Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-13 CPC Packeti 1 1 a tec THE IIRTMPLA CE OF MIMMESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North April 13, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of March 9, 2016 regular meeting minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 2. Case No. 2016-08; Consideration of a Variance to City Code Section 31-354 Subd. 5, to allow for the construction of an in -ground swimming pool in the side yard area of the property located at 655 Newman Trail located in the TR Zoning District. Derek Paton, Owner. Nik Hawley, Applicant. 3. Case No. 2016-014; Consideration of a concept Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat, and a Zoning Map Amendment for The Ponds at Heifort Hills, a 24-lot residential subdivision to be located at 8753 and 8911 Neal Avenue North, currently located in the AP Zoning District. Kenneth Heifort, Property Owner. 4. Case No. 2016-17; Consideration of a variances pertaining to maximum accessory structure coverage at the property located at 1118 4th Street South located in the RB Zoning District. Chris Medin and Mary Murray Medin, Property Owner. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS STAFF UPDATES/FOR YOUR INFORMATION ADJOURNMENT ate THE 1I1TN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Lauer, Council Representative Menikheim Absent: Commissioners Kelly, Middleton and Siess Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of February 10, 2016 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the February 10, 2016 meeting minutes. All in favor, 5-0-1 with Commissioner Hansen abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2016-11 Consideration of an amendment to the Golf Course Club House Special Use Permit to allow for an outdoor grill and outside eating area to be located at Stillwater Country Club, 1421 Fourth Street North in the PROS Zoning District. David Wolf, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Golf Course Special Use Permit to allow for an outdoor grill and outside eating area. The grill area would be placed on an existing patio under an existing 12' square pergola. The intent is to make outdoor food service available for members of the country club while they are mid -game. Staff recommends approval with two conditions. David Wolf, Clubhouse Manager at Stillwater Country Club, offered to answer questions. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to recommend that the Council approve the amendment to the Special Use Permit to allow for an outdoor grill and outside eating area at Stillwater Country Club, with conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 6-0. Planning Commission March 9, 2016 Case No. 2016-12 Consideration of a Special Use Permit and associated variances for the retrofit and expansion of the structure to be used as a performing arts theatre and associated bakery with outside concessions and eating area to be known as the Zephyr Theatre located at 601 Main Street North in the CBD Zoning District. Franz Hall, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained the request. Only a Dim Image Productions is proposing adding onto the Zephyr Depot building and renovating the structure into a 332-seat stage theatre and bakery/coffee shop. The addition will be situated on the north end of the building. Approximately 1,300 square feet would be removed from the existing building and approximately 8,000 square feet would be added onto the remaining portion of the structure. A new parking lot is proposed to be developed to the north of the structure on City -owned land. Three Special Use Permits and the following variances would be needed for the development: a 13' variance to the 37' height restriction in the CBD Height Overlay District; a 15' variance to the 15' front yard setback; a 20' variance to the 20' rear yard setback; and a 4.7% variance to the 80% maximum impervious surface coverage. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit, rear yard setback variance request, front yard setback variance request, and maximum lot coverage variance request, with 14 conditions. Staff recommends the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a 13' variance to the 37' maximum height for structures in the CBD Height Overlay District. Ms. Wittman mentioned two public comments were received, expressing concerns about the view, traffic, bike trail and the park. Calyssa Hall, artistic director of the Zephyr Theatre, provided background on the theatre company. Franz Hall, applicant, explained the history of theatre in Stillwater. He reviewed the proposal, theatre design and site plan. Commissioner Hade asked if the applicants have talked to the school board about using the school theatre. Mr. Hall replied that they have, but that space is in use throughout the school year. Roger Tomten, ARCHNET, architect for the project, presented a history of the manufacturing uses of the site. He emphasized that the small family -run business seems to fit the economic development goals of City's comprehensive plan. Chairman Kocon asked about the height. Mr. Hall responded that the lower level is 8' tall underneath the stage; its functions will be dressing rooms, shop, meeting room, rehearsal space, orchestra pit, and trap system. Space under a portion of the bakery (the original portion of the building) will be used for furniture, props etc. This space would be below the flood plain, it is allowed for storage but not habitable space. There is not enough square footage in the existing footprint for storage. Chairman Kocon said he thinks that theatre is a fabulous opportunity for the City, in a great location, but he sees height as a real issue. Mr. Hall stated that originally, they thought the building could be about 7' lower, but once they learned they could not have habitable space below the flood plain, they had to push the building out. The north end of the building is actually outside the flood plain area. Commissioner Collins asked if the fly loft area is designed for the minimal amount of space. Mr. Hall replied that it is; you have to be able to lift the backdrop completely out of the sight line of theatre- goers. Commissioner Hansen asked about days of operation. Ms. Hall responded that performances would generally be Thursday through Sunday evenings, possibly with Saturday or Sunday matinees, and they Page 2 of 9 Planning Commission March 9, 2016 would look at renting the meeting room space during business days. The bakery would be open during the day and would be exclusive to the theatre during performances. Rehearsals would be held in the evening in the meeting room. Chairman Kocon asked if the bakery would serve trail users as well as theatre goers. Mr. Hall answered that the primary function of the bakery would be to serve the theatre but they would like to have it open to serve people on the trail as well as anyone in downtown Stillwater. Commissioner Hade asked if they would be serving alcohol. Mr. Hall said they have thought of serving wine and beer for performances only, not for the general public. Commissioner Collins asked if the theatre would host classes and workshops like the Phipps. Ms. Hall replied that the actual performances would have completely professional paid actors and paid staff, but they would also have education and arts space for the community. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Joanne Mrosak, Unit 307, 650 Main Street, said she was speaking on behalf of others in her building. When they purchased their units, they understood they would have a river view or partial river view. The proposed structure would block 16-20 of the units from having a river view. Expanding the parking lot into the City -owned land would result in downing some trees, impacting the beauty of the trail. She feels the bike trail should be about serving the community's recreational needs. The theatre will not be an enhancement to downtown Stillwater; it will take away from the character of the community She also questioned whether a feasibility study has been done, as there are several other theatres nearby. Also, there are lots of challenges in the site area related to water issues. She feels the site should be used for something more feasible and related more to the bikers and recreational uses nearby. She expressed concerns about the noisiness of the parking. She is all for theatre, but feels this is the wrong spot for it. Ed Fagerlund, Unit 200, 650 Main Street, voiced concerns about the height of the proposed structure. He reiterated that there will be 16-20 units whose views would be impacted, some being substantially blocked. The fact that the Marina buildings block river views doesn't excuse this additional blocking of the river views. He pointed out the importance of upholding the restrictions that protect the viewscapes of residents. He feels the proposed addition is not good looking and does not fit with the depot. He also mentioned the importance of parking to the 177 units in Terra Springs, asking the Commission not to add to the parking pressure of the area. He asked that the Terra Springs Association and the 650 Association be involved in discussions of the parking and noise impacts. Sue Hedin, Unit 405, 650 Main Street, agreed with the previous speakers. She feels the proposed structure would obliterate 60% of the river view from her deck. She also stated there have been many failed theatre attempts in Stillwater so she would like to see a study done to determine if there is a need for theatre in the area. With the development of the new park north of the site, there should be a tie-in to activities going on in the park. That seems not to have been addressed. Gladys Ritter, Unit 202, 650 Main Street North, commented that the theatre project sounds wonderful; however she is concerned about the height. She asked what remuneration could be given to those whose views would be lost. She feels nothing could be given in return that would match the value of what would be taken if the height cannot be lessened. Page 3of9 Planning Commission March 9, 2016 Monica Pustovar, Unit 309, 650 North Main Street, brought up concerns about the height variance, congestion, and additional noise. She asked if the north parking area would be open to the public when the theatre is not in use - this would definitely add to the congestion. Residents of Terra Springs see and hear everything across the street; she asked about hours of operation of the theatre and what other uses it might be rented for. John Grisbeck, 730 Winslow Avenue, St. Paul, a member of the theatre board, expressed concerns about height and preserving the critical area along the river. He serves on a St. Paul City Council task force looking at height restrictions along the river. This has made him very sensitive to the concerns of the public for their views of the river. He recognizes that the Commission must try their best and will have to make some sacrifices to minimize the height. He recognizes there will be some problems with the height restrictions; there are ways to minimize it by the type of material put on the building and also with the trees. When one lives near the river, there are no guarantees that one will always have the view. The additional 13 feet in this case is a necessity. Mark Jarrett, chairman of the board of trustees of Only a Dim Image Productions, 5038 Marquess Trail North, Lake Elmo, stated that his organization has sent letters to the management of the facility across the street and has contacted residents of the facility to try to set up a meeting with the homeowners. They would like to try to minimize height. Their study shows there will be three units whose view of the river would be significantly impacted. They would like to discuss this with the homeowners. In general most events would be done by 10:30 p.m. The intent is to have staff on hand to help direct traffic after the show. To start with, shows are planned Thursday night through Sunday. In addition, the types of music groups that may perform there include local orchestras and bands, singing groups and dance groups. The intent is for the theatre to be a professional paid theatre along the lines of Chanhassen Dinner Theatre or the Guthrie. They have done a feasibility in the east metro indicating that at a mature rate of fill for the theatre, if 8% of all college educated people in the surrounding counties attended one event at the theatre per year, that would meet their need. Kathy Fagerlund, Unit 200, 650 Main Street North, a board member of the Terra Springs Master Association, clarified that the management association for Terra Springs is Paradise & Associates, in Mendota Heights, MN. To her knowledge the board of directors has not been asked to participate in discussions but they would be happy to do so. Susan Ahlness, Unit 101, 501 North Main Street, stated that her concerns about the project stem from her experience in affordable housing which requires a market analysis that looks at the demand for the type of service in order to justify construction. She feels there is not that high a demand for theatre. She would also like to see a pro -forma budget indicating how the lights will go on year after year, and how the cash flow will be. She urged the Commission to study these issues. She also expressed concerns about the traffic and noise levels. It is impossible to turn left on weekends to get out of their building. Noise levels are already such that residents cannot sit on their patios on summer evenings. Marie Irrrgang, Brownstone 4, 650 Main Street North, stated that the St. Croix is a scenic wild river and the height should be of more concern. Also she sees parking problems during the summer. She feels there will not be enough parking for the proposed use in additional to the trail parking and parking for other summer events. She believes that more than three units' views will be affected. Brian Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, commented he is 100% in favor of the concept but completely against the approach being taken. The essence of the problem is that the proposal is a big box that is not a good entrance for the City. It seems incompatible for the site. He feels there is just too much building Page 4 of 9 Planning Commission March 9, 2016 on the site, too much bulkiness and mass. He pointed out that the downtown design guidelines require new infill buildings to fit into the fabric of the existing streetscape. He also suggested the possibility of going into the old armory site. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hade remarked he has always been concerned about sight lines of residents on the hill to see the river. He stated he lives in Terra Springs but the project does not impact any of his sight lines. He also is concerned that the project impacts sight lines for those other than those within 350 feet, for notification purposes. He doubts everyone who would be impacted had proper notice of the hearing. His primary concerns are traffic and impact on those not given notice as well as those who were given notice. Commissioner Hansen acknowledged that the Commission must consider the neighborhood that will be directly impacted. He doesn't see traffic being any more of an issue than it currently is. He feels the required noise mitigation plan will ensure that the decibel levels are met. He has an issue with the height and would like to see the other variances granted, other than the height variance. Commissioner Collins said he would be in favor of granting most of the variances but not the height variance. He would like the applicant to resubmit plans with a lower height variance. Commissioner Fletcher stated she is comfortable with the special use permit but still struggles with the variances. Chairman Kocon noted he has some issues with the height; he acknowledged that the Commission can only make a recommendation to the Council regarding the height. This would allow the applicant to submit a revised plan to the Council. He realizes there may be 110 cars all exiting a performance at the same time, however he feels those traffic issues can be ameliorated. He sees the proposal as viable. He pointed out that when Terra Springs was built, those up the hill lost some of their views. His only issue is with height; he would support all the other variances being requested. Commissioner Hade agreed with Chairman Kocon for the most part, but stated his opinion is there were no views impacted by construction of Terra Springs. City Planner Wittman stated both Terra Springs and this proposal are located in the height overlay district which has differing thresholds within it. Commissioner Hansen said he would feel more comfortable seeing the applicant redesign the project before handing it to the City Council. Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to table the Special Use Permits and associated variances, and ask the applicant to come back with a different design addressing the height issue. Motion failed 3-3, with Commissioners Lauer, Fletcher, and Chairman Kocon voting nay. Motion by Chairman Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve the two Special Use Permits with the 14 conditions as recommended by staff, and to approve the associated variances that the Commission may approve, with the recommendation to the City Council to deny the height variance. Motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Hade voting nay. Page 5of9 Planning Commission March 9, 2016 Case No. 2016-13 Consideration of a concept Planned Unit Development, Zoning Text and Zoning Map Amendments for Northland Senior Living, a proposed 50-acre, multi -use senior care living facility to be located at 12525 75th Street North, currently located in the LR and AP Zoning Districts. Brian Farrell, applicant. City Planner Wittman reported that the applicant is planning to develop a multi -use senior care living facility on a total of six parcels and adjacent lands to the east and southeast, formerly known as Jackson Meadows Wildlife area. The following is being requested: a concept Planned Unit Development for the multi -use complex; a Zoning Text Amendment and a Zoning Map Amendment from Agricultural Preservation to Lakeshore Residential. Because this is a preliminary PUD, future applications would need to be made for a Special Use Permit for a senior care living facility in the LR District, a preliminary plat, a final PUD and a final plat. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the concept Planned Unit Development, Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment with 24 conditions. Commissioner Hansen asked for clarification of the proposed density. City Planner Wittman responded that it is zoned for low density residential. By Special Use Permit, the City may allow variations in density for senior care living facilities in the LR District. The applicant is asking to solidify that by the Zoning Text Amendment. Commissioner Fletcher asked about easements on Outlot C. City Planner Wittman explained that easement for public access is proposed by way of the trail. The applicant would like to have further discussions about public and private lake access and recreation options. Staff is favorable to continuing conversations about public and private lake and land access for recreation and open space. Those uses and easements need to be determined. Darren Lazan, Landform Professional Services, representing the applicant, provided a presentation explaining the project. He introduced the team working on the project. Previously, in a project that did not go forward, three stories and 100 units were planned on roughly eight acres. As the team talked with its partner Ebenezer, deficiencies were identified. The team met with staff regarding how to make the parcel work to get more units and more amenities. He explained the concept for a continuum of care. Units are interconnected. All three phases will be worked on simultaneously. He explained the trail access planned, and the planned public use of the lakeshore. The team has no problems with the staff proposed conditions, other than the condition regarding the utility connection for the church, which the team would like to defer until the church's growth plans are solidified. They would like to continue discussions regarding density. He further stated that the developable acreage is 33 acres and the proposed density is 230-250 units. City Planner Wittman noted that written comments were received from Bob Aiken, 7640 Minar Lane, expressing concerns about height, setbacks, drainage, changes to the church parcel, screening and lighting. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. George Vania, 2200 Oak Glen Circle, stated he is pleased to see the environmental protections provided in the current proposal. He asked if 72nd Street will remain as a dirt road. He would like to maintain the ability for walkers to walk around Long Lake. Ms. Wittman confirmed it will remain as a dirt road. It is proposed to be platted as a dedicated public road; the applicant is not proposing to develop the road. Page 6of9 Planning Commission March 9, 2016 Bob Aiken, 7640 Minar Lane, asked if the public will be able to use the path around the lake. John Gualtieri, 3171 Summerfields Green, asked if the westernmost road access is not granted, would there have to be a different access which would impact the conservation easement? He would like to know how Washington County will reconfigure Highway 12 before deciding on the project. He also had questions about sewer access and its impact on the live oak trees in the area. Dionne Meisterling, 12550 72nd Street North, stated that trees on her property line would be affected by the development. The previously proposed project didn't involve lakeshore property so it shouldn't be compared with the current project, which would totally destroy that end of the lake and its wildlife. 72nd Street is used by a lot of walkers; she would not like the development to displace all the wildlife and recreational activities that presently exist. She is concerned about seeing the three-story building. The previous developers notified neighbors of their plans, but she just heard about the present proposal via the mailing; neighbors do not feel involved or invited to participate. Phil Manger, 12525 72nd Street North, told the Commission the proposed project encroaches on his neighbors' property. The current proposal is a sprawling monstrosity which would pollute the most beautiful part of Stillwater with a commercial endeavor. He urged the Commission to table the proposal. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Mr. Lazan responded to neighborhood concerns by stating that there are neighborhood meetings planned on the project. This hearing is a broad overview; developers fully intend to work with the neighbors. There will be many steps involved in the development process for review of all plans. He clarified that the City has asked that 72nd Street be dedicated as a public right of way for the community's future use. He showed options on the map for extending the right of way if needed, working with Washington County. They would like to work with the school district to obtain an easement to extend sewer through the ballfield to avoid disturbing the trees. Mr. Lazan explained the open space and the proposed public easement for the purpose of making the trail connection. It is not their intention to install gates; the intent is to keep the land open for public access, though it is private property. Commissioner Fletcher said she had been worried that a bunch of single family homes would be built on the property; she is pleased with this proposal. She struggles with the institutional use being so close to nature, so she would like to make sure the edge of the housing is as close to 75th Street as possible to preserve the wildlife and recreation. She feels the proposal is good at this development stage. Chairman Kocon agreed with Commissioner Fletcher's comments. Commissioner Hansen remarked that he has concerns about traffic and density. However, he likes the plan with its retained open space and trail. The area is a hidden gem; he doesn't want to spoil it. He feels this development would not be spoiling it, but allowing more people to appreciate it from a distance. He empathizes with the neighbors' concerns, but is generally in favor of the project. Page 7 of 9 Planning Commission March 9, 2016 Commissioner Hade said he has a problem with concepts coming before the Commission to ask for advisory opinions, so he is not in favor of the proposal. He feels there are too many things up in the air; the Commission should not be voting on the concept at this time. Chairman Kocon said he feels that the Zoning Text Amendment is reasonable. Life cycle housing is needed. He feels this is a better, more feasible project than was previously proposed because it preserves the jewel of the property as best it can. It is much better than single family homes. Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Chairman Kocon, to recommend to the Council that the concept Planned Unit Development, Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for Northland Senior Living to be located at 12525 75th Street North be approved with conditions as recommended by staff, with modifications to Conditions #10, #20, #21, #23 to be solidified by the time of Final PUD and with the addition of Condition #25 regarding tree preservation on the western property line, shared with the Meisterling residence. Motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Hade voting nay. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. STAFF UPDATES City Planner Wittman informed the Commission that the City Council did not uphold the Commission's recommendation for a Zoning Text Amendment for senior care living facilities in the townhome district. The Council tabled the recommended draft yard parking ordinance for staff to make a few changes. The Council also upheld the Sleep Study Center recommendation for Lakeview Hospital in the building at 850 Churchill Street West. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. All in favor, 6-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 8 of 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 13, 2016 CASE NO.: 2016-08 APPLICANT: Nik Hawley, Performance Pools, representing Dereck Paton and Kelley Mathre, property owners REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to City Code Section 31-354 Subd. 5, to allow for the construction of an in -ground swimming pool in the side yard area of the property located at 655 Newman Trail ZONING: TR, Traditional Residential COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LDR, Low Density Res. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Nik Hawley, representing property owners Dereck and Kelley Paton have applied for a variance to construct a swimming pool on their property. While the property owners are proposing to construct the pool and appurtenances behind their residence, City Code Section 31-354 Subd. 5 indicates all swimming pools or appurtenances thereto shall be located in the rear yard at a distance of at least ten feet from any property liner. As the property is located on the corner, or at the intersection of two streets, the property does not have a true rear yard. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits." 131-101-180. indicates 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. 31-101-181. indicates 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 [side yard] lot line. Section 31-208 further indicates: • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. The applicant must demonstrate that: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The requirement to allow for pools in the rear yard is to prevent them from being installed in the front of residences and thereby disrupting the traditional front -yard pattern of neighborhoods. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no application elements in conflict with the comprehensive plan. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; The addition of a pool to a residential property is reasonable. The owner has proposed situating the pool in a location that is behind the house, behind the front line of the garage, and outside of the 15' setback area for houses on corner lots. Additionally, the property owner is proposing the installation of the pool, pool appurtenances (including associated retaining walls), and all pool equipment outside of the recorded scenic/conservation easement area required as a part of the Liberty Planned Unit Development (PUD) open space requirements. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and As the application notes, the property is an irregularly shaped lot, situated at the intersection of Newman Trail and Liberty Court. The two streets do not meet in a typical 90 degree fashion, which is what is preventing the property from having a traditional rear lot line and, subsequently, rear yard line. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Case No. 2016-08 (655 Newman Trail) CPC: March 9, 2016 Page 2 of 4 This home, along with three others addressed off of Reunion Road, have the back of their home facing Liberty Court. While the development plan includes the installation of 4' retaining walls on the property, all properties with their backside to Liberty Court have retaining walls. The applicant has submitted a comprehensive landscaping plan and, with appropriate screening of the pool, the essential character of the locality will not be altered. PUBLIC COMMENT The City received comments from John and Tracy Abbott, 715 Liberty Court, who are opposed the issuance of a variance. A copy of their comments are attached for the Commission's review. The applicant has indicated they have received Homeowner's Association (HOA) Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval. This has not been submitted to the City but will be required as part of the submittal for a building permit. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make findings practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a variance to Section 31-354 Subd. 5, allowing for the pool to be located behind the residence, in a side yard area, located at 655 Newman Trail, with or without conditions. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2016-08 and dated as February 17, 2016. b. Landscaping shall be substantially similar to that on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2016-08 and dated as February 10, 2016. c. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to exterior alterations. d. A grading permit shall be obtained as part of the building permitting process. e. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance. 3. Table the application and request additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Case No. 2016-08 (655 Newman Trail) CPC: March 9, 2016 Page 3 of 4 On the basis the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends conditional approval of a variance City Code Section 31-354 Subd. 5, to allow for the construction of an in -ground swimming pool in a side yard area on the property located at 655 Newman Trail. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request and Coverage Calculations (3 pages) Site Plans (3 pages) Landscaping Plan Public Comments: Abbott (9 pages) Case No. 2016-08 (655 Newman Trail) CPC: March 9, 2016 Page 4 of 4 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota 655 Newman Trail Site Location Subject Parcel 0-- Municipal Boundary Parcel Boundaries 50 100 200 Feet To whom this may concern, Lot 1, Block 3, Liberty on the Woodlands is an irregularly shaped lot. Swimming Pool setbacks for the city of Stillwater are 10' to concrete from the side and rear yard line, and pools are not allowed in a side yard. I have attached an email from City Planner, Abbi Wittman that notes the property does not have a "(defined) 'rear yard."' Given the uniqueness of the property, we are proposing to completely stay out of the side yard on the northeast face of the house (garage side). This proposed location would keep the swimming pool out of the immediate side yard of the corner lot, and completely in the assumed rear yard or "rear of the house. " The neighboring property at 725 Reunion Rd, has a constructed swimming pool. Although the legal descriptions of the two properties may differ, there is a similar look and feel to the lots. This can be seen through the areal picture and architectural drawings provided. The proposed project would maintain the look and feel of the design and landscaping currently within the neighborhood. Derek Paton has spoken with multiple neighboring residents that have stated no complaints to the proposedswimmingpool addition. The legal description of the lot (655 Newman Trail) may not allow for a swimming pool addition in the defined side yard. However, the proposed plans show the project fully being within the rear of the house to provide the most minimum variance while maintaining the essential character of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Derek Paton (resident) Kelly Mathre (resident) and Nik Hawley (Performance Pools representative) Abbi Wittman From: Abbi Wittman Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 11:13 AM To: 'Nik Hawley' Cc: Quinn Williams Subject: RE: 655 Newman Trail Attachments: 1420_001.pdf; LOLTW Lot 1 BI 3.pdf Nik: As we discussed on the phone, there is a scenic and conservation easement on this property that staff neglected to advise you about when we started our discussions last year. This is common of all properties in the Liberty development as this was a way the neighborhood was able to achieve open space requirements for properties. I have attached the recorded easement as well as a the survey (approximately) depicting the easement area. As all improvements must be located outside of this area, we cannot consider the variance request until we have a site plan showing all improvements can be successfully installed without encroaching into the easement areas. This would include all proposed retaining walls, pool appurtenances as well as any other earth movement activities. Additionally, as a concern has been brought up regarding the drainage impact, I would advise you (though not necessarily required) to develop a drainage plan for the property to show you will not be negatively affecting the drainage patterns in this neighborhood; anything you can do (outside of the easement area) to improve drainage would be looked at favorably. Submission of updated materials will be accepted by February 19th at 4:30 pm for consideration by the Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting in March. We will not be considering this item at the February Planning Commission meeting. Again, I am sorry for our oversight in the easement; we were only made aware of these during the last year. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Thank you, Abbi Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner 216 4th Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082 P: 651-430-8822 I F: 651-430-8810 www.ci.stillwater.irm.us The Birthplace of Minnesota 1 PERFORMANCE Name Address City Phone No. Performance Pool & Spa 1890 Wooddale Drive Woodbury, MN 55125 ( 651) 775 - 3940 Attn: Ken Ronsberg Impervious Surface Calculations PID 31-030-20-21-0025 Derek & Kelly Paton 655 Newman Trail Stillwater, MN 55082 ( 612 ) 462 - 2503 Lot 1 Block 3 Subdivision - Liberty on the Woodlands Total Lot Area = 14,885 House & Garage = 2,076 Driveway Porch Sidewalk 1,186 260 280 Current Coverage= 2,802 Proposed Pool Project Concrete Pool Deck = 682 Paver Pool Deck = 1,000 Fire Pit Pavers = 200 Pool Project = 1,882 O 3 3 c T rn CD Current Coverage = 2,802 PoolProject = 1,882 Total Proposed = 4,684 Aprox. 31.5 % Please CaII With any questions: Ken Ronsberg Lay -Out Engineer PPS ( 651 ) 775 - 3940 PltNEERengineering CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 2422 Enterprise Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120, Phone: (651) 681 1914 Fax: (651) 681 9488 - Pioneereng.com Certificate of Survey for; HORWATH CONSTRUCTION LOT AREA =14,886 SQ FT HOUSE AREA =2,324 SO FT 937.1 937_ 937 937 938.Q337.6 'm G. 944.4 x 943.6 X 944.2 943.5 x EXISTING HOUSE '20 /936.6 ■ 93 943.s3'- 61 �6.7 942.8 943.4 x ADDRESS: NEWMAN TRAIL, STILLWATER, MN BUYER: MODEL: ELEVATION: 936.6 935.9 BENCH MARK: TOP NUT HYDRANT NEWMAN & REUNION ELEV.=943.91 934.2 928.9 REVISED 9/24/09 GRADING AS -BUILT 9266 NOTE: ADD BRICK LEDGE AS REQUIRED NOTE: GRADING PLAN BY WESTWOOD LAST DATED 1/30/04 WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS CERTIFICATE. NOTE PROPOSED BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE FOR HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF STRUCTURES ON THE LOT ONLY. CONTACT BUILDER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION FOR APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLANS. NOTE: NO SPECIFIC SOILS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN PERFORMED ON THIS LOT BY THE SURVEYOR. THE SUITABIUTY OF SOILS TO SUPPORT THE SPECIFIC HOUSE PROPOSED IS NOT THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE SURVEYOR_ NOTE: THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW EASEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLAT. NOTE: CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY DRIVEWAY DESIGN. NOTE: BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMED DATUM HOUSE eP 26.5 V 924. D wi, vn Q 1 923.2 IJ [P 22.5 0 4 1tf)- fl 0 1 c 1121.9 m it`O 921.9 (04 921.5 921 921.1 1 921.2 \g215.5 22.22 y9121. ilC22-5 t ELEVATIONS : (PROPOSED) /ASBUILT 919.9 9\0.8 TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV. : (947.3) GARAGE SLAB ELEV. ® DOOR : (937.2) 937.5 X 03a0D DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION ( 000.00 ) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION - ---- .--- DENOTES DRAINAGE AND U11UTY EASEMENT DENOTES DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION DENOTES SPIKE DENOTES ELEVATION ON I 000.o I DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW WE HEREBY CERTIFY TO HORWATH CONSTRUCTION THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF: LOT 1, BLOCK 3, LIBERTY ON THE LAKE THE WOODLANDS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, AS SURVEYED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION THIS 315T DAY OF OCTOBER, 2007. ` r REVISED: SCALE : 1 INCH = 30 FEET '001j 107198000 MTWx4 11-8-07 NOTE: STAKE 3-5-08 IRESTAKE-NEW HOUSE PLANS 9-24-09 GRADING AS -BUILT SIGNED: PIONEER ENGINEERING, P.A. BY: % ! wf 1• Peter J. Hawkinson License No. 42299 Received Pecehred FEB 1 7 '"016 Community Development Department n16 Prepared By: Performance Pool & Spa 2405 Annapolis Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 (651) 775 - 3940 (651) 731 - 8372 Fax Attn: Ken Ronsberg Kenransberg@ Comcast. net Home Owner : Derek & Kelly Paton 655 Newman Trail Stillwater, MN 55082 ( 612) 462 - 2503 Lot - 1 Block - 3 Subdivision -14,887 Sq Ft Liberty on the Woodlands PID 31-030-20-21-0025 Pool Dimensions Width X Length Pool (18X36 ) Deck (28 X 46 ) ( 955.35 ) Denotes Proposed Elevation X 955.35 Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Drainage Direction X X Denotes Silt Fence Scale -1 Inch = 20 Feet Ctty Codes / Setbacks Principal - 5' Water Side - 10' Concrete Rear - 10 ' Concrete Equipment - 10' LL 25' AS Fence - 4 ' Tall Septic -10' Water Well - 20 ' Water _lrainfield - 20 ' Water Proocosed Retaining Wali TOW 941.00 BOW 937.00 c- Existing Walls To Be Removed 2 20 X Porch Porch HOUSE 27.99 m 17 GARAGE GFE = 937.20 Drain Tile -- 0 24.99 939.5@ 93723,X Proposed Pooh_--' 18X36 Proposed ElevatiOn ( 937.00) X 937 20 - j 935.91 MI 10 10 DRIVEWAY x 7 a4' Wide Cate! Self-clos`inoISelf atchin/Lockable 2X algsrd Mega-Arbel Paver Pool Deck Extension CO .Wall Extension Pool Equipment Boulder Wee Fklsting Duper Walls • 'T e s i Proposed Retainl1 Wall TOW 937.00 ,/ BOW 933.78' Boulders TallTall Decorative Aluminum Fence I Eeet n Reining Slade Wall Received FEF 1 9n15 luou.wedeC luewdoieneQ 47lunwwoD / / / / / / b' 4O 4' Wide Gate/ Self-dosing/Se11-1atchinglLo Prapoosed Retaining W TOW 941.00 :OW 937.00 Existing Walls 7'o SSa Removed Existing Modular Walls _Tolle Removed Porch Porch HOUSE GARAGE GFE = 937.20 Drain Tile I 56 i 9.37.23X 27.99 1T Poposed Pooi ---1"3 118X36 Proposed EievatiOn 24.99 ; (937.00 )-,___ J X 907,20 936.9 Belgerd Mega-Arbel tfever Pool Deck Extenslo co � Wall Extension Pool Equipment 10 DRIVEWAY I 10 $4t Wide Gate/ Self--clo ng/Self atchingILockable 2X /69 Proposetiliei�Wt n all TOW 937.00 BOW 933.78 / /99 O IFroeiong Boulders r iO J { J s lfj{' Tell Decorative Aluminum Fence 0 kiirtg Block Welt PcoL Rom WTLINC �Cctio�,'thJvS -ij TW+Gc: 0 iov keep Cab CONJE 3V PgQ Paul MN 5,5071 j landscape PUTT i i ~zl.