HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-04-22 CPC Packet
PLEASE NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on
Channel 16. Public can participate by logging into zoom.us/join or by calling 1-312-626-6799 and enter the
meeting ID number: 674 129 610
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 22nd, 2020
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Possible approval of minutes of February 26th, 2020 regular meeting minutes
IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects
which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement
or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for
others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide
background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after
which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes t o comment. Members of the
public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium
and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission
will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item.
2. Case No. 2020-09: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to create a new Zoning District
known as HMU, Highway Mixed Use. City of Stillwater, applicant.
3. Case No. 2020-10: Consideration of an Annexation, Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Amendment
Review of the EAW, Conditional Use Permits and a Concept PUD for a 35 acre project known as
Central Commons. Property located at the SE corner of Manning and Highway 36. Mark
Lambert representing, Central Commons, LLC, property owner.
4. Case No. 2020-13: Consideration of Variances to the maximum allowed impervious surface and
to the total accessory structure coverage for the property located at 615 Broadway St S. Reid and
Julie Miller, property owners.
5. Case No. 2020-14: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to build a garage
with living space above it located at 816 Williams St N. Sarah McFarland, property owner and
Brent, representing Image Contracting, applicant.
VI. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
VII. FYI – STAFF UPDATES – (NO PACKET MATERIALS)
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 26, 2020
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hansen, Kocon; Councilmember Collins
Absent: Commissioners Hade and Meyhoff
Staff: Community Development Director Turnblad
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of minutes of January 22, 2020 regular meeting
Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve the minutes of the
January 22, 2020 meeting. Motion passed 3-0-2 with Commissioners Hansen and Kocon abstaining.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
There were no items on the Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 2020-03: Consideration of Variances to construct a single family residence with attached
garage. Property located at 1109 Mulberry St W. Tim Somerville, property owner.
Mr. Turnblad stated that the applicant would like to construct a single family home with attached
garage. The home is proposed to maintain the historic front yard setback as the former residence
which was demolished. The request is for a 6’ variance to the 20’ (House) Front Yard Setback for a
single family residence; a 10’ variance to the 20’ (House) Front Yard Setback for covered stairs and
landing; and a 12’ variance to the 30’ (Garage) Front Yard Setback for an attached garage. Due to
the significant grade change between the front of the property and the rear, it is practically difficult
for the owner to comply with the Front Yard Setback standards. The construction of the home will
not have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, staff would recommend
approval with three conditions.
Commissioner Kocon asked what is the approximate square footage of the lot?
Mr. Turnblad replied about 1,000 square feet.
Commissioner Kocon remarked the proposed house appears to be sited as well as possible
considering the small lot size.
Commissioner Hansen asked if the home will be far enough from the ravine that there will be no
steep slope setback issue.
Mr. Turnblad replied it doesn’t hit the 18% slope, so a 30 foot setback from the bluff is not required.
Tim Somerville, applicant, offered to answer questions.
Planning Commission February 26, 2020
Page 2 of 6
Councilmember Collins asked, will the shed in the back remain?
Mr. Somerville said he is hoping to leave it.
Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed
the public hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve the following
Variances: 6 foot variance to 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot variance to the 20 foot front yard
setback for covered stairs and landing, and 12 foot variance to the 30 foot front yard setback for the
attached garage, with the three staff-recommended conditions, to construct a single family residence
with attached garage located at 1109 Mulberry St W. Motion passed 5-0.
Case No. 2020-06: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed square footage of exposed
face for free standing signs in the BP-C district. Property located at 14304 60th St N. Mick Properties,
LLC, property owner and Vector Sign Solutions, Cassandra Peltier, applicant.
Mr. Turnblad reviewed the case. The property owner is proposing to furnish an existing
nonconforming cabinet sign and install one additional cabinet sign. This property, River Heights
Service Center, is comprised of a single L-shaped building with five tenants. There is an existing
freestanding sign that that has 100 square feet of cabinet signage advertising three businesses. An
additional cabinet sign on this pillar is 25 square feet in size, advertising one business (this sign had
remained blank for a long while, but has recently been furnished). This additional cabinet sign has
not been approved by the City. The applicant is requesting a 48.3 square foot variance to the 100
square foot maximum of exposed face signage to permit an existing nonconforming 25 square foot
cabinet sign and install an additional, 23.3 square foot cabinet sign. This translates to a 96.6 sf
variance to the 200 sf maximum aggregate gross surface area of signage. Staff recommends denial of
the 48.3 square foot variance due to the fact that 1) the current allocation of space on the
freestanding sign is unequal and not practical; 2) the request is for a significant increase in signage,
which could have adverse effects of the locality; and 3) a variance would be somewhat contradictory
to the intent of the zoning code. Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow 25 square feet of
additional signage (one additional cabinet sign) to the freestanding sign with five conditions.
Commissioner Dybvig noted that the applicant referenced the Dairy Queen sign in their application.
He asked for background on that property.
Mr. Turnblad explained that the Dairy Queen sign is the second sign on its property, so the square
footage of the individual sign plus the multiple tenant signage for the center itself together has more
square footage than code allows. However this lot was split from the rest of the property and was
sold to Dairy Queen so it is no longer considered part of the multi tenant property. Therefore it was
allowed to have its own sign.
Mick Lynskey, 118 South Main Street, property owner, said when he bought the building a year ago,
the unpermitted sign was already there. He has a new tenant who needs the sign space. He asked the
Commission to also consider the additional panel requested. The O’Reilly Auto Parts sign is about
double the others, but that tenant is also the largest occupant at 6,000 square feet. He is asking for
one more spot because there is one more tenant that is not on the sign. He showed the Dairy Queen
sign as an example because he doesn’t understand why he is only allowed the same amount of
signage for his 23,000+ square foot building as a 3,100 square foot building.
Commissioner Dybvig asked what unique circumstance would justify the variance.
Mr. Lynskey replied it is an L-shaped building so the tenants on the inside of the L are not as visible.
Planning Commission February 26, 2020
Page 3 of 6
Chairman Lauer asked if Mr. Lynskey has asked the O’Reilly tenant about making their sign
smaller.
Mr. Lynskey replied it is hard reaching someone in authority with these national tenants. He has
made a call but had no response. He does not see them surrendering their existing sign space.
Commissioner Dybvig pointed out it looks like there is a space between LDS and Stillwater
Motorworks. Can that be brought together so it looks like one sign cabinet?
Dave Peltier, Vector Sign Solutions, replied yes, the cabinet can be raised higher and remounted.
Mr. Lynskey said his immediate need is for approval of the existing bottom panel. He was asking for
additional signage to avoid coming back to the Commission with a future request.
Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed
the public hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Dybvig to approve a variance to allow 25 square feet of additional signage
(one additional cabinet sign) to the freestanding sign at 14304 60th St N, with the five staff-
recommended conditions and adding Condition #6 that the bottom sign be raised to eliminate the space.
Commissioner Hansen pointed out that everybody is limited to 100 square feet of signage. The
Commission has to go by the ordinance. Everybody on Highway 36 wants more visibility. The sign
ordinance levels the playing field. Granting variances can create a precedent. However, he realizes
the existing signs were not the current property owner’s doing. He is willing to say let’s “cheat this
one in” and get it more closely connected to the rest of the sign. He thinks it’s very important to not
push this until the ordinance is changed.
Councilmember Collins agreed with Commissioner Hansen. He struggles with the issue of setting
precedent. He is willing to grant the 25’ variance, but not more.
Chairman Lauer agreed the gap should be eliminated. He struggles with rewarding unpermitted
activities, asking for forgiveness instead of permission. However it was not the applicant’s doing. He
supports it as well.
Commissioner Dybvig acknowledged the Commission is supporting the variance, not because that
sign is already there, but rather because of the L shaped building and the lack of visibility. That is
the uniqueness with this property. That may help avoid the appearance of precedent-setting.
Motion was seconded by Chairman Lauer. Motion passed 5-0.
Case No. 2020-07: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for outside storage and a Variance to build an
8 foot fence on the property located at 1792 Greeley St S located in the BP-I district. J & J Stillwater
Real Estate, LLC, property owner and Chris Hassis, applicant.
Mr. Turnblad stated that the property owner is applying for a Special Use Permit to keep outdoor
storage in the rear of their property. Along with the Special Use Permit, it is required that the
outdoor storage must be screened. Therefore, the property owner will also need a variance to install
an eight foot privacy fence in the rear of the property, in order to provide screening for the outdoor
storage. The property is currently being used as a collision repair facility for automobiles,
watercrafts, large trucks and campers. This case initially was started with a complaint to the City
regarding the storage of boats in the rear of this property. Staff finds that with certain conditions, the
proposed use is in conformance with the requirements and intent of the Zoning Code, the
comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations, and will not be a nuisance or
detriment to the public welfare of the community. Therefore, staff recommends approval with six
conditions.
Planning Commission February 26, 2020
Page 4 of 6
Commissioner Collins asked, is this the only property in the area that would have an eight foot
fence?
Mr. Turnblad replied there are other eight foot fences in the area for the same reason, storage yards.
Chris Hassis, applicant, said that due to the elevation change, a six foot fence would not adequately
screen the vehicles so an eight foot fence is needed. It will be a steel panel or picket fence, not chain
link.
Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed
the public hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve a Special Use Permit
for outside storage and a Variance to build an eight foot fence on the property located at 1792 Greeley St
S with the six staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed 5-0.
Case No. 2020-08: Consideration of a Special Use Permit Amendment and associated Variances for
outdoor dining. Property located at 218 Main St N. Michael Lynskey Sr., and Lee Bjerk, property
owners and Dariush Moslemi, applicant.
Mr. Turnblad explained that Dar Moslemi received a Special Use Permit to operate a restaurant, The
Rusty Mile, at 218 Main Street North. While the applicant indicated he would like to have an
outdoor patio in this location, the original use permit application did not include details of that use.
As a result, the applicant has applied for an amendment to the existing use permit to allow for
outdoor dining in the front yard setback area. He is requesting a Special Use Permit amendment for
an above-grade outdoor dining area; a 15’ variance to the 15’ Front Yard Setback for an above-grade
outdoor dining area; and a 10’ variance to the combined 20’ Side Yard Setback for an above-grade
outdoor dining area. Mr. Turnblad explained that the change in parking demand with the new use is
under the threshold for requiring parking mitigation. Staff finds that the use conforms to the
standards set forth for the granting of variances and the issuance of use permits. Therefore, staff
would recommend approval with six conditions.
Dariush Moslemi, applicant, offered to answer questions.
Commissioner Dybvig asked about the deck material.
Mr. Moslemi replied that the deck will be made from thermally treated wood. The railing will look
similar to Crosby Hotel and the skirt underneath will be black aluminum with horizontal lines
similar to the top of the Crosby Hotel.
Commissioner Kocon asked if there will be no smoking on the patio.
Mr. Moslemi said that is correct. They also will follow the noise ordinance.
Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was
closed.
Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve Case No. 2020-08,
Special Use Permit Amendment and associated Variances for outdoor dining at 218 Main St N, with the
six conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 5-0.
Case No. 2019-25: Consideration of a Zoning Amendment to amend the Sign Code Ordinance. City of
Stillwater, applicant.
Mr. Turnblad stated that the sign regulations found in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code are in
need of revision for several reasons. First, US Supreme Court cases over the years have refined first
amendment free speech law that applies to signage and that needs to be reflected in the sign
Planning Commission February 26, 2020
Page 5 of 6
regulations. Second, electronic signage has evolved dramatically over the last several decades and
the City has received requests to allow the new technology to be incorporated into its sign code. For
instance, the owner of Valley Ridge Mall has approached the City numerous times explaining that
there are many tenants in the mall and signage is inadequate. They requested a solution that replaced
the banner strung below their sign with a changeable digital display. Staff researched this for about a
year and came up with a proposed solution. The only areas where digital signs would be allowed are
along the Highway 36 corridor and in the institutional district. He explained the proposed criteria for
digital displays. Third, institutional signage has been largely ignored by the City Code and needs to
be addressed. Therefore, the City Attorney and City planning staff have drafted a zoning chapter
amendment to address these issues. It is requested that the Commission review and forward to the
City Council a recommendation to adopt the draft ordinance that will revise the Sign Code Section
(Section 509) of the City Code’s Zoning Chapter (Chapter 31).
Mr. Turnblad pointed out one element of the proposed ordinance, that the signs cannot advertise
events that are off site. The advertising must be associated with that institution.
Commissioner Hansen asked, for instance, if a school team is in the State Tournament, the
tournament is not on those premises, so could the sign still promote those types of events?
Mr. Turnblad said he will look more closely at the proposed definition of off site. A State
Tournament would still be associated with that school. But such signs would not be allowed to
advertise an event not associated with the school. This is the intent of the ordinance.
Commissioner Dybvig commented, or for instance the school selling advertising space to businesses.
Councilmember Collins added, for instance, a community garage sale.
Mr. Turnblad confirmed those types of sign messages would not be permitted because it would be an
off premise activity not associated with the school. The intent is to prohibit corporate advertising.
Commissioner Hansen noted that even with an electronic sign, a handwritten “bake sale” type of
sign could be stuck in the ground right next to the electronic sign.
Mr Turnblad agreed that may happen. Properties that are zoned PA, Public Administration or POS,
Park, Recreation and Open Space, can have an electronic message board. If zoned residential, they
can have a sign that identifies the institution but any messaging has to be manually changed, it
cannot be an electronic message board. In a residential neighborhood electronic messaging is not
acceptable. He added that currently, institutions are allowed to have a bulletin board. However
institutional signage is not currently allowed in the institutional zoning district - this is a quirk and
needs to be cleaned up. So the recommendation is to allow a 32 square foot sign on any property that
is used institutionally even if not zoned institutional. However if not zoned institutional, electronic
messaging cannot be used - any messaging has to be manual.
Chairman Lauer commented, looking ahead, the Highway 36 corridor property becomes more mixed
use with some residential in it. How will this be applied there?
Mr. Turnblad noted this will have to evolve. Right now that is not an issue but it will be in the future.
Commissioner Hansen remarked, ultimately if a person chooses to live in a mixed use zone right off
Highway 36 among retail areas, they are choosing to live among a certain level of noise and light
pollution so he doesn’t see that as a big issue.
Mr. Turnblad acknowledged that it may be a source of tension. But it is reasonable to have different
expectations if not zoned residential. Along the corridor it will be mixed use, allowing residential.
Commissioner Dybvig noted the City also has a light standard.
Planning Commission February 26, 2020
Page 6 of 6
Mr. Turnblad agreed there is potential for an annoyance factor. Electronic displays are a little
brighter than other signage.
Commissioner Hansen acknowledged that Oak Park Heights fought a battle over electronic signage a
few years ago. He asked, how does the proposed ordinance language line up with their ordinances?
Mr. Turnblad replied it’s much more conservative and restrictive in size, lighting, and changing of
messages. He showed a new chart that is in the ordinance explaining every type of sign, parameters
and where they are allowed.
Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed
the public hearing.
Commissioner Hansen expressed appreciation for the work staff is doing to clean up ordinances.
Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to recommend that the City
Council approve Case No. 2019-25, Zoning Amendment to amend the Sign Code Ordinance. Motion
passed 5-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
There were no other items of discussion.
FYI STAFF UPDATES
Mr. Turnblad informed the Commission that ten proposals have been received for the Chestnut
Street Plaza design and construction administration services. Three of the teams will be interviewed.
The plan is to include a lot of public engagement in the design phase which will occur throughout
the fall. Next spring, construction will begin. Chestnut will become non-vehicular. Most
intersections on Main Street will have bump-outs at the corners, eliminating turn lanes in most
places, slowing traffic and increasing pedestrian safety. Additionally, planning is being done for the
former Aiple residence, City Planner Wittman is working on rewriting Heritage Preservation
ordinances, and Mr. Turnblad is working on zoning code to be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30
p.m. All in favor, 5-0.
Chris Lauer, Chair
ATTEST:
Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: April 17, 2020 CASE NO.: 2020-09
TO: Planning Commission
APPLICANT: City of Stillwater
REQUEST: Adoption of ordinance to create
HMU, Highway Mixed Use Zoning District
FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
During the development of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan a new future land use category
was created to guide development along the Highway 36 corridor. The north side of the
highway corridor will redevelop over time and mixed use projects will be encouraged on
these properties. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan identified potential annexation
land at the Manning Avenue intersection with Highway 36 that would be well suited for
mixed use.
The new land use category is called “Highway Mixed Use” and is envisioned to
incorporate higher density residential together with commercial uses. It is expected that
associated with this new Comprehensive Plan land use category will be two zoning
districts: 1) HMU, Highway Mixed Use Zoning District for property south of Hwy 36,
and 2) CMU, Community Mixed Use Zoning District north of Hwy 36.
These new mixed use zoning districts along Hwy 36 will be a hybrid of BP-C, Business
Park Commercial and RCH, High Density Residential Zoning District standards and
uses. North of 36 the mix is hoped to be vertical (residential above commercial) and
south of 36 it could be either a vertical or horizontal mix.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
Review and make a recommendation on the attached ordinances that would create the
HMU, Zoning District for property south of State Highway 36.
HMU District
April 17, 2020
Page 2
COMMENTS
Comprehensive Plan
Page 2-22 of Stillwater’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan says the following about the HMU
land use classification:
This category re-guides portions of the TH 36 corridor from Community Commercial to Mixed
Use, providing for more flexibility to accommodate residential development in a mixed-use
fashion. The existing commercial uses are still supported under this land use category;
however, as the area redevelops over time, it is expected to include a mix of residential (30%)
and commercial uses (70%). Typical building size in this category ranges from 20,000 to
100,000 square feet and Floor Area Ratio ranges from 0.25 to 1.00. Buildings may range from
1 to 4 stories in height, and residential components may range from 12 to 25 units per acre;
with increases allowable through the Planned Unit Development process. Typical projects may
encompass 3 to 5 acres of land, and serve trade areas up to 3 miles in radius, including
surrounding neighborhoods. A central point to this type of development is a central public
space, green space, or plaza type gathering place.
Over time, the corridor could evolve into larger mixed-use developments that reflect a town
center.
Central Commons pre-annexation agreement
Another text informing the content of the new HMU Zoning District would have to be
the pre-annexation agreement entered into between the City Council and the developer
of land at the southeast quadrant of the Manning Avenue/Highway 36 intersection. The
development is known as Central Commons. And prior to submitting his petition for
annexation of the subject property, the developer entered into the agreement to give
some shape to the many unknowns he was faced with.
Several of the points that the City Council and developer agreed to were:
1. PUD. The City and the Owner reviewed and agreed in concept to a PUD site plan.
2. ZONING DISTRICT. Upon approval of the annexation, the zoning for the
property will be AP, Agricultural Preservation. The City shall propose an ordinance
creating the Highway Mixed Use Zoning District and if approved, propose a zoning
map amendment to have the property rezoned Highway Mixed Use. The City Staff
and the Owner have reviewed and agree in concept to the Highway Mixed Use
(HMU) zoning district language attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
C.
HMU District
April 17, 2020
Page 3
Exhibit C has language very similar to what is contained in the ordinance exhibits
attached to this report. There are no changes of substance being proposed.
ALTERNATIVES
A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal satisfactory, it could
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed City Code changes.
