Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-09 CPC Packeti 1 1 \i' a tec THE IIRTMPLA CE OF MIMMESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North December 9, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of November 9, 2015 regular meeting minutes 2. Possible approval of minutes of September 9, 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. 3. Case No. 2015-40; Request for approval of a Special Use Permit for a Short Term Rental to be located at 308 Chestnut St E. John Atkins Representing the Estate of Scott Zahren. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. Yard Parking — Survey Results and Ordinance Direction VII. STAFF UPDATES/FOR YOUR INFORMATION 5. System Statement VIII. ADJOURNMENT ate THE 1I1TN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 9, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Lauer, Siess, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioners Kelly and Middleton Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of October 14, 2015 meeting minutes Chairman Kocon noted the tabling of the September minutes will be continued. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve the October 14, 2015 meeting minutes. All in favor, 7-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Discussion of a future Yard Parking Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) City Planner Wittman stated that in April 2015, Eric Solberg approached the City Council to discuss the issue of yard parking as a blight and nuisance in the community. Staff was directed to work with the Planning Commission to develop a draft ordinance to address the issue. Staff has since reviewed aerial imagery to identify registered vehicles parked in the front or side yard area on unimproved surfaces. She reviewed limitations of the study. The highest amount of yard parking, almost 7%, was in the Dutchtown district, with the north and south hill being the lowest. Staff found that yard parking occurred in about 3% of total properties in the aerial scans. Ordinances in other communities were researched. Ms. Wittman discussed the definition of surfacing materials and asked if the Commissioners would agree that grass, landscaping and dirt are unimproved surfaces. Commissioner Hansen asked about Planning Commission November 9, 2015 gravel, adding that he would not want an ordinance to state that Class 5 is the only material that works. Commissioner Siess asked what if a resident put gravel all over their front yard? Ms. Wittman asked if the Commission like to set a maximum percentage of the front yard that may be surfaced. She summarized comments from the Commission that unimproved surfaces would be grass and dirt areas, and that improved areas would be asphalt, concrete and potentially gravel. Ms. Wittman then asked if the Commission would want to set a maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked in a front yard. Commissioner Hansen remarked he feels the Commission may be starting to over -regulate something that isn't as big a problem as it is made out to be. Commissioner Siess noted the number of vehicles parked in yards appears to be growing in her neighborhood. Chairman Kocon commented if he had one neighbor with a vehicle parked in the yard, he wouldn't appreciate it. Commissioner Hansen replied that sounds like saying if someone has a lot in Stillwater, they have to choose whether to have a boat, a trailer, or a second car. He said he is not in favor of saying a resident can have only one vehicle, especially if side yards are considered. Commissioner Hade said he is inclined to not allow any parking in yards. Chairman Kocon said he is inclined to allow one vehicle to be parked in a yard. Ms. Wittman brought up side and rear yard parking, and said she will revisit the definition of front yard. She also brought up commercial versus residential property. Commissioners voiced the thought that commercial property should be treated no differently than residential property. Ms. Wittman asked if maximum length of a vehicle should be addressed. Commissioner Siess suggested addressing height as well. Chairman Kocon commented that mass may be a better choice of words. Ms. Wittman said staff can look at what other communities have done in regard to mass of vehicles allowed. Ms. Wittman solicited comments about whether allowances should be made for yard parking for special events like block parties or graduation parties. Commissioner Fletcher noted it might be self regulating, because if it's a one-time event, neighbors are not likely to complain unless it's chronic. Chairman Kocon added that if the penalty is to remove the vehicle, and it's a one day event, then it would be removed already by the time the ordinance would be enforced. He said for him, the true eyesore is the vehicle that has been parked there for a lengthy time period; if it's a wedding, graduation party or church social one-time event, there's less of an impact than looking at a huge SUV for several months. He pointed out the other issue is what will be done with the vehicles if they are to be removed or towed. He suggested incorporating a 24-hour notice to allow yard parking for one -day events. Commissioner Hade replied that could be problematic if someone goes fishing every weekend, for example, and parks a boat or trailer in their yard consistently. There would be a potential for violation even though it is parked there for one day at a time. Ms. Wittman asked if the Commission would like the ordinance to address rolloff boxes in yards. Commissioner Hansen commented he doesn't think the Commission should open Pandora's box by including rolloff boxes in the ordinance. Commissioner Lauer agreed. Ms. Wittman noted the City gets a lot of phone calls about neighbors having a lot of things in their yard. The question has been brought up whether the City have an ordinance regulating dumpster storage bins on grass. Commissioner Siess stated the City could initiate a permit process for storage pods. Ms. Wittman stated a storage pod might be considered a general nuisance under the nuisance ordinance, but unless it poses a public safety hazard, there is not a lot the City can do, as there is no ordinance covering exterior storage. Commissioner Hansen remarked if dumpsters and storage bins aren't a huge issue right now, the Commission ought to let it be. That could change if it becomes a chronic issue. Chairman Kocon said he doesn't like to see anything on the lawn, whether it's a dumpster or a pod. He is ok with it being on an improved surface, but doesn't want it sitting in the front yard. Page 2 of 4 Planning Commission November 9, 2015 Commissioner Hansen responded that with a lot of the rolloff container companies, a resident wouldn't want them parking on the driveway because they damage the driveway. Ms. Wittman recognized that maybe the issue of pods and dumpsters belongs in a different ordinance. Ms. Wittman summarized the discussion thus far: some changes to the definitions were suggested; the Commission supports establishing some maximum percentage of improved surface area; landscaping should be defined; the ordinance may be self regulating in terms of one -day events; some Commissioners want to limit the number of vehicles while some do not; the Commission wants to explore the definition of front yard and to have these provisions apply to front yards. Ms. Wittman stated she also heard the Commission wishes to explore length, height, mass and bulk limits; there should be no difference between commercial vs residential properties; there could be some sort of hourly exception, but the ordinance is designed for chronic and repeat offenders; the ordinance will be limited to the storage of vehicles and will not address rolloff containers; also the word etcetera should be eliminated. Ms. Wittman summarized the City's existing regulations regarding impervious surface coverage in the various districts. The next step is for staff to collect public input via a survey. She presented draft survey questions for review. Commissioner Fletcher suggested adding an open ended question asking for any other concerns. Ms. Wittman stated the survey will go out within the next week or so. Results will be brought back to the Commission in mid -December. She anticipates having a public hearing before the Commission in January for a recommendation to the City Council, which would hold two public hearings in February as is done for every ordinance. Council Representative Junker commented he feels the ordinance should focus on the fact that the City wants to eliminate the RVs, boats, and multiple cars in the side or front yard. But there is still the possibility that someone will throw down a little Class 5 or pea rock, that barely covers the area on which the huge RV or boat will be on, and call it an impervious surface. Ms. Wittman responded that her direction from the Commission was that maybe gravel could be considered unimproved, maybe it could be considered improved; she will look at how other communities classify it. Chairman Kocon remarked that throwing gravel down in a yard would not be acceptable in his opinion. He would want to see a legitimate bordered parking area. For instance, pavers are a pervious surface but are an improvement over gravel. Maybe the ordinance needs to address all these improved surfaces. Eric Solberg, 2064 Oak Glen Drive, Stillwater, thanked the Planning Commission for working on the issue. He added there is a new example of the problem near Oak Glen. He said he realizes the City has to help residents make this work for everybody, but feels the problem is increasing. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Staff Verbal Updates - 2016 Downtown Framework chapter of Comprehensive Plan City Planner Wittman informed the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan is due for an update by 2018. Updates to the downtown framework chapter have begun. A downtown plan committee will be formed which will include a member of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hade responded that living downtown, he may be interested in serving on the committee. Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission ADJOURNMENT November 9, 2015 Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. All in favor, 7-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 4 of 4 ate THE 1I1TN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 9, 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, Siess Absent: Commissioner Middleton, Council Representative Junker Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of August 12, 2015 meeting minutes Commissioner Hade indicated he was present at the July meeting. Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to approve the August 12, 2015 meeting minutes. All in favor, 8-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2015-29. Variance to the combined Side Yard Setback for a two-story addition, located at 319 Maple Street West. Peter and Amy Koltun, owners and Paul Randall, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicants propose to remove an existing 280 square foot detached garage and construct a 446 square foot two-story addition to the home. The addition will encompass a single attached garage and family room on the first floor, with a new bedroom on the second floor. While the proposed addition meets the minimum Side Yard Setback of 5', the total combined Side Yard Setback area is 13'6" thus necessitating a 1'6" variance from the minimum 15' combined Side Yard Setback. On the basis that a reasonable alternative exists, staff recommends denial of the variance. Paul Randall, contractor representing the property owners, provided drawings showing the impacts of changes suggested by staff, to include moving the wall 1'6". The lot is 43 feet wide. If the wall were moved over 1'6" to create the 7' side yard setback, the existing driveway would not line up with the garage door. With the originally proposed 6' setback, the driveway will line up with the garage door. He pointed out that the existing garage was 5' 6" off the property line. The property owner requested that the garage be set back an additional 6" making it 6' off the property line. So the proposed garage Planning Commission September 9, 2015 is already 6" further from the property line than the existing garage. Another reason for the variance is that they want a 36" door going from the garage into the house. All existing doors in the house are 32" which was the standard in years past. He cannot move the doorway over the 1'6" that is being requested. It is physically impossible. The proposed plan leaves 16" between structures so it maintains the existing character of the neighborhood. In response to a question from Commissioner Hade, City Planner Wittman said no comments from neighbors were received. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hansen said it is a necessity to have a 3' door somewhere in the house to bring in larger items. He feels there is a hardship due to the narrow lot. The requested 1'6" variance is reasonable. Chairman Kocon and Commissioner Siess agreed. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve Case No. 2015-29, a 1'6" variance from the minimum 15' combined Side Yard Setback for construction of a two story addition located at 319 Maple Street West, as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Kelly recused himself from the vote. Motion passed, 7-0-1 with Commissioner Kelly abstaining. Case No. 2015-30. Variance to the Side Yard Setback for reconstruction of a first floor rear entry, located at 1204 Fourth Avenue South. Charlie and Rebecca Ketchum, owners. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant plans to remove an existing 6' wide by 17' long, 102 square foot single story rear entry porch located on the north facade of the structure, and replace it with a 7' wide by 17' long, 119 square foot single story rear entry. The improvement is wholly located within the 20' Front Yard Setback, therefore the applicant is requesting an 11'6" variance to the 20' Side Yard Setback for this addition. The current porch was built over what was a basement access, therefore it did not have proper footings or foundation and is compromising the integrity of the main portion of the home. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Charlie Ketchum, property owner, offered to answer any questions. The practical difficulty is that the porch is in structural disrepair. The purpose of the project is to maintain the structural integrity of the house. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve Case No. 2015-30, 11'6" variance to the 20' exterior Side Yard Setback for reconstruction of a first floor rear entry located at 1204 Fourth Avenue South, with the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2015-30. b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved before any modifications are made to the structure. c. The addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure. Page2of5 Planning Commission September 9, 2015 d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. All in favor, 8-0. Case No. 2015-31. Variance to the maximum lot coverage for the construction of a 42 square foot first floor addition, located at 424 Greeley Street North. Nancy Nelson, owner. City Planner Wittman noted that the applicant has applied for a variance to remove an existing cellar access door and concrete pad located on the rear (northwest) portion of the home, and replace it with a 42 square foot single story addition to accommodate a bathroom and laundry area. Consequently the applicant is seeking a 5% variance to the 25% maximum lot coverage for structures. One neighbor wrote that she has no conflict with the proposed addition which will be closer to her property line. Because practical difficulty exists, Staff recommends approval with conditions. Nancy Nelson, property owner, offered to answer questions. The house was likely built in the 1880s. She realizes she will lose some pantry space but that will be part of the new room. 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. 2015-31, 5% variance to the 25% maximum lot coverage for structures, with the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2015-31. b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved before any modifications are made to the structure. 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. All in favor, 8-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2015-25. Conditional Use Permit for cluster development, located at 8753 and 8911 Neal Avenue North. Kenneth Heifort, owner and Jim Boo, applicant. City Planner Wittman stated that the applicant has requested this application remain tabled. The neighborhood will be re -noticed when the public hearing is reopened. Case No. 2015-14. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to the City of Stillwater's 2008 Comprehensive Plan specifically to the City's Park Plan and Transportation Plan to incorporate a Master Trails Plan. Melissa Douglas, Planning Consultant, reviewed progress on the Master Trails Plan. A draft was circulated for public comment in May. A public meeting and public hearing were held. Revisions have been made according to input received. At its June meeting, the Parks Commission recommended adoption. Commissioner Hade asked about Oak Park Heights' response to the draft plan. Ms. Douglas said the plan was well received in Oak Park Heights. Page 3 of 5 Planning Commission September 9, 2015 Commissioner Siess expressed concern about stopping at trail crossings where drivers and trail users intersect. City Planner Wittman responded in the implementation plan, trail safety education programs are identified as a medium priority policy admin item that will be ongoing. Staff is meeting with the DNR this week to discuss challenges of having the state trail go through the community and how to address the safety concerns. Ms. Douglas said language could be added to reflect the general concerns with trail crossings, noting this will be part of ongoing implementation. She would like a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council to adopt the Master Trails Plan with amendments as discussed. Chairman Kocon reopened the public hearing. Rick Heidick, 3557 White Pine Way, said the Master Plan looks great. He is an avid bicyclist who moved to Stillwater four years ago because it is such a great place to ride. As a member of Stillwater Sunrise Rotary, he has been authorized to work with the DNR to install a bicycle repair station at Neal and McKusick as part of ongoing efforts to improve and enhance the bike trails in Stillwater. Some grants are available. He has been meeting with advocacy groups and would like to recommend that a work team be created that would be affiliated with the Planning Commission, to include bike and walk advocacy community members. Rob McKim, 1107 Eagle Ridge Crescent, who is president of the Gateway Brown's Creek Trail Association, said his group advocates with the legislature and the DNR, and has raised the same issues about trail crossings that were raised by the Commission. They also work to fund maintenance of benches and interpretive signs. They are interested in being a resource. Louise Watson, 927 Northland Avenue, expressed support for the plan. She has a group of people interested in serving as advisors to provide public input. They would like to see a committee formed to advise and assist as the plan is implemented. She also volunteers for Transition Stillwater, a group created by seniors in high school, to organize service groups in the City. Kathleen Anglo, 3336 Webster Court, a landscape architect who works for the City of St. Paul, voiced support for the plan. Wendell Fletcher, 3655 Planting Green, said he is delighted at the opportunities for biking and walking. The plan is a wonderful resource. He is very supportive of the Master Trails Plan and the concept of having an advisory committee. Aaron Johnson, 1203 Atwood Lane, echoed the comments that were expressed. He supports the plan. Jim Connors, 1302 South First Street, agreed with the previous speakers. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Ms. Douglas stated as part of the implementation there is a recommendation for an advisory committee. The City Council would determine the form and format of the committee. There was much discussion on this at the hearings. Page 4 of 5 Planning Commission September 9, 2015 Commissioner Fletcher said she feels it would be a good idea to have a citizen advisory committee. Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to recommend approval of the Master Trails Plan and relevant Comprehensive Plan amendments. All in favor, 8-0. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Staff Verbal Updates Commissioner Kelly asked about the Hazel Place Villas application. City Planner Wittman replied it was tabled and then at the last Planning Commission meeting it was recommended for denial. Commissioner Siess asked if there has been discussion on developing a Gun Ordinance. City Planner Wittman said no, there has been only one meeting at which the Council heard the application from MN Shooting Academy. There has been no direction to staff to work on a gun ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 p.m. All in favor, 8-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 5 of 5 ittllwater PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 9, 2015 CASE NO.: 2014-40 APPLICANT: John Atkins on behalf of the estate of Scott Zahren REQUEST: Request for a Special Use Permit to allow for overnight lodging in the 2nd story apartment of the structure located at 308 Chestnut Street West ZONING: CBD-Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU-Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit for the conversion of a second story apartment into an overnight lodging unit. Overnight lodging, any type of lodging for a period of less than 30 days, have been occurring on this site. Representatives of the estate have determined overnight lodging would be a beneficial addition to the property and community and, as such, is requesting the Special Use Permit to come into compliance with the municipal regulations, including payment of lodging taxes. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Municipal Code Section 31-207 indicates the following must be determined by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a Special Use Permit: The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. • Zoning Ordinance o Use: Hotels and motels and other overnight lodging facilities are permitted in the Central Business District by Special Use Permit. o Parking: The property is located within the Downtown Parking District. The unit would be required to have two onsite parking spaces. As the property cannot accommodate for these spaces, the property owner will need to purchase monthly parking permits. The owner has indicated they have secured a lease for parking at the Shorty's Parking lot, one and a half blocks to the west. • Comprehensive Plan The Downtown Stillwater Framework Plan, a part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, indicates downtown could support up to 250 new housing units over the next two years with up to half being age -restricted as significant rental demand is from the senior population. While the conversion of this unit to short-term rentals would take one housing unit out of the downtown market, the second story unit is not universally accessible and not conducive for an aging population. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan indicates over 50% business in downtown is attributed to tourism (Chapter 7, Economic Development). The Framework Plan suggests reinforcing an environment for commerce while preserving the historic core and a policy to do this is to attract visitors and shoppers to the community. The potential for a new type of visitor who may have an extended, short term stay in the Historic Commercial District could help support this policy. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; and • Exterior changes - Section 31-319 of the Stillwater City Code requires that the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) conduct a design review on exterior changes, signage and exterior site plans. The applicant has not proposed any exterior changes at this time. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Staff has determined overnight lodging in this apartment would not be a detriment to the public so long as the fire and building officials, as well as the health department, have conducted site inspections and the property meets the property life, safety and health codes for commercial rental use. ALTERNATIVES The Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the Special Use Permit request with or without conditions. 2. Determine that the proposed overnight lodging unit is not consistent with the Special Use Permit provisions and deny the Special Use Permit. 308 Chestnut Street West Case No. SUP/2015-40 CPC: December 9, 2015 Page 2 3. Table the request for more information. FINDINGS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that if certain conditions are met, the proposed use will conform to the Special Use Permit provisions. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Case No. 2015-40, with the following conditions of approval: 1. The owner must provide the City Finance Director with the facility's Tax ID number before the Special Use Permit will become effective. 2. The owner shall annually provide the City with a lease identifying two parking spaces in the downtown district that have been dedicated for this unit. a. In the event a lease is not provided, two monthly parking permits shall be purchased by the property owner to offset the demand created by the residential commercial use. The permits shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Failure to pay parking permit charges within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the parking permit purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the parking permit fees as a condition of approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. 3. Inspections by the Building Official, Fire Marshall and Washington County Health Department official shall occur and, within three months of the Special Use Permit issuance, the property owner shall come into conformance with all life, health and safety measures applicable to this commercial use. 4. Any exterior alterations shall go to the Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request (2 pages) Floor Plans 308 Chestnut Street West Case No. SUP/2015-40 CPC: December 9, 2015 Page 3 1 1 1 1 1 1-, 1 fi in IRIRI ini L se ,—,.1•111w hi 1 FR Ka a; It 5 o4p:4VI- .vv0• 0 ...l.l:.,. t.i14 itilt0teSi1-1 1si,et 1Alae4t tto*.:-E1:7°I.'