Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-22 CPC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North May 22nd, 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 April 24th, 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. 2019-15: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a commercial recreational business on the property located at 123 Main St N. Property in the CBD district. Judd Sather, property owner and Sara Jespersen, applicant. 3. Case No. 2019-18: Consideration of a Variance to the exterior side yard setback to rebuild garage on the property located at 503 4th St N located in the RB district. Sheryl Weitzel, property owner and Paul Gunderson, applicant. 4. Case No. 2019-19: Consideration of a Variance to the front and exterior setback for the reconstruction of a garage on the property located in the RB district. Daniel and Allison Boblit, property owner and Jim Barton, applicant. –Tabled to June meeting per applicants request 5. Case No. 2019-21: Consideration of a Variance to the rear yard setback to add a 12’ addition to the rear of the home located at 420 Linden St W. Property located in the RB district. Kurt Klitzke, property owner and Doug and Cheryl Marsh, applicant. 6. Case No. 2019: 23: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to amend city code pertaining to the citing of wireless towers. City of Stillwater, applicant. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Case No. 2019-16: Consideration of an amendment to City Code Chapter 31, Zoning, and Chapter 35, Stormwater Drainage, specifically affecting the stormwater design standards and submittal, review, and permitting processes and requirements. City of Stillwater, applicants. --Tabled from the April meeting. VIII. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION IX. FYI – STAFF UPDATES 2. Comprehensive Plan Update X. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hade, Hansen and Siess; Councilmember Collins Absent: Commissioner Kocon Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of March 27, 2019 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve the March 27, 2019 meeting minutes. Motion passed 6-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2019-10: Consideration of a variance to the Maximum Structural Coverage and the Side Yard Setback. Property located at 321 Moore Street West in the RB district. Wendy Adams, property owner. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. The applicant plans to construct a 4’ by 14’ addition onto the front of her garage at 321 Moore Street West. The existing garage has a 3.5’ side yard setback, whereas a 5’ setback is required. And though the addition would match the setback of the existing garage, a variance is needed to expand the garage with its non-conforming setback. In addition to the setback issue, the lot currently has a structural coverage of 28.3%. A variance was granted in 2014 to allow the coverage to increase from 25 to 28.3%, but the proposed garage addition will also need a coverage variance since it exceeds the allowed 28.3%. The proposed garage extension is to accommodate a wheel chair in the future. The applicant does not know when she will build the addition, but this year she will install a new concrete driveway and footings for the future addition. Two variances are requested: 1) a 1.5 foot variance from the required 5.0 foot side yard setback; and 2) a variance to allow the structural coverage on the lot to increase to 28.396%. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. Wendy Adams, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2019-10, variance to the maximum structural coverage and variance to the side yard setback for the property located at 321 Moore Street West with the four conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 6-0. Planning Commission April 23, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Case No. 2019-11: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for the property located adjacent to 107 Bridgewater Way for Phase II of ‘The Lakes at Stillwater’ senior living facility. The Goodman Group, Randall Benson, property owners and Bill Howell, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated Birchwood Landing, LLC of ILHC of Stillwater, LLC represented by the Goodman Group, has submitted a request to develop two existing outlots into four parcels. The four parcels are proposed to contain 30 independent living units with one enclosed common area. The Final PUD has already been granted. The request includes: 1) Preliminary Plat for Birchwood Landing: 8 lots; and 2) Final Plat for Birchwood Landing: 8 lots. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Bill Howell, The Lakes at Stillwater, stated that Phase I, with 139 units total, is almost completed and they have 20 of the proposed 30 lake homes in Phase II reserved. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Dionne Meisterling, 12550 72nd Street North, asked what the setback is from the two buildings closest to her. She added that the Goodman Group, the second developer of this site, has been good to work with. Ms. Wittman replied the setbacks will be 30’ on the west and 50’ on the east. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Case No. 2019-11, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Phase II of The Lakes at Stillwater senior living facility, with the five staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed 6-0. Case No. 2019-13: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Type C Short Term Home Rental on the property located at 1200 Nightingale Boulevard, located in the AP district, JD and Jana Teschler, property owners. Ms. Wittman stated that Jana Teschler has submitted an application to operate a Short Term Home Rental (STHR) on her property at 1200 Nightingale Boulevard. One letter of support was received from a property owner at 1180 Nightingale Boulevard. Another resident at 1220 Nightingale is not in favor of the license, expressing concern that this use would increase traffic and decrease property values. Staff recommends approval with 12 conditions. Commissioner Siess asked if pool insurance is required. Ms. Wittman stated it is not specifically required under the ordinance but the insurance policy on file indicates the pool is covered by insurance. Jana Teschler, property owner, noted that property at 1166 Nightingale, referenced by the opposing neighbor, was a long term rental and a bad neighbor. She said this will not become a party house because it will remain her primary home. Guests will be fined if neighbors complain. Chairman Lauer asked if it should be a Type B because it is the applicant’s primary residence. Ms. Wittman said if they rent it out more than half the year it is considered a Type C. Ms. Teschler said they are not sure how much the home will be rented at this point. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The hearing was closed. Motion by Councilmember Collins, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve Case No. 2019-13, CUP to operate a Type C STHR at 1200 Nightingale Boulevard, with the 12 conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 6-0. Planning Commission April 23, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Case No. 2019-14: Consideration of a Variance to the 1,000 square foot maximum accessory structure coverage for the property located at 304 Holcombe Street South in the RB district. Robert Ainsbury and Kady Long, property owners, and James Barton, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicants would like to construct a two-stall, attached 728 square foot garage onto the residence at 304 Holcombe Street South. There is an existing 672 square foot detached garage which the owners would like to retain. As a result, a variance has been requested to City Code Section 31-308(a)(3)(1): “the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings including attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings shall be 1,000 square feet or 10 percent of the lot area, whichever is less.” Specifically, the applicant is requesting a 400 square foot accessory structure variance. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. Jim Barton, Barton Construction Services Inc., representing the applicants, informed the Commission that there are approximately 14 other homes in the neighborhood with oversized garages. The large lot makes the garage addition reasonable. The owners intend to dress up the existing garage to match the new one. Tim Dean, Barton Construction Services Inc. remarked that the existing garage is a good visual barrier. If it is required to be removed, it would expose the backside of several existing structures. Commissioner Siess asked what is the applicants’ opinion of the code for this size lot? For example, 10% of the lot could result in 2,800 square foot coverage for this 28,000 square foot lot. Mr. Barton said he believes the intent of the code is that garages don’t dominate a lot. To put a 2,800 square foot footprint on this lot would be excessive. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Corey Beavers, 519 Olive Street, behind the applicant property, asked if the improvements are likely to affect his taxes or property value. He has removed items from his property at the City’s request. Ms. Wittman explained that a property’s assessed value, set by the County, depends on many factors and that his taxes likely would not go up solely because of this addition. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess said she has a problem with the stated practical difficulty and the code. The property owners knew the size of the existing garage when they bought it. She feels this size property should be allowed more accessory building space. She will vote to deny but her vote is for the City Council to say yes and to direct staff to adjust the amount of land that can be used for accessory structures. Commissioner Hansen said he feels the practical difficulty is the large size of the lot. He agrees that 10% or 1,000 square feet seems to be a randomly chosen number. He would like to see the code relaxed and he feels this is what a variance is for. Chairman Lauer pointed out that the lot could be split in the future with Council approval. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve Case No. 2019-14, Variance to the 1,000 square foot maximum accessory structure coverage at 304 Holcombe Street South, with the four staff-recommended conditions, amending Condition #2 by adding the words, “for both the proposed and existing garages.” Motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Siess voting nay. Commissioner Siess asked that the minutes reflect that she recommends that staff and the City Council look at this code. Planning Commission April 23, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Case No. 2019-16: Consideration of an amendment to City Code Chapter 31, Zoning, and Chapter 35, Stormwater Drainage, specifically affecting the stormwater design standards and submittal, review, and permitting processes and requirements. City of Stillwater, applicant. --Tabled until the May meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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. City Planner Wittman stated that on March 27, 2019 the Commission opened the public hearing for an ordinance that would institute revisions to the STHR ordinance. The hearing was tabled until April 24 to gather additional information regarding fines, criminal background checks for operators, and number of licenses issued. Staff checked fines in other communities and found only one city, Chicago, that has fines. City Attorney Land advises that the amount of the fine (administrative citation fee) may be whatever the City Council deems appropriate. Staff believes that the potential loss of the license for six months is a more effective deterrent than a fine. Therefore, staff does not believe it is necessary to raise the fines any higher than they currently are. To date, 27 licenses have been issued and only two substantiated complaints have been received against the same property. Regarding whether the City may require criminal background checks, City Attorney Land states that the City can add a criminal background check requirement to the ordinance, but the only reason the City can deny a license based on the criminal background is due to a conviction related to the vacation rental business. And then only if the conviction occurred in the last five years. This is already in the code. Ms. Wittman provided information on the number of licenses and the number of complaints and fines to date. