Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-27 CPC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North February 27th, 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 January 23rd, 2019 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. 2019-01: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental on the property located at 214 Main St S in the CBD district. Michael Lynskey, property owner and Judd Sather, applicant. --Tabled per applicants request 3. Case No. 2019-02: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a Seasonal Outdoor Sales business on the property located at 402 Main St N in the CBD district. Monty Brine, property owner and James Linden, applicant. 4. Case No. 2019-03: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to amend the City Zoning Code by modifying City Code Section 31-308(b)(1) to allow the minimum lot width for a two-family property in the RB Zoning District to be 65 feet rather than 75 feet. Fenway Land Company, property owner. 5. Case No. 2019-05: Consideration of an amendment to the Short Term Home Rental Ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify existing language and to make minor procedural changes. City of Stillwater, applicant.—Tabled until the March meeting 6. Case No. 2019-06: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for a large building project in Downtown Stillwater. Property located at 107 Chestnut Street East. Property located in the CBD district. CVII Holdings, LLC, property owner. VII. FYI – STAFF UPDATES VIII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 23, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Vice Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Commissioners Hansen, Kocon, Lauer; Councilmember Collins Absent: Commissioners Hade and Siess Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Turnblad ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to elect Commissioner Lauer as Chair. Motion passed 4-0. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Chairman Lauer, to elect Commissioner Hansen as Vice Chair. Motion passed 4-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of December 12, 2018 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2018 meeting. Motion passed 4-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. City Planner Wittman stated that the applicants would like to attach a single-stall garage (carport) to their existing, two-car attached garage. The applicant has applied for a variance to allow for a garage to be greater than two stalls wide. An anonymous public comment was submitted by “homeowners within the impact area” voicing opposition to the carport, saying that 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 would be support for a third garage stall if it were enclosed. 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. Planning Commission January 23, 2019 Page 2 of 8 However, if an enclosed garage stall was added, the applicant will have established practical difficulty. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of the variance for the construction of a third, enclosed garage stall with four conditions. Commissioner Kocon asked if there are any carports in this subdivision. Ms. Wittman responded none that City staff is aware of. Commissioner Kocon stated he lives in the neighborhood but does not stand to gain anything by acting on the request so does not see a reason to recuse himself from the discussion and vote. Michael Kahn, applicant, said he prefers to refer to the project as an architectural improvement to the home rather than a carport. Addressing the neighbors’ fears about the potential use of the structure, he said those fears could be realized with or without this addition; he could park a car or boat there with or without the structure but it would violate the covenants of the homeowners’ association so he doesn’t do it. He presented photos of how the structure will look, saying the design is identical to that of a porch which every house in the neighborhood has. He has a company car which in winter cannot be parked on the street due to snow removal. He needs the ability to move around in his shared driveway without obstructing the neighbors. Due to the grading of his house, the basement floods due to water build-up on this side of the house. Building this structure with a covering will help displace some of the water. He presented a letter from homeowners’ association which he said indicates they can neither approve nor deny the application, but defer to the Planning Commission. Chairman Lauer asked if there was any consideration of making it a third garage stall. Mr. Kahn replied that he does not want it enclosed because he needs to be able to get through that area to access the retaining wall. He considers the structure to be like a breezeway, more of a design element than anything else; it will look just like a porch. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon remarked that a garage is a great idea, a carport is a bad idea. He disagreed with Mr. Kahn’s comparisons to a deck or porch and cannot support the request. Councilmember Collins agreed that it’s reasonable to have a structure there, but as proposed it would alter the character of neighborhood. If it were a fully enclosed garage stall, he would support it. Chairman Lauer agreed. Commissioner Hansen said he understands the request but believes it does change the character of the neighborhood. He reluctantly agreed that a garage stall would be OK but the carport doesn’t fit. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to deny Case No. 2018-64, Variance to construct a third stall on the garage (carport) for the property located at 1260 McDougal Green. Motion passed 4-0. 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 Planning Commission January 23, 2019 Page 3 of 8 Konigson, applicant. City Planner Wittman stated that in early 1998 the City approved a concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for 11.87 acres of commercial development near the intersection of Manning Avenue North and County Road 12/75th Street North. The City subsequently approved a PUD for the design of the Village Commercial area. Since the time of concept approval, five of the seven commercial sites have been developed after approval of final PUD permits for each of the individual sites. 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 the second and third stories. This necessitates the following requests: 1. A Special Use Permit (SUP) for residences in the Village Commercial district; and 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. 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 regulations and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community, and that with certain alterations, the three story design would substantially conform to PUD 1997-70 and 2003-14. Therefore, staff recommends approval of an amended SUP for four live-work residences to be located at Outlot D, Liberty Village, and also recommends that the Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the Concept PUD amendment with six conditions. Commissioner Kocon asked what can fit in a 16’ deep garage. Ms. Wittman responded it is a substandard size but the parking requirements can be met in the surface lot so the garage could house trash cans etc. Commissioner Hansen asked if the office space would be for personal use or would the owner of the unit be allowed to rent it out to someone else. Ms. Wittman responded the office would be for the person owning the townhome. There would be no restrictions against renting it out, but if it’s a long term rental it would probably fall within the zoning code regarding first floor commercial. Commissioner Hansen pointed out that the pictures provided by the applicant as examples of flat roofs are all downtown. He acknowledged the difficulty of having a gable roof while remaining within the 35 foot height limit but it seems like a massive building for that corner