HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-040 (Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order related to a Conditional Use Permit and Variance Requests for a multi-family condo project to be located at 107 3rd Street North (CPC Case No 2017-62)) RESOLUTION 2018-040
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
RELATED TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
FOR A MULTI-FAMILY CONDO PROJECT
TO BE LOCATED AT 107 3rd STREET NORTH
CPC CASE NO 2017-62
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Stillwater, Minnesota that the Finding of Fact,
Conclusions and Order related to the Conditional Use Permit and associated Variance
requests for 107 3rd Street North, as on file with the City Clerk, is hereby approved and
authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the said Findings of Fact, Conclusions and
Order.
Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 6th day of March, 2018.
Ted Kozlowksi, Mayor
ATTEST:
Le)a)50t-
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
In Re: Browns Creek West LLC
C/O Jon Whitcomb
Multi-Family Condominium FINDINGS OF FACT
Conditional Use Permit and CONCLUSIONS
Associated Variances AND ORDER
For 107 3rd Street North
CPC Case No. 2017-62
The City Council convened a Public Hearing for Planning Case No. 2017-62 at 7:00
p.m. on February 21, 2018 at the Council Chambers in City Hall. The purpose of the
Public Hearing was to consider a request for a Multi-Family Condominium Conditional
Use Permit, and associated variances, to be located at 107 3rd Street North.
At this Public Hearing, the City Council considered the oral report of Bill
Turnblad, Community Development Director; testimony and exhibits submitted by Jon
Whitcomb representing the Browns Creek West LLC ("Applicant"); the Staff Report
dated February 20, 2018 by Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner; January 10, 2018 Planning
Commission meeting minutes; testimony of adjacent neighbors of the property in
question; and the Planning file prepared by City Staff for the Application.
The Planning Commission also held a Public Hearing and reviewed the case. This
hearing was held on January 10, 2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the documents that have been made a part of
this file, upon the testimony of all those who offered it, and upon all the files, records,
recordings and proceedings herein, the City Council makes the following:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. This property is located at 107 3rd Street North.
2. The property is zoned CBD (Central Business District).
3. In the CBD District,Multi-Family Residential developments are allowed by
Conditional Use Permit.
4. The Applicant submitted a request for the City to approve: a) a Conditional
Use Permit for a 11-unit residential condominium project; and b) a 10' variance to the 35'
maximum height of a freestanding building in the CBDBT, for a 45' tall structure as
measured from 3rd Street North; and c) a 1.5 story variance to the three story maximum
height of a freestanding building in CBDBT for a 4 story building that includes an
underground parking level; and d) 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 e) 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 f)
a 10' variance to the 20' combined Side Yard Setback for the construction of the building
and projecting balcony spaces; and g) a 15' variance to the 20' Rear Yard Setback for the
construction of the building; and h) a 2' variance to the 3' maximum yard distance
projection for necessary steps adjacent to 3rd Street North
5. City Code Section 31-207, Special use permit and conditional use permit,
indicates a purpose "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".
6. City Code Section 31-207(d) indicates the Council must make findings that
the proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning
Chapter of the City Code, the comprehensive plan,relevant area plans and other lawful
regulations; and any additional conditions necessary for the public interest; and the use
or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the
community.
7. City Code Section 31-208(a) indicates the purpose of a variance is to allow
variation from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code where,by reason of
the exceptional physical characteristics of the property, the literal enforcement of the
requirements of this chapter would cause practical difficulties for the landowner.
- 2 -
8. At the Planning Commission public hearing, a number of neighbors spoke
out against the proposed Conditional Use Permit and associated variances.
9. At the City Council public hearing a number of neighbors spoke out
against the proposed Conditional Special Use Permit and associated variances.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. That this matter was properly before the City Council pursuant to the
procedure set forth in the City Code.
2. That as the proposed use is not in conformance with the intent of the Zoning
Code nor the Comprehensive Plan.
3. That the property owner has not established practical difficulties regarding
the requested variances.
III. ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
1. That the request for Multi-Family Residential Condominium Conditional
Use Permit is hereby denied.
2. That the 10' variance to the 35' maximum height of a freestanding building
in the Central Business District Blufftop overlay district is hereby denied.
3. That the 1.5 story variance to the three story maximum height of a
freestanding building in the Central Business District Blufftop overlay district is hereby
denied.
4. That the 15' variance to the 15' Front Yard setback for the construction of a
5' tall retaining wall on the southern property line is hereby denied.
- 3 -
5. That the a 5' variance to the 15' Front Yard setback for the construction of a
4' deep architectural component and garage entrance is hereby denied.
6. That the a 10' variance to the 20' combined Side Yard Setback for the
construction of the building and projecting balcony spaces is hereby denied.
7. That the a 15' variance to the 20' Rear Yard Setback for the construction of
the buildinghereby is denied.
8. That the a 2' variance to the 3' maximum yard distance projection for
necessary steps adjacent to 3rd Street North is hereby denied.
Adopted by a '/ - / vote of the City Council this6th day of March, 2018.
CITY OF STILLWATER
Ted Kozlowski, Mayor
ATTEST:
,ateI� ?M
Diane F. Ward, Clerk
EXHIBITS
A. Staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 10, 2018 written by Abbi
Jo Wittman, City Planner.
B. The January 10, 2018 Planning Commission minutes.
C. Staff report to the City Council dated January 16, 2018 written by Abbi Jo
Wittman, City Planner.
D. The January 16, 2018 City Council minutes.
E. Staff report to the City Council dated February 20, 2018written by Abbi Jo
Wittman, City Planner.
F. The February 20, 2018 City Council minutes.
- 4 -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 2-3 except the South 23' of Lot 3, Block 14, Stillwater
- 6 -
ter
n A L A [ (y G M k N N h NO A
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: January 10,2018 CPC CASE NO.: 2017-62
December 13, 17: Planning Commission(tabled)
APPLICANT: Browns Creek West,LLC, property owner
REQUEST: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances
to develop an 11 unit condominium complex on the vacant property
located at 107 3rd Street North, at the Northeast corner of the
intersection of 3rd Street North and Myrtle Street West
ZONING: Commercial Business District/ CBD Height Overlay
COMP PLAN: Downtown Mixed Use
PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman,City Planner
._. 0
ft:1j E
41410411401404144
s ..
BACKGROUND
In 2009 the HAF Group applied for a Special Use Permit and associated variances to
construct a new post office on the subject property. While an 8'variance to the height for a
EXHIBIT A
Case No.2017-62
CPC:December 13,2017
Page 2 of 10
tower feature,it was limited to the steeple/tower area. Additional variances were granted
for the construction of the structure to be located 12' from the southern property line and
15' from the western property line. All approved variances were contingent on the
development of the structure as proposed.
In 2016 the applicant,in coordination with Trinity Lutheran Church,submitted a request to
rezone this land to the Central Business District's Bluffside Height Overly District. This
action was denied by the City Council at the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and City staff.
This application was originally scheduled for the December 13,2017,Planning Commission
meeting. However,the item was postponed at the developer's request.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
Browns Creek West LLC has applied for:
1. A Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of an 11-unit condo complex
on this site. All units will be contained in a single building.
2. Variances necessary for the construction of the condo building. The following
associated variances have been requested:
City Code Section 31-403(b)(5)i, CBDBT, Freestanding Building
• A 10' variance to the 35' maximum height of a freestanding building in the
CBDBT,for a 45' tall structure as measured from 3rd Street North; and
• A 1.5 story variance to the three story maximum height of a freestanding
building in CBDBT for a 4 story building that includes an underground parking
level.
City Code Section 31-317(c),Massing Regulations
• A 15' variance to the 15' Front Yard setback for the construction of a 5' tall
retaining wall on the southern property line,adjacent to Myrtle Street West;and
• A 5' variance to the 15' Front Yard setback for the construction of a 4' deep
architectural component and garage entrance adjacent to Myrtle Street West; and
• A 10' variance to the 20' combined Side Yard Setback for the construction of the
building and projecting balcony spaces;and
• A 15' variance to the 20' Rear Yard Setback for the construction of the building.
