Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-12 CPC Packet1\i'ater ENE IIRTNPLA CE OF MIMNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North October 12th, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of September 14th, 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. 2016-37: Consideration of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a tattoo shop, a use substantially similar to uses allowed in the Central Business District, to be located at 124 Main Street North. Josh Strand, applicant and Joyce Melton, property owner. 3. Case No. 2016-38: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations pertaining to PUDs for Senior Housing. Kendra Lindahl, Landform representing Brian Farrell, Northland Real Estate Group, applicant. VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. STAFF UPDATES/FOR YOUR INFORMATION VIII. ADJOURNMENT THE 1I11TNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 14, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer and Siess; Councilmember Menikheim Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of August 10, 2016 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the August 10, 2016 meeting minutes. Motion passed 8-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2016-31: A Variance to exceed maximum structural coverage in the RB two family district for the property located at 1305 Second Street South. Bernard and Mary Ellen Peltier, property owners. City Planner Wittman explained that Bernie and Mary Ellen Peltier are proposing the installation of a 624 square foot, 24' X 26' detached garage. The additional structural coverage proposed exceeds the 25% maximum allowed structural coverage. If approved, the total structural coverage on this 6,150 square foot lot would be 31 %. The shed is proposed to be removed. Staff recommends conditional approval of a 6% variance to the 25% Maximum Lot Coverage. Commissioner Fletcher suggested requiring that the shed be removed as a condition of approval. Bernie Peltier, applicant, explained the project. They have owned the house for 58 years and have never had a garage. They would like to have shelter for their vehicles and tools. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission September 14, 2016 Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve Case No. 2016-31, 6% variance to exceed maximum structural coverage for the property located at 1305 Second Street South, with the five conditions recommended by staff and the additional condition that the detached shed shall be removed no later than 30 days after construction of the garage. All in favor, 8-0. Case No. 2016-32: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment (Map) for the property located at the northeast corner of Manning Avenue North and Highway 36. Ryan Companies, owner representative. Crescent Development LLC, property owner. City Planner Wittman requested that the public hearing be opened and continued. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing and continued the hearing to October 12, 2016. Case No. 2016-34: A Variance to the wetland buffer setback to construct a residential swimming pool on the property located at 3527 Eben Way. Kevin and Melissa Mueller, property owners. City Planner Wittman informed the Commission that Kevin and Melissa Mueller are requesting approval of a 53' variance to the 100' wetland buffer setback for the construction of a pool and related appurtenances. The property owners are proposing to locate the pool 50' from the wetland and the pool deck is proposed to be located 47' from the wetland. The proposed improvements, including the pool equipment, are located out of the established wetland conservation easement area. She further stated that in January 2016, the applicants inquired as to whether a pool could be installed in the rear yard of this property. This inquiry came before the City prior to the Muellers purchasing of the property. Staff advised the Muellers a pool could be installed as long as it was not located within the conservation easement area, and that it had to maintain a 50 foot buffer from the wetland. However, the buffer setback was increased by the Brown's Creek Watershed District to 100 feet, which was missed by the staff person. 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 53' variance to the 100' wetland setback for the construction of a in -ground swimming pool and pool appurtenances. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the Watershed District has reviewed the variance request. Ms. Wittman replied that the City normally doesn't send variance requests to the Watershed District. Commissioner Fletcher asked if any consideration was given to angle the pool so the corner is no longer in the 50' wetland area. Kevin Mueller, applicant, reviewed their interactions with City staff. They feel they tried to do everything right. They wanted to stay in the neighborhood and looked for a house capable of having a pool. Before purchasing the property they called the City and spoke to a staff member responsible for giving pool permits and they were told it was OK as long as they stayed out of the wetland conservation easement. They got this in writing. They then purchased the house and learned of the increase in the wetland buffer. Mr. Mueller presented supporting letters from neighbors, and said they also spoke to the Liberty Home Owners' Association and got their approval. They feel their request is very reasonable. He voiced appreciation for City Planner Wittmmian's report but he is asking the Commission to honor the City's prior statement. He explained that the pool could not be pushed further back on the lot because the lot is wedge-shaped. He does not want to return to the Commission in the future asking for an amendment. Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission September 14, 2016 Chairman Kocon pointed out that the applicants are seeking a 53' variance and questioned why not 50'. Mr. Mueller replied they were not told about any setback other than the conservation easement. They want leeway. He believes the site plan is accurate but wants to make sure he does not have to come back for a further variance. Commissioner Siess asked the reason for the additional 3' on the 50' setback. Mr. Mueller responded that it makes sense for the pool to be parallel to the house. They want adequate walkway for people to get around the pool and want the pool to be far enough from the house so their daughter does not walk out and go too close to the pool. Chairman Kocon acknowledged the City made a mistake but just because the staff person's explanation is in writing, that doesn't change the ordinance However the Commission is willing to work with the applicants. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. James Parks, 3521 Eben Way, stated that he built his pool in 2004. He was surprised to hear tonight that the easement went from 50 to 100'. He feels the Muellers' pool would be a great addition and it can be done beautifully. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Fletcher stated that she is aware of the changes the watershed district made in 2008. Even if it's only intermittently wet, designated wetland serves an important function to keep local waters clean. City Planner Wittman added that there are different levels of wetland properties. This property is of a higher quality, that is why it has the 100' setback. Lower quality wetlands have a smaller setback. Commissioner Collins asked if there is a way to move the west end of the pool over 3'. He feels the request is reasonable but would like to see the pool moved closer to the house to eliminate the need for the additional 3'. Chairman Kocon agreed. Commissioner Hansen acknowledged a variance will be needed no matter what. He feels it's reasonable to build the pool as designed but would not support giving them another foot more. Commissioner Kelly recognized the applicant's diligence in researching before building the pool. He feels the design is reasonable for the property and is not bothered by the 3'. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve Case No. 2016-34, 53' variance to the wetland buffer setback to construct a residential swimming pool on the property located at 3527 Eben Way, with the three conditions recommended by staff. Motion failed 4-4 with Commissioners Siess, Fletcher, Hade, and Chairman Kocon voting nay. Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to grant a 50' variance to the wetland buffer setback to construct a residential swimming pool on the property located at 3527 Eben Way, with the three conditions recommended by staff, and the clarification that pool equipment may be located in the 50' setback but no other portion of the pool or pool appurtenances may be within the setback area. Motion passed 6-2 with Commissioners Fletcher and Siess voting nay. Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission September 14, 2016 Case No. 2016-35: An amendment to a Special Use Permit for restaurant expansion at property located at 243 Main Street South. Mark Hanson, property owner. City Planner Wittman stated that Mark Hanson, representing Marx Restaurant, is requesting an amendment to Special Use Permit 2006-04 to allow for a 948 square foot expansion of the restaurant into the second story of the building. Two of the four rental units currently there are proposed to be removed and converted to restaurant and bar use. Staff finds that the proposed restaurant and bar expansion are in conformance with the SUP provisions and therefore recommends approval. Mark Hanson, applicant, explained that the capacity of the expansion will be around 30 people. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2016-35, amendment to a Special Use Permit for restaurant expansion at property located at 243 Main Street South, with the six conditions recommended by staff. All in favor, 8-0. Case No. 2016-36: A Variance to construct in the Front Yard Setback area on the property located at 209 Wilkins Street East. Mark Moelter, property owner. City Planner Wittman reviewed the request. Mark Moelter is requesting approval of a 7' variance to the 20' Front Yard Setback for the vertical expansion of the existing home located at 209 Wilkins Street East. The home was previously a one and a half -story home; the applicant is proposing a two- story home. The expansion has partially occurred; this request comes to the Planning Commission after the work has been started and the City has issued a Stop Work order. The vertical expansion was in violation of the zoning code. The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) denied the demolition permit and is forwarding the case to the City Council, asking the Council to cite the property owner and seeking direction about whether it should be determined to be an infill application. On the basis that the plight of the applicant is due to circumstances created by the landowner and that the essential character of the neighborhood has already been altered, staff recommends denial of the application. John Koch of Arden Hills stated he is the new contractor representing the applicant. Commissioner Siess asked if the applicant has thoughts or arguments as to why they need the second story. Mr. Koch responded that a lot of work was done that the owner was not aware of. After the Stop Work order, the owner asked him to step in and help finish the project. Commissioner Kelly asked if there would be room to build behind where the structure is currently located to meet setbacks. Mr. Koch replied he did not think so. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Myrlah Olson, 1019 North Second Street, said the project has been going on for a year and a half and it's a mess. They are really looking forward to having the applicants in the neighborhood and want them to complete the project according to the original plan of a story and a half. Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission September 14, 2016 Kurt Zaworski, 1024 North First Street, said that currently, the expansion is 5' away from his property. He is concerned that the limestone wall which is the property line is not in good shape and if anything happens to the wall it will tumble into his backyard. If the applicants really want an expansion, he feels it should be in the backyard. He observed that the applicants are not maintaining the property during construction. Jason Mattox, 1106 Second Street North, said the house is too tall and completely out of character with the neighborhood. He understands that the property owners have no plans to live in Stillwater after it's constructed. He is concerned about what it will look like in the future. Joe Samuelson, 1019 North Second Street, asked about the role of the Commission. He believes in public civility and city government but it appears the system has failed. Chairman Kocon pointed out that what is before the commission is whether to grant the variance to make it a two-story building or have it remain a story and a half. Shirley Zaworski, 1024 North First Street, voiced concern that they were never notified of plans for the new building. They were shocked when the applicant started building, that it was going up so high. They feel they deserved a little bit better consideration after living in their home since 1971. City Planner Wittman reiterated that much of the work was done illegally. She stated that neighbors should have received notification of last week's HPC public hearing on the demolition request. The Planning Commission considers only the variance. The goal of this process is to try to move the project back toward compliance. The public hearing was closed. City Planner Wittman reviewed the history of the project. A building permit was submitted for interior renovation of the existing structure and the addition on the side. No variance, public hearing, or HPC approval was required because the small addition would have been in conformance with the sideyard setback. After the City recognized the contractor had worked far outside the scope of the permit, a Stop Work order was issued. The plans submitted to the City after the fact did not represent what was on site at that time. It is the vertical expansion of this portion of the existing residence that is up for the Commission's consideration tonight. The HPC reviewed the design of the structure last week, and voted to deny the illegal demolition, recognizing that it was an after the fact request that shouldn't be allowed to proceed without previous approval. Commissioner Hansen acknowledged the neighbors' right to speak their mind before the Commission. He agreed that it would have been great had the City discovered it sooner but unfortunately the City does not have the staff to go out and discover these things. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to deny Case No. 2016-36, variance to construct in the front yard setback area on the property located at 209 Wilkins Street East. All in favor, 8-0. NEW BUSINESS Planning Committees Representation Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission September 14, 2016 City Planner Wittman confirmed Commissioners volunteering to serve on various committees. STAFF UPDATES Backflow Preventers Inquiry In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Kelly at the last meeting, City Planner Wittman provided the Commission with a Fact Sheet and web site. She stated it is her understanding these regulations have been in place for more than one year. However, there may be companies that have become certified to test and are now seeking business in Stillwater. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. All in favor, 8-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 6 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 12, 2016 CASE NO.: 2016-37 APPLICANT: REQUEST: Joshua Strand, representing Main Street Tattoo Consideration of a Special Use Permit for a tattoo shop, a use substantially similar to uses allowed in the Central Business District, to be located at 124 Main Street North ZONING: Commercial Business District COMP PLAN: Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Josh Strand, representing Main Street Tattoo, has requested a Special Use Permit to operate a tattoo studio at 124 Main Street South. PROPOSAL DETAILS Josh Strand is proposing to relocate from Good Times Tattoo in Oak Park Heights and develop Main Street Tattoo. The four -chair studio is proposed to be located in the entirety of this 1,596 square foot, storefront unit. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS While tattoo shops are not listed on the Allowable Uses in Non -Residential Districts table, staff determined in consultation with the City Attorney that the use is substantially similar to those found in the Central Business District, such as a Beauty Parlor. City Code Section 31- 317(b)(2) indicates "Any other use or service establishment determined by the Planning Commission to be the same general character as the uses in Section 31-325 for the CBD district and which will not impact the present or potential use of adjacent properties may be permitted by Special Use Permit." Section 31-207 indicates in approving a Special Use Permit, it must be determined by the Planning Commission that: Case No. 2016-37 CPC October 12, 2016 Page 1 of 4 liwater H E BI TH PLI[CF tlF MINN E 8OI A The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this [zoning] chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed and use/structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The zoning chapter requirements applicable to this Special Use Permit request include: City Code Section 31-510(c): Off -Street Parking and Loading The tattoo shop is responsible for mitigating the increased parking demand generated by the new space. The previous retail clothing store was required to have eight parking spaces (at a ratio of one space for every 200 square feet); Main Street Tattoo will be credit for those eight spaces. However, Beauty Parlors are required to have three spaces for every chair. Main Street Tattoo is proposing four chairs. Therefore, a total of twelve parking spaces are required to be met onsite. As the property cannot accommodate this parking, the applicant will need to enter into a parking mitigation plan with the Downtown Parking Commission. City Code Section 31-519: Adult Uses Question was raised as to whether or not this type of service establishment was considered an Adult Use. It is the opinion of staff and City Attorney Magnuson that the intent of the Adult Uses ordinance was for sexually -orientated business. This is clear in the definition: "adult uses include adult bookstores... other premises, enterprises, establishments, businesses, or places open to some or all members of the public at or in which there is an emphasis on the presentation, display, depiction, or description of "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas" which are capable of being seen by members of the public. Activities classified as obscene as defined by Minn. Stat. § 617.241 are not lawful and are not included in the definition of adult uses." The definition further indicates an Adult Establishment includes "any business which is conducted exclusively for the patronage of adults and as to which minors are specifically excluded from patronage thereat either by law or by the operators of such business." While minors in the State of Minnesota are not allowed to be tattooed, even with parental consent, the current business operations include piercing services to 16-18 year old minors, accompanied by a parent. Therefore, the Main Street Tattoo business has been determined to not be an Adult Use. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: Case No. 2016-37 CPC October 12, 2016 Page 2 of 4 11! r H € BI TH PLI[CF tJF MINN E 8OI Main Street Tattoo is currently operating as Good Time Tattoo in Oak Park Heights. The project assists the City in meeting the Local Economy Policy "to encourage downtown as a relocation destination for successful businesses." Additionally, a goal of the land Use and Downtown Urban Design is to "encourage a viable and compatible mix of community and visitor -serving activities that builds on the assets of downtown as a desirable place to live, work, shop, and visit consistent with the capacity of public services and facilities and the natural resources." ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the provisions of the SUP process, the Commission should move to approve the SUP with the following conditions of approval: 1. Piercing services shall be provided onsite. 2. The business shall comply with all Downtown Design Review District guidelines including, but not limited to, pedestrian -orientated design guidelines focusing on enhancement of storefront displays and avoiding blank walls, closed curtains and neglected storefronts. A Design Review permit shall be submitted and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission for any exterior alterations, including signage. 3. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to structural alterations. 4. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. Any conditions attached to the parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off- street parking requirements. If the plan includes a fee -in -lieu, the fee shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Failure to pay charges within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the fees as a condition of approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. 5. Major exterior modifications to the Special Use Permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. Case No. 2016-37 CPC October 12, 2016 Page 3 of 4 C. Denial 11! r H F BIRTH PLACE OF MINK E 8OI A If the Planning Commission finds the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of the SUP regulations, the Commission should deny the application. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with certain conditions of approval the proposed tattoo shop is in conformance to the SUP provisions. Therefore, staff makes the recommendation the Commission grant conditional approval of Case No. 2016-37 with the conditions outlined above. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request (3 pages) Floor Plans Exterior Facade Case No. 2016-37 CPC October 12, 2016 Page 4 of 4 o-vc% IIIIIIIIIIIIII c;� t ! 1 ,• _ t " A a- 1 - - f r - tin.., WM. SI kl _x w { r lillwater The 124 Main 0 Subject Wetland ...— Municipal 0 55 Birthplace W'r��E of Minnesota Street Property Areas Boundary 110 North 220 Feet Crsrr+3 ��Eur.a Ali ✓ �y 7 _1 gia 0 General Site Location 1.1 . „.. i .., i ir • �._ r1jr♦sa '•.1t v. a Y Zo -",r . � `.I 1 1 • • JJ� 9/12/16 City Hall 216 4th Street N Stillwater, MN 55082 Members of the Planning Commission, We are writing you today to request your approval to open and establish Main St Tattoo, located at 124 Main St N, a charming and historic area of downtown Stillwater. The primary purpose of Main St Tattoo is to provide guests with clean and professional tattoos. Not only will the artwork produced be of the highest quality, our emphasis on world class customer service will ensure customer satisfaction. We bring to the city of Stillwater multiple years' experience in tattooing, management, and customer service. We believe that with our knowledge, and Stillwater's prosperous location, we can develop a relationship that benefits both parties. We plan on only hiring professional, licensed artist. Licensed artist ensure knowledge and expertise in the industry. These artist will provide guests with stunning works of art year round. The use of the industries newest equipment and supplies will ensure our guests are receiving the highest quality work money can buy. The artist/s working will be clean in presence, always welcoming and friendly to the residents and guests of Stillwater. All technology will be up to date and functioning properly to ensure efficient transactions. Hours of operation will be catered to customer demand ensuring we are available at all times for our guests. We understand and encourage the preservation of the downtown area. Which is why all signs, materials used, and color schemes used will obey all rules. In addition to our own business promoting these practices, we will help enforce these rules when applicable. Again, preservation of the historic downtown area is of great priority and should be maintained for many generations to come. We believe that our integration into Stillwater will be solely positive and bring value to the city. Our mission is to not only have Main St Tattoo become a staple of Minnesota, but to bring more business to Stillwater as well. Our friendly, professional service will fit in with surrounding businesses and will contribute to the success of the area. Our attention to detail will not only be visible inside the store, but to the outward facing public as well. In our experience, getting the actual tattoo is only a fraction of the "tattooing experience". We have found guests dedicate their whole day to the adventure. Before coming into the shop, our guests may stop for coffee and a light breakfast at a nearby cafe. Upon completion our guests have the rest of their day available to explore the city of Stillwater and take part in local businesses. These days it is not only bikers and felons that get tattooed. It is mothers, sons, and fathers that enjoy the experience of getting tattooed. We feel that with such a diversity of guests visiting our shop, our neighboring businesses will only benefit from our presence. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to being of value and service to the wonderful city of Stillwater, the birthplace of Minnesota. -Main St Tattoo :AaRp14 444.40e44.40.. 5, �.......,cP- ,0.. ChA,Te.at - � Dail o tt tl, (I I► c - AUL, MR K f.•r.+.n v��.1 s�� 2' X z' 50iY1_r.1r1" +e�yY�-�Gw.�T 2-tL 611,4 n led Bhh / th s:rr-' (os •J i rJ-' 1,-.11V2J'/w1 scale: 1/4" = 1'0" First Floor and Roof Level PLAN VIEWS „G..T Tue"C.- 2 5g11� Drawn by: Paul Brosi Date: 3/10/99 RENOVATION CONCEPT AP. Tt1' 2 ASS. Ce TY.1u( e. c ' r. f IR�&MRS.J, ifisrooSToREFRofft & Lc 124 MAIN ST., ' PAl JJ lulu 1J1 it Al 1JJJ ).�._ IN ST. TATTOO WINDOW DECAL 241NCHES HIGH 36INCHES LONG ABOVE SIGN WILL BE 24 INCHES HIGH AND 114INCH- ES LONG DOOR DECAL WILL BE 12 INCHES BY 24 INCHES FOR TATTOO AND 12 INCHES BY 12 INCHES FOR HOURS ALL WINDOW DECALS WILL BE MADE OF HIGH QUAL- ITY VINYL TOP DESIGN WILL BE MADE OF PAINTED HALF INCH PLYWOOD Sti11W1teL S f MINEEJIA PLANNING REPORT MEETING DATE: October 12, 2016 CASE NO.: 2016-38 APPLICANT: Kendra Lindahl, Landform representing Brian Farrell, Northland Real Estate Group REQUEST: Case No. 2016-38: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations pertaining to PUDs for Senior Housing. Kendra Lindahl, Landform representing Brian Farrell, Northland Real Estate Group PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND On April 5, Brian Farrell with Northland Real Estate gained conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for the Croix Bay Senior Living Care Facility to be located at 12525/12721 75th Street North and 12620 72nd Street North. At that time, the following request for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) was denied by the City Council: Aggregate density of structures and building height:, on privately or commonly owned property may not only exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district in which thff;c ctructurcs would normally be located if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects. AI Building heights on privately or commonly owned property may only exceed limits imposed by the zoning district if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects." SPECIFIC REQUEST A new ZAT request has been submitted which is proposing to add a new subsection to Planned Unit Development for new Qualifications and Requirements for senior housing PUDs. The new subsection is proposed to read: i. May be approved if the purpose and intent of the PUD is met. ii. May be approved if the project area is at least 20 acres in size. iii. Must include permanent open space that is either deeded to the City or preserved by a conservation easement in favor of the City. iv. Shall be designed as a senior housing campus with a variety of housing options. Accessory service/retail uses may also be permitted. v. May allow density above that allowed by the underlying land use classification and zoning district. vi. May allow building heights/stories that exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district. vii. May allow other development flexibility as needed to meet the purpose and intent of this section. City staff and legal counsel has determined the application is substantially different than the original proposal, proposing greater standards for qualifications and requirements. EVALUATION OF REQUEST In review of the aforementioned request, it could be said that the proposed i and iii are redundant given all PUDs must meet the purpose and intent of the PUD and, as a part of that purpose and intent, preserving natural beauty sports, open spaces and recreational sites is already listed. City Code Section 31-205 indicate the Commission must find that: • The