Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-14 CPC PacketTHE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, August 14, 2006, at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street AGENDA 1 CALL TO ORDER 2 APPROVAL OF JULY 10, 2006 MINUTES 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 01 Case No PUD/SUB/ZAM/06-16 A planned unit development for a 50 lot development on 25 28 acres located at 12525 75th St N and 12620 and 12550 72nd St N in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District (Legacy on Long Lake), a subdivision of a 50 lot development of residential use and a zoning map amendment to rezone from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RA, Single Family Residential Elite Development, applicant (Continued from the June 12, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting) 3 02 Case No V/06-28 A variance to allow twenty-eight percent (28%) of the lot area to be covered in buildings in excess of the allowable twenty-five percent (25%) and a variance to allow the total ground coverage of the accessory building to exceed the ground area coverage of the principal building located at 515 N Everett Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District John and Kim Brach, applicants (Continued from the July 10, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting) 3 03 Case No V/06-40 A variance for the construction of a 7,202 square foot maintenance and facility pole shed located at 400 West Poplar in the RA, Single Family Residential District Daniel Brookman, representing Stillwater Country Club, applicant 3 04 Case No SUP/06-42 A special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit located at 519 3rd Street South in the RB, Two Family Residential District Walter Wdowychyn, applicant 3 05 Case No V/06-43 A variance to the street front yard setback (20 feet CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651 430 8800 WEBSITE www ci stillwater mn us required, 10'4" requested) for the construction of an addition located at 125 North Martha Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District James Barton, applicant 3 06 Case No ANN/ZAM/CPA/PUD/SUB/06-45 An annexation, zoning map amendment, comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary PUD and preliminary plat request for a 15 lot development on 9 5 acres (Brown's Creek Reserve) in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District Tim Freeman, Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc 3 07 Case No SUP/V/06-46 A special use permit for a drive through for Valley Ridge Shopping Center and a variance to the sign regulations located at 1250 Frontage Road in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District Knss Novak, applicant 3 08 Case No V/06-47 A variance to the sign regulations for Stone's Restaurant located at 324 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District Mike Stone, applicant 3 09 Case No ZAT/06-04 A zoning text amendment to the CR, Cottage Residential District for driveway widths City of Stillwater, applicant 3 10 Case No ZAT/06-05 A zoning text amendment to the CBD Height Regulations City of Stillwater, applicant 4 OTHER BUSINESS 4 01 Case No 06-44 Bruggeman Properties sketch proposal for development of 18 3 acres into 45 single family lots Teresa Hegland, Steve Fisher, applicants 4 02 Case No SUP/06-23 CUB Foods discussion on reconsideration of special use permit for fuel station City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 10 2006 Present Robert Gag chairperson Suzanne Block Gregg Carlsen Mike Dahlquist David Junker (8 20 p m) Brad Meinke Dave Middleton David Peroceschi and Paul Teske Others Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Mr Gag called the meeting to order at 7 p m Approval of minutes Mr Dahlquist seconded by Mr Teske moved approval of the minutes of June 12 2006 as presented Motion passed unanimously PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No PUD/SUB/ZAM/06-16 This case was continued until the August meeting Case No V/06-21 A variance to the street yard setback (20 feet required 0 feet requested) for construction of a single -car garage at 923 W Maple St in the RB Two Family Residential District Roberta Pugsley applicant The applicant was present Mr Pogge reviewed the staff report that concluded with the recommendation for approval with two conditions Mr Gag opened the public hearing No comments were received and the hearing was closed Mr Carlsen asked whether the garage would have the same roof pitch as the main residence Ms Pugsley responded that the property is for sale Mr Peroceschi asked if the variance request was initiated to make the property more saleable Ms Pugsley responded in the affirmative but said if she does retain ownership she will build a garage Mr Middleton moved approval as conditioned Mr Meinke seconded the motion Mr Dahlquist suggested adding a third condition that the roof pitch matches the main structure Mr Middleton and Mr Meinke agreed to add that condition to the motion of approval Amended motion passed unanimously Case SUBN/06-25 A resubdivision of two lots at 1802 Fourth St N and 206 W Poplar and a variance to the lot size regulations to create a lot in the RB Two Family Residential District Scott Junker applicant Scott Junker was present Mr Turnblad reviewed the staff report It was noted that the proposed resubdivision could result in three lots all of which meet the minimum lot size of 10 000 square feet However that arrangement would result in a bizarre configuration of lot lines It was the staff recommendation to grant the requested variance for lot C allowing that lot to be 9 400 square feet in order to create a more coherent lot line arrangement No comments were received when the hearing was opened Mr Peroceschi asked if a survey had been completed Mr Turnblad noted that if the resubdivision is approved a survey will have to be completed for deeds and platting Mr Middleton suggested adding a condition that lot B be a minimum of 10 000 square feet Mr Dahlquist noted that if a deck is placed on the north side of Scott Junker s existing house another variance would be required Scott Junker said he 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 10, 2006 would be comfortable with adding a condition that no variance will be granted for lot C Mr Dahlquist noted that there is a way to subdivide the properties without a variance but that creates a worse situation in respect to lot configuration in explaining his support for the variance request Mr Teske moved approval as conditioned with the additional conditions that lot B be a minimum of 10 000 square feet and that no variance will be granted for lot C Mr Middleton seconded the motion motion passed unanimously (David Junker was not present for this vote ) Case No V/06-28 A variance to allow 28 percent of the lot area to be covered in buildings in excess of the allowable 25 percent and a variance to allow the total ground coverage of the accessory building to exceed the ground area coverage of the principal building at 515 N Everett St in the RB Two Family Residential District John and Kim Brach applicants Mr Brach was present Mr Turnblad reviewed the staff report The applicant is planning to construct a garage and two future additions It was noted there is an historic shed on the property that is over 50 years old Mr Turnblad said staff would recommend the variance to lot coverage and size of accessory structure to construct the garage and preserve the existing shed Staff also was comfortable with the proposed setback from the ravine Mr Turnblad said However he said staff could not support plans for a second future addition to the house Mr Middleton asked what the Heritage Preservation Commission might do regarding the existing shed Mr Turnblad said the HPC would likely require the shed to be moved if a variance was not granted but would not allow the shed to be demolished Mr Brach pointed out that his plans had changed somewhat from what was included in the staff report He said one of the planned future addition will now be 50 square feet smaller that what was previously planned and listed in the staff report In addition he said the garage has been downsized somewhat and is now planned to be 22x22 rather than 22x 23 5 The changes would result in 1 730 square feet of building coverage when the proposed additions are completed rather than 1 853 square feet of building coverage as noted in the staff report Mr Teske seconded by Mr Dahlquist moved to continue the case until the applicant provides firm figures regarding building square footage Motion passed unanimously Case No V/06-29 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required 15 feet requested) for construction of a deck at 1331 Macey Court in the CCR Cottage Cove Residential District Scott and Jennifer Shutes applicants Mr Pogge reviewed the request and staff report Ms Block asked Mr Pogge if he had any observations regarding the CCR District Mr Pogge said he thought constructing future decks could be an issue with about 20 percent of the lots in the CCR District and he suggested that it might be appropriate for the Commission to consider a zoning text amendment rather than numerous individual lot variances He noted that in this instance granting a variance would not be detrimental to other properties as the lot abuts a park 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 10 2006 No comments were received when the hearing was opened The applicants noted that their neighbors had been contacted and none objected to their plans The homeowners association also approved the plans they said Mr Carlsen said he would feel more comfortable considering a text amendment rather than individual requests It was noted that preparing a text amendment could take 6-8 weeks Eric Thole 1211 Macey Way also present for a variance request related to construction of a deck asked that this case and his request be decided on their merits and then consider a text amendment if the Commission feels that is appropriate Mr Thole also pointed out that in this phase of the Settlers Glen development there are not many lots that might require similar variances Mr Middleton agreed that the two requests before the Commission should be considered first and then look at a possible text amendment Mr Middleton moved to approve Case No V/06-29 as conditioned Mr Teske seconded the motion Mr Dahlquist agreed the Commission should look at a possible text amendment but noted that an amendment if passed might not match what is being granted here Mr Dahlquist also pointed out there is a way for a deck to be constructed without a variance Mr Teske called the question Motion passed 7-1 with Mr Dahlquist voting no and Mr Junker absent Case No V/06-30 A variance request to the rear yard setback (25 feet required 18 feet requested) for construction of a deck at 1211 Macey Way in the CCR Cottage Cove Residential District Eric and Amy Thole applicants Mr Pogge reviewed the request and staff report He noted that the placement of the house does create a hardship and the proposed deck would not impact any adjacent property owners Eric Thole was present No comments were received when the hearing was opened Mr Peroceschi seconded by Mr Carlsen moved approval as conditioned Motion passed 7-1 with Mr Dahlquist voting no and Mr Junker absent Case No V/06-31 A variance to the fence regulations for a 54 fence (42 allowed) at 907 W Willard St in the RB Two Family Residential District Gaye Lundstrom applicant Mr Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings He noted that the fence which is already in place is an ornamental wrought iron fence that does not obstruct vision He did note that one complaint had been received Ms Lundstrom was present She pointed out the decorative fence is unobtrusive and has a large opening in front Mr Gag opened the public hearing Margaret Peterson 919 W Willard said she has no problem seeing when backing out of her driveway She said she thought the fence was beautiful and adds to the property Roger Holten 904 W Willard also said he liked the fence and thought it adds to the neighborhood and property 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 10 2006 Larry Malowski said he would like the fence to stay and said he thought the applicant had done a wonderful job at renovation No other comments were received Mr Teske seconded by Mr Menke moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unanimously Case No V/06-32 A variance to the side yard corner setback (25 feet required 10 feet requested) for construction of a residence at 735 Liberty Court in the LR Lakeshore Residential District American Classic Homes applicant Mr Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings He noted the type of turn -around involved was used to avoid the loss of a lot He noted this is a platted lot and said staff believes a house can be constructed on the lot using other design considerations Tim Johnson was present representing American Classic Homes Mr Johnson noted that the hammerhead is not classified as a street and the only easement is for emergency access He said the proposed house design is attempting to be respectful of neighbors Mr Johnson noted the letter of objection included in the agenda packet was written by the owners of a house that is quite a bit higher than this house would be and he said he didn t think the proposed house would adversely affect the other property owners view Mr Gag opened the public hearing Deborah Charpentier 725 Liberty Court said the proposal encroaches on her privacy and said there is a wetland easement involved She said she would like to see the house reconfigured to meet the easements He also noted that the other property owners (Tom Pedersen and Mary Ann Gire) who wrote the letter could not be in attendance but wanted her to express their concerns No other comments were received and the hearing was closed Mr Teske noted there is no question as to what the required setbacks are and what easements are involved and moved to deny Case No V/06-32 Mr Dahlquist seconded the motion motion passed unanimously Case No V/06-33 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required 20 feet requested) for a pool at 113 Myrtlewood Court in the RA Single Family Residential District Troy Krammer applicant Mr Pogge reviewed the staff findings and recommendations Mr Krammer stated he was aware of the underground drainage easement when he purchased the property He responded to the staff findings as presented in a letter included in the agenda packet Mr Krammer also provided a letter from an engineering firm, as requested by City Engineer Sanders which provided an opinion that the proposed pool did not represent a load greater than could be withstood by the underground drainage pipe Mr Krammer said the pool would have no adverse impact on neighbors and said the homeowners association had provided a letter indicating the association has no problem with the plans Mr Krammer further stated that he would be happy to change his plans and utilize an oval pool in order to meet the 10-foot setback required of all pools Mr Peroceschi asked if staff would have to review the revised plans Mr Turnblad said not if the plans are clear enough Mr Teske said he did not think the 25-foot setback required of all 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 10 2006 structures should apply to this request for an above -ground pool Mr Teske moved approval of the revised plans with the condition that the pool be no closer than 11 feet to the rear property line and that all revisions to the approved plan be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director Mr Middleton seconded the motion motion passed unanimously Case No SUP/06-34 A special use permit for construction of a 265-space parking lot at 14949 62nd St N in the PA Public Administration District Don Theisen Washington County Government Center applicant Mr Pogge reviewed the staff report and findings He noted that the County is requesting the parking lot expansion at this time in anticipation of a building expansion in the near future at which time a PUD will be submitted The report noted that lighting and landscape plans had not been submitted but should be required Representing Washington County were Ann Pung Terwedo and Ted Schonecker Ms Terwedo stated the proposed parking expansion would be used primarily for employee parking She said the County is working on a major expansion and is seeking approval of the parking expansion at this time to meet current needs Mr Schonecker reviewed plans for the parking lot He noted that the County is planning rain gardens and is working with the water management organization regarding stormwater retention plans He stated that the lighting plan must meet Oak Park Heights requirements according the joint powers agreement between the County and the cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights Mr Schonecker noted the County hosted a public information meeting to receive input regarding the parking expansion plans — no people attended the meeting Mr Teske moved approval of the SUP as conditioned Mr Carlsen asked about the preservation of trees Mr Teske agreed to add submission of a tree preservation plan as a condition of approval Mr Peroceschi seconded the motion motion passed unanimously Case No V/06-37 A variance to the Bluffland Shoreland Regulations for replacement of an existing deck at 114 Lakeside Drive in the RB Two Family Residential District Jon and Deanne Stratte applicants Mr Pogge reviewed the staff findings and recommendations It was noted that the original deck was construction prior to the formation of the Bluffland Shoreland Overlay District He said the DNR has no objection to the footprint of the existing deck Jon Stratte was present He noted there has always been a deck on the house The existing deck was built in the early 1980s and some of the boards are rotting and need to be replaced as well as to meet new building codes The proposed deck will be slightly smaller than the original structure he said Mr Teske seconded by Mr Peroceschi moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unanimously Case No SUP/V/SUB/06-38 A special use permit for a private parking facility for more than five cars variance to the parking regulations and lot combination of two Tots — one lot of 12 119 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 10 2006 square feet and the second lot of 5 519 square feet — into one lot of 17 638 square feet at 227 N Main St in the CBD Central Business District Mainstream Development Partnership LLC applicant Mr Turnblad reviewed the staff report and findings He noted that the applicant had revised plans so the proposed structure is two stories with one level of underground parking The last revision eliminates the need for a variance from the infill height regulations He noted that the two items for the Commissions consideration are the requested SUP for the parking structure and variance from the parking spaces provided The issue regarding the vacation of an existing easement is a Council decision he noted He said a parking inventory indicates there is sufficient parking in the area of the proposed building and the building use will not impact the peak demand times Staff recommends approval withl5 conditions he concluded Tim Stefan representing the applicant stated the previous plans were an attempt to clarify the City s new height regulations He said the latest revision is a design they are happy with and believe will be successful Mr Junker noted that the Loft model has been removed from the nearby public parking area which opens up 85 parking spaces Mr Stefan said they had photos surveys that show there are only about 10-15 cars in that lot during business hours Ms Block noted that the tenants for the second floor office space in the new building are existing downtown tenants and will not add to parking demand Mr Middleton noted there are many downtown businesses that don t provide their own parking Mr Teske moved approval of the SUP and parking variance as conditioned Mr Middleton seconded the motion Members expressed their appreciation to the applicant for the willingness to listen to and modify plans to satisfy the Commission and Council s concerns Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously OTHER BUSINESS Case No 06-35 Sketch discussion on a proposed 17-lot residential development at 12205 McKusick Road N in the RR Rural Residential District Krech Exteriors applicant Case No 06-36 Sketch discussion on a proposed 22-lot residential development at 8233 8313 8483 Marylane Ave N in the RR Rural Residential District Classic Home Design applicant Representatives of both potential developers were present Mr Pogge briefly reviewed the plans and some of the issues Mr Gag suggested that the whole area in question needs to be looked at Mr Turnblad noted that the City has pushed for that but there are too many property owners involved Mr Junker said he liked the square footage and proposed lot sizes but noted that the Manning Station development had been denied due to concerns about the infrastructure and Manning Avenue Kathy Hemen 8233 Marylane Ave N urged the Commission not to allow development in bits and pieces but to develop the entire area properly Ms Block noted that Manning Avenue is already highly overused with no plans for improvements on the roadway from County Road 12 to Highway 96 She said the proposals 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 10 2006 would impact an already desperate situation Mr Carlsen said the proposed development in the area look like a patchwork quilt with no pattern Given issues related to traffic and utilities Mr Carlsen spoke in favor of putting the brakes on any annexation/development and looking at the whole area Mr Junker and Mr Teske both called for the Commission to look at the entire quadrant and discuss what type of development the Commission/City would like to see for that area Mr Dahlquist said there was no way he would consider early annexation without a coherent plan and approach to development of the properties in question It was suggested that the action of the Commission could be a straw vote on the issue of annexation Mr Teske moved to recommend that the Council consider no further annexation in that area (the northwest quadrant) of the City due to traffic concerns and the lack of clear vision for development The language of the motion was amended to recommend denial of any additional development in the area of Manning/McKusick until transportation/infrastructure improvements are made that will allow for additional development Mr Dahlquist said he would be reluctant to have a blanket denial as there are some instances where early annexation might make sense Ms Block seconded the motion Mr Junker said the Commission needs to develop a vision for the area a vision that addresses density and other issues and suggested that focus could come with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update The motion was amended to specify denial relates to Cases No 06-35 and 06-36 and Manning Station and the area south of McKusick Road and west of Neal Avenue Motion passed unanimously A representative of the developers asked if they could be part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process Mr Turnblad responded they would be welcome to participate and should ask to be on the mailing list so as to be aware of when discussions/workshops are scheduled Mr Middleton seconded by Mr Peroceschi moved to adjourn at 10 30 p m Respectfully submitted Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 7 Memo To Planning Commission From Bill Turnbald, Community Development Director Date August 9, 2006 Subject Continuance of Case No PUD/SUB/ZAM/06-16 The applicant for Case No PUD/SUB/ZAM/06-16 has asked for a continuance of the public hearing to the September 11, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting a TH B F T H P L A C E 01 M I N N!' 0 1 A DATE July 5, 2006 APPLICANT John Brach CASE NO V/06-28 REQUEST 1) Building coverage variance 2) Accessory structure coverage variance 3) Variance to allow ground coverage of accessory structures to exceed that of house 4) Variance to allow second accessory structure to be larger than 120 square feet 5) Ravine setback variance LOCATION 515 North Everett Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SFSL, Single Family Small Lot PLANNING COMMISSION DATE July 10, 2006 ZONING RB, Two -Family Residential REVIEWERS City Planner, Interim Public Works Director PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Mr John Brach is renovating the property at 515 North Everett Street As part of the work he is planning two additions and a garage The garage would be built first At some undetermined time in the future, the two additions would be constructed The proposed improvements together with the footprint of the existing house would result in a building coverage of 31 6% In the subject RB Zorung District, only 25% building cover is permitted Therefore, a building coverage variance is being requested Also, in the RB Zoning District, the total ground coverage of accessory buildings is limited to 1,000 square feet or 10% of the lot area, whichever is less In this case, since the lot is only 5,856 square feet in area, the total coverage of accessory buildings is limited to 4 Brach Variances July 5 2006 Page 2 of 6 586 square feet With the proposed 517 square foot coverage of the garage and the 200 square foot existing historic outbuilding, the maximum allowance is exceeded by 131 square feet A variance is being requested from this standard In the RB Zoning District the square footage for the ground cover of the accessory structure can not exceed the ground cover of the house The combined coverage of the proposed garage and the existing historic outbuilding is 717 square feet The ground cover of the house (without the proposed future additions) is 636 square feet Therefore an 81 square foot variance is being requested from this standard to avoid demolition of the historic outbuilding Finally, in the RB Zoning District two accessory buildings are allowed but one of them can not exceed a size of 120 square feet Since the historic outbuilding has a size of 200 square feet, an 80 square foot variance is being requested to allow the historic building to remain Mr Brach appeared before the Planning Commission on July 10, 2006 with a very similar set of requests During the course of the public hearing, Mr Brach discussed the possibility of downsizing some of the improvements to reduce the magnitude of some of the variances To give the applicant time to formalize the changes, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to August 14, 2006 The revised project proposal has reduced the size of the garage by 33 square feet and the size of the proposed house additions by 90 square feet The net effect is to reduce the size of some of the variances, but not to eliminate any of them SPECIFIC REQUEST In order for Mr Brach to proceed with his project, the following specific actions would be needed 1) Approval of a variance from City Code Section 31-1, Subd 12(5)a 5, which limits total building coverage in the RB Zoning District to 25% The proposed building coverage is 31 6% 2) Approval of a variance from City Code Section 31-1, Subd 12(3)a, which