HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-23 CPC Packet
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North
January 23rd, 2019
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Possible approval of minutes of December 12th, 2018 regular meeting minutes
V. 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.
VI. 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. 2018-64: Consideration of a Variance to construct a third stall on the garage (carport) for
the property located at 1260 McDougal Green, in the CR district. Michael and Necole Kahn, property
owners.
3. Case No. 2018-67: Consideration of a Concept PUD amendment and a Special Use Permit for live-
work residential townhomes. Property located at xxx New England Place in the VC district. Todd
Konigson, applicant.
4. Case No. 2018-68: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for 11 single family lots and a rezoning of the
property to RB, Two-Family Residential. Property located at 8313 and 8393 Marylane Ave N in the
AP district. Mark Guenther of Fenway Land Company, LLC, property owner.
5. Case No. 2018-69: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home
Rental at the property located at 319 Hickory St W in the RB district. Deposit Slip, LLC (Dale and
Nancy Anderson) property owner.
6. Case No. 2018-70: Consideration Conditional Use Permit for a large building project in Downtown
Stillwater; Special Use Permit for residential units in Downtown Stillwater; and an amendment to the
Special Use Permit for a craft distillery at 107 Chestnut St E. Property located in the CBD district.
CVII Holdings, LLC, property owner.
VII. FYI – STAFF UPDATES
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 12, 2018
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Fletcher, Hansen, Kocon, Lauer and Siess;
Councilmember Menikheim
Absent: Commissioner Hade
Staff: City Planner Wittman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of minutes of November 14, 2018 regular meeting
Commissioner Hansen stated that on page 5 it indicates Ms. Wittman requested alternative design
materials but he actually requested them. He requested the minutes be corrected.
Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve the minutes of the
November 14, 2018 meeting with the requested change. Motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner Lauer
abstaining.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 2018-14: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to regulate wireless facilities in
City Code Section 31-204: Generally, 31-209: Design Permit, Section 31-315: Allowable Uses in
Residential Districts and Section 31-325: Allowable Uses in Non-Residential Districts. The Case will
also affect City Code Section 22-7 Heritage Preservation Commission and Chapter 24 Streets, Alleys
and Public Property.
City Planner Wittman stated that in early 2018 staff worked with City Commissions and the Council
to draft an ordinance pertaining to Small Wireless Facilities. The ordinance was not passed, as upon
review by City Attorney Land, it was determined there were conflicts with state statute. City
Attorney Land and City staff have revised the ordinance to not only be in conformance with state
and federal regulations but also to allow for the preservation of Stillwater’s community character. As
a result, most of the proposed regulations will be codified as part City Code Chapter 24: Street,
Alleys and Public Property; there are minimal elements of the proposed ordinance that affect City
Code Chapter 31, Zoning. She reviewed the amendments to the Zoning Code which will clarify that,
Planning Commission December 12, 2018
Page 2 of 4
upon approval of a permit application, small wireless facilities are outright permitted in the Right-of-
Way (ROW) in any district but they are not permitted on private lands. The Zoning Text
Amendment is proposed to add Small Wireless Facilities to the allowable use tables. Staff finds that
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. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning
Commission make a favorable recommendation of approval to the City Council.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if it is typical to include fees in an ordinance.
Ms. Wittman replied that the fees in the ordinance are maximums set by state statute, specifically
pertaining to leasing fees. The City is allowed to charge less and will state that in the resolution.
Commissioner Siess asked why not just reference the state statute?
Ms. Wittman replied that numbers of state statutes can sometimes change.
Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins
closed the public hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Chairman Collins, to recommend that the Council
approve the Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to regulate wireless facilities in City Code Section 31-204:
Generally, 31-209: Design Permit, Section 31-315: Allowable Uses in Residential Districts and Section
31-325: Allowable Uses in Non-Residential Districts. Motion passed 6-0.
FYI STAFF UPDATES
Minar Moratorium Update
Ms. Wittman reviewed the progress on development of an ordinance and work schedule. It is
anticipated that rezoning would come before the Planning Commission for a public hearing in
August 2019. Staff has begun the fact-finding stage to try to define developable areas of properties,
and also has talked with Browns Creek Watershed District, Washington County Public Health and
the Department of Natural Resources. There will be a neighborhood meeting in January.
Commissioner Kocon asked, is it expected that most of the 2.5 acre lots will yield two lots?
Ms. Wittman replied that only a handful of property owners have indicated they have an interest in
subdividing. Less than half of the lots could be split. There are also constraints from other agencies
that expressed concerns about issues like septic systems.
Commissioner Hansen remarked it seems to be lot of work to determine whether property owners
can split lots.
City Planner Wittman explained that the Minar neighborhood came up because of an inquiry from an
owner who wanted to subdivide. It raised the question of how that development would be serviced.
If the City extended services, it would cost about $3 million, so the Council decided to gauge what
this neighborhood really wants. The moratorium was enacted to provide time to analyze the best use
for this neighborhood. The City is now in the ordinance development phase.
Planning Commission December 12, 2018
Page 3 of 4
Commissioner Siess asked for an example of staff seeking input from the Commission and the
Council.
Ms. Wittman replied staff will ask for a lot of feedback to the data presented as development of the
ordinance progresses. At some point the City will need to develop a new rural residential district that
will include either one acre lots or 2.5 acre lots.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if there is a scenario at the end of the process that there will be lot
splits but there won’t be urban services provided. Her concern is that if lot splits are allowed without
the extension of City services, there will be many more septic systems in close proximity to some
bodies of water. If she were to remain on the Planning Commission, she would not like to see lot
splits with the scenario of no urban services provided.
Ms. Wittman noted that, ultimately the Council would be the body to approve any ordinance
amendment. This body would have input.
Commissioner Siess agreed with Commissioner Fletcher. She feels there may be an opportunity for
Sustainable Stillwater to be part of the planning process.
2019 Workplan Update
Ms. Wittman provided the draft 2019 workplan for the Community Development Department
Planning staff.
2019 Meeting Schedule
Ms. Wittman presented the 2019 meeting schedule, noting that the Planning Commission meetings
will be on the fourth Wednesday beginning in January.
Planning Commission Vacancy
Ms. Wittman acknowledged the vacancies left by the election of Chairman Collins to the City
Council and the leaving of Commissioner Fletcher. No applications have been received yet. One of
the vacancies will be filled by a City Councilmember as the Commission takes on a Councilmember
as a voting member starting in January.
Commissioner Siess suggested the City’s Granicus software system be used to notify people in the
community they may apply for positions. She feels it’s important to have diversity on the
Commission. She encouraged students in the audience to mention it to their families and friends.
Chairman Collins thanked Commissioner Fletcher for her 5.5 years of service on the Commission
and thanked the rest of the Commission.
Councilmember Menikheim noted his City Council term will expire at the end of 2018 after eight
years. Chairman Collins will take over his Council position. He thanked the Commission for all their
hard work.
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Commission December 12, 2018
Page 4 of 4
Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 7:31
p.m. All in favor, 6-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Julie Kink
Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2019 CASE NO.: 2018-64
APPLICANT: Michael & Necole Kahn, Property Owners
REQUEST: Consideration of a variance to construct a third stall on the garage
located at 1260 McDougal Green
ZONING: CR: Cove Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density Res.
PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
REQUEST
The applicant would like to attach a single-stall carport to their existing, two-car attached
garage. The applicant has made a request for consideration of a variance to City Code
Section 31-309(a)(2) to allow for a garage to be greater than two stalls wide.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
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.”
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 two-car garage
limitations was to limit garage dominance on the smaller, Cottage Residential lots.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
No application elements are contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan.
Case No. 2018-64
CPC: January 23, 2019
Page 2 of 3
3. 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:
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;
The use of the property, as a single family residence in a single family residential
neighborhood, is reasonable. Allowance for a garage as an accessory use is also
reasonable. The addition of a third stall on a property with sufficient land width
and/or depth and a side-loaded garage has been determined to be 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 property is located at the end of a shared driveway. The applicant states this, in
combination with the small neighborhood roadway widths, is difficult.
iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
While three car garages have been approved for side-loaded garages, they have not
been approved for front facing homes. However, the front-facing nature of this
home is not on the traditional street; it is tucked back behind all other properties at
this street intersection. That said, all third stalls approved have been for garage
spaces and not for carports. The addition of a carport in this area is not in keeping
with the neighborhood design.
PUBLIC COMMENT
An, anonymous, public comment has been submitted by “homeowners within the impact
area and received notice of the public hearing”. The comments indicate opposition to the
carport as it sets bad precedent, is not aesthetically appropriate for the neighborhood, and
there is ample parking at the end of the driveway. The letter further states there is support
for a third, enclosed garage stall.
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 maximum two-stall garage by allowing an additional stall.
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.
Case No. 2018-64
CPC: January 23, 2019
Page 3 of 3
If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner,
staff would recommend the following conditions:
• Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community
Development Department’s Case No. 2018-46 unless modified herein.
• The siding, trim, fascia and soffit boards will be the same color as the primary
structure.
