HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-27 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
May 27th, 2020
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Possible approval of minutes of April 22nd, 2020 regular meeting minutes
V. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects
which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement
or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for
others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide
background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after
which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the
public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium
and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission
will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item.
2. Case No. 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 in
the RB district. Reid and Julie Miller, property owners. –Tabled until the June meeting
3. Case No. 2020-14: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to build a
garage with living space above it. Property located at 816 Williams St N in the RB district.
Sarah McFarland, property owner and Brent, representing Image Contracting, applicant. –
Withdrawn per applicants request
4. Case No. 2020-15: Consideration of Variances to allow an attached garage and associated
improvements. Property located at 1305 1st St N in the RA district. Erik and Syndie
Sorensen, property owners.
5. Case No. 2020-17: Consideration of a Special Use Permit for a Restaurant. Property located
at 401 Main St S in the CBD district. Todd Konigson, applicant and DCK Enterprises WI
LLC, property owner.
6. Case No. 2020-18: Consideration of Variances to allow an attached garage, new kitchen and
other associated improvements for the property located at 1401 Broadway St N in the RA
district. Chris Rustad, property owner.
VII. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
VIII. FYI – STAFF UPDATES – (NO PACKET MATERIALS)
IX. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 22, 2020
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:06 p.m.
Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hade (arrived sometime during the public
hearing for Case No. 2020-09), Hansen, Kocon, Meyhoff; Councilmember Collins
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Turnblad, City Planner Wittman, City Clerk Wolf
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of minutes of February 26, 2020 regular meeting
Commissioner Kocon requested a correction on Case 2020-03, to state that he asked the square
footage of the building, and Mr. Turnblad’s response was 1,000 square feet, referring to the building,
not the lot.
Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve the minutes of the
February 26, 2020 meeting as corrected. Motion passed 6-0.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
There were no items on the Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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.
Community Development Director Turnblad stated that during the development of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, a new future land use category was created to guide development along the
Highway 36 corridor. 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 land use
category will be two zoning districts: 1) HMU, Highway Mixed Use Zoning District for property
south of Highway 36, and 2) CMU, Community Mixed Use Zoning District north of Highway 36.
These new mixed use zoning districts along Highway 36 will be a hybrid of BP-C, Business Park
Commercial and RCH, High Density Residential Zoning District standards and uses. North of
Highway 36, the mix is anticipated to be vertical (residential above commercial) and south of
Highway 36 it could be either a vertical or horizontal mix. 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. Prior to submitting his petition for
Planning Commission April 22, 2020
Page 2 of 12
annexation of the subject property, the developer entered into the agreement to give some shape to
the many unknowns he was faced with. The City and the developer agreed in concept to a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) site plan. Upon approval of the annexation, the zoning for the property
will be AP, Agricultural Preservation as is common for such annexations. 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. City Staff and the owner have
reviewed and agree in concept to the Highway Mixed Use (HMU) zoning district language. Staff
requests that the Commission review and make a recommendation on the ordinances that would
create the HMU Zoning District. 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.
Councilmember Collins pointed out that on the chart of permitted uses, there is a combination of
Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) and Special Use Permits (SUPs). Why not just go with CUPs?
Mr. Turnblad replied that the zoning code currently refers to SUPs. State statute considers a SUP to
be something totally different. Zoning code language needs to be made consistent, referring to
CUPs.
Commissioner Meyhoff asked what was the determining factor for the height restriction of 55’.
Mr. Turnblad responded that the current height limit in BP-C is 35 feet or three stories. To be able to
add residential on top of that, staff decided to go with five stories.
Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing.
Chip Longacre, 12058 55th Street North, Lake Elmo, spoke in opposition to the development, citing
light pollution, traffic and pedestrian congestion especially on Manning Avenue which is the only
access he has to his property. The 260 unit apartment building will be constructed close to his
property line. He objects to the clearing of trees that once covered the area, and believes the
developers are putting a spin on the project to promote it to residents.
Pat Lockyear, 2001 Hazel Court, Stillwater, asked what was the reason for developing the new
zoning district? Was it a proposed development or the City thinking they needed to build up along
the corridor, or both?
Mr. Turnblad replied the HMU land use classification was developed in working on Stillwater’s
2040 Comprehensive Plan which has been on the books for a year. It was felt that as the business
park commercial area redeveloped, it would be a mix that is not historic like downtown but has its
place. Mixed use has become a very common way to redevelop commercial areas.
Roger Tomten, 718 South 5th Street, Stillwater, board chair of Sustainable Stillwater and member of
the GreenStep Cities Committee, said he has heard the HMU area designation was added fairly late
in the Comprehensive Plan process and was not discussed at length. The proposed zoning language
for the mixed use district should include a reference to a central public green space or gathering
space. Restricting multi family residential to a maximum of 30% could be detrimental to achieving
the goal of developments that reflect a town center and should be changed to something like “no
more than 70% housing.” Setbacks don’t reflect current pedestrian-oriented design. He encouraged
re-examination of the numbers for lower setbacks. He also would like to see efforts made to
integrate a shared parking plan rather than relying on the standard parking minimums which create
unused asphalt surfaces.
Mary Russell 921 North Second Street, Stillwater, expressed disappointment that the new zoning
language doesn’t reflect many of the things that are in the Comprehensive Plan regarding
implementation of the GreenStep Cities program. 80% maximum lot coverage seems like way too
Planning Commission April 22, 2020
Page 3 of 12
much impermeable surface. She does not see anything in the proposed zoning language addressing
affordable housing. It seems like this zoning code has been written to fit this development.
Kevin Tholen, 4854 Linden Trail North, Lake Elmo, suggested that a requirement for vehicle
charging stations should be added to the zoning language, with the ability to add on in the future.
Louise Watson, 927 Northland Avenue, Stillwater, recommend that impervious surfaces be
minimized in this district. Open space should be maximized for pollinators, bird habitat, native
plants, as many trees saved as possible, and connections made with existing tree corridors and
walking paths. She would discourage the use of turf grass in favor of low or no-mow turf.
Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dybvig said some of the points are valid. The Comprehensive Plan discussed a
central public gathering space and that doesn’t seem to be incorporated into the zoning code change.
However, overall this seems to be going in the right direction. 50% residential seems reasonable and
he is OK with five stories.
Commissioner Kocon stated that he likes the mixed use and commercial with residential above it.
Having a green space within the development would be a positive element and soften the whole
look. He likes the five stories and doesn’t have a problem with setbacks.
Commissioner Hansen said he feels five stories is too tall. He would like to see four stories. He
agrees about adding language from the Comprehensive Plan about a central green space. 30%
residential may be too low. 50% residential would be OK. It would be good to spread the residential
to be more over the retail rather than by itself. In his opinion 80% lot coverage seems reasonable,
knowing that that a central open space area is being recommended.
Chairman Lauer remarked he is alright with five stories, 30% or more residential, and adding
Comprehensive Plan language about the central public space.
Commissioner Hade said he opposes five stories. He questioned whether the Fire Department can
serve a five story building.
Commissioner Meyhoff said five stories seems reasonable and the Fire Department can serve a five
story building because he lives in one. However, the mix of retail with multi family on top is a dying
trend. It doesn’t work well for retail. He is comfortable with 80% maximum lot coverage. He would
like to see car charging stations discussed as a possible requirement for zoning language.
Mr. Turnblad said typically language about vehicle charging stations has not been incorporated into
zoning districts, but into performance standards for projects that are approved. Staff recommends
such language would go into performance standards but the Commission may recommend to the
Council that it should be added somewhere.
Commissioner Hade asked why the Commission is concerned with electric cars when there is
virtually no public transportation. He also feels there should be an allocation for low income
housing.
