primarily of the species quaking aspen, red pine, spruce, bigtooth aspen, as well as some birch, oak and ironwood. The faster growing volunteer species on much of the site are not defined in City Code as "significant". Steep slopes with tree cover are not within the construction limits, so no removal of trees will take place in those areas. More than 35% of the tree canopy on site will be removed. Therefore, a 1:1 replacement is required for each significant tree removed. 45 significant trees are slated for removal and will need to be replaced with a 2.5" diameter tree (measured at 56" above grade). Also, landscaping calls out for 2 trees per lot. So that yields another 38 trees in addition to the 45 replacement trees. The total required is 83. The total number proposed is 40. So, 43 more trees will need to be added to the final plat application materials. E. Park and Trail Dedication The Comprehensive Plan shows no public park needs on this site. Instead, the public park obligation ought to be satisfied by fee in lieu of land. The fee currently is $2,000 for each single-family lot added to the park system. Giving credit for the Hazel Place Villas August 6, 2015 Page 5 farm house that was demolished last year, the 18 additional lots would be a total fee of $36,000. Also, each additional home must contribute $500 toward the City's trail system, or $9,000. The total park and trail dedication fee would be $45,000. Payment of this fee will be required prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. F. Wetland and Stream Buffering As mentioned above, this property is near Brown's Creek and all property abutting this creek is required to provide an undisturbed buffer when developing. The boundary of that buffer zone, as determined by the Brown's Creek Watershed District, is shown on the attached plans. No grading or other disturbances are proposed within the buffer zone. G. Outlots One outlot is proposed. It a stormwater pond and steep, heavily wooded slopes that lie within the Brown's Creek buffer area. To protect these slopes, a conservation easement will be required at time of final plat release. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be satisfactory, it could approve the 19-lot Preliminary Plat, with at least the following conditions: 1. The site will be developed in substantial conformance with the following plans on file with the Community Development Department, except as may be modified by the conditions herein: • Existing Conditions Sheet C1.1 dated 6/19/15 • Tree Survey Sheet C1.2 & C1.3 dated 6/19/15 • Tree Removal Plan Sheet C1.4 dated 6/19/15 • Preliminary Plat Sheet C1.5 revision date 7/28/15 • Site Plan Sheet C2.0 revision date 7/27/15 • Utility Plan Sheet C2.1 dated 7/28/15 • Preliminary Grading Plan Sheet C2.2 dated 7/28/15 • Erosion Control Plan Sheet C2.3 dated 7/28/15 • Details Sheets C3.1-C3.5 rev date 7/06/15 • Planting Plan Sheet L1.1 dated 6/19/15 • Landscape Details Sheet L1.2 dated 6/19/15 • Planting Details Sheet L1.3 dated 6/19/15 2. The proposed Hazel Court/Hazel Place/Hazel Street intersection should be redesigned to create a T-intersection. Hazel Street should simply continue straight through into the proposed development, and Hazel Court should be realigned to become a 90 degree stop -sign controlled intersection. 3. The trunk sewer and water fees of $202,482 will be paid to the City prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. Hazel Place Villas August 6, 2015 Page 6 4. All electrical and communications utility lines will be buried. This is to be specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval. 5. Review comments from the Brown's Creek Watershed District will be addressed in the Final Plat application materials. 6. All civil engineering plans and construction plans must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction prior to release of the Final Plat for filing with Washington County. 7. The park and trail fees of $45,000, will be due to the City prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. 8. Outlot A will be covered by a conservation easement to protect the steep northern bluffline that faces Brown's Creek. As an alternative, only that portion of Outlot A within the so-called Modified Middle Zone Buffer of Brown's Creek need be encumbered by the easement. Under either option, the easement will be filed together with the Final Plat at Washington County. 9. Outlot A will be owned and maintained by the Home Owners' Association for the subdivision. Consequently, pertinent Home Owner's Association documentation shall be submitted together with the final plat application package, found satisfactory to the City Attorney and filed together with the Final Plat with Washington County. 