B. Table If the Planning Commission would like additional information, it could
table the review.
C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be unsatisfactory, it could
recommend that the City Council deny the proposed City Code changes. With a
recommendation of denial, the basis of the recommendation should be given.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the City Code changes as they appear to be compatible
with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the pre-annexation agreement between
the City Council and developer.
Attachments: Exhibit A – HMU Ordinances
Exhibit B – Non-residential use table changes
Exhibit C – Residential use table changes
Exhibit D – PUD changes
cc: Mark Lambert
Exhibit A
New Section of Zoning Chapter: Creates the HMU, Highway Mixed Use Zoning District. [The
plan is to create another mixed use zoning district for properties north of Hwy 36. This district
will be called the CMU, Commercial Mixed Use District. Both the HMU and CMU districts will be
found in Division 4.]
Division 4. – MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Sec. 31-326 - HMU highway mixed-use district.
Highway mixed-use (HMU) zoning district shall be regulated as follows:
(a) Purposes. The purposes of the HMU district are to:
(1) Align with the intent and goals of the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Maximize the types of uses of property along the Highway 36 corridor that are
served with interchange access to foster economic development for the community
and support the city’s housing goals.
(3) Facilitate the development and integration of diversified commercial, retail, and
employment establishments with high density multi-family residential uses in areas
along the Highway 36 corridor that are served with interchange access.
(b) Allowable uses.
(1) See Table in Sections 33-315 and 331-325 for the allowable uses within this
district.
(2) Multi-family residential is an allowable use within this district, but shall not be the
predominate use as determined by less than 30% of usable land area designated
as multi-family use.
(3) Similar uses by conditional use permit. A conditional use permit may be granted
for other uses or services determined to be of the same general character as those
found in Sections 33-315 and 31-325 for the HMU district and which will not
impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties. The findings of same
general character shall be made by the planning commission and the conditional
use permit approved and issued by the city council.
(c) Massing regulations.
Building height, maximum 55 feet or 5 stories, whichever is greater
Lot area, minimum One-half acre
Front yard setback, minimum 1 40 feet
Side yard setback, minimum 1 20 feet
Rear yard setback, minimum 30 feet
Setback from abutting residential, minimum 50 feet
Lot area coverage (impervious), maximum 80%
1Front and side setbacks shall be landscaped.
EXHIBIT B
In addition to the new section of code creating the HMU Zoning District, the use table for the non-
residential zoning districts needs to be amended by adding the HUM Zoning District column of uses, as
seen below in red lettering.
Sec. 31-325. - Allowable uses in non-residential districts.
ALLOWABLE USES ZONING DISTRICTS
CA CBD VC BP-C BP-O BP-I CRD PA PWFD PROS HMU
Retail
General retail business
uses or service; local
market 1
P SUP P SUP
P
General retail business
uses or service; local and
regional market
P P P SUP SUP
19
P
Specialty retail, incl.
antique shops P P P
Department store P P P P
Drug store P P
Interior decorating sales;
sale of floor covering,
paint, wallpaper,
materials and objects of
interior decorating
P P
P
Appliances and furniture,
sale of P P P
Household goods, sale of
(including china) P P P
Books, magazines,
newspapers, stationary;
sale of
P
P
Gifts, flowers,
photographic supplies;
sale of
P
P
Tobacco products; sale of P P
Hardware, sale of P P P
Sporting goods; sale of P P
Music store P P P
Retail: Food
Supermarket, retail food P SUP P P
Baked goods,
manufacture/retail sale
of (≤ 5 persons
employed)
P P
P
Baked goods,
manufacture/retail sale
of (> 5 persons
employed)
SUP
2 P
P
Eating establishments
Restaurants 3 P SUP SUP
22 P SUP P
Fast food outlet P P
Tea rooms, deli, coffee
shops, soda fountains,
not including the sale of
alcoholic beverages
SUP
P
Outside eating
establishments SUP P
Drive-in or drive-through:
restaurant, eating places
or any other use involving
a drive-in or drive-
through activity
SUP SUP
CUP
Services
Barber or beauty shops P P P P
Shoe repair shop P P
Printing shop P P
Photo processing SUP
Tailoring or pressing P P
Laundry; agencies, self-
service, full service, dry
cleaning.
P P P
P
Laundry employing > 5
persons
SUP
4 SUP 4
Carpet, bag and rug
cleaning
SUP
4 SUP 4
Banks Banks and financial
institutions P P
Offices
Office; general, business
or professional P P SUP P P P P
Offices; finance,
insurance, editorial or
real estate services
P SUP P P P
P
Offices; administrative P P P
Offices; business offices
that are accessory to
permitted uses on the
site
SUP
P
Office building P P
Consultant services such
as advertising,
engineering, architects
and designers
SUP
P
Radio or television
stations P SUP P
Offices; medical and
dental P SUP P P P P P
Office display or sales
space 5 P P
Automotive
Automotive sales, service
and storage, excluding
gasoline filling stations.
(See Section 31-515 for
performance standards)
P
Service stations or fuel
sales (See Section 31-515
for performance
standards)
SUP SUP
Gasoline filling station SUP
2 CUP2
Auto repair and related
services SUP P 6
Entertainment
Commercial recreational
uses SUP P
Commercial recreational
entertainment SUP P
Amusement and
recreational
establishments 7
P SUP SUP
24
P
Outside entertainment,
commercial 8 SUP P
Outdoors
Outside sales or special
events 8 SUP SUP SUP SUP CUP
Outside storage SUP 9 SUP
10
Commercial nurseries SUP SUP
Exterior phonographs,
paging systems, musical
instruments, etc that may
disturb the peace and
quiet of the public
SUP
Parks P P
Trails P P
Park structures 11 P P
Playgrounds P P
Nature preserve P
Athletic fields withlights
12 SUP
Outside tennis courts
with lights 13 SUP
Outside basketball courts
with lights 13 SUP
Outside hockey rinks with
lights 13 SUP
Athletic fields without
lights 13 P
Outside tennis courts
without lights P
Outside basketball courts
without lights P
Outside hockey rinks
without lights P
Recreation center 14 SUP SUP
Multiple purpose park
building SUP SUP
Golf course P
Golf course club house SUP
Dog park SUP
Public boat launch SUP
Other passive
recreational or natural
open spaces
P
Parking lot ACC
Institutional
Schools, business and
technical P P CUP
Schools and studios for
arts and crafts,
photography, music,
dance
P P
Educational institutions,
schools SUP P
Libraries, art galleries,
theaters for the
performing arts, and
other such cultural
facilities
SUP SUP SUP SUP
Libraries or post office P
Churches, other places of
worship P
Day care/nurseries SUP SUP
15
SUP
15
Group day care P
Governmental facilities SUP SUP
Fire station SUP
Hospitals, convalescent
hospitals and nursing
homes
SUP
Hotel or motel P SUP
16 SUP P
Manufacturing Manufacturing, limited 17 P
Manufacture of baked
goods P
Manufacturing,
processing, fabrication or
assembling of limited
commodity 18
SUP
Retail sales of products
manufactured on the site
19
SUP
Wholesale/storage
Wholesale trade P SUP SUP
Warehousing and outside
storage SUP
Warehousing and inside
storage SUP
Mini-storage SUP
Industrial
Light industrial that is
clean and compatible
with surrounding
properties
SUP
Limited bottling works 20 SUP
2 SUP
Printing & publishing or
lithographic shop SUP SUP SUP
Laboratories
Laboratories SUP
Chemical laboratories SUP
Research establishment
of industrial, medical or
scientific nature
SUP
Research facilities or
research laboratories P P
Transportation/public
works/etc.
Transportation station or
terminal P SUP P
Helipads SUP
Public works facility
including office and
meeting space
PUD
Essential services P P P P P P P P P P
Public utility transmission
lines and facilities SUP
Telephone exchange P P
Parking facilities SUP SUP
Private parking facilities >
five cars SUP
Misc.
Funeral home or
mortuary P SUP SUP P
Club or lodge P
Dog Training Facility 26 CUP
Residences of all classes SUP
2 SUP SUP
21 SUP
23
Temporary structures SUP
Short Term Home Rental;
Type A and B P 25
Short Term Home Rental;
Type C CUP
Small Wireless Facilities
in the Right-of-Way P P P P P P P P P P P
Wireless Communication
Services Towers and
Antennae
CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
P = Permitted use
SUP = Use permitted with a Special Use Permit
CUP = Use permitted with a Conditional Use Permit
PUD = Use permitted with a Planned Unit Development Permit
A = Accessory use
ACC = Allowed as an accessory improvement to an allowed use located on or adjacent to the
site
Blank cell in table means that the use is NOT allowed.
1 Such as grocery, fruit and vegetable store, bakery, general store, barber and beauty shop,
clothes cleaning and laundry pickup station, business and professional office and the like,
supplying commodities or performing services.
2 SUP may only be issued by the city council.
3 Including restaurants, lunchrooms, cafeterias, and other such eating places; and places for the
sale and consumption of soft drinks, juices, ice cream and beverages of all kinds; BUT,
excluding drive-in establishments.
4 SUP may only be issued by the city council.
5 For a wholesale, jobbing or distributing establishment in connection with which not more than
25 percent of the floor area of the building or part thereof occupied by such establishment is used
for making, assembling, remodeling, repair, altering, finishing or refinishing its products or
merchandise, and provided that: 1. Any resulting cinders, dust, fumes, noise, odors, refuse
matter, smoke, vapor or vibration is effectively confined to the premises; and 2. The ground floor
premises facing upon and visible from a major street upon which the premises abut shall be used
only for entrances, office or display.
6 Automotive painting, upholstering, tire recapping and major repair, when conducted completely
in an enclosed building.
7 Such as armories, assembly halls, bowling alleys, dancehalls, pool and billiard parlors, skating
rinks and other social, sport or recreational centers operated as a business, provided the place or
building in which it is operated is sufficiently sound insulated to effectively confine the noise to
the premises.
8 These uses may be approved directly by the city council if the event is a one time special event
not occurring on a regular basis.
9 All outside storage shall be screened by a solid wall or fence and landscaping for public view.
10 Must be screened.
11 Gazebo, picnic shelter, playground equipment, rest rooms, band shelter, and substantially
similar park structures; but not including multiple purpose park buildings or recreation center
buildings.
12 Six-acre minimum site area.
13 Three-acre minimum site area.
14 Ten-acre minimum site area.
15 Including pre-schools.
16 Hotel or motel or other uses providing visitors with overnight accommodations.
17 Limited manufacturing means conducting a process fabrication, storage or manufacturing of
light materials, including electronic components and accessories.
18 Except junk or storage.
19 Either one or the other of the following scenarios applies. A) If the retail sales are limited to
products manufactured on the premises, then up to 20 percent of a building's floor area may be
used for retail purposes. B) If all of the products offered for retail sale are not produced on the
premises, then a total of only 10% of a building's floor area, or 4,000 square feet, whichever is
less, may be dedicated to retail sales; however, the retail sales must be of products associated
with a primary service offered by the business on the premises.
20 The bottling machinery is limited to manual/semi-automated bottling line without a conveyor
system associated with the bottling line.
21 Residences of second level only.
22 Gross receipts must be at least 60% attributable to the sale of food. Live entertainment, which
includes DJs, is permitted only inside the building, and then only if it is not audible outside of the
building. Outside music is strictly limited to unobtrusive arrangements of pre-recorded songs that
may only be played as background music and then only without a DJ. Hours of operation are
limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Friday
and Saturday. The closing time in the preceding sentence means when the last call for service
must occur. Happy hour specials must cease at 6:00 p.m.
23 Residences subject to RCM regulations.
24 Provided the special use permit review criteria found in § 31-207 and all of the performance
standards found in § 31-515.1 are met.
25 If Type A or B Short Term Home Rental is proposed in a residence where no Special or
Conditional Use Permit already exists for the property, then the property owner must obtain a
Conditional Use Permit for the short term rental residence prior to the issuance of a Short Term
Home Rental License.
26 Performance standards found in City Code Sec 31-515.2 apply to all Dog Training Facilities.
EXHIBIT C
Also, since the HMU Zoning District has both residential and non-residential uses, the residential use
table needs to be amended as well by adding an HMU column.
Sec. 31-315. - Allowable uses in residential districts.
ALLOWABLE USES ZONING DISTRICTS
A-P LR CTR RA TR CCR RB CR TH CTHR RCL RCM RR HMU 16
Single-family dwelling 1 P P P P P P P P P CUP P
Two-family dwelling 1 P P 2 CUP
Attached single-family dwelling or
townhouse 3 SUP P
Townhouse, row house, group
house 1 P
Multifamily dwelling 4 and
condominiums SUP P
Accessory dwelling (See Section
31-501) SUP P SUP P
Duplex accessory unit (See
Section 31-502) SUP
Roominghouses 1 CUP
Type I home occupation (See
Section 31-500) P SUP P P SUP P P P SUP A SUP P SUP
Type II home occupation (See
Section 31-500) SUP SUP SUP SUP SUP SUP 10 SUP SUP SUP CUP
Type III home occupation (See
Section 31-500) SUP SUP
Accessory building and use A A A 5 A A 6 A 7 A 8 A A A
Public schools P CUP
Elementary school SUP P CUP
Public and private primary and
secondary schools 9 SUP 10 SUP 9,10
Early childhood education SUP
Parks, playgrounds and other
open space areas P P P P P P P P P P
Private recreation facility A A
Church or other place of worship SUP 10 SUP 10 P CUP
Cemeteries SUP 10 SUP 10
Hospital, nursing home or rest
home SUP 10 SUP 10
Institutional building P CUP
Bed & Breakfast (Type D Short
Term Home Rental) SUP 10 P 11 SUP
Short Term Home Rental; Type A
and B P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Short Term Home Rental; Type C CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Off street parking & loading A A
Agricultural uses P
Agricultural produce sales P P 14
Commercial greenhouse P
Fish hatcheries and aviaries P
Fishing lakes and picnic groves 12 P
Forest and wildlife reservations
or similar facilities P
Fur farming (raising fur bearing
animals, excluding skunks and
civet cats)
P
Riding academies or stables P
Essential services P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Commercial uses not found
objectionable by neighbors CUP
Retail business of a corner store
nature CUP CUP
Senior care living facilities SUP SUP 13 CUP CUP10
Armory SUP 10
Municipal fire
station SUP 10
Small Wireless Facilities
Small Wireless Facilities in the
Right-of-Way P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Personal Outdoor Storage P 15
P = Permitted use
SUP = Use permitted with a Special Use Permit
CUP = Use permitted with a Conditional Use Permit
A = Accessory use
Blank cell in table means that the use is NOT allowed.
1 Only one principal structure is allowed on a parcel.
2 Two-family dwelling allowed only on corner lots.
3 An attached single-family dwelling or townhouse is defined as: A single structure consisting of not less than 3 dwelling units
located or capable of being located on a separate lot, and being separated from the adjoining dwelling unit by an approved wall
extending from the foundation through the roof and structurally independent of the adjoining unit.
4 Dwelling units for three or more families on a single parcel.
5 Accessory structures are limited to one detached garage or one accessory dwelling. Accessory dwelling is permitted only with a
special use permit. Garage is limited to a total of three stalls and all detached accessory structures shall be regulated by the
standards found in Section 31-501, Subd. 2 (performance standards for accessory dwelling units in CTR district).
6 Accessory structures in the TR district are subject to the regulations found in Section 31-503, Subd. 1
7 Accessory structures in the RB district are subject to the regulations found in Section 31-503, Subd. 2
8 Garage is limited to two stalls wide.
9 Including accessory buildings and uses located upon property contiguous to that occupied by the main building.
10 SUP may only be issued by city council.
11 Must be located at least 900 feet from another bed & breakfast.
12 No concession or retail sales are permitted.
13 Senior care living facilities in the RA zoning district shall have a minimum property size of 5 acres.
14 Sales of fresh, whole, raw, or processed produce grown onsite only and sold onsite at a farm stand, at farmers' markets or by
delivery.
15 Storage of personal operable vehicles, including any car, truck or trailer, or self-propelled or pull-behind recreational vehicles,
including, but not limited to, snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, watercraft, golf carts, etc. so long as adequately screened by fence
or landscaped from roadways and neighboring views. No outside business storage is permitted.
16 Multi-family residential is an allowable use within this district, but shall not be the predominate use as determined by less than
30% of usable land area designated as multi-family use.
EXHIBIT D
And finally, in order to honor the pre-annexation agreement, two edits need to be made to the existing
Planned Unit Development section of the City Code. Those two edits are shown in red text below.
Sec. 31-210. - Planned unit development permit.
Planned unit developments shall meet the following requirements:
(a) Purpose. The purpose of a PUD is to provide for a means of:
(1) Ensuring variety, innovation and flexibility in the development of land and its
improvements.
(2) Allowing a mixture of uses in an integrated and well planned area to aid in providing a
better living environment.
(3) Allowing for flexibility in group building development wherein the relationship is between
building and building or buildings and site, rather than between building and property
lines, as is the case in monostructural development.
(4) Preserving natural beauty spots, open space and recreational areas.
(b) Qualifications and requirements. Qualifications and requirements shall be as follows:
(1) Land to be improved as a PUD:
i. Shall be at least three acres in size;
ii. Shall be at least one complete city block in size;
iii. Shall have a density in excess of 25 dwelling units per acre; or
iv. Shall, when fully developed, contain upon it at least two principal buildings.
(2) Smaller lots may be improved as PUD's if they:
i. Are adjacent to or across the street from property which already has been
approved for a PUD;
ii. Contain unusual physical features; or
iii. Are of special historical interest.
(3) Lots under separate ownership meeting the above requirements may be considered
eligible for a PUD permit if a plan is submitted for the entire area and if financial
accountability can be provided and shown for all aspects of the plan.
(4) Permitted uses in a residential PUD must include detached, semidetached, attached,
clustered or multistoried dwelling unit structures, or any combination thereof, and any
nonresidential use designed to serve the residents of the PUD and of the vicinity, but
which is not deemed to be objectionable.
(5) Permitted uses in nonresidential PUD are limited to those permitted either specifically or
by special use permit in the zoning district.
(6) Aggregate density of structures and building heights on privately or commonly owned
property may not exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district in which these
structures would normally be located.
(7) Aggregate impervious coverage for a mixed-use PUD must not exceed the maximum lot
coverage (impervious) standard for its underlying zoning district though individual lots
may exceed the maximum.
(8) Copies of all covenants and easements relating to the provision, use and maintenance of
common open space must be filed with the community development director. When a
corporation is formed to maintain space or facilities, the city is empowered to abate any
nuisance resulting from the lack of maintenance and has the authority to assess the cost
of the abatement of the nuisance to all property owners holding membership in the
corporation and to spread the costs as an assessment and to certify the costs to the
county auditor for collection with the real estate taxes.
(9) The PUD project must be designed and developed to harmonize with both existing and
proposed development in the area surrounding the site and with the city's comprehensive
plan.
(10) Land must be dedicated to the city for recreation or other open space purposes
consistent with the standards and criteria contained in the park dedication policy.
(11) All public utilities and communications transmission facilities must be installed
underground.
(12) A building setback from property which is adjacent to the PUD site and that is zoned or
being used for a less intensive use must be at least equal to twice the proposed
building's height, except in a Highway Mixed Use PUD, where the building setback must
be no less than 50 feet.