Mr. Turnblad replied that belongs in the zoning code but in a different section.
Commissioner Hansen remarked the City can’t add every single layer that’s included in the
Comprehensive Plan into every ordinance.
Commissioner Hade said it sounds like the City is going to cow-tow to one developer.
Commissioner Kocon said there has been discussion about the Comprehensive Plan for two years
and this is part of that. Add-ons or trade-offs can be brought into the discussion.
Planning Commission April 22, 2020
Page 4 of 12
Commissioner Dybvig noted there will be zoning code changes based on what was in the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. That will be the time to integrate a number of these issues such as affordable
housing and charging stations.
Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to recommend to the Council
approval of a Zoning Text Amendment to create a new Zoning District known as HMU, Highway
Mixed Use, with two changes: the percentage of residential should be 50% as opposed to 30%
maximum, and adding the Comprehensive Plan language about a central square to 31-326, Option 4.
Motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Hade voting nay.
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.
Mr. Turnblad reviewed the case. Mark Lambert, Central Commons, LLC plans to develop a 35.3
acre mixed use site in two phases. The proposed development is part of an annexation petition. The
first phase of development would be synchronized with the construction of the new grade separated
interchange at Highway 36 and Manning Avenue. Site grading for this phase would begin this year
and include the construction of a 95,716 square foot Hy-Vee store, a 4,100 square foot Hy-Vee fuel
sales, convenience store and coffee shop, as well as a market rate apartment building with up to 200
units and four stories. 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.
He stated that when the Municipal Board approves the annexation - which it is likely to do because
Stillwater Township supports the detachment - the Board automatically puts it into AP Agricultural
Preservation zoning. It must be rezoned to do any type of development. The proposal is to rezone the
site to the new zone, Highway Mixed Use (HMU). The City is in the process of making the City’s
zoning codes consistent with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan but this developer got ahead of
the City, so the City had to speed up that portion of the consistency project. Also staff assumed that
the outlots would remain in the AP zoning district but actually the request was to rezone all the
property to HMU. The entire public review process will still have to be done to approve the plat in
the future.
Mr. Turnblad reviewed the access points to the development, the internal street pattern, a depiction
of the four story apartment complex, and the layout of the apartments. There is a mix of apartment
sizes with a total of 200 units proposed. There are recreational facilities and a private trail system
that loops around the pond. There are 186 parking stalls underground, two major surface parking
fields, and proof of parking stalls around the edge of the property which would be developed if
necessary. There is a remote garage and a combined parking agreement since it is a PUD, for a
shared parking field with Hy-Vee. The proposal exceeds parking minimums.
He explained current and proposed sidewalks and trails in the immediate area. Sign information was
submitted but there are more details to be addressed. Staff is suggesting that when the final plat and
final PUD for this phase are submitted for review, an updated signage plan be submitted. A
photometric lighting plan was submitted. The City’s goal is to hold illumination to zero luminares at
the perimeter of the property, along streets and especially where there are abutting residential areas.
This will be updated before moving on to the City Council.
Mr. Turnblad explained the conditions of approval being recommended by staff. Permits will be
required from several agencies including MnDOT, Washington County and others. The 30 day
comment period for the EAW ends April 29. All comments will be collated and addressed at the City
Planning Commission April 22, 2020
Page 5 of 12
Council meeting May 5. At that time the Council will decide whether an Environmental Impact
Statement would be required. None of the approvals being recommended tonight are final until the
annexation petition is approved by the Municipal Board which is anticipated soon. 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. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a
recommendation to the City Council to approve the annexation, rezoning, preliminary plat, concept
Planned Unit Development, and Conditional Use Permits with 20 conditions.
Commissioner Hade asked, if this is approved, is there any requirement for Hy-Vee to open the
store? There are already a lot of grocery stores in this area.
Mr. Turnblad replied that, if what is developed deviates from the plans, the developer would have to
come back to the City Council.
Chairman Lauer acknowledged the reason the Commission is not looking at the EAW is that the
waiting period is not over, but what if the Commission finds something troublesome in the EAW?
Mr. Turnblad replied since the EAW comment period is not closed yet, if the Commission finds
environmental issues, they can be brought to the Council’s attention. The Council may direct the
Planning Commission to weigh in on the EAW.
Commissioner Kocon said on one hand he is concerned about too much impervious space and on the
other hand the proposal has people parking all over Hy-Vee. He is concerned about the parking plan.
Mr. Turnblad answered that by code, shared parking is allowed. With shared parking, the proposed
parking plan is more than sufficient. Granted drivers have to walk a half block to park behind Hy-
Vee if they use those spots. But it doesn’t make sense to put in more parking spaces than needed up
front.
Commissioner Hansen asked, if the proof of parking spaces are developed, can a condition be added
to require vegetation screening?
Mr. Turnblad answered that a condition could be added saying if these spaces are developed, a
landscaping plan would be needed.
Mark Lambert, developer, 10211 Norrell, Stillwater, explained his commitment to Stillwater.
Development efforts on these parcels go back 20 years and he purchased the property 2 1/2 years
ago. Hy-Vee was initially interested in the site and then they walked away from it because of a
number of problems they felt they could not resolve. With the help of agencies and jurisdictions,
solutions have been created. The interchange is moving forward and the roads will be built by fall
2022. They are helping write grants to get funding for the interchange and will be dedicating five
acres of land to make all the roads work. He listed the amenities planned for the apartment building.
The building will be energy-efficient and will be affordable in its pricing. There are future outlots for
development that are in concept stage, possibly including an exercise facility, hotel, clinic, or other
uses. The high voltage overhead lines running through the site were a challenge when trying to lay
out the site. It is the intent to have enough parking so people do not need to use the Hy-Vee spaces.
Phil Hoey, director of Real Estate, Hy-Vee, said the company has been considering this site for a
couple of years. He explained Hy-Vee’s commitment to environmentally sensitive lighting and
sustainable practices in regard to sourcing and food waste. The plan calls for 62% impervious
Planning Commission April 22, 2020
Page 6 of 12
surface, below the threshold. The plan is to offer the same services as the other Hy-Vee food stores.
To answer a previous question regarding the Spring Lake Park building that is now empty, they are
finalizing plans to complete the construction of that building.
Commissioner Hade asked, was a similar proposal given to Oak Park Heights and rejected?
Mr. Hoey answered the proposal being reviewed tonight was not submitted to Oak Park Heights.
Hy-Vee never made a formal application to the City of Oak Park Heights.
Commissioner Hade asked what is the average salary of a Hy-Vee employee? Will they be able to
afford a $1,000/month apartment?
Mr. Hoey replied it depends on each market. Hy-Vee pays a very good wage and offers profit
sharing.
Commissioner Hade asked why is Hy-Vee interested in the Stillwater market when there is a Cub,
Target, Kowalski’s and WalMart nearby?
Mr. Hoey replied Hy-Vee does not go into a community unless they feel they can serve a need that is
not being met.
Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing.
Sheila Maybanks, 201 Bayberry Avenue Court, Stillwater, a member of the Comprehensive Plan
Advisory Committee, said the Committee saw connectivity (walking, housing and community) and a
sustainable and resilient community that could deal with climate change as being vital to Stillwater
in 2040. GreenStep Cities and Sustainable Stillwater have serious concerns about Central Commons.
It does not appear that the key elements of accessibility and climate resilience are reflected in the
project. The way the site is used does not reflect the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan.
Louse Watson, 927 Northland Avenue, Stillwater, asked what is the needs assessment for another
grocery store and when was it done? Is there a plan to replace the existing grocery stores with
something else? There doesn’t seem to be any rationalization for having this grocery store.
Chairman Lauer responded it is market driven, the developer thinks they can serve a market that is
not being served currently in the City.