• A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction
occurring on the property.
• 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
While the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with
the comprehensive plan, the proposed design will alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. However, if an enclosed garage stall was added, the applicant will have
established practical difficulty. Therefore, staff would recommend conditional approval the
variance associated with CPC Case No. 2018-64 for the construction of a third, enclosed
garage stall at 1260 McDougal Green Way.
ATTACHMENTS
Site Location Map
Narrative Request
Site Plan
Site Photos (4 pages)
Plan Details (3 pages)
Public Comment
DDUJ T AR I L
62ND STREET NORTH
SETTLERS AVEGREENMCDOUGALSETTLERS µ
0 180 36090Feet
General Site Location
Site Location
1260 McDougal Green
^
Text
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-67
APPLICANT: Todd Konigson, livwell.design
REQUEST: Consideration of Concept PUD (1997-70 and 2003-14) amendments and a
Special Use Permit for live-work residential townhomes to be located on an
undeveloped lot in Liberty Village (PID: 30.030.20.32.0099)
ZONING: VC – Village Commercial COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Neighborhood Commercial
PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
BACKGROUND
In early 1998 the City of Stillwater
approved concept PUD 1997-70 for
the 11.87 acres of commercial
development near the intersection
of Manning Avenue North and
County Road 12/75th Street North.
The City subsequently approved
PUD 2003-14, for the design of the
commercial village area. Since the
time of concept approval, five of
the seven commercial sites have
been developed after approval of
Final Planned Unit Development
permits for each of the individual
sites.
REQUEST
Todd Konigson of livwell.design would like to construct four residential units on Outlot D, at
the corner of Settlers Way and New England Place. The proposed units would have a first floor
home office, facing Settlers Way with a private garage in the back, facing the tennis courts. The
residence would be located above the home office space, on second the third stories. This
necessitates the following requests:
1. A Special Use Permit for residences in the Village Commercial district; and
Photo Credit: Google Images (August, 2017)
Case 2018-67
CPC: January 23, 2017
Page 2 of 5
2. An amendment to the Concept/Preliminary PUD to allow for three stories (opposed to
2.5) while remaining under the maximum 35’ height restriction.
APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
The purpose of a PUD is to provide for a means of: (1) Ensuring variety, innovation and
flexibility in the development of land and its improvements. (2) Allowing a mixture of uses in
an integrated and well planned area to aid in providing a better living environment. (3)
Allowing for flexibility in group building development wherein the relationship is between
building and building or buildings and site, rather than between building and property lines, as
is the case in mono-structural development. (4) Preserving natural beauty spots, open space and
recreational areas. There are no standards for review of Planned Unit Developments (PUD).
Section 31-207 establishes the review standards for Special Use Permits:
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.
The concept of the commercial area was approved in 1998 but it was not until PUD 2003-14 that
the village area’s form was defined. Referred to as ‘Building 8’, this site was intended to have a
4,700 square foot service or professional office building footprint with a total building square
footage of 11,400 square feet. Daycare and residential uses are noted as a potential land use but
are indicated as “restricted”. The Village Commercial district allows for “residences of all
classes” by Special Use Permit but caveats approval indicating “residences on second level
only”. The proposed structure’s uses conform the Zoning Code and relevant PUDs.
Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan encourages supporting the local economy and a
diversity of housing options. These live/work residences would provide for a housing type
typically not found in Stillwater or, at the very least, outside of the City’s historic core.
Parking
Liberty Village’s parking plan was designed so that each of the properties absorbed some of the
parking demand. According to the permitted use table and associated parking data, the
property is required to have 38 parking spots located on the eastern portion of the property, an
area encumbered by City easement. However, the approved plan only depicts 25 onsite
parking spaces in this location. The applicant is proposing to create 27 parking spaces onsite (19
parking spaces located in a surface lot and two, 9’ X 15’ enclosed parking spaces for each
residential unit). However, eight of those parking spaces are designated for residential use.
Therefore, only a total of 19 parking spaces are proposed to be created for the shared use in the
neighborhood.
That said, the proposed uses would require a total of ten parking spaces (two for each
residential unit and one per every 300 square feet of office space). This implies there is still
ample shared parking available onsite while meeting the needs of the development. However,
the residential parking spaces are substandard as they are required to be a minimum of 18’
deep. Given this, it could be construed that all parking would occur in the surface lot. If that
were the case, then there would only be nine excess parking spaces in the surface lot.
Case 2018-67
CPC: January 23, 2017
Page 3 of 5
Height
The applicant’s request is to modify the plan to allow for three stories within the 35’ maximum
height restriction. While the total number of stories is not specifically called out in PUD 2003-
14, the Village Commercial district restricts the height of structures to a maximum of 2.5 stories.
Furthermore, the adopted plans included maximum square footage calculations for the
property to be 11,400 – which is (roughly) 2.5 times the maximum allowable footprint.
Building Design and Orientation
Resolution 2003-86 indicates “the Village Commercial design guidelines…must be used to
guide future final PUD lot development”. However, staff is only able to produce the Country
Village Architectural and Site Design Guidelines, submitted by the applicant at the time of the
village commercial PUD. These have been used as a basis for this analysis.
The applicant is proposing a flat roof design, an architectural design element that is not
currently found in the commercial area (though Rutherford Elementary School, approximately
750’ from the subject property, does have a flat roof), to accommodate for the three-story
design. The 2003 Country Village Architectural and Site Guidelines indicate gable roofs are
preferred and that “the village area shall have a unique rural character related to its
surroundings”. The proposed design mimics New England’s row housing, typically found in
more urban areas. If approved, the applicant would need to secure final design approval from
the Liberty Village Commercial association for compliance with the Liberty Village
Architectural Review & Design Guidelines adopted in April of 2009.
Additionally, the original PUD implies the building will be orientated towards New England
Place. The applicant is proposing to orientate the building towards Settler’s Way. This
orientation would result in a sidewall facing liberty square, an area designed to be central to the
neighborhood.
2. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed or use and/or
structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the
community.
The focus of this review standard is whether the proposed use can operate in its proposed
location without negatively impacting surrounding uses, or the general neighborhood.
Minimal concerns have been identified with this proposed residential use in this location.
DISCUSSION
Concept PUD’s are reviewed by the Planning Commission, with Commission recommendation
forwarded to the City Council. There are no standards for review. However, Special Use
Permits are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. This means the Commission
must determine whether or not the use (i.e. four, live-work units) meet the standards set forth
for Use Permitting. As the baseline zoning standards can be met, the Commission’s
consideration need not be tied to the proposed design of the structure.
Case 2018-67
CPC: January 23, 2017
Page 4 of 5
Secondary to that, then, is the Commission’s discussion of whether or not the Concept PUD
should be amended to allow for three stories. The three-story approval need not be tied to this
specific design unless specifically conditioned by the Commission and Council. City Code
Section 31-210 indicates concept approval will not bind the City to grant final approval and that
the applicant must file a request for final plan and plat approval within six months of concept
approval.
ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATION
A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the Special Use Permit and Concept PUD
amendment proposal are consistent with the provisions set forth in the Zoning Code, the
Commission could move to approve the SUP with or without conditions and forward a
favorable recommendation of approval of the Concept PUD to the City Council. 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. The street-facing first level shall be restricted to professional and service offices.
3. Scaled building plans depicting the level of detail, materials and colors on all
finishes, complete landscaping plan, and solid waste storage and removal plan shall
be submitted with the Final PUD.
4. All conditions of approval for Planning Commission Case files 1997-70 and 2003-14
shall remain in effect.
5. 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.
6. 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. 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 in the Zoning Code, 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 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 an amended Special Use Permit for four
live-work residences to be located at Outlot D, Liberty Village.
Staff further finds that with certain alterations, the three story design would substantially
conform to PUD 1997-70 and 2003-14. Staff would recommend the Commission move to
Case 2018-67
CPC: January 23, 2017
Page 5 of 5
forward a favorable recommendation of approval of the Concept PUD amendment with the
following conditions:
The front of the structure shall be situated facing Liberty Square.
The structure shall have a gable roof.
Prior to the submittal of the Final Plan, the design of the structure will have obtained
Liberty Village Commercial Association approval.