City Code Section 31-514,Subd. 3(a), Projection into required yard areas
• A 2' variance to the 3' maximum yard distance projection for necessary steps
adjacent to 3rd Street North
PROPOSAL DETAILS
Case No.2017-62
CPC:December 13,2017
Page 3 of 10
The specific proposal includes:
■ Four stories of residential units that includes:
o The first story, off of 3rd Street North,would include:
■ Two, approximately 1,200 square foot,one bedroom units. These units would
each have a deck, one facing to the north and the other to the east.
• One, approximately 2,000 square foot,two bedroom and two bathroom unit
with east facing balcony.
• One,approximately 2,500 square foot, two bath unit with an east/southern
facing balcony
o The second and third stories would each contain three units with associated
balconies. While one of the units would be approximately 2,000 square feet,the
other two bedroom,two bath units would be approximately 2,500 square feet.
o The fourth story would include an(at least) two bedroom,two bath unit with its
own balcony. This unit is approximately 3,000 square feet
• There would be a centralized commons area with two sets of stairs and an elevator. The
elevator and both stair wells are proposed to go to the fourth story where there would
be common roof access on the south. The north roof access would be for mechanical
equipment.
• As indicated,all parking is proposed to be located underground. There will also be
storage areas in the basement. This is not considered a story as greater than half of the
wall spaces are subsurface.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS
Section 31-207 indicates in approving a Special Use Permit,it must be determined by the
Planning Commission that:
The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this[zoning]
chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations.
Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed and
use/structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the
community.
Zoning Code
The zoning chapter requirements applicable to this Special Use Permit(SUP) are:
Use: Residences of all classes are permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the Central
Business District. Throughout the latter part of the 2000s the City saw the addition of
nearly 3000 residential units to the community core. This condo building would
function the same as Terra Springs, Mills on Main, and the Lofts in that there would be a
Case No.2017-62
CPC:December 13,2017
Page 4 of 10
common association to maintain all jointly owned areas but that each condo unit would
be independently owned.
While the building will be situated directly adjacent to a single family residential
structure, there are multiple family uses in the converted church at the southwest corner
of this intersection. Additionally, the next residential property to the north and located
on the same side of the same block is zoned Medium Density Residential). While the
use is consistent with the neighborhood but,Building Official Cindy Shilts has indicated
the building will need to have a fire suppression system installed and meet all building,
plumbing,mechanical/fuel gas,accessibility, and energy codes.
Density: Generally speaking, density in the Central Business District is governed by the
property's ability to meet the development controls in place. Average densities in the
Central Business District vary:
Address Common Name Residential Density
610 Main Street North Terra Springs 17 units/acre+/-
501 Main Street North The Lofts of Stillwater 43 units/acre+/-
350 Main Street North Mills on Main 38 units/acre+/-
102+ 3rd Street South Steeple Towne 34 units/acre+/-
101 Olive Street East Runk Condos 27 units/acre+/-
301 3rd Street North Val Croix 32 units/acre+/-
A density of 31 units per acre exists when comparing the three closest condo buildings
(Steeple Towne, Runk Condos, and Val Croix);the total average of the six largest condo
buildings is 32 units per acre. The applicant is proposed a density of(approximately)35
units per acre. Therefore,while the 11 units is generally consistent with condo
developments in the neighborhood and the CBD,not all development controls (such as
height) can be met. Ten units would result in a density of 32 units/acre.
Off-Street Parking and Loading: The following off-street parking spaces are required to
be placed onsite:
Use Requirement Units Total Parking Required
Units
1.5 spaces per unit(one of 11 16.5 spaces
Multiple (rounded to 17 spaces)
which needs to be covered)
Family Guests11 3.66 spaces
_ 1 space for every three units (rounded to 4 spaces)
Total 21 spaces
The applicant is proposing the creation of 24 onsite parking spaces in an underground
facility.
Case No.2017-62
CPC:December 13,2017
Page 5 of 10
The plan does require the removal of seven quasi-public parking spaces on and adjacent
to this property. The northerly access on to rooftop of the municipal parking ramp
would remain open. However,modifications to the parking lot design and curb would
need to be made. City Engineer Shawn Sanders has indicated a condition of approval
that unused areas of the parking lot and drive lanes (public and private) shall have the
asphalt and the curbs removed and restored with turf, except the area where concrete
sidewalk should be added.
Traffic and Circulation:
No traffic study or circulation assessment has been submitted for this project. However,
in order to capitalize on the grade change and provide for underground, onsite parking,
access at Myrtle Street is the only viable option.
The parking entrance/exit,centered on the property,will be located approximately 45'
from the intersection. City Engineering staff has indicated the property owner should
explore shifting the egress point to the east. Currently there is a 20' grade separation
between the driveway of the property at 110 Myrtle Street East and the subject property.
The current plan proposes a five foot retaining wall to be located on the eastern
property line. If the garage access point was shifted to the east,the retaining wall would
need to be larger,thereby creating greater site line challenges for the adjacent property
owner (to the east).
Stormwater Management Practices: Given its proximity to the adjacent property and
the topography,City Engineer Shawn Sanders has indicated:
• no storm water runoff can drain on to the adjacent property to the east;and
• stormwater from the new building shall be connected to an existing storm sewer
pipe; and
• the existing storm sewer in the parking lot shall be removed by the developer.
Projects within the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization(MSCWMO)
must meet the full review requirements of the MSCWMO Plan. The project does trigger
full MSCWMO review and it is likely the project will qualify for flexible treatment
options that preclude stormwater infiltration. Approval of the SUP will be contingent
on MSCWMO stormwater management plan review and approval.
Design Review: The applicant has not submitted a Design Permit for review by the
Heritage Preservation Commission. This creates a challenge in the review and approval
processes. If the Planning Commission and Council find the use consistent with the
standards set forth for Use Permitting and finds practical difficulty warrants the
issuance of variances, it can lead to a false impression of approvals granted for a design
that has not been determined to be consistent with the Downtown Design Review
District guidelines. Therefore,staff would recommend the applicant submitt for review
and approval a Design Permit prior to the Planning Commission acting on the
variance(s) or that the variance is contingent on an approved Design Permit.
Case No.201.7-62
CPC:December 13,2017
Page 6 of 10
The Design Permit will need to include significantly greater detail than is currently
shown in the plans. This will include,but not be limited to,materials,color,lighting,
and signage.
Landscaping and signage: No landscaping or signage plan has been proposed. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for primary landscaping improvements along Myrtle Street
West and secondary landscaping improvements along Third Street North. Landscaping
should be required on all elevations,while preserving clear corners at the intersection.
A condition of approval should include the submittal of a landscape and signage plan to
the HPC for review and approval of a Design Permit prior to the issuance of the
building permit.
Comprehensive Plan &Relevant Area Plans
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan(2030 CP) indicates Downtown Stillwater could support
up to 250 housing units by 2018. Though the plan notes there is a demand for more
units priced under$250,000 as well as for rental,land and construction costs have
driven up home prices in the downtown;. The 2030 CP further indicates aging baby
boomers and empty nesters will continue to trade down to smaller,more efficient units.
The 2 bedroom,2 bathroom designed units are similar to most of the units developed in
Terra Springs (2004-2008),the Lofts of Stillwater (2005), and Stillwater Mills (2006).
However, omitting the largest and smallest units,the average size of the proposed units
is 2,240 square feet. The average two bedroom,between all three aforementioned condo
complexes, is 1,550 square feet. That said,since the date of adoption of the memo,no
additional housing units were created in the Central Business District. Therefore, the
construction of 11 new residential units will help support the 2030 CP findings of
increasing housing units downtown.
Other Lawful Regulations
Condominium residential units in the Central Business District generally do not conflict
with other lawful regulations.
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
The purpose of the variance is to"...allow variation from the strict application of the terms
of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the
landowner." In addition to the requirements,below,Section 31-208 indicates
"[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or
other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and"...a previous
variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further
variances. Each case must be considered on its merits."
Section 31-208 further indicates:
Case No.2017-62
CPC:December 13,2017
Page 7 of 10
• Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
• A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of
further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits.
The applicant must demonstrate that:
The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter.
