Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-13 CPC PacketSti liwater. THEBRTHPLCEOFMNIESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North December 13th, 2017 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of November 8th, 2017 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. 2017-61: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Amendment to rezone a 5 acre parcel from AP to RA in order to develop buildable lots for the property located at 12991 Boutwell Road. Westridge Development LLC, property owner and Kevin von Riedel, applicant. 3. Case No. 2017-62: Consideration of a CUP and Variances to build a new residential condominium at the property located at 107 Third St N. Brown's Creek West LLC, property owner. 4. Case No. 2017-63: Consideration of a Variance to build a two-story office building at the property located at 2289 Croixwood Blvd. Stillwater Commons, LLC., property owner. - Withdrawn by staff No Variances needed 5. Case No. 2017-64: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to modify the Short Term Home Rental Ordinance. City of Stillwater, applicant. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Case No. 2017-56: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Amendment for Nottingham Village, a single family subdivision on the property located at 12220 Mckusick Road North. Randy and Judy Petrie, property owner and Todd Erickson, representative. 2. Case No. 2017-57: Consideration of a Special Use Permit Amendment to the fencing requirements for the property located at 1677 Orleans St W. St. Croix Village, LLC, property owner and Juanita Pekay, applicant. Tabled per applicant's request VII. NEW BUSINESS 3. Case No. 2014-40: Consideration of a one-year extension request from Tod and Madelyn Fyten, representing St. Croix Brewery, to operate a brewery at 114 Chestnut Street East by Special Use Permit. VIII. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 4. Small Wireless Facilities Future Zoning Text Amendment IX. ADJOURNMENT THE 1INTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 8, 2017 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Kocon, Lauer and Siess; Councilmember Menikheim Absent: Commissioners Fletcher, Hade and Hansen Staff: City Planner Wittman and Community Development Director Turnblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of October 11, 2017 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2017 regular meeting. Motion passed 4-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2017-52: Consideration of a Variance to the Front Yard Setback to add a second story and covered entryway to an existing home for the property located at 410 Hazel Street East. Jay and Noelle Singerhouse, property owners. City Planner Wittman explained the request. The applicants would like to "pop the top" of their residence and add a covered entry onto the western side of their single family home. The existing residence is nonconforming in that it is situated on the south property line. Because the vertical expansion would maintain this same non -conforming setback, a variance will be required for the setback from this property line. The property is also legally nonconforming in that it does not meet the St. Croix River Overlay District requirements for minimum lot size or for the maximum 20% impervious coverage. However, these two non -conformities pre-existed the adoption of the Riverway rules and, therefore, are grandfathered. Furthermore, the proposed lot improvements do not exacerbate either pre-existing non -conformity. The lot size will stay the same and the overall lot coverage will be reduced by approximately 240 square feet. Therefore, no variances are required for these two non - conformities. The property owners are seeking: 1) a 20' variance to the 20' Front Yard setback for the addition of a second story; and 2) a 20' variance to the 20' Front Yard setback for the addition of a 6' deep by 10' wide covered porch to be located on the west side of the structure. Staff recommends approval of the variances with five conditions. Planning Commission November 8, 2017 John Koch, builder, and Noelle Singerhouse, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve Case No. 2017-52, Variances to the Front Yard setback to add a second story and covered entryway to an existing home located at 410 Hazel Street East, with the five conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-0, all in favor. Case No. 2017-53: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment for the property located at 900 Broadway Street North and 1st Street North. Larry and Paulette Lappi, property owners. City Planner Wittman stated that in August 2017, MnDOT conveyed to Larry and Paulette Lappi a portion of undeveloped right-of-way located adjacent to Elm Street East that was designated as Parks, Recreation, Open Space in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The approximately 125' long by 50' deep, 5,767 square foot property was determined by MnDOT to be excess and eligible for private sale. While the Lappis own the land, the City has not legitimized the creation of a new lot in this location yet. This is because the portion of land MnDOT conveyed to the Lappis is not a legal, conforming lot of record. In order for MnDOT's land to become a legal, conforming lot of record, a portion of it must be combined with a portion of the Lappis' property to create a lot that meets the minimum lot size required in the RB-Two Family Residential zoning district. Larry and Paulette Lappi have submitted a two-part application for consideration of: 1) a Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) of a track of undeveloped right- of-way adjacent to Elm Street East to be included in the RB — Two Family Residential zoning district; and 2) a re -subdivision (otherwise referred to as a Lot Line Adjustment) that would create a new lot by combining MnDOT's excess land and a portion of the Lappis' homestead property. The Lappis' property is located at 900 Broadway Street North. The new developable parcel of land would be approximately 16,795 square feet and contain a 1,820 square foot building pad. A comment was received from neighbors in support of the application. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the rezoning to RB — Two Family residential. Larry Lappi, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2017-53, Zoning Map Amendment for the property located at 900 Broadway Street North. Motion passed 4-0. Case No. 2017-54: Consideration of a Variance to the Side Yard Setback to build a deck and screened porch under deck on the property located at 2735 White Pine Way. Matthew and Katherine Jones, property owners. Ms. Wittman stated that Matthew and Katherine Jones are requesting a 5' Variance to the required 10' Side Yard Setback for the construction of a rear deck, to be located 5' from the west property line. The design of the proposed deck is very similar to that of the deck constructed at 2680 White Pine Way, which did not require a Variance due to the orientation of the house on the lot. Staff recommends approval of the Variance with two conditions. Page 2 of 13 Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Commissioner Siess asked why the City doesn't look at the decks when housing developments come before the City. Ms. Wittman responded that the deck was not proposed by the developer. Though staff reviewed the setbacks, size and lot coverage at the time of construction, it was probably an oversight to approve the footprint which would not allow a deck to be built without a variance. Situating the house at an angle was likely done to reduce the conflict between the driveway and the island in the middle of the street. However this configuration created a pinch -point at the point where the house is closest to the lot line. Commissioner Kocon noted that the pie -shaped lot contributes to the problem. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Matthew and Katherine Jones, applicants, stated they did not realize a variance would be needed when they bought the property. They added that their home was a spec home built in 2016. Commissioner Siess asked if the builder provided a plan for the deck. The applicants stated no. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess remarked that this is about the third house that has come forward that is newly built and the builder has not addressed the placement of the deck, which costs taxpayer time and money. The City should talk to the builders and make sure they are considering placement of the deck when siting homes on the lots. She does not see practical difficulty and will vote no. Chairman Collins acknowledged that the request is reasonable and the lot shape and placement of the house creates a unique circumstance. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve Case No. 2017-54, a Variance to the Side Yard Setback to build a deck and screened porch under deck on the property located at 2735 White Pine Way, with the two conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 3-1, with Commissioner Siess voting nay. Commissioner Siess stated she would like the minutes to reflect that this is an issue the City and the Planning Commission needs to discuss. Commissioner Lauer agreed, adding that it makes no sense to put a door 20 feet off the ground and not expect a deck to be built there. Case No. 2017-56: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Amendment for Nottingham Village, a single family subdivision on the property located at 12220 McKusick Road North. Randy and Judy Petrie, property owners and Greg Johnson, Hearth Development LLC, representative. Community Development Director Turnblad explained the request. Greg Johnson, Hearth Development, LLC, plans to develop 5.30 acres of property located at 12220 McKusick Road, to be known as Nottingham Village. The site is located amongst large unsewered lots that were developed while the neighborhood was located in Stillwater Township. In order to develop the property as proposed, the applicant has requested approval of: 1) Rezoning of the property to TR, Traditional Residential and 2) Preliminary Plat for 15 single family lots. Mr. Turnblad presented the site layout plan and explained each of the 15 staff -recommended conditions. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat and Rezoning with 15 conditions. Page 3 of 13 Planning Commission November 8, 2017 In regard to the point on the site plan where the roads will meet up in the future, Commissioner Siess noted that if that parcel is not for sale, it seems like the City is pressuring it to be for sale if the project is approved. Mr. Turnblad responded that the City is obligated to allow for development to occur in such a way that it creates the opportunity for surrounding properties to develop in a reasonable fashion and not to cut off future possibilities. He added that Washington County is not putting a timeframe on the removal of the temporary road but it is anticipated that someday there will be pressure to develop the nearby properties. As part of design review, staff is obligated to consider the future possible extension of utilities to neighboring properties. Commissioner Siess asked why build the stub road? Mr. Turnblad replied that the stub road provides driveway access for four homes. Commissioner Siess pointed out that the direction of the homes on those lots could be changed. Mr. Turnblad replied that would be possible, but Washington County, which will issue the permit to work within their right-of-way, would not allow that because there would be no stacking room for making a turn out onto McKusick - the maneuver would be awkward and dangerous. The current configuration of the lots seemed to be one possibility that worked. Regarding the road proposed to be extended parallel to McKusick, Commissioner Kocon suggested that to be cognizant of future development, the City should consider the road running to the west as well as the east, to reduce the need for cul de sacs. Mr. Turnblad noted the City tries to avoid cul de sacs longer than 600 feet. The possibility exists that there will be cul de sacs but they would be just about 600 feet. Commissioner Kocon asked what would happen to the existing home. Mr. Turnblad replied that home will be offered for sale to move off the property, as it would not fit properly on a lot when platted. Commissioner Kocon pointed out that speaks to Commissioner Siess's previously expressed concern about placement of homes on lots. Commissioner Siess asked how big are the lots in the adjoining development? Mr. Turnblad replied in the township residential zone, the minimum lot size was 2.5 acres and he assumes some of them are larger than that. The lot sizes proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Collins reminded staff that when planning where decks should go, the City should try to make sure variances would not be required. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Deb and Nick Henton, 12340 McKusick Road North, who live directly to the east of the property, informed the Commission there is an assumption that their land is not for sale, which is not necessarily true. When they met with the developer three weeks ago, there was a different plan for the road, which was going to go right between their homes and connect with Macey Way. As proposed tonight, the stubbed road goes right by their garage. The Hentons explained that they divided their land in half and had to show ghost lots when they were in the township. With the new road configuration, it feels like they may have to sell sooner than they anticipated. They do not begrudge the neighbors their right to develop their property, but need to know if the current proposal is approved, then will they be held to that plan or could they develop differently? Community Development Director Turnblad showed the previous plan. He explained that the escrow account is something the developers would have to deposit with the City to be kept by the City so that Page 4 of 13 Planning Commission November 8, 2017 at the time of development of the Hentons' property, the City would remove the temporary piece of road. Nick Hinton stated that the stub going toward their land would interfere with anything they would want to build on their land. Mr. Turnblad replied that the Planning Commission, the Council and staff are obligated by various land development rules to consider logical future development. When Washington County came to the City and said they don't like the original plan, the City had to try to assure that future development would provide the most flexibility. The developer provided the new plan last week. Deb Henton asked for more time to review the new plan to consider its impacts on their property. Community Development Director Turnblad reminded the Hentons they would need 100 foot setback from McKusick right-of-way and they would like to be able to site a row of lots along McKusick. He suggested they have an engineer look at the concept plan for a neutral independent opinion. Mr. Henton stated that the ghost lot plan would be better than this proposal which would cause them to lose some lots on their property. Deb Henton added that with additional time, there could be a better plan developed. Mr. Turnblad stated the project goes before the Council on December 5. The Planning Commission could make a motion contingent, or they could table it. City Planner Wittman reminded the Commission that the mandatory 60 day deadline for land use applications will end December 20 and then the Commission may extend it for another 60 days. Deb Henton asked if there were other road options considered. Mr. Turnblad replied there were three options considered. The first is the one Hentons saw three weeks ago. The second, which staff discussed with the developers, was to bring the stub straight off the existing cul de sac. However that option would have impacted the Brown's Creek shoreland overlay and caused the 600 foot cul de sac to become 1,000 to 1,100 feet. The developer then proposed the present option, which met all the requirements. Commissioner Kocon recognized the challenges of determining where the road can go, considering the need for stacking and access as well as servicing future lots on the Hentons' remaining parcel. Mr. Turnblad suggested the Hentons consider the cost of providing the infrastructure for serving however many lots they will create. Nick Henton added that the stubbed road devalues their property. He planted 700 trees for privacy. When the new homes go in, their privacy will be gone. Greg Johnson of the development team stated it is not their intent to bait and switch. They tried to put together a thoughtful plan and adhere to all the City codes. Pam and Peter Fioritto, 12213 87th Street North northwest of the new development, asked about timelines and how the development will impact their property and property values. They enjoy the privacy and rural character and are very concerned about losing that. They just remodeled their house and are hoping to live there a few more years. It seems like developers and the City are trying to push everybody out of the Random Creek area. Page 5 of 13 Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Community Development Director Turnblad stated that if approved by the Council, the start date would probably be spring. The preliminary plat will go before the Council, Joint Board, Parks Commission, then the final plat would need to be approved by the Council before houses could be built, probably late summer. Jill McNelis, 12340 McKusick Road who owns the property next to the Hentons, stated when they bought the house they knew there was a possibility that a road might go in. They were completely open to talking about the Hentons developing their property when the time was right. If it's best for the community to give it more time, they are open to it. They want to make sure it's done properly for the County and the whole community but also for each of the residents who already live on these properties. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon remarked the Commission must balance the right of someone to develop their property and their neighbors who are impacted, as well as the fact that they sold 2.5 acres which makes their 2.5 acres harder to develop. It might be best to table it. Chairman Collins acknowledged there is one couple that clearly is interested in selling and others say there is some interest in perhaps selling their property. Maybe by getting the parties to have a discussion, there can be some grander plan. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to table consideration of Case No. 2017-56, Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Amendment for Nottingham Village, a single family subdivision on the property located at 12220 McKusick Road North. All in favor, 4-0. Case No. 2017-57: Consideration of a Special Use Permit Amendment to the fencing requirements for the property located at 1677 Orleans Street West. St. Croix Village, LLC, property owner and Juanita Pekay, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained the request. Juanita Pekay has applied for an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for a five foot tall, chain -link fence to replace the existing privacy fence at 1677 Orleans Street West on behalf of the property owner, St. Croix Village, LLC. The existing fence is failing and needs to be replaced. The Special Use Permit allowing for a multi- family dwelling at this property requires that a fence "non -climbable in design" be placed between the development and the residential properties to the north. The proposed fence is not considered to be non -climbable in design, as it is shorter than the current fence and is constructed out of chain -link material. Per the applicant's narrative, the reason for the change in fence design is cost effectiveness and durability. The applicant states that oil capable of ruining clothing may be placed on the top of the fence to deter climbing. Marlys Rylander, 1567 Driving Park Road, submitted a letter of opposition to the request. Staff recommends the Commission deny the request for a Special Use Permit amendment on the grounds that a chain -link fence is not in compliance with the intent of the original Special Use Permit, and the use of oil to deter climbing is not in the public interest. Commissioner Siess asked the age of the existing fence. Ms. Wittman stated it is 22 years old. Commissioner Siess commented that is over the life span of a wood fence so it's not that it hasn't been maintained, it just needs to be replaced. Ms. Wittman agreed, adding that the issue began when the Page 6 of 13 Planning Commission November 8, 2017 City asked the property owner to replace the fence. Over time, pickets can be changed out and maintained but that has not been done. Commissioner Siess stated she read through the 1995 minutes which talked about trees. Ms. Wittman responded there is landscaping in the area in addition to the fence. The Commission could determine that the landscaping is an efficient enough screen but that is not what staff is asking. The requirement is that they need to replace the fence that was a condition of the use permit. They are asking to modify that use permit to allow for the chain link fence. Juanita Pekay, applicant, stated her company purchased the property about two years ago. She apologized that putting oil on the top sounds terrible. The fence is falling down and they want to replace it with a chain link fence due to cost and low maintenance. The north part of the property abuts single family homes, some of whom have their own chain link fences. She would like to erect fencing only where there is none, rather than create a place between two fences where trash will accumulate. She is also the portfolio manager for Charter Oaks on the other side of the fence to the east. Charter Oaks would be happy with a chain link fence or whatever is agreed to tonight. She would prefer not to have a privacy fence between the two properties because it creates a blind spot. Someone was assaulted a couple of months ago between the existing fence and the garages. Craig Laughlin on behalf of St. Croix Village LLC, stated the original intent of the fence was to provide a privacy screen for the single family neighborhood where there are four houses on the north side. Three of the four are screened by foliage and chain link fences. Some of the kids on the multi- family property and adjacent property play together and cut behind the garages along the backyard of the other multi -family property. He is not interested in erecting a fence they would climb over. He has have no intention of oiling the fence. He would like to choose a fence that is affordable to keep kids in the yard and not put fences where they already exist. A six foot cedar fence is not needed to keep the kids in. Commissioner Siess asked Mr. Laughlin if he feels vegetation could be an answer. Mr. Laughlin replied that his residents want a fence there to keep the kids safe. He showed a picture of the fence around the three story apartment building to the south as an example. He feels a six foot cedar fence would be excessive. If the request cannot be approved tonight he would ask that it be tabled so he can meet with staff at the site. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. John Hogan, 1561 Driving Park Road, the house with a pool in back, said he has owned the property since this development went in. It was required that the fence be aesthetically attractive. The previous property owner did not maintain the trees so owners of the houses paid to have the trees removed and then planted the existing trees. The fence was to run all the way to the corner of East Benson and the property owner on the corner chose to put his own fence in so it stops two houses down. The fences were put up specifically to keep kids out. Having little children climb the fences creates a liability with the pool. He feels a chain link fence would invite kids to climb it. The privacy fence has never been maintained, it has blown down four or five times, and is shored up on his property. The previous property owners let it rot and fall down. Commissioner Siess asked what Mr. Hogan would like to see there. Page 7 of 13 Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Mr. Hogan said he does not want a chain link fence there. Foliage will not keep kids from running through it. His pool is a kid magnet. In 1995 the Council wanted a separation because of the turnover in that housing so if a chain link fence is allowed, it will devalue the properties. Mr. Laughlin stated that part of the problem with the cedar fence is that the kids kick the boards out. He would be happy to accommodate the four single family homes with something like the the metal and brick fence in the picture he showed, but he doesn't think cedar fence is a good idea and he would prefer to do something else for screening on the other two sides. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon pointed out that other types of other fences would work. If tabled, that doesn't preclude the petitioner from coming back with a different type of fence. Commissioner Siess asked if there was any conversation between the City and the applicant on other ideas. Ms. Wittman responded it was an enforcement action that came into the zoning administrator's office. Complaints came into the office over six months ago. Community Development Director Turnblad asked if there would be opposition on the dais to having two different fence types. Commissioner Lauer stated he would be OK with one type on the north side and other type on other side. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Chairman Collins, to table Case No. 2017-57, Special Use Permit Amendment to the fencing requirements for the property located at 1677 Orleans Street West. Motion passed 4-0, all in favor. Case No. 2017-58: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to add an amusement and recreational establishment at the property located at 14200 60th Street North, Eagles 94, property owner and Chad Greeder, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained the request. The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to add 4,614 square feet to the existing structure for an assembly hall. Assembly halls are a type of "amusement and recreational establishment" which requires a Special Use Permit. The use will be accessory to the primary uses as a restaurant and the Eagles 94 club. The assembly hall will be used for club meetings and private rentals such as weddings. The applicant will also need a Special Use Permit for Outdoor Events. While not noted in the application, members of the community have indicated the Eagles 94 currently hosts outdoor events, and staff assumes the Eagles will want to continue these events. A process allowing Eagles to apply to hold four outdoor events per year has been built into the Special Use Permit. Staff recommends approval with 15 conditions. Chairman Collins asked about the light plan and the life span of the existing lights. City Planner Wittman responded she will have to check, it could be another 20 years. Staff does not want to impose restrictions on a property owner for something that has already been there for 20 years, but prefer to require that, as they start to fail, they be replaced with something lower to the ground. Chairman Collins asked if outdoor events would shut down at 10 p.m. Ms. Wittman confirmed that any outdoor equipment or band would have to be closed down at 10 p.m. Page 8 of 13 Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Chairman Collins asked if staff is concerned about the choppiness of the existing roof. Ms. Wittman pointed out that a low pitched roof is proposed and staff is OK with the roof grade under the current guidelines. Quoting recommended condition #8, that the applicant shall consider the use of wood and textured metal, Commissioner Siess asked if they have the option not to use wood and textured metal. Ms. Wittman clarified that staff believes the siding as proposed could be considered an adorned metal siding and therefore could be in substantial conformance. She added that staff has suggested other options to the applicant. The metal panel is a lesser quality material than wood so staff would like to see some preservation of the wood. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Chad Greeder, representing Eagles 94, said the sample is the same siding that Dairy Queen has. It will look like stucco. It has a long life span and a 20-year warranty. Chairman Collins asked Mr. Greeder's thoughts on reusing of some of the current materials. Mr. Greeder responded that would be acceptable and they are thinking about leaving the soffits on the roof. A paint consultant has recommended a slate gray color scheme so it will not look washed out. Their sign at the old Eagles Club is blue so it will fit in. They have an artist who airbrushed two eagles that they propose to put up in the gables, one on each side. If the Commission wants wood, they will use wood. He explained the lighting plan. They propose not waiting till the lights fail to replace them, but to cut the light poles down to 20 feet and shield all the lights right away. Ms. Wittman reminded Mr. Greeder that the City will still need to review the lighting plan, there should be zero lumens at the lot line, and this should be a condition of approval. Chairman Collins asked about the hours of the club. Mr. Greeder said the club is open 10 am-1 a.m. seven days a week except they close around 8 pm. on Sundays. He presented a sound plan from the architect. All walls are R-24 in insulation and ceilings are R-35. There is a sound barrier door planned between the hall and the entrance. All the other doors are emergency access only. All doors and windows will be insulated. Commissioner Lauer asked what kind of music is performed. Mr. Greeder replied every year they have a local band, the More Tishans, play at a dance for mentally challenged adults. They also do a free concert every year for the food shelf. The whole idea of the hall is to have weddings to make money for the community so they will have live bands at the weddings. Cheryl Price, 1962 Eastridge Court, asked if the trash enclosure planned for the northeast corner of the property could be closer to Rose Floral to distance the noise further from the residences. She added that the whole area is like a sound and wind tunnel. She also would like the fence to be maintained because it is cracked and swaying. She expressed concern about car headlights shining into her home and she would like more trees for a buffer. She stated the neighborhood gets lots of sound off Highway 36. Georgine McCauley, 1952 Eastridge Court, voiced concern about the noise of more cars and motorcycles. She feels the proposal is ridiculous. Marjorie Young, 1965 Westridge Court, said she has a big concern about lights shining into her house. She also is concerned about an increase in noise from cars and motorcycles. She asked why doesn't Page 9 of 13 Planning Commission November 8, 2017 the City enforce a noise ordinance? She deals with constant noise and lights from trucks and motorcycles, from the highway and frontage roads. Commissioner Siess asked what trees she would prefer. Ms. Young replied maybe pine trees, something that doesn't have leaves that will blow into nearby yards. She would like lights to be downlit and timed to go off at 10 p.m. Sandy Gramenz, 1945 Westridge Circle, told the Commission the traffic on the road is already bad and will get worse with all the people coming to the events. Headlights will be hitting the houses all the time. She would like the fence replaced with a fence that buffers the light and noise. She feels that four outdoor events a year is excessive. Chairman Collins asked what will be the capacity of the events. Mr. Greeder replied there are 166 seats planned. Marsha Zahler, 1940 Westridge Circle, said she had no problem with the restaurant being there but she would object to the special events up to four times per year which could cause a noise problem. She also is concerned with event parking and the possibility of partying in the parking lot if there is alcohol served. Asked if the Eagles pays taxes, Mr. Greeder stated they pay taxes to the City, liquor tax, gambling tax, pull tab taxes and property taxes. They are a nonprofit, so everything they make goes back to the community. He suggested that if the City would want to give up the property between their land and the service road, it would give them a little more property, put it on the tax rolls, and the City wouldn't have to pay for the maintenance and upkeep and the Eagles would pay for the fence for their section and the City's section. Ms. Wittman said that is not something this body can consider. Chairman Collins summarized issues of lighting, noise, garbage enclosure, fence, trees, and the number of events. Mr. Greeder stated they haven't had an outdoor band for six or seven years. They do a motorcycle ride every year that starts at 11 a.m. and ends by 6 p.m. They cannot help with the noise and lights from Highway 36 or the service road. Commissioner Lauer noted it sounds like the fence needs repair. He asked if it could be moved onto the Eagles property. Ms. Wittman replied that a fence wouldn't block the floodlights. Mr. Greeder added that if a fence is erected between the Eagles parking lot and the holding pond, which is on their property, he doesn't know how they would get in there to cut the grass. Ms. Wittman added that staff would be concerned about creating a no-man's land there. Chairman Collins asked how many trees staff would recommend as a buffer with the residences. City Planner Wittman said it would depend on the species and the size. Staff is trying to reduce the negative impacts on surrounding properties while imposing conditions that are substantially weighted toward the use permit but also help clean up the existing condition of the property. Ken McCauley, 1952 Eastridge Court, said from their sunroom they can see all of the parking lot so the fence doesn't help at all. The headlights face directly into the homes. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Page 10 of 13 Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Commissioner Siess asked has anybody ever thought about changing the direction of the parking spaces? Ms. Wittman replied that the parking configuration went through design and engineering in 1997. It is doubtful that the applicant would be able to retain all their parking in a different configuration. Councilmember Menikheim said as the Councilmember representing this ward, he was unaware of the neighborhood concerns about noise and traffic on Highway 36. It might be beneficial to have a conversation. He would be willing to facilitate communication between the neighborhood and the Eagles. City Planner Wittman summarized the staff -recommended conditions for the benefit of those in the audience. Commissioner Kocon commented that the major issues seem to be things the applicant can ameliorate such as trash, sound, wind tunnel, and car lights coming off their property. Some noise and sound issues have to do with the highway and the frontage road. He reminded the neighbors that the Eagles is willing to do everything they can to minimize impacts. Commissioner Siess noted if there are substantiated complaints about the events, then the event permit has to go before the City Council so the neighbors' voices will be heard. She asked if there is anything that can be done about the garbage location. Ms. Wittman replied that locating the garbage along the north property line may preclude a truck being able to access the trash bins. Staff can ask the applicant to consider that location. It would be a reasonable condition to ask them to look at the possibility of an alternative trash location pending haulers' ability to access the location. Regarding the eagle paintings on the side of the building, Commissioner Siess asked if they will go through staff review. Ms. Wittman responded that staff would want to review them. They would not be considered a sign - they would be a graphic mural. Staff review could be a condition of approval. Chairman Collins noted his biggest concern was how the building would look. Seeing the proposed material put him at ease. He thinks it will be a better look than what is currently there. He reiterated that if approved, if there is an issue with the four outdoor events, residents may file complaints. City Planner Wittman added that the City's noise ordinance applies any time of the day. Police officers have decibel meters and may be called to measure sound. Commissioner Lauer said he feels the plan as proposed doesn't adequately address the light from the cars in the parking lot. There is going to be noise. Neighbors have a way to address that with the City but will still be impacted. The fence will not eliminate these concerns. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Chairman Collins, to approve Case No. 2017-58, Special Use Permit to add an amusement and recreational establishment at the property located at 14200 60th Street North, with the 15 conditions recommended by staff and the addition of the following: Condition #16, together with City staff, the applicant shall consider the possibility of an alternative trash location pending haulers' ability to access the location; and amending Condition #14 regarding signage, to state that applicant shall submit the eagle graphic murals for staff review prior to installation. Motion passed 3- 1, with Commissioner Lauer voting nay. NEW BUSINESS Page 11 of 13 Planning Commission November 8, 2017 There was no new business. STAFF UPDATES 2040 Stillwater Comprehensive Plan (handouts) City Planner Wittman provided a recap of the Comprehensive Plan 101 meeting last month, which Commissioner Lauer attended to represent the Planning Commission. Commissioner Siess pointed out that it is important for the City to look at the school schedule because the meeting was on an MEA weekend when everyone was gone. Ms. Wittman stated that the Planning Commission will be directly involved in two to three future Comprehensive Plan meetings, and that everyone is welcome to attend the community engagement meetings. Commissioner Lauer reported that he was encouraged by the level of engagement of the group, which was a good cross section of participants. City Planner Wittman will update the Commission on a regular basis. City Council Actions City Planner Wittman stated that last night the Council heard two of the Commission's recommendations. They approved Ecumen with two additional conditions, and tabled the zoning text amendment for the cigar/tobacconist operations. She also assured the Commission that the promised discussion of long term planning issues will take place, but permits are up 40% this year so workload is high. In addition, the Council is directing the Planning Commission to start working on a small cell modification ordinance to address design standards for infrastructure for grid systems which is likely to go on telephone poles, buildings, street lights. Regarding code clean up, there are five pending Zoning Text Amendments which staff will bring before the Commission over the next few months. Meeting with the City Council Commissioner Siess asked for an update about having an annual meeting with the City Council. Chairman Collins stated he does not want to impose a meeting on the Commission or the Council if it's not necessary. Commissioner Siess replied either you call a meeting or you don't. She would like an answer. She added that Commissioners Fletcher and Hansen have shown support for having such a meeting. She suggested agenda items should be sent to Chairman Collins. Chairman Collins said it's best for staff to receive agenda items. Commissioner Siess noted that staff is very busy. Commissioner Kocon said at the last meeting he suggested if the Commission has agenda items they want to discuss with the Council, they should bring them forward to staff. He does not have anything to bring forward. Chairman Collins stated he has nothing either. He invited the Commissioners to send agenda items to Ms. Wittman and he will take a look at them and decide if it's necessary to have a meeting or not. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 11:06 p.m. All in favor, 4-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Page 12 of 13 Planning Commission Recording Secretary November 8, 2017 Page 13 of 13 Planning Report MEMO DATE: December 8, 2017 HEARING DATES: Planning Commission Park Commission Joint Planning Board City Council CASE NO.: 2017-61 December 13, 2017 December 18, 2017 December 18, 2017 January 2 and 16, 2018 LANDOWNER: Westridge Development, LLC DEVELOPER: Westridge Development, LLC REQUEST: 1) Rezoning from AP, Agricultural Preserve to RA, Single Family 2) Preliminary Plat approval of West Ridge, a 14 lot Single Family Residential Subdivision LOCATION: 12991 Boutwell Road COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential ZONING: Base Zoning: AP, Agricultural Preservation Overlay Zoning: Shoreland District for Brown's Creek Tributary REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Kevin von Riedel, Westridge Development, LLC has submitted an application for preliminary plat approval of a 14-lot single family development to be known as West Ridge. A rezoning of the 4.97 acre' property has also been requested. The site is located at 12991 Boutwell Road. (See attached zoning map for project location.) SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to develop the property as proposed, the applicant has requested approval of the following: 1. Rezoning of the property to RA, Single Family Residential 2. Preliminary Plat known as West Ridge for 14 single family lots ' 4.97 gross acres, including right of way for Boutwell Road. There are 4.73 acres excluding the right of way. West Ridge December 8, 2017 Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST I. REZONING Mr. von Riedel has requested that the property be zoned RA, Single Family Residential. It is currently zoned AP, Agricultural Preservation, which is the temporary zoning classification assigned by the Minnesota Municipal Board when the area was annexed. The expectation is that when development occurs, the property would be rezoned to a classification that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The requested RA zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which guides development of the site and neighborhood as Low Density Residential. (See attached Future Land Use Map.) The Zoning Districts that are consistent with the Low Density Residential classification are: TR, RA, LR and CTR. II. PRELIMINARY PLAT This development is proposed to create 14 single family home sites on +10,000 square foot lots, and also to extend infrastructure to allow for future development of surrounding properties. Sewer and water will be extended both to the south and east property lines. The road layout, with an intersection on Boutwell Road that lines up reasonably well with Creekside Crossing, will provide for road access to properties to the east. Also, the trail on the west side of Creekside Crossing north of Boutwell Road will align with the sidewalk in West Ridge. This sidewalk will extend to the eastern property line so that as properties to the east develop, they will connect by sidewalk to the trail system along Boutwell Road, Creekside Crossing, eventually with Neal Avenue all the way to the Brown's Creek State Trail. A. Minimum Dimensional Standards: RA District RA District - Dimensional Standards Standard Min. requirement Proposed Lot area 10,000 sf 10,030 — sf Lot width' 75' 76'-175' Lot depth' 100' 104'-139.5' Lot frontage on public road 35' At least 35' Front setback 30' 30' Side setback 10' At least 10' Rear yard setback 25' >25' Maximum lot coverage, Lots 5-9, Bl 1 25% TBD [The lot improvements shown are 25% or less] Maximum lot coverage, all other lots 30% TBD [The lot improvements shown are 30% or less] The two different lot coverage standards reflect the fact that Lots 5-9, Block 1 are in the Shoreland Overlay District of the Brown's Creek tributary that flows just west of the 2 Width is measured between side lot lines at right angles to lot depth at a point midway between front and rear lot lines 3 average distance between front and rear lot lines. West Ridge December 8, 2017 Page 3 property.4 Only 25% impervious surface coverage is allowed in the overlay district. The remainder of the lots are allowed 30% impervious cover. Also note that the actual coverage for the lots has yet to be determined, because specific homes have not been designed for the lots. The typical footprints shown meet the coverage standards, though just barely within the shoreland overlay district. Care will have to be taken when buildings are designed for these lots. B. Creek Overlay District Standards Shoreland Overlay District boundary The property lies partially within the shoreland overlay district for a tributary of Brown's Creek. Therefore, the following additional standards need to be met. 1. 150' setback from creek for structures o This setback does not impact any building pads in the project 2. 100' no disturbance buffer from centerline of creek o This does not impact any of the property. 3. 25% maximum impervious cover on lots in the overlay district 4 If the building pad shown on a lot is not in the Shoreland Overlay District, then the 25% coverage maximum does not apply. Rather, the 30% coverage of the RA Zoning District would apply. West Ridge December 8, 2017 Page 4 o This impacts Lots 5-9, Block 1. 4. Steep slopes are protected. o In the Shoreland Overlay District, a steep slope is one that has a grade of 12% or mores. There is a small area of land on Lots 7 and 8 that meet the definition of a slope in a Shoreland Overlay District. They will not be disturbed and will be located outside of the grading limit and erosion control fencing. 5. Bluff setback of 40 feet. o Where bluffs exist in a Shoreland District6, structures must maintain a 40 foot setback from the top of the bluff. On the subject creek there are "steep" slopes, but there are no bluffs. So, a setback from the slopes is not required. C. Civil Engineering The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and made the following comments. 1. A 30 foot wide easement, centered on the property line between Lots 8 and 9 Easement, must be provided for the sewer and water lines that will serve the property to the south. This easement must be shown on the final plat. 2. The extra costs associated with the increased depth necessary to provide sewer service to the property to the south will be covered by the City in the form of a credit against the trunk sewer and water fees for the development. 3. A drainage and utility easement must be dedicated on all the backyards where drainage flows through. These easements must be a minimum of 10 feet wide. 4. Street runoff must remain in the street to be captured by curbline storm sewer. The overflow curb cut must be eliminated. 5. The street pavement section must be 1.5" SPWEA330C and 2.5" of SPWEB330C. 6. Storm water calculations must be submitted and reviewed by the City and the Brown's Creek Watershed District prior to approval of the final plat. 7. These comments represent only a review for the preliminary plat. A more detailed review will occur pending preliminary plat approval. All civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction, prior to final plat approval. Construction shall not commence until final construction plans have been reviewed and approved by all appropriate agencies. D. Development Fees 1. The property consists of 4.97 acres. However, excluding the 10,046 sf of extra right of way to be platted for Boutwell Road, and the 4,768 square feet of wetland buffer (see below), the net developable acreage is 4.626. The developer will be responsible for paying development impact fees based upon the net developable acreage. These fees will be due prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. a. Trout Stream Mitigation Fee of $5,912 per acre. i. Credit can be given for the existing house. Assuming the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet (0.230 acres), then only 5 See definition for steep slope in City Code Section 31-101 (152). 6 See definition in City Code Section 31-101 (19). West Ridge December 8, 2017 Page 5 4.396 net acres would be required to pay the fee. Therefore a total of $25,989.15 would be due for the Trout Stream Mitigation Fee. b. Transportation Mitigation Fee of $8,120 per acre. i. Credit can be given for the existing house. Assuming the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet (0.230 acres), then only 4.396 net acres would be required to pay the fee. Therefore a total of $35,695.52 would be due for the Transportation Mitigation Fee. c. The trunk sewer and water fees of $13,698 per acre. No credit can be given for existing home, since it is on a private well and septic system. So, the fee will apply to 4.626 acres for a total of $63,366.95. i. The extra sanitary sewer depth required to service the property south of West Ridge will be credited against the trunk sewer and water fee due to the City. 2. Park and trail fees will be due on all lots minus one for the existing home site. $2,000 per lot for park fees. $500 per lot for trail fees. If Lot 8 is removed, and only 13 lots are developed, then the fee for the other 12 lots will be $30,000. E. Tree Preservation & Landscaping Two development standards exist for trees: 1) street trees and 2) tree preservation. 1) Street Trees The subdivision code requires an average of three trees per lot along the street, though they are to be planted outside of the platted right-of-way7. The landscape plan shows a total of three trees for each lot. 2) Tree preservation 1) As mentioned above, there is a small area of steep slopes on the property. But, this area is outside of the grading limits and therefore tree removal on slopes is not an issue. 2) The City's environmental ordinances would allow 35% of the tree stock to be taken down. Since 70% is being removed, replacement is required. a) One tree is required for each tree removed beyond the 35% threshold. 