(13) A landscaping plan with a detailed planting list must be approved.
(14) All private streets, sidewalks and parking areas must be built and maintained in
accordance with city standards and specifications.
(c) Submittal requirements. The following information must be presented for review in accordance
with the procedures outlined in (d) and (e) of this Section 31-210:
(1) A certified plot plan (at a scale of one to 100 or larger) showing all information required by
the subdivision chapter of this Code.
(2) A vertical aerial photograph of the site at a scale of one to 200 or larger.
(3) The legal description of the property.
(4) The nature of the applicant's financial interest in the land to be developed and the
proposed methods of interim and long-term financing to the project.
(5) A statement describing ultimate density of the proposed development and the expected
impact upon the city school district.
(6) A schematic drawing and map of the proposed development area, including street
layouts and lot size and locations.
(7) Proposed allocations of land use expressed as a percentage of the total and in acres.
Uses to be indicated must include:
i. Streets, both public and private, and other transportation facilities.
ii. Open space, both public and private.
iii. Commercial uses.
iv. Industrial uses.
v. A stratification of residential use in terms of number of single-family
detached, single-family attached and multiple-family dwellings.
(8) A certified map (at a scale of one to 100 or larger) of existing site conditions, that include
at a minimum:
i. General topographic features.
ii. Location and extent of tree cover.
iii. Slope analysis.
iv. Location and extent of swamps, wetlands and streams.
v. Significant rock outcroppings.
vi. Existing drainage patterns and ponding areas.
(9) A general development site plan (at a scale of one to 100 or larger) indicating all
circulation elements, pedestrian and vehicular, all natural open space, recreation
space, structures, landscaping, fences and other onsite improvement features.
(10) A certified utilities plan, indicating street lighting, storm drainage ponding, runoff and
disposal facilities and the placement of water, sewer and electrical, gas and
communications.
(11) A staging plan for any project involving more than one year's construction time.
(12) Tables and graphs indicating the gross square footage of commercial or industrial floor
space by specific type of activity and the number of residential dwelling units by the
number of bedrooms.
(13) Preliminary architectural plans, indicating the floor plans, elevations and exterior wall
finishes of all proposed buildings.
(14) The plan for solid waste disposal that meets city, county and Pollution Control Agency
requirements.
(15) Firefighting and other public safety facilities and procedures.
(16) An economic benefit analysis if required by the planning commission or city council for
aid in evaluating the impact of the development on city facilities and services.
(17) A recreational plan.
(18) A public buildings plan providing for school, administrative or public safety quarters.
(19) Other plans or information required by the community development director.
(d) Concept approval. Concept approval procedures are as follows:
(1) The applicant must file a statement of intention to develop property under the PUD
provisions along with the application fee and a review deposit to cover estimated legal
and engineering costs. Any amount remaining after administration, engineering and
legal costs have been paid will be refunded to applicant. If the deposit is not sufficient,
the applicant must submit an additional amount to the city.
(2) The request must be referred to the planning commission. The applicant must present
at least 12 copies of the information listed in subsections (b) and (c) above. The
commission must make a recommendation to the city council within 45 days.
(3) Upon receipt of concept approval and any modification to the plans required by the city
council, the applicant may proceed to file a request for final approval. Failure to do so
within six months of the date of the receipt of the concept approval, will be cause for
revocation of concept approval.
(4) Concept approval will not bind the city to grant final approval.
(e) Final approval procedures. Final approval procedures are as follows:
(1) The applicant must file a request for final approval along with the required fee to cover
the costs of checking and processing plans, plus a deposit to cover estimated
administration, engineering and legal costs. Any amount remaining after
administration, engineering and legal costs have been paid will be refunded to the
applicant. If the deposit is not sufficient, the applicant must submit an additional
amount to the city before final approval may be granted.
(2) The request must be referred to the planning commission. Unless waived specifically
by the commission, 12 copies of all information listed in (c) of this Section 31-210, and
required data must be submitted for review. The commission must make a
recommendation to the city council within 45 days of the submission of the final plans.
(3) The city council may hold a public hearing on the request.
(4) The city council must evaluate the PUD request using all criteria consistent with this
subdivision, the needs of the city, and common land use planning principals and
standards and must make its decision within 60 days of the date of the public hearing.
(f) Staged developments. If it is proposed to develop a project during a period which will exceed
two years, the applicant may request concept approval for the entire project and permission to
submit detailed information respecting only the first stage of the project. If permission is granted
by the city council, a separate public hearing may nevertheless be required respecting each
stage of the project as it is reached. Detailed plans must be submitted in accordance with the
approved phasing schedule.
(g) Final approval and issuance of PUD permit. Final approval by the city council and the issuance
of a PUD permit will occur when:
(1) All agreed upon public open space has been deeded to the city and has been officially
recorded; or an agreement has been reached between the city and the applicant for
cash payment in lieu of land donation.
(2) Design and construction specifications for all public utilities and street improvements
have been approved by the city engineer.
(3) A plat of the development site, if needed, has been filed and recorded both with the
city and the county register of deeds. Failure to register the plat, within 120 days of
final approval is grounds for revocation of the PUD permit.
(4) An agreement has been reached between the city and the applicant specifying the
standards to be used in the construction of all streets and utilities, storm ponding,
runoff and disposal facilities, landscaping, final grading and the provision, use and
maintenance of privately owned recreational facilities. To ensure that these
improvements are completed under the terms of the agreement, the applicant must
post a corporate surety bond or cash bond equal to 125 percent of the cost of the
improvements guaranteeing the faithful performance of the work specified in the
agreement or the payment of any costs to the city in a sum equal to the total as
recommended by the city engineer and approved by the city council. The bond must
cover all requirements; provided, however, that part of the bond may be released
when any part of each phase is completed, upon the recommendation of the city
engineer.
(5) All other plans and conditions of final approval have been approved.
HMU District
New district text
Sec. 31-326 -HMU highway mixed-use district.
Highway mixed-use (HMU) zoning district shall be regulated as
follows:
(a)Purposes.The purposes of the HMU district are to:
(1)Align with the intent and goals of the city’s Comprehensive
Plan.
(2) Maximize the types of uses of property along the Highway 36
corridor that are served with interchange access to foster
economic development for the community and support the city’s
housing goals.
(3) Facilitate the development and integration of diversified
commercial, retail, and employment establishments with high
density multi-family residential uses in areas along the Highway
36 corridor that are served with interchange access.
HMU District
New district text
(b) Allowable uses.
(1)See Table in Sections 33-315 and 331-325 for the allowable
uses within this district.
(2)Multi-family residential is an allowable use within this district,
but shall not be the predominate use as determined by less
than 30% of usable land area designated as multi-family use.
(3)Similar uses by conditional use permit. A conditional use
permit may be granted for other uses or services determined
to be of the same general character as those found in Sections
33-315 and 31-325 for the HMU district and which will not
impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties. The
findings of same general character shall be made by the
planning commission and the conditional use permit approved
and issued by the city council.
HMU District
New district massing
(c) Massing regulations.
Building height, maximum 55 feet or 5 stories, whichever is greater
Lot area, minimum One-half acre
Front yard setback, minimum 1 40 feet
Side yard setback, minimum 1 20 feet
Rear yard setback, minimum 30 feet
Setback from abutting residential, minimum 50 feet
Lot area coverage (impervious), maximum 80%
1Front and side setbacks shall be landscaped.
Associated amendments
PUD code
New language (7) Aggregate impervious coverage for a mixed-use PUD
must not exceed the maximum lot coverage
(impervious) standard for its underlying zoning district
though individual lots may exceed the maximum.
(12) A building setback from property which is adjacent
to the PUD site and that is zoned or being used for a less
intensive use must be at least equal to twice the
proposed building's height, except in a Highway Mixed
Use PUD, where the building setback must be no less
than 50 feet.
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: April 17, 2020 CASE NO.: 2020-10
TO: Planning Commission
APPLICANT: Mark Lambert, Central Commons, LLC
LAND OWNER: Central Commons, LLC
REQUEST: 1) Annexation of 35.3 acres from Stillwater Township
2) Rezoning of Central Commons Addition (except Outlots A & B) to HMU,
Highway Mixed Use
3) Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Phase I of Central
Commons Addition
4) Preliminary plat approval for 5 lot, 4 outlot mixed use development to be
known as Central Commons Addition
5) Conditional Use Permit for Hy-Vee pharmacy drive-thru and grocery pick-up
6) Conditional Use Permit for C-Store fuel sales and coffee shop drive-thru
LOCATION: 5757, 5775 and 5651 Manning Avenue
CURRENT ZONING: TZ, Transitional Zone (Stillwater Township)
COMP PLAN: HMU, Highway Mixed Use
PRINCIPAL AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS: Abbi Wittman, City Planner
Graham Tait, Zoning Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Kori Land, City Attorney
Shawn Sanders, City Engineer
Tom Ballis, Assistant Fire Chief
Cindy Shilts, Building Official
Washington County
Minnesota Department of Transportation
BACKGROUND
Mark Lambert, Central Commons, LLC plans to develop the 35.3 acre mixed use site in two
phases. The first would be synchronized with the construction of the new grade separated
interchange at State Highway 36 and Manning Avenue. Site grading for this phase would begin
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 2
this year and include the construction of a 95,716 square foot (sf) Hy-Vee store, a 4,100 sf Hy-Vee
fuel sales, convenience store and coffee shop, as well as a market rate apartment building with up
to 200 units. Completion of these buildings is planned to occur with the completion of the new
interchange late in 2021.
The timing of the second phase of development is not yet known, but would occur on Outlots A
and B. The exact uses on these two outlots are yet to be determined.
Utilities for the project will be extended from their current termination at Curve Crest Boulevard.
This is about 2,400 feet from the project perimeter and will benefit multiple future property
owners. Therefore, by means of a pre-annexation agreement the City Council agreed to support
tax abatement for these extraordinary public infrastructure costs.
Location and Utility Extension Alignment
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The developer has submitted the following specific development requests:
1) Annexation of 35.3 acres from Stillwater Township
2) Rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1; Lots 1-4, Block 2; and Outlots C & D; Central Commons
Addition to HMU, Highway Mixed Use
3) Preliminary plat approval for the five-lot, four-outlot mixed use subdivision to be known
as Central Commons Addition
4) Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Phase 1 of Central Commons
Addition
5) Conditional Use Permit for Hy-Vee pharmacy drive-thru and grocery pick-up
6) Conditional Use Permit for C-Store fuel sales and coffee shop drive-thru
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 3
ANALYSIS
I. ANNEXATION
About a decade ago the area shown in light blue below was detached from the City of Lake Elmo
and attached to Stillwater Township. The property owners at the time were interested in urban
development and the City of Lake Elmo could not provide sanitary sewer and municipal water.
The City of Stillwater testified at the annexation hearing that it had the capacity to extend these
services, so the judge granted the detachment/annexation petition. Subsequently, Central
Commons, LLC purchased the area outlined in red. And in 2019 the one acre parcel labelled “A”
was detached from Lake Elmo and annexed to Stillwater Township.
Annexation Area Details
Central Commons, LLC is now ready to develop the land and is consequently petitioning that the
City of Stillwater annex the land. The Board Members of Stillwater Township are in agreement
with this petition.
Stillwater’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan envisioned the possibility of annexing the subject property
and the City has the capacity to provide full urban services. This includes utilities and all other
services normally available to urban development.
Since Stillwater Township supports the annexation, and the property is adjacent to the City of
Stillwater1, the land can be annexed by Ordinance of the City of Stillwater. When adopted, the
ordinance will be submitted to the Municipal Board and then has to be approved by their chief
1 As seen in the annexation detail map, Highway 36 right-of-way separates the City from the subject property. And
this right-of-way is within the corporate limits of Lake Elmo. However, state law specifically states that if only a
highway separates the land in question, it is for annexation purposes considered abutting.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 4
administrative law judge. So, City approval of the development should be contingent upon
approval of the annexation by the Municipal Board.
II. REZONING
The property is currently located within Stillwater Township and is zoned TZ, Transitional
Zoning District. Upon approval of the annexation petition by the Municipal Board, the property
is as a matter of procedure zoned AP, Agricultural Preservation. Therefore, the specific request is
to rezone Lot 1, Block 1; Lots 1-4, Block 2; and Outlots C and D to HMU, Highway Mixed Use.
Requested Zoning
The Highway Mixed Use Zoning District does not yet exist. However, follow-up to adoption of
the 2040 Comprehensive Plan compels the City to create zoning districts that are consistent with
the plan’s new land use classification of Highway Mixed Use. Therefore, as a separate planning
case (Case No. 2020-09) the City is proposing standards and allowed uses for a new zoning
district to be known as the Highway Mixed Use (HMU) District. A copy of the proposed district
can be seen in Exhibit A. The basic parameters for the new HMU Zoning District were given
conceptual approval by the City Council on September 17, 2019 in the form of a pre-annexation
agreement with the developer. Essentially the new zoning district is a combination of the BP-C,
Business Park – Commercial Zoning District and the RCH, High Density Residential Zoning
District. This type of mixed use development is encouraged along State Highway 36.
For purposes of this rezoning review, it will be assumed that the proposed HMU Zoning District
ordinance is adopted by the City Council. A condition of approving Phase 1 of Central
Commons will need to be that the Council adopts the ordinance with substantially the same
standards those found in Exhibit A.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 5
Public review of rezoning requests focus on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040
Comprehensive Plan envisions the subject property to be developed as Highway Mixed Use
(HMU). No zoning districts have been created yet that will be consistent with this future land
use category. But two zoning districts are planned to be created to accomplish this. The first
would be the Community Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning District. Generally speaking, the CMU
District would be that portion of the BP-C Zoning District lying easterly of Stillwater Boulevard.
And the second would be the Highway Mixed Use (HMU) Zoning District that would encompass
the subject property as well at the parcel abutting it to the east.
The ordinance creating the HMU Zoning District is the subject of a separate case and public
hearing process. Originally the case was scheduled for a hearing at the March 25, 2020 Planning
Commission meeting. But, COVID-19 protocols required public hearings to be help without
being physically present at City Hall. And, an alternate technological option to being physically
present had not yet been implemented. So, the hearing was rescheduled to occur at the same
Planning Commission meeting as the Central Commons public hearing.
Page 2-22 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan says the following about the HMU:
Highway Mixed Use is a new land use category in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This category re-
guides portions of the TH 36 corridor from Community Commercial to Mixed Use, providing for more
flexibility to accommodate residential development in a mixed-use fashion. The existing commercial
uses are still supported under this land use category; however, as the area redevelops over time, it is
expected to include a mix of residential (30%) and commercial uses (70%). Typical building size in this
category ranges from 20,000 to 100,000 square feet and Floor Area Ratio ranges from 0.25 to 1.00.
Buildings may range from 1 to 4 stories in height, and residential components may range from 12 to 25
units per acre; with increases allowable through the Planned Unit Development process. Typical
projects may encompass 3 to 5 acres of land, and serve trade areas up to 3 miles in radius, including
surrounding neighborhoods. A central point to this type of development is a central public space, green
space, or plaza type gathering place.
Over time, the corridor could evolve into larger mixed-use developments that reflect a town center.
III. CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The pre-annexation agreement includes a draft ordinance that sets preliminary development
parameters for this project, which include uses, massing and PUD regulations. The PUD section
of the preliminary ordinance states:
PUD regulations. For projects in the HMU zoning district that are developed under the PUD Section
of this Chapter, Sec. 31-210, all standards found in that Section shall apply, except for the
following:
(1) Maximum height for buildings south of Highway 36 shall be 55 feet or five stories, whichever is
greater.
(2) Setbacks from the property line of the project shall be 50 feet, except along public streets, which
may be less.
(3) Lot area coverage (impervious) shall be a maximum of 80%.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 6
(4) Multi-family residential is an allowable use within this district when applied for as a Planned
Unit Development, as long as there is a minimum density of at least 20 units per acre and the
multi-family residential use is not the principal use in the Planned Unit Development, which
means that less than 30% of usable land area is designated as multi-family use.
The following PUD comments address existing as well as the proposed standards.
A. Minimum Dimensional Standards
Site size
A standard PUD has to be on a project of at least three acres in size. The subject
property has approximately 35.3 gross acres.
Density
Density for the apartment building is not specifically prescribed. The Planned
Unit Development section of the City Code, Section 31-210, mentions that the
allowable residential density is set by the zoning district. For example, in the
RCH, High Density Residential Zoning District, there are two density measures.
One is that 1,500 square feet of lot area is required for each apartment. A second is
that the floor area ratio must be between one and two1.
But the HMU district does not include these measurable standards. Instead the
density is relative and is determined by the site’s ability to accommodate the
housing units. This means that building height, setbacks, parking, open space and
stormwater treatment standards will define the number of apartment units that
will be allowed.
For comparison purposes, the proposed apartment building with up to 200 units is
reviewed against the RCH, High Density Residential Zoning District and the
proposed HMU PUD standards. Though the RCH standards do not actually
apply to this project, they do give a useful perspective.
Standard RCH HMU - PUD Proposed apartment (200 units)
Min lot area/unit 1,500 sf NA 2,487 sf (1,150 sf without Outlot C)
Max FAR2 1-2 NA 0.53 (1.1 without Outlot C)
Height and Setbacks
The current PUD language in the City’s Zoning Code states that: a building setback
from property which is adjacent to the PUD site and that is zoned or being used for a less
intensive use must be at least equal to twice the proposed building’s height. The pre-
annexation agreement specified a minimum setback of 50 feet from surrounding
less intense uses. And, the pre-annexation agreement allows five stories or 55 feet
as the maximum height of buildings in this project. The proposed HMU Zoning
District and PUD amendment referred to earlier in this report reflect the pre-
annexation agreement standards and are therefore used below in the review table.
2 Floor/lot area ratio (per City Code Ch 31-101 (65) means the numerical value obtained through dividing the
gross floor area of buildings by the net area of the lot or parcel of land on which the buildings are located.
3 245,500 gsf over five levels.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 7
And, though they do not apply, the RCH, High Density Residential Zoning
District standards are included for comparison purposes only.
HMU -
PUD
C-
Store
Retail
Lot 1
Retail
Lot 2
Hy-
Vee
RCH Proposed apt
bldg
Building height 55’ 23’ TBD TBD 34’ 6” 40’ 42’ 8”4
Front setback NA 133’ 40’ 42’ 400’ 10’ 86’
Side setback NA 113’ 17’ w.; 73’ e. 15’ w.; 142’ e. 69’ e. 20’ 120’ w.; 30’ e.
Rear setback NA 26’ 40’ 42’ 580’ 20’ 85’
Adjacent prop
setback
50’5 NA NA 142’ e. 69’ e. NA 85’ s.
All height and setback standards are met or exceeded by the proposed PUD.
Wetland buffer (setback). This will be addressed under the Watershed District
comments below.
Impervious coverage
A maximum of 80% of the combined areas of the lots and outlots can be improved
with impervious surface. The proposed total for both phases of development with
the assumed uses included in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(discussed later in this report) is 62.7%. The impervious cover for Phase 1, which
excludes Outlots A and B, is 58.1%.