•, i ••.t% Ite lk iEl :11PP11 ill I10II!4i iciiiiine -. [lt‘ ...c. ILI Ili ....40 of. so ro op its --.il fl:117iiiiiiiiiiiii mil (13. i@l rsti •• rair.- riti'' - .... \ EN is. limmiz .. ist‘lAi ktil \ sumo .. \:'_ 0,1111: \ la ** -.. 1 in solo' tio To' \ \ 1 1 a E EA oor- _, ,IFFEIN 111 PR ra9- --'-- `-'.‘ .... 111111 1111111 11111 lig 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota 308 Chestnut Street Site Location Subject Parcel Parcel Boundaries Municipal Boundary 145 290 580 Feet General Site Location 11111111111 • I I ill IMm 1111 1111 iiiii 1111111 hill 11111111111 I MIMI Hi 1111 !12.11 111111 111 11. November 12, 2015 To the Planning Commission, April 1, 2015 brought the tragic news of the unexpected passing of Scott Andrew Zahren, local businessman and entrepreneur. At the time of his passing, Scott was finalizing the financial plan for his retirement that was to take place within the next couple of years. His financial plans were solid and he was feeling so well that he talked of living long into that retirement. Scott was an adopted child who only later in life learned of his birth family. As such, he was extremely passionate about adoption and its impact on the adopted and their families. So passionate that he had named the St. Paul Foundation as sole beneficiary on his retirement account, to establish the Scott Zahren Foundation. Its purpose is to support charitable organizations or programs that promote adoptions and facilitate domestic adoptions. With those funds transferred to the St. Paul Foundation, there was nothing left to cover the many expenses of settling his estate while keeping the building's first floor tenant (The Wedge & Wheel) out of harm's way. Our main goal was to pay off Scott's debts and keep the Wedge & Wheel's business operating unimpeded. 2015 will be the first 'complete' year the W & W is in business. In conversations with the owner, it became clear that moving or any other disruption would be more than detrimental. As Scott had recently completed renovations and other improvements to the entire building, including updating its sprinkler system and HVAC, it was a logical conclusion to rent the apartment to in order to raise the funds necessary to cover estate and building costs. Given local apartment rental rates, it was clear that utilizing VRBO for brief and periodic stays was a superior method to generate these much needed funds. We began this VRBO approach in July and most weekends have been rented since. This has allowed the paying of legal fees, building insurance and utility costs, settling debts to the extent possible and ensuring the Wedge & Wheel is not adversely impacted. Initially, we found other VRBO activity within Stillwater but found no specific city ordinance(s) or other information addressing this activity. We did find, understand, acknowledge and are prepared to cover, both the city's lodging tax and state's sales tax requirements relative to this activity. Further, we had discovered the parking requirements and have secured off street parking at Shorty's Cleaners. In further discussions with other residents, we were advised to, and are now making, an appeal to the Planning Commission for this Special Use Permit. Given the apartment's excellent location and its beautiful condition, occupants have had nothing but high praise for their time spent in Stillwater at the apartment. Easy walking distance to all that Stillwater has to offer, these visitors explore and enjoy all the establishments and activities Stillwater provides and promotes. It is an excellent Stillwater marketing tool as all visitors speak of returning and spreading the word to friends and family. Visitors have expressed gratitude for this option as many have stated that all other rooms in Stillwater are completely booked, including those along Highway 36. We promote all the local establishments; restaurants, shops, other places to stay, along with historical venues, parks and trails. We think it is important to know Scott intended to pursue this activity for his apartment. Part of his retirement plans included utilizing VRBO to supplement his income. We are hopeful we can continue with Scott's plans and provide him a lasting legacy within his adopted hometown. Thank you. Sincer iy, John Atkins Personal Representative, Estate of Scott Zahren 14180 131st Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 (H) 651-430-1025 (M) 651-253-3381 Email: aliatkins@live.com DocuSlgn Envelope ID: 2DDE5BAF-9579-46EC-93A0-C791A3157643 Building Sketch Main Floor Sales Area Open Retail Space Restroom Second Floor Sleeping Area Living Room Dining Bath Laundry Kitchen Orion Appraisals, Inc. Page 33 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 9, 2015 CASE NO.: NA REGARDING: Front Yard Parking Survey and Ordinance Direction PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND At the Commission's last regularly scheduled meeting the Commission discussed direction from the Council to address yard parking. In addition to discussing the background of the ordinance, the anticipated impact, and the regulations of other communities, the Commission discussed certain items that were identified by staff as items that may need to be addressed in a new Ordinance. At the time, the Commission directed staff to solicit public input regarding yard parking perceptions. Although staff advised the discussion of the Commission and the results of the survey would result in the drafting of an ordinance, staff would like to review the contents of the survey with the Commission and draft and ordinance for the Commission's consideration in January. PAST COMMISSION DISCUSSION 1. Definition of 'Vehicle'. The Commission determined the definition should be: Any vehicle or trailer designed to be street legal (regardless whether it is currently street legal or not, and regardless whether it is currently registered/licensed or not); or Any self-propelled or pull - behind recreational vehicles (whether designed to be used on public streets or not), including, but not limited to, snowmobiles, all -terrain vehicles, watercraft, golf carts. 2. Improved vs. Unimproved Surfacing. The Commission discussed unimproved surfaces would include grass and dirt areas whereas improved surfaces would be concrete and asphalt. The Commission was not certain improved surfaces should include gravel. The Commission did determine the total impervious surface coverage for a property would be governed by the Zoning Code and that any newly created impervious surface coverages should not exceed the maximum allowable impervious surface coverage for a property. The Commission was further insistent that a property should not merely cover their front lawn with concrete or asphalt. 3. Total Number of Vehicles. The Commission was opposed to limiting the number of vehicles. 4. Side and Rear Yard Parking. While the Commission discussed Rear Yard parking and determined regulating parking in the rear should not be a part of this ordinance consideration, the Commission was not able to reach consensus regarding Side Yard parking. 5. Fencing, Residential vs. Commercial Properties, and Vehicle Length, Height and Bulk. The Commission had no specific direction for staff regarding fencing (i.e. screening), applicable properties, nor vehicles length, height and bulk. 6. Special Events and Time Limitations. The Commission indicated no exceptions should be put in place for special events or time limitations as these types of events are temporary in nature. However, the Commission did not consider those uses where 'temporary' is seasonal (winter or summer). PUBLIC INPUT SURVEY On November 16 City staff sent a press release to the Stillwater Gazette, the Lowdown, the Current, the Patch, the Pioneer Press, and the Star Tribune advising a public input survey was available until December 1st. Additionally, utilizing the City's constant contact, direct email was sent to 660 interested parties who have signed up to receive Planning Commission packets and minutes as well as the Stillwater Scene, the City's quarterly newsletter. A total of 297 survey responses were collected from 276 separate IP addresses online; an additional ten individuals made direct contact to share their opinions with City staff. Attached to this memo include: 1. Survey Questions and Tallied Results: The results are based on a total of (approximately) 279 survey respondents; some respondents chose to not answer a question (which would not register as a yes/no or true/false). Where two or more results from the same IP address were collected, staff analyzed the results of each of the records. Despite the record number of 297,18 responses were omitted as they contained the exact same information from the same IP address. For example, on November 17th at 16:41, one IP address registered the exact same content as a record submitted from the same IP address on the same date but at 16:42. Consequently, staff removed the secondary (16:42) record. If the records contained relatively different answers, staff retained the duplicate records (as this could be an indication two people from the same household took the survey, each reporting different perceptions). Of the total duplicate records eliminated, only two IP addresses had greater than one record removed. 2. Open-ended Comments by Neighborhood: Despite some records being removed from the tallied results, staff retained all open-ended records. However, staff removed one comment referencing a subject matter completely unrelated to the survey, ordinance development or other municipal regulation. Additionally, the elimination of information submitted was limited to last names and phone numbers as it was not disclosed to these individuals that this information would become public record. Yard Parking ZAT CPC 11/8/15 Page 2 of 6 3. Summary of Conversations: A summary of conversations staff directly had with individuals of the community are also attached. In all circumstances individuals were aware their names and addresses would go on the public record. SUMMARIZED SURVEY QUESTION RESULTS It should first and foremost be noted that of those respondents who chose to answer the question, only 20% indicated they currently do or have parked on their lawn. This suggests those who do or have not parked on their lawns were more represented in the survey. This should set the framework for the Commission's review and analysis of the survey results. Although 54% of respondents who answered the question indicated they did not think yard parking is a problem in Stillwater, 61% of people who responded to the question "[s]hould yard parking be regulated in Stillwater?" indicated yard parking should be regulated. Of those who answered the questions of whether or not regulations should be applicable in all residential districts or in all (residential, commercial, industrial) districts, 61 % and 51 %, respectively, indicated 'yes'. A total of 78 % of respondents who answered indicated if parking was regulated, it should be regulated in the front yard whereas only about half of the survey respondents indicated if parking was regulated it should be regulated in the side or corner yard. Greater than half of the respondents who answered the question "[i]f yard parking were regulated, which of the following should regulations be applicable to," indicated cars/pickups, RVs, Ice Houses on Skids, Pull -behind Campers, and Trailers should be regulated. Less than half of those respondents who answered the same question indicated ATVs, motorcycles and snowmobiles should be regulated if yard parking was regulated. When it came to surfacing materials, asphalt (89.25%), concrete (90.32%) and pavers (75.63%) were selected the most often as being defines as an improved surface. It is worthy of note, however, that no "improved surface" option (asphalt, concrete, grave, landscape rock, pavers, bricks, or driveway strips) was chosen by less than 50% of the respondents who answered. General support was for the development of parking pads along driveways and along the sides of homes. When asked if parking in the front of the house should only be done on the driveway, 67% of respondents who answered indicated it should be. Additionally, the majority of those who responded to the individual questions indicated (generally speaking), parking behind a fence or in the rear yard should not be regulated. OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS AND CONVERSATIONS The open-ended comments and staff conversations were similar to the findings of the tallied survey questions. While staff attempts to (albeit, briefly) summarize the comments, below, this is by no means a comprehensive assessment of all comments. Commissioners are strongly encouraged to read through all open-ended comments and staff conversation summaries. For those individuals who were in support of the development of yard parking regulations, and in addition to addressing specific properties that should be regulated, many open comments Yard Parking ZAT CPC 11/8/15 Page 3 of 6 indicated the development of yard parking regulations should be applicable to the chronic offenders, that allowances should be made for wintertime parking when street parking regulations are in effect, and that overall junk in yards needs to be cleaned up as certain expectations are made when people live in cities. Furthermore commenters indicated parking should be limited to driveways and garages, with consideration of vehicles placed behind solid fences. For those who respondents who are not in support of the development of yard parking restrictions, comments focused on the relatively small lot (and garage/driveway) sizes of parcels in the older neighborhoods, that regulations regarding yard parking place too much emphasis on the looks of the community, that the cost of offsite storage is high and storage options are limited in Stillwater, and that requiring improved surfacing is cost prohibitive. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS In examining the feedback provided by survey respondents, there are a few sections of the Code staff would like to make of note as the City either already has regulations in place, as well as certain definitions that would need to be utilized for the purposed of administration and enforcement of new yard parking regulations. • City Code Chapter 31, Zoning, defines a Yard as an open space on a lot unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward. o Yard, front means an open unoccupied space on the same lot with a main building, extending the full width of the lot and situated between the front lot line and the front line of the building projected to the sidelines of the lot. o Yard, rear means an open, unoccupied space on the same lot with a main building, between the rear line of the building and the rear line of the lot and extending the full width of the lot. o Yard, side means an open, unoccupied space on the same lot with the main building situated between the building and the sideline of the lot and extending from the front yard to the rear yard. Any lot line not a rear line or a front line shall be deemed a lot line. • City Code Section 38-1, Nuisances, defines Refuse as all waste including paper, garbage, material resulting from the handling, processing, storage, preparation, serving and consumption of food, vegetable or animal matters, offal, rubbish, plant wastes such as tree trimmings or grass cuttings, ashes, incinerator residue, street cleanings, construction debris, detached vehicle parts and solid industrial and market wastes. • City Code Section 40-1, Abandoned Vehicles, indicates vehicles without license plates or those with places which have an expiration date more than 90 days prior to the date of inspection may not be located on private property unless located in a garage. This provision is the same for disabled vehicles and vehicles under repair so long as they are not kept for a period greater than 90 days. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Based on the schedule provided in the last meeting, a public hearing is estimated to be set for the Commission's January 13th meeting. In order to continue on that schedule, the Commission Yard Parking ZAT CPC 11/8/15 Page 4 of 6 should discuss the survey in addition to those items the Commission has already discussed. For discussion purposes, staff would like to propose the following for consideration: 1. The definition of a vehicle shall be: Any vehicle or trailer designed to be street legal (regardless whether it is currently street legal or not, and regardless whether it is currently registered/licensed or not); or Any self-propelled or pull -behind recreational vehicles (whether designed to be used on public streets or not), including, but not limited to, snowmobiles, all - terrain vehicles, watercraft, golf carts. This was determined at the last Commission meeting and has been utilized on the City's website and in the public input survey. 2. The maximum driveway width at the curb is 16'. This is a regulation Public Works already employs for the construction of new driveways however the provision has not been codified. 3. The definition of a parking pad shall be: A maximum 10' X 30' concrete, asphalt, paver or gravel area, located contiguous to a driveway area, designed to accommodate the parking of a vehicle. By establishing the maximum parking pad area, each property is regulated the same and would not identify a maximum number of vehicles. The size for a new parking stall created in Stillwater is 9x18'. The allowance of a parking pad larger than the standard parking stall size would accommodate non-traditional vehicles on the parking pad. However, it would limit the length of vehicles placed on the pad: • A brand new GMC Denali Crew Cab, with a long box, is 21.5' long. • A brand new Lund 208 Tyee GL Sport, with motor and trailer, is 24' long. • A brand new Winnebago 25RKS is 28'9". 4. The City shall restrict the parking of any vehicle in the Front Yard to garages, established driveways, or on established parking pads in all districts with the exception of the AP - Agricultural Preservation district. The Commission should discuss the provision for parking pads the Front Yards areas (potentially in regards to maximum impervious surface coverage in the front yard) as well as the Commission's desire to make these provisions the same in all districts, including the AP District. 5. Regarding Side Yard parking: a. Parking in the Side Yard area shall be on a parking pad and/or behind a solid fence. b. Parking pads may not be closer side lot line than an accessory structure nor may they be located in any dedicated conservation easement area. The Commission should discuss whether or not parking in the side yard is acceptable and, if so, if it is acceptable only on a parking pad, behind a fence, behind a fence with a parking pad and whether or not a setback should be required. Yard Parking ZAT CPC 11/8/15 Page 5 of 6 6. One parking pad shall be allowed per property so long as the maximum impervious surface coverage does not exceed the maximum coverage allowed in the district. In efforts to address the concerns of maximum impervious surface coverage, the Commission should discuss the requirements to cap the number of parking pads and impervious surface coverage for any given parcel. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Commission should review the results of the survey and open-ended comments. The Commission should discuss the survey results in relationship to those items previously discussed by the Commission. The Commission should further examine and discuss the staff proposed recommendations for the direction to staff of the development of an ordinance for consideration of the Commission. ATTACHMENTS Survey Questions and Tallied Results (3 pages) Open-ended Comments by Neighborhood (11 pages) Summary of Conversations (2 pages) Yard Parking ZAT CPC 11/8/15 Page 6 of 6 SURVEY QUESTIONS AND TALLIED RESULTS Based on the map, above, which neighborhood do you live in? Dutchtown Total Percentage 8 2.88% North Hill South Hill Central 53 19.06% 44 15.83% 40 14.39% North Central West Central West Stillwater or AP Zone Do you think yard parking is a problem in Stillwater? Yes 54 19.42% 48 17.27% 31 11.15% 278 127 45.85% No 150 54.15% 277 Is yard parking a problem in your neighborhood? Yes No 97 35.02% 180 64.98% Is yard parking a problem in other neighborhoods? Yes No 277 120 45.98% 141 54.02% Please indicate which neighborhoods yard parking is a problem: Dutchtown North Hill 261 47 16.85% 76 27.24% South Hill Central North Central 60 21.51% 65 23.30% 49 17.56% West Central West Stillwater or AP Zone 45 16.13% 22 7.89% Should yard parking be regulated in Stillwater? Yes 168 61.31% 106 38.69% Should yard parking be regulated in all residential districts? Yes 274 166 60.58% No 108 39.42% Should yard parking be regulated in all districts including residential, commercial, industrial, etc.? Yes 274 140 50.91% No 135 49.09% Do you park on your lawn or have you parked on your lawn in the past Yes 275 57 20.50% No 221 79.50% 278 If yard parking was regulated, which of the following should regulations be applicable to? Front Yard 215 77.06% Corner Yards 148 53.05% Side Yards 146 52.33% Rear Yards 89 31.90% Cars/Pickups 186 66.67% RVs 180 64.52% Pull -behind Campers Trailers ATVs/Snowmobiles/Motorcycles Ice Houses on Skids Other 163 58.42% 157 56.27% 138 49.46% 168 60.22% 26 9.32% Your defintion of an improved surface is which of the following? Asphalt Concrete 249 252 89.25% 90.32% Gravel 176 63.08% Landscape Rock 148 53.05% Pavers 211 75.63% Bricks 203 72.76% Driveway Strips 161 57.71% True or False: Parking in the front of the house should only be done on a driveway. TRUE 186 67.15% FALSE 91 32.85% 277 True or False: The City should allow for parking pads to be developed on the side of a driveway. TRUE 205 75.93% FALSE 65 24.07% 270 True or False: The City should allow for parking pads to be developed on the side of a house. TRUE 205 75.09% FALSE 68 24.91% 273 True or Flase: Vehicles should be allowed to park on the side of the home on an unimproved surface. TRUE FALSE 102 174 36.96% 63.04% 276 True or False: The City should not regulate parking on side yards where fence is in place. TRUE 156 57.56% FALSE 115 271 True or Flase: The City should not regulate the parking of vehicles behind the front line of the house. TRUE FALSE 126 146 272 42.44% 46.32% 53.68% True or Flase: Vehicles should be allowed to park in the rear of a property on an unimproved surface. TRUE 163 FALSE 116 279 58.42% 41.58% True or False: The City should not regulate parking in rear yards. TRUE 153 55.23% FALSE 124 44.77% 277 Neighborhood Comment Dutchtown 1. Residents have limited space available on their lots given the historic small lot sizes in Stillwater. If any ordinances are considered they should apply to standard lot sizes of 10,000 SqFT and larger. In addition there is no on street parking in many areas. 2. if regulations are developed they should only apply to more than a total of 2 vehicles(cars/trucks). The majority of households need 2 cars for commuting. If a resident is only able to have one car on site given the constraints of their lot it will significantly impact their income and resale value of the home. 3. grass pavers are also an improved surface Indiscriminate yard parking is an eyesore throughout the City of Stillwater! Please establish a universal yard parking ordinace and consistently enforce it. Visual blight reduces overall property values and diminishes the quality of life for residents who care about making Stillwater a place that we can be proud to call home. Yard parking regulations should include commercial vehicles and equipment. North Hill boats Do neighbors get to control their views? If so, do neighbors get to control window placement? I fear it"s a slippery slope of view ownership and control, especially in the back yard. Rather than add new control, why not enforce those on the books like street parking and noise, smoke, air pollution. Boats are parked on streets. Cars parked as speed control, diverting traffic, etc. What happened to the traffic mitigation? Noise mitigation? Enforce the law in place before adding only a means for neighbor harassment. Don"t fix what isn"t busted. I guess I would like to see a limit to the number of vehicles parked around the yard no matter what the surface is. I also question the fact that if a house is on three lots does that give the owner three times the limit of allowed vehicles. I have to park in my yard because there is no other place to parkin the winter when they are plowing. If I am forced to put in a driveway then the city should pay for it because I don"t have the money for it. I do not want a driveway either because I will lose my gardens and have to look at cement in front of my house all summer. I have lived in Stillwater for 38 years and no one has ever complained to me about this. I live downtown, so this type of parking is not normally seen. I have seen in various locations driving in and out of the city I would like the ordinance to read that one car or one RV could be parked with the permission of the surrounding homes such as is needed with tall fences. If someone is storing a broken down jalopy, then I can see a problem. I think there are bigger problems to be concerned with than this. There are enough ordinances and regulations. North Hill In the winter I have to park on the grass in my front yard (we have 3 cars). So while I think some regulation is a good idea, I"m more concerned with size and numbers. Should a large boat be allowed in the front of a house? Side? Back yard? In any position, neighbors generally have to look at what you have parked. I think temporary is fine, but for a summer? Ditto RV"s, etc. Thanks for asking. lnforce current ordinances - speed, noise, stop sign, winter parking, parking commercial vehicles over night on city streets, No tents or conapies. No tarps over outdoor storage except firewood/patio furniture -seasonable. No selling of multiple vehicles in a period of time. Please address parking on vacant/empty lots in the City. Only vehicles that are registered to the owner of the property should be allowed to be parked on improved surfaces on vacant/empty lots. In addition, commercial or business vehicles, trailers, etc. should not be routinely stored in residential areas for extended periods of time. Parts of the North Hill are a great example of the yard parking problem that