68 of the 194 significant trees on the site could be removed without replacement. Since 136 trees are to be removed 68 replacement trees will be required. The developer proposes that the builder or owner will plant these. To guarantee that this will be done, the builder will be required to escrow the cost of the five trees prior to release of the building permit. The amount of that escrow will need to be discussed at the time the final plat is considered by the City Council. And the escrow obligation and amount will be included in the Development Agreement. b) The subdivision code allows a tree replacement fee to be paid if they cannot be planted on site. The fee would be based upon the retail cost of a 2" DBH deciduous tree. 3) City Forester City Code Ch 32, Subd. 6(3)q West Ridge December 8, 2017 Page 6 The City Forester has reviewed the tree preservation plan and tree replacement plans and provides these comments. i) The central directive in community forestry BMPs is to increase species diversity. While the plan proposes to plant no problem trees (those which either present maintenance problems, are at great risk from known threats, or likely will "feed the fire" of present or advancing tree pests. So, for new plantings ash trees would not be recommended due to the presence of the emerald ash borer. The huge number of ash trees in Minnesota will be greatly reduced. ii) The next destructive pest expected to arrive soon is the Asian long horned beetle, whose preferred food source is maples. Many inventories show maples to be the most common tree in many communities and across the state. For that reason, most forestry professionals do not recommend planting maples in our area now. (1) The developer's suggested list of 17 tree species has four maples. According to the plan, each house gets to choose five trees from that list to be planted on their respective lot. The City Forester recommends removing all maples from the tree planting list. iii) Also on the list is Colorado blue spruce. This tree is neither native to our area, nor is it suited to our conditions. Black Hills spruce, also on the list, is a potential substitute. The City Forester recommends removing all Colorado blue spruce from the tree planting list. iv) The plan refers to tree protection zones. However, there is no detail on how these will be established or enforced. This detail will need to be addressed in the final plat materials. v) Materials should not be stored in the critical root zone of trees to be saved, nor should equipment/materials be leaned or stacked against tree trunks. F. Environmental Issues Wetlands - The buffer for the wetlands adjacent to the creek includes land all the way to the top of the 12% slopes lying on the southwestern portion of the site. This can be seen in the graphic below. Grading is prohibited in the buffer. West Ridge December 8, 2017 Page 7 BCWD - A grading permit will be required from the Brown's Creek Watershed District. The permit application has been submitted. Comments from the BCWD are attached. III. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT The City's Subdivision Code8, requires "provisions for future [street] extensions or connections to adjacent land". And, it also states that "proposed subdivisions must be coordinated with existing nearby .... neighborhoods so that the community as a whole may develop harmoniously"9. In practice these future development provisions compel City officials and developers to consider how properties abutting proposed land subdivisions could reasonably develop in the future. And, to coordinate the construction of infrastructure, so that if feasible, abutting properties are not landlocked. To that end, a potential street layout has been offered by the developer, as seen below. Legend Proposed street Potential street 4 West Ridge lots Neighboring properties 8 Section 32-1, Subd 5 (8)(c) Streets 9 Section 32-1, Subd 6 (2)(d) West Ridge December 8, 2017 Page 8 The conceptual neighborhood road network shown by the developer represents a potential alignment. It is not intended to be an absolute alignment and it does not obligate development of the other properties to occur as conceptually shown here. What it does show, is that if the proposed subdivision is approved, it would not preclude reasonable development of surrounding properties. The developer of West Ridge would be responsible for constructing infrastructure improvements on his property only. Though, he would also be responsible for extending infrastructure to his property lines in such a manner as would be "harmonious" with future development in the neighborhood. The eastern part of the neighborhood between the creek and the Fire Station is guided for small lot single family development. (This area is outlined in blue above.) The Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map envisions Low/Medium Density Residential development here. Generally speaking, this means lot sizes consistent with the RB Zoning District standard of a 7,500 square foot lot for a single family home, or 5,000 square feet of lot for each side of a twin home. The western part of the area, including the proposed subdivision, is guided for larger lot single family development. The Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map envisions Low Density Residential development here. Generally speaking, this means lot sizes consistent with the RA Zoning District standard of a 10,000 square foot lot. The developer has met with some of the neighbors individually already. But, he has also scheduled a neighborhood meeting for Monday, December 11th as well. He will share comments with the Planning Commission at the public hearing on December 13th. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is requested to review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the rezoning and preliminary plat. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, and rezoning 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: • Preliminary Plat Dated 11/17/17 • Demolition Plan Sheet C1.0 Dated 12/6/17 • Site Plan Sheet C2.0 Dated 12/6/17 • Grading Plan Sheet C3.0 Dated 12/6/17 • Utility Plan & Profiles Sheet C4.0 Dated 12/6/17 • Utility Plan & Profiles Sheet C4.1 Dated 12/6/17 • Stormwater Management Plan Sheet C5.0 Dated 12/6/17 • SWPPP Sheet C6.0 Dated 12/6/17 • Tree Preservation and Protection Plan Sheet EX-3A Dated 12/6/17 West Ridge December 8, 2017 Page 9 • Tree Preservation and Protection Plan Sheet EX-3B Dated 12/6/17 • Tree Replacement and Landscape Plan Sheet EX-4 Dated 12/6/17 2. All civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction, prior to approval of the final plat. 3. A drainage and utility easement must be dedicated on all the backyards where drainage flows through. These easements must be a minimum of 10 feet wide. 4. A 30 foot wide easement, centered on the property line between Lots 8 and 9 must be provided for the sewer and water lines that will serve the property to the south. This easement must be shown on the final plat. 5. Storm water calculations must be submitted and reviewed by the City and the Brown's Creek Watershed District prior to approval of the final plat. 6. The trees immediately west of the intersection of Deercreek Crossing must be reviewed. If they are in the intersection view triangle, they will have to be removed or trimmed. This information must be submitted with the final plat application and be found acceptable by the City Engineer. 7. The rezoning of the property will not become effective until the City Council approves the final plat for the property. 8. The maximum impervious coverage for Lots 5-9, Block 1 is limited to 25%. For the remainder of the lots, 30% is the maximum permitted impervious coverage. 9. A Development Agreement found satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer must be approved by the City Council prior to commencing any tree removal or grading on the site, and prior to holding a pre -construction meeting with the City Engineer for the project. 10. The developer shall submit a grading permit application to Brown's Creek Watershed District, and the permit must be issued prior to submitting the application to the City for the final plat. Any permit conditions that the City Engineer finds necessary to include in the final plan set shall be included in the final plat application package. 11. A total of $30,000 shall be paid to the City for park and trail dedication fees. These fees shall be submitted to the City prior to release of the final plat for filing with the County. 12. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval. 13. The Developer will be responsible for paying the Trout Stream Mitigation Fee of $25,989.15; the Transportation Mitigation Fee of $35,695.52; and trunk sewer and water fees of $63,366.95. These fees will be due prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. 14. The list of trees that the builder and home owners may select their five trees from must be revised according to the City Forester's recommendation. This will require the elimination of all maples and Colorado Blue Spruce from the list. 15. Details of how the tree protection zone will be managed must be submitted at the time of Final Plat application. 16. Materials may not be stored in the critical root zone of trees to be saved, nor may equipment or materials be leaned or stacked against trunks of trees identified to be saved. 17. To guarantee that five trees will be planted per lot according to the approved planting schedule, the builder will be required to escrow the cost of the five trees prior to release of the building permit. The amount of that escrow will need to be discussed at the time West Ridge December 8, 2017 Page 10 the final plat is considered by the City Council. And the escrow obligation and amount will be included in the Development Agreement. 18. If the Developer desires to have a neighborhood entrance monument for the subdivision, plans for it must be included within the final plat application materials. Otherwise, such a sign will not be permitted in the future. cc Kevin von Reidel Attachments: Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Development Plans Comments from Stuart Rauvola, neighbor bt 12588 RE 12525 12744 8087 8077 8055 8045 12764 12840 12997 EAGLE Tu9GE T.. 12920 12991 Subject l property 12950 u) N LO M M M 1190 N 13033 12993 12960 12975 7919 13055 \j930 ll 13129 13199 13210 ,jjjwater. THE BIRTH PLACE O F M I N N E S O T A Zoning Districts I A-P, Agricultural Preservation RA- Single Family Residential RB - Two Family IIIII, TR, Traditional Residential IIIII, LR, Lakeshore Residential CR, Cottage Residential IIIII, CTR, Cove Traditional Residential IIIII, CCR, Cove Cottage Residential IIIII, CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential IIIII, TH, Townhouse IIIII, RCM - Medium Density Residential IIIII, RCH - High Density Residential VC, Village Commercial IIIII, CA - General Commercial IIIII, CBD - Central Business District BP-C, Business Park - Commercial IIIII, BP-O, Business Park - Office BP -I, Business Park - Industrial IIIII, IB - Heavy Industrial IIIII, CRD - Campus Research Development IIIII, PA- Public Administration IIIII, PROS - Park, Recreation or Open Space [ I V I Public Works Facility ROAD 13339 WATER April 3, 2017 7c )40 4 460 38 10 Figure 2.3 : 2030 Land Use ,Iim 1....71 hitik: 111,. .-7. illo limi---- , 1111'..".41-: al vb..: , pielair'''', ,.„, . 1111 ..-., 4..''' -.-- - --- .A.AV7' IOU tel111.11114.1117:::::' . :4 ED .—...— IM:-.-••••=•••mm••••••=73•••1•••••/:••••••••mm•j1.• 17'77' 1•47:70, __— Brown's Creek 11 171--li T11q111- [Ei901 111, ql ED 0 4ii: : 'MMMIr: i 4.9111.W•il•••••••••••111.16•110 ,,, NMIRRIMINOV ' 1 2030 Future Land Use Plan 2008 Comprehensive Plan 800 0 800 1,600 Feet L. 2030 City Limit Wetland (Undelineated) [—] Low Density Residential [—I Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential 1 IS High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Research, Development Park Industrial Institutional Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Road R-O-W Open Water Bonestroo February 2, 2010 11510/51007001/gis/maps/Fulure Land Use.mxd PLAN OF STILLWATER Mi""0014111111111111 1111111111.11111111111111111M111111111111WHICIMIlinifill1111111111111rtimm111111.111111.1111111111111oil ..... 1111111M111111111114111111111 CI 1.1 2: Lind 2-13 12991 BOUTWELL FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE---2 EX. RIM=8 1 •c INV=895. EX. CB RIM=899.9 /NV=8g6.7 — / \I I . ly 1 FOUND 1/2 INCH ICON PIPE '-20 / y J \ EX. SMH RIM=Bq 1.5 / PM Top / EXISTING ZONING INFORMATION: SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED A-P, AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION PER CITY OF STILLWATER ZONING MAP DATED JULY, 2017. EXISTING SETBACKS (PER CITY OF STILLWATER ZONING ORDINANCE DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 2017): FRONT YARD = 50 FEET SIDE YARD = 25 FEET REAR YARD = 75 FEET PROPOSED ZONING INFORMATION: SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PROPOSED TO BE ZONED RA, ONE FAMILY DISTRICT PROPOSED SETBACKS (PER CITY OF STILLWATER ZONING ORDINANCE DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 2017): FRONT YARD = 30 FEET INTERIOR SIDE YARD = 10 FEET CORNER SIDE YARD = 30 FEET REAR YARD = 25 FEET /4/1'cS /o Or FM / DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT `IHN -4 -1:, 9 co FM Fri cM' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT AS \\ SHOWN ON HALF SECTION MIAPPINGQ-s—i 0' _SLOPE SETBACK PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: Being 10.00 feet in width and adjoining public ways and 5.00 feet in width and adjoining lot lines, unless otherwise shown. FM WEST LINE OF EAST HALF- 1 OF- EAST HALE OF- NE 1/4 FM NORTH 40 80 —3109 ---343.67--- BLOCK 1 3092 306-7 FM 30G10-- --736.15 96.00 -3078 Fri FM FM FM PROPOSED AREAS: AREA OF SUBJECT PROPERTY = 216,318 SQ.FT., BEING 4.97 ACRES, MORE OR LESS PROPOSED BOUTWELL ROAD NORTH RIGHT OF WAY = 10,046 SQ.FT. PROPOSED CREEKSIDE CROSSING RIGHT OF WAY = 44,590 SQ.FT. PROPOSED LOT AREAS: LOT 1, BLOCK 1 = LOT 3, BLOCK 1 = LOT 4, BLOCK 1 = LOT 5, BLOCK 1 = LOT 6, BLOCK 1 = LOT 7, BLOCK 1 = LOT 8, BLOCK 1 = LOT 9, BLOCK 1 = LOT 10, BLOCK 1 PROPOSED BLOCK 15,831 SQ.FT. 11,324 SQ.FT. 10,030 SQ.FT. 10,030 SQ.FT. 10,030 SQ.FT. 10,030 SQ.FT. 10,761 SQ.FT. 12,274 SQ.FT. LOT 1, BLOCK 2 = 16,454 SQ.FT. LOT 2, BLOCK 2 = 10,030 SQ.FT. LOT 3, BLOCK 2 = 10,030 SQ.FT. LOT 4, BLOCK 2 = 10,030 SQ.FT. PROPOSED BLOCK 2 = 46,544 SQ.FT. (AVG. LOT SIZE = 11,636 SQ.FT.) 96.00 FM - 20.00 3032 SOi0 CVO / 40' SLOPE SETBACK + 108.00 coe 006 FN FOUND CAPPED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: INCH 120N PIPE 0 1315.16 1315.16 -- The following legal description appears on the Limited Warranty Deed filed as document number 3946009 in and for Washington County, Minnesota: All that part of the West 268.95 feet of the East half of the East half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 30, Range 20, which lies South of the present traveled centerline of Boutwell Road, excepting therefrom the South 1315.16 feet thereof, Washington County, Minnesota. EXISTING AREAS: AREA OF SUBJECT PROPERTY = 216,318 SQ.FT., BEING 4.97 ACRES, MORE OR LESS (INCLUDES RIGHT OF WAY) = 206,272 SQ.FT., BEING 4.74 ACRES, MORE OR LESS (EXCLUDES RIGHT OF WAY) BOUTVVELL ROAD NORTH RIGHT OF WAY = 10,046 SQ.FT., BEING 0.23 ACRES, MORE OR LESS ""BOUTWELL ROAD NORTH RIGHT OF WAY IS SHOWN AS LYING 33 FEET SOUTHERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF BOUTWELL ROAD NORTH AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF NEAL MEADOWS. ACTUAL WIDTH AND LOCATION OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY MAY VARY BASED ON USE. NOT TO SCALE STILLWATER, MN CONTACT: SOVEREIGN LAND SERVICES Kevin von Riedel P: 612-214-3993 COUNTY/CITY: VICINITY MAP NO °16d cri CREEK OUT WEL I: BRoivN SITE SEC. 30, TWP. 30, RNG. 20, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MN DATE REVISION 11-17-17 INITIAL ISSUE CERTIFICATION: NEAL AVE. N I hereby certify that this plan 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. Date: 11-17-17 PROJECT LOCATION: 1 2 BOUTWELL ROAD N Suite #1 6750 Stillwater Blvd. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 Fax 651.275.8976 dan@ cssurvey .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. FILE NAME PREPLATHCO7 PROJECT NO. HC17007 PRELIMINARY COPYRIGHT - AMI CONSULTING ENGINEERS P.A.: 2006 11 /6/201710:47 AM z:\2017\171268 creekside crossing stillwater\7_CAD\171268-SITE.dwg / /EX CB RIM: 899.9 IN'V: 896.7 EX S RY RIM: 9.4 INVj872.8 / / i i i 417 // 1MH-00L /• r /® EX CB RIM: 899.9 INV: 895.9 25 1 414 R25 41%. 30.0 41* >0.0 'MH-00L 100 9 10.0 6 00-HWL m Ln 9 100-HWL Plftftwiair 13.2 30.0 WH-00L SIGNAGE AND MARKING NOTES: 6 13.4 10.0 LO 6 30.3 R133 1 8 1 6.7 44.5 LO 6 30.0 8 19.3 16.7 0 44.9 LO 6 30.0 3 8 �307.6 19.3 10.0 3063 40.0 LO 6 30.0 BLOCK 2 8 30.0 8 305 R15 R165 17.7 r N o: 44.7 0 0 m 8+00 CREEKSIDE CROSSING 9 +00 10 + 00 C`) 60 ROW Z 0 0 7] 2E.0 a 30.0 40.0 RAMBLER 6 30.0 10 8 R15 11 +00 0 0 1 12 30.0 10.0 0 N 3at 302 31 2 8 6 N 0 0 12+ 5.0 0 16.7 30.0 WO 1. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MN MUTCD, CURRENT VERSION. 44.5 r7D 2. SEE REGULATORY SIGN DETAIL FOR SIGN AND POST DETAILS AND SIGN DESIGNATION AND SIZE INFORMATION. Know what's below. CaII before you dig. STATE LAW: 48 HOURS BEFORE EXCAVATING OR DEMOLISHING BUILDINGS, CALL 811 FOR FIELD LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES. THIS SERVICE LOCATES UTILITY OWNED LINES BUT NOT PRIVATE LINES. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED. THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) MUST BE DETERMINED BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. 6 30.0 �19.3-- 16.7 4 WO BLOCK 1 3090-- 1 9.3 30.0 GENERAL GEOMETRIC AND PAVING NOTES: 16.8 8 WO 7 1. SITE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN SHALL BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS. BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE LAID OUT ON SITE BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR, OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. 2. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR BUILDING LAYOUT, EXACT LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF STOOPS/EXITS, RAMPS AND PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS. 3. REFER TO SITE DEMOLITION PLAN FOR LIMITS OF PAVEMENT REMOVAL, IF APPLICABLE. 4. ALL PAVING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FLOW LINE OF CURB UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. THE FLOW LINE OF CURB IS ASSUMED TO BE 8 INCHES FROM THE BACK OF CURB. 5. MEET REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY FOR WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, INCLUDING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL. A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. 6. ALL SIDEWALKS SHALL HAVE POSITIVE SLOPE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. THE MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE SHALL BE 2.0% AND THE MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPE SHALL BE 5.0% UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 7. MATCH NEW AND EXISTING PAVEMENT SURFACES, SIDEWALKS AND CURBS AT SAWCUT LINES, ALLOWING NO PONDING OF WATER AT JOINTS. PROVIDE SMOOTH GRADE TRANSITION ACROSS NEW AND EXISTING JOINTS. 8. ALLOW MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS CURE FOR CURB AND GUTTER PRIOR TO PAVING. 9. ALLOW MINIMUM OF 24 HOUR COOLING PRIOR TO ALLOWING TRAFFIC ON BITUMINOUS PAVING. 10. PROVIDE 4' TRANSITION OF B618 CURB AND GUTTER EITHER SIDE OF RECTANGULAR CATCH BASINS TO MATCH WIDTH OF CASTING. 11. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PROPOSED TREES, 19.2 44.4 16.7 30.0 Ln 0 0 00 8 WO 0 Ln 0 44.4 o N 00 19.3 Ln 0 0 c. mti KEY NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL 200) SURMOUNTABLE CURB (SEE DETAIL 217) TRANSITION B612 TO D412 CURB PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT STOP SIGN (SEE DETAIL 243) 16.7 • 8 30.0 WO 11.7 0 Ln 0 10 0 0 44.6 PROPOSED BUILDABLE AREA. MAX IMPERVIOUS AREA 30% OF LOT AREA. SEE ARCHITECTURAL FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF DOORS, RAMPS, AND PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS. SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL FOR STOOPS. PROPOSED BUILDABLE AREA. MAX IMPERVIOUS AREA 25% OF LOT AREA. SEE ARCHITECTURAL FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF DOORS, RAMPS, AND PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS. SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL FOR STOOPS. PROPOSED BUILDABLE DRIVEWAY AREA. DRIVEWAY MUST MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 12 FEET AT RIGHT OF WAY. RELOCATED POWER POLE SITE DATA SITE/PARCEL SIZE 4.97 AC (216,318 SF) BUILDING AREA 27,535 SF (13% COVERAGE) IMPERVIOUS/PERVIOUS AREA 1.74 AC/3.23 AC LAND USE CLASSIFICATION RA: ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CURRENT ZONING AP: AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION FLOOD ZONE CLASSIFICATION X TREE COUNT 58/193 SAVED 50.7 30.0 30.7 8 15.0 3030 9.59 26.6 7 26.3 --- 00 0 / Z 26.71 i�/ / /PT S13�9P 51.4 30 60 CIVIL SITE LEGEND: SCALE IN FEET SIGN CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SOIL BORING GRADING LIMITS 150' WETLAND SETBACK STEEP SLOPE SETBACK PROPERTY LINE J• 30- #1A \ Consulting Engineers P.A. �3640 TALMAGE CIR. VADNAIS HEIGHTS 651.337.9259 - amiengineers.com SUPERIOR - IRON RANGE f ERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REP REPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT//�PERVI THAT I AM A DULY LICE / UNDER THE 4,), {{.7 OF $dAjT 7 ME. � ) �Y��j C �� CQ�C/ /iDy SIGNATURE: /C DATE: : 466 REV. BY: DESCRIPTION w DATE: WESTRIDGE WESTRIDGE PARTNERS 12991 BOUTWELL ROAD STILLWATER, MN SITE PLAN JOB No:171268 DATE: 12/6/2017 DRAWN BY: CJO DESIGNED BY: ECR SHEET: C2.O COPYRIGHT - AMI CONSULTING ENGINEERS P.A.: 2006 EX SANITARY RIM: 899.4 INV: 872.8 W.i 8/17/2017 8:31 AM z:\2017\171268 creekside crossing stillwater\7_CAD\171268-GRAD.dwg W EX CB/ RIM: .9 7 89 .7 E� CB RIM: 89 2 - INV: 895.9 MH-00l PTO 900.83 897.50 905.50 901.00 905.50 897.50 --� 100-H WL 908.00 900.00 WJ 908.00 WA 905.00 WA 909.50 cUT/ FILL SUIVIVA=Y TOTAL CUT 4,060 CY TOTAL FILL 14,990 CY NET CUT/FILL 10,930 CY OF FILL CUT AND FILL IS FROM EXISTING GRADE TO FINISHED GRADE 905.50 909.50 910.40 FFE 902.40 907.56 907.00 910.40 903.65 WA NOTE: 908.50 912.48 901 29 908.50 912.50 913.00 905.02 ALL BASEMENTS (LLE) ARE 8 FEET LOWER THAN FFE. 913.00 906.00 3090 L1 09 911.00 911.66 BLOCK 91 1 .00 915.00 915.00 907.00) 915.32 912.50 BLOCK 907.50 912.50 916.50 918.00 910.00 918.00 911.00 919.00 911.00 WJ WA Wj W� WA WJ GENERAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES: ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IN PLACE BEFORE BEGINNING SITE GRADING ACTIVITIES. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING QUANTITIES OF CUT, FILL AND WASTE MATERIAL TO BE HANDLED, AND FOR THE AMOUNT OF GRADING TO BE DONE. ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPORTING SUITABLE MATERIAL AND EXPORTING UNSUITABLE/EXCESS/WASTE MATERIAL SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE BID PRICE. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL STRIP, STOCKPILE AND RE -SPREAD EXISTING ONSITE TOPSOIL, IF MATERIAL IS APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS. PROVIDE A UNIFORM THICKNESS OF 6" MINIMUM IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE LANDSCAPED. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL DISPOSE OF ANY EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED. 5. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PERMANENT TURF RESTORATION AND PLANTING INFORMATION. MAINTAIN TEMPORARY PROTECTION MEASURES DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. SEE SITE REMOVALS PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AS NECESSARY AS WORK PROGRESSES. 7. SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN FOR SITE LAYOUT. 8. PROPOSED CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE GRADE. 9. SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN ADJACENT TO CURB REFER TO GUTTER/FLOW LINE. SPOT ELEVATION SHOWN FOR TOP OF CURB ARE LABELED WITH TC (TOP OF CURB). SPOT LABELED ME REFERS TO MATCH EXISTING GRADE, EOF REFERS TO EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION, TW REFERS TO TOP OF WALL AND BW REFERS TO BOTTOM OF WALL. 10. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM BUILDINGS AT ALL TIMES. 11. NO GRADED SLOPES SHALL EXCEED 3:1 (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. UNIFORMALLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF GRADING AND PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITH UNIFORM SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. 13. LIMIT THE DISTURBED AREA AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND CONDUCT GRADING OPERATIONS IN A MANNER TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION. 918.90 919.49 RAMBLE R 919.50) (912.00� A 919.50 0 .5F0 303c 918.75 916.00 915.20 912.50 912.50 9-{919.00) 920.50 O 912.51 30 60 SCALE IN FEET GRADING LEGEND: O.o% (892) - -(895)- - 892 895 Know what's below. CaII before you dig. MANHOLE CATCH BASIN APRON FLOW ARROW SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR CONSTRUCTION LIMITS STATE LAW: 48 HOURS BEFORE EXCAVATING OR DEMOLISHING BUILDINGS, CALL 811 FOR FIELD LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES. THIS SERVICE LOCATES UTILITY OWNED LINES BUT NOT PRIVATE LINES. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED. THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) MUST BE DETERMINED BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. \ Consulting Engineers P.A. �3640 TALMAGE CIR. VADNAIS HEIGHTS 651.337.9259 - amiengineers.com SUPERIOR - IRON RANGE ERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPO REPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT PERVI THAT I AM A DULY LICE I UNDER THE IA OF $dAT � ME: �J C 44 ors �T�/ T��C SIGNATURE: O DATE: : 46681 REV. BY: DESCRIPTION w DATE: WESTRIDGE WESTRIDGE PARTNERS 12991 BOUTWELL ROAD STILLWATER, MN GRADING PLAN JOB No:171268 DATE: 12/6/2017 DRAWN BY: CJO DESIGNED BY: ECR SHEET: COPYRIGHT - AMI CONSULTING ENGINEERS P.A. : 2006 / t, V J// 30 60 / FIRE HYDRANT (SEE DETAIL 415) �8" PLUG SCALE IN FEET /\ \ �� \ \ a o \ \ / \ \ v ' � '` MANHOLE (SEE DETAIL 402) WET TAP INTO EXSTING � CONNECT TO EXISTING•A118»GATEVALVE(5EEDE1A1L416) _ o� SAN (SEE MH DETAIL -2 401) LO LO LO — W 120' OF 8" Q n nnQ� PVC @ 2.17% (SEE DETAIL 400) V A 1 1\2 COPPER a \ 4" SAN SERVICE WATER SERVICE p[ \ �� ©2% MIN (TYP) (TYP) — ��� 126' OF 8" PVC @ 0.40 (SEE DETAIL 400) � \ v % /2 v % v J FIRE HYDRANT (SEE DETAIL 415) ss 3 4 J 10 �� 0. / �� 6x00 11.25° BEND (SEE 44 DETAIL 414) CURB STOP (TYP) (SEE DETAIL 412) �/ BLOCK „ 8 DI TEE (SEE DETAIL 414) „ 8 GATE � VALVE (SEE DETAIL 416) ! #141411...... 11.25° BEND (SEE DETAIL 414) r 45° BEND (SEE DETAIL 414) 4-/ / 8" PLUG —�" �' �� / / , 4 : a 8+00 I �KSIDE 9+00 RDSSIN� ' 10+00 1 I 0 ��� 11 +:0 45° BEND (SEE DETAIL 414) 41`0 ! 12+ 9.59 � VW � ��_41411140044 / SAN MH-4 —375' OF 8" Ductile Iron @ 0.40% (SEE DETAIL 400) < IIPIV W (SEE DETAIL 401) o ° v ' ^ ` v ° \i 69' OF 8" / PVC @ 0.40% (SEE DETAIL 400) SAN MH-3 Ar 85' OF 8'° PVC @ 0.40% (SEE DETAIL 400) SAN CO—1 RIM:91 1 .98 , / / v 4 — h — h — 129' OF 8" @ DETAIL PVC (SEE 0 �40 1) (SEE DETAIL 400) Q v INV OUT:886.22 BLOCK 1 z � 4 5 6� O 44, O/ I_:Tr��. � WO WO WO WO WO OJ \�•' 920 920 915 FINISHED GRADE 915 EXISTING GRADE 85 910 - SEE DETAIL 410) (SEE OF 910 MISC. SMALL UTILITIES �— — — _ I 130 OF 8,> DUCTILE IRON I UOTILE IRON S ` EE DETAI 4 0 905 EXISTING 15" RCP 11= 360 SEE DETAIL 410) ON (SE OF 8» UCT1=_ —�- 905 '� 900 — _ J 11H-1 0 i TAIL 410) I DUCTILE IRON OF 8 —_ 64 (SEE DETAIL 4 \ 0) _� SAN MH-3 RIM:91 5.61 INV IN:885.37 INV IN:887.40 INV OUT:885.37 RIM 9 SAN M7 88 INV IN:885.88 INV OUT:885.88 SAN CO-1 RIM:91 1 ..98 INV OUT:886.22 900 895 �UOTILE IRON (SEE DE 117 OF 8 __ ' �� SAN MH-5 `�RIM:903.73 INV IN:883.55 INV OUT:883.51 SAN MH-4 RIM:906.00 INV IN:883.87 INV 0UT:883.83 895 890 EXISTING MANHOLE RIM:899.40 7INV OUT:872.80 INV IN:883.00 890 85 OF 8" PVC @ 0.40% (SEE DETAIL 400 885 129 OF 8 PVC @ 0.40% (SEE DETAIL 400) 885 DETAIL. 400) 375' OF 8" Ductile Iron @ 0.40� (SEE 126 OF 8" PVC @ 0.40% (SEE DETAIL 400) 69 OF 8' PVC @ 0.40% (SEE DETAIL 400) 880 880 875 875 870 870 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 Wir f ERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REP REPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT//�PERVI THAT I AM A DULY LICE / UNDER THE 4,), .7_0 ME. i) �Yj /iDy C CQOC/ SIGNATURE: /C DATE: : 466 REV. BY: DESCRIPTION w DATE: WESTRIDGE WESTRIDGE PARTNERS 12991 BOUTWELL ROAD STILLWATER, MN UTILITY PLAN UTILITY PROFILES JOB No:171268 DATE: 12/6/2017 DRAWN BY: CJO DESIGNED BY: ECR SHEET: COPYRIGHT - AMI CONSULTING ENGINEERS P.A. : 2006 11/6/2017 10:47 AM z:\2017\171268 creekside crossing stillwater\7_CAD\171268-TREEPP.dwg i 10' MAX POST SPACING DRIP —LINE (VARIES) / / /; FENCE LOCATION (LIMITS OF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE) RADIUS = 1 FOOT PER INCH OF TRUNK DIAMETER STANDARD ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCE 5-0" CRITICAL ROOT ZONE DRIP —LINE 100 I TREE PROTECTION NOT TO SCALE TREE PROTECTION FENCE TREE SUVVARY EXISTING AND REMOVAL TREE SUMMARY EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES FROM SURVEY 194 35% REMOVAL ALLOWED PER CODE 68 TREES TO REMAIN PER CODE 126 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN 58 REPLACEMENT TREES NEEDED 68 TREES PLANTING SUMMARY 3 BOULEVARD TREES PER LOT PER CODE 42 ADDITIONAL 5 TREES PER LOT 70 TOTAL PROPOSED TREES TO BE PLANTED 112 POST DEVELOPMENT TREE COUNT 170 -3108 '--3079 `--3078 cfl LO 4.11 3030 30 60 CIVIL SITE LEGEND: Know what's below. CaII before you dig. SCALE IN FEET SOIL BORING TREE CANOPY EXISTING TREE REMOVE EXISTING TREE PROTECT (SEE DETAIL 100) STATE LAW: 48 HOURS BEFORE EXCAVATING OR DEMOLISHING BUILDINGS, CALL 811 FOR FIELD LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES. THIS SERVICE LOCATES UTILITY OWNED LINES BUT NOT PRIVATE LINES. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED. THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) MUST BE DETERMINED BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. \ Consulting Engineers P.A. �3640 TALMAGE CIR. VADNAIS HEIGHTS 651.337.9259 - amiengineers.com SUPERIOR - IRON RANGE ERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPO REPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT PERVI THAT I AM A DULY LICE I UNDER THE ,r 7OF $dAT F ME: �J It/44/?Y Cors T��CSIGNATURE: O DATE: : 46681 REV. BY: DESCRIPTION w DATE: WESTRIDGE WESTRIDGE PARTNERS 12991 BOUTWELL ROAD STILLWATER, MN TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION PLAN JOB No:171268 DATE: 12/6/2017 DRAWN BY: CJO DESIGNED BY: ECR SHEET: COPYRIGHT - AMI CONSULTING ENGINEERS P.A. : 2006 NOTE: Tree Map # Tree Species Tree DBH (inches) Tree Condition Comments 3087 Black cherry 9 Good 3151 White poplar 34 Fair Limited canopy HIGHLIGHTED TREES TO REMAIN, PROTECT 3088 Green ash 7 Good 3152 Colorado blue spruce 10 Good 3089 Black cherry 6 Good 3153 Paper birch 12 Good 1244 deciduous 16 - 3090 Butternut 8 Fair Stem cankers 3154 Colorado blue spruce 10 Fair Limited canopy 1245 deciduous 16 - 3091 Green ash 16 Good 2-stemmed 3155 Crabapple 9 Good 3018 Black walnut 14 Good 3092 Black cherry 7 Fair Storm damage in canopy 3156 Crabapple 11 Good 3019 Black walnut 11 Good 3093 Butternut 8 Fair Stem cankers 3020 American elm 14 Good 3157 Crabapple 18 Good Multiple stems 3094 Silver maple 28 Good Multiple stems 3021 Basswood 11 Good 3095 Black walnut 8 Good 3022 Black cherry7 Good 3158 Colorado blue spruce p 10 Fair Limited canopy 3096 Butternut 9 Good Stem cankers 3023 Quaking aspen 10 Good 3159 Colorado blue spruce 14 Good 3097 Butternut 9 Good Stem cankers 3024 Quaking aspen 8 Good 3160 Silver maple 38 Good 3098 Butternut 7 Good Stem cankers 3025 Quaking aspen 11 Good 3099 Butternut 9 Good Stem cankers 3161 Silver maple 34 Good 3026 Red oak 8 Good 3100 Butternut 11 Good Stem cankers 3027 Quaking aspen 6 Good 3162 Colorado blue spruce 11 Fair Limited canopy 3101 Boxelder 30 Good 2-stemmed 3028 Quaking aspen 7 Good 3163 Colorado blue spruce 10 Poor Limited canopy 3029 Quaking aspen 7 Good 3102 Boxelder 34 Good Multiple stems 3164 Silver maple 40 Good 3030 Quaking aspen 6 Good 3103 Boxelder 30 Good Storm damage in canopy 3165 Silver maple 20 Good 3031 Quaking aspen 8 Good 3104 Boxelder 26 Good 3166 Silver maple Good 3032 Quaking aspen 7 Good24 3105 Silver maple 32 Good 3033 Quaking aspen 8 Fair Crown dieback 3106 Black walnut 7 Good 3167 Silver maple 30 Good 3034 Red oak 13 Good 3107 Big toothed aspen 20 Good 3168 Colorado blue spruce 14 Fair Limited canopy 3035 Red oak 9 Good 3108 Black walnut 10 Good 3036 Quaking aspen 7 Good 3109 Green ash 7 Good 3169 Colorado blues spruce p 11 Fair Limited canopy 3037 Quaking aspen 8 Fair Stem cankers 3110 Black cherry 7 Good 3170 Colorado blue spruce 9 Poor Limited canopy 3038 Quaking aspen 9 Good 3111 Black cherry 9 Good 3039 Quaking aspen 7 Good 3112 Black walnut 9 Good24 3171 Silver maple Good 3040 Quaking aspen 8 Good 3113 Black cherry 15 Good 3172 Colorado blue spruce 6 Fair Limited canopy 3041 Quaking aspen 8 Good 3114 Silver maple 60 Good Multiple stems 3173 Silver maple 34 Good 3042 Quaking aspen 8 Good 3115 Bur oak 7 Good 3043 Green ash 6 Good 3174 Colorado blue spruce 7 Fair Limited canopy 3044 Green ash 7 Good 3116 Silver maple 33 Good 3175 Colorado blue spruce 8 Fair Limited canopy 3045 White pine 10 Good 3117 Colorado blue spruce 13 Good 3176 Paper birch 12 Good 3177 Silver maple 39 Good 3046 Black walnut 11 Poor Broken top from storm damage 3118 Colorado blue spruce 14 Fair Limited canopy 3047 River birch 15 Good 3119 Colorado blue spruce g Good 3178 Paper birch 12 Good 3048 Silver maple 25 Good 3179 Colorado blue spruce p 10 Fair Limited canopy 3049 Green ash 7 Good 3120 Silver maple 20 Good 3180 Silver maple 20 Good 3050 Black cherry 8 Good 3051 Black cherry 6 Good 3121 Colorado blue spruce 8 Poor Limited canopy 3181 Silver maple 23 Good 3052 Black walnut 9 Good 3122 Colorado blue spruce 8 Fair Limited canopy 3182 Colorado blue spruce 8 Fair Stem cankers; limited canopy 3053 Bur oak 6 Good 3183 Silver maple 29 Good 3123 Silver maple 24 Good 3054 Black walnut 10 Good 3124 Colorado blue spruce 9 Dying Dying, limited canopy 3055 Crabapple 22 Good Multiple stems 3184 Boxelder 25 Poor Crown dieback 3125 Mountain ash 12 Fair Stem cankers 3056 Crabapple 8 Good 3126 Silver maple 47 Good 3185 Colorado blue spruce 11 Fair Limited canopy 3057 Black cherry 6 Good 3186 Colorado spruceblue 9 Poor Limited canopy 3058 Green ash 8 Good 3187 Redcedar 15 Good 3059 Black walnut 10 Good 3127 Silver maple 51 Good 3188 Redcedar 12 Good 3060 Black walnut 11 Good 3128 Silver maple p 34 Fair Evidence of trunk decay; canopy storm damage 3189 Redcedar 15 Good 3061 Black walnut 8 Good 3129 Quaking aspen 10 Poor Stem cankers 3062 Black cherry 16 Good 3130 Quaking aspen 9 Good 3190 Silver maple 59 Good 3063 Black walnut 11 Good 3131 Quaking aspen 10 Good 3191 Colorado blue spruce 6 Poor Limited canopy 3064 Black walnut 11 Good 3132 Quaking aspen 11 Fair Stem cankers 3065 Green ash 6 Good 3133 Quaking aspen 7 Good 3192 Silver maple 29 Good 3066 Crabapple 15 Good 3134 Black walnut 7 Good 3193 Colorado blue spruce 7 Fair Limited canopy 3067 Crabapple 7 Good 3135 Quaking aspen 10 Good 3068 Butternut 7 Fair Stem cankers 3136 Black cherry 7 Good 3194 Colorado blue spruce 8 Fair Limited canopy 3069 American elm 14 Good 3137 Black cherry 13 Good 3070 Black cherry 7 Good 3138 Quaking aspen 11 Good 3195 Colorado blue spruce 10 Fair Limited canopy 3071 Crabapple 16 Good 3139 Quaking aspen 13 Good 3196 Colorado blue spruce 9 Fair Limited canopy 3072 Crabapple 11 Good 3140 Quaking aspen 12 Good 3197 Silver maple 28 Good 3073 Black cherry 6 Good 3074 Green ash 9 Good 3141 Black walnut 11 Fair Broken top from storm damage 3198 Colorado blue spruce 8 Fair Limited canopy 3075 American elm 14 Good 3142 Boxelder 20 Good 3076 Green ash 11 Good 3199 Colorado blue spruce 9 Fair Limited canopy 3143 Colorado blue spruce 10 Fair Limited canopy 3077 Black cherry 9 Good 3200 Colorado blue spruce 8 Fair Limited canopy 3144 Silver maple 32 Good 3078 Green ash 8 Good 3201 Sugar maple 10 Good 3079 Black walnut 11 Good 3145 Quaking aspen 9 Good 3202 Colorado blue spruce 10 Good 3080 Black cherry 7 Good 3203 Paper birch 15 Good 3081 Butternut 10 Poor Stem cankers 3146 Colorado blue spruce 8 Poor Limited canopy 3204 Redcedar 10 Good 3082 Butternut 7 Fair Stem cankers 3147 Colorado blue spruce 8 Fair Limited canopy 3205 Redcedar 10 Good 3083 Butternut 9 Fair Stem cankers 3148 Colorado blue spruce 9 Fair Limited canopy 3206 Redcedar 7 Good 3084 Butternut 7 Poor Stem cankers 3149 Paper birch 16 Good Good 3207 Redcedar 15 Good 3085 Black cherry 9 Good 3150 Paper birch 12 3208 Mountain ash 18 Fair Stem cankers 3086 Crabapple 9 Good \ Consulting Engineers P.A. �3640 TALMAGE CIR. VADNAIS HEIGHTS 651.337.9259 - amiengineers.com SUPERIOR - IRON RANGE f ERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REP REPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT//�PERVI THAT I AM A DULY LICE / UNDER THE �A ,{{'�� OF�$dAjT�Fj'� ME. 0,40j, V��'�/ C �4 SIR�CT SIGNATURE: 49 DATE: : 46/ 1 REV. BY: DESCRIPTION w DATE: WESTRIDGE WESTRIDGE PARTNERS 12991 BOUTWELL ROAD STILLWATER, MN TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION PLAN JOB No:171268 DATE: 12/6/2017 DRAWN BY: CJO DESIGNED BY: ECR SHEET: COPYRIGHT - AMI CONSULTING ENGINEERS P.A.: 2006 11/6/2017 10:47 AM z:\2017\171268 creekside crossing stillwater\7_CAD\171268-SEEDING.dwg EACH TREE MUST BE PLANTED SUCH THAT THE ROOT FLARE IS VISIBLE AT THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL. TREES WHERE THE ROOT FLARE IS NOT VISIBLE SHALL BE REJECTED. DO NOT COVER THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL WITH SOIL. ROOT BALLS DELIVERED WITH THE ROOT FLARE MORE THAN 3" BELOW THE TOP OF THE BALL WILL BE REJECTED. REMOVE ALL WIRE AND BURLAP FROM TOP 3 OF ROOT BALL OR TO 2ND RING OF WIRE BASKET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL PLASTIC WRAP, TWINE OR ROPE FROM ENTIRE BALL. EXTEND EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL SOIL TO A POINT DOWNSLOPE EQUAL TO OR LOWER IN ELEVATIONS THAN BOTTOM OF PLANTING HOLE TO ENSURE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE IN HEAVY SOILS. GRANULAR SOIL MUST BE ADDED AS A BACKFILL IN AREAS OF POOR DRAINAGE. NOTES: LL L LLL L L L L L L LLL in 2 �I L 89�s LLL. LLLL LLLLLL LLLLLLL LLLLLLLLL _ LLL LL LLLL LLLL L LLLLLLLLLLLL LLL L LLLLLLLLL LLL III LLLLLLLLLLL LLL LLLLLLLLLL ALL LLLLLLLLLL: LLL LLLLLLE�LLLLLL. L_ 0_ LLLL LLLL, L LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 8g4yLLLLLL L LL LLL HWL L L L LLLLL L LLLLL, LL LLLLLLLL LLLLL LL LL LL LLLLLL LLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LL L LL LLL LL LLLL LLLLLL LLLLLLL LLLLLLLL LL LLLLLLLLLLLLL. L LLL LLLLLLLLLL LLLLL LL L LIZCrLLLLLLLL, LLL ' LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLL L LLLLLLLLLLLL I LL LLLLLL LLLLL LLLLLLLL LLLL LLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL LL L L L LLLL LLLLLL LLL LL L, LL LL LLLLLLL L LLLLLLL LLLLLLLL LLL.. LLLLLL.LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLL LLLLLL LL LLL LL LLLLL. LLLLLL LLL L LLLL. L LLL L_LL�� LL LLLLL �� •—'� L . ► L L.LL LLLLLLLL gg4♦ , LLL PoLLLLL\LLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLL L LLLL1— I �► LL LL LLL LLLLL LLLLLL L LLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL I I I 9 L LLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL /Z 44 L.LLLLLLLLLL_ LLLLLLLLLLL. LLL- LLLLLLL LLLLL LLL LL I �9 LL LL LLLLLLLL L LLLL- LL, L LLLL LLLLLLLLLLLL L LLLLLL -.S.L LL. LL _ LLLL LLL 89 LLLL LZ'( 9Q� LLLLLLLLL L LLLLL _ LL --�®7 LLL LL L 9 LLL L_ LLLLLLL LLLLL. • LLLLL LL t L LLL +. LLL_LL�L-LLLLLLLL LLLLLLL LQiLLLLL L L ®®/�/®®Areaer®®I/% f L mormvoneer� ��I LLLL=���� LLLLLLLL �, LL 46, kir ��I�L AV MULCH AS SPECIFIED, DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS PLANTING. DIG HOLE FOR PLANTING ROOT BALL. SCARIFY THE SIDES AND BOTTOM OF THE HOLE BEFORE PLACING THE TREE IN THE PLANTING 2 HOLE. BACKFILL 3 WITH SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW AS SPECIFIED FOR THE SPECIFIC SOIL CONDITION ENCOUNTERED AND WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS. BACKFILL REMAINING 3 WITHIN 48 HOURS AND CONSTRUCT 4" HIGH EARTH SAUCER BEYOND EDGE OF ROOT BALL AND WATER THOROUGHLY. 1" TO 6" DEEPER THAN ROOTBALL TAMP SOIL AROUND BASE OF ROOT BALL FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT. PLACE ROOT BALL ON FIRM UNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL. 1. DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO -DOMINANT LEADERS, AND BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. SOME INTERIOR TWIGS AND LATERAL BRANCHES MAY BE PRUNED. HOWEVER DO NOT REMOVE THE TERMINAL BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN. 2. SET TREE PLUMB AND MAINTAIN THROUGHOUT WARRANTY PERIOD. REMOVE ALL FLAGGING AND LABELS 3. DURING THE SPRING PLANTING SEASON, ANY EVERGREEN PLANT DELIVERED WITH NEW GROWTH IN ADVANCE STAGE OF CANDLING OUT WILL BE REJECTED. EVERGREEN TREES NOT FULLY BRANCHED FROM BOTTOM TO TOP WILL BE REJECTED AND THOSE WITH TERMINAL LEADERS EXCEEDING 300 MM (12") IN LENGTH WILL ALSO BE REJECTED. 4. STAKE TREES ONLY AS SPECIFIED A THE DIRECTION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 5. WRAP TREE TRUNKS ONLY AS SPECIFIED AT THE DIRECTION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 6. SET TOP OF ROOT BALL FLUSH TO GRADE OR 1-2 IN. HIGHER IN SLOWLY DRAINING SOILS. 7. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING PERCOLATION RATES PRIOR TO PLANTING. NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY POTENTIAL DRAINAGE ISSUED PRIOR TO FINAL PLANTING. INSTALL APPROVED DRAINAGE MATERIALS AS DIRECTED. 700 I EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE EACH TREE MUST BE PLANTED SUCH THAT THE ROOT FLARE IS VISIBLE AT THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL. TREES WHERE THE ROOT FLARE IS NOT VISIBLE SHALL BE REJECTED. DO NOT COVER THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL WITH SOIL. ROOT BALLS DELIVERED WITH THE ROOT FLARE MORE THAN 3" BELOW THE TOP OF THE BALL WILL BE REJECTED. REMOVE ALL WIRE AND BURLAP FROM TOP 3 OF ROOT BALL OR TO 2ND RING OF WIRE BASKET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL PLASTIC WRAP, TWINE OR ROPE FROM ENTIRE BALL. NOTES: LLLLLLLLLLLL 5'UFT L tiara NA L LL LL L L-L. LLLLLLL LLLLLLLL- LZLZL L-LLLLL LLLLL L LLLL-LL LLLLLL LL-LLLL LL LLLLL-LLLLLLL LL-LLL 909 JL LLLLLLLLLL. L LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL L LLL LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL_Lik=ttL_T LLLL LLLLL. LLLL LCCCLI LLLLLLLLLLLLLL L LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL L/LLLLLLLL►LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLL LL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL .L,L LLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL�6LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLI_LL LLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL- LLLLLLL 1 LL LL LLLLLLL LLL L LL L LL LLL LL L L LLLL LLL 1835 SQ ARE FT LL LLL LLL CREE IDE CROSSING LL LLLLLLLLL L LLLLLLLLLL LLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL L LLLL LLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLL LLLL mm ---�-� A� LLLLLL �, MULCH AS SPECIFIED, DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS PLANTING. DIG HOLE FOR PLANTING ROOT BALL. SCARIFY THE SIDES AND BOTTOM OF THE HOLE BEFORE PLACING THE TREE IN THE PLANTING HOLE. BACKFILL 3 WITH SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW AS SPECIFIED FOR THE SPECIFIC SOIL CONDITION ENCOUNTERED AND WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS. BACKFILL REMAINING 3 WITHIN 48 HOURS AND CONSTRUCT 4" HIGH EARTH SAUCER BEYOND EDGE OF ROOT BALL AND WATER THOROUGHLY. TAMP SOIL AROUND BASE OF ROOT BALL FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT. PLACE ROOT BALL ON FIRM UNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL. DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO -DOMINANT LEADERS, AND BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. SOME INTERIOR TWIGS AND LATERAL BRANCHES MAY BE PRUNED. HOWEVER DO NOT REMOVE THE TERMINAL BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN. 2. SET TREE PLUMB AND MAINTAIN THROUGHOUT WARRANTY PERIOD. REMOVE ALL FLAGGING AND LABELS 3. STAKE TREES ONLY AS SPECIFIED A THE DIRECTION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 4. SET TOP OF ROOT BALL FLUSH TO GRADE OR 1-2 IN. HIGHER IN SLOWLY DRAINING SOILS. 5. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING PERCOLATION RATES PRIOR TO PLANTING. NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY POTENTIAL DRAINAGE ISSUED PRIOR TO FINAL PLANTING. INSTALL APPROVED DRAINAGE MATERIALS AS DIRECTED. 6. IF PLANT IS SHIPPED WITH A CONTAINER AROUND THE ROOTBALL, SLICE SIDES OF CONTAINER AND REMOVE COMPLETELY. USE FINGERS OR SMALL HAND TOOLS TO PULL ROOTS OUT OF THE OUTER LAYER OF POTTING SOIL, THEN CUT OR PULL APART ANY CIRCLING ROOTS. 7. TO IMPROVE TRANSPLANTING SUCCESS, THE FOLLOWING VARIETIES SHOULD BE SPRING PLANTED ONLY: BIRCH, BLUE BEECH, ELM, GINKGO, IRONWOOD, OAK, PAGODA DOGWOOD, POPLAR, PRUNUS SP, RED MAPLE, AND WILLOW 8. SPACE TREES ACCORDING TO PLANS 701 I DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE L LLL LLLLL LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLL LLLLLLL LL LLLLLLL LLLLLLLL LLLLL_LLLLL_LLLLLLLLLLL I LLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL L LLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLL L LLLLLLLLLL\\LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LL LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL LLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLL L-CCZ LLLLLLLL L LLL L LLLLLL LLLLLL L1-L LLLLLLLLLLLLLL L LLL�LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLL LLLLLLLL LLLLLLL LLL LLLLLL LLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL LL LLLLLLLL L LLL LLLLLLL L. LL-LL LLLLLL --L,L LLLLLL LLLLL - LLLLLLLL LL.L LLLL-LLLLLLLLL L LL LLLLL-LLLL L LLLLL-LLLLL L-L_LL L LLLLLL LLLL LLL LL LL LLL L LLL LLLL LL L LLLLLLLLL L. L L L L L L LLLL L L4Z L� LL LLL LLLLLLL LLL LLLL\LLL LLLL LL LLLL LLL LLLLLLL. LLLLLLLL LL LLL LLLL LL I LLLLL LLLLL LLLLLLLLL LLLL LL LLLLLLLL �L LLLLLLLLLLL LLL LL L L LLLLLLLLL ► L LLLLLLL s L L \L L L L LL LLL LLL CLL LLLLLL L LLLLL ► LLLLL L LL LL LMEI LLLL L■ L LL LL LL� LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLCL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL L L L LLL LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLaLLLLL LLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLL_LLLLL LLLLLL _ L LL LL LLL LL LLL LLLLLLLLLL LLL LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLL L LL LLLLLLLLLLLLL\\ LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLkL� LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL. LLI I IILLIIIII� L LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLL LL. LLLLLLLLL LLLLL LLLLL IIIII LLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLL LLLLL LLLL L L LLLL LLLL LLL LLL LL LL LL LL LLL LLL LLL 1835 SQUARE FT L LLL 1LLLLLLLLLLLL LL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LL L- L �'IL LLLLLLL LLLLLLL LL,LL�LLLLL�L�LtL-L LLL J._L1 LLLLLLLLLLLL�LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLL _LLL LLLd-LL LLLLLrt�L LLLLLL LLL LLLL LLLLLLLLLLLL LLt_LLLI4LLLLLL�,,L tL- LC LLLL LLrLLLLLLLLLL�LLII L LL ��� �► L-L-C L7-tLL-L±LLLLLLLLLLLL LL..eLLLL,y�� 1 L LLLLLL TREE SCHEDULE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ACER RUBRUM RED MAPLE 2" B&B ACER SACCHARUM 'FALL FIESTA' FALL FIESTA SUGAR MAPLE 2 B&B ACER SACCHARUM 'FALL FIESTA' FALL FIESTA SUGAR MAPLE 2.5" B&B ACER X FREEMANII AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE 2 B&B ACER X FREEMANII 'SIENNA' SIENNA GLEN MAPLE 2" B&B BETULA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH 10' B&B BETULA POPULIFOLIA WHITESPIRE BIRCH 10' B&B GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS VAR. INERMIS 'SKYCOLE' SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST 2" B&B POPULUS TREMULOIDES QUAKING ASPEN #25 QUERCUS ELLIPSOIDALIS NORTHERN PIN OAK 1 " QUERCUS RUBRA NORTHERN RED OAK #25 QUERCUS RUBRA NORTHERN RED OAK 2.5" B&B ABIES BALSAMEA BALSAM FIR 6' B&B PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 6' B&B PICEA PUNGENS COLORADO SPRUCE 6' B&B TILIA AMERICANA AMERICAN LINDEN 2" B&B PINUS STROBUS EASTERN WHITE PINE 6' B&B BUILDER OR OWNER WILL PLANT 5 TREES FROM THE ABOVE TABLE PER LOT. TREE SUVVARY EXISTING AND REMOVAL TREE SUMMARY EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES FROM SURVEY 194 35% REMOVAL ALLOWED PER CODE 68 TREES TO REMAIN PER CODE 126 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN 58 REPLACEMENT TREES NEEDED 68 TREES PLANTING SUMMARY 3 BOULEVARD TREES PER LOT PER CODE 42 ADDITIONAL 5 TREES PER LOT 70 TOTAL PROPOSED TREES TO BE PLANTED 112 POST DEVELOPMENT TREE COUNT 170 LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL LL LLL ►1 I I LL L L ►L. L►L. .L. L. L 3034 ,L. L►LL LL. LLL• m L LL L LLL L L LLLL LLL _LLL - LLL - LL °0' L -L I La _LLL - LLL nl -LLL - LLL _LLL LLLL LLLL LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL LLLLFLL \ LLLLLL LLLLLL LLLLL LLLLL ' LLLLLL LLLLLI_LL LLLL LL LLLLL LLLL %IIL L F LLLZLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLL LLLLL LLLLLL LLLLL1 LLLLLL LLLLLL LLLLLL LLLLLLL LLLLLLL LLLLLLL LLLLL LLLLL L. LLLL L LLLL LL LLL LLLLLL L► LLL LLL LLL LEGEND: JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJ Know what's below. CaII before you dig. L LLLLLLLL LLLL LLL LLL LLLL LLLL LLL LL 30 60 SCALE IN FEET EXISTING TREE HIGH MAINTENANCE TURF SEED STATE SEED MIX 25-151 WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CAT3N DRY SWALE/POND SEED STATE SEED MIX. 33-262 SOIL BORINGS SOD PROPOSED TREE FALL FIESTA SUGAR MAPLE IN BLVD (3 PER LOT) (SEE DETAIL 701) STATE LAW: 48 HOURS BEFORE EXCAVATING OR DEMOLISHING BUILDINGS, CALL 811 FOR FIELD LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES. THIS SERVICE LOCATES UTILITY OWNED LINES BUT NOT PRIVATE LINES. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED. THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) MUST BE DETERMINED BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. f ERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REP REPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT//�PERVI THAT I AM A DULY LICE / UNDER THE 4/ {{��OF 6: Fj'� ME. i) V��'�/ C �� CQOC/ /iDy SIGNATURE: /C DATE: : 466 REV. BY: DESCRIPTION w DATE: WESTRIDGE WESTRIDGE PARTNERS 12991 BOUTWELL ROAD STILLWATER, MN TREE REPLACEMENT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN JOB No:171268 DATE: 12/6/2017 DRAWN BY: CJO DESIGNED BY: ECR SHEET: December 7, 2017 City of Stillwater Planning Commission 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Case number CPC 2017-61 WestRidge Development Preliminary Plat and Zoning Requests at 12991 Boutwell Road Dear Planning Commission: I have reviewed the preliminary plans submitted to your office by the applicant, and I offer the following comments for your consideration: The City Code requires lots to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. The sheet titled "Preliminary Plat" dated 11-17-2017 shows dimensions of lots that would seem to indicated that lots 3,4,5 and 6 located on the west side of Creekside Crossing (Block 2) meet this minimum requirement. Using the dimensions provided on that sheet, the areas of those 5 lots calculate out to be 10,030 square feet each. However, the dimensions provided on sheet C2.0 indicated that those lots are slightly smaller and do not meet the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet (96' x 103.9' = 9974 sq. ft.). Please have the applicant rework the plan to meet minimum Code requirements. 