limits the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings in the RB Zoning District to 1,000 square feet or 10% of the lot size, whichever is less The 10% rule applies here since the lot has an area of less than 10,000 square feet The lot's 5,856 square feet would allow a total accessory building coverage of 586 square feet The proposed accessory building coverage is 717 square feet Therefore a 131 square foot variance is being requested Brach Variances July 5 2006 Page 3 of 6 3) Approval of a variance from City Code Section 31-1, Subd 12(3)b, which states that the total ground cover of the accessory structures in the RB Zoning District can not exceed the ground cover of the house The house has a ground cover of 636 square feet The 717 square feet of accessory building exceeds this standard by 81 square feet A variance of this amount is being requested 4) Approval of a variance from City Code Section 31-1, Subd 12(3)c, which states that two accessory buildings are allowed in the RB Zoning District, but that the second accessory building can not exceed a size of 120 square feet Since the historic outbuilding has a size of 200 square feet, an 80 square foot variance is being requested 5) Approval of a variance from City Code Section 31-5, Subd 2(3)4, which prohibits any structure from being built within 30 feet of a 25% or greater slope Since the garage is proposed to be constructed within about 24 feet of the edge of the Mulberry Street Ravine, a 6 foot variance is being requested EVALUATION OF REQUEST I Variances One of the City s policies is to preserve as much of its historical building stock as practically possible The Brach's agree with this policy and would like to keep the historic outbuilding on their lot The outbuilding is over 100 years old and is in good enough shape structurally to save and restore Not only does the building have potential historical value based on its age, but it also has unique architectural features that are worth saving However, the City's ordinances present conflicting public policy On the one hand the Demolition Ordinance discourages or prohibits demolition of the building On the other hand the Zoning Ordinance prohibits construction of a garage if the relatively small historical accessory building is saved Specifically, Variance Requests 2-4 as detailed above in this report would not be necessary if the Demolition Ordinance allowed the historic building to be removed Therefore, in order to support the historic preservation policies of the City, Variance Requests 2-4 are supported by City staff [Comment Variance Request 4 could be eliminated if the historical outbuilding were connected to the new garage The landowner has suggested that as an alternative he would do this However, staff would like to leave open the option of keeping the historical outbuilding as a freestanding structure ] Variance Request 1 - A lot in the RB District is limited to 25 % building coverage The 5,856 lot could therefore have 1,464 square feet of building coverage With a 200 square Brach Variances July 5 2006 Page 4 of 6 foot variance to preserve the historical outbuilding, the property could support 1,664 square feet of coverage The proposed plans when all phases of construction are completed would result in 1,853 square feet of coverage Given the small size of the lot, staff believes that more than 1,664 square feet of coverage is excessive Consequently, staff only supports a variance allowing up to 1,664 square feet of building coverage Variance Request 5 - New structures are to be built at least 30 feet from the bluffline of the Mulberry Street Ravine Exhibit B shows the location of the bluffline (marked as "edge of 24% slope") and the location of the proposed garage As can be seen, the setback distance is about 24 feet The 6 foot variance is requested in order to place the garage at the 3 foot rear line setback This would allow the garage to be 22 feet deep and still have 25 feet between the house and the garage Given the grade change challenge and the turning maneuver necessary to get into the southerly garage stall, the variance request is reasonable II Miscellaneous If the City approves the various requested variances, or a combination of variances that would make construction of the garage possible, then the landowner will contract with consultants to create building plans for the garage Therefore, there are very few garage details to review at this time What is known is that the garage would have dimensions of 22' by 23 5', which would yield a ground coverage of 517 square feet The garage space measured from inside wall to inside wall would be 472 5 square feet per level Staff offers the following comments to be incorporated into the building permit application for the garage • The garage may be no more than one story tall Therefore, care must be taken in drawing up the building plans to avoid turning either the basement or the attic into a story o The basement would become a story if more than 50% of the surface area of the basement walls are exposed o The attic would become a story if the maximum ceiling height exceeds 6' 6" [A space with a ceiling of 6' 6" or less is not considered habitable by building code 1 • The garage may be no taller than 20 feet measured from the floor level of the garage to the midway point of the gable roof • The garage may be no taller than the house • A grading plan will need to be submitted with building permit application materials The grading plan will have to be found acceptable by the Public Works Director, or revised to his satisfaction Brach Variances July 5 2006 Page 5 of 6 • A driveway easement will be needed along the north property line as far back as the rear of the existing house A bit of the driveway encroaches onto the neighboring lot For the moment this is acceptable because the owner of that lot is Mrs Brach's mother But eventually all properties change hands, so an executed easement should be submitted and found satisfactory to the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit for the project • A support pole exists for the Excel power line at the front of the Brach's lot The support pole is located along the side lot line near where the garage would be constructed Backfill for garage construction may impact the support pole It is unclear whether an easement exists for the support pole Therefore, either a retaining wall will have to be built to protect the pole, or permission from Excel should be submitted for any proposed pole impacts This should be subrrutted together with the building permit application materials ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives A Approve If the proposed variances are found to be acceptable to the Planning Commission, it should approve them subject to the following conditions 1 The garage shall be no more than one story tall Therefore, care must be taken in drawing up the building plans to avoid turning either the basement or the attic into a story • The basement would become a story if more than 50% of the surface area of the basement walls were exposed • The attic would become a story if the maximum ceiling height were to exceed 6' 6" 2 The garage shall be no taller than 20 feet measured from the floor level of the garage to the midway point of the gable roof 3 The garage shall be no taller than the house 4 A grading plan shall be submitted with building permit application materials The grading plan will have to be found acceptable by the Public Works Director, or revised to his satisfaction 5 An executed driveway easement shall be submitted and found satisfactory to the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit for the project 6 Either a retaining wall will have to be built to protect the Excel support pole on the northern property line, or permission from Excel should be submitted for any proposed pole impacts A decision on which alternative will have to be made by the landowner and support documents shall be submitted and found satisfactory by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit for the project J Brach Variances July 5 2006 Page 6 of 6 B Approve in Part C Deny If the Planning Commission finds that the variances are not advisable, it could deny them With a denial, the basis of the action should be given D Table If the Planning Comrrussion needs more information to make a decision, the requests could be tabled until that information is submitted RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that supporting the public policy to preserve historical structures outweighs the relatively minor potential impacts of this particular project We also find that the requested 6 foot ravine bluffhne setback variance is reasonable in order to provide sufficient vehicle maneuvering space between the garage and the back of the home However, we do not find that a total lot coverage variance allowing any more than 1,664 square feet of building coverage on the lot is merited Therefore with the conditions detailed in Alternative A above, staff recommends • approval of Variance Requests 2-4, and • approval of the 6 foot ravine bluffline setback variance, and • approval of a building coverage variance to allow 1,664 total square feet of building coverage, but • denial of the building coverage variance to allow 1,853 total square feet of building coverage cc John Brach attachments Location Map Site Plan Apphcahon materials Ity of (411te&,, Community Development Department =I Property lines Zoning Districts LJ A-P, Agricultural Preservation '—' RA - Single Family Residential RB - Two Family • LR, Lakeshore Residential TR, Traditional Residential CTR, Cove Traditional Residential CCR, Cove Cottage Residential 1:17 CR, Cottage Residential ▪ TH, Townhouse • CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential CBD - Central Business District CA - General Commercial CRD - Campus Research Development VC, Village Commercial BP-C, Business Park - Commercial BP-O, Business Park - Office BP -I, Business Park - Industrial IB - Heavy Industrial PA - Public Administration Public Works Facility Island POTENTIAL RIGHT-OF-WAY WATER Railroad ach Variances Location & Zoning Map Exhibit A C'ommunin Development Department proposed garage historic shed 10x20=200 sf �` Date July 24, 2006 To Stillwater Planning Commission Subj Variance Request This letter is to further clarify my variance request that was discussed at the July 10 Planning Commission meeting To summanze, my plan is to construct a garage and put two additions on my house at 515 N Everett There is a histonc shed on the property that I would like to preserve if possible City staff has recommended approval of variances that would exclude the histonc shed from consideration and a slight variance from the ravine slope setback to allow the garage to fit on the property However, staff did not recommend in favor of the total square footage we had requested As mentioned at the last meeting, we reconfigured our plans and reduced the proposed building area but it is still slightly over the staff recommended area A question also came up regarding impervious area and I did not have the figures for that Below is a summary of the area requested Code Staff Recommendation Request Max Bldg Area 25% 28 4% 29 6% Max Impery Area 25% 18% Total Bldg + Impery 50% < 50% 47 6% The extra 1 2% will allow the garage to be 22 ft wide rather than 20 ft wide This extra width normally would not be an issue except that there is a tight tum to get into the south stall The extra 2 feet of width will make a big difference when making that turn Thank you for your consideration and Kim Brach 515 N Everett Stillwater MN 55082 439-9351 Attachments 1 Plan view of proposal 2 Impervious area computation a W a a I a Q2 a u (7 z _a W W O a N ❑ W BX O (2 0 z MI"._ CIE '_pI1I!P-- - . 1 E iimmIll inNTAR AA ? , h -g . , jIIIIIIG Or - II I MI lit 4E li III I G'`; IC''1E,,aAll" -t �E�€6�- ECEE i�.Jr P7 ■iii'E 1.�� � �11111111....l .■C'■■■.■C .i■..IS.__E. ■ ■ mom r�rr:�r . ■C ■ C■■ ■■i■■■■■ ■ ' EI'EEEIG iiiiiiG E 2641 ECE ■CEECIE111111000 111111111114111 'll Milli NIP EEE 1. :E :'' ElE''i G : 11111111111111111 ■I . 111E . . E 1■I ■.� EA ..■.E.':3G1 .E. C....■��:E'EIE . GC .... ■■■■■. E. .. .. E.. '''' •IC• ''.ECE:IIE NMI 1 IE■■. E■ .. ''■IIIII�ICEI■ .E IEEIE IIIII..•.■.E� CEI■■ ■.E■ E 111i.iu.....:..i. iii.GEE u. ■� ■..■■E ..E ■■.■. 1 ■■ ■....■1►■.■■■■1■ 11■6■ ■■■■rii■■■ ■. IC •■E■■I■I■■■■■i■■ ■G■■ i ■.■■ ■ ■■■■ .0 ■.■■ ■■ ■ .l .... ■■.. . ■.1 IGE C ■. I ■IIiiii■■. E ■.GI .I■■C■.ii.E.. GI ■. ■I7 ■■II EGC''EIGI 1" lEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMPPAIIIIIIIIIMIIIIMGGC9GEE1I C 1 .: imm IEErEEIl1G'EEEII.; .GEE h!!1i1u::: I IIIGE■iiu•..E..:E" IIILI■.. ICGG 1 ■ E■1 Cliiii■EG�iiiiiiiiEEGGE • ■1 E'n ;■■E. E.■.■■■G■ ■■■.9:131m11111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIE''EE'iGIi■�'1Mawr.E EEGEEnIG. IGIGGGI...ElE ■IE....E .... ......:...I C.:........I..I...G......i�l EII��711 GGEG E•E EEr'-- ••••U••rn•kf GE■Iir '�'K _- r':u�� 3":GOI:EIEICECGE GIE .■■■..G■ll 'E. .,!o ■■EE- . ,TVP■■■■■■p■ ..II; �■■■ ■■■UM=�C .E■■r■.M � ■..■■.■■ p ■■■n■■■■.■■IAM "rMUN NRPARES rm ■r,i,1■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ .■■ ■■ 1 ■.. i.■■iN Y::ia .;;GEIEEEIEIiii 111 I'GEEGGIEEEEIN EMOEE1111111ME EWEGG■" GEEICEiaO'■EEi■ r�'LEEE■"iE000GGGEGGGG Ilmi'G .I.■.■■■ .. ■■E■G... ■I. ■■■E C■EI■■...I■l■■.E■..■ii■.■■■.......R.. .■■■■■.■C■■G..■...■.G..EG■.. ■ �iaia.aGa.ac.■■r,■■■■■■■■■■■E.1■ ..■■■ ■...■■■...■■■■■■.■Ili I" .............°................ ... IIIIIIII 1 IIIIIIIII i i IIEIIIIIIIIIH■■...■i■■...■.■.■.■..■.■....... ECGEEIC'IIG EGEIEMU■I■■I■� GIGGEGGEEI■1� GGGECECIE"';•••IGII:EEGG11 ■■■■IP4 ■■..■■■■ N...■.■.■.■■■ ...■■■.■■..■ ,■■■■.U■■■.■■.■.....r E■■... ■■..IZ...■■.■■I�....■■■.■ ■■IG.■....■. . ■■■■■■■�,^ "'•"r"•"i"CCCE illiiiiiii;;;;4111111111111111111111■..■■■■■.■■.4■■■■.��..■■■.■.. iiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiOOhioiibiffiiipiioiiiiupiiiipiiiiiiii ■■ O■n■■■■■■■■ �r11■I�r rr i "IT=" '! G■C° '.■i ■.1..E■■■.■■n'MMEMAMEME .■■..■�■n■■ ■■\I.■■■■.■■■ESIN l■■firYliaE■■■■■. I.om'=sn r1!lA11�I1■■■1■■■l.■i■■■■■ ■■.\�..■■■.■■■■.■■..■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 11111661114111111/1111111 EE1i:1iii"E11111 iE1ii1111EE1EEEEE11 IIIIfl!IIIIIEIIIIEEIEEIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEE illu IIIIIIIIIIEIl 111E11 IIIIIIIih1IIIIIHIiIIIuIuIIlIIuIIlIIuIIIl IIIII iiipiiiiiiimilligiliammili 'III I PIIi MIIIIIIII EI uII IIIIIII11a IIIIIIlllmml111 IGII 1 111111h'iimadmI11111 mum III III 11!1 Ili11,111119��ii111111 ■■■..■..■.■.■. 11111111111111111111 1111111 11E111'111111 i?Eii E11E i iWEii Jil 1E1HE111EE1EE1:EEE1EE1E EE:E Impervious Area Computation A Existing Railroad tie steps 40 B Existing pavers to front door 55 C Existing paver walk 50 D Proposed Dnveway 840 E Proposed paver steps 45 Total 1030 square feet Total Impervious 1030sf X 100% = 18% Impervious Lot area 5856 I 1 I IairS Li MC'S zg0Pc7se4 I GA.eAc,E I I _ J TiZoft)6e—D P100rr'0*15 SI+zO Note City sidewalk is beyond the limits of the measured area of the lot and is not included in computations Impervious area computation does not include buildings 4 July 10, 2006 Bill Turnblad Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater Minnesota 55082 Dear Mr Turnblad I am writing to express my support for John and Kim Brach s request for variances as described in your letter dated June 28 2006 I find it commendable that they have chosen to give new life to an existing older house on a unique small lot in the old town Rather than beginning from scratch they have tirelessly created a home updated, and yet with the irreplaceable character of one of our oldest houses Since they their small lot is below the street level and adjacent to the ravine which will presumably never be developed it would seem that the size and overall lot coverage of the buildings would have very little visual impact on the neighboring properties I see their property as valuable asset to the neighborhood I whole-heartedly support their project and wish them every success Sincerely , 1 Timothy Old 502 NORTH EVERETT STREET • STILLWATER MN • 55082 PHONE 651 439 3279 4 1iitr, HE BIRTHPIA E 0 MINNFSOIA Planning Commission DATE August 10, 2006 CASE NO V\06-40 APPLICANT Stillwater Country Club REQUEST A variance to allow a pole building LOCATION 400 Poplar St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT PG - Golf Course Lot ZONING RA - One Family Residential PC DATE August 14, 2006 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner W DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the construction of a new pole building Chapter 31-1-24(8) of the Stillwater City Code prohibits the construction of pole buildings in all zoning districts within the City EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The applicant states in their letter that they are making this request because "it would be financially impossible to build a code compliant structure" For this reason alone the requested variance must be denied Financial difficulty can not be used as a reason for granting a variance Staff acknowledges that the cost of constructing the building with a traditional continuous foundation will increase the cost of construction, however, there are examples within the community that could be adopted by the applicant that are also cost effective The City of Stillwater maintenance facility is one such ill 400 Poplar St W Page 2 example The issue and hardship is one created by a choice of the applicant and not due to an irregular lot 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors The City does not allow the construction of new pole buildings within the community Staff over the last few months has been working with the Oak Glen Golf Course on a new maintenance facility Oak Glen's proposed facility will have a continues footing with a masonry wall 3 to 4 feet tall then traditional stick built construction above the masonry section Granting the variance does convey a special privilege to the property owner that others in the community do not enjoy 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan The applicant noted in their letter that the current adjoining property owner "fully supports our plans" Simply obtaining the approval of the adjoining property owner is not grounds for granting a variance Additionally, it discounts the impacts the structure may have on other current property owners in the area and future owners Granting the variance could have an impact on this adjacent property owner FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is not peculiar to the property and zs created by an act of the owner In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance maybe of substantial detriment to adjacent property and materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest It would not necessarily adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options a 400 Poplar St W Page 3 1 Deny the requested variance to allow for the construction of a pole building [31-1-24(8)] since an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance could not be made by staff 2 Approve the variance to allow for the construction of a pole building If the Commission chooses to grant the variance the commission needs to make an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance Additionally, staff would suggest that the following conditions for approval a All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Commuruty Development Director 3 Continue the public hearing until the September 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting The 60 day decision deadline for the request is September 17, 2006 RECOMMENDATION Since an affirmative finding could not be made for the three variance review criteria, staff recommends denial of the requested variance Attachments Applicant's Form, Applicant's Letter, Building Plan, and Site Plan 4 , PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit —Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engmeenng fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this application The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submittet in connection with any application All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc) submitted with applicatfor becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required if app/icatlo, is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project (oC7� k $t' f , �LAv' Assessors Parcel No'Z.►cam �0 c, co Rv"�l 1 s a f re' i L) (GEO Code) i ZoningDistract e M Description of Project r ivd-6 ., /,14; , , � fly_ .� � 11 i Mailing Address Le-21 "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in al! respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct l further certify ! will comply with the permit if it is granted and used��aa Property Owner °b 1vJrdie✓ koj 14 City -State-Zip°tlAJ�4r MrJ s2 Telephon Signature (Signatbre Is required) Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area ¢ , 1, A , r Height of Stith:firth Stories I v 444 etyr.FPnncipal __1__ of4k.,-,e) Accessory _I__ e AvAt 1 rcokstr v 1 5 ,t© O�lCP Ave, ) City - State - Zip l Representative Mailing Address Telephone Signature a/k J +. -240-7 (Signature Is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Feet Total Building floor area -1020 square feet Existing I square feet -1-. ' 4„ iA, Proposed "1 o-3 square feet Paved Impervious Area t ;1(0 o square feet No of off-street parking spaces A v Re4eiSr s to H \mrnamara\sheila\PlANAPP FRM April 20, 2005 STIEWAT CO _ ,_ RY CLUB 1421 N 4th St Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439-7979 *fag (651) 439-2434 e-mail scclub@goldengate net July 20, 2006 Community Development Department City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 Attn Mr Bill Tumblad and Planning Commission Members Re Stillwater Country Club Maintenance Facility 600 West Poplar Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Gentlemen We are requesting a vanance to mstall a laminated column "pole type" mamtenance and storage buildmg at the above address and demolish the existing facility (subject to approval by the Stillwater Country Club Members) It is our understandmg that this type structure is not allowed within the city limits of Stillwater The purpose of this request is to upgrade our existing facility that is currently m poor condition and undersized for our current operation Our mtent is to hook up to city utilities that our now available at this location and to fully spnnkler the new facility We feel that this new facility would considerably enhance the appearance that we have now We are requesting to build this type of structure because it would be financially impossible to build a code compliant structure We have reviewed our mtentions with the adjacent property owner (Mr Randy Callies) and he fully supports our plan We are enclosmg our check m the amount of $500 00 (Five Hundred Dollars), planning commission application form, check list for planning applications and the necessary information requested by this If you have any questions, please contact Jeff Peterson at Geo W Olsen Construction Co , Inc (651) 439-5410 who is a member of our buildmg committee Thank you for your consideration! Sincerely, TILLWATER COUNTRY LUB, INC Damel J Brookman - President Enclosures Stillwater Country Club Check Number 30299 Planning Administration Apphcation Form Check List for Planning Applications Cornerstone Land Surveying, Inc Drawmgs — 16 Copies Menard's Engineering Services Plans — 16 Copies STIMIAW \*P-E1 COUINTRY CLIUM.3 STILLWATERe DIEBT MAINTENANCE & STORAGE FACILITY SOUTHWEST ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE 5231 KANE RO. Ea Clare. NI 5470.7 (715) sus IIIIpIuunnnununnu PRELIMI NOT FOR CON PROJECT TOLE STILLWATER COUNTRY CLUB 3TILLWAiER, MN REVISIONSI i�lE NAME PWBD6 }I- �u xxxxxxxxxx SCA,E AS NO'iED N.. DATE DESEMPS BY L PENT DESCNEP. xxxxxxxxxx SHEET 1 I OF ?� -;7.0 THE -SSSE PERSPECTIVE 2 I DRAWN BY GREG a. 4 DATE 06-21-OB 2 OVERHEAD DOOR 1 J 1 12' OVERHEAD DOOR J 42 G"dP- r 8WRHtuJS G(�Ll7 STDRAC-�E — -—RDGEUNE 12 12 OVERHEAD DOOR L J r 1 12 2 0Y6RIIEAD DOOR 5ERV10E DOOR FLOOR PLAN SCALE. l/V -a- 2 2 OVER FAD 000R L J COMP STORAGE RN6E.K Roca "C2F'FTGe ¶ e 1V 1 V -VE17blWp a M6u1 - 'm ' 1 PREM M PRO -RIB STEEL PANEL OVERHANG JACK 60 3/12 TRUSS OVERHAN J CM 26 OR PREMN PRO -RIB PROMPRO-RIR STEEL P NEL STEEL PA LL 2+6 GIRT 3 PLY LAM TED LOU. 3 PRE UM 0 F68 SCOT P NEL 36 REM PR0-RI6 SCOT P NEL 2410 GRADEBO 0 GRADEBOARD 060661E FLOOR (BY OTHERS) OAWALL SECTION SCALE. 3/8 0 jy: 4.0 ENGINEERING SLR VICES) 52J1 KANE R0 EOM flora NT 5470.3 (715) PREMIUM PRO -RIB STEEL PANEL YIxSiSUOR a 2 2+ GIRT 3- L LA1a8 TED aOUM 0R 14-4 ONCREIE FLOOR (BY OTHERS) ®WALL SECTION 8 SCALE 3/8" I o 60' 3/ 2 TRUSS OVERHANG JACK PRE Rl RO-R1B TEEL PANEL 2+6 GIRT 36 PREMIUM PRO -RIB VI SCOT PANEL 2 0 GRADEBOARD PREM UM PRO -RIB STEE_ PANEL PLY LAWN 1E3 CLOUMN GRIT °NOREIE FLOOR (BY OTHERS) ®WALL SECTI❑N C SCALE-3/8• I 0• 3/12 TRUSS PROJECT TITLE STILLWATER COUNTRY CLUB MN �REN90N5 FILE AYE Po7906 SUPERVISING PROFESEJCN XX ) SCALESTiLLWATER A.5 ,,,,TED 0. D lE DESCRIPTION tlY RAN DESIGNER XXXXXXXXX SEIE£T NQ SHEET TITLE 2 DRA1WXBY 2 FLOOR PLAN AND WALL SECTIONS 3 R E G S 5-5 4 DMZG OE 06-21-06 OF 2 40 100E 4 Wl` 400 a02 a04 1 X 4148 0 906 X 9126 goa PROPOSED X 917 SILT FENCE 2 Ree 9124 90 7 SILT PoNOING X 9132 \..... 5 S OPoS • • �t o✓ 914---��--y`-9p,7 y J O/ \\\\\ /'/' lSfFO I \\ `� Ns _N. 1 \i f ' — —�� 91T"' - `C� \ / \ . 11 \\ 916� I 6n°nvELD ♦ \ ICE X 960 �, 94, \4 �\ 30•{REE N. .1 \ \ \ I% 9159 1 "+V E`XTy�i-W�,. N ;'=a "'',�': r- .r^ tea is \ eEE? \\ '/ n 1 _ s..G `g}- y. "sZS+ r £.ir -, .Eye w x y y� I. �J 12K �— �•\ \ 1 -1 % 9160 '�'- , 3 tea '`-� I,a.�}lq 3h - I ,:; 4 \\ \ 1 r` 1 _ rseaa a %�� w ft _ioR 11 1 rt.. O i � �. �s'�, :. � �=�Y` a= � +„„�'r� ?� 7� yam-'° ++ai5 I 1 .. O eF 1 I _I Iy� 't PROPOSED - �}`, a x 9166 0 1 \I Xl96I �ro1°� ' F a o� 5 05 +ud c 1 1 n7 `1 0� �`�Y'BUILDING�'"�a yam._-�. I II a �K�E 1 1 f, 1 ' x`'j .ts`' 7U20SF�.,:. '1.,_ 1 II pm- 1f 9797 ,J I €�'✓ TOP OF SLAB - 917 0, L .. '4 o 1 I I vy J I��OO� I Zi x�i ?: gt- 03. f11 -+r ., v.. � � .. 0 1 1 1 1 IevrE 1 1 ; 4'3 ar1r,"�-.`� *F'cbvl' 19n i 1 \I 1 2o'PeIE 1 \ � 4ti � _ ter i Fa � t- r .�"�`5- E � 1 — 1 1 I / ` 1 1 \ \ °� i / 1 ` gla g 1 O 1 a0 ti / D X 912 9 '^S2F0✓ A. X 9086 X 9052 20 201,c 9be X 9E24 5. / �1 500� ate_ g20" ri_� % PROPOSED SILT FENCE X 9206 TWIN CITY AREA 651-454 0002 TOLL FREE 1 BOO 252 1166 T2' Pet PROPOSED BITUMINOUS 127605F 16 la 94 W PelE N88'52 54"E X 925 3 % 927 7 e PSE , Pt* R 9301 ( Y`9304 Qiao 3 w ;4�4- 1 4 Ss �� / 1 .;'54 "- ee T� "% . 