B. Uses
City Code Section 31-210 (Planned Unit Development) states in subsection (b)
(qualifications and requirements), paragraph (4) that permitted uses are limited to those
allowed either specifically or by use permit in the HMU Zoning District. Of the proposed
uses in this project, the HMU ordinance lists retail sales, grocers and restaurants as
specifically permitted. And it lists drive-thru and fuel sales as conditionally permitted.
The apartment facility would be allowed as an HMU PUD according to the following
proposed language in the HMU ordinance:
4 Front of building is north elevation. Finished lot grade on north is 950’. Top of lower parapet is calculated at 992’
8”. So, height would be 42’ 8”.
5 If the adjacent property is outside of the PUD and is less intensely developed than on the PUD building in question,
then a 50’ setback is required. If not, then no setback is required. Note: if a street is the adjacent property line, no
setback is required.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 8
Multi-family residential is an allowable use within this district when applied for as a Planned
Unit Development, as long as there is a minimum density of at least 20 units per acre and the
multi-family residential use is not the principal use in the Planned Unit Development, which
means that less than 30% of usable land area is designated as multi-family use.
The total usable land area is 1,038,152 square feet.6 The apartment lot is 230,091 square
feet. So the apartment lot represents 22.2% of the PUD’s usable land area. The density
would be 37.9 units per acre.
C. Open space
20% of the project’s developable area is to be open space. As seen in the table above, 37%
of the site is open space (i.e. left without buildings or impervious cover).
D. Parking
Parking spaces
The commercial uses all have sufficient parking. The proposed convenience store has 18
stalls more than required and has met the minimum handicapped space requirements.
The two retail stores meet their minimum requirements as well. The grocery store
exceeds its minimum requirements by 12 spots and shows 18 handicapped spots, whereas
only 10 are required.
The apartment building by itself does not have sufficient parking. 200 units require 3677
stalls, 200 of which must be covered. 200 covered spaces will be provided: 186 in the
underground garage, and 14 in the detached garage (which is currently a shed but will be
converted to a garage). However, only 104 of the remaining 167 required spaces will be
provided in the surface parking lots on the apartment property. If needed, the site plan
also shows 43 proof of parking spaces.
None the less, the development project as a whole meets the required number of parking
spaces. A project like this is allowed a shared parking discount of five percent. The total
number of parking spaces required of each individual would be 917. When the five
percent discount is applied, the total required for the whole project is reduced to 871. 908
spaces will be provided plus 43 proof of parking spaces on the apartment site.
6 This excludes platted right-of-ways and Outlot C (pond).
7 1.5 per unit (300) + 1/3 units for guests (67)
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 9
Apartment Building Parking
Therefore, as long as guests are allowed to park in a parking lot on abutting property, the
PUD’s parking requirements are met, as summarized in the following table.
Convenience Store (5/1,000 gsf)
Proposed Required
Total 39 218
Total ADA 2 1
Grocery Store (1/200 gsf)
Proposed Required
Total 491 479
Total ADA 18 10
Retail 1 (Lot 1 Block 1) (1/200 gsf)
Proposed Required
Total 26 25
Total ADA 2 1
Retail 2 (Lot 2 Block 2) (1/200 gsf)
Proposed Required
Total 24 25
Total ADA 2 1
Apartment Building (1.5/unit with 1 covered; plus 1/3 units for guests
Proposed Required
Total Outside 104
+ 43 proof of parking (p.o.p.)
1679
Total Inside 20010 200
Total 304 + 43 p.o.p 367
Total ADA Stalls 8 (included in total) 7.34
PUD Total
Proposed Required
Total 908
+ 43 p.o.p.
917
Total required with cooperative parking discount 871
8 If assessed using the parking requirements for drive-thru, 51 stalls would be required.
9 167 represents the difference between 367 total spaces required and the 200 covered spaces
10 186 in underground garage, plus 14 in detached garage.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 10
In addition to the number of parking stalls, City Code also specifies the minimum size
and setbacks for the stalls. The stalls are to be located at least 15 feet from any street right-
of-way or 10 feet from any property line, and the proposed parking stalls in this plan are
conforming to this. City Code also states that each 90 degree parking space is to be at least
nine feet in width and 18 feet in length. 60 degree spaces should be at least 16.3 feet deep.
All proposed spaces meet or exceed these standards.
Two-way drive aisles should be 24 feet wide and one-ways should be 20 feet wide. All
drive aisles meet or exceed these requirements.
Site access and parking lot circulation
The City hired SRF to review the traffic impact and vehicular access to the site, as well as
circulation within the parking lots. The SRF team found that with a few improvements,
the Central Commons development would not present a significant negative traffic
impact to the supporting area roadway system. And, site access and internal circulation
would operate reasonably.
The improvements suggested by SRF are:
1. The assumed trip generation rates for Low-Rise Multifamily Housing (ITE Land
Use 220) for the 200 unit apartment development may overestimate the trips
generated by the apartment land use.
2. The assumed trip generation rates for Discount Supermarket (ITE Land Use 854),
for the Grocery (Hy-Vee) development may underestimate the trips generated by
the grocery land use.
3. Since the apartment generated trips may be overestimated and the grocery
generated trips may be underestimated, it can be concluded that the overall trips
generated by the proposed development would nearly balance and are therefore
reasonable.
4. The Hotel generates relatively fewer commuter peak hour trips than other
commercial land uses. If Outlot B is not be developed as Hotel, the commuter peak
hour trips generated by the Central Commons development may be under
estimated in the subject traffic impact study.
5. The primary access point/intersection may warrant traffic signals by the time of
full build-out or earlier.
6. The easterly access point/intersection may be considered for future
reconfiguration from full access to a 3/4 access intersection. Under a 3/4 access
scenario, northbound left-turn site traffic would divert to the main access and
potentially move up the point in time where traffic signals may be warranted.
7. There are a few locations within the proposed site where parking stalls are
configured to have to back out into a higher volume main internal circulation
roads. Consideration could be given to identifying many of these parking stalls as
visitor or employee only parking which would reduce the number/frequency of
backing maneuver/through vehicle conflicts.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 11
E. Signage
The application materials for the Central
Commons PUD included a monument sign
for the development and building signage
for each of the commercial buildings in this
phase of the project. And while the signage
will have to be the subject of its own sign
permit application, comments will be
offered here.
The sign ordinance allows the proposed
pylon sign to be 25 feet tall. It is proposed
as 30 feet tall. And whereas it is modestly
sized for this PUD and location, it will need
a variance. The variance will need to be
applied for and approved prior to issuance
of a sign permit.
The building signage seems in keeping with the scale of the project, but there may be
dimensional standards that are not in keeping with City sign code. If so, those too
would need variances prior to issuance of sign permits.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 12
F. Future Development
This PUD is proposed to be developed in two phases. This first phase includes the
apartment building, the grocery, the C-Store and two retail buildings. The two retail
buildings do not have specific plans as yet. A coffee shop and fast food store are shown
on the site plan. But, if specific uses are not identified by the time the first phase Final
PUD and Final Plat application is submitted, then the Final PUD/Final Plat (and any
necessary Special Use Permits) for the two retail buildings would have to wait and be the
subject of a separate application submittal and public review process.
The first phase will also include the construction of 58th Street between Manning Avenue
and the eastern boundary of this project. This will be a County Road that eventually
connects Stillwater Boulevard to Manning Avenue. And though not directly related to
this project, the Highway 36/Manning Avenue grade separated interchange will be
constructed at the same time as site work for Central Commons. The opening of the
grocery is tied to completion of the new interchange.
The second phase of development will be for Outlots A and B. Its timing has not been
determined yet. The EAW for the project shows a multiple tenant commercial building on
Outlot A and a hotel on Outlot B. This represents a “most dense” scenario for
environmental review purposes only. These uses are not actually being proposed. As
long as whatever actually is developed on the two outlots has no more of an impact, then
a supplemental EAW would not have to be reviewed.
IV. PRELIMINARY PLAT
A. Overview
The preliminary plat for Phase 1 of Central Commons Addition includes five buildable
lots and four outlots. Four of the five buildable lots are planned for commercial uses and
one for an apartment. Outlots A and B are reserved for future development as Phase 2 of
this PUD. Outlot C serves as the stormwater pond for both phases. Outlot D is open
space next to the pond in the Sanctuary Neighborhood and could function as additional
future stormwater ponding.
B. Civil Engineering
1. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and makes the following comments:
a) Grading, utility, and storm sewer plans shall be approved by the City Engineer
prior to construction.
b) Public utilities shall be spaced a minimum of 10 feet apart and within
dedicated utility easements. The easement lines shall be no less than 10 feet
from the utility.
c) All utilities shall be in accordance with City standards, including materials,
proper spacing requirements.
d) The City will extend trunk utilities from their current terminus in Curve Crest
Boulevard to the project site. Payment for these trunk extensions will be
shared by all benefiting properties, including Central Commons. Central
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 13
Common’s share may be reduced, waived or paid through a tax abatement
agreement, as determined by the City Council and detailed in the
Development Agreement that will be approved together with the Final Plat.
e) Retaining walls for the County Road project may be required to accommodate
the proposed size of parking lots in Central Commons. Therefore, if the
County charges these retaining wall costs back to the City, their cost may have
to be passed through to the developer.
f) Development fees
Phase 1
Fee Amount Value/acre Multiplier Total
Park fee, residential $1,500/unit NA 200 units $300,000
Park fee, commercial 7.5% of land value11 $102,36612 12.272 ac. $94,217.67
Trail fee, residential $500/unit NA 200 units $100,000
Trail fee, commercial None NA None $0
Brown’s Creek stormwater
diversion fee
$7,166/acre13 NA 17.554 ac.14 $125,790.94
Engineering inspection fee 6%15 NA TBD TBD
Phase 2
Fee Amount Value/acre Multiplier Total
Park fee, residential NA NA 0 $0
Park fee, commercial 7.5% of land value16 $102,36617 6.279 ac. $48,206.71
Trail fee, residential NA NA 0 $0
Trail fee, commercial NA NA 0 $0
Brown’s Creek stormwater
diversion fee
$7,166/acre18 NA 6.279 ac.19 $44,994.12
Engineering inspection fee NA NA NA $0
Paragraph 7 of the Pre-Annexation Agreement states that the City Council will
consider reducing the development fees. Prior to approval of the final plat, final
PUD and Development Agreement for Phase 1, this reduction will need to be
determined by the Council.
2. MnDOT
Since the developed abuts State Highway 36, MnDOT has reviewed the project. Their
comments are:
a) A drainage permit will be required. The development will need to maintain or
reduce existing drainage flow rates to MnDOT right of way. Drainage patterns
should also be maintained.
b) The developer will need a Utility Accommodation Permit.
11 Cash equivalent of undeveloped value of 7.5% of net developable commercial area.
12 Property was purchased at $2.35/gsf = $102,366 per acre. 7.5% of $102,366 = $7,677.45/acre
13 Per developable acre
14 Excluding platted r-o-w and the pond outlot
15 6% of construction cost of public utilities on development site.
16 Cash equivalent of undeveloped value of 7.5% of net developable land area.
17 Property was purchased at $2.35/gsf = $102,366 per acre. 7.5% of $102,366 = $7,677.45/acre
18 Per developable acre
19 Excluding platted r-o-w and the pond outlot
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 14
c) The work proposed within MnDOT right-of-way will require a permit.
d) The developer should be aware that the proposed new road can’t parallel a
MnDOT road within MnDOT Right-of-Way.
a. City staff notes that in practical terms, this means that the proposed
County Road 15 (aka 58th Street) lies partly within the State Highway 36
right-of-way and as part of the County Road project, the right-of-way
will need to be acquired by the County. The red line in the graphic
below represents the right-of-way line in question.
3. Washington County Highway Department
The Washington County Public Works Department is involved with this project in
two ways. The first is that it is partnering with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to design and construct the new grade separated interchange at
Highway 36 and County Road 15 (Manning Avenue.) The second is that it is
working with Summit Development to design and construct a portion of the Co
Rd 15 extension that ultimately will connect Stillwater Boulevard to Manning
Avenue.
The platted right-of-way dimensions and final design will be very similar to that
seen in the attached site plan. There are still a few details to be worked through.
So, prior to approval of the final plat, final PUD and Development Agreement, the
County will need to approve the final road design.
4. Brown’s Creek Watershed District Permit
The Brown’s Creek Watershed District conditionally approved a permit in
November of 2019 for stormwater management, erosion control, wetland buffers,
floodplain and drainage alterations.
C. Public Park and Trail Dedication
1. Park dedication
The Park and Trail Chapter of Stillwater’s Comprehensive Plan shows no
planned or desired park improvements on or near the proposed development
site. In such cases, Ordinance 963 gives cash dedication as an alternative to
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 15
land dedication or public park improvements. The Park Commission is
required to review the plans and recommend to the City Council how the
dedication requirements should be met. If cash dedication is the Council’s
choice, then the fee in lieu of land would be $394,217.67 for Phase 1 and $48,206.71
in Phase 2. Details are found earlier in this report.
2. Trail dedication
The Comprehensive Plans for Stillwater, Lake Elmo, Oak Park Heights and
Washington County all show the County’s trail extending southward. None
of the plans show new local trails. The site plan for Central Commons includes
the trail extension, which eventually will make its way to Stillwater Boulevard
and south. So, the developer would, if recommended by the Park Commission
and approved by the City Council, be required to build this trail extension. In
Addition to the regional trail, the developer is proposing to construct a
neighborhood trail that would connect the apartment building to the regional
trail. Since the regional trail is required, it can be subtracted from the standard
trail dedication fee, which for this project would be $100,000 (all due for Phase
1). Though it has been common practice to allow the cost of the neighborhood
trail to be subtracted from the trail dedication fee, that will be up to the City
Council after Park Commission review.
Existing and Planned Trails
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 16
D. Recreation Plan
Since the apartment complex is being developed as a Highway Mixed Used PUD,
there are no specific requirements for the developer to provide recreational
opportunities for the apartment residents. But, for simple comparison purposes, the
RCH High Density Residential Zoning District requires ten percent of the gross
project area to be specifically designed, developed and maintained for recreational
purposes such as: children's play apparatus, swimming and wading pools, game areas
such as tennis and horseshoe courts, picnicking and outdoor cooking facilities, etc.
The proposed apartment, to be known as The Flats at Central Commons, will be rich
with recreational opportunities. The building will feature an indoor pool, hot tub,
sauna, steam room, massage chair room, music practice room, game room, fitness
facility, group fitness for biking and other group activities, a pet spa, bike storage and
a bike repair room. Outdoor amenities will include an approximately 2,000’ walking
trail around the pond, with picnic areas along the way as well as connections to the
regional trail system. Also, there will be a 2nd floor outdoor deck with fireplace
seating, sun area, and grill areas. And finally, the 4th floor entertainment suite will
have outdoor grilling and seating areas.
If the ten percent guideline of the RCH district were applied, there would need to be
23,000 square feet of private recreational facilities. The first floor recreational area by
itself would nearly satisfy this standard.
First Floor Recreation Area
But, in addition to that there will be the private trail around the pond for the
apartment residents.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 17
E. Environmental Review
Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands and waters were delineated on the property in August 2017
and were confirmed by a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Technical Evaluation
Panel (TEP) in May 2019. Twelve wetlands and waters were delineated on the site
totaling 3.35 acres.
A wetland replacement plan application for the project was submitted to the
Washington Conservation District and Stillwater Township in September 2019 that
proposed 2.32 acres of wetland fill. A TEP convened in October 2019 to review and
discuss the project impacts. Replacement of the 2.32 acres of wetland impacts are
proposed at an approved, offsite wetland bank (#1499) in Isanti County. The TEP
approved the location for replacement, and the applicant has a purchase agreement in
place for the required wetland credits with the seller.
Stillwater Township, the Local Government Unit of record, approved the wetland
boundaries and types, and the wetland replacement plan on November 14, 2019.
EAW
State rules require environmental review for projects that meet specific thresholds. If
the specific thresholds are met, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is
required. The purpose of the EAW process is to disclose information about potential
environmental impacts of a project. It is not an approval process. The information
disclosed in the EAW has two functions: to determine whether an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is needed, and to indicate how the project can be modified to
lessen its environmental impacts. Such modifications may be imposed as permit
conditions.
In this case, the proposed development meets the “mixed residential and industrial-
commercial project” threshold per State Rule 4410.4300, Subpart 32. And the City is
assigned by this subpart as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). The RGU
must submit the EAW to the Environmental Quality, which publishes it for agency
and general public comment. Then the RGU determines if an EIS is necessary and if
not, whether there are any conditions that should be attached to project approval to
lessen any identified environmental impacts.
The 30 day review and comment period for the EAW ends on April 29th. At that time
the city staff is to collect and address all of the comments. This body of information
will then be considered by the City Council at their May 5, 2020 public hearing.
V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
A. Overview
In the proposed Highway Mixed Use (HMU) Zoning District, the following uses
proposed for Phase 1 of Central Commons are allowed by Conditional Use Permit:
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 18
1. The Hy-Vee pharmacy drive-thru and grocery pick-up
2. The Hy-Vee Convenience Store’s fuel sales and coffee shop drive-thru
At such time as specific uses are being negotiated for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, they may
require separate applications for Conditional Use Permits if they include drive-thrus.
B. Regulations and Standards
Sec. 31-207(d) of the City Code states that a Special/Conditional Use Permit can be
approved if the Planning Commission finds that:
(A) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans.
As mentioned previously, follow-up to adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
compels the City to create a Highway Mixed Use Zoning District. And, as a
separate planning case the City is proposing to do that. The standards and uses
proposed in the HMU Zoning District can be seen in Exhibit A.
The Highway Mixed Use Zoning District is envisioned to be a hybrid of the BP-C
and the RCH Zoning Districts. Consequently, both the C-Store and grocery drive
through are consistent with envisioned uses.
Typically Cities are concerned about the potential noise and glare from drive-thru
ordering stations, that there is sufficient queuing distance for vehicles and that
headlight wash is not a concern for residents. Given the grade separation and
distance, noise, glare and headlight wash would not be a concern to either the
apartment residents or the single family residents in Sanctuary. Furthermore, the
queuing length at the C-Store is very good and at Hy-Vee is sufficient for the
anticipated usage.
(B) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed.
Architectural design – The project site is not located within a historic residential
neighborhood, downtown, or the West Business Park. Therefore, no architectural
standards are mandated, nor is a review by the Heritage Preservation Commission
required. None the less, architectural design is important to the City and its
residents. The architectural elevations and exteriors have been submitted and
meet City standards.
Lighting – A photometric plan has been submitted for the site and building
lighting. Though there is no specific level of illumination specified in City Code
for receiving properties, it has been the goal in Stillwater to hold illumination
spillover to 0.0 luminaires:
a. At the edge of driving lanes on surrounding streets,
b. At property lines (or perimeter property lines in the case of PUDs such at
this) when the property line is for residential property (i.e. used, zoned, or
guided residential)
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 19
The spillover goals are not met at several locations. They are indicated with red
lines in the sketch below. Of particular concern are in the southwest corner of the
site, since the surrounding properties are residential there. Also, the lighting on
the east side of the Hy-Vee parking lot spills considerably onto the neighboring
property. A revised lighting plan should be submitted at final platting time to
address this.