The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land
for the protection of public health,safety and welfare. The purpose of the Front,Side,
and Rear Yard Setbacks,as well as projection into required yard areas,is to provide for
unencumbered space to regulate proportionality and to provide for adequate
infiltration,landscaping, and design elements consistent with the historic core. The
proposed setback variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
zoning chapter as they help ensure design consistency with historic development
patterns on the properties in the vicinity,and are allowing for adequate landscaping
and infiltration on a largely developed lot.
The purpose of the CBD Height Overlay District is to preserve and enhance the essential
character of the downtown and that structures be limited in height in order for
structures close to the river not to rise above the height of structures farther from the
river. This helps create a stepped-pattern in the"downtown bowl". At 45' in height to
the deck of the mansard roof,the total height of the building will be 50' to the very top
of the structure. The height will be taller than the (now vacant) property to the west
(with a maximum height of 2 stories and 35') as well as the main portions (up to the
cupolas) of the two historic churches in the vicinity. The height variances are not in
general harmony with the Zoning Code.
The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
With certain conditions,such as landscaping,the setback variances could be found to be
consistent. However,the property is located on two prominent view corridors,as
noted on the Gateway and Viewsheds Figure in Chapter 6 of the Downtown Plan. A
2030 CP policy is to"continue to refine and administer design guidelines so that the
integrity of the existing and surrounding buildings is maintained and new development
is of a height, size,and design compatible with the best examples of the existing
development". When combined with the objectives to"reinforce...landmarks,steeples,
and significant structures along gateway corridors," it is clear the height variance is not
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with this chapter. "Practical difficulties,"as use in connection with the granting of a
variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply:
Case No.2017-62
CPC:December 13,2017
Page 8 of 10
The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone
where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls;
The use of the property for residences with onsite,underground parking has been
shown to be reasonable in this location.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created
by the landowner;and
Setbacks in the Central Business District are nearly nonexistent for many properties.
However,the modern zoning and building codes suggests separation between
buildings and from the building to the street is desirable. As adjacent property is
setback and not built right to the property line, the uniqueness is aiming to find
reasonable setbacks given the existing setbacks,the topography and the staggered
nature of the setbacks on Myrtle Street West.
Regarding the maximum height variances,certain improvements integral to the
building are allowed to project above the roofline and the maximum allowable height.
This includes elevator bulkheads as well as stairwells. The applicant has shown what
these three components would look like if they were carried above the roofline of a
three-story building. However, elevator access and stairwells to access rooftops are not
customary nor required;each unit does have balcony or patio space with views of the
river. Additionally,if the rooftop is not used as communal space,the building code
would only require a single access point. It is the desire of the applicant to not only
have communal rooftop access but to also have the penthouse suite. While argument
can be made about the economics of the development site, economics alone cannot be
grounds for granting a variance.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The addition of any structure on this site will alter the character of the neighborhood.
However, a design that conforms to the Zoning Code and the Downtown Design
Review District guidelines would not significantly alter the character of the locality. As
the development is not proposing to meet the maximum height allowances and the
Heritage Preservation Commission has not reviewed the design,the current design will
alter the essential character of the locality.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments have been received from the following at are attached for the Commission's
review:
Dick Sjoberg,property owner at 1023ra Street North. Mr. Sjoberg expresses concern for the
height of the proposed structure,its impact to the established historic structures
(particularly the churches and their steeples),traffic concerns at the three-stop intersection,
Case No.2017-62
CPC:December 13,2017
Page 9 of 10
as well as variances to the property's setbacks. He requests the Planning Commission deny
the application, requesting a redesigned structure that supports a better transition in this
neighborhood.
Elaine Connors, 116 3r21Street South. Ms. Connors states the height of the new building
would overwhelm the existing streetscape and that the design is not consistent with the
historic nature of the neighborhood. She also indicates there are already pedestrian safety
concerns at the corner of 3rd and Myrtle Streets.
Cameron Murray,350 Main Street North. Mr. Murray points out that there will increased
traffic in the morning and evenings in this area. He acknowledges staff's suggestion to
move the access to the east but suggests the developer explore the possibility of
underground connections to the existing parking ramp.
Doug Johnson,Trinity Lutheran Church Congregational Council, 115 4th Street North. Mr.
Johnson indicates Trinity Church supports the recommendation of city staff to deny the
variance application. He notes this is consistent with the congregation's position in early
2017 when Gail M. Olson,then Congregational Council President,submitted similar
comments for CPC Case No. 2016-43.
ALTERNATIVES
As the request to extend the height by greater than 10% of the maximum allowable height
in the CBDBTD,the City Council must be the final authority on deciding upon the request1.
However, the Planning Commission has the authority to act on the Conditional Use Permit,
reserving the right to forward a recommendation to the City Council in circumstances
where accountability can be an issue.
A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the 11-unit residential condo proposal to be
consistent with the provisions of the CUP process,the Commission could
move to approve the CUP with or without conditions.
If the Planning Commission finds practical difficulties do exist for the 11-unit
to have specific Front,Side and Rear Yard variances, they move to approve
these variances,with or without conditions.
If the Planning Commission finds practical difficulties do exist for the 11-unit
residential condo to be four stories in height, they could forward to the City
Council a favorable recommendation of approval,with or without conditions.
B.Table If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough
to make determination of practical difficulty and compliance with the
City Code Section 31-31-208(g)
Case No.2017-62
CPC:December 13,2017
Page 10 of 10
Conditional Use Permit, it could continue the review for additional
information.
C.Denial If the Planning Commission finds no practical difficulty exists and the
proposal is not consistent with the provisions of the CUP regulations,the
Commission should deny the CUP and forward to the City Council a
recommendation of denial. The Commission should indicate a reason for the
denial and determine whether or not the denial is with or without prejudice.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
As noted,residential condo complexes in downtown Stillwater are uses found consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and all other relevant area plans. While the use is consistent
with the Zoning Code,not all development controls are proposed to be met,certain
variances are requested,and the design has not been reviewed and approved by the City's
Heritage Preservation Commission. Therefore,staff finds the Case No. 2017-62 is not
consistent with the provisions set forth for Conditional Use Permits,practical difficulty
cannot be determined for setback variances, and would recommend tabling consideration
until after the City Council has acted on the height variances and a Design Permit has been
submitted for review and approval by the Heritage Preservation Commission.
On the basis the application in not in harmony with the general purposes of the Zoning
Code,consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,not has established practical difficulty for
the addition of the fourth story, staff would recommend the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council denial,with prejudice,of both height variances.
ATTACHMENTS
Site Location Map
Narrative Submission(ARCHNET)
Certificate of Survey
Site Plans (2 pages)
Floor Plans (5 pages)
Elevations (2 pages)
Views (9 pages)
Public Comment(6 pages)
eater
IMF IIOTKPLICE OF MINNEIOTA
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.
EXHIBIT B
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 2 of 11
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 Segwav 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 10x12' 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 5 of 11
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 pr perty 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 7 of 11
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 9 of 11
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
r_ water
l
R `H. R :. A f 0:. A. N N F D 0 A
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 16,2017 CPC CASE NO.: 2017-62
January 10,2017: Planning Commission
December 13, 17: Planning Commission(tabled)
APPLICANT: Browns Creek West,LLC, property owner
REQUEST: Consideration of a Planning Commission recommendation regarding
a Variance to the height of a future structure to be located on vacant
property located at 107 3rd Street North, at the Northeast corner of the
intersection of 3rd Street North and Myrtle Street West
ZONING: Commercial Business District/ CBD Height Overlay
COMP PLAN: Downtown Mixed Use
PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
T
•
kri
BACKGROUND
EXHIBIT C
Case No.2017-62
CC:January 16,2018
Page 2 of 6
In 2009 the HAF Group applied for a Special Use Permit and associated variances to
construct a new post office on the subject property. While an 8' variance to the height for a
tower feature,it was limited to the steeple/tower area. Additional variances were granted
for the construction of the structure to be located 12' from the southern property line and
15' from the western property line. All approved variances were contingent on the
development of the structure as proposed.