Ms. Watson suggested the vacant lot across from Perkins that has unused impervious surfaces be
considered as a site to fulfill some of the needs that are being met by this proposal.
Commissioner Hade said Ms. Watson’s question should be addressed by Hy-Vee rather than by
Chairman Lauer.
Commissioner Kocon remarked it is more of a market, economic question than a planning question.
The Planning Commission is not an economic development commission.
Commissioner Hade countered yes it is, because it deals with planning and economic development.
He asked if the City owes anything to the current people that have been here forever. He questioned
the need for a Hy-Vee.
Mr. Hoey asked, would it be normal practice for the Commission to ask any user to prove out their
need in the community?
Commissioner Kocon pointed out what is in front of the Commission is the land use, not economic
development.
Kevin Tholen, 4854 Linden Trail North, Lake Elmo, asked Mr. Lambert if the electric vehicle
chargers will be outfitted with the capability to add additional stations.
Planning Commission April 22, 2020
Page 7 of 12
Mr. Lambert replied the charging stations will have the capacity to grow as charging needs grow.
Mary Russell, 921 North Second Street, Stillwater, said she likes the walking paths around the pond
and the small apartment sizes. She also was on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
and Stillwater GreenStep Cities Committee. Affordability is a big issue for Stillwater. Stillwater has
a target set for affordable housing units. She questioned what annexing this land mass will do to the
City’s Met Council statistics. It looks like this might help meet those goals. This could be an exciting
gateway to Stillwater and she would like to make sure it doesn’t look like a strip mall. Is there a
proposal for landscaping screening for the parking on the front of the development? She also is
concerned about planting with native plants. There are grants available for doing sustainable
plantings.
Roger Tomten, 718 South 5th Street, Stillwater, asked Mr. Lambert: if the development offered
reduced setbacks, would he be open to adding commercial square footage to offset the cost of the
development? Has he considered integrating future mass transit to the site? Has Hy-Vee ever done a
vertically integrated mixed use project? Given earlier discussion about a central gathering space,
does he have thoughts about how that requirement might impact the site plan?
Mr. Tomten asked Mr. Turnblad, was there any discussion with the developer about integrating any
of the housing units to meet Stillwater’s requirement of 227 affordable housing units? Will Manning
Trail to the south be City-owned? Will the timing of the Manning connection to Stillwater Boulevard
be part of this development? If it occurs later, could the trail connection at least be made earlier to
facilitate connectivity?
Mr. Lambert replied, regarding reduced setbacks, the challenge doing these large projects is that
developers have to be visionaries and also find users, which creates tension between reduced
setbacks/more density and the users who are attracted. Power lines were a constraint. Outlots A and
B have no users yet. The development has worked with Washington County and MnDOT to develop
a great road system. Maybe some mass transit could be somewhere in the area. Vertical integration is
challenging because often, retailers don’t want to be under residential and residential don’t want to
be above retail. Each prefers to be close but not underneath or above. He is willing to look at
creating a central gathering space. It is challenging to integrate the commercial component with the
power lines and have nice spaces. He wants to find a price point that allows some smaller units.
Ben Backburg representing the Sanctuary of Lake Elmo, the neighborhood to the west of this site,
said the neighborhood wants to be on record as abutting landowners, that it seems like people are
way in front of themselves. He appreciates that City staff think the annexation might be simple but
whenever there is an annexation, rezoning and safety issues, the process can get significantly drawn
out. This property has gone through a number of different hands. Case law will be considered in
moving from rural agricultural zoning to high density urban zoning. The homeowners’ association is
seriously looking into the issues and has tried to slow down the process.
Sheila-Marie Untiedt, Stillwater Township Board Chair, said the township has no objections for this
parcel to be annexed as the township has no commercial zoning and offers no services. This parcel
cannot be developed within the township. It was assigned to the township a decade ago by the
Municipal Board.
Gregg Sainsbury, 11923 58th Street North, Lake Elmo, in the Sanctuary neighborhood, remarked
that this development will add traffic and reduce safety. He is concerned about light pollution and he
does not see how this plan does anything other than detract from his standard of living and his
property value. He asked Mr. Lambert if he agrees that this development will significantly detract
from the 60-70 homeowners in Sanctuary, or does he just not care. He asked if the developer has
talked to anyone in his neighborhood to ask them what they think about this?
Planning Commission April 22, 2020
Page 8 of 12
Mr. Lambert replied there are at least three traffic studies floating around about how to safely route
traffic in the area. He does not think it will reduce values, he thinks it will improve values. There is a
pond and landscaping between Mr. Sainsbury and this development. As a member of the community
himself, he is trying to bring conscientious projects here. He has not gone door-knocking to the 70
homes in Sanctuary. That is part of why this public hearing is taking place.
Terese Bastyr(spelling?), Sanctuary resident (did not provide address), said she wants someone to
comment about the amount of crime this new development will bring in with a grocery store,
apartment complex and hotel. This will be next door to hundreds of children. Why does the
developer think it is OK to bring this environment into the community?
Mr. Lambert replied he does not think that crime will increase because of the development.
Jeffrey Kloewer, 11928 58th Street North, Lake Elmo, Sanctuary resident, expressed concern about
additional crime, lighting and accessibility to the neighborhood. He asked, will delivery trucks enter
and exit? That will cause problems. He doesn’t think another grocery store is needed. He will be
looking at a four story apartment from his back deck.
Robin Anthony, Executive Director of the Greater Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce, said this
project is an opportunity for more businesses to come into the greater Stillwater area and an added
community that will contribute to the local economy. Mr. Lambert appears to be a smart business
person who will do the right thing.
Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dybvig remarked that the overall plan seems good. There have been a lot of changes
made in response to concerns raised.
Commissioner Kocon concurred it is a good plan. The Commission must make sure the landscaping
must ameliorate light, sound and frustration for the neighbors. He could support the project. He
suggested making landscaping for the parking on the south side a condition of approval.
Commissioner Hade said he does not think the entire community has had an opportunity to give
input. It is a huge change. He sees no need for the development. The application should be tabled.
Commissioner Hansen said he thinks the developer has already made a lot of concessions and
worked through constraints. It will be a benefit to the community despite the challenges inherent in
every development. This is a preliminary plat with final plat yet to be reviewed.
Commissioner Meyhoff remarked that the developer did a wonderful job taking a challenging piece
of property and making it work for the project and the community.
Motion by Commissioner Kocon to recommend that the City Council approve the Annexation,
Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Amendment Review of the EAW, Conditional Use Permits and Concept
PUD for a 35 acre project known as Central Commons, with the 20 staff-recommended conditions,
adding Condition #21 that landscaping be part of preliminary plat approval to enable the proof of
parking area to happen.
Mr. Turnblad noted he failed to mention that Condition #16 talks about a sign permit and the
condition in the Commission agenda packet is slightly different than the one he showed in is
presentation. Condition #16 should read: a complete sign plan and any variances desired by the
developer must be submitted together with final plat and final PUD application materials.
Commissioner Dybvig asked if City staff supports rezoning the entire parcel including Outlots A and
B.
Planning Commission April 22, 2020
Page 9 of 12
Mr. Turnblad replied yes, because the Outlots cannot be developed until they go through their own
public planning process.
Commissioner Dybvig asked Commissioner Kocon if his motion includes rezoning of the entire site.
Commissioner Kocon replied yes, and the motion should include Condition #16 as Mr. Turnblad
stated.
Commissioner Meyhoff seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Hade voting nay.
Ms. Wittman pointed out this recommendation is scheduled to go to the Council on May 5 so there is
more opportunity for public comment.
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.