-�zce- 1`/ Ali/ i I Yhi1Uck ©Jt bLlA � 1115 SA2U G�= { N5 PLA N7r 1-f-i1.v1 Zo'7 lkirj a., ©kJ P r tXTS B iLDEiL-. t1oJ LL- C APPASS/1J/- 5 ,,c.0 S vT?j ) G1%1TP 19-vt Jv,�1PeR pr A1.6 1016-1eti'CL Derek & Kelly Paton 655 Newman Trail Stillwater, MN 55082 Date: February 10, 2016 Scale: 1" - 8' Designer: Jeff Ondrusik Received February 28, 2016 Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner 216 4th St N Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Members of the Stillwater Planning Commission, FEB 29 2016 Community Development Department This letter is regarding the proposed variance for a pool installation at 655 Newman Trail. We are neighbors residing at 715 Liberty Court directly across the street from the proposed project. We oppose the issuance of the variance on the subject property for several reasons. As stated in Stillwater Municipal Code Section 33-2. Subd. 13., "Location. All swimming pools or appurtenances must be located in the rear yard at a distance of at least ten feet from any property line." This proposed pool does not meet these requirements as the subject property does not have a backyard with a rear lot line but rather an extended side yard. It is clear that the code meant to prevent the exact project proposed on the subject property. The code expects that pools will be located away from city streets and away from the front yards of neighboring • households. Also, the elevation of the proposed project relative to neighboring properties needs to be considered. Because the subject property is at an elevation higher than the houses directly across from its side yard, the proposed pool and deck will be right outside our second story bedroom windows. From these windows, we will look directly down into the pool/patio area. This will create privacy issues for the subject property residents as well as noise issues for our front bedrooms and office. The proposed project fails the test set out in municipal code section 31-208(d). First, Stillwater Municipal Code Section 31-208 (d)(3)(iii) states that a variance may be granted if the variance will not "alter the essential character of the neighborhood." A variance in this case would substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood by creating a view from our front yard of a large retaining wall several feet above street level with a four foot fence on top. The street view would look like a commercial area or an enclosed bar patio rather than a residential side yard. Also, it would create additional noise to any property across the street as the elevation of the pool along with surrounding mass of hard surface, pool equipment and house would amplify any sound from the proposed project area straight into the front windows of our house, most importantly, the upper bedroom windows. Second, in granting variances, Stillwater Municipal Code Section 31-208(f) states that "A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits." The proposed project will substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood because of its distance from the street, its elevation and its proximity to neighboring residences. The variance for the pool at 725 Reunion Road does not set a precedent which requires the commission to grant a pool at the subject property. Further, the properties are substantially different in character. The pool at 725 Reunion road is 50 feet from the street, whereas the proposed pool at the subject property would be 26 feet from the street. Lastly, the lots varies in size and orientation as 725 Reunion Road is .459 acres, has two side lot lines along with a rear lot line and is oriented in such a way that the pool is away from the street and at a higher elevation than street neighbors allowing for adequate screening from street views. The subject property has only two side lot lines, is a very small 1 irregularly shaped .34 acres with its entire side yard at such a distance and elevation from the street which makes it difficult to obtain proper screening views from street neighbors. While we are glad that our neighbors would like to improve their property, we feel that this is not the right project for our neighborhood. Aesthetically, the proposed project takes a residential yard with grass and trees and turns it into a massive hard surface. We have the following concerns regarding this proposed project: 1. The first time we heard about this project was when we received notice from the City of Stillwater of a variance hearing which was to take place the following week. 2. There is no elevation showing exactly how high the retaining wall will be in. front of our house. Looking at the elevation change, it could be ten feet. No consideration is given for views from neighboring houses across the street. 3. Views from up and down the street will be substantially altered by the addition of a three or more foot retaining wall topped with four foot fence directly adjacent to the street. 4. There is no plan for screening the project from neighboring properties across the street. The pool equipment is as close to the front of the neighboring houses as possible and as far away from the subject residence as possible. There is no plan to screen the pool equipment or deal with the noise from it. 5. It will make our house more difficult to sell. Future buyers will not like seeing a pool with large retaining wall and fence directly adjacent to the street. Every front view out of our house will now be looking at a pool with its surrounding hardscaping or a big retaining wall topped with a fence. 6. Major math error on impermeable calculation. Current calculation shows 31.5% impermeable surfaces but math error neglected to add one thousand square feet which makes the impermeable area 38.2%. Adding in the pool surface itself brings the area to 42.4%. Almost the entire yard area behind the house will be hardscape or contain the pool. This is not fitting with the neighborhood. 7. Construction noise and staging. All of the heavy equipment and hauling of materials will happen on the street right in front of our house. This street is very narrow and difficult to navigate if any cars are parked on it. How will the neighbors acorns their properties with construction vehicles present? 8. Noise from pool use. All sounds from the subject property's side yard travels directly to our front bedroom and office windows. Pools with people in them are loud and the sound will be further amplified by the hardscaping surrounding the pool and the house adjacent to the pool. The elevation of the project is directly outside of our upper level bedroom windows. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, you may contact us at 651-747-6855. Sincerely, f Tracey Abbott, MN Attorney #299169 Resident at 715 Liberty Court 2 John bbott, Architect, AIA Resid nt at 715 Liberty Court Received Name Address City Phone No. FEB 29 2016 Community Development Department Performance Pool & Spa 1890 Wooddale Drive Woodbury, MN 55125 ( 651) 775 - 3940 Attn: Ken Ronsberg Impervious Surface Calculations PIO 31-030-20-21-0025 Derek & Kelly Paton 655 Newman Trail Stillwater, MN 55082 ( 612) 462 - 2503 Lot 1 Biock 3 Subdivision - Liberty on the Woodlands Total Lot Area = 14,885 House & Garage = 2,076 Driveway 1,186 Porch = 260 Sidewalk - 280 Current Coverage= 2,802 iSp Z Proposed Pool Protect Concrete Pool Deck = 682 Paver Pool Deck = 1,000 Fire Pit Pavers = 200 Pool Project = 1,882 root. tovftr d = 4'48 2t530 Current Coverage = 2,802 3$4)2` PaoiProject „_ = 1,882 Total Proposed = 4,684 +� Aprox. 31.5 %' , f t' fico r. Coi332, c.otCPL)-.-.�...a- . A‘Dw G14 t Please Call With any questions: Ken Ronsberg Lay -Out Engineer PPS ( 651 ) 775 - 3940 z,5'% view from our from door Received F H 2 9 2016 Community Development Department 2 view from our front walk Received 16 Community Development Department 3 view from upper level bedroom Received FEB 2 9 2016 Community Development Department 4 view from upper level bedroom #2 Received FEB 2 9 2016 Community Development Department 5 rear yard of 725 Reunion Road at center Received F Community Development Department 6 Sill " H E BIRTHPLACE O E MINNESOTA DATE: April 6, 2016 APPLICANT: Richard Gagne, The Ponds At Heifort Hills, LLC LAND OWNER: Kenneth & Geraldine Heifort CASE NO.: 2016-14 REQUEST: 1) Rezoning from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential 2) Concept Planned Unit Development for 48 detached homes in two phases 3) Preliminary plat for The Ponds at Heifort Hills, 24 homes in Phase 1 LOCATION: 8753 & 8911 Neal Avenue COMP PLAN: Low/Medium Density Residential (4.4 - 9.7 units per acre) CURRENT ZONING: 1) Base Zoning District: AP, Agricultural Preservation 2) Overlay District: NE, Natural Environment Lake Shoreland Management District for South Twin Lake REVIEWERS: Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Deputy Fire Chief, City Planner, DNR Regional Hydrologist, Browns Creek Watershed District PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Richard Gagne, representing The Ponds at Heifort Hills, LLC, is proposing to develop the 25 acre homestead of Kenneth and Geraldine Heifort. The property is located at 8753 & 8911 Neal Avenue North. A majority of the property lies within the Natural Environment Shoreland District of South Twin Lake (see Map A). Consequently, development must either be on one acre lots or must occur as a Shoreland Planned Unit Development (PUD). A shoreland PUD allows increased density if: 1) at least 50% of the site remains in commonly owned permanent open space; 2) densities are shifted away from the protected lake; 3) emphasis is placed on protecting the natural resources of the site, such as trees and water basins; and 4) no more than 25% of the site is improved with impervious surfaces. Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 2 The developer in this instance has chosen to develop according to the Shoreland PUD standards. The project is planned to be developed in two phases. The first phase would be to develop the south half of the site with 24 detached townhomes (see Map D). The estimated sale price of these homes is around $450,000. The north half of the property (see Map E) would be developed during the second phase and is planned to create another 24 detached townhomes. SPECIFIC REQUEST The developer is requesting: 1) Rezoning of the first phase's 15.2 acres from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential; and 2) Concept Shoreland PUD approval for 25 acres encompassing both phases of development; and 3) Preliminary plat approval for The Ponds at Heifort Hills, which represents 24 homes in the first phase of this project. EVALUATION OF REQUEST I. REZONING Current and Proposed Classifications Zoning As seen in Map B, the property is currently zoned AP, Agricultural Preservation. The developer has requested a rezoning for Phase One to RB, Two -Family Residential. The same zoning would be requested for Phase Two when development of that portion of the property occurs. Comprehensive Plan The future land use map of the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan (Map C) shows that the site is guided for Low/Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The LMDR classification is intended for developments at a density of 4.4 to 9.7 units per acre. The Zoning Districts that are consistent with this density range are CCR, RB and CR. Therefore, the requested rezoning to RB, Two -Family Residential is consistent with the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. A note should be made here that even though the RB Zoning is consistent with the Comp Plan, the actual development density is much lower than normally found in the RB District. The actual density for Phase One is about 3.25 homes per acre1. This density is 7.38 acres of net developable land. This is the remainder after subtracting Neal Avenue right-of-way, wetlands, Heifort Pond, wetland buffer, pond buffer. Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 3 what you would typically find in RA Zoned neighborhoods, but higher density is not possible given the stricter standards of the South Twin Lake Shoreland District rules that apply to the property. II. CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT As mentioned above, a shoreland PUD allows increased density if: 1) at least 50% of the site remains in commonly owned permanent open space; 2) densities are shifted away from the protected lake (South Twin Lake, in this case); 3) emphasis is placed on protecting the natural resources of the site, such as trees and water basins; and 4) no more than 25% of the site is improved with impervious surfaces. All of these standards have been incorporated into the proposed PUD. A. Minimum Dimensional Standards Site size A standard PUD has to be on a project of at least 3 acres in size. The subject property has 25 gross acres. About 15 acres in Phase One and about 10 acres in Phase Two. Density As mentioned above, two separate density expectations are at play with this project. The first is that the Comprehensive Plan encourages 4.4 to 9.7 units per acre across the property. But, working against this density expectation is the fact that the land lies within the South Twin Lake Shoreland District, which incorporates regulations that reduce its density considerably. Specifically, the State's shoreland PUD rules calculate density based upon what type of shoreland district is involved, the minimum lot size of that district, and the distance away from the lake. As long as 50% of the site is preserved in permanently dedicated open space, density increase bonuses are allowed. And, the further you get from the lake, the greater the density bonus. Shoreland PUD density allowed in Phase One: The number of houses allowed in the Natural Environment Shoreland PUD is calculated by taking the square footage of land in a tier (minus wetlands, Neal Avenue right-of-way, and pond surface) and dividing that by the standard lot size. The "standard lot size" by City Code would be a 40,000 square foot lot. Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 4 a. First Tier: There is about 19,400 sf of such land in the first tier. That would yield 0.49 lots and a bonus density of 50% (an additional 0.25 lots), for a total of 0.74 lots. b. Second Tier: There is about 190,500 sf of land here which would yield 4.76 lots plus the second tier's 100% bonus (an additional 4.76 lots), for a total of 9.52 lots. c. Third Tier: There is about 177,200 sf of land in this tier which would yield 4.43 lots plus a 200% bonus (an additional 8.86 homes), for a total of 13.29 lots. d. Fourth Tier: 37,800 sf would yield 0.95 lots plus a 200% bonus (an additional 1.9 lots), for a total of 2.85 lots. e. Therefore, the total number of homes allowed would be 26.4. 24 are proposed in this phase. The two extra units are transferred to the next phase. Shoreland PUD density allowed in Phase Two: a. First Tier: There is about 118,300 sf of land in the first tier. That would yield 2.96 lots and a bonus density of 50% (an additional 1.48 lots) for a total of 4.44 lots. b. Second Tier: About 229,300 sf of land would yield 5.73 lots plus the second tier's 100% bonus (an additional 5.73 lots), for 11.46 lots. c. Third Tier: About 77,319 sf would yield 1.93 lots plus the 200% bonus (an additional 3.86 homes), for 5.79 lots. a. Therefore, the total of homes allowed would be 21.69, rounded to 22. With the two units transferred from the first phase, 24 would be permissible in this phase. 24 are proposed. Setbacks With a PUD there are generally no setback standards, except from the perimeter of the project. When the proposed type of use in the PUD is more intense than the neighboring property, such as a senior living center next to surrounding single family homes, then the perimeter setback must be at least double the height of the structure(s) in the PUD. In this case where both the existing neighborhood use and the proposed PUD use are detached single-family homes, the setbacks of the underlying zoning district (RB) would apply to the property perimeters. Therefore, the building setback from Neal Avenue would considered a front setback and would need to be 30 feet (since garages are in front of the house). To be conservative, rather than calling the setback from the south a Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 5 side setback (requiring only a 5 foot setback distance), staff is considering it a rear setback, since it is a rear setback for the neighbors. Therefore, the setback distance from the south perimeter line would be 25 feet. In all instances these perimeter setback distances are maintained. Impervious coverage A maximum of 25% of the dry land on this PUD can be improved with impervious surface. This phase of the PUD shows an impervious coverage of 23.4%. Details about impervious coverage for Phase Two will need to be submitted with the preliminary plat for that phase. B. Open space State law requires 50% of a Shoreland PUD's site to be permanent open space. 13.86 acres exist in this phase after subtracting the right-of-way for Neal Avenue from the site's 15.2 acres. 50% of that is 6.93 acres of required open space2. 10.3 acres are provided. Since there are not enough stormwater details provided for Phase Two, an open space analysis could not be completed. (Stormwater ponds cannot be used to satisfy open space requirements.) When the preliminary plat for Phase Two is submitted, it will need to show a minimum of 50% open space. C. Future Development The City Subdivision Code requires each developer to extend streets and utilities to property lines if that is the only reasonable way a neighboring property can be developed. In this instance, a parcel of about 3.8 acres exists to the northeast of Phase Two that will need utilities and also likely street access through the Heifort property. The street extension may be required because MnDOT will only allow the existing drive to have access to Hwy 96. Therefore, at most only one more home could share that existing drive. 2 The 6.93 acres can include the water surface for Heifort Pond, but cannot include stormwater treatment areas or wetlands. Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 6 There are several impediments to extending a street to the neighbor, however. One is that the resulting street would be a cul-de-sac in excess of 600 feet, which is contrary to City Subdivision Code. Also, the streets in The Ponds at Heifort Hills are to be private. So, any homes accessed over it would have to be given permission to use it and would have to participate in its maintenance. The decision to include the access or not will be made during review of Phase Two. It will be based upon a public discussion including the two impacted properties, the developer and the City. ITT. PRELIMINARY PLAT A. Overview The preliminary plat for this first phase consists of: • 24 detached townhomes. • Two short public roads. Each will be a cul-de-sac from which private roads and driveways will provide access to the homes. • All property outside of roads and building footprints will be owned in common by the Home Owner's Association and platted as unbuildable outlots. • The plat for this phase of development encompasses a large portion of Heifort Pond. Around the pond will be a 75 foot wide buffer strip. In addition, there is a wetland in the northwest corner. Around this wetland is a 25 foot buffer strip. Generally speaking, each of these buffers has to be left undisturbed during development, and preserved as a buffer after development3. • A good quality stand of trees will be preserved just north of Lot 17. • Municipal water and sanitary sewer will be extended across the site to provide the utilities to properties to the north and east. • A trail will be constructed along Neal Avenue. B. Civil Engineering The City Engineer reviewed the plans and makes the following comments: 3 Unless the Watershed District Board approves a buffer averaging plan for the pond buffer. Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 7 1. All public utilities that are located on privately owned property will need to be encumbered by drainage and utility easements. 2. Development impact fees for each phase must be paid to the City prior to release of the Final Plat for that phase of development. Based upon the preliminary plat for this phase, 7.38 acres of net developable land are subject to development impact fees. At the 2016 rates, the following fees would be due for Phase One: a. Transportation Adequacy Fee of $54,811.26. b. Trout Stream Mitigation Fee of $42,154.56. c. Trunk Sewer and Water Fees would be $122,869.62. 3. All civil engineering plans must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction prior to release of the Final Plat for filing with Washington County. 4. Stormwater plans must be approved by the Brown's Creek Watershed District prior approval of the Final Plat for each phase. 5. The developer is to construct Neal Avenue to the urban standard specified by the City Engineer. The costs of these developer improvements will be credited against the Transportation Adequacy Fee included in Item 2 above. 6. The name "Heifort Court" already exists in Stillwater, so an alternate name must be selected by the developer for this cul-de-sac. 7. Prior to City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat for Phase One, a preliminary grading plan for Phase Two must be submitted and found satisfactory by the City Engineer. The purpose for this plan is to verify that a gravity sewer line will be able to serve Phase Two, and potentially also the neighbor to the northeast. 8. One street light will be required for each of the two cul-de-sacs in this phase. These must be included on the final plat application materials. 9. No trees will be allowed within the right-of-way of the public streets. The only exception is that the trees shown within the grassy centers of the cul- de-sacs will be permitted as long as they are maintained by the Home Owners' Association. 10. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval. 11. Review comments from the Brown's Creek Watershed District must be addressed in the Final Plat application materials. This includes review and approval of the location of the averaged wetland/pond buffer limits. 12. The boundaries of the wetland/pond buffers must be signed according to Brown's Creek Watershed District rules. This signage must be shown on final plat application materials. Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 8 C. Brown's Creek Watershed District Comments The consulting engineer for the watershed district has identified the district's rules that would be triggered by the proposed development activity and shared comments they have specific to the rule at this point in the plan development process. - Stormwater Management because it is a residential subdivision of four or more lots. Comments with respect to Rule 2.0 include: o A significant portion of this site has been characterized as having high infiltration potential in the BCWD Watershed Management Plan (Figure III-7 groundwater Discharge and Recharge Areas). A geotechnical investigation will verify the infiltration capacity of the underlying soils. o The stormwater management plan for the site is concentrated in 4 facilities located along the exterior perimeter of the site. Given that the project needs to conform to the rate, volume, water quality and bounce and duration standard, the Permit Applicant will have to demonstrate how these rules are met to all existing (pre -development) discharge points. o It is unclear what types of stormwater management practices are being proposed for the site; given the depth and the safety benches they appear to be wet ponds. It is unclear how the volume control standard would be met for this project. There is a note on the Grading & Erosion Control Plan addressing infiltration areas but it is unclear where these are located. o It is questionable how maintenance access to the stormwater management facilities will be provided. o Green space in the cul-de-sacs and the direction of drainage are opportunities for additional stormwater treatment. o Given the amount of irrigation used in a townhome setting, stormwater reuse for irrigation may be an option for meeting the volume control standard. - Erosion Control because the project will disturb more than 50 cubic yards of earth or removal of vegetative cover on 5,000 square feet. Comments with respect to Rule 3.0 include: o Difficult to provide specific comments on the Grading & Erosion Control Plan until more information provided about the stormwater management practices. Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 9 - Lake, Stream and Wetland Buffer Requirements because the project is adjacent to a wetland one acre or larger (Heifort Pond) and it is being subdivided. Comments with respect to Rule 4.0 include: o Heifort Pond is classified as a Management 1 wetland in the BCWD Watershed Management Plan. As a result, there will be a 75-foot buffer requirement on this resource. The BCWD will evaluate the quality of the existing buffer under Rule 4.4.1 and may require a planting or landscaping plan to restore the quality of vegetative cover. o According to the wetland delineation submitted by Larson Engineering, the wetland on the western edge of the property is a Manage 3 wetland. Because this wetland is under an acre in size, the buffer requirement does not apply to this resource. [City Staff note: City Code still requires a 25 foot buffer for this wetland.] o The proposed layout shows a number of the buildings encroaching on the 75-foot buffer. Rule 4.4.2 does not allow for the creation of impervious cover, the excavation or placement of fill and alterations to vegetation (unless approved by the District to establish adequate native vegetative cover), all of which would occur under the current configuration which does not allow room for construction without impacts to the buffer. The townhomes should be pulled back from the buffer edge an adequate distance to allow for construction without impacts to the buffer. [Unless the Board approves a buffer averaging plan.] o Similarly, the existing barn is within the 75-foot buffer on Heifort Pond. Demolition of this building will also have similar impacts to the buffer. - Floodplain and Drainage Alterations because the proposed project would alter stormwater flows at the property boundary by changing land contours, divert or obstruct surface or channel flow, or create a basin outlet. Comments with respect to Rule 7.0 include: o The BCWD's H/H model shows the 100-year runoff (7.2 inch 10- day frozen ground) to be the critical event for Heifort pond resulting in a HWL of 885.8 feet. This is based on a starting elevation of 883.0 feet, or approximately at the lip of the culvert that enters Stillwater's storm sewer system (Actual control elevation is 885.3 feet in the catch basin on Oak Glen Trail). o All of the townhomes along Heifort Pond appear to meet the District's freeboard requirement. Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 10 o There are no 100-year HWLs for the wetland on the western edge of the property or the stormwater management facilities to evaluate the townhomes adjacent to these features. D. Tree Preservation & Landscaping Tree Preservation A tree inventory and map showing the location of each inventoried tree has been submitted. In addition, a tree removal, protection and replacement plan was submitted. Over 65% of the trees on site will be saved. All of the trees within the Heifort Pond buffer area (75 feet from pond/wetland edge) are being preserved. Most of the trees in the 25 foot buffer of the wetland in the northwest corner of the property are also being saved. In addition, there is a nice stand of significant trees in the center of the site that will be preserved. 34.5% of the tree cover is proposed to be removed. 35% is allowed to be removed before replacement standards are triggered. Therefore, no replacement is required for this phase of the project. Landscaping Landscaping standards require the equivalent of three trees per lot (though they can be planted anywhere in the development that makes sense). So, the 24 lots generate a requirement of 72 trees. The size of the trees to be planted must average 2 inches in diameter at about four and a half feet above ground level. Though, oaks and ornamentals can have an average of 1.25 inches. And pine trees would need to be 6 feet in height. 87 trees are shown in the planting plan, and all meet or exceed the minimum size requirements. A foundation landscaping plan was also submitted and is acceptable. E. Park and Trail Dedication The City's Trail Plan shows a trail along Neal Avenue. The best location for it would be the east side of Neal Avenue. But, there is a wetland on the Heifort property immediately adjacent to Neal Avenue that may make Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 11 construction of the trail difficult. Consequently, plans for the trail alignment have not been completed yet. Prior to submitting the Final Plat application to the City, the developer must work with the City Engineer, Community Development Director and Park Commission to site a trail segment that avoids the wetland yet accomplishes the trail system connectivity goals for this trail segment. The developer's cost for constructing this trail will be credited against required park and trail dedication fees. The park dedication fee, if required by the Park Commission in lieu of park land dedication, will be $2,000 per townhome ($48,000 for Phase One). And the trail fee will be $500 per townhome ($12,000). The costs for constructing the Neal Avenue trail would be credited against this $60,000 park and trail fee. RECOMMENDATION The proposed Concept PUD, rezoning and preliminary plat for Phase One represents a good solution to the need for balancing the density envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and the protective goals of the South Twin Lake Shoreland Overlay District. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requests with the conditions found below under Alternative A. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the concept PUD plan satisfactory, as well as the rezoning request and preliminary plat for Phase One, it could recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following plans on file with the Community Development Department, except as may be modified by the conditions herein: • Concept Plan C 2/29/16 • Northerly Concept Plan 2/19/16 • Existing Conditions 2/19/16 • Preliminary Plat 3/17/16 • Tree Preservation & Landscape Plan L13/18/16 • Tree Canopy Area Plan L2 3/18/16 • Heifort Hills Tree Survey 3/17/16 • Proposed Site Plan Cl 3/18/16 • Grading & Erosion Control Plan C2 3/18/16 Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 12 • Utility Plan C3 3/18/16 • Building Elevations - Streetscape 1.0 2/4/16 • Main Sr Lower Level Plans 2.0A 2/4/16 • Optional Floor Plan A, Garage Right 2.0B 2/4/16 • Floor Plan B 2.0C 2/4/16 • Optional Floor Plan B, Garage Right 2.0D 2/4/16 • Floor Plan C, Garage Left 2.0E 2/4/16 • Floor Plan CII, Garage Right 2.0F 2/4/16 2. All civil engineering plans must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction prior to release of the Final Plat for filing with Washington County. 3. All public utilities that are located on privately owned property will need to be encumbered by drainage and utility easements. 4. Development impact fees for each phase must be paid to the City prior to release of the Final Plat for that phase of development. This includes fees for parks, trails, transportation adequacy, trout stream mitigation, trunk sewer and trunk water. 5. Stormwater and grading plans must be approved by the Brown's Creek Watershed District prior to City Council approval of the Final Plat for each phase. 6. The developer is to construct Neal Avenue to the urban standard specified by the City Engineer. The costs of these developer improvements will be credited against the Transportation Adequacy Fee included in Item 2 above. 7. The name "Heifort Court" already exists in Stillwater, so an alternate name must be selected by the developer for this cul-de-sac. 8. Prior to City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat for Phase One, a preliminary grading plan for Phase Two must be submitted and found satisfactory by the City Engineer. The purpose for this plan is to verify that a gravity sewer line will be able to serve Phase Two, and potentially also the neighbor to the northeast. 9. One street light will be required for each of the two cul-de-sacs in this phase. These must be included on the final plat application materials. 10. No trees will be allowed within the right-of-way of the public streets. The only exception is that the trees shown within the grassy centers of the cul-de-sacs will be permitted as long as they are maintained by the Home Owners' Association. 11. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval. 12. Review comments from the Brown's Creek Watershed District must be addressed in the Final Plat application materials. This includes review and approval of the location of the averaged wetland/pond buffer limits. 13. The boundaries of the wetland/pond buffers must be signed according to Brown's Creek Watershed District rules. This signage must be shown on final plat application materials. 14. Since there are insufficient stormwater details provided for Phase Two of the PUD, an open space analysis could not be completed for that phase. Therefore, when the preliminary plat for Phase Two is submitted, it must document a minimum of 50% open space. 15. Details about impervious coverage for Phase Two will need to be submitted with the preliminary plat for that phase. No more than 25% is permitted. Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 13 16. The final PUD plan for Phase Two may have to be revised to include access to the neighboring property. The decision to include the access or not will be based upon a public discussion including the two impacted properties, the developer and the City. 17. The rezoning will not be published, nor will it become effective until after the Final Plat is approved by the City and filed with Washington County for recording. 18. Prior to submitting the Final Plat application, the developer must work with the City to site a Neal Avenue trail segment that avoids wetlands yet accomplishes the trail system connectivity goals for the segment. The developer's cost for constructing this trail will be credited against required park and trail dedication fees. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds the concept PUD plan, rezoning or preliminary plat materials or elements for Phase One to be incomplete, it could table the review for additional information. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the concept PUD plan, rezoning or preliminary plat to be unsatisfactory, it could recommend denial. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. Attachments: Location Map Map A - Shoreland Zoning and Location Map B - Zoning Map C - Comp Plan Map Map D - Phase One Concept Plan Map E - Phase Two Concept Plan Map F - Open Space Phase One Preliminary Plat Grading Plan Tree Preservation Floor Plans and Elevations cc: Richard Gagne Tim Freeman Jennifer Sorensen, DNR Regional Hydrologist 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota 8753 and 8911 Neal Avenue North it Subject Parcels Parcel Boundaries Municipal Boundary 425 850 1,700 Feet Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 14 Map A Location & Shoreland Zoning -MCKusick Rd Shoreland Zoning Classifications II I Lake Shoreland Management District Brown's Creek & Tribs Shoreland District . St Croix River Ovenay Dlstnct Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 15 Map B Zoning South Twin Lake Zoning Map DAF,Agedalur.®I Preservation ORA -Singh Femid Residential 111R13 -Ism Family . TR, Traditional Residential MLR, Lakeshore Residential ❑ CR, CtillnVe ResiRenllel .CTR, Cove Tradleonnl Residential . CDR, Cove Cottage Residential . cTHR, cove Townhouse Residential . TH,Tuwnnouse .RCM -Medium density Residential . RGB -High Density Reskedial IlVc, Village Commercial .CA -Gemmel Commeralnl L eo - cenhal Bus mess Disma EIBP-C, Business Park - Commercial ▪ Bus,r ss Park - Oecn 1113P-I, Rusrness Park -Ind uslnnl .Id - Heavy Madrid . CRd -Campus Researen development . PA -Public Admmrslr&Ion . PROS - Perk, Recreation or Open Space [2Public Works Faddy LROAD D4WTER EN EMI 8911 The Ponds at Heifort Hills 9313 1745 eifart's Pond 44 2101 2o7p 2010 2005 1490 1931 1995 1941 1985 975 1551 GLEN 01110 Ponds at Heifort Hills April 6, 2016 Page 16 Map C Comprehensive Plan Map CD 203G City! Limit Wetland (Umlelineated) Low Density Residential LowfMedium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighmrhood Commercial Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Research, Development Park Industrial Institutional Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Road R-O-W Open Water 12445 55TH STREET NORTH LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 Phone (651) 439-8833 www.ffe-inc.com Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING IN 00 CONCEPT PLAN FOR: The Ponds at Heifort Hills, LLC Richard Gagne 11373 Neal Avenue South Hastings, MN 55033 110005 JASON 110002 EDERICK B & RUTH F '0110002 ROPERTIES LLC 5 1903020140 S HOME CORPO r'LJ� '��— 4, I ATION ,ate r. Os \ • oit lit!II %r v � J 1903021'40027 US HOME ' ORPORATION 1 \� 1903021140027 THE PONDS AT HEIFORT HILLS CONCEPT PLAN C PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Property Owners: Estate of Marie Heifort Kenneth R. Heifort Property Address: 8753 NEAL AVE N STILLWATER, MN 55082 Property ID 20.030.20.22.0015 60 LAYOUT AND PLANNING SERVICES: Sovereign Land Services, LLC Kevin vonRiedel - Owner (651) 214=3993 894044M " NORTH LINE OF SOUTH 856.12 FEET aF S{Y l/Y, Set 16 T .. e r 9l1 2003020230009 DANISCH RAYMOND F AREA TABULATION Property Boundary Neal Ave Right of Way Net Developable 50% Open Space Required Open Space Provided Serif =^__. aE Naera 724Fr WJ/2 axe 2 aE SM?/f EC 2G 73DN R2tAV 2 2003020230010 BYDZOVSKY JOSEPH 0 & TARRAH M A / / / / / I K 7n Zn 03020,220016 K NETH & GERALDINE\ 3 2003020230011 KIOLBASA JOSEPH & NANCY H / /— — A / -, / /- - / \ / / V P KN r 1 15.20 acres 1.34 acres 13.86 acres 6.93 acres 10.32 acres 0 0,30-20-22-0015 2003020230012 UTESON ERIC ARNOLD & MARY —/— / / / /--/ / / / A rr• / —/ / I / / / / / / / I L / L / / / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Net Developable Area Minus Pond Area Subtotal Maximum Allowed is 25% 5 2 3020230013 I JOHNS SUSAN E S AA, •a.4, . 7 2003020230015 VILLESVIK ROBERT A & ELIZABETH ,,-r 1 I g 1� ORIGINAL SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET 25 50 SCALE IN FEET Building Areas Private Roads and Driveways Public Road Surface Impervious Surface Proposed 13.86 acres 3.29 acres 10.57 acres 2.64 acres 1.34 acres 0.84 acres 0.34 acres 2.52 acres (23.4%) 4'sVA \\:\," $cf9,0-1A �P �0Q\�e 0�. o �0QSOSPO�� L r L NI 200p5 20030N 010 SOM y; / 0004 at 2000RP �E� S SEAM V - 1\g wA�ER�' 000 3 _� 2003020220003 003 � -� MO1N� r ; BAD& SAPR�(NA D 20030202 0 A02 N IRS v EI�EEN ZIMME 2003020220001 J OQUN1& B RBARA 6A 2003020230014 OLSON MARK I & KRIS 9°° �4 A"i 11, 100 I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the Laws o the State of Minnesota. Timothy f...v'-ems , LS Minnesota license No. 6989 2/29/16 Date Note: Official Copies of this map are crimp sealed Map No. 15-154D CONCEPT PLAN C 2016 — Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. —All Rights Reserved THE PONDS AT HEIFORT HILLS Northerly CONCEPT PLAN Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING 12445 55TH STREET NORTH LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 Phone (651) 439.8833 www.ffe•inc.com W4E CONCEPT PLAN FOR: The Ponds at Heifort Hills, LLC Richard Gagne 11373 Neal Avenue South Hastings, MN 55033 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Property Owners: Kenneth R. Heifort Geraldine Heifort Property Address: 8911 NEAL AVE N STILLWATER, MN 55082 Property ID 20.030.20.22.0017 Property ID 20.030.20.22.0016 2003020220018 0302011000o AREA TABULATION Property Boundary Public Right of Way Pond Surface Net Developable 50% Open Space Required Open Space Provided 89°04116" ,c 10.93 acres 1.36 acres 0.61 acres 8.96 acres 4.48 acres 6.25 acres F E GF N*er# 720FT NU/1 OF SH0/9 73GN RZOM/ IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Property Boundary Minus Pond Area Neal Ave R/W Maximum Allowed is 25% Building Areas Private Roads and Driveways Public Road Surface Impervious Surface Proposed 889°/ 0'5/ "E 456.00 N 65*z2O lH0 10.93 acres 0.61 