In 2016 the applicant,in coordination with Trinity Lutheran Church,submitted a request to
rezone this land to the Central Business District's Bluffside Height Overly District. This
action was denied by the City Council at the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and City staff. At that time,the Council adopted Ordinance No. 1091,adding the three
most northerly parcels into the Blufftop Height Overlay District.
This application was originally scheduled for the December 13,2017,Planning Commission
meeting. However,the item was postponed at the developer's request. At their last
regularly-scheduled meeting,the Planning Commission considered the request for a height
variance and other associated variances associated with the application for a multiple-
family structure Use Permit.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
Browns Creek West LLC has applied for a variance necessary for the construction of a
future condo building. Specifically, the applicant is requesting consideration of a 10'
variance to the 35'maximum height(City Code Section 31-403(b)(5)(i)for a 45' freestanding
building located in the Central Business District Blufftop District.
While the applicant's request is for a 43.5' tall building,the applicant's measurement of the
average elevation is not consistent with the City's interpretation of the average elevation of
the building.
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
The purpose of the variance is to"...allow variation from the strict application of the terms
of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the
landowner." In addition to the requirements,below,Section 31-208 indicates
"[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands,structures or buildings in the same district or
other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and"...a previous
variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further
variances. Each case must be considered on its merits."
Section 31-208 further indicates:
• Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
• A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of
further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits.
Case No.2017-62
CC:January 16,2018
Page 3 of 6
The applicant must demonstrate that:
The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter.
The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land
for the protection of public health,safety and welfare. The purpose of the CBD Height
Overlay District is to preserve and enhance the essential character of the downtown and
that structures be limited in height in order for structures close to the river not to rise
above the height of structures farther from the river. This helps create a stepped-pattern
in the"downtown bowl". At 45' in height to the deck of the mansard roof,the total
height of the building will be 50' to the very top of the structure. The height will be
taller than the (now vacant) property to the west(with a maximum height of 2 stories
and 35') as well as the main portions (up to the cupolas) of the two historic churches in
the vicinity. The height variance not in general harmony with the Zoning Code.
The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
As the Downtown Chapter of the 2040 has not been adopted,the City must review the
request in conjunction with the adopted goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan(adopted in 2010). A 2030 CP policy is to"continue to refine and administer design
guidelines so that the integrity of the existing and surrounding buildings is maintained
and new development is of a height, size,and design compatible with the best examples
of the existing development". When combined with the objectives to
"reinforce...landmarks,steeples, and significant structures along gateway corridors," it
is clear the height variance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with this chapter. "Practical difficulties,"as use in connection with the granting of a
variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply:
The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone
where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls;
The use of the property for residences with onsite,underground parking has been
shown to be reasonable in the Central Business District. However,the Planning
Commission has determined the proposed structure for multiple family (condo) use is
not reasonable, given a number of variances would be required to complete the project.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created
by the landowner;and
Certain improvements integral to the building are allowed to project above the roofline
and the maximum allowable height. This includes elevator bulkheads as well as
stairwells. The applicant has shown what these three components would look like if
they were carried above the roofline of a three-story building. However,elevator access
Case No.2017-62
CC:January 16,2018
Page 4 of 6
and stairwells to access rooftops are not customary nor required unless that rooftop is
proposed to be utilized for all occupants of the buidling; each unit does have balcony or
patio space with views of the river. Additionally,if the rooftop is not used as
communal space, the building code would only require a single access point. It is the
desire of the applicant to not only have communal rooftop access but to also have the
penthouse suite. While argument can be made about the economics of the development
site, economics alone cannot be grounds for granting a variance.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The addition of any structure on this site will alter the character of the neighborhood.
However, a design that conforms to the Zoning Code and the Downtown Design
Review District guidelines would not significantly alter the character of the locality. As
the development is not proposing to meet the maximum height allowances and the
Heritage Preservation Commission has not reviewed the design,the current design will
alter the essential character of the locality.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments have been received from the following at are attached for the Commission's
review:
Dick Sjoberg, property owner at 1023ra Street North. Mr. Sjoberg expresses concern for the
height of the proposed structure (including photographs of the existing,38' tall telephone
poles on this site),its impact to the established historic structures (particularly the churches
and their steeples),traffic concerns at the three-stop intersection,as well as variances to the
property's setbacks. He requests the Planning Commission deny the application,
requesting a redesigned structure that supports a better transition in this neighborhood.
Elaine Connors, 116 311Street South. Ms. Connors states the height of the new building
would overwhelm the existing streetscape and that the design is not consistent with the
historic nature of the neighborhood. She also indicates there are already pedestrian safety
concerns at the corner of 3rd and Myrtle Streets.
Cameron Murray,350 Main Street North. Mr. Murray points out that there will increased
traffic in the morning and evenings in this area. He acknowledges staff's suggestion to
move the access to the east but suggests the developer explore the possibility of
underground connections to the existing parking ramp.
Doug Johnson,Trinity Lutheran Church Congregational Council, 115 4th Street North. Mr.
Johnson indicates Trinity Church supports the recommendation of city staff to deny the
variance application. He notes this is consistent with the congregation's position in early
2017 when Gail M. Olson,then Congregational Council President,submitted similar
comments for CPC Case No. 2016-43.
Case No.2017-62
CC:January 16,2018
Page 5 of 6
Robert Hasel,114 3ra Street South. Mr. Hasel expresses concerns similar to other occupants
of the Steepletown building(the rehabilitated Church at the SW corner of 3rd and Myrtle).
He additionally raises the concern that HPC design review had not occurred prior to the
use permit and variance proceedings.
Brian Michael and Katie Elliot, 120 34 Street South. They further express similar comments
to those noted,above.
Scott Wallace,112 3ra Street South. Mr. Wallace further expresses similar comments to
those noted,above.
ALTERNATIVES
As the request to extend the height by greater than 10% of the maximum allowable height
in the CBDBTD, the City Council must be the final authority on deciding upon the requests.
A. Approval If the Council finds the property owner has established practical difficulty for
the 10' increase in height, the Council could move to approve the variance
with or without conditions.
B.Table If the Council finds that the application is not complete enough to make
determination of practical difficulty,it could continue the review for
additional information.
C. Denial If the Council finds no practical difficulty exists,the Council should deny the
variance 1. The Council should indicate a reason for the denial and determine
whether or not the denial is with or without prejudice.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission
On the basis practical difficulty has not been established for the 10' increase in height,the
Planning Commission recommends denial,with prejudice.
Staff
On the basis the application in not in harmony with the general purposes of the Zoning
Code,consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,not has established practical difficulty for
the addition of the fourth story, staff recommends denial of the height variance.
ATTACHMENTS
City Code Section 31-31-208(g)
Case No.2017-62
CC:January 16,2018
Page 6 of 6
Site Location Map
Ordinance No. 1091
Narrative Submission(ARCHNET)
Certificate of Survey
Site Plans (2 pages)
Floor Plans (5 pages)
Elevations (2 pages)
Views (9 pages)
Public Comment
City Council Meeting January 16,2018
Board and the rest of the City seems archaic and out of touch. He would like more
information on what qualifies for an adjustment.
Councilmember Menikheim rescinded his motion to approve the sanitary sewer
adjustments, and the seconder to the previous motion, Temporary Vice Mayor Junker,
agreed.
Motion by Councilmember Menikheim,seconded by Temporary Vice Mayor Junker,to table the
possible approval of sanitary sewer adjustments to the January 30 meeting.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim,Weidner and Temporary Vice Mayor Junker
Nays: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
.seN..2117-. • . . i 'n. . •. i•e . r • _ -_ • B • . s' r--, W- • • .- 1m
.wn-r for . Con•iti•nal Use P-rmit P •nd •ri.nce t• • il• a l -w - i_- i.
•n. .miniuit , - • . .- I. . -. . 17T 'r• - • . i• ! - : p •' i . -.
January 2.2018 meeting).