2. Sidewalks do not appear to be shown on any of the submitted plans, and if they need to count towards maximum impervious cover, then they need to be shown and accounted for. City Code requires sidewalks on both sides of the street for the requested RA zone type, correct? 3. Complete dimensions of driveways for each lot are not indicated, and need to be accounted for if they are considered impervious cover. 4. The 25% maximum impervious cover does not seem to be adhered to. House foundation area + driveway area (+sidewalk area?) appears to exceed 25% cover for most if not all the lots. If they are deemed to be compliant, so be it, but it should be made clear to homebuyers and home builders that because these lots are sized with no margin for error (or flexibility), that any decks or patios or accessory buildings, or additions will not be allowed, and I would hope that the Planning Commision would not rule favorably to requests for the flood of variances once these homes are built. 5. Walking and bikes trails should be incorporated and shown on the plans, if nothing else than for future reference and extensions to 75th Street to the south and the State's Browns Creek Trail to the north. 6. The new Creekside Crossing street extension meets Boutwell Road at an awkward angle, not parallel to the existing Creekside. Shouldn't the new Creekside extension be exactly in -line with the existing road? The turning radii onto Boutwell is larger also. 7. Some trees numbered on plan EX-3A do not show up in the table on sheet EX-3B, including: 3015, 3016, 3017. Please deny the applicant approval to proceed until all Code issues and and any other issues are addressed, corrected and reflected in future documents submitted to the Planning Commission. Thank you. Stuart Rauvola 12955 Boutwell Road North Stillwater, MN 55082 sturauv@gmail.com Stillwater H F ® q' N P R F O+ R.. I N N F S O 1 R PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 13, 2017 CASE NO.: 2017-62 APPLICANT: Browns Creek West, LLC, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances to develop an 11 unit condominium complex on the vacant property located at 107 3rd Street North, at the Northeast corner of the intersection of 3rd Street North and Myrtle Street West ZONING: Commercial Business District / CBD Height Overlay COMP PLAN: Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND In 2009 the HAF Group applied for a Special Use Permit and associated variances to construct a new post office on the subject property. While an 8' variance to the height for a tower feature, it was limited to the steeple/tower area. Additional variances were granted Case No. 2017-62 CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 2 of 10 for the construction of the structure to be located 12' from the southern property line and 15' from the western property line. All approved variances were contingent on the development of the structure as proposed. In 2016 the applicant, in coordination with Trinity Lutheran Church, submitted a request to rezone this land to the Central Business District's Bluffside Height Overly District. This action was denied by the City Council at the recommendation of the Planning Commission and City staff. SPECIFIC REQUEST Browns Creek West LLC has applied for: 1. A Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of an 11-unit condo complex on this site. All units will be contained in a single building. 2. Variances necessary for the construction of the condo building. The following associated variances have been requested: City Code Section 31-403(b)(5)i, CBDBT, Freestanding Building • A 10' variance to the 35' maximum height of a freestanding building in the CBDBT, for a 45' tall structure as measured from 3rd Street North; and • A 1.5 story variance to the three story maximum height of a freestanding building in CBDBT for a 4 story building that includes an underground parking level. City Code Section 31-317(c), Massing Regulations • A 15' variance to the 15' Front Yard setback for the construction of a 5' tall retaining wall on the southern property line, adjacent to Myrtle Street West; and • A 5' variance to the 15' Front Yard setback for the construction of a 4' deep architectural component and garage entrance adjacent to Myrtle Street West; and • A 10' variance to the 20' combined Side Yard Setback for the construction of the building and projecting balcony spaces; and • A 15' variance to the 20' Rear Yard Setback for the construction of the building. City Code Section 31-514, Subd. 3(a), Projection into required yard areas • A 2' variance to the 3' maximum yard distance projection for necessary steps adjacent to 3rd Street North PROPOSAL DETAILS The specific proposal includes: • Four stories of residential units that includes: o The first story, off of 3rd Street North, would include: Case No. 2017-62 CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 3 of 10 • Two, approximately 1,200 square foot, one bedroom units. These units would each have a deck, one facing to the north and the other to the east. ■ One, approximately 2,000 square foot, two bedroom and two bathroom unit with east facing balcony. ■ One, approximately 2,500 square foot, two bath unit with an east/southern facing balcony o The second and third stories would each contain three units with associated balconies. While one of the units would be approximately 2,000 square feet, the other two bedroom, two bath units would be approximately 2,500 square feet. o The fourth story would include an (at least) two bedroom, two bath unit with its own balcony. This unit is approximately 3,000 square feet • There would be a centralized commons area with two sets of stairs and an elevator. The elevator and both stair wells are proposed to go to the fourth story where there would be common roof access on the south. The north roof access would be for mechanical equipment. ■ As indicated, all parking is proposed to be located underground. There will also be storage areas in the basement. This is not considered a story as greater than half of the wall spaces are subsurface. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS Section 31-207 indicates in approving a Special Use Permit, it must be determined by the Planning Commission that: 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. Zoning Code The zoning chapter requirements applicable to this Special Use Permit (SUP) are: Use: Residences of all classes are permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the Central Business District. Throughout the latter part of the 2000s the City saw the addition of nearly 3000 residential units to the community core. This condo building would function the same as Terra Springs, Mills on Main, and the Lofts in that there would be a common association to maintain all jointly owned areas but that each condo unit would be independently owned. While the building will be situated directly adjacent to a single family residential structure, there are multiple family uses in the converted church at the southwest corner of this intersection. Additionally, the next residential property to the north and located Case No. 2017-62 CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 4 of 10 on the same side of the same block is zoned Medium Density Residential). While the use is consistent with the neighborhood but, Building Official Cindy Shilts has indicated the building will need to have a fire suppression system installed and meet all building, plumbing, mechanical/fuel gas, accessibility, and energy codes. Density: Generally speaking, density in the Central Business District is governed by the property's ability to meet the development controls in place. Average densities in the Central Business District vary: Address Common Name Residential Density 610 Main Street North Terra Springs 17 units/acre +/- 501 Main Street North The Lofts of Stillwater 43 units/acre +/- 350 Main Street North Mills on Main 38 units/acre +/- 102+ 3rd Street South Steeple Towne 34 units/acre +/- 101 Olive Street East Runk Condos 27 units/acre +/- 3013rd Street North Val Croix 32 units/acre +/- A density of 31 units per acre exists when comparing the three closest condo buildings (Steeple Towne, Runk Condos, and Val Croix); the total average of the six largest condo buildings is 32 units per acre. The applicant is proposed a density of (approximately) 35 units per acre. Therefore, while the 11 units is generally consistent with condo developments in the neighborhood and the CBD, not all development controls (such as height) can be met. Ten units would result in a density of 32 units/acre. Off -Street Parking and Loading: The following off-street parking spaces are required to be placed onsite: Use Requirement Units Total Parking Required Multiple Family Units 1.5 spaces per unit (one of whichh needs to be covered) 11 16.5 spaces (rounded to 17 spaces) Guests 1 space for every three units 11 3.66 spaces (rounded to 4 spaces) Total 21 spaces The applicant is proposing the creation of 24 onsite parking spaces in an underground facility. The plan does require the removal of seven quasi -public parking spaces on and adjacent to this property. The northerly access on to rooftop of the municipal parking ramp would remain open. However, modifications to the parking lot design and curb would need to be made. City Engineer Shawn Sanders has indicated a condition of approval that unused areas of the parking lot and drive lanes (public and private) shall have the Case No. 2017-62 CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 5 of 10 asphalt and the curbs removed and restored with turf, except the area where concrete sidewalk should be added. Traffic and Circulation: No traffic study or circulation assessment has been submitted for this project. However, in order to capitalize on the grade change and provide for underground, onsite parking, access at Myrtle Street is the only viable option. The parking entrance/exit, centered on the property, will be located approximately 45' from the intersection. City Engineering staff has indicated the property owner should explore shifting the egress point to the east. Currently there is a 20' grade separation between the driveway of the property at 110 Myrtle Street East and the subject property. The current plan proposes a five foot retaining wall to be located on the eastern property line. If the garage access point was shifted to the east, the retaining wall would need to be larger, thereby creating greater site line challenges for the adjacent property owner (to the east). Stormwater Management Practices: Given its proximity to the adjacent property and the topography, City Engineer Shawn Sanders has indicated: • no storm water runoff can drain on to the adjacent property to the east; and • stormwater from the new building shall be connected to an existing storm sewer pipe; and • the existing storm sewer in the parking lot shall be removed by the developer. Projects within the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization (MSCWMO) must meet the full review requirements of the MSCWMO Plan. The project does trigger full MSCWMO review and it is likely the project will qualify for flexible treatment options that preclude stormwater infiltration. Approval of the SUP will be contingent on MSCWMO stormwater management plan review and approval. Design Review: The applicant has not submitted a Design Permit for review by the Heritage Preservation Commission. This creates a challenge in the review and approval processes. If the Planning Commission and Council find the use consistent with the standards set forth for Use Permitting and finds practical difficulty warrants the issuance of variances, it can lead to a false impression of approvals granted for a design that has not been determined to be consistent with the Downtown Design Review District guidelines. Therefore, staff would recommend the applicant submitt for review and approval a Design Permit prior to the Planning Commission acting on the variance(s) or that the variance is contingent on an approved Design Permit. The Design Permit will need to include significantly greater detail than is currently shown in the plans. This will include, but not be limited to, materials, color, lighting, and signage. Case No. 2017-62 CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 6 of 10 Landscaping and signage: No landscaping or signage plan has been proposed. The Comprehensive Plan calls for primary landscaping improvements along Myrtle Street West and secondary landscaping improvements along Third Street North. Landscaping should be required on all elevations, while preserving clear corners at the intersection. A condition of approval should include the submittal of a landscape and signage plan to the HPC for review and approval of a Design Permit prior to the issuance of the building permit. Comprehensive Plan & Relevant Area Plans The 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2030 CP) indicates Downtown Stillwater could support up to 250 housing units by 2018. Though the plan notes there is a demand for more units priced under $250,000 as well as for rental, land and construction costs have driven up home prices in the downtown;. The 2030 CP further indicates aging baby boomers and empty nesters will continue to trade down to smaller, more efficient units. The 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom designed units are similar to most of the units developed in Terra Springs (2004-2008), the Lofts of Stillwater (2005), and Stillwater Mills (2006). However, omitting the largest and smallest units, the average size of the proposed units is 2,240 square feet. The average two bedroom, between all three aforementioned condo complexes, is 1,550 square feet. That said, since the date of adoption of the memo, no additional housing units were created in the Central Business District. Therefore, the construction of 11 new residential units will help support the 2030 CP findings of increasing housing units downtown. Other Lawful Regulations Condominium residential units in the Central Business District generally do not conflict with other lawful regulations. VARIANCE 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: Case No. 2017-62 CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 7 of 10 The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose of the Front, Side, and Rear Yard Setbacks, as well as projection into required yard areas, is to provide for unencumbered space to regulate proportionality and to provide for adequate infiltration, landscaping, and design elements consistent with the historic core. The proposed setback variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning chapter as they help ensure design consistency with historic development patterns on the properties in the vicinity, and are allowing for adequate landscaping and infiltration on a largely developed lot. The purpose of the CBD Height Overlay District is to preserve and enhance the essential character of the downtown and that structures be limited in height in order for structures close to the river not to rise above the height of structures farther from the river. This helps create a stepped -pattern in the "downtown bowl". At 45' in height to the deck of the mansard roof, the total height of the building will be 50' to the very top of the structure. The height will be taller than the (now vacant) property to the west (with a maximum height of 2 stories and 35') as well as the main portions (up to the cupolas) of the two historic churches in the vicinity. The height variances are not in general harmony with the Zoning Code. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. With certain conditions, such as landscaping, the setback variances could be found to be consistent. However, the property is located on two prominent view corridors, as noted on the Gateway and Viewsheds Figure in Chapter 6 of the Downtown Plan. A 2030 CP policy is to "continue to refine and administer design guidelines so that the integrity of the existing and surrounding buildings is maintained and new development is of a height, size, and design compatible with the best examples of the existing development". When combined with the objectives to "reinforce...landmarks, steeples, and significant structures along gateway corridors," it is clear the height variance is not consistent 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 use of the property for residences with onsite, underground parking has been shown to be reasonable in this location. Case No. 2017-62 CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 8 of 10 The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and Setbacks in the Central Business District are nearly nonexistent for many properties. However, the modern zoning and building codes suggests separation between buildings and from the building to the street is desirable. As adjacent property is setback and not built right to the property line, the uniqueness is aiming to find reasonable setbacks given the existing setbacks, the topography and the staggered nature of the setbacks on Myrtle Street West. Regarding the maximum height variances, certain improvements integral to the building are allowed to project above the roofline and the maximum allowable height. This includes elevator bulkheads as well as stairwells. The applicant has shown what these three components would look like if they were carried above the roofline of a three-story building. However, elevator access and stairwells to access rooftops are not customary nor required; each unit does have balcony or patio space with views of the river. Additionally, if the rooftop is not used as communal space, the building code would only require a single access point. It is the desire of the applicant to not only have communal rooftop access but to also have the penthouse suite. While argument can be made about the economics of the development site, economics alone cannot be grounds for granting a variance. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The addition of any structure on this site will alter the character of the neighborhood. However, a design that conforms to the Zoning Code and the Downtown Design Review District guidelines would not significantly alter the character of the locality. As the development is not proposing to meet the maximum height allowances and the Heritage Preservation Commission has not reviewed the design, the current design will alter the essential character of the locality. PUBLIC COMMENT Comments have been received from Dick Sjoberg, property owner at 102 3rd Street North. Mr. Sjoberg expresses concern for the height of the proposed structure, its impact to the established historic structures (particularly the churches and their steeples), traffic concerns at the three -stop intersection, as well as variances to the property's setbacks. He requests the Planning Commission deny the application, requesting a redesigned structure that supports a better transition in this neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES Case No. 2017-62 CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 9 of 10 As the request to extend the height by greater than 10% of the maximum allowable height in the CBDBTD, the City Council must be the final authority on deciding upon the request1. However, the Planning Commission has the authority to act on the Conditional Use Permit, reserving the right to forward a recommendation to the City Council in circumstances where accountability can be an issue. A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the 11-unit residential condo proposal to be consistent with the provisions of the CUP process, the Commission could move to approve the CUP with or without conditions. B. Table C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds practical difficulties do exist for the 11-unit to have specific Front, Side and Rear Yard variances, they move to approve these variances, with or without conditions. If the Planning Commission finds practical difficulties do exist for the 11-unit residential condo to be four stories in height, they could forward to the City Council a favorable recommendation of approval, with or without conditions. If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make determination of practical difficulty and compliance with the Conditional Use Permit, it could continue the review for additional information. If the Planning Commission finds no practical difficulty exists and the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of the CUP regulations, the Commission should deny the CUP and forward to the City Council a recommendation of denial. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial and determine whether or not the denial is with or without prejudice. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION As noted, residential condo complexes in downtown Stillwater are uses found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all other relevant area plans. While the use is consistent with the Zoning Code, not all development controls are proposed to be met, certain variances are requested, and the design has not been reviewed and approved by the City's Heritage Preservation Commission. Therefore, staff finds the Case No. 2017-62 is not consistent with the provisions set forth for Conditional Use Permits, practical difficulty cannot be determined for setback variances, and would recommend tabling consideration until after the City Council has acted on the height variances and a Design Permit has been submitted for review and approval by the Heritage Preservation Commission. On the basis the application in not in harmony with the general purposes of the Zoning Code, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, not has established practical difficulty for 1 City Code Section 31- 31-208(g) Case No. 2017-62 CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 10 of 10 the addition of the fourth story, staff would recommend the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial, with prejudice, of both height variances. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Submission (ARCHNET) Certificate of Survey Site Plans (2 pages) Floor Plans (5 pages) Elevations (2 pages) Views (9 pages) Public Comment (2 pages) ,e ? 31 \ !� 'c 21 �% P2 ••, •. ' r P �� 111 " w' c ,I / yy��r J III, Orli* v If, r ,: \- G :�E'r 'I '� ^' ` s� a .' its \'A illi......._ '✓�!' t , ; S �� DTI!'` �� • • M a m E „ r �r *C �� u n \0 ` ' The Site 1073rdStN 0 90 l'lll Birthplace W Location aer of Minnesota r� E 180 t Map 360 Feet • � O O W 1V% °f Z ,��� 2 ,�' General Site Location CP ' ill yr 1 1 is , �1 , 0. 4 t ,.a Born !lt ae u . tsi_v1T��'► • III , /•:moo pli 411 I- Iil °f1 =IIIl"' • • �• . _ .a6= i ARCHNET 333 North Main Street Suite 201 Stillwater, MN 55082 Friday, November 17, 2017 TO: Ms. Abbi Wittman, City Planner, & Planning Commission, City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: New Residential construction at 107 Third Street North, Stillwater, MN Dear Ms. Wittman and Planning Commission Members, Architecture I Interiors Sustainable Design Phone 651/430-0606 Fax 651/430-2414 www.archnetusa.com Attached you will find design documents for a new residential structure on the northeast corner of 3rd Street North and Myrtle Street. There are currently four parcels that will be combined to create the site for an eleven unit condominium. While the site is currently in the Central Business District, it has been utilized for housing in the past, and is adjacent to a housing parcel to the east. Also, the parcel kitty-corner is a former religious building that was converted to a condominium. We feel this is an important corner in the city and requires a distinctive gateway building as indicated in recent city comprehensive planning documents. The site represents the entry to the Central Busi- ness District from the residential neighborhoods to the west, and is literally on the bluff edge of the historic commercial district. Because of the topography found on the site, the development is faced with unique difficulties that require consideration. The prominence of the site and the pressures on the use of the adjacent municipal parking ramp, indicate that underground parking for the building would be beneficial for the city, the neighborhood and the building. While the topography provides accessi- bility for such an underground parking structure, unfortunately the access needs to occur on a fairly steep section of Myrtle Street, and creates an elevated pedestal for the rest of the building that in the end, effects the overall building height. We feel that the overall massing and shape of the building is critical to creating a distinctive building worthy of this prominent site. For that reason, the freestanding towers typically found protruding from the roof deck for stairs and elevators have been enveloped into a partial fourth story. Although we are asking for a variance for this portion of our building in the num- ber of stories (4 where 3 are allowed) and the building height (43'5" where 35' is allowed) for the des- ignated CBD Blufflop zone, we would be in full compliance in a similar zone, CBD Bluffside, (4 stories and 45') a zone with many of the characteristics found on our site. The building has been set back from property lines in a manner consistent with adjacent structures and other buildings in the immediate area. Careful attention was given to the view angle of cars stopped on Third Street facing south, and looking for traffic coming up the hill. We feel that the de- 107 Third Street North, Stillwater Minnesota Page 1 of 2 sign, materials and colors chosen for the building are compatible with neighboring buildings while at the same time elevating the character of the area. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request, and we look forward to meeting with you and answering any questions you may have. Respectfully, .-ram I -••. . • Roger Tomten Associate, ARCHNET Additions and alterations to the WATER STREET INN, Stillwater Minnesota Page 2of 2 54 D 7 D 57 D v57 57 D D D v b D D v D D v b D 0U v D 26 h UG v v v D v D 57 D v LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 751.5TW — / ---� I D 1 UG Ub UG STONE WALL CONC. ALL FOUND „IN _-MARKED RLS 25718 748.8 UG UG UC UG D 747.4 v UG UG UG UG r 1 / ♦ / 746.9TW UG UG > rr / II Ll L 'lI UG The following Legal Description is as shown on Stewart Title Guaranty Company Issued by its Agent, Land Title, Inc. Title Commitment No. 545351, dated September 21 st, 2016. Parcel A West 90 feet of Lot 1 5, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel B: West 90 feet of Lot 14, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel C: The South 45 feet of the West 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel D: The North 5 feet of the West 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Abstract Property UG 57 CONC. WALL • UGUG SAN NH RIM=746.7 INV=736.1 V 3RD r21 CO. 151.80 co OF THE WVL'i' F10.00 FEET OF LOTS 16, 15 & 14. NOTE: TOPOGRAPHY TAKEN FROM SURVEY DATED 1-23-13. NO i DITIONAL SURVEYING TO DATE. 152.07 S 16°53'21 "E OU 0U 0U OU UG EASEMENT NOTES: UG UG UG UG > > UG UG UG UG STREET The following exceptions appear on the Stewart Title Guaranty Company Issued by its Agent, Land Title, Inc. Title Commitment No. 545351, dated September 21 st, 2016 There are not survey related items shown on Schedule BII of said commitment. UG BLOCK WALL CONC. WALL UG U 742.9 UG /3t5.£STW UG m UG UG UG > > NORTH EXISTING PARKING: UG UG > > UG - FOUND JLM MARKED RLS 25718 21 -- CATCH BASIN RI5=741.5 LG 0 THERE ARE 7 PARTIAL PARKING STALLS DESIGNATED ON THIS PARCEL INCLUDING 0 HANDICAP STALLS. SURVEY NOTES: UG OU UG 1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE. 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER ONE LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTM ENT. 3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. C5 Cs 12 A A A A 15 UG A A A A A A A A A U A A A A A A A A A A A —732 A SAN MH - RI5=737.3 INV=724.3 STS NH - RIM=740.1 A UGA 15 U ID AREA: OU A A A 5— (5 734� 736 73a 740 UG UG UG TOTAL AREA AS SHOWN = 1 3,674 SQ.FT. UG UG UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPROMISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKET NUMBER(S) XXXXXXX. SOME MAPS WERE RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! Gopher State One CaII TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 LEGEND FOUND MONUMENT 1 /2" IP • MARKED RLS 1 5480 • SET 1 /2" IRON PIPE MARKED RLS NO. 25718 CABLE TV PEDESTAL AIR CONDITIONER ELECTRIC MANHOLE ELECTRIC METER ELECTRIC PEDESTAL ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER LIGHT POLE GUY WIRE POWER POLE GAS MANHOLE GAS METER TELEPHONE MANHOLE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL SANITARY CLEANOUT SANITARY MANHOLE CATCH BASIN STORM DRAIN TV IAGI O IEIi IEPI IETI F- 0 IGMI CD ITPI Co 0 or or LIE UTV OF UT 0U UG 1230 0 DQ WATER VALVE O MS X °50.0 O 0 0 O WMI BOLLARD FLAG POLE MAIL BOX TRAFFIC SIGN UNKNOWN MANHOLE SOIL BORING SPOT ELEVATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE FLARED END SECTION STORM MANHOLE FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION HYDRANT CURB STOP WATER WELL WATER MANHOLE WATER METER POST INDICATOR VALVE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND CABLE TV UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OVERHEAD UTILITY UNDERGROUND GAS SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FENCE CURB [TYPICAL] CONTOURS DENOTES EXISTING ACCESS CONTROL AS SHOWN ON RECORD PLAT 10 20 THIRD & MYRTLE CONTACT: BROWNS CREEK WEST, LLC C/OJon Whitcomb 651-351-5005 Office 651-283-4884 CeII Jon@metroeastcre.com www.metroeastcre.com COUNTY/CITY: WASI—I I NGTON CO U IVTY CITY OF STI LLWATER VICINITY MAP O Z (NOT TO SCALE) II SITE ---- ski SC(CZ" ccs \I1 VICINITY MAP SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 30 NORTH, RANGE 20 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA REVISIONS: DATE REVISION 1 1-1 3-1 7 INITIAL ISSUE CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan 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. n Number: 25718 PROJECT LOCATION: � o� THIRD ST. N. PID#2003020420059 PID#2003020420060 PID#2003020420061 PID#2003020420169 Suite #1 6750 Stillwater Blvd. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 Fax 651.275.8976 dan@ cssurvey .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. FILE NAME PROJECT NO. SURVSTO4C ST04008C BOUNDARY/TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY - a. gra *Mg• Mr.* ♦ 1 / I 4 V.400; imr• w.monj Loseeerti IP /I°. ...- ;* a • e ./ , *fir� �� ���.#. • -", .•0 ♦• -. �.` ' P or .0, -0*...... °*".40 oir 0:0 /4.7 -4.r <0..0.. `7 :.••_ le ▪ se• je o°/* g";•0...• °ilk .i I. -0°' r . • l s.b/fts gag 4.•.i0lo `!!‘liireft.i s • r• • • s s �s • — 1,r . Vlb ii!►i.!l is fti.- !! s - -. RAMP TO MAIN FLOOR •ri!•f.111. Imp _ _ling J� RETAINING WALL & FENCE • • \—•STEPS TO MAIN FLOOR • SRO • -4-.- • i...Rip ..a s lb ila-era!`.. a!••5....11~!•r1 ��iii a iaii� / �r`.�r.► - >+ "�'�'�ry t.,!a s►a+r..� rftisCi�e+r�.yMfr�riay.�.r.l�.! if.. ra�4wi� i� 1 • / 1 1 : ,: • ♦ _. .........41 •i PROPERTY LINE RETAINING WALL & FENCE 414411 - -s.- - - SITE PLAN — GARAGE LEVEL 51 1 " = 20'—e" • i 4• 1 1\,T 1 • e LOT DIMENSIONS; 90' +/- X 150' +/- LOT AREA; 13,500 SQ.FT. +/-(0.31 ac.) rimPlannierwa 1 • 1 4 RETAIN r DRIVE ACCESS • •• I 0. 1 - -_ I I COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES V) NRT z 51 16 NOV 2017 tZ z 3RID STREET NORTH MYRTLE STREET / / SITE PLAN - GARAGE LEVEL LOT DIMENSIONS; 90' +/- X 150' +/- LOT AREA; 13,674 SQ.FT. (0.31 ac.) BUILDING AREA/COVERAGE; 10,519 / 13,674 = 77% fr Ai iL-Lji va 111111 hit < 0 IM w WW cc O z J w V) NRT S2 16 N O V 2 0 1 7 ARCHNET 9 Cn 9 0 N 0 En 5'-0" GARAGE EX1-IAUST 15 2 fro 3 17 4 NORTH STAIR ro 18 7 STORAGE 8 PARKING 24 STALLS 7L):1=1_ _Er) OBEY RA51-1 ELE TO MEGI-4ANIGAL 9 in 19 10 20 11 21 12 22 13 23 14 24 0 4'-0" 11'-0" 130'-0" c O N 15'-0" 0 1-1 in FLOOR PLAN - GARAGE Al 1 / 8„ = '_0„ 401110b- A 16k =Lij r LT) illLIJ otin I- Ec1ij w w 1- <,=-1 0 NRT Al 16 NOV 2017 ARCHNET 42'-6" 45'-0" 42'-6" LIVING NORTH DECK 4. DINI EAST DECK UNIT 113 1,230 SF UNIT IA 1,240 SF FOYER I_+ Q FOYER BEDRM. 1 IUJ.I. CCLOS. EAST DECK EAST DECK LIVING KITCHEN BATH 1 W.I. CLOS. BATH L'Y BEDRM. NORTH STAIR FOYER BEDRM. 2 UJ.I. CLOS. UNIT 2 2,110SF i LAUNDRY BATH 2 MECHANICAL COMMONS DINING 3 KITCHEN UNIT 3 2, 510 SF FOYER d BATH 2 LAL L LIVING 0 0o NDRY r BEDRM. 1 SOUTH STAIR BEDRM. 2 BATH 1 W.I. CLOS 0 N 0 0 N 00 N 5'-0" 33'-0" 10'-0" 7'-0" 30'-0" 7'-0" 10'-0" 33'-0" 130'-0" 4'-0" FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 - 4 UNITS / S" = 1 '-0" 0 in fr w 1111 utile5 0 w IMF: 15 rj w I g W W E 3 NRT A2 16 NOV 2017 ARCHNET NORTH DECK LIvING BEDRM. LAUNDRY EAST DECK DINING KITCHEN UNIT 1 2.520 SF l J ATH 2 W.I. CLOS. BATH 1 I+ I+ 0 BEDRM. 2 FOYER NORTH STAIR EAST DECK BEDRM. 1 +_I f 1 LIvING KITCHEN 0 FOYER UNIT 2 2,110 SF J ELE TO COMMONS EAST DECK DINING KITCHEN SOUTH STAIR UNIT 3 2,510 SF J BATH 2 ING L LAUNDRY BEDRM. 1 BEDRM. 2 +_I BATH 1 +I W.I. CLOS. FLOOR PLAN - LEVELS 2if3 - 3 UNITS ls" = 1'-0" fr w 1111 w 0 w IMF: 15 rj w I g W W E 3 NRT CO- /X. CON e W 1 A3 16 NOV 2017 ARCHNET PENTHOUSE ROOF DECK DECK BELOW NORTH STAIR PENTI4OUSE 2,910 SF ELEVATOR COMMONS SOUTH STAIR COMMON ROOF DECK 1i FLOOR PLAN - PENTHOUSE / Q" = 1 f—en IV la II w 0 IMF: 111111 Ew g W W 2 0 NRT LLI /X. CONe 16 NOV 2017 WEST ELEVATION AS 1 / a„ = i ,_0„ I IIIIIIIII 111111I III 111111III I C NORTH ELEVATION / a„ = 1 ,_e„ 4 EAST ELEVATION ROOF DECK ELEV. 21 '-0" THIRD FLOOR ELEV. 10'-6" SECOND FLOOR ELEV. MAIN FLOOR ELEV. SOUTH ELEVATION / a„ = 1 ,_e„ AS / a„ = ,_0„ 400, is Lai r Lik Li.E LIU Er (1) 1-11 LIU LLB 2 0 z 0 i w w 0 W X w w Cal ,45 13 N O V 2 0 1 7 SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE III1.I-II�I lIIli 1 II �S ..e�s.e�.easeaa,_,.- �----�---__—sue/ • r�r■���3ri, — 13fl=rrirTrft11r!nrit----tirwrtmxe •i!ii1flh 1111 !UI! 1�111111111111,11 1 ,!■LLL _ f� Y A& NO SCALE SOUTH EAST PERSPECTIVE NO SCALE 11 1111111I11111111 4 NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE SOUTH PERSPECTIVE AV NO SCALE A& NO SCALE fr LT} r Lik Pct 0 I= f-- Lfii Ll1 au) Lct, ,c) w Li" LL..6-7J 2 0 W X w 76 rO- A,6 13 N O V 2 0 1 7 MYRTLE STREET LOOKING NORTH EAST WITH PARTIAL FOURTH STORY MYRTLE STREET LOOKING NORTH EAST WITHOUT PARTIAL FOURTH STORY ARCHNET METRD EASTma ► 6514�°4°6 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES 3 PD) &, , IYRTIL 107 Third St N Stillwater, MN 17 NOV 2017 MYRTLE & SECOND LOOKING NORTH WEST WITH PARTIAL FOURTH STORY B 1•: MYRTLE & SECOND LOOKING NORTH WEST WITHOUT PARTIAL FOURTH STORY ARCHNET © �,■■� MD��, � � IY/R�T'L�E�, 107StiThird St N METRO 0011, EAST llwater, MN ,,,,,�,.,,,�,�.�, ,MN5 Saihoder � moRR�U3Rt, RR'Cb4Q�,COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES 17 NOV 2017 A MYRTLE & SECOND LOOKING NORTH WEST WITH PARTIAL FOURTH STORY MYRTLE & SECOND LOOKING NORTH WEST PHOTO OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ARCHNET . .- motsimile- 303 N MAY fit, SW NI fiWwla; MN sumo 65I4300SC6 METRO gillik7110, EABT- COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES MIY I TL,E 107 Third St N Stillwater, MN 17 NOV 2017 A THIRD STREET LOOKING SOUTH WITH PARTIAL FOURTH STORY THIRD STREET LOOKING SOUTH WITHOUT PARTIAL FOURTH STORY ARCHNET lem .rW1eeO., • l.lrrl4rs erstalaaik design 333 N Mds St. RN. 201 SUVw5tn, MN SSOt7 651430.0606 arcbnetusa.cum METRO 4. 0'1%6EAST��� COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES NV& IP 4Y I T'LE 107 Third St N Stillwater, MN 17 NOV 2017 MYRTLE LOOKING EAST WITH PARTIAL FOURTH STORY MYRTLE LOOKING EAST WITHOUT PARTIAL FOURTH STORY ARCHNET rtiri wastsbuiple de*. 33i N AL& SC SW. 201 StIthwtn, 64N 56017 651430.0606 archnetusa.com METRO IOU� EA9Tiwri ^' 35RD) MIY PTLE 107 Third St N Stillwater, MN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES 17 NOV 2017 r IUd tiI IU ♦f i}UV BIRDS EYE LOOKING SOUTHEAST WITH PARTIAL FOURTH STORY BIRDS EYE LOOKING SOUTH 1: WITHOUT PARTIAL FOURTH STORY ARCHNET IVi ETR ND & �, IY R�T'LL. i•kiwi�, 10Sti7lwater Third St N lMN 17 NOV 2017 _, AST „ "'"�"`"'`" MNMurwsR, W201 sHsfir" MN MON "1430archaet=ong COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES ARCHNET U® SUN u ru.wr 201 t•.l 11111410,0601 archnetusa.cutn METRO igIII` EAST + n COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES 35RD> & MIY WF LE 107 Third St N Stillwater, MN 17 NOV 2017 ARCHNET 1111 um 113 Pt Maim Se lits. 201 SOU NI 430 OW* areheebasexeue METRO 4101016, EAST wag rikv COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES 3RD &, MIYPTILE 107 Third St N Stillwater, MN 17 NOV 2017 1 From the front of the Espiscopal Church 1, _1. . . . JAM �, 1 _, .'� Ii ILA II , n~'1 N. � tip 1 1. II_,1:. .ii Lit _Zt't � , • r'r' - :'? • •., - i ..- 1 : i�fr�W11 From the front of the Espiscopal Church 2 legrctd 17 NOV 2017 Received December 8, 2017 DEC 82017 To: The Members of Stillwater's City Planning Commission Community Development Department Re: Case No. CPC/2017-62 I have received notification of the above referenced application for zoning variances for development of condominium residences on the corner of Third Street and Myrtle. I am an owner of a condominium in the Steepletowne building, also located at the intersection of Third and Myrtle Streets. It is my concern that the structure, as proposed, is overbearing for the lot size and, therefore, an over-densification of the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: 1) Despite the location of the lot being under the zoning regulations of the downtown business district, the height and footprint of the structure as proposed would be detrimental to our City's historic "Church Street" (Third St.). It would dwarf the steeple of the Steepletowne building (built in 1884), rise to the height and breadth of Trinity Lutheran Church, and visually obstruct the vista on the steep decline of Myrtle Street which serves as a gateway into our historic downtown district. 2) The developer suggests a mansard style roof to mask the mechanical necessities on the roof top, elevator shafts, etc. However, he also proposes a penthouse on that same roof top, actually creating a 5th floor on the structure by so doing. I believe the variance request is from 35 to 43 feet. However, the overall height will indeed surpass that 43 foot request if calculations are made using the roof height averaging formula. From the drawings shared with me, I can only deduce that the overall height from sidewalk level could then approach 50 feet. I understood initially it was proposed to be a 3-story structure overall. However, as drawn, it appears the largely above ground parking garage is not considered a story in and of itself. That changes the concept to a 4-story building. With the addition of the mansard roof containing a penthouse, it conceivably becomes a very imposing 5 story building. My concern is that the granting of a height variance for this proposal could set a precedence for the future and create the effect of too much structure on too small of a lot. 3) The traffic safety concerns of the proposed ingress/egress off of Myrtle Street should not go unaddressed as well. The intersection of Third and Myrtle has 3 existing stop signs, not 4. There is no space for a turn lane to be created on Myrtle Street west -bound for ease in entering the building's underground parking facility. Therefore, a vehicle entering or leaving the proposed structure must pause across a sidewalk, lower or raise a garage door, and then proceed to enter the traffic flow on the steep Myrtle incline without the benefit of a stop sign in the west -bound lane of Myrtle Street at the corner of Third. Backing out of the parking garage would be even more problematic. The proposal shows underground parking for about 24 vehicles. This traffic would be coming and going from the parking garage in very close proximity to an already accident -ridden intersection. I would suggest any other garage entry plan either off of Third Street or from the north end of the structure would lessen this impact to traffic flow and safety. 4) The request for sizeable set -back variances on the north, west, and east sides of the structure would indicate the building, as designed, is too large for the existing lot. Allowing the developer to build out to the property's furthermost perimeter sets precedence and creates aesthetic issues in this particular case, effectively allowing for 110% usage of the available property. I respectfully ask the Commission to deny the variance requests for this Case and instead to enforce the existing set -back requirements and existing height constraints in deference to the historically significant surrounding area. Although a formal buffer zone does not exist between Third Street's residential zoning and the downtown commercial district, I suggest that a smaller footprint and a lower profile for this project in this location would allow for a more suitable transition. Stillwater is very proud of its' heritage and the structures that epitomize its' past. "Church Street" plays a significant role in our City's architectural charm. Going forward, let's continue to strive to conceive, design, and implement the very best integration of the old with the new to enhance Historic Stillwater. Thank you for the opportunity to register my concerns. Dick Sjoberg Property Owner (218) 686-7578 ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 13, 2017 REGARDING: CASE NO.: 2016-64 Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) pertaining to Short Term Home Rental permitted districts and review and approval processes PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND In the beginning of 2017 the City hired consulting staff to help develop a Short Term Home Rental ordinance, allowing for this type of use in certain districts so long as they meet certain performance standards. As the ordinance has been in effect for (approximately) six months, city staff has reviewed the ordinance and determined certain modifications are needed to ensure the ordinance accurately reflects the City's intentions, provide greater clarification, as well as to streamline permit review and approval processes in instances where objections are raised. SPECIFIC ZAT REQUEST Staff is proposing the following amendments1: City Code Section 31-514.1, Subd. 5(B). Type B - Unhosted Short Term Rental 1(v)a. If objections are received, then the license request must be considered by the planning commission. 1. The planning commission must hold a hearing, to which neighbors within the above defined notification area arc invited to offer comment review the license request and all objections, as a new business, item at their next regularly scheduled meeting. 2. After considering the license request and hearing comments from the neighbors, the planning commission may either approve a one year provisional license, with or without conditions, or deny the license request. 1 Strikcthrough text represents proposed deletions. Underlined text represents proposed additions. STHR Amendments CPC 12/13/2017 Page 2 of 4 City Code Section 31-514.1, Subd. 6. Zoning District. Short Term Home Rentals are permitted, with an approved license from the City of Stillwater, in the following Zoning Districts: A. Residential Zoning Districts. Type A and B Short Term Home Rentals are allowed by city license in all Residential Zoning Districts. Type C Short Term Home Rentals require both a license and a are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in all Residential Zoning District:,. Type D Short Term Home Rentals (aka Bed & Breakfasts) are allowed by city license in the RCL Zoning District and by Special Use Permit in the RB and RCM Zoning Districts B. Commercial Zoning Districts. Type A, B and C Short Term Home Rentals are permitted by city license in the CBD Zoning District. are allowed by city license in the CBD Zoning District. They also require a Special Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit. If a Special or Conditional Use Permit already exists for the property, one specifically for the Short Term Home Rental use is not required for Type A and B Short Term Home Rentals. A Conditional Use Permit specifically for the Short Term Home Rental is required prior to issuance of a Type C license. City Code Section 31-325, Allowable Uses in Non -Residential Districts by adding: ALLOWABLE USES ZONING DISTRICTS CA CBD VC BP-C BP-0 BP -I CRD PA PWFD PROS Short Term Home Rental;, Type A and,-B, C p2.5 Short Term Home Rental; Type CUP C P = Permitted use SUP = Use permitted with a Special Use Permit CUP = Use permitted with a Conditional Use Permit PUD = Use permitted with a Planned Unit Development Permit A = Accessory use ACC = Allowed as an accessory improvement to an allowed use located on or adjacent to the site Blank cell in table means that the use is NOT allowed. 25 If Type A or B Short Term Home Rental is proposed in a residence where no Special or Conditional Use Permit already exists for the property, then the property owner must obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the short term rental residence prior to the issuance of a Short Term Home Rental License. DESCRIPTION STHR Amendments CPC 12/13/2017 Page 3 of 4 In the existing STHR ordinance, objections to a Type B license would necessitate a public hearing, though that was not intended to be the process for Planning Commission review. The belief was that the original neighborhood notice would be sufficient. However, as public hearings have specific legal noticing and timeline requirements, the strict application would place undue hardship on a property owner, sometimes extending their application review by greater than 45 days. Additionally, permit Types A, B, and C are currently listed as uses permitted by right in the Central Business District. However, residences of all classes as well as hotels, motels and other lodging establishments require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Therefore, staff is recommending to continue to allow for Type A and B by licenses as an outright permitted use but only when a Conditional or Special Use Permit (C/SUP) is in place for the residence. This would be the case for many of the condominium projects, since the condominium project itself required a Special Use Permit before it was allowed to be constructed. If no C/SUP exists, the property owner would be required to obtain a CUP prior to the issuance of the license. All Type C Short Term Home Rentals would be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the Short Term Home Rental the same as similar uses in this zoning district. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the provisions of the ZAT regulations, the Commission could forward a favorable recommendation of approval to the Council. 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 could deny the application. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial and state whether or not the denial is with prejudice. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The Zoning Code indicates that prior to the adoption of an ordinance amending any of the provisions of the Zoning Code, the City Council must find that: (1) The public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment; and (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. STHR Amendments CPC 12/13/2017 Page 4 of 4 Clear, timely, and efficient permitting process is a public necessity. The general community welfare is furthered when City requires Conditional Use Permits consistent with like uses. Additionally on May 2, 2017, the City Council found the (then) proposed Short Term Home Rental ordinance was in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan and adopted Ordinance No. 1093. As this Zoning Text Amendment is intended to correct and clarify, staff has found the ZAT is substantial conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and any relevant area plans. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation of approval to the City Council. ATTACHED Ordinance No. 1093 ORDINANCE NO. 1093 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31, ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADDING REGULATIONS FOR SHORT TERM HOME RENTALS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: 1. Definitions Amend City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-101 Definitions, by adding the following: 119.1. Primary Residence, means the dwelling unit within which a person lives for six months plus a day during a calendar year. 119.2. Primary Resident, means a person living on a property where the property is the person's primary residence. 145.1. Short Term Home Rental, Type A (hosted short term rental), means a dwelling unit that is offered to transient guests for a period of less than 30 consecutive days, where a primary resident of the property is present while the transient guests are present. 145.2. Short Term Home Rental, Type B (unhosted short term rental), means a dwelling unit that is offered to transient guests for a period of less than 30 consecutive days, where the property serves as a person's primary residence but a primary resident of the property is not present while the transient guests are present. This Type B also includes Short Term Home Rental of any Accessory Dwelling Units, non -owner occupied Duplexes or "mother-in-law" apartments. 145.3. Short Term Home Rental, Type C (dedicated short term rental) means a dwelling unit that is offered to transient guests for a period of less than 30 consecutive days, where the property does not serve as a person's primary residence 145.4. Short Term Home Rental, Type D (Bed & Breakfast) — see the definition of Bed & Breakfast in Paragraph 16 of this Definition Section 31-101. 