5T t`_y`tt f :I , 91B PRt X 9261 0 PPE 4 pit X 923 - N8r52 54 "E-- x TO 4 IS PhE 15 x 93 974 iR 11 1 y/ / , '/ / 4' .5- 4 X 9228 P 9je 2C/Pte 1Ly 4'PeE i+r 7 i a 12 Pr>E 12.91.E- — 912 — p-t0E6 rrOtt _PONT OF BECHNC 0.1REE y 9225 20 PaE x 91 L3 X 91613 PROPOSED UTILITIES 920 SAN PM Nve91Lo (PLAN) i710 00 --- 9147 POPLAR STREET 20 STREET EASEIENI PER DOC NO 3474671 ONC CURB AND GUT 20• P8E 20 PPE I i EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARTIAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF GOLF COURSE PROPERTY Th i p rt o the South H If o the N nhw 1 Q rt f Secd 21 Town hp 30 N rth Ra g 20 West d scribed follows Begl I g at a poi 130 00 f et rth th th R of th N rthw 1 Q rt Seal 21 said poi t bei g 1270 00 f et we t f th ast II f s d N rthw t Q rt then north lime pa all I with th 1 II t said Nonhwe l Q rt 220 00 feet the e d fleet g I h 06 d glees 53 ml utes f dist e f 331 86 1 et the ce d R ctl g right 23 deg 26 m ores for di t f 172 00 f t m o I ss to pol t 514 00 feet north f the uth I ne f Id N ranee t Quart a d 361 25 f et w st o the ast line f th So thwest Q n of the N nhwe t Q rt f said Seed 21 th ce 514 00 feet II 361 25 feet w l d pa II 11 th a t II f aid Southwest Qu n f the Nonhwe t Quart 1h e I I g th south ii f th Nonhw 1 Quart f d Sect on 21 a di tan 1231 65 f t th North 30 00 f t th e Ea t and Derail 1 with d 30 00 f 1 f om th 5o th II f 53 d Northw t Q n dl tan f 186 25 f t t th poi t f bg I g SYMBOLS 0 SANITARY MANHOLE • HYDRANT ELECTRIC METER POWER POLE GAS METER OVERHEAD WIRES FENCE TREE CONCRETE DENOTES FOUND 4 TELEPHONE BOX 1 /2 IRON PIPE T GUY POLE UTILITY INFORMATION THE UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON WERE FIELD LOCATE PER VISIBLE STRUCTURES WHERE POSSIBLE OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED AREA TOTAL AREA OF PARCEL = UNDETERMINED SURVEY NOTES 1 THE EAST UNE OF THE SOUTH 1 /2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1 /4 SECTION 21 TOWNSHIP 30 RANGE 20 15 ASSUMED TO BEAR NOI 12 30-W SURVEY RASED ON THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM LEGEND SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION • x 955 0 9 3,6 PROPERTY UNE EASEMENT UNE DENOTES IRON MON FOUND DENOTES IRON MON SET DENOTES 10 OFFSET HUB DENOTES EXISTING ELEV DENOTES PROPOSED ELEV DIRECTION OF PROP SURFACE DRAINAGE PROPOSED CONTOURS EXISTING ELEVATIONS PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS TOP OF CONCRETE SLAB = 917 0 NORTH 0 20 40 nrL 5TI LLWATEFt COUNTRY CLUB MAINTENANCE FACILITY CONTACT STILLWATER COUNTRY CLUB 1421 N 4TH STREET St Ilw t MN 55082 COUNTY WASI-I1NIGTON COUNTY 1TY O F S"T1I_L.WATEFt- SEAL THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DOES NOT REQUIRE A SEAL CERTIFICATION I h by n fy th t[h pl p p dbym d my n pervl to d th 1 l am d ty LI s d La d S ry y d th laws f the tat f NNESOTA D I L Th rm R g Oalb N 25718 D1 7506 REVISIONS DATE 7 506 71706 REVISION ORIGINAL ISSUE REVISED PROJECT LOCATION O WEST POPLAR ST State #B100 200 E Chestnut Street Sttlhvatar MN 55082 Phone 651 275 8969 Fax 651 275 8976 docsls@ meleoduse net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING INC FILE NAME SURVSCC MAINT PROJECT NO 5CC06001 IC 930 6 ,I 930 0 9s'0 "rope 1 927 20.040 SCALE 1 INCH = 20 FEET PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN roe 0 906 L 417A``� % 9N.6 X 916.0 \, GRAVEL SURFACE e. IBROXL+H B8T) `X 914.5 95. X 917.9 . s0p'1RBE X 9s7 y 9rp X 912.4 110 2iAEE 9.2.4 -FAUGET SAF" .2, SEW ! ,, (N0 FiaCR) ' San r 1�919,6 PO X 920 6 TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 lig MIL TOLL FREE: 1-B00-252-1166 CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI t .� 1111 % 9161 X 91z2 SiEPACB f err): 12' Pet X 922.4 1\b + ^6 10• Pt* -" 10''14. IOI,I,* X 922.8 N88.5.2'54 "E X 912.6 X 912.7 N 914 • 0 9U X-9W=0 X 9121 15'1REE X 912.4 � �III: - RDA1 GRAVEL FLOGG.---. ELkvn7F'JN! qIB 0l CONC. FLOOR ELEYATPN.419.47-1,,s .¢¢ 916.1 9g X 920.6 X 922.4 X 923 8 10'' Pht4.666 X 926.1 MUTINOUS SURFACE CONC. FLOOR ELEVA7I:N.41.5.9-.-1 y X'9166 CRAWL FLOOR CONCRETE • 183.77 X 925.3 - 0' Pr'E 920 X 927 7 / X 930.1 15' X •110 4 16' ?t'� 151�930.4 ▪ .� X 930.5 belt 'wawa �// I I I ! 1/1/r /1 I 6-- F/ •-• 1 /Y. L_ r r!-I .0 X 922.d P 924 GTJY SRlff! 920 9?5 OL 9311 X 9066 X 9052 >,9'II?EE 20' 20'P50 20.15E 90 0 90 sY� 2ro1s i'0,4 914 X 914,3 121E ( PPO.Nnfrf�OF BECIMIC X 422.3 X 911.3 X 91[8 0.1 5AN I1.1 0JV-911.0 (PLAN) r270.60 X 9197 POPLAR STREET 5-20 STREET EASEMENT PER'D0_C. N0 3474671 20• PNE 20' 9** CURD ANj cUTTEN23233^ 20' PH6 EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARTIAL LEGAL UESCRIPTIOFI OF COIF COURSE PROPERTY That part or the South Half or the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, described as follows: Beginning at a point 30.00 feet north or the 10131h line el the Northwest Quaner or Sealcn 21 slid point beulg 1220.00 felt west of the east line or said Northwest Quaner; thence nanh On a line parallel with She east hoe at said Northwest quarter 270,00 feet; thence drile ing left 06 degree, 53 minutes fora 0lstanre of 33I.66 feel; thence deOesung r1gh1 23 degree¢ 26 minuln for a disurce of 172,00 feet more or less to a p6In4 514.00 feet nncth of the south line of said Northwest Quarter and 361.25 feet west or the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; thence 514,00 feet on a line 361.25 feet west and parallel to the east line of said Soutlnre st Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence east along the south (Inc of the Northwest Quarter of sald Section 21 a dlllance Of 231.65 feet; thence North 30.00 feet; Thence East and parallel with and 30.00 feet from the South line of said Northwest Quanee adistance of 186.25 feet to the point of beginning. SYMBOLS: O SANITARY MANHOLE ■ HYDRANT ♦•, ELECTRIC METER r POWER POLE • GAS•METER OVERHEAD WIRES f�7 FENCE TREE L+-'-1 CONCRETE e DENOTES FOUND TB TELEPHONE BOX 1 /2' IRON PIPE GUY POLE UTILITY INFORMATION THE UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON WERE FIELD LOCATE PER VISIBLE STRUCTURES WHERE POSSIBLE. OTHER UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. AREA TOTAL AREA OF PARCEL = UNDETERMINED SURVEY NOTES: 1. THE EAST UNE OF THE SOUTH 1 /2 OF THE NORTFRYEST 1 /4, SECTIO0 21, TOWNSHIP 30. RANGE 20, IS ASSUMED TO BEAR NO1'12'301V. SOAVES' BASED ON THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM. LEGEND: SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION • El x 985.0 �85.aj -909- - PROPERTY UNE EASEMENT UNE DENOTES IRON MON. FOUND DENOTES IRON MON. SET DENOTES 10' OFFSET HUB DENOTES EXISTING ELEV. DENOTES PROPOSED ELEV. DIRECTION OF PROP. SURFACE DRAINAGE PROPOSED CONTOURS EXISTING ELEVATIONS NORTH 0 20 40 nrU S TIT 1 LLWATEI COUNTRY CLUB MAINTENANCE FACILITY CONTACT: STILLWATER COUNTRY CLUB 1421 N. 4TH STREET Stillwater, MN 55082 COUNTY: VVASF-11NGTON COU NTY C RTY O F ST 1 LLWATEFt SEAL: THE STATE OF MINNESOTA GOES NOT REQUIRE A SEAL CERTIFICATION: I briefly crrrlly I hat this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of NHESOTA. Daniel L. Thurmes RegllTrallon No: 25718 Date: 7-5-5-06 REVISIONS: DATE RO.V1510N 7-5-06 ORIGINAL ISSUE PROJECT LOCATION: POPLAR STREET Suite #B100 200 E. Chestnut Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 Fax 651.275.8976 dll-csls@ mcleodusa .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING. INC 411 r r:30.41 PROJECT NO SURVSCC-MAIFTT SCC06001 SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY • Sti1Iwa±er I E 6 IRTHPLA r E OF M I N N E S O F A Planning Commission DATE APPLICANT Walter Wdowychyn and Julie Pawluk REQUEST Special Use Permit to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit LOCATION 519 3rd Street S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING RB - Two Family CPC DATE August 14, 2006 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner Afp August 9, 2006 CASE NO SUP\06-42 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit that includes a two -car garage and an accessory dwelling unit on the second floor The lot size is 15,294 sq ft , and 10,000 sq ft is the minimum lot size permitted by the ordinance for an accessory dwelling unit The siding for the proposed accessory structure will be hard board to match the type and style on the existing primary residence The roof structure will have the same roof pitch with wood shingles like the existing primary residence The proposed accessory dwelling unit will need to be connected to municipal sewer and water services EVALUATION OF REQUEST All accessory dwelling units in the RB (two-family district) zoning district permitted special uses in the RB district subject to the following conditions a Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet The subject lot is 15,294 square feet I 519 3rd Street S Page 2 b The accessory dwelling unit may be located on second floor above the garage The proposed accessory dwelling unit is located on the second floor above the garage c The accessory dwelling unit must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and rear setbacks The proposed accessory dwelling unit is proposed to have a 25 2 foot rear yard setback and a 10 foot side yard setback The proposed setbacks meet the requirements of the RB district d The accessory dwelling unit must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the midpoint of the primary residence The accessory dwelling unit is proposed to be located behind the existing primary residence e Off-street parking requirements for an apartment and single-family residence (four spaces) must be provided The proposed accessory dwelling unit will provide the required four off-street parking spaces with two spaces in the garage and a minimum of two in the driveway f Maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet The proposed area of the living space in the accessory dwelling unit is 624 square feet g The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials The siding for the proposed accessory structure will be hard board to match the type and style on the existing primary residence The roof structure will have the same roof pitch with wood shingles like the existing primary residence The proposed accessory dwelling urut will be located in the northeast corner of the lot This area is approximately 18 feet higher than Second Street to the east and is visible from Second Street Due to this attention needs to be given to the rear of the accessory dwelling urut Staff suggests that a dormer, similar to the one on the front elevation, be added to the rear elevation to provide some visual relief Additionally, this would provide an additional view for the accessory dwelling unit Staff would also note that this property is located within the City's historic downtown commercial district 4 519 3rd Street S Page 3 h . The height may not exceed that of the primary residence The existing primary residence is a two story home The proposed accessory dwelling unit is similar is style with the garage on the first floor with the accessory dwelling unit on the second floor i Both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services and be located on an improved public street Today, the primary dwelling urut is connected to municipal sewer and water services Since the letter from the property owner and the plans do not clearly note if the proposed accessory dwelling urut will be connected to municipal sewer and water services staff recommends that this be made a condition of the approval l Maximum size of garage is 800 square feet The proposed area of the garage in the accessory dwelling urut is 624 square feet ACTION BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION The Heritage Preservation Comrrussion (HPC) reviewed a design review application for this accessory dwelling unit on August 7, 2006 The HPC approved the application with the conditions listed below RECOMMENDATION Approval as conditioned CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1 All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission 2 The accessory dwelling urut shall be sirrular style, materials and color as the primary dwelling unit 3 The accessory dwelling unit shall connect to public sanitary sewer and water service 4 Lots 7 and 8, Block 40, Original Town, now City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota shall not be split in the future without the approval of the City of Stillwater 5 Downcast lights shall be used on the front of the garage as opposed to carriage lights 6 A dormer shall be added to the east elevation similar to the dormer on the west elevation FINDINGS The proposal, as conditioned, meets the intent of the City's zorung ordinance Attachments Applicant's Form, Elevation Drawing, Site Plan, and Photos / i Lot Size (dimensions)/C Ox /,SO Land Area / po Q SF Height of Buildings r Stories Feet Principal c2 a 36 Accessory . AMC /. S H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM April 20 2005 Zpr PLANNING ADMINISTFi i ION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED V Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and eng►neer►ng fees The fees for requested action are attached to this application The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (i e, photos, sketches etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project l 9 T. Assessors Parcel No d S0.►c,/-0 4/V- 00& Ace O Code) Zoning Distract Description of Protect D Cd�jw��p "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct 1 further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner 7` r,t pow ericr� Representative Mailing Address 3� �y �� � Mailing Address City - State - Zip -1-1 u.W/t -tic /%t/ 5 S Z City - State - Zip Telephone No 6 s7— `{ bg —7 0 z. Telephone No Signature Signature (Signature is required) (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION �/ Total Building floor area 6� ( square feet Existing 0 square feet Proposed 6.15/ square feet Paved Impervious Area 0 square feet No of off-street parking spaces 0 Walter Wdowychyn 519S 3`dSt Stillwater, MN 55082 July 21, 2006 Planning Commission Stillwater City Hall 216 N 4`s St Stillwater, MN 55082 Re BUILDING PERMIT REQUEST Dear Sirs/Madams Enclosed herein you will find plans for a new freestanding garage/camage house I intend to construct behind my Victonan-era (1880) home This new garage replaces the former tuck -under garage, which has since been removed, which did not conform to the style of the home The proposed garage will be more m keeping with the ongmal style of the home It is my understanding that this is the site of the ongmal garage This garage is intended to house two vehicles, plus have space for a "potting" area on the main floor The upper level will be a future "carnage house" area, including a living area, '/2 bath, and kitchenette The upper level will have a dormer with an arched window, which will "mirror" a similar window facing it m the upper level of the home There will be an inside stairway going from the main level to the upper level I intend to connect the garage to the home by an outside set of stairs leading from the upper level of the garage to a walkway, which will connect to the steps up to the deck of the home (which surrounds the recently -added conservatory) I intend to use cedar shake shingles, which again mirrors the shingles on the home The structure will have three windows on the north side (two on the lower level and one on the upper level), m addition to the upper level dormer window, mentioned above The garage doors will be two single doors, customized to fit the carnage -house style The garage will be reached by the existing dnveway alongside the house I believe that this new garage/carnage house will be a wonderful addition not only to our home, but also to the neighborhood While it will obviously be a modern structure, it will be built to as closely resemble a "period" structure as possible, in order to retain the appropnate style for the house and our town I am anxious to begin construction of this project, and thus hope you will give your earliest attention to this matter Thank you for your consideration Sincerely, Walter Wdowychyn Notes: CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Notes: "M." Ind. Measured value. "R." Ind. Recorded value. o Ind. #f13774 iron pipe set. • Ind. monument found, as noted. Bearing system is assumed datum. BARRETTM. STACK Underground or overhead, public STILLWATER, MINN. 55082 or private utilities, on or MINNESOTA REGISTERED adjacent the parcel, were not LAND SURVEYOR located in conjunction with this Tel. No. 439-5630 survey, unless shown otherwise. SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR: Walter Wdowychyn and Julie Paa;luk, 519 So. 3rd St., Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 DESCRIPTION: As Supplied By Client: Lots 7 and 8, Block 40, Original Town, now City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Note: As directed by client, survey work was limited to the survey of the outside boundary of the above described parcel. No other visible improvements were located, other than as shown hereon. Proposed Garage location was not staked by Stack Land Surveying. ,- Go r'1 fND2 " h So, Z 3 A": /f/1/ r J`'T. 9 ,e./s0 ---A/75'Z3'¢D'E /'7,/SZ,3D--- 39.S0 \ 983 - 7Z.97 o.t'S 9. \ /4.A3 - 2-5.ao - - N7d °27 5-9'2 M, /57, 3 7- -- ,-e , , c' - �\ 1' .5k r /S a v B-W AiDoA FE. /two 1 hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under n iy direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Ai2=In.LAV. . 4,%eze=/IL Date April 25, 2006 Reg.No 13774 re A Api-DS( fe ,4 • •3. I r" •- 172_1 LLs t.. 3LA ....j.4...ii,-*J41.....' ' ; I 6 .....6..,,......-6,,,, 1-i--4,1--- ,...ri... 0,_ „ ,.. .. , . i = , . - --- -,c-- -r I- . ,i...,,, • --ii -- si • 7,41-k;,..-.:_,-1 4 5_ h--r'': IT , t ., ,6 -, , .a. g... ... ,tv.1..ji. 2.r.r,.1.....- c.„,It ,,,Tr..,.,..„ t i..., 1 7- ri ..• L • 7'7 Lki LA'"- --""t r Ft' LL t 4., t T1‘41:„.— -U 0-^-1 ,- JUL 2 1 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 9 3 4 '1 11 r I I E BIRTHP A f Of M I N N F S O 1 A Planning Commission DATE APPLICANT REQUEST LOCATION COMPREHENSIVE ZONING PC DATE REVIEWERS PREPARED BY August 9, 2006 CASE NO V\06-43 James L Barton 1 A variance to allow an encroachment into the corner lot side yard (front yard) 2 A variance to allow up to 33 7% of the lot to be covered by buildings 125 Martha St N PLAN DISTRICT SFLL - Single Family Large Lot RB - Two-family District August 14, 2006 Community Dev Director Michel Pogge, City Planner m,f7 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-1-12(5)6 of the Stillwater City Code to allow for a home addition to encroach up to nineteen feet eight inches (19'8") into the required 30 foot corner lot side yard (front yard) setback Additionally, the buildings on the property cover 29 6% of the lot Chapter 31-1-12(5)5 of the Stillwater City Code, implemented with the new neighborhood conservation district regulations, allows only 25% of a lot to be covered with buildings The proposed additions will cause a total of 33 7% of the lot to be covered with buildings The applicant is making these requests in order to remove an old one story addition on the back of the building and replace it with a story and 3/4 along the back and side of the home t 125 Martha St N Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The property at 125 Martha St N is a legal nonconforming corner lot at Martha Street and Rice Street The home sits on the western portion of the lot with the garage situated on the eastern side of the lot The lot is 45 2 feet wide and 126 feet deep Using the required side yard (front yard) setback of 30 feet and the required side yard setback of 5 feet the buildable width of the lot is only 10 2 feet wide The total area of the lots is 5,695 square feet in size The minimum lot size of a lot in the RB zoning district is 7,500 square feet According to the Washington County Assessor the home was constructed in 1882 and the home was purchased by the current owner m July of 1998 The location of the home and lot configuration was not a condition created by the current home owner 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors Without the approval of a variance the applicant would be denied the opportunity to add an addition to the home Additionally, the home at 125 Martha St S currently sits approximately 28'6" from the back of curb along Rice St and with the addition will sit 24'4" from the back of curb At the intersection of Martha St and Rice Street 202 Martha St N sits 22'5" feet from the back of curb of Rice St, 126 Martha St N sits 22'7", and 201 Martha St sits 25 3" representing an average distance of 23'5" from the back of curb for these three homes Granting the variance does not convey a special privilege to the property owner 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan The mass of the home with the addition is very similar to other homes m the neighborhood The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan I 125 Martha St N Page 3 FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same viciruty, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan RECOMMENDATION Approval as conditioned CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1 All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director 2 The encroachment in to the front yard (side yard) setback shall be limited to twenty (20) or fewer feet for the construction of an addition to the primary residence Attachments Submittal package from the apphcant 1 TO Stillwater City Planning Commission RE Vanance request, Case No V/06-43 FR Neighbors at 218 N Martha Street DA August 4, 2006 lids - s s l� c My husband I will not be in town for the public heanng on August 14 We wish to have our comments included at the heanng James Barton has made attractive enhancements to his property over the years The cosmetic changes and landscaping he maintains add charm to our neighborhood and have helped increase its property values We fully trust that the addition will be in good taste and that the set -back will have no noticeable impact upon the neighborhood We have no objections to his request and support this vanance to the street front yard setback at 125 North Martha Street Ron and Judy Gulden 218 N Martha Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Check list for Planning Applications Incomplete or unclear applications/plans will be returned to the applicant and may result in delay of application processing. Check and attach to application. The application form completed and signed by the property owner or owners authorized representative. p` Building plans clearly dimensioned and scaled (16 copies). R' The site plan showing exterior property lines, easements, lot width and depth and lot area building(s) location. (See attached site plan example, a parcel boundary survey may be required). Ja' All adjacent streets or right of ways labeled. J2( Location, elevation, size, height of building or addition, dimensions, materials and proposed use of all buildings and structures (including walls, fences, signs, lighting and hooding devices) existing and proposed for the site (if the site is in a Historic District, additional design detail maybe required). /J Distances between all structures and between all property lines or easements and structures. Z' Show Adjacent buildings to this application site and dimension from property Tine. le All major existing trees on the site (4 inch caliber or greater), giving type, location, size and coverage conditions. other site C�J Show existing significant natural features such as rock outcroppings or water courses (existin and proposed marked accordingly). g gi Locate all off-street parking spaces, driveways, loading docks and maneuvering areas with dimensions for driveway widths and parking space sizes. ia' Pedestrian, vehicular and service points of ingress and egress; distances between driveways and street corners. d Landscape plan showing number of plants, location, varieties and container sizes Ia ( ndscape plan). 121/ Existing and proposed grading plan showing direction and grade of drainage throu h and off t indicate any proposed drainage channels or containment facilities. g he site; Required and existing street dedications and improvements such as sidewalks, curbin and (may not be required). 9 pavement nt e Letter to the Planning Commission describing the proposed use in detail and indicatin how this effect and compatibility with adjacent uses or areas. g use Applications for new structures on slopes of 12 percent or greater must include an accurate topographic map. The map must contain contours of two -foot intervals for slopes of 12 percent or greater. Slopes over 24 percent shall be clearly marked. JZ(Other such data as may be required to permit the planningcomm _ for approval of thespecific type of application. - " ings icant/owner signature EIVEDd f J U L 2 1 2006 , 4 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The fees for requested action are attached to this application The appl,cant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any app/►cat,on All supporting material (► e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required /f application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting matenal is required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with appl►cabons Any incomplete application or supporting matenal will delay the application process After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period Once the 10-day appeal penod has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project /R 59-- lki #444r27W - Ir. Zoning District Description of Project Assessor s Parcel No dit—c7D/77O"%/"F,tiobrL (GEO Code) "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, ►nformahon and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct 1 further certify 1 will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner _ItiL S goe7e f o N/ Representative Mailing Address /4ZS'.- tiee 2776t Sr, N , Mailing Address City - State - Zip „5/, G L wiafii� /VI 53ZWZ Telephone No asy g?� Signature S7o ignature irrejbired) (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION City - State - Zip Telephone No Lot Size (dimensions) yV x /10 Land Area 7 7C(p 5,F Height of Buildings Stones Feet, Principal a-t Accessory ___I__ / y Signature Total Building floor area /�G / square feet Existing /2 G 0 square feet Proposed square feet ^ 70? Paved Impervious Area .2/5-D square feet No of off street parking spaces H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRP1 April 20 2005 de STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION STILLWATER, MINNESOTA RE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE AT 1 25 MARTHA STREET NORTH DEAR PLANNING COMMISSION J U LY 16 2006 I HAVE LIVED AT 125 MARTHA STREET NORTH SINCE 1998 DURING MY TENURE AT THIS PROPERTY I HAVE MADE SUBSTANTIAL RESTORATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE THE PROPERTY BOTH MORE AESTHETICALLY APPEALING AND CONFORMING TO AN HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT IT IS WITH THIS SAME SPIRIT I WISH TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE TO ADD APPROXIMATELY FOUR FEET TOWARD THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AND TWO FEET TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE THE DISTANCE TO THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WOULD CHANGE FROM 14' 6' TO 10' 4' (28' 6' TO 24' 4" TO THE STREET) EVERY ADJACENT PROPERTY HAS STRUCTURES BUILT WITHIN THESE DIMENSIONS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPERTY LINES/RIGHT OF WAYS (I E 126 N MARTHA, 611 N RICE ST , 201 N MARTHA, 202 N MARTHA, 202 N HARRIET, AND 126 N HARRIET) THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WOULD NOT CHANGE THE REAR ONE-STORY ADDITION PORTION OF THE HOUSE WOULD BE DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH A 1 3/4 STORY ADDITION A PROPER BASEMENT WOULD BE ADDED AND ALL UTILITIES UPDATED WHILE I HAVE TRIED TO RESTORE THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOME (ORIGINAL SIDING, NEW ROOFING, RESTORED FREIZE BOARD AND WATER TABLE, REPLACED VINYL WINDOWS WITH WOOD, NEW TRIM DETAILS, CROWN MOULDING, EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING ETC) , LITTLE HAS BEEN DONE TO THE INTERIOR THAT WAS REMODELED IN THE 1970'S I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SALVAGE ANTIQUE TRIM AND WILL INCORPORATE IT THROUGHOUT THE HOME ON THIS PROJECT THE OBJECTIVE IS TO IMPROVE UPON THE OLD-WORLD CHARM WHILE MODERNIZING THE AMENITIES I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER SINCERELY, JIM BARON 125 MARTHA STREET NORTH STILLWATER, MN 55082 (i) 0 o n 5 14 N NA jkltc&ttgaRIS g/1-R Al w r_/ /3,.0 .;. Pee/Wry L//JE �t L s3 7 v - 64dIF-^-7 114. KteE 1 roliPe-v c��scy�r� c4Eig-IASs-s-152 lip us suivmspi .1-a-g2t--15 37 I 'J • pi / J /i f J /J J L' / 1r-?ox'S P cet;e t r y £//t t 4 ekt * qr r t Or301-8Li TT '7's4 bk ` LINe JA7i L( kC.