Community Development Director Turnblad reviewed that Jon Whitcomb, Brown's Creek
West LLC,has applied for a variance necessary for the construction of a condo building.The
applicant is requesting a 10' variance to the 35' maximum height for a 45' freestanding
building located in the Central Business District Blufftop District. While the applicant's
request is for a 43.5' tall building, the applicant's measurement of the average elevation is
not consistent with the City's interpretation of the average elevation of the building.Written
concerns were received from seven residents. The Planning Commission, finding that
practical difficulty has not been established for the 10' increase in height, recommended
denial of the height variance,with prejudice. Their basis for the denial was the application
is not in harmony with the general purposes of the Zoning Code, is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and has not established practical difficulty for the addition of the
fourth story; staff recommends denial of the height variance.
Temporary Vice Mayor Junker opened the public hearing.
Jon Whitcomb, applicant, 12950 75th Street, asked for clarification regarding whether the
Council is being asked to review the height or the full project. Mr. Turnblad replied the
Council is being asked to address the height variance only.The rest of the project was acted
on by the Planning Commission,which denied the use permit and setback variances.There
is a 10-day appeal window, so if the Council approves the height variance, Mr. Whitcomb
could appeal the other denials immediately.
Councilmember Weidner asked about the implications if the Council denies the height
variance; and Mr. Turnblad stated the appeal of a denial of a height variance would be to
District Court, but an appeal of the Planning Commission denials would be to the City
Council.
Mr. Whitcomb stated he would prefer to have the project reviewed by the full council. He
suggested tabling the case to the next meeting. Regarding the proposed fourth floor, he
explained that one of the challenges and benefits of the site is its topography. Developers
took over a year to come up with the best possible design, incorporating underground
Page 3 of 7
EXHIBIT D
City Council Meeting January 16,2018
parking in consideration of the City's need for developments to provide their own parking.
Underground parking became an extraordinary part of project costs.The way to defer that
is to add a living area above. He feels this is reasonable because the portion of the building
that is requested to have the fourth floor is outside of the area that has the overlay district.
He would like to table it to work with City staff to come up with something that might be
more appealing.
Motion by Councilmember Weidner, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim,to continue the
public hearing on the height variance,as well as the appeal to the Planning Commission denials,
to February 20 at 7 p.m.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim,Weidner and Temporary Vice Mayor Junker
Nays: None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Case No. 2017-61. Reconsideration of a Prelimina P . f• A - 'i• • .nd .n
. •. h•r- • and i s ill- .. ors of • en. - .' • • • 8.1. 1 " . 1 S .'i.fl
. 11 - •'i • - 'llw. -r 's .s - - isn 1- 1I Et • . _ ..li.h i •1 1 P' ' .
r• •n'n• . . .r.xim. e • • . re .• '_, in• • F. 1.'1 i.- •
Community Development Director Turnblad stated that the Council considered the
preliminary plat and rezoning request for this project on January 2,2018.The first reading
of the rezoning ordinance was approved. Though the preliminary plat was found
satisfactory, the dead-end street layout was not. Therefore, the Council denied the
preliminary plat with unanimous direction to revise the street layout so that neither
snowplows nor large fire equipment would have to backup to drive out of the subdivision.
The revision has been made and found acceptable to both the Public Works Director and the
Assistant Fire Chief.The dead end is now a modified cul-de-sac with the potential for future
extension to the east. The developer is requesting the following: 1) approval of the second
reading, and adoption of the ordinance rezoning the property to RA, Single Family
Residential and 2) approval of the revised preliminary plat for West Ridge.
Motion by Councilmember Weidner, seconded by Temporary Vice Mayor Junker, to approve
Resolution 2018-020, a resolution approving the preliminary plat for West Ridge, Case No.
2017-61,with 18 conditions recommended by staff.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim,Weidner and Temporary Vice Mayor Junker
Nays: None
Motion by Councilmember Menikheim, seconded by Temporary Vice Mayor Junker, to adopt
second reading of Ordinance No. 1099, an ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code
Section 31-300 entitled Establishment of Districts by rezoning approximately five acres to RA,
Single Family Residential.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim,Weidner and Temporary Vice Mayor Junker
Nays: None
Page 4 of 7
I (water
� l
' H F BIRTHPLAIE Of M I N N E S 0 I A 4.1
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: February 20, 2018 CPC CASE NO.: 2017-62
January 16, 2017 (tabled)
January 10, 2017: Planning Commission
December 13, 17: Planning Commission (tabled)
APPLICANT: Browns Creek West, LLC, property owner
REQUEST: Consideration of a height Variance, and an appeal to the Planning
Commission's denial of a CUP and variances for a structure to be
located on vacant property at 107 3rd Street North(Northeast corner of
the intersection of 3rd Street North and Myrtle Street West)
ZONING: Commercial Business District/ CBD Height Overlay
COMP PLAN: Downtown Mixed Use
PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The property owner,John Whitcomb, requests:
1. Pursuant to the appealed Planning Commission decision, approve a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the construction of an 11-unit condo complex at 107 3rd St North.
2. Pursuant to the appealed Planning Commission decision, approve setback variances
for the condominium.
3. Approve the height variance to allow condominium building to have four stories.
BACKGROUND
In 2009 the HAF Group applied for a Special Use Permit and associated variances to
construct a new post office on the subject property. While an 8' height variance was
granted at the time, it was limited to a tower feature. Additional variances were granted for
the structure to be located 12' from the southern property line and 15' from the western
property line. All approved variances were contingent on the development of the structure
as proposed,which did not occur.
EXHIBIT E
Case No.2017-62
CC:February 20,2018
Page 2 of 12
In 2016 the applicant, in coordination with Trinity Lutheran Church, submitted a request to
rezone this land to the Central Business District's Bluffside Height Overly District. The
request would have allowed four stories instead of the permitted three stories. This action
was denied by the City Council at the recommendation of the Planning Commission and
City staff.
View of Site
•
w
. kitrj
At their regularly-scheduled meeting in January 2018, the Planning Commission considered
the current requests. On a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission denied the use
permit and the setback variances,without prejudice. The vote also included a
recommendation that the Council deny the height variance. (Height variances can only be
approved by the City Council. Whereas residential use permits and setback variances can
be approved by the Planning Commission.)
At the City Council's January 16, 2018 meeting, the Council tabled consideration of the
height variance request. This was done because an appeal of the Planning Commission
denial of the use permit and setback variances had been filed. And, tabling the height
variance request allowed it to be considered at the same time as the appeal.
Since the January 16th Council meeting, Whitcomb has requested the City to consider
granting public financial assistance for the construction of onsite parking. And, if public
funding were approved, the penthouse unit would not be needed to help balance the
economics of the project.
Though not directly related to this project, a provision of the development agreement for
the adjacent municipal parking ramp granted the property now owned by Whitcomb the
Case No.2017-62
CC:February 20,2018
Page 3 of 12
right to use 40 spaces in the adjacent city parking ramp to fulfill on-site parking
requirements for the subject property.
REQUEST DETAILS
Browns Creek West LLC has applied for:
1. A Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of an 11-unit condo complex
on this site. All units will be contained in a single building.
2. Variances necessary for the construction of the condo building. The following
associated variances have been requested:
City Code Section 31-403(b)(5)i, CBDBT, Freestanding Building
• A 10' variance to the 35' maximum height of a freestanding building in the
CBDBT,for a 45' tall structure as measured from 3rd Street North; and
o While the applicant's request is for a 43.5' tall building, the applicant's
measurement of the average elevation is not consistent with the City's
interpretation of the average elevation of the building.
• A 1.5 story variance to the three story maximum height of a freestanding
building in CBDBT for a 4 story building that includes an underground parking
level.
City Code Section 31-317(c),Massing Regulations
• A 15' variance to the 15' Front Yard setback for the construction of a 5' tall
retaining wall on the southern property line, adjacent to Myrtle Street West; and
• A 5' variance to the 15' Front Yard setback for the construction of a 4' deep
architectural component and garage entrance adjacent to Myrtle Street West; and
• A 10' variance to the 20' combined Side Yard Setback for the construction of the
building and projecting balcony spaces; and
• A 15' variance to the 20' Rear Yard Setback for the construction of the building.
City Code Section 31-514,Subd. 3(a), Projection into required yard areas
• A 2' variance to the 3' maximum yard distance projection for necessary steps
adjacent to 3rd Street North
PROPOSAL DETAILS
The specific proposal includes:
• Four stories of residential units that includes:
o The first story, off of 3rd Street North,would include:
• Two, approximately 1,200 square foot, one bedroom units. These units would
each have a deck, one facing to the north and the other to the east.