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend the Council approve the ordinance without additional modifications. Commissioner Hansen asked if a six month revocation for three substantiated complaints is long enough to be an effective deterrent. Ms. Wittman said that is up to the Commission to discuss. Chairman Lauer said if a license is revoked and the applicant reapplies after six months, would the Commission review the case again? Ms. Wittman replied no, because the Commission approves the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) but not the license. The City may initiate revocation of the CUP but it requires a formal process including a public hearing and is not a common practice. Commissioner Hansen commented he doesn’t see the Commission as the type of regulatory body that should make a decision on a CUP based on the license. Commissioner Hade noted the ordinance appears to be working so there is no need to change it. Commissioner Hansen agreed the ordinance has worked pretty well for two and a half years. AirBnB and VRBO are very self enforcing, so neglectful property owners won’t get tenants. Commissioner Siess asked how much is a license? Ms. Wittman replied the license is $50, renewal with no changes $25, renewal with changes $50. The inspection fee is about $150. Commissioner Siess remarked at present the fees do not seem like enough to cover staff time. Commissioner Hade and Chairman Lauer concurred. Planning Commission April 23, 2019 Page 5 of 5 Commissioner Dybvig voiced support for the changes. He asked if revocation of the license could be linked to revocation of the CUP to provide additional scrutiny and help prevent bad properties from obtaining a license again. Commissioner Hansen suggested increasing the fines for second and subsequent violations. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to the Short Term Home Rental Ordinance, and to forward the following comments from the Commission: that fees and fines should be increased given the amount of staff time it takes for administering the program; that increased fees and fines would deter violators; and that the Council is asked to consider revocation of the CUP after the third substantiated violation so that appointed/elected officials get the chance to review licenses of problematic STHRs. Motion passed 6-0. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Water Street Inn Construction Commissioner Hade brought up a concern about the design drawings versus what is being constructed at the Water Street Inn. He and Commissioner Siess asked Ms. Wittman to forward the design drawings to them. Minar Neighborhood Update Ms. Wittman updated the Commission on development in the Minar Neighborhood. The development moratorium went into effect in January. A public meeting was held with neighbors to discuss opportunities and constraints and to look at the possibility of establishing a rural residential district. A survey was taken looking at possible uses in the neighborhood. Language was drafted creating a rural residential district. The neighborhood is favorable to minimal alterations to the uses that could be permitted. Staff advised there will be public hearings for the creation of a rural residential zoning district, probably in June. FYI STAFF UPDATES Vacancies, Appointments, and Election of Officers Chairman Lauer recognized that Commissioner Siess’s seat will need to be filled. He thanked her for her time over the years. City Planner Wittman stated that Commissioner Hansen’s term is expiring as well and he expressed interest in being reappointed. There are two other applicants being interviewed for the two seats. The appointments will be on the City Council agenda May 7. Election of officers will take place in May. Commissioner Hade suggested that the Councilmember Collins try to ensure there is at least one female or minority member. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to adjourn the meeting at 8:51 p.m. All in favor, 6-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 22nd, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-15 APPLICANT: Sara Jespersen, representing The Lumberjack Restaurant and Bar REQUEST: Amendment to an existing multi-tenant, multi-use Special Use Permit to allow for an axe throwing business, a commercial recreational use, for the building located at 123 2nd Street North ZONING: CBD-Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU-Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND In 2015 Judd Sather gained approval of a multi-tenant, multi-use Special Use Permit (SUP) for the building located at 123 2nd Street North. The SUP allowed for the following uses:  Lower Level (accessed off of Commercial Street): catering, brewery and lounge. All proposed uses were considered to be ‘restaurant’ use.  Main Level (accessed off of 2nd Street North): used for offices and other uses permitted by right in the Central Business District.  Upper Level: an 800 occupancy event venue. In 2018 the property owner was granted approval to modify the existing multi-use SUP to allow for a commercial catering kitchen, conference room and two puzzle rooms in the structure. The commercial catering kitchen was permitted to be used similarly to a restaurant. REQUEST Sara Jespersen is requesting an amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for the property located at 123 2nd Street North, the Connelly Shoe Factory building. The proposed amendment includes and additional Commercial Recreational Business to be incorporated into the approved commercial catering kitchen/restaurant. The business would be the Lumberjack, an axe throwing establishment. CPC 4/11/2018 (Case 2018-15) 123 2nd Street North Page 2 of 4 APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS Section 31-325 indicates that a Commercial Recreational Businesses in the Central Business District require a Special Use Permit. 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. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6, Local Economy, indicates an objective of supporting business expansion in the downtown commercial district. This would be achieved through the following implementation actions: “[e]ncourage small, locally owned, businesses particularly in the Downton” and “[p]romote office and service job locations in and around the downtown.” Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7, Economic Development, indicates a goal of promoting and maintaining the downtown as a central focus for community, economic and cultural activity as “tourism has allowed the Stillwater downtown to avoid the vacant buildings and physical decline seen in other traditional downtowns.” The commercial recreational business will help support these goals, objectives and implementation actions. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district, if it is found compatible with surrounding uses. Other uses in the vicinity include office and retail uses in free standing structures across Commercial Street and the alley. Residences are located on the second stories of some of these structures, located approximately 16’ away. Additionally, the municipal parking ramp is located across 2nd Street as well as the Lowell Inn. In review of the request with City staff, the following items were determined to be some items of concern: • Parking: As with the original Special Use Permit, parking and traffic are the predominant concerns in this area. The Parking Commission met in May, 2018 to discuss the proposed events center, main level offices and lower level restaurant uses. At that time the property owner was able to enter into a mitigation agreement with the Downtown Parking Commission. The addition of the axe throwing business, in the restaurant, will not increase the parking demand. • Traffic: There have been historic traffic safety concerns at the corner of Main and Commercial as well as Main and 2nd Street North, intersections with limited site visibility. However, traffic concerns have not increased since the opening of JX Event Venue. • Noise: The existing, free-standing building would need to conform to the City’s noise ordinance. With the existing event venue, modifications were made to help reduce the noise. To the date of memo development, City staff is not aware of any substantiated noise complaints. Therefore, noise mitigation measurements will need to be made to the lower level event space to reduce potential negative impacts. CPC 4/11/2018 (Case 2018-15) 123 2nd Street North Page 3 of 4 The existing patio, located off the alley and at the Southeast corner of the structure, will be modified to accommodate for the relocation of a generator and air intake/exhaust for this tenant space. This will created additional at-grade noise in the back of the building. While there is a 10’ block wall on the west and south elevations, there is no screening on the east. New screening will need to be added; the applicant should explore sound buffering alternatives. 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 use in this location. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATION A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the Special Use Permit amendment proposal is consistent with the provisions of the SUP process, the Commission could move to approve the SUP with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2019-15, except as modified by the conditions herein 3. All conditions of approval for Planning Commission Case file 2015-19 and 2018-15 shall remain in effect. 4. Prior to operating the restaurant, bar and axe throwing business, the applicant shall secure all required approvals from the Stillwater Building Department, Stillwater Fire Department and Washington County Health Department. 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. Prior to the commencement of any exterior work, including the installation of lighting, signage new windows and doors and/or demolition, a Design Permit shall be submitted and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. i. Any conditions attached to the Design Permit issued by the Heritage Preservation Commission for this addition are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. 7. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. If the plan includes a fee- in-lieu, the fee shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Failure to pay charges within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the fees as a condition of CPC 4/11/2018 (Case 2018-15) 123 2nd Street North Page 4 of 4 approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. i. Any conditions attached to the parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this Special Use Permit. 8. 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 for Special Use Permits, 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 the inclusion of a Commercial Recreational Businesses and lower level restaurant space to be added to the multi-tenant, multi-use building located at 123 2nd Street North. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Floor Plan Patio Layout Interior Views (6 pages) E A S T M Y R T L E S T R E E TSOU TH SECOND STREETSTATE HWY 95SO MAI N STA L L E Y C O M M E R C IA L A V E N U E SO UNI ON STALLEYALLEYNORTH WATER212 232 200 102 220 123 124 201 221 130 110 102 108 102 204 106 101 103 225 226 132 218 212 220 219 217 101 222 113 109 114 112 217 212 120 224 126 124 118118 221107 µ 0 125 25062.5 Feet General Site Location Site Location 123 2nd St N ^ Te xt April 1, 2019 City of Stillwater 216 4th St Stillwater, MN 55082 The Lumberjack Co 123 2nd St N, Ste: 102 Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: For consideration of commercial recreational use permit. The Lumberjack is a restaurant and bar committed to an engaging and fun experience that celebrates the history of Stillwater through it’s lumber heritage. We will have axe-throwing and other lumberjack-themed games. For axe-throwing recreation, The Lumberjack (as required by insurance regulations) will employ specially trained lumberjack coaches in each throwing pit to supervise as well as teach customers on how to safely use and enjoy the axe-throwing experience. We will host 4 indoor “pits” and one practice lane. Each pit has two lanes of throwing. Other games like: connect four, checkers, and cribbage will be accessible entertainment to any customers while they enjoy their time at The Lumberjack. The landlord, Judd Sather, had previously received zoning and parking permission for use of the space on the ground level of the historic Connolly Shoe Factory, at 123 2nd St N, for a restaurant, bar, and kitchen. We plan to use the space similarly while adding some recreational gaming use. It is our hope that the City of Stillwater review our plans for the current approved restaurant use while we go through the planning commission process for the commercial recreational use. Thank you for your consideration. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Best, Sara J Jespersen Judd Sather Owner/Operator Owner/Operator The Lumberjack Co. JX Event Venue 651-308-3552 651-571-3581 AIR IN TAKE --- EXT . SPLIT SYSTE M --- 1 EXHAUST---~E UP AIR UNDERNE ATH PACKA~ED UNIT DOUBLE DOORS ON EAST SIDE --- EXT . ELEC TRANSr ORMER 3'-O" MIN !~---+---+-+--+-EXH AUST 1----+---+-+--+-HOO D EXHA UST ABOV E 12.5 TO N UNIT ------+---+--+---+--AIR IN TAK E '---------+---+--+---+--EXT . WELL UP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 22, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-18 APPLICANT: Sheryl Weitzel, Property Owner Paul Gunderson, Applicant REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to tear down their garage and rebuild a larger garage. ZONING: RB: Two-Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density Res. PREPARED BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REQUEST The applicant is proposing to tear down an existing 16’ by 18’ garage and reconstruct a 22’ by 22’ garage in its place, at 503 4th Street North. The applicant has made a request for consideration of a variance to City Code Section 31-308(b)(1) to allow for a garage to be setback 26’ from the front lot line, whereas a 30’ front yard setback is required. 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 specific purpose of a front yard setback for garages is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits, and additionally, to help ensure residential lots are not dominated by accessory structures. While reconstructing an enlarged garage will encroach into the required 30’ front yard setback area, a front yard area will continue Case No. 2019-18 CPC: May 22, 2019 Page 2 of 4 existing to allow for sufficient separation from the public way and will not present a garage-dominating quality to this property. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. No application elements are contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. “Practical difficulties,” as 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 construction of a larger garage on a corner property with sufficient land width 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 rectangular-shaped property is located on a corner lot and is has ample width but lacks depth. The below-average distance between the front property line and the back property line is unique to this property. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Case No. 2019-18 CPC: May 22, 2019 Page 3 of 4 Due to the location of the proposed garage on the property and in respect to the house, it will not alter the essential character of the property, therefore it will have no effect on the character of the neighborhood. Furthermore, the front and side yard surrounding the garage is well-vegetated and deemphasizes the impression of the garage from the street. PUBLIC COMMENT None were submitted. 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 enclosed 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. 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. 2019-09.  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 Staff finds that the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant has established practical difficulties and does not alter the essential character of the locality. Therefore, staff does recommend conditional approval of the variance associated with CPC Case No. 2019-18 for the construction of a larger garage at 503 4th Street North. Case No. 2019-18 CPC: May 22, 2019 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Plan Details (6 pages) NORTH FOURTH STREETL A U R E L S T R E E T E A S T C H E R R Y S T R E E T S T R E E T 212 118 117 204 510 209 414 604 515 221 605 110 424 121 503 518 420 424 111 606 213 408408408408 408408 408408 408408 408 408408 408408 122 614 113 517 410 215 120 609 222 408 106 µ 0 100 20050Feet General Site Location Site Location 503 4th St N ^ Te xt PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 22, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-21 APPLICANT: Kurt W. Klitzke, Property Owner Doug and Cheryl Marsh, Applicant REQUEST: Consideration of a Variance to add an addition. ZONING: RB: Two-Family Res. COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density Res. PREPARED BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator HISTORY The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear yard setback in order to construct an addition onto the back of the house. This property has had two variances in the past. The first variance was for an addition that projected 3’8” into the rear yard setback. The second variance was for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit located in front of the midpoint of the primary dwelling unit. One of the conditions of approval for this second variance was that a drainage plan had to be submitted and approved by the city engineer; and the subsequent submitted drainage plan indicated most of the runoff would drain off the property to the east side. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is proposing to construct an addition that will extend 12’ further into the required rear yard of the house at 420 Linden Street West. The applicant has made a request for consideration of a variance to City Code Section 31-308(b)(1) to allow for the main building to be setback 13’ from the rear yard, where a 25’ rear yard setback is required. 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 Case No. 2019-21 PC: May 22, 2019 Page 2 of 4 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 specific purpose of the Rear Yard Setback is to have larger open space in the rear of property for visual appeal, household enjoyment, drainage, as well as to prevent construction within close proximity to adjacent properties. The construction of the proposed addition will bring the house to within at most 13’ of the property line and will raise concerns regarding the issue of drainage. A survey was not submitted with the application, so the desired 13’ setback is an estimate. Some sources, the photo below for example, suggest that the rear yard fence may be on the neighbor’s property. If this is true, then the rear yard setback would be less than 13’ with the proposed addition. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. No application elements are contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan. [If more than 25% of lot is covered in bldg., or more than 50% in bldg. and other impervious cover, then the stormwater management portion of the Comp Plan may be contradicted by the proposal] Case No. 2019-21 PC: May 22, 2019 Page 3 of 4 3. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: i. The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; The use of the property, as a single family residence in a single family residential neighborhood, is reasonable. The allowance for an addition to the rear of the home is also reasonable, since the two bedrooms in the house are tiny. But, to reduce the required rear yard by more than 50% is concerning. 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 very unique with, both, the size of the house and the location of the house. Firstly, the house is small for the neighborhood in which it is located; it is 715 square feet with two 70 square foot bedrooms. In comparison, the other houses on this block have an average house size of 1208 square feet. Secondly, the house is set back unusually far from the front property line, at a distance of 45 feet. In comparison, the other houses on this block have an average front setback of about 20 feet. The location of the house being setback a sizable distance from the front property line situates the house close to the rear property line. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed addition is to be located in the rear of the property and will not visually alter the property when viewing from the street. Therefore the proposed addition will have no impact to the essential character of the overall neighborhood. Though, there are concerns of the impact it will have to the property directly behind it, in respect to drainage and proximity. PUBLIC COMMENT None were submitted. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make the finding that practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve the variance for the addition. 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. 2019-21 PC: May 22, 2019 Page 4 of 4 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. 2019-21.  The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing 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.  A survey be completed and submitted to the planning department verifying that there is a minimum of 10’ from the proposed addition to the property line.  A drainage plan shall be submitted (that includes roof drainage) and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of a building permit.  Any impervious surfaces (which shall include the rock garden and turf pavers) that result in over 50% lot coverage, will be required to be treated by on-site stormwater improvements such as a raingarden. Therefore, if the impervious surface exceeds 50% on the property, then the applicant will be responsible for submitting a stormwater treatment plan found satisfactory to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for the addition. 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 Staff is impartial on recommendation of a variance to the rear yard setback for the construction of an addition at 420 Linden Street West, because there are some concerns. However, staff does recommend that if the variance is approved that all the conditions stated above be imposed. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan (2 pages) Site Photos (5 pages) CHERRY STREET STREET W E S T C H E R R Y 614 451 327407 422 420424 417 506 411 424 502 610 428616 410 504 510 µ 0 125 25062.5 Feet General Site Location Site Location 420 Linden St W ^ Te xt PLANNING REPORT MEETING DATE: May 22, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-23 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater REQUEST: Request for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to consider amendments to the city code pertaining to the citing of wireless towers ZONING: Citywide COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Citywide PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND City Code Section 31-512, Regulation of radio and television towers, indicates the preferred location for antennas and towers include: government and utility sites; school sites; and golf course, or public parks when compatible with the nature of the park or course. However, the Allowable Uses in Non-Residential Districts table does not indicate they are allowed in the Parks Recreation and Open Space (PROS) district nor the Public Works Facility District (PWFD). Furthermore, the Code expressly indicates they are prohibited in the Public Administrative Offices (PA) district. STAFF ANALYSIS There are inconsistencies in the City Code. While one section indicates towers and antenna are preferred on public lands, other sections of the code indicate they are outright prohibited on public lands. There are four towers in the City of Stillwater. Three of the towers are located on private property. One of the towers, however, is located on public land, at the Jaycee Ballfield site owned by ISD #834. The ordinance amendment would provide clarification that the tower on the public school site, which has lawfully obtained a Use Permit, would be conforming to the allowable uses table. Furthermore, indicating towers and antenna are allowed in the PA district would bring public entities who have placed these types of improvements on their facilities and sites into conformance while opening up greater opportunities for future siting. That said, CPC Case No. 2019-23 CPC: May 22, 2019 Page 2 of 3 the City’s ordinances pertaining to performance standards and minimum distance requirements between facilities would still apply. SPECIFIC REQUEST City staff is seeking to clarify in which public districts antennas and towers are allowed to be located. Therefore, the request includes modification to the following City Code Sections: 1. Staff believes that the intent of the tower ordinance was to allow towers to be located in all of the public zoning districts with a Conditional Use Permit. So, staff recommends amending the use table in Section 31-325 to look like this: ALLOWABLE USES ZONING DISTRICTS CA CBD VC BP-C BP-O BP-I CRD PA PWFD PROS Wireless Communication Towers and Antennae CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP 2. With similar logic, Section 31-512 would need to be recommend to read as follows: Section 31-512, Regulation of radio and television towers, Subd. 5 Central business district (CBD) and professional administrative (PA) district. Any person, firm or corporation erecting an antenna in central business and professional administrative districts shall meet the following requirements: a) Towers are not allowed in the CBD and PA districts. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Municipal 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. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options available to them: CPC Case No. 2019-23 CPC: May 22, 2019 Page 3 of 3 1. If the Planning Commission find the public necessity, general community welfare and good zoning practice permit the amendment and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan, the Commission may forward to the City Council a favorable recommendation of approval of Zoning Text Amendment 2019-23 allowing for modifications to City Code Sections 31-325 and 31-521. 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 Radio and Television Tower regulations apply to all properties within the City. As currently written and interpreted, however, the ordinance is contradictory with itself. The general community welfare would be furthered if there is greater clarification in where the City prefers the location of these facilities. Additionally, by expanding which public facilities they may be permitted on will enable greater opportunity for siting on public lands. Therefore, good zoning practices throughout the community and within the field of local government land planning permit the amendment. The proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. Therefore, staff would recommend the Planning Commission make a favorable recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Zoning Text Amendment to City Code Sections 31-325, Allowable uses in non-residential district, and Section 31-512, Regulation of radio and television towers. ATTACHMENTS Draft Ordinance - Legislative Version ORDINANCE _________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 31-325, ALLOWABLE USES IN NON- RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND ARTICLE 31-525, REGULATION OF RADIO AND TELEVISION TOWERS OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Article 31-325 of the City Code, Allowable uses in non- residential districts, is hereby amended as follows: ALLOWABLE USES ZONING DISTRICTS CA CBD VC BP- C BP- O BP-I CRD PA PWFD PROS Wireless Communication Towers and Antennae CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Article 31-512 of the City Code, Regulation of radio and television towers, is hereby amended as follows: Central business district (CBD) and professional administrative (PA) district. Any person, firm or corporation erecting an antenna in central business and professional administrative districts shall meet the following requirements: a) Towers are not allowed in the CBD and PA districts. SECTION 3. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance: The ordinance indicates wireless communication towers and antennae may be allowed by conditional use permit in the PA, PWFD, and PROS zoning districts. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective after its passage and publication according to law. Approved this 4th day of June, 2019. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk Publish: Stillwater Gazette – ______________________ PLANNING REPORT MEETING DATE: May 22, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-16 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater REQUEST: Request for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to consider amendments to City Code Chapter 31, Zoning, pertaining to Stormwater Management Practices ZONING: Citywide COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Citywide PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requires the City of Stillwater adopt stormwater infiltration regulations. The City retained WSB Engineering to develop design guidelines for uniform stromwater management throughout the City. The adoption of these guidelines, in addition to certain ordinance amendments are required for the City to become compliant with the MPCA regulations. The ordinance amendment is three-fold: 1. Select modifications to Chapter 31, Zoning, including: a. Defining Development and Land Disturbing Activity or Activities in the Zoning Code; b. Clarifying provisions related to soil stripping and grading; c. Removal of City Code Section 31-525, Stormwater Management Practices, from the Zoning Code. 2. Identifying a subdivision drainage plan shall conform to the Engineering Design Guidelines in Chapter 32, Subdivision Regulations. 3. Modifying Chapter 35¸ Stormwater Drainage, to be compliant with the MPCA’s regulations, reference the Design Guidelines, outline the processes and procedures for plan review and approval, and designate the City’s Engineering Department as the responsible authority for administration. While there are numerous code sections proposed for modification, the Planning Commission is tasked with review of the Zoning Text Amendment for those alterations to Chapter 31, Zoning. Therefore, staff has attached the draft ordinance for Commission review. CPC Case No. 2018-36 CPC: 08/08/2018 Page 2 of 3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Municipal 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. Although infiltration is required by the MPCA, and this amendment would bring the City into compliance, the primary goal of this amendment is to clean up inconsistencies, clarifying processes and procedures, and to remove the stormwater management provisions from the Zoning Code. This amendment, in conjunction with the amendments to Chapter 32 and 35 are a public necessity. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates the Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) by reference. Certain overall goals of the LSWMP are to: • Protect the City’s wetlands, lakes, streams and groundwater to preserve the functions and values of these resources for future generations. • Manage water resources and drainage systems on a citywide scale. • Manage land disturbance and increased impervious surfaces to prevent flooding and adverse impacts to water resources. • Control the rate of stormwater runoff from development to reduce downstream flooding and erosion. • Reduce pollutant loads and impacts to water bodies and encourage groundwater recharge, by reducing the volume of stormwater runoff from development and redevelopment. • Provide adequate storage and conveyance of runoff to protect the public safety and minimize property damage. This Zoning Text Amendment would further enable the City towards meeting these goals. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options available to them: 1. If the Planning Commission find the public necessity, general community welfare and good zoning practice permit the amendment and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan, the Commission may forward to the City Council a favorable recommendation of approval of Zoning Text Amendment 2019-16 allowing for modifications to Chapter 31. 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 CPC Case No. 2018-36 CPC: 08/08/2018 Page 3 of 3 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 general community welfare would be furthered if there are clear stormwater management practices that are consistency applied throughout the City. Additionally, the field of local government land planning permit the amendment. The proposed amendment is also in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. Therefore, staff would recommend the Planning Commission make a favorable recommendation of approval to the City Council for the Zoning Text Amendment 2019-16 to City Codes 31-101, 31-523, 31-524, and 31-525, as shown on the attached. ATTACHMENTS Draft Ordinance (Legislative Version) 1 ORDINANCE NO._________ CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO CONSERVATION REGULATIONS AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE SECTION 31-101 DEFINITIONS, SECTION 31-523 SOIL STRIPPING, SECTION 31-524 GRADING, SECTION 31-525 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND SECTION 32-1 THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE The City Council of Stillwater does ordain: SECTION 1. Stillwater City Code Section 31-101, Definitions is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 31-101. - Definitions is hereby amended by adding the following definitions: Development when found in Section 31-522 (Tree and Forest Protection) means the construction, addition, installation or alteration of any structure, the extraction, clearing or other alteration of land or the division of land into two or more parcels, for the purpose of transfer of title or building development. Major development means any planned unit development, subdivision and any other development of more than 15 units or larger. As used in other sections of Section 31, Development means the construction, addition, installation or alteration of any structure, the extraction, clearing or other alteration of land. Land Disturbing Activity or Activities means any activity that changes the volume or peak discharge rate of stormwater runoff from the land surface. This may include the grading, digging, cutting, scraping, or excavating of soil, placement of fill materials, paving, construction, substantial removal of vegetation, or any activity that bares soil or rock or involves the diversion or piping of any natural or fabricated watercourse. MS4 means the municipal separate storm sewer system. SECTION 2. Stillwater City Code Section 31-523 relating to Soil Stripping is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 31-523. - Soil stripping. Subd. 1. No person may strip, excavate or otherwise remove topsoil for sale, or for use other than on the premises from which it is taken, except in connection with the construction or alteration of a building on the premises and any incidental excavation or grading. SECTION 3. Stillwater City Code Section 31-524 relating to Grading is hereby amended as follows: 2 Sec. 31-524. - Grading. Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section 31-524 is to ensure that any grading conducted for the purposes of building construction is done according to the grading plan for a subdivision as approved by the city council and to avoid drainage problems which may occur as a result of building development. Furthermore, the purpose of this Section 31-524 is to meet the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, MN R100001 (NPDES general construction permit) issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, August 1, 2018, as amended, and the city’s Engineering Design Guidelines which are hereby incorporated by reference. Every proposed new building requires a grading plan to be submitted with the building permit plans, unless such requirement is waived in writing by the city engineer. The following items are required to be shown on the grading plan: (a) The location of the building, driveway, tree cover, wetlands, drainageways or ditches, city streets, neighboring structures and other significant features. (b) The existing elevation of the building pad, neighboring structures, top of curb at the driveway, wetlands elevation, all lot corners and any drainage structures. (c) The proposed elevation of the first floor, lowest floor, garage floor, walkout (if any) and high or low points (breaks in grade). (d) Drainage arrows showing the route of run off across the lot with proposed elevations of drainage swales. (e) If the lot is adjoining a wetland, the plan should show how erosion will be controlled. Normally a silt fence or other erosion control method will be required along the flow path to the wetland. (f) Any retaining walls, steep slopes or other special grading features must be denoted. A cash escrow in an amount established by resolution shall be paid before a building permit is issued for all new residential dwellings. The cash escrow shall be returned to the permit applicant, without interest, upon successful completion of all of the following: (1) Written certification from a registered engineer or land surveyor that the grades and elevations are in conformance with the city approved grading plan and that permanent iron monuments are in place at each lot corner; and (2) Water service curb box access cover at finished grade and curb box valve operable. If the escrow items are not completed within 60 days, excluding the time between October 1 and May 1 of issuance of a certification of occupancy, the city may enter the lot, perform the work and apply the cash escrow toward the cost, plus administrative fees. In addition to the cash escrow, an escrow administration fee in an amount established by resolution shall be paid before a permit is issued for all permits. 