- 11: f7 c,izA6 c49.4 ( `> pi. itteE s 1.- -}CSC' i N S'`r' L L',`J' ~�‹ it 1' `L-- / - 7.7 ^ ' 70 ,oa o.i�9 �"' fs'Y5 Ei %s � 0-1) Ri9 11,4— MclA'L- • D 3 C TOP OF RIDGE 4 frt t 4 CX /Sr7i 1&- S (d (e41- t,v o O ,/ j << tZJe7'tt_ 2 er f-UEfit. bore. F r (tI --. F-( , ids w A-h--2)'2- 7 LC-- 5'-8" 41A" 18'-4" 4'-0" GRADE V FRONT ELEVATION SCALE 1/4" = 1' • lavr u IN4144.444444\sss4lz 718 ID■�❑lI / s-rot-JF fdCr 21 8 11 10 PRELIM LEFT / s-rot-JF fdCr 21 8 11 10 PRELIM LEFT L T -9 26 2 1/2 15-6 if KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL. OWNER TO VERIFY PRELIM RIGHT TOP OF RIDGE TOP OF SLAB - (» 8-0 u 6 SID KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL. OWNER TO VERIFY 20 -0 REAR ELEVATION SCALE 3/16" = 1' 28'-0" MAIN FLOOR PLAN 3 -6 S-0" 4 1 9'4 S9 GREAT ROOM 5 10 3/4 1) ii it fe'li 1 DINING ROOM O r J 1 J i Iz O 33E6 WALL A U P 4 -0" 3 A 1/2 9'-8 SINK KITCHEN 66 REF° 2/6 IP 1 1 1 1 1 H 1 1 1 NEW OFFICE SECOND FLOOR PLAN 16'4" 11.6 9'113/4 11 1/4 3 11 S9• 5' 9• NEW BEDROOM 74 1/2 V-8 MASTER BEDROOM V -err VANITY MASTER BATH EXISTING BEDROOM Ail. , I F 8 RIHPLA E 0 M NNISOIA DATE August 8, 2006 CASE NO 06-45 APPLICANT Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc LANDOWNER Rick Carlson, C3 Land Development, LLC REQUEST 1) Annexation 2) Rezoning to TR/PUD, Traditional Residential PUD 4) Garage setback variances 3) Preliminary Plat approval for a 15 lot Residential Subdivision 4) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map change from RR, Semi -Rural Residential to SFLL, Single Family Large Lot LOCATION NW Qadrant of Neal Avenue and McKusick Road COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RR, Semi -Rural Residential PLANNING COMMISSION DATE August 14, 20006 ZONING NA, currently located in Stillwater Township REVIEWERS Interim Public Works Director, City Planner, Deputy Fire Chief, City Forester, Washington Co Highway Department, Brown's Creek Watershed District PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Directo BACKGROUND Timothy Freeman of Folz, Freemen, Erickson, Inc has submitted a prelirrunary plat on behalf of the land owner C3 Land Development, LLC The project is referred to as Brown's Creek Reserve and is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Neal Avenue North and McKusik Road North The project shows 15 large lot single family home sites on the 8 9 acre property (9 5 acres if McKusick Road right-of-way is included) Lots within the project range in size from 10,251 square feet to 19,760 square feet The proposed development density is 1 69 homes per gross acre This corresponds to the Comprehensive Plan category known as Single Family Large Lot (SFLL) Brown s Creek Reserve August 8 2006 Page 2 The project would represent the continuation of the infrastructure and development pattern estabhshed by the preliminary plat approved for US Homes on the former Palmer property immediately to the north This includes • A cul-de-sac that would intersect with the east -west road into Millbrook from Neal Avenue, • An 8 wide bituminous trail that would continue from Millbrook along Brown's Creek, • A sidewalk that would continue from Millbrook along the east side of the cul-de-sac and provide a loop out to Neal Avenue and back to the Brown's Creek trail, and • Utilities that would be installed across Brown s Creek Reserve to Millbrook 37% of the site is proposed to be dedicated to the City as open space This 3 3 acre open space area would include a stormwater pond that would treat stormwater from the proposed lots, a stretch of Brown's Creek, the wetlands abutting Brown's Creek a small wooded upland area, and an 8 foot wide bituminous trail The Planning Commission reviewed the Concept PUD application associated with this proposal in May The commission conditionally approved the concept plan on a vote of 8-1 In June the City Council unanimously approved the Concept PUD application with conditions SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to develop the property as proposed, the applicant has requested approval of the following 1 Annexation 2 Rezoning to TR/PUD, Traditional Residential Planned Unit Development 3 Garage setback variances a City Code Section 31-1, Subd 11 2(4)5 states that in the TR zoning district a front facing garage must have a 27 foot front setback Moreover, 75% of the front facing garages must be set 6 feet further back than the front of the house Lots 1, 9,10,14 and 15 do not meet these standards and variances are requested for the lots 4 Prehmmary Plat approval for a 15 lot Residential Subdivision 5 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map change from RR, Semi -Rural Residential to SFLL, Single Family Large Lot EVALUATION OF REQUEST I REZONING & COMP PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT Rezoning Currently the property is located in Stillwater Township Upon annexation it would have to be rezoned The developer requests a rezoning to TR/PUD, Traditional Residential Planned Unit Development The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the proposed Brown s Creek Reserve August 8 2006 Page 3 zoning classification Moreover, the proposed zoning would be the same as the abutting property to the north The only lot dimension problem occurs with Lot 7 as shown m the application site plan The amount of frontage on a public street is only 25 feet and must be 35 feet Therefore, the developer redrew the lots on the end of the cul-de-sac to meet this standard The revision is attached Comprehensive Plan Amendment The future land use map of the City s Comprehensive Plan classifies the property as RR, Semi -Rural Residential All land withm Stillwater Township shows up m the City's Comprehensive Plan as RR, Semi -Rural Residential As annexation and developments are approved, the future land use map is amended for the project The net acreage of the project is 713 acres Given the 15 planned lots, that yields a density of 21 homes per net acre Therefore a future land use designation of Single Family Large Lot (2 units per acre) would be appropriate II PRELIMINARY PLAT A Minimum Dimensional Standards Site size A standard PUD has to be on a project of at least 3 acres m size The subject property has 8 9 gross acres Lot standards Muumum lot standards for the proposed TR zoning district are compared below with the lot dimensions proposed by the developer As can be seen, all minimum lot standards are met Lot Standards Area Width Frontage Depth Required 10,000 s f average 65' 35' NA Proposed 13,426 s f average All >/= 65' All >/=35' NA Open Space Almost the entire property is located withm a shoreland overlay district The northern part of the property hes withm the South Twin Lake's Natural Environment Shoreland Management Overlay District Most of the rest of the property hes withm the Brown's Creek Shoreland Management Overlay District Smce the project is proposed as a PUD and the site is within one shoreland management district or another, 50% of the property must be dedicated as perpetual open space The area proposed to be dedicated to the public as open space comprises only 37% of the property This leaves a deficit of 13% In the Liberty on the Lake PUD, Brown s Creek Reserve August 8 2006 Page 4 private yard areas were counted toward the 50% open space requirement However, this arrangement must be approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) And, the DNR Area Hydrologist responsible for the Stillwater area has indicated a reluctance to allow private yards to count toward the 50% requirement Staff has mentioned to the developer on several occasions that he is responsible for submitting a PUD Worksheet for review and approval by the DNR to address this and other lakeshore PUD issues, but as of the time of this review the Worksheet had not yet been submitted Since DNR review of the PUD Worksheet is crucial to the preltmunary plat layout, it should be submitted to the DNR at least for their initial comments before the Planning Comnussion takes action on the preliminary plat B Civil Engineering • The proposed street layout includes a temporary access directly onto Neal Avenue When the third phase of Millbrook is completed and its east -west road is constructed, the Brown's Creek Reserve cul-de-sac will intersect with Millbrook's east -west road At that time the temporary access to Neal Avenue will be removed An escrow will have to be deposited by the developer with the City to cover this removal cost • A key component of this PUD is that it will allow for extension of utilities through the site to service Millbrook • This development will be responsible for paying a Trout Stream Mitigation Fee, a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and possible trunk utility fees • All electrical and communication utility lines are required to be buried • The Washington County Highway Department requires that the final plat include a notation that access will be restricted along McKusick Road • Engineering consultants for the Brown's Creek Watershed District have completed a review of the project The watershed district board will review the project August 14, 2006 Conditions of approval recommended by the consultants area 1 Provide soil borings indicating the groundwater elevation in the location of the proposed ponds 2 Revise proposed stormwater treatment system design to provide the necessary separation from the groundwater table and provide rate control, volume control, and water quality control consistent with the requirements of Rule 2 0 3 Provide a rock construction entrance 4 Provide temporary seeding and stabilization in keeping with NPDES requirements 5 Provide a stormwater facility maintenance declaration in a form acceptable to the District and proof of recordation with Washington County 6 Provide a buffer declaration in a form acceptable to the District and proof of recordation with Washington County 7 Provide the following required sureties Brown s Creek Reserve August 8 2006 Page 5 a Total grading or alteration surety ($14 000) b Stormwater management facilities surety or proof that the City of Stillwater has received a Performance Surety of equal or greater amount than 125% of the construction costs for the stormwater management facilities ($37,900) • Other comments from the Interim Public Works Director are attached in his memorandum dated August 7, 2006 C Fire Protection In order to facilitate the turning of a fire truck the permanent cul-de-sac pavement radius will need to be increased from 84 feet to 95 feet Also, a temporary hammerhead turnaround will be needed either on the north end of the site or on the Millbrook property When Millbrook develops, this can be removed Final plat application materials will need to address both of these issues D Tree Preservation A tree mventory and replanting plan were submitted and reviewed by the City Forester Her comments and those of staff are • The cul-de-sac was shortened to preserve a number of heritage oaks on the southern part of the property • In order to determine the number of replacement trees that will be required for this development, a canopy removal plan must be submitted yet This plan will have to show the percentage of the existing canopy being removed o Per City Code Section 31-5, Subd 3, within the area of the proposed lots, 35% of the canopy may be removed without triggering the need for tree replacement Any trees removed beyond this threshold must be replaced on a one for one basis (Such an analysis can be done with the and of air photos ) o For subdivision improvements such as the street stormwater pond, and utilities,10 replacement trees are required for each acre of canopy removed • In order to determine that maximum tree protection is being provided, the location of the existing trees needs to be superimposed upon the grading plan If a tree is proposed to be preserved, its root aeration zone must be protected durmg development and construction • To save as many oaks as possible in the Neal Avenue right-of-way, the proposed walkway should wind its way around the trees • Oaks should not be pruned or wounded between April and October • Oak removal should occur between November and March If this is not possible, the developer must notify the Community Development Department to arrange for the City Forester to be on site to assure that proper oak wilt transmission is prevented Brown s Creek Reserve August 8 2006 Page 6 • A revised tree preservation plan must be submitted to the City staff to review no later than one week before the City Council is to review the preliminary plat request E Park and Trail Dedication The public open space plan for Brown s Creek is proposed to include 1 An 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the Brown s Creek wetland trail that would serve as a connecting link between the Millbrook trails to the north and the future Neal Avenue trail 2 A concrete sidewalk along the easterly side of the proposed cul-de-sac This sidewalk would be extended out to Neal Avenue and then northward to Millbrook and southward to McKusick Road This would create a complete loop for the new neighborhood since the sidewalk would connect with the proposed trail (See attached site plan ) 3 3 3 acres of open space along Brown's Creek This also includes over 27,000 square feet of wooded upland behmd Lots 7 and 8 The Parks and Recreation Board reviewed the plan with the Concept PUD apphcation They determined that the proposed land dedication does not satisfy all of the City's park dedication standards Therefore, they recommended that m addition to what is bemg proposed cash be dedicated in lieu of land At $2,000 per lot, the cash dedication will by $30,000 This fee will be required prior to release of the fmal plat for recording with Washmgton County Also, every development is required to pay $225 per lot toward the City s trail system, even if trails are being built by the developer on his property So $3,375 will be due for trails prior to release of the final plat Miscellaneous comments • Public works would prefer the sidewalk proposed along Neal Avenue to be an 8 foot wide bituminous trail The connecting sidewalk to the cul-de- sac should then also be bituminous • A 15 foot wide pubhc trail easement will be required to be centered on the property line between Lots 5 and 6 • The trail connection along the north side of Lot 15 is only needed temporarily When Millbrook is developed, the trail will connect directly to their system Therefore, a temporary 10 foot wide public trail easement is needed for this segment An escrow sufficient for removal of this trail segment should be deposited with the City F Landscaping The City Subdivision Code, Ch 32-1, Subd 6(4) requires three street trees per lot (not to be in the right-of-way) The proposed landscaping plan shows only one or two trees per lot Granted, since the project is a PUD, the Code specifically allows Brown s Creek Reserve August 8 2006 Page 7 flexibility on the number of required street trees None the less, staff would like the spacing between the street trees reduced from 60 feet on center to 40 feet on center This will allow for the addition of several more trees G Wetlands There are wetlands along Brown s Creek These wetlands have been delmeated and their extent included on the project's site plan No wetland impacts are proposed and therefore no wetland mitigation is necessary A copy of the wetland delineation report still needs to be submitted to the City This should be done prior to City Council consideration of the preliminary plat III GARAGE VARIANCES City Code Section 31-1, Subd 11 2(4)5 states that a front facing garage in the TR, Traditional Residential zoning district must have a 27 foot front setback Lots 1,10,14 and 15 do not meet this standard Since there appears to be reasonable alternative garage locations that meet this setback requirement, staff recommends that plans be redrawn rather than approve the variances In addition, 75% of the front facing garages in a PUD must be set 6 feet further back than the front of the house There are six front facing garages, so one garage could have a setback equal to that of the house, or it could even be closer to the front lot line than the front of the house All of the rest of the garages must have offset setbacks Given the shape of Lot 9 and 10, they will both likely have to have garages in front of the houses Staff would support this, but the other four front facing garages should have the required 6 foot offset IV ANNEXATION According to the Orderly Annexation Agreement, the subject property is located m the Phase IV annexation area This area is not scheduled for development until 2015 But, the unhll provision of the agreement (Section 4 09) would allow the request to be approved, since each of the following criteria are satisfied o 100% of the subject landowners have signed an annexation petitioned, o The property is adjacent to the City, o The level of growth m the entire area regulated by the agreement has not exceeded 120 permits per year, and o Utilities are immediately available to the property The City Council and Joint Planrung Board both support the proposed annexation During discussions with both groups, they noted that in order to develop the US Homes property immediately north of Brown's Creek Reserve, it would be rational to install utilities across Brown s Creek Reserve August 8 2006 Page 8 Brown's Creek Reserve It would also make sense to annex and develop Brown's Creek Reserve now V MISCELLANEOUS Demolition permits are required for the house and accessory structure that are still on the property If either structure is over 50 years old, it must be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission RECOMMENDATIONS City Parks & Recreation Board At their April 24, 2006 meeting on a 5-0 vote (one abstention) the Parks Board recommended approval of the trail and sidewalk improvements but also recommended that the park dedication obligation be satisfied through a cash dedication rather than land City Planning Commmssion At their May 8, 2006 meeting on an 8-1 vote the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Concept PUD with the conditions that park dedication be in the form of cash in heu of land, and that the sidewalk along Neal Avenue also be extended northward to the northern property line of the project Joint Planning Board At their May 24, 2006 meeting the Joint Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the Concept PUD plans City staff Since, DNR approval is necessary and critical to the preliminary plat design, staff is not comfortable recommending approval until the DNR review has been substantially completed Therefore, staff recommends contmumg the hearing until the DNR review is substantially complete ALTERNATIVES A Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be satisfactory, it could approve it with the following conditions 1 The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following plans on file with the Community Development Department, except as may be modified by the conditions herein • Proposed Layout Plan dated 6/22/06 • Proposed Grading Plan dated 6/22/06 • Proposed Street Plan and Profile dated 6/26/06 • Proposed Utihty Plan dated 6/26/06 • Proposed Landscape Plan dated 6/22/06 • Layout Plan - 35 Foot Frontage dated 7/ 10/ 06 Brown s Creek Reserve August 8 2006 Page 9 2 The developer shall complete a PUD worksheet and submit it to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's (DNR) area hydrologist If the DNR review results in substantial changes to the preiminary plat layout, then the developer shall resubmit the prehmmary plat for review by the Planrung Comrrussion 3 The rezonmg, comprehensive plan amendment and annexation shall not become effective until the applicant receives Final Plat and Final PUD plan approval from the City Council 4 If the Metropolitan Council requires any significant modifications to the Comprehensive Plan amendment as proposed, then the Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be reconsidered by the City 5 If the Metropolitan Council makes a finding that the Comprehensive Plan amendment has a substantial impact on, or contains a substantial departure from any metropolitan systems plan, then the Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be reconsidered by the City 6 The preliminary engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction prior to fmal plat application The final plat apphcahon materials shall contain at least the engineering changes suggested in the attached memo from Shawn Sanders dated August 7, 2006 7 The permanent cul-de-sac radius shall be increased to 95 feet and a temporary turnaround of 120 feet total length shall be provided on the north end of the property These revisions shall be included in the final plat apphcation materials 8 Any of the seven conditions found on Page 5 of this report that are adopted by the Brown's Creek Watershed District Board shall be resolved and incorporated into the plans submitted for the final plat application 9 In order to determine the required number of replacement trees, a canopy removal plan must be submitted no later than one week prior to City Council consideration of the prelm-u nary plat 10 If any of the oak trees on the site or within the Neal Avenue right of way are to be pruned or removed, this work should not be done between April and October If it can not be avoided, then the developer must notify the Community Development Department to arrange for the City Forester to be on site to assure that proper oak wilt transmission methods are employed 11 The sidewalk along Neal Avenue and between the cul-se-sac and Neal Avenue shall be shown as an 8 foot wide bitummous trail in the final plat application materials Along Neal Avenue this trail shall be aligned so as to preserve as many oaks as possible 12 A permanent trail easement in a form and with content found satisfactory to the City Attorney and the Pubhc Works Director shall be submitted for the trail segment between Lots 5 and 6 Said easement shall be fully executed and submitted to the City prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County 13 A temporary trail easement in a form and with content found satisfactory to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director shall be submitted for the temporary trail segment along the north property hne of Lot 15 Said easement shall be submitted to the City prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County 14 Prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County, an escrow shall be deposited with the City in an amount found sufficient by the Stillwater Public Works Director to remove the temporary trail on the north side of Lot 15 when the trail system m Millbrook develops and the temporary trail becomes unnecessary Brown s Creek Reserve August 8 2006 Page 10 15 Prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County, an escrow shall be deposited with the City m an amount found sufficient by the Stillwater Public Works Director to remove the temporary street access to Neal Avenue when access to Neal Avenue is available through the property to the north 16 Prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County, a $30 000 park dedication fee and $3,375 trail fee shall be submitted to the City 17 The final plat shall include restricted access to McKusick Road 18 All electrical and communications utility Imes shall be buried This shall be specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval 19 Trout Stream Mitigation fees and Transportation Mitigation fees will be due and payable prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County 20 Final plat application materials shall include a revised landscaping plan that shows street trees planted 40 feet on center to the extent possible 21 A copy of the wetland delineation report prepared for the Brown s Creek wetlands located on the site shall be submitted no later than one week prior to review of the preliminary plat by the City Council 22 The final plat application materials shall include a revised site layout plan that shows all garages meeting required front setback standards However, Lot 9 and Lot 10 may both have garages in front of the homes 23 No structures on the property may be demolished without a demolition permit issued by the City If any of the remairung structures are older than 50 years, a complete demolition permit application must be submitted to the City for Heritage Preservation Commission review B Approval in Part If the Planning Comnussion finds the proposal to be satisfactory, except for the requested garage setback variances, it could approve the remainder of the project requests with the conditions found in Alternative A C Table If the Planning Commission finds that the preliminary plat application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional mformation D Denial If the Planning Comnssion finds the proposal to be unsatisfactory, it could deny it With a denial, the basis of the action should be given cc Tim Freeman Rick Carlson Attachments Location Map Comp Plan Map Development Plan Set Lot 1/8 Revision Memo from Interim Public Works Director Brown's Creek Reserve Location Map Railroad Property lines Surface water City of Stillwater Township of Stillwater 1 City of Grant Sctn.shp Exhibit A ('mnmumo DoeInnmcm Ihnnnmcm Brown's Creek Reserve Current Comp Plan Map n Property lines Comp Plan Land Use Classes au RR, Semi -Rural Residential • SFLL, Single Family Large Lot • SFSL, Single Family Small Lot [7-1 ASF, Attached Single Family mpg MF, Multi -Family CN, Neighborhood Commercial 11111 CC, Community Commercial ▪ BPC, Business Park Commercial ▪ A/O, Administrative/Office • BPO, Business Park Office I BPI, Business Park Industrial RDP, Research & Development Park OPS, Open Space I ; ; PC, Community Park 111111 CEM, Cemetery - PG, Golf Course ▪ PM, Marina ▪ PN, Neighborhood Park ▪ ES, Elementary School IIIII SS, Secondary School L I RAIL ROW ' WAT WET r ] OUT 111111 PF, Public Works Facility Exhibit B ROWNS CREEK /'' ESER VE 0 i / / LAYOUT PLAN - 35' FRONTAGE FFE 900 0 LOE8910 / BFE 89 f 0 / F F 904 0 / LOE 895 0 / / dFE 895 0 / / / / / Q 10 504 sq 41‘ 1 / 10� / \ 12607sgft \ / \ / \ / \ / 5 11 487 \ LOE9+70 / R: �^jh/\ \ BF •t' 6 ytiF \ <J L-3 N \10 191 sq ft ="' 17 // I N \ \\ \ IFS` 906 5 I 1 NI LOEB• \�f. \14983sgft \ \ \ • FFE 907 0 LOE 900 0 BFE 898 0 IP—I _Ij L 201..Ff .I•a.1K1-41:.F. -Fg a U rf ;KUSICK ROAD NORTH 0 30 E0 1 110 REVISION DESCRIPTION I HERESY CERTIFY T T THIS PLAN SPEOFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED B E 0 DER ORECT SUPERNS ON AND THAT I AM DULY LCE SED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER U DER THE LAWS OE THE ST IE OF ESOT T00D A WOTAN 40418 u DATE ®9®R MOM VJV 0®R =NgWVBs Nabsfiali MDR 7-10-08 la on 05-104 i ANCHOBAY PRO, LLC 35' FRONTAGE es LA-1 MET 1 OF Memorandum To Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director From Shawn Sanders, lltenm Public Works Director Date 8/7/2006 Re Browns Creek Reserve Preliminary Plat Review The plans for the Browns Creek Reserve Project are complete with the following comments 1 The sidewalk shown along Neal Avenue and entenng their site between lots five and six should be changed to a eight -foot bituminous path It is anticipated that this trail would ultimately extend to Highway 96 and serve more as part of a regional trail system 2 There is an existing retaining wall at the northwest corner of Neal and McKusick The plans do not depict this It may have an effect of how the site is graded and how a trail is installed Also the shown on the plans is to steep This corner should be re- evaluated and modified 3 The sidewalk/trail shown in the northeast corner of the property shows that significant oaks will be removed The sidewalk location should be moved to avoid this 4 The Developer for the Browns Creek reserve shall be responsible for extending a 12" watermain along to Neal from McKusick Road to the temporary road access and up to the Millbrook Development 5 A fifteen foot easement utility and trail easement shall be dedicated between lots 5 and 6 6 No storm ponding calculations were submitted and the storm sewer design submitted does not correspond to the utility plans This will have to resubmitted 7 Plans shall be submitted to Browns Creek Watershed Distnct for their review and comment All comments above shall be incorporated into the final plans and resubmitted for review by the City Engineer Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer )ii, ?