space. Councilmember Collins asked if the building were turned so the front faces toward the square, would it fit on the property without needing any variances? Ms. Wittman replied yes. Commissioner Hansen remarked if the building is reoriented, sight lines become very difficult. Referring to the proposal for a flat roof, Commissioner Kocon referred to Patriot’s Tavern as an example that it’s not impossible to construct a three-story building with a gable roof and remain within height restrictions. Planning Commission January 23, 2019 Page 4 of 8 Ms. Wittman replied that the Design Guidelines indicate a gable roof is preferred. Todd Konigson, applicant, 201 6th Street South, Stillwater, said the lot is unique and the Village guidelines are challenging which is probably why the property is still vacant. They would not have 16 foot garages - they would make them conform. The office space is a very small studio office. They never envisioned it would be a high traffic use. They see each individual homeowner owning the entire building. There is no intent to rent. He would be one of the residents as well. Regarding orientation on the lot, he doesn’t think it would look good if it were reoriented toward the square. The back of structure has lot of windows and a deck with southeast exposure which people will prefer. To take that away and have them view a parking lot would decrease the value. Regarding height, they want to be as conforming as possible on all aspects. Each unit is 1,200 square feet. The top floor has two bedrooms. To use a gabled roof would make it look like an attic, greatly diminishing the value. They would abandon the project if a gabled roof is required because they would lose too much square footage. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Roger Tomten, 718 South 5th Street Stillwater, applauded the applicant for bringing forth a new prototype. As a consultant with the City during the Liberty development design phase, he reviewed almost every site plan throughout the whole development. A major component was the small pocket park idea. He challenged the applicant to consider front-facing design so the building would be oriented toward the park. He added that a flat versus gable roof is not as big a priority in his opinion. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon noted he is OK with the orientation and the use, but he objects to a flat roof. He feels a much steeper gable roof could help maximize space living space. Chairman Lauer stated he too likes the use, but the flat roof as proposed is problematic for him. Commissioner Hansen commented it’s a great concept and the orientation doesn’t bother him. If turned in the other direction, he would not be in favor of it due to sight line issues. He doesn’t mind the roof and likes the look of the units but there isn’t precedent for flat roofs in the vicinity. He is more in favor of it than not in favor of it. Mr. Konigson reminded the Commission that the PUD has an office building approved on this and the adjacent site. So he assumes if someone developed those they may be looking at a flat roof. Commissioner Kocon pointed out that New England Place has offices and they’re all gabled roofs. Mr. Konigson responded that the return on investment doesn’t allow a gabled roof. On the park- facing elevation, they could add some decorative elements and landscaping so it may not appear to be the side of the building. Councilmember Collins said he feels the building should be oriented as designed. He understands the builder’s challenges with the roof. As proposed, it seems reasonable. Planning Commission January 23, 2019 Page 5 of 8 Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve the SUP for residences in the Village Commercial district for Case No. 2018-67, and to recommend that the Council approve the Concept PUD amendment for live-work residential townhomes at xxx New England Place, with the six conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #7, “Prior to the submittal of the Final Plan, the design of the structure will have obtained Liberty Village Commercial Association approval.” Motion passed 4-0. 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 Avenue North in the AP district. Mark Guenther of Fenway Land Company, LLC, property owner. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that Mark Guenther, Fenway Land Company, plans to develop two small parcels at 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. Outlot A in the center is intended to create a trail segment linking with other trails in the neighborhood. If the preliminary plat is approved, then at time of final plat application, the developer will also apply for rezoning of the property to RB, single and two-family residential. The applicant has requested that the Planning Commission review the Preliminary Plat and recommend that the City Council approve it. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat with 14 conditions. Councilmember Collins asked if any variances are required. Mr. Turnblad replied no. However there is a desire to add an option for mother-in-law apartments, small freestanding apartments within the house, though this is not part of the request. Under the zoning ordinance, the mother-in-law apartments would not be allowed but the developer could add an apartment above a one-story garage. Mark Guenther, Fenway Land Company, 13925 Fenway Boulevard, Hugo, applicant, stated he agrees with the staff-recommended conditions. He said there is demand for accessory dwelling units in the market. He would like to know if the Commission would support a variance on these lots to allow the accessory dwelling units. The ordinance allows accessory dwelling units on lots that are 75 feet wide with 10,000 square feet. Though only these lots are 65 feet wide, they are 268 feet deep, 17,000 square feet total, providing plenty of room for an additional structure. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon commented he would support a variance or an ordinance amendment to accommodate the accessory dwelling units, due to the large lot size. He supports the proposal. Commissioner Hansen remarked he would be more comfortable with an ordinance amendment than a variance. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to recommend that the Council approve Case No. 2018-68, Preliminary Plat for 11 single family lots and a rezoning of the property located at 8313 and 8393 Marylane Avenue North to RB, Two-Family Residential, with the 14 conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-0. Planning Commission January 23, 2019 Page 6 of 8 Case No. 2018-69: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental at the property located at 319 Hickory Street West in the RB district. Deposit Slip, LLC (Dale and Nancy Anderson), property owners. City Planner Wittman stated that Nancy and Dale Anderson and Mike and Stacy Morrison have applied to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental (STHR). This three bedroom home could have a maximum of seven guests. There is off-street parking for four vehicles. 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. Five public comments have been submitted from neighbors citing concerns for parking, safety, noise and parking. 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 regulations, and will not be a nuisance or detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a CUP for a Type C STHR with 12 conditions. Dale Anderson, 17319 Olinda Trail North, Marine, applicant, addressed the neighborhood concerns. They are not requesting a variance and will stay in compliance. They have substantially more parking available than is required. Short term rentals generate less traffic and congestion than a single family home. Regarding strangers in the neighborhood, he and his wife already operate another STHR in Stillwater and they have had wonderful experience with guests. They have been very respectful of the property and the neighborhood. They take very deliberate steps to screen guests and there have been no complaints. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Meryl Downing, 720 5th Street North, next door, stated she is opposed to the STHR because of concerns about her two young children and other children in the neighborhood. With ten strangers coming and going from the STHR the safety of the neighborhood will be reduced. The STHR will not add to property values. She added that the Andersons are wonderful people but she is not thrilled with the idea of the STHR being next door. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Chairman Lauer stated that fears expressed with other STHR applications have not been borne out. He suggested the owner could emphasize to guests the fact there are lots of children around. He pointed out there is a process for revocation of the license if there are substantiated violations. Councilmember Collins said he understands the concern for children’s safety but so far STHRs have worked out OK. The application meets all the standards. Commissioner Kocon agreed that the applicant has agreed to meet the standards and the ordinance allows for oversight. Commissioner Hansen pointed out that the City spent a lot of time drafting the ordinance. The rules that were put in place seem to be doing a good job of protecting neighbors. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Chairman Lauer, to approve Case No. 2018-69, Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental at the property located at 319 Hickory Street West, with the 12 conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-0. Planning Commission January 23, 2019 Page 7 of 8 Case No. 2018-70: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a large building project in Downtown Stillwater; Special Use Permit (SUP) for residential units in Downtown Stillwater; and an amendment to the Special Use Permit for a craft distillery at 107 Chestnut Street East. Property located in the CBD district. CVII Holdings, LLC, property owner. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that 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 apartments, office space and possibly a craft distillery or brewery. There are two design options. If the distillery space is not able to be leased then that portion would be used as office. Mr. Turnblad explained the parking plans for both options. The parking requirements for both the commercial and residential uses are met. The Downtown Parking Commission recommended approval of both options of the proposed re-use plan. 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 brick repairs. Mr. Wolf is requesting that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve a CUP for the project, approve an amendment to the SUP for a craft distillery, and approve a SUP for residential units in CBD District. Staff recommends approval of the requests with 11 conditions. Commissioner Hansen pointed out the proposal includes 4,500 square feet of office space and 3,500 square feet of distillery space with no on-site parking. Mr. Turnblad explained the formula for meeting the parking demand is grandfathered due to the previous use. The Downtown Parking Commission is comfortable with the impact because it’s on Third Street and there are parking lots nearby. All the residential units will have on-site parking. Commissioner Hansen asked, if the distillery/brewery occupies part of that space, is there loading/unloading consideration? Mr. Turnblad replied for this type of a use mix, loading/unloading is not required but that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t needed. It likely would have to be on the street. If it’s a problem they would have to schedule deliveries, for instance in the morning. Matthew Wolf, 4520 Bailey Lake Drive, Woodbury, applicant, noted the project is very complex. He provided history on the acquisition and development of plans for the property over the last two years. They have had nearly impossible to solve issues. They also have negotiated at length with adjacent property owners for the purchase of their property and made an offer but found out the property is not for sale. They explored options for putting 22 parking spaces in the basement but a structural analysis revealed the cost of doing so would be three times the original estimate due to characteristics of the construction of the gym floor. This remains a viable option but it would only be feasible with tax increment financing assistance. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Councilmember Collins stated he likes the idea of preserving the building with mixed use. Planning Commission January 23, 2019 Page 8 of 8 Commissioner Hansen noted the draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan emphasizes mixed use spaces. This is a good solution for the space constraints. He understands the position of the Downtown Parking Commission that the property is not a high traffic parking area compared to Main Street. He is in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Kocon acknowledged the constraints that go along with working with a historic building, requiring cooperation and flexibility. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to recommend that the Council approve Case No. 2018-70, CUP for a large building project in Downtown Stillwater; to approve a SUP for residential units in downtown Stillwater; and to approve an amendment to the SUP for a craft distillery at 107 Chestnut Street East, with the 11 conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-0. FYI STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adjourn the meeting at 9:23 p.m. All in favor, 4-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 27, 2019 CPC CASE NO.: 2019-02 APPLICANT: James Linden, Stillwater Segway Tours REQUEST: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a guided segway tour company, a Seasonal Recreational Business with outside retail sales, out of a Temporary Structure to be located at 402 Main Street North ZONING: CBD – Central Business District COMP PLAN: DMU – Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND In late 2017 the City of Stillwater granted a Special Use Permit for James Linden, of Stillwater Segway Tours, to operate a Seasonal Recreational Business with outside retail sales at 204 Main Street North. Stillwater Segway Tours operated from that location during the 2018 calendar year. REQUEST James Linden would like to relocate his business to 402 Main Street North, offering guided tours, three times daily, from April 1st through October 30th, 2018. The tours would accommodate (up to) six guests, for a total of seven segways during each tour. The applicant has indicated that they may offer for sale Stilllwater themed and related retail items. Stillwater Segway Tours is proposed to operate out of a 7x8’, wood frame structure, approved by the Stillwater HPC last year. It will be located on the Northern side of Staples Sawmill building, approximately 11.5’ from the Main Street sidewalk. The applicant is proposing the use of signage approved in 2018. August, 2018 - Photo Credit: Google © 2019 402 Main Street North Case No. 2019-02 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Municipal Code Section 31-207 indicates the following must be determined by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any Special Use Permit1: 1.The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Zoning Ordinance: The purpose of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict the use of land and the use and location of buildings and structures. The property is zoned Central Business District (CBD). The CBD allows for Commercial Recreational Uses and Entertainment, Outside Sales and Special Events and Temporary Structures by Special Use Permit. However, seasonal sales and businesses in the CBD have been limited, reserved only for those that can operate exclusively on private lands; the City has not granted licenses