In addition to the illumination level at the edge of a development site, there is
always concern about “glare”. The City’s nuisance ordinance prohibits “glare”
from a site. Unfortunately, the Code does not define glare, nor does it give
guidance on how to avoid glare. But, it does specify that a light source (e.g. bulb
or similar) has to be directed away from a property line to prevent glare. The goal
is not to prevent glare by preventing the light source from being seen at the
property line. The standard practice for accomplishing this has been to use
fixtures that have “cut offs” at their edges. These used to be referred to as “shoe
boxes”.
Fixture details have not been submitted yet for the exterior fixtures. So, the issue
of glare has not been reviewed. This will be required prior to City Council
consideration of the CUPs and preliminary plat.
Mechanical – Details on the exterior mechanical equipment has not been
submitted yet. It will be required prior to City Council review of the project.
Pedestrian flow – A flaw of many drive-thrus is that their queues often cross
pedestrian paths to store entrances and exits. In the case of the C-Store, the que
will be cleanly separated from foot traffic to and from the gas pumps to the front
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 20
door. For Hy-Vee, if queues grow unusually long, there could be conflicts with
customers walking to and from the front doors.
Landscaping – The landscaping plan for this PUD is well done. The only area
where an improvement should be made is the western edge of the southwesterly
parking lot for the apartment building. At its southern point this lot is as much as
nine feet above the neighboring pond. And though a row of trees will be planted
along its western
edge, a hedge or
shrubbery should be
planted to screen
headlights along this
lot. The green line in
the graphic to the
right shows where this
ought to be planted.
Staff recognizes that
there is a retaining
wall along this edge,
and root damage is a
concern. So,
shrubbery will need to
be used that has an
appropriate root
system. If none can be found, a wooden fence would be acceptable.
ALTERNATIVES
A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the proposal satisfactory, it could recommend
that the City Council approve the following:
1) Annexation of 35.3 acres from Stillwater Township;
2) Rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, and Lots 1-4, Block 2, as well as Outlots C & D, Central
Commons Addition to HMU, Highway Mixed Use;
3) Preliminary plat approval for five lot, three outlot mixed use development to be known as
Central Commons Addition;
4) Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Phase 1 of Central Commons
Addition;
5) Conditional Use Permit for Hy-Vee pharmacy drive-thru and grocery pick-up; and
6) Conditional Use Permit for C-Store fuel sales and coffee shop drive-thru;
with the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the plans on file with the
Community Development Department, including those below, except as may be
modified by the conditions herein:
Preliminary Plat Plan Sheet C200 revision date 4/15/20
Civil Site Plan Plan Sheet C300 revision date 4/15/20
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 21
Grading Plan Plan Sheet C400 revision date 4/15/20
Wetland Fill & Buffer Plan Plan Sheet C401 revision date 4/15/20
Phase 1 Erosion Control Plan Plan Sheet C402 revision date 4/15/20
Storm Sewer Plan Plan Sheet C500 revision date 4/15/20
Sanitary Sewer & Water Plan Plan Sheet C501 revision date 4/15/20
Post Construction Grouncover Plan Sheet L100 revision date 4/15/20
Overall Landscape Plan Plan Sheet L101 revision date 4/15/20
Apartment elevation by Doran dated 2/27/20
C-Store exterior elevations Plan Sheet A6.0
Food store exterior elevations Plan Sheets A6.0 & A6.01
Apartment floor plans dated 4/15/20
2. All civil engineering plans must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised
to his satisfaction prior to commencement of any earth work.
3. A Development Agreement found satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer
must be fully executed prior to release of the Final Plat for each phase of development.
4. The City will extend trunk utilities from their current terminus in Curve Crest
Boulevard to the project site. Payment for these trunk extensions will be shared by all
benefiting properties, including Central Commons. Central Common’s share may be
reduced, waived or paid through a tax abatement agreement, as determined by the
City Council and detailed in the Development Agreement that will be approved
together with the Final Plat.
5. Retaining walls for the County Road project may be required to accommodate the
proposed size of parking lots in Central Commons. Therefore, if the County charges
these retaining wall costs back to the City, their cost may have to be passed through to
the developer.
6. Required utility easements will be established by easements. All easements, as found
necessary by the City Engineer, must be executed and filed together with the final plat
for each phase of development. Prior to release of the plats from City Hall for
recording, fully executed copies of the easements must be submitted to the City.
7. Development impact fees, including park and trail fees for each phase must be paid to
the City prior to release of the Final Plat for that phase of development, or as specified
in the Development Agreement.
8. All required permits from MnDOT must be issued, and copies submitted to the City,
prior to commencing any earth work.
9. All required permits from Washington County must be issued, and copies submitted
to the City, prior to commencing any road work.
10. The HMU, Highway Mixed Use Zoning District ordinance must be adopted by the
City Council with substantially similar content to that of Exhibit A of this planning
report.
11. Upon review of the EAW and any comments submitted related to it, the City
Council must find that an Environmental Impact Statement does not need to be
prepared.
12. Any mitigation measures found necessary by the City Council upon review of
the EAW must be incorporated into the final plat application materials for each
phase of development.
13. An administrative law judge for the Municipal Board must approve the
annexation petition.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 22
14. An agreement or easement for cross access and shared parking purposes must be
found acceptable to the City Attorney in form and content, executed and submitted to
the City prior to release of the final plat for each phase of development.
15. There are a few locations within the proposed project where parking stalls are
configured to have to back out into a higher volume main internal circulation roads.
Consideration could be given to identifying many of these parking stalls as visitor or
employee only parking.
16. Sign permits and any variances desired by the developer or future property owners
must be secured prior to installation of any signs.
17. Photometric plan revisions must be made and found satisfactory to the City prior to
release of the Final Plat for each phase of development.
18. Light fixture cut sheets and details for all exterior lighting fixtures must be submitted
and found satisfactory by the City Council at their review of the preliminary plat and
concept PUD.
19. Mechanical plans must be submitted and found satisfactory by the City Council at
their review of the preliminary plat and concept PUD.
20. The landscaping plan must be revised prior to release of the final plat. The revision
must be approved by the City Community Development Department and must
address effective screening of the parking lot to the west of the apartment building.
B. Table If the Planning Commission finds the development materials to be
incomplete, it could table the review for additional information.
C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the development to be inconsistent with
development codes or to be unsatisfactory for other reasons, it could recommend that the City
Council deny the request. With a recommendation of denial, the basis of the recommendation
should be given.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requests with the twenty conditions identified above.
Attachments: Exhibit A – HMU Ordinances
Preliminary Plat
Site Plan
Apartment elevations
cc: Mark Lambert
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 23
EXHIBIT A
Proposed new Zoning District
Division 4. – MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Sec. 31-326 - HMU highway mixed-use district.
Highway mixed-use (HMU) zoning district shall be regulated as follows:
(a) Purposes. The purposes of the HMU district are to:
(1) Align with the intent and goals of the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Maximize the types of uses of property along the Highway 36 corridor that are served with interchange
access to foster economic development for the community and support the city’s housing goals.
(3) Facilitate the development and integration of diversified commercial, retail, and employment
establishments with high density multi-family residential uses in areas along the Highway 36 corridor
that are served with interchange access.
(b) Allowable uses.
(1) See Table in Sections 33-315 and 331-325 for the allowable uses within this district.
(2) Multi-family residential is an allowable use within this district, but shall not be the predominate use
as determined by less than 30% of usable land area designated as multi-family use.
(3) Similar uses by conditional use permit. A conditional use permit may be granted for other uses or
services determined to be of the same general character as those found in Sections 33-315 and 31-
325 for the HMU district and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties.
The findings of same general character shall be made by the planning commission and the conditional
use permit approved and issued by the city council.
(c) Massing regulations.
Building height, maximum 55 feet or 5 stories, whichever is greater
Lot area, minimum One-half acre
Front yard setback, minimum 1 40 feet
Side yard setback, minimum 1 20 feet
Rear yard setback, minimum 30 feet
Setback from abutting residential, minimum 50 feet
Lot area coverage (impervious), maximum 80%
1Front and side setbacks shall be landscaped.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 24
Sec. 31-325. - Allowable uses in non-residential districts.
This section would be amended by adding the HMU column of uses.
ALLOWABLE USES ZONING DISTRICTS
CA CBD VC BP-C BP-O BP-I CRD PA PWFD PROS HMU
Retail
General retail business uses or
service; local market 1 P SUP P SUP P
General retail business uses or
service; local and regional
market
P P P SUP SUP
19
P
Specialty retail, incl. antique
shops P P P
Department store P P P P
Drug store P P
Interior decorating sales; sale of
floor covering, paint, wallpaper,
materials and objects of interior
decorating
P P
P
Appliances and furniture, sale of P P P
Household goods, sale of
(including china) P P P
Books, magazines, newspapers,
stationary; sale of P P
Gifts, flowers, photographic
supplies; sale of P P
Tobacco products; sale of P P
Hardware, sale of P P P
Sporting goods; sale of P P
Music store P P P
Retail: Food
Supermarket, retail food P SUP P P
Baked goods, manufacture/retail
sale of (≤ 5 persons employed) P P P
Baked goods, manufacture/retail
sale of (> 5 persons employed)
SUP
2 P P
Eating establishments
Restaurants 3 P SUP SUP
22 P SUP P
Fast food outlet P P
Tea rooms, deli, coffee shops,
soda fountains, not including the
sale of alcoholic beverages
SUP
P
Outside eating establishments SUP P
Drive-in or drive-through:
restaurant, eating places or any
other use involving a drive-in or
drive-through activity
SUP SUP
CUP
Services
Barber or beauty shops P P P P
Shoe repair shop P P
Printing shop P P
Photo processing SUP
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 25
Tailoring or pressing P P
Laundry; agencies, self-service,
full service, dry cleaning. P P P P
Laundry employing > 5 persons SUP
4 SUP 4
Carpet, bag and rug cleaning SUP
4 SUP 4
Banks Banks and financial institutions P P
Offices
Office; general, business or
professional P P SUP P P P P
Offices; finance, insurance,
editorial or real estate services P SUP P P P P
Offices; administrative P P P
Offices; business offices that are
accessory to permitted uses on
the site
SUP
P
Office building P P
Consultant services such as
advertising, engineering,
architects and designers
SUP
P
Radio or television stations P SUP P
Offices; medical and dental P SUP P P P P P
Office display or sales space 5 P P
Automotive
Automotive sales, service and
storage, excluding gasoline
filling stations. (See Section 31-
515 for performance standards)
P
Service stations or fuel sales
(See Section 31-515 for
performance standards)
SUP SUP
Gasoline filling station SUP
2 CUP2
Auto repair and related services SUP P 6
Entertainment
Commercial recreational uses SUP P
Commercial recreational
entertainment SUP P
Amusement and recreational
establishments 7 P SUP SUP
24 P
Outside entertainment,
commercial 8 SUP P
Outdoors
Outside sales or special events 8 SUP SUP SUP SUP CUP
Outside storage SUP 9 SUP
10
Commercial nurseries SUP SUP
Exterior phonographs, paging
systems, musical instruments,
etc that may disturb the peace
and quiet of the public
SUP
Parks P P
Trails P P
Park structures 11 P P
Playgrounds P P
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 26
Nature preserve P
Athletic fields withlights 12 SUP
Outside tennis courts with lights
13 SUP
Outside basketball courts with
lights 13 SUP
Outside hockey rinks with lights
13 SUP
Athletic fields without lights 13 P
Outside tennis courts without
lights P
Outside basketball courts
without lights P
Outside hockey rinks without
lights P
Recreation center 14 SUP SUP
Multiple purpose park building SUP SUP
Golf course P
Golf course club house SUP
Dog park SUP
Public boat launch SUP
Other passive recreational or
natural open spaces P
Parking lot ACC
Institutional
Schools, business and technical P P CUP
Schools and studios for arts and
crafts, photography, music,
dance
P P
Educational institutions, schools SUP P
Libraries, art galleries, theaters
for the performing arts, and
other such cultural facilities
SUP SUP SUP SUP
Libraries or post office P
Churches, other places of
worship P
Day care/nurseries SUP SUP
15
SUP
15
Group day care P
Governmental facilities SUP SUP
Fire station SUP
Hospitals, convalescent
hospitals and nursing homes SUP
Hotel or motel P SUP
16 SUP P
Manufacturing
Manufacturing, limited 17 P
Manufacture of baked goods P
Manufacturing, processing,
fabrication or assembling of
limited commodity 18
SUP
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 27
Retail sales of products
manufactured on the site 19 SUP
Wholesale/storage
Wholesale trade P SUP SUP
Warehousing and outside
storage SUP
Warehousing and inside storage SUP
Mini-storage SUP
Industrial
Light industrial that is clean and
compatible with surrounding
properties
SUP
Limited bottling works 20 SUP
2 SUP
Printing & publishing or
lithographic shop SUP SUP SUP
Laboratories
Laboratories SUP
Chemical laboratories SUP
Research establishment of
industrial, medical or scientific
nature
SUP
Research facilities or research
laboratories P P
Transportation/public
works/etc.
Transportation station or
terminal P SUP P
Helipads SUP
Public works facility including
office and meeting space PUD
Essential services P P P P P P P P P P
Public utility transmission lines
and facilities SUP
Telephone exchange P P
Parking facilities SUP SUP
Private parking facilities > five
cars SUP
Misc.
Funeral home or mortuary P SUP SUP P
Club or lodge P
Dog Training Facility 26 CUP
Residences of all classes SUP
2 SUP SUP
21 SUP
23
Temporary structures SUP
Short Term Home Rental; Type
A and B P 25
Short Term Home Rental; Type
C CUP
Small Wireless Facilities in the
Right-of-Way P P P P P P P P P P P
Wireless Communication
Services Towers and Antennae CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
P = Permitted use
SUP = Use permitted with a Special Use Permit
CUP = Use permitted with a Conditional Use Permit
PUD = Use permitted with a Planned Unit Development Permit
A = Accessory use
ACC = Allowed as an accessory improvement to an allowed use located on or adjacent to the site
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 28
Blank cell in table means that the use is NOT allowed.
1 Such as grocery, fruit and vegetable store, bakery, general store, barber and beauty shop, clothes cleaning and laundry pickup station, business and
professional office and the like, supplying commodities or performing services.
2 SUP may only be issued by the city council.
3 Including restaurants, lunchrooms, cafeterias, and other such eating places; and places for the sale and consumption of soft drinks, juices, ice
cream and beverages of all kinds; BUT, excluding drive-in establishments.
4 SUP may only be issued by the city council.
5 For a wholesale, jobbing or distributing establishment in connection with which not more than 25 percent of the floor area of the building or part
thereof occupied by such establishment is used for making, assembling, remodeling, repair, altering, finishing or refinishing its products or
merchandise, and provided that: 1. Any resulting cinders, dust, fumes, noise, odors, refuse matter, smoke, vapor or vibration is effectively confined
to the premises; and 2. The ground floor premises facing upon and visible from a major street upon which the premises abut shall be used only for
entrances, office or display.
6 Automotive painting, upholstering, tire recapping and major repair, when conducted completely in an enclosed building.
7 Such as armories, assembly halls, bowling alleys, dancehalls, pool and billiard parlors, skating rinks and other social, sport or recreational centers
operated as a business, provided the place or building in which it is operated is sufficiently sound insulated to effectively confine the noise to the
premises.
8 These uses may be approved directly by the city council if the event is a one time special event not occurring on a regular basis.
9 All outside storage shall be screened by a solid wall or fence and landscaping for public view.
10 Must be screened.
11 Gazebo, picnic shelter, playground equipment, rest rooms, band shelter, and substantially similar park structures; but not including multiple
purpose park buildings or recreation center buildings.
12 Six-acre minimum site area.
13 Three-acre minimum site area.
14 Ten-acre minimum site area.
15 Including pre-schools.
16 Hotel or motel or other uses providing visitors with overnight accommodations.
17 Limited manufacturing means conducting a process fabrication, storage or manufacturing of light materials, including electronic components and
accessories.
18 Except junk or storage.
19 Either one or the other of the following scenarios applies. A) If the retail sales are limited to products manufactured on the premises, then up to 20
percent of a building's floor area may be used for retail purposes. B) If all of the products offered for retail sale are not produced on the premises,
then a total of only 10% of a building's floor area, or 4,000 square feet, whichever is less, may be dedicated to retail sales; however, the retail sales
must be of products associated with a primary service offered by the business on the premises.
20 The bottling machinery is limited to manual/semi-automated bottling line without a conveyor system associated with the bottling line.
21 Residences of second level only.
22 Gross receipts must be at least 60% attributable to the sale of food. Live entertainment, which includes DJs, is permitted only inside the building,
and then only if it is not audible outside of the building. Outside music is strictly limited to unobtrusive arrangements of pre-recorded songs that
may only be played as background music and then only without a DJ. Hours of operation are limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through
Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday. The closing time in the preceding sentence means when the last call for service must
occur. Happy hour specials must cease at 6:00 p.m.
23 Residences subject to RCM regulations.
24 Provided the special use permit review criteria found in § 31-207 and all of the performance standards found in § 31-515.1 are met.
25 If Type A or B Short Term Home Rental is proposed in a residence where no Special or Conditional Use Permit already exists for the property,
then the property owner must obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the short term rental residence prior to the issuance of a Short Term Home Rental
License.
26 Performance standards found in City Code Sec 31-515.2 apply to all Dog Training Facilities.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 29
PUD Section of City Code would be revised by adding the language in red.
Sec. 31-210. - Planned unit development permit.
Planned unit developments shall meet the following requirements:
(a) Purpose. The purpose of a PUD is to provide for a means of:
(1) Ensuring variety, innovation and flexibility in the development of land and its improvements.
(2) Allowing a mixture of uses in an integrated and well planned area to aid in providing a better living
environment.
(3) Allowing for flexibility in group building development wherein the relationship is between building
and building or buildings and site, rather than between building and property lines, as is the case in
monostructural development.
(4) Preserving natural beauty spots, open space and recreational areas.
(b) Qualifications and requirements. Qualifications and requirements shall be as follows:
(1) Land to be improved as a PUD:
i. Shall be at least three acres in size;
ii. Shall be at least one complete city block in size;
iii. Shall have a density in excess of 25 dwelling units per acre; or
iv. Shall, when fully developed, contain upon it at least two principal buildings.
(2) Smaller lots may be improved as PUD's if they:
i. Are adjacent to or across the street from property which already has been approved
for a PUD;
ii. Contain unusual physical features; or
iii. Are of special historical interest.
(3) Lots under separate ownership meeting the above requirements may be considered eligible for a
PUD permit if a plan is submitted for the entire area and if financial accountability can be provided
and shown for all aspects of the plan.
(4) Permitted uses in a residential PUD must include detached, semidetached, attached, clustered or
multistoried dwelling unit structures, or any combination thereof, and any nonresidential use
designed to serve the residents of the PUD and of the vicinity, but which is not deemed to be
objectionable.
(5) Permitted uses in nonresidential PUD are limited to those permitted either specifically or by special
use permit in the zoning district.
(6) Aggregate density of structures and building heights on privately or commonly owned property may
not exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district in which these structures would normally be
located.
(7) Aggregate impervious coverage for a mixed-use PUD must not exceed the maximum lot coverage
(impervious) standard for its underlying zoning district though individual lots may exceed the
maximum.