[lV•NI,;;21AI ,AtYOillil 71.1 l�1,l I (I, iYIi 3O'ri4:11, „i(7 ii`i !•lS, (r)il) Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING FFE iw 5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 Phone (651) 439.8833 Fax (651) 430.9331 OMEAVAL SCALE 1 NCH - 40 LEFT SCALE w LE£T LEGEND EXISTING TREE (REMOVAL) EXISTING TREE (REMAIN) TREE I.D. NUMBER BROWNS CREEK PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING CONTOUR DELINEATED WETLAND WETLAND SETBACK CREEK BUFFER ER(701.5 eRES SsSS STILLWATER, MINNESOTA EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP NO. 03-158D BROWNS CREEK RESERVE DEVELOPMENT — STILLWATER, MINNESOTA — 06/22/06 — SHEET 1 OF 6 SHEETS 8' BIT. TRAIL MCKUSICK ROAD NORTH DENSITY ANALYSIS Description Proposed Right of Total Area Per Area (s.f.) Way Buildable Lot Lot Count Northern Area (1000' Setback Area) Southem Area 188,663 30,702 157,961 21,780 7.3 131,127 46,986 84,141 10,000 8.4 Totals 77,688 242,102 31,780 15.7 S PN 4.SW9 cYs°'' 5'SWK PROPOSED TEMPORARY ACCESS DRIVE. TO BE VACATED WHEN ACCESS TO MILLBROOK DEVELOPMENT BECOMES AVAILABLE IN FUTURE. HERITAGE OAKS TO BE PRESERVED Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING MOO 5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 Phone (651) 439-8833 Fax (651) 430-9331 00/r)NAL SCALE INCH - 40 FEET SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 80 )yet LAYOUT NOTES 1) PROPOSED SETBACKS: FRONT = 20-ft SIDE = 10-ft REAR = 25-ft 2) UTILITY EASEMENTS: FRONT = 10-ft SIDE = 5-ft REAR = 10-ft 3) LOT & PROPERTY AREA: MINIMUM= 10,251 sq. ft. MAXIMUM = 19,837 sq. ft. AVERAGE = 13,103 sq. ft. TOTAL LOT COVERAGE = 201,388 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA = 413,676 sq. ft. 4) PARK AREA: TOTAL PARK AREA = 144,327 sq. ft. TOTAL PARK AREA REQUIRED = 27,098 sq. ft. (10%) UPLAND PARK AREA (EXCLUDES PONDS & WETLAND SETBACK) = 31,149 sq. ft. 5) RIGHT OF WAY: PROPOSED WIDTH = 60-ft PROPOSED WIDTH (NEAL) = 17-ft ADDITIONAL = 50-ft (WEST OF CENTERLINE) FROWIS e'ss< 'sssRtrE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA PROPOSED LAYOUT PLAN Note: Area per lot = 1/2 Acre for area within 1000' setback and 10,000 s.f. for area outside of setback MAP NO. 03-158D BROWNS CREEK RESERVE DEVELOPMENT — STILLWATER, MINNESOTA — 06/22/06 — SHEET 2 OF 6 SHEET L AVENUE NORTH MCKUSICK ROAD NORTH LEGEND • OAKS & MAPLES FLOWERING CRABS & SERVICEBERRY EXISTING SHADE TREES PROPOSED WHITE PINE, I I & NORWAY SPRUCE EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES TREE SCHEDULE DECIDUOUS TREES Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING 0 w E 5620IMEMORIAL AVENUENORTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA TA 55082 Phone (651) 439.8833 Fax (651) 430-9331 PT P+2 Some&NNasw Cmmon Naas,. Su< Rom Naas 5 AI Aar. Naera.rdi )dkrared' Aurwm Mare Maple 25' Cal BY8 Natural Farm 6 A Aar wham Red Maple 15" CaL BBB Natural Farm 5 As Aar acN.rum S,Mv M+Pk 15- Gl 6. Natural Form 2 Qm Quemu nw.00rp Bur Oak 2 5 Gl. 1140 Natural Form Qr Quertvs en:prmdatia Nm01,111 ,Calk 2S Cal BAB NNural Fenn 2 , Quertua rule. N.NvRed Oak P 2S Cal Bk 6 Natural Farm EVERGREEN TREES I) Ps Purus awbus WI'. Pine 6Hr. BNB Natural Farm 12 Pa Norway Sp,ry 64BL B1� Natural Fars, 00 NOT HEAVILY PRUNE 1HE TILE M PONING PRIME OLLY U055USA URS CO-006f4aH1 dC RAFRIOR LOGS ONO 1.11651 BRANCNES 5 10MOVE E PRUNED,TEERN.) BUDS BPI1CHE0511w 10 TOF 7 EXTEND TO RE EDLE Of THE CRONI,. 00F MTREES E OSC*PYE MI UPON rFPRwa ORIGINAL SCALE I INCH . 40 FEET SCALE /N FEET 20 w PRAP THEE 11366 S R Fall OF PLANTING TEAR (BY OCTOBER 151N) AND REMOVE BY WAIL 151 FO1.0MNG SPIN P.Rx THE NORM SIDE Of THE TREE N 1K NURSERY. ANO ROTRE RIFE EACH TREE MST BE PUREED SIAN IHAT TO LE M SID NORAi DIE E .FN MR THE Ilk . FLARE 5 YSBE Al INC MP Of M R001 BNL TREES MERE IRE 1171. SEI lOP Of RWt 85.1 (LUSH )10 LIPINN1�BOD I2NI (4 F1IRAQ IOW FI e0ISg0N£R IN ll ME RO0REJE1 MGNER N 5 DULYlf 1-2 SOBS- aW IW (M.) URN. MSEERIIFD B4l nIN 50l IED 200 kW (B M) 50 1641 (2 IN) NLLOI CD NO PUCE MULCH IN CONTACT BEM MIT _TRUNK Walt N THE MULCH NEED- MI FOR AFTER PLANTING. NOTE. BACKFILL ALL PLANTINGS WITH 1 PART COMPOST. 1 PART SAND. 1 PART SOIL FROM PLANTING HOLE MIXTURE W UR (4 M.1 K R0NICK01 611. FIRM SAUCER BC10ND FDRX RENCKE all 1PNE. ROPE HMO PRE. MCI 1 PUNT 5 SHIPPED NUN A PRE �S*20(001 AROUND DIE CES FOLD 00�'Mi � 6M (8 N) IRO PIPPING HIN FOUR UE 0 PLAP b ON UNCSCAYATED OR INAPED S. TAPP SO AROUND ROOT BALL BASE FRM.Y MN F001 PRESSURE 50 17451 .001 BALL DOES N01 5H4F1 TREE PLANTING DETAIL - B&B TREES IN ALL SOIL TYPES IMF ' THIS DETAIL ASSURES THAT THE PUNTING SPICE 5 LARGER TNAR 2400 RN (B FT1 SOWEE OPEN TO TIE SRN, AND NOT NAACO BY MY PAYNG OR GRATING . (OEM SOURCE NIER.7101.1 SOCIETY OF lB80RCLATORE .) ERM/725 eRES RESERtS STILLWATER, MINNESOTA PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN BROWNS CREEK RESERVE DEVELOPMENT — STILLWATER, MINNESOTA — 06/22/06 — SHEET 3 OF 6 SHEETS RAGP TJn n3-15Rn TOE' OF BERM 878.5 EOF 878.7 8 Cr CL RIP RAP pl 0 E07-3A 878.5 E. 7. MCKUS1CK ROAD NORTH J Y BOUNDARY 9 cc I0 8.5.8 • Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING 1000 5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 Phone (651) 439-8833 Fax (651) 430.9331 ORIGINAL Salt 1 INCH 40 FEET SCALE IN FEET LEGEND 20 a0 EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY 940 PROPOSED CONTOUR -� -- --AI PROPOSED STORM SEWER WI M.H. C B. & F E S. 4'> PROPOSED DRAINAGE ARROW 80 Feat FROWIS ZSEE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA PROPOSED GRADING PLAN MAP NO. 03-158D BROWNS CREEK RESERVE DEVELOPMENT — S TILL WA TER, MINNESOTA — 06/22/06 — SHEE T 4 OF 6 SHEETS 910 BVCS:0+00 BVCE: 900.21 890 O m6, 0 200.0' VC LOW POINT ELEV = 896.49 LOW POINT STA = 1+31.62 PVI STA = 1+00 PVI ELEV = 894.56 A.D. = 8.59 K = 23.29 N O rnm 3 4 co N m 4 o 910 900 890 ORIGINAL SCALE INCN 10 FEET SCALE IN FEET 20 40 00 feet Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING 5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 Phone (651) 43943833 Fax (651) 430-9331 R/W R/W 15' 30' B—B 15' 2.0% MIN. 2.0% SEE PLAN & PROFILE SHEET FOR GENTERUNE PROFHE 2.0% 2.0% MIN. PLACE MIN. 4' OF CL 5 AGO. UNDER CURB (TIP) I —END CL 5 MIN. 6" BEHIND BACK OF CURB (TYP.) CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (TYP.) (MODIFIED "S" DESIGN RAISED TO 1" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE B618 AT INTERSECTION RADII & MN DOT SPEC. 2350 LV4 AT CATCH BASIN INLETS) MN DOT /2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.5" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE MN DOT SPEC. 2350 LV3 8" AGGREGATE BASE, CL5, COMPACTED TO 100% STANDARD PROCTOR (RECYCLED OK) MECHANICALLY COMPACTED SUBGRADE (98% OF THE STANDARD PROCTOR MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY) SUBGRADE CORRECTION AS REQUIRED BY ENGINEER TYPICAL STREET SECTION NO SCALE ER0201.5 eRES RESERVE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA PROPOSED STREET PLAN & PROFILE MAP NO. 03-158D BROWNS CREEK RESERVE DEVELOPMENT — STILLWATER, MINNESOTA — 06/26/06 — SHEET 5 OF 6 SHEETS All RIO. Reameel US HOMES MH 4 RIM 898.70 INV. 884.04 N INV. 875.83 E BUILD 22.87' 264LF 10" PVC SDR 35 028% 109 881.5 15 MH8 RIM 897.9 +/- INV. 873.99 W INV. 873 89 S BUILD 21.89' FUTURE CONNECTION TO MILLBROOK 8"WM 10- PVC SDR 35 028% 5LF 10"PV R 35 a 0.281 MH74 06 RIM 696.30 . INV. 890.00 NE/ ' RIM. 896.53 •'-!NV 685.00 SW 'INV. 873.35 NW INV. 873.25 SE BUILD 2328' MH105 RIM 883.00 INV 879.00 INV. 877.09 INV. 876 INV 673.0 S FES 100 INV. 872.9 CBMH 714 RIM 667.0 INV. 878.36 S INV. 878.25 N 1M 896. 1NV.892.72 - H1iLa; CBMH 110 ' RIM 898.58 INV. 894.58 98 LF 10" PVC SDR 26 g 036% MH 5 RIM 898.71 INV. 872.90 NW' -- INV. 87280 SE 800.0 25.91' MH4 RIM 901.52 INV. 872.46 NW .' INV. 872.365 BUILD 29-16' CBMH 111 • RIM 901 54 • INV 897.54' CB 12 RIM 901.54 INV. 897.54 STMH 115 RIM 883.5'\ INV. 879.75 S ----`. 230 LF INV 879.65 N � 70' PVC /// SDR 26 CBMH 116 ` @ 0.40% RIM 866.0--__/ INV 880.31 5 *Wit) INV. 880.11 N 0 -ISM 2 RIM 888.00 ,!NV 877.74 NW !NV 871.04 S 6 8U1 ,.96' CBMH 117 RIM 8860�- INV 867.5S INV. 881.4 N CBMH 118 RIM 886.0 INV. 881.82 CB 118 _ MCKUSICK ROAD NORTH H)DRANT6 GATE VALVE ASSEMBLY 10'MIN. 93 LF 10-PVC CONNECT TO WATER BY OTHERS WITH 8' LINE AND CONTINUE AS SHOWK 'CONNECTION TO •�/ CITY SANITARY SEWER Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING 5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 Phone (651) 439-8833 Fax (651) 430.9331 MONA( SCALE I MICN . 10 FEET SCALE IN TTET LEGEND Zo 4o eo «< -♦•24ro 8P--a a ew CB ill PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED STORM SEWER Wl M.H., C.B. 8 F.E.S. PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER W/ M.H. PROPOSED WATERMIAN EXISTING WATERMAIN PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE NO. PROPOSED STORM STRUCTURE MANHOLE NO. NOTES 1) SANITARY SEWER: 10' PVC SDR 35 OR 26 @ 0.28% MINIMUM GRADE 2) WATERMAIN: 8' DIP CL. 52 AT 8-FT BURY TO TOP OF PIPE 3) MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPERATION BETWEEN UTILITIES: 10-FT 4) SERVICES: WATER 1' COPPER TYPE K, SANITARY 4' SCH. 40 FROW12.5 e'ss sERrrS STILLWATER, MINNESOTA PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 8 MAP NO. 03-158D BROWNS CREEK RESERVE DEVELOPMENT - STILLWATER, MINNESOTA - 06/26/06 - SHEET 6 OF 6 SHEETS t E BIRIHPLA [ O f MINNF 0 1 A Planning Commission DATE APPLICANT Kriss Novak, South Metro Centers V REQUESTS 1 A special use permit for a drive thru 2 A variance to exceed the maximum allowed wall signage on the existing and proposed building LOCATION 1250 Frontage Road West COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT BP -I - Business Park - Industrial ZONING BP-C - Business Park - Commercial CPC DATE August 14, 2006 REVIEWERS Interim Public Works Director, Community Development Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner ry,4p August 9, 2006 CASE NO SUP\V\06-46 DISCUSSION The owners of the Valley Ridge Shopping Center are seeking approval to construct a drive-thru as part of their 6,900 square foot addition on the west end of the existing Valley Ridge Center at the intersection of Highway 36 and Northwestern Avenue The property is located within the West Stillwater Business Park Additionally, with this request they are seeking an amendment to their existing 1987 variance related to signage After discussion with City Staff the applicant has requested that the Commission table action on their variance until September 11, 2006 in order for the applicant to address staff comments EVALUATION OF REQUEST Special Use Permit for the Drive-thru A special use perrrut applicant may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found 1250 Frontage Road West Page 2 1 The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations The West Stillwater Business Park Plan allows drive-thru operations with a special use permit The plan also suggests that drive lane should be screened to the best extent possible The applicant is proposing the drive-thru between the existing building and the new building The design also provides for continuous band and roof over the drive-thru area in order provide a consistent look to the building and to allow for a future bay to be built within the drive-thru space if the drive-thru function would be cease in the future The proposed drive-thru meets the intent of this chapter and the West Stillwater Business Park Plan 2 Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed a design review application for the addition on August 7, 2006 The HPC approved the application with the conditions in this report The public interest will be satisfied with these conditions 3 The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community Headlights from the drive-thru will have a minimal impact on adjacent roadways and properties Vehicular circulation for the drive-thru is logical as proposed The proposed use will not constitute a nuisance to the public welfare of the commuruty FINDINGS The proposed drive-thru will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance ACTION BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed a design review application for the addition on August 7, 2006 The HPC approved the application with the conditions listed below RECOMMENDATION 1 Approve the Special Use Permit as conditioned 2 Open the public hearing on the variance to exceed the maximum allowed wall signage on the existing and proposed building and continue it to the Planning Commission's September 11, 2006 meeting 1250 Frontage Road West Page 3 CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1 The project construction shall be in compliance with the plan set dated August 3, 2006, which is on file in the Community Development Department 2 All minor modifications to the Design Review Permit shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator 3 Any proposed outside garbage storage shall be enclosed The location and screening of the equipment shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit 4 Any exterior mechanical units shall meet the design standards found in the West Stillwater Business Park Plan The location and screening of the equipment shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit 5 The back of the parapet that will be visible from Northwestern Avenue shall be a color that will match the back of the building Final colors shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit 6 An exterior lighting plan for the addition shall been submitted The location and planting materials shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building perrrut 7 A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted The location and fixture types shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit 8 All landscaping shall be installed prior to final project inspection 9 A new sign plan shall be submitted to the HPC for review and action prior to final inspection and occupancy of the building addition The sign plan shall cover the entire complex, including both the existing and new buildings 10 That the materials on the north elevation shall wrap around the east and west sides for consistency 11 The trash enclosure and lighting plan handed out at the meeting shall be made part of the official submittal Attachments Applicant's Form and Drive-thru Site Plan PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COiMMUNiT>! DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CiTY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STiLLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt Nc ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit 1/ Variance Resubdiiision Subdivision` Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development' Certificate of Compliance An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The fees for requested action are attached to this application The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (1 e photos sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required if application is submitted o the City Council twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process After Planning Commission approvals there is a 10-day appeal period Once the 10 day appeal period has ended the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits v e?`A1%e• PROPERTf IDENTIFICATION Address cf DrojecL frOn le- Q.ct UJE51— 4ssessors Parcel No ✓Z "d5D - 20 - 44—col to Zoning Distric e, G Description of Proiect A-eTJ -+Je A-00t 710N) LI 02(z— (GEO Code) I hereby stare the foregoing statements and al! data information and evidence submitted herewith in al! respects to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct ! further certify! will comply with the permit If it is granted and used " Proper/ Owns rDtJl1�1040114 a NW-LS MailingAddre s 5JJ5 �i 6IE (�2ST III City Sate Zip 5r (AkIS ►PAL4_I iMi• Telepnone ,Nq / 95?- — S 4 3 Signature Representative Mailing Address City State Zip Telephone No Signature (Signature is required) (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lo Size ',dime! siors, 400 6100 Land area 56I ,6155' dt a 31 . "eight or Euildi g, Stories Feet Princip �I _ Aoresnr✓ Total Building floor area SS,000 square feet Existing square feet P oposed 71I0(0 square feet Pavel (miler sous ' rea square fee. No or orf street parking spaces 541 ,ncram^.rn, -ei, °lri l Fc FPf 1 PAa/ _ cOGc PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COiMMUNIT i DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 218 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt Nc ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit V Variance Resubdivision Subdivision` Comprehensive Plan Amendment' Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development Certificate of Compliance An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The fees for requested action are attached to this application The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (r e photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required 1f application is submitted, a the City Council twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process After Planning Commission approvals there is a 10-day appeal period Once the 10 day appeal perod has ended the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits ve? fs✓i( PROPERT f IDENTIFICATION Zoning Distnc 6P G Description of Proiect Address of ProjecL A �N = c 2-t 1-12. — Assessors Parcel No 32--0 Zo - 4 —coo (GEO Code) 1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct 1 further certify 1 will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " Proper'y Owns r i.11� 1�t✓�1�-t� Nib Representative tit ailing A ddre s tJ ?JS'i 6(,E 1 S iE- t ( Mailing Address City Sate Zip 5 r (AAA' S PA -I is Km) 5 j41f, City State Zip Telephone ill QSa- — 8 4-3 _ 0-0 7- Telephone No Signature 0-% Signature (Signature is required) (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION LoL size (dime, "ior's, 400 1 6100 Land ,lrea 361 ,6155 4 8 31 hG Weight or Euildi Stories Feet Pnncip 41 A�ressr ry Total Builaing floor area 8,000 square feet Existing square feet P oprserl square feet Paved fmper',ous ea square feel. No or off street parking spaces 54-1 r is-lanarn FPr1 tla i - ,GGc e< J 1 J 4 I� II II it 1 I I I a - —b Valley Ridge Parking Calculation Summary July 20 2006 _ SF Parking per Parking Tenant Suite Sq Ft Use/Comments per 1 000 1000 s f Calculation Acapulco Restaurant 1240 8 460 Restaurant 100 10 0 85 Creative Art Supply 1250 / 340 Framing Shop 200 5 0 I / Aenal Beauty Supply 1260 2 385 Beauty Supply /00 5 0 12 Huntington Learning Center 1 /62 / 385 Assumes retail 200 5 0 12 Anytime Fitness 1270 4 499 Fitness Center 100 10 0 45 Future Retail 1270 4 499 Assumes retail 200 5 0 22 St Croix Vision 1280 2 142 Optical sales and service /00 5 0 11 The Golf Shoppe 1290 1 440 Golf equipment sales and service 200 5 0 7 PC Network Services 1300 1 440 changes to retail 200 5 0 7 x Stillwater Library 1305 3 /00 shrinks to 3 200 St Retail 200 5 0 16 H & R Block 1310 1 440 Tax return office 300 3 3 5 Diamonds on Main 1316 1 440 changes to retail 200 5 0 7 The Bead Alley 13/0 1440 Retail sales of beads and yarn /00 5 0 7 Charlottes Quilting 1330 1 440 Quilting retailer 200 5 0 7 Euro Nails 1340 2 160 Nail salon 200 5 0 11 Spike s Shoe Repair 1350 700 Shoe and leather repair /00 5 0 4 x Advanced Renosations 1360 / 357 changes to retail 200 5 0 12 Washington Conservation Distnct 1380 2 914 General office 300 3 3 10 x Charlottes Quilting Web 1390 1775 changes to office 300 3 3 6 Fresh Field Bakery 1400 4 716 Restaurant 120 8 3 39 Karate Club 1440 2 942 Martial arts studio 200 5 0 15 Stillwater Sports Barber 1450 490 Barber 5 3 0 15 3 stalls per chair Shorty s Cleaners 1460 490 Dry cleaners drop off /00 5 0 2 St Croix Valley Cable 1465 3 969 General office 300 3 3 13 Asian Buffet 1490 5 774 Restaurant 100 10 0 58 Ar astable 1500 3 018 Retail 200 5 0 15 Washington County Licensing 15/0 3 527 General office 300 33 12 Dr Spore Wellness & Longevity Center 1530 825 Chiropractor 200 5 0 4 Available 1560 ' 451 General office 300 3 3 8 x Stillwater Library x Stillwater Library Leasable Building Area 1305 6 611 converted into garage 0 0 0 0 1305 6 611 converted into garage 0 0 0 0 76 658 478 83 269 Adjustments for Required Add Additional Retail Requirement 2 580 Retail 200 5 0 13 Add Additional Restaurant Requirement 4 500 Restaurant 120 8 3 38 Total Required 83 738 529 Total Provided Post Renovation / Loss of Parking Per Alternative #5 Revised Parking Provided 83 738 541 6 46 536 Surplus/(Shortfall) Stalls to Date 7 per Tushie/Montgomery plans dated June 19 2006 sheet Lt 0 plus two stalls from SEC missed (14 v 12) Alternative #5 loses 5 stalls compared to the pnor site submittal on June 19th Park ng C k /010 VR 072006 XLS 7/202006 BI TI M NODS NORTH WESTERN N mm 5r zr 2 E OVO! 39VI NObL4 a3LV01a30 A1allfnd Ri ig 75 0 70 0 L EP N lti CS a N r� n • P v 0 uA gg 2 g Pi 9€S 9NI)INVd T/1D1 A gg g i t A� I� Q � o° - 6 Wig 06F. P !PO! U°1 O ; �T m vQ� t H > N p N2D D i e q 4 99 o ;1 VALLEY RIDGE RETAIL STILLWATER, MN S310N 311S 1`d213N39 4 EIFS FABC CANOPY MANUFACTURED T5 BEAM PANT STONE PIER STANDING SEAM METAL CANOPY OSOUTN ELEVATION SCALE 1/8 I 0 FREFINISNED METAL CAP PREFINISNED METAL FLASHING EIFS CORNICE COLORED EIFS BANDS (EIFS •2) WALL MOUNTED LIGHT P l0 C AF F TYPICAL SIGNAGE PRECAST CAP BRICK PIER PRECAST SILL ROCXFACE PIER BASE (CMU al) ALUM! UM 570REFRONj TYPICAL NEW EXISTING PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING COLORED EFS BANDS (EIFS a2) FABRIC CANOPY PRFrOS'.T SILL MANUFACTURED STOLE PIER SIGNAGE 1 DRIVE THU ONORTN ELEVATION SCALE I/6 1 CO SIGNAGE SIGNAGE EXISTING SIGNAGE ALUMINUM DOOR TYPICAL NEN \A/ VY V 7 Qi I \ I WALL rouNTED Lam I • 1 I 1 I v ROG FACE CMU (CT1U I) OW EST ELEVATION SCALE I/B I 0 smimimmom a..., w w=w• w• w••_MO• ��� w W� w•� ����=�=w=�wwww�MMwwwnv_w mow• w• �w•w•w•w• _ ••� •WW 1M MMWMMMMM•• _ �� �M=�wMM NY���_��Y�=�•I■• I� wI�NN ���w�ww�w• �wwww••m� wwMwww• M.IMwlmm.m••MMI•nmlm��muw�w•m��.0•����wt♦M�w����ri 1 ��• ' � NEW OIL/ INFILL AT EXISTING I PATCH AND REPAIR NEW CMU MU. WALLS FOR NEN CFAT1 EXISTING 10EN1NG5 TO MATCH EXISTING! EXISTING WALL A5 NFrF55ART TRASH AREA OPENINGS TO MATCH EXISTING AFTER DEMO P IO -0' A.F F TYPICAL NEW BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING I NEW OVERHEAD DOOR PAINT DES t I SIGNAGE { (CM r2) RCXKE 511) "= EIFS ROCKFACE CMU (LMU a2) SINGLE SCORE BURNISHED HALF HIGH UV tC11U a3) ROC FACE C1'N (CMU el) EXISTING EIFS NEW FABRIC CANOPY EXISTING BUILDINGCA FADE if UR NEW MANUFACTED STONE PIER W/ PRECAST CAP LUMNUM NEW AISTOREFRONT PAINT EXISTING DOORS NEW I EXISTING ICE BR OC, Rat RAISIN VELOUR UTILITY 51ZE BELDEN BRICK C0 PRISM P4520 HAZELNUT C711 11 TAUPE ROOTAGE FINISH ANCHOR BLOCK PRISM P4620 HAZELNUT INTEGRATED WATERPRCOFING 011 N2. CEDAR ROCKFACE FINISH ANCHOR BLOCK PR151'1 P4520 11A7FLIAT INTEGRATED WATERPROOFING O111I3.4 CEDAR BURNISHED SINGLE SCORE FINSIH ANCHOR BLOCK PRISM P4820 HAZELNUT INTEGRATED WATERPROOFING EIFS a4 3 COAT SYSTEM SAND PEPPLE FINISH BUCKSKIN DRIYIT EIFS +2. 