or permits for businesses to operate on public lands. Design Permit: To help protect the character and nature of the National Registered listed Stillwater Commercial Historic District, the City has adopted a Downtown Design Review District (DDRD), requiring Design Permits for structures, other land and structure alterations, as well as signs. The purpose of the Design Permit is to maintain the character and integrity of neighborhoods and commercial districts by promoting excellence of design and development. The HPC reviewed and approved the structure and associated signage in December, 2017. Signage: The property is permitted signage as per the Sign Code. The property has maxed its signage allowance. However, the small structure would be permitted seven square feet of signage. The applicant is proposing to continue the use of existing signage that has been determined to not produce a negative impact to the surrounding area. The A-frame, sidewalk sign conforms to the City’s sidewalk sign policy if it is placed in an area where it does not impeded pedestrian traffic. Comprehensive Plan: While the Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan encourages downtown as a place for businesses to relocate and there is the policy to promote activities which lengthen the time visitors spend in Stillwater, a Comprehensive Plan tourism goal is to support year round activities that enliven the Downtown public and cultural life. This seasonal business helps support some community policies but does not help support others. Furthermore, a goal is to promote tourism consistent with retaining Stillwater’s unique natural resources and historic and architectural character. 1 However, on the rare occasion when accountability is an issue, the planning commission may refer a conditional use permit or special use permit to the city council. 402 Main Street North Case No. 2019-02 Page 3 Relevant Area Plans: The Downtown chapter of the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the limited sidewalk width in Downtown Stillwater. The introduction of commercial tours on sidewalks would create greater congestion on these narrow passage ways. Other Lawful Regulations: MN Stat. Sec. 169.212 grants personal assistive mobility devices, self-balancing devices with two nontandem wheels, the same rights and responsibilities as a pedestrian. This means they are permitted to operate on roadways, sidewalks and trails. However, this does not protect the commercial use nor does it grant rights for commercial use on publicly owned lands. 2. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The operation of this business on downtown sidewalks, and on the streets, may become a nuisance to pedestrian and motorists. Many of Stillwater’s historic neighborhoods have a sidewalk width of 4’. However, North Main Street’s sidewalk width is 8’+/- and Mulberry Street’s sidewalk is approximately 6’ wide. Two of the tours proposed run predominantly on City and State trails that converge in downtown Stillwater; a third route would be added when the historic lift bridge opens in the spring/summer of 2019. The City’s trail is 12’ in width whereas the State’s trails (Brown’s Creek and MNDOT’s Loop Trail) are 10’ in width. While the trails provide greater room for different types of trail users, there is a significant concern surrounding proposed trail stops on sidewalks and pathways, where congregation of segways will interrupt the smooth flow of traffic. The applicant is proposing to cross Main Street in front of Staples Mill and head south, on the sidewalk, towards Mulberry Street East. At Mulberry, the tours will head east to intersect with and to access on to the City’s public trail. Since the applicant is proposing to utilize routes on sidewalks with above-average widths and the public trail system, the risk of this type of use becoming a nuisance will be minimized. 3.Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the provisions of the SUP regulations, staff has prepared a list of conditions appropriate to protect the public interest. PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment has been received from Cam and Renee Murray, 350 Main Street North, Unit 346. Their concern is for overall segway and pedestrian safety, especially congested areas, areas with limited visibility, as well as segway use on private property. 402 Main Street North Case No. 2019-02 Page 4 ALTERNATIVES A.Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the provisions of the SUP regulations, the Commission could approve the Special Use Permit with or without the conditions. If the Commission finds the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the SUP regulations, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1.This Special Use Permit allows seasonal (April to October) guided Segway tours to occur from the private property located at 402 Main Street North, including a rental kiosk and accessory retail sales. Not greater than three tours, designated to run at 10:00 am, 12:30 pm, and 3:00 pm, are permitted. 2.This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595. 3.Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2019-02, except as modified by the conditions herein or by Heritage Preservation Commission approval. 4.Segways shall not be stored on the property except during operating hours. 5.All rental activities, including the queueing of customers and user training, shall occur on private property and outside of the public rights-of-way. 6. As per MN Stat. Sec. 169.212, Subd.2(f), users shall yield to pedestrians and bicyclists. 7.Tours shall follow designated routes, as identified by the applicant. 8.Tours shall stay to the right side of all users and be conducted single file. 9.Tour stops shall be done as to not impede the flow of traffic. 10.Tours shall not operate off trail or established sidewalks, if one is present, nor ‘off road’ in City parks or in boulevard areas. 11.The sales kiosk and all signage shall receive a Design Permit, approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission, prior to the installation and operation of the business. Conditions of the HPC’s approval shall be incorporated herein by reference. 12.The kiosk shall be removed from the property during the off season. 13.In addition to a six square foot sidewalk sign, the business is permitted one sign, made out of a permanent material and not to exceed 22 square feet, outside of the sales kiosk. 14.The sidewalk sign shall conform to the City of Stillwater’s Sidewalk Sign Policy. 15.All sales, including the sales of retail goods, must be done inside the sales kiosk. The display of retail goods may not occur outside the sales kiosk. 16.As per City Code Section 31-204 Subd. 7(a) and 7(b), minor modifications shall be approved, in advance, by the Community Development Director. Major modifications shall be heard by the decision-making authority in a public hearing. 402 Main Street North Case No. 2019-02 Page 5 17.This Special Use Permit shall be reviewed before the Planning Commission and City Council for possible revocation or amendment to the conditions of this permit is substantial verified complaints, safety issues or violations of the conditions of this permit are received by the City of Stillwater. B.Refer.If the Planning Commission determined ‘accountability may be an issue’, the Commission refer the application to the City Council. C.Table If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. D.Denial If the Planning Commission finds the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of the SUP regulations, the Commission could deny the application. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial and state whether or not the denial is with prejudice. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis this Seasonal Recreational Business has proven to operate in a manner that has not been a nuisance, staff recommends conditional approval of CPC Case No. 2019-02 for a Special Use Permit to operate a guided segway tour company, a Seasonal Recreational Business with outside retail sales, out of a Temporary Structure at 204 Main Street North. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Site Plan Site Photo Structure Photo Crosswalk Photo Tour Route Public Comment MN Stat. Sec. 169.011 NORTH SECOND STREETSTATE HWY 95NORTH MA IN STREETNORTH WATER STREET EAST LINDE N S T R E E T BURLINGTONEAST LAUR E L S T R E E T NORTH MAIN STREETRAILROADNORTHERNµ 0 180 36090Feet General Site Location Site Location 402 Main St N ^ 1 Jenn Sundberg From: Sent: To: Subject: Cameron Murray <> Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:08 PM Jenn Sundberg Comments on CPC/2019-02 Segway CUP In general we are supportive of a Segway business based out of Staples Mills, but have some comments. Ideally the loading, training and operation of the Segways would be in the parking lot used by Staples Mills, on the east side of Main street. From this parking lot they can get to the bike/pedestrian trail without riding along Main street sidewalks. The parking lot goes out to Mulberry very close to Mulberry point, so only a short jaunt along Mulberry to the path. The sales office certainly could be based in the Staples Mills building, separate from the actual Segways. But if the Segways are to be located at Staple Mills here are some other thoughts. Assuming the Segways ride from Staples mills to the corner of Mulberry and Main to then cross and go down to the bike / pedestrian path: Concerned about Segways riding on the sidewalk in front of Stillwater Mills (350 Main St. N). Our raised sidewalk lets out onto the street sidewalk in several locations and Segways zooming along might cause a conflict. Not that this could not work, but the Segways would have to go at a slow pace. Issues with riding on the sidewalks arose for the CUP for the Segway vendor at the corner of Commercial and Main. I recall they were not allowed to drive on sidewalks but were allowed to go down the pedestrian walkway at that location. If they plan on crossing at the crosswalk in front of Staples Mills to get to the sidewalk on the east side of Main; If they plan on crossing at the crosswalk in front of Staples Mills, they need to be concerned about the speed of traffic at this location. Nominally the cars should have slowed down, but our condo deck overlooks this crosswalk and we see cars still going above the speed limit. And then if they cross back at this crosswalk, it is a blind crossing for cars coming north along Main Street. I have made this crossing many times and the pedestrian has to slowly peak out to be sure traffic from the south are not coming. Not sure if there is a solution unless one installs a pedestrian traffic light at this location. The alley between Staples Mills and Stillwater Mills condo is owned by our condo association. The road has to be kept open for our use, and this is the emergency vehicle access to the building. So our association will not permit the Segways to assemble in this alley, and no parking is allowed in this alley. I am sure the association will take all legal action should the Segway’s use this alley. Cam and Renee Murray 350 Main Street North Unit 346 MN Stat. Sec. 169.011 DEFINITIONS Subdivision 26. Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device means a self-balancing device with two nontandem wheels, designed to transport not more than one person, and operated by an electric propulsion system that limits the maximum speed of the device to 15 miles per hour. MN Stat. Sec. 169.212 OPERATION OF ELECTRIC PERSONAL ASSISTIVE MOBILITY DEVICES. Subdivision 1. Rights and responsibilities of pedestrians. Except as otherwise provided by law, a person operating an electric personal assistive mobility device has the rights and responsibilities of a pedestrian. Subd. 2. Operation. (a) An electric personal assistive mobility device may be operated on a bicycle path. (b) No person may operate an electric personal assistive mobility device on a roadway, sidewalk, or bicycle path at a rate of speed that is not reasonable and prudent under the conditions. Every person operating an electric personal assistive mobility device on a roadway, sidewalk, or bicycle path is responsible for becoming and remaining aware of the actual and potential hazards then existing on the roadway or sidewalk and must use due care in operating the device. (c) An electric personal assistive mobility device may be operated on a roadway only: (1) while making a direct crossing of a roadway in a marked or unmarked crosswalk; (2) where no sidewalk is available; (3) where a sidewalk is so obstructed as to prevent safe use; (4) when so directed by a traffic-control device or by a peace officer; or (5) temporarily in order to gain access to a motor vehicle. (d) An electric personal assistive mobility device may not be operated at any time on a roadway with a speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour except to make a direct crossing of the roadway in a marked crosswalk. (e) An electric personal assistive mobility device may not be operated at any time while carrying more than one person. (f) A person operating an electric personal assistive mobility device on a sidewalk must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians at all times. A person operating an electric personal assistive mobility device on a bicycle path must yield the right-of-way to bicycles at all times. Subd. 3. Reflectors. An electric personal assistive mobility device may not be operated unless the device bears reflectorized material on the front, back, and wheels, visible at night from 600 feet when illuminated by the lower beams of headlamps of a motor vehicle. Subd. 4. Local regulation. A local road authority may not further regulate the operation of electric personal assistive mobility devices, except that a local road authority may allow and regulate the operation of these devices on roadways within its jurisdiction that have a speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour. PLANNING REPORT MEETING DATE: February 27, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-03 APPLICANT: Fenway Land Company REQUEST: Request for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to City Code Section 31-308(b)(1), the Minimum standards of the Massing Regulations for the RB two-family district ZONING: Citywide COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Citywide PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND One of Stillwater’s oldest single-family zoned neighborhoods (the RB – Two Family Residential zoning district) requires a minimum lot width of 75’ for two-family properties and 50’ for single- family properties. While staff does not have specific details to why these widths were chosen, as these districts were created in the mid- to late-1960s, we can assume the requirement for greater width of a two-family property was due to the type of two-unit construction desirable at the time: side-by-side duplexes. REQUEST Fenway Land Company, property owner of 8313 and 8393 Marylane Avenue North, have applied for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) which would allow two-family homes to be constructed on lots 65’ in width. The proposed amendment reads: Single-family Two-family Lot width 50 feet2 75 feet 65 feet APPLICABLE REGULATIONS City Code Section 31-205, Zoning Map and Zoning Text Amendment, indicates amendments may be made when:  Public necessity, general community welfare and good zoning practice permit the amendment; and  The proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. CPC Case No. 2019-03 CPC: 02/27/2019 Page 2 of 3 STAFF ANALYSIS Staff looked at minimum lot widths for adjacent communities; Bayport requires a minimum of 75’, Oak Park Heights requires a minimum of 80’, and Lake Elmo requires a minimum of 100’ for two-unit properties. These are common property widths for suburban communities and traditional suburban design. Stillwater’s