acres 0.04 acres 2.56 acres 1.36 acres 0.83 acres 0.37 acres 2.56 acres 1703020330010 40 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET 0 25 50 SCALE IN FEET H WY RIGHT OF WAY Y PER BOUr r 1H0 0\ r \ g 200.3 20220010 i J 9p� 945 \0 0 10 200302022001 8 2003020220009 100 LAYOUT AND PLANNING SERVICES: Sovereign Land Services, LLC Kevin vonRiedel - Owner (651) 214-3993 I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Timothy J. pp •m: , LS Minnesota Incense No. t 6989 Note: Official Copies of this map are crimp sealed 2/19/16 Date Map No. 15-154D N'ly CONCEPT PLAN © 2016 — Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. — All Rights Reserved Ponds at Heifort Hills Apri16, 2016 Page 19 Map F PUD Open Space - Phase One The Ponds at Heifort Hills PUD Open Space wetland Sormwater 1 House Iota 1 Privets roads 8 drives Neal Ave I Neal Ave r-o-w New public made 111 PU60pen Space 7 2 Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR: The Ponds at Heifort Hills, LLC Richard Gagne 11373 Neal Avenue South Hastings, MN 55033 THE PONDS AT HEIFORT HILLS PRELIMINARY PLAN/PUD PRELIMINAR Y PLAT MOO w EE E 12445 55TH STREET NORTH LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 Phone (651) 439.8833 www.ffe-inc.com PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The West half of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter (W % of W % of NW %) of Section Twenty (20) in Township Thirty (30) North, Range Twenty (20) West of the Fourth Meridian, Excepting therefrom that part thereof conveyed to School District No. 55 by deed dated June 26, 1874, recorded July 30, 1874, in Book Z of Deeds, page 12. ALSO EXCEPT: The North Seven Hundred Twenty (720) feet of the West Half of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter (W %2 of W %2 of NW %) of Section Twenty (20), in Township Thirty (30) North, of Range Twenty (20) West, Washington County, Minnesota, Except that part thereof conveyed to School District No. 55 by deed dated June 26, 1874, recorded July 30, 1874 in Book Z of Deeds, page 12. ALSO EXCEPT: The South 850.00 feet of the West Half of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section Twenty (20), Township Thirty (30) North, Range Twenty (20) West, Washington County, Minnesota, as measured at a right angle to the South line of said West Half of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter. ALSO EXCEPT: That part of the West Half of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence on an azimuth from North 178 degrees 48 minutes 31 seconds, oriented to the Washington County Coordinate System, North Zone, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 720.18 feet to the South line of the North 720.00 feet of said West Half of the West Half; thence continuing on an azimuth of 178 degrees 48 minutes 31 seconds along said West line a distance of 67.00 feet; thence on an azimuth of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 654.50 feet to the East line of said West Half of the West Half; thence on an azimuth of 358 degrees 51 minutes 04 seconds along said East line a distance of 66.07 feet to said South line of the North 720.00 feet; thence on an azimuth of 270 degrees 04 minutes 53 seconds along said South line a distance of 654.57 feet to the point of beginning. From Title Commitment issued by Land Title, Inc. Effective December 18, 2015, LT File No. 532415 L r L 1 0\ 17.02 1 6.5[60 132.09 58411:57'W 26.63 ti w • • S 89°04'16" E i 6G.GG 6G.GG N89°1157 "E 16 589°1157"W 92.00 h Ni -.� ti N89°1157"E o 6G.GG p to 6 2L1 2 o ,h N89°1157 "E ~ 26 N O N c j 589°1157"W 91.66 199.96 / ro S89°1157"W 92.66 p2 389°1157 "74' 52.66 25 32.0 ti N89°1157"E 6G.GG 6G.GG N89°1157 E 32.OG ^ ,� S89°1157"W 92.00 SOUTH LINE OF NORTH 72GFT W1/2 OF WI/2 OF SW1/3 Sac 20 730N R2011/ -� 85.51 �! J3y1 Ssj� E' t\ N'8.o9-y6„w z6g3 N87 0,232714/ 92.G0 ti 7 314/ uBG3GJ/ h NORTH LINE OF SOUTH 850.00 FEET th of SW 1/4', SEC 20 730N R207/ ^l l O tiI 119.06 18 N 88°593--6" 6G.GG 6G.GG i 189.59 ti N5132395 E 560 At co � O 588 3602E 79.93 G. v 6G.GG ti hi N i OoV N 66.00 66.66 654'.00 7 TA 3i•O° 1. " ,,, Co t\.:Z.GA/G311:21213,3523„:23'3952.66 1.\''IV 1,4 Lki 9.54 21.66 90.90 653.93 kiA 86.76 10 1/4 513515970 "1 18 )7( N. NI ORIGINAL SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET 0 25 50 SCALE IN FEET 100 1 I hereby certlft that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Minnesota cense No. 6989 Note: Official Copies of this map are crimp sealed 3/17/16 Date Map No. 15-154D PRELIM PLAT 0 2016 - Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. - All Rights Reserved EROSION CONTROL NOTES LEGEND / _I__ 888 1. Owner and Contractor shall obtain MPCA-NPDES permit. Contractor shall be responsible for all fees pertaining to this permit. The SWPPP shall be kept onsite at all times. 2. Install temporary erosion control measures (inlet protection, silt fence, and rock construction entrances) prior to beginning any excavation or demolition work at the site. 3. Erosion control measures shown on the erosion control plan are the absolute minimum. The contractor shall install temporary earth dikes, sediment traps or basins, additional siltation fencing, and/or disk the soil parallel to the contours as deemed necessary to further control erosion. All changes shall be recorded in the SWPPP. 4. All construction site entrances shall be surfaced with crushed rock across the entire width of the entrance and from the entrance to a point 50' into the construction zone. 5. The toe of the silt fence shall be trenched in a minimum of 6". The trench backfill shall be compacted with a vibratory plate compactor. 6. All grading operations shall be conducted in a manner to minimize the potential for site erosion. Sediment control practices must be established on all down gradient perimeters before any up gradient land disturbing activities begin. 7. All exposed soil areas must be stabilized as soon as possible to limit soil erosion but in no case later than 14 days after the construction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or permanently ceased. Temporary stockpiles without significant silt, clay or organic components (e.g., clean aggregate stockpiles, demolition concrete stockpiles, sand stockpiles) and the constructed base components of roads, parking lots and similar surfaces are exempt from this requirement. 8. The normal wetted perimeter of any temporary or permanent drainage ditch or swale that drains water from any portion of the construction site, or diverts water around the site, must be stabilized within 200 lineal feet from the property edge, or from the point of discharge into any surface water. Stabilization of the last 200 lineal feet must be completed within 24 hours after connecting to a surface water. Stabilization of the remaining portions of any temporary or permanent ditches or swales must be complete within 14 days after connecting to a surface water and construction in that portion of the ditch has temporarily or permanently ceased. / / e2 / 7 / / / 1 / / / // / / / // / / / / / / 892 / /FFE Or1 / / / 0c893 O/ / / • / /i / 40 / \ \ 7 LOT 6 1 7 / N4• • • OUTLOT A • • 7 7 fr I // At4 / Ii • / / / OE 7 \ 7 7 7 7 SILT FENCE 7 LOT5 FFE=900_5C LF=891.50 FFE=900.50 L0=895.00 I � L0=$95.00 OUTLOT B / 9. Pipe outlets must be provided with energy dissipation within 24 hours of connection to surface water. 10. All riprap shall be installed with a filter material or soil separation fabric and comply with the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. 11. All storm sewers discharging into wetlands or water bodies shall outlet at or below the normal water level of the respective wetland or water body at an elevation where the downstream slope is 1 percent or flatter. The normal water level shall be the invert elevation of the outlet of the wetland or water body. 12. All storm sewer catch basins not needed for site drainage during construction shall be covered to prevent runoff from entering the storm sewer system. Catch basins necessary for site drainage during construction shall be provided with inlet protection. 13. In areas where concentrated flows occur (such as swales and areas in front of storm catch basins and intakes) the erosion control facilities shall be backed by stabilization structure to protect those facilities from the concentrated 14. Inspect the construction site once every seven days during active construction and within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours. All inspections shall be recorded in the SWPPP. 15. All silt fences must be repaired, replaced, or supplemented when they become nonfunctional or the sediment reaches 1/3 of the height of the fence. These repairs must be made within 24 hours of discovery, or as soon as field conditions allow access. All repairs shall be recorded in the SWPPP. 16. If sediment escapes the construction site, off -site accumulations of sediment must be removed in a manner and at a frequency sufficient to minimize off -site impacts. 17. All soils tracked onto pavement shall be removed daily. 18. All infiltration areas must be inspected to ensure that no sediment from ongoing construction activity is reaching the infiltration area and these areas are protected from compaction due to construction equipment driving across the infiltration area. J r / 7 / /z // / / / /' / " / / / / / /� / / r / / i// / / 7 / �,// ///// / / / / // // / �/ �/ / / / / / / / / _7 i / / / / / / ' / / / i 7 / / i - �7 / '/ // / / I i- 9 .50 I 'r( ) I /- 89� r \� - J i LOT 9 i 901.50/ 19. Temporary soil stockpiles must have silt fence or other effective sediment controls, and cannot be placed in surface waters, including stormwater conveyances such as curb and gutter systems, or conduits and ditches unless there is a bypass in place for the stormwater. 20. Collected sediment, asphalt and concrete millings, floating debris, paper, plastic, fabric, construction and demolition debris and other wastes must be disposed of properly and must comply with MPCA disposal requirements. 21. Oil, gasoline, paint and any hazardous substances must be properly stored, including secondary containment, to prevent spills, leaks or other discharge. Restricted access to storage areas must be provided to prevent vandalism. Storage and disposal of hazardous waste must be in compliance with MPCA regulations. 22. External washing of trucks and other construction vehicles must be limited to a defined area of the site. Runoff must be contained and waste properly disposed of. No engine degreasing is allowed onsite. 23. All liquid and solid wastes generated by concrete washout operations must be contained in a leak -proof containment facility or impermeable liner. A compacted clay liner that does not allow washout liquids to enter ground water is considered an impermeable liner. The liquid and solid wastes must not contact the ground, and there must not be runoff from the concrete washout operations or areas. Liquid and solid wastes must be disposed of properly and in compliance with MPCA regulations. A sign must be installed adjacent to each washout facility to inform concrete equipment operators to utilize the proper facilities. 24. Upon completion of the project and stabilization of all graded areas, all temporary erosion control facilities (silt fences, hay bales, etc.) shall be removed from the site. 25. All permanent sedimentation basins must be restored to their design condition immediately following stabilization of the site. 26. Contractor shall submit Notice of Termination for MPCA-NPDES permit within 30 days after Final Stabilization 901.0 LOT 14 890.50 894.50 LOT 10 899.35 G OUTLOT B 889.00 LOT 19 F LFLFE789902,0°. 0.000/ \ / - 901 0 0.00 GL NTRANCE LOT 26 FFE=911.00 LF=902.00 / LOT 24 LF=903.00 950 950 949 911.50 LOT 23 0 902.25 902. NN I Id 0000 950.00 TC 9.40 EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS - MAJOR INTERVAL PROPOSED CONTOURS - MINOR INTERVAL GRADE BREAK LINE GRADE SLOPE SILT FENCE RIP -RAP / ROCK CONST. ENTRANCE INLET PROTECTION CONCRETE WASHOUT STATION SPOT ABBREVIATIONS: TC - TOP OF CURB GL - GUTTER LINE B - BITUMUNOUS C - CONCRETE EO - EMERGENCY OVERFLOW TW - TOP OF WALL BW - BOTTOM OF WALL (F/G) (*) - EXISTING TO BE VERIFIED GRADING NOTES 1. Tree protection consisting of snow fence or safety fence installed at the drip line shall be in place prior to beginning any grading or demolition work at the site. 2. All elevations with an asterisk (*) shall be field verified. If elevations vary significantly, notify the Engineer for further instructions. 3. Grades shown in paved areas represent finish elevation. / 4. Restore all disturbed areas with X" of good quality topsoil and seed, 911.00 TW 909.00 BW All construction shall be performed in accordance with state and local standard specifications for construction. 1" DIP rY CAM UB 74 Id 1-4 71J 0 NORTH 20 40 80 co >- co LrEo ca ca co cu 0 co 0 a_ a. u_ C/O: RICHARD GAGNE 11373 NEAL AVENUE SOUTH HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 cf) 0 EL 0 U. STILLWATER, MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. MOO WL0t/ .004 Matt Woodruff, P.E. Date: 02.19.16 Reg. No.: 41885 Rev. Date Description 'A 03.03.16 Revised Pre -Plat 03.18.16 City Submittal Update Drawn By: CBS Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 02.19.16 Sheet Title: GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN C2 Sheet: SYMBOL LEGEND & PLANTING SCHEDULE COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME TOTAL PLANTINGS SIZE AT PLANTING - SPRUCE, BLACK HILLS PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA 20 6' ® CRABAPPLE, SPRING SNOW MALUS SPRING SNOW 22 1 i" MIN. CALIPER ��CC��''�� ll�s'' 0 OAK, NORTHERN NEC QUERCUS RUBRA 6 2 j' MAPLE, SUGAR ACER SACCHARUM BAILSTA 11 2g 0 LINDEN, GREENSPIRE TILIA CORDATA GREENSPIRE 20 2„ ���....JJJJ MAPLE, AUTUMN BLAZE ACER X FREEMANII 6 3" MIN. CALIPER VNEGELEA, RED PRINCE WIEGELEA RED PRINCE 48 3 GAL A DWARF BURNING BUSH EUONYMUS ALATUS COMPACTUS 72 3 GAL, O CONCORD BARBERRY BERBERIS THUNERGII 96 3 GAL, • DAY LILY HEMEROCALLIS STELLA DE ORO 96 1 GAL / E /,r.