public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and • That the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The applicant has indicated: The change will allow development of this senior living campus, which increases lifecycle housing and service options in the community while protecting natural resources and maintaining open space. The project will help meet the Metropolitan Council objected outlined in Chapter 2 of the Stillwater 2030 Comprehensive Plan by providing more housing choices within the City and allowing for increased lifecycle housing by allowing for more flexible design that will respond to today's marketplace. Furthermore, it will provide an opportunity to provide a portion for 670 new senior housing units that are needed in Stillwater by 2020 as documented in the 2013 Washington County study. The change will allow development of senior housing styles that are demanded by the marketplace and will provide options for Stillwater residents. While it is true the ZAT, if approved, could provide for additional senior housing development opportunities in the community, the City must consider whether or not the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered if the City was granted more flexibility in the review and consideration of these types of developments. The approval of this ZAT would not inherently grant rights, rather allow for a developer to propose additional height or density that is compensated for by increasing such elements as open space, amenities or site design quality. Senior Living Care Facilities and Nursing Homes are allowed by Special Use Permit (SUP) only in single and two-family residential district. Additionally, multi -family residential zoning districts (such as the RCL, Low Density Multiple -Family, and RCM, Medium Density Multiple - Family, districts) allow for three or more units. The amount of land available that is zoned this way is limited. So, providing flexibility for senior living facilities may encourage more development of this needed housing type. Case No. 2016-38 CPC: 10/12/2016 Page 2 of 4 The City of Stillwater is deficient in senior housing options. While it is true there are numerous senior living options within the Stillwater area, the 2013 Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment (the Assessment) developed by the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has estimated there is a shortage of 670 senior housing units' in the Stillwater area (including Bayport, Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Baytown township, and Stillwater township); this is approximately 17% of the total 3,964 senior housing units needed by 20202. The Assessment notes this submarket "has a somewhat of a limited supply of new land for new development as much of the land in Stillwater and Baytown Townships are guided for lower -density. Thus, a significant portion of the housing will be in Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, and Bayport. "3 Given the public need, modifications to the ZAT may be made to be further the general community welfare and help meet the public need for these types of housing options. However, as proposed, the ZAT would only be applicable to projects greater than 20 acres in size. Given the fact that that nearly all of the parcels in Stillwater that have the potential to develop as senior projects are smaller than 20 acres, the ZAT would be applicable for a very limited number of parcels. Given this consideration, the proposed ZAT is not supporting a public need because it is to restrictive. As the City Code further indicates, the ZAT must be in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The city's Comprehensive Plan housing chapter encourages the provision of a range of housing opportunities for aging in the community and for the elderly. Specifically noted are the following policies and programs: Program 3: Policy 4. Policy 5. Policy 9. Attempt to meet regional lifecycle housing goals for the City of Stillwater. Attempt to disburse assisted housing throughout the community. Locate assisted housing near transit lines and public parks. Utilize the Future Land Use map to designate residential sites appropriately located for a range of housing densities. Thus, the ZAT is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan. The applicant has indicated that: The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and any adopted area or specific plan as addressed in the narrative, including the City's Comprehensive Plan goal to provide more lifecycle housing. The amendment will correct a deficiency in the existing in the existing code and will allow senior housing - like the Select Senior Living project that was approved in 2014 - to be reviewed and approved by the City. However, argument could be made that the ZAT is not in support of the land use designations set forth in the Future Land Use Map. As indicated in the previous section, there are limited ' Maxfield, P. 303 2 Maxfield, P. 291 3 Maxfield, P. 303 Case No. 2016-38 CPC: 10/12/2016 Page 3 of 4 large land areas available for development in Stillwater. The requirement a project must be 20 acres in size is somewhat in conflict with the existing land development conditions of the community. If approved, the ZAT would not be applicable to those parcels that may be ready for redevelopment of smaller parcels of land that are well -suited for senior living. Additionally, by indicating these flexibilities would only be permitted for campus -based developments, other types of senior housing PUDs would be excluded. Considerations must also be given as to whether or not the ability to ask for density and height increases are also consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. If the height and densities of a development are proposed in excess of the base zoning district, would a development be in harmony with the intent of the zoning district as well as the Comprehensive Plan? As the ZAT would not outright allow for increases in height and density, the purpose and intent of the PUD standards would still be preserved. Furthermore, as the "PUD project must be designed and developed to harmonize with both existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the site," development controls and flexibility is still in the City's hand. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal meets the ZAT regulations, the Commission should forward a favorable recommendation of approval of the ZAT. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of the ZAT regulations, the Commission should forward recommendation of denial to the City Council. The Commission should indicate a reason for such recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with certain modifications the public necessity and the general community welfare are furthered and that the proposed ZAT is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. If subsections i-iv were omitted, as these qualifications and requirements either redundant or so limiting to be in the best interest of the community as a whole. Therefore, staff makes the recommendation the Commission recommend approval of this application with certain modifications. ATTACHMENTS Applicant Narrative and Supporting Documentation (13 pages) Case No. 2016-38 CPC: 10/12/2016 Page 4 of 4 Northland Real Estate Group NORTHLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP Stillwater, MN REQUEST FOR ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT September 16, 2016 • • • • LANDFORM • From Site to Finish • • • INTRODUCTION On behalf of Northland Real Estate Group, Landform is pleased to submit this application for a zoning ordinance text amendment to amend the zoning ordinance to allow the City Council to grant flexibility from zoning standards as part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). It is very common for cities to provide flexibility as part of a PUD in order to encourage development that would not otherwise be possible. The proposed text amendment would allow the City more flexibility to encourage quality development in Stillwater. BACKGROUND The City Council approved Northland's PUD concept plan on April 5, 2016. The Council expressed some concerns related to density and building height and, consequently, denied Northland's request for a zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment until the Council could better understand the impact of the proposed zoning text amendment. Northland has been working to address those stated concerns, met with individual landowners in April and held a neighborhood meeting in May to share information and gather feedback. Northland provided a revised concept plan for Council review at their June 7m meeting and received feedback that the revised concept plan was meeting many of the Council's comments. Based on this feedback, and the City's finding that the concept plan had demonstrated considerable progress and had effectively addressed many of the height and massing concerns raised at the April 5th City Council meeting, Northland submitted a new request for a zoning map amendment. On July 5, 2016, the City Council voted to approve the rezoning of the McKenzie property (PID 3003020420004) from A-P (Agricultural Preserve) to LR (Lakeshore Residential). As we have continued to refine the plans, it has become clear that the senior housing concept envisioned for this site will be most viable with a portion of the site at three stories. An evaluation of other similar senior housing communities in the region offering a variety of housing options range in height from three to five stories. The Select Senior Living project that was approved by the City of Stillwater on a portion of this site in 2008 and 2014 was approved at three stories and approvals were granted with no variance or PUD flexibility. In the interest of transparency and honest communication, we raised this issue with staff last winter and agreed that the text amendment was the desired approach to allow the City the flexibility to allow increased height where appropriate for certain projects. This request for a zoning text amendment is different than the previous proposal, but still grants the discretion to the City when reviewing a PUD and limits the flexibility to senior housing projects. There is a documented demand for senior housing in Stillwater. In 2013, Maxfield Research prepared a Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment for Washington County, Minnesota. The study identifies a need for more than 5,300 senior housing units in the County and the study projected "demand from local seniors to continue between 2013 and 2020 such that about 375 units of active adult and 295 of service - enhanced units will be needed" in the Stillwater area (Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport and Baytown NRG15001 L A NDF ORM September 16, 2016 Text Amendment Narrative 2 Township). For Stillwater residents who want to stay in Stillwater, new senior housing options are needed and the Northland site is the only available site. The City of Stillwater allows senior housing in only two districts: Lakeshore Residential and Medium Density Residential. We have evaluated the potential sites in the City and the property controlled by Northland is the only site that is currently zoned appropriately and large enough to support a modern senior housing complex. We have prepared a graphic (Exhibit E) to show the potential senior housing sites. The only other vacant sites that are currently guided and zoned for senior housing are much smaller sites in existing neighborhoods west of Long Lake. The proposed text amendment would allow the Council to consider design flexibility for senior housing projects only and the exhibit shows that most properties in the City would not be eligible to apply for the flexibility. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR APPROVED PROJECT AND PROPOSED PROJECT While this application does not include a request for any project approvals, it is important to provide some context for the proposed text amendment by updating the Council on Northland's current proposed project, which is a re -visioning of a previously approved senior housing project on portions of the subject site. In 2008, and again in 2014, Select Senior Living of Stillwater received approval to construct a three-story, 100-unit senior care facility on 5.87 acres between the elementary school and the church. The resulting density was 17.04 units per acre. When staff reviewed that request, the July 2, 2014 staff report noted that "The Comprehensive Plan's housing chapter encourages the provision of a range of housing opportunities for aging in the community and for the elderly. One tool identified for doing this is through the zoning ordinance, which allows higher density senior residential facilities by SUP in several of the City' s single family zoning districts. This is precisely the scenario proposed." The Select Senior Living project was not constructed, and in 2015, Northland acquired control of the site. Northland began evaluating the previous project and approvals with the idea that the project could be revived and constructed. The demand for senior housing is rising as the baby boomers age and seek generation -specific housing. According to recent trends, seniors are looking for a unique or distinctive range of amenities that allow residents to have access to these amenities without worry or travel, and provide a feeling of independent living. Northland determined quickly that a successful project would require a more diverse mix of units than previously conceived. Seniors would demand amenities necessary to support these units and the type of care that would allow them to be active members in the community. Northland gained control of additional adjacent property to achieve these goals and to allow the revisioned project to succeed in the market place. The expanded campus that Northland proposes includes property south and east of the original site. The property to the east has undergone extensive reforestation and rehabilitation and now provides an incredible natural amenity for both the campus and the community at -large. NRG15001 L A N D F OR M September 16, 2016 Text Amendment Narrative 3 While we are not requesting any development approvals at this time, we do want to highlight the progression of changes to the plans on this site over time. Northland understands that there were concerns about the height and density in the concept plan originally submitted and is working to develop a plan that addresses those concerns. Northland will distinguish between density and building height, as Northland's project is less dense and has been revised to have the same three-story building height as previously approved for the Select Senior Living project. The key progression of changes is shown on the attached Exhibits A-F. We would like to note a few of the key changes: 1. Reduction in the number of units from 262 to 220. 