2. Short Term Home Rental Regulations. Amend City Code Chapter 31 by adding the following Section. Sec. 31-514.1. Short -Term Home Rental Regulations Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section 31-514.1 is to allow Short Term Home Rentals where appropriate while mitigating impacts upon surrounding properties by implementing balanced regulations to protect the integrity of the city's neighborhoods as well as protect the general public health, safety and welfare. Page 2 of 11 Subd. 2. License required. No property may be used for Type A, B or C Short Term Home Rental unless granted a license by the city. No property may be used for Type C Short Term Home Rental unless granted a Conditional Use Permit and a license by the city. No property may be used for Type D Short Term Home Rental (aka Bed & Breakfast) unless granted a Special Use Permit by the city pursuant to Section 31-504 of this Chapter. Subd. 3. License application. Any property owner desiring to undertake Short Term Home Rentals must apply to the community development department for a Short Term Home Rental License. A license must be approved prior to operating within the city. The license application request must be submitted on the form prescribed by the city and must include all the information requested on the application form. The license application will not be accepted by the city unless an inspection report has been signed by personnel from both the city's fire department and building department. Subd. 4. License fee. The license application form must be accompanied by payment in full of the required license application fee. The license application fee amount will be as determined by the city council in the city fee schedule. Subd. 5. License issuance. The process for review and issuance of a license will vary depending upon the type of Short Term Home Rental as follows: A. Type A, Hosted Short Term Home Rentals. Type A Short Term Home Rentals are required to have an administratively issued license from the city. 1. A Type A Short Term Home Rental license or renewal license will be issued administratively only if: i. The licensee certifies on the application form that all applicable items found in this Section 31-514.1 are satisfied. That includes: a. Proper zoning as found in Subd. 6; and b. Performance standards as found in Subd. 7. ii. The applicant submits a site plan, drawn to scale, showing parking and driveways, all structures and outdoor recreational areas that guests will be allowed to use, including, but not limited to, deck/patio, barbeque grill, recreational fire, or sauna. iii. The applicant submits a floor plan, drawn to scale, of the home identifying which rooms will be used as transient guest bedrooms. iv. The property passes the city inspection (see Section 31-514.1, Subd. 9B) for residential code standards applicable to renting a home on a short term basis. The list of health and safety items that will be inspected for this purpose will be included amongst license application materials so that the property owner will know what items will be inspected prior to submitting the license application to the city. a. An inspection must be completed within 60 days prior to submission of the license application form. Page 3 of 11 b. An inspection report must be submitted together with the license application form and other necessary materials. Without the inspection report, the license application will not be considered complete, nor will it be accepted by the city. c. If the inspection identifies items that must be corrected, all corrections must be completed and verified by the city prior to submitting an application for the Short Term Home Rental license. 2. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of the home or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of a Short Term Home Rental, except that additional on -site city code compliant parking may be provided. 3. The licensee must provide proof of sufficient and suitable property insurance at the time of license issuance, and must be able to confirm that the coverage remains in place within 24 hours of a city request for confirmation. 4. Licenses are non -transferable and shall expire upon change of ownership of the property. 5. A license constitutes a limited license granted to the applicant by the city and in no way creates a vested zoning right. 6. No more than a total of thirty-five Type A licenses may be valid within the city at one time. 7. If three substantiated and relevant complaints are received from neighbors or guests within a 12 month period, the license shall be revoked. The revocation may be appealed to the city council pursuant to procedures established in Section 31-217 of this Chapter. If a license is revoked, the owner is prohibited from making application for another license for any type of Short Term Home Rental for six months. 8. Licenses are valid for a period of three years. A renewal license must be applied for every three years. B. Type B — Unhosted Short Term Rental. Type B Short Term Home Rentals are required to have an administratively issued license from the city. Prior to issuing the license, a neighborhood notification is required, as specified below. 1. A Type B Short Term Home Rental license or renewal license will be issued administratively only if: i. The applicant submits a site plan, drawn to scale, showing parking and driveways, all structures and outdoor recreational areas that guests will be allowed to use, including, but not limited to, deck/patio, barbeque grill, recreational fire, or sauna. ii. The applicant submits a floor plan, drawn to scale, of the home identifying which rooms will be used as transient guest bedrooms. iii. The licensee certifies on the application form that all applicable items found in this Section 31-514.1 are satisfied. That includes: Page 4 of 11 a. Proper zoning as found in Subd. 6 b. Performance standards as found in Subd. 7 c. Proof of sufficient and suitable property insurance. iv. No more than a total of thirty-five Type B licenses may be valid within the City at one time. v. Notices have been mailed by the city to all surrounding property owners according to the following standards: a. 150 feet of all applicant properties zoned RB, CCR, CR, TH, CTHR, RCL, RCM, RCH, CBD; b. 200 feet of all applicant properties zoned RA, LR, CTR, TR; c. 500 feet of all applicant properties zoned AP; and vi. There are no objections received by the city within ten days of mailing the notices. a. If objections are received, then the license request must be considered by the planning commission. (1). The planning commission must hold a hearing, to which neighbors within the above defined notification area are invited to offer comments. (2). After considering the license request and hearing comments from the neighbors, the planning commission may either approve a one year provisional license, with or without conditions, or deny the license request. (3). If there are no substantiated relevant complaints from neighbors or guests during the provisional year, the permit will automatically extend two more years. If there are three substantiated relevant complaints, the provisional license is automatically revoked and the owner is prohibited from making application for another license for any type of Short Term Home Rental for six months. vii. The property passes the city inspection (see Section 31-514.1, Subd. 9B) for residential code standards applicable to renting a home on a short term basis. The list of health and safety items that will be inspected for this purpose will be included amongst license application materials so that the property owner will know what items will be inspected prior to submitting the license application to the city. a. An inspection must be completed within 60 days prior to submission of the license application form. b. An inspection report must be submitted together with the license application form and other necessary materials. Without the inspection report, the license application will not be considered complete, nor will it be accepted by the city. Page 5 of 11 c. If the inspection identifies items that must be corrected, all corrections must be completed and verified by the city prior to submitting an application for the Short Term Home Rental license. 2. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of the home or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of a Short Term Home Rental, except that additional on -site city code compliant parking may be provided. 3. The licensee must provide proof of sufficient and suitable property insurance at the time of license issuance, and must be able to confirm that the coverage remains in place within 24 hours of a city request for confirmation. 4. If three substantiated and relevant complaints are received from neighbors or guests within a 12 month period, the license shall be revoked. The revocation may be appealed to the city council pursuant to procedures established in Section 31-217 of this Chapter. If a license is revoked, the owner is prohibited from making application for another license for any type of Short Term Home Rental for six months. 5. Licenses are non -transferable and shall expire upon change of ownership of the property. 6. A license constitutes a limited license granted to the applicant by the city and in no way creates a vested zoning right. 7. Licenses are valid for a period of three years. A renewal license must be applied for every three years. No neighborhood notification is required for the renewal of licenses. C. Type C — Dedicated Short Term Rental. Type C Short Term Home Rentals are required to have both a Conditional Use Permit and an administrative license issued by the city. The Conditional Use Permit and initial license may be processed simultaneously. 1. Conditional Use Permit. The application for the Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental must be filed with the city's community development department on the applicable form. The application will be reviewed according to the process established in Sections 31-204 and 31-207 of this Chapter. In addition, the following procedures, criteria and conditions shall also apply: i. The applicant must submit a site plan, drawn to scale, showing parking and driveways, all structures and outdoor recreational areas that guests will be allowed to use, including, but not limited to, deck/patio, barbeque grill, recreational fire, or sauna. ii. The applicant submits a floor plan, drawn to scale, of the home identifying which rooms will be used as transient guest bedrooms. iii. The Conditional Use Permit runs with the land and must be filed in the property's chain of title, but since a license is also required for a Page 6 of 11 Type C Short Term Rental, possession of a Conditional Use Permit is not sufficient to operate. Any new owner desiring to operate a Type C Short Term Rental on property that has an unexpired Conditional Use Permit filed in the chain of title must also obtain a license from the city. A Conditional Use Permit expires if a property is not operated as a Short Term Home Rental for more than a year. iv. The Conditional Use Permit applicant must certify on the city application form that all applicable items found in this Section 31- 514.1 are satisfied. That includes: a. Proper zoning as found in Subd. 6 b. Performance standards as found in Subd. 7 c. Proof of sufficient and suitable property insurance. v. The property must pass inspection by city building and fire code inspectors and found to meet the residential code standards applicable to renting a home on a short term basis (see Section 31-514.1, Subd 9B) prior to holding the public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit. The list of health and safety items that will be inspected for this purpose will be included amongst license application materials so that the property owner will know what items will be inspected prior to submitting the license application to the city. vi. No more than a total of fifteen Conditional Use Permits for Type C Short Term Home Rentals may be valid within the City at one time. 2. License. The application form for the license or renewal license must certify by the applicant that all applicable items found in this Section 31- 514.1 are satisfied. That includes: i. A Conditional Use Permit has been issued for the subject property and is still valid. ii. The property has been inspected no more than 60 days prior to submission of the license application by city building and fire code inspectors and found to meet the residential code standards applicable to renting a home on a short term basis. a. An inspection must be completed and the inspection report submitted together with the license application form and other necessary materials. Without the inspection report, the license application will not be considered complete, nor will it be accepted by the city. b. If the inspection identifies items that must be corrected, all corrections must be completed and verified by the city prior to submitting an application for the Short Term Home Rental license. iii. Proper zoning as found in Subd. 6 iv. Performance standards as found in Subd. 7 v. Proof of sufficient and suitable property insurance. Page 7 of 11 vi. No more than a total of fifteen Type C Short Term Home Rental licenses may be valid at one time within the City. 3. The license for a Type C Short Term Home Rental may only be issued to the owner of the property and is not transferable to any other entity. 4. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of the home or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of a Short Term Home Rental, except that additional on -site city code compliant parking may be provided. 5. The licensee must provide proof of sufficient and suitable property insurance at the time of license issuance, and must be able to confirm that the coverage remains in place within 24 hours of a city request for confirmation. 6. Type C Short Term Home Rental licenses are valid for a period of three years. A renewal license must be applied for every three years. The Conditional Use Permit will not expire unless its use is discontinued for more than a year. 7. The Type C Short Term Home Rental license is not transferable and shall expire upon change of ownership of the property. 8. A license constitutes a limited license granted to the applicant by the city and in no way creates a vested zoning right. 9. If three substantiated and relevant complaints are received from neighbors or guests within a 12 month period, the license shall be revoked. The revocation may be appealed to the city council pursuant to procedures established in Section 31-217 of this Chapter. If a license is revoked, the owner is prohibited from making application for another license for any type of Short Term Home Rental for six months. D. Type D — Bed & Breakfast. Type D Short Term Home Rentals are also known as Bed & Breakfasts and are required to have a Special Use Permit as regulated in Section 31-504 of this Chapter. Subd. 6. Zoning District. Short Term Home Rentals are permitted, with an approved license from the City of Stillwater, in the following Zoning Districts: A. Residential Zoning Districts. Type A and B Short Term Home Rentals are allowed by city license in all Residential Zoning Districts. Type C Short Term Home Rentals are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in all Residential Zoning Districts. Type D Short Term Home Rentals (aka Bed & Breakfasts) are allowed by city license in the RCL Zoning District and by Special Use Permit in the RB and RCM Zoning Districts B. Commercial Zoning Districts. Type A, B and C Short Term Home Rentals are permitted by city license in the CBD Zoning District. Page 8 of 11 Subd. 7. Performance standards. Type A, B and C Short Term Home Rentals shall be subject to the following performance standards. Type D Short Term Home Rentals shall be subject to the standards found in Section 31-504 of this Chapter. A. Parking. 1. In residential zoning districts, all guest parking must be accommodated on improved surfaces on the premises. No on -street parking is allowed for guests. At a minimum, parking shall be provided at the following rate: i. 1-2 bedroom unit, 1 space ii. 3 bedroom unit, 2 spaces iii. 4 and 4+ bedroom units, number of spaces equal to the number of bedrooms minus one. 2. In the CBD zoning district, guest parking must either be accommodated on the property of the Short Term Home Rental dwelling unit, or a parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Parking Commission. B. Length of guest stay. The minimum length of stay is one day. The maximum length of stay is 30 days, since more than that is by definition not a Short Term Home Rental property. C. Number of guests. The maximum number of transient guests will be limited to two times the number of bedrooms plus one. D. Guest records. The licensee for Type B and C Short Term Rentals must keep a transient guest record including the name, address, phone number, and vehicle license plate information for all guests and must provide a report to the city upon 48 hours notice. E. Guest disclosures. The licensee must disclose in writing to their transient guests the following rules and regulations, and must submit a copy of the disclosure to the city with the license application and renewal applications. In addition the disclosures must be conspicuously displayed in the home. 1. For Type B and C Short Term Home Rentals, the name, phone number and address of the owner, operating lessee or managing agent/representative; 2. The maximum number of guests allowed at the property; 3. The maximum number of vehicles allowed at the property and where they are to be parked; 4. Property rules related to use of outdoor features, such as decks, patios, grills, recreational fires, saunas and other recreational facilities; 5. City nuisance ordinances will be enforced by the Stillwater Police Department, including reduced noise levels between 10 PM and 8 AM. 6. No events are allowed to be hosted on the premises. F. License number. The licensee must post their city license number on all print, poster or web advertisements. G. Proximity of assistance. For Type B and Type C Short Term Home Rentals, the property owner or a manager/representative must be located within 30 minutes travel time of the property. The community development department Page 9 of 11 must be notified within 10 days of a change in the managing agent/representative or their contact information. The licensee must provide the name, address and phone number for the licensee or managing agent/representative to all property owners within 150 feet of the property boundary. The licensee must notify neighboring properties within 10 days of a change in the managing agent/representation or contact information. H. Garbage. As required by City Code Chapter 30-1, Subd 5, all garbage must be kept in rubbish containers that are stored out of view of a public street. I. Signage. No signage is allowed on the property of a Type A, B or C Short Term Home Rental. Type D is allowed signage as regulated in Section 31-504 of this Chapter. J. Events. Events are not allowed to be hosted by transient guests on the premises. For purposes of this Section 31-541.1, an event means a gathering on the premises of more than three un-registered transient guests. Events hosted by the property owner are allowed, but must abide by all applicable city ordinances and polices, including the prohibition on renting private residential property out for events. Subd. 8. Required inspections. A. Type A, B and C Short Term Home Rentals 1. These types of Short Term Home Rentals are required to have, and pass, a health and safety code inspection by city building and fire code staff prior to issuance of a license or renewal of the license. 2. The list of health and safety items that will be inspected for this purpose will be included amongst license application materials so that the licensee will know in advance what items will be inspected. 3. Upon receipt of a complaint, the city zoning administrator will contact the licensee and will determine whether a compliance inspection is required. B. Type D Short Term Home Rentals (aka Bed & Breakfast) 1. This type of Short Term Home Rental is required to have inspections as regulated by Section 31-504. Subd. 9. Limit on number of licenses. No more than a total of thirty-five licenses may be valid at any one time for Type A Short Term Home Rentals. No more than a total of thirty-five licenses may be valid at any one time for Type B Short Term Home Rentals. No more than fifteen licenses may be valid at any one time for Type C Short Term Home Rentals. Type D Short Term Home Rentals are required to have a Special Use Permit, but no license is required. Subd. 10. Sales taxes. In addition to state sales tax, the licensee is required to pay the city lodging tax. A. The city lodging tax must be collected and paid either by the web based booking company that the Short Term Home Rental is listed on, or by the licensee directly to the city if the Short Term Home Rental does not use a web based booking service. Page l0 of 11 B. The license application must supply information on any web based booking service(s) used for the licensed property. C. The licensee, or booking agent on their behalf, is required to pay the city lodging tax quarterly. If no sales are made during a quarter, a report must none the less be submitted to the city stating that no sales were made or lodging tax collected during that quarter. Subd. 11. Interchangeability. A licensee may use the license to operate any Short Term Home Rental type equal to or less restrictive than the one for which the license is issued. Therefore, if an owner is issued a Type C license, the property is permitted to operate as a Type C, B or A. And, a Type B license allows the owner to operate as a Type B or A. However, a Type D owner may only operate as a Bed & Breakfast. Subd. 12. Enforcement. A. In the event of a violation or threatened violation of this ordinance, the city, in addition to other remedies, is entitled to seek Injunctive Relief or proceedings to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such violations or threatened violations. B. The penalty for violation of this Section 31-514.1 shall be a Misdemeanor. C. In addition to penalty provisions A and B above, the fine for the first substantiated and relevant complaint or violation shall be $250. The fine for the second shall be $500.00. The fine for the third shall be $750.00 and this third offense shall also result in automatic license revocation. 3. Amend City Code Section 31-315, Allowable Uses in Residential Districts by adding: ALLOWABLE USES ZONING DISTRICTS A-P LR CTR RA TR CCR RB CR TH CTHR RCL RCM Bed & Breakfast (Type D Short Term Home Rental) SUP'd P" SUP Short Term Home Rental; Type A and B P P PPP P P PP P P P Short Term Home Rental; Type C CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP P = Permitted use SUP = Use permitted with a Special Use Permit CUP = Use permitted with a Conditional Use Permit A = Accessory use Blank cell in table means that the use is NOT allowed. 4. Amend City Code Section 31-325, Allowable Uses in Non -Residential Districts by adding: ALLOWABLE USES ZONING DISTRICTS CA CBD VC BP-C BP-0 BP -I CRD PA PWFD PROS Short Term Home Rental, Type A, B, C P P = Permitted use SUP = Use permitted with a Special Use Permit CUP = Use permitted with a Conditional Use Permit PUD = Use permitted with a Planned Unit Development Permit A = Accessory use ACC = Allowed as an accessory improvement to an allowed use located on or adjacent to the site Blank cell in table means that the use is NOT allowed. Page 11 of 11 5. Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapter 31 shall remain in full force and effect. 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 2nd day of May, 2017. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted K-6-216wski, Mayor ATTEST: Diane Ward, City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF WASHINGTON Charlene Vold being duly sworn on an oath, states or affirms that he/she is the Publisher's Designated Agent of the newspaper(s) known as: Stillwater Gazette with the known office of issue being located in the county of: WASHINGTON with additional circulation in the counties of: WASHI NGTON and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. §331A.02. (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for 1 successive week(s); the first insertion being on 05/12/2017 and the last insertion being on 05/12/2017. MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. §580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in §580.033, subd. 1, clause (1) or (2). If the newspaper's known office of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion of the newspaper's circulation is in the latter county. By: Designated Agent Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before me on 05/12/2017 by Charlene Vold. Notary Public . DARLENE MARIE MACPHERSON • Notary Public -Minnesota ° My Commission Expires Jen 31, 2019 Rate Information: (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $40.00 per column inch Ad ID 687353 77 77.7i,..... 7 G... e, PAGE A10 • The Gazette • Friday, May 12, 2017 • Daily Updates Online at www.SfillwaterGazette.corn LEGAL NOTICES would be required who has aufhodzed roe to sign this -document on his/ her behalf, or Ilon both capacities. 1 further comfy Mist 1 have completed'ali required fields, end that the In2cm10tlam in this document is true and cor- rect and in compliance with the applicable chapter of Minnesota Statutes. I undes'I'en1 that by signing this document I am subTeot to the Wattles of Germany, as set forth in Section 609,48 as If I had signed this document under math. DATE FILED: May 1, 2017 SIGNED BY: Bradley S. Fischer Published in the Stillwater Gazette May 12, 19, 2017 687146 MINNESOTASECRETARY OF'STATE CERTIFICATE OF ASSUMED NAME Minnesota Statutes, 333 The filing of an assumed name does not provide a user with exclusive rights to that Hanle. The filing is required .for consumer proledlfoo In order to enable customers to be able to Identify ilea true owner of a. tautness. ASSUMED NAME: Seal Guys PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: 851 Oakgreen Avenue Place North, Stillwater, MN 55082 NAMEHOLDER(S}; Jack D. LaBelle 851 Oakgreen Avenue Place North, Stillwater, MN 55082 1, the Ondersigned, 00rtt5 that t am shining this, doewnient aa'the, poison! whose signature Is required, ores agent of the I1ea'a0re e wlroge0fgn0tkee would he required who has 81ot4nreaed vow to sign this. dtwlenten1"Art h0J' her behalf, or in both capacities. I further certify that I have completed all required fields, and that the information in this document Is true and cor rect and in compliance with the applicable chapter of Minnesota Statutes. I understand that by signing this deeument 1 am subjectto the penalties et palmy de set feath in Section 609,48-as If 1 had signed this document under➢a111„ DATE FILED; April 25, 2017 SIGNED BY: Jack LaBelle Published in the Stillwater Gazette May 12, 19, 2017 686949 Continues Next Page the property is the person's primary a'ams a dwtniling unit Yhet is eta✓oi3 M Bay resident of the prceportyia.ra£tfie3it means advrelfhfg Onl4 feat ha offered to aesthana� Sresidenceft t a fShort resident e the tst ref goy ,'rap( ss mobile g nits,,'tennna ante rs era pransfrt, This type ff also includes spent Tanga Home r-0am1ul ell any Ac001150ry Debiting U*I8s, harp crwwner r oe+u,IgEad Duplexes 01 mgtt'0r'it Vaw d4parfr'rwntrla. 145.3. Shod Tell Home Rental Type C (28d1oeted short term rental) manta "a dwelling eerile:thee is offered to trait lent guestrs tete pelted of less than 30 1, 01awoutive days, where the prop0dy does not, serve as a person's primary e.a'et ce 145.4. Shop Term Home ReSntal,lype D (Bed & Breakfast) - see the definition of Bed & Breakfast In Para- graph16 ) this Definition Settle.31-10 t, 2. Short Term Home Rental Regulations. knout City Cjomfo Chapter 31 by siding the following Section. $14, 31:514.1. fdh5d,-Than Home Rental Regulations Sulasl. 1. Nand.. 'PH p1rpose of this 5eoti0n 31.514.'1 is to allow Short Term Home Rarefies whore appro- priates whole rmlitgoting limp.. upon serrcamd1ng propert'kss try implementing balanced r09ulr0lrans to profsct the h140911ity of the clty"s ne1ghbori Dads as well as profact the general public held, safety and 'Welfare, Sued.. .,,0.1 arse required. No property may be used for Type A, B Or C Chart Tar. Hance Rental una ys (granted license by the city. No prvp0ety may be rased lac Type C Shirt Tlafnt Horne Rental unless granted a Conditional Use Permit and a 16'0anm0-by the pito No properly-rmy he'llsed for Type ['Short Terror!-Vonfa Rental, (aka Bed 8 SBreak�iest) unless granted a Speelal Use Permit bythe ally pumsua�nlfo Sectiorr3'�1.504 of fhls Chapter. fluted ,7 !.leers, application. Any property owner desiring to undertake Snort Tenn Home Rentals most sexily B1 tea community developrmeent department for a Short Terns Home Rental License, A Ilcenss most 4e! pprov,nd price. en o711011np Wm1in the city, 'The tlaostea application e0qusst must be amfrf1Wfed on the. Penn pr6esmoad I y the city owe t roust Include all the Information reque d con tea appAcetion'form, The-ilcam�s0'8ppld- cahcat will n ut 11 accepted by'the aril/ a niece �0n Vrlxpeefnon report how been signed by personnel from both the hy'v�(lm. department anal b0lkllNrg department. t altd (1 Lersnso He. Thellt:8rk[ae application form must be accompanied. by payment In full of the required llc erteaa 'Replication tea. Thelicense application fee amount will be es determined by the city council en the city felt schedule. Subd. 5. License issuenCe. The process for review and issuance of a license will vary depending upon the type of Short Term Home Rental far follows: A. Type A, Homed Short Term biome Rentals. Type A Short Term Home Rentals are required to have an ad- ministratively issued license from the. city. 1. A Type ft Short Term Home Reatai license or renewal keens, wit be issued administratively only if: 1. The Iicert.e certifies on the application 'form neat et applicable items found In this Section 31514.1 are satiated. That inductee: "" a, Proper zoning as found in Subd. 6; and b. Performance standards as found in Subd. 7. ii. The+ applicant submits a site plan, drawn to scale, showing parking and defv�aweyv, all stniohires and0110- door recreational areas that guests will be allowed to use, including, but not limited' to, deck/petlo, barlhequo. grill, reG 111 end fire, or sauna. Tt ' ( ppl caul submits a floor plan, drawn to scale, of the home identifying which rooms will be used as transient guest ltmtfrooms. Gm. Tiro yrnpen'y passes the spry inspection (see Section 31-514.'1', Suhd.. 8B) let residential code standards applicable to reeling hsanre on a short tarot basis. The list of health and safety Items that ill be insp00teeel tar this purpose w+1n1 be included amongst di4anso application materials so ithet Ma property 001101 wilt know what items well be Imseeeoted prior to 0ubmitino the license application to the city. n, An Inspection must he ro np0 led within 66 deys prior to submission of the lioahee applecatlon form. kl, 0a inspector moon: mast he submitted together with the Vlcenea application fora and other necessary r l010 fats, wlhwul the nspewbo'i leporf�„pHs hcensa.appld0nlfon-molt 00118e weetts0dared eomyrdpto, cent ur10t ( bra wee p1trrf by theIh. " a If thepecfioar identifies items that must be corrected, all 000ol,Ai0ns Mat be completed and verified by the city p to submitting an app1'Icefroo for the Short'Torm Home Rental license. 2. Ilwt. shall he neechsl8ae in then extoller appearance of the home. premises„ mother visible evidence of the arse Bret of a Short Terns Home Keens!, except that ad0itionat pmshe city code compliant t parkiebt may be provided, t. Obeill, ea must provide wool' ofooffeeiontand saalto1111 1opertyl Menials,. at the limed' ((10lseissu et and 4,Liroost ba thane to retfh'nthat sferethe ucvonall*orr U In place eOrow erstr 'howbeit request torr,7en1'tlnarel4wrr„ 4, Licenses - .sot oresf I9 !lee shall *ore Upon (,an 1f a 0city of the property zoning eight teener, 50110taul o a'llrnmsd, ltrrnna, granted to rh lv7'bp180141 by the on'y'tsdd In re way onmatana a vested ge,g tits No more then ie dotal of 1(114 ty-tivdwa'Typ0A licenses may be. valid within the nay at one time. 7, l0 thaw substantiated and relevant mplamts sra received tom neighbors orguosl0 within a 12 month perlod,t0t license hallo nutw0kert The reevo0a1'kan may'beaoppealed to the ohy coma bemusnt'to procedures established I 010110n 31 21'0 a0 this Maples lee ilaehoo is revoked; the owner es prohibited' tram malting apple- , cation deer another r Il(oena0 Ter any'type 00 short Teem Hama Rental Pr ste months. t3. Liebman s., valid. for o psrioce ochres yeer'e, A neeew01 license must he applied toe meaty three years. B. type f - Ur noated Shot/ Terns Rental Type Li short Term Home Rentals are rey " ed to have en Wolin- lstnnhve➢y ,Dee! liodreen k,ra Ole city, Pear to imam the ammo, m neighborhood notiticw'teon is required, as specified below, - - t. AA'Tea. B'Shore Terra Horne Rental linehse or Demme' Linenee wilt be Issued administratively only 4h Y„ The applicant Submits s site oleo, drawn to scale shame...) perking and driveways, ell seeut'teas moat mute door recreat onai areas that gu0si0-will be �aipowod'-&n use including„ but no1 Ilmft'ad t0„ daakfpatlo, barbegtta grill, recreational/ fire, eft sauna,. II. The a,py lo,orrt submits a floor plan, drawn to scale, of the home identifying which rooms will be used as transient guest hie ro0mes. iii. The Ileemsee candies on the application form that all applicable items found in this Section 31-514.1 are satisfied. That includes: a. Proper zoning as found in Subd. 6 b. Performance standards as found in Subs!. 7 c. Proof r sufficient arid au'ItahlO propertydn(Orenco. Imo, No more then a total lti thirty-h9e Type B glaensms roe/ be valid within the Goy at one time. Notices have been malted by the 0{0y to all aurrrameling property owners according to the following stan- deeds: 150 feet of all applicant properties zoned RB, OCR, CR, TH, CTHR, RCL, RCM, RCH, GBH; b. 200 feet of all applicant properties zoned RA, LH', 0TR, TR; a 500 fast of all appil rot p eperdi S zoned AP; land - al. 'ihemt eve no n81eOtiom received Icy the city within tern days of mailing' the nodiceo. re, It objections ars received, Ifren rho license request moat be considered by the planning pompilesion. lilt The pl neng 00etlml ,lore m,,nst hold a hearing, tit which natghbors within the above defined notification ar+"N' are rnw',ted to oilier comments. (;$I. Me 0 rs eler,rlp the license request end hearing sommants 4rom the neighbors, the piannfrog cam,misslon nosy either apptnev0 a one ,year pmvlsion of license, wen or. without conditions, or many'the license rei'atest. (3',i.. 1(th „re era no substantiated relevant complaints from, neighbors or guests is during the phxvl01inel year, tee la+srn11 mold aui:om�ot1oally extend two mere years. It there amlhre0 auhet tloted relevant complaints; the. prmee moose liestau0 is aut0mahcallly revoked .and the owner Is prohibited from making appllrangore foe another license Pan' any type of Short "farm Hance Rental. 000 ,rwnths; " license The, ptoporty p0.158s toe, city Inspection (006 Section 31-514.1„ Subd. l9p far t0ald0010lei tads standards applicable to rmamance a home on a sired term basis. Tb0 list of health and solely Rems that will be Inspected for (0s y rpo ill be included amongst hevla0eo041000Ileare nl640rleN 5o't'ha,tI1e.em0perty<earner wale know what Germs ...vie be Inspected prior to submitting, the Ile ease applicatiorrlo the oily. a An inspection roust be convicted within 60 days prior 10 015rresalun of the tiaaostt appliontien, fora. b. An V spea4ron report must Es. 00(001ted, together with the lieanssx o�ppli0etkdtl form and other nesessiary- r ede'ths %Pen. i the. inspection mood, the license application Will not bet considered complete, nor will it be acuspted by the city. c. If the inspr:mnn identifies items that must be corrected, ill corrections must be completed and verified by the city prior to submitting an application for the, Short "Tenn Roma Rental license, 2. SFtwre shall be no change In the exterior appearance of the home or premises, or other visible evidence of Bite conduct of a Short 'Term Home Rental, except that addl'tional on -site city code torenpl1ant parking may be provided. 3. The licensee must provide proof of sufficient and suitable properly insurance atfha time re trenen issoenn• CITY OF STILLWATER ORDINANCE NO. 1093 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31, ENTITLED 7,,,,p' f jW fp9S.DlttNAFIC SY ADDING REGULATIONS FOR SHORT 'TERM HOME RENTALS THE CITY C1;0H1,R'RE& OF THE 81410' OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: 1. Definitions Amend City Coyle Chapter 31, Section 31-101 Definitions, by .adding the fallowing: 11ea 1. Primary Residence, means the dwelling unit within .which a person loves for six months plus a day during a calendar yew 119.2. Primary residence. 14,,1, Shore 'Term Home Rental, Type A (hosted short term rental), as 'transient eats for period of less than 30 coneeputive days where a Odin while the tnaa'reledrt posts -axe anneal. '14 v.�2. eehert'lem0 Poole Rental, Type B tunbonted short terra eerntap)� r trmrl0lentrelet0 ter a period oftoas than 35.consepar,1l00da7e,'whore the properly nineraonepprmery cable items found in this Sedan 31-514.1 are satisfied. That includes: LA Conditional Use Ihtinefelte0 bean Ieale4d.Vdr Chun-aa(kk'aad pwetyygrtd arrttd le o4lll v'dfd. II The property h been inspected nO fnr6re then B O days prior' 4o submits! ep ins Ilysmmn n application by city building and fire 1,0.00 inapecte0h8 8mdloomd to meet the ,aspdentfra uod0 80aodards apppd0ati4e:t° renting a home. on a short teeth heel„, - e, An Hose uhhan trout bra eomplstad and the, inspection report submitted together wtth the teepee application town and Mbar neaessaryl0ateflals, Wghbuf the i00p0gtl0n report, the teen. application will nht ba considered 4ompiste„ roan will it kia:Ew„'pepted by the tmIfy, b. If the insp004lotf Ide.r4ee items that t"nreutlba oormtnlodJ, ahtdonectlons Most be completed end verified by the city loner to 5011neitting an eppl4100(lon for dbe.Short Tents Hahne Rental licensei Proper zoning as found in Subd. 6 iv. Performance standards as found in Subd.7 v. Proof of sufficient and suitable property insurance. the vi.citNo more than a total of fifteen Type C Short Term Home Rental licenses may be valid at one time within y. 3 The license for a Type C Shad Term Home Rental may only be issued to the owner of the property and is not transferable to any, other entity. 4. There shall Po no 0Vyan+4e in the pas/ricer appearance alto home or premises, 01,31ller visibka 6 44dence of the mended of a Shin', Term Home loervtel, ng0eptthaat addlllaoo( ph -,he Oily cede ...empllent'p8tt8f4 may be provded. 5.'Tr Hoenseemust provide proof el sufficient and suitable properly Insurance at the *no oflleameelee0an0a anti must be abs m confern 4hat the m varage rarnmins In piece 14ithiri'?4 news of a oily reptiest for owtfiernatlrn. 6 'Type D Slrolt Tan' I{orrre Rer110➢Im0s8n ark wring der' a parkin of"threee years, Axeoewal Vleemse nxrfst be. appl'0d.Or every three, /pare, The COm1)1466nat Use Permit,welln,otoopirs ontomf its 0150lo dlsooreinoed fret rostra than a year. 7.' Tee Type C Short Term Home Rental license is not transferable and shall expire upon change of ownership of the property. 8. A license constitutes a limited license granted to the applicant by the city and in no way creates a vested zoning right 0 It three substantiated .ond relevant complaints are re aireeed from neighbors or guests within a 12 month IPeried„ the Ilberrss shall he revoked The revocation rntey be appealed the oily oourbil pursuant to procedures established In Sentinel 31-217 of tots Cheater. Ifs license to revoked, the owner is prohibited from making expel. cation for another license fur any typ00,at Short Term Home Rental for six n rubs. D. Type t0 - Bed a Breakfast. type D Short 'Pm Home Rentals ant also koowo es Bed & Breakfasts .and are required he have a 0poolal Use permit es -regulated lie Section 21-5O4 04 this Chapter Subd. 8. Zoning District. Short Teem Hems Rebels are permitted, with an approved Noonoo from the City ot str 010910t, )H ass following ZOrien9 Districts: A. ibas[demflel toning D,istricte Type A and B S'hort Term Home Rentals Bee allowed by city license in all Resedontial Zoning Drs1o101 e. Typ.a C Short Tenn Home 'canals are allowed byCondltanal Use Permit le ell Res- Idsntra( Zoning 04ser4af0, type D Shoat Term Home Rentals lake Bed 9 Braa4Jast5f era allowed ify city lkoe fso do .the Rt L. Zoning 0l1tnot and. by Special Use Permit In fhf0 RB,a'ul RCM Zoning Dlshiets, B. 0anunlenrlel Zoning OMatellots. 'hype A, A and O Snort 'Term Horne Renters am permitted by city ltoense in the Cb(, Zoning District. - - Cuba. 7, Prarloomoor, a standards. Type A, B and C Shod Term Home Rentals shall be subject to the fallowing performance rrlamdafds.. Typo D Short Tenn Home Renttals slpplt be subject to the standard*, found In Section 31.504 of this Chapter. A. Parking. 1. In residomttslzonbrgy7i00riots, all guest parmngenust be accommodated on improvedsudaces on the prem- ises. -No on -street peeking es allowed for guests. At a minimum, parking shall be. provided at the. following rate: i. 1-2 bedroom wit,'11 space ii. 3 bedroom unit, 2 spaces iii. 4 and 4+ bedroom units, number of spaces equal to the number of bedrooms minus one. p. In the CBD:anndng 144204rt, vest peeking moat either be accommodated on the property of the Short Tenn .Honks Ranwrl dwelling unit, ore parking nihlgatlon plan mugs be approved by the Parking Certunleoron, B. Length Kok guest stay. The minima length of alley la one day, The maxltntl1n length of slay ea 30 days, 4nee more than that Is by definition not a Shod 3011,E Home d4enfa4 property... C.. Number et guests. marcirnunr member of fva,'rolonE9ues1d0i11 be limited to t^ao times the member of br drserns Opus one. D. Guest records. The licensee for Type B and C Short Term Rentals must keep a transient guest record in- cluding toe name„ address, phone number, and vehicle license plate information for all guests and must provide a report to the city upon 48 h0[ras notice. L, Guest disclosures. The lac0ruaee n0Osf disclose en waning to Moe transient guests the following rules and rent loYnno, end most Sabmh a copy, of the dlsclneurs to the city waiter the license application and renewal appli- ,attaatms.. gr adtidoo 11rodloclusaros Input stnaaptsustasty dlspleywd in the homyg.. 1 For Type fd and 0 Shuvl T'rnrr blonde Ronlals, tho,rame,. phone n0mFi111011d add1uss of the own.. operating Ream, or nudging a4yemt1aepra5ent8kive; 2, Pia (04xlrnurrr number ofguests allowled at tt e, remedy; 3. TTte rnh'klrnurn twine. r of 'vehicles allowed at the pmhperty and where they ere to be parked, 4. Propody nese feinted RP use of otad5cr feaktu80, such as decks, neaps, grills, recreational fires, saunas and other rs600atonal 40014(es, 5. Coy nuisance ordinances.' will be enforced by the Stillwater Police Department including reduced noise levels between 10 PM and 8 AM. 6. No events are allowed to be hosted on the premises. F. License number. The licensee must post their city license number'on ail print, poster or web advertise- ments. G„ Proximity of oasystonore. For 'T ape Bond Type C Short Term Moore Berthas, the property ownocora Maw agarfrepresera'atIve must use located .within 30 minutes travel 'am of Ma property. °are community deyekepment department most be notified Rhin 10 days of a Charge In the pnanag1ng agent+rop0000 thtloo or thole cantata inform/ion. The licensee most provide. the delta, address and phone number for the licensee or managing agentereprotentstive to oil pm party owners wllhin 150 feet of the property boundary. Tbp licenses must notify ne'gbbonngprap0oi0s within 10 days of changeirr the managing ogeowrepreeertatlon of 00100tlpfartallom, H. Garbage. As 000(0,ed by CO 4ode Chapter ff0-1, SutW 5, all garbage moat be kept In rubbish containers theta. St000d cart of Pew of a pub. sbmt. I. Bf9nega.'No s,{ynape, is,a?!awed on the property of a, Type A, B Apr O Short Term Herne Rental. Type D Is allowed algnsge es nego(aled in.800tlom 31e504 of this Chaplet, J. Events. 4105o,ls are not allowed to be hosted by tr'enal0ttt g0ests an the pramise5. For, perposoe of'this ettan rtetl.diem event meant a gathering CM the promises of marathon three urereglst5red transient guests. Events heaped by the property owner are allowed, but mast abide ley^ sal appploablo city ordinances and polices. Inolflehng the prohibition ore renting rabble residential pndpsny huf'lot ewer.. Subd,8. Requited Inspections. A. Type A, B and C Short Term Home Rentals 1, 'These hypes c,rSh,orl Tetra l-lnnne. f0en els are required to have, end pass,'a heath and safely odds hroapoc- arm by city building, and fire rare staff prdwr 00 /soutane st a licensed!' renewal of the license. - 2. The Hp of health and safety earns that will be Inspected for this pnrposo.wll ba pnn1o800 amongst license application moteliiala s0 that the Wens a will know in advance whet Mete will ba Inspected, 3, Upon moalpt of a complaint, the otty zoning administrator will contact the licensee and .will dolermllne whether a oompllartc a i'nspectl00 is oagornd. e.. Type L1 Snort Term Home Rentals (aka Bead 8 Breakfast) 1. This typo of Slron Team Homo Hendee is rsgalrad to have inspections"aaregulated ley Section 31-504, Sobel. 40. Link n funerar of licenses, No, mara then a total of thtdy-6n0 Bioaosea may be waiice at any One time for Type A Short 'Term Horne Rentals, No umno a f1r'an a trial, of'thiryflva amass may be valid at any one tems'ler iTyfto a .i1iborl Term Horns Rentals. No moss thereafter. teens. may be wield al: any one time for Typo C.Sn0m Term name Rental& "Pipe D Short Term Man., Remote are repulsed to have a Special Use Permit, but no license is required. Sobel. 10.. Sales tnxee. 1pp:eclair. ito state sales lox, the licensee is ragweed to pay the city lodging tax. A. the city logging tau meat be collected ant paid father by the web based booking company that the Short Tern Home Rental is hated on, or by 1hs 14crenoae rllreotty to the city It the 9n5rt T0rm Home Rental does not use es web based thanking service. B. 'rho license application must supply information on any web based booking service(s) used for the licensed pr'dpeety. C. The licensee, ,or honking agent om their behalf, is required to pay the city lodging tax quarterly. 0 no sales we creeds during quanta.„ 0 rep0rtne usl none the less be submitted to -the city orating that no sales were ,dada or kedging debt collected dµrirtg that quarter. Said. lnforobeng0alelloty. A Itcensee may use the f"cane t© bombe dry Short Team Home Rental typo o1Tual fA ar tens restrlallvo Mao the one for which the license is issued, Therefore„ If en owner is Issued et Type (T Unease, the property Is. Permitted to operate. es ,.Type C, B or A. Anil, a Type B Iloonsa allows the owner, to operate. as a Type Bor' A However, a' Typo D owner may only Operate et .Bad & Breakfast'.. Subd. 111 Enforcement A. In the .svemt of a ftmialion or threatened violation e1 this ordinance, the pilty, In addition to other remedlad,, is entitled to seek Injunctive Relief or proceedings to prevent, resealn, corrector abat8,0uob'akrlations or threat- ened violationu. B. The penalty for violation of this Section 31514.1 shall be a Misdemeanor. C. In addilton to penalty pre>ulswns A end 13 above, the fine foe the first substantiated end relevant complaint or violation shell be-32, 50. The fine for the amend snail be$560Jfd. The fine for the third shall ha l:750.00 and the 1lelrel naunw:,.II .......tom rr„✓c r�r ascar�.. ,,..,. �.. ,...,y.-x.�:. permit refill automatically extend two more years. If there are three substantiated relevant complaints, the provi- sional license is automatically revoked and the owner is prohibited from making application for another license or any type of Short Term Horne Rental:for six,rr Piths. -0ii. Ina property passes the city inspection (see Section.31-514.1,, Subd, 3B) for residential code standards applicable to renting a home on a snort term basis. The list of health and safety items that will be inspected for is purpose will be include' amongst license application materials so that the property owner will know what iwr will be inspected priOf to submst0ng the l'i^..ertse'apptication to the city.. Pactio must be completed within 60 days prior to submission of the license application term. pection report must be submitted twether with the license application fora and other recessary: ut the inspection report, the license application will not be considered complete, nor will it be • y. ion identifies items that must be corrected, all corrections must be completed and verified by an application for the Short Term Horn Rental license. rtge in the exterior-sopearance of the home or pre n ses. o= other visible evidence of Term Horne Rental, except that additional on -sit oty code compliant parking may be provide- 3.The teethe i beat 4. if three su vide proof of sufficient and bitable property insurance at the tittle of license issuance. that the coverage remains firs place within 24 hours of a city requestfor confirmation. and relevant complaints are received from neighbors or guests within a 12 month Jve'. The revocation may be appealed to the city Council pursuant to procedures 1-217 of this Chapter. Ifa license is revoked. the owner is prohibited from rnaldng appli- cation for an er Si for any type of Short Term Horne Rental for six months. 5. Licenses are non -transferable and shall expire upon change of ownership; of the property. 6. A license constitutes a limited license granted to the applicant by the city and in no way creates a vested zoning right 7. Licenses are valid for a period of three years. A renewal license must be applied for every three years. No neighborhood notification is required tor the renewal olicenses: C. Type C - Dedicated Short Terris Rental, Type 0 Short Term Home Rentals are required to have both a Conditional Use Permit and an administrative license issued by the city. The Conditional Use Pe mit and initial license may to pro=ad simultaneously. 1. Conditional Use Per -nit. The application for the Conditional Use Permiit to operate a Type C Short Term ental rust be filed with the ity's community development department on the applicable form_ The ap- will be reviewed according to the process established in Sections 31-204 and 31-207 of this Chapter, n add on Me following procedures. criteria and conditions shall aieo apply: The aw^cticarit must subunit a site plan. drawn to scale, slowing parking and driveways. all structures a, door recreational areas that guests wit be allowed to use, including, but not limited to. deck/patio., bar*beque grill, recreational fire, or sauna fill The applicant submits a floor plan, drawn to scale, of the home identifying which rooms will be used as transient guest bedrooms. fill. The Conditional Use Permit runs with the land and must be filed in the property's chain of title„but since a ;arise is also required for a Type C Short Trm Rental. possession of a Conditional Use Perini is not sufficient e. Any new owner desiring to operate a Type C Short Term Renal on property that has an unexpired al Use Permit filed in the chain of title must also obtain a license from the city A Conditional Use Permit exc f a propretv is not operated as a Short Term Home Rental for more than a year. iv. Tie Conditional Use. Permit applicant must certify on the city application form that all applicable items found in this Section 31-514.1 are satisfied. That includes: a. Proper zoning as found in Subd. 6 b. Performance standards as found in Subd. 7 c. Proof of sufficient and suitable property: nsura-n:.e. v. The property ;rust pass inspection by city building and fire code inrsp and found to meet the res- tial code standards applicable to resting a home on a shor enrr basis (set Section 31 514.1. Subd 98) folding tidepublic hearing for the Conditional Use Permit. Tile List of h ftti and safety items that will be ti s purpose will be .nc!uded amongst license appli ation rest is s that the property owner will ,s will be inspected prior to.submitting-the license application to the city. vi. No more than a total of fifteen Conditional Use Permits for Tye; C Short Terrn Home Rentals may be valid within the City at one time. 2. License. The application form for the license or renewal license must certify by the applicant that all appli- ntt on env we€a oa�oo nl r g agent on their behalf, is required to pay the city lodging tax quarterly. tf report must none the less be submitted to the city stating that no sales were made ring that quartet eabi city A licensee may use the license to operate any Short Term Horne Rental type e t an the one for which the license is issued: Therefore. if an owner is issued a Type it ed to operate as a Type C_ B crr A. And, a Type B license flows the owner to ver, a Type D owner may: only operate as a Bed & Breakfast.. .12. Enf A to the event of a violation or threatened violation of this ordinance, the city, in addition to outer retrredies, is entitled to seek Injunctive Relief or proceedings to prevent, restrain; correct or abate such violations or threat- ened violations. B. The penalty for violation of this Section 31-5 r4 1 shall be a Misdemeann or; C. In addition to penalty provisions A and B above. the fine for the first substantiated and relevant complaint or violation shall be S250. The fine for the second shall be S500.00. The fine for the third shall be S750.00 and this third offense shall also result in automatic license revocation. 