(8) Copies of all covenants and easements relating to the provision, use and maintenance of common
open space must be filed with the community development director. When a corporation is formed
to maintain space or facilities, the city is empowered to abate any nuisance resulting from the lack
of maintenance and has the authority to assess the cost of the abatement of the nuisance to all
property owners holding membership in the corporation and to spread the costs as an assessment
and to certify the costs to the county auditor for collection with the real estate taxes.
(9) The PUD project must be designed and developed to harmonize with both existing and proposed
development in the area surrounding the site and with the city's comprehensive plan.
(10) Land must be dedicated to the city for recreation or other open space purposes consistent with the
standards and criteria contained in the park dedication policy.
(11) All public utilities and communications transmission facilities must be installed underground.
(12) A building setback from property which is adjacent to the PUD site and that is zoned or being used
for a less intensive use must be at least equal to twice the proposed building's height, except in a
Highway Mixed Use PUD, where the building setback must be no less than 50 feet.
(13) A landscaping plan with a detailed planting list must be approved.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 30
(14) All private streets, sidewalks and parking areas must be built and maintained in accordance with city
standards and specifications.
(c) Submittal requirements. The following information must be presented for review in accordance with the
procedures outlined in (d) and (e) of this Section 31-210:
(1) A certified plot plan (at a scale of one to 100 or larger) showing all information required by the
subdivision chapter of this Code.
(2) A vertical aerial photograph of the site at a scale of one to 200 or larger.
(3) The legal description of the property.
(4) The nature of the applicant's financial interest in the land to be developed and the proposed
methods of interim and long-term financing to the project.
(5) A statement describing ultimate density of the proposed development and the expected impact
upon the city school district.
(6) A schematic drawing and map of the proposed development area, including street layouts and lot
size and locations.
(7) Proposed allocations of land use expressed as a percentage of the total and in acres. Uses to be
indicated must include:
i. Streets, both public and private, and other transportation facilities.
ii. Open space, both public and private.
iii. Commercial uses.
iv. Industrial uses.
v. A stratification of residential use in terms of number of single-family detached,
single-family attached and multiple-family dwellings.
(8) A certified map (at a scale of one to 100 or larger) of existing site conditions, that include at a
minimum:
i. General topographic features.
ii. Location and extent of tree cover.
iii. Slope analysis.
iv. Location and extent of swamps, wetlands and streams.
v. Significant rock outcroppings.
vi. Existing drainage patterns and ponding areas.
(9) A general development site plan (at a scale of one to 100 or larger) indicating all circulation
elements, pedestrian and vehicular, all natural open space, recreation space, structures,
landscaping, fences and other onsite improvement features.
(10) A certified utilities plan, indicating street lighting, storm drainage ponding, runoff and disposal
facilities and the placement of water, sewer and electrical, gas and communications.
(11) A staging plan for any project involving more than one year's construction time.
(12) Tables and graphs indicating the gross square footage of commercial or industrial floor space by
specific type of activity and the number of residential dwelling units by the number of bedrooms.
(13) Preliminary architectural plans, indicating the floor plans, elevations and exterior wall finishes of
all proposed buildings.
(14) The plan for solid waste disposal that meets city, county and Pollution Control Agency
requirements.
(15) Firefighting and other public safety facilities and procedures.
(16) An economic benefit analysis if required by the planning commission or city council for aid in
evaluating the impact of the development on city facilities and services.
(17) A recreational plan.
(18) A public buildings plan providing for school, administrative or public safety quarters.
(19) Other plans or information required by the community development director.
(d) Concept approval. Concept approval procedures are as follows:
(1) The applicant must file a statement of intention to develop property under the PUD provisions
along with the application fee and a review deposit to cover estimated legal and engineering
costs. Any amount remaining after administration, engineering and legal costs have been paid will
be refunded to applicant. If the deposit is not sufficient, the applicant must submit an additional
amount to the city.
Central Commons Addition
April 17, 2020
Page 31
(2) The request must be referred to the planning commission. The applicant must present at least 12
copies of the information listed in subsections (b) and (c) above. The commission must make a
recommendation to the city council within 45 days.
(3) Upon receipt of concept approval and any modification to the plans required by the city council,
the applicant may proceed to file a request for final approval. Failure to do so within six months of
the date of the receipt of the concept approval, will be cause for revocation of concept approval.
(4) Concept approval will not bind the city to grant final approval.
(e) Final approval procedures. Final approval procedures are as follows:
(1) The applicant must file a request for final approval along with the required fee to cover the costs
of checking and processing plans, plus a deposit to cover estimated administration, engineering
and legal costs. Any amount remaining after administration, engineering and legal costs have
been paid will be refunded to the applicant. If the deposit is not sufficient, the applicant must
submit an additional amount to the city before final approval may be granted.
(2) The request must be referred to the planning commission. Unless waived specifically by the
commission, 12 copies of all information listed in (c) of this Section 31-210, and required data
must be submitted for review. The commission must make a recommendation to the city council
within 45 days of the submission of the final plans.
(3) The city council may hold a public hearing on the request.
(4) The city council must evaluate the PUD request using all criteria consistent with this subdivision,
the needs of the city, and common land use planning principals and standards and must make its
decision within 60 days of the date of the public hearing.
(f) Staged developments. If it is proposed to develop a project during a period which will exceed two years, the
applicant may request concept approval for the entire project and permission to submit detailed
information respecting only the first stage of the project. If permission is granted by the city council, a
separate public hearing may nevertheless be required respecting each stage of the project as it is reached.
Detailed plans must be submitted in accordance with the approved phasing schedule.
(g) Final approval and issuance of PUD permit. Final approval by the city council and the issuance of a PUD
permit will occur when:
(1) All agreed upon public open space has been deeded to the city and has been officially recorded;
or an agreement has been reached between the city and the applicant for cash payment in lieu
of land donation.
(2) Design and construction specifications for all public utilities and street improvements have been
approved by the city engineer.
(3) A plat of the development site, if needed, has been filed and recorded both with the city and the
county register of deeds. Failure to register the plat, within 120 days of final approval is grounds
for revocation of the PUD permit.
(4) An agreement has been reached between the city and the applicant specifying the standards to
be used in the construction of all streets and utilities, storm ponding, runoff and disposal
facilities, landscaping, final grading and the provision, use and maintenance of privately owned
recreational facilities. To ensure that these improvements are completed under the terms of the
agreement, the applicant must post a corporate surety bond or cash bond equal to 125 percent
of the cost of the improvements guaranteeing the faithful performance of the work specified in
the agreement or the payment of any costs to the city in a sum equal to the total as
recommended by the city engineer and approved by the city council. The bond must cover all
requirements; provided, however, that part of the bond may be released when any part of each
phase is completed, upon the recommendation of the city engineer.
(5) All other plans and conditions of final approval have been approved.
PRELIMINARYPLATC200Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive
Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Toll Free (888) 937-5150 REVISIONCENTRAL COMMONS, LLC.
6770 STILLWATER BOULEVARD NORTH
SUITE 110
STILLWATER, MN 55082
DATEBYCENTRAL COMMONS
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP, MN
95,716 SFGROCERYRETAIL5,000 SFPRE-TREATMENTPOND 2OUTLOT CAREA: 6.14 ACRESTRAPARTMENT70,000 SF200 UNITSSTORMWATER INFILTRATION PONDPRE-TREATMENT POND 187 (E-10) UNLEADED87 CLEARE-85 DIESELUNLEADED91 CLEARPREMIUM
RETAIL5,000 SF4,100 SF C-STORE37 PARKING STALLS104 STALLS OUTSIDE50 STALLS491 STALLS202 STALLS INSIDELOT 1 BLOCK 2AREA: 0.64 ACRESLOT 1 BLOCK 1AREA: 1.88 ACRESLOT 3 BLOCK 2AREA: 8.84 ACRESOULOT AAREA: 3.38 ACRESOUTLOT BAREA: 2.96 ACRESLOT 2 BLOCK 2AREA: 0.85 ACRESLOT 4 BLOCK 2AREA: 5.28 ACRESTRSTORMWATERFILTRATION PONDOUTLOT DAREA: 0.51 ACRESCOUNTY ROADAREA: 5.33 AC.CSAH 15 AS SHOWN ISFUTURE-ULTIMATE LAYOUT.CIVIL SITE PLANC300Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive
Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Toll Free (888) 937-5150 REVISIONCENTRAL COMMONS, LLC.
6770 STILLWATER BOULEVARD NORTH
SUITE 110
STILLWATER, MN 55082
DATEBYCENTRAL COMMONS
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP, MN ·····
From: Ken Roberts [mailto:KRoberts@lakeelmo.org]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 3:43 PM
To: Abbi Wittman <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us>
Cc: Ben Prchal <BPrchal@lakeelmo.org>
Subject: FW: FW: Central Commons - Stillwater
Abbi –
Please find attached comments from Jack Griffin, Lake Elmo City Engineer about the proposed Stillwater
Commons development. We understand that the proposal is at the concept review stage, but In
addition to Jack’s comments, City also has the following comments about the proposal:
1. The area to the west of Manning Avenue is a low-density residential development in Lake
Elmo. Noise and traffic impacts from the proposed development and the street and road
improvements in the area are a primary concern to the City and to existing residents. Jack noted
several comments and concerns about access and access spacing on the project plans.
2. It appears from the plans there would be changes and improvements made to parts of Manning
Avenue but not to all of Manning Avenue adjacent to the site. Leaving part of Manning Avenue
as gravel and not improved to a standard street section with pavement and curb and gutter is
not acceptable to the City of Lake Elmo.
3. The City should require the developer to verify the existing and needed right-of-way for
Manning Avenue. There may be a need for additional right-of-way to accommodate all the
street and trail improvements and any storm water management necessary for Manning Avenue
to the south line of the project site.
4. It is not clear to the City of Lake Elmo which City or Township has jurisdiction and responsibility
for the maintenance of Manning Avenue south of the new frontage road. This matter should
clarified and documented as part of the approval process for any development that might occur
to the east of Manning Avenue.
5. Assuming adequate access and traffic management is provided, the City has no particular
comments about the proposed land uses in the development – it appears to be a mix of
commercial and residential in area near a highway. It would be helpful to know type of uses
could occur on Outlot B, however.
6. The City of Lake Elmo expects the City of Stillwater will be requiring screening with fencing and
landscaping along the south and possibly west sides of the development site to lessen the
impacts the buildings and parking areas would have on the existing residences in the area.
7. The City of Lake Elmo also expects Stillwater will be requiring a full photometric plan for the
development to ensure the new lighting from the site does not unnecessarily disturb the
existing residents in the area.
8. The City of Lake Elmo is concerned about the hours of operation the businesses might have –
especially a grocery store. With the primary access to the site appearing to be from Manning
Avenue, having truck traffic near an existing residential neighborhood is a major concern to the
City of Lake Elmo. I would recommend that if the City of Stillwater approves project that the
City place a condition of the development that all trucks must enter and exit the site from the
new frontage road and that no truck traffic be allowed on Manning Avenue south of the new
frontage road.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the development proposal. The City of Lake Elmo
staff would be happy to meet with Stillwater City staff as the project moves forward to review
the design and access issues (and any other matters) presented in this message today.
Thanks –
Ken Roberts – Lake Elmo Planning Director
PAGE 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 17, 2020
To: Ken Roberts, Planning Director Re: Stillwater Commons
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer Site Plan Review
A site plan review was completed for the Stillwater Commons proposed commercial and high‐density residential
development. The site is located in Stillwater Township immediately west of the Sanctuary open space residential
development. The site is to be located in the former detachment parcel from the City of Lake Elmo.
Engineering has the following review comments:
1. Significant design revisions and issues should be addressed for the development interface with Manning
Trail. As proposed, the development will be generating high traffic volumes and introducing intersection
conflicts that exceed the capacity and ability to be handled by Manning Trail.
High density residential development is proposed on the south side of the development. Manning Trail
should be improved to city standards (meeting minimums for both Lake Elmo and Stillwater) for a minor
collector roadway to accommodate this new traffic, or access to Manning Trail should be eliminated and
a dedicated public roadway should be provided through the site connecting directly to the east‐west
County Road.
Access Spacing guidelines need to be met along Manning Trail. The Apartment and Outlot B access must
be moved further south to meet 250‐foot offset standard from Linden Trail (currently only 135 feet).
The Outlot A and Outlot B right out access to Manning Trail must be eliminated due to its proximity to
both Linden Trail and the off‐ramp intersection to the north.
2. Manning Avenue roadway jurisdiction and right‐of‐way. As proposed, the southern portion of the
development significantly encroaches Manning Trail, essentially eliminating any future possibility of
improving the roadway.
Right‐of‐way dedication must be provided along the full length of Manning Trail to allow for the future
improvement of this roadway meeting city standards, including right‐of‐way width, provisions for small
utilities immediately adjacent to the R/W, roadway pavement widths, and pavement sections. The
development currently only provides 16.5 feet of R/W from centerline. There is no dedicated drainage
and utility easement. Retaining walls are proposed 10 feet from the R/W.
The service access to the gravel road should be eliminated unless Manning Trail is improved to a paved
roadway meeting minimum city standards (meeting minimums for both Lake Elmo and Stillwater).
3. Stormwater Management. The site proposes an infiltration basin that will be required to be relocated further
north, to be fully outside of Lake Elmo’s Well #2 Emergency Response Area (ERA).
See attached Wellhead Protection Plan Map for Well #2 showing the proposed infiltration basin within
the City’s Well #2 DWSMA and ERA boundaries.
Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency joint guidance procedures for
determining the applicability of infiltration in a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). The
Well #2 DWSMA is classified as Moderate Vulnerability, therefore the infiltration practice is prohibited.
See the attached link for the guidance procedures for infiltration applicability in a DWSMA.
https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Stormwater_and_wellhead_protection.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4285
CIVIL SITE PLANC300CENTRAL COMMONS, LLC.6770 STILLWATER BOULEVARD NORTHSUITE 110STILLWATER, MN 55082DATEBYCENTRAL COMMONSSTILLWATER TOWNSHIP, MNxxxxxR/W jog does not currently existNot showing existing R/W in Lake ElmoProposed plat is seriously encroachingexisting R/W and not allowing for Manning Trailto ever be improved. Proposing only 16.5 ft from centerlineto edge of R/W. There is laos no 10-foot D+U
0.50 in
1.47 in
2.72 inApprox.135 feetApprox.75 feet
5.42
i
n
271 feet
5.04 in
250 footmin. offset
Part 2 Wellhead Protection Plan Amendment Page 2
City of Lake Elmo
Figure One A
Abbi Wittman
From: Sandy Wolfe Wood
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 10:22 AM
To: Abbi Wittman
Subject: Comment on EAW for Central Commons development
Ms. Wittman,
Dear Ms. Wittman:
I have lived in Stillwater for over 20 years. We chose Stillwater because of its proximity to the river, and wild
places.
Right now, Stillwater has an opportunity now to stand out as a'green community', one that can be a model for
others. 21 st century living is going to look very different from 20th century living. It will be more sustainable,
rely on things like solar power, electric cars, walkable communities, and an attentiveness to areas where people
can recreate.
I have walked 3 miles a day since the pandemic hit. I've never seen so many people out walking. This is
changing how people feel about their environment —I've had several conversations about this with people I've
never met before.
They're asking questions like, "Why aren't there more sidewalks?", and "Where can I go—away from cars that
I can walk my dog, or take my kids on bikes?". Now is the time to make Stillwater a green community.
With this new Central Commons development, you have an opportunity to design for the future, to set a tone,
and as the first thing that many visitors see who drive out on Hwy 36, to celebrate Stillwater's commitment to
the environment (as a town built on a'wild and scenic river'). The City should revise its EAW to consider the
existential threat of climate change and methods of addressing that threat.
Sincerely,
Sandy Wolfe Wood
220 Pineridge Lane
Stillwater, MN 55082
From:Pat Lockyear
To:Abbi Wittman; Bill Turnblad
Cc:David Junker; Ted Kozlowski; Mike Polehna
Subject:Central Commons Development
Date:Wednesday, April 22, 2020 1:47:47 PM
Ms Wittman and Mr Turnblad,
I tried to find a way to send this note to the Planning Commission but was unable to find any
email address on the City’s webpage. I will try to be at the Zoom meeting tonight but in case I
am not able to “attend” the meeting, I would appreciate having this letter passed on to the
Planning Commission.
I appreciate your help in getting this letter to the Planning Commission.
Thank you,
Pat Lockyear
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I am writing to ask you and the City Council to pause and reconsider the Central Commons
Development. Please, when considering the proposed Central Commons Development, keep
the Comprehensive Plan and Green Steps program foremost in your thinking. It seems that the
proposed annexation and development go against a number of aspects of both the Green Step
program and the Comprehensive Plan. It also requires the City to create a special zoning
designation just to suit the needs of one developer.
Additionally, it seems unwise to be taking on such a development which will require the City
to provide tax abatement to a developer at a time when the City is facing reduced revenue
because of the pandemic. Helping a developer to "fund the shortfall for the on-site and off-site
infrastructure and utilities systems required for the commercial and residential portions of the
site” at this point in time seems premature given the unknowns in terms of future tax revenue
as discussed in the April 21st City Council meeting.
As a long time resident, I find it hard to understand how the City would move ahead with such
a project when it is uncertain about how it can adequately fund existing infrastructure and
buildings. It is disheartening to see this type of development being proposed when it doesn’t
take into consideration the existing businesses in the community. Over building and over
development have never helped a community to be financially strong, nor does it serve the
residents in a material way. Looking at the proposal, one must ask, does Stillwater really need
another development of retail, grocery and hotel a mile or so from the intersection of Highway
5 and Highway 36?
I hope the Planning Commission and the City Council will take a step back to reconsider the
short term and long term effects of taking on such a project. It is critical to examine the
environmental and financial impact it will have on the City of Stillwater and the existing
hotels and grocery stores in Stillwater.
SIncerely,
Pat Lockyear
2001 Hazel Court
Stillwater MN 55082
From:Ann Martin
To:Bill Turnblad; Abbi Wittman; Ryan Collins; eric.fsci@gmail.com; john.dybvig@gmail.com; lauerathon@gmail.com;
bad74ger@yahoo.com
Subject:Central Commons
Date:Wednesday, April 22, 2020 4:18:27 PM
City Staff and Planning Commission members:
I served on the Advisory Committee for the 2040 Comprehension Plan, and was pleased that many of
Stillwater's environmental and housing concerns were addressed in ways that recognize changing
climate, workforce, housing, and transportation needs. Does this development follow through on the
recommendations of the 2040 Plan, particularly in the housing section?
1. On page 4-2 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2, Objective 1 states: Encourage housing for
a range of household income and age levels where local services are available.
What age groups and income levels will this apartment building serve?
2.Page 4-5, Housing Assessment bullet 2 talks about expanding housing affordability - for the City to
continue to support and partner on affordable projects. Bullet 4 talks about the mixed-use along
Highway 36.
The Comp Plan's intention of "mixed use" is for live/work units (the use of a residential dwelling for
business, trade or
professional purposes. However, if you accept the definition of mixed use as being a conglomerate
of buildings which
serve different purposes including housing, the housing should be affordable for those who would
work in the hotel, HyVee,
retail and convenience store. Is this the case?
3.Page 4-11, details "the Affordability Housing Need Allocation for Stillwater between 2021 and 2030
is 227 units. The way
that communities accommodate this affordable housing allocation is by designating adequate
vacant land or developable
land at minimum densities that are high enough for affordable housing to be an option."
