Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-02-14 CPC Packeti11watet THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North February 14th, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of January 10th, 2018 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. 2017-69: Consideration of Special Use Permit and any related Variances thereto for 9 townhome units to be located at 1167 Parkwood Lane and 6322 Stillwater Blvd N in the TH district. Ancho Bay Pro, Inc., property owner. 3. Case No. 2018-02: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum structural coverage in the RB - Two Family District for the property located at 618 3rd Street South. Michelle and Shane Quinn, property owners. -Tabled per applicants request until the March meeting 4. Case No. 2018-03: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Type C Short Term Home Rental to be located at 219 3rd Street North in the RCM District. Angela Hudson, property owner. 5. Case No. 2018-05: Consideration of an amendment to the conditions of approval of a previously granted Variance at 1902 William Street North in the RB District. Sterling Black of Fairway Development LLC, property owner. 6. Case No. 2018-06: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Type C Short Term Home Rental to be located at 2009 Lake St N, in the RB District. Dave and Jodi Evans, property owner. VI. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 7. Summer Planning Commission Meeting Schedule 8. Small Wireless Facilities Zoning Text Amendment Materials distributed Monday VII. ADJOURNMENT THE 1INTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 10, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kocon, Lauer and Siess; Councilmember Menikheim Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Turnblad, City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of December 13, 2017 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve the minutes of the December 13, 2017 regular meeting. Motion passed 7-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2017-62: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variances to build a new residential condominium at the property located at 107 Third Street North. Brown's Creek West LLC, property owner (continued from December 13 meeting). City Planner Wittman explained the request. Browns Creek West LLC has applied for: 1) a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for the construction of an 11-unit condo complex; and 2) Variances necessary for the construction of the condo building as follows: a 10' variance to the 35' maximum height of a freestanding building, for a 45' tall structure as measured from Third Street North; and a 1.5 story variance to the three story maximum height for a four story building that includes an underground parking level; and 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 balconies; and a 15' variance to the 20' rear yard setback for the construction of the building; and a 2' variance to the 3' maximum yard distance projection for necessary steps adjacent to Third Street North. Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Ms. Wittman went on to explain that the specific proposal includes four stories of residential units, 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. 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. Ms. Wittman added that eight letters have been received from nearby property owners with concerns about height, safety and impact on the streetscape. Staff finds the CUP is not consistent with the code, practical difficulty cannot be determined for setback variances, and recommends 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 and has not established practical difficulty for the addition of the fourth story, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial, with prejudice, of both height variances. Chairman Collins asked if a traffic study has been done in the area. Ms. Wittman replied that a traffic study has not been done recently. Roger Tomten, ARCHNET, architect for Jon Whitcomb, owner and developer, said the applicant met with residents of Steeple Towne Condo on December 6 to get their comments. He showed a movie indicating the proposed building from various viewpoints and related ways in which it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. He described the materials to be used in the building and emphasized that all required parking will be accommodated underground on site. Access from Myrtle Street is the most logical solution. He presented several schematics of gateways and viewsheds and stated that only one of the lots falls into the 35 feet blufftop district but they are using that as the criteria for this project since the building encompasses all four lots. The applicants feel the variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning codes and the Comprehensive Plan and that the hardship is the severe topography on the site. Chairman Collins asked if the applicants considered downsizing the units to reduce the mass of the building. Mr. Tomten replied the size is market -driven. The size of the units could be reduced a couple of feet but to create the pedestrian feel and scale of the structure, they felt the sizing was appropriate. Commissioner Kocon asked why have three staircases and an elevator for rooftop access? Mr. Tomten replied that modern rooftops are a desirable amenity. The occupant load triggers the need for a second stairwell according to code. Commissioner Siess asked when the applicants will bring the project to the HPC for design review. Mr. Tomten responded that the HPC looks at whole building design including colors, so it may be a month or so before it is brought to the HPC. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Scott Wallace, 112 Third Street South in the Steeple Towne Building, speaking on behalf of the Steeple Towne Association, voiced concern about the overall height of the building and visual impact; traffic safety at an already confusing intersection; and green space and zero lot line development. Mark Balay, 110 East Myrtle Street, next door to the site, said during winter the Myrtle Street hill can be difficult to navigate. He feels multi -family housing is a good fit for the site, but feels the 10' side Page 2of11 Planning Commission January 10, 2018 yard variance would put the building 5' from his property and he doubts they could put up their building wall without actually excavating onto his property. He believes floor plans could be modified to remove 5'. He feels that what it boils down to is money, not fitting into the neighborhood. The applicants should look at moving the building back and reducing the square footage because the variances are not warranted. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hade said he opposes the project because of its visual impact. The residents would like to keep their view of the river. Additionally, as cars turn from Myrtle into the underground parking they will have to wait on the steep hill for a garage door to go up, which could affect downtown accessibility. Commissioner Kocon stated he supports the CUP and feels condos are appropriate, but the variances are not palatable and the plan does not address traffic issues. To avoid some of the variances, the developer will probably have to remove some square footage. The height variance for him is a deal breaker. He feels the variances are profit -driven. Chairman Collins stated that the intersection of Myrtle and Third is one of the worst in the city. Traffic definitely is an issue. His other concern is the height and mass of the building. He agreed with Commissioner Kocon that there are too many variances. Commissioner Hansen agreed. He feels it's a bad intersection already, and the building is too tall for the space. He is not against putting a building there and feels the look of the building as designed is top notch but the height is an issue. Having underground parking is great. He would like to see the HPC and Council review the project and see a traffic study. Commissioner Siess commented that she struggles with the design but feels the HPC will deal with the design. She is fine with tabling it. Commissioner Fletcher said she leans toward denial because she does not see a practical difficulty for any of the variances. She is not even sure the Commission has the ability to approve the CUP because it has not gone through design review by the HPC yet. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to deny without prejudice the CUP, and to deny without prejudice the setback variances for Case No. 2017-62, to build a new residential condominium at the property located at 107 Third Street North, and to recommend that the City Council deny with prejudice the height variance. Motion passed 7-0, all in favor. Case No. 2017-65: Special Use Permit (SUP) to operate a Segway tour business from 204 Main Street North in the CBD District. Steve Gnan, property owner and James Linden, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained the request. James Linden operates a guided Segway Tour business in Sheridan, Wyoming, and Grand Marais, Minnesota. He would like to relocate his business to Stillwater, offering guided tours three times daily, from April 1 through October 31, 2018. The tours would accommodate up to six guests, for a total of seven segways during each tour. The applicant has indicated that they may offer for sale t-shirts, sweatshirts, and other related items. Stillwater Segway Tours is proposed operate out of a 10x 12' steel frame and polyester sided tent at the southern side of Let There Be Light, approximately 10' from the Commercial Street sidewalk. The business would also Page 3 of 11 Planning Commission January 10, 2018 have a 6X12' aluminum sided trailer for storage of the segways when not in use. The trailer would be situated approximately 18' from the Commercial Street sidewalk. The applicant is proposing two, 20 square feet banners, and a single, six square foot sidewalk sign. Ms. Wittman explained the proposed routes for the segways. She stated she talked with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) which would not require any permitting for this use. She has not talked with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may be favorable to use permitting for this commercial business operating on their property. On the basis this Seasonal Recreational Business is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would impact pedestrian safety in the downtown core and historic residential neighborhoods, and that the congregation of segways on public sidewalks and trails will interrupt the smooth flow of traffic, creating a public nuisance, staff recommends denial. Commissioner Kocon asked about use of City streets and sidewalks. City Planner Wittman replied that the tour into the historic neighborhoods is the one that could have more impact because sidewalks are narrower. The other place that could become congested is getting over to the trail on the pedestrian plaza. Commissioner Fletcher asked, if accountability is an issue, could the Commission refer this to the Council? Ms. Wittman replied that the Planning Commission may refer any item to the Council. James Linden, applicant, 1548 Oakridge Lane, Houlton, said the tour routes proposed are not set in stone. His intent was to bring this to the City so the City would have some control of the operation. He has operated segway tours in Sheridan, Wyoming and Grand Marais, Minnesota and there has not been one complaint in four years. Chairman Collins asked if the trailer would be removed every night. Mr. Linden replied it and the gazebo would be there for the season. Commissioner Hade asked if he is still operating in the two other cities. Mr. Linden said no, his intent is to move the business to Stillwater. Commissioner Siess asked if he has considered any other sites. Mr. Linden said no, sites are very limited. Commissioner Kocon mentioned that the downtown design guidelines will probably not allow the gazebo as proposed. Mr. Linden replied it is more attractive than a typical art fair tent. He went on to state that each rider gets 15-20 minutes training. They must be 14 years old minimum with a parent or 16 years with parents' consent. Commissioner Siess said if a segway tour group is on a sidewalk, and a child on a tricycle is coming in the opposite direction, who wins? Mr. Linden responded that he realizes they have to have a good rapport with the residents and the City. They will opt to pull off to the side for a stroller or tricycle. Tours are single file and are all guided. Ms. Wittman added that State statute requires users of segways to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and bicyclists. She reviewed recommended conditions of approval if the Commission decides to approve the request. Commissioner Hade remarked that sidewalks are already crowded on weekends. Page 4 of 11 Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon noted the gazebo and signs proposed are not consistent with ordinances. He would like to limit the use to trails, not sidewalks. Otherwise he could see the proposal working. Chairman Collins said he too would prefer the segways stay off the sidewalks. He is willing to support the SUP on a trial basis for a year. Commissioner Hade said the segways would be appropriate single file for streets but not sidewalks. Commissioner Hansen said he supports the use of segways on trails but not on sidewalks or streets. Commissioner Siess pointed out there are safety issues, and training for riders is difficult. The proposed training area is space -limited. If they could just go on the trails it would be fine. Commissioner Fletcher agreed with the stated issues, saying she would prefer the segways to remain on the trails. Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2017-65, SUP to operate a Segway tour business from 204 Main Street North, with the 17 conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition #4 to state "Segways shall be kept in an enclosed trailer when the business is not in operation" and modifying Condition #7 to state "Tours shall follow designated routes on the Brown's Creek Tour and the St. Croix Bridge Crossing Tour along designated trails. Tours shall cross Main Street and utilize the pedestrian plaza to access trails" and adding Condition #18 to state "This permit shall not become effective until the business has obtained applicable DOT and DNR use permits and licenses to operate on State trails." Motion passed 6-1, with Commissioner Siess voting nay. Case No. 2017-66: Special Use Permit (SUP) for rooftop mechanical improvements for Lakeview Hospital, located at 927 Churchill Street South in the RB District. Keith Messinger, representing Lakeview Hospital, property owner and Jason Gottwalt, representing Dunham Engineers, applicant. City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. Lakeview has requested an amended Special Use Permit for: 1) the replacement of the rooftop fluid cooler with an 18' tall cooling tower to be located near the southern portion of the building, which has been installed; and 2) the replacement of two rooftop air handling units on the clinic portion of the facility. The City was unaware that the rooftop cooling tower had been installed. On the basis that with certain conditions, the application conforms to the standards set forth for SUPs, staff recommends approval with six conditions, modifying Condition #4 to state that the landscaping plan should be for all facades and all mechanical equipment, and in cases where landscaping is not possible, that rooftop changes be explored. Commissioner Hade asked about noise complaints. City Planner Wittman said previous complaints were from patients; the Police Department does not have a record of any external complaints. Commissioner Hansen said considering how many times the Commission has discussed rooftop units at this facility, management should have known they would need to apply for a permit. He noted the Commission has heard complaints from neighbors about noise. He asked if there is a plan for future improvements. City Planner Wittman responded that the Commission could request a replacement Page 5of11 Planning Commission January 10, 2018 schedule for existing mechanicals. If the mechanicals are replaced 1:1, that would be permitted through the building department. If it were an expansion, it would come before the Commission. The old unit was 44" and the new one is 72.5" so this is an expansion. Commissioner Siess commented that the Commission also is seeing it because it's in a residential area. John Scheller, Lakeview Hospital Facilities Manager, and Jason Gottwalt, Mechanical Engineer, explained the project. Mr. Scheller said he is new to the hospital. He learned that the cooling tower, which is already installed, is to serve the surgical area. It is the quietest cooling tower they could find. The units proposed for the clinic area are to replace existing units that are failing, in an effort to improve indoor air quality. Mr. Gottwalt added that the rooftop units are very comparable. They did a sound study on the cooling tower, which is quieter by 6 decibels or 25% of the old unit that was there, which had drew complaints from patients. The rooftop units are larger to comply with new requirements. The old ones were not compliant with the current code. Both have been submitted to Department of Labor and Industry. Rooftop units are on order and scheduled to be replaced this winter. The cooling tower installation was done on a fast pace so they could start it this fall and be ready for next spring. Commissioner Kocon asked about the manufacturer's DBA rating for the units. Mr. Gottwalt replied the DBA at the unit is 76. Given the distance and screening of the building it will be under the 50 DBA limitation. 50 DBA is quieter than conversation. Commissioner Siess noted the staff report says the units will be increasing in size to accommodate the removal of the condensing unit and air intake. Mr. Gottwalt responded the rooftop units are 1:1 replacement. They are significantly bigger but noise output is less because they use newer technology. Ms. Wittman added that each of the units that will be removed had the air intake and compressor - they will be replaced with one much larger unit that is a single package. Chairman Collins asked if there are any other smaller options. Mr. Gottwalt replied they are all fairly comparable in height. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Tony Beyer, 904 Churchill Street, directly across from the Clinic, said he would like the noise mitigated and the aesthetics improved to make it fit better into the neighborhood. He would like the SUP to address the north side of the property in the same way it is addressing the south and east sides with regard to landscaping and noise mitigation. The one rooftop unit is visible from all windows of his house. When he purchased his property, he could not see the clinic at all because there were homes across the street (before the hospital acquired those properties). They have only graded the property and planted grass seed - that is the extent of the landscaping that has taken place there. There is also a cluster of ground level mechanicals on the north side of the building and when it gets cold they are remarkably loud. He would request as a condition of the SUP that all the hospital's mechanicals be required to conform to existing noise limits. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Page 6 of 11 Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Commissioner Hansen asked how many rooftop units are at the hospital. Mr. Gottwalt said it is dozens. There are some units as old as 30-40 years. Mr. Scheller stated there is no long term plan to remove or replace any more units. The hospital has purchased land elsewhere for a future move. City Planner Wittman noted that what causes the most noise on the north side is a pressure valve attached to the boiler system. In extreme cold it goes off intermittently and releases at a high pitched sound for various periods of time. Commissioner Hansen asked if it is possible to do any screening for something of that nature. Mr. Scheller responded he is not familiar with that noise and will have to investigate it tomorrow. Mr. Beyer said the colder it gets, the more frequently it releases, but it is not high pitched, it sounds like a dump trunk idling at the curb. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No 2017-66, SUP for rooftop mechanical improvements for Lakeview Hospital, 927 Churchill Street South, with the six conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition #4 to state "A comprehensive landscape plan for all four sides" and modifying Condition #7 to state "The property owner shall screen the new rooftop heating units (RTU) on the north elevation. Screening shall be included in the building permit submittal and shall be installed within three months after the installation of the new RTU." Motion passed 7-0, all in favor. Case No. 2017-67: Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Amendment and any related Variances for the property located at 8911 Neal Avenue in the AP District. Ken Heifort, property owner and Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development, applicant. Community Development Director Turnblad reviewed the application. Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development, is proposing to develop Phase Two of the 26.1 acre Heifort Hills Planned Unit Development (PUD). The 24 home sites located in the 15.2 acre first phase were platted as the Ponds at Heifort Hills. This, the second phase, also has 24 home sites, which are spread across 10.9 acres of land that will be platted as Heifort Hills Estate. All of this phase lies within the Natural Environment Shoreland District of South Twin Lake. Consequently, development must either be on one acre lots or must occur as a Shoreland PUD. The developer in this instance has chosen to develop according to the Shoreland PUD standards and is requesting: 1) Rezoning of the second phase's 10.92 acres from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential; and 2) Final Shoreland PUD approval for the second phase; and 3) Preliminary plat approval for Heifort Hills Estate. The proposed Final PUD, rezoning and preliminary plat for Phase Two represent a good solution to the need for balancing the density envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and the protective goals of the South Twin Lake Shoreland Overlay District. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requests with 18 conditions. Commissioner Hansen asked how many homes could be built on the neighboring 3.8 acre property. Mr. Turnblad replied it is possible to do a PUD on that property if access could be given somehow. A PUD would allow higher density. Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development, offered to answer questions. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Page 7of11 Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Jason Kehren, 8820 Neal Avenue North, across the street, asked if water and sewer will extend up to his property. Mr. Turnblad stated that one condition of approval requires the developer to stub sewer and water to Mr. Kehren's property line. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess asked the developer to comment on renaming the street. Mr. Ganz replied they are open to changing the name Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2017-67, Final PUD, Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Amendment and related Variances for the property located at 8911 Neal Avenue, with the 18 conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 7-0, all in favor. Case No. 2017-68: Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to allow retail uses in the BP -I District by Special Use Permit for the property located at 1815 Greeley Street South. Michael McGrath property owner. Community Development Director Turnblad explained that Michael McGrath, doing business as 1815 Greeley, LLC, has applied for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to allow for limited retail uses to be permitted by Special Use Permit in the BP — I Business Park Industrial zoning district. If the ZAT were approved, he would then proceed with the SUP process for the Commission's consideration of a retail store not exceeding 10% of the total floor area of the existing building he owns, located at 1815 Greeley Street South. Staff finds that the preservation of industrial -zoned properties for industrial use is in the public interest, but that allowing retail space of no greater than 10% of an industrial building's total area by SUP, up to 4,000 square feet, would not significantly change the nature of the industrial building. Additionally, staff finds that allowing limited retail of this nature would help to satisfy a demand for retail space while still preserving the majority of industrial -zoned properties for industrial use. Staff finds the proposed ZAT is not in general conflict with the principles, policies, and land use designations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff would recommend the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Commissioner Kocon pointed out the issue in this case involves a relative or complementary use. He questioned whether it should be a requirement that the retail use be related to the industrial use. Mr. Turnblad it could be required that the retail use be associated with another use on site and not be the only use. Commissioner Fletcher remarked she doesn't see the need to be more restrictive because the SUP application will come to the Commission. Commissioner Siess pointed out that industrial use occupies a fairly small percentage of property in Stillwater. She does not favor allowing retail because retail may go in several other zoning districts. Commissioner Kocon agreed, adding that if the industrial use goes away, the commercial use would likely go away too and there would logically then be a new industrial application for some other use. Tim Sauro stated he works for Mike McGrath. The use that occupies the building now is similar to what they had last 15 years with Roof Depot. Sew With Me is doing repairs on equipment and not a lot of retail customers come in to buy supplies, so they feel it's similar to what has been there. It's only 3,000 square feet of finished space. Page 8 of 11 Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess noted that the experience of the senior living ZAT near Our Saviors Church showed her that the ZAT process is a slippery slope. The industrial section in the City is extremely small and creates a lot of revenue, and there are other areas for retail in Stillwater. She feels this is not what the industrial zone was designed for. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2017-68, ZAT to allow retail uses in the BP -I District by SUP for the property located at 1815 Greeley Street South, modifying the recommended approval to state "allowing for retail space of no greater than 10% of the total building area or 4,000 square feet, whichever is less." Motion passed 6- 1, with Commissioner Siess voting nay. Case No. 2017-70: Variances to the proposed single-family structure for the property located at X Linden Street in the RB District. Jessie Bostrom, property owner and Paul Bruggeman, applicant. City Planner Wittman stated that Paul Bruggeman is requesting approval of: 1) a 5' variance to the 25' rear yard setback for the construction of a rear deck on a single-family home; and 2) a 3.9% variance to the 25% structural coverage for the construction of a single-family residence with rear deck and attached two -stall garage. Staff finds practical difficulty has been established for the 3.9% Variance to the structural lot coverage allowance and recommends approval of this Variance. However, staff also finds that practical difficulty has not been established for the 5' encroachment into the rear yard setback area. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this Variance. Jessie Bostrom, applicant, stated that other lots in this area have structures closer to the rear yard lot lines. With the deck they still would be maintaining a 20' setback which is consistent with existing conditions on the street. Commissioner Kocon asked if they considered switching the floor plan to put the deck behind the garage. Ms. Bostrom said they considered that, but they would have had to put a door on the dining room, which would eliminate one of the only full walls and limit practical use of the dining room. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Becky Dawson Cox, 417 West Cherry Street, told the Commission drainage is an issue on the property. The lots slope down to her garage. She asked that the Commission deny the variance. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon stated he does not see practical difficulty with regard to the deck location. Commissioner Siess said she wants the applicant to know that the Commission is required to find a practical difficulty in order to grant a variance. She struggles with the deck variance. Commissioners Fletcher and Lauer agreed they could see no practical difficulty. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve a Variance of 3.9% lot coverage and to deny the requested 5' rear yard setback for Case No. 2017-70, Variances to the proposed Page 9of11 Planning Commission January 10, 2018 single family structure for the property located at X Linden Street. Motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Hade voting nay. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2017-57: Special Use Permit (SUP) 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 reviewed the request. At the November 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled consideration of CPC Case No. 2017-57, a request 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. The Commission directed the property owner to work with the neighbors to develop an alternative solution to the proposed chain -link fence. The property owner has submitted a request to replace the 6' cedar fence on the northern property boundary with a 6' cedar privacy fence. While the applicant has support from the four of the six adjacent property owners, the other two property owners do not need to concur, as this 1:1 replacement is consistent with the conditions of approval of the original SUP. The applicant is further requesting replacement of the eastern and southern fencing, bordering adjacent multiple family dwellings, with a 5-6' chain -link fence. This request is supported by the adjacent property owners and management firms. Staff finds that the modified proposal is consistent with the SUP regulations and recommends approval with eight conditions, permitting a minimum 60" chain -link fence on the east and south property boundaries. Chairman Collins asked if there is any time limit for completion. Ms. Wittman replied the Zoning Administrator has been working with the property owner on the issue for almost a year. A timeline will be based on negotiations the property owner makes with enforcement staff. Commissioner Siess stated if the property owner replaces what they have right now, it's climbable. Ms. Wittman said it could conceivably be climbed. The traditional 2-sided design could be considered climbable. Commissioner Siess questioned whether the Commission should be more specific about a non -climbable design. Juanita Pekay, applicant, 7063 Terraceview Lane, Maple Grove, informed the Commission that the non -climbable design was a condition that the neighbors north of the property had requested because they did not want the townhomes built at the time they were built. The neighbors reported that when originally installed, the nicer side of the fence faced the street, which at the time did not meet the code and the neighbors had the City require that the prior owners turn the fence around and face it in the direction it is facing now. Her company has owned the property for 2.5 years. She understands that the single family homes to the north wanted the barrier. They are not concerned with the east and south side and would support the chain link on those sides. The chain link fence would eliminate the blind spot between the garages and fence, and be lower cost and maintenance. There is 216 feet of fencing that the City would like to be double sided or turned around. The neighbors absolutely want the nicer looking side on their side. She asked that the Commission permit the 5' chain link fences on south and east side and allow her to do the 6' cedar fence with the nicer side facing the north so it will make the neighbors happy. Ms. Pekay added that she still has not been advised what the compliance issue is. City Planner Wittman replied the issue surfaced because the fence is in disrepair. Usually when issues like this come up, an enforcement letter sent is sent to the property owner. She assumes that process was followed. Page 10 of 11 Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Chairman Collins, to recommend approval of Case No. 2017-57, as modified by the applicant, with the eight conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition #4 to state "The 6' cedar fence adjacent to the public rights -of -way and the properties located at 1573 and 1567 Driving Park Road shall be constructed with the finished side facing Orleans Street." Motion passed 7-0, all in favor. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Small Wireless Facilities Future Zoning Text Amendment City Planner Wittman noted that staff is working with representatives of other communities that have historic districts to look at language for wireless right-of-ways in historic districts. Planning Commission Annual Case Report City Planner Wittman provided the Planning Commission Annual Case Report. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 11:01 p.m. All in favor, 7-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 11 of 11 jillwater PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 14, 2018 CPC CASE NO.: 2017-69 APPLICANT: Tim Nolde, representing Ancho Bay Pro, Inc. REQUEST: Consideration of a Special Use Permit and any related Variances thereto, to develop a 9 unit townhouse complex on the vacant property located at 1167 Parkwood Lane and 6322 Stillwater Boulevard North ZONING: TH - Townhouse COMP PLAN: Medium Density Residential PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner linage 1: Viewing West from HWY 5 (Stillwater Blvd.) REQUEST Image 2: Viewing Southeast from Parkwood Lane Tim Nolde, representing Ancho Bay Pro, Inc. has requested a Special Use Permit to allow for nine (9) townhouses to be located at 1167 Parkwood Lane and 6322 Stillwater Blvd. North. Two buildings, one with three units and the other with four units, are proposed to be relocated from Oak Park Heights (currently located at 13843 Lower 59th Street North and 13848 Upper 58th Street North). A third building, comprised of two units, is proposed to be constructed onsite. A portion of the property was platted as a part of Long Lake Estates whereas that portion adjacent to Stillwater Boulevard has never been platted. As a result of the adjacent development patterns, the property has become a double -frontage lot. However, only three townhouse units would be accessed off of Parkwood Lane whereas the other six units would be accessed off of Saddle Court in the Long Lake Villas neighborhood. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS City Code Section 31-207 indicates that in approving a Special Use Permit the Planning Commission must determine that the proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the zoning chapter, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Furthermore, the Planning Commission must find the use/structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community and may impose additional conditions necessary for the public interest. Zoning Code The property is zoned TH: Townhouse Residential. Attached single-family dwellings and townhouses are permitted by Special Use Permit. The two lots will need to be combined into a single tax parcel prior to the issuance of Grading and/or Building Moving Permits. The Zoning Code does not prohibit long-term rental properties on this site, nor anywhere within the City of Stillwater. The development is proposed to be long-term rental units, with current occupants anticipating becoming Stillwater residents by moving with their homes. Case No. 2017-69 CPC: February 14, 2018 Page 2 of 9 TH Zoning District Minimum Dimensional Standards Standard Min. requirement Proposed Lot area per unit 5,000 s.f. 7,695 s.f. Front yard setback Residence Garage 20' 25' 65'+/- (Parkwood) 35'+/- (Saddle Court) Side yard setback 25' 25' Rear yard setback 25' 25' Building Separation 15' 18' Height 2.5 stories, NTE 35' 1 story; 20' Off -Street Parking and Loading The following off-street parking spaces are required to be placed onsite: Use Requirement Units Total Parking Required Single family/duplex, townhouses Two spaces per dwelling unit of which one is covered 9 18 spaces The applicant is proposing the creation of 30 onsite parking spaces. A total of 18 parking spaces will be located in garages. The additional parking spaces will be located in front of garages, outside of driveway and travel lanes. Roadways, Accesses and Drives In 1999 the property to the south was planned and approved as Green Twig Villas; it was later renamed to Long Lake Villas. The circa 2000 construction plans for the development show Saddle Court as being 24' from bituminous edge to edge; the measurement is 23' from bituminous edge to bituminous edge. Therefore, it does not meet the 24' standard for driveways with two-way traffic. However, the roadway was constructed at 26' from flowline to flowline. It has been determined this right-of-way (ROW) width is sufficient for the increased traffic in this area if Saddle Court onstreet parking is restricted to parallel parking only; the development plans do show this signage installed in this location. Additionally, "no parking" signs will be required to be located in the hammerhead at the end of Saddle Court to accommodate for emergency service vehicle turnaround. Community policy has been that the City will only allow for a driveway that services two residences or less. For those properties off of Saddle Court, a split driveway with a single curb cut has been determined to be acceptable as the single -accessed unit will have onsite turnaround capacity. Access to six residences is proposed onto Saddle Court. However, this driveway has been constructed to 24', compliant with the standards for two-way driveways. Case No. 2017-69 CPC: February 14, 2018 Page 3 of 9 The retaining wall adjacent to Saddle Court was designed to accommodate for the road. The City does not have adequate engineering documentation to ensure the existing retaining wall can accommodate the increased load. The property owner's representing engineer has noted some wall distress. Recommendation has been to further inspect the wall at the time of site disturbance as full wall removal may not be necessary. Given this, and the fact that wall ownership and maintenance responsibility is not clearly defined, staff recommends further engineering analysis is provided to the City prior to the issuance of the building moving permit along with determination of the responsibility of upgrades, future maintenance and ownership. Stormwater Management Practices The applicant is proposing an onsite stormwater management system as opposed to attempting to utilize adjacent stromwater facilities. Appropriate grading, vegetated swales, and infiltration basins, which will outlet to an existing storm sewer near the southeast corner of the property, will be utilized to encourage onsite infiltration. With poor soils on the site, a large infiltration basin will take up a significant amount of the developable land area. While this basin appears to have significant depth, the average water depth will be less than one-half foot. It is expected this less than one-half foot of water will drain down within 48 hours after a rainfall event. The stormwater management plan conforms to the rules of the Brown's Creek Watershed District (BCWD); the property owner will be required to obtain a BCWD permit prior to ground disturbance. Tree and Forest Protection and Landscaping The City's Tree Preservation standards apply to this development project. Of the 19 onsite trees, 12 trees are proposed for removal. The City's ordinances allow 35% of the tree stock to be taken down, with one tree required to be planted for each tree removed beyond the 35% threshold. A total of 6 of the 19 trees on the site could be removed without replacement. Since 12 trees are to be removed, 6 replacement trees will be required. The property owner is proposing 28 trees to be installed onsite. Design Review The TH Zoning District standards indicate design review is required for all permitted and specially permitted buildings. However, City Code Section 31-209 indicates a Design Permit is only subject to Site Alterations (of designated Heritage Preservation Sites) and properties within Downtown Design Review and West Stillwater Business Park districts, which this property is not a part of. Therefore, the applicant has submitted photographs of all four sides of the existing structures to document four-sided design, a key design element encouraged in all Stillwater districts. The new structure will need to have the same materials (siding, roofing, windows, trim, and level of detail) on the new building as those proposed for relocation. Additionally, the Building Official has indicated there are building code issues associated with the brick on the front face of the three -unit building. If this brick is completely removed, it will need to Case No. 2017-69 CPC: February 14, 2018 Page 4 of 9 be removed on all structures. If the brick is to be maintained, it should be carried around all four sides of the buildings. Sign Regulations No signage is proposed for this development. Therefore, no signage will be permitted. Each unit will be permitted to have its building address properly displayed on the front facade. Comprehensive Plan & Relevant Area Plans Comprehensive Plan The TH Zoning District is consistent with the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Future Land Use map classification as identified in the Comprehensive Plan (CP). MDR calls for densities between 6 and 14.5 units per acre. The property owner is proposing 5.99 units per acre on this 1.59 acre site. Greater densities could be proposed on this site and still be in conformance with the CP. Master Trails Plan In 2015 the City adopted a Master Trails Plan. That plan called for the connection of the Stillwater Boulevard North off-street trail to Parkwood Lane, which is proposed in the development plans. The trail is proposed to be public and will have an accessible ramp installed at Parkwood Lane. The property owner is proposing to maintain a 5' separation between the trail and the private driveways off of Parkwood Lane; the trail will be located one foot off of the adjacent (private) property. Where the trail is located on privately owned land, a 10' trail easement will be required. As noted, the infiltration basin is large. While the basin is not anticipated to contain a significant amount of water, there is approximately 6' of fall area between the trail and the bottom of the basin. To reduce safety hazards, the applicant is proposing a guardrail in this location. As the guardrail will be partially located on City property and on the City trail easement, the design, construction and ownership of the railing will need to be negotiated between the property owner and Public Works/Engineering and the City Attorney's office. Other Lawful Regulations Utilities and Services All water and sewer lines in Parkwood Lane will need to be public. Additionally, City Engineer Sanders has indicated there should not be an apron over the sanitary sewer pipe at the SW corner. Furthermore, Parkwood Lane will need to be restored to City standards after the installation of utilities. Case No. 2017-69 CPC: February 14, 2018 Page 5 of 9 All existing utility lines (overhead electrical, existing sanitary sewer, etc.) should have utility easements. This may require amending existing easements or creating new ones. Easements in favor of the City will need to be accepted by the City Council. Garbage and Rubbish Each individual unit will have their own trash and recycle carts. They will need to comply with City Code which requires them to be kept from public view until collection day. Containers will not be permitted to be stored on the public ROW. Building Moving The moving of a structure into the City of Stillwater may only be approved by the City Council after a public hearing is held. A permit must also be obtained. City Code specifically addresses certain items the property owner must submit prior to the Council's review and approval. However, the relocation of the buildings is not proposed until later this spring. As the Council had to hold a public hearing, it was most desirable for the applicant and staff to hold the hearings concurrently. That said, the Planning Commission does review or comment on building moving. However, City Code is specific about approvals and denials, hinging them on compliance with the zoning, building, or other ordinances or variation from neighborhood compatibility (including age, bulk, architectural style and quality of construction of both the building to be moved and the buildings existing in the neighborhood). To that effect, the Planning Commission may want to make comment for the Council's hearing. As noted, the proposed project is in conformance with the Zoning Code. Additionally, Building Official Shilts inspected the seven units and has determined substantial compliance with adopted life, health, and safety standards. While a few minor modifications will be needed to be done to the structures, these can be addressed at the time of building permitting. Regarding the construction and its variation from neighborhood compatibility, the two structures proposed to be relocated where constructed in 2007. Compared to most of the properties in the direct vicinity, the structures are newer (see table, below) and generally conform to the modern Building Code. When coupled with the inspection report from Building Official Shilts, it has been determined the structures proposed for relocation are compatible with the neighborhood in terms of age. Property Circa Property Circa 1151 Parkwood Lane 1974 1172 Parkwood Lane 1981 Pakwood Villas "West" 2004 1164 Parkwood Lane 1930 Parkwood Villas "East" 2016 1156 Parkwood Lane 1968 Parkwood Villas "South" 2003 1148 Parkwood Lane 1976 Long Lake Villas 2000 1144 Parkwood Lane 1984 Case No. 2017-69 CPC: February 14, 2018 Page 6 of 9 The bulk of the structures, including height and density, are also consistent with the properties directly adjacent and found along Parkwood Lane. The nine, single story units will have a similar look as the Parkwood Villas development but will be less tall than the Long Lake Villas units, which are two stories in height. The architectural style is also compatible. Development Fees and Agreements In addition to the payment of Water and Sewer Access Charges (WAC/SAC) for each of the units, the development will be responsible for paying the following development fees: • AUAR - $11,822/acre • Sewer - $9,822/acre Generally speaking, development approvals could be conditioned requiring payments of these fees prior to the issuance of the building or grading permits. However, it is preferred the City enter into a Developer's Agreement specifically calling out the construction of public property and payment of development fees. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date this report was written, comments had been received from the following and are attached for the Commission's review: Michael Hughes, 1172 Parkwood Lane, indicates support for the scale of the project and the limited number of units accessing off of Parkwood Lane. He indicates he is concerned about drainage on his, lower lying, property and that he is not in favor of rental properties. He lastly asked the City to require the infrastructure to be developed to necessary standards. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the 9-unit townhouse proposal to be consistent with the provisions of the SUP process, the Commission could move to approve the SUP with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2017-69, except as modified by the conditions herein or by City Council approval of the building moving. Certificate of Survey Site Plan Demolition Plan Paving Grading Plan Erosion Control Plan Utility Plan Details Case No. 2017-69 CPC: February 14, 2018 Page 7 of 9 Dated 1/25/2018 Sheet C1.0 Dated 11/29/2017 Sheet C2.0 Dated 11/29/2017 Sheet C3.0 Dated 11/29/2017 Sheet C3.1 Dated 11/29/2017 Sheet C4.0 Dated 11/29/2017 Sheets C5.0-C8.0 Dated 11/29/2017 SWPPP Sheet C6.0 Dated 12/6/17 Tree Pres Landscape Plan Sheet L1.0 Dated 11/29/2017 3. The two properties, PIDs 32.030.20.32.0049 and 32.030.20.32.0005, shall be combined into a single parcel with Washington County. Proof of lot combination will be required prior to the City's release of the Building Moving Permit. 4. All civil engineering plans must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction prior to release of the Grading Permit. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Building Moving Permit, the developer shall submit an engineering analysis to determine the stability of the Saddle Court retaining wall and detailing necessary improvements and/or reconstruction plans necessary to accommodate the additional load. 6. The developer shall submit a permit application to Brown's Creek Watershed District, and the permit must be issued prior to submitting the grading permit application to the City. BCWD conditions of approval shall be incorporated by reference herein. 7. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated adjacent to all lot lines. These easements must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to recording with Washington County. 8. All existing and proposed utility lines shall be encumbered by easements. Easements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to recording with Washington County. 9. All new electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. 10. A total of 26 trees shall be installed onsite, as per the Tree Preservation and Landscaping Plan. Tree preservation shall be included on the grading permit application submission. 11. Prior to the City's release of the Building Moving Permit, the developer shall secure necessary access and right-of-way permits from the City of Oak Park Heights, Washington County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 12. Refuse shall be kept inside at all times with the exception of collection day. Refuse containers outside on collection day shall be stored on private property and shall not block the public right-of-way, including the sidewalk. 13. The project shall meet all building, plumbing, mechanical/fuel gas, accessibility, and energy codes prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction and/or building moving. 14. The two -unit structure proposed for construction shall have the same exterior materials, including trim and level of trim detail, as the two relocated structures. Four-sided design is encouraged on all structures. 15. The Developer will be responsible for paying the AUAR Fee of $18,796.98 and Trunk Sewer Fee of $15,616.98. These fees will be due prior to release of the Grading or Building Moving Permits. 16. 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, grading, or structure relocation on the site, and prior to holding a pre -construction meeting with the City Engineer for the project. Case No. 2017-69 CPC: February 14, 2018 Page 8 of 9 B. Table C. Denial 17. As per City Code Section 31-204 Subd. 7(a) and 7(b), minor modifications shall be approved, in advance, by the Community Development Director. Major modifications shall be heard by the decision -making authority in a public hearing. If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make determination of compliance with the SUP provisions, it could continue the review for additional information. If the Planning Commission finds the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of the SUP regulations, the Commission should deny the SUP. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial and determine whether or not the denial is with or without prejudice. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis the application is in harmony with the general purposes of the Zoning Code, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and, with certain conditions, would conform to all lawful regulations, staff recommends conditional approval of CPC Case No. 201769, permitting a Special Use Permit for Ancho Bay Pro, LLC develop a 9 unit townhouse complex on the vacant property located at 1167 Parkwood Lane and 6322 Stillwater Boulevard North. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Civil Plans (11 pages) Site Plan Demo, Paving and Grading Erosion Control Utilities and Details Landscaping Photographs of Existing Structures (2 pages) Wall Evaluation Letter Building Department Inspection Report Public Comment: Hughes Case No. 2017-69 CPC: February 14, 2018 Page 9 of 9 WILDPINES LANE A,..lillwater 0 Z ,*/ A The Birthplace of Minnesota J 441, i >r. O`C ♦ 4. Site Location Map (C a4 r VIP '�•�. J : �'� �`� o f LANE Sqp �'�„T , �� Ql'' 4'�, 1167 Parkwood Lane 6322 Stillwater Blvd 0 145 290 N 580 Feet 1) 03�C 11� ���,��c A z m r`F:r� n• General Site Location D o •- 't4, 4I a Z I.,.o,• 1p444111P DRIVE CC/! +��� . -� `r' sy,,��ii)VF CREST BLVD *,� ' a111 1 ! s i ! �' ' a te- �11� 'yya_,glyl�;l�i 1 jat;Alii 111� • �-1 ;Fri', i i747.,.f ,,,,•i / rA 1-1 NOM TJ FOLZ FREEMAN SURVEYING Luc lEUT NARRATIVE PARKWOOD TOWNHOME ADDITION The property is located west of Co. Highway 5 and north of the Curve Crest intersection. It fronts on Saddle Court on the south and has access to Parkwood Lane cul-de-sac on the north. There are townhomes on the north of the property and also on the south of the property. The land is zoned Townhouse Residential (TH) which is consistent with the proposed use. The subject property is 70, 366 square feet, 1.62 acres. The present use is vacant. There are no buildings on the property presently. The proposal is to locate three townhome buildings on the property as shown on the site plans. Two of the buildings will be moved onto this property from their present location in Oak Park Heights. Two new foundations with crawl spaces will be built for these two buildings. These two existing buildings consist of a total of seven units, one three unit building and one four unit building. Photos of the existing buildings in their present locations are included in the submittal packet. The third building will be new construction, similar to the existing buildings, with a slab on grade. The buildings are shown and labeled on the site plans. This development has been designed and revised many times to accommodate the requirements of the Browns Creek Watershed district. The new pond is being constructed to satisfy the runoff requirements of the BCWD and also City of Stillwater regulations. The plan to connect Saddle Court to Parkwood Lane with the private driveways was considered and then rejected. The layout we have proposed for the private driveways will minimize the increase of traffic in each of the existing neighborhoods. There are six units being added to the Saddle Court neighborhood and only three units on the cul-de-sac on Parkwood Lane. There is a pathway that was partially constructed in the previous development to the north. This project will complete the path to connect Parkwood Lane to the pathway system existing on the westerly side of Stillwater Boulevard. The Saddle Court neighborhood is also connected to the pathway on the westerly side of Stillwater Boulevard. Encouraging foot and bicycle traffic in this area will enhance the general feel of the existing neighborhoods. This proposed use is consistent with present zoning and future land use in the comprehensive plan. There are no violations to setbacks, volume or space. There are no variances to the existing City Code needed or requested. We feel this proposed use fits quite nicely with the existing neighborhoods. 12445 55th Street North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 * Phone: 651-439-8833 * Website: FFSurveying.com Bruce A. Folz, LS Timothy J. Freeman, LS 1939 - 2001 Principal SURVEY FOR: Tim Nolde Green Twig Properties 775 Green Twig Way Stillwater, MN 55082 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Separate Sheets LO G LAKE ESTATES SEC D ADDITION r; 51 821:G'94i N8Z 1 �C9 yji 11 -40 -4C,QLs as9s Z61-7 'l204giM• 4 rMH notary Mi ary MH ?IL i CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Proposed Townhome Site Plan drain Ploy9ro vvv v v v vv v OUTLOT A J I w t3—' �: G.54' 4C1PES 44, .5 J,S 1y k, 13 15 • <;•1 92 Folz Freeman Surveying LLC LAND PLANNING and SURVEYING 12445 55TH STREET NORTH LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 (651) 439.8833 www.FFSurveying.com FFS LEGEND 0 DENOTES SET %2 INCH DIA. BY 16 /NCH /RON PIPE MONUMENT MARKED WITH A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED "FREEMAN LS 16989", UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE • DENOTES FOUND MONUMENT, SIZE AND MARKINGS AS INDICATED NOTES 1) ELEVATIONS ARE NAVD MEAN SEA —LEVEL, 1988 ADJUSTMENT 2) ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83, 1996 ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL SCALE 1 /NCH =50 FEET 0 25 50 SCALE IN FEET 100 I hereby c•ert0, that this sunvev, plan or report -was prepared by me or under nmv direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. IIV0,1111 wuuuuum ,1111 ...'IIINuI1. 1101.,,. uu 1/25/18 l Timothy .l. F .eenti,W�, LS „u'° Minnesota L4 iise No. 16989 Note: Official Copies or this map are crimp sealed Date Map No. 17-121D CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY — Site Plan "; 2O1 8 Folz Freeman Surveying LLC .