Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-10 CPC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North October 10th, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of September 12th, 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. 2018-54: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment and Conditional Use permit for the property located at 807 4th St N in the RB district. Brian and Sonna Larson, property owners. 3. Case No. 2018-55: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment and Re-subdivision of the property located at 7770 Minar Lane N located in the AP district. Stephen Nelson, property owner. VI. FYI – STAFF UPDATES VII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Fletcher, Kocon and Lauer Absent: Commissioners Hade, Hansen and Siess; Councilmember Menikheim Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of August 8, 2018 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve the minutes of the August 8, 2018 regular meeting. Motion passed 4-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2018-44: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a bakery and café on the property located at 310 Main Street South in the CBD District. Justin and Jill Kaufenberg, property owners. City Planner Wittman stated that the property owner is requesting a Special Use Permit for the structure at 310 Main Street South to operate a commercial bakery in 1,138 square feet at the back of the building, and an 1,146 square foot café/restaurant to be located on the lower level, accessed from Main Street South. The applicants have indicated the second story will be a shared office space, which would not require a Conditional/Special Use Permit. 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. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a Special Use Permit for a bakery and café with seven conditions. Jill Kaufenberg, building owner, said they are pleased with the building renovation. Their tenant hopes for a January 1, 2019 opening for the bakery. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Planning Commission September 12, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve a Special Use Permit to operate a bakery and café at 310 Main Street South with the seven conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-0. Case No. 2018-46: Consideration of a Variance to the Front Yard Setback and the 25% Maximum Structural Coverage to build a covered porch in the RB – Two Family Residential Zoning District. Property located at 1217 1st Street South. Sherri Colberg, property owner and Charles Pearcy, applicant. City Planner Wittman stated that the applicant would like to construct a 6’ porch on an existing, non- conforming residence. The following variances are being requested: 1. a 1.4’ variance to the 20’ front yard setback for an existing, nonconforming residence; 2. a 6’ variance to the 20’ front yard setback for a screen porch addition; and 3. a 1% variance to the 25% maximum structural coverage for 63 square feet of the 147 square foot screen porch addition. Staff recommends approval of the variances for the construction of a 6’, L-shaped front porch to be attached to the home, with four conditions. Sherri Colberg, owner, said she would like to restore the original look of the house. Chuck Pearcy, builder, noted the porch meets height restrictions and does not interfere with traffic lines of sight. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Motion by Chairman Collins, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve a 6’ variance to the front yard setback and a 1% variance to the 25% maximum structural coverage to build a covered porch at 1217 1st Street South, with the four conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-0. Case No. 2018-47: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to allow retail sales within the BP-I district. Property located at 1815 Greeley Street South. Tim Sauro, property owner representative. City Planner Wittman stated that Tim Sauro has applied for a Special Use Permit on behalf of property owner Mike McGrath and his tenant, Sew With Me. Sew With Me has a retail store in Woodbury and another in Duluth. Their business here in Stillwater is located at 1815 South Greeley Street and supports the two retail stores as well as online sales. The primary uses at the Stillwater location are: sewing machine service and repair, operation of industrial quilting machines that complete quilts for customers, filling and shipping of online orders, manufacture of quilting kits, development of store samples for their retail stores, and production of educational videos for their website. All of these uses are permitted in the BP-I Zoning District. In addition, a small percentage of the business’s floor space is dedicated to the retail sale of sewing machines, parts and related sewing supplies. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve a Special Use Permit to allow retail sales at 1815 Greeley Street South with the three conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-0. Planning Commission September 12, 2018 Page 3 of 5 Case No. 2018-48: Consideration of a Special Use Permit and associated Variance to the Rear Yard Setback to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit in the RB – Two Family Residential zoning district, located at 414 Harriet Street South. Randal and Alaina Berger, property owners. City Planner Wittman stated that Randal and Alaina Berger plan to remove the existing garage and build a two-car garage with living space above. They are requesting: a Special Use Permit (SUP) for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to be located above the garage; and a 15’ Variance to the 25’ rear yard setback for the ADU to be located 10’ from the rear property line. A letter from