3 COAT 5Y5TE71 SAND PEF?LE FINISH SAND DOLLAR TVFT DR MANUFACTURED 5TONSOUTHERNFAWN SOUTHERN L000051 NE CULTUED RSTONE METAL FLASHING 4 PAINTED METAL SADDLE ER ROLL PAINTED METAL TO MATCH C5RTAINWALL I STOREFRCM I INSULATED CLEAR GLASS CLEAR ANLM ANODIZED A CAVAS AWNINGS: BLACK (a1,06 0000) StNBRELIA PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING EFS CORNICE COLORED EIFS BANDS NEWIBRICK TO MATCH DISTING FABRIC CANOPT SINGLE SCgt0, BURNISHED`{ HALF NIGH CHU (CTIU a33) ROCKFACE C7L (CMU el) ALUMINUM STOREFRONT TYPICAL NEVI OVERHEAD EXISTING GAS METER AREA I PRFrAST CAP BRICK PIER PRECAST SILL ROCKFACE PIER BASE (CMU a1) TUSHIE MONTGOMERY ARCHITECTS 7545 LY1OALE AVENUE SOUTH, MOD 16NIENFOLIS. YNNESOTA 55423 4084 612 661 9635 FAX 512 581 B632 WNW TIDARCHITECTS COY Prepered Par IIJ 1 Y11.,, _ • All ARLNTECTWAL AND ENCINTFIWC DRAWNTS ARE M CONED= NO DISSOCIATION WAY NOT E INCE WITHOUT mace WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT ALL COACH LAW ROCS OF COPYRIGHT NO °DIERITLg. NE HEREBY S'ECFICALLY RESERVED. I HEREBY CEIRFT THAT MS RM. SPECIFICATION. OR REPORT WAS PE PARED BY LIE OR UNDER MY DaECT SUPERVISION NO THAT I NI A ILLY MEWED ED AROFIECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IWOESOTA SRTUTI E PRWR NNE .IEFFREY EL WIEDE DATE 6/211/06 LICETH ••.0247 Date 7/24/06 1 Drawn By JK Ch cked By TL GMT P oject Architect JH Project Number 205052 Re mono & Addendlane VALLEY RIDGE RETAIL ONORTN ELEVATION - EXISTING BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3 0 t HE BIRTH IA ( Of M I N H f S O 1 A Planning Commission DATE APPLICANT Michael Stone August 9, 2006 CASE NO V\06-47 REQUESTS 1 A variance to allow a sign on street frontage (Main Street S) not occupied by the business 2 A variance to allow up to a 39 6 square foot projection sign along Main Street S 3 A variance to allow up to a 22 2 square foot projection sign along Nelson Alley LOCATION 324 Main St S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT CC - Community Commercial ZONING PPC DATE REVIEWERS PREPARED BY CBD - Central Business District August 14, 2006 Community Dev Director Michel Pogge, City Planner MAP DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a total of three variances to allow projection signs along Main St S and Nelson Alley Projection sign facing Main Street The first proposed projection sign is on Main Street The proposed sign will replace the existing Grand Garage sign Staff has been unable to determine the exact date the existing grand garage sign was installed Historically the sign has been used by a number of different tenants including the Coupe deGrille, a former restaurant in the building, in 1997 and now is being used to advertise the Grand Garage building The sign face is 60" by 84 75" with a dimension of 62" x 92" to the outer edge of the sign 41 f 324 Main St S Page 2 The proposed new sign is 62" x 92" in size The sign will be an aluminum cabinet painted to a dark brown The backgrounds will also be painted to a dark brown The word Stone's will be non -painted copper letters Backlit channel boarders and lettering will be used White vinyl strips will be placed along the "S" of Stone's The channel border and the word "Stone's" will be backlit with red LED The words "Restaurant & Lounge" will be backlit with white LED The words cocktails, seafood, and chops will be non -lighted sintra letters painted a soft yellow The zoning ordinance states projection signs in the CBD may not exceed six square feet The outer dimension of the sign is 5'2" x 8'8" for a total sign area of 39 6 square feet Since the existing sign is being removed any "grandfathering" of the sign will be lost and a variance will be required prior to the installation of the proposed sign The applicant has lost his grandfathered right to it and is requesting a variance for it Additionally, City Code would not allow a sign for this business along Main Street since this business does not have frontage along Main Street In the past this sign, has been used by a number of restaurant tenants of the building Variances have been issued in the past by the City to tenants of this space to allow them signs along Main Street Since this sign has not been used by a tenant of this space over the past year the applicant is required to secure a variance in order to have a sign along Main Street Projection sign facing Nelson Alley The second proposed projection sign is on Nelson Alley The proposed sign will replace the existing blank white sign The existing sign was originally approved and installed for LeBistro Cafe in 1983 The size of the sign at that time was 5 5 square feet and met the requirements of the zoning code for a projection sign At some point the sign was modified to be a circular 58 5" x 58 5" sign for a total area of 23 76 square feet Staff has been unable to determine the exact date the sign was changed or whether or not a variance was granted Staff would note that the LeBistro Cafe sign was restricted to the 5 5 square foot size as a condition of approval by the City Council and Planning Commission (note 1983 predates the existence of the HPC) The applicant's proposed projection sign on Nelson Alley is 3'11" x 5'8" in size for a total area of 2219 square feet in size The sign is proposed to be constructed out of the temporary sign face currently located on the Grand Garage sign along Main Street The sign appears to be an opaque plastic sign (Note Staff did not receive details on the sign from the applicant) The sign manufacture indicated to staff that the sign will be installed in a cabinet and will replace the existing round sign They intend to keep and reuse the existing metal supports connecting the sign to the building The Heritage Preservation Commission had a concern that the sign would impede vehicular traffic on Nelson Alley, especially truck traffic, if it would be allowed to extended lower then the existing sign as the applicant has proposed The Heritage Preservation Commission, as a condition of their approval, limited the sign to only the upper "Stone's" portion of the sign and required the lower "Restaurant & Lounge" and "Cocktails, Seafood, and 324 Main St S Page 3 Chops" portions be elirrunated This action also limited the sign to 47" x 30" in size or 9 8 square feet in size The zoning ordinance states projection signs in the CBD may not exceed six square feet The proposed sign would be 9 8 square feet, as restricted by the Heritage Preservation Commission Since the existing sign is being removed any "grandfathering" of the sign will be lost and a variance will be required prior to the installation of the proposed sign The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the proposed sign in excess of the allowed six square foot limit EVALUATION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of a variance to Chapter 31-1-26(8)a 1 and 31- 1 26(8)f 1 of the Stillwater City Code to allow projection signs along Main Street and Nelson Alley A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The location of the applicant's space within the grand garage and the outer design of the building make signing the building and this space in particular more problematic then other buildings and spaces in the downtown area Certainly the applicant gains prospective profits if the variance is granted, however, the hardship for the variance is related to the location of the space and is not dependent on financial necessity 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors Without the approval of a variance the applicant would be denied reasonable visibility of the property due to the nature and location of the property Additionally, there are other projection signs m the area that have been granted via the variance process due to similar circumstances 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan The proposed signs have been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission The purpose of this review is to ensure the sign's consistency with the intent of sign size and location guidelines The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan , 324 Main St S Page 4 FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not the primary motive for requesting the variance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan ACTION BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed a design review application for these signs on August 7, 2006 The HPC approved the application with the conditions listed below RECOMMENDATION Approval as conditioned CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL Conditions for all Signs 1 All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Comrrussion 2 All temporary signs related to Stone's are to be removed prior to the installation of any of the permanent signage 3 No additional signage Conditions for the Wall sign facing Second Street 4 No lighting on the sign Conditions for the Canopy sign facing Nelson Street 5 That the canopy shall not be lit by internal or external means 6 Either install only one sign on the south face of the canopy that covers less than 50 percent of the south face of the canopy or install a sign on both the east and west ends of the canopy with each sign limited to 6 square feet in size Conditions for the Projection sign facing Main Street 4 324 Main St S Page 5 7 The proposed sign shall be no larger than 62" x 92" in size 8 Receive approval of a variance from the Planning Commission to allow this business a projection sign along Main Street and allow the size of the projection sign exceed 6 square feet in size Conditions for the Projection sign facing Nelson Alley 9 That the sign shall not be internally lit 10 Receive approval of a variance from the Planning Commission to allow this business a projection sign along Main Street and allow the size of the projection sign exceed 6 square feet in size 11 Only the upper "Stone's" portion of the sign shall be used and the lower "Restaurant & Lounge" and "Cocktails, Seafood, and Chops" shall be eliminated 12 The proposed sign shall be no larger than 47" x 30" in size Attachments Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and Photos 81-8" (92") 39.6 SQ. FT. 51-2" 6" (62") NAME■ ■ IGN 'COMPANY ; "` ADDRESS p� 27,14' C 33rr, bt DiINNEAPOUS MINN ii4O4 COY- • PH. (112) 7111Gi21, r, FAx 1612) 71l q15 EMAIL=-KAUFSIGNOASLClh1 STATE • • D/F SIGN WHITE STRIPES (VINYL) ALUMINUM PAINTED DARK BROWN 3" DEEP PAINTED RED ALUMINUM BACKLIGHTED OUTSIDE CHANNEL BORDER EDGE LIGHTED FROM INSIDE THE BORDER WITH RED LED LIGHTS 3" DEEP COPPER BACKLIGHTED "STONE" LETTERS - LIGHTED FROM INSIDE THE LETTERS WITH RED LED LIGHTS STONES 3" DEEP PAINTED WHITE ALUMINUM BACKLIGHTED "RESTAURANT & -� LOUNGE" LETTERS - LIGHTED FROM INSIDE THE LETTERS WITH WHITE LED LIGHTS TRANSFORMERS FOR LIGHTING THE LED LIGHTS 1/2" THICK X 3" TALL NON -LIGHTED SINTRA LETTERS PAINTED SOFT YELLOW = 3" T 1'-3.5" = 3" = 3" 9„ 9„ =3" = 3" = 3" 8,_8„ (92") 1/2° X 6" X 12" STEEL PLATE BOLTED TO THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH THE 1/2" BOLTS GOING INTO THE MORTER ON BUILDING 4" X 4" STEEL SQUARE TUBING SUPPORT BAR WILL BE CONTINUOUS WELDED TO THE 1/2" STEEL PLATE DATE Stillwater, MN 41. EXISTING SIGN PROPOSED SIGN SIGN COMPANY 2714 E 22r4 St MINNEAPOLIS MINN E5406 Pa (6121 7138-6828 FAX II:112) 7en-5715 EMAII - KALIPSIGNW.OLCOM .,/,/ CITY- • STATE • REVISIONS COCKTAILS • SE11,12011 .42413 Stillwater, MN Kaufman rrno� K96 SIGN COMPANY 2714 E 33cc1 5t.. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN 554U6 PH. (5121788-6828 FAX (612J 788-6715 EMAIL - KAUFSIGN@AOL.COM JOB ■ NAME ■ ADDRESS: 2' CITY- ■ STATE ■ STONES DATE: REVISIONS Stillwater, MN SIGN COMPANY 2714 E 33rd S. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN PH. (612) 788-5828 FAX (612) 788-5715 EMAIL - KAUFSIGN@AOLCOM JOB • NAME • ADDRESS: CITY- • STATE 5'-0" Stillwater, MN 31)a s4vNee)-1- 0 11e.-.. r.t.0r• f I ASSET T t ..N maw a Y 1 n y No 11 1 I++.1.c rill! to Cr.n.. UIo lower •.wl• Iwe r e' of «l.. . •• 11rt 11 f ureter. 1 tree nd correct red w.1 Ti I. 1 N 1 .e lI..d h.e.J 1 ad . al 1« !ell-.1 r ••I N t. That part a1 the follrlee J Ih0.1 1 art 411 th t pa t n1 Lot 11 9 d of RlO k Tn el tier tlrtrl• 1 loon (or. el forte. SStilComlwte Minnesota e Ater . 11 pi t of ne I I1 11 1 .f liar no t1 f era roe Stir rt • dee tilted 1. Pooh T of or 1 or r el VI St . 1 1 c. I hi .1 n1 or 1 ee le I5 d tl .1 It Inl1.+.Inr J. 1.r1 11•e 5 r1e.lee l e plot ea the M t llwe • al Id rl * N 1 h 1 i 1 10t110111r 1.0 Ill icit sl .erendtStreet e«d II • 11 1 ne therettromIsat. lrht rl tee Ib In 1 1 F w 1 h IIr r tr 1 el lln 1 1 rl 1 r 1 .1 ere•• rJ et rIrhl . olre to end re .11e1 elth 11 fa t 11n of 11.r 1.r 1 111 J 1 t 1 .t 1. I.q .rre+e.'«I Waled 11r r.. 1.t h. gad Fume of 011 a. •1 . r.l I1r r colef.tloe dilatations end fete ding d 1 of 1^1 1n .. w. .+1••' .1 lllonreet• rn.«II..e.t ter ill It Ir 1,.n w.l well II lot 11I no weo 4wd . Aar acre e4 ee rruletle.•fh.wdlhr loe floe ' I lln D. 1 11 1 t rr eel Ir•••1 l Ihrr r rr111re that this •«r+e+�/ 1 taro I.a 1 . NI.r..M .rtl le .1 Cnrrr.O0 r 11 ...-.wl Rrr 1 tat Surewe 110 n! I nd of 10 1 t 1 .o of 11 1 1111 r boat 1 1 . 11 1n J Ili 11 eret r o J 1 . In a er Argil 11.. 1 N d I 1e Ilan •1 pill II t 11 1 of II c n 1.0.. wet 0 1 — rd. e d hi d1 1 r r'1 I r 1•e1 d -Jai a.. 5 1 1 Rr 1 rd till Pe °eel V 11.1 t= -- • 1 l\1 1 t L1� 1 `1 = , • t 1�� Oils \ fp'rt r 1 \:\ rl °"f,r.Ii/ N 0 f WT• JV/7 YL DEVELOPME/v r SERVICES j9990 =`= — \0 1����1_ BRICK 2 Tr _ (� \� I t.t• 1 1 _ 1• . l .' r I t ''',...0' t__ _ /t\ O A 1• i 11 g I.'" YIe t • rf 1t`t ll..� Ts 1.* Te aril of [ al wJ Now e:t r e _ ' p N ` wl al 1t tip. .•d .u.et `= - N 01 art j51' wle'► r+d ',AI'''. _ `. 01 �' .... 1l dlwct rrrl _ �_� Oe!! eere fit \•r - Qy' 1 o; j99 90 0 ` i— Its 1 \ 1 e % \/NE Cornet er 1Or� rt Nlydl es _.edaS 1. 33 Ito 0. to tn \11\♦1 ♦Ill 1 1 11 11 1 SRE �1 1- Dewohrs WOW ser K od---- Drawee elect K se Me fe.w•reel $..y setorrA Pears re epllDwe 50004(e f✓•OM° Nwe - e - -- 0.ee es WI se .Ke 1 .es e.r N S P es evens es per ter m 0.00 0e«ores fernery er.rr sir KO } e 33 ea' I101 lwa ter flE 8IPTHPl A C O1 MINNFtO1 A Planning Commission DATE August 8, 2006 CASE NO ZAT/06-04 DISCUSION ITEM CR (Cottage Residential District) regulations related to driveway widths PC DATE August 14, 2006 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner mg DISCUSSION The Planning Commission reviewed a request by a property owner in the Settlers Glen development concerning the appearance of driveways in the development at their June 12, 2006 meeting Settlers Glen is in the CR (Cottage Residential District) zoning district The CR regulations provide for a maximum driveway width of 12 feet at the front property line The objective of this requirement is to limit the driveway 'mass' along the street, provide separation between driveways, and add additionally green space, especially due to the reduced mmimum lot width requirement of 50 feet An unintended consequence of this requirement has been most property owners have used the full maximum drive width of 12 feet at the street without adding radiuses at the end of the driveway The result has been the areas around the end of the drives have been driven over leaving an undesirable appearance Additionally, some property owners have added a radius to their driveway by installing rock, stone pavers, brick, or other material at the end of the driveway along the street At the June 12, 2005 meeting the Comrrussion requested that staff prepare a possible ordinance amendment to address the concerns related to the driveway radiuses along the back of curb Attached is that ordinance for the Comnussiori s consideration and recommendation to the City Council STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 Hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance 2 Recommend City Council approval of the ordinance as proposed Ordinance No AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CODE, CHAPTER 31 ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SUBDIVISION 11 3 SUBSECTION 4 PARAGRAPH 9 RELATED TO DRIVEWAY WIDTH IN THE - CR ZONING DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain 1 Purpose The City Council finds it necessary to regulate dnveway widths in order to limit the driveway `mass' along the street, provide separation between dnveways, and add additional green space, especially due to the reduced minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet 2 Amending A The Stillwater City Code, Section 31-1, subd 11 3, subsection 4, paragraph 9 is amended by adding the following footnote number 3 to "Dnveway width maximum" 3 Turning radiuses are allowed at the end of a dnveway along the back of curb, however, the dnveway shall taper to 12 feet in width _ _ _ a minimum of five feet behind the back of curb 3 Saving In all other ways, the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and effect 4 Effective Date This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this day of , 2006 By Jay L Kimble, Mayor ATTEST Diane F Ward, City Clerk LIF BIRTHA tor M I N N F S O 1 A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE August 9, 2006 APPLICANT City of Stillwater CASE NO 06-05/ZAT REQUEST Amend Height Overlay District Ordinance for Downtown PUBLIC HEARING August 14, 2006 PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director�,� BACKGROUND A recent downtown development proposal tested the City's new height ordinance Consequently, the City Council has directed staff to examine revising the ordinance Each of the five zones in the downtown height district sets the height limit for new buildings at a specific number of stories or a specific height For example, in the CBDH zone (Central Business District - Historic) the height of a new building is lirruted to "3 stories or 35 feet" What the recent downtown development proposal brought to light was that it is not dear whether the height limits should be interpreted as "whichever is greater" or "whichever is less" Therefore, several of the City Councilmembers have requested that the Planning Commission consider an amendment to clarify the ambiguity SPECIFIC REQUEST Consider amending Ordinance No 969 (attached) by specifying that the height limit for each of the five height overlay zones in the Central Business District is limited to "X" stories or "X" feet, whichever is less Currently the height is limited to "X" stories or "X" feet without clarifying whether the lesser or greater of the two measures is intended to take precedence Height Ord Amendment August 9, 2006 Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION OF ISSUES Currently, the vagueness associated with the height limits has to be interpreted in favor of the landowner Which is to say, the current language is interpreted to mean that the height limit downtown is "X" feet or "X" stories, whichever is greater The City Council would like the Planning Commission to consider whether this is appropriate And, if not, perhaps the ordinance should be changed to read "whichever is less" To envision how this amendment would read, Ordinance 969 is attached with this revision In considering whether to revise the height ordinance to be more restrictive, the Planning Comrrussion should keep in mind both sides of the argument • On the one side, three story buildings could easily reach over 45 feet tall with 10 or 12 foot ceilings on each story and a pitched roof In this scenario, the three story building would be 10 feet greater than the envisioned 35 foot height limit in the CBDH zone That could have the potential of blocking views that are intended to be protected by the new height ordinance • On the other side of the argument, limiting a building to 35 feet m the CBDH zone would have a potentially dramatic impact on buildings that are attempting to recreate the historic retail budding feel This is an important consideration, since not only is it public policy in Stillwater to protect viewsheds of the St Croix River, but an equally important public policy is to preserve the historic character and feeling of the downtown area The ground floors of most of the 19th Century buildings downtown were originally used for retail space It was not unusual for these ground floors to have 12 feet to the ceiling As seen in the attached drawing, a typical three story building with a 12 foot ground floor would have a parapet height of 37 feet Consequently, if an absolute height limit of 35 feet is imposed on the three-story height zone, then the ground floor would have to be reduced to 10 feet A 10-foot ceiling would not be able to reproduce the feeling of a 19th Century retail space ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Recommend that the City Council leave Ordinance 969 as it is 2 Recommend that the City Council amend Ordinance 969 with the "whichever is less" language Height Ord Amendment August 9, 2006 Page 3 of 3 3 Recommend that the City Council amend Ordinance 969 with the "whichever is greater" language 4 Continue the public hearing for more information RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public testimony on the proposal and reach a conclusion on which alternative would be more appropriate attachments Ord 969 Revisions Sketch of typical 3 story historic retail building ORDINANCE NO 969 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CODE, CHAPTER 31 ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING "THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY" TO REZONE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) AND RB—TWO FAMILY DISTRICT (RB) BY CREATING OVERLAY DISTRICTS TO KNOWN AS THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT RIVERSIDE (CBDR), CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKSIDE (CBDP), CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT HISTORIC (CBDH), CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BLUFFSIDE (CBDB), AND CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BLUFFTOP (CBDBT) The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain 1 PURPOSE The City Council finds that the Central Business Distnct (CBD) has been the core area of the City and its most identifiable resource Since 1930 when Lowell Park was established through the generosity of Elmore Lowell and the cooperation of the Federal Government WPA program, Lowell Park and the downtown have served as the gateway to the City The CBD has become a desirable place to work, shop, live and enjoy cultural and recreational activities and it is therefore apparent that regulations be adopted that will preserve and enhance the essential character of the downtown and that structures be limited in height in order that structures close to the river not nse above the height of structures farther from the river 2 AMENDING A Section 31-1, Subd 10, Use districts, is amended by adding subsections (18), (19), (20), (21) and (22) (26), (27), (28), (29) and (30) that will hereafter read as follows (18) (26) CBDR—Central Business Distnct and RB Two Family Distnct Riverside (19) (27) CBDP—Central Business Distract Parkside (20) (28) CBDH—Central Business Distnct Histonc (21) (29) CBDB—Central Business Distnct Bluffside (22) (30) CBDBT—Central Business Distnct Blufftop" B Section 31-1, Subd 17, CBD—central business district and RB— two family district, are amended by adding subsection (6) a, b, c, and d that will read as follows "(6) Overlay district regulations CBDR—Central Maximum measured from Infill a In addition to, and not in lieu of other official controls, all buildings and uses hereafter proposed for construction, whether on existing vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of demolition or destruction of an existing structure, are subject to the standards regulations and provision of the Central Business Distnct Riverside ("CBDR") b In addition to, and not in lieu of other official controls, all buildings and uses hereafter proposed for construction, whether on existing vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of demolition or destruction of an existing structure, are subject to the standards regulations and provision of the Central Business Distnct Parkside ("CBDP") c In addition to, and not in lieu of other official controls, all buildings and uses hereafter proposed for construction, whether on existing vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of demolition or destruction of an existing structure, are subject to the standards regulations and provision of the Central Business Distnct Histonc ("CBDH") d In addition to, and not in lieu of other official controls, all buildings and uses hereafter proposed for construction, whether on existing vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of demolition or destruction of an existing structure, are subject to the standards regulations and provision of the Central Business District Bluffside ("CBDB") e In addition to, and not in lieu of other official controls, all buildings and uses hereafter proposed for construction, whether on existing vacant parcels or parcels being vacated because of demolition or destruction of an existing structure, are subject to the standards regulations and provision of the Central Business Distnct Blufftop ("CBDBT) " C Section 31-1, Subd 17(5), General regulations, is amended by adding a new subsection "a" that will hereafter read as follows "a Height of buildings 1 Business Distnct Riverside 1 5 stones or 20 feet, whichever is less the front street level for vacant lots immediately adjacent to an existing building to within 10% higher or lower than the adjacent building 2 CBDP—Central Business Distnct Parkside 2 Maximum 2 5 stones or 30 feet, whichever is less measured from the front street level Infill for vacant lots immediately adjacent to an existing building to within 10% higher or lower than the adjacent building 3 CBDH—Central Business District Historic Maximum 3 stones or 35 feet, whichever is less measured from the front street level Infill for vacant lots immediately adjacent to an existing building to within 10% higher or lower than the adjacent building 4 CBDB—Central Business Distnct Bluffside Maximum 4 stones or 45 feet, whichever is less measured from the front street level Infill for vacant lots immediately adjacent to an existing building to within 10% higher or lower than the adjacent building 5 CBDBT—Central Business Distnct Blufftop Maximum 3 stones or 35 feet, whichever is less measured from the front street level Infill for vacant lots immediately adjacent to an existing building to within 10% higher or lower than the adjacent building " D Section 31-1, Subd 12(5)a, Development regulations is amended by adding (5)a 8 , which will hereafter read as follows "8 Height limitations for parcels within the RB—two family distnct, subject to the CBDR Riverside overlay distnct Maximum 1 5 stories or 20 feet whichever is less measured from front street level " E General regulations In all overlay distncts created by this ordinance, the following regulations will apply a For flat roofed buildings, height will be measured from the lowest street curb level to the highest parapet wall of the proposed building b For peaked roofed buildings, height will be measured from the lowest curb level to the highest roof peak of the proposed building c In areas within the flood plain as depicted on the FEMA "Flood Insurance Rate Map," height will be measured starting from one (1) foot above the regional flood elevation of the property 3 d All properties abutting on Main Street with frontage on more than one street must have height measurements taken from the Main Street side e All properties along Third Street must have height measured from the Third Street side f Building s existing on Apnl 18, 2006 will, for the purpose of this ordinance, will be in lawful height conformance for purposes of improvements, repairs, remodeling, or refinancing This provision will not apply to buildings that are intentionally demolished 3 SAVING In all other ways, the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and effect 4 EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 18th day of Apnl, 2006 By Jay L Kimble, Mayor ATTEST Diane F Ward, City Clerk -4 MEET i o 00 xX �I ~ \ e�8aoo_ 2. 8 8".. 