-4 0 y/ #2 r`r,/,. 4 i,�{� /�'`- /t i' #3 r! �! '?.. .r� 54,...7.7 / r 7 1 '+."• •�J t r� i #5 I'`. lo. Is l r �3S l •1 P:\Projects\Pro,ects -201M1215filels At Helton Hills DevelopmenllC, Design\Drawing Files112156179 - L1 dwg NOTE: TYPICAL FRONT FOUNDATION PLANTING (NOT TO SCALE) GARAGE L_ 000o HOUSE HOUSE NEAL AVENUE NORTH GARAGE 0 0 0 0 rj I 1.-1 { I I rl r I t 1,0 LEGEND 234 - EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE NOTE: REQUIRED TREES 1. 46 PER POD ORDINANCE 2, 21 PER DNR SHORELAND ORDINANCE RETAINING WALL r ur CL Lit NORTH 20 40 80 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL (3 o Cu; m O 8 U'D m CCC P L c <,) •EnJ m J W m� 3 119 a C/O: RICHARD GAGNE H 0 (n w Z w I hereby certly That Ihis plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that lam a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws Cf the Aga dl Iielneftnle. IAGAt Man Woodruff, F.E. Date: 02.19 16 Reg, No,. 41685 Rev. DMa Descnp9i1 e 03.03.16 Revised Pre-Plal e 03.18.16 City Submittal Update Project* 12156179 Drawn By: CBS Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 021916 Sheet Tile: TREE PRESERVATION & LANDSCAPE PLAN LI SLA P.1Pf8le[ll!,W IC eF x'h3t T2i5,610 The fr•aMor¶eri1215611- L2, dwg W._CtE • — 906 • I �! 904 - SYMBOL LEGEND CD TOTAL CANOPY AREA = 132,100 SF TOTAL CANOPY BEING REMOVED = 45,575 SF (34 5%) r EX 9" ST1 I I'I V=a81.. Y Y NORTH 20 40 BO 2 T I hereby certify that this plan. specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the stale of Minnesota. Matt, P.E. Dale: 02.19.16 Reg. No.: 41885 Rev. Doe deltrlldlan 03.03,16 R6nsud l>ra..Piet 03.16. TB City Submittalupdete Project #: 12156179 Drawn By: CBS Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 02 19 16 Sheet Title: TREE CANOPY AREA PLAN L2 Sheet 11111111111111111 11111111111111111 II IIIIIIIIIIIIiIi 111111111111II K fri 'ill' II 0 m P3 0 0-1 XN r- g3[g�� ,p r\\�"\ ° '`�J ? 6 1 6 Q i e g 59 =l� '� iiq 6 ,ii9 DETACHED TOWHHO A THE PONDS AT HEIFORT HILLS 4 ,i :tl cys: gil q § j JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES. ARCHITECTS ze Tsmaremoo now m.uwu6o..0e63 zs 851.2.7342 exrx r� xetanc�er.ns o1RI373 N�EAD GA NE CONSTRUCTION &CONSULTING L.L.C. HASTINGS, MN 55033 lcc d II I 1__ T R � 1 w 1-- ii 2' ! Am Vi" V. iA gi II ll`11� `-°' $ P. . 8 i ' C [��5� Ei ., 3EE DETACHED TOWHHOMES THE PONDS AT HEIFORT HILLS JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS wo�tt2wn . en mite • ,` J RICHARD GAGNE CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING L.L.C. & 11373 NEAL AVE. SO. HASTINGS. MN 55033 r. 6,- Z2 r 1 U fi - 0 ■ aML z9 r n 11 1 L Iim 000 a if s ii IN3 ' t $ 8 '' p m f , 9gy E tii 3FF� DETACHEDTOWHHOMES THE PONDS AT HEIFORT HILLS 4�j41 n I3 ei• ] _. „ti I� o; 6= 113 Iq6 w Sep JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS W m�B512Gorw.361� RICHARD GAGNE CONSTRUCTION & CONSULTING L.L.C. 11373 NEAL AVE. SO. HASTINGS. MN 55033 (I'II1II l! p Fes m x 11111 11111 11111 II 4 { 7 i 1- i 1If10ar- FJ 2'? o- li %Nib a ffII `), a & j [ "� m S a s'F.59 E11Fi FF € � ;F� DETACHED TOWHHOMES THE PONDS AT HEIFORT HILLS ® 4�j4� 8� 1 % S4g1i,1 °t li, 4� F 7 JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS esa 1.11woorswo 1 1CHARD GAGNE CONSTRUCTION & CONSULTING L.L.C. 173/3 NEAL AVE. SO. HAS INGS, MN 55033 I(� \\, \�i R G SS 1 1 z { �.J 11 '•(' i " 1 e i F m to 9 ?i7 s a $ ; R 1 $If 4 gf� DETACHEDTOWHHOMES THE PONDS AT HEIFORT HILLS ® 111a i g i, '-• i ;ilikpf a gi69 { if fpp I i� 111 JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES. ARCHITECTS www wrc0,460t s ` , - RICHARD GAGNE CONSTRUCTION & CONSULTING L.L.C. 1 1373 NEALAVE. SO. HASTINGS,MN 55033 Il III \ _ 4 " C=pp�P'Eft 1-r e\ { rZ m ai I°I°1 IC m I°I°I ®Li -111,111.41, . + l�lo l`I,' 9 s M T s '�s'.s; m" n Y o D '! `3 DETACHEDTOWHHOMES THE PONDS AT HEIFORT HILLS JOHNSON& ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS RICHARD GAGNE CONSTRUCTION &CONSULTING L.L.C. 8 6i 11373 NEAL AVE. SO. „mayte ¢ v 8iI£� HASTINGS, MN 55033 ^ 3Fy� • .111,111•21161— J 1 V oQ I \n vy i A 1 j g? DETACHED TOWHHOMES THE PONDS AT HEIFORT HILLS �Ii o ' .JOHNSON& ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS z''.:1.00O.oum Wcoom,cze n0..see11901.2 3n ��� $' & RICHARD GAGNE CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING L.L.C. i��t i 17373 NEAL AVE. SO. �Ii IiY " t IIII ��II ,1 6 jya iEF� HASnNGS. MN 55033 m ° c'1 ail j�a 'iF3a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 13, 2016 CASE NO.: 2016-17 APPLICANT: Chris Medin and Mary Murray Medin, property owners REQUEST: Consideration of a variances pertaining to maximum accessory structure coverage at the property located at 1118 4th Street South located in the RB Zoning District ZONING: RB, Two -Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR, Low/Medium Density Res. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of a 184 sq. ft. variance to the accessory structure size regulation for a preexisting structure located at 1118 4th Street South. The preexisting structure, formerly utilized as a garage, has been present on this site since 1910. The purpose of this request is to convert this garage into a storage shed and to build a new 936 square foot garage on the property. Prior to the construction of the new garage, the applicant intends to convert the existing attached garage to living space as this garage space was once a part of the dwelling's habitable area. The total allowable accessory structure coverage for the RB -Two Family district is 1,000 square feet or 10% of the lot area, whichever is less. Therefore the applicant is also requesting a 240 square foot variance to the maximum accessory structure coverage. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits." Section 31-208 further indicates: ■ Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. The applicant must demonstrate that: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The intent of limiting the total amount of accessory structure size and the maximum accessory structure coverage is to ensure residential properties are not dominated by accessory uses. However, this is a 13,000+ square foot size parcel which can accommodate for increased rear -yard accessory uses. The variance, if granted, would not be in conflict with the general purposes and intent. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no application elements in conflict with the comprehensive plan. In fact, the comprehensive plan encourages the retention of historic resources. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; The addition of a functioning garage on a residential property, while retaining a potentially historic resource for storage purpose, is reasonable. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and The property owner recently purchased this property knowing the existing garage was not suitable for use as a garage. As additional living space is desired, the applicant's intentions have been to convert the attached garage into living space while retaining the detached circa 1910 garage to help preserve the historic character of the property. As such, the uniqueness to the property is that while there are two garages, neither of them are suitable and there are alternative uses for both of them. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. As the property owner is aiming to keep the existing garage, while converting the attached garage back to living space, the property's historic feel will be maintained. Furthermore, as the property owner is proposing to construct the new garage near Case No. 2016-17 (1118 4th Street South) CPC: Apri113, 2016 Page 2 of 3 the rear of the property, helping reduce the potential dominance of the accessory structures on the property as well as in the neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make findings practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a variance to Section 31-308(a)(3)(iii), granting a 184 square foot variance to the 120 square foot maximum other maximum accessory structure. Make findings practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a variance to Section 31-308(a)(3)(i), granting a 240 square foot variance to the maximum lot coverage of all accessory structures. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2016-017 and dated as 3/10/16. b. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the garage, the existing attached garage shall be converted to living space. c. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to exterior alterations. d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established for one or both of the variance requests and deny either variance. 3. Table the application and request additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends conditional approval of variances to City Code Section 31-308(a)(3)(i) and 31- 308(a)(3)(iii), to allow for the retention of a potentially historic garage and the construction of a new garage. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Aerial Imagery Site Plan Case No. 2016-17 (1118 4th Street South) CPC: Apri113, 2016 Page 3 of 3 The Birthplace of Minnesota 1118 4TH STREET SOUTH SITE LOCATION 0 Subject Property -ft.—Municipal Boundary Parcel Boundaries 130 260 520 Feet General Site Location Received City of Stillwater Planning Department 216 4th Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 March 18,2016 Re property 1118 4th Street South Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 MAR 2 1 2016 Community Development Department Dear Planning Department, This a request for a variance to have two out buildings on our property. There is special circumstances of our property of which is an existing barn on the property.. We would like to build a 936 square foot detached garage in the rear of our property maintaining all setbacks. And keep a 304 square foot out building which is a barn. The special circumstances arise because of this existing barn on our property. The barn on our property is approximately 304 square feet. We believe these special circumstances are due to the age of the barn. The Barn may have been built in the early 1900's and may be one of the last few remaining barns within the city limits. Taking into consideration of the square footage of the existing barn and the planed garage we may exceed the maximum lot coverage. Making these circumstances unique to our property. We plan on reasonably restoring and maintaining the barn to which has suffered many many years of neglect. At some point in time a steal garage door was installed in the barn taking away from its old charm, we would like to instal a more rustic looking door to the barn and to restore and preserve its charm to the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Christopher Medin and Mary Murray- Medin 1118 4th Street South Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 T - l) 9 d(� $IO.00 PLIOI,IC WORKS OEN RI VENT SURVEY AND LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION IzIND (3,2rJE1 SirNef North, H.0 102 6 h16 ila, F.Sim lc 00 550(s?610G (U51)430.68/5 survoyo*co.liashingion,intuis a lrrr r onsh,n1 o „nr0 lJsurvmyrrr LEGEND DOR PROTECTED WATERS • DNFI PAC/CI (.I iiD WI"1LAND DNF1 PH07FCTED'WAff=RCOURSE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY PAH0 00042ARY AORTH SCALE 1 inch= 20 feet 1 r r?J0 01000 I IIP MMFCIHOL,i 2K3%0 V03020 2/03020 3203001 3311302013,105020 002020I04 i292003 2B20 ccawn ViCN1TY MAP • LOCrfficH OF THIS IMP 0ECHON VICINTIY MAP 22 + n21 122 It II —• NIIVVt1L: — '43 24 13 I4 — 32 31 47. 41 , kN. -I- SEE — 33 34 I 43 " I'n0lFITiY]DI]0IVICA110N?1I0I?LII rQIL1 I (0,L,LoD I JC8 Fd'Ar, A1?1IA OW N YI'6g xai HwJJ�I WED MAC, it JJJ JE E4 JBII (0[101, ,tASI MOH G NID'tAry CON,If'(AI W MAall I TNII,1 DRAPING IS THE HCSLI T OF A COMPILATION AND REPRODUCTION of LAND RECORDS AS THEY APT FAll IN VARIOUS WASHINC$TON COUNTY OFFICES WASHINGTON CoUN1'Y IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INACCURACIES, PROPERTY LJNES AS SHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES AfiJO MAY NOT HEPRESEN7 ACTUA1,, L0GATPONS RAP LAST UPDATED. Oieenlher ! 1, 261 N0ADDIT70JA1. CHANGES HAVE BEEN REPORTEOTODATE a4TE (FCoNTOUr#S: !Vomiter, 201 r 04 FE OF PHOTCIGRAPiFHY l(Ay, 21N3 10 E 0 0 0 EXISTING ISAFBN 0l rL17, PFii+� To 14i w z i_ 0 ix hrtef AfrOF , - -Jet $41-III 33'-3" PROPERTY LINE EXI TING HOUSE / iAR"AG NEW., 4$P144L.7 /• .A>t'A EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVEIPAY NEW ASPHALT AREA 3'-101" 161-g r" SIDEWALK LOT 5 LOT 6 4.� w z. 0 Q_ EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVEWAY PROPERTY LINE�4-_._._._.�_.__._._._._._._._._.w. 134'-4 13/16" SITE F'L1N SCALE I/8" • 1'-0" CITY SIDEWALK 4TH STREET SOUTH ALTHOUGH EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE IN PREPARING THESE PLANS AND CHECKING THEM FOR ACCURACY, THE CONTRACTOR / HOMEOWNER MUST VERIFY GRADES, FOOTING SIZES, ELEVATIONS, ROUGH OPENINGS, HEADER AND BEAM SIZES, ALL OTHER DIMENSIONS AND SPECS. AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. Media Site Plan LARSEN DESIGN 4 CONSTRUCTION LLC 4120 SUNFLOWER CIRCLE VADNAIS HEIGHTS MN 55121 651-351-2421 SRUCELARSEN+COMCAST,NET DRAWN BY: BRUCE LARSEN 7. ill O QC1IN 9 U.I N 4 en w a N LL 0