2. Reduction in the building square footage from 313,824 to 266,949 square feet. 3. Elimination of the retail component of the project and retention of only the daycare. 4. Increasing the conservation area from 8.83 to 26.28 acres of the 49.3-acre site. 5. Reduction in building mass by reorienting the buildings and adding more articulation in the building face and rooflines. 6. Reduction in the height to one- and two -stories for the majority of the site. Only a small portion of the center of the building remains at three stories. 7. Reduction in the number of stories exposed on the rear from four -stories to two- or three -stories. We believe that these changes address the comments we received from the City Council at both the public hearing where the Concept Plan was approved and the follow-up work session where a revised Concept Plan was presented. We look forward to submitting a formal application for City review and approval later this fall. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT As the development team reviewed the Stillwater City Code and discussed the project with city staff prior to the concept plan submittal, they noted that the Code did not specifically allow the City the flexibility to approve the height and density that was approved for the previous project in 2008 and 2014. Therefore, Northland requested an ordinance amendment with the concept plan and rezoning to clearly provide the City with the flexibility that the City previously applied on this site through the use of the SUP. Northland has heard the City's concerns and proposes to add the necessary flexibility within the PUD section (Section 31-210) of the Zoning Ordinance. We believe that the best option is for the City to amend the PUD section of the ordinance to add a new category in the "Qualifications and requirements" portion to specifically allow the requested flexibility for senior residential uses. The amended language could narrowly limit the application of such new language by applying it only to projects that meet a minimum area requirement and a minimum open space requirement. This type of flexibility from development standards is very typical. For example, the City of Plymouth PUD ordinance allows "The various setback, lot area, and NRG15001 L ANDF OR M September 16, 2016 Text Amendment Narrative 4 height regulations of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purposes described in Section 21655.01." We have other examples of such ordinance flexibility from other cities and would be happy to share those at your request. In any event, we believe the existing PUD ordinance language should be modified. We look forward to developing language with the City, but in order to start the conversation, we suggest that Section 31-210 of the Zoning Ordinance could be modified to read as follows (by deleting the material and adding the underlined material): Planned unit developments shall meet the following requirements: (a) Purpose. The purpose of a PUD is to provide for a means of: (1) Ensuring variety, innovation and flexibility in the development of land and its improvements. (2) Allowing a mixture of uses in an integrated and well planned area to aid in providing a better living environment. (3) Allowing for flexibility in group building development wherein the relationship is between building and building or buildings and site, rather than between building and property lines, as is the case in monostructural development. (4) Preserving natural beauty spots, open space and recreational areas. (b) Qualifications and requirements. Qualifications and requirements shall be as follows: (1) Land to be improved as a PUD: i. Shall be at least three acres in size; ii. Shall be at least one complete city block in size; iii. Shall have a density in excess of 25 dwelling units per acre; or iv. Shall, when fully developed, contain upon it at least two principal buildings. (2) Smaller lots may be improved as PUD's if they: i. Are adjacent to or across the street from property which already has been approved for a PUD; ii. Contain unusual physical features; or iii. Are of special historical interest. (3) PUDs for Senior Housing: i. May be approved if the purpose and intent of the PUD is met. ii. Mav be approved if the project area is at least 20 acres in size. Must include pem-ranent open space that is either deeded to the Crly or preserved bi a conservation easement in favor of the City. iv. Shall be designed as a senior housinq campus with a variety of housing options. Accessory service/retail uses may also be permitted, v. May allow density above that allowed by the underlying land use classification and zoning district. NRG15001 L A NDF OR M September 16, 2016 Text Amendment Narrative 5 vi. May allow huddling heights/stories that exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district. vii. May allow other development fiexibilitY as needed to meet the purpose and intent of this section. (34) Lots under separate ownership meeting the above requirements may be considered eligible for a PUD permit if a plan is submitted for the entire area and if financial accountability can be provided and shown for all aspects of the plan. (45) Permitted uses in a residential PUD must include detached, semidetached, attached, clustered or multistoried dwelling unit structures, or any combination thereof, and any nonresidential use designed to serve the residents of the PUD and of the vicinity, but which is not deemed to be objectionable. (95) Permitted uses in nonresidential PUD are limited to those permitted either specifically or by special use permit in the zoning district. (6Z) Aggregate density of structures and building heights on privately or commonly owned property may not exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district in which these structures would normally be located. (-7J Copies of all covenants and easements relating to the provision, use and maintenance of common open space must be filed with the community development director. When a corporation is formed to maintain space or facilities, the city is empowered to abate any nuisance resulting from the lack of maintenance and has the authority to assess the cost of the abatement of the nuisance to all property owners holding membership in the corporation and to spread the costs as an assessment and to certify the costs to the county auditor for collection with the real estate taxes. (RD The PUD project must be designed and developed to harmonize with both existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the site and with the city's comprehensive plan. (9Land must be dedicated to the city for recreation or other open space purposes consistent with the standards and criteria contained in the park dedication policy. (4S11) All public utilities and communications transmission facilities must be installed underground. (44') A building setback from property which is adjacent to the PUD site and that is zoned or being used for a less intensive use must be at least equal to twice the proposed building's