ATTACHMENTS
Site Location Map
Applicant Narrative
Site Plan
Concept Photograph
Concept Façade Renderings
Concept Floor Plans
Resolution No. 98-38A
PUD 2003-14
R
O
A
DRUTHERFORD
R
U
T
H
E
R
F
O
R
D
BLVD.PIONEERRO A D R U TPLACEPIONEER
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
M
E
L
VIL
L
E
75TH STREET NORTH C S A H 1 2
C S A H 15S C H O O L H O U S E C IR C LE
COUNTRYSETTLER'S WAYENGLA N D PLACE
SETTLER'S WAYLIBERTY
PARKWAYT A L L P I N E T R A I LPINE HOLLO
W GRNPINEHOLL OW PLNEWSUMMER
FIELDS CT
µ
0 350 700175Feet
General Site Location
Site Location
xxx New England Place
^
Text
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!!
windows & doors = Marvin Integrity!
garage door style!
exterior siding!!
front facade = brick painted white!
side and back facades = either brick or James
Hardie Board
CITY COUNCIL
STILLWATER CITY HALL
In Re: The Liberty of Stillwater
RESOLUTION NO. 98-38A
CITY OF STILLWATER
WASHINGTON COUNTY
1) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
SUB 97-71
2) PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
SUB/97-70
WHEREAS, the City Council, finds that the application on file for the request is
complete and that all submitted requirements have been met; that due and proper public notice
has been mailed and published and that the procedural and substantial requirements of law have
been met. After due and careful consideration of the application, after considering the comments
of the public, both written and that represented at the public hearings, the City Council hereby
resolves as follows:
1. That preliminary plat approval and preliminary planned unit development approval are
hereby given, subject to the following conditions of approval:
A Forest Management Plan for the Liberty Woodlands must be prepared with City review
and approval by a qualified forester. The plan shall describe measures that can be taken
by the developer and new homeowner to protect the woodland.
2. All trails must be 8 feet bituminous pathways and installed as part of Phase I subdivision
improvements.
3. Street trees and site landscaping must be installed as phased subdivision occurs or as
public improvements are made.
4. Street crossings along Liberty Parkway, Liberty Avenue, Rutherford Road, Pioneer Place
and Settlers Way must be paved with concrete or marked in some other way acceptable to
the City.
5. Boulevard areas and front yards must be sodded.
20. The City's Design Guidelines for Phase I expansion area development must be used by
the City staff and Planning Commission in reviewing final Planned Unit Development
Plans.
21. The City and Developer must implement the AUAR Mitigation Plan regarding storm
water runoff and natural area protection (protection of oak forest from oak wilt).
22. All lot building envelopes except for four as shown on the concept PUD plans must meet
slope setback requirements.
23. The Echo Greens development area must be restudied before final Phase III PUL2
approval to see if a residence can reduce tree removal, minimize wetland impacts and
reduce grading and land alterations.
24. Final landscape plans must be submitted as a part of final PUD approval showing private
landscaping in additional to street trees.
25. The subdivision improvement plans road, sidewalk and utilities must be reviewed by a
forester to minimize impacts to trees.
26. Comments from the City Engineer in his memo of 1-23-98 must be addressed before
Phase I preliminary plat approval.
27. Street and access issues raised in Glen Van Wormer's letter of 1-27-98 must be addressed
before final plat approval.
28. Before Phase II PUD and subdivision approval, the Phase I project design must be
reviewed to see if the design guidelines desired effect is achieved or design guidelines or
zoning modifications are needed.
29. Subdivision improvements must be reviewed by a forester to minimize the impact to
trees.
30. Private open space restrictions prohibit tree cutting except as permitted in the approved
Forest Management Plan..
31. Wider tree preservation easements shall be provided along the back of the Lakeshore lots
from the current 90-foot width to a maximum 170 feet through deed restrictions.
32. The applicant must evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility
from public waters before applying for a permit for construction of sewage treatment
systems, roads, driveways, structures or other impro ~,~ements on steep slopes. When
determined necessary, conditions must be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion
and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles and other facilities as
viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation.
Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 3~0 day of
1998.
CITY OF STILLWATER _
J y le ayor
ATTEST:
Morli Weldon, Clerk
4
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-86
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT APPROVAL
FOR LIBERTY VILLAGE
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on April 15, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota ("City"), the Council met to
consider the original Planned Unit Development permit for the Liberty Development included a
village commercial center at the intersection of County Roads 15 and 12 and, in furtherance of
that designation, the area was zoned Village Commercial and design guidelines were adopted
and included as part of the Orderly Annexation Agreement between the Town of Stillwater and
the City of Stillwater, dated August 16, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Developer applied for PUD concept approval for the design of the entire
11.87 acre Village Commercial District and the Director of the Planning Commission determined
that the application was complete; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the concept approval on
March 17, 2003, and thereafter the Joint Board, comprising members of the Town of Stillwater
and the City of Stillwater, reviewed the application at a public hearing held on April 2, 2003 and
both the Planning Commission and the Joint Board unanimously approved the application for
PUD concept approval; and '
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Stillwater opened the public hearing and
heard testimony on the application and thereafter closed the hearing and adopted the following
resolutions:
1. That Planned Unit Development concept approval is hereby granted for 11.87
acres of the Village Commercial District located in the Village Commercial
Zoning District on the southeast comer of County Road 15 and 12, subject to the
following conditions.
a. that the Village Commercial design guidelines, land use and parking
standards must be used to guide future final Planned Unit Development lot
development with regard to each use.
b. that a Special Use Permit, as well final PUD permit approval, must be
obtained so as to permit design review for each individual lot.
Adopted by affirmative vote of all members of the City Council this 15th day of April,
2003.
02001. Westwood Pro'-lonal SenIcelI, Ine. . 1,1 :) <'
4 CO CoD 48 Hours before cIlgglng:
GOPHER STAlE ONE CALLIIII -~
Twin CIty Area 651-~
I Un. Toll F,.., 1-110O-252-1166
r:~
I LEGAL DBSCRIP'110N
I That part of OuUot Go UBfRIY ON THE: LAKe. 'y(ng norlhwssterfy of UBERIY ON THE
LAKE 5'TH ADDTlON. and westerly of UBERIY. ON 'THE LAKE 2ND ADDITION. 011 according
to the recorded plats thereof, WashlngtOll County. lIinnesota.
And .
Outlot D. flQld UBERIY ON 'THE LAKE 2ND ADDITION
And
I OuUot A. said UBERTY ON 'THE LAKE 5'TH ADO/TlON
I I
I \ IIII "
ptr jI
U' III
10
d III
1'1
II
j lfl1CWII :;rIf !
I I IIII
II d ,1/II ~II
IlBVIlLOI'MIlNT DATA
II -II Site Area 11.87:1: ac.
II QIII Exlatlng Zoning ItlLLAGE COMMERCIAL
I I ~II Road Right-of-Way
I I relll -
Public Streets 1.26 ac.
II
r
Street dimensions listed referenee back of curb.
II
I I '1
II i~cwII
t
J
II
II I IIII
II
II
Ii ~I
PARK
II
I I
j I l
II II I
I
II 11,,0
II II I ,
III
f I II' ,
I 11II
II " , I
I
DBVBLOI'IIIl:
I I , I , I
Contractor Property Developers Company
I , , 7100 Northland Circle Suite 108
I, , , II Minneapolis, Mn 55428
I, I I II I (
763) 971-0477
I I : : /
1II l'LANMIIIIIINGIV1lYOIl:I J "1 J Westwoad Professional SerYices. Inc.
I, ::" I
7599 Anagram Orlve
II Eden Prairie. loiN. 55344
I, I r: I' J (
612) 937-5150
II "II III NOTII:
II "f The lot dimensions and areas on this plan are
I "I approximate. Refer to the final Plat and supporting
I II I data for exaet lot dlmenslons ond areas.
I I II 'I II " I I ~~
I I " I UIGBND
JO!I/I
I t'!a ~
I I E.
Concrete CUrb lie Gutter I I \ IIIIItIVV'L.VI L-
II 11 = Concrete Sidewalk
I B
O' 60' 120' 180'
J..J..) Edge of Woods
2 2OOftll. 2OOl1l1.PPPI.OWG
DaIc 1/24/03 ~ 3 OP 6
I I ,----~-_.---~ I =_.~~ "-'-....
DXI
I-~tractor Property Developers Company
Liberty Village
Preliminary I1_ ..., ...... lad .....
Qocbol m Liberty on the LakeII ........ ., ....... PlatDa_ DlW'JaIW' n. Quadrant BallcllDg
1lIIc. 1/24/03 ... No. ............................
1IIlO NorthIud arde SuIte 108
StI11water, Mbutaota1H1IOMhuIe&poIfs,),f/zmaota S5428
X4 ~
I t.u,,~ Pvo
tf-S-o)
I
r
0 na 20 20 5.6:10
D
l
0
Z 4159
J
la:
965.}
6.200 f300
I-""
01 71 76 .7:1 to
w H4Teo
I-""806 mix 01 retaR,
0) oftlce & pol.
eo res.
I\)
na na 24 24 5:1
o
w
o
01
BUILDING DANK,
4
OHICl, ,~I(VICI',
l'IWfESSIONAI, (<FTAI1.