10. Maintenance of the rain gardens and ditches will be the responsibility of the Home Owner's Association. This will be included within the Home Owners' Association documents and the language will be found acceptable by the City Attorney and the City Engineer or revised to their satisfaction. 11. 43 more trees will be added to the tree planting plans that accompany the Final Plat application materials. 12. Landscape plan L1.1 (dated 6/19/15) must be updated to show the elimination of one lot. This revision will be included in the final plat application materials. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds that the preliminary plat not to be complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be unsatisfactory, it could recommend denial. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. RECOMMENDATION Since the Preliminary Plat is compliant with the City development standards, and with the minimum lot standards for the property as it is zoned, staff recommends approval with the conditions found in Alternative A above. cc Sterling Black Roger Humphrey Attachments: Location Map Zoning Map Development Plan Set Lot coverage table 0 cn, 191i 0 0 1915 U u) 1905 1901 224 EAST WIL 1-81 H T8 J11E2 The Birthplace of Minnesota Hazel Place Villas 1902 William Street North Subject Parcels Parcel Boundaries ^�— Municipal Boundary 245 490 General Site Location 980 Feet 0 `J / 0 co C) • • O N N (73 ` 2 Brown's Creek T1IHNVV A-P, Agricultural Preservation • CR, Cottage Residential • • • • • LR, Lakeshore Residential Q 0 a) (/) CTR, Cove Traditional Residential a) a) 0) LL a) co 0 0 > 0 U U U CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential Residential c a) 0 a o c m o RCH - High Density Residential VC, Village Commercial CA- General Commercial CBD - Central Business District 11 BP-C, Business Park - Commercial BP-O, Business Park - Office 1 BP -I, Business Park - Industrial IB - Heavy Industrial a) a) E 0 0 m 0) 0 0 0 co cn cn N0) LL o_ E 0 0 0 0 POPLAR STREET PA - Public Administration PROS - Park, Rec or Open Space Public Works Facility SHEET NO: C1.5 T CHECKED BY: RH I D PROJECT NO: 527-003 I O) cn K NW COR. OF EAST 361.25 FEET PF SW 1/4 NW 1/4 (FFOtahrYNBUTNOTON NORTHEgN RY. ERLY RIT OF WAY—. MINNESOTAUTTRRANSPORTATION MUSEUM 9=9°58'13" R=1095.92 1 1=190.71 22.0'94F N36°54 50 'lW 29.07 N01°12'3011'` ,1 ' He" 09p A a 0a cb 9 7j 111 aptiC mm 1 G m89 W v I�\cn v, `OOTLOT B 'BROWN'S CREEK H TS) �cuca ')O �to ` ' W PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION: hAZE.L PLACE. VILLA5 51TE IMPKOVEMENT5 STILLWATER, MINNESOTA SHEET TITLE: PRELIMINARY PLAT °0 E i�105.02 - - _�c2Rra?MsE�&i•'1o-b. ;i— 4�� ORIVE�=W6 $4a6• 0 Eo S� aTMFEETi0aqO3ti c0 O50F2L19OTL9NE 2 N88°52'53E ;_it/ s3,�'i62 p,6 IB.p6. 44.21 $ 7� 7 _EMU LI"■ f N G I N f f RING Engineers - Land Sureeyors - Planners P.Q. bQX 948 •. ,udson, WI 5401 6 715 7s 1.5162 • Koger@humphreyengineering.com www. h u m p h rey e ng i n e ering. co m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature Name Date Reg. No. PROJECT OWNER: FAIRWAY VILLA5 LLc. HAZEL PLACE VILLAS LOT CALCULATIONS (less one lot, Block 2) updated 7-27-15 LOT FRONTAGES Block 1 Lot Frontage: Lot 1 = 81.63 ft. Lot 2 = 46.11 ft. Lot 3 = 54.91 ft. Lot 4 = 44.73 ft. Lot 5 = 36.16 ft. Lot 6 = 39.53 ft. Lot 7 = 35.62 ft. Lot 8 = 45.62 ft. Lot 9 = 73.78 ft. Lot 10 = 80.66 ft. Lot 11 = 35.08 ft. Lot 12 = 35.06 ft. Lot 13 = 42.09 ft. Block 2 Lot Frontage: Lot 1 = 80.78 ft. Lot 2 = 47.96 ft. Lot 3 = 76.53 ft. Lot 4 = 60.00 ft. Lot 5 = 60.76 ft. Lot 6 = 254.94 ft. (corner lot) BUILDING AREA COVERAGE PER LOT Block 1: Lot Area Building Area Bldg. Area % of Lot Coverage Lot 1 = 18,464 SF 2,413 SF 13.07 % Lot 2 = 8,931SF 2,224 SF 24.90 % Lot 3 = 10,845 SF 2,706 SF 24.95 % Lot 4 = 10,172 SF 2,541 SF 24.98 % Lot 5 = 10,326 SF 2,541 SF 24.61 % Lot 6 = 11,105 SF 2,706 SF 24.36 % Lot 7 = 8,907 SF 2,224 SF 24.97 % Lot 8 = 10,853 SF 2,706 SF 24.93 % Lot 9 = 9,974 SF 2,413 SF 24.19 % Lot 10 = 9,667 SF 2,413 SF 24.96 % Lot 11 = 11,826 SF 2,705 SF 22.88 % Lot 12 = 8,965 SF 2,224 SF 24.81 % Lot 13 = 11,694 SF 2,413 SF 20.63 % Block 2: Lot Area Building Area Lot 1 = 32,088 SF 2,705 SF Lot 2 = 10,094 SF 2,224 SF Lot 3 = 10,739 SF 2,413 SF Lot 4 = 10,352 SF 2,413 SF Lot 5 = 12,776 SF 2,706 SF Lot 6 = 13,628 SF 2,706 SF Bldg. Area % of Lot Coverage 8.42 % 22.03 % 22.47 % 23.31 % 21.18 % 19.86 % Black = Lots Conform to 25 % coverage rule as shown on plan H Nm00CDmmGpit^ Z�� Dyn� Omr 0 D A m D O m x 0 y 1Z ➢Xr 9z�DtiC m Z y 0 y Z D p m � m NO�J O�SZOD Dm DO Z S N r<i l fyi l `Dm 0m c in o yD m 0- i �z O N N Nm 1) O m n<I0 N r O Z< y y C O N9 m0 o OAm � y0 D <D 00 <A 0m O o ci c m� m � W 0 T N OO Oy 0 pr1N 3p�0 2Z1m'4 �pZaz N ZONy 17 m C m m < 1 m 1 2 \ 3O�pC m?NN y yC�N z mmyD \ O XA00 O y m y A Z m 0 \ \ mO \ \\ Ao �O1m DA\ DDO 1U \ ZO< <D D y 0 y 7 \ DOS -DIO \ yy0 Oj \\ Z2 m\ I mZ 1yo D2 Ox\ \ N A m y 00 8m \\ I m 2 Z D X y A O \ 8 ZZ m 41 N N co m p Z \ C \ zm z \ m 0 � OO O N Z / N N n zm � o z, SHEET NO: C2.2 T m O70 CHECKED BY: RH I D PROJECT NO: 527-003 tP K CO CO 1 CO CO CO CO CO 0)03 CO 0 N CO CO 0 CO CO J J 0 (00 0 (.0 (D (D 0 m A 010000 N 01 (0(000f 0 (O N+00 049000000000000000 T 00IICDco0909N N N CO03 CO CO CO CO N V J O (0 O (0 (0 4.0 0 0 0 0 CO CO (0 (0 r' A 0Y00001 -• 01 (0100 Of 0 W -•-• N 0 rT490 V V 000110 ((000 0 CO V V A PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION: HAZEL PLACE. VILLA5 5ITE IMPKOVEMENT5 STILLWATER, MINNESOTA SHEET TITLE: PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN E U 11'b■t' ENGINEERING Engineers -1 and Surveyors - Manners P-O. 60X 9+8 •rjudson, WI 5401 6 7 15.781.5162 • Koger@l-wmFbre9engineering.com www.11umplIre9engineering.com OR En SAig I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature Name Date Reg. No. mmDo av+z m>-5 z m o Z m0Z O Ifl rn cl N < A � pz1?4 1 Z DCD �mDrn ri Oar <OrW r NZm 2p2y m mm r w m z z a o N ON m�rpy m v0 po�0b 3 � �z crm n z g m m m - t °mz m�o0 N n <� hoop z O mzm N z Nr m T D m D m < m 1 m myZz m rmrlmON m Z y m m y�cx z zzz O 00 �Z AZ 0 i z< N O Z PROJECT OWNER: PAI KWAY VILLA5 LLC' DO_mz �1z tnrp D _ 0D j 0 F = 0 0 000, T T Ul m2 Z (Ai1A0 WZOm spy T 7JZ z� m Imo �Ocl me m m 0 OTpm mwOl O Ozz roo'z� �.m OTC 0m 1010 'al' " MI AOZ pDm c• m rm ND � ONm or1mz ZmzDm A m�� 00� OrD A1� mn' xn A A< m m SHEET NO: C2.3 m rn rT CHECKED BY: RH I K PROJECT NO: 527-003 , � , Z06 � \ . � -.�I �� miilr 906--- - --i+� !iePlllSrti r_ PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION: t—IAZJ.L PLACE. VILLA5 51TE IMPKOVEMENT5 STILLWATER, MINNESOTA SHEET TITLE: EROSION CONTROL PLAN 1U 11 "■ t ENGINEERING Engineers - Land Surveyors - Planners P.O.150X 948 •hudsorr, WI 5+016 715.78 1.5162 • Koger@humphreyengineeringg.com www.humphreyenggineeringg.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature Name Date Reg. No. PROJECT OWNER: PAI KWAY VILLAS LLc ocTh S 0 GENERAL NOTES: 0 0 NO 70.73---- • -13 °45, avx / / /I�VI= 8.8 94 / IN .— /WEST LINE, E�T FOUNDARONTIPE 1270-FEET RLS STACK WES NEE TTT1/ FEET / J CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE "ONE CALL" AT 651.454.0002 TO VERIFY UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATIONS. z _ —4�. 41 °i2' 30" W 7 7 7 7 j /r1/ STIL L WA TER CO RE: HOME SITE PLANTING: PLANTING PLAN & GROUND COVER PLAN & INSTALLATION SUPERVISION WILL BE BY OWNER, WITH BUILDER & MUTUALLY APPROVED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR 0 15' 30' 60' SEE SHEETS L1.2 AND L1.3 FOR PLANTING ALL OTHER PERMANENT COVER NOTES, DETAILS, SEED MIXTURES (NOT SPECIFIED OTHERWISE) AND PLANT LIST TO RECEIVE SOD INFILTRATION POND PLANTING KEY BUTTERFLY MILKWEED Plant Plugs 18" O.C. DWARF BUSH -HONEYSUCKLE Plant Plugs 18" O.C. WILD BERGAMONT Plant Plugs 18" O.C. GRO-LOW SUMAC Plant Plugs 18" O.C. BLUE FLAG IRIS Plant Plugs 30" O.C. INDIAN GRASS Plant Plugs 18" O.C. BIG BLUESTEM Plant Plugs 18" O.C. SWITCHGRASS Plant Plugs 18" O.C. SEE SHT. L1.3 FOR DETAILED PLAN AND PLANT LIST DECIDUOUS OVERSTORY TREE Eg. Maple, Linden, Ash, Oak, Birch, & Willow CONIFEROUS OVERSTORY TREE Eg. Black Hill Spruce, White Pine Scotch Pine, Colorado Green & Blue Spruce C DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY TREE Eg. Japanese Tree Lilac, Amur Maple, Quaking Aspen, Poplar, Pagoda Dogwood, Crab & Yellow Birch CONIFEROUS �.� UNDERSTORY TREE 1 , Eg. Arborvitae, Red Cedar DECIDUOUS LARGE SHRUB Eg. Lilac, Virbirnum, Dogwood, Cotoneaster, Euonymus, & Barberry DECIDUOUS MEDIUM SHRUB Eg. Alpine Currant, Golden Mock Orange, Snowmound Spirea DECIDUOUS SMALL SHRUB Eg. Goldmound Spirea, Ivy RAIN GARDEN SHADY WOODLAND SEED MIXTURE CLIL.NTI FAIRWAY VILLAS LLC. PROOCTI HAZEL PLACE VILLAS STILLWATER, MN fI--I 2 T TITLti PLANTING PLAN Ot.PC.TI FICATION I I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota Signature Name: Marc Putman Date: License: 12,4-63 DlIGND DRAWN MP RM DATE. DESIGNED CHECKED DRAWN TRANSMITTED 6.19.15 COPYRIGHT O 2015 PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN, Inc. ■ Drawings, plans, models, etc.: (Works), (in electronic, paper or built forms), are PP&D intellectual property. • Make no copies or transmittals without prior OKlagreement with us or our contrac- tual associate(s). • Anyone, (by accepting, opening, or any use of Works), accepts Terms of Use: 1) Yoi'II take reasonable steps for confidentiality, 2) respect our copyright(s), 3) hold us harmless from your actions; and, with us & associates, make no effort to: 4) circumvent, 5) compete, 6) jeopardize governmental approvals- • Only use Works for contractual tasks: estimating, feasibility review, saleslenterprise potential, or within fair use. • Gov't. ap- plications provide no copyright or derivative works license. • Works may have inaccuracies/updates; you're responsible for hardware, software compatibility & Works' accuracy verification. • Copyright protection extends to overall form, arrangement