Case No.2017-62
CC:February 20,2018
Page 4 of 12
• One, approximately 2,000 square foot, two bedroom and two bathroom unit
with east facing balcony.
• One, approximately 2,500 square foot, two bath unit with an east/southern
facing balcony
o The second and third stories would each contain three units with associated
balconies. While one of the units would be approximately 2,000 square feet, the
other two bedroom, two bath units would be approximately 2,500 square feet.
o The fourth story would include an (at least) two bedroom, two bath unit with its
own balcony. This unit is approximately 3,000 square feet
• There would be a centralized commons area with two sets of stairs and an elevator. The
elevator and both stair wells are proposed to go to the fourth story where there would
be common roof access on the south. The north roof access would be for mechanical
equipment.
• As indicated, all parking is proposed to be located underground. There will also be
storage areas in the basement. This is not considered a story as greater than half of the
wall spaces are subsurface.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS
Section 31-207 indicates in approving a Conditional/Special Use Permit, it must be
determined by the Planning Commission that
The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this[zoning]
chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations.
Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed and
use/structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the
community.
Zoning Code
The zoning chapter requirements applicable to this Conditional Use Permit(CUP) are:
Use: Residences of all classes are permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the Central
Business District. Throughout the latter part of the 2000s the City saw the addition of
nearly 300 residential units to the community core. This condo building would function
the same as Terra Springs, Mills on Main, and the Lofts in that there would be a
common association to maintain all jointly owned areas but that each condo unit would
be independently owned.
While the building will be situated directly adjacent to a single family residential
structure, there are multiple family uses in the converted church at the southwest corner
of this intersection. Additionally, the next residential property to the north and located
on the same side of the same block is zoned Medium Density Residential). While the
Case No.2017-62
CC:February 20,2018
Page 5 of 12
use is consistent with the neighborhood but, Building Official Cindy Shifts has indicated
the building will need to have a fire suppression system installed and meet all building,
plumbing,mechanical/fuel gas, accessibility, and energy codes.
Density: Generally speaking, density in the Central Business District is governed by the
property's ability to meet the development controls in place. Average densities in the
Central Business District vary:
Address Common Name Residential Density
610 Main Street North Terra Springs 17 units/acre +/-
501 Main Street North The Lofts of Stillwater 43 units/acre +/-
350 Main Street North Mills on Main 38 units/acre +/-
102+3rd Street South Steeple Towne 34 units/acre+/-
101 Olive Street East Runk Condos 27 units/acre+/-
301 3rd Street North Val Croix 32 units/acre+/-
The average density for downtown core residential condo properties is 32 units per acre.
A density of 31 units per acre exists when comparing the three closest condo buildings
(Steeple Towne, Runk Condos, and Val Croix); the total average of the six largest condo
buildings is 32 units per acre. The applicant proposed a density of(approximately) 35
units per acre. Therefore,while the 11 units is generally consistent with condo
developments in the neighborhood and the CBD,not all development controls (such as
height) can be met. Ten units would result in a density of 32 units/acre.
Off-Street Parking and Loading: The following off-street parking spaces are required to
be placed onsite:
Use Requirement Units Total Parking Required
Units 16.5 spaces
Multiple 1.5 spaces per unit(one of 11 (rounded to 17 spaces)
Family which needs to be covered)
Guests 3.66 spaces
1 space for every three units 11 (rounded to 4 spaces)
Total 21 spaces
The applicant is proposing the creation of 24 parking spaces in an onsite, underground
facility. As a reminder, the property is credited with 40 parking spaces;residents could
park on the upper level of the City's parking ramp.
The plan does require the removal of seven quasi-public parking spaces on and adjacent
to this property. The northerly access on to rooftop of the municipal parking ramp
would remain open. However,modifications to the parking lot design and curb would
need to be made. City Engineer Shawn Sanders has indicated a condition of approval
that unused areas of the parking lot and drive lanes (public and private) shall have the
Case No.2017-62
CC:February 20,2018
Page 6 of 12
asphalt and the curbs removed and restored with turf, except the area where concrete
sidewalk should be added.
Traffic and Circulation:
No traffic study or circulation assessment has been submitted for this project. However,
in order to capitalize on the grade change and provide for underground, onsite parking,
access at Myrtle Street is the only viable option.
The parking entrance/exit, centered on the property,will be located approximately 45'
from the intersection. City Engineer Shawn Sanders has indicated the property owner
should explore shifting the egress point to the east. Currently there is a 20' grade
separation between the driveway of the property at 110 Myrtle Street East and the
subject property. The current plan proposes a five foot retaining wall to be located on
the eastern property line. If the garage access point was shifted to the east, the retaining
wall would need to be larger, thereby creating greater site line challenges for the
adjacent property owner (to the east).
Stormwater Management Practices: Given its proximity to the adjacent property and
the topography,City Engineer Shawn Sanders has indicated:
• no storm water runoff can drain on to the adjacent property to the east; and
• stormwater from the new building shall be connected to an existing storm sewer
pipe; and
• the existing storm sewer in the parking lot shall be removed by the developer.
Projects within the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization(MSCWMO)
must meet the full review requirements of the MSCWMO Plan. The project does trigger
full MSCWMO review and it is likely the project will qualify for flexible treatment
options that preclude stormwater infiltration. Approval of the SUP will be contingent
on MSCWMO stormwater management plan review and approval.
Design Review: The applicant has not submitted a Design Permit for review by the
Heritage Preservation Commission. This creates a challenge in the review and approval
processes. If the P Council find the use consistent with the standards set forth for Use
Permitting and finds practical difficulty warrants the issuance of variances, it can lead to
a false impression of approvals granted for a design that has not been determined to be
consistent with the Downtown Design Review District guidelines. Therefore, staff
recommended to the Planning Commission the applicant submit for review and
approval a Design Permit prior to acting on the variance(s). As that did not occur,staff
would recommend any approved use permit and associated variance approvals are
contingent on an approved Design Permit.
The Design Permit will need to include significantly greater detail than is currently
shown in the plans. This will include,but not be limited to, materials, color, lighting,
and signage.
Case No.2017-62
CC:February 20,2018
Page 7 of 12
Landscaping and signage: No landscaping or signage plan has been proposed. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for primary landscaping improvements along Myrtle Street
West and secondary landscaping improvements along Third Street North. Landscaping
should be required on all elevations, while preserving clear corners at the intersection.
A condition of approval should include the submittal of a landscape and signage plan to
the HPC for review and approval of a Design Permit prior to the issuance of the
building permit.
Comprehensive Plan &Relevant Area Plans
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan(2030 CP) indicates Downtown Stillwater could support
up to 250 housing units by 2018. Though the plan notes there is a demand for more
units priced under$250,000 as well as for rental, land, development and construction
costs have driven up home prices in the downtown. The 2030 CP further indicates
aging baby boomers and empty nesters will continue to trade down to smaller,more
efficient units. The 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom designed units are similar to most of the
units developed in Terra Springs (2004-2008), the Lofts of Stillwater (2005), and
Stillwater Mills (2006). However, omitting the largest and smallest units, the average
size of the proposed units is 2,240 square feet. The average two bedroom,between all
three aforementioned condo complexes,is 1,550 square feet. That said, since the date of
adoption of the memo,no additional housing units were created in the Central Business
District. Therefore, the construction of 11 new residential units will help support the
2030 CP findings of increasing housing units downtown.
Other Lawful Regulations
Condominium residential units in the Central Business District generally do not conflict
with other lawful regulations.
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms
of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the
landowner." In addition to the requirements, below,Section 31-208 indicates
"[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands,structures or buildings in the same district or
other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous
variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further
variances. Each case must be considered on its merits."
Section 31-208 further indicates:
• Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
• A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of
further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits.
Case No.2017-62
CC:February 20,2018
Page 8 of 12
The applicant must demonstrate that:
The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter.