\]] Righls Reserved 0 W 0 0 / / / / / L / / / / / / / OE / P:\Projects\Projects - 12176088 - Park .od Townh• •2s\C._DDsign\Drawing iles\12176088 - C1 demo.dwg i ST-3 ST-4 NOTE: EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO BE EVALUATED DURING THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION TO FURTHER DETERMINE IF REPLACEMENT, REPAIRS, OR IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY 13 \N Quo lPP > > • I cc? - 6"DIP I 8"PVC SADDLE COURT / / / I / / / I i / OE / / OE OE OE •ST-1 ST-5 > OE OE / ' OE ST-2 / OE / v / 0 36. / 70 0 / / I' / 0 / / / / / 1 I / / / SYMBOL LEGEND REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION KEY NOTES SAWCUT, REMOVE, AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING TREE. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING PIPE APRON DEMOLITION NOTES 1. Verify all existing utility locations. 2. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to perform or coordinate all necessary utility demolitions and relocations from existing utility locations to all onsite amenities and buildings. These connections include, but are not limited to, water, sanitary sewer, cable tv, telephone, gas, electric, site lighting, etc. 3. Prior to beginning work, contact Gopher State Onecall (651-454-0002) to locate utilities throughout the area under construction. The Contractor shall retain the services of a private utility locator to locate the private utilities. 4. Sawcut along edges of pavements, sidewalks, and curbs to remain. 5. All construction shall be performed in accordance with state and local standard specifications for construction. NORTH 0 10 20 40 I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. We-k/-,0•04 Matt Woodruff, P.E. Date: 10.20.17 Reg. No.: 41885 Rev. Date Description / \ 10.20.17 Watershed Submittal 11.09.17 Watershed Submittal 11.29.17 Watershed Submittal Project #: 12176088.000 Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 10.20.17 Sheet Title: DEMOLITION PLAN C 1 ■ 0 Sheet: / / / / / / PARALLEL PARKING ONLY SIGN I w 0 0 W 0 / / / L / / / / 1' / OE PROPOSED MAIL BOXES 25, / / 0 / U / w co 6 ,� 62 ck\ „:3\ • \N`I / / / / g 1 gl Fz\N,gg ' PARALLEL PARKING ONLY SIGN P:\Projects\Projects - 4 - 12176088 - Parlood Townh.. ^s\C_Dasign\Drawing Files\12176088 - C2 Paving.dwg 6"DI > I > 1i i �N 13 \\APP�p lP PROPOSED TRAIL EASEMENT P I COURT TPARALLEL PARKING ONLY SIGN 8„PVC< SADDLE I I — PROPOSED MAIL BOXES v PROPOSED RAILING/ • / 38.83' < ?)��\ Rp��pGl IPQP UL X X OE —X— x OE .ST-1 • PROPOSED RAILING ST-2 /.J\// // / /o .;"<;')`� J 0 36.70 I W rLv I M / o rflV (b M � / / 1 C7 o l/ 1 I 1 cr 0 a m I i "NO PARKING" SIGNS (3 EA), INSTALL ON EACH SIDE OF HAMMERHEAD TURN -AROUND 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 SYMBOL LEGEND • • °• ' .: NEW 3" BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT OVER NEW 6" AGGREGATE BASE SEE DETAIL 1/C5 PROPOSED BITUMINOUS TRAIL SEE DETAIL 2/C5 PARKWOOD LANE RESTORATION 1.5" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE, 2.5" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE OVER 8" AGGREGATE BASE NEW 6" CONCRETE PAVEMENT OVER NEW 6" AGGREGATE BASE NORTH 0 10 20 40 c.% O w L g) J w L8) a> B L .0) U c 0) c C 0) w c cu co J r- 0 N I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. MOO- khk/-0°04 Matt Woodruff, P.E. Date: 10.20.17 Reg. No.: 41885 Rev. Date Description / 1 10.20.17 Watershed Submittal 11.09.17 Watershed Submittal 11.29.17 Watershed Submittal Project #: 12176088.000 Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 10.20.17 Sheet Title: PAVING PLAN ■ C20 Sheet: / / \ / \ \ / ) / I w 0 0 0 / w 0 / / rn / / OE / P:\Projects\Projects - 12176088 - Parj od TowreomPs\C n ign\Drawing Files\12176088 - C3.0 Grading.dwg / / 922.15 TC* 921.65 GL* 922.00 TC 921.66 GL 922. 4 TC* 921.84 GL* _-921.00 B 922.00 C I 921.81 ZL 922 920 21.00 B 921 920 921 12 2' SETBACK OE - 0 922.17 TC 921.67 GL 0.52%> OE -� X -< 6"DIP 4 »- > 921 0 0.52% < SADDLE COURT 919 i i i 1 1 A\ \ \\ \ \\ \ x \ \ N 1 0 467 ZIT ZIT 918.50 TC 916 �915 914.83 TC / 914.50 GL* 915.08 TC 914.75 GL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING NOTES a. Install temporary erosion control measures prior to beginning any excavation or demolition work at the site. b. Begin grading of site and construction of ponds, utilities, and retaining wall. Infiltration basins to be temporarily graded to 2' above finished bottom elevation. c. Begin construction of building foundations. After all foundations are complete, construction and relocation of the buildings will occur simultaneously. d. e. Finalize grades and stabilize all areas disturbed by grading and construction. Site is fully stabilized with established vegetation. f. Final grading, stabilization, and planting of infiltration basins. Final grading of infiltration at this point in the construction sequence will include excavation to in -situ soils with design infiltration rates and backfilling with amended soil media. g. / Infiltration areas to be marked and silt fence to be installed around the upland edge of each infiltration basin. PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN (1P) BOT = 9 4 76 100-Y� = 916.02 cr 0 cr gcr INFILTRATION SWALE (2P) 0 = 912.64 / \ / 7 \, 1 1 1 / / 1 LEGEND h. Remove all temporary erosion and sediment control measures after site and basins are fully stabilized and al1965hstruction in the corEEMBIEVEIrgiONgTEOiiiiail is complete. 950 PROPOSED CONTOURS - MAJOR INTERVAL 949 PROPOSED CONTOURS - MINOR INTERVAL GRADE BREAK LINE GRADE SLOPE / 1 / 1 950.00 TC 949.50 GL SPOT ABBREVIATIONS: TC - TOP OF CURB GL - GUTTER LINE B - BITUMUNOUS C - CONCRETE EO - EMERGENCY OVERFLOW TW - TOP OF WALL BW - BOTTOM OF WALL (F/G) (*) - EXISTING TO BE VERIFIED GRADING NOTES 1. Tree protection consisting of snow fence or safety fence installed at the drip line shall be in place prior to beginning any grading or demolition work at the site. 2. All elevations with an asterisk (*) shall be field verified. If elevations vary significantly, notify the Engineer for further instructions. 3. Grades shown in paved areas represent finish elevation. 4. Restore all disturbed areas with 6" of good quality topsoil and sod. 5. All construction shall be performed in accordance with state and local standard specifications for construction. 6. All slopes that are in excess of 3:1 (H:V) and areas of concentrated flow (such as swales) shall be secured with North American Green DS150 for short term erosion control (Category 3). 7. At the completion of the project and prior to turf establishment and seeding, the Contractor shall de -compact the soils in areas that were disturbed as a result of construction activities. De -compaction shall consist of ripping, cultivating, or scarifying the top 12" in attempt to improve the infiltration characteristics of the soils. The Contractor shall use low impact earth moving equipment to prevent compaction of the underlying soils, for both temporary and final grading and smoothing of the topsoil prior to seeding. Payment for de -compaction shall be for the price quoted in the construction contract. EROSION CONTROL NOTES Erosion control notes can be found on sheet C8 7-L NORTH 0 10 20 40 2 L c a) 0) c w 0 J 0 N U Ors Q 2 w z 0- O>- Lij pp mEt 0- 1. `�Z� 0 I< u) 0 Z Q 0 o- I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. VI/Lekft W0tv-0Q-4 Matt Woodruff, P.E. Date: 10.20.17 Reg. No.: 41885 Rev. Date Description n 10.20.17 Watershed Submittal /2\ 11.09.17 Watershed Submittal /3\ 11.29.17 Watershed Submittal Project #: 12176088.000 Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 10.20.17 Sheet Title: GRADING PLAN ■ C30 Sheet: I »— I / / / / / 4 SADDLE COURT / P:\Projects\Projects ,e 12176088 - Parj od Townt%mPs\C n ign\Drawing Files\12176088 - C3.1 Erosion Control.dwg / i i 1 I 1 INLET PROTECTION TO BE PLACED IN FIRST DOWNSTREAM CATCH BASIN / i i CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING NOTES Construction Sequencing Notes can be found on Sheet C3.0 i / i / SILT FENCE / / / SEDIMENT LOG 1 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 1 1 J co 1 1 I — cr O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LEGEND -- 950 950 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 l U U v C O O On 0 950.00 TC 949.50 GL EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS - MAJOR INTERVAL PROPOSED CONTOURS - MINOR INTERVAL GRADE BREAK LINE GRADE SLOPE SILT FENCE RIP -RAP / ROCK CONST. ENTRANCE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SEE DETAIL 2/C8 INLET PROTECTION SPOT ABBREVIATIONS: TC - TOP OF CURB GL - GUTTER LINE B - BITUMUNOUS C - CONCRETE EO - EMERGENCY OVERFLOW TW - TOP OF WALL BW - BOTTOM OF WALL (F/G) (*) - EXISTING TO BE VERIFIED GRADING NOTES Grading Notes can be found on Sheet C3.0 EROSION CONTROL NOTES Erosion Control Notes can be found on Sheet C8 7_1 NORTH 0 10 20 40 0 'c L w CIS nt70 L � —I Li, (o 0 O co J N Lo co I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. MaAt W0tv.,00,4 Matt Woodruff, P.E. Date: 10.20.17 Reg. No.: 41885 Rev. Date Description n 10.20.17 Watershed Submittal /2\ 11.09.17 Watershed Submittal /3\ 11.29.17 Watershed Submittal Project #: 12176088.000 Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 10.20.17 Sheet Title: EROSION CONTROL PLAN ■ C31 Sheet: / / / / / I / / w 0 0 w 0 0 40\p3 / 0v. 9g $ 53 \N`I / / / / / / / / / / 25' / CONSTRUCT MH OVER EXIST SAN SEWER- MH-4 RIM = 922.00* - INV = 908.21* / / / D.S. L 6" HYD WI GV -- OE / MH-5 RIM = 921.60*n INV = 909.73 0 6 ,� 62 9� 1• 90 \N`I CO D.S OE D.S CO i c0 c0 6" CAP D.S. D.S. CO-2 MH-3 _RIM=921.50 INV = 914.21 P:\Projects\Projects - 12176088 - Parood Townh.. ^s\C..:Qasign\Drawing Riles\12176088 - C4 tility.dwg 6" WET TAP W/ GV 6" ATE VALVE CB-1 RIM =9 INV = 916. JJ D.S. co C90 O �At,c 1i D.S. D.S. 13 \N PP�O lP i • STMH-2 RIM = 922.00 INV = 915.47 \SUMP = 911.47 • D.S. STMH-3 RIM = 920.00 -_°15.14 11.14 6" CL 52 DIP WM 165LF6"PVC @2.0% > > 6"DIP 8"PVCSADDLE COURT i 7 LF 12' • FES INV = 915.00 \ FES INV = 914.76 ♦ CB-3 RIM = 918.00 INV = 915.38 D.S. / D.S NEW -PLEX FFE 41 LF 12" C900 PVC 19.00 0.6% MH-2 RIM = 918.55 INV = 910.91 D.S 54 LF 6" PVC 52 LF 12" PVC @ 0.8% D.S. (D52.S•DillipiNwVA: • >41 CB-4 INV = 909.56 WM ELEVATION CORE DRILI:INTO EXIST MH INV = 907.00 OE .570 OE X / • GV N\1 ET TAP 1 FES INV = 912.2) / 17 LF 12" PVC 1.4% RIM = 917.00 TOP WEIR = 915.65 2.5" ORIFICE = 915.00 INV = 914.25 NW INV = 912.00 E INV = 911.26 SW CONNECT TO EXISTING 15" RCP 3 0 LEGEND TV 0 0 Ct D.S. STORM MANHOLE CATCH BASIN CURB INLET FLARED END SANITARY MANHOLE HYDRANT GATE VALVE & BOX WATER SHUTOFF LIGHT POLE DOWNSPOUT LOCATION cr OE UE CTV FO OE UE UTILITY NOTES CABLE UNDERGROUND LINE ELECTRIC OVERHEAD LINE ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND LINE FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND LINE NATURAL GAS UNDERGROUND LINE SANITARY SEWER PIPE STORM SEWER PIPE TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND LINE WATERMAIN PIPE DRAINTILE PIPE 1. It is the responsibility of the contractor to perform or coordinate all necessary utility connections and relocations from existing utility locations to the proposed building, as well as to all onsite amenities. These connections include but are not limited to water, sanitary sewer, cable TV, telephone, gas, electric, site lighting, etc. 2. All service connections shall be performed in accordance with state and local standard specifications for construction. Utility connections (sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer) may require a permit from the City. 3. The contractor shall verify the elevations at proposed connections to existing utilities prior to any demolition or excavation. 4. The contractor shall notify all appropriate engineering departments and utility companies 72 hours prior to construction. All necessary precautions shall be made to avoid damage to existing utilities. 5. Storm sewer requires testing in accordance with Minnesota plumbing code 4714.1109 where located within 10 feet of waterlines or the building. 6. HDPE storm sewer piping shall meet ASTM F2306 and fittings shall meet ASTM D3212 joint pressure test. Installation shall meet ASTM C2321. 7. All RCP pipe shown on the plans shall be MN/DOT class 3. 8. Maintain a minimum of 7 1/2' of cover over all water lines and sanitary sewer lines. Install water lines 18" above sanitary sewers, where the sanitary sewer crosses over the water line, install sewer piping of materials equal to watermain standards for 9 feet on both sides and maintain 18" of separation. 9. Where 7 1/2' of cover is not provided over sanitary sewer and water lines, install 2" rigid polystyrene insulation (MN/DOT 3760) with a thermal resistance of at least 5 and a compressive strength of at least 25 psi. Insulation shall be 8' wide, centered over pipe with 6" sand cushion between pipe and insulation. Where depth is less than 5', use 4" of insulation. 10. 11. 12. All watermain piping shall be class 52 ductile iron pipe unless noted otherwise. See Project Specifications for bedding requirements. Pressure test and disinfect all new watermains in accordance with state and local requirements. 13. Sanitary sewer piping shall be PVC, SDR-35 for depths less than 12', PVC SDR-26 for depths between 12' and 26', and class 52 D.I.P. for depths of 26' or more. 14. A structure adjustment shall include removing and salvaging the existing casting assembly, removing existing concrete rings to the precast section. Install new rings and salvaged casting to proposed grades, cleaning casting flange by mechanical means to insure a sound surface and install an external chimney seal from casting to precast section. Chimney seals shall be Infi-Shield Uni-Band or an approved equal. NORTH 0 10 20 40 t2) w 0 co ca co In 0 CD C C CD 071 cu 0 C5 gu) 0 2 0- 0 ce >- firls< z 0 n< w 171 < I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. 04.61/Ct khit/-004 Matt Woodruff, P. E. Date: 10.20.17 Reg. No.: 41885 Rev. Date Description 'A 10.20.17 Watershed Submittal 11.09.17 Watershed Submittal 11.29.17 Watershed Submittal Project #: 12176088.000 Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 10.20.17 Sheet Title: UTILITY PLAN C4 0 NEW 3" BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PLACED IN 2 LIFTS U UC;,o&i _)QUC__)QU- Nat, p, o ii _)Qo�C__)QUo��Qooe ),‘ goo°0000°0000°0000°0000°0000°0000°000°0000 " < opo opo COA opo opo Cag(6°K,A 801' Ft In 1 In 1 In =11 1-1 11-11 1=11=11 1-1 I I -I I-111=111- 1-111-111-I 111=111=111=11=111=111=111=11=111=111=111=111=111__ 11111 I I 1111111111111111III 111IIII 1111 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1111 I I I I I I I I I I; 111 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 111111 i--- I I I 1 111 I I I I I I EXISTING SUBGRADE SOIL BITUMINOUS CONSTRUCTION DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 6" NEW BASE AGGREGATE NEW 2.5" BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PLACED IN 1 LIFT & ‘\\\._N‘ ‘‘\‘ Th'"g"g"g c OIL1QU��QU�LJQU�L1QU4°,01U jj�__°�j°_�j��� < zjjA)O_okA_0,k_V0Qr0k_Pp )Ol l- k) I-r�Ol lr�� loll-rQ�OOOl l-r�O�l-c�e -In III III In = III III In —II III -I�- I11 1 111 111 111 111 111H 1 111 111 111=w-= =11 11111 1 11I1 1 1111 1 11 1 1111 111— =111=11=111=11=111=11=111=111=111=111=111=1 1H 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BACKFILL WITH NEW GOOD QUALITY TOPSOIL AND SEED N 6" NEW BASE AGGREGATE EXISTING SUBGRADE SOIL BITUMINOUS TRAIL CONSTRUCTION DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NEW BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT EXISTING SUBGRADE SOIL B612 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NEW BASE AGGREGATE P:\Projects\Projects - 2017\12176088 - Parkwood Townhomes\C. Design\Drawing Files\12176088 - C5 Details.dwg L 3/4" • `SLOPE'1 /4" PER FOOT ' 17-1/2" 10-1 /2" • 28" • L A MINIMUM OF 3" OF CLASS 5 SHALL BE PLACED BELOW THE CURB fit lla,valic,3„ THE NINTNPLACE OF MINNESOTA D-428 MOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER NO SCALE REV 11-99 SURMOUNTABLE CURB & GUTTER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE WOVEN FILTER FABRIC MN/DOT CLASS III RIP -RAP PLAN MN/DOT CLASS III RIP -RAP WOVEN FILTER FABRIC SECTION A -A NOTE: 500X MIRAFI FABRIC OR EQUAL © RIP -RAP AT OUTLETS NOT TO SCALE HARD SURFACE/ PUBLIC ROAD 1"-2" WASHED ROCK GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 6" MINIMUM ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NOT TO SCALE 0 0 I N) N DWG.NAME: CBDTL1 0 0 N DWG.NAME: CBDTL3 TOP OF CSTG. ELEV. — SEE PLAN. PRECAST CONC. SLAB. REINF. FOR STREET LOADING PLAN 6" PRECAST — 8" POURED SECTION OPENING CENTERED IN TOP SLAB. NOTE: SEE PLAN FOR SIZE, TYPE, AND LOCATION OF CONNECTING PIPE. 1.0' TO BACK OF CURB LINE NEENAH CASTING R-3067 OR EQUAL (WITH DL/DR GRATE). 2 4 2" THICK ADJUST. RINGS W/MORTAR JOINTS — PLASTER OUTSIDE, STRIKE INSIDE CLEAN. PLACE SLAB ON 1/2" MORTAR BED. TROWEL JOINT SMOOTH. 48" R.C.P. BARREL SECTION WHEN NEC. 8" RADIAL CONC. BLK. SHALL BE USED. PLASTER OUTSIDE WITH 1/2" MORTAR). * INSTALL EXTERNAL SEALING SYSTEM MANUFACTURED BY INFI—SHIELD. DISTRIBUTED BY ESS BROS. & SONS INC. TYPE "Y" CATCH BASIN (RECTANGULAR CASTING) THE NINTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CATCH BASIN DETAIL CBDTL1 DRWG NO. 22 • 4 • 24" z 14) e TOP OF CASTING ELEV—SEE PLAN PLAN STRUCTURE 1.0' TO BACK OF CURB LINE NEENAH CASTING R-3067 OR EQUAL (WITH DL/DR GRATE). 2-4 2" THICK ADJUSTING RINGS W/MORTAR JOINTS — PLASTER OUTSIDE, STRIKE INSIDE CLEAN 24" X 36" PRECAST SECTION. (WHEN NEC. 8" SOLID CONC. BLK. SHALL BE USED. PLASTER OUTSIDE WITH 1/2" MORTAR) 6" PRECAST — 8" POURED SECTION * INSTALL EXTERNAL SEALING SYSTEM MANUFACTURED BY INFI—SHIELD. DISTRIBUTED BY ESS BROS. & SONS INC. TYPE "X" CATCH BASIN (RECTANGULAR) THE NINTH►LACE OF MINNESOTA CATCH BASIN DETAIL CBDTL3 DRWG NO. 21 0 0 Of 0 J r N LC) M a) i) (1) B co 0) 0 0 w 0 0 c3 0 J 0 N U Ors Q w z 0— OLI] pp Q Y � OOEtZJ 0 I< u) 0- 1. 0 Z Q 0 O ^L 0 I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. MVO kke1-012--a Matt Woodruff, P.E. Date: 10.20.17 Reg. No.: 41885 Rev. Date Description A 10.20.17 Watershed Submittal A 11.09.17 Watershed Submittal /3\ 11.29.17 Watershed Submittal Project #: 12176088.000 Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 10.20.17 Sheet Title: DETAILS C5 0 Sheet: FACE OF CURB (ELEVATION -SEE PLAN) EXTEND FABRIC 1 FOOT BEYOND LIMITS OF RIP RAP WITH MINIMUM 1 FOOT OF COVER (TYP.) 2' 8' 44 a+ 0000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000 00000000b000000��a 2' VARIES EXISTING STREET MAX. 20:1 411.11111011111 1 C6 10' GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PLACE RIP RAP ON 6 INCHES OF 2 INCH ROCK BEDDING OVER GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 6" CONCRETE ADA REQUIRED TRUNCATED DOME PER MN/DOT STANDARD PLATE 7036F BITUMINOUS PATHWAY MAX. 50:1 4" AGGREGATE BASE ADA RAMP DETAIL CL. II RIP RAP SECTION A -A NOT TO SCALE PLAN E.0 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PLACE RIP RAP ON 6 INCHES OF 2 INCH ROCK BEDDING OVER GEOTEXTILE FABRIC CL. II RIP RAP SECTION B-B TYPICAL RIP RAP WEIR EMERGENCY OVERFLOW NOT TO SCALE P:\Projects\Projects - 2017\12176088 - Parkwood Townhomes\C. Design\Drawing Files\12176088 - C5 Details.dwg MOUND LAST 2 FEET OF RIP RAP 1 FOOT DEEP (TOP OF RIP RAP SHALL BE LOWER THAN OVERFLOW ELEVATION) EXTEND FABRIC 1 FOOT BEYOND LIMITS OF RIP RAP WITH MINIMUM 1 FOOT OF COVER (TYP.) TO SUIT DEPTH LENGTH VARIES BENDS AS NECESSARY SEE SERVICE DETAIL. IMBED RISER IN TRENCH WALL. SLOPE VARIES. NOTE: FOR SIZE AND TYPE OF MATERIALS SEE SPECS. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RISER 0 mat THE NINTHFLACE OF MINNESNTA SEWER DETAIL SEWDTL3 DRWG NO. 10 05-17-00 DWG.NAME: SAMHDTL2 PLAN FINISHED GRADE —\ 0 RUBBER GASKETS — ALL JOINTS PRECAST OR FIELD POURED INVERT w \cE °I 4' 0" STEPS -SEE SPECS. • GROUT * INSTALL EXTERNAL SEALING SYSTEM MANUFACTURED BY INFI-SHIELD. DISTRIBUTED BY ESS BROS. & SONS INC. NEENAH CASTING R-1733 OR EQUAL. 2 4 2"THICK ADJUSTING RINGS W/MORTAR JOINTS. PLASTER OUTSIDE, STRIKE INSIDE CLEAN. ECCENTRIC PRE -CAST CONE SECTION 6" 5"MIN. r— R.C.P. BARREL SECTION 8" POURED I 6'-0" WATER -TIGHT BOOT CONNECTION 6" PRECAST SECTION SANITARY MANHOLE ECCENTRIC. THE NINTHFLACE OF MINNESNTA SANITARY MANHOLE DETAIL SAMHDTL2 DRWG NO. 2 LIFT STRAPS CURB FILTER OVERFLOW GAP GRATE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SACK DUMPING STRAP * INSTALL CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION DEVICE MANUFACTURED BY DANDY PRODUCTS OR APPROVED EQUAL. THE BIRTHPLACE IF MINNESSTA CATCH BASIN INLET SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE WITH CURB FILTER WJ w cn 10' BEYOND PROP. LINE )113d01d 3AeRS 01 •0,0321 SV H1d3O 1 FALL PER FOOT i W >- MAIN SEWER W O w 0_ I- J O 0 Ww Ui Q U wW W U uJ > O W W Z U) U) uJ 0 c LLJ SANITARY SEWER 11 water THE NINTHFLACE OF MINNESSTA SEWER DETAIL SEWDTL4 DRWG NO. 9 V • D) 0 .cp CA a! CIS na L � J w -o CO 0 Cll 0 SD J N Lf) Cr) I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. 1/14.0 -007 Matt Woodruff, P.E. Date: 10.20.17 Reg. No.: 41885 Rev. Date Description n 10.20.17 Watershed Submittal A 11.09.17 Watershed Submittal A 11.29.17 Watershed Submittal Project #: 12176088.000 Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 10.20.17 Sheet Title: DETAILS ■ C60 Sheet: z s (0 STEEL POST AT 8' O.C. RUNOFF i1,11111— WIRE MESH REINF. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FABRIC ANCHORAGE TRENCH. BACKFILL W/TAMPED NATURAL SOIL. L TAMPED NATURAL SOIL. =111=1 OPTION 1 6" MIN. z CD 2'-0" OPTION 2 SILT FENCE —HEAVY DUTY THE BIRTHPLACE SF MINNESNTA SILT FENCE DETAIL SFDTL1 DRWG NO. 42 COVER 6"-12" EXCAVATED TRENCH WIDTH PIPE ZONE NOTE: 3 FINAL BACKFILL INITIAL BACKFILL HAUNCHING 0"-6" BEDDING FOUNDATION (MAY NOT BE REQUIRED) PIPE BEDDING SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D-2321 "RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR UNDERGROUND INSTALLATION OF FLEXIBLE THERMOPLASTIC SEWER PIPE" EXCEPT PIPE EMBEDMENT MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS I OR CLASS II WITH 100% PASSING A 3/4 INCH SIEVE AND NOT MORE THAN 10% PASSING A No. 200 SIEVE. PLASTIC PIPE BEDDING PIPE EMBEDMENT 0 Mater THE NINTHFLACE OF MINNESNTA PLASTIC PIPE BEDDING P:\Projects\Projects - 2017\12176088 - Parkwood Townhomes\C. Design\Drawing Files\12176088 - C5 Details.dwg co 1 1 DWG.NAME: HYDTL1 PROP 9' HYDRANT —SEE SPECS. SEE SPECS. Cr D FINISHED GRADE STANDPIPE MINIMUM 2 LAYERS TAR PAPER OR POLYETHYLENE 1 CU. YD. CRUSHED ROCK CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK AND BASE CURB & GUTTER GATE VALVE BOX TEE 6" GATE VALVE OPEN RIGHT \-6" D.I.P. CONCRETE BLOCK WATERMAIN SIZE VARIES 3/4" TIE RODS (GALVANIZED) HYDRANT (8c GATE VALVE) INSTALLATION THE NINTHFLACE OF MINNESNTA HYDRANT DETAIL HYDTL1 DRWG NO. 11m O O DWG.NAME: CBDTL4 GUTTER • N• 4'-6" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 3'-0" ® z� CV NEEHAH R-3067 OR EQUAL 3'-0" CVR� RETURN a TAPER CONC. CURB & GUTTER TO MATCH CASTING 3'-0" PLAN 1 /2" EXPANSION JOINT — #4 X 5'-0" LONG CASTING 3'-0"\ I6" I TOP OF CURB • as — 0.10' I — 4 SECTION a a • " • • • * INSTALL EXTERNAL SEALING SYSTEM MANUFACTURED BY INFI—SHIELD. DISTRIBUTED BY ESS BROS. & SONS INC. CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION FOR B-618 AND B-624 C. & G. fillwaer 4 THE IINTHFLACE OF MINNESNTA CATCH BASIN DETAIL CBDTL4 DRWG NO. 23 NOTES: 1. Shape of back of buttress may very as long as poure against firm undisturbed earth. 2. Dimension C1,C2,C3 should be large enough to make angle -0 equal to or larger than 45°. 3. Dimension Al ,A2,A3 should be as large as possible without interfering with MJ bolts. 4. -O = 45° Minimum. 5. Place polyethylene between concrete & pipe. PLAN 90* BENDS CONCRETE SHALL BE IN CONTACT WITH THIS QUADRANT OF PIPE BUTTRESS DIMENSIONS d PIPE SIZE 22 1 /2° BEND 45° BEND 90° BEND Bi D1 B2 D2 B3 D3 6" 1'-5" 1'-5" 1'-5" 1'-5" 2'-1" 1'-6" 8" 1'-5" 1'-5" 2'-1" 1'-6" _ 2'-8" 4'-9"• 2'-0" 2'-6" 12" 1'-10" 1'-10"� 3'-4" 2'-0" 16"„ 3'— 0 „ 2 —0 3 —l0 " 3 —0 "„ 6'-2". 3'— 6 20" 3'-6" 2'-8" 5'-6' 3'-4" 8'-4" 4'-0" 24" 4'-4" 3'-0" 6'-10" 3'-10" 9'-8" 5'-0" 30" — — 9'-3" 6'-0" 17'-0'' 6'-0" Variable 3' Min BEDDING MATERIAL UNDISTURBED EARTH CONCRETE SECTION A —A -e — See note 4 PLAN 45 BENDS -e — See note 4 PLAN 22 1 /2' BENDS Mater THE NINTHFLACE OF MINNESNTA DESIGN SPECIAL 6 CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKING 11100.11 DROP LID Tyler Mueller Bibby —Ste —Croix No. 6860 No. H-10361 No. B-5160 Grade TO P Tyler No. 6860 26" Mueller No. H-10361 26" Bibby —Ste —Croix No. VB502 27" EXTENSION Tyler Mueller Bibby —Ste —Croix VB520 VB521 VB522 VB523 No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. 58 59 60 58 59 57 58 59 60 18" 24" 20" 9„ 20" 26" BOTTOM Tyler No. 6860 65" Mueller No. H-10361 65" Bibby —Ste —Croix No. VB516 60" BASE E 7.5' Minimum cover required over top of water main. Adjust top to 1/2" below grade. Box to be set to provide 12" of adjustment. Tyler No. 6860 Mueller No. H-10357 Bibby —Ste —Croix B-5001 Gate valve box, screw type, 3 piece, 5 1/4" shaft, size G box, 7'-6' extended, #6 round base Valve to open right (clockwise). Resiliant Wedge Valve Conforming to AWWA C-509-80 standards • • • • • a 8" Conc. block a mat THE NINTHFLACE OF MINNESNTA DESIGN SPECIAL 4 GATE VALVE AND BOX INSTALLATION U Ors Q 2 w z 0— O>— Lij pp Q Y � OOEtZJ 0 I< u) 0 Z .o o_ I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Matt Woodruff, P.E. Date: 10.20.17 Reg. No.: 41885 Rev. Date Description A 10.20.17 Watershed Submittal A 11.09.17 Watershed Submittal /3\ 11.29.17 Watershed Submittal Project #: 12176088.000 Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 10.20.17 Sheet Title: DETAILS C7 0 Sheet: EROSION CONTROL NOTES SLOPE INSTALLATION 1. Owner and Contractor shall obtain MPCA-NPDES permit. Contractor shall be responsible for all fees pertaining to this permit. The SWPPP shall be kept onsite at all times. 2. Install temporary erosion control measures (inlet protection, silt fence, and rock construction entrances) prior to beginning any excavation or demolition work at the site. 3. Erosion control measures shown on the erosion control plan are the absolute minimum. The contractor shall install temporary earth dikes, sediment traps or basins, additional siltation fencing, and/or disk the soil parallel to the contours as deemed necessary to further control erosion. All changes shall be recorded in the SWPPP. 4. All construction site entrances shall be surfaced with crushed rock across the entire width of the entrance and from the entrance to a point 50' into the construction zone. 5. The toe of the silt fence shall be trenched in a minimum of 6". The trench backfill shall be compacted with a vibratory plate compactor. 6. All grading operations shall be conducted in a manner to minimize the potential for site erosion. Sediment control practices must be established on all down gradient perimeters before any up gradient land disturbing activities begin. 7. All exposed soil areas must be stabilized as soon as possible to limit soil erosion but in no case later than 14 days after the construction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or permanently ceased. Temporary stockpiles without significant silt, clay or organic components (e.g., clean aggregate stockpiles, demolition concrete stockpiles, sand stockpiles) and the constructed base components of roads, parking lots and similar surfaces are exempt from this requirement. 8. The normal wetted perimeter of any temporary or permanent drainage ditch or swale that drains water from any portion of the construction site, or diverts water around the site, must be stabilized within 200 lineal feet from the property edge, or from the point of discharge into any surface water. Stabilization of the last 200 lineal feet must be completed within 24 hours after connecting to a surface water. Stabilization of the remaining portions of any temporary or permanent ditches or swales must be complete within 7 days after connecting to a surface water and construction in that portion of the ditch has temporarily or permanently ceased. 9. Pipe outlets must be provided with energy dissipation within 24 hours of connection to surface water. 10. All riprap shall be installed with a filter material or soil separation fabric and comply with the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. 11. All storm sewers discharging into wetlands or water bodies shall outlet at or below the normal water level of the respective wetland or water body at an elevation where the downstream slope is 1 percent or flatter. The normal water level shall be the invert elevation of the outlet of the wetland or water body. 12. All storm sewer catch basins not needed for site drainage during construction shall be covered to prevent runoff from entering the storm sewer system. Catch basins necessary for site drainage during construction shall be provided with inlet protection. 13. In areas where concentrated flows occur (such as swales and areas in front of storm catch basins and intakes) the erosion control facilities shall be backed by stabilization structure to protect those facilities from the concentrated flows. 14. Inspect the construction site once everyday during active construction, within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours, and at least weekly when there is no land -disturbing activity until vegetative turf is established. All inspections shall be recorded in the SWPPP. 15. All silt fences must be repaired, replaced, or supplemented when they become nonfunctional or the sediment reaches 1/3 of the height of the fence. These repairs must be made within 24 hours of discovery, or as soon as field conditions allow access. All repairs shall be recorded in the SWPPP. 