of spaces & elements in the design. • Works embody significant financial investment & future values. Copyright & Terms of Use violations will be defended under the law. COPYRIGHT 2015, PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SYMB. DATE a A NOTE 000 L1.1 LAND/CASARCH ITtCTUIlL LAND I'LANNING RL/IDLNTIAL DL/IGN ®IJII�IM1IG lit—/1G'd�1 ARCHITLCTURAL ILLU/TRATICN GRAFMIC DLfIC�N PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN Metro Area Office & Studio 724 Riverside Dr. N., Hudson, WI 54016 phone:: (715) 381-8291 email: mart Cputmanplaminganddesian.com web: www.putmaiplaminganddesign.com CONTRACTOR TO STAKE LOCATIONS OF ALL TREES AND SHRUBS. ACTUAL LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO FIELD STAKING ADJUSTMENTS AND SITE CONDITIONS. OBTAIN OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. UNDISTURBED AREA Outside of Construction Limit PLANTING NOTES 1. Contractor shall contact Gopher State One Call to verify underground utility locations before any excavations. 2. All plants to be specimen grade, Minnesota -grown and/or hardy. 3. Plants to meet American Standard Stock requirements for type and size specified. 4. Planting shall adhere to, but is not limited by, the following standards: a. All plants shall be free from disease, pests, wounds, scars, etc. b. All plants shall be free from noticeable gaps, holes, or deformities. c. All plants shall be free from broken or dead branches. d. All plants shall have heavy, healthy branching and leafing. e. Coniferous trees shall have an established main leader and a height -to -width ratio of no less than 5:3. Onsite transplanted stock to be flagged and staked prior to machine moving. This stock may vary from the 5:3 standard. f. Plant sun orientation will be same, before and after transplanting. 5. Contractor to stake locations of all trees and shrubs. Actual location and plant material is subject to field staking adjustments and site conditions. Obtain Owner and Landscape Architect approval prior to installation. 6. Use minimum 12" depth loam planting soil for trees and 6" for shrubs (sides and bottom of hole). 7. Guying of trees optional; Planting Contractor to re -level if not plumb after one year. 8. Wrap all smooth -barked trees; fasten top and bottom. Remove by April 1. 9. Open top of burlap on BB materials; remove pot on potted plants; split and break apart peat pots. 10. Prune plants as necessary per standard nursery practice and to correct poor branching pattern prior to, or at install. 11. All stock to be covered and/or sprayed with anti -transparent for transport from source nursery to site. 12. Plants shall be immediately planted upon arrival at site. Properly heel -in and water all materials only if necessary; 24-hour maximum. 13. All shrub planting beds shall have weed barrier fabric plus 4" depth of shredded hardwood bark mulch and Valley -View (or equal) poly edging. 14. All turf noted areas to be sodded or seeded unless otherwise noted; sod to be standard Minnesota -grown and hardy bluegrass mix. Seeded areas to be installed, mulched, fertilized and watered per growers specifications. 15. Four inches of shredded hardwood bark mulch shall be used around all trees within saucer, shrubs and ground cover/perennial areas. 16. Landscape Contractor shall coordinate with Irrigation Contractor and provide necessary watering of plant material until irrigation system is operational. Landscape Contractor to provide Owner with watering fee schedule before acceptance of bid. 17. Tree and Shrubs, Groundcover, Sod and Seeding Contractor(s) are to clearly identify watering commitments in bids and coordinate schedule and duration with Owner so as to assure no gap in watering and to ensure continued and sustained healthy plant growth. 18. Scarify root pit sides and bottom prior to planting. 19. Fill all voids between planting pit and root ball with topsoil mixture appropriate to species. Flood with water and add topsoil to eliminate all air pockes adjacent to root ball. 20. It is Landscape Contractor's responsibility that, for all trees, shrubs and groundcover, and machine -moved stock, that the planting pit and root ball is to be thoroughly backfilled, flooded and soaked with water at the time of planting and immediately mulched following planting. All roots to be in contact with soil; no air pockets. 21. Provide 4" ht. saucer around trees and 2" ht. saucer around shrubs and shrub groups. Area is to be mulched with specified materials unless otherwise noted on planting plan. 22. Plant material substitutions must be approved by the Landscape Architect and Owner. Landscape Contractor must provide copies of plans showing recommended changes and bid variances prior to final approval by Owner and Landscape Architect and installation. 