Ms. Wittman stated that Reid and Julie Miller have recently received building permits and variances
to construct a single family house with a tuck-under garage. The proposed landscaping plan has
significantly less coverage than the previous estate did, but still exceeds the maximum coverage
allowed and will require a variance. An underground shed, beneath the proposed bocci court, is
proposed to house the pool equipment. This proposed shed, when combined with the square footage
of the existing attached garage, exceeds the maximum allowed coverage for accessory structures and
will also require a variance. The applicants are requesting: 1) a variance to allow the impervious lot
coverage to be 27.8% (30.3% was erroneously on the notices sent out), whereas the maximum
allowed impervious lot coverage is 25% which may or may not include the fire pit; and 2) a 180
square foot variance to allow the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings including
attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings (1180 square feet) to be greater
than 1,000 square feet. Of concern was the impact of the retaining walls on the property owners to
the north and to the south. The City does not have setback requirements for retaining walls so the
retaining walls are compliance with current City code. The retaining wall in this area is designed to
prevent further erosion. The Public Works/Engineering Department looked at it and would like to
add three conditions of approval regarding the walls. Staff finds the proposed landscaping plan and
pool equipment shed meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and therefore
recommends approval of the variances with eight conditions.
Councilmember Collins asked, was there a rain garden on the property previously?
Ms. Wittman replied there was terracing in the back with some planting and a small pool. However
it appears erosion has been occurring for quite some time.
Councilmember Collins said he is concerned about the erosion of the bluff. He asked if staff feels the
proposed retaining walls will mitigate the runoff.
Ms. Wittman responded that when impervious surface is increased, more runoff has to be treated on-
site. This is reviewed by Public Works/Engineering. There is a greater increase in the grade and
concern has been raised about the velocity of the water running off, but strategic placement of the
infiltration can capture the water in the backyard to prevent it from going off the property.
Councilmember Collins asked if the proposed equipment shed for the pool/spa is enclosed, and if
sound must be mitigated.
Mr. Wittman replied it is located on the property line, underground on three sides. City code requires
that pool equipment must be 10’ off the property line. Just before the meeting, Mr. Miller told her
they will move it 10’ off the property line.
Planning Commission April 22, 2020
Page 10 of 12
Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing.
Myron Reubendale, 609 South Broadway, immediately to the north, pointed out that the only
information neighbors received about the variance request came with the request about 10 days ago.
Neighbors are concerned about the drainage and erosion of the property. All the water from the front
flows toward the back of the house and off the cliff. Another issue is that the survey shows the
property is square but the property is actually angled. Additionally, the new proposed retaining wall
will be about 6’ tall and about 10’ above the lower yard area so he will be looking at the wall. The
neighbors were under the impression no additional variance would be requested. They feel the
variances put the bluff at risk for further erosion. The notice mentioned the original house having
more hardscape coverage but that refers to the Millers’ original design, not to the demolished
structure built in 1887 and this was not made clear.
Joel Moline, 300 Locust Street East, immediately to the south, expressed concern about erosion and
stormwater runoff. His property receives stormwater runoff already, without the additional
impervious surface. The bluff is already unstable and this will only increase the velocity of the water
runoff. He does not want to look at a 10’ wall from his garden.
Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Collins noted that Mr. Moline brought up good points concerning where the water is
going to go.
Commissioner Dybvig remarked the project seems problematic due to its proximity to the bluff. The
amount of useable space that water has to absorb into the ground is diminished.
Chairman Lauer said it seems like there are City concerns, that is why conditions were added. He
can understand why neighbors do not want to look at retaining walls.
Commissioner Kocon asked if total re-engineering of the lot, which has been stripped bare, allows
the possibility of draining all water toward the storm drain rather than the bluff.
Ms. Wittman replied there is an opportunity to engineer it so the water on the east side of the patio
ends up in a gutter system sending it to the west side of the property. That might be the plan that the
Millers end up working out with the Engineering Department in terms of how they meet the Middle
St. Croix Watershed District’s requirements.
Chairman Lauer said he favors tabling the application to ensure drainage is handled properly.
Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to table Variances to the maximum
allowed impervious surface and to the total accessory structure coverage for the property located at 615
Broadway Street South until there is a better feel for whether the plans will completely handle drainage
concerns from an engineering standpoint or if further mitigation is required. Motion passed 7-0.
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
Johnstone, representing Image Contracting, applicant.
Ms. Wittman explained that Sarah McFarland is planning to construct a 20’ X 40’ detached garage
in the southeast portion of the lot, which will be accessed from William St N. The garage is proposed
to have an equally sized dwelling unit above it. She is requesting: 1) a Special Use Permit to
construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) above a new garage; 2) a 192 square foot variance to
allow for the total ground coverage of the accessory buildings (1140 square feet) to exceed the
ground coverage of the principal building (948 square feet); 3) a variance to allow the accessory
dwelling unit to be located in the front yard; 4) a 3 foot variance to allow the height of the accessory
dwelling unit (22’) to exceed that of the primary residence (approximately 19’); 5) a 2 foot variance
Planning Commission April 22, 2020
Page 11 of 12
to allow the garage to be set back 28’ from the front lot line, whereas the required setback is 30’; and
6) a 140 square foot variance to allow the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings
including attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings (1140 square feet) to
be greater than 1,000 square feet. 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 the Special Use
Permit and approval of the following variances with seven conditions: 1) a 192 square foot variance
to allow for the total ground coverage of the accessory buildings; 2) a 3 foot variance to allow the
height of the accessory dwelling unit (22’) to exceed that of the primary residence; and 3) a 140
square foot variance to allow the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings to be greater than
1,000 square feet.
Commissioner Kocon asked, will trees be removed?
Brent Johnstone, applicant, replied there is a deciduous tree in the front that would be removed. The
owners want to save the pine tree if possible. That is the purpose for the garage being in front of the
house setback.
Commissioner Kocon remarked that the garage is ugly. The tree could help obscure it. Also the
extension to the house should be removed along with the shed.
Sarah McFarland replied the suggestions are valuable. They can play with the design to make it not
just a box and match the house better. The shed in the back of the property will be removed. Part of
the reason the proposed garage is set in front of the house is to keep the pine and maple trees to hide
the blockiness of the garage. Pushing the garage forward gives more useable backyard space.
Mr. Johnstone added that they are willing to consider suggested design changes to make it work.
Ms. Wittman explained that height is measured from the average elevation of the front of a structure
to halfway between the eave and the peak. The project as designed will still probably be within three
feet of the height of the house.
Commissioner Hade commented that Stillwater’s housing stock is mostly very old. In many ways,
City code does not take that into consideration for those who want a more modern style home.
Commissioner Dybvig said he lives within 350’ notification for this property and feels he can make
an impartial decision but is willing to recuse himself if desired by the applicants.
Ms. McFarland said they are comfortable with Commissioner Dybvig participating in the vote.
Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was
closed.
Commissioner Hansen said he feels the garage needs to be pushed back because it will look taller
than the house in the front, detracting from the house. A shed roof could be added over the garage
door to break up the monolithic front. He does not like trees being cut down but the garage will
provide some shade to the yard. He would support the application if the garage is pushed back at
least flush with the front of the house.
Commissioner Kocon noted that the garage could be made smaller than 20’ x 40’.
Chairman Lauer said he too would like to see the garage pushed back on the lot to not dominate the
streetscape.
Ms. McFarland said if the garage needs to be flush with the front of the house they will go back to
the drawing board because it changes the plans.
Planning Commission April 22, 2020
Page 12 of 12
Ms. Wittman added the City is not in a mad rush with building permits at the moment.
Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Chairman Lauer, to table consideration of a Conditional
Use Permit and Variance to build a garage with living space above it located at 816 Williams St N. so
staff may work with the applicant on re-design. Motion passed 7-0.