RB two-family district is not suburban; it is an urban zoning district, allowing for greater density on small lots. In an analysis of the existing conditions within the City of Stillwater, 3.6% of the city’s housing stock contains two-unit properties. In an analysis of the 108 two-unit properties located in the oldest portions of the City; of these, a total of 56% (61 properties) are on lands that are less than 65’ in width. The average construction year of these two-unit properties is 1895. It was historically common to have mixed single-family and multiple-family (most often, conversions) within the same neighborhood. This is further supported by pointing to the minimum widths for other urban areas with older housing stock. Minneapolis requires a minimum width of 40’ whereas St. Paul requires a minimum lot width of 25’ per lot. Comprehensive Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides RB, two-family zoning district parcels towards low/medium densities; this requires 4.4 to 9.7 units per acre. Changes to the minimum lot width requirement would not affect this density requirement as the minimum lot area, of 10,000 square feet, would still apply. With regard to the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan, this request helps the City fulfill some of its requirements to increase densities. Specifically, if the RB two-family district could provide for two units on lands 65’ in width or greater, there would be additional lands eligible for two-unit conversions or accessory dwelling units. These new units would be in closer proximity to community services and public parks. This would help the City towards the following housing objectives: • Maintain the mix of housing types and tenure in Stillwater’s older residential neighborhoods; • Locate multifamily and attached housing closed to community services and public parks. ALTERNATIVES Regarding the ZAT, the Planning Commission has the following options available to them: 1. If the Planning Commission finds the public necessity, general community welfare and good zoning practice permit the amendment and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan, the Commission may forward to the City Council a favorable recommendation of approval of a Zoning Text Amendment pertaining the minimum width of lots in the RB two-family residential zoning district. CPC Case No. 2019-03 CPC: 02/27/2019 Page 3 of 3 2. Make findings that the public necessity, general community welfare and good zoning practice do not permit the amendment or that the proposed amendment is not in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan, and forward to the City Council recommendation of denial of the requested ordinance amendment. 3. Table consideration for more information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The City of Stillwater’s RB two-family zoning district Massing Regulations applies to all properties in the City zoned as such. While the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would be applicable to newer developments that are zoned with this classification, such as the one being planned by the applicant, the largest area benefited would be that of the City’s oldest neighborhoods (found – roughly – east of Lake McKusick, in the Neighborhood Conservation District). It is good zoning practice to promote density increases in already developed areas. This allows the City to have reduced infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs as well as provide for living opportunities in neighborhoods that are walkable or are close to public services. This is an area that has proved to allow for higher density without sacrificing community character and the general community welfare. As the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan, staff recommends approval of CPC Case No. 2019-03, a request for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to City Code Section 31-308(b)(1), the Minimum standards of the Massing Regulations for the RB two-family district. ATTACHMENTS Applicant ZAT Narrative PLANNING REPORT REPORT DATE: February 22, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-06 TO: Planning Commission APPLICANT: Matt Wolf, President, CVII Holdings, Inc. LANDOWNER: CVII Holdings, Inc. SUBJECT: Historic Armory re-use plan HEARING DATES: Planning Commission February 27, 2019 City Council March 5 or 19, 2019 ZONING: CBD, Central Business District REQUEST: Approval of a site review Conditional Use Permit 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 locally based craft distillery or brewery, and office space. The Planning Commission has already held a public hearing on this project and 1) approved the necessary Special Use Permit for the apartments; 2) approved the Special Use Permit for the craft distillery/micro-brewery; and 3) recommended approval of the site review Conditional Use Permit. The Downtown Parking Commission reviewed the case as well. They found that the parking load of the proposal did not exceed that allowed by City Code. And they recommended approval of the parking plan for the required on-site residential parking, which included eight compact spaces in the garage and seven full-sized spaces outside. However, the City Council denied the site review Conditional Use Permit on the fact that the indoor parking spaces were all for compact vehicles. Subsequently, the property owners have changed the interior parking spaces and re-applied for the site review Conditional Use Permit. The interior spaces are now all full-sized spaces, which was Historic Armory Page 2 made possible by changing the amount of space in the garage dedicated to the craft distillery. Existing armory building Photo credit: Google Maps 8/2017 SPECIFIC REQUEST The Planning Commission is being requested by the owners to recommend approval of the revised site review Conditional Use Permit (CUP). EVALUATION OF SITE REVIEW CUP 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 at least 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 requires a site plan review CUP. The historic armory building has substantially more than 20,000 gross square feet, and between 16,300 and 20,800 square feet are proposed for re-use. So, a site plan review Conditional Use Permit is required for this re-use plan. Proposed re-use plan Depending upon the final mix of tenants for the property, three re-use plans are being considered. Scheme One would include eight market rate apartments, 3,575 square feet of craft distillery (or micro-brewery) space, and 4,450 square feet of office space. Scheme Two would be 3,825 square feet of craft distiller/micro-brewery, seven apartments, and 4,450 square feet of office space. Scheme Three would be eight apartments and 13,600 square feet of office space. 1 City Code Sec 31-515.2 Historic Armory Page 3 Parking plan The primary concern for this project is the potential impact upon the Downtown parking system. For the owners 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, two years have elapsed since the purchase agreement was entered into for the property and the permitting process began. And, neither the City nor the property owners have identified a specific solution for increasing off-site parking capacity in the immediate area. Therefore, the property owners have decided not to maximize the potential use of the property, but rather to redevelop it with uses that can be provided all of the required parking right on the property. All three of the layout options of the proposed re-use plan satisfy 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: 1) additional on-site parking spaces for any increased non-residential parking load over 4 spaces, and 2) on-site parking for all residential units.2 Scheme One. This option includes a craft distillery or micro-brewery, eight apartments and office space. This re-use plan increases the building’s current parking load by 0.81 spaces. This is less than the permitted load increase of four. So, only the residential parking spaces, fifteen of them, will be required on-site. Eight of these spaces need to be indoors, and all of these spaces meet the minimum size required for a full-sized space. (See details in the attached spreadsheet for Scheme One.) a. The interior parking spaces will be 8’ 7” wide by 17’ 7” deep. All measurements are allowed to be rounded. So these stalls would satisfy the 9 x 18 dimensions for a standard parking space. b. The drive aisle would be reduced to 20’ 9”. 