16. If sediment escapes the construction site, off -site accumulations of sediment must be removed within 24 hours. 17. All soils tracked onto pavement shall be removed daily. 18. All infiltration areas must be inspected to ensure that no sediment from ongoing construction activity is reaching the infiltration area and these areas are protected from compaction due to construction equipment driving across the infiltration area. 19. Temporary soil stockpiles must have silt fence or other effective sediment controls, and cannot be placed in surface waters, including stormwater conveyances such as curb and gutter systems, or conduits and ditches unless there is a bypass in place for the stormwater. 20. Collected sediment, asphalt and concrete millings, floating debris, paper, plastic, fabric, construction and demolition debris and other wastes must be disposed of properly and must comply with MPCA disposal requirements. 21. Oil, gasoline, paint and any hazardous substances must be properly stored, including secondary containment, to prevent spills, leaks or other discharge. Restricted access to storage areas must be provided to prevent vandalism. Storage and disposal of hazardous waste must be in compliance with MPCA regulations. 22. External washing of trucks and other construction vehicles is not permitted. 23. All liquid and solid wastes generated by concrete washout operations must be contained in a leak -proof containment facility or impermeable liner. A compacted clay liner that does not allow washout liquids to enter ground water is considered an impermeable liner. The liquid and solid wastes must not contact the ground, and there must not be runoff from the concrete washout operations or areas. Liquid and solid wastes must be disposed of properly and in compliance with MPCA regulations. A sign must be installed adjacent to each washout facility to inform concrete equipment operators to utilize the proper facilities. 24. Erosion control measures such as silt fences and hay/straw bales shall not be removed until after the project is complete and the BCWD determines that all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized, and shall be removed within 14 days thereafter. 25. All permanent sedimentation basins must be restored to their design condition immediately following stabilization of the site. 26. Contractor shall submit Notice of Termination for MPCA-NPDES permit within 30 days after Final Stabilization. 27. Infiltration basins shall be constructed at 2 feet above proposed finished grade per plan. Following construction and stabilization of the site, the temporary sedimentation pond shall be excavated to finished grade, soils shall be amended (if necessary), and planted with Mixture #33-262 (dry pond). Temporary and final grading of the infiltration basins shall be accomplished using low -impact earth moving equipment to prevent compaction of the underlying soils. 28. BCWD shall be given three business days' notice in writing before land disturbance commences. 29. All exposed soil areas and soil stockpiles within 200 lineal feet of a wetland, a waterbody, a discernable surface drainage feature or a stormwater system inlet, and with a continuous positive slope to that water feature, must be stabilized with erosion control measures, or temporary or permanent cover, within the indicated time after final grade is established: Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 30. Areas with sheet flow and/or areas with slopes less than 3:1 grades shall be stabilized with North American Green DS150 for short term erosion control (Category 3). P:\Projects\Projects - 2017\12176088 - Parkwood Townhomes\C. Design\Drawing Files\12176088 - C5 Details.dwg FROM POND 1P 2.5" 0 ORIFICE FOLD BURLAP FROM TOP OF ROOT BALL DOWN INTO GROUND; SET TOP OF BALL SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISH GRADE 4" DEEP MULCH (DO NOT PUT MULCH AGAINST THE BASE OF THE PLANT 12" TO 18" (FOR LARGER SHRUB ROOT BALLS, MAKE DEPTH MIN. 4" DEEPER THAN BALL) i i i, � 111=111 111= 111 SCARIFY ALL FACES AND BOTTOM OF EXCAVATED HOLE PREPARED SOIL FOR SHRUBS PREPARE SOIL IN THE ENTIRE BED NOTES 1. FOR CONTAINER -GROWN SHRUBS, USE FINGERS OR SMALL HAND TOOLS TO PULL THE ROOTS OUT OF THE OUTER LAYER OF POTTING SOIL; THEN CUT OR PULL APART ANY ROOTS THAT CIRCLE THE PERIMETER OF THE CONTAINER. 2. INCORPORATE COMMERCIALLY PREPARED MYCORRHIZA SPORES IN THE SOIL IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE ROOT BALL AT RATES SPECIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER. FROM POND 2P PLAN 915.65 \ 915.00 911.26 CONCRETE WEIR DETAIL $" TO 12' � BALLED AND BURLAPPED PLANT REFER ALSO TO SPECIFICATIONS FOLD BACK BURLAP AND REMOVE ALL TIES &/OR WIRES FROM TOP OF BALL. CONTAINER -GROWN PLANT WITH ROOTS PULLED OUT OF BALL - COMPLETLY REMOVE CONTAINER. BEFORE PLANTING, ADD 3" TO 4" OF WELL -COMPOSTED LEAVES AND RECYCLED YARD WASTE TO BED AND TILL INTO TOP 6" OF PREPARED SOIL 3. CONFIRM THAT WATER DRAINS OUT OF THE SOIL DURING THE PLACEMENT PHASE; ALTER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AS REQUIRED. 4. IF PLANTS ARE TO BE PRUNED, BRANCHES SHALL BE PRUNED AT THE BRANCH BARK RIDGE, NOT FLUSH WITH THE BARK. TECHNY ARBORVITAE SHRUB PLANTING NOT TO SCALE CONCRETE WEIR 2.5" 0 ORIFICE OUTLET SECTION STRUCTURE DETAIL OUTLET CONTROL - STMH-1 NOT TO SCALE CONCRETE WEIR -III-II I -III - LOOSEN EXISTING SOILS (18" DEEP) VARIES v v vvvv- • (3 y PL,q ..yvvvvv • Mgk1 N _ vvvvvvv vvvvvvv vvv -ICI-I vvvvvvvv. vvvvvvvv- vvvvvvvv UNDISTURBED AND UNCOMPACTED INSITU SOIL W • �.v84Uw� 1. PREPARE SOIL BEFORE INSTALLING ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS (RECP's), INCLUDING ANY NECESSARY APPLICATION OF LIME, FERTILIZER, AND SEED. NOTE: WHEN USING CELLO -SEED DO NOT SEED PREPARED AREA. CELLO -SEED MUST BE INSTALLED WITH PAPER SIDE DOWN. 2. BEGIN AT THE TOP OF THE SLOPE BY ANCHORING THE RECP's IN A 6" (15 CM) DEEP X 6" (15 CM) WIDE TRENCH WITH APPROXIMATELY 12" (30cm) OF RECP's EXTENDED BEYOND THE UP -SLOPE PORTION OF THE TRENCH. ANCHOR THE RECP's WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAKES APPROXIMATELY 12" (30 CM) APART IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCH. BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE TRENCH AFTER STAPLING. APPLY SEED TO COMPACTED SOIL AND FOLD REMAINING 12" (30 CM) PORTION OF RECP's BACK OVER SEED AND COMPACTED SOIL. SECURE RECP's OVER COMPACTED SOIL WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAKES SPACED APPROXIMATELY 12" (30 CM) APART ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE RECP's. 3. ROLL THE RECP's (A.) DOWN OR (B.) HORIZONTALLY ACROSS THE SLOPE. RECP's WILL UNROLL WITH APPROPRIATE SIDE AGAINST THE SOIL SURFACE. ALL RECP's MUST BE SECURELY FASTENED TO SOIL SURFACE BY PLACING STAPLES/STAKES IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS AS SHOWN IN THE STAPLE PATTERN GUIDE. WHEN USING THE DOT SYSTEM , STAPLES/STAKES SHOULD BE PLACED THROUGH EACH OF THE COLORED DOTS CORRESPONDING TO THE APPROPRIATE STAPLE PATTERN. 4. THE EDGES OF PARALLEL RECP's MUST BE STAPLED WITH APPROXIMATELY 2" - 5" (5 CM - 12.5 CM) OVERLAP DEPENDING ON RECP's TYPE. 5. CONSECUTIVE RECP's SPLICED DOWN THE SLOPE MUST BE PLACED END OVER END (SHINGLE STYLE) WITH AN APPROXIMATE 3" (7.5 CM) OVERLAP. STAPLE THROUGH OVERLAPPED AREA, APPROXIMATELY 12" (30 CM) APART ACROSS ENTIRE RECP's WIDTH. NOTE: *IN LOOSE SOIL CONDITIONS, THE USE OF STAPLE OR STAKE LENGTHS GREATER THAN 6" (15 CM) MAY BE NECESSARY TO PROPERLY SECURE THE RECP's. NORTH AMERICAN GREEN EROSION CONTROL Products Guaranteed SOLUTIONS 14649 HIGHWAY 41 NORTH EVANSVILLE, IN 47725 800-772-2040 www.nagreen.com VARIES Category 4 Erosion Control Blanket: North American Green S150 erosion control blanket or approved equal. Top Net Bottom Net Polypropylene Polypropylene 1.5 lbs/1,000 ft2 1.5 lbs/1,000 ft2 (0.73 kg/100 m2) approx. wt. (0.73 kg/100 m2) approx. wt. Straw Fiber 0.50 LBS/YD2 (0.27 KG/M2) Thread Photodegradable Staples/Anchors: The type of anchors used to secure the blanket to the ground shall be Steel wirel l Gauge 1" wide x 8" long. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET NOT TO SCALE VARIES vvvv vvvvv vvvvvvv��- vvvvvvv•- _ vvvvvvv • - I-ll vvvvvvv• III_ •vvvvvvv• •vvvvvvv• vvvvvvv• vvvv v v v v vvvvv v v v vvvvv v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v -• v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v• - v v v v v v v v v v v vvvvv v v v v v v v v v v- SvpPE l3 P Mp,XI INFILTRATION BASIN/SWALE SECTION DETAIL NOT TO SCALE GRASS BUFFER / STRIP PLANTING MEDIUM (6" DEEP) SAND (80%), COMPOST (20%) r O' L a) i CU En J w u{) co 0 0 .0 cv J N CO1.0 N rn co Lc) o co 0 o N a, 0 cO co U Q2 w z fl OpLij Q Y � OOEtZJ 0 < u) U Z Q ao 0 I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. M21j Matt Woodruff, P.E. Date: 10.20.17 Reg. No.: 41885 Rev. Date Description A 10.20.17 Watershed Submittal A 11.09.17 Watershed Submittal /3\ 11.29.17 Watershed Submittal Project #: 12176088.000 Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 10.20.17 Sheet Title: DETAILS ■ C80 Sheet: SADDLE COURT P: Projects\Projects - 2017\12176088 - Parkwood Townhomes\C. Design\Drawing Files\12176088 - L1 Landscaping.dwg PLANTING SCHEDULE COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME TOTAL PLANTINGS SIZE AT PLANTING a SPRUCE, BLACK HILLS PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA 3 6' MIN MAPLE, AUTUMN BLAZE ACER X FREEMANII 2 3" MIN. CALIPER * CRABAPPLE, SPRING SNOW MALUS SPRING SNOW 8 1 2" MIN. CALIPER O TECHNY ARBORVITAE THUJA OCCIDENTALIS 15 2.5' MIN TECHNY ARBORVITAE SPACED @ 10' O.C. TYP OF 15 -915----- 916� NOTES 1. FOUNDATION LANDSCAPE PLAN TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER. 2. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED WITH 4" OF TOPSOIL AND SOD. 3. ALL SLOPES THAT ARE IN EXCESS OF 3:1 (H:V) SHALL BE SECURED WITH NORTH AMERICAN GREEN DS150 FOR SHORT TERM EROSION CONTROL (CATEGORY 3). COLORED FLAGS 1 PER WIRE FOLD BACK BURLAP AND REMOVE ALL TIES &/OR WIRES FROf\�i TOP OF BALL REFER ALSO TO SPECIFICATIONS EQUALS TWICE BALL DIAMETER SYMBOL LEGEND RESTORE WITH MNDOT NATIVE SEED MIX 33-261, OR APPROVED PLANTING SCHEDULE BY OWNER EXISTING TREES ON SITE 19 TREES BEING REMOVED 13 NEW TREES BEING PLANTED 13 OPTIONAL STAKING METHOD - 6' METAL POSTS AND RUBBER HOSE STRAPS HOSE LOOPS 3 GUYS EACH OF 10 GAUGE TWISTED WIRE 120 DEGREES APART AROUND TREE TURNBUCKLE 4" DEEP MULCH, HOLD \BACK 2" FROM STEM. SOD 24" STAKE TYP. BACKFILL WITH TOPSOIL AND PEAT MOSS 3:1 RATIO - SCARIFY ALL SIDES AND BOTTOM OF EXCAVATED HOLE CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE DECIDUOUS TREE AS PER SCHEDULE 3" LAYER OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH (AFTER SETTLEMENT) PLACE TO FORM SAUCER - 4' DIAM — FINISH GRADE PLANTING SOIL, SEE SPEC. REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP FROM ROOT BALL NOTES: PROVIDE AND INSTALL PLANT MATERIALS THAT MEET SPECIFICATIONS AND ARE OF THE SIZE, TYPE, AND SPECIES GIVEN IN PLANT SCHEDULE. REMOVE DEAD OR DAMAGED BRANCHES. RETAIN THE NATURAL FORM OF THE TREE OR SHRUB. DO NOT CUT THE LEADER. PLACE WEED BARRIER. DIG PLANT HOLES 12" MIN. LARGER THAN BALL, ALL SIDES. BACK FILL WITH PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPEC. SCARIFY BOTTOM OF PLANTING HOLE. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS DETAIL, PLANS OF SPECIFICATIONS, THE SPECIFICATION SHALL GOVERN. DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE ru NORTH 0 10 20 40 0 • D) O • L w a CU En J w co 0 J) 0 co J N C) U Ors Q 2 w z 0— O>— Lij pp Q Y � OOEtZJ 0 f‘<( u) 0 Z 0 0 I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Matt Woodruff, P.E. Date: 10.20.17 Reg. No.: 41885 Rev. Date Description A 10.20.17 Watershed Submittal n 11.09.17 Watershed Submittal /3\ 11.29.17 Watershed Submittal Project #: 12176088.000 Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 10.20.17 Sheet Title: TREE PRESERVATION & LANDSCAPING PLAN 0 ■ Sheet: C January 16, 2018 Matt At your request I made a visual inspection of the wall located on Saddle Court in Stillwater Minnesota. The purpose was to evaluate the condition of the existing wall and provide opinion on its stability tsking into account the proposed development of the property on the top side of the wall. The wall height extends to approx 8 ft in the center and tapers off on the ends to grade. The units appear to be a Versa-Lok manufactured product or equal, 6 inches in height. In front of the wall (lower side) is a parking area for vehicles from the condo development. Vehicles park perpendicular to the wall face. On the upper side of the wall a line of vegetation is approximately 7 to 10 feet behind the wall face. Generally the wall face is intact with a rearward cant. In between courses of wall units geogrid tails can be seen in a few spots. There is evidence that they are placed at 18" to 24" vertically spaced but not t enough evidence is presence to verify that the grids are consistent through the specific coursing. IN the center of the wall alignment there is evidence of significant distress. A course of wall units, 18" above grade are offset forward from the lower courses. Horizontal separation between edges of individual units can also be seen zig- zaging from the base of wall, upward. This distress is evidence of post construction movement. Possible reasons could include excessive from lateral soil loads with improper soil reinforcement, excessive surcharge loads on top of the wall such as construction equipment wheel loads, base consolidation with settlement of the wall or impact from a larger piece of equipment or vehicle in the front of the wall. The existence of the mature trees and vegetation along the top of the wall can be evidence that the embankment was not cut deep enough to install the proper length grids that would meet stability requirements. Recommendations Repair of the wall is possible during construction of the upper improvements. In lieu of removal at this point it is my opinion that during the construction period, additional inspection is performed to determine the extent of the soil reinforcement and to determine the failure mechanism for the distressed area. This can be done with excavation behind the wall. Where and if the soil reinforcement is not sufficient to meet applicable design stability factors of safety then repairs and modifications can be completed. This may include adding additional soils reinforcement, partial removal and reassembly of the wall of complete reconstruction. Please contact me with any questions you may have John Kliethermes,PE REGISTERED PROF : SSIONAL EN INEER 0 791 January 18, 2018 Owner: Tim Nolde Inspectors: Cindy Shilts and Lauren Sirotiak Received JAN222018 Community Development Department Purpose of visit: Perform an inspection of the general construction & condition of the buildings prior to moving onto a vacant lot located at 1167 Parkwood Ln within the City of Stillwater. Both buildings are of newer construction and would have only minor upgrades once moved into the city. Both buildings are expected to be constructed on foundations as they are currently. Smoke detectors and CO detectors will need to be upgraded as they are near the end of their 10 year life and CO detector requirements have changed since these buildings were constructed. Decks stairs on back of unit have open risers and handrails are not compliant. Building 1-4 unit: 13848, 13856, 13860 and 13872 Upper 58th St N Building constructed on crawl space. Crawl space houses furnace and water heater. Building 2 — 3 unit: 13843, 13851 and 13857 Lower 59th St N Building constructed with slab on grade. Furnace and water heater located in garage mechanical room. Must maintain required separation from garage. Brick on front of units is installed below the paved driveway, not allowing for proper weep screed. From: morsehughes@aol.com To: Abbi Wittman Subject: Re: 1167 Parkwood Townhome Development Project Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 4:41:18 PM I left you a message on your voicemail this morning with a question but since I have not heard back from you, so I will submit what I know at this time. We have the following comments: 1. We appreciate the scale of the project and the limited access to selected units from Parkwood Lane. We hope the drainage issues work as represented to not further burden our property which is considerably below the grade of the proposed developments. 2. If we have the right to object to the project being an ongoing commercial development (rental properties), as opposed to being developed to be owner - occupied homes, we should be counted as objecting. 3. As to the operator of the proposed development, we have heard many negative things about his operation of the neighboring Villas. Particularly, that there are recurrent and unremediated sewage backup problems, about which the tenants have felt helpless. Please make sure his development plans provide all necessary standards so that shortcuts are not made leading to more infrastructure issues in its present proposal. Thank you, Michael Hughes Original Message From: Abbi Wittman <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us> To: 'morsehughes@aol.com' <morsehughes@aol.com> Sent: Mon, Feb 5, 2018 10:16 am Subject: 1167 Parkwood Townhome Development Project Hello Michael. You can view the full application submission by clicking here. As indicated, when the City receives development applications we advertise 'and any variances thereto/thereof' in order to ensure noticing requirements are met. Oftentimes, however, there are no variances requested — such as is the case with this application. As discussed, if we find a variance and notification has not been given, it sets the development back a whole month. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Abbi rliwater www.ci.stillwater.mn.us Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner 216 4th Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082 P: 651-430-8822 I F: 651-430-8810 Ulwater THE 6 1 N T N PLACE OE MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT DATE: February 14, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-03 TO: Planning Commission APPLICANT: Angela Hudson LAND OWNER: Angela Hudson REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a Type 3 Short Term Home Rental (STHR) STHR LOCATION: 219 3rd Street North ZONING: RCM, Medium Density Residential REPORT BY: Erik Olson -Williams, Zoning Administrator/Assistant Planner BACKGROUND Angela Hudson owns the single family house at 219 3rd Street North. Ms. Hudson does not live at this property and has been using it a Short Term Home Rental for approximately one year. Hudson has submitted applications for both the necessary Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type 3 Short Term Home Rental (STHR) and a STHR License. A Type 3 STHR is a dwelling unit that is offered to transient guests for a period of less than 30 consecutive days, and the property does not serve as the owners' primary residence. These types of vacation rental properties are typically investment properties and could either be operated by the owner or a manager. In this case, Ms. Hudson will manage the property herself. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A Type 3 vacation rental license can be issued for a property in Stillwater if: 1) A Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the Planning Commission; 2) The Conditional Use Permit has not lapsed [in those instances where a license renewal is being requested, or a new owner wishes to operate the vacation rental]; and 3) The total number of STHR licenses does not exceed the allowed limit. The Planning Commission's role in the vacation rental licensing process is to review and either approve or deny the property owner's request for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicable review standards for the STHR Conditional Use Permit, per recently adopted Ordinance 1093, include: STHR Use Permit February 14, 2018 Page 2 A. Zoning Type C Short Term Home Rentals are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in all Residential Zoning Districts and in the Downtown CBD Zoning District. The subject property is zoned RCM, which allows vacation rentals by use permit. B. Performance Standards Parking 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: (1) 1-2 bedroom unit, 1 space (2) 3 bedroom unit, 2 spaces (3) 4 and 4+ bedroom units, number of spaces equal to the number of bedrooms minus one. The proposed vacation rental has four bedrooms, which requires three parking spaces. The property has four off-street parking spaces available, which satisfies the parking requirement. It should be mentioned that the driveway for this property is shared with the condominium building immediately to the north. Therefore it is critical that the driveway never be blocked, not even "just for a minute to unload a car". This is made clear in the attached guest disclosure. Site Plan STHR Use Permit February 14, 2018 Page 3 Number of guests The maximum number of guests allowed is limited to two times the number of bedrooms plus one. So, with four bedrooms, the maximum number of overnight guests will be nine. The guest disclosure states that the home sleeps 11. This will have to be changed to nine to be in compliance with Ordinance 1093. Limiting the number of guests allowed on a property is important for a number of reasons. They include safety of guests, preventing parking problems, and discouraging a property from becoming a "party house". The latter concern is particularly important because most vacation rental properties are located in residential neighborhoods rather than commercial neighborhoods. To this point, the City has received several letters of concern from neighbors that this short term rental has on occasion the aura of a "frat house". (See attached letters.) In anticipation of this situation, Ordinance 1093 specifically requires a STHR's guests to abide by the City's nuisance ordinances, which must be included in all guest disclosures. And, a complaint process was established, which reads: 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. And, to keep the line of communication open between neighbors and the STHR owner/manager, the ordinance requires current contact information to be distributed to neighbors: 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. Proximity of assistance The vacation rental ordinance states: 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 property owner lives at 1800 Johnson Drive, which is approximately 5 minutes from the property. This close proximity is important to be able to respond to both guest needs, and neighborhood concerns. STHR Use Permit February 14, 2018 Page 4 Signage No signage is allowed on the property for the Short Term Home Rental. None is proposed. Events Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. For purposes of the vacation rental ordinance, an event means a gathering of more than three un-registered guests. Events hosted by the property owner are allowed, but must abide by all applicable city ordinances and polices, including the prohibition on renting residential property for events. C. Proof of Insurance Proof of appropriate and sufficient insurance was submitted with the use permit application form. D. Safety Inspection The safety inspection has been completed, and there are no outstanding safety issues at the property. E. Total Number of STHR Conditional Use Permits Fifteen Type C Conditional Use Permits may be issued at any one time. To date, five Type C permits have been issued and an additional six have been proposed. In summary, all standards can be met. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds issuance of the Conditional Use Permit to be acceptable, it could approve the use permit with the following conditions: 1. Parking — All guest parking must occur on the subject property; none on the street. 2. Number of guests — The total occupancy of the property shall be limited to nine. 3. Proximity of assistance a. The property owner or a manager/representative must be located within 30 minutes travel time of the property. b. The property owner must provide the name, address and phone number for the owner or manager/representative to all property owners within 150 feet of the lot lines of the vacation rental property. This must be completed within 10 days of issuance of the license. The owner must also provide the community development department with the neighborhood notification list within this 10 day time frame. c. The community development department must be notified within 10 days of a change in the contact information of the owner or manager/representative. The property owner must also notify neighboring properties within 10 days of a change in the contact information of the owner or manager/representative. 4. Garbage - As required by City Code, all garbage must be kept in rubbish containers that are stored out of view of a public street. 5. Signage — No signage identifying the Short Term Home Rental is allowed on the property. 6. Events - Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. For purposes of Short Term Home Rental, an event means a gathering on the premises of more than three un- registered guests. STHR Use Permit February 14, 2018 Page 5 7. Length of guest stay — The property is not permitted to be rented for a period of less than one whole day. 8. Guest records - The owner must keep guest records 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. 9. Guest disclosures The owner must disclose in writing to their guests the following rules and regulations prior to arrival. In addition the disclosures must be conspicuously displayed in the home. 1. The name, phone number and address of the owner, operating or managing agent/representative. 2. The maximum number of overnight guests at the property at a time is limited to nine. 3. The maximum number of vehicles is limited to four at the property. These parking spaces must be clearly identified. No on -street parking is allowed for guests and no parking is allowed in the driveway, since it is shared with the abutting condominium owners 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 with more than three unregistered guests are permitted. 10. License number - The owner must post their city license number on all print, poster or web advertisements, in addition to posting it on the booking agent's website. 11. Lodging tax - The owner, 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. 12. Conditional Use Permit Expiration - The Conditional Use Permit will expire if the property is not operated as a Short Term Home Rental for a period of twelve consecutive months. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds the request to have incomplete information, the case could be tabled. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the request to be inconsistent with Ordinance 1093, it could be denied. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the regulations in Ordinance 1093 to be satisfied with conditions and therefore recommends approval with the conditions listed in Alternative A above. Attachments: Location Map Floor Plans cc: Owner/ applicant _ co • .:!.' '', --z.-.,..'"4" i I (water '''' ' ' 21.-?:' . • :4' ""3, --% ^• ',- - • ;.1 :Kz-4- , . - 1,°Ww---- -S- : c - ' - -: : - I .:.„9".:V P',.:;',:t -,' •,..'' sl ,gi - -, The Birthplace of Minnesota A4/ iiikk tA'Afe, TatN-11---7 • • • • . . 1\ In \ fr -1 7 \--\\-, 9\ _ ..,. It , __-- ,,...,,....; A. ..., c.P•S1 - -, ,, '4 \ .1.,, ,,cri ., .. . n ...4 - ,,,.. .---- — - 4- - _ _-_----A v ) -40101Low-- (5), _ ifi,,, , , ...-A ..,..,., , . , -. , -,. , ..._ . ,1 ,_ ....„ 2i1., _ -,..., _...._ , .,, ,ti-rit i.--, - .- _ w 2. S1V- Site Location Map 219 3rd Street North ON•5 .,1% ..7. --A PA 460 Feet, ...,- In 7 ... _..„. r r General Site Location ..4. - A /-_, - . . •.`)_\ A N • vi\ . e.,...,'. .\ ‘...., .,. 1 .(„'l.,•-'.-e.:fe' • t‘i,,,, i - , • it ,,,,_ -- r" :iliaittii"iil,:...i..-.. re. Ntrk-,--4.--•;.-,,‘, - - -I 1 • e.. .. ; Ii'1 '11-- - •Li. :Ai :, , --:-.- .t!.1 I 't . . ---, _ ...A • C- -41 . , S ...-A __._. - .,„..,..., IL__ ,I,A . ,•.- -,-;.:..A..-011-.1,j ':- A •-'"'t, '-',n•S . • •'1..'..."-:-."1:!..-, ' --37/7,:-.',..-. -„::. . _:-.,.:..- -,'...:-•--.,..--..-- , ‘‘,, 0‘( , . - ---1, ) • v ' . 111 •• Al'i- '.11„1- N .. , ... . . .... ch 17`1-1 S'` Hello and Welcome to the Third Street Inn, We hope your stay here in beautiful Stillwater is wonderful! As our Guest and a guest of the community, we are happy to have you with us and would like to point they your stay may be more enjoyable for everyone if you keep the following in mind. 1) The maximum number of people the Third Street Inn sleeps is 11 people. 2) The Maximum number of cars in the Drive way 4 is Two (see digram in kitchen as how to park best in upper driveway. One car in front of the right garage stall, and one behind. 3) The driveway is shared with the neighbors and should never be blocked, not even for a minute thanks. 4) The City has a noise ordinance for noise that requires noise levels be down between 10pn-8am. 5) No events are allowed to be hosted on the premise. That means no more than three unregistered guests. 