The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-05-09 CPC Packet AMENDED AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North May 9th, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of April 11th, 2018 regular meeting minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 2. Case No. 2018-02: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum structural coverage in the RB – Two Family District for the property located at 618 3rd Street South. Michelle and Shane Quinn, property owners. – Tabled from the April meeting per applicant’s request. 3. Case No. 2018-16: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a three unit Type C Short Term Home Rental at the property located at 209 Main St S in the CBD district. Yani Abotbul, property owner and Mark Balay, applicant. 4. Case No: 2018-18: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for an outdoor commercial recreational business to operate a bike rental station on the property located at 101 Water Street in the CBD district. Chuck Dougherty, property owner and Darren Dobier, applicant. 5. Case No. 2018-19: Consideration of a Variance to the wetland setback to build a porch in the rear of the home. Property located at 3549 Eben Way, in the CR district. Dean and Roberta Hansen, property owners. 6. Case No. 2018-20: Consideration of a Variance to the side yard setback to build an addition on the home located at 518 Owens St N in the RB district. Matt and Kristin Hall, property owner. 7. Case No. 2018-21: Consideration of a Seasonal Outdoor Sales permit to allow the sale of food from a food truck on the property 223 Main St N in the CBD district. Dennis Youngquist of Minnesota Winegrowers Co-op, property owner, representing Kowalski’s. 8. Case No. 2018-22: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a distillery and tasting area on the property located at 107 Chestnut Street East, in the CBD district. State of MN Department of Military Affairs, property owner and Andrew Mosiman and Christie Wanderer, applicants. 9. Case No. 2018-23: Consideration of a Special Use Permit and Variance thereto, to build a new residential Condominium on the property located at 107 Third Street N, in the CBD district. Brown’s Creek West LLC, property owner. VI. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION VII. FYI 10. Upcoming Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Meetings – No Staff Memo VIII. 2018 COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS AND CHAIR ELECTIONS IX. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 11, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Hade, Hansen, Lauer and Siess; Councilmember Menikheim Absent: Commissioners Fletcher and Kocon Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of March 14, 2018 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2018 regular meeting. Motion passed 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2018-10: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental to be located at 321 4th Street North in the RB District. Michelle Stober, property owner City Planner Wittman stated that Michelle Stober has applied to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental (STHR). Staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans, other lawful regulations, and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Type C Short Term Home Rental to be located at 321 4th Street North with 13 conditions. She reviewed the nuisance reporting procedures for emergency and non-emergency situations. Commissioner Hansen suggested that the guest disclosure include the prohibition on street parking. Michelle Stober, applicant, 2171 Oak Glen Trail, said she plans to add a parking space to the left of the garage and pave the driveway. She will screen clients closely. Planning Commission April 11, 2018 Page 2 of 8 Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. David Levy, 306 4th Street North, spoke in opposition to the short term home rental. He would prefer a one year lease. Jane Paskvan, 314 4th Street North, stated it is well known that people come to Stillwater to party. She understands that guests are already staying in the home. She is against the permit due to the likelihood of neighborhood disruption. Jack Junker, 408 3rd Street North #211, said the proposal has merit and would benefit the City. Timothy Paskvan, 314 4th Street North, asked how to control the noise volume. He noted the frequent library events already disrupt the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. Neighbors need a more immediate remedy than calling the Police Department. Jane Dickinson, 122 West Linden Street, asked if the occupants must maintain the 10 p.m. noise regulation. Ms. Wittman replied yes. Cecilia Loome, Old Swedish Church, 320 North 4th Street, said she is not opposed to vacation rentals because there are safeguards in place. However she found that the home is already being rented which made her uneasy. She would have preferred the applicant had spoken to the neighbors. Georges Ghanem, 324 4th Street North, commented that people come to Stillwater to party. The neighborhood is residential and should not be further commercialized with a STHR permit. Ms. Stober said she has allowed family members to stay at the house. She drives past the house once or twice a day. She does not want to be blamed for noise and traffic from the nursing home and Trinity Church. Chairman Collins asked if the home is advertised for rent. Ms. Stober said yes, but she has not rented it to anyone. Mr. Paskvan said the neighborhood likes its peace and quiet. He asked Ms. Stober if she is going to be responsible for volume control. Ms. Wittman said if the permit is approved, all neighbors will be provided with the property manager’s phone number. Complainants still need to call the City Hall non-emergency number so the complaints can be substantiated, as the property manager is not required to report the calls. If there are three substantiated violations, they run the risk of losing their permit for six months. They may reapply but there is no guarantee that a permit would still be available to them. Noise in this neighborhood after 10 p.m. is deemed unacceptable. Mr. Junker remarked there are many ambulances and police cars in the area because of the nursing home and the police station. He doesn’t know of a dwelling that doesn’t have a noise factor. He encouraged the Commission to approve the request. Mr. Levy said it is ridiculous that the Commission is putting the onus on the residents to regulate a rental dwelling in the neighborhood. He reiterated that it should be a yearly rental so the occupants become part of the community. Daily or weekly rentals should be unacceptable. Planning Commission April 11, 2018 Page 3 of 8 Nicholas McMahon, 6201 St. Croix Trail #222, noted that when the bridge was being built, there was nonstop noise. He feels noise from this property can be kept within reason. He agreed that a one-year lease makes more sense so it doesn’t become a party house. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hade remarked that the neighbors’ comments should have been addressed to the Council when the STHR ordinance was being passed. He sees no reason to deny the permit since it meets the standards in the ordinance. Commissioner Lauer said the Commission must trust that the applicant will comply with the provisions of the ordinance until proven otherwise. Commissioner Siess requested clarification on the various types of short term home rental permits available. She noted that the application meets all conditions of the ordinance. She noted that investigation of violations is a complaint-driven process, so citizens need to talk to their City Council members. Commissioner Hansen said the business must cooperate with the neighborhood. The applicant has met all the conditions for approval. Ms. Wittman noted that any decision by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2018-10, Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental to be located at 321 4th Street North, with the 13 conditions recommended by staff, amending Condition #9 to state that the disclosure shall be modified to not only limit parking to the garage and driveway but also to indicate that no guest parking is permitted on the street. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2018-12: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum fence height of a corner lot for the property located at 404 Owens Street North located in the RB district. Stephen Martin, property owner City Planner Wittman stated that Stephen Martin is requesting a 30” variance to the 42” maximum fence height in his exterior side yard to allow the construction of a 72” privacy fence. The fence is to be installed around an existing retaining wall and concrete patio, both of which were constructed prior to the current owner purchasing the property. The purpose of the fence is to provide privacy and prevent his dog from leaving the property. On the basis that the plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property, that the variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality, and that the variance is contrary to the intent of providing an open streetscape, staff recommends denial of the variance request. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hansen said he sees no practical difficulty. Commissioner Lauer agreed that the fence does not fit. Commissioner Hade concurred. Planning Commission April 11, 2018 Page 4 of 8 Commissioner Siess offered Interlachen Way as an example to the applicant of the tunneling effect that can be created by fences. Motion by Chairman Collins, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to deny Case No. 2018-12, Variance to the maximum fence height of a corner lot for the property located at 404 Owens Street North. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2018-13: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a two unit Type C Short Term Home Rental to be located at 114 Main Street North in the CBD District. Croixview Partners, LLC, property owner City Planner Wittman stated that Croixview Partners, LLC has applied to operate two Type C Short Term Home Rentals (STHR) at 114 Main Street North. She noted that needed rooftop balcony repairs been incorporated as a condition of approval. Staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a Conditional Use Permit for two residential units to be operated as Type C Short Term Home Rentals at 114 Main Street North with 13 conditions. Alon Ventura, representing Croixview Partners, applicant, said the property was purchased on March 1 as an investment. Commissioner Siess asked him if the railing issue will be resolved. Mr. Ventura said yes, as soon as the existing tenants vacate, the outstanding issues will be fixed. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2018-13, Conditional Use Permit to operate a two unit Type C Short Term Home Rental to be located at 114 Main Street North, with the 13 conditions recommended by staff, amending Condition #9 to state: A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. If the plan includes a fee-in-lieu, the fee shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Failure to pay charges within 30 days will be result in the charges being certified for collection with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the purchase requirement, including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the fees as a condition of approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. Any conditions attached to the parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this Conditional Use Permit. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2018-15: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for the property located at 123 2nd Street North located in the CBD district. Judd Sather, property owner City Planner Wittman explained that Judd Sather is requesting an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 123 2nd Street North. The proposed amendment includes: Planning Commission April 11, 2018 Page 5 of 8 Additional event center space (previously identified as the future brewery area) on the lower level. This event space will have a commercial catering kitchen and may be used similarly to a restaurant in that if it is not rented for private events, the owner may choose to open the space to the public for bingo, comedy, or for small musical performances. This event space would lead to an outdoor area, accessed through the alleyway. The outdoor area would be used exclusively in conjunction with the new venue space or other rentable areas of the facility. A conference room on the main level. The conference room would be used not only by all tenants but could be utilized by third parties. This type of space is anticipated to be used mostly as a break-out space for conference attendants. Two Commercial Recreational Business rooms on the main level. These would be used as challenge/puzzle rooms (sometimes referred to as escape rooms). While these would be able to be rented by the hour by small groups, it is anticipated they would also be used by groups and individuals who are renting space elsewhere in the building. Ms. Wittman stated that staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval of an amended Conditional Use Permit for the inclusion of a main level conference room and two Commercial Recreational Businesses and lower level event space to be added to the multi-tenant, multi-use building located at 123 2nd Street North with eight conditions. Judd Sather, applicant, explained that he would like to actively market the 10,000 square foot area on the lower level of the building. He will work with the Downtown Parking Commission to mitigate the increased parking needs. He would like to provide catering and other food options for clients. The puzzle rooms are similar to the office use that was previously approved. He hosts about 200 events a year between his two buildings. He would like to clean up the trash area and is discussing this with staff. Chairman Collins asked if the corporate retreats would be Monday through Friday, and would all these uses be in operation simultaneously? Mr. Sather said that is possible. He would like it to become a mini-conference center. The entire building cannot have occupancy great than 720. Commissioner Siess asked what happened with the concept of having office space in the middle? Mr. Sather replied that the salon, studio and other room use about two-thirds of the footprint and he has tried unsuccessfully to rent out the remainder. He wants it to become his studio, the two puzzle rooms and conference room. He has enough office space on the third level. The back level will probably become his photography studio. Commissioner Siess remarked that business owners downtown say Stillwater has a lot of restaurants and events. She interprets the Comprehensive Plan to be a lot about jobs. She feels this is a great space for jobs. Mr. Sather said he started with four employees and now has 67 people on the payroll. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission April 11, 2018 Page 6 of 8 Chairman Collins said he has no issues as long as the Downtown Parking Commission is willing to work with Mr. Sather to mitigate parking issues. Commissioner Lauer said jobs are a good thing, and by expanding to more daytime uses it will be good for jobs. Commissioner Siess said she reads the Comprehensive Plan differently. There is a need for full time jobs that have benefits. She doesn’t think that the City protects this enough. She asked if the City helped Mr. Sather market the space to find a good vendor. She feels there should be more of a partnership in how to fill these spaces. The proposed use is a bandaid and she doesn’t think it is the best use. Commissioner Hansen remarked that part of the problem is that these large buildings aren’t set up for the types of uses that are in demand now. The City should not punish people for having a large building in downtown Stillwater. It makes sense to market them as office space but if that doesn’t work, the City still wants them filled. The proposed use is a good compromise and he supports it. Commissioner Siess said she is not supportive of it, mainly because she thinks the City can do better. The City should have helped Mr. Sather rent the space. Mr. Sather said he had the space listed as co-working space which is popular now, but didn’t have enough potential renters to make it work. A co-working space employs only one person. As far as job creation, he is not going to employ people full time with benefits in a working space like that unless he totally expands his business which would be a year or two out. He listed it as a commercial space with a real estate agent but had zero showings over five months. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve Case No. 2018-15, Conditional Use Permit Amendment for the property located at 123 2nd Street North, with the eight conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Siess voting nay. Case No. 2018-14: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to regulate wireless facilities in City Code Section 31-101: Definitions, 31-209: Design Permit, 31-400: Floodplain Overlay District, and Section 31-512: Regulation of Radio and Television Towers. City of Stillwater, applicant Ms. Wittman reviewed the proposed Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) and informed the Commission that its main purposes are: 1. To provide for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory access to City- owned infrastructure in the public right-of-way (ROW) while designating a streamlined permitting process. 2. To establish design requirements for the installation of new wireless support structures to ensure visual compatibility with their surroundings. 3. To ensure compatible uses when small wireless facilities are proposed for locations outside of ROWs. She stated that Excel Energy expressed concerns about the proposed requirements for concealment. Staff will work with Excel between now and the City Council meeting to resolve this. Staff recommends the Commission forward a favorable recommendation of approval to the City Council. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission April 11, 2018 Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Siess asked if the least preferable locations could still be used. Ms. Wittman stated the code establishes the most preferable locations. In some of the least preferable locations, the facilities may actually be prohibited in a different part of the zoning code, for instance wetlands. City Planner Wittman addressed the question of whether design permits should be required for the facilities. Staff would like design permits to be required in the conservation district, the downtown historic district, or close to a national register listed site. In other areas, staff believes the facilities could be approved administratively. She would like to know if the Planning Commission agrees. Chairman Collins said he agrees with staff’s recommendation. Motion by Chairman Collins, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2018-14, Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to regulate wireless facilities in City Code Section 31-101: Definitions, 31-209: Design Permit, 31-400: Floodplain Overlay District, and Section 31-512: Regulation of Radio and Television Towers. Motion passed 5-0. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 2018 Commission Appointments and Chair Elections Ms. Wittman stated that the City Attorney advised that there are currently no vacancies because the terms technically have not ended. Therefore the City is not obligated to interview potential applicants at this time. He also advised that the Chairman and the Council liaison are not obligated to interview those who are asking for reappointment. Chairman Collins and Councilmember Menikheim chose not to interview any of the existing members, however Chairman Collins was interviewed by two members of the Council. Chair nominations can be handled at the next meeting. Chairman Collins said he spoke with Councilmember Menikheim about the reappointment of Commissioners Fletcher and Kocon and they were supportive of both reappointments. Commissioner Siess said noted that other Commissions have relationships with the Council. Facilitating those relationships is the duty of the Chair and the Vice Chair. She feels the Planning Commission lacks leadership to initiate needed discussion with the Council about issues, for instance, three cases which were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and denied by the Council. She feels the Planning Commission decisions should not get overturned especially on big cases. She would like more joint meetings with the Council. She feels the Commission should be encouraging economic development and affordable housing; it lacks leadership, training, and establishment of expectations. She is not going to run next year, this will be her last year on the Commission and she asked that be included in the record. Chairman Collins stated that the Commissioners are doing more than reading a packet and attending meetings. They are doing their due diligence as the public deserves. Councilmember Menikheim said he doesn’t disagree with Commissioner Siess. He feels the reason the Council and Planning Commission have not met jointly is that the Council doesn’t have any complaints about the Commissions. He believes the relationships between the Commissions and the Council could be improved, and to go in that direction there has to be an indication of what the problem is. He floated these ideas with the Council and there was no interest to go beyond that. If Planning Commission April 11, 2018 Page 8 of 8 Commissioner Siess feels that strongly about this, she should generate more than one person to request that the Council do something. Chairman Collins said he is willing to request a joint meeting if there are issues and an agenda. He does not want to call a meeting with the Council if there is no agenda. Commissioner Siess suggested discussing the three cases that got overturned. Commissioner Hansen recalled a concern from a year ago when the Commission was electing the Chair was they didn’t know who was interested. He asked who would be interested in being Chair or Vice Chair. Chairman Collins replied he would be interested in continuing, should that be the direction the Commission wants to go. Commissioner Hansen said he has no desire to be Chair for this next year. Commissioner Hade said he has no interest in being Chair. Commissioner Siess said the rules were changed from seniority to perfect attendance. She has seniority if the Chair and Vice Chair stood down, but it is not wise to have a Chair who is going to leave the Commission. She would be open to being Vice Chair. She wants a Chair who is going to make some changes and have some leadership. She plans to nominate Commissioner Fletcher. Commissioner Lauer said he would support Collins in maintaining chairmanship and he would be happy to remain as Vice Chair. He clarified that there was not a rule about who gets to be chairperson. There was a tradition but not a rule. There was an election and an outcome. STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to adjourn the meeting at 9:13 p.m. All in favor, 5-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 9, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-02 APPLICANT: Shane & Michelle Quinn, property owners Steve Poindexter, representative REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum structural coverage in the RB-Two Family District to allow for the construction of a new detached garage and an addition to the existing single-family home. ZONING: RB – Two Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Low/Medium Density Res. PREPARED BY: Erik Olson-Williams, Zoning Administrator/Assistant Planner REQUEST Shane and Michelle Quinn have applied for a variance to construct an addition to an existing home and build a new detached garage at the property located at 618 3rd Street South. There is an existing garage straddling the northern property line. The applicants hope to remove the portion of the existing garage that extends onto their property, but they have not yet reached an agreement with the adjacent property owners to allow for the release of an easement currently requiring the garage to remain in place. In addition to the proposed structural improvements, the applicants are also proposing a new driveway connecting the proposed garage to 3rd Street. There is an existing 339.45 square foot concrete pad on the north side of the property, required to remain by the easement. Because an agreement has not yet been reached with the owners of the property to the north, the applicants are proposing two alternative plans. One plan (Alternative A) assumes an agreement is reached to allow for the removal of the existing garage stall, while the other (Alternative B) assumes that an agreement is not reached and the existing stall must remain. To accommodate the existing stall, the new driveway and garage in Alternative B are smaller than in Alternative A. Alternative A: The improvements proposed in this plan would result in 2,600.5 square feet of structural coverage (29.6% of 8,800 square foot lot, whereas 25% is allowed) and 1,795.4 square feet of impervious surfaces (20.4% of the total lot area, 25% is allowed). With these CPC 3/14/2018 (Case No. 2018-02) 618 3rd Street South Page 2 of 4 proposed additions, a total of 50% of the lot area would be covered by structures or impervious surfaces. 50% total coverage is permitted. Therefore, though the maximum total coverage is compliant with the 50% allowance, the 29.6% building coverage exceeds the 25% allowance by 18.4%, for which a variance is requested. Alternative B: The improvements proposed in this plan would result in 2799.9 square feet of structural coverage (31.8% of 8,800 square foot lot, whereas 25% is allowed) and 1582.3 square feet of impervious surfaces (18% of the total lot area, 25% is allowed). With these proposed additions, a total of 49.8% of the lot area would be covered by structures or impervious surfaces. 50% total coverage is permitted. Therefore, though the maximum total coverage is compliant with the 50% allowance, the 31.8% building coverage exceeds the 25% allowance by 27.2%, for which a variance is requested. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Section 31-208, Variances, indicates the Planning Commission may grant a variance, but only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. 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 Maximum Structural Coverage is to preserve areas for adequate drainage and to limit the massing of structures on a property to prevent a disproportionately large structure in a neighborhood. The property will exceed its maximum structural coverage, regardless of which alternative is used, but the massing and location of the buildings will not be out of character with the neighborhood, nor will the streetscape be impacted by the structural additions. The garage will meet its required lot line setbacks and will be a fairly standard two car garage. And the addition to the home will be of modest size and be located on the back of the home. The total coverage (impervious and structure) will not exceed the 50% allowed in either plan. Stormwater runoff and surface water protection methods are all modelled on a 50% maximum in the City’s historic neighborhoods, so there are no physical concerns with the proposed improvements. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. CPC 3/14/2018 (Case No. 2018-02) 618 3rd Street South Page 3 of 4 The property is zoned RB – Two Family Residential and is guided for Low/Medium Density Residential use. There are no application elements that are contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: i. 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; Having a detached garage and a single-family home in a residential neighborhood is reasonable. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and The applicants state that their property is smaller than many of the adjoining properties, and that the lack of alley access necessitates the construction of a lengthy driveway. It is true that the applicants’ property is smaller than all but one of the other properties on the block, providing them with less buildable area than their neighbors. The only adjacent property of comparable size is 622 3rd Street South, which has street access on two sides, making it possible to construct a much shorter driveway. The applicants’ property is subject to a unique combination of having less buildable area and requiring a much longer driveway than the adjacent properties. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. There are other properties in the area with detached garages. The applicant’s proposed addition and garage will be located on the rear of the property and will not be easily visible from the street. The essential character of the locality will not be altered if the proposed variance is granted. 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. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has the following options: CPC 3/14/2018 (Case No. 2018-02) 618 3rd Street South Page 4 of 4 1. Make the finding that practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve one or both of the proposed alternatives, with or without conditions. Alternative A consists of an 18.4% variance to the 25% maximum structural coverage for the construction of a 624 square foot garage and a 620.5 square foot addition to the existing home at this property. Alternative B consists of a 27.2% variance to the 25% maximum structural coverage for the construction of a 506 square foot garage and a 620.5 square foot addition to the existing home at this property. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2018-02. b. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the finding that practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance, with or without prejudice. 3. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis that practical difficulty has been established by the applicant, staff recommends conditional approval of Alternative A (an 18.4% variance from the 25% maximum structural coverage) and Alternative B (a 27.2% variance) to allow for the construction of a two car garage and addition to the existing home at this property. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Building & Site Plans Application Narrative W E S T L O C U S T S T R E E T E A S T P IN E S T R E E T W E S T P IN E S T R E E T W E S T W A L N U T S T R E E TC S A H 23STREETC S A H 23E A S T W A L N U T S T R E E T EAST WILLARD STREET STREETSTREET611 101 609 206 205 215 604 704 703 416 712 720 807 601 519 424 712 612 613 518 513 655 704 207 663 203 113 516 807 804 718 719 715712 804 723 801 718 628 623 506 814 719 522517 709 521 219 305 604 522 109 618 622 810 801 215 509 710 812 716 815 807 806 110 500 510 509 518515 520 210 806 119 704 815814 123 808 808 813 713 816 222 817 502 713 516 808 708 715 610 805 811 811 505 407 720 715 724 708 801 717 713 807 805 218 802 206 223 612 620 µ 0 230 460115Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 618 3rd Street South Quinn ResidenceApril 24, 2018 618 3rd St S Stillwater MN Poindexter02A Scale 3/32 = 1ft N 55'-0"160'-0" 34'-4" Current Site Plan Model shows current house = 1356 sqft City measurements =1556 sqft Current House Shed Single stall Garage 14'-0"24'-5"15'-11"12'-2" Quinn ResidenceApril 24, 2018 618 3rd St S Stillwater MN Poindexter03A Scale 3/32 = 1ft N 55'-0"Lot Size = 8800sqft Impervious maximum = 2200 sqft or 25% Current structures = 1895 sqft or 21.5% Current concrete/asphalt = 684 sqft or 8% New Impervious structures = 2600.5 sqft or 29.5% New Concrete/asphalt =1795.4 sqft 20.4% New Total Impervious condition = 4395.9 sqft or 49.9% Renovated house Covered Patio 12'-0"12'-0"26'-0"24'-0" 339.45 sqft 54'-6"3'-6"3'-11"3'-11"1'-8"Preferred site plan. Any additional concrete coverage removed from the north will be used to fill in the driveway. As note it will take 207sqft to pour new drive solid 12'-5" Quinn ResidenceApril 24, 2018 618 3rd St S Stillwater MN Poindexter04A Scale 3/32 = 1ft N Lot Size = 8800sqft Impervious maximum = 2200 sqft or 25% Current structures = 1895 sqft or 21.5% Current concrete/asphalt = 684 sqft or 8% New Impervious structures = 2799.9 sqft or 31.8% New Concrete/asphalt =1582.3 sqft 17.9% New Total Impervious condition = 4382.2 sqft or 49.7%13'-0"24'-5"22'-0"23'-0"4'-0"3'-0"3'-3"3'-3"Worse case site plan, neighbor to the north is unwilling to negotiated, all coverage associated with the easement stays as is 339.45 sqft 12'-5"54'-6" Renovated house Covered Patio April 23, 2018 Dear Stillwater Planning Commission, We are requesting a variance for structural and hard surface coverage. We are requesting a 50% coverage variance. This proposal is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the chapter and consistent with the comprehensive plan. We believe there are specific and unique “difficulties” with our property, thus our request for a small variance. (i) We will continue to use the property as it is intended and its zoning as a single-family home. (ii) We feel the “difficulties” with the property make for unique circumstances that have not been created by us: a. The property is much smaller than many of the surrounding properties. The rear lot line is not as deep nor as wide as the neighbor to the north thus making our total lot size smaller with less buildable area. b. The current easement that the neighbor facilitated with the previous owner is very detrimental to us and the use of our property. We are seeking your approval to increase the overall coverage to 50% because 657sqft of our property is being tied up from a past easement agreement we had no part in drafting or signing and does not benefit us. c. Due to not having an alley or other street access like several of the other lots on the block we propose a new driveway and garage. d. Approving the variance would allow us to replace all the old knob and tube electrical wiring which exists in both and outbuildings which our home inspection stated is a current fire hazard (and has been confirmed by an electrician). e. This project also will allow us to rebuild the crawl space under the kitchen and bathroom which currently is an area that annually experiences frozen water pipes, cold flooring and energy inefficiencies. (iii) The variance if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in a negative fashion. In fact, it will only be enhanced. The home addition and the garage will be architecturally designed to match the style and period of the original 1910 home (matching roof pitches, architectural details, etc.) and will add both character and value to the neighborhood. We will remove the less desirable, non-period steel siding as well as other non-era features that detract from the historical nature of the home. As you may be aware there is a property line and easement disagreement between us and our neighbor to the North. We and the neighbor are currently working toward a solution. Our intention is to take down the portion of the garage that is on our property. We have in our budget the cost of reconstructing the garage wall on the neighbor’s property line and roof. Any square feet that is gained within a solution will go towards making the driveway solid. In closing, a variance for our project would add value to the neighborhood, allow us to have our own driveway and garage, decrease parking congestion, make the property more useful and attractive for generations. We look forward to investing in Stillwater and our neighborhood. Thank you for your review and partnership, Shane and Michelle Quinn PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 9, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-16 APPLICANT: Mark Balay; representative Happy Bridge, LLC; property owner REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for three (3) Type C Short Term Home Rentals to be located on the second story of the structure at 209 Main Street South ZONING: CBD – Central Business District COMP PLAN: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use REPORT BY: Erik Olson-Williams, Zoning Administrator/Assistant Planner BACKGROUND Happy Bridge, LLC owns the commercial structure located at 209 Main Street South and has submitted necessary applications to operate three (3) Type C Short Tem Home Rentals (STHR) at this property. A Type C STHR is a dwelling unit, offered to transient guests for a period of less than 30 consecutive days, which does not serve as the owners’ primary residence. These types of STHR properties are typically investment properties and could either be operated by the owner or a manager. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS A Type C STHR license can be issued for a property in Stillwater if: 1) A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) has been approved by the Planning Commission; and 2) The CUP has not lapsed (in those instances where a license renewal is being requested, or a new owner wishes to operate the STHR); and 3) The STHR conforms to the standards set forth in City Code Section 31-514.1, Short-term Home Rental Regulations; and 4) The total number of STHR licenses does not exceed the allowed limit. The purpose of conditionally permitted uses is to allow the integration of essential or desirable uses which may be suitable only in certain zoning districts. In approving a Conditional Use Permits, it must be determined by the Planning Commission that:  The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations;  Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; and  The use will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 209 Main Street South STHR CUP May 9, 2018 The Planning Commission’s role in the STHR licensing process is to review for conformance with the established standards and either approve or deny the CUP request. The applicable review standards found in City Code Section 31-514.1 include: Zoning Type C Short Term Home Rentals are allowed by CUP in all Residential Zoning Districts. The subject property is zoned CBD – Central Business District, which allows STHRs by CUP. Performance Standards Parking: In the CBD, all guest parking must be accommodated on improved surfaces on the premises or a parking mitigation plan must be found acceptable by the Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC). Two of the units contain a single bedroom, while the third has two bedrooms. All three units are offered for guest use. This requires a minimum of three parking spaces (one for each unit). The property owner is proposing a mitigation plan which would require the purchasing of monthly permits where overnight guests may park in designated downtown parking lots. While this request has not been reviewed and approved by the Downtown Parking Commission, there is no change in use from the existing (long-term) residential rental. Therefore, the STHR will not create a change in use that will increase the demand of the public parking system. Therefore, it is anticipated the Downtown Parking Commission will accept this mitigation proposal. However, a condition of approval will need to state parking requirements must be met in order for the STHR licenses to be approved. Number of guests: The maximum number of guests allowed is limited to two times the number of bedrooms plus one. Limiting the number of guests allowed on a property is important for a number of reasons. They include safety of guests, preventing parking problems, and discouraging a property from becoming a “party house”. Given this, the maximum number of overnight guests in both of the individual, one-bedroom units will be three, while the two-bedroom unit will have a maximum occupancy of five. Ordinance 1093 specifically requires a STHR’s guests to abide by the City’s nuisance ordinances, which must be included in all guest disclosures. To keep the line of communication open between neighbors and the STHR owner/manager, the ordinance requires current contact information to be distributed to neighbors and sets up a violation schedule. The property owner is aware that three substantiated complaints against the property will result in the loss of STHR license for six months. Proximity of assistance: The STHR ordinance requires a manager/representative be located within 30 minutes travel time of the property. The property will be managed by Cheris Murphy, who lives at 1124 5th Street South in Stillwater, located approximately five minutes from the property by car. Signage: No signage is allowed on STHR properties. Events: Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. For purposes of the STHR Ordinance, an event means a gathering of more than three un-registered guests. The guest disclosure information (see attachment) clearly states this provision. 209 Main Street South STHR CUP May 9, 2018 Guest disclosure: To pass on required information to guest, the STHR Ordinance requires a guest disclosure to be made available. The guest disclosure submitted with the application materials does not include all the required information. So, prior to issuance of the license for the units, the guest disclosure will have to be updated and approved by City staff. Proof of Insurance Proof of appropriate and sufficient insurance was submitted with the CUP application form. Safety Inspection The safety inspection for this property was conducted on November 22, 2017. A number of deficiencies were identified, and a follow-up inspection has not yet been scheduled. A condition of approval for the CUP will be that prior to issuing a Type C license, a final inspection must be passed. Total Number of STHR Conditional Use Permits Fifteen Type C Conditional Use Permits may be issued at any one time. To date, eight Type C licenses have been issued; an additional three licenses have been proposed, not including the one being considered today. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the Type C STHR proposal is consistent with the provisions of the CUP process and City Code Section 31-514.1, the Commission could move to approve the CUP with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. Parking – If found acceptable by the Downtown Parking Commission, the property owner shall purchase a single monthly parking permit for each unit. If the property owner fails to obtain approval of a parking mitigation plan, the STHR licenses shall not be issued. 2. Number of guests – The total occupancy of the property shall be limited to 11, three for each one-bedroom unit and five for the two-bedroom unit. 3. Proximity of assistance a. The property owner or a manager/representative must be located within 30 minutes travel time of the property. b. The property owner must provide the name, address and phone number for the owner or manager/representative to all property owners within 150 feet of the lot lines of the STHR property. This must be completed within 10 days of issuance of the license. The owner must also provide the community development department with the neighborhood notification list within this 10 day time frame. c. The community development department must be notified within 10 days of a change in the contact information of the owner or manager/representative. The property owner must also notify neighboring properties within 10 days of a change in the contact information of the owner or manager/representative. 4. Garbage - As required by City Code, all garbage must be kept in rubbish containers that are stored out of view of a public street. 5. Signage – No signage identifying the Short Term Home Rental is allowed on the property. 6. Events - Events are not allowed to be hosted by guests on the premises. For purposes of Short Term Home Rentals, an event means a gathering on the premises of more than three un-registered guests. 209 Main Street South STHR CUP May 9, 2018 7. Length of guest stay – The property is not permitted to be rented for a period of less than one whole day. 8. Guest records - The owner must keep guest records including the name, address, phone number, and vehicle license plate information for all guests and must provide a report to the city upon 48 hours’ notice. 9. Guest disclosures a. The owner must disclose in writing to their guests the following rules and regulations prior to arrival. Prior to issuance of the license, City staff must review the guest disclosure for compliance with City Code. In addition the disclosures must be conspicuously displayed in the home. i. The name, phone number and address of the owner, operating or managing agent/representative. ii. The maximum number of overnight guests at the property at a time is limited to three in each one-bedroom unit and five in the two-bedroom unit. iii. Parking will be in designated City of Stillwater permit parking lots. iv. Property rules related to use of outdoor features, such as decks, patios, grills, recreational fires, saunas and other recreational facilities. v. City nuisance ordinances will be enforced by the Stillwater Police Department, including reduced noise levels between 10 PM and 8 AM. vi. No events with more than three unregistered guests are permitted. 10. License number - The owner must post their city license number on all print, poster or web advertisements, in addition to posting it on the booking agent’s website. 11. Lodging tax - The owner, or booking agent on their behalf, is required to pay the city lodging tax quarterly. If no sales are made during a quarter, a report must none-the-less be submitted to the city stating that no sales were made or lodging tax collected during that quarter. 12. Conditional Use Permit Expiration - The Conditional Use Permit will expire if the property is not operated as a Short Term Home Rental for a period of twelve consecutive months. 13. Issuance of Conditional Use Permit – Prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit or license, the following shall occur: a. Safety inspection and any corrections must be approved by City inspectors; and b. Any exterior modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. B. Table. If the Planning Commission finds the request to have incomplete information, the case could be tabled. C. Denial. If the Planning Commission finds the request to be inconsistent with the provisions set forth for Conditional Use Permits or City Code Section 31-514.1, it could be denied. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans, other lawful regulations, and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Type C Short Term Home Rental to be located at 209 Main Street South. 209 Main Street South STHR CUP May 9, 2018 ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Floor Plans Guest Disclosure E A S T C H E S T N U T S T STATE HI GHWAYS 95 & 36SO MAI N STSOUTH WATER STREETSO UNI ON STNORTHERNRAI LROADUNI ON ALLEYSTS T A T E H W Y 3 6SAM BL OOMER WAY305 101 200 103 204 124 214 101 301 113 317 108 229 201 102 209 221 106 236 232 213 226 132 243 103 210 233 127 321 202 302 301 223 308 220 219 233 125 227 310 215 224 312 224 221 302 226 112 131 308 µ 0 130 26065Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 209 Main St S PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 9, 2018 CPC CASE NO.: 2018-18 APPLICANT: Darren Dobier, representing Diro Outdoors REQUEST: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a self-serve bicycle rental kiosk, an outdoor Commercial Recreational Business, on an undeveloped portion of the parking lot associated with 101 Water Street South, the Water Street Inn ZONING: CBD – Central Business District COMP PLAN: DMU – Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND As part of the exisiting and proposed Water Street Inn expansion projects, a parking lot has been constructed on a portion of the city block located north of the Myrtle Street, east of Water Street, and bordering the City owned trail adjacent to Lowell Park. The parking lot plans originally called for the construction of a trash enclosure to be located at the Southwest corner of the site. However, the approved hotel expansion project includes the future construction of portion of the hotel that will accommodate trash indoors. Therefore, a remaining portion of the parking lot, outside of the curb line, is undeveloped. Figure 1: View of SW corner of Water Street Inn Parking lot, bordering Water Street South and Myrtle Street East (Photo via Google Maps, dated August, 2017) Diro Outdoors SUP Case No. 2018-18 Page 2 REQUEST Darren Dobier operates Diro Outdoors, a local outdoor activities and gear rental business. He is requesting the installation of (up to) 17 bicycles at a self-serve kiosk facility to be located on the undeveloped portion of the Water Street Inn’s parking lot. While this business will be operated seasonally, the infrastructure improvements (including signage and bicycle mounts/locks) would be permanently installed on the site. There would be no onsite management but, rather, users would be able to rent a bicycle from their smartphone APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Municipal Code Section 31-207 indicates the following must be determined by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any Special Use Permit1: 1. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Zoning Ordinance: The purpose of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict the use of land and the use and location of buildings and structures. The property is zoned Central Business District (CBD). The CBD allows for Commercial Recreational Uses and Entertainment by Special Use Permit. However, seasonal sales and businesses in the CBD have been limited, reserved only for those that can operate exclusively on private lands or on public roadways; the City has not granted licenses or permits for businesses to operate on other public lands, such as in parks, or on sidewalks and trails. The self-serve nature of the rental kiosk will help reduce the chance of bicycles being left chained to public improvements or abandoned in undesirable locations as bicycles can only be locked to a rack within the kiosk facility. Riders will continue to be charged for the buke rental until it is returned and locked to a tack within the kiosk facility – further encouraging users to not abandon bikes in other locations. Furthermore, users will be required to register, pay and finalize their rental with their smartphone. Each user will be accountable for the equipment the entire time it is not locked at the kiosk facility. Design Permit: To help protect the character and nature of the National Registered listed Stillwater Commercial Historic District, the City has adopted a Downtown Design Review District (DDRD), requiring Design Permits for structures, other land and structure alterations, as well as signs. The purpose of the Design Permit is to maintain the character and integrity of neighborhoods and commercial districts by promoting excellence of design and development. While the Heritage Preservation Commission will review the design of the site at their regularly-scheduled meeting on May 18th. 1 However, on the rare occasion when accountability is an issue, the planning commission may refer a conditional use permit or special use permit to the city council. Diro Outdoors SUP Case No. 2018-18 Page 3 Signage: The property is permitted signage as per the Sign Code. As there is no structure proposed, one freestanding sign and one sidewalk sign that conforms to the Sidewalk Sign policy would be permitted. The applicant is proposing three different types of signs: 1. One, 26 square foot, bike station sign. This sign would contain the company name, the hourly rental rate, instructions for use, a map of City and state trails, as well as the business’s contact information. 2. One basket sign, to be located on each side of the rear basket, which would read Diro Outdoors. Each side of the basket would be identical. 3. One basket sign, to be located on the back of the rear basket, that would advertise the Water Street Inn, gie stone, and Yardmasters Landscapes as each of these businesses are donating land and materials for the kiosk facility. Comprehensive Plan: While the Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan encourages downtown as a place for businesses to relocate and there is the policy to promote activities which lengthen the time visitors spend in Stillwater, a Comprehensive Plan tourism goal is to support year round activities that enliven the Downtown public and cultural life. While the City has been approached about bicycle rental businesses to be located on public lands, this business would be wholly located on private property. Therefore, this seasonal business helps support a goal to promote tourism while not relying on the public sector to subsidize the operations. 2. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Since the opening of the Brown’s Creek State Trail and portions of MNDOT’s Loop Trail, the downtown core has seen an increase in bicyclist. Generally speaking, user conflicts have been minimal. The location of the proposed kiosk, situated less than a block from the trail system is ideal and should encourage users to ride on the trail system, opposed to the streets or sidewalks. Additionally, all users are required to be 18 years of age and helmets are encouraged. However, bicycles are permitted to be on street; it is recommended the company’s map also identify city shared bike lane routes to potentially further reduce user conflicts. 3. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the provisions of the SUP regulations, staff has prepared a list of conditions appropriate to protect the public interest. ALTERNATIVES Diro Outdoors SUP Case No. 2018-18 Page 4 A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the provisions of the SUP regulations, the Commission could approve the Special Use Permit with or without the conditions. If the Commission finds the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the SUP regulations, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. This Special Use Permit allows for the installation of a bicycle rental kiosk with associated signage for up to 18 bicycles to be located on private property owned by St. Croix Preservation Inc. near the Northwest corner of the intersection of Myrtle Street East and Water Street South. 2. This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595. 3. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2018-18, except as modified by the conditions herein or by Heritage Preservation Commission approval. 4. All rental activities shall occur on private property and outside of the public rights-of-way. 5. The single, two-sided sign shall not exceed 25 square feet in size, 6’ in height and the design was found consistent with the Downtown Design Review District guidelines. 6. The rental kiosk area and all signage shall receive a Design Permit, approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission, prior to the installation and operation of the business. Conditions of the HPC’s approval shall be incorporated herein by reference. 7. The sign’s map is encouraged to include City designated on-street, shared bike lanes. 8. 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. 9. This Special Use Permit shall be reviewed before the Planning Commission and City Council for possible revocation or amendment to the conditions of this permit is substantial verified complaints, safety issues or violations of the conditions of this permit are received by the City of Stillwater. B. Refer. If the Planning Commission determined ‘accountability may be an issue’, the Commission refer the application to the City Council. C. Table If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. D. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of the SUP regulations, the Commission could deny the application. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial and state whether or not the denial is with prejudice. Diro Outdoors SUP Case No. 2018-18 Page 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of CPC Case 2018-18 for Diro Outdoors to operate a self-serve bicycle rental kiosk, an outdoor Commercial Recreational Business, on an undeveloped portion of the parking lot associated with 101 Water Street South, the Water Street Inn. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Submission (19 pages) IN TE R S TA TE H IG H W A Y B R ID G E E A S T M Y R T L E S T R E E T E A S T C H E S T N U T S T SOUTH THI RD STREETSOUTH SECOND STREETSTATE HWY 95STATE HI GHWAYS 95 & 36C S A H 2 3 SO MAI N STSOUTH WATER STREETA L L E Y C O M M E R C IA L A V E N U ENORTH WATER STREETSO UNI ON STALLEYALLEYC S A H 23BURLI NGTONNORTHERNRAI LROADUNI ON ALLEYN E L S O N A L L E YNORTH WATERSTE O L IV E S T S T A T E H W Y 3 6 N E L S O N S T R E E TSAM BL OOMER WAY350 350350350 350 350 350350 350350 204 333 212 305 200 101 232 425 102 107 324 220 123 208 106 302 124 402 275 214 201 101 242 221 301 114 130 251 110 113 301301 270 204 121 575 114 124 413 102 350 317 108 101101 101 302 103 229 201 218 102 302 204 321 209221 106 114 423 225 132 209 115 225 107 320 223 215 350 233 126 202 301 219 µ 0 310 620155Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 101 Water St S Bringing The Joys & Beneﬁts Of Biking To Downtown Stillwater Darren Dobier 3/28/2018 The Plan: •Provide a self-serve bike rental station with 10 bikes to serve the needs of residents, visitors, and tourists •Location - Water Street Inn •Bikes are checked in and out with a rider’s smartphone •Bikes will be locked to rack within bike station to maintain clean and neat appearance •Bikes will be highly visible, inviting and fun to ride •Available during the spring, summer, and fall seasons from sunrise to sunset •Rental station will be landscaped and maintained by professional landscaping service to ensure it aligns with surrounding landscapes and businesses •Riders will be charged hourly rates Our Customers: Tourists Couples & Friends Families w/Adult Children Downtown Residents With the intentional efforts to make Stillwater a more bike friendly town, our bike rental station will help provide even greater access to this wonderful resource. Whether you’re a tourist in town for a wedding; a couple wanting a romantic afternoon; a family looking for fun and exercise; or a downtown resident who doesn’t want to buy and store a bike, we have you covered. How does it work? Find  Use the app to find the nearest bike station. Unlock  At the station, use the app to unlock your bike. Ride  Rental rates are determined by defined plans and pricing. Return  To end a rental, securely return the bike at the nearest dock. Bikes are found, unlocked, returned, and paid for through a rider’s smartphone phone which allows them to ride when it’s convenient. Administration  We can track which bikes are out, reported issues & much more all remotely It Starts With The Bikes  Fun, quality bikes with the maintenance free features you would want in a bike rental program. Stylish woodgrain background to acknowledge the lumber history of Stillwater Basket to carry lunch, beverages, and downtown purchases. Attached to bike frame to allow carrying of loads without impacting steering. Fenders to keep riders cleaner in damp conditions Bell to alert pedestrians and other bikers Dual kick-stand for stability even with heavy basket items 7-Speed internal shifting Rim brakes for reliable stopping on steeper river valley hills Puncture resistant tires Anti-theft features Solar powered locks  (not shown in mockup) Bright white frame with DIRO green accents for high- visibility and fun. Coordinated with station branding and colors. DIRO Branding Stand (black) dirooutdoors.com • 651-233-6059 Rack Instructions Located on top of each rack Additional Features Available Feature Notes Additional Payment Options Available  (daily, monthly, yearly, special event, …) Once hourly usage is understood additional options could be implemented to cater speciﬁcally to local and downtown residents’ needs Ability to add additional rental stations As demand increases, bike stations can be easily added without required minimums or need for onsite electricity Dock-less bike locking allows you to lock a bike without the need for a physical rental station Not intending to implement: Our bikes can only be locked to rentals station stands which prevents riders from locking bikes all over town and on sidewalks minimizing pedestrian trafﬁc issues Unisex and one-sized bikes Not intending to implement child-sized bikes Since bikes will typically be ridden without helmets, not offering small bikes for kids mitigates risk to young riders Business Discount Programs We are currently working with vendor to implement functionality allowing businesses and local lodging establishments to purchase discount programs for their employees or guests to improve wellness and amenities Rear Basket Design Location We have approval from Chuck Dougherty from the Water Street Inn to create a bike station on his property that resides between his parking lot and Lucky’s Gas Station on the corner of Water St. and Myrtle. •Highly visible and high foot traffic area •Sunny spot to locate the station and continually charge the solar locks •Existing sidewalk and curbs perfect for those using the staton •Available this spring/early summer •Professional and well maintained business •Site is large enough to support 18 bikes (starting with 10) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Site Plan Site Plan 3D (Showing maximum number of bikes) * Sign and landscaping designs in subsequent pages Existing Curbs Landscaping Plan * Designed, installed, and maintained by local landscaping experts Yardmasters to ensure it is always looking great. * Concrete work completed by local Stillwater company Giestone LLC. Grey natural slab stampled concrete Dark greys with natural shades to simulate railroad ties Natural cedar mulch Bike Station Sign Bike Station Sign Materials 7’ 4” 3’ 7” Wood Frame Details: Material: Cedar 4x4s Finish: Japanese Shou Sugi Ban Technique (charred cedar with oil ﬁnish) to ﬁt with woodgrain theme of printed sign and bike chainguard and lumber history of Stillwater. 100% natural being sign is close to water Wood Frame Details: Material: Sub 6 Mil Komatex Security 7’ 4” 3’ 7” Existing street light on location already. Additional security camera will be added from Water Street Inn. Bikes can only be unlocked from sunrise to an hour before sunset. Remote monitoring of the check- out and check-in of bikes. Ability To Grow With The Community Timeline June 18-25th  Launch   May 16th  Heritage  Preservation Planning  Commission  May 9th Application Approval  May 26th 3-4 Weeks May 28th  Order  Bikes Concrete Work Install  Sign Install  Racks Land-  scaping PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 9, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-19 APPLICANT: Dean and Roberta Hansen, property owners REQUEST: Consideration of 5’ variance to the 100’ wetland buffer setback for the construction of a porch on the rear of the structure located at 3549 Eben Way ZONING: Cottage Res. (CR) COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Dean and Roberta Hansen are requesting approval of a 5’ variance to the 100’ wetland buffer setback for the construction of 12’X12’ porch to be added to the rear of the home. If approved, approximately 20 square feet of the proposed 144 square foot porch would be located in the setback area; the remainder of the porch would be located outside of the setback area. Please see the attached Wetland and Buffer map for reference. APPLICABLE BACKGROUND Dean Hansen purchased the property in 2000 with the acknowledgement there was a protective easement on the property. As part of the Liberty on the Lake 2nd Addition, a scenic/conservation easement was in place for the protection of wetlands and other open space areas not located on the subject property. However, at the time of the development’s approval, a less restrictive set of wetland setbacks were in place. In some locations, the existing easements are as close as 18’ to the wetland edge; in other areas the setback is well in excess of 100’. In 2008 the City updated its Local Surface Water Management Plan and wetland classification map based on data provided by Brown’s Creek Watershed District. At that time, the City adopted regulations requiring a 100’ setback from high quality wetlands, which this wetland has been designated as. For many of the properties adjacent to high quality wetlands, portions of structures as well as yard areas encroach into the new setback areas. In February, 2018, City staff received an inquiry regarding the construction of a porch on the rear of the home. The porch, proposed to be accessed from an existing woodshop and Case No. 2018-19 CPC: May 9, 2018 Page 2 of 4 gathering room, would not be located closer to the wetland that existing at-grade patio developed on the back of the home. Staff advised the inquirer the addition could not be permitted without a variance. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to “…allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement…would cause practical difficulties for the landowner.” In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates “[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance” and “…a previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits.” Section 31-208 further indicates: • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. The applicant must demonstrate that: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose of the wetland setback is to maintain open, unencumbered space for adequate natural infiltration. The corner of the porch that will be located in the setback area will be placed directly above existing, nonconforming impervious surface installed prior to the City’s adoption of the Local Surface Water Management Plan in 2008. The wetland setback areas encumbers approximately 4,750 square feet of the subject property’s area. Approximately 450 square feet of that area includes existing setback area encroachments, including a portion of the residence; this is 90.5% of the total setback area. No additional impervious surface coverage would be added to the setback area. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. An objective of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan (CP) is to “preserve, protect, and/or restore natural features including: ravine areas, shorelands and bluff lands, tree stands and individual heirloom trees, slopes, wetlands, and wildlife habitat areas.” As a means to achieve the CP goals, policies and objectives relating to surface water management, the CP adopts the Local Surface Water Management Plan by reference. While the proposed encroachment is in an area that is designed to preserve and protect the wetland, the encroachment would not directly impact the wetland resource any greater than the existing encroachments on this property that were constructed in conformance with the previously-approved setback areas. Case No. 2018-19 CPC: May 9, 2018 Page 3 of 4 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 construction of additional living space is reasonable on a residence. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and While there is a wetland on the adjacent property, and an associated conservation easement that is well outside of the proposed construction limits, the 100’ setback went into effect after the property owner’s purchase of the property. However, it is the landowner that is requesting the construction of an improvement that does not conform to the current standards in place. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The rear yard of this property is sodded and natural, undisturbed vegetation is present further to the south and to the east. Not only will the undisturbed vegetation remain but a 95’ setback will be preserved between the porch and the wetland. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Make the finding that practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a 5’ variance to the 100’ minimum setback from a Preserve wetland, with or without conditions. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2018-19. 2. No further encroachments, including those not requiring a building permit, shall be permitted in this 100’ wetland setback area. 3. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to the construction of the porch Case No. 2018-19 CPC: May 9, 2018 Page 4 of 4 4. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. B. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance. C. Table the application and request additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis the application is in harmony with the general intent of the zoning ordinance, substantially consistent with the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends conditional approval 5’ variance to the 100’ wetland setback for the construction of 20 square feet of a 144 square foot rear porch at 3549 Eben Way. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Delineated Wetland and Buffer Map Narrative Request (5 pages) As-Built Survey Proposed Porch Plan Liberty on the Lake 2nd Addition Plat (selected page) Scenic and Conservation Easement (4 pages) Site Photographs (2 pages) EBEN COURTC S A H 15EBEN WAYEBEN COURTGREENEBENEBEN COURTROADREUNIONS T A P L E S P L WAYGADIENT SAWYERPLACEDELANO WAYDELANO COURTB E R GMA N NC S A H 15BARONS WAYROADREUNIONPARK W AYWAY HOMEWARDAVE HERITAGE WAYHOMEWARDNORTH PARKWAYPIONEER HERITAGE CT HERITAGE CTGREEN HOMESTEAD GREEN KINSHIP LIBERTY ADELINETRAILNEWMAN TRAILNEWMANHERITAGE CTAVENUE GREENLIBERTYP L A C EHARVESTGREENCOUNTRYROADTENDINGGREENPLANTING LIBERTY AVENUE MANNING AVENUELIBERTYCT6713 6660 7060 725 7150 917 6866 6900 6950 735 6428 6558 745 715 625 6764 3330 635645 800 3387 3314 3363 35223562 3532 613 3034 3362 901 750 705 1110 7130 3248 1106 1108 3367 650 3160 1012 3520 3415 825 725 3615 3416 3380 775 3385 580 3549 3605 875 620 3350 630 455 3660 640 488 457 539 547 891 590 614 3620 518 559 553 3374 535 655 512 525 425 543530 3415 421430 410 415 3484 965 404 906 524 476 401 595 850 490 481 464 444 3413 445 506 440 531 3337 518 568594 409 416 3655 331 520 424 470 625 673 550 3685 3680 3370 450 3362 602 3665 461 349 1024 3359 337 614 641657 540530 545535 674662650638626 10361042 1054 1072 10601066 1032 456 3675 µ 0 580 1,160290Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 3549 Eben Way µ 0 40 8020Feet 3549 Ebe n Wa yProposed Po rch L ocationParcel Bound ariesCurrent Easeme nt Boun daryWetland Are asPreserve 100' Setba ck ^ General Site Location 3549 Eben WayDelineated Wetlandand 100' (Preserve)Wetland Buffer A rea PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 9, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-20 APPLICANT: Matt & Kristin Hall, property owners REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to the side yard setback for the expansion of an existing three-season porch. Matt & Kristin Hall, property owners. ZONING: RB – Two Family Residential COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low-Medium Density Residential PREPARED BY: Erik Olson-Williams, Zoning Administrator/Assistant Planner REQUEST & BACKGROUND Matt and Kristin Hall are requesting a variance to the required 5’ Side Yard Setback for the expansion of an existing three-season porch on the rear of their home. The porch is non- conforming and currently sits less than the required five feet from the north property line. The proposed expansion would involve moving the north wall one foot, six inches to the north and moving the west wall two additional feet to the west, ultimately making the currently non- conforming north wall two feet longer and bringing it closer to the north property line. The north wall is not parallel with the north property line, so it is unclear exactly how close the expanded wall will be to the property line. This is something the applicant will need to clarify prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, Building Code requires that all walls and projections within five feet of a property rating must be fire-rated. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to “…allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement…would cause practical difficulties for the landowner.” In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates “[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance” and “…a previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits.” Section 31-208 further indicates:  Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Case No. 2018-20 CPC: 05/09/2018 Page 2 of 3  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 purposes of the Side Yard Setback are in part to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits; and to provide separation between neighboring homes for light and air circulation, to provide sufficient space to maintain each home, to provide sufficient stormwater drainage. The property to the north of the subject property is city-owned and is currently being used as open space and trailhead parking. This property is guided to continue to be used for park and recreation purposes, so there is no expectation that another home or structure will be erected upon it. Stormwater drainage is less of a concern due to the large amount of open space on this property. The proposed setback is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no elements of this proposal that are in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. “Practical difficulties,” as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner, as it is reasonable to have a porch in a residential area. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and The home was originally constructed in 1900 as a commercial building. It has a minimal setback on the north and east sides, making it very difficult to construct any kind of improvement on these sides of the property without requiring a Variance. The applicant did not construct the house or move it to its current location. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Case No. 2018-20 CPC: 05/09/2018 Page 3 of 3 The existing porch is located on the rear of the property and is not visible from the street. The variance, if granted, will be not alter the essential character of the locality. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make the finding that practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a variance to the 5’ Side Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] from the north property line for a 1.5’x2’ expansion of the existing back porch, at the property located at 518 Owens Street North, with or without conditions. The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. Applicants shall verify that the expanded porch will be entirely within the bounds of their property prior to the issuance of building permits. b. All walls and projections within five feet of the property line must be fire-rated, in compliance with MN Building Code. c. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department’s Case No. 2018-20. d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the finding that practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance, with or without prejudice. 3. Table the application and request additional information from staff or the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis that practical difficulty does exist and the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality, staff recommends approval of the variance request. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Application Narrative Building Plans Partial Survey NORTH EVERETT STREETL A U R E L WEST RICE STREET STREETNORTH CENTER STM E A D O W LA R K D R SHERBURNE STREETNORTH OWENS STREETNORTH GREELEY STREETNORTH WILLIAM STWEST LA UR EL S TRE ET CHERRY STREET WEST MULBERRY NORTH STREET WEST RICE STREET ST WEST LINDEN C S A H 5LINDEN ECHO LANEL O O K O U T S T SUNNYSLOPE LANE LANESTERLING WAY WEST HIC KO RY STR EE THICKORY STR EE TNORTHELM STRE E T WEST M A PL E S TR EE T WEST ELM STR EE TEVERETT WEST NORTHNORTHWILLIAMSTREETOWENSC S A H 5AMUNDSON DRIVED R IV E FISCHER CIRCLE PARK PL McKUSICK ROAD COUNTY R D 64 900 1211 1212 1207 1206 212 523 1000 1410 13161322 1314 741 1404 1312 820 614 518 804 918 423 1010 724917 415 9101599 1104 1100 703 219 232 502 845 715 711 226 304 225 1127 865 506 419 905 219 905 911 710 231 905 722 723 720 502 819 721 804 307 237 604 701 825 522 451 504 216213 924 817 706 422 618 709 227 1109 612210 225230 213 621 622 911 812 704403 901 415 916 622 417 313 781 601 1410 814 816 918 423 408 316815 415 408 813 519 203202 317 731 515 801 716 1205 506 1119 215 202205 225 202 522 718 501 814 716 512 716 815 1408 709 1307 711 822 407 603 706 620 303 616702 771 1407 205 1411 422704 704 717 712 501 1405 234235 213 310 1409 228 703 1307 302 1314 819 409 218 207 201 319 236 224 233 236 1311 226 218 215 917 312 813 719 403 913 412 1409 129 314 902 325 218 318 308 302 234 308 503 608616 211 313 724 221219 2291408 421 504 715 724 817 810 504 308 500424 222 420 401 416412408404 915 201 715719423 311 211 312 419 604 305301 1301 1204 230228 214208 315 303307 317 214220 210206 214 231 229 228225 311 909 304 428 318 416 308 424 802 420 501 404 410 505509513 208 1016 813823 602 µ 0 460 920230Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 518 Owens St N PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 9, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-21 APPLICANT: Northern Vineyards Winery representing Minnesota Winegrower’s Coop, property owner, on behalf of Kowalski’s Market REQUEST: Consideration of a Food Vendor License for Kowalski’s Market, a food vendor truck, to be stationary at the property located at 223 Main Street North ZONING: CBD – Central Business District COMP PLAN: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND Northern Vineyards have submitted an application on behalf of Kowalski’s Market to allow for their food truck to be located at 223 Main Street North on Fridays between July and October. If approved, the Kowalski’s food truck would operate between 3:00 and 7:00 pm. City Code Section 41-7, Subd. 2 provides a review process and standards for issuance of the requested permit. The permit must be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the first year of operation. Each year after that the annual permit can be issued by City staff if Figure 1: View of Proposed Truck Location (Photo via Google Maps, dated August, 2017) Case No. 2018-21 CPC: May 9, 2018 Page 2 of 4 there are no substantial changes to the business plan or operations. If approved, the license would be issued only to Kowalskis. A new licesne would need to be applied for in the event it was the desire to have a differnet food truck in this location. REQUEST Northern Vineyards has requested a seasonal food vending permit for Kowalski’s Market. EVALUATION OF REQUEST An annual permit for a seasonal food vending cart, vehicle or trailer may be approved by the City subject to the following. (1) A completed permit application form must be submitted annually (including permit fee) to the Community Development Department. (a) Address of the private property upon which the cart or vehicle will operate. 