exists in Stillwater, MN. The properties at 1008 Broadway St. N. and 1012 Broadway St. N. have the following assortment of vehicles parked around their yards and not in their rear garages: ^'2SUV"s ^' 3 pickup trucks ^'1car 3 Boats on trailers - 1 skid loader ^' 1 flatbed trailers that is 24"+ 2 white covered construction trailers that are 24"+ ^' 1 silver covered storage trailer that is 24"+ Please DRIVE around the streets of Stillwater and view private yards as visitors to our City do. Our visitors are appalled when they drive down some streets on the North Hill. They ask us why some property owners should be allowed to create such visual blight with all assortment of vehicles and junk parked all over their yards.. We have no logical answer to give them. We are ashaned of the eyesore that some of the residential areas in Stillwater have become. Please strengthen and enforce the nusisance ordinances. North Hill Please pay particular attention to vacant/open lots throughout the City. On vacant lots, setbacks for parked vehicles sould ve at least 30 feet from the street and 20 fet from adjacent properties. Parking on vacant lots should only be on improved surfaces. It is time for Stillwater residential/ areas to stop looking like junkyards. Please do a better job of enforcing all ordinances. The City already has regulations for passenger vehicles - need to be operable and currently licensed that should be enforced. My yard is fenced with chain link fence- no access to back yard for parking, so sometimes have to park a small utility trailer or watercraft off season along driveway in the front. The city should not regulate parking in yards or non -paved surfaces. How would this impact residents with gravel driveways or environmentally friendly grass paver driveways? This is over -regulation --and 1"m a liberal! We have a large side yard at our house, 314 4th St N. We have used the side yard, which is mostly shielded from the street, on a few special occasions, most recently when we allowed our neighbors to park there while our street was being renovated this summer. Also used for temporary parking on a few occasions. However, due to the continuing increase in noise from downtown, and various neighbors (including the Library), I am hoping to purchase a small travel trailer that will allow me to leave town on some of the noisier weekends. The Art Fair last fall had music so loud I could hear it 8 blocks from my house! It is becoming unbearable. I would need to park the trailer in our side yard, and would be mostly unseen from the street. I don"t know what is being considered "improved surfaces" but we are retired and on a very fixed income. I believe that the city of Stillwater needs to consider the needs of all its residents, and not just the single one who it appears complained. You may contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Jane P. North Hill South Hill We have numerous vehicles parked or stored on the adjacent properties at 1008 and 1012 North Broadway. At any time there could be three boats on trailers, two large covered construction trailers, a large flat bed trailer with junk on it, one skid loader, three pickups, one SUV, one sedan, and one large covered trailer (>24") now used for storage. Both properties have double garages but none of the vehicles are in the garages. One pickup is registered in WI and has only moved once in the last 6 months and only a few times in the last three years. At least one of the construction trailers belongs to a business not owned by any of the residents of the properties. Implementation of parking regulations will probably move some of them against our lot line <10" from our front entrance, but —100" from their nearest primary structure. One trailer spends at least half of the year right up against our front entrance. The regulations should address parking on vacant/unimproved lots. No vehicle should be allowed to be parked closer to a neighbors primary structure than to the owner"s primary structure. The number of vehicles allowed to be parked on any property should be limited. No vehicles should be parked in a front yard other than on an improved driveway. No temporary structures should be allowed for parking or anything beyond very short term storage. Garbage cans are supposed to be out of site. Why allow everything else that is unsightly and reduces property values? Well, when you have no driveway only street parking when you start handing out tickets for even odd before it even snowed we should have every right to park in our own yards to avoid the parking ticket. When you say "regulate" you mean that it is not permissible, is that correct? That is an important definition. I am ok with "Regulate" to mean there are rules around it. But the questions above lead me to believe that it means it will not be allowed. I believe off street parking should be allowed on driveways, and parking pads in the front and sides of yards. I also feel parking on undeveloped areas of a back yard is fine as long as it is not an eye sore for the backyard neighbors. Hello, Funny that this came up now. I was just complaining about how the city is going down hill with vehicles, utility trailors, rv"s. All these things parked anywhere are just an eyesore to the neighborhood. There is an family at 1032 5th Ave. S that has a old trunk parked parallel with the street on the boulevard. Further down the street is across from the athletic field is a rv, utility trailor. Glad that parking is being addressed. I don"t like seeing cars parked on the grass in the front lawn, unless it is off to the side of a driveway. Parking on the side or rear yard should not be controlled by the city. We already have TOO MANY cars parking on the street, and it will get worse if you don"t allow people to park on their own property. I park a camper in my side/rear yard. I have done this for years and no one has complained. Please do note change the rules. South Hill In yard parking of motorcycles should also be regulated if the other vehicles are regulated. Nothing offered in the survey on short term temporary situations caused by, e.g. weather. I did not like this survey. It didn"t give context, reasons for concern, issues related to the alternatives and did not allow for "no opinion" or "no knowledge" responses. If I had answered all the questions, it would have been based on ignorance as you intended. Keep in mind the small lots in Stillwater, many people have recreational vehicles and they need to be able to park them on their premises. I think that if the items are parked on the side or rear of the home that should not be anybody"s business. I agree that those items should not be parked in the front yard. Limit the number of vehicles stored or parked on any residential lot. Vehicles on vacant lots should only be parked on asphalt or concrete. Vehicles on empty lots should be parked 30' from the street and at least 20' from any adjacent residential properties. Empty lots should not be used to store vehicles, junk or non -permanent 'storage' structures for any extended period of time. We promote our beautiful City, but have done a very poor job of beautifying our many of our residential areas. Enforce our ordinances consistently instead of relying on a complaint -driven process. Many of my neighbors park RV"s or Trailers in their side yard or back yard and I do not have an issue with this. Where else are they supposed to put them? I think the only regulation should be no "junk" and/or no un-licensed vehicles to be parked outside on private property. No one want to live next to a "junk yard"! Matt Regulations should provide for visual screening of vehicle to neighbors and ground water protection of anything dripping from vehicle. The ridiculous on street laws from Nov to April are the problem. Where are the questions on this? You are surveying the symptoms without a dressing the problem. This is a complex topic and difficult to answer in a "true / false" venue. We don"t want to take away individual homeowners" freedoms, but we don"t want our neighborhoods to look junky. That is especially problematic for the next -door neighbor. One of my neighbors used to park his boat in the driveway of his residence, and even that looked junky. This is a tough one to handle. You need to be careful about regulating or mandating home owners to install driveways or parking spots. The vehicle may only be parked for hours a day vs a driveway being there 24x7. This is not a problem requiring government intervention. When a person buys a property they should be able to use it for storage of their personal property even if a neighbor has arbitrarily decided that it is unattractive. An individual"s property rights should trump the opinions of their neighbors. South Hill Central Yard parking should be regulated when the vehicle is visible from the street. For example we have a rental property next door that uses the front yard to park cars in the winter during winter parking regulations. North Central Don"t waste valuable resources and tax dollars regulating something as trivial as parking. This discriminates against the lower income residents who have smaller yards, perhaps no garages or outbuildings,and families with older historic homes who may have small lots. Our goal should be to keep vehicles and the like off our city streets. We do not live in Woodbury, nor do we want to. Fence should completely block view, i.e. Not chain link. Go look at 421 Hanson Place and see what a junk yard looks like I am not sure if yard parking is A PROBLEM in all areas of town but it is being done in all areas, some are worse than others. Even though I think it should be regulated in town, I question the need of another ordinance that can"t or won"t be enforced equally and fairly. We have enough ordinances of that type. I walk every day around Stillwater. This is seriously NOT a problem in our community. I would think the regulations should be limited. Only prevent extreme abuses. Let people have cars or vehicles where they want to. You already have the power to force people to keep these vehicles licenced My issue is with the size of the thing being parked. A large RV or boat parked in front or on the side of the house makes a bigger visual impact than a car or trailer. I would think it is a safety issue as well if police/fire can"t see the house numbers. My neighbors have an average of 7 cars at their house EVERY DAY. They park those cars in their front yard, halfway on the street and half on the yard, on their side yard and in the driveway. They have no improved surfaces other than the driveway. It is such an eyesore and brings the look of the neighborhood down, as it looks like a junkyard. It really needs to be regulated, as they also park boats, trailers and even a bobcat in these places, and it looks horrible. The regulations that are currently in place should be enforced. It is an imposition on the neighbors when trailers are stored in driveways and cars parked in the street so snow plowing is impossible. This is a major problem on Meadowlark Drive. Please do something about it. This isn"t a problem. Please, don"t enact a solution in search of a problem. Boats too Fence is too generic. Privacy vs cyclone, etc You are on to something! Need to eliminate the start of junk yards. North Central condition and appearance of vehicle or other objects would have to be determined. no parts or junk vehicles for example. an ry in state of disrepair. this would open another can of worms to find out what does or does not look ok. fences would disguise some vehicles but not any over 6 ft. high. I own an ry and understand what it would be like to have to look at something that you did not like. when you live in the city sometimes exeptions have to be made. this is going to be a tough one I think. thank you Downtown Stillwater is becoming a "destination" place. Yard parking can quickly become a blight that can lower property values and give the wrong message to weekend visitors. Hopefully an ordinance that will be enforced without the need for complaints to be made i.e. storage of garbage cans in the front or side of homes in full view of the street. I have a neighbor who parks a GIANT motorhome in his side yard. It is awful to look at. My view out my kitchen widow is ruined. Again, the motorhome is GIANT!!! I would only approve the law for non working vehicles that are there for more than 1 year. If the vehicle is working and tastefully parked, then I have NO problem with them. We cannot expect our community members to get storage units for any vehicle that does not for on their driveways. We buy houses so we don"t have to. We have 4 licences drivers in our house. We need to have places off- street to park. We also have a camper and small boat trailer. 