height. (4313 A landscaping plan with a detailed planting list must be approved. (43 All private streets, sidewalks and parking areas must be built and maintained in accordance with city standards and specifications. NRG15001 L ANDFORM September 16, 2016 Text Amendment Narrative 6 We have reviewed the request in accordance with MN law and City ordinance standards in Section 31- 205 and find that the ordinance standards have been met. Specifically, the ordinance requires the City Council to consider two standards when approving a text or map amendment. Our proposal meets these considerations, specifically: 1. The public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment. The change will allow development of this senior living campus, which increases lifecycle housing and service options in the community while protecting natural resources and maintaining open space. The project will help meet the Metropolitan Council objective outlined in Chapter 2 of the Stillwater 2030 Comprehensive Plan by providing more housing choices within the City and allowing for increased lifecycle housing by allowing for more flexible design that will respond to today's marketplace. Furthermore, it will provide an opportunity to provide a portion of 670 new senior housing units that are needed in Stillwater by 2020 as documented in the 2013 Washington County study. The change will allow development of senior housing styles that are demanded by the marketplace and will provide options for Stillwater residents. 2. The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan and any adopted area or specific plan. The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and any adopted area or specific plan as addressed earlier in this narrative, including the City's Comprehensive Plan goal to provide more lifecycle housing. The amendment will correct a deficiency in the existing code and will allow senior housing --like the Select Senior Living project that was approved in 2014—to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. SUMMARY We respectfully request approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment to allow the City to use flexibility from the zoning ordinance standards for senior housing projects in the City. The proposed amendment will formalize past flexibility that the City has previously granted to senior housing projects. CONTACT INFORMATION This document was prepared by: Kendra Lindahl, AICP Landform 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Kendra Lindahl at klindahl(a�landform.net or 612.638.0225. ENCL: Exhibits A — F NRG15001 L AN D F ORM September 16, 2016 Text Amendment Narrative 7 HERF©RD MENTARY MEISTERLING PROPERTY.' STREET -NOR# ACHEN DRIVE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA BLDG HEIGHT PER CODE 0 BACK 0 100' 200' l LI NORTHLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP Project Team: Ebenezer Landform Pope Architects Welsh/Colliers EXHIBIT A: 2014 SELECT SENIOR APPROVED PLAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 LLMamft and Ste to F..se are re eretlsw® 0e0e ofISAam Prdnsaw Salem; LLC STILLWATER, MINNESOTA BLDG HEIGHT PER CODE 0 0 BACK Denotes Retail • 1 _ 0 Imfrommi.1100 200 NORTHLAND AJF (2,ROUP Project Team: Ebenezer Landform Pope Architects Welsh/Colliers EXHIBIT B: FEBRUARY SUBMITTAL APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 AFZI,WR. irn FaVa efto.ofwil ..14/ Unlunt Polmeaqrat lat BAY STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 0 BACK 0 100200' BLDG HEIGHT PER CODE NORTHLAND [A! Project Team: Ebenezer Landform Pope Architects Welsh/Colliers EXHIBIT C: JUNE WORKSHOP CONCEPT PLAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 1..Erhowa md5,04 F.x..1, mgemErpt vffixr4 wai 4.1.4.7,, I•stoc,ae S.r.-ex I L.: RUTHERFORD ELEMENTARY MEISTERLING PROPERTY /2ND STREET NOR LONG LAKE 1 irn rrl 751H STREET NORTH INTERLACHEN DRIVE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA BACK 0 100 I- L1- 200' BLDG HEIGHT PER CODE FRONT NORTHLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP Project Team: Ebenezer Landform Pope Architects Welsh/Colliers EXHIBIT D. SEPTEMBER CONCEPT PLAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 z 4.0.11kilirism-'-.33..' .0-'''''.301111-.6.-41111111141111111111 : lah I I ap, 17 MI pit 'N 2.: Egil.7_1-' 1; Marldlin I• - 111P201.- IIM1,- •TA O. ) OrilikV "11.,‘,2 1, ft FIC h ER II! ,r20; OE fig ir, oiolispriom • • .; itliumr.inii ..: mggrtjh 4111111114.1 I Is; turtg, H= =- It I IV = Min M.iiiieliuM111103 REA STILLWATER, MINNESOTA LEGEND Vacant parcels where Senior Living Facilities are allowed today (zoned either Lakeshore Residential or Medium Density Residential) District AP: Agricultural Preservation LR: Lakeshore Residential CTR: Cove Traditional Residential RA: One Family Residential TR Traditiona/ Residential CCR: Cove Cottage Residential RB. Two Family Residenbal CR Cottage Residential *TH Townhouse 43 CTHR: Cove Townhouse Residential 4' RCM: Medium Density Residential RCH: High Density Residential C8D- Central Business District 41 VC: Village Commercial * CA General Commercial 43 BPC- Business Park Commercial BPO: Business Park Office 43 BPI Business Park Industrial • CRD: Campus Research Development * PA: Pi iblic Administration PWF: Public Works Facility 4' PROS' Parks, Recreation and Open Space NORTHLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP Project Team: Ebenezer Landform Pope Architects Welsh/Colliers EXHIBIT E: ZONING MAP WITH POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 Lanclocm0 and SO lo t F • n s=mil Sure. LLC - Exhibit A - - Exhbit B - Concept - Exhibit C - Council - Exhibit D - Item Select Sr. Living Application (February) Workshop Concept Current Concept Gross Parcel Size (ac) 6.50 49.30 49.30 49.30 Upland Area (ac) 6.50 34.01 34.01 34.01 of Total 100.00% 68.99% 68.99% 68.99% Net Buildable Area (ac) 5.87 30.94 29.37 29.88 Wetlands 2.00 2.00 2.00 Water 13.30 13.30 13.30, Steep Slopes 0.72 0.72 0.72 R/W 2.33 3.91 3.40 of Total 90.29% 62.77% 59.57% 60.61% Footprint (Sr. Bldgs) Footprint (Brownstones) Footprint (Villa Pads) Total Footprint 32,870 N/A N/A 32,870 89,288 22,980 112,268 110,320 0 32,205 142,525 112,883 8,574 36,000 157,457 Building sq. ft. (GFA) 92,250 313,824 326,255 266,949 First Floor 32,870 112,268 142,525 121,457 Second Floor 29,690 112,268 102,275 116,462 Third Floor 29,690 89,288 81,455 29,030 Dedicated Conservation Area (ac) Units (total) MC AL IL Brownstones Villas Building Height (ft) Stories Stories exposed to South & West 0 101 10 45 46 0 0 35 (flat roof) 3 3 8.83 262 31 38 169 24 0 41 3 4 26.28 243 31 118 78 0 16 41 3 4 26.28 220 29 50 119 10 12 41 3 2 to 3 Gross Density (units/acre) 15.53 5.31 4.93 4.46 Net Density 17.20 8.79 8.27 7.36 BAR (footprint/Net Area) 12.85% 6.62% 8.62% 8.67% FAR (Total GFA/Net area) 36.06% 23.28% 25.50% 20.51% Impervious Coverage (%) 24.80% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% Pervious Area 25.26 24.06 24.45 Impervious Area 8.42 8.02 8.15 Parking Underground Parking at -grade Retail Sq. Footage 0 50 0 180 158 10,000 218 232 5,000 (daycare) 240 215 5,000 (daycare) STILLWATER, MINNESOTA NORTHLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP Project Team: Ebenezer Landform Pope Architects Welsh/Colliers EXHIBIT F: PROPERTY DATA SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 landwmP and Sle to •