If this area is developed as it is, what is the plan to get to 227 affordable housing units?
4.Page 4-14, Implementation Measures #8: "Use the land use plan as a tool to provide a variety of
residential land uses in a
range of densities, concentrating higher density opportunities along major transportation and transit
corridors, and around
future job centers."
This is a car-centric development with a minimum of job opportunities. Is there a public
transportation plan for this area?
Are there plans for electric car charging stations? Who are the users of this development?
5.Coordination and Collaboration Strategies #5: Use the Comp Plan as a tool to articulate the City's
housing goals and
affordable housing needs when working with developers and property owners. These discussions
should occur early on in
the development review process.
When did the City do this? Did they?
I look forward to your response to these questions.
Ann Martin, GreenSteps
From:Please Do Not Click Reply
To:Planning Dept
Subject:Public Comment (form) has been filled out on your site.
Date:Wednesday, April 22, 2020 1:58:07 PM
Your Site has received new information through a form.
Form: Public Comment
Site URL: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us
-------------------------------------------------
Name: Mary Russell
Address: 921 N. 2nd St.
Email address:
Comment Below: I'm looking at the Central Commons proposal and I have some concerns.
First, the plan to strip the topsoil and level off the entire area. I don't like the sound of this at all, but it looks like the
wetlands tradeoff has already been approved. Is it possible to avoid the total destruction of the existing site and
topsoil? Is it really necessary to destroy it all and then recreate 13 acres of "undeveloped" land? Has a tree inventory
been done and are there trees that could and should be preserved? Will the new plantings feature native, pollinator
friendly species?
Also, and a major concern for me, does the stripping and leveling process also include the parcels set aside for future
development? It most definitely should not--it could be years until anything happens there and there's no good in
creating an ugly dirt desert in the meantime.
Other concerns include the appearance--what kind of entrance point / first impression does this give of Stillwater?
Viewsheds are an important issue in the 2040 Comp Plan. It would be wonderful if this project could become a
gateway showcase for Stillwater's commitment to the environment and green development.
Do Not Click Reply - This e-mail has been generated from a super form.
April 22, 2020
Stillwater Planning Commission and City Council Members,
Please include this letter in the public and official records for the planning commission meeting to be
held on April 22, 2020 and the City Council meeting scheduled for May 5, 2020.
As the governing body for more than 60 homeowners in our development, for the reasons set forth
below, we respectively inform the Planning Commission and City Council that the Sanctuary of Lake
Elmo HOA is strongly opposed to the annexation of the proposed property from Stillwater Township to
The City of Stillwater. We are also strongly opposed to commercial development of the property.
This land has always been zoned rural and/or agricultural, never commercial. All of the residents of our
neighborhood bought their property and homes with the clear understanding of this zoning. The
rezoning of this property through another annexation process to high density commercial and/or
apartments will significantly impact our adjoining neighborhood, lakes and ponds.
Allowing this change in zoning and resulting commercial development to occur through the proposed
annexation will significantly change our development forever and drastically decrease the property
values in our neighborhood. It will also increase the traffic levels and decrease the safety and well being
of the kids and families in our development. Additionally, the noise, pollution, and lighting in our
development will be significantly changed.
As adjoining land owners to the property at issue we and several of our residents have strong legal
standing and options that we are in the process of assessing to address the proposed annexation and
possible development.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
The Sanctuary of Lake Elmo Board
Abbi Wittman
From:
Don Schuld >
Sent:
Wednesday, April 22, 2020 11:40 AM
To:
Abbi Wittman
Subject:
Comment on EAW for Central Commons development
Ms. Wittman,
Dear Ms. Wittman:
I am excited yet also concerned about the opportunity that the Central Commons development presents for
Stillwater. The higher density housing is a plus yet so much of the plan is inconsistent with our 2040 Comp
Plan. Central Commons presents an opportunity to be a gateway showcase to our city. The current plan does not
include provisions for renewable energy such as rooftop solar and EV charging stations. It destroys a wetland
and shows little of how it will replace the trees that are such an important part of our newly designated 'Bird
City". Likewise, the plans show little or nothing that would support transit. This is a great opportunity for
Stillwater to demonstrate that this is a Green Steps City fully committed to caring for the environment and the
health and welfare of our future.
Missing from the EAW plan is (1) the amount of new greenhouse gas emissions that will be produced by the
construction and operation of the development, (2) the need to adapt to effects of climate change, particularly
the increasing number of large rainfall events (planning for a "100" year flood is no longer an appropriate
measure when these are now occurring every few years), or (3) mitigation measures that could minimize
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change effects.
The EAW process provides the City of Stillwater with an important opportunity to make the Central Commons
development more efficient, resilient, and sustainable. The City should revise its EAW to consider the
existential threat of climate change and methods of addressing that threat while at the sametime, insisting on
plans that are consistent with the 2040 Comp Plan.
Sincerely, Don Schuld
Sincerely,
Don Schuld
1200 Creekside Crossing
Stillwater, MN 55082
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-13
REPORT DATE: April 13, 2020
MEETING DATE: April 22, 2020
APPLICANT: Reid Miller
LANDOWNER: Reid Miller
REQUEST: Variances to the maximum impervious surface lot coverage and to the
total accessory building lot coverage.
LOCATION: 615 Broadway St South
ZONING: RB, Two-Family Residential
REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner
INTRODUCTION
Reid Miller owns the property 615 Broadway Street South. This property has recently been
approved building permits and variances (CPC 2019-73), to construct a signler family house with
a tuck-under garage. In association with constructing this new dwelling the owner has proposed a
landscaping plan for the rear yard. While this new landscaping plan has significantly less
coverage than the previous estate did, it is still exceeding the maximum coverage allowed and
will require a variance. The property has also proposed constructing an undergound shed,
beneath the proposed bocci court, to house the pool equipment. This proposed shed, when
combined with the square footage of the existing attached garage,exceeds the maximum allowed
coverage from accessory structures and will also require a variance.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The applicants are requesting:
A variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow the impervious lot coverage to be
30.3%, whereas the maximum allowed impervious lot coverage is 25%; and
A 180sf variance to City Code Section 31-308. (a). (3).i. to allow the maximum lot
coverage of all accessory buildings including attached and detached private garages and
other accessory buildings (1180sf) to be greater than 1,000 sf .
CPC Case 2020-13
Page 2 of 4
ANALYSIS
The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria
below.
1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning
district in which the subject property is located.
The property is zoned RB, Two-Family Residential. Everything outlined in the proposed
landscaping plan is an allowable use in the RB district.
2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested?
Impervious coverage The specific purpose of the maximum lot coverage is to
maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality and to
provide for adequate storm water infiltration.
Accessory building lot coverage The specific purpose of the accessory building
lot coverage is to prevent properties from becoming overly occupied with
accessory structures, allowing properties to maintain open, unencumbered space
to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water
infiltration.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code?
Impervious coverage If granted, the variance would not be out of harmony with
the zoning code. While the proposed updates will put the impervious surface
coverage over the limit, the structural surface coverage is still far under the
maximum allowed. So even with the landscaping plan factored in, the overall
coverage for this property is 814sf shy of the maximum allowed total lot
coverage, when the 25% maximum structural and 25% maximum other
impervious surface coverage are added together.
Accessory building lot coverage The proposed variance will not be out of
harmony with the Zoning Code because this shed is proposed to be fully tucked
under ground (under the bocce ball court) and will have no impact on the aesthetic
qualities of the property. Additionally, all of the accessory structure coverage is
located in the rear yard and doesn’t have any impacts to the property when viewed
from the street. Also, it is important to point out that only 400 sf of the house’s
future attached garage will not be tucked under the house, which would not
contribute towards making this property feel like it is being dominated by
accessory structures. Lastly, the house itself is rather large and sits on a large .45
acre lot, so in no way would the proposed accessory structures seem out of scale
with the existing property conditions.
c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive
Plan?
No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
CPC Case 2020-13
Page 3 of 4
3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical
difficulties” in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by
the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a
“practical difficulty”.
a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner?
A single family residence with various landscape features and an underground pool
equipment shed is a proposal that will allow the property to be used in a reasonable
manner.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property?
The uniqueness of this property is that the property was well over the impervious
surface coverage allowances during its last estate. The proposed landscaping plan by
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
The property owner did not create these circumstances. Mr. Miller presents a
reduction of 4.5% to the total impervious surface coverage of the lot, when compared
to the previous estate.
d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality?
These variances will not alter the character of the neighborhood. As mentioned above,
when looking back at the history of this property, it used to have even more
impervious surface coverage. Also the attached garage will be mostly tucked under
the house and the proposed shed will be completely tucked under grade, therefor staff
believes that the accessory structures will have no effect on the character of the
locality either.
e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations?
The applicant’s desire is for the variances are for the personal enjoyment of his
property, and does not reflect economic considerations.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A. Approve: If the Planning Commission finds the Special Use Permit amendment proposal and
associated Variance is consistent with the provisions of the SUP process and the standards set
forth for the establishment of practical difficulty, the Commission could move to approve the
SUP and associated Variance with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would
recommend the following conditions of approval:
1. This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in
Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595.
CPC Case 2020-13
Page 4 of 4
2. All conditions of approval for cases HPC 2019-17 and CPC 2019-73 shall remain in
effect.
3. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020-13,
except as modified by the conditions herein.
4. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineering Department and
a grading escrow, in an amount deemed sufficient by the Engineering Department, for the
new construction shall be submitted.
5. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning
Commission for review and approval.
B. Approve in part.
C. Deny. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the approved Special Use
Permit guidelines or the standards set forth for the granting of variances, then the
Commission could deny the request in whole or in part. With a denial, the basis of the action
is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant
from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year.
D. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be
tabled.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds the proposed landscaping plan and pool equipment shed meets the standards set forth
for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC
Case No. 2020-13 with the conditions identified in Alternative A.
Attachments: Site Location Map
Landscaping Plan
Applicant Narrative
cc: Reid Miller
E L O C U S T S T
S
O
U
T
H
MA
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
T
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
WA
Y
S
9
5
&
3
6
515
603 1250
206
205
663
663
615
609
623
657
620
502
610
604
660
654
408
655
806
670
522
516
300
611
509
651
687
507
527
510
210
525
445
673
438
207
203
509
517
704 703 704
206
709 500
441
µ
0 175 35087.5 Feet
General Site Location
Site Location
615 Broadway St N
^
Broadway St S Request to Deny Variance: Case CPC 2020-13
1. In the RB 2-family residential district the max impervious surface coverage is 25% of the lot for “structural
coverage” and 25% of “impervious coverage”. Structural coverage is including any structure over 18” in height (ie.
House, shed, garage, etc…). Impervious surface overage includes all of the at grade improvements (ie driveways,
walkways, patios etc). The variance is to allow the impervious surface coverage to be 30.3%, whereas the max
allowed is 25%. But, while the proposed updates will put the impervious surface coverage over the limit, the structural
surface coverage is still far under the maximum allowed. So even with the landscaping plan factored in, the overall
coverage (50%) for this property is 814sf shy of the maximum allowed total lot coverage .
2. The City doesn’t usually issue building permits for landscaping and at-grade improvements. The reason this
sparked review was that it brought the surface coverage over the max. So we don’t have detailed plans about the
constructions, just site plans that show the overall configuration.
Graham Tait | City Zoning Administrator
City of Stillwater - Community Development
651-430-8818 gtait@ci.stillwater.mn.us
Sec 31-308 RB two-family district
RB two-family districts are regulated as follows
Maximum lot coverage
Buildings 25%
Impervious Surfaces 25%
Miller Proposal estimate 100% 22,500 sf
Structure + Hardscape 50% 11,250
615 Hardscape 30.3% 6,818
Remaining sf 3.6% 814
615 Structure 16.1% 3,618
Issues
Drainage/Erosion:
More than 75% of the 75’ x 300’ yard will
drain toward the cliff (state property – Hwy 95),
or into the adjacent neighbor yards.
Survey Issue:
The east end of the property is actually angled, not at 90°. (Exh A)
Encroachment:
1) The new owner has already removed the arborvitae (Exh B) on the southeast lot line.
2) The northeast point (top-right) of the new retaining wall (Exh C) appears to create a 6 ft wall toward the neighbor,
which will be 10 ft above the neighboring yard.
– What structure is planned? Secondly, the 4 trees depicted on the north may shade the neighbors garden.
Variances:
1) We were all were under the impression that there would be no additional variances after the garage.
2) It is the opinion of the neighbors that this new variance violates the integrity of the South Hill and Bluff..
3) The ‘Pool/Spa pumphouse is next to the neighbor’s deck. How will it be noise-proofed, with the door?
4) In the landscape submittal, it states ‘there have been significant efforts to reduce the overall "hard surfaces" square
footage from original house to new landscaping plan’. Original 5,714 sq ft (29.6%); new house 5,243 sq ft (27.2%).
- This ‘original house’ refers to the Miller’s original submission, not to the demolished structure built in 1887.
Reubendale
Fence Barn Wall Property Line
Retraining Wall
Arborvitae
Property Line
Exhibit A)
Exhibit B) Arborvitae Hedge – removed Exhibit C) New Retaining Wall with property stake
We the neighbors request that this application for variance be denied.
Signed,
Myron & Phyllis Reubendale 609 Broadway St S
Joel Moline 300 Locust St E
Doug & Mary Louise Menikheim 527 Broadway St S
Tom & Paula McHugh 620 Broadway St S
BROADWAY STREET SOUTHPID#2803020440059CONTACT:Reid T MillerMobile: 1-612-747-5474remiller@deloitte.comUNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES:THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELDSURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NOGUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCHUTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYORFURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWNARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THATTHEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATIONAVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST.COUNTY/CITY:REVISIONS:PROJECT LOCATION:DATEREVISION615CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!TWIN CITY AREA:TOLL FREE:1-800-252-1166651-454-0002Gopher State One CallLEGAL DESCRIPTION:BROADWAY STREET SOUTHCITY OF STILLWATERWASHINGTONCOUNTY11-22-18INITIAL ISSUECERTIFICATION:I hereby certify that this plan was prepared byme, or under my direct supervision, and that I ama duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws ofthe state of Minnesota.Daniel L. Thurmes Registration Number: 25718Date:__________________615BROADWAY ST. S.0NORTH1530ZZ18521SURVZZ521CERTIFICATE OFSURVEYLAND SURVEYING, INC.CORNERSTONEPROJECT NO.FILE NAME11-22-18LEGENDUNDERGROUND ELECTRICUNDERGROUND CABLE TVUNDERGROUND FIBER OPTICUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEOVERHEAD UTILITYUNDERGROUND GASSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATERMAINFENCECURB [TYPICAL]CONTOURSFOUND MONUMENT 1/2" IPMARKED RLS 15480SET 1/2" IRON PIPEMARKED RLS NO. 25718CABLE TV PEDESTALAIR CONDITIONERELECTRIC MANHOLEELECTRIC METERELECTRIC PEDESTALELECTRIC TRANSFORMERLIGHT POLEGUY WIREPOWER POLEGAS MANHOLEGAS METERTELEPHONE MANHOLETELEPHONE PEDESTALSANITARY CLEANOUTSANITARY MANHOLECATCH BASINSTORM DRAINFLARED END SECTIONSTORM MANHOLEFIRE DEPT. CONNECTIONHYDRANTCURB STOPWATER WELLWATER MANHOLEWATER METERPOST INDICATOR VALVEWATER VALVEBOLLARDFLAG POLEMAIL BOXTRAFFIC SIGNUNKNOWN MANHOLESOIL BORINGSPOT ELEVATIONTRAFFIC SIGNALCONIFEROUS TREEDECIDUOUS TREEAREA:TOTAL AREA AS SHOWN = 19,289 SQ.FT.DENOTES EXISTINGACCESS CONTROL ASSHOWN ON RECORDPLATBUILDING LINEBITUMINOUS SURFACECONCRETE SURFACEHOUSE = 1,748DECKS/PERGOLA/MISC = 498CONCRETE/PAVERS = 4,095POOL = 335WALLS = 785TOTAL = 7,461 SQ.FT.38.7% OF TOTAL AREAEXISTING IMPROVEMENT AREAS:(IN SQUARE FEET)Suite #2001970 Northwestern Ave.Stillwater, MN 55082Phone 651.275.8969dan@cssurvey.net1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THEWASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE. (NAD 83)2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT SHOWN.3. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE NAVD 88.4. NO EASEMENT DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED TO US FORREVIEW AND/OR TO SHOW ON SURVEY. EASEMENTS MAYEXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY.SURVEY NOTES:(AS SHOWN ON TITLE RESOURCES TITLE COMMITMENT NO.1297695, DATED OCTOBER 18, 2018)The Northerly one-half of Lot 15, all of Lot 16, Block 42,Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, excepting from saidlots the Easterly 35 feet thereof, Washington County,Minnesota.ANDThe West One Hundred Four (W 104) feet of Lot Eleven (11),and the West One Hundred Four (W 104) of the NorthOne-half (N 1/2) of Lot Twelve (12), Block Forty-two, OriginalTown (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota.ANDThe East Thirty-five (35) feet of Lot Sixteen (16) and the EastThirty-five (35) feet of the North One-half (N 1/2) of LotFifteen (15), Block Forty-two (42), Original Town (now City)of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota.THE PERFECTED PLAT OF STILLWATER BY MYRON SHEPARDAPPROVED FEB. 20, 1887, RECORDED MARCH 19TH 1981 ASDOCUMENT NO. 416049 WAS USED TO CONTROL THEBOUNDARIES AS SHOWN ON THIS CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY.STILLWATER SECTIONAL MAPS DATED 1906 AND 1960 WERERELIED UPON FOR OTHER MATERS OF RECORD.
Broadway St S Request to Deny Variance Clarification: Case CPC 2020-13
On 4/21/2020, there have been comments provided to the City of Stillwater from neighbors regarding the
variance application. A few points of clarification:
1. Per original narrative to support the variance request, the request for a impervious surface
variance is a net benefit from the old home and landscaping hardsurface coverage. See table
below:
Summary:
• Overall lot proposed lot coverage is (2,963 house + 5,363 hardscape) is 8,326 (43.2%) of
the maximum allowed. That is 1,318 sf less than the total allowable for a lot size of
19,289. Neighbor comments indicated that our landscaping submission was for 30.3%
lot coverage, 813 sf less than lot maximum coverage for house plus landscaping, both
claims are incorrect.
• The prior home landscaping included “hard surfaces” of 5,713 sq ft/29.6% lot coverage.
In the submitted landscaping plans with variance request, there have been significant
efforts to reduce the overall "hard surfaces" square footage from original house to new
landscaping plan. Original house was 5,714 sq ft (29.6%) and new house is 5,243 sq ft
(27.2%). The analysis is noted in BLUE above in a 470 sq ft reduction from the current
hardscape
2. Drainage/Erosion – New landscaping plan is consistent with drainage patterns from prior
home/landscaping and confirmed with recent survey dated 11-22-18 is attached to the original
variance submission and to this clarification submission.