23. The Contractor shall provide a one-year guarantee of plant materials. The guaranteed begins on the date of the Owner's acceptance on the initial planting. Replacement plant materials shall also have a one year guarantee commencing upon date of replanting. 24. Plant species and sizes may be substituted based upon availability, disease issues, etc. Contractor -proposed solutions must be made in writing and approved by Owner and Landscape Architect, prior to installation. SEED MIXTURE C Shady Woodland For wet mesic to dry mesic soils Seeding rate: 11.29Ibsiacre 101 seedsisq ft Forbs (67.23%) i % of Mix Oz./Acre Wild Leek Red Baneberry Columbine Jack -in -the -Pulpit Poke Milkweed Drummond's Aster Arrow -leaved Aster Short's Aster Big -leaved Aster Hairy Wood Mint Tall Bellflower Honewort Wild Geranium Virginia Waterleaf Sweet Cicely Jacob's Ladder Woodland Knotweed Lion's Foot Hairy Mountain Mint Solomon's Plume Zig Zag Goldenrod (A!lium tricoccum) (Actaea (ubra) (Aquilegia canadensis) (Arisaema triphyllum) (Asclepias exaltata) (Aster drummondn) (Aster sagittifolius) (Aster shortii) (Aster macrophyllus) (Blephilia hirsuta) (Campanula americana) (Ctyptotaenia canadensis) (Geranium maculatum) (Hydrophy!!um virginianum) (Osmorhiza claytonif) (Polemonium reptans) (Polygonum virginiana) (Prenanthes alba) (Pycnanthemum pilosum) (Smilacina racemosa) (Solidago flexicaulis) Elm -leaved Goldenrod (Solidago ulmifolia) Early Meadow Rue (Thalictrum dioicum) Meadow Parsnip (Thaspium trifoliatum) Grasses (32.77%) Mix of these 3 Sedges Curly -styled Wood Sedge Common Oak Sedge Straight -styled Wood Sedge Sprengel's Sedge Silky Wild Rye Virginia Wild Rye Nodding Fescue Bottlebrush Grass (Carex rosea) (Carex pensylvanica) (Carex radiata) (Carex sprengelir) (Elymus villosus) (Elymus virginicus) (Festuca obtusa) (Hystrix patula) 14.46 26.1 1.0 1.8 2.41 4.4 6.02 10.9 0.72 1.3 1.21 2.2 1.44 2.6 0.48 0.9 2.0 3.6 0.24 0.4 2.41 4.4 1.69 3.1 2.41 4.4 3.61 6.5 7.64 13.8 1.21 2.2 2.41 4.4 0.48 0.9 5.54 10.0 5.02 9.1 0.24 0.4 0.24 0.4 3.61 6.5 0.72 1.3 %of Mix 5.78 10.4 4.82 8.43 7.23 1.69 4.82 Oz./Acre 8.7 15.2 13.0 3.1 8.7 r11 II 1 1I 11%,, %, a111 1 111=111 1 ILI 1 I -I 1 I-_ II 1�1-1�1 � / �1E1�1= -IIIIII-III ,"„1 I 111111 1 11 1 11 II-1 1 1 11 I 11111 I- IIIII1 11=111=111=1 11111111 IIIIII-III= II1 11=111=III=1 11I 11 -I11 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 11=111=111=1 11111111111111111111111 TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL MULTISTEM PLANTING NOT TO SCALE CORNER OF ROOT SYSTEM TO BE AT LINE OF ORIGINAL GRADE. FIRMLY COMPACTED SAUCER (USE TOPSOIL). ANGLE OF REPOSE VARIES WITH STEEPNESS OF SLOPE AND SOIL TYPE. GENTLY COMPACTED TOPSOIL MIXTURE. SCARIFY PIT BOTTOM 6" MIN. FABRIC WRAP CONNECTOR ON EACH MAJOR STEM, ALL MAJOR STEMS SHOULD BE WIRED TOGETHER DEADMEN (3) IN COMPACTED SOIL 1 E1111111 11= 1=111= 1 I III 11 1 I 1 I III= I111 II �111 I II III III 111111111 111111111 TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING NOT TO SCALE DIAMETER OF EXCAVATION TO BE MIN. 12" BEYOND SPD. OF ROOTS 11 =1 1 11T1 I11 I-11 I-. THIN BRANCHES AS REQUIRED RETAINING NORMAL PLANT SHAPE. SHRUBS SHALL BE SLIGHTLY HIGHER IN RELATION TO FINISHED THAN THEY WERE TO PREVIOUS EXISTING GRADE. SHREDDED BARK MULCH 4" MIN. CREATE SAUCER WITH TOPSOIL 6" MIN. PRUNE DAMAGED OR DESSICATED ROOTS. GENTLY COMPACTED TOPSOIL MIXTURE. SCARIFY PIT BOTTOM 6" MIN. I 1 I. TYPICAL DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL CONIFEROUS PLANTING NOT TO SCALE PRUNE 1/3 OF CROWN BY THINNING AND SPACING BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT THE LEADER. FASTEN TRUNK TO STAKE WITH FABRIC TREE RING. (SEE NEW PLANTING TECHNIQUES) T-RAIL IRON STAKE OR GALVANIZED 1" O.D. PIPE. ANCHOR FIRMLY. SET TREE HIGHER IN RELATION TO NEW GRADE AS TO PREVIOUS GRADE. SHREDDED BARK MULCH (MIN. 2") CREATE SOIL SAUCER (MIN. 6") WITH TOPSOIL. CLEANLY PRUNE ALL DAMAGED ROOT ENDS. TAMP TOPSOIL MIX AROUND ROOT SYSTEM, AND WATER IN LAYERS OF 6" NOTE: SOAK ROOTS IN WATER OVERNIGHT BEFORE PLANTING. FASTEN TRUNK TO STAKE WITH FABRIC TREE RING CROWN OF ROOT BALL SHALL BEAR SAME RELATION (OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE) TO FINISHED GRADE AS IT BORE TO PREVIOUS GRADE. SHREDDED BARK MULCH MIN 4" CREATE SOIL SAUCER WITH TOPSOIL 150mm (6") MIN. CUT AND REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP IF NON -BIODEGRADABLE WRAP IS USED, REMOVE TOTALLY. PREPARED TOPSOIL MIX OR CLEAN SUBSOIL COMPACT SUBSOIL TO FORM PEDESTAL AND PREVENT SETTLING. NOTE: 1. STAKE ONLY ON WINDY SITES OLI�NTI FAIRWAY VILLAS LLC. P'ROD�CTi HAZEL PLACE VILLAS STILLWATER, MN I-IIII=T TITLL.1 PLANTING DETAILS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota Signature Name: Marc Putman Date: License: Izs6 17.)1IGNED DRAWN MP RM DATA DESIGNED CHECKED DRAWN TRANSMITTED 6.19.15 COP''YRIGI-1T1 © 2015 PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN, Inc. • Drawings, plans, models, etc.: (Works), in