3 Subd. 2. Grading permits. (a) Enumeration of actions requiring. No person may undertake, authorize or permit any of the following actions without first having obtained a grading permit from the city: a. Any excavating, grading, filling or other change in the earth's topography resulting in the movement of more than 50 cubic yards of material, except in any designated wetlands, floodplain or shoreland district; b. Any excavating, grading or filling or change in the earth's topography in any designated wetlands, floodplain or shoreland district; c. Any mining operation for gravel or other materials; or d. Any changing of a natural drainageway or drainage pattern that results in increasing or intensifying the flow of surface water upon adjacent property. (b) Activities not requiring. Notwithstanding Section 31-524, Subd 2, no grading permit is required for the following activities, except as required by the state building code: (1) Earthwork undertaken in accordance with grading plans approved in conjunction with a site and building plan review or plat approval; or (2) Earthwork that will result in moving less than 50 cubic yards of material, provided the work does not take place in any designated wetlands, floodplain or shoreland district and does not affect local drainage patterns. (c) Plans required. No grading permit may be issued for site grading without approved plans for site development and adequate provision for site protection from wind or water erosion. (d) Compliance with permit provisions. No person may undertake, authorize or permit any excavating, grading, filling or other change in the earth's topography that violates or is not in compliance with a grading permit issued by the city. (e) Review as conditional use. All grading permits that would result in the moving of more than 1,000 cubic yards of material per acre of site area must be reviewed as a conditional use permit under the standards outlined in this Section 31-524. If possible, grading permit review will be combined with other planning permit reviews. (f) Review procedure; application; required information. Application for a grading permit that requires review as a conditional use must be made to the community development director on forms provided by the city and must be accompanied by the following information: (1) The legal description of the property; 4 (2) The fee required by chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Codethe city fee schedule; (3) Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property; (4) Existing and proposed final grades with two-foot contour intervals; (5) A survey showing the location and elevation of all roads, utilities and structures that may be impacted by the proposal; (6) A tree survey showing all trees having a caliper of six inches or greater and a tree preservation plan; (7) A landscaping and site restoration plan; (8) A development concept plan indicating how the recontoured parcel may be developed in a manner consistent with this subdivision and the comprehensive plan; (9) A drainage plan with an engineering design for necessary stormwater retention work; (10) An erosion control plan indicating the type and location of erosion measures; (11) A traffic analysis showing how the materials will be removed from or delivered to the site; (12) Two copies of all available soil borings and with boring location maps and any other available soil information; (13) Any other information that may be required by the city; and (14) A schedule of building construction phasing. (g) Administrative review. Grading plans that will result in the move of more than 50 but less than 1,000 cubic yards of material per acre may be approved by the community development directorcity engineer. The applicant shall submit the required items from Section 31-524, Subd. 2(f). Upon receipt of a completed application, the community development director must review the application within ten working days and must notify the applicant of the decision by mail. The community development director may impose such modifications and conditions as may be necessary to protect the public interest. Bonding may be required in an amount sufficient to complete site restoration should the applicant default. (h) Standards. Grading permits may be issued only for grading plans that comply with the following standards: 5 (1) The plans must maximize the preservation of trees on the property and utilize the trees to the maximum extent possible to screen the grading from adjacent property. (2) The plan must utilize landscaping to restore site aesthetics, minimize the visual impact of the work, screen the grading from adjacent property and enhance the property's development potential. All areas altered because of grading activity must at a minimum, be restored with seed and mulch or sod within two weeks after the completion of the activity. The city may approve an extension of this deadline if appropriate, but in no case may site restoration be delayed beyond October 1. (3) The plan must not result in sites that are unsatisfactory for development of permitted uses. The development potential of a site may be adversely impacted by unsuitable finished grades, poor soil stability, unsatisfactory drainage or exposure to deleterious influences. (4) The plan must provide for the removal of any significant amounts of organic material or construction debris. (5) In instances where an existing buffer will be impacted by grading or filling operations, site restoration must be completed in a manner that resembles the original vegetative and topographic state of the property. (6) The plan must protect designated wetlands, floodplains, shorelands, public waters and other natural features. (7) The plan must provide for adequate drainage, stormwater retention and erosion control measures, as described in the NPDES construction general permit, the city’s Engineering Design Guidelines and Sec. 35-26. – Stormwater Management Practices. (8) The plan must provide for traffic movements to and from the site and must not have significant adverse affects effects on roads, intersections or development in the area. Streets surrounding the site must be swept to remove any debris that may accumulate due to these activities. (9) The plan must include a schedule of activities which limits the duration of disruptions and impacts. (10) The plan must also be approved, where required, by appropriate watershed districts, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the state department of natural resources and any other government agency that has jurisdiction. (11) The plan shall be accompanied by a bond sufficient to ensure compliance with the approved permit and adequate site restoration. The amount of the bond will be based upon the size of the site, sensitivity of its surroundings, extent of grading, amount of 6 material moved, necessary site restoration and potential impacts upon public facilities, including damage to public roadways and property. (12) The plan must comply with the state building code and all other applicable statutes or ordinances. SECTION 4. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-525 relating to Stormwater Management Practices is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 31-525. - Stormwater management practices. Stormwater management practices shall be as follows: Subd. 1. Statutory authorization.This Section 31-525 is adopted pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 462.351 et seq. Subd. 2. Findings. The city hereby finds that uncontrolled and inadequately planned use of wetlands, woodlands, natural habitat areas, areas subject to soil erosion and areas containing restrictive soils adversely affects the public health, safety and general welfare by impacting water quality and contributing to other environmental problems, creating nuisances, impairing other beneficial uses of environmental resources and hindering the ability of the city to provide adequate water, sewage, flood control and other community services. In addition, extraordinary public expenditures may be required for the protection of persons and property in areas which may be affected by unplanned land use. Subd. 3. Purpose. The purpose of this Section 31-525 is to promote, preserve and enhance the natural resources within the city and protect them from adverse effects caused by poorly sited development or incompatible activities by regulating land-disturbing or development activities that would have an adverse and potentially irreversible impact on water quality and unique and fragile environmentally sensitive land; by minimizing conflicts and encouraging compatibility between land-disturbing and development activities and water quality and environmentally sensitive lands; and by requiring detailed review standards and procedures for land-disturbing or development activities proposed for such areas, thereby achieving a balance between urban growth and development. Subd. 4. Scope and effect. The scope and effect of this Section 31-525 is as follows: (a) Applicability. Every applicant for subdivision or a permit to allow land-disturbing activities must submit a stormwater management plan to the department of community development. No building permit, subdivision approval or permit to allow land-disturbing activities may be issued until approval of the stormwater management plan or a waiver of the approval requirement has been obtained in strict conformance with the provisions of this Section 31-525 (b) Exemptions. The provisions of this Section 31-525 do not apply to: 7 (1) Any part of a subdivision if a plat for the subdivision has been approved by the city on or before August 3, 1993. (2) Any activity for which plans have been approved by the watershed management organization with jurisdiction over the project within six months prior to August 3, 1993. (3) A lot for which a building permit has been approved on or before August 3, 1993. (4) Installation of fence, sign, telephone and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles. (5) Emergency work to protect life, limb or property. Subd. 5. Plan approval procedures. Procedures for the approval of a stormwater agreement plan are as follows: (a) Application. A written application for stormwater management plan approval, along with the proposed stormwater management plan and maintenance agreement, must be filed with the department of community development and must include a statement indicating the grounds upon which the approval is requested, that the proposed use is permitted in the zoning district, and that the proposed use will conform to the standards set forth in this Section 31-525 (b) Plan contents. At a minimum, the stormwater management plan must contain the following information: (1) Existing site map. A map of existing site conditions showing the site and immediately adjacent areas, including: i. The name and address of the applicant, the section, township and range, north point, date and scale of drawing and number of sheets; ii. Location of the tract by an insert map at a scale sufficient to clearly identify the location of the property and giving such information as the streets and numbers of adjoining roads, railroads, utilities, subdivisions, towns and districts or other landmarks; iii. Existing topography with a contour interval appropriate to the topography of the land, but in no case having a contour interval greater than two feet (use urban sea level as a base); iv. A delineation of all streams, rivers, public waters and wetlands located on and immediately adjacent to the site, including depth of water, a description of all vegetation which may be found in the water, a statement of general water quality and any classification given to the water body or wetlands by the state department of natural resources, the state pollution control agency and/or United States Army Corp of Engineers; 8 v. Location and dimensions of existing stormwater drainage systems and natural drainage patterns on and immediately adjacent to the site delineating in which direction and at what rate stormwater is conveyed from the site, identifying and receiving stream, river, public water or wetland and setting forth those areas of the unaltered site where stormwater collects; vi. A description of the soils of the site, including a map indicating soil types of areas to be disturbed as well as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable; vii. Vegetative cover and clearly delineating any vegetation proposed for removal; and viii. 100-year floodplains, flood fringes and floodways. (2) Site construction plan. A site construction plan must contain the following information: i. Location and dimension of all proposed land-disturbing ii. Locations and dimensions of all temporary soils or dirt stockpiles; iii. Location and dimension of all construction site erosion control measures necessary to meet the requirements of this subdivision; iv. Schedule of the starting and completion date of each