6) Useful phone numbers Angela 651-235-7266 property manager Fire department 651-351-4950 Police department 651-351-4900 7)Useful websites: www.discoverstillwater.corn www, m a i n st re etsti l l w ate r ba. co m www. g reate rsti I Iwate rc h a m be r. co m 8) Please treat our home as if it were your own. Please be respectful of our neighbors, and community. Keep the noise to a friendly level. Lock the house when leaving. Please don't leave windows open while the air or heat is on. Don't do damage and if something should break please let us know. We understand accidents Happen. 9) The thermometer is located in the living room for your comfort. Please be respectful of the settings. 10) One last thing. The upstairs cant handle more than one blowdryer going at one. The fuse will blow. The lower levels electric is better updated Thanks so much for staying at our home. Justin & Angela Amy J. Goetz 231 3rd Street North, Unit C Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 430-3303 February 9, 2018 Planning Commission City of Stillwater Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Received EH H 9 2018 Community Development Department RE: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to Operate at Type C Short Term Home Rental at 213 3rd Street North Request to Deny Application Dear Planning Commission: We are the neighbors immediately adjacent to the property under consideration for a permit for short term rental. We own the condominium unit at the south side of the building, abutting the property directly to our south. We strongly urge the Commission to deny the application for a permit for short term rentals because such use is disruptive to our quiet neighborhood community, strains the parking resources available given the demands associated with the churches in the neighborhood, and presents an unacceptable nuisance to our quiet enjoyment of our property. When we purchased our condominium just over two years ago, we were not aware that the property immediately to our south engaged in the business of short term rentals. We became aware of that use when carloads of renters began piling into the home weekend after weekend, parking in our shared driveway, obstructing our access to our garages, parking in our separate off-street parking behind our building, dumping garbage in our receptacles, and have regular, loud and unruly parties late into the night on many weekends. We contacted the Hudsons on many occasions to get them to correct these conditions and were met with hostility and resistance at times. Sometimes the conditions were corrected and sometimes they were not. We cannot be put in a position to police our neighbors' business or have to constantly call them to ask them to contain the nuisance their paying customers create. We have lost the ability to sleep with windows open in the summers when large groups congregate in their backyard with an open fire, alcohol consumption, and very loud partying. At times, their guests have occupied six to eight parking spots and we have counted as many as fourteen people around the fire partying until past midnight. At times, their guests have set up tents in the backyard and slept in their cars. We did not purchase property in a quiet residential neighborhood to be disrupted on most weekends in the fall, summer and spring by our neighbors' guests. Short term rentals invite visitors who have no stake in the neighborhood but come to town for occasions that often involve partying. The Hudsons have not responsibly handled the problems their business has created and should not be permitted to continue to burden our enjoyment of our home. Our unfortunate experience has resembled living next to a fraternity house and we are very unhappy about these conditions. Please deny the application for short term rental of this property. Thank you for your consideration. Re ar Amy J. Goetz Planning Commission for the City of Stillwater February 10, 2018 261 Fourth St. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Planning Commission members, Received FEB J 2018 Community Development Department We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Conditional Use Permit for a Type C short term home rental sought by our neighbors at 219 Third St. N., Stillwater. We reside right next door at 231 Third St. N and share a driveway. We do not approve of this application. There are three major concerns I'd like to address regarding the Air B and B next door. The first is noise, the second is parking problems (see attached photos) and the third is the concern about safety. We have lived here over two years. Beginning the late summer of 2016, we have sent in excess of a dozen emails and photos of cars and camping to the owners of the Air B and B about the noise and parking issues. There have also been numerous phone calls. Some of the calls and emails have been addressed to some level, others have resulted in no action, in part due to guests not being responsive. Other responses from the owner and guests have been downright hostile, insulting or sarcastic. Let me address the noise first. This s a quiet residential neighborhood in a desirable, well respected community. We are surrounded by other homes, condo, and churches and live across the street from the library. The library on occasion hosts community celebrations, weddings and parties on their rooftop deck, however they respectfully close down and quiet down about 10: 00 pm. I wish I could say the same about the house next door. We have called the owners and have called the police on several occasions for noise and disturbance of peace in the neighborhood. We call the house next door the "frat house" due to the late parties and the noise. There are also numerous cars on the street parked right up to the edge of the drive (making it hard to turn in and out to and from the street), cars in the driveway, sometimes making it hard to pass to our parking area and sometimes just blocking the drive, and on one or two occasions, using our parking lot.. We have seen cars piled in the drive and yard, camping in tents in the yard, guests sleeping in cars, and having large groups around the campfire/bonfire area. Some guests have double parked for literally no access to our parking area (sometimes short term and sometimes longer). Their guests have dumped their beer and liquor bottles and garbage in our garbage cans on our property. The result of the noise and disturbance means we don't access our deck and we need to keep our windows closed since most of our windows face the driveway. I would have never imagined moving into this lovely neighborhood and condo and not being able to enjoy fresh air and the night breeze. It is typically too noisy and busy with coming and goings. The parking by guests has been disruptive. Guests often block part of the driveway, they have parked in the driveway and they have packed in multiple cars, resulting in blockage and tight maneuvering. Then, we have to get hold of the owner. Without an owner on sight, we have to communicate by phone or email or, as suggested by owner, address the guess directly. We have contacted guests directly on a few occasions and have had mixed results. Sometimes guests have said "Oh, we didn't realize you used this driveway, too" and correct it or we have received a "too bad" response or guests have not responded to our knocks or owners calls. Often people go downtown for part of the evening so someone may not be on site for a while but gather later. We, as neighbors, should not have to monitor the situation. That is the responsibility of the owners. A final concern is safety. With frequent blocking of the shared driveway, it is unlikely an emergency vehicle would have full access of the driveway if they need to come to the back. Although there is a second access to the back parking lot, is very steep (I scape my car so don't use it) and rarely used. It is also the snow deposit area from the first snow to the last. Simply put, the drive needs to be fully accessed and not used for parking by anyone. Again, we'd like to enjoy our condo on weekends, whether it is to enjoy our deck or open windows and not be disturbed by the noise and comings and goings next door. We object to the Conditional Use Permit. 444 Re,: Ccrdi•h'dnal U5c Perrn;-f for 2-lq Third 61-.1) Re,: Cana i i-o eil Use 1ler rn i it twr Z i 9 Third Cf. Itit . gt: Condi+food( use. Avm if Reuett ,r z' q Th Vrd St . N . RP.). CO v, d i Ho n ed Uie, Pedrno rt �0r St *ht r^d SI-. N . AG'. COV)a1'HuPal uye, eeternri .Co r 2-tq Third 5*. N PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 14, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-05 APPLICANT: Sterling Black, CEO, Fairway Villas LLC A/K/A LSB Homes LLC REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the conditions of approval of a previously granted Variance, CPC Case No. 2016-49, to allow for eight single family residential lots to be located at 1902 William Street North ZONING: RB-Two Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Low/Medium Density Res. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner APPLICABLE BACKGROUND CPC Case No. 2007-2 approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a Zoning Map Amendment, and Preliminary Plat FAIRWAY VILLAS, a 12 lot, twin -home development (24 total units), to be located at 1902 William Street North. In 2009, Mr. Black purchased the property with the aforementioned development approvals. The property owner submitted a Preliminary Plat for HAZEL PLACE VILLAS, for 20 residential units to be located at the subject property. In September, 2015, CPC Case No. 2015-22 was denied by the City on the basis the development plan did not conform to City Code Section 32- 1, Subd. 6, Minimum design standards, Subsection (3)1, Cul-de-sac streets. In 2016 the Planning Commission granted conditional approval of a variance to the 600' maximum cul-de-sac length to allow for Sterling Black to subdivide his residential property at 1902 William Street North. The approval condition indicated the future subdivision could not contain greater than seven single family lots. The case file is known as CPC No. 2016-49; the variance permit and meeting minutes are attached for the Commissions review. In January 2017, the property owner submitted a Preliminary Plat for HAZEL PLACE, an eight -lot subdivision with a cul-du-sac length equal to that approved by the Planning Commission. The Commission was advised by City Attorney Magnuson that the Commission must determine if the eight -lot plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, whether it would be detrimental to the neighborhood and most important, whether a limit of eight lots would remain directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact related to the variance. While the Commission made this determination, and recommended conditional approval to the City Council, the Council added a condition of approval that indicated the total number of lots is limited to seven plus one stormwater outlet, to retain consistency with the Planning Commission's original cul-de-sac variance length condition of approval. The case file is known as CPC No. 2017-14; the Resolution of approval, city attorney correspondence, and meeting minutes are attached for the Commission's review. SPECIFIC REQUEST Sterling Black would like to develop his property located at 1902 William Street North with eight single family lots. Therefore, he is requesting the Planning Commission's consideration of an amendment to the condition attached to the previously granted Variance, CPC Case No. 2016-49, to allow for the future development of eight, opposed to seven, single family lots. REVIEW STANDARDS As advised by City Attorney Magnuson, the Planning Commission must decide whether the applicant's request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, whether it would be detrimental to the neighborhood and most important, whether a limit of eight lots would remain directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact related to the variance, as directed by City Attorney Magnuson last year during Preliminary Plat approval proceedings. Comprehensive Plan The future land use map of the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan (CP) shows that the site is guided for Low/Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The LMDR classification is intended for developments at a density of 4.4 to 9.7 units per acre. The Zoning Districts that are consistent with this density range are CCR, RB and CR. Therefore, the current RB, Two -Family Residential zoning district is consistent with the Future Land Use (FLU) map of the CP. However, even though the current zoning is consistent with the CP, the FLU and the Zoning Map reflect changes made in 2007, as noted in the Applicable Background section of this report. Responding to neighborhood concerns, HAZEL PLACE has been designed with densities consistent with the Low Density Residential (LDR) FLU map. As the property owner is comfortable with the condition of approval requiring single family development on each of these lots, Preliminary Plat approval conditions require rezoning of the property prior to the issuance of a building permit. As the City is in the process of updating its FLU map as part of the 2040 CP update process, the property can revert to desired densities noted in the CP prior to 2007. Case No. 2018-05 Page 2 of 4 Neighborhood Detriment The intent of the condition of approval for seven lots was two -fold: public safety and neighborhood compatibility. In general, the longer a dead end street is, the greater the chances are that something could block access to homes for emergency or other vehicles. By limiting the number of homes in this new development, public safety personnel will have greater assurances a limited number of individuals may be affected in an emergency. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, the adjacent (Hazel Court) neighborhood has expressed concerns for the total number of units on this parcel. With eight single family lots, the proposed density of HAZEL PLACE is less than one unit per acre. The Hazel Court and Hazel Street, west of North Fifth Street has a density of approximately 1.29 units per acre. Therefore, with the requirement of rezoning from RB to RA, the development would be consistent with the adjacent neighborhood development patterns. Variance Relation/Proportionality While the Planning Commission cannot take other lands and structures into consideration of a variance, the Commission was sympathetic that cul-de-sacs along fairways in Stillwater are not uncommon. The open space corridors created by fairways create barriers that do not accommodate through streets. As a consequence, cul-de-sacs are sometimes rather long around golf courses. As the Commission learned in 2016, there are several cul-de-sacs around the Oak Glen fairways that are longer than 600 feet. Of the five fairway -adjacent cul-de- sacs cited, three contain more homes than the 15 combined that are proposed between HAZEL PLACE and those homes to the west of North Fifth Street. Van Tassel Drive contains 24 homes, Towne Circle contains 28 homes, and Johnson Drive contains 20 homes. A determining factor for the establishment of practical difficulty was that the property's proximity to the golf course and that the concept plan, of seven homes, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The developers 14% density increase request would permit an average lot size of 26,500 square feet, approximately 3,800 square feet less than the average lot size for seven units but still more than twice the minimum lot size for a new lot in the RA - One Family Residential zoning district. The average lot of HAZEL PLACE is proposed to be smaller than the average lot size of properties along Hazel Street and Court homes west of North Fifth Street. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: Case No. 2018-05 Page 3 of 4 1. Make findings that the eight lot plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and would remain directly related to, and bear a rough proportionality to, the impact related to the variance and approve the request, modifying the condition of approval to allow for HAZEL PLACE to have no greater than eight single family lots. 2. Make the findings that the eight lot plat is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would be detrimental to the neighborhood, and/or would not remain directly related to, and bear a rough proportionality to, the impact related to the variance and deny the request, keeping the condition of approval requiring HAZEL PLACE to have no greater than seven single family lots. 3. Table the application and request additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that eight lots at 1902 William Street North are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and would remain directly related to, and bear a rough proportionality to, the impact related to the variance. Therefore, staff would recommend the Planning Commission amend the conditions of approval of a previously granted Variance, CPC Case No. 2016-49, to allow for eight single family residential lots to be located at 1902 William Street North. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Narrative CPC Case No. 2016-49 Applicant Submission Narrative Request December 12, 2016 Concept Plan CPC Case No. 2016-49 Permit January 11, 2017 CPC Meeting Minutes CPC Case No. 2017-14 Resolution City Attorney Correspondence HAZEL PLACE Preliminary Plat August 23, 2017 CPC Meeting Minutes September 5, 2017 CC Meeting Minutes Case No. 2018-05 Page 4 of 4 92 . . .._ .. lillwater 8991 t921 4.t. 14411 STATE .- a —� r TM� • 00 1 260 TqT The Birthplace of Minnesota N W 1 _ 0l, Hazel Place Villas 1902 William Street North Subject Parcels Parcel Boundaries 0-- Municipal Boundary W ALDER S . , s 0 245 490 980 Feet 201 - ¢� 'O12 02013 General Site Location cp 0 =2009 2012 Z 122 z110 w x * in EAST ..�.' •• 1 .�.. ... ...., 9, 1� % i ,,= 1 eY ci co ���r. 1902 Q �P +�a. t1 / /-, P. Q 1917 1 moo o (/. z R Ic '1902 1907 1900 9 0 0 1915 u) 0 1901 224 EAST WIL e ° . 1 600 500 ST x'1 %1723 404 4021. POPLAR gc 125 1817 306 O .1808 0 _ 4�6 0 1813 z 226 $02 1801M. STREET WEST POPLAR ET 1421 1721 o OC 7 1\ 1 a In el � i\ ��.. r•• + X ••-- S i. January 16, 2018 City of Stillwater Mr. Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director 216 4th St North Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: Request for Variance to Cul de Sac Length Ordinance — Hazel Place Dear Bill, On 1/11/17, we appeared before the Planning Commission to request a variance to the city's Cul-De-Sac length for future development of the property located at 1902 William Street. At that meeting we were granted an approval to the cul de sac length with conditions including the project "shall be substantially similar to those on file and the property shall contain no greater than seven single family lots." We have attached a copy of the minutes for your convenience. Before we went through the process of re -engineering the project to reduce the unit count and reapply for plat approval, we desired to make certain that the cul-de-sac length would be acceptable to the city and applied for a variance to the cul-de-sac ordinance. As part of the submittal, Westwood Engineering prepared a quick sketch designed to show the general plan for the neighborhood and the approximate cul-de-sac length for review. The plan they created showed an illustrative concept of seven single family Tots, but this was done without any planning study or engineering feasibility. Our variance request had no reference to a development plan or the density of the neighborhood only cul de sac length. During the review at the planning commission, neighbors raised a concerns about getting this concept approved, then building duplexes once approval was granted. In an attempt to satisfy the neighbors' concerns about the potential of replacing the single family development with duplexes, maintaining the character of the neighborhood, city staff added the caveat that development plans shall be 'substantially similar' to the Concept plan on file with seven Tots. We unfortunately did not have opportunity to discuss the condition or offer any opinions at the meeting. We knew that we did not intend to build duplexes and knew that whatever we brought forward would be substantially similar, so we agreed to the variance. After completing the engineering and working with city and the watershed, the cul-de-sac was redesigned and extended into the site to comply with city development ordinances. The result was the current Hazel Place Preliminary Plat submittal with 8 single family lots. The 8 lot development plans meets the current and future zoning ordinances for RB and RA. We are attempting to complete a project that aligns with the vision of the city and the neighborhood and we humbly appreciate the reconsideration and approval of the variance request for 8 single family lots as shown on the Preliminary Plat for Hazel Place on file with the city. Comments and concerns from Public Hearing of Variance. 1. Cul de sac length not really the issue it is the density w/ duplex lots. Six other cul de sac in city with similar situations. 2. Public Safety — concerned about a choke point with 14 lots. Staff has previously indicated Public Safety has no real concerns length of cul de sac. Six other neighborhoods have same situation. 3. Duplex lots not in harmony with character of neighborhood. 4. Parcel has unusual circumstances (hardships) with site conditions and watershed setback requirements. 5. Neighborhood in agreement with single family zoning and lot sizes fitting in with existing neighborhood character. 6. Variance approval was not tied to development initially until staff and PC chairman suggested it be tied to something like rezoning parcel or limit it to 7 single family lots. 7. Motion entertained and PC approved the variance to the cul de sac length with condition that the development shall be similar to the Concept Plan on file with 7 single family lots. In summary, the proposed preliminary plat has eight single family lot verses seven. The plan is substantially similar to the previous seven lot plan. Has no adverse neighborhood impact from public safety perspective. Therefore, we request approval of the variance to the cul de sac length as shown on our Preliminary Plat documents for Hazel Place dated March 17, 2017, revised July 26, 2017 with eight single family lots. Sterling Black Encls — Minutes from January 11, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Preliminary Plat — Hazel Place dated March 17, 2017, revised July 26, 2017. 92 . . .._ .. lillwater 8991 t921 4.t. 14411 STATE .- a —� r TM� • 00 1 260 TqT The Birthplace of Minnesota N W 1 _ 0l, Hazel Place Villas 1902 William Street North Subject Parcels Parcel Boundaries 0-- Municipal Boundary W ALDER S . , s 0 245 490 980 Feet 201 - ¢� 'O12 02013 General Site Location cp 0 =2009 2012 Z 122 z110 w x * in EAST ..�.' •• 1 .�.. ... ...., 9, 1� % i ,,= 1 eY ci co ���r. 1902 Q �P +�a. t1 / /-, P. Q 1917 1 moo o (/. z R Ic '1902 1907 1900 9 0 0 1915 u) 0 1901 224 EAST WIL e ° . 1 600 500 ST x'1 %1723 404 4021. POPLAR gc 125 1817 306 O .1808 0 _ 4�6 0 1813 z 226 $02 1801M. STREET WEST POPLAR ET 1421 1721 o OC 7 1\ 1 a In el � i\ ��.. r•• + X ••-- S i. December 15, 2016 VIA US Mail and Email Stillwater Planning Commission 216 North Fourth St. Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: PID # 21.030.20.23.006 Dear Stillwater Planning Commission: I write to request a variance for PID # 21.030.20.23.0006. My completed variance application packet is enclosed. You will recall that the City originally approved a plan for 10 twin homes (20 units) and a 590' cul- de-sac at the Property. At a subsequent council meeting, the City adopted the position that a minimum 600' cul-de-sac length was necessary, and measured the starting point at the intersection of Hazel and 5th St. North. This interpretation creates circumstances unique to this property and makes the property undevelopable. This enclosed variance request is designed to overcome this burden and make the property usable. In requesting this variance, I have tried to satisfy the City's concerns, maintain harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning regulation, and ensure consistency with the comprehensive plan. The enclosed proposal reduces the cul-de-sac length by more than 50%. It also reduces density by more than 50% from our previously approved request. This variance, if granted will not alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments or concerns. Sterling Black, CEO CONSTRUCTORS , 9Y6 ,=f, C'£u[, [doh I CI, HI 02016 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Call 48 Hours before digging: Westwood Piro (NM af.e16O 156E Magma Olive P. OM) 93)4127 Eden Prairie. MN 1161144 1d Far (UM 9314160 milmoodpAco I Wadwuod nufeolTh SMIdMS Inc 1:1 1: per PW .1: _. r. " dea r I1 I .. aWI ._ _. a-uloure A14AYRi Nolo U. We M IM aw I iDapCOaC aW LYE Np ({1.iil AC) L.C1s t (0,79 .AC' Cr. Site Data: Existing Zoning: RB- Two Family Residential Proposed Zoning: RA- One Family Residential Gross Site Area: 7.17 ac Proposed Single Family Setbacks: Front Setback: 30' Side Setback: 10' Rear Setback: 25' Proposed Single Family Lots: 7 lots 75' wide at front setback line IRV 91u REAR BUILDING SETBACK 45'K92' PAD 10,000 SF MIN. LOT SIZE 0 5 SIDI: BLDG SETBACK I I Iv 17'1: 100' SIDE BLDG SETBACK Sterling Black 1959 Sloan Place St Paul, Mlanuots 55117 1 MINIMUM FRONT BLDG. SETBACK MI .y I ROW LK1E -STREET- TYPICAL LOT TYPICAL LOT WIDTH NOT TO SCALE 811 or cal1811.com Common Ground Alliance 'water The Birthplace of Minnesota Zoning Apnl 2016 District AR Agricultural Preservation LR: Lakeshore Residential CTR: Cove Traditional Residential 9 RA: One Family Residential TR: Traditional Residential CCR: Cove Cottage Reeldentlal RB:11vo Family Residential t PROS: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Hazel Place .Stillwater, Minnesota 60' 120' 180' 9255Concepl 11.069 o t 2016.1212 Sass 1 OF 1 Concept Plan CITY OF STILLWATER ORIGINAL Case No.: 2016-49 Permit Fee: $225.00 Paid: 12/16/2016 ZONING PERMIT Permit Type: Variance Planning Commission Meeting Date: 1/11/2017 ActionNote: Approved 5-0 Description of Project: Consideration of a Variance to the required length of a cul-de-sac for the property Applicant(s): Sterling Black, Owner Project Address: 1902 William St N, Stillwater, MN 55082 Property ID No.: 2103020230006 Zoning District: RB Conditions of Approval: 1 Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2016-49, and shall contain no greater than seven single family lots We accept the conditions of this permit. We understand that any changes from these plans must be resubmitted for approval. Owner or Representative Date Community Development Director I—ZS-17 Date A zoning permt is granted pursuant to the zoning ordinance and is not a substitute for a building permit. A building permit is issued by the city building official after approval of the plans and payment of the building permit fee and state surcharge. This zoning use permit will be null and void if the project that is permitted by this zoning use permit is not completed within two years from the date the permit is granted. Page 1 of 1 Planning Commission January 11, 2017 Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. James Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, challenged whether the Planning Commission's vision for the City is high rise buildings. He feels there is no rationale for allowing four stories on this site. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Turnblad said there is no property zoned CBD that was not originally covered with the height overlay district. The three lots, when redeveloped for the parking ramp, were rezoned for CBD but staff forgot to include the height overlay so 25 feet is allowed without the height overlay. Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to recommend that the City Council deny Case No. 2016-43, Zoning Map Amendment to include certain adjoining parcels in the Height Overlay District zone for the property located at 107 Third Street North. All in favor, 5-0. Case No. 2016-46: Zoning Text Amendment to require site plan review of certain development projects in the Central Business District. City of Stillwater, applicant. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that current City Code does not require formal review when buildings downtown are converting from one use to another. However, these conversions can have a significant impact upon public infrastructure, especially for larger buildings. Therefore, the City Council directed Planning Department staff to develop a draft site plan review ordinance for larger building conversion projects in the downtown area. There are 22 properties downtown that are 20,000 square foot or larger, which would be the subject of the ordinance He reviewed the draft ordinance and proposed permit process. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2016-46, Zoning Text Amendment to require site plan review of certain development projects in the Central Business District, with the added condition that the Council consider granting approval authority to the Commission. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2016-49: Variance to the required length of a cul-de-sac for the property located at 1902 William Street North. Sterling Black, property owner and applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that in order to construct more than a single duplex on these (nearly) seven acres, the property owner is requesting a variance of 510' to allow for a 235' long cul-de-sac to be constructed off of the Hazel Street right-of-way. The new road would continue to intersect with Hazel Court approximately 875' from the intersection of Hazel Street and North Fifth Street. While a previous development plat, commonly referred to as Hazel Place Villas, was approved for the site in 2007, amendments to the original development plat failed to gain City approval in 2015. This was largely due to the Planning Commission's interpretation of the starting measurement point for the length of a cul-de-sac. The Planning Commission determined the measurement should start at the intersection of Hazel and North Fifth Street, as opposed to starting at the Hazel Street intersection, and therefore the development of 20 new single family parcels should not be permitted on this site. The Page 6 of 8 Planning Commission January 11, 2017 City Council upheld the decision made by the Planning Commission. The property owner proposes a new concept plan which would include the development of only seven single family lots and an 875' cul-de-sac, 235' of which is on the property owned by the applicant. Staff finds the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that the property owner has established practical difficulty. Staff recommends conditional approval. Sterling Black, 188 View Road, Mahtomedi, applicant, stated that in 2007 a project was approved for 10 twin homes and that approval still exists. In 2015, he came back with a proposal for 19 units which generated concerns over density. That proposal was denied based on cul-de-sac length. In order to reduce density and fit with neighborhood desires, he cut 2/3 of the cul-de-sac and eliminated some infrastructure costs to make it work with fewer units. If tonight's proposal is denied, he could either 1) go forward with the 20 unit twin home project or 2) build a single family home or two. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Brian Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, thanked the developer for coming back with an improved plan which goes a long way toward making it fit the neighborhood. He would support the proposal if it were developed as seven single family lots but he could not support duplexes, doubling the density. He feels the approval could be conditioned in a way to assure that it would be a single family development and attach that condition to the title so it will stay with the property. Ken Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, thanked Mr. Black for listening to the neighbors' suggestions about the previous proposal. He would like to bind the property to be developed as seven single family homes with some sort of covenant on the title or some other mechanism. James Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, reflected that the purpose behind a limitation on cul-de-sacs is public safety. With a 235' addition to the existing cul-de-sac, if there were 14 units, there would be a choke - point problem with emergency vehicles getting in. The property should be developed as single family homes. Tim Sinclair, 14411 Dellwood Road, said he enjoys the wild, but realizes there are development pressures. He is skeptical of the classic bait and switch where a developer comes in and gains approval and then switches the plan. He would support the seven single family proposal 100%. Pat Lockyear, 2001 Hazel Court, thanked Mr. Black for thinking that smaller is better and accommodating the neighbors. He would like the approval to go with the land. Sonja Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, said she supports her neighbors and is grateful to Mr. Black for making the proposal better. She supports having single family homes on the property and would like the approval to go with the title to to the property to ensure it will remain single family. Mary Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, reminded the Commission that originally, the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the first project, the 22 twin homes. She would love to see the property rezoned to RB 1. Debbie Sinclair, 14411 Dellwood Road, reported she was very happy to see Mr. Black's plans. Her only concern is that the proposal could change with the next person who owns the property. She feels it should be rezoned to single family to avoid any future issues. Page 7 of 8 Planning Commission January 11, 2017 Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Turnblad pointed out that staff is recommending approval with a condition that specifically says the plans that come in for development must be substantially similar to those on file for seven single family homes. It runs with the property. Commissioner Hansen stated that the property owner already has approval to put 10 duplexes on this property but he doesn't want to do that. He feels the current proposal is a much better plan. Chairman Kocon acknowledged that seven single family homes would have less impact than 14. Mr. Turnblad suggested the Commission could amend the recommended condition of approval to include the statement that the project shall contain no greater than seven single family lots. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve Case No. 2016-49, variance to the required length of a cul-de-sac for the property located at 1902 William Street North, amending the recommended condition of approval to state that "Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2016-49, and shall contain no greater than seven single family lots. " Motion passed 5-0. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. All in favor, 5-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 8 of 8 RESOLUTION 2017-163 CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAZEL PLACE CASE NO. 2017-14 WHEREAS, Fairway Development LLC made application for approval of a preliminary plat for HAZEL PLACE encompassing property legally described on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2017 the Stillwater Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended conditional approval of the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2017 the Stillwater Park Commission discussed the park and trail obligations of the development; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 2017 the Stillwater City Council held a public hearing on the preliminary plat. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby approves the preliminary plat of HAZEL PLACE 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 may be modified by the conditions herein: • Preliminary Plat dated 7/12/2017 • Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan dated 3/17/2017 • Preliminary Utility Plan dated 3/17/2017 • Preliminary Street and Storm Sewer Plan & Details dated 3/17/2017 • Preliminary Landscape Plan dated 3/17/2017 • Tree Preservation Plan dated 3/17/2017 2. The total number of lots is limited to seven plus one stormwater outlot. 3. Outlot A shall not be permitted and shall be combined with Lot 6 or sold to an adjacent property owner, being combined with a larger tract of land. 4. No more than two lots are permitted to share a driveway. 5. If there is to be a shared driveway, then a shared driveway access and maintenance agreement shall be submitted for review and approval with the Final Plat. This will be recorded in conjunction with the Final Plat. 6. The entire property shall be rezoned to RA - One Family Residential prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. Civil engineering plans submitted with final plat application materials must be consistent with the City Engineer comments found in this report, and the plans must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. The amended Preliminary Plat shall be reviewed by the Brown's Creek Watershed District prior to the submittal of the Final Plat. A BCWD permit shall be required. District recommended conditions will be incorporated by reference into this approval. 9. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval. 10. All of the stormwater infiltration ponds and basins must be privately maintained. A Home Owner's Association will be required, as will associated maintenance documents that will have to be filed in chain of title. These must be submitted to the City for approval of form and content together with final plat application materials. 11. Home Owner's Association documents including stormwater facilities maintenance, and outlot ownership must be submitted with final plat application for approval by the City. When approved by the City, they must be filed together with the final plat. 12. A total of 39 trees shall be planted on private property. 21 of these trees will be planted three per lot and may be installed after new home construction has been completed. But if the three per lot plantings wait until after home construction, the cost of the trees must be escrowed with the City. Details of this escrow will be included in the Development Agreement for the project. 13. This development will be responsible for paying City park and trail fees of $2,500 per lot (with credit given for the original homestead). The $15,000 in fees will be due prior to release of the final plat from the City for recording with Washington County. 14. This development shall be responsible for paying sanitary and municipal water fees associated with the "North Hill Project", in an amount established by the City Council. Timing for payment of the fees must be included in the Development Agreement for this project. 15. Pruning and grading near any of the oak trees to be saved shall not occur between April 15th and July 1st, unless a professional forester has prepared an oak impact plan that is approved by the City in advance of work on site. 16. Either monument signage and street lighting must be approved with the final plat, or neither will be permitted in the future. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this 5th day of September, 2017. AT ' T: CITY OF S WATER 7Ze-V • Ted Kozlowski, Mayor Diane F. Ward, :ity Clerk NI.. :Tao, :* ''rteil V , VESIO, \N•` 1 Page 2 of 3 From: Dave Magnuson To: Abbi Wittman Subject: Condition of Approval Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 3:13:25 PM Memo to City Planner Abbi Wittman From Dt Magnuson, City Attorney Re: Conditions of approval imposed on a variance Abbi, Apparently, the planning commission granted a variance to the cul du sac regulations as part of Concept Plan Review of a development proposal for 1902 North William. As part of their approval, a condition was imposed limiting the number lots in the development, not to exceed seven. Now, an application for Preliminary Plat Approval has been submitted for an eight lot development. You have asked whether and under what circumstances the condition of approval may be modified. First of all, MN Stat. Chapter 462.357 Subdivision 6 controls the variance process for Cities. One provision of that law states that the planning commission "may impose conditions on the granting of variances", and that: "A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact related to the variance." Since the Planning Commission imposed the condition, it is within their discretion to modify it. In determining whether the modification should be approved, the commission should consider whether proposed plat with eight lots is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, whether it would be detrimental to the neighborhood and most important, whether a limit of eight lots would remain directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact related to the variance. Dave Magnuson Stillwater City Attorney David T. Magnuson Magnuson Law Firm 324 Main Street South, Suite #260 Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone: 651-439-9464 Cell Phone: 651-492-0997 Fax: 651-439-5641 r< EAST LINE `--- SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Q_ _ 36BOX CULVERT T.) INVERT-787.4 )01 0 Q-<( 0<( PO EAST LINE OF \� 00 / , - - OUTLOT B / / / 212.54 PLAT 501°11'45 212.59 - co II 0 IY /- OL oL > Q� Uz 3w IT z LL < - 0E 0 I- Z Z Z 20 w Z o[c - -- r o~c 0 z -3o/Of_ Z J Ill 2 oCm Ok_ %11 CZ V- 0 LI_ Eo _z E o O I NW COR. OUTLOT B OUTLOT A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EAS MENT OVERIAL 0 OU1TLaT A I 9 NOrrz6a.. I A I S73° fro o .00 c c /"A / V /-r \\\\\\\ S31 °35'31 "- --. S02°2 T 60.82 \\\\1 1;8.® \ / P/C 0 0 VC 2 1326 INE T OR. OF I'342 182 1183 PINE 10' / • S JLM / \\LC1 _ - r -- \ JLf1 \I 15 G4/ _ EST LI 127 i EET - DRAINAGE AND \„.„1,-' UTILITY EASEMENT 1150 ss5 es� TYPICAL �� BUILDING SETBACK LINE 1151 9/0 5 qlo DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT 41406 GRAVEL 8 - DR UTIL L_ ,- / `// F</ /// /i/ ,, r-1 / // // / / / / / / / -) / / /_aP / / /' S I 1 /' F /T q / /1 00°00'00"E 154.37 BSB BSB TYPICAL DRAINAGE ANP UTILITY EASEMENT NE NAGE AND Y EASEMENT Cir� co c\1 N 9-73 - 13TH TEE BCX Q �\r io V'/0 O <)'P�� C EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 30 North, Range 20 West and Outlot B of the recorded plat of BROWN'S CREEK HEIGHTS, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Northwest Quarter, thence South 88 degrees 52 minutes 54 seconds West, on a assumed bearing, along the southerly line thereof, 1270.00 feet; thence North 01 degrees 11 minutes 45 seconds West, parallel with the easterly line of said South Half of the Northwest Quarter, 252.00 feet to a judicial Landmark at the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence North 67 degrees 04 minutes 45 seconds West 331.86 feet to a judicial Landmark; thence North 42 degrees 46 minutes 58 seconds West 169.75 feet, more or less, to a point 514 feet north of said southerly line of the Northwest Quarter and 361 .25 feet West of the easterly line of the Southwest Quarter of said Northwest Quarter of Section 21, said point being marked by a judicial Landmark; thence North 01 degree 12 minutes 30 seconds West, parallel with said easterly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter 451.41 feet to a point distant 965.41 feet from the southwest corner of the east 361.25 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter said point being marked by a judicial Landmark; thence North 08 degrees 05 minutes 45 seconds East a distance of 79.73 feet to a judicial Landmark; thence North 01 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 29.07 feet to a judicial Landmark; thence North 36 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West a distance of 22.09 feet to a judicial Landmark on said parallel line; thence North 01 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds West parallel with said easterly line a distance of 145.69 feet to a judicial Landmark on the southerly right-of-way of the Minnesota Transportation Museum Railroad, (formerly the Northern Pacific Railway Co.); thence easterly 196.60 feet, along said southerly right-of-way and the northerly line of said Outlot B on a non -tangential curve, concave to the South having a radius of 1095.92 feet, a central angle of 10 degrees 16 minutes 43 seconds and the chord of said curve having a bearing of South 86 degrees 40 minutes 51 seconds East to a judicial Landmark at the northeasterly corner of said Outlot B of the recorded plat of BROWN'S CREEK HEIGHTS; thence South 01 degree 11 minutes 45 seconds East along the easterly line of said Outlot B a distance of 212.59 feet to a judicial Landmark at the southeast corner of said Outlot B, said southeast corner being 1009.00 feet North of said southerly line of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 88 degrees 52 minutes 54 seconds East along the southerly line of Lot 9, Block One of said BROWN'S CREEK HEIGHTS, and parallel with said southerly line of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 119.21 feet to a Judicial Landmark; thence South 80 degrees 52 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 21.96 feet to a judicial Landmark; thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes 04 seconds East a distance of 44.21 feet to a Judicial Landmark; thence South 73 degrees 11 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 20.71 feet to a judicial Landmark; thence South 31 degrees 35 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 18.40 feet to a judicial Landmark; thence South 02 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 60.82 feet to a judicial Landmark; thence South 25 degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 1 1 .40 feet to a judicial Landmark on the west line of said Lot 9, said point being 1270.00 feet westerly of said easterly line of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 01 degree 11 minutes 45 seconds East along the westerly line of said Lot 9 and its southerly projection, parallel with said easterly line of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter, 659.35 feet to a Judicial Landmark being the point of beginning. •00 \ 6618N-- WEST E E 9b9 ZONING/SETBACKS::: FRONT BUILDING SETBACK = 20' FRONT GARAGE SETBACK=30' SIDE BUILDING SETBACK = 10' SIDE GARAGE SETBACK = 5' REAR BUILDING SETBACK = 25' MINIMUM 35' OF FRONTAGE MAXIMUM 25% IMPERVIOUS. DEVELOPMENT DATA:: FRONTAGE 92.9' 108.3' 49.0' 59.3' 35.0' 35.0' 38.0' 195.7' 4.q4 E A D , TIL TY FAIRWAY COURT IR=60.00 1138 1137 I A / / / 1/1/ r r . 135.09 \ 1a1230"W ZONED RB - TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM LOT AREA = 7,500 SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH = 50' MINIMUM LOT DEPTH = 100' AREA LOT 1 = 21,932 SQ.FT. LOT 2 = 1 9,680 SQ.FT. LOT 3 = 17,578 SQ.FT. LOT 4 = 16,890 SQ.FT. LOT 5 = 1 9,920 SQ.FT. LOT 6 = 37,129 SQ.FT. LOT 7 = 50,048 SQ.FT. LOT 8 = 28,835 SQ.FT. OUTLOT A = 39,359 SQ.FT. OUTLOT B = 40,990 SQ.FT. R/W = 21,021 SQ.FT. TOTAL = 313,382 SQ.FT./7.19 ACRES 11 TYPICAL \\ DRAIN - UTI- EAS ITY ENT LI 2/2 0 SURVEY NOTES: R=175.00 L=5.34 RAINAGE ' NON1 ILITY FAST ME. X 1. BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROVIDED BY THE OWNER. 3. EASEMENT INFORMATION LIMITED TO ITEMS LISTED IN THE ABOVE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OR SHOWN ON COUNTY HALF SECTION MAPS. OTHER EASEMENTS, IF ANY, MAY EXIST AND ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY. 4. IMPROVEMENTS, CONTOURS, UTILITIES SHOW PER SURVEY FROM CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. DATED 6-6-2006. NO ADDITIONAL FIELD VERIFICATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED TO DATE. 5. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT LOCATED OR SHOWN. TREE SURVEY: 1. TREES SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY WERE FIELD LOCATED PER SURVEY FROM CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. DATED 6-6-2006. NO ADDITIONAL FIELD VERIFICATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED TO DATE. 267.26 O U LOT PRAI A E AN UTILI Y EASEM-NT OVER, LL OF OUTLb B DR A INAG I UTIL TY A 03 3D cc S ONE C0RNE STONE MONUMENT CENTER OF SECTION 21, T30N, R20W. N01 °11 '45"W 2638.46 EAST LINE OF NW 1/4__ N 1/ 21 \JLM 252.00 I N01 °11'45"W I o0 POINT OF EGINNING 01 °1 ''30" 13 -_ \ // SE COR --/� OF SW 1/4 NW 1/4 9 0 9 1 0 9 0 o \ 0 9 9 CP 9 % \\ CA 0 JLM CA? N01 °12'30"W 514.00 13 SW COR EAST 361.25 OF SWI/4 NW I/4-- STONE MONUMENT NW - CORNER OF SEC, 21 130N, R20W. STONE MONUMENT SW / 13 3D C CO I o d- CN N 0 co WEST LINE OF NW I/4--v / 2644.75 Gopher State One Call TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 SCALE IN FEET NORTH I -I E P E PRELIMINARY PLAT CONTACT: FAIRWAY DEVELOPMENT, LLC Sterling Black LEED AP LS Black Constructors, Inc. Direct: 651.789.2900 Cell: 612.363.2929 CITY - COUNTY: WASHINGTON, COUNTY VICINTIY MAP 11111111111 (NOT TO SCALE) SECTION 21, T3 ON, R2 OW, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA DATE REVISION 3-13-17 PRELIMINARY 4-19-17 REVISED 4-21-17 REVISED EASEMENTS 5-25-17 REMOVE LOT 7-12-17 REVISED 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. 3-13-17 Date: PROJECT LOCATION: ><><><>< Suite #1 6750 Stillwater Blvd. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 Fax 651.275.8976 CORNERSTONE LANE) SURVEYING, INC FILE NAME PROJECT NO. SURVLC26D PRELIMINARY P LAT THE 1INTNYLAGE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 23, 2017 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Fletcher, Hade, Kocon, Councilmember Menikheim Absent: Commissioners Hansen, Lauer and Siess Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Turnblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. OPEN FORUM Tanya Gerald, 1270 McDougal Green, expressed concerns about traffic on 62nd Street. She and her neighbors welcome Lakeview Hospital's purchase and planned development of the property. Their concerns involve traffic on 62nd and the proposed expansion of Curve Crest. On behalf of the neighborhood, she asked that the Commission close 62nd at Timber Way or in some way limit access to their development, and most critically, extend Curve Crest south of the hospital to connect directly with Manning Avenue. They feel it is unacceptable to connect Curve Crest to 62nd so as to adversely affect their neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2017-14: Preliminary plat for an 8 single family home subdivision for the property located at 1902 William Street North. Sterling Black, Fairway Development, LLC, property owner. City Planner Wittman explained the request. Sterling Black of Fairway Development, LLC requests approval of the July 12, 2017 version of the Preliminary Plat known as Hazel Place. The applicant plans to develop 7.19 acres of land located at 1902 William Street North, currently a vacant property located at the end of Hazel Street. A total of 5.90 acres are located outside of the Brown's Creek buffer area and, therefore, considered developable. The base zoning for the property is RB, Two -Family Residential. A total of eight single family lots are proposed. All lots would access Hazel Street via a single cul-de-sac road to be named Fairway Court. Lots range in size from 16,890 square feet to 50,048 square feet. A small portion of the site is encumbered by the Brown's Creek Stream Shoreland Management Overlay District (referred to as the "Stream Overlay District"). However, the Stream Overlay District only applies to the northern steep slopes. This area is proposed to be platted as an Outlot (A); an additional Outlot (B) is proposed for storm drainage purposes. The developer proposes to deed both outlots to either the City of Stillwater or Brown's Creek Watershed District. While the Planning Commission August 23, 2017 property will be known as the Hazel Place subdivision, the applicant is not proposing any monument signage or street lighting. Ms. Wittman further stated that Case No. 2006-59 was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for discussion pertaining to the potential development of 18 single family lots on what was previously zoned RA — One Family Residential. Discussion focused on the possibility of the development of 13 single family lots, with two units on each lot. Case No. 2007-2 was approved for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a Zoning Map Amendment, and Preliminary Plat for Fairway Villas, a 12 lot twin -home development. In 2009, Mr. Black purchased the property with the aforementioned development approvals. In 2015, the property owner began discussions with City staff pertaining to potential amendments to the 2007 approved plat. Case No. 2015-22, for a 20 lot single family development to be known as Hazel Place Villas was denied by the City. However, in January 2017, the Planning Commission approved Case No. 2016-49 for a variance to City Code Section 32- 1, Subd. 6, Minimum design standards, Subsection (3)1, Cul-de-sac streets. A condition of approval was that "plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2016-49, and shall contain no greater than seven single family lots." City Attorney Magnuson has advised that the applicant's request for eight lots, as opposed to seven, should be analyzed for whether the proposed plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, whether it would be detrimental to the neighborhood, and whether a limit of eight lots would remain directly related to, and bear a rough proportionality to, the impact related to the variance. Ms. Wittman reviewed the project's consistency with regard to the Comprehensive Plan, engineering, fire protection, tree removal, replacement and landscaping, park and trail dedication, drainage and utilities, stream buffering, and plans for the outlots. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with 15 conditions. David Hempel, Westwood Professional Services, representing Sterling Black and Fairway Development, LLC, explained that due to the sandy soil, maintenance of the infiltration basin should not necessitate the creation of a homeowners' association. They can comply with the City Engineer's recommendations in the staff report but it does mean lowering the site. They will need to take material offsite after shaving part of the hillside down. Regarding the outlots, the developers presumed that the agencies involved would prefer to have the stormwater infiltration area to provide protection of the bluff area to prevent anyone from going into those areas. The developers are concerned that if that area is combined with a lot, one of the homeowners may go in there and do what they want thinking it is their property. Buffer signage would help deter any types of alterations in those "no touch" zones. He showed a landscape plan indicating the 42 trees to be planted. They request to defer planting of most of the trees until after the homes are built so as to not interfere with construction. He asked if the park and recreation fees and trunk sewer fees may be deferred until building permit issuance. Regarding Lot 7 drainage and utility easement, the building pad is right off the 5' drainage utility easement and that lot is tight. which is why they want shared driveway access for lots 5, 6, and 7. The only condition that needs further discussion is Condition F, rezoning from RB to RA. He thinks his client would like to defer the rezoning until the final plat is approved. Mark Herbert, LS Black Constructors, reiterated that Mr. Black would like to know if the rezoning may be deferred until the project is funded or the time of final plat. City Planner Wittman responded that the rezoning is proposed to be done as part of the 2018 Comprehensive Planning process which will take through the end of 2018. Mr. Herbert asked staff to explain the safety concerns they expressed about having that many potential occupants on the cul de sac. Ms. Wittman stated that the reason for limiting the length of a cul de sac Page 2of11 Planning Commission August 23, 2017 is to limit the number of houses at the end, thus limiting the number of families that might be in jeopardy in an emergency situation. Mr. Hempel offered to address any questions. Commissioner Kocon stated it seemed very clear in the staff report that Outlot B would be sought to be combined with Lot 6 and there would need to be a homeowners' association, although Mr. Hempel said he would like this discussed further. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there is a homeowners' association (HOA), why Outlot A couldn't also be combined into the HOA. City Planner Wittman replied that if property such as Outlot A is in a HOA and the taxes weren't paid, it could become a tax forfeit parcel. Combining that parcel with Lot 6 would ensure that it would not become a tax forfeit parcel. Neither public entity wanted ownership of the outlot. Mr. Hempel asked what is the reason for access to the bluff area, since the intent is to leave it as is. Ms. Wittman replied that Brown's Creek Watershed District would want to monitor and maintain the easement area to ensure compliance with the overlay district. Regarding the issue of when to rezone the property, Commissioner Kocon said it's clear that duplexes won't fit. The intent has always been to lock this into single family homes. He is surprised that Mr. Black would ask when rezoning will happen, because it shouldn't matter. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Brian Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, reminded the Commission that the previous plan was for seven units and he doesn't see why the number is being increased now. Regarding Commissioner Kocon's question, he heard the representative say that Mr. Black wanted to know when the rezoning would take place in relation to their financing. He hopes that has nothing to do with it, that this project is not being represented as possibly being a duplex rather than a single family project. He feels rezoning is a must. He asked why BCWD approval has not already been obtained and suggested the City should wait till it is approved before granting the preliminary plat. Regarding grades, he would like to make sure if the grade is lowered, the developer is not adding retaining walls or anything else that would negatively impact the site. Regarding Lot 6 and the outlot, he is concerned about the impact that the homeowner could have on that lot if they weren't aware of the easement on their property. Mr. Larson also noted that on one drawing the lots are incorrectly numbered with two Lot 8's and asked that be corrected. James Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, agreed that rezoning is critical and there is no reason to wait for the Comprehensive Plan because this is more conservative zoning. Being more conservative in the zoning rather than more expansive is better. His other concern is that last fall, it was agreed that seven lots makes sense. He questioned whether the number of lots will be gradually increased. Ken Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, reminded the Commission that the City has been discussing this property for over a decade. He feels that zero lighting is great, and the reduction from a previous proposal of 22 to eight lots is great, but the rezoning should occur now. He is concerned that the T connection will be on a very steep hill requiring a huge retaining wall and he would like to see a better option. Page 3of11 Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Jake Brand, Stillwater Country Club, 1421 North Fourth Street, said Stillwater Country Club deals with Brown's Creek Watershed District daily. Potentially, the Club could purchase the outlot to manage it, instead of Brown's Creek Watershed District, so it would not become an issue in the future. Mary Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, said she would prefer rezoning now rather than later. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. He provided Mr. Hempel an opportunity to respond to concerns brought up by neighbors. Mr. Hempel thanked the residents for their input. Regarding the intersection grade, he stated that the City requires a 2% landing for 50-100 feet at all intersections. He said no retaining walls are proposed but there may be small walls at the time of construction depending on what type of house is built on this property. He added that the previous plan for seven lots was a concept that had not been fully engineered yet. After looking at Brown's Creek setback requirements and after doing detailed engineering and planning, it was determined that eight lots would fit. Commissioner Kocon asked for confirmation that once the Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat, it is locked in at eight lots. City Planner Wittman responded that after the City Council approves the preliminary plat of eight lots, a change in the number of lots would be considered substantial, requiring the developer to come back for preliminary plat approval again. She stated that she talked to Karen Kill at the Brown's Creek Watershed District (BCWD) last week and it appeared to her that the applicant wasn't comfortable moving forward with the BCWD until they were sure the City was favorable to the 8 lot design, allowing full analysis of what will be needed for infiltration. Ms. Wittman pointed out that the BCWD permit is one of the staff -recommended conditions of approval. Regarding the public comments from Stillwater Country Club, she told the Commission they may want to amend Condition lb to state that Outlot A may be sold to Stillwater Country Club or, if not sold, shall be combined with Lot 6. Commissioner Fletcher asked about the implications of the timing of rezoning. City Planner Wittman responded the property could be required to be rezoned by the time of release of final plat recording. The implication would be that at the time a building permit is submitted, it would ensure that the building permit could only be for a single family residence. With the RB zoning in place before the Comprehensive Plan is completed, there is that risk that someone could propose a two unit structure on the property. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that there is also another implication, which is that requiring rezoning before the Comprehensive Plan update is done would also require a Comprehensive Plan amendment be done before the final plat could be released, which could delay the excavation permits. That is why staff recommended that rezoning go together with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Commissioner Kocon reiterated that one of the conditions requires that the property be rezoned to RA. He feels this condition makes it clear what will happen. Mr. Turnblad added that it could be tightened further by including in the developers agreement that there would be no increase in the number of units. Ms. Wittman stated that the Commission could amend Condition F or create a new Condition P stating that the developer will enter into a development agreement prior to approval of the final plat and that as a condition of that development agreement, no two -unit property shall be permitted. Page 4 of 11 Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to recommend approval of Case No. 2017-14, Preliminary plat for an 8 single family home subdivision for the property located at 1902 William Street North, with 15 conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition B to state the possibility that Outlot A may be sold and if not sold that it will be combined with Lot 6; modifying Condition C to state that a shared driveway access shall be allowed between Lots 6 and 7 and that Lot 5 will have its own driveway; modifying Condition E to state that drainage and utility easements between Lots 7 and 8 shall be 7.5' on Lot 7; modifying Condition H to state that the amended Preliminary Plat shall receive a permit from the Brown's Creek Watershed District prior to the submittal of the Final Plat and that District - recommended conditions will be incorporated by reference into this approval; modifying Condition L to state that a total of 42 trees shall be planted on private property, including three per lot, and that the trees may be planted when the buildings are built; modifying Condition M to state $17,500 in fees rather than $18,000; and adding Condition P requiring that the developer shall enter into a development agreement prior to approval of the final plat and that as a condition of the development agreement, no two -unit properties shall be permitted. Motion passed 4-0, all in favor. Case No. 2017-35: Variances associated with proposed rooftop improvements at the Water Street Inn, located at 101 Water Street. Roger Tomten, ARCHNET, representing St. Croix Preservation Co., Inc., property owner. City Planner Wittman stated that in 2014 the City conditionally approved Case No. 2014-7 which allows for a proposed addition to the northern end of the Water Street Inn. The addition was permitted by code to be 10% higher than the 40' portion of the existing structure that was directly adjacent to it. Therefore, the outright permitted height for the addition was 44'. Case No. 2014-7 also allowed for three variances to the Central Business District (CBD) Height Overlay District for the installation of a clock tower, steel tower frame, and a tower mast on the addition. The approval also included the use of the rooftop for an open-air bar and restaurant dining area. These uses did not require a variance. The uses would necessitate the use of an elevator to the rooftop. While the application included the elevator bulkhead, an approximately 48 square foot storage area, two stairwells, and a 40 square foot area noted as `service' area, these were interpreted to be necessary appurtenances to the building which are outright permitted to exceed the maximum height in any zoning district. The service and storage areas were interpreted to be necessary improvements associated with the elevator bulkhead. The applicant is requesting a variance to City Code Section 31-403, CBD height overlay districts, Subsection (b)(2)(ii) which indicates "for vacant lots immediately adjacent to an existing building: the height of the infill building is to be within 10% (higher or lower) of the height of the adjacent building or buildings. If the infill building is between adjacent buildings, then the height of the infill building is to be within 10% (higher or lower) of the average height of the adjacent buildings on both sides." If approved, the variance would allow for an enclosed bar and kitchen, service station and storage area, two restrooms in addition to the elevator bulkhead and enclosed/covered lobby, and two sets of stairs. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 10% variance to the 10% provision which would allow the addition to be 20% taller, for a total of 48', than that portion of the existing structure that is currently 40' in height. One letter of objection from the owners directly to the west was received, focusing on lack of parking, increased traffic, noise pollution and urban sprawl. On the basis that the request does not conform to the zoning code or the Comprehensive Plan, and that practical difficulty has not been established, staff recommends denial of the variance. Roger Tomten, ARCHNET, representing St. Croix Preservation, Inc., provided background on how the plans have evolved since the last approval in 2014. Soil conditions make replacing the existing basement, as originally planned, infeasible. Losing that amount of square footage required architects to get more creative about storage areas and mechanical spaces. The rooftop will also now require Page 5 of 11 City Council Meeting September 5, 2017 Amendment were approved, the applicant would apply for a Special Use Permit for a residential group home at 1835 Northwestern Avenue. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the ZAT. Staff finds that the preservation of industrial -zoned properties for industrial use is in the public interest, and that allowing for Rooming Houses in the BP — I, Industrial Zoning District would risk the loss of industrial lands. Staff further finds the proposed zoning text amendment is not in general conformance with the principles, policies, and land use designations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, and recommends denial. Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Mayor Kozlowski closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to deny Case No. 2017-31, application for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to allow for Rooming Houses in the Business Park - Industrial District. Ayes: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmembers Menikheim, Junker, Weidner and Polehna Nays: None Case No 2017-14 A public hearing to consider a request from Fairway Development, LLC, for a Preliminary Plat to allow for the creation of eight new single-family residential lots at 1902 William Street North in the RB — Two Family District. Community Development Director Turnblad explained that Sterling Black of Fairway Development, LLC requests approval of the July 12, 2017 version of the Preliminary Plat known as Hazel Place. The applicant plans to develop 7.19 acres of land at 1902 William Street North, currently a vacant property located at the end of Hazel Street. A total of 5.90 acres are located outside of the Brown's Creek buffer area and, therefore, considered developable. The base zoning for the property is RB, Two -Family Residential. A total of 8 single family lots are proposed. All lots would access Hazel Street via a single cul-de-sac road proposed to be named Fairway Court. Lots range in size from 16,890 square feet to 50,048 square feet. A small portion of the site is encumbered by the Brown's Creek Stream Shoreland Management Overlay District (referred to as the "Stream Overlay District"). However, the Stream Overlay District only applies to the northern steep slopes. This area is proposed to be platted as an Outlot (A); an additional Outlot (B) is proposed for storm drainage purposes. The developer proposes to deed both outlots to either the City of Stillwater or Brown's Creek Watershed District. At the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant's representative, David Hempel of Westwood Professional Services, requested the City's consideration of deferment of the individual lot landscaping requirements, and payment of "North Hill Project" fees at the time of building permit submittal for each new home. He additionally noted the applicant would like to defer the rezoning. Five members of the public expressed concerns about the potential need for retaining walls, the redesign of the intersection between Hazel Court and Fairway Court, as well as their desire to rezone the property prior to Final Plat, ensuring that only single family residential would be constructed on these new lots. In a 3-1 vote, the Commission recommended conditional approval of Hazel Place. Mr. Turnblad explained the recommended conditions of approval. He stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the request and accepted the proposal of a fee -in -lieu of dedicated parkland and trails. Staff recommends approval of the 8-lot subdivision with 16 conditions. He added that the conditions in the City Council resolution differ from those recommended by the Planning Commission in the following ways: 1) Condition 6 is amended to require approval of rezoning prior to issuance of any building permits for the project. 2) Condition 12 is amended by adding Page 4 of 11 City Council Meeting September 5, 2017 language that withholds release of development escrow or letter of credit until all required trees are planted. 3) Condition 14 is amended by adding language that the timing for payment of the sewer and water fees will be specified in the Development Agreement. 4) Condition 16 is new. It states that there will be no street lights or development monument sign. Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing. Jim Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, stated he and his neighbors have been fighting development of this land for 10 years. He stated that in January, the developer stated they would be comfortable developing seven units if the City would grant a variance, but now they request eight units. Neighbors fear that there will be future increases in density or that Mr. Black may sell the property to another developer. Thus they are asking that it be rezoned to a more conservative density that is in keeping with the neighborhood. Brian Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, concurred with Mr. Purcell. He asked that the land be rezoned back to RA. He would not like to leave a loophole so a developer could add more sites or use the existing zoning to build duplexes. Ken Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, stated he is generally in favor of the project. He feels the developer should stick with seven units and that immediately rezoning it to RA from RB would lock that in. He added that the developer has made welcome concessions in eliminating street lights and signage. Pat Lockyear, 2001 Hazel Court, expressed concern about the developer's request to remove some of the recommended conditions. Regarding access to Outlot A, the hill is very steep, so accessing it would be very difficult from Brown's Creek Trail. Mayor Kozlowski closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Turnblad confirmed that the concept presented in January showed seven lots. Staff is recommending approval with eight lots as it concurs with the existing pattern of development. Councilmember Weidner pointed out it is a unique area with an active, vocal group of neighbors. He feels seven lots is more in line with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Turnblad stated that if the development is limited to seven lots, some of the conditions would no longer apply. Councilmember Menikheim remarked the City has an obligation to provide housing for people who want to live in Stillwater. He is not sure whether seven lots would be better than eight. Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Weidner, to approve Resolution 2017-163, a resolution approving the preliminary plat for Hazel Place, Case No. 2017-14, with seven lots, with the following modifications to the recommended conditions: remove Condition 5; adjust Condition 13 to calculate park and trail dedication fees for seven lots rather than eight lots; remove Condition 16. Ayes: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmembers Junker, Weidner and Polehna Nays: Councilmember Menikheim UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. Page 5of11 ti11watr HE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT DATE: February 14, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-06 TO: Planning Commission APPLICANT: David Evans LAND OWNER: David Evans REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a Type 3 Short Term Home Rental (STHR) STHR LOCATION: 2009 Lake Street North ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REPORT BY: Erik Olson -Williams, Zoning Administrator/Assistant Planner BACKGROUND David Evans owns the single family house at 2009 Lake Street North, which is located on the Marina property at the end of Lake Street. The home has been used for a while as a Short Term Home Rental. Evans has submitted applications for both the necessary Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type 3 Short Term Home Rental (STHR) and a STHR License. A Type 3 STHR is a dwelling unit that is offered to transient guests for a period of less than 30 consecutive days, and the property does not serve as the owners' primary residence. These types of vacation rental properties are typically investment properties and could either be operated by the owner or a manager. In this case, the property will be managed by Jodi Evans, the property owner's sister. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A Type 3 vacation rental license can be issued for a property in Stillwater if: 1) A Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the Planning Commission; 2) The Conditional Use Permit has not lapsed [in those instances where a license renewal is being requested, or a new owner wishes to operate the vacation rental]; and 3) The total number of STHR licenses does not exceed the allowed limit. The Planning Commissions role in the vacation rental licensing process is to review and either approve or deny the property owner's request for a Conditional Use Permit. STHR Use Permit February 14, 2018 Page 2 The applicable review standards for the STHR Conditional Use Permit, per recently adopted Ordinance 1093, include: A. Zoning Type C Short Term Home Rentals are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in all Residential Zoning Districts and in the Downtown CBD Zoning District. The subject property is zoned RB, which allows vacation rentals by use permit. B. Performance Standards Parking 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: (1) 1-2 bedroom unit, 1 space (2) 3 bedroom unit, 2 spaces (3) 4 and 4+ bedroom units, number of spaces equal to the number of bedrooms minus one. The home has four bedrooms, all of which are offered for guest use. This requires three parking spaces. The property has five off-street parking spaces available, which satisfies the parking requirement. Number of guests The maximum number of guests allowed is limited to two times the number of bedrooms plus one. So, with four bedrooms, the maximum number of overnight guests will be nine. The property currently is rented for up to 12 overnight guests. This will have to be reduced to be compliant with Ordinance 1093. Limiting the number of guests allowed on a property is important for a number of reasons. They include safety of guests, preventing parking problems, and discouraging a property from becoming a "party house". The latter concern is particularly important because most vacation rental properties are located in residential neighborhoods rather than commercial neighborhoods. To this point, the City has received a letter of concern from neighbors that this short term rental has on occasion the aura of a "frat house". (See attached letter.) In anticipation of this situation, Ordinance 1093 specifically requires a STHR's guests to abide by the City's nuisance ordinances, which must be included in all guest disclosures. And, a complaint process was established, which reads: 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. STHR Use Permit February 14, 2018 Page 3 And, to keep the line of communication open between neighbors and the STHR owner/manager, the ordinance requires current contact information to be distributed to neighbors: 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. Proximity of assistance The vacation rental ordinance states: 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 property manager lives at 3115 Lowell Court, which is approximately 8 minutes from the property. Signage No signage is allowed on the property for the Short Term Rental. There is an existing sign next to the house, but it identifies the marina, not the rental. Events Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. For purposes of the vacation rental ordinance, an event means a gathering of more than three un-registered guests. Events hosted by the property owner are allowed, but must abide by all applicable city ordinances and polices, including the prohibition on renting residential property for events. The guest disclosure information (see attachment) clearly states this event rule. C. Proof of Insurance Proof of appropriate and sufficient insurance was submitted with the use permit application form. D. Safety Inspection The safety inspection for this property is scheduled for 9:30AM the morning of 2/14/2018. A condition of approval for the use permit will be that prior to releasing the use permit or issuing a Type C license, a final inspection must be passed. E. Total Number of STHR Conditional Use Permits Fifteen Type C Conditional Use Permits may be issued at any one time. To date, five Type C permits have been issued and an additional six have been proposed. In summary, all standards are met, met with conditions or are in the process of being met. STHR Use Permit February 14, 2018 Page 4 ALTERNATIVES A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds issuance of the Conditional Use Permit to be acceptable, it could approve the use permit with the following conditions: 1. Parking - All guest parking must occur on the subject property; none on the street. 2. Number of guests - The total occupancy of the property shall be limited to nine. 3. Proximity of assistance a. The property owner or a manager/representative must be located within 30 minutes travel time of the property. b. The property owner must provide the name, address and phone number for the owner or manager/representative to all property owners within 150 feet of the lot lines of the vacation rental property. This must be completed within 10 days of issuance of the license. The owner must also provide the community development department with the neighborhood notification list within this 10 day time frame. c. The community development department must be notified within 10 days of a change in the contact information of the owner or manager/representative. The property owner must also notify neighboring properties within 10 days of a change in the contact information of the owner or manager/representative. 4. Garbage - As required by City Code, all garbage must be kept in rubbish containers that are stored out of view of a public street. 5. Signage - No signage identifying the Short Term Home Rental is allowed on the property. 6. Events - Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. For purposes of Short Term Home Rental, an event means a gathering on the premises of more than three un-registered guests. 7. Length of guest stay - The property is not permitted to be rented for a period of less than one whole day. 8. Guest records - The owner must keep guest records 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. 9. Guest disclosures The owner must disclose in writing to their guests the following rules and regulations prior to arrival. In addition the disclosures must be conspicuously displayed in the home. 1. The name, phone number and address of the owner, operating or managing agent/ representative. 2. The maximum number of overnight guests at the property at a time is limited to nine. 3. The maximum number of vehicles is limited to four at the property. These parking spaces must be clearly identified. No on -street parking is allowed for guests. 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 with more than three unregistered guests are permitted. STHR Use Permit February 14, 2018 Page 5 10. License number - The owner must post their city license number on all print, poster or web advertisements, in addition to posting it on the booking agent's website. 11. Lodging tax - The owner, 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. 12. Conditional Use Permit Expiration - The Conditional Use Permit will expire if the property is not operated as a Short Term Home Rental for a period of twelve consecutive months. 13. Issuance of Conditional Use Permit - Prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, the safety inspection and any corrections must be approved by City inspectors. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds the request to have incomplete information, the case could be tabled. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the request to be inconsistent with Ordinance 1093, it could be denied. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the regulations in Ordinance 1093 to be satisfied and therefore recommends approval with the conditions listed in Alternative A above. Attachments: Location Map Floor Plans Neighbor Comment cc: Owner/ applicant 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota Site Location Map 2009 Lake Street North 175 350 700 Feet w J E "Nt 0 Zooci LcAlz4 cf -o- LL ..� !1water THE whNTNPLAC! Of ■IMMESCf6 SHORT TERM HOME RENTAL GUEST DISCLOSURE -- SAMPLE This form is lists the kinds of information that Ordinance 1093 requires in your "guest disclosure". You will need to generate you own information sheet that you will place in a prominent place for your guests. Perhaps that is the kitchen counter. Introduction Welcome to our home. We hope your stay here in Stillwater is wonderful! As our guests and guests of the community, we are happy to have you with us and would like to point out that your stay may be more enjoyable for everyone if you keep the following in mind: Required information, at a minimum, includes: 1. For Type B and C Short Term Home Rentals, the name, phone number and address of the owner, operator or representative. 2. The maximum number of guests allowed on 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 noise 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. That means that no more than three unregistered guests can gather on the property. 7. Useful phone numbers i. Property manager ii. Fire department (non -emergency) 651.351-4950 iii. Police department (non -emergency) 651.351-4900 8. Useful websites i. Stillwater Convention and Visitor's Bureau http://www.discoverstiliwater.com/ ii. Stillwater Independent Business Association http://www.mainstreetstillwateriba.com/ iii.Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce http:/Jgreaterstillwaterchamber.com/ May 12, 2017 milmionnOLEimmeim.m.mi malo mi MA RINA ""'m""' ST. CROIX RIVER • STILLWATER, MN - 2009 Lake St N - Stillwater, MN - 55082 - Dear Commissioner Kriesel, David Evans, and Ole Sawmill Marina and Lodge request a permit to allow our guests and travelers to rent and lodge at 2009 Lake St N Stillwater, MN 55082. Ole Sawmill has been a booming part of the community since 2005, when purchased and completely renovated from prior owners of Rumps Marina. We have seen the need for more lodging in the area, and have a prime location for our guests on the St Croix here in Stillwater. The home accommodates a group of 12, with its own private driveway and patio separate from the marina. It also has general use areas shared such as the 2 firepits and picnic tables with beautiful views overlooking the St Croix for all guests to enjoy. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We have enclosed all requested information for your review. Sincerely, Vaud F.ua+aa 7eie 4fte9' e/o7d vows deaf aX tie degarikte Ole Sawmill 4od9el "ummomm MARINA `o'mo■■i ST. CROIX RIVER • STILLWATER, MN - 2009 Lake St N - Stillwater, MN - 55082 - Welcome to Ole Sawmill Lodge! As our guests and guests of the community, we are happy to have you with us. We hope you have a safe and enjoyable experience here at the Ole Sawmill Lodge in Stillwater, MN! Please keep the below policies in mind during your stay with us • The maximum number of guests allowed to stay at the property is 12. • 5 parking spaces available on driveway, please call if additional parking is needed. • Stillwater noise ordinance from lOpm to 8am, ponce enforced. • Not permitted on Ole Sawmill grounds o Main dock use (for boat owners and their guests ONLY) o Glass bottles o Fireworks o Hosted events with more than (3) unregistered guests (not staying) o Cans, bottles or garbage debris in firepits o Turkey / deep fat fryers o Parking in back parking lot Local numbers and websites In an Emergency, call 911 • Fire department (non -emergency) 651-351-4950 • Police department (non -emergency) 651-351-4900 • Stillwater Convention and Visitor's Bureau http://www.discoverstillwater.comj • Stillwater Independent Business Association http://www.mainstreetstillwateriba.com/ • Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce hto://greaterstillwaterchamber.com/ • Stillwater Taxi 651-439-9999 • House Manager, Jodi 608-412-1507 For your convenience • Private patio attached to the house with plenty of tables, chairs, gas grill and gas fire pit for your use during your stay. • Two general areas on grounds, each with firepit for use by both boat owners and lodge guests. Free firewood available. • Both trash and recycle bins are located off back lower level • Large private driveway off kitchen entrance, for your use only Please call Jodi at 608-412-1507 if you have any questions of concerns during your stay. Sincerely, Ike Sty at Ole Saa' ua ' -dodge lee draft€ pie ewiyul pun et.qc at tie cfeauayred Ole Ste€ 4a4el Rental Rules and Regulations The Ole Sawmill Lodge, 2009 Lake St., Stillwater, MN 55082 P): 608-412-1507 1. Check -in time is after 3 p.m. and Check-out is 1 l a.m. 2. Small pets are allowed on a case -by -case basis in advance for a $50 non-refundable fee. 3. We will not rent to students or singles under 25 years of age unless accompanied by an adult guardian or parent. 