3. Survey Issue – Not sure of the origin of the survey provided in Exhibit A of neighbor objection,
but multiple surveys have recently been completed. Recent survey dated 11-22-18 is attached to
the original variance submission and to this clarification submission. I expect the precision of the
11-22-18 survey to be a more accurate representation of the property legal description, using
current technology and process.
4. Encroachment
a. Item 1) Trees removed were on 615 Broadway property. No concerns.
b. Item 2) The proposed retaining wall on the northeast corner is to accomplish two things:
i. Current soil erosion – as depicted in exhibit C picture provided by Rubendale’s
at 609 Broadway, there is erosion occurring that is currently mitigated with
“wild” landscaping. Retaining wall is proposed to resolve the erosion issue
while stabilizing the landscaping plan for 615 Broadway.
ii. Prior landscaping included walls/trees (see picture). Proposed plan has
improved views for neighbors north, south and west of 615 Broadway.
iii. Proposed landscaping walls adhere to all code/feedback provided to
landscaping plan as documented in email from Graham Tait on January 28,
2020.
The retaining walls that are over 18” must abide by the setbacks for this district. These
walls shall be measured from the side with the highest elevation (ie if the retaining wall
measures 17 inches on the neighbors side and 30 inches on #615’s side, use the 17”
measurement (so in this case setbacks would not come into play))
iv. So, in the landscaping plan and in this variance application, specifically the
northeast corner in question
1. 615 side – 12” high from 803’ elevation, less than the 18” high setback
consideration above
2. 607 side – 6’ high from 798’ elevation, consistent with existing (and
eroding) grade change
5. Variances:
a. Item 3) Enclosing pool in enclosure intended to benefit the neighbors. We can adjust
location to accommodate as necessary to support any codes related to setbacks.
b. Item 4) The original house as noted in variance application was specific to
home/landscaping as existed as date of recent survey dated 11-22-18 and attached to
the original variance submission and to this clarification.
ORIGINAL VARIANCE APPLICATION NARRATIVE
PROJECT: Miller Residence
LOCATION: 615 Broadway Street South
Stillwater, MN 55082
DATE: March 26, 2020
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Miller residence project is a City of Stillwater permitted single-family home
with an attached, primarily tuck-under style garage located at 615 Broadway Street South in Stillwater,
Minnesota. The lot is zoned ‘RB – Two Family Residential’ and is a part of the Neighborhood Conservation
District and the Downtown Design Review District. The design of the home has been approved by the
Heritage Preservation Commission with conditions, and the City of Stillwater has permitted the plans for
constructing the home.
The Miller residence project have submitted landscaping plans to the City of Stillwater for approval. Two
items have been raised that require application for variance review and consideration for approval:
1. The original house existing landscaping included “hard surfaces” of 5,714 sq ft/29.6% lot
coverage. In the submitted landscaping plans, there have been significant efforts to reduce the
overall "hard surfaces" square footage from original house to new landscaping plan. Original
house was 5,714 sq ft (29.6%) and new house is 5,243 sq ft (27.2%). The analysis is noted in
BLUE in Chart 1 below and results in a 470 sq ft reduction from the current hardscapes.
2. In the submitted landscaping plans, marked in RED in Diagram 1 is a request to create a space
under the bocce area to place the pool equipment, spa equipment, and pool accessories. The
proposed space would be 10’ x 12’ and would increase the proposed hard surfaces by 120 sq ft
to a new revised total of 5,363 sq ft (27.8%). The analysis is noted in RED in Chart 1 below and
results in a 350 sq ft reduction from the current hardscapes.
Diagram 1
Chart 1
Broadway St S Request to Deny Variance: Case CPC 2020-13
1. In the RB 2-family residential district the max impervious surface coverage is 25% of the lot for “structural
coverage” and 25% of “impervious coverage”. Structural coverage is including any structure over 18” in height (ie.
House, shed, garage, etc…). Impervious surface overage includes all of the at grade improvements (ie driveways,
walkways, patios etc). The variance is to allow the impervious surface coverage to be 30.3%, whereas the max
allowed is 25%. But, while the proposed updates will put the impervious surface coverage over the limit, the structural
surface coverage is still far under the maximum allowed. So even with the landscaping plan factored in, the overall
coverage (50%) for this property is 814sf shy of the maximum allowed total lot coverage .
2. The City doesn’t usually issue building permits for landscaping and at-grade improvements. The reason this
sparked review was that it brought the surface coverage over the max. So we don’t have detailed plans about the
constructions, just site plans that show the overall configuration.
Graham Tait | City Zoning Administrator
City of Stillwater - Community Development
651-430-8818 gtait@ci.stillwater.mn.us
Sec 31-308 RB two-family district
RB two-family districts are regulated as follows
Maximum lot coverage
Buildings 25%
Impervious Surfaces 25%
Miller Proposal estimate 100% 22,500 sf
Structure + Hardscape 50% 11,250
615 Hardscape 30.3% 6,818
Remaining sf 3.6% 814
615 Structure 16.1% 3,618
Issues
Drainage/Erosion:
More than 75% of the 75’ x 300’ yard will
drain toward the cliff (state property – Hwy 95),
or into the adjacent neighbor yards.
Survey Issue:
The east end of the property is actually angled, not at 90°. (Exh A)
Encroachment:
1) The new owner has already removed the arborvitae (Exh B) on the southeast lot line.
2) The northeast point (top-right) of the new retaining wall (Exh C) appears to create a 6 ft wall toward the neighbor,
which will be 10 ft above the neighboring yard.
– What structure is planned? Secondly, the 4 trees depicted on the north may shade the neighbors garden.
Variances:
1) We were all were under the impression that there would be no additional variances after the garage.
2) It is the opinion of the neighbors that this new variance violates the integrity of the South Hill and Bluff..
3) The ‘Pool/Spa pumphouse is next to the neighbor’s deck. How will it be noise-proofed, with the door?
4) In the landscape submittal, it states ‘there have been significant efforts to reduce the overall "hard surfaces" square
footage from original house to new landscaping plan’. Original 5,714 sq ft (29.6%); new house 5,243 sq ft (27.2%).
- This ‘original house’ refers to the Miller’s original submission, not to the demolished structure built in 1887.
Reubendale
Fence Barn Wall Property Line
Retraining Wall
Arborvitae
Property Line
Exhibit A)
Exhibit B) Arborvitae Hedge – removed Exhibit C) New Retaining Wall with property stake
We the neighbors request that this application for variance be denied.
Signed,
Myron & Phyllis Reubendale 609 Broadway St S
Joel Moline 300 Locust St E
Doug & Mary Louise Menikheim 527 Broadway St S
Tom & Paula McHugh 620 Broadway St S
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-14
REPORT DATE: April 6, 2020
MEETING DATE: April 22, 2020
APPLICANT: Brent Johnstone, Image Contracting LLC
LANDOWNER: Sarah McFarland
REQUEST: a) A Special Use Permit to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit above a
new garage; and
b) Variances to the following:
1. The total ground coverage of the accessory buildings
2. The total number of accessory buildings
3. The location the accessory dwelling unit to be in the front yard,
4. The height of the accessory dwelling unit exceeds the height of the
primary residence
5. The front yard setback
6. The total ground coverage of the accessory buildings to exceed
1,000 square feet.
LOCATION: 816 William Street North
ZONING: RB, Two-Family Residential
REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner
INTRODUCTION
Sarah McFarland owns the property at 816 William Street North. She is planning to construct a
20’ X 40” detached garage in the south east portion of the lot, which will be accessed from
William St N. This garage is proposed to have an equally sized dwelling unit above it. In order
for accessory structures to contain habitable area, they must be constructed as Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs), allowed in RB – Two Family residential zoning by Special Use Permit.
The property is located in the North Hill Neighborhood Preservation Planning area. Currently
existing on the lot is a small 340sf attached garage on the west side of the house which accesses
Elm St W, and a 200sf shed in the southeast corner of the lot; the shed is proposed to be removed
and the existing garage has not been proposed to be altered in any way.
CPC Case 2020-14
Page 2 of 8
Existing garage viewed from Elm St W (GoogleMaps 2013)
Location of proposed garage, viewed from William St
(GoogleMaps 2013)
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The applicants are requesting:
A Special Use Permit to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit above a new garage;
A 192sf variance to City Code Section 31-308. (a). (3). ii. To allow for the total ground
coverage of the accessory buildings (1140sf) to exceed the ground coverage of the principal
building (948sf) ;
A variance to City Code Section 31-501. Subd. 3. (a). (4). to allow the accessory dwelling
unit to be located in the front yard;
A 3 feet variance to City Code Section 31-501. Subd. 3. (a). (8) to allow the height of the
accessory dwelling unit (22’) to exceed that of the primary residence (approx. 19’) ;
A 2’ variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow the garage to be setback 28’
from the front lot line,
whereas the required
setback is 30’; and
A 140 s.f. variance to
City Code Section 31-
308. (a). (3).i. to allow
the maximum lot
coverage of all
accessory buildings
including attached and
detached private
garages and other
accessory buildings
(1140sf) to be greater
than 1,000 sf.
ANALYSIS
City Code Section 31-207,
Special Use Permits,
identifies the city may grant
a Special Use Permit or
amendments when the
following findings are made:
a. 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
CPC Case 2020-14
Page 3 of 8
proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and relevant area plans. With regard to
conformance to the requirements and intent of the Zoning Code, City Code Section 31-501,
Accessory Dwellings, identifies the following performance standards for review:
Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet. The lot is 12,144 square feet.
The accessory dwelling may be located on the second floor above the garage. The
new ADU would be located wholly above the proposed garage.
The accessory dwelling unit must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side
and rear setbacks. The garage and ADU will be in conformance with the side and rear
setbacks put forth in the RB-Two Family residential zoning district.
The accessory dwelling 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 property is a corner property, with the home facing Elm Street West; the garage and
ADU will be located in the interior side yard, in front the mid-point of the home.
Therefore the applicant is requesting a variance to have the ADU situated in the front
yard.
Off-street parking requirements (four spaces) must be provided. One parking space
is proposed to be located within the new garage and the existing garage can also
accommodate a single parking space; together meeting the requirements for two covered
parking spaces. The driveway proposed to be located in front of the new garage will
accommodate the additional parking spaces required.
Maximum size of the garage and ADU is 800 square feet. Both the garage and the
ADU are proposed to be 800sf.
The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in
design, detailing and materials. The garage’s design shows four-sided design, with
matching vertical lap siding and corner, soffit, and fascia boards that match the existing
residence. Placement of windows on the west and south elevations provide visual interest
for neighboring properties. There are only two design details that are out of character for
the site and/or neighborhood:
o The proposed roof pitch is (approximately) 8/12 whereas the existing residence has an
(approximately) 12/12 pitch. Using a similar pitch as the existing residence would be
more in character of the site.
o The single, offset window on the front of the structure is out of character. Centering
the window or adding a second window, with both windows centered, would be more
in line with traditional neighborhood design.
The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. The height of the existing
1.5-story residence is hard to determine. However, using 360 degree LIDAR data
provided by Washington County, it appears the (approximate) height of the structure is
19’ (to the peak of the gable). The two-story garage height is proposed to be 22’ feet (to
the peak of the gable). Therefore, the property owner is applying for a variance to allow
CPC Case 2020-14
Page 4 of 8
for the height of the ADU to exceed the height of the primary residence by approximately
three feet.
Both the primary and accessory dwelling units must be connected to municipal
sewer and water services and be located on an improved public street. This will be a
condition of approval.
Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. The
City has received one letter, from Mr. and Mrs. Robertson who live at 608 Elm St West
(located across Elm St from the said address), who are in favor of the accessory dwelling
unit. Certain conditions of approved, listed in the subsequent section, are recommended
to help protect the public interest.
The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public
welfare of the community. Conditionally permitted ADUs in the RB – Two Family
Residential district have not been a nuisance or are detrimental to the public.
The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria
below.
1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning
district in which the subject property is located.
The property is zoned RB, Two-Family Residential. A detached garage with ADU is
specially permitted in the RB district.
2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested?
Total ground coverage of accessory buildings The specific purpose of the total
ground coverage of accessory buildings is to prevent accessory structures from
being built larger than the primary structure, in order to minimize the presence
garage-dominated properties. This is to help minimize the mass and bulk
associated with two family properties and help ensure accessory structures and
their uses are not larger than primary residences.
Height (less than main structure) of the ADU The specific purpose of the ADU
height maximum is to regulate massing proportionality and to provide consistency
throughout a district where historically secondary buildings were smaller than
primary buildings.
Front yard setback / Location on the lot The specific purpose of the front yard
setback and the requirement to locate ADUs in the rear yard is to have uniform
patterned development in the front of properties, keeping unobstructed areas for
consistent, uniform street design and adequate onsite infiltration.
Accessory building lot coverage The specific purpose of the accessory building
lot coverage is to prevent properties from becoming overly occupied with
accessory structures, allowing properties to maintain open, unencumbered space
CPC Case 2020-14
Page 5 of 8
to regulate massing proportionality and to provide for adequate storm water
infiltration.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code?
Total ground coverage of accessory buildings While the total square footage of
accessory buildings exceeds that of the main structure, no individual accessory
building will be larger than the primary structure. Being that this is a large
property, these two accessory buildings would not appear overly dominate.
Height (less than main structure) of the ADU The existing house is only 1.5
stories tall, so the only way to accommodate an ADU above a garage, would be
through the approval of a variance. While allowing the ADU to be taller than the
house isn’t in line with the zoning code, this issue can be significantly mitigated
by locating the garage in a tucked back location, which is less overshadowing of
the primary structure.
Front yard setback / Location on the lot The applicant is asking for a two foot
variance to the front property line and permission to locate the ADU in the front
yard. In itself, the front setback variance is small and is not out of harmony with
the zoning code. The issue is more the location of the ADU in relation to the
existing house, rather than the fact that the garage is two feet closer to the front
line than it should be. The existing house is located outside of the front setbacks,
approximately 38 feet from the front property line, and staff believes that the
proposed ADU should also follow the primary structure’s conformance to this
regulation. In conclusion, a variance to allow a structure taller than the primary
structure to be located in the front yard setback, in front of the front line of the
house, is not in harmony with the zoning code.
Accessory building lot coverage This will not be out of harmony with the zoning
code because this property has an above average lot size. The total lot coverage of
all accessory buildings will remain under 10% of the total lot.
c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive
Plan?
No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical
difficulties” in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by
the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a
“practical difficulty”.
a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner?
A single family residence with accessory dwelling unit is a reasonable use for the
property.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property?
CPC Case 2020-14
Page 6 of 8
The uniqueness of this property is the small size of the existing house. This house is
small in terms of both the footprint and the height, which sets the bars for the allowed
size and height of the ADU. The small size of the existing house makes any proposed
ADU prone to various variances.
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
The property owner did not construct any of the structures on the property. However,
the property owner does have the opportunity to reduce the extent of the needed
variances, or even reduce the number of required variances, by removing one or both
of the existing accessory structures and/or relocating the proposed ADU to be behind
the primary structure.
d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?
This ADU is being proposed to be built within 28’ of the front lot line and will be
taller than the existing house, therefore as it is proposed, this project will alter the
character of the neighborhood.
e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations?
The applicant’s desire is for a detached garage with an ADU does not reflect
economic considerations alone.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The City has received one letter, from Mr. and Mrs. Robertson who live at 608 Elm St West
(located across Elm St from the said address), who are in favor of the accessory dwelling unit.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A. Approve: If the Planning Commission finds the Special Use Permit amendment proposal and
associated Variance is consistent with the provisions of the SUP process and the standards set
forth for the establishment of practical difficulty, the Commission could move to approve the
SUP and associated Variance with or without conditions. At a minimum, staff would
recommend the following conditions of approval:
1. This Special Use Permit is in all ways a Conditional Use Permit as the term is used in
Minnesota Statue Section 462.3595.
2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020-14,
except as modified by the conditions herein.
3. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineering Department and
a grading escrow, in an amount deemed sufficient by the Engineering Department, for the
new construction shall be submitted.
4. Center the single, offset window on the front of the structure or add a second window,
with both windows placed in a symmetrical manner on the second story.
5. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the residence.
CPC Case 2020-14
Page 7 of 8
6. At the time of building permitting, the applicant shall be required to pay WAC/SAC
charges for the new unit. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the ADU
shall be connected to municipal sewer and water.
7. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning
Commission for review and approval.
B. Approve in part.
C. Deny. If the CPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the approved Special Use
Permit guidelines or the standards set forth for the granting of variances, then the
Commission could deny the request in whole or in part. With a denial, the basis of the action
is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant
from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year.
D. Table. If the CPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request could be
tabled.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
While the applicant’s proposal requires several variances, the property’s existing house is
comparatively small and the property itself is rather large, which would support an increased
structural coverage for accessory buildings on the property. Having said that, staff has
determined the following means for reducing the number and extent of the required variances:
Staff puts forth that the applicant should push back the new garage, so that it is at least 30
feet from the front lot line and is situated behind the front line of the existing house (or
the applicant could look into the potential of locating the garage along Elm St). This
would get rid of the need for at least one (possibly two) of the five needed variances and
would have way less of an impact on the essential character of the neighborhood.
Similarly, staff strongly supports the applicant’s decision to remove the existing shed,
which eliminates the need for additional variance being added to the list, and it further
reduces the square footage amounts being asked for two of the requested variances.
An option that would eliminate all but one of the variances, would be to demolish the
existing garage. However, this would bring rise to issues with the number of covered
parking spaces provided (for the ADU parking requirements); this being the reason why
staff opted for the desire to have the shed removed as opposed to the garage.
Staff finds that, with certain plan alterations and conditions of approval, the proposed garage and
ADU meets the Special Use Permit provisions and the standards set forth for the issuance of a
variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit and approval of the
following variances for CPC Case No. 2020-14 with the conditions identified in Alternative A,
above:
A 192 s.f. variance to City Code Section 31-308. (a). (3). ii. To allow for the total ground
coverage of the accessory buildings (1140sf, for the attached garage and detached garage) to
exceed the ground coverage of the principal building (948sf);
CPC Case 2020-14
Page 8 of 8
A 3’ (three foot) variance to City Code Section 31-501. Subd. 3. (a). (8) to allow the height
of the accessory dwelling unit (22’) to exceed that of the primary residence (approx. 19’);
A 140 s.f. variance to City Code Section 31-308. (a). (3).i. to allow the maximum lot
coverage of all accessory buildings including (1140sf) to be greater than 1,000 sf.
Attachments: Location map
Applicant Narrative
Site plan of proposed garage (three pages)
Garage/ADU Floor Plan (six pages)
Public Comment
cc: Brent Johnstone, Image Contracting LLC
Sarah McFarland
WEST HICK ORY STREET
WEST E LM STRE ET
WEST ASP EN STRE ET
EVERETTSTREETNORTHNORTHWILLIAMSTREET703
910
922
723
720
502
819
920
621
622
812
622
816
918
706
716
522
501
814
512
709
711
631
604
701
704
511
422
703
1004
615
625
422
913
902
621
608616
711
911
724
504
520
920
715
514522
724
817
512
810
924
905
917
714
617
421
616 808
602
718
705
712
701
706 702
709
909
927
708
712 709502506510514518522
1005
715
614616620702706
915
919
813
1001
715
719
423
1006 1001
µ
0 175 35087.5 Feet
General Site Location
Site Location
816 William St N
^