1. “Driveways” for two-way traffic must be at least 24 feet wide. The driveway (outside) will meet this standard 2. “Aisles” must have an “adequate” width. The width is proposed to be 20’ 9”. For use by the general public, staff would not consider this to be adequate. But, since the garage will only be available to the residents, it is adequate. 3. The zoning code does not define either “driveway” or “aisle”. But the parking section of the code differentiates between the two. So, as with any other garage, staff considers the driving surface leading to the garage as a driveway. And the driving surface in the garage to be an aisle. 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 Scheme Two. This scenario has a slightly larger distillery/micro-brewery presence in the garage, the same area for offices, but only seven apartments. This reduces the number of required residential parking spaces to thirteen, seven of which need to be indoors. Details for Scheme Two can be seen in the attached spreadsheet. Scheme Three. This scenario eliminates the apartments, keeps the distillery/micro-brewery and has 13,600 square feet of office. This re-use plan increases the parking load by 19.34 spaces. Fifteen of these spaces are for the apartments. The parking load for the non-residential uses increase by 4.34 spaces. Since the non-residential parking load is not increased more than the four spaces permitted, only the residential spaces are required to be provided. And, they will be. Staff finds that the City Code’s parking requirements are met for all three scenarios. Design Permit The Heritage Preservation Commission will need to review the project and approve a Design Permit. If the Council approves the CUP for this project, then the owners will invest the money in architectural plans necessary to complete the Design Permit application for HPC review. Therefore, a condition of CUP approval should be that before the CUP becomes effective, the HPC will have to approve the Design Permit. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several available alternatives: 1. Recommend approval of the site review CUP for the large building project, with or without conditions. 2. Recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit request. 3. Table the case for additional information. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the site review meets the applicable City Code review standards and recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Redevelopment of the site shall be in substantial conformance with one of the three re- development scenarios and the applicable plans below: a. Stillwater Armory Lower Level Plan, Scheme One dated 2.11.19 b. Stillwater Armory 2nd Floor Plan, Scheme One dated 2.11.19 c. Stillwater Armory Main Floor Plan, Scheme One dated 2.11.19 d. Stillwater Armory Lower Level Plan, Scheme Two dated 2.11.19 e. Stillwater Armory 2nd Floor Plan, Scheme Two dated 2.11.19 f. Stillwater Armory Main Floor Plan, Scheme Two dated 2.11.19 g. Stillwater Armory Elevations dated 12.28.18 2. The non-residential parking load for the property shall not exceed 45.33 spaces. 3. The residential parking load for the property shall not exceed fifteen spaces. Fifteen on- site residential parking spaces must be provided, of which eight must be indoors and must meet the minimum standard sized parking space standard. Historic Armory Page 5 4. Before the site review Conditional Use Permit becomes effective, the Heritage Preservation Commission must review and approve a Design Permit. 5. All signage, if applicable, shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 6. 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. 7. 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. Attachments: Floor layouts & elevations Spreadsheet: Parking Analysis, Scheme One Spreadsheet: Parking Analysis, Scheme Two Spreadsheet: Parking Analysis, Scheme Three bt N73°15'00"E 151.43 M. 150 P. N73°15'00"E 49.98 S16°49'41"E 95.51N73°18'18"E 50.4924.00N16°49'28"WN73°18'18"E 151.46S16°48'46"E 136.32S16°49'41"E 65.00S73°15'00"W 0.50 24.00N 2 1 2 7 7 0 . 4 3 E 5 0 6 5 2 4 . 6 3 N 212810.5 3 E 506671.9 0 N 212 6 7 7. 5 1 E 506 5 4 5. 6 9 N 2127 1 7 . 3 6 E 5067 0 0 . 1 3 2 Story Brick National Guard Armory Building Brooks & Whitcom LLC, Doc. No. 3320481 Doc. No.s 253407 & 32530030 30 40.0 97.4Sign 41.4 26.3 40.0 15.8 15.8 15.8 41.0 5.316.116.314.127.713.910.28.28.76.06.07.03.05.0 6.11.0 1.0 2.8 3.9 0.73.90.73.63.62.80.70.7Typ. Column 4.5 2.42.40.72.8 The E. line of the W. one third of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 30, CITY OF STILLWATER. The S. line of W. 1/3 of Lot 3, Block 30, CITY OF STILLWATER. The N. line of the S. 24 Ft. of Lot 8, Block 30, CITY OF STILLWATER. The N. line of Lot 1, Block 30, CITY OF STILLWATER.The N. line of Lot 10, Block 30, CITY OF STILLWATER.The W. line of Lots 8, 9 and 10,Block 30, CITY OFSTILLWATER.LandscapingLandscaping The W. line of Lot 3, Block 30, CITY OF STILLWATER.Retaining WallRetaining Walls Retaining Walls CITY OF STILLWATER City Hall Doc. No. 236070Retaining Wall24.929.6 10.3Retaining WallRetaining Wall30 30 30 303030N73°15'00"E 151.43 M. 150 P. N73°18'18"E 151.47 12.5 12.9 Apparent encroachment by public sidewalk CITY OF STILLWATER City Hall Doc. No. 240723 John J. & Colleen M. Bourdaghs St. Paul Office2335 West Highway 36Saint Paul, MN 55113Phone: 651-636-4600Fax: 651-636-1311Website:www.bonestroo.com¤BONESTROOSHEET NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER T:\238\23807001\42- Stillwater\Cad\Dwg\238-07002-42-TACC-1.dwg 5/12/2008 11:06 AMREVISIONDATESURVEY BY :APPROVED BY :DESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :238-07001-42DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRSMINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD - STILLWATER SITE2008238-07002-42-TACC-1ALTA/ASCM SURVEYFILE 238-07001-42V301 ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey To the State of Minnesota Department of Military Affairs: This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the "Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys" jointly established by and adopted by ALTA and NSPS in 2005, and includes items 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11b, 12, 13, 17, 19, and 20, as modified by the State of Minnesota, Department of Military Affairs Facility Management Office, of Table A thereof. Pursuant to the Accuarcy Standards as adopted by ALTA and NSPS and in effect on the date of this certification, undersigned further certifies that in my professional opinion, as a land surveyor registered in the State of Minnesota, the Relative Positional Accuracy of this survey does not exceed that which is specified therein. __________________________ Stephen Douglas, Professional Land Surveyor Minnesota License Number 41587 12, May 2008 S. MAIN ST . E. MYRT L E S T . Legend of Symbols & Abbreviations PLUG INSCRIBED WITH BONESTROO 41587IRON MONUMENT SET WITH PLASTICDENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 PROJECT LOCATION LAND DESCRIPTION Lots numbered nine (9) and ten (10) and all of Lot numbered eight (8) except the south tennty-four (24) feet thereof, and the west onethird (1/3) of Lots numbered one (1), two (2) and three (3) except the north sixty-five (65) feet of the east six (6) inches thereof,all in Block numbered thirty (30) of the original town (now city) of Stillwater, as surveyed, platted and now of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Washington County, Minnesota. Miscellaneous Notes 1.The property described hereon is the same as the property described in the title commitment, prepared by Heartland Title, file number 0830223 and was prepared on February 17, 2008. 