The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land
for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose of the Front,Side,
and Rear Yard Setbacks, as well as projection into required yard areas,is to provide for
unencumbered space to regulate proportionality and to provide for adequate
infiltration, landscaping, and design elements consistent with the historic core. The
proposed setback variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
zoning chapter as they help ensure design consistency with historic development
patterns on the properties in the vicinity, and are allowing for adequate landscaping
and infiltration on a largely developed lot.
The purpose of the CBD Height Overlay District is to preserve and enhance the essential
character of the downtown and that structures be limited in height in order for
structures close to the river not to rise above the height of structures farther from the
river. This helps create a stepped-pattern in the"downtown bowl". At 45' in height to
the deck of the mansard roof, the total height of the building will be 50' to the very top
of the structure. The height will be taller than the (now vacant) property to the west
(with a maximum height of 2 stories and 35') as well as the main portions (up to the
cupolas) of the two historic churches in the vicinity. The height variances are not in
general harmony with the Zoning Code.
The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
With certain conditions, such as landscaping, the setback variances could be found to be
consistent. However, the property is located on two prominent view corridors, as
noted on the Gateway and Viewsheds Figure in Chapter 6 of the Downtown Plan. A
2030 CP policy is to "continue to refine and administer design guidelines so that the
integrity of the existing and surrounding buildings is maintained and new development
is of a height, size, and design compatible with the best examples of the existing
development". When combined with the objectives to "reinforce...landmarks, steeples,
and significant structures along gateway corridors," the Planning Commission found
the height variance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with this chapter. "Practical difficulties,"as use in connection with the granting of a
variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply:
The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone
where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls;
The use of the property for residences with onsite, underground parking has been
shown to be reasonable in this location.
Case No.2017-62
CC:February 20,2018
Page 9 of 12
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created
by the landowner; and
Setbacks in the Central Business District are nearly nonexistent for many properties.
However, the modern zoning and building codes suggests separation between
buildings and from the building to the street is desirable. As adjacent property is
setback and not built right to the property line, the uniqueness is aiming to find
reasonable setbacks given the existing setbacks, the topography and the staggered
nature of the setbacks on Myrtle Street West.
Regarding the maximum height variances, certain improvements integral to the
building are allowed to project above the roofline and the maximum allowable height.
This includes elevator bulkheads as well as stairwells. The applicant has shown what
these three components would look like if they were carried above the roofline of a
three-story building. However, elevator access and stairwells to access rooftops are not
customary nor required; each unit does have balcony or patio space with views of the
river. Additionally,if the rooftop is not used as communal space, the building code
would only require a single access point. It is the desire of the applicant to not only
have communal rooftop access but to also have the penthouse suite. While argument
can be made about the economics of the development site, economics alone cannot be
grounds for granting a variance.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The addition of any structure on this site will alter the character of the neighborhood.
However, a design that conforms to the Zoning Code and the Downtown Design
Review District guidelines would not significantly alter the character of the locality. As
the development is not proposing to meet the maximum height allowances and the
Heritage Preservation Commission has not reviewed the design, the Planning
Commission determined the current design will alter the essential character of the
locality.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments have been received from the following at are attached for the Commission's
review:
Dick Sjoberg,property owner at 102 3rd Street North. Mr. Sjoberg expresses concern for the
height of the proposed structure (including photographs of the existing,38' tall telephone
poles on this site), its impact to the established historic structures (particularly the churches
and their steeples), traffic concerns at the three-stop intersection, as well as variances to the
property's setbacks. He requests the Planning Commission deny the application,
requesting a redesigned structure that supports a better transition in this neighborhood.
Case No.2017-62
CC:February 20,2018
Page 10 of 12
Elaine Connors, 116 3rd Street South. Ms. Connors states the height of the new building
would overwhelm the existing streetscape and that the design is not consistent with the
historic nature of the neighborhood. She also indicates there are already pedestrian safety
concerns at the corner of 3rd and Myrtle Streets.
Cameron Murray, 350 Main Street North. Mr. Murray points out that there will increased
traffic in the morning and evenings in this area. He acknowledges staff's suggestion to
move the access to the east but suggests the developer explore the possibility of
underground connections to the existing parking ramp.
Doug Johnson, Trinity Lutheran Church Congregational Council, 115 4th Street North. Mr.
Johnson indicates Trinity Church supports the recommendation of city staff to deny the
variance application. He notes this is consistent with the congregation's position in early
2017 when Gail M. Olson, then Congregational Council President,submitted similar
comments for CPC Case No. 2016-43.
Robert Hasel, 114 3rd Street South. Mr. Hasel expresses concerns similar to other occupants
of the Steepletown building (the rehabilitated Church at the SW corner of 3rd and Myrtle).
He additionally raises the concern that HPC design review had not occurred prior to the
use permit and variance proceedings.
Brian Michael and Katie Elliot, 120 3rd Street South. They further express similar comments
to those noted, above.
Scott Wallace, 112 3rd Street South. Mr. Wallace further expresses similar comments to
those noted, above.
ALTERNATIVES
A. Approval If the City Council finds the 11-unit residential condo proposal to be
consistent with the provisions of the CUP process, the Council could move to
approve the CUP with or without conditions.
If the City Council finds practical difficulties do exist for the 11-unit to have
specific Front,Side and Rear Yard variances, they move to approve these
variances,with or without conditions.
If the Council finds practical difficulties do exist for the 11-unit residential
condo to be four stories in height, they could move to approve the height
variance, with or without conditions.
B.Table If the City Council finds that the application is not complete enough to make
determination of practical difficulty and compliance with the Conditional Use
Permit,it could continue the review for additional information.
Case No.2017-62
CC:February 20,2018
Page 11 of 12
C. Denial If the City Council finds no practical difficulty exists and the proposal is not
consistent with the provisions of the CUP regulations, the Council should
deny the CUP and associated variances. The Commission should indicate a
reason for the denial and determine whether or not the denial is with or
without prejudice.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Multiple family residential uses in the Central Business District are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. While the applicant is requesting numerous variances to
accommodate the proposed structure, many of the variances requested are common in the
historic downtown district. As noted, the modern zoning and building codes suggests
separation between buildings and from the building to the street is desirable. But, setbacks
from all property lines are proposed. So, the building use and its setbacks appear to be
defensible. However, the combination of setback variances and the height variance were
not found acceptable by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission
In a 7-0 vote, the Planning Commission: 1) denied the use permit and setback variances; and 2)
recommended denial of the height variance.
Staff
Staff recommends: 1) conditional approval of the use permit; 2) denial of the height
variance; and 3) approval of the setback variances. Staff would recommend, at a minimum,
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-
62, except as modified by the conditions herein or by Heritage Preservation
Commission approval.
3. Approvals granted shall not become effective until a Design Permit has been
reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission.
4. 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.
5. All mechanical units shall be enclosed or screened from public view.
6. Landscaping shall be required on all four elevations. Landscaping shall keep the
Third and Myrtle Street intersection clear. Landscaping shall be reviewed and
approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission.
Case No.2017-62
CC:February 20,2018
Page 12 of 12
7. A sign plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Heritage Preservation
Commission.
8. Unused areas of the existing parking lot and drive lanes (public and private) shall
have the asphalt and curbs removed and restored with turf, except in areas where
concrete sidewalks should be added.
9. The project will require full Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization
(MSCWMO) review. The project shall meet the full review requirements of the
MSCWMO.
10. No storm water runoff shall drain on to the adjacent property to the east.
11. Storm water from the new building shall be connected to an existing storm sewer
pipe.
12. The existing storm sewer in the parking lot shall be removed by the developer.
13. The structure will need to have a fire suppression system installed and meet all
building,plumbing,mechanical/fuel gas, accessibility, and energy codes prior to the
issuance of a building permit for construction.
14. 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.
15. If the City Council approves any public financial assistance for the condominium's
basement parking, then the property owner must agree to waive his claim on the 40
parking spaces specified in the development agreement for the adjacent municipal
parking ramp.