BUILDING H[STAUr(ANT, Df:t I,
5 PUB, WITH [1U:I, "-
lilt \VAlK Ulr~ING
OI'TlONS
BUILDING OHlcr, seRVice,
6 t' 1((JfFSS 10 ,'J A I, I(f T.A \ I,
I'''\ln~IENT OPTl()NS
0"-
BUILDING OHICE,5EltVIC[,
7 l'IWH:5SIONAL,](1o LIlt,
AJ'ARnlr.\T OP1In~:5
IlUILDING l1HIr:~, SEn\'lct,
8
l'IWHSSIONAI,
j'l'..{rid\.d Di\" Cr\HE,
AI',\RTMENT OI'IIO\S
liberty Village
na na 5,458 10: 1 54 58 11.6 :1
2,080 4,160 20 22 5.3 :1
0
x
l
2,400 10 24 24 5: 13: 2400
m 4800
38 38 5:110
3.33: 1
1:1
2,800 7,500
TO
11,400)
43,654"-
53,083w
W NOTES: "1. Square Foolages are based on Uberty ViUage Concepl SUe Plan and Prelim. Plat ana may vary at final alia plan and final building plan approval appllcallon.
2,Parlllng rallos lor anliclpaled uses wUI conlorm 10 above CIty - required amounls: Ihe masl restrtctive ratios being Ihe retail ratio 01 5:1 and res1auranl at 10:1. potentially adjusled by"prooI 01
Iparldng" requlremcnls 01 speclllc ownerloperalors. Where ollice and/or residential uses are planned. a melhod acceplable 10 the city. 01 reSlrlctlng lhe portions 01 buildIngs, (or whole build- UBERTY VILLAGE
jngs) so designsled, will be pari 01 Ihe Dnalapprovat Areas 01 main Door and upper I/ooris) tan calculaled using applicable parking ralio(s). PARKING DATA
3. Parking ratios are COflStlIII8t1ve. lor lhey apply (per City standards) 10 gross lloor areas, noI nellloor areas. MARC I'U'I:MAN,
4. Pnrklng space qllantnles ana ratios include on.Slreel spaces shown on Ihe slle plans. Uberty Village Is a stand-alone Vmage Commercial area. Sharing 01 partdng spaces Is anllclpaled L. ARCH.
Ilelween oommercial users. employees, park uselS and resldenls (If upper level residential uses are provided). Building 8 will be IImRed to OIllce. day care (wRhIn covenant restrlcllons), and Pur~~~~?NJgf
potential upper level residenllal May-Aug. IImllaUons on hours 0/ operallon may be pulln place as needed, 10 provide sulllclenl week end parking spaces for City Park users. Employee park.
ing wll be deslgnaled. ana enloreed and shaD nol use any on-streel parking spaces.
5. FInal slle plans may be relined 10 Include added parking spaces. andfor luture potential, addlional spaces via diagonal par1<lng, added relalning walls, ele. Such relinemenls musl meel inlenl
01 ArchKectural Guidelines and recleve ArchUectural Review Commlnee and ArchUectural Conlrol CommDlee approval before CRy Applicallons. 2.6-2001, 2-26.2003
8. Pllfchase agreemenl claUses and "Uberty ViUage Business Operalors Association" covenanls and/or guidelines wiD ldenlity mutual use agreements covertng parking spaces, openspace use, REV. March 5, 2003
maintenance obllgallons and City-Association maintenance and use responslbllKles. parll reservallon mechanisms, etc.
o
w 251
10lal ",""as
262
tola1 spaces
3:
ClI
o
U1
o
W
o
l\o.
o
o
U
c:
ct
3
ClI
J
U
ClI
J
J
J
O'q
lID
t:1
ID
III
O'q
J
J
C1J
I
W
CD
I
0')
CD
l\l
W
l\l
i !..._'.
e
Exhibit "E"
Country Village Architectural and Site Design Guidelines
Goal:Create high~qiJality countryvill~ge consisting of country store 'Njth .
fuel. country school (daycare) and other village scale professional ..
services. The building shall.have a related though not identical
village residential character. .
Architectural Style: Gable roofs are preferred. Architectural detailing should be
consistent with the style of the structure selected.
Materials:Brick, stone, painted or natural architectural cedar or red wood
siding are to be used as exterior materials or high grade reduced .
maintenance materials that will achieve the same exterior .
appearance goals as natural materials may be used.
The roofing shall be heavier weight asphalt shingles or cedar
shingles or high-grade reduced maintenance materials. thatwnt
achieve the same exterior appearance goals as the natural
materia.ls may be used. . : .
9anopies:
No franchise or prototypical commerciafbuilding design shall be
allowed. The village area shall have a unique rural character
related to its surroundings:
Pump area canopies shall be of a subdued design consistent with
the building design and materials. Any under-canopied lighting
shall be recessed and not show the light source from off the servi~ ..
area.
Building Design:
Building
9rientation:The .c9untry village witl.pe visuatly.and functiona.lly c~nne~eQJ9 :
the .immediate oeighborhood~ be acces~i1?!~ b~ r!~t;,i~u~!l~.;. :;
r.~.'. "':_ . _
prominemt from County Road 12 and 15. '.. . '...' .".. ,_-^"_""<".:~-:",c,.~,;,,~,,,'_'::.._. ,. ~
Building Setback:. 50' from County Road 12 or 15
Parking or paved
Streets or
Driveways:
6~.:;~:;,:,'i:''':~,:i-''~' ~
Jy_-._>;.
LofCoverage:
I E
i-J
o
o.
iI"
r .
Building Height 35' to gable peek
Road and Parking
Configuration: The preferred configuration !s one of curved and angled orientation
La~dscaping:. .
Screening:
Signage:
Utilities: . ;
Ligh~~~':.?::'
t~:~i~~~~~~'~:~~ ~;~, '"
l<~~~~~'~"::~~.~_:;-
i'.'~.'.~~itj~-.
t~ i'~~ .'
40 percent minimum of the land area s~all be in permanent..:. -.
maintained landscaping, open spaces arid natural wetlands~
Areas around building shall be planted with hearty species of
deciduous and coniferous ttock and should assists in blockingsightlinesofparkingfacilitiesandhighlightattractivearchitectural
features in a landscaped setting. . .
Parking areas that c.an be viewed from adjacent roads or
residential areas shall be screened with a combination of
deciduous and coniferous planting and berming.
Commercial signs are to be placed on linear walls, composed of.
the same materials and bearing a similar design theme to the
building being identified. Interchangeable tenant identification Will
be provided but if internally lit must show lit letters only, not letter
backgro'unds. . Preferred buildiog. identity signage is by cut out ..
letters of durable materials, mounted on the above mentioned. .' .
walls, lit with internal backfacing lighting or reflective lighting from
ground, wall or tree mounted spots. Spot lights must not provide
glare to adjacent roadways or perimete.r residential uses. Identity
monument type freestanding country village signs without tenant
identification consistent with the village design and material may be
allowed along County Road 12 and 15 and at the residential
roadway entrance. .
All utilitie~ will be underground and .HVAC equipment will be
screened from view. Roof mounted units Will be screened via rOQf.. .
confi~uration, wall~~en~ions e~ther verticalor.horizontal:,'~IL~~~j:f'
areas snall be completely enclosed and screened from vlewbya . ..
structure of a design compatible in design to village building and... ,-
perimeter landscape. . . ..
Site lighting selected to minimize visibility and glare from reside.l)ti~t.. :
areas. Overall site light levels will be achieved by a blend of .>):~~~:.,---' ..,..
streets and parking lights not to exceed 20' In height. WalkWay. '<~:~>"":.. ....
lighting, building lighting, site amenity, sign lighting and vegeta~
JQE1..,;;
c;.:j"._.X,
lighting shall be reviewed to make sure it is compatible with th.~.:~~}:~tJ~t)E-~l.='__ _
residential quality of the neighborhood. .':::;~'.'''.:';;::~?';'.'':;::<.' .
d .~':!;/{'~
c~:~r~'1;.;:~/;,;-.
f;~-~~:/~'-,:.~:~'~~:'~~'~~:';'--<' ..' . -
c ,:.;::.:'., ';':\ :',:..
C;':':"-
C"~~_:~~Kf:;'~;~;<~;:-\ /
Planning Commission
REPORT DATE: January 16, 2019 CASE NO.: 2018-68
HEARING DATES: Planning Commission January 23, 2019
Park Commission January 28, 2019
Joint Planning Board February 11, 2019
City Council February 5 & 19, 2019
DEVELOPER: Mark Guenther, Fenway Land Company
REQUEST: Review Preliminary Plat of Marylane Meadows
LOCATION: 8313 & 8393 Marylane Avenue North
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LMDR, Low/Medium Density Residential
ZONING: AP, Agricultural Preservation
REVIEWED BY: Shawn Sanders, City Engineer;
Tom Ballis, Assistant Fire Chief;
Karen Kill, Administrator, Brown’s Creek Watershed District
REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
Mark Guenther, Fenway Land Company, plans to develop two small acreage parcels on
Marylane Avenue North (8313 & 8393 Marylane Avenue North) with a total size of 4.49
acres. The preliminary plat for the project, to be known as Marylane Meadows, shows 11
single family lots.
If the preliminary plat is approved, then at time of final plat application, the developer
will also apply for rezoning of the property.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The applicant has requested that the Planning Commission review the Preliminary Plat
known as Marylane Meadows and recommend that the City Council approve it.