land- for each phase; and v. Provisions for maintenance of the construction site erosion control measures during construction. (3) Plan of final site conditions. A plan of final site conditions on the same scale as the existing site map showing the site changes, including: i. Finished grading shown at contours at the same interval as provided on the existing site map indicating the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and remaining features; ii. A landscape plan, drawn to an appropriate scale, including dimensions and distances and the location, type, size and description of all proposed landscape materials that will be added to the site as part of the development; iii. A drainage plan of the developed site delineating the direction and rate of stormwater from the site and the areas of where stormwater will be allowed to collect; iv. The size, alignment and intended use of any structures to be erected on the site; v. A delineation and tabulation of all areas which shall be paved or surfaced, including a description of the surfacing material to be used; and vi. Any other information necessary for the review of the project. Subd. 6. Plan review procedure. Procedures for the review of a stormwater management plan are as follows: (a) Process. Stormwater management plans meeting the requirements of Subd. 5 of this Section 31-525 must be submitted by the community development director to the planning commission for review in accordance with the standards in Subd. 7 of this Section 31-525 9 (1) Projects within Carnelian-Marine-Saint-Croix or Browns Creek Watershed District must obtain watershed district permits as required. Projects within the jurisdiction of the Middle Saint Croix Watershed Management Organization (MSCWMO) must meet the requirements of the MSCWMO Watershed Management Plan. Projects within the MSCWMO meeting the full review requirements of the MSCWMO Plan will not be approved by the city until reviewed by the MSCWMO board. (b) Duration. Plan approval will expire one year after date of approval unless construction has commenced in accordance with the plan. The planning department may grant one extension of not greater than one year. (c) Conditions. A stormwater management plan may be approved subject to compliance with conditions reasonable and necessary to ensure that the requirements of this Section 31- 525 are met. Conditions may limit the size, kind or character of the proposed development; require the construction of structures, drainage facilities, storage basins and other facilities; require replacement of vegetation; establish required monitoring procedures; stage the work over time; require alteration of the site design to ensure buffering; and require the conveyance to the city or other public entity of necessary lands or easements. (d) Performance. Projects with public improvements must submit a cash deposit or letter of credit in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of construction. The city may draw on the cash deposit or letter of credit to correct erosion and sediment concerns not addressed within the timeframe established in this subsection or to correct any failure to comply with the requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency General Stormwater Permit for Construction. The letter of credit must guarantee completion and compliance with conditions within a specific time and may be extended in accordance with Subd. 6(b) of this Section 31-525 (e) Fees. All applications for a stormwater management plan approval must be accompanied by a process and approval fee as set from time to time by resolution of the city council. Applicants must also reimburse the city for actual engineering costs incurred by the city for review of the application. Subd. 7. Approval standards. Standards for approval of a stormwater management plan are as follows: (a) Failure to meet requirements. No stormwater management plan that fails to meet the standards in this Section 31- may be approved. (b) Site dewatering. Water pumped from the site shall be treated by temporary sedimentation basins, grit chambers, sand filters, upflow chambers, hydrocycones, swirl concentrators or other appropriate controls as appropriate. Water may not be discharged in a manner that causes erosion or flooding of the site or receiving channels or a wetland. 10 (c) Waste and material disposal. All waste and unused building materials (including garbage, debris, cleaning wastes, wastewater, toxic materials or hazardous materials) shall be properly disposed of off the site and not allowed to be carried by runoff into a receiving channel or storm sewer system. (d) Tracking. Graveled roads, access drives and parking areas must be of sufficient width and length or prevent sediment from being tracked onto public or private roadways. Any sediment reaching a public or private road shall be removed by street cleaning, (not flushing), before the end of each workday. (e) Drain inlet protection. All storm drain inlets must be protected during construction until control measures are in place with a straw bale, silt fence or equivalent barrier meeting accepted design criteria, standards and specifications contained in the MPCA publication "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas." (f) Site erosion control. (1) Projects meeting the requirements for a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency General Stormwater Permit for Construction must supply a copy of the permit and the Stormwater Pollution Prevision Plan prior to beginning construction. (2) The following provisions shall apply to projects which require a grading permit pursuant to the city Code, but do not require a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency General Stormwater Permit for Construction: i. No grading shall occur until downstream perimeter control is in place. Perimeter control may consist of sod strips, mulch berms, or silt fence. Catch-basin inlet protection shall be placed in downstream catch-basins prior to grading. ii. Silt fence must be dug in to prevent runoff from washing beneath the silt fence. Silt fence shall be cleaned out any time sediment reaches one-third of the height of the silt fence. iii. Prior to beginning grading, an approved method for preventing vehicles from tracking soil onto public streets (i.e., rock construction entrance) shall be installed. iv. Any soil washed or tracked off site shall be removed within 24 hours. Any costs the city incurs in cleaning off-site sediment in place longer than 24 hours will be charged against the grading escrow required for the project. v. Erosion protection shall be provided on disturbed ground left inactive for 14 days. vi. Any soil stockpiles shall be surrounded with silt fence or covered with plastic. vii. Any slopes greater than 3:1 shall be covered with sod, erosion control blanket, or an approved alternative. viii. The grading escrow will not be released until an inspection by the city demonstrates that there is no more potential for erosion, that restoration is completed, and that all temporary sediment and erosion control measures have been removed from the site. 11 (c) Stormwater management criteria for permanent facilities. Stormwater management criteria for permanent facilities are as follows: 1. An applicant must install or construct, on or for the proposed land- disturbing or development activity, all stormwater management facilities necessary to manage increased runoff so that the two-year, ten-year and 100-year storm peak discharge rates existing before the proposed development are not increased and accelerated channel erosion will not occur as a result of the proposed land- disturbing or development activity. An applicant may also make an in-kind or monetary contribution to the development and maintenance of community stormwater management facilities designed to serve multiple land-disturbing and development activities undertaken by one or more persons, including the applicant. 2. The applicant must give consideration to reducing the need for stormwater management facilities by incorporating the use of natural topography and land cover such as wetlands, ponds, natural swales and depressions as they exist before development to the degree that they can accommodate the additional flow of water without compromising the integrity or quality of the wetland or pond. 3. The following stormwater management practices must be investigated in developing a stormwater management plan in the following descending order of preference: i. Infiltration of runoff on the site, if suitable soil conditions are available for use; ii. Flow attenuation by use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions; iii. Stormwater retention facilities; and iv. Stormwater detention facilities. 4. A combination of successive practices may be used to achieve the applicable minimum control requirements specified in subsection (g)3.i. of this Section 31-525. Justification shall be provided by the applicant for the method selected. (h) Design standards. Stormwater detention facilities constructed in the city must be designed according to the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP), wet basin design criteria and the urban best management practices as reflected in the MPCA publication "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," and must contain, at a minimum, the following design factors: (1) A permanent pond surface area equal to two percent of the impervious area draining to the pond or one percent of the entire area draining to the pond, whichever amount is greater; 12 (2) An average permanent pool depth of four to ten feet; (3) As an alternative to subsections (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this Section 31-525 that the volume of permanent pool be equal to or greater than the runoff from a two- inch rainfall for the fully developed site; (4) A permanent pool length-to-width ratio of three to one or greater; (5) A minimum protective shelf extending ten feet into the permanent pool with a slope of ten to one beyond which slopes should not exceed three to one; (6) A protective buffer strip of vegetation surrounding the permanent pool at a minimum width of one rod (16.5 feet); (7) All stormwater detention facilities must have a device to keep oil, grease and other floatable material from moving downstream as a result of normal operations; (8) Stormwater detention facilities for new development must be sufficient to limit peak flows in each sub watershed to those that existed before the development for the ten-year storm event; also, calculations and hydrologic models used in determining peak flows must be submitted along with stormwater management plan; and (9) All stormwater detention facilities must have a forebay to remove coarse- grained particles prior to discharge into a watercourse or storage basin. (i) Wetlands. Wetlands requirements are as follows: (1) Runoff must not be discharged directly into wetlands without presettlement of the runoff. (2) A protective buffer strip of natural vegetation at least one rod (16.5 feet) in width must surround all wetlands. (3) Wetlands must not be drained or filled, wholly or partially, unless replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value. Replacement must be guided by the following principles in descending order of priority: i. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the wetland; ii. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation; iii. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected wetland environment; iv. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity; and v. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute wetland resources or environments. Compensation including the replacement ratio and 13 quality or replacement must be consistent with the requirements outlined in the rules adopted by the board of water and soil resources to implementing the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. (j) Catchbasins. All newly installed and rehabilitated catchbasins must be provided with a sump area for the collection of coarse-grained material. The basins must be cleaned when they are half-filled with material. The requirements of this subsection may be waived by the public works department if the requirements are not feasible. (k) Drain leaders. All newly constructed and reconstructed buildings must route drain leaders to storm sewer facilities or pervious areas wherein the runoff can be allowed to infiltrate. The flow ratio of water from the leaders must be controlled so no erosion occurs in the pervious areas. (l) Inspections and maintenance. All stormwater management facilities must be designed to minimize the need of maintenance, to provide access for maintenance purposes and to be structurally sound. All stormwater management facilities must have a plan of operation and maintenance that ensures continued effective removal of pollutants carried in stormwater runoff. The director of public works, or designated representative, must inspect all stormwater management facilities during construction, during the first year of operation and at least once every five years thereafter. The inspection records will be kept on file at the public works department for a period of six years. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any easements or property interests to allow needed access to the stormwater management facilities for inspection and maintenance purposes. (m) Models; methodologies; computations. Hydrologic models and design methodologies used for the determination of runoff and analysis of stormwater management structures must be approved by the director of public works. Plans, specifications and computations for stormwater management facilities submitted for review must be sealed and signed by a registered professional engineer. All computations must appear on the plans submitted for review, unless otherwise approved by the director of public works. (n) Watershed management plans; groundwater management plans. Stormwater management plans must be consistent with adopted watershed management plans and groundwater management plans prepared in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 103B.231 and 103B.255, respectively, and as approved by the state board of water and soil resources. (o) Easements. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain from adjacent property owners any necessary easements or other property interests concerning flowage of water. (p) Other controls. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this subdivision and other provisions of this chapter, the more restrictive standard prevails. 14 SECTION 5. Stillwater City Code Chapter 32-1 relating to the Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 32-1. – Subdivision ordinance. 32-1 Subd. 6 (6) regarding drainage requirements in subdivisions: (6) Drainage. Standards for drainage shall be as follows: a. All surface and underground drainage systems must be installed to adequately remove all natural drainage that accumulates on the developed property. All systems must be in conformance with the community drainage plan and all piping must provide complete removal and a permanent solution for the removal of drainage water. The drainage system may include a storm sewer system or a system of open ditches, culverts, pipes, catchbasins and ponding areas. b. The drainage plan must include water quality treatment provisions, at a minimum, meeting NURP pond standards (phosphorous removal efficiency of at least 65 percent, capacity of 2.5 inches, 24-hour storm, with 25 percent increase for sediment. See city design criteria for more information) with sufficient stormwater holding capacity to meet the no net increase design standard for a 100-year storm.meet the criteria of the City’s Engineering Design Guidelines. c. All development areas that drain into Long Lake and/or Brown Creek must show how the proposed drainage system will minimize the impact on those DNR protected wetlands. SECTION 6. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance: The ordinance moves Stormwater from the zoning code into the city code and updates the standards to be consistent with the Engineering Design Guidelines. SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Passed this day of , 2019. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor 15 ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk PLANNING REPORT DATE: May 15, 2019 TO: Planning Commission REQUEST: Approval of draft of 2040 Comprehensive Plan REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND MN Statute 473.864 requires each local government in the Metropolitan Area to review and, if necessary, amend its comprehensive plan at least once every ten years. It also requires fiscal devices and official controls to be reviewed. The purpose of the decennial review is to ensure that comprehensive plans conform to metropolitan system plans and that fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with those system plans. The Community Development Department began work on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (also known as the 2018 Plan) in 2014. A summary of the main tasks and their time frame looks as follows: 1. Trail Plan. A new trail plan was created under contract with Planner Melissa Douglas between April of 2014 and June of 2015. (Cost of $13,500.) The impetus for the new trail plan was regional discussions about a potential state trail along the old Minnesota Zephyr railroad line and the planned loop trail between the Lift Bridge and the pending new St Croix River crossing. 2. Downtown Plan. With all of the dynamic forces at play in the Downtown Area, the most obvious of which was the planned closing of the Lift Bridge, a new Downtown Plan was needed. It was developed and written under contract with SRF between April 2016 and June of 2017. (Cost of $140,000.) 3. Historic Resources Plan. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Metropolitan Council encouraged the City to focus resources on a re-write of the Historic Resources Chapter of our Comp Plan. Though the 2030 Plan’s chapter was used as a model by Met Council for other communities, they and SHPO wanted to see Stillwater expand and strengthen the plan. So, the chapter was re-written under contract with Landscape Research between March and July of 2018. (Cost of $31,199 of which $26,250 was paid through a SHPO grant.) 4. Water Resources Chapter. A surface water management plan was created by the Public Works Department under contract with WSB. (Cost of $50,000.) This plan was finish in August of 2018 and served as the foundation for a major portion of the Water Resources Chapter. Draft 2040 Comp Plan Page 2 5. All other chapters. All of the other chapters of the Comprehensive Plan have been developed under contract with HKGi, which was entered into on October 3, 2017. (Cost of $120,000 of which $32,000 will/has been paid through a Met Council grant.) 6. Metropolitan Council review. The draft plan has to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council on or before May 31, 2019. The Met Council will take three or four months to review it. This means that in September or October of this year, the 2040 Plan will be ready for the City Council to adopt in final form. 7. Official Controls Consistency. After adoption of the final plan, the City has nine months to review the city code and fiscal devices (e.g. Capital Improvement Plan) for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This usually requires the drafting of ordinances to create the necessary consistency. So, by June or July of 2020, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan cycle will be completed. On October 9, 2018 the City Council and Planning Commission held a workshop to review the draft plan. It was then distributed to affected jurisdictions and agencies for review and comment. The review period was six-months, which elapsed on April 18th, 2019. Comments from adjacent communities are attached. They includ no major concerns; only minor issues that were able to be addressed. So, with completion of the jurisdictional review, the City Council held a public hearing on May 7, 2019 to adopt the draft plan and authorize its release to the Metropolitan Council for review. COMMENTS The complete draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is available on the City’s website. The link is https://www.ci.stillwater.mn.us/2040compplan. Please note that the on-line version does not yet include the revisions generated by the jurisdictional review. What is new? The 2040 Comprehensive Plan has several changes of substance, including: 1) Completely re-written Downtown Chapter and Historic Resources Chapter, as well as a new Trail Plan. 2) The Land Use Chapter has a new land use classification: Highway Mixed Use. In order to meet housing goals, portions of the Highway 36 corridor are now guided for mixed use development, which would allow housing as well as commercial uses. 3) An in-depth market analysis by Maxfield Research. 4) As with many other cities in the Metro Area, Stillwater’s new plan focuses attention on housing, sustainability & resiliency, and water resources. Anticipated Metropolitan Council concerns Staff expects to hear from the Metropolitan Council that the City will have to more aggressively address the inflow and infiltration of stormwater and groundwater into the sanitary sewer treatment system. Attachments: Jurisdictional review comments Stillwater Comprehensive Plan Update - 6 Month Review Agency Date Received Comment Stillwater Response Comp Plan Page #Comments Browns Creek Watershed District Comments were not provided. Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District Comments were not provided. DNR 7-Feb-19 We recommend that your land use chapter include a more prominent discussion of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, and the protections afforded to this unique river. Please refer to the Lower St. Croix Cooperative Management Plan as a resource when preparing your discussion of the Riverway and include a history of the Riverway, the purposes for the establishment of the Riverway, including the key zoning restrictions that are in place. Revisions Made Page 3-9 DNR 7-Feb-19 To help the city’s efforts to protect and preserve the river, landowner education could be supported through promotion of the Landowner’s Guide to the Lower St. Croix Riverway found on the St. Croix River Association’s website: (https://www.stcroixriverassociation.org/land-protection/#riverway-regulations). There is also a short video about Riverway protection, best practices for zoning applications, a palette of earth tone and summer vegetation colors suggested for exterior paint colors in the Riverway area, recommended zoning guidelines, and other information. Revisions Made Page 3-9 DNR 7-Feb-19 Another item to highlight in the land use (or natural resources) chapter is the presence of native mussel populations. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “The St. Croix River watershed is the premier mussel watershed of the Upper Mississippi River, and one of the premier mussel watersheds of the world.” According to the DNR’s mussel expert, cities have a role in protecting this mussel through surface water management, especially smart salting practices. Revisions Made Page 3-9 DNR 7-Feb-19 The DNR supports including data from the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) in the Comprehensive Plan, as you have done. We recommend that the plan also include goals and strategies to address how rare species and plant communities will be protected. Acknowledged - No Revision Made DNR 7-Feb-19 Your community is within the North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area (GWMA). We suggest you include the following information in your plan: Stillwater is within the North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area (GWMA), designated by the Minnesota DNR. The North and East Metro GWMA includes all of Washington County, all of Ramsey County, and portions of Anoka and Hennepin Counties. The GWMA Plan will guide the DNR’s efforts to manage groundwater appropriations sustainably in this area over the next five years. The Plan establishes sustainability goals to help appropriation permit holders plan for their future water use and ensure that groundwater supplies remain adequate to meet human needs while protecting lakes, streams and wetlands. Revisions Made Page 3-2 DNR 7-Feb-19 It would be worth mentioning in the narrative of the comprehensive plan if Stillwater has developed a plan for the city’s forestry needs as part of an overall strategy to meet its environmental goals and policies. Acknowledged - No Revision Made DNR 7-Feb-19 Consider indicating snowmobile trails on park systems plans. State- supported grant-in-aid trails connect your community to an extensive network of trails throughout the state. Including the trails on inventories would raise awareness of this recreational activity. Acknowledged - No Revision Made DNR 7-Feb-19 Introduction. A brief community description that includes the city’s natural features (as is included in the Land Use chapter) would be a help set the context for the importance that the city’s residents place on natural resource and environmental protection. Acknowledged - No Revision Made DNR 7-Feb-19 P. 1-9. The plan could include a reference to Stillwater as becoming the fourth “pollinator-friendly city” in Minnesota. This is according to the Stillwater-based Pollinator Friendly Alliance, and evidenced by the new pollinator park installation at Laurel & Owens. Acknowledged - No Revision Made DNR 