3. Amend City Code Section 31-315, Allowable Uses in Residential Districts by adding: Bed & Breakfast (Type D Short Teti Hide Rental' Short Term Horne Rental; Type A IShoi Terri Hoare P i ?l' T #= C ICUP jCUP CUP E CUP CUP _CUP ICUP CUP P = Permitted use SUP = Use permitted with a Special Use Permit CUP = Use permitted with a Conditional Use Permit A = Accessory use Blank cell in table means that the use is NOT allowed. 4. Amend City Code Section 31-325, Allowable Uses in Non -Residential Districts by adding: I ALLOWABLE USES ShortTerrn Horne Rental:Type A. B. C 1 P P = Permitted use SUP = Use, permitted with a Special Use Penult CUP = Use permitted with a Conditional Use Perm't PUD = Use permitted witita Planned Unit Development Permit A = Accessory use ACC = Allowed as an accessory improvement to an allowed use located on or adjacent to the site Blank cell in table means that the use is NOT allowed. 5. Savingss. in all other ways City Code Chapter 31 shall remain in full force and effect. 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 2nd day of May, 2017. CITY OF STILLWATER /s/ Ted Kozlowski Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Diane F. Ward Diane F. Ward, City Clerk Published in the Stillwater Gazette May 12, 2017 687353 fllwater r i+ - H, R T H P L A C E OF- MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT MEMO DATE: December 1, 2017 HEARING DATES: Planning Commission Park Commission Joint Planning Board City Council LANDOWNER: Randy & Judy Petrie DEVELOPER: CASE NO.: 2017-56 November 8, and December 13, 2017 December 18, 2017 December 18, 2017 January 2, and January 16, 2018 Greg Johnson, Hearth Development, LLC CIVIL ENGINEER: Todd Erickson, PE REQUEST: 1) Rezone to TR, Traditional Residential 2) Preliminary Plat approval of Nottingham Village, a 15 lot Single Family Residential Subdivision LOCATION: 12220 McKusick Road COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LDR, Low Density Residential CITY DECISION DEADLINE: February 17, 2018 (extended 60 days by City) REVIEWED BY: Shawn Sanders, City Engineer; Abbi Wittman, City PlanOner; Tom Ballis, Assistant Fire Chief; Jenn Sorensen, DNR Area Hydrologist; Anne Terwedo; Washington County Public Works Karen Kill, Administrator, Brown's Creek Watershed District REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Greg Johnson, Hearth Development, LLC, plans to develop 5.30 acres1 of property located at 1220 McKusick Road. The preliminary plat for the project, to be known as Nottingham Village, shows 15 single family lots that are requested to be zoned TR, Traditional Residential. ' 5.30 gross acres, including right of way for County Road. There are 4.745 acres excluding the right of way. Nottingham Village December 1, 2017 Page 2 The site is located amongst large unsewered lots that were developed while the neighborhood was located in Stillwater Township. (See attached Neighborhood Map.) Generally speaking, the neighborhood lies just east of Manning Avenue (County Road 15) between McKusick Road (County Road 64) and Brown's Creek. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on this case on November 15, 2017. After hearing testimony from several neighbors, the Commission closed the hearing but tabled a decision until December 13. The tabling allowed time for the developer to hold a neighborhood meeting on the project before the Planning Commission reached a decision. That meeting was held on November 27th and seven of the neighboring families attended. SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to develop the property as proposed, the applicant has requested approval of the following: 1. Rezoning of the property to TR, Traditional Residential 2. Preliminary Plat known as Nottingham Village for 15 single family lots EVALUATION OF REQUEST I. REZONING Mr. Johnson has requested that the property be zoned TR, Traditional Residential. It is currently zoned AP, Agricultural Preservation, which is the temporary zoning classification assigned by the Minnesota Municipal Board when the area was annexed in 2015. The expectation is that when development occurs, the property would be rezoned to a classification that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The requested TR zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which guides development of the site and neighborhood as Low Density Residential. The Zoning Districts that are consistent with the Low Density Residential classification are: TR, RA, LR band CTR. Incidentally, the TR zoning is the same as Brown's Creek Preserve, which is a recently developed subdivision directly across McKusick Road from the subject property. (See the attached zoning map.) II. PRELIMINARY PLAT A. Minimum Dimensional Standards: TR Zoning District Nottingham Village December 1, 2017 Page 3 TR District - Dimensional Standards Standard Min. requirement Proposed Lot area 10,000 sf avg 10,485 sf (8,258 - 21,964 sf) Lot width2 65' Min 65' Lot depth' NA' Min 118.7' Lot frontage 35' Min 36' Lot frontage on public road 35' Min 65' Front setback 20' 20' typical Setback from McKusick 100' 100' Side setback house 10' Min 10' Side setback garage 5' Min 5' Garage setback, front loaded4 27' Min 27 Garage setback, side loaded 20' Min 20 Rear setback for house 25' Lot 1, B13 = 10' All others min 25' The house layout on Lot 1, Block 3 will require a rear yard setback variance if built as shown on Sheet C3 in the attached plan set. Since the porch and front of the house face the west lot line, the east lot line is the rear line. A setback of 25 feet is therefore required from the east lot line. Only 10 feet is shown. However, if the floor plan is revised so that the porch and front of house are oriented toward the south lot line, then the setbacks for the house on this lot are fine. Staff has included this floor plan change as a condition of preliminary plat approval. With the floor plan layout to Lot 1, Block 3, no variances would be needed for this project. A TR subdivision is normally part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). 50% of a PUD is required to be open space. So, normally the amount of green space to be found in a TR subdivision is not a concern. But, this TR subdivision (like Brown's Creek Preserve on the south side of McKusick Road) is not a PUD. Therefore, impervious surface should be looked at in more detail. The percent of impervious surface should be calculated for each lot prior to approval of the preliminary plat by the City Council. If there is more than 30% impervious surface on each lot, the Council should consider mitigation requirements. 2 Width is measured between side lot lines at right angles to lot depth at a point midway between front and rear lot lines 3 average distance between front and rear lot lines. 4 In addition to the 27' minimum garage setback, 75% of the garages in the subdivision have to be set 6' behind the front of the house. Nottingham Village December 1, 2017 Page 4 B. Future Development The City's Subdivision Codes, requires "provisions for future [street] extensions or connections to adjacent land". And, it also states that "proposed subdivisions must be coordinated with existing nearby .... neighborhoods so that the community as a whole may develop harmoniously"6. In practice these future development provisions compel City officials and developers to consider how properties abutting proposed land subdivisions could rationally develop in the future. And, to coordinate the construction of infrastructure, so that if reasonably possible, abutting properties are not landlocked. Landlocking can occur, for example, if streets are not extended, or access onto a County or State Highway is not allowed, or if utilities are not extended. In this case, the developer will extend utilities as well as provide street connections. Perhaps the most prominent discussion item at the neighborhood meeting was the proposed road alignment and its extension for future development. The attached neighborhood map shows how the development of Nottingham Village would allow for future development of surrounding properties. The alignment of the street through Nottingham Village is effected by at least the following considerations: 1. McKusick Road is County Road 64. Washington County controls points of access onto this road in order to manage traffic speed, volume and safety. The result is that direct permanent access to Nottingham Village from County Road 64 will not be permitted. 2. Permanent road intersection points along County Road 64 in the immediate area will be at Macey Way and Marylane Avenue North. (See neighborhood map.) 3. The properties west of Notthingham Village could be accessed over a road that intersects County Road 64 at Marylane Avenue. 4. In order to provide sufficient safe stacking distance for cars waiting to enter onto County Road 64, a parallel "frontage" road will not be permitted too close to the County Road. 5. Given the 100 foot setback from the right-of-way for County Road 64, the alignment of a parallel road through the neighborhood 5 Section 32-1, Subd 5 (8)(c) Streets 6 Section 32-1, Subd 6 (2)(d) Nottingham Village December 1, 2017 Page 5 would have to have an alignment similar to what is seen in the attached neighborhood map. The neighbor immediately to the east expressed interest in having the street in Nottingham Village stop short of their property line. The right-of-way could be platted up to the property line, but until the neighboring property develops, the street could dead-end about 35 feet westward at the driveway for Lot 2, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 3. Complete this portion of road with future development Future road C. Civil Engineering 1. The public street being constructed by the developer will connect 87th Street North to McKusick Road (County Road 64). However, as mentioned above, since access management is necessary on all county roads, only a temporary connection to County Road 64 will be allowed for this subdivision. When the permanent access to McKusick Road is built, then the temporary connection in Nottingham Village will have to be removed. An escrow will be required of this developer to cover the future cost of that removal. Moreover, if the street is stopped 35 feet short of the eastern property line, then escrow sufficient to cover the cost of extending it to the property line will also be necessary. Nottingham Village December 1, 2017 Page 6 2. All of the preliminary civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction, prior to submission of the final plat application. 3. All electrical and communication utility lines are required to be buried. 4. A permit will be required from Washington County for work within their right of way. The City is required to get this permit. So, the developer will have to provide the information for the City to complete the permit application. 5. Removal of the existing temporary cul-de-sac on 87th St North will be required of the developer. 6. Development impact fees will have to be paid prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. Based upon the net developable acreage, the fees will be as follows: a. Trout Stream Mitigation Fee of $5,912 per acre. i. Credit can be given for the existing house. Assuming the average lot size of 10,000 square feet (0.230 acres), then only 4.515 net acres would be required to pay the fee. Therefore, a total of $26,692.68 would be due for the Trout Stream Mitigation Fee. b. North Area transportation mitigation fee of $7,686 per acre. i. Credit can be given for the existing house. Assuming the average lot size of 10,000 square feet (0.230 acres), then only 4.515 net acres would be required to pay the fee. Therefore, a total of $34,702.29 would be due for the Transportation Mitigation Fee. c. Boutwell West trunk sewer and water fees of $10,608.00 per acre. i. Credit cannot be given for the existing home, since it is on a private well and septic system. Therefore, a total of $50,334.96 would be due for the sewer and water trunk charges.? D. Tree Preservation & Landscaping Two development standards exist for this subdivision: 1) street trees, and 2) tree preservation. 1. Street Trees The subdivision code requires an average of three street trees per lot8. The landscape plan shows 32, though 45 are required. Therefore, landscape plan needs to be revised to show the remaining 13 trees in back yards. Or a tree replacement fee will need to be paid for these 13 trees. The fee would be based upon the retail cost of a 2" DBH deciduous tree. Since trunk fees are required, hook-up fees will not be charged at time of building permit application. $ City Code Ch 32, Subd. 6(3)q Nottingham Village December 1, 2017 Page 7 2. Tree preservation All 29 significant trees on the property will be removed. a. No protected slopes exist on the site. So, the prohibition on removing trees from steep slopes does not apply. b. The City's environmental ordinances would allow 35% of the tree stock to be taken down. Since 100% is being removed, replacement is required. i. One tree is required for each tree removed beyond the 35% threshold. Of the 29 significant trees on the site, 10 could be removed without replacement. Since all 29 are being removed, 19 will need to be replaced. ii. The size of the 19 replacement trees must be an average of 2 inches diameter at about four feet above ground. Conifers must be at least 6 feet tall. iii. The subdivision code allows a tree replacement fee to be paid if they cannot be planted on site. The fee would be based upon the retail cost of a 2" DBH deciduous tree. E. Park and Trail Dedication The Comprehensive Plan's park element shows no planned park or trails on or through the property. Therefore, standard practice would be to require a fee in lieu of land or improvements. The Park Commission is scheduled to review the plans on November 27, 2017. If the Park Commission recommends requiring fees in lieu of land or improvements, then park and trail fees will be due on 14 of the 15 lots. The park fee for a single family home is $2,000 and the trail fee is $500. The existing home is exempted. Therefore, $35,000 would be due for the park and trail fees at the time the final plat is released for recording with Washington County. F. Environmental Considerations Wetlands - The property has no wetlands. BCWD - A grading permit is required from Brown's Creek Watershed District prior to submittal of the final plat application. Floodplain - The property includes no FEMA identified floodplains. Shoreland Overlay District - The shoreland overlay district for Brown's Creek lies just outside the subject property. (See attached zoning map). Nottingham Village December 1, 2017 Page 8 ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is requested to review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the rezoning and preliminary plat. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, and rezoning 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: • Site Layout Plan Sheet C3 dated 11/3/17 • Grading Plan Sheet C4 dated 11/3/17 • Utility Plan Sheet C5 dated 11/3/17 • Landscape Plan Sheet L1 dated 11/3/17 2. All civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction, prior to final plat application. 3. Removal of the existing temporary cul-de-sac on 87th St North will be required of the developer. The letter of credit, or other public improvement security as approved in the Development Agreement for the project, will not be released until this work is completed. 4. An escrow will be required for extension of the 35 feet of street to the east property line, as well as removal of the temporary street connection to McKusick Road. The amount shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, and be deposited with the City prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. 5. The percentage of impervious surface must be calculated for each lot prior to approval of the preliminary plat by the City Council. If there is more than 30% impervious surface on each lot, the Council should consider mitigation requirements. 6. A Development Agreement found satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer must be approved by the City Council prior to commencing any tree removal or grading on the site, and prior to holding a pre -construction meeting with the City Engineer for the project. 7. A permit will be required from Washington County for work within their right of way. The City will be required to submit the permit application. Therefore, the developer will have to submit all necessary information to the City to complete the permit application. This information must be submitted to the City by the developer prior to release of the final plat for recording at Washington County. 8. The developer shall submit a grading permit application to Brown's Creek Watershed District, and the permit must be issued prior to submitting the application to the City for the final plat. Any permit conditions that the City Engineer finds necessary to include in the final plan set shall be included in the final plat application package. 9. A total of $35,000 shall be paid to the City for park and trail dedication fees. These fees shall be submitted to the City prior to release of the final plat for filing with the County. Nottingham Village December 1, 2017 Page 9 10. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval. 11. The Developer will be responsible for paying the Trout Stream Mitigation Fee of $26,692.68; the Transportation Mitigation Fee of $34,702.29; and trunk sewer and water fees of $50,334.96. These fees will be due prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. 12. Prior to releasing the final plat for filing with Washington County, the landscape plan must be revised to show 13 more street trees. . In the alternative, the cash equivalent of those 13 trees may be submitted to the city. (Any such cash equivalent would be calculated based upon the retail cost of a 2" DBH deciduous tree). 13. Prior to releasing the final plat for filing with Washington County, the landscape plan must be revised to show 19 replacement trees for the removal of all existing significant trees on the property. In the alternative, the cash equivalent of those 19 trees may be submitted to the city. (Any such cash equivalent would be calculated based upon the retail cost of a 2" DBH deciduous tree). 14. If the Developer desires to have a neighborhood entrance monument for the subdivision, plans for it must be included within the final plat application materials. Otherwise, such a sign will not be permitted in the future. 15. The floor plan for Lot 1, Block 3 must be changed so that the porch and front of the house are oriented toward the south lot line. In the alternative, a variance will need to requested and granted by the City prior to issuance of the building permit for this lot. cc Greg Johnson Todd Erickson Attachments: Zoning Map Neighborhood Map Development Plans Ommi Brown's Creek Trail Future road Nottingham Village 'Zoning Districts Brown's Creek Shoreland District A-P, Agricultural Preservation RA - Single Family Residential RB - Two Family TR, Traditional Residential LR, Lakeshore Residential CR, Cottage Residential Ir CTR, Cove Traditional Residential CCR, Cove Cottage Residential CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential TH, Townhouse PM RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential VC, Village Commercial CA - General Commercial CBD - Central Business District BP-C, Business Park - Commercial la BP-O, Business Park - Office r - BP -I, Business Park - Industrial IB - Heavy Industrial CRD - Campus Research Development I. PA - Public Administration PROS - Park, Recreation or Open Space rim Public Works Facility ROAD WATER Nottingham Village Neighborhood Map Contours at 2' intervaisl it - All Rights Reserved © 2017 - T. Erickson, LLC - Er o+00 7th Street ort )f\\AI1 r-\/ \IJVVL_L_ I T) A N Innl\ ���=)� L <' i_) A N I/I IF—TTF \/-\I NLJUIVI UI \L_L_( \ I \/-\I NUC1L_ 1 I L__; S-(:I 'RR 8,345 sq.ft. Front House 8,258 sq.ft. 10,347 sq.ft. 3-Car Garage House 3-Car Garage 9,218 sq.ft. House 3-Car Garage 9,155 sq.ft. House 3-Car Garage 9,851 sq.ft. House 3-Car Garage 21,964 sq.ft. House 100-FT SETBACK INFILTRATION BASIN n IlJ N89°19'53"W 34210 3-Car Garage PT DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT S88°56'19"E 152.91 = 3+29.12 3-Car Garage 9,527 sq.ft. House 28-FT F-F Garage 2-Car House 3-Car Garage JHouse PC = 4 18.05 PT=4 71. 3-Car Garage House 8,866 sq.ft. 60-FT RIW House 9,293 sq.ft. Garage 2-Car 8,367 sq.ft. House 8,643 sq.ft. 9,169 sq.ft. Garage 3-Car House 1+00 28-FTIF-F 60-FT RAN Front I_ 3-Car Garage 14,002 sq.ft. 3-Car Garage House 12,267 sq.ft. STORV1 POND DRAINAGE &IUTILITY EASEMENT S88°51'28"E 187.37 - r\N 1^ T^ Al w w 0 LL M CO rn U) w w U_ 0 LLI J 1- v) w FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION I Ir-n rrr'.r 1 E1L_I N 1 \JI N 40 0 40 80 120 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE Legend 11 PROPERTY BOUNDARY Street lights shall be Xcel Energy 100 HPS, California Acorn (black in color) with 15-ft black aluminum poles UTILITY EASEMENT 20-FT FRONT BUILDING SETBACK (SIDE & REAR LISTED BELOW) PROPOSED STREET SIGN PROPOSED BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT Development Standards - TR Average lot area (when part of a PUD) Lot width Lot depth Front yard setback House Garage (front facing) Garage (side facing) Side yard setback Interior House Garage Corner House Garage Rear yard setback House Garage Frontage requirement Maximum garage area 10,000 square feet (Project =10,485 Sq. Ft.) 65 feet NA 20 feet 27 feet 20 feet 10 feet 5 feet, 3 feet if in rear yard 15 feet 20 feet 25 feet 3 feet 35 feet 1,000 square feet Height Main building/accessory building 2'/2 stories, not to exceed 35 feet Garages, accessory building 1 story, not to exceed 20 feet FRONT OF LOT 10' 5' 2 REAR F LOT 5' TYPICAL EASEMENT DETAIL LOT LENGTH LOT WIDTH AT REAR OF LOT BLOCK NUMBER LOT NUMBER AREA OF LOT IN SQUARE FEET LOT WIDTH AT RIGHT OF WAY TYPICAL LOT DETAIL ERICKSON CIVIL 333 North Main Street, Suite 201 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Phone (612) 309-3804 www.ericksoncivilsite.com DRAWING PHASE: OWNER REVIEW t% AGENCY REVIEW BID DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AS -BUILT DOCUMENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STAT F MINNESOTA TJAD A. RICKSON, PE 40418 LICENSE NO. 11/03/2017 DATE: OWNER/DEVELOPER PROJECT TITLE DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 0 JOB NO. 17-146 SHEET TITLE SITE LAYOUT, LIGHTING AND SIGNING PLAN SHEET NO. C3 SHEET 3 OF 5 it - All Rights Reserved © 2017 - T. Erickson, LLC - Ericks r-I/1E)ITT(\ I'.J I \ I I 1 lJ /1 ITI r T \_/ lJ I L _ V I Dr\\A11 r-\i \ IJ V V L _ L_ I 415' FES INV. 916.9 v 15' FES INV. 923.6 ,924-___, L) A N Innl\ A —F-1/ L) A I \/-\I VU�/IVI® mil \L_LLr - I I L_ 1A1r-I^^ VV L_ INV. 923.5 T INV. 922.15 1+00 0.60% G TOB 924.5 GTB 924.5 BFE 915.5 922 gig p0 ' FIB 916 _ N89°19'53"W 34210 914 912 911- 910 INV. 916.00 MP HYD.4- 922 co co CO N CO N � � b O O CI CO CO 010101 G TOB 918.0 GTB 918.0 BFE 909.0 TOB GTB BFE FIB FIB w 1- LL 0 LI_ co M CO rn 0) w w L I_ 0 w Z 0) w CY) U w CO w 1- LL_ 0 w - C!) / _ —914 INV. 915.30 - _ * INV. 912.70 INV. 911.20 p l� INI\ I I \nIL_ 15' FES INV. 909.2 40 LEGEND 0 40 80 120 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE 922.85 LP I HP EOF -1050 - 0.74°// 2ND ADDITION BOUNDARY EXISTING 2-FT CONTOUR INTERVAL HIGH OR LOW POINT OF STREET PROFILE LOCATION AND ELEVATION HP = HIGH POINT, LP = LOW POINT, EOF = EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PROPOSED 2-FT CONTOUR INTERVAL PROPOSED DRAINAGE ARROW PROPOSED STREET GRADE PERCENT AND DIRECTION al PROPOSED STORM SEWER AND STRUCTURES GRADING NOTES: 1) SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE ALL GUTTER LINE OR FINISHED ELEVATION UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2) ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS SHOWN AS FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. D&U EASEMENT @ 100 YEAR HWL OR STORM EASEMENT TYPE OF BUILDING W/O = WALK OUT BASEMENT L/O = LOOK OUT BASEMENT FIB = FULL BASEMENT LOWEST OPENING W/0 = BFE LIO = BFE + 3.5-FT R = BFE + 3.5-ft FOR EGRESS WINDOW (BFE = BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATON) TOB 927 5 GTB 927.5 BFE 918.5 G LOT GRADING DETAIL LOT LINE (TYP.) TOP OF BLOCK GARAGE TOP OF BLOCK BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION "G" DESIGNATION DEFINES GARAGE LOCATION (HIGH SIDE OF LOT) ERICKSON CIVIL 333 North Main Street, Suite 201 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Phone (612) 309-3804 www.ericksoncivilsite.com DRAWING PHASE: OWNER REVIEW t% AGENCY REVIEW BID DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AS -BUILT DOCUMENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STAT F MINNESOTA PT DD A. RICKSON, PE 40418 LICENSE NO. 11/03/2017 DATE: OWNER/DEVELOPER PROJECT TITLE DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 0 JOB NO. 17-146 SHEET TITLE GRADING PLAN SHEET NO. C4 SHEET 4 OF 5 15" FES INV. 923.6 ID: SMH 9 RE: 923. IE: 900.12 0+00 INV. 900.32 87th Street iVor th r-I/l:)ITT\ I iv' \I 1 1 v I \v VV L_L_ 1 it - All Rights Reserved © 2017 - T. Erickson, LLC - E 415" FES INV. 916.9 T) A fN In/11\ A ( T)r-r-R<' E) A IN I( I Ir-T�r I\/ -\I NDUIV1 ul\L_L_C\ I\ I I L_._; IAIr-I^^ VV NV. 923.5 INV. 922.15 $8 L.F. R" PVC 8" Dip WMSDR 26 @ 0.50% ID: CBMH 5 RE: 917.24 IE: 913.74 ID: SMH 4 RE: 916.95 IE: 897.47 ID: CB 2 RE: 915.85 IE: 912.50 4-FT SUMP INV. 916.00 ■ HYD. 15" RCP ID: SMH 7 RE: 922.21 IE: 899.10 ID: SMH 6 RE: 920.68 IE: 898.60 ID: CBMH 4 RE: 917.24 IE: 913.54 ID: STMH 3 RE: 916.70 ID: CBMH 4 IE: 912.60 RE: 916.00 IE: 912.75 -FT SUMP 150 L.F. 8" P,VC SDR 26@0'.40% to ID: CB 5 RE: 916.00 IE: 913.00 4-FT SUMP ID: CBMH 1 RE: 915.85 IE: 912.20 4-FT SUMP AH 1 4" RCP ID: SMH 3 RE: 917.26 IE: 896.49 INV. 912.00 INV. 912.00 INV. 915.30 ran IL) TL) A II LJI NI \ I I \/1IL_ ID: CB 5 RE: 917.10 IE: 913.60 4-FT SUMP CB 6 ID: SMH 5 RE: 918.00 IE: 898.17 346 DIP WM t- INV. 912.70 INV. 911.20 p ( QINV. 910.90 - e e ce O m J O F- U W ce 15" FES 15" FES INV.910.7pC.1INV. 909.7 D: SMH 1 RE: 913.80 IE: 892.79 Q 15" FES INV. 909.2 40 0 40 80 120 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE Legend PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT C PROPOSED 8" PVC (SDR 26) SANITARY SEWER • ® 4 PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER m PROPOSED 8" DIP WM CL. 52 WATER MAIN, HYDRANT AND GATE VALVE CC Q EXISTING STORM SEWER Keyed Notes ITI® EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER 0 to CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER WITH BOX TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE TO TRAIL, ETC. JACK/BORE SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN CROSSING (USE C-900 FOR BOTH PIPES) SALVAGE AND REINSTALL EXISTING CULVERT USE BOX IN HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE OF EXCAVATION ERICKSON CIVIL 333 North Main Street, Suite 201 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Phone (612) 309-3804 www.ericksoncivilsite.com DRAWING PHASE: OWNER REVIEW t% AGENCY REVIEW BID DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AS -BUILT DOCUMENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STAT F MINNESOTA T DD A. RICKSON, PE 40418 LICENSE NO. 11/03/2017 DATE: H z 0 F--1 x OWNER/DEVELOPER U c4 M H Cf) PROJECT TITLE JOB NO. 17-146 SHEET TITLE UTILITY PLAN SHEET NO. C5 SHEET 5 OF 5 w / 15" FES „INV. 923.6 .+00 87th Street North r-I(1j)ITT(1 1 I\JI \I I 1 V Dn1All r-\/ I\\JVVL_L_ 1 15" FES INV. 917.9 415 FES INV. 916.9 j) A N A I-)r—r—I<' I—) A N I(1 J1'TTE I \/—\I \U\/IVI— -\U1 �L=LC \ — L_ I 1 L_ INV. 922.15 Lill NI vi \U _ N89°19'53"W 342.10 INV. 916.00 MI HYD.-V- 11 INV. 915.30 r1N1c) TD)AII UI NI \ I I \rnIL_ w U_ 0 U_ CO CO rn Ww 0 w — w U w Z w U- 0 w N 1 N INV. 912.70 115" FES INV. 910.7D I Irnrrr'r 1 I r1L_I N 1 \JI N 15' FES INV. 910.4 15" FES 1 INV. 909 77 _ 40 0 40 80 120 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE Legend PLANTING SCHEDULE PROPERTY BOUNDARY 15-FT POLE WITH ORNAMENTAL LIGHT, XCEL ENERGY "ACRON" LAMP. UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREE (2 YEAR WARRANTY) PROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREE (2 YEAR WARRANTY) OVERSTORY TREES Latin Name Quantity Size Type Notes SJ Scarlet Jewel Maple Acer rubrum 'Scarlet Jewel' 4 2-1/2' Dia. 5+8 AB Autumn Blaze Maple Acer x freemanii 'Jeffersred 8 2-1/2' Dia. 8+5 BO Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor 4 2-1/2' Dia. 8+8 WO White Oak Quercus alba 5 2-1/2' Dia. 8+8 RB River- Birch Betula nigra 4 1O—ft 5+5 WS White Spruce Picea glauca G 8—ft B+B THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PLUMBNESS OF TREES THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD, THEREFORE STAKING IS AT THE CONTRACTOR'S DISCRETION. POLY STRAP 2/3 UP TREE OR TO 1ST BRANCH. DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA. GUY WIRE. FLAG (ONE PER WIRE). TREE WRAP. 3" SOIL SAUCER AROUND TREE. nnWununllibilM111111111ll�111111llln""'" • Illllllllllllllllllllllllllnllppl!10ij!unw BALL DIA. + 24" DO NOT CUT LEADER. GALVANIZED TURNBUCKLE. OPTIONAL, SEE SPECS. GUYING CABLE @ 3 GUYS PER TREE AS REQUIRED. OPTIONAL, SEE SPECS. FINISH GRADE BEFORE BACKFILLING. CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP, TWINE, AND/ OR WIRE FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOT BALL. SEE PLAN FOR MULCH TYPE EXISTING GRADE. TOP OF ROOT BALL SHALL BE 3" ABOVE GUYING STAKE TO BE DRIVEN BELOW FINISH GRADE. PLANTING MIXTURE. SEE SPECS. LOOSEN HARDPAN (8" MIN.) STAKE TO BE 18" BELOW TREE PIT IN UNDISTURBED GROUND. DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING ERICKSON CIVIL 333 North Main Street, Suite 201 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Phone (612) 309-3804 www.ericksoncivilsite.com DRAWING PHASE: OWNER REVIEW ti AGENCY REVIEW BID DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AS -BUILT DOCUMENT OWNER/DEVELOPER HEARTH DEVELOPMENT 3300 RICE ST. ST. PAUL, MN 55126 PROJECT TITLE NOTTINGHAM VILLAGE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA w H Q 0 REVISION DESCRIPTION 0 z JOB NO. 17-146 SHEET TITLE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NO. Li SHEET 1 OF 1 w 87TH ST N.p 71 5&7_' � �� ^r � LOTO BLK2 NORTH LINE oFWASmworomCOUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT oFWAY PLAT NO. oo N88°5G'1Q � . / / � " / / LOT1O 8LK1 / / NORTH LINE orTHE oO/oTHm7rT opTHE as1woF mw1wSEC. 10 ~ wop/W MON. nro�nspoo 15281' / z^mm.o^p .m& N88~51'28^VV187.37' � McKUSICK AKA COUNTY ROAD NO. 64 ROAD NORTH /'F|LE NAME � SCALE 1O0Pt/|n DATE 10-11'2O17 DRAWN BY PAJDHNSDN JOB REVISION SHEET � \� 17'731 1/1 + This map drawn with TRAVERSE PC, Software � _ " W 607.23' m * � � |m° | ~ =~= O CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY LOT11 BLK1 D DENOTES 1/2"|DIRON PIPE K4ONU. WITH PLASTIC CAP STAMPED RLS 10938 NORTH LINE nFvwxsH|mmTnwCOUNTY �^ HIGHWAY RIGHT npWAY PLAT NO. oo PRERPAREOBt PJLAND SURVEYING, LLC 1251OMCKUS|CKRD. N. ~ ST|LUNATER.K4N55O82 651'303'0025 23O8Q7SFFTOR5.30AC. =AREA INCLUDING VKCR8N 242O4SFFTORO.550AC=AREA OFVKC.R8N 2O0003SFFTOR4J5AC=AREA 0FPARCEL EXCLUDING VV.C.R8N ADDRESS: 1222OMCKUS|CKROAD NORTH ST|LUNATER.MN55082 | HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS |SATRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF ASURVEY OFTHE BOUNDARIES OF: ALL THAT PART OFTHE SOUTH 677FEET OFTHE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OFSECTION 10.TOWNSHIP 30.RANGE 2O.WHICH LIES WEST OFTHE EAST 083.G4FEET THEREOF, ACCORDING TOTHE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF, VVASH|NGTDNCOUN7Y, M|NNESOTA AND THE LOCATION OFALL BUILDINGS, |FANY, THEREON, AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, |FANY, FROM ORDNSAID LAND, |TALSOSHOVVSTHE LOCATION OFTHE STAKES ASSET FOR APROPOSED BUILDING AS SURVEYED 8YK4EORUNDER K4YDIREST SUPERVISION THIS 1OTHDAY OFOCTO8ER.2O17. PJLAND SURVEYING, LLC BY: 6ze PAULA.JOK�S�N LAND SURVEYOR, MINN. L|C.NO. 1O038 SOUTH LINE oFTHE as1w opTHE mvv1wSEC. 1e S89~19'53^E 132371' PRERPAREOFOR; HEARTH DEVELOPMENT, LLC 33OORICE STREET LITTLE CANADA.MN. 5512O 851'383-4850 983.64' 8y4= - womwMON. mrm^REROD/ 2'ALUM. CAP w,'0o'25's 1000' w89'17'58"W ouo'4o'4s s ' w85-57n9"w wc�wwow mrm^��ZALUM. CAP > 000nu'1u.s aoo^nroe^s 41.02' wo Traverse PC 7 Ft E B. R T N P I C E 9 F MINNFSOITA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 13, 2017 CASE NO.: 2014-40 APPLICANT: Madeline Fyten, applicant REQUEST: Request for an extension of Special Use Permit 2014-40 for a proposed Brewery and Tap Room facility to be located in the structure located at 114 Chestnut Street East ZONING: CBD-Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU-Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND In December, 2014, the applicant gained conditional approval of a Special Use Permit for a micro -brewery in the basement of the structure located at 114 Chestnut Street East. The operation would be known as St. Croix Brewery. A tap room, a use similar to a restaurant, was approved to be located on the main floor of the structure. In January, 2017, the Planning Commission granted a one-year extension of SUP 2014-40 on the basis the applicant has been working on necessary building modifications. REQUEST The applicant has requested the Planning Commission's consideration of an additional one- year extension of Special Use Permit 2014-40 for a micro -brewery and taproom to be located at 114 Chestnut Street East. The request comes before the City has the property owner and applicant had to make unforeseen but necessary changes to the interior of the structure in order to accommodate this change of use. APPLICABLE CITY CODE City Code Section 31-204, Subdivision 6(b) indicates "a permit may be extended for an additional period not to exceed one year by the board or official that approved the permit." RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation approval of a one-year extension of Special Use Permit 2014-40. Madeline Fyten 114 Chestnut Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651-331-1819 madeline.fyten@gmail.com 7th December 2017 Abbi Jo Wittman City Planner 216 Fourth St. Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Ms. Wittman, I am requesting a one-year extension on the St. Croix Brewery project. Here is an update on what has been accomplished to date. Most of the construction on the basement and outside of the building is complete. The brewing equipment has been built to our specifications and is being shipped to the Twin Cities for installation. Work has begun on the main floor (taproom). Our plan has us finishing this part of the project in spring of 2018 in preparation for a summer opening. Thank you for your assistance. Most sincerely, Madeline Fyten Sti11W1teL S f MINEEJIA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 13, 2017 CASE NO.: N/A REGARDING: City -initiated Small Wireless Infrastructure Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner RELEVANT INFORMATION "Wireless" refers to communication without wires or cables. In its broadest sense, "wireless" encompasses many different technologies and devices; these are as small as a TV remote control to as large as a cellular tower. With an increase in smartphone use, as well as advances in technology for certain types of businesses, there is a greater need for wireless infrastructure. The new infrastructure needed is not just traditional cell towers (sometimes referred to as Megacells, with coverage area in miles). New wireless facilities, herein referred to as Small Wireless Facilities are smaller, more targeted, and much more numerous than traditional cell towers; these are known as Microcells, Macrocells and Picocells which are either smaller towers or antennae, covering more localized areas. Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and Data Collection Units (DCUs) are two different types of small cell infrastructure. DAS increases capacity in local, targeted and underserved areas. The infrastructure is generally installed by quasi -public third party utilities (opposed to the network provider) on rooftops and in right- of-ways. DAS networks involve different types of installations: poles, antennae (nodes), control boxes on poles, cabinets on ground, and fiber optic cable to a central hub site. Public ROW installation typically includes 4-5 ft. antennas Figure 2: DAS Example Figure 2: DCU Example on current utility poles or new 25-45 ft. fiberglass poles in areas where all utilities are underground. DCUs communicate with other types of devices (such as meter readers). DCUs are being deployed primarily by electric utilities. Different types of infrastructure components are common including antennae on existing and "additional" poles, must taller poles with antennae on top and even refrigerator sized ground -mounted cabinets. CITY ACTION REQUIRED Companies typically want to install these small cell infrastructure in public rights -of -way (ROWs). In May, 2017, Gov. Dayton signed into law a bill amending the state's Telecommunications Right -of -Way User Law which streamlines permitting systems for small cell infrastructure. The law creates the following new definitions: Small Wireless Facility: 1) a wireless facility that meets both of the following qualifications: a) each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an antennae that has expose elements, the antenna and all its exposed elements could fit within an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet; and b) all other wireless equipment associated with the small wireless facility, excluding electric meters, concealment elements, telecommunication demarcation boxes, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, cutoff switches, cable, conduit, vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services, and any equipment concealed from public view within or behind an existing structure or concealment, is in aggregate no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; or 2) a micro wireless facility (which is further defined as "a small wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches wide, and 12 inches high, and whose exterior antenna, if any, is no longer than 11 inches. Wireless Service: means any service using licensed or unlicensed wireless spectrum, including the use of Wi-Fi, whether at a fixed location or by means of a mobile device, that is provided using wireless facilities. Wireless Support Structure: means a new or existing structure in a public right-of-way designed to support or capable of supporting small wireless facilities, as reasonable determined by a local government unit. Wireline Backhaul Facility: a facility used to transport communications data by wire from a wireless facility to a communications network. The City must review its current ordinances to determine whether they comply with the newly adopted laws and regulations and address new technologies inside and outside of the ROW. This will include incorporation of recent state law changes, separate requirements for tower and non -tower facilities in residential, commercial and historic districts in and out of the ROW, Small Cell Infrastructure CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 2 of 5 collocation and "second generation" facilities. This will affect, at a minimum, City Code Chapter 24, Streets, Alleys and Public Property, as well as City Code Section 31-512, Regulation of radio and television towers. Information from the League of Minnesota cities regarding the newly - adopted state law, information memo about regulating cell towers and small cell technology, as well as a summary article about the changes and the ways the City may regulate these types of improvements is attached for Commission review. PUBLIC PURPOSE There are two purposes of the future Zoning Text Amendment: 1. To provide for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory access to City -owned infrastructure in the public right-of-way while designating a streamlined permitting process. 2. To establish design requirements for the installation of new wireless support structures to ensure visual compatibility with their surroundings. DISCUSSION The City only owns a few desirable structures that would function for small wireless facilities. Almost all power poles and street lights in the City are owned by private utility companies. However, the new law declares these small wireless facilities to be an outright permitted use in any non -single family residential districts as well as designated historic districts. The impact of the new State law could be a dense network of the small wireless infrastructure in every zoning district except single family districts. The Zoning Text Amendment should address the following. Staff has provided comments to help initiate discussion. Discussion item Law Reference Staff Comments Use As noted, improvements are an outright permitted use in any non- single family residential district as well as designated historic districts. In single-family residential and historic districts, the City will need to modify its zoning ordinance to allow by Conditional Use Permit. The code will need to be amended to allow for small wireless facilities to be allowed in all other districts as an outright permitted use. Annual Registration All small cell wireless companies must annually register with the City. The City currently has a registration program managed by the Engineering Department. Permitting Process The City may require a permit prior to installation. A denial of the permit must be made in The City currently has a right -of - way permit program that addresses excavation and Small Cell Infrastructure CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 3 of 5 Collocation Agreement/ Leasing writing within three business days of the application submittal otherwise the permit must be approved within 90 days. One permit application may be used for up to 15 different small cell infrastructure improvements, if all are the same. The City cannot request information that has previously been submitted in a previously approved application Collocation is allowed as the electricity is already in place. However, the City cannot dictate which pole the facilities may be placed on but can require minimum separation from wireless support structures. obstruction. Though a telecommunications user is a right-of-way user, there is no permitting process in place. Additionally, there are no standards for construction and installation of small wireless facilities. Permits issued are often for the life of the facilities. City staff has obtained a template agreement to allow for collocation. Management Costs and Fee Schedule Design Requirements Small Cell Infrastructure CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 4 of 5 The City may charge for registration, each ROW permit and engineering costs. Certain fees are capped by state law. Lease (or collocation) fees can be charged on a competitively neutral basis, based on actual costs incurred and must represent all users of the public ROW, including the City. Rent can be charged if the small wireless is proposed on a City - owned support structure. The City can reasonably determine which types of structures are capable of supporting the facilities. The City can require decorative poles. The law indicates the support structures and facilities cannot exceed 50 feet (lesser of either 50- foot pole or 10 feet above highest pole), unless the local government The City charges will need to be determined by the City Council, with guidance from staff. Design standards should be developed in the zoning code to address existing structures (signs, poles, lights, etc.) in and out of residential and historic districts. While this will necessitate planning and zoning review and approval prior to the issuance of a permit, this would help reduce the visual impact these types of facilities may have on Stillwater. unit agrees to higher heights to Communities have addressed match other poles within the these requirements by having all vicinity. facilities and support structure concealed or located underground. Denials The City may deny small wireless facilities on the basis of health, safety and welfare. The City should develop health, safety and welfare determinants. TENATIVE TIMELINE The new law also creates a streamlined permitting process for new small cell infrastructure, if the City would like to establish a permitting system. The deadline for establishing a permit application and process was November 31, 2017. As a result, City staff is aiming to follow this tentative timeline for the development of this city -initiated Zoning Text Amendment: Meeting Date Action December 13, 2017 Planning Commission Introduction December 20, 2017 Heritage Preservation Commission Introduction January 2, 2018 City Council Introduction January 10, 2018 Planning Commission Review of Legislative Changes January 17, 2018 Heritage Preservation Commission Review of Legislative Changes February 14, 2018 Planning Commission Public Hearing February 20, 2018 City Council Public Hearing (1st Reading) March 6, 2018 City Council Public Hearing (2nd Reading) ATTACHMENTS MN Laws 2017, Chapter 94, Article 9 legislative changes LOMC Information Memo - Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems LOMC Article - Letter of the Law: Regulating Cell Towers and Small Cell Technology LOMC 2017 Telecommunications Right -of -Way User Amendments, Permitting Process for Small Wireless Facilities City Code Section 31-512: Regulating of radio and television towers City Code Chapter 24: Streets, Alleys and Public Property Small Cell Infrastructure CPC: December 13, 2017 Page 5 of 5 ARTICLE 9 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.162, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. Local government unit. "Local government unit" means a county, home rule charter or statutory city, OF town, or the Metropolitan Council. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.162, subdivision 4, is amended to read: Subd. 4. Telecommunications right-of-way user. (a) "Telecommunications right-of-way user" means a person owning or controlling a facility in the public right-of-way, or seeking to own or control a facility in the public right- of-way, that is used or is intended to be used for providing wireless service, or transporting telecommunications or other voice or data information. (b) A cable communication system defined and regulated under chapter 238, and telecommunications activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services whether provided by, a public utility as defined in section 216B.02, a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency organized under chapter 453 or 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under chapter 308A, are not telecommunications right-of-way users for the purposes of this section and section 237.163, except to the extent these entities are offering wireless services. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.162, subdivision 9, is amended to read: Subd. 9. Management costs or rights -of -way management costs. fa) "Management costs" or "rights -of -way management costs" means the actual costs a local government unit incurs in managing its public rights -of -way, and includes such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right-of-way or small wireless facility permit applications; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving user equipment during public right-of-way work; determining the adequacy of right-of-way restoration; restoring work inadequately performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and revoking right-of-way or small wireless facility permits. (b) Management costs do not include: (1) payment by a telecommunications right-of-way user for the use of the public right-of-way (2) unreasonable fees of a third -party contractor used by a local government unit as part of managing its public rights -of -way, including but not limited to any third -party contractor fee tied to or based upon customer counts, access lines, revenue generated by the telecommunications right-of-way user, or revenue generated for a local government unit; or (3) the fees and cost of litigation relating to the interpretation of this section or section 237.163 or any ordinance enacted under those sections, or the local unit of government's fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to section 237.163, subdivision 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.162, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 10. Collocate. "Collocate" or "collocation" means to install, mount, maintain, modify, operate, or replace a small wireless facility on, under, within, or adjacent to an existing wireless support structure that is owned privately or by a local government unit. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.162, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 11. Small wireless facility. "Small wireless facility" means: (1) a wireless facility that meets both of the following qualifications: fi) each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and all its exposed elements could fit within an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet; and (ii) all other wireless equipment associated with the small wireless facility, excluding electric meters, concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation boxes, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, cutoff switches, cable, conduit, vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services, and any equipment concealed from public view within or behind an existing structure or concealment, is in aggregate no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; or (2) a micro wireless facility. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.162, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 12. Utility pole. "Utility pole" means a pole that is used in whole or in part to facilitate telecommunications or electric service. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.162, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 13. Wireless facility. (a) "Wireless facility" means equipment at a fixed location that enables the provision of wireless services between user equipment and a wireless service network, including: (1) equipment associated with wireless service:, (2) a radio transceiver, antenna, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration; and (3) a small wireless facility. (b) "Wireless facility" does not include. (1) wireless support structures; (2) wireline backhaul facilities; or (3) coaxial or fiber-optic cables (i) between utility poles or wireless support structures, or (ii) that are not otherwise immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a specific antenna. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.162, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 14. Micro wireless facility. "Micro wireless facility" means a small wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches wide, and 12 inches high, and whose exterior antenna, if any, is no longer than 11 inches. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 9. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.162, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 15. Wireless service. "Wireless service" means any service using licensed or unlicensed wireless spectrum, including the use of Wi-Fi, whether at a fixed location or by means of a mobile device, that is provided using wireless facilities. Wireless service does not include services regulated under Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, including a cable service under United States Code, title 47, section 522, clause (6). EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 10. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.162, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 16. Wireless support structure. "Wireless support structure" means a new or existing structure in a public right-of- way designed to support or capable of supporting small wireless facilities, as reasonably determined by a local government unit. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.162, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 17. Wireline backhaul facility. "Wireline backhaul facility" means a facility used to transport communications data by wire from a wireless facility to a communications network. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 12. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.163, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. Generally. (a) Subject to this section, a telecommunications right-of-way user authorized to do business under the laws of this state or by license of the Federal Communications Commission may construct, maintain, and operate small wireless facilities, conduit, cable, switches, and related appurtenances and facilities along, across, upon, above, and under any public right-of-way. (b) Subject to this section, a local government unit has the authority to manage its public rights -of -way and to recover its rights -of -way management costs. Except as provided in subdivisions 3a, 3b, and 3c, the authority defined in this section may be exercised at the option of the local government unit. The exercise of this authority and is not mandated under this section. A local government unit may, by ordinance: (1) require a telecommunications right-of-way user seeking to excavate or obstruct a public right-of-way for the purpose of providing telecommunications services to obtain a right-of-way permit to do so and to impose permit conditions consistent with the local government unit's management of the right-of-way; (2) require a telecommunications right-of-way user using, occupying, or seeking to use or occupy a public right-of-way for the purpose of providing telecommunications services to register with the local government unit by providing the local government unit with the following information: (i) the applicant's name, gopher state one -call registration number under section 216D.03, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers; (ii) the name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the applicant's local representative; (iii) proof of adequate insurance; and (iv) other information deemed reasonably necessary by the local government unit for the efficient administration of the public right-of-way; and (3) require telecommunications right-of-way users to submit to the local government unit plans for construction and major maintenance that provide reasonable notice to the local government unit of projects that the telecommunications right-of-way user expects to undertake that may require excavation and obstruction of public rights -of -way. (c) A local government unit may also require a telecommunications right-of-way user that is registered with the local government unit pursuant to paragraph (b), clause (2), to periodically update the information in its registration application. (d) Notwithstanding sections 394.34 and 462.355, or any other law, a local government unit must not establish a moratorium with respect to: (1) filing, receiving, or processing applications for right-of-way or small wireless facility permits; or (2) issuing or approving right-of-way or small wireless facility permits. (e) A telecommunications right-of-way user may place a new wireless support structure or collocate small wireless facilities on wireless support structures located within a public right-of-way, subject to the approval procedures under this section and, for collocation on wireless support structures owned by a local government unit, the reasonable terms, conditions, and rates set forth under this section. A local government unit may prohibit, regulate, or charge a fee to install wireless support structures or to collocate small wireless facilities only as provided in this section. (f) The placement of small wireless facilities and wireless support structures to accommodate small wireless facilities are a permitted use in a public right-of-way, except that a local government unit may require a person to obtain a special or conditional land use permit to install a new wireless support structure for the siting of a small wireless facility in a right-of-way in a district or area zoned for single-family residential use or within a historic district established by federal or state law or city ordinance as of the date of application for a small wireless facility permit. This paragraph does not apply to areas outside a public right- of-way that are zoned and used exclusively for single-family residential use. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment, except that paragraph (d) is effective January 1, 2018, for a local government unit that has not enacted an ordinance regulating public rights -of -way as of May 18, 2017. Sec. 13. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.163, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 3a. Small wireless facility permits; general. (a) A local government unit: (1) may require a telecommunications right-of-way user to obtain a permit or permits under this section to place a new wireless support structure or collocate a small wireless facility in a public right-of-way managed by the local government unit; (2) must not require an applicant for a small wireless facility permit to provide any information that: (i) has previously been provided to the local government unit by the applicant in an application for a small wireless permit, which specific reference shall be provided to the local government unit by the applicant; and (ii) is not reasonably necessary to review a permit application for compliance with generally applicable and reasonable health, safety, and welfare regulations, and to demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal Communications Commission regulations governing radio frequency exposure, or other information required by this section; (3) must ensure that any application for a small wireless facility permit is processed on a nondiscriminatory basis; and (4) must specify that the term of a small wireless facility permit is equal to the length of time that the small wireless facility is in use, unless the permit is revoked under this section. (b) An applicant may file a consolidated permit application to collocate up to 15 small wireless facilities, or a greater number if agreed to by a local government unit, provided that all the small wireless facilities in the application: (1) are located within a two-mile radius; (2) consist of substantially similar equipment; and (3) are to be placed on similar types of wireless support structures In rendering a decision on a consolidated permit application, a local government unit may approve a permit for some small wireless facilities and deny a permit for others, but may not use denial of one or more permits as a basis to deny all the small wireless facilities in the application. (c) If a local government unit receives applications within a single seven-day period from one or more applicants seeking approval of permits for more than 30 small wireless facilities, the local government unit may extend the 90-day deadline imposed in subdivision 3c by an additional 30 days. If a local government unit elects to invoke this extension, it must inform in writing any applicant to whom the extension will be applied. (d) A local government unit is prohibited from requiring a person to pay a small wireless facility permit fee, obtain a small wireless facility permit, or enter into a small wireless facility collocation agreement solely in order to conduct any of the following activities: (1) routine maintenance of a small wireless facility; (2) replacement of a small wireless facility with a new facility that is substantially similar or smaller in size, weight, height, and wind or structural loading than the small wireless facility being replaced; or (3) installation, placement, maintenance, operation, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended on cables strung between existing utility poles in compliance with national safety codes. A local government unit may require advance notification of these activities if the work will obstruct a public right-of-way. (e) Nothing in this subdivision affects the need for an entity seeking to place a small wireless facility on a wireless support structure that is not owned by a local government unit to obtain from the owner of the wireless support structure any necessary authority to place the small wireless facility, nor shall any provision of this chapter be deemed to affect the rates, terms, and conditions for access to or placement of a small wireless facility or a wireless support structure not owned by a local government unit. This subdivision does not affect any existing agreement between a local government unit and an entity concerning the placement of small wireless facilities on local government unit -owned wireless support structures. (f) No later than six months after the effective date of this act or three months after receiving a small wireless facility permit application from a wireless service provider, a local government unit that has elected to set forth terms and conditions of collocation in a standard small wireless facility collocation agreement shall develop and make available an agreement that complies with the requirements of this section and section 237.162. A standard small wireless facility collocation agreement shall be substantially complete. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the parties to a small wireless facility collocation agreement may incorporate additional terms and conditions mutually agreed upon into a small wireless facility collocation agreement. A small wireless facility collocation agreement between a local government unit and a wireless service provider is considered public data not on individuals and is accessible to the public under section 13.03. (g) An approval of a small wireless facility permit under this section authorizes the installation, placement, maintenance, or operation of a small wireless facility to provide wireless service and shall not be construed to confer authorization to (1) provide any service other than a wireless service, or (2) install, place, maintain, or operate a wireline backhaul facility in the right-of-way. (h) The terms and conditions of collocation under this subdivision: (1) may be set forth in a small wireless facility collocation agreement, if a local government unit elects to utilize such an agreement; (2) must be nondiscriminatory, competitively neutral, and commercially reasonable; and f3) must comply with this section and section 237.162. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 14. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.163, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 3b. Small wireless facility permits; placement. (a) A local government unit may not require the placement of small wireless facilities on any specific wireless support structure other than the wireless support structure proposed in the permit application. (b) A local government unit must not limit the placement of small wireless facilities, either by minimum separation distances between small wireless facilities or maximum height limitations, except that each wireless support structure installed in the right- of-way after the effective date of this act shall not exceed 50 feet above ground level, unless the local government unit agrees to a greater height, subject to local zoning regulations, and may be subject to separation requirements in relation to other wireless support structures. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), a wireless support structure that replaces an existing wireless support structure that is higher than 50 feet above ground level may be placed at the height of the existing wireless support structure, unless the local government unit agrees to a greater height, subject to local zoning regulations. (d) Wireless facilities constructed in the right-of-way after the effective date of this act may not extend more than ten feet above an existing wireless support structure in place as of the effective date of this act. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 15. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.163, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 3c. Small wireless facility permits; approval. (a) Except as provided in subdivision 4, a local government unit shall issue a small wireless facility permit to a telecommunications right-of-way user seeking to install a new or replacement wireless support structure for a small wireless facility, or to collocate a small wireless facility on a wireless support structure in a public right-of-way. In processing and approving a small wireless facility permit, a local government unit may condition its approval on compliance with: (1) generally applicable and reasonable health, safety, and welfare regulations consistent with the local government unit's public right-of-way management; (2) reasonable accommodations for decorative wireless support structures or signs; and (3) any reasonable restocking, replacement, or relocation requirements when a new wireless support structure is placed in a public right-of-way. (b) A local government unit has 90 days after the date a small wireless facility permit application is filed to issue or deny the permit, or the permit is automatically issued. To toll the 90-day clock, the local government unit must provide a written notice of incompleteness to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application, clearly and specifically delineating all missing documents or information. Information delineated in the notice is limited to documents or information publicly required as of the date of application and reasonably related to a local government unit's determination whether the proposed equipment falls within the definition of a small wireless facility and whether the proposed deployment satisfies all health, safety, and welfare regulations applicable to the small wireless facility permit request. Upon an applicant's submittal of additional documents or information in response to a notice of incompleteness, the local government unit has ten days to notify the applicant in writing of any information requested in the initial notice of incompleteness that is still missing. Second or subsequent notices of incompleteness may not specify documents or information that were not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness. Requests for information not requested in the initial notice of incompleteness do not toll the 90-day clock. Parties can mutually agree in writing to toll the 90-day clock at any time. Section 15.99 does not apply to this paragraph or paragraph (c). For the purposes of this subdivision, "toll the 90-day clock" means to halt the progression of days that count towards the 90-day deadline. (c) Except as provided in subdivision 3a, paragraph (c), a small wireless facility permit and any associated encroachment or building permit required by a local government unit, are deemed approved if the local government unit fails to approve or deny the application within 90 days after the permit application has been filed, unless the applicant and the local government unit have mutually agreed in writing to extend the 90-day deadline. (d) Nothing in this subdivision precludes a local government unit from applying generally applicable and reasonable health, safety, and welfare regulations when evaluating and deciding to approve or deny a small wireless facility permit. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 16. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.163, subdivision 4, is amended to read: Subd. 4. Permit denial or revocation. (a) A local government unit may deny any application for a right-of-way or small wireless facility permit if the telecommunications right-of-way user does not comply with a provision of this section. (b) A local government unit may deny an application for a right-of-way permit if the local government unit determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the public right-of-way and its current use. (c) A local government unit may revoke a right-of-way or small wireless facility permit granted to a telecommunications right-of-way user, with or without fee refund, in the event of a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by a permittee includes, but is not limited to, the following: (1) a material violation of a provision of the right-of-way or small wireless facility permit; (2) an evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right-of-way or small wireless facilitypermit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the local government unit or its citizens; (3) a material misrepresentation of fact in the right-of-way or small wireless facility permit application; (4) a failure to complete work in a timely manner, unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the permittee's control; and (5) a failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to applicable standards, conditions, or codes, upon inspection and notification by the local government unit of the faulty condition. (d) Subject to this subdivision, a local government unit may not deny an application for a right-of-wayor small wireless facility permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the local government unit under subdivision 2, paragraph (b), clause (3), when the telecommunications right-of-way user has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the project. (e) In no event may a local government unit unreasonably withhold approval of an application for a right-of-way or small wireless facility permit, or unreasonably revoke a permit. (f) Any denial or revocation of a right-of-way or small wireless facility permit must be made in writing and must document the basis for the denial. The local government unit must notify the telecommunications right-of-way user in writing within three business days of the decision to deny or revoke a permit. If a permit application is denied, the telecommunications right-of-way user may cure the deficiencies identified by the local government unit and resubmit its application. If the telecommunications right-of-way user resubmits the application within 30 days of receiving written notice of the denial, it may not be charged an additional filing or processing fee. The local government unit must approve or deny the revised application within 30 days after the revised application is submitted. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 17. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.163, subdivision 6, is amended to read: Subd. 6. Fees. (a) A local government unit may recover its right-of-way management costs by imposing a fee for registration, a fee for each right-of-way or small wireless facility permit, or, when appropriate, a fee applicable to a particular telecommunications right-of-way user when that user causes the local government unit to incur costs as a result of actions or inactions of that user. A local government unit may not recover costs from a telecommunications right-of-way user costs or an owner of a cable communications system awarded a franchise under chapter 238 caused by another entity's activity in the right-of-way. (b) Fees, or other right-of-way obligations, imposed by a local government unit on telecommunications right-of-way users under this section must be: (1) based on the actual costs incurred by the local government unit in managing the public right-of-way; (2) based on an allocation among all users of the public right-of-way, including the local government unit itself, which shall reflect the proportionate costs imposed on the local government unit by each of the various types of uses of the public rights -of -way; (3) imposed on a competitively neutral basis; and (4) imposed in a manner so that aboveground uses of public rights -of -way do not bear costs incurred by the local government unit to regulate underground uses of public rights -of -way. (c) The rights, duties, and obligations regarding the use of the public right-of-way imposed under this section must be applied to all users of the public right-of-way, including the local government unit while recognizing regulation must reflect the distinct engineering, construction, operation, maintenance and public and worker safety requirements, and standards applicable to various users of the public rights -of -way. For users subject to the franchising authority of a local government unit, to the extent those rights, duties, and obligations are addressed in the terms of an applicable franchise agreement, the terms of the franchise shall prevail over any conflicting provision in an ordinance. (d) A wireless service provider may collocate small wireless facilities on wireless support structures owned or controlled by a local government unit and located within the public roads or rights -of -way without being required to apply for or enter into any individual license, franchise, or other agreement with the local government unit or any other entity, other than a standard small wireless facility collocation agreement under subdivision 3a, paragraph (f), if the local unit of government elects to utilize such an agreement. (e) Any initial engineering survey and preparatory construction work associated with collocation must be paid by the cost causer in the form of a onetime, nonrecurring, commercially reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and competitively neutral charge to recover the costs associated with a proposed attachment. ff) Total application fees for a small wireless facility permit must comply with this subdivision with respect to costs related to the permit. (g) A local government unit may elect to charge each small wireless facility attached to a wireless support structure owned by the local government unit a fee, in addition to other fees or charges allowed under this subdivision, consisting of: (1) up to $150 per year for rent to occupy space on a wireless support structure; (2) up to $25 per year for maintenance associated with the space occupied on a wireless support structure; and (3) a monthly fee for electricity used to operate a small wireless facility, if not purchased directly from a utility, at the rate of: (i) $73 per radio node less than or equal to 100 max watts; fii) $182 per radio node over 100 max watts; or (iii) the actual costs of electricity, if the actual costs exceed the amount in item (i) or (ii). EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 18. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.163, subdivision 7, is amended to read: Subd. 7. Additional right-of-way provisions. (a) In managing the public rights -of -way and in imposing fees under this section, no local government unit may: (1) unlawfully discriminate among telecommunications right-of-way users; (2) grant a preference to any telecommunications right-of-way user; (3) create or erect any unreasonable requirement for entry to the public rights -of - way by telecommunications right-of-way users; or (4) require a telecommunications right-of-way user to obtain a franchise or pay for the use of the right-of-way. (b) A telecommunications right-of-way user need not apply for or obtain right-of- way permits for facilities that are located in public rights -of -way on May 10, 1997, for which the user has obtained the required consent of the local government unit, or that are otherwise lawfully occupying the public right-of-way. However, the telecommunications right-of-way user may be required to register and to obtain a right-of-way permit for an excavation or obstruction of existing facilities within the public right-of-way after May 10, 1997. (c) Data and documents exchanged between a local government unit and a telecommunications right-of-way user are subject to the terms of chapter 13. A local government unit not complying with this paragraph is subject to the penalties set forth in section 13.08. (d) A local government unit may not collect a fee imposed under this section through the provision of in -kind services by a telecommunications right-of-way user, nor may a local government unit require the provision of in -kind services as a condition of consent to use the local government unit's public right-of-way or to obtain a small wireless facility permit. (e) Except as provided in this chapter or required by federal law, a local government unit shall not adopt or enforce any regulation on the placement or operation of communications facilities in the right-of-way where the entity is already authorized to operate in the right-of-way, and shall not regulate or impose or collect fees on communications services except to the extent specifically provided for in the existing authorization, and unless expressly required by state or federal statute. Sec. 19. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.163, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 9. Authorized contractors. (a) Nothing in this section precludes a telecommunications right-of-way user from authorizing another entity or individual to act on its behalf to install, construct, maintain, or repair a facility or facilities owned or controlled by the telecommunications right-of-way user. (b) A local government unit is prohibited from imposing fees or requirements on an authorized entity or individual for actions on behalf of a telecommunications right-of-way user that are in addition to or different from the fees and requirements it is authorized to impose on the telecommunications right-of-way user under this section. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 20. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 237.163, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 10. Exemptions. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter, this section does not apply to a wireless support structure owned, operated, maintained, or served by a municipal electric utility. (b) Subdivisions 3a, 3b, 3c, and subdivision 6, paragraphs (d) through (g), and subdivision 7, paragraph (e), do not apply to the collocation or regulation of small wireless facilities issued a permit by a local government unit before the effective date of this act under an ordinance enacted before May 18, 2017, that regulates the collocation of small wireless facilities. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. INFORMATION MEMO LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies CITIES & Distributed Antenna Systems Learn about large and small cell tower deployment and siting requests for small cell, small wireless and distributed antenna systems (DAS) technology. Better understand the trend of the addition of DAS, small wireless or small cell equipment on existing utility equipment. Be aware of common gaps in city zoning, impact of federal and state law, reasons for collocation agreements and some best practices for dealing with large and small cell towers, small wireless facilities and DAS. RELEVANT LINKS: 47 U.S.C. § 253 (commonly known as Section 253 of Telecommunications Act). 47 U.S.C. §332 (commonly known as Section 332 of Telecommunications Act). FCC Website. 47 U.S.C. § 253 (commonly known as Section 253 of Telecommunications Act). 47 U.S.C. § 332 (commonly known as Section 332 of Telecommunications Act). I. Deployment of large cell towers or antennas A cell site or cell tower creates a "cell" in a cellular network and typically supports antennas plus other equipment, such as one or more sets of transceivers, digital signal processors, control electronics, GPS equipment, primary and backup electrical power and sheltering. Only a finite number of calls or data can go through these facilities at once and the working range of the cell site varies based on any number of factors, including height of the antenna. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has stated that cellular or personal communications services (PCS) towers typically range anywhere from 50 to 200 feet high. The emergence of personal communications services, the increased number of cell providers, and the growing demand for better coverage have spurred requests for new cell towers, small cell equipment, and distributed antenna systems (DAS) nationwide. Thus, some cellular carriers, telecommunications wholesalers or tower companies, have attempted to quickly deploy telecommunications systems or personal wireless service facilities, and, in doing so, often claim federal law requires cities to allow construction or placement of towers, equipment, or antennas in rights of way. Such claims generally have no basis. Although not completely unfettered, cities can feel assured that, in general, federal law preserves local zoning and land use authority. A. The Telecommunications Act and the FCC The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) represented America's first successful attempt to reform regulations on telecommunications in more than 60 years, and was the first piece of legislation to address internet access. Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in American telecommunications services and to encourage rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 www.lmc.org (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 8/1/2017 © 2017 All Rights Reserved RELEVANT LINKS: FCC website interpreting Telecommunications Act of 1996. 47 U.S.C. § 253 (Section 253 of Telecommunications Act). 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). FCC 09-99, Declaratory Ruling (Nov. 18, 2009). 47 U.S.C. § 253(c)(e) (Section 253 of Telecommunications Act). 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). FCC 09-99, Declaratory Ruling (Nov. 18, 2009). Sprint Spectrum v. Mills, 283 F.3d 404 (2nd Cir. 2002). USCOC of Greater Missouri v. Vill. Of Marlborough, 618 F.Supp.2d 1055 (E.D. Mo. 2009). FCC 09-99, Declaratory Ruling (Nov. 18, 2009). The FCC is the federal agency charged with creating rules and policies under the TCA and other telecommunications laws. The FCC also manages and licenses commercial users (like cell providers and tower companies), as well as non-commercial users (like local governments). As a result, both the TCA and FCC rulings impact interactions between the cell industry and local government. The significant changes in the wireless industry and its related shared wireless infrastructures, along with consumer demand for fast and reliable service on mobile devices, have fueled a frenzy of requests for large and small cell/DAS site development and/or deployment. As a part of this, cities find themselves facing cell industry arguments that federal law requires cities to approve tower siting requests. Companies making these claims most often cite Section 253 or Section 332 of the TCA as support. Section 253 states "no state or local statute or regulation may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." Section 332 has a similar provision ensuring the entry of commercial mobile services into desired geographic markets to establish personal wireless service facilities. These provisions should not, however, be read out of context. When reviewing the relevant sections in their entirety, it becomes clear that federal law does not pre-empt local municipal regulations and land use controls. Specifically, the law states "[n]othing in this section affects the authority of a state or local government to manage the public rights of way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights of way ..." and that "nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of ... local government ... over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities". Courts consistently have agreed that local governments retain their regulatory authority and, when faced with making decisions on placement of towers, antenna or new telecommunication service equipment on city facilities, they generally have the same rights that private individuals have to deny or permit placement of a cellular tower on their property. This means cities can regulate and permit placement of towers and other personal wireless service facilities, including, in most situations (though some state law restrictions exist regarding regulations of small wireless support structures), controlling height, exterior materials, accessory buildings, and even location. Cities should be careful to make sure that local regulations don't have the effect of completely banning all cell towers or personal wireless service facilities. Such regulation could run afoul of federal law (not to mention state law as well). League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 2 RELEVANT LINKS: Vertical Broadcasting v. Town of Southampton, 84 F. Supp.2d 379 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). Paging v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals for Montgomery Cty., 957 F.Supp. 805 (W.D. Va. 1997). Letter from Minnesota Department of Commerce to Mobilitie. Minn. Stat. § 237.162 Minn. Stat. § 237.163 Chapter 94, Art. 9, 2017 Regular Session. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Meeting Agenda (Nov. 3, 2016). Minn. Stat. § 237.162. Minn. Stat. § 237.163 Chapter 94, Art. 9, 2017 Regular Session. Some cellular companies try to gain unfettered access to city right of way by claiming they are utilities. The basis for such a claim usually follows one of two themes —either that, as a utility, federal law entitles them to entry; or, in the alternative, under the city's ordinances, they get the same treatment as other utilities. Courts have rejected the first argument of entitlement, citing to the specific directive that local municipalities retain traditional zoning discretion. B. State law In the alternative, the argument that a city's local ordinances include towers as a utility has, on occasion and in different states, carried more weight with a court. To counter such arguments, cities may consider specifically excluding towers, antenna, small cell, and DAS equipment from their ordinance's definition of utilities. The Minnesota Department of Commerce, in a letter to a wireless infrastructure provider, cautioned one infrastructure company that its certificate of authority to provide a local niche service did not authorize it to claim an exemption from local zoning. The Minnesota Department of Commerce additionally requested that the offending company cease from making those assertions. In Minnesota, to clear up confusion about whether wireless providers represent telecommunications right-of-way users under state law and to address concerns about deployment of small wireless technology, the Legislature amended Minnesota's Telecommunications Right -of -Way User statutes, or Minnesota Telecom ROW Law, in the 2017 legislative session to specifically address small wireless facilities and the support structures on which those facilities may attach. Because of these amendments, effective May 31, 2017 additional specific state statutory provisions apply when cities, through an ordinance, manage their rights of way, recover their right-of-way management costs (subject to certain restrictions), and charge rent for attaching to city -owned structures in public rights of way. Rent, however, is capped for collocation of small wireless facilities. State law defines "collocate" or "collocation" as a means to install, mount, maintain, modify, operate, or replace a small wireless facility on, under, within, or adjacent to an existing wireless support structure that is owned privately or by a local government unit. The Minnesota Telecom ROW Law allows cities to require telecommunications right-of-way users to get a permit for use of the right of way; however, it creates a separate permitting structure for the siting of small wireless facilities. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 3 RELEVANT LINKS: USCOC of Greater Missouri v. Vill. Of Marlborough, 618 F.Supp.2d 1055 (E.D. Mo. 2009). Minnesota Towers Inc. v. City of Duluth, 474 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2007). NE Colorado Cellular, Inc. v. City of North Platte, 764 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2014) (denial of CUP for tower must be "in writing" but need not be a separate finding from the reasons in the denial). Smith Comm. V. Washington Cty, Ark., 785 F.3d 1253 (8th Cir. 2015) (substantial evidence' analysis involves whether the local zoning authority's decision is consistent with the applicable local zoning requirements and can include aesthetic reasons). FCC 09-99, Declaratory Ruling, Nov. 18, 2009. Tower and Antenna Siting FAQ sheet from FCC. T-Mobile West V. Crow, No. CV08-1337 (D. AZ. Dec. 16, 2009). Because of the recent significant changes in the state law and the specific requirements for deployment of small wireless facilities that do not apply to other telecommunications right-of-way users, cities should work with their city attorneys to review and update their ordinances. C. Limitations on cities' authority 1. Federal law Although federal law expressly preserves local governmental regulatory authority, it does place several substantive and procedural limits on that authority. Specifically, a city: • Cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. • Cannot regulate those providers in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications services or personal wireless services. • Must act on applications within a reasonable time. • Must document denial of an application in writing supported by "substantial evidence." Proof that the local zoning authority's decision furthers the applicable local zoning requirements or ordinances satisfies the substantial evidence test. Municipalities cannot cite environmental concerns as a reason for denial, however, when the antennas comply with FCC rules on radio emissions. In the alternative, cities can request proof of compliance with the FCC rules. Bringing an action in federal court represents the recourse available to the cellular industry if challenging the denial of a siting request under federal law. Based on the limitations set forth in the federal law on local land use and zoning authority, most often, when cities deny siting requests, the challenges to those denials claim one of the following: • The municipal action has the effect of "prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service." • The municipal action unreasonably discriminates among providers of functionally equivalent services (i.e., cell providers claiming to be a type of utility so they can get the same treatment as a utility under city ordinance). League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 4 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 237.162 Minn. Stat. § 237.163 Chapter 94, Art. 9, 2017 Regular Session. See further discussion of state law restrictions in Section II -A, below Minnesota Towers Inc. v. City of Duluth, 474 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2007). Smith Comm. V. Washington Cty, Ark., 785 F.3d 1253 (8th Cir. 2015). Voicestream PCSII Corp. v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:04CV732 (E.D.Mo. August 3, 2005) (city interpretation of city ordinance treats communication facility as a utility). USCOC of Greater Missouri v. Vill. Of Marlborough, 618 F.Supp2d 1055, 1064 (E.D. Mo. 2009) (TCA explicitly contemplates some discrimination amount providers of functionally equivalent services). 2. State law In addition to mirroring some of the federal law requirements, such as the requirement of equal treatment of all like providers, state law permits cities, by ordinance, to further regulate "telecommunications right-of-way users." Minnesota's Telecom ROW Law expressly includes wireless service providers as telecommunications right-of-way users, making the law applicable to the siting of both large and small, wire -lined or wireless telecommunications equipment and facilities, in the rights of way. State law places additional restrictions on the permitting and regulating of small wireless facilities and wireless support structure placement. Accordingly, cities should work with city attorneys when drafting, adopting, or amending their ordinance. The Telecom ROW Law still expressly protects local control, allowing cities to deny permits for reasonable public health, welfare, and safety reasons, with no definitions of or limitations on what qualifies as health, welfare, and safety reasons. D. Court decisions The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (controlling law for Minnesota) recognizes that cities do indeed retain local authority over decisions regarding the placement and construction of towers and personal wireless service facilities. The 8th Circuit also has heard cases where a carrier or other telecommunications company argued they are a utility and should be treated as such under local ordinances. Absent a local ordinance that includes this type of equipment within its definition of utilities, courts do not necessarily deem cell towers or other personal communications services equipment functionally equivalent to utilities. Additionally, courts have found that the federal law anticipates some disparate application of the law, even among those deemed functionally equivalent. For example, courts determined it reasonable to consider the location of a cell tower when deciding whether to approve tower construction (finding it okay to treat different locations differently), so long as cities do not allow one company to build a tower at a specific location at the exclusion of other providers. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 5 RELEVANT LINKS: For regulation of telecommunications right-of- way users, see Appendix A, Sample Ordinances and Agreements. For regulation of city right- of-way generally, see LMC information memo, Regulating City Rights of Way, and Right of Way Regulation, LMC Model Ordinance. Minn. Stat. 237.163, Subd. 2 (f). Chapter 94, Art. 9, 2017 Regular Session. E. City approaches Regulation of placement of cell towers and personal wireless services can occur through an ordinance. The Minnesota Telecom ROW Law provides cities with comprehensive authority to manage their rights of way. With the unique application of federal law to telecommunications and the recent changes to state law, along with siting requests for locations both in and out of rights of way, many cities find having a separate telecommunications right-of-way user ordinance (in addition to a right-of-way ordinance) allows cities to better regulate towers and other telecommunications equipment, as well as collocation of small wireless facilities and support structures. Some cities also have modified the definitions in their ordinances to exclude cell towers, telecommunications, wireless systems, DAS, small cell equipment, and more from utilities to counter the cell industry's requests for equal treatment or more lenient zoning under the city's zoning ordinances. In addition to adopting specific regulations, many city zoning ordinances recognize structures as conditional uses requiring a permit (or many of these regulations include a provision for variances, if needed). While cities may require special permits or variances to their zoning for siting of large cell facilities, under state law, small wireless facilities and wireless support structures accommodating those small wireless facilities are deemed a permitted use. The only exception to the presumed, permitted use for small wireless is that a city may require a special or conditional land use permit to install a new wireless support structure in a residentially zoned or historic district. Cities will want to review their zoning to make sure it complies with the Minnesota Telecom ROW Law. II. Deployment of small cell technologies and DAS Small cell equipment and DAS both transmit wireless signals to and from a defined area to a larger cell tower. They are often installed at sites that support cell coverage either within a large cell area that has high coverage needs or at sites within large geographic areas that have poor cell coverage overall. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 6 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 237.162. Minn. Stat. § 237.163. Chapter 94, Art. 9, 2017 Regular Session. See Appendix A, Sample Ordinances and Agreements. See League FAQ on Minnesota 2017 Telecommunication Right of Way User Amendments (July 2017). See Appendix A, Sample Ordinances and Agreements Situational needs dictate when cell providers use small cell towers, as opposed to DAS technology. Generally, cell providers install small cell towers when they need to target specific indoor or outdoor areas like stadiums, hospitals, or shopping malls. DAS technology, alternatively, uses a small radio unit and an antenna (that directly link to an existing large cell tower via fiber optics). Installation of a DAS often involves cell providers using the fiber within existing utility structures to link to its larger cell tower. Cities sometimes are asked to provide the power needed for the radios, which the city can negotiate into the leasing agreement with the cell provider. A. Additional zoning and permitting needs under state law Historically, many cities' ordinances address large cell sites, but not small cell towers or DAS. With the recent changes to state law, cities should work with their city attorney to review their ordinances in consideration of the new statutory permit process for the siting of small wireless facilities. Cities can charge rent (up to a cap for small wireless siting) under the statute for placement of cell technology or DAS on existing or newly installed support structures, like poles or water towers; and, also, can enter into a separate agreement to address issues not covered by state law or ordinance. Cities should work with their city attorney to get assistance with drafting these agreements and any additional documents, like a bill of sale (for transfer of pole from carrier to city), if necessary. The terms and conditions of these agreements, called collocation agreements, for siting of small wireless facilities, most likely will mirror agreements formerly referred to as master licensing agreements, often including provisions such as: • Definitions of scope of permitted uses. • Establishment of right-of-way rental fee (note statutory limitations). • Protection of city resources. • Provision of contract term (note statutory limitations). • Statement of general provisions. • Maintenance and repair terms. • Indemnity provisions. • Insurance and casualty. • Limitation of liability provision. • Terms for removal. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 7 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 237.162 Minn. Stat. § 237.163 Chapter 94, Art. 9, 2017 Regular Session. See League FAQ on Minnesota 2017 Telecommunication Right of Way User Amendments (July 2017). State law does not require a separate agreement, and some cities have chosen to put these provisions in their ordinance or permit instead. For cities that choose to have a separate agreement in place, they must develop and make that agreement publicly available no later than November 31, 2017 (six months after the effective date of this act) or three months after receiving a small wireless facility permit application from a wireless service provider. The agreement must be made available in a substantially complete form; however, the parties to the small wireless facility collocation agreement can incorporate additional mutually agreed upon terms and conditions. The law classifies any small wireless facility collocation agreement between a local government unit and a wireless service provider as public data, not on individuals, making those agreements accessible to the public under Minnesota's Data Practices Law. Additionally, the new amendments to Minnesota's Telecom ROW Law set forth other requirements that apply only to small cell wireless facility deployment. The 2017 amendments changed Minnesota's Telecom ROW Law significantly, the details, of which, can be found in the League's FAQ on Minnesota 2017 Telecommunication Right of Way User Amendments (July 2017). However, after the amendments, the law now generally provides: • A presumption of permitted use in all zoning districts, except in districts zoned residential or historical districts. • The requirement that cities issue or deny small wireless facility requests within 90 days, with a tolling period allowed upon written notice to the applicant, within 30 days of receipt of the application. • An allowance to batch applications (simultaneously submit a group of applications), with the limitation to not exceed 15 small wireless requests for substantially similar equipment on similar types of wireless support structures within a two-mile radius. • Rent not to exceed $150 per year with option of an additional $25 for maintenance and allowances for electricity, if cities do not require separate metering. • The limitation that cities cannot ask for information already provided by the same applicant in another small cell wireless facility application, as identified by the applicant, by reference number to those other applications. • A restriction that the height of wireless support structures cannot exceed 50 feet, unless the city agrees otherwise. • A restriction that wireless facilities constructed in the right of way may not extend more than 10 feet above an existing wireless support structure in place. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 8 RELEVANT LINKS: 47 U.S.C. § 332 (commonly known as Section332 of Telecommunications Act). FCC 09-99, Declaratory Ruling (Nov. 18, 2009). FCC 14-153, Report & Order (October 21, 2014). Minn. Stat. § 237.163, Subd.3a(f). Chapter 94, Art. 9, 2017 Regular Session. See Appendix A, Sample Ordinances and Agreements. • A prohibition on moratoriums with respect to filing, receiving, or processing applications for right-of-way or small wireless facility permits; or issuing or approving right-of-way or small wireless facility permits. For cities that did not have a right-of-way ordinance in place on or before May 18, 2017, the prohibition on moratoria does not take effect until January 1, 2018, giving those cities an opportunity to enact an ordinance regulating its public rights -of -way. NOTE: These additional state law requirements do NOT apply to collocation on structures owned, operated maintained or served by municipal utilities. Also, the small wireless statutory requirements do not invalidate agreements in place at the time of enactment of the 2017 amendments (May 31, 2017). The siting of DAS or new small cell technologies also must comply with the same restrictions under federal law that apply to large cell sitings. Specifically, a city: • May not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. • May not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. • Must act on applications within a reasonable time. • Must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record. Because of the complexities in the state law and the overlay of federal regulations, some cities have found it a best practice to adopt or amend a telecommunications right-of-way ordinance separate from their general right-of-way management ordinance. Cities that do not choose to adopt separate ordinances, at a minimum, should work with their attorney to review and amend their existing right-of-way ordinances, if necessary, to accommodate for telecommunications right-of-way users and the recent state law amendments for small wireless facilities. For example, since state law now recognizes small wireless facilities as a permitted use, zoning ordinances that require conditional use permits for these facilities likely will need amending. Since wireless providers seek to attach their small cell and DAS equipment to city -owned structures, many cities choose to have a separate agreement in place to address terms and conditions not included in ordinances or permits. If the city chooses to do so, the law requires the city to have these agreements available in a substantial form so applicants can anticipate the terms and conditions. Again, cities should work with the city attorney to draft a template agreement governing attachment of wireless facilities to municipally owned structures in the right of way. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 9 RELEVANT LINKS: Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Joe Creation Act of 2012, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1455. FCC Public Notice AD 12- 2047 (January 25, 2013). FCC 14-153, Report & Order (October 21, 2014). FCC Public Notice AD 12- 2047 (January 25, 2013). FCC Public Notice AD 12- 2047 (January 25, 2013). City of Arlington Texas, et. al. V. FCC, et. al., 133 S.Ct. 1863, 1867 (2013) (90 days to process collocation application and 150 days to process all other applications, relying on §332(c)(7)(B)(ii)). This model ordinance and other information can be found at National Association of Counties Website. With the nationwide trend encouraging deployment of these new technologies, if a city denies an application, it must do so in writing and provide detailed reasonable findings that document the health, welfare, and safety reasons for the denial. With the unique circumstances of each community often raising concerns about sitings, cities may benefit from proactively working with providers. B. Modifications of existing telecommunication structures If a siting request proposes modifications to and/or collocations of wireless transmission equipment on existing FCC -regulated towers or base stations, then federal law further limits local municipal control. Specifically, federal law requires cities to grant requests for modifications or collocation to existing FCC -regulated structures when that modification would not "substantially change" the physical dimensions of the tower or base station. The FCC has established guidelines on what "substantially change the physical dimensions" means and what constitutes a "wireless tower or base station." Once small cell equipment or antennas gets placed on that pole, then the pole becomes a telecommunication structure subject to federal law and FCC regulations. Accordingly, after allowing collocation once, the city then must comply with the more restrictive federal laws that allow modifications to these structures that do not substantially change the physical dimensions of the pole, like having equipment from the other cell carriers. Under this law, it appears cities cannot ask an applicant who is requesting modification for documentation information other than how the modification impacts the physical dimensions of the structure. Accordingly, documentation illustrating the need for such wireless facilities or justifying the business decision likely cannot be requested. Of course, as with the other siting requests, state and local zoning authorities must take prompt action on these siting applications for wireless facilities (60-day shot clock rule). Two wireless industry associations, the WIA (formerly known as the PCIA) and CTIA, collaborated with the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors to: (1) develop a model ordinance and application for reviewing eligible small cell/DAS facilities requests under federal law; (2) discuss and distribute wireless siting best practices; (3) create a checklist that local government officials can use to help streamline the review process; and (4) hold webinars regarding the application process. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 10 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 237.163, Subd. 2(d). Chapter 94, Art. 9, 2017 Regular Session. III. Moratoriums The cellular industry often challenges moratoriums used to stall placement of cell towers, as well as small cell/DAS technology, until cities can address regulation of these structures. Generally, these providers argue that these moratoriums do one of the following: • Prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. • Violate federal law by failing to act on an application within a reasonable time. State law now prohibits moratoriums with respect to: (1) filing, receiving, or processing applications for right-of-way or small wireless facility permits; or (2) issuing or approving right-of-way or small wireless facility permits. For cities that did not have an ordinance enabling it to manage its right-of-way on or before May 18, 2017, the prohibition on moratoria does not take effect until January 1, 2018, giving those cities an opportunity to enact an ordinance regulating its public rights -of -way. IV. Conclusion With the greater use of calls and data associated with mobile technology, cities likely will see more new cell towers, as well as small cell technology/DAS requests. Consequently, it would make sense to proactively review city regulations to ensure consistency with federal and state law, while still retaining control over the deployment of structures and the use of rights of way. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 11 Appendix A: Sample Ordinances and Sample Agreements Many cities address cell towers in their ordinances already. For informational purposes only, the links below reference some telecommunications facilities ordinances in Minnesota. PLEASE NOTE, these ordinances reflect each city's unique circumstances and may pre -date the 2017 Legislative Session which, then, would not have considered the amendments to Minn. Stat. §§ 237.162, 237.163 when drafted. Sample Telecommunications Ordinances City of Edina (predates 2017 amendments) Ordinance: (Chapter 34: Telecommunications) City of Brainerd Memo to Planning Commission from City Planner, July 13, 2017 Re: Draft Ordinance: Section 35: Anetennas and Towers City of Minneapolis Ordinance: (Amendment to Ordinance to accommodate Small Ce11/DAS equipment) CPED Staff Report, City of Minneapolis regarding Amendment City of Bloomington Ordinance: (Part II City Code, Chapter 17: Streets and Rights -of -Way) Ordinance: (No. 2017-16, Amending Section 14.03 of the City Code Concerning the Permit Fee) Permit: Small Cell Permit Sample Collocation Agreement for DAS/Small Call Texas City Attorney Association Addendum to Local Gov. Code, Chapter 283 San Antonio, Texas Boston, Massachusetts San Francisco, California League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems 8/1/2017 Page 12 Letter of the Law: Regulating Cell Towers and Small Cell Technology By Pamela Whitmore The emergence of personal communications services, the increased number of cell providers, and the growing demand for better coverage means cities are receiving more siting requests. Companies want to build new cell towers or place antennas or small cell equipment in city rights of way, on water towers, or on other city property. Be aware of changes in siting requests 4 The variety of companies submitting siting requests has grown over time, with companies calling themselves resellers or wholesalers now also submitting requests. Initially, the market consisted of tower owners (whether the cell provider themselves, like AT&T or Verizon, or an independent tower company) that sought to lease city - owned property on which to construct large cell towers. Now, with wireless carriers needing to increase data network coverage capacity, cities have started receiving siting requests for equipment other than towers —specifically for placement of small cell equipment or distributed antenna systems (DAS) on buildings, poles, and other structures in the public right of way. These smaller, easier -to -install systems support cell coverage either within a large cell area with high coverage needs or, in the alternative, at sites within large geographic areas with poor cell coverage. Understand the city's authority Many of these cellular carriers, telecommunications wholesalers/ resellers, or tower companies claim that federal law requires cities to allow construction or placement of towers, antennas, or small cell equipment in rights of way. With little to no experience with the federal laws, many cities struggle with these requests, especially with the pressure of Minnesota's 60-Day Rule. The Telecommunications Act is the controlling federal law and, though it does encourage development and entry of telecommunications/mobile services into marketplaces, it does not take away local zoning and land use authority completely. In fact, it states that local government still has authority to manage public rights of way, to require fair and reasonable compensation, and to make decisions over placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless facilities. As a result, cities can regulate (but likely not completely prohibit) the placement of towers and other personal wireless service facilities. City regulations can include controlling height, exterior materials, accessory buildings, and even location. Federal law does place some limits on local authority, however. Cities: • Cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. • Cannot prohibit or pass regulations that have the effect of prohibiting telecommunications or personal wireless services. • Must act on applications within a reasonable time (easily met when cities comply with Minnesota's 60-Day Rule). • Must document denials in writing supported by"substantial evidence." Also, municipalities cannot deny a request for environmental reasons when the antennas comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules on radio emissions. Modifications to existing FCC -regulated structures, however, are a different story. If a siting request proposes modifications to and/ or collocations of wireless transmission equipment on existing FCC -regulated towers or base stations, then federal law further limits local municipal control. With modifications, cities cannot ask an applicant for documentation, other than that which relates to the impact on the physical dimensions of the structure. Accordingly, documentation illustrating the need for such wireless facilities or justifying the business decision likely cannot be requested. So if a city owns a pole that has small cell equipment on it and another request for additional equipment comes in, the city must allow it unless it substantially changes the physical dimensions of the structure. Ways to regulate Cities regulate cell towers and personal wireless services in a variety of different ways, including with rights -of -way management ordinances and specific cell tower/telecommunication ordinances. Many cities recognize these structures as conditional uses, often requiring a permit. With the emergence of small cell/DAS technologies, cities have started to amend their zoning and ordinances to account for more expedited decisions on these siting requests, including establishing a separate administrative approval process for these less burdensome technologies. Because small cell/DAS equipment attach to existing structures, cities often need additional documents for managing these relationships, including a master licensing agreement; license supplement (or lease); pole attachment application (if the city's ordinance so requires in its permit process); and bill of sale (for the sale of a pole from carrier to city). For more details, see the League of Minnesota Cities information memo at www.lmc.orq/celltowers. Pamela Whitmore is a research attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities. Contact: pwhitmore@Imc.orq or (651) 281-1224. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE 1913 2017 Telecommunications Right -of -Way User Amendments Permitting Process for Small Wireless Facilities Publication Date: August 1, 2017 (For information on related federal laws see LMC Information Memo "Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies, and Distributed Antenna Systems") Introduction: On May 30, 2017, Gov. Dayton signed into law a bill' amending Minnesota's Telecommunications Right - of -Way User Law2. The amendments cleared up any confusion about whether wireless providers are treated the same as other telecommunications right-of-way users under state law, but created a separate, streamlined permitting system for placement of small wireless facilities on city -owned structures in rights of way. Most of the bill provisions became effective on May 31, 2017, with the exception that the prohibition on moratoria does not take effect until January 1, 2018 for those cities that did not have a right- of-way ordinance in place on or before May 18, 2017, to give those cities an opportunity to enact an ordinance regulating their public rights -of -way. Also, the amendments allow cities to enter collocation agreements with telecommunications right-of-way users, if they choose, as long as the collocation agreement for small wireless facilities is made available in a substantially complete form no later than six months after the effective date of this act or three months after receiving a small wireless facility permit application from a wireless service provider. Where can I read the new law? Until revisions of the state statute occur to include bills passed this session, cities can find the amendments at 2017 Laws, Chapter 94. Does the law require cities to do anything differently when regulating wireless providers attaching their equipment to city structures in the rights of way? Yes, the amendments create a separate permit process for small wireless facilities. The below checklist was prepared to serve as a guide for cities to use when amending existing telecommunications ordinances, but does necessarily cover all nuances of the new law and should not replace working with city attorneys to draft or amend existing ordinances. What is the purpose of Minnesota's Telecommunication Right -of -Way User Law? 1 Chapter 94, Article 9 of the 2017 Regular Session, effective May 31, 2017. 2 Minn. Stat. §§ 237.162, 237.163. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281-1200 FAX: (651) 281-1298 ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG In 1997, the Minnesota Legislature recognized the need for a state law providing local government units with the authority to regulate the use of public rights of way by telecommunications right-of-way users. The resulting Minnesota Telecommunications Right -of -Way User Law allows telecommunications right-of-way users to construct, maintain, and operate conduit, cable, switches (and now small wireless facilities), and related appurtenances and facilities along, across, upon, above, and under any public right of way, but subjects those users to local regulations by cities to manage their rights of way and to recover management costs. Can a city manage its right of way without doing anything? No, the city must adopt an enabling ordinance. A local government unit is not required to manage its rights of way, but most want to do so. As such, the local government authority must pass an ordinance exercising this authority. Many cities find that having a separate telecommunications right-of-way user ordinance (in addition to a general right-of-way ordinance) allows for better regulation of cell towers, small cell and other telecommunications equipment. Did the amendments in the 2017 laws impact all telecommunications right-of-way users? Some of the amendments impacted cities' regulations on all telecommunications right-of-way users, but the amendments also created a distinct set of regulations specifically for placement of small wireless facilities. With respect to the regulations that apply to all telecommunications right-of-way users, the law: ✓ Requires all telecommunications right-of-way users seeking to excavate or obstruct a public right of way to obtain a right-of-way permit to do so. ✓ Requires a telecommunications right-of-way user using, occupying, or seeking to use or occupy a public right of way for providing telecommunications services to register with the local government unit by providing the local government unit with specific information (set forth in the statute), and including authorization for periodic updates. ✓ Requires telecommunications right-of-way users to submit plans for construction and major maintenance, to provide reasonable notice of projects that may require excavation and obstruction of public rights of way. ✓ Provides for restoration by the telecommunication right-of-way user after excavation occurs, either in the form of doing the restoration work or reimbursing the local governmental unit for the cost of the restoration work. / Allows recovery of right-of-way management costs through a fee for registration, a fee for each right- of-way permit or, when appropriate, a fee applicable to a telecommunications right-of-way user when that user causes the local government unit to incur costs because of actions or inactions of that user. Can a city charge a fee for using the right of way? Yes, because when cities manage rights of way, they incur costs. However, when cities charge right-of-way users, the fees must be calculated on a competitively neutral basis, and based on the actual costs incurred by the city in managing the public right of way. A fee for the cost of managing the right-of-way should reflect an allocation among all users of the public right-of-way, including the city itself. Can a city charge rent if a right-of-way user places equipment in the right of way? Yes. Nothing in the law prohibits a city from charging rent for the placement of technology or equipment by a telecommunications right-of-way user on a city owned structure. However, cities are limited in the amount 2 of rent they can charge for collocation of small wireless facilities on city -owned structures. Fee limitations are described in the statute. If a city does not have an ordinance, can it pass a moratorium on processing any applications it receives until it can pass an ordinance? Probably not. The law prohibits cities from establishing a moratorium with respect to filing, receiving, or processing applications for right-of-way or small wireless facility permits, or for issuing or approving right- of-way or small wireless facility permits. However, for cities that did not have an ordinance enabling it to manage its right-of-way before or on May 18, 2017, the prohibition on moratoria does not take effect until January 1, 2018, giving those cities an opportunity to enact an ordinance regulating its public rights -of -way. Can a city still deny applications for siting of telecommunications equipment in its right of way? Generally, yes, however, any denial or revocation of either a right-of-way permit or a small wireless facility permit must be done in writing and must document the basis for the denial, including the health, safety and welfare reasons for the denial. The local government unit must notify the telecommunications right-of-way user, in writing, within three business days of the decision to deny or revoke a permit. If the city denies a permit application, the telecommunications right-of-way user may cure the deficiencies identified by the local government unit and resubmit its application. If the telecommunications right-of-way user resubmits the application within 30 days of receiving written notice of the denial, the city may not charge an additional filing or processing fee. The local government unit must approve or deny the revised application within 30 days after the submission of the revised application, or it is deemed granted. Can cities treat the siting of all cell equipment the same? It depends. If the city plans to regulate cell sitings and require telecommunications right-of-way users to get permits, then the 2017 amendments to the law create a separate permit system for small wireless facility technology that places additional limitations on a city's ability to regulate those specific types of technology. Does the new law mean our city cannot enter into a separate agreement with telecommunications right- of-way users who want to place equipment on city owned structures? The amendments do not require cities to have separate agreements, and some cities may choose to put these provisions in their ordinance or permit instead. For cities that want a separate `collocation agreement' in place, they must develop and make that collocation agreement available no later than six months after May 31, 2017 (the effective date of the act) or three months after receiving a small wireless facility permit application from a wireless service provider. "Collocate" or "collocation" means to install, mount, maintain, modify, operate, or replace a small wireless facility on, under, within, or adjacent to an existing wireless support structure that is owned privately or by a local government unit. The template of the agreement must be made available in a substantially complete form. The parties to the separate small wireless facility collocation agreement always may incorporate additional mutually agreed upon terms and conditions. Also, the law now clearly classifies any small wireless facility collocation agreement between a local government unit and a wireless service provider as public data accessible to the public under Minnesota's Data Practices Law. 3 What type of equipment is subject to the special requirements on small cell technology? The statute defines type of equipment, which include: "Small wireless facility": (1) A wireless facility that meets both following qualifications: (i) Each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and all its exposed elements could fit within an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet. (ii) All other wireless equipment associated with the small wireless facility, excluding electric meters, concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation boxes, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, cutoff switches, cable, conduit, vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services, and any equipment concealed from public view within or behind an existing structure or concealment, is in aggregate no more than 28 cubic feet in volume. (2) A micro wireless facility. "Wireless support structure" means a new or existing structure in a public right of way designed to support or capable of supporting small wireless facilities, as reasonably determined by a local government unit. "Collocate" or "collocation" means to install, mount, maintain, modify, operate, or replace a small wireless facility on, under, within, or adjacent to an existing wireless support structure that is owned privately or by a local government unit. What additional requirements must cities consider to comply with Minnesota's Telecommunications Right -of -Way User Law, as amended? The law sets forth specific requirements related to placement of small wireless facilities or installation of new wireless support structures. The below information highlights items cities will want to consider when drafting an ordinance or amending an existing ordinance. Again, cities should work with their city attorneys to ensure full compliance with the law. NEW STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN RIGHTS OF WAY If a city decides to regulate or require permits for placement of a new wireless support structure or collocation of a small wireless facility, then the city should be aware that: ❑ Small wireless facilities and wireless support structures are a permitted use, except that in districts zoned as single-family residential use or district identified as historic (either by federal law or ordinance), a local government unit can require a conditional use permit. 4 ❑ Cities must not require an applicant for a small wireless facility permit to provide any information that the applicant previously had provided to the city in a different application for a small wireless permit (which the applicant must identify by specific reference number). ❑ Cities must not require an application to provide information that is not reasonably necessary to review a permit application for compliance with generally applicable and reasonable health, safety, and welfare regulations, or to demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal Communications Commission regulations governing radio frequency exposure, or other information required by this section. Permits for small cell facility collocation or placement of a new wireless support structure must specify that the term of a small wireless facility permit equals the length of time that small wireless facility is in use, unless the permit is revoked under this section. ❑ The total application fee for a small wireless facility pen r_tit must comply with the statutory requirement regarding costs related to the permit. ❑ The city must allow applicants for small wireless facility permits to file a consolidated permit application to collocate up to 15 small wireless facilities (or a greater number if agreed to by a local government unit), provided that all the small wireless facilities in the application are located within a two-mile radius, consist of substantially similar equipment, and are to be placed on similar types of wireless support structures. ❑ The city has 90 days after the date a small wireless facility permit application is filed to issue or deny the permit, or the permit is automatically issued. ❑ To toll the 90-day clock, the city must provide a written notice of incompleteness to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application, identifying all missing documents or information, and providing the applicant with a time to cure that complies with the statute3. ❑ If the city receives applications within a single seven-day period from one or more applicants seeking approval of permits for more than 30 small wireless facilities, the city may extend the 90-day deadline by an additional 30 days. If a city elects to invoke this extension, it must inform in writing any applicant to whom the extension will be applied. ❑ A city cannot require placement of small wireless facilities on any specific wireless support structure other than the one proposed in the permit application. A city must not limit the placement of small wireless facilities, either by minimum separation distances between small wireless facilities or maximum height limitations, except that each wireless support structure installed in the right of way after the effective date of this act shall not exceed 50 feet above ground level (unless the local government unit agrees to a greater height). 'Minn. Stat. §237.163, Subd. 3c(b). 5 ❑ A city can set forth in its ordinance separation requirements for placement of wireless support structures in relation to other wireless support structures. ❑ A city still may deny permit for health, safety, and welfare reasons or for noncompliance with decorative wireless support structures or signs. ❑ A city cannot require a person to pay a small wireless facility permit fee, obtain a small wireless facility permit, or enter into a small wireless facility collocation agreement solely in order to conduct routine maintenance of a small wireless facility; replace a small wireless facility with a new facility that is substantially similar or smaller in size, weight, height, and wind or structural loading; or install, place, maintain, operate, or replace micro wireless facilities suspended on cables strung between existing utility poles in compliance with national safety codes. A city cannot require an applicant to apply for or enter any individual license, franchise, or other agreement with the local government unit or any other entity, other than the optional standard small wireless facility collocation agreement. ❑ A city may require notice of any work that will obstruct a public right of way. OPTIONAL PROVISIONS FOR SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES ❑ A city is not required to have a separate agreement, but can choose to enter collocation agreements with applicants locating small wireless facilities onto city owned structures to address terms and conditions of the use of the structures. If a city chooses to do so, then it must make the agreement available to the public in a substantially complete format no later than six months after the effective date or three months after receiving a small wireless facility permit application from a wireless service provider. ❑ A city may elect to charge each small wireless facility attached to a wireless support structure owned by the local government unit a fee (rental fee), in addition to other fees or charges allowed under the law, consisting of: (1) up to $150 per year for rent to occupy space on a wireless support structure; (2) up to $25 per year for maintenance associated with the space occupied on a wireless support structure; and (3) an additional monthly fee for electricity used to operate a small wireless facility, if not purchased directly from a utility, at the rate set forth in the statute.' Minn. Stat. 237.163, Subd. 6 (d). 6 Municode hops://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=13056&HTMReq... Sec. 31-512. Regulation of radio and television towers. Subd. 1. Purpose. In order to accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the public health, safety, general welfare and aesthetics of the community, the city council finds that this Section 31-512 is necessary in order to: (a) Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city; (b) Minimize adverse visual effects of towers and antennas through setting design standards; (c) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards, lot size requirements and setback requirements; and (d) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. Subd. 2. Location preferences for antennas and towers. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Water towers. Collocations on existing telecommunications towers. Sides and roofs of buildings over two stories. Existing power or telephone poles. Government and utility sites. School sites. Golf courses or public parks when compatible with the nature of the park or course. Regional transportation corridors. Subd. 3. Antenna and towers in residential districts (RA, RB, RCM, RCH). Any person, firm or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in a residential district must obtain a conditional use permit from the city council and meet the following requirements: (a) Communication antennas, subject to the following conditions: (1) Satellite dishes for television receiving only are subject to the accessory structure requirements for residential districts. (2) All antennas must be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive, screened as appropriate, not be multicolored and may contain no signage, including logos, except as required by the equipment manufacturers or city, state or federal regulations. (3) An antenna placed on a primary structure may be no taller than 15 feet above the primary structure. Any accessory equipment or structures must be compatible with the design and materials of the primary structure and not visible from a public street. (4) Towers are allowed subject to design review. The purpose of design review is to protect the historic integrity, natural setting, and character of Stillwater's residential areas. (5) Minimum land area for freestanding tower sites in residential districts is one acre. (6) A tower and any antenna combined may be no more than 75 feet in height, or 100 feet in height if collocated. (7) A tower may not be located within 100 feet of any existing or planned residential structure. (8) A tower must be setback from a street line a minimum of the height of the tower and any antenna; and towers or antennas may be sited in preferred locations as listed in Subd. 2 of this Section 31-512 subject to design permit approval. 1 of4 8/19/2014 11:36A1M Municode hops://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=13056&HTMReq... Subd. 4. Stillwater West business park districts —Business park commercial, business park office, business park industrial (BP-C, BP-0 and BP -I). Any person, firm or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in the Stillwater West Business Park shall require a conditional use permit from the city council and meet the following requirements of Section 31-512: (a) Exception. Communication antennas attached to an existing structure or in preferred location which are no higher than 15 feet above the primary structure and are allowed as permitted use. (b) Conditions. Communication towers and antennas are subject to the following conditions: (1) A tower and antenna may be no more than 75 feet in height, 100 feet if collocated. (2) A tower may not be located within 300 feet of the property line of residentially zoned property. (3) A tower may be located no closer to a street property line than a distance equal to the height of the tower plus ten feet. (4) Minimum lot size is 0.5 acre for a primary tower use. (5) Towers may be located no closer than one-half mile to the closest tower or other collocation PWCS transmitting facility. (6) If a tower is erected on a site with an existing primary structure, the site must have a space of 1,200 square feet set aside exclusively for tower use. The tower may not be located in the front or corner side yard setback area of the primary structure but to the rear of the site. Subd. 5. Central business district (CBD) and professional administrative (PA) district. Any person, firm or corporation erecting an antenna in central business and professional administrative districts shall meet the following requirements: (a) Towers are not allowed in the CBD and PA districts. (b) Antennas are allowed subject to design review. The purpose of design review is to protect the historic integrity, natural setting and character of downtown and its historic buildings and the national register historic district. (c) All support service equipment must be enclosed within an existing building or located and screened so as to be hidden from public view from the street or above. Subd. 6. St. Croix River overlay district. No communication antenna or communication tower may be located in the St Croix River Overlay District, shoreland or floodplain districts. Subd. 7. Performance standards. All personal wireless communication towers erected, constructed, or located within the city must comply with the following requirements: (a) Colocation requirements. A proposal for a new personal wireless communication service tower may not be approved unless it can be documented by the applicant that the communications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one -half -mile radius of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons: (1) The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified professional engineer, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. (2) No existing or approved towers or commercial/industrial buildings within a one -half -mile radius meet the radio frequency (RF) design criteria. (3) Existing or approved towers and commercial/industrial buildings within a one -half -mile radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and professional radio frequency (RF) engineer. 2 of 4 8/19/2014 11:36 AM Municode hops://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=13056&HTMReq... (b) (4) The applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to collocate existing towers and structures within a one -half -mile radius was made, but an agreement could not be reached. Tower construction requirements. All towers erected, constructed or located within the city, and all wiring therefore, shall comply with the following requirements: (1) Stealth towers are the preferred tower design in residential districts. Monopoles are the preferred tower design in all other districts. The city will consider alternative tower types in cases where structural; radio frequency design considerations; or the number of tenants required by the city, precludes the use of a preferred tower design. Guyed towers may not be used in any district. Lattice towers may not be used in any residential district. (2) Towers and their antennas must comply with all applicable provisions of this Code. (3) Towers and their antennas must be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to conform to the latest structural standards of the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable reviewing agencies. (4) Towers and their antennas must be designed to conform to accepted electrical engineering methods and practices and to comply with the provisions of the National Electrical Code. (5) Metal towers must be constructed of or treated with corrosion -resistant material. (6) Any proposed communication service tower of 100 feet in height must be designed, structurally, electrically and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas at least one additional user. To allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower, the tower must be designed to accept antennas mounted at no less than 20-foot intervals. (7) All towers must be reasonably protected against unauthorized climbing. The bottom of the tower (measured from ground level to 12 feet above ground level) must be designed in a manner to preclude unauthorized climbing to be enclosed by a six -foot -high chain link fence with a locked gate. (8) All owners and their antennas and relative accessory structures must utilize building materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that effectively blend the tower facilities within the surrounding natural setting and built environment to the greatest extent possible. (9) No advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information signage required by the manufacturer or by federal, state or local authorities. (10) Towers and their antennas may not be illuminated by artificial means, except for camouflage purposes (designed as a lighted tower for a parking lot or a ball field) or the illumination is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authority. (11) No part of any antenna or tower, nor any lines, cable, equipment, wires or braces, may at any time extend across or over any part of the right-of-way, public street, highway or sidewalk. (12) All communication towers and their antennas must be adequately insured for injury and property damage caused by collapse of the tower. (13) All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities must be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the city council. After the facilities are removed, the site must be restored to its original or an improved state. (14) In addition to the submittal requirements required elsewhere in this Code, applications for building permits for towers and their antennas must be accompanied by the 3 of 4 8/19/2014 11:36 AM Municode hops://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=13056&HTMReq... following information: The provider must submit confirmation that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations. ii. A report from a qualified professional engineer shall be submitted which does the following: a. Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation; b. Demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and electrical standards; c• Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions, or collocated antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas; d• Describes the tower's capacity including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate; and e. Confirmation by the provider that the proposed facility will not interfere with public safety communications. A letter of intent committing the tower owner or his successors to allow the shared use of the tower as long as there is no negative structural impact upon the tower and there is no disruption to the service provided. Subd. 8. Existing antennas and towers. Antennas, towers and accessory structures in existence as of July 1, 1997, which do not conform or to comply with this section are subject to the following provisions: (a) Towers may continue in use for the purpose now used and as now existing, but may not be placed or structurally altered without complying in all respects within this section. (b) If a tower is damaged or destroyed due to any reason or course whatsoever, the tower may be repaired or restored to its former use, location and physical dimension upon obtaining a building permit, but without otherwise complying with this section. Subd. 9. Obsolete or unused towers. All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities must be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations, unless a time extension is approved by the city council. If a time extension is not approved, the tower may be deemed a nuisance pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 429. If a tower is determined to be a nuisance, the city may act to abate the nuisance and require the removal of the tower at the property owner's expense. In the case of multiple operators sharing the use of a single tower, this provision will not become effective until all users cease operations for a period of six consecutive months. After the facilities are removed, the site must be restored to its original or to an improved state. (Ord. No. 1007, § 1(c)—(g), 4-21-09) 4 of 4 8/19/2014 11:36 AM Municode hops://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=13056&HTMReq... Sec. 31-512. Regulation of radio and television towers. Subd. 1. Purpose. In order to accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the public health, safety, general welfare and aesthetics of the community, the city council finds that this Section 31-512 is necessary in order to: (a) Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city; (b) Minimize adverse visual effects of towers and antennas through setting design standards; (c) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards, lot size requirements and setback requirements; and (d) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. Subd. 2. Location preferences for antennas and towers. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Water towers. Collocations on existing telecommunications towers. Sides and roofs of buildings over two stories. Existing power or telephone poles. Government and utility sites. School sites. Golf courses or public parks when compatible with the nature of the park or course. Regional transportation corridors. Subd. 3. Antenna and towers in residential districts (RA, RB, RCM, RCH). Any person, firm or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in a residential district must obtain a conditional use permit from the city council and meet the following requirements: (a) Communication antennas, subject to the following conditions: (1) Satellite dishes for television receiving only are subject to the accessory structure requirements for residential districts. (2) All antennas must be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive, screened as appropriate, not be multicolored and may contain no signage, including logos, except as required by the equipment manufacturers or city, state or federal regulations. (3) An antenna placed on a primary structure may be no taller than 15 feet above the primary structure. Any accessory equipment or structures must be compatible with the design and materials of the primary structure and not visible from a public street. (4) Towers are allowed subject to design review. The purpose of design review is to protect the historic integrity, natural setting, and character of Stillwater's residential areas. (5) Minimum land area for freestanding tower sites in residential districts is one acre. (6) A tower and any antenna combined may be no more than 75 feet in height, or 100 feet in height if collocated. (7) A tower may not be located within 100 feet of any existing or planned residential structure. (8) A tower must be setback from a street line a minimum of the height of the tower and any antenna; and towers or antennas may be sited in preferred locations as listed in Subd. 2 of this Section 31-512 subject to design permit approval. 1 of4 8/19/2014 11:36A1M Municode hops://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=13056&HTMReq... Subd. 4. Stillwater West business park districts —Business park commercial, business park office, business park industrial (BP-C, BP-0 and BP -I). Any person, firm or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in the Stillwater West Business Park shall require a conditional use permit from the city council and meet the following requirements of Section 31-512: (a) Exception. Communication antennas attached to an existing structure or in preferred location which are no higher than 15 feet above the primary structure and are allowed as permitted use. (b) Conditions. Communication towers and antennas are subject to the following conditions: (1) A tower and antenna may be no more than 75 feet in height, 100 feet if collocated. (2) A tower may not be located within 300 feet of the property line of residentially zoned property. (3) A tower may be located no closer to a street property line than a distance equal to the height of the tower plus ten feet. (4) Minimum lot size is 0.5 acre for a primary tower use. (5) Towers may be located no closer than one-half mile to the closest tower or other collocation PWCS transmitting facility. (6) If a tower is erected on a site with an existing primary structure, the site must have a space of 1,200 square feet set aside exclusively for tower use. The tower may not be located in the front or corner side yard setback area of the primary structure but to the rear of the site. Subd. 5. Central business district (CBD) and professional administrative (PA) district. Any person, firm or corporation erecting an antenna in central business and professional administrative districts shall meet the following requirements: (a) Towers are not allowed in the CBD and PA districts. (b) Antennas are allowed subject to design review. The purpose of design review is to protect the historic integrity, natural setting and character of downtown and its historic buildings and the national register historic district. (c) All support service equipment must be enclosed within an existing building or located and screened so as to be hidden from public view from the street or above. Subd. 6. St. Croix River overlay district. No communication antenna or communication tower may be located in the St Croix River Overlay District, shoreland or floodplain districts. Subd. 7. Performance standards. All personal wireless communication towers erected, constructed, or located within the city must comply with the following requirements: (a) Colocation requirements. A proposal for a new personal wireless communication service tower may not be approved unless it can be documented by the applicant that the communications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one -half -mile radius of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons: (1) The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified professional engineer, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. (2) No existing or approved towers or commercial/industrial buildings within a one -half -mile radius meet the radio frequency (RF) design criteria. (3) Existing or approved towers and commercial/industrial buildings within a one -half -mile radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and professional radio frequency (RF) engineer. 