Marylane Meadows
January 16, 2019
Page 2
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
I. REZONING
Fenway Land Company proposes to have the property rezoned from AP, Agricultural
Preservation to RB, Two-Family Residential. But, as mentioned above, the actual request
to rezone will not be made until the final plat application is submitted. Therefore,
approval of the preliminary plat will need to be conditioned upon receipt and approval of
the rezoning application.
The contemplated TR zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which guides
development of the site as Low/Medium Density Residential. The zoning districts that
correspond to the guided density are CCR, RB and CR. CR zoning can only be used if the
development is a PUD. So, either CCR or RB would have to be the new zoning
classification for the property. RB allows 50 foot wide lots (or 75 feet if a “mother-in-law”
apartment is included in the house). CCR allows 60 foot wide lots, but there is a higher
building design standard associated with the CCR Zoning District, and no “mother-in-
law” apartments or Accessory Dwelling Units are allowed. Moreover, less lot coverage is
allowed in the CCR District. Therefore, RB would be the more appropriate zoning district
for this situation.
Prior to Planning Commission review of this case, the developer will need to decide
whether to request a rezoning to TR or RB. Staff presumes that RB will ultimately be
chosen, since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is appropriate for the
situation. It is also the same zoning as the new subdivision across Marylane Avenue from
the subject property.
The development plan set will have to be changed to reflect the RB Zoning District
standards, or variances will have to be applied for if rezoned to TR. Staff recommends
rezoning to RB, and the remainder of this report will assume a rezoning to RB.
II. PRELIMINARY PLAT
The 4.49 acre parcel is proposed to be subdivided into 11 single family lots. Two homes
currently exist on the small acreage parcels.
A. Minimum Dimensional Standards: RB District
The front setbacks of the homes in Block 1 are 30 feet. But, in Block 2 the
minimum setback is 35 feet for the northerly home and increasing to 45 feet
for the most southerly home. This is done to recognize the approximately 45
foot setback of the existing home on the property to the south.
Marylane Meadows
January 16, 2019
Page 3
Massing Standards
The side yard setback for each lot is a minimum of 7.5 feet on both sides of
the houses if the proposed optional attached third garage stall is built.
Without it, the garage side setback will increase the width of that optional
stall.
When building permits are issued the lot coverage will not be allowed to
exceed that which is permitted. But, this will not be a problem, since the lots
are large compared with what is required minimally in the RB District.
In the RB Zoning District Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are allowed by
Special Use Permit. This would help to increase the density of the
development to better reflect that which is guided by the Comprehensive
Plan. The lots only need to be 10,000 sf in size for ADUs, so the proposed
lots would be acceptable for an ADU.4
If an ADU is desired for any lot, the future owner of that lot would need to
make application for the Special Use Permit prior to constructing it.
The developer is also interested in marketing the properties as having
potential for “mother-in-law” apartments. By definition, this type of unit
within the house makes the dwelling a “two-family” dwelling. This is
allowed if the property is zoned RB. But, a two-family dwelling requires a
larger and a wider lot. The sizes of the proposed lots are fine. But, the
minimum width required for a two-family dwelling is 75 feet. Whereas, the
proposed lots are generally only 65 feet wide. So, the developer would like
comments from the Planning Commission on whether there would be
support for the width variances necessary to build the “mother-in-law”
apartments. If there is support, he would submit a variance application
along with his final plat application. Staff does not believe that the variance
review criteria would be met by this request. The better approach would be
an ordinance amendment that allows “mother-in-law” apartments in the RB
Zoning District on lots that are no wider than minimally required.
1 Width is measured between side lot lines at right angles to lot depth at a point midway between front and rear lot lines
2 Average distance between front and rear lot lines.
3 Total of both side setbacks must be a minimum of 15 feet, with a minimum of 5 feet on each side.
4 For all ADU standards in the RB Zoning District, see City Code Ch 31-501, Subd 3
RB Standard Min. requirement Proposed
Lot area: single-family 7,500 sf 17,140 sf min.
Lot area: two-family 10,000 sf 17,140 sf min.
Lot width: single-family1 50’ 65’ min.
Lot wide: two-family1 75’ 65’ min.
Lot depth2 100’ 268.6’ min.
Lot frontage on public road 25’ 65’ min.
Front setback: house 20’ 30’ min.
Front setback: garage 30’ 30’ min.
Side setback 5/15’3 7.5’ min
Rear yard setback 25’ 140’ min.
Maximum lot coverage 50% (25% bldg.; 25% other) TBD
Marylane Meadows
January 16, 2019
Page 4
B. Civil Engineering
1) All of the preliminary civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory
to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction, prior to release of the
final plat from City offices for filing with Washington County.
2) All electrical and communication utility lines are required to be buried.
3) The drainage and utility easements associated with the underlying plat
will need to be vacated before the final plat for Marylane Meadows is
filed with the county for recording. Application for the vacation will
need to be submitted together with the final plat application.
4) The developer will be responsible for paying development impact fees
based upon the net developable acreage of the project, which is 4.40 acres
(4.49 gross minus .09 for the trail outlot). The fees will be payable prior to
release of the final plat for recording with Washington County.
a. Trout Stream Mitigation Fee: $6,283/acre (2019 fee). Total of
$27,645.20.
b. Trunk sewer and water fees: $11,274/acre (2019 fee). Total of
$49,605.60.
C. Tree Preservation & Landscaping
Two applicable development standards exist for trees on this project: 1)
street trees and 2) tree preservation.
1) Street trees
The subdivision code requires an average of three trees per lot along the
street, though they are to be planted outside of the platted right-of-way5.
No landscape plan has been submitted, so it is unclear where these 33
trees will be located. A landscape plan will be needed before the
preliminary plat goes to the Planning Commission.
2) Tree preservation
There is no tree inventory, so it is not possible to know how many
significant trees are on the property, and how many will be removed.
a. The City’s environmental ordinances allow 35% of the tree stock to be
taken down without any replacement (in addition to the “street
trees”).
b. One tree is required for each tree removed beyond the 35% threshold.
a) The size of the replacement trees must be an average of 2 inches
diameter at about four feet above ground. Conifers must be at
least 6 feet tall.
5 City Code Ch. 32, Subd. 6(3)q
Marylane Meadows
January 16, 2019
Page 5
b) The subdivision code allows a tree replacement fee to be paid if
they cannot be planted on site. The fee would be based upon the
retail cost of a 2” DBH deciduous tree.
c. Either a tree inventory will be needed, or at least an analysis of the
percentage of trees to be removed will have to be submitted. Then, if
more than 35% are to be removed, the corresponding number of
replacement trees will need to be added to the landscape plan.
D. Environmental Issues
1) Wetlands – The property has no wetlands.
2) BCWD – A grading permit will be required.
3) Floodplain – The property includes no FEMA identified floodplains.
4) Shoreland Overlay District – The property does not lie within a shoreland
overlay district.
E. Park & Trail Dedication
A trail segment is needed on the project site in order to complete the trail
system in the neighborhood. Therefore, Outlot A will be platted and
improved with the trail segment. This segment will be an extension of the
Settler’s Glen trail system and will provide a connection to the county trail
on Manning and the state trail along McKusick Road.
The proposed trail is shown with a grass surface. But, this will need to be
upgraded to bituminous to match the trail in Settler’s Glen.
The standard park and trail fee for this project would be due on 9 of the 11
lots. The existing homes are exempt. The park fee for a single family home
is $2,000 and the trail fee is $500. Therefore, if no improvements were
needed, $22,500 would be due for park and trail fees.
However, since a trail segment is needed, the developer’s cost of building the
trail (excluding land costs for Outlot A) will be credited against the park and
trail fee for the project. So, the balance of the bid cost of construction (if
found satisfactory to the City Engineer) will be credited against the total
park and trail fee and the balance must be submitted to the City prior to
release of the plat from City offices for recording with Washington County.
ACTION REQUESTED
The developer requests the Planning Commission to review and recommend approval of
the preliminary plat.
Marylane Meadows
January 16, 2019
Page 6
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has several available alternatives:
1. Recommend approval – If the Planning Commission finds that the information
submitted is sufficient and that the preliminary plat is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, compliant with City code, and is not detrimental to the
neighborhood, then the Planning Commission could recommend that the City
Council approve the preliminary plat.
2. Recommend denial – If the Planning Commission does not find that the
preliminary plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compliant with City
code, and is detrimental to the neighborhood, the Planning Commission could
recommend that the City Council deny it.
3. Table for more information.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following
plans on file with the Community Development Department, except as may be
modified by the conditions herein:
Preliminary plat Sheet 3 of 7 Dated 12/20/18
Preliminary removals plan Sheet 4 of 7 Dated 12/20/18
Preliminary site & utility plan Sheet 5 of 7 Dated 12/20/18
Grading & erosion control plan Sheet 6 of 7 Dated 12/20/18
2. Prior to review of the preliminary plat by the City Council, all plans must be
revised by replacing references to TR Zoning and replacing them with RB
Zoning references.
3. All civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or
revised to his satisfaction, prior to release of the final plat from City Offices for
filing with Washington County.