electronic, paper or built forms), are PP&D intellectual property. • Make no copies or transmittals without prior OKlagreement with us or our contrac- tual assaciatels). • Anyone, (hy accepting, opening, or any use of Works), accepts Terms of Use: 1) You'll take reasonable steps for confidentiality, 2) respect our copyright(s), 3) hold us harmless from your actions; and, with us & associates, make no effort to: 4) circumvent, 5) compete, g) jeopardize governmental approvals. • Only use Works for contractual tasks: estimating, feasibility review, sales/enterprise potential, or within fair use. • Gov't. ap- plications provide no copyright or derivative works license. • Works may have inaccuracieslupdates; you're responsible for hardware, software compatibility & Works' accuracy verification. • Copyright protection extends to overall form, arrangement of spaces & elements in the design. • Works embody significant financial investment & future values. Copyright & Terms of Use violations will be defended under the law. © COPYRIGHT 2015, PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN, in. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED I��V IJ'ION✓'� SYMB. A A A A A DATE NOTE JOB NUM6�F2o L1.2 0P fHE E T • LA NDfCAI'L ARCH I T LOTURt • LAND I•LANNING • RE.lIDE-N'T'IAL DF..fIGN • 6VILI=I9VG an_./1C13V • ARCHITtCTURAL ILLUlTRATION GllAr"MIC DL/"IGN Metro Area Office & Studio 724 Riverside Dr. N., Hudson, WI 54016 phone: (715) 381-8291 email: mare@putmanplanninganddesign com web: www.putmanplanninganddesign-com HAZEL PLACE VILLAS PLAINT LIST 2 SYM COMMON NAME / Botanical name SIZFJRIROOT QTY NOTES TOTAL QTY DOT DECIDUOUS OVERSTORY TREES: D.O.T. 34 i AL AMERICAN LINDEN f Tills americana 2_5 " CAL. B&B 6 2 BW BLACK WILLOW / Salix nigra 2.5" CAL, B&B 0 3 CH COMMON HACKBERRY / Cehis occidentalis 2.5" CAL. B&B 0 4 CKM CRIMSON KING MAPLE f Acer platan&tdes var. 2.5" CAL B&B 0 5 GA PATMORE GREEN ASH fF aximre pennsylvanica pat:more 2.5" CAL. B&B 0 6 IL LITTLELEAF LINDEN I Taata cordate 2.5" CAL. B&B 0 7 NM NORWAY MAPLE / Acer piaatanoides 2.5" CAL. B&B 6 8 PO PIN OAK / Queries palnairis 2.5" CAL. B&B 0 9 SM SCHWIEDLER MAPLE / Ater plataaoides var. 2.5" CAL. B&B 0 10 Skid SKYLINE 13ONEYLOCUST Gleditsia In Mamas "skyline" 2.5" CAL B&B 12 11 SbH1 SUNBURST HONEYLOCUST/Gleditsia tri inernis "sunburst" 2 5" CAL. B&B 0 12 Syc SYCAMORE, / Platanus occideenaiis 2.5" CAL. B&B 0 13 WA WHITE ASH / F uxinus americana 2.5" CAL. B&B 0 14 YB YELLOW BIRCH 1 Betula lutea 2.5" CAL. B&B 0 15 SuM SUGAR MAPLE / Acer saeclnatms 2.5" CAL. B&B 0 16 ABM AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE / Acer keemanii jeferered' 2.5" CAL. B&B 8 17 ELM EMERALD LUSTER MAPLE / Acer piatenoldes 2.5" CAL B&B 0 18 RB RIVER BIRCH / Bctula uiara (2 STEM) 10' HT 2 COT CONIFEROUS OVERSTORY TREES: C:O_T. 5 1 CBS COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE f Picea pwogens glauca 6'-8' MACH. 0 2 CGS COLORADO GREEN SPRUCE / Picea p 6'-8' MACH. 0 3 BSp BLACKHILLS SPRUCE / Picea glauca denote 6-8' MACH. 4 4 DF DOUGLAS FIR / Pseudolsuga taxifolia 19-8' MACH 0 5 NP NORWAY (RED) PINE 1 Pinus resinesa 6-8" MACH. 1 6 SP SCOTCH PINE / Pines sylvestris 6-8" MACH. 0 7 WP WEIITE PINE / Pines strobus 6'-8" MACH. 0 DUT DECIDUOUS UNDE1i.'TORY TES: D.U.T. 1 l CH COCKSPUR HAWTHORN / Crataegus cans -Ili 2" CAL. 0 2 DWC DONALD WYMAN CRAB / Mahn ' donald wyman' 2" CAL. 0 3 ERB EASTERN RED BUD / Cecis canadensia 2" CAL, 0 4 TTL JAPANESE TREE LILAC / Syringa auuu-ensis japonica 2" CAL. 1 5 NV NANNYBERRY VIBURNUM / Viburnum 'enrage 2" CAL. 0 6 PD PAGODA DOGWOOD / Cotrurs ahemifolra 2" CAL, 0 7 PB WHITESPIRE BIRCH / Setula plalaphylia 2" CAL. 0 8 PS POPLAR (SP) / Popuhls sp. 2" CAL. 0 9 PSC PINK SPIREs CRAB / Mahn 'pink spires' 2" CAL. 0 10 QA QUAKING ASPEN / Populus tremnloides 8'-11', 2" cal 0 11 RBCr RED BARRON CRAB / Malus 'red baryon' 12-15', 2" cal 0 12 RCr RADIANT CRABAPPLE / Mains radiant 2" CAL. 0 13 RSCr RED SPLENDOR CRAB / Mahn 'red splendor 2" CAL. 0 14 SpCr SPARKLER CRAB / Mahn 'sparkler' 2" CAL, 0 15 SS SHADBLOW SERVICEBERRY / Anrelarrchier canadensis 2" CAL. 0 16 SCr SNOWDRIFT C'RAS / Manus snowdrift 2" CAL. 0 17 SSCr SPRING SNOW CRAB 1 Mahe spring snow 2" CAL. 0 18 WH WASHINGTON HAWTHORN / Crataegus plracnapynun 2" CAL. 0 19 FD PROFUSION CRAB / Mahn 'profusion' 2" CAL, 0 CUT CONIFEROUS 1JNDERSTORY TREES: C.U.T. 0 I BSI BLUE COLUMNAR JUNIPER / Jrmiperus clrinensis var_ 0 2 PA PYRAMIDAL ARBORVITAE f Tlmja occidental's 1) Ta'n'dalrs 0 3 RC RED CEDAR/ Juuiperus vsreioiana glauca 0 CLS CONIFEROUS LARGE SHRUBS: C.L.S. 0 1 AA AMERICAN ARBORVITAE / Thuja occidentalis'teehny 0 2 BA 'BAKERS ARBORVITAE / Thu orientalis py. baked 0 3 ISY JAPANESE SPREADING YEW / Taxes cnspidata var. 0 4 MP MUGHO PINE / Pines mugo mughrts 0 CMS CONIFEROUS MEDIUM SHRUBS: C.M:S. n I BPJ BLUE PFITZER JUNIPER / Jumpeous glanca hetzi 36"DIAJBB 0 2 DJY DWARF JAPANESE. YI1W