223 N Main Street. (b) Site and operations plans detailing at least the following: Size and location of the area being occupied by the Seasonal Food Vending operation: The food truck is proposed to be parked on the east side of the structure, facing Water Street. The truck will be placed in existing parking spaces. Picture and dimensions of vehicle or cart: Photographs of the truck have been and are attached to this staff report. Location of exits from principal building on the property. The vending equipment and operation must not block the exits: The entrances to the principal building on the property will not be blocked by the truck or the customer cues. Storage location for vehicle or cart when not open for business: The applicant is proposing to move the truck outside of City limits when the business is not in operation at this site. Method of containing trash: There are existing waste receptacles for the business use. Pedestrian and traffic control safety measures. The sales area may not impede pedestrian or vehicular circulation patterns on or around the site: The truck is proposed to be located wholly on private property and offset from the public way so that queuing will not occur on the sidewalk or street. Parking stalls. If parking stalls are being used by the vending operation, this must be indicated on the site plan. The total number of parking spaces required of the principal use of the private property shall not be reduced below the minimum number required by ordinance: The applicant is proposing to utilize all of the rear parking spaces. Miscellaneous operation details including: a) dates and hours of operation, b) merchandise or service being offered for sale, and c) contact information for the landowner, the applicant, and Case No. 2018-21 CPC: May 9, 2018 Page 3 of 4 the manager of the Seasonal Vending operation: The vending hours are proposed to be 3:00 and 7:00 pm on Fridays in July through October. (c) Utility plan. Indicate how utilities will be provided to the operation. The truck is self-sufficient however, the applicant has indicated the truck will plug into Northern Vineyard’s electricity to reduce noise in this area. (d) Signage Plan. The annual permit application must include details of all proposed signage. The applicant has depicted all signage to be permanent affixed to the truck. No additional signage has been proposed. (e) Signed agreement from the property owner allowing the proposed Seasonal Vending operation. The property owner has signed the permit application. (2) Submittal of a satisfactory inspection report of the proposed cart or vehicle from the Stillwater Fire Department AND Submittal of a permit issued for the cart or vehicle by Washington County health officials. License by Washington County Health is not required if the applicant has obtained a Minnesota Department of Health license. Submittal of these licenses, as well as proof of Stillwater Fire Department inspection has not occurred. PUBLIC COMMENT To the date of memo development, the City has received three public comments. Mike Lynskey Sr., downtown property owner, Mead Stone, General Manager of River Market Community Co- op, and Tom Wortman, property owner of 219-221 Main Street North, are all in opposition to the request. They indicate this business will compete with River Market Co-op and will not pay property taxes. ALTERNATIVES A. If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the provisions of the Seasonal Outdoor Sales regulations, the Commission could approve the License with or without the conditions. If the Commission finds the proposal is consistent with the provisions of City Code Section 41-7, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. The license shall only be valid to Kowalskis Food Truck. 2. The license would be valid until December 31, 2018. 3. No storage or product sales are allowed outside of the vending trailer. 4. An outside garbage can must be provided by the business for its customers. Trash may not be stored on public lands. The trash container must be removed from the site when vending is not occurring. 5. Each year when the business is reviewed for reissuance of a vending permit, the location of the truck must be analyzed so as not to dominate the traffic flow or parking spaces, if the drive aisle and spaces are needed for tenants and building customers/clients. Case No. 2018-21 CPC: May 9, 2018 Page 4 of 4 6. If there is to be a generator supporting the trailer, the manufacturer’s noise specifications must be submitted. If the generator is not a quiet technology, then the hours of operation may have to be re-examined. 7. All conditions of approval of the Heritage Preservation Commission are incorporated by reference to this. Conditions of approval shall be noted on the license. 8. The application shall be reviewed by the Downtown Parking Commission for the loss of a parking spaces. B. If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. C. If the Planning Commission finds the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of the SUP regulations, the Commission could deny the application. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial and state whether or not the denial is with prejudice. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with certain conditions, the application meets all requirements of the Food Vendor licensing provisions. If the Planning Commission finds the proposed Kowalski’s food truck’s location acceptable, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the license with the conditions identified in the alternatives, above. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Photographs Site Plan Public Comments (3) STATE HWY 95E A S T M Y R T L E S T R E E TSOU TH SECOND STREETSTATE HWY 95SO MAI N STNORTH MAI N STREETA L L E Y C O M M E R C IA L A V E N U ENORTH WATER STREETSO UNI ON STALLEYALLEYBURLI NGTONNORTHERNBURLINGTONNORTH WATERSTSAM BL OOMER WAY333 350350 350350 350350 350350 350350 402 212 232 101102 575 220 123 201 101 242 221 130 251 110 270 113 350 108200 103 102 302 204 106 501501 225 226 225 107 223 218 350 212 304 219 308 312 209 217 320 316 115 215 350 219 µ 0 230 460115Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 223 Main St N May 1, 2018 City of Stillwater Planning Commission Re: Case No. CPC/2018-21 223 Main St. No. Dear Jenn Sundberg, I am the General Manager of River Market Community Co -op, next door to the winery. We have been in business for over 40 years, the past 17 of which have been on Main Street. The Winery as I understand it, is also a cooperative and has been in business for about as long as we have. Both businesses have come out of a long, hard winter from a sales standpoint. For us, April was terrible in both sales and customer count. I think both businesses are struggling and I understand Mr. Youngquist’s desire to be creative to win back sales for his winery. But I do not agree with his desire to compete with food – our life blood. We are a grocery store; Northern Vineyards is a winery. I have no problem with the winery having food delivered to their location for their customers to eat and enjoy their deck, but I believe that is a little different than putting a food truck outside of his business which could take business away from River Market. As Mr. Wortman pointed out, the winery has little or no skin in the food game, whereas River Market invested over a million dollars in a remodel in 2014, with significant investment in expanding our deli. Given the rough winter River Market had and as the General Manager, I have a responsibility to our 5,000+ owners to protect our business to the best of my ability. Simply allowing the winery to have a food truck right next to our business without speaking out my objection would make me negligent. I have no animosity toward the winery, but I must object to their proposal. Mead Stone General Manager River Market Community Co-op From: Mike Lynskey [mailto:Mike@lynskeyclark.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2018 11:58 AM To: Jenn Sundberg <jsundberg@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: FOOD TRUCKS Hi Jenn, Just a short note to reply to Case No. CPC/2018-21. I generally do not have a problem with most things that folks want to do downtown. I do however strongly object to food trucks and this type of business. I happen to own several buildings on Main Street in Stillwater and I just don’t think it is fair to have these type of trucks in the downtown business district. My tenants pay rent to do business down here. I pay “HUGE” REAL ESTATE TAXES to be downtown. I do not think people should be allowed to take up space for a food truck, pay little or nothing to the City to operate there and compete with businesses that pay large rent amounts that are partially driven by real estate taxes. Sincerely, Mike Lynskey Sr. TreMar LLCYour Name 10633 Water Lily Terrace Woodbury, MN 55129 tomwortman@comcast.net April 30, 2018 Planning Commission City of Stillwater Re: Case No. CPC/2018-21 223 Main St. No. Dear Planning Commission: I am the owner of 219-221 Main St. No. Stillwater, MN. One of my Tenants is the River Market Community Coop and Deli Market. They have been in the food and deli business for the last 17 years in downtown Stillwater. The Winery has been in the Wine business for approximately the same amount of time selling wine and they have been good neighbors all those years. Three years ago, the River Market invested $300,000.00 to install and upgrade their deli section of the store so they would be able to better serve their customers. They now serve breakfast, lunch and dinner items daily. It seems to me, that if you allow the Winery to have a food truck to be on the property for lunch service, they are stealing River Markets customers. They have no cash investment and are now deciding to try and steal the River Markets customers. If you allow the Winery to have a food truck, why not allow the River Market to have a Haskell’s Wine truck in front of the River Market and sell wine to the Winery customers. By allowing this to occur, you are setting a precedent to allow the River Market to get some type of truck and sell against the Winery. As you can tell by the above, I am totally against this application Sincerely, Tom Wortman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 9, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-22 APPLICANT: Andrew Mosiman and Christie Wanderer representing Forge and Foundry Distillery REQUEST: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a craft distillery and tasting area on the property located at 107 Chestnut Street East ZONING: CBD-Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU-Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner Figure 1: Photo via Google Maps, dated August 2017 REQUEST The applicant is requesting the following to be located in a portion of the structure at 107 Chestnut Street East: • A Special Use Permit for a distillery, light industrial that is clean and compatible with surrounding properties; and • A Special Use Permit for a tasting room, a use similar to a restaurant. Case No. 2016-39 CPC November 9, 2016 Page 2 DETAILS The applicant is seeking to locate a 2,472 square foot distillery and tasting room to be called Forge and Foundry Distillery in the garage portion of the, now vacant, historic armory located at 107 Chestnut Street East. To do this, they are requesting a Special Use Permit for a "Light Industrial use that is clean and compatible with surrounding properties.” Approximately 900 square feet will be dedicated to the tasting room. The tasting room facility will allow patrons to purchase and sample the products produced onsite; as per state regulation, the establishment will not be able to serve alcoholic products not produced by the facility. The facility will be open to the general public, Wednesdays through Sunday, though production will occur throughout the week. The remaining (approximately) 1,500 square feet will be dedicated to office, storage, utility, restrooms and production space. RELEVANT BACKGROUND The Stillwater Armory was designed by Oscar T. Lang, a well-known Minneapolis architect. The building was constructed between 1921 and 1922 and is designated as a contributing building to the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The property was historically utilized by the National Guard but has been sitting relatively vacant since the opening of the Stillwater Readiness Center off of Highway 12. This two-bay garage addition is not original to the Armory nor was it constructed during one of Stillwater’s pre-1946 historic context eras. As a reminder to the Commission, in 2016 the applicants gained SUP approval for a distillery to be located on South 2nd Street, less than one block away. However, they were unable to secure that location for their business. Special Use Permits are property specific; this means that the originally issued SUP cannot simply be transferred to this property. Each SUP proposed on any given piece of property is reviewed for conformity with City adopted regulations and plans to ensure the public health, safety and welfare will be maintained in this location. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1090 in January 2017. It specifically addresses a review process for all large Central Business District building projects, regardless of their proposed use. The intent of the ordinance is to review project where a change in use of at least 12,000 gross square feet will occur or where the project will have at least 20,000 square feet of area. While this proposed use will be a part of a larger complex, this project does not trigger the threshold for review of large building projects in the CBD Zoning District. However, future changes in use to the armory will trigger the review requirement in the future. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Municipal Code Section 31-207 indicates the following must be determined by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a Special Use Permit: Case No. 2016-39 CPC November 9, 2016 Page 3 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. Zoning Ordinance Use Both breweries and wineries have been classified as “light industrial that is clean and compatible with surrounding properties” in the Central Business District.  The applicants have indicated the production will let off steam but no odor or gas. Additionally, the building will be improved with two controlled AC units, one to service the production area and another to service the tasting room.  While spent grains will be kept in sealed containers, onsite and indoors, it will be removed greater than one time weekly. When a tap/tasting room is also proposed, the City has determined them to be substantially similar to a restaurant for purposes of review for compliance with zoning regulations.  In addition to the spent grains from the production, there will be additional trash produced onsite. The applicants have indicated trash will be kept inside the production facility until collection day. Both of these types of uses have operated in the Central Business District without complaint. Parking The property is located within the Downtown Parking District. While there are parking spaces to the west of the Armory building, they are not on the same site as the garage (which is located on a separate tax parcel from the armory). There is, however, an (approximately) 30’ wide by 36’ deep driveway and parking pad area. The applicant has not indicate the area will be utilized for parking purposes through, depending on a design conforming to design standards, it could accommodate some parking. While the use is not required to have any off-street loading facilities, this driveway and parking pad area will be utilized for all deliveries and patron access to the business. In short, the property does not meet all of the twelve (12) parking spaces required. Section 31-510, Subd 1 (d)(1)i of the Zoning Chapter allows "alternative provisions" to be applied to parking requirements when the property in question is located within a parking district. The application has been scheduled for consideration at the next Downtown Parking Commission meeting. Comprehensive Plan – The Local Economy chapter of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Page 7-4) “encourages small locally owned businesses particularly in the downtown.” Case No. 2016-39 CPC November 9, 2016 Page 4 Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; and Staff has not identified any public interest concerns. Exterior changes – Section 31-319 of the Stillwater City Code requires that the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) conduct a design review on exterior changes, signage, and mechanical units. The HPC has not reviewed any exterior changes. At this time, the applicant is seeking use permit approvals to begin the local, state, and federal licensing processes. Miscellaneous  Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Staff has determined the distillery and tasting room would not be a detriment to the public if all distilling operations are conducted within the structure. ALTERNATIVES The Commission has the following options: A. Approval: If the Planning Commission finds the Special Use Permit amendment proposal is consistent with the provisions of the SUP process, the Commission could move to approve the SUP with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2018-22, except as modified by the conditions herein 3. All existing and future trash receptacles shall be stored inside the building or in an enclosed onsite trash facility, at all times with the exception of the day of trash collection. 