4. A Development Agreement found satisfactory to the City Attorney and City
Engineer must be approved by the City Council prior to commencing any tree
removal or grading on the site, and prior to holding a pre-construction
meeting with the City Engineer for the project.
5. At the time of final plat application, the developer must submit a written
request to vacate the underlying drainage and utility easements on the
property. And such vacation request needs to be approved by the City
Council prior to release of the final plat from City offices for recording with
Washington County.
6. The developer shall submit a grading permit application to Brown’s Creek
Watershed District, and the permit must be issued prior to submitting the
application to the City for the final plat. Any permit conditions that the City
Marylane Meadows
January 16, 2019
Page 7
Engineer finds necessary to include in the final plan set shall be included in the
final plat application package.
7. The developer’s cost of building the trail will be credited against the park and
trail fee for the project. So, the balance of the bid cost of construction (if found
satisfactory to the City Engineer) will be credited against the total park and
trail fee and the balance must be submitted to the City prior to release of the
final plat from City offices for recording with Washington County.
8. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be
specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval.
9. The Developer will be responsible for paying the Trout Stream Mitigation Fee
of $27,645.20 and trunk sewer and water fees of $49,605.60. If these fees are
not paid in 2019, rates will increase and the higher rates will apply. These fees
will be due prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington
County.
10. If the Developer desires to have a neighborhood entrance monument for the
subdivision, plans for it must be included within the final plat application
materials. Otherwise, such a sign will not be permitted in the future.
11. A tree removal plan, with inventory if required by the City, and code
compliant landscaping/tree replacement plan must be submitted to the City
prior to consideration of the preliminary plat by the City Council.
12. Materials may not be stored in the critical root zone of trees to be saved, nor
may equipment or materials be leaned or stacked against trunks of trees
identified to be saved.
13. Approval of the preliminary plat will not become effective until the developer
submits an application for rezoning of the property to RB, Two-Family
Residential and the City Council adopts an ordinance approving that
rezoning.
14. If an Accessory Dwelling Unit is desired for any lot within this subdivision,
the future owner of that lot will need to make application for the Special Use
Permit and receive approval from the Planning Commission prior to
constructing the detached garage and its second story Accessory Dwelling
Unit.
cc Mark Guenther
Attachments: Zoning Map
Development Plans
bt
Marylane Meadows
January 16, 2019
Page 8
f:\jobs\7741 - 7760\7757 - rivard addition\cad c3d\survey\preliminary\7757_prp.dwgSave Date:12/20/18FENWAY LAND COMPANY13925 Fenway Blvd. NorthHugo, MN, 55038of3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE,Suite 100Blaine, MN 55449Phone: (763) 489-7900Fax: (763) 489-7959www.carlsonmccain.comMARYLANE MEADOWSStillwater, Minnesotaenvironmentalengineeringsurveying···PRELIMINARY PLATThomas R. Balluff, L.S.I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Land Surveyor underthe laws of the State of MinnesotaPrint Name:Signature:Date:License #:12/20/1840361DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:FILE NO:Revisions:1809KCM12/20/18VICINITY MAP73LEGENDOWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:
OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER: SITE DATA MARYLANE MEADOWS
PRELIMINARYREMOVALS PLANofof3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100Blaine, MN 55449Phone: (763) 489-7900Fax: (763) 489-7959www.carlsonmccain.comf:\jobs\7741 - 7760\7757 - rivard addition\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\7757_removals.dwgSave Date:12/20/18environmentalengineeringsurveying···7Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota12/20/18 12/20/18Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJKMARYLANE MEADOWSStillwater, MinnesotaFENWAY LAND COMPANY13925 Fenway Boulevard NorthHugo, Minnesota 55038KRO4
SITE PLAN LEGENDPRELIMINARY SITE& UTILITY PLANofof3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100Blaine, MN 55449Phone: (763) 489-7900Fax: (763) 489-7959www.carlsonmccain.comf:\jobs\7741 - 7760\7757 - rivard addition\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\7757_site.dwgSave Date:12/20/18environmentalengineeringsurveying···7Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota12/20/18 12/20/18Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJKMARYLANE MEADOWSStillwater, MinnesotaFENWAY LAND COMPANY13925 Fenway Boulevard NorthHugo, Minnesota 55038KRO5
ofof3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100Blaine, MN 55449Phone: (763) 489-7900Fax: (763) 489-7959www.carlsonmccain.comf:\jobs\7741 - 7760\7757 - rivard addition\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\7757_gr.dwgSave Date:12/20/18environmentalengineeringsurveying···7Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota12/20/18 12/20/18Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJKMARYLANE MEADOWSStillwater, MinnesotaFENWAY LAND COMPANY13925 Fenway Boulevard NorthHugo, Minnesota 55038PRELIMINARY GRADING& EROSION CONTROL PLAN6L.O.C
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-69
APPLICANT: Nancy and Dale Anderson and Mike and Stacy Morrison, Deposit Slip
LLC, property owner
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a Type C Short Term Home Rental to be located at 319
Hickory Street West
ZONING: RB, Two-Family Res. COMP PLAN: LMDR, Low-Medium Density Res.
REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
REQUEST
Nancy and Dale Anderson own a single family
residence located at 319 Hickory Street West and have
submitted necessary applications to operate a Type C
Short Tem Home Rental (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.
Figure 1: May, 2018 Aerial Photo (WA County)
CPC Case No. 2018-69
319 Hickory Street West STHR CUP
January 23, 2019
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.
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 RB – Two Family Residential, which allows STHRs by CUP.
Performance Standards
Parking: In residential zoning districts, guest parking must be accommodated on improved
surfaces on the premises. The use requires a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. The
owners have indicated guests may use two of the three garage stalls. Additionally, two cars
can park directly in front of the garage doors.
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”. The latter concern is
particularly important because most overnight rental properties are located in residential
neighborhoods rather than commercial neighborhoods. The property has three bedrooms.
Given this, the maximum number of overnight guests in this one bedroom residence will be
seven.
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 the applicant
and owners, Nancy Anderson (17319 Olinda Trail North, Marine on St. Croix) and Stacy
Morrison (34 Moonlight Bay, Stillwater). The former is located 10.9 miles (or 16 minutes)
away and the latter is located 8.3 miles (or 14 minutes) away.
Figure 2: August, 2017 Street View (Google Images)
CPC Case No. 2018-69
319 Hickory Street West STHR CUP
January 23, 2019
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.
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 in September, 2018. A number of
deficiencies were identified but, in December of 2018, those were rectified.
Total Number of STHR Conditional Use Permits
Fifteen Type C Conditional Use Permits may be issued at any one time. To date, thirteen Type C
licenses have been issued.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Three public comments have been submitted
• 302 Hickory Street West: concerns for parking, safety and noise
• 715 5th Street North: concerns for parking and safety
• 720 5th Street North: concerns for safety with unknown visitors
Ordinance 1093 specifically requires a STHR’s guests to abide by the City’s nuisance ordinances,
which must be included in all guest disclosures. The property owner is aware that three
substantiated complaints against the property will result in the loss of STHR license for six
months. 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 City will distribute this information once all
requirements of a Conditional Use Permit and the License has been met.
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 – All guest parking must occur on the subject property. No parking may occur
on the street.
2. Number of guests – The total occupancy of the property shall be limited to seven.
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 community development department must be notified within 10 days of a change
in the contact information of the owner or manager/representative. The property
CPC Case No. 2018-69
319 Hickory Street West STHR CUP
January 23, 2019
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. 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.
6. Length of guest stay – The property is not permitted to be rented for a period of less than
one whole day.
7. 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.
8. Guest disclosures
a. Prior to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, the following shall be added to the
Guest Disclosure:
i. The owner must disclose in writing to their guests the following rules and
regulations prior to arrival. In addition the disclosures must be conspicuously
displayed in the home.
ii. The name, phone number and address of the owner, operating or managing
agent/representative.
iii. The maximum number of overnight guests at the property at a time is limited to
seven.
iv. The maximum number of vehicles at the property is limited to one. No on-street
parking is allowed for guests.
v. Property rules related to use of outdoor features, such as decks, patios, grills,
recreational fires, saunas and other recreational facilities.
vi. City nuisance ordinances will be enforced by the Stillwater Police Department,
including reduced noise levels between 10 PM and 8 AM.
vii. No events with more than three unregistered guests are permitted.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Issuance of Conditional Use Permit – Prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit or
the license, the safety inspection and any corrections must be approved by City
inspectors.
13. Table. If the Planning Commission finds the request to have incomplete information, the case
could be tabled.
CPC Case No. 2018-69
319 Hickory Street West STHR CUP
January 23, 2019
14. 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
While staff understands the concerns for safety of the neighbors, City staff receives complaint
reports on a weekly basis. As of the date of memo development:
The City of Stillwater has issued 13 Type C licenses since May, 2017. Of those licenses
issues, five are located in residential neighborhoods. Zero substantiated complaints have
been received for Type C licenses.