8 8888�88 Loy- 4IEAS. __ E tr1 i\ 000 00000 cn d} 3 z ( tiv of Height Overlay District Height District Riverside Parkstde Historic Bluffstde Bluff Top 41) /01 SAINT CROIX RIVER Height Limit 1 5 Story/20 2 5 Story/30 3 Story/35 4 Story/45 3 Story/35 S 400 Feet 5 Typical 3-Story Historic CBD Building 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =l MI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 foot ceiling 2 foot ceiling 2 foot ceiling / Parapet 3 ft Third floor 8 foot walls j Second floor 8 foot walls Ground floor 12 foot walls T H E B I A T H P l At 1 O E h1 NNE O 1 A DATE August 10, 2006 APPLICANT Bruggeman Properties LAND OWNER Bruggeman Construction Company RE Sketch Plan and Annexation Timing Discussion LOCATION Between Boutwell Rd and Myrtle St at Maryknoll Dr COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RR, Semi -Rural Residential ZONING NA (In Stillwater Township) CASE NO 06-44 REVIEWERS Interim Public Works Director, Deputy Fire Chief, Brown's Creek Watershed District, Washington County Highway Department PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director„ Jj BACKGROUND Bruggeman Properties is requesting the Planning Commission to discuss the annexation timing and sketch plan proposal for their property between Boutwell Road and Myrtle Street at Maryknoll Drive The location of the property can be in Exhibit A The 18 3 acre parcel (excluding all current right-of-ways) is proposed to be developed with 45 single family lots, for a gross density of 2 45 lots per acre The proposed zoning for the project is CCR, Cove Cottage Residential The property is located within Stillwater Township and to develop at the proposed density would require urban utilities and annexation into the City of Stillwater The Orderly Annexation Agreement identifies the site as located within the Phase IV annexation area Phase IV annexation will automatically occur in 2015 But it may occur earlier than that at the discretion of the City Council if specific criteria are met Those criteria are met by the proposal, and therefore the developer is asking for consideration to be annexed now rather than in 2015 Bruggeman Properties August 10 2006 Page 2 REVIEW PROCESS The developer will manage the development review process in four stages 1 The current sketch plan discussion is the first stage o The Planning Commission is asked to comment on the sketch plan layout and whether the timing of annexation is appropriate o The City Council is asked to comment on the sketch plan layout and whether the timing of annexation is appropriate 2 The second stage of review will address the land use issues of rezoning, a comprehensive plan land use map amendment, and annexation o The Joint Board will review and make recommendations on the rezoning, preliminary plat and comprehensive plan amendment It will have to take action on the annexation request o The Planrung Commission will review and make recommendations on each item in the second phase o The Stillwater City Council will take action on this phase, contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval of the comprehensive plan land use map amendment o The Metropolitan Council reviews and takes action on the comprehensive plan amendment 3 The third stage will be for the preliminary plat o The Stillwater Parks & Recreation Board and the Stillwater Planrung Commission will review and make recommendations o The Joint Board will review and make recommendations on the preliminary plat o The Planning Commission will review and make recommendations on the preliminary plat o The Stillwater City Council will take action on this phase 4 The fourth and final stage will be for the final plat o The City Planning Commssion reviews and makes a recommendation o The Joint Board reviews and makes comments o The Stillwater City Council takes final action EVALUATION OF REQUEST I REZONING & COMP PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT Zoning Currently the property is located in Stillwater Township Upon annexation it would have to be rezoned The developer is proposing to have the property zoned CCR, Cove Cottage Residential Bruggeman Properties August 10 2006 Page 3 • On the one hand, the proposed single family homes are compatible with single family neighborhoods in the City that are close to the site and that are on the opposite side of County Road 12 This can be seen in Exhibit C • On the other hand, these neighborhoods in the City are all zoned RA, which require a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet The proposed CCR zoning requires an average lot size of 10,000 square feet, but the minimum lot size can be as small as 7,000 square feet • Settler's Glen is the only neighborhood in the City that is currently zoned CCR • The Planning Commission should discuss whether the CCR zoning district or the RA zoning district would be more appropriate for the property Comprehensive Plan The future land use map of the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan shows the site classified as RR, Semi -Rural Residential All land within Stillwater Township shows up in the City's Comprehensive Plan as RR, Semi -Rural Residential This can be seen in Exhibit B As annexation and developments are approved, the future land use map is amended The net acreage of the project is 18 34 acres So the 45 planned lots would yield a density of 2 45 homes per acre A future land use designation of Single Family Small Lot (2-4 units per acre) would be appropriate • The neighborhoods in the City of Stillwater that are closest to the proposed development are guided SFLL, Single Family Large Lot (up to 2 homes per acre) • The proposed land use classification of SFSL, Single Family Small Lot would allow zomng districts creating 2-4 homes per acre • None the less, Boutwell Road and County Road 12 act as physical boundaries that create clean land use limits Boutwell functions as a neighborhood collector street and County Road 12 functions as a minor arterial This would allow the land use designation for the subject property to be different from the designations of property on the opposite sides of these roads • The housing density proposed by Bruggeman Properties is not substantially different from the neighboring Oak Glen and Croixwood developments • The Planning Commission should discuss whether the SFSL or the SFLL land use designation would be more appropriate for the property II SKETCH PLAN LAYOUT • The proposed street layout is good It provides a four -legged intersection on Boutwell Road with Newberry Court It also provides connections to the properties to the west and thereby an eventual connection to County Road 12 Bruggeman Properties August 10 2006 Page 4 • The temporary dead -ends will need a temporary turnaround large enough to accommodate a fire truck • The development layout does the least amount of damage to existing trees and avoids all of the wetlands and their buffer areas • A combination of land and cash is proposed for park dedication • The homes in the northeast and southeast corners of the property will be kept The southeastern home's driveway to County Road 12 will be realigned so it comes off of the internal street • Other comments by the Washington County Highway Department, Brown's Creek Watershed District, and the Interim Public Works Director are attached III ANNEXATION TIMING None of the three Bruggeman parcels are located within the City Therefore each would have to be annexed before the property could be developed The property is located within the Phase IV annexation area, which provides for annexation in 2015 There is however a provision that allows the City Council the discretion to approve earlier annexation if several criteria are met Those criteria include that the property has to be contiguous with property already annexed into the City, that urban utilities must be available, and that no more than 120 building permits per year can be issued in the orderly annexation area All of the criteria are met for the parcels As was identified during sketch plan discussions for the Manning Station project and other projects on McKusick Road near Manning Avenue, the proper tirrung for annexation and urban development in the Phase IV area is still open for debate The most critical issues identified in this regard were 1) arterial transportation infrastructure, and 2) a comprehensive vision of future development for all of the remaining Phase IV annexation area The City Council felt generally that until either a signal at McKusick Road and Manning Avenue is installed, or a plan for the extension of the Neal Avenue transportation corridor is developed, that adding more traffic to McKusick Road was probably not acceptable By extension, it could be argued that adding traffic to Boutwell Road may not be advisable either, if that traffic appreciably increases the congestion at the uncontrolled intersection of Boutwell Road and Manning Avenue But, there are several factors that distinguish this sketch plan discussion from those earlier this summer • Residents exiting the Bruggeman development would have several realistic options for getting to County Road 12, which has traffic lights at Manning Avenue The McKusick Road properties did not have these options Bruggeman Properties August 10 2006 Page 5 o Drive 2,000 feet southeasterly to the intersection of Boutwell Avenue and County Road 12 o Drive 2,800 feet westerly to Minar Avenue and south to County Road 12 • A north -south street roughly on the Neal Avenue alignment is desired prior to "opening the floodgates" of Phase IV development The Bruggeman development can offer a partial solution to this, whereas the McKusick Road properties could not RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the Sketch Plan and annexation tuning and comment on as many of the issues as possible to give the development team a general sense of the commission's view of the proposal attachments Location Map Comp Plan Map Zoning Map Developer s Narrative Concept Plans Memo from Interim Public Works Director Email from Brown's Creek Watershed District Letter from Washington County Highway Department cc Bruggeman Properties Property lines Bruggeman Properties City of Stillwater Bruggeman Properties Location Map �►AO11�1111.1c? - 1h Ed �, .■ 1�4 PrzPia IIIIIIIIII:111111_ • :..� � I1111111111 1111111 .� — .!_. 11111011111111111 ■1111=:111111■ allr_i— 111111III;Ilt11 1 .I�= ■11111IIIil1®II1111 �') I,.. 11111 ■�.�I�—I=i 1` �®'Ii- :� lip©1�= �I� ;IIII IIII I11 � _ IlIIII�!uIIlI11- `IIII11111111-!I■IIIIIIIIjllllll IIIII!IDIII II. �� r \ I�i�ii�I11111II;III11 !Iu1111111 �` ►\.1 \1 i1,1�llllll�llli �!��:. ��� �6■■.l!�/�a�� drAl;Mi \�_,��!` � ��,.J -:. Of), of I. ,unlenl Department Itioreal LW& Amol r FAI mi simioil sm.I i aretairAirs IMF Bruggeman Properties Comp Plan Land Use Map othimalAyIpes et" WANK .UPI ■/////�► /��� ■nnow11■ ► __1 �� � rr� � ��� IIIIII �/� �� • �'\►►�/>t' .ns i� �•••... /'•:•■ .r■ 111= = �I111�•• •��• �s•�.ww/alai_ .1,2 ga.. al pliarAwifilulligird ma as II/�II/IIIIII/III/� C� ���� �li iarO�'� 0 Bruggeman Properties Comp Plan Land Use Classes f ," RR, Semi -Rural Residential SFLL, Single Family Large Lot SFSL, Single Family Small Lot ASF, Attached Single Family MF, Multi -Family CN, Neighborhood Commercial L1 CC, Community Commercial BPC, Business Park Commercial Mil A/O, AdministrativelOffice BPO, Business Park Office J BPI, Business Park Industrial RDP, Research & Development Park L- OPS, Open Space PC, Community Park in CEM, Cemetery - PG, Golf Course ® PM, Marina PN, Neighborhood Park III ES, Elementary School Mil SS, Secondary School IRAIL _ j ROW WAT IWET 1 1 OUT 1111 PF, Public Works Facility Exhibit B City of ate_ Community Development Department Bruggeman Properties Zoning Map f t, Aink /001104, ;gbh old* ■ oir wi 11 t JOU Sill Ism V \r t r t LLJ rilim ill um gi • fit ■i1�t� �' i►` 1elm N 1 N 1 pow* . t lilt 4, arn Min Hsu msrili Zoe 41- AIL iiitu L,4404 j e 447 I Ow. off Vs t■IIIii. iyli..71.1.1141„,137.1 elf ttir • . .. • r ; 'III, 4;::::,4,:gr ..... 1144 4.... ...... ��' ���1% �!'�j�'iifliit/tilt 11 111 *RI ft III III.: WHIM IV MI 49.1 Uut ti trgq i� �'� i ; ,: ♦♦�♦�iN i�Nt i�/j/���■ fftl�� s0 11::: :111 Mei oblir IA" lip mat •0 00% i�/ 4247 j •illtt ow �„A �' �r�**��� �� �i� %III• ♦� ��� PrIgo Ne �,' 44ti, • 0100 as Exhibit C At am. ft 11 lama Togs 1 kill \. 4,1 ■i1GLII�i�; ■illuHlr ;VW 411 it it fZ1'1 0 Bruggeman Properties Zoning Districts A-P, Agricultural Preservation RA - Single Family Residential RB - Two Family LR, Lakeshore Residential i TR, Traditional Residential CTR, Cove Traditional Residential MI CCR, Cove Cottage Residential ism CR, Cottage Residential ME TH, Townhouse apg CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential CBD - Central Business District CA - General Commercial CRD - Campus Research Developmen VC, Village Commercial ® BP-C, Business Park - Commercial 1M BP-0, Business Park - Office E BP -I, Business Park - Industrial I IB - Heavy Industrial IN PA - Public Administration Public Works Facility NM Island III POTENTIAL RIGHT-OF-WAY 7-1 WATER -7 Railroad '1 Memorandum To Bill Tumblad, Communit DDevelopment Director From Shawn Sanders, Inte in Public Works Director Date 8/8/2006 Re Bruggeman Properties Concept Plan The concept plan for the Bruggeman Properties is complete with the following comments 1 The North/South Connector is proposed as a Municipal State Aid Streets, street widths options are as follows a 26 feet wide- No parking both sides b 32 feet wide- Parking on one side c 38 feet wide- Parking on both sides A discussion should be held on what the street widths should be for this connector 2 No information was given with regard to storm sewer design or ponds 3 Temporary cul-de-sacs should be installed at the two street termini WashingtonCounty August 8 2006 Bill Turnblad Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 N Fourth St Stillwater MN 55082 Department of Transportation and Physical Development Donald J Theisen P E Director/County Engineer Wayne H Sandberg P E Deputy Director/Ass t County Engineer BOUTWELL RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT SITE PLAN, ADJACENT TO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 12 (75TH STREET NORTH, CSAH 12) Dear Bill We have reviewed the concept site plan of the Boutwell South Area prepared by Bruggeman Properties The plan shown is consistent with the findings of the Boutwell Area Traffic Study During the Boutwell Area Traffic Study the need for north/south collector streets in the City was identified Reserving right of way in the area labeled potential connection would preserve options for future connections whichwe would support One critical finding of the Boutwell Area Traffic Study was that safe access to CSAH 12 could not be provided at a location between Northland Avenue and Maryknoll Avenue due to sight distance restrictions and the lack of space to fit full-length center left -turn lanes If a connection is made we will work with the City to safely accommodate it At this time there is 75 feet of nght of way north of the CSAH 12 centerline with access control in the area of the proposed development This is adequate for all anticipated needs Washington County s policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) the U S Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U S Department of Transportation Minnesota Rule 7030 0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA s Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards Minnesota Statute 116 07 Subpart 2a exempts County Roads and County State Aid Highways from noise thresholds County policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas The developer should assess the noise situation and take any action outside of County right of way deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise Please contact me at 651-430-4312 or by e-mail at toe luxco washington mn us if you have questions or comments Sincerely Joseph Lux Senior Transportation Planner c Shawn Sanders Stillwater City Engineer N 1WORD\Plat Review Sti lwateABoutwell Residential Concept CSAH 12 8-8-06 doc- Revised doc Page 1 of 2 From Karen Kill [klkill@mnwcd org] Sent Monday, August 07, 2006 12 20 PM To Bill Turnblad Subject FW Boutwell South Area - Bruggeman Property Attachments Brgjpg Bill Please see Camilla s initial comments on the Bruggeman Property on behalf of Brown s Creek Watershed District Karen From Camilla Correll [mailto ccorrell@eormc com] Sent Monday, August 07, 2006 10 16 AM To Karen Kill Cc Lisa Tilman, Ryan Fleming Subject Boutwell South Area - Bruggeman Property Karen, hi reviewmg the concept plan dated July 21, 2006 I have the following preliminary comments 1 The proposed development incorporates open space mto the site plan very well The way the lots are laid out m relation to the open space and stormwater management features will provide the opportuiuty to route runoff to the ponds overland vs collecting mt m the stormsewer system and dischargmg directly to the ponds If a portion of the stormwater runoff is routed overland to the ponds this can be designed to provide water quality treatment (pretreatment) and can result in reduced stormsewer infrastructure costs 2 The wetlands on site were not mventoried under the Second Generation WMP nor the Wetland Function and Value Assessment due to their size According to the NWI there are 5 wetlands on the site (three within the immediate project area) See the attached map for the wetland locations according to the NWI The wetland types on the NWI do not appear to be the same type that they are now These wetlands will need to be delineated and typed before the application of Rule 2 0 3 The proposed development site is located m Phase IV of the Orderly Annexation Area so it is exempt from the BCWD's volume control standard All of the other components of Rule 2 0 will apply to the site According to the Washington County Soil Survey, the site is located in HSG B soils so the potential to mfiltrate stormwater runoff is good if the developer is mterested in incorporating alternative stormwater management practices m an attempt to meet the water quality standards using a treatment tram approach vs m one regional stormwater management facility From what I reviewed, tlus looks hke a pretty straight forward residential development site If there is anything else I can provide you or the City with prior to the meetmg please let me know Sincerely, Camilla Correll, P E Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc 651 Hale Avenue North Oakdale, MN 55128 Phone (651) 770-8448 FAX (651) 770-2552 email ccorrell@eormc com file /A\Sw-fileserv\Home\turnblad\Bruggeman\FW Boutwell South Area - Bruggeman Pro 8/10/2006 BRUGGEMAN PROPERTIES Building Communities Since 1 9 5 9 July 21 2006 Honorable City Council Members Planning Commission Members City of Stillwater, MN RE Concept Plan Submittal and Annexation Request Dear Members Bruggeman Construction Co requests concept development review and approval of our project so that we may move forward with the city on annexation of our property Our 18 acre parcel currently in the township is located north of CSAH 12 south of Boutwell Road Summary of Our Proposal A Project meets City's 3 annexation requirements • Property must be adjacent to the City — our project abuts the city on the north and south side • Is petitioned for by 100% of the property owners within the area to annexed — we own the property to be annexed • Will not create a level of growth that exceeds the 120 dwelling units per year limitation (City currently has a reserve of 180 units +/- per conversations with city staff) B Our proposed development plan is consistent with the recommendations found in the Boutwell South Area Plan, revised in 2004 (Boutwell Plan) • This project complies with Recommendation 3 in the Boutwell Plan The intersection at Boutwell road and CSAH 12 has been improved improvements on Boutwell road are complete and are adjacent to our property including installation of municipal sewer and water • Traffic signal at Manning and Hwy 12 has been installed • After conferring with city staff we are confident that our parcel and proposed layout provides a critical piece of the solution for a (north -south connection between Boutwell and Hwy 12) Our roadway will be considered a north/south connector will be classified as a minor collector and will be built to MSA standards - (30 MPH design with min 300' radius) L \Projects\Stillwater\Boutwell\04 Approvals\PCCounci1NarrativeSketchP1an072106 doc- - - 3564 ROLLING VIEW DRIVE WHITE BEAR LAKE MINNESOTA 55110 651 770 2981 FAX 651 770 9273 • The Boutwell Plan "IV Implementation" states the following Timing will be based on landowner interest availability of services and public improvements market demand for development and City ability to accommodate development All of these issues are now met to consider our site for annexation C Proposed layout is consistent with City Plans and Ordinances • We propose to develop the site within the guidelines of the Cottage Cove Residential (CCR) Zoning District with Village homes located on narrow Tots with association maintained common spaces We will meet the Low Density Single Family land use density of 3 units per acre as identified in the Boutwell Plan and our proposed land use is consistent with other land uses in this area • Our sketch plan offers the first link of a north -south road way connection between Boutwell Road and CSAH 12 You will note that the roadway anticipates and dovetails nicely into a variety of options for this planned north -south roadway connection • Our proposal respects natural features of the site We look forward to working with you on annexation and development of this project If you have any questions please do not hesitative to contact me Sincerely ,-411.-A' Steve Fisher AICP Bruggeman Properties L \Projects\Stillwater\Boutwell\04 Approvals\PCCounci1NarrativeSketchP1an072106 doc Bruggeman Construction Co Boutwell Road Project Historical Background 1 In the year 2000 Bruggeman Construction proposed a development in the subject area Bruggeman Construction was under the assumption that we could successfully petition the City of Stillwater for annexation as City orderly annexation policies allow landowners in areas adjacent to the existing city limits to petition for annexation (Boutwell South Area Plan, Sept 2002 pg 3) 2 On January 10 2000 Bruggeman Properties submitted a petition for annexation and paid the $2000 fee It is our recollection that the petition received unanimous approval from the Stillwater Planning Commission and the Stillwater Joint Board Shortly thereafter we purchased the property 3 The project was delayed as the City of Stillwater opted to do a study of the Boutwell South Area a neighborhood within the Stillwater Annexation Area On December 6 2001 Bruggeman Properties agreed to contnbute money towards this study 4 In September of 2002 the Report for the "Boutwell South Area Plan" was published by Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates 5 Following the Plan a second traffic study was ordered and conducted This traffic study was prepared by SRF Consulting and published on November 12, 2003 6 The Stillwater Planning Commission and Council approved the Boutwell Plan June of 2004 L \Projects\Stillwater\Boutwell\04 Approvals\PCCounci1NarrativeSketchPlan072106 doc 44/. �' 43 ? 42 r � PARK / ' ' POTENTIAL I(. ';\ — PARK / POND ' r EXISTING EXPANSION rVUETLAtI e 1 / N. t EXISTING WETLAND •• 14 16 BOUTWELL RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT PLAN Bruggcffi STILLWATER, MINNESOTA DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Project Area = 18 +/- ac. Annexation = Request into Stillwater Proposed Zoning = CCR - Cove Cottage Residential Lot Width Minimum = 60' Lot Size Minimum = 7,000 sf Project Minimum = 7,000 sf Lot Average = 10,000 sf Project Average = 14,000 sf ROW = 60' Cul-de-sac - 120' dia.(100' min.) Access = Boutwell Road Future Extension onto CSAH 12 Project Density = 18+/- acres Single Family Lots = 45 Park Dedication = 11% Park/Open Space Provided = Land(9%+/-) and Cash Future Expansion Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Storm Water Ponding Per Watershed Soil Correction Minor to Moderate City Water and Sewer Boutwell Road S m NORTH 200' July 21, 2006 Schoell Madson Planning Engineering Surveying EJ i 0 z z oQ <w Z \ i ' .EXISTING WETLAND) \J POTENTIAL PARK / POND EXPANSION / 44 /\ N " 43 • • �XISTING WETLAND 0 zw Y Z Q W Q EXISTING ,W EETTLAND PROPOSED STREET \ 1 BOUTWELL RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT SITE PLAN Bruggihan STILLWATER, MINNESOTA DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Project Area = 18 +/- ac. Annexation = Request into Stillwater Proposed Zoning = CCR - Cove Cottage Residential Lot Width Minimum = 60' Lot Size Minimum = 7,000 sf Project Minimum = 7,000 sf Lot Average = 10,000 sf Project Average = 14,000 sf ROW = 60' Cul-de-sac - 120' dia.(100' min.) Access = Boutwell Road Future Extension onto CSAH 12 Project Density = 18+/- acres Single Family Lots = 45 Park Dedication = 11% Park/Open Space Provided = Land(9%+/-) and Cash Future Expansion Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Storm Water Ponding Per Watershed Soil Correction Minor to Moderate City Water and Sewer Boutwell Road m NORTH 150' July 21, 2006 Schoell Madson Planning Engineering Surveying tr- BOUTWELLBruggin SOUTH AREA YRopERIIES STILLWATER, MINNESOTA S m NORTH Not to Scale July 21, 2006 Schoell Madson Planning Engineering Surveying 1 F BIR N A C Of- MINNISDIA PLANNING REPORT DATE August 9, 2006 APPLICANT SuperValu (Stillwater Marketplace Cub Foods Store) REQUEST Special Use Permit for Accessory Fuel Station LOCATION 1801 Market Drive ZONING BP-C, Business Park Commercial PUBLIC HEARING June 12, 2006 REVIEWERS Interim Public Works Director, City Planner CASE NO 06-23SUP PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND SuperValu is investing in its Stillwater Marketplace Cub Foods Store in order to create a more complete one -stop shopping experience for its Stillwater area customers To this end, the Planning Comrrussion was asked on January 9, 2006 to review Special Use Perrruts for both a drive -through pharmacy and a fuel station intended largely for Cub Food shoppers (i e an Accessory Fuel Station) The drive -through pharmacy was approved, but the fuel station Special Use Permit was denied based upon the finding that the proposed design was inconsistent with both the design manual for the West Stillwater Business Park and the architectural considerations of the Stillwater Marketplace PUD The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council in order to have the denial revised to a "denial without prejudice" The City Council granted the "denial without prejudice" status This allowed the applicant to revise the Accessory Fuel Station plans and bring them back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration prior to expiration of the mandatory one-year waiting period Cub Foods Fuel Station August 9, 2006 Page 2 of 4 On June 12, 2006 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the completely revised Accessory Fuel Station proposal Two items were before the Planning Commission at the public hearing 1) Deliberation and a decision on the question of whether the proposed accessory fuel station was of the "same general character" as other specially permitted uses in the West Stillwater Business Park, and 2) If considered of the "same general character", then deliberation and a recommendation to the City Council on whether a Special Use Permit should be issued for the Accessory Fuel Station The Planning Commission made a decision that the proposed Accessory Fuel Station was of the "same general character" as other specially perrrutted uses in the district However, the Comrmssion recommended derual of the Special Use Permit itself As seen in the attached minutes from the June 12 meeting, the denial motion was "due to issues related to aesthetics and internal traffic flow in a parking lot not designed to accommodate this type of use" Subsequently, the applicant has revised the plans to address the aesthetics and traffic flow concerns that lead to the denial motion for the Special Use Permit The applicant also requested the City Council to waive the one year waiting period so the Planning Commission could reconsider its denial recommendation The Council consented on August 1st and waived the one year waiting period SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission to reconsider its recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit for an Accessory Fuel Station at the Cub Foods store EVALUATION OF REQUEST Two concerns were expressed by the Planning Commission in its June 12 Special Use Perrrut denial recommendation One relates to aesthetic issues, the other relates to traffic safety in the Cub Foods parking lot Aesthetic Issues To improve the appearance and compatibility with the existing improvements on the Cub property, two changes have been made to the plan set Cub Foods Fuel Station August 9, 2006 Page 3 of 4 1 A shrub hedge has been added in front of the Accessory Fuel Station This hedge can be seen in Image