4. All signage and exterior alterations including, but not limited to, the installation of garage doors, lighting and mechanical equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to installation. Any conditions attached to the Design Permit issued by the Heritage Preservation Commission for this addition are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. 5. Prior to the operation of the tasting room, the applicant shall secure an on premise license from the City Clerk’s office. 6. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to distilling operations, the applicant shall secure state and federal permits and licenses. 8. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. Any conditions attached to the parking Case No. 2016-39 CPC November 9, 2016 Page 5 mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. i. If the plan includes a fee-in-lieu, the fee shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Failure to pay charges within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the fees as a condition of approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. 9. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the approved Special Use Permit guidelines, then the Commission could deny the request. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. D. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be tabled the June, 2018 meeting. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of a Special Use Permit to operate a distillery and tasting area on the property located at 107 Chestnut Street East. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request (2 pages) Site and Floor Plan E A S T M Y R T L E S T R E E T E A S T C H E S T N U T S T SOUTH THI RD STREETSOUTH SECOND STREETSOUTH SECOND STREETSTATE HI GHWAYS 95 & 36C S A H 2 3 N E L S O N S T SOUTHSO MAI N STSOUTH WATER STREETC O M M E R C IA L A V E N U E SO UNI ON STALLEYC S A H 23SOUTH FOURTH STREETNORTHERNUNI ON ALLEYN E L S O N A L L E Y STS T R E E T E O L IV E S T S T A T E H W Y 3 6 N E L S O N S T R E E T SOUTH BROADWAY STREET102 110 115 200 119 101 120 118 207 102 107 114 324 322 220 117 123 208 106 302 124 275 118110 116 114112 310 120 102108 214 101 302 428 201 301301 301 301 301 204 230210240220 301 110 204 113 220 121 114 124 312 316 102 108 419 101101 101 103 229 320 201 218 102 317 315 209221 106 236 232 115117 101 213 226 324 132 243 140 107 321 311 400 233 220 126 202 301 130 123 214 150146 208 401 116 109 239 224 µ 0 230 460115Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 107 Chestnut Street E PLANNING REPORT CASE NO.: CPC 2018-23 HEARING DATES: May 9, 2018: Planning Commission APPLICANT: Browns Creek West, LLC, property owner REQUEST: 1) Special Use Permit for a residential structure in CBD 2) Setback Variances from front and rear lot lines LOCATION: 107 N. 3rd Street BASE ZONING: CBD, Commercial Business District OVERLAY ZONING: Height Overlay District, Blufftop COMP PLAN: Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION On February 20, 2018 the City Council considered an earlier version of this project. The massing of the building and the combination of setback and height variances were not found to be compatible with the neighborhood and consequently the Planning Commission and Council denied the request to approve the project. However, the use as a residential property was found to be acceptable, therefore the Council’s decision to deny was without prejudice. This was done intentionally to allow the developer the option to redesign the project and bring it back to the City for consideration without the necessity to wait for a year. The building has been redesigned to address the Planning Commission and Council concerns. The new building has been reduced from 11units to 9 units. The fourth floor with its penthouse has been eliminated and the footprint and mass of the building have been decreased. The resulting building now meets the height limit and required side yard setbacks. Moreover, the setback from the east lot line has been increased from 5 feet to 13 feet, which increases the separation between the proposed condo building and the single family home next door. Case No. 2018-23 Page 2 of 8 SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to construct the revised building, the property owner has requested the following: 1. A Special Use Permit to allow the construction of a 9-unit residential building in the CBD Zoning District. 2. A Variance from the 20 foot rear yard setback to allow the east wall of the building to be 13 feet from the rear lot line. 3. A Variance from the 15 foot front yard setback to allow a portion of the west wall of the building to be 5 feet from the front lot line. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS The Zoning Code allows residences by Special Use Permit in the CBD Zoning District.1 It also directs the Planning Commission to consider the following2: 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. The 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 Special Use Permit in the Central Business District. Throughout the latter part of the 2000s the City saw the addition of nearly 300 residential units Downtown. This condominium building would function similarly to 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 1 City Code Section 31-325, Miscellaneous Uses, Residences of all classes 2 City Code Section 31-207 (d) Case No. 2018-23 Page 3 of 8 corner of this intersection. Additionally, the next residential properties to the north are zoned Medium Density Residential. 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 residential condo properties is 32 units per acre. A density of 31 units per acre exists for the three closest condo buildings (Steeple Towne, Runk Condos, and Val Croix). The applicant proposes a density of 28.7 units per acre. Off-Street Parking and Loading: The following off-street parking spaces are required to be placed onsite: The applicant is proposing to construct 24 parking spaces in an underground garage. So, the parking provided for this project exceeds minimum requirements. Related to review of the parking is that the development agreement for the municipal parking ramp credits this property with 40 parking spaces on the upper level of the City’s parking ramp. With the construction of the underground garage, these 40 spaces would not have to be used. However, 7 of the existing parking spaces associated with the surface lot next to the municipal parking ramp will be removed as part of the condo construction. (See air photo below.) So, there would likely be a 33 space gain to the public parking system. Use Requirement Units Total Parking Required Multiple Family Units 1.5 spaces per unit (one of which needs to be covered) 9 13.5 spaces Guests 1 space for every three units 9 3 spaces Total 17 spaces Case No. 2018-23 Page 4 of 8 City Engineer Shawn Sanders would like to see a condition of approval that the areas of the parking lot and drive lanes that will no longer serve a function after removal of the 7 spaces must have the asphalt and the street curb cuts removed. The area should then be restored with turf, except the area where concrete sidewalk should be added. Details must be approved by the City Engineer prior to release of the building permit for the project. Traffic and Circulation: A traffic impact study was completed for the project by traffic engineers and specialists at SRF. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the existing roadway configurations from a traffic operations, safety, and access perspective. The study conclusions are: 1. Intersections. The proposed development was assumed to be completed by the year 2019. Therefore, traffic forecasts were developed for year 2020 conditions (one year after opening), and year 2029 conditions (ten years after opening). Based on existing area growth patterns and historical ADT volumes, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour volumes to develop year 2020 and year 2029 no build condition traffic forecasts. Under both the no build and build conditions, results of the year 2020 and year 2029 Case No. 2018-23 Page 5 of 8 operations analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall Level of Service (LOS) A, with the worst movement at LOS C or better, during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, assuming existing geometrics and traffic control. No significant delay or queuing issues are expected. 2. Driveway. Based on a review of the proposed site plan, field observations and applicable standards, there is adequate sight distance at the Myrtle Street/3rd Street study intersection and the proposed access location to clearly identify approaching vehicles. Consideration should be made to limit any sight distance impacts from future onsite structures, landscaping and signing, along with the construction of an appropriate access driveway approach meeting current design standards. The proposed site plan is generally well configured and the site access on Myrtle Street does not appear to represent a significant traffic safety issue based on the Myrtle Street study corridor crash history. 3. Overall impact of project. The City may consider the proposed 3rd & Myrtle Residential Condominium Development, without concern that it would represent a significant negative traffic impact to the supporting study area roadway system. Stormwater Management: Given its proximity to the adjacent property and the topography of the site, City Engineer Shawn Sanders notes that:  no storm water runoff can drain onto the adjacent property to the east; and  stormwater 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 project must be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission, who would approve a Design Permit. If the Design Permit requires more than minor changes to the facades, building footprint or mass, then the Special Use Permit may have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission again. Landscaping and signage: No landscaping or signage plans have been submitted. 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 together with the Design Permit prior to the issuance of the building permit. Case No. 2018-23 Page 6 of 8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & RELEVANT AREA PLANS  The 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicates Downtown Stillwater could support up to 250 more housing units by 2018.  In the core area of Downtown, commercial uses are expected on the street level. And though this project has no commercial on the street level, the property is also not located in the core of Downtown. VARIANCE ANALYSIS As noted above, two variances are being requested. One from the 20 foot rear yard setback requirement to allow the east wall of the building to be 13 feet from the rear lot line. The other from the 15 foot front yard setback to allow a portion of the west wall of the building to be 5 feet from the front lot line. Setback Comparison Required/allowed Previous project Revised project Rear setback 20’ 5’ 13’ Front setback 15’ 5’ 5’ Side setback 20’ combined 12+5=17’ 15+5=20’ Height 3 stories or 35’ 4 stories/45’ 3 stories/35’3 According to the City Code, Section 31-208, 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 determining “practical difficulty” the following is to be considered: The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located The use of the property for residences is allowed by Special Use Permit. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. It is important to note that in Downtown Stillwater, buildings are frequently built out to their property lines. Which is to say they have no setbacks. For example, the Lofts and Mills on Main were both allowed to build right up to their lot lines. In this specific neighborhood, both the American Legion on the southeast corner of the 3rd 3 The two stairwells and elevator are allowed to exceed the 35’ height maximum. And in this case there is a wall section that connects each of these three allowed exceptions. Since this single wall does not enclose space and is no higher than the allowed exceptions it attaches to, staff considers it to be exempt from the 35’ height limit as well. Case No. 2018-23 Page 7 of 8 and Myrtle, and Steeple Towne on the southwest corner have no setback from 3rd or Myrtle. So, a strong argument can be made that it would be consistent with the neighborhood and the historic context of Downtown to allow no setbacks for this project. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the 9-unit condo proposal to be consistent with the provisions of the Special Use Permit process, and further finds the two variances to meet the requisite standards, then the Commission could approve the Special Use Permit and variances 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 Special Use Permit standards, 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 Special Use Permit regulations, then the Planning Commission should deny the Special Use Permit 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 setback variances to accommodate the proposed structure, setbacks for buildings Downtown historically do not have setbacks. In addition, both of the buildings on the south side of Myrtle Street and 3rd Street have no setbacks from Myrtle or 3rd. Therefore, the requested setback variances are consistent with the immediate neighborhood and historic context of Downtown Stillwater. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit and setback variances with the following conditions: 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. 2018- 23, except as modified by the conditions herein or by the Heritage Preservation Commission approval Design Permit. 3. The Special Use Permit and Variances will not become effective until a Design Permit has been reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Case No. 2018-23 Page 8 of 8 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 sides of the building. No landscaping or other obstructions may be planted or placed in the traffic site visibility triangle shown in blue on Site Plan A2 dated April 20, 2018. 7. Landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission together with its Design Permit review. 8. If the project is to have any permanent signs, a sign plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Heritage Preservation Commission together with its Design Permit review. 9. Unused areas of the existing parking lot and drive lanes to the west of the condominium building shall have the asphalt and street curb cuts removed. Also, the area must be restored with turf, except in areas where concrete sidewalks must be added. Details must be approved by the City Engineer prior to release of the building permit for the project. 10. The project will require full review by the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization and approval will be required prior to issuance of any building or grading permits by the City. 11. No storm water runoff shall drain on to the adjacent property to the east. 12. Storm water from the new building shall be connected to an existing storm sewer pipe. 13. The existing storm sewer in the parking lot shall be removed by the developer. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 Applicant’s narrative Plan set Neighbor’s letter bt M y r t l e S t r e e t C h e s t n u t S t r e e tN.4thStreetN.3rdStreetN.2ndStreetSubject site Case No. 2018-23 Location Map Whitcomb Project 20 April 2018107 THIRD STREET N.STILLWATER, MN3RD & MYRTLE3RD STREET NORTH MYRTLE STREETPID#2003020420059 CONTACT: BROWNS CREEK WEST, LLC C/O Jon Whitcomb 651-351-5005 Office 651-283-4884 Cell Jon@metroeastcre.com www.metroeastcre.com VICINITY MAP ST04008C SURVST04C BOUNDARY/TOPOGRAPHYSURVEY COUNTY/CITY: REVISIONS: PROJECT LOCATION: LAND SURVEYING, INC.CORNERSTONE Suite #1 6750 Stillwater Blvd. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 Fax 651.275.8976 dan@ cssurvey .net DATE REVISION PROJECT NO. FILE NAME 107 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THIRD ST. N. CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTONCOUNTY The following Legal Description is as shown on Stewart Title Guaranty Company Issued by its Agent, Land Title, Inc. Title Commitment No. 545351, dated September 21st, 2016. Parcel A West 90 feet of Lot 15, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel B: West 90 feet of Lot 14, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel C: The South 45 feet of the West 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel D: The North 5 feet of the West 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Abstract Property 11-13-17 INITIAL ISSUE CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Daniel L. Thurmes Registration Number: 25718 Date:__________________ THIRD &MYRTLE 0 NORTH10 20 EASEMENT NOTES: The following exceptions appear on the Stewart Title Guaranty Company Issued by its Agent, Land Title, Inc. Title Commitment No. 545351, dated September 21st, 2016 There are not survey related items shown on Schedule BII of said commitment. LEGEND SURVEY NOTES: UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND CABLE TV UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OVERHEAD UTILITY UNDERGROUND GAS SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FENCE CURB [TYPICAL] CONTOURS FOUND MONUMENT 1/2" IP MARKED RLS 15480 SET 1/2" IRON PIPE MARKED RLS NO. 25718 CABLE TV PEDESTAL AIR CONDITIONER ELECTRIC MANHOLE ELECTRIC METER ELECTRIC PEDESTAL ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER LIGHT POLE GUY WIRE POWER POLE GAS MANHOLE GAS METER TELEPHONE MANHOLE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL SANITARY CLEANOUT SANITARY MANHOLE CATCH BASIN STORM DRAIN FLARED END SECTION STORM MANHOLE FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION HYDRANT CURB STOP WATER WELL WATER MANHOLE WATER METER POST INDICATOR VALVE WATER VALVE BOLLARD FLAG POLE MAIL BOX TRAFFIC SIGN UNKNOWN MANHOLE SOIL BORING SPOT ELEVATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE AREA: TOTAL AREA AS SHOWN = 13,674 SQ.FT.THERE ARE 7 PARTIAL PARKING STALLS DESIGNATED ON THIS PARCEL INCLUDING 0 HANDICAP STALLS. EXISTING PARKING: CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! TWIN CITY AREA:TOLL FREE:1-800-252-1166651-454-0002Gopher State One Call DENOTES EXISTINGACCESS CONTROL AS SHOWN ON RECORD PLAT UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPROMISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKET NUMBER(S) XXXXXXX. SOME MAPS WERE RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. SITE WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTASECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 30 NORTH, RANGE 20 WEST,VICINITY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)NORTH11-13-17 PID#2003020420060PID#2003020420061PID#2003020420169 1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE. 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER ONE LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. A D C B A BC D PRELIMIN A R Y NOTE: TOPOGRAPHY TAKEN FROM SURVEY DATED 1-23-13. NO ADDITIONAL SURVEYING TO DATE.EXIST.CONDITIONSA1 20 April 2018107 THIRD STREET N.STILLWATER, MN3RD & MYRTLE3RD STREET NORTH MYRTLE STREETPID#2003020420059 CONTACT: BROWNS CREEK WEST, LLC C/O Jon Whitcomb 651-351-5005 Office 651-283-4884 Cell Jon@metroeastcre.com www.metroeastcre.com VICINITY MAP ST04008C SURVST04C BOUNDARY/TOPOGRAPHYSURVEY COUNTY/CITY: REVISIONS: PROJECT LOCATION: LAND SURVEYING, INC.CORNERSTONE Suite #1 6750 Stillwater Blvd. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 Fax 651.275.8976 dan@ cssurvey .net DATE REVISION PROJECT NO. FILE NAME 107 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THIRD ST. N. CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTONCOUNTY The following Legal Description is as shown on Stewart Title Guaranty Company Issued by its Agent, Land Title, Inc. Title Commitment No. 545351, dated September 21st, 2016. Parcel A West 90 feet of Lot 15, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel B: West 90 feet of Lot 14, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel C: The South 45 feet of the West 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel D: The North 5 feet of the West 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Abstract Property 11-13-17 INITIAL ISSUE CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Daniel L. Thurmes Registration Number: 25718 Date:__________________ THIRD &MYRTLE 0 NORTH10 20 EASEMENT NOTES: The following exceptions appear on the Stewart Title Guaranty Company Issued by its Agent, Land Title, Inc. Title Commitment No. 545351, dated September 21st, 2016 There are not survey related items shown on Schedule BII of said commitment. LEGEND SURVEY NOTES: UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND CABLE TV UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OVERHEAD UTILITY UNDERGROUND GAS SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FENCE CURB [TYPICAL] CONTOURS FOUND MONUMENT 1/2" IP MARKED RLS 15480 SET 1/2" IRON PIPE MARKED RLS NO. 25718 CABLE TV PEDESTAL AIR CONDITIONER ELECTRIC MANHOLE ELECTRIC METER ELECTRIC PEDESTAL ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER LIGHT POLE GUY WIRE POWER POLE GAS MANHOLE GAS METER TELEPHONE MANHOLE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL SANITARY CLEANOUT SANITARY MANHOLE CATCH BASIN STORM DRAIN FLARED END SECTION STORM MANHOLE FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION HYDRANT CURB STOP WATER WELL WATER MANHOLE WATER METER POST INDICATOR VALVE WATER VALVE BOLLARD FLAG POLE MAIL BOX TRAFFIC SIGN UNKNOWN MANHOLE SOIL BORING SPOT ELEVATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE AREA: TOTAL AREA AS SHOWN = 13,674 SQ.FT.THERE ARE 7 PARTIAL PARKING STALLS DESIGNATED ON THIS PARCEL INCLUDING 0 HANDICAP STALLS. EXISTING PARKING: CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! TWIN CITY AREA:TOLL FREE:1-800-252-1166651-454-0002Gopher State One Call DENOTES EXISTING ACCESS CONTROL AS SHOWN ON RECORDPLAT UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPROMISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKET NUMBER(S) XXXXXXX. SOME MAPS WERE RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. SITE WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTASECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 30 NORTH, RANGE 20 WEST,VICINITY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)NORTH11-13-17 PID#2003020420060PID#2003020420061PID#2003020420169 1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE. 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER ONE LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. A D C B A BC D PRELIMIN A R Y NOTE: TOPOGRAPHY TAKEN FROM SURVEY DATED 1-23-13. NO ADDITIONAL SURVEYING TO DATE.SITE PLANSITE TRIANGLE NATIVE TO MINNESOTA ITEM COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE QTY. DOT DECIDUOUS OVERSTORY TREES: D.O.T. 1 KC KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE Gymnocladus dioica 2.5" Cal.,B&B 13 SkHl SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST Gleditsia tri inermis "skyline"2.5" Cal.,B&B 19 SuM SUGAR MAPLE Acer saccharum 2.5" Cal.,B&B 20 ABM AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE 2.5" Cal.,B&B COT CONIFEROUS OVERSTORY TREES: C.O.T. 5 JP JACK PINE Pinus banksiana 6' Ht., B&B 6 NP NORWAY (RED) PINE Pinus resinosa 6' Ht., B&B 9 WP WHITE PINE Pinus strobus 6' Ht., B&B DUT DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY TREES: D.U.T. 1 AM AMUR MAPLE Acer ginnala 6' Ht., B, BB 6 PD PAGODA DOGWOOD Cornus altemifolia 1.5" Cal. 14 JTL JAPANESE TREE LILAC Syringa amurensis japonica 1.5" Cal., BB 15 AS ALLEGHENY SERVICEBERRY Amelanchier laevis 1.5" Cal., BB CUT CONIFEROUS UNDERSTORY TREES: C.U.T. 1 BCJ BLUE COLUMNAR JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis var.6' Ht., B&B 2 PA PYRAMIDAL ARBORVITAE Thuja occidentalis pyramidal 6' Ht., B&B 3 RC RED CEDAR Juniperus virginiana glauca 6' Ht., B&B CLS CONIFEROUS LARGE SHRUBS: C.L.S. 1 AA AMERICAN ARBORVITAE Thuja occidentalis "techny"3' Ht. 2 BA BAKERS ARBORVITAE Thuja orientalis py. Bakeri 24" Dia. 4 JSY JAPANESE SPREADING YEW Taxus Cuspidata var.24" Dia. 5 MP MUGHO PINE Pinus mugo mughus 24-36" Dia. MCS MEDIUM CONIFEROUS SHRUBS: M.C.S. 2 DJY DWARF JAPANESE YEW Taxus cuspidata nana 24" Dia. 3 GA GLOBE ARBORVITAE Thuja occidentalis globosa'24" Dia. SCS SMALL CONIFEROUS SHRUBS: S.C.S. 1 BJ BROADMOOR JUNIPER Juniperus sabina "broadmoor"24" Dia. 2 CCJ CALGARY CARPET JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis "calgary carpet"24" Dia. 3 DMP DWARF MUGHO PINE Pinus mugo mughus var.24" Dia. LDS LARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUBS: L.D.S. 1 CL COMMON LILAC Syringa vulgaris var.3-4' Ht. 4 GN GOLDEN NINEBARK Physocarpos opulifollus luteus 3-4' Ht., BB 6 RD REDTWIG DOGWOOD Comus sangunea 3-4' Ht. 8 WV WAYFARINGTREE VIBERNUM Virurnum lantana 3-4' Ht., BB MDS MEDIUM DECIDUOUS SHRUBS: M.D.S. 2 AS AWATERER SPIREA Spirea bumalda 3' Ht. 4 DWE DWARF WINGED EUONYMUS Euonymus alautus compacta 3' Ht. 6 JB JAPANESE BARBERRY Berberis thunbergi 3' Ht. 11 ZH ZABEL HONEYSUCKLE Lonicera korolkowl sp.3' Ht. SDS SMALL DECIDUOUS SHRUBS: S.D.S. 1 AWS ANTHONY WATER SPIRAEA Spiraea bumalda sp.2' Ht. 2 CB CORALBERRY Symphonicarpos orbiculatus 2' Ht. 3 DGN DWARF GOLDEN NINEBARK Physocarpos opulifollus luteus (var.)2' Ht. 4 DKL DWARF KOREAN LILAC Syringa pallbiniana 2' Ht. 1 LANDSCAPE LEGEND A2site PLAN 1” = 20’-0” 1 A2 LOT DIMENSIONS; 90’ +/- X 150’ +/- LOT AREA; 13,500 SQ.FT. +/-(0.31 ac.) 20 April 2018107 THIRD STREET N.STILLWATER, MN3RD & MYRTLEFLOOR PLAN - GARAGE 1 / 8” = 1’-0” 1 A GARAGE PLAN13'-0"20'-0"REAR YARD SETBACK20'-0"REAR YARD SETBACK62'-0"15'-0"FRONT YARD SETBACK5'-0"T H I R D S T R E E T M Y R T L E 15'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK5'-0"16'-10" 12'-10" FOOT PRINT OF GARAGE PLAN IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION: 9,343 SQ.FT. FOOT PRINT OF GARAGE PLAN IN NEW APPLICATION: 8,486 SQ.FT. REDUCTION IN FOOTPRINT: 857 SQ.FT. north stair elevator parking lobby mechanical trash 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2019 21 22 23 24 5'-0" SIDE YARD SET- BACK LINE OF PREVIOUS PROPOSAL A3 20 April 2018107 THIRD STREET N.STILLWATER, MN3RD & MYRTLEDINING EAST DECK KITCHENLIVING W.I. CLOS.BATH 1 RAMP LIVING DINING DINING EAST DECK EAST DECK LIVING KITCHEN KITCHEN LAUNDRY FOYER FOYER BEDRM. 1 BEDRM. 1 BATH 1 BATH 1 W.I. CLOS. W.I. CLOS. BEDRM. 2 BEDRM. 2 BATH 2 BATH 2 north stair south stair elevator commons FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 1 / 8” = 1’-0” 1 A LEVEL 1PLANUNIT 1 GUEST UNIT UNIT 2 UNIT 3 FOYER LAUNDRY 1/2 BATH LAUNDRY UNIT 1: 1,943 SQ.FT., ONE BEDROOM, 1 ½ BATH UNIT 2: 2,050 SQ.FT., TWO BEDROOM, 2 BATH UNIT 3: 2,362 SQ.FT., TWO BEDROOM, 2 BATH GUEST UNIT: 335 SQ.FT., 3/4 BATH BEDRM. 1 BATH A4 20 April 2018107 THIRD STREET N.STILLWATER, MN3RD & MYRTLEFLOOR PLAN - LEVELS 2-3 1 / 8” = 1’-0” 1 A1 LEVEL 2&3PLANDINING EAST DECK KITCHEN FOYER LAUNDRYBEDRM. 1 W.I. CLOS. BATH 1 LIVING DINING DINING EAST DECK EAST DECK LIVING KITCHEN KITCHEN LAUNDRY FOYER FOYER BEDRM. 1 BEDRM. 1 BATH 1 BATH 1 W.I. CLOS. W.I. CLOS. BEDRM. 2 BEDRM. 2 BATH 2 BATH 2 north stair south stair elevator commons UNIT 2UNIT 1 LIVING UNIT 3 LAUNDRY BEDRM. 2 BATH 2 UNIT 1: 2,315 SQ.FT., TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH UNIT 2: 2,050 SQ.FT., TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH UNIT 3: 2,362 SQ.FT., TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH FOOT PRINT OF FLOOR PLAN IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION: 8,427 SQ.FT. FOOT PRINT OF FLOOR PLAN IN NEW APPLICATION:7,974 SQ.FT. REDUCTION IN FOOTPRINT: 453 SQ.FT. A5 20 April 2018107 THIRD STREET N.STILLWATER, MN3RD & MYRTLEROOF PLAN 1 / 8” = 1’-0” 1 A1 ROOF PLANSTORAGE GREEN ROOF north stair south stair elevator LOBBY ROOF DECK PATIO STORAGE ROOF DECK: 1,785 SQ.FT. wet bar seasonal toilet FOOT PRINT OF ROOF DECK PATIO IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION: 2,640 SQ.FT. FOOT PRINT OF ROOF DECK PATIO IN NEW APPLICATION: 1,785 SQ.FT. REDUCTION IN FOOTPRINT: 855 SQ.FT. A6 20 April 2018107 THIRD STREET N.STILLWATER, MN3RD & MYRTLE35'-0"2'-0"11'-0"11'-0"WEST ELEVATION 1 / 8” = 1’-0” 1 A1 EAST ELEVATION 1 / 8” = 1’-0” 1 A1 A33 3 A33 3 A711'-0"EXT.ELEV’S 20 April 2018107 THIRD STREET N.STILLWATER, MN3RD & MYRTLESOUTH ELEVATION 1 / 8” = 1’-0” 1 A1 NORTH ELEVATION 1 / 8” = 1’-0” 1 A1 11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"35'-0"2'-0"3'-6"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"A8EXT.ELEV’S 20 April 2018107 THIRD STREET N.STILLWATER, MN3RD & MYRTLEA11PERSPECTIVES 20 April 2018107 THIRD STREET N.STILLWATER, MN3RD & MYRTLEA12PERSPECTIVES 20 April 2018107 THIRD STREET N.STILLWATER, MN3RD & MYRTLEA13PERSPECTIVES 1 Bill Turnblad From:ELAINE CONNORS <elaine.connors@me.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 5:10 PM To:Bill Turnblad Subject:Case No. CPC/2018-23 Dear Mr. Turnblad, We are writing with regards to Case No. CPC/ 2018-23 and the developer’s application for zoning variances for his proposed condominium building at the intersection of 3rd Street and Myrtle in Stillwater. We are owners of unit 116 in Steeple Town Condo located at the same intersection. We have three major concerns with this new condominium building proposal. 1. It’s design and height The building’s design is too commercial looking rather than residential and, aesthetically, it does not blend in with the neighborhood and would negate the small town neighborly ambience. The height of this proposed condominium building, if allowed to proceed, would dwarf the surrounding historic buildings and residences. In addition, it would obliterate the river view as one traverse towards downtown and our beautiful St. Croix River. We would welcome a design that makes serious effort to blend in rather than hinder the public’s continued enjoyment of our scenic river. 2. Traffic at Myrtle and 3rd We are very concerned that the developer is situating the car park access on Myrtle for reasons listed below. The intersection at Myrtle and 3rd has always been a troublesome spot and has seen many accidents and near misses. There is always confusion and hesitancy on the part of drivers as well as pedestrians whether to stop or give right of way to oncoming traffic on Myrtle, from downtown. Pedestrians like ourselves are at risk whenever we cross this intersection as we head for the post office, the public library, or to downtown. Vehicles often times come speeding up Myrtle mand we are not exaggerating when we state that we are risking our lives when crossing this intersection. In addition, there is a substantial increase in traffic flow through this intersection on weekends, over public holidays, and especially in Summer and in Fall. Street parking is always full on both Myrtle and 3rd. In view of the above, the developer’s proposal to have his car park access on Myrtle that is already a busy thoroughfare with a troubled intersection, just does not make sense, in our humble opinion. 2 3. Bad Precedence If, in spite of our concerns, the developer succeeds in getting his variance application approved, that could very well set a bad precedence for other property owners and developers who might follow suit and demolish existing historic buildings on Myrtle and 3rd, and replace them with bigger and taller buildings, to the detriment of historic Stillwater. We respectfully ask the City Council members, the City Planners, and the City Commissioner, to revisit the variance requests for this case, taking into consideration all the local residents’ concerns and to preserve our historic town, before granting approval to the developer. Sincerely, Elaine and Patrick Connors 116 3rd Street South Stillwater, MN (651) 439-9557 Sent from my iPad