The City has issued nine Type B licenses (where the owner rents their primary residence
but is not located onsite during the rental period). Of those licenses, seven have been
issued in residential neighborhoods. There is one Type B licensed property that has
received two substantiated complaints. Aside from that one property, no other
substantiated complaints have been received.
Staff finds that with certain conditions, the proposed use can conform 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 319 Hickory Street West.
ATTACHMENTS
Site Location Map
Applicant Narrative
Site Plan
Floor Plans (two pages)
Guest Disclosure (three pages)
Public Comments (three pages)
NORTHNORTHMARTHAEVERETTNORTHNORTHWE ST ELM STREET
M A P L E S T R E E TNORTHFIFTH
W E S T
µ
0 180 36090Feet
General Site Location
Site Location
319 Hickory St W
^
Text
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT DATE: January 18, 2019 CASE NO.: 2018-70
APPLICANT: Matt Wolf, CVII Holdings, Inc.
LANDOWNER: CVII Holdings, Inc.
SUBJECT: Historic Armory re-use plan
107 E Chestnut
HEARING DATES: Downtown Parking Commission January 17, 2019
Planning Commission January 23, 2019
Heritage Preservation Commission TBD
City Council February 19, 2019
ZONING: CBD, Central Business District
REQUEST: 1) Parking Commission:
a) Recommendation to City Council to approve Parking Plan
2) Heritage Preservation Commission:
a) Approval of Design Permit
3) Planning Commission:
a) Recommendation to City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit for
large building project in the CBD District
b) Approval of amendment to Special Use Permit for craft distillery
c) Approval of Special Use Permit for residential units in CBD District
4) City Council:
a) Approval of Conditional Use Permit for large building project
REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
Matt Wolf is one of the owners of the Historic Armory property on Chestnut and Third Streets.
The owners are proposing to remodel and convert the property to eight high-end market rate
apartments, a local Stillwater based startup craft distillery or brewery, and office space.
The historic integrity of the building will be maintained. Only limited changes will be made to
the exterior. The anticipated changes include upgrading the garage doors with glass, a drive pad
so residents can turn around and drive forward onto Chestnut Street instead of backing onto the
street, a service entrance next to the garage door, a new storefront door on the west end of the
building for handicapped access, and work on deteriorated brick
Historic Armory
Page 2
SPECIFIC REQUESTS
1) Parking Commission:
a. Recommendation to City Council to approve Parking Plan
2) Heritage Preservation Commission:
a. Approval of Design Permit
3) Planning Commission:
a. Recommendation to Council to approve Conditional Use Permit for large building
project in the CBD District
b. Approval of amendment to Special Use Permit for craft distillery
c. Approval of Special Use Permit for residential units in CBD District
4) City Council:
a. Approval of Conditional Use Permit for large building project
EVALUATION OF REQUESTS
This report will evaluate only the requests that are the responsibility of the Planning Commission
to review or take action on.
I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LARGE BUILDING PROJECT
Many uses Downtown are permitted without any type of public review, even if the projects have
potential impacts upon City infrastructure. This could be problematic if projects are large. So, in
February of 2017 the City Council adopted an ordinance requiring a site plan review Conditional
Use Permit for all large building projects in the CBD Zoning District (Downtown Stillwater)1.
A “large building project” is defined as a building with 20,000 gross square feet of space. If the
building already exists, and at least 12,000 square feet of the 20,000 is being renovated or reused,
then it will require the site plan review CUP.
1 City Code Sec 31-515.2
Historic Armory
Page 3
The historic armory building has substantially more than 20,000 gross square feet, and between
16,300 and 20,800 square feet are being proposed for re-use. So, a site plan review Conditional
Use Permit is required for the re-use plan.
Proposed re-use plan
Depending upon the final mix of tenants for the property, two re-use plans are proposed. Option
A would include 8 market rate apartments, a craft distillery (or micro-brewery) and 4,450 square
feet of office space. Several local groups have inquired about the distillery/brewery space. But,
if this distillery/brewery space does not get leased, then Option B would be 8 apartments and
13,600 square feet of office space.
The floor layout for Option A is attached.
Parking plan
The primary concern for this site plan review is potential impact upon the Downtown parking
system.
To maximize the potential use of the property would require creation of additional nearby
parking capacity. Consequently, the property owners have been exploring options. The City has
also been considering some type of parking structure on the east portion of the block where the
historic armory is located. But, the process for creating that nearby parking capacity has taken
two years now, and neither the City nor the property owner have identified the solution.
Therefore, the property owners have decided not to maximize the potential use of the property,
but instead to redevelop it with uses that can be provide the required parking right on the
property. And, as is explained below, they have achieved this goal. The proposed re-use plan
satisfies the Zoning Code’s parking standards without the requirement for additional off-site
parking.
The Zoning Code requires all projects downtown, within existing structures, to provide: a)
additional on-site parking spaces for any increased non-residential parking load over 4 spaces,
and b) on-site parking for all residential units. 2
Option A. This option includes a craft distillery, apartments and office space. This re-use plan
increases the building’s current parking load by 0.89 spaces. 15 residential parking spaces will be
provided on the property, 8 of which will be indoors. This satisfies the Zoning Code’s parking
standards. (See attached spreadsheet for Option A.)
Option B. This option does not include the craft distillery. Its space would be converted to
additional office space. The 8 apartments would remain. This re-use plan increases the parking
load by 19.34 spaces. 15 of these spaces are for the apartments. The parking load for the non-
residential uses increase by 4.34 spaces.
2 City Code Sec 31-510, Subd 1 (d)(4) Parking requirements for nonconforming structures or uses. [“Nonconforming” in this sense
means that the property does not meet the minimum number of required parking spaces.] In the case of structures in any district,
which are reconstructed, enlarged, structurally altered, changed in occupancy to a more intensive use category or otherwise increased
in capacity, off-street parking shall be provided only for that portion of structures or use constituting the increase in capacity; except
that no additional parking need be provided for nonresidential uses, if the increased capacity results in an increase of four or fewer off-
street parking spaces.
Historic Armory
Page 4
The Zoning Code has a provision for these re-use scenarios that says if the increased load of the
non-residential uses is 4 or fewer spaces, no additional commercial parking needs to be
provided3. The Zoning Code also allows fractions of parking spaces to be rounded down if less
than a half. So, the 4.34 space increase is not required by Code to be mitigated.
Details for this option can be seen in the attached spreadsheet for Option B.
Staff finds both Options A and B to meet the Zoning Code standards without additional parking
for the non-residential uses. The 8 apartments will require 15 on-site spaces, 8 of which will need
to be indoors. All 15 spaces are included in the re-use plan for both Options A and B.
Design Permit
The Heritage Preservation Commission will need to review the project and approve a Design
Permit prior to Council consideration of this case.
II. SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR CRAFT DISTILLERY
In 2016 Christie Wanderer and Andrew Mosiman were granted a Special Use Permit (Case 2016-
39) for Forge and Foundry Distillery to operate within the historic armory. The distillery was
approved to be larger than in the current re-use plan, and it was to be located within the garage.
Therefore, that use permit should be rescinded and approval of the revised use permit should be
incorporated into the use permit for this large building project.
500 square feet of the distillery would be in the garage, which has high ceilings for the distilling
equipment. But, the remainder of the production space, storage space and tasting room would be
moved out of the garage into the abutting lower level. The garage will be needed for the
apartments’ indoor parking. The areas to be occupied by the craft distillery are seen labeled
“lease space” in the attached floor layouts. In addition to relocating the distillery, the size of the
business would be reduced from 7,500 square feet to 3,600. Another change will be that there will
no longer be an outside patio associated with the business.
Applicable review standards
The proposed structure and uses must conform to the requirements of the zoning code, the
comprehensive plan, and relevant area plans and other lawful regulations.
Zoning Ordinance
o Use: Breweries, wineries and craft distilleries have been classified as “light
industrial that is clean and compatible with surrounding properties” in the Central
Business District. These uses have operated in the Central Business District
without complaint.
The applicants have indicated the production will let off steam but no odor
or gas. Additionally, the building is set up with two controlled AC units,
one to service the production area and another to service the tasting room.
3 City Code Sec 31-510, Subd 1 (d)(4)
Historic Armory
Page 5
While spent grains will be kept in sealed containers, onsite and indoors, it
will be removed greater than one time weekly.
o Parking: This is addressed above in the review of the building as a whole.
Comprehensive Plan – The Local Economy chapter of the City’s Comprehensive Plan
(Page 7-4) “encourages small locally owned businesses particularly in the downtown.”
Exterior changes – Section 31-319 of the Stillwater City Code requires that the Heritage
Preservation Commission (HPC) to conduct a design review on exterior changes, signage
and waste receptacle.
o The HPC has not reviewed the proposal yet, but will need to prior to consideration
of the use permit by the City Council.
Miscellaneous
o Plans will need to be approved by the city engineer, fire and building officials before
the issuance of a building permit.
o The use or structure cannot constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public
welfare of the community. The City Council and Planning Commission have
determined in similar cases that the distillery and tasting room would not be a
detriment to the public if all distilling operations are conducted within the structure.
III. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Applicable review standards
The proposed structure and uses must conform to the requirements of the zoning code, the
comprehensive plan, and relevant area plans and other lawful regulations.
Zoning Ordinance
o Use: Residential units are allowed and common downtown with a special use
permit.
o Parking – Apartments are required to provide 1.5 spaces per unit; with one
covered, plus one space per three units for guest parking. With eight apartment
units the building would require 15 spaces, eight of which are required to be
covered. As mentioned above, this standard will be met.
Comprehensive Plan – Residential units are encouraged downtown. Though a mix of
uses is desirable in a building. In this case the building would have a mix of residential
and commercial.
Exterior changes – Section 31-319 of the Stillwater City Code requires that the Heritage
Preservation Commission (HPC) to conduct a design review on exterior changes, signage
and waste receptacle.
o The HPC has not reviewed the proposal yet, but will need to prior to consideration
of the use permit by the City Council.
Miscellaneous
o Plans will need to be approved by the fire and building officials before the issuance
of a building permit. Specifically, required ingress/egress issues will need to be
satisfied.
o 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 or Heritage Preservation Commission for review and
approval.
Historic Armory
Page 6
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has several available alternatives:
1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the large building project; approve
the amendments to the Special Use Permit for the craft distillery; and approve the Special Use
Permit for the residential units.
2. Table the requests for more information.
3. Deny the requests in part.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Downtown Parking Commission
The Downtown Parking Commission recommended approval of both options of the proposed re-use
plan.
Staff
Staff recommends approval of the requests with the following conditions:
1. Redevelopment of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the following plans:
a. Stillwater Armory Lower Level Plan dated 12.28.18
b. Stillwater Armory 2nd Floor Plan dated 12.28.18
c. Stillwater Armory Main Floor Plan dated 12.28.18
d. Stillwater Armory Elevations dated 12.28.18
2. Prior to City Council consideration of this case, the Heritage Preservation Commission must
review and take action on a Design Permit.
3. All signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission, if
applicable.
4. The non-residential parking load for the converted historic armory shall not exceed 45.33
spaces. The residential parking load for the converted building shall not exceed 15 spaces.
5. Special Use Permit 2016-39 must be rescinded and approval of a Special Use Permit for the
revised plans is to be incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit for the large building
Conditional Use Permit for the property.
6. The Special Use Permit for the 8 residential units is to be incorporated into the Conditional
Use Permit for the large building Conditional Use Permit for the property.
7. Building and site plans will need to be approved by the city engineer, fire and building
officials before the issuance of any building permits for the project.
8. All changes to the approved plans listed in Condition 1 above will need to be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to
the Planning Commission or Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval.
9. A trash removal plan shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development
Director. If the plan does not include storage of trash inside the structure, the Heritage
Preservation Commission shall review a proposed screening design.
10. Prior to the operation of the tasting room, the applicant shall secure an on premise license
from the City Clerk’s office.
11. Prior to distilling operations, the applicant shall secure state and federal permits and licenses.
Attachments: Site survey
Floor layouts & elevations
Spreadsheet: Parking Analysis, Option A
Spreadsheet: Parking Analysis, Option B
bt
Parking Analysis
Historic Armory Property
Option A
area in sf parking standard required parking
A.Current parking load
Gymnasium (and locker rooms/showers)9,003.50 1/ 2 BB players 5.00
Health club (basement work out room)637.00 1/100 sf 6.37
Offices (and meeting rooms)7,488.00 1/300 sf 24.96
Storage and repair shop 6,825.00 1/1,000 sf 6.83
sub-total 43.16
Reduction for multiple use building (2-4 uses) See "cooperative
parking" Footnote 1 -5%41.00
B.Proposed parking load
Residential 8 units
1.5 spaces/unit + 1 space/3 units for
guest parking. 1 space/unit must be
indoors.
15.00 8 indoors
Distillery
tasting room 1,000 1 space/120 sf 8.33
production area 1,600 1 space/325 sf 4.92
storage 1,000 1 space/1,000 sf 1.00
(foyer and bathroom shared)550 NA
distillery total 14.26
Office 4,450 1/300 sf office total 14.83
sub-total 44.09
Reduction for multiple use building (2-4 uses) See "cooperative
parking" See Footnote 1 -5%41.89
1/18/2019
Parking Analysis
Historic Armory Property
Option A
C.Change in parking load
Difference between current and proposed load 0.89
Increase due to residential units 15.00 8 indoors
Non-residential increase -14.11
D.Proposed parking for project
Non-residential uses. The project is required to provide new on-
site spaces for the increased non-residential parking load (City
Code Sec 31-510, Subd 1 (d)(4)), but no new on-site spaces are
required if the increase is four our fewer spaces. See Footnote 2
Since the non-residential parking load
decreased by 14.11 spaces, no
additional non-residential spaces are
required.
0
Residential uses. City Code Sec 31-510, Subd 1 (d)(4) does not
apply to new residential units. All new residential units must
provide their parking on the property. See Footnote 2
8 units
1.5 spaces/unit + 1 space/3 units for
guest parking. 1 space/unit must be
indoors.
15 total; 8
indoors
Footnote 1
Cooperative parking facilities. The requirements for the provisions of parking
facilities, with respect to two more property uses of the same or different types, may
be satisfied by the permanent allocation of the required number of spaces for each
use in a common parking facility, located within 300 feet of all such participating
property uses and cooperatively established and operated. In the case of a
cooperative parking facility which is designed to satisfy the parking requirements of:
i. From two to four independent property uses, a reduction of not more than five
percent of the total number of required spaces shall be allowed.
ii. From five to seven independent property uses, a reduction of not more than ten
percent of the total number of required spaces shall be allowed.
iii. Eight or more independent property uses, a reduction of not more than 20 percent
of the total number of required spaces shall be allowed.
Footnote 2
Parking requirements for nonconforming structures or uses. In the case of structures
in any district, which are reconstructed, enlarged, structurally altered, changed in
occupancy to a more intensive use category or otherwise increased in capacity, off-
street parking shall be provided only for that portion of structures or use constituting
the increase in capacity; except that no additional parking need be provided for
nonresidential uses, if the increased capacity results in an increase of four or fewer
off-street parking spaces.
1/18/2019
Historic Aromory
Option B
area in sf parking standard required parking
A.Current parking load
Gymnasium (and locker rooms/showers)9,003.50 1/ 2 BB players 5.00
Health club (basement work out room)637.00 1/100 sf 6.37
Offices (and meeting rooms)7,488.00 1/300 sf 24.96
Storage and repair shop 6,825.00 1/1,000 sf 6.83
sub-total 43.16
Reduction for multiple use building (2-4 uses) See "cooperative
parking" Footnote 1 -5%41.00
B.Proposed parking load
Residential 8 units
1.5 spaces/unit + 1 space/3 units for
guest parking. 1 space/unit must be
indoors.
15.00 8 indoors
Office 13,600 1/300 sf 45.33
sub-total 60.33
C.Change in parking load
Difference between current and proposed load 19.34
Increase due to residential units 15.00 8 indoors
Non-residential increase 4.34
1/18/2019
Historic Aromory
Option B
D.Proposed parking for project
Non-residential uses . The project is required to provide new on-
site spaces for the increased non-residential parking load (City
Code Sec 31-510, Subd 1 (d)(4)), but no new on-site spaces are
required if the increase is four our fewer spaces. See Footnote 2
Since the non-residential parking load
increased by 4 or fewer spaces (any
fraction of a space less than half is
rounded down), no additional non-
residential spaces are required.
0
Residential uses . City Code Sec 31-510, Subd 1 (d)(4) does not
apply to new residential units. All new residential units must
provide their parking on the property. See Footnote 2
8 units
1.5 spaces/unit + 1 space/3 units for
guest parking. 1 space/unit must be
indoors.
15 total; 8
indoors
Footnote 1
Cooperative parking facilities. The requirements for the provisions of parking facilities,
with respect to two more property uses of the same or different types, may be satisfied
by the permanent allocation of the required number of spaces for each use in a
common parking facility, located within 300 feet of all such participating property uses
and cooperatively established and operated. In the case of a cooperative parking
facility which is designed to satisfy the parking requirements of:
i. From two to four independent property uses, a reduction of not more than five
percent of the total number of required spaces shall be allowed.
ii. From five to seven independent property uses, a reduction of not more than ten
percent of the total number of required spaces shall be allowed.
iii. Eight or more independent property uses, a reduction of not more than 20 percent
of the total number of required spaces shall be allowed.
Footnote 2
Parking requirements for nonconforming structures or uses. In the case of structures
in any district, which are reconstructed, enlarged, structurally altered, changed in
occupancy to a more intensive use category or otherwise increased in capacity, off-
street parking shall be provided only for that portion of structures or use constituting
the increase in capacity; except that no additional parking need be provided for
nonresidential uses, if the increased capacity results in an increase of four or fewer off-
street parking spaces.
1/18/2019