2.The subject property contains 29,341 square feet, (0.67 acres) of land, more or less. 3.The utilities shown hereon were located using the Gopher State One-Call system and verified in the field where possible. Private utility locations, such as underground sprinklers, underground service lines, etc. may not have been located. Bonestroo cannot guarantee that all utility companies responded or the accuracy or completeness of the locates. Prior to any digging, contact Gopher One at 1-800-252-1166 and refer to ticket number 70701962. 4.The plat of ORIGINAL CITY OF STILLWATER was filed in the Office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota on the 19th day of March, 1981 as Document No. 416049. 6.The bearing system is based upon Washington County coordinate system. 7.There are parking areas along the north and west side of the building but no striping. 8.The subject property has direct access to East Chestnut Street (County State Aid Highway No. 23), a dedicated public roadway. 9.All recorded easements, if any, listed in Schedule B of the Commitment for Title Insurance No. 0830223 dated February 17, 2008, issued by Heartland Title Company located on the above described land are shown on this survey. 10. There is an apparent encroachment by public sidewalk over the northwest corner of the property.S. SECOND ST .S. THIRD ST .S. FOURTH ST . E. CHES T N U T S T . E. OLIVE S T . W. OAK S T .ST. CROIX RIVER POWER BOX DECIDUOUS TREE LIGHT POLEBURIED GAS MAIN CHAIN LINK FENCE BITUMINOUS PAVING CONCRETE DECIDUOUS SHRUB ELECTRIC METER POWER POLE GUY WIRE GAS METER TELEPHONE PEDESTAL SIGN EX. SANITARY SEWER EX. WATER MAIN EX. STORM SEWER AERIAL UTILITIES 238-07002-42-TACC-1 V301TDLSDJNDENOTES SET CHISLED "X" DENOTES SET PK NAIL Statement of Encroachments 1.There are retaining walls along the west and south lines of the property, ownership is unknown. 2.The descriptions in Doc. No.s 253407 and 325300 create an overlap with the States property by 0.48 feet on parts of Lots 1 and 2, Block 30, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater. STILLWATER ARMORY 2018.12.28 STILLWATER ARMORY LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2018.12.28 ELEVATOR/ STORAGE ENTRANCE/LIFT TENANT PARKING: (8) COMPACT SPACES 9-0 OR 8-0 X 16-4 TOILETS STAIRS UP TENANT AMENITY & STORAGE 4,700 SF LEASE SPACE 1000 SF LEASE SPACE 1000 SF LEASE SPACE 500 SF LEASE SPACE 1100 SF LEASE SPACE SHOWN 3600 SF (3) 9X18 OUTDOOR PARKING SPACES CHESTNUT STREET RETAINING WALL PARKING ENTRANCE NEW GLASS OVERHEAD DOORS LEASE SPACE ENTRANCE LOWER LEVEL PLAN SCALE 1/16” = 1’-0” EXISTING LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN NEW RETAINING WALL REPURPOSED EXISTING SIGN STILLWATER ARMORY 2018.12.28 ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE VESTIBULE OFFICE SPACE 4450 SF PARKING STALLSEXTERIOR: 7INTERIOR: 8 TOTAL: 15 PARKING GARAGE ROOF NEW MECHANICAL UNITS AND SCREENING MAIN FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/16” = 1’-0” UNIT 4 775 SF 2 BR/1 BA UNIT 1 1000 SF 2 BR/1 BA UNIT 2 1000 SF 2 BR/1 BA UNIT 3 750 SF 1 BR/1 BA EXISTING LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN - TYPICAL REPURPOSED EXISTING SIGN 9X18 (3) PARKING STALLS9X21 (4) PARKING STALLSACCESSIBLE STALLNEW MANUVERING SPACE STOR ELEV STILLWATER ARMORY STILLWATER ARMORY 2018.12.28 250 SF UNIT 5 1000 SF 2 BR/1 BA UNIT 4 1000 SF 2 BR/1 BA UNIT 7 775 SF 2 BR/1 BA UNIT 6 775 SF 1 BR/1 BA ELEV WINDOW OPEN TO OFFICE BELOW ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE VESTIBULE BELOW EXISTING INTERIOR WALL TO REMAIN (SOLID BLUE) EXISTING INTERIOR WALL TO REMAIN (DASHED BLUE) EXISTING BALCONY LINE AND BASEMENT COLUMN LINE EXTENDED SECOND FLOOR STRUCTURE: NEW BEAM LINE AND COLUMNS (SHOWN IN RED) OPEN TO OFFICE BELOW 2ND FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/16” = 1’-0” STILLWATER ARMORY 2018.12.28 ELEVATIONS SCALE 1/16” = 1’-0” NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION NEW MECHANICAL UNITS AND SCREENING NEW ALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOORS AT ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE NEW GLASS GARAGE DOORS NEW ALUMINUM STOREFRONT ENTRANCE DOOR STILLWATER ARMORY STILLWATER ARMORY LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2018.12.28 ELEVATOR/ STORAGE ENTRANCE/LIFT TENANT PARKING: (8) COMPACT SPACES 9-0 OR 8-0 X 16-4 TOILETS STAIRS UP TENANT AMENITY & STORAGE 4,700 SF LEASE SPACE 1000 SF LEASE SPACE 1000 SF LEASE SPACE 500 SF LEASE SPACE 1100 SF LEASE SPACE SHOWN 3600 SF (3) 9X18 OUTDOOR PARKING SPACES CHESTNUT STREET RETAINING WALL PARKING ENTRANCE NEW GLASS OVERHEAD DOORS LEASE SPACE ENTRANCE LOWER LEVEL PLAN SCALE 1/16” = 1’-0” EXISTING LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN NEW RETAINING WALL REPURPOSED EXISTING SIGN SCHEME 2 TENANT PARKING: (7) SPACES 8-7 X 17-7 17-7 20-9 500 SF 725 SF 2019-02-11 STILLWATER ARMORY ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE VESTIBULE OFFICE SPACE 4450 SF PARKING STALLSEXTERIOR: 7INTERIOR: TOTAL: PARKING GARAGE ROOF NEW MECHANICAL UNITS AND SCREENING MAIN FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/16” = 1’-0” UNIT 4 775 SF 2 BR/1 BA UNIT 1 1000 SF 2 BR/1 BA UNIT 2 1000 SF 2 BR/1 BA UNIT 3 750 SF 1 BR/1 BA EXISTING LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN - TYPICAL REPURPOSED EXISTING SIGN 9X18 (3) PARKING STALLS9X21 (4) PARKING STALLSACCESSIBLE STALLNEW MANUVERING SPACE STOR ELEV STILLWATER ARMORY 2019-02-11 SCHEME 2 7 14 UNIT 1 1700 SF 3BR/2BA STILLWATER ARMORY 250 SF UNIT 5 1000 SF 2 BR/1 BA UNIT 4 1000 SF 2 BR/1 BA UNIT 7 775 SF 2 BR/1 BA UNIT 6 775 SF 1 BR/1 BA ELEV WINDOW OPEN TO OFFICE BELOW ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE VESTIBULE BELOW EXISTING INTERIOR WALL TO REMAIN (SOLID BLUE) EXISTING INTERIOR WALL TO (DASHED BLUE) EXISTING BALCONY LINE AND BASEMENT COLUMN LINE EXTENDED SECOND FLOOR STRUCTURE: NEW BEAM LINE AND COLUMNS (SHOWN IN RED) OPEN TO OFFICE BELOW 2ND FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/16” = 1’-0” 2019-02-11 BE REMOVED SCHEME 2 Parking Analysis Historic Armory Property Scheme One 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 1,575 1 space/325 sf 4.85 storage 1,000 1 space/1,000 sf 1.00 (foyer and bathroom shared)550 NA distillery total 14.18 Office 4,450 1/300 sf office total 14.83 sub-total 44.01 Reduction for multiple use building (2-4 uses) See "cooperative parking" See Footnote 1 -5%41.81 2/22/2019 Parking Analysis Historic Armory Property Scheme One C.Change in parking load Difference between current and proposed load 0.81 Increase due to residential units 15.00 8 indoors Non-residential increase -14.19 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. 2/22/2019 Parking Analysis Historic Armory Property Scheme Two 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 7 units 1.5 spaces/unit + 1 space/3 units for guest parking. 1 space/unit must be indoors. 13.00 7 indoors Distillery tasting room 1,000 1 space/120 sf 8.33 production area 1,852 1 space/325 sf 5.70 storage 1,000 1 space/1,000 sf 1.00 (foyer and bathroom shared)550 NA distillery total 15.03 Office 4,450 1/300 sf office total 14.83 sub-total 42.87 Reduction for multiple use building (2-4 uses) See "cooperative parking" See Footnote 1 -5%40.72 2/22/2019 Parking Analysis Historic Armory Property Scheme Two C.Change in parking load Difference between current and proposed load -0.28 Increase due to residential units 13.00 7 indoors Non-residential increase -13.28 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. 13 total; 7 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. 2/22/2019 Historic Aromory Scheme Three 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 2/22/2019 Historic Aromory Scheme Three 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. 2/22/2019