B (attached) 2 The color of the canopy has been changed from beige to a light grey to more exactly match the color band on the front elevation of the Cub Store This can be seen in Images A and C (attached) Parking Lot Traffic Circulation A concern expressed by several people at the June 12 public hearing was the traffic flow in the parking lot as it exists today It was suggested that cut -through traffic is already a potential problem in the lot, and that the proposed fueling area could make the situation worse Consequently, Allan Klugman (consulting traffic engineer for Cub Foods) re -analyzed the parking lot and has developed an improved traffic flow proposal As can be seen in the attached Revised Site Plan and explained in the attached memo from Mr Klugman, a new traffic lane would be constructed on the western edge of the parking field With the help of oversized raised -curb planting islands, the new traffic lane will be well defined and obvious to customers either entering or exiting the lot This should cut down noticeably on confusion and cut -through traffic The proposed Accessory Fuel Station and parking lot changes would result in the loss of 105 parking spaces With the changes there would be 475 parking spaces 447 parking spaces are required for the store So the business would continue to meet the City's parking standard ALTERNATIVES The Planning Comrrussion has the following options 1 Rescind the previous recommendation and recommend that the City Council approve the requested Special Use Permit 2 Confirm the previous recommendation and continue to recommend denial of the requested Special Use Permit 3 Table consideration of the request for more information RECOMMENDATION City staff continues to find that the proposed Accessory Fuel Station satisfies applicable standards found in the City Code, the West Stillwater Business Park Plan, and the Cub Foods Fuel Station August 9, 2006 Page 4 of 4 Stillwater Market PUD Therefore, staff recommends approval of the SUP with the following conditions 1 The project construction and signage shall be in compliance with the plan set dated 5/18/06 and the May 26, 2006 letter from the Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, both of which are on file in the Community Development Department However, the 5/18/06 plan set must be amended by incorporating the Revised Site Plan dated 6/21/06 and the revised Images A, B and C as attached to the Revised Site Plan dated 6/21/06 2 All required landscaping shall be installed prior to final project inspection 3 All minor modifications to the design review permit shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director All major modifications shall be approved m advance by the HPC Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator 4 There shall be no lighting on the site other than that shown in the submitted plans 5 The "Fuel Express" sign shall be externally lit with a "clam shell" type fixture Lighting on the underside of the canopy shall be recessed with flat lenses only cc Linda Fisher, Larkin Hoffman attachments June 12 Planning Commission Minutes Supplemental Traffic Analysis and Site Layout Memo June 7, 2006 Planning Report Existing Parking Lot Preliminary Layout for Fuel Island Revised Parking Lot Layout for Fuel Island Views of Fuel Station Stillwater Planning Commission June 12 2006 Minutes Case No SUP/06-23 A special use for a fuel center at 1801 Market Drive in the BP-C Business Park Commercial District Linda Fisher Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren representing SuperValu Mr Turnblad reviewed the request He said the action requested of the Commission is to make a determination whether the fuel station is of the same general character' as other permitted uses in the zoning district and if so make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the issuance of the requested Special Use Permit Representing the applicant were Linda Fisher several representatives of SuperValu and consultants from Westwood Professional Services Ms Fisher noted the Heritage Preservation Commission had reviewed and approved the design She reviewed the design images and site plan She noted that the number of fueling stations had been reduced from six to five and a landscaped island added to separate the parking lot from the fuel center The fuel center columns are all masonry and of the same color and materials as the Cub Foods store, she noted She noted customized filters would be installed for any spill containment Ms Fisher also viewed lighting and signage plans There would be no additional monument or pylon sign Lighting under the fuel center canopy would be recessed flat lenses, the Cub Fuel Express signage on the canopy would be externally lit Ms Fisher also spoke to the use issue and the same general character" issue Mr Middleton expressed a concern about the flow of traffic Allan Klugman traffic consultant from Westwood Professional Services addressed the traffic questions He said a transition island has been introduced to separate the fuel center from the parking lot He noted that most users would shop first and then use the fuel center and he stated that the fuel center would not dramatically impact traffic counts Mr Junker asked if the pharmacy drive-thru had been included in the traffic flow studies Mr Klugman stated there would be no interaction between pharmacy drive-thru and fuel center traffic Ms Block expressed a concern about fuel tankers exiting on Curve Crest The consultant stated traffic counts were conducted on both Curve Crest and Market Drive and counts are so low that tankers should be able to exit with about a half - minute delay, he also noted that only about one tanker a day would be needed to service the fuel center Mr Gag opened the public hearing Andy Kass owner of Sutler's the adjacent business to the east, said the issue is whether this is an appropriate use He pointed out the Holiday Station on County Road 5, mentioned as relevant to the "same general character" issue, was a gas station in the 1970s well before the Market Place PUD was established Michelle Allen, 3155 Ilo Way expressed a concern about the Cub parking lot as a whole and said she was very concerned about the potential impact coming off Market Drive Mr Klugman said the proposed use is seen as a benefit to the City's traffic flow in general by integrating shopping and fuel trips and he said the use should have no impact on Market Drive traffic City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12 2006 The public hearing was closed Ms Fisher addressed Mr Kass comments regarding the appropriateness of the use and noted that is a subjective determination She said the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan the West Business Park guidelines and the Market Place PUD and said she believed the proposed use qualifies for a Special Use Permit Mr Junker stated he appreciated Cub/SuperValu's willingness to revise their plans However he said aesthetically the design is still a gas station with a canopy and changes the appearance of the area tremendously He also expressed concern about traffic patterns and traffic issues that are not planned for He suggested the key question is whether in fact 80 percent of the fuel center users would be Cub Foods users, if not the use is not allowed in the BP-C District Mr Peroceschi said the location of the fuel center is a portion of the parking lot that is not used a great deal and said he did not think it would have a significant impact Mr Dahlquist said he thought the use is of the same general character as others in the PUD area The bigger question he said is whether to recommend that the City Council grant the SUP He said the revised plans look better but its still a gas station He also expressed concern about the traffic flow within the parking lot Mr Gag agreed that the use is of similar character as well as with the concern about the already existing traffic issues in the parking lot Ms Block expressed a concern about design aesthetics suggesting that the fuel center canopy adds two more stories to the appearance of the Cub Foods store as viewed from Market Drive She said she agreed the use is of the same general character but would not support granting the SUP Mr Middleton agreed that the proposal is of the same general character but said traffic within the parking lot is the issue Mr Middleton stated that if approved the City should take a serious look at other uses such as the garden center and fireworks sales that currently take place in the parking lot Mr Meinke noted the gas station use is not a temporary one Mr Teske said he could see the advantage of coordinating uses which would necessitate fewer overall traffic trips by residents Mr Middleton seconded by Mr Dahlquist moved to find the use of similar character to other allowed uses in the zoning district Motion passed 6-2, with Mr Junker and Mr Meinke voting no Mr Dahlquist moved to recommend that the City Council not approve the Special Use Permit due to issues related to aesthetics and internal traffic flow in a parking lot not designed to accommodate this type of use Mr Junker seconded the motion Motion passed 6-2 with Mr Middleton and Mr Peroceschi voting no Westwood Professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie MN 55344 MAIN 952 937 5150 FAX A x 952 937 5822 roil. FREE 1 888 937 5150 EMAIL wps®westwoodpscom www wentwoodps col, To Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director From Allan Klugman, P E , PTOE Date July 12, 2006 RE Supplemental Traffic Analysis and Site Layout Modifications for Fuel Center as Accessory Use to Stillwater Marketplace Cub Foods Store Background On May 19, 2006, Supervalu submitted to the City of Stillwater applications for approval of special use, design and sign permits for the Cub Fuel Center as an accessory use to the Stillwater Marketplace Cub Foods store A set of preliminary plans for site improvements and a traffic analysis were included in that submittal This memorandum supplements the original submittal The site layout included in the May 19th package placed the Fuel Center at the western edge of the Cub parking lot in an area of excess parking stalls The site layout featured a termination island to the east of the Fuel Center in order to separate fuel center users from other activities in the lot and to ensure that vehicles circulating through the Cub lot would not inadvertently pass through the Fuel Center area The Fuel Center applications were reviewed at the June 5, 2006, Heritage Preservation Commission and June 12, 2006, Planning Commission meetings At the Planning Commission meeting, some commissioners expressed concern over the current circulation in the Cub parking lot and the potential impact of the Fuel Center on the site traffic operations One specific traffic circulation comment was raised relating to the Fuel Center area This comment noted the occurrence of "crisscrossing" or "cut through" traffic that happens today in the western portion of the lot Field Review In order to better understand the stated concerns on traffic flow within the Cub lot, I conducted a field review and observation of the lot on Thursday, June 15, 2006, during the late afternoon/early evening peak period t I t t TWIN CITIES/METRO ST CLOUD BRAINERD Mr Bill Turnblad July 12, 2006 Page 2 The parking lot for the entire Stillwater Marketplace features a main east -west access drive from Market Drive to the front of the shopping center From this east -west drive there is a north -south aisle that leads towards, but not fully into, the Cub parking lot (See Figure 1) My field observations verified that because there is not a direct linkage further into the Cub lot for circulation, several drivers did seem to "cut across" the western portion of the lot while traveling to or from the Market Drive entrance point This occurred more often for exiting maneuvers than for entering maneuvers Although I did see occurrences of the "cut across" movement noted at the Planning Commission meeting, none of the maneuvers I saw appeared to be unsafe Revised Layout In response to the comments we heard at the Planning Commission meeting and my field observations, we have developed a revised layout The purpose of this revised layout is to improve the existing traffic circulation in the Stillwater Marketplace Cub Foods Store lot and to ensure safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation upon completion of the Fuel Center The new layout (shown in Figure 2) provides a better delineation of circulation movements in the lot and eliminates the potential for cars to cut through the lot The improved circulation is achieved by developing an aisle at the back (western edge) of the main parking field This will allow drivers entering the Cub Foods lot from Market Drive to travel in the back aisle of the lot until they have chosen a row in which to pursue parking Similarly, for exiting movements, the driver can readily travel to the back of the lot and then proceed directly toward the main access to Market Drive This new circulation aisle, by itself, would greatly reduce the likelihood of vehicles cutting across the lot for either entry or exit movements To even further eliminate the opportunity of vehicles cutting through the lot, we are also proposing modified end island designs to direct vehicles into parking rows and to keep the vehicles from cutting across parking rows The new circulation aisle and island treatments will also help maintain separation between the main parking field and the Fuel Center As shown in Figure 2, the revised layout is achieved while keeping the Fuel Center facility and termination island where they were shown in the May 19th submittal documents The current parking count for the Cub lot is 580 spaces With the layout included in the May 19 submittal, the parking count was 490 (or a net loss of 90 spaces from the present) The revised plan included in this memorandum causes an additional loss of 30 spaces To help offset that number, we are proposing to re -stripe the row of employee parking along the northern edge of the lot from 9 5 to 9 foot stalls (this yields an increase of three stalls) and to add an additional 12 employee spaces behind the store With these changes, the net parking count for the Cub Food Store will be 475 (a loss of 105 spaces) This yields a parking ratio of 5 3 stalls per 1000 square Mr Bill Turnblad July 12, 2006 Page 3 feet, which exceeds the Code requirement of 5 spaces per 1000 square feet for this use Conclusion The revised layout positively responds to the traffic concerns that were voiced at the June 12, 2006, Plannmg Commission meeting The new layout addresses existing circulation issues and also ensures safe and effective access for both grocery store and Fuel Center customers in the future If you have any questions on this revised layout, please contact me at (952) 906-7418 or allan klugman@westwoodps com I E 8 I H T H P L A EOF MINNFSOIA PLANNING REPORT DATE June 7, 2006 APPLICANT SuperValu (Stillwater Marketplace Cub Foods Store) REQUEST Special Use Permit for Accessory Fuel Station LOCATION 1801 Market Drive ZONING BP-C, Business Park Commercial PUBLIC HEARING June 12, 2006 REVIEWERS Interim Public Works Director, City Planner PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director CASE NO 06-23SUP BACKGROUND SuperValu is investing in its Stillwater Marketplace Cub Foods Store in order to create a more complete one -stop shopping experience for its Stillwater area customers To this end, the Planning Commission was asked on January 9, 2006 to review Special Use Permits for both a drive -through pharmacy and a fuel station intended largely for Cub Food shoppers (i e an accessory fuel station) The drive -through pharmacy was approved, but the fuel station Special Use Permit was derued based upon the fact that the proposed design was inconsistent with both the design manual for the West Stillwater Business Park and the architectural considerations of the Stillwater Marketplace PUD The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council in order to have the denial revised to a "denial without prejudice" The City Council granted the "denial without prejudice" status This allowed the applicant to revise the accessory fuel station plans and bring them back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration prior to expiration of the mandatory one-year waiting period Subsequently SuperValu has completely revised its proposed fuel station In place of the prototypical SuperValu fuel station now is a custom designed station that addresses the concerns expressed by both the Planning Comrrussion in January Cub Foods Fuel Station June 7, 2006 Page 2 of 5 SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to develop the accessory fuel station for the Cub Foods Store, SuperValu has requested the following specific City approvals 1 Determination of "Same General Character", 2 Special Use Permit for an Accessory Fuel Station, 3 Design Review Permit since the subject property lies within the West Stillwater Business Park, and 4 Sign Permit Review since the West Stillwater Business Park Plan requires it The Planning Commission is responsible for determning whether the proposed accessory fuel station is the "same general character" as other allowed uses in the subject zoning district If the comrrussion determines that it is, then the case if forwarded to the City Council for action on the Special Use Permit Note that this is a departure from the review process for uses that are specifically listed in a zoning district as a special use When so, the Planning Commission is given the authority to approve or deny the Special Use Permit instead of forwarding it to the City Council for action In addition to determining the "same general character" status of the request, the Planning Commission should also make a recommendation to the City Council on the Special Use Permit request EVALUATION OF REQUEST Description of proposed site improvements The proposed fuel station is intended as a service to customers of the Stillwater Marketplace Cub Foods Store Central to the proposed use is its accessory status The fuel sales will be target to users of the Stillwater store Grocery sales will be tied to fuel purchases A reward system is planned so that the more a customer spends on groceries the larger the discount will be at the Cub Fuel Express center As a result, it is expected that 80% of the fuel center customers will be customers who visit the grocery store during the same trip Determination of "Same General Character" If the Planning Commission finds that a proposed use is of the "same general character" as other allowed uses within the subject BP-C Zoning District, City Code Chapter 31-1, Subd 19(4) allows the City Council to grant a Special Use Permit for the use Cub Foods Fuel Station June 7 2006 Page 3 of 5 Gas stations and convenience stores whose primary revenue source is from gas sales are not an allowed use in the BP-C Zoning District However, the primary revenue generator for the Cub Foods business is grocery sales, which certainly is a permitted use in the zoning district A relatively small area of the grocery store parking lot would be converted under this proposal to a fuel station for use principally by the grocery store customers The BP-C Zoning District allows other uses to occur in a grocery store lot that have similar land use impacts to those generated by the proposed fuel station They include such uses as outside sales areas, drive though businesses, seasonal sales (nursery, fireworks) Review Standards As noted above, the Cub Foods property is zoned BP-C, Business Park Commercial and falls within the West Stillwater Business Park area Moreover, the property was developed as a part of the Stillwater Market Planned Urut Development Therefore, the following review standards apply to this case BP-C Zoning District Standards • Building height - The proposed 25 foot height is less than the 40 foot height limit • Building setbacks - The proposed 70 foot setback is greater than the 40 foot required setback West Stillwater Business Park Plan/PUD • Architectural design - The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the design of the proposed accessory fuel station and found it to be consistent with the West Stillwater Business Park Plan and Stillwater Market PUD • Green Space - The proposed landscaping island to provide traffic flow and traffic safety separation between the parking lot and the fueling area increases the existing green space • Building materials and colors - The canopy faces are proposed to be constructed of EFIS in a color that matches EFIS on the grocery store building The canopy supports will be encased over half of their height in masonry that will match the masonry on the grocery store building The equipment building next to the canopy will also be of masonry that would be consistent with the main Cub Foods building • Signs - A small business sign/logo and price sign are proposed for each of the two longer canopy faces The FIPC reviewed and approved the signs SUP Review • Traffic circulation and traffic generation - Westwood professional services completed a traffic and circulation study for the proposed accessory fuel station Cub Foods Fuel Station June 7, 2006 Page 4 of 5 80% of the fuel station traffic will be from grocery customers already on -site Consequently, Westwood concluded that the relatively small amount of additional traffic generated by the fuel station would not degrade the level of service at any of the intersections in the neighborhood Moreover, the existing parking lot with modifications for the fuel station will satisfactorily handle personal vehicle traffic circulation as well as tanker truck traffic • Parking - The Cub Foods lot currently has 580 parking spaces The proposed fuel station improvements would result in a net loss of 90 spaces The resulting 490 parking spaces would still exceed the rrurumum requirement of 447 spaces for the property • Landscaping - The enclosed packet of information from the applicant includes a color landscaping plan for the fuel station portion of the parking lot It provides not only for good landscaping design, but also a means for safely separating grocery parking from fuel island traffic • Stormwater treatment - No impervious surface will be added to the Cub Foods site So, additional stormwater treatment facilities are not required However, petroleum filtration facilities will be incorporated into stormwater catch basins to prevent accidental spills from leaving the site • Lighting - No new parking lot lights will be added ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Find that the proposed accessory fuel station is of the "same general character" as other permitted or specially permitted uses in the subject zoning district and recommend that the City Council approve the Special Use Permit for an accessory fuel station as submitted with the following conditions a The project construction and signage shall be in compliance with the plan set dated 5/18/06 and the May 26, 2006 letter from the Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, both of which are on file in the Community Development Department b All required landscaping shall be installed prior to final project inspection c All minor modifications to the design review permit shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator d There shall be no lighting on the site other than that shown in the submitted plans Cub Foods Fuel Station June 7, 2006 Page 5 of 5 e The "Fuel Express" sign shall be externally fit with a "clam shell" type fixture Lighting on the underside of the canopy shall be recessed with flat lenses only 2 Find that the proposed accessory fuel station is not of the "same general character" as other permitted or specially permitted uses in the subject zoning district This would constitute a denial of the project Such a finding needs to be accompanied by substantive findings of fact 3 Table the Special Use Permit request for more details RECOMMENDATION Heritage Preservation Commission The Heritage Preservation Commission unanimously approved the design review and the sign review They attached five conditions to their approval 1 The project construction and signage shall be in compliance with the plan set dated 5/18/06 and the May 26, 2006 letter from the Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, both of which are on file in the Community Development Department 2 All required landscaping shall be installed prior to final project inspection 3 All minor modifications to the design review permit shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator 4 There shall be no lighting on the site other than that shown in the submitted plans 5 The "Fuel Express" sign shall be externally lit with a "clam shell" type fixture Lighting on the underside of the canopy shall be recessed with flat lenses only City Staff Staff fmds that the proposed accessory fuel station is of the "same general character" as other permitted or specially permitted uses in the subject zoning district and also finds that the request satisfies applicable standards found in City Code, the West Stillwater Business Park Plan, and the Stillwater Market PUD Therefore, staff recommends approval with the conditions detailed above in the HPC recommendation cc Linda Fisher, Larkin Hoffman attachments Location Map Applicant's letter Preliminary Plans January Planning Commission Minutes 200e .e wad mama =..a,. ,,2` - --I�' - -- - / - 2 - - P. s W B T A\ I I Il I I 1 r } I II II I II I + LI II I 11 11 'I I I I L!_ I I L 4 1 h' 16, h� 7 11 � [,I 1 II1�I F/L NC S ACE 22 CONCRETE Lell PROPOSED I DRIVE THRU IL I L 1 ( r III I. DI L T 1 Col 22 eure ter Ng. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL a M 66 454-0002 m 800-252 ea 1113.341. MAIM .11146,119. Pasr Design Service Group Add s %az. 19vonm. 6bm e.e 5/16/06 SO Ore 2 or 6 SUPERVALU Mill -water NlmeNa Existing Condthons L 2006 Una non ProManna 60' (DT) 7, l MST uanJ n V oti= --r Od b Hee. afore &peen GOPHER STATE ONE CALL G Nc 04-0002 Yn re re800-252 52 66 DEVELOPMENT NOTES TFE PROF6RY LS Ln6DBKC(a161NFse APB 1308.50512L) BULLING SETMA0n3 1r9JBIDFTC0T ARC SETBACK 0 FT 0O4T A00 SETBAO( PAO+wm 7002 FT 511400OSETBA009 NO OUNCE W PARI0NO PROPOSED P50650&U1R.010 El051150 ARIO SPACES0®IC'&T® CUB 5® 6J05T010 SPACES TO BE F6360.ID PRCPOSED SPACES TO BE n00E0 0ET LOSS CF A410040 TO SPACES PRCPCSE0 PAP60NORATI0 55 SPACES FEB m0 S0 FT 0+0I SPACE CALOAA 02 600S0400ffiN SP CE TO PE REMOVED IIII SO FT PRGV®(BEEN SPACE Off A00ED AA0550 FT NET OSpi CF 011E94 SPACE A692 FT 0 WillelOOd 01.:•• Manama I Limg• ' Design Service Group Ad6ree 30 . Mleeeola Gem myr ease Me Tar. 5/18/06 Ore 3 or 6 SUPERVALU S011weax MOem6A Preliminary Site Plan 02006 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I w wroed Premier Seem Inc 70. AIMS. L $ Ede Mee I. inen MODS dda..o.elw we 104074102 TOURS' 1411437d150 memestoroodemorn I Lsrr, metr rt Y Ss es 'semi y sr ss sir w rei err MA r I e• s elf ie_I L.P. NOQI27 ease Sr see at r re rye. Type am. b . ar Liners Tea Iterienis area: LSsdrt Onners Used aeww Pere. IrPrepared fo Design Services Group Address koc, Minnesota 55sos SUPERVALU Stillwater, Minnesota Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 0' 50' 100' 150' 200610379(P020M3 1LIc 6/21/06 awe 1 OB 1 Revised Site Plan Image C