Taxes suspldata naua 0 3 GPJ GREEN Pi1TLER JUNIPER / Juniperous chinccusis pf. compacla 0 CSS CONIFEROUS SMALL SHRUBS: C.S.S. 0 1 13J BROADMOOR JUNIPER / Juzipiperos sahina ' broadrrloor 24"DTA.IBB 0 2 DMP DWARF ML7GI-IO PINE / Pinus mugo mrrgh'u var. 0 3 SGI SEA GREEN JUNIPER f Juniperus chiuensis'sea green' 0 4 WI WEBBER JUNIPER / Juuipenrs chinensis 0 5 WCJ WILTON CARPET JUNIPER / Juniper horizoutatis'ivrltoni' 0 DES DECIDUOUS LARGE SHRUBS; D.L.S. 0 i CL COMMON LILAC / Syringa vulgaris var. 2.3' B. 0 CLIJD COMMON LILAC: BELLE DeNANCY/ Syringa vulgaris tultivar 3-4' B. 0 3 CLMG COMMON LILAC Mane LeMOINE / Syringa vulgariscnitivar 3-4' B. 0 4 DP DOUBLEFLOWERING PLUM / Prunus triloba 2-3' B. 0 5 GN GOLDEN NINEBARK / physocarpos oulifollus hneua 2-3' B. 0 6 PC PEKING COTONEASTER / Cotonea.ster lucida 2-3' B. 0 7 RD REDTWIG DOGWOOD 1 Cnmrrs sangunea 2-3' B. 0 8 WV WAYFARINGTREE VIBURNUM / Warman lantaaa 2-3' B. 0 9 WE WINGED EUONYMUS / Euonyrnus Altus 2-3' B. 0 10 YD YELLOW TWIG DOGWOOD f Comes stolonifera var. 2.3' B_ 0 DMS DECIDUOUS MEDIUM SHRUBS: DMS. 0 I AC ALPINE CURRENT / Ribes alpiium 2-3' B. 0 2 AV ARAOWWOOOAVIBURNUM /Vibumumdentatum 2-3'B. 0 3 DWE DWARF WINGED EUONYMUS / Euonynats alautus oarnpaela 2-3' B. 0 4 GM GOLDEN MOCH ORANGE / Philidelphus coronaries aureus 2-3' B. 0 5 MCh MANCHU CHERRY / Prunus tomentosa 2-3' B. 0 6 MB MENTOR BARBERRY / Berberis mentorensis 2"3' B. 0 7 SS SNOWMOUNi3 SI'IREA ? Spica japonica 2-3" B. 0 DSS DECIDUOUS SM ,AIL SHR1J13: D.S.S. 17 1 AWS ANTHONY WATER SPIRAEA / Spiraea bwnalda sp. 2-3' B. 0 2 BCV BAILEY COMPACT AMERICAN VIBURNUM / vax. tril. var. 2-3' B. 0 3 CDH CLAVEY'S DWARF HONEYSUCKLE / Lonieera xylosteum 2-3' B. 0 4 DKL DWARF KOREAN LILAC / Syringa pallbisuana 2-3' B. 0 5 GFS GOLD FLAME SPIRAEA / Spiraea bumalda sp 2-3' B. 0 6 GMS GOLD MOUND SPIRAEA f Spiraea bwnskla sp 2-3' B. 17 7 MKL MISS KIM LILAC / Syrurga patula'Miss Kim' 2-3' B. 0 8 MA MOLLS AZALEA / Rhododendron x kosteranum 2.3' B. 0 9 WLA WHITE LIGHTS AZALEA / Rhododendron White Lights 2-3' B. 0 10 SLA SPICY LIGHTS AZALEA/Rhododendron Spicy Lights 3-4' B. 0 GCV GROUNDCOVER & VINES: G.C.V. 0 1 BW BIGLEAF WINTERCREEPER / Euonymus fortunel vegetus 0 2 BIv BOSTON IVY / Parthenoeissues 0 3 E[v ENGLEMAN IVY / Parthenncissuss quinquefoiia engelurann 0 4 FF FLEECEFLOWER / Polygonum renouttria 0 5 GS GOLDMOSS SEDUM / Sedum acre 0 6 JP JAPANESE PACHYSANDRA 1 Pachysandra tens Walk 0 7 PL PI.ANTAIN 1.II,Y 1 Hosta sieboldiana 0 8 Cl CLEMATIS / Clematis viticells'Ala Luxurians' 0 9 SOD SOD 0 POG PERENNIALS / ORNAMENTAL GRASS: P.Q.G. 0 I OG ORNAMENTAL GRASS 0 2 PF PERENNIAL FLOWER BEDS 0 RG RAIN GARDENS 1 LC CARDINAL FLOWER / Lobelia cardinalis 809 2 CC FRINGED SEDGE / Carex crinita 809 809 3 ZA GOLDEN ALEXANDER / Zizia aurea 4 SN INDIAN GRASS 1 Sorghastrum nutans 809 5 AT JACK-IN-THE-PULPIT / Arisaema triphyllum 809 6 EM JOE-PYE WEED / Eupatonum maculatum 809 7 SS LITTLE BLUESTEM / Schizachyrium scoparium 809 8 MS OSTERICH FERN 1 Matteuccia struthiopteris 809 9 CP PENNSYLVANIA SEDGE 1 Carex pensylvanica 809 10 OR ROYAL FERN / Osmunda regalis 809 11 12 AL SMOOTH ASTER f Aster laevis 809 CA TALL BELLFLOWER 1 Campanula americana 809 13 MV VIRGINIA BLUEBELLS I Mertensia virginica 809 14 EV VIRGINIA WILDRYE / Elyrnus virginicus 809 15 SF ZIG-ZAG GOLDENROD / Solidago flexicaulis 809 12,135 SUBTOTAL PLANTINGS RAIN GARDEN PLANT QUANTITIES SHOWN IS AN APPROXIMATE TOTAL FOR ALL RAIN GARDENS. PLANT QUANTITIES ASSUMED TO AVERAGE ONE PLANT PER SQUARE FOOT OF RAIN GARDEN. SEE TYPICAL RAIN GARDEN PLANTING FOR A LAYOUT OF PLANTS. FINAL PLANTING TO BE DETERMINED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR NURSERY PROVIDER BASED ON AVAILABILITY OF PLANTS & SITE INSPECTION OF SOIL TYPE, SUN ORIENTATION & EXPOSURE, AND MOISTURE CONTENT OF SOILS. MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS: SOIL MEDIUM / FILTER MEDIA CONTENT 1. A WELL BLENDED, HOMOGENOUS MIXTURE OF 80% CONSTRUCTION SAND AND 20% ORGANIC LEAF COMPOST IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A SOIL MEDIUM WITH A HIGH INFILTRATION/FILTRATION CAPACITY. 2. SAND: PROVIDE CLEAN CONSTRUCTION SAND, FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIALS. AASHTO M-6 RO ASTEM C-33 WITH GRAIN SIZE OF 0.02" - 0.04". 3. ORGANIC LEAF COMPOST: MNDOT GRADE 2. GRAVEL FILTER 1. UNDER -DRAIN GRAVEL BLANKET SHALL BE DOUBLE WASHED STONE, 1 2" SIZE. PEA GRAVEL SHALL BE WASHED, RIVER -RUN, ROUND g" SIZE +/_. MULCH CONTENT AND DEPTH 1. FRESH SHREDDED BARK MULCH (MNDOT TYPE 6) SHOULD BE USED WHEN POSSIBLE TO MAXIMIZE NITROGEN RETENTION. IF AGED MULCH IS USED, USE THE SHREDDED TYPE INSTEAD OF THE "CHIP" VARIETY TO MINIMIZE FLOATING ACTION. THE MULCH LAYER SHOULD NOT SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3" IN DEPTH. TOO MUCH MULCH CAN RESTRICT OXYGEN FLOW TO ROOTS. IN ADDITION, MULCH SHOULD NOT BE MOUNDED AROUND THE BASE OF PLANTS SINCE THIS ENCOURAGES DAMAGE FROM PESTS AND DISEASES. INFILTRATION BASIN NOTES (cnt'd) 2b. ALL NATIVE PLANTS SHALL BE PLANTED AFTER THE SURROUNDING SITE HAS STABILIZED. ONCE THE THE SITE IS STABILIZED, THE RAIN GARDENS AND INFILTRATION BASINS USED AS TEMPORARY SEDIMENT PONDS SHALL BE EXCAVATED AND PLANTED MEDIUM PLACED TO FINAL GRADE. ONCE COMPLETE, THE NATIVE PLANTING CAN BE INSTALLED. 