2 of 4 8/19/2014 11:36 AM Municode hops://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=13056&HTMReq... (b) (4) The applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to collocate existing towers and structures within a one -half -mile radius was made, but an agreement could not be reached. Tower construction requirements. All towers erected, constructed or located within the city, and all wiring therefore, shall comply with the following requirements: (1) Stealth towers are the preferred tower design in residential districts. Monopoles are the preferred tower design in all other districts. The city will consider alternative tower types in cases where structural; radio frequency design considerations; or the number of tenants required by the city, precludes the use of a preferred tower design. Guyed towers may not be used in any district. Lattice towers may not be used in any residential district. (2) Towers and their antennas must comply with all applicable provisions of this Code. (3) Towers and their antennas must be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to conform to the latest structural standards of the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable reviewing agencies. (4) Towers and their antennas must be designed to conform to accepted electrical engineering methods and practices and to comply with the provisions of the National Electrical Code. (5) Metal towers must be constructed of or treated with corrosion -resistant material. (6) Any proposed communication service tower of 100 feet in height must be designed, structurally, electrically and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas at least one additional user. To allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower, the tower must be designed to accept antennas mounted at no less than 20-foot intervals. (7) All towers must be reasonably protected against unauthorized climbing. The bottom of the tower (measured from ground level to 12 feet above ground level) must be designed in a manner to preclude unauthorized climbing to be enclosed by a six -foot -high chain link fence with a locked gate. (8) All owners and their antennas and relative accessory structures must utilize building materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that effectively blend the tower facilities within the surrounding natural setting and built environment to the greatest extent possible. (9) No advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information signage required by the manufacturer or by federal, state or local authorities. (10) Towers and their antennas may not be illuminated by artificial means, except for camouflage purposes (designed as a lighted tower for a parking lot or a ball field) or the illumination is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authority. (11) No part of any antenna or tower, nor any lines, cable, equipment, wires or braces, may at any time extend across or over any part of the right-of-way, public street, highway or sidewalk. (12) All communication towers and their antennas must be adequately insured for injury and property damage caused by collapse of the tower. (13) All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities must be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the city council. After the facilities are removed, the site must be restored to its original or an improved state. (14) In addition to the submittal requirements required elsewhere in this Code, applications for building permits for towers and their antennas must be accompanied by the 3 of 4 8/19/2014 11:36 AM Municode hops://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=13056&HTMReq... following information: The provider must submit confirmation that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations. ii. A report from a qualified professional engineer shall be submitted which does the following: a. Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation; b. Demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and electrical standards; c• Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions, or collocated antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas; d• Describes the tower's capacity including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate; and e. Confirmation by the provider that the proposed facility will not interfere with public safety communications. A letter of intent committing the tower owner or his successors to allow the shared use of the tower as long as there is no negative structural impact upon the tower and there is no disruption to the service provided. Subd. 8. Existing antennas and towers. Antennas, towers and accessory structures in existence as of July 1, 1997, which do not conform or to comply with this section are subject to the following provisions: (a) Towers may continue in use for the purpose now used and as now existing, but may not be placed or structurally altered without complying in all respects within this section. (b) If a tower is damaged or destroyed due to any reason or course whatsoever, the tower may be repaired or restored to its former use, location and physical dimension upon obtaining a building permit, but without otherwise complying with this section. Subd. 9. Obsolete or unused towers. All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities must be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations, unless a time extension is approved by the city council. If a time extension is not approved, the tower may be deemed a nuisance pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 429. If a tower is determined to be a nuisance, the city may act to abate the nuisance and require the removal of the tower at the property owner's expense. In the case of multiple operators sharing the use of a single tower, this provision will not become effective until all users cease operations for a period of six consecutive months. After the facilities are removed, the site must be restored to its original or to an improved state. (Ord. No. 1007, § 1(c)—(g), 4-21-09) 4 of 4 8/19/2014 11:36 AM 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances Chapter 24 - STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC PROPERTYM ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL Sec. 24-1. - Streets. Subd. 1. Permit required. No person, except an authorized city employee or contractor performing work under a contract with the city, shall make any excavation in a street, alley, sidewalk or public ground without first having secured a permit therefor from the public works director. Subd. 2. Application and regulations. The public works director shall prepare the necessary application forms and permits required under subdivision 1 of this section. The public works director shall also prepare regulations necessary to protect the public from injury, prevent damage to public or private property and minimize interference with the public use of streets, alleys, sidewalks and public grounds. Any person making such an excavation shall comply with such regulations. Subd. 3. Bond. Any permittee, except a public utility corporation or a bonded plumber, shall file with the clerk a corporate surety bond, cash deposit or certified check in the amount of $5,000.00, conditioned that the permittee will: (1) Perform work in connection with the excavation in accordance with the applicable ordinances and regulations; (2) Indemnify the city and hold it harmless from all damages caused in the execution of the work; and (3) Pay all costs and damages suffered by the city by reason of the failure of the permittee to observe the terms of applicable ordinances and regulations or because of negligence in the execution of the work. The bond shall be approved as to form and legality by the city attorney. Subd. 4. Public liability insurance. Any permittee, except a public utility corporation, shall furnish proof that the permittee has in existence an insurance policy protecting the permittee from liability to the public, including the city, to an amount equal to the maximum claim the city might be required to pay under Minn. Stat. ch. 466. Subd. 5. Permit denial. Failure to comply with the conditions of this section shall be grounds for denial of future permits. Subd. 6. General regu/ations for excavations. Street openings shall be made in a manner that will cause the least inconvenience to the public. Provision shall be made for the passage of water along the gutters and at least one-half of the traveled portion of the street shall be left open and in good condition for the safe passage of vehicles. Open excavations shall be guarded with substantial barriers and marked with red flags and at night with red lights or flashing devices. Pipes or mains exposed to freezing temperatures shall be protected to prevent freezing. Any person responsible for exposing a city main or pipe so that it might be damaged by freezing shall be liable to the city for any and all damages caused by a freezing and all damages sustained by others by freezing for which the city might be liable. Subd. 7. Refilling excavations. Every street excavation shall be refilled as soon as possible after the work is completed and paving, sidewalks and appurtenances shall be replaced in at least as good condition as before the excavation to the satisfaction of the city public works director. All dirt and debris shall be removed immediately. Any person who fails to comply with these requirements within 24 hours after notice from the city shall be liable to the city for the full cost incurred by the city in remedying the defect and restoring the street, sidewalk, alley or public ground to its proper condition. The cost shall be an obligation of the surety on the bond of the permittee. Subd. 8. Map of subsurface installations. The public works director shall maintain a map showing the location of all utility and other installations made beneath the surface of any public street, grounds or right-of-way. The information on the map shall be sufficiently complete and accurate to permit anyone making an excavation in a public place having any underground installation to avoid damage to any existing underground installation and to properly locate them. Any new underground facilities shall be recorded on the map as soon as practicable upon the issuance of an excavation permit or the completion of a contract for the installation of city underground installations. (Code 1980, § 24.01; Ord. No. 661, 5-5-87) 1/14 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances Sec. 24-2. - Numbering for dwelling homes and buildings. Subd. 1. Subd. 2. Subd. 3. Subd. 4. Subd. 5. Uniform numbering system. There is hereby created and established a uniform system of numbering properties and principal buildings in the city, referred to in this section as the "uniform numbering system." Assigning of numbers. All properties or principal buildings within the city shall be allotted numbers in accordance with the following numbering system: (1) The city shall be numbered with 100 numbers per block. (2) Odd numbers shall be assigned on the east and south sides of the streets and even numbers shall be assigned on the west and north sides of the streets. Type and placement of numbers. Each principal building shall bear the number assigned to the frontage on which the front entrance is located. In case a principal building is occupied by more than one business or family dwelling unit, each front entrance of such principal building shall bear a separate number. Numerals indicating the official numbers for each principal building shall be reflectorized, a minimum of three inches in height, shall be posted at least five feet from the threshold on a building surface and placed in such a manner as to be visible from the street on which the property is located. If there is a main entrance visible from the street, the numbers shall be placed within two feet of that entrance. Administration. At the time of submitting a preliminary plat or plan or application for building permits, the applicant shall submit a building numbering plan for review by the planning commission of the city. The city building official shall keep an up-to-date record of all numbers assigned under this section. The city building official shall assign, to any property owner in the city upon request, a number for each principal building or separate front entrance to such building. In doing so, he shall assign only those numbers assigned under the provisions of this section; provided, however, that he may assign additional numbers in accordance with the uniform system adopted in this section whenever the property has been subdivided, a new front entrance opened or undue hardship has been worked on any property owner. Penalties for violation of section. Violations of this section shall be a petty misdemeanor. (Code 1980, § 24.03) Sec. 24-3. - Planting and care of trees in public places. Subd. 1. No person shall plant any trees within the limits of any street, public ground or highway of the city without first obtaining a permit from the city. Subd. 2. Anyone wishing to plant such trees shall apply to the city for a permit, stating the variety and precise location proposed for each tree. After the receipt of an application the city shall investigate the place where the tree is to be planted and shall grant a permit only if the location will permit the normal growth and development of the tree. The permit shall specify the location, variety and grade of each tree and method of planting, including among other things, the supply of suitable soil. No charge shall be made for the permit, and no trees shall be planted except in accordance with its terms. The specifications of the permit shall secure the suitable location, planting and growing of each tree. (Code 1980, § 24.07) Secs. 24-4-24-24. - Reserved. ARTICLE II. - RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT Sec. 24-25. - Findings, purpose, and intent. This article shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123, substantially codified in Minn. Stat. §§ 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81, and 238.086 (the "Act") and the other laws governing applicable rights of the city and users of the right-of-way. This article shall also be interpreted consistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.0050-7819.9950 where possible. To the 2/14 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances extent any provision of this article cannot be interpreted consistently with the Minnesota Rules, that interpretation most consistent with the Act and other applicable statutory and case law is intended. This article shall not be interpreted to limit the regulatory and police powers of the city to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-26. - Election to manage the public rights -of -way. Pursuant to the authority granted to the city under state and federal statutory, administrative and common law, the city hereby elects pursuant Minn. Stat. § 237.163, subd. 2(b), to manage rights -of -way within its jurisdiction. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-27. - Definitions. The following definitions apply in this article of this code. References hereafter to "sections" are unless otherwise specified. Defined terms remain defined terms whether or not capitalized. City means the city of Stillwater, Minnesota. For purposes of sec. 24-48, city means its elected officials, officers, employees and agents. Commission means the State Public Utilities Commission. Congested right-of-way means a crowded condition in the subsurface of the public right-of-way that occurs when the maximum lateral spacing between existing underground facilities does not allow for construction of new underground facilities without using hand digging to expose the existing lateral facilities in conformance with Minn. Stat. § 216D.04, subd. 3, over a continuous length in excess of 500 feet. Construction performance bond means any of the following forms of security provided at permittee's option: (1) Individual project bond; (2) Cash deposit; (3) Security of a form listed or approved under Minn. Stat. § 15.73, subd. 3; (4) Letter of credit, in a form acceptable to the city; (5) Self-insurance, in a form acceptable to the city; (6) A blanket bond for projects within the city, or other form of construction bond, for a time specified and in a form acceptable to the city. Degradation means a decrease in the useful life of the right-of-way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the right-of-way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such right-of-way earlier than would be required if the excavation or disturbance did not occur. Degradation cost subject to Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 means the cost to achieve a level of restoration as determined by the city at the time the permit is issued, not to exceed the maximum restoration shown in plates 1 to 13, set forth in Minnesota Rules parts 7819.9900 to 7819.9950. Degradation fee means the estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the city to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the right-of-way caused by the excavation, and which equals the degradation cost. Department means the department of public works of the city. Department inspector means any person authorized by the city to carry out inspections related to the provisions of this article. Director means the director of the department of public works of the city, or her or his designee. 3/14 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances Delay penalty is the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in right-of-way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration as established by permit. Emergency means a condition that (1) poses a danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or replacement of facilities in order to restore service to a customer. Equipment means any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain facilities in any right-of-way. Excavate means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of a right-of-way. Excavation permit means the permit which, pursuant to this section, must be obtained before a person may excavate in a right- of-way. An excavation permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the right-of-way described in such permit. Excavation permit fee means money paid to the city by an applicant to cover the costs as provided in sec. 24-35. Facility or Facilities means any tangible asset in the right-of-way required to provide utility service. High density corridor means a designated portion of the public right-of-way within which telecommunications right-of-way users having multiple and competing facilities may be required to build and install facilities in a common conduit system or other common structure. Hole means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length less than the width of the pavement. Management costs means the actual costs the city incurs in managing its rights -of -Way, including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right-of-way permit applications; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving user facilities during right-of-way work; determining the adequacy of right—of-way restoration; restoring work inadequately performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and revoking right-of-way permits. Management costs do not include payment by a telecommunications right-of-way user for the use of the right-of-way, the fees and cost of litigation relating to the interpretation of Minnesota Session Laws 1997, Chapter 123; Minn. Stat. §§ 237.162 or 237.163 or any ordinance enacted under those sections, or the city fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to sec. 24-50 of this article. Obstruct means to place any tangible object in a right-of-way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the right-of-way. Obstruction permit means the permit which, pursuant to this section, must be obtained before a person may obstruct a right-of- way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that right-of-way, for the duration specified therein. Obstruction permit fee means money paid to the city by a permittee to cover the costs as provided in sec. 24-35. Patch or Patching means a method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A patch consists of (1) the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base, and (2) the replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A patch is considered full restoration only when the pavement is included in the city's five- year project plan. Pavement means any type of improved surface that is within the public right-of-way and that is paved or otherwise constructed with bituminous, concrete, aggregate, or gravel. Permit has the meaning given "right-of-way permit" in Minn. Stat. § 237.162. Permittee means any person to whom a permit to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way has been granted by the city under this article. 4/14 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances Person means an individual or entity subject to the laws and rules of this state, however organized, whether public or private, whether domestic or foreign, whether for profit or nonprofit, and whether natural, corporate, or political. Probation means the status of a person that has not complied with the conditions of this article. Probationary period means one year from the date that a person has been notified in writing that they have been put on probation. Registrant means any person who (1) has or seeks to have its equipment or facilities located in any right-of-way, or (2) in any way occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of-way or place its facilities or equipment in the right-of-way. Restore or Restoration means the process by which an excavated right-of-way and surrounding area, including pavement and foundation, is returned to the same condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation. Restoration cost means the amount of money paid to the city by a permittee to achieve the level of restoration according to plates 1 to 13 of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rules. Public right-of-way means the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane and public sidewalk in which the city has an interest, including other dedicated rights -of -way for travel purposes and utility casements of the city. A right-of-way does not include the airwaves above a right-of-way with regard to cellular or other non -wire telecommunications or broadcast service. Right-of-way permit means either the excavation permit or the obstruction permit, or both, depending on the context, required by this article. Right-of-way user means (1) a telecommunications right-of-way user as defined by Minn. Stat. § 237.162, subd. 4; or (2) a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of-way that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the public right-of-way. Service or Utility service includes (1) those services provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. § 2166.02, subds. 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right-of-way user, including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a cable communications systems as defined in Minn. Stat. Chapter. 238; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by the city; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Stat. Chapter 308A; and (6) water, sewer, steam, cooling or heating services. Supplementary application means an application made to excavate or obstruct more of the right-of-way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that had already been issued. Temporary surface means the compaction of subbase and aggregate base and replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement only to the edges of the excavation. It is temporary in nature except when the replacement is of pavement included in the city's two- year plan, in which case it is considered full restoration. Trench means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length equal to or greater than the width of the pavement. Telecommunication right-of-way user means a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of-way, or seeking to own or control a facility in the right-of-way, that is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this article, a cable communication system defined and regulated under Minn. Stat. Chap. 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services whether provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. § 2166.02, a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency organized under Minn. Stat. Chaps. 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Stat. Chap. 308A, are not telecommunications right-of-way users for purposes of this article. Two year project plan shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next two years. 5/14 12/7/2017 (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances Sec. 24-28. - Administration. The director is the principal city official responsible for the administration of the rights -of -way, right-of-way permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The director may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-29. - Registration and right-of-way occupancy. Subd. 1. Registration. Each person who occupies, uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of-way or place any equipment or facilities in or on the right-of-way, including persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment, must register with the city. Registration will consist of providing application information and paying a registration fee. Subd. 2. Registration prior to work. No person may construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or perform any other work on, or use any facilities or any part thereof in any right-of-way without first being registered with the city. Subd. 3. Exceptions. Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a city ordinance permitting persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens in the area of the right-of-way between their property and the street curb. Persons planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens shall not be deemed to use or occupy the right-of-way, and shall not be required to obtain any permits or satisfy any other requirements for planting or maintaining such boulevard plantings or gardens under this article. However, nothing herein relieves a person from complying with the provisions of the Minn. Stat. Chap. 216D, Gopher One Call Law. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-30. - Registration information. Subd. 1. Information required. The information provided to the city at the time of registration shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Each registrant's name, Gopher One Call registration certificate number, address and e-mail address if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers. (2) The name, address and e-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers of a local representative. The local representative or designee shall be available at all times. Current information regarding how to contact the local representative in an emergency shall be provided at the time of registration. (3) A certificate of insurance or self-insurance: a. Verifying that an insurance policy has been issued to the registrant by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, or a form of self insurance acceptable to the city; b. Verifying that the registrant is insured against claims for personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the right-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, and (ii) placement and use of facilities and equipment in the right-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, including, but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground facilities and collapse of property; c. Naming the city as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverages; d. Requiring that the city be notified thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation of the policy or material modification of a coverage term; 6/14 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances e. Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, workers compensation and umbr by the city in amounts sufficient to protect the city and the public and to carry out the purposes and policie! (4) The city may require a copy of the actual insurance policies. (5) If the person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate required to be filed under Minn. Stat. 300.06 as recorded and certified to by the Secretary of State. (6) A copy of the person's order granting a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or other applicable state or federal agency, where the person is lawfully required to have such certificate from said commission or other state or federal agency. (Ord. No. 890, 3-2-00) Sec. 24-31. - Reporting obligations. Subd. 1. Operations. Each registrant shall, at the time of registration and by December 1 of each year, file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground facilities with the city. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the city and shall contain the information determined by the city to be necessary to facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of excavations and obstructions of rights -of -way. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: (1) (2) The locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of all projects to be commenced during the next calendar year (in this article, a "next -year project"); and To the extent known, the tentative locations and estimated beginning and ending dates for all projects contemplated for the five years following the next calendar year (in this article, a "five-year project"). The term "project" in this article shall include both next -year projects and five-year projects. By January 1 of each year the city will have available for inspection in the city's office a composite list of all projects of which the city has been informed of the annual plans. All registrants are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the current status of this list. Thereafter, by February 1, each registrant may change any project in its list of next -year projects, and must notify the city and all other registrants of all such changes in said list. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a registrant may at any time join in a next -year project of another registrant listed by the other registrant. Subd. 2. Additional next year projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city will not deny an application for a right-of-way permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the city if the registrant has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the project. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-32. - Permit requirement. Subd. 1. Permit required. Except as otherwise provided in this code, no person may obstruct or excavate any right-of-way without first having obtained the appropriate right-of-way permit from the city to do so. (1) (2) Excavation permit. An excavation permit is required by a registrant to excavate that part of the right-of-way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the right-of-way by placing facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. Obstruction permit. An obstruction permit is required by a registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of right-of-way by placing equipment described therein on the right-of-way, to the extent and 7/14 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances for the duration specified therein. An obstruction permit is not required if a person already possesses a valid excavation permit for the same project. Subd. 2. Permit extensions. No person may excavate obstruct the right-of-way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless (i) such person makes a supplementary application for another right-of-way permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. Subd. 3. Delay penalty. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1000, subp. 3 and notwithstanding subdivision 2 of this section, the city shall establish and impose a delay penalty for unreasonable delays in right-of-way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration. The delay penalty shall be established from time to time by city council resolution. Subd. 4. Permit display. Permits issued under this article shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the city. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-33. - Permit applications. Application for a permit is made to the city. Right-of-way permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with the requirements of the following provisions: (1) Registration with the city pursuant to this article; (2) Submission of a completed permit application form, including all required attachments, and scaled drawings showing the location and area of the proposed project and the location of all known existing and proposed facilities. (3) Payment of money due the city for: a. Permit fees, estimated restoration costs and other management costs; b. Prior obstructions or excavations; c. Any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by the city because of applicant's prior excavations or obstructions of the rights -of -way or any emergency actions taken by the city; d. Franchise fees or other charges, if applicable. (4) Payment of disputed amounts due the city by posting security or depositing in an escrow account an amount equal to at least 110% of the amount owing. (5) Posting an additional or larger construction performance bond for additional facilities when applicant requests an excavation permit to install additional facilities and the city deems the existing construction performance bond inadequate under applicable standards. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-34. - Issuance of permit; conditions. Subd. 1. Permit issuance. If the applicant has satisfied the requirements of this article, the city shall issue a permit. Subd. 2. Conditions. The city may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-35. - Permit fees. 8/14 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances Subd. 1. Excavation permit fee. The city shall establish an excavation permit fee in an amount sufficient to recover the following costs: (1) (2) The city management costs; Degradation costs, if applicable. Subd. 2. Obstruction permit fee. The city shall establish the obstruction permit fee and shall be in an amount sufficient to recover the city management costs. Subd. 3. Payment of permit fees. No excavation permit or obstruction permit shall be issued without payment of excavation or obstruction permit fees. The city may allow applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. Subd. 4. Non refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the city has revoked for a breach as stated in sec. 24-43, are not refundable. Subd. 5. Application to franchises. Unless otherwise agreed to in a franchise, management costs may be charged separately from and in addition to the franchise fees imposed on a right-of-way user in the franchise. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-36. - Right-of-way patching and restoration. Subd. 1. Timing. The work to be done under the excavation permit, and the patching and restoration of the right-of-way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of circumstances beyond the control of the permittee or when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under sec. 24-37. Subd. 2. Patch and restoration. Permittee shall patch its own work. The city may choose either to have the permittee restore the right-of-way or to restore the right-of-way itself. (1) (2) (3) City restoration. If the city restores the right-of-way, permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If, following such restoration, the pavement settles due to permittee's improper backfilling, the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with correcting the defective work. Permittee restoration. If the permittee restores the right-of-way itself, it shall at the time of application for an excavation permit post a construction performance bond in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.3000. Degradation fee in lieu of restoration. In lieu of right-of-way restoration, a right-of-way user may elect to pay a degradation fee. However, the right-of-way user shall remain responsible for patching and the degradation fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. Subd. 3. Standards. The permittee shall perform excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the city and shall comply with Minnesota Rule 7819.1100. Subd. 4. Duty to correct defects. The permittee shall correct defects in patching, or restoration performed by permittee or its agents. Permittee, upon notification from the city, shall correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the city. Said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the city, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under sec. 24-37. 9/14 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances Subd. 5. Failure to restore. If the permittee fails to restore the right-of-way in the manner and to the condition required by the city, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all restoration required by the city, the city at its option may do such work. In that event the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restoring the right-of-way. If permittee fails to pay as required, the city may exercise its rights under the construction performance bond. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-37. - Other obligations. Subd. 1. Compliance with other laws. Obtaining a right-of-way permit does not relieve permittee of its duty to obtain all other necessary permits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the city or other applicable rule, law or regulation. A permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state and federal laws, including Minn. Stat. 216D.01-.09 (Gopher One Call Excavation Notice System). A permittee shall perform all work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible for all work done in the right-of-way pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work, Subd. 2. Prohibited work. Except in an emergency, and with the approval of the city, no right-of-way obstruction or excavation may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. Subd. 3. Interference with right-of-way. A permittee shall not so obstruct a right-of-way that the natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles of those doing work in the right-of-way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance with city parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-38. - Denial of permit. The city may deny a permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this article or if the city determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-39. - Installation requirements. The excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration, and all other work performed in the right-of-way shall be done in conformance with Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 and 7819.5000 and other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Minn. Stat. Secs. 237.162 and 237.163. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-40. - Inspection. Subd. 1. Notice of completion. When the work under any permit hereunder is completed, the permittee shall furnish a completion certificate in accordance Minnesota Rule 7819.1300. Subd. 2. Site inspection. Permittee shall make the work -site available to the city and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. Subd. 3. Authority of director. (1) (2) At the time of inspection the director may order the immediate cessation of any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety or well being of the public. The director may issue an order to the permittee for any work which does not conform to the terms of the 10/14 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the order, the permittee shall present proof to the director that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the director may revoke the permit pursuant to sec. 1.22. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-41. - Work done without a permit. Subd. 1. Emergency situations. Each registrant shall immediately notify the director of any event regarding its facilities, which it considers to be an emergency. The registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the emergency. Within two (2) business days after the occurrence of the emergency the registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this section for the actions it took in response to the emergency. Subd. 2. Non -emergency situations. Except in an emergency, any person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, obstructs or excavates a right-of-way must subsequently obtain a permit, and as a penalty pay double the normal fee for said permit, pay double all the other fees required by the city code, deposit with the city the fees necessary to correct any damage to the right-of- way and comply with all of the requirements of this article. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-42. - Supplementary notification. If the obstruction or excavation of the right-of-way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the permit, permittee shall notify the city of the accurate information as soon as this information is known. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-43. - Revocation of permits. Subd. 1. Substantial breach. The city reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke any right-of-way permit without a fee refund if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by permittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (1) The violation of any material provision of the right-of-way permit; (2) An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right-of-way permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the city or its citizens; (3) Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a right-of-way permit; (4) The failure to complete the work in a timely manner; unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the permittee's control; or (5) The failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an order issued pursuant to sec. 1.19. Subd. 2. Written notice of breach. If the city determines that the permittee has committed a substantial breach of a term or condition of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or any condition of the permit the city shall make a written demand upon the permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall state that continued violations may be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated above, will allow the city, at his or her discretion, to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to mitigate and remedy the breach. 11/14 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances Subd. 3. Response to notice of breach. Within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving notification of the breach, permittee shall provide the city with a plan, acceptable to the city, that will cure the breach. Permittee's failure to so contact the city, or permittee's failure to timely submit an acceptable plan, or permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Further, permittee's failure to so contact the city, or permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall automatically place the permittee on probation for one (1) full year. Subd. 4. Cause for probation. From time to time, the city may establish a list of conditions of the permit, which if breached will automatically place the permittee on probation for one full year, such as, but not limited to, working out of the allotted time period or working on right-of-way grossly outside of the permit authorization. Subd. 5. Automatic revocation, If a permittee, while on probation, commits a breach as outlined above, permittee's permit will automatically be revoked and permittee will not be allowed further permits for one full year, except for emergency repairs. Subd. 6. Reimbursement of city costs. If a permit is revoked, the permittee shall also reimburse the city for the city's reasonable costs, including restoration costs and the costs of collection and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such revocation. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-44. - Mapping data. Subd. 1. Information required. Each registrant and permittee shall provide mapping information required by the city in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-45. - Location and relocation of facilities. Subd. 1. Placement, location, and relocation of facilities must comply with the Act, with other applicable law, and with Minnesota Rules 7819.3100, 7819.5000 and 7819.5100, to the extent the rules do not limit authority otherwise available to cities. Subd. 2. Corridors. The city may assign specific area within the right-of-way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of facilities that is or, pursuant to current technology, the city expects will someday be located within the right-of-way. All excavation, obstruction, or other permits issued by the city involving the installation or replacement of facilities shall designate the proper corridor for the facilities at issue. Any registrant who has facilities in the right-of-way in a position at variance with the corridors established by the city shall, no later than at the time of the next reconstruction or excavation of the area where the facilities are located, move the facilities to the assigned position within the right-of-way, unless this requirement is waived by the city for good cause shown, upon consideration of such factors as the remaining economic life of the facilities, public safety, customer service needs and hardship to the registrant. Subd. 3. Nuisance. One year after the passage of this section, any facilities found in a right-of-way that have not been registered shall be deemed to be a nuisance. The city may exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, abating the nuisance or taking possession of the facilities and restoring the right-of-way to a useable condition. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-46. - Damage to other facilities. When the city does work in the right-of-way and finds it necessary to maintain, support, or move a registrant's facilities to protect it, the city shall notify the local representative as early as is reasonably possible. The costs associated therewith will be billed to that registrant and must be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of 12/14 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances repairing any facilities in the right-of-way which it or its facilities damages. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to the facilities of another registrant caused during the city's response to an emergency occasioned by that registrant's facilities. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-47. - Right-of-way vacation. Reservation of right. If the city vacates a right-of-way which contains the facilities of a registrant, the registrant's rights in the vacated right-of-way are governed by Minnesota Rules 7819.3200. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-48. - Indemnification and liability. By registering with the city, or by accepting a permit under this article, a registrant or permittee agrees to defend and indemnify the city in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.1250. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-49. - Abandoned and unusable facilities. Subd. 1. Discontinued operations. A registrant who has determined to discontinue all or a portion of its operations in the city must provide information satisfactory to the city that the registrant's obligations for its facilities in the right-of-way under this article have been lawfully assumed by another registrant. Subd. 2. Removal. Any registrant who has abandoned facilities in any right-of-way shall remove it from that right-of-way if required in conjunction with other right-of-way repair, excavation, or construction, unless this requirement is waived by the city. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-50. - Appeal. A right-of-way user that: (1) has been denied registration; (2) has been denied a permit; (3) has had permit revoked; or (4) believes that the fees imposed are invalid, may have the denial, revocation, or fee imposition reviewed, upon written request, by the city council. The city council shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled meeting. A decision by the city council affirming the denial, revocation, or fee imposition will be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Sec. 24-51. - Severability. If any portion of this article is for any reason held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Nothing in this article precludes the city from requiring a franchise agreement with the applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to requirements set forth herein. (Ord. No. 890, 3-7-00) Secs. 24-52-24-80. - Reserved. ARTICLE III. - STREET LIGHTING; LOCATION AND COSTS 13/14 12/7/2017 Stillwater, MN Code of Ordinances Sec. 24-81. - Street lighting regulations. Subd. 1. Purpose. It is the council's intention to encourage the installation of street lighting throughout the city to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city. Subd. 2. Location. (1) The council, upon a petition of at least 35 percent of the property owners in an existing subdivision or developed area or upon its own initiative, shall determine the streets, parks or other public and private areas on which the city will install and operate a street lighting system. (2) Before any service is furnished, the council shall schedule a hearing pursuant to the provisions of M.S. Chapter 429, as amended, at which time the council will consider the project. (3) The city may pay a portion of the costs of installation of street lighting systems as the council may by policy determine from general ad valorem tax levies or from other revenues or funds of the city available for that purpose. In the event the council elects not to pay all of the installation costs, the remaining unpaid portion shall be assessed against the benefited property owners as a public improvement following a public hearing and in full accordance with the provisions of M.S. Chapter 429, as amended. Subd. 3. Operating costs; assessments. Subd. The city clerk shall keep a record of the costs of operation, maintenance and replacement of the street lighting system including clerical, administrative and incidental costs. Those costs shall be apportioned to each lot and parcel of property benefited by the street lighting system, whether or not the property abuts the street or other public or private area in which the system is located. Further, the cots shall be apportioned to similar classes of property similarly. The city council, based on the information, shall by resolution, determine the rate to be paid by each lot or parcel. The city clerk shall quarterly, prepare a bill based on the adopted rate for each lot or parcel. The bill may be added to the sewer billing for each lot or parcel benefitted by the street lighting system. The amount billed will, thereupon, become immediately due and payable. In accordance with M.S. § 429.101, the city clerk is authorized to certify the unpaid portion of any bill to the county auditor to be added to the tax rolls for collection with the real estate taxes. 3.5. [Penalty for late payment.]A penalty charge as established from time to time by resolution of the city council, shall be added to the amount to be certified to the county auditor to reimburse the city for administrative expenses resulting from the delinquency. (Ord. No. 938, § 1, 6-17-03; Ord. No. 962, § 5, 7-5-05) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 14/14