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
There were no staff updates.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to adjourn the meeting at 11:26
p.m. All in favor, 7-0.
Chris Lauer, Chair
ATTEST:
Abbi Wittman, City Planner
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-15
REPORT DATE: May 6, 2020
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2020
APPLICANT: Erik and Syndie Sorensen
LANDOWNER: Erik and Syndie Sorensen
REQUEST: A Variance to the exterior side yard setback to construct a two car garage
with a bonus room above it.
LOCATION: 1305 First Street North
ZONING: RA, One-Family Residential
REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Dir
INTRODUCTION
Mr. and Mrs. Sorensen owns the property at 1305 First Street North. They are planning to
construct a 26’ X 22.5’ attached two car garage with a bonus room above it, to replace their
existing garage to their single family house. This property is a corner lot with the house facing
First Street and the driveway
access from St Croix Ave. The
topography of the property
slopes downward from First
Street to the east, so the garage
is at the basement level of the
house. Currently, the garage,
which sits 32’ from the side
yard property line, has a patio
above it that is at the first story
level. This can be seen in the
picture to the right, which is
taken from St Croix Avenue.
The new addition is planned to
be constructed in the same
general location as the existing
CPC Case 2020-15
Page 2 of 5
garage. The addition would consist of a lower level garage with a bonus room above that. Both
levels of the addition would be connected to the home.
The property is located in the RA One-Family District, as well as the Neighborhood
Conservation District. Though this proposed project will not require HPC design review.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The applicants are requesting:
A 5’ variance to City Code Section 31-305. (b). (1)., to allow for an attached garage to be
setback 25’ from the exterior side yard lot line, whereas 30’ is required.
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 RA, One-Family Residential. An attached garage, with a bonus room
connecting into the main house, is a reasonable request.
CPC Case 2020-15
Page 3 of 5
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?
Exterior Side Yard Setback The specific purpose of the exterior side yard setback
is to have uniform patterned development in the exterior side yards of properties,
keeping unobstructed areas for consistent, uniform street design and adequate
onsite infiltration.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code?
Exterior Side Yard Setback The side yard at this property is 150’ long with large
amounts of unobstructed area and ample opportunity for rain and run-off
infiltration. City staff does not feel that this relatively small variance in this
particular location disregards the intention of the zoning code in any way.
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 a two car attached garage is a reasonable use for the
property.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property?
The uniqueness of this property is the fact that despite it is a fairly large lot, it is a
corner lot in which the house situated in relatively close proximity to both the front
and exterior side yard lot line.
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
The property owner did not construct the house or existing driveway. Due to the
location of the existing house and driveway, any expansion of their garage would
trigger the need for a variance.
d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?
There are two other properties that have garages accessing St Croix Ave on this
block. One of the garages is located approximately 30’ from the property line, and the
other garage measures around 10’ feet from the property line. Constructing a garage
that will be 25’ from the property line will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
CPC Case 2020-15
Page 4 of 5
e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations?
The applicant’s desire to replace their existing one car garage with an attached two
car garage with a bonus room above it does not reflect economic considerations
alone. The proposed plans are the most practical way for the home owner to expand
their garage.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None was received prior to distribution of this report.
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. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020-15,
except as modified by the conditions herein.
2. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the garage.
3. This bonus room above the garage, shall never be altered in such a way that it takes on
the form of a separate apartment from the main dwelling.
4. 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 that the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance and
consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant has established practical difficulties
and does not alter the essential character of the locality. Therefore, staff recommends
CPC Case 2020-15
Page 5 of 5
conditional approval of the variance associated with CPC Case No. 2020-15 for five foot
variance to the exterior side yard for the property located at 304 Holcombe Street South.
Attachments: Location map
Applicant Narrative
Site plan of proposed garage (two pages)
Garage Floor Plan (six pages)
cc: Erik and Syndie Sorensen
RIVERVIEWE SYCAMORE ST
AVENUE
AVENUE NORTHBROADWAYFIRSTSTREET1221
1225
1317
1220
1295
1323
214
1214
1220
1305
1324
1203
1320
1304
1313
324
1413
1401
1322
1408
1406
1208
1307
1204
1303
220
1410
1217
202
217
1312
1314
1219
1312
1319
1315
1221
1117
1419
204
1213
1209
1412
µ
0 140 28070Feet
General Site Location
Site Location
1305 1st St N
^
To: Stillwater Planning Commission
From: Erik and Syndie Sorensen
Submitted April 21, 2020
Reference: 1305 1st Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 – Garage project
Project overview:
We are planning a project to replace a 1947 garage addition with a new garage. The previous garage
was not large enough to fit two full size cars, so we were only able to fit one car in the garage. The
garage also had a flat roof that wasn’t maintained properly prior to our purchase of the property. It was
disintegrating, and in our house inspection (2011), the inspector estimated the life of the garage was
five years. We demolished the garage in November of 2019 due to two factors. First Syndie was
diagnosed with acute leukemia in October and the garage had significant mold which was a danger to
her health. Secondly, we were worried that the roof would not survive another winter.
This project will have a full size 2 car garage with limited side storage for bikes and other small
accessories. We are adding a mud room in-between the garage and the house to separate that from our
cramped laundry room. Finally, we are adding space above the garage and mud room for a dedicated
family room.
Our design blends the new addition into the existing structure, matching the architectural style of the
house. The garage roof pitch will match the front of the house, and a shed dormer on the east side of
the garage matches the shed dormer on the house. We will also replace all siding on the house and
replace the roof with a new metal roof. All of these efforts we expect will make the house look like it
was built this way from the beginning, not in two separate events. We are highly sensitive to this and
want to make sure our house is a reference point for other house projects.
Variance Considerations:
Expanding the garage and mud room adds 9 feet to the south side of the original footprint of the house
and garage. This will result in a request for a variance of five feet for the St. Croix Avenue side of the
property. The main reason for this are the topography of the plot and to respect the character of the
neighborhood. Building east, toward the front of the house would not be in keeping with the
neighborhood character and would significantly impact the topography of the lot. Similarly, building
west, or toward the rear of the house, could damage a century old oak tree and significantly alter the
slope of the property. This could also add drainage concerns. Currently the property drains very well,
even in heavy storms. Additionally, building east would invade the current greenspace in the yard and
would also require a change to the intersection with St. Croix street. Expanding out over the previous
garage footprint, allows us to build on the flattest part of the lot thus respecting the existing landscape,
neighborhood character and architecture of the house.
We appreciate your consideration of this variance in relation to what we think will be a very positive
project for the neighborhood, and are happy to answer any questions you have.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-17
REPORT DATE: May 19, 2020
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2020
APPLICANT: Todd Konigson representing River Provisions
LAND OWNER: Dennis Kilbane of DCK Enterprises WI LLC
REQUEST: A Special Use Permit for a restaurant with walk up window
LOCATION: 401 Main Street South
ZONING: CBD: Central Business District.
PREPARED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
INTRODUCTION
Todd Konigson would like
to open River Provisions
at 401 Main Street South.
The business would
operate retail sales,
outdoor sport good
equipment rental, as well
as a small restaurant
offering food to-go either
by walk in or walk up
service.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
Consideration of a Special Use Permit for a walk-in restaurant with walk-up service window.
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:
Street View Courtesy Google Maps (May, 2019)
Case no. 2020-17
Page 2
The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this [Zoning]
chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Any
additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed or use and/or
structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the
community.
Conformance to the Zoning Code generally surrounds around whether or not the proposed use
will be compatible with its surrounding uses. The site has historically been used for
warehousing with a small amount of retail space. A portion of that existing retail space is
proposed to be converted to the food service area. Generally speaking, multi-use buildings,
including those with food service, have been found to be acceptable in the Central Business
District.