2c. "APPLICANT WILL MONITOR INFILTRATION PRACTICES FOR TWO YEARS AFTER APPLICANT ENGINEER DOCUMENTS, AND DISTRICT CONFIRMS, COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF INFILTRATION PRACTICES TO ENSURE MINIMUM 80% PERENNIAL NATIVE VEGETATION COVERAGE. DISTRICT MUST APPROVE COMPLETION OF MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY ON BASIS OF VEGETATION INSPECTION. APPLICANT MUST RESEED OR PLANT TO MEET CRITERION AND ADDITIONAL RESEEDING/PLANTING WILL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL TWO-YEAR MONITORING PERIOD." 2d. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEARLY IDENTIFY WATERING COMMITMENTS IN BIDS AND COORDINATE SCHEDULE AND DURATION WITH OWNER SO AS TO ASSURE NO GAP IN WATERING AND TO ENSURE CONTINUED AND SUSTAINED HEALTHY PLANT GROWTH. TYPICAL RAIN GARDEN PLANTING z 0' 4' 8' 16' INFILTRATION BASIN NOTES 1. PERMANANT STABILIZATION OF INFILTRATION BASINS SHALL CONSIST OF PLANT PLUGS. REFER TO THE PLANTING LIST FOR SPECIES & SPACING OF PLUGS. MULCH TYPE 3 (WEED FREE) SHALL BE APPLIED AT 2 TONS/ACRE AROUND THE PLANT PLUGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANTING TREES AND SHRUBS AT BASIN SIDE SLOPES AND BASES IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY "PLANTS FOR STORMWATER DESIGN" DATED JULY, 2003 AND AT THE DIRECTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 2. BASIN SITES SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH ANNUAL RYE OR OATS UNTIL NATIVE GRASSES AND PLANTING ARE ESTABLISHED. PLANTING NOTES: SEE SHEET L1.2 z 0' 10' 20' FINAL SPECIES SELECTION: PLANT SPECIES AND SIZES MAY BE SUBSTITUED BASED UPON AVAILABILITY, DISEASE ISSUES, ETC. CONTRACTOR PROPOSED SOLUTIONS MUST BE MADE IN WRITING AND APPROVED BY OWNER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, BROWNSCREEK AND WATERSHED ENGINEER, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. INFILTRATION POND PLANTING 40' INFILTRATION POND PLANTING QTY •is8 59 INFILTRATION POND PLANTING 2 BB BF! BIG BLUESTEM / Andropogon gerardii Plant plugs 18" O.C. BLUE FLAG IRIS / Iris virginica - shrevel Plant plugs 30" O.C. 3 1 5 C, 7 8 BM DBH BUTTERFLY MILKWEED 1 Asdepias tuberosa 160 Plant plugs 18" O.C- DWARF BUSH-HONEYSUCKEL / Diervilla lonicera 106 Plant plugs 18" O.G. GLSu 1G GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC / Rhus aromatica 173 Plant plugs 18" O.C. INDIAN GRASS / Sorghastrum nutans 613 Plant plugs 18" O.C. SG WB SWITCHGRASS / Panicum virgatum 704 Plant plugs 18" O.C. (WILD BERGAMONT / Monarda 5stulosa 83 Plant plugs 18" O.C. IENIAMEMI FAIRWAY VILLAS LLC. F F' O7�CTi HAZEL PLACE VILLAS STILLWATER, MN 11-1��T TITLE I PLANTING DETAILS C�RTIFiOATIONI I hereby certify that this plan eras prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota . Signature Name: Marc Putman Date: License: r2[63 'IGNDRAWN MP DESIGNED CHECKED DRAWN TRANSMITTED RM 6.19.15 COI"YRIGHTi CO 2015 PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN, Inc. • Drawings, plans, models, etc.: (Works), in electronic, paper or built forms), are PP&D intellectual property_ • Make no copies or transmittals without prior OK/agreement with us or our contrac- tual associate's). • Anyone, (by accepting, opening, or any use of Works), accepts Terms of Use: 1) You'll take reasonable steps for confidentiality, 2) respect our copyright)s), 3) hold us harmless from your actions; and, with us & associates, make no effort to: 4) circumvent, 5) compete, 6) jeopardize governmental approvals. • Only use Works for contractual tasks: estimating, feasibility review, sales/enterprise potential, or within fair use. • Gov't. ap- plications provide no copyright or derivative works license. • Works may have inaccuracies/updates; you're responsible for hardware, software compatibility & Works' accuracy verification_ • Copyright protection extends to overall form, arrangement of spaces & elements in the design. • Works embody significant financial investment & future values. Copyright & Terms of Use violations will be defended under the law. COPYRIGHT 2015, PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ICE VIJiON Pi SYMB. A A A DATE NOTE fl-IL,E,T Or /1-1 .T L1.3 • LANDJ'CAI'F- ArtCHITLOTURL LAND I•LANNING • Rt'IDtNTIAL DC1'IGN t3VILQIINIG LE 1c N ' ARCHITF_CTURAL ILLUJTRATION GRArl-III DFIIGN PUTMAN PUNNING & DESIGN Metro Area Office & Studio 724 Riverside Dr_ N., Hudson:, WI 54016 phone: (715) 381-8291 email: mare@putmanplanninganddesign.com - web: www.putmanplafninganddesigu.corn