ATTACHMENTS
Site Location Map
Ordinance No. 1091
Appeal Letter
Original Narrative Submission(ARCHNET)
Certificate of Survey
Site Plans (2 pages)
Floor Plans (5 pages)
Elevations (2 pages)
Views (9 pages)
Public Comments (14 pages)
January 10, 2018 CPC meeting minutes
City Council Meeting February 20, 2018
Resolution 2018-029, approving transfer of On-sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses to MAV
Hospitality LLC, DBA: Pearl & The Thief(formerly Pub 112)
Resolution 2018-030, Resolution approving Construction Management Agreement with
Contract with Kraus-Anderson for St. Croix Recreation Center
Possible approval to replace the Storage Area Network (SAN) - MIS
Motion by Councilmember Menikheim, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adopt the Consent
Agenda.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Junker, Weidner, Polehna and Mayor Kozlowski
Nays: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 2017-62. A public hearing to consider a request by Brown's Creek West LLC, property
owner, for the consideration of a CUP and Variances to build a new residential condominium at the
property located at 107 Third Street North in the CBD district(continued from January 16, 2018).
Community Development Director Turnblad reviewed the case. The property owner, Jon
Whitcomb, requests: 1) Pursuant to the appealed Planning Commission decision, approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of an 11-unit condo complex at 107 Third Street
North; 2) Pursuant to the appealed Planning Commission decision, approval of setback variances
for the condominium; 3) Approval of the height variance to allow the condominium building to
have four stories. Comments have been received from eight neighbors expressing concern for the
height of the proposed structure, increased traffic and the concern that HPC design review had
not occurred prior to the use permit and variance proceedings. Staff finds that multiple family
residential uses in the Central Business District are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
While the applicant is requesting numerous variances to accommodate the proposed structure,
many of the variances requested are common in the historic downtown district. The building use
and its setbacks appear to be defensible. However, the Planning Commission found the
combination of setback variances and the height variance unacceptable. Staff recommends: 1)
conditional approval of the use permit; 2) denial of the height variance; and 3) approval of the
setback variances with 15 conditions of approval.
On a question from Councilmember Junker regarding if the height variance is not approved,could
the developer redesign the building to 35 feet; and Community Development Director Turnblad
responded that the penthouse is independent so perhaps it can be removed without redesigning
the entire building but he would want the architect to answer the question.
Councilmember Menikheim asked if tonight's deliberations include the request for financial
assistance for on-site parking mentioned in the staff report;and Mr. Turnblad explained the public
benefit that would result if tax increment financing(TIF)were utilized in regard to on-site parking.
The previous property owner, Trinity Lutheran Church, had negotiated the right to use 40 public
parking spaces in the municipal parking ramp in order to meet parking requirements of a
development that was being considered for the property at the time. If the City offers TIF for this
project to facilitate construction, including on-site parking, and removes the right of access to
those 40 spaces, the public would regain 40 spaces in the municipal parking ramp that could be
considered a public benefit.
Councilmember Junker referred to the June 2008 development agreement between the City and
Trinity, asking if the references to a future Trinity development had been revised to reflect the
Page 3 of 8
EXHIBIT F
City Council Meeting February 20, 2018
purchase of the property by the current developer; and City Attorney Magnuson replied that the
rights of Trinity were assigned to the present owner.
Councilmember Junker questioned if the Council would have had to sign off on that as a City;
and City Attorney Magnuson answered yes.
Councilmember Weidner asked if this had come before the Council; and Mr. Magnuson replied
that he is not sure if it did.
Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing.
Roger Tomten, ARCHNET, explained why he and the developer feel residential is the best use
for this site. After looking at many different configurations for parking considering the challenges
of topography,the access off Myrtle into the underground parking seemed to be the most efficient
layout for the site. The variances requested are very common in the downtown area, as is building
closer to the street. There might still be a possibility of doing some mixed use on the main level
if they can work out the heights for the lowest level. The plan deals with the topography in the
most efficient way possible.
Jon Whitcomb, developer, stated that he had assumed that there was communication between all
levels at the City relative to the previous development agreement and the parking garage. He
subsequently learned that not everyone was informed on the previous agreement; He understood
that in purchasing the four lots,he gained the assignment of the 40 parking stalls in the City ramp
and would be able to construct a project on the site. Mr. Whitcomb noted that small infill sites
present challenges, especially when building something of quality, so he feels they had to push
the envelope sideways and that is where the fourth floor came in. He referred to his previous
request before the Council to have the property rezoned so a variance would not be needed for the
penthouse unit, which is critical to the end project. In looking at other alternatives, he could have
utilized the 40 assigned parking spaces but he felt the City would not want to see a residence built
with no parking. While he would prefer do a high quality project with all parking on-site, if the
fourth floor is unpalatable, however he is open to discussing alternatives.
On a question from Councilmember Weidner regarding if the project has gone before the Heritage
Preservation Commission (HPC); and Community Development Director Turnblad responded
that if variances and the use permit are granted, then it must go before the HPC for design review
before a building permit is issued (this is one of conditions of approval). However if the HPC
requires substantial design changes,variances could be impacted, so it is a dilemma. If the project
had gone to the HPC first, it would have required a level of architectural design that could be
difficult to produce if the project approvals have not yet been granted.
Mark Balay, 110 Myrtle Street, noted that he and his wife are happy that a project is being
proposed on this corner, but it does create some issues. The most dramatic variance to the side
yards is on their property line. He is not convinced that the building can be built five feet from
the property line without encroaching his property for the excavation. From his perspective,it will
look like a five story building because the parking ramp on that side is out of the ground. He
would be much more amenable if the developer could reduce the size of the building by five feet.
He feels there is no practical difficulty to justify the granting of the variance, it only represents
the desire to have more space to sell.
Mary Russell, 921 North Second Street, voiced concern about the massiveness of the building.
She favors residential housing for the site,but feels this proposal ignores the neighborhood around
Page 4 of 8
City Council Meeting February 20, 2018
it and interferes with the view lines. She would like to see the proposal go through design review.
She also is concerned about traffic going onto Myrtle Street in the middle of Myrtle Street hill.
Mayor Kozlowski closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Junker commented that he likes the use however, his major issue is with the
height and massing of the building; and felt the site is too small for the building as designed. He
also is concerned about the parking entrance 3/4 of the way up Myrtle Street near one of the worst
intersections in town.
Mayor Kozlowski stated that he could envision cars going down the hill waiting to take a left into
the parking garage and backing up the whole intersection.
Councilmember Menikheim stated that he shares Councilmember Junker's views. The proposal
is for high-end housing that he is not sure the City needs right now. He feels the current design
alters the essential character of the locality, the height variance is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, garage access as designed is unacceptable, and the massiveness of the
building substantially changes the view-shed. He cannot support the project as designed.
Councilmember Weidner stated that he would support some residential use based on certain
conditions, but not the variances requested.
Councilmember Polehna remarked that he favors residential use, but opposes the height and
setback variances.
Mayor Kozlowski summarized that the Council considers the CUP is acceptable, but not the
height or setback variances.
City Attorney Magnuson informed the Council that they could deny the request without prejudice,
which gives the developer the opportunity to bring revised plans before the Council without
waiting a year. Otherwise, if it denied, they cannot come back for a year.
Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to deny without
prejudice the CUP and Variances to build a new residential condominium at the property located at
107 Third Street North.
Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Junker, Polehna and Mayor Kozlowski
Nays: Councilmember Weidner
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Possible approval of second reading of Ordinance 1103, an ordinance amending the Stillwater City
Code Section 31-300 Entitled Establishment of Districts by rezoning approximately 15 acres to RB,
Two-Family Residential - Heifort PUD Phase II (Case No. 2017-67).
Community Development Director Turnblad stated that Todd Ganz,Integrity Land Development,
is proposing to develop Phase Two of the 26.1 acre Heifort Hills Planned Unit Development
(PUD). The second phase has 24 home sites spread across 10.9 acres of land that will be platted
as Heifort Hills Estate. The City Council approved the Final PUD, preliminary plat and the first
reading of the rezoning on January 30. Staff recommends approval.
Motion by Councilmember Weidner, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adopt second reading
of Ordinance 1103, an ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code Section 31-300 Entitled
Establishment of Districts by rezoning approximately 15 acres to RB, Two-Family Residential -
Heifort PUD Phase II (Case No. 2017-67).
Page 5 of 8