In staff’s review of the request, the following items were determined to be of concern:
Walk-up Window: Concern is raised when walk up food service could queue onto the
public way. The walk up window is proposed to be located in an area where there is adjacent
private property – though minimal. Directly adjacent to the private property is MNDOT right-
of-way where excess lands have been converted into pedestrian space that is in addition to the
customary sidewalk area. The applicant has indicated the design will include queuing on the
subject property, requiring some sort pedestrian barrier. As such, the applicant will be required
to show a queuing and signage plan for the walk up window.
Trash Storage: It has been determined the prior operations included the use of a roll-off
dumpster placed on the east side of the building. If the applicant desires keeping trash outside of
the building, it must be kept in an enclosed area and an agreement for such use must be
submitted for review. Otherwise trash must be kept inside until the day of trash collection.
Parking: The property was credited for having 10.6 parking spaces the new uses require 12.3
parking spaces. Since the change in use requires less than four parking spaces to be mitigated,
no parking mitigation is required.
Exterior Improvements: The applicant is proposing to alter the façade of the building by
adding a walkup food service window. No specific alteration plans were submitted with the
request but the design will need to conform to the Zoning Code requirements for Design
Permitting. These improvements will need to be submitted for review and approval by the
Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the release of a building permit.
Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6, Downtown Stillwater Plan, identifies the following goal:
“Encourage a viable and compatible mix of community and visitor-serving activities that builds
on the assets of Downtown as a desirable placed to live, work, shop, recreate and visit consistent
with the capacity of public services and facilities and the natural resources. Promote a diverse
range of uses, a welcoming and engaging atmosphere, and unique activities and events oriented
to a range of ages and cultures”. The use is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
Public Comment
Case no. 2020-17
Page 3
To the date of memo development, no public concerns have been identified.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A. Approve the requested use permit and associated variances with the following
conditions:
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-
13, except as modified by the conditions herein.
3. Food service queuing shall be contained to private property.
4. Trash must be kept inside until the day of trash collection unless the applicant has
agreement to use a trash enclosure located on public or private land. Proof of
agreement shall be submitted to the City prior to the release of a building permit.
5. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building
officials before the issuance of a building permit.
6. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the
Planning Commission for review and approval.
B. Deny the requested use permit and associated variances. With a denial, findings of fact
supporting the decision must be provided.
C. Table the request for additional information.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
As noted in the Analysis section, above, the use conforms to the standards set forth for the
issuance of use permits. Therefore, staff would recommend conditional approval of CPC Case
No. 2020-013 with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above.
Attachments: Site Location Map
Narrative Request
Floor Plan
Certificate of Survey
cc: Todd Konigson
Jen Noden
Dennis Kilbane
SECOND
STREET
SOUTHSOUTH
N E L S O N S T R E E T
MAIN STREETS
OUTH
BROADWAY
STREET204
305
423
402
207
425
324
322
437
428
430
301
214
435
103
525
413
419
317
229
437
321
401
236
232 243
302
223
308
233
227
310
224
219210
312
239
438
226 µ
0 140 28070Feet
General Site Location
Site Location
401 Main St S
^
April 22, 2020
Stillwater Planning Department
216 4th Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082
RE: Planning Application for 401 Main Street South, Stillwater, MN 55082
River Provisions is proposing a buildout of the old Stillwater Farm Store on the corner of Main Street
and Nelson. The northwest store-front area of the space would serve as a retail and rental facility for
various types of bikes, kayaks and paddleboards as well as custom wood furniture. The storage / dock
area on the east side of the building would house the retail and rental stock for the kayaks,
paddleboards and bikes. The southwest storefront area would house a To-Go Food interior counter
and exterior walkup window initially serving soft serve ice cream, gourmet grilled cheese, Belgian
waffles, smoothies and various juices and beverages.
The business will be servicing the outdoor river activities on the St. Croix. Local kayak and paddleboard
rental would shuttle customers to and from the areas of the St. Croix where paddle boarding and
kayaking launch ramps are available and safe.
In the past, a popcorn truck was located in front of the storefront. River Provisions would like to
provide the seasonal to-go food at the south end of downtown where the access to walk-up windows is
limited.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind Regards,
Todd Konington
River Provisions
c. 651-775-0783
e. konigson32@gmail.com
NELSON STREETWATERSTREETSOUTH MAIN STREETTRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 363I'33 &ONTA&T -RH WLGPHU ¬AJHQWMHWUR EDVW &RPPHUFLDO RHDO EVWDWH6 &HOO63 OIILFH-W SUR9-W &ERTI)I&ATE O)SUR9EY&OUNTY&ITY RE9ISIONS 3RO-E&T LO&ATION LAN' SUR9EYING IN&.&ORNERSTONESXLWH NRUWKZHVWHUQ AYH.SWLOOZDWHU MN 3KRQH 6.. 6 GDQ#FVVXUYH\.QHW'ATERE9ISION3RO-E&T NO.)ILE NAMEMAIN STREET S.&ITY O) STILLWATERWASHINGTON&OUNTY6 ISSUE'&ERTI)I&ATION I KHUHE\ FHUWLI\ WKDW WKLV SODQ ZDV SUHSDUHG E\PH RU XQGHU P\ GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQ DQG WKDW I DPD GXO\ LLFHQVHG LDQG SXUYH\RU XQGHU WKH ODZV RIWKH VWDWH RI MLQQHVRWD.'DQLHO L. TKXUPHV RHJLVWUDWLRQ NXPEHU 'DWH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB6 MAIN STREET S.LEGAL 'ES&RI3TION TKH IROORZLQJ LHJDO 'HVFULSWLRQ LV DV VKRZQ RQ WKH &KLFDJR TLWOHIQVXUDQFH &RPSDQ\ TLWOH &RPPLWPHQW NR. 3 GDWHG -XQH 3UG .AOO WKDW SDUW RI LRW THQ %ORFN TZHQW\HLJKW OULJLQDO TRZQ RISWLOOZDWHU DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH SODW WKHUHRI RQ ILOH LQ WKH RIILFH RI WKH&RXQW\ RHFRUGHU LQ DQG IRU WDVKLQJWRQ &RXQW\ MLQQHVRWD ERXQGHGDQG GHVFULEHG DV IROORZV %HJLQQLQJ DW WKH SE FRUQHU RI MDLQ DQG NHOVRQ SWUHHWV DQG UXQQLQJWKHQFH SE