4. You will be charged extra for: a) Damages done to the unit or its contents beyond normal wear and tear. b) All debris and rubbish are not discarded, and soiled dishes are not placed in the dishwasher and cleaned. c) If all keys are not retumed. d) Linens are lost or damaged 5. Payment — An advance payment equal to 50% of the rental rate is required at the time of reserving the dates. The advance payment will be applied toward the rent. Please make payments in the form of bank check, money order, personal check or credit card (Visa or MasterCard). The balance of the rent is due upon yourarrival date. 6. Cancellations — A 60-day notice is required for cancellation. Cancellations made more than 60 days prior to arrival date will incur no penalty. Cancellations or changes that result in a shortened stay, that are made within 60 days of the arrival date, forfeit the full advance payment and damage / reservation deposit. 7. Monthly Reservation Cancellations - Monthly renters must cancel 120 days prior to check -in. Monthly renters who make a change that results in a shortened stay must make the change at least 90 days prior to check -in. a we dv 8. Maximum Occupancy — The maximum number of guests is tiiu: teeq { up persons. 9. Cleaning Fee - There is a $250 cleaning fee 10. Additional Fees — There is a 350 cleaning fee if the unit is left in such a condition that it requires more than usual cleaning. 11. Rate Changes — Rates subject to change without notice. 12. Falsified Reservations — Anyreservationobtainedunderfalsepretensewill be subject to forfeiture of advance payment, deposit and / or rental money, and the party will not be permitted to check in. 13. Written Exceptions — Any exceptions to the above mentioned policies must be approved in writing in advance. By signing below, I agree to all terms and conditions of this agreement. Signature: Date: Check in date Check out date Please make checks payable to Ole Sawmill Mail the contract back to 3115 Lowell Ct, Stillwater MN 55082 Received Community Development Department To The Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater, I STRONGLY OPPOSE any Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental!!! Dave Evans 2009 Lake St N , Stillwater, MN 55082 I own 2007 Schulenburg Alley and the adjoining property (2001 Schulenburg Alley) my property goes to Lake St N. 2009 Lake St N is listed on Air B&B as sleeps 14, there are way more people than that there every weekend. There is not adequate parking for all the additional vehicles in the Saw Mill Marina. With Schulenburg Alley being a one way with no parking, parking for any visiting guests to the Ally is very limited. People have been told to park their trucks and trailers RV's and cars up in our neighborhood. For the past 2 summers and falls every weekend is like a Frat Party going on all hours of the day and night, I can't open my windows at night from the noise. There have been huge tents, 3 or more larger RV's at a time that run their engines and generators 24 hours a day. They are parked on the Water easement that is public land, they do not belong there. I have found intoxicated strangers trespassing on my property some coming within feet of my house; I have had my cars gone through and things stolen. Dutch town is a tight Knit Community where everyone knows there neighbors; this is not in our best interest to have an absentee Landlord destroying our enjoyment of our properties with noise pollution and all the additional vehicle's parked in our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kristel Buck-Ulrick liwater THE BIRTH P L A TE OF MINESOJ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 14, 2018 REGARDING: Planning Commission Monthly Meeting Schedule PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner Background In 2017 the total number of CPC case files hit a ten-year high. The City of Stillwater has not seen this number of case files since a number of years prior to the recession. Total CPC Cases Year Total CPC Cases Year Total CPC Cases 2017 70 2011 30 2005 77 2016 50 2010 47 2004 101 2015 40 2009 52 2003 101 2014 41 2008 51 2002 88 2013 28 2007 50 2001 59 2012 36 2006 65 2000 86 Application Submittal Trends In looking at the past four years, staff has been able to determine the total number of case files per meeting during peak development season, as shown right. Alternatives April May June July August Sept. Oct. 2017 8 6 4 10 5 10 8 2016 2 6 2 3 6 2 4 2015 1 6 9 6 5 4 2 2014 4 5 4 1 4 2 1 The large number of application submittals creates longer than desirable meetings. As the Commission may remember, several 2017 meetings exceeded three hours long, with at least one (that staff can recall) exceeded five hours long. Not only is this a burden to applicants, but it can be questioned as to whether or not members of the Commission are alert and able to make sound decisions. Because of this, staff is encouraging the Commission's consideration of a second monthly meeting during peak development season, with the second meeting being cancelled if it is not needed. Staff has discussed the following options: 1. Hold a second meeting within a close timeframe to the existing Planning Commission meeting. For example, holding the meeting on the 2nd Thursday of the month (the night directly after the existing Planning Commission meeting). Under this circumstance, applicants would be confined to the existing application deadline date, of the 3rd Friday of the month. 2. Hold a second meeting at a specific distance from the existing meeting, such as two weeks later. This could allow for the inclusion of an additional application deadline date, creating a revolving application submittal and review schedule to better serve the public. When looking at the City's meeting schedule, the following evenings are available for an additional meeting: Mondays: 1st and 2nd, Tuesdays: 2nd and 4th, Wednesdays: 1st (and 4th after 2018), and Thursdays: 1st and 3rd. MARC s rot r 1 : S 1 2 3 4 5 6 = 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 11361E1 27 28 29 30 31 Commission Discussion S M T W T F 5 1 2 3 4 5 4 a 9 10 12 13 14 15 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 211 29 30 The Commission should discuss if they are favorable to a second meeting and, if so, what additional night of the month will work for Commission members. PC:February 7, 2018 Page 2 of 2 iliwatet THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 14, 2018 CPC CASE NO.: TBD REGARDING: Small Wireless Facility Future Zoning Text Amendment PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND As previously noted to the Commission, "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 greater need for wireless infrastructure. The new infrastructure needed is not just traditional cell towers, 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. With the advent of 5G technologies, communities are beginning to see an increase in requests to install Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS). 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 the sides of buildings, rooftops and in right-of-ways (ROWs). 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. ISSUES Amendments to Minnesota Statutes indicate small wireless facilities are outright permitted uses in right-of-ways (ROWs). Though if a City has an ordinance and permitting process in place, it can impose certain design and location standards. Stillwater does not have the necessary ordinance language or permitting process in place. In single-family residential zoned districts or within historic districts a City with applicable ordinance language in place can require small cell facilities to have a Conditional Use Permit and meet certain standards. Stillwater does not have the necessary ordinance language in place. The State amendments call for a separate, streamlined permit process for small wireless facilities that are located in the ROW. The amendments further require the City to consider the collocation (the attachment to other infrastructure) of these types of infrastructure improvements on publicly (City, County, State) or privately (Xcel Energy) owned infrastructure (such as poles, light fixtures, street signs, and traffic control devices). Again, Stillwater does not have such a streamlined permit process. The City of Stillwater must update its regulations and permitting processes to address the new realities created by state law. For the purposes of this memo: ■ Small Wireless Facilities refers to antennas ■ Wireless Support Structures refers to poles, buildings, etc. that Small Wireless Facilities may be attached to • Accessory Equipment refers to the all other equipment necessary to support the Small Wireless Facilities Some things of note, as provided by the League of Minnesota Cities (LOMC): • 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, a local government unit can require a conditional use. • A city may not limit the placement of small wireless facilities, either by minimum separation distances between small wireless facilities or maximum height limitations. Wireless support structures installed in the ROW shall not exceed 50' above ground level (unless the City agrees to higher). • A city still may deny permits based on health, safety, and welfare reasons. ■ The City may develop guidelines to help protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. PUBLIC PURPOSE There are several main purposes of the future Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT}: 1. To provide for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory access to City -owned infrastructure in the public ROW 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. 3. To ensure compatible uses when small cell facilities are proposed for locations outside of ROWs. RELEVANT RESEARCH There are no standards in place in Stillwater for the design, construction, installation, maintenance or removal of small wireless facilities. Additionally, while a telecommunications user is a ROW user, the City does not have a permitting process in place for these types of improvements. Therefore, staff has researched options and alternatives for the permitting, and fees/costs, siting and design for future small wireless facilities, support structures, and associated equipment in addition to general information pertaining to purposes, intent and findings necessary to permit these types of infrastructure improvements. While city code and design standards from Bloomington, Brainerd and Minneapolis have been researched, staff has also utilized materials from Arlington (TX), Buda (TX), Charlottesville (VA), Freemont (CA), Knoxville/Knox County (TN), Palo Alto (CA), and San Francisco (CA) as CPC Discussion Small Wireless Facilities February 14, 2018 these communities, though varying in size and geographic location, have addressed small wireless facilities in both historic districts and newer commercial areas. Furthermore, Community Development staff has worked with planning and legal staff from Red Wing and Excelsior in efforts to develop siting standards and design standards that may be consistent among these historic communities. General In general, communities that choose to regulate small wireless on private lands or in the public ROW have some sort of permitting system. During the permitting process, review of the siting and design of the proposed infrastructure is weighed against established criteria. If the criteria is met, the permits are issued. If the criteria is not met, the permit is denied. The recent statue changes are very specific about the community's ability to deny a permit. The denial of a ROW may occur when the application is found to be inconsistent with the community's health, safety and welfare regulations. Given the historic nature of Stillwater, staff recommends that certain regulations must be considered in order to not only effectively and efficiently manage its ROWs, to ensure adequate and appropriate installations within a close proximity to residences, as well as to maintain compatibility in historic areas and residential neighborhoods. One of the fundamental components of the future ZAT will be the City's right to exercise its police powers granted to it in Historic Preservation Ordinance and require design review of small wireless infrastructure improvements. Permitting The City may develop a permit program for small cell facilities and for wireless support infrastructure, whether located in the ROW, on a publicly owned structure or on private lands (when located in single family residential areas and within historic districts). The City may permit small wireless facilities proposed in single family zoned district and historic district by Conditional Use Permit. The statue now indicates the City may require application submittals to include reasonable documentation to show compliance with applicable health, safety, and welfare regulations as well as to demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal Communications Commission regulations governing radio frequency exposure. Location and Type of Permit Authorized by State Statute Location Type of Permit In ROW (Single Family Residential) CUP Allowed by State Law In ROW (Multiple Family Residential) ROW Permit or New In ROW (Commercial) ROW Permit or New In ROW (Historic District) CUP Allowed by State Law Private Property No State Statute Permitting Limitations CPC Discussion Small Wireless Facilities February 14, 2018 • Within three months after the receipt of a small wireless facility permit application the city shall develop and make available a collocation agreement. The new law allows for the City to develop and utilize a standard small wireless facility collocation agreement but no additional license, franchise, or other agreement can be imposed. • A single application may include 15 facilities and/or support infrastructure on a single application (otherwise referred to as a consolidation permit) if all facilities are located within two miles of one another. ■ Within 30 days the City must determine if an application is complete; incomplete applications must be notified in writing. • The City must act on the application within 90 days of the submittal of the application. Penalty Options and Alternatives Many communities own infrastructure desirable for collocation. These communities, such as Minneapolis, develop specific ROW Attachment policies that guide their permitting processes. The City of Stillwater does not own many ROW improvements desirable for collocation. The traffic control signal at Curve Crest Boulevard/Market Drive may be the exception, though there are taller improvements in the vicinity that may be more desirable to attach to. Almost all communities surveyed exercise their right to conduct a review and permitting process for small wireless facilities, support structures and associated equipment. For some communities, this approval is conducted administratively. For example, Minneapolis has a permit program that does not require Conditional Use Permitting. However, Minneapolis does own wireless support structures (utility poles, lights, traffic signals, etc.) and, as noted above, has a detailed and specific ROW Attachment policy. Stillwater has existing permitting processes for excavations and obstructions; ROW management through permitting processes is not unfamiliar terrain. The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to allow the integration of essential or desirable uses which may be suitable only in certain zoning districts or designed or arranged on a site in a certain manner. Should the City require a Use Permit in a single family residential neighborhoods and historic districts, we would have 60 days to review the Use Permit application and additional 30 days to issue the permit the for small wireless facility. That said, staff was unable to determine if the Use Permit process is widely utilized. It appears that if a community has well -established design standards and reserves its right to conduct design review in historic districts (or neighborhoods of special interest), it's standard permitting process is sufficient. Permitting Recommendations Staff recommends: • The City utilize a modified version of the LOMC's Collocation Agreement. ■ The City develop and adopt a permit program for small wireless facilities that does not require a Conditional Use Permit in single family residential or historic districts, if the facility, its support structure and all associated equipment conforms to established design standards. CPC Discussion Small Wireless Facilities February 14, 2018 o That said, staff would recommend, at a minimum, a permit be required for all installations in a local or National Register -listed historic district as well as for properties located in the Stillwater Neighborhood Conservation District, a single family residential area. ■ The City consider an overall hybrid review between the Engineering/Public Works Department and the Community Development (Planning) Department which may require a City ROW or excavation permit. Costs The City may charge reasonable fees for user registration, permitting, collocation agreements, etc. Cost Limitations • The total application fee for a facility permit must comply with the statutory requirement regarding costs related to the permit. The costs must be reasonably proportional to the City's ROW management costs. • Fees can include: up to $150/year for rent to occupy space on a wireless support structure (owned by the City) and up to $25/year for maintenance associated with the space occupied on a wireless support structure. ■ A monthly fee for electricity used to operate a small wireless facility (rates of $73 per radio node less than or equal to 100 max watts, $182 per radio node over 100 max watts, or the actual electricity cost). Cost Options and Alternatives Most communities aim to recover the costs associated with the processing of permits. The costs for permits, as well as the fees associated with the entering into a collocation agreement vary. Recommendation Staff recommends: • The City utilize established fee schedules for permits (i.e. Conditional Use Permit, Design Permit, Excavation Permit, etc.) and develop a new fee for the administrative processing of small wireless facility permits that are comparable to the established fee schedule. Siting Infrastructure locations impact on the community. While the location of small wireless facilities will determine the level of service it can provide, the unrestricted placement of any infrastructure could have potentially negative consequences. Siting Limitations • The City may not limit the placement of small wireless facilities (antenna) by minimum separation distance between small wireless facilities. CPC Discussion Small Wireless Facilities February 14, 2018 ■ A city can set forth in its ordinance separation requirements for placement of wireless support structures in relations to other wireless support structures. ■ The City may determine what existing or new structure in a public ROW are designed to support, or are capable of supporting, small wireless facilities. Siting Options and Alternatives Some communities choose to identify preferences in the location of small wireless infrastructure; while this is not something that is typically codified, it is outlined in community design standards. Where some communities discourage them along major traffic corridors, others promote their installation in these higher density, more urban areas. Most communities discourage or prohibit the installation of small wireless facilities in greenways, scenic corridors and significant vistas identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Other communities prohibit their location within a certain distance from neighborhood and community parks, as to avoid potential hazards for children and above ground equipment. Most communities choose to identify which types of support structures are appropriate for the facilities to be located on. Again, this is sometimes achieved as a preference, such as the highest preference for existing utility poles whereas a lowest preference is for a new pole. Some communities will indicate preferred support structures are those which only a single small wireless facility can be located on. Other communities indicate an appropriate support structure is one where the small wireless facility has its own power source. Every community research indicated the appropriate support structure was one where installation of the facility and its associated equipment would be in compliance with ADA requirements (such as for the minimum clearance widths for sidewalks), and would meet minimum overhead requirements from the sidewalk and/or street. Lastly, nearly all communities identify their right to exercise a minimum distance between wireless support structures. Where some communities do not have an established foot - distance, others do. Generally speaking, the average foot distance is approximately 300' from the next support structure. This helps ensure the infrastructure can meet the needs of the area while not overloading any single locality. Others simply indicate an applicant must show the installation will not interfere with other facilities in the vicinity. Siting Recommendations Staff recommends: • The City adopt a community policy that outlines a preference -based approach to the area/zone district small wireless facilities are proposed to be located in. When this policy is coupled with the City Code, which can address types of support structures, distances between support structures and the design of facilities and associates equipment, the can help ROW users understand where the City encourages these types of infrastructure improvements. It should be noted that in City Code Section 31-512, Regulation of radio and television towers, the City does indicate a preference towards locations but this is mostly applicable to their placement on public and private properties (parcels of land) and not located in the ROW. CPC Discussion Small Wireless Facilities February 14, 2018 Staff would recommend the following favorability index for the future location of small wireless infrastructure in the ROW: MOST FAVORABLE Parking Lots Outside of Local, State or National Historic Districts Agricultural Preservation (AP) Zoning District Business Park (BP -I, BP-C, and BP-O), Campus Research Development (CRD), Village Commercial (VC) and Commercial (CA) Zoning Districts Public (PA and PWF) Zoning Districts Medium and High Density Residential (RCH, RCM, CTHR, and TH) Zoning Districts Single Family Residential (LR, CTR, RA, TR, CCR, RB and CR) Zoning Districts Local, State or National Historic or Archaeological Districts Comprehensive Plan Vista Points and View Corridors Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Zoning District LEAST FAVORABLE Exceptional or High Quality Natural Resource Areas, St. Croix River Overlay District, Shoreland Management Districts, and Wetlands and Wetland Buffer Areas • The City identify the appropriate type(s) of support structures and establish a minimum distance between these support structures. • While the appropriate type(s) of support structures can be partially addressed through design standards, staff would also recommend a preferential community policy regarding which types of support structures are most and least favorable. For example, existing wooden electric pole is more preferable than one a historic light pole. • City staff further recommends the City consider a minimum distance between support structures of 300', which is (approximately) the length of a city block, and installed in an area that does not interfere with other wireless infrastructure improvements. Design One of the largest concerns is the impact these facilities will have on the character and nature of the environment they are proposed to be placed in. With no uniform design standards, the City may be faced with applications for small wireless facilities and small wireless support structures that negativity impact the surrounding environment, particularly in residential areas and in the historic district. Design Limitations • The City may not indicate a maximum height of wireless support structures. • Unless the City agrees to a greater height, a wireless support structure may be 50' above ground level or 10' greater than the tallest pole in the district, whichever is less. • The City can require decorative poles, pole sheathing, camouflaging, or stealth design. Design Options and Alternatives CPC Discussion Small Wireless Facilities February 14, 2018 Utilizing the Zoning Code and/or adopted design standards is the most significant way communities address these types of infrastructure improvements. Some communities have elaborate and detailed design standards, formally incorporated into community design manuals. Design standards fall into categories pertaining to facility screening and concealment, support structures, accessory equipment, wiring, projecting distances, colors and signage. Other communities have limited standards which may encourage greater creativity (but can be more subjective at the time of design review). At least one community conducts administrative review without design standards; they have indicated these ROW improvements pose no greater impact than other modern amenities, such as street lights, changeable copy signs with bus information, bike lane with vertical reflectors, street crossing signals with audio & visual components, etc. That said, nearly all communities have some sort of design standards for these type of infrastructure improvements located in or around their historic district. Design Recommendation Many communities choose to develop design standards for small wireless facilities, associated facilities and support structures. While different design standards could be applicable to different districts, staff will work with the HPC on the development of appropriate design standards for Stillwater. DISCUSSION The Commission should discuss the future Zoning Text Amendment and provide direction to staff for the development of an official amendment proposal. The future text amendment will include amendments to the City's ROW Ordinance as well as the zoning code. Changes to the ROW Ordinance do not require Planning Commission review and approval, however staff recommends a single Ordinance that encompasses the Zoning Code changes as well as the necessary changes to the ROW Ordinance. In light of the research provided, staff is seeking direction from the Commission on: Permitting Should the City require Conditional Use Permits for Small Wireless Facilities located in the ROW? Should the City require Conditional Use Permits for Small Wireless Facilities located on private property in a historic district or an area zoned for Single Family Residential use? Are all Single Family Residential districts created equal? In other words, do the historic neighborhoods desire greater scrutiny, review, etc. than the modern districts? Costs CPC Discussion Small Wireless Facilities February 14, 2018 Should the City charge fees for the collocation of Small Wireless Facilities located on of publicly owned infrastructure in the ROW? While the Commission cannot be the final determinant of this, it is helpful to know the Commission's position on the matter. Siting Should the City impose a minimum separation distance between wireless support structures? Should separation be tied to a minimum foot distance or to verification the device is needed to provide service in an underserved area? Design NEXT STEPS Is the Planning Commission comfortable with design considerations and recommendations being developed by the Heritage Preservation Commission? Are there any comments the Planning Commission would like to forward to the Heritage Preservation Commission? Staff anticipates having an ordinance drafted for the Planning Commission's March meeting. While staff is with the hope that the Commission's next review will be in a public hearing, it may be that the Commission will need to review proposed legislative changes prior to the public hearing. CPC Discussion Small Wireless Facilities February 14, 2018