Tom Michaels and Karen Ela, 613 Oak Street West, expressed concern about placement near their south property line. They have asked the Commission to require the garage to be 7.3’ from the north side property line (as originally, erroneously noted in the staff report); however the garage as proposed will be in conformance on that side. Staff finds that the proposed ADU meets the Special Use Permit provisions and recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with seven conditions. On the basis the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff also recommends approval of a 15’ variance for the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 414 Harriet Street South. Commissioner Kocon asked about the fence referred to in the neighbor’s letter. Ms. Wittman explained there is a dilapidated fence on the north property line. There are no windows or openings planned on the north side of the proposed structure, so the request for a privacy fence may relate to the neighbors’ view of the structure itself. She corrected an error in the staff report, clarifying that on the north side, the garage will be 5’ off the property line which is in conformance. Randal and Alaina Berger, applicants, explained the previous garage was in disrepair. The living space above is for family as they get older. They plan to remove the current fence, which is chicken wire that the trees have grown through. Putting another fence there would require removal of existing trees, however, they are willing to consider the possibility of a fence. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Tom Michaels, 613 Oak Street West, stated he supports the replacement of the garage. His request for the greater setback has to do with the character of the neighborhood as well as drainage and maintenance of the buildings. It appears that historically, the lot line was roughly where the fence is now. He understands that contemporary surveys show it differently. Because his own garage is .6’ away from the lot line (nonconforming), if the new structure is 5’ away, that would leave a separation of just 5.6’ between the two structures. Adequate separation space is important for visual appearance, maintenance of the buildings and drainage. He would like the Commission to consider that the requested fence wouldn’t screen anything between the two structures, but would address the fact that the old garage is moved and there are new sight lines of the parking area. Commissioner Kocon asked if he has thought of putting up his own fence. Mr. Michaels acknowledged there are many maturing trees there that he would like to remain. If the trees remain, he agreed there continues to be a buffer. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Chairman Collins said he sees the variance request as reasonable. He understands Mr. Michaels’ concerns but supports the variance. Planning Commission September 12, 2018 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Kocon said the 5’ is what the ordinance requires. The Commission would need a valid reason to require a greater setback. He understands Mr. Michaels’ reasons but supports the variance. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve a Special Use Permit and associated Variance to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 414 Harriet Street South, with the seven conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-0. Case No. 2018-49: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for a “Commercial Use Not Found Objectionable by the Neighbors” in the RCM – Medium Density Residential zoning district. Property located at 320 Myrtle Street West, located in the RCM district. Amy Haugen, applicant. City Planner Wittman stated that Amy Haugen, owner of Stillwater Skin LLC has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a skincare business in the structure located at 320 Myrtle Street West, a single family residential structure. The business, licensed as a salon, would be the only occupant. Seven parking spaces would be required. Letters of support have been received from the occupants of 330 and 332 Myrtle Street West. Since the staff report was completed, a recommended condition has been added stating that the property owner shall trim vegetation near the driveway entrance as to maintain a clear sight triangle with the roadway and sidewalk. 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. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a Special Use Permit with 11 conditions. Amy Haugen, applicant, explained that her goal is to maintain a small business in a quiet, tranquil space. She has no intention to grow the business. She has been working with an architect on meeting the parking requirement. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Richard McDonough, RM Realty, 124 North Main Street, noted the site is a good property for a commercial use. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve a Special Use Permit for a “Commercial Use Not Found Objectionable by the Neighbors” at 320 Myrtle Street West with the 11 conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-0. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman reminded the Commission of a Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee meeting September 19, and a Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting October 9. Once the Comprehensive Plan is drafted, it will be released for a six month public comment review period. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission September 12, 2018 Page 5 of 5 Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 p.m. All in favor, 4-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary PLANNING REPORT MEETING DATE: October 10, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-54 APPLICANT: Brian and Sonja Larson, representing MAERAY, LLC, property owner REQUEST: Request for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to City Code Section 31-216, Nonconforming Uses or Structures, and 31-315, Allowable Uses in Residential Districts, and to allow for the property at 807 4th Street North to be used as Fitness and Rehabilitation wellness studio, operated by “Uncommon Age” by Conditional Use Permit ZONING: Citywide COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Citywide PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND One of Stillwater’s oldest single-family zoned neighborhoods (the RB – Two Family Residential zoning district) contains approximately one dozen structures that have historically housed commercial uses or obtained a Special/Conditional Use Permit when the zoning code allowed for Commercial Uses Not Found Objectionable by the Neighbors. These legal nonconforming uses are allowed to remain. However, when a use would like to change, there is no provision in the City Code that allows for one type of commercial use to change to a different type of commercial use. As indicated by the applicant, the property at 807 4th Street North was originally built as the Swedish Lutheran Church in 1882. However, it was remodeled to become, most notably, the Peterson and Berglund General Store. Through the 1970s and 1980s the City granted Special Use Permits to allow for the property to be mixed use, containing both residences and an antiques store or indoor storage. Since the 1990s the property has been used for offices. REQUEST Brian and Sonja Larson, property owners of 807 4th Street North, have applied for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) which would allow for nonconforming uses to be changed to another nonconforming use through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. The proposed amendment reads: Section 31-216, Nonconforming uses or structures. CPC Case No. 2018-54 CPC: 10/10/2018 Page 2 of 6 (c) Changes. No nonconforming building, structure, use or premises shall be changed to another nonconforming use. (1) Exception. In RB two family zoning district, existing historical nonconforming commercial uses may apply for a Change of Use through a Conditional Use application and permit. The City Planning commission may allow a change from such uses if it is compatible with the surrounding area. No new commercial use properties will be created. The change of use shall not nullify previous nonconforming uses allowed on the property. Findings for a Change of nonconforming use: a) The proposed use is consistent with the policies and goals of the comprehensive plan. b) The proposed use is compatible with adjacent property and the neighborhood, including: hours of operation, signage, traffic and safety, parking and loading, nature of business operations, number of employees, aesthetic impacts on surrounding property, and noise, odor, heat, glare and vibration. In staff’s analysis of this request, it has been determined blanket changes to nonconforming uses by Conditional Use Permit can imply commercial uses with greater intensity may be okay in residential districts. However, City Attorney Kori Land has determined that if one nonconforming use is changing to a less-restrictive non-conforming use, then approval could be administrative. Therefore, staff would like to propose alteration of the applicant’s request for the amendment to read: Section 31-216, Nonconforming Uses or Structures. (c) Changes. No nonconforming building, structure, use or premises shall be changed to another nonconforming use. Upon determination by the Community Development Director or his or her designee, any lawful nonconforming use of a structure or parcel of land can be changed to a similar nonconforming use or to a more restrictive nonconforming use, provided:  The enlargement, expansion, relocation or intensification will be compatible with adjacent property and the neighborhood; and  The enlargement, expansion, relocation or intensification will not result in significant increases of adverse off-site impacts such as traffic, noise, dust, odors and parking congestion. However, once a structure or parcel of land has been placed in a more restrictive nonconforming use, it shall not to return to a less restrictive nonconforming use. As the property owners are proposing the ZAT to allow for use changes by CUP, they have also made application for Uncommon Age to operate a physical therapy wellness studio at 807 4th Street North. However, if the Commission is more favorable to City Attorney Land’s recommendation, the CUP would not be required. Staff has included analysis of the CUP in this staff report. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS CPC Case No. 2018-54 CPC: 10/10/2018 Page 3 of 6 City Code Section 31-205, Zoning Map and Zoning Text Amendment, indicates amendments may be made when:  Public necessity, general community welfare and good zoning practice permit the amendment; and  The proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. City Code Section 31-207, Special Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit, indicates S/CUPs may only be issued when the following findings are made: In approving a special use permit or conditional use permit, it must be determined by the planning commission that:  The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations;  Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; and  The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. STAFF ANALYSIS Relevant Minnesota Rules and Ordinances While property owners may make application for a variance, MN Stat. 462.357, Subd. 6 explicitly indicates the City “may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located”. When combined with the City’s existing ordinances, properties are limited to grandfathered or previously-approved