O\ DORQJ WKH EDVW OLQH RI MDLQ SWUHHW . IHHW WR DQ DQJOH LQWKH VDLG EDVW OLQH RI MDLQ SWUHHW WKHQFH SE
O\ DORQJ VDLG EDVW OLQH RIMDLQ SWUHHW 66 IHHW WKHQFH NE
O\ RQ D OLQH SDUDOOHO ZLWK WKH SRXWK OLQHRI VDLG LRW WR WKH WHVW OLQH RI WKH ULJKWRIZD\ RI WKH UQLRQ 'HSRW SWUHHW RDLOZD\ TUDQVIHU &RPSDQ\ RI SWLOOZDWHU WKHQFH NW
O\ DORQJWKH WHVW OLQH RI VDLG ULJKWRIZD\ WR WKH SRXWK OLQH RI VDLG NHOVRQSWUHHW WKHQFH W
O\ DORQJ WKH SRXWK OLQH RI VDLG NHOVRQ SWUHHW WR WKHSODFH RI EHJLQQLQJ 3 . IHHW PRUH RU OHVV.E;&E3TING HOWE9ER IURP WKH IRUHJRLQJ SURSHUW\ WKDW SRUWLRQ RIVDLG SUHPLVHV GHVFULEHG DV IROORZV AOO WKDW SDUW RI LRW THQ %ORFNTZHQW\HLJKW OULJLQDO TRZQ QRZ &LW\ RI SWLOOZDWHU GHVFULEHG DVIROORZV WRZLW &RPPHQFLQJ DW WKH SRXWKHDVW FRUQHU RI MDLQ DQGNHOVRQ SWUHHWV DQG UXQQLQJ WKHQFH SRXWKHDVWHUO\ DORQJ WKH EDVW OLQH RIMDLQ SWUHHW )RXUWHHQ DQG VHYHQW\ILYH KXQGUHGWKV . IHHW WKHQFHE\ D GHIOHFWLRQ DQJOH RI 33
WR WKH OHIW DORQJ WKH EDVWHUO\ OLQH RISRXWK MDLQ SWUHHW SL[W\VL[ 66 IHHW WR DQ LURQ PRQXPHQW WKHQFHNRUWKHDVWHUO\ E\ D GHIOHFWLRQ DQJOH RI 63
TKLUW\RQH 3 IHHW WR DPDUN LQ WKH FRQFUHWH VDLG PDUN EHLQJ WKH 3RLQW RI %HJLQQLQJ RI WKLVGHVFULSWLRQ. TKHQFH SRXWKZHVWHUO\ TKLUW\RQH 3 IHHW WR VDLG LURQPRQXPHQW RQ VDLG EDVWHUO\ OLQH RI SRXWK MDLQ SWUHHW WKHQFHNRUWKHDVWHUO\ E\ DQ DQJOH RI SRXWK RI WKH 3RLQW RI %HJLQQLQJ OQHHXQGUHG SL[WHHQ DQG SL[W\VHYHQ KXQGUHGWKV 6.6 IHHW WR DQ LURQPRQXPHQW WKHQFH WHVWHUO\ E\ D GHIOHFWLRQ DQJOH RI 6
WR WKH OHIWELJKW\WKUHH 3 IHHW WKHQFH SRXWKHUO\ RQ D VWUDLJKW OLQH TZHQW\WZRDQG WKUHHWHQWKV 3.3 IHHW WR WKH 3RLQW RI %HJLQQLQJ. AOO RI WKH VDPHO\LQJ DQG EHLQJ LQ WKH &LW\ RI SWLOOZDWHU &RXQW\ RI WDVKLQJWRQ SWDWHRI MLQQHVRWD DQG FRQWDLQLQJ . DFUH PRUH RU OHVV DQG E;&E3TINGWKDW SRUWLRQ RI WKH VDLG SUHPLVHV ZKLFK OLHV W
O\ RI WKH IROORZLQJGHVFULEHG OLQH %HJLQQLQJ DW D SRLQW RQ WKH SE
O\ ERXQGDU\ RI NHOVRQSWUHHW LQ VDLG &LW\ RI SWLOOZDWHU GLVWDQFH IHHW NE
O\ RI LWV LQWHUVHFWLRQZLWK WKH NE
O\ ERXQGDU\ RI SRXWK MDLQ SWUHHW LQ VDLG &LW\ RI SWLOOZDWHU WKHQFH UXQ SE
O\ DW DQ DQJOH RI ZLWK VDLG SE
O\ ERXQGDU\ RI NHOVRQSWUHHW WR D SRLQW RQ WKH NE
O\ ERXQGDU\ RI VDLG SRXWK MDLQ SWUHHW DQGWKHUH WHUPLQDWLQJ.AEVWUDFW 3URSHUW\.A%UN'ERGROUN' UTILITIES NOTES THE UN'ERGROUN' UTILITIES SHOWN HA9E %EEN LO&ATE')ROM )IEL' SUR9EY IN)ORMATION AN' E;ISTING 'RAWINGS.THE SUR9EYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THEUN'ERGROUN' UTILITIES SHOWN &OM3RISE ALL SU&HUTILITIES IN THE AREA EITHER IN SER9I&E OR A%AN'ONE'.THE SUR9EYOR )URTHER 'OES NOT WARRANT THAT THEUN'ERGROUN' UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE E;A&T LO&ATIONIN'I&ATE' ALTHOUGH HE 'OES &ERTI)Y THAT THEY ARELO&ATE' AS A&&URATELY AS 3OSSI%LE )ROM THEIN)ORMATION A9AILA%LE. THIS SUR9EY HAS NOT 3HYSI&ALLYLO&ATE' THE UN'ERGROUN' UTILITIES. A''ITIONALUTILITIES O) WHI&H WE ARE UNAWARE MAY E;IST.&ALL %E)ORE YOU 'IGTWIN &ITY AREA TOLL )REE 666GRSKHU SWDWH OQH &DOO. %EARINGS ARE %ASE' ON THE WASHINGTON &OUNTY&OOR'INATE SYSTEM NA' 3.. UN'ERGROUN' UTILITIES SHOWN 3ER GO3HER ONE LO&ATESAN' AS%UILTS 3LANS 3RO9I'E' %Y THE &ITY O) STILLWATERENGINEERING 'E3ARTMENT.3. THERE MAY SOME UN'ERGROUN' UTILITIES GAS ELE&TRI&ET&. NOT SHOWN OR LO&ATE'.SUR9EY NOTES NORTH LEGEN')OUN' MONUMENT I3MARKE' RLS SET IRON 3I3EMARKE' RLS NO. &A%LE T9 3E'ESTALAIR &ON'ITIONERELE&TRI& MANHOLEELE&TRI& METERELE&TRI& 3E'ESTALELE&TRI& TRANS)ORMERLIGHT 3OLEGUY WIRE3OWER 3OLEGAS MANHOLEGAS METERTELE3HONE MANHOLETELE3HONE 3E'ESTALSANITARY &LEANOUTSANITARY MANHOLE&AT&H %ASINSTORM 'RAINSTORM MANHOLE)IRE 'E3T. &ONNE&TIONHY'RANT&UR% STO3WATER MANHOLEWATER METER3OST IN'I&ATOR 9AL9EWATER 9AL9E%OLLAR'MAIL %O;UNKNOWN MANHOLETRA))I& SIGNALAREA TOTAL AREA AS SHOWN S4.)T.THERE ARE NO 9ISI%LE 3ARKING STALLS 'ESIGNATE' ONTHIS 3AR&EL IN&LU'ING HAN'I&A3 STALLS.E;ISTING 3ARKING 3ORTIONS O) THIS 3RO3ERTY LIES WITHIN =ONE AEAREAS 'ETERMINE' TO %E WITHIN THE . ANNUAL&HAN&E )LOO'3LAIN AS SHOWN ON )EMA )LOO'INSURAN&E RATE MA3 NUM%ER &66E HA9INGAN E))E&TI9E 'ATE O) MAR&H6TH . THE %ASE)LOO' ELE9ATION O) 6 .6 WAS 'ERI9E' )ROM THE)LOO' INSURAN&E 3RO)ILE )OR THE ST. &ROI; RI9ER.)LOO' IN)ORMATION %UIL'ING LINE%ITUMINOUS SUR)A&E&ON&RETE SUR)A&EEASEMENT NOTES TKH IROORZLQJ H[FHSWLRQV DSSHDU RQ WKH &KLFDJR TLWOH IQVXUDQFH &RPSDQ\TLWOH &RPPLWPHQW NR. 3 GDWHG -XQH 3UG .NO EASEMENTS OR EN&UM%RAN&ES ARE LISTE' ON SAI' &OMMITMENT.&ERTI)I&ATION TR MDWW HDOO KULVWLQ HDOO -DVRQ SZDUW] EULQ SZDUW] &KLFDJR TLWOHIQVXUDQFH &RPSDQ\ TKLV LV WR FHUWLI\ WKDW WKLV PDS RU SODW DQG WKH VXUYH\ RQ ZKLFK LW LVEDVHG ZHUH PDGH LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH 6 MLQLPXP SWDQGDUG'HWDLO RHTXLUHPHQWV IRU ALTANS3S LDQG TLWOH SXUYH\V MRLQWO\HVWDEOLVKHG DQG DGRSWHG E\ ALTA DQG NS3S DQG LQFOXGHV IWHPV 3 6 DQG RI TDEOH A WKHUHRI. TKH ILHOG ZRUNZDV FRPSOHWHG RQ -XQH WK .&ORNERSTONE LAN' SUR9EYING IN&.'DWHG 6 RHYLVHG %\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB'DQLHO L. TKXUPHVMLQQHVRWD LLFHQVH NR. TKH &KLFDJR TLWOH IQVXUDQFH &RPSDQ\ TLWOH &RPPLWPHQW NR. 3 GDWHG -XQH 3UG DV OLVWHG RQ WKLV VXUYH\ ZDV UHOLHG XSRQ IRUPDWWHUV RI UHFRUG. OWKHU HDVHPHQWV PD\ H[LVW WKDW ZHUH QRW VKRZQ LQWKLV FRPPLWPHQW DQG DUH QRW VKRZQ RQ WKLV VXUYH\.. SU%STANTIAL )EATURES O%SER9E' IN THE 3RO&ESS O)&ON'U&TING THE )IEL'WORK ARE SHOWN ON THE SUR9EY.6. THERE IS NO O%SER9A%LE E9I'EN&E O) RE&ENT EARTH MO9INGWORK AN' %UIL'ING &ONSTRU&TION ON THE SU%-E&T 3RO3ERTY.. NO MARKERS O) WETLAN'S 'ELINEATE' %Y A 4UALI)IE'S3E&IALIST WERE O%SER9E' IN THE 3RO&ESS O) &ON'U&TINGTHE )IEL'WORK. E'GE O) WATERI&E IS SHOWN ON SUR9EY. . 3LOTTA%LE O))SITE EASEMENTS OR SER9ITU'ES ARE SHOWN ONTHE SUR9EY.TA%LE A NOTES UN'ERGROUN' ELE&TRI&UN'ERGROUN' &A%LE T9UN'ERGROUN' )I%ER O3TI&UN'ERGROUN' TELE3HONEO9ERHEA' UTILITYUN'ERGROUN' GASSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATERMAIN&UR% >TY3I&AL@A%Take outWindow
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-18
REPORT DATE: May 19, 2020
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2020
APPLICANT: Chris Rustad
LAND OWNER: Chris Rustad & Vicky Simon
REQUEST: Variances associated with the construction an attached garage, new
kitchen and other associated improvements
LOCATION: 1401 Broadway Street North
ZONING: RB: Two-Family Residential
PREPARED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
INTRODUCTION
Chris Rustad and Vicky Simon own the property at 1401 Broadway Street North. The owner
would like to construct a new attached garage, kitchen and mudroom addition to the existing
residence while adding a full second story addition to the entire home. However, portions of the