7-Feb-19 Land Use Chapter. Including a map from the natural resource inventory shown in the Natural Resource chapter would help the reader visualize remaining habitat in the context of land use policies, especially when the development/redevelopment site plans are shown in isolation. Acknowledged - No Revision Made DNR 7-Feb-19 P. 3-1. We appreciate the recognition of Brown’s Creek as a designated trout stream. There are also designated tributaries that we suggest be mentioned and shown on the map. The DNR is responsible for protection and management of the state’s surface waters, including cold water trout streams and tributaries. In issuing permits for groundwater use, and reviewing Environmental Impact Statements, any impacts on trout streams will be considered. The transportation chapter indicates upcoming road projects on Stonebridge Trail, a road that crosses the creek. Acknowledged - No Revision Made DNR 7-Feb-19 P. 3-2. The reference to Jackson Wildlife Management Area should be removed or updated to its current name, ownership and status. Revisions Made Page 3-2 DNR 7-Feb-19 P. 3-3. The referenced project is called the Metro Conservation Corridors (rather than wildlife).Revisions Made Page 3-3 DNR 7-Feb-19 P. 3-14. In the second paragraph of the greenway corridor section, we request the following language: The Minnesota DNR developed a Metro Conservation Corridors analysis and map to help counties and local governments prioritize areas for conservation and restoration. This analysis identifies high-quality natural areas, existing protected and/or public open space areas such as designated wildlife management areas, natural corridors such as stream courses, and connecting areas between these features. The assessment identifies a corridor within Stillwater located along the St. Croix River and Brown’s Creek. Revisions Made Page 3-14 DNR 7-Feb-19 P. 3-17. Include a reference to the Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS), the MPCA’s more Minnesota specific guidance on storm water management design: https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Overview_of_Minimal_Impact_Design_ Standards_(MIDS) Acknowledged - No Revision Made DNR 7-Feb-19 P. 3-18. Update the link to the Beyond the Suburbs book: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/urban/beyond_suburbs.html Revisions Made Page 3-18 DNR 7-Feb-19 Parks Chapter. The narrative could include a description of the St Croix National Scenic Riverway and what that designation means for the city and city planning. Acknowledged - No Revision Made DNR 7-Feb-19 P. 8-7. The description of Lily Lake could include the information that it is a Fishing in the Neighborhood Pond that is periodically stocked by the DNR. (Side note -The formatting is confusing because it is under the heading of Private Recreation and the city web site shows it as a city park). Revisions Made Page 8-7 Grant Comments were not provided. ISD #834 19-Oct-18 We have reviewed the proposed Plan Update, do not have any comments, and are therefore waiving further review.Acknowledged - No Revision Made Lake Elmo 2-Apr-19 The proposed land use plan (pages 2-15 and 2-16) shows an Area G which is on the south side of Highway 36 and east of Manning Avenue (which is now in Stillwater Township). How the site develops with street connections and intersections, building setbacks, heights and intensities and screening are all factors that Stillwater should take into account when reviewing and approving development plans for the area. Lake Elmo encourages the City of Stillwater to recognize the adjacent single- family residential and open space land uses in Lake Elmo and require significant screening and buffering standards between the proposed Highway Mixed Use and Open Space land uses. Stillwater should put development standards in place to minimize the negative effects the new development in the area east of Manning Avenue could have on the existing residents in the area. Acknowledged - No Revision Made If and when this area develops, Stillwater will address these comments as part of the development review process. Lake Elmo The City of Lake Elmo is concerned about the potential impacts that the changes to the road system in and near Area G could have on existing residents – especially those living in the Sanctuary development west of Manning Avenue. The City of Lake Elmo expects that any future road changes will preserve the existing level of street access for those residents and that any changes will not require longer drives or circuitous routes for them when they leave their development. Acknowledged - No Revision Made If and when this area develops, Stillwater will address these comments as part of the development review process. Lake Elmo The City of Lake Elmo wants to work with the adjacent government agencies (including Stillwater) to develop a roadway ownership, cost sharing and maintenance responsibility agreement for Manning Avenue, south of Highway 36. As the Highway 36-Manning Avenue interchange project proceeds and the southeast quadrant of the intersection develops, there will be significant cost implications going forward that will need to be addressed and agreed upon by all affected government agencies. Acknowledged - No Revision Made If and when this area develops, Stillwater will address these comments as part of the development review process. Lake Elmo The City of Lake Elmo either provides, or can readily, provide municipal water service to the areas of Lake Elmo immediately adjacent to Area G. However, sanitary sewer is not readily available to serve these areas. Since these areas are outside Lake Elmo’s planned MUSA boundaries, the City has not prepared any plans to bring municipal sanitary sewer to that area. Acknowledged - No Revision Made If and when this area develops, Stillwater will address these comments as part of the development review process. Middle-St. Croix Watershed Management Organization Comments were not provided. MnDOT 7-Nov-18 Additional lanes on TH 36 and TH 95 will likely require construction of storm water ponds. Therefore transportation planning should include right-of-way needs associated with proposed pond locations. These projects may also affect drainage flows into the MnDOT Right of Way and a drainage permit may be required. We would like to review the computations and plans as a check that the proposed development maintains or reduces drainage rates to MnDOT right of way. Please include both existing and proposed site conditions for comparison. Please submit the documents below with the drainage permit application for review and approval: 1. Proposed grading plans, proposed drainage plans and all hydraulic calculations. Please show that the proposed drainage rate to MnDOT right-of-way is the same as or less than existing conditions. 2. Existing and Proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that correspond with the submitted calculations. 3. Hydro CAD model and the corresponding .pdf output for the 2, I 0, and 100 year Atlas 14 storm events. Acknowledged - No Revision Made The City is not submitting or requesting drainage permits as part of the comprehensive planning process. The City will continue to collaborate with MnDOT regarding improvements to their roadway system. National Park Service; SCSR Comments were not provided. Oak Park Heights Comments were not provided. Stillwater Township 19-Feb-19 In reviewing the twelve chapters of the plan, we found nothing of concern as it relates to Stillwater Township. Instead we noted opportunities to coordinate our efforts around natural resource protection and trail planning along our border. Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 Page 1-11 Community Background, Life Cycle Housing: The county supports the emphasis placed on developing life cycle housing so that a range of housing options are available to meet resident needs at different life stages and affordability levels. Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 Page 2-21 Land Use, Land Use Category Definitions: The county supports the inclusion of the medium and high density categories that are typically necessary for units affordable to low income residents to be financially feasible. Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 Page 4-2 Housing, Housing Goals, Goal 2: The county supports Goal 2's call for affordable life cycle housing and the emphasis of the objectives to locate different types of housing near associated services and amenities that can best support residents. Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 Pages 4-2, 4-13, 4-14, 12-10, 12-11: Please correct reference from Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to Community Development Agency (CDA) on these pages and any others in the document. Revisions Made Throughout the Plan Washington County 11-Dec-18 Pages 4-12 & 12-9, 12-18: The county supports the development of a Housing Action Plan. In particular, Housing Action Item #1 to help preserve naturally occurring affordable housing, and Housing Action Item #2 to develop tools to increase the supply of affordable housing. Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 Pages 4-13, 4-14 & 12-10, 12-11, 12-18: The county appreciates the inclusion of the CDA's programs in the Housing Tools Table 4.16 and as well as the efforts to collaborate with the CDA to preserve and develop more affordable housing in the Implementation Measures section. Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 Pages 4-13, 4-14 & 12-10, 12-11, 12-18: The county supports all of the strategies outlined in the Implementation Measures section to preserve and develop more affordable housing. The robust set of strategies along with the Housing Action Plan dedicated for this purpose is commendable. Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 Pages 4-13, 4-14 & 12-10, 12-11, 12-18: The county suggests including as implementation tools the CDA administered federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program and the CDA GROW fund gap financing program. Revisions Made Page 4-16 Washington County 11-Dec-18 Page 8-15: Please relabel Washington County Greenway Regional Trail to Washington County Central Greenway Regional Trail.Revisions Made Page 8-15 Washington County 11-Dec-18 Also note the City of Hastings is not included in the Central Greenway Regional Trail corridor. Once fully developed, it will connect trail users to Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park, Lake Elmo Park Reserve, and Big Marine Park Reserve. Revisions Made Page 8-15 Washington County 11-Dec-18 Page 3-13 Natural Resources: Consider updating the nomenclature for the Franconia-Ironton-Galesville (FIG) aquifer, and any subsequent references, to the Tunnel City-Wonewoc. Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 The county is encouraged to see the city include descriptions and strategies related to sustainability, low impact development, conservation design subdivisions, as it relates to protection of water resources. Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 Washington County is encouraged by the city's plans to provide opportunities for healthy living designed to serve the needs of residents of all ages, economic situations and physical abilities. Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 Consider adding a statement to Housing chapter to support efforts to provide smoke-free multi- unit housing for residents especially with new construction projects. Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 Planning for healthy food access and food infrastructure was not apparent in the draft plan. This could provide an opportunity for the city to review and consider the Minnesota Food Charter which includes a section on the Food Infrastructure (pages 16- 19). http://mnfoodcharter.com/ Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 The county is encouraged by the City of Stillwater's 'Stillwater Sustainability Framework' to promote strategies and best practices pertaining to climate change and energy. It is exciting to see the city strive to remove barriers and encourage installation of renewable energy. In addition, the county commends the city for taking an interest in how energy is consumed to better understand how to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas. We look forward to partnering with you where and when opportunities arise to create a more sustainable region. Acknowledged - No Revision Made Washington County 11-Dec-18 To align with the Washington County Waste Management Master Plan 2018-2036 strategy in creating away-from-home recycling opportunities in parks, athletic fields, arenas, and recreation centers consider collaborating with the county to add waste and recycling stations along city trails and in parks and other public spaces. Acknowledged - No Revision Made