commercial uses. As the approved commercial uses may not be viable or relevant today, the alternative is for these structures to become residences. However, as most of them have been constructed as commercial buildings, they may not be most suitable as a residence. Without some sort of option for adaptive reuse, these properties may be at risk for demolition. Comprehensive Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides these nonconforming use structures towards conformance with the base zoning district. In other words, the 2030 Plan encourages these structures, such as the one at 807 4th Street North, to revert to residential uses. However, the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan recommends the continued commercial use of their properties to serve the neighborhood, identifying them as areas of Neighborhood Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. There are two reasons for this:  First, if local residents are able to access goods and services within their own neighborhood, pockets of mixed use can help provide greater livability in Stillwater.  Secondly, many of these buildings were constructed prior to 1946. The City’s preservation policies and goals support the preservation of these structures. However, in order for some of these buildings to be maintained over time, there needs to be an income-producing tenant to help provide for preservation, restoration and rehabilitation that may need to occur. CPC Case No. 2018-54 CPC: 10/10/2018 Page 4 of 6 Conditional Use Permit As indicated, the property owner has applied for a CUP on the basis that, if the applicant- proposed ZAT is approved, a CUP would be required. The proposal includes converting the existing, multitenant office space into a Fitness and Rehabilitation wellness studio that will office private and semi-private clients. The largest impact of commercial uses in residential neighborhoods is loading and unloading, traffic generation and pedestrian safety, and parking. In addition to 1:1 client appointments, Uncommon Age will serve small groups (of 6-7 clients) in classes early in the morning or in the early evening. The hours of operation for individual appointments are, generally, Monday through Friday, 8 am to 6 pm. Sidewalks are located on both sides of 4th Street North so pedestrian safety should not be negatively impacted. Traffic generation, above typical residential traffic, will be concentrated during typical commute times. Loading and unloading is not anticipated to occur outside of the initial move and space setup phase. There is a curbcut associated with this property with room to accommodate one or two off- street parking spaces on an unimproved (grass) surface; typically, offstreet parking is reserved for residents. While onstreet parking is generally not reserved for any one user, there are a limited number of directly adjacent users of the easterly parking in this area. As indicated by the applicant, the eastern side of the street can accommodate nine parking spaces between the two adjacent property’s driveways to the north and south. This could accommodate parking for (up to) seven clients and two practitioners at one time. Based on the total square footage of the first floor, office space would require a minimum of twelve parking spaces. Uncommon Age intends to utilize the interior of the building for all of its operations. There will be no noise, odor, heat, glare or vibration associated with the business activities. No exterior changes are proposed. As with most commercial uses in residential districts, signage will be limited to the windows. In all, there is not anticipated to be any sensory impacts to the neighborhood. To ensure the use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community, additional conditions focusing on memorializing the applicant’s narrative (such as number of clients, hours of operation, etc.) could be necessary for the public interest. ALTERNATIVES Regarding the ZAT, the Planning Commission has the following options available to them: 1. If the Planning Commission find the public necessity, general community welfare and good zoning practice permit the amendment and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan, the Commission may forward to the City Council a favorable recommendation of approval of a Zoning Text Amendment pertaining to the change of use for lawful nonconforming uses. CPC Case No. 2018-54 CPC: 10/10/2018 Page 5 of 6 2. Make findings that the public necessity, general community welfare and good zoning practice do not permit the amendment or that the proposed amendment is not in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan, and forward to the City Council recommendation of denial of the requested ordinance amendment. 3. Table consideration for more information. If the Planning Commission finds a ZAT required a CUP is optimal, the Commission should act on the CUP request. The Planning Commission has the following options available to them: 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. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2018-54, including the applicant narrative, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. 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. 3. 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 if 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. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The City of Stillwater’s Nonconforming Uses and Structures code section applies to all grandfathered and lawfully-approved properties and uses within the City. While this amendment would be most beneficial to the existing commercial uses and properties highlighted in the applicant’s submission, the allowance of small pockets of commercial uses in residential areas can be beneficial to the neighborhood it serves. The proposed amendment is CPC Case No. 2018-54 CPC: 10/10/2018 Page 6 of 6 also in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the draft 2040 comprehensive plan. Therefore, staff would recommend the Planning Commission make a favorable recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Zoning Text Amendment to City Code Section 31-216 based on the recommendation of City Attorney Land and determine no CUP is required for the property located at 807 4th Street North. Staff would further recommend the Planning Commission table the CUP consideration until such time as the City Council has acted on the ZAT. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant ZAT Narrative Existing Nonconforming Uses and Conditional Uses maps Applicant CUP Narrative Aerial Parking map NORTH THI RD STREETWE ST AS PEN STREET EAST ASPEN STREET NORTHWE ST E LM STRE ET S C H O O L S T R E E T M A P L E S T R E E TNORTHFIFTH W E S T FOURTH903 918 711 720 626 920 821 713 924 703 625 214306 804 218 820 921 805808 622 619 618 809 704 820 906 801 621 615 613 102 816 722 211 114 316 626 108 312 920 308 807 921 924 302 206 715 310 713 923 302 718 714 213 702 718 806 112 212 610 106 116 118703 709 204 721 µ 0 180 36090Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map 807 4th St N PLANNING REPORT MEETING DATE: October 10, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-55 APPLICANT: Stephen and Kathleen Nelson, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) for the property located at 7770 Minar Lane North to be rezoned to RA – One Family Residential PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND As part of the Comprehensive Plan update process, the City Council determined additional study is needed for the Minar Neighborhood (an area encompassing the Boutwell Valley Estates and Springcreek subdivisions). The rural residential area contains nearly 50, 2.5 acre lots; most of the lots contain a single family residence serviced by private septic systems and wells. While the existing Comprehensive Plan outlines a potential development scenario that could allow for greater densities, the lack of urban services may prohibit that. At their October 9, 2018 regular meeting, the City Council enacted a moratorium on subdivisions in their neighborhood until further assessment has been done. However, the property owners have submitted a request to re-subdivide his property into two lots prior to the effective date of the moratorium. SPECIFIC REQUEST Stephen and Kathleen Nelson have made a request for the City’s consideration of: • The consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) for the property located at 7770 Minar Lane North to be rezoned from AP – Agricultural Preserve to RA – One Family Residential; and • A resubdivision that would create a new lot to the west of Mr. Nelson’s existing home. While the ZAM request must be heard by the Planning Commission in a public hearing, the re- subdivision request need only be considered by the body who approved the original subdivision request. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s recommendation will be heard at the time of the re-subdivision hearing(s). REQUEST ANALYSIS Prior to approving a ZAM, the Commission must find that:  The public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and Case No. 2016-43 CPC: December 14, 2016 Page 2 of 2  That the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides this property for LDR, Low Density Residential, development which would allow for subdivisions to allow for 1-4.4 units per acre. The RA – One Family Residential (RA) zoning district requires new lots to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in size or greater. Therefore, the rezoning is consistent with the Future Land Use map. As noted, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan outlines future development opportunity for properties in the Minar neighborhood. In the Plan, the property at 7770 Minar Lane North is shown as being able to be developed into a total of three lots. However, as urban services are not available and the City requires a minimum of one acre lots for new septic systems, the lot would only be able to be split into two lots with each of them containing a minimum of one acre. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the provisions of a ZAM, the Commission should forward a recommendation of approval. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of the ZAM regulations, the Commission should forward recommendation of denial to the City Council. The Commission should indicate a reason for such recommendation. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. As lot area requirements can be met, the public necessity and the general community welfare are furthered. Therefore, staff would recommend the Planning Commission recommend rezoning the property located at 7770 Minar Lane North to RA – One Family Residential. ATTACHMENTS Applicant Narrative Site Location Map Future Land Use Map 2030 Comp Plan Figure 2.7F Certificate of Survey M I N A R L A N E NORTH NORTHAVENUENORTH7775 7760 7770 7790 7880 7755 7750 7710 7730 7960 7720 7959 7685 7879 7819 µ 0 230 460115Feet ^ General Site Location Site Location Map7770 Minar Lane N PLAN OF STILLWATER Chapter 2 : Land Use 2-32 Site F Site F is located just west of Site E. This site is made up entirely of existing large-lot residential development. Since the development patt ern in this area is set, an exercise was done as part of the analysis to see if any of the existing lots would be able to be subdivided if the owners wished them to be. Many of the lots could be further subdivided, and roughly 40 additional units could be developed in this area if city sewer were provided and a new road were constructed as an extension of 77th Street to Minar Avenue North. Figure 2.7F : Site F