existing, legal, nonconforming (circa 1887) home sit within the 30’ steep slope setback area.
The proposed improvements, too, are situated in that setback area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
Consideration of:
1. A 20’ variance to the 30’ Steep Slope Setback for an attached garage with second story
living space;
2. A 10’ Variance to the 30’ Steep Slope Setback for a two story breezeway with second
story living space
3. A 17’ Variance to the 30’ Steep Slope Setback for a single story kitchen addition.
ANALYSIS
The purpose of the variance is to “…allow variation from the strict application of the terms of
the zoning code where the literal enforcement…would cause practical difficulties for the
Case no. 2020-18
Page 2
landowner.” In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates “[n]onconforming
uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not
be considered grounds for issuance of a variance” and “…a previous variance must not be
considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be
considered on its merits.”
Section 31-208 further indicates:
Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further
variances. Each case must be considered on its merits.
1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district
in which the subject property is located. Single family homes with attached garages are
permitted in the RB – Two Family Residential zoning 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? The
Steep Slope setback is designed to protect personal property, minimizing the risks
associated with project development in areas characterized by vegetation and steep or
unstable slopes. A further purpose is to avoid the visual impact of height, bulk and mass
normally associated with building on any steep slope.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The
existing home and detached garage currently sit within the steep slope setback area.
While the property owner is proposing to construct in that area, an engineered
construction plan can minimize the risks to the personal property and steep slope in the
future.
The home is proposed to be reconstructed with a full second story. This, coupled with
the attached garage and kitchen addition will be larger than the existing home. This
increase in height, bulks and mass is generally noticeable when structures are closer to
the blufftop. However, the home’s placement, tucked below many homes on Riverview
Drive and 1st Street North is uniquely situated, well screened, and minimally visible from
adjacent properties – including MNDOT right-of-way in wintertime 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. In fact, the
rehabilitation of the home for continued residential use is supported in the 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”.
Case no. 2020-18
Page 3
a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? The use of the property a
single family home with attached garage is reasonable. With (approximately) 854 square
feet of livable area, rehabilitation with additions to upgrade the home for modern living is
reasonable. Additionally, the attachment of the breezeway addition and single story
kitchen addition, in a style respective to the historic character of the home, are also
reasonable as they do not further encroach into the setback than the existing
improvements.
The owner explored alternatives for the attached garage. However, given the steep slope
on the west and the desire to attach the garage to the home, few garage placement
alternatives exist. While the property owner could have situated the garage facing the
front of the home, this would have required extensive cutting into the slope to
accommodate the garage and parking turnaround. This alternative was determined to not
be reasonable.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The circa-
1880s home is situated on a property with a steep slope on both sides. The existing home
and garage’s eastern and western walls are within the existing steep slope area. The
legal, nonconforming nature existed prior to the owner purchasing the property.
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The underlying conditions were not
created by the landowner. While it is the landowner’s intent to add on to the existing
home, no alternative designs exist outside of the steep slope setback area.
d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? This home sits
by itself, above a highway and (approximately) 50’ below other bluff top properties. The
project would not alter the character of the neighborhood.
e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations?
Yes.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions:
1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020-
18, except as modified by the conditions herein.
2. The property owner shall submit structural engineer’s evaluation of the existing
foundation and frame structure to verify ability to support proposed additions. The
report shall document the structure shall be sufficient to retain the soils of the steep
slope.
3. The property owner shall submit a soil engineer’s report documenting slope stability
will not be compromised by the construction of the structure in the steep slope area.
4. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building
officials before the issuance of a building permit.
Case no. 2020-18
Page 4
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. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision
must be provided.
C. Table the request for additional information.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Due to the significant slopes on the property, it is difficult for the property owner to
accommodate reasonable additions to the 722 square foot home. If the construction design is
certified by an engineer, the risk of construction in the steep slope area will be minimize.
Additionally, the location of the home and its proposed improvements will be minimally visible
from the bottom of the steep slope. Therefore, staff would recommend conditional approval of
CPC Case No. 2020-03 with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above.
Attachments: Site Location Map
Narrative Request
Steep Slope Setback Area Map
Existing Nonconformances Map
Nonconforming Infill Map
Structure Photographs (5 pages)
cc: Chris Rustad & Vicky Simon, property owners
RIVERVIEWE SYCAMORE STDRIVE
NORTH MAIN ST951513
1505
1317
1421
1425
1509
1320
324
1413
1419
1401
1503
1322
1307
1303
1323
1410
1313
1305
1419
1412
1511
1312
1408
202
µ
0 140 28070Feet
General Site Location
Site Location
1401 Broadway St N
^