1"m not sure if this falls under this ordinance, but we have an issue with boats being parked on Lecuyer Drive (not in their yard -- but on the street). While the one at 1020 Lecuyer Drive sat there all summer and was moved/used for a total of maybe 4-days between May -Sept and has since been stored away. The other one at 1040 Lecuyer Drive is moved nearly everyday but it"s always back on the street after he"s gone fishing. There"s only one house between these two offenders -- and I REALLY feel bad for them.... not to mention the people across the street that have to look at these ugly row/fishing boats day after day. Large boats and trailers should not be allowed to be parked on the street in front of houses for the length of the summer. If there is a code regulating this, perhaps it is not being enforced. My neighbor has a GIANT motorhome, they park in the side of their yard. If you don"t allow side yard parking, front yard parking is just as awful. It blocks the street view. Please also address GIANT motorhome storage. They are not nice to look at. Parking on lawns when there is plenty of driveway is unsightly and brings the visual appeal of a neighborhood down. Please don"t over reach and change or add any parking regulations. Residents should be able to use their property as they see fit - THEY OWN it and PAY TAXES on it. If neighbors or passersby don"t like the view - look away or move away. Rear, side yard and behind fence parking could be acceptable depending on the type of fence (see -through or solid) and whether the sight -line from a person at ground level, of the vehicle, is above or below the height of the fence. North Central Regulate all non -permanent structures that are erected to hold vehicles of all sorts along with junk. Deal with vehicles stored on vacant lots that are parked on unimproved surfaces and/or next to adjacent properties. Please enforce existing nuisance laws. Enforcement should not have to be complaint -driven. Regulate commercial parking at auto body shop at Owens and McKusick. In addition, they should not park in trailhead parking lot. Residential yard parking is a problem throughout Stillwater. Yard parking should only be allowed on improved surfaces. Temporary/non-permanent parking/storage structures should not be allowed in the City. Vacant lots should not have vehicles, etc. stored on them unless they are on an improved surface and at a great distnce from adjacent properties. Why should Stillwater, MN look junky like most of Houlton, WI? Develop, strengthen and enforce nuisances ordinances to deal with Stillwater's visual blight! The problem is seeing vehicles or campers parked for months. Weeds start to grow and it makes the whole neighborhood look shoddy. This is a problem throughout Stillwater. I don"t care what people do in their back yards as long as I don"t see it from the road. This is not a problem. The city should not be regulating this. Many of the questions on the survey are leading and I feel the city will use them for misleading statistics. Like a majority of respondents said campers should be regulated, but the question says if parking was regulated what should be regulated. I don"t think there needs to be any additional regulations as this is not a problem. This survey is ridiculous. We have elected officials that respond to these types of regulatory issues and there is no need for a simple survey like this. Unsightly yard parking probably impacts less than 5% of the population. That doesn"t mean it shouldn"t be regulated. This survey is the chicken way out for our elected officials. Do something now to this crap out of peoples yards and into garages. Driveways and garages are for parking. That"s all. If you want to park in the grass, move out into the country. Makes the city look bad. Unless the car/vehicle that"s parked is broke down, missing tires, has broken glass, why should it be any business of the city/town where you park? it"s my yard, right? We don"t need an ordinance or rules about yard parking. It is not a problem in Stillwater. Sometimes a neighbor may need to park in their yard for a season due to life circumstances and we should not be concerned about this. But if an ordinance is written, it should only apply to long term situations where the vehicle is not regularly moved. West Central Croixwood has some issues lately with cars parking in front yards, especially on Maryknoll drive ....a couple houses have multiple cars parking in the front yard year round. Others have trailers parked in the grass on the side of the house. In addition, some homes have cars parked in their back yards and boats. It"s becoming a concern. I am unaware of other neighborhoods in Stillwater, but all rules should be applied fairly to all residents. If parking on rocks or concrete it seems fine ...but front yards, back yards, and in grass seems inappropriate. I answered false to last 4 questions because although many situations MAY be okay, they can ALL be abused when excessive overlarge, or unlicensed vehicles exist. Could it be complaint based? Yard parking is not a pervasive problem in Stillwater but unquestionably there are problem properties! NOTE: 204 Maryknoll Drive - 8 cars parked there this past weekend. 3 on unimproved left side yard, 2 in driveway, 2 half on street/half on lawn and 2 fully on front lawn. If you regulated parking on yards, then more people would park all of their vehicles in their driveways, which would result in more sidewalks being blocked! Please consider us pedestrians! Improving the surface in my side yard would be a financial burden to me. Let"s worry about the bigger issues in town, not this. Many homes have limited parking options. I much prefer to see vehicle in yards than parked in the street, especially in Croixwood, with it"s narrow & winding streets. Most homes at some time period will have need for a car or 2 to park on the side of a driveway or house temporarily. That"s does not bother us but when a front yard has 8 cars parked in it every night it is an eye sore & makes one wonder why. Boarding house or what is happening. I would hate to be trying to sell my home with that on my street. No parking other than driveway unless it"s on an approved parking pad contingent with the existing garage Ok to park on side behind fence if it is privacy fence, not chain link. It" small looks Parking restriction should include commercial vehicles (i.e., trucks) parked in front of employee residences on the boulevard or in the yard. Size limits of boats, campers, trailers, etc. should be regulated. Smaller sized vehicles would be more acceptable on finished surfaces. Taxes are high enough, police and enforcment are over burdened with REAL problems. Find sonething else to regulate.. Good Lord! West Cetnral West Central Temporary structures that are installed to "house" vehicles should not be allowed. They are a visual blight, often not maintained and reduce neighborhood property values. Vacant residential lots need to be regulated regarding storage including, but not limited to all sorts of vehicles,structures, etc. Vehicles and "temporary" structures should not be allowed to be parked or installed closer than 20 feet of adjacent properties. Throughout Stillwater, MN some property owners have undermined the quality of life and the property values of the rest of the residents in the neighborhoods by parking all manner of vehicles and installing all sorts of "storage" structures. Please do a better job of enforcing the rest of the ordinances that exist. Our lovely community is full of eyesores! Enforcement should not have to be driven by complaints which only pits one neighbor against another. The last I checked, this was a free country. Why should the City of Stillwater concern itself with this "issue" of homeowners who pay local, state and federal taxes? A vehicle parked in one"s yard is much safer than having that vehicle parked on the street. The number of items parked in view of the street should also be limited; one maximum. They can park others behind a fence in their back yard. There is a guy on Maryknoll who keeps parking more and more vehicles in his yard and it is making the whole neighborhood look like a sloppy mess. There is someone across the street who is trying to sell their home, but the guy doesn"t seem to care about how his sloppy habits are messing up his neighbors plans. This is an area where people, by and large, try to make there property look nice. I think the guy who owns the home on Maryknoll works as a contractor. What he should be doing is renting space to park his vehicle and extra equipment. He shouldn"t be using his front yard for storage of his business equipment. He seems like a nice guy, but he is also a big slob. He should know better than to do this. Maybe this guy should have bought property out in a rural area where he would have room for parking. I am assuming that this is the guy that has prompted talk about this parking ordinance. When people live in the city, they have limits on what they can do with their property. I live a block over from the Maryknoll slob and I keep my front yard nice and neat, so people driving down the street will see and nice clear vista all the way down the street. This is a tough one to come up with a fair and clear regulation that is applicable across so many different property types, sizes, configurations and whether a property is isolated or in a densely developed area. But I feel something should be done to abolish what are clearly flagrant situations where remiss property owners visually degrade neighborhoods and adjacent owners property values by having their yards littered with all manner of vehicles, especially those parked on front and side lawns. A few of these situations exist in our Croixwood neighborhood (Maryknoll Drive near Interlachen) as of the past two years when new owners moved in and I and all those I know feel it is a visual blight. West Central Yard parking is not a problem in Stillwater. Regulating yard parking creates more problems than it solves. There are probably already ordinances in place to deal with nuisance properties or other isolated situations where yard parking has become a problem. Please don"t turn Stillwater into a city with a myriad of rules and laws. We have had to park in our yard to get off the street during snow plow nights. We have older children with vehicles which all don"t fit on the driveway. I can think of at least 4 neighbors who have at some time parked in their yards. I never thought of it as an issue or eyesore. We don"t need our police or other city staff wasting time enforcing petty issues like yard parking. Thank you West Stillwater/AP A limit imposed on parking commercial vehicles would be reasonable as would any regulation needed for safety. Presume also nuisance ordinances may apply. A maximum number of days should be considered (30?) in any regulation to allow for temporary needs of home owners as well as maximum size and number of vehicles or trailers allowed on any surface visible from the street. Lot size should be a consideration with exceptions for larger/rural lots. I am assuming that this discussion is regarding operational vehicles. I think operational vehicles, ones that move regularly, should be allowed to park. Broken down cars should not. Is there a difference between seasonal and year round parking (permanent storage). Is an old rusty vehicle that never moves different than a household with 2 adults and 4 kids - all of driving age - trying to find a place to park 6 vehicles? Is parking somewhere on one"s property better than parking on the streets - which are often times narrow? No new parking regulation is needed. We have cars that parked on both sides of streets in our area - some homes have 6 cars parked on Maryknoll. We own a boat which we currently have no space for in our driveway so we have to store it off site. But when we would like to have it at home, it would be very helpful if we were able to keep it on our side yard. I don"t want Stillwater to look like a junk yard, but since we are in Legends and cannot park it on the street (which does not stop some of our neighbors anyway) it would be nice to keep it on our side yard sometimes. Date Name 11/18/2015 Katie Friend 11/18/2015 Ray Roemmich 11/18/2015 Judtih Letizio 11/19/2015 Stan Miller 11/19/2015 Charles Zajach 11/19/2015 Mary Helen Hansen 11/19/2015 Rob Sancartier 11/20/2015 Delayne Strand 11/23/2015 Anonymous STAFF CONVERSATIONS Neighborhood or Address 301 Crestwood Terrace South Hill Croixwood 216 Owens Street South North Hill Comment Inquired about 40' RVs parked in yards as neighbor, across the street, has one that no longer fits in garage or on driveway. There is a property near Maryknoll and Interlachen that parks on lawn and side yard. This should be regulated Does not see a problem with parking in a yard and is concerned for the high cost of storage for residents. What about one -car driveway and a one -car garage in a three - car family? Applaude efforts of City to ban parking in visible areas of the yard. Thinks it is good to eliminate boats and RVs in yards. Inquired about addign asphalt section to driveway and whether or not that would be permissible. With the tax rate as it is, people cannot afford to live in Stillwater and cannot afford to buy a bigger property. This will impose more costs onto property owners. Expressed concern the elected officials are more concerned about what the town looks like than how the residents are able to live here and the residents themselves. Believes is it not the government's role to tell people what to do with their land and that the City should focus on what can be done to improve the quality of life for those who live here. Has a one -car driveway with more than one driver in the household and in the winter plows a space next to the driveway. If regulations were to be developed, there should be wintertime allowances so property owners may have extra vehicles closer to the home (to plug in and start in the morning). This should extend during the entire street parking restriction season. Does not feel this can be applied equally, espcially in the older, historic neighborhoods. Inquired when the boat in his yard would be in violation and curious about the process for regulation development and adoption. 11/24/2015 Al Donnohue 1900 Oak Glen Lane 12/2/2015 Anonymous 12/2/2015 George Vania North Hill Has a 38' long, 12' tall RV in his side yard that would not have been permissible in the neighborhood had the HOA not disbanded. Has an RV garage stall but it is not big enough for the new RV. This has been parked in this location since 2010. Inquired about permeable surfacing and if exceptions would be made regarding different types of materials, such as a geo-grid material. Lastly noted indoor and outdoor storage in the Stillwater area is limited and expensive. Indicated he would likely have to sell his RV. Inquiry of what the regulations would be. Advised Class 5 should be allowed in those areas where Class 5 exists. Indicated would be at the public meetings. Indicated parking should not be visible in the Front Yard and alongside the house but that if located on the side of the house, a paved surface should be required. Parking on the grass should not be permitted. Abbi Wittman From: Friend, Katie Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 11:38 AM To: Abbi Wittman Subject: Oak Glen Lawn Parking Attachments: FullSizeRender jpg Hello, I am in favor of addressing lawn parking. My concern is that the massive RV (in the attached photo) will be moved to the driveway. In my opinion, a vehicle of this size should be in storage. It sits almost on a property line. Thank you, Katie Friend 1901 Oak Glen Lane Stillwater Abbi Wittman From: Nile Kriesel .1111111/111.) Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 3:58 PM To: Abbi Wittman Subject: Parking on lawns. Ms. Wittman: I am in favor of banning parking of vehicles, especially RVs, on front or side yards. Thank you. Nile Kriesel 627 Hillside Lane Stillwater, MN 55082 Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Abbi Wittman From: BHerm Sent: Wednesday, ovember 18, 2015 9:26 PM To: Abbi Wittman Subject: Yard Parking & Survey HI Abbi, I am unable to access the survey, but would like to state my opinion on this. I live in Croixwood, and Phil Burg (?Berg) on Woodridge has no less than 4 cars, a new Ford F250 or 350 dually pick-up truck, a 20-25 foot trailer, and maybe more vehicles parked in his yard. At any given time, at least 2 vehicles are non-functioning. Currently, his whole front yard and driveway are completely covered by vehicles. It is a complete eyesore among other homes that are well -maintained. I support any yard parking ordinance that would prohibit Phil from being able let Phil make his yard a parking lot. Sincerely, Barb Herman 1102 Nightingale Blvd. i Abbi Wittman From: Mike Polehna Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 7:25 AM To: Bill Turnblad; Abbi Wittman Subject: FW: parking situation Here are some thoughts on the yard parking situation for you. Mike From: Delayne Strand Sent: Sunday, December To: Mike Polehna Subject: parking situation 2015 8:02 PM Dear Council Member, I am writing in regards to the current parking situation in Stillwater. I have lived in Stillwater for almost thirty years. we bought our home on the North Hill area thinking that it would be a starter home, and we would only be in this home for a short time. But we love the neighbors and the neighborhood, so almost thirty years later we are still here. We have raised our children here and have no plans on leaving. But we now have four drivers and only a one car driveway. This is not unusual in Stillwater's older neighborhoods. There are many homes with only a one car driveway, and there are many homes with no garage and no driveway. So for many we have to park on the street. This is usually not a big problem until old man winter comes along. We have to deal with the parking restrictions, whatever the date that is the side of the road we park on, even date - even side; odd date - odd side of the road. This is a big pain. We park on whatever side of the road that we are required to, but then late at night we have to switch to tomorrows side of the road. So this means starting your car - in frigid winter temps, driving to the corner, and then parking on the other side of the road. This is especially difficult when my husband is out of town for work or we have car issues due to the cold, not all cars like to start for two minutes when the temperatures are below zero. So we end up shoveling out parking spots in our yard. This is a realistic way to deal with the winter parking ban, the cold weather and everything else that winter can throw at you. There was a time a few years ago, when we had the flu going through the home, husband is out of town for work, I feel like a was run over by a freight train, and there I am playing car jockey with all of the vehicles. That is when we have parked in our yard. We love our 134 year old home, but unfortunately it does not have a four car garage and driveway, just a one car driveway, and we deal with it the best that we can. My suggestion is if you are going to ban vehicles in a yard, make it only between April and November, and for more than say six vehicles. We do not want junkyards, but do you want an elitists community? i Are you going to start banning certain colors that I can paint my home, am I going to have to plant certain plants because my neighbor doesn't like what I have planted in my yard at my purple and pink home? Stillwater is an old town with old homes and you learn to make do with what you have and do the best that you can. When it is 20 degrees below zero and my car will not start should I be ticketed because I am on the wrong side of the road? Do you want to pass rules and laws because someone doesn't like something that the neighbor does? I am asking the Stillwater Council to be realistic and think of all the different homes and neighborhoods that make Stillwater the great city that it is and continue to allow peopl araekirpthei,. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Delayne Strand Sent from Windows Mail iecessary. 2 liwater t H E BIRTHPLACE OE MINNESOTA Planning Commission DATE: TOPIC: FROM: December 3, 2015 Metropolitan Council's 2015 System Statement for Stillwater Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Local Plan ImplernemtatIon and Plan Amendments December 31, 2018 Comprehensive Plan Updates Fall 2075 ML 1 ROPOLITAN u N c 1 I. REGIONAL 10-YEAR PLANNING CYCLE LOCAL PLANNING HANDBOOK Fall 2015 System Statements 2013 - 2014 Regional Development Guide 7-72040 Thrive MSP 2014-2015 Regional System and Policy Plans: Regional Parks Water Resources Transportation Housing By State law all municipalities and counties in the metropolitan region prepare a comprehensive plan every 10 years. The 10 year cycle begins with the Federal Government's decennial census, which informs many aspects of the planning process. The next step in the cycle is for the Metropolitan Council to adopt a regional development guide, with the purpose of establishing a planning vision and directions for the various systems that they are charged with oversight. The regional development guide for this generation of comprehensive plans is called Thrive MSP 2040, which was adopted by the Met Council on May 28, 2014. With the regional development guide as a foundation, the next phase of the cycle is for the Met Council to develop a set of policy plans. Those policy plans are: • Transportation Policy Plan (adopted January 2015) • Water Resources Policy Plan (adopted May 2015) • Regional Parks Policy Plan (adopted February 2015) • Housing Policy Plan (adopted December 2014) After the policy plans (also known as system plans) were adopted, Met Council staff analyzed the implications of the new system plans for each City and County in the Metropolitan Area. Their analysis is summarized in a System Statement for each jurisdiction. The release of the System Statement starts the clock for development of the 2018 Comprehensive Plans. 2015 System Statement Page 2 of 4 STILLWATER'S SYSTEM STATEMENT Stillwater's System Statement was issued on September 17, 2015. And, as with most other Metro Area Cities, Stillwater's 2018 Comprehensive Plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2018. The full System Statement is available on-line at either the City's website or the Metropolitan Council's website. The elements of the System Statement that normally generate the greatest interest for cities such as Stillwater are: • Metropolitan Council's designation for the City: Stillwater has been designated a "suburban" city. Along with this designation comes a group of development guidelines that are to be addressed in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. These guidelines are attached. • Metropolitan Council's forecasts for population, households, and employment through 2040 Forecast Year Population Households Employment 2010 18,227 7,076 9,628 2020 20,600 8,400 10,700 2030 21,800 9,000 11,300 2040 22,800 9,600 11,700 • Target residential densities for a "suburban city" OVERALL DENSITY EXPECTATIONS DEVELOPMENT, AND REDEVELOPMENT Metropolitan Urban Service Area: Urban Center FOR NEW GROWTH, Minimum Average Net Density 20 units/acre Urban 10 units/acre Suburban 5 units/acre Suburban Edge 3-5 units/acre Emerging Suburban Edge 3-5 units/acre Rural Service Area: Maximum Allowed Rural Center Density, except Rural Centers 3-5 units/acre minimum Rural Residerrtial 1-2.5 acre lots existing, 1 unit/10 acres where possible Diversified Rural 4 units/40 acres Agricultural 1 unit/40 acres 2015 System Statement Page 3 of 4 • Stillwater's affordable housing allocation The Region's Total Need for Affordable Housing for 2021 - 2030 is 37,900 units_ Stilwater's 2021 — 2030 Allocation of Need is 227 Hills_ Specific number of units allocated to Stillwater at each AMI level: Affordable Housing Need Allocation for Stillwater At or below 30% AMI 31 to 50% AMI 51 to 80% AMI Total Units 117 80 30 227 Rents considered affordable in 2015 for each AMI level: Number of bedrooms: Affordable rent (including Affordable rent (including Affordable rent (including utilities) at 30% of AMI utilities) at 50% of AMI utilities) at 80% of AMI Studio $455 $758 $1,212 1-BR $487 $812 $1,299 2-BR $585 $975 $1,560 3-BR $675 $1,126 $1,801 4-BR $753 $1,256 $2,009 Housing purchase prices considered affordable in 2014 and 2015 for each AMI level: 30% of AMI 50% of AMI 80% of AMI Affordable purchase price (2015) $85,500 $153,000 $240,500 Affordable purchase price (2014) $73,500 $132,000 $211,500 COUNCIL ACTION On December 21, 2015 the City Council accepted the 2015 System Statement. Though, on November 17, 2015 the Council challenged the development density that was expected for a City classified as "suburban". Specifically, the City Council was concerned that the Minar Avenue and McKusick Road North neighborhoods with their rural residential development patterns could not realistically be expected to meet the 5 units per acre standard for redevelopment in "suburban" cities. 2015 System Statement Page 4 of 4 Subsequently, staff had several conversations and meetings with Ryan Garcia, who is the Metropolitan Council staff member working with communities in our area (aka Sector Representative). Mr. Garcia then met with his immediate supervisor, LisaBeth Barajas (manager of the Local Planning Assistance department of the Metropolitan Council). The result of the sequence of meetings was a letter (attached) from Ms. Barajas accepting the City's position that the Minar Avenue and McKusick Road North neighborhoods should not be included in the 5 unit per acre aggregate calculation as they subdivide over the next 10 years. Since "redevelopment" would trigger the 5 unit/acre standard, she specifically stated that lot splits in these neighborhoods would not be considered "redevelopment" as long as: • The current 2008 Comp Plan classification of LDR (LDR Low Density Residential) is not changed in the 2018 Comp Plan, and • That these lot splits do not exceed the currently guided LDR density (2.2 to 4.4 units/acre). Based upon the Barajas letter, the Council reversed their November 17 decision and accepted the 2015 System Statement. Attachment: Guidelines for Suburban City Classification Letter from Barajas 149 SUBURBAN: Cultivating places where people can gather Suburban communities saw their primary era of development during the 1980s and early 1990s as the Baby Boomers formed families and entered their prime earning years. Suburban communities also include places that were once resort destinations along Lake Minnetonka and White Bear Lake as well as communities along the St. Croix River settled early in the region's history. Orderly and Efficient Land Use • Maintain and improve regional infrastructure to support adaptive reuse, infill development, and redevelopment. • Support local planning and implementation efforts to target growth in and around regional transit as articulated in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. • Coordinate regional infrastructure and program funding with other efforts designed to mitigate Areas of Concentrated Poverty and Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty and better connect the residents of these areas with opportunity. • Provide technical assistance to communities undertaking planning efforts around regional transit stations and other regional investments. • Partner with local communities to improve land use patterns to reduce the generation of carbon emissions. • Plan for forecasted population and household growth at overall average densities of at least 5 units per acre, and target opportunities for more intensive development near regional transit investments at densities and in a manner articulated in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. • Identify areas for redevelopment, particularly areas that are well -served by transportation options and nearby amenities and that contribute to better proximity between jobs and housing. • In collaboration with other regional partners, lead major redevelopment efforts. • Lead detailed land use planning efforts around regional transit stations and other regional investments. • Plan for and program local infrastructure needs (for example, roads, sidewalks, sewer, water, and surface water), including those needed to accommodate future growth and implement local comprehensive plans. LAND USE POLICIES BY COMMUNITY DESIGNATION 150 SUBURBAN Natural Resources Protection • Support the reclamation of lands, including contaminated land, for redevelopment and the restoration of natural features and functions. • Promote multimodal access to regional parks, trails, and the transit network, where appropriate. Support the continued development of the regional trail system. Water Sustainability See policy discussion on Water Sustainability� in the "Land Use Policy" section. Housing Affordability and Choice • Invest in and expand regional systems to support redevelopment in communities that partner in the preservation and expansion of housing choices. • Integrate natural resource conservation and restoration strategies into the comprehensive plan. • Identify lands for reclamation, including contaminated land, for redevelopment and the restoration of natural features and functions. • Integrate natural resources restoration and protection strategies into local development ordinances. • Develop programs that encourage the implementation of natural resource conservation and restoration. • Implement best management practices to control and treat stormwater as redevelopment opportunities arise. • Explore alternative water supply sources to ensure adequate water resources beyond 2040. • Designate land in the comprehensive plan to support household growth forecasts and address the community's share of the region's affordable housing need through development and redevelopment at a range of densities. • Plan for a mix of housing affordability in station areas along transitways. • Use state, regional, and federal sources of funding and/or financing and development tools allowed by state law to facilitate the development of new lifecycle and affordable housing. • Plan for affordable housing that meets the needs of multigenerational households. THRIVE MSP 2040 LAND USE POLICIES BY COMMUNITY DESIGNATION 151 SUBURBAN Access, Mobility, and Transportation Choice • Ensure that local roadway systems are planned in ways that minimize short trips on the regional highway system. • Ensure that local infrastructure and land uses are planned in ways that are consistent with managing access along the regional highway system and capitalizing on investments in the regional transit system. • Invest in transit improvements in corridors that serve existing transit demand and that can effectively guide a significant level of future growth. • Ensure that local comprehensive plans guide growth in and around transit stations and near high -frequency transit services, commensurate with planned levels of transit service and station typologies identified in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. • Provide regional transit services to serve dense corridors and nodes where local communities are adapting local policies to improve the success of transit. • Support access to, and the future growth of, regional intermodal freight terminals as identified in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. • Develop comprehensive plans that focus growth in and around regional transit stations and near high -frequency transit services, commensurate with planned levels of transit service and the station typologies (for example, land use mix, density levels) identified in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. • Develop local policies, plans, and practices that improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation, including access to regional transit services, regional trails, and regional bicycle corridors. • Seek opportunities to improve local street and pedestrian connections to improve access for local trips. • Consider implementation of travel demand management (TDM) policies and ordinances that encourage use of travel options and decrease reliance on single -occupancy vehicle travel. • Engage private sector stakeholders who depend on or are affected by the local transportation system to address local business needs such as routing, delivery, and potential land use conflicts. • Adopt development standards that improve the user experience, circulation, and access for bicyclists and pedestrians. • Adopt Complete Streets policies that improve safety and mobility for all road users. LAND USE POLICIES BY COMMUNITY DESIGNATION 152 SUBURBAN Economic Competitiveness • Invest in regional amenities and service including transit, regional parks and trails, and bikeways to support the Suburban area as an attractive place to locate and do business. • Coordinate regional infrastructure and program funding with other efforts designed to mitigate Areas of Concentrated Poverty and Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty and better connect the residents of these areas with opportunity. • Support the development of workforce housing to provide nearby housing options for employees of local employers. • Invest Council resources to clean up contaminated properties and facilitate reinvestment, including infill, adaptive reuse, and redevelopment. Building in Resilience • Invest in regional transportation infrastructure and services that increase the share of trips made by transit, carpools, and nonmotorized means and guide development patterns that support this. • Explore developing an urban forestry assistance program. • Identify appropriate areas for business and industrial expansion, considering access by rail, truck, plane, and barge. • Support the cleanup and reuse of contaminated land by utilizing regional, county, and local funding programs and financing tools. • Preserve, remediate contamination, and repurpose the industrial base for higher -intensity employment and new industries. • Protect sites for highway-, river-, and rail -dependent manufacturing and freight transportation needs from incompatible uses and identify local land supply and transportation needs for effective use of those sites. • Plan for land uses that support the growth of businesses that export goods and services outside the region, important regional economic clusters, and living wage jobs. • Conduct small area planning efforts to preserve locations for employment, manage growth, and minimize land use conflicts. Li; 0G INiltiV` i V�`Y" • Identify and address potential vulnerabilities in local infrastructure as a result of increased frequency and severity of storms and heat waves. • Participate in federal, state, and local utility programs that incentivize the implementation of wind and solar power generation. • Consider making a property -assessed clean energy (PACE) program available for conservation and renewable energy. • Consider promoting the development or use of community solar gardens (CSGs) by public and private entities to enable fuller and more economic use of the community's solar resource, including participating as subscribers, assisting in marketing CSG opportunities for economic development, or providing sites for gardens. • Adopt local policies and ordinances that encourage land development that supports travel demand management (TDM) and use of travel options. • Consider development standards that increase vegetative cover and increase the solar reflective quality of surfaces. • Participate in urban forestry assistance programs as available. THRIVE MSP 2040 LAND USE POLICIES BY COMMUNITY DESIGNATION November 23, 2015 Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: 2015 System Statement Dear Mr. Turnblad: Thank you for delivering an e-mail copy of City of Stillwater Resolution No. 2015-203, requesting a system statement hearing, and for meeting with Ryan Garcia on November 20, 2015, to discuss the City's concerns as related to the system statement. As was discussed, we believe that we can avoid a formal hearing on this matter with a bit of clarification of the contents of the System Statement and related Metropolitan Council policy. Specifically, the resolution and your conversations with Mr. Garcia indicate that the City's reasons for disagreement are that the "Suburban" community designation is inappropriate because existing neighborhoods that were fully developed in Stillwater Township and annexed into the City of Stillwater January 1, 2015 — including the "Minar Neighborhood" and the "McKusick Road North Neighborhood" - do not meet a density level of 5 units per acre. As the City undertakes the process of updating its comprehensive plan, these neighborhoods — as well as any and ail existing/developed neighborhoods that the community does not specifically identify for redevelopment via the comprehensive plan — are not expected to be calculated as the community measures its planned average net density. Adopted Metropolitan Council policy (see pages 116-117 of THRIVE MSP 2040, in particular) explains that density expectations apply specifically to areas planned by each individual community for new growth, development, and redevelopment. In the Metropolitan Council's perspective, the neighborhoods of concern are not new growth or development areas, and, unless the City of Stillwater proposes otherwise, are not expected to be redevelopment areas. Thus, per Council Policy, we would not expect the City to consider these neighborhoods in its planned average net density. Please note the following, as further clarification of how these neighborhoods will be considered by the Metropolitan Council with the City's Comprehensive Plan Update: • The Metropolitan Council approved the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which included a City - defined future land use category of "Low Density Residential," for these and several other areas in the City with a density range well below 5 units per acre, although the City's overall density expectation was a minimum of 5 units per acre. If the City's Update identifies these areas in exactly the same or a very similar manner, the Council's approval of the Plan would be treated in exactly the same manner, all other things being equal. • A minor lot split (i.e. subdividing a 5-acre lot into two 2.5-acre lots) would not be considered "redevelopment" for purposes of density calculations. 390 Robert Street North f Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805 P. 651.602.1000 I TTY. 651.291.0904 I metrocouncil.org An Equal Opportunity Employer METROPOLITAN COUNCIL • Metropolitan Council policy (see page 117 of THRIVE MSP 2040) recognizes that not all development will meet the overall minimum density expectations, while other developments may exceed that overall minimum density. This acknowledgement affords communities with the flexibility to determine which areas are best suited for a range of densities — some of which may fall below the "average minimum" and some of which may exceed the "average minimum." Although the areas in question are not new development or redevelopment, this policy should serve to clarify that the Council values and encourages a range of local density and neighborhood characteristics identified by the community to best represent their unique qualities, strengths, and desires. Again, thank you and your colleagues and local policy makers for taking the time to consider the 2015 System Statement, to reach out with your concerns, and above all for being excellent partners in making our region a thriving one. It is our hope that this letter clarifies the Metropolitan Council's intention and position with respect to the System Statement, application of our regional density policies, and addresses the City of Stillwater's concerns in this matter. We look forward to further discussion as the City progresses through its comprehensive plan update process, and remain available at your request to discuss this and other matters as they present themselves. Please do not hesitate to contact Ryan Garcia at 651-602-1832, if you have any other questions or would like to discuss further. Sincere) 4tBaraInagh Local Planning Assistance CC: Harry Melander, Metropolitan Council Member — District 12 Ryan Garcia, Sector